i 

U.S. Department of 

Transportation

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Private Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety 

Research and Inquiry, Volume II—Appendices

Office of Research

and Development

Washington, DC 20590

DOT/FRA/ORD-10/02 Final Report

February 2010
Table of Contents 

Volume II - Appendices 

A.1 Public Meeting, Fort Snelling, MN 

A.2 Public Meeting, Raleigh, NC 

A.3 Public Meeting, San Francisco, CA 

A.4 Public Meeting, New Orleans, LA 

A.5 Public Meeting, Syracuse, NY 

A.6 Transportation Research Board Panel Discussion, Washington, DC 

A.7 Docket Submissions 

A.8 State Law Compilations 

A.9 Statistical Data Review 

A.10 Contact Database 

A.11 USDOT FRA National Crossing Inventory Form with Instructions 

A.12 CANADA: Grade Crossing Regulation (Draft) December 3, 2002 

A.13 UNITED KINGDOM: Level Crossing to Which the Public have 

Access – Guidance on Legislation and Enforcement, RGD-2005-03 

A.14 NORTHERN IRELAND: The Private Crossings (Signs and 

Barriers) Regulations, 2007 SR No. 41 
Appendix A.1 

Public Meeting, Fort Snelling, MN 
 United States Department of Transportation 

 Federal Railroad Administration 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Railroad Administration

Safety at Private Highway-Rail Grade Crossings 

Public Meeting Agenda 

Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building 

1 Federal Drive, 

Fort Snelling, MN 55111 

Wednesday, August 30, 2006 

9:30 AM – 5:00 PM 

Call to Order 

Safety Briefing 

Introductions 

 Grady C. Cothen, Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Safety, Federal 

Railroad Administration 

 

Susan Aylesworth, Director of Railroad Administration, Minnesota 

Department of Transportation 

Miriam Kloeppel, Highway-Rail Grade Crossing and Trespasser Safety 

Division, Office of Safety, Federal Railroad Administration 

Meeting Format & Rules of Conduct 

Kathryn Shelton, Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Public Meeting 

Closing Remarks 

Adjournment
Last Name First Name

Browder William Association of American Railroads AAR RailroadVander Clute Bob Association of American Railroads AAR Railroad

Perkovich Tom Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trianmen BLET Railroad Labor Group

DePaepe Tim Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen BRS Railroad Labor GroupAbbot Spencer Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railroad BNSF Railroad Class I

Cocchiarella Alfonse Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railroad BNSF Railroad Class ILeibfried Lynn Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railroad BNSF Railroad Class IRasmussen Craig Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railroad BNSF Railroad Class IWarren George Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railroad BNSF Railroad Class IHarris Randy Canadian National Railroad CN Railroad Class I

Lee Terry Canadian National Railroad CN Railroad Class I

Bicha Paul Canadian Pacific Railway CP Railroad Class IKeinzler Jim Canadian Pacific Railway CP Railroad Class IKreiger Jim Canadian Pacific Railway CP Railroad Class IMcCorkle Rod Canadian Pacific Railway CP Railroad Class IAbbate Patricia Citizens for Rail Safety Non-Profit Public Interest GroupWhitemore Shane CSX Railroad CSX Railroad Class IBaer Peggy Iowa Department of Transportation Iowa DOT Government State

Pepper Allen Kansas City Southern Railway Company KCSR Railroad Class IAylesworth Susan Minnesota Department of Transportation MNDOT Government StateKahnke Dan Minnesota Department of Transportation MNDOT Government StateSpencer Tim Minnesota Department of Transportation MNDOT Government StateCrakes Stacy TKDA Engineering FirmHillman Mike TKDA Engineering FirmOpal Bob Union Pacific Railroad UPRR Railroad Class I

Peterson David Union Pacific Railroad UPRR Railroad Class I

Adams Chris US Department of Transportation / Federal Railroad Administration USDOT/FRA Government Federal

Comstock Paul US Department of Transportation / Federal Railroad Administration USDOT/FRA Government FederalCothen Grady US Department of Transportation / Federal Railroad Administration USDOT/FRA Government FederalGillespie Howard US Department of Transportation / Federal Railroad Administration USDOT/FRA Government FederalHowe Bennie US Department of Transportation / Federal Railroad Administration USDOT/FRA Government FederalKloeppel Miriam US Department of Transportation / Federal Railroad Administration USDOT/FRA Government FederalLong Michael US Department of Transportation / Federal Railroad Administration USDOT/FRA Government FederalRies Ron US Department of Transportation / Federal Railroad Administration USDOT/FRA Government FederalShelton Kathy US Department of Transportation / Federal Railroad Administration USDOT/FRA Government FederalWagner Tammy US Department of Transportation / Federal Railroad Administration USDOT/FRA Government FederalCarroll Anya US Department of Transportation / Volpe National Transportation Systems Center USDOT/Volpe Government FederalGarcia Perla US Department of Transportation / Volpe National Transportation Systems Center USDOT/Volpe Government FederalPeck Steven US Department of Transportation / Volpe National Transportation Systems Center USDOT/Volpe Government FederalTuthill Stacey Weber Shandwick Public Relations FirmAdams Ron Wisconsin Department of Transportation WisDOT Government State

Morrison Mark Wisconsin Department of Transportation WisDOT Government State

Organization Industry

Appendix A.2 

Public Meeting, Raleigh, NC 

 
 United States Department of Transportation 

 Federal Railroad Administration 

Safety at Private Highway-Rail Grade Crossings 

Public Meeting Agenda 

McMimmon Conference & Training Center 

North Carolina State University, 1101 Gorman Street 

Raleigh, NC 27606 

Wednesday, September 27, 2006 

9:30 AM – 5:00 PM 

Call to Order 

Safety Briefing 

Introductions 

 Grady C. Cothen, Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Safety, 

Federal Railroad Administration

Welcome 

Pat Simmons, Director, Rail Division, North Carolina Department of 

Transportation 

Overview 

 Miriam Kloeppel, Highway-Rail Grade Crossing and Trespasser Safety 

Division, Office of Safety, Federal Railroad Administration. 

Meeting Format & Rules of Conduct 

 Ronald Ries, Staff Director, Highway-Rail Grade Crossing and Trespasser 

Safety Division, Office of Safety, Federal Railroad Administration 

Prepared Statements 

 Paul C. Worley, Assistant Director for Engineering and Safety, Rail Division, 

North Carolina Department of Transportation – North Carolina Experience 

 Bob Pressley, Gannett-Fleming - Private Crossing Safety Initiative Study for 

NCDOT, funded by FRA.

Public Meeting Theme - Engineering Design

Open Discussion - Public and Private Crossing Definition Matrix 

Open Discussion - Standard Suite of Traffic Control Devices and Intersection 

Design Standards 

 Other Comments 

Closing Remarks 

Adjournment
Last Name First Name Organization

Browder William Association of American Railroads AAR RailroadBryant John Bass, Bryant, & Fanney, PLLC BB & F Legal CounselStayton Cliff CSX Railroad CSX Railroad Class I

Whitemore Shane CSX Railroad CSX Railroad Class I

Pressley Bob Gannett Fleming Incorporated Engineering FirmBarringer W L Norfolk Southern Corporation NS Railroad Class ISchwartz Stuart Norfolk Southern Corporation NS Railroad Class I

Stanback Haskel Norfolk Southern Corporation NS Railroad Class ICruz Ric North Carolina Department of Transporation NCDOT Government StateField Jason North Carolina Department of Transporation NCDOT Government StatePetteway Arthur North Carolina Department of Transporation NCDOT Government StateSimmons Patrick North Carolina Department of Transporation NCDOT Government StateWorley Paul North Carolina Department of Transporation NCDOT Government StateYoung George North Carolina Department of Transporation NCDOT Government StateChristian Kat North Carolina Railroad Company NCRR Railroad ShortlineGilbert Danny Rail Safety Consultants RSC Consulting CompanyMedlin Tina RE/MAX International Incorporated RE/MAX Real Estate Broker/Sales Real EstateBray R Dale Union Pacific Railroad UPRR Railroad Class ILamm G A United Transportation Union UTU Union Labor Group

Westbrook Richard United Transportation Union UTU Union Labor GroupCothen Grady US Department of Transportation / Federal Railroad Administration USDOT/FRA Government FederalKloeppel Miriam US Department of Transportation / Federal Railroad Administration USDOT/FRA Government FederalSpurlock Leslie US Department of Transportation / Federal Railroad Administration USDOT/FRA Government Federal

Thomas Donald US Department of Transportation / Federal Railroad Administration USDOT/FRA Government Federal

Ries Ron US Department of Transportation / Federal Railroad Administration USDOT/FRA Government Federal

Carroll Anya US Department of Transportation / Volpe National Transportation Systems Center USDOT/Volpe Government FederalGarcia Perla US Department of Transportation / Volpe National Transportation Systems Center USDOT/Volpe Government FederalGustave Mirna US Department of Transportation / Volpe National Transportation Systems Center USDOT/Volpe Government FederalPerry John West Virginia Public Service Commision / Operation Lifesaver WVA PUC Government StateLipscomb Roger Trackspec Railroad Corporation ContractorShank Gary Private CitizenTaylor Susan Private Citizen

Industry

Appendix A.3 

Public Meeting, San Francisco, CA 
 United States Department of Transportation 

 Federal Railroad Administration 

Safety at Private Highway-Rail Grade Crossings 

Public Meeting Agenda 

Philip Burton Federal Building and Courthouse 

450 Golden Gate Avenue 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Thursday, October 26, 2006 

9:30 AM – 5:00 PM 

Call to Order 

Safety Briefing 

Introductions 

 Grady C. Cothen, Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Safety, Federal 

Railroad Administration 

Welcome 

Clifford C. Eby, Deputy Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration 

Vahak Petrossian, Manager, Rail Transit & Crossings Branch, California 

Public Utilities Commission 

Meeting Format & Rules of Conduct 

Mark Tessler, Assistant Chief Counsel for Safety, Office of Chief Counsel, 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Overview 

Miriam Kloeppel, Highway-Rail Grade Crossing and Trespasser Safety 

Division, Office of Safety, Federal Railroad Administration 

Prepared Statements 

Daren Gilbert, Supervisor, Rail Crossings Engineering Section, California 

Public Utilities Commission 

Steve Cates, Chief, Office of Rail Equipment and Track Construction, 

California Department of Transportation 

Public Meeting Theme - Responsibility

Open Discussion – Case Studies 

Miriam Kloeppel, Highway-Rail Grade Crossing and Trespasser Safety 

Division, Office of Safety, Federal Railroad Administration 

Open Discussion – Hypothetical Scenarios 

Anya Carroll, Principal Investigator, Rail and Transit Systems Division, Volpe 

National Transportation Systems Center 

Other Comments 

Closing Remarks 

Adjournment
Last Name First Name

Burcat Peter Law Offices of Peter S. Burcat Legal Counsel

Randolph Adrian Randolph Cregger & Chalfant, LLP / BN BN Legal CounselCates Steven California Department of Transporation Caltrans Government StateGates Steve California Department of Transporation Caltrans Government StateJue Mathew City of Campbell, CA City of Campbell, CA Government CityBerdge Patrick California Public Utilities Commission CPUC Government StateBoles Kevin California Public Utilities Commission CPUC Government StateElsmore George California Public Utilities Commission CPUC Government StateGilbert Daren California Public Utilities Commission CPUC Government StateJinbachian Varoujan California Public Utilities Commission CPUC Government StateJuul Erik California Public Utilities Commission CPUC Government StatePetrossian Vahak California Public Utilities Commission CPUC Government StateSchumacher Kevin California Public Utilities Commission CPUC Government StateWatson Julie California Public Utilities Commission CPUC Government StateCothen Grady US Department of Transportation / Federal Railroad Administration USDOT/FRA Government FederalDickinson LeeAnne US Department of Transportation / Federal Railroad Administration USDOT/FRA Government FederalEby Cliff US Department of Transportation / Federal Railroad Administration USDOT/FRA Government FederalHagood Charlie US Department of Transportation / Federal Railroad Administration USDOT/FRA Government FederalKloeppel Miriam US Department of Transportation / Federal Railroad Administration USDOT/FRA Government FederalRies Ron US Department of Transportation / Federal Railroad Administration USDOT/FRA Government FederalTessler Mark US Department of Transportation / Federal Railroad Administration USDOT/FRA Government FederalTessler Mark US Department of Transportation / Federal Railroad Administration USDOT/FRA Government FederalSchwartz Stuart Norfolk Southern Corp NS Railroad Class IMathieu Ron Southern California Regional Rail Authority / Metrolink SCRRA / Metrolink MetroCheung Freddy Union Pacific Railroad UPRR Railroad Class IPeterson David Union Pacific Railroad UPRR Railroad Class ISmith Jim Union Pacific Railroad UPRR Railroad Class IHarris Carol Union Pacific Railroad / Association of American Railroads UPRR / AAR Railroad Class ICarroll Anya US Department of Transportation / Volpe National Transportation Systems Center USDOT/Volpe Government FederalGustave Mirna US Department of Transportation / Volpe National Transportation Systems Center USDOT/Volpe Government FederalPeck Steven US Department of Transportation / Volpe National Transportation Systems Center USDOT/Volpe Government FederalBoston Bob Washington Utilities & Transportation Commission WUTC Government State

Industry Organization

Appendix A.4 

Public Meeting, New Orleans, LA 
 United States Department of Transportation 

 Federal Railroad Administration 

Safety at Private Highway-Rail Grade Crossings 

Public Meeting Agenda 

Chateau Sonesta Hotel New Orleans 

800 Iberville Street 

New Orleans, LA 70112 

Wednesday, December 6, 2006 

9:30 AM – 5:00 PM 

Call to Order 

Safety Briefing 

Introductions 

 Grady C. Cothen, Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Safety, Federal 

Railroad Administration 

Welcome

Richard Savoie, P.E., Deputy Chief Engineer, Louisiana Department of 

Transportation and Development 

Meeting Format & Rules of Conduct 

Mark Tessler, Assistant Chief Counsel for Safety, Office of Chief Counsel, 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Overview 

Miriam Kloeppel, Highway-Rail Grade Crossing and Trespasser Safety 

Division, Office of Safety, Federal Railroad Administration 

Prepared Statements 

Betsy Tramonte, Executive Director, Louisiana Operation Lifesaver 

Public Meeting Theme – Data Elements

Open Discussion – Data Elements and Utilization 

Miriam Kloeppel, Highway-Rail Grade Crossing and Trespasser Safety 

Division, Office of Safety, Federal Railroad Administration 

Open Discussion – Data Collection 

Anya Carroll, Principal Investigator, Rail and Transit Systems Division, Volpe 

National Transportation Systems Center 

Other Comments 

Closing Remarks 

Adjournment
Last Name First Name

Burleson David Acadiana Railway Company Railroad Short-lineBrowder William Association of American Railroads AAR Railroad

Saunders Ben American Trial Lawyers' Association ATLA Legal Counsel

Talley Patrick Frilot Partridge Kohnke & Clements, LC / Burlington Northern Sante Fe Legal Counsel Class I

Hellmers Carl Frilot Partridge Kohnke & Clements, LC / Burlington Northern Sante Fe Legal Counsel Class I

DePaepe Tim Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen BRS Railroad Labor Group

Meyer Mary Beth Christovich & Kearney LLP Legal CounselRau Wayne City of Gretna Government City

Guerra Vaness City of Laredo / MPO Government City

Selman Samuel Keith City of Laredo TX Government City

Crader David Canadian National Railway CN Railroad Class I

Dinning John Canadian National Railway CN Railroad Class I

Harris Randy Canadian National Railway CN Railroad Class IHealey Tom Canadian National Railway CN Railroad Class I

Kvedaras Jim Canadian National Railway CN Railroad Class IWhitemore Shane CSX Corporation CSX Railroad Class ISerna Seve US Department of Transportation / Federal Highway Administration USDOT/FHWA Government Federal

Strinfellow Mary US Department of Transportation / Federal Highway Administration USDOT/FHWA Government FederalCook Carolyn US Department of Transportation / Federal Railroad Administration USDOT/FRA Government Federal

Cothen Grady US Department of Transportation / Federal Railroad Administration USDOT/FRA Government FederalDrake Tom US Department of Transportation / Federal Railroad Administration USDOT/FRA Government FederalKloeppel Miriam US Department of Transportation / Federal Railroad Administration USDOT/FRA Government FederalRies Ron US Department of Transportation / Federal Railroad Administration USDOT/FRA Government Federal

Tessler Mark US Department of Transportation / Federal Railroad Administration USDOT/FRA Government Federal

Pepper Allen Kansas City Southern KCS Railroad Class I

Laiche Bryant Operation Life Saver - Louisiana OLITramonte Betsy Operation Life Saver - Louisiana OLI

Brunty Kim Louisiana Depatment of Transportation and Development LADOTD Government State

Ferguson Gretchen Louisiana Depatment of Transportation and Development LADOTD Government StateSavoie Richard Louisiana Depatment of Transportation and Development LADOTD Government StateSchiro Karla Louisiana Depatment of Transportation and Development LADOTD Government State

Shrewsberry Bill Louisiana Depatment of Transportation and Development LADOTD Government StateSuarez Mark Louisiana Depatment of Transportation and Development LADOTD Government State

Van Mol John Leventon Farms / Private Citizen Private

Swales Edward Butch Mississippi Department of Transportation MS DOT Government State

Barringer William Norfolk Southern Corporation NS Railroad Class IStanback Haskel Norfolk Southern Corporation NS Railroad Class ICampbell Rick Railroad Controls Limited RCL ConsultingBertel Richard Rio Grande Pacific Corp RGPC Railroad Short-lineMeyer Gabriel Union Pacific Railroad UPRR Railroad Class IRathgeber Paul Union Pacific Railroad UPRR Railroad Class IRouse Ken Union Pacific Railroad UPRR Railroad Class I

Carroll Anya US Department of Transportation / Volpe National Transportation Systems Center USDOT/Volpe Government FederalGarcia Perla US Department of Transportation / Volpe National Transportation Systems Center USDOT/Volpe Government Federal

Gustave Mirna US Department of Transportation / Volpe National Transportation Systems Center USDOT/Volpe Government Federal

Peck Steven US Department of Transportation / Volpe National Transportation Systems Center USDOT/Volpe Government Federal

Industry Organization

Appendix A.5 

Public Meeting, Syracuse, NY 
 United States Department of Transportation 

 Federal Railroad Administration 

Safety at Private Highway-Rail Grade Crossings 

Public Meeting Agenda 

Renaissance Syracuse Hotel 

701 East Genesee Street 

Syracuse, NY 13210 

Thursday, July 26, 2007 

9:30 AM – 5:00 PM 

Call to Order 

Safety Briefing 

Introductions & Welcome 

 

Grady C. Cothen, Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Safety, Federal 

Railroad Administration 

Clarence W. “Ike” Scott, Director, Intermodal Projects Bureau, Freight & 

Economic Development Division, New York State Department of 

Transportation 

Meeting Format & Rules of Conduct 

Mark Tessler, Assistant Chief Counsel for Safety, Office of Chief Counsel, 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Prepared Statements 

Clarence W. “Ike” Scott, Director, Intermodal Projects Bureau, Freight & 

Economic Development Division, New York State Department of 

Transportation 

William D. Burt, Chairman, Regulatory Review Committee, Railroads of New 

York, Incorporated 

Public Meeting 

 

Findings 

Miriam Kloeppel, Highway-Rail Grade Crossing and Trespasser Safety 

Division, Office of Safety, Federal Railroad Administration 

Policy Considerations and Topical Discussion 

Grady C. Cothen, Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Safety, Federal 

Railroad Administration

Closing Remarks 

Adjournment
Last Name First Name

Bailey Lawrence Hodgson Russ LLP LegalBarber William New York State Department of Transportation NYSDOT Government StateBarringer William Norfolk Southern Corporation NS Railroad Class IBennett Michael US Department of Transportation / Federal Railroad Administration USDOT/FRA Government FederalBergeron Roger Pan Am Railways Pan Am Railroad Short-lineBoyer Melanie New York Susquehanna & Western Railway NYSW Railroad Short-lineBrowder William Association of American Railroads AAR RailroadBurt William Railroad Corporations of New York Incorporated RONY RailroadCarroll Anya US Department of Transportation / Volpe National Transportation Systems Center USDOT/Volpe Government FederalCothen Grady US Department of Transportation / Federal Railroad Administration USDOT/FRA Government FederalCummings John Indiana Rail Road Company INRD Railroad Short-lineCurley Stephen Connecticut Department of Transportation CTDOT Government StateDanbar Alex WSTM-TV NBC3 / CW6 NBC-3 Broadcast Television Local AffliliateDickinson Randall US Department of Transportation / Federal Railroad Administration USDOT/FRA Government FederalDiLorenzo Frank MTA Metro North Rail Road Metro-North Railroad Commuter - TransitFord Carl New York State Department of Transportation NYSDOT Government StateFraley Charles Sheet Metal Workers International Association SMWIA Labor GroupFrangella Lou CSX Corporation CSX Railroad Class IGoulet Glenn US Department of Transportation / Volpe National Transportation Systems Center USDOT/Volpe Government FederalGrizkewitsch Michail US Department of Transportation / Federal Railroad Administration USDOT/FRA Government FederalGustave Mirna US Department of Transportation / Volpe National Transportation Systems Center USDOT/Volpe Government FederalHarris Carol Union Pacific Railroad UPRR Railroad Class IHarris Randy Canadian National Railway CN Railroad Class IHendricks Evelyn US Department of Transportation / Federal Railroad Administration USDOT/FRA Government FederalKloeppel Miriam US Department of Transportation / Federal Railroad Administration USDOT/FRA Government FederalLatino Tiffany News Radio 570 WSYR Syracuse WSYR Broadcast RadioLouis James Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen BLET Railroad Labor GroupLund Gregory Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen BLET Railroad Labor GroupMcKeon Mark US Department of Transportation / Federal Railroad Administration USDOT/FRA Government FederalMcVey Caitlyn TWEAN News Channel of Syracuse LLC / News 10 Now Broadcast TelevisionPeck Steven US Department of Transportation / Volpe National Transportation Systems Center USDOT/Volpe Government FederalPetrella Dan New York State Department of Transportation NYSDOT Government StatePlukas Richard Fitzsommons, Nunn, Fitzsimmons & Plukas, LLP LegalPoichuk Phillip Transport Canada Government Federal / International

Ries Ron US Department of Transportation / Federal Railroad Administration USDOT/FRA Government FederalRohauer Robert CSX Corporation CSX Railroad Class I

Saltz Brian MTA Long Island Railroad LIRR Railroad Commuter - Transit

Schwartz Stuart Norfolk Southern Corporation NS Railroad Class I

Scott Clarence New York State Department of Transportation NYSDOT Government State

Siwula Tom C & S Companies C&S Engineering/architecture/Consturcution Consultants

Stem James United Transporation Union UTU Railroad Labor Group

Thomas Julie Connecticut Department of Transportation CTDOT Government State

Vitale Meghan Syracuse Metropolitan Transportation Council SMTC Metropolitan Planning Organization

Wagner Tammy US Department of Transportation / Federal Railroad Administration USDOT/FRA Government Federal

Werksma Jared WSTM-TV NBC3 / CW6 NBC-3 Broadcast Television Local Affliliate

Whitemore Shane CSX Corporation CSX Railroad Class I

Winsted Robert US Department of Transportation / Federal Railroad Administration USDOT/FRA Government Federal

Organization Industry

Appendix A.6 

Transportation Research Board Panel 

Discussion, Washington, DC 

A.6 - 1
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

 1 SAFETY AT PRIVATE HIGHWAY RAIL GRADE CROSSINGS

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 COMMITTEE HEARING

10 WASHINGTON, D.C.

11 JANUARY 23, 2007

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 ATKINSON-BAKER, INC.

 COURT REPORTERS

22 500 BRAND BOULEVARD, THIRD FLOOR

 GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA 91203

23 (800) 288-3376

24 REPORTED BY: CARLA L. ANDREWS, CSR NO: 78506

25 FILE NO.: A00A5A9

 1

 1 SAFETY AT PRIVATE HIGHWAY RAIL GRADE CROSSINGS

 2 

Page 1

A.6 - 2
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 Committee meeting, taken at the Marriott Hotel

 9 Washington, D.C., commencing at 3:50 p.m., Tuesday

10 January 23, 2007, before CARLA L. ANDREWS, CSR No.

11 78506.

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 2

 1 A P P E A R A N C E S

 2 

 3 FOR THE PANEL:

 4 MIRIAM KLOEPPEL

 5 GUAN XU

Page 2

A.6 - 3
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

 6 PAUL WORLEY

 7 RICHARD CAMPBELL

 8 WILLIAM BROWDER

 9 AIDAN NELSON

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 3

 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S

 2 THE MODERATOR: The session today No. 071 is

 3 a panel session on the safety of private highway rail

 4 grade crossings. My name is Anya Carroll, and I am the

 5 chair of the Highway Rail Grade Crossings Committee, HB

 6 60. And I am happy to be here today to moderate this

 7 session with our distinguished panel, which I will

 8 introduce in a moment.

Page 3

A.6 - 4
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

 9 The TRB Committee is happy to support the FRA

10 in its safety inquiry on private crossings. And as

11 such, an occurrence today is that we have a

12 stenographer with us, which will be transcribing the

13 comments so that we can capture everybody's ideas and

14 thoughts and questions on the private crossing issue.

15 So because of that occurrence, I would like

16 to make sure that before you speak, you actually

17 introduce yourself -- your first and last name. If you

18 could spell your last name the first time that you

19 speak, that would be helpful to the stenographer.

20 Also, if you speak a bit more slowly, she is more than

21 likely to capture your thoughts more accurately.

22 So thank you all for attending.

23 Our distinguished panel today from the

24 Federal Railroad Administration is Miriam Kloeppel.

25 And she is with the Office of Safety. We have Guan Xu

 4

 1 from the Federal Highway Administration; Bill Browder

 2 from the Association of American Railroads; Rick

 3 Campbell from Railroad Controls, Limited; Paul Worley

 4 from North Carolina, DOT; and Aidan Nelson from the

 5 Rail Safety and Standards Board in the United Kingdom.

 6 I would like to welcome our panel of distinguished

 7 guests.

 8 With that, I just have a few more opening

 9 remarks. As far as the temperament of the panel

10 session this afternoon, each panel member will give a

11 five- to ten-minute position statement, which will take

Page 4

A.6 - 5
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

12 us to about 45, 50 minutes of the session. And then it

13 will be an open discussion amongst all of us here in

14 attendance and the panel members.

15 And we are open to any comments, questions,

16 concerns that you have about the safety of private

17 highway rail grade crossings. Two other things that I

18 would like to mention is our committee meeting, the

19 Highway Rail Grade Crossing Committee meeting, will be

20 tomorrow at 8 a.m. till noon. And it is in Lincoln II,

21 which is on the exhibition level across from the poster

22 sessions. And I would also like to invite you to

23 Syracuse, New York on February 15, at the Doubletree

24 Hotel where we will be holding our fifth and last

25 public meeting on safety of private crossings highway

 5

 1 rail grade crossings.

 2 So with that, I will have the panel members

 3 give a short introduction of themselves and we will

 4 continue. So we will start with Miriam Kloeppel.

 5 MS. KLOEPPEL: Good afternoon, ladies and

 6 gentlemen. Thank you for coming. Private crossing

 7 safety has for some time been a matter of concern to

 8 the U.S. Department of Transportation and to other

 9 federal agencies. In 1993 the FRA hosted an open

10 meeting to initiate industry-wide discussions.

11 And in a 1994 rail highway safety action

12 plan, the U.S. DOT proposed to develop national minimum

13 standards for private crossings. In a 1997 study on

14 safety at passive grade crossings, the NTSB highlighted

Page 5

A.6 - 6
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

15 the need for some system to improve private crossing

16 safety and recommended that U.S. DOT, in conjunction

17 with the states, determine governmental oversight

18 responsibility for safety at private grade crossings.

19 In 1999 the NTSB weighed in again in its

20 report on private grade crossings incidents in Portage,

21 Indiana. In this case, the NTSB recommended that the

22 DOT eliminate any differences between public and

23 private crossings with regard to funding or

24 requirements for safety improvements.

25 In 2004 the U.S. DOT published an updated

 6

 1 action plan in which the FRA committed to leading an

 2 effort to define responsibility for safety of private

 3 crossings. Today's meeting is a vital part of that

 4 effort.

 5 The FRA, for any of you who are not familiar

 6 with us, has eight regional offices geographically

 7 distributed across the country. As you can see from

 8 this chart, regardless of the region, private crossings

 9 constitute a significant percentage of all grade

10 crossings. The total combination wide is about

11 94,000.

12 Although accidents at public crossings have

13 declined considerably over the past 20 years, declining

14 by one third over the past decade alone, the number of

15 accidents at private crossings has remained

16 comparatively stable, declining only 10 percent over

17 the past decade. In most years, the number of

Page 6

A.6 - 7
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

18 fatalities occurring in accidents at private crossings

19 exceeded the number of on-duty deaths among railroad

20 employees in all rail operations.

21 Now, the FRA has not entered into this

22 initiative with any preconceived notions of what

23 direction we are going to take ultimately. In order to

24 best guard the information and the input from members

25 of the public and from members of interested parties,

 7

 1 we have conducted a series of public meetings. As you

 2 can see, they have been scattered across the country.

 3 And we have had good attendance, although occasionally

 4 some bashful participants. And as I have mentioned, we

 5 will have our last one on February 15. You know, I

 6 left off the seven, so it may be hard because it's

 7 going to be February 15, 200. That's a little bit in

 8 the past. Sorry about that. But, yes, it will be next

 9 month.

10 Among the issues that we have discussed in

11 the public meetings are these here, particularly the

12 need for standardization, both in science and in

13 design, various rights and responsibilities, according

14 to the different parties involved, private crossing

15 owners and railroads, and what the data might mean.

16 There are obviously other subject areas. These were

17 just a principal topic area. And we have quite a few

18 comments on them. But I don't want to dive into what

19 all those were because I need to make room for

20 everybody else, including you all, to have time to

Page 7

A.6 - 8
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

21 discuss things.

22 I will be happy to answer questions.

23 Information from the FRA will be published in our

24 report based on the discussions that were held. And we

25 do have a docket in place. As you can see, it's on the

 8

 1 U.S. DOT docket web page. And it is Docket Nos.

 2 23281. So if you are curious about the specifics of

 3 what went on in the public meetings or if you have

 4 comments of your own to contribute, I would like to

 5 encourage you to do so.

 6 Thank you.

 7 MS. XU: Good afternoon. My name is Guan

 8 Xu. I am the program manager for Railroad Highway

 9 Safety Program and Office of Safety Federal Highway

10 Administration. When I told my team leader that I was

11 put on a panel at the TRB to talk about issues

12 regarding safety at private crossings, he asked me what

13 are you talking about? We haven't done anything for

14 private crossings. Our program is limited to public

15 crossing only. And that's beyond our programmatic

16 authority. So I said, I just got an idea of what I

17 want to say. I think I will talk, you know, briefly

18 about our program. It may be helpful for people to

19 understand why we have not done anything yet. And, you

20 know, also to help people to understand the issues and

21 challenges that we are facing when it comes to private

22 crossings.

23 The Federal Highway Rail Grade Crossing

Page 8

A.6 - 9
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

24 Safety Program, as most of you already know, is often

25 referred to as the Section 130 because we got our

 9

 1 regulatory and statutory authority from Section -- from

 2 Title 23 U.S. Code, Section 130, and also from the 23

 3 CFR, Part 646. That part gives us problematic

 4 authority over the railroad highway grade crossings.

 5 And the program is one of the federal aid funding

 6 programs. So it is funded through transportation

 7 bills. The current transportation bill, SAFETEA-LU,

 8 authorized $220 million per year was authorized from

 9 fiscal year '06 to fiscal year '09 and set aside funds

10 under the Highway Safety Improvement Program.

11 And Section 130 can be used on installation

12 and updating the protective devices, such as flashing

13 lights, gates, and signs. And it is also attributable

14 to possible public policies. And I will emphasize that

15 one of the important factors for the Section 130 funds

16 is the number of public at-grade crossings in each

17 state. So each state gets their portions based on, you

18 know, 50 percent of Section 130 funds based on the

19 number of public crossings.

20 You can see that the current Section 130

21 program is a federal-aid funding program. And current

22 regulations on federal-aid programs limits FHWA's

23 problematic authority to only public grade crossings.

24 And I think this is one of the reasons why we have not

25 been successful to take on issues at private

Page 9

A.6 - 10
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

 10

 1 crossings. For example, in 1999, FHWA proposed a

 2 section to the MUTCD that contained a definition,

 3 standard, and guidance for traffic control devices at

 4 private crossings. But FHWA eventually had to withdraw

 5 their proposal because the railroad industry objected

 6 to the proposal, challenging FHWA's lack of statutory

 7 authority and the economic impact on the industry. And

 8 a number of states also opposed the inclusion of

 9 private crossing standards due to state laws associated

10 with their lack of jurisdiction of public roads.

11 So the issue that needs to be addressed

12 includes the allocation of responsibilities, associated

13 costs, and appreciated traffic control devices and,

14 also, what's the appropriate traffic control on these

15 crossings.

16 As Miriam had talked about, FRA has initiated

17 a safety inquiry to investigate safety concerns at

18 private crossings. And FHWA will continue working with

19 FRA and will take appropriate actions accordingly

20 depending on the outcomes from the FRA's private

21 crossing initiative. And that's all I have to say.

22 Thank you.

23 MR. WORLEY: Good afternoon, I am Paul

24 Worley. I am director of Engineering & Safety with the

25 North Carolina Department of Transportation. I was

 11

Page 10

A.6 - 11
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

 1 asked to come to be on this panel to talk to you this

 2 afternoon about private railroad crossings. And I want

 3 to talk to you some about our experience and some of

 4 the things we have done in North Carolina. I don't

 5 have any slides here, per se.

 6 But you may have heard about our project, the

 7 Sealed Corridor. Following the Sealed Corridor

 8 Project, we realized that we needed to do something at

 9 private crossings because when we had done diagnostics

10 on our corridor between Raleigh and Charlotte, we

11 discovered there were many, many private crossings in

12 various states of maintenance and ownership.

13 Using the Sealed Corridor approach, we used

14 off-the-shelf technologies different ways. We also

15 emphasized used corridor diagnostic teams and closures

16 and alternative access whenever possible. So we took

17 that same approach when we looked at the private

18 crossing safety initiatives. We even signalized

19 crossings with high volumes and some public use as

20 well.

21 North Carolina is one of the few states to

22 pursue private crossing safety projects and inventory.

23 We have done this through a $1.9 million grant from the

24 FRA through the Next Generation High-Speed Railway

25 Program by virtue of North Carolina having a federally

 12

 1 designated high-speed railway corridor -- the Southeast

 2 high-speed railway corridor.

 3 And the approach that we have taken with

Page 11

A.6 - 12
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

 4 private crossings, first of all, was to do a

 5 comprehensive diagnostic of all 47 crossings that

 6 remain between Raleigh and Charlotte. And the approach

 7 there was -- you always hear about data; garbage in and

 8 garbage out. We want to make sure we have the most

 9 appropriate inventory data that we could provide and

10 use them to make decisions. So we were able to fund

11 that particular study, do that comprehensive

12 diagnostic. And we found that, you know, we had a lot

13 of inaccuracies in inventory. We had already very

14 sparse coverage on private crossings. We also had the

15 sheer number of private crossings out there to deal

16 with as well.

17 So it certainly opened the eyes of our

18 diagnostic teams and our department as we looked at

19 crossing safety in corridors because in North Carolina

20 we believe that our best approach has been to use the

21 corridor diagnostic approach and creating all the

22 crossings into a particular area, both public and

23 private.

24 There are many changes that are involved with

25 private crossings. And it is our point of view. We

 13

 1 are not representing any one policy. But this is a

 2 unit of government that took on this project and has

 3 completed a good part of it.

 4 As far as the challenges go, generally there

 5 are no public funds for private crossings that are out

 6 there because, as Guan said, you cannot use Section 130

Page 12

A.6 - 13
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

 7 money. You can use Section 130 money for crossings

 8 that are lightly travelled public roads because you

 9 can't use it for heavily travelled private crossings.

10 So there is a real dichotomy there and issues that have

11 to be within the policy.

12 There are varied types of private crossings.

13 Various folks have their own definitions. What we

14 looked at were private-use residential, farm,

15 industrial, plant to plant within an industry, railroad

16 use, private crossings. We also had public use for

17 residential development, such as private communities,

18 business, industrial, recreational, and what's most

19 important in North Carolina, golf cart crossings.

20 Now, by the time private crossing present

21 themselves at the state level and make their way to my

22 office, they are politically charged. And I know this

23 comes as a shock to you, but often all we can do is

24 listen. Sometimes it may be a farmer who has driven

25 all the way to Raleigh and wants someone just to listen

 14

 1 to them because the railroads are going to close their

 2 private crossing. And that's what we have had to do in

 3 the past. We have tried to listen. We have tried to

 4 understand. We have tried to encourage private

 5 individuals to keep talking with the railroads and try

 6 to negotiate a win-win situation. We try to express

 7 why the railroads need less private crossings and

 8 better protected private crossings.

 9 Private agreements and deeds may cover the

Page 13

A.6 - 14
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

10 crossings -- private crossings -- and may involve

11 multiple parties over multiple years. And it is very

12 difficult to go back and find one agreement for each

13 crossing on a particular corridor. So you have to do a

14 lot of digging and a lot of research, and still you may

15 not final all the data you are looking for. Resources

16 in state DOT's to maintain an accurate inventory of

17 private crossings are not there at the state DOT or

18 even at the railroad level. We are really trying to

19 work harder on our public rail crossing inventory. But

20 inventory and data gathering remains fairly important.

21 But at the same time, it is something that is

22 unfortunately not well staffed and well funded.

23 We have also, in addition to looking at the

24 federally designated high-speed corridor, we also

25 looked at private crossing as part of the corridor

 15

 1 studies. We did a commuter line in the Charlotte area

 2 in the private crossings there as far as what could be

 3 closed, what should be improved, what should be

 4 consolidated down to public access crossings. And

 5 through doing this, we have learned that we have got to

 6 partner with the owning and operating railroads to find

 7 comprehensive and innovative approaches.

 8 When we started and we hosted the FRA

 9 hearings back earlier late last year in North Carolina,

10 we talked about some of the issues that faced the

11 private crossings that faced FRA and faced the states.

12 And we talked about like, for instance, is the current

Page 14

A.6 - 15
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

13 assignment of responsibility, is that effective. You

14 know, our thoughts on that was it is not consistent.

15 Each railroad determines what can be done to

16 improve the safety and manage the risk at private

17 crossing. They do their own things. We feel there is

18 a significant need to collect, correct, and update

19 inventory information into the national and state

20 inventories.

21 And U.S. DOT through the railroads, through

22 the states, through rail transit operators should

23 collaborate to develop a consistent approach, such as

24 was done with the Crossing Technical Workgroup to

25 develop that document through the ITE.

 16

 1 One of the issues was cost -- maintenance

 2 cost, improvement cost. Stakeholders, federal and

 3 state agencies, local governments, transit authorities,

 4 and railroads, and private crossing owners may

 5 eventually need to develop some kind of methodology to

 6 share costs. It can't all be put on the public side.

 7 It can't all be shouldered by the railroads. There is

 8 a need to develop a methodology to share costs

 9 associated, construction and maintenance, based on

10 local conditions and needs.

11 Considerations are these transit corridors

12 where there are passenger rail corridors that travel at

13 higher speeds. Are there quiet zones? Are there

14 critical inter-modal corridors for rail freight? All

15 of these have a private and public sector interest as

Page 15

A.6 - 16
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

16 part of a multi-modal transportation system. And

17 capitalization of future maintenance costs should also

18 be considered. That was one of the big issues we

19 had. While we have federal grant funds to pay for the

20 devices and capital, we did not have ongoing

21 maintenance. So we worked with railroad to capitalize

22 maintenance. So that's the approach we considered as

23 well.

24 Also, disputes. We talk about the farmer

25 coming to your office or property owner and his concern

 17

 1 about losing their private crossing. There is no way

 2 to handle these disputes. There is no dispute

 3 resolution process. There needs to be some kind of

 4 model legislation. One of the issues was should the

 5 state or Federal Government assume a higher level of

 6 responsibility. Our feelings were that, first,

 7 national guidelines should be considered for

 8 development by the stakeholders. You have got to get

 9 the stakeholders together to figure out what way to go

10 with this.

11 We talked about warning device standards.

12 Should there be national standards for warning devices

13 at private crossings. And some of this is being done

14 through the National Conference of Uniform Traffic

15 Control Devices. And then, finally, how do you

16 determine a crossing is public purpose and it is

17 subject to public use. Again, we get back to the

18 stakeholder. You need to look at commercial crossings

Page 16

A.6 - 17
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

19 versus private crossings. So there are a number of

20 issues out there as well before you even get to

21 legislation.

22 That's basically my summary of the issues

23 that we have. We feel that we had a pretty good level

24 of success. But it is not to have funding to be able

25 to go and negotiate with the property owners and buy

 18

 1 alternative access to close any troublesome private

 2 crossing or to be able to signal any crossing that may

 3 lead into a private trailer park with a lot of

 4 residents that need the crossing, too. So that's one

 5 of the luxuries we have had in North Carolina. We feel

 6 like we can make most of the money. And we think that

 7 we could have the beginning of a model that uses the

 8 Diagnostic Team process and designates crossings that

 9 could perhaps be put to use elsewhere in the public

10 corridors. Thank you.

11 MR. CAMPBELL: Good afternoon. I am Rick

12 Campbell with Railroad Controls, Limited. And I am

13 here to speak to you, I guess, on behalf of Rick

14 Campbell and a number of different groups that I work

15 with, including the National Committee on Uniform

16 Traffic Control Devices, where I chair the Railroad and

17 Light Rail Transit Technical Committee. However, I

18 want to clarify that a lot of the views that you are

19 going to hear aren't my own. They are derived from

20 numerous meetings and organizations that I work with.

21 The issue of private highway rail grade

Page 17

A.6 - 18
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

22 crossings, as you have already begun to develop

23 ideas -- and certainly a lot of folks in this room are

24 familiar with -- is a complex issue. It involves the

25 railroad, a private landowner, and then potentially

 19

 1 other governmental agencies, such as FRA and FHWA. And

 2 private highway rail grade crossings are unique because

 3 they have largely been considered to be private matters

 4 of interest between the railroad company and the

 5 private landowner. And one of the things is they have

 6 been researched and inventoried. And some railroads

 7 have made significant strides towards inventory of

 8 private highway rail grade crossings. And in many

 9 cases, there are no documents that serve to establish

10 the relationship between the railroad and the

11 landowner. And that would include, of course, right of

12 way over the crossing, maintenance of the crossing, and

13 other safety issues, such as site distance and traffic

14 control devices, and who has the responsibility for

15 those.

16 So from the very basic beginnings of the

17 private highway rail grade crossings, there's a point

18 that exists relative to those crossings and the

19 supporting documentation. In some states as well,

20 although they are not public crossings, the State

21 Public Utility Commission or Commerce Commission has

22 assumed some degree of regulatory authority over

23 private highway rail grade crossings from an agreement

24 perspective but ordinarily from a traffic control

Page 18

A.6 - 19
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

25 device perspective, although this is inconsistent

 20

 1 throughout the United States. However, the lack of

 2 progress made in reducing crashes at private highway

 3 rail grade crossings has led FRA to undertake a series

 4 of information-finding proceedings to solicit comments

 5 from railroads, landowners, state departments of

 6 transportation, and other stakeholders that have an

 7 interest in private highway rail grade crossings to be

 8 able to formulate opinions and ideas and possibly even

 9 rule making on how to address the private highway rail

10 grade crossing issue.

11 In order to bring some degree of

12 standardization of private highway rail grade

13 crossings, one of the first things that's going to have

14 to be developed is an inventory that's comprehensive on

15 the private highway rail grade crossing. And,

16 traditionally, the inventory that has been established

17 and maintained by the railroads and FRA has been

18 limited to public highway rail grade crossings. So

19 this is going to provide another large expansion of the

20 inventory.

21 In addition, FHWA and FRA are going to have

22 to work closely to be able to develop a relationship

23 that will allow establishment, standardized traffic

24 control devices, and definitions as to private highway

25 rail grade crossings in order to have an effective

 21

Page 19

A.6 - 20
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

 1 cooperative effort.

 2 At the present time, the manual on uniform

 3 traffic control devices does not specifically define

 4 public roadways separately from private roadways.

 5 MUTCD deals only with traffic control devices on public

 6 roadways or roadways open to public traffic. And

 7 recently FHWA has gone through an amendment and

 8 regulatory process to more clearly define the term open

 9 to public travel. That was handled through 23 CFR 655

10 and has recently been enacted as a final rule.

11 One of the things, though, that MUTCD lacks

12 is the definition of other than a public road, which we

13 do have a definition of a public roadway, that being

14 any road or street under the jurisdiction of and

15 maintained by a public agency and open to public

16 travel. So you see where the open to public travel

17 comes into this. MUTCD is silent about any other type

18 of roadway that's not public.

19 In order to try and bring some order to these

20 different types of crossings because you have already

21 heard some comments from Paul about classes of

22 crossings -- and obviously there is a clear need for a

23 definition of a private roadway. And if we take what

24 exists in MUTCD today and expand on that, one could

25 derive that the definition of a private roadway would

 22

 1 be any road or street under the jurisdiction of and

 2 maintained by a private entity and not open to public

Page 20

A.6 - 21
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

 3 travel.

 4 Well, those are fairly easy to define as well

 5 because that could be a roadway that's closed by a

 6 locked gate, posted with no trespassing signs, or there

 7 is some other type of barrier or gated access that

 8 prohibits the general public from access into this

 9 particular roadway. But one of the problems begins to

10 surface when we have crossings that serve businesses.

11 For example, a private roadway that has a highway rail

12 grade crossing, which allows access to a retail

13 development or restaurants or other types of commercial

14 facilities, those that are clearly owned by a private

15 agency but from the public's perspective are open to

16 public travel.

17 And for that, I have proposed a third

18 category and actually presented this to the Edit

19 Committee of the National Committee on Uniform Traffic

20 Control Devices. And what I proposed is a category

21 known as a semi-public public roadway. And that would

22 be any road or street under the jurisdiction of and

23 maintained by a public entity and open to public

24 travel.

25 And this third category allows us then to

 23

 1 classify these crossings, which are clearly on private

 2 rights of way but, from the public's perspective, open

 3 to public travel. Now, this work, of course, will have

 4 to go on within FHWA and MUTCD. But one of the

 5 benefits of this particular category -- and not to

Page 21

A.6 - 22
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

 6 duplicate what Paul just talked about. But one of the

 7 points of having a semi-public category is that it

 8 would allow the discretionary use of public funding for

 9 traffic control devices or other types of

10 improvements. And because this is such a broad

11 category, I don't know that we are going to be able to

12 find successfully a definition to cover all

13 applications.

14 So with MUTCD traffic control devices at

15 highway rail grade crossings, they are actually

16 developed through a process using a group of folks

17 known as a Diagnostic Team. And the definition of a

18 Diagnostic Team exists in 23 CFR 646. And it is a

19 group of parties of interest in a highway rail grade

20 crossing matter. And if we take that Diagnostic Team

21 concept and expand it to the semi-public crossing

22 category, we now have a means where the Diagnostic

23 Team, which would include representation from the

24 public agency -- applicable public agency. We would

25 have some means to make a determination as to

 24

 1 applicability of federal funds and how they might be

 2 applied.

 3 For example, a semi-public crossing that

 4 serves a retail development would in probably all

 5 circumstances not be deemed to be one which would be

 6 subject to the use of federal funds because we looked

 7 at a developer or landowner responsible for those

 8 traffic control devices. However, a semi-public

Page 22

A.6 - 23
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

 9 crossing that serves -- and I will use Paul's example

10 of a private trailer park where there are numerous

11 residents and potentially school buses, which use this

12 crossing -- may be determined to be in the public's

13 best interest received some or all federal or public

14 funding to be able to provide improvements to the

15 crossing and traffic control devices. So it is the

16 ability and the discretion of the Diagnostic Team to be

17 able to on a case-by-case basis make an allocation of

18 whether the use of federal funding is appropriate.

19 And then finally from FRA's perspective,

20 there was some mention earlier about a short-line

21 railroad that exists in south of New Orleans called the

22 New Orleans Gulf Coast Railroad. And they are

23 currently fighting a battle with unauthorized private

24 highway rail grade crossings. And the establishment

25 through local citizens of the private crossings at will

 25

 1 can literally back up a dump truck and dump asphalt

 2 over the tracks and establish a private crossing

 3 clearly trespassing upon private right of way owned by

 4 the railroad company. However, because there is no

 5 clear-cut regulatory authority over these private

 6 crossings, the state boards have been reluctant to

 7 enforce actions by the railroad to be able to establish

 8 their right of way and protect their right of way from

 9 these illegal private crossings.

10 So as the third leg to the stool, if you

11 will, I would like to suggest that FRA, as part of

Page 23

A.6 - 24
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

12 their fact-finding process, consider the rule making

13 which would provide some degree of authority through

14 FRA or a state department of transportation to regulate

15 the establishment of private highway rail grade

16 crossings to provide for the inventory and that that

17 inventory would include data, including maintenance

18 responsibility, surface traffic control devices, and

19 other information, which would be applicable at each

20 crossing.

21 And as a closing point, I would say that were

22 the party responsible for maintenance of the devices

23 fail to maintain the devices or the surface or track

24 structure or various elements that the crossing would

25 be subject to closure.

 26

 1 So I will close with those comments. Like I

 2 say, in closing I want to make the comment that I think

 3 that in the past we have been somewhat misdirected by

 4 the fact that we have looked at ownership of the

 5 roadway as establishing public or private and that the

 6 real issue is not ownership or maintenance of the

 7 roadway itself but the expectation of free access by

 8 the public.

 9 Thank you.

10 MR. BROWDER: Good afternoon. I am Bill

11 Browder from the Association of American Railroads.

12 And I want to apologize upfront to those of you that

13 have had to listen to my presentation at least one or

14 more times before because a lot of what I will talk

Page 24

A.6 - 25
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

15 about is material that AAR and myself have presented in

16 the past. First, let me tell you a little bit about

17 the Association of American Railroads. It is an old

18 established organization created back in 1888 after the

19 war for the primary purpose of standards and

20 practices.

21 And the first standard that we established

22 and still use today is standard time. We were the

23 inventors of standard time just like Al Gore says he's

24 the inventor of the Internet. But we put it all

25 together back in 1888 because everybody had a one- or

 27

 1 two-minute's difference in the time that they kept in

 2 every locality around that country in those days. And

 3 so we created the time zones.

 4 Now, we don't take any credit for Daylight

 5 Savings Time. Mark on your calendar March 11 because

 6 we will be going back to that before we ever see the

 7 sun again in Washington, D.C. or we get away from the

 8 snow. But that's your U.S. Congress at work.

 9 More about the AAR. The AAR still is a

10 standards practices organization today maintaining a

11 number of different standards. We also operate for the

12 Federal Railroad Administration the Testing Center in

13 Colorado. And it was premier Testing Center in the

14 world. And folks from all around the world come and

15 use the facilities there for a number of different

16 venues that exist. We also have another profit-making

17 subsidiary in North Carolina outside of Paul's hometown

Page 25

A.6 - 26
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

18 of Raleigh there that is responsible for the

19 interchange documents that we are involved in.

20 AAR is an association of the members in North

21 America of the Class One railroads and some other

22 folks. And we basically represent them. And the only

23 costs that we have, unlike the Federal Railroads

24 Administration command and control authority through

25 the code of federal regulation, is interchange. We

 28

 1 don't have any more control over any of our members

 2 other than interchange. You know, the rails out there

 3 again after the war are 56 and half inches apart. And

 4 if you want to run them on those rails, you have got to

 5 have your equipment 56 and half inches apart. And it

 6 goes downhill from there as far as standards are

 7 concerned, but we have managed to do that since 1888.

 8 And it has developed a long and lasting relationship by

 9 private companies who are in business to make money for

10 their stockholders, for their shareholders.

11 And so as such, AAR has many concerns about

12 any issue that the government may be interested in

13 addressing. I think there isn't a person in this room

14 or organization that isn't interested in the common

15 objective of safety at highway rail grade crossings.

16 To AAR -- and the views that I will express,

17 especially since they are being transcribed, will be my

18 own and not the AAR's espoused position because we have

19 quite a few members who have different views concerning

20 these particular issues. And I am sure if you talked

Page 26

A.6 - 27
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

21 to them individually and they have come to these public

22 sessions, they will be more than happy to provide

23 comments upon the issues from their individual

24 perspectives. I will give you a few things, though,

25 that do apply.

 29

 1 First of all, at any highway rail grade

 2 crossing, railroads derive absolutely no benefit from

 3 those crossings being there. And that's stated in 23

 4 CFR distinctly in the highway section of the CFR. And

 5 that's a very important thing to us. Another important

 6 thing to the railroads is that we are not the experts

 7 on treatments at highway rail grade crossings. The

 8 Highway Authority is the expert. Now, we are involved

 9 in private railroad crossing by default in the issue of

10 treatments at grade crossings. But, again, we have a

11 lot of concerns about those issues, especially as I

12 mentioned in that it affects our stockholders. And

13 these are expensive with the 93,000 private crossings

14 and add to it the 150-sum public crossings that are out

15 there today. Railroads in the United States spend over

16 half a billion dollars a year on highway rail grade

17 crossings, $500 million plus in maintenance, upkeep,

18 liability, and activities that go on at grade

19 crossings.

20 We don't have any large force of individuals

21 out there to design and promote. We have got to do it

22 within our own engineering departments or contract

23 people to do that. The maintenance that we have to do

Page 27

A.6 - 28
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

24 to CFR Part 234 requires us to make an on-site

25 inspection of every active warning device crossing.

 30

 1 And there are over 65,000 of those out there in the

 2 United States. And you can imagine the cost of sending

 3 an individual to those crossings. Only about a

 4 thousand of the 93,000 private crossings have active

 5 warning devices. So they are few and far between. And

 6 most of them happen to be there because of the railroad

 7 insisting with everyone from state DOT's to private

 8 industries that they be installed for safety sake at

 9 crossings. I don't think that anything that comes out

10 of hearings and studies will show that there is a

11 one-size-fits-all solution with the number of

12 stakeholders that we have that are involved in this

13 issue.

14 You can already tell from those that are

15 involved that we have to deal with 50 different state

16 DOT's even though we get 120 through the 130 program to

17 administer the programs that we have. Now, we have

18 very established relationships, but different things

19 work in different places. If you look at the Docket

20 23281 in case you missed it the first time around in

21 the hearing, you will see a little short-line railroad

22 down in Louisiana. I mean, that's a deposition in the

23 making for you lawyers out there of what happens at

24 private rail crossings. And that includes such things

25 as folks in the good parishes down there going out and

Page 28

A.6 - 29
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

 31

 1 dumping a load of asphalt across their right of way and

 2 identifying that as a private highway rail grade

 3 crossing. So it is a fertile field as far as issued by

 4 the way that railroad took it to court. They have been

 5 to federal court twice and had been thrown out. And

 6 they spent about $700,000 fighting these innumerable

 7 illegal crossings that they say exists down there.

 8 But there are some common things that we can

 9 talk about in terms of safety because safety is first,

10 always has been and always will be. And when I say

11 safety, first, there is safety of our employees. We

12 don't get anything out of those crossings, but we get

13 our employees hurt, we get them killed, we get

14 derailments. We get all kinds of issues that occur.

15 UPS and FedEx, two of our best customers, don't care

16 that we have a crossing accident at a private crossing

17 some place on the right of way that delays the delivery

18 of their traffic. And their customers are calling into

19 the FedEx people wanting to know where their materials

20 are. And so are our other industry customers, whether

21 they are J.C. Penney and your sneakers that you are

22 getting or they are a plant or a Chevrolet someplace

23 that needs a widget to complete an auto on an assembly

24 line.

25 So those are factors that we are interested

 32

Page 29

A.6 - 30
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

 1 in. And, again, it is an important thing to our

 2 operations, our equipment, our employees, and safety

 3 overall. There are a number of things that have been

 4 done. I commend Rick's suggestion in terms of

 5 semi-public access -- semi-public crossing for those

 6 that have public access. I don't think there is any

 7 one-size-fits-all solution, as I said. And I think,

 8 quite frankly, I have got to commend the FRA for taking

 9 the initiative to at least get the process going on the

10 issue.

11 So with that, I will finish and pass it along

12 to the other side of the pond. And we are happy to

13 have Aidan here to talk about where all the action is.

14 MR. NELSON: Thank you. I stood in this room

15 about five years ago when we first talked about

16 managing risk at private crossings. So I thought,

17 well, however the presentation runs, I will just give

18 some thoughts. And the thoughts start right back in

19 the middle of the 19th century because private

20 crossings were the price that railways had to pay to

21 get their line of routes approved.

22 And for every crossing that was created, it

23 was public. There were very distinct obligations

24 placed on the railway. If it was private, there were

25 pretty generic and often discreet obligations placed on

 33

 1 the railway. But for every crossing that was private

 2 back in 1850, it was an agreed, main, authorized user.

 3 So the first issue is trying to keep tabs of

Page 30

A.6 - 31
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

 4 the succession from the original authorized user or

 5 users if more than one property was accessed a private

 6 crossing. It's a considerable challenge to the

 7 railway. And in Britain, it has become a far greater

 8 challenge in recent years with the planning rules being

 9 altered to permit development and agricultural

10 properties to encourage employment in rural areas. And

11 that's actually moved this quite a long way from a

12 single farmer and his family and those associated with

13 his business.

14 We have a situation, which the authorized

15 user is supposedly responsible for ensuring that his

16 visitors understand the rules of engagement for the

17 private-level crossing. In practice, most farmers will

18 say they do it but don't do anything. And indeed, with

19 a move from farmers having their own hired hands to

20 agricultural contracting, we have moved even further

21 from the idea that the authorized user knows who's

22 coming to work on his land.

23 We have recently had an accident in which

24 there were a gang of immigrants from Britain, some

25 illegal, none of which had an adequate command of

 34

 1 English to understand the instructions for the use of

 2 the crossing.

 3 So in certain parts of the country, we are

 4 now producing information leaflets about the safe use

 5 of private crossings in a multitude of languages from

 6 Polish to Iraqi and Arabic. So we have got that.

Page 31

A.6 - 32
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

 7 We have a second language in parts of

 8 Britain -- Welsh. And that gives us a complication

 9 because you have in Wales signs in both English and

10 Welsh. But the longer you make the signs, the less

11 people pay attention to them, particularly if Welsh

12 comes first, which hardly anyone uses it, other than

13 officially. That's one of the obligations on the

14 railway is to sign the crossing with the arrangements

15 of its use. And that takes the form of a sign to

16 indicate that it is private, a statement that the

17 penalty for abusing the crossing which, in most cases,

18 is a function of it being five-bar gate on either side

19 of the railway because the railway has an obligation to

20 fence itself. And that was a continuous fence. So at

21 each private crossing you have a five-bar gate on

22 either side.

23 It is not the safest form of railroad

24 crossing because if you are going to use it properly,

25 you first get off your vehicle, you open the near-side

 35

 1 gate. You walk across the grade crossing to open the

 2 far-side gate. You remember to look again, and you

 3 come back to get to your vehicle. You mount your

 4 vehicle, take it across your third crossing of the

 5 railway, you get off. You remember to look again, you

 6 walk back over, you close the gate. You come back over

 7 for the fifth time and close the other gate.

 8 And if you are the mailman and you are only

 9 going to the farm to deliver the mail, what do you do?

Page 32

A.6 - 33
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

10 You leave the gates open for your return. And you

11 think, well, it is Friday, the refuse man comes. So

12 you leave the gates open again. And what you go from

13 is a passive user work crossing with a distinct barrier

14 to indicate the presence of the railway to a passive

15 open crossing.

16 We all know what happens on passive open

17 crossings. You actually increase the risk. Now, we

18 have been, some would say, a little stupid in Britain

19 where we have high use of property crossings. We have

20 put in miniature warning lights to indicate whether the

21 line is clear or there is a train coming. And that

22 just converts it to an active open crossing. And the

23 idea of returning the barrier and closing the gate is

24 even further from the user's mind.

25 So we have got a dilemma. What are we going

 36

 1 with regards to the dilemma? Well, first, we are

 2 trying to close the things. We have been reasonably

 3 successful. But most of the farmers and most of our

 4 crossings are in rural areas. Our private crossings

 5 are worked out. If the railway wants to close the

 6 train crossing and it wants to close a lot of them, it

 7 might be paying some reasonable sums of money. But in

 8 some cases, the railway has paid reasonable sums of

 9 money to close it. In others, it has become

10 extorsion. And they have become ransom trips. And I

11 think whatever you do in the way of legislation, you

12 have got to take the ransom element out of it. And you

Page 33

A.6 - 34
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

13 have got to promote rational armistices.

14 I have been particularly impressed by what

15 the Irish are doing. And they have just taken a very

16 radical look and sought to reduce the number of private

17 crossings so that you are buying the land from farmers

18 who have land on both sides of the railway and selling

19 the land to other farmers. So they have consolidated

20 the holding on one side of the railway and removed the

21 need for the crossings.

22 They have also recognized that you can

23 separate an agricultural crossing for far less money

24 than railway engineers would have you believe. They

25 want you to build something appropriate for the

 37

 1 separation of the public highway.

 2 So if all you have got is to get cattle from

 3 one side to the other, you want something cattle sized.

 4 You don't want to take the biggest truck you can

 5 imagine underneath the railway. If you would go over

 6 the railway and all you have got to do is to round up

 7 the cattle and bring them back across, they can go up

 8 around a steep of gradients and you can build suitable

 9 bridges. So they have actually gone quite a long way

10 into the British standard of having a solution.

11 The dilemma we have is when something becomes

12 public. You can blame the Canadians because of this

13 because their first prime minister was born in

14 Scotland. And it was some years ago that the local

15 authority put a sign at the end of the farmer's lane

Page 34

A.6 - 35
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

16 pointing out the birthplace -- a tourist sign pointing

17 out the birthplace of the first Canadian prime

18 minister. That was seen as an invitation to public

19 use.

20 Common sense did prevail, and I think the

21 sign was taken down because the consequence of going to

22 something that is declared public is that you have to

23 upgrade the crossing to a public space crossing, which

24 in Britain is usually, at the very least, an active

25 open crossing. All the costs would fall to the

 38

 1 railway. So what the railway has become is pretty

 2 expert at challenging all of these indications of a

 3 public invitation to cross or where there is an

 4 established public invitation. But it is clearly a

 5 private right of way to reinforcing the private

 6 right-of-way dimension.

 7 Sometimes the industry is forced into putting

 8 staff out on Saturdays and the holiday season because

 9 they give access to the camp sites. So everyone who

10 uses the crossing on the Saturday when they are coming

11 into camp for the week gets a leaflet advising them of

12 the arrangements.

13 But that's done in partnership between the

14 railway and the landowners. The biggest issue for me

15 in relation to private crossings is that we know quite

16 a lot about the risk profile. We know that on average

17 the vehicles that use the crossings are bigger than

18 most of our rural public crossings, plus farm machinery

Page 35

A.6 - 36
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

19 on average is pretty heavy. Therefore, the potential

20 for a passenger train derailment is increased when

21 compared to the ordinary car.

22 We know that regular users of grade crossings

23 on work-related journeys are the ones who are most

24 likely to have an accident. And that's a pretty

25 central characteristic of the access of the private

 39

 1 level crossings.

 2 So if we are going to be effective there, we

 3 have got to target the employers who are not usually

 4 the authorized users at the crossings. That's

 5 something that falls to the railway and something

 6 that's done to varying degrees of effectiveness.

 7 We have got one other dimension, which I

 8 think is particularly important. We have a

 9 nonstatutory planning guidance that says the planning

10 authority must consult with -- sorry, should consult

11 with the railway on any development likely to have a

12 material impact on the use of the level crossing.

13 We believe that should be a mandatory

14 statutory obligation to consult the railway because if

15 we actually got that consultation going first, we might

16 actually get some sense in the planning approvals,

17 which would force the hand of the beneficiary for the

18 planning approval to work with the railway to create an

19 alternative access.

20 So I think that the possible quick win for us

21 is toughening the planning regime to create a statutory

Page 36

A.6 - 37
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

22 obligation to consult and, in light of that, to use

23 that as leverage to promote alternative access for

24 developments of the road. Thank you.

25 THE MODERATOR: I would like to thank the

 40

 1 panel one last time. And we will open up for questions

 2 after that. Thank you very much. Since the term rules

 3 of engagement were used by Aidan in his last speech, I

 4 would just like to express again the need for -- if you

 5 intend to make a comment or ask a question of the

 6 panel -- and it could be separate entities on the panel

 7 or the whole panel -- please step up to the mic, state

 8 your name, spell your last name for the stenographer,

 9 and ask your question and don't speak too quickly.

10 So with that, is there anybody in the

11 audience that would like to make a statement?

12 AUDIENCE ATTENDEE: Hi, I am Rich Brown with

13 TransCo Industries. That's B-r-o-w-n. And my question

14 is for Rick Campbell. Rick, the 94,000 population of

15 private crossings, what percentage of those crossings

16 are semi-public as you defined semi-public?

17 MR. CAMPBELL: Rich, we have had some

18 discussion about that. And because private crossings

19 are not currently inventoried, there is no real way to

20 know. However, there has been a group -- well, Tom is

21 going to come up and tell us about it. Maybe I should

22 say not inventoried to the point that we have the types

23 of data that we have at public crossings in terms of

Page 37

A.6 - 38
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

24 usage of ADT and surface and warning devices. We just

25 don't have the degree of information. It is hard to

 41

 1 say.

 2 However, some folks, I guess, that would be

 3 considered experts or extremely knowledgable in the

 4 field can talk. And we feel that the number is not

 5 tremendously large. It's maybe in the neighborhood of

 6 10 percent or potentially less than all of the private

 7 highway rail grade crossings. Sorry, Tom, if I said

 8 that wrong.

 9 AUDIENCE ATTENDEE: Tom Woll, W-o-l-l,

10 Federal Air Administration. Most people know me.

11 Yeah, I have got to correct that. Private crossings

12 are in the inventory, okay. So that's a misstatement.

13 You are correct that we don't have ADT's in some of the

14 other information. Sometimes the railroads will

15 provide the train counts on that. But somebody has got

16 to go out there and count those automobiles or whatever

17 is going to cross that. And the question is, Who is

18 going to do it? Obviously, the states are not going to

19 do it.

20 There is a category for whether or not there

21 is public access in the inventory. We changed that in

22 November of 1999. However, I don't think that it has

23 been updated by all of the various states and

24 railroads. In fact, unfortunately, it was mentioned

25 earlier in one of the other sessions. There are 20

Page 38

A.6 - 39
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

 42

 1 states. And some of them -- I won't say that they are

 2 present here -- have not updated their inventory in the

 3 last six years and haven't initiated any updates. So

 4 if we could get that -- they probably have the data.

 5 We would just like for them to send it to us. So

 6 that's where the big problem is. And that's why the

 7 inventory, in some cases, is not up to date.

 8 AUDIENCE ATTENDEE: My name is Gary Drouin,

 9 D-r-o-u-i-n, and I am with Transport Canada. I guess

10 my first comment goes to Aidan. And my question is,

11 was that sign in both Canadian official languages,

12 French and English, because maybe that's what caused

13 the confusion and not necessarily for the private or

14 public voracity. I am just joking.

15 My real question goes to Rick. In the

16 semi-public crossing if -- well, say, there's a

17 trucking company and there's trucks of course going

18 in -- delivery trucks going in and maybe a few

19 customers like FedEx and so on and so forth. Would you

20 consider that as a private crossing or semi-private

21 crossing?

22 MR. CAMPBELL: As part of the proposed usage,

23 we would consider that to be a private crossing because

24 it is a private business, which has control over its

25 employees. And then although you do have access by

 43

Page 39

A.6 - 40
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

 1 drivers, such as FedEx or UPS or other types of

 2 delivery, all types of delivery, those are generally

 3 drivers that possess a commercial driver's license and

 4 have had additional training, which includes additional

 5 safety training in highway rail grade crossings. And

 6 clearly, that would be -- if that crossing was

 7 exclusively used to service that private business, if

 8 you will, that you would look to the private business

 9 to make any funding to support active or improved

10 traffic control devices, which even to this day they

11 could freely do. And, in fact, many private industrial

12 facilities, especially if there are hazardous materials

13 and things, actually do have active traffic control

14 devices at those private crossings.

15 AUDIENCE ATTENDEE: Okay. Thank you.

16 MR. BROWDER: I want to go back to

17 Mr. Drouin's inquiry about private grade crossings.

18 And as I stated in the New Orleans public hearing for

19 the 93 or 94,000 that are out there, the resource for

20 most of those in the FRA inventory are the railroads.

21 They are the people that are doing all of the work and

22 submitting the data -- limited amount of data that Tom

23 Woll requires. Again, we are a private company. We

24 don't derive any benefit. We don't see an incredible

25 safety benefit to providing this information for public

 44

 1 purposes.

 2 As a matter of fact, some of our members

 3 choose to have fairly extensive information on their

Page 40

A.6 - 41
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

 4 private inventories. But, again, that's a matter of

 5 choice as far as the stockholders of that company are

 6 concerned. And unless we could identify any kind of

 7 significant safety value to us to collecting and

 8 examining that, right now it is a burden on our daily

 9 operations to collect and provide this information to

10 the FRA. Thank you.

11 AUDIENCE ATTENDEE: Maurice Rached,

12 R-a-c-h-e-d. This question is for Miriam Kloeppel.

13 Miriam, how do we deal with situations where the

14 crossing is owned by an authority that believes that

15 the crossing is private and does not -- and is not

16 subject to FRA regulations?

17 MS. KLOEPPEL: Are you talking something like

18 a park or something that is apparently a private road

19 but it has public use like access to a municipal dump?

20 AUDIENCE ATTENDEE: That's a good example.

21 MS. KLOEPPEL: Those are among the things

22 that have to be considered. But at the moment, if it

23 is in our inventory as private crossing, that's all we

24 know about it.

25 AUDIENCE ATTENDEE: Okay. So you are not

 45

 1 taking any action in that regard at the present?

 2 MS. KLOEPPEL: Well, I guess ultimately we

 3 may. But, as I said, this whole effort is to determine

 4 what kind of action we should take for any private

 5 crossing. This is just one possible category of many.

 6 AUDIENCE ATTENDEE: Because I agree with Rick

Page 41

A.6 - 42
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

 7 and the other panelists when they indicated that the

 8 motorist doesn't know if it's a roadway open to the

 9 public like the motorist on a public roadway and

10 crossing unless it is specifically assigned and gated

11 and identified. Okay. Thank you.

12 MS. KLOEPPEL: Thank you.

13 THE MODERATOR: Aidan brought a different

14 perspective to us on how Britain deals with private

15 crossings. I was wondering if I could ask Mr. Poichuk

16 to describe the Canadian practice of private crossings

17 and classification for us. Mr. Poichuk.

18 AUDIENCE ATTENDEE: Phil Poichuk,

19 P-o-i-c-h-u-k, Transport Canada. Currently, our

20 standards are departing from the traditional

21 definition. In Canada, traditionally we had private

22 crossings in two categories -- basically statutory and

23 nonstatutory. They are also referred to as by right or

24 by grace. By right being where the railway in the late

25 1800's severed land and therefore had a right

 46

 1 to -- had the obligation to provide the crossing and,

 2 in fact, maintain it. By grace was where subsequently

 3 a landowner who hadn't had his land severed originally

 4 would need a crossing for other purposes. And then

 5 they would be -- they would enter an agreement with the

 6 railway and usually pay the cost. And, in fact, that

 7 was the by grace one.

 8 It basically dealt more with rights and

 9 money, i.e., the maintenance of it, than it did with

Page 42

A.6 - 43
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

10 the safety responsibility. Our new grade crossing

11 standards, which I believe Anya and I believe Steve

12 actually asked me to speak about tomorrow, gets away

13 from traditional definitions relative to ownership.

14 And, in fact, in our grade crossing manual RTD 10, as

15 it is called, we don't use the word public or private.

16 We get away from that distinction. And we now require

17 safety amenities based on whether or not it is

18 restricted or unrestricted for public use.

19 THE MODERATOR: Thank you, Phil.

20 Does the panel have any comments on the

21 Canadian description and classification?

22 MS. KLOEPPEL: I think I think they are very

23 interesting. But it is an interesting different way of

24 looking at categorization of the crossing.

25 AUDIENCE ATTENDEE: Jim Burnett, former

 47

 1 chairman of the NTSB. What kind of records have been

 2 kept of the meetings so far and held in the FRA public

 3 meeting series? Are there transcripts of those

 4 meetings?

 5 MS. KLOEPPEL: Yes, sir, there are

 6 transcripts. And I have been put them up on our -- in

 7 our docket as best as I can.

 8 AUDIENCE ATTENDEE: Is the docket available

 9 on the Internet?

10 MS. KLOEPPEL: Yes, it's actually on our

11 docket server.

12 THE MODERATOR: If you don't have one of

Page 43

A.6 - 44
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

13 these brochures yet, on the back is the docket number.

14 And if you go to the DMS system, if you type in the

15 last five digits, it will take you right to the

16 docket. And it will start with the oldest submission.

17 And there is a little button that you can hit that says

18 reverse order so you see the newest submission first.

19 MR. BROWDER: There are 21 items on the

20 docket as of yesterday on 23281 that most of them

21 concern. There are two of the transcripts that are

22 already up there that she is talking about.

23 MR. BURNETT: Thank you.

24 MR. BROWDER: Don't put the year in when you

25 search.

 48

 1 THE MODERATOR: Okay. I have a question. I

 2 have attended all four of the last public hearings.

 3 And I have heard the panel's opinions this afternoon on

 4 the safety of private crossings. And in order to find

 5 a solution, we need to try and push the envelope to

 6 determine what options do we have to move forward.

 7 And I would like to ask the panel their

 8 opinions on if there were regulations or some guidance

 9 or standards that were developed for design

10 characteristics, should that effort come from the

11 states that administer and possibly have legislation

12 over private crossings or should it come from a

13 DOT-wide task force that includes not only the FRA, the

14 FHWA, but stakeholders like the mortar carriers, the

15 Transit Administration, or should it be left to the

Page 44

A.6 - 45
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

16 locals to determine through their Diagnostic Teams the

17 appropriate approaches?

18 MR. WORLEY: What I will say is the first

19 thing you need is money. There needs to be some more

20 pilot projects, I think, around the country to get some

21 experience with different approaches for private

22 crossings, be it public or private partnerships for

23 closures, for how to go about equipping with warning

24 devices or other treatments. So that would be the

25 first positive step -- to get some experience. I think

 49

 1 ultimately you have got to look at a diagnostic team

 2 process that's headed up by the authority that has the

 3 experience in the states we are involved in. And that

 4 would be the state DOT's right now. And that's my

 5 opinion. And it is quite biased because, you know, you

 6 look at it and see you have a good idea of how to

 7 resolve things based on experience and what has to be

 8 accomplished. So I would say that would be the start

 9 because I would hate to see us get into something where

10 you constantly try to write a lot of policy and write a

11 lot of specifications without a lot of real world

12 experience out there to draw from.

13 And, also, by having private crossings and

14 real world experience, you certainly build the support

15 toward doing something. So I think we are clearly

16 moving towards doing something. It is just difficult.

17 I think it also depends on money, which there is not a

18 lot.

Page 45

A.6 - 46
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

19 MR. CAMPBELL: I think I might add to that,

20 too. I will just say that I agree with Paul because

21 the state agency is the one that really has the clear

22 picture of crossing safety issues within their

23 jurisdictions. And that's exactly why that's included

24 as a part of my proposal that the Diagnostic Team

25 ultimately has say-so in terms of the crossing and what

 50

 1 might be done there.

 2 Also, of course, as many as you know, there

 3 are some pretty interesting issues in Section 409 that

 4 provides some protection for the Diagnostic Team in

 5 terms of isolating their decisions. And there is

 6 certainly a large degree of logic that maintains that

 7 protection that exists. However, there are some things

 8 that the Diagnostic Team could have some latitude in

 9 where, for example, it might be possible to take a

10 number of private crossings. In other words, a private

11 driveway that starts at a single-family home and to

12 consolidate those crossings. In other words, take

13 those five or six driveways and build a connecting

14 roadway and then a single crossing to serve that. And

15 then in that case convert those multiple private

16 crossings into a single semi-public crossing. And that

17 may very well be, in that case, a good use of public

18 funding. And it may also be as part of that process

19 that some part of those costs are allocated or assessed

20 to the landowners.

21 And, again, that would be within the

Page 46

A.6 - 47
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

22 Diagnostic Team's jurisdiction to decide if public

23 funds are to be used and, if so, what percentage and if

24 the landowner should share in the burden of improvement

25 costs as well. So, again, that's why I support that

 51

 1 the local Diagnostic Team really can deal with all of

 2 the individual issues and address them on site and then

 3 ultimately handle the deal through the DOT if there is

 4 one.

 5 MS. XU: Well, I agree with what Paul and

 6 Rick just said. Basically, you know, states should

 7 have something they demand from, you know, the state

 8 level. But I would like to say that at the point that

 9 federal funding is involved, then we do need some

10 federal-level guidelines in the general terms. There's

11 all kind of federal guidelines. You know, they are all

12 in general. And the state has a lot -- the states have

13 a lot of power to define details. And so, you know, we

14 would like to have some kind of guidelines in terms of

15 how to initiate the process.

16 MS. KLOEPPEL: I just wanted to agree

17 effectively with what Guan Xu gave. What I have heard

18 in various meetings suggests that if there is a federal

19 involvement, it should be something to do with

20 establishing a process. Now, I won't say that it is

21 the specific direction the FRA will go, but it is

22 consistent with what we have been hearing from a number

23 of meetings that participants in the meetings have a

24 sense that there is no process and there is even no way

Page 47

A.6 - 48
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

25 to begin attacking the problem. So one reasonable

 52

 1 federal way to be involved is to help with the

 2 development of that process and leave in the hands of

 3 the people who know best what they are doing the

 4 factual decision-making about individual funds, state,

 5 and local Diagnostic Teams.

 6 MR. BROWDER: I hope you don't mind me saying

 7 this, but it really scares me because I think it shows

 8 a lack of understanding and naivete concerning the

 9 issues, especially after we have been to the public

10 hearings about the seriousness of the issue itself. I

11 would grant, the last thing the railroads want is

12 probably regulation. But it's one more step down the

13 line. It's something that opens up regulation to more

14 entities out there, such as states, municipalities, and

15 people like that. The current system for public

16 crossings is a mess. We shot ourselves on the

17 railroad -- shot ourselves in the foot when we agreed

18 to the 130 plan.

19 Finally, I mentioned the amount of money it

20 costs us in maintenance. That continues to go up every

21 year. We are scared to death that that might continue

22 within the private sector. And when I hear you talking

23 about opening up some kind of a process to state and

24 local governments to interface with private companies

25 that don't have large staffs to entertain regulation, I

 53

Page 48

A.6 - 49
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

 1 have concern.

 2 Now, having said that, let me say I think

 3 there are some constructive steps that can be done.

 4 And I don't disagree about what Miriam and Guan said

 5 about things that can proactively address Paul's

 6 comments about pilot projects. I can tell you one

 7 thing that I think the railroads agree on and may be

 8 interested in having whatever the Federal Government

 9 entity is that's responsible for. It is to allow us to

10 get agreements on all private crossings. We can't even

11 do that now.

12 And one thing that would help with the

13 administration of private crossings would be that,

14 although we are not the experts on highway traffic

15 control devices, certainly if there was an agreement

16 that was required of the individual stakeholders,

17 namely, the railroad and the highway user, that that

18 would be, like a couple thousand lawyers tied to the

19 bottom of the ocean, a good start. Thank you.

20 THE MODERATOR: Thank you, Bill.

21 MR. NELSON: I think the important thing for

22 me is that we don't make problems that don't exist.

23 And we have problems with private crossings. But very

24 many private crossings are well run. The landowners

25 exercise their responsibilities and they work the

 54

 1 railway. And I think that while you have got something

 2 that works, just leave it.

Page 49

A.6 - 50
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

 3 When you haven't got things that work, it is

 4 usually because, as a matter of public policy,

 5 developments have been allowed on one side of the

 6 railway without taking account of the impact on the

 7 railway.

 8 If it is public policy for the development,

 9 it is allowed. And once you create that sort of

10 development, you should avoid the issue of agreements.

11 And it should be a new form of agreement to recognize

12 the new circumstances. And the greater burden is on

13 those who benefit from the development.

14 AUDIENCE ATTENDEE: My name is Ray Lewis,

15 L-e-w-i-s. I am with the Division of Highways in West

16 Virginia. We are one of about six or seven states, I

17 think, that has more private crossings than public

18 crossings. And that's not a distinction we would have

19 sought. You said something there that really struck a

20 cord with me as far as managing the crossings.

21 First of all, in my opinion, out of out 1900

22 private crossings, probably 1750 of them will never

23 cause of us any trouble except at random because they

24 tend to be farm field crossings. They tend to be

25 individual residential crossings. They go to one or

 55

 1 two dwellings. There is not any room for expansion,

 2 say, between the railroad and the river. And you just

 3 have to make sure that the responsibility to carry out

 4 the farm doesn't do something too close to the tracks

 5 or the railroad and at least keep the roads passable

Page 50

A.6 - 51
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

 6 for whatever usage. And that may have been a crossing

 7 for agricultural use or you may need to add an asphalt

 8 surface for the residents going in and out several

 9 times a day.

10 The second thing is that access across the

11 tracks. When we have a highway system we can't

12 control, we can't keep people from coming onto out

13 highway system. Anybody has a right to come on our

14 highway system, but we can set the condition under

15 which they do so. And we require driveway permits.

16 And we have a fairly extensive manual for driveway

17 permits. If that driveway is a new driveway crossing

18 the tracks or it's a change in use of the land to cross

19 the tracks as an existing driveway, then our rules and

20 regulations require the landowner to get a new permit

21 to reflect what's actually going to happen there. And

22 if there is a railroad involved, we do ask for an

23 agreement. Even if the crossing is in there by deed,

24 we feel like we have the right to ask for an

25 agreement.

 56

 1 One of the big problems with private

 2 crossings is the records are very difficult to locate.

 3 The problem really started to get out of hand on

 4 July 4, 1828, when Charles Carroll was the cornerstone

 5 of -- but there are different records on different

 6 crossings and everything is kept different ways by

 7 different railroads. Some are kept by evaluation

 8 statements. And you can find a list of all the

Page 51

A.6 - 52
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

 9 agreements on the sheets on evaluation sheets. Some of

10 them are kept in separate files in different offices.

11 So it makes it a real interesting search to find out

12 exactly how a crossing got there. I think from what I

13 have seen, one of the bigger problems with private

14 crossings is a sudden change in use of the land.

15 I had an experience one time when somebody

16 from the Brotherhood of Locomotives Union called and

17 said they were real upset about a private crossing.

18 And I knew where the crossing was. I said, Well, what

19 is the problem? I said, You know, one farmer goes in

20 and out of there. He says, No, no, our guy is on a

21 lumber truck. And I go, What lumber truck? Well, one

22 was carrying lumber up there to that property that had

23 been subsidized and was getting 120 houses built on

24 it. So that translates to about a thousand vehicles a

25 day crossing the tracks at that point. So possibly

 57

 1 that will start some discussion. Thank you.

 2 AUDIENCE ATTENDEE: I am John Henikchen, and

 3 my comments are for the panel. I would like to hear

 4 what you have in response to what I have to ask less

 5 Bill of course. Should regulations and standards or

 6 guidance be developed, how will those regulations and

 7 guidance standards be interfaced with the existing

 8 agreements -- private agreements that we have between

 9 the railroad and the landowner? In other words, will

10 your regulations supercede that private agreement?

11 MS. KLOEPPEL: I hate to disappoint you, but

Page 52

A.6 - 53
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

12 I have to say that I think that's one of those things

13 that is yet to be determined. If we were to develop

14 regulations, that is one of the factors that we would

15 have to consider. But we would certainly have to be

16 sensitive to that as an issue.

17 MS. XU: I don't have any comment. I think

18 before I say anything, I will have to ask our lawyers.

19 AUDIENCE ATTENDEE: If we are going to leave

20 it up to the lawyers, then I guess we don't have to

21 worry about this issue. So that will be another 10

22 years and I will be retired.

23 MR. NELSON: Last Friday before I -- sorry,

24 Thursday before I came over here, I signed the RSVP

25 response to a consultation from our regulator about

 58

 1 what should be in their standards, their principal

 2 documents for level crossings in the ground. The view

 3 of RSVP is that there should be a statutory defined

 4 user interface for public highway crossings, public

 5 pedestrian crossings, and private level crossings. And

 6 beyond that user interface, everything else should be

 7 dealt with within the standards of the railroad

 8 concerned.

 9 MR. WORLEY: One other thing to consider is

10 if you have got some of those agreements out there and

11 some of the crossings are based in deeds. And if

12 someone has a right to that crossing in the deed, you

13 get into a situation where you can't take their

14 property. You can't take it. So you then have to

Page 53

A.6 - 54
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

15 negotiate. So it comes back down to -- I get back into

16 having that pilot program and getting the experience.

17 You learn what are the different scenarios when you can

18 negotiate to try to close and try to eliminate the

19 crossings. It is kind of like the old politician back

20 in North Carolina that once told me. He said, You have

21 got to have something in the sack. You have got to

22 talk to these folks. You have got to have something in

23 the sack. You have got to try to negotiate with them.

24 And I think that's what you are going to have to do.

25 THE MODERATOR: I would like to get back to

 59

 1 Ray Lewis. Ray Lewis represents a state

 2 representative. And as shown in the latest FRA

 3 compilation of state laws, there are only 32 -- 22

 4 states that currently have statutes dealing with

 5 private crossings. Now, what we heard from Rick and

 6 from Paul, with Bill's agreement, is that it should be

 7 at a local level. How can the Federal Government now

 8 step in to help you that have statutes and those that

 9 don't actually be able to manage the safety of private

10 crossings?

11 AUDIENCE ATTENDEE: (Ray Lewis) Well, I

12 think that the point that Paul made is very pertinent

13 in that if you start intruding into this relationship

14 between property owner or the licensee on the

15 crossing -- it is usually the same person but not

16 always -- I think you get yourself possibly in the

17 position where you could have takings. I don't want to

Page 54

A.6 - 55
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

18 have 1900 takings. You know, I don't want to retire

19 and been responsible for having to go out and have 1900

20 railroad transactions or more if the railroad happened

21 to run down the property line and you have got two

22 people with underlying interests in something like

23 that.

24 It goes back to my comments that most of

25 those crossings are never going to cause us any

 60

 1 trouble. I think that the ones that are going to cause

 2 us the most potential to cause trouble are the ones

 3 that were in the deed but the family has, granted the

 4 property has been subsidized, a trailer park has been

 5 put in or something. And I think that at that point,

 6 there may need to be some mechanism in state law or

 7 maybe federal regulations -- I am not sure of the

 8 appropriate form -- that would permit that deed to be

 9 rolled over into an agreement into a standard private

10 crossing agreement.

11 When something like this happens, usually

12 there is money being made. And the developer very

13 frequently has the opportunity, as he did with the one

14 with the 120 houses and lumber trucks, to get out from

15 under his obligation to provide good and safe access to

16 his tenants or the people to whom he sells the property

17 or whatever.

18 Unfortunately, at least in West Virginia we

19 have all of this new case law on change in use. And

20 what we do is come out of circuit courts. And it

Page 55

A.6 - 56
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

21 hasn't been reported, but I think that might be the

22 most fruitful area to look at to try to identify those

23 crossings that are going to pop up and cause you

24 problems.

25 THE MODERATOR: Thank you.

 61

 1 MR. CAMPBELL: I might add that I agree with

 2 what Ray says wholeheartedly. And also to follow-up

 3 with John, by and large, I think the majority of the

 4 private crossings are not going to be an issue. And we

 5 don't need to go into this potential rule-making

 6 process and change what goes on at those locations.

 7 The ones that are in issue are the ones that do have

 8 this free and unrestricted public access and may

 9 require some additional treatment. So I think right

10 there we narrow this down to a smaller group of

11 crossings. Potentially I would see that the existing

12 private crossings be retained. However, one thing that

13 we might look at as a benefit to some regulation would

14 be that if the usage for the ADDT on the crossing

15 changes by some percentage or fixed amount that it

16 would prompt a review into the use of the crossing

17 because that's one of our big concerns is if a private

18 landowner sells some or all of the large tract of

19 property, all of a sudden it would become a multifamily

20 access way or potentially a sporting-type facility or

21 other facility where the public all of a sudden gets

22 this expectation of free access.

23 So the rule-making process, as I see it,

Page 56

A.6 - 57
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

24 really would have minimum impact on a large number of

25 crossings. But the ones where there are changes or

 62

 1 where we do find public access are the ones that need

 2 to be addressed. And that's where it would be

 3 beneficial.

 4 MR. WORLEY: As Ray was talking, one thing I

 5 wrote down was plans and outreach. And I propose a

 6 book called the Land Use Planner's Guide to Railroads

 7 because I think one thing you have got to try to do if

 8 the Feds can do something from a level or the states,

 9 as we look at land-use planning and smart growth as we

10 talk about that, is to get information out to land-use

11 planners on county levels and municipal levels what is

12 the railroad about. You know, it is not a dying

13 artery. It is growing. It has got more traffic, but

14 you have got to consider the railroad and the facts

15 about railroads when you are looking at land-use

16 planning.

17 We went through the steps for working groups

18 on public crossings. Maybe there needs to be some kind

19 of, you know, information in that Land Use Planner's

20 Guide to Railroads, Copyright 2007, Part One, that

21 states all of that information where they can refer to

22 and know that when they approve a subdivision rezoning

23 perhaps they need to require them to get alternative

24 access to private crossings. I think that's the way

25 you continually try to work through these things

Page 57

A.6 - 58
Transcript 1-23-07.txt

 63

 1 because the problems aren't created overnight. And

 2 they won't be resolved. And we will all be crazy and

 3 muttering before they are ever resolved. But that book

 4 is on sale very soon.

 5 THE MODERATOR: Anyway, our time is near

 6 closing. I would like the panel members to -- if

 7 anybody has one last comment on the topic. Otherwise,

 8 I would like to give them all one last round of

 9 applause.

10 Once again, I thank you all for attending.

11 And if you are interested in this topic and any of the

12 other TRB Committee topics, we will be discussing them

13 all tomorrow at the eight o'clock in the morning till

14 noon in Lincoln II. And I also extend an invitation to

15 you if you still have an interest in safety at private

16 crossings to join us in Syracuse, New York in

17 February -- it should be lovely weather -- at the

18 Doubletree Hotel in Syracuse, New York. Thank you very

19 much. The session is closed.

20 (At 5:34 p.m., the session was concluded.)

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 64

Page 58

A.6 - 59

Appendix A.7 

Docket Submissions 
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 144 / Thursday, July 27, 2006 / Notices 42713 

authorized users in the field to request, 

be granted, or release on-track authority. 

To facilitate the implementation of this 

technology, UP is requesting that FRA 

suspend compliance with certain rules 

in accordance with the provisions 

contained in 49 CFR 211.51. 

The Remote Authority is a web-based 

application that will permit authorized 

users to request, be granted, or release 

Foul Time, Track Permit, Track & Time 

or Track Warrant authority to occupy a 

main track or other controlled track. The 

central office component consists of one 

or more Remote Authority servers that 

will receive requests from authorized 

users for on-track authority or requests 

to release on-track authority. If the user 

is authorized to request or release ontrack authority, and the request meets 

established criteria, the request is 

forwarded to the Union Pacific’s 

Computer Aided Dispatching system for 

further processing. Requests that do not 

meet established criteria are rejected at 

this point in the process, and the user 

is provided the opportunity to change or 

cancel the request. 

Requests for on-track authority are 

received by the dispatching system and 

must meet established criteria to be 

eligible for issuance by the dispatching 

system without dispatcher intervention. 

If the established criteria are not 

satisfied, the request is placed in the 

appropriate authority request queue, 

and the train dispatcher is notified. 

In this regard, the UP requests relief 

to permit the dispatching system to 

grant or release on-track authority in 

response to a valid request from an 

authorized user without intervention on 

the part of the train dispatcher or 

control operator who controls train 

movements on that track. The UP 

hereby seeks relief from 49 CFR 

214.321(a)(1), which requires a track 

occupancy authority for working limits 

to be issued to the roadway worker in 

charge by the train dispatcher or control 

operator who controls train movements 

on that track. 

Access to the Remote Authority 

application within the UP network 

requires the user to present valid 

credentials consisting of standard user 

identification and secret password. For 

off-network access, a Virtual Private 

Network (VPN) connection must be 

established by the employee before 

presenting valid credentials. Within the 

Remote Authority application, 

individual users are further restricted in 

the functions they may perform. 

Interested parties are invited to 

participate in this proceeding by 

submitting written views, data, or 

comments. Although FRA does not 

anticipate scheduling a public hearing 

in connection with this proceeding, if 

any interested party desires an 

opportunity for oral comment, they 

should notify FRA in writing before the 

end of the comment period and specify 

the basis for their request. 

All communications concerning this 

proceeding should identify the 

appropriate docket number (FRA–2006–

24840) and may be submitted by any of 

the following methods: 

• Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments on the DOT electronic docket 

site. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–

001. 

• Hand Delivery: Docket Management 

Facility, Room PL–401 on the Plaza 

level of the Nassif Building, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal 

Holidays. 

Communications received within 45 

days of the date of this notice will be 

considered by FRA before final action is 

taken. Comments received after that 

date will be considered as far as 

practicable. All written communications 

concerning these proceedings are 

available for examination during regular 

business hours (9 a.m.–5 p.m.) at the 

above facility. All documents in the 

public docket are also available for 

inspection and copying on the Internet 

at the docket facility’s Web site at http:// 

dms.dot.gov. 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000, (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78). The 

statement may also be found at http:// 

dms.dot.gov. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 20, 

2006. 

Grady C. Cothen, Jr., 

Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety 

Standards and Program Development. 

[FR Doc. E6–11964 Filed 7–26–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

[Docket No. FRA–2005–23281, Notice No. 

1] 

Safety of Private Highway-Rail Grade 

Crossings; Notice of Safety Inquiry 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of safety inquiry. 

SUMMARY: FRA announces its intent to 

conduct a series of open meetings 

throughout the United States, in 

cooperation with appropriate State 

agencies, to consider issues related to 

the safety of private highway-rail grade 

crossings. At each open meeting, FRA 

intends to solicit oral statements from 

private crossing owners, railroads and 

other interested parties on issues related 

to the safety of private highway-rail 

grade crossings, which will include, but 

not be limited to, current practices 

concerning responsibility for safety at 

private grade crossings, the adequacy of 

warning devices at private crossings, 

and the relative merits of a more 

uniform approach to improving safety at 

private crossings. FRA has also opened 

a public docket on these issues, so that 

interested parties may submit written 

comments for public review and 

consideration. 

DATES: The initial public meeting will 

be held in Fort Snelling, Minnesota on 

August 30, 2006 at the Bishop Henry 

Whipple Federal Building. Persons 

wishing to participate are requested to 

provide their names, organizational 

affiliation and contact information to 

Michelle Silva, Docket Clerk, FRA, 1120 

Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 

20590 (telephone 202–493–6030) by 

July 31, 2006. Persons needing sign 

language interpretation or other 

reasonable accommodation for disability 

are also encouraged to contact Michelle 

Silva, FRA Docket Clerk, at (202) 493–

6030 by July 31, 2006. Additional public 

meetings will be announced over the 

next three months. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron 

Ries, Office of Safety, FRA, 1120 

Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 

20590 (telephone 202–493–6299); 

Miriam Kloeppel, Office of Safety, FRA, 

1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202–

493–6299); or Kathryn Shelton, Office of 

Chief Counsel, FRA, 1120 Vermont 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20590 

(telephone 202–493–6038). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: There are 

currently over 94,000 private highwayVerDate Aug<31>2005 16:46 Jul 26, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM 27JYN1

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
42714 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 144 / Thursday, July 27, 2006 / Notices 

rail grade crossings (private crossings) 

in the United States. Each year, about 

400 accidents and between 30–40 

fatalities occur at these crossings. In 

most years, the number of deaths 

occurring at private crossings exceeded 

the number of on-duty deaths among 

railroad employees in all rail operations. 

While accidents and injuries at public 

highway-rail grade crossings have 

declined by between one-third and onehalf in the past decade, accidents at 

private crossings have declined by only 

10 percent, and the number of injuries 

in private crossing accidents has 

actually increased by 1 percent. Figures 

1 and 2 show the accident, fatality, and 

injury trends occurring at private and 

public grade crossings, respectively. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICESEN27JY06.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 144 / Thursday, July 27, 2006 / Notices 42715 

Private highway-rail grade crossing 

safety has therefore been a matter of 

concern to the U.S. Department of 

Transportation and the National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). 

FRA hosted an open meeting to initiate 

industry-wide discussions concerning 

private highway-rail grade crossing 

safety on July 15, 1993. In its 1994 RailHighway Crossing Safety Action Plan, 

the United States Department of 

Transportation proposed to ‘‘develop 

and provide national, minimum safety 

standards for private crossings, and to 

eliminate the potential impediment to 

high speed rail operations posed by 

private crossings.’’ In its 1997 study on 

Safety at Passive Grade Crossings, the 

National Transportation Safety Board 

(NTSB) highlighted the need for some 

system to improve safety at private 

highway-railroad grade crossings, 

recommending that the DOT, in 

conjunction with the States, should 

determine governmental oversight 

responsibility for safety at private 

highway-rail grade crossings. In 1999, 

the NTSB weighed in again on the issue 

of safety at private crossings in its report 

on a private grade crossing accident in 

Portage, Indiana. In this case, the NTSB 

recommended that the U.S. Department 

of Transportation ‘‘eliminate any 

differences between private and public 

highway-rail grade crossings with regard 

to providing funding for, or requiring 

the implementation of, safety 

improvements.’’ In 2004, the 

Department of Transportation published 

an updated Highway-Rail Crossing 

Safety and Trespass Prevention Action 

Plan (http://www.fra.dot.gov/ 

downloads/safety/ 

action_plan_2004.pdf) (Secretary’s 

Action Plan). In this plan the FRA has 

committed to lead an effort to define 

responsibility for safety at private 

highway-rail grade crossings. This effort 

is intended to include a determination 

of minimum criteria for signage, and 

also to identify safety needs. 

Private crossings present a safety 

challenge precisely because their nonpublic character can influence their 

design and maintenance. The 94,000 

private crossings that remain on the 

national rail system serve the needs of 

a very large and disparate population of 

individuals, small businesses and large 

corporations that are holders of the right 

or privilege to traverse the railroad. 

Their circumstances differ in many 

ways: 

1. Degree of need for private crossings 

and their use. The policy of the U.S. 

Department of Transportation seeks 

elimination of unnecessary and 

particularly hazardous highway-rail 

grade crossings, whether public or 

private. Secretary’s Action Plan at 41. 

Some private crossings are essential for 

access to the holder’s property and 

failure to provide access would render 

the property much less valuable. Other 

private crossings are situated along 

roads that could easily provide access 

via other public or private crossings. 

Some private crossings are heavily used, 

while others are used only seasonally 

(e.g., certain agricultural crossings used 

only for movement of agricultural 

equipment such as tractors and 

combines). Some crossings are used 

only for routine personal use or 

occasional use by business guests (e.g., 

personal residences). Other private 

crossings are used extensively for 

private business purposes, and motor 

vehicle operators are typically 

employees, contractors, and suppliers 

(e.g., access to industries, rock quarries, 

etc.) In still other cases, private 

crossings may be used very heavily by 

the public to enter commercial facilities. 

2. Engineering. Some private crossings 

providing access to commercial 

properties have well-maintained 

surfaces and excellent signage 

comparable to that contemplated by the 

Manual for Uniform Traffic Control 

Devices. According to the National 

Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory, active 

warning devices are provided at 1,078 

private crossings. More typically, many 

private crossings are marked only by 

crossbuck signs without advance 

warning signs, or not at all; and surface 

may be irregular. Sight distances at 

private crossings without active warning 

devices vary widely. Neither the Federal 

Government nor the States, with 

extremely few exceptions, provide 

financial assistance for engineering 

improvements at private crossings. In 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICESEN27JY06.001</GPH>
42716 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 144 / Thursday, July 27, 2006 / Notices 

1Other FRA regulations applicable to the railroad 

are intended to address safety at private crossings, 

as well as public crossings, particularly 

requirements for alerting lights (49 CFR 219.125) 

and reflectorization of rail rolling stock (49 CFR 

part 224) to make trains more conspicuous. 

these few instances, funding for private 

crossings may be provided for specific 

corridor projects, most commonly the 

high speed rail corridors. 

3. Legal status. Private crossing rights 

vary from ownership of the fee simple 

(outright ownership of the underlying 

property), to documented easements, to 

prescriptive easements (where 

recognized), to documented licenses 

under contract, to verbal licenses 

subject to revocation without notice. 

The entities enjoying rights under these 

arrangements may be referred to as 

‘‘holders’’ of the right to cross. 

Increasingly over the past 15 years, 

railroads have sought to establish 

maximum control over these intermodal 

intersections by requiring crossing 

holders to purchase insurance or 

provide other protection in the event a 

holder, railroad or a third party 

experiences a loss due to a collision. 

Contracts or other legal instruments may 

further define responsibilities (e.g., for 

maintenance of the crossing surface or 

providing notifications under stated 

conditions). 

4. Extent of regulation. In general, 

private crossings are not subject to 

regulation at the State or Federal level. 

FRA’s requirements for inspection, test 

and maintenance of active warning 

devices (49 CFR part 234) apply to the 

railroad where active warning has been 

installed; but there is no Federal 

mandate for providing such warning.1 A 

handful of States require that railroads 

place crossbucks or special signage (in 

some cases a stop sign and a crossbuck 

on the same post) at private crossings. 

The subject of private crossings is 

otherwise largely unregulated. 

Accordingly, such recognized 

responsibilities as exist with respect to 

the safety of private crossings are 

generally the product of contracts and 

common law. (For a general description 

of responsibilities related to crossing 

safety, see Safety Advisory 2005–03; 

Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety (70 

FR 22750; May 2, 2005)). 

Request for Comments 

While FRA solicits discussion and 

comments on all areas of safety at 

private highway-rail grade crossings, we 

particularly encourage comments on the 

following topics: 

• At-grade highway-rail crossings 

present inherent risks to users, 

including the railroad and its 

employees, and to other persons in the 

vicinity should a train derail into an 

occupied area or release hazardous 

materials. When passenger trains are 

involved, the risks are heightened. From 

the standpoint of public policy, how do 

we determine whether creation or 

continuation of a private crossing is 

justified? 

• Is the current assignment of 

responsibility for safety at private 

crossings effective? To what extent do 

risk management practices associated 

with insurance arrangements result in 

‘‘regulation’’ of safety at private 

crossings? 

• How should improvement and/or 

maintenance costs associated with 

private crossing be allocated? 

• Is there a need for alternative 

dispute resolution mechanisms to 

handle disputes that may arise between 

private crossing owners and the 

railroads? 

• Should the State or Federal 

government assume greater 

responsibility for safety at private 

crossings? 

• Should there be Nationwide 

standards for warning devices at private 

crossings, or for intersection design of 

new private grade crossings? 

• How do we determine when a 

private crossing has a ‘public purpose’

and is subject to public use? 

• Should some crossings be 

categorized as ‘commercial crossings’, 

rather than as ‘private crossings’? 

• Are there innovative traffic control 

treatments that could improve safety at 

private crossings on major rail corridors, 

including those on which passenger 

service is provided? 

• Should the Department of 

Transportation request enactment of 

legislation to address private crossings? 

If so, what should it include? 

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 20, 

2006. 

Joseph H. Boardman, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 06–6501 Filed 7–26–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Maritime Administration 

[Docket No. MARAD–2006–25457] 

Information Collection Available for 

Public Comments and 

Recommendations 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this 

notice announces the Maritime 

Administration’s (MARAD’s) intention 

to request extension of approval for 

three years of a currently approved 

information collection. 

DATES: Comments should be submitted 

on or before September 25, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Franklin, Maritime 

Administration, (MAR–610), 400 

Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 

20590. Telephone: 202–366–2628, fax: 

202–366–3954; or e-mail: 

michael.franklin@dot.gov. Copies of this 

collection can also be obtained from that 

office. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title of Collection: Automated 

Mutual-Assistance Vessel Rescue 

System (AMVER). 

Type of Request: Extension of 

currently approved information 

collection. 

OMB Control Number: 2133–0025. 

Form Numbers: None. 

Expiration Date of Approval: Three 

years from date of approval by the 

Office of Management and Budget. 

Summary of Collection of 

Information. This collection of 

information is used to gather 

information regarding the location of 

U.S.-flag vessels and certain other U.S. 

citizen-owned vessels for the purpose of 

search and rescue in the saving of lives 

at sea and for the marshalling of ships 

for national defense and safety 

purposes. 

Need and Use of the Information: 

This information collection is necessary 

for maintaining a current plot of U.S.- 

flag and U.S.-owned vessels. 

Description of Respondents: 

Respondents are U.S.-flag and U.S. 

citizen-owned vessels. 

Annual Responses: 29,280 responses. 

Annual Burden: 2,342 hours. 

Comments: Comments should refer to 

the docket number that appears at the 

top of this document. Written comments 

may be submitted to the Docket Clerk, 

U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL–401, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20590. Comments may also be 

submitted by electronic means via the 

Internet at http://dmses.dot.gov/submit. 

Specifically address whether this 

information collection is necessary for 

proper performance of the functions of 

the agency and will have practical 

utility, accuracy of the burden 

estimates, ways to minimize this 

burden, and ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected. All 

comments received will be available for 

examination at the above address 

between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. EDT (or 

EST), Monday through Friday, except 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
If the FRA and OnStar could work together they could set up a system for OnStar 

users and it could work something like this. When any vehicle that has OnStar 

approaches any rail crossing and there is a locomotive/train within 1000'(or 

more) of the crossing a pre-recorded audio message would announce that a 

locomotive/train is approaching and the driver should stop or proceed with 

caution at that peticular crossing. Each locomotive would need a transponder or 

better yet the transponder could be inside the signal box at that crossing. This 

may also be able to work with regular cell phones also. If there are no gates or 

lights at least they will hear a voice. If there are lights and gates than there 

is the addition of the third warning device, the message. 
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Notices 55543 

subject area (for other comments). 

Resource limitations preclude 

acknowledging or replying to 

submissions. 

While the meeting is open to the 

public, admittance to the Department of 

State building is only by means of a prearranged clearance list. In order to be 

placed on the pre-clearance list, we 

must receive the following information 

from you no later than 5 p.m. on 

Monday, October 2, 2006: 

I. State That You Are Requesting PreClearance to a Meeting 

II. Provide the Following Information 

1. Name of meeting and its date and 

time (ACICIP, October 5, 2006, 10 a.m.). 

2. Visitor’s full name. 

3. Company/Agency/Organization. 

4. Title at Company/Agency/ 

Organization. 

5. Date of birth. 

6. Citizenship. 

7. Type of ID visitor will show upon 

entry (from list below). 

8. ID number on the ID visitor will 

show upon entry. 

Send the above information to 

Richard W. O’Brien by fax (202) 647–

0158 or e-mail o’brienrw@state.gov. 

All visitors for this meeting must use 

the 23rd Street entrance. One of the 

following valid ID’s bearing the number 

provided with your pre-clearance 

request will be required for admittance: 

• U.S. driver’s license with photo. 

• Passport. 

• U.S. government agency ID. 

Non-U.S. government attendees must 

be escorted by Department of State 

personnel at all times when in the 

building. 

For further information, please 

contact Richard W. O’Brien, Executive 

Secretary of the Committee, at (202) 

647–4736 or o’brienrw@state.gov. 

General information about ACICIP 

and the mission of International 

Communications and Information 

Policy at the Department of State is 

available at our Web site: http:// 

www.state.gov/e/eb/adcom/c667.htm. 

Dated: September 18, 2006. 

Richard W. O’Brien, 

ACICIP Executive Secretary, Department of 

State. 

[FR Doc. 06–8062 Filed 9–21–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–07–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

[Public Notice 5557] 

Bureau of International Security and 

Nonproliferation; Extension of Waiver 

of Missile Proliferation Sanctions 

Against Chinese Government 

Activities 

AGENCY: Department of State. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: A determination has been 

made to extend the waiver of import 

sanctions against certain activities of the 

Chinese government that was 

announced on September 19, 2003, 

pursuant to the Arms Export Control 

Act, as amended. 

DATES: Effective Date: September 13, 

2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam 

Durham, Office of Missile Threat 

Reduction, Bureau of International 

Security and Nonproliferation, 

Department of State (202–647–4931). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A 

determination was made on March 13, 

2006, pursuant to section 73(e) of the 

Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 

2797b(e)) that it was essential to the 

national security of the United States to 

waive for a period of six months the 

import sanction described in section 

73(a)(2)(C) of the Arms Export Control 

Act (22 U.S.C. 2797b(a)(2)(C)) against 

the activities of the Chinese government 

described in section 74(a)(8)(B) of the 

Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 

2797c(a)(8)(B))—i.e., activities of the 

Chinese government relating to the 

development or production of any 

missile equipment or technology and 

activities of the Chinese government 

affecting the development or production 

of electronics, space systems or 

equipment, and military aircraft (see 

Federal Register Vol. 68, No. 182, 

Friday, September 19, 2003). This action 

was effective on March 18, 2006. 

On September 13, 2006, a 

determination was made pursuant to 

section 73(e) of the Arms Export Control 

Act (22 U.S.C. 2797b(e)) that it is 

essential to the national security of the 

United States to extend the waiver 

period for an additional six months, 

effective from the date of expiration of 

the previous waiver (September 18, 

2006). 

These measures shall be implemented 

by the responsible agencies as provided 

in Executive Order 12851 of June 11, 

1993. 

Dated: September 18, 2006. 

Patricia A. McNerney, 

Acting Assistant Secretary of State for 

International Security and Nonproliferation, 

Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 06–8063 Filed 9–21–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–27–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

[Docket No. FRA–2005–23281, Notice No. 

2] 

Safety of Private Highway-Rail Grade 

Crossings; Notice of Safety Inquiry 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of safety inquiry. 

SUMMARY: On July 27, 2006, FRA 

published a notice announcing its intent 

to conduct a series of open meetings 

throughout the United States, in 

cooperation with appropriate State 

agencies, to consider issues related to 

the safety of private highway-rail grade 

crossings. This notice indicated that the 

first of these meetings would be held 

August 30, 2006, in Fort Snelling, 

Minnesota. Notice No. 2 announces that 

FRA has scheduled subsequent 

meetings to be held September 27, 2006, 

in Raleigh, North Carolina; October 26, 

2006, in San Francisco, California; and 

December 6, 2006, in New Orleans, 

Louisiana. 

At each open meeting, FRA intends to 

solicit oral statements from private 

crossing owners, railroads and other 

interested parties on issues related to 

the safety of private highway-rail grade 

crossings, which will include, but will 

not be limited to, current practices 

concerning the responsibility for safety 

at private grade crossings, the adequacy 

of warning devices at private crossings, 

and the relative merits of a more 

uniform approach to improving safety at 

private crossings. FRA has also opened 

a public docket on these issues so that 

interested parties may submit written 

comments for public review and 

consideration. 

DATES: The initial public meeting was 

held in Fort Snelling, Minnesota, on 

August 30, 2006, at the Bishop Henry 

Whipple Federal Building, One Federal 

Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111, 

beginning at 9:30 a.m. The second 

public meeting will be held in Raleigh, 

North Carolina, on September 27, 2006, 

at North Carolina State University’s 

McKimmon Conference and Training 

Center, 1101 Gorman Street, North 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
55544 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Notices 

Carolina State University, Raleigh, 

North Carolina 27695, beginning at 9:30 

a.m. The third public meeting will be 

held in San Francisco, California, on 

October 26, 2006, at the Philip Burton 

Federal Building and Courthouse, 450 

Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, 

California 94102, beginning at 9:30 a.m. 

The fourth public meeting will be held 

in New Orleans, Louisiana, on 

December 6, 2006, at the Chateau 

Sonesta Hotel, 800 Iberville Street, New 

Orleans, Louisiana 70112, beginning at 

9:30 a.m. 

Persons wishing to participate are 

requested to provide their names, 

organizational affiliation, and contact 

information to Michelle Silva, Docket 

Clerk, FRA, 1120 Vermont Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 

202–493–6030). Persons needing sign 

language interpretation or other 

reasonable accommodation for disability 

are also encouraged to contact Michelle 

Silva, FRA Docket Clerk, at (202) 493–

6030. Additional public meetings will 

be announced over the next three 

months. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron 

Ries, Office of Safety, FRA, 1120 

Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 

20590 (telephone 202–493–6299); 

Miriam Kloeppel, Office of Safety, FRA, 

1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202–

493–6299); or Kathryn Shelton, Office of 

Chief Counsel, FRA, 1120 Vermont 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20590 

(telephone 202–493–6038). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

additional information, please see the 

initial notice, published July 27, 2006, 

in the Federal Register (citation: 71 FR 

42713) and available at http:// 

a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/ 

01jan20061800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/ 

2006/pdf/06-6501.pdf. 

Request for Comments 

While FRA solicits discussion and 

comments on all areas of safety at 

private highway-rail grade crossings, we 

particularly encourage comments on the 

following topics: 

• At-grade highway-rail crossings 

present inherent risks to users, 

including the railroad and its 

employees, and to other persons in the 

vicinity if a train were to derail into an 

occupied area or release hazardous 

materials. When passenger trains are 

involved, the risks are heightened. From 

the standpoint of public policy, how do 

we determine whether the creation or 

continuation of a private crossing is 

justified? 

• Is the current assignment of 

responsibility for safety at private 

crossings effective? To what extent do 

risk-management practices associated 

with insurance arrangements result in 

‘‘regulation’’ of safety at private 

crossings? 

• How should improvement and/or 

maintenance costs associated with 

private crossing be allocated? 

• Is there a need for alternative 

dispute resolution mechanisms to 

handle disputes that may arise between 

private crossing owners and the 

railroads? 

• Should the State or Federal 

government assume greater 

responsibility for safety at private 

crossings? 

• Should there be nationwide 

standards for warning devices at private 

crossings or for intersection design of 

new private grade crossings? 

• How do we determine when a 

private crossing has a public purpose 

and is subject to public use? 

• Should some crossings be 

categorized as commercial crossings 

rather than private crossings? 

• Are there innovative traffic control 

treatments that could improve safety at 

private crossings on major rail corridors, 

including those on which passenger 

service is provided? 

• Should the DOT request enactment 

of legislation to address private 

crossings? If so, what should it include? 

Issued in Washington, DC, on September 

15, 2006. 

Michael J. Logue, 

Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety. 

[FR Doc. 06–7811 Filed 9–21–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[STB Ex Parte No. 558 (Sub–No. 9)] 

Railroad Cost of Capital—2005 

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board. 

DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of decision. 

SUMMARY: On August 28, 2006, the 

Board served a decision to update its 

computation of the railroad industry’s 

cost of capital for 2005. The composite 

after-tax cost-of-capital rate for 2005 is 

found to be 12.2%, based on a current 

cost of debt of 5.36%; a cost of common 

equity capital of 15.18%; and a capital 

structure mix comprised of 30.41% debt 

and 69.59% common equity. The costof-capital finding made in this 

proceeding will be used in a variety of 

Board proceedings. 

DATES: Effective Date: This action is 

effective August 28, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Aguiar, 202–565–1527. (Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) for the 

hearing impaired: 1–800–877–8339). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The costof-capital finding in this decision may 

be used for a variety of regulatory 

purposes. Based upon Western Coal 

Traffic League reply comments, we will 

institute a separate advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking to explore the 

most suitable methodology to calculate 

the cost of capital. That proceeding will 

provide all interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on the 

discounted cash flow (DCF) model, the 

proper source for the inputs to that 

model, and whether the Board should 

adopt an alternative to that method, 

such as the Capital Asset Pricing Model 

(CAPM), for future cost-of-capital 

determinations. The Board’s decision is 

posted on the Board’s Web site, http:// 

www.stb.dot.gov. In addition, copies of 

the decision may be purchased from 

ASAP Document Solutions by calling 

202–306–4004 (assistance for the 

hearing impaired is available through 

FIRS at 1–800–877–8339), or by e-mail 

at asapdc@verizon.net. 

Environmental and Energy 

Considerations 

This action will not significantly 

affect either the quality of the human 

environment or the conservation of 

energy resources. 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), we 

conclude that our action in this 

proceeding will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The purpose 

and effect of this action are to update 

the annual railroad industry cost-ofcapital finding by the Board. No new 

reporting or other regulatory 

requirements are imposed, directly or 

indirectly, on small entities. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 10704(a). 

Decided: September 15, 2006. 

By the Board, Chairman Nottingham, Vice 

Chairman Mulvey, and Commissioner 

Buttrey. 

Vernon A. Williams, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 06–8097 Filed 9–21–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Notices 55543 

subject area (for other comments). 

Resource limitations preclude 

acknowledging or replying to 

submissions. 

While the meeting is open to the 

public, admittance to the Department of 

State building is only by means of a prearranged clearance list. In order to be 

placed on the pre-clearance list, we 

must receive the following information 

from you no later than 5 p.m. on 

Monday, October 2, 2006: 

I. State That You Are Requesting PreClearance to a Meeting 

II. Provide the Following Information 

1. Name of meeting and its date and 

time (ACICIP, October 5, 2006, 10 a.m.). 

2. Visitor’s full name. 

3. Company/Agency/Organization. 

4. Title at Company/Agency/ 

Organization. 

5. Date of birth. 

6. Citizenship. 

7. Type of ID visitor will show upon 

entry (from list below). 

8. ID number on the ID visitor will 

show upon entry. 

Send the above information to 

Richard W. O’Brien by fax (202) 647–

0158 or e-mail o’brienrw@state.gov. 

All visitors for this meeting must use 

the 23rd Street entrance. One of the 

following valid ID’s bearing the number 

provided with your pre-clearance 

request will be required for admittance: 

• U.S. driver’s license with photo. 

• Passport. 

• U.S. government agency ID. 

Non-U.S. government attendees must 

be escorted by Department of State 

personnel at all times when in the 

building. 

For further information, please 

contact Richard W. O’Brien, Executive 

Secretary of the Committee, at (202) 

647–4736 or o’brienrw@state.gov. 

General information about ACICIP 

and the mission of International 

Communications and Information 

Policy at the Department of State is 

available at our Web site: http:// 

www.state.gov/e/eb/adcom/c667.htm. 

Dated: September 18, 2006. 

Richard W. O’Brien, 

ACICIP Executive Secretary, Department of 

State. 

[FR Doc. 06–8062 Filed 9–21–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–07–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

[Public Notice 5557] 

Bureau of International Security and 

Nonproliferation; Extension of Waiver 

of Missile Proliferation Sanctions 

Against Chinese Government 

Activities 

AGENCY: Department of State. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: A determination has been 

made to extend the waiver of import 

sanctions against certain activities of the 

Chinese government that was 

announced on September 19, 2003, 

pursuant to the Arms Export Control 

Act, as amended. 

DATES: Effective Date: September 13, 

2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam 

Durham, Office of Missile Threat 

Reduction, Bureau of International 

Security and Nonproliferation, 

Department of State (202–647–4931). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A 

determination was made on March 13, 

2006, pursuant to section 73(e) of the 

Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 

2797b(e)) that it was essential to the 

national security of the United States to 

waive for a period of six months the 

import sanction described in section 

73(a)(2)(C) of the Arms Export Control 

Act (22 U.S.C. 2797b(a)(2)(C)) against 

the activities of the Chinese government 

described in section 74(a)(8)(B) of the 

Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 

2797c(a)(8)(B))—i.e., activities of the 

Chinese government relating to the 

development or production of any 

missile equipment or technology and 

activities of the Chinese government 

affecting the development or production 

of electronics, space systems or 

equipment, and military aircraft (see 

Federal Register Vol. 68, No. 182, 

Friday, September 19, 2003). This action 

was effective on March 18, 2006. 

On September 13, 2006, a 

determination was made pursuant to 

section 73(e) of the Arms Export Control 

Act (22 U.S.C. 2797b(e)) that it is 

essential to the national security of the 

United States to extend the waiver 

period for an additional six months, 

effective from the date of expiration of 

the previous waiver (September 18, 

2006). 

These measures shall be implemented 

by the responsible agencies as provided 

in Executive Order 12851 of June 11, 

1993. 

Dated: September 18, 2006. 

Patricia A. McNerney, 

Acting Assistant Secretary of State for 

International Security and Nonproliferation, 

Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 06–8063 Filed 9–21–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–27–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

[Docket No. FRA–2005–23281, Notice No. 

2] 

Safety of Private Highway-Rail Grade 

Crossings; Notice of Safety Inquiry 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of safety inquiry. 

SUMMARY: On July 27, 2006, FRA 

published a notice announcing its intent 

to conduct a series of open meetings 

throughout the United States, in 

cooperation with appropriate State 

agencies, to consider issues related to 

the safety of private highway-rail grade 

crossings. This notice indicated that the 

first of these meetings would be held 

August 30, 2006, in Fort Snelling, 

Minnesota. Notice No. 2 announces that 

FRA has scheduled subsequent 

meetings to be held September 27, 2006, 

in Raleigh, North Carolina; October 26, 

2006, in San Francisco, California; and 

December 6, 2006, in New Orleans, 

Louisiana. 

At each open meeting, FRA intends to 

solicit oral statements from private 

crossing owners, railroads and other 

interested parties on issues related to 

the safety of private highway-rail grade 

crossings, which will include, but will 

not be limited to, current practices 

concerning the responsibility for safety 

at private grade crossings, the adequacy 

of warning devices at private crossings, 

and the relative merits of a more 

uniform approach to improving safety at 

private crossings. FRA has also opened 

a public docket on these issues so that 

interested parties may submit written 

comments for public review and 

consideration. 

DATES: The initial public meeting was 

held in Fort Snelling, Minnesota, on 

August 30, 2006, at the Bishop Henry 

Whipple Federal Building, One Federal 

Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111, 

beginning at 9:30 a.m. The second 

public meeting will be held in Raleigh, 

North Carolina, on September 27, 2006, 

at North Carolina State University’s 

McKimmon Conference and Training 

Center, 1101 Gorman Street, North 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
55544 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Notices 

Carolina State University, Raleigh, 

North Carolina 27695, beginning at 9:30 

a.m. The third public meeting will be 

held in San Francisco, California, on 

October 26, 2006, at the Philip Burton 

Federal Building and Courthouse, 450 

Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, 

California 94102, beginning at 9:30 a.m. 

The fourth public meeting will be held 

in New Orleans, Louisiana, on 

December 6, 2006, at the Chateau 

Sonesta Hotel, 800 Iberville Street, New 

Orleans, Louisiana 70112, beginning at 

9:30 a.m. 

Persons wishing to participate are 

requested to provide their names, 

organizational affiliation, and contact 

information to Michelle Silva, Docket 

Clerk, FRA, 1120 Vermont Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 

202–493–6030). Persons needing sign 

language interpretation or other 

reasonable accommodation for disability 

are also encouraged to contact Michelle 

Silva, FRA Docket Clerk, at (202) 493–

6030. Additional public meetings will 

be announced over the next three 

months. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron 

Ries, Office of Safety, FRA, 1120 

Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 

20590 (telephone 202–493–6299); 

Miriam Kloeppel, Office of Safety, FRA, 

1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202–

493–6299); or Kathryn Shelton, Office of 

Chief Counsel, FRA, 1120 Vermont 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20590 

(telephone 202–493–6038). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

additional information, please see the 

initial notice, published July 27, 2006, 

in the Federal Register (citation: 71 FR 

42713) and available at http:// 

a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/ 

01jan20061800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/ 

2006/pdf/06-6501.pdf. 

Request for Comments 

While FRA solicits discussion and 

comments on all areas of safety at 

private highway-rail grade crossings, we 

particularly encourage comments on the 

following topics: 

• At-grade highway-rail crossings 

present inherent risks to users, 

including the railroad and its 

employees, and to other persons in the 

vicinity if a train were to derail into an 

occupied area or release hazardous 

materials. When passenger trains are 

involved, the risks are heightened. From 

the standpoint of public policy, how do 

we determine whether the creation or 

continuation of a private crossing is 

justified? 

• Is the current assignment of 

responsibility for safety at private 

crossings effective? To what extent do 

risk-management practices associated 

with insurance arrangements result in 

‘‘regulation’’ of safety at private 

crossings? 

• How should improvement and/or 

maintenance costs associated with 

private crossing be allocated? 

• Is there a need for alternative 

dispute resolution mechanisms to 

handle disputes that may arise between 

private crossing owners and the 

railroads? 

• Should the State or Federal 

government assume greater 

responsibility for safety at private 

crossings? 

• Should there be nationwide 

standards for warning devices at private 

crossings or for intersection design of 

new private grade crossings? 

• How do we determine when a 

private crossing has a public purpose 

and is subject to public use? 

• Should some crossings be 

categorized as commercial crossings 

rather than private crossings? 

• Are there innovative traffic control 

treatments that could improve safety at 

private crossings on major rail corridors, 

including those on which passenger 

service is provided? 

• Should the DOT request enactment 

of legislation to address private 

crossings? If so, what should it include? 

Issued in Washington, DC, on September 

15, 2006. 

Michael J. Logue, 

Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety. 

[FR Doc. 06–7811 Filed 9–21–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[STB Ex Parte No. 558 (Sub–No. 9)] 

Railroad Cost of Capital—2005 

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board. 

DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of decision. 

SUMMARY: On August 28, 2006, the 

Board served a decision to update its 

computation of the railroad industry’s 

cost of capital for 2005. The composite 

after-tax cost-of-capital rate for 2005 is 

found to be 12.2%, based on a current 

cost of debt of 5.36%; a cost of common 

equity capital of 15.18%; and a capital 

structure mix comprised of 30.41% debt 

and 69.59% common equity. The costof-capital finding made in this 

proceeding will be used in a variety of 

Board proceedings. 

DATES: Effective Date: This action is 

effective August 28, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Aguiar, 202–565–1527. (Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) for the 

hearing impaired: 1–800–877–8339). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The costof-capital finding in this decision may 

be used for a variety of regulatory 

purposes. Based upon Western Coal 

Traffic League reply comments, we will 

institute a separate advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking to explore the 

most suitable methodology to calculate 

the cost of capital. That proceeding will 

provide all interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on the 

discounted cash flow (DCF) model, the 

proper source for the inputs to that 

model, and whether the Board should 

adopt an alternative to that method, 

such as the Capital Asset Pricing Model 

(CAPM), for future cost-of-capital 

determinations. The Board’s decision is 

posted on the Board’s Web site, http:// 

www.stb.dot.gov. In addition, copies of 

the decision may be purchased from 

ASAP Document Solutions by calling 

202–306–4004 (assistance for the 

hearing impaired is available through 

FIRS at 1–800–877–8339), or by e-mail 

at asapdc@verizon.net. 

Environmental and Energy 

Considerations 

This action will not significantly 

affect either the quality of the human 

environment or the conservation of 

energy resources. 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), we 

conclude that our action in this 

proceeding will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The purpose 

and effect of this action are to update 

the annual railroad industry cost-ofcapital finding by the Board. No new 

reporting or other regulatory 

requirements are imposed, directly or 

indirectly, on small entities. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 10704(a). 

Decided: September 15, 2006. 

By the Board, Chairman Nottingham, Vice 

Chairman Mulvey, and Commissioner 

Buttrey. 

Vernon A. Williams, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 06–8097 Filed 9–21–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
For the FRA to "increase" safety at private crossings --- first there would need 

to be a little safety. The crossings are BLIND--DEADLY---without even train 

whistles being blown. Hell there isn't even safety measures at public crossings 

because the FEDs are DIRTY. 

I'm sure this is nothing about safety and all about giving railroads AMNESTY 

when they blindside and kill people. No need for meetings if the FRA says the 

crossings are dangerous the FRA is in violation of Federal law and should be 

prosecuted for 100s of negligient homicides for NOT doing their job to start 

with!!! 

file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

 2 FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

 3 SAFETY AT PRIVATE HIGHWAY-RAIL GRADE CROSSINGS

 4 PUBLIC MEETING

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

10 

11 

12 WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 30, 2006

13 9:30 AM

14 BISHOP HENRY WHIPPLE FEDERAL BUILDING

15 1 FEDERAL DRIVE,

16 FORT SNELLING, MINNESOTA 55111

17 

18 

19 

20 

file:///D|/A007788.txt (1 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 

 ATKINSON-BAKER, INC.

22 COURT REPORTERS

 (800) 288-3376

23 www.depo.com

24 TRANSCRIBED BY: DANA ANDERSON

25 FILE NO.: A007788

 1

file:///D|/A007788.txt (2 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 Partial Roster of Attendees

 2 1st USDOT/FRA Public Meeting

 3 Safety Inquiry on the Safety at Private Highway-Rail

 4 Grade Crossings

 5 Fort Snelling, Minnesota

 6 

 7 Name/Organization

 8 Robert VanderClute*, AAR

 9 William Browder, AAR

10 Tim Spencer, MNDOT

11 Ron Adams, Wisconsin DOT

12 Mark Morrison, Wisconsin DOT

13 Dan Kahnke, MNDOT

14 Shane Whitemore, CSX Railroad

15 Michael Long, USDOT/FRA

16 Rod McCorkle, Canadian Pacific Railroad

17 Paul Bicha, Canadian Pacific Railroad

18 Jim Keinzler, Canadian Pacific Railroad

19 Patricia Abbate*, Citizens for Rail Safety

20 Craig N. Rasmussen, BNSF

file:///D|/A007788.txt (3 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 George Warren, BNSF

22 Randy Harris, Canadian National Railroad

23 Terry Lee, Canadian National Railroad

24 

25 * Indicates provided an oral statement at the meeting.

 2

file:///D|/A007788.txt (4 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 Partial Roster of Attendees (Continued)

 2 

 3 Name/Organization

 4 Susan Aylesworth, MNDOT

 5 Alfonse J. Cocchiarella, BNSF

 6 Spencer Abbot, BNSF

 7 Peggy Baer, Iowa DOT

 8 David Peterson, Union Pacific Railroad

 9 Bob Opal, Union Pacific Railroad

10 Tim DePaepe*, Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen

11 Mike Hillman, TKDA

12 Stacy Crakes, TKDA

13 Paul Comstock, USDOT/FRA

14 Lynn Leibfried, BNSF

15 Tom Perkovich, BLET

16 Jim Kreiger, Canadian Pacific Railroad

17 Jim Kienzler, Canadian Pacific Railroad

18 Allen Pepper, Kansas City Southern Railroad

19 Tammy Wagner, USDOT/FRA

20 Chris Adams, USDOT/FRA

file:///D|/A007788.txt (5 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 Bennie Howe, USDOT/FRA

22 Howard J. Gillespie, USDOT/FRA

23 Stacey Tuthill, WeberShandwick

24 

25 * Indicates provided an oral statement at the meeting.

 3

file:///D|/A007788.txt (6 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 PROCEEDINGS taken on this 30th day of August, 2006, at

 2 the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building in Fort

 3 Snelling, Minnesota, commencing at the hour

 4 of 9:30 a.m.

 5 

 6 PAUL COMSTOCK: Well, good morning

 7 everybody. And first of all, I want to

 8 apologize, I didn't know -- I wasn't told

 9 that we needed a PA system in the room. I'm

10 Paul Comstock, chief inspector here, welcome

11 to the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal

12 Government Building. I'll give a short

13 safety briefing just basically so we all know

14 where to go. If something should occur where

15 we have to evacuate the building, there will

16 be an audible and visual warning and we would

17 ask that you exit out the main hallway, take

18 a left and go all the way down to the end,

19 exit the building, there's a garage out

20 there. Go ahead all the way to the far end

file:///D|/A007788.txt (7 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 of the building. That's the Federal Railroad

22 Administration meeting spot. So we can all

23 join together there and sing Kumbaya or

24 whatever.

25 The restrooms are right outside of

 4

file:///D|/A007788.txt (8 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 the entryway into the meeting room here and

 2 to your left, so -- in the main hallway. We

 3 have people here and FRA qualified for CPR

 4 and we have the defibrillator machine in the

 5 building so we won't need to worry about that

 6 as far as asking for volunteers. And the

 7 only other thing I ask is could you all set

 8 your pagers or cell phones or anything to

 9 quiet, vibrate or stun or whatever the case

10 may be so that we have a nice, quiet meeting

11 and can go on.

12 With that I'm going to introduce

13 Mr. Grady Cothen, my fearless leader, and

14 he'll take it from there. Thank you very

15 much.

16 MR. GRADY COTHEN: Thanks, Paul. The

17 betting was whether Paul could play that

18 straight; he's FRA's official court jester

19 and as you can see, I won.

20 So welcome to this session on

file:///D|/A007788.txt (9 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 this -- safety of private highway-rail

22 crossings. Thank you for being here. This

23 is a little bit of an unusual facility for

24 us, but it looks like it should work out

25 okay. If you cannot hear during these

 5

file:///D|/A007788.txt (10 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 proceedings, waive your hand, stand up, move

 2 around, take a more comfort-proximate seat,

 3 whatever it takes so that you can participate

 4 in today's events. It'll be no problem at

 5 all with folks gathering around here closer

 6 if that's better for you.

 7 My name is Grady Cothen. I'm the

 8 acting associate administrator for safety

 9 standards at FRA and as such I'm in charge of

10 our regulatory program and am privileged to

11 chair today. I think probably rather than me

12 starting with a long speech I'll save it.

13 Let's do some welcomes and introductions.

14 I believe that Lavoy Little and

15 Mike Long are in the hall. Could you stand,

16 please? Lavoy and Michael are our deputy

17 regional administrators for FRA Region 4

18 headquartered in Chicago which includes the

19 state of Minnesota. Thank you, gentlemen,

20 for being here and providing logistical

file:///D|/A007788.txt (11 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 support for the meeting. We appreciate it.

22 You've met Mr. Comstock. I'm going to ask

23 Ron Ries to introduce our far flung FRA multi

24 highway-rail crossing team and can we do

25 that -- it's a multi-regional team,

 6

file:///D|/A007788.txt (12 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 headquarters, field, Volpe. Could all you

 2 folks stand up and Ron will provide a little

 3 information about your roles. Ron Ries is

 4 our staff director for highway-rail crossing

 5 safety in Washington.

 6 MR. RONALD RIES: Good morning. We have

 7 18 people that work in the field when we are

 8 a full complement, work full-time in train

 9 crossing safety trespass prevention. Most

10 regions have two crossing managers, a

11 crossing manager and assistant, in each of

12 our eight regions. And we've recently

13 augmented Region 4 with another assistant,

14 and Region 5 which is down in Texas,

15 Louisiana where there is another position; we

16 are in the process of filling those now. So

17 we are fortunate to have a number of our

18 great policy managers and assistants with us.

19 Tammy Wagner with Region 4 is the crossing

20 manager, we hear she was very instrumental in

file:///D|/A007788.txt (13 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 working with Paul getting this facility set

22 up. Sitting next to her is Chris Adams who

23 is our region aid for the Pacific northwest

24 area, our newest crossing manager.

25 Mr. Bennie Howe is the crossing manager for

 7

file:///D|/A007788.txt (14 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 Region 6 out of Kansas City.

 2 Howard Gillespie assistant crossing manager

 3 for Region 6 as well. And let's see, who

 4 else? Our staff personnel, Miriam Kloeppel

 5 is an operation research analyst that works

 6 out of Washington, D.C. We have -- from

 7 Volpe we have Anya Carroll. We have

 8 Steve Peck in the back. And I knew I would

 9 do this, Perla Garcia also from Volpe. Volpe

10 is providing the support for our safety

11 initiative study and they will be making sure

12 we get the proceedings done and helping us --

13 or put together all of the information we are

14 hoping to gather from that.

15 Ms. Kathy Shelton is an attorney from

16 Washington D.C. who has the pleasant task of

17 working with the great safety crossing

18 issues. She'll be giving us a little

19 briefing here in just a second. We

20 appreciate you being here. We know this is

file:///D|/A007788.txt (15 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 sort of a new thing for us as far as looking

22 at the private crossings. And as we are

23 getting started we are looking for a lot of

24 good information. We don't have any answers,

25 we're not even really sure what the questions

 8

file:///D|/A007788.txt (16 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 are, and so you have a good opportunity to

 2 help provide us with that guidance. Have a

 3 great day and we are looking forward to a

 4 good meeting.

 5 MR. GRADY COTHEN: What I would like to

 6 do is introduce Susan Aylesworth, Susan is

 7 the director of railroad administration for

 8 the Minnesota Department of Transportation.

 9 Each of these events we are holding in

10 partnership with a state DOT or PUC, one of

11 our state partners in highway-rail crossing

12 program. The Federal Railroad Administration

13 does nothing without its public and private

14 partners, without the contributions of lots

15 of folks. And in many cases our role is

16 purely support and we try to give it, but one

17 of the ways is to stir the pot sometimes and

18 get some discussion going. Susan, thank you

19 for joining us in welcoming this group, and

20 I'll turn it over to you.

file:///D|/A007788.txt (17 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 MS. SUSAN AYLESWORTH: Thanks. I'm here

22 to welcome you all and when I was asked to

23 speak, I was told there would be ten people

24 here, so the joke is on me. I have nothing

25 prepared, but ten people are easy to talk to.

 9

file:///D|/A007788.txt (18 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 Sometimes with people it's easier to talk to.

 2 Welcome to Minnesota, we are glad you all

 3 came and we are honored to be chosen as the

 4 first of several public meeting locations on

 5 this topic. Just by way of information,

 6 Minnesota has about 2,000, 2,500 private

 7 railroad crossings and this interestingly, we

 8 do have a rule that talks about the

 9 appropriate crossing treatment at private

10 crossings, it's just that we don't think we

11 have jurisdiction to implement it. That is

12 an interesting quirk that may be unique to

13 Minnesota, but our rules do talk about what

14 is appropriate at private crossings and

15 pretty much mirrors what we would expect to

16 see at a public railroad crossing. One other

17 issue that we struggle with, and maybe some

18 of will you speak to this later, is that we

19 are unsure of what the definition of a

20 private crossing is.

file:///D|/A007788.txt (19 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 We oftentimes go out and if the

22 public is using a location, we can't be sure

23 whether that public use continues on both

24 sides of the track and therefore should be

25 counted as a public crossing or whether we

 10

file:///D|/A007788.txt (20 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 should defer and leave it as a private

 2 crossing. And sometimes the railroads don't

 3 know that either. So it will be very

 4 interesting to hear what comments people make

 5 and what issues they raise of course with

 6 Quiet Zone this is an issue too so we are

 7 looking forward to this discussion on this

 8 timely topic.

 9 Thank you.

10 MR. GRADY COTHEN: Thanks, Susan. I

11 just wanted to say a few words to sort of get

12 us going, then I'll ask Kathy Shelton to give

13 us the legal officer statement. The Federal

14 Railroad Administration has been promising

15 now for about a decade to undertake an

16 initiative on private crossings to try to see

17 what could be done to help all state and

18 local partners, public and private move

19 toward improved safety of highway-rail

20 crossings. In a moment Miriam Kloeppel will

file:///D|/A007788.txt (21 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 lay out some of the facts for us and they are

22 not enormously encouraging. We made

23 significant progress in safety of public

24 highway-rail crossings over the years, and

25 we've made moderate progress as well at

 11

file:///D|/A007788.txt (22 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 private crossings driven by railroad efforts

 2 to close unnecessary crossings driven by

 3 improvements in train conspicuity and other

 4 factors affecting people in motor vehicle

 5 operation in the United States.

 6 Certainly Operation Lifesaver has

 7 done its part to try to promote awareness.

 8 We've done some things, all of us have in the

 9 areas of education and enforcement over the

10 years, and we've had some moderate success.

11 But we still -- we still see a persistent

12 issue at crossings which is not predicted to

13 abate significantly any absence of further

14 initiatives from someplace, and so how do we

15 proceed? I think we have the opportunity

16 today to begin to get issues on the table to

17 define what those issues are, what is a

18 private crossing, is it a good, solid and

19 favored place to start and I thought I knew

20 until I tried to get a train horn rule

file:///D|/A007788.txt (23 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 written, and they told me I didn't. If you

22 will help me today, I'd appreciate it.

23 We do not -- we don't have a preset

24 agenda here. Our purpose over the next few

25 months is to go to various locations around

 12

file:///D|/A007788.txt (24 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 the country to hear from folks who have

 2 information and views on the subject, and

 3 then our objective is to put together a plan

 4 of action which would carry forward the

 5 initiative that's described in the

 6 Secretary's 2004 action plan for highway-rail

 7 crossing safety. And there it is described

 8 in very general terms. Where that will take

 9 us specifically, I don't know, whether we'll

10 need legislation in order to drive it forward

11 at this point, I don't know. But there is no

12 better place to start then here and now. So

13 we ask your participation and indulgence,

14 your ideas, your thoughts, your criticisms,

15 whatever you've got. We do have today

16 several organizations that have signed up

17 ahead of time. And as a matter of fact, I

18 believe that as of this hour at least they

19 are inclusive of all those who indicated

20 interest on the sign-in sheets. We may have

file:///D|/A007788.txt (25 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 others here as the morning goes on.

22 When we begin, the testimony

23 will -- did I say testimony? Introductory

24 statements, we'll hear from those who signed

25 up ahead of time. If you haven't indicated

 13

file:///D|/A007788.txt (26 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 your interest in making some kind of opening

 2 statement, feel free to do so. Steve there

 3 at the back (indicating) can help you in that

 4 regard or any one of us here. When we get

 5 through with some general statements,

 6 whatever you want to lay on the table for us,

 7 we'll go to a discussion period. At that

 8 point what I would ask you, for the benefit

 9 of the court reporter and the benefit of us,

10 is to come and occupy a seat at the table

11 here, the front table, and utilize that spot

12 there as long as you want to hold it. And

13 then when you feel like you've got your --

14 stated your piece, perhaps open it back up to

15 someone else who might want to rotate in for

16 the discussion. And again, please don't feel

17 compelled by protocol to sit in the back row.

18 Once we get the presentation out of the way

19 here, the PowerPoint out of the way, you may

20 feel more comfortable to bring a chair around

file:///D|/A007788.txt (27 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 and gather in.

22 Okay. Kathy Shelton for the legal

23 officer's statement.

24 MS. KATHRYN SHELTON: Good morning. My

25 name is Kathy Shelton, and I will be the

 14

file:///D|/A007788.txt (28 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 legal officer for today's meeting. The

 2 purpose of this public meeting is

 3 fact-finding. This is the first of a series

 4 of public meetings nationwide in which you

 5 will have the opportunity to provide

 6 information to FRA about issues related to

 7 the safety of private highway-rail grade

 8 crossings. This public meeting is not meant

 9 to be a form for debate. Instead we are here

10 to listen to you and to provide an

11 opportunity for you to state your views on

12 the record for review and consideration. In

13 order to provide each of you an equal

14 opportunity to express your views and

15 comments, the following procedure will be

16 used. Each person will be permitted to make

17 an oral statement. However, persons

18 representing the same organization may speak

19 as a group.

20 At the beginning of your oral

file:///D|/A007788.txt (29 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 statement, please identify yourself, spell

22 your name and identify whether you are

23 appearing in an individual or representative

24 capacity. It may also be helpful to provide

25 a business card to our stenographer at that

 15

file:///D|/A007788.txt (30 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 time. At the end, FRA representatives may

 2 ask questions in order to obtain

 3 clarifications of points made during your

 4 statement. We will then move on to the next

 5 oral statement. If you refer to a document

 6 in your oral statement that has not yet been

 7 provided to FRA, please provide a copy of the

 8 document to an FRA representative so that it

 9 can be marked for identification and added to

10 the public docket.

11 Today's meeting is being

12 transcribed and will become a part of the

13 public docket on this issue. The transcript

14 of this public meeting will be available for

15 viewing and downloading at the Department of

16 Transportation's docket management system web

17 site at HTTP://dms.dot.gov. And please note

18 the www is not used in the web site address.

19 The entire public docket on this issue is

20 also available for inspection at the

file:///D|/A007788.txt (31 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 Department of Transportation docket facility

22 room which is located at 400 7th Street

23 Southwest in Washington, D.C.

24 Thank you. And now for a moment

25 I'll turn the floor over to Dana, our

 16

file:///D|/A007788.txt (32 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 stenographer.

 2 (Off the record.)

 3 MR. GRADY COTHEN: Okay. Thank you.

 4 The next order of business is an introductory

 5 presentation sort of to put us on somewhat

 6 equal -- common footing. Some would say we

 7 are on equal footing because some of you know

 8 a lot about this subject matter and some of

 9 us don't know as much. But at least to go

10 over some items of common interest regarding

11 private crossings. Our presenter is Miriam

12 Kloeppel who is an operations research

13 analyst on our grade crossing staff within

14 the office of safety analysis and FRA.

15 Miriam comes to the subject matter with a

16 deep and abiding personal interest having

17 been, I believe, a principal author of the

18 NTSB's study on passive crossings in 1988

19 which generated a lot of this work.

20 Particularly rewarding to have somebody on

file:///D|/A007788.txt (33 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 staff who now has to fulfill all of the

22 various mandates that she wrote. With that

23 in mind, Miriam, if you would, please.

24 MS. MIRIAM KLOEPPEL: Good morning,

25 ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for coming.

 17

file:///D|/A007788.txt (34 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 I thought I'd prime the conversational pump

 2 anyway by starting with a little background.

 3 Private crossing safety has been a

 4 matter of concern to the United States

 5 Department of Transportation and to other

 6 federal agencies for some time. In 1993, the

 7 FRA held an open meeting to initiate

 8 industrywide discussions in its 1994 rail

 9 highway safety action plan. The USDOT

10 proposed to develop national minimum

11 standards for private crossings. In its 1997

12 study on safety at passive grade crossings,

13 the National Transportation Safety Board,

14 I'll just call it NTSB for short, highlighted

15 the need for some system to improve private

16 crossing safety and recommended that the

17 USDOT in conjunction with states determine

18 governmental oversight responsibility for

19 safety at private crossings. In 1999, the

20 NTSB weighed in again in its report on a

file:///D|/A007788.txt (35 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 private grade crossing accident in

22 Portage, Indiana. In this case the NTSB

23 recommended that the DOT eliminate any

24 differences between public and private

25 crossings with regard to funding or

 18

file:///D|/A007788.txt (36 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 requirements for safety improvement.

 2 In 2004, the USDOT published an

 3 updated action plan in which the FRA

 4 committed to leading an effort to define

 5 responsibility for safety at private

 6 crossings. Today's meeting is a vital part

 7 of this effort. As you can see, regardless

 8 of the geographic region, private crossings

 9 constitute a significant percentage of all

10 at-grade crossings. What I did here was I

11 took numbers that had state-by-state counts

12 of crossings that I just aggregated them into

13 FRA geographic regions and if you're not

14 familiar with our regions, I'll be happy to

15 go over them at another time, but I just

16 wanted to illustrate that regardless of where

17 you are in the country, there is a fairly

18 high percentage of the crossings that happen

19 to be private. Total count nationwide is

20 about 94,000.

file:///D|/A007788.txt (37 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 Although accidents at public

22 crossings have declined considerably over the

23 past several years, declining by one-third

24 over the past decade alone, the number of

25 accidents at private crossings have remained

 19

file:///D|/A007788.txt (38 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 comparably stable, declining only 10 percent

 2 over the past decade. In most years, the

 3 number of fatalities occurring at accidents

 4 at private crossings exceeded the number of

 5 on-duty deaths for all railroad employees in

 6 all rail operations. As an illustration note

 7 of what goes on, here are a few examples.

 8 About 1:00 p.m. on May 30th, 2006,

 9 Amtrak train number 350 struck an empty

10 gravel truck at a private highway-rail grade

11 crossing near Jackson, Michigan. The train

12 was traveling about 74 miles per hour with a

13 cab car in the lead when the truck entered

14 the crossing in front of the train, one train

15 crew member and 15 train passengers received

16 minor injuries in the accident. The truck

17 driver sustained fatal injuries. The private

18 road at the accident crossing is used by an

19 excavating company and by two residences.

20 And on average, fewer than 30 highway

file:///D|/A007788.txt (39 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 vehicles and a dozen trains, eight of which

22 are Amtrak, traverse the crossing daily.

23 It's estimated that the crossing was created

24 about 1948 and there is no record of any

25 maintenance contract between the business

 20

file:///D|/A007788.txt (40 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 owner and Norfolk-Southern Railway, the track

 2 owner.

 3 About 4:40 p.m. on July 3rd, 2006,

 4 a southbound Amtrak train struck a passenger

 5 vehicle at a private crossing near

 6 Castle Rock, Washington. According to the

 7 Amtrak engineer, the accident occurred when

 8 the motorist entered the crossing after a

 9 northbound Union Pacific train cleared it.

10 Train crew and train passengers received no

11 injuries, but all four motor vehicle

12 occupants sustained fatal injuries. The road

13 leading to this crossing is a county road,

14 but county maintenance ends shortly before

15 the crossing. And the private road that

16 extends beyond the crossing dead-ends after

17 serving 11 residences. About 60 trains daily

18 traverse this crossing, and it is not known

19 when the crossing was created and no

20 maintenance contract has been located for

file:///D|/A007788.txt (41 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 this crossing.

22 About 7 p.m. on June 21st, 2006,

23 Metro train number 921 traveling south at a

24 recorded speed of 79 miles per hour struck a

25 truck trailer traversing a private grade

 21

file:///D|/A007788.txt (42 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 crossing near Lemont, Illinois. A piece of

 2 the trailer became wedged under the snow plow

 3 of the locomotive and the locomotive derailed

 4 at the crossing. The driver of the

 5 tractor-trailer was not injured. There were

 6 170 passengers aboard the train, five

 7 passengers claimed minor injuries and were

 8 treated and released and no train crew

 9 members reported any injury. This crossing

10 serves two commercial facilities to which

11 there is no other access. Roughly 28 trains

12 and fewer than 30 highway vehicles use this

13 crossing daily. The crossing is maintained

14 by Canadian National, but there is no formal

15 agreement. As an additional note, about six

16 months prior to this accident another

17 accident occurred at this crossing. The

18 truck driver in the accident in December

19 of 2005 sustained fatal injuries.

20 The FRA maintains a national

file:///D|/A007788.txt (43 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 inventory of all crossings, public, private,

22 pedestrian, at-grade or grade-separated. The

23 data are used by many state, federal or

24 private organizations for research or for

25 resource allocations determining which

 22

file:///D|/A007788.txt (44 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 crossings are most in need of improvements.

 2 It's updated by the states and by the

 3 railroads on a voluntary, not a mandatory

 4 basis.

 5 As you can see, only about

 6 one-third of the records for private

 7 crossings have been updated within the past

 8 five years, and a significant portion of the

 9 records have never been updated. Analysis on

10 this sort of data will of necessity be

11 somewhat tentative. And in comparison -- I

12 don't have the numbers, but the data for

13 public crossings are typically updated much

14 more often than this. I don't expect you to

15 read this whole slide. This is just the shot

16 of the form on which the data are collected

17 for the national inventory. Almost all data

18 on both of these pages are collected for

19 public crossings, but for private crossings

20 only the sections that I have shaded are

file:///D|/A007788.txt (45 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 collected. As a result, even when the

22 private crossing record is up to date,

23 potentially useful data are not collected.

24 This slide shows a small sample of the data

25 collection differences. According to the

 23

file:///D|/A007788.txt (46 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 FRA's 2002 compilation of state laws and

 2 regulations affecting highway-rail grade

 3 crossings, the states' approaches to private

 4 crossings' safety are highly varied. Take

 5 these examples of the extent of control held

 6 over the creation or closure of private

 7 crossings. Here are some examples of the

 8 degree to which traffic-control devices are

 9 standardized at private crossings. In fact,

10 only two states that I could find in our

11 compilation listed any kind of control like

12 this at all.

13 According to, again, the 2002

14 compilation of state laws and regulations

15 affecting highway railroad grade crossings,

16 more than half the states have no laws or

17 regulations related to private crossings.

18 The federal government in the guise of

19 various DOT agencies does offer some

20 regulations for guidance documents that may

file:///D|/A007788.txt (47 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 touch on safety at private crossings. As you

22 can see in this sample however, none of these

23 really covers a significant portion of the

24 nation's private crossings. For example, the

25 signal system inspection regulation, 49 CFR

 24

file:///D|/A007788.txt (48 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 part 234, really addresses about one percent

 2 of the private crossings as most of private

 3 crossings are passive. Freight car

 4 reflectorization only addresses probably

 5 fewer than 25 percent of all grade crossing

 6 accidents. And the manual on uniform

 7 traffic-control devices applies to only

 8 public crossings. In fact, there is no

 9 federal regulation or guidance that promotes

10 safety at private grade crossings by

11 specifically or uniformly addressing the

12 special issues presented at private

13 crossings.

14 Some private crossings may be used

15 only seasonally like certain farm crossings

16 used only for agricultural equipment

17 movements, or they may be used only for

18 routine personal use like crossings that

19 serve residences. Other private crossings

20 such as this industrial access crossing are

file:///D|/A007788.txt (49 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 used extensively for private business

22 purposes by employees, contractors and

23 suppliers. In still other cases they may be

24 used very heavily by the public to enter

25 commercial facilities. This slide also

 25

file:///D|/A007788.txt (50 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 illustrates that in some cases there is no

 2 alternative access provided to the private

 3 property owner. And I hope you can see, in

 4 fact, the crossing that is on Maguire Parkway

 5 which is on the lower middle of the page

 6 there. But that is a couple of businesses

 7 that that's their only access.

 8 The rights assigned to the private

 9 crossing holders very greatly. A holder of

10 the right or privilege to cross may hold

11 outright ownership of the underlying

12 property, or they may have a documented

13 easement over the railroad property. Where

14 it's recognized, the holder may have a

15 prescriptive easement or squatters rights.

16 There may be a documented license under

17 contract, or there may be a verbal license

18 which could be subject to revocation without

19 notice. Railroads may require the crossing

20 holders to purchase or to provide some other

file:///D|/A007788.txt (51 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 protection in the event of a collision at the

22 crossing. Contracts or other legal documents

23 may further define responsibilities such as

24 maintenance of the crossing surface or

25 providing notifications under stated

 26

file:///D|/A007788.txt (52 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 conditions. The confirmation and use of

 2 signs, signals, pavement markings and any

 3 other traffic-control devices placed at

 4 public crossings generally conform to the

 5 guidance provided in the manual on uniform

 6 traffic-control devices. In most states,

 7 this is not true of private crossings. The

 8 arrangement of private crossing signs can be

 9 highly individual. I just have a series of

10 slides here illustrating some of the

11 configurations that we have found. Sign

12 maintenance may be somewhat sketchy, or it

13 may be almost nonexistent. The FRA solicits

14 discussion and comments on all areas of

15 safety at private crossings but particularly

16 encourages discussion on the following

17 topics: At-grade highway-rail crossings

18 present an inherent risk to users including

19 the railroad and its employees as well as to

20 other persons in the vicinity should a train

file:///D|/A007788.txt (53 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 derail into an occupied area or release

22 hazardous materials. From the standpoint of

23 public policy, how do we determine whether

24 creation or continuation of a private

25 crossing is justified. How do we determine

 27

file:///D|/A007788.txt (54 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 when a private crossing has a public purpose

 2 and is subject to public use? How should

 3 improvement or maintenance responsibilities

 4 be allocated? Is there a need for

 5 alternative dispute mechanisms to handle

 6 disputes between railroads and private

 7 crossing holders? Should some crossings be

 8 categorized as commercial crossings rather

 9 than private crossings? Should there be

10 nationwide standards for warning devices at

11 private crossings or for intersection design

12 for newly created private crossings? Are

13 there innovative traffic-control devices that

14 could improve safety of private crossings on

15 major rail corridors including those on which

16 passenger service is provided? Is the

17 current assignment of responsibility for

18 safety at private crossings effective? Do

19 risk management practices associated with

20 insurance arrangements result in some kind of

file:///D|/A007788.txt (55 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 regulation of safety at private crossings?

22 Should the state and federal governments

23 cooperatively work together to determine

24 responsibility and to provide oversight?

25 Should the USDOT request enactment of

 28

file:///D|/A007788.txt (56 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 legislation to address private crossings? If

 2 so, what should that legislation include?

 3 As much as I like the sound of my

 4 own voice, I'm actually going to stop here,

 5 but I will leave this slide up here and, in

 6 fact, it's on the last slide of the

 7 presentations there in case any of you should

 8 choose to submit a written statement to the

 9 docket in addition to speaking here today.

10 Thank you.

11 MR. GRADY COTHEN: Thank you, Miriam,

12 for that overview. Appreciate it.

13 I think we are ready to hear from

14 our colleagues. I'd like to start if I may,

15 with at least the first to sign up.

16 Peggy Baer is a valued colleague

17 from the Iowa Department of Transportation;

18 if you are ready.

19 MS. PEGGY BAER: I just signed up to

20 come to the meeting. I didn't sign up to --

file:///D|/A007788.txt (57 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 MR. GRADY COTHEN: Do we have others

22 from state DOTs in the region?

23 Yes, sir?

24 MR. RONALD ADAMS: Ron Adams.

25 MR. GRADY COTHEN: Ron, good to see you

 29

file:///D|/A007788.txt (58 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 again, from Wisconsin. I should have greeted

 2 you earlier. There is one group we can

 3 always count on for a few good words to start

 4 off a discussion, and that's the Association

 5 of American Railroads. They are kind of camp

 6 followers; wherever we go, they show up. And

 7 we are appreciative that Bob VanderClute who

 8 is executive vice president at the AAR has

 9 seemed fit to travel and be with us, and so

10 let's ask Bob to lead off then.

11 MR. ROBERT VANDERCLUTE: Thank you,

12 Grady. On behalf of the association and its

13 member railroads, I want to thank you for the

14 opportunity to present the railroad

15 industry's view on private highway-rail grade

16 crossing safety. Grade crossing safety is

17 certainly a very important issue, and I think

18 we certainly covered the highlights very

19 well. Most fatalities and injuries occurring

20 at-grade crossings take place at public

file:///D|/A007788.txt (59 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 crossings. However, as the FRA data shows,

22 there are a significant number of incidents

23 that occur at private crossings. As the FRA

24 points out in the notice announcing this

25 meeting, there is a number of different types

 30

file:///D|/A007788.txt (60 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 of private grade crossings. Consequently

 2 there is no easy answer to the question of

 3 how to reduce the occurrence of incidents at

 4 private crossings.

 5 For example, some private grade

 6 crossings are equipped with active warning

 7 devices such as gates, lights and bells as we

 8 have seen. Some private crossings are

 9 heavily used by the general public such as

10 crossings providing access to shopping

11 centers or recreation areas. And some

12 private crossings are for industrial use only

13 but -- be made by -- might be used by

14 business employees, contractors and

15 suppliers. And some private crossings are

16 used only for the access to a home or a farm.

17 The frequency with which private crossings

18 are used can also vary widely. Some farm

19 crossings, for example, might be used only a

20 couple of times annually while there are

file:///D|/A007788.txt (61 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 commercial and industrial crossings which are

22 used by many motor vehicles daily.

23 Furthermore, as the FRA points out in the

24 meeting notice, the legal status of private

25 crossings vary considerably.

 31

file:///D|/A007788.txt (62 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 In many cases railroads have no

 2 authority to close or relocate private

 3 crossings or condition the use on the

 4 institution of appropriate safety measures.

 5 For example, a private crossing may exist as

 6 the result of a deed granted when the

 7 railroad right-of-way was created. Or a

 8 state might require a railroad to grant

 9 farmers "suitable and convenient crossings,"

10 that they may continue in existence

11 regardless of the frequency of which they are

12 used.

13 Another issue is the nature of

14 private crossings might change without the

15 analysis of safety implications. A crossing

16 that might only have been used by a land

17 owner when first created could turn into a

18 busy residential, industrial or commercial

19 crossing later. If the crossing were a

20 public crossing, a diagnostic team might

file:///D|/A007788.txt (63 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 evaluate the consequences of the change in

22 use. In the case of a private crossing

23 however, there is no mandate that such an

24 examination take place. Typically the users

25 of private crossings should bear the cost of

 32

file:///D|/A007788.txt (64 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 the safety improvements at the crossing for

 2 the benefit they receive from the crossing,

 3 however, it may be appropriate for public

 4 funding to be provided at private crossings

 5 that resemble public crossings.

 6 Finally, in the meeting notice the

 7 FRA asks about the extent to which insurance

 8 arrangements affect safety at public and

 9 private crossings. In the railroad's

10 experience, insurance requirements do not

11 drive the safety measures undertaken at a

12 private crossing. The AAR and its member

13 railroads look forward to this hearing, the

14 ideas by others on how private crossings can

15 be improved. And once again, I thank you for

16 the opportunity to provide our views to you.

17 MR. GRADY COTHEN: Thanks, Bob. We have

18 another thankful camp follower with us in the

19 person of Tim DePaepe who is the director of

20 research with Brotherhood of Railroad

file:///D|/A007788.txt (65 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 Signalmen. And we want to hear from Tim

22 concerning his research.

23 MR. TIM DEPAEPE: Thank you, Grady. And

24 it is true that Bob and I travel together.

25 We testify at Congress together, we get to

 33

file:///D|/A007788.txt (66 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 sit together a lot. People think that we are

 2 at odds sometimes, but we are not. A lot of

 3 times we are on the same page, and I think

 4 this is one of them. Originally I wasn't

 5 going to speak today, but after reading the

 6 notice, the FRA specifically asked a series

 7 of questions or comments and I felt and the

 8 Brotherhood of Railroads and Signalmen felt

 9 that it would be appropriate to comment on

10 them. Our first comment is that it's our

11 position that the FRA should prohibit the

12 creation of new private crossings and work

13 toward eliminating as many existing private

14 crossings as possible. The best way to

15 reduce accidents and fatalities is through

16 the elimination of unprotected private

17 crossings. However, if the FRA determines

18 that it wants to allow the creation of new

19 private crossings, then the new crossings

20 should have at a minimum a set of grade

file:///D|/A007788.txt (67 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 crossing signal system flashing light

22 signals.

23 You also asked about how the

24 improvement in our maintenance costs with

25 private crossings should be allocated. We

 34

file:///D|/A007788.txt (68 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 believe they should be split equally between

 2 the state government, federal government and

 3 the property owner, however, each case should

 4 be evaluated on its own merit. There may be

 5 some cases where the responsibility

 6 allocation should be adjusted. The state and

 7 federal government, for instance, should

 8 split the cost of the crossing warning system

 9 where school bus or other public

10 transportation entity may utilize the

11 crossing. You asked specifically should the

12 state and federal government assume greater

13 responsibility for safety of private

14 crossings or the intersection design of new

15 private crossings. My organization feels

16 very strongly about that. Even at public

17 crossings, design flaws have created

18 terrible -- or resulted in terrible

19 accidents.

20 Fox River Grove in Illinois is a

file:///D|/A007788.txt (69 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 good example. I mean, that's a public

22 crossing that had a poor design. And as the

23 former maintainer on that railroad, I can

24 speak specifically to that issue.

25 The private crossings, they have

 35

file:///D|/A007788.txt (70 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:33 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 nothing as your pictures showed, you know, in

 2 some of the cases where you put signage up,

 3 the vegetation covered it. There is nothing

 4 that says you have to cut vegetation at a

 5 private crossing. But we believe the state

 6 and federal government should assume greater

 7 responsibility, you know, clearly by -- if no

 8 other reason, by the amount of fatalities

 9 that are happening. Not only are you killing

10 the general public; as you alluded to, the

11 train crews, the engineers or conductors are

12 the first ones that are usually -- sometimes

13 the only ones that get killed at crossings.

14 Then you have the hazmat release which

15 creates even a bigger problem. There are way

16 too many accidents and an unacceptable number

17 of fatalities along with them. Again, we

18 can't reiterate enough, we believe that no

19 private crossing should be created in the

20 future unless they are equipped with active

file:///D|/A007788.txt (71 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 crossing warning devices. And we also

22 believe there should be nationwide standards

23 for warning devices at private crossings and

24 for intersection design. As Miriam's slides

25 show, we believe they should be patterned

 36

file:///D|/A007788.txt (72 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 after the standards contained in the Manual

 2 on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Part 8

 3 which is subtitled Traffic Controls for

 4 Highway-Rail Grade Crossings. By taking this

 5 action, the users of the private crossings

 6 will be conditioned to respond to the stimuli

 7 that they encounter at other highway-rail

 8 grade crossings. We believe that there

 9 should be consistency in the message for the

10 warning so that if there are public or

11 private they get the same message and they

12 take -- they take the same behavior.

13 You asked about how do you

14 determine when a private crossing has a

15 public purpose and subject to public use.

16 It's our position that a private crossing

17 should be defined as one used by a sole land

18 owner or lessee. Once any other individuals

19 routinely use the crossing, it should no

20 longer be considered a private crossing but

file:///D|/A007788.txt (73 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 as a public crossing. You talked about

22 commercial crossings rather than private

23 crossings. As the organization that

24 represents the men and women that maintain,

25 install and repair public grade crossing

 37

file:///D|/A007788.txt (74 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 warning devices, we are very familiar with

 2 what you are terming commercial crossings.

 3 Oftentimes the only vehicular traffic on a

 4 private crossing will be trucks servicing a

 5 local industry; for example, cement trucks

 6 going in and out of a stone quarry next to

 7 railroad tracks. We believe it's imperative

 8 that any private crossing that serves an

 9 industry should be held to the same standards

10 for the highway-rail grade crossing signal

11 system requirements. Due to the types of

12 trucks and materials that they carry, the

13 severity of an accident at these crossings

14 would be greater than an accident between a

15 car and a train. Trucks carrying hazardous

16 materials pose an even greater danger.

17 You also -- you asked about

18 innovative traffic control treatments that

19 can improve safety at private crossings on

20 major rail corridors. There is a lot of

file:///D|/A007788.txt (75 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 things out there that a lot of people are

22 trying to do to improve protection of

23 passenger crossings. In our opinion they are

24 not quite there yet. They don't offer the

25 level of protection that improving technology

 38

file:///D|/A007788.txt (76 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 does, you know, the simple flashers, the

 2 signal system flasher arrangement that's out

 3 there now. Some of the things that they are

 4 proposing that ITS America is doing, pilot

 5 projects, they are innovative, but again they

 6 are not practical at this time. We believe

 7 you should stick with proven technology and

 8 utilize that.

 9 We finally ask: Should the DOT

10 request enactment of legislation to address

11 private crossings? We believe they should

12 request enactment of legislation to address

13 private crossings. There is not enough being

14 done to reduce accidents and fatalities at

15 private crossings. At a minimum, the

16 legislation should include the site-line

17 distances signage requirements and grade

18 crossing signal flashing light signals. We

19 are killing too many people, and we believe

20 that the DOT should step up and start taking

file:///D|/A007788.txt (77 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 care of it.

22 On behalf of my president,

23 Dan Pickett, I appreciate the opportunity to

24 speak here, and I would be willing to answer

25 any questions that anyone may have.

 39

file:///D|/A007788.txt (78 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 MR. GRADY COTHEN: Thanks, Tim. We

 2 appreciate you addressing those issues.

 3 Competing for the greatest distance traveled

 4 to come to this meeting is Ms. Patty Abbate

 5 as director of Citizens for Rail Safety.

 6 Patty, can we here from you now?

 7 MS. PATRICIA ABBATE: Sure. Thank you.

 8 I want to thank you all for the opportunity

 9 this morning. It's my pleasure to be here,

10 and I look forward to a great discussion

11 after all the statements are out. I'm with

12 Citizens for Rail Safety. We are a national

13 nonprofit based in Massachusetts that deals

14 with all kinds of safety issues.

15 For far too long rail grade

16 crossing safety at private railroad crossings

17 has been a neglected issue on a national

18 scale. According to FRA records, there are

19 more than 94,000 virtually unregulated

20 private crossings in the U.S. today. Most of

file:///D|/A007788.txt (79 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 these crossings have little more than a

22 crossbuck or stop sign to alert an

23 approaching motorist or pedestrian. In fact,

24 fewer than 2 percent of private crossings are

25 equipped with any kind of accurate warning

 40

file:///D|/A007788.txt (80 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 device. Despite the fact that the number of

 2 private grade crossings has been steadily

 3 declining since 1975, with 34 percent fewer

 4 crossings today than 30 years ago, the number

 5 of casualties is increasing at these sites.

 6 The subject of railroad safety of

 7 these railroad crossings remains such a

 8 critical issue that we at Citizens for Rail

 9 Safety are currently working with professors

10 and researchers at the University of

11 Tennessee in a study that is exploring this

12 very subject. Findings and recommendations

13 from this study will be released in the fall

14 of 2006. Along with the Federal Railroad

15 Administration, we recognize that private

16 railroad grade crossings present a unique set

17 of challenges where safety is concerned. The

18 lack of a uniform approach to safety for the

19 nearly 100,000 private railroad crossings

20 continues to be one of the main reasons why

file:///D|/A007788.txt (81 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 we are still faced with a conundrum of how to

22 ensure safety at these sites. Unfortunately

23 accidents and deaths at private crossings

24 continue to occur. Just three weeks ago

25 today on August 16th one teenager died and

 41

file:///D|/A007788.txt (82 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 three of her friends were hospitalized when

 2 the car they were traveling in was hit by a

 3 train at a private crossing in Rome, New

 4 York. Police reports indicate that the

 5 tracks had no warning lights or gates.

 6 However, the site did have a stop sign almost

 7 nearly completely covered with foliage and a

 8 crossbuck was posted as well. According to

 9 police, the crossing was used as an access to

10 a quarry near a river where people visit to

11 park or walk the trails. In this incident,

12 the private crossing was known to be used not

13 just by property owners, but by others as

14 well on a regular basis.

15 In a case like this, who is

16 ultimately responsible for the tragic

17 accident; the property owner, the railroad,

18 the local government, the federal government,

19 the driver of the car? The conundrum

20 continues. And for the families of the

file:///D|/A007788.txt (83 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 victims, there is no resolution. As we

22 continue to study safety issues of private

23 highway-rail grade crossings, we must keep in

24 mind that the railroads, both freight and

25 passenger, are increasingly becoming more

 42

file:///D|/A007788.txt (84 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 important to our national economy. The rise

 2 in rail traffic that economists predict over

 3 the next decade will further put safety

 4 issues to the test at these private

 5 crossings. At this time, it is critical that

 6 we find a solution to the growing safety

 7 concerns that loom before us here. We also

 8 recognize that all private crossings are not

 9 created equal. Some are used infrequently

10 and others are used so extensively that the

11 term "commercial crossing" should be used

12 instead of private crossing. Private

13 crossing rights vary from crossing to

14 crossing with legal rights of ownership and

15 usage blurred.

16 But despite the differences in

17 traffic volume, despite the differences in

18 legal rights, despite the differences in

19 ownership, it is clearly time for

20 responsibility to be assumed and for safety

file:///D|/A007788.txt (85 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 to become a priority at our private

22 highway-rail grade crossings. Active warning

23 devices have contributed to the decrease in

24 casualties at public highway-rail grade

25 crossings, so it stands to reason that the

 43

file:///D|/A007788.txt (86 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 introduction of lights and gates will also

 2 increase safety at private crossings. As the

 3 railroads, government, private industry and

 4 citizens take a closer look at this

 5 situation, together we need to consider

 6 revisiting a recommendation made back in '99

 7 to treat private crossings the same as public

 8 crossings with all the same safety

 9 regulations in place. We need to explore

10 public private governmental partnerships to

11 ensure that the most dangerous private

12 highway-rail grade crossings are protected

13 with active warning devices.

14 We need to actively eliminate the

15 number of private crossings whenever

16 possible. We need to create an atmosphere of

17 cooperation and shared responsibility so that

18 private crossings will get the attention to

19 safety that public crossings have. It is not

20 acceptable for dangerous private highway

file:///D|/A007788.txt (87 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 grade crossings that are frequently used by

22 the public to be identified with only a stop

23 sign that is obscured by foliage. There must

24 be action taken, responsibility assumed and

25 safety regulations created and enforced so

 44

file:///D|/A007788.txt (88 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 that we can reduce the number of accidents,

 2 injuries and deaths that occur at these

 3 private highway-rail grade crossings.

 4 Thank you.

 5 MR. GRADY COTHEN: Thank you. I tried

 6 to prepare folks who called in and let us

 7 know they were coming with the signup list

 8 today and those who indicated an interest in

 9 speaking today in terms of an initial

10 statement. And anyone is free, of course, to

11 speak during the discussion period. Anyone

12 is free, whether signed up or not, to make an

13 initial statement. I don't find others

14 signed up to make initial statements, but

15 that may be because I'm misunderstanding what

16 I have in front of me. Is there anyone else

17 that would like to just lay out issues, views

18 or concerns at the outset? I see a number of

19 my friends and colleagues from the railroad

20 industry that I know and I know that there

file:///D|/A007788.txt (89 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 are others here that I have not met

22 previously who are very knowledgeable on the

23 subject matter. So they are certainly

24 encouraged to speak. The ignorance of your

25 government is beyond reproach unless you do.

 45

file:///D|/A007788.txt (90 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 Let me offer a few more things as openers, if

 2 you will, and then we'll take a courtesy

 3 break here and return for some discussion.

 4 Part of this is: How do we

 5 organize this activity going forward, because

 6 I know your organization will be interested

 7 in it and as it proceeds to the next venue

 8 and moves toward some kind of conclusion.

 9 First of all, let me remind you of the

10 recommendations of the National

11 Transportation Safety Board's report. In

12 Miriam's mind, it was a 1997 report, but

13 that's because it took her nearly a year to

14 get it cleared; something that we bureaucrats

15 know a lot about. Here are some key

16 recommendations. There were a number of

17 recommendations, and I certainly won't read

18 all of them that were addressed in a number

19 of organizations.

20 Here are some key recommendations:

file:///D|/A007788.txt (91 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 Modify the grade crossing inventory system to

22 include information on the site distances

23 available to a motorist and presence of

24 curves on the roadway and on the tracks;

25 direct the states to include these data as a

 46

file:///D|/A007788.txt (92 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 part of regularly scheduled updates of the

 2 database. That's what's known, Susan, as an

 3 unfunded mandate.

 4 For the board, it's a

 5 recommendation for us, it's an unfunded

 6 mandate. I would say that we have going on

 7 now the conclusion of an Office of Inspector

 8 General investigation at FRA that also asked

 9 us to look at the issue of additional data

10 elements that would help us better understand

11 why some of these events are according both

12 at private and public crossings. So I think

13 it's a very topical issue. We've had this

14 NTSB recommendation too long already and are

15 about to get further recommendations from

16 Inspector General going generally to that

17 same complex of issues. There are related

18 issues. FRA tries to maintain a GIS database

19 that includes the location of public and

20 private crossings. It's been a challenge for

file:///D|/A007788.txt (93 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 our folks in the office of policy to do that

22 over the years. Railroads, major freight

23 railroads have their systems, by in large,

24 GIS mapped to a very high degree of

25 resolution. However, those databases are not

 47

file:///D|/A007788.txt (94 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 available to us by in large.

 2 We also have a very old, old Rail

 3 Garrison database which has some information

 4 which is still relevant but other information

 5 that's no doubt badly out of date. Another

 6 recommendation from the board, install within

 7 two years of receiving federal funding stop

 8 signs at all passive grade crossings unless a

 9 traffic engineering analysis determines that

10 installation of the stop sign would reduce

11 the level of safety at a crossing. Crossings

12 where conditions are such that the

13 installation of stop signs would reduce the

14 level of safety should be upgraded with

15 active warning devices or should be

16 eliminated. Since the board's

17 recommendation, the Federal Highway

18 Administration and FRA have made additional

19 efforts to clarify the department's position

20 on use of stop signs and at public crossings

file:///D|/A007788.txt (95 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 where the Federal Highway Administration has

22 direct interest, there is encouragement to

23 look at the use of stop signs, but with the

24 crossbuck being still the basic unit.

25 Subsequent to that; and by the way,

 48

file:///D|/A007788.txt (96 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 Ron can correct me, but my memory of this

 2 situation is that the last analysis we did is

 3 that placement of stop signs has the effect

 4 overall, lots of crossings, of probably

 5 reducing the risk of crossing on the order of

 6 20 percent. And that's kind of a historical

 7 number and does not include locations where

 8 there's active enforcement. Obviously it's

 9 private highway-rail crossings. The issue of

10 getting active enforcement is a much bigger

11 one and indeed a lot of the resistances occur

12 on the highway side to the use of stop signs

13 and crossings in addition to the danger of

14 rear-end collisions at those locations has

15 been related to the concern over how much

16 active enforcement there would be at those

17 locations to the extent to which motorists

18 heeding of stop signs might be diluted by the

19 failure of enforcement. So here we have the

20 board saying: Go do a traffic engineering

file:///D|/A007788.txt (97 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 study, place a stop sign there unless it is

22 unsafe to do so. And if it is, you really

23 need to go to active warning devices or close

24 the crossing which is a -- staking out a

25 position that's different than the kind of

 49

file:///D|/A007788.txt (98 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 position generally applied at public

 2 highway-rail crossings, but the board was

 3 saying this for both public and private

 4 crossings in the passive crossing study. And

 5 then of course another recommendation would

 6 be the enforcement issue.

 7 Something that we try to reinforce

 8 actively, a law enforcement liaison,

 9 enforcement of all signage at highway-rail

10 crossings, but it's very difficult to get

11 cooperation on obviously a private crossing

12 setting for obvious reasons. Are you puzzled

13 yet? We are.

14 Here is another one, and I think it

15 will apropos some of Miriam's slides,

16 evaluate periodically, at least every five

17 years, all passive grade crossings to

18 determine compliance. And this is the

19 state's personal response, second and third

20 year to the state. Evaluate periodically all

file:///D|/A007788.txt (99 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 passive grade crossings to determine

22 compliance with existing guidelines of the

23 Federal Highway Administration and AASHTO

24 regarding site distances, angle of

25 intersections where the roadway meets the

 50

file:///D|/A007788.txt (100 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 track, curves on the roadway or tracks and

 2 nearby roadway intersections. Those

 3 crossings determined not to be in compliance

 4 with the guidelines initiate activity to

 5 bring these crossings into compliance

 6 wherever possible. Action item for one of

 7 our subsequent meetings would be to get some

 8 briefing on the AASHTO standards which are --

 9 perhaps I'm the only one in the room that

10 needs help on that. I certainly could use a

11 refresher. Where passive crossings cannot be

12 brought in compliance for reasons such as

13 permanent obstructions at the stop line,

14 target those crossings for installation of

15 active warning devices, grade separation at

16 closure. Aren't you glad I'm not reading all

17 of the recommendations. Here is one to the

18 departmental agencies, AAR and APTA, American

19 Public Transportation Association:

20 Participate and cooperate fully with the

file:///D|/A007788.txt (101 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 development of intelligent transportation

22 systems that will be able to alert drivers of

23 an oncoming train at passive grade crossings.

24 I would like to say that in the intervening

25 years, we really narrowed in on solutions

 51

file:///D|/A007788.txt (102 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 with regard to innovative devices. The FRA

 2 has been involved in this region in this

 3 state and the demonstration of an innovative

 4 warning system which have been placed at

 5 previously passive designed crossings and

 6 activated through GPS train location. And

 7 that's a really simple description of the

 8 technology. It was conducted under very

 9 careful FRA scrutiny, including

10 Mr. Abie [ph.] and Mr. Comstock back there.

11 And it looked like it produced some

12 interesting results. There is a major vendor

13 now that's talking about commercialization of

14 that product, and we expect to see a product

15 safety plan from that vendor on that

16 technology before long under the -- our

17 processor based rule. The board's passive

18 crossing study is available on their web site

19 and I would encourage anybody who hasn't read

20 it or hasn't read it lately to go back to it

file:///D|/A007788.txt (103 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 as an extremely useful resource. Let's take

22 a break and return in 15 minutes which I

23 think would be about ten minutes before the

24 hour, and then we'll resume with discussion.

25 If you would like to participate, feel free

 52

file:///D|/A007788.txt (104 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 to occupy a place at the table. If you feel

 2 you will not be wanting to participate in the

 3 discussion, if you could free up a spot, that

 4 would be great.

 5 Thank you.

 6 (Recess.)

 7 MR. GRADY COTHEN: We've got in this

 8 room people from the railroads who are out

 9 there wrestling with this issue every day,

10 closing crossings, getting agreements,

11 talking to engineering to get some brush

12 cleared and on and on and on. And a lot of

13 you folks know what we need to know. So we

14 encourage any of you who can to come to the

15 table. Ron Adams has come to the table from

16 the State of Wisconsin. I'd like to have a

17 really productive and realistic discussion.

18 The more realistic the discussion is, the

19 more realistic our response will be. So you

20 were warned. Okay. We are back on.

file:///D|/A007788.txt (105 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 Paul, do you want to, for the

22 people who didn't find coffee earlier, do you

23 want to tell them about the cafeteria

24 facilities we have available and see if you

25 can determine how many people want to use

 53

file:///D|/A007788.txt (106 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 them when we get to a breaking point here a

 2 couple of hours from now, or whenever it is

 3 that we are going to break.

 4 MR. PAUL COMSTOCK: Well, actually 11:30

 5 would be about the best time to go for lunch.

 6 If you go right back by the elevators in the

 7 opposite direction there is a cafeteria in

 8 there. They do have a smoking area and there

 9 is a patio outside if you want to get some

10 fresh air, ice water, coffee, the whole

11 thing. Sandwiches, salad bar, entrees.

12 MR. GRADY COTHEN: How many people are

13 likely to use the cafeteria facilities here

14 just so we can warn them.

15 (Off the record.)

16 MR. GRADY COTHEN: Anya Carroll has

17 passed out for you the list of questions from

18 the public notice. And what we thought we

19 would do as a first run at it, and we'll

20 perfect this act as we continue to the next

file:///D|/A007788.txt (107 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 stop on the road hopefully, is to do a

22 general survey of these questions and try to

23 get your thoughts on the subject matter. I

24 don't know how many of you remember

25 Gil Carmichael, but if you were in and about

 54

file:///D|/A007788.txt (108 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 the railroad industry at the time, I'm sure

 2 you do. And Mr. Carmichael was our

 3 administrator during the first Bush

 4 administration and -- George Herbert Walker

 5 Bush administration, and Mr. Carmichael would

 6 always surprise us by saying that you

 7 wouldn't build a road across a runway, would

 8 you? And you know it was a startling obvious

 9 observation, but his next point was always

10 that the railroads are highways of interstate

11 commerce, and really it's not a good way to

12 plan your transportation system to have a

13 grade crossing every mile. And of course

14 it's not. It's not a good thing for railroads

15 or communities, it causes us to disburse our

16 resources and have a difficult time

17 addressing safety needs at each of those

18 locations rather than being able to focus on

19 a smaller number of locations, but here we

20 are. This is where we find ourselves still

file:///D|/A007788.txt (109 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 even after all the efforts of the railroads

22 and all the abandonments and consolidations

23 and so forth and so on, with probably in

24 excess of 90,000 private highway-rail

25 crossings. So the first question has to do

 55

file:///D|/A007788.txt (110 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 with how do we determine whether creation or

 2 continuation of a private crossing is

 3 justified. And obviously we don't want

 4 anybody's property to be landlocked, and if

 5 there is insufficient alternative access, I

 6 think most of us would recognize that that's

 7 a legitimate concern that we've got to take

 8 into consideration. But being landlocked and

 9 inconvenienced are two different things, and

10 I know that's a good part of the discussions

11 that goes on.

12 Who would like to be first out on

13 this topic? Anya and Steve will take some

14 notes for us.

15 MR. ROBERT OPAL: Bob Opal, Union

16 Pacific railroad, law department. Let me

17 just make one observation on this question.

18 One of the problems is that in most areas of

19 the country there is not a decision-making

20 process for whether a private crossing is

file:///D|/A007788.txt (111 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 justified. The -- typically the decision --

22 in the public crossing area, the decision of

23 whether a public crossing is necessary and

24 what it should look like is typically

25 something that is done by a state regulatory

 56

file:///D|/A007788.txt (112 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 commission of some kind. But in most states,

 2 they don't do that with respect to private

 3 crossings. They don't decide whether a

 4 private crossing is necessary, or not

 5 necessary, what it should look like, whether

 6 it should still exist, whether is should be

 7 closed. So there really isn't a coordinated

 8 decision-making process for making the

 9 decision as to whether the creation or

10 continuation of a private crossing is

11 justified. To the extent there is a

12 decision-making process, it tends to be state

13 courts, real estate property law concepts

14 like easements, prescriptions like you saw on

15 your slide, but not a -- with a few

16 exceptions, not an overall decision-making

17 process as to whether the crossing should

18 exist like you see in the public crossing

19 area. Lack of process; typically because the

20 agencies do not have jurisdiction.

file:///D|/A007788.txt (113 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 MR. GRADY COTHEN: Nobody is required to

22 answer any question asked, okay. And Bob

23 knows that better than anybody. Would the

24 Union Pacific have criteria that you would

25 try to apply when someone steps forward with

 57

file:///D|/A007788.txt (114 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 a request for a new crossing?

 2 MR. ROBERT OPAL: I would think Dave

 3 would have to answer that. Generally, we

 4 wouldn't be very receptive.

 5 MR. GRADY COTHEN: I understand. We do

 6 have a docket -- to know that to make

 7 statements at public proceedings we do have a

 8 public docket and any thoughts that the

 9 railroads have as to the considerations that

10 they look at in deciding whether or not to

11 let somebody open a crossing. I'm sure in

12 some cases, the prospective holder of this

13 right to cross probably owns the underlying

14 real estate and doesn't -- you know, perhaps

15 not so much in the west, but certainly in the

16 east it's not easy for the railroad to say

17 no. But if you have considerations that

18 you've applied that include public interest

19 considerations beyond the safety of your

20 operations, which certainly is an important

file:///D|/A007788.txt (115 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 one, that might be of interest.

22 MR. TIM DEPAEPE: Tim DePaepe,

23 brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen. There has

24 got to be a process, Grady, because there are

25 many locations, for example, by our

 58

file:///D|/A007788.txt (116 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 headquarters in Front Royal, Virginia, there

 2 is five private crossings before a public

 3 crossing, and it's within -- I don't even

 4 think it's a mile. And they have signage up

 5 at each crossing. I mean, there is no reason

 6 to have these five crossings there. I mean

 7 it would be nothing just to put one access,

 8 maybe put gates or flashers at it to protect

 9 it better, and then you've just eliminated

10 five private crossings. But I'm not aware of

11 any process out there that would get the

12 different parties that have the different

13 access together to come to a decision to

14 eliminate them, but there should be a process

15 in place where you can do things like that.

16 MR. GRADY COTHEN: Do you think -- Tim,

17 certainly that's better to carry out at the

18 state level, right?

19 MR. TIM DEPAEPE: If you can keep the

20 feds out of it, you are much better off.

file:///D|/A007788.txt (117 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 MR. GRADY COTHEN: Well, we have

22 unanimity at the table then -- maybe not.

23 MS. SUSAN AYLESWORTH: Susan Aylesworth,

24 Minnesota DOT. We have attempted to close

25 public crossings in the state of Minnesota

 59

file:///D|/A007788.txt (118 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 and with limited success, certainly. And

 2 even though we have a very specific process

 3 to do it, generally speaking, the

 4 administrative law judge recommends that the

 5 crossing be created. Fortunately we have

 6 gotten them to agree to lights and gates at

 7 all of those crossings, but still we're

 8 creating crossings. We probably create as

 9 many crossings as we close so we're probably

10 doing net zero right now. And the closures

11 don't often come with the openings. In other

12 words, we might negotiate a crossing that's

13 closed in one location, we'll have one that's

14 requesting an opening in another. And so I'm

15 thinking that if it's that hard to close a

16 public crossing then, how much harder would

17 it be to close a private one. Some of it is

18 a resource question, because to -- I'm

19 involved in a hearing right now, we are going

20 into our third day on the opening of a public

file:///D|/A007788.txt (119 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 crossing and there is at least one additional

22 day beyond the testimony. So that's four

23 days, lots of witnesses, a lot of money going

24 into requesting that this crossing be opened.

25 And while I can't predict the

 60

file:///D|/A007788.txt (120 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 outcome, as you can see it's a

 2 labor-intensive process, so I would suggest

 3 that a closure would involve as many days and

 4 as many witnesses. And who is going to bear

 5 the cost of that?

 6 MR. RONALD ADAMS: Ron Adams, Wisconsin

 7 Department of Transportation. We are not the

 8 regulatory agency with jurisdiction to close

 9 crossings in Wisconsin, public or private in

10 Wisconsin. Our only involvement with private

11 crossings is our state law that says the

12 railroads have to provide suitable and

13 convenient farm crossings. That

14 definition -- the wording "farm crossing" is

15 misleading because statutorily -- by the

16 courts, it's been interpreted to be anything

17 other than a public crossing for any purpose,

18 so it makes it difficult. A lot of the

19 private crossings are out there for historic

20 reasons, either they were given by the

file:///D|/A007788.txt (121 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 landowner -- given to the landowner as part

22 of the deal the railroad cut to initially

23 have their line crossing his property. In

24 some cases, it's -- they were created by

25 inaction on the railroad's part of paying

 61

file:///D|/A007788.txt (122 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 attention to what's happening on their

 2 property, quite frankly. And the other

 3 difficulty if you want to change the

 4 character of the crossing in Wisconsin, we

 5 have -- the public has jurisdiction only when

 6 a crossing is going from a public access,

 7 public highway to a public road.

 8 And so if public maintenance stops

 9 before the crossing, then it becomes a -- it

10 is a private crossing. And in some cases

11 those continuations of roads don't meet any

12 public standards for the roadway, so the

13 local road jurisdiction doesn't want them.

14 They don't want the responsibility, not only

15 for the crossing, but they don't want

16 responsibility for maintaining the road in

17 the future because it doesn't meet even

18 minimal standards. Because in a lot of

19 cases -- in some cases maybe, the

20 construction of it was such that it was truly

file:///D|/A007788.txt (123 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 a private entry into a small area at first

22 that has changed the character over time.

23 And I would argue that in some cases that

24 character has changed without the railroads

25 paying attention to it even if they had

 62

file:///D|/A007788.txt (124 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 permitted that crossing initially, they

 2 didn't keep up with what the changing

 3 character was going -- character rather

 4 was -- how it was changing over time, to see

 5 if it met their standards or the contract

 6 that they had in place if they had one in

 7 place.

 8 So it's difficult now to go in and

 9 say this crossing that's been there for 100

10 years is now a concern of the public even

11 though the character has changed greatly and

12 you have to find parties that are willing to

13 accept other responsibilities. It's not just

14 the service of the crossing or just warning

15 devices. And if you put warning devices at

16 a -- what is now a private crossing, whose

17 responsibility are they? Is the railroad

18 just going to say: Okay, we will give you a

19 fee from our system as we do an

20 interconnected highway railway signal devices

file:///D|/A007788.txt (125 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 where we've got traffic signals, and someone

22 else maintains them. And then do FRA rules

23 apply to that other private maintainer that

24 might be out there. So it's not just a

25 simple matter of saying this private crossing

 63

file:///D|/A007788.txt (126 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 is now a public crossing, there is a host of

 2 things that go with it.

 3 MS. PEGGY BARE: In Iowa we don't have a

 4 regulatory body that regulates crossings and

 5 the state DOT is only responsible for our

 6 crossings on the state system which is a very

 7 small part of the total. So if the whole

 8 issue of opening and closing crossings really

 9 falls back to the local highway jurisdiction

10 and the railroad, and that often results in a

11 lot of discussion, but frankly 95 percent of

12 the time or more the local highway authority

13 doesn't have the political will to close a

14 crossing even if they know it's the right

15 thing to do.

16 If one citizen complains, that

17 crossing will stay open. That's a tough

18 thing to -- it's just impossible to deal with

19 in our state.

20 MR. RONALD ADAMS: I think another thing

file:///D|/A007788.txt (127 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 somebody mentioned, well, separate them.

22 Well, grade separations are extremely

23 expensive, there are few pots of money that

24 can really be used for grade separation

25 either at the state or the federal level.

 64

file:///D|/A007788.txt (128 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 It's extremely difficult to get one in,

 2 especially in an urban area, you pay

 3 tremendous difficulty in doing that. Even in

 4 rural areas it's difficult to find the

 5 topography that makes it cheap to do it. So

 6 you're looking at a large expenditure of

 7 funds to separate any -- quite frankly, we're

 8 going to focus on the ones that have the most

 9 highway traffic. And so even if we could

10 spend money on other ones, there are other

11 crossings out there that have a much higher

12 payback for taking proactive actions on.

13 MR. JAMES KIENZLER: Jim Kienzler, I'm

14 director of regulatory affairs for Canadian

15 Pacific, and I'm located out of Calgary,

16 Alberta. Recognizing that Canadian

17 legislation is very different and the

18 regulatory schemes are different, Transport

19 Canada currently has two initiatives that are

20 relevant to this, they are continuing to

file:///D|/A007788.txt (129 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 draft grade crossing regulations that include

22 some safety jurisdiction over private

23 crossings. They use different terminology

24 than you use in here, but they have separated

25 them between restricted and unrestricted

 65

file:///D|/A007788.txt (130 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 private crossings. They are drafting grade

 2 crossing regulations as we speak that have a

 3 decidedly different approach toward what they

 4 term restricted and unrestricted private

 5 crossings. Those regulations and the

 6 underlying engineering standards are

 7 available through their web site, and I would

 8 recommend this group review those if they

 9 have it.

10 Secondly, they have contracted with

11 some consulting firms, IBI Group and UMA

12 Engineering, to do an extensive study of

13 private crossing safety. Again, I would

14 refer you to look at that. They just issued

15 an interim report, it deals with many of the

16 same issues and concerns. Again, different

17 legislative powers, different regulatory

18 schemes. For instance, there are laws in

19 Canada that have an appeal and binding

20 arbitration process for private landowners

file:///D|/A007788.txt (131 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 and railways in dealing with crossing access

22 and crossing locations. I think it's worth

23 you looking at.

24 MR. GRADY COTHEN: We will do that.

25 I've had some conversations with our

 66

file:///D|/A007788.txt (132 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 colleagues at Transport Canada in the past on

 2 the subject and need to refresh our status on

 3 that. Thank you.

 4 MS. SUSAN AYLESWORTH: Grady, I'd like

 5 to just comment about the cost issue for a

 6 moment. When I arrived in Minnesota about

 7 four-and-a-half years ago using our pot of

 8 money from the Section 130 program, we were

 9 able to construct approximately 40 upgrades

10 to grade crossings per year. Now, we are in

11 2006. And although our pot of money has

12 increased somewhat, the percentage of that

13 amount has left it almost the same as it was

14 in the past. In other words, the federal

15 government is not giving us the full amount

16 that was allocated. We are getting, I think,

17 85 percent of that. We are only able to do

18 about 28 crossings per year at the current

19 costs which have gone up significantly. So

20 as you can see, we are falling behind. There

file:///D|/A007788.txt (133 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 are approximately 1,500 active warning

22 devices in Minnesota leaving about 3,000

23 public grade crossings without active warning

24 devices.

25 If we were to add the approximately

 67

file:///D|/A007788.txt (134 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 2,000 private crossings to that list, several

 2 generations would be upgrading crossings at

 3 the rate of 25 or fewer per year. So it's

 4 some of -- the prospective of what we are

 5 faced with is the economic reality our state

 6 does not allocate additional funds for grade

 7 crossing safety with the exception of a small

 8 pot of money, half a million a year that is

 9 generated from fines collected by the state

10 patrol. So we are able to add that to our

11 allocation, but it still leaves us with very

12 few projects and very little that we can do.

13 Certainly we don't have enough money to do

14 any grade separations with this fund unless

15 we were able to allocate the entire amount to

16 a grade separation. So just as some

17 perspective of what the state is really able

18 to do. And in addition, from a resource

19 perspective, I think it's fair to say that

20 our state has reduced our staff sufficiently

file:///D|/A007788.txt (135 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 that I don't think we could meaningfully

22 inventory or keep track of private crossings

23 in addition to the public ones.

24 We are struggling to keep up with

25 the demand of the staffing that we have. So

 68

file:///D|/A007788.txt (136 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 I think that is another issue that needs to

 2 be recognized. I don't think our private

 3 crossings have been inventoried any more

 4 recently than the FRA database has received

 5 the information. I believe there was a

 6 comprehensive inventory done in the early

 7 '90s, that may be the extent of it on private

 8 crossings.

 9 MR. WILLIAM BROWDER: Bill Browder from

10 the AAR. To add to Tim DePaepe's statement,

11 and you may hear this in North Carolina, but

12 just to see that a -- it gets to your

13 attention in terms of numbers of private

14 crossings, that same railroad and North

15 Carolina DOT worked both very diligently in

16 the early '80s to close a series of private

17 crossings of a tank farm at Friendship, North

18 Carolina, Piedmont Triad Airport without any

19 success at all.

20 And in October of 1987, even though

file:///D|/A007788.txt (137 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 the railroad had imposed a ten mile-per-hour

22 speed limit through that particular section

23 past Chimney Creek Road, a train hit a

24 tanker, and it incinerated a set of five

25 engines and the five crewmen that were on

 69

file:///D|/A007788.txt (138 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 board. And shortly thereafter, there were

 2 some additional negotiations and a program

 3 such as Tim described was empowered through

 4 public demand for such a program. But the

 5 railroad and the state had been unsuccessful

 6 in initiating and they were even willing to

 7 pay for it at that time because it was such

 8 an issue for them.

 9 Thank you.

10 MR. RONALD ADAMS: Following up on Susan

11 and Ron Adams, about the numbers of

12 crossings. In Wisconsin at the beginning of

13 the year we had just over 4,100 public

14 at-grade crossings. 723 had gates and

15 lights. 1,100 had flashing lights or another

16 active warning device out there. We had

17 2,383 private crossings. Something to do

18 with it at some point in time if something is

19 changed, a lot of ifs in there. Our

20 legislative this year passed a law mandating

file:///D|/A007788.txt (139 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 the installation of yield signs at all

22 passively signed crossings that don't have

23 stop signs at them, and the railroads are

24 working diligently to get those installed,

25 and several of them have them installed now,

 70

file:///D|/A007788.txt (140 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 by July 1st, 2007. Again, because of the --

 2 at public crossings, didn't do anything with

 3 private crossings because we don't have

 4 jurisdiction there. But to try and raise

 5 awareness that the people are supposed to pay

 6 attention to those crossbucks out there which

 7 railroads report they don't always do. Any

 8 more than they pay attention to stop signs in

 9 rural areas. It's not a -- the grade

10 crossings are not a unique intersection. We

11 have about 120 crashes at highway-railway

12 intersections a year, it's somewhere in the

13 order of 8,000 to 10,000 crashes at

14 highway-highway intersections. So as I like

15 to tell people when talking to them about

16 highway railroad intersections, drivers do

17 dumb things at intersections and it doesn't

18 matter if it's a highway-highway intersection

19 or a highway-rail intersection.

20 MR. TIM DEPAEPE: I've got to speak on

file:///D|/A007788.txt (141 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 that issue about yield and stop signs. No

22 one has been able to show me any data that,

23 A, they've reduced incidents at private

24 crossings once they are installed. And my

25 personal experience and my organization's

 71

file:///D|/A007788.txt (142 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 position is it adds very little. We just

 2 have not seen that there is this big impact

 3 and there are people within government that

 4 think it's the end-all to the problem, just

 5 install stop signs or yield signs. What we

 6 have seen by talking to our members is people

 7 still, if they stop at all, they usually stop

 8 once they are on the track so they can look

 9 both ways and see if anything is coming. I

10 think they just -- as you said, especially in

11 the rural areas, and these are private

12 crossings, people either stop now or they

13 don't. I don't think putting up a stop sign

14 is going to make that big of a difference. I

15 really don't think that's where you want to

16 go to think you are going to stop a problem.

17 Because unless Volpe is aware of some studies

18 that I don't know about, I haven't seen any

19 data that it's working or that it's improving

20 even what's going on today.

file:///D|/A007788.txt (143 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 Thank you very much.

22 MR. GRADY COTHEN: I don't know if we

23 have any studies with passively signed

24 private crossings as to the effectiveness of

25 signs. I would think that we would be

 72

file:///D|/A007788.txt (144 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 looking hard for the data elements with

 2 regard to signage effectiveness at private

 3 crossings, you know, which is a little bit

 4 discouraging because you'd like to start with

 5 adequate data. And actually I think we've

 6 been pretty successful as a community in

 7 having enough, not the best, but everything

 8 we would like to have, but, you know, enough

 9 to do some analysis for the various

10 activities that we've done related to our

11 reflectorization and train horns and that

12 sort of thing and in evaluating in a general

13 kind of way effectiveness and counter

14 measures.

15 But this really gets us down to a

16 very difficult point. The states that

17 have -- it appears that the states that have

18 signage requirements for private crossings in

19 general, the small handful specify stop

20 signs. So there is a judgment exercise by

file:///D|/A007788.txt (145 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 somebody that, you know, the stop sign is the

22 signage of choice. As I indicated if you

23 look macro at passive crossings in the nation

24 as a whole, we do believe that stop signs

25 help, but most of those would be on public

 73

file:///D|/A007788.txt (146 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 roadways where you would have some degree of

 2 enforcement, however small.

 3 So that's a big issue for us. I

 4 mean, and how do we work through it other

 5 than just gathering up our opinions which are

 6 useful. And I think we have to do that, but

 7 you would like to drive these decisions based

 8 upon data. And certainly I think the highway

 9 community as a whole has pretty much come

10 down to passively sign crossing. If we can't

11 do any better, we'll at a minimum have a

12 crossbuck and a yield sign, and if there are

13 indications that a stop sign is needed, then

14 the stop sign will go in. And because of the

15 resource issues that Ron and Susan have been

16 referring to, you don't go to automated

17 warning devices until you get to a higher

18 level of risk. Here we have the problem

19 that, you know, do you apply MUTCD criteria

20 or not. If you do, assuming a yield sign is

file:///D|/A007788.txt (147 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 less effective, you may end up using a yield

22 sign rather than a stop sign, including in

23 places where stop signs are now at those

24 crossings.

25 Is that a good thing? I don't

 74

file:///D|/A007788.txt (148 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 know. Maybe it is. And then if you want to

 2 go for some more substantial signage, how do

 3 you do the analysis to determine whether

 4 automated warning devices are required? You

 5 don't know what the average annual daily

 6 traffic is. I think Miriam's slide said we

 7 don't even know what the train count is at

 8 the crossing. The accident-prediction

 9 formula is built around public crossings. So

10 we find ourselves in the year of our

11 Lord, 2006, in a rather primitive stage of

12 program development, and that's very

13 discouraging. And, you know, what this set

14 of meetings is all about really is: How do

15 we get traction on this thing? How do we get

16 traction?

17 Any more comments about private

18 crossings? Can we do away with them? Do we

19 have to have more?

20 MS. ANYA CARROLL: I'd like to respond

file:///D|/A007788.txt (149 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 to Tim since he asked if Volpe had any ideas

22 about studies or anything that have been

23 going on. Based on our experience supporting

24 FRA rule-making, Grady mentioned freight car

25 reflectorization which was based on

 75

file:///D|/A007788.txt (150 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 25 percent of the accidents; passively signed

 2 crossings are more affected. It took us ten

 3 years worth of data collection to support

 4 that rule.

 5 Another example I would bring to

 6 the table where it was very difficult to

 7 analyze the data in this forum is the Buckeye

 8 Shield which was implemented across Ohio,

 9 half of the passive crossings had them, half

10 of them didn't, they collected data for ten

11 years and could still not make it through the

12 MUCTD process to be a legislated -- or guided

13 sign by MUCTD. There is hope, though. DOT,

14 I think it was 2001, put together a technical

15 working group. That was made up of numerous

16 agencies and affiliations, industries, the

17 railroads looking at positive guidance for

18 how you apply technology at-grade crossings.

19 Of course it was more publicly oriented, this

20 is a private crossing issue, but it may be

file:///D|/A007788.txt (151 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 applicable.

22 They looked at the types of conditions

23 at certain crossings and where a sign would

24 be applicable and where a warning device

25 would be applicable. And if we could collect

 76

file:///D|/A007788.txt (152 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 the data that talked to train frequency and

 2 vehicle frequency, we may be able to use that

 3 document as a baseline to start from.

 4 MR. GRADY COTHEN: Good point. And one

 5 of our other colleagues mentioned the fact

 6 that we didn't brief on the technical working

 7 group report. We will endeavor to do that

 8 for the next time around. Where can it be

 9 found at this point? It was up on the web

10 site.

11 MR. WILLIAM BROWDER: On Ron Ries' web

12 site, we have a hyperlink right to it.

13 MS. SUSAN AYLESWORTH: On FRA's web site

14 too.

15 MR. RONALD RIES: Both Federal Highway

16 and Federal Railroad's web site.

17 MR. WILLIAM BROWDER: But yours is easy.

18 One more document that might be

19 consistent with what you all are talking

20 about is the Transportation Research Board

file:///D|/A007788.txt (153 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 NHRP study Number 470 which is a data-driven

22 study of identification of crossbucks by

23 groups and reaches several conclusions, which

24 I won't attempt to paraphrase, but you ought

25 to include it in your efforts. And Tim is

 77

file:///D|/A007788.txt (154 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 probably the reason that the national

 2 committee is using traffic-control devices as

 3 recommended to the FHWA language in support

 4 of yield as a default supplemental sign at

 5 public passive crossings and where diagnostic

 6 studies show it's appropriate, a stop sign.

 7 Did I get that right, Peterson?

 8 MR: PETERSON: Yes.

 9 MR. WILLIAM BROWDER: Thank you.

10 MR. GRADY COTHEN: If some of the

11 Canadian work is to be believed, and I think

12 it is, you know, there are crossings out

13 there where you probably don't want to put a

14 stop sign because you are going to bring a

15 heavy truck to a stop at a location where

16 with available sight distance they're going

17 to have great difficulty making headway and

18 clearing the crossing before the train

19 arrives; location by location kind of

20 concern. And those circumstances, a yield

file:///D|/A007788.txt (155 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 sign may actually be better. But one of the

22 really big questions it seems to me in this

23 proceeding is what should the default sign be

24 with the crossbuck. And again, as indicated,

25 that the technical working group was

 78

file:///D|/A007788.txt (156 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 comfortable with the yield signs, certainly

 2 it's an important augmentation to the

 3 crossbuck, wherever the crossbuck stands

 4 alone simply as a matter of communicating

 5 clearly to the motorist what the expected

 6 behavior is. Taking Tim's point, can we say

 7 how effective that is, well, no, we can't. I

 8 don't think we have that data at this point.

 9 I know we are going to bounce around in this

10 discussion and that's okay because Anya and

11 Steve are keeping track of where we've been.

12 I think that there was indication

13 earlier that insurance arrangements really

14 have not influenced behavior of railroads or

15 crossing holders. And these are questions,

16 by the way, that we get asked by the office

17 of management and budget and by people within

18 the Office of the Secretary. Any further

19 comment on that? I would say that certainly

20 from the Federal Railroad Administration

file:///D|/A007788.txt (157 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 standpoint I'm not aware of significant

22 influences.

23 MS. SUSAN AYLESWORTH: I can just

24 comment on my past experience in Vermont

25 where I worked in a DOT rail office. We

 79

file:///D|/A007788.txt (158 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 tried to legalize a group of private

 2 crossings along a corridor that was going to

 3 carry commuter rail or passenger rail. What

 4 it really amounted to was negotiating

 5 agreements with these landowners who had had

 6 rights not necessarily in writing, but maybe

 7 verbal agreements to cross the railroad

 8 tracks more than 100 years ago. And then

 9 these properties became developed and became

10 private homes and became very desirable

11 private homes, so their value increased

12 significantly. And in each and every case we

13 were unable to achieve some sort of legal

14 documents legalizing the crossing because the

15 property owners refused to procure the

16 insurance that the railroad requested in

17 order to finalize the deal. We were unable

18 to move the negotiation forward. We were

19 deadlocked. And the railroad obviously was

20 unwilling to actively close the crossings,

file:///D|/A007788.txt (159 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 and so I think today it's still in limbo.

22 In that instance, the sticking

23 point were the insurance requirements that

24 were being requested of these private

25 landowners. And it was not an insubstantial

 80

file:///D|/A007788.txt (160 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 amount of money even though it might be

 2 divided amongst six properties, but there

 3 were quite a few crossings in there.

 4 MR. GRADY COTHEN: In this case the want

 5 of insurance keeps us from seeing whether or

 6 not, had there been insurance in place,

 7 whether or not the underwriter or agent would

 8 have taken some action to evaluate the safety

 9 of arrangements at the location.

10 MS. SUSAN AYLESWORTH: In addition, we

11 had -- the State had upgraded all the

12 crossings for the commuter rail line, so the

13 cost of the installation was borne by the

14 State and the required easements or whatever

15 we needed, since these were private rail

16 lines was obtained. The one piece we can't

17 do was formally legalize the crossings for

18 the benefit of both the railroad and the

19 State by retro of agreement.

20 MR. GRADY COTHEN: New commuter rail and

file:///D|/A007788.txt (161 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 light rail starts are certainly something

22 that are prominent on all of our horizons.

23 And there are private crossings along those

24 railroads as Susan has indicated; an issue of

25 increasing concern.

 81

file:///D|/A007788.txt (162 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 Metrolink had one of its most

 2 serious accidents early on with a heavy truck

 3 at a private crossing. Thereafter the

 4 crossing was closed, but it's notably

 5 thereafter. There was adequate alternative

 6 access in that case. This goes to the

 7 example that Susan was just raising in that

 8 how should improvement in our maintenance

 9 costs associated with the private crossings

10 be allocated. Ron has referred to the fact

11 that very often arrangements are entered into

12 and the level of activity and presumptively

13 use of the crossing is maybe light at the

14 time the arrangements are entered into. Time

15 passes, and the use of the property changes

16 or property is enhanced in some way and now

17 you have heavier or different use. Those

18 kind of considerations were behind some

19 primitive guideline statements that we did

20 back in 1994 suggesting that since the

file:///D|/A007788.txt (163 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 railroad is not able to control the use of

22 the property, that the holder of the right to

23 cross should be responsible for enhanced

24 warning or other engineering improvements

25 associated with enhanced views.

 82

file:///D|/A007788.txt (164 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 We've heard reference to industrial

 2 and commercial crossings here. An example

 3 was recently cited to me where an eastern

 4 railroad was adding a passive signing

 5 resulting in reevaluation of the status of a

 6 private crossing which potentially could be

 7 blocked as a result of the train's use of the

 8 crossing. So we have things happening on the

 9 rail side and on the side of the crossing

10 holder and one may not be able to control

11 what the other is doing. And when you get a

12 situation like that, sometimes you can't

13 resort to law, you have to resort to equity,

14 but how do you turn that into some kind of

15 regulatory policy. Perhaps Michelle can do

16 that for us.

17 Comments on who should bear the

18 burden and why? I think -- let me pause at

19 something first of all to narrow the field.

20 I think we've heard people say, you know: If

file:///D|/A007788.txt (165 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 we've got public use, public access on a

22 crossing, so the general public is going to

23 benefit from safety enhancements to the

24 crossing, suffer the detriment if they are

25 not done, that that seems to kind of make a

 83

file:///D|/A007788.txt (166 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 case for public involvement.

 2 Now, it doesn't increase the

 3 Section 130 allocation to these folks. It

 4 does not do that. But in the best of all

 5 possible worlds, wouldn't we want the public

 6 to be involved in participating at least in

 7 some way in evaluating conditions at the

 8 crossing and funding improvements?

 9 Just to narrow the field; questions

10 or discussion?

11 MR. RONALD ADAMS: Simple answer, no.

12 MR. GRADY COTHEN: And why not?

13 MR. RONALD ADAMS: For new crossings --

14 new private crossings, there is a private

15 owner that's coming to the railroad that's

16 crossed the property, whether the private

17 owner may have the underlying fee title, may

18 not. But he's going to enter into some

19 agreement with the railroad for that action

20 whether it's because the state has a

file:///D|/A007788.txt (167 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 prescriptive law that says you shall allow it

22 or because the railroad may have a business

23 opportunity by allowing a private crossing.

24 And they will weigh those benefits versus

25 what happens at that crossing for new ones

 84

file:///D|/A007788.txt (168 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 anyway. I think the railroad is in the

 2 driver's seat as to what they can require by

 3 agreement with a private property owner; more

 4 difficult I think with the ones that are in

 5 there historically. If there is a change in

 6 character, though, I think the railroad has

 7 to take a serious look at whatever agreement

 8 they can find to say what the character of

 9 that crossing was intended to be originally

10 and go after enforcement of their agreements

11 or whatever the document was that created

12 that crossing.

13 And I know it's 150 years ago, it's

14 hard to find those things and hard to find

15 the section foreman that said: Oh, it's all

16 right if you do this. But I think they have

17 got to make that effort; time consuming as it

18 may be, because you can't go to the title

19 company to find out. If you do, you've got

20 to tell them to go back to the creation of

file:///D|/A007788.txt (169 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 the railroads to find out what the original

22 deeds said. And then you've got to know what

23 the state law was about how they acquired

24 that property, who actually has the right to

25 cross the track, whose property really is it.

 85

file:///D|/A007788.txt (170 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 It's not as simple as looking at the deeds

 2 because they might say warranty deed on it

 3 because they may not be.

 4 MR. GRADY COTHEN: You suggested a --

 5 kind of tactical reason -- I mean, that the

 6 railroad is in a position to exact --

 7 MR. RONALD ADAMS: Something.

 8 MR. GRADY COTHEN: -- reasonable

 9 contributions to doing it right. From a

10 public policy standpoint, is there a

11 complimentary argument out of a local zoning

12 law -- the, you know, there are differences

13 in counties in Maryland.

14 MR. RONALD ADAMS: Yeah.

15 MR. GRADY COTHEN: I'm a Maryland

16 resident. Between the extent of which a

17 developer will be asked to contribute to the

18 roads and sewers and so forth that serve the

19 common good there with many suggesting that

20 those public improvements should be financed

file:///D|/A007788.txt (171 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 by those who will ultimately benefit and

22 profit from sale of the properties. Is that

23 in addition to the tactile reason that you

24 suggested, is there a public policy reason of

25 that sort that we should look to?

 86

file:///D|/A007788.txt (172 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 MR. RONALD ADAMS: In Wisconsin there is

 2 pressure on the local units of government not

 3 to be able to charge those development fees

 4 to a developer. But in a lot of cases, the

 5 municipalities, before they will accept

 6 jurisdiction of a road, they want them to

 7 their standards, and sometimes it's cheaper

 8 for the developer not to bring them up to

 9 town road or city road standards and keep

10 them as a private road so that the

11 community -- the larger community doesn't pay

12 for the snow removal or the blacktopping in

13 20 years or ten years when it falls apart

14 because there are more trucks on -- even on

15 local development road gets deliveries from

16 heavier vehicles and automobiles. And if

17 it's a condo association or something like

18 that, they forget to build it into their

19 annual fees, they get hit with a big bill at

20 the end of -- when they have to do something

file:///D|/A007788.txt (173 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 on the roads. The locals don't want them if

22 they are not going to last and the developer

23 may not want to pay for them to last. And so

24 again, mandating a crossing become public is

25 only the first part of the process, I think.

 87

file:///D|/A007788.txt (174 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 It's only a small part of the process as far

 2 as determining who is doing the rest of it

 3 and who is maintaining it. Wisconsin has a

 4 program to pay the railroads for crossing

 5 signal maintenance based on the number of

 6 units, and at this point we don't -- I don't

 7 know if you have any private crossings with

 8 active warning devices, but I don't believe

 9 that those warning device units count towards

10 that payment. We are supposed to pay

11 50 percent of the cost of maintenance, but

12 the appropriation hasn't increased in a

13 number of years, so it's down to about

14 25 percent of warning device payments that

15 the state pays for.

16 MR. ROBERT OPAL: I just want to comment

17 on the suggestion that the railroads are in

18 the driver's seat on the question of the

19 creation of public -- of private crossings or

20 change of use in public crossings. It's only

file:///D|/A007788.txt (175 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 true that railroads are in the driver's seat

22 if the railroad has the right either under

23 it's -- whatever documents may exist or under

24 state law to say no.

25 And at least in my experience, that

 88

file:///D|/A007788.txt (176 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 very often is not the case and I remember a

 2 case in my Northwestern days in Illinois

 3 commuter territory where a private crossing

 4 which had been a farm crossing had changed

 5 into a -- into a development for -- I think

 6 it was condos, and we tried to get that

 7 crossing closed, and we just could not do it.

 8 And I mean, I think the gentleman from

 9 Wisconsin mentioned a little bit ago about

10 they have a law in Wisconsin about farm

11 crossings, but it's been traditionally

12 expanded to be other kinds of crossings -- if

13 you don't have the right to say no, you are

14 not going to be able to -- you are not in the

15 driver's seat. If the other party can compel

16 the creation of a crossing, compel its

17 continuation under state law or simply change

18 the use without the permission or any other

19 intervention of the railroad, can't say no,

20 he's in the driver seat. So I just think

file:///D|/A007788.txt (177 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 that -- I mean, with respect to the question

22 of looking for documents, sure we are going

23 to look for documents to the extent any

24 exists. I mean, in the case of -- it's not

25 sometimes as easy as you think. For example,

 89

file:///D|/A007788.txt (178 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 in the case of the old Northwestern railroad

 2 which was built in the Chicago area in the

 3 1850s and 1860s, records were all lost in the

 4 Chicago fire. It's not as simple as you may

 5 think.

 6 MR. GRADY COTHEN: We've worked our

 7 court reporter so hard, I think it's probably

 8 time for lunch. We really should break now

 9 if we want to get into the cafeteria. Let's

10 be back at 1:00, please.

11 (Whereupon, the deposition recessed for

12 lunch.)

13 

14 AFTERNOON SESSION

15 

16 MR. GRADY COTHEN: We are feeling very

17 lonely up here at the head table, Patty and I

18 and the others. And so if anyone else would

19 like to join us here, we would be delighted

20 to have you. And we'll resume. Hope you all

file:///D|/A007788.txt (179 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 had a good lunch. Anya Carroll is going to

22 take us back to one of the issues that Susan

23 raised as we started this activity this

24 morning.

25 MS. ANYA CARROLL: Grady wants to take a

 90

file:///D|/A007788.txt (180 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 nap, so he asked me to stand up and lead the

 2 discussion on how do we define private

 3 crossings. A number of the speakers who made

 4 opening statements talked about commercial

 5 crossings, talked about industrial crossings.

 6 We heard from CN that they have restricted

 7 and unrestricted crossings. Does anybody

 8 have an opinion of how we start the process

 9 to define or redefine? Maybe that's the

10 word; redefine private crossings.

11 MR. RONALD ADAMS: I'd say in Wisconsin

12 our laws define a public crossing as one that

13 has public roads on each side of it. If it's

14 a private road on one side and a public road

15 on the other side, it's a private crossing,

16 and we have no jurisdiction.

17 MR. RONALD RIES: And that falls in line

18 with the Federal Highway definition of a

19 public roadway for use of the funds, have to

20 be public on both sides of the crossing.

file:///D|/A007788.txt (181 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 MR. GRADY COTHEN: Is that what you

22 said; both sides?

23 MR. RONALD ADAMS: Yeah, to be a public

24 crossing it has to have a public road on each

25 side.

 91

file:///D|/A007788.txt (182 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 MS. ANYA CARROLL: Do the states follow

 2 FHWA guidance then in that you have to have

 3 public roadways on both sides of the

 4 crossing?

 5 MR. RONALD ADAMS: We would not spend

 6 federal money without complying with FHWA

 7 rules, for the record.

 8 MR. GRADY COTHEN: For the record.

 9 MS. ANYA CARROLL: So it may be that FRA

10 has to partner with FHWA if we want to even

11 think about redefining what a public crossing

12 is.

13 MR. RONALD ADAMS: The only money that I

14 know about that can be spent on private

15 crossings is through FRA from the High-Speed

16 Grade Crossing 1103 program, and that's the

17 only place we get federal dollars to spend on

18 private crossings.

19 MR. RONALD RIES: That was done through

20 statute.

file:///D|/A007788.txt (183 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 MR. RONALD ADAMS: It was done through

22 statute, correct.

23 MR. ROBERT OPAL: The issue I heard this

24 morning was not really what is a public

25 versus a private crossing, because I think

 92

file:///D|/A007788.txt (184 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 that's pretty well established. The real

 2 issue is: What are the different types of

 3 private crossings, because they differ

 4 significantly. And that's what I heard this

 5 morning. Maybe somebody else heard something

 6 else.

 7 MR. GRADY COTHEN: And that's where she

 8 is going next. But we wanted to start out

 9 with --

10 MS. ANYA CARROLL: But I wanted to

11 establish what the process is. I mean, it

12 looks like we have to go to Federal Highway,

13 it has to be a partnership among federal

14 organizations to actually redefine what this

15 is.

16 MR. WILLIAM BROWDER: Unless you

17 redefine what a public crossing is.

18 MS. ANYA CARROLL: Okay. So that's

19 another option.

20 MR. GRADY COTHEN: Is there any problem

file:///D|/A007788.txt (185 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 with the Federal Highway Administration

22 definition? Does it get us in trouble

23 anywhere?

24 MS. SUSAN AYLESWORTH: Grady, I'll give

25 an example. If the Department of Natural

 93

file:///D|/A007788.txt (186 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 Resources has an access road to some sort of

 2 recreational spot and it's not a local road

 3 authority, we don't assume that that is a

 4 public crossing even though the public will

 5 drive down that access road to get there.

 6 That's a crossing owned by a state agency.

 7 We don't think it complies with the

 8 definition of a local road authority. I

 9 could be wrong on that, but we would assume

10 that that would be a private crossing. So

11 that's some of the conundrum that we have

12 that we would not spend federal monies on a

13 crossing in that context where both sides of

14 the road are owned by another state agency.

15 MR. WILLIAM BROWDER: And another common

16 example that exists is where you have a

17 public dump and the private road to the

18 public dump is maintained by the landfill,

19 county or local or even state agency, those

20 crossings. And we've had several Amtrak

file:///D|/A007788.txt (187 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 incidents in Florida at private crossings

22 like that.

23 MS. PEGGY BAER: Ron, you may remember

24 this one in Davenport where the Levy

25 Association owns some property on the other

 94

file:///D|/A007788.txt (188 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 side of the track and there is a crossing,

 2 but the Levy Association is not considered a

 3 highway authority, so it's a private

 4 crossing.

 5 MS. ANYA CARROLL: Getting back to

 6 Grady's generic question, is there a problem

 7 with the definition of public crossings? Do

 8 we need to look at the definition of public

 9 crossings in order to address the other

10 issues that we've been talking about this

11 morning, commercial crossings, industrial

12 crossings, natural resource crossings, farm

13 crossings? I don't know how many -- maybe we

14 want to talk about type before we go there.

15 I don't know. Should we redefine public?

16 MR. WILLIAM BROWDER: I think that's a

17 question you should put out there to

18 investigators.

19 MS. ANYA CARROLL: In terms of public

20 crossings, apparently a public crossing is

file:///D|/A007788.txt (189 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 one that has public roads on either side of

22 it, correct?

23 MR. RONALD ADAMS: Not necessarily. It

24 could be a bike path, it could be a

25 pedestrian crossing that's public. It may

 95

file:///D|/A007788.txt (190 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 not be a motor vehicle crossing.

 2 MS. PATRICIA ABBATE: But if the access

 3 is a public road --

 4 MR. RONALD ADAMS: Or a publicly owned

 5 path.

 6 MS. PATRICIA ABBATE: Publicly owned.

 7 But yet there are many crossings -- private

 8 crossings where the public passes, and lots

 9 of public. So maybe you do have to redefine

10 what that means if the public is at risk at

11 these areas; even if it's privately owned or

12 corporately owned or commercially owned.

13 Because these people have to be protected

14 some way and you have to start somewhere, and

15 safety is the number one issue. But who is

16 responsible for that and there are shades of

17 gray there. Maybe this is a good question to

18 investigate.

19 MS. ANYA CARROLL: Any comments?

20 MR. GRADY COTHEN: For the purpose of

file:///D|/A007788.txt (191 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 this proceeding, is there any objection to

22 considering a private crossing to be all

23 crossings other than those nominated as

24 public by the Federal Highway Administration,

25 that is the scope of things we are going to

 96

file:///D|/A007788.txt (192 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 look at?

 2 MR. RONALD ADAMS: Current Federal

 3 Highway definition?

 4 MR. GRADY COTHEN: (Nods.)

 5 MR. RONALD ADAMS: Okay. I would go

 6 with that.

 7 MR. GRADY COTHEN: So we would be

 8 looking at these other circumstances that

 9 you've identified as areas of need in the

10 sense that there is not a federal funding

11 authority, there's no clear delineation of

12 responsibility, questions regarding

13 applicability of MUTCD and so forth.

14 MR. RONALD ADAMS: I also don't think it

15 would be as simple as changing the FHWA

16 definition of what a public crossing is to

17 make the ones that are termed private,

18 public. I think it's -- you are going to get

19 bogged down in state and local jurisdictions

20 and precedents and all that kind of stuff.

file:///D|/A007788.txt (193 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 MR. GRADY COTHEN: Sure.

22 MS. ANYA CARROLL: Well, let's pick up

23 where Grady left off. What are categories

24 of -- other than public crossings? I mean,

25 we heard a lot of discussion earlier this

 97

file:///D|/A007788.txt (194 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 morning.

 2 MR. ROBERT OPAL: Farm crossings,

 3 industrial, other commercial, residential,

 4 parens, similar to driveways, close parens,

 5 residential, parens, similar to private

 6 driveways, residential multiunit in-plant, I

 7 guess that's a form of industrial in-plant.

 8 There's two types of industrial, industrial

 9 in-plant, industrial --

10 MR. RONALD RIES: Provides access.

11 MR. ROBERT OPAL: Yeah, industrial

12 access versus industrial in-plant. That's my

13 two cents worth.

14 MS. ANYA CARROLL: Anything else that

15 you want to add to the list?

16 MS. SUSAN AYLESWORTH: I would add

17 recreational to the extent that our

18 interpretation is correct.

19 MR. ROBERT OPAL: Right. Do we want to

20 talk about non-vehicular since that was

file:///D|/A007788.txt (195 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 mentioned; pedestrian, bike trails, might be

22 recreational with a subset.

23 MR. DAVID PETERSON: Institutional, say

24 like universities. And an additional one

25 would be government or public facilities.

 98

file:///D|/A007788.txt (196 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 MS. MIRIAM KLOEPPEL: That would cover

 2 the municipal dump sort of situation?

 3 MR. DAVID PETERSON: It would cover

 4 military bases too.

 5 MR. ROBERT OPAL: Another one is

 6 internal railroad facility crossings.

 7 MR. TIM DEPAEPE: I don't know that you

 8 want to creep into that area. I mean, if you

 9 are going to regulate it all or -- I mean,

10 like Proviso Hump Yard, there's tracks all

11 over once you get in the facility off the

12 public road. You'd almost have to carve out

13 a niche for the railroads because there is no

14 way you would want to put, you know, grade

15 crossing equipment at all of those within the

16 facility itself.

17 MR. GRADY COTHEN: Yeah, I think we are

18 trying to account for categories here so that

19 we don't do things that are inappropriate,

20 you know, make appropriate distinctions.

file:///D|/A007788.txt (197 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 MR. TIM DEPAEPE: Right.

22 MS. ANYA CARROLL: Anybody else? Any

23 other types of crossings that you've seen on

24 your railroad, in your state, in your local

25 area?

 99

file:///D|/A007788.txt (198 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 Some of the regional FRA folks?

 2 Anything else?

 3 MR. BENNIE HOWE: In our situation, we

 4 have a couple cases where there is also two

 5 categories of the military base. For --

 6 Leavenworth, for example, has an access road

 7 plus inner -- like you have inner plant

 8 industrial. And we do some regulations in

 9 there; although we were told once we entered

10 that gate we are not in Kansas anymore.

11 (Laughter.)

12 MR. DAVE PETERSON: There is one more

13 important category that I believe is missing;

14 would be farm crossings, field farm

15 crossings.

16 MS. ANYA CARROLL: That was the first

17 one signed, Dave, the column. We couldn't

18 get the engineers in fast enough to remove

19 the column before we had the meeting. Are

20 there different kinds of farm crossings? We

file:///D|/A007788.txt (199 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 started to talk about government facilities,

22 military facilities, access versus

23 inter-plant in railroad yards. Are there

24 distinctions amongst the farm categories that

25 you want to bring out? I know temporally

 100

file:///D|/A007788.txt (200 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 some farm crossings are used in the summer

 2 and not in the winter -- or I'm sure it

 3 varies per region. Are there access versus

 4 inter-field, inter-plant on farm crossings

 5 you are concerned about?

 6 MS. PEGGY BAER: In Iowa we have

 7 farm-to-farm or road-to-farm crossings, but

 8 under our state law there is also

 9 agricultural-use private crossings. And the

10 one I'm thinking of is -- I got a call on the

11 Burlington Northern line where it's a hog

12 farm and they haul the hog waste across the

13 track to the sewage dump.

14 MR. WILLIAM BROWDER: One more that I

15 don't see really defined are temporary

16 private crossings. And this probably was a

17 big thing I can think that CSX had a big

18 issue with this -- and may still have it with

19 respect to logging and people cutting timber

20 and even having agreements for temporary

file:///D|/A007788.txt (201 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 private crossings on the railroad.

22 MS. SUSAN AYLESWORTH: Add to that

23 temporary private. We get a lot of requests

24 for contractors crossings. They may be

25 longer term, one to two years, but

 101

file:///D|/A007788.txt (202 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 construction crossings or contractor

 2 crossings for a duration of a particular

 3 project.

 4 MS. ANYA CARROLL: I think we are on a

 5 roll now, everybody seems to be engaged.

 6 What do you think if we take these numerous

 7 ones and try and generalize, commercial

 8 industrial -- it may help in the long run to

 9 have discussions about these things in that

10 general framework because there may be

11 certain characteristics of commercial

12 crossings versus industrial versus farm.

13 MR. GRADY COTHEN: I don't know whether

14 this takes you beyond where you want to go at

15 this point --

16 MS. ANYA CARROLL: Okay.

17 MR. GRADY COTHEN: -- Anya, but the

18 category of crossing may not correspond

19 precisely to who the users are, the

20 population of users. And I think, you know,

file:///D|/A007788.txt (203 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 obviously residential -- for instance,

22 residential seems to be obviously simple, but

23 perhaps it's not because in addition to the

24 person who maintains the residence, and let's

25 take the simple case of an extended driveway,

 102

file:///D|/A007788.txt (204 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 that person also will have business guests on

 2 the property from time to time. You know,

 3 unless they are handier than I am, the

 4 plumber is going to come out, the electrician

 5 is going to come out, maybe a yard service

 6 will come out if they're really prosperous

 7 and so forth, so you have various members of

 8 the public entering as business guests on the

 9 property. And the extent of that may

10 influence how you want to treat it.

11 MR. WILLIAM BROWDER: May not just be

12 invited guests, it may be U.S. Postal Service

13 or FedEx and DHL and those people providing

14 services; not even solicitors.

15 MR. GRADY COTHEN: Right. Correct.

16 MR. ROBERT OPAL: Well, the functional

17 differences between some of these have to do

18 with the number and types of people that may

19 be using these types of vehicles that use the

20 crossings, the periods of the year in which

file:///D|/A007788.txt (205 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 they are being used and things of that

22 nature. The residential private driveways

23 probably are going to be primarily the owner

24 plus his contractors and guests. The

25 multiunits probably going to have a lot more

 103

file:///D|/A007788.txt (206 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 general public just because of the nature of

 2 the structure. The industrial crossing is

 3 going to have general public plus big

 4 machines. The farm crossing has big machines

 5 not used as much, but they may be so large

 6 that you can't, for example, use

 7 conditional -- any kind of things we consider

 8 to be crossing signage because the combine

 9 will take it out; I mean, just a few

10 observations I have.

11 MR. GRADY COTHEN: We are working at

12 three levels at least here, the category of

13 crossing, the type of user and the nature of

14 the traffic, motor vehicles, industrial

15 equipment, boats. Some of our favorite

16 crossings in the FRA have been accesses to

17 marinas, particularly in the northeast

18 corridor where after 20 years of work we

19 still got, I think, 12 left in the north end.

20 MS. ANYA CARROLL: Any other attribute

file:///D|/A007788.txt (207 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 that anybody can think of that would help us

22 look at the functional category of crossings?

23 MR. BENNIE HOWE: I think that volume

24 has to be involved in there somewhere because

25 there is a big split on residential between

 104

file:///D|/A007788.txt (208 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 private -- going to one home and going into a

 2 trailer park or something. I think we have

 3 both of those in our region. And I think

 4 there has to be a distinction made there.

 5 MS. ANYA CARROLL: For railroad, highway

 6 and other volume, traffic volume.

 7 MR. BENNIE HOWE: I was thinking of

 8 traffic, but I suppose they both could make a

 9 big difference. I mean, we have some

10 places -- different subject, but a private

11 crossing goes into a Wal-Mart. And the

12 Marina is, Peggy, all along this bank of the

13 Mississippi River just, you know, up over the

14 levy, just little sand crossings going over

15 to the river, fishing or cabins or something

16 like that; from here all the way to forever

17 south.

18 MS. ANYA CARROLL: So how would we --

19 how would we put that in a functional sense

20 as far as the roadway is concerned? What we

file:///D|/A007788.txt (209 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 are talking about is it's -- right now it's a

22 private crossing going into a Wal-Mart or

23 it's a private crossing going into somebody's

24 private cabin on a lake. How do we

25 categorize what we are looking for? Is it

 105

file:///D|/A007788.txt (210 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 use?

 2 MR. RONALD RIES: Seems like that sort

 3 of goes to the question about public purpose

 4 and public use, seeing if there is a general

 5 open invitation for the public to come in

 6 like a Wal-Mart or an open boat ramp where

 7 the general -- anyone would be open to use

 8 it, this one type. Another would, you know,

 9 is this my home? If it's not -- I don't

10 expect everybody to come in and drive over my

11 crossing. So that might be one way of

12 looking at it.

13 MR. JIM KRIEGER: I just wanted to

14 mention that comment, it might be restricted

15 or unrestricted how to describe it.

16 MS. SUSAN AYLESWORTH: Have we captured

17 use that is not necessarily permitted, people

18 who are trespassing or people who are just

19 accustomed, the crossing is there, the owner

20 may be absentee and people have just decided

file:///D|/A007788.txt (211 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 they can cross there as sort of a -- it is a

22 trespasser because they are not invited, it's

23 not a public crossing, but it's

24 common-to-common usage because of its

25 location and access to something that people

 106

file:///D|/A007788.txt (212 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 are interested in. So it could be a farm

 2 crossing that leads to a wooded area that the

 3 kids like to go hang in because nobody sees

 4 that they are there or something like that.

 5 MS. ANYA CARROLL: How would we define

 6 that?

 7 MR. BENNIE HOWE: How about lovers'

 8 lane?

 9 MS. ANYA CARROLL: I don't think lovers'

10 lane is going to be one of the categories.

11 MR. GRADY COTHEN: We called them woods.

12 This is -- the lawyers, right, Bob, would say

13 this is really access to an attractive

14 nuisance is what this is.

15 MS. MIRIAM KLOEPPEL: Might interject at

16 this point, these are very interesting

17 elements that might help us categorize the

18 private crossings, almost none of them are

19 data that we have, and I'm curious to know

20 whether people would find it useful to

file:///D|/A007788.txt (213 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 conduct a massive inventory effort similar to

22 what we did in the 1970s to collect this kind

23 of information.

24 MS. SUSAN AYLESWORTH: We are in the

25 process of doing an inventory of our public

 107

file:///D|/A007788.txt (214 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 at-grade crossings. We ambitiously thought

 2 we could inventory 1,500 crossings a year for

 3 a three-year cycle where every crossing would

 4 be inventoried every three years. Well, that

 5 was a little ambitious, we had one person

 6 doing it, so we probably inventoried

 7 two-thirds in the last three years. So

 8 really more like 1,000 a year. We have about

 9 2,000 or so, 2,500 private crossings in the

10 state. The difficulty with inventorying

11 private crossings is they are not easily

12 locatable. Some of them are on roads that no

13 longer look like roads, some of them are in

14 between cornfields. So we have limited

15 information on the location working off of

16 either the FRA database or our own database.

17 So I'm not sure we could even capture all of

18 them if we went out on an inventory effort.

19 But then you come to the question of

20 resources. I mean, certainly that is an

file:///D|/A007788.txt (215 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 issue that is always present, we would have

22 to take that person who we have, take them

23 away from doing the public crossing inventory

24 and assign them that private crossing

25 inventory activity which I would presume

 108

file:///D|/A007788.txt (216 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 would take a lot longer to do.

 2 MR. RONALD ADAMS: Some of that

 3 information that's been mentioned about site

 4 distances, we don't even have that on public

 5 crossings in the database. So not only would

 6 you have to find it and identify the private

 7 crossings and gather all of the data that's

 8 in the inventory, but you would have to go

 9 out and reinventory for specific items on the

10 public crossings that we already know about.

11 And we haven't really talked about pedestrian

12 crossings, but in the inventory we frequently

13 don't know if those are public or private at

14 this point. And it gets confusing, it's

15 difficult to ferret it out.

16 MR. LYN HARTLEY: BNSF Railroad, I don't

17 want to discourage my friends at the FRA, but

18 then the next question is: What database are

19 you going to house this data in, are you

20 going to create a modern easily maintainable

file:///D|/A007788.txt (217 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 database to keep the data in? We certainly

22 don't want to perpetuate what we have today.

23 If any of the states as Susan has indicated

24 have already done reinventory, they may or

25 may not be sharing that because of

 109

file:///D|/A007788.txt (218 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 incompatibility of state databases and FRA

 2 databases.

 3 MS. MIRIAM KLOEPPEL: I guess I'm hoping

 4 for people to come up with suggestions.

 5 Obviously the old way of doing things would

 6 be very cumbersome. If anyone has

 7 suggestions for ways to gather information

 8 using modern technology, I'd be very open to

 9 hearing them.

10 MR. TIM DEPAEPE: Track inspectors

11 inspect the track on a weekly basis, there

12 would be nothing -- they have high-rail

13 vehicles that they have to use to inspect the

14 track. And I'm not going to speak for the

15 railroads here, but it would not be much of a

16 burden to just tell the guy: Mark down the

17 milepost. If they have some way to do it

18 with GPS tracking, I know that some railroads

19 are doing that now, but just when you go

20 through your territory, just put down the

file:///D|/A007788.txt (219 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 milepost of every private crossing, and then

22 you'd capture them all. And then turn it in

23 somehow, you know, to the FRA or whoever

24 wants to maintain the database.

25 I mean, that's one way you could

 110

file:///D|/A007788.txt (220 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 get the information without -- it's not like

 2 you are having them make a special trip, as

 3 part of his inspection he can just note that.

 4 It would be in small enough bundles, you

 5 know, that they could get it done.

 6 MR. ROBERT OPAL: It might get you

 7 locations, but it doesn't get you types

 8 because some of these types aren't evident

 9 just from the -- I mean, some of them are,

10 some of them aren't. You just don't know

11 from just the tracks.

12 MR. WILLIAM BROWDER: I'm not in a

13 position to make a statement for the railroad

14 industry or for the AAR, but to answer Lyn's

15 question and Miriam's comments, I would

16 suggest that the railroads and others make

17 concrete recommendations to the FRA at the

18 series of public hearings that they conducted

19 in connection with the revision of the grade

20 crossing inventory form. And to date I

file:///D|/A007788.txt (221 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 haven't seen any results of those hearings,

22 but I know they were on your web site and

23 that the railroads made a number of specific

24 recommendations to improve the inventory.

25 And you might want to look at those

 111

file:///D|/A007788.txt (222 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 recommendations in consideration of this

 2 issue.

 3 MS. MIRIAM KLOEPPEL: Be happy to.

 4 MR. RONALD RIES: The inventory manual

 5 is in the process of being revised and

 6 updated and are working forward to getting

 7 the public -- making public the changes that

 8 came out of the inventory. And also, Lyn, we

 9 have a pilot project going -- undergoing now

10 transferring inventory information using the

11 web through an XML format, which doesn't mean

12 anything to me, but from what I understand it

13 will take almost any format and we'll be able

14 to do it real-time on the web. So we are

15 working on ways to facilitate exchanging

16 information with states and railroads with

17 the inventory.

18 MR. WILLIAM BROWDER: I think that much

19 more addresses Lyn's question, that is the

20 process rather than the physical properties

file:///D|/A007788.txt (223 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 of the inventory.

22 MS. SUSAN AYLESWORTH: I would add

23 another comment, that, to the best of my

24 knowledge, the railroads are in the best

25 position to know what a private crossing is

 112

file:///D|/A007788.txt (224 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 and what isn't. I mean, I would guess at

 2 this point they would have some record, which

 3 is why we don't go out and make that

 4 determination. I'm assuming that they have

 5 that information and are able to get it.

 6 There are certain circumstances where that's

 7 not possible, but I believe they have the

 8 best information available, certainly better

 9 than ours.

10 MR. LYN HARTLEY: I'm going to point out

11 the obvious. The state DOTs by definition

12 this morning know what public crossing is.

13 So if you know what a public crossing is,

14 therefore by default, the balance are

15 private. I would say the states are in equal

16 position to determine a public crossing as a

17 railroad is to determine a private crossing.

18 MS. SUSAN AYLESWORTH: That is true if

19 the private crossing has access to a public

20 road. But commonly if it's between two farm

file:///D|/A007788.txt (225 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 fields and there's a farm road leading to it,

22 we wouldn't necessarily send our guy down the

23 farm road to look for a private crossing. So

24 in those instances, it's not as easy for us

25 to discern whether there is even a crossing

 113

file:///D|/A007788.txt (226 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 in that location. And that's why I'm saying

 2 you might have better information about that

 3 than we do.

 4 MR. LYN HARTLEY: Okay.

 5 MR. WILLIAM BROWDER: I've got a

 6 question for Minnesota. Are you one of the

 7 30 states that participates in the FRA

 8 inspection program?

 9 MS. SUSAN AYLESWORTH: Tim, do you want

10 to answer that?

11 MR. TIM DEPAEPE: We do not.

12 MS. SUSAN AYLESWORTH: Too expensive.

13 MR. WILLIAM BROWDER: Okay. Then I

14 would challenge your contention of not being

15 able to get down if you had an inspector with

16 the state that had an inspection.

17 MS. PEGGY BAER: Well, we do have track

18 inspectors, state track inspectors, two of

19 them. And from my perspective, that would

20 not be the highest priority I would want my

file:///D|/A007788.txt (227 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 track inspectors working on, is identifying

22 farm crossings. They have a bigger job than

23 that. So I don't know that it's something

24 that would be priority.

25 MR. DAVID PETERSON: I'd like to just

 114

file:///D|/A007788.txt (228 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 comment on Susan's statement that the

 2 railroads have a better understanding of

 3 private crossings. The one area where

 4 railroads have a classic gap on private

 5 crossings is when a private landowner goes

 6 through the land use commission of whatever

 7 regulatory body or community they are in and

 8 has a private road converted to public,

 9 frequently the railroads are not notified

10 that that occurs. And most states there is

11 not a mechanism in place to formally notify

12 the railroad or in many cases the DOTs that

13 the designation has changed until such time

14 as an incident occurs at the crossing, and

15 then that becomes made available to us when

16 we do the reporting.

17 MS. SUSAN AYLESWORTH: I would agree

18 with Dave Peterson, that we don't get

19 informed for local planning activities when

20 crossings are converted from private to

file:///D|/A007788.txt (229 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 public for development purposes. Every once

22 in a while we'll get a phone call, but very

23 seldom, so our database would be in error in

24 that instance also.

25 MR. RONALD ADAMS: Wisconsin, if they

 115

file:///D|/A007788.txt (230 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 haven't made any public road on the other

 2 side, it's still a private crossing no matter

 3 what they've done to develop the other side,

 4 it's away from the road. Even if they have

 5 gone to the locals and gotten some massive

 6 rezoning on the other side of the railroad,

 7 it's still a private crossing by definition,

 8 unless the road authorities have taken

 9 jurisdiction of that.

10 MR. ROBERT OPAL: I don't think that's

11 what he's saying. I think he's saying the

12 road on both sides has changed from private

13 to public. We don't --

14 MR. DAVID PETERSON: That is exactly

15 what I'm saying, Ron. The notification when

16 a public road authority takes over ownership

17 of the road in many jurisdictions does not

18 include notification of the railroads or the

19 state's regulatory body that keeps track of

20 the crossing inventory. So we don't even

file:///D|/A007788.txt (231 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 know to change the warning devices to make

22 them conform with what should be at a public

23 road. It may be that way, but we may not be

24 formally notified.

25 MR. RONALD ADAMS: It may or may not be

 116

file:///D|/A007788.txt (232 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 a public crossing, because in Wisconsin the

 2 office of the commissioner hasn't ruled that

 3 it is. That's a question I don't know the

 4 answer to.

 5 MS. ANYA CARROLL: What other -- maybe I

 6 can ask another question: What other

 7 organizations do you work with on a daily

 8 basis that might have this information? Does

 9 somebody like AASHTO? Does -- I mean, there

10 is the regional federal highway folks. Who

11 else can we lean on to be a partner in trying

12 to at least identify the problem and the

13 issues that we need to address? What other

14 partners can we reach out to?

15 MR. WILLIAM BROWDER: Who are you

16 reaching out to?

17 MS. ANYA CARROLL: You mean the data

18 collection or the entire issue of private

19 crossings?

20 MR. WILLIAM BROWDER: Either one. Take

file:///D|/A007788.txt (233 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 your choice. I don't understand the

22 question.

23 MS. ANYA CARROLL: What other private or

24 public entities can FRA reach out to to try

25 and collect data or try to bring into these

 117

file:///D|/A007788.txt (234 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 public meetings for their input that might be

 2 useful to move forward?

 3 MR. WILLIAM BROWDER: You have FHWA.

 4 MS. ANYA CARROLL: I don't think we do.

 5 MR. WILLIAM BROWDER: I mean, you have

 6 it on your list.

 7 MS. ANYA CARROLL: Yes.

 8 MS. MIRIAM KLOEPPEL: Yes.

 9 MR. WILLIAM BROWDER: The National

10 Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices,

11 railroad committee in particular, they are

12 working on a number of areas to deal with

13 private crossings and two of their

14 representatives are on FRA's staff. AASHTO,

15 AREMA, AFTA, TRB. I'm sure there are some

16 others that have some better suggestions than

17 me.

18 MR. ROBERT OPAL: Bill, any of those

19 organizations likely to have data on public

20 and private crossings?

file:///D|/A007788.txt (235 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 MR. WILLIAM BROWDER: TRB is, I know

22 that. It might be that BTS and a program

23 that's out there that may have data, I'd have

24 to look at it, it might be the FARS system

25 under the -- it's NHTSA may have data on

 118

file:///D|/A007788.txt (236 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 public versus private crossings. I'm not

 2 sure anymore. They collect data, whether it

 3 includes delineation of public versus

 4 private, I'm not sure. And I'll tell you

 5 another that nobody -- you talked all around

 6 it, but you haven't confronted them, is NTSB.

 7 MS: PEGGY BAER: Bill, what does FARS

 8 stand for?

 9 MR. WILLIAM BROWDER: Fatal analysis

10 reporting system. Every time a policeman

11 makes out a report on a highway fatality,

12 that's completed. It's about a 10- or

13 12-page report on that fatality and submitted

14 to NHTSA.

15 MS. PEGGY BAER: Which stands for the...

16 MR. WILLIAM BROWDER: The National

17 Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

18 They're part of these guys. I don't know

19 that they'll ever admit it.

20 MR. GRADY COTHEN: This is information

file:///D|/A007788.txt (237 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 the FRA periodically compares the fatalities

22 as reported through the FARS system with the

23 fatalities reported under the RAIRS system,

24 Railroad Accident Incident Reporting System.

25 And the general finding is that our database

 119

file:///D|/A007788.txt (238 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 is more complete and more accurate as to

 2 location. And in most cases there is a

 3 discernable and assigned crossing number

 4 which has an identity in the database as

 5 public or private; whether that's correct or

 6 not may be something else, but it has an

 7 identity in the database. So we do pay

 8 attention to that resource, but we find that

 9 the filters that that has to go through and

10 the lack of knowledge probably on the part of

11 the collecting official regarding the

12 railroad side issues makes it less reliable

13 than the data that we collect through the

14 railroads.

15 MS. ANYA CARROLL: How about users of

16 some of these crossings, do they have a stake

17 in safety of these crossings? We talked

18 about commercial, industrial, do some of

19 these plants or, you know, industries that

20 need access to their plants, do they have a

file:///D|/A007788.txt (239 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 -- do they know how many trucks they -- you

22 know, frequent that crossing on a daily

23 basis? What types of trucks? Oil trucks?

24 I'm just trying to figure out what other

25 organizations might have an interest in

 120

file:///D|/A007788.txt (240 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 attending these public meetings. This is the

 2 first one that we are holding on a series of

 3 currently four we have scheduled, and we

 4 would like to be all inclusive in bringing

 5 everybody to the table to talk to the issues

 6 so that we collect a world of information.

 7 MR. ROBERT OPAL: Well, individual

 8 industries would certainly know what their

 9 truck traffic is in and out. But I think the

10 real issue is whether there is some kind of a

11 compilation that would show use of a

12 particular category at a grade crossing. I'm

13 not aware of anything like that.

14 MR. RONALD RIES: I'm not either.

15 MS. ANYA CARROLL: How about federal

16 motor carriers, they are a new partner in

17 DOT, right, relatively new?

18 MR. ROBERT OPAL: Well, a lot of

19 trucking occurs with private trucks, though,

20 so that only gives you part of the picture.

file:///D|/A007788.txt (241 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 MR. WILLIAM BROWDER: The only segment

22 of the industry, and I was going to mention

23 this as one that does identify and develop

24 data on it, is the school bus industry. And

25 they do develop information on highway-rail

 121

file:///D|/A007788.txt (242 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 grade crossings that impact school buses.

 2 The NTSB has got data on highway-rail grade

 3 crossings within the highway segment rather

 4 than the railroad segment of their

 5 organization setup.

 6 MS. MIRIAM KLOEPPEL: Not entirely.

 7 MR. WILLIAM BROWDER: Well, they have a

 8 recommendation -- data and recommendation

 9 section. I know you worked in that. But

10 it's very confusing to an outsider like me to

11 reconcile data from the NTSB with the FRA,

12 and a lot of people choose to ignore the NTSB

13 data. But there may be categories collected

14 that Anya may be interested in that we don't

15 know about.

16 MS. ANYA CARROLL: We'll put them on the

17 list.

18 MS. MIRIAM KLOEPPEL: We can talk with

19 them. But typically what they have is

20 isolated -- I mean, they would do case

file:///D|/A007788.txt (243 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 studies. FRA will have a much fuller list of

22 the accidents that occur. The NTSB will

23 investigate a couple of accidents every

24 couple of years. We will be happy to talk

25 with them, though.

 122

file:///D|/A007788.txt (244 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 MR. GRADY COTHEN: They do publish data

 2 annually, but generally it's data obtained

 3 from the DOT. And then it's reorganized

 4 sometimes so that you get light rail and rail

 5 combined, for instance. FRA also publishes

 6 on the web currently rail transit as well as

 7 FRA data for convenience at the request of

 8 OIG.

 9 MS. ANYA CARROLL: Would FTA be a

10 partner here as well?

11 MS. MIRIAM KLOEPPEL: I think so.

12 MS. ANYA CARROLL: And we've heard lots

13 of things from our railroad friends. What

14 are some railroad organizations that might

15 have information? We've got the AAR was

16 represented today.

17 MR. ROBERT OPAL: Some of the ones that

18 Bill gave you are railroad organizations.

19 MS. ANYA CARROLL: How about short

20 lines?

file:///D|/A007788.txt (245 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 MR. TIM DEPAEPE: ASLRRA, American Short

22 Line and Regional Railroad Association.

23 MS. ANYA CARROLL: Aren't they supposed

24 to provide the technology?

25 MR. TIM DEPAEPE: Well, they provide the

 123

file:///D|/A007788.txt (246 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 technology, but they wouldn't know where any

 2 of this -- where the crossings or things like

 3 that are.

 4 MR. ROBERT OPAL: Probably the military

 5 has all this information somewhere in some

 6 database that probably we can access.

 7 MS. ANYA CARROLL: Well, Grady mentioned

 8 the old rail garrison. You never know.

 9 MR. WILLIAM BROWDER: I'm not

10 qualified --

11 MS. ANYA CARROLL: Then we bring in DHS.

12 MR. WILLIAM BROWDER: Who keeps track of

13 that data?

14 MR. GRADY COTHEN: The --

15 MR. WILLIAM BROWDER: You, me? Anybody

16 else?

17 MR. GRADY COTHEN: The Strategic Rail

18 network is defined between DOT and the

19 Department of Defense, and the FRA Office of

20 Policy can tell you at any given time which

file:///D|/A007788.txt (247 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 segments are part of --

22 MR. WILLIAM BROWDER: But they don't

23 keep any separate information on data that

24 might be different in the FRA or more

25 categories or different categories.

 124

file:///D|/A007788.txt (248 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 MR. GRADY COTHEN: I'm not aware of

 2 anything that's relevant to what we are doing

 3 here. There may be something, but I'm not

 4 aware of it. I think that -- granted that

 5 there are a lot of people that we want to

 6 reach out to, and these perspectives we want

 7 to understand. I mean, I think we've met the

 8 enemy, and he is us.

 9 You know, the folks represented

10 here, by in large, are the folks who have

11 some knowledge and access to information that

12 is going to be critical to solving the

13 problem. And it doesn't mean we can't reach

14 out, we certainly can.

15 We had representatives from the

16 Twin Cities and western here, members for the

17 Atlanta association today, that's when

18 railroads are represented, their officers --

19 those FRA personnel participate in AREMA

20 committees. And it -- certainly a lot of

file:///D|/A007788.txt (249 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 different organizations that represent there

22 that have an interest and some relevant

23 perspectives to bring to bear. But I think

24 when we start going looking for data, we are

25 going to find there are a very limited number

 125

file:///D|/A007788.txt (250 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 of sources of the highly detailed data that

 2 we need.

 3 I've got just some interim action

 4 items here. Go ahead, Susan.

 5 MS. SUSAN AYLESWORTH: I just wanted to

 6 make a comment about FHWA for a moment. And

 7 I don't know if this is shared by the other

 8 states, but we met with our FHWA safety

 9 person recently, and honestly, FHWA has very

10 limited interest in railroads and railroad

11 grade crossings because it represents such a

12 negligible portion of the total number of

13 accidents in a state any given year. And

14 because their resources are constrained, the

15 time and attention they can devote to the

16 Section 130 program is limited. So I just

17 want to make a statement that even though we

18 feel that highway-rail grade crossings are

19 highways and highway related, the closest

20 federal agency we work with is the FRA who

file:///D|/A007788.txt (251 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 really doesn't have the type of jurisdiction

22 over the type of warning devices at FHWA. So

23 it is a little bit confusing for us to be

24 working with an agency that doesn't have much

25 time for us and then to work closely with an

 126

file:///D|/A007788.txt (252 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 agency that has time for us but doesn't

 2 really have the kind of jurisdictional

 3 authority over the very thing that we are

 4 working on.

 5 And part of the problem our funding

 6 is so short is because we are a highway

 7 agency, now more commonly referred to as a

 8 transportation agency, general philosophy is

 9 that the highways get most of the attention,

10 hence most of the money.

11 So even within our own

12 organization, if we were to request

13 additional funds for the purpose of going out

14 and serving private crossings, I think given

15 the current financial situation in Minnesota,

16 it would not be a successful appeal. I think

17 we would end up with no additional money for

18 that, because there is so many competing

19 highway priorities that are going on within

20 our agency.

file:///D|/A007788.txt (253 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 So just to sort of give you an

22 overview of what we are dealing with. You

23 know, frankly, we have been told: You only

24 killed eight people last year. And, you

25 know, the State of Minnesota killed -- the

 127

file:///D|/A007788.txt (254 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 highway department killed 600; eight versus

 2 600 gets us out of the room. We are told to

 3 leave. We're not even part of the core

 4 safety program because we kill so few people.

 5 So just -- you need to carry that prospective

 6 on. Even if we were to add the deaths at

 7 private crossings, if we had that

 8 information, I don't think we'd get 12 people

 9 killed or 14 people killed. And we injure

10 about -- we have about 70, 80 accidents a

11 year, some of which are injury accidents. So

12 really by comparison it's a big ho-hum for

13 our state right now. It's not a high

14 priority. It has been in the past, but --

15 and it isn't right now. And I think we need

16 to keep that in mind as we pursue this, that

17 there may be few, if any, resources that we

18 could put together to do anything.

19 MR. GRADY COTHEN: And we understand

20 that perspective and seen it mirrored at the

file:///D|/A007788.txt (255 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 national level and we understand why that

22 perspective is brought to bear. At the same

23 time we do work cooperatively with the

24 Federal Highway Administration, National

25 Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the

 128

file:///D|/A007788.txt (256 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 FDA and others at DOT on these issues, and we

 2 help one another out a lot. And we

 3 appreciate you all taking the limited time to

 4 help us out here today.

 5 You know, it's probably -- you want

 6 to define one of the worst kinds of public

 7 policy problems, this would certainly fall in

 8 the ballpark. It would be a candidate for

 9 that set because we have, you know, nobody

10 responsible. But we all feel a sense of

11 responsibility, and we all try to contribute

12 something. We have limited resources,

13 granted we have limited resources,

14 transportation system that's craving

15 resources, whether it's private railroad or

16 the highway department. And we have a

17 certain amount of risks that we are

18 tolerating here unwillingly, we're at 35, 40

19 fatalities and many serious injuries

20 annually, but distributed, you know, over

file:///D|/A007788.txt (257 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 90,000-plus locations with many disparate

22 characteristics.

23 So, you know, when you want to talk

24 about a problem at -- that can't -- it just

25 isn't going to get solved, this is it, it's

 129

file:///D|/A007788.txt (258 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 not going to get solved. And at the same

 2 time we know from our experience that this is

 3 not the first problem to be so characterized.

 4 In the Federal Railroad Administration over

 5 the years, we work through them one by one

 6 and made some headway. Nothing has been

 7 solved ultimately and to the complete extent.

 8 We've been able to make headway together on a

 9 lot of these problems.

10 I think there's some things that we

11 need to do, and I'm not at all going to cut

12 off the discussion, but I wanted to sum up

13 before I lost the thought some things that we

14 need to do. We'll continue outreach, we had

15 a very long list of people to whom we've made

16 initial outreach prior to this meeting. We

17 have some other additional letters going out

18 and, you know, we'll make sure that we hit

19 all the bases in terms of the organizations

20 involved. But if there is something that you

file:///D|/A007788.txt (259 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 all in the room can do for us because you

22 served, for instance, on an AREMA committee

23 and happen to know the information that we

24 really ought to have here or on a national

25 committee or whatever it may be to help set

 130

file:///D|/A007788.txt (260 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 us up with the relevant people, some of you

 2 have already started to do that, and we'll

 3 reach out to those additional contacts and

 4 try to make available on our web page for

 5 this activity which is under the FRA safety

 6 web page under highway rail crossings. There

 7 is a click there for private crossings. We

 8 will attempt to add information there for

 9 people to view and to think about as you

10 consider -- continue to give us some input.

11 Part of that will be a coordination with the

12 National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control

13 Devices. We'll have Ron on the wall, and

14 have Brian give us what we will need there as

15 well as contact the committee chair.

16 And then perhaps in our next

17 session, for those of you who may follow

18 this, we will try to get some further

19 briefing on any AASHTO or AREMA standards

20 that may be relevant as well as the status of

file:///D|/A007788.txt (261 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 any MUTCD activity.

22 FRA clearly needs to complete its

23 rollout of a new interface for updating of

24 the inventory. And anything any of us, Ron,

25 the FRA need to do to see that that has

 131

file:///D|/A007788.txt (262 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 priority, let us know, I'd appreciate it.

 2 Put people in a much better frame of mind to

 3 talk about incremental improvements and the

 4 data that we have there as well as

 5 incremental enhancements of the specific

 6 fields that we might want to capture. And I

 7 think that going forward that's one of the

 8 areas that would be a very productive

 9 activity for these meetings. Really what

10 that involves is getting an update so that we

11 can make some headway on risk ranking private

12 crossings.

13 We can establish all the

14 identification and responsibility that we

15 want to, but short of doing -- one major

16 railroad just reported at a break that they

17 have done, in terms of signing, all of their

18 private crossings in a major effort,

19 thousands of crossings, including all

20 passively signed private crossings. Short of

file:///D|/A007788.txt (263 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 that kind of effort, which is certainly to be

22 commended, identifying the additional areas

23 where investments appropriate at either

24 enclosing or improving from an engineering

25 standpoint the crossing really requires them

 132

file:///D|/A007788.txt (264 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 to know where to spend the money. And the

 2 railroad officers who have to deal with these

 3 problems every day, may have some sense of

 4 how to do that in terms of crew reports of

 5 problems at those locations and direct

 6 information that you get from communities

 7 becoming aware of increased activity at the

 8 locations and so forth and so on.

 9 But from our standpoint, we are

10 more in the dark on this than we are with

11 respect to most of the risk analysis issues

12 that FRA tackles from time to time. I would

13 hope we could have another roundtable going

14 forward on trying to get some resolution of

15 standard recommendations for engineering. We

16 can start with the technical working group

17 report which we'll put out on this web page

18 as well as a general link and see where that

19 might take us along with the discussion about

20 developments in the MUTCD committee. And

file:///D|/A007788.txt (265 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 then I'd really like to see the group discuss

22 triggers which I'll refer to as warrants for

23 engineering improvements at private

24 highway-rail crossings. This is probably an

25 area that could present a significant

 133

file:///D|/A007788.txt (266 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 challenge in terms of waking up everybody

 2 that has an interest in this issue. I think

 3 most of the railroads are awake, alive and

 4 well on this because you deal with it every

 5 day. But those that hold the rights to cross

 6 spend most of their time, I think, worrying

 7 about something else.

 8 In the MUTCD, then we have an

 9 indication that it's really indicated that on

10 a double track main line that automated

11 warning is really an appropriate thing to do.

12 That does not mean we that have automated

13 warning devices at every crossing on double

14 track main lines, but it's clearly something

15 that is warranted, and it should in most

16 cases be done if there is any level of

17 activity. And if there's not, the railroad

18 probably wouldn't have turned that second

19 main into a signing or pulled it out,

20 cannibalize the materials.

file:///D|/A007788.txt (267 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 Why not apply the same criterion to

22 a private crossing that has public access at

23 the industrial use or whatever other criteria

24 might apply and ask those who would benefit

25 from access to carry that burden. That would

 134

file:///D|/A007788.txt (268 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 require us to identify some warrants and some

 2 risk levels that were appropriate risk

 3 levels, and then to analyze the problems and

 4 determine whether or not on a cost-benefit

 5 basis the investment could be supported and

 6 the Federal Railroad Administration has

 7 looked at investment in public highway-rail

 8 crossings the addition of flashing lights and

 9 gates at locations where currently we only

10 have passive signage. We've found very high

11 multiples of benefit to cost such that it

12 costs us to remain if not the most vigorous

13 advocate, certainly one of the most biggest

14 advocates within the Department of

15 Transportation for continued investment in

16 engineering improvements at highway-rail

17 crossings. Even without knowing the

18 specifics of individual crossings, we can

19 easily conduct that kind of proforma analysis

20 against various scenarios that might, in

file:///D|/A007788.txt (269 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 fact, fit out there where you have heavy

22 trucks, for instance, moving on a regular

23 basis in and out of quarries, steel mills and

24 other facilities. And we could certainly

25 endeavor to add a twist to that with regard

 135

file:///D|/A007788.txt (270 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 to the rail side, the damage and casualties

 2 that does occur which isn't accounted for in

 3 the methodologies that we've used before.

 4 But I would just ask the group to

 5 think about the possibility of warrants that

 6 might occur within a structure of federal or

 7 state oversight given the fact that there is

 8 certainly a national interest in doing

 9 something on this front. I don't think we

10 can continue to build commuter rail service

11 out without thinking more seriously about

12 this issue. If there is an area where you

13 have many public dollars spent and ideally

14 you have private crossings closed and

15 alternative access provided, but that's not

16 the reality in many cases and certainly

17 Amtrak on an inner-city basis continues to

18 suffer from. And one of the challenges that

19 it presented at many highway-rail crossings

20 and some analysis that we've done indicates

file:///D|/A007788.txt (271 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 that about a third of their lawsuits from a

22 safety point of view in terms of train

23 accidents result from events at highway-rail

24 crossings, many of which are at private

25 crossings. So from a point of view provision

 136

file:///D|/A007788.txt (272 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 of inner-city rail service, it's a matter of

 2 some interest. Commuter service, inner-city

 3 rail service and finally freight rail service

 4 including services that involves handling

 5 hazardous materials and importantly

 6 politically the lives of railroad crew

 7 members that may be subjected to death or

 8 serious injury in a collision with a heavy

 9 motor vehicle. The NTSB asked us to set up

10 periodic safety reviews of highway-rail

11 crossings. Railroads that have been

12 aggressively trying to close private

13 crossings may have some ideas of program

14 models that make some sense there.

15 And then finally we have talked in

16 the notice about resolution of disputes

17 regarding who is going to be responsible for

18 doing what out there. And the extent of

19 which a private crossing should be retained

20 or must be retained because of the need to

file:///D|/A007788.txt (273 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 maintain the value of the property to which

22 it provides access. It's been our experience

23 in listening to the stories out of the states

24 that have wrestled with this that the

25 administrative processes in many states which

 137

file:///D|/A007788.txt (274 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 mirror language that you can find in the

 2 Federal Administrative Procedure Act are

 3 extraordinarily cumbersome in relation to the

 4 subject matter. And we don't have any

 5 particular interest in replicating that at

 6 the federal level, we are encouraging

 7 proliferation of that. But if you -- if one

 8 establishes sufficiently objective criteria

 9 for decision-making, one typically is not

10 required to engage in that kind of

11 fact-finding. Only when you entrust to the

12 hearing officer significant amounts of

13 discretion do you end up with that kind of

14 procedure. You won't find that, I don't

15 think, in a law book, but that's the way

16 things happen. So I think it's highly

17 desirable for this community together with

18 the community of those who hold the rights

19 plus the railroad, to come up with a set of

20 sufficiently objective criteria to get these

file:///D|/A007788.txt (275 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 issues resolved without extensive

22 on-the-record proceedings in as many cases as

23 possible. But that mechanism is an

24 alternative mechanism, and however it is, I'm

25 not sure. Obviously alternative dispute

 138

file:///D|/A007788.txt (276 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 resolutions greatly can be advocated and used

 2 more and more at the federal and state level

 3 with public matters as it is in private

 4 arbitration. But if you don't have a

 5 baseline method for resolving disputes, then

 6 the alternative methods sort of don't have

 7 anyplace to start from.

 8 Other topics, issues that we need

 9 to be working on today before we do some more

10 work?

11 MS. ANYA CARROLL: Grady, I just wanted

12 to mention our next meeting is September 27th

13 in Raleigh, North Carolina, and there will be

14 an announcement coming out shortly. But

15 North Carolina DOT was the lucky state to

16 have been part of the high speed rail

17 corridor development, and they have done a

18 lot of work with the corridor. And they have

19 data on their private crossings being

20 upgraded to either signs or signals that we

file:///D|/A007788.txt (277 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 may want them to present at that meeting in

22 September.

23 MR. GRADY COTHEN: For general

24 background on the issue, you'll want to look

25 for the sealed corridor study in the Office

 139

file:///D|/A007788.txt (278 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 of Railroad Development's page, research and

 2 development page, I believe they are in. For

 3 general background, that would be useful

 4 reading. We also expect to go out to

 5 California in October.

 6 MS. ANYA CARROLL: We hope the last week

 7 of October.

 8 MR. GRADY COTHEN: Okay. Last week of

 9 October. Then to New Orleans.

10 MR. RONALD RIES: December 6th.

11 MS. ANYA CARROLL: December 6th in New

12 Orleans.

13 MR. GRADY COTHEN: We will be putting

14 out notices on all of this. And then we are

15 looking at possibly going to New York state.

16 I guess we ought to tell them people from New

17 York state we're coming, call DOT; but

18 looking at another possibility in the

19 northeast in December as well to close out

20 this round of public meetings.

file:///D|/A007788.txt (279 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 MR. WILLIAM BROWDER: The last day of

22 October, Halloween and the first of November

23 is the 2006 Eastern Region Highway-Rail Grade

24 Crossing Conference hosted by West Virginia

25 DOT. I think that might conflict with what

 140

file:///D|/A007788.txt (280 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 you all are doing.

 2 MS. ANYA CARROLL: Thank you, Bill.

 3 MR. DAVID PETERSON: Grady, did you say

 4 what the date was for the San Diego meeting?

 5 MS. ANYA CARROLL: It's San Francisco.

 6 And it's during the last week in October, but

 7 we have not found a facility yet.

 8 MR. GRADY COTHEN: So we thank the State

 9 of Minnesota and look forward to visiting

10 with our colleagues in North Carolina and

11 California.

12 Anything else that you want to add

13 to the cause? If not, I want to thank

14 everybody offering statements, suggestions,

15 comments, information today. We ask you to

16 continue to follow the proceeding either

17 being with us or through the public docket

18 where we will post all of the information as

19 well as the web site. And I'd like to have

20 any written comments at all if you want to

file:///D|/A007788.txt (281 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 make it part of the public docket at least be

22 entered into it and reviewed. Thanks very

23 much to all and the folks here for the use of

24 the facility and the hospitality.

25 And with that, we hope you all

 141

file:///D|/A007788.txt (282 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 travel safely and we are adjourned.

 2 

 3 (Whereupon, at 2:18 p.m., the foregoing

 4 meeting was terminated.)

 5 

 6 ***REPORTER'S NOTE: The original transcript is being

 7 delivered to Anya Carroll.

 8 

 9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

file:///D|/A007788.txt (283 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 142

file:///D|/A007788.txt (284 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA )

 2 COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )

 3 

 I hereby certify that I reported the

 4 foregoing proceedings on the 30th day of August, 2006.

 5 That the testimony was transcribed under my

 direction and is a true record of the testimony;

 6 

 That the cost of the original has been

 7 charged to the party who noticed the meeting, and that

 all parties who ordered copies have been charged at

 8 the same rate for such copies;

 9 That I am not a relative or employee or

 attorney or counsel of any of the parties, or a

10 relative or employee of such attorney or counsel;

11 That I am not financially interested in the

 action and have no contract with the parties,

12 attorneys, or persons with an interest in the action

 that affects or has a substantial tendency to affect

13 my impartiality;

14 

15 WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL this 12th day of

 September, 2006.

16 

17 

18 ________________________

19 (Seal) Dana S. Anderson

20 

file:///D|/A007788.txt (285 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///D|/A007788.txt

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 143

file:///D|/A007788.txt (286 of 287)10/12/2006 5:33:34 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 SAFETY at PRIVATE HIGHWAY-RAIL GRADE CROSSINGS

 5 PUBLIC MEETING AGENDA

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

10 

11 McKimmon Conference & Training Center

 North Carolina State University, 1101 Gorman Street

12 Raleigh, NC 27606

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 Wednesday, September 27, 2006

 9:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.

20 

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (1 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 

22 

 ATKINSON-BAKER, INC.

23 COURT REPORTERS

 (800) 288-3376

24 www.depo.com

25 FILE NO.: A007BEA

 1

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (2 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 PANEL MEMBERS

 2 

 3 GRADY C. COTHEN, JR, Deputy Associate Administrator,

 Office of Safety, Federal Railroad Administration. U.S.

 4 Department of Transportation Federal Railroad

 Administration.

 5 

 6 PAUL WORLEY, CPM, Assistant Director for Engineering &

 Safety, NC Department of Transportation, Rail Division,

 7 Engineering & Safety Branch.

 8 

 9 MIRIAM KLOEPPEL, Operations Research Analyst, U.S.

 Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad

10 Administration.

11 

12 RONALD RIES, Staff Director, Crossing Safety & Trespass

 Prevention Program, U.S. Department of Transportation,

13 Federal Railroad Administration.

14 

15 ANYA A. CARROLL, Principal Investigator, Rail and Transit

 Systems Division, Volpe National Transportation Systems

16 Center.

17 

18 PAT SIMMONS, Director, Rail Division, North Carolina

 Department of Transportation.

19 

20 WILLIAM M. BROWDER, Director of Operations, Association of

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (3 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 American Railroads.

21 

22 

23 Also Present:

24 JASON FIELD, NCDOT Rail Division

25 GEORGE YOUNG, NCDOT

 2

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (4 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 Also Present (Continued):

 2 ROBERT N. PRESSLEY, JR., P.E.

 3 ARTHUR PETTEWAY

 4 RIC CRUZ, NCDOT

 5 JOHN BRYANT

 6 DALE BRAY

 7 GARY SHANK

 8 DONALD THOMAS

 9 LESLIE SPURLOCK

10 ROGER LIPSCOMB

11 JOHN PERRY

12 DANNY GILBERT

13 RICHARD WESTBROOK, UTU

14 GLENN LAMM, UTU

15 TINA MEDLIN, Remax

16 BILL BARRINGER

17 HASKEL STANBACK, NS

18 STUART SCHWARTZ, NS

19 SHANE WHITEMORE, CSX

20 CLIFF STAYTON, CSX

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (5 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 SUSAN TAYLOR

22 

23 

24 

25 

 3

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (6 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 P R O C E E D I N G S

 2 (On the record at 9:33 a.m.)

 3 MR. COTHEN: Can we begin together

 4 here.

 5 Good morning. Happy to have you here.

 6 My name is Grady Cothen, and I'm out of

 7 uniform. I left my jacket at home. But if

 8 it helps everybody else to take theirs off,

 9 then that's good, because what we want today

10 is a good exchange among colleagues and

11 friends and those who come in and get to

12 know this group about safety at private

13 highway-rail grade crossings. If that's not

14 the topic you expected, you probably want to

15 be in a core credit course in another room.

16 We are very happy to be in Raleigh

17 today as guests of North Carolina DOT and to

18 hold this public safety inquiry with

19 everyone in attendance.

20 The first thing we always try to do,

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (7 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 other than remembering our jackets, is to

22 have a safety briefing. Ron Ries is staff

23 director for highway-rail grade crossings

24 safety, and he will kick it off.

25 MR. RIES: Good morning. In the

 4

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (8 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 likely event that there is an emergency, if

 2 there is something that's within the

 3 building, a fire, the alarms will go off.

 4 We have several options for exiting the

 5 building. If you go through the door on the

 6 left, the back of the room, that takes you

 7 directly into the lobby, and then you may

 8 take a left, and that will take you out to

 9 the front parking lot, continue all the way

10 to the street and we will gather there.

11 If that entrance is blocked, we can

12 also go out the other door in the back to

13 the right, go to the hallway and take

14 another right. That takes us to the back

15 parking lot, and there's a line of pine

16 trees in the back, so that will be a good

17 place for us to gather as well.

18 If for some reason we need to have an

19 emergency response, the house telephone,

20 which you might not be able to see, but

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (9 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 behind the flip chart there at the back goes

22 directly to the front desk. They will then

23 call 911 and provide the proper

24 instructions, so they will have somebody

25 here as quickly as possible.

 5

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (10 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 Is there anyone here that's CPR

 2 certified? We have four people. That will

 3 be very popular in case something happens.

 4 Hopefully if something happens, you would be

 5 willing to help with that.

 6 The restroom facilities, gentlemen, if

 7 you go out the door to the back to the

 8 hallway, just a quick little left, it's

 9 there. The ladies room is to the right down

10 the same corridor, almost to the door.

11 I look forward to having a very

12 productive meeting.

13 MR. COTHEN: Thank you, Ron. We will

14 do inductions of FR18 members here in a

15 minute. I'd like to ask for greetings

16 first. The Federal Railroad Administration

17 have a particularly close relationship

18 across a broad number of issues with the

19 North Carolina Department of Transportation,

20 in particular, the rail division. This is a

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (11 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 group of individuals who in the provision of

22 passenger rail service, promotion of freight

23 rail service, and particularly close to our

24 heart, the promotion of rail safety, do an

25 exceptional job in providing a leadership

 6

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (12 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 role nationally in terms of the public's

 2 interest in safe and efficient rail service.

 3 So I'd like to ask Pat Simmons, who is

 4 director of the rail division, North

 5 Carolina DOT to bring greetings.

 6 MR. SIMMONS: Greetings. Thank you

 7 Grady. And thank you for bringing your team

 8 here and for bringing the Federal Railroad

 9 Administration, and we genuinely do have a

10 positive and strong working relationship, a

11 partnership, as we -- in a moment I'm going

12 to introduce some of my folks, but those of

13 you in the room who are familiar with the

14 program and our department, I know we work

15 in the areas of track safety equipment that

16 operates over our state's railroads

17 crossing. Safety is an area where we spend

18 a lot of time and energy, developing new

19 partnerships and then developing new

20 passenger rail service.

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (13 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 In Washington, as here in Raleigh, in

22 North Carolina, public partnerships are

23 again in vogue, and today's topic of dealing

24 with private crossings will, I hope, get us

25 to that topic a little bit as well.

 7

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (14 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 One of the challenges that we have in

 2 administering our program is we do not as a

 3 state have direct authority over private

 4 crossings. So that's an area where I'm not

 5 seeking more responsibility or more

 6 authority, but we need tools to improve

 7 safety.

 8 We've had good partnerships also in

 9 North Carolina with our communities in

10 developing crossing safety programs with our

11 family of some two dozen or so freight

12 railroads in the state, our labor and

13 employees on the railroad and, of course,

14 with Federal Railroad Administration.

15 Along the way some of our folks have

16 helped invent some new terms of art in

17 railroad crossing safety, including sealed

18 corridor and PCSI terms. If you don't know

19 what they mean, you will learn more about

20 them later today.

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (15 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 And one of the things that we value a

22 great deal is that we have been able to

23 partner with all of these folks to improve

24 safety through elimination of crossings that

25 were redundant or in addition to what we

 8

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (16 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 normally needed. That's always presented

 2 some challenges.

 3 I'm pleased with North Carolina DOT.

 4 We have a team of folks that are dedicated,

 5 some of them are actually trained to do what

 6 they do. I'm not. I'm a marine biologist.

 7 We have a media specialist. We have a home

 8 economist, and we have a historian that help

 9 lead our vision. But their skill in looking

10 at problems, critically examining them,

11 finding solutions, being able to and willing

12 to compromise and partner with whomever we

13 can has been very helpful. With our

14 engineering and safety branches led by Paul

15 Worley, second to none among the other folks

16 we have here. Let me ask you all, everyone

17 is looking at Paul, so the rest of you,

18 Jason Fields with the pink tie, we

19 appreciate that. George Young, who heads

20 our FRA certified safety program. Arthur

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (17 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 Petteway, who both guides us from an

22 engineering standpoint and procurement of

23 contract assistance standpoint. And Ric

24 Cruz, who has a range of technical expertise

25 that he contributes to our crossing safety

 9

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (18 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 program.

 2 Thank you all for what you do, and

 3 thank you FRA for blessing us and coming

 4 here today, welcome.

 5 MR. COTHEN: Thanks very much, Pat.

 6 Ron, you want to introduce the FRA

 7 crossing team here?

 8 MR. RIES: We have several of our

 9 grade crossing managers here from Region 2,

10 Don Thomas, who handles sort of the north

11 central states along the eastern coast. And

12 from Atlanta, from Region 3, we have Leslie

13 Spurlock. And also from the Washington

14 headquarters division is Miriam Kloeppel.

15 You will hear from her later. And also from

16 Volpe, Anya Carroll, one of the leading

17 research experts in crossing safety. We are

18 happy to have Volpe here supporting this

19 effort and also providing staff is; Myrna

20 Gustave and Perla Garcia in the back.

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (19 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 MR. COTHEN: All right, thank you.

22 I'm going to have Ron do the crystal duty.

23 Normally, when we go out on these events, we

24 take counsel with us, purely for the

25 edification of counsel I might add, and

 10

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (20 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 counsel was not able to travel on this one.

 2 And so Ron will provide the obligatory legal

 3 officers' statement, and push comes to

 4 shove, I will revert to my membership in the

 5 DC bar to handling issues.

 6 Go Ron.

 7 MR. RIES: My only qualification for

 8 doing this is I'm married to an attorney.

 9 Good morning. The purpose of this

10 public meeting is fact finding. This is the

11 second in a series of public meetings

12 nationwide, which you and other members of

13 the public will have the opportunity to

14 provide information to FRA about issues

15 related to the safety of private

16 highway-rail grade crossings.

17 This public meeting is not meant to be

18 a forum for debate. Instead, we are here to

19 listen to you and provide an opportunity for

20 you to state your views on the record for

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (21 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 review and consideration.

22 In order to provide each of you an

23 equal opportunity to express your views and

24 comments, the following procedure will be

25 used.

 11

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (22 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 Each person will be permitted to make

 2 an oral statement. However, persons

 3 representing the same organization may speak

 4 as a group.

 5 At the beginning of your oral

 6 statement, we'd ask to make sure you come to

 7 a microphone so we can get a good

 8 transcription of what is being said. Come

 9 to the microphone. Please identify

10 yourself, spell your name and indicate

11 whether you are appearing as an individual

12 or in a representative capacity.

13 At the end, FRA representatives may

14 ask questions in order to obtain

15 clarification of points made during your

16 statement. We will then move onto the next

17 oral statement.

18 If you refer to a document in your

19 oral statement that has not yet been

20 provided to FRA, please provide a copy of a

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (23 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 document to an FRA representative so it can

22 be marked for identification and added to

23 the public docket.

24 Today's meeting is being transcribed

25 and will become a part of the public docket

 12

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (24 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 on this issue.

 2 The transcript of each public meeting

 3 will be available for viewing and

 4 downloading at the Department of

 5 Transportation's docket management system

 6 web site at HTTP//DMS.dot.gov, and please

 7 note that www is not used in the web

 8 address.

 9 The entire public docket is also

10 available for inspection at the Department

11 of Transportation's docket facility room,

12 which is located in Room PL, Plaza 401 at

13 400 7th Street S.W. in Washington, D.C.

14 Thank you.

15 MR. COTHEN: Okay. I think you have

16 in your packet the initial federal register

17 notice on this activity that gives you the

18 information about the docket as well. We

19 can refer to it in the future.

20 Last week, we had a railroad safety

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (25 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 advisory committee meeting in Washington,

22 D.C. As a part of that Miriam Kloeppel, who

23 you will hear from in just a moment, made a

24 presentation about this activity. The

25 deputy administration and the administration

 13

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (26 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 was sitting next to me at the front table,

 2 and I turned to him and I said, Cliff, I

 3 said, you know, we've got 95,000 private

 4 crossings out there. We've got significant

 5 amount of risk. It's widely disbursed. We

 6 don't have any standard signage. There's no

 7 assignment of responsibility. There's no --

 8 we don't have a program, but other than

 9 that, everything is under control. And I

10 think that that perhaps is a bit of an

11 overstatement, but only slightly in the

12 category of hyperbole. Actually, America's

13 railroads have a big challenge in dealing

14 with private crossing issues to the benefit

15 of the users of those crossings and the

16 safety of their own operations and

17 personnel. And they do a good job trying to

18 manage those issues on a day-to-day basis.

19 The real issues before us today is

20 whether or not maybe a little help is in

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (27 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 order in terms of some regularity in public

22 policy across the nation.

23 We thought the best way to find out

24 about that was to go out and hear from

25 people as much as we could around the

 14

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (28 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 country. So we have been trying to beat the

 2 bushes and get folks in with diverse

 3 viewpoints about the subject matter. And,

 4 you know, I recognize there are a number of

 5 people in the audience and been reminded

 6 from the sign up list of the identity and

 7 background of others. So I think we're

 8 still in the process of beating the bushes,

 9 but we do have a core of folks here who know

10 a lot about the subject. So we expect to

11 have a good day.

12 We do appreciate everyone attending.

13 We do want to make this as helpful and as

14 informal as we can. As Ron indicated in the

15 legal officer's statement, we are taking a

16 transcript, which we'll place in the

17 electronic docket so that everybody can

18 access it.

19 So if you can be helpful to us, as we

20 go forward, and as you speak, if you just

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (29 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 identify yourself and your organization each

22 time you speak, then the court reporter will

23 be able to provide the best quality

24 transcript.

25 Before we go any farther, I will

 15

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (30 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 recognize Miriam Kloeppel, who is operations

 2 research analyst in our highway rail grade

 3 crossing safety staff officer and safety

 4 analysis to set the stage.

 5 MS. KLOEPPEL: Good morning. I will

 6 turn this on.

 7 Thank you all for coming. I'm just

 8 going to provide a little overview, as Grady

 9 suggested, about the current status of what

10 we understand to be the current status of

11 safety at private crossings nationwide.

12 Private crossing safety has been for

13 some time a matter of concern to the US

14 Department of Transportation and to other

15 federal agencies. In 1993, the FRA hosted

16 an open meeting to initiate industry wide

17 discussions.

18 In its 1994 Rail Highway Safety Action

19 Plan, the United States Department of

20 Transportation proposed to develop national

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (31 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 minimum standards for private crossings.

22 In its 1997 study on safety of passive

23 grade crossings, the NTSB highlighted the

24 need for some system to improve private

25 crossing safety and recommended that the US

 16

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (32 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 DOT, in conjunction with the states,

 2 determine governmental oversight

 3 responsibility for safety at private grade

 4 crossings.

 5 In 1999, the NTSB weighed in again in

 6 its report on a private grade crossing

 7 accident in Portage, Indiana. In this case,

 8 the NTSB recommended that the DOT eliminate

 9 any differences between public and private

10 crossings with regard to funding or

11 requirements for safety improvements.

12 In 2004, the US DOT published an

13 updated action plan in which the FRA

14 committed to leading an effort to define

15 responsibility for safety in private

16 crossings. Today's meeting is a vital part

17 of that effort.

18 What I did was I took the crossing

19 count by state, which is easily retrieved

20 from our safety data web site, and I grouped

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (33 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 it into our geographic regions. And as you

22 can see, regardless of geographic region,

23 private crossings constitute a significant

24 percentage of all at-grade crossings. The

25 total count nationwide for private crossings

 17

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (34 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 is about 94,000.

 2 Although accidents at public crossings

 3 have declined considerably over the past 20

 4 years, declining by one-third over the past

 5 decade alone, the number of accidents at

 6 private crossings has remained comparatively

 7 stable, declining only ten percent over the

 8 past decade. In most years, the number of

 9 fatalities occurring in accidents at private

10 crossings exceeded the number on-duty deaths

11 among railroad employees in all railroad

12 operations. The following are a few

13 examples.

14 About one p.m. on May 30, 2006, Amtrak

15 train No. 350 struck an empty gravel truck

16 at a private highway-rail grade crossing

17 near Jackson, Michigan. The train was

18 traveling about 74 miles per hour when the

19 truck entered the crossing in front of the

20 train. One train crew member and 15

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (35 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 passengers received minor injuries in the

22 accident. The truck driver sustained fatal

23 injuries.

24 The private road accident crossing is

25 used by an excavating company and by two

 18

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (36 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 residences. On average, fewer than 30

 2 highway vehicles and a dozen trains, eight

 3 of which are Amtrak, traverse the crossing

 4 daily. It's estimated the crossing was

 5 created about 1948. There is no record of

 6 any maintenance contract between the

 7 business owner and Norfolk Southern

 8 Railways.

 9 About 4:40 p.m. on July 3, 2006,

10 southbound Amtrak train 8507-03 struck a

11 passenger vehicle at a private crossing near

12 Castle Rock, Washington. According to the

13 Amtrak engineer, the accident occurred when

14 a motorist entered the crossing after a

15 northbound train cleared it. Train crew and

16 train passengers sustained no injuries, but

17 all four motor vehicle occupants sustained

18 fatal injuries. The road leading to this

19 crossing is a county road, but county

20 maintenance ends shortly before the

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (37 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 crossing, and a private road that extends

22 beyond the crossing dead ends after serving

23 11 residences. About 60 trains daily

24 traverse this crossing. It's not known when

25 this crossing was created, and no

 19

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (38 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 maintenance contract had been located for

 2 this crossing.

 3 About 7 p.m. on June 21, 2006, a metro

 4 train traveling south at a recorded speed of

 5 79 miles per hour struck a truck trailer

 6 traversing a private grade crossing near

 7 Lemont, Illinois. A piece of the trailer

 8 became wedged under the snow pile of the

 9 locomotive, and the locomotive derailed the

10 crossing. The driver of the tractor trailer

11 was not injured. There were 170 passengers

12 aboard the train. Five passengers claimed

13 minor injuries and were treated and

14 released. No train crew members reported

15 any injury. This crossing serves two

16 commercial facilities to which there is no

17 other access. Roughly 28 trains and fewer

18 than 30 highway vehicles use this crossing

19 daily. The crossing is maintained by the

20 Canadian National Railway, but there is no

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (39 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 formal agreement.

22 As a side note, about six months prior

23 to this accident in December of 2005,

24 another accident occurred at this same

25 crossing. The truck driver in the December

 20

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (40 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 accident sustained fatal injuries.

 2 As many of you know, the FRA maintains

 3 a national inventory of all crossings

 4 public, private or pedestrian at grade or

 5 grade separated. The data are used by many

 6 state, federal or private organizations for

 7 research or for resource allocation. It's

 8 updated by the states and by the railroads

 9 on a voluntary basis.

10 As you can see, only about one-third

11 of the efforts for private crossings have

12 been updated within the past five years and

13 a significant portion of records have never

14 been updated. Analysis on data of this

15 quality must necessarily be somewhat

16 tentative.

17 I don't expect you to read this. I

18 just put this up for illustration.

19 This is a shot of the form on which

20 crossing data are collected for the national

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (41 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 inventory. Almost all the data elements are

22 required for public crossings. For private

23 crossings, however, only the sections I have

24 shaded are collected.

25 As a result, even when a private

 21

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (42 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 crossing record is up to date, potentially

 2 useful data are not collected. This slide

 3 just illustrates a small sample of the

 4 differences.

 5 According to the FRA's 2002

 6 compilation of state laws and regulations

 7 affecting highway-rail grade crossings, the

 8 state's approaches to private crossings are

 9 highly varied. Take, for example, the

10 extent of control held over the creation or

11 closure of private crossings.

12 Here are some examples of the degree

13 to which traffic control devices are

14 standardized at private crossings.

15 At the time we were putting this

16 together, these were the only states that

17 said they had any control at all, according

18 to the compilation. I will clarify that.

19 And, again, according to that

20 compilation, more than half the states have

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (43 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 no laws or regulations at all relating to

22 private crossings.

23 The American Association of State

24 Highway and Transportation Officials or

25 AASHTO, has a standard committee on rail

 22

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (44 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 transportation which most people just refer

 2 to as SCORT. SCORT provides an arena

 3 whereby members, states and the railroads

 4 can exchange technical information, review

 5 existing regulations and proposed changed or

 6 new legislation or regulations. Currently,

 7 SCORT has a document or resolution on

 8 railroad safety improvement and enforcement

 9 calling for research and development and

10 improved and lower cost technologies for

11 warning systems. The resolution also

12 believes that any future comprehensive

13 national transportation program must

14 continue to provide funds for consolidating,

15 separating or otherwise protecting railroad

16 highway grade process.

17 Neither the committee's policy

18 statements nor its resolutions make any

19 overt distinction between public and private

20 crossings. But it should be remembered that

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (45 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 the majority of the members represent

22 states, and it's unlikely that AASHTO will

23 exercise jurisdiction beyond the

24 jurisdictions of its members.

25 The federal government, in the guise

 23

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (46 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 and various US DOT agencies, does offer some

 2 regulations or guidance documents that may

 3 touch on safety of private crossings. As

 4 you can see in this example, however, none

 5 of these really covers a significant portion

 6 of the nation's private crossings. We range

 7 from about one percent of the private

 8 crossings for signal systems to 25 percent

 9 of all crossing accidents being addressed by

10 the freight carrier organization, and the

11 manual on uniform traffic control devices

12 applies to public crossings.

13 In fact, there is no federal

14 regulation or guidance that promotes safety

15 of private grade crossings by specifically

16 or uniformly addressing the special issues

17 presented at private crossings.

18 Some private crossings may be used

19 only seasonally, like certain farm crossings

20 used only for agriculture equipment, or they

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (47 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 may be used only for routine personal use,

22 like crossings that serve residences.

23 Other private crossings, such as this

24 industrial access crossing, are used

25 extensively for private business purposes by

 24

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (48 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 employees, contractors and suppliers. In

 2 still other cases, they may be used very

 3 heavily by the public to enter commercial

 4 facilities.

 5 The rights assigned to the private

 6 crossing holders vary greatly. A holder of

 7 the right of privileged cross may hold

 8 outright ownership of the underlying

 9 property or have documented easement over

10 the railroad property. Where it is

11 recognized, the holder may have a

12 prescriptive easement or squatter's rights

13 essentially. There may be a documented

14 license under contract, or maybe only a

15 verbal license, subject to revocation

16 without notice.

17 Railroads may require the crossing

18 holders to purchase insurance or provide

19 some other protection in the event of a

20 collision at the crossing. Contracts or

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (49 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 other legal documents may further define

22 responsibilities, such as maintenance of

23 crossing surface or providing notifications

24 under stated conditions.

25 This is just a slide, showing the

 25

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (50 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 address for the docket submissions, as Ron

 2 Ries mentioned, and it would certainly be

 3 minimal to bring that back up if people

 4 want. But I wanted to go along here.

 5 The FRA solicits discussion and

 6 comments on all areas of safety and private

 7 crossings, but particularly encourages

 8 discussion on the following topics: At

 9 grade highway rail crossings present an

10 inherent risk to users, including the

11 railroad and its employees, as well as to

12 other persons in the vicinity should a train

13 derail into an occupied area or release

14 hazardous material. From the standpoint of

15 public policy, how do we determine whether

16 creation or continuation of a private

17 crossing is justified?

18 How do we determine when a private

19 crossing has a public purpose and is subject

20 to public use?

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (51 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 How should improvement or maintenance

22 responsibilities be allocated?

23 Is there a need for alternative

24 dispute mechanisms to handle disputes

25 between private crossing owners and

 26

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (52 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 railroads?

 2 Should some crossings be categorized

 3 as commercial crossings rather than as

 4 private crossings?

 5 Should there be nationwide standards

 6 for warning devices at private crossings or

 7 for intersection designed for newly created

 8 private crossing?

 9 Are there innovative traffic control

10 devices that could improve safety of private

11 crossings at major railroad corridors,

12 including those where passenger services are

13 provided?

14 Is the current assignment of

15 responsibility for safety at private

16 crossings effective?

17 Do risk management practices

18 associated with insurance arrangements

19 result in "regulation" of safety at private

20 crossings?

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (53 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 Should state and federal governments

22 cooperatively work to determine

23 responsibility and provide oversight?

24 Should the US DOT request enactment of

25 legislation to address private crossings?

 27

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (54 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 If so, what should it conclude?

 2 There is some standardization of

 3 treatment at public crossings across the

 4 nation. For example, the confirmation and

 5 use of signs, signals, pavement markings and

 6 any other traffic control devices placed at

 7 public crossings generally conform to the

 8 guidance provided in a manual on uniform

 9 traffic control devices.

10 In addition, in 2002, the United

11 States Department of Transportation

12 published a guidance document created

13 through the efforts of a technical working

14 group made up of representatives from both

15 the public and private sectors, and although

16 it does specifically say that it is for

17 public crossings, in most states, there is

18 no such standardization in private

19 crossings.

20 The arrangement of private crossing

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (55 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 signs can be highly individual, and sign

22 maintenance may be sketchy or nonexistent.

23 I will just emphasize there is a crossbuck

24 there.

25 To gather information on the current

 28

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (56 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 state-of-the-art, as well as ideas about

 2 possible solutions to the existing problems,

 3 the FRA is holding a series of public

 4 meetings. The first of these was held

 5 August 30 in Fort Snelling, Minnesota.

 6 Obviously, this is the second, and there

 7 will be two additional meetings on

 8 October 26 in San Francisco, and on December

 9 6 in New Orleans.

10 This is not a complete list of

11 organizations represented at the meeting in

12 Fort Snelling, but rather those

13 organizations who provided either formal

14 statements or substantial input during the

15 meeting.

16 Numerous topics were discussed in Fort

17 Snelling, but to my mind, they fell into a

18 few different categories. In the first, it

19 seemed that attendees agreed that there is

20 no existing process that would provide

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (57 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 consistent structures to create or to

22 reevaluate the relative need for new private

23 crossings or to upgrade or close existing

24 private crossings.

25 Attendees also seemed to indicate that

 29

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (58 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 different parties often used different

 2 definitions to decide whether a crossing was

 3 public or private.

 4 In addition, much discussion centered

 5 on the fact that private crossings are

 6 created for a wide variety of reasons,

 7 including residential, industrial,

 8 commercial, institutional or temporary, and

 9 these crossings may be used to varying

10 degrees by members of the general public,

11 may be traversed by users ranging from

12 pedestrians to construction vehicles or

13 hazardous materials and tank trucks.

14 I think this concludes the comments I

15 had. I just thought I'd open up discussion

16 at this point, or Grady, we can pass it on

17 to Paul. Thank you.

18 MR. COTHEN: Thank you, Miriam. From

19 the point of view of the FRA team, this is

20 where we begin learning something. We

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (59 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 brought you an introduction, and I'd like to

22 recognize Paul Worley, assistant director

23 for engineering and safety of the rail

24 division North Carolina DOT. Paul is a long

25 time FRA colleague. He is a member of our

 30

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (60 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 railroad safety advisory committee and a

 2 leader in his field.

 3 So Paul, take as much time as you need

 4 or want.

 5 MR. WORLEY: Thank you, Grady.

 6 Again, Paul Worley, assistant director

 7 for engineering and safety with NCDOT's rail

 8 division, and today I'm going to give some

 9 general technical comments on behalf of our

10 department. And I do want to put a

11 disclaimer that they do not present policy

12 position for the Department of

13 Transportation or our board of

14 transportation on private railroad

15 crossings.

16 I invited Ron Ries back in June to

17 come to North Carolina to have one of the

18 national private crossing meetings here

19 because of the issues we have here in our

20 state. We thought they could be very

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (61 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 interesting and add a lot to the subject of

22 this being discussed nationwide.

23 Following the implementation of -- a

24 great part of the implementation of Sealed

25 Corridor, the NCDOT has taken the same

 31

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (62 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 off-the-shelf or clear-minded solutions

 2 approach to private crossings on the Raleigh

 3 and Charlotte border. We emphasized closure

 4 and alternate access of possible

 5 signalization of high volume crossings,

 6 signage and even consider new mandates and

 7 laws.

 8 North Carolina is one of a few states

 9 to pursue private crossing safety

10 improvements. On the Raleigh/Charlotte

11 corridor, we've received around $1.9 million

12 from FRA in special mixed generation high

13 speed rail funds for a steady and a pilot

14 program for closure and safety improvements.

15 In addition, as part of the

16 comprehensive corridor studies, we have not

17 been able to ignore the special needs and

18 challenges of private crossings when

19 evaluating public crossings. The use of

20 such private crossings, accuracy of

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (63 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 inventory information, as well as the sheer

22 number on some corridors certainly has

23 served to open the eyes of corridor

24 diagnostic teams and require attention and

25 innovative approaches for closures and

 32

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (64 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 improvements.

 2 There are many challenges for private

 3 crossings, as Miriam mentioned, and some

 4 that we see and deal with every day.

 5 First of all, as a private issue,

 6 there are generally no public funds for

 7 capital improvements on the state or federal

 8 level or maintenance beyond special grant

 9 funds, which we have been fortunate to

10 receive.

11 There are varied types. I will name

12 just a few, and you may even have more.

13 Private use residential, farm, industrial,

14 plant to plant, railroad, private crossings,

15 and then there are the public use crossings

16 residential development, business,

17 industrial, recreational and even golf cart

18 crossings, and those are important.

19 By the time private crossing issues

20 present themselves at the state level, they

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (65 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 are sometimes politically charged, and often

22 all we can do is listen and refer to

23 railroad officials to keep people talking

24 and collaborating.

25 Private agreements and deeds may cover

 33

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (66 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 the crossings and involve multiple parties

 2 over many years.

 3 And then finally resources to maintain

 4 an accurate inventory of private crossings

 5 in a comprehensive manner is not there

 6 either at the federal state level.

 7 Bob Pressley, project engineer with

 8 the consulting firm of Gannett Fleming, will

 9 make a presentation on some of the crossing

10 studies and safety initiatives they have

11 been involved with our department over the

12 last few years. Their studies have included

13 the federal designated southeast high-speed

14 rail corridor, which is also the NS main

15 line, a potential rail transit commuter

16 line, and an intercity passenger freight

17 corridor. NCDOT has learned that we must

18 partner with the owning/operating railroads

19 to find comprehensive and innovative

20 approaches to address this issue.

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (67 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 But first, a few weeks ago we gathered

22 our crossing brain trust together, these

23 guys over here, and tried to respond to some

24 of the nine issues that were noted in the

25 notice of inquiries.

 34

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (68 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 The first one was the crossing

 2 assignment responsibility for safety of

 3 private crossings effective. And to what

 4 extent do risk management practices

 5 associated with insurance arrangements

 6 resulted in regulations and safety of

 7 private crossings?

 8 Well, our first thought was there's

 9 not a consistent nationwide approach of

10 private crossings. Instead, each railroad

11 determines what can and will be done to

12 improve safety and manage the risk at those

13 crossings. There is a significant need to

14 correct and update uniform data into the

15 national state crossing inventories, and to

16 ensure appropriate safety management

17 practice. USDOT, railroads through AREMA

18 and AAR, the states through AASHTO, and rail

19 transport operators through APTA should

20 collaborate to develop a consistent

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (69 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 approach, such as was done with the Crossing

22 Technical Work Group document was developed

23 through ITE.

24 The second questions was: How should

25 improvement or maintenance costs associated

 35

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (70 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 with private crossings be allocated?

 2 Well, stakeholders, federal and state

 3 agencies, local government, transit

 4 authorities, railroads and private crossing

 5 owners may eventually need to develop a

 6 methodology to share costs associated with

 7 grade crossing safety treatment,

 8 construction and maintenance based on local

 9 conditions and needs and users. Such

10 conditions include transit and passenger

11 rail corridors, higher speed and

12 conventional, quiet zones as well as

13 critical intermodal corridors. All of which

14 have a public and private sector interest as

15 part of a multi-modal transportation system.

16 Capitalization and future maintenance costs

17 should be considered as part of the project

18 implementation, where appropriate, so that

19 we can ensure some perpetual maintenance and

20 not with examples that we saw earlier.

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (71 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:50 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 Question three: Is there a need for

22 alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to

23 handle railroad disputes that may arise

24 between private crossing owners and the

25 railroads?

 36

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (72 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 At this time, disputes are handled

 2 through the courts in the local area which

 3 presents a challenge to the ruling party,

 4 since they can be biased towards the

 5 landowner, and litigation is always costly

 6 for both parties. Imagine the amount that

 7 you put in litigation, what that could be

 8 done if you put it actually into engineering

 9 and building safety warnings. There is

10 merit in the development of an unbiased

11 committee to determine the outcome of these

12 disputes. Because railroads engage in

13 interstate commerce, dispute resolution

14 should be considered for handling at the

15 federal level, perhaps by the FRA through

16 their regions, using crossing safety

17 managers in support of the effort.

18 I put that in for Tom.

19 Should the state or federal government

20 assume greater responsibility for safety in

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (73 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 private crossings?

22 Well, first, nationwide federal

23 guidelines should be considered for

24 development of our stakeholders through

25 AASHTO, AREMA, APTA and the National

 37

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (74 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 Concerns or Uniform Traffic Control Devices

 2 guidelines, rather than regulation would

 3 allow all parties to work through the

 4 process incrementally and learn accordingly.

 5 How many times do we adopt rules and

 6 regulations and learn to find out it really

 7 doesn't work practically.

 8 So if we can work through the process

 9 of guidelines and best practices, that may

10 be a good approach.

11 Should there be nationwide standards

12 for warning devices or private crossings or

13 for intersection design of new private

14 crossings?

15 Again, nationwide federal standards

16 should be considered for development by

17 stakeholders again through AASHTO, AREMA,

18 APTA, and the Conference for the Uniform

19 Traffic Control Devices. Innovative and

20 cost effective approaches should be

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (75 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 encouraged, researched and tested for the

22 common good.

23 Question six: How do we determine

24 when a private crossing has a public purpose

25 and is subject for public use?

 38

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (76 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 Again, a technical working group with

 2 identified stakeholders should be considered

 3 to develop guidelines or criteria that

 4 distinguishes between a true private

 5 crossing versus one that has a public

 6 purpose. This technical work group can also

 7 contribute guidance for warning device

 8 selection and application for private

 9 crossings.

10 Seven: Should some crossings be

11 categorized as commercial crossings rather

12 than private crossings?

13 The categories utilized in the

14 national crossing inventory should be

15 reviewed to differentiate between potential

16 traffic volumes and/or service to single

17 versus multiple users at recreational,

18 commercial, industrial crossings and

19 residential. The addition of an

20 institutional category should also be

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (77 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 considered that involves government

22 facilities, universities and military.

23 Internal plant-to-plant crossings at

24 railroad-use only crossings should be noted.

25 Question eight: Are there innovative

 39

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (78 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 traffic control treatments that could

 2 improve safety at private crossings on major

 3 rail corridors, including those on which

 4 passenger service is provided?

 5 The first approach to any treatment

 6 should include closure and/or alternative

 7 access. Gates and signals have a proven

 8 track record of reducing potential

 9 collisions and are not easily replaced at

10 this time by less costly technologies

11 without compromising reliability. North

12 Carolina's private crossing safety

13 initiative should be evaluated for its

14 effectiveness, and further funding for this

15 and similar project initiatives should be

16 included in the next federal authorization.

17 To date, innovative treatments have not

18 provided either reduced cost or adequate

19 safety improvements to justify their use for

20 any but experimental institution in

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (79 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 controlled test environment.

22 And last, number nine: Should the

23 Department of Transportation request

24 enactment of legislation to address private

25 crossings? If so, what should it include?

 40

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (80 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 There are many issues to resolve prior to

 2 making this determination. Examples include

 3 how are all of the users of the crossings

 4 going to be determined? How can all the

 5 agreements be gathered and inputted into a

 6 national database? How are private

 7 crossings where agreements cannot be found

 8 be handled? And how will all of the dirt/

 9 gravel highways be addressed regarding the

10 approaches to private crossings? How are

11 safety improvements to be funded? And how

12 are national security concerns for the

13 railroad infrastructure and commodities be

14 addressed?

15 Those are just some of our thoughts in

16 a group brainstorming one afternoon. I'm

17 sure that there are many other approaches,

18 many other ideas that people may have, but

19 it is an important issue to us, and we

20 continue to try to move forward on public

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (81 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 crossings, work where we can on private

22 crossings with our railroad partners, but it

23 is an issue that we feel cannot continue or

24 cannot be ignored. We have to move to some

25 kind of approach toward that.

 41

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (82 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 And to give you some examples of

 2 approaches that we've taken, Bob Pressley is

 3 here and will be making a presentation on

 4 what we've done on three of these corridors

 5 we've mentioned, and some of the solutions

 6 that you will see, again, clear-minded

 7 approaches for a very complex process and

 8 issue. Thank you.

 9 MR. PRESSLEY: As Paul said, my name

10 is Bob Pressley. I'm the senior project

11 manager with Gannett Fleming. We are

12 located in Charlotte. Our firm has had the

13 privilege of working for the rail division

14 for several years now, and during the course

15 of that time, we have been involved in three

16 particular studies that either included

17 significant numbers of private crossings or

18 else they included a significant private

19 crossing.

20 So I want to show you some of our

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (83 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 findings and some of the proposed solutions

22 to some of those problems that we've

23 identified.

24 We have conducted three particular

25 studies; one is the private crossing safety

 42

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (84 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 initiative, PCSI, as it is being called,

 2 which involve the Norfolk Southern main

 3 line, the North Carolina railroad corridor

 4 from Charlotte to Raleigh. There are 46

 5 private crossings along that stretch of

 6 railroad, 140 track miles. Norfolk Southern

 7 runs about 50 freight trains a day on the

 8 main line portion of that track, and it also

 9 includes six passenger trains on a daily

10 basis.

11 We conducted a traffic separation

12 study on the Norfolk Southern O line, which

13 runs from Charlotte to Mooresville. It's

14 30 miles. It has 109 grade crossings, 42 of

15 which are private on this 30 miles of

16 railroad.

17 The saving grace there is that NS only

18 operates one freight train a day on the

19 portion of the track, and then on the

20 northern portion they operate a freight

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (85 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 train on Tuesdays and Thursdays. So all of

22 those grade crossings are not severely

23 impacted by high train volume.

24 The third section of railroad that we

25 looked at is Norfolk Southern S line, which

 43

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (86 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 runs from Salisbury to Asheville, 143 track

 2 miles. There are only four private

 3 crossings on this particular railroad, and

 4 Norfolk Southern operates approximately 14

 5 freight movements a day. Our findings of

 6 all -- out of these three studies, we found

 7 92 private crossings, 39 of them providing

 8 residential access, as you see here, 18 of

 9 those provided access to farms. We had 29

10 providing industrial access, and six

11 provided what we classified as commercial

12 access. This is the Billy Graham radio

13 station over in western North Carolina.

14 We could not find any written

15 agreements recorded in the public land

16 records for any of these 92 private

17 crossings. Norfolk Southern was able to

18 find 25 agreements in their archives in

19 Atlanta for a portion of these 92 private

20 crossings.

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (87 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 Warning devices; 39 of them had none;

22 39 of them had crossbucks.

23 We found five that had gates and locks

24 and nine had gates and flashers.

25 We found that the industrial crossings

 44

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (88 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 posed particular and special hazards.

 2 Public Service Company of North Carolina,

 3 here in Wake County, operates a propane

 4 storage and distribution facility. They get

 5 about a hundred tractor trailer loads of

 6 propane in during the winter. Those propane

 7 tankers cross both the Norfolk Southern and

 8 the CSX.

 9 Over in western North Carolina, on the

10 S line, Ingles Markets, which is a large

11 grocery store chain operating in six states,

12 has a tremendous warehouse facility located

13 on the S line served by private crossing.

14 Down in Mecklenburg County, North

15 Carolina, equipment company is served by a

16 private crossing. You know about equipment

17 companies, they have low board trucks and

18 trailers, and they supply heavy equipment.

19 Over in Guilford County, Rankin Fryar

20 is a quarry and demolition landfill that is

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (89 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 served by a private crossing. We found that

22 several of the residential crossings serve

23 more than one residence.

24 In Orange County, Byrdsville Road

25 served 67 residential units, and I've got a

 45

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (90 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 picture I will show you that in a few

 2 minutes.

 3 Terrell's Trailer Park is another one

 4 with 12 units. Down in Rowan County on the

 5 NS main line, Ethel Lane serves 18

 6 residential units. It's a badly humped

 7 crossing. Stroup Farm Road in Mecklenburg

 8 County is a private crossing with the

 9 potential to serve 300 acres of farm land

10 that is proposed for redevelopment as

11 residential. And also in Mecklenburg

12 County, we found another badly humped

13 crossing that served seven residential

14 units.

15 We found that providing solutions to

16 some of these private crossings can be very

17 expensive. The public service crossing that

18 I mentioned here, we currently have it in

19 the design stage for elimination, but that

20 is going to cost about $850,000 to do it.

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (91 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 We proposed relocating the Ingles

22 market crossing over western North Carolina,

23 and as you can see, over a million dollars

24 if it is built the way we currently have it

25 conceived.

 46

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (92 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 The Stroup Farm Road, and I will show

 2 you a graphic on this one in a moment, the

 3 recommended solution there is to build a

 4 grade separation, and with the frontage road

 5 and everything that goes with it, we are

 6 probably looking at about a $10 million

 7 expenditure.

 8 Richard C. Roberts is a private

 9 crossing serving a mobile home over in

10 Guilford County, and we've proposed to

11 simply buy that one out and close the

12 crossing. According to the tax records,

13 that property is probably worth about

14 $65,000.

15 Terrell's Trailer Park, again, we

16 recommended gates and flashers to that one,

17 somewhere around $150,000, and then in

18 Mecklenburg County, we had recommended that

19 a public crossing be upgraded and that a

20 frontage road be developed north and south

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (93 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 of that public crossing so that we can close

22 five private crossings. But as you can see,

23 that would be about a million dollar

24 expenditure.

25 So all of these solutions are very

 47

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (94 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 expensive.

 2 This is the public service company

 3 that's just down the road here.

 4 Hillsborough Street is on the bottom of the

 5 graphic. NC-54 is on the north. We're

 6 proposing to build alternative access that

 7 will take them out to NC-54. Their existing

 8 grade crossing, as you can see, crosses both

 9 the NS and the CSX. We would build a new

10 driveway for them that would provide them

11 access to NC-54 and close the private grade

12 crossing.

13 This is Ingles Market. It's over in

14 Asheville. As you can see, the tractor

15 trailer is on the crossing. That is very

16 typical. They have about 3,000 movements a

17 day over that crossing, 2,000 of which are

18 tractor trailers. They are proposing to

19 expand that warehousing operation and add

20 about a thousand trips a day once all that

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (95 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 is implemented.

22 They exit out onto US 70. There's no

23 traffic signal there, so these trucks have

24 to wait until the traffic clears on US 70

25 before they can entered that flow of

 48

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (96 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 traffic. Bill Barringer can tell you about

 2 all the times the gates are broken by these

 3 trucks when a train approaches the crossing.

 4 This is an aerial view of the Ingles'

 5 warehouse. What we're proposing to do here

 6 is to relocate that crossing to the west and

 7 tie it into an existing intersection with a

 8 traffic signal so that we can get new gates

 9 and flashers, new crossing material.

10 This one, again, is probably in excess

11 of a million dollars, if built as we show

12 here. Their expansion plans are to the

13 right of the screen. But they would add

14 about a third more to what they have there

15 today.

16 This is the Stroup Farm crossing in

17 Mecklenburg County. It does have gates and

18 flashers. It is a private crossing.

19 This is a Duke Power crossing that is

20 just up the road from the Stroup Farm

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (97 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 crossing, and you can see in this graphic,

22 there are four private crossings just bang,

23 bang, bang, bang. We have proposed to build

24 a grade separation to the far right of the

25 screen where the pump station road is. We

 49

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (98 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 would build a new bridge over the railroad,

 2 and then the frontage road on the south side

 3 of the track or east side of the track would

 4 serve all of that property, two large farms

 5 and the deep power track. All of that is

 6 being planned for a residential development

 7 at this time. So if that grade separation

 8 can be built then those four private

 9 crossings can be eliminated.

10 This is Byrdsville Road over in Orange

11 County, serving right now 67 residential

12 units. You have a mixture of mobile homes

13 and single-family residences in there.

14 There are several vacant lots currently. So

15 that development has potential to serve over

16 a hundred homes. The gates and flashers

17 were used salvaged equipment, which NCDOT

18 and Norfolk Southern were able to install

19 several years ago that was probably from the

20 FRA grant as well?

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (99 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 MR. WORLEY: Yes, that's correct.

22 MR. PRESSLEY: This one does have

23 gates and flashers. Current traffic logged

24 is 311 a day on this particular crossing.

25 This is Ethel Lane and Jukebox Road

 50

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (100 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 down in Rowan County. Ethel Lane which is

 2 the upper one of the two crossings shown

 3 here is badly humped. It has had a series

 4 of accidents over the years. There are 18

 5 homes located in this area currently with

 6 several tracts of undeveloped land that

 7 could be developed residential in the

 8 future.

 9 We have proposed here a frontage road

10 that would be built on the east side of the

11 railroad that would take all of this traffic

12 out to an existing public roadway, and then

13 they can cross the railroad where there are

14 gates and flashers currently located.

15 This project is in the right-of-way

16 stage at this point. The NCDOT Highway

17 Division is attempting to negotiate a

18 donation of all the right-of-way, and if

19 that is accomplished, then the rail division

20 will provide the funding to actually build

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (101 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 the road, and it will become a state

22 maintained road, which would be of

23 significant benefit to all of these

24 properties.

25 This gives you a little closer view.

 51

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (102 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 What we have tried to do is lay this road

 2 out in such a way that the property owners

 3 can see the advantage of possibly

 4 subdividing their property in the future for

 5 additional lots. So hopefully that will

 6 help sell the project to those that may be

 7 reluctant to participate.

 8 This is Long Beverage also here in

 9 Mecklenburg County, another industrial

10 crossing. There is a building, a beverage

11 distribution warehouse. Again, this is one

12 of those the state and Norfolk Southern were

13 able to work out a deal where salvaged

14 equipment was used to provide the gates and

15 flashers at this particular crossing.

16 This is Bailey Road in north

17 Mecklenburg County. It's an existing public

18 crossing, but there are private crossings

19 both north and south of this particular

20 crossing. We propose to improve the public

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (103 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 crossing, then build a frontage road that

22 would allow those five private crossings to

23 be closed. Again, this is about a million

24 dollars worth of investment.

25 This is the Roberts property. As you

 52

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (104 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 can see, there's a nice gate there, but when

 2 we were there, it was obvious that that gate

 3 had not been used in several years. But

 4 there is a single mobile home occupying this

 5 property off the bottom of the slide there.

 6 Again, we recommended this property simply

 7 be purchased, and Duke University, the Duke

 8 forest surrounds all of this property. So

 9 it would be a logical purchase, and then the

10 state could sell that property to the

11 university and recoup their investment or

12 whoever should wind up purchasing that

13 particular piece of property.

14 Our conclusions, if there are

15 agreements, they are between the railroad

16 and the private owner. There is uncertainty

17 about state and federal jurisdiction in all

18 of this. We found that a lot of these

19 crossings can be dangerous. There are

20 industrial hazards certainly imposed by many

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (105 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 of them. A lot of them have poor sight

22 distance, and if any protection, it's not

23 very much or any warning devices. And we

24 expect that a lot of these will experience

25 increased traffic as time goes by.

 53

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (106 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 The solution to many of these is

 2 expensive, as we've demonstrated. We're

 3 looking at grade separations and property

 4 acquisition frontage roads and things of

 5 that nature. A cost benefit analysis is

 6 difficult on a lot of them. The FRA grade

 7 deck model is not set up for private

 8 crossings. Then, of course, there are legal

 9 implications involved in all of this.

10 Finally, we think there probably is

11 additional study needed, some type of a cost

12 benefit model probably should be developed

13 to deal with this issue.

14 With that, I will turn it back over to

15 Grady and to answer any questions if those

16 are coming now or later.

17 MR. COTHEN: Any questions for Bob?

18 Feel free. Thank you very much, sir.

19 Appreciate the presentation.

20 I think at this point, if you don't

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (107 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 mind, we will take a break of about ten

22 minutes come back about quarter to. Can I

23 ask anyone who would like to make a

24 presentation from the podium or from the

25 floor mic, just to step up and let us know

 54

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (108 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 so that we can put you in order of sign up

 2 and hear from some folks who would like to

 3 make opening statements, and then after that

 4 we will proceed to the topical discussion.

 5 Thanks very much. Let's take about ten.

 6 (Off the record at 10:35 a.m.)

 7 (On the record at 10:53 a.m.)

 8 MR. COTHEN: Okay, let's presume, if

 9 we may.

10 What we thought we would do in the

11 order that we had set up was an opportunity

12 for anyone who wanted to at this point to

13 address from their perspective private

14 crossing safety issues in general, including

15 all the topics that were presented in the

16 initial notice for this activity that Miriam

17 called attention to in her presentation.

18 And that gives us a chance,

19 potentially, to get a regional perspective

20 on these issues that may differ from the

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (109 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 perspective that we might glean elsewhere.

22 And so we would invite as many as are

23 able to speak as formally or informally as

24 you wish about those issues in this segment.

25 And then what we found in doing the

 55

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (110 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 initial meeting in Fort Snelling is we

 2 covered a wide swap of issues and got a good

 3 initial introduction to the topic, but it

 4 didn't really give us the framework to begin

 5 to dig down into some of the issue areas

 6 more deeply.

 7 So what we hope to do in this meeting

 8 and the two forthcoming meetings was to when

 9 we got into the discussion phase beyond the

10 initial remarks from anybody who wanted to

11 address a broad range of issues, we thought

12 we would try to get a bit of a topical

13 emphasis into the discussion.

14 So for this meeting, our hope was to

15 talk as much as we could about the

16 engineering issues. We thought it was a

17 particularly good forum to do that, given

18 that North Carolina DOT has been a leader in

19 innovation with respect to engineering and

20 highway rail crossings.

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (111 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 At our next meeting, which is in San

22 Francisco, is that right?

23 MS. CARROLL: Yes.

24 MR. COTHEN: We would talk about

25 responsibility as much as we possibly could

 56

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (112 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 in terms of whose got an investment in this

 2 issue and who needs to have an investment in

 3 this issue. And that would include the

 4 notion of oversight from the federal and

 5 state level as well.

 6 So private sector responsibility, when

 7 I say private sector, that really has to do

 8 with the railroads, whether they are public

 9 and privately operated, and if they are

10 crossing holders, whether or not in many

11 cases they are actually publication

12 agencies. But other than transportation

13 agencies in other cases, they are private

14 landowners and folks who just over time have

15 acquired the right to use that crossing.

16 So, and then finally, we will get New

17 Orleans, we thought we would talk a little

18 bit about data and, you know, one of the

19 things that Bob said in his presentation is

20 that doing a cost benefit on some of these

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (113 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 projects is a bit of a puzzle. One of the

22 things that potentially FRA might do is do

23 something like offer a better tool for

24 private crossing prioritization, and that

25 might be enhancement of grade or some other

 57

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (114 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 form of assistance, but we need to also talk

 2 about the availability of data, and that

 3 would include inventory and also the actual

 4 data that we collect.

 5 Before I forget to raise it, one of

 6 the things that we would welcome as a part

 7 of the filings in this document would be any

 8 suggestions that you have to make about how

 9 we can enrich the data elements on our what

10 we call forum 618057, which is the accident/

11 incident report for highway railroad

12 crossing, both with respect to private and

13 public crossings.

14 So what can we do to have better

15 information about the crossings themselves,

16 that's the inventory piece of the problem,

17 and then the accident/incident information

18 that we are gathering, to what extent can we

19 improve the data there? And then what tools

20 can we provide that support better risk

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (115 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 assessment, better prioritization and

22 improve the approaches to the cost analysis

23 for publicly funded projects?

24 And then we'll probably do one more

25 stop on this road show, and we haven't

 58

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (116 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 scheduled this yet because of budgetary

 2 concerns will lead into the new fiscal year,

 3 but it will more likely be in New York

 4 State, and we hope to have our administrator

 5 present for that meeting, and there we would

 6 hope to have a bit of summations across the

 7 regional and issue bases that we've touched

 8 in the prior meetings.

 9 So we're not limited to any topic area

10 here today, but we would hope, first of all,

11 to get some regional focus on things as they

12 are presented in this area, generally south

13 of the Atlantic states and one more crack at

14 the deep south, New Orleans and those coming

15 over from the south, and then this

16 afternoon, or as soon as we can get to it,

17 as we do get to it, a discussion of

18 engineering issues at private crossings to

19 include the whole nine yards, surface, sight

20 distances, signage, automated warnings,

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (117 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 innovative treatments and that sort of

22 thing.

23 I notice that we do have signed up

24 from the West Virginia Public Service

25 Commission in attendance today Mr. John

 59

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (118 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 Perry, John is in the back. Is there any

 2 way to entice you, John, to make some

 3 initial remarks about the public service

 4 commission's interest in the subject and any

 5 observations that you might have out of your

 6 experience.

 7 MR. PERRY: Yes.

 8 MR. COTHEN: You are welcome to come

 9 to the podium or floor mic, whatever makes

10 you more comfortable.

11 MR. PERRY: I'm John Perry, and I

12 represent West Virginia Public Service

13 Commission, where our railroad service

14 station we are under the Division of

15 Transportation.

16 I work with the enforcement section.

17 I'm signal train control inspector. I'm

18 also state coordinator for operations and

19 lifesaver, so both jobs have an interest in

20 crossing safety, and in particular, the

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (119 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 private crossings, because of the great

22 number of crossings that we have even in our

23 small state, we have a large number of

24 crossings, and a large number of incidents

25 that occur within our state have been at

 60

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (120 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 private crossings, whether they be of the

 2 commercial grade or a residential area.

 3 So basically we're here to listen, see

 4 what you folks have to say, see what

 5 basically is going on with any rule making

 6 that might be down the road somewhere that

 7 we might be, you know, we would certainly

 8 have an interest in that. Thank you.

 9 MR. COTHEN: Thank you, John.

10 Greetings back to Mr. Baldwin, if you will.

11 Are there others from state or local

12 level organizations, public agencies with

13 interests or responsibility for this area

14 that we could encourage to help us set the

15 stage for the general discussion?

16 Okay. I would just open the floor

17 generally for opening statements from

18 anybody who wants to talk. I see we have

19 representatives here from labor, from the

20 railroads, at least one identified private

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (121 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 citizen and others. We would be delighted

22 to hear from you as to why you are here and

23 what you are interested in, and what you can

24 tell us about the subject that will help us

25 build a set of recommendations for public

 61

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (122 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 policy.

 2 Yes, ma'am, come to the podium.

 3 MS. MEDLIN: Tina Medlin, T-I-N-A,

 4 M-E-D-L-I-N, and I basically came today to

 5 educate myself, because I am currently

 6 affected by improvements in the railroad.

 7 I'm also probably in a unique position

 8 in that I did witness a train/car collision

 9 in front of my property. Well, right down

10 from my property about 18 years ago, and it

11 was not a pretty sight.

12 I have property that borders a

13 railroad that I've had for 20 some-odd

14 years, little house in a little historic

15 community in Harnett County called Calibian

16 Springs.

17 And there's a train that goes from

18 Raleigh to Fayetteville in the morning, it's

19 great, it goes through about 7:30. If you

20 hear the whistle, you know you have hit the

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (123 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 snooze button one time too many, and then it

22 comes back in the afternoon.

23 Unfortunately, for me, when I

24 purchased the property, it was my first

25 home, and I didn't know a lot about real

 62

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (124 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 estate, and I relied on my closing attorney

 2 to adequately represent me.

 3 And so I purchased this property, and

 4 my access is a prescriptive easement

 5 contained within the railroad right-of-way.

 6 The house had been there since the turn of

 7 the century, that's the 1900s, not 2000, but

 8 several years after I purchased it, I tried

 9 to sell it, and then I found that I had no

10 recorded legal access. But the attorney

11 said my prescriptive easement was good

12 enough to allow me to continue to have

13 access, even though it was unrecorded.

14 In the last two years, the hundred

15 acres to the north of me was purchased by a

16 developer and an industrial park is going

17 in. Access to that particular property had

18 been along a dirt road, a private crossing,

19 as I have learned today, and so that is -- I

20 suppose, that's going to be the access to

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (125 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 the industrial park that's going in. The

22 community is very concerned about it,

23 because of, you know, extra traffic along

24 the railroad lines. But I'm also a real

25 estate agent, and you can't stop progress.

 63

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (126 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 But I am concerned about safety issues in

 2 particular, because my house, the front

 3 corner of my house is 37 feet from the edge

 4 of the railroad right-of-way. The new

 5 sighting that is going in from the

 6 industrial park will be starting directly in

 7 front of my home. So I'm in a bit of a

 8 pickle.

 9 And the reason I came today was I

10 heard on WRAL that, you know, there was

11 going to be a meeting, and I thought well,

12 I'll come and at least educate myself about

13 what are the laws. Maybe I can learn

14 something that can help get me out of this

15 pickle.

16 I'm a little concerned because the

17 industrial park that is going in next to me

18 has got a sighting, so there will actually

19 be a crossing across the railroad track and

20 the sighting, and it's going to be a reload

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (127 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 center, where they are taking railroad cars

22 and off loading and then loading them onto

23 other trains, loading them onto other 18

24 wheelers, and there will also be some

25 storage facilities there too.

 64

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (128 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 There have been some discussions with

 2 the developer about purchasing my property,

 3 and he was more than happy to purchase it at

 4 tax value. But I don't know anybody who

 5 would sell their house for tax value, and if

 6 you would, you need to see me, because that

 7 would be a listing I could sell very

 8 quickly.

 9 So in this little historic community,

10 we have some concerns. And I can't speak

11 for everyone else out there, but I really

12 wanted to understand more about, you know,

13 what the rules and regulations were for the

14 crossings, how that could possibly, you

15 know, impact me, in between, you know, one

16 that's a public right-of-way crossing and

17 then of course the private. And I'm kind of

18 in between the two and how that would affect

19 me and what the laws and the regulations

20 are, and you can talk to six different

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (129 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 attorneys and get six different opinions as

22 to what my particular situation is. I'm

23 just kind of waiting to see what's going to

24 happen. In the meantime, my access has been

25 cut off to my house, and my water lines have

 65

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (130 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 been dug up, and, of course, I can sue if I

 2 can come up with, you know, enough money to

 3 hire an attorney to sue a wealthy developer

 4 that told me he gets what he wants.

 5 So that's why I'm here. I wasn't here

 6 because I was in the wrong room. I really

 7 just wanted to come in and see if I could

 8 educate myself a little bit better about,

 9 you know, what's going on, what the plans

10 are, understanding the differences between,

11 you know, private crossing and industrial

12 crossing and a commercial crossing and was

13 hoping I might hear a little bit about

14 sightings and how those are okayed, approved

15 and, you know, by what entity and things

16 like that. And so that's why I'm here.

17 MR. COTHEN: Thank you very much. And

18 your appearance is very useful for us, you

19 know, in terms of our understanding of this

20 use. Just based upon what I think I heard,

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (131 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 it sounds like you've got a developer of an

22 industrial park that's going to benefit

23 significantly from access over the crossing,

24 and a railroad that's going to benefit from

25 increased business. And you are stuck in

 66

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (132 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 between. If you want an opinion, by the

 2 way, I will give it to you free of charge at

 3 the break, and it will be worth what you pay

 4 for it, particularly since I'm not admitted

 5 in North Carolina. But it is a very

 6 difficult, complex of issues viewed from a

 7 national perspective. So I can only imagine

 8 what difficulty you may face under those

 9 complicated circumstances.

10 Generally, I think it's fair to say,

11 and we've got a lot of railroaders in the

12 room, correct me if I'm wrong on the

13 railroad right-of-way, generally railroaders

14 have significant latitude to build out their

15 facilities to meet their service needs.

16 There's a general supervision of that by the

17 transportation board, which succeeded the

18 interstate commerce commission's

19 responsibility for this to be normally,

20 unless a line being extended will not get

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (133 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 into the issue of augmenting existing

22 facilities, such as building a sighting,

23 industrial sighting. Normally, they will

24 view that as an activity that is within the

25 purview of the railroad. Obviously, when a

 67

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (134 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 second main or new sighting goes in, whether

 2 it's industrial sighting or whether it's a

 3 passing sighting, when the road is used to

 4 expedite movement of its trains, there's an

 5 impact on the private crossing, the safety

 6 of persons using private crossings as well

 7 as other impacts in the community.

 8 The other side of that is if the

 9 railroads didn't adequately invest in

10 facilities to meet service needs, we would

11 face more trucks on the highway where

12 congestion is announced by the secretary of

13 transportation as the central issue that we

14 face in terms of meeting the needs of the

15 economy, in terms of meeting our needs of

16 citizens in terms of mobility.

17 We are all squeezed by these issues,

18 no one certainly more than yourself. So

19 thank you very much for taking that

20 opportunity to bring that example to light.

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (135 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 Are there others who would be willing

22 to step up to the plate and offer some

23 perspectives, issues, questions that we

24 should keep into consideration as we

25 consider these issues going forward?

 68

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (136 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 We will get Danny Gilbert go and

 2 Leslie, come on up and when Danny is

 3 through, then you go next, okay?

 4 MR. GILBERT: Danny Gilbert, Rail

 5 Safety Consultants, spent 36 years with the

 6 railroad. And as most of you know, whenever

 7 you have a new meeting, you don't have a new

 8 meeting, you have a rehashing of an old

 9 meeting. And I guess my question would be

10 in 1993, this same type of meeting was held,

11 and what I believe some good, hard data was

12 in a draft preliminary guideline for private

13 crossings.

14 Railroads, I believe, have done a

15 great job as far as trying to close private

16 crossings, consolidate the private

17 crossings, developing signage to help

18 facilitate safety issues. But it's getting

19 to the point where it's more difficult to

20 consolidate closed crossings and work on

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (137 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 some of these private crossings. And the

22 document although may not be the best

23 document in the world, it has a lot of good

24 guidance that we could start with. It talks

25 about the holder responsibility. It talks

 69

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (138 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 about warning devices. It talks about

 2 closures.

 3 One of the biggest issues is who is

 4 the user? Does the user have a legal right

 5 to use that crossing? And in this document,

 6 it says: If you can't find anybody with

 7 responsibility that would accept the

 8 responsibility of the crossing, it should be

 9 closed.

10 So I guess my question is why would we

11 not take and build on this document instead

12 of start from scratch? I believe there's

13 some good language in here that can help the

14 railroads, help the states as far as

15 closure, as far as responsibility for a

16 crossing that you don't have any idea who

17 uses it.

18 So this is a document that I've had

19 for a number of years, and I've talked to a

20 lot of people, and no one has seen this

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (139 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 document in years.

22 So my suggestion is start with what

23 you've got, and then let's build on it from

24 there.

25 MR. COTHEN: Thank you, Danny. Our

 70

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (140 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 corporate memory here, some of us at FRA

 2 participated in the development of that

 3 document, and then administrator Gil

 4 Carmichael wanted to do something for

 5 private crossing safety, and he said you all

 6 get on it, and so we did and we circulated

 7 the document. We held a session in St.

 8 Louis to review the guidelines, and we can

 9 certainly arrange to have a copy of the

10 draft guidelines placed in the docket of

11 this proceeding.

12 The reaction of the railroads in

13 general at that point was go away. At one

14 point, we were told you don't have any right

15 to issue guidelines. And at the same time,

16 at the same time, the discussion that we had

17 in St. Louis was excellent. The railroad

18 officers and attorneys who were working on

19 the private crossing issues at that time

20 quite aggressively, and have since, by the

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (141 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 way, came to the meeting and talked about

22 what they were trying to do, some of the

23 issues that they face and some of the things

24 that they managed to accomplish.

25 And so I thought it was a very

 71

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (142 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 productive dialogue, notwithstanding the

 2 official pronounced position of the

 3 railroads as a community nationally that FRA

 4 didn't really need to be in the game.

 5 And so, you know, we tucked our tails

 6 between our legs and we went away for a

 7 while, promising to return to the issue when

 8 we had the opportunity in terms of adequate

 9 resources.

10 Since that time, we've talked about a

11 number of highway rail crossings, just so

12 you know, of late hoping it would be put to

13 bed as much as we possibly could, the train

14 line issue. Although it may never die.

15 And, of course, many people, including

16 Ms. Spurlock, who will have a chance on the

17 floor next, are spending a lot of time in

18 communities as well as others in the room

19 working on quiet zones under that

20 regulation.

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (143 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 So now it's the season again, a little

22 more than a decade later, to return to the

23 topic, and rather than assuming we had the

24 delivered wisdom at that time when we had

25 only draft guidelines in our hands, we

 72

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (144 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 thought we would start from scratch and see

 2 if rather than threatening people with draft

 3 guidelines, which is how we started the last

 4 one, we could kind of build it from the

 5 ground up and understand where we are today,

 6 how the situation may have changed and get a

 7 perspective more widely of communities,

 8 states, railroads, their employees and

 9 others who might have an interest in this

10 matter.

11 So that's kind of the issues and

12 approaches and topics. They are certainly

13 not forgotten. And we may use it before

14 it's over, use it as a basis for drafting,

15 but I don't know about that. We will see

16 when we get to the end of this road.

17 The end of the road, by the way, we

18 hope to have, you know, a report on these

19 activities, the Volpe Center will help us

20 assemble and hopefully that will be a useful

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (145 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 and very public document, which we will have

22 available on our web site that everybody can

23 use as a reference going forward, regardless

24 of what path we choose to take collectively.

25 Thanks, Danny. I'm glad somebody

 73

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (146 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 remembers that we took a shot at it once

 2 before.

 3 Leslie Spurlock is with us from FRA

 4 Region 3, headquartered in Atlanta, and

 5 she's willing to help us fill the silence,

 6 Leslie.

 7 MS. SPURLOCK: So now that I've been

 8 introduced, do I say my name again?

 9 One thing that I've thought of while

10 you have been talking about the private

11 crossings is you get a number 94,000,

12 95,000, even as we speak, there's probably

13 ten more that have been put in. And I get a

14 lot of complaints in my office about blocked

15 crossings. Then when I call and follow up

16 with the railroads, come to find out that

17 was a corn field or a hundred acres of

18 forest that someone has sold and cleared and

19 there's one, two, three trailer homes on it

20 now. Usually, you know, a lot of them are

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (147 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 family related. Well, suddenly you've

22 created a surprise problem for the

23 railroads. Not only is that an illegal

24 private crossing, but they now have to take

25 into consideration if somebody is there,

 74

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (148 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 where they were stopping to pick up supplies

 2 or trees or something before, now they've

 3 got complaints about them, and it's just

 4 something if you could take into

 5 consideration in the future, that if any

 6 land is sold, what are you going to do that

 7 these new folks know about crossings? Can

 8 it be prohibited? Because part of me really

 9 feels for the railroads, that these small

10 plots of land are popping up, and they've

11 suddenly got a new crossing, that the

12 feeling is with the homeowner, the

13 landowner, and the big bad railroad, and

14 that's not really the situation.

15 So please consider a way that maybe

16 new crossings can be controlled and not just

17 pop up overnight that nobody knew about

18 them.

19 MR. COTHEN: Okay. Private rail

20 crossings intersection between a roadway and

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (149 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 highway of interstate commerce, to use the

22 term that's being used, and Leslie is

23 calling to attention the plan. Thank you

24 very much.

25 Yes, sir, Jason field.

 75

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (150 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 MR. FIELD: My name is Jason Field.

 2 I'm with NCDOT's rail division. I'd like to

 3 expand a little bit on what she said, that

 4 is, an issue that we have a great deal of

 5 problem with in the State of North Carolina,

 6 where you have private crossings that a

 7 developer purchases, and two or three years

 8 down the road you end up having an 800

 9 homes, banks, all kinds of other development

10 that is based on a private crossing, and

11 we're running into an issue with that in

12 this state in trying to figure out how to

13 address that.

14 So, you know, some kind of guideline

15 in regards to private crossings and being

16 shifted to public usage and things certainly

17 should be something considered in anything

18 that comes out.

19 MR. COTHEN: Jason, is there -- do you

20 have any kind of charter document at NCDOT

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (151 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 in terms of what approach to take to

22 adoption of private crossings, putting them

23 in the public system?

24 MR. FIELD: Well, we have standard

25 procedures we follow for any roadway. If

 76

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (152 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 it's built to DOT standards, the private

 2 owners can pursue with the state to have it

 3 brought onto the state system, or the

 4 municipal system if it's in that area. But

 5 the problem we run into in a lot of cases,

 6 the rail division is not part of those

 7 discussions early on, and you end up having

 8 a problem before you are able to do anything

 9 about it.

10 And then in addition to that, due to

11 political pressures, a lot of times we are

12 in a place where the developers are not held

13 accountable for bringing in the significant

14 development that's adding to the traffic

15 issues, as well as railroad handling issues

16 and grade crossing safety, and then

17 everybody looks to us to go fix this

18 problem. And it's a tremendous problem,

19 and, you know, in a lot of cases we find the

20 private crossings are not built to any kind

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (153 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 of standard.

22 I had one location where when they

23 were putting traffic loops down, the foot

24 pedestals that they put down for the traffic

25 loops were punched through the pavement. We

 77

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (154 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 ended up ripping everything up, which got

 2 within the water lines, which were an inch

 3 below that pavement for the bank and a few

 4 other facilities, and end up having to fix

 5 that, and there's no general guideline from

 6 the private crossing standpoint where things

 7 had to be built a certain way. So they do

 8 what gets them by, and then when it becomes

 9 a public usage crossing, you have

10 substandard infrastructure in place that

11 everybody looks to the state to fix, you

12 know, which in turn the cost benefit in some

13 of these cases that was very good becomes

14 less so.

15 You know, there are processes to bring

16 these roads onto the system as far as the

17 developer who is creating the problem,

18 basically in developing these properties and

19 hanging the price tag of fixing the

20 infrastructure on the state once they leave.

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (155 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 MR. COTHEN: Thank you very much.

22 MR. WORLEY: I have a comment. One of

23 the tasks that I see that perhaps could be

24 done between, you know, one of the things

25 that we talked about years ago is with the

 78

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (156 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 grade crossings, is that local and county

 2 engineers, municipal and county engineering

 3 don't have a very good understanding of

 4 grade crossings. So we went through this

 5 process of the technical work group, the ITE

 6 document, which is pretty helpful for folks.

 7 Perhaps one of the things we are able to

 8 look at is land use planners in counties and

 9 towns coming up with some kind of document

10 or some kind of guide of working with

11 American Planning Association or even the

12 University of North Carolina's planning

13 department type, those type of folks to come

14 up with a document that gives information

15 about the railroad, about crossings,

16 compiles some laws, regulations, concerns

17 and so on and make that a document that's

18 available to local land use planners,

19 because I know there is a flat effort

20 towards smart growth and being better

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (157 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 regulating and controlling development, and

22 that may be a good tool that can be used by

23 those local planners with information that

24 would be very good for them. That's just a

25 thought there.

 79

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (158 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 I don't think they are really aware of

 2 what they are dealing with with the

 3 railroads. I know in talking about with

 4 some of the city planners in Greensboro,

 5 they were trying to do a lot of in-field

 6 development. And once they do that, they

 7 realize they have a crossing nearby and

 8 people go back to the city want to know why

 9 it's up.

10 One of the things they talk about is

11 perhaps they go ahead and assess a fee or

12 look at some of this new development and

13 have that considered in some of costs of

14 redeveloping these areas, what crosses or

15 devices, so there are a number of factors

16 that planners are more agreeable to assist

17 with these days and consider when they are

18 looking at planning.

19 MR. COTHEN: Thanks, Paul. It sounds

20 like you have an action item in this

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (159 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 activity for sure among others.

22 Maybe we can jump start that by making

23 some outreach at the national level at the

24 American Planning Association or any other

25 groups that might be good contacts.

 80

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (160 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 Others that we can call on to speak

 2 generally about issues that have come to

 3 their attention?

 4 Now, I've got to just be stern with

 5 you at this point, okay? I've got to be

 6 stern with you. We had railroads at the

 7 first meeting, normally we have a table, you

 8 know, it will be in rectangular sort of set

 9 up, and everybody comes to the table and we

10 have the advisory committee, we have a

11 series of working groups, where we have

12 labor, management, suppliers, states and

13 past organizations and others participating

14 in standards development, and everybody

15 comes to the table and everybody has a say.

16 Now, this is the second of our

17 outreach sessions, and when we were in Fort

18 Snelling, we had some very knowledgeable

19 railroaders present. Labor, for example,

20 talked. We had one introductory paper from

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (161 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 the Association of American Railroads, which

22 was, I understand, a good deal shorter than

23 the original draft. And then we had some

24 folks from the rail industry who would

25 answer questions very adeptly, factual

 81

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (162 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 questions, but from a policy standpoint, we

 2 really had a dearth of substantive input

 3 from the major railroads.

 4 So Cliff Ebie, who is our deputy

 5 administrator at the railroad safety

 6 advisory committee meeting, made a point to

 7 say you got to be at the table. You need to

 8 be at the table. And, of course, we are not

 9 in a rectangular setup here, so what that

10 means you need to be on the podium or the

11 floor mic at this stage.

12 We have some very knowledgeable

13 railroad people here from labor and

14 management, and they work with these issues

15 all the time. And we we'd love to hear from

16 you. If we don't, we're going to do

17 whatever the heck we want to do.

18 MR. CRUZ: I'd like to talk about

19 inventory issues.

20 MR. COTHEN: Good. He is going to

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (163 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 bail us out.

22 MR. CRUZ: My name is Ric Cruz. I

23 worked with inventory as project engineer

24 data manager, C-R-U-Z.

25 One of the issues that we'll have to

 82

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (164 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 deal with as far as acquiring the data

 2 that's necessary to do all of our studies

 3 and modeling is actually collecting the

 4 data.

 5 Private crossings in North Carolina,

 6 particularly there's probably about 4 or

 7 5,000 we are talking about doing, right now

 8 the general statutes do not allow us to go

 9 on those properties. And as far as the

10 general statutes, do not allow us to spend

11 money going in and inventorying those

12 particular crosses. We do have access

13 through the general statutes to go on there

14 for a particular reason, if we have to go on

15 there and find information.

16 However, the biggest problem we have

17 is that current data that we have in our

18 database system is very, very old. Some of

19 it dated back to 1974. Some of it is even

20 nonexistent. Most of the data as far as the

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (165 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 railroads are concerned, as far as railroad

22 traffic and private crossings is

23 nonexistent. We don't know how many train

24 moves or movements we have there or

25 capacities on those particular rail lines at

 83

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (166 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 all.

 2 If we are tasked to acquire that data,

 3 it's very arduous undertaking as far as

 4 getting that information. It's something we

 5 have to consider. It's going to take time.

 6 It's going to take money. And right now

 7 there is no good data on that. It's

 8 something we will have to think about.

 9 MR. COTHEN: One of the things that

10 intrigued me is a work-around, Ric. We're

11 getting to the point where we think we can

12 place most of these crossings on a GIS

13 database. Some years back it was 85 percent

14 we could successfully put it in place. I

15 keep waiting for somebody to say we are at

16 98 percent, but nobody said that yet. But a

17 great number of these crossings with the

18 information in the inventory has seemed to

19 be put on a GIS platform.

20 MR. CRUZ: A lot of the information

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (167 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 that we have, the railroad crossings from

22 FOA, we have actually checked those, and

23 found there's a lot of error built into

24 them, and they are not very accurate.

25 We have done a lot of GPS, GIS work in

 84

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (168 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 North Carolina public crossings, and in so

 2 doing, we have been able to get -- update

 3 our map systems to the point where they are

 4 fairly accurate. Every chance we get while

 5 we are out there on the rail line, we also

 6 try to do the private crossings, locate them

 7 specifically on the maps. So we happen to

 8 do that.

 9 And what we can have readily, been

10 getting to these crossings closest to the

11 roads that are operating parallel to the

12 railroad, then we try to get that

13 information also.

14 But for the most part, the biggest

15 problem we have with private crossings is

16 they are not numbered, and it's hard to find

17 which one we are dealing with when we are

18 out there.

19 And then there's a lot of crossings

20 out there that are not on our database at

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (169 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 all and trying to resolve those issues with

22 the railroad, sometimes it's a problem that

23 we have, and a lot of times the railroads

24 aren't too sure about the information either

25 when they go back and forth as far as who

 85

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (170 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 owns that crossing, and most times some of

 2 these crossings they don't even know they

 3 are out there.

 4 So as far as that's concerned, the GIS

 5 and GPS information that we have is really

 6 pretty good on the public crossings, and as

 7 far as our mapping is concerned, some areas

 8 that we have it's been done in the past, but

 9 they are not very accurate, they are a

10 hundred meters off so.

11 MR. COTHEN: With information on your

12 database on the rail traffic public

13 crossings, being that they tend to be

14 interspersed, do you have the ability to

15 convey, from an eyeball standpoint, the

16 amount of traffic to which on a particular

17 line the private crossings are exposed?

18 MR. CRUZ: Rail traffic or?

19 MR. COTHEN: Rail traffic.

20 MR. CRUZ: That's something else we

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (171 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 could probably do that, and there's ways we

22 can do that electronically with the data.

23 But it all is dependent on the accuracy of

24 the train movements and counts that we get

25 from the roadways, and that is where unless

 86

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (172 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 we have a line that's been studied, then we

 2 can rely on information from those.

 3 A lot of the other lines all through

 4 the state, there's not real accurate data on

 5 train movements. We have been working with

 6 the class one railroads on that, and

 7 hopefully this fall we will be able to start

 8 sharing more of that type of data.

 9 But as of right now, we don't have --

10 I don't have confidence in the data that we

11 have to be able to assign numbers on those

12 private crossings, just based on the data

13 that we have on record.

14 MR. COTHEN: Any of this discussion

15 with regard to these issues, I guess, you

16 are off the hook. Thank you very much.

17 MR. CRUZ: Thank you.

18 MR. COTHEN: Okay, others? Again,

19 it's wide open to anything related to safety

20 at private highway rail crossings, or for

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (173 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 that matter the impacts we have on

22 communities. When we try to affect safety

23 and public highway rail crossings, we need

24 to know both sides of it.

25 Okay. What I would suggest is -- I'm

 87

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (174 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 sorry.

 2 MR. BRYANT: Can I speak?

 3 MR. COTHEN: Please.

 4 MR. BRYANT: I notice you've got some

 5 representatives from the railroad coming. I

 6 was wondering if they were going to speak

 7 today? I too was sitting on the --

 8 MR. COTHEN: Can you state your name

 9 for the record?

10 MR. BRYANT: My name is John Bryant.

11 I'm not with the railroad company.

12 I was standing on the Pre-Core today

13 at the YMCA, and I learned about this

14 meeting on WRAL news, just like you did.

15 But I think one of the things as a

16 member of the public that I'd like to see

17 happen is there's not any national standard

18 for, I don't think, construction and

19 maintenance of grade crossings, either

20 public or private. I'm a trial lawyer. I

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (175 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 have a client that's involved in a case that

22 is a maintenance issue from a crossing. And

23 according to the folks that we have talked

24 to during the course of that case, there's

25 not any way to determine how grade crossings

 88

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (176 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 are supposed to be maintained for the safety

 2 of the vehicular public for the life of the

 3 crossing. The only things that have been

 4 handed down to this particular defendant,

 5 the only things that have been handed down

 6 over the years in the case that I'm involved

 7 with, because I think it's important that

 8 you all know what goes on, I will give you

 9 just a little bit of factual background of

10 what happened there so that you can have

11 some importance to place not only on the

12 collision between the train and the vehicle,

13 but also because of the safety in passing

14 over the tracks.

15 In my case, the theory of the

16 plaintiff is that the tracks became decayed

17 over a number of years, because no

18 maintenance was performed on them. And the

19 railroad admitted that for 20 years, nothing

20 was done to maintain or check over these

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (177 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 particular tracks.

22 My client was holding a screwdriver

23 when they passed over this rail. It got

24 stuck on the rail and deployed the air bag,

25 which shoved a screwdriver into his

 89

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (178 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 cheekbone through his sinus cavity up into

 2 the orbit of his eye.

 3 So it's not always, even though the --

 4 most of what you are going to see is going

 5 to be the collision between the train and

 6 the car, I know those are really

 7 catastrophic events. But I think that

 8 because of the fact that the railroad

 9 companies are not left with any guidance

10 about how they got to maintain those

11 particular crossings, it's only handed down

12 to employee, to employee, to employee over

13 the years.

14 Some of the evidence that we heard in

15 the case was that they were supposed to

16 maintain the crossing the way that it was

17 put in, and try to keep it that way for the

18 life of it, which is a good and noble thing

19 to do, but I think if you have in the

20 crossings, either private or public, if you

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (179 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 have the rail and the crossing timbers that

22 are on either side of the rail, which are

23 eight inches by eight inches when they are

24 wooden, I have learned. I didn't know

25 anything about railroad crossings a couple

 90

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (180 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 of years ago. And they are supposed to be

 2 flushed with the rail to keep cars that

 3 might be lower-riding cars or low boards

 4 like you were talking about earlier, from

 5 getting hung up on those things, and if that

 6 is something that is a great geometric

 7 configuration, I don't think that the rails

 8 here in North Carolina are any different of

 9 the rails that exist in the state of Wyoming

10 or any other place in the country.

11 That's why I think it begs for a

12 national standard, so that if the rail

13 companies have a lot of tracks to keep up

14 with and have a lot they have to take care

15 of the safety -- according to the North

16 Carolina General Statutes, have to take care

17 of the safety of the motoring public also,

18 and they also have to take care -- making

19 sure that the train stays on the tracks, so

20 these are the two things that they are

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (181 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 confronted with, for us to have a national

22 standard at track safety crossing, I think

23 is what we ought to try to accomplish.

24 Because not just for the trains and not just

25 for the collision between the trains and the

 91

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (182 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 cars, but also for the construction and

 2 maintenance of the rails themselves at the

 3 grade crossings.

 4 MR. COTHEN: Thank you, sir. I

 5 appreciate that perspective.

 6 So that the issue that's brought here

 7 is one of surface, and I will posit to be

 8 corrected that this public crossing in

 9 general, sharing of responsibilities that

10 are normally outside the rails' public

11 authority, maintaining the surface and the

12 gates, the railroad maintains the surface?

13 Somebody direct me.

14 MR. RIES: Generally, it's over the

15 track structure. On some states, it might

16 go out another foot or so, and it would be

17 the railroad's responsibilities.

18 MR. COTHEN: And the ties and the

19 ballasts sections?

20 MR. RIES: And the ties.

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (183 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 MR. COTHEN: And in the case of

22 private crossings the standard is?

23 MR. RIES: If there's agreement,

24 typically it would be the agreements are

25 usually written to be the property owner's

 92

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (184 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 responsibility to pay for the maintenance,

 2 and the railroad would do the work actually

 3 over the track surface.

 4 MR. COTHEN: If there's agreement, and

 5 we learned today that there's seldom an

 6 agreement, I mean, fiscally speaking, this

 7 is consistent with what we heard in

 8 Minnesota as well.

 9 There will be more agreements if the

10 situation were clearer, I'm sure, because we

11 know that railroads try to work aggressively

12 to close crossings where possible and to

13 make sure that they are maintained safely.

14 Maintaining crossing surface is

15 obviously something that's a challenge,

16 given the number of highway rail crossings

17 that needs to be attended to.

18 So thank you for that perspective. We

19 need to always remember, and this is the

20 case where we want to talk about

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (185 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 engineering, but certainly includes all

22 aspects of the crossing surface.

23 Other comments before we break for

24 lunch of a general nature?

25 I'm glad we had our public appearance

 93

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (186 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 staff put out the press release, and we are

 2 grateful that the outlets here hae taken the

 3 opportunity to notice the meeting and bring

 4 in a couple of folks.

 5 MR. RIES: Just also to note, thanks

 6 to North Carolina DOT who put out their own

 7 press release about this as well.

 8 MR. COTHEN: That's right, yes.

 9 Thank you very much, Paul and Pat and company.

10 What we would like to do, I think at

11 this point, is we will take a break, make

12 sure that we have time to set up. We will

13 go -- in order for you to be able to get

14 your lunch conveniently, take any calls you

15 need to take, we will come back at one

16 o'clock.

17 Is there any information about

18 cafeteria facilities? There's information

19 at the back and cafeteria on site. We will

20 be back at one o'clock and try to set up in

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (187 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 rectangular fashion and railroads will be at

22 the table. Thank you.

23 (Luncheon recess)

24 (Off the record at 11:46 a.m.)

25 (Continued on next page)

 94

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (188 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N

 2 (On the record at 1:01 p.m.)

 3 MR. COTHEN: Okay, let's resume,

 4 please. We set up optimistically, and we

 5 almost filled out the table. I appreciate

 6 those of you who were able to return for the

 7 afternoon session.

 8 As we indicated this morning, what

 9 we'd like to do, without prejudice at all to

10 taking on other topics if they arise, is to

11 get some traction, if we can, on engineering

12 issues related to highway rail crossing

13 safety and private crossings in particular.

14 And we know that we got the manual for

15 uniform traffic control devices, AREMA and

16 AASHTO standards and so forth as potential

17 sources, among others, to apply principles

18 used at public crossings, private crossings.

19 But we also got some peculiar and special

20 circumstances. We don't have many public

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (189 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 crossings where it's required to farm and

22 only to combine and traverse only a few

23 times a year in season, and that sort of

24 thing.

25 And we also have the issue of

 95

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (190 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 resources, which is not a trivial issue when

 2 you consider over 90,000, apparently,

 3 locations that need to be addressed.

 4 So if we can, we will ask Anya Carroll

 5 from the Volpe Center to begin to generate

 6 some discussion here, give you a little more

 7 background on the topic and take us through

 8 questions and issues. Anya.

 9 MS. CARROLL: Thanks, Grady.

10 Good afternoon, everybody. What I

11 figured we would do, because you are such

12 gracious visitors to this meeting, is take

13 you through some of the highlights of the

14 Minnesota meeting that we had, and maybe

15 identify some other states that may have

16 similar and other railroads that may have

17 similar concerns that you have to try and

18 stimulate the conversation.

19 The same list of questions which you

20 have a copy of in the back of the federal

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (191 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 register notice were asked of the Minnesota

22 delegation at their public meeting. And so

23 we had some statements made by Minnesota

24 DOT, which basically corroborated the fact

25 that they have no regulations over private

 96

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (192 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 crossings other than insured farm crossings.

 2 They had issues over the cost of

 3 closing private crossings and local

 4 jurisdictions that do not want to maintain

 5 private crossings.

 6 They expressed the lack of funding for

 7 grade separations, and whose responsible for

 8 maintaining any traffic control device that

 9 would be placed at a private crossing, if

10 that were possible.

11 Iowa DOT was present with us in

12 Minnesota, and they were looking for some

13 political will to close crossings, to allow

14 local and state jurisdictions to be able to

15 move that to fruition.

16 Canadian Pacific Railroad was with us,

17 and they mentioned some new guidance, new

18 regulations that transport Canada will be

19 bringing forward in the form of what they

20 call RTD-10, I think. In their terms, they

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (193 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 do not use the terms public versus private

22 crossings. They use the term restricted

23 versus unrestricted crossings.

24 So that's information for you to think about.

25 Transport Canada also has a research

 97

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (194 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 team, they are IBI Group in Canada to look

 2 at the same issue of private crossings. So

 3 they will be coming out with a report, I

 4 would say, within the next six months to a

 5 year on the Canadian experience with private

 6 crossings.

 7 They did some initial literature

 8 survey in that research. They went out and

 9 surveyed users and railroads off the private

10 crossings. So that should be an interesting

11 document.

12 Minnesota DOT also mentioned at our

13 previous meeting that they may not have

14 state resources available, even if there was

15 funding coming to the state, to deal with

16 private crossings. And even to do an

17 inventory of private crossings, felt that

18 they wouldn't -- they might not necessarily

19 have the staff if they received funding to

20 do that.

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (195 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 Minnesota DOT does mandate yield signs

22 through their state for private crossings,

23 and that they feel that there should be some

24 sort of criteria in the MUTCD applied to the

25 issue of private crossings.

 98

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (196 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 One discussion point that came up was

 2 having a bibliography of all the reports

 3 that may impact our considerations about

 4 private crossings. And Volpe has been

 5 tasked by the FRA to try and put that

 6 information together in the form of a

 7 spreadsheet with links to the documents that

 8 will be put in the FRA docket on this

 9 matter.

10 And Danny, as far as you are

11 concerned, I think it's a good idea to put

12 those old 1993 guidelines in as part of our

13 bibliography. So we will move ahead and do

14 that.

15 We did talk a little bit about

16 insurance issues, and the fact that there's

17 no legal documentation available to provide

18 a basis for negotiation to close private

19 crossings or even to formally acknowledge

20 where those crossings are.

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (197 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 And then we got into a long discussion

22 about the engineering design and the types

23 of categories. And you should have a

24 handout, that's an excerpt in your packet

25 that talks to a lot of what you mentioned,

 99

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (198 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 Paul, this morning about the different types

 2 of crossings. And we are going to be using

 3 that in a few minutes to talk about well,

 4 how do we treat each one of these and how do

 5 you determine how they fall in each

 6 category?

 7 There was an example given about types

 8 of categories that the levy association in

 9 Iowa is not considered a highway authority,

10 so even if they may have roadway access to

11 their levies, it's not a public roadway.

12 That was one example that was given.

13 In Wisconsin, from the DOT, the

14 railroads must negotiate with private owners

15 for new crossings.

16 So before a new crossing can be

17 established under responsive DOT rule, the

18 railroads must negotiate with the private

19 owner, I guess, and have some sort of

20 contractual agreement before that would be

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (199 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 allowed.

22 Also in Wisconsin, the local

23 jurisdictions are urging any new

24 developments to keep them private and not

25 make them public, so that the public doesn't

 100

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (200 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 assume the responsibility.

 2 Also, in Wisconsin, the state pays

 3 25 percent of the maintenance fees for the

 4 public crossings.

 5 We talked about what's a public

 6 crossing and what's a private crossing in

 7 Wisconsin. If you have a public roadway on

 8 both sides of the crossing, it's then a

 9 public crossing. If it's a private road,

10 then it's considered private.

11 MR. BROWDER: I don't quite

12 understand. If it's a private road, it's

13 considered private?

14 MS. CARROLL: If it's public on both

15 sides, it's considered public. If it's

16 public on one side and private on the other,

17 it's considered private.

18 The types of users that use the

19 crossings were of concern, and also what the

20 public purpose is for each one of these

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (201 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 crossings, whether it be commercial access

22 to a Wal-Mart, or recreational access to a

23 boat ramp. How do you determine this, and

24 how do you categorize them and what their

25 needs are for any type of traffic control

 101

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (202 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 device for one to be placed there?

 2 There's also the data collection issue

 3 that was a big topic. Minnesota mentioned

 4 that the Federal Highway Administration has

 5 limited interest in crossings in general but

 6 private crossings as well, limited resources

 7 from the states. We heard a lot of that.

 8 And then we talked about well, who

 9 could we partner with to discuss these

10 issues? And for this meeting, we sent out

11 over 600 invitations to multiple

12 organizations to include trucking

13 organizations, agriculture organizations,

14 metropolitan planning organizations, so

15 we'll still continue that outreach.

16 Some of the people that were

17 identified as far as partnering was the

18 Federal Highway Administration, the National

19 Committee on Uniform Traffic Control

20 Devices, AASHTO, AREMA, APTA, TRV, the

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (203 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 Bureau of Transportation and Statistics, the

22 National Highway Traffic Safety

23 Administration, the bus industry,

24 specifically school buses were mentioned,

25 federal transit, the AAR, the Short Line

 102

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (204 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 Association and possibly even considering

 2 looking to DOT as far as security issues as

 3 Paul mentioned in his speech earlier.

 4 So that was sort of a high-level

 5 summary of what we discussed. The docket

 6 will soon have the full results of the text

 7 that was taken by the stenographer in

 8 Minnesota, so you are able to read word by

 9 word of what went on there.

10 So with that, I think we want to move

11 to -- does anybody have any comments or

12 questions regarding the statements I just

13 made about our Minnesota meeting?

14 Is anybody interested in providing a

15 starting point for crossing categorization

16 or engineering design of a particular type

17 of crossing, or issues we may have, trying

18 to do that?

19 Bill Browder?

20 MR. BROWDER: Since the railroaders

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (205 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 have been silent.

22 MS. CARROLL: Please, Bill, use the

23 mic and introduce yourself.

24 MR. BROWDER: Bill Browder from the

25 AAR. Is it working?

 103

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (206 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 One issue that arose a little bit this

 2 morning from John Bryant that categorized

 3 standards and practices was the one

 4 concerning vertical alignment that was

 5 addressed in the accidents that shouldn't

 6 happen.

 7 Back in March of '96, as a result of

 8 Fox River Grove, which in some ways is

 9 identified as hump crossings, that

10 short-term objective was to provide some

11 kind of indication which the MUTC did with a

12 sign. But the long-term objection was to

13 put together a group, which I was a member,

14 Bruce George; Fred Small; AASHTO; AREMA;

15 which was AREA at the time, and the Short

16 Line Association, and as a data collection,

17 we did a survey, which should be on your

18 files, of crossing conditions that could be

19 identified as vertical alignment issues, and

20 in particular, identifying them at that

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (207 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 point from public crossings.

22 What happened with that report was

23 that they recommended to those members that

24 a technical committee be appointed to adopt

25 recommendations from the stakeholders.

 104

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (208 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 Although that committee was appointed, I

 2 don't think anything ever got done. I don't

 3 think they ever met. And it certainly

 4 hasn't gone anywhere without -- with the

 5 agent or one of the basic problems I know

 6 was the frustration of trying to address it

 7 without any -- with the stonewalling,

 8 basically, of the highway side in terms of

 9 wheel -- distance between wheels and height

10 above ground of equipment, and Bruce George

11 tried to promote an effort that avoided

12 that, I guess, is the way I would

13 characterize saying that issue. But if

14 something is to be done in terms of ITS to

15 address those issues, and I don't know if

16 that's germane to private crossings or not,

17 that's a great place to start in that

18 endeavor.

19 Also, in terms of standards, and I'm

20 repeating myself in saying that the

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (209 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 railroads are not the experts on the highway

22 side. And in terms of private crossings,

23 there is certainly, as has been identified

24 in my mind, a continuing lack of highway

25 side authority or interest in providing the

 105

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (210 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 authority. And the only thing that the

 2 railroads have been able to do from that

 3 perspective, quite frankly, has to be, it

 4 has to endeavor where private crossings do

 5 exist to obtain agreements. And as you can

 6 see, our track record is not good. And it

 7 isn't from a lack of trying to obtain

 8 agreements.

 9 CSX several years ago had a very

10 assertive policy, not aggressive, to obtain

11 agreements on private crossings that they

12 did not have agreements on. And after about

13 a year, they were completely frustrated, in

14 many cases by local judicial authority that

15 threw their cases out of court when they

16 attempted to obtain some kind of action that

17 would require a good faith negotiation, and

18 even to the point of arbitration as far as

19 some sort of written agreement. Some

20 landowners that already crossed, just

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (211 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 absolutely refused to have anything to do

22 with any kind of agreement. And I really

23 appreciate, Grady, you saying this morning

24 that the railroads were doing a god job. We

25 don't hear that very often. I'm sure you

 106

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (212 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 don't hear it very often either from other

 2 constituents, that the railroads are using

 3 the money and laden, heavy-handed people

 4 that are out there and are not good, solid,

 5 business citizens of communities and

 6 stakeholders.

 7 In my 38 years in the railroads, I

 8 think railroads that I have been associated

 9 with have always tried to be good business

10 citizens of communities where they are

11 involved. Certainly, as Gil Carmichael had

12 said, there are way too many crossings and

13 the work group has been the private

14 crossings out there that proliferate the

15 countryside and the lines, and certainly

16 each of these crossings has a certain

17 exposure to safety, not only to the

18 individuals that use the crossing, but to

19 the train crews that traverse it.

20 And so I'm pleased to hear that we're

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (213 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 at least at the table in terms of trying to

22 develop areas where there are commonalities.

23 Now, the bad news is that I'm not sure

24 that we in the railroad industry have total

25 commonality out there as far as where we

 107

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (214 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 want to be. And, again, that stems from the

 2 fact that we're dealing with 49 different

 3 states as well as hundreds of local

 4 authorities and literally thousands of

 5 individual landowners and individuals who

 6 represent everything from stadiums to

 7 parking lots to strip malls to shopping

 8 malls.

 9 And I think there are some good, basic

10 things that have come out of what we've been

11 talking about from an engineering standpoint

12 that are basic areas that could be

13 addressed.

14 There is in the AASHTO green book and

15 AREMA, a standard for highway railway

16 crossings, highways, either through the rail

17 end of the crossing and to a certain number

18 of feet outside the rail at a point, and it

19 depends on the angle of the crossing and the

20 rail, so I'm not going to give you feet, but

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (215 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 you can look it up and make it part of the

22 record. The problem is that nobody else is

23 out there doing anything that addresses any

24 kind of potential standards or practices

25 that can be agreed to on the highway side.

 108

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (216 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 Again, we have certain things that we

 2 have even committed to.

 3 If you go back to that report,

 4 basically the railroads committed, and this

 5 is really nothing new, I always heard it

 6 when I was a civil engineer, well, you come

 7 through and you timber and services crossing

 8 and raise it up every time. You see that

 9 crossing over there? You timber and service

10 it, and it's way up in the air and it didn't

11 get up that way with timber and servicing.

12 In most cases, I can tell you from hands-on

13 experience putting in crossings that you

14 actually have an issue in terms of

15 settlement in the highway end of the grade

16 crossing. And yes, we do put some elevation

17 when we go through and timber and surface

18 it. But by six months afterwards, if we've

19 done it right, it settled back to where it

20 originally was, and if we haven't done it

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (217 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 right, it may even be below it and we have

22 another problem.

23 So often these things are things that

24 I think that brother Worley was right on

25 target and right on the money that AASHTO

 109

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (218 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 can be an active individual to support these

 2 kinds of engineering efforts.

 3 I know that I can halfway speak for

 4 AREMA, although they are not here.

 5 I think that, again, there's some

 6 other experience out there in the private

 7 crossing area. I point back to the efforts

 8 that have been made in the public crossing

 9 areas and suggesting that HWA certainly has

10 some very knowledgeable people that can

11 contribute. And as Paul said, Paul Worley

12 said earlier, and I was glad to hear him

13 talk about this, since he was there with me

14 in the technical working group, I think his

15 idea of convening some sort of technical

16 working group like the one that we had may

17 be an excellent idea, at least in getting

18 stakeholders in some kind of a conference

19 situation.

20 We've got very few stakeholders here

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (219 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 when you get right down to it. We've got

22 North Carolina DOT, and I love them dearly,

23 and I have been trying to wean myself from

24 North Carolina how long now, Paul? Since I

25 had you over there at the state fair?

 110

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (220 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 MR. WORLEY: It's been a long time.

 2 MR. BROWDER: For years, and I'm still

 3 not out of the woods. And nothing against

 4 North Carolina or West Virginia, I love them

 5 dearly too, but I think we need to get the

 6 rest of the group together to look at the

 7 engineering, or have I said enough Grady? I

 8 will shut up.

 9 And I want the record to show that I'm

10 from the railroads, and I want to contribute

11 my part to avoid any further criticism from

12 the chairs. Thank you.

13 MR. COTHEN: It wasn't intended as

14 criticism. It was intended as

15 encouragement. We thank you for taking the

16 bait, I mean, stepping up and adding to the

17 discussion.

18 Thank you very much for that.

19 MS. CARROLL: Anybody else?

20 MR. WORLEY: I got one thing to add

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (221 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 before you get into a lot of engineering

22 inventory classifications. That's one thing

23 that we can look at, but I would ask that we

24 do consider the need to cut back based on

25 the data and to look at different kinds of

 111

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (222 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 treatments, because you can in a vacuum or

 2 based on a certain level of experience

 3 recommend certain kinds of signage or

 4 certain kinds of signals or certain kinds of

 5 signs, but really you need some real world

 6 tests out there to rely on DOT and to get

 7 the data. We do a lot without gathering

 8 data, and for something that's as big as

 9 private crossings, something that's out

10 there before we start lifting and signing

11 standard, make sure we have some really good

12 data. We need to have it in there. Don't

13 study forever. Some places study forever,

14 but --

15 MS. CARROLL: Thank you Paul. I

16 actually had a couple of questions for you.

17 I know you are involved in AASHTO in the

18 SCORT committee, and one of my things was my

19 bedtime reading as of recent has been page

20 by page, line by line, word by word MUTCD

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (223 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 and AASHTO green book. Some of the things I

22 found were interesting, as I was not looking

23 for necessarily highway-rail grade

24 crossings, but other roadways that could be

25 classified as private roads, which may

 112

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (224 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 intersect the railroads. I found a couple

 2 of interesting citations in AASHTO, a whole

 3 section on driveways. There is guidance in

 4 AASHTO on how you sign and control access to

 5 driveways. And my question to you, Paul,

 6 and the other piece that I found was on

 7 recreational roads. And I was wondering,

 8 Paul, if you had any idea of how these came

 9 about, and whether they would be applicable

10 to look at as some sort of way to bring

11 AASHTO on board with private grade

12 crossings?

13 MR. WORLEY: Well, I think we are on

14 board with the SCORTs. First of all, I

15 think AASHTO is on board, first of all,

16 through the standard committee on rail, and

17 a lot of the other safety issues we have got

18 going on, but I would ask as far as accurate

19 green booth goes, I would think the intent

20 there would be to address where it said

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (225 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 driveway or access roads, private

22 intersections of public highway, the

23 railroad is not a public railroad.

24 So you still have, you know, you do

25 have that traffic control device at the

 113

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (226 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 public highway, and the public purpose

 2 thereof is to protect the user of the public

 3 highway for someone not having the stop sign

 4 and pull right out.

 5 So I can imagine that's probably where

 6 those signs of standards came from years

 7 ago. But that does give you the ability to

 8 look at well, being that there's public

 9 purpose in railroad crossings to railroads

10 in interstate commerce, that's something to

11 look at. But I think that's the reason the

12 agreement was made.

13 MS. CARROLL: But it does look at a

14 private intersection of a public roadway,

15 because there is guidance for private roads

16 over public access.

17 MR. WORLEY: Right, exactly.

18 MS. CARROLL: So my thought was that

19 since the door might be a little ajar, we

20 could look at those as a baseline to work

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (227 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 from, you know, off a driveway or

22 recreational, because the studies must have

23 been done if AASHTO was quoted in the green

24 book to say these are the kinds of things

25 you need to look at when you have access.

 114

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (228 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 MR. WORLEY: The former access group

 2 would be signed, that's much different. I

 3 don't say the concept is bad. I'd say

 4 that's not a real good comparison when you

 5 start talking about access to a public road

 6 with a highway rail crossing. And Bill has

 7 the battle we went through with the signs,

 8 stop signs and highway signs when you start

 9 trying to use a highway standard or bring

10 those guys into it that way.

11 MS. CARROLL: We don't have anybody

12 here representing the National Committee on

13 Uniform Traffic Control Devices, do we?

14 MR. WORLEY: We're on the committee.

15 MR. BROWDER: Well, Paul and I are on

16 the committee. Dave Peterson at the Fort

17 Snelling meeting brought that up, and I told

18 the staff up here that I had called Rick

19 Campbell, who probably is the best and most

20 representative individual for the national

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (229 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 committee to discuss their approach and

22 perspective on the work that they are doing

23 in this area, and Brian Gilrad of Ron's

24 staff is also involved.

25 I suspect -- Ric committed to me that

 115

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (230 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 he would come to a meeting, and I imagine,

 2 since he is not here, that he would come to

 3 the New Orleans meeting, that would be

 4 closer for him out of Fort Worth.

 5 Does that help any?

 6 MS. CARROLL: Yeah, it helps a little

 7 bit.

 8 I was interested in a piece within the

 9 MUTCD, the 2003 edition, that talks to low

10 volume roadways. And, again, I'm trying to

11 stretch a point, like I tried to do with the

12 driveways and the recreational roads. I

13 mean, if we had accurate ADTs on private

14 crossings and they fell below 408ATD, would

15 they then fall under a MUTCD guidance for

16 low volume roads whether they were public or

17 private?

18 MR. WORLEY: I don't think you could

19 do it.

20 MS. CARROLL: There is guidelines out

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (231 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 there.

22 MR. WORLEY: Right. These are low

23 volume roads where you put up gates and

24 locks.

25 MR. BROWDER: From AAR's perspective,

 116

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (232 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 and speaking from my seat on the national

 2 committee, I would suggest that there's so

 3 many other parameters that were considered

 4 in the establishments of low volume roads,

 5 other than what we're looking at here, that

 6 if that's something that you all choose to

 7 do, I would just start from scratch and work

 8 and develop what you would like to see as

 9 your own standards and practices, rather

10 than pointing at what the MUTCD has done

11 which represents a real compromise of many,

12 many, many other different facets and the

13 establishments of that criteria. Just an

14 idea.

15 MS. CARROLL: Okay, thank you, Bill.

16 Well, I just had those two burning questions

17 I had to ask, since I had some

18 representation here.

19 MR. FIELD: My name is Jason Field

20 again, I'm with NCDOT's rail division. And

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (233 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 I think one of the issues we really need to

22 focus on is any treatment for any of the

23 these crossings needs to be based on

24 engineering judgment at the specific

25 crossing. The idea of looking at a blanket

 117

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (234 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 policy with a set criteria for ADT, I think

 2 is faulty. You have got issues of curvature

 3 of the railroads, the road sight distance.

 4 In North Carolina, we physically evaluate

 5 every single crossing prior to determining

 6 what kind of treatment we are going to apply

 7 there, whether it be gates, medians,

 8 barriers, elongated arms, in some cases side

 9 panels.

10 One thing that's been an issue for me

11 is the broadband use of application of stop

12 signs. While stop signs seem like a good

13 idea at first glance, one of the issues that

14 may or may not be considered before those

15 are applied, as opposed to a yield sign, is

16 the idea that the designed vehicle is

17 required by law now to stop at a crossing,

18 and depending on the train speed, I think

19 there's a serious issue if that designed

20 vehicle, if it's an 18-wheeler loaded has to

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (235 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 put it in gear and try to clear the tracks

22 to get out of the dynamic envelope of the

23 train and is not able to.

24 We recently had an incident with our

25 Piedmont at a private crossing which charred

 118

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (236 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 our train, it ripped the whole fiber glass

 2 shell off the front of it and basically put

 3 our train down. No serious injuries,

 4 fortunately, but the idea of a blanket usage

 5 of passive protection, I think, needs to

 6 weigh on the yield side of things versus the

 7 stop sign side of things, and if some sign

 8 is applied, it needs to be based on sound

 9 engineering evaluation on that specific

10 location.

11 MS. CARROLL: I think all of the

12 guidance that I read when it talks to rail

13 crossings, it says, and based on engineering

14 design team considerations. So I don't

15 think that's going to go away.

16 MR. FIELD: Another issue regarding

17 Bill's comments on the hump crossing

18 approach and highway's approach to the hump

19 crossings, we attempted to few years ago to

20 develop a program to address hump crossings

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (237 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 and public grade crossings. I developed a

22 nice little formula for kind of developing

23 an index number, so that we could approach

24 that, and we approached the Feds, as far as

25 funding or in terms to trying to fund

 119

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (238 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 something like that, and we weren't able to

 2 get support for that. So we ended up

 3 putting it on the back shelf.

 4 One of the issues you are going to

 5 find on private crossings, generally private

 6 crossings are going to follow the existing

 7 geometry that was there. Whereas, public

 8 crosses, when roads are being built, you

 9 want the money to raise the approaches for

10 the grade. And railroads are trying to get

11 out of the water for private crossings. You

12 are basically going to follow that ballast

13 line.

14 The scariest crossings I closed was on

15 CS section of double A line in

16 Charlottesburg. Where literally you went up

17 the ballast line of asphalt, crossed and

18 went down the other side and the crossing

19 was nine feet wide, if it was lucky. It was

20 not a good situation. And so the idea of

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (239 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 having some kind of standard developed for

22 widths and things is something else that

23 ought to be considered.

24 MS. CARROLL: Thank you, Jason.

25 I think we want to move, unless

 120

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (240 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 anybody has any comments on -- yes, Arthur.

 2 MR. PETTEWAY: If I could add

 3 something. I like the idea when we talked

 4 about, when we first talked about gathering

 5 data important, but also when we are talking

 6 about engineering standards and

 7 specifications, we have to at some point

 8 make a determination of whether or not a

 9 crossing can be closed.

10 So let's not leave closing a crossing

11 out of the mix. That should be a part of

12 the evaluation and part of the engineering

13 that you do have to cross.

14 So just wanted to make that point also.

15 MS. CARROLL: Thank you. That's very

16 well taken.

17 MS. KLOEPPEL: I have been listening

18 to various comments, and I certainly believe

19 firmly in the value of engineering

20 evaluation before putting any particular

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (241 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 traffic control devices in place. But I

22 understand -- I was involved in the

23 technical work that was -- that put together

24 that guidance before. One of the

25 motivations behind that was an acceptance

 121

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (242 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 that you are not necessarily going to get a

 2 full engineering study. And so we were

 3 trying to provide some baseline information

 4 for people who might not be as technically

 5 competent as people in the state level are.

 6 And I was wondering what people felt about

 7 the value of a similar effort on private

 8 crossings. We did this for public

 9 crossings. Would it be valuable to have a

10 group establish some baseline parameters?

11 MR. PETTEWAY: Yes.

12 MS. KLOEPPEL: Do you have, I guess

13 I'm trying to draw the words out here, some

14 opinions, or does your experience tell you

15 what some of the considerations are that

16 would make a private crossing different from

17 a public crossing, and can we use that to

18 fuel the conversation here?

19 MR. FIELD: Absolutely.

20 MS. KLOEPPEL: And this goes to

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (243 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 anybody, I'd like to hear what sorts of

22 organizations would be important to have if

23 we were going to discuss this more in depth.

24 MR. FIELD: Jason Fields, NCDOT. I

25 think as far as the things that we receive

 122

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (244 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 in North Carolina, there's a lot of cases

 2 where we have single vehicle width crossings

 3 with very bad sight distance, plus it goes

 4 across.

 5 So obviously any group that deals with

 6 bus traffic, and that kind of thing, they do

 7 the best that they can, in addition to

 8 somebody with industrial trucking

 9 facilities. We've got a lot of cases,

10 especially around our metropolitan areas,

11 where you have got private crossings in

12 industry that sometimes are internal to plan

13 operations in addition to truck access

14 points. And, of course, in most cases where

15 you see that you have got a parallel road

16 next to the tracks, that makes gating

17 crossing very difficult and things of that

18 nature.

19 I think it's important to have

20 somebody from the highway side of things.

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (245 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 As a lot of cases, we're looking more

22 towards doing some signage in some of our

23 public crossings in rural with low ADTs that

24 are public crossings, in addition to the

25 rail division, obviously, or whatever state

 123

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (246 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 agency looks after that kind of thing. And,

 2 of course, the railroads, they have got a

 3 stake in this as well.

 4 I imagine one issue the railroad is

 5 going to be wanting to look at as far as a

 6 policy is what kind of protection for doing

 7 that kind of treatment, and there's the

 8 question of where the money comes from.

 9 MR. WORLEY: Also, you talked earlier

10 about the American Planning Association.

11 Those types of planners are real important

12 when you start talking about private

13 crossings and development.

14 One thing about private crossings, you

15 get more into the railroad and maintenance

16 away, because you don't have the signals

17 that you have in public crossings. So you

18 really need to get some folks in there that

19 are involved more in track maintenance and

20 drainage maintenance. It's just a very

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (247 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 different animal with private crossings,

22 plus you don't have the road bed in some

23 cases, you don't have good drainage, you

24 don't have the good approaches that you have

25 in public crosses where you have a road

 124

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (248 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 that's already municipal or state or county

 2 maintained, those approaches you have got

 3 railroad maintaining what's their only

 4 operating right-of-way and then paths of

 5 private driveways or concrete leading up to

 6 it.

 7 Another thing within AASHTO, you've

 8 got the motor carrier group to think about

 9 as well, because you may have some private

10 crossings that are in the important

11 facilities or industrial type things, and

12 motor carrier folks have a lot of good input

13 on those kinds of things as well. So.

14 MS. KLOEPPEL: Thank you. Sorry,

15 Anya.

16 MS. CARROLL: That's okay. Just on

17 the motor carrier piece, I know there's

18 something currently going on, maybe Ron can

19 give us a little bit more information on

20 FFMCSA and some proposed rule making that

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (249 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 they have got going on with crossings.

22 MR. RIES: In response to, I believe

23 it's 1994 legislation, federal highway at

24 that time, which was responsible for

25 commercial motor vehicles, was directed to

 125

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (250 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 issues statute of being a federal offense

 2 for a motor vehicle to go over a crossing

 3 unless it was known that the vehicle can go

 4 completely clear of the tracks so that they

 5 had proper storage of space. They actually

 6 issued a rule a couple of years ago, three

 7 years, it ended up getting pulled until they

 8 are in the process now of starting that

 9 rule, making public meeting in DC last week,

10 and the only member of the public that

11 showed up was our friend, Mr. Browder.

12 There were about 15 feds and Bill.

13 MR. BROWDER: And they made me speak

14 too, didn't they?

15 MR. RIES: Yes, they did. So that

16 issue of storage space is still very real,

17 and I think Bob's picture in the

18 presentation showed a very real problem. So

19 there will certainly be more coming from the

20 FMCSA in that area.

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (251 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 MS. CARROLL: My thought was there

22 that maybe FMCSA could be another partner in

23 the technical working group, as well as

24 AASHTO.

25 MR. RIES: And Federal Motor Carrier

 126

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (252 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 Safety Administration work with FRA in

 2 operation lifesaver, developed a trucker

 3 safety advisory card that gives them

 4 crossing safety information, and we're

 5 putting up a quarter of a billion of them

 6 and we have all but 10,000 have been called

 7 for. So there's certainly an interest in

 8 that agency in terms of safety. But they

 9 are attempting to reach out.

10 MS. CARROLL: Anybody else have any

11 thoughts on other partners that could be

12 part of this technical working group to deal

13 with this issue that may bring to the table?

14 I don't know who at ITE we would

15 contact for the old list. I think there are

16 about 250 members of that technical working

17 group, from what I remember, in total. I

18 know James Cheeks has since departed from

19 ITE, and he was part of that keeper of the

20 historical record. I guess that's an action

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (253 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 item for us to look into.

22 MR. RIES: And from a technical

23 working group, when we finished the work, it

24 was one of their hopes that they could

25 reconvene in five years and review and try

 127

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (254 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 to update that document. So that might be

 2 an opportunity to expand the charter to look

 3 at private crossings with those folks.

 4 MS. CARROLL: Who would be in charge

 5 of that?

 6 MR. RIES: Federal railroads are the

 7 ones that sponsored. I don't remember if

 8 HWA contributed to the funding of the

 9 contract with ITE.

10 MR. BROWDER: You mean, October of

11 2002?

12 MR. RIES: Pardon?

13 MR. BROWDER: The October 2002 group?

14 MR. RIES: The technical working group

15 yes, the 2002 group. So it's pretty much a

16 federal highway.

17 MR. BROWDER: I sure got the

18 impression that they were in it.

19 MR. WORLEY: It's on their web site.

20 MR. RIES: It was a joint effort so.

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (255 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 MR. BROWDER: What happened, if I

22 remember correctly, Paul, is that it started

23 with a meeting at the Texas national

24 conference, and it was a meeting of anybody

25 who wanted to come.

 128

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (256 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 So you got a whole litany of staples

 2 who came. And then I remember the second

 3 meeting was out in San Diego. I remember

 4 you, Andrew, standing outside worried about

 5 the transit coming to Raleigh. And we had a

 6 different set of stakeholders.

 7 So we had the original stakeholders.

 8 So that's where you get the 250.

 9 MS. CARROLL: Well, then we had Myrtle

10 Beach.

11 MR. BROWDER: Myrtle Beach, and, of

12 course, that was a South Carolina hosted

13 southern region conference, and so you had

14 the folks that were there for that

15 conference that came too.

16 So, you know, I'll bet that Shelly

17 Rau, who took James Cheeks' place over

18 there, was responsible, would have an idea

19 of some of the things, at least some of the

20 litany of material that went on in terms of

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (257 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 the people. If not, I've got Cheeks'

22 address, and they still use him as a

23 consultant for their grade crossing

24 committee. We will see him in January.

25 MS. CARROLL: Thank you, Bill.

 129

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (258 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 Moving on to our engineering design,

 2 we wanted to look at things like, well, we

 3 talked a little bit about the home crossing

 4 or the vertical clearance, horizontal

 5 clearance. A lot of these types of

 6 criteria, even though they are applicable to

 7 public roads, are found in some of these

 8 guidance documents for crossings. But what

 9 we'd like to do is go through and discuss

10 engineering designs.

11 We could start with categories of

12 crossings that you want to try and identify,

13 which may have different characteristics

14 from each other, or we can start with just a

15 list of what you would look for, or how you

16 would determine the types of traffic control

17 devices, sight distances for private

18 crossings versus public.

19 So you have the list of what was

20 developed in Minnesota in your packet there

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (259 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 as far as categories of other types of

22 crossings. Does anybody have any additions

23 to this that we could add? Are there groups

24 that we could consider similar, for example,

25 the term farm is used a lot, but is the true

 130

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (260 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 term agricultural crossings? Because you

 2 may have farms or orchards or other things

 3 where you are still going to have heavy

 4 machinery.

 5 So I just wanted to get your opinion

 6 on this list, add, subtract, contents and

 7 then we can move on to engineering design.

 8 MR. CRUZ: Ric Cruz, NCDOT. You said

 9 other than commercial, but you don't mention

10 commercial at all.

11 MS. CARROLL: Okay. This is

12 highlights, summaries of notes that we took

13 from our Minnesota meeting. This is just a

14 category that we mentioned similar to, you

15 know, government, like military stuff. It

16 was just a category. We didn't eliminate

17 anything. We didn't really define these

18 categories. We just did some brainstorming.

19 MR. CRUZ: One of the standard fields

20 that we do collect is commercial versus

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (261 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 industrial and residential, recreational,

22 institutional. And I'm not sure what is

23 meant by other commercial.

24 And as far as the government public

25 facilities, it talks about military access

 131

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (262 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 and planning. I'm not sure access I

 2 understand, but planning is just railroad

 3 crossing at the base.

 4 MS. CARROLL: Yes, and that would be

 5 the same for the railroads, internal

 6 railroads facilities. It would be crossings

 7 within their --

 8 MR. CRUZ: If you went military, you

 9 have public access roads within the military

10 base itself, versus you have military

11 purpose roads, where you have tanks and

12 other heavy equipment. And do you want to

13 further identify those or not?

14 MR. FIELD: Equipment versus

15 nonequipment?

16 MR. CRUZ: Right. I mean, that's

17 something there's knowledge about that.

18 MR. GILBERT: Even commercial might be

19 a bullet point under industrial.

20 MS. CARROLL: No, I think it was more

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (263 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 who was it? Was it Iowa? Iowa mentioned

22 the levy authority having an access road to

23 their levies, and it wasn't commercial, it

24 wasn't recreational. I think it might have

25 been the levies that -- there were other

 132

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (264 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 private roads out there that are held under

 2 the authority of certain institutions, but

 3 they are not necessarily public authorities.

 4 So I think that's what that levy, the

 5 levy might be the answer to that one.

 6 MR. WORLEY: You have got crossings at

 7 access. There are DOT crossings that are

 8 not both crossings, in other words, the

 9 irrigation area, those kind of things.

10 MR. FIELD: Basically other category.

11 MS. CARROLL: Or resource management.

12 I don't know what the term would be.

13 Resource management crossings or something

14 of that nature.

15 MR. GILBERT: Why would you not have

16 commercial and have something under it? I

17 mean, you are talking about where does

18 Wal-Mart fit in here? You know, Wal-Mart

19 would be a commercial, it's not going to be

20 an industry.

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (265 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 MS. CARROLL: I've added it to the

22 list.

23 MR. FIELD: There ought to be

24 something included that kind of shows the

25 difference between a commercial property,

 133

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (266 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 such as a Wal-Mart, which is a huge traffic

 2 generator, versus, you know, a TV repair

 3 shop that's much less inclined to generate

 4 as much traffic. It's a private crossing.

 5 There's few locations in North Carolina

 6 where there's actually a single allocated

 7 crossing going into a parking lot, a mall,

 8 for example, and you label that as

 9 commercial, as well as, you know, much less

10 lower density of crossing area. That might

11 be something you want to differentiate.

12 MS. CARROLL: So you think ADT would

13 be a criteria within commercial that you

14 want to address?

15 MR. FIELD: I think it might be

16 worthwhile to have that added. Actually, if

17 you have an inventory sheet using the

18 current state inventory sheet, ADT is going

19 to be one of those items anyway.

20 MR. WORLEY: Traffic too, I would

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (267 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 imagine, trucks versus cars.

22 MR. FIELD: Percentage of trucks is

23 also currently on there.

24 MR. CRUZ: The problem with that is

25 that's not included within a private

 134

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (268 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 property.

 2 MS. CARROLL: Inventory.

 3 MR. WORLEY: You still have tank farms

 4 that have access of private crossing.

 5 MR. FIELD: We need to incorporate a

 6 lot of the baseline data on current public

 7 inventory sheets over to the private

 8 inventory sheets, it sounds like, better

 9 characteristics employed, used in crossing.

10 MS. CARROLL: I guess when that topic

11 was brought up at our meeting in Minnesota,

12 Minnesota was quite determined to say they

13 don't have state DOT staff available to keep

14 up to date with their public grade

15 crossings. And you could throw all the

16 money you want at us, and we still won't

17 have the staff to get to the private

18 crossings. And is it their jurisdiction to

19 be able to do that anyway? So we come back

20 to a catch 22, how do we collect the data?

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (269 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 MR. GILBERT: You've got crossings in

22 this commercial thing. I mean, I think in

23 west end, you've got commercial and a huge

24 residential area, real estate, accessed by a

25 private crossing, which is truly multi,

 135

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (270 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 multi, you know, faceted. I mean, it's

 2 landowners, it's everything.

 3 MR. FIELD: All using a private

 4 crossing.

 5 MR. GILBERT: All using one private

 6 crossing.

 7 MR. CRUZ: One other thing, right now,

 8 the current -- the way the data is selected

 9 under private crossings, there's only, and

10 this is what we're talking about, it says

11 categories private and public properties. I

12 would think all these here would fall under

13 private properties is what you are trying to

14 say. Right now, there's only three, and

15 that's FRA and state and most states are the

16 same thing.

17 So just collecting the data and

18 distributing the data is going to be a

19 measured change.

20 MS. CARROLL: Based on the comment you

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (271 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 just made Ric, is it, I mean, would it be a

22 good approach to look at functional

23 classifications of private crossings similar

24 to what they do with roadways, where they

25 look at level of service that the road

 136

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (272 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 provides, type of vehicle that the roadway

 2 carries, and then from there once we build

 3 sort of a functional classification and

 4 types of users and frequency of user, you

 5 can then try to provide some baseline

 6 standards for traffic control devices or

 7 geometric design of those crossings or sight

 8 distance needs or requirements of those

 9 types of crossings?

10 MR. CRUZ: As a basis, you can start

11 with just using the standard FRA required

12 fields, extend those to the private

13 crossings, and then everything that you have

14 already done, Grady included at that point

15 could be used, and you can alter it, fine

16 tune it in all those areas you are talking

17 about. But all that information already

18 exists field wise. All the databases

19 already are developed, and all the models

20 represented have that information. So all

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (273 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 you are doing is extending that to private

22 property. That would be the simplest way to

23 do that if you gather that data.

24 MS. CARROLL: Who do you feel would be

25 the most appropriate person to gather that

 137

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (274 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 data?

 2 MR. CRUZ: Well, the people who are

 3 most knowledgeable in doing it would be the

 4 states. The states are doing it even more

 5 so probably, than, I think, the railroads.

 6 You would have to have some ways of either

 7 augmenting their resources financially or

 8 personnel wise, either consultants or

 9 in-house. Those would be the people who

10 understand better than anybody who deals

11 with it, more quickly be able to give that

12 data to the end users, bring that point so

13 that we can actually use it in all the

14 different type of modeling.

15 MS. CARROLL: Thank you, Ric.

16 Leslie, you have a comment?

17 MS. SPURLOCK: Is there a potential

18 that you could go to like a college and get

19 their senior students in engineering to do

20 that kind of project?

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (275 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 MR. CRUZ: Part of the problem I've

22 had, we've actually had consultants and used

23 interns in our program. Also, it takes

24 probably six months to a year to train these

25 people to be able to actually collect this

 138

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (276 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 data in uniform factually, so we are looking

 2 at the same thing, and extend that

 3 information back.

 4 MR. WORLEY: And it's dangerous.

 5 MR. CRUZ: That's true, it is

 6 dangerous.

 7 MR. WORLEY: One of the things we talk

 8 about private crossings, remember sometimes

 9 we think about private crossings as those

10 that we see from the road as a driveway.

11 But when we did some of our initial PCSI

12 surveys, and Bob can attest to this too,

13 some of those private crossings you have to

14 go through a man's field, go behind their

15 tobacco barn, go around the pond, and you

16 get in the middle of nowhere, and there's a

17 crossing, and then it goes back to that

18 field. Or you may have one that goes back

19 behind the hump yard. There's a trail that

20 goes down behind the hump yard and it goes

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (277 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 in or whatever. But you are getting into

22 some private property, and that's a

23 consideration when you start talking about

24 sending state employees or any kind of

25 employees on private property, you have got

 139

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (278 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 a lot of hazards to get to the crossing, if

 2 it's not readily accessible. And there's a

 3 lot that are like that.

 4 And then the other thing we talked

 5 about is protecting the crossing in

 6 geometrics.

 7 One of the things we looked at with

 8 private crossing safety initiative is when

 9 you treated crossings, you just treat the

10 crossing, you know, pretty much there, as is

11 with signs and devices. Because when you

12 start looking at the geometrics, and you

13 start looking at the approaches, in some

14 cases you are going to get off the railroad

15 right away back on private property. And if

16 you are doing something with federal funds

17 or state funds, you are going to have to

18 have some right-of-way if you are going to

19 have public dedication to deal with private

20 property. Those things can be overcome but

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (279 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 got to be considered.

22 MR. CRUZ: Adding to what Paul is

23 saying, and Jason brought this up earlier

24 when we were talking about it, actually, the

25 best way to collect data on private property

 140

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (280 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 is get a high-rail vehicle on the rail line

 2 itself, because then that's the only way you

 3 can be sure that you catch every single

 4 private property. Some private properties,

 5 by trying to go to them, you can't get to

 6 them.

 7 MR. WORLEY: You still don't know

 8 where to go on the high rail. You don't

 9 necessarily know where it is.

10 MR. CRUZ: That's true. But using an

11 aerial for anything like that might be

12 useful.

13 MR. FIELD: To get a general idea and

14 application too. You can tell generally a

15 hunting trail from a boat ramp crossing or

16 something like that.

17 MR. CRUZ: Going on high rails, you

18 pick up another problem with the railroads

19 need time to do that. In our experience,

20 it's been very difficult to try to organize

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (281 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 the logistics on that.

22 So it's very hard to do.

23 MS. SPURLOCK: You had mentioned

24 earlier about Transport Canada using the

25 description restricted and unrestricted,

 141

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (282 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 because maybe that's something we should

 2 look at too, because restricted would be

 3 somebody's really private property. He

 4 doesn't want you in their backyard when the

 5 train goes through a creek or something;

 6 don't go back there at all for your safety

 7 or anything else. And then there's the

 8 unrestricted, which is going into industrial

 9 yard. You want to go out and pick out some

10 cement yourself. You want to go to K-Mart,

11 Wal-Mart something like that. Because

12 that's like if I want to go in and buy a

13 tree from a nursery, it might be a private

14 crossing, but it's not unrestricted to me.

15 So maybe that's another way you look

16 at how you pass judgment on what kind of

17 warnings should be aware, because the

18 gentleman's farm crossing that nobody gets

19 to but twice a year needs, I would think, a

20 different kind of warning than somebody who

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (283 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 is going into a nursery to pick up plants in

22 the spring or the fall.

23 MS. CARROLL: That begs a question for

24 me is how do you determine how private or

25 how public a private crossing is?

 142

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (284 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 MR. WORLEY: That's what I said. You

 2 can't, because you get into situations where

 3 people have a driveway. It's a nice wide

 4 driveway. It says don't use this driveway

 5 unless you have business with us. Don't be

 6 turning around. I see that as restricted.

 7 That's when you get into the United States,

 8 the private property rights issues and farm

 9 bureau and all of that. That's one thing

10 when you start talking about people at the

11 table you are dealing with, you might as

12 well ask the farm bureau to be here too,

13 because the property rights mentality, it's

14 a little bit different in Canada versus the

15 United States.

16 

17 MR. SHANK: Canada may be

18 unrestricted, would be the equivalent of say

19 municipally dedicated versus restricted any

20 other too.

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (285 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 MS. CARROLL: I haven't read -- the

22 law hasn't been passed, so it's not open for

23 public viewing. So I can't give you a

24 definition of what it means. But from

25 Leslie's comment, how would you deem a

 143

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (286 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 private crossing that has public use? Is it

 2 more than one user? Is it more than ten

 3 users?

 4 MS. SPURLOCK: Make it so that the

 5 owner is not shooting at them.

 6 MR. WORLEY: Maybe you just choose.

 7 MS. SPURLOCK: Obviously, some owners

 8 if you are going in to buy parts, what do

 9 they call it, like an auto graveyard or

10 something, because you are looking for a hub

11 cap, they know the public is coming in, so

12 they are unrestricted. Or like I said, a

13 nursery or a Wal-Mart or whatever it might

14 be. A concrete company may not want you

15 there at all. They are restricted except

16 for their trucks that have permission to go

17 over. Maybe you need to find out what their

18 policy is of the company's, and just assume

19 that somebody who has got it on their farm

20 property, that's going to be restricted.

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (287 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 Why even ask them? They don't want you in

22 their backyard.

23 MR. FIELD: I think maybe the way to

24 look at that is physically restricted. You

25 know, if it's gated versus not gated,

 144

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (288 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 because, you know, there are people crossing

 2 my property all the time walking, and, you

 3 know, but if I put a fence up, they would

 4 have to climb a fence. I think from a legal

 5 standpoint, it's gated.

 6 I know in a lot of cases we assess

 7 private crosses in the public right-of-ways

 8 based on the fact there's a gate on this

 9 side of the tracks. If there's a gate on

10 this side of the tracks, it's pretty clear

11 the general public is not anticipated or

12 expected to be able to go through there,

13 unless they have permission from the

14 property owner to go through their gate.

15 And, you know, I think maybe it's something

16 to look at, just whether it's gated or not

17 as far as whether it's restrictive or not.

18 MR. GILBERT: You know, that

19 restricted and unrestricted about three

20 weeks ago -- this is Danny -- I contacted

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (289 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 Bill Bocheck and asked him what his

22 definition of restricted and unrestricted

23 crossing was, and whether it was private,

24 public or whatever. I didn't get a good

25 reply, because I don't think they know, and

 145

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (290 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 I saved the e-mails. I mean, have you

 2 talked to him about what they mean by

 3 restricted and unrestricted, because they

 4 couldn't explain it?

 5 MS. CARROLL: It was CP rail that

 6 brought it up at the Minnesota meeting.

 7 They mentioned these new regulations that

 8 are about to come into place, and they

 9 mentioned the fact that they weren't public

10 and private anymore, it was restricted and

11 unrestricted.

12 MR. GILBERT: I will send you the

13 e-mails then.

14 MS. CARROLL: Thanks, Danny.

15 MS. SPURLOCK: For that matter, do we

16 have to wait on Canada? Can we do our own?

17 MS. CARROLL: Yes, we can do our own.

18 MR. FIELD: We're not in Canada, so.

19 MS. SPURLOCK: There you go.

20 MS. CARROLL: It's good to look at

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (291 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 what other folks are doing as well and what

22 the regulations are.

23 MS. SPURLOCK: But our definition of

24 that could be different, and that's okay.

25 MS. CARROLL: Would you have a

 146

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (292 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 definition of a public crossing be the same

 2 that it is now, and then subdivide a private

 3 crossing by restricted and unrestricted, and

 4 then would you provide guidance for

 5 unrestricted private crossings?

 6 MR. FIELD: I would think the

 7 applications are not necessarily based on

 8 restricted or unrestricted, because if you

 9 go with the gated issue on that, that's

10 going to really affect the ADT issue, which

11 is based on the engineering judgment to

12 apply the crossing. If it's farm crossing,

13 twice a year you are not going to sit by

14 gated swing gate, you know, or something

15 like that. And perhaps a sign if you have

16 got an unrestricted crossing, say to a boat

17 ramp, we have some of those, then you are

18 going to look at that differently just

19 because it's a much more used crossing.

20 MS. CARROLL: So you are talking about

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (293 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 a physically locked gate?

22 MR. FIELD: The existence of a

23 lockable gate.

24 MS. CARROLL: The existence of a

25 lockable gate.

 147

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (294 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 MR. FIELD: We can't get into the

 2 business trying to police these gates that

 3 are required to be locked; however, the

 4 railroad is in a position, based on the fact

 5 they are on the corridor, to perhaps prevent

 6 the private crossing as a continual unlocked

 7 gate that's supposed to be locked.

 8 MS. CARROLL: Okay. Any other

 9 categories? I added commercial to this.

10 Any other types of crossings we want to --

11 MR. RIES: I was just going to go back

12 to your question about, you know, should we

13 change the definition of public crossing?

14 And, you know, my initial reaction is that

15 it might not be good public crossing from

16 federal funding perspective has a very

17 statutory requirement. So I don't think

18 changing what's a private crossing now and

19 making it "public" would be very confusing

20 to start allocating funds. That's not to

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (295 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 say, you know, the decision is made that

22 that's a good use of public funds through

23 the use of private crossings, you know,

24 that's a subject that probably could be

25 explored. But I think you need to keep the

 148

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (296 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 basic definition of what a public and

 2 private crossing is, and then make

 3 subcategories within private crossings.

 4 MS. CARROLL: Okay. My question would

 5 then be: How many people or frequency of

 6 vehicles distinguishes a public from a

 7 private crossing, Ron? Or is there any?

 8 MR. RIES: The number of vehicles does

 9 not have anything to do with distinguishing

10 whether it's public or private crossing.

11 It's who holds the roadways, whether it's a

12 public authority owns the roadway on both

13 sides of the crossing.

14 So there are private crossings that

15 have much higher traffic than a public

16 crossing, the ones that go into the Wal-Mart

17 or big industry. That's why I think you

18 keep that separate.

19 Now, the question is when do you get

20 into a private crossing that's open to the

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (297 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 public access? And, you know, there's talk,

22 maybe it's when there's a gate. I don't

23 know. If I'm a property owner, I have a

24 crossing that goes into my residence, would

25 I want to have a gate in front of it? And

 149

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (298 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 considering also then the exposure that how

 2 the person if you have to be on both sides

 3 of your right-of-way, you are crossing the

 4 track six times either on foot or on --

 5 MS. CARROLL: To go and shut the

 6 gates, it seems like is there an open

 7 invitation to the general public to use it

 8 might be a category.

 9 So that might fit in with the cement

10 trucks. You don't expect the general public

11 to be invited into that, my private

12 residence. I don't expect that, but I am

13 going to have my invitees, I am going to be

14 having some other people that service my

15 house, that type of thing.

16 So that might be another way of

17 looking at it. Do you expect John Q public

18 to come in? So the TV repair shop, since

19 you would be expecting people to come in,

20 drop off their TVs, would be open to public

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (299 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 use. Certainly it's not comparable to what

22 you have with the Wal-Mart. So it's

23 probably somewhere you need to make

24 decisions, or you have different categories

25 open to public access type of things.

 150

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (300 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 MR. WORLEY: Let's just start with

 2 closing them all.

 3 MS. CARROLL: Arthur mentioned that.

 4 Let's just start with closing them all.

 5 What I'd like to do now is move into

 6 the engineering design piece of the

 7 discussion and look for suggestions as to

 8 what would be our minimum kind of

 9 engineering design for private crossings,

10 and we can work through, you know, sight

11 distance, we can work through geometric

12 design, we can work through sign, signals,

13 gates, and things like that and see where

14 you think we need to go in this area,

15 because there's no uniformity right now, as

16 you saw from some of the pictures, some

17 people are using stop signs, some people are

18 using yield signs, high-speed rail crossings

19 have their own sign, and there are gates out

20 there. There's all sorts of things.

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (301 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 So I'd like to start the discussion

22 with if we had money, and if we had

23 resources to use the money, and we've

24 collected all the data that we need, where

25 would we go? What would be a minimum

 151

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (302 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 traffic control device? How would you

 2 control access on private crossings? What

 3 would be the minimum? Would it be, Jason,

 4 you mentioned a yield sign versus a stop

 5 sign. Is there a consensus that we can get

 6 to for this kind of thing?

 7 MR. WORLEY: I like the southern sign.

 8 MR. SCHWARTZ: Stuart Schwartz,

 9 S-T-U-A-R-T, S-C-H-W-A-R-T-Z. You might

10 have a hard time getting consensus, in view

11 of the fact that I think three upper class

12 ones now have stop signs that are all

13 private crossings, at least one state,

14 that's California, requires them. There's

15 not necessarily uniformity in terms of the

16 signs themselves, although Norfolk

17 Southern's sign is very similar to BSF and

18 UP signs. So that you got at least one

19 state, and perhaps there are more, I'm not

20 aware of any, but it's conceivable that

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (303 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 there are other states as well as that also

22 require stop signs.

23 So you may have some difficulty in

24 establishing any kind of consensus that's an

25 appropriate warning device, if you want to

 152

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (304 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 call it that, the question whether or not it

 2 requires material crossings. Simply as a

 3 basic warning sign, you may have some

 4 difficulty with that.

 5 MS. CARROLL: Do you have an

 6 understanding as to why those three class

 7 ones were stop signs based on some of the

 8 discussion earlier about heavy and long

 9 vehicles entering industrial sites that may

10 need longer clearance types?

11 MR. SCHWARTZ: At the very least, if

12 you require a vehicle to stop at a private

13 crossing, you are giving him the opportunity

14 to see whether a train is approaching. And

15 I don't know precisely what phrase to use

16 when you are stopped at a point when you

17 could see in both directions and you can see

18 whether or not a train is coming, that gives

19 the driver an opportunity to avoid going

20 across the crossing when the train is

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (305 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 approaching more so if there's a yield sign

22 and the car was moving toward the crossing.

23 I can't speak for any other railroads

24 that have those, and given the fact that

25 California has established that as their

 153

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (306 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 criteria, there may be some support. I

 2 understand the highway organizations,

 3 generally speaking, are not in favor of

 4 using stop signs in broad scale.

 5 MR. BROWDER: I have a hard time

 6 starting this discussion with the issue of

 7 if we had the money. I think the root part

 8 of the analysis is what is the safety issue,

 9 and addressing it from the perspective of

10 what needs to be done to do the maximum for

11 safety at private crossings, and we can

12 certainly, I'm not saying money isn't an

13 issue for everybody, but that's where our

14 focus would be.

15 Now, I have a follow-up comment, which

16 you kind of got him started on, old Stu, and

17 I would make the comment that from a safety

18 perspective, there is no difference in terms

19 of sight distance for the public versus

20 private crossing at passive crossings. And

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (307 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 that it is very well spelled out by FHWA and

22 reiterate it in that October 2002 report for

23 sight distance. And I see no reason why

24 anyone should vary from that perspective and

25 if they are going to put out any kind of

 154

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (308 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 standards or practices for private

 2 crossings.

 3 MS. CARROLL: Thank you, Bill. I'm

 4 going to go up to the board for a minute.

 5 I'm trying to think of how we can

 6 organize this based on public crossings.

 7 The first thing that we do is we close

 8 them, correct? That's the first approach to

 9 take for safety sake?

10 MR. GILBERT: I'll second that.

11 MS. CARROLL: Thank you.

12 What would it take and what's the

13 difference between closing a public crossing

14 and closing a private crossing?

15 MR. FIELD: Requiring the right-of-way

16 to reroute the driveways, because if you

17 cannot take along the railroad's

18 right-of-way, you are taking it across.

19 MR. WORLEY: You can negotiate for

20 private driveway, and the cost is what you

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (309 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 get them as a settlement. They have 90 days

22 to find another way.

23 MR. FIELDS: That's the difference

24 between private and public though.

25 MS. KLOEPPEL: Don't you have some

 155

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (310 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 issues about that, you close a public road

 2 you have to worry about providing access?

 3 MR. FIELDS: There's a documented way

 4 to provide a right-of-way with public versus

 5 a private driveway, unless the state agency

 6 or municipal agency is going to maintain the

 7 roadway.

 8 MR. WORLEY: We don't build roads for

 9 that purpose.

10 MS. CARROLL: What are some of the

11 other issues that you found in your

12 experiences that are public versus private

13 to close crossings?

14 MR. WHITEMORE: Shane Whitemore with

15 CSX. When you look at private road crossing

16 closure versus public, it becomes public

17 issue, and it turns to popularized issues

18 that we talked about in Minnesota. It's not

19 the state agent, I mean as Jason touched on,

20 the state agency can come in and condemn and

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (311 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 make a public road for altering access.

22 Those options aren't available between

23 property rights issues between landowners.

24 That's what we are, a landowner. The

25 railroad right-of-way is owned, its title is

 156

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (312 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 varied. It goes anywhere from fee simple to

 2 a straight license to operate through the

 3 property.

 4 So when you look at property owners,

 5 it's just like Grady and I are neighbors,

 6 and I want to cross his property to get to

 7 Ron's place, right, Grady says go ahead,

 8 right. So at that point, you know, that's

 9 how I get through there. If he wants to

10 close it, he says no, I'm not going to close

11 it. You granted me the right to get to

12 Ron's house.

13 So the state can come in and say we're

14 closing it, right, we voted, you've elected

15 us, so, you know, the city counsel has come

16 in and we're closing Oak Street, we're going

17 to put a cul-de-sac here, and this is where

18 you go. The property rights issue, the

19 owner says I'm not closing for anything.

20 This is mine. I've got a right to cross

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (313 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 here.

22 So when you look at that, it becomes

23 harder to close them. You have to give them

24 money. You have to compensate in a

25 different way. You don't have the force of

 157

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (314 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 law to say we're going to take it, so you

 2 got to come in and try to negotiate the

 3 closure and negotiate getting rid of that

 4 right. Norfolk Southern and other railroads

 5 spent money to do that, and, I mean, we all

 6 go out and do it. I don't want to speak for

 7 Norfolk Southern. That's the fundamental

 8 difference I see between a public and

 9 private closure. I know it's not

10 engineering. I will wait to San Francisco

11 to start talking. We are talking about

12 rights issues.

13 MS. CARROLL: That's okay. We will

14 say CSX said.

15 MR. PETTEWAY: One of the things he

16 did mention was legislation. From a state's

17 perspective, we have laws that allow us to

18 close crossings. On private crossings, we

19 don't have that. So we don't have that

20 power.

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (315 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 MS. CARROLL: You need some sort of

22 legislative support to be able to do that.

23 Any other thoughts on closures?

24 All right, so we have a private

25 crossing. We can't close, but here it is.

 158

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (316 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 It doesn't have any signs or signals on it.

 2 Is that -- should that be allowable?

 3 MR. WORLEY: If they don't use it

 4 much, one option may be gates and locks.

 5 MS. CARROLL: So you want to put that

 6 as a possible access control?

 7 MR. WORLEY: It's what we consider,

 8 one side.

 9 MS. KLOEPPEL: That's if it's not used

10 much.

11 MR. WORLEY: It's farm, seasonal,

12 property for storage.

13 MS. CARROLL: Anybody else? We have a

14 private crossing. We can't close. What

15 would you like to see up there?

16 MR. FIELD: You start with a sign

17 package. If there's something that you

18 don't have the ability to investigate across

19 the board in some states, like you were

20 saying earlier, I don't think stop sign was

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (317 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 the way to go, although I thought I made

22 that point.

23 MS. CARROLL: Three class ones use

24 stop signs. You mentioned that you would

25 like to see yield signs?

 159

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (318 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 MR. FIELD: In North Carolina, that's

 2 what we start with. The only way we put up

 3 a stop sign at a crossing is with an

 4 engineering violation site list. If it is

 5 determined by our division of traffic that

 6 it's not an appropriate use of the site

 7 issue, then we would go with a yield sign

 8 packet similar to what Norfolk Southern has

 9 been using, the low sign with the crossbucks

10 and what not.

11 MR. COTHEN: Can I interject a thought

12 or two on this? And I'm going to count on

13 Mr. Ries, who was on the technical working

14 group and others to bail me out when I

15 overstep.

16 In that report on page 14, the group

17 reported the Department of the

18 Transportation's position, the Federal

19 Highway Railroad Administration's position

20 expressed in a memorandum that was widely

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (319 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 disseminated back in, oh, I don't know, this

22 was actually March.

23 MR. BROWDER: March of '96.

24 MR. COTHEN: I think earlier. And

25 what had happened was that we were getting

 160

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (320 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 pressure from the transportation safety

 2 board on stop signs.

 3 We also had on staff a fellow named

 4 Bruce George, who favored the use of stop

 5 signs at highway rail crossings. And we

 6 said -- we had conversation with Federal

 7 Highway Administration and tried to drive

 8 home the utility of a stop sign, and, of

 9 course, there are a variety of

10 considerations that need to come into play.

11 But one of the questions that Anya was

12 trying to ask is: Is there a difference in

13 terms of the considerations that might apply

14 with respect to the selection of default

15 signage?

16 The considerations that were --

17 federal highway, federal rail suggested be

18 applied, this is in the public crossing

19 context, was that local and state police and

20 judicial officials commit to a program of

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (321 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 enforcement, no less vigorous than would

22 apply on a highway intersection equipped

23 with stop signs. That's a point that's got

24 a double-edged sword. It might cut either

25 way. Clearly, I have a program of

 161

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (322 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 enforcement by public authorities of a stop

 2 sign at a highway rail crossing. However,

 3 it would establish a standard of care for

 4 the user, and to the extent the user is also

 5 made aware that it's private property, that

 6 may establish some degree of responsibility

 7 on the part of the user of the crossing.

 8 The second was installation of a stop

 9 sign would not occasion a more dangerous

10 situation. Taking into consideration both

11 the likelihood and severity of highway rail

12 collisions and other highway traffic risks

13 than would exist with the yield sign.

14 And here, in my memory at least, what

15 I was concerned was rear end collisions that

16 can occur in a traffic stream. You place a

17 stop sign, perhaps it's light rail traffic

18 on the line, and people don't expect a

19 train. And one out of three motorists

20 decides to actually observe the stop sign,

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (323 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 and now we have proliferation of rear end

22 collisions.

23 One can argue that that's applicable

24 where you have commercial and industrial

25 use, particularly in mixed population. One

 162

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (324 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 can argue that that consideration is

 2 inapplicable for likely used highway rail

 3 crossings.

 4 There were then a number of

 5 considerations or conditions that were

 6 called out as indicating the use of a stop

 7 sign as being appropriate, higher train

 8 speeds, highway traffic mix, includes buses,

 9 hazardous materials, carriers or other large

10 equipment, quite a few trains, passenger

11 trains and so forth, including other

12 geometry issues at the crossing. That might

13 challenge the motorist in terms of picking

14 out the train on approach.

15 Weighing against the highway is, other

16 than secondary in character, recommended

17 maximum of 400ADT in rural areas and 1500 in

18 urban areas.

19 So one can argue to the extent that

20 private crossings, ADTs are lower, that

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (325 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 maybe a stop sign would be less

22 objectionable.

23 The roadway's deepest ending grade to

24 or through the crossing, sight distance in

25 both directions is unrestricted in relation

 163

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (326 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 to maximum closing speed and heavy vehicles

 2 use the crossing. Theirs may be more

 3 apropos of the reference of the difficulty

 4 of some heavy vehicles crossing but would

 5 argue against the stop sign.

 6 Relatively contemporaneous with this

 7 document being published in the same general

 8 stream of discussion that was going on at

 9 FRA, we did generate closed private crossing

10 guidelines. We noted that the states that

11 had at that time acted to require specific

12 signage for private crossings that opted for

13 crossbuck and stop sign, and we suggested

14 for discussion that that would be default

15 signage.

16 Clearly, you know, there are

17 circumstances where that doesn't work,

18 shouldn't be applied. Clearly if you had

19 the ability to do all the things you do on a

20 public roadway it's probably not very smart

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (327 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 to start with mandatory yield and then

22 option of stop sign. Don't get too many

23 public traffic engineers out to these public

24 crossings. It's one of our issues, so we're

25 talking about a fairly complex calculus.

 164

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (328 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 I just throw that in to further

 2 confuse anyone who isn't already.

 3 MR. GILBERT: Typically, if you've got

 4 a private crossing, you've got a much lower

 5 automobile speed approach speed than you are

 6 at a public crossing, plus you are going to

 7 have, you know, probably surface treated or

 8 gravel treated approaches. So you are not

 9 going to be able to operate at 30 or

10 40 miles an hour going across there. So I

11 don't think you are going to have some of

12 those issues as you would have at a public

13 crossing stop sign.

14 MS. CARROLL: Thanks, Grady. That was

15 really informative, because I had forgotten

16 all that stuff.

17 MR. FIELDS: Grady, I agree with you.

18 MR. RIES: It might be useful if the

19 railroads that do have a standard signage

20 package, that they require or like to have

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (329 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 posted at their private crossings, if we

22 could get a template of what the standard

23 package is, what they look like so we can

24 just compare with what the different

25 railroads use.

 165

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (330 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 MS. CARROLL: Anybody that has a

 2 standard suite of engineering designs for

 3 private crossings, if we could ask you to

 4 entertain us with whatever your views of the

 5 criteria, that would be very, very helpful

 6 in the process.

 7 MR. RIES: Also, I think Oregon has a

 8 standard crossing sign package that they

 9 require in addition to California.

10 MS. CARROLL: I think California's

11 just became binding, didn't it? Didn't they

12 just pass legislation that included public

13 as well as private?

14 MR. RIES: I'm not sure.

15 MS. CARROLL: Are there any special

16 signs that anybody uses out there from this

17 regional group? You mentioned the look both

18 ways sign. I mean, does anybody say, you

19 know, this is a private crossing, you know,

20 you are not supposed to be here? Are there

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (331 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 signs that limit or supposed to restrict

22 public access? No public access? Do you

23 use that standard sign at all on private

24 crossings?

25 MR. BROWDER: There's no standard,

 166

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (332 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 that's the point.

 2 MS. CARROLL: Not for private

 3 crossings, but there are other standard

 4 signs. I'm saying did people use other

 5 standard signs?

 6 MR. BROWDER: Yeah, but not that say

 7 private crossing.

 8 MS. CARROLL: No, but might say no

 9 public access or restrictive use?

10 MR. BROWDER: I don't know. Where

11 would that be?

12 MS. CARROLL: I don't know. I'm just

13 asking the question.

14 MR. BROWDER: No, you are asking if

15 there are signs. I'm saying there aren't.

16 You can take the ones that are used in the

17 MUTCD that may be applicable to private

18 crossings, but there are no standards and

19 practices for private crossing signs.

20 MS. CARROLL: That's correct. There

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (333 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 are no standards or practices, but does

22 anybody use an MUTCD sign as part of their

23 operating practice? A state or a railroad

24 may use the look both ways sign or the yield

25 sign.

 167

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (334 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 MR. FIELD: We do have a location

 2 where we have a traffic signal, that's not

 3 prohibited. One of the legs is on a private

 4 road. We have got a sign there indicating

 5 stop at the stop mark on red, which is a

 6 standard MUTCD sign.

 7 MR. RIES: I believe that the NSF

 8 private crossing sign indicates private

 9 crossing, no trespassing. So that would be

10 useful.

11 Also a question that would be

12 interesting to, you know, do the railroads

13 also boast a emergency notification sign as

14 part of their private crossing package? A

15 1-800 number to report problems might be

16 something to consider in a suite of signage.

17 MR. SCHWARTZ: I can tell you that

18 Norfolk Southern does.

19 MR. CRUZ: One issue with signs that

20 we have seen at several class one railroads

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (335 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 is that the crossing number to identify that

22 particular location has faded, and a lot of

23 times with the 1-800 number, the EMTs or

24 emergency services have a hard time finding

25 it, because the numbers are not on those

 168

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (336 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 signs. The signs are actually not that

 2 good.

 3 MR. RIES: I think over the years, the

 4 quality of the signage has improved as far

 5 as keeping the numbers there.

 6 MS. CARROLL: Skull and cross bones?

 7 Anybody use skull and cross bones?

 8 MR. RIES: Always expect a train.

 9 MS. CARROLL: Always expect a train.

10 MR. FIELD: I always like the one on

11 my e-mail, watch out for the damn train.

12 MS. CARROLL: How about those of you

13 that have active devices at private

14 crossings? I mean, you can consider a

15 lockable gate active, it's sort of the users

16 do the activity.

17 MR. RIES: Active is train activated.

18 MS. CARROLL: Well, there's an active

19 with these people. Train activated private

20 crossing. Anybody have any of those?

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (337 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 MR. CRUZ: They have some hump

22 crossings on the active side.

23 MS. CARROLL: Not on the passive?

24 MR. BROWDER: Well, all railroads that

25 have industries with new private crossings,

 169

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (338 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 where there is any kind of substantial

 2 amount of vehicular traffic are going to

 3 require active warning devices in the

 4 agreement before they have -- give anybody

 5 authority for a new crossing. Shopping

 6 centers, sporting arenas. So that's a

 7 question that I can answer clearly they are

 8 all out there. There are limited numbers.

 9 And, again, we're not the highway authority.

10 We are interested though in protecting our

11 liability and our own people by ensuring

12 that there is a significant level of

13 protection provided to ensure safe operation

14 over the crossings.

15 A good example happened twice at the

16 same crossing in Kissimmee, Florida, where a

17 private vehicle operated by the Kissimmee

18 Power Authority was hit by an Amtrak train

19 at a crossing with active warning devices.

20 MR. COTHEN: I thought it was

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (339 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 gentlemanly of you to leave out the part

22 where the state police escorted them on to

23 the crossing.

24 MR. BROWDER: Florida State Police.

25 MR. COTHEN: Florida State Police.

 170

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (340 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 MR. BROWDER: And videotaping it.

 2 MS. CARROLL: So Bill, when the

 3 railroads negotiate with industry, is it

 4 just based on volume of vehicles or type of

 5 vehicle as well? I mean, if you are dealing

 6 with --

 7 MR. BROWDER: It's probably all of the

 8 above. And quite frankly, I would say there

 9 are many different aspects to be included,

10 and usually the railroads that I'm familiar

11 with, some of them even will use highway

12 authority consultants to give them a

13 perspective on what would be safe as far as

14 warning devices are concerned.

15 MS. CARROLL: So do you know of

16 anybody that has like a standard checklist

17 of items that they hadn't addressed as they

18 go through this negotiating contract?

19 MR. BROWDER: Yeah, the railroads have

20 a standard -- not a standard checklist, but

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (341 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 they have a checklist, proprietary checklist

22 that they use.

23 MR. FIELD: In North Carolina, we

24 apply the same standard to a public use

25 private crossing that the railroad is

 171

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (342 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 requiring signals to be engaged that we

 2 would of a private road.

 3 MS. CARROLL: You use --

 4 MR. FIELD: As far as pavement

 5 markings, warning signs, we require the same

 6 applications, but the issue we run into is

 7 we don't have the authority; the railroad

 8 does in that case. And what we'll do is we

 9 will work with the railroad as well as the

10 developer and their consultants to determine

11 what -- based on what plans they need to

12 send to the railroad, the railroad engineer,

13 the railroad still installs them just like

14 they do on any crossing signal project.

15 MS. CARROLL: Any other topic or items

16 to list under train activated warning

17 devices at private crossings? How about

18 ITS? Anybody ever use any ITS? I know in

19 Minnesota they had the C3 product or

20 whatever that they tried. I don't know if

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (343 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 they just demonstrated and that's it.

22 MR. BROWDER: There's nothing out

23 there that doesn't require an FRA waiver,

24 and quite frankly, the issue of failsafe

25 operation that have concern for meeting the

 172

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (344 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 FRA guidelines where appropriate, has always

 2 been a concern for the railroads.

 3 MS. CARROLL: How about grade

 4 separation?

 5 MR. BROWDER: How about what?

 6 MS. CARROLL: Grade separation at

 7 private crossing? Anybody done that?

 8 MR. BROWDER: I'm sure it's been done,

 9 but it's so expensive that it's rare, and in

10 many cases about the only times that that is

11 going to occur is with a little help from

12 our friends at the state that are interested

13 in attracting a major industrial partner.

14 And an example I can think of is Virginia,

15 Coors Beer. I'm sure there are others, but,

16 you know, when you expect to spend anywhere

17 from five to $25 million for an overpass or

18 underpass, there's got to be a significant

19 reason to do that at a private crossing.

20 MS. CARROLL: Coors didn't want to

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (345 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 spill their beer.

22 Do you have something to say?

23 MR. WHITEMORE: No, I was just going

24 to reiterate the same thing that Bill said,

25 is that we require a major food

 173

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (346 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 distribution, you know, we had the example

 2 North Carolina DOT out in Asheville, we

 3 required Winn-Dixie to put an overpass in

 4 which they constructed at their expense a

 5 silica mining operation that required an

 6 overpass that still requires us to give them

 7 some property right easement to put the

 8 footers in across the railroad and stuff.

 9 We have to work those issues out. Very,

10 very rare that somebody wants to spend the

11 money.

12 MS. KLOEPPEL: I guess I'd like to

13 interject, if I could. I hear loud and

14 clear that there are a lot of considerations

15 that you think are identical for public and

16 private crossings, such as the needs for

17 sight distance and the need for consistent

18 work profiles. But are there engineering

19 and design considerations that maybe could

20 be different at private crossings as opposed

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (347 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 to public? We've talked a lot about the

22 signs, but we haven't really talked a lot

23 about road design and intersection design.

24 Realistically speaking, we're probably not

25 going to be able to rebuild every private

 174

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (348 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 crossing to a public roadway standard. Are

 2 there nevertheless some kind of guidelines

 3 that we can work toward?

 4 MR. FIELDS: Jason Fields, NC DOT

 5 again. There are a lot of varying degrees

 6 of designs and construction of private grade

 7 crossings. There are some, you know, I

 8 drive a Suburban, and we are out doing these

 9 things in these locations. It scares me to

10 death to cross the tracks, because I can't

11 see anything. I think there should be some

12 guidance as far as supplying an appropriate

13 roadway width for a designed vehicle. You

14 know, if it's a residence, it obviously

15 would be a 24-foot wide crossing. Whereas,

16 if you have a distributor, where you have

17 trucks on it, it would probably be 26 or 28

18 is the minimum for a two-lane crossing.

19 In addition, pavement depths vary

20 greatly. You know, that's another issue.

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (349 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 Generally, across the tracks, you have

22 asphalt, which is whatever the height of the

23 rail is, but then as you taper out get off

24 the edge of the ballast line, that pavement

25 runs down to nothing. And it depends on who

 175

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (350 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 the road master is, I think, as to what kind

 2 of ramification on the edge of the asphalt

 3 crossing. I think as a general guideline

 4 for a single-lane crossing, there should be

 5 nothing, in my opinion, less than 13-foot

 6 wide, just for a one-lane crossing, and

 7 that's with minimum, I think what any of

 8 them should be. You know, preferably you

 9 would want something 20 to 24-foot as far as

10 the width of the crossing, just so you don't

11 have people getting hung up on rails late at

12 night, been at the bar or whatever else we

13 all know that people generally do before

14 they go and cross that crossing near their

15 house.

16 And as far as pavement width, I think

17 they should be controlled basically for ease

18 of maintenance of railroad. Generally,

19 there's a contractor that's putting that

20 pavement in. The more that pavement

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (351 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 deteriorates, the more they have got to deal

22 with it.

23 We heard this morning that there's

24 issues with possible litigation from private

25 crossings and things of that nature.

 176

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (352 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 You know, as far as approach, I would

 2 suggest, you know, a typical standard we

 3 used for signals and gates would be 15-foot

 4 offset. I think that's a reasonable

 5 distance to determine the pavement for

 6 approaches. So you have got a nice

 7 transition you got made from asphalt the

 8 whole time, versus going through gravel as

 9 you go up the ballast line. It's not really

10 a good idea to have your back tires on a

11 gravel approach if somebody decides to gun

12 it because they see the train coming around

13 the corner.

14 MS. KLOEPPEL: Does anyone else have

15 any other suggested considerations that

16 would make a private crossing different from

17 a public as far as engineering?

18 MR. PETTEWAY: I'd like to say

19 something. I think for us, meaning DOT

20 engineers, it's really hard for us to say

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (353 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 anything that's outside of state standards.

22 I think in all aspects, when you have a

23 private road that's at some point in time is

24 going to be a state road, most generally you

25 are going to find them wanting to build to

 177

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (354 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 whatever standard, it may be the state

 2 standard or municipal standard, where

 3 somebody can take over the maintenance.

 4 So in a lot of cases, I think from our

 5 perspective, we are going to want to see it

 6 built to state standards, so at some point

 7 in time it can't be taken over.

 8 Now, there have been times where the

 9 municipality will take over, and their

10 standards would be what we would require.

11 That may be a change there, but I really

12 don't know from a state standpoint. I don't

13 think we can look at anything that was less

14 than what we would require.

15 MR. RIES: Do there need to be

16 different design standards for the different

17 types of crossings?

18 MR. FIELD: You would need two, I

19 think, just for a single driveway. You are

20 not going to necessarily have the same width

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (355 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 requirement you would for Long Beverage. So

22 I would say we don't have more than two

23 standards for that kind of thing.

24 MR. PETTEWAY: Right.

25 MR. WHITEMORE: Jason, that would be

 178

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (356 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 assuming that you are driving a car over on

 2 it, but if you were having a tractor going

 3 across, you would have a different standard

 4 of a tractor going across the field from

 5 side to side versus an automobile.

 6 MR. CRUZ: Or a tractor trailer --

 7 MR. FIELD: Tractor trail there --

 8 MR. WHITEMORE: The resident has a

 9 tractor trailer. The reason, I'm asking,

10 you said there only should be two standards.

11 I'm kind of saying let's kind of revisit

12 that and say well, what's the use.

13 MR. FIELD: I think one issue you

14 don't want to get bogged down with too many

15 standards to pick from. If you are looking

16 to have a relatively simple process for

17 application across the board, you know,

18 we're fortunate in North Carolina, we have

19 got to look at stuff we do very often, maybe

20 take the worst case scenario. Assume, okay,

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (357 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 the vehicle, maybe a tractor trailer for a

22 single residence, what do you need for that?

23 And, you know, use that as your narrower

24 standard, if you will. If there's a larger

25 standard, have a minimum requirement for a

 179

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (358 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 two-lane road. If you have got a guard

 2 house going into a facility and a lane on

 3 both sides, obviously it's going to be eight

 4 feet wider to incorporate the fact that the

 5 guard house is on the other side. There's

 6 going to be exceptions to these rules

 7 anyway, as there always are. That's why we

 8 all have jobs.

 9 MR. WHITEMORE: Me too.

10 MR. FIELD: Yeah, but perhaps maybe

11 the two standards you should look at is

12 single lane versus multilane and have a

13 certain width generally off the cuff. If

14 somebody says they are building a house on

15 the other side, what do you all require?

16 There's a general guideline well, if there's

17 a tractor trailer and say somebody buys a

18 house years down the road, and they own a

19 truck, you know, if you run into that issue,

20 maybe you use the worst case scenario of

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (359 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 that.

22 MR. CRUZ: The question I would have

23 is the standard that you talk about now

24 developing, is it for crossings that exist

25 already, or for new crossings that they are

 180

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (360 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 planning to put in? Because if you are

 2 trying to build the standard based on

 3 existing crossings, the vertical clearance

 4 alone, and to be able to change that from

 5 the private stand point or requiring

 6 somebody to do that will be cost

 7 prohibitive. Most private crossings, I

 8 would say the ones that we visited, have I'd

 9 say 90 percent of them have to have a

10 vertical clearance issue, and how are you

11 going to address that?

12 MR. COTHEN: FRA is progressive and

13 proven in railroad safety. I mean, I think

14 realistically we all have to be talking

15 about perhaps a gold standard for new

16 crossings, both in terms of showing the

17 necessary, if they are suitably configured

18 by engineering, and what's realistic in

19 terms of remediating acute problems out

20 there with other crossings where there's a

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (361 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 long history of use and subtle expectations.

22 MR. YOUNG: George Young, NCDOT. If

23 we were able to establish standards for

24 these railroad crossings, how in the world

25 are we ever going to enforce them?

 181

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (362 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 MR. COTHEN: Danny left because he can

 2 get out the draft of the guidelines. I

 3 can't believe we are this deep into this

 4 second meeting this just coming up. Tell

 5 the railroad to barricade the crossing. I

 6 mean, that's effectively what you would have

 7 to do if you had a federally led program.

 8 MR. YOUNG: Who is going to be out

 9 there to determine whether or not any

10 particular crossing, whether it's new or old

11 crossing, meets the prescribed standard? Is

12 it going to be the railroad's

13 responsibility?

14 MR. COTHEN: State inspector.

15 MR. YOUNG: That's where I was afraid.

16 MR. COTHEN: That's an excellent

17 question, and one that would have to be work

18 out.

19 MR. BROWDER: That goes back to the

20 program that I mentioned, that CSX has, and

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (363 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 the frustration that the railroad had in

22 trying to implement some kind of programs

23 where they did close crossings, which was

24 completely negated in some locations by

25 local judges issuing orders for them to

 182

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (364 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 reopen the crossing. That's exactly what

 2 they tried to do.

 3 MR. WHITEMORE: Just facts around

 4 Bill's statement, just so we understand the

 5 magnitude of the issue. We have 9,800 and

 6 change private crossings out there. We have

 7 680 agreements, okay? So when you look at

 8 were they are there and the rates that the

 9 people have, you know, now we are

10 researching our deeds. We are trying to

11 figure out if we give them a deed of right

12 to somewhere, as we look through each one of

13 these, I can't imagine we would have two or

14 3,000 deed of rights for crossings, just

15 assume 6 or 7,000 people, we have to

16 litigate or pay off whoever, to get the road

17 crossings closed or whatever, if we don't

18 need them, it becomes a huge problem. And

19 get them to sign an agreement if we do need

20 them, you are crossing our property, we have

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (365 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 the expense and liability of that crossing

22 being in place, what's your responsibility

23 as a private owner as you come up with these

24 guidelines, these standards for

25 construction? Who is going to bear that

 183

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (366 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 cost? And, you know, we keep coming to that

 2 well, barricade them. I say okay. This is

 3 a Shane Whitemore, not a railroad CSX

 4 perspective, if you say barricaid, that's

 5 what I wanted to do all along, going back to

 6 option one, just close it. It didn't have

 7 the right of clearance, didn't have the

 8 right to issue, I just wanted to close it

 9 anyway. We don't want it there.

10 MR. COTHEN: I just want to emphasize

11 from the Federal Railroad Administration

12 point of view, that kind of option has been

13 discussed for legitimate safety reasons, and

14 that is that, you know, these collisions

15 derail trains and they harm employees and

16 potentially a danger to the surrounding

17 community. And even where the only person

18 hurt is whoever is in the motor vehicle, and

19 that's something that we want to avoid at

20 all costs, which is why -- not all costs --

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (367 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 but every reasonable cost, which is why

22 Miriam started with the statistics on the

23 deaths at private crossings, but even when

24 we don't get to that point, very often, you

25 know, you traumatize railroad employees who

 184

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (368 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 have been subjected to the event

 2 involuntarily, not something that they could

 3 have done anything about. And that's

 4 something that we usually don't have to

 5 raise from an FRA standpoint, because labor

 6 organizations will be the first to do so

 7 because their members are those at risk.

 8 MS. SPURLOCK: Just two comments I

 9 wanted to make regarding municipality.

10 What I've seen in private crossings is

11 the phenomenal costs involved, because some

12 of these are around curves and things that

13 would cost millions just to blow out the

14 mountainside to give the municipality the

15 approach. So that's something we would have

16 to consider there, and also the single

17 versus the multiple lanes. I've seen old

18 probable dirt roads that were just paved

19 over in communities in private crossings but

20 they are only one car wide.

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (369 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 So if you set a new standard for

22 private crossings being two lanes, what did

23 you just do to the thousands of roads in all

24 communities that are one-lane wide?

25 MR. FIELD: I think one issue in

 185

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (370 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 speaking to that -- we are only looking at

 2 two issues here -- one is protection of the

 3 crossing, and the other one is the designs

 4 that the crossing is put in at. If you

 5 drive all over probably any state and as the

 6 design changes have changed over time, you

 7 don't see the state agency and city agency

 8 go back and widening everything from the

 9 ground up. If we apply the new standard to

10 utilize, it would be, you know, something I

11 think should be applied on project, as they

12 occur, as they are able to be addressed,

13 because, you know, we have got plenty of

14 roads out here that are 18-foot wide, even

15 though our current pavement standard is 26,

16 and you get up in the mountains, there are

17 some places you have got 14 if you are

18 lucky.

19 And, you know, I think perhaps the

20 biggest thing to look at is the protection

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (371 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 of the cross itself. I mean, that's kind of

22 a standard. We've taken on projects here in

23 North Carolina on treating the existing

24 condition as it is, but as we are getting

25 into this private crossing issue, I think

 186

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (372 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 it's important, as you all raised, to look

 2 at the engineering construction of the

 3 private crossing. And if a developer is

 4 going in to develop a thousand home

 5 community, which we have all over this

 6 state, there should be a standard he is held

 7 to that the railroad can lean on and say

 8 well, you know, according to FRA, this is

 9 what's required. This is not just ours,

10 although we currently use that practice.

11 But I think the biggest thing is look at the

12 protection of the crossing and as a

13 secondary have a standard to be utilizing

14 private crossings can be addressed when

15 feasible, when there's money available or

16 when things change there that can be applied

17 to that; not going out there and force

18 everybody to change it today because of this

19 new policy that's out.

20 MS. CARROLL: I have one other

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (373 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 thought. Back in 2003, we had a research

22 needs workshop that FRA sponsored and we

23 brought together universities, railroads,

24 states, industry people, suppliers and we

25 talked about what research needs there would

 187

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (374 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 be for grade crossings. One of the topics

 2 that surfaced was limiting the access to

 3 railway lines, that was a topic of research.

 4 What I'm hearing is that the rail ways would

 5 love to have the ability to say you can't

 6 cross my tracks, because I'm under this

 7 criteria if I've got 50 trains a day and I,

 8 you know, such and such conditions, speeds

 9 of, you know, 90 miles an hour, let's not

10 build a grade crossing here.

11 MR. YOUNG: Can't they do that anyway?

12 MS. CARROLL: I would divert to Grady

13 on that one. But it was a research topic

14 that came up that just came to mind based on

15 the comment that CSX made.

16 MR. WHITEMORE: We didn't talk to him.

17 MR. STAYTON: That was Shane, that

18 wasn't CSX.

19 MR. BROWDER: No, she's talking about

20 other stuff.

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (375 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 MS. CARROLL: Grady, do you know of

22 any way that a railroad can ask for limited

23 access and to control access to their

24 crossings?

25 MR. COTHEN: Well, some of these folks

 188

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (376 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 who deal with this on a daily basis can

 2 answer more specifically. But, you know, I

 3 think what we're facing here is, you know, a

 4 variety of state laws. We had one in the

 5 Midwest where an agricultural crossing can

 6 be demanded, unless we provide it in one of

 7 the states in the Midwest.

 8 In some cases, particularly in the

 9 east, railroads are operating over

10 easements, and the fee holder can be

11 determined. They may have some residual

12 right to demand access to cross the railroad

13 et cetera, et cetera. I think it's

14 infinitely complicated from a property law

15 standpoint. You know, if we were to

16 regulate in the area, we would regulate on

17 the basis of safety, and under the commerce

18 clause in the interest of getting trains

19 over the railroad safely, and that would be

20 our focus, and the costs would fall where

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (377 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 they may. You know, I can't imagine FRA

22 trying to determine how the costs would be

23 distributed.

24 MR. WHITEMORE: Except my

25 understanding talking with New York DOT,

 189

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (378 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 that on their high-speed corridors they

 2 either have passed legislation or are in the

 3 process of working on legislation that says

 4 on a high-speed corridor, for safety reasons

 5 would take over denying or have a crossing

 6 removed, private crossing removed.

 7 MR. RIES: I was thinking that's

 8 probably the only, from an FRA legislative

 9 regulatory perspective, would be our safety

10 standards for high-speed trains, where

11 crossings cannot be at 125 miles an hour or

12 greater, there might be a hook there if you

13 had a high-speed area and came and wanted to

14 put in a crossing.

15 MR. WHITEMORE: I think that's what

16 they've done, passenger high speed.

17 MS. CARROLL: Any other comments or

18 questions, engineering design, anything in

19 general?

20 MR. YOUNG: I guess I might just

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (379 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 question whether or not that's something you

22 need to look at beyond classifying crossings

23 for protection purposes. In other words, I

24 thought we were here today to find out what

25 kind of protection to provide existing

 190

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (380 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 crossings and not to maybe establish a

 2 standard for construction.

 3 MS. CARROLL: I think the charge was

 4 everything and anything that we can hear.

 5 So I think it's open to any inquiry, any

 6 safety discussion. With that, I'm going to

 7 turn it back over to Grady. I'm done with

 8 my piece.

 9 MR. COTHEN: What I'd like to do is

10 I'd like to ask parties if you would think

11 about another one of these three dimensional

12 things. We have got issues working here

13 related to characteristics of, other than

14 public crossings, which we will call private

15 crossings for the heck of it, and these are

16 crossings that our colleagues in the state

17 DOT don't have full control over for one

18 reason or another, and we refined some

19 categories of private crossings that we

20 began to etch out in Minnesota, and we will

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (381 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 feed that back and put that in the docket.

22 We talked about possible needs for

23 closure or basic signage, more advanced

24 signage, perhaps grade separation as

25 warranted. We've heard that all of those

 191

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (382 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 really are relevant issues already in the

 2 field. And we noted that there are a

 3 variety of documents, resources available

 4 from the public crossing side that may

 5 provide guidance maybe on all fours, as we

 6 say in legalese, with the private crossing

 7 side, or it may not require distinctions to

 8 be made.

 9 There's one aspect of this that we

10 mentioned only in passing, and one of the

11 reasons that we have such close association

12 and only one with North Carolina DOT is

13 their leadership in the high speed passenger

14 service business, the sealed corridor

15 project. And what they've shown is

16 necessity of moving out with innovative or

17 elaborate treatments to deal with not only

18 the exposure to persons using the roadway,

19 but also the exposure of passengers on

20 trains. That's kind of the extreme example.

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (383 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 And in the northeast corridor, by the

22 way, Washington and New York, each and every

23 highway rail crossing, public and private,

24 has been removed because of safety

25 considerations on the passenger train side,

 192

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (384 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 and a great deal of effort was put in to

 2 removing each and every crossing in Boston

 3 with only, I believe, 12 remaining in the

 4 state, all of which have very elaborate

 5 treatments. Some of them having elaborate

 6 treatments.

 7 So another dimension for consideration

 8 is the degree of activity on the rail side,

 9 the speeds involved which drives accident

10 severity both on the highway and the rail

11 side and the mix of activity, freight,

12 passenger, hazardous material and so forth.

13 And as we talk about what may be warranted,

14 what may be standard in these circumstances,

15 certainly we would want to take into

16 account, as we consider the effective and

17 proportional use of both public and private

18 sources would be the degree and risk at the

19 crossing related to the nature of the rail

20 operation.

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (385 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 So that turns into a pretty elaborate

22 and complicated set of public policy issues.

23 And what you all need to do, don't do it

24 while you are driving at home, keep your

25 mind on driving, if you are taking public

 193

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (386 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 transportation or perhaps sitting on the

 2 front porch with some ice tea this

 3 afternoon, if you have further thoughts

 4 about that subject or as a team, for

 5 instance, we can get the North Carolina DOT

 6 to get back together after the meeting and

 7 have another brainstorming session, we would

 8 love to have your thoughts, not only with

 9 regard to how you think things ought to come

10 out, but as we've done today in several

11 instances, what further inquiry you think we

12 should make before we make any suggestion on

13 behalf of the affected communities as to

14 what direction we ought to go.

15 Okay. This is a big job, and I think

16 we've had a good day in Raleigh. And is

17 there anybody else who feels like they

18 haven't had a chance to speak about their

19 issues today before we move on, adjourn,

20 that is?

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (387 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 Well, if not, the docket will remain

22 open, and you are certainly invited to

23 contribute.

24 We thank North Carolina DOT for their

25 guidance and help to arrange the facility

 194

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (388 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

 1 and the day and helping us lead on. We

 2 thank everyone who has been in attendance

 3 and is in attendance for their participation

 4 in the meeting, and I'm going to go home and

 5 tell my bosses that the railroad showed up

 6 and talked, so everybody can relax.

 7 With that, this public inquiry is

 8 adjourned.

 9 (Whereupon the hearing was concluded

10 at 3:17 p.m.)

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (389 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 195

file:///U|/KShelton/grade%20crossing/private%20xings/sept.27.2006.public.mtg.transcript.txt (390 of 391)10/12/2006 5:40:51 PM
While traveling in Austria we were driving to the rail station via automobile. 

There was a cassette tape in the radio. All of a sudden the tape stopped playing 

and a voicer came over the radio warning about the recent rain that has caused 

mudslides. The voice stated that some highways and rail lines were closed due to 

this. 

If this system works in Austria for emergency weather reports it could surely 

work in the good ol USA concerning approaching trains at private rail crossings. 

The railroads,communication and electronic experts can work out the details. 

This system would save lives warning motorist via radio, cell phones or 

navigation systems. Navagation systems would contact only the few who have the 

systems along with the radio but just about everyone has a cell phone on when 

they are driving. 



Michelle Silva 

To the FRA Private Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Task Force 

We are an operating railroad museum with part of our interpretive charter to 

display historic railroad crossing devices. The implications of the proposed 

task is to explore the establishment of forms of uniform standard warning 

devices. These could preclude the use of historic crossing warning devices in 

one of the last environments they can still be installed and displayed for 

historic purposes, i.e. the private railroad crossing. They cannot be used for 

public highway railroad crossings any longer. Yet the historic crossing devices 

still need to function in the environment they were created for to be 

historically interpretive. Many of the other issues of private crossings are of 

concern to us also but this comment focuses on the single issue of restricting 

the use of historic crossing warning equipment and devices for private railroad 

crossings. 

Thank you 

Steve Rusconi 

Signal Department 

Pacific Locomotive Association 

Niles Canyon Railway 
#254727 Docket No. FRA 2005-23281 

BEFORE THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 

 

Safety of Private Highway-Rail Grade 

Crossings; Notice of Safety Inquiry 

 

 Docket No. FRA 2005-23281 

 

COMMENTS OF THE 

CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 

OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

RANDOLPH L. WU. 

LIONEL B. WILSON 

JASON ZELLER 

PATRICK S. BERDGE 

Attorneys for the Public Utilities Commission 

of the State of California 

and the People of the State of California 

505 Van Ness Avenue, Rm. 4300-G 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Phone: (415) 703-1519 

October 26, 2006 Fax: (415) 703-4432 
Docket No. FRA-2005-23281 October 26, 2006

254727 CalPUC 2 Comments 

INTRODUCTION 

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC or Commission) exercises rail 

safety oversight over railroads in California under the California Public Utilities Code 

and under the State Participation Plan with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), 

49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Parts 212.1 et seq. The CPUC also has exclusive 

jurisdiction over rail crossings within the state. Specifically in regards to private 

crossings, CPUC has the authority to determine the necessity for any private crossing and 

the place, manner, and conditions under which the crossing shall be constructed and 

maintained, and to fix and assess the cost and expenses.1

 

The Commission's General Order (G.O.) 75-D (administrative rules governing the 

standardization and use of warning devices at highway-rail crossings) has an entire 

regulation directed at warning devices at private highway-rail crossings. It requires a 

minimum of a STOP and "PRIVATE CROSSING" signs posted on each approach to a 

private highway-rail crossing.2

 It also requires a written agreement between the railroad 

and the party requesting the crossing. 

The text of G.O. 75-D pertaining to private crossings reads: 

7. PRIVATE AT-GRADE CROSSINGS 

7.1 Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 7537, the Commission has 

the authority to determine the necessity for any private at-grade 

crossing and the place, manner, and conditions under which the atgrade crossing shall be constructed and maintained, and to fix and 

assess the cost and expense thereof. The Commission exercises such 

 

1

 California Pubic Utilities Code §7537: The owner of any lands along or through which any 

railroad is constructed or maintained, may have such farm or private crossings over the railroad 

and railroad right of way as are reasonably necessary or convenient for ingress to or egress from 

such lands, or in order to connect such lands with other adjacent lands of the owner. The owner 

or operator of the railroad shall construct and at all times maintain such farm or private crossing 

in a good, safe, and passable condition. The commission shall have the authority to determine 

the necessity for any crossing and the place, manner, and conditions under which the crossing 

shall be constructed and maintained, and shall fix and assess the cost and expense thereof. 

2

 General Order 75-D Section 7 pertains to private at-grade highway-rail crossings. The 

General Order is available on line at 

http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/GENERAL_ORDER/60157.htm. 
Docket No. FRA-2005-23281 October 26, 2006

254727 CalPUC 3 Comments 

jurisdiction when it is either petitioned by one of the parties or 

Commission staff. 

The establishment of a private at-grade crossing, other than a private 

at-grade crossing of the railroad tracks by the owning railroad, must 

be authorized through a written agreement between the railroad and 

the party requiring the crossing. 

 Standard 1-X. "PRIVATE CROSSING" sign shall be installed at all 

private at-grade crossings. See Figure 6 for additional specifications.

7.2 At all approaches to private at-grade crossings there shall be 

installed either a STOP sign (defined as a Standard R1-1 in the CA 

MUTCD) or an automatic warning device described in Sections 6.2 

through 6.6. 

a) If a STOP sign is used, the Standard 1-X sign shall be 

mounted on the post below it. 

b) If a Standard 8, 8-A, 9, 9-A, or 9-E device is used, the 

Standard 1-X sign shall be attached to the mast of the 

warning device below the flashing light signals. 

7.3 The language contained in the lower portion of the "PRIVATE 

CROSSING" sign shown in Figure 6, commencing with and 

including the words "No Trespassing", shall be permitted at the 

option of the railroad. 

The CPUC respectfully submits these comments regarding the FRA’s Safety of 

Private Highway-Rail Grade Crossings; Notice of Safety Inquiry, on behalf of the CPUC 

and the people of the State of California. In this document the 

questions listed in the FRA’s Notice of Safety Inquiry are shown in italics; they are 

followed by CPUC comments. 

BACKGROUND 

Private crossings carry most, if not all, safety concerns that public crossings have. 

Collisions can and do occur that cause delay, property damage, hazmat spills, injury and 

death. The parties involved in the establishment and use of private crossings must be 

cognizant of the potential incidents which could occur at such crossings, and, where 

appropriate, government should exert safety authority to assure such risks are eliminated 

or minimized. 
Docket No. FRA-2005-23281 October 26, 2006

254727 CalPUC 4 Comments 

The following are two recent examples of railroad-motorist collisions at private 

crossings that affected public safety. CPUC Staff addressed safety concerns for each 

crossing with the property owners, railroads and public authorities, which will result in 

crossing upgrades: 

Example 1: 

In April 2005, a fatal collision at a private crossing in a rural desert area resulted in two 

fatalities. A similar accident had occurred at the same crossing in 2000. Investigation 

revealed that the passive crossing is utilized by various parties accessing a propane 

company, a planned energy generation facility, an electric substation, a water facility, and 

open space for recreation. Trains run at 79 mph through this area, and although there is 

clear visibility along the track, drivers do not always take adequate precautions and often 

disregard the posted STOP signs on approach to the track. The crossing is in a narrow, 

paved road between a main highway and private properties on the other side of the tracks. 

CPUC staff informed the property owner that the private nature of the crossing was no 

longer valid and that CPUC staff would seek closure of the crossing unless the warning 

devices were upgraded to modern public crossing safety standards and, further, that the 

local roadway agency needed to take authority for the crossing and the maintenance costs 

associated with these improved safety warning devices. The property owners agreed and 

are financing the upgrades; the County has agreed to be responsible for the crossing and 

its maintenance costs. 

Example 2: 

A private unpaved road in Ventura County crosses Union Pacific Railroad Company 

(UPRR) tracks. The private crossing provides access to a Christmas tree farm as well as 

to three separate private residences. During the winter holiday season about 100 vehicles 

traverse the crossing daily. Daily train traffic includes eight UPRR freight trains traveling 

at 60 miles per hour (mph), ten Amtrak passenger trains, and four Metrolink commuter 

trains traveling at 70 mph. The crossing warning devices include STOP and “PRIVATE 

CROSSING” signs. There have been a total of five reported collisions at the crossing 

since September 4, 1986. The collisions resulted in twenty injuries and two fatalities. The 

most recent incident occurred August 5, 2005, involving a dump truck and an Amtrak 

passenger train. CPUC staff recommended upgrading the warning devices to flashing 

light signals and gates, advance warning signs, and providing illumination. The Ventura 

County Transportation Commission has acquired special federal funding and, together 

with the UPRR, will upgrade the warning devices at the crossing to gates and flashing 

light signals. Maintenance costs will be borne by the railroad as specified in the crossing 

agreement negotiated with the Ventura County Transportation Commission. Although the 

crossing will remain a private crossing, automatic warning devices will be installed. 

COMMENTS 
Docket No. FRA-2005-23281 October 26, 2006

254727 CalPUC 5 Comments 

Question 1

At-grade highway-rail crossings present inherent risks to users, including the railroad 

and its employees, and to other persons in the vicinity if a train were to derail into an 

occupied area or release hazardous materials. When passenger trains are involved, the 

risks are heightened. From the standpoint of public policy, how do we determine whether 

the creation or continuation of a private crossing is justified? 

CPUC Comments on Question 1

A private crossing is justified ONLY if it provides sole access to a parcel of land 

that has no other viable alternate access available that will not cross the railroad tracks. 

Private crossings have been thought of differently than public crossings because, in 

theory, only the private property owners and their invitees, guests, or employees use the 

crossing, and users should be aware of the existence of the crossing and associated 

hazard. This justified the opinion that there is no need for advance warning signage or 

automatic warning devices, as are typically used at public crossings. There is also the 

assumption that if a collision occurs at a private crossing, only the private property owner 

and the railroad may suffer the consequences of the crash, and therefore these two 

interested parties are solely responsible for the safety of the private crossing. 

However, many private crossings are on farms which use temporary employees 

who may not be aware of the presence of the crossing and the associated hazards. Also, if 

trains carrying hazardous material or passengers are involved in a collision, then the 

surrounding community may be exposed to hazardous material or the passengers onboard the train may be injured or possibly killed. Therefore, train passengers and the 

general public, not only the property owner and the railroad, are exposed to the dangers 

of an accident at a private crossing. Also, unless the approaches to the private crossing 

are controlled (e.g., locked gates) or at least posted as private property, the public may 

use it (e.g., a lost driver). Therefore, individuals other than the invitee, guests, or 

employees of the property owner may use (with or without permission) the crossing. 

Furthermore, if a private crossing is publicly used (such as ones that provide 

access to a business), the general public is exposed to the same level of hazard as with 

any public crossing. Anytime there is a probability that the public may be exposed to 
Docket No. FRA-2005-23281 October 26, 2006

254727 CalPUC 6 Comments 

harm by a private crossing, it becomes a public safety issue requiring diagnostic review 

and special consideration. In such cases, state government oversight of the crossing is 

needed. 

Question 2

Is the current assignment of responsibility for safety at private crossings effective? To 

what extent do risk-management practices associated with insurance arrangements result 

in “regulation” of safety at private crossings? 

CPUC Comments on Question 2

Currently, the railroads and private crossing owners share liability for the safety at 

private crossings. We do not have knowledge of insurance arrangements indemnifying 

property owners for damages resulting from accidents at private crossings. It is our 

understanding that railroads are self-insured with respect to personal injury liability. As 

such, risk management practices at private crossings are imposed primarily by state 

government regulations which pertain to private crossings and, secondarily, by the 

railroads’ (and, to some extent, property owners) own interests in minimizing their 

exposure to financial liability. 

Because there are few controls at most private crossings assuring usage by only 

authorized parties, the use of private crossings can change over time. We are not 

confident that such changes in use would be identified in a timely manner and addressed 

by the railroad or the land owner. Railroads may not be aware of the changes use, and 

land owners may not be aware of the need to reevaluate the crossing and its warning 

devices based on changes in use. We recommend some mechanism where the local 

government identifies increased or changed land use in land locked parcels to identify 

such changes in the dynamics of the crossing and its use. With such a process, the 

appropriate state agency, the railroads and land owners could make informed decisions 

regarding the appropriate crossing treatments. 

Question 3

How should improvement and/or maintenance costs associated with private crossing be 

allocated? 
Docket No. FRA-2005-23281 October 26, 2006

254727 CalPUC 7 Comments 

CPUC Comments on Question 3

Generally, allocation of improvement and/or maintenance costs is agreed to by the 

landowner and the railroad as parties entering into the legal instrument establishing the 

private crossing. Private crossings can be created using the following legal instruments. 

In general, we support the specified cost allocation for each type: 

a) Deeded crossings – crossings established at the time the property 

owner granted a right-of-way easement to the railroad for a rail 

line over the owner’s property. 

For these situations, railroads should be responsible for all improvement 

and maintenance costs. 

b) Licensed crossings – crossings where the railroad granted a 

license to a property owner for a crossing of its tracks. 

For these situations, property owner are generally responsible for all 

improvements and maintenance costs. 

c) Newly created crossings, i.e., crossings where a railroad or other 

property owner has sold property to a purchaser at some time 

after the railroad had obtained the right-of-way for the rail line – 

Occasionally, the railroad sells property to a private party that is 

land-locked between railroad tracks (usually within a “wye”), 

and then allows the owner to build a private crossing over one of 

its tracks. 

In these situations the responsibility should be explicitly determined by 

contract between the railroad and the property purchaser. 

In California, where the landowner and railroad do not agree, the Commission may 

apportion such costs. See: Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 7537.3

Question 4

Is there a need for alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to handle disputes that may 

arise between private crossing owners and the railroads? 

CPUC Comments on Question 4

As previously noted, California law grants the CPUC the power to fix and assess 

 

3

 “...The commission shall have the authority to determine the necessity for any crossing and 

the place, manner, and conditions under which the crossing shall be constructed and maintained, 

and shall fix and assess the cost and expense thereof.” 
Docket No. FRA-2005-23281 October 26, 2006

254727 CalPUC 8 Comments 

costs for the construction and maintenance of private crossings. The CPUC allows for 

administrative legal review by public hearing in crossing matters. Administrative Law 

Judges (ALJs) hear crossing cases and prepare proposed decisions for consideration by 

the Commission in general. The Commission reviews the facts of the case and the 

proposed decision and issues its own carefully-reasoned written decision. Moreover, the 

CPUC has its own Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanism for these and other 

proceedings in which ALJs specially trained in mediation procedures and outcomes are 

used to assist in resolving such matters. 

Question 5

Should the State or Federal government assume greater responsibility for safety at 

private crossings? 

CPUC Comments on Question 5

The issues involved with private crossings include property rights, contract law, 

and the safety responsibility for the traveling public, all of which have been traditionally 

within the states’ jurisdiction. Many of the grants of rights-of-way in California were 

created in the Nineteenth Century at the time of initial railroad line construction. Both the 

rights-of-way and the crossing agreements may be found in Deeds of Trust, Quit Claim 

Deeds, and contractual arrangements between the railroads and California landowners 

subject to the laws of the State of California. Therefore, we strongly recommend keeping 

the responsibility for the safety of private crossings with the states. The FRA may issue 

guidelines, for the benefit of states that do not have laws on this subject, and provide 

recommended language for laws or regulations on this subject. 

In short, the CPUC contends that public and private crossing safety regulation is 

too dependent on state law in real property and contracts law, and is too focused on 

regional issues and concerns, to permit federal pre-emption of the field. Recommended 

federal guidelines may be valuable, wholesale federal pre-emption is not. 

Question 6

Should there be nationwide standards for warning devices at private crossings or for 

intersection design of new private grade crossings?
Docket No. FRA-2005-23281 October 26, 2006

254727 CalPUC 9 Comments 

CPUC Comments on Question 6

In California, each individual public crossing design is reviewed by a diagnostic 

team, comprised of experts, to recommend appropriate design considering the unique 

nature of individual highway-rail crossings. Private crossing design is generally specified 

between the railroad and land owner in their crossing agreement. In cases where a private 

crossing is used by the public, or trains carrying hazardous material, or in instances 

where passenger trains use the crossing, the existing guidelines for “public” crossings 

should apply. 

In other cases, we recommend the FRA invite a group of experts to develop 

guidelines for the design of private crossings, similar to the Highway/Rail Grade 

Crossing Technical Working Group that issued the Guidance on Traffic Control Devices 

at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings. 

Question 7

How do we determine when a private crossing has a public purpose and is subject to 

public use? 

CPUC Comments on Question 7

Where crossings allow unfettered access of passage, and routinely invite the 

general public to use the crossing, a public purpose has been established. In such cases, 

guidelines for crossing treatments should be the same as for a public crossing. Public uses 

of crossings which could be classified as private include: crossings at shopping centers 

and malls (which are generally private property), crossings to public facilities (such as 

land fills, recreational areas and other unrestricted public lands), private roads to 

residential developments (mobile home parks, residential subdivisions, private country 

clubs) and other business and commercial enterprises offering goods or services to the 

public (Christmas tree lots, nurseries). As stated above, the potential of hazard to the 

public at all private crossings should be assumed to be the same as a public crossing, 

particularly where the public is invited to the property. 

Additionally, in many cases, the conditions and use at private crossings have 

changed markedly from those when the agreement was first executed. As mentioned 
Docket No. FRA-2005-23281 October 26, 2006

254727 CalPUC 10 Comments 

above, this changed use should be addressed through crossing upgrades, or potentially, 

closure. However, it is very difficult to set a threshold for determining when a crossing is 

“publicly” used. (For example, can two private residences share a private crossing—can 

10 residences? Where do you draw the line?) 

For example, a crossing may have been established 50 years ago when only a 

farmer and its employees used the crossing so that the document creating the private 

crossing may be appropriate for the limited use expected 50 years ago. But, if 50 years 

later a local or farmers’ market is established on the property, or the property has been 

subdivided for residential or commercial use the changed usage at the crossing may pose 

a hazard to the general motoring public. The terms of agreement between the railroad and 

property owner have changed and so must be reevaluated. It is difficult to police the 

usage of each private crossing. Moreover, it is very difficult to set a threshold for 

determining when a crossing is “publicly” used. (For example, can two private residences 

share a private crossing—can 10 residences? Where do you draw the line?) 

Consequently, the private property owner must be given the incentive to upgrade the 

warning devices at the crossing when the usage changes. Financial liability, in case of a 

collision, is one incentive for private property owners to provide proper warning devices 

at a crossing, but generally, it is not a compelling one until after an incident. Any 

guidelines on private crossings considered for adoption should address changes in use 

over time, and provide for reevaluation. 

The best time to determine an increase in motor vehicle, bicycle, or pedestrian 

traffic at a rail crossing is when a developer seeks approval of new commercial or 

residential construction. For the past three years, the Commission has been reviewing 

proposed developments within the state and has provided written comments to local 

governments concerning potential impacts on public safety under the California 

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970. This procedure permits the Commission to 

monitor proposed increases in all traffic at private or public crossings. Under CEQA, the 
Docket No. FRA-2005-23281 October 26, 2006

254727 CalPUC 11 Comments 

lead agency for the proposed development is required to respond to public comments 

concerning the project. 

Question 8

Should some crossings be categorized as commercial crossings rather than private 

crossings? 

CPUC Comments on Question 8

California does not believe a distinction should be made between a “commercial” 

crossing and a “private” crossing. California treats the crossing as a “private” crossing 

but, nevertheless, may require greater protections to pedestrians or the motoring public 

through the addition of improved safety warning devices similar, or identical to, public 

crossings. Also, there are public used crossings that are not commercial in nature, e.g., 

apartment buildings and mobile home parks. 

Question 9

Are there innovative traffic control treatments that could improve safety at private 

crossings on major rail corridors, including those on which passenger service is 

provided? 

CPUC Comments on Question 9

Private crossings should be treated much like public ones. Private crossings are 

subjected to the same kind of diagnostic safety review and the same level of state safety 

oversight as public crossings. Existing industry and state safety standards and practices 

should be maintained. The same innovative traffic control treatments considered for 

public crossings can often be used at private crossings. 

Question 10

Should the DOT request enactment of legislation to address private crossings? If so, 

what should it include? 

CPUC Comments on Question 10

We believe that the FRA has taken the appropriate steps to solicit public comment 

on the matter to determine the scope of the relevant issues relating to private crossings. It 

would be premature to consider adoption of new legislation regarding private crossings 

until the comments of the interested parties are made and considered. Only then will an 
Docket No. FRA-2005-23281 October 26, 2006

254727 CalPUC 12 Comments 

assessment of regulatory gaps be able to be fully reviewed and potential solutions 

considered. 

CONCLUSION 

The California Public Utilities Commission applauds the initiative taken by the 

Federal Railroad Administration to reduce hazards associated with private at-grade 

highway-rail crossings. In our opinion, all private crossings should be provided with the 

same level of warning devices as public ones based on the use and geometry of the 

crossing. The dangers posed by a private and a public crossing on higher-speed passenger 

rail lines are basically similar since passengers as well as bicyclists, pedestrians, and 

motorists are placed at risk. Likewise, freight trains carrying hazardous material have 

similar potential for the dangerous release of those hazardous materials at both public and 

private crossings. California notes that all Class 1 railroads, and many short line railroads 

in the state, transport hazardous materials over their rail lines. 

California contends that existing protections, particularly under state law, are 

sufficient to protect the traveling public so long as similar criteria for providing warning 

devices are used for both private and public crossings. For instance, private farm 

crossings used by temporary employees who may not be familiar with the crossings and 

the dangers associated with them should be considered for upgrades following diagnostic 

review and evaluation. Further, there are also many private crossings that provide public 

access to businesses or housing which also should be evaluated for warning protection 

improvements based on the same criteria as public crossings. The Commission 

recommends that the FRA assist in the formation of a Technical Working Group to 
Docket No. FRA-2005-23281 October 26, 2006

254727 CalPUC 13 Comments 

prepare general guidelines for identifying dangerous private crossings and recommend 

guidelines to be considered in upgrading or designing such crossings. 

Respectfully submitted, 

RANDOLPH L. WU. 

LIONEL B. WILSON 

JASON ZELLER 

PATRICK S. BERDGE 

By: PATRICK S. BERDGE 

————————————— 

 Patrick S. Berdge 

Attorneys for the Public Utilities Commission 

of the State of California 

and the People of the State of California 

505 Van Ness Avenue, Rm. 4300-G 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Phone: (415) 703-1519 

October 26, 2006 Fax: (415) 703-4432 
Docket No. FRA-2005-23281 October 26, 2006

214180 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document entitled 

COMMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 

OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA in Docket No. FRA 2005-23281, upon the 

Federal Railroad Administration in this proceeding by electronically forwarding 

the document in WORD and filling out and submitting the Document Submission 

Form to the U.S.D.O.T.’s electronic docket site (DMS) at: http://dms.dot.gov . 

 Dated at San Francisco, California, this 26th day of October, 2006. 

 /s/ Joanne Lark 

 _____________________________ 

 Joanne Lark







Town of 

Ashland 

Counties of 

Charles C/ty 

Chesterfield 

Goochland 

Hanover 

Hennco 

New Kent 

P owhatan 

R/chmond 

Executive Director 

Paul E Fisher 

my of 

November 13, 2006 

Docket Management Facility 

US Department of Transportation 

400 Seventh Street, S.W. 

N as si t B u i 1 d irig 

Room PL - 401 

Washington, D.C. 20590-0001 

RE: Docket No. FRA 2005-23281, Notice No. 1 

13 

To Whom It May Concern: 

In response to notice published in the July 27, 2006 Federal Register (Vol. 71, No. 144) 

under Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration. concerning its 

notice on “Safety of Private Highway-Rail Grade Crossings; Notice of Safety Inquiry”, 

the Richmond Area Metropolitan Planning Organi/ation for Richmond, Virginia files 

the attached comments on behalf of the Technical Advisory Committee member for 

New Kent County (see attached commeiits). 

Should you ha\e any questions, please contact me by e-mail 

(dlj \\ ‘c~! i~lii~~[~t~~~-~~ioii;~l.~r~) or by calling me at 804-367-6001 

Daniel N. Lysy 

D i rector o f ’ T r an s p o rt at 1 on 

DN L/dj 

Attachment 

pc: Robert R Setliff. MPO Chairman 

Kc\ in Page, VDRPT 

Members. MPO I echnical Advisory Cornniittcc 

P ;iii 1 F i sh er. R R P DC Ex ecu t 1 v e Director 

2104 West Laburnum Avenue, Suite 101 Richmond, Virginia 23227 Telephone: (804) 367-6001 Fax: (804) 367-4375 

www.richmondregional.org 
SAFETY OF PRIVATE HIGHWAY - RAIL GRADE CROSSINGS; 

NOTICE OF SAFETY INQUIRY 

COMMENTS SUBMTTTED BY 

NEW KENT COUNTY, VIRGINIA 

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBER 

November 13,2006 

Docket Number FRA-2005-23281, Notice No. 1 

1. Given the inherent risks to train-vehicle collisions, no new at-grade crossings of 

lines carrying or with the potential to carry passenger trains (commuter or city-tocity) should be permitted. All new crossings of lines carrying or with the 

potential to carry passenger trains should be grade separated. Funding should be 

made available to close all existing at-grade crossings on rails carrying or with the 

potential to carry passenger trains and either provide alternative access via 

existing grade separated crossings or construct new grade separated crossings. 

Priority should be given to those lines with the potential to serve as higher speed 

passenger rail corridors. 

There is a material difference between granting new access and continuing 

existing access across rail rights-of-way. The former grants a riglit that does not 

exist and presumably provides economic and other benefits accrue to the 

landowners establishing the crossing. The full cost of providing an appropriate 

grade-separated access should rightfully be borne by the landowners. However, 

in the case of continuing existing access, the situation is largely reversed and it is 

presumed that there may be substantial econoniic detriment to curtailing or 

removing a right that exists. Thus it is reasonable to expect that the costs for 

establishing an appropriate crossiiig should be borne to a greater extent by the 

railroad and the public sector. In some cases, existing at-grade crossings are of 

such low volume and will remain at such low volume that with appropriate gate 

control, they can remain as at-grade crossings. Should the landowner change the 

use of the adjacent land in a manner that increases the volume, then they should 

bear some responsibility for contributing to the cost of reconstructing the crossing 

as a grade-separated crossing. 

2. There is no foolproof way in which to assign responsibility for safety, however 

what would improve the situation would be for FRA to establish clear standards 

for what constitutes a “safe crossing” under various scenarios (traffic volume and 

speed, train volume and speed, etc.) in a way that creates a legal shield prohibiting 

negligence claims against the crossing owner and railroad if the crossing is 

constructed and operated in that manner. Then the courts can handle the rest. 

This is very similar to the way in which AASHTO establishes road design safety 

standards. 
Docket # FRA-2005-23281, Notice No. 1 

November 13, 2006 

Page 2 

3. The costs of maintenance of private crossings should be borne by the private 

entity owning and bencfiting from the private crossing. Improvements to at-grade 

crossings should similarly be borne by the private entity owning and benefiting 

from the crossing. Replacement of private at-grade crossings with gradeseparated crossings or alternative access that permits removal of the at-grade 

crossing should be shared between the railroad, landowner and public sector with 

the public sector contribution increasing proportionally related to the amount of 

passenger service existing or projected on the line. 

4. Each State DOT should be empowered to mediate and enforce resolution of 

crossing disputes between private landowners and railroads over existing or newly 

proposed private crossings. The DOT should also be allowed to approve limited 

deviations from the safety standards discussed above based on sound engineering 

practice which is thoroughly documented as part of the plans. 

5. As noted above, the FRA should establish clear specifications and guidelines for 

safety at private (and public) crossings under various scenarios (traffic volume 

and speed, train volume and speed, etc.) which are then administered by the State 

DOT. Only the public sector has the incentive to put safety first and foremost and 

thus it cannot be left to either the landowners or the railroads. 

6. Yes, there should most certainly be national standards for all crossings and 

crossing types- public and private. AASHTO has road standards, MUTCD has 

signageharking standards and the crossing standards should be modeled after 

these very successful national Standards. 

7. “Public Purpose” should have a very limited scope and incorporate only public 

roads, public recreational trails, or access to public property. 

8. Having certain private crossings designated as “commercial crossings” is 

potentially a good idea in that it would provide clarity and perhaps differentiate 

crossings with different traffic characteristics from others. This would also perniit 

the development of crossing standards that take into account the larger and slower 

vehicle types that may use a commercial crossing with higher frequency. 

9. The only treatment that will be certain of improving safety of rail crossings is to 

grade separate the rail and the road because no other treatment is self-enforcing in 

this manner. Longer arms that close the entire roadway as opposed to only the 

approaching lanes supplemented with fencing parallel to the roadway approaches 

that makes a turn just beyond the crossing gates to par-allel the rail for a distance 

may serve to prevent some of the more stupid attempts to out-run a train, but 

impatient folks seem to have unlimited reserves of resolve to avoid being 

delayed. It is better to spend money on grade separation than on half-measures 

that really 0111~ invite folks to be ever more creative in ignoring them. 
Docket Number FRA-2005-23281, Notice No. 1 

November 13, 2006 

Page 3 

10. If US DOT does not feel it has the authority to develop and enforce standards for 

all crossings, then legislation granting that authority should be sought. 
http://csx-sucks.com/SiteDist.pdf The facts are the FEDs have murdered 1000s of 

people at crossings private and public by sitting train speeds too high and 

ignoreing sight lines. Where's the MURDER charges on the bought officials? 

The second facts is these Mickey Mouse signs were meant for horses and buggies 

for cryin out loud. Geez, how phoney can you government clowns get with the goof 

ball studies? 

I see ALL the railroads state/Federal handmaidens are at hand at these cover the 

railroads murdering ways so called hearings but 1000's of private crossing users 

where NEVER notified of the illegal hearings. By the way where is the meeting in 

MY county with all the crossing users notified? 

Pages 391 

Okay. This is a big job, and I think we've had a good day in Raleigh. And is 

there anybody else who feels like they haven't had a chance to speak about their 

issues today before we move on, adjourn, that is? 

FRA-2005-23281-1 Federal Register Publication 07/27/2006 U.S. DOT/FRA - Notice 

of Safety Inquiry PDF (202038 bytes) 

PDF (207035 bytes) 

4 Pages FRA-2005-23281-2 Comment(s) 09/18/2006 Roger Samuels - Comments TXT (765 

bytes) 

PDF (29087 bytes) 

1 Page FRA-2005-23281-3 Federal Register Publication 09/22/2006 U.S. DOT/FRA - 

Notice of Safety Inquiry PDF (55719 bytes) 

PDF (60489 bytes) 

2 Pages FRA-2005-23281-4 Comment(s) 09/22/2006 Robert T. Pines - Comments TXT 

(588 bytes) 

PDF (30031 bytes) 

1 Page FRA-2005-23281-5 Supplement 10/03/2006 Norfolk Southern Corporation - 

Stop and Private Crossing Sign PDF (21541 bytes) 

PDF (21873 bytes) 

1 Page FRA-2005-23281-6 Transcript(s) 10/17/2006 U.S. DOT/FRA - Transcript of 

August 30, 2006, Private Crossing Meeting in Fort Snelling, MN PDF (317562 

bytes) 

PDF (329421 bytes) 

287 Pages FRA-2005-23281-7 Transcript(s) 10/17/2006 U.S. DOT/FRA - Transcript of 

September 27, 2006, Private Crossing Meeting in Raleigh, NC PDF (448131 bytes) 

PDF (464970 bytes) 

391 Pages FRA-2005-23281-8 Comment(s) 10/19/2006 Roger Samuels - Comments TXT 

(812 bytes) 

PDF (27365 bytes) 

1 Page FRA-2005-23281-9 Comment(s) 10/19/2006 Missouri Department of 

Transportation - Comments PDF (108641 bytes) 

PDF (108556 bytes) 

3 Pages FRA-2005-23281-10 Comment(s) 10/24/2006 Steven J. Rusconi - Comments TXT 

(1041 bytes) 

PDF (30282 bytes) 

1 Page FRA-2005-23281-11 Comment(s) 10/26/2006 California Public Utilities 

Commission - Comments DOC (79360 bytes) 

PDF (134976 bytes) 

14 Pages FRA-2005-23281-12 Report 11/16/2006 U.S. DOT/FAA - ITE Journal - 

Examination of Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Collisions Over 10 Years in Seven 

Midwestern States PDF (80105 bytes) 

PDF (79951 bytes) 
FRA –2005_23281 

Observations of a former railroad engineering department employee now working in 

the private sector: 

The private crossing issue is hardly new. For years, railroads have had to deal 

with adjoining landowners who want neither the fiscal responsibility or the 

liabilities that come with the use of a private crossing. This has been 

compounded by several generations of bad assumptions of “something for nothing” 

or just plain ignorance. Compounding this is the ignorance of city, county and 

state officials regarding regulations already on the books at State and Federal 

levels and suggested standards for road crossing design already presented by 

AASHTO, AREMA and others. 

Most distressing to me as a technical professional is: (a) the blatant ignorance 

of city and county level officials in issues relating to public and private 

crossings in general and (b) the disturbing behavior of developers, real estate, 

title company and public sector consultants around railroad boundaries in 

general and private crossings in particular. The above mentioned individuals 

and entities have compounded the mess regarding private crossings multiple times 

over. Those same individuals do the public disservice with their woeful lack of 

training and knowledge regarding private at-grade crossings. Where problems and 

safety conflicts ought to be found and addressed during development or change in 

ownership, they are shamefully ignored. 

(Q1) Is the current assignment of responsibility for safety at private crossings 

effective? 

[A1] No, unfortunately, and it appears to be getting worse. 

(Q2) To what extent do risk management practices associated with insurance 

arrangements result in “regulation” of safety at private crossings? 

[A2] Adjacent landowners with an interest in a private crossing ought to share 

in the liabilities/risks in the use of a crossing. Changing the use of a private 

crossing and abuse of the right to use a private crossing is a chronic and 

growing problem. Those “risk management practices” in insurance arrangements can 

only help put the crossing user and the railroad on notice of what is expected 

of both parties. 

(Q3) How should improvement and/or maintenance costs associated with private 

crossings be allocated? [A3] Binding contracts between the crossing user and the 

railroad should always take precedence. Where a railroad has “grandfathered-in” 

rights to a private crossing (example: crossing in place since time of 

construction of the rail line by agreement), the railroad ought to say so. Where 

title to adjoining land(s) to the crossing has changed and the landowner has 

failed to notify the railroad of that change in crossing user, the burden should 

fall on the private crossing user to keep use of the crossing or agree to a new 

contract. (let the new private crossing user take up the issue of failure to 

disclose with the former owner, real estate and title people who have caused the 

problem.) 

(Q4) Is there a need for alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to handle 

disputes that may arise between private crossing owners and the railroads. 

[A4] At some point, YES. However that mechanism should not be left to be 

administered at the city or county level because that is a major source of the 

problem. Even at the state level (DOT, Public Utilities Commission, Railroad 

Commission, etc.), there is a startling lack of competent/ qualified 

administrators with any railroad background. 
Also, some future determination of use of those private crossings ought to be 

made where crossings to serve “landlocked” land parcels no longer applies, thus 

allowing removal of a dangerous crossing only left in place as a convenience or 

shortcut. This should also apply to developers subdividing adjacent lands 

demanding a public crossing and “a second private crossing for emergency access” 

required by local government planners that creates unwanted risk(s) at that 

second crossing and unwanted uses of that second crossing. 

(Q5)Should the State or federal government assume greater responsibility for 

safety at private crossings? 

[A5]No, unless the state can force the private user to comply and join in a 

binding contract – or face loss of the use of a private crossing for not 

shouldering some of the responsibility. [Consequences for ignoring what ought to 

be common sense] 

(Q6) How do we determine when a private crossing has a “public purpose” and is 

subject to public use? 

[A6] That mechanism is already in place in most states with their Public 

Utilities Commissions, Railroad Commissions, Commerce Commissions, et. al. with 

the application/ decision processes already in use. What needs to be stopped is 

the unexplainable thinking that exists in some county and local government 

agencies that they can tell a railroad what to do without dealing with state 

and/or federal regulations on the books (Iowa and Ohio as example), without 

consulting with the railroad (crossing by local decree). Model law, such as what 

is in effect for railroad side clearances, would be a help and might prod states 

with ambiguous and hopelessly lopsided crossing laws (like Iowa) to re-write 

their state regulations. 

(Q7)Should some crossings be categorized as “commercial crossings” rather than 

“private crossings”? 

[A7] Only if it is a subset of private crossings or railroad company use 

crossings. If those commercial users of that crossing, that benefits them, do 

not want to assume risk for use of the crossing, then the answer is an emphatic 

NO. The public and the railroad should not subsidize or underwrite these 

crossings. 

(Q8)Are there innovative traffic control treatments that could improve safety at 

private crossings on major rail corridors, including those on which passenger 

service is provided? 

[A8] The technology exists, but as with public crossings (Section 400 funding) , 

the issue is who will pay for it? Under most conditions, it shouldn’t be only 

the railroad. The railroad should not have to pay, with a few exceptions, for a 

private crossing’s protection that is of no benefit to the railroad and should 

be preferably removed. 

(Q9)Should the Department of Transportation request enactment of legislation to 

address private crossings? If so, what should it include? 

[A9] 

(1) Modify the existing Federal DOT Form 6180.71 to show, with private 

crossings, followed later by public crossings and railroad company use private 

crossings, the user of record and where an agreement exists to own, operate or 

maintain that crossing identified by railroad contract or in the public record. 

Have the railroad enter what record it has (49CFR1201 etc.) followed by the 

state agency now maintaining those records. For all new and just-retired 

crossings, from implementation date forward, have this information filled in. 
State agencies and the railroad need to identify undocumented crossings that can 

be closed/removed after public notice. Counties need to notify adjoining 

landowners of possible removal in order to identify possible owner/users of 

record. (something that should have happened years ago when FRA/DOT mandated 

crossing reductions) 

(2) Require states to post change of ownership or use of a private crossing as 

part of the transfer process in any land sale, lease or transaction that 

directly affect that crossing. (Put the onus on the title companies, real estate 

people and buyer/seller to account for the private crossing and its use- or lose 

use of it.) 

(3) Require state and local agencies to document their right to use any at-grade 

crossing, public or private. (Expect local government and agencies to report 

poor recordkeeping or lack of (missing) records as a given. Railroad records, 

post Staggers Act will also have “issues”) 





As a private crossing owner I would like to add the following: 

Points/History: 

The UCTC (Ulster County Transportation Council MPO)is presently working on a 30-

year strategy for transportation growth. 

CSX is looking to re-establish a double rail system to handle their proposed 

expansion from approximately 34 trains per day to 54 trains on a daily basis. 

The Town of Saugerties Economic Development zone, a Federal highway, runs along 

Kings Highway, parallel to the railroad. This three mile stretch of road has 

eleven of the town's 14 at-grade crossings. Only two of those crossings are 

protected by lights and gates. In fact, over the years,there has been an 

accident and/or death at every crossing. The freqency is increasing as the 

traffic and population increases. 

On April 7, 2005, I became more personally effected. My husband, Joe, was 

killed in a train/car collision at our own private at-grade crossing. 

Conditions along the railroad have been deteriorating since CSX assumed 

ownership of the Conrail line. The number of trains have increased while the 

maintenance has decreased. 

Foliage is no longer maintained or removed from the CSX right-of-way. RR 

methods of stone shuffling and replacement increase the grade at the access 

points each year; the steeper grade reduces the visibility. 

There are no CSX stop signs or other safety devices at the crossings....although 

CSX DID take the initiative to post signs containing 800 numbers to call in case 

the tracks were blocked by something that might put the train in danger! 

Residents have taken matters into their own hands to reduce the 

danger...widening the exit/entrance approaches....posting their own stop signs, 

etc. 

Train speeds have increased along with the increased need to move freight 

economically. 

Suggestions: 

Immediately impose speed limits in residential and industrial areas with at 

grade crossings. At present, CSX follows only suggested speed limits they they 

themselves have established (often times, without any input from the Town or 

County) 

Install Standard stop signs and blinking caution lights. The lights would be 

activated by a signal from the locomotive when it was within 1/2 mile of the 

crossing. 

Re-consider the location of the horns on the engines...approximately two years 

ago, the horns were moved from the front of the engines to the rear of the 

locomotive, behind the air conditioning units. This move has caused the warning 

signals to radiate out to the side of the train and can only be heard when the 

train actually passes the crossing. This has also triggered many requests for 

"quiet Zones" in our area. 

Close the at-grade crossings,consolidating and redirecting the traffic to 

crossings with lights and gates via "collector" roads. 
Return to former practices of educating the public (Stop-Look-Listen programs in 

schools and public meetings). 

Thank you for the opportunity to imput suggestions and words of caution. 

Sincerely, 

Barbara L Budik 

UCTC Member 

Chairman, Saugerties EDC 

Private Crossing Owner 
BEFORE THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 

Safety of Private Highway-Rail 

Grade Crossings; Notice of Safety 

Inquiry 

Docket No. FRA 2005-23281 

COMMENTS OF RIO GRANDE PACIFIC CORPORATION AND 

NEW ORLEANS & GULF COAST RAILWAY COMPANY 

November 29 2006 

LAWRENCE J. ERNST - BAR #5363 

MARY BETH MEYER - BAR #19367 

CHRISTOVICH & KEARNEY, LLP 

Suite 2300 

Pan American Life Center 

601 Poydras Street 

New Orleans, Louisiana 70130-6078 

Telephone: (504) 561-5700 

Attorneys for Rio Grande Pacific Corporation and 

New Orleans & Gulf Coast Railway Company 
2 

I. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS BY RIO GRANDE PACIFIC AND NEW 

ORLEANS & GULF COAST RAILWAY 

The only truly effective way to reduce the safety risks presented by private crossings is to 

eliminate as many private crossings as possible. A unifying federal approach is needed. 

Railroads must be recognized as interstate highways of commerce that must be allowed to 

operate without the interference and added risk of accidents and derailments caused by private 

crossings. Railroads must be able to control activities on the railroad right-of-way. Railroads 

must be given practical means of preventing new and expanded uses of existing private crossings 

and of eliminating existing private crossings wherever possible. 

Rio Grande Pacific Corporation and New Orleans & Gulf Coast Railway Company urge 

the FRA to employ its regulatory authority or to support enactment of federal legislation giving 

the FRA authority to regulate private crossings as follows: (1) to give railroads the option to file 

suit in federal court to prevent landowners from installing unpermitted crossings on the railroad 

right of way and/or to remove crossings that pose safety hazards or interfere with railroad 

operations; (2) to establish uniform standards for design, construction and warnings to increase 

driver safety at private crossings and to ensure adequate drainage and reduce interference with 

track maintenance; (3) to establish alternative dispute resolution or administrative proceedings 

for the inexpensive, fair and speedy resolution of private crossing disputes; and (4) to establish a 

presumption that private crossings are hazardous and disfavored as a matter of federal law and 

that conflicting state laws are preempted. 

The railroad’s lack of access to federal court to challenge landowners’ unpermitted use of 

the railroad right-of-way for crossings and the absence of uniform federal laws, procedures and 

standards for construction, permitting and closure of private crossings is a major obstacle to 

increasing safety by reducing the number of private crossings. The Railroads’ only option at 

present is to seek recourse in hostile state courts applying divergent state property laws that tend 

to favor local landowners. Even when successful, state court litigation is very expensive and 

time consuming. 

Federal transportation funds should be allocated for closing private crossings. States 

need money to build access roads to consolidate crossings. Funds should also be made available 

through grants or loans to enable landowners and/or railroads to acquire access rights and build 

private roads for alternate access to enable consolidation and elimination of crossings. 

Lack of public funding is only part of the problem. So long as the law continues to favor 

the rights of landowners to insist on private crossings as a matter of convenience, there is no 

hope of progress even if reasonable levels of funding were made available to close crossings. 

Private railroad crossings should be presumed to be against public safety and disfavored as a 

matter of federal law, so as to shift the legal burden to landowners to prove necessity and 

entitlement in order to install or maintain private crossings. This step would give landowners 

incentive to seek public solutions for alternative access and/or to work cooperatively with 

neighbors and the railroad to find practical and affordable solutions. 
3 

Private crossings interfere with railroads’ compliance with FRA track safety standards. 

The construction of crossings imposes additional and conflicting structural requirements and 

incorporates materials into the track structure that conflict with the FRA’s requirements and 

standards for the roadbed and track structure. Crossings trap moisture, interfere with drainage 

and lead to premature deterioration of the underlying roadbed and track components. Crossings 

make regular maintenance of the roadbed and track much more difficult and costly. Regulatory 

standards or guidelines are needed to mitigate the inherent safety risks and harmful effects of 

crossings on railroad maintenance. 

II. DISCUSSION OF RIO GRANDE’S AND NOGC’S EXPERIENCE WITH 

CONSOLIDATION AND CLOSURE OF PRIVATE CROSSINGS

Rio Grande Pacific Corporation is a short line and regional railroad holding company 

founded in 1986 that owns four Class III railroads with operations in six states, the Idaho 

Northern and Pacific Railroad, The Nebraska Central Railroad, Wichita Tillman and Jackson 

Railway Company, the Thunder Mountain Line and New Orleans & Gulf Coast Railway 

Company. Rio Grande’s subsidiaries have encountered many of the same legal obstacles 

identified in the previous meetings in Minnesota, North Carolina and California and learned from 

hard experience how difficult it is to meet the FRA’s challenge to reduce the number of private 

crossings. Dealing with private crossings is exceptionally expensive and complicated. 

Landowners are the only ones deriving an economic benefit from private crossings and rightfully 

should bear the expense of construction and maintenance. However, landowners are generally 

unwilling to accept responsibility for the expense of properly constructed crossings, even when 

they are required by law to do so. Regulations and property laws vary widely from state to state. 

The absence of clear legal authority permitting railroads to close private crossings or legal 

standards or procedures for permitting private crossings has frustrated the railroads’ efforts in the 

face of strong resistance on the part of landowners and nearly total absence of political will on 

the part of elected local officials, judges and lawmakers to address private crossing safety. 

It is bad enough that the lack of federal standards leaves the railroads without the tools to 

prevent people from building crossings wherever and however they want. Even worse, the very 

absence of federal regulation in the private crossing area has actually been used against the 

railroad by opponents who wish to stymie railroad efforts to limit crossings. The FRSA statutory 

scheme generally bars the railroad in all but exceptional situations from filing suit in federal 

court where the judges who preside are less captive to the prejudices of voters and presumably 

more attuned to protecting federal interests in interstate transportation and commerce. The 

current FRSA enforcement scheme presents an exceptionally complicated and irrational 

checkerboard of federal preemption barring application of some, but not all, state safety laws and 

regulations. Although state laws that are in addition to and conflict with federal safety laws and 

regulations, are generally preempted, as a practical matter, determining which state laws are in 

addition to and conflict with federal laws and regulations is far from clear and inevitably leads to 

costly and time consuming litigation. 

The ill-fated efforts of Rio Grande’s subsidiary, New Orleans & Gulf Coast Railway 

Company, present a case study of the insurmountable problems facing railroads who have 

accepted the FRA’s challenge of closing private crossings in the interest of public safety. 
4 

Louisiana, along with the majority of other states, does not regulate private crossings or 

establish safety standards for construction of private crossings or provide procedures for 

adjudicating whether new private crossings should be permitted or for closing existing crossings. 

NOGC’s efforts to limit and close crossings have been met with widespread resistance and 

outright hostility on the part of local officials and landowners alike. Landowners have gone to 

court and obtained restraining orders from sympathetic state court judges preventing NOGC 

from removing redundant, worn out and improperly built crossings –- even when the closure 

would have left the property with another crossing for necessary highway access. 

NOGC and its predecessors fortunately have had very few serious accidents at either 

public or private at grade crossings, but NOGC is well aware that this record should not instill a 

false sense of safety. To the extent that crossings are considered at all, they are perceived to be 

the railroad’s responsibility -- and sole problem. The commonly held, though false, local attitude 

is that private crossings do not present a public safety problem because: (a) there have not been 

any major accidents or fatalities at private crossings, and (b) NOGC’s slow operating speed (10 

mph) eliminates any safety risk. 

NOGC is currently litigating with landowners over its right to prevent construction of 

new crossings or to deny permits for expanded use of field crossings. Unfortunately, after 

several years and great expense, NOGC’s federal lawsuit was recently dismissed for lack of 

federal jurisdiction and is on appeal to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. NOGC must start 

over in state court. 

A. Background and Scope of NOGC’s Private Crossing Problem 

NOGC operates 32 miles of main line track serving over twenty switching and industrial 

customers in the New Orleans area via interchange with the Union Pacific Railroad in 

Westwego, Louisiana. NOGC is the only railroad operating east of Avondale on the West bank 

of the Mississippi River and is the only rail link for such customers as ConocoPhillips Alliance 

Refinery, Harvest States grain elevator, Chevron Oronite refinery, Packard Pipe, the Port of 

Plaquemines and the proposed Millennium Port at the mouth of the Mississippi River. 

When NOGC bought the railroad in 1999, the 24 mile Algiers to Myrtle Grove line was 

burdened with 276 public and private at grade railroad crossings. With a per mile average of 

11.5 crossings per mile, it is surely one of the highest ratios of crossings anywhere in the 

country. Some stretches have as many as 30 per mile. Only 57 are public crossings. Of the 

private crossings; 111 are industrial, commercial or multi-family crossings; 23 are agricultural, 

undeveloped property or pedestrian crossings; and 85 are for single family residential use. 

Nearly half of the private crossings are gravel “bootleg” crossings installed by landowners 

without the permission or supervision of the railroad. 

The disproportionately large number of crossings on NOGC’s line is the result of a 

combination of factors: 

• Louisiana Highway 23 lies adjacent to and parallels the NOGC’s tracks for most of its 

length. This is the only north south highway that runs through a long narrow strip of 
5 

Mississippi River delta. The tracks cut off access to the highway from a narrow strip of 

land on the river side of the tracks. Roads that once fronted the river were eliminated by 

levee officials or fell out of use once Highway 23 was built, leaving no alternative access 

roads on that side of the tracks. 

• The recent unchecked residential and commercial growth and change in use of previously 

agriculture property on the river side of the tracks; 

• The lack of any regulation of public crossings at either the state or federal level; 

• The complete lack of planning by State and local governments and absence of sufficient 

public road crossings and/or access roads; and 

• Laxity of enforcement of property rights and failure by predecessor railroads to respond 

to evolving changes in use of crossings by landowners and to prevent installation of new 

crossings as properties were subdivided. 

This railroad was originally built in 1888 by the New Orleans, Fort Jackson and Grand 

Isle Railroad. The railroad was originally built across largely undeveloped swamp and 

agricultural lands. The State built the highway alongside the tracks 30 or more years later. 

Historic railroad maps indicate that 64 plantation crossings were provided along this 24 mile 

stretch at the time the railroad was built, an average of 2.6 per mile. No deeds or other records 

setting the terms by which these agricultural crossings were established have survived due to 

hurricanes and courthouse fires. The use of many of these original crossings changed over time 

and the number of crossings grew as the plantations were repeatedly subdivided over the years. 

In many instances, landowners failed to exercise legal rights to use the original crossings and 

railroads tacitly allowed the installation and use of new crossings rather than enforce their 

property rights. 

NOGC operates its trains at 10 mph over its entire line even though its route consists of 

both Class 1 and Class 2 rated track, in part to minimize the risk of accidents. There is a 

widespread tendency among local motorist to disregard traffic signs and pull out in front or 

outrun trains with little concerted law enforcement effort to curb such behavior. The large 

number of at grade railroad crossings multiplies the points of contact between moving trains and 

automobiles, increasing the probability of crossing accidents and derailments. The risk of 

accidents is increased by the lack of minimum safety standards for engineering of approaches, 

drainage, surface, sight distances, lighting, signage and automated warnings at private crossings. 

NOGC cannot ensure the safety of its operations or increase efficiency by increasing train speed 

to meet the anticipated industrial growth in its service area if it cannot eliminate a significant 

number of these crossings. NOGC has been forced to redirect its resources to private crossing 

maintenance issues rather than investing in upgrading its roadbed infrastructure. 

B. NOGC’s Efforts to Address the Private Crossing Problem 

NOGC bought the line in 1999 and immediately launched a multi-front effort to eliminate 

as many private crossings as possible. NOGC engaged GCR Associates, a highly regarded 
6 

professional planning firm to survey, inventory and map each crossing, identifying its location, 

construction and use and then to prepare a closure and consolidation plan. GCR identified 

clusters of crossings that could be consolidated by use of access roads leading to public crossings 

or upgraded protected private crossings. NOGC sought to educate and enlist the support and 

cooperation of State and Parish officials about this public safety and infrastructure issue, using 

the planning proposals as a starting point. At the same time, NOGC began posting and removing 

redundant and unused crossings and focused on preventing new crossings and expanded uses of 

existing crossings. NOGC initiated a permit application and review process and required written 

agreements imposing indemnity and insurance requirements and clearly assigning responsibility 

for construction and maintenance to those wanting private crossings. 

NOGC has had a high level of cooperation from its refinery customers and larger retail 

establishments who have agreed to permits and funded construction of properly engineered 

crossings and installation of active and passive safety devices. NOGC has otherwise 

encountered strong resistance from residential and commercial users. 

Despite NOGC’s efforts, state and local officials have not been supportive. The Louisiana 

DODT and local parish officials generally have cited the lack of available funding for reducing 

the number of private crossings. Even if resources were not a problem, it became apparent that 

there is a complete lack of political will to address an issue that is so unpopular with constituents. 

In some instances, lack of support has turned to active resistance. Parish officials have continued 

to approve new subdivisions without requiring developers to confirm access rights and without 

adequate construction and engineering standards for private crossings, and have allowed public 

dedication of improperly constructed and unprotected subdivision crossings and have failed to 

correct obstructed sight lines. Local officials sought enactment of an amendment to the major 

public crossing closure legislation enacted by the Louisiana legislature in 2005, specifically to 

impede closure of railroad crossings along Highway 23. See La. Rev. Stat. § 48:390(F). 

III. NOGC’S RESPONSE TO FRA SPECIFIC AREAS FOR COMMENT

I. At-Grade Highway-Rail Crossings Present Inherent Risks To Users, Including The 

Railroad And Its Employees, And To Other Persons In The Vicinity Should A Train 

Derail Into An Occupied Area Or Release Hazardous Materials. When Passenger 

Trains Are Involved, The Risks Are Heightened. From The Standpoint Of Public 

Policy, How Do We Determine Whether Creation Or Continuation Of A Private 

Crossing Is Justified? 

A. Private Crossings cannot be justified in the interest of public safety 

Every crossing increases the likelihood of accidents and derailments. NOGC’s trains 

regularly transport tank cars carrying hazardous and toxic materials for NOGC’s refinery 

customers and pass through densely populated residential and commercial areas in very close 

proximity to the Mississippi River and coastal waters, wetlands and marshes. Authoritative 

federal laws or regulations are needed to overcome the lack of political will and lack of local 

resources for eliminating and/or limiting private railroad crossings and to avoid the inherent 

prejudice of local courts and operation of state property laws that generally favor landowners. 
7 

One approach would be federal laws or regulations establishing that private railroad 

crossings are presumed to be against public safety and disfavored as a matter of law and to shift 

the legal burden to landowners to prove necessity and entitlement in order to install or maintain 

private crossings. This change in the law would provide necessary uniformity nationwide. This 

approach would give landowners the incentive to seek public solutions for alternative access 

and/or work cooperatively with neighbors to find practical and affordable solutions. 

A unified federal solution is needed because state property laws are generally not attuned 

to specific safety issues at stake when the railroad attempts to limit access to the right of way for 

safety reasons. General tort laws are ill equipped to ensure public safety at private crossings. 

For example, the Louisiana statutory scheme for preventing landlocked properties from being 

removed from commerce by allowing the owner to cross over neighboring properties to reach the 

nearest public street is overwhelmingly oriented in favor of the individual landlocked owners and 

is clearly not designed to account for the public safety implications of permitting multiple 

railroad crossings side by side. The landlocked property laws were designed to resolve isolated 

cases in the agricultural era and are clearly not equipped to take the place of appropriate public 

planning and infrastructure in developing commercial and suburban areas. Many landowners 

have failed to exercised property rights against their vendors to use existing crossings for access, 

but have installed new crossings for convenience. Crossings were allowed to remain on 

sufferance rather facing costly and losing court battles. 

Louisiana is among the majority of states that elect judges. It is extremely difficult for 

elected judges who must be responsive to the electorate to make decisions unfavorable to local 

landowners, even in the broader interest of public safety and welfare. Although lifetime 

appointments shield federal judges from the electoral pressures facing state court judges, federal 

courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and generally have not been deemed available to resolve 

property law disputes involving private railroad crossings, even when federal safety and 

economic regulations are implicated. It is anomalous that although the railroad industry is 

overwhelmingly governed by federal laws and regulations to ensure against enforcement of state 

laws that would impede their operation in interstate commerce, nevertheless, railroad lawsuits 

may be initiated in federal court only in exceptional circumstances. 

Any procedure to evaluate the public utility of private crossings must give proper weight 

to the public welfare and account for the positive impact of railroad transportation as an 

environmentally responsible and safe alternative to transport by motor carrier. The economic 

impact of private crossings on railroad operations must also be addressed because private 

crossings increase liability exposure and redirect railroad time and resources away from essential 

track maintenance and inspection operations. Landowners must be responsible for installation 

and ongoing maintenance and upgrades for crossings engineered for site conditions and use. 

Landowners must maintain appropriate insurance and indemnify railroads against injuries and 

losses associated with crossing use. 

B. Unregulated Private Crossings Create Conflicts with Other Safety 

Regulations 
8 

An overlooked consequence of private crossings that is highly relevant to the discussion 

of public policy is that the existence of unregulated private crossings directly and substantially 

conflicts with and impedes the Railroads’ ability to maintain the track structure in accordance 

with the Track Safety Standards (49 CFR Part 213), which is one of its defined areas of 

responsibility. Crossings create additional safety issues and conflict with FRSA safety 

regulations that have not been previously addressed in these proceedings. First, large numbers of 

private crossings may counteract the effectiveness of the regulations requiring the sounding of 

locomotive horns at public crossings. See 49 C.F.R. § 222.1 et seq. Because of drivers’ frequent 

inattention to trains and tendency to disregard of warning signs and signals, NOGC’s engineers 

sound the locomotive horn at all crossings to warn of the approach of trains even though the 

regulations specifically do not require the sounding of horns at private crossings. 49 C.F.R. § 

222.25. Where there are so many crossings in close proximity, train engineers are unable to 

blow the horn in the intended sequence and must blow a continuous blast. This situation allows 

motorists to become conditioned to the horn as background noise and increases the risk that 

motorists will fail to recognize the warning. 

Installation of crossings also interferes with, adds to and conflicts with existing specific 

FRA track safety regulations relating to the construction and maintenance of the roadbed and 

track structure. 49 C.F.R. § 213, et seq. These provisions are intended to ensure that the roadbed 

and track provide the necessary structural support for railroad traffic and thereby reduce the risk 

of derailments. Insuring sufficient structural support has become more challenging as the 

permissible gross-weight-on-rail capacity of cars has increased over recent years. Crossings 

interfere with the roadbed and track structure in the following ways: 

• Crossing materials impose additional and incompatible forces and materials on the 

standard road bed structure. 

• Crossing materials trap moisture and interfere with proper drainage, thereby accelerating 

the deterioration of crossties and fouling of the ballast. 

• Crossings interfere with visual inspection of the roadbed and track. 

• The roadbed under crossings tends to settle at a different rate than for open track. 

• Crossings render regular maintenance of the roadbed and track far more difficult and 

costly because crossing materials must be removed and replaced each time this work is 

performed. Mechanized tamping machines and ballast regulators are used to efficiently 

perform the track surfacing and alignment of the track. This work is needed to 

compensate for differential settlement, to correct discrepancies in cross-level, profile, and 

alignment and to refresh and replace fouled ballast. Differential settlement at crossings is 

exaggerated if crossings are skipped over. Removal and replacement of crossings so this 

work can proceed is very labor intensive and increasingly expensive. 

• The need to remove crossings to perform required maintenance and the expense of 

replacing them acts to trigger confrontation between the landowners and railroad over 

who is responsible for the expense of installing and maintaining crossings. 
9 

These additional and cumulative crossing-related costs are substantial and impose an economic 

burden on short line railroads, in particular, which are generally small businesses which do not 

have unlimited resources. The inevitable result is that the railroads must divert and redirect 

significant funds away from, and to the detriment of, the maintenance and upgrading of the track 

and roadbed infrastructure as needed to increase efficiency and improve service to its shippers 

and future customers. 

II. Is The Current Assignment Of Responsibility For Safety At Private Crossings 

Effective? To What Extent Do Risk Management Practices Associated With 

Insurance Arrangements Result In ‘‘Regulation’’ Of Safety At Private Crossings? 

At present, there is no clear assignment of responsibility for safety at private crossings. 

There are no federal laws or regulations directly assigning responsibility for private crossings. 

There is no uniform law or policy assigning responsibility for safety at private crossings from 

state to state. The railroads’ specific regulatory role with respect to safety at public crossings is 

quite limited, however, that role vis a vis public crossings may provide an appropriate starting 

point for allocating railroad responsibility for private crossings.1 As a practical matter, railroads 

bear a disproportionate share of responsibility and potential liability for private crossing safety. 

 

1

 The FRA Safety Advisory 2005-03; Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety, issued May 

2, 2005, 70 FR 22750-22754, summarized the responsibilities owed by railroads to the FRA, 

acting on behalf of the public, that relate to public highway-rail grade crossing safety, as follows: 

1. Inspect, test, and maintain grade crossing warning systems in accordance with 49 

CFR Part 234 . . . .See FRA Safety Advisory 2002-1 (67 FR 3258; 01/23/2002) and 

FRA Safety Advisory 2004-03 (69 FR 48904; 8/11/2004). 

2. Report all activation failures in writing within 15 days (49 CFR 234.9). 

3. Maintain track structure in accordance with the Track Safety Standards (49 CFR Part 

213). This includes maintaining adequately drained (non-fouled) ballast that 

otherwise could permit the existence of low ballast resistance adversely affecting the 

operation of grade crossing signals (49 CFR Sec. 213.103) and removing vegetation 

on railroad property that could interfere with preview of grade crossing warning signs 

and signals, whether active or passive (49 CFR Sec. 213.37). 

4. Operate trains in accordance with applicable speed limitations imposed by Federal 

regulation (49 CFR Parts 213, 234 & 236) and the railroad's operating rules, 

timetables, and special instructions (see 49 CFR Parts 217 & 240). 

5. Provide and maintain locomotive event recorders on all locomotives operating greater 

than 30 miles per hour, preserving data following any reportable event (49 CFR 

229.135). 

6. Provide and maintain locomotive auxiliary alerting lights on any lead locomotive 

operating greater than 20 miles per hour (49 CFR 229.125(d)). 
10 

A. The Threat of Tort Liability Is an Ineffective Deterrent or Incentive for 

Landowners to Maintain the Safety of Private Crossings 

Private crossing holders are not compelled by any federal law or regulation and few, if 

any state laws, to bear responsibility for safety at private crossings. Tort liability remains the 

primary means of assigning overall responsibility for safety. Railroads are generally not 

responsible for maintaining private crossings under Louisiana law, however, railroads may be 

held liable for the condition of private crossings if a crossing is known to be defective or if the 

railroad voluntarily assumed a duty to maintain the crossing. Private crossing holders would be 

legally liable for accidents attributable to the condition of private crossings and face the threat of 

tort liability under Louisiana law. The risk of liability, however, has not deterred the 

proliferation of private crossings or encouraged the consolidation or sharing of crossings. The 

absence of serious accidents at private crossings along the NOGC line and lack of public 

awareness may be partially responsible for this. Even though the FRA’s statistics have shown 

that the overwhelming majority of crossing accidents are not due to any fault on the part of 

railroads, there is nothing to prevent tort plaintiffs from suing the railroad whenever an accident 

take place at private crossings, even when there is no evidence that the railroad was at fault. 

B. Insurance Is Not a Practical Approach for Managing Risk at Public 

Crossings 

Managing the risk of private crossings by using insurance arrangements is not a realistic 

option. There are no federal or state laws or regulations to compel private crossing holders to 

maintain even minimal liability insurance. NOGC’s experience has shown that landowners are 

either unwilling or unable to carry appropriate levels of liability insurance due to the high cost 

and a lack of available coverage options, particularly for residential crossings. In connection 

with its recent discussions with landowners, NOGC asked an independent agent to investigate 

the availability of liability and property coverage for residential and commercial private 

crossings after landowners objected to the condition in NOGC’s crossing agreement requiring 

crossing holders to obtain appropriate levels of liability coverage and name NOGC as an 

additional insured. All home and business owners in Southeast Louisiana are facing an 

insurance crisis in the wake of hurricane Katrina, with many insurers pulling out of this market 

altogether or substantially raising rates. The State sponsored insurer of last resort has requested 

huge rate increases making commercial and residential coverage prohibitively expensive in the 

near term. Even without this obstacle, the agent was unable to identify any carriers offering 

policies or endorsements extending such coverage in this marketplace. Whether driveway 

crossings would be considered part of the covered premises is subject to interpretation under the 

standard coverage terms in homeowners’ policies. Coverage for liability assumed under contract 

is generally excluded under homeowners’ coverage and not available via endorsement. 

III. How Should Improvement And/Or Maintenance Costs Associated With Private 

Crossing Be Allocated? 

Landowners, as the only ones deriving an economic benefit from the crossings, should 

rightly bear the expense of construction and maintenance. Railroads derive no economic benefit 

whatsoever from crossings, but practically speaking must bear the additional costs of crossings 
11 

unless they are reimbursed by the parties benefiting from the crossings. Railroads must also 

shoulder the substantial additional track maintenance costs where track is covered by crossings. 

Private crossing holders, however, are not compelled by any federal law or regulation and few, if 

any state laws, to bear responsibility for the cost of installation or upkeep of crossings built to 

industry standards or to pay for appropriate lighting and signage. 

IV. Is There A Need For Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms To Handle 

Disputes That May Arise Between Private Crossing Owners And The Railroads? 

Railroads and landowners would benefit from alternative dispute mechanisms for 

handling disputes over private crossings such as arbitration or administrative hearings. Such a 

procedure must permit resolution of disputes in a fair, uniform, speedy and cost effective 

manner. Without fairness, speed and low cost, such a system would merely add a layer of 

needless administrative expense to the situation. 

The standards for determining whether to permit or maintain a private crossing must 

begin with the uniformly applied presumption that private crossings are safety hazards and are 

disfavored as a matter of federal law and that conflicting state laws are preempted. The 

landowner seeking to install or maintain private crossings would bear the burden of proving 

actual need for the crossing, not inconvenience, and must demonstrate that a crossing can be 

safely constructed with appropriate visibility, signage and other safety measures and must accept 

responsibility for the cost of construction and ongoing maintenance. This alternative procedure 

and presumption would apply notwithstanding a claim of prior right or entitlement pursuant to 

deed, agreement or prescriptive easement. The required showing of need would require the 

landowner to pursue whatever legal recourse he may have against the persons who sold or 

subdivided the property without access and would entail showing that there were no physically 

feasible and safer alternative options without undue expense. The consideration of undue 

expense must weigh the present and future construction and maintenance costs to the railroad as 

well as the costs to the landowner of acquiring and constructing alternative access roads. This 

change in the law would give landowners incentive to seek public solutions for alternative access 

and/or work cooperatively with neighbors to find practical and affordable solutions. 

To support this effort, funds should be allocated to the States for closure and 

consolidation of private crossings. These funds could be used directly by State DOTs or 

localities to build public access roads or made available by means of grants or loans to 

landowners to acquire property for access and to build private access roads. Railroads could also 

apply for funds for buy outs if necessary to achieve closures. 

V. Should The State Or Federal Government Assume Greater Responsibility For 

Safety At Private Crossings? 

The federal government should assume ultimate responsibility and authority for safety at 

private crossings. There is a virtual absence of state or federal regulation of private crossings. 

Railroads operate in interstate commerce. A uniform federal approach is necessary and 

preferable to forcing railroads to comply with a confusing variety of conflicting state regulations 

and procedures. A federal solution is needed to give the railroads the tools to eliminate and 
12 

permit private crossings, to establish standards and to allocate responsibility for liability at and 

construction and maintenance of private crossings. 

VI. Should There Be Nationwide Standards For Warning Devices At Private Crossings, 

Or For Intersection Design Of New Private Grade Crossings? 

Federal regulations are needed to adopt, implement and enforce nationwide safety 

standards for design and construction of crossings and appropriate warning devices at private 

crossings. The relative lack of existing state regulation establishes both the need and opportunity 

for establishing a uniform approach to private crossing safety.

VII. How Do We Determine When A Private Crossing Has A ‘Public Purpose’ And Is 

Subject To Public Use? 

The determination of whether a crossing is “public” or “private” should consider the 

safety risks to the public associated with use of a particular crossing rather than the present 

federal classification of “public” based on whether the road or driveway is maintained by a 

public body charged with maintaining public streets or roads. As the testimony in prior hearings 

has indicated, under the present classification, the decision to dedicate a crossing road as a public 

street is often driven by the desire to avoid responsibility for maintenance and safety rather than 

an appropriate consideration of actual use of the crossing. The common public perception is that 

crossings should be considered “public” when they are heavily used by the public. It makes no 

sense from a safety standpoint to have a different standard for construction of heavily used 

private crossings than for public road crossings with comparable traffic. 

VIII. Should Some Crossings Be Categorized As ‘Commercial Crossings’, Rather Than 

As ‘Private Crossings’? 

A more rational approach would be to categorize crossings by volume of traffic and 

public safety implications of particular uses of crossings rather than purely on ownership and/or 

maintenance responsibility. Refinery crossings which contemplate limited public access but are 

used by trucks transporting hazardous materials must be regulated not as commercial crossings, 

but so as to minimize the risk to public safety. The category of private crossing should apply 

where measures are taken to restrict access. 

IX. Are There Innovative Traffic Control Treatments That Could Improve Safety At 

Private Crossings On Major Rail Corridors, Including Those On Which Passenger 

Service Is Provided? 

The emphasis should be on strengthening the ability of states and railroads to eliminate 

private crossings. The use of access roads to permit the closure of private crossings and 

consolidation around a limited number of well constructed and protected crossings is such an 

innovative approach. 

X. Should The Department Of Transportation Request Enactment Of Legislation To 

Address Private Crossings? If So, What Should It Include? 

Rio Grande Pacific and NOGC strongly support federal legislation or regulation to 

address private crossings in the following areas: 
13 

1. To establish federal standards for design and construction of private crossings; 

2. to allocate responsibility for construction, maintenance and liability for private 

crossings to the landowners who benefit from private crossings; 

3. to establish a private right of action and federal jurisdiction to allow railroads to 

file suit in federal court to enjoin landowners from installing crossings that 

interfere with railroad operations, violate safety standards or regulations or 

present a safety hazard; 

4. to establish a presumption that private crossings are safety hazards and are 

disfavored as a matter of federal law and that conflicting state laws are preempted. 

Landowners must bear the burden of proving actual need for any new or 

expanded crossing, not inconvenience and must accept responsibility for the cost 

of construction and maintenance of a crossing built to federal standards. This 

presumption would apply over and above a claim of right pursuant to deed, 

agreement or prescriptive easement. 

5. to establish an alternative federal dispute resolution mechanism or administrative 

procedure for the uniform, fair, inexpensive and speedy resolution of private 

crossing and permitting disputes; and 

6. to provide federal funds for closure of private crossings to States for construction 

of public access roads for consolidation and closure of crossings or made 

available by loans or grants to landowners or railroads to acquire access rights and 

build driveways to consolidate crossings. 
BEFORE THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 

Safety of Private Highway-Rail 

Grade Crossings; Notice of Safety 

Inquiry 

Docket No. FRA 2005-23281 

COMMENTS OF RIO GRANDE PACIFIC CORPORATION AND 

NEW ORLEANS & GULF COAST RAILWAY COMPANY 

November 29 2006 

LAWRENCE J. ERNST - BAR #5363 

MARY BETH MEYER - BAR #19367 

CHRISTOVICH & KEARNEY, LLP 

Suite 2300 

Pan American Life Center 

601 Poydras Street 

New Orleans, Louisiana 70130-6078 

Telephone: (504) 561-5700 

Attorneys for Rio Grande Pacific Corporation and 

New Orleans & Gulf Coast Railway Company 
2 

I. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS BY RIO GRANDE PACIFIC AND NEW 

ORLEANS & GULF COAST RAILWAY 

The only truly effective way to reduce the safety risks presented by private crossings is to 

eliminate as many private crossings as possible. A unifying federal approach is needed. 

Railroads must be recognized as interstate highways of commerce that must be allowed to 

operate without the interference and added risk of accidents and derailments caused by private 

crossings. Railroads must be able to control activities on the railroad right-of-way. Railroads 

must be given practical means of preventing new and expanded uses of existing private crossings 

and of eliminating existing private crossings wherever possible. 

Rio Grande Pacific Corporation and New Orleans & Gulf Coast Railway Company urge 

the FRA to employ its regulatory authority or to support enactment of federal legislation giving 

the FRA authority to regulate private crossings as follows: (1) to give railroads the option to file 

suit in federal court to prevent landowners from installing unpermitted crossings on the railroad 

right of way and/or to remove crossings that pose safety hazards or interfere with railroad 

operations; (2) to establish uniform standards for design, construction and warnings to increase 

driver safety at private crossings and to ensure adequate drainage and reduce interference with 

track maintenance; (3) to establish alternative dispute resolution or administrative proceedings 

for the inexpensive, fair and speedy resolution of private crossing disputes; and (4) to establish a 

presumption that private crossings are hazardous and disfavored as a matter of federal law and 

that conflicting state laws are preempted. 

The railroad’s lack of access to federal court to challenge landowners’ unpermitted use of 

the railroad right-of-way for crossings and the absence of uniform federal laws, procedures and 

standards for construction, permitting and closure of private crossings is a major obstacle to 

increasing safety by reducing the number of private crossings. The Railroads’ only option at 

present is to seek recourse in hostile state courts applying divergent state property laws that tend 

to favor local landowners. Even when successful, state court litigation is very expensive and 

time consuming. 

Federal transportation funds should be allocated for closing private crossings. States 

need money to build access roads to consolidate crossings. Funds should also be made available 

through grants or loans to enable landowners and/or railroads to acquire access rights and build 

private roads for alternate access to enable consolidation and elimination of crossings. 

Lack of public funding is only part of the problem. So long as the law continues to favor 

the rights of landowners to insist on private crossings as a matter of convenience, there is no 

hope of progress even if reasonable levels of funding were made available to close crossings. 

Private railroad crossings should be presumed to be against public safety and disfavored as a 

matter of federal law, so as to shift the legal burden to landowners to prove necessity and 

entitlement in order to install or maintain private crossings. This step would give landowners 

incentive to seek public solutions for alternative access and/or to work cooperatively with 

neighbors and the railroad to find practical and affordable solutions. 
3 

Private crossings interfere with railroads’ compliance with FRA track safety standards. 

The construction of crossings imposes additional and conflicting structural requirements and 

incorporates materials into the track structure that conflict with the FRA’s requirements and 

standards for the roadbed and track structure. Crossings trap moisture, interfere with drainage 

and lead to premature deterioration of the underlying roadbed and track components. Crossings 

make regular maintenance of the roadbed and track much more difficult and costly. Regulatory 

standards or guidelines are needed to mitigate the inherent safety risks and harmful effects of 

crossings on railroad maintenance. 

II. DISCUSSION OF RIO GRANDE’S AND NOGC’S EXPERIENCE WITH 

CONSOLIDATION AND CLOSURE OF PRIVATE CROSSINGS

Rio Grande Pacific Corporation is a short line and regional railroad holding company 

founded in 1986 that owns four Class III railroads with operations in six states, the Idaho 

Northern and Pacific Railroad, The Nebraska Central Railroad, Wichita Tillman and Jackson 

Railway Company, the Thunder Mountain Line and New Orleans & Gulf Coast Railway 

Company. Rio Grande’s subsidiaries have encountered many of the same legal obstacles 

identified in the previous meetings in Minnesota, North Carolina and California and learned from 

hard experience how difficult it is to meet the FRA’s challenge to reduce the number of private 

crossings. Dealing with private crossings is exceptionally expensive and complicated. 

Landowners are the only ones deriving an economic benefit from private crossings and rightfully 

should bear the expense of construction and maintenance. However, landowners are generally 

unwilling to accept responsibility for the expense of properly constructed crossings, even when 

they are required by law to do so. Regulations and property laws vary widely from state to state. 

The absence of clear legal authority permitting railroads to close private crossings or legal 

standards or procedures for permitting private crossings has frustrated the railroads’ efforts in the 

face of strong resistance on the part of landowners and nearly total absence of political will on 

the part of elected local officials, judges and lawmakers to address private crossing safety. 

It is bad enough that the lack of federal standards leaves the railroads without the tools to 

prevent people from building crossings wherever and however they want. Even worse, the very 

absence of federal regulation in the private crossing area has actually been used against the 

railroad by opponents who wish to stymie railroad efforts to limit crossings. The FRSA statutory 

scheme generally bars the railroad in all but exceptional situations from filing suit in federal 

court where the judges who preside are less captive to the prejudices of voters and presumably 

more attuned to protecting federal interests in interstate transportation and commerce. The 

current FRSA enforcement scheme presents an exceptionally complicated and irrational 

checkerboard of federal preemption barring application of some, but not all, state safety laws and 

regulations. Although state laws that are in addition to and conflict with federal safety laws and 

regulations, are generally preempted, as a practical matter, determining which state laws are in 

addition to and conflict with federal laws and regulations is far from clear and inevitably leads to 

costly and time consuming litigation. 

The ill-fated efforts of Rio Grande’s subsidiary, New Orleans & Gulf Coast Railway 

Company, present a case study of the insurmountable problems facing railroads who have 

accepted the FRA’s challenge of closing private crossings in the interest of public safety. 
4 

Louisiana, along with the majority of other states, does not regulate private crossings or 

establish safety standards for construction of private crossings or provide procedures for 

adjudicating whether new private crossings should be permitted or for closing existing crossings. 

NOGC’s efforts to limit and close crossings have been met with widespread resistance and 

outright hostility on the part of local officials and landowners alike. Landowners have gone to 

court and obtained restraining orders from sympathetic state court judges preventing NOGC 

from removing redundant, worn out and improperly built crossings –- even when the closure 

would have left the property with another crossing for necessary highway access. 

NOGC and its predecessors fortunately have had very few serious accidents at either 

public or private at grade crossings, but NOGC is well aware that this record should not instill a 

false sense of safety. To the extent that crossings are considered at all, they are perceived to be 

the railroad’s responsibility -- and sole problem. The commonly held, though false, local attitude 

is that private crossings do not present a public safety problem because: (a) there have not been 

any major accidents or fatalities at private crossings, and (b) NOGC’s slow operating speed (10 

mph) eliminates any safety risk. 

NOGC is currently litigating with landowners over its right to prevent construction of 

new crossings or to deny permits for expanded use of field crossings. Unfortunately, after 

several years and great expense, NOGC’s federal lawsuit was recently dismissed for lack of 

federal jurisdiction and is on appeal to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. NOGC must start 

over in state court. 

A. Background and Scope of NOGC’s Private Crossing Problem 

NOGC operates 32 miles of main line track serving over twenty switching and industrial 

customers in the New Orleans area via interchange with the Union Pacific Railroad in 

Westwego, Louisiana. NOGC is the only railroad operating east of Avondale on the West bank 

of the Mississippi River and is the only rail link for such customers as ConocoPhillips Alliance 

Refinery, Harvest States grain elevator, Chevron Oronite refinery, Packard Pipe, the Port of 

Plaquemines and the proposed Millennium Port at the mouth of the Mississippi River. 

When NOGC bought the railroad in 1999, the 24 mile Algiers to Myrtle Grove line was 

burdened with 276 public and private at grade railroad crossings. With a per mile average of 

11.5 crossings per mile, it is surely one of the highest ratios of crossings anywhere in the 

country. Some stretches have as many as 30 per mile. Only 57 are public crossings. Of the 

private crossings; 111 are industrial, commercial or multi-family crossings; 23 are agricultural, 

undeveloped property or pedestrian crossings; and 85 are for single family residential use. 

Nearly half of the private crossings are gravel “bootleg” crossings installed by landowners 

without the permission or supervision of the railroad. 

The disproportionately large number of crossings on NOGC’s line is the result of a 

combination of factors: 

• Louisiana Highway 23 lies adjacent to and parallels the NOGC’s tracks for most of its 

length. This is the only north south highway that runs through a long narrow strip of 
5 

Mississippi River delta. The tracks cut off access to the highway from a narrow strip of 

land on the river side of the tracks. Roads that once fronted the river were eliminated by 

levee officials or fell out of use once Highway 23 was built, leaving no alternative access 

roads on that side of the tracks. 

• The recent unchecked residential and commercial growth and change in use of previously 

agriculture property on the river side of the tracks; 

• The lack of any regulation of public crossings at either the state or federal level; 

• The complete lack of planning by State and local governments and absence of sufficient 

public road crossings and/or access roads; and 

• Laxity of enforcement of property rights and failure by predecessor railroads to respond 

to evolving changes in use of crossings by landowners and to prevent installation of new 

crossings as properties were subdivided. 

This railroad was originally built in 1888 by the New Orleans, Fort Jackson and Grand 

Isle Railroad. The railroad was originally built across largely undeveloped swamp and 

agricultural lands. The State built the highway alongside the tracks 30 or more years later. 

Historic railroad maps indicate that 64 plantation crossings were provided along this 24 mile 

stretch at the time the railroad was built, an average of 2.6 per mile. No deeds or other records 

setting the terms by which these agricultural crossings were established have survived due to 

hurricanes and courthouse fires. The use of many of these original crossings changed over time 

and the number of crossings grew as the plantations were repeatedly subdivided over the years. 

In many instances, landowners failed to exercise legal rights to use the original crossings and 

railroads tacitly allowed the installation and use of new crossings rather than enforce their 

property rights. 

NOGC operates its trains at 10 mph over its entire line even though its route consists of 

both Class 1 and Class 2 rated track, in part to minimize the risk of accidents. There is a 

widespread tendency among local motorist to disregard traffic signs and pull out in front or 

outrun trains with little concerted law enforcement effort to curb such behavior. The large 

number of at grade railroad crossings multiplies the points of contact between moving trains and 

automobiles, increasing the probability of crossing accidents and derailments. The risk of 

accidents is increased by the lack of minimum safety standards for engineering of approaches, 

drainage, surface, sight distances, lighting, signage and automated warnings at private crossings. 

NOGC cannot ensure the safety of its operations or increase efficiency by increasing train speed 

to meet the anticipated industrial growth in its service area if it cannot eliminate a significant 

number of these crossings. NOGC has been forced to redirect its resources to private crossing 

maintenance issues rather than investing in upgrading its roadbed infrastructure. 

B. NOGC’s Efforts to Address the Private Crossing Problem 

NOGC bought the line in 1999 and immediately launched a multi-front effort to eliminate 

as many private crossings as possible. NOGC engaged GCR Associates, a highly regarded 
6 

professional planning firm to survey, inventory and map each crossing, identifying its location, 

construction and use and then to prepare a closure and consolidation plan. GCR identified 

clusters of crossings that could be consolidated by use of access roads leading to public crossings 

or upgraded protected private crossings. NOGC sought to educate and enlist the support and 

cooperation of State and Parish officials about this public safety and infrastructure issue, using 

the planning proposals as a starting point. At the same time, NOGC began posting and removing 

redundant and unused crossings and focused on preventing new crossings and expanded uses of 

existing crossings. NOGC initiated a permit application and review process and required written 

agreements imposing indemnity and insurance requirements and clearly assigning responsibility 

for construction and maintenance to those wanting private crossings. 

NOGC has had a high level of cooperation from its refinery customers and larger retail 

establishments who have agreed to permits and funded construction of properly engineered 

crossings and installation of active and passive safety devices. NOGC has otherwise 

encountered strong resistance from residential and commercial users. 

Despite NOGC’s efforts, state and local officials have not been supportive. The Louisiana 

DODT and local parish officials generally have cited the lack of available funding for reducing 

the number of private crossings. Even if resources were not a problem, it became apparent that 

there is a complete lack of political will to address an issue that is so unpopular with constituents. 

In some instances, lack of support has turned to active resistance. Parish officials have continued 

to approve new subdivisions without requiring developers to confirm access rights and without 

adequate construction and engineering standards for private crossings, and have allowed public 

dedication of improperly constructed and unprotected subdivision crossings and have failed to 

correct obstructed sight lines. Local officials sought enactment of an amendment to the major 

public crossing closure legislation enacted by the Louisiana legislature in 2005, specifically to 

impede closure of railroad crossings along Highway 23. See La. Rev. Stat. § 48:390(F). 

III. NOGC’S RESPONSE TO FRA SPECIFIC AREAS FOR COMMENT

I. At-Grade Highway-Rail Crossings Present Inherent Risks To Users, Including The 

Railroad And Its Employees, And To Other Persons In The Vicinity Should A Train 

Derail Into An Occupied Area Or Release Hazardous Materials. When Passenger 

Trains Are Involved, The Risks Are Heightened. From The Standpoint Of Public 

Policy, How Do We Determine Whether Creation Or Continuation Of A Private 

Crossing Is Justified? 

A. Private Crossings cannot be justified in the interest of public safety 

Every crossing increases the likelihood of accidents and derailments. NOGC’s trains 

regularly transport tank cars carrying hazardous and toxic materials for NOGC’s refinery 

customers and pass through densely populated residential and commercial areas in very close 

proximity to the Mississippi River and coastal waters, wetlands and marshes. Authoritative 

federal laws or regulations are needed to overcome the lack of political will and lack of local 

resources for eliminating and/or limiting private railroad crossings and to avoid the inherent 

prejudice of local courts and operation of state property laws that generally favor landowners. 
7 

One approach would be federal laws or regulations establishing that private railroad 

crossings are presumed to be against public safety and disfavored as a matter of law and to shift 

the legal burden to landowners to prove necessity and entitlement in order to install or maintain 

private crossings. This change in the law would provide necessary uniformity nationwide. This 

approach would give landowners the incentive to seek public solutions for alternative access 

and/or work cooperatively with neighbors to find practical and affordable solutions. 

A unified federal solution is needed because state property laws are generally not attuned 

to specific safety issues at stake when the railroad attempts to limit access to the right of way for 

safety reasons. General tort laws are ill equipped to ensure public safety at private crossings. 

For example, the Louisiana statutory scheme for preventing landlocked properties from being 

removed from commerce by allowing the owner to cross over neighboring properties to reach the 

nearest public street is overwhelmingly oriented in favor of the individual landlocked owners and 

is clearly not designed to account for the public safety implications of permitting multiple 

railroad crossings side by side. The landlocked property laws were designed to resolve isolated 

cases in the agricultural era and are clearly not equipped to take the place of appropriate public 

planning and infrastructure in developing commercial and suburban areas. Many landowners 

have failed to exercised property rights against their vendors to use existing crossings for access, 

but have installed new crossings for convenience. Crossings were allowed to remain on 

sufferance rather facing costly and losing court battles. 

Louisiana is among the majority of states that elect judges. It is extremely difficult for 

elected judges who must be responsive to the electorate to make decisions unfavorable to local 

landowners, even in the broader interest of public safety and welfare. Although lifetime 

appointments shield federal judges from the electoral pressures facing state court judges, federal 

courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and generally have not been deemed available to resolve 

property law disputes involving private railroad crossings, even when federal safety and 

economic regulations are implicated. It is anomalous that although the railroad industry is 

overwhelmingly governed by federal laws and regulations to ensure against enforcement of state 

laws that would impede their operation in interstate commerce, nevertheless, railroad lawsuits 

may be initiated in federal court only in exceptional circumstances. 

Any procedure to evaluate the public utility of private crossings must give proper weight 

to the public welfare and account for the positive impact of railroad transportation as an 

environmentally responsible and safe alternative to transport by motor carrier. The economic 

impact of private crossings on railroad operations must also be addressed because private 

crossings increase liability exposure and redirect railroad time and resources away from essential 

track maintenance and inspection operations. Landowners must be responsible for installation 

and ongoing maintenance and upgrades for crossings engineered for site conditions and use. 

Landowners must maintain appropriate insurance and indemnify railroads against injuries and 

losses associated with crossing use. 

B. Unregulated Private Crossings Create Conflicts with Other Safety 

Regulations 
8 

An overlooked consequence of private crossings that is highly relevant to the discussion 

of public policy is that the existence of unregulated private crossings directly and substantially 

conflicts with and impedes the Railroads’ ability to maintain the track structure in accordance 

with the Track Safety Standards (49 CFR Part 213), which is one of its defined areas of 

responsibility. Crossings create additional safety issues and conflict with FRSA safety 

regulations that have not been previously addressed in these proceedings. First, large numbers of 

private crossings may counteract the effectiveness of the regulations requiring the sounding of 

locomotive horns at public crossings. See 49 C.F.R. § 222.1 et seq. Because of drivers’ frequent 

inattention to trains and tendency to disregard of warning signs and signals, NOGC’s engineers 

sound the locomotive horn at all crossings to warn of the approach of trains even though the 

regulations specifically do not require the sounding of horns at private crossings. 49 C.F.R. § 

222.25. Where there are so many crossings in close proximity, train engineers are unable to 

blow the horn in the intended sequence and must blow a continuous blast. This situation allows 

motorists to become conditioned to the horn as background noise and increases the risk that 

motorists will fail to recognize the warning. 

Installation of crossings also interferes with, adds to and conflicts with existing specific 

FRA track safety regulations relating to the construction and maintenance of the roadbed and 

track structure. 49 C.F.R. § 213, et seq. These provisions are intended to ensure that the roadbed 

and track provide the necessary structural support for railroad traffic and thereby reduce the risk 

of derailments. Insuring sufficient structural support has become more challenging as the 

permissible gross-weight-on-rail capacity of cars has increased over recent years. Crossings 

interfere with the roadbed and track structure in the following ways: 

• Crossing materials impose additional and incompatible forces and materials on the 

standard road bed structure. 

• Crossing materials trap moisture and interfere with proper drainage, thereby accelerating 

the deterioration of crossties and fouling of the ballast. 

• Crossings interfere with visual inspection of the roadbed and track. 

• The roadbed under crossings tends to settle at a different rate than for open track. 

• Crossings render regular maintenance of the roadbed and track far more difficult and 

costly because crossing materials must be removed and replaced each time this work is 

performed. Mechanized tamping machines and ballast regulators are used to efficiently 

perform the track surfacing and alignment of the track. This work is needed to 

compensate for differential settlement, to correct discrepancies in cross-level, profile, and 

alignment and to refresh and replace fouled ballast. Differential settlement at crossings is 

exaggerated if crossings are skipped over. Removal and replacement of crossings so this 

work can proceed is very labor intensive and increasingly expensive. 

• The need to remove crossings to perform required maintenance and the expense of 

replacing them acts to trigger confrontation between the landowners and railroad over 

who is responsible for the expense of installing and maintaining crossings. 
9 

These additional and cumulative crossing-related costs are substantial and impose an economic 

burden on short line railroads, in particular, which are generally small businesses which do not 

have unlimited resources. The inevitable result is that the railroads must divert and redirect 

significant funds away from, and to the detriment of, the maintenance and upgrading of the track 

and roadbed infrastructure as needed to increase efficiency and improve service to its shippers 

and future customers. 

II. Is The Current Assignment Of Responsibility For Safety At Private Crossings 

Effective? To What Extent Do Risk Management Practices Associated With 

Insurance Arrangements Result In ‘‘Regulation’’ Of Safety At Private Crossings? 

At present, there is no clear assignment of responsibility for safety at private crossings. 

There are no federal laws or regulations directly assigning responsibility for private crossings. 

There is no uniform law or policy assigning responsibility for safety at private crossings from 

state to state. The railroads’ specific regulatory role with respect to safety at public crossings is 

quite limited, however, that role vis a vis public crossings may provide an appropriate starting 

point for allocating railroad responsibility for private crossings.1 As a practical matter, railroads 

bear a disproportionate share of responsibility and potential liability for private crossing safety. 

 

1

 The FRA Safety Advisory 2005-03; Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety, issued May 

2, 2005, 70 FR 22750-22754, summarized the responsibilities owed by railroads to the FRA, 

acting on behalf of the public, that relate to public highway-rail grade crossing safety, as follows: 

1. Inspect, test, and maintain grade crossing warning systems in accordance with 49 

CFR Part 234 . . . .See FRA Safety Advisory 2002-1 (67 FR 3258; 01/23/2002) and 

FRA Safety Advisory 2004-03 (69 FR 48904; 8/11/2004). 

2. Report all activation failures in writing within 15 days (49 CFR 234.9). 

3. Maintain track structure in accordance with the Track Safety Standards (49 CFR Part 

213). This includes maintaining adequately drained (non-fouled) ballast that 

otherwise could permit the existence of low ballast resistance adversely affecting the 

operation of grade crossing signals (49 CFR Sec. 213.103) and removing vegetation 

on railroad property that could interfere with preview of grade crossing warning signs 

and signals, whether active or passive (49 CFR Sec. 213.37). 

4. Operate trains in accordance with applicable speed limitations imposed by Federal 

regulation (49 CFR Parts 213, 234 & 236) and the railroad's operating rules, 

timetables, and special instructions (see 49 CFR Parts 217 & 240). 

5. Provide and maintain locomotive event recorders on all locomotives operating greater 

than 30 miles per hour, preserving data following any reportable event (49 CFR 

229.135). 

6. Provide and maintain locomotive auxiliary alerting lights on any lead locomotive 

operating greater than 20 miles per hour (49 CFR 229.125(d)). 
10 

A. The Threat of Tort Liability Is an Ineffective Deterrent or Incentive for 

Landowners to Maintain the Safety of Private Crossings 

Private crossing holders are not compelled by any federal law or regulation and few, if 

any state laws, to bear responsibility for safety at private crossings. Tort liability remains the 

primary means of assigning overall responsibility for safety. Railroads are generally not 

responsible for maintaining private crossings under Louisiana law, however, railroads may be 

held liable for the condition of private crossings if a crossing is known to be defective or if the 

railroad voluntarily assumed a duty to maintain the crossing. Private crossing holders would be 

legally liable for accidents attributable to the condition of private crossings and face the threat of 

tort liability under Louisiana law. The risk of liability, however, has not deterred the 

proliferation of private crossings or encouraged the consolidation or sharing of crossings. The 

absence of serious accidents at private crossings along the NOGC line and lack of public 

awareness may be partially responsible for this. Even though the FRA’s statistics have shown 

that the overwhelming majority of crossing accidents are not due to any fault on the part of 

railroads, there is nothing to prevent tort plaintiffs from suing the railroad whenever an accident 

take place at private crossings, even when there is no evidence that the railroad was at fault. 

B. Insurance Is Not a Practical Approach for Managing Risk at Public 

Crossings 

Managing the risk of private crossings by using insurance arrangements is not a realistic 

option. There are no federal or state laws or regulations to compel private crossing holders to 

maintain even minimal liability insurance. NOGC’s experience has shown that landowners are 

either unwilling or unable to carry appropriate levels of liability insurance due to the high cost 

and a lack of available coverage options, particularly for residential crossings. In connection 

with its recent discussions with landowners, NOGC asked an independent agent to investigate 

the availability of liability and property coverage for residential and commercial private 

crossings after landowners objected to the condition in NOGC’s crossing agreement requiring 

crossing holders to obtain appropriate levels of liability coverage and name NOGC as an 

additional insured. All home and business owners in Southeast Louisiana are facing an 

insurance crisis in the wake of hurricane Katrina, with many insurers pulling out of this market 

altogether or substantially raising rates. The State sponsored insurer of last resort has requested 

huge rate increases making commercial and residential coverage prohibitively expensive in the 

near term. Even without this obstacle, the agent was unable to identify any carriers offering 

policies or endorsements extending such coverage in this marketplace. Whether driveway 

crossings would be considered part of the covered premises is subject to interpretation under the 

standard coverage terms in homeowners’ policies. Coverage for liability assumed under contract 

is generally excluded under homeowners’ coverage and not available via endorsement. 

III. How Should Improvement And/Or Maintenance Costs Associated With Private 

Crossing Be Allocated? 

Landowners, as the only ones deriving an economic benefit from the crossings, should 

rightly bear the expense of construction and maintenance. Railroads derive no economic benefit 

whatsoever from crossings, but practically speaking must bear the additional costs of crossings 
11 

unless they are reimbursed by the parties benefiting from the crossings. Railroads must also 

shoulder the substantial additional track maintenance costs where track is covered by crossings. 

Private crossing holders, however, are not compelled by any federal law or regulation and few, if 

any state laws, to bear responsibility for the cost of installation or upkeep of crossings built to 

industry standards or to pay for appropriate lighting and signage. 

IV. Is There A Need For Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms To Handle 

Disputes That May Arise Between Private Crossing Owners And The Railroads? 

Railroads and landowners would benefit from alternative dispute mechanisms for 

handling disputes over private crossings such as arbitration or administrative hearings. Such a 

procedure must permit resolution of disputes in a fair, uniform, speedy and cost effective 

manner. Without fairness, speed and low cost, such a system would merely add a layer of 

needless administrative expense to the situation. 

The standards for determining whether to permit or maintain a private crossing must 

begin with the uniformly applied presumption that private crossings are safety hazards and are 

disfavored as a matter of federal law and that conflicting state laws are preempted. The 

landowner seeking to install or maintain private crossings would bear the burden of proving 

actual need for the crossing, not inconvenience, and must demonstrate that a crossing can be 

safely constructed with appropriate visibility, signage and other safety measures and must accept 

responsibility for the cost of construction and ongoing maintenance. This alternative procedure 

and presumption would apply notwithstanding a claim of prior right or entitlement pursuant to 

deed, agreement or prescriptive easement. The required showing of need would require the 

landowner to pursue whatever legal recourse he may have against the persons who sold or 

subdivided the property without access and would entail showing that there were no physically 

feasible and safer alternative options without undue expense. The consideration of undue 

expense must weigh the present and future construction and maintenance costs to the railroad as 

well as the costs to the landowner of acquiring and constructing alternative access roads. This 

change in the law would give landowners incentive to seek public solutions for alternative access 

and/or work cooperatively with neighbors to find practical and affordable solutions. 

To support this effort, funds should be allocated to the States for closure and 

consolidation of private crossings. These funds could be used directly by State DOTs or 

localities to build public access roads or made available by means of grants or loans to 

landowners to acquire property for access and to build private access roads. Railroads could also 

apply for funds for buy outs if necessary to achieve closures. 

V. Should The State Or Federal Government Assume Greater Responsibility For 

Safety At Private Crossings? 

The federal government should assume ultimate responsibility and authority for safety at 

private crossings. There is a virtual absence of state or federal regulation of private crossings. 

Railroads operate in interstate commerce. A uniform federal approach is necessary and 

preferable to forcing railroads to comply with a confusing variety of conflicting state regulations 

and procedures. A federal solution is needed to give the railroads the tools to eliminate and 
12 

permit private crossings, to establish standards and to allocate responsibility for liability at and 

construction and maintenance of private crossings. 

VI. Should There Be Nationwide Standards For Warning Devices At Private Crossings, 

Or For Intersection Design Of New Private Grade Crossings? 

Federal regulations are needed to adopt, implement and enforce nationwide safety 

standards for design and construction of crossings and appropriate warning devices at private 

crossings. The relative lack of existing state regulation establishes both the need and opportunity 

for establishing a uniform approach to private crossing safety.

VII. How Do We Determine When A Private Crossing Has A ‘Public Purpose’ And Is 

Subject To Public Use? 

The determination of whether a crossing is “public” or “private” should consider the 

safety risks to the public associated with use of a particular crossing rather than the present 

federal classification of “public” based on whether the road or driveway is maintained by a 

public body charged with maintaining public streets or roads. As the testimony in prior hearings 

has indicated, under the present classification, the decision to dedicate a crossing road as a public 

street is often driven by the desire to avoid responsibility for maintenance and safety rather than 

an appropriate consideration of actual use of the crossing. The common public perception is that 

crossings should be considered “public” when they are heavily used by the public. It makes no 

sense from a safety standpoint to have a different standard for construction of heavily used 

private crossings than for public road crossings with comparable traffic. 

VIII. Should Some Crossings Be Categorized As ‘Commercial Crossings’, Rather Than 

As ‘Private Crossings’? 

A more rational approach would be to categorize crossings by volume of traffic and 

public safety implications of particular uses of crossings rather than purely on ownership and/or 

maintenance responsibility. Refinery crossings which contemplate limited public access but are 

used by trucks transporting hazardous materials must be regulated not as commercial crossings, 

but so as to minimize the risk to public safety. The category of private crossing should apply 

where measures are taken to restrict access. 

IX. Are There Innovative Traffic Control Treatments That Could Improve Safety At 

Private Crossings On Major Rail Corridors, Including Those On Which Passenger 

Service Is Provided? 

The emphasis should be on strengthening the ability of states and railroads to eliminate 

private crossings. The use of access roads to permit the closure of private crossings and 

consolidation around a limited number of well constructed and protected crossings is such an 

innovative approach. 

X. Should The Department Of Transportation Request Enactment Of Legislation To 

Address Private Crossings? If So, What Should It Include? 

Rio Grande Pacific and NOGC strongly support federal legislation or regulation to 

address private crossings in the following areas: 
13 

1. To establish federal standards for design and construction of private crossings; 

2. to allocate responsibility for construction, maintenance and liability for private 

crossings to the landowners who benefit from private crossings; 

3. to establish a private right of action and federal jurisdiction to allow railroads to 

file suit in federal court to enjoin landowners from installing crossings that 

interfere with railroad operations, violate safety standards or regulations or 

present a safety hazard; 

4. to establish a presumption that private crossings are safety hazards and are 

disfavored as a matter of federal law and that conflicting state laws are preempted. 

Landowners must bear the burden of proving actual need for any new or 

expanded crossing, not inconvenience and must accept responsibility for the cost 

of construction and maintenance of a crossing built to federal standards. This 

presumption would apply over and above a claim of right pursuant to deed, 

agreement or prescriptive easement. 

5. to establish an alternative federal dispute resolution mechanism or administrative 

procedure for the uniform, fair, inexpensive and speedy resolution of private 

crossing and permitting disputes; and 

6. to provide federal funds for closure of private crossings to States for construction 

of public access roads for consolidation and closure of crossings or made 

available by loans or grants to landowners or railroads to acquire access rights and 

build driveways to consolidate crossings. 




608 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 3 / Friday, January 5, 2007 / Notices 

ACTION: Notice of Limitation on Claims 

for Judicial Review of Actions by FHWA 

and other Federal agencies. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces actions 

taken by the FHWA and other Federal 

agencies that are final within the 

meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139(I)(1). These 

actions relate to a proposed highway 

project. U.S. Route 101 Willits Bypass 

Project between kilo post R69.4 and 

R78.9 (post mile R43.1 to 49.0) in 

Mendocino County, State of California. 

These actions grant approvals for the 

project. 

DATES: By this notice, the FHWA is 

advising the public of final agency 

actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(I)(1). A 

claim seeking judicial review of the 

Federal agency actions on the highway 

project will be barred unless the claim 

is filed on or before July 5, 2007. If the 

Federal law that authorizes judicial 

review of a claim provides a time period 

of less than 180 days for filing such 

claim, then that shorter time period still 

applies. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Maiser Khaled, Director, Project 

Development & Environment, Federal 

Highway Administration, 650 Capitol 

Mall, Suite 4–100, Sacramento, CA 

95814, weekdays between 7 a.m. and 4 

p.m., telephone 916–498–5020, 

maiser.khaled@fhwa.dot.gov. For U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Ray Bosch, 

Wildlife Biologist, Endangered Species 

Program, Arcata Fish and Wildlife 

Office, telephone 707–822–7201, 

ray_bosch@fws.gov. 

For National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration—National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Thomas 

Daugherty, Fisheries Biologist, Ukiah 

Office, Telephone 707–468–4057, 

Tom.Daugherty@noaa.gov. For 

California Department of 

Transportation, Jeremy Ketchum, Senior 

Environmental Planner, 2389 Gateway 

Oaks Dr., Sacramento, CA 95833, 

weekdays between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

(916) 274–0621, 

jeremy_ketchum@dot.ca.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is 

hereby given that the FHWA and other 

Federal agencies have taken final agency 

actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(I)(1) by 

issuing approvals for the following 

highway project in the State of 

California: U.S. Route 101 Willits 

Bypass Project between kilo post R69.4 

and R78.9 (post mile R43.1 to 49.0) in 

Mendocino County. This project would 

reduce delays, improve safety, and 

provide at least a Level of Service C for 

interregional traffic on U.S. 101 in the 

vicinity of the City of Willits, 

Mendocino County, California. This 

would be accomplished by constructing 

a four-lane freeway around the city of 

Willits, in Mendocino County, from 0.8 

mile south of the Haehl Overhead to 2.9 

miles south of Reynolds Highway. The 

actions by the Federal agencies, and the 

laws under which such actions were 

taken, are described in the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 

for the project, approved on November 

25, 2006, in the Record of Decision 

(ROD) issued on December 18, 2006, 

and in other documents in the FHWA 

project files. The FEIS, ROD, and other 

project records are available by 

contacting the FHWA or the California 

Department of Transportation at the 

addresses provided above. The FHWA 

FEIS and ROD can be viewed and 

downloaded from the project Web site 

http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist1/d1projects/ 

willits/reports.htm or viewed at public 

libraries in the project area. 

This notice applies to all Federal 

agency decisions as of the issuance date 

of this notice and all laws under which 

such actions were taken, including but 

not limited to: 

1. General: National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) [42 U.S.C. 4321–

4351]; Federal-Aid Highway Act [23 

U.S.C. 109]. 

2. Air: Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401–

7671(q). 

3. Land: Section 4(f) of the 

Department of Transportation Act of 

1966 [49 U.S.C. 303]. 

4. Wildlife: Endangered Species Act 

[16 U.S.C. 1531–1544 and Section 

1536], Marine Mammal Protection Act 

[16 U.S.C. 1361], Anadromous Fish 

Conservation Act [16 U.S.C. 757(a)–

757(g)], Migratory Bird Treaty Act [16 

U.S.C. 703–712], Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act of 1976, as amended [16 U.S.C. 1801 

et seq.]. 

5. Historic and Cultural Resources: 

Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, as amended 

[16 U.S.C. 470(f) et seq.]; Archeological 

Resources Protection Act of 1977 [16 

U.S.C. 470(aa)–11]; Archeological and 

Historic Preservation Act [16 U.S.C. 

469–469(c)]. 

6. Social and Economic: Civil Rights 

Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000(d)–

2000(d)(1)]; Farmland Protection Policy 

Act (FPPA) [7 U.S.C. 4201–4209]. 

7. Wetlands and Water Resources: 

Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251–1377 

(Section 404, Section 401, Section 319); 

Coastal Barrier Resources Act, 16 U.S.C. 

3501–3510; Coastal Zone Management 

Act, 16 U.S.C. 1451–1465; Land and 

Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), 16 

U.S.C. 4601–4604; 42 U.S.C. 300(f)–

300(j)(6); Emergency Wetlands 

Resources Act, 16 U.S.C. 3921, 3931; 

TEA–21 Wetlands Mitigation, 23 U.S.C. 

103(b)(6)(m), 133(b)(11); Flood Disaster 

Protection Act, 42 U.S.C. 4001–4128. 

8. Hazardous Materials: 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601–9675; 

Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA); 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6901–6992(k). 

9. Executive Orders: E.O. 11990 

Protection of Wetlands; E.O. 11988 

Floodplain Management; E.O. 12898, 

Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low Income 

Populations; E.O. 11593 Protection and 

Enhancement of Cultural Resources; 

E.O. 13175 Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments; E.O. 11514 Protection and 

Enhancement of Environmental Quality; 

E.O. 13112 Invasive Species. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning 

and Construction. The regulations 

implementing Executive Order 12372 

regarding intergovernmental consultation on 

Federal programs and activities apply to his 

program.) 

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 139(I)(1). 

Issued on: December 28, 2006. 

Gene K. Fong, 

Division Administrator, Federal Highway 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E6–22596 Filed 1–4–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–RY–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

[Docket No. FRA–2005–23281, Notice No. 

3] 

Safety of Private Highway-Rail Grade 

Crossings; Notice of Safety Inquiry 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of safety inquiry. 

SUMMARY: On July 27, 2006, the FRA 

published a notice announcing its intent 

to conduct a series of open meetings 

throughout the United States, in 

cooperation with appropriate State 

agencies, to consider issues related to 

the safety of private highway-rail grade 

crossings. This notice indicated that the 

first of these meetings would be held 

August 30, 2006, in Fort Snelling, 

Minnesota. On September 22, 2006, the 

FRA published a second notice, which 

announced that FRA had scheduled 

subsequent meetings, to be held on 

September 27, 2006, in Raleigh, North 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 3 / Friday, January 5, 2007 / Notices 609 

Carolina; October 26, 2006, in San 

Francisco, California; and December 6, 

2006, in New Orleans, Louisiana. This 

Notice No. 3 announces that the FRA 

has scheduled an additional meeting, to 

be held on February 15, 2007, in 

Syracuse, New York. 

At the meeting, FRA intends to solicit 

oral statements from private crossing 

owners, railroads and other interested 

parties on issues related to the safety of 

private highway-rail grade crossings, 

which will include, but not be limited 

to, current practices concerning 

responsibility for safety at private grade 

crossings, the adequacy of warning 

devices at private crossings, and the 

relative merits of a more uniform 

approach to improving safety at private 

crossings. FRA has also opened a public 

docket on these issues, so that interested 

parties may submit written comments 

for public review and consideration. 

DATES: The public meeting will be held 

in Syracuse, New York on February 15, 

2007, at the Doubletree Hotel, 6301 

State Route 298, Syracuse, New York, 

13057, beginning at 9:30 a.m. 

Persons wishing to participate are 

requested to provide their names, 

organizational affiliation and contact 

information to Michelle Silva, Docket 

Clerk, FRA, 1120 Vermont Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 

202–493–6030). Persons needing sign 

language interpretation or other 

reasonable accommodation for disability 

are also encouraged to contact Ms. Silva. 

Additional public meetings will be 

announced as they are scheduled. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron 

Ries, Office of Safety, FRA, 1120 

Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 

20590 (telephone 202–493–6299); 

Miriam Kloeppel, Office of Safety, FRA, 

1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202–

493–6299); or Kathryn Shelton, Office of 

Chief Counsel, FRA, 1120 Vermont 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20590 

(telephone 202–493–6038). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

additional information, please see the 

initial notice, published July 27 in the 

Federal Register (citation: 71 FR 42713) 

and available at http:// 

a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/ 

01jan20061800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/ 

2006/pdf/06–6501.pdf 

Request for Comments 

While FRA solicits discussion and 

comments on all areas of safety at 

private highway-rail grade crossings, we 

particularly encourage comments on the 

following topics: 

❑ At-grade highway-rail crossings 

present inherent risks to users, 

including the railroad and its 

employees, and to other persons in the 

vicinity should a train derail into an 

occupied area or release hazardous 

materials. When passenger trains are 

involved, the risks are heightened. From 

the standpoint of public policy, how do 

we determine whether creation or 

continuation of a private crossing is 

justified? 

❑ Is the current assignment of 

responsibility for safety at private 

crossings effective? To what extent do 

risk management practices associated 

with insurance arrangements result in 

‘‘regulation’’ of safety at private 

crossings? 

❑ How should improvement and/or 

maintenance costs associated with 

private crossing be allocated? 

❑ Is there a need for alternative 

dispute resolution mechanisms to 

handle disputes that may arise between 

private crossing owners and the 

railroads? 

❑ Should the State or Federal 

government assume greater 

responsibility for safety at private 

crossings? 

❑ Should there be Nationwide 

standards for warning devices at private 

crossings, or for intersection design of 

new private grade crossings? 

❑ How do we determine when a 

private crossing has a ‘‘public purpose’’

and is subject to public use? 

❑ Should some crossings be 

categorized as ‘‘commercial crossings’’, 

rather than as ‘‘private crossings’’? 

❑ Are there innovative traffic control 

treatments that could improve safety at 

private crossings on major rail corridors, 

including those on which passenger 

service is provided? 

❑ Should the Department of 

Transportation request enactment of 

legislation to address private crossings? 

If so, what should it include? 

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 

29, 2006. 

Jo Strang, 

Associate Administrator for Safety. 

[FR Doc. E6–22606 Filed 1–4–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Research and Innovative Technology 

Administration 

[RITA–2006–26758] 

Statement Regarding a Coordinated 

Framework for Regulation of a 

Hydrogen Economy 

AGENCY: Research and Innovative 

Technology Administration, U.S. 

Department of Transportation. 

ACTION: Notice of inquiry and request for 

public comment. 

SUMMARY: The purpose of this Federal 

Register notice is to inform the public 

of current U.S. statutes and regulations 

that may be applicable to a hydrogen 

economy and to request comments on 

their interface . This notice describes 

and indexes several statutory and 

regulatory provisions of each major 

Federal agency and discusses possible 

applications of these provisions to 

aspects of a hydrogen economy, 

including construction and certification 

of transportation/ports infrastructure, 

the use of fuel cells to power 

automobiles and generate electricity for 

homes and businesses, and effects on 

public safety and health. The notice also 

describes the regulatory jurisdictions of 

each Federal agency in the context of a 

hydrogen economy. In addition, public 

comments are invited on a Web site that 

was created to depict the regulatory 

framework of a hydrogen economy. The 

Web site is located at http:// 

hydrogen.gov/regulations.html. 

Comments will be used to improve the 

Web site. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 6, 2007. 

Public Participation: The Ad Hoc 

Committee on a Regulatory Framework 

for a Hydrogen Economy (Ad Hoc 

Committee) of the Interagency Working 

Group on Hydrogen and Fuel Cells 

(IWG), which is part of the Executive 

Office of the President’s National 

Science and Technology Council 

(NSTC), is seeking comments and 

advice from individuals, public interest 

groups, industry and academia on this 

statement regarding the framework for 

regulation of a hydrogen economy. 

The Ad Hoc Committee members 

include the Office of Science and 

Technology Policy (OSTP), Department 

of State (DOS), U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT) (including the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 

Federal Highways Administration 

(FHWA), Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA), Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA), the Maritime 

Administration (MARAD), Federal 

Motor Carrier Administration (FMCSA), 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration (PHMSA) and Research 

and Innovative Technology 

Administration (RITA)), Department of 

Agriculture (USDA), Department of 

Labor’s (DOL’s) Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration (OSHA), 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA) and Federal 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
608 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 3 / Friday, January 5, 2007 / Notices 

ACTION: Notice of Limitation on Claims 

for Judicial Review of Actions by FHWA 

and other Federal agencies. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces actions 

taken by the FHWA and other Federal 

agencies that are final within the 

meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139(I)(1). These 

actions relate to a proposed highway 

project. U.S. Route 101 Willits Bypass 

Project between kilo post R69.4 and 

R78.9 (post mile R43.1 to 49.0) in 

Mendocino County, State of California. 

These actions grant approvals for the 

project. 

DATES: By this notice, the FHWA is 

advising the public of final agency 

actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(I)(1). A 

claim seeking judicial review of the 

Federal agency actions on the highway 

project will be barred unless the claim 

is filed on or before July 5, 2007. If the 

Federal law that authorizes judicial 

review of a claim provides a time period 

of less than 180 days for filing such 

claim, then that shorter time period still 

applies. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Maiser Khaled, Director, Project 

Development & Environment, Federal 

Highway Administration, 650 Capitol 

Mall, Suite 4–100, Sacramento, CA 

95814, weekdays between 7 a.m. and 4 

p.m., telephone 916–498–5020, 

maiser.khaled@fhwa.dot.gov. For U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Ray Bosch, 

Wildlife Biologist, Endangered Species 

Program, Arcata Fish and Wildlife 

Office, telephone 707–822–7201, 

ray_bosch@fws.gov. 

For National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration—National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Thomas 

Daugherty, Fisheries Biologist, Ukiah 

Office, Telephone 707–468–4057, 

Tom.Daugherty@noaa.gov. For 

California Department of 

Transportation, Jeremy Ketchum, Senior 

Environmental Planner, 2389 Gateway 

Oaks Dr., Sacramento, CA 95833, 

weekdays between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

(916) 274–0621, 

jeremy_ketchum@dot.ca.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is 

hereby given that the FHWA and other 

Federal agencies have taken final agency 

actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(I)(1) by 

issuing approvals for the following 

highway project in the State of 

California: U.S. Route 101 Willits 

Bypass Project between kilo post R69.4 

and R78.9 (post mile R43.1 to 49.0) in 

Mendocino County. This project would 

reduce delays, improve safety, and 

provide at least a Level of Service C for 

interregional traffic on U.S. 101 in the 

vicinity of the City of Willits, 

Mendocino County, California. This 

would be accomplished by constructing 

a four-lane freeway around the city of 

Willits, in Mendocino County, from 0.8 

mile south of the Haehl Overhead to 2.9 

miles south of Reynolds Highway. The 

actions by the Federal agencies, and the 

laws under which such actions were 

taken, are described in the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 

for the project, approved on November 

25, 2006, in the Record of Decision 

(ROD) issued on December 18, 2006, 

and in other documents in the FHWA 

project files. The FEIS, ROD, and other 

project records are available by 

contacting the FHWA or the California 

Department of Transportation at the 

addresses provided above. The FHWA 

FEIS and ROD can be viewed and 

downloaded from the project Web site 

http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist1/d1projects/ 

willits/reports.htm or viewed at public 

libraries in the project area. 

This notice applies to all Federal 

agency decisions as of the issuance date 

of this notice and all laws under which 

such actions were taken, including but 

not limited to: 

1. General: National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) [42 U.S.C. 4321–

4351]; Federal-Aid Highway Act [23 

U.S.C. 109]. 

2. Air: Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401–

7671(q). 

3. Land: Section 4(f) of the 

Department of Transportation Act of 

1966 [49 U.S.C. 303]. 

4. Wildlife: Endangered Species Act 

[16 U.S.C. 1531–1544 and Section 

1536], Marine Mammal Protection Act 

[16 U.S.C. 1361], Anadromous Fish 

Conservation Act [16 U.S.C. 757(a)–

757(g)], Migratory Bird Treaty Act [16 

U.S.C. 703–712], Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act of 1976, as amended [16 U.S.C. 1801 

et seq.]. 

5. Historic and Cultural Resources: 

Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, as amended 

[16 U.S.C. 470(f) et seq.]; Archeological 

Resources Protection Act of 1977 [16 

U.S.C. 470(aa)–11]; Archeological and 

Historic Preservation Act [16 U.S.C. 

469–469(c)]. 

6. Social and Economic: Civil Rights 

Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000(d)–

2000(d)(1)]; Farmland Protection Policy 

Act (FPPA) [7 U.S.C. 4201–4209]. 

7. Wetlands and Water Resources: 

Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251–1377 

(Section 404, Section 401, Section 319); 

Coastal Barrier Resources Act, 16 U.S.C. 

3501–3510; Coastal Zone Management 

Act, 16 U.S.C. 1451–1465; Land and 

Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), 16 

U.S.C. 4601–4604; 42 U.S.C. 300(f)–

300(j)(6); Emergency Wetlands 

Resources Act, 16 U.S.C. 3921, 3931; 

TEA–21 Wetlands Mitigation, 23 U.S.C. 

103(b)(6)(m), 133(b)(11); Flood Disaster 

Protection Act, 42 U.S.C. 4001–4128. 

8. Hazardous Materials: 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601–9675; 

Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA); 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6901–6992(k). 

9. Executive Orders: E.O. 11990 

Protection of Wetlands; E.O. 11988 

Floodplain Management; E.O. 12898, 

Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low Income 

Populations; E.O. 11593 Protection and 

Enhancement of Cultural Resources; 

E.O. 13175 Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments; E.O. 11514 Protection and 

Enhancement of Environmental Quality; 

E.O. 13112 Invasive Species. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning 

and Construction. The regulations 

implementing Executive Order 12372 

regarding intergovernmental consultation on 

Federal programs and activities apply to his 

program.) 

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 139(I)(1). 

Issued on: December 28, 2006. 

Gene K. Fong, 

Division Administrator, Federal Highway 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E6–22596 Filed 1–4–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–RY–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

[Docket No. FRA–2005–23281, Notice No. 

3] 

Safety of Private Highway-Rail Grade 

Crossings; Notice of Safety Inquiry 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of safety inquiry. 

SUMMARY: On July 27, 2006, the FRA 

published a notice announcing its intent 

to conduct a series of open meetings 

throughout the United States, in 

cooperation with appropriate State 

agencies, to consider issues related to 

the safety of private highway-rail grade 

crossings. This notice indicated that the 

first of these meetings would be held 

August 30, 2006, in Fort Snelling, 

Minnesota. On September 22, 2006, the 

FRA published a second notice, which 

announced that FRA had scheduled 

subsequent meetings, to be held on 

September 27, 2006, in Raleigh, North 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 3 / Friday, January 5, 2007 / Notices 609 

Carolina; October 26, 2006, in San 

Francisco, California; and December 6, 

2006, in New Orleans, Louisiana. This 

Notice No. 3 announces that the FRA 

has scheduled an additional meeting, to 

be held on February 15, 2007, in 

Syracuse, New York. 

At the meeting, FRA intends to solicit 

oral statements from private crossing 

owners, railroads and other interested 

parties on issues related to the safety of 

private highway-rail grade crossings, 

which will include, but not be limited 

to, current practices concerning 

responsibility for safety at private grade 

crossings, the adequacy of warning 

devices at private crossings, and the 

relative merits of a more uniform 

approach to improving safety at private 

crossings. FRA has also opened a public 

docket on these issues, so that interested 

parties may submit written comments 

for public review and consideration. 

DATES: The public meeting will be held 

in Syracuse, New York on February 15, 

2007, at the Doubletree Hotel, 6301 

State Route 298, Syracuse, New York, 

13057, beginning at 9:30 a.m. 

Persons wishing to participate are 

requested to provide their names, 

organizational affiliation and contact 

information to Michelle Silva, Docket 

Clerk, FRA, 1120 Vermont Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 

202–493–6030). Persons needing sign 

language interpretation or other 

reasonable accommodation for disability 

are also encouraged to contact Ms. Silva. 

Additional public meetings will be 

announced as they are scheduled. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron 

Ries, Office of Safety, FRA, 1120 

Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 

20590 (telephone 202–493–6299); 

Miriam Kloeppel, Office of Safety, FRA, 

1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202–

493–6299); or Kathryn Shelton, Office of 

Chief Counsel, FRA, 1120 Vermont 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20590 

(telephone 202–493–6038). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

additional information, please see the 

initial notice, published July 27 in the 

Federal Register (citation: 71 FR 42713) 

and available at http:// 

a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/ 

01jan20061800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/ 

2006/pdf/06–6501.pdf 

Request for Comments 

While FRA solicits discussion and 

comments on all areas of safety at 

private highway-rail grade crossings, we 

particularly encourage comments on the 

following topics: 

❑ At-grade highway-rail crossings 

present inherent risks to users, 

including the railroad and its 

employees, and to other persons in the 

vicinity should a train derail into an 

occupied area or release hazardous 

materials. When passenger trains are 

involved, the risks are heightened. From 

the standpoint of public policy, how do 

we determine whether creation or 

continuation of a private crossing is 

justified? 

❑ Is the current assignment of 

responsibility for safety at private 

crossings effective? To what extent do 

risk management practices associated 

with insurance arrangements result in 

‘‘regulation’’ of safety at private 

crossings? 

❑ How should improvement and/or 

maintenance costs associated with 

private crossing be allocated? 

❑ Is there a need for alternative 

dispute resolution mechanisms to 

handle disputes that may arise between 

private crossing owners and the 

railroads? 

❑ Should the State or Federal 

government assume greater 

responsibility for safety at private 

crossings? 

❑ Should there be Nationwide 

standards for warning devices at private 

crossings, or for intersection design of 

new private grade crossings? 

❑ How do we determine when a 

private crossing has a ‘‘public purpose’’

and is subject to public use? 

❑ Should some crossings be 

categorized as ‘‘commercial crossings’’, 

rather than as ‘‘private crossings’’? 

❑ Are there innovative traffic control 

treatments that could improve safety at 

private crossings on major rail corridors, 

including those on which passenger 

service is provided? 

❑ Should the Department of 

Transportation request enactment of 

legislation to address private crossings? 

If so, what should it include? 

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 

29, 2006. 

Jo Strang, 

Associate Administrator for Safety. 

[FR Doc. E6–22606 Filed 1–4–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Research and Innovative Technology 

Administration 

[RITA–2006–26758] 

Statement Regarding a Coordinated 

Framework for Regulation of a 

Hydrogen Economy 

AGENCY: Research and Innovative 

Technology Administration, U.S. 

Department of Transportation. 

ACTION: Notice of inquiry and request for 

public comment. 

SUMMARY: The purpose of this Federal 

Register notice is to inform the public 

of current U.S. statutes and regulations 

that may be applicable to a hydrogen 

economy and to request comments on 

their interface . This notice describes 

and indexes several statutory and 

regulatory provisions of each major 

Federal agency and discusses possible 

applications of these provisions to 

aspects of a hydrogen economy, 

including construction and certification 

of transportation/ports infrastructure, 

the use of fuel cells to power 

automobiles and generate electricity for 

homes and businesses, and effects on 

public safety and health. The notice also 

describes the regulatory jurisdictions of 

each Federal agency in the context of a 

hydrogen economy. In addition, public 

comments are invited on a Web site that 

was created to depict the regulatory 

framework of a hydrogen economy. The 

Web site is located at http:// 

hydrogen.gov/regulations.html. 

Comments will be used to improve the 

Web site. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 6, 2007. 

Public Participation: The Ad Hoc 

Committee on a Regulatory Framework 

for a Hydrogen Economy (Ad Hoc 

Committee) of the Interagency Working 

Group on Hydrogen and Fuel Cells 

(IWG), which is part of the Executive 

Office of the President’s National 

Science and Technology Council 

(NSTC), is seeking comments and 

advice from individuals, public interest 

groups, industry and academia on this 

statement regarding the framework for 

regulation of a hydrogen economy. 

The Ad Hoc Committee members 

include the Office of Science and 

Technology Policy (OSTP), Department 

of State (DOS), U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT) (including the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 

Federal Highways Administration 

(FHWA), Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA), Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA), the Maritime 

Administration (MARAD), Federal 

Motor Carrier Administration (FMCSA), 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration (PHMSA) and Research 

and Innovative Technology 

Administration (RITA)), Department of 

Agriculture (USDA), Department of 

Labor’s (DOL’s) Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration (OSHA), 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA) and Federal 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
608 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 3 / Friday, January 5, 2007 / Notices 

ACTION: Notice of Limitation on Claims 

for Judicial Review of Actions by FHWA 

and other Federal agencies. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces actions 

taken by the FHWA and other Federal 

agencies that are final within the 

meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139(I)(1). These 

actions relate to a proposed highway 

project. U.S. Route 101 Willits Bypass 

Project between kilo post R69.4 and 

R78.9 (post mile R43.1 to 49.0) in 

Mendocino County, State of California. 

These actions grant approvals for the 

project. 

DATES: By this notice, the FHWA is 

advising the public of final agency 

actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(I)(1). A 

claim seeking judicial review of the 

Federal agency actions on the highway 

project will be barred unless the claim 

is filed on or before July 5, 2007. If the 

Federal law that authorizes judicial 

review of a claim provides a time period 

of less than 180 days for filing such 

claim, then that shorter time period still 

applies. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Maiser Khaled, Director, Project 

Development & Environment, Federal 

Highway Administration, 650 Capitol 

Mall, Suite 4–100, Sacramento, CA 

95814, weekdays between 7 a.m. and 4 

p.m., telephone 916–498–5020, 

maiser.khaled@fhwa.dot.gov. For U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Ray Bosch, 

Wildlife Biologist, Endangered Species 

Program, Arcata Fish and Wildlife 

Office, telephone 707–822–7201, 

ray_bosch@fws.gov. 

For National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration—National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Thomas 

Daugherty, Fisheries Biologist, Ukiah 

Office, Telephone 707–468–4057, 

Tom.Daugherty@noaa.gov. For 

California Department of 

Transportation, Jeremy Ketchum, Senior 

Environmental Planner, 2389 Gateway 

Oaks Dr., Sacramento, CA 95833, 

weekdays between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

(916) 274–0621, 

jeremy_ketchum@dot.ca.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is 

hereby given that the FHWA and other 

Federal agencies have taken final agency 

actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(I)(1) by 

issuing approvals for the following 

highway project in the State of 

California: U.S. Route 101 Willits 

Bypass Project between kilo post R69.4 

and R78.9 (post mile R43.1 to 49.0) in 

Mendocino County. This project would 

reduce delays, improve safety, and 

provide at least a Level of Service C for 

interregional traffic on U.S. 101 in the 

vicinity of the City of Willits, 

Mendocino County, California. This 

would be accomplished by constructing 

a four-lane freeway around the city of 

Willits, in Mendocino County, from 0.8 

mile south of the Haehl Overhead to 2.9 

miles south of Reynolds Highway. The 

actions by the Federal agencies, and the 

laws under which such actions were 

taken, are described in the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 

for the project, approved on November 

25, 2006, in the Record of Decision 

(ROD) issued on December 18, 2006, 

and in other documents in the FHWA 

project files. The FEIS, ROD, and other 

project records are available by 

contacting the FHWA or the California 

Department of Transportation at the 

addresses provided above. The FHWA 

FEIS and ROD can be viewed and 

downloaded from the project Web site 

http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist1/d1projects/ 

willits/reports.htm or viewed at public 

libraries in the project area. 

This notice applies to all Federal 

agency decisions as of the issuance date 

of this notice and all laws under which 

such actions were taken, including but 

not limited to: 

1. General: National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) [42 U.S.C. 4321–

4351]; Federal-Aid Highway Act [23 

U.S.C. 109]. 

2. Air: Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401–

7671(q). 

3. Land: Section 4(f) of the 

Department of Transportation Act of 

1966 [49 U.S.C. 303]. 

4. Wildlife: Endangered Species Act 

[16 U.S.C. 1531–1544 and Section 

1536], Marine Mammal Protection Act 

[16 U.S.C. 1361], Anadromous Fish 

Conservation Act [16 U.S.C. 757(a)–

757(g)], Migratory Bird Treaty Act [16 

U.S.C. 703–712], Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act of 1976, as amended [16 U.S.C. 1801 

et seq.]. 

5. Historic and Cultural Resources: 

Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966, as amended 

[16 U.S.C. 470(f) et seq.]; Archeological 

Resources Protection Act of 1977 [16 

U.S.C. 470(aa)–11]; Archeological and 

Historic Preservation Act [16 U.S.C. 

469–469(c)]. 

6. Social and Economic: Civil Rights 

Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000(d)–

2000(d)(1)]; Farmland Protection Policy 

Act (FPPA) [7 U.S.C. 4201–4209]. 

7. Wetlands and Water Resources: 

Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251–1377 

(Section 404, Section 401, Section 319); 

Coastal Barrier Resources Act, 16 U.S.C. 

3501–3510; Coastal Zone Management 

Act, 16 U.S.C. 1451–1465; Land and 

Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), 16 

U.S.C. 4601–4604; 42 U.S.C. 300(f)–

300(j)(6); Emergency Wetlands 

Resources Act, 16 U.S.C. 3921, 3931; 

TEA–21 Wetlands Mitigation, 23 U.S.C. 

103(b)(6)(m), 133(b)(11); Flood Disaster 

Protection Act, 42 U.S.C. 4001–4128. 

8. Hazardous Materials: 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601–9675; 

Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA); 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6901–6992(k). 

9. Executive Orders: E.O. 11990 

Protection of Wetlands; E.O. 11988 

Floodplain Management; E.O. 12898, 

Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low Income 

Populations; E.O. 11593 Protection and 

Enhancement of Cultural Resources; 

E.O. 13175 Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments; E.O. 11514 Protection and 

Enhancement of Environmental Quality; 

E.O. 13112 Invasive Species. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning 

and Construction. The regulations 

implementing Executive Order 12372 

regarding intergovernmental consultation on 

Federal programs and activities apply to his 

program.) 

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 139(I)(1). 

Issued on: December 28, 2006. 

Gene K. Fong, 

Division Administrator, Federal Highway 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E6–22596 Filed 1–4–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–RY–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

[Docket No. FRA–2005–23281, Notice No. 

3] 

Safety of Private Highway-Rail Grade 

Crossings; Notice of Safety Inquiry 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of safety inquiry. 

SUMMARY: On July 27, 2006, the FRA 

published a notice announcing its intent 

to conduct a series of open meetings 

throughout the United States, in 

cooperation with appropriate State 

agencies, to consider issues related to 

the safety of private highway-rail grade 

crossings. This notice indicated that the 

first of these meetings would be held 

August 30, 2006, in Fort Snelling, 

Minnesota. On September 22, 2006, the 

FRA published a second notice, which 

announced that FRA had scheduled 

subsequent meetings, to be held on 

September 27, 2006, in Raleigh, North 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 3 / Friday, January 5, 2007 / Notices 609 

Carolina; October 26, 2006, in San 

Francisco, California; and December 6, 

2006, in New Orleans, Louisiana. This 

Notice No. 3 announces that the FRA 

has scheduled an additional meeting, to 

be held on February 15, 2007, in 

Syracuse, New York. 

At the meeting, FRA intends to solicit 

oral statements from private crossing 

owners, railroads and other interested 

parties on issues related to the safety of 

private highway-rail grade crossings, 

which will include, but not be limited 

to, current practices concerning 

responsibility for safety at private grade 

crossings, the adequacy of warning 

devices at private crossings, and the 

relative merits of a more uniform 

approach to improving safety at private 

crossings. FRA has also opened a public 

docket on these issues, so that interested 

parties may submit written comments 

for public review and consideration. 

DATES: The public meeting will be held 

in Syracuse, New York on February 15, 

2007, at the Doubletree Hotel, 6301 

State Route 298, Syracuse, New York, 

13057, beginning at 9:30 a.m. 

Persons wishing to participate are 

requested to provide their names, 

organizational affiliation and contact 

information to Michelle Silva, Docket 

Clerk, FRA, 1120 Vermont Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 

202–493–6030). Persons needing sign 

language interpretation or other 

reasonable accommodation for disability 

are also encouraged to contact Ms. Silva. 

Additional public meetings will be 

announced as they are scheduled. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron 

Ries, Office of Safety, FRA, 1120 

Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 

20590 (telephone 202–493–6299); 

Miriam Kloeppel, Office of Safety, FRA, 

1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202–

493–6299); or Kathryn Shelton, Office of 

Chief Counsel, FRA, 1120 Vermont 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20590 

(telephone 202–493–6038). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

additional information, please see the 

initial notice, published July 27 in the 

Federal Register (citation: 71 FR 42713) 

and available at http:// 

a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/ 

01jan20061800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/ 

2006/pdf/06–6501.pdf 

Request for Comments 

While FRA solicits discussion and 

comments on all areas of safety at 

private highway-rail grade crossings, we 

particularly encourage comments on the 

following topics: 

❑ At-grade highway-rail crossings 

present inherent risks to users, 

including the railroad and its 

employees, and to other persons in the 

vicinity should a train derail into an 

occupied area or release hazardous 

materials. When passenger trains are 

involved, the risks are heightened. From 

the standpoint of public policy, how do 

we determine whether creation or 

continuation of a private crossing is 

justified? 

❑ Is the current assignment of 

responsibility for safety at private 

crossings effective? To what extent do 

risk management practices associated 

with insurance arrangements result in 

‘‘regulation’’ of safety at private 

crossings? 

❑ How should improvement and/or 

maintenance costs associated with 

private crossing be allocated? 

❑ Is there a need for alternative 

dispute resolution mechanisms to 

handle disputes that may arise between 

private crossing owners and the 

railroads? 

❑ Should the State or Federal 

government assume greater 

responsibility for safety at private 

crossings? 

❑ Should there be Nationwide 

standards for warning devices at private 

crossings, or for intersection design of 

new private grade crossings? 

❑ How do we determine when a 

private crossing has a ‘‘public purpose’’

and is subject to public use? 

❑ Should some crossings be 

categorized as ‘‘commercial crossings’’, 

rather than as ‘‘private crossings’’? 

❑ Are there innovative traffic control 

treatments that could improve safety at 

private crossings on major rail corridors, 

including those on which passenger 

service is provided? 

❑ Should the Department of 

Transportation request enactment of 

legislation to address private crossings? 

If so, what should it include? 

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 

29, 2006. 

Jo Strang, 

Associate Administrator for Safety. 

[FR Doc. E6–22606 Filed 1–4–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Research and Innovative Technology 

Administration 

[RITA–2006–26758] 

Statement Regarding a Coordinated 

Framework for Regulation of a 

Hydrogen Economy 

AGENCY: Research and Innovative 

Technology Administration, U.S. 

Department of Transportation. 

ACTION: Notice of inquiry and request for 

public comment. 

SUMMARY: The purpose of this Federal 

Register notice is to inform the public 

of current U.S. statutes and regulations 

that may be applicable to a hydrogen 

economy and to request comments on 

their interface . This notice describes 

and indexes several statutory and 

regulatory provisions of each major 

Federal agency and discusses possible 

applications of these provisions to 

aspects of a hydrogen economy, 

including construction and certification 

of transportation/ports infrastructure, 

the use of fuel cells to power 

automobiles and generate electricity for 

homes and businesses, and effects on 

public safety and health. The notice also 

describes the regulatory jurisdictions of 

each Federal agency in the context of a 

hydrogen economy. In addition, public 

comments are invited on a Web site that 

was created to depict the regulatory 

framework of a hydrogen economy. The 

Web site is located at http:// 

hydrogen.gov/regulations.html. 

Comments will be used to improve the 

Web site. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 6, 2007. 

Public Participation: The Ad Hoc 

Committee on a Regulatory Framework 

for a Hydrogen Economy (Ad Hoc 

Committee) of the Interagency Working 

Group on Hydrogen and Fuel Cells 

(IWG), which is part of the Executive 

Office of the President’s National 

Science and Technology Council 

(NSTC), is seeking comments and 

advice from individuals, public interest 

groups, industry and academia on this 

statement regarding the framework for 

regulation of a hydrogen economy. 

The Ad Hoc Committee members 

include the Office of Science and 

Technology Policy (OSTP), Department 

of State (DOS), U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT) (including the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 

Federal Highways Administration 

(FHWA), Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA), Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA), the Maritime 

Administration (MARAD), Federal 

Motor Carrier Administration (FMCSA), 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration (PHMSA) and Research 

and Innovative Technology 

Administration (RITA)), Department of 

Agriculture (USDA), Department of 

Labor’s (DOL’s) Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration (OSHA), 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA) and Federal 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
1

Federal Railroad Administration

Private Grade Crossing 

Open Public Meetings

Presented by

Robert Pressley, P.E.

in conjunction with

NCDOT Rail Division Engineering & Safety Branch

September 27, 2006
2

Studies Involving Private Crossings

• Private Crossing Safety Initiative

NCDOT Rail Division / North Carolina Railroad / 

Norfolk Southern (NS) – Raleigh to Charlotte, 140 track miles

• Traffic Separation Study

Charlotte Area Transit System / NCDOT Rail Division –

NS ‘O’ Line – Charlotte to Mooresville, 30 track miles

• Western North Carolina Area Crossing Studies

NCDOT Rail Division – NS ‘S’ Line – Salisbury to Asheville – 143 track miles
3

General Findings

1. 92 private crossings evaluated in the 

three studies including:

• 39 providing residential access

Crossing 721718H Cornelius
4

General Findings

1. 92 private crossings evaluated in the 

three studies including:

• 18 providing farm access

Crossing 722977X 

Guilford Co.
5

General Findings

1. 92 private crossings evaluated in the 

three studies including:

• 29 providing industrial access

Crossing 729522H

Long View
6

General Findings

1. 92 private crossings evaluated in the 

three studies including:

• 6 providing commercial access

Crossing 729425G

Blue Ridge 

Broadcasting
7

General Findings

2. Written Agreements• No written agreements between the operating 

railroad and the crossing owner found in public land records

• Written agreements between the operating 

railroad and the crossing owner were found for 25 of 92 crossings (NS Archives)
8

General Findings

3. Crossing warning devices included:

• None -- 39

Crossing 904131T Guilford Co.
9

General Findings

3. Crossing warning devices included:

• Crossbucks -- 39

Crossing 722974C Guilford Co.
10

General Findings

3. Crossing warning devices included:

• Gated -- 5

Crossing 904230A Davidson Co.
11

General Findings

3. Crossing warning devices included:

• Gates/Flashers -- 9

Crossing 726293N Durham Co.
12

General Findings

4. Industrial crossings pose special hazards

• Public Service Company of NC – propane 

storage and distribution facility

• Ingles Markets, Inc. – food service storage 

and distribution

• N.C. Equipment Company – heavy equipment 

sales and services

• Rankin Fryar – quarry and demolition landfill 

operations
13

General Findings

5. Some residential crossings serve multiple 

properties

• Byrdsville Road – 67 residential units• Terrell’s Trailer Park – 12 residential units• Ethel Lane – 18 residential units• Stroup Farm Road – potential to access 300 

undeveloped acres

• 8400 Old Concord Road – 7 residential units
14

Solutions Are Expensive

• Public Service Company of NC

• Provide alt. access -- $850,000

• Ingles Markets

• Relocate crossing -- $1,100,000

• Stroup Farm Road

• Build grade separation -- $10,000,000

• Richard C. Roberts

• Acquire property/close crossing -- $65,000
15

Solutions Are Expensive

• Terrell’s Trailer Park 

• Install gates/flashers -- $150,000

• Huntersville Crossings

• Upgrade 1 public crossing/consolidate 5 

private -- $980,000
16

Examples of Recommended

or Implemented Enhancements

Public Service Co. of NC

Hillsborough Street

PSNC

Close Existing Crossing

Construct access to NC-54

NC-54

NS & CSX RRs
17

Examples of Recommended

or Implemented Enhancements

Ingles Markets (near Asheville) 

Existing Conditions
18

Examples of Recommended

or Implemented Enhancements

Ingles Markets (near Asheville) 

Close Existing Crossing

Construct new driveway and crossing with traffic signal

NS RR S’ ‘ Line
19

Examples of Recommended

or Implemented Enhancements

Stroup Farm
20

Examples of Recommended

or Implemented Enhancements

Stroup Farm area – Duke Power Substation
21

Examples of Recommended

or Implemented Enhancements

NS RR

Mozingo Farm Duke Power Substation

CMU Pump Station

Stroup Farm Area Private Crossings

Stroup Farm

Construct new grade separation and parallel road; close private crossings

NS RR
22

Examples of Recommended

or Implemented Enhancements

Byrdsville Road

NS RR US-70A
23

Examples of Recommended

or Implemented Enhancements

Ethel Lane

Juke Box 

Rd.

Close Existing Crossings and construct new road
24

Examples of Recommended

or Implemented Enhancements

Ethel LaneJuke Box 

Rd.

Close Existing Crossings and construct new road
25

Examples of Recommended

or Implemented Enhancements

Long Beverage
26

Examples of Recommended

or Implemented Enhancements

Bailey Road area – Mecklenburg Co.
27

Examples of Recommended

or Implemented Enhancements

Bailey Rd. Area
28

Examples of Recommended

or Implemented Enhancements

Roberts Property – Alamance Co.
29

Examples of Recommended

or Implemented Enhancements

Roberts Property – Orange Co.
30

Conclusions about Private Crossings

• Enhancements/closures difficult to 

resolve

 Agreements are between RR & private owner Uncertainty about state, federal jurisdiction

• Can be frequently dangerous

 Industrial hazards Poor sight distance, little or no protection Increased traffic, esp. from development
31

Conclusions about Private Crossings (2)

• Enhancements often expensive

 Often requires additional frontage roads to 

connect properties to public crossing

 Can require grade separation or total property 

acquisition

 Cost/benefit analysis difficult (FRA Gradec

model not set up for private crossings)

 Legal implications?

• Additional study needed

 Legal framework, cost/benefit models
32

Questions?

Robert Pressley, P.E.

rpressley@gfnet.com

704.375.2438

Paul Worley, C.P.M.

NCDOT Rail Division Engineering & Safety Branch

pworley@dot.state.nc.us

919.715.8740
Here's 35 crossings just in Missouri in 2006 crossing lights were STOLEN off 

public crossings the robbing railroads could move to the private railroad 

crossings if the FEDs are sooo concerned all of a sudden. The question is why 

the FRA railroad cronies are not in jail for allowing complete crossing 

workovers when gates are added when a 12 year old moron could just add gates to 

the existing lights for 20% of the cost. There's crossing lights/gates sitting 

all over the country on dead tracks not being moved and the FRA is worried about 

private crossings. Yeah right ---private crossings are the only place where the 

courts haven't been bought where the railroads can KILL FOR FREE at the blind 

pieces of crap crossings. This crap of court shaping for the railroads by the 

FEDS is illegal as hell or would be if the FEDs were not dirty co-conspirators 

in 1000s of railroad murders by NO law in violation of the FRA real job is. 

19 0.092409 063104F BNSF MO BUCHANAN ST JOSEPH ILLINOIS&CHEER 0 0 0 0 0 06/06 GT 

85 3 60 YES 2 6,500 

80 0.067688 063104F BNSF MO BUCHANAN ST JOSEPH ILLINOIS&CHEER 0 0 0 0 0 FL 85 3 

60 YES 2 6,500 

208 0.042933 063121W BNSF MO BUCHANAN ST JOSEPH FOURTH ST. 0 0 0 0 0 06/06 GT 73 

3 45 YES 2 1,170 

15 0.107520 063121W BNSF MO BUCHANAN ST JOSEPH FOURTH ST. 0 0 0 1 0 FL 73 4 45 

YES 2 1,170 

415 0.031281 063112X BNSF MO BUCHANAN ST JOSEPH HICKORY ST 0 0 0 0 0 06/06 GT 79 

2 60 YES 2 500 

252 0.040044 063112X BNSF MO BUCHANAN ST JOSEPH HICKORY ST 0 0 0 0 0 FL 79 2 60 

YES 2 500 

417 0.031089 667700B BNSF MO WRIGHT MOUNTAIN GR HIGH ST. 0 0 0 0 0 06/06 GT 31 1 

40 YES 2 2,355 

255 0.039892 667700B BNSF MO WRIGHT MOUNTAIN GR HIGH ST. 0 0 0 0 0 FL 31 1 40 

YES 2 2,355 

443 0.030051 330053J KCS MO JASPER JOPLIN 9TH STREET 0 0 0 0 0 03/06 GT 24 2 50 

YES 2 3,100 

269 0.039057 330053J KCS MO JASPER JOPLIN 9TH STREET 0 0 0 0 0 FL 24 2 50 YES 2 

3,100 

510 0.027599 664598M BNSF MO PHELPS ROLLA 7TH STREET 0 0 0 0 0 06/06 GT 9 1 45 

YES 2 8,300 
306 0.036997 664598M BNSF MO PHELPS ROLLA 7TH STREET 0 0 0 0 0 FL 9 1 45 YES 2 

8,300 

514 0.027567 095216T BNSF MO BUCHANAN RUSHVILLE BLANK 0 0 0 0 0 06/06 GT 48 1 60 

YES 2 1,016 

308 0.036969 095216T BNSF MO BUCHANAN RUSHVILLE BLANK 0 0 0 0 0 FL 48 1 60 YES 2 

1,016 

538 0.026839 669024P BNSF MO BARTON GOLDEN CITY US 160 0 0 0 0 0 06/06 GT 27 1 

50 YES 2 1,960 

323 0.036332 669024P BNSF MO BARTON GOLDEN CITY US HIGHWAY 160 0 0 0 0 0 FL 27 1 

50 YES 2 1,960 

568 0.026010 663884P BNSF MO JEFFERSON FESTUS MILL AVE 0 1 0 0 0 06/06 GT 11 1 

40 YES 2 5,600 

3 0.183807 663884P BNSF MO JEFFERSON FESTUS MILL AVE 1 0 0 1 1 FL 11 1 40 YES 2 

5,600 

569 0.025998 667845M BNSF MO HOWELL POMONA 0 0 0 0 0 06/06 GT 30 1 45 YES 2 

1,602 

33 0.084976 667845M BNSF MO HOWELL POMONA 0 0 0 0 1 FL 30 1 45 YES 2 1,602 

575 0.025880 293587Y KCS MO JACKSON BLUE SPRING WOODS Rd. 0 0 0 0 0 03/06 GT 5 

1 40 YES 2 16,190 

340 0.035474 293587Y KCS MO JACKSON BLUE SPRING WR OODS CHAPEL 0 0 0 0 0 FL 5 1 

40 YES 2 16,190 

 

669 0.023308 664599U BNSF MO PHELPS ROLLA 6TH STREET 0 0 0 0 0 06/06 GT 9 1 45 

YES 2 5,500 

393 0.033062 664599U BNSF MO PHELPS ROLLA 6TH STREET 0 0 0 0 0 FL 9 1 45 YES 2 

5,500 

716 0.022260 083705U BNSF MO HOLT FORTESCUE BLANK 0 0 0 0 0 06/06 GT 43 1 50 YES 

2 690 

419 0.032030 083705U BNSF MO HOLT FORTESCUE BLANK 0 0 0 0 0 FL 43 1 50 YES 2 690 
795 0.020649 330143H KCS MO MCDONALD GOODMAN SPLITO AVE 0 0 0 0 0 03/06 GT 24 1 

40 YES 2 1,243 

465 0.030385 330143H KCS MO MCDONALD GOODMAN SPLITLOG AVE 0 0 0 0 0 FL 24 1 40 

YES 2 1,243 

858 0.019575 079383B BNSF MO RANDOLPH CLARK MADISON RD 0 0 0 0 0 06/06 GT 45 2 

45 YES 2 564 

136 0.053081 079383B BNSF MO RANDOLPH CLARK MADISON RD 0 0 0 0 0 NO 45 2 45 YES 

2 564 

862 0.019528 330031J KCS MO JASPER WACO MO YY 1 0 0 0 0 03/06 GT 24 1 50 YES 2 

1,085 

506 0.029195 330031J KCS MO JASPER WACO 0 0 0 0 0 FL 24 1 50 YES 2 1,085 

907 0.018686 330039N KCS MO JASPER JOPLIN ELK ROAD 0 0 0 0 0 03/06 GT 20 1 50 

YES 2 1,200 

65 0.071830 330039N KCS MO JASPER JOPLIN ELK ROAD 0 0 0 0 1 FL 20 1 50 YES 2 

1,200 

968 0.017871 664600L BNSF MO PHELPS ROLLA ROLLA 0 0 0 0 0 06/06 GT 9 1 35 YES 2 

2,880 

578 0.027366 664600L BNSF MO PHELPS ROLLA ROLLA 0 0 0 0 0 FL 9 1 35 YES 2 2,880 

1101 0.016073 293585K KCS MO JACKSON BLUE SPRING MAIN 0 0 0 0 0 03/06 GT 5 1 40 

YES 2 5,075 

668 0.025278 293585K KCS MO JACKSON BLUE SPRING MAIN 0 0 0 0 0 FL 5 1 40 YES 2 

5,075 

1120 0.015859 005352X BNSF MO RAY CAMDEN CO RD 10 0 0 0 0 0 06/06 GT 93 2 55 NO 

1 111 

856 0.021746 005352X BNSF MO RAY CAMDEN CO RD 10 0 0 0 0 0 HS 66 2 55 NO 1 111 

1166 0.015556 005014A BNSF MO CLARK KAHOKA SANTA FE ST 0 0 0 0 0 06/06 GT 61 4 

90 YES 2 76 
177 0.046104 005014A BNSF MO CLARK KAHOKA SANTA FE ST 0 0 0 0 0 XB 61 4 90 YES 2 

76 

1193 0.015311 330046Y KCS MO JASPER JOPLIN 5TH ST 0 0 0 0 0 03/06 GT 24 1 50 YES 

2 600 

702 0.024359 330046Y KCS MO JASPER JOPLIN 5TH ST 0 0 0 0 0 FL 24 1 50 YES 2 600 

1298 0.014262 329835B KCS MO CASS CLEVELAND MAIN ST 0 0 0 0 0 03/06 GT 24 1 55 

YES 2 493 

779 0.023058 329835B KCS MO CASS CLEVELAND MAIN ST 0 0 0 0 0 FL 24 1 55 YES 2 

493 

1349 0.013875 329863E KCS MO CASS DREXEL MAIN ST. 0 0 0 0 0 03/06 GT 24 2 55 YES 

2 461 

808 0.022566 329863E KCS MO CASS DREXEL MAIN ST. 0 0 0 0 0 HS 24 3 55 YES 2 461 

1405 0.013236 329865T KCS MO BATES DREXEL ETHEL STREET 0 0 0 0 0 03/06 GT 24 1 

55 YES 2 411 

858 0.021743 329865T KCS MO BATES DREXEL ETHEL STREET 0 0 0 0 0 FL 24 1 55 YES 2 

411 

1493 0.012552 293588F KCS MO JACKSON BLUE SPRING VALLEY VIEW 0 0 0 0 0 03/06 GT 

5 1 40 NO 2 2,779 

921 0.020843 293588F KCS MO JACKSON BLUE SPRING VALLEY VIEW RO 0 0 0 0 0 FL 5 1 

40 NO 2 2,779 

1549 0.012198 063537L BNSF MO MARION HANNIBAL ROUTE "JJ" 0 0 0 0 0 06/06 GT 19 1 

60 YES 2 447 

957 0.020369 063537L BNSF MO MARION HANNIBAL ROUTE "JJ" 0 0 0 0 0 FL 19 1 60 YES 

2 447 

1655 0.011330 330157R KCS MO MCDONALD ANDERSON MILL STREET 0 0 0 0 1 03/06 GT 24 

2 40 YES 2 380 

22 0.092617 330157R KCS MO MCDONALD ANDERSON MILL STREET 0 0 1 0 0 XB 24 2 40 

YES 2 380 
1672 0.011235 664604N BNSF MO PHELPS ROLLA WALKER ST 0 0 0 0 0 06/06 GT 9 1 35 

YES 2 930 

1036 0.019055 664604N BNSF MO PHELPS ROLLA WALKER ST 0 0 0 0 0 FL 9 1 35 YES 2 

930 

1697 0.011003 673268F BNSF MO GREENE SPRINGFIELD HASELINE RD 0 0 0 0 0 06/06 GT 

23 1 50 YES 2 280 

1058 0.018732 673268F BNSF MO GREENE SPRINGFIELD HASELINE RD 0 0 0 0 0 FL 23 1 

50 YES 2 280 

1757 0.010505 079382U BNSF MO RANDOLPH CLARK VANDERPOPLARS 0 0 0 0 0 06/06 GT 45 

2 45 NO 2 526 

347 0.035252 079382U BNSF MO RANDOLPH CLARK VANDERPOPLARS 0 0 0 0 0 NO 45 2 45 

NO 2 526 

1883 0.009752 330120B KCS MO NEWTON NEOSHO BURR CROSSING 0 0 0 0 0 03/06 GT 24 1 

40 YES 2 200 

31 0.085927 330120B KCS MO NEWTON NEOSHO BURR CROSSING 0 0 0 0 2 FL 24 1 40 YES 

2 200 

1950 0.009312 063122D BNSF MO BUCHANAN ST JOSEPH FRANCIS ST 0 0 0 0 0 06/06 GT 

61 3 45 YES 2 50 

413 0.032255 063122D BNSF MO BUCHANAN ST JOSEPH FRANCIS ST 0 0 0 0 0 NO 61 3 45 

YES 2 50 

2143 0.008355 005345M BNSF MO RAY HENRIETTA CO RD 319 0 0 0 0 0 06/06 GT 93 2 79 

NO 1 48 

655 0.025606 005345M BNSF MO RAY HENRIETTA CO RD 319 0 0 0 0 0 OS 66 2 79 NO 1 

48 

2181 0.008228 330014T KCS MO JASPER ASBURY MAIN STREET 0 0 0 0 0 03/06 GT 24 2 

50 YES 2 130 

500 0.029363 330014T KCS MO JASPER ASBURY MAIN STREET 0 0 0 0 0 XB 24 2 50 YES 2 

130 
2226 0.007996 070172Y BNSF MO HOLT FOREST CITY BLANK 0 0 0 0 0 06/06 GT 57 2 60 

YES 2 25 

1496 0.014313 070172Y BNSF MO HOLT FOREST CITY BLANK 0 0 0 0 0 FL 57 2 60 YES 2 

25 

2251 0.007878 070142G BNSF MO ANDREW AMAZONIA BLANK 0 0 0 0 0 06/06 GT 57 1 60 

NO 2 125 

535 0.028390 070142G BNSF MO ANDREW AMAZONIA BLANK 0 0 0 0 0 NO 57 1 60 NO 2 125 

2268 0.007747 095361S BNSF MO PLATTE FARLEY KISKER RD 0 0 0 0 0 06/06 GT 45 2 60 

NO 1 169 

554 0.028020 095361S BNSF MO PLATTE FARLEY KISKER RD 0 0 0 0 0 NO 45 2 60 NO 1 

169 

2276 0.007697 005263F BNSF MO CHARITON MARCELINE CO RD 223 0 0 0 0 0 06/06 GT 62 

2 90 NO 1 56 

557 0.027881 005263F BNSF MO CHARITON MARCELINE CO RD 223 0 0 0 0 0 XB 62 2 90 

NO 1 56 

2526 0.006588 070139Y BNSF MO ANDREW AMAZONIA BLANK 0 0 0 0 0 06/06 FL 57 1 60 

NO 2 30 

1085 0.018418 070139Y BNSF MO ANDREW AMAZONIA BLANK 0 0 0 0 0 NO 57 1 60 NO 2 30 

2528 0.006581 669800M BNSF MO GREENE ASH GROVE 0 0 0 0 0 06/06 GT 21 1 40 YES 2 

100 

1040 0.019034 669800M BNSF MO GREENE ASH GROVE 0 0 0 0 0 SS 10 4 40 YES 2 100 

2564 0.006497 095196J BNSF MO PLATTE IATAN COUNTY RD 0 0 0 0 0 06/06 FL 46 1 60 

NO 2 40 

1099 0.018201 095196J BNSF MO PLATTE IATAN COUNTY RD 0 0 0 0 0 NO 46 1 60 NO 2 

40 

2667 0.006185 005264M BNSF MO CHARITON MARCELINE CO RD 219 0 0 0 0 0 06/06 GT 62 

2 90 NO 1 31 
757 0.023403 005264M BNSF MO CHARITON MARCELINE CO RD 219 0 0 0 0 0 XB 62 2 90 

NO 1 31 

2713 0.005963 293572J KCS MO JACKSON OAK GROVE CLINTON 0 0 0 0 0 03/06 GT 5 1 40 

YES 2 704 

802 0.022711 293572J KCS MO JACKSON OAK GROVE CLINTON 0 0 0 0 0 XB 5 1 40 YES 2 

704 

2758 0.005675 861088B BNSF MO MACON COLLEGE MOU ST ROUTE T 0 0 0 0 0 06/06 GT 3 

1 25 YES 2 670 

1052 0.018819 861088B BNSF MO MACON COLLEGE MOU STATE ROUTE T 0 0 0 0 0 FL 10 1 

20 YES 2 670 

2798 0.005533 861093X BNSF MO RANDOLPH COLLEGE MOU STATE C 0 0 0 0 0 06/06 GT 3 

1 25 YES 2 630 

1082 0.018432 861093X BNSF MO RANDOLPH COLLEGE MOU STATE RT C 0 0 0 0 0 FL 10 1 

20 YES 2 630 

2813 0.005490 070171S BNSF MO HOLT FOREST CITY BLANK 0 0 0 0 0 06/06 GT 57 5 60 

NO 2 10 

2034 0.010266 070171S BNSF MO HOLT FOREST CITY BLANK 0 0 0 0 0 FL 57 5 60 NO 2 

10 

2835 0.005350 330184M KCS MO MCDONALD NOEL S KINGS HIGHWA 0 2 0 0 0 03/06 GT 24 

1 40 YES 2 50 

92 0.062987 330184M KCS MO MCDONALD NOEL 1 0 0 0 0 XB 24 1 40 YES 2 50 

3010 0.004660 063528M BNSF MO MARION HANNIBAL ROAD 413 0 0 0 0 1 06/06 GT 19 1 

60 YES 1 30 

105 0.058865 063528M BNSF MO MARION HANNIBAL ROAD 413 0 0 0 1 0 XB 19 1 60 YES 1 

30 

3012 0.004646 070143N BNSF MO ANDREW AMAZONIA BLANK 0 0 0 0 0 06/06 GT 57 2 60 

NO 2 30 

1084 0.018418 070143N BNSF MO ANDREW AMAZONIA BLANK 0 0 0 0 0 NO 57 2 60 NO 2 30 
3057 0.004514 442252W UP MO COLE CENTERTOWN OLD STAGE ROAD 0 0 0 0 1 04/06 GT 23 

1 70 NO 1 85 

108 0.057970 442252W UP MO COLE CENTERTOWN OLD STAGE ROAD 0 0 0 1 0 XB 23 1 70 

NO 1 85 

3153 0.004196 664376D BNSF MO FRANKLIN ST CLAIR PUBLIC 0 0 0 0 0 06/06 GT 9 1 40 

YES 2 100 

1214 0.016867 664376D BNSF MO FRANKLIN ST CLAIR PUBLIC 0 0 0 0 0 NO 9 1 40 YES 2 

100 

3451 0.003134 079378E BNSF MO PLATTE KANSAS CITY COUNTY RD 0 0 0 0 0 06/06 GT 45 

2 45 NO 1 20 

1654 0.013031 079378E BNSF MO PLATTE KANSAS CITY COUNTY RD 0 0 0 0 0 NO 45 2 45 

NO 1 20 

3526 0.002897 293263W KCS MO PIKE BOWLING GRE RD 53 0 0 0 0 0 03/06 GT 5 2 40 

YES 1 100 

1779 0.012139 293263W KCS MO PIKE BOWLING GRE RD 53 0 0 0 0 0 XB 5 2 40 YES 1 

100 

3532 0.002858 442243X UP MO MONITEAU CENTERTOWN CO.RD. 0 0 0 0 0 05/06 GT 23 1 

70 NO 1 16 

2941 0.005609 442243X UP MO MONITEAU CENTERTOWN CO.RD. 0 0 0 0 0 FL 23 1 70 NO 1 

16 

3648 0.002466 330029H KCS MO JASPER WACO RD 284 0 0 0 0 0 03/06 GT 24 1 50 YES 2 

5 

2006 0.010483 330029H KCS MO JASPER WACO RD 284 0 0 0 0 0 XB 24 1 50 YES 2 5 

3935 0.001583 442251P UP MO COLE CENTERTOWN CO. RD 0 0 0 0 0 04/06 GT 23 1 70 NO 

1 5 

2596 0.006933 442251P UP MO COLE CENTERTOWN CO. RD 0 0 0 0 0 XB 23 1 70 NO 1 5 
4132 0.000754 861087U BNSF MO RANDOLPH COLLEGE MOU COUN. RT # 0 0 0 0 0 06/06 GT 

3 1 25 NO 1 30 

2695 0.006535 861087U BNSF MO RANDOLPH COLLEGE MOU COUNTY RT # 0 0 0 0 0 XB 10 1 

20 NO 1 30 

4152 0.000503 861085F BNSF MO RANDOLPH COLLEGE MOU COUNTY RT 0 0 0 0 0 06/06 GT 

3 1 25 NO 1 10 

3210 0.004430 861085F BNSF MO RANDOLPH COLLEGE MOU COUNTY RT # 0 0 0 0 0 XB 10 1 

20 NO 1 10 
Hmmm, why do the railroad signal people give a damn who pays for the safety 

lights/gates when they should be in prison for KNOWINGLY letting the railroads 

overcharge for new (really refurbished stolen used junk) and steal existing 

equipment? 
Page 1 of 8 

 Memorandum 

U.S. Department 

Of Transportation 

Research and John A. Volpe 

Special Programs National Transportation Systems Center

Administration 

Subject: Safety at Private Crossings Public Meeting

Fort Snelling, MN 

Date: October 12, 2006 

From: Steven Peck Reply to 

Attn of: RTV-3D 

To: Miriam Kloeppel 

Federal Railroad Administration

 

The first of a series of public meetings on the safety at private highway-rail grade crossings in 

the United States was held on August 30, 2006 in the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building in 

Fort Snelling, MN. Hosted by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Office of Safety, the 

public meetings are being conducted regionally in an effort to start a national discussion on the 

challenging issue of improving safety at the nation’s largely unregulated private highway-rail 

grade crossings. 

Private crossings are owned by private property owners for their personal use, not the use of the 

public. There are over 94,000 private highway-rail grade crossings in the United States that 

provide access to a multitude of different types of properties including residential, agricultural, 

industrial, and commercial. Each type of private crossing can offer its own unique safety 

characteristics and concerns. 

Representatives from Class I railroads, State Agencies (Departments of Transportation), Unions, 

Federal Agencies, Non-profit Organizations, and Industry attended the public meeting to begin 

discussion on the safety at private crossings in an effort to assist the FRA in addressing this long 

standing issue. 

The meeting began with formal introductions and welcoming statements leading directly into a 

brief presentation provided by the FRA. The presentation was utilized as a foundation for the 

meeting by providing background and statistical information regarding private grade crossings in 

the United States. Topics mentioned included the national highway-rail grade crossing 

inventory, examples of unique state responsibilities, Federal responsibilities regarding private 

crossings, private crossing agreement legal makeup, and examples of private crossing safety 

treatments. The presentation ended with a list of topical areas provided to assist in the guidance 

of the discussion. 

Four individuals provided formal statements: 
Page 2 of 8 

Susan Aylesworth, Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT)

Welcome to Minnesota, we are glad you all came and we are honored to be chosen as the first of 

several public meeting locations on this topic. Just by way of information, Minnesota has about 

2,000 - 2,500 private railroad crossings and this interestingly, we do have a rule that talks 

about the appropriate crossing treatment at private crossings, it's just that we don't think we 

have jurisdiction to implement it. That is an interesting quirk that may be unique to Minnesota, 

but our rules do talk about what is appropriate at private crossings and pretty much mirrors what 

we would expect to see at a public railroad crossing. One other issue that we struggle with, and 

maybe some of will you speak to this later, is that we are unsure of what the definition of a 

private crossing is. 

We often times go out and if the public is using a location, we can't be sure whether that public 

use continues on both sides of the track and therefore should be counted as a public crossing or 

whether we should defer and leave it as a private crossing. And sometimes the railroads don't 

know that either. So it will be very interesting to hear what comments people make and what 

issues they raise of course with Quiet Zone this is an issue too so we are looking forward to 

this discussion on this timely topic. 

Bob Vander Clute, Executive Vice President, American Association or Railroads (AAR)

In many cases railroads have no authority to close or relocate private crossings or condition 

the use on the institution of appropriate safety measures. For example, a private crossing may 

exist as the result of a deed granted when the railroad right-of-way was created. Or a state might 

require a railroad to grant farmers "suitable and convenient crossings," that they may continue in 

existence regardless of the frequency of which they are used. 

Another issue is the nature of private crossings might change without the analysis of safety 

implications. A crossing that might only have been used by a land owner when first created 

could turn into a busy residential, industrial or commercial crossing later. If the crossing were a 

public crossing, a diagnostic team might evaluate the consequences of the change in use. In the 

case of a private crossing however, there is no mandate that such an examination take place. 

Typically the users of private crossings should bear the cost of the safety improvements at the 

crossing for the benefit they receive from the crossing; however, it may be appropriate for 

public funding to be provided at private crossings that resemble public crossings. 

In the railroad's experience, insurance requirements do not drive the safety measures undertaken 

at a private crossing. 

Tim DePaepe, Director of Research, Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen (BRS)

Our first comment is that it's our position that the FRA should prohibit the creation of new 

private crossings and work toward eliminating as many existing private crossings as possible. 

However, if the FRA determines that it wants to allow the creation of new private crossings, then 

the new (private) crossings should have at a minimum a set of grade crossing signal system 

flashing light signals. 

You also asked about how the improvement in our maintenance costs with private crossings 

should be allocated. We believe they should be split equally between the state government, 
Page 3 of 8 

federal government and the property owner; however, each case should be evaluated on its own 

merit. There may be some cases where the responsibility allocation should be adjusted. The 

state and federal government, for instance, should split the cost of the crossing warning 

system where school bus or other public transportation entity may utilize the crossing. 

But we believe the state and federal government should assume greater responsibility, you 

know, clearly by -- if no other reason, by the amount of fatalities that are happening. 

We believe that no private crossing should be created in the future unless they are equipped 

with active crossing warning devices. And we also believe there should be nationwide 

standards for warning devices at private crossings and for intersection design. We believe 

they should be patterned after the standards contained in the Manual on Uniform Traffic 

Control Devices, Part 8 which is subtitled Traffic Controls for Highway-Rail Grade Crossings. 

By taking this action, the users of the private crossings will be conditioned to respond to the 

stimuli that they encounter at other highway-rail grade crossings. We believe that there should 

be consistency in the message for the warning so that if there are public or private they get the 

same message and they take -- they take the same behavior. 

It's our position that a private crossing should be defined as one used by a sole land owner or 

lessee. Once any other individuals routinely use the crossing, it should no longer be considered a 

private crossing but as a public crossing. 

We believe it's imperative that any private crossing that serves an industry should be held to 

the same standards for the highway-rail grade crossing signal system requirements. Due to 

the types of trucks and materials that they carry, the severity of an accident at these crossings 

would be greater than an accident between a car and a train. 

We believe you should stick with proven technology and utilize that. 

We believe they (USDOT) should request enactment of legislation to address private crossings. 

At a minimum, the legislation should include the site-line distances, signage requirements and 

grade crossing signal flashing light signals. 

Patty Abbate, Director, Citizens for Rail Safety (CRS)

The subject of railroad safety of these railroad (private) crossings remains such a critical issue 

that we at Citizens for Rail Safety are currently working with professors and researchers at the 

University of Tennessee in a study that is exploring this very subject. Findings and 

recommendations from this study will be released in the fall of 2006. Along with the Federal 

Railroad Administration, we recognize that private railroad grade crossings present a unique set 

of challenges where safety is concerned. The lack of a uniform approach to safety for the nearly 

100,000 private railroad crossings continues to be one of the main reasons why we are still faced 

with a conundrum of how to ensure safety at these sites. Unfortunately accidents and deaths at 

private crossings continue to occur. 
Page 4 of 8 

The rise in rail traffic that economists predict over the next decade will further put safety 

issues to the test at these private crossings. At this time, it is critical that we find a solution to 

the growing safety concerns that loom before us here. We also recognize that all private 

crossings are not created equal. Some are used infrequently and others are used so extensively 

that the term "commercial crossing" should be used instead of private crossing. Private 

crossing rights vary from crossing to crossing with legal rights of ownership and usage 

blurred.

As the railroads, government, private industry and citizens take a closer look at this situation, 

together we need to consider revisiting a recommendation made back in '99 to treat private 

crossings the same as public crossings with all the same safety regulations in place. We need 

to explore public private governmental partnerships to ensure that the most dangerous private 

highway-rail grade crossings are protected with active warning devices. We need to actively 

eliminate the number of private crossings whenever possible. 

The meeting was opened for discussion following the background information and formal 

introductions. Grady Cothen, Acting Associate Administrator for Safety Standards, FRA 

mediated the first half of the meeting, and Anya Carroll, Principal Investigator, Highway-Rail 

Grade Crossing Team, Volpe Center mediated the second half. During the open discussion many 

topics were mentioned and discussed both mediators guided the participants by utilizing the 

topical questions listed in the Federal Register Notice but allowing relevant, divergent discussion 

to materialize. 

At-grade highway-rail crossings present inherent risks to users, including the railroad and 

its employees, and to other persons in the vicinity should a train derail into an occupied 

area or release hazardous materials. When passenger trains are involved, the risks are 

heightened. From the standpoint of public policy, how do we determine whether creation 

or continuation of a private crossing is justified? 

Many attendees stated that the decision making process is lacking nationwide. Each state may 

have unique rules and regulations regarding private crossings and these rules and regulations are 

not always clearly known. Many participants felt that a nationwide process similar to established 

processes for public highway-rail grade crossings are needed. 

In addition, local jurisdictions are urged to keep new developments private in order to alleviate 

the public from assuming responsibility. There may even be financial incentives for new 

developments to stay private. 

• MNDOT: 

o No regulation capability over private crossings with the exception of insured, private 

farm crossings 

o Cost prohibitive to close private crossings 

• Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) 

o Railroads negotiate with private land owners regarding the agreement and installation 

of new private crossings 

o 
Page 5 of 8 

• BRS: 

o Prohibit the creation of new private crossings 

o Eliminating as many existing private crossings as possible 

o New private crossings should have at a minimum a set of grade crossing signal 

system flashing light signals. 

Is the current assignment of responsibility for safety at private crossings effective? To what 

extent do risk management practices associated with insurance arrangements result in 

‘‘regulation’’ of safety at private crossings? 

In many cases as a result of the age and specific arrangements with many of the private crossing 

agreements that have been made, no legal documentation is available to provide a basis for 

negotiations to modify or close the crossings. In some cases, there is no legal documentation 

available that formally acknowledges a private crossing. Insurance issues have not affected or 

restricted private crossing operation. 

• AAR: 

o Insurance requirements do not drive the safety measures undertaken at a private 

crossing. 

How should improvement and/or maintenance costs associated with private crossing be 

allocated? 

Maintenance costs vary depending on the state and legal agreement between the railroads and 

private landowners. In some cases, the cost is split by the railroad and private owner while in 

other cases the railroad is responsible for the cost of maintenance. No organization appears to 

want to assume the financial responsibility associated with maintenance of new private 

crossings. 

• WisDOT: 

o Railroads negotiate new private crossings details directly with private land owner. 

o Local jurisdictions do not want to assume the responsibility of maintenance over 

private crossings. 

• BRS: 

o Split equally between the state government, federal government and the property 

owner (*However, each case evaluated on its own merit). 

o State and federal government should split the cost of the crossing warning system 

where school bus or other public transportation entity may utilize the crossing. 

• AAR: 

o Typically, railroads are responsible to research the original deed and negotiate 

maintenance costs with the private land owners. 
Page 6 of 8 

Is there a need for alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to handle disputes that may 

arise between private crossing owners and the railroads? 

A few states will provide mediation support between railroads and private land owners but the 

majority of cases are dealt with directly between railroads and private land owners or in extreme 

cases, through a court of law. 

• WisDOT: 

o Railroad must negotiate with private owner regarding new private crossings. 

o Railroad responsible to research original deed and negotiate with owner. 

Should the State or Federal government assume greater responsibility for safety at private 

crossings? 

Most states lack the resources for current requirements and desires related to public crossings let 

alone the additional resources that would be required to assume a greater responsibility with 

private crossings. Some states do provide greater guidance and regulation 

Many participants feel that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has limited interest 

regarding highway-rail crossings in general, especially private crossings. This may be a result of 

crossing safety being viewed as low priority at FHWA due to the fact that crossing fatalities are a 

small percent of the total number of highway incidents and there are resource limitations within 

FHWA. 

• WisDOT: 

o State is responsible for 50% of the maintenance cost at public crossings, however 

they are currently paying roughly 25% 

o Lack of funding available for grade separation 

• MNDOT: 

o Mandates that yield signs are installed at all private crossings. 

o Currently spending 25% of available Section 130 funds on public crossing 

improvements. 

o FRA does not have the jurisdiction to enforce regulation on many highway warning 

devices associated with crossing safety. 

Should there be nationwide standards for warning devices at private crossings, or for 

intersection design of new private grade crossings? 

The general consensus was that nationwide standards would be beneficial. The first step would 

be to have an applicable nationwide definition of a private crossing and possibly a means to 

differential the varying types of private crossings. Different states require a varying degree of 

requirements, however, all agree something needs to be done. 

• MNDOT: 

o Mandates that yield signs are installed at all private crossings. 
Page 7 of 8 

How do we determine when a private crossing has a ‘public purpose’ and is subject to 

public use? 

Most participants were in agreement that a clear, nationwide definition of private crossing is 

needed in order to determine if it has a public purpose and subject to public use. In addition to a 

clear definition, the answer may still be difficult to ascertain. In some cases, the users of a 

crossing may vary making it difficult to determine if the public is using the crossing. In other 

cases, there may be unsolicited users such as delivery companies or trespassers. 

There are instances where private crossings provide access to the public for commercial sites on 

private property. In addition, the public may have to utilize a private crossing for seasonal or 

recreational access to a boat ramp or marina. 

• WisDOT: 

o If the roadway on both sides of a crossing is not public, then the crossing is defined as 

a private crossing regardless of who utilizes the crossing. 

Should some private crossings be categorized as “commercial crossings” rather than as 

“private crossings”? 

There were a multitude of private crossing uses discussed in great detail. This list expands 

beyond solely distinguishing commercial crossings. Some categories can be heavily used by the 

public such as commercial, seasonal, and recreational. Others such as industrial or military may 

provide access for heavy trucks and hazardous materials. Each type or category may have a 

unique set of safety concerns. 

Categories mentioned: 

# Category # Category 

1 Agricultural / Farm 7 Government / Public Facilities 

2 Industrial 8 Military 

3 Commercial 9 Railroad Internal Facility 

4 Residential 10 Recreational 

5 Non-Vehicular (e.g. Pedestrian / Bicycle) 11 Seasonal 

6 Institutional (e.g. University) 12 Temporary (e.g. Logging, Construction) 

Are there innovative traffic control treatments that could improve safety at private 

crossings on major rail corridors, including those on which passenger service is provided? 

Most agreed that the implementation of any safety warning devices would be beneficial. There 

was some agreement with the implementation of proven warning devices currently in use as 

opposed to unproven, innovative technologies. The North Carolina Department of 

Transportation experience regarding private warning devices utilized during the work that was 

conducted on their state high-speed rail corridor was referenced as a possible point of 

investigation and data research. 
Page 8 of 8 

Should the Department of Transportation request enactment of legislation to address 

private crossings? If so, what should it include? 

This topic was not fully addressed or discussed in any detail. 

# 

CC: file 

 Grady Cothen 

 Ron Ries 

 Anya Carroll 
Page 1 of 8 

 Memorandum 

U.S. Department 

Of Transportation 

Research and John A. Volpe 

Special Programs National Transportation Systems Center

Administration 

Subject: Safety at Private Crossings Public Meeting 

Raleigh, NC 

Date: October 13, 2006 

From: Steven Peck Reply to 

Attn of: RTV-3D 

To: Miriam Kloeppel 

Federal Railroad Administration

 

The second of a series of public meetings on the safety at private highway-rail grade crossings in 

the United States was held on September 27, 2006 in the McKimmon Conference and Training 

Center, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. Hosted by the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Office of Safety, the public meetings are being conducted regionally in 

an effort to start a national discussion on the challenging issue of improving safety at the nation’s 

largely unregulated private highway-rail grade crossings. This meeting was conducted with the 

focus on engineering treatments to improve safety at private crossings. 

Private crossings are owned by private property owners for their personal use, not the use of the 

public. There are over 94,000 private highway-rail grade crossings in the United States that 

provide access to a multitude of different types of properties including residential, agricultural, 

industrial, and commercial. Each type of private crossing can offer its own unique safety 

characteristics and concerns. 

Representatives from Class I railroads, State Agencies (Departments of Transportation), Unions, 

Federal Agencies, Industry, and concerned citizens attended the public meeting to continue 

discussion on the safety at private crossings in an effort to assist the FRA in addressing this long 

standing issue. 

The meeting began with formal introductions and prepared statements that lead directly into a 

brief presentation provided by the FRA set a basis for the discussion. The presentation was 

utilized as a foundation for the meeting by providing background and statistical information 

regarding private grade crossings in the United States, and briefly surmised key points from the 

first public meeting held in Minnesota on August 30, 2006. 

Five individuals provided formal statements prior to open meeting discussion: 
Page 2 of 8 

Pat Simmons, Director, Rail Division, North Carolina Department of Transportation 

 (NCDOT)

In Washington, as here in Raleigh, in North Carolina, public partnerships are again in vogue, 

and today's topic of dealing with private crossings will, I hope, get us to that topic a little bit as 

well. 

One of the challenges that we have in administering our program is we do not as a state have 

direct authority over private crossings. So that's an area where I'm not seeking more 

responsibility or more authority, but we need tools to improve safety. 

And one of the things that we value a great deal is that we have been able to partner with all of 

these folks to improve safety through elimination of crossings that were redundant or in 

addition to what we normally needed. That's always presented some challenges. 

Paul Worley, Assistant Director, Engineering and Safety, NCDOT

Following a great part of the implementation of Sealed Corridor, the NCDOT has taken the same 

off-the-shelf or clear-minded solutions approach to private crossings on the Raleigh and 

Charlotte border. We emphasized closure and alternate access of possible signalization of high 

volume crossings, signage and even consider new mandates and laws. 

There are many challenges for private crossings, as Miriam mentioned, and some that we see and 

deal with every day. First of all, as a private issue, there are generally no public funds for 

capital improvements on the state or federal level or maintenance beyond special grant funds, 

which we have been fortunate to receive. 

There are varied types. I will name just a few, and you may even have more. Private use 

residential, farm, industrial, plant to plant, railroad, private crossings, and then there are the 

public use crossings residential development, business, industrial, recreational and even golf 

cart crossings, and those are important. 

Private agreements and deeds may cover the crossings and involve multiple parties over many 

years. And then finally resources to maintain an accurate inventory of private crossings in a 

comprehensive manner are not there either at the federal or state level. 

USDOT, railroads through AREMA and AAR, the states through AASHTO, and rail transport 

operators through APTA should collaborate to develop a consistent approach, such as was done 

with the Crossing Technical Work Group document was developed through ITE. 

Stakeholders, federal and state agencies, local government, transit authorities, railroads and 

private crossing owners may eventually need to develop a methodology to share costs 

associated with grade crossing safety treatment, construction and maintenance based on local 

conditions and needs and users. 

Disputes are handled through the courts in the local area which presents a challenge to the 

ruling party, since they can be biased towards the landowner, and litigation is always costly for 

both parties. There is merit in the development of an unbiased committee to determine the 
Page 3 of 8 

outcome of these disputes. Because railroads engage in interstate commerce, dispute resolution 

should be considered for handling at the federal level, perhaps by the FRA through their 

regions, using crossing safety managers in support of the effort. 

Nationwide federal guidelines should be considered for development of our stakeholders 

through AASHTO, AREMA, APTA and the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control 

Devices guidelines, rather than regulation would allow all parties to work through the process 

incrementally and learn accordingly. So if we can work through the process of guidelines and 

best practices, that may be a good approach. Innovative and cost effective approaches should 

be encouraged, researched and tested for the common good. 

A technical working group with identified stakeholders should be considered to develop 

guidelines or criteria that distinguish between a true private crossing versus one that has a public 

purpose. This technical work group can also contribute guidance for warning device selection 

and application for private crossings. 

The categories utilized in the national crossing inventory should be reviewed to differentiate 

between potential traffic volumes and/or service to single versus multiple users at recreational, 

commercial, industrial crossings and residential. 

To date, innovative treatments have not provided either reduced cost or adequate safety 

improvements to justify their use for any but experimental institution in controlled test 

environment. 

There are many issues to resolve prior to making this determination on enactment of 

legislation to address private crossings. Examples include: 

How are all of the users of the crossings going to be determined? 

How can all the agreements be gathered and input into a national database? 

How are private crossings, where agreements cannot be found, to be handled? 

How will all of the dirt/gravel highways be addressed regarding the approaches to private 

crossings? 

How are safety improvements to be funded? 

How are national security concerns for the railroad infrastructure and commodities to be 

addressed? 

Bob Pressley, Senior Project Manager, Gannett Fleming

Our findings of all of these three studies within 313 track miles, we found: 

• 92 private crossings 

 39 provided residential access 

 18 provided access to farms 

 29 provided industrial access 

 6 provided commercial access 

 e. g., Billy Graham radio station 
Page 4 of 8 

• No written agreements recorded in the public land records 

 Norfolk Southern found 25 agreements in their archives 

Warning device Applications 

39 had none, 39 had crossbucks, 5 had gates and locks, 9 had gates and flashers. 

Industrial crossings: 

• Public Service Company of North Carolina operates a propane storage and distribution 

facility 100 tractor trailer loads of propane in during the winter. 

• Ingles Markets, large grocery store chain operating in six states warehouse facility 

located on private crossing. 

• North Carolina, equipment company 

• Low board trucks and trailers 

• Heavy equipment 

• Rankin Fryar, quarry and demolition 

Residential crossings: 

• Serve more than one residence 

• 67 residential units 

• Terrell's Trailer Park 

• 12 units 

• Ethel Lane 

• 18 residential units 

• Stroup Farm 

• Potential to serve 300 acres of farm land proposed for redevelopment as residential 

Solutions can be very expensive. 

Finally, we think there probably is additional study needed, some type of a cost benefit model

probably should be developed to deal with this issue. 

John Perry, West Virginia Public Service Commission

A large number of incidents that occur within our state have been at private crossings, whether 

they are commercial grade or a residential area. 

Tina Medlin, Private Citizen

I basically came today to educate myself, because I am currently affected by improvements in 

the railroad. I have property that borders a railroad that I've had for 20 some-odd 14 years. I 

purchased this property, and my access is a prescriptive easement contained within the railroad 

right-of-way. 

The house had been there since the turn of the century, that's the 1900s, not 2000, but several 

years after I purchased it, I tried to sell it, and then I found that I had no recorded legal access. 

But the attorney said my prescriptive easement was good enough to allow me to continue to 

have access, even though it was unrecorded. 
Page 5 of 8 

In the last two years, the hundred acres to the north of me was purchased by a developer and an 

industrial park is going in. Access to that particular property had been along a dirt road, a 

private crossing, that's going to be the access to the industrial park that's going in. I'm a little 

concerned because the industrial park that is going in next to me has got a siding, so there will 

actually be a crossing across the railroad track and the siding, and it's going to be a reload 

center, where they are taking railroad cars and off loading and then loading them onto other 

trains, loading them onto other 18 wheelers, and there will also be some storage facilities there 

too. 

The prepared statements and presentations led directly into the open discussion focused on 

engineering treatment for safety at private crossings and were moderated by Anya Carroll, 

Principal Investigator, Rail and Transit Systems Division, Volpe Center. 

 

Would it be valuable for a group to establish a base line parameter?

The group believed that a baseline parameter would be valuable and is needed. Outreach would 

need to be made to as many stakeholders as possible and a list of organizations that should be 

involved was drafted. Mention was made of the 2002 Technical Working group that had planned 

to revisit the work in 2007 (five year anniversary). The 2002 Technical Working group had 

diverse audience participation because it held meetings at regional conferences. 

Organizations to be involved: 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

FRA 

Railroads 

Planning Associations 

Track Maintenance 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) 

ITE (2002 Technical Working Group) 

American Association of Railroads (AAR) 

• No one from highway side is helping the improvement 

• AASHTO can be active at supporting the engineering aspects 

Passive Crossing Categorization

In addition, the group discussed categorizing private crossings based on different characteristics. 

The list of categories created at the first meeting in Minnesota was used for reference. Mention 

of terminology be investigated in Canada was also discussed. 

Private Crossing Categories from MN – Desired changes 

Commercial vs. Recreational 

Distinguish between Industrial vs. Low Density 

ADT should be criteria for within Commercial 
Page 6 of 8 

NCDOT 

• Military - public access roads within the military base; versus you have military purpose 

roads, where you have tanks and other heavy equipment. [Equipment vs. Nonequipment] 

• Should use ADT and types of traffic to differentiate within a private crossing category 

(e.g. Commercial Wall-mart vs. Commercial mom & pop television repair shop). 

• Restricted vs. unrestricted could be determined by the presence of a gate. 

SPURLOCK 

• Should look into using the description restricted and unrestricted that Transport Canada is 

utilizing 

o Restricted would be somebody's really private property 

o Unrestricted - This would be going into industrial yard. 

• Frequency of use could be another way to categorize. 

Data Collection

What the best method and who should be responsible for passive crossing data collection was 

discussed. 

NCDOT 

• NC collects commercial versus industrial and residential, recreational, institutional. 

• States are in the best position to collect data regarding private crossings. 

• There are issues with training University students to collect data 

• Safety concerns when entering private property 

Distinguish Public from Private Crossings

A means to distinguish a private crossing from a public crossing was addressed. 

FRA 

• Changing from private to public could be confusing and cause funding issues. 

• Best approach is to create sub-categories for private crossings 

• Private crossings with public access and no gates could mean ok for public use 

• Ownership of land not the number of vehicles that utilize a crossing determines whether 

it is public or private. 

Engineering Design Suggestions

There were many views and suggestions regarding what would be considered optimal 

engineering implementations. Currently there is no uniformity on signage being implemented. 

There are also currently no proven Intelligent Transportation Systems technologies available to 

address the issue. Current safety treatments mentioned ranged from the State of California and 

three Class I railroads installing “STOP” signs at private crossings to some Class I railroads 

installing their own warning signs. All agreeing that crossing closure would be the best scenario 

although not usually an option. 
Page 7 of 8 

NCDOT 

• Closure is ideal however the right-of-way would need to be acquired to achieve closure 

• Issues determine the use of STOP or YIELD sign 

• Difficultly with geometrics – especially approaches on private property 

o Evaluate each location 

o Private crossings often have to follow their geometry 

• Consider that you have to stay on Right-of-way if you are using public funds (with 

exceptions). 

• Developers should be subject to certain standards at private crossings 

CSX 

• Property rights acquisition 

o Condemn order 

o Compensate / negotiate with owner 

o Relocate access point 

Norfolk Southern: 

Stop signs give opportunity to see if a train is coming vs. a yield sign when vehicle is 

moving. 

Treatment Options by Crossing Type

Currently implemented engineering safety treatments that are utilized at public crossings were 

discussed by type, Passive and Active. The application of public crossing standards to private 

crossing was made. 

Passive Crossing 

• Lockable gates (e.g. seasonal, storage, etc.) 

• Signage 

o STOP signs (e.g. CA and three Class I railroads) 

o YIELD signs 

o LOOK signs 

o Pavement markings – STOP bar 

o Unique Railroad company signs (e.g. BNSF sign) 

Active Crossings 

• Hump crossing signs 

• Agreement with Railroad and Industry regarding large volume vehicles and types of 

vehicles 

• Railroad check list for priority 

Crossing Separation

Grade separation was discussed briefly. All agreed that there are usually financial restrictions to 

grade separation. One example between a major industrial location and the railroads was sited at 

a cost of $5-25 million to complete. 
Page 8 of 8 

How can the Railroad ask for Limited Access?

CSX 

NY State – a high-speed rail line has the authority to deny usage of private crossings. 

# 

CC: file 

Grady Cothen 

 Ron Ries 

 Anya Carroll 
Page 1 of 9 

 Memorandum 

U.S. Department 

Of Transportation 

Research and John A. Volpe 

Special Programs National Transportation Systems Center

Administration 

Subject: Safety at Private Crossings Public Meeting 

San Francisco, CA 

Date: November 24, 2006 

From: Steven Peck and Anya A. Carroll Reply to 

Attn of: RTV-3D 

To: Miriam Kloeppel 

Federal Railroad Administration

 

The third of a series of public meetings on the safety at private highway-rail grade crossings in 

the United States was held on October 26, 2006 in the Philip Burton Federal Building and 

Courthouse, San Francisco, CA. Hosted by the US DOT’s Federal Railroad Administration 

(FRA), Office of Safety, the public meetings are being conducted regionally in an effort to start a 

national discussion on the challenging issue of improving safety at the nation’s largely 

unregulated private highway-rail grade crossings. This meeting was conducted with the focus on 

responsibilities for safety at private crossings. 

Private crossings are owned by private property owners for their personal use, not the use of the 

public. There are over 94,000 private highway-rail grade crossings in the United States that 

provide access to a multitude of different types of properties including residential, agricultural, 

industrial, and commercial. Each type of private crossing can offer its own unique safety 

characteristics and concerns. 

Representatives from Class I railroads, State Agencies (Departments of Transportation), Unions, 

Federal Agencies, Industry, and concerned citizens attended the public meeting to continue 

discussion on the safety at private crossings in an effort to assist the FRA in addressing this long 

standing issue. 

The meeting began with formal introductions and welcoming speeches by the honorable Clifford 

C. Eby, Deputy Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration and Mr. Vahak Petrossian, 

Manager, Rail Transit and Crossing Branch, California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). 

Following Deputy Administrator Eby and Mr. Petrossian, there were two prepared statements, 

one from the CPUC and the other from the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) 

that lead directly into a brief presentation provided by the FRA used to set a basis for the 

discussion. The presentation was utilized as a foundation for the meeting and briefly 

summarized key points from the previous two public meetings held in Minnesota and North 

Carolina. The ensuing open discussion was structured to address the issue of responsibility 

through the use of case study examples and hypothetical situations. 

Summary of the formal statements prior to the open meeting discussion: 
Page 2 of 9 

Vahak Petrossian, Manager, Rail Transit & Crossings Branch, California Public Utilities 

Commission (CPUC)

Private crossing, it's a major issue, and unfortunately, the major problem is the private 

property owners who don't participate in these proceedings. They are the ones that I 

think need to be heard, need to participate, and take responsibility for a lot of the private 

crossings on the railroad. Fifty years ago the crossing was established, there was nothing 

there, maybe one farmhouse and over the years we continue with it. We think that the 

folks who give authority to a new development, whether it's the city government, the 

local governments giving business licenses or something, they also have a 

responsibility to address railroad safety. 

Daren Gilbert, Supervisor, Rail Crossings Engineering Section, California Public Utilities 

Commission (CPUC)

The CPUC exercises rail safety oversight over railroads in California under the California 

Public Utilities Code and under the State Participation Program with the USDOT Federal 

Railroad Administration. The CPUC also has exclusive jurisdiction over highway rail 

crossings in the State. Specifically, in regards to private crossings, the CPUC has the 

authority to determine the necessity for any private crossing and the place, manner, 

and conditions under which the crossing shall be constructed and maintained, and to 

fix and assess the costs and expenses of that crossing. 

The Commission's General Order 75 (D) contains administrative rules governing the 

standardization and use of warning devices at highway-rail crossings, and has an entire 

regulation directed at warning devices at private highway rail crossings. It requires a 

minimum of a stop and private crossing sign posted on each approach to the private 

highway-rail crossing. General Order 75 (D) also requires a written agreement be 

developed to authorize the crossing between the parties. 

Unless the approaches to the private crossings are controlled, for example, by locked 

gates or at least posted as private property, the public, for example, may be using it, 

therefore, individuals other than the invitee, guests, and employees of the property owner 

may use with or without permission many private crossings. Furthermore, if a private 

crossing is publicly used, such as ones that provide access to a business, then the general 

public is exposed to the same level of hazard as with any other public crossing. Anytime 

there is a probability that the public may be exposed to harm by a private crossing, it 

becomes a public safety issue requiring diagnostic review and special consideration. In 

such cases, state government oversight of the crossing is appropriate. 

Currently, the railroads and private crossing owners share the liability for the safety at 

private crossings, the property owners share an interest in minimizing their exposure to 

financial liability. Because there are few controls at most private crossings assuring 

usage by only authorized parties, the use of the private crossings can change over time. 

We are not confident that such changes in use would be identified in a timely manner 

and addressed by the railroad or the landowner. 
Page 3 of 9 

We recommend some mechanism where the State or local government identifies 

increased or changed land use in landlocked parcels through permitting or project 

approval to identify such changes in the dynamics in the highway-rail grade crossing and 

its use. The best time to determine an increase in motor vehicle, bicycle, or pedestrian 

usage at railroad crossings is when the developer seeks approval of new commercial or 

residential projects. For the past three years, the CPUC has been reviewing proposed 

developments, and concerning potential impact on public safety under the California 

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 

Under CEQA, the lead agency for the proposed development is required to respond to 

public comments concerning the project. There are, however, many instances where we 

are not aware of private crossings, and therefore, cannot make specific 

recommendations. As to costs, generally, allocation of improvement and/or maintenance 

costs is agreed to by the landowner and railroad as parties entering into the legal 

instrument establishing the private crossing. We believe this is appropriate. In 

California, where the landowner and railroad do not agree, the Commission may 

apportion such costs. 

The CPUC allows for administrative legal review by public hearing in crossing matters. 

Administrative law judges hear crossing cases and prepare proposed decisions for 

consideration by the Commission. The CPUC has its own alternative dispute resolution 

mechanism. The issues involved with private crossings include property rights, contract 

law, and the safety responsibility for the traveling public, all of which have traditionally 

been within the State's responsibility. 

Many of the grants of rights-of-way in California were created in the 19th century at the 

time of the initial railroad line construction. Both the rights-of-way and the crossing 

agreements may be found in deeds of trust, quit claim deeds, and other contractual 

arrangements between the railroads and landowners subject to the laws of the State of 

California. Therefore, we strongly recommend keeping the responsibility of the safety 

of private crossings with the States. The FRA may issue guidelines, for the benefit of 

States that do not have laws on this subject and provide recommended language for laws 

and regulations. However, the CPUC contends that public and private crossing safety 

regulation is too dependent on State law and real property and contracts law, and is too 

focused on regional issues and concerns to permit Federal preemption of the topic. 

Recommended Federal guidelines may be valuable, wholesale federal preemption is not. 

In California, private crossing design is generally specified between the railroad and the 

landowner in the crossing agreement. In cases where a private crossing is used by the 

public or trains carrying hazardous material or passenger trains, existing guidelines 

for public crossings should be used. 

In other cases, we recommend the FRA invite a group of experts to develop guidelines 

for the design of private crossings, similar to the highway-rail grade crossing technical 

working group that issued the guidance on traffic control devices at public highway 

rail grade crossings. 
Page 4 of 9 

Where crossings allow unfettered access of passage and routinely invite the general 

public to use the crossing, a public purpose has been established. In such cases, 

guidelines for crossing treatments should be the same as used for public crossing.

Public uses of crossings, which could be classified as private, include crossings at 

shopping centers and malls, which are generally private property, crossings to public 

facilities, such as landfills, recreational areas and other unrestricted public lands, 

private roads to residences, such as mobile home parks, residential subdivisions and 

private country clubs, and other businesses and commercial enterprises offering goods 

or services to the public, such as Christmas tree lots or nurseries. 

It is extremely difficult to police the usage of each private crossing. Consequently, the 

private property owner must be given the incentive to upgrade the warning devices at the 

crossing when the usage changes. Financial liability, in case of a collision, is one 

incentive for private property owners to provide proper warning devices at a crossing, but 

generally not a compelling one until after an incident occurred. Any guidelines on 

private crossings considered for adoption should address the changes in use over time 

and provide for re-evaluation. 

California does not believe a distinction should be made between a commercial and 

private crossing. California treats the crossing as a private crossing, but this may require 

greater protections to pedestrians or the motoring public, through the addition of 

improved safety warning devices similar to or identical to public crossings. 

 

We believe that FRA has taken appropriate steps to solicit public comment on the matter 

to determine the scope of the relevant issues relating to private crossings. It would be 

premature to consider adoption of new legislature regarding private crossings until the 

comments of the interested parties are made and considered. Only then will an 

assessment of regulatory gaps be able to be fully reviewed and potential solutions 

considered. 

In our opinion, all private crossings should be provided with the same level of warning 

devices as public ones based on the use and geometry of the crossing. The danger 

posed by a private and a public crossing on high speed passenger rails are basically 

similar, since passengers, as well as bicyclists, pedestrians and motorists are placed at 

risk. Likewise, freight trains carrying hazardous materials have similar potential for the 

dangerous release of those hazardous materials at both private and public crossings. 

California contends that existing protections, particularly under State law, are 

sufficient to protect the traveling public provided appropriate criteria for providing 

warning devices are used for both public and private crossings. The Commission 

recommends that the FRA assist in the formation of a technical working group to 

prepare general guidelines for identifying dangerous private crossings and recommend 

guidelines to be considered in upgrading or designing such crossings. 
Page 5 of 9 

Steve Cates, Chief, Office of Rail Equipment and Track Construction, California 

Department of Transportation (CalTrans)

In California, we have accidents at private crossings, probably 40 or 50 of them a year. 

And they cause delays, death, and damage to private property, and that's something that I 

would like to see addressed. 

CalTrans provides inner city rail service. We carry over four-and-a-half million 

passengers a year on three different routes. Currently we own 88 rail cars and 17 

locomotives. We have a rail highway grade crossing improvement program with many 

different funding sources. There is the Federal 1010, 1103 funds for crossing 

improvements and high speed rail corridors. We have the Federal section 130 funds that 

are provided through the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA). Those are for improvements on public crossings. And we also 

have a program here in California, a Section 190 grade separation program. And by the 

way, our 130 and 190 programs are jointly administered with the CPUC. These 

programs provide over $35 million a year to improvement of safety at grade crossings. 

And we also contribute about $ 60,000 a year to Operation Lifesaver. 

Here are some statistics about California. We have about 12,400 grade crossings; 4,500 

of those or about 36 percent are private crossings, the remainder (about 7,700) are 

public crossings. We have about 150 crashes at grade crossings every year in California. 

A hundred and thirty of those are public crossings, about 20 of those a year are at private 

crossings. And of those 20, two to three involve a passenger train. 

The State doesn't have a specific financial aide program to improve private crossings, 

although we do have a PUC in California which fortunately has regulatory authority over 

the private crossings. We have used Federal 1010 and 1103 funding for high speed rail 

corridor to consolidate and close private crossings. 

The railroad and private crossing owner have shared the cost of most of these 

improvements and the costs were primarily to install, like concrete crossing panels. 

When CalTrans move forward and upgrade tracks, put in double tracks or triple tracks or 

whatever, we'll replace and upgrade the cross bucks and that sort of thing, at private 

crossings. But State funds have not been used to directly pay for these improvements. 

We structure our contracts and agreements so the funds don't go through the railroad and 

through the private crossing owner. Most private crossings don't have train-activated 

warning devices and have poor crossing surfaces and approaches to the crossing. 

I believe that the FRA or some Federal agency should take a leadership role in 

developing some standards or guidelines for crossing protection, consolidation, and 

clear, safe private crossings. We need to take a look at low cost warning devices. The 

guidelines, I believe, should be similar to those that are put forth in the manual of 

uniform traffic control devices (MUCTD). 

I think that the Federal Railroad Administration should take a more pro-active 

approach to provide funding for improvements at private crossings. And they, in fact, 
Page 6 of 9 

have done so through the Section 1010 and 1103 program where we're allowed to use 

funds to make improvements to private crossings, particularly in the area of closure and 

consolidation. I would look forward to an increase in funding through that program, with 

funds distributed on some type of formula basis to provide a stable funding mechanism 

so we could go in and close, consolidate, and improve crossings in these high speed rail 

corridors, particularly private crossings, and we would reduce the risks that are associated 

with those crossings. I think that this program should be restructured to include 

demonstration projects. A reasonable working group or some other working group that 

would identify projects to test the feasibility of new technologies. 

(Question: Do you have some set guidelines or policies that you use in determining 

which private crossings would be subject for closure or grade separation? How do 

you make those decisions?) It's been pretty much opportunistic. The railroads are 

knowledgeable as to who might be more readily interested in improving those crossings. 

So I think they're kind of the experts on private crossings on their tracks, but all of the 

work we've done, other than when we're going through an upgrading or putting in new 

tracks, it's just been purely kind of opportunistic.

The prepared statements and presentations led directly into the open discussion focused on 

crossing responsibility. The format of the discussion was based around a series of case studies 

and hypothetical scenarios that were moderated by Anya Carroll, Principal Investigator, Rail and 

Transit Systems Division, Volpe Center. 

Case Studies

What rights are assigned to the holder of a long-established prescriptive easement? Does 

the developer/railroad have responsibilities toward the affected crossing holder? If so, 

what? Do State governments (outside the court systems) bear a responsibility for crossings 

created via prescriptive easements? 

The State of California does not permit crossings by prescriptive rights. California is 

addressing crossing issues through the environmental document process. This process 

does provide a dispute resolution forum and procedure. The State of Washington does 

witness prescriptive easements however the representative present was unaware of the 

legal issues surrounding them. 

Who bears responsibility for safety at the crossing, the developer, homeowners, or 

railroad? If a city or county chooses to convert it to a public crossing, who is responsible 

for reporting this to the State and railroad? Who will know, and when, regarding land 

development? 

There are publics hearings held for zoning changes however prior experience is that cities 

and towns do not consider the impact on the crossing. California has been requesting 

additional funding and staff in an effort to get more involved in this process and meet 

with local planners to address rail safety. However, many stakeholders learn of crossing 

issues when there is an incident or a complaint. Caltrans: In California, it is illegal to 

widen crossings and not the roadway approaches resulting in bottlenecks. There is a 

strict timeline for response that the State must respond within and the environmental team 
Page 7 of 9 

must evaluate and comment on impacts of crossings (new and upgrades). Union Pacific 

(UP) Railroad: California is the only state that is addressing this issue. Caltrans and 

the CPUC are extremely helpful to the railroad companies regarding applications for new 

crossings. 

If a private crossing is converted to a public crossing, who is notified? 

Both California and Washington State have similar, formal processes that must be 

followed. In California, the CPUC can approve an application without a hearing. 

Washington State uses the process to diagnose and evaluate crossings for elimination. 

UP Railroad: In most states, the railroad is not notified. If they were notified, it would 

be a good opportunity to promote rail safety at crossings in the general proximity. 

Is there a process for identifying the crossing holder? Can the crossing be closed by the 

railroad? Are there statutory or regulatory restrictions that govern this situation? 

The only current processes used for identifying the crossing holder is research and 

posting notification of closure at a crossing. In California, there is a well defined 

regulatory process for posting a closure notice.

Hypothetical Scenarios

What if the US DOT establishes a requirement that every private crossing have a standard 

formal agreement. Crossings for which an agreement cannot be found or created will be 

closed. 

The state of California requires a written agreement for private crossings. This 

requirement would be expensive for the railroad companies. There is also a legal issue 

with existing deeds. 

Standard formal agreements could be customized. Who would maintain agreements? 

Any deed, or formal agreement should be filed in the county records office and a copy 

should be held by both parties in the agreement. Caltrans: There are issues (e.g. 

emergency service) with trying to close private crossings used by land locked property 

with no other access. Would land locked property be exempt? Leave control to the 

States, not the Federal Government.

What if a new independent Federal agency (similar to the Surface Transportation Board) 

were created to oversee the resolution of private crossing disputes? 

The State of California has a dispute resolution process in place. Federal recommendations 

or guidelines would assist states that do not currently have a dispute resolution process 

however local interests will not want to deal with the Federal government. CPUC: CA has to 

threaten private owners with crossing closure to get private owners involvement. Control 

needs to be left with the states, not the Federal government.
Page 8 of 9 

What if the US DOT provided guidance or standards on crossing design and warning 

device implementation at private crossings? 

CPUC: The Federal government should use the same guidelines from public crossings 

for private crossings. The minimum warning device requirement at a private crossing 

should be a stop sign and private crossing sign. This is the mandated minimum in 

California. 

Stop signs and private crossing signs are standard at most private crossings across the 

United States (default). How do we feel about stop vs. yield signs as the default? 

The National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD) is currently 

discussing this issue, the use of signage for private roadways with public use (e.g. 

shopping center). The MUTCD should be followed. CPUC: The MUTCD states the 

minimum requirements when federal funds are used on public roadways. Encourage 

public roadway authority to take over private crossings with public usage. 

Caltrans: At private crossings this should be a railroad requirement because it will be on 

the railroad right-of-way. AAR: The cost effectiveness of any implementation needs to 

be investigated (resource expenditure vs. safety improvement). 

What if organizations such as American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials (AASHTO), American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association 

(AREMA), and the NCUTCD were to include sections on private crossings in all existing 

guidance and standards documents? 

The meeting participants agreed that the inclusion of additional guidance for private 

crossings safety in existing guidance and standards documents could be beneficial. If a 

private crossing with public use is not identified and converted to a public crossing, it 

could potentially have increased safety risk if it were to be equipped with safety 

treatments based on private crossing guidance. METROLINK: More guidance the better, 

however increased funding is required. CPUC: Guidance should be based on usage of 

the crossing and the frequency and speed of trains that traverse the crossing. Specialty 

guidance could be used to establish minimum guidelines for low volume/specialty 

crossings.

What if the railroads were to require all private crossing holders to obtain liability 

insurance? 

The railroads do not always have the legal right to require private crossing holders to 

obtain liability insurance. This right depends on the contract or agreement between the 

railroads and the private holders. UP Railroad: It is not easy to get these types of 

liability policies. 

What if a Federal Agency (FRA or other) established a process governing the creation, 

evaluation, and improvement of private crossings? 

CPUC: This is the formula for preemption. Preemption is not the answer. The Federal 

Transit Authority (FTA) has the state safety oversight process. If a state does not have a 

process, they must adopt the federal process. If a Federal agency (FRA or other) 

establishes a process, it is not going to improve safety at private crossings. 
Page 9 of 9 

What if the ultimate responsibility for safety at private crossings resided with State 

Agencies? 

California and Washington believe the responsibility currently resides with State 

Agencies and should remain that way. The North Carolina Department of 

Transportation’s use of funding incentives (Section 1010 & 1103 HSR) to close private 

crossings during their Sealed Corridor Program was referenced for others to investigate. 

UP Railroad: There needs to be additional guidance and incentives for closure and 

improvements. The Federal government’s important role is in policy and consolidation 

and closure policy.

What if the ultimate responsibility for safety at private crossings resided with the 

railroads? 

The two railroad companies present UP Railroad and Norfolk Southern Corporation 

stated that railroads do not have the ability to control crossing usage and they have no 

regulatory authority at crossings. 

What if a private crossing were categorized based on traffic levels and type of use? 

General consensus was that basing categorization on traffic levels and type of use is not 

a good idea. It would be extremely difficult to develop a threshold and remain 

committed. What would this threshold be and how would you calculate it? 

Categorization would need to be tied to some goal. UP Railroad: Categorization based 

on traffic level and type of use would hinder crossing consolidation. UP Railroad would 

caution the FRA regarding the use of traffic levels for categorization. 

What data to collect to support analysis? How to collect it? 

Caltrans: There are no resources to collect private crossing data. California can not 

collect public crossing information and there are twice as many private crossings. 

How do we simplify the problem? E.g. Survey form for locomotive engineers, satellite data, 

or use Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to collect information. 

CPUC: Consider new funding similar to Section 130 Funding for private crossing 

improvements. There should be certain criteria to meet and address regarding private 

crossings. Caltrans: Global Positioning Systems (GPS) and aerial photography are 

limited. Interplant and industrial crossings would not get any info from GPS. Frequently 

those crossings are on private roads. Volpe Center: A recent study on the San Joaquin 

HSR Corridor looking at data gathering techniques will be released shortly by the FRA 

Office of Research & Development. That report provides information on data gathering 

techniques in California on the San Joaquin HSR corridor by Caltrans. 

# 

CC: file 

Grady Cothen 

 Ron Ries 

 Anya Carroll 
Page 1 of 11 

 Memorandum 

U.S. Department 

Of Transportation 

Research and John A. Volpe 

Special Programs National Transportation Systems Center

Administration 

Subject: Safety at Private Crossings Public Meeting 

New Orleans, LA 

Date: December 26, 2006 

From: Steven Peck and Anya A. Carroll Reply to 

Attn of: RTV-3D 

To: Miriam Kloeppel 

Federal Railroad Administration

 

The fourth of a series of public meetings on the safety at private highway-rail grade crossings in 

the United States was held on December 6, 2006 in the Chateau Sonesta New Orleans Hotel 

conference center, New Orleans, LA. Hosted by the US DOT’s Federal Railroad Administration 

(FRA), Office of Safety, the public meetings are being conducted regionally in an effort to start a 

national discussion on the challenging issue of improving safety at the nation’s largely 

unregulated private highway-rail grade crossings. This meeting was conducted with the focus on 

responsibilities for safety at private crossings. 

Private crossings are owned by private property owners for their personal use, not the use of the 

public. There are over 94,000 private highway-rail grade crossings in the United States that 

provide access to a multitude of different types of properties including residential, agricultural, 

industrial, and commercial. Each type of private crossing can offer its own unique safety 

characteristics and concerns. 

Representatives from Class I railroads, State Agencies (Departments of Transportation), Unions, 

Federal Agencies, Industry, and concerned citizens attended the public meeting to continue 

discussion on the safety at private crossings in an effort to assist the FRA in addressing this long 

standing issue. 

The meeting began with formal introductions and welcoming speeches by Mr. Grady Cothen, 

Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Safety, Federal Railroad Administration and Mr. 

Richard Savoie, P.E., Deputy Chief Engineer, Louisiana Department of Transportation and 

Development (LADOTD). Following Deputy Associate Administrator Cothen and Mr. Savoie, 

Ms. Miriam Kloeppel conducted a brief overview presentation on behalf of the FRA to provide a 

basis for the public meeting. Five prepared statements were then given by: the Louisiana 

Operation Lifesaver, the Rio Grande Pacific Corporation, Railroad Controls Limited, the 

Association of Trial Lawyers of America, and on behalf of himself, John Van Mol, Farmer. The 

statements lead directly into the open discussion. The ensuing open discussion was structured to 

address the issue of private crossing data elements through a description of currently available 

data, current uses for the data and hypothetical scenarios for additional desired data and usage. 
Page 2 of 11 

Summary of the formal statements prior to the open meeting discussion: 

Richard Savoie, Chief Engineer, Louisiana Department of Transportation and 

Development (DOTD) spoke first. In Louisiana, for public crossings we have a federal 

regulation that says: "Public roads means any road under the jurisdiction of and maintained 

by public authority and open to public travel is declared as public via public authority vote, 

resolution, or some other legal means, and the local road authority has maintained the road 

on both sides of the crossing over the past three years." Private crossings -- is a crossing 

where the property on both sides or at least one side of the railroad track is private property. 

Public authority responsibility: Advance warning signs and pavement markings shall be 

maintained in accordance with the MUTCD, the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 

at public crossings. But there's no authority at private crossings. 

In Louisiana, as I mentioned, we have a total of 9,079 crossings. Of those, 3250 are public, 2787 

are private, and since 1976, 866 were closed and 2,176 have been abandoned. Of those 2787 

private crossings, 1690 are to private farms. We have a lot of farm industry in Louisiana. 

Three hundred forty-three (343) are at a private residence, 26 are to private recreation, 678 to 

private industry, and 50 pedestrian. We typically rank in the top five of railroad-crossing 

crashes and fatalities nationwide. But as of the first half of 2006, I'm pleased to announce that 

Louisiana is now tenth in the nation. It's not a good thing, but we're moving in the right 

direction. Grade-crossing collisions are usually caused by motorist error... the state troopers 

came to our defense and they said ninety-eight to ninety-nine percent is driver error. This pie 

chart is cut up: Did not stop, 49%, Stopped on tracks, 26%, Drove around the gates, 12%, 

Stopped and didn't proceed 7%, and other, 6%. So you can see from this it really tells a bleak 

story of what the drivers do when it comes to crossings. 

Grade-crossing warning devices upgrades work, it cut the accident fatality rate by 93%. 

Louisiana has a revised statute: 48:390.1 was modified to give Department of Transportation 

authority to close existing public crossings on non-state-maintained highways. On the 

Department of Transportation closure criteria, greater than four crossings per mile in a rural area, 

less than 2,000 vehicles per day and less than two trains per day. When alternative routes are 

available, (we should avoid) skewed angle crossings that present hazards, curved tracks and 

complex crossings, those with multiple tracks and long switching periods causing blocked 

crossings. Those are the things we would like to attack. 

When it comes to the 9,000 total crossings, the 1331 public crossings without warning devices, 

if we were to install signals at those locations, it would cost us between two hundred to four 

hundred million dollars. At $8 million a year, it would take us twenty-five to fifty years to 

address. We are working with mayors and public entities to close some of these crossings. 

Ms. Betsey Tramonte, Executive Director, Louisiana Operation Lifesaver spoke next. We 

were asked to come here today to discuss what private crossings mean to Operation Lifesaver. 

Our national mission statement says: "Operation Lifesaver is a nonprofit international 

continuing public education program, first established in 1972, to end collisions, deaths, and 

injuries at places where roadways cross train tracks and on railroad rights-of-way." There's 

no distinction between a public roadway and a private roadway. We have trained and certified 

speakers that provide free safety training for various professions and all age groups to increase 
Page 3 of 11 

public safety around railroad tracks. In summary, looking at public crossings versus private 

crossings, Operations Lifesaver's goal is to stop crashes at places where roadways cross train 

tracks. Our organization educates the public on safety at all highway-rail grade crossings 

independent of the highway's owner. 

Mary Beth Meyer, Christovich & Kearney law firm spoke next. We have been counsel to 

the New Orleans and Gulf Coast Railway Company, in particular Rio Grande Railway 

Corporation in New Orleans. And we're here today because in many ways this railroad is sort 

of a poster child for the problems that railroads are facing with private crossing issues. 

What we have within New Orleans and Gulf Coast railroads is a small railroad company, shortline railroad, small business, who is trying to deal with closing private crossings and has had a 

very difficult time of it in -- on every front, basically. 

When Rio Grande acquired this railroad in 1999, there were 276 at-grade crossings. How do we 

know there were that many? We created an inventory.... to define exactly what kind of 

crossings we had, and this map maps out each and every one of these. We have an inventory list 

that defines exactly what kind of use all of these crossings are put to: Private, industrial, 

commercial, and multifamily residential. We have a very limited or no-access issue for a lot of 

the length of this line. Entergy faced difficulties with implementing a permitting program: very, 

very high resistance from local landowners into entering agreements or agreeing to consolidate 

crossings. We have worked out an agreement with the landowner-developer only to have the 

landowner turn around and go to the local government, in this case the parish, to have it 

declared a public crossing and then basically renege on all the agreements they had made 

about signage, controls, passive controls. 

The railroad serves a number of refinery customers in the parish and a large grain elevator near 

the terminus of a line and is an important contributor to the local economy and commerce in the 

area. We're not finding a very welcoming environment from the local authorities in trying to 

implement some of the proposals that we've made about crossing consolidations. 

So over the years we've had a problem of changing use and also a failure to properly police. 

We have very few crossing agreements in place. Most of those are with our commercial and 

industrial users, and we have had very good cooperation for the most part in the industrial and 

commercial, the Kmart, the -- you know, large users. 

We are currently involved in litigation over this situation because of the strong resistance that 

we have gotten from local landowners. We've filed a federal lawsuit that was recently, after 

being maintained for several years and at great expense, near the trial to be dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction by the federal court. There is the lack of federal standards and regulations 

addressing this in any way have really hampered the railroad's effort to deal with landowners. 

We also found it very difficult to establish jurisdiction based on other federal regulations created 

by the local laws which a lot of people have been relying on to get these crossings. And they say

they're entitled to them out of necessity because they're enclosed properties. 
Page 4 of 11 

One of the safety issues that we have faced and identified in this situation is a real conflict with 

the track maintenance and regulations and standards that are on the books. What we have is 

a nightmare in trying to do any kind of programmed maintenance. These crossings create 

drainage problems, they cause premature deterioration of the crossties, and really have a very 

substantial negative impact on the maintenance and the stability of the underlying roadbed. 

We need some help in a regulatory sense, because there are no standards to point to. There is no 

voice out there saying private crossings are safety hazards and they're disfavored, and if you 

need a crossing, you, user, it is up to you to really show you have some sort of entitlement or 

right, some need, no alternative, and that you've exhausted all of your state property rights in 

order -- against your ancestors' entitled to get a passage across the tracks. We have found is the 

lack of regulation has not just been the neutral. It has really hurt us in trying to bring home 

the importance of limiting the number of crossings. 

And we obviously need some standards for how these are built and how they are protected, and 

we are looking for a uniform national approach we think is appropriate to drive home the 

importance of the safety aspects. We have handled this in a responsible way and have responded 

to the challenge to close crossings, but without the tools to do that, we are very severely limited. 

Richard Bertel, Chairman and CEO of Rio Grande Pacific Corporation, Fort Worth, the 

parent company of the New Orleans and Gulf Coast railroad spoke next. Rio Grande has 

four railroads. We operate in six states, and the NOGC is the smallest in terms of miles of the 

railroads that we operate. We are a very small business, operating in a heavily regulated 

environment that is very hostile, particularly in Louisiana. We have 276, or we had 276 

(crossings) when we took over. We serve a Chevron refinery and a bulk terminal at Marrero. 

Some of the miles on our railroad exceed thirty crossings the mile. Over the last two years, 

we've spent about $600,000 in legal expense, gone through discovery, gone to court without so 

much as getting a hearing, and we get turned back to the state courts, where the outcome is 

foregone as far as I can see. For a small railroad with this much traffic in hazardous material, 

we think that these scarce resources could have been applied more efficiently with the 

application of just a modicum of reason and common sense. We have had a high level of 

cooperation with the refineries, the large commercial entities, and the people that provide the 

jobs in the community (to close crossings). 

Some conclusions that I've tried to put together: It's imperative that we start to recognize that 

the railroads are in fact interstate highways of commerce. And that's confirmed by many years 

of ICC and SCC doctrine, which requires this. Railroads should have the right, if given the 

responsibility via safety mandate of the FRA, to control what goes on over, under, around, and 

through our railroad rights-of-way. No one should be able to build or alter the track structure 

without our consent and permission. 

But let me leave you with a hypothetical solution that may bear some discussion or it may not.

So let's assume the following: There's 90,000 private crossings in the United States, $150,000 a 

crossing you could actively protect them, that's about $13 billion, we'll call it 15 billion, FRA 

allocates $15 billion to the state DOTs purposes of adding active warning protection to all 

private crossings, the DOTs will have to determine the need based upon federal guidelines, the 
Page 5 of 11 

railroads will build and maintain the crossings, users of the private crossings would pay the state 

DOTs an interest rental based on the investment. 

What's the cost benefit - If the DOTs can close crossings, they get to keep the money, and the 

interest rental that the stakeholders pay to use the crossings would go into a fund for the 

maintenance of these private crossings in the future administered by the states. 

It would take five years to do all this, to protect all these crossings, $3 billion a year for five 

years one time, and you could take the money out of the RIF program. 

o The federal government would get its desired objective of fewer crossing accidents 

o The state DOTs would get massive new bureaucracies around the country 

o The railroads would get crossing protection 

o My insurance premiums hopefully would go down 

o The person who actually uses the crossings would have to pay 

Finally, we appreciate the FRA declaring a safety emergency in Louisiana to stop the insanity 

of the state and local inaction on the subject of private crossings. 

Rick Campbell, Railroad Controls, Limited spoke next. Private crossings are an issue that we 

deal with, and I'm going to qualify that "we." I work for a firm called Railroad Controls Limited. 

But part of my duties, we're very active in support of standards and recommended practices 

within the railroad industry. And I'm involved with both AREMA, which is the American 

Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association, and highway-rail grade crossings, 

and I'm also involved with a group called the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control 

Devices, or NCUTCD. 

NCUTCD is made up of slightly over 200 professionals that are involved with all elements of 

traffic-control devices, traffic and transportation engineering. Within the NCUTCD there are 

various subcommittees or technical committees, as they're referred to, one of which is the 

Railroad and Light Rail Transit Technical Committee, of which I serve as chair, being elected by 

my peers. 

Within our technical committee we have responsibility to comment to FHWA on parts 8 and 10 

of the NCUTCD. One of the things that we wrestle with within our technical committee is 

private highway-rail grade crossings. Private highway-rail grade crossings are a unique issue 

within NCUTCD because NCUTCD is a document that is actually set up to deal with public 

travel and addresses issues relative to that public travel. 

NCUTCD deals with roads that are open to travel. And "open to public travel" is a term that's 

not defined in the Code of Federal Regulations. There is an underlying effort on behalf of the 

national committee, who has convened a task force to deal with traffic-control devices on private 

property. Tom Hicks, Chair of that Task Force, says, "Our goal has been to prevent stop signs." 

And I'm sure everybody in here has driven through some type of private facility where you find a 

green stop sign or a stop sign that may be square or round because it was part of an architectural 

enhancement. The goal of the Task Force is to set-up guidelines for traffic-control devices on 

private property. 
Page 6 of 11 

The real issue has to deal with expectation of access: Does the public have the expectation of 

access to the crossing, to the intersection within a mall, to whatever the facility might be where 

there's some traffic-control-device requirement? And this issue of course extends beyond 

private crossings. It gets into that, the area that we find with malls and shopping centers and 

businesses or business parks where there's actually a large number, a significant number of 

vehicles, publicly operated vehicles that access that private property. 

I would like to encourage FRA to give consideration maybe to the fact that there's a need for a 

third classification that we apply besides public and private. And I would like to suggest that 

FRA consider what we call semipublic. And semipublic would be an access way, and 

specifically narrowed to our hearing today, a highway-rail grade crossing that is owned by 

other than a public agency but to which the public expects free access. And examples of that 

could be of course shopping centers and various commercial establishments. It could be a large 

facility or crossing to access a single facility such as a fast-food restaurant or a convenience 

store. We generally find that these semipublic crossings could fall into categories such as 

industrial, commercial, recreational, or to access multifamily homes. 

So I would like to propose that we at least give consideration to the term "semipublic" as it 

might apply to highway-rail grade crossings and all types of traffic-control devices. We would 

still retain the category as private crossings, but we would generally define that as crossings 

that there is no public expectation of free access. And examples of those might be crossings 

that serve a single residence or a crossing that a landowner has for access from field to field or 

for access from a public roadway to a field or private access outside of a residence. Those are 

crossings that are generally assumed not to have just open access to the public, and in many 

cases they're fenced and locked; or in the case of a driveway to a residence, one that there's very 

limited access by the public, generally the landowners or residents of the residence and service 

providers, such as delivery trucks, commercial vehicle operators who could have training to be 

able to deal with access over these crossings and private facilities. Some thoughts that we've 

struggled with within the Railroad and Light Rail Technical Committee involve if we do have a 

private or a semiprivate-type crossing, do we have a need for a specific traffic-control devices 

to deal with access over that crossing? 

Many states -- of course California, through their Public Utilities Commission, has taken a lead 

in development of a sign to be used at private crossings which clearly denotes the crossing is 

private. We also support the fact that if the public has access, we believe in standardization,

which would then involve the use of traditional crossbuck and supporting advance warning 

signage. 

I think that it would behoove FRA to be able to step in and try and assist with the problems that 

we've heard with private crossings and access to private facilities, but as I say, to take it to the 

step that we look at, Does the public have some expectation of free access? We need a 

methodology to be able to apply standardized traffic-control devices and at the same time to go 

through a diagnostic process as is already spelled out in part 8 of the NCUTCD. And as part 

of that, the semipublic crossing would go through permitting-type process that we would like to 

see FRA have oversight over this. And things that would be considered to be part of this 

permitting process would be to define the responsibility for access over the crossing: Who's 
Page 7 of 11 

actually responsible for -- who is the jurisdiction responsible for the crossing? Ultimately that of 

course would carry over to responsibility for traffic-control devices at the crossing and of course 

for maintenance at the crossing. And as part of that agreement that if the responsible agency 

failed to fulfill its goal to install or maintain devices, surface access, vegetation, all the items 

that we could consider issues at crossings, that the crossing would automatically be closed, 

that there would be no recourse other than to have the crossing closed. And that alone would 

serve as an incentive to a commercial or an industrial-type facility to continue the maintenance 

and access-way improvements necessary to retain the crossing in an open and passable condition. 

I encourage you to move forward with regulation and to be able to have enough regulatory 

teeth to be able to give us some form of control where we can actually provide a level of 

enforcement to persons wishing to create a private or a semipublic crossing over a railroad. 

Ben Saunders, Former Chair Trial Lawyers Railroad Law Section, American Trial 

Lawyers, ATLA spoke next. We can talk about regulation, making the federal government 

bigger, having the politics that we have, having the courts do this and the courts do that. But 

what's the problem? The problem once again, you observed it, sir: The problem is that you 

have to have an inability for a human being who either works for a railroad or a human being 

who's driving a vehicle to interact. 

And where is the solution to this problem? It's been in Washington for years. National 

Transportation Safety Board for years has published and advocated what is called -- and once 

again I'm on the page with you -- positive train separation. All of y'all ought to do yourselves a 

favor and drive down Airline Highway on your way home and go by what's called the Cold 

Storage Facility, where the Kansas City Southern and IC -- I can't remember which railroad -- 

has a few telephone poles built up with a roadway that goes under it so that when a train is 

coming from New Orleans going to Baton Rouge, the trucks going to the cold storage can't -- 

cannot -- interact with the train. 

So how do we design it out? By not having the train operate in a fashion that it can interact 

with an eighteen-wheeler or a lowboy hang up, a chemical truck, and, going down, a mom and 

a pop who are having an argument in the car and they stop on top of the track and get 

whacked. You go to Italy and you don't cross the track. A bar doesn't just come down like this. 

The bar comes across, and you don't have a choice. You do not have the option of driving across 

the track. That's a solution. You can't drive around. You'd have to drive through the barrier. 

That's No. 1. 

No. 2, do something cheap, like the cold storage, when they're going through Nebraska through 

the corn fields and you want to have a situation where the truck is going to some processing plant 

and you don't want that eighteen-wheeler to have any ability to interact with the train. And 

then obviously, if you look again at Metairie Road, you have to build in some instances, 

overpasses, but the engineering and the technologies are there. 

John Van Mol, Private Citizen, spoke next. I'm a farmer. I have a cotton gin interest in a 

grain elevator. This is one of the farms that I farm, and it's owned by four different landowners. 

The Union Pacific Railroad is identified right here, running through the middle of it. July the 7th 

of 2005, in an attempt to live up to the rules and regulations that the Federal Rail 
Page 8 of 11 

Administration has set forth, they came through and posted all the private crossings along the 

breadth of this property that we're farming with the exception of this 427-860-D which at that 

time and for the last fifty years prior to that was always believed to be a public road. We 

offered to the railroad to exchange crossing for crossing. There was no negotiating with the 

railroad. The cotton gin ran out of cotton. I'm one of the principal people involved in the gin, so 

our cotton -- I'm a co-op, but I'm the last. And it cost me dearly, just kind of a haphazard way 

that the railroad has pursued this, in my mind. Now, this meeting is all about safety, and I am 

interested in safety. And I am trying to see things from the railroad's point of view, and I 

understand that I have a crossing that is not a continuous crossing. My men and machinery 

are not continuously crossing that railroad. We use these crossings seasonally but when using 

them we're using them a lot. We put a lot of emphasis on safety in our operation. And in 

talking to the railroad, they are very anxious to remove absolutely as many private crossings as 

they can. But I propose for my -- for the well-being of my farm, I think that it would be very 

easy if this crossing were reestablished for me to gate it to where it's denied access during offperiod times. When we're not using it, we go for a month or two months or three months at a 

time. It's not abandoned. Basically it's used very infrequently. Cable that crossing or gate that 

crossing some kind of way. I'm willing to do that. I'm willing personally to be responsible for 

who comes and goes across the crossings.

DATA ELEMENTS

Ms. Miriam Kloeppel, on behalf of the FRA presented background information regarding current 

data collection and usage by the FRA. Currently, most of the data available pertains to public 

crossings and is used in prioritizing safety treatments and funding allocation. In addition to this 

background information, Ms. Kloeppel described some of the data fields that have been 

suggested for collection from the NTSB and other sources. These data fields include sight 

distance, presence of curves on the roadway and track, angle of intersection, presence of nearby 

intersections, and latitudinal and longitudinal coordinates. This list was utilized to initiate 

conversation on data elements that members of the audience felt would be beneficial to collect. 

Railroad Controls Limited (RCL) requested the typical class of vehicle using crossings be 

identified and included. In addition, RCL would like the approach grade and sight distance 

identified. 

The LADOT would like a new classification system, possibly the semi-public and private 

depictions described by RCL, utilized. However they do not feel it is feasible to collect 

private crossing data. 

The Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) feels it is difficult to collect data such as average 

annual daily traffic (AADT) for private crossings because of roadway conditions, e.g. 

traditional roadway counting devices could not be utilized on dirt roads 

In addition to desired data, the FRA inquired as to methods for data collection, such as FRA 

Proxy options. 

The UPRR suggested the use of statistical sampling as opposed to complete data collection. 
Page 9 of 11 

The Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen (BRS) mentioned that Class I railroads are 

currently collecting latitudinal and longitudinal information for all crossings and using 

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to map their railroads. In addition, private 

crossings should be broken down into categories. 

The American Association of Railroads (AAR) stated that the basis for any regulation or 

action taken by the FRA needs to be increased safety, this includes data collection. Also, 

most of the existing private crossing information is collected and submitted by the railroads, 

the FRA needs to seek alternative ways of collecting data. In addition, the FRA should 

improve the existing crossing inventory forms to make them more user-friendly and create 

electronic inventory submission. 

The LADOTD is concerned about the legal issues with submitting crossing information to 

the FRA crossing inventory. Some information should remain private not public and there 

may be issues with the Department of Homeland Security. The focus should be on closing 

public crossings and consolidating private crossings. 

The City of Laredo suggested using the revenue generated by the fuel tax to fund data 

collection and to require the railroad companies to supply the data. 

Railroad Controls Limited reiterated their stance and usage of the terms semi-public and 

private in reference to private crossing definition and categorization. Semi-public refers to 

a private roadway that is open to public travel. Private refers to a private roadway that is not 

open to public travel. 

HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIOS

The open discussion continued with a series of hypothetical scenarios being proposed to the 

attendees by Ms. Anya A. Carroll, Principal Investigator, Volpe National Transportation Systems 

Center. These scenarios were utilized to initiate open dialog and discussion regarding data needs 

and collection methodologies. 

What if the FRA in partnership with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) developed 

a secure WEB site where States and railroads could login in to input data? 

The AAR would like to know why this has not been done; highway-rail crossing issues are 

not FRA issues alone, they should be viewed as a One Department of Transportation 

system. The AAR is committed to the current crossing inventory and feels that if the current 

inefficiencies are addressed that the process will improve. 

The LADOT feels that this is a good idea however many of the railroad companies do not 

have the staff needed to collect and submit all of the data. The LADOT is also concerned 

about how secure the supplied data will be and how the FRA will protect the data. There is 

concern about legal action taken as a result of information being made public; they feel this 
Page 10 of 11 

information should be used for engineering uses only. This is the reason why the LADOT 

has not submitted information to the crossing inventory. 

The BRS feels that there is no motivation for States and railroads to collect and submit data. 

If data submission is not made mandatory, then it will remain a low priority. 

The City of Laredo requested clarification on data security, public availability, and access 

to data. 

What if the State supplied information; Blocks 21-25 on the USDOT Crossing Inventory 

Forms was used in conjunction with a Geographical Information System (GIS) platform to 

locate and map private crossings? 

The LADOTD stated that it currently does have some GIS information however it is focused 

on State systems. There is concern with trespassing in order for the state to collect data 

regarding private crossings and the security of data once submitted. 

The Rio Grande and Pacific Railroad (RGPRR) stated that they currently have much of the 

data that the FRA is seeking however it would be a large and expensive administrative job 

to submit this data. The RGPRR inquired as to FRA interaction with the Surface 

Transportation Board (STB) regarding these issues. 

The AAR informed everyone that some States hire contractors to collect crossing data, one 

example is the State of Ohio. This is an option for States that have the funding but do not 

have the available staff. 

What if States were required to collect the data? 

The LADOTD does not feel this is good idea due to trespassing concerns with private 

property. 

What if Railroads were required to collect the data? 

The UPRR and CSX Corporation (CSX) feel it would be a monumental burden on the 

railroads and too great a responsibility to require the data collection regarding private 

crossings of them. What benefit to railroad would this bring? 

 

The AAR is not positive that the railroads are capable of collecting the data. 

What if the Federal Government created a team to collect the data? 

CSX pointed out that there are currently huge discrepancies between the existing data that the 

Federal Government, State Governments, and railroads have. 

The AAR mentioned that the railroads submit the data to the States and Federal Government 

and that the reason for the disconnect is the current inventory process. 
Page 11 of 11 

The UPRR feels that if the Federal Government was responsible for collecting the data that 

there would be uniformity because a single unity would be collecting data. 

What if track geometry cars were utilized to automate data collection? 

The UPRR already has precision information from their equipment for all roads. 

The AAR stated that some railroads currently use automated data collection but the 

quantity and quality of data is limited. 

What if in the course of responding to a mandate on private crossing agreements, the 

railroad is required to assign a crossing ID number and update the USDOT crossing 

inventory? 

The AAR: suggested that FRA track inspectors be responsible for collecting data when they 

are in the field conducting inspections. In addition, low cost (less than $50,000) non-fail 

safe alternative warning devices need to be investigated and developed for low volume 

crossings. 

The BRS feels that the railroads posses the ability to collect the data and are the holders of 

the data. The FRA needs to impose a restriction or deadline to force the railroads to 

prioritize data collection. The FRA does not have the resources, staff and funding, to collect 

the data. Regarding low cost alternative warning devices, there are liability issues with nonfail safe systems. 

The LADOTD suggested the use or requirement of permitting crossings with serious legal 

consequences for violations. Louisiana needs Federal level jurisdiction because the local 

jurisdiction acts in favor of private landholders. LADOTD also feel that engineering alone 

is not the solution due to financial limitations and in many cases, there is more involved than 

just an engineering issue. 

The FRA posed the following questions: Do we need a process? What is it? If issued, how 

to proceed? They followed this with a reference to the Minnesota Guidestar Low Cost 

Active Warning Demonstration in response to the AAR’s suggestion. 

The Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA) reiterated their statement that the 

solution is in engineering - barrier gates and trestle bridges. 

# 

CC: file 

Grady Cothen 

 Ron Ries 

 Anya Carroll 
00001 

 1 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

 2 FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION 

 3 - - - 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

10 HEARING OF 

11 SAFETY AT PRIVATE HIGHWAY RAIL GRADE CROSSINGS 

12 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 

13 OCTOBER 26, 2006 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 ATKINSON-BAKER, INC. COURT REPORTERS 

20 (800) 288-3376 www.depo.com 

21 

22 REPORTED BY: KAREN M. BAUER, CSR NO. 6291 

23 FILE NO: A007BEB 

24 

25 

00002 

 1 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

 2 FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

10 Hearing of: Safety at Private Highway-Rail Grade 

11 Crossings Public Meeting, taken on behalf of USDOT, at Philip 

12 Burton Federal Building and Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate 

13 Avenue, California/Nevada Room, San Fransicco, California, 

14 94102, commencing at 9:30 a.m., Thursday, October 26, 2006, 

15 before KAREN BAUER, CSR No. 6291. 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

00003 

 1 

 2 A P P E A R A N C E S: 

 3 ANYA A. CARROLL VOLPE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION 

 4 SYSTEMS CENTER VOLPE CENTER, RTV-3D 
 5 U.S. DEPARATMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 55 BROADWAY 

 6 CAMBRIDGE, MA 02142-1093 

 7 

 8 CLIFF EBY 

 9 FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION 

10 

11 GRADY C. COTHEN, JR. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

12 FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION RRS-1, MAILSTOP 25 

13 1120 VERMONT AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 

14 

15 MIRIAM KLOEPPEL 

16 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION 

17 OFFICE OF SAFETY, RRS-23 400 SEVENTH STREET, SW 

18 WASHINGTON, DC, 20590 

19 RONALD E. RIES 

20 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION 

21 MAIL STOP; 25 ROOM: 6153 1120 VERMONT AVENUE, N.W. 

22 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 

23 MARK H. TESSLER 

24 U.S.DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION 

25 MAIL STOP: 10 rOOM 7020 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590 

00004 

 1 LEEANN DICKSON U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

 2 FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION P.O. BOX 1292 

 3 ROSEVILLE, CA 95678-8292 

 4 FREDDY C. CHEUNG, P.E. 

 5 Union Pacific RAILROAD 19100 SLOVER AVENUE, 

 6 BLOOMINGTON, CA 92316 

 7 JAMES H. SMITH 

 8 Union Pacific RAILROAD 10031 fOOTHILLS BLVD., 

 9 ROSEVILLE, CA 95747 

10 CAROL A. HARRIS 

11 Union Pacific RAILROAD 49 STEVENSTON STREET, SUITE 1050 

12 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 

13 DAVID E. PETERSON 

14 Union Pacific RAILROAD 1400 DOUGLAS STREET, STOP 0910 

15 OMAHA, NE 68179-0910 

16 DAREN GILBERT 

17 PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CONSUMER SAFETY AND PROTECTION DIVISION 

18 RAIL CROSSINGS ENGINEERING SECTION 515 L STREET, SUITE 1119 

19 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 

20 JULIE M. WATSON 

21 PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CONSUMER PROTECTION AND SAFETY DIVISION 

22 RAIL SAFETY AND CROSSINGS BRANCH 515 L STREET, SUITE 1119 

23 SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 

24 

25 

00005 

 1 VAROUJAN JINBACHIAN PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 

 2 RAIL CROSSINGS ENGINEERING SECTION 320 WEST 4TH STREET, SUITE 500 

 3 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013-1105 

 4 STEVE CATES 

 5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

 6 OFFICE OF RAIL EQUIPMENT & TRACK CONSTRUCTION P.O. BOX 942874 

 7 SACRAMENTO, CA 94274-0001 

 8 PETER BURCAT 

 9 ATTORNEY AT LAW 
10 VAHAK PETROSSIAN 

11 PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CONSUMER PROTECTION AND SAFETY DIVISION 

12 320 WEST 4TH STREET, SUITE 500 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 

13 

14 ERIK JUUL STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

15 PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION RAIL SAFETY AND CARRIERS DIVISION 

16 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 

17 

18 BOB BOSTON UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 

19 RAIL CARRIER COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST P.O. BOX 47250 

20 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-7250 

21 RONALD M. MATHIEU 

22 METROLINK MANAGER, PUBLIC PROJECTS 

23 700 S. FLOWER STREET, SUITE 2600 LOS ANGELES, CA 90017 

24 

25 

00006 

 1 ADRIAN L. RANDOLPH ATTORNEY AT LAW 

 2 1030 G STREET SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 

 3 

 4 CHARLIE HAGOOD U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

 5 FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION 

 6 STUART SCHWARTS 

 7 NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORTATION 

 8 GEORGE ELSMORE 

 9 STATE OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

00007 

 1 MR. COTHEN: Good morning. 

 2 Can you hear me. 

 3 We're getting used to the sound system here. 

 4 It appears that the mikes up here are live-wire floor 

 5 mikes out there. 

 6 Okay. We'll do a safety briefing first, which 

 7 is, of course, our custom. 

 8 LeeAnn, would you do our safety briefing, 

 9 please? 

10 MS. DICKSON: Assistant safety crossing manager. 

11 Safety briefing: If anything happens, don't wait for an 

12 alarm foran earthquake. If an earthquake happens, 

13 you'll feel it. Don't worry about that. Go out this 

14 door, make an immediate left, follow the restroom signs. 
15 You'll see the lunch cart. Make a right. You'll see a 

16 staircase. Go down the staircase, out the building, and 

17 wait in the street. That's probably the best place to 

18 be. Who knows CPR? Julie is our CPR person. There is a 

19 telephone out here. 

20 Who's got cell phones? Everybody? 

21 We're in the Nevada Room on the second floor at 

22 450 Golden Gate Avenue in San Francisco. Thank you. 

23 Restrooms. Just pretend you're going out for 

24 an earthquake and stop at the door that says restrooms. 

25 MR. COTHEN: Thanks, Lee Ann. It's always good to 

00008 

 1 get your first mistake out of the morning. 

 2 Appreciate that. 

 3 This is FRA's conference on Safety at Private 

 4 Highway-Rail Grade Crossings. I see a lot of familiar 

 5 faces in the room, and some new ones for us. But glad 

 6 you're here. 

 7 It's our desire today to cover as much 

 8 information as we can. As you know, we're on a bit of a 

 9 road show here to try to capture issues, sentiment, 

10 questions, views from around the country on this subject. 

11 My name is Grady Cothen. I'm Deputy Associate 

12 Administrator for safety standards. 

13 And we're pleased to have with us today 

14 Clifford Eby, who is our Deputy Administrator, 

15 immediately to my right. FRA staff are working on this 

16 from Washington, and the field are led by Ron Ries. I'll 

17 ask Ron to introduce his staff members, and then we'll 

18 ask Anya Carroll to introduce her staff from the National 

19 Transportation System Center. 

20 Ron? 

21 MR. RIES: You've already met LeeAnn Dickson from 

22 Region 7, one of our great crossing safety team members, 

23 and Charlie Hagood is also here for us. 

24 Good to see you. 

25 Also from the headquarters staff, Miriam 

00009 

 1 Kloeppel, who is ramrodding this effort. 

 2 We're glad to have everybody here and look 

 3 forward to having some questions and good input to our 

 4 discussion today. 

 5 MS. CARROLL: Good morning. My name is Anya 

 6 Carroll. I'm principal investigator of Highway Railway 

 7 Crossing Safety Research in support of FRA at the Volpe 

 8 Center in Cambridge. 

 9 With me today I've got Steven Peck (phonetic), 

10 who is one of our mechanical engineers and Mirna Gustave, 

11 who is our conference coordinator for this event. 

12 MR. GRADY: We also have as counsel for this 

13 proceeding Assistant Chief Counsel for Safety, Mark 

14 Tessler, and we'll hear from Mark in a few minutes. 

15 I would like to start out by asking Cliff Eby 

16 to give us a charge and introduction to the subject 

17 matter. 

18 MR. EBY: My name is Cliff Eby, last name spelled 

19 E-b-y. 
20 Good morning. Welcome. And it's a pleasure 

21 being here before you on behalf of our new Secretary of 

22 Transportation, Mary Peters and Administrator Boardman 

23 (phonetic), we really appreciate your attendance here 

24 today and want to thank you all for coming to discuss 

25 something very important, the highway grade crossing 

00010 

 1 conference. 

 2 What I want to do, to get started, is first 

 3 kind of give you some background on the issue, and then 

 4 get into my message. So if you haven't gotten into that 

 5 coffee, you have about five minutes for the caffeine to 

 6 kick in so then you can really concentrate on the 

 7 message. 

 8 According to the nation on grade crossing 

 9 inventory, we have about 94,000 private crossings 

10 nationwide, each with its own unique history, uses, and 

11 local circumstances. 

12 Over the course of the past decade, an average 

13 of more than 400 accidents per year have occurred at 

14 these private crossings, resulting in 30 to 40 deaths, on 

15 average, annually. 

16 Take, for example, what happened in Castle 

17 Rock, Washington. On July 3rd, 2006, a southbound Amtrak 

18 train struck a passenger vehicle at a private crossing. 

19 The road leading to this crossing is a county road. The 

20 county maintenance ends shortly before the crossing, and 

21 the private roadway extends beyond. The crossing 

22 dead-ends after serving 11 residents. 

23 According to the Amtrak engineer, the collision 

24 occurred when the motorist entered the crossing after a 

25 northbound freight train had cleared it. The train crew 

00011 

 1 and train passengers were not injured in the accident. 

 2 All four occupants of the vehicle were killed. 

 3 In another instance, an Amtrak train struck an 

 4 empty gravel truck at a Private Highway Rail Grade 

 5 Crossing near Jackson, Mississippi. The private roadway 

 6 at this crossing is used by an excavating company and by 

 7 two residences. 

 8 In this incident, one train crew member and 15 

 9 passengers sustained injury, and a truck driver was 

10 killed. 

11 Let's step back for a moment and consider what 

12 happened at public crossings in the past. Records from 

13 as far back as 1917 show that, on average, more than 2000 

14 people died in accidents at Highway Rail Grade Crossings. 

15 Although crossings did occur, such as upgrades to active 

16 warnings devices, there was no uniform program on a 

17 national scale to help evaluate crossings and to 

18 determine which ones were most hazardous. 

19 The arbitrator approach for selecting crossing 

20 improvement changed when Congress enacted The Highway 

21 Safety Act of 1973. It includes the funding for the 

22 national grade crossing inventory and provided funds for 

23 crossing improvements to any state that established a 

24 system for prioritizing its crossing improvement. 
25 This funding program still exists today and is 

00012 

 1 known as the Section 130 Program. 

 2 Since the creation of the national inventory 

 3 and the Section 130 Program, state's railroads and the 

 4 U.S. D.O.T. have worked together to systematically 

 5 improve safety at public grade crossings. 

 6 With further contributions from other programs, 

 7 such as Operation Lifesaver and the additional regulatory 

 8 changes such as the addition of locomotive crossing 

 9 lights and rail car reflectorization, the number of 

10 fatalities have fallen from about 2000 per year to around 

11 300 to 400. 

12 However, the nation-wide success with safety at 

13 public crossings has not been measured at private 

14 crossings. Where fatalities at the public crossing have 

15 declined by more than 30 percent in the last decade 

16 alone, the fatality count at private crossings has 

17 remained largely static. The realization that safety at 

18 private crossings could also be improved through 

19 establishing some nation-wide framework is not 

20 particularly new. 

21 In fact, in 1993, the FRA hosted an open 

22 meeting to initiate industry-wide discussions on the 

23 subject. Following that meeting, the U.S. D.O.T. published 

24 the 1994 Highway Safety Action Plan, in which it proposed 

25 to develop national minimum standards for private 

00013 

 1 crossings. 

 2 In 1997, the National Transportation Safety 

 3 Board published a study on safety at passive Highway Rail 

 4 Grade Crossings in which it recommended that the U.S. 

 5 D.O.T. and the states, together, determine governing 

 6 oversight responsibility for safety at private crossings. 

 7 In 1999, the NSTB, again, recommended that the 

 8 U.S. D.O.T. eliminate any differences between public and 

 9 private crossings with regard to funding, or with regard 

10 to requirements for safety improvements. 

11 In 2004, the U.S. D.O.T. published an updated 

12 Action Plan in which the FRA committed to leading an 

13 effort to define responsibility for safety at private 

14 crossings. 

15 Today's meeting is a vital part of that effort. 

16 Enough on the background. Let me give you my perspective 

17 on why Joe Boardman asked me to get involved with private 

18 grade crossings. 

19 USA World Reader in providing a safety 

20 environment for its citizens, and recently, we've seen it 

21 elevate as a top priority at corporations, at government, 

22 Federal, State and local, and with parents and children. 

23 Ground transportation, in particular, has made tremendous 

24 strides in my lifetime. In the past 10 years, accident 

25 rates and death tolls have dropped dramatically. Safer 

00014 

 1 cars have more than offset the increases in people and 

 2 vehicles on our highways. Drunk driving awareness and 

 3 enforcement has greatly reduced unnecessary injury to 
 4 millions. And better engineering to roads has made our 

 5 road designs safer. 

 6 For the railroad industry, there has been a 

 7 host of initiatives that have resulted in improvement to 

 8 death and injury rates in all but two areas, trespassing 

 9 and private grade crossings. And we're here to work on 

10 the latter. 

11 Why is it we have cut the accident rate by 

12 almost half at public crossings over the last 10 years, 

13 but see no improvement at private crossings? 

14 Why aren't we more effective at private 

15 crossings? Why does Operation Lifesaver seem to plug on 

16 public crossings, but not at private crossings? This is 

17 what we're here to learn. 

18 But if I have learned one thing in my time in 

19 business, it is that nothing moves on its own. It takes 

20 ownership. And nobody really wants to own private grade 

21 crossing safety. Instead, each of us has chosen to erect 

22 barriers. 

23 Railroads tell us they have no authority at 

24 private crossing, but their safety message tells a 

25 different story. 

00015 

 1 Railroads say everybody owns safety, but 

 2 apparently not at a private crossing. 

 3 Railroads say every accident is preventable, 

 4 but not at a private crossing. 

 5 Railroads say safety is a way of life, but that 

 6 life stopped at private crossings. 

 7 I'm not here to pick on railroads. In fact, if 

 8 I had to pick on any group that has moved safety forward, 

 9 it's the railroad's actions to put signage at private 

10 crossings. 

11 I believe everybody here is equally to blame. 

12 FRA is responsible for enforcement of nationwide railroad 

13 safety standards, but nationwide stopped at public roads 

14 just short of private crossings. Again, not at private 

15 crossing. 

16 We learned in Minnesota that the state has 

17 regulations and requirements for private crossings, but 

18 doesn't believe it has jurisdiction to enforce them. In 

19 Castle Rock, the city I talked about before where four 

20 residents were killed, it's a place where each generation 

21 passed along to their children a sense of safety. 

22 As you learned just last week, a Walsh 

23 Construction truck and a backhoe were involved in a 

24 crossing incident. According to the Walsh's website, it 

25 places the highest premise on safety, but apparently one 

00016 

 1 of its employees didn't at the crossing. 

 2 And, finally, to my friends in labor, they want 

 3 to do away with private crossings and then think the 

 4 Federal, State, and local governments should share in 

 5 paying for a solution. They, too, want to pass the buck 

 6 on ownership. 

 7 So we all have legitimate reason for 

 8 eliminating these barriers. Until each of us is willing 
 9 to own the problem, like we have for other safety areas, 

10 we don't see any real improvement at private crossings. 

11 Let me conclude by urging each of you to speak 

12 up, tell us your ideas, experiences, and viewpoints. The 

13 issues we will be discussing today are often complex, and 

14 we need your input in order to develop the best possible 

15 response to this problem. 

16 MR. COTHEN: Thank you, Cliff. I think that's a 

17 charge. 

18 It's particularly propitious that we're in 

19 California with this particular discussion. We decided 

20 after an initial session covering a broad range of issues 

21 that we would try to, in the second portion of our day, 

22 first portion of our day to focus our initial remarks for 

23 anyone who would like to make them, the second portion of 

24 our day to focus on topic areas. 

25 So we've tried focussing on engineering. And 

00017 

 1 today we thought we would focus on what Cliff talked 

 2 about just then, and that's responsibility of taking 

 3 ownership of the issues. 

 4 As we go forward, we'll talk about data needs 

 5 and then we'll try to bring it altogether. But it's 

 6 particularly appropriate that we're in California to have 

 7 this conversation because if you had to pick a state out 

 8 of the 50 that's tried to take ownership of the problem, 

 9 it's the State of California. 

10 And the California Public Utilities Commission 

11 is the regulatory agency that deals with Highway Rail 

12 Grade Crossing issues in California. And so I'm 

13 particularly happy to be able to introduce our colleague 

14 of many years, Vahak Petrossian, of the California PUC. 

15 Vahak, could you please give us a welcome and a 

16 charge, and if you would also introduce your colleagues. 

17 You're here from the commission. 

18 MR. PETROSSIAN: I'll be short, so I'll do it from 

19 here, if that's possible. 

20 MS. CARROLL: If you want to use the microphone, you 

21 can turn it on. 

22 MR. PETROSSIAN: Can't you hear me? I'm loud 

23 enough. 

24 First of all, I would like to say Richard 

25 Clark, our Director of Consumer Safety Division would 

00018 

 1 have liked to have been here, himself, to welcome 

 2 everyone. And unfortunately, he's out of town and was 

 3 unable to be here. 

 4 I would like to introduce a couple of people 

 5 that are with the Commission here. 

 6 Pat Berdge, our staff counsel, and George 

 7 Elsmore, who manages our railroad operations safety 

 8 branch. And we have other staff present, and a little 

 9 later on we'll present the Commission's view. 

10 I want to welcome the FRA. I want to thank the 

11 FRA for taking this on, and particularly for choosing 

12 California as one of the venues, and we ordered really 

13 nice weather for you. Just for that, because I know it's 
14 real pretty cold back east. 

15 The folks at FRA have been pretty helpful. Ron 

16 Grady and Anya pick up the phone and give us whatever we 

17 need, and we really appreciate that. 

18 Private crossing. It's a major issue. And 

19 unfortunately, the major problem is the private property 

20 owners who don't participate in these proceedings, 

21 because -- there are some of them. And they're the ones 

22 that I think that need to be heard, need to participate, 

23 and take responsibility for a lot of the private 

24 crossings at the railroad. 

25 A lot of times the issue is that 50 years ago 

00019 

 1 the crossing was established. There was nothing there. 

 2 Maybe one farmhouse. Over the years we continue with 

 3 it. And we're taking on a role where we're looking at 

 4 the environmental portion of it. And we think that the 

 5 folks who give authority to that building, whether it's 

 6 the city government, the local governments giving 

 7 business licenses or something, they also have a 

 8 responsibility to address railroad safety. So that's the 

 9 issue. 

10 We want to welcome you. We want to wish you 

11 the best. And hopefully, we'll look forward to your 

12 report. And hopefully, it will be helpful to all of us. 

13 Thank you for coming to California. 

14 MR. COTHEN: Thank you very much. We appreciate 

15 your courtesy and continuing support of all of our 

16 activities. 

17 And the same to George, who is our colleague on 

18 the compliance program. We're glad you're here. 

19 We also have with us, and we'll introduce in a 

20 little while, representatives of the California 

21 Department of Transportation. 

22 We appreciate you being here. 

23 And we'll hear from Steve, and his colleague, 

24 perhaps, in a little bit. 

25 Steve, do you want to say anything? 

00020 

 1 MR. CATES: I want to thank all of you for being 

 2 here. I think this is an important event. We have an 

 3 opportunity to talk about private crossings. I'm going 

 4 to speak pretty much from a parochial viewpoint at being 

 5 responsible for our passenger rail equipment and grade 

 6 crossings. 

 7 We do wind up with accidents at private 

 8 crossings, which probably 40 or 50 of them a year are 

 9 here in California. And they cause delays, death, and 

10 damage to private property, and that's something that I 

11 would like to see addressed. 

12 I'm glad to be here. Thank you. 

13 MR. COTHEN: Thank you. 

14 Can I ask Mark Tessler, who is counsel for the 

15 proceeding, to provide the officer's statement. 

16 MR. TESSLER: Thank you. 

17 As Grady said, I'll be the legal officer for 

18 today's meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to enable 
19 the public to provide information to FRA about issues 

20 relating to the safety of Private Highway Rail Grade 

21 Crossings. We're here to listen to you and to provide an 

22 opportunity for you to state your views on the record for 

23 review and consideration. 

24 In order to produce an equal opportunity to 

25 express your views, the following procedures will be used 

00021 

 1 for anyone who wishes to be permitted to make an oral 

 2 statement. 

 3 Persons representing the same organization, 

 4 here as a group, at the beginning of your statement, 

 5 please identify yourself, spell your name and identify 

 6 whether you are appearing as an individual or as a 

 7 representative of the group. 

 8 It would also be helpful if you have a business 

 9 card, to present it to the reporter today. 

10 At the end of your statement, after, FRA 

11 representatives may ask questions in order to obtain 

12 clarifications of your points made during your statement. 

13 We'll then move on to the next oral statement. 

14 It you refer to documents in your statement that have not 

15 yet been provided to FRA, please provide a copy of it to 

16 an FRA representative so it can be added to the public 

17 docket. 

18 Today's meeting is being transcribed and will 

19 become a part of the public docket on this issue. 

20 The transcript of the meeting and all documents 

21 related to this inquiry will be available for viewing and 

22 downloading at D.O.T.'s docket management website at 

23 http: fra.dot.gov. And please note, there is no www in 

24 that address. And the entire public docket will be 

25 available for viewing at the department's 

00022 

 1 transportationdocket room, at 400 Seventh Street, 

 2 Southwest Washington, D.C. Thank you. 

 3 MR. COTHEN: If anyone actually shows at the docket 

 4 room, I'll buy you lunch. What we try to do at the 

 5 beginning of each session, is most of us are new. And 

 6 so, Miriam Kloeppel, who is an operation research analyst 

 7 for the highway staff will give us a foundation in terms 

 8 of further description of the problem area following 

 9 Cliff's remarks. And then I'll ask you all to sign up, 

10 not literally sign up, but step forward and speak to the 

11 broad range of issues involving all of us. 

12 MS. KLOEPPEL: Good morning. My name is Miriam, 

13 K-l-o-e-p-p-e-l. 

14 As Grady said, I'm going to kind of give a 

15 baseline so that we're all at least familiar with the 

16 same sort of information, and you can use it as a spring 

17 board for other conversations. 

18 I thought I would start out with a slide that 

19 shows basically that -- it doesn't really matter what the 

20 geographic region is, a private crossing still 

21 constitutes a significant percentage of all at-grade 

22 crossings. The total count nationwide is about 94,000. 

23 Although accidents at public crossings have 
24 declined, as Cliff had noted, over the past 20 years, and 

25 is, in fact, declining by one-third over the past decade 

00023 

 1 alone, the number of accidents at private crossings has 

 2 remained comparatively stable, a decline of 10 percent 

 3 only in the past decade. In most years, the number of 

 4 fatalities occurring in accidents at private crossings 

 5 exceed the number of on- duty deaths among railroad 

 6 employees in all rail operations. 

 7 The FRA maintains a national inventory of all 

 8 crossings, public, private, or pedestrian, at grade or 

 9 grade separated. 

10 The data are used by many State, Federal, or 

11 private organizations for research, or for resource 

12 allocation. 

13 It's updated by the States and by the railroads 

14 on a voluntary, not mandatory basis. As you can see, 

15 only about one third of the records for private crossings 

16 have been updated within the past five years, and a 

17 significant portion of the records have never been 

18 updated. 

19 Analysis on data of this quality must 

20 necesssarily be somewhat tentative. The data for public 

21 crossings are typically updated much more often than 

22 that. 

23 This is not a slide that I expect anyone to 

24 actually read off of the screen. I put this up here for 

25 illustrative purposes. This is a shot of the form on 

00024 

 1 which crossing data are collected for the national 

 2 inventory. Almost all the data elements are required for 

 3 public crossings. For private crossings, however, only 

 4 the sections I have shaded are collected. 

 5 As a result, even when the private crossing 

 6 record is up-to-date, potentially useful data are not 

 7 collected. This slide shows a small sample of the data 

 8 collection differences. 

 9 As you can see, train counts, number of highway 

10 lanes, these are elements that we often use in analysis 

11 of the public crossings, and data like that, we just 

12 don't get from the private. 

13 According to the FRA's 2002 compilation of 

14 state laws and regulations affecting highway rail grade 

15 crossings, the State's approaches to private crossing 

16 safety are highly varied. 

17 Take, for example, these examples of the extent 

18 of control held over the creation or closure of private 

19 crossings. 

20 Here are some examples of the degree to which 

21 traffic control devices are standardized at private 

22 crossings. 

23 According to that same compilation, more than 

24 half of the States have no laws or regulations at all 

25 related to private crossings. 

00025 

 1 The American Association of State Highway and 

 2 Transportation Officials, or AASHTO, a standing committee 
 3 on rail transportation which people nickname SCORT which 

 4 provides an arena whereby member states and the railroads 

 5 can exchange technical information, review existing 

 6 legislation and regulations, and propose changes or new 

 7 legislation or regulations. 

 8 Currently SCORT has adopted a resolution, on 

 9 railroad safety, improvement, and enforcement calling for 

10 research and development into improved and lower-cost 

11 technologies for warning systems. 

12 The resolution also believes that any future 

13 comprehensive national transportation program must 

14 continue to provide funds for consolidating, separating, 

15 or otherwise protecting railroad highway grade crossings. 

16 Neither the committee's policy, statements, nor 

17 its resolution make any overt distinction between public 

18 and private crossings, but it should be remembered that 

19 the majority of members represent states. And so their 

20 jurisdiction is unlikely to extend beyond that of the 

21 member states. 

22 The Federal government, in the guise of various 

23 U.S.D.O.T. agencies, does offer some regulations or 

24 guidance, documents that may touch on safety at private 

25 crossings. As you can see in this sample, however, none 

00026 

 1 of these really covers a significant portion of the 

 2 nation's private crossings. 

 3 In fact, there is no Federal regulation or 

 4 guidance that promotes safety at private grade crossings 

 5 by specifically or uniformly addressing the special 

 6 issues presented at private crossings. 

 7 Some private crossings may be used only 

 8 seasonally, like certain farm crossings used only for 

 9 agriculture equipment movements, or they may be used only 

10 for routine personal use, like crossings that serve 

11 residences. 

12 Other private crossings, such as this 

13 industrial access crossing, are used extensively for 

14 private business purposes by employees, contractors, and 

15 suppliers. In still other cases, they may be used very 

16 heavily by the public to enter commercial facilities. 

17 I hope you can see it, but this slide also 

18 illustrates that in some cases, there is no alternative 

19 access provided to the private properties for the 

20 crossing holder. 

21 The rights assigned to the private crossing 

22 holders vary greatly. A holder of the right or privilege 

23 to cross may hold outright ownership of the underlying 

24 property, may have a documented easement over the 

25 railroad property. Where it's recognized the holder may 

00027 

 1 have a prescriptive easement or squatter's rights. There 

 2 may be a documented license under contract, or maybe only 

 3 a verbal license subject to revocation without notice. 

 4 Railroads may require the crossing holders to 

 5 purchase insurance or provide some other protection in 

 6 the event of a collision at the crossing. Contracts or 

 7 other legal documents may further define 
 8 responsibilities, such as maintenance of the crossing 

 9 surface, or providing notifications under stated 

10 conditions. 

11 The FRA solicits discussion and comments on all 

12 areas of safety at private crossings, but particularly 

13 encourages discussion on the following topics: 

14 At-grade highway-rail crossings present an 

15 inherent risk to all users, including the railroad and 

16 its employees, as well as to other persons in the 

17 vicinity should a train derail into an occupied area or 

18 release hazardous materials. 

19 From the standpoint of public policy, how do we 

20 determine whether creation or continuation of a private 

21 crossing is justified? 

22 How do we determine when a private crossing has 

23 a public purpose, and is subject to public use? 

24 How should improvement or maintenance 

25 responsibility be allocated? 

00028 

 1 Is there a need for alternative dispute 

 2 mechanisms to handle disputes between private crossing 

 3 owners and railroads? 

 4 Should some crossings be categorized as 

 5 commercial crossings, rather than as private crossings? 

 6 Should there be nationwide standards for 

 7 warning devices at private crossings, or for intersection 

 8 design for newly created private crossings? 

 9 Are there innovative traffic control devices 

10 that could improve safety at private crossings on major 

11 rail corridors, including those on which passenger 

12 service is provided? 

13 Is the current assignment of responsibility for 

14 safety at private crossings effective? 

15 Do risk management practices associated with 

16 insurance arrangements result in regulation of safety at 

17 private crossings? 

18 Should the State and Federal governments 

19 cooperatively work to determine responsibility and to 

20 provide oversight? 

21 Should the U.S. D.O.T. request enactment of 

22 legislation to address private crossings? If so, what 

23 should it include? 

24 Now, there is some standardization of 

25 treatments at public crossings across the nation. For 

00029 

 1 example, the confirmation and use of signs, signals, 

 2 pavement markings, and any other traffic control devices 

 3 placed at public crossings generally conform to the 

 4 guidance provided in the Manual on uniform traffic 

 5 control devices. 

 6 In addition, in 2002, the Department of 

 7 Transportation published a guidance document created 

 8 through the efforts of a technical working group made up 

 9 of representatives from both the public and the private 

10 sectors. 

11 In most states, however, there is no such 

12 standardization at private crossings. 
13 The arrangement of private crossing signs can 

14 be highly individual. And sign maintenance may be 

15 sketchy, or almost non-existent. 

16 Yes, there is a sign there. 

17 To gather information on the current state of 

18 the art, as well as new ideas about possible solutions to 

19 exisiting problems, the FRA is holding a series of public 

20 meetings, the first of these was held in August 30 in 

21 Fort Snelling, Minnesota. 

22 This is not a complete list of organizations 

23 represented at the meeting in Fort Snelling, but rather 

24 those who provided either formal statements or 

25 substantial input during the meeting. 

00030 

 1 Numerous topics were discussed in Fort 

 2 Snelling, but to my mind, they fell into a few different 

 3 categories. First, it seemed that attendees agreed there 

 4 is no existing process that would provide consistent 

 5 structures to create or to evaluate the relative need for 

 6 new private crossings or to upgrade or close existing 

 7 private crossings. 

 8 Attendees also seemed to indicate that 

 9 different parties often used different definitions to 

10 decide whether a crossing was public or private. 

11 In addition, much of the discussions centered 

12 on the fact that private crossings are created for a wide 

13 variety of reasons. For example, residential, 

14 industrial, commercial, institutional, or governmental or 

15 temporary. And they may be used to varying degrees by 

16 members of the general public, they may be traversed by 

17 users ranging from pedestrians to construction vehicles 

18 or hazardous materials tank trucks. 

19 The second of the meetings was held in Raleigh, 

20 North Carolina. Again, this is a list of not of everyone 

21 who attended but of the people who actually provided 

22 statements or input. 

23 We listened to the State of North Carolina 

24 discussing their private crossing safety initiative and 

25 the process they used and some of the criteria that they 

00031 

 1 used to establish a need for upgrades and so forth. 

 2 Basically, the conversation centered on the 

 3 need for a baseline set of traffic control devices. They 

 4 thought that there were even more categories of private 

 5 crossings than those that we had discussed before, and 

 6 they made some suggestions about the appropriate types of 

 7 design standards that would be acceptable to the states. 

 8 Well, let's move on. I would like to open the 

 9 discussion now, but I'll leave this information up on the 

10 screen in case any of you would also like to provide 

11 written statements to the docket. 

12 MR. COTHEN: Thank you, Miriam. 

13 For the rest of the day we've got two pieces. 

14 The first is we would like to hear from those who would 

15 like to make some opening statements, some general 

16 statements. It's a small group, so we're not going to 

17 try to constrain the length. At least not at the outset. 
18 And then we will go to a discussion format in 

19 which we'll discuss some case studies and hypothetical 

20 scenarios as a way of trying to tease out the issues if 

21 we can. 

22 I'm happy to start with representatives from 

23 the State of California. First, Daren Gilbert from PUC. 

24 Did you want to say anything preparatory before 

25 Daren begins? 

00032 

 1 Daren is supervisor of the rail crossing 

 2 engineering section, California Public Utilities. 

 3 If you could spell your name for the record? 

 4 MR. GILBERT: Sure. My name is Daren Gilbert, 

 5 D-a-r-e-n, G-i-l-b-e-r-t. 

 6 MR. COTHEN: Welcome to California. 

 7 MR. GILBERT: Again, my name is Daren Gilbert. I'm 

 8 supervisor of the rail crossings engineering section. 

 9 I have prepared comments that will be 

10 supplemented by filed comments at a later time. 

11 The California Public Utilities Commission 

12 exercises rail safety oversight over railroads in 

13 California under the California Public Utilities Code and 

14 under the State Participation Program with the Federal 

15 Railroad Administration. 

16 The CPUC also has exclusive jurisdiction over 

17 highway rail crossings in the State. 

18 Specifically in regards to private crossings, 

19 the CPUC has the authority to determine the necessity for 

20 any private crossing and the place, manner, and 

21 conditions under which the crossing shall be constructed 

22 and maintained, and to fix and assess the costs and 

23 expenses of that crossing. 

24 Also, the Commission's General Order 75 (D), 

25 which contains administrative rules governing the 

00033 

 1 standardization and use of warning devices at 

 2 highway-rail crossings, and has an entire regulation 

 3 directed at warning devices at private highway rail 

 4 crossings. 

 5 It requires a minimum of a stop and private 

 6 crossing sign posted on each approach to the private 

 7 highway rail crossing. 

 8 General Order 75 (D) also requires a written 

 9 agreement be developed to authorize the crossing between 

10 the parties. 

11 Private crossings carry most, if not all, of 

12 the safety concerns that public crossings have. 

13 Collisions can and do occur which cause delay, 

14 property damage, Hazmat spills, injury, and death. The 

15 parties involved in the establishment and use of private 

16 crossings must be cognizant of the potential incidents 

17 which could occur at such crossings and where appropriate 

18 government should exert safety authority to assure such 

19 risks are eliminated or minimized. 

20 The following are two recent examples of 

21 train-vehicle collisions at private crossings that 

22 affected public safety. CPUC staff addressed the safety 
23 concerns for each crossing with the property owners, the 

24 railroads, and public authorities which result in 

25 crossing upgrades. 

00034 

 1 And the first example occurred in April 2005. 

 2 A fatal collision at a private crossing in a rural desert 

 3 area resulted in two fatalities. 

 4 A similar incident had occurred at the same 

 5 crossing in the year 2000. Investigation revealed that 

 6 the passive crossing is utilized by various parties 

 7 accessing a propane company, a planned energy generation 

 8 facility, an electric substation, a water facility, and 

 9 open space for recreation. 

10 Passenger trains run through this area at 79 

11 miles per hour. Although there is clear visibility along 

12 the track in both directions, drivers have not always 

13 taken adequate precautions and often disregard the posted 

14 stop signs on approach to the track. 

15 The crossing is an a narrow paved road between 

16 a main highway and private properties on the other side 

17 of the tracks. 

18 CPUC staff took the position that the private 

19 nature of the crossing was no longer valid and that the 

20 CPUC staff would seek closure of the crossing unless the 

21 warning devices were upgraded to modern public crossing 

22 safety standards and, and further, that the local roadway 

23 agency needed to take authority for the crossing and ther 

24 maintenance costs associated with these improved safety 

25 warning devices. 

00035 

 1 The property owner ultimately agreed and are 

 2 financing the upgrades and the county has agreed to 

 3 become the responsible agency for that particular 

 4 crossing. So that was a positive outcome. 

 5 In the second example, a private unpaved road 

 6 in Ventura County crosses the Union Pacific Railroad 

 7 tracks. The private crossing provides access to a 

 8 Christmas tree farm, as well as to three separate private 

 9 residences. 

10 During the winter holiday season about 100 

11 vehicles traverse the crossing daily. 

12 Daily train traffic includes eight Union 

13 Pacific freight trains travelling at 60 miles per hour, 

14 10 Amtrak passenger trains, and four Metrolink commuter 

15 trains traveling up to 70 miles per hour. The crossing 

16 warning devices include STOP and private crossing signs. 

17 There have been a total of five reported collisions at 

18 this crossing since 1986. 

19 The collisions resulted in 20 injuries and two 

20 fatalities. 

21 The most recent incident occurred in August 

22 2005, involving a dump truck and an Amtrak passenger 

23 train. 

24 The CPUC recommended upgrading the warning 

25 devices to flashing light signals and gates, advance 

00036 

 1 warning signs, and providing illumination at the 
 2 crossing. 

 3 Ultimately, the Ventura County Transportation 

 4 Commission has acquired special Federal funding and 

 5 together with the UPRR, will upgrade the warning devices 

 6 at the crossing to gates and flashing light signals. 

 7 Maintenance costs will be borne by the railroad as 

 8 specified in thecrossing agreement negotiated with the 

 9 Ventura County Transportation Commission. Although the 

10 crossing will remain a private crossing, automatic 

11 warning devices will be installed. 

12 Overall, a private crossing is only justified 

13 if it provides sole access to a parcel of land that has 

14 no other viable alternative access available, which does 

15 not cross the tracks. 

16 Private crossings have been thought of 

17 differently than public crossings because, in theory, 

18 only the private property owners and their invitees, and 

19 guests, and employees use the crossing, and should 

20 therefore be aware of the existence of the crossing and 

21 associated hazard. 

22 This justified the opinion that there was no 

23 need for having warning signage or automatic warning 

24 devices, as are typically used at public crossings. 

25 There is also the assumption that if a 

00037 

 1 collision occurrs at a private crossing, only the private 

 2 property owner and the railroad may suffer the 

 3 consequences of the crash, and therefore, these two 

 4 interested parties are solely responsible for the safety 

 5 of the private crossing. 

 6 However, many private crossings are on farms 

 7 which use temporary workers who may not be aware of the 

 8 presence of the crossing and its associated hazards. 

 9 Also, if trains that carry hazardous materials 

10 or passengers which are involved in the collision, then 

11 the surrounding community may be exposed to the hazardous 

12 material or the passengers on board the train may be 

13 injured or potentially killed. Therefore, train 

14 passengers and the general public, not only the property 

15 owner and the railroad, are exposed to the dangers of an 

16 accident at private crossings. 

17 Also, unless the approaches to the private 

18 crossings are controlled, for example, by locked gates or 

19 at least posted as private property, the public, for 

20 example, a lost driver may be using it, therefore, 

21 individuals other than the invitee, guests, and employees 

22 of the property owner may use with or without permission 

23 many private crossings. 

24 Furthermore, if a private crossing is publicly 

25 used, such as ones that provide access to a business, 

00038 

 1 then the general public is exposed to the same level of 

 2 hazard as with any other public crossing. Anytime there 

 3 is a probability that the public may be exposed to harm 

 4 by a private crossing, it becomes a public safety issue 

 5 requiring diagnostic review and special consideration. 

 6 In such cases, state government oversight of 
 7 the crossing is appropriate. 

 8 Currently, the railroads and private crossing 

 9 owners share the liability for the safety at private 

10 crossings, and the railroads -- to some extent, the 

11 property owners share an interest in minimizing their 

12 exposure to financial liability. 

13 Because there are few controls at most private 

14 crossings assuring usage by only authorized parties, the 

15 use of the private crossings can change over time. We 

16 are not confident that such changes in use would be 

17 identified in a timely manner and addressed by the 

18 railroad or the landowner. 

19 Railroads may not be aware of the changes in 

20 use. And landowners may not be aware of a need to 

21 re-evaluate the crossing and its warning devices based on 

22 that changed use. 

23 We recommend some mechanism where the State or 

24 local government identifies increased or changed land use 

25 in landlocked parcels through permitting or project 

00039 

 1 approval to identify such changes in the dynamics in the 

 2 crossing and its use. 

 3 With such a process, the appropriate State 

 4 agency, the railroads and land owners could make informed 

 5 decisions regarding the appropriate crossing treatment. 

 6 The best time to determine an increase in motor 

 7 vehicle, bicycle, or pedestrian usage at railroad 

 8 crossings is when the developer seeks approval of new 

 9 commercial or residential projects. 

10 For the past three years, the Public Utilities 

11 Commission has been reviewing proposed developments, and 

12 concerning potential impact on public safety under the 

13 California Environmental Quality Act. 

14 This procedure permits the Commission to 

15 monitor proposed increases in traffic at crossings. 

16 Under C.E.Q.A., which is the California 

17 Environmental Quality Ability, the lead agency for the 

18 proposed development is required to respond to public 

19 comments concerning the project. There are, however, 

20 many instances where we are not aware of private 

21 crossings, and therefore, cannot make specific 

22 recommendations. 

23 As to costs, generally, allocation of 

24 improvement and/or maintenance costs is agreed to by the 

25 landowner and railroad as parties entering into the legal 

00040 

 1 instrument establishing the private crossing. We believe 

 2 this is appropriate. In California, where the landowner 

 3 and railroad do not agree, the Commission may apportion 

 4 such costs. 

 5 The CPUC allows for administrative legal review 

 6 by public hearing in crossing matters. Administrative 

 7 law judges hear crossing cases and prepare proposed 

 8 decisions for consideration by the Commission. 

 9 In general, the Commission reviews the facts of 

10 the case and the proposed decision, and issues its own 

11 carefully reasoned decision. 
12 Moreover, the CPUC has its own alternative 

13 dispute resolution mechanism for these and other 

14 proceedings in which ARJ's specially trained in mediation 

15 procedures and outcomes are used to assist in resolving 

16 such matters. 

17 The issues involved with private crossings 

18 include property rights, contract law, and the safety 

19 responsibility for the traveling public. All of which 

20 have traditionally been within the State's 

21 responsibility. 

22 Many of the grants of rights-of-way in 

23 California were created in the 19th century at the time 

24 of the initial railroad line construction. Both the 

25 rights-of-way and the crossing agreements may be found in 

00041 

 1 deeds of trust, quit claim deeds, and other contractual 

 2 arrangements between the railroads and landowners subject 

 3 to the laws of the State of California. 

 4 Therefore, we strongly recommend keeping the 

 5 responsibility of the safety of private crossings with 

 6 the States. 

 7 The FRA may issue guidelines, for the benefit 

 8 of States that do not have laws on this subject and 

 9 provide recommended language for laws and regulations. 

10 However, the CPUC contends that public and private 

11 crossing safety regulation is too dependent on State law 

12 and real property and contracts law, and is too focused 

13 on regional issues and concerns to permit Federal 

14 preemptions of the field. Recommended Federal guidelines 

15 may be valuable, wholesale federal preemption is not. 

16 In California, each individual public crossing 

17 design is reviewed by a diagnostic team, comprised of 

18 experts, to recommend an appropriate design considering 

19 the unique nature of the individual highway rail 

20 crossings. 

21 Private crossing design is generally specified 

22 between the railroad and the landowner in the crossing 

23 agreement. 

24 In cases where a private crossing is used by 

25 the public or trains carrying hazardous material or 

00042 

 1 passenger trains, existing guidelines for public 

 2 crossings should be used. 

 3 In other cases, we recommend the FRA invite a 

 4 group of experts to develop guidelines for the design of 

 5 private crossings, similar to the highway rail crossing 

 6 technical working group that issued the guidance on 

 7 traffic control devices at highway rail crossings. Where 

 8 crossings allow unfettered access of passage and 

 9 routinely invite the general public to use the crossing, 

10 a public purpose has been established. 

11 In such cases, guidelines for crossing 

12 treatments should be the same as used for public 

13 crossing. 

14 Public uses of crossings, which could be 

15 classified as private, include crossings at shopping 

16 centers and malls, which are generally private property, 
17 crossings to public facilities, such as landfills, 

18 recreational areas and other unrestricted public lands, 

19 private roads to residences, such as mobile home parks, 

20 residential subdivisions and private country clubs, and 

21 other businesses and commercial enterprises offering 

22 goods or services to the public, such as Christmas tree 

23 lots or nurseries. 

24 As stated above, the potential hazard to the 

25 public at private crossings should be assumed to be the 

00043 

 1 same for those at public crossings, particularly where 

 2 the public is invited to the property. 

 3 Additionally, many conditions and use of 

 4 private crossings have changed markedly from those when 

 5 the agreement was first executed. 

 6 As mentioned above, this changed use should be 

 7 addressed through crossing upgrades or potentially, 

 8 closure. However, it's very difficult to set a threshold 

 9 for determining when a crossing is publicly used. 

10 For example, can two private residences share a 

11 private crossing? Can 10? Where do you draw the line? 

12 For example, a crossing may have been 

13 established 50 years ago when only a farmer and its 

14 employees used the crossing so that the document creating 

15 the private crossing may have been appropriate for the 

16 limited use expected 50 years ago. But if fifty years 

17 later, a local farmer's market is established on the 

18 property, the changed useage at the crossing may pose a 

19 hazard to the general motoring public. The terms of 

20 agreement between the railroad and property owner have 

21 changed and so must be re-evaluated. 

22 It is extremely difficult to police the usage 

23 of each private crossing. Consequently, the private 

24 property owner must be given the incentive to upgrade the 

25 warning devices at the crossing when the useage changes. 

00044 

 1 Financial liability, in case of a collision, is 

 2 one incentive for private property owners to provide 

 3 proper warning devices at a crossing, but generally not a 

 4 compelling one until after the incident occurred. 

 5 Any guidelines on private crossings considered 

 6 for adoption should address the changes in use over time 

 7 and provide for re-evaluation. 

 8 California does not believe a distinction 

 9 should be made between a commercial and private crossing. 

10 California treats the crossing as a private crossing, but 

11 this may require greater protections to pedestrians or 

12 the motoring public, through the addition of improved 

13 safety warning devices similar to or identical to private 

14 crossings -- or to public crossings, rather. 

15 Also, there are public used crossings that are 

16 not commercial in nature. For example, to an apartment 

17 building or mobile home park. 

18 Private crossings, again, should be treated 

19 much like public ones. Private crossings are subjected 

20 to the same kind of diagnostic safety review and level of 

21 safety oversight as public crossings. Existing industry 
22 and State safety standards and practices should be 

23 maintained. The same innovative traffic control devices 

24 considered for public crossings can often be used at 

25 private crossings. 

00045 

 1 We believe that FRA has taken appropriate steps 

 2 to solicit public comment on the matter to determine the 

 3 scope of the relevant issues relating to private 

 4 crossings. It would be premature to consider adoption of 

 5 new legislature regarding private crossings until the 

 6 comments of the interested parties are made and 

 7 considered. Only then will an assessment of regulatory 

 8 gaps be able to be fully reviewed and potential solutions 

 9 considered. 

10 In conclusion, the California Public Utilities 

11 Commission applauds the initiative taken by Federal 

12 Railroad Administration to reduce hazards associated with 

13 private crossings. 

14 In our opinion, all private crossings should be 

15 provided with the same level of warning devices as public 

16 ones based on the use and geometry of the crossing. 

17 The danger posed by a private and a public 

18 crossing on high speed passenger rails are basically 

19 similar, since passengers, as well as bicyclists, 

20 pedestrians and motorists are placed at risk. 

21 Likewise, freight trains carrying hazardous 

22 materials have similar potential for the dangerous 

23 release of those hazardous materials at both private and 

24 public crossings. 

25 California notes that all class one railroads 

00046 

 1 and many short line railroads in the state transport 

 2 hazardous materials over their rail lines. 

 3 California contends that existing protections, 

 4 particularly under State law, are sufficient to protect 

 5 the traveling public provided appropriate criteria for 

 6 providing warning devices are used for both public and 

 7 private crossings. 

 8 The Commission recommends that the FRA assist 

 9 in the formation of a technical working group to prepare 

10 general guidelines for identifying dangerous private 

11 crossings and recommend guidlines to be considered in 

12 upgrading or designing such crossings. 

13 Thanks very much. 

14 MR. COTHEN: When we come back at a quarter to the 

15 hour, we'll offer the opportunity of colleagues on the 

16 FRA panel to address any follow-up questions to Daren, 

17 and then we'll proceed. 

18 Thank you. 

19 (Recess taken.) 

20 MR. COTHEN: Back on the record, if we may. 

21 You always know if you come to California, 

22 you're going to learn something. 

23 When I was a resident at Central Valley, we 

24 used to say the Golden State, that California leads the 

25 nation. I guess you all still say that out here, don't 

00047 
 1 you? 

 2 We're grateful to the PUC for beginning to give 

 3 us something to really chew on from the point of view of 

 4 the regulatory agency responsible here in the State. And 

 5 we'll get to hear some more as we go forward. 

 6 We are also happy to have Steve Cates from the 

 7 California Department of Transportation here. 

 8 California, of course, is extremely proactive in 

 9 fostering passenger rail, inner city and commuter rail. 

10 Come on up, Steve, so we have the benefit of 

11 hearing from California D.O.T., from their perspective on 

12 the issue of private crossings. 

13 Welcome, if you could, for the Court reporter, 

14 do the same for us here. 

15 MR. CATES: Okay. Thank you. I'm Steve Cates, last 

16 name spelled C-a-t-e-s. 

17 Probably take about 10 minutes to kind of go 

18 over my comments. 

19 California Department of Transportation has a 

20 pretty aggressive passenger rail program. I want to talk 

21 about our rail program and what we do in regard to grade 

22 crossings. Our passenger rail program has a number of 

23 elements. We have a capital program, and an operations 

24 program, a grade crossing program, and a rolling stock 

25 program. 

00048 

 1 In our capital program, we spend about a 

 2 hundred fifty million dollars a year for improvement to 

 3 the class one railroads to operate our passenger trains. 

 4 Those would be for increasing capacities andfor improving 

 5 running times. The types of projects we would be 

 6 involved with would be for track and signal improvements 

 7 in those areas where we're going to be running our 

 8 trains. 

 9 We have an operations program. We provide 

10 inner city rail service. We carry over four-and-a-half 

11 million passengers a year on three different routes. 

12 Those routes are the Pacific Surf Liner, the San Joaquin 

13 and the Capital Corridor. The Surf Liner operates from 

14 San Luis Obispo down to San Diego, on the coast on Union 

15 Pacific tracks. The San Joaquin route operates for the 

16 most part on PNSF, but it also operates on UP tracks. 

17 Bay Area and Sacramento are the origination points, so it 

18 kind of operates like a J., meets in Stockton and then 

19 goes down through Fresno and Bakersfield. 

20 And we have the Capital Corridor which we 

21 started and which we have spun off, and it's operated by 

22 the Capital Corridor Joint Powers Authority that operates 

23 between Auburn through Sacramento and to San Jose. 

24 We also have an inner city passenger rail 

25 rolling stock program. We acquire passenger cars and 

00049 

 1 locomotives. Currently we own 88 rail cars and 17 

 2 locomotives. 

 3 I kind of feel personally connected with 60 of 

 4 those. I did the inspection testing here, and I have 

 5 done that on about a dozen more of the cars, the 
 6 inspection taking place at the manufacturing plant in 

 7 Hornell, New York. Whenever one these guys get whacked 

 8 at a grade crossing, I feel kind of vulnerable about it. 

 9 But we're also working on funding for some additional 

10 cars. We're going to try and purchase 7 new cars and 

11 about 10 more locomotives. Our service is expanding 10 

12 to 15 percent a year and we need those vehicles to take 

13 care of our standing room only crowds during peak 

14 service. 

15 We also have a rail highway grade crossing 

16 improvement program. And we have different funding 

17 sources for this. There is the Federal 1010, 1103 funds 

18 for crossing improvements and high speed rail corridors. 

19 We have the Federal section 130 funds that are provided 

20 through the U.S. Department of Transportation. 

21 So those are for improvement on public 

22 crossings. 

23 And we also have a program here in California, 

24 a Section 190 grade separate program. And by the way, 

25 our 130 program and our 190 programs are jointly 

00050 

 1 administered with the Public Utilities Commission. 

 2 These programs provide over $35 million a year 

 3 to improvement of safety at grade crossings. And we also 

 4 contribute about 60,000 a year to Operation Lifesaver. 

 5 Here are some statistics about California. We 

 6 have about 312,400 grade crossings; 4,500 of those or 

 7 about 36 percent are private crossings. The remainder of 

 8 about 7700 are public crossings. 

 9 We have about 150 crashes at grade crossings 

10 every year in California. A hundred and thirty of those 

11 are public crossings, about 20 of those a year are at 

12 private crossings. 

13 And of those 20, two to three involve a 

14 passenger train. Typically, that would be a Metrolink 

15 train or one of the trains that we subsidize. 

16 Now, to give you the real story of kind of how 

17 things work from my perspective, I have equipment staff, 

18 I have grade crossing staff. I am on the same floor as 

19 our budget staff and our Federal aide liaison. We're all 

20 on the same floor, and I'm across the street from the 

21 Governor's office, so I have got all these people looking 

22 at me. 

23 When we get in an accident at a grade crossing, 

24 particularly at a private crossing, my equipment staff 

25 come to me and say what are you going to do to fix this 

00051 

 1 crossing? We've gotten in three accidents in the last 

 2 ten years and you're not doing anything to take care of 

 3 that. Plus, we've got all of the corrugation taken off 

 4 the side of my cars. And it's going to be two years 

 5 before I get it back in service. 

 6 Then I have my grade crossing staff. You can't 

 7 fix that. That's a gift of public funds. You can't use 

 8 public funds. Those are highway funds. Those have to be 

 9 spent on public crossings. The Governor is across the 

10 street. I'm on the third floor. So he's got to yell and 
11 look up at me. You have to reduce your budget and cut 

12 your staff. So that's what I have to deal with in trying 

13 to improve grade crossings in California. 

14 So what are the current practices? What do we 

15 do? 

16 Well, the State doesn't have a specific 

17 financial aide program to improve private crossings, 

18 although we do have a Public Utilities Commission in 

19 California which fortunately has regulatory authority 

20 over the private crossings. We have used Federal 

21 Sections 1010 and 1103 high speed rail corridor funds to 

22 consolidate and close private crossings. And we've 

23 worked with and through the class one owner railroads to 

24 improve private crossing services during straight 

25 supported passenger rail track and signal projects. 

00052 

 1 The railroad and private crossing owner have 

 2 shared the cost of most of these improvements. And the 

 3 costs were primarily to install lining, like concrete 

 4 crossing panels. And when we go through and upgrade 

 5 tracks, put in double tracks or triple tracks or 

 6 whatever, we'll replace and upgrade, you know, the cross 

 7 bucks and that sort of thing, at private crossings. 

 8 But State funds have not been used, what I 

 9 call, to directly pay for these improvements. Because of 

10 all these people talking at me, we've got to be real 

11 sneaky when we go out there and make improvements at 

12 private crossings, so we structure our contracts and 

13 agreements so the funds don't go through the railroad and 

14 through the private crossing owner. 

15 Now, I put out on the front, a hand-out of some 

16 of the things we've done with the 1103 money at private 

17 crossings. I have examples of other newsletters, and it 

18 has a picture right here of a grade separation project 

19 that we did. This was on a public crossing, but we've 

20 done two of these at private crossings where we've used 

21 standard railroad bridges. All of these have been on 

22 BNSF class one tracks. One has been in Merced at a 

23 private crossing. The other we're constructing now in 

24 Oakley, not too far from here. It's a private crossing 

25 where we undercut and build a roadway underneath the 

00053 

 1 railroad tracks. Our costs to do that runs just a little 

 2 over a million dollars, between one and a half million 

 3 dollars through our negotiations with the railroad and 

 4 the private landowner. 

 5 So the public investment has been pretty 

 6 limited. If we go out and improve a grade crossing, if 

 7 we put in automatic warning gates, all of the track 

 8 signal circuitry to detect the trains approaching the 

 9 grade crossing, put in median islands or some form of 

10 delineators, we're talking about three-quarters of a 

11 million dollars. 

12 So the cost to us to construct these grade 

13 separations is not that much more than it would be to 

14 provide active warning devices at those crossings. 

15 So, do I think that warning devices at private 
16 crossings are adequate? No way. I don't think that 

17 private crossings, you know, have adequate warning 

18 devices. 

19 Daren talked about an accident there that 

20 occurred with -- it was one of our trains hit a dump 

21 truck. It was out near Selmas. And I'll talk about that 

22 a little bit more in a minute. 

23 Most private crossings don't have train-activated 

24 warning devices and have poor crossing surfaces and 

25 approaches to the crossing. 

00054 

 1 So should there be a uniform approach to 

 2 improving safety at private crossings? Yes. I believe 

 3 that the FRA or some Federal agency should take a 

 4 leadership role in developing some standards or 

 5 guidelines for crossing protection, consolidation, and 

 6 clear, safe private crossings. 

 7 We need to take a look at low cost warning 

 8 devices. The guidelines, I believe, should be similar to 

 9 those that are put forth in the manual of uniform traffic 

10 control devices. 

11 And, again, Daren didn't think that those 

12 should have a regulatory effect. And I would agree, I 

13 think they should be guidelines. There seems to be too 

14 many variabilities at these public crossings, but at 

15 least some guidelines that would give us some direction 

16 on how to proceed, and less costly warning devices and 

17 train detection systems, other than those that are 

18 currently used at public crossings need to be considered 

19 as long as they provide adequate warning. 

20 Now, should the Federal government provide 

21 financial assistance to improve the safety of private 

22 crossings? And I think that the Federal Railroad 

23 Administration should take a more pro-active approach to 

24 provide funding for improvements at private crossings. 

25 And they, in fact, have done so through the 

00055 

 1 Section 1010 and 1103 program where we're allowed to use 

 2 funds to make improvements to private crossings, 

 3 particularly in the area of closure and consolidation. 

 4 However, all of these funds for the last 

 5 several years have been earmarked, and so this hasn't 

 6 really operated too much as a grant program. I would 

 7 look forward to an increase in funding through that 

 8 program, with funds distributed on some type of formula 

 9 basis to provide a stable funding mechanism so we could 

10 go in and close, consolidate, and improve crossings in 

11 these high speed rail corridors, particularly private 

12 crossings, and we would reduce the risks that are 

13 associated with those crossings. 

14 And I think that this program should be 

15 restructured to include demonstration projected at maybe 

16 the working group. And a reasonable working group or 

17 some other working group that would identify projects to 

18 test the feasibility of new technologies. 

19 So that's kind of what I wanted to present. I 

20 don't know if we have anybody here from Venture County. 
21 I don't know, Freddy or Dave may talk about 

22 that a little bit. Since Daren brought up the accident 

23 at Selmas in Venture County, I wanted to explain a little 

24 bit about that particular crossing and what's being done 

25 there. Because this is something that the State of 

00056 

 1 California hasn't been directly involved with, although 

 2 we have been involved indirectly along with Union Pacific 

 3 Railroad, the Public Utilities Commission and Operation 

 4 Lifesaver and Metrolink, Amtrak, Highway Patrol have all 

 5 been involved with the Ventura County Transportation 

 6 Commission. 

 7 A few years ago Ventura County -- well, the 

 8 Ventura County Transportation Commission undertook a 

 9 review of all of the grade crossings on their main line 

10 track in Ventura County. 

11 They identified, and they, also, in doing this -- 

12 kind of backtrack here -- they took a look at all of the 

13 accidents that occurred at those crossings in the last 10 

14 years. Went out, conducted a survey of those crossings 

15 and identified improvements that they thought should make 

16 at those crossings. 

17 There were 13 private railroad crossings on the 

18 main line track there that have had accidents in the last 

19 10 years. And, in fact, one of those was the crossing 

20 that Daren talked about. 

21 Well, Ventura County Transportation Commission 

22 has gotten together with Operation Lifesaver, Union 

23 Pacific, Metrolink, Amtrak, the Highway Patrol and 

24 different farming interests in the Selmas area in working 

25 through Operation Lifesaver to educate the public on rail 

00057 

 1 crossing safety issues, particularly at private 

 2 crossings. And they're installing stop, look and listen 

 3 signs both in English and in Spanish at these grade 

 4 crossings. 

 5 They're also working with the Union Pacific 

 6 Railroad to replace a bridge. This is a vehicular bridge 

 7 that would allow workers to access different fields, and, 

 8 as a result of this, they'll be able to close a couple of 

 9 private crossings. 

10 Last year, with the assistance of Representative 

11 Elton Gallegly, G-a-l-l-e-g-l-y, the Ventura County 

12 Transportation Commission was able to seek an earmark of 

13 $494,000 in Federal assistance. Those earmarked funds 

14 will be running through my office. And those funds, 

15 since they were earmarked, are going to be used to 

16 install flashing gates -- flashing lights and automatic 

17 gates at two private crossings. And those are the two 

18 that had the highest accident rates. One of those is the 

19 crossing where one of my trains hit a dump truck. 

20 The ironic thing about that that was a dump 

21 truck, it was a subcontractor on a CalTrans highway 

22 project, so my train hit my dump truck subcontractor. 

23 But Ventura County, they don't own or control 

24 any of these tracks. But they've worked with the 

25 railroads and with others to improve safety, and I think 
00058 

 1 they're to be commended. 

 2 That's something else that's being done here in 

 3 California besides what we're doing with the Public 

 4 Utilities Commission, with CalTrans, with the railroads, 

 5 and then, also, with Metrolink. And I don't know if 

 6 Metrolink is going to speak with -- are you going to be 

 7 talking later or -- 

 8 MR. MATHIEU: I could mention right now, the two 

 9 crossings that we're talking about, Metrolink did. 

10 MR. TESSLER: Excuse me, could you identify yourself 

11 for the reporter. 

12 MR. MATHIEU: Okay. My name is Ron Mathieu, and I 

13 work for the Southern California Regional Rail Authority, 

14 which is Joint Powers Authority that runs the Metrolink 

15 commuter rail system. And I just wanted to just bring up 

16 a point that Steve, and, also, Daren mentioned about 

17 these two private crossings in Ventura County. They are 

18 on the Union Pacific main line, but Metrolink and some 

19 staff at Metrolink did work with the Ventura County 

20 Transportation Commission -- which is VCTC -- to secure 

21 funding. 

22 We initially looked at five private crossings. 

23 But I think the money that was secured only covered two 

24 crossings. And that was the Hangel (phonetic) Tree Farm 

25 in Selmas Ranch private crossing, and I got an E-Mail 

00059 

 1 here that -- I wanted to mention that the automatic 

 2 warning devices are now active at those crossings. I 

 3 just wanted to bring that up because both had mentioned 

 4 that they were going to be installed, but they are 

 5 installed. 

 6 MR. CATES: So I can go back to my equipment staff 

 7 and say neener, neener, neener we got those installed. 

 8 MR. MATHIEU: They're going to be doing some press 

 9 event and they've mentioned they were installed. 

10 So I wanted to add that for the record. 

11 MR. CATES: Okay. That concludes my comments. I do 

12 want to remind you, I have this little newsletter. This 

13 is probably from January of 2006, and it shows an example 

14 of the crossing that we did with the 1103 funds. 

15 And then I've also included an executive 

16 summary for our California rail plan, and both of those 

17 are out on the table in front. So, thank you. 

18 MR. COTHEN: Thanks, Mr. Cates. 

19 Do we have any follow-up questions from the FRA 

20 panel, for either of our California folks? 

21 MR. RIES: Appreciate the comments and the 

22 information you provided. 

23 Do you have some set guidelines or policies 

24 that you use in determining which private crossings would 

25 be subject for closure or grade separation? How do you 

00060 

 1 make those decisions? 

 2 MR. CATES: It's been pretty much opportunistic. 

 3 We're going to be on track upgrade projects working with 

 4 the railroad, for the most part, public projects 
 5 managers, both Union Pacific and BNSF Railroad are 

 6 familiar with the private crossings. They're 

 7 knowledgeable as to who might be more readily interested 

 8 in improving those crossings. So I think they're kind of 

 9 the experts on private crossings on their tracks, but all 

10 of the work we've done, other than when we're going 

11 through an upgrading or putting in new tracks, it's just 

12 been purely kind of opportunistic. 

13 One of them was the 130 project that was 

14 recommended in Oakley. We started looking at the 

15 national highway system map, saw that it was a roadway, 

16 that it had been relinquished by the county years before 

17 and was under private ownership. A chain across it and 

18 private crossing signs on it for a number of years. We 

19 took a look at how could we make that improvement. 

20 This is going to be opened up for public use, 

21 and again, this is a problem that we have in 

22 administering highway funds. But to be able to use the 

23 highway funds, it has to be a -- what they call public 

24 highway. And to meet that definition it has to be under 

25 the ownership, control, and maintenance of a highway 

00061 

 1 department authorized under statute to perform that 

 2 function. 

 3 In this particular case, the acquisition of the 

 4 properties on the far side of the track were being 

 5 acquired by the Sanitation District, a parks district, 

 6 and I think it was an irrigation or water district. 

 7 And school buses were going to be using this 

 8 crossing in addition to sanitation trucks carrying 

 9 hazardous waste. So we were quite concerned about the 

10 risks that were going to be posed at this particular 

11 crossing. 

12 We operate at 79 miles an hour through there, 

13 and NSF operates at 65 miles an hour with the freight 

14 trains. And we got together with -- actually, it was the 

15 attorney from the sanitation district who negotiated with 

16 the sanitation district and the railroad to use some left 

17 over funds that we had had through the 1103 program. So 

18 it was just -- that's kind of how that one came about. 

19 MR. RIES: I also had a question for Daren. 

20 Certainly, I think there is a wealth of 

21 knowledge that since California has taken a very 

22 pro-active, you know, stance in working in private 

23 crossings, probably one of the few States that does that, 

24 how much staff time would you say is dedicated to private 

25 crossings? 

00062 

 1 MR. GILBERT: Wow, that's tough to estimate. 

 2 Different staff spent a different amount of time. I 

 3 probably would venture a guess somewhere between five to 

 4 10 percent. 

 5 MR. RIES: Okay. And that's out of how big of a 

 6 staff would you say? 

 7 MR. GILBERT: Out of a staff of -- current staff of 

 8 about a dozen field people. 

 9 MR. ELSMORE: I would like to add -- my named is 
10 George Elsmore, E-l-s-m-o-r-e. 

11 I have rail safety staff and we investigate 

12 every fatality at the private crossings where there is a 

13 vehicle or trespasser, so we have a pretty significant 

14 allocation of resources there, as well. 

15 MR. TESSLER: Grady? 

16 MR. COTHEN: Mr. Gilbert, I understand that when you 

17 said that the uses change at private crossings over the 

18 years, and subsequently, the PUC can order improvement to 

19 the crossing, such as automatic warning devices, and you 

20 mentioned that after you order it, there is a dispute 

21 resolution and different processes, but you ultimately 

22 can order those improvements installed? 

23 MR. GILBERT: Yes, it's my understanding that we 

24 have the authority to order warning devices at private 

25 crossings. 

00063 

 1 MR. TESSLER: Have there been challenges? 

 2 MR. BERDGE: Not at this point. Pat Berdge, 

 3 B-e-r-d-g-e, star counsel for California PUC. 

 4 MR. TESSLER: When you do order those allocations of 

 5 costs, could you give us an idea of how it is allocated, 

 6 generally? 

 7 MR. BERDGE: It hasn't happened in a long time. 

 8 Usually, the parties settle. And there is an agreement 

 9 by the parties, between the railroad and the property 

10 owner to allocate the costs, maintenance, and 

11 construction of the crossing protections. 

12 MR. TESSLER: But your testimony said that you 

13 allocate the costs. Do you provide -- 

14 MR. BERDGE: This is a code provision. 

15 MR. TESSLER: Do you allocate and they can change 

16 it? 

17 MR. BERDGE: They can change whatever they want. If 

18 they have an agreement, then the Commission is going to 

19 step back and let the agreement get filed, and that will 

20 be used in allocating the costs. 

21 All we're saying, basically, is that the 

22 California Public Utilities Code provides that the 

23 Commission can allocate if there is a dispute between the 

24 parties. Ultimately, it's the California PUC's call. 

25 MR. TESSLER: But you had mentioned it hasn't 

00064 

 1 happened recently. 

 2 MR. BERDGE: That's correct. 

 3 Can I explain one thing? This is in the 

 4 Patterson case, the one that Daren talked about. It did 

 5 not go to the Commission. It was the staff that wrote to 

 6 the private property owner and said that until Union 

 7 Pacific will post a 30-day notice unless you will pay for 

 8 upgrades. And the private property owner, along with the 

 9 others, made that agreement. And so they are going to 

10 pay for the upgrades and then turn the road approaching 

11 the private crossing over to the county. 

12 But that did not go to a Commission decision, 

13 but the Commission is the one that makes the ultimate 

14 decision if it needs to be, but an agreement was made at 
15 that point. 

16 MS. HARRIS: Yes, I'm Carol Harris. And I'm here on 

17 behalf of the AAR and, also, Union Pacific Railroad. 

18 But actually, speaking from my experience here 

19 in California representing Union Pacific on these 

20 matters, and I would agree that the CPUC processes -- 

21 well, the CPUC's processes do provide an impetus for 

22 reaching agreements which have been very useful, in 

23 particular, the ADR processes in some of the CPUC's 

24 cases. 

25 But there was one other mechanism that I'm not 

00065 

 1 sure that Daren discussed, or maybe he didn't mention 

 2 that we have used, and that is, also, I think an 

 3 interesting tool that we have here in California, and 

 4 that is -- I'm not going to be able to get the Code 

 5 Section exactly right. I think it's 1202 something. But 

 6 it's a section that provides that where the Commission 

 7 determines that a private crossing is publicly used and 

 8 no one is taking responsibility for it, the Commission 

 9 can order it closed if the Public Roadway Authority 

10 refuses to take responsibility. 

11 This is kind of a lost interpretation of the 

12 provision. But essentially, that is a mechanism for 

13 putting pressure on local roadway authorities to take 

14 responsibility for the crossing. 

15 And in some of these publicly used private 

16 crossings, we actually think that's an important remedy 

17 because if it becomes a public crossing, then you have an 

18 entity that is responsible not only for the crossing, 

19 itself, but for the adjoining roadway, and the 

20 engineering of the roadway can often be an important 

21 factor in the safety of the crossing. 

22 So that's, I think, a very helpful provision. 

23 We have invoked it. The railroad has. Because we had a 

24 case in San Luis Obispo where we sought to get a crossing 

25 closed that was publicly used. It was across from a 

00066 

 1 university campus, and we had widespread use with both 

 2 pedestrians and automobiles. We had captive homeowners 

 3 that were landlocked. We had a whole variety of uses. 

 4 We had some school dorms that were not actually adjoining 

 5 owners, but they had a -- they had developed an improved 

 6 access to this private crossing for their residents. 

 7 And through the Commission's procedures, we 

 8 brought all of the parties to the table, and that case 

 9 ultimately settled with an agreement between the railroad 

10 and all of the private entities that were using the 

11 crossing. We did not have a public entity take over the 

12 roadway. 

13 It was a complicated situation in which the 

14 university owned the roadway on one side, and the county 

15 owned it on -- the county's property began on the other 

16 side, but we had to ultimately handle it through a 

17 private crossing agreement. That was the only way that 

18 we could get that one resolved. But we were able to fund 

19 improvements to the crossing, and finally, most 
20 importantly, have a mechanism for enforcing safety using 

21 the crossing, and we did manage to use Operation 

22 Lifesaver funds. 

23 Even though it is a private crossing, Operation 

24 Lifesaver became actively involved, so there is 

25 precedence for use of those funds at private crossings. 

00067 

 1 But I have to tell you, that it was a very 

 2 expensive, complicated negotiation, very difficult to get 

 3 anybody to come to the table if they're not already under 

 4 the PUC's jurisdiction and reasonably threatened to 

 5 eliminate the crossing. We were able to bring them in. 

 6 So, that was our experience. 

 7 There is a couple of reasons. Sometimes there 

 8 is actually another reason. I just want to mention why 

 9 it can be helpful to ask the public roadway authorities 

10 to take responsibility for these publicly used private 

11 crossings. And that is because of the law enforcement. 

12 With a public crossing, there is nobody that is going to 

13 enforce safety, enforce safe driver behavior at a private 

14 crossing. And if a public roadway authority takes 

15 responsibility for the crossing, then you have some 

16 additional legal mechanisms that kick in. So that's been 

17 our experience there. 

18 MR. COTHEN: Carol, we'll come back to you a little 

19 bit later to pick up any other items that you have. 

20 Anya, did you want to follow-up with the sale 

21 rep? 

22 MS. CARROLL: Good morning again. Thank you all for 

23 coming. I'm enjoying this conversation immensely. My 

24 interest is in the agreements. 

25 My question would be to Daren. One: Is there 

00068 

 1 a form, a standard form that is started as a baseline, 

 2 used as a baseline for these agreements? 

 3 Secondly: Who is the responsible party for 

 4 holding the agreement as current? Who updates that 

 5 agreement when necessary? 

 6 And thirdly: Just as a case in point, from our 

 7 Raleigh, North Carolina meeting it was found that there 

 8 were a very small number of formal agreements that could 

 9 be found in North Carolina in their crossing safety 

10 initiative, the private crossing safety initiative, and 

11 the most were found within the railroads archives. 

12 So, I have a whole series of questions about 

13 these agreements and where are -- where they're found, 

14 what the baseline is, and who's responsible for keeping 

15 them up-to-date. 

16 MR. GILBERT: Well, I think that you'll find that 

17 other case is very similar to North Carolina. And 

18 probably, the appropriate parties to address that too is 

19 the railroads. There is no form. 

20 We don't hold the agreements, and quite often 

21 when issues arise regarding private crossings, the 

22 railroad can't put their hands on an agreement or it 

23 can't locate it. It may exist, probably, in the archives 

24 that you spoke of. But in support, they're difficult to 
25 come by and sometimes impossible to find. 

00069 

 1 MR. Petrossian: If I could follow-up. 

 2 That's why this year we adopted General Order 

 3 75 (D). In that -- I'm loud enough? 

 4 In that general order, it requires that there 

 5 be a written agreement between the railroad and the 

 6 private property owner. And, again, we used that in the 

 7 Patterson case. We wrote to them saying, send us your 

 8 agreement, and nobody did. And since there is no 

 9 agreement, we are going to request that the railroad 

10 close the crossing. So now that we have that instrument, 

11 which became effective just last month, September 23rd, 

12 if I'm not mistaken, the Commission has another tool to 

13 use to make sure there is a written agreement between the 

14 private property owner and the railroad. 

15 MS. CARROLL: So, within that framework, do you have 

16 a baseline form for the agreement that addresses certain 

17 pieces and parts, or it's just open, it could be a verbal 

18 agreement, or does it have to be a written agreement? 

19 MR. PETROSSIAN: It says in the general order. 

20 MR. BERDGE: Also, as we found out in our visit to 

21 the Volpe Center, most of these agreements are in deeds 

22 of the property through which the railroad runs its line. 

23 And there are a great number of easements in the valley, 

24 in the San Joaquin Valley that have easements, but no 

25 crossings, but could have crossings. 

00070 

 1 The matter is also complicated by the fact that 

 2 when UP purchased or merged with SP, those records are 

 3 much harder -- those SP records are much harder to find 

 4 now with the merger after the merger. 

 5 MR. COTHEN: Any further follow-up? 

 6 MR. MATHIEU: One more comment. Metrolink again. 

 7 That's one of our concerns, also as a public agency that 

 8 purchased right-of-ways from the freight railroads, we 

 9 had to go over responsibilities for many public and 

10 private crossings, and finding agreements was a big issue 

11 for us. 

12 And we found out that a lot of these 

13 agreements, you know, they're in deeds, or the agreements 

14 covered, you know, installation of crossing stop signs, 

15 those type of things. 

16 And as we're dealing with these private 

17 crossing owners, the uses changed in trying to update 

18 agreements, or to get them responsible for the 

19 installation of automatic warning devices has been 

20 difficult. But what we've done is the member agencies 

21 that make up the Southern California Regional Rail 

22 Authority, they've developed their own agreements. 

23 So we have what used to be a small two-page 

24 farm crossing or private crossing agreement, now is a 

25 little bigger agreement. So we do have a standard that 

00071 

 1 they've developed. 

 2 MR. COTHEN: Then we ask that the Commission provide 

 3 a copy of General Order 75 (D) for our docket so that we 
 4 can kind of look at the detail of that and understand. 

 5 MR. PETROSSIAN: And the language I refer to is 

 6 going to be in the formal statement, as well. 

 7 MR. COTHEN: Good. Thank you. And that, also, that 

 8 Metrolink provide an example with any details extracted 

 9 that would be unnecessary for the public docket, but just 

10 see the format of the crossing agreement that you all are 

11 using, please. I appreciate it. 

12 MR. BERDGE: The General Order 75 (D) is online, and 

13 in our comments we give the HTTP URL address. 

14 MR. COTHEN: Then all the better. Thank you. 

15 MR. RIES: I just have a follow-up about the written 

16 agreements. 

17 Is it required that the agreements be filed 

18 with the Commission or they just have to make them 

19 available on demand? 

20 MR. PETROSSIAN: Yes, the second. 

21 MR. RIES: On demand. 

22 MR. COTHEN: You have more filing room than we do in 

23 our building. 

24 We'll pick back up with Carol, if she has 

25 anything else. 

00072 

 1 I wanted to recognize Bob Boston, who is 

 2 another one of our State representatives from the region. 

 3 Bob is with the Washington Utilities and Transportation 

 4 Commission, which is a part of FRA State participation. 

 5 And we're among many of its associations, as well as a 

 6 sponsor of rail passenger service along with the 

 7 Washington D.O.T., and the regulatory body. 

 8 So, Bob, could you just add anything that you 

 9 think would be helpful from your standpoint? 

10 MR. BOSTON: Thank you, Grady. 

11 I'm a rail safety specialist with the Utilities 

12 and Transportation Commission, and also, the State 

13 coordinator for Washington Operation Lifesaver. Just a 

14 few short comments. 

15 Washington State is one of the States that does 

16 not regulate private crossings. They're basically just a 

17 contract between the railroads and the private crossing 

18 owners. And, as you know from earlier comments today, we 

19 had a terrible four-fatality collision at a private 

20 crossing a few months back. And we've also seen a spike 

21 in what we call second train incidents at crossings, some 

22 at private crossings. We've had a bunch at some public 

23 crossings, too, especially with pedestrians up near 

24 Seattle. 

25 The Utilities and Transportation Commission has 

00073 

 1 a grant program called Grade Crossing Protection Funds or 

 2 GCPF for short. People can put in for different types of 

 3 safety improvements. 

 4 Washington Operation Lifesaver has put in for 

 5 some education grants under that. A couple of weeks ago, 

 6 I noticed that in the GCPF form it talked about private 

 7 crossings. Even though the Commission does not regulate 

 8 them, it talked about private crossing improvements, 
 9 requesting funds for those. So since we have the second 

10 train incidents that have been occurring in Washington, 

11 Operation Lifesaver put in for some signage at private 

12 crossings where there are two tracks -- two or more 

13 tracks, and especially in the corridor between Vancouver, 

14 Washington and Bellingham. We estimate there is probably 

15 50 private crossings that have at least two tracks. Some 

16 of them may be just a passing track, but some of them are 

17 double main line, and we designed a sign at private 

18 crossings. 

19 No, MUTCD, the Manual on Uniform Traffic 

20 Devices, no code on that. So we came up with a sign 

21 that's it's an 18-by-12 inch sign that says, "Two tracks. 

22 Watch for second train." And we hope to put these up at 

23 crossings. We're going to do some diagnostic at the 

24 crossings, and to check for other things, like sight 

25 distance and things like that. Even though there is no 

00074 

 1 regulatory jurisdiction or different entities, Washington 

 2 Operation Lifesaver will be working together on that, 

 3 hopefully, to get something done there and maybe reduce 

 4 what's happening at the private crossings. 

 5 The Commission also is starting to show some 

 6 interest at private crossings, and the information coming 

 7 back from this meeting is going to be very, very helpful 

 8 to take back on that. 

 9 Some other things we've done at private 

10 crossings, especially in the Columbia River, George, 

11 we've been working a lot with the migrant farm worker 

12 communities, doing a lot of Operation Lifesaver education 

13 to bilingual people. A lot of private crossings are in 

14 the fields where they work. 

15 And there has been some incidents of where a 

16 train may be stopped on the track and then the workers 

17 are anxious to get on the feild, and they're crawling 

18 through the train, and there is possibly another train is 

19 coming on the second train track or the danger of the 

20 train moving. Of course, we put up some English/Spanish 

21 signs warning them of that and to see what we can do on 

22 that. And basically, those are a couple of things we've 

23 got going for private crossings. 

24 I will give this to the panel to take back, and 

25 any recommendations you have on this, good idea, bad or 

00075 

 1 nay, we would welcome your comments on this. 

 2 Thank you. 

 3 MR. COTHEN: Thanks, Bob. 

 4 Any follow-up, Mr. Ries? 

 5 MR. RIES: Bob, in addition to the two-track sign, 

 6 is there any other guidance for private crossing signage 

 7 in Washington? 

 8 MR. BOSTON: No. There is not even any -- there is 

 9 no guidance for any signs, that I know of. And, of 

10 course, private crossings don't have a two-track sign at 

11 all, like your public crossings, underneath the cross 

12 buck where it says the tracks. So we wanted to get 

13 something that was similar to a danger sign with the red 
14 oval that will say "two tracks" in it. And then, of 

15 course, "watch for second train below it." But no 

16 guidelines, that I know of. 

17 MR. RIES: Thank you. 

18 MR. GILBERT: One question. I'm wondering, are you 

19 guys funding those signs, the installation and 

20 acquisition of those, or are you making them available? 

21 MR. BOSTON: The funding would come from the 

22 Utilities and Transportation Commission, if they approve 

23 our grant. We estimated how many signs we would need, 

24 and then most of the signs probably would go below the 

25 stop sign. But in some cases, like what's up on the 

00076 

 1 screen there, you can see three signs on the post. We 

 2 might have to have an additional post with the other sign 

 3 on it, but the Utilities and Transportation Commission 

 4 would be funding it through their grade crossing 

 5 protection fund grants. 

 6 MS. CARROLL: Bob, I have a question for you. 

 7 Your grade crossing protection funds that you 

 8 mention, that's a State-funded program? 

 9 MR. BOSTON: Yes, it is. 

10 MS. CARROLL: Is it set aside from a tax, a gas tax, 

11 highway tax? 

12 MR. BOSTON: I'm really not sure where it derives 

13 out of. It used to be for grade crossing improvements 

14 only, and then I believe two years ago State legislature 

15 said it could be used for trespass problems, as well. So 

16 we have been through Operation Lifesaver. We have been 

17 submitting precedents. 

18 MS. CARROLL: Is there information that documents 

19 that funding source? 

20 MR. BOSTON: Yes, I'm sure there is. And I could 

21 make that available. 

22 MS. CARROLL: I would like to see a copy of it. 

23 MR. BOSTON: Okay. 

24 MS. CARROLL: Thank you. 

25 MR. COTHEN: Anything else for Mr. Boston? 

00077 

 1 Okay. Thanks very much. 

 2 I guess I better look at the cell phone because 

 3 the watch is on eastern time and that will be alarming. 

 4 Does anybody know the cafeteria? 

 5 Why don't we take our break at a quarter till. 

 6 I think we previously heard from Carol Harris. 

 7 Carol was a general commerce counsel for the Union 

 8 Pacific Railroad, formerly known as Southern Pacific 

 9 Transportation Company. 

10 MS. HARRIS: Not exactly. 

11 MR. COTHEN: Kind of slow burn there on that one. 

12 And Carol is also representing the Association 

13 of American Railroads today. 

14 Are there other things you wanted to bring to 

15 our attention, Carol, before we break for lunch? 

16 MS. HARRIS: There were some questions about these 

17 agreements. Many of these agreements take the form of 

18 license agreements because in order to cross our 
19 property, it is required that the adjoining property 

20 owners hold a property license right. 

21 There are other situations, though, where they 

22 have deeded rights or where we are actually operating on 

23 their property. And even there, we are pushing for some 

24 kind of agreement so that we can monitor the use of the 

25 crossing. 

00078 

 1 And so with the General Order 75 (D), we hope 

 2 it will be helpful in that effort. 

 3 But in terms of a standard form, each of the 

 4 railroads has developed terms and conditions for their 

 5 railroad. It is often necessary to negotiate some of 

 6 those terms and conditions, and that becomes a very 

 7 complicated, very difficult process. I get involved in 

 8 it. I'm not a contract lawyer. It's very painful to 

 9 have to go through these long agreements and hash through 

10 everything. 

11 And we often get people involved on the other 

12 side that are -- we can get a lot of legal resources 

13 poured into these negotiations on the other side. If 

14 it's a development that's at issue, and if enough money 

15 is involved in the project, you get a very, very 

16 complicated, very difficult negotiation. But to some 

17 extent, you do need some customization of the agreements 

18 in some cases. 

19 So, it's a situation that is a difficult one, 

20 but we're doing our best to get good agreements in 

21 effect. 

22 And we've also found most of our agreements, I 

23 would like to report, we occasionally have situations 

24 where we can't. But we don't just lose them. We have a 

25 good mechanism, and so we're administering and keeping 

00079 

 1 them and keeping what's negotiated. 

 2 I think, finally, the other thing is someone 

 3 mentioned that a lot of the progress tends to be 

 4 opportunistic. And I think that is our experience. It 

 5 is very difficult to get the attention of adjoining 

 6 landowners who have no reason to communicate with the 

 7 railroad and no interest in getting involved with 

 8 anything that might be complicated or expensive. And so, 

 9 it usually is when there are developments that are at 

10 issue and they're seeking to permit developments that we 

11 actually will be in contact with these folks, or when 

12 there is an incident, unfortunately, that often provides 

13 a catalyst for making changes. 

14 The California Environmental Quality Act does 

15 provide another avenue for engaging with development 

16 interests because if we are alerted in time and become 

17 part of the environmental review process, we can often 

18 push for some improvements. 

19 And then, finally, one other mechanism that 

20 we've found that is quite helpful is that we have tried 

21 to stress in Commission proceedings the FRA concept of 

22 taking the corridor approach to crossings. And so we 

23 have urged that the Commission also do this. So if 
24 someone wants to open a new crossing -- and these are 

25 public roadway authorities that typically file the 

00080 

 1 application -- we have urged that they have to look at 

 2 the adjoining crossings. In fact, all of the crossings 

 3 under their jurisdiction, and demonstrate that they have 

 4 made their best effort to rationalize them, and we've 

 5 pushed this pretty strenuously. 

 6 And we've seen some situations where it's blown 

 7 through, and where the Commission, itself, that has been 

 8 willing to look at the situation and some additional 

 9 crossings so that a community can't come in and build one 

10 new crossing that is totally up to the current standard 

11 while that crossing is in the middle of three or four 

12 crossings that are very substandard. We've managed to 

13 shed some light on those crossings that deal more with 

14 the public crossings than with the private, but sometimes 

15 we're able to bring the condition of the private 

16 crossings in, as well, put pressure on the roadway 

17 authority to either take responsibility for the crossing 

18 or help us get through with the property owners. 

19 All of these things, though, are very 

20 time-consuming and often very difficult. 

21 MR. COTHEN: If I could add something for a moment. 

22 Then Mr. Schwartz is from -- he's one of our camp 

23 followers. Probably the last of the meetings that he'll 

24 be allowed to attend. 

25 MR. SCHWARTZ: Stewart Schwartz, with Norfolk 

00081 

 1 Southern Corporation. 

 2 With regards to the types of agreements that 

 3 exist, it probably bears repeating, at least in our case, 

 4 there are portions of our railroads that are now 175 

 5 years old. 

 6 And the railroads that exist today is literally 

 7 the product of the mergers of hundreds, and multiple 

 8 hundreds of predecessor railroads. So to the extent that 

 9 agreements exist, there is little to no uniformity at 

10 all. 

11 Going forward for those limited number of 

12 circumstances where we may be able to renegotiate 

13 existing agreements or execute new agreements, we would 

14 attempt to have some uniformity in the form that we use. 

15 As Carol pointed out, there is usually some 

16 necessity for customization to meet the unique 

17 circumstances. But, in our case, we have 10,000 private 

18 crossings, and I can't say with any certainty how many of 

19 those are actually covered by an agreement or deed or 

20 easement or any other writing. But I could state with 

21 some fair level of confidence that there is little to no 

22 uniformity in those agreements at all. And probably, in 

23 most cases, little ability to force a renegotiation under 

24 ordinary circumstances. 

25 MR. COTHEN: So, it raises a really interesting 

00082 

 1 question about how you proceed on a national basis in 

 2 terms of some kind of guidelines for moving the process 
 3 forward. Where do you start with the individual crossing 

 4 at the corridor? Do you start with the premise that we 

 5 would need to document first and improve first? 

 6 Fascinating complex of issues. 

 7 What we'll do at this point is take a one-hour 

 8 lunch break. Cafeteria is to your left. 

 9 I don't know, Mirna, are we going to be able to 

10 secure the room, do we know? The room will be secured. 

11 When we come back, if you would like to make 

12 some further general statement from your point of view 

13 that you have not been able to make at this point, could 

14 you identify yourself to the chair and we'll arrange for 

15 that before we enter the general topical discussion. 

16 Thank you very much. And we'll be in recess 

17 until a quarter to 1:00. 

18 (Recess.) 

19 AFTERNOON SESSION 

20 MR. COTHEN: We'll go back on the record. 

21 Ron, do you want to give us the arrangements 

22 for our next meeting, then we'll ask him to tell us about 

23 the Transportation Research Board. 

24 MR. RIES: Our next public meeting on private safety 

25 will be in New Orleans on December 6th at 800 Iberville 

00083 

 1 Street in New Orleans. It will be the last one for this 

 2 year, and we're looking at a potential fifth one later on 

 3 the first part of next year in the New York area. That's 

 4 still tentative, but we're aiming in that direction. 

 5 MR. COTHEN: Then, in the interim, between the New 

 6 Orleans session and the final meeting, probably in 

 7 February, we do have Transportation Research Board 

 8 activities. Anya Carroll is the chair of the committee 

 9 that deals with highway and real crossing issues. 

10 Anya? 

11 MS. CARROLL: Yes, the Transportation Research 

12 Board's 86th annual meeting will be held January 21st 

13 through the 25th in the Woodley Park area, the three 

14 hotels up there. 

15 The Grade Crossing Committee, which I chair, 

16 has two paper sessions and also a panel session 

17 scheduled. We don't have specific times just yet, but 

18 the panel session is in support of this effort. It's on 

19 the safety of private crossings. So that will be 

20 sometime during January 21st through the 25th in 

21 Washington, D.C. 

22 MR. COTHEN: So watch the site for additional detail 

23 there. 

24 Okay. Mr. Burcat, are you available now? 

25 MR. BURCAT: I'm available. I have a couple images 

00084 

 1 I think would be helpful that I can put up there and make 

 2 my comments from there, as well. 

 3 MR. COTHEN: Come on up, and as before, if you'll 

 4 identify yourself for the record, please, when you get to 

 5 the podium. 

 6 MR. BURCAT: Good afternoon. My name is Peter 

 7 Burcat. I'm an attorney from the Bay Area. I'm also 
 8 chair of the railroad section of the Association of Trial 

 9 Lawyers of America, so I'm making some comments based 

10 upon my affiliation with the Trial Lawyers of America, 

11 and also as a practicing attorney that handles cases 

12 involving the railroads. In particular, involvement with 

13 private railroad crossing cases. 

14 Certain comments were made today that we 

15 certainly agree with, in particular, Mr. Gilbert's 

16 comments regarding responsibility, whether it should go 

17 to Federal government FRA or remain with the States, and 

18 we agree that it should remain with the States. 

19 The States can certainly, as Mr. Gilbert said, 

20 take care of the responsibility of the particular 

21 crossings. And in particular, the reason we think that 

22 that's important is because you can't just take the 50 

23 States and group them together and say we're going to 

24 treat all of these States as the same, because each State 

25 is different, especially in topography. So if we look at 

00085 

 1 crossings in one State, they're totally different than 

 2 crossings in another State. 

 3 For example, the plain States are very wide 

 4 open. Lots of visibility, very little things blocking 

 5 the crossings, in most cases. 

 6 You go out to places like Colorado, we got 

 7 mountainous States where we have mountainous crossings. 

 8 If you go down South, we've got a lot of vegetation 

 9 issues in crossings down there. We feel it's very 

10 important that the responsibilities remain with the 

11 States. 

12 Moving responsibility to the FRA also raises 

13 the issue of invoking preemptions, and we know we've got 

14 that issue with public crossings. Preemptions has not 

15 worked to upgrade dangerous crossings. And to now invoke 

16 preemptions as a possible remedy and a possible way to 

17 avoid updating these crossings is not going to work. And 

18 all it's going to do is further immunize responsible 

19 parties, and that's not helping. 

20 And the obligation here and the responsibility 

21 here, and I think everybody agrees what we want is to 

22 protect the public. And the public includes people that 

23 are going to use the crossing. It's going to include 

24 railroad employees on the trains and it's going to 

25 include passengers on the trains. And we've heard that 

00086 

 1 that's a consideration and concern of who is going to use 

 2 this crossing, not just motorists and pedestrians, just 

 3 public that's crossing it. But it's also who is on that 

 4 train. If the train were to derail, who might become 

 5 injured. 

 6 And that's our concern. What is the true 

 7 agenda? And the agenda needs to be safety. And how are 

 8 we going to get that safety issue handled in the best 

 9 way? 

10 And again, we'll say it again, that we think 

11 that agreeing with Mr. Gilbert, that is with the 

12 individual States. 
13 Here in Northern California, for those that are 

14 from out-of-State, we have a passenger rail service from 

15 San Francisco down to Gilroy, California. CalTrans 

16 basically operates trains under agreement with Amtrak on 

17 UP tracks or CalTrain tracks. 

18 CalTrains has adopted a crossing safety 

19 analysis system, system safety analysis system. It's 

20 working. They're looking at crossings, and CalTrains is 

21 basically taking out all of the private crossings under 

22 the rails that they are under control of, which would be 

23 San Francisco to San Jose. San Jose down to Gilroy, 

24 unfortunately, doesn't fall under the purview of the 

25 CalTrins system, and there is no system safety analysis. 

00087 

 1 I am not personally familiar with the FRA 

 2 having developed a similar system safety analysis, which 

 3 I think needs to be done. 

 4 I'm also concerned that the FRA has taken under 

 5 its wing public crossings. And with all due respect, 

 6 there are still many, many dangerous public crossings out 

 7 there, and they're not being handled the way they should 

 8 be handled. 

 9 FRA taking on now private crossings, in 

10 addition to the public crossings is going to overload a 

11 system that's already not working the way it should work 

12 completely. Therefore, once we've got the public 

13 crossings adequately taken care of and we don't have any 

14 more dangerous public crossings, then we can look at 

15 expanding. But we're not at that point right now. 

16 As I said, public crossings have guidelines and 

17 regulations regarding warning devices that are to be 

18 used, the condition of the crossings, things that are 

19 very important and very good for public safety. We don't 

20 have that with private crossings, and we, therefore, have 

21 private crossings that look like this. 

22 This is a private crossing here in the Bay 

23 Area, UP tracks, UP freight trains. I don't know what 

24 the count is that use these tracks. We also had Amtrak 

25 trains. The rate of speed on these particular tracks is 

00088 

 1 79 miles an hour. That is not a safety crossing, that's 

 2 something that needs to be taken care of, crossings like 

 3 this. 

 4 And the warning devices at this same crossing, 

 5 this is the only warning device at the crossing. Defaced 

 6 signs are not being maintained. So the question comes 

 7 down to whose responsibility is it. Whose responsibility 

 8 is it to take care of that crossing? Whose 

 9 responsibility is it to take care of this crossing to 

10 allow something like that to exist and endanger not only 

11 the people that are going to drive across that, and that 

12 is a business in that particular property. They would 

13 sell tire, wood, and repair automobiles. There is a 

14 number of people who would cross that crossing, but 

15 regardless, even if we were not to consider the people 

16 that cross the crossing, we have to worry about the 

17 Amtrak trains with the hundreds of people on board. We 
18 have to worry about the freight trains with HAZMATS 

19 coming over that crossing, and with the employees on 

20 those trains and the people that live in this area. 

21 There is a town of probably about 15,000 people. That's 

22 our concern. 

23 We want to find what's the best way we're going 

24 to take care of crossings like this. And again, we'll 

25 agree with the position of Mr. Gilbert, that we should 

00089 

 1 leave that with the States right now. 

 2 And, Mr. Gilbert, this needs to be addressed 

 3 here in California, crossings like this. There have been 

 4 collisions at this crossing, including at lease one 

 5 fatality, that I'm aware of, and other collisions 

 6 involving injuries. 

 7 Thank you. 

 8 MR. COTHEN: Thank you, sir. 

 9 Any questions from the panel with this 

10 presenter? 

11 Hearing none, okay. 

12 Ron Mathieu from Metrolink is back with us. 

13 Ron, you want to make some additional remarks? 

14 MR. MATHIEU: The Southern California Regional 

15 Authority. 

16 We inherited a lot of private crossings from 

17 freight railroad. We have all kinds of issues from port 

18 crossings that we've worked on to poor line of sights, 

19 but, you know, in addition, we've inherited crossings 

20 like, for instance, there is one in the Santa Cruz area 

21 that's it's an engineering construction company, and they 

22 transport like heavy equipment. I got some photos I can 

23 show you, but this type of thing where, you know, steel 

24 welding equipment and equipment that goes over this 

25 crossing, and a lot of times they don't contact us to get 

00090 

 1 a flagman out there. And these things are unsafe. And a 

 2 train coming around the corner and seeing something like 

 3 that could present big problems. 

 4 I've seen some other derailments, and it's not 

 5 pretty. Liability, of course, is a big issue. And how 

 6 do we address liability with these old agreements? How 

 7 do we get the new owners to take responsibility? Most of 

 8 them will. If it's a small farm owner, they can't afford 

 9 to pay for upgrades, flashing gates and enhance the 

10 crossing. So these are all issues that we're dealing 

11 with, which we could seek for protections from liability. 

12 We're trying to do that as we renew the 

13 agreements and get the new license agreements. As Carol 

14 mentioned, other members and agencies that own the 

15 property have a license type of agreement with more 

16 indemnification. We're trying to see that. I would like 

17 to see where ever we can get some more funding, whether 

18 it's from the State or the Federal, to pay for some of 

19 these upgrades. Local agencies don't like to take 

20 responsibility for private crossings, but again, we're 

21 seeing the use change, we're seeing what used to be, say, 

22 let's say, one-family crossing is now a multiple-family 
23 crossing. 

24 We've got locations where there is a private 

25 school in Orange County, where they're selling parts of 

00091 

 1 the property and incurring more ball fields, and there is 

 2 school buses that use these private crossings, so we've 

 3 got all kinds of different types of issues that we're 

 4 dealing with. 

 5 Let's see. What else do I have? 

 6 You know, with respect to responsibility, if we 

 7 could find out where we do obtain some funding, I don't 

 8 know whether it's State. 

 9 Steve, do you know any State funding? You 

10 mentioned in your talk that there was some Operation 

11 Lifesaver money or -- 

12 MR. CATES: We put money into Operation Lifesaver 

13 for marketing and publications and that sort of thing. 

14 But when we use funds out of the public transit account, 

15 there is no exclusive prohibition against using that on a 

16 non-highway system. If we use highway funds, Federal or 

17 State highway funds, we absolutely are prohibited from 

18 using those on a private structure. But when we go in 

19 and do upgrades for our trap and signal projects with the 

20 railroads, the railroads are going through an upgrading. 

21 Let's say we're doing 20 miles of track and we'll 

22 identify the grade crossings and the private crossings, 

23 and the railroad will work with the private owners to do 

24 some grading and some things like that. 

25 And some instances, we put in concrete panels, 

00092 

 1 but we have the way we, I guess, write our agreements, 

 2 it's not our money that does that. We enter into a 

 3 cooperative agreement with the railroad, and there is 

 4 usually a cost-sharing. And so the railroad agrees to 

 5 pay, let's say, a certain percentage of the cost to put 

 6 in this track and upgrade this 10 or 20 miles or whatever 

 7 it happens to be. And so we pretend like all of those 

 8 improvements at the private crossing are done with the 

 9 railroads' share of the funds. 

10 Now, that doesn't deal with the issue of 

11 liability. I'm scheduled to be deposed in a couple of 

12 weeks over some work that, I guess, was done at a private 

13 crossing. I'm not -- I don't even recall exactly what it 

14 was we did, but I'm being deposed, I guess, to find out 

15 what do I know about this. So it doesn't hold the State 

16 Highway Department exempt through the discovery process 

17 when we've done this sort of thing. 

18 So that becomes a real concern when my 

19 attorneys now are, you know, admonishing me to be very 

20 careful about what we do at these crossings. 

21 MR. MATHIEU: That brings up a question. 

22 I know, Carol, you talked a little about 

23 liability and licensing agreements, Carol, and my 

24 question is: As a railroad operating through a crossing, 

25 is it better to have the public crossing have more 

00093 

 1 protection as a public crossing versus a private crossing 
 2 with a good, solid agreement? Which would be better 

 3 protection as far as liability? 

 4 MS. HARRIS: I want to hesitate about opining. This 

 5 is actually beyond my expertise. I don't litigate these 

 6 cases, so I haven't really got the experience. I just 

 7 know that it's much better to have someone responsible 

 8 for the crossing. And it has to do with the ownership or 

 9 the responsibility for the adjoining roadway. 

10 In most cases, that's kind of where you look, 

11 is whose road is it that is crossing the track? And if 

12 it's a private road, obviously what we want is a good, 

13 solid agreement. But if we can't get that, there have 

14 been situations in which we would prefer to have a public 

15 roadway authority take responsibility for that road, and 

16 so that we can work with them under the accepted formula 

17 for the public roadways. 

18 MR. COTHEN: Ron, do you have anything else for us? 

19 MR. MATHIEU: That's it for now. I may in a little 

20 while. 

21 MR. COTHEN: We'll go around the room as many times 

22 as we need to here within the budgeted hour. 

23 I did want to make clear one thing, and that is 

24 we talk about responsibility. And I hear some anxiety in 

25 the room about taking on responsibility that's not firmly 

00094 

 1 placed on one. That's being called a volunteer. And the 

 2 Federal Administration knows about being a volunteer. In 

 3 1994, stepped forward with the rest of the Department of 

 4 Transportation and said we want to do some more about 

 5 highway railroad crossing safety. We will search the 

 6 statute books in vein to find any mandates for us to do 

 7 that. 

 8 We just sensed that there was a void in terms 

 9 of leadership with regard to highway rail crossing safety 

10 on a national basis, and we wanted to see if we could 

11 work with our colleagues from California and Louisiana 

12 and Minnesota and North Carolina and others to make 

13 things better. And that, in essence, is what we're doing 

14 here with regard to private crossing problems. And that 

15 is to gather as much wisdom as we can from those who have 

16 been working in the field and take it to the next level. 

17 But from a statutory point of view, we're not 

18 burdened with that responsibility. We're just burdened 

19 with that responsibility from a moral perspective, I 

20 think. 

21 Okay. Now is the time that I enjoy most about 

22 these meetings, when I relinquish the chair to my 

23 colleague to hear the discussion on some scenarios and 

24 what else that our teams have laid out for discussion. 

25 Miriam will take the first. 

00095 

 1 MS. KLOEPPEL: I'm sorry, I thought we had this 

 2 loaded. 

 3 MS. CARROLL: I thought we did, too. 

 4 MS. KLOEPPEL: Technical situation seems to be taken 

 5 care of. All of this is a small set of very sketchy 

 6 little case studies in the hopes that they would prompt 
 7 some good discussion between people. So if you have 

 8 additional comments or if you want to diverge, feel free. 

 9 This is literally just a springboard. It's not 

10 something that I intend to use to specifically adhere to. 

11 I would just start here. 

12 This is actually something that was mentioned 

13 to us at one of our meetings. We have the sole access to 

14 an historical home. It has been provided for 75 years by 

15 a precriptive easement. A developer purchased the 

16 surrounding property and is planning to put in a large 

17 industrial complex to which he wants to put in a siding. 

18 The siding he wants to put in eliminates the private 

19 crossing leading to the residence. 

20 I have a suspicion that's it's different in 

21 every State. 

22 I guess the first question I would have is: Is 

23 there any organization that is designed to oversee or 

24 adjudicate any differences between this one property 

25 owner and another when it impinges on a private crossing 

00096 

 1 like this? 

 2 MR. GILBERT: The PUC process could be utilized to 

 3 resolve the disputes between the parties. 

 4 MS. KLOEPPEL: How would you hear about it? Would 

 5 it come up in the Courts? 

 6 MR. GILBERT: They would have to file a complaint 

 7 with the Commission. The property owner whose private 

 8 crossing was eliminated would have to file a complaint, 

 9 or the party who wanted to build the crossing -- or build 

10 the siding, I guess, would have to file a complaint to 

11 demonstrate that the crossing was unneeded. 

12 MS. KLOEPPEL: Carol, you wanted to -- 

13 MS. HARRIS: I just wanted to say that you can't get 

14 a crossing by prescription in California. So that's 

15 actually an important difference maybe between California 

16 and other States. It's something other States should be 

17 looking at because that's almost impossible to monitor. 

18 You get people that build outlaw crossings and you have 

19 to be ever vigilant if you have a State that has 

20 prescriptive rights. 

21 MS. KLOEPPEL: Asking, what is the mechanism for 

22 prohibiting? Is it simply just not recognized totally 

23 within State law? 

24 MS. HARRIS: Here is the problem: If they're 

25 landlocked, you could post the crossing. If you found 

00097 

 1 that it was one that was under a prescriptive claim, you 

 2 could post it for closure. But then they could argue 

 3 that public convenience and necessity requires their 

 4 access. They would have to argue that to the Public 

 5 Utilities Commission. But when they did, then they would 

 6 be forced into an agreement. They would be forced to 

 7 deal with the railroad. So that would be the way it 

 8 would work, I think. 

 9 MS. KLOEPPEL: What about in other States, would it 

10 be -- Bob, do you have anything like that prohibiting 

11 preemptive easements in Washington? 
12 MR. BOSTON: Not that I'm aware of. 

13 MS. KLOEPPEL: So they can just spring up like that? 

14 MR. BOSTON: Yeah. And I think they have, in 

15 conversations with Steve Mills from BNSF Railway who 

16 deals a lot with private crossings, they have found some 

17 in eastern Washington that just sprung up, farmer out in 

18 the field put some planks across mainline tracks to get 

19 his tractor across and stuff like that. And they could 

20 spring up occasionally. 

21 MS. KLOEPPEL: Are you aware of anything within your 

22 State statutes, or even in the case law or whatever, 

23 which indicates the duration of time after which a 

24 preemptive easement has some kind of force? 

25 MR. BOSTON: No. 

00098 

 1 MS. KLOEPPEL: Okay. I had a few questions. And 

 2 let's see. 

 3 So in some sense, what rights are assigned to 

 4 the holder of a long established preemptive easement, it 

 5 sounds like it's different from State to State. 

 6 Does anyone have any other perspective on that? 

 7 Some of you railroads operate through quite a few States. 

 8 I was curious to see what your experience might have 

 9 been. 

10 (No answer.) 

11 MS. KLOEPPEL: I think actually a number of these 

12 have already been addressed, and I'm going to move 

13 forward. 

14 In this case, a developer converts farmland to 

15 a large residential neighborhood. A private crossing 

16 that serves the farm suddenly sees a vast increase in 

17 traffic counts and the type of vehicles using the 

18 crossing. 

19 This is something that we've been talking about 

20 a lot this morning. And one of the questions that I 

21 still have, even after hearing what California does and 

22 what other States might do is, who's going to know about 

23 the changes to the crossing? How soon is the railroad 

24 going to find out about a change like this? 

25 Steve? 

00099 

 1 MR. CATES: I'm not sure how the railroad is going 

 2 to find out, but there should be a public hearing process 

 3 under the California Environmental Quality Act that would 

 4 set forth the conditions for the developer to change that 

 5 farmland to a residential neighborhood. Since there is a 

 6 change in zoning, it would be a public hearing one. 

 7 Kevin, you've done a lot of these. It would 

 8 more than likely entail an amendment to their general 

 9 plan, so there would be a long -- not a long -- but there 

10 would be a fairly lengthy hearing process. 

11 I was director of the Environmental Counsel of 

12 Sacramento for five years, and my experience is a process 

13 like that probably would span a period of two or more 

14 years. 

15 MS. KLOEPPEL: In your experience, has the question 

16 of grade crossing safety come up in these environmental 
17 hearings? 

18 MR. CATES: You know, I'm kind of embarrassed to say 

19 this, but I worked for CalTrans at that time and I was an 

20 executive director on the California -- the Sacramento -- 

21 Environmental Counsel of Sacramento. And I can't 

22 remember when it was. It was around 1985 or so. 

23 Even though I worked for CalTrans and worked 

24 financing rail projects, it never really occurred to me 

25 to even consider the impacts at the railroad grade 

00100 

 1 crossing. And our experience at CalTrans is that cities 

 2 and counties do not consider the impact at public or 

 3 private railroad grade crossings when they are 

 4 entertaining changes in their land use. 

 5 We had a situation in Sacramento County, 

 6 Sheldon Road. A developer developed property, owned 

 7 property on one side of the railroad crossing. The road 

 8 was widened all the way up to the crossing, and then a 

 9 barrier was put on that lane. And it was just two lanes 

10 on the other side. And so, you know, the county didn't 

11 do anything to mitigate the traffic impacts from the 

12 crossing and allowed the roadway to be widened right to 

13 that crossing. And I have seen that in a number of 

14 instances. 

15 MS. KLOEPPEL: I saw your hand first. 

16 MR. BOLES: And the widening is actually illegal in 

17 California. Under our General Order 72(B), Part Three 

18 makes it illegal to make a bottleneck at a rail crossing. 

19 Also, for the development, we now, as Carol Gilbert (sic) 

20 had mentioned earlier, we look at environmental documents 

21 for even major projects, there are some minor projects 

22 that are categorically exempt that we don't have the 

23 staff to review at this time, but it's almost improbable 

24 for a project right now to go through without our staff 

25 getting involved. 

00101 

 1 MR. MATHIEU: I want to say what Kevin said. Our 

 2 agency also looks at amended plans for local agencies, 

 3 but we do comment on any adjacent developments to the 

 4 railroads. And railroad traffic impacts is one of the 

 5 big areas we comment on. So we look at that, as well. 

 6 MS. KLOEPPEL: Carol, you had your hand up? 

 7 MS. HARRIS: I just wanted to say that CalTrans, 

 8 another wing of CalTrans actually was very helpful in one 

 9 of the cases that we dealt with, which is an application 

10 for a new closing where it turns out that CalTrans 

11 Division 3, which is outside of -- 

12 MR. CATES: Our District 3. 

13 MS. HARRIS: -- had submitted comments in an 

14 environmental review process for an industrial park 

15 pointing out the grade crossing access and grade crossing 

16 problems, and it was very helpful in the context of the 

17 later Public Utilities Commission proceeding. And I 

18 think we, also, in addition to the efforts that the PUC 

19 is making to try to monitor these developments on long 

20 right of way that could impact crossings, we're 

21 independently trying to get on the early side of the 
22 curve where we can, and to get comments in the record in 

23 the environmental review process. 

24 MS. KLOEPPEL: Steve, you had -- 

25 MR. CATES: Carol mentioned our comments from our 

00102 

 1 District 3, our division of rail worked with our District 

 2 3 on commenting on that, and what has led to this 

 3 commenting. 

 4 Up until about a year ago, we had a legal 

 5 theory that CalTrans could not comment on the impacts at 

 6 railroad grade crossings where there are local streets 

 7 and roads. We only have direct authority or explicit 

 8 authority to be a responding agency or to comment when it 

 9 impacts a State highway. But apparently, there has been 

10 some changes in State law, and we've come up with this 

11 legal theory that our passenger rail service, passenger 

12 rail service both provided by CalTrans and by Amtrak and 

13 by the commuter rail agencies provide an alternate route 

14 to the freeway, to the State Highway, and, therefore, if 

15 a development has an impact on a grade crossing, our 

16 districts are required to review and evaluate the 

17 environmental document and comment on those potential 

18 impacts to the grade crossings. 

19 So we've kind of developed this kind of new 

20 theory on how we're approaching that. We issued a 

21 directive on that about a year ago. 

22 MR. GILBERT: I wanted to mention a couple of things 

23 about the environmental process here in California. 

24 The environmental documents go through a State 

25 clearing house, so that's where everybody gets their 

00103 

 1 notice about projects and environmental reviews that are 

 2 underway. And the agency generating environmental 

 3 documents must respond to comments it receives. 

 4 However, we find that they don't always respond 

 5 in the proper manner, and getting local officials who 

 6 sometimes have other motivations in approving projects to 

 7 fully appreciate the comments that we do offer regarding 

 8 pedestrian/motor safety along the rail corridors is 

 9 sometimes an uphill battle. And there are times when our 

10 comments are sort of not completely in order, at least 

11 minimized, and the projects, you know, ultimately go 

12 forward. 

13 Our goal is to ensure that the crossings are 

14 upgraded as appropriate pursuant to the development, but 

15 we find that that doesn't always occur, even if we raise 

16 the flag. 

17 So then we're left with the dilemma: Do we 

18 challenge the environmental document? 

19 You know, obviously, that involves a lot of 

20 staff time and a lot of effort on legal staff and, you 

21 know, we haven't challenged one specifically yet, but I 

22 think there are some projects that may merit such a 

23 challenge. 

24 MS. KLOEPPEL: That's interesting. 

25 So at the moment the only method you have for 

00104 
 1 challenging or disputing something is through a complex 

 2 and time intensive process? 

 3 MR. GILBERT: Right. You would have to challenge 

 4 them in their C.E.Q.A. approval process. 

 5 MR. CATES: And there are specific timelines 

 6 established by statute in which you have to respond 

 7 during different parts of the process. So, one: You 

 8 have to be noticed that this action is being taken by the 

 9 local agency, and two: You have to actually have read 

10 that notice and respond within the appropriate period of 

11 time or you miss your window of opportunity to comment. 

12 So that provides a burden, too. 

13 MR. BOLES: I would like to add on to Steve. If 

14 they do minimize your comments, you can then give 

15 comments to their comments and file them prior to the 

16 Board of Supervisors or City Counsel approving the 

17 project, and then you can only legally litigate against 

18 specific comments that you have made. And that's pretty 

19 much the mechanism. 

20 MS. KLOEPPEL: How long would this take? 

21 MR. BOLES: Well, you get the initial notice. And 

22 the standard is 30 days review period, even though it can 

23 be up to a hundred and eighty days. And then, depending, 

24 generally, it can be 14 days that you have to do your 

25 follow-up comments. 

00105 

 1 MS. HARRIS: Let me explain the context in which 

 2 this arises, this suggestion that the public agency, 

 3 either the PUC and/or the Department of Transportation, 

 4 or separately, the railroads are injecting themselves 

 5 into land use planning decisions and the environmental 

 6 review process associated with that. And we, too, are in 

 7 the same position where we have submitted comments and we 

 8 see that our comments are really not being given as much 

 9 weight as they should in that environmental process or 

10 are being glossed over. 

11 We also have the very difficult question of 

12 asking: Are we going to expand the kind of resources 

13 that you have to expand to find a land use planning 

14 decision that doesn't maybe directly, immediately impact 

15 the railroad, but will only impact it after the fact? 

16 For example, when we get complaints about horn 

17 blowing and we get requests for new crossings, one thing, 

18 as far as crossings go, the PUC, they actually sort of 

19 have an ace in their hand in this process, because if 

20 they do flag in the environmental review process that 

21 they may have difficulty getting approval for a crossing 

22 before the PUC, and that gets ignored, when that 

23 application comes before the PUC, it can be a very rough 

24 process for the applicant, public authority that is 

25 seeking the crossing. So they have, later, when the 

00106 

 1 actual application is filed, they do have some clout in 

 2 that process. But even that's difficult because of the 

 3 public convenience and necessity considerations. 

 4 MR. GILBERT: One more comment. 

 5 We have -- in order to try to get out our 
 6 message, we have requested from our State Department of 

 7 Finance some increased funding to hire additional people 

 8 to supplement what we're doing on the environmental side 

 9 so we can get out and meet with local planners and county 

10 officials that are approving these projects to make sure 

11 that they understand the repercussions on the rail 

12 corridors, and specifically, the crossing. 

13 So we are hopeful that we will be given new 

14 bodies to go forth and do that work. 

15 MS. KLOEPPEL: Dave? 

16 MR. PETERSON: The comment I would like to make is 

17 we're doing a lot of discussion about what California, 

18 which, on our system is one of the very few States that 

19 actually has a mechanism in place to address the 

20 situation exactly like this. The vast majority of States 

21 we have, we operate in, there is nothing in place to even 

22 call attention to the railroad, the State, or if the 

23 State has a regulatory body that they need to look at 

24 safety aspects of private crossings that are being 

25 converted into a large residential development or a large 

00107 

 1 commercial area. 

 2 And, typically, what will alert us in the 

 3 crossing safety area is that either an incident occurs 

 4 or, as Carol Harris mentioned, complaints come in 

 5 pertaining to whistle noise. And there is a definite gap 

 6 in place here. This is even worse in States, the 

 7 non-regulatory States where we operate in where there is 

 8 not a PUC where we can go to and say, hey, this is now de 

 9 facto public crossing and the road authority needs to 

10 take it into their road system to make sure all of the 

11 signage that's in place for motorists are going to 

12 conform with the MUTCD. 

13 It is a real problem that exists out there, and 

14 we see it, unfortunately, far more frequently than we 

15 care to and what you would think. 

16 MS. KLOEPPEL: Thank you. 

17 Any other comments? 

18 I did have an additional question on this one. 

19 What if the city or some public entity chooses to adopt 

20 the crossing, make it public. Is there any mechanism for 

21 reporting this to the State and to the railroad? 

22 Go ahead. 

23 MR. PETERSON: Well, as I mentioned, when we were in 

24 Fort Snelling, in some cases there is, but in many cases 

25 both neither the railroad or the State agency that keeps 

00108 

 1 track of the crossing records are not updated by the 

 2 Public Road Authority or the political body that they 

 3 have accepted a private roadway into the public road 

 4 network so we can make sure that the signage is correct, 

 5 that it's now being reviewed by the State and the 

 6 railroad out there providing the data that's needed for 

 7 evaluating the crossing devices on a regular basis in 

 8 accordance with the CFR. And in many States, that 

 9 mechanism does not exist. 

10 MS. KLOEPPEL: Okay. Go ahead. 
11 MR. JINBACHIAN: Varouj Jinbachian, J-i-n-b-a-c-h-i-a-n, 

12 with the Public Utilities Commission. 

13 I had a recent project like this where it was a 

14 private crossing and there was a development, and the 

15 city took over the private crossing and filed a formal 

16 application with us for a new public crossing. We met 

17 with them and they operated the warning devices, so there 

18 is a formal process. 

19 MS. KLOEPPEL: In the State of California? 

20 MR. JINBACHIAN: Yes. 

21 MS. KLOEPPEL: Any other States? 

22 Is there a process in Washington? 

23 MR. BOSTON: If it goes to a public crossing, if 

24 they take a private crossing and want to convert it into 

25 a public crossing process, very much like California PUC, 

00109 

 1 it goes to a hearing Commission. 

 2 MS. KLOEPPEL: Is a hearing a time-intensive 

 3 process? 

 4 MR. JINBACHIAN: It's not always necessarily a 

 5 hearing. If they file an application and all of the 

 6 parties are in agreement, then we draft and it goes on to 

 7 their consent agenda. And there is no hearing held in 

 8 that case. If there is a contested matter, then there 

 9 are hearings held. 

10 MR. BOSTON: Very similar in Washington. 

11 MS. KLOEPPEL: So it's not necessarily a long and 

12 arduous process and doesn't take necessarily a whole lot 

13 of staff time? 

14 MR. JINBACHIAN: Correct. 

15 MS. HARRIS: The benefit, though, of this process is 

16 that it does allow for diagnostic, and the railroad would 

17 be allowed in that diagnostic. And so you've kind of got 

18 a meeting of the minds where the public railway agency, 

19 the regulatory Commission, and the railroad, determine 

20 what is needed at the crossing to accommodate the 

21 intended use, and it also provides an opportunity for 

22 evaluating the potential for possibly eliminating 

23 crossings that are nearby, as well as grade separation. 

24 So these provide valuable opportunities when this occurs 

25 to try to promote rail safety, generally. 

00110 

 1 MS. KLOEPPEL: Great. 

 2 Anyone else? 

 3 Very simple case here. You have a private 

 4 crossing that is apparently unused in various places. 

 5 Are there processes for identifying the crossing holder? 

 6 Is this something that -- I understand, on occasion, this 

 7 is something that railroads are faced with. 

 8 Do you have any process? 

 9 MS. HARRIS: I have had a lot of experience with 

10 this one. The process for identifying the crossing 

11 holder, of course, is to review to the extent you can the 

12 applicable deeds and the crossing agreements. In 

13 addition, if you go a step further and get access to 

14 title records, sometimes that gives you some clues, but 

15 that is a very arduous process. And in California -- I 
16 think maybe Union Pacific is the only one that's actually 

17 required to do this -- we're supposed to post private 

18 crossings before we close them to give notice to anybody 

19 who is using them before we actually close them. 

20 Where we haven't posted them -- and that 

21 actually led to this requirement where we post them -- we 

22 did close some that we thought were not being used some 

23 years ago, and there was -- there were regulatory 

24 processes in response where we had to open some of them, 

25 not all of them, but some of them where we had landlocked 

00111 

 1 users. 

 2 So then, again, California has a pretty well 

 3 defined process here for dealing with these situations. 

 4 I think in other areas, I think it's a little bit wild 

 5 and wooly. 

 6 I know in Nevada where I've also had some 

 7 experience, we have crossings pop up and we have 

 8 crossings that we have removed sometimes without 

 9 retribution. But sometimes we've had to reinstate them. 

10 So it's hard to know that a crossing has actually been 

11 abandoned or isn't used. 

12 In a definitive way, sometimes you have an 

13 absentee owner that comes back and suddenly has a use. 

14 And that happened at one of our California crossings. We 

15 had an absentee owner, and the crossing was being used by 

16 high school students to access a river. And it was very 

17 unsafe. And that was one of the ones we closed, but the 

18 owner was in negotiation with the local sanitation 

19 district to sell the property. And so it became a very 

20 costly process for us because we had title companies, we 

21 had a whole battalion of people fighting to reinstate 

22 that crossing. 

23 And so, for the railroad, this is an enormous 

24 expenditure of resources to deal with these situations. 

25 It shouldn't be underestimated. 

00112 

 1 MS. KLOEPPEL: Thank you. 

 2 You've answered a couple of these. 

 3 Any other comments, questions? 

 4 Anya? 

 5 MS. CARROLL: I've got a lot of questions coming up. 

 6 MS. KLOEPPEL: Thank you for your comments. I think 

 7 they've given us more that we can dig into at this point. 

 8 I'm going to hand it over to Anya Carroll who 

 9 is going to go through some scenarios here. 

10 MS. CARROLL: Thanks, Miriam. 

11 We're going to shift the pace a little bit. 

12 It's getting late in the afternoon. People probably want 

13 some coffee. 

14 We're going to go to some game show questions 

15 and answers. There is no wrong answers. There is only 

16 right answers. 

17 MR. MATHIEU: Do we have a prize? 

18 MS. CARROLL: We got a prize. You get a picture of 

19 my dog. How is that? 

20 MR. CATES: Can we get it signed? 
21 MS. CARROLL: By the dog, yeah. She has signed 

22 birthday cards. 

23 MR. CATES: That way, I can show it to my dog. 

24 MS. CARROLL: So what we would like to do, we did 

25 some brainstorming on the FRA team and came up with some 

00113 

 1 scenarios that we would like you to think about and give 

 2 us some possible responses to. 

 3 What would happen if U.S. D.O.T. establishes a 

 4 requirement that every private crossing have a standard 

 5 formal agreement, and for those crossings for which the 

 6 agreement cannot be found or could not be created, they 

 7 would be closed? 

 8 MR. BOLES: Can I ask you one question? 

 9 MS. CARROLL: No questions, only answers. 

10 MR. BOLES: Would you consider a deeded agreement to 

11 be a reasonable agreement from something from the 19th 

12 century? 

13 MS. CARROLL: That's up for debate. In California 

14 it says it has to be a written agreement. You know, 

15 maybe we're looking at a standard formal agreement. 

16 Would that include deeds? Would that include preemptive 

17 easements? Would that include written? That's up for 

18 debate. 

19 MR. MATHIEU: Can we make it a requirement that even 

20 private crossings have a current or updated standard 

21 formal agreement, not an old 1920 agreement, but 

22 something that's current? 

23 MR. GILBERT: That changes it a lot, though. That 

24 changes the amount of work that the railroad would have 

25 to go through. I mean, that's a big change. When we 

00114 

 1 discussed this in the context of our revised General 

 2 Order, we talked about a number of different vehicles 

 3 that could be the formal agreements that we're talking 

 4 about. 

 5 And we were talking contractual agreements, 

 6 deeds, and some of these documents we realize are over a 

 7 hundred years old. 

 8 But that having been said, Ron's point is well 

 9 taken. The agreement established a hundred years ago is 

10 probably not valid today. 

11 MS. CARROLL: Carol? 

12 MS. HARRIS: Unfortunately, the deed that was 

13 established a hundred years ago probably is valid today, 

14 and that's going to be a real serious impediment to this 

15 proposal because you'll find yourself in court right 

16 away. There are court remedies that those deed holders 

17 can resort to if we were to tell them we're going to 

18 close your crossing if you don't sign this paper. We 

19 would find ourselves crosswise quite quickly. 

20 MR. JINBACHIAN: I think the important point there 

21 is that the agreement has to be found. If they don't 

22 have that piece of paper, they can't go to court. If 

23 they do have it, then there is no problem. So I think 

24 that might work. 

25 MR. PETROSSIAN: I think you needed to change the 
00115 

 1 question and not use the word "standard". I don't know 

 2 if there is such a thing as a standard formal agreement. 

 3 MS. CARROLL: That's not to say that a standard 

 4 agreement can't be customized based on comments that 

 5 we've heard earlier based on terms and conditions that 

 6 are negotiated between the railroad and the holder. 

 7 But is there a need for a baseline standard 

 8 agreement that people could use and then negotiate to 

 9 that standard so everybody starts off having certain 

10 aspects covered? 

11 MR. BURCAT: Yes. My question would go to who has 

12 the onus to have a copy of that agreement? 

13 Obviously, the railroads would be very happy to 

14 have all private crossings closed for safety purposes. 

15 Does the onus fall on the property owner to 

16 maintain the copy of that agreement or the railroad to 

17 maintain a copy of that agreement? 

18 MS. CARROLL: Good question. 

19 What's the answer? 

20 MR. MATHIEU: I think both parties are party to it. 

21 It said if there is two parties to the 

22 agreement, the private entity that owns the crossing and 

23 the railroad, they should both have copies of the 

24 agreement. 

25 MS. CARROLL: But if FRA or U.S. D.O.T., whether it 

00116 

 1 be a Federal highway or FRA establishes this requirement, 

 2 shouldn't they have a formal copy of that agreement to 

 3 say that it's sanctioned and it would be archived, and in 

 4 yet, a third place? 

 5 MR. PETROSSIAN: The other thing is in California is 

 6 deeds can be recorded with the county recorders, so you 

 7 would have a formal record. 

 8 MS. CARROLL: Within the locality? 

 9 MR. PETROSSIAN: Yeah. 

10 MS. CARROLL: So in that county if it's a legally 

11 enforceable agreement, then I think that would be fine. 

12 MR. CATES: But it may or may not have been filed 

13 with the county recorder at the time like a license 

14 agreement, revokable permits, things like that, that the 

15 railroad typically issues. 

16 If I were a landowner, I don't think I would go 

17 to the county. It would never occur to me to go to the 

18 county recorder to file something. 

19 MR. JINBACHIAN: Then they don't have one, and 

20 they're out of luck. 

21 MR. CATES: Unless you can find a copy. 

22 MS. CARROLL: I think to search back to find some of 

23 these records, from what we've heard in North Carolina 

24 and somewhat what we've heard today here, is that even to 

25 find these kinds of documents is very difficult. 

00117 

 1 So anything further, Carol? 

 2 MS. HARRIS: Another problem is that you're going to 

 3 negotiate a class between the Federal regulation and the 

 4 State provisions for public convenience and necessity, 
 5 and I think that that is something that would have to be 

 6 addressed in imposing this requirement because those are 

 7 very significant competing interests. 

 8 MR. CATES: Also, the Federal Constitution doesn't 

 9 give the Federal government the authority over States' 

10 rights to control property. So you're dealing with the 

11 property rights. That's the exclusive authority of the 

12 State. 

13 MS. RANDOLPH: I think from the practical aspect of 

14 the second part to your question, you're going to have a 

15 lot of issues created on the local level. You're going 

16 to have calls come in to you from the mayor, from city 

17 counsel members, State senators, and, in particular, 

18 first responders, fire personnel, police officers if you 

19 go out and close a crossing. And there is no alternative 

20 access or try to close it. There is going to be a lot of 

21 problems. It's going to take a lot of time to do it and 

22 you won't be able to do it. 

23 MS. CARROLL: So, if one of these -- say, then, 

24 landlocked property, since its sole access would be 

25 exempt from this kind of agreement if there is 

00118 

 1 alternative access? 

 2 MS. RANDOLPH: Of course. 

 3 MS. WATSON: Then you might have somebody like one 

 4 of those previous situations come along and build 

 5 something that blocks other alternate accesses, then 

 6 you're stuck in that landlocked situation again, which 

 7 you can't necessarily predict. 

 8 MR. PETROSSIAN: I don't know if you really want to 

 9 go there, because then you have the due process issue 

10 with at least the PUC. So, if we wanted to close a 

11 crossing, the property owner could go to the Commission, 

12 get a formal hearing that will take a year and a lot of 

13 resources to do that, especially with 4500 crossings in 

14 the State, so I don't know if the U.S. D.O.T. wants to 

15 take this on and have a huge warehouse to put all of 

16 these agreements in. 

17 MR. COTHEN: We were going to contract that to the 

18 Volpe Center. 

19 MS. CARROLL: Okay. So that was a great discussion 

20 on that question. 

21 And I think earlier in the day we've heard from 

22 a number of you who said leave the control with the 

23 States. We don't want the Feds involved in regulating 

24 private property. So I think that what you've stated 

25 supports those previous statements, so let's go to 

00119 

 1 question number two. 

 2 Everybody ready? 

 3 A new independent. What if a new independent 

 4 Federal agency, similar to the Surface Transportation 

 5 Board were created to oversee the resolution of private 

 6 crossing disputes? 

 7 MR. PETROSSIAN: We have it here at the PUC. I 

 8 don't think that that would help us at all. 

 9 MS. CARROLL: So what we've heard today is at the 
10 PUC you actually have a dispute resolution process? 

11 MR. PETROSSIAN: My suggestion would be that the FRA 

12 come up with some kind of legislation or other 

13 recommendations for those States like Washington that do 

14 not have it. But we do have the alternate dispute 

15 resolution, and we do have due process. We have the 

16 hearing process. So that is already taken care of in 

17 California. 

18 MS. CARROLL: Okay. Thank you very much. 

19 Carol? 

20 MS. HARRIS: You would need to get a new 

21 jurisdictional grant of authority of some sort to be able 

22 to also involve the private parties that are using the 

23 crossing. I mean, that's one of the dilemmas that we 

24 always face is that we have the regulatory agency and 

25 they regulate the railroad, but it's only when we can 

00120 

 1 somehow get a private party to come into the Commission 

 2 proceeding, usually because they want something or 

 3 they're about to have something taken away, that the 

 4 Commission actually even has some ability to influence 

 5 their behavior or condition. 

 6 The crossing, you would have the same problem 

 7 at the Federal level. You'd be dealing with private 

 8 parties and you would be looking for legal case to get 

 9 hooks on them, and that can be quite difficult. 

10 MS. CARROLL: Thank you. 

11 MR. JINBACHIAN: I want to get back on what Vahak 

12 was recommending about giving recommendations to a State. 

13 If the recommendation comes from Federal government, that 

14 politically it might be easier to get State legislature 

15 to adopt a new law. So that might be helpful in that 

16 respect. 

17 MS. CARROLL: So is there a consensus that some 

18 support would be nice in this -- California may be 

19 pro-active and ahead of the curve, in front of all of the 

20 other States on this, but maybe if some of the railroads 

21 would comment -- are other States moving in that 

22 direction or would they -- would they find this helpful? 

23 MR. SCHWARTZ: They're certainly not moving in that 

24 direction. I can say that with some level of assurance 

25 from the standpoint of private property owners. Already 

00121 

 1 got a form and forum and that's called county courthouse. 

 2 MS. CARROLL: Right. 

 3 MR. SCHWARTZ: And getting divested in the county 

 4 courthouse and jurisdiction is likely to be a battle of 

 5 monstrous portions. The interests involved in preventing 

 6 loss of that jurisdiction would be rather substantial, as 

 7 you can imagine. Local interests are just not wanting to 

 8 have to deal with Federal agencies that are going to be a 

 9 whole lot less sympathetic to them than the local elected 

10 judge is going do be. And that's a reality that you have 

11 to face square right in front of you in dealing with an 

12 issue like this. 

13 MS. CARROLL: Okay. Thank you very much. 

14 Any other comments on this question? 
15 MR. PETROSSIAN: Can I piggyback on what Carol said? 

16 And that's the regulation of PUC over the railroad. 

17 When we tell the private property owner we 

18 can't enforce anything on them, but what we did was we 

19 told the private property owner that unless you do this, 

20 we're going to tell the railroad to close the crossing. 

21 So, that's where our -- 

22 MS. CARROLL: Your hook? 

23 MR. PETROSSIAN: Yeah. 

24 MS. CARROLL: Okay. Well, every hook we can get is 

25 a good catch. More fish that way. 

00122 

 1 Question number three: What if -- and we could 

 2 fill in the blanks here -- anybody could do this -- what 

 3 if the U.S. D.O.T. provided guidance or standards on 

 4 crossing design and warning device implementation at 

 5 private crossings? 

 6 MR. JINBACHIAN: I think it should be the private or 

 7 public crossing. They should be treated the same. So in 

 8 that respect, since there is the technical working 

 9 groups, guidance documents should be applied to private 

10 crossings. So I don't know if there is a new need for a 

11 standard for private crossings only. 

12 MS. CARROLL: But a technical working group, I was 

13 involved in that group. We did not discriminate between 

14 the types of crossings that you see more of, as far as 

15 being private, like the industrial crossings and 

16 recreational crossings and those types of crossings. If 

17 you have propane tankers going across this railroad track 

18 at such a frequency, you might need to have gates and 

19 lights, that kind of thing. 

20 MR. JINBACHIN: My point is if we were looking at 

21 public crossings, we would consider all those, what you 

22 just mentioned. So if we're looking at private 

23 crossings, again, look at the same issues. And if 

24 they're valid, then we recommend gates. If not, it 

25 doesn't make a difference. If it's a private or public 

00123 

 1 crossing, we're going to look at how it's being used, the 

 2 railroad traffic and all of the other important factors. 

 3 MS. CARROLL: Okay. Any other comments on this one? 

 4 MR. COTHEN: Let me just revise the question a 

 5 little bit. We said this is a great thing to bring the 

 6 issue of responsibility to California because they're 

 7 taking responsibility. It's also, you know, there's also 

 8 a downside to that, and that is that the rest of the 

 9 nation, by and large, is not so well situated. 

10 Let's put aside -- let's assume that California 

11 is in a state of nature and, therefore, we don't have 

12 engineering expertise at a State level to apply to 

13 private crossing issues. Okay. We don't have public 

14 roadway authorities taking responsibility. We don't have 

15 regulatory agencies taking responsibility. One of the 

16 assumptions that we've sort of made over the years, 

17 subject to it being revised, was that if somebody was 

18 going to deal with a private crossing issue in the 

19 absence of the active involvement of a State regulatory 
20 agency or State D.O.T., that we would need to have some 

21 warrants for what fits in various types of crossings that 

22 were reasonably standard or we wouldn't make much 

23 headway. We don't have the engineering expertise to 

24 apply to it, again, in California, which is the State of 

25 nature, or Oklahoma, or whereever. 

00124 

 1 Is there any prospect, given the complexity of 

 2 the issue, that we might call out some baseline warrants 

 3 for various types of engineering improvements, and would 

 4 that help in terms of providing some degree of uniformity 

 5 with regard to the safety improvements of private 

 6 crossings? 

 7 MS. CARROLL: You would start off with a minimum 

 8 requirement of a stop sign and a private crossing sign. 

 9 MR. COTHEN: Can I retrogress a little bit. 

10 California and a couple other States have 

11 provided for use of a cross buck with a stop sign as 

12 default, three major class one train railroads have 

13 signage campaigns across the nation basically taking that 

14 kind of pattern. So either by State law or as a result 

15 of railroad actions, that is the default signage at the 

16 majority of private crossings in the United States. 

17 And we actually had suggested the same thing in 

18 draft guidelines that were put in a file drawer 

19 somewhere. Thereafter, they had some, you know, 10 years 

20 ago, and that was long after California had also been a 

21 league away. And we tried to have a discussion about 

22 this at our last stop. And I think it was fine, but I 

23 would like to hear more on it. Right now, where the 

24 committee for uniform traffic devices seems to be headed 

25 on the public side is default signage would be cross buck 

00125 

 1 with a yield sign. Stop sign is indicated based on an 

 2 engineering study and some other criteria that are called 

 3 out in the technical working for it and Federal Highway 

 4 Administration memo, and we hear from time to time that 

 5 it makes sense just to apply the Manual for Uniform 

 6 Traffic Control Devices or MUTCD, to private crossings, 

 7 as well with some experience. How do we feel about this? 

 8 Is the cross buck and stop sign the appropriate default 

 9 signage? 

10 MR. PETERSON: I would like to comment a little bit 

11 about the National Committee For Uniform Traffic Control 

12 Devices, working on -- dealing with signage at private 

13 roadways. 

14 What they did was they were discussing signage 

15 at roadways that are private roads that have public 

16 character. And, accordingly, when you have a road that 

17 meets that criteria, they were recommending that the 

18 standard signage that is normally in the manual for 

19 uniform traffic devices for public roads be used on those 

20 roadways. 

21 Where that applies to private railroad 

22 crossings is if you have a private roadway that has 

23 public character, such as it goes into a shopping mall or 

24 to a recreational area, in those circumstances they feel 
25 like cross bucks with a yield sign or cross bucks with a 

00126 

 1 stop sign, when a study shows it as being warranted, 

 2 should be considered. 

 3 It was specifically with the ones with public 

 4 character. I just wanted to put a little clarification 

 5 on that. 

 6 The majority of the crossings that we run into 

 7 on my railroad don't fall under that character. They're 

 8 going to be private crossings for the single user or 

 9 private crossings serving a farm access or something 

10 along that line. 

11 MS. CARROLL: Thank you, Dave. 

12 MR. JINBACHIAN: I'm not an attorney. As I 

13 understand the rules with MUTC, that applies even on 

14 public roads where you get Federal funding for the 

15 project then you have to comply with the MUTC. 

16 MS. CARROLL: Minimum. 

17 MR. JINBACHIAN: If it's a private crossing that is 

18 not getting any Federal funding, how can the Federal 

19 government require any type of warning devices, which was 

20 something that Steve brought up earlier? I think it's a 

21 constitutional issue. 

22 MR. CATES: I think it would be through the 

23 regulatory authority, through the railroads, then the 

24 signage would be installed on the road right-of-way. 

25 MR. JINBACHIAN: It would be railroad required, not 

00127 

 1 a property owner requirement. 

 2 MR. CATES: I think that's the way it would have to 

 3 be. 

 4 MR. COTHEN: There has been a little further 

 5 background. There has been discussion within the 

 6 Department of Sanitation about applying the MUTCD 

 7 criteria to private crossings, and at one point, the 

 8 Federal Highway Administration entertained that. 

 9 Further conversation in the department the 

10 feeling was that it would perhaps be an empty statement 

11 to say you need to do this, but number one, we have no 

12 authority to tell you to do it, and number two: We have 

13 no money to tell you to go do it. And that's the reality 

14 of the Federal Highway program, of course, in terms of 

15 the limitation of the scope of that grand mechanism. 

16 And so it was felt that through the process 

17 that we're trying to set in motion here we would make 

18 whatever decisions needed to be made at the Federal 

19 level, which might include the requirement to go for 

20 additional regulations or whatever. 

21 Certainly, the Federal Railroad Administration 

22 could, I believe, require -- counsel, I think, feels the 

23 same, having worked on the issue as long as I have -- 

24 that the Federal Railroad Administration could require 

25 minimum signage be placed on railroad property if that 

00128 

 1 were an appropriate role for us to undertake. There is 

 2 no requirement that would issue regulations in the area. 

 3 MS. CARROLL: Carol? 
 4 MS. HARRIS: Yeah. Just putting on my AAR hat, I do 

 5 want to caution, it's easy when you're operating mainly 

 6 in one State that has a well developed regulatory scheme 

 7 to things that might be simple or easy, but when we go to 

 8 all of the States, you've got so many different 

 9 situations, it would be very important. Just as MUTCD 

10 process involves a lot of technical input and technical 

11 review, it would be important to have that on any effort 

12 to provide guidance or standards that would operate 

13 independently under an FRA umbrella, but additionally, 

14 you need to look at cost effectiveness, and you need to 

15 look at what would be involved with implementation. 

16 Because I think the worst things would be to create a 

17 situation where you had a lot of resources being expended 

18 for something that didn't buy that much incremental 

19 safety, particularly where you've got different standards 

20 that have been adopted and that are working reasonably 

21 well in different parts of the country. I think it would 

22 require very careful review to come up with something 

23 that would be reasonable and that could be successfully 

24 done. 

25 MS. CARROLL: On, yeah, the document that we've been 

00129 

 1 discussing, besides the MUTCD is the technical working 

 2 groups, the U.S. D.O.T. technical working groups guidance 

 3 on warning device applications. That was done over a 12 

 4 to 16-month period of time. It brought in private and 

 5 public stake holders, as well as the railroads, the 

 6 utilities, the suppliers, and it allowed the group to 

 7 come up with a consensus by crossing type, passive 

 8 crossing, active crossing, grade separation, and it came 

 9 up with performance guidance as basically what the 

10 document holds. And it was a very good effort and it was 

11 a nationwide consensus effort looking at who is doing 

12 what and what works right. 

13 So I think over the course of the three 

14 meetings we've had now, including this one, that document 

15 keeps resounding as a good performance guidance document 

16 for use, and we just want to know how do we need to 

17 change it for private crossings versus public crossings, 

18 and our friends from PUC say why don't you use the same 

19 thing. 

20 MS. HARRIS: Well, I have to actually add an 

21 important caveat here. I am not sufficiently familiar 

22 with that work to really be able to state a position on 

23 behalf of the AAR, but I know that's something that they 

24 would want to be able to opine on, and I'm sorry that I'm 

25 not. 

00130 

 1 MS. CARROLL: That was part of the participants that 

 2 generated that document, so... 

 3 MR. CATES: One thing about the guidance document, 

 4 it's a guidance document only, it's not a regulatory 

 5 document like the MUTCD. So on State highway projects, 

 6 if we were to go out and apply standards, we would be 

 7 looking to the MUTCD and not to the guidance document. 

 8 Now, the guidance document may be referenced 
 9 during an engineering analysis or engineering study as 

10 providing some direction to the traffic engineers to an 

11 appropriate evaluation technique or methodology or 

12 whatever at the crossing, but it wouldn't -- it doesn't 

13 establish a warrant and it doesn't establish a standard. 

14 The other issue Carol talked about was the 

15 economic impacts. That's one of the things that you're 

16 supposed to do in every engineering analysis is consider 

17 and evaluate the economic impact of the proposed 

18 improvements. 

19 If we look at putting in just some signage 

20 probably cost about $2,000.00, to put in a post with a 

21 couple of signs on it, but I'm not sure what our average 

22 cost is to improve a grade crossing with flashing lights 

23 and gates, but it's probably around $275,000. 

24 Now, if you've got a landowner that, you know, 

25 I mean, if Union Pacific came to me and said, oh, Steve, 

00131 

 1 um, we need you to contribute $275,000, you know, to put 

 2 in some gates and lights here in your driveway so you can 

 3 be protected, I'm not really sure that I should state in 

 4 public what I would tell you people. But you know that's 

 5 close to the value of my home, you know. 

 6 So how do you enforce something like that? I 

 7 would just say, fine, if you guys want to pay for it, I 

 8 would be happy to have it, but I don't want that bell 

 9 ringing at any time that I'm here, so you need to go 

10 through a quiet zone process. And, you know, I can just 

11 imagine all kinds of problems with this when we get into 

12 the dollar value. 

13 MR. COTHEN: And when we get to the next stop in New 

14 Orleans, we'll be talking about data sheets. And the 

15 reason we need data is in order to make decisions that 

16 are cost effective. And so I'm sure that the California 

17 Department of Transportation and California PUC will be 

18 very supportive of our need to gather that data, as you 

19 have been over the years. 

20 MR. CATES: We don't have traffic -- good traffic 

21 counts of public crossings, so we can't give you any at 

22 the private crossings. I mean, that's just a real 

23 problem for me. I go to look at these grade crossings 

24 and many times the traffic information is 15, 20 years 

25 old. 

00132 

 1 MS. CARROLL: Or it's extrapolated from the closest 

 2 State highway available? 

 3 MR. CATES: Yes. 

 4 MS. CARROLL: Okay. I think we're going to move on. 

 5 MR. PETROSSIAN: I think when you're extrapolating 

 6 the role of the private crossings, that is major public 

 7 use, like you're talking about the shopping centers or a 

 8 development, then I think that's when we need to 

 9 encourage the Public Road Authority to take it over. And 

10 then at that time, then we go into diagnostic and require 

11 whatever bells and whistles are necessary. And if it's a 

12 public road, then we can also, over Section 130 funds, 

13 hear if it's there. 
14 So I think that one of the things that may be 

15 needed is to encourage States to maybe pass the 

16 legislation requiring local governments that when they 

17 are granting development rights and they're going to get 

18 sales tax revenue and property tax revenues, that along 

19 with that they pick up that public crossing as a public 

20 road. So that, I think, goes hand-in-hand. 

21 MR. CATES: I think that's a good idea because 

22 that's confusing when we're doing these 130 projects. A 

23 lot of times we found that grade crossing, in fact, is in 

24 public use but not owned by the city or county, and so we 

25 can't use Federal funds to make improvements to that 

00133 

 1 crossing. 

 2 MS. CARROLL: Okay. Thank you. I think that was a 

 3 very great point you made there. 

 4 We're going to move on because we have more 

 5 than 10 questions, I think, and we don't want to stress 

 6 you out too much. 

 7 So what if -- moving on, we're going to talk a 

 8 lot about guidance and performance guidance and standards 

 9 and guidelines. What if organizations such as AASHTO, 

10 AREMA, the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control 

11 Devices were to actually include sections on private 

12 crossings in all of their existing guidance and 

13 standards, say they picked up on public use/ private 

14 crossing issue, would it be useful to have guidance in 

15 these areas, in these documents that said that this is 

16 what you need to do? Besides the fact we don't know who 

17 is going to pay for them. 

18 MR. CATES: Yeah, because then it provides something 

19 for the traffic engineer to, you know, cite in his 

20 engineering analysis. 

21 MR. MATHIEU: With respect to railroads, more 

22 guidance or stuff we have to hang on our hats, the better 

23 for us to come in and say you should have this. 

24 You tell the private property owner you need to 

25 have gates. Why? Because we feel it's safer. But the 

00134 

 1 more guidance or documentation I think the better we 

 2 would get. But, of course, funding is going to be a big 

 3 issue. And I think funding could be -- if funding comes 

 4 from the Federal government or where ever it can be used 

 5 as an incentive. Going back to the previous question, 

 6 issue number two, I think what if you were either going 

 7 to get agreement or close the crossing, what if we were 

 8 to use funding as a way to get them to -- incentive to 

 9 sign the agreement? If we were to help them, say, 50 

10 percent of the costs or something, through some type of 

11 sources, that would give them incentive to sign the 

12 agreement, so... 

13 MS. CARROLL: Thank you, Ron. 

14 MR. MATHIEU: And, yes, I want to repeat my answer 

15 to one of the previous questions, to treating public same 

16 as private, one of the concerns I have is for private 

17 crossings is you have a lower threshold or warning 

18 devices are lower for public where you have public used 
19 private crossing for at a mall, your public usage, 

20 because it's public, someone might say we should put a 

21 passive sign, whereas a public one, you might have to use 

22 a gate. So standards might work against us. So I would 

23 want to caution against having separate standards for 

24 private crossings. 

25 MS. CARROLL: Well, I guess the way -- from what I 

00135 

 1 was hearing from the discussion, maybe we should separate 

 2 like there is now, a farm crossing is treated differently 

 3 and has a different definition than a private crossing, 

 4 or there is a special category of private crossing. 

 5 In our meeting in Fort Snelling the consensus 

 6 of the group was you have to define all of the different 

 7 types of private crossings to be able to categorize them 

 8 in a way that makes them -- you look at the user type, 

 9 the frequency of the vehicles and the trains, and to 

10 start to collect the data that you need to do a risk 

11 analysis. 

12 MR. GILBERT: I think that would be a critical part 

13 of any sort of inclusion in the existing standards or 

14 guidelines or development of your own. If the document 

15 that you come up with requires Steve to put $275,000 in 

16 warning devices at the end of his driveway, then 

17 something has gone horribly wrong. It should be based on 

18 the usage, the crossing, and the expected traffic, and I 

19 wouldn't expect warning devices -- active warning devices 

20 at the end of a driveway for a single residence, so I 

21 think that's an important distinction. 

22 MS. CARROLL: Unless they get an awful lot of mail 

23 deliveries. 

24 MR. PETROSSIAN: And then once you go into doing 

25 that analysis, that's the same as diagnostic for public 

00136 

 1 crossings. 

 2 MS. CARROLL: Exactly. 

 3 MR. GILBERT: The only benefit that may arise out of 

 4 it is that you would capture the extremely low use 

 5 crossings and the specialized crossings that maybe you 

 6 could establish some minimum guidelines for. 

 7 MS. CARROLL: Right. 

 8 MR. GILBERT: Which you wouldn't necessarily expect 

 9 on public roadways. 

10 MS. CARROLL: Right. 

11 Well, thank you. That was a very good 

12 discussion on that one. 

13 MR. PETROSSIAN: You should have sent the questions 

14 out beforehand. 

15 MS. CARROLL: You should have had railroads on one 

16 side, States on the other. We should have types. 

17 Here is the next question. What if the 

18 railroads were to require all private crossing holders to 

19 obtain liability insurance? 

20 MR. SCHWARTZ: Easier said than done. 

21 MR. PETROSSIAN: It's a contractual agreement. 

22 MS. CARROLL: It's good if you can get a contract. 

23 MR. SCHWARTZ: The railroad doesn't always have thet 
24 the ability to require it. If the railroad is holding 

25 its title to the property at the acceptance of a property 

00137 

 1 owner, how could he go back to the property owner and say 

 2 we demand that you have insurance, we have an easement on 

 3 somebody's property for railroad right-of-way, or if we 

 4 have that railroad right-of-way by means of a deed, 

 5 which, in the deed has a requirement for a crossing, how 

 6 does the railroad go back to the property owner and say, 

 7 well, you had this by deed, but we demand that you have 

 8 liability insurance when we contract for a private 

 9 crossing. We routinely have that. But that's only where 

10 we have the ability to contract. 

11 MS. CARROLL: Right. So is it an exception versus 

12 the rule or is it the rule versus the exception? 

13 MR. SCHWARTZ: I'm not sure I can say which is 

14 which. 

15 MS. CARROLL: Carol? 

16 MS. HARRIS: Well, it's actually quite difficult 

17 even to get agreements where you have mutual private 

18 parties involved to bring everybody to the table to get 

19 them to sign the same agreement and they have different 

20 situations in terms of their ability or their inclination 

21 to secure liability insurance. So it's different. 

22 We often have, when we're in negotiation with 

23 licensees, they will ask us where can they get this 

24 insurance. And it's -- this isn't simple or easy, 

25 either, to get those policies. Then there is quite an 

00138 

 1 administrative and maintenance process, just to be sure 

 2 that the policy each year is reinstated. 

 3 So it's a big job and one that I think it's not 

 4 really a one-size-fits-all. 

 5 MR. COTHEN: Thank you. 

 6 Are we through with that one? 

 7 MS. CARROLL: Yep. 

 8 MR. COTHEN: Time for a break. Let's take no more 

 9 than 10 minutes so that everybody will be able to get 

10 close to an early quitting day, hopefully. 

11 (Recess taken.) 

12 MS. CARROLL: We're going to move on now to question 

13 number six. If I could have everybody come back and join 

14 us, that would be wonderful. 

15 What if a Federal agency, FRA, established a 

16 process of working the creation, evaluation and 

17 improvement of private crossings, it's a little bit 

18 different than setting standards and guidance for what 

19 you put there, criteria for creation, evaluation, and 

20 upgrades? 

21 MR. GILBERT: That sounds like a combination of 

22 requiring an agreement and setting up guidelines and 

23 standards. I think it's a combination of question two 

24 and four. 

25 MS. CARROLL: So is that a good thing or bad thing? 

00139 

 1 MR. SCHWARTZ: Are you talking about something that 

 2 would apply only to the creation of new crossings or 
 3 would it apply to existing crossings as well? 

 4 MS. CARROLL: Well, you can take it by subcategory 

 5 so we can talk about it, just creation or we can talk 

 6 about just evaluation of those crossings, either by 

 7 diagnostic or change of views or you can talk about 

 8 improvements such as standard guidance, performance 

 9 guidance, a body of work. 

10 MR. PETROSSIAN: I guess the question is does FRA or 

11 any other Federal agency have a process in governing the 

12 creation or evaluation from a public crossing? 

13 MS. CARROLL: Good question. 

14 MR. COTHEN: Got us there. 

15 MS. CARROLL: So it will be retrofit, we'll do prior 

16 crossings first and then work backwards? 

17 MR. CATES: From the perspective of CalTrans, our 

18 only authority is one where we're using the Federal 

19 Section 130 funds and then we follow the regulatory 

20 process and guidelines set forth for that program. But 

21 other than that, we don't have any authority over any of 

22 that creation evaluation or improvement of any crossing 

23 unless we're using those Federal funds. 

24 MR. COTHEN: Let me just clarify that there is 

25 public participation, clearly, with respect to public 

00140 

 1 roadways, and it doesn't have to be at the Federal level, 

 2 it can be at the State or local level, county, city, 

 3 State of California, the California PUC. 

 4 We're thinking about the rest of the nation in 

 5 the absence of any public involvement in decision-making 

 6 related to private crossings when the national network 

 7 serves the nation as a whole and public interests at 

 8 large is involved. 

 9 So, you know, we're not trying to transfer the 

10 template from public crossings to private crossings here 

11 in this hypothetical that we're asking. 

12 What we are saying is in the absence of action 

13 at the State level, elsewhere, is there any opportunity 

14 for some helpful role from the Federal side so that the 

15 public interest in some way is considered as these 

16 crossings are created and as the uses of these crossings 

17 change? 

18 MS. CARROLL: Peter? 

19 MR. BURCAT: What is the formula for preemptions? 

20 It's the three ingredients you put into the pot, stir it 

21 up and out comes preemptions, and that's not going to 

22 improve the safety at these private crossings. 

23 MR. PETROSSIAN: I think the other way to do it is 

24 how the FTA did the safety oversight of light rail 

25 transit, for instance. 

00141 

 1 MS. CARROLL: State safety oversight? 

 2 MR. PETROSSIAN: What you could do is say if a State 

 3 does not have rules, you require them to adopt the rules, 

 4 and this is what, you know, if it has told every State 

 5 that when you have a rail transit agency in your State, 

 6 you have to have a State safety oversight agency so you 

 7 could establish -- you know, require the States to 
 8 establish a private crossing safety oversight within the 

 9 State system and then create, evaluate and improve 

10 private crossings. 

11 MS. CARROLL: Okay. Thank you. 

12 Moving along, what if question number seven, 

13 the ultimate responsibility for safety at private 

14 crossings resided with State agencies? I think that's 

15 what I've heard all day. 

16 MR. GILBERT: I think we're in agreement with that. 

17 MS. CARROLL: California is in agreement. 

18 How about Washington State? 

19 MR. BOSTON: Oh, yeah. 

20 MR. CATES: I'll disagree with Vahak. 

21 MR. PETROSSIAN: We rarely disagree. This is the 

22 first time. 

23 MS. CARROLL: I'm surprised you're sitting next to 

24 each other. 

25 Did you have a comment? 

00142 

 1 MR. CATES: We're sitting next to LeeAnn Dickson 

 2 from the FRA. 

 3 MS. CARROLL: Community. 

 4 MR. CATES: Yeah. This isn't agreement or 

 5 disagreement because I think you've already discussed 

 6 you've got lots of different situations in different 

 7 places. But I think one thing where the Federal 

 8 government has played an important role has been in 

 9 adopting a policy in favor of minimization of crossings 

10 and in favor of encouraging a corridor approach, 

11 encouraging a consolidation closure of crossings. 

12 I would be very unhappy if they were to retreat 

13 from that. And I think that that certainly should 

14 encompass private crossings and that there may be some 

15 opportunities to add some additional teeth, to add some 

16 incentives and some additional tools that railroads or 

17 States could use to promote those goals. 

18 MS. CARROLL: Did I hear you correctly? Additional 

19 guidance on incentives that could be used? 

20 MR. CATES: Yes, incentives. 

21 MS. CARROLL: Tools? 

22 MR. CATES: And even monetary incentives could be 

23 quite helpful. 

24 MS. CARROLL: I know in our meeting in Raleigh, 

25 North Carolina, they had Section 1010 funding and they 

00143 

 1 did a corridor approach and did a whole piece on the high 

 2 speed rail related to private crossings, so they had 

 3 money for improvements, and that is one thing that they 

 4 have collected is incentives to close crossings, both 

 5 public and private, and to actually negotiate upgrading 

 6 crossings nearby to close some private crossings. So we 

 7 do have some information from North Carolina as a 

 8 particular State, right. 

 9 MR. JINBACHIAN: Carol mentioned, I think, the 

10 action plan is that what you were referring to earlier, 

11 Carol, and what that reminded me of, when we're adopting 

12 our General 75 (D), in there we had language saying in 
13 support of the Federal policy or reducing crossings, 

14 we're adopting the policy of reducing mainline crossings 

15 in California. So if they're addressing Federal policy 

16 like this, it would help us to say we're doing what the 

17 Feds are recommending. 

18 MS. CARROLL: Right. Okay. 

19 Any other comments? 

20 MR. MATHIEU: Sounds like a collaborative effort, 

21 Federal and State guidelines or guidance documents. 

22 MS. CARROLL: Public, private partnerships is what 

23 we like to try and support. 

24 Anybody else on this question? 

25 MR. BOSTON: Is that standard procedure of class one 

00144 

 1 railroads? I know in Washington State PNSF private 

 2 crossings they will offer a landowner, you know, money to 

 3 close a crossing. 

 4 Is that pretty much standard across the nation? 

 5 MS. CARROLL: Um, from our North Carolina 

 6 experience, they've had many different incentives they've 

 7 used. They've bought property, they've provided 

 8 alternate access to a crossing that has a higher level, 

 9 maybe a public crossing that has a higher level of 

10 warning device application. So there are various 

11 incentives that they've used from that particular State. 

12 Anybody else? 

13 Okay. Question number 8. I can tell you just 

14 can't wait. 

15 What if the ultimate responsibility for safety 

16 at private crossings resided with the railroads? 

17 Carol. 

18 MS. HARRIS: I do need to go on record with this 

19 because we have no ability in many cases even to know who 

20 is using that private crossing. We can't regulate the 

21 behavior of the motorists except to the extent that we're 

22 able to get agreements that have some teeth, and so we 

23 are not familiar with the vehicular use of crossings or 

24 with the engineering of crossing roads or all of those 

25 things that are really unrelated to the expertise and the 

00145 

 1 traditional problems of railroads, and we have no ability 

 2 to control them. So it would be, we think, inappropriate 

 3 to proceed in this vein. 

 4 MS. CARROLL: I would agree with that. 

 5 MS. RANDOLPH: Many times you'll have trucks and 

 6 other vehicles using the right-of-way following the 

 7 track, not necessarily on the crossing, close to the 

 8 private crossing. As Carol said, the railroad doesn't 

 9 even know they're out. There's lots of times they're 

10 supposed to notify the railroad, but sometimes they 

11 don't, and they don't even know they're out there. 

12 If you put the onus on the railroad to be 

13 completely responsible for a private crossing, that's a 

14 big burden to chew off. 

15 MS. CARROLL: Okay. I guess that's a consensus. 

16 MS. RANDOLPH: Trespassing. 

17 MS. CARROLL: Moving on to number 9. What if a 
18 private crossing were categorized based on traffic levels 

19 and types of use? 

20 We talked a little bit about this in regard to 

21 the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and the 

22 AASHTO green book and also AREMA. 

23 MR. JINBACHIAN: Should I assume that you're 

24 referring to vehicular traffic and type of use or both? 

25 MS. CARROLL: Both rail and highway and pedestrian. 

00146 

 1 This stemmed from our discussions in Minnesota. 

 2 MR. JINBACHIAN: Do you mean -- when you say 

 3 categorized, do you mean different categories of private 

 4 crossings whether it warrants this or whether it's 

 5 categorized as private or public? 

 6 MS. CARROLL: Both. I mean, I think in one of our 

 7 discussions internally after the meeting in Minnesota, 

 8 and possibly after North Carolina, we looked at a matrix 

 9 approach that was maybe three or four dimensional as a 

10 categorization of private crossings. We had that 

11 discussion. 

12 MR. PETROSSIAN: I don't see the difference between 

13 this and public crossings in terms of the diagnostics 

14 required for the upgrades. But let's say you categorize 

15 and you say this category requires this minimum warning 

16 device. Who's going to pay for it? 

17 MR. CATES: Is this like a warrant, like if it has 

18 20,000 cars a day, you put -- 

19 MS. CARROLL: It could be considered public use. 

20 Maybe it then goes into a public category. 

21 MR. BOLES: What happens if it has 19,000 cars? 

22 It's really hard to come up with a threshold and make it 

23 stick. 

24 MS. CARROLL: From Minnesota BRS stood up and said 

25 more than one user, it's public. 

00147 

 1 MR. BOLES: Two users. 

 2 MS. CARROLL: The brotherhood of railroad signalman 

 3 in their testimony. 

 4 MR. JINBACHIAN: If it's less than one user, you 

 5 don't need a crossing, so... 

 6 MS. CARROLL: Well, how do you determine that? And 

 7 that's what we're going to try to do in New Orleans and 

 8 think about data. 

 9 Okay. Any other discussion on this one? 

10 Yes, Carol? 

11 MS. HARRIS: Well, I think it can be useful for 

12 different purposes to make distinctions between 

13 crossings, different types of private crossings, but I 

14 think those distinctions need to be made in light of what 

15 the activity is, whatever it is that you're going to be 

16 doing with your rule or your guidance or whatever it is. 

17 It needs to be tied to something and not just occurs as 

18 kind of a free form exercise. It seems to me it needs to 

19 be in relation with certain goals, objectives, regulations. 

20 MS. CARROLL: So it has to be tied to something? 

21 MS. HARRIS: Yes. 

22 MS. CARROLL: Dave? 
23 MR. PETERSON: Two comments on this. The first one 

24 is I was in Minnesota and heard the BRS make that 

25 comment, and one thing I would like to point out to the 

00148 

 1 FRA is frequently the railroads, where we have two 

 2 farmers that have crossings that are within, just for 

 3 example, a hundred and fifty feet apart from one another, 

 4 on either side of a fence we will end up putting one 

 5 crossing right at the fence, like that serves two 

 6 property owners. We eliminated one unnecessary crossing, 

 7 and it's still a private crossing. It still basically 

 8 hasn't changed the character. It's a farm crossing. And 

 9 I would hate to see some sort of recommendation come out 

10 that would basically hinder the consolidation of 

11 unnecessary crossings because now, suddenly, the only way 

12 we can do that is to convert something like that into a 

13 public roadway. 

14 The next thing I just wanted to point out about 

15 generating traffic levels. As Steve mentioned just a 

16 minute ago, it's very difficult getting accurate traffic 

17 counts on our public crossings across the United States. 

18 And on private crossings it is going to be next to 

19 impossible to really determine traffic counts. You have 

20 to have a hard roadway surface if you're even going to 

21 use the type of equipment that can count vehicular 

22 traffic. 

23 Many of these private crossings are on dirt 

24 paths or gravel roads and you can't put a traffic count 

25 on something like that. 

00149 

 1 The other thing is some of these private 

 2 crossings may go nine months out of the year with zero 

 3 traffic counts, and then during harvest time there may be 

 4 a very brief period of intensive traffic, high traffic 

 5 intensity. 

 6 Well, you know, as all traffic engineers that 

 7 will be in this room will tell you is that you don't base 

 8 traffic counts off your peak volumes. It's based over an 

 9 annualized volume. 

10 So how do you do this? 

11 I just want to caution the FRA, if you're 

12 dealing with traffic levels, the very best you could hope 

13 for is getting a shotgun by someone just making a wild 

14 guess as to what the traffic levels are from vehicular 

15 traffic at these crossings, and it could prove very 

16 expensive to try to ascertain what that traffic level is. 

17 My company, alone, has 11,000 private crossings 

18 and going tracking, trying to come up with some sort of 

19 level of traffic on those will be quite a challenge. 

20 MS. CARROLL: Thank you, Dave. 

21 Our next meeting in New Orleans is going to 

22 discuss data, but we always like to have opinions from 

23 our previous groups of participants to help us out for 

24 the next one. 

25 Any other thoughts on this one? 

00150 

 1 Here's where you get to ask a question. 
 2 Anybody have a burning question? 

 3 MR. MATHIEU: That's number 10. 

 4 MS. CARROLL: I have one, if you don't have any. 

 5 I think we've stretched you quite a lot today. 

 6 My question would be regarding our next meeting 

 7 which is going to be on data and data issues. 

 8 What would it take to collect the data that's 

 9 necessary to support a risk analysis, to support the 

10 categorization of private crossings in a supportive way, 

11 and what mechanisms would you think of to come up with 

12 those kinds of processes? 

13 MR. CATES: How would you do that? We've got 4500 

14 crossings like this. I'm going to reference the FRA 

15 crossing database. This is some data I pulled off of 

16 your website last week. Right across the end of the Bay 

17 Bridge over here, Contra Costa County, we have 280 

18 private crossings, 144 public crossings. 

19 Now, cities and counties in Contra Costa County 

20 have a hard time updating vehicular traffic counts on 

21 public crossings. There is almost twice as many private 

22 crossings in that county. 

23 Where are you going to get the folks to do this 

24 sort of thing? I mean, it's just, to me, an incredible 

25 challenge. 

00151 

 1 MR. COTHEN: I shouldn't say this, unfunded 

 2 mandates. 

 3 MR. CATES: Well, we have that in California State 

 4 law. If we impose a requirement on a Municipal 

 5 government, our State Constitution requires the State 

 6 government to pay for that mandate. So, I mean, at the 

 7 State level we would have a very difficult time doing 

 8 that. 

 9 MR. COTHEN: And I think when we get to a question 

10 like this, and it's obviously a very difficult one and it 

11 has recurred in the discussions that we've had to this 

12 point, how do you simplify that problem; right? 

13 MS. CARROLL: That's correct. 

14 MR. COTHEN: We know we can't get traffic counts on 

15 4500 private crossings. 

16 MR. CATES: We can't get them on 77 public 

17 crossings. 

18 MR. COTHEN: If we got them in three years, they 

19 would be out-of-date; right? 

20 So, the question becomes: How do you simplify 

21 the problem? 

22 I don't know. Do you use survey forms with 

23 locomotive engineers? Is there a satellite imaging firm 

24 that's got something that will serve? I don't know what. 

25 Do we decide that we really want to take data only on 

00152 

 1 commercial and industrial crossings? How do we get to 

 2 the point where we can be meaningful about this? 

 3 And we talked earlier about the need for the 

 4 engineer who goes out there, and nobody is going out 

 5 there because there is no engineer from a public 

 6 authority to go out there in States other than 
 7 California? But in California you're going to go out 

 8 there and make a determination about what is cost 

 9 effective. How do you know what's cost effective if 

10 there are not any national level studies, let alone State 

11 level studies. 

12 And we know we have very few data points here, 

13 so we've got to claim every one we possibly can so long 

14 as we can maintain a reasonable quality. 

15 As we move forward towards the end of the 

16 discussion, if you can help us think about how we 

17 simplify the problem and maybe get a strategy to improve 

18 what we know so we can do better going forward. 

19 MR. JINBACHIAN: Speaking of funding mandates, have 

20 you considered establishing a new funding similar to 

21 Section 130, saying all rail lines that are carrying 

22 passenger rails going above "X" miles an hour should have 

23 warning devices, then you start with those, then you have 

24 the money available for operating these warnings devices. 

25 And similar to the Section 130 program through the States 

00153 

 1 where you go ahead as crossings and saying we're going to 

 2 start with double tracks, high speed passenger rail, and 

 3 we'll start updating those, maybe something like that. 

 4 MS. CARROLL: Grady, do you want to talk about track 

 5 standards? They do include public and the private. 

 6 MR. COTHEN: We have requirements above 110 miles an 

 7 hour that crossings be barricaded, and above 125 miles an 

 8 hour that you can't -- there is no way to physically 

 9 cross -- not barricade it, but that there be effective 

10 restraint for vehicles, typical vehicles operating at 

11 typical speeds. And there is a requirement for 

12 submission of a plan for that in the safe standards. And 

13 above 125 miles an hour crossings are forbidden. And 

14 then we have discussed in the past how it makes sense, 

15 certainly, that it shows you how modest our expectations 

16 are that above 79 miles an hour that each of the public 

17 crossings certainly should have a minimum of flashing 

18 lights and gates, and that's in the guideline document, 

19 not in a regulation. 

20 Truthfully, when we started talking about these 

21 things in the early '90s, people said you're nuts, you'll 

22 never be able to do that. There is a high speed rail 

23 lobby, et cetera, et cetera. And everybody took their 

24 medicine very easily to the extent that we wondered why 

25 in the world we weren't more ambitious. And it's because 

00154 

 1 from a cost benefit standpoint we think the returns are 

 2 there and more can be done. 

 3 So I think that this is a difficult problem for 

 4 the government agency at this stage in our history 

 5 because, let's face it, the categorical programs are not 

 6 in favor, earmarks are. 

 7 And so where do you go with it from a public 

 8 policy standpoint? 

 9 I think that one of the things that we're 

10 trying to consider with your help is who benefits if we 

11 have a national passenger rail policy? 
12 We know among those who will benefit will be 

13 those who use the passenger rail system. And if we have 

14 State funded passenger rail, we know among those who will 

15 benefit are the passengers. And in that service, 

16 commuter rail, as well. 

17 The problem on the freight side is a little 

18 more complicated without public funding, and certainly, 

19 the user of the crossing benefits substantially on the 

20 other hand when the railroad changes its operations. 

21 Maybe the equation shifts a little bit and we've seen 

22 with respect to public crossings, the STB and 

23 environmental proceedings ordering railroads to engage in 

24 transactions that shift traffic to contribute to crossing 

25 improvements. 

00155 

 1 Against that fairly complex background, and I 

 2 guess I could go on a little longer, but you all don't 

 3 want to listen to it and I don't want to bore you with 

 4 it, we're trying to look at this very specialized and 

 5 difficult problem. 

 6 And I think at this point we're saying let's 

 7 not take any options off the table. At the same time, 

 8 let's not assume that we're going to be able to take a 

 9 particular block of resources, whether they're the 

10 railroad's resources or the landlocked property owner's 

11 resources or the Federal taxpayer's resources, throw them 

12 at the problem and have the problem resolved. 

13 Solutions are probably fairly subtle, may 

14 involve contributions from a variety of sources. If we 

15 can figure out exactly what the problem is, how to target 

16 the resources to do the most good and who needs to 

17 participate in the solution, then we'll have made some 

18 headway. 

19 Steve. 

20 MR. CATES: Kind of some thoughts and a suggestion 

21 on that. When one of my trains is involved in a grade 

22 crossing accident, damage usually runs anywhere from 

23 about 15 to 2 or $300,000 to the locomotive and usually 

24 the second -- the first car in the train. 

25 We also wind up with a delay. 

00156 

 1 So when we're on a mainline railroad, either 

 2 single or double track, we're usually hanging up traffic 

 3 put through that railroad line. 

 4 Same thing happens to us when the freight 

 5 railroad has a grade crossing accident. Usually takes an 

 6 hour to three hours to clear that. I'm not sure what the 

 7 requirements are on freight railroads, but whenever we've 

 8 been involved in a grade crossing accident, I have been 

 9 on the train, I have had to assist the conductor on both 

10 the walk-through inspection and roll-by inspection. That 

11 usually takes 30 minutes or so. 

12 Um, so you have a substantial delay in traffic. 

13 You're hanging up trains for miles. CalTrans has a 

14 contract, I don't know, or traffic people who do traffic 

15 counts where they hire a consulting firm to go out and do 

16 some traffic counts for local jurisdictions who fail to 
17 submit their traffic counts to CalTrans under the Federal 

18 requirement. And this has probably been a year or more 

19 since I talked to the folks that were involved in that 

20 contract, but they told me it's probably around $150.00 

21 per traffic count for a roadway section. So if we took a 

22 look at, let's say, main line private crossings, I'm 

23 going to assume, just make a wild guess, there is 1500 

24 private crossings on main line railroad tracks in 

25 California at $150 to get a traffic count at those 

00157 

 1 crossings, that's $225,000. That's about what it costs 

 2 for one accident. That's from a risk analysis. You 

 3 know, that's not a lot of money to spend compared to what 

 4 it costs if you avoid one accident eventually by 

 5 collecting this data. So as soon as the FRA provides us 

 6 with $225,000. 

 7 But, I mean, that's a way to do this. We hire 

 8 a private company to do that where we don't get good 

 9 traffic counts from cities and counties, that's not very 

10 expensive. 

11 MR. GILBERT: I think Anya's question was more 

12 global. 

13 Were you talking about identifying the 

14 locations and presence of crossings and getting traffic 

15 counts and train counts? Is it the overall data 

16 collection that you were inquiring about? 

17 MS. CARROLL: Well, being involved with grade 

18 crossing safety research for numerous years now, I have a 

19 sensitivity toward data issues and data quality issues. 

20 And I think there are techniques and tools that the 

21 States and the railroads are using that could easily tap 

22 into a source to collect this data, inspections, track 

23 inspections. You can get GPS locations of private 

24 crossings, public crossings. I mean, if you have an 

25 accident and you're out there, you collect certain 

00158 

 1 amounts of data, whether it be a public or a private 

 2 crossing. 

 3 I'm trying to open up things out of the box of 

 4 ways. GIS platforms, I know the railroads are using GIS 

 5 platforms for their networks to stimulate mobility and 

 6 productivity on the railroads. 

 7 Could you use that kind of platform and layer 

 8 that with your road network and maybe extrapolate 

 9 whatever road data is there for a nearby private 

10 crossing? 

11 I'm just trying to stimulate other possible 

12 ways we could gather data that may be not in use now. 

13 And this is -- California is a wonderful forum 

14 to do this because you are so pro-active with the way you 

15 approach both public and private crossings. 

16 MR. CATES: Yeah, we've just entered into a 

17 cooperative contract with the NSF in regard to other 

18 track improvements on the San Joaquin Valley line, and 

19 they're working with a company -- I don't know exactly 

20 what it's called or how it works, but they put a GPS unit 

21 on a train, on one of our rail cars, and then they have a 
22 plane that flies over and takes area photos and does GPS 

23 coordination. And from that we'll be able to identify 

24 all public and private crossings through the aerial 

25 survey. 

00159 

 1 So, that's -- I don't remember what the cost 

 2 is. 

 3 MS. CARROLL: Except for the deeded ones that don't 

 4 exist yet. 

 5 MR. CATES: And some of them, visually, you're not 

 6 going to be able to identify very clearly, even with a 

 7 good aerial photo. But there is different ways of doing 

 8 these things. And there is a lot of information that's 

 9 available. And as these GIS systems become more readily 

10 available, it's easier to do things like this. 

11 MS. CARROLL: Anybody else have a -- 

12 MR. PETERSON: As far as GPS? 

13 MS. CARROLL: GIS. 

14 MR. PETERSON: Tie it in with what we're talking 

15 about that will work on main line crossings, but we've 

16 got a number of these private crossings that are off the 

17 main line on industrial leads or intra plant that's not 

18 going to even address any of those. 

19 MR. CATES: You'd never get like -- 

20 MR. PETERSON: And also, on intra plant crossings, 

21 typically there is one D.O.T. number that covers the 

22 whole plant, and the plant, itself, may have dozens of 

23 crossings within it. And that is in accordance with 

24 FRA's guidelines for assigning D.O.T. numbers. 

25 MS. CARROLL: Well, should we consider intra plant 

00160 

 1 crossings as a separate entity or is that actually within 

 2 your purview of the industry? 

 3 MR. PETERSON: Frequently those crossings are on 

 4 privately owned tracks within the plant, and as a 

 5 railroad employee trying to get into some of those plants 

 6 to look at crossing issues, I can tell you, I, 

 7 personally, had challenges getting into -- especially if 

 8 it's like a chemical plant. You just don't know what's 

 9 back up in there, and they really don't want you to know. 

10 MS. CARROLL: Okay. Well, maybe we should take 

11 Steve's idea and look at main line private crossings to 

12 start with. 

13 MR. PETERSON: That's from a collision standpoint, I 

14 have not done any analysis at all, but I would venture to 

15 say the preponderance of the incidents that we're looking 

16 at on these private crossings are main lines. It's 

17 certainly where the greater severity of any incidents 

18 would be, would be on the main lines as opposed to the 

19 industrial leads. 

20 MS. CARROLL: Okay. Thanks, Dave. 

21 Anybody else have a thought? 

22 Yes, Bob? 

23 MR. BOSTON: I had a question for Steve. 

24 When he was talking about the costs of a 

25 collision, like at private crossings, is there a formula 

00161 
 1 that you use for economic delay, like if a collision 

 2 delays so many freight trains or passenger trains, do 

 3 they have a formula to figure out how much that is 

 4 costing railroads or costing -- 

 5 MR. CATES: We don't. I guess we could take our 

 6 ticket price and divide it by the minutes of travel and 

 7 come up with something. Or, as an example, at this 

 8 grade crossing where we hit the dump truck, that train, 

 9 it was annulled. The leading wheels on the truck of the 

10 cab car hit the ground. We had 160 passengers on there. 

11 If you figure $10.00 an hour, something, and times 160 

12 passengers times half a dozen hours. 

13 And we had 15 people that -- well, I think we 

14 had 18 people went to the hospital, three crew members 

15 and about 15 passengers. 

16 And you figure, what, about 700 bucks per 

17 ambulance. There is a way you could figure those things 

18 out. And I'm sure insurance companies would have ways of 

19 doing that. 

20 But, to us, it's a good will sort of thing. 

21 You have folks that aren't ever going to ride the train 

22 again, so it impacts us from our ability to provide an 

23 alternate mode of transportation other than hopping in 

24 your car. 

25 MR. BOSTON: Does anybody from the railroads have a 

00162 

 1 formula or a freight train being delayed an hour, is 

 2 there a cost analysis that they did or -- 

 3 MR. PETERSON: It can be calculated. It depends on 

 4 the type of train that is delayed whether it's a unit 

 5 train or, say, if it's a local. 

 6 Switching local, there is quite a number of 

 7 variables that go into it. We do have a group within the 

 8 railroad that can do that kind of analysis. And I'm sure 

 9 the other railroads have done the same thing. 

10 MR. BOSTON: I can imagine the cost is quite high. 

11 MS. CARROLL: Okay. Well, I'm done with my portion 

12 of this afternoon's session. 

13 I would like to welcome you to Washington for 

14 the TRB annual meeting, if you can make it. And if you 

15 happen to be there, the Highway Rail Crossing, Grade 

16 Crossing Committee would love to see you at both their 

17 technical paper sessions, at their session on safety of 

18 private crossings, and also our committee meeting. 

19 So, if you're able and willing to be in 

20 Washington, we would love to see you. 

21 Thanks very much. 

22 MR. BURCAT: What's that date? 

23 MS. CARROLL: January 21st through January 25, 2007. 

24 And you can go up to the TRB website. It's -- 

25 I think it's WWW.DTRB.ORG. And the Highway Grade Rail 

00163 

 1 Crossing Committee's number is AHB 60. 

 2 MR. COTHEN: Thank you for leading that discussion, 

 3 and Miriam, as well. 

 4 But tremendous thanks to everybody who has been 

 5 in attendance today and has taken the opportunity to 
 6 speak on the record or just conduct a conversation on the 

 7 side about the subject matter. It's very helpful to us 

 8 to hear from a group so actively engaged in a variety of 

 9 ways in this issue. 

10 I do want to encourage you, related to the next 

11 topic of discussion, as Anya said, will be data needs. 

12 We need data to evaluate and develop strategies that may 

13 be helpful for reducing risk at private highway grade 

14 rail crossings. 

15 I think, clearly, it would be helpful to all of 

16 us to have data that's more current to target existing 

17 programs, both public and private, whether it's a 

18 railroad's effort to get an agreement or State agency's 

19 effort to improve service and safety on a passenger rail 

20 line, or whatever the need might be. 

21 Certainly, having the data available is going 

22 to be helpful. 

23 And then, if, at some point, Federal Railroad 

24 Administration or some other body crafts recommended or 

25 required standards and/or processes, certainly, you need 

00164 

 1 to have good data to undergo that kind of approach. 

 2 Cliff, any final words for us? 

 3 MR. EBY: Administrative Board, and I thank you for 

 4 your active participation today. 

 5 From my standpoint, as a first-time attendee, 

 6 it was a very informative session. 

 7 I think I can confirm four things from my 

 8 standpoint about private grade crossings. One: The 

 9 complexity of the problem; two: The diversity of it; 

10 three: California's pro-active and progressive approach 

11 to grade crossings. And that there is really no oleo 

12 solution here. If you don't know what oleo solution is, 

13 one that you spread around, the same solution everywhere. 

14 So thank you for your participation. And I 

15 hope to see you in New Orleans. 

16 MR. COTHEN: We're adjourned. 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 
 1 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

 2 FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 SAFETY AT PRIVATE HIGHWAY- 

 8 RAIL GRADE CROSSINGS 

 9 PUBLIC MEETING 

 10 Chateau Sonesta Hotel 

 11 800 Iberville Street 

 12 New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 

 13 Wednesday, December 6, 2006 

 14 9:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. 

 15 

 16 

 17 

 18 

 19 

 20 

 21 ATKINSON-BAKER, INC. 

 COURT REPORTERS 

 22 500 N. Brand Boulevard, Third Floor 

 Glendale, California 91203-4725 

 23 1-800-288-3376 

 

 24 REPORTED BY: KATHRYN L. PAINTIN, CCR NO. 81029 

 25 FILE NO.: A007BEC 
 2 

 1 PANEL: 

 2 GRADY C. COTHEN, JR., Chair 

 Acting Associate Administrator for Safety 

 3 USDT, FRA 

 

 4 MARK H. TESSLER 

 Assistant Chief Counsel for Safety 

 5 USDT, FRA 

 

 6 RONALD E. RIES 

 Staff Director 

 7 USDT, FRA 

 

 8 MIRIAM KLOEPPEL 

 Operations Research Analyst 

 9 USDT, FRA 

 

 10 ANYA A. CARROLL 

 Principal Investigator 

 11 USDT Volpe Center 

 

 12 ...oOo... 

 

 13 Introductory Agenda: 

 14 MARK TESSLER 

 Meeting Format and Rules of Conduct 

 15 

 RONALD RIES 

 16 Safety Briefing 

 

 17 RICHARD L. SAVOIE, P.E. 

 LA DOTD 

 18 Welcome address 

 

 19 MIRIAM KLOEPPEL 

 Introduction of Topics 

 20 to be Covered 

 

 21 ...oOO... 

 

 22 Presentations and Statements: 

 

 23 BETSEY TRAMONTE 

 Operation Lifesaver 

 24 Louisiana 

 

 25 

 
 3 

 1 RICHARD BERTEL 

 Chairman and CEO 

 2 Rio Grande Pacific Corporation 

 

 3 RICHARD CAMPBELL 

 President 

 4 Railroad Controls Limited 

 

 5 BEN B. SAUNDERS 

 Davis & Saunders, PLC 

 6 American Association 

 of Trial Lawyers 

 7 

 JOHN VAN MOL 

 8 Farmer 

 

 9 ...oOo... 

 

 10 Discussion: 

 

 11 MIRIAM KLOEPPEL 

 Discussion Moderator 

 12 Identification of 

 needed data 

 13 

 ANYA CARROLL 

 14 Discussion Moderator 

 Methods of gathering 

 15 data 

 

 16 ...oOo... 

 

 17 

 18 

 19 

 20 

 21 

 22 

 23 

 24 

 25 
 4 

 1 OTHER ATTENDEES (not a complete list): 

 2 W. L. (BILL) BARRINGER, JR. 

 Director Grade Crossing Safety] 

 3 Norfolk Southern Corporation 

 

 4 WILLIAM M. BROWDER 

 Director of Operations 

 5 Association of American Railroads 

 

 6 DAVID A. BURLESON 

 General Manager 

 7 AKDN 

 

 8 DAVID E. CRADER 

 Senior Manager Technical Services 

 9 CN, Southern Region 

 

 10 TIM DePAEPE 

 Director of Research 

 11 Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen 

 AFL-CIO 

 12 

 TOM DRAKE 

 13 Crossing/Tresspasser Regional Manager 

 USDT, FRA 

 14 Office of Safety 

 

 15 GRETCHEN FERGUSON 

 Engineering Technician 

 16 DOTD 

 

 17 VANESSA GUERRA 

 Transportation Planner 

 18 City of Laredo 

 Planning & Zoning Department 

 19 

 CARL E. HELLMERS, III 

 20 Frilot Partridge 

 Attorneys at Law 

 21 

 JIM M. KVEDARAS 

 22 Senior Manager 

 US Public and Government Affairs 

 23 CN 

 

 24 M. BRYANT LAICHE 

 Assistant Director 

 25 Operation Lifesaver 

 Louisiana 
 5 

 1 GABRIEL S. MEYER 

 Assistant General Attorney 

 2 Union Pacific Railroad 

 

 3 MARY BETH MEYER 

 Christovich & Kearney 

 4 Attorneys at Law 

 New Orleans and Gulf Coast 

 5 

 PAUL D. RATHGEBER 

 6 Manager of Industry & Public Projects 

 Engineering 

 7 Union Pacific Railroad 

 

 8 R. K. (KEN) ROUSE 

 Sr. Manager Industry & Public Projects 

 9 Union Pacific Railroad 

 

 10 KARLA S. SCHIRO 

 Highway Safety Program Manager 

 11 LA DOTD 

 

 12 MARK SUAREZ, P.E. 

 Systems Engineer 

 13 LA DOTD 

 

 14 EDWARD "BUTCH" SWALES, JR., P.E. 

 Assistant Rails Division Engineer 

 15 MS DOT 

 

 16 HASKEL L. STANBACK 

 Assistant Vice President Safety 

 17 Norfolk Southern Corporation 

 

 18 PATRICK A. TALLEY, JR. 

 Attorney at Law 

 19 Frilot Partridge 

 

 20 SHANE WHITEMORE 

 Director 

 21 CSX Transportation 

 

 22 

 

 23 

 24 

 25 
 6 

 1 P R O C E E D I N G S: 

 2 MR. COTHEN: Good morning. This is the 

 3 Federal Railroad Administration's Public 

 4 Conference on Safety at Highway-Rail Crossings. 

 5 You probably figured out from the signs out there 

 6 there's a population of individuals in here who 

 7 are interested in railroads and crossing safety, 

 8 individuals in the communities. The first thing 

 9 we always like to do at our meetings is a safety 

 10 briefing. I'll ask Ron Ries, who is our staff 

 11 director for highway-rail crossings, to do that 

 12 briefing. 

 13 MR. RIES: Good morning. It's good to see 

 14 everybody here. We appreciate your presence. We 

 15 don't anticipate any problems, but just in case 

 16 we do, we want to make sure everyone's aware of 

 17 how to exit the building safely. The nearest 

 18 exit is out the doors to the right. You go 

 19 across Canal Street, and we'll meet over there. 

 20 In case we need emergency responders 

 21 to come, we've been directed the best way to do 

 22 it is to use the house phone and call the -- dial 

 23 O to call the hotel operator, and they will call 

 24 911 and give them directions. The house phones 

 25 are in the -- built into the walls, so when you 
 7 

 1 see the white rectangular box, you open up that 

 2 door, there's phones in there. 

 3 Do we have any folks that are CPR 

 4 certified? We are in good shape. Hopefully 

 5 nothing will happen, but we have someone here to 

 6 take care of it. Are there any folks that do not 

 7 want to be resuscitated? And we're not going to 

 8 take a vote. You can't nominate people. 

 9 The washroom facilities, if you exit 

 10 the room, take a left, go down the hall, take 

 11 another left, and right when you get to the end 

 12 of that hallway, it's just on the opposite wall 

 13 on the right side. 

 14 I think that takes -- we do have some 

 15 cards for the stenographer, so if you walk over 

 16 there, don't trip over those hazards. 

 17 MR. COTHEN: Thank you, Ron. We'll do 

 18 introductions next. My name's Grady Cothen, 

 19 G-R-A-D-Y, C-O-T-H-E-N, and I'm Deputy Associate 

 20 Administrator for Safety Standards and Program 

 21 Development at the Federal Railroad 

 22 Administration. That's a long bureaucratic title 

 23 that means that I do rule-making and policy 

 24 development for the FRA in the safety area. 

 25 Our counsel for this proceeding, from 
 8 

 1 whom you'll hear in a little while, is Mark 

 2 Tessler. He's Assistant Chief Counsel for Safety 

 3 at FRA. I'm going to ask Ron Ries to introduce 

 4 others from the Federal Railroad Administration 

 5 who are present here from his staff at Volpe 

 6 Center, and also colleagues from the Federal 

 7 Highway Administration. 

 8 MR. RIES: Thank you. The Federal 

 9 Railroad Administration has eighteen people or 

 10 positions that work full-time in grade-crossing 

 11 safety and trespass prevention across the 

 12 country. We are very fortunate we have four here 

 13 today from Region 5, which encompasses Louisiana. 

 14 Carolyn Cook? Carolyn, if you'll just identify 

 15 yourself. 

 16 She just stepped out? Oh, here's 

 17 Carolyn coming in, right on cue. Also Jerry 

 18 Martin is here, as well as Richard Washington. 

 19 Richard is our newest grade-crossing manager. 

 20 And from Region 3, to the east, Tom Drake is here 

 21 as well. So we appreciate their being here. 

 22 Also from Washington, D.C., is Miriam 

 23 Kloeppel, who we'll be hearing making 

 24 presentations during this. Miriam is an 

 25 operation research analyst that works with grade- 
 9 

 1 crossing safety. 

 2 From the Volpe National Transportation 

 3 Center -- if you're not familiar with Volpe, they 

 4 do a lot of the research for FRA and also the 

 5 department as a whole. They're the ones who have 

 6 been putting together these series of workshops, 

 7 and we appreciate all the good work they're 

 8 doing. Anya Carroll is here. We have Steve Peck 

 9 out in back. Pearl Garcia. I think Pearl's out 

 10 of the table, and Mirna Gustave also is out on 

 11 the table. 

 12 And we work very closely with our DOT 

 13 partners. We have two representatives from the 

 14 Federal Highway Administration here for the 

 15 Louisiana Division: Mary Stringfellow and Seve 

 16 Cerna (phonetic). 

 17 So we appreciate all that, and we look 

 18 forward to a very productive meeting. 

 19 MR. COTHEN: Thank you, Ron. What we've 

 20 tried to do with the series of conferences is to 

 21 elicit as much input as we could regionally. 

 22 Many of you know that we started this road show 

 23 in Minnesota and moved to North Carolina and 

 24 California and now to New Orleans, and we'll 

 25 finish it up in Syracuse in -- we believe in 
 10 

 1 February. 

 2 Our effort has been, as I said, to 

 3 elicit regional input that gives us a bigger 

 4 picture, a more complete picture, a picture with 

 5 finer resolution of the dimensions of the 

 6 private-crossing challenge across the country. 

 7 We've been very pleased to be joined 

 8 in hosting these meetings by State Departments of 

 9 Transportation and the Public Utilities 

 10 Commissions who work on highway-rail crossing 

 11 safety issues every day and whose role is key to 

 12 the solution of crossing safety -- resolution of 

 13 crossing-safety issues. 

 14 We're very pleased that Louisiana 

 15 Department of Transportation has recently 

 16 championed the creation of the first state-level 

 17 action plan for highway-rail crossing safety, 

 18 taking the model of the Secretary's 1994 and 2004 

 19 action plans at the national level. That has 

 20 been a very productive activity, and I know that 

 21 there's a lot happening in Louisiana as a result 

 22 of the Department of Transportation in the 

 23 legislature and across the state. 

 24 Our topic today presents a uniquely 

 25 difficult one for all of us because of the fact 
 11 

 1 that we don't have public roadways involved, but 

 2 we're still here together to think about these 

 3 issues and discuss them. We're very happy to 

 4 have to welcome us to New Orleans, Louisiana, 

 5 Richard Savoie -- I know I can get it -- Deputy 

 6 Chief Engineer from Louisiana Department of 

 7 Transportation and Development. So, Richard, if 

 8 you'll come forward and bring greetings, please, 

 9 sir. 

 10 MR. SAVOIE: Thank you, Grady. It's a 

 11 pleasure to be here this morning. I was asked to 

 12 do this and I think one of the reasons was maybe 

 13 my accent. I'm not sure. But if any of y'all 

 14 have trouble understanding anything I said today, 

 15 there's plenty of folks from DOTD that may be 

 16 able to interpret some of the things I did say 

 17 today. 

 18 But it is a pleasure to be in New 

 19 Orleans. As a matter of fact, I was telling 

 20 somebody it's my first time back since the storm, 

 21 so I didn't know what to expect. But the traffic 

 22 was still here and there was still some clutter 

 23 in the streets -- I'll call it clutter. And but 

 24 I saw some guys working on cleaning that stuff up 

 25 this morning. But it's a pleasure to be here. 
 12 

 1 Just a few things about Louisiana. 

 2 Some of y'all may have read the morning 

 3 newspapers or listened to the news. Louisiana is 

 4 fortunate enough to have a $2.4 billion surplus 

 5 of funds, and lo and behold, the legislature 

 6 says, "We don't want to come to Baton Rouge to 

 7 spend it." You know, who would have ever thought 

 8 that you'd have a trough full of money and nobody 

 9 would want to come to town to spend it? So I 

 10 think the governor will convince them that 

 11 hopefully they will start on Friday. 

 12 The DOTD has been actively pursuing 

 13 trying to get some of those funds to do some 

 14 improvements on our facilities. We've got a 

 15 backlog of $13 billion worth of needs, and so 

 16 even if we got the whole 1.6, it would only knock 

 17 off the top of the mountain. So she's working 

 18 hard on that, and DOTD has a plan to help her to 

 19 put some of that surplus into our infrastructure. 

 20 Just another little thing is that 

 21 DOT's undergoing a lot of changes in management, 

 22 and we've addressed a whole lot of areas in the 

 23 department. A lot of things are coming out. 

 24 It's part of Secretary Bradberry's goals and part 

 25 of the remembrance of this administration is that 
 13 

 1 DOTD did on to change, and one of them is 

 2 reducing the DOTD staff. 

 3 And one of those things is dear to my 

 4 heart. You know, cutting employees is never a 

 5 fun thing to do, but District 02 here in Bridge 

 6 City was ravaged really hard by the storm, so 

 7 some of our organizational structure has been 

 8 really hurt by the storms, and DOTD has knocked 

 9 back to the 5200 employees that we would have 

 10 liked to have, but the Secretary has got a goal 

 11 to have about 4800 staff back -- down to 4800 

 12 staff by end of December. 

 13 Well, right now he's going to have 

 14 trouble getting up to the 4800, because all we 

 15 have is about 4600, plus or minus, on board. So 

 16 that's some of the things that we're undergoing, 

 17 just some of the things that just -- you never 

 18 understand why things are going on. 

 19 Just a little bit of -- I'd like to do 

 20 a little bit of chuckle before I get into the 

 21 real briefing here, but I was reading this 

 22 morning admission requirements are a 3.0 GPA, and 

 23 an ACT score of 22 won't actually get you into 

 24 LSU. So LSU is truly an institution of higher 

 25 learning. We're glad to have them coming to the 
 14 

 1 Sugar Bowl. Maybe more citizens will be here to 

 2 be able to watch the game instead of going to the 

 3 Rose Bowl. But anyhow -- and hopefully the 

 4 payout is the same, so they'll all be the same. 

 5 But one thing that really confuses me 

 6 on a lighter note is lo and behold, you know, how 

 7 the world is changing. And one of the things 

 8 that has really perplexed me is the Nebraska 

 9 football now runs the West Coast offense, so -- 

 10 and that has a little bit of a touch with one of 

 11 the folks in the audience, a good friend of mine, 

 12 my favorite fan. 

 13 FROM THE FLOOR: Thanks, Richard. 

 14 MR. SAVOIE: You're welcome. Now we get 

 15 down to the serious side of why all of us are 

 16 basically here. In Louisiana public crossings we 

 17 also have a federal reg that says: 

 18 "Public roads means any road under the 

 19 jurisdiction of and maintained by 

 20 public authority and open to public 

 21 travel is declared as public via public 

 22 authority vote, resolution, or some 

 23 other legal means, and the local road 

 24 authority has maintained the road on 

 25 both sides of the crossing over the 
 15 

 1 past three years." 

 2 Private crossings -- and I'll get further 

 3 into the slides. I'll show you the numbers of 

 4 each that we have. But it is a crossing where 

 5 the property on both sides or at least one side 

 6 of the railroad track is private property. 

 7 Public authority responsibility: 

 8 Advance warning signs and pavement markings shall 

 9 be maintained in accordance with the MUTCD, the 

 10 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, at 

 11 public crossings. But there's no authority at 

 12 private crossings. 

 13 In Louisiana, as I mentioned, we have 

 14 a total of 9,079 crossings. Of those, 3250 are 

 15 public, 2787 are private, and since 1976, 866 

 16 were closed and 2,176 have been abandoned. Of 

 17 those 2787 private crossings, 1690 are to private 

 18 farms. We have a lot of farm industry in 

 19 Louisiana. Three hundred forty-three are at a 

 20 private residence, 26 are to private recreation, 

 21 678 to private industry, and 50 pedestrian. 

 22 We're really working on this in 

 23 Louisiana. We'll talk a little bit about the 

 24 budget later on. We do have a budget surplus, 

 25 but it's a tough thing in our budget partition to 
 16 

 1 divvy out the money when it comes to railroads. 

 2 But we typically rank in the top five of 

 3 railroad-crossing crashes and fatalities 

 4 nationwide. But as of the first half of 2006, 

 5 I'm pleased to announce that Louisiana is now 

 6 tenth in the nation. It's not a good thing, but 

 7 we're moving in the right direction. 

 8 Grade-crossing collisions usually 

 9 caused by motorist error. I was reading in the 

 10 newspaper this morning about accidents on 

 11 highways, and the state troopers came to our 

 12 defense and they said ninety-eight to ninety-nine 

 13 percent is driver error. 

 14 Well, the thing is, at grade 

 15 crossings, look at all of this slide, how this 

 16 pie chart is cut up: Did not stop, forty-nine 

 17 percent. Stopped on tracks, twenty-six percent. 

 18 Unfortunately, drove around the gates, twelve 

 19 percent. Stopped and didn't proceed at seven, 

 20 and other, six percent. So you can see from this 

 21 it really tells a bleak story of what the drivers 

 22 do when it comes to crossings. 

 23 Grade-crossing warning devices 

 24 upgrades works, but it cut the accident fatality 

 25 rate by ninety-three percent. As you can see, 
 17 

 1 there's the passive crossings or passive 

 2 locations. The rates of injury and fatality are 

 3 high. Flashing lights reduces that, and when you 

 4 have the gates and the signals, it really takes 

 5 its toll on reducing those type of accidents. 

 6 And Louisiana has a revised statute. 

 7 48:390.1 was modified to give Department of 

 8 Transportation authority to close existing public 

 9 crossings on non-state-maintained highways. It's 

 10 something we talk about frequently. We're trying 

 11 to get municipalities and parishes to close some 

 12 of these crossings. 

 13 On the Department of Transportation 

 14 closure criteria, greater than four crossings per 

 15 mile in an urban area, greater than one crossing 

 16 per mile in a rural area, less than 2,000 

 17 vehicles per day and less than two trains per 

 18 day. 

 19 And then also, you know, when you want 

 20 to think about it, when alternative routes are 

 21 available, skewed angle crossings present 

 22 hazards, curved tracks and complex crossings, 

 23 those with multiple tracks switching long periods 

 24 blocked: Those are the things we would like to 

 25 attack. 
 18 

 1 And that's basically the end of my -- 

 2 no. I think there's more to it than that. 

 3 MR. SUAREZ: That was it. 

 4 MR. SAVOIE: That was it? Okay. Let me 

 5 just talk about -- I thought I had some slides 

 6 about the money. 

 7 MR. SUAREZ: You did, but -- 

 8 MR. SAVOIE: I did. Let me just back up. 

 9 I just skipped over that. I had some notes. 

 10 When it comes to the 9,000 total 

 11 crossings, if we were to address some of this, we 

 12 have a budget partition of only $8 million 

 13 annually in the railroad program, $8 million out 

 14 of a $400 million program. That's not a whole 

 15 lot of money, but the budget needs are there. 

 16 Some of the issues that cause us to 

 17 not be able to put up flashing signals and gates 

 18 is they cost between a hundred and fifty to three 

 19 hundred thousand dollars each. And as I said, if 

 20 we have $8 million per year of money in our 

 21 program, it doesn't take long to suck that up. 

 22 With the 1331 public crossings and 

 23 passive warning locations, if we were to install 

 24 gates and signals at those locations, it would 

 25 cost us between two hundred to four hundred 
 19 

 1 million dollars. At $8 million a year, it would 

 2 take us twenty-five to fifty years to address. 

 3 So that some issues there. 

 4 We've talked about it. We have issues 

 5 at these locations. We are working with mayors 

 6 and public entities to close some of these 

 7 crossings. It's a huge job. I don't want it to 

 8 be said that it relies totally on Bill 

 9 Shrewsberry's shoulders, because it's not just 

 10 his responsibility. It has to be a mindset that 

 11 we try to do ourselves. So I guess I'm kind of 

 12 preaching to the choir here, but sometimes we 

 13 have to hear ourselves also. 

 14 So thank y'all folks for coming to New 

 15 Orleans. We appreciate y'all, and spend some 

 16 money here if you have some. I know it's close 

 17 to Christmas. I plan to stop at the shop across 

 18 the street, and hopefully not because of a safety 

 19 issue, but I plan to spend a few hours in town 

 20 here myself. Thank y'all for coming, and enjoy 

 21 y'all's stay. 

 22 MR. COTHEN: Could I get Bill Shrewsberry 

 23 and Mark Suarez to stand? And if you all 

 24 could -- Bill, could you just start by kind of 

 25 introducing yourself and the role of your 
 20 

 1 personnel here? 

 2 MR. SHREWSBERRY: Okay. I'm Bill 

 3 Shrewsberry, highway-rail safety engineer for 

 4 DOTD. 

 5 I have been responsible working for 

 6 the federal safety program for the department for 

 7 years, trying to work with consolidation of 

 8 railroad agreements for public projects. I've 

 9 got several of my staff here. 

 10 Mark Suarez is our new supervisor for 

 11 the railroad unit. And we've got Kim Brunte 

 12 (phonetic) here, who works with me in the unit. 

 13 Gretchen Ferguson is from our district office for 

 14 the department, and has worked, helped us 

 15 coordinate and facilitate the interaction with 

 16 the railroads and negotiations with the public 

 17 for her district and area of the state, and 

 18 that's been very helpful. Thank you. 

 19 MR. COTHEN: Thank you very much. 

 20 MR. SUAREZ: The one thing I'd like to say 

 21 is, I've supervised Bill for a little over a year 

 22 now, and his group, and they are a very 

 23 hardworking group. We try like crazy to do the 

 24 right thing and aggressively go after things. 

 25 The new law, we haven't actually used the law, 
 21 

 1 but it gets what we want. 

 2 But rather than negotiate a win-win 

 3 deal with the closure program, instead of jamming 

 4 it down their throat, so so far we've been pretty 

 5 successful with that as opposed to forcing them 

 6 to close. We work with the railroads, and the 

 7 railroads are donating a little bit of money in 

 8 closures, so I think it's a win-win deal as 

 9 opposed to if we use the law, we're not going to 

 10 give them any money. 

 11 I also want to introduce a couple of 

 12 people, too. Betsey Tramonte is our Operation 

 13 Lifesaver person for Louisiana, and she's 

 14 actually putting together a venue for National 

 15 Operation Lifesaver education program for 

 16 drivers' ed, I believe is what it is. 

 17 And then we also have Karla Schiro. 

 18 Karla is one of our safety -- she's in our Safety 

 19 Division and she handles a lot of money on the 

 20 non-railroad part, but she gets involved 

 21 sometimes using other safety money to affect some 

 22 railroad crossings also. She's here today 

 23 representing our Safety Division. And I don't 

 24 believe anybody else from DOTD is here. 

 25 We want to recognize Mary 
 22 

 1 Stringfellow, from our FHWA Baton Rouge office, 

 2 and Seve Cerna (phonetic). Seve also deals with 

 3 us a lot on the railroad stuff in Baton Rouge, 

 4 and they're our mentors and counterparts in this 

 5 area. 

 6 And of all of the people that need to 

 7 be recognized, Mary's taken a very strong focus 

 8 and was the leader in the action plan that you 

 9 referred to. Mary gets all the credit for 

 10 pushing the hurdle along, and I want to 

 11 compliment her for that. 

 12 MR. COTHEN: Very good, Mark. Thank you 

 13 so much for arranging representation at the 

 14 meeting and for introducing your colleagues, 

 15 including your federal colleagues on the federal 

 16 highway side. 

 17 This is the -- I guess I shouldn't say 

 18 this, but this is the first meeting I think we've 

 19 had with the Federal Highway Administration. And 

 20 it matters so much from district to district what 

 21 kind of personalities we have, and I think Mark 

 22 has spoken well to that issue here, and we 

 23 appreciate it. And I know our Federal Highway 

 24 Administration colleagues are very busy people 

 25 and have other fish to fry, and no fish are fried 
 23 

 1 better than here in New Orleans. 

 2 Mark Tessler, legal officer's 

 3 statement, please. 

 4 MR. TESSLER: Thank you, Grady. As Grady 

 5 stated, I'm the legal officer for the state at 

 6 public meetings. The purpose of the meeting is 

 7 to provide an opportunity for the public to 

 8 provide information to the FRA about issues 

 9 related to safety at private rail-grade 

 10 crossings. I'm here to listen to you and to 

 11 provide an opportunity for you to state your 

 12 views on the record for review and consideration. 

 13 In order to provide an equal 

 14 opportunity to express your views, the following 

 15 procedure will be used: Anyone who wishes will 

 16 be permitted to make an oral statement. Persons 

 17 representing the same group may appear together. 

 18 At the beginning of your oral 

 19 statement, please identify yourself, spell your 

 20 name, and identify whether you are appearing as 

 21 an individual or as a representative of an 

 22 organization. It may also be helpful, if you 

 23 have a business card, to provide it to the court 

 24 reporter. 

 25 At the end of your statement, 
 24 

 1 representatives of FRA may ask questions in order 

 2 to clarify your points made during your 

 3 statement. We will then move on to the next 

 4 person wishing to make an oral statement. If 

 5 you'll be referring to a document in your 

 6 statement or if you have a prepared statement, 

 7 please provide it to me either before or after 

 8 your statement so that it can be added to the 

 9 public docket of this meeting. 

 10 Today's meeting is being transcribed 

 11 and will be part of the public docket on this 

 12 issue. The transcript of this and the other 

 13 public meetings in this series and all other 

 14 documents related to the inquiry will be 

 15 available for viewing and downloading at the 

 16 Department of Transportation's Web site 

 17 management -- document center, excuse me, at 

 18 http:/dms/dot.gov, and the entire docket is also 

 19 available for inspection and viewing at the 

 20 Department of Transportation headquarters in 

 21 Washington, D.C., at 400 Seventh Street 

 22 Southwest. Thank you, Grady. 

 23 MR. COTHEN: Thanks, Mark. At this point 

 24 in the proceedings, as some of you know, our camp 

 25 followers know, because we have some folks who've 
 25 

 1 been to previous meetings, we ask Miriam Kloeppel 

 2 to introduce the topic of the day, give us a 

 3 little background and perspective and a little 

 4 flavor of what we picked up along the road to 

 5 date. Miriam is an operations research analyst 

 6 on our highway-rail crossing safety staff. 

 7 Miriam? 

 8 MS. KLOEPPEL: Thank you, Grady. Good 

 9 morning, everyone. Thank you for coming. 

 10 Those of you who have already seen 

 11 this, just try not to snort too loud. Private- 

 12 crossing safety has for some time been a matter 

 13 of concern to the United States Department of 

 14 Transportation and to other federal agencies. In 

 15 1993 the FRA hosted an open meeting to initiate 

 16 industry-wide discussions. 

 17 In its 1994 Rail-Highway Safety Action 

 18 Plan, the US DOT proposed to develop national 

 19 minimum standards for private crossings. In its 

 20 1997 study on safety at passive grade crossings, 

 21 the NTSB -- National Transportation and Safety 

 22 Board; I'm sorry -- highlighted the need for some 

 23 system to improve private-crossing safety and 

 24 recommended that the US DOT, in conjunction with 

 25 the states, determine governmental oversight 
 26 

 1 responsibility for safety at private crossings. 

 2 In 1999 the NTSB weighed in again in 

 3 its report on private-grade-crossing accidents in 

 4 Portage, Indiana. In this case, the NTSB 

 5 recommended that the DOT eliminate any 

 6 differences between public and private crossings 

 7 with regard to funding or requirements for safety 

 8 improvements. 

 9 In 2004, the US DOT published an 

 10 updated action plan in which the FRA committed to 

 11 leading an effort to define responsibility for 

 12 safety at private crossings. Today's meeting is 

 13 a vital part of that effort. 

 14 About 1:00 p.m. on May 30th, 2006, 

 15 Amtrak train No. 350 struck an empty gravel truck 

 16 at a private highway crossing near Jackson, 

 17 Michigan. The train was traveling at about 

 18 seventy-four miles per hour with the cab car in 

 19 the lead when the truck entered crossing in front 

 20 of the train. 

 21 One train crew member and fifteen 

 22 train passengers received minor injuries. The 

 23 truck driver sustained fatal injuries. The 

 24 private road at the accident crossing is used by 

 25 an excavating company and by two residences, and 
 27 

 1 on average fewer than thirty highway vehicles and 

 2 a dozen trains, eight of which are Amtrak trains, 

 3 traverse the crossing daily. 

 4 It's estimated that the crossing was 

 5 created in 1948, and there is no record of any 

 6 maintenance contract between the business owner 

 7 and/or the Southern Railway, the track owner. 

 8 About 4:40 p.m. on July 3rd, 2006, a 

 9 southbound Amtrak train struck a passenger 

 10 vehicle at a private crossing near Castle Rock, 

 11 Washington. According to the Amtrak engineer, 

 12 the accident occurred when the motorist entered 

 13 the crossing after a northbound Union Pacific 

 14 train cleared it. The train crew and train 

 15 passengers sustained no injuries, but all four 

 16 motor-vehicle occupants sustained fatal injuries. 

 17 The road leading to this crossing is a 

 18 county road with county maintenance, and shortly 

 19 before the crossing the private road that extends 

 20 beyond the crossing dead ends after serving 

 21 eleven residences. About sixty trains daily 

 22 traverse this crossing. It is not known when 

 23 this crossing was created, and no maintenance 

 24 contract has been located for this crossing. 

 25 About 7:00 p.m. on June 21st, 2006, 
 28 

 1 Metro train 921, traveling south, struck a truck 

 2 trailer traversing a private grade crossing near 

 3 Lemont, Illinois. A piece of the trailer became 

 4 wedged under the snowplow of the locomotive. The 

 5 locomotive derailed at the crossing. 

 6 The driver of the tractor-trailer was 

 7 not injured. There were 170 passengers aboard 

 8 the train. Five passengers claimed minor injury 

 9 and were treated and released. No train crew 

 10 members reported any injury. 

 11 This crossing serves two commercial 

 12 facilities, to which there is no other access. 

 13 Roughly twenty-eight trains and fewer than thirty 

 14 highway vehicles use this crossing daily, and the 

 15 crossing is maintained by the CN, but there is no 

 16 formal agreement. 

 17 I would like to note that about six 

 18 months prior to this accident, another accident 

 19 occurred at this same crossing. The truck driver 

 20 in the December 2005 accident sustained fatal 

 21 injuries. 

 22 Now I've sort of rolled into some 

 23 additional background here. According to the 

 24 FRA's 2002 compilation of state laws and 

 25 regulations affecting highway-railroad grade 
 29 

 1 crossings, more than half of the states have no 

 2 laws or regulations related to private crossings. 

 3 The federal government, in the guise 

 4 of their agency, US DOT agencies, does offer some 

 5 regulations or guidance documents that may touch 

 6 on safety at private crossings. As you can see 

 7 in this sample, however, none of these really 

 8 covers a significant portion of the nation's 

 9 private crossings. 

 10 As a matter of fact, there is no 

 11 federal regulation or guidance that promotes 

 12 safety at private grade crossings by specifically 

 13 or uniformly addressing the special issues 

 14 presented at private crossings. 

 15 Some private crossings may be used 

 16 only seasonally, like certain farm crossings used 

 17 only for agricultural equipment, or they may be 

 18 used only for routine personal use, like 

 19 crossings that serve residences. 

 20 Other private crossings, such as this 

 21 industrial-access crossing, are used extensively 

 22 but for private business purposes by employees, 

 23 contractors, and suppliers. In still other 

 24 cases, they may be used very heavily by the 

 25 public to enter commercial facilities. In some 
 30 

 1 cases, there's no alternative access. As this 

 2 slide here shows, these two businesses have no 

 3 other way to get in. 

 4 The rights assigned to private 

 5 crossing holders vary greatly. The holder of the 

 6 right or privilege to cross may hold outright 

 7 ownership of the underlying property, or they may 

 8 have a documented easement of the railroad 

 9 property. 

 10 Where it's recognized, the holder may 

 11 have a prescriptive easement, or squatter's 

 12 rights. There may be a documented license under 

 13 contract, or maybe only a verbal license subject 

 14 to revocation without notice. 

 15 Railroads may require crossing holders 

 16 to purchase insurance or to provide some other 

 17 protection in the event of a collision at a 

 18 crossing. Contracts or other legal documents may 

 19 further define responsibilities such as 

 20 maintenance of the crossing surface or providing 

 21 notifications under stated conditions. 

 22 There is some standardization of 

 23 treatment at public crossings across the nation. 

 24 For example, the confirmation and use of signs, 

 25 signals, pavement markings, and any other 
 31 

 1 traffic-control devices placed at public 

 2 crossings generally conform to the guidance 

 3 provided in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control 

 4 Devices. 

 5 In addition, in 2002, the Department 

 6 of Transportation published a guidance document 

 7 created through efforts of a technical working 

 8 group made up of representatives from both the 

 9 public and the private sectors. In most states, 

 10 however, there is no such standardization at 

 11 private crossings. 

 12 The arrangement of private crossing 

 13 signs can be highly individual, and sign 

 14 maintenance may be sketchy or almost nonexistent. 

 15 Just to bear in mind, there is a cross mark in 

 16 there. 

 17 To gather information on the current 

 18 state of the art as well as ideas about possible 

 19 solutions to existing problems, the FRA is 

 20 holding a series of public meetings such as this 

 21 one. The first of these was held on August 30th 

 22 in Fort Snelling, Minnesota. The others are 

 23 listed, as you can see. 

 24 In Fort Snelling -- this is not a 

 25 complete list of those who attended, just those 
 32 

 1 who seemed to have the most to say at the time. 

 2 The discussion in Fort Snelling centered around 

 3 the issue that there was a strong perception that 

 4 there is no existing process that would provide 

 5 consistent structures to create or to evaluate 

 6 the relative need for a new private crossing or 

 7 to have a grade crossing. 

 8 The attendees also seemed to indicate 

 9 different parties also use different definitions 

 10 to decide whether a crossing is public or 

 11 private, and a good deal of discussion centered 

 12 on the fact that the private crossings are 

 13 created for a wide variety of reasons -- for 

 14 example residential, industrial, commercial, 

 15 institutional, or governmental, or even 

 16 temporary; and they may be used to varying 

 17 degrees by members of the general public and may 

 18 be traversed by users ranging from pedestrians to 

 19 construction vehicles or hazardous-materials tank 

 20 trucks. 

 21 The second meeting was held in 

 22 Raleigh, North Carolina, and this is again some 

 23 of the attendees. The conversation in North 

 24 Carolina centered largely on engineering 

 25 solutions, and we learned about North Carolina's 
 33 

 1 private-crossing safety initiative, discussed the 

 2 need for a baseline set of traffic-control 

 3 devices at private crossings, again delved into a 

 4 discussion of what are the uses and categories 

 5 for private crossings, and solicited and received 

 6 some suggestions for design standards, both in 

 7 traffic control and in actual roadway design for 

 8 private crossings. 

 9 Our third meeting was held in San 

 10 Francisco, California, and there was a short list 

 11 of some of the attendees, again various states 

 12 and railroads and some private citizens. In 

 13 California and San Francisco, the meeting was 

 14 very informative regarding the methods that the 

 15 state of California is able to employ in order to 

 16 learn what's happening in terms of improvements 

 17 or changes to private crossings. 

 18 A lot of the discussion centered on 

 19 California's ability to use this California 

 20 Environmental Quality Act to find out what was 

 21 going on at crossings. We discussed a few case 

 22 studies and went through a body of hypothetical 

 23 questions just to solicit some information on how 

 24 they felt the responsibilities should be assigned 

 25 at private crossings. 
 34 

 1 And as Mark mentioned, we are 

 2 soliciting not only oral statements, but if 

 3 anybody wants to submit a written statement, he's 

 4 welcome to do so at the U.S. Docket Management 

 5 System, and I will just leave this slide up here 

 6 in case anyone wants to write it down. 

 7 That's all I've got for right now. 

 8 Thank you. 

 9 MR. COTHEN: Thank you, Miriam. What we 

 10 try to do at these meetings is to first make it 

 11 possible for anyone who wants to make an initial 

 12 statement, any issues they have, any suggestions 

 13 that they have, on the record, and then go to a 

 14 discussion format led by our safety staff here in 

 15 the Volpe Center. 

 16 We have, in addition to the prepared 

 17 statements shown here from Betsey Tramonte, who 

 18 has previously been introduced to you, an 

 19 appearance, I believe, by Jim Kvedaras with CN; 

 20 is that correct? Is Jim here? 

 21 MR. KVEDARAS: I'm here. 

 22 MR. COTHEN: There you go. Are you going 

 23 to speak on the record? 

 24 MR. KVEDARAS: I am not prepared to speak 

 25 on the record. 
 35 

 1 MR. COTHEN: Okay. 

 2 MR. BROWDER: That was to warn you, Grady. 

 3 MR. COTHEN: I keep trying, Bill. You 

 4 know, I keep trying to tease out these railroad 

 5 participants if there's any way I possibly can. 

 6 That was taken from -- you probably 

 7 called and said you were coming. 

 8 MR. KVEDARAS: I called to say I was 

 9 coming, yes. 

 10 MR. COTHEN: Then we have from Rio Grande 

 11 Pacific Mary Beth Meyer and Richard Bertel. 

 12 We'll look forward to hearing from you all. And 

 13 Rick Campbell has been solicited to come and 

 14 brief us on behalf of the National Committee on 

 15 Patrol Guards regarding safety activities with 

 16 his committee, a subcommittee of the national 

 17 committee, but we'll hear from Rick. 

 18 I haven't gotten from the front desk 

 19 others that may wish to make opening statements, 

 20 so we'll hold them while we're hearing from these 

 21 folks, and then if you're prompted, or as we used 

 22 to say in the South in certain religious forums, 

 23 if the spirit moves you, we'll be happy to hear 

 24 from you on any issues or concerns that you have 

 25 in this area. 
 36 

 1 So let's start with Ms. Betsey 

 2 Tramonte, the executive director of Louisiana 

 3 Operation Lifesaver. We'll start with education. 

 4 MS. TRAMONTE: While we're waiting for my 

 5 PowerPoint to come up -- oh, there it goes -- I 

 6 first want to get a show of hands from everyone 

 7 here who's heard of Operation Lifesaver, been to 

 8 an Operation Lifesaver event, familiar with the 

 9 program in any way, shape, or form. 

 10 Okay. That's pretty much almost 

 11 everyone here, which is great, so I'm not going 

 12 to spend a lot of time in this prepared statement 

 13 on discussing what Operation Lifesaver is, what 

 14 Operation Lifesaver does. Most of you in this 

 15 room know that. 

 16 We were asked to come here today to 

 17 discuss what private crossings mean to Operation 

 18 Lifesaver. And the first way I thought to 

 19 approach this would be to look at our national 

 20 mission statement. Our national mission 

 21 statement says: 

 22 "Operation Lifesaver is a nonprofit 

 23 international continuing public 

 24 education program, first established in 

 25 1972, to end collisions, deaths, and 
 37 

 1 injuries at places where roadways cross 

 2 train tracks and on railroad rights-of- 

 3 way." 

 4 As you see in that mission statement, it 

 5 says, "Where roadways cross train tracks." 

 6 There's no distinction between a public roadway 

 7 and a private roadway. 

 8 Next, how does Operation Lifesaver 

 9 save lives? We have trained and certified 

 10 speakers that provide free safety training for 

 11 various professions and all age groups in order 

 12 to increase public safety around railroad tracks. 

 13 Once again, there's no designation between, A, a 

 14 public road that crosses railroad tracks, or a 

 15 private road. 

 16 In summary, looking at public 

 17 crossings versus private crossings, Operations 

 18 Lifesaver's goal is to stop crashes at places 

 19 where roadways cross train tracks. Our 

 20 organization educates the public on safety at all 

 21 highway-rail intersections, regardless of the 

 22 highway's owner. 

 23 And that's what I'm here to state 

 24 today: That is what Operation Lifesaver does 

 25 when we go to the presentations. It is as a 
 38 

 1 whole, to a whole community, to all age groups, 

 2 regardless of what crossings they live near, be 

 3 those crossing public or private. 

 4 And honestly, that is all that I have 

 5 as a prepared statement, just to inform you of 

 6 that. If you have any questions for me, this is 

 7 my contact information. I'm also -- I can e-mail 

 8 a presentation to you if you need, and I have 

 9 business cards. 

 10 Does anyone have any questions or -- 

 11 no one has any questions? 

 12 MR. COTHEN: He has a question. 

 13 MS. TRAMONTE: Yes, sir? 

 14 MR. BROWDER: Bill Browder, from the 

 15 Association of American Railroads. 

 16 You obviously represent Louisiana 

 17 Operation Lifesaver. Could you give us how that 

 18 fits into the national picture in terms of the 

 19 forty-eight other state organizations, the 

 20 national organization, and how that's set up with 

 21 a board of directors, and maybe talk a little bit 

 22 about the fact that your current national 

 23 director, after fifteen years, is leaving at the 

 24 end of the year? 

 25 MS. TRAMONTE: Okay. Well, our current 
 39 

 1 president, Jerry Hall, is leaving at the end of 

 2 this year. To answer your question, Mr. Browder, 

 3 I guess you would like me to describe what the 

 4 structure is of Operation Lifesaver, and -- 

 5 MR. BROWDER: And how do you get your 

 6 money? 

 7 MS. TRAMONTE: Well, we get our money 

 8 several different ways. On a national level we 

 9 receive money from Congress, and then it's up to 

 10 the states on an individual level to get funding 

 11 within the states. I can only speak to Louisiana 

 12 Operation Lifesaver, because I'm the spokesperson 

 13 of that program. 

 14 And I can tell you here in Louisiana 

 15 we receive money from the railroads. All of the 

 16 Class I railroads pitch in in contributions to 

 17 us. We also have short-line railroads. I 

 18 believe we have three that pay a small sum in. 

 19 Then we also have public money, 

 20 federal money. We receive money from the 

 21 Louisiana Highway Safety Commission, and then we 

 22 also receive money from the Louisiana Department 

 23 of Transportation and Development. 

 24 And as I say, I can only speak to 

 25 Louisiana Operation Lifesaver. That's what we 
 40 

 1 do. If you were to look at our budget, two 

 2 thirds of our money comes from those state 

 3 agencies and then a third of our money comes from 

 4 railroad contributions. 

 5 MR. BROWDER: Thank you. 

 6 MS. TRAMONTE: Does that answer your 

 7 question? 

 8 MR. BROWDER: Sure. 

 9 MS. TRAMONTE: Okay. Anyone else? Okay. 

 10 Thank you very much. 

 11 MR. COTHEN: Thank you, Betsey. Just to 

 12 fill it out, the Federal Highway Administration 

 13 and the Federal Railroad Administration are proud 

 14 funding partners as well -- and the Federal 

 15 Transit Administration, Ron reminds me. And 

 16 we're proud to serve on the National Program 

 17 Development Council. So now all the officers are 

 18 disclosed, and we're proud of them. 

 19 Anya has been featuring her menagerie 

 20 here during this road show. 

 21 The Union Pacific system includes a 

 22 railroad operating in Louisiana, both in New 

 23 Orleans, and I believe we have Mary Beth Meyer; 

 24 is that correct? 

 25 MS. MEYER: That's correct. 
 41 

 1 MR. COTHEN: Mary Beth, we don't have 

 2 mikes at the table here, so if you wouldn't mind 

 3 coming to the podium, that will assist in getting 

 4 an accurate record. Ms. Meyer, I believe, is 

 5 counsel to the railroad? 

 6 MS. MEYER: Yes. 

 7 MR. COTHEN: Okay. Please introduce 

 8 yourself again, and when we have your voice, 

 9 spell your name and also identify your 

 10 affiliation more precisely. 

 11 MS. MEYER: Good morning. My name is Mary 

 12 Beth Meyer, and I'm with the Christovich & 

 13 Kearney law firm. And we have been counsel to 

 14 the New Orleans and Gulf Coast Railway Company, 

 15 in particular Rio Grande Railway Corporation in 

 16 New Orleans. And we're here today because in 

 17 many ways this railroad is sort of a poster child 

 18 for the problems that railroads are facing with 

 19 private crossing issues. 

 20 What we have within New Orleans and 

 21 Gulf Coast railroads is a small railroad company, 

 22 short-line railroad, small business, who is 

 23 trying to deal with a -- has stepped up to the 

 24 plate to, you know, meet the challenge of closing 

 25 private crossings and has had a very difficult 
 42 

 1 time of it in -- on every front, basically. 

 2 The statistics themselves say a lot. 

 3 I think if we had a nationwide contest for the 

 4 highest percentage of railroad crossings, we 

 5 would get the blue ribbon. This railroad, New 

 6 Orleans and Gulf Coast, was founded in 1888-'89, 

 7 was built around 1890. It's been there for well 

 8 over a hundred years, predated all kinds of the 

 9 development in this area that has created a lot 

 10 of this problem. 

 11 When the NOGC -- when Rio Grande 

 12 acquired this railroad in 1999, there were 275, 

 13 276 at-grade crossings. How do we know there 

 14 were that many? We know that because one of the 

 15 first things that the company did out of the gate 

 16 was to do an inventory. They hired a local 

 17 well-respected planning -- professional planning 

 18 company to help look at the situation and advise 

 19 them on how to deal with the situation. 

 20 We created an inventory of these -- we 

 21 have the maps over here that I should have 

 22 probably brought up to show you this a little bit 

 23 better. Created an inventory to define exactly 

 24 what kind of crossings we had, and this is a -- 

 25 if you want to take at look at these later, you 
 43 

 1 can certainly see that. 

 2 This is an aerial view, and this map 

 3 maps out each and every one of these. We have an 

 4 inventory list that defines exactly what kind of 

 5 use all of these crossings are put to: Private, 

 6 industrial, commercial, multifamily residential. 

 7 We have succeeded in closing a number of 

 8 crossings since then, but the numbers are still 

 9 very high. 

 10 These are primarily in Jefferson and 

 11 Plaquemine Parish, Louisiana. And one of the 

 12 reasons we have this problem, you can see from 

 13 this illustration, is the proximity of the 

 14 railroad to the Mississippi River and to the only 

 15 -- basically only north-south highway running 

 16 through Plaquemine Parish, Highway 23, which is 

 17 on the -- the tracks are on the river side of the 

 18 highway, obviously. 

 19 So we have a real situation where we 

 20 have a very limited or no-access issue for a lot 

 21 of the length of this line. This is -- just 

 22 shows some of these representative crossings. 

 23 Many of them are just -- you can see how they're 

 24 situated right on top of each other, many, you 

 25 know, in clusters that are so close that it's 
 44 

 1 unimaginable that there hasn't been more sharing 

 2 just on a voluntary basis. 

 3 Among the crossings that we see, this 

 4 first one up here, Madison Street, the railroad 

 5 actually runs through the city street for a good 

 6 long way and as it was initially built that way, 

 7 and it runs right down through the city of Gretna 

 8 and for quite a distance. So you see very close 

 9 proximity. 

 10 This is Mardi Gras World over in 

 11 Algiers, and a train runs very close, and there's 

 12 just a series of access points there. As you get 

 13 farther down, you start seeing more kind of 

 14 typical configuration over here with Wright 

 15 Avenue, and then the motel, used-car lots. 

 16 Windsor Place subdivision is the one that's in 

 17 the bottom middle slot, and then this is a 

 18 particular example of one of the problems we 

 19 face. 

 20 Entergy sees -- has had a -- faced a 

 21 lot of the same problems that were identified in 

 22 the other hearings along the way of the 

 23 difficulties with implementing a permitting 

 24 program: very, very high resistance from local 

 25 landowners into entering agreements or agreeing 
 45 

 1 to consolidate crossings. 

 2 And we've also had the instance where 

 3 we have worked out an agreement with the 

 4 landowner-developer only to have the landowner 

 5 turn around and go to the local government, in 

 6 this case the parish, to have it declared a 

 7 public crossing and then basically renege on all 

 8 the agreements they had made about signage, 

 9 controls, passive controls. 

 10 And also in this case we have a high 

 11 wall that blocks sight, a visual view of the 

 12 track, and it creates a huge problem. And this 

 13 is -- despite a lot of efforts, remains in place 

 14 as a definite -- a serious problem there. School 

 15 busses will no longer go in there, because it is 

 16 a problem, and yet we've had a difficult time 

 17 trying to get the attention of the local 

 18 authorities to deal with this situation. 

 19 As you get into the more rural area, 

 20 we go from very dense commercial development in 

 21 the upper part of the line, through Jefferson 

 22 Parish primarily, and then in the community of 

 23 Belle Chasse, which is a very densely crowded 

 24 suburban area. And this is as you get into the 

 25 more industrial and less developed, more rural 
 46 

 1 areas. 

 2 The railroad serves a number of 

 3 refinery customers in the parish. And a large 

 4 grain elevator at the end of the -- near the 

 5 terminus of a line and is an important -- 

 6 certainly is an important contributor to the 

 7 local economy and commerce in the area. It is a 

 8 very significant part of the local infrastructure 

 9 yet is not recognized for its contribution in 

 10 this peculiar situation with the traffic down 

 11 there. 

 12 We also constantly need to remind 

 13 them, the local people, of the fact that we keep 

 14 so many trucks off the roads down there. We have 

 15 a real congestion bottleneck where the Highway 23 

 16 crosses the industrial -- one of the industrial 

 17 canals, and so we have a huge traffic-bottleneck 

 18 problem with this one main highway there already. 

 19 So we're keeping many thousands of 

 20 trucks off the roads each year and saving on that 

 21 infrastructure, but we're not finding a very 

 22 welcoming environment from the local authorities 

 23 in trying to implement some of the proposals that 

 24 we've made about crossing consolidations. 

 25 When the railroad was acquired, we -- 
 47 

 1 as I mentioned, we went to a local planning 

 2 company. We prepared a very detailed and well- 

 3 thought-out crossing-plan proposal to show the 

 4 municipalities, the local governments in the 

 5 state, proposals around which we could work to 

 6 consolidate many of these crossings. 

 7 This is just one example. This is a 

 8 stretch of the railroad as it runs through 

 9 Jefferson Parish, which is a New Orleans suburb 

 10 on the west bank of the Mississippi, and this is 

 11 a largely commercial and residential development 

 12 area. 

 13 This area we're looking at right now 

 14 is a big, more or less undeveloped tract 

 15 surrounded by -- there's a large Wal-Mart complex 

 16 to the right and then a big intersection with a 

 17 number of businesses to the right. We have the 

 18 situation here where we have a public-owned 

 19 right-of-way that is to the -- it would be above 

 20 the tracks. 

 21 The tracks are in turquoise on this -- 

 22 no. I'm sorry. It's the red. We have a public- 

 23 owned right-of-way, a fifty-foot right-of-way 

 24 that is available for access roads and is -- 

 25 presents an opportunity to create an access-road 
 48 

 1 situation there. 

 2 This is a cluster, for example, a 

 3 cluster of four residences here, and -- four or 

 4 five residences, and this is one example of the 

 5 kind of proposals that we have on several 

 6 alternative proposals here involving use of an 

 7 access road to combine and eliminate crossings 

 8 and get around a use of an access road here as 

 9 demonstrated in this lower slide, this smaller 

 10 slide. 

 11 So these are the sorts of proposals 

 12 that we have come up with and funded the study to 

 13 address, really, the clusters of crossings all up 

 14 and down the right-of-way. 

 15 This is another example from the lower 

 16 rural part around a citrus nursery and orchard in 

 17 which there were a number of crossings, 

 18 essentially to one property. And again the work 

 19 involved, you know, identifying how to close 

 20 crossings, and with the goal in all of these 

 21 cases to have fewer but well-constructed, 

 22 properly signalized or protective crossings and 

 23 to ultimately end up with a lot better 

 24 infrastructure and a lot safer environment. 

 25 In this part of the line, we don't 
 49 

 1 have the availability of that publicly owned 

 2 buffer on the other side. In fact we have in 

 3 many instances a very close, very narrow right- 

 4 of-way and close -- houses in close proximity 

 5 to the tracks, so we have more of a problem in 

 6 trying to identify ways to consolidate. 

 7 These are just a couple of examples 

 8 just to show the kind of work that we have done 

 9 to try to, you know, get some consensus and to, 

 10 you know, work on proposals around consolidation. 

 11 We have not enjoyed a lot of success 

 12 in going to local authorities, and I think one of 

 13 the main -- you know, the bottom line in many 

 14 cases is the bottom line: The lack of funding 

 15 resources and attention to this. 

 16 I think we have a preoccupation with 

 17 the public-crossing problem that is -- you know, 

 18 affects many communities in the state, and we 

 19 have local parishes without a lot of money to -- 

 20 you know, for road infrastructure. 

 21 In this case we have a very peculiar 

 22 development pattern where you had primarily 

 23 plantation areas that were -- when the railroad 

 24 went in, they were an appropriate number of farm 

 25 crossings in place. There was no highway there 
 50 

 1 until well into the '20s, and we did not have a 

 2 problem created by the railroad. The problem 

 3 grew up around the railroad. 

 4 Over the years, we have the typical 

 5 situation of properties being subdivided and 

 6 subdivided again and again, and every time 

 7 someone has purchased one of those subdivided 

 8 properties, their idea is to punch out and create 

 9 their own crossing to the highway. So over the 

 10 years we've had a problem of changing use and 

 11 also a failure to properly police. 

 12 In many cases we've had this 

 13 development pattern existing for quite a long 

 14 time. We have very few crossing agreements in 

 15 place. We have -- most of those are with our 

 16 commercial and industrial users, and we have had 

 17 very good cooperation for the most part in the 

 18 industrial and commercial, the Kmarts, the -- you 

 19 know, large users, but we have had this sort of 

 20 tolerance of these for quite a while, and there's 

 21 a great deal of resistance to having the game 

 22 plan change. 

 23 We see down here this sort of gravel. 

 24 There's a series of gravel crossings in the 

 25 residential areas where we have circular 
 51 

 1 driveways. We have a lot of multiple people with 

 2 multiple crossings who are very reluctant to take 

 3 them out. When we have -- we have a lot of 

 4 bootleg crossings, what we call them, basically 

 5 people who come in the middle of the night and 

 6 dump gravel down and call it a crossing. 

 7 And when we have gone in to take these 

 8 out and have been then faced with people going to 

 9 court and getting a TRO against the railroad and 

 10 preventing the railroad from taking them out and 

 11 inviting a costly legal battle at that point. 

 12 In fact we are currently involved in 

 13 litigation over this situation because of the 

 14 strong resistance that we have gotten from local 

 15 landowners. That's ongoing right now, and I 

 16 can't -- I don't want to get too much into the 

 17 specifics of the situation but except to point 

 18 out that we've filed a federal lawsuit in order 

 19 to try to, I guess, even the playing field a 

 20 little bit here. 

 21 Louisiana is among the majority of 

 22 states that has an elected judiciary, and its 

 23 people elect judges who go to bat for them, 

 24 essentially. And this is a very unpopular 

 25 situation in these areas, and we face an 
 52 

 1 extremely difficult battle in the local courts in 

 2 trying to convince them of the safety issues that 

 3 this presents. 

 4 We've filed a federal lawsuit that was 

 5 recently, after being maintained for several 

 6 years and at great expense, only to get to the -- 

 7 down to the -- near the trial to be dismissed for 

 8 lack of jurisdiction by the federal court, and 

 9 which sort of leads into one of the problems I 

 10 would like to raise just from a regulatory and 

 11 legal aspect here; and that is, the lack of 

 12 federal standards and regulations addressing this 

 13 in any way has really hampered the railroad's 

 14 effort to deal with landowners. 

 15 "Well, there's no federal regulation, 

 16 so it can't be a safety issue, because they would 

 17 have done something about it." That's one of the 

 18 attitudes we face. "If this was such a problem, 

 19 why haven't the -- you know, why haven't the feds 

 20 done something?" And also, in a very concrete 

 21 and specific way, means that it not only doesn't 

 22 help us; it really has impeded our effort to call 

 23 attention to this problem and to gain any 

 24 traction. 

 25 It has really essentially -- was one 
 53 

 1 of the problems underlying the fact that we were 

 2 unable to establish jurisdiction in the federal 

 3 court. If you don't have diversity 

 4 jurisdictions, for you non-lawyers out there, 

 5 unless you can show that you are an out-of-state 

 6 railroad, you aren't going to be able to 

 7 establish federal jurisdiction. So we -- it was 

 8 a direct impediment in that instance. 

 9 We also found it very difficult to 

 10 establish jurisdiction based on the conflicts 

 11 with other federal regulations created by the 

 12 local laws which a lot of people have been 

 13 relying on to get these crossings. And they say 

 14 they're entitled to them out of necessity because 

 15 they're enclosed properties. 

 16 And that's one of the issues that's 

 17 presented in the lawsuit, is whether these are in 

 18 fact -- you know, whether they have properly 

 19 followed the law and whether these are enclosed 

 20 properties. But we've had a difficult time, you 

 21 know, showing that this is a kind of local law 

 22 situation that creates a conflict with the 

 23 federal law. 

 24 One of the safety issues that we have 

 25 faced and identified in this situation is a real 
 54 

 1 conflict with the track maintenance and 

 2 regulations and standards that are on the books. 

 3 And what we have is a -- just a nightmare in 

 4 terms of trying to do any kind of programmed 

 5 maintenance and to try to, you know, maintain and 

 6 upgrade the roadbed itself. 

 7 With this many crossings, you know, 

 8 using mechanized tamping and regulating 

 9 machinery, it's just very impractical, and it 

 10 undermines the utility of using those mechanized 

 11 systems to do that kind of work, because you've 

 12 got to pull up every crossing and then you 

 13 automatically have a conflict with that crossing 

 14 owner who wants their crossing put back. They 

 15 don't want to pay for it. 

 16 So then you have -- you know, you have 

 17 an automatic conflict built in and you'll have 

 18 these same owners who want their crossing but, 

 19 you know, don't want to maintain it, don't want 

 20 to have any part of it except it's the railroad's 

 21 problem, and you fix it. And that's been a lot 

 22 of the reaction. 

 23 So these crossings create drainage 

 24 problems, they cause premature deterioration of 

 25 the crossties, and really have a very substantial 
 55 

 1 negative impact on the maintenance and the 

 2 stability of the underlying roadbed. 

 3 So we really do have a problem and a 

 4 conflict, but it's not clearly defined, and 

 5 without any standards for crossings to address 

 6 the drainage problems and the profile problems 

 7 and the -- what's appropriate for a residence, 

 8 what's appropriate for a commercial farm 

 9 development, what's appropriate in these 

 10 instances. 

 11 So we have faced really every issue 

 12 there is out there facing all the other 

 13 railroads, but multiplied times ten. So I just 

 14 wanted to propose that we do need -- we need some 

 15 help in a regulatory sense, because there are no 

 16 standards to point to. 

 17 There is no voice out there saying 

 18 private crossings are safety hazards and they're 

 19 disfavored, and if you need a crossing, you, 

 20 user, it is up to you to really show you have 

 21 some sort of entitlement or right, some need, no 

 22 alternative, and that you've exhausted all of 

 23 your state property rights in order -- against 

 24 your ancestors' entitled to get a passage across 

 25 the tracks. 
 56 

 1 And we need a very strong statement 

 2 to, you know, give railroads who are trying to 

 3 step up and do the right thing something to go 

 4 on. I mean, what we have found is the lack of 

 5 regulation has not just been the neutral. It has 

 6 really hurt us in trying to bring home the 

 7 importance of limiting the number of crossings. 

 8 And we obviously need some standards 

 9 for how these are built and how they are 

 10 protected, and we are looking for a uniform 

 11 national approach we think is appropriate to 

 12 drive home the importance of the safety aspects 

 13 and to -- you know, to help the railroads, like 

 14 Entergy, who stepped up to the plate only to have 

 15 kind of hit a brick wall at every turn. 

 16 We have approached local governments 

 17 and the state, and we have really not -- and with 

 18 detailed planning, which we did, you know, at 

 19 great expense on our dime. We have, I believe, 

 20 handled this in a responsible way and have 

 21 responded to the challenge to close crossings, 

 22 but without the tools to do that, we are very 

 23 severely limited. 

 24 So that's some of the points I would 

 25 like to make. And I think Rick Bertel, of Rio 
 57 

 1 Grande Pacific, would probably like to add 

 2 something from the standpoint of a small-business 

 3 owner who is trying to operate a railroad in this 

 4 regulatory environment. 

 5 MR. BERTEL: Thank you, Mary Beth. 

 6 MR. COTHEN: Rick, if you would introduce 

 7 yourself again and spell your name for the 

 8 record. Proceed. 

 9 MR. BERTEL: Sure. My name is Richard 

 10 Bertel. I'm the chairman and CEO of Rio Grande 

 11 Pacific Corporation in Fort Worth, which is the 

 12 parent company of the New Orleans and Gulf Coast. 

 13 I appreciate the opportunity to speak today and 

 14 would like to share some of our experiences in 

 15 Louisiana as well as some observations and a 

 16 couple of our frustrations. 

 17 Mary Beth has told me I can't talk 

 18 about pending litigation, lawyers, public 

 19 officials, or state officials, so I'm through 

 20 with my speech. But I hope -- if I've offended 

 21 anybody here, I hope I'm an equal-opportunity 

 22 offender. 

 23 A couple of statistics about who we 

 24 are and what we do. Rio Grande has four 

 25 railroads. We operate in six states, and the 
 58 

 1 NOGC is the smallest in terms of miles of the 

 2 railroads that we operate. We acquired the 

 3 property in, as Mary Beth said, in 1999. It 

 4 originally was twenty-four miles, and it's been 

 5 expanded now to thirty-six miles and goes from 

 6 Avondale to Gouldsborough, from Gouldsborough to 

 7 Myrtle Grove. 

 8 One point that I'd like to get across 

 9 to the people that are here is that while our 

 10 parent company is the Rio Grande Pacific, the 

 11 only thing we have in common with, like, Union 

 12 Pacific is the Pacific. We are a very small 

 13 business, operating in a heavily regulated 

 14 environment that is very hostile, particularly in 

 15 Louisiana. 

 16 Let me just give you a couple of 

 17 statistics. For example, the total revenues of 

 18 the New Orleans and Gulf Coast annually are 

 19 exceeded by Union Pacific in three hours. So the 

 20 first day UP works three hours, they've generated 

 21 more revenue than we do in an entire year. 

 22 We have eighteen employees. The ones 

 23 that made it back after the Katrina episode, a 

 24 lot of them have stayed, a lot of them haven't. 

 25 Employing people is a difficult thing in New 
 59 

 1 Orleans at best right now, so anybody that needs 

 2 a job, see me after the meeting. 

 3 Our total maintenance-of-way 

 4 expenditures on the railroad are approximately 

 5 $30,000 per mile per year, which is approximately 

 6 what Union Pacific pays on their -- or what it 

 7 costs Union Pacific to maintain the fifty-six- 

 8 odd-thousand miles of track that they have. 

 9 Our maximum speed is ten miles an 

 10 hour, even though we do try to maintain the 

 11 railroad to a higher standard than that. Since 

 12 we acquired the property, we have, as Mary Beth 

 13 mentioned, brought in highly mechanized, 

 14 modernized equipment, surfacing equipment, 

 15 alignment equipment, tie equipment, ballast 

 16 regulators. 

 17 We've done a tremendous amount of 

 18 ditching and drainage work and, of course, 

 19 crossings. I'm not sure if it came out, but we 

 20 have 276, or we had 276 when we took over. Now 

 21 you never know unless you go look, because 

 22 they're like rabbits: They just show up. 

 23 And the typical problem that we have 

 24 is that somebody goes out and decides that you're 

 25 going to sell part of their lot to the neighbor, 
 60 

 1 and he doesn't ask, he doesn't talk to anybody, 

 2 doesn't care; goes and gets his load of gravel or 

 3 a load of asphalt and he comes out there, and the 

 4 first time we know about the crossing is when 

 5 it's installed. 

 6 And we inspect the track every day. 

 7 Something on the order of ninety percent of the 

 8 traffic that we handle on this railroad is 

 9 hazardous, because we serve a Chevron refinery 

 10 and a bulk terminal at Marrero. Some of the 

 11 miles on our railroad exceed thirty crossings to 

 12 the mile. I'm not sure if that came out. 

 13 And over the last two years, we have 

 14 spent approximately $15,000 per mile per year in 

 15 our failed effort to deal with the bootleg- 

 16 crossing dilemma by going through the courts. 

 17 Put another way, we've spent about $600,000 in 

 18 legal expense in that period of time, gone 

 19 through discovery, gone to court without so much 

 20 as getting a hearing, and we get turned back to 

 21 the state courts, where the outcome is foregone 

 22 as far as I can see. 

 23 That $600,000 would have gone a long 

 24 way back in the track. It also exceeds the net 

 25 income of the whole railroad for the period. For 
 61 

 1 a small railroad with this much traffic in 

 2 hazardous material, we think that these scarce 

 3 resources could have been applied more 

 4 efficiently with the application of just a 

 5 modicum of reason and common sense. 

 6 You know, Mary Beth alluded to the 

 7 number of trucks. If you take the volume of cars 

 8 that we handle and you do the math, it's about 

 9 50,000 trucks a year that don't run on Highway 23 

 10 because of the railroad. 

 11 In keeping with the code of scoundrels 

 12 that Mary Beth alluded to, I can't talk about 

 13 lawyers or cases. I'm going to share just a 

 14 couple of vignettes about some of the 

 15 frustrations that we have with regard to these 

 16 crossings. 

 17 Our effort, as she mentioned, is a 

 18 comprehensive study. We hired a prominent 

 19 engineering firm, we met with parish officials, 

 20 we met with the state. We came up with a 

 21 consolidation plan to reduce and eliminate 

 22 crossings, because we thought that was the 

 23 mandate -- was going back fifteen or twenty 

 24 years, when this all started, to reduce 

 25 crossings. 
 62 

 1 And I think the reduction of crossings 

 2 has been successful, as the statistics have borne 

 3 out, while we're still talking about private 

 4 crossings. We have -- as she mentioned, we've 

 5 had a high level of cooperation with the 

 6 refineries, the large commercial entities, the 

 7 people that provide the jobs in the community, 

 8 because they understand that there is such things 

 9 as liability and generating jobs and trying to, 

 10 you know, do something productive or good for the 

 11 worker. 

 12 The first case that I'd like to talk 

 13 about, and I can't mention the name, was one of 

 14 these situations where the person had a crossing 

 15 to get from Highway 23. They had an existing 

 16 crossing to get across the railroad to get to 

 17 their trailer. And they decided unilaterally 

 18 that one wasn't enough; they needed another 

 19 crossing, so that when they went across the track 

 20 it was easy to turn around and come back over the 

 21 second crossing on what you'd call a U-turn. 

 22 And so our maintenance-and-way people 

 23 protested and said, "If you do that, you have to 

 24 go through the following process: You have to 

 25 get a permit, you have to discuss the 
 63 

 1 construction," and we went through an exhaustive 

 2 procedure where we took all the permits for all 

 3 the Class I railroads that operate in Louisiana. 

 4 We did what I would think would be a 

 5 remarkable cut-and-paste job on all of them, 

 6 submitted it through counsel. We came up with a 

 7 permitting process that was less onerous than any 

 8 of the Class I's currently have. 

 9 Our offender with the bootleg crossing 

 10 said, "Well, we're not doing that. There's no 

 11 way we're going to do that." So we said, "If you 

 12 put the crossing in, we're going to remove it." 

 13 They put the crossing in, and we did remove it. 

 14 And we got slapped with a lawsuit 

 15 where we were sued for -- I believe it was in the 

 16 hundreds of thousands of dollars, because the 

 17 mother of the person who owned the trailer was an 

 18 elderly lady, and she suffered pain and suffering 

 19 because she was afraid that the ambulance could 

 20 not be turned around, even though they had an 

 21 existing crossing. So that's why kind of where 

 22 this odyssey sort of started. 

 23 I would move on to the next deal, next 

 24 little story, which deals with Plaquemines 

 25 Parish. Plaquemines Parish decided that they 
 64 

 1 needed to get to an area that they wanted to do 

 2 some excavating work. And so they contacted our 

 3 offices. They were told about the permitting 

 4 process. They asked for an application, we 

 5 forwarded it, and we didn't hear anything. 

 6 So one of our managers was down here 

 7 one day. He's driving down the street and comes 

 8 over a hill, and he sees a big yellow Caterpillar 

 9 bulldozer sitting in the middle of our main line. 

 10 And being a curious kind of guy, he thought he'd 

 11 go over and check it out. He went over, and of 

 12 course the Caterpillar dozer belonged to the 

 13 parish, and it was broken down in the middle of 

 14 the track. 

 15 So in a friendly tone of voice, I'm 

 16 sure, he asked the guys with the parish if they 

 17 would mind removing the dozer off of our main 

 18 line, because we tried to run trains up and down 

 19 it once in a while. And there was a ruckus about 

 20 that, and some threats, you know, and "By God 

 21 this" and "By God that," and "We'll get to the 

 22 bottom of it." 

 23 Well, eventually, when they got the 

 24 dozer off, we discovered that they had broken the 

 25 rail with their illegal movement across the 
 65 

 1 track. It was 112-pound rail, and it broke the 

 2 rail and did some other damage that amounted to 

 3 about $7,000. And we managed to collect a 

 4 thousand of it and had to write off most of the 

 5 rest, or all of the rest of it. So even the 

 6 parish disregards the rules when it comes to 

 7 crossing your property. 

 8 And what scares me is the guy who 

 9 winds up responsible for this, is that had they 

 10 moved the dozer and not known anything about the 

 11 rail, if they had not discovered that the rail 

 12 was broken, and the next train through there was 

 13 the chemical train had come through there and 

 14 derailed, with the hazmats bill, I'd be on CNN 

 15 explaining something that really had nothing to 

 16 do with me. And so these are the kinds of issues 

 17 that are very sensitive to small companies that 

 18 operate railroads. 

 19 Another little story we had a problem 

 20 with, when we found out that our railroad right- 

 21 of-way exists within the state right-of-way 

 22 through a portion of the railroad, we thought, 

 23 "Well, this permitting process will be easy. 

 24 We'll go to the state, we'll work through the 

 25 state," because the people have to have a permit 
 66 

 1 for the state to access Highway 23. 

 2 Well, that process is not utilized, 

 3 and so we weren't able to piggyback our own 

 4 permitting process onto the state's, because they 

 5 disregard their own process. And it's difficult 

 6 to enforce that, because -- you know, our 

 7 process -- because they say, "Hey, we don't have 

 8 to do that because we don't want to. Take us to 

 9 court." 

 10 The next little story that I got was 

 11 -- Mary Beth talked to you about this one 

 12 crossing, and there was an agreement negotiated 

 13 with the developer. It was approved by the 

 14 lawyers. It was several pages. 

 15 It described in specific detail what 

 16 the developer had to do upon the sale of various 

 17 lots within the subdivision: He had to put up 

 18 active warning devices, they had to clear sight 

 19 lines. There were all these things to do. 

 20 Then the last item on the contract was 

 21 to the extent -- and I could get the language -- 

 22 it says, "Unless this crossing is deemed to be a 

 23 public crossing by some agency." So the next 

 24 week the local parish proclaims it's a public 

 25 crossing, and the whole agreement is abrogated. 
 67 

 1 There's no active warning, there's a sight 

 2 distance that is in violation of Louisiana state 

 3 law, and as Mary Beth described, the school 

 4 busses won't even go in there now. 

 5 Of course the first call we get, hey, 

 6 we need to replace the surface on the crossing 

 7 now that it's a public crossing, which doesn't 

 8 endear us to the process. 

 9 I'm almost done. In some of the 

 10 pending litigation we have now, one of the lead 

 11 attorneys has repeatedly told us that the issue 

 12 -- we removed a crossing when we told -- when 

 13 somebody wouldn't agree to a permit, or they 

 14 wouldn't negotiate with us. They just said, "Go 

 15 pound sand." 

 16 So we removed the crossing. We were 

 17 sued in court, and the attorney says, "This issue 

 18 has nothing to do with safety." So once the 

 19 crossing was out and he went out there and 

 20 looked, there were found some defective ties in 

 21 the crossing. He threatened us with another 

 22 letter and said, "If you don't come out and 

 23 correct these track deficiencies in accordance 

 24 with the CFR, we're going to call the FRA and 

 25 gets them down on your throat." 
 68 

 1 And so it was kind of interesting that 

 2 the lawyers can hide behind the fact that there's 

 3 no federal oversight of the surface or of the 

 4 whole process, but then once it's removed and is 

 5 found to be unsafe, they want to also run and 

 6 say, "Okay. We're going to call FRA if you don't 

 7 come out here right now and fix it." 

 8 We're short-handed, and so now that 

 9 I've got a couple of lawyers that are qualified 

 10 track inspectors, you know, I think we can 

 11 probably fix it. You know, in the lawsuit they 

 12 said that safety wasn't an issue, because we're 

 13 only going ten miles an hour. And of course 

 14 obviously he's never seen a grain car turn over 

 15 at ten miles an hour or he's never had to pick 

 16 one up or he's never seen a chemical car turn 

 17 over. 

 18 But my goal is not to be on CNN. I 

 19 really don't want to do that. And these guys 

 20 are -- I mean, they are a threat to safety. 

 21 We're kidding ourselves if we say otherwise. And 

 22 I got served with papers yesterday on a crossing 

 23 accident that happened in April, and it was 

 24 interesting. 

 25 I would like to read about our 
 69 

 1 egregious stealth train, if I could. This 

 2 accident happened in April. It was investigated 

 3 by our people and by the insurance company ad 

 4 infinitum. This is just part of it. It says: 

 5 "Suddenly and without warning, the 

 6 railroad train operated by our employee 

 7 attempted to cross a private driveway 

 8 and struck the vehicle, causing a 

 9 violent collision and causing plaintiff 

 10 to sustain painful and serious personal 

 11 injury and economic damage." 

 12 Well, Louisiana state law says you have to 

 13 stop -- I believe -- I get these mixed up because 

 14 I'm in different states and the standards aren't 

 15 the same, but it's fifty feet. It's fifteen to 

 16 fifty. And so this railroad goes parallel to a 

 17 major highway. These guys ring and blow the 

 18 whistle and bell and, you know, they do all the 

 19 appropriate things. 

 20 Somebody drives out in front. They 

 21 can't see the train, which is okay. And we -- 

 22 you know, our ten miles an hour, the attorney 

 23 doesn't think this is a safety issue, but I'm 

 24 going to have to defend this lawsuit. And it 

 25 starts to lose its fun as a railroad owner when 
 70 

 1 the lawyers wind up working for them. 

 2 And it says we failed to maintain 

 3 control of our vehicles and railroad train, 

 4 failed to keep a proper lookout, driving in a 

 5 careless and reckless manner, failing to see what 

 6 should have been seen, failing to properly and 

 7 timely sound the warning horns and lights and 

 8 whistles on the railroad train, failing to safely 

 9 cross the private drive over the railroad tracks. 

 10 We didn't go out in the street and get 

 11 this guy. I mean, "All of the above acts are in 

 12 violation of the laws and orders of the Parish of 

 13 Plaquemines, State of Louisiana, and are pleaded 

 14 herein and so copied." 

 15 My final -- there's a recent one which 

 16 has happened and didn't happen in Louisiana, 

 17 because we do kind of watch this issue in other 

 18 places that we operate in. Several years ago we 

 19 had a fatality where -- a crossing accident in 

 20 Nebraska. And our train crews operate 24/7, 365 

 21 out there. 

 22 And it was about 1:00 o'clock in the 

 23 morning. We had an ethanol train that was moving 

 24 between two points at ten miles an hour. A guy 

 25 in an eighteen-wheeler who was estimated to be 
 71 

 1 going in excess of eighty miles an hour hit -- I 

 2 believe it was the forty-fourth car in the train, 

 3 hit it so hard it knocked the tank car into the 

 4 corn field. 

 5 It was a fatality. It split the cab 

 6 of the truck. One side was on one side of the 

 7 track and the tank was on the other side of the 

 8 track. The cab was full of uppers and pills and 

 9 stuff that the driver was taking to stay awake. 

 10 And the highway patrol shows up and they say, 

 11 "What were you guys doing out here?" 

 12 And that is endemic of the problem. 

 13 We have instances all the time where we're in the 

 14 right place, doing what we're supposed to be 

 15 doing, what we're mandated under federal law and 

 16 certificated by the Surface Transportation Board. 

 17 And why don't we arrest some of these people or 

 18 write them a ticket when they do something like 

 19 this? 

 20 I mean, I watched this earlier this 

 21 morning, and how many tickets are written when 

 22 somebody violates these laws? I mean, if they 

 23 start writing tickets for stuff like that, when 

 24 we go to court, juries pay attention to that. 

 25 But we just ignore it, you know. 
 72 

 1 And to bring this to a close, some 

 2 conclusions that I've tried to put together: 

 3 It's imperative that we start to recognize that 

 4 the railroads are in fact interstate highways of 

 5 commerce. And that's confirmed by many years of 

 6 ICC and SCC doctrine, which requires this. 

 7 You can't get in the railroad business 

 8 just because you feel like it. You have to go 

 9 before the Surface Transportation Board, get a 

 10 certificate to operate, because it's a public 

 11 necessity and convenience. That's why we're 

 12 here. 

 13 As such, railroads should have the 

 14 right, if given the responsibility via safety 

 15 mandate of the FRA, to control what goes on over, 

 16 under, around, and through our railroad 

 17 rights-of-way. No one should be able to build or 

 18 alter the track structure without our consent and 

 19 permission. 

 20 At least notify us, because if I'm 

 21 going to be responsible for that car that gets 

 22 dumped over, I don't want some joker that knows 

 23 nothing about what he's doing filling the track 

 24 structure full of God knows what. 

 25 If we've seen much consolidation in 
 73 

 1 the railroad business, we've also seen much 

 2 consolidation in the field and plaintiff 

 3 attorneys that are a significant threat to our 

 4 industry. Over and over we see the same law 

 5 firms that sponsor the beer-and-barbecue meetings 

 6 teaching our employees about the railroad 

 7 lottery. 

 8 Moving now into the injury and 

 9 plaintiff work for trespasser litigation, let's 

 10 have some kind of help on trespassers. I was 

 11 looking at some of these statistics from the 2004 

 12 study, and it showed from '90 to 2002 on public 

 13 crossings where there's an active protection, 

 14 that's dropped -- the fatality rate's dropped 

 15 about forty-five or fifty percent, and that may 

 16 be even better now. And the trespasser 

 17 fatalities are flat. 

 18 Well, it doesn't take a rocket 

 19 scientist to figure out that the crossings that 

 20 are protected are helping us, and the trespassers 

 21 are not helping us. You know, rather than fine 

 22 the railroad for enforcing it on the -- fines on 

 23 the railroad to make us the keeper of the safety, 

 24 let's involve some of the other people that make 

 25 things unsafe. Because we're trying. 
 74 

 1 I think the railroad industry right 

 2 now has one of the safest records it's ever had. 

 3 The absurdity of continued safety inaction is 

 4 malfeasance in face of the empirical evidence 

 5 stretching back to the early '90s, when we 

 6 started looking at these crossings. 

 7 How many more years, how many more 

 8 seminars must the public sector study the issue 

 9 before it acts? Without a federal solution, 

 10 we'll be meeting at these type conferences in 

 11 another fifteen years. 

 12 In Louisiana, state and local 

 13 transportation agencies have been absent at best 

 14 and openly hostile for the most part. Economics 

 15 and politics will always trump sanity in the 

 16 public sector, even to the detriment of the 

 17 public and the regulated. What are we supposed 

 18 to tell our customers who follow the rules, the 

 19 people that enter into the agreements, the people 

 20 that get permits, the people that do it right? 

 21 Is our experience of being twice 

 22 thrown out of federal court here or remanded back 

 23 to the state court, it's only -- we're beginning 

 24 to see other squatters being emboldened by that 

 25 procedure: pipeline people and other people with 
 75 

 1 encroachments. 

 2 Finally, let me -- I've ranted and 

 3 raved here. I got my five minutes in the sun 

 4 here. But let me leave you with a hypothetical 

 5 solution that may bear some discussion or it may 

 6 not. In my railroad career, I've had the 

 7 opportunity to travel around the world and look 

 8 at the acquisition of railroads in Australia and 

 9 South America, Africa, Canada, Khazakstan, and 

 10 other places. 

 11 And one of the things when we were 

 12 trying to acquire a railroad in the late '90s in 

 13 Australia that was interesting to me that the 

 14 Australian National Railroad at that time had a 

 15 policy is if there was a crossing, it was going 

 16 to be protected, active protection. And I mean 

 17 Australia had at the time, like, 19 million 

 18 people, and it's the size of the United States. 

 19 We've got 300 million, so it's a little different 

 20 game. 

 21 But the point is, you go out into the 

 22 agriculture and the wheat fields or wherever, and 

 23 if there was a crossing, it was protected. They 

 24 took the attitude that if it was important enough 

 25 to be there, it was important enough to be 
 76 

 1 protected. 

 2 So let's assume the following: 

 3 There's 90,000-odd private crossings in the 

 4 United States. And my good friend Rick Campbell 

 5 -- don't quote him and don't put this in the 

 6 record -- but he seems to think for $150,000 a 

 7 crossing you could actively protect them, all 

 8 these crossings. You do the math. That's about 

 9 $13 billion. 

 10 So let's add a little federal creep, 

 11 and we'll call it 15 billion, because these kind 

 12 of programs have a way of expanding, taking more 

 13 time, being more costly. I mean, what do we 

 14 spend in fifteen minutes in Iraq? I don't know, 

 15 but $15 billion is a lot of money. 

 16 But if this is a serious problem for 

 17 enough of us to have conferences and meetings and 

 18 study it for twenty years, I think we should talk 

 19 about this. Let's bring all the stakeholders to 

 20 the table. 

 21 Let's say, for example, that the FRA 

 22 allocates $15 billion to the state DOTs for 

 23 purposes of adding active warning protection to 

 24 all private crossings. The DOTs will have to 

 25 determine the need based upon federal guidelines. 
 77 

 1 The railroads will build and maintain just the 

 2 same as the public crossings, the same as we do 

 3 now, once the state DOTs determine whatever state 

 4 crossings stay or go. 

 5 Users of the private crossings would 

 6 pay the state DOTs an interest rental based on 

 7 the investment. You get a crossing, you have to 

 8 pay for it. And this is all -- within the final 

 9 analysis, this is all about money, anyway, and 

 10 how you spend the money to get the safety: 

 11 What's the cost benefit? 

 12 If the DOTs can close crossings, they 

 13 get to keep the money. I'm sure that some scheme 

 14 like that with an incentive might close a lot of 

 15 crossings. The interest rental that the 

 16 stakeholders use on the crossings would go into a 

 17 fund for the maintenance of these private 

 18 crossings in the future, administered by the 

 19 states. 

 20 And realistically, I figured, talking 

 21 to Rick, that minimally it would take five years 

 22 to do all this, to protect all these crossings. 

 23 If the FRA says go tomorrow, time you gear up, 

 24 build them, and install them, it's going to take 

 25 five years. So you could probably do this at $3 
 78 

 1 billion a year for five years one time, and you 

 2 could take the money out of the RIF program. 

 3 Finally, well, and what that would do 

 4 is that the federal government would get its 

 5 desired objective of fewer crossing accidents, 

 6 because the statistics show that the protected 

 7 crossings have declined fifty or sixty percent. 

 8 The state DOTs would get massive new 

 9 bureaucracies around the country, which would 

 10 make them happy. 

 11 The railroads would get crossing 

 12 protection, which frankly helps me, because I get 

 13 tired of looking at that insurance guy every 

 14 year. And they just shake their head say, "How 

 15 did you go from 276 crossings to 300 crossings?" 

 16 And I said, "Well, it's kind of difficult, 

 17 because people just go out there and build them. 

 18 I have no control over that." 

 19 And my insurance premiums hopefully 

 20 would go down. And the person who actually uses 

 21 the crossings, and we're kind of in a user-paid 

 22 society these days, would have to pay. And if 

 23 you want to turn it into a social program or 

 24 socialism, then the states could administer -- 

 25 you know, you can gouge through commercial guys 
 79 

 1 and give it away to the guy in the small rural 

 2 house or trailer. That's -- for two cents you 

 3 got my solution. 

 4 Oh, yes. Finally, we appreciate the 

 5 FRA declaring a safety emergency in Louisiana to 

 6 stop the insanity of the state and local inaction 

 7 on the subject of private crossings. This is a 

 8 real problem. It deals with real businesses like 

 9 mine and like the big guys. You know, waiting 

 10 another twenty years to get an answer really 

 11 defeats the purpose of coming to these kind of 

 12 conferences. 

 13 Thank you for allowing me to provide 

 14 my thoughts and observations, and I'll be around 

 15 if anybody has questions. Thank you. 

 16 MR. COTHEN: Thank you, Rick, for that. 

 17 You'll also find a very complete statement on the 

 18 subject in the public document if you want to 

 19 revisit some of those points. Mary Beth? 

 20 MS. MEYER: Right. That's the point I was 

 21 going to make in closing, very quickly. The 

 22 insurance question that you addressed, we have 

 23 looked into that and find that it's just a 

 24 nonstarter for users in the local market in 

 25 particular because of the insurance crisis we're 
 80 

 1 in. But beyond that, residential users, you 

 2 know, insuring around the liability issues is a 

 3 very, very difficult nut to crack here. 

 4 Thank you. 

 5 MR. COTHEN: Thank you. The docket again 

 6 is identified in the material that you've been 

 7 provided, No. 23281, and it's available online at 

 8 dms.dot.gov. And you can go there and find 

 9 transcripts of the prior meetings as well as 

 10 written submissions to the public docket. 

 11 We're now going to take, for 

 12 everyone's comfort and convenience, a fifteen- 

 13 minute break, after which we'll hear from Mr. 

 14 Campbell. So please return promptly at thirty- 

 15 five minutes after the hour. 

 16 (Following a brief recess, the proceedings 

 17 continued as follows:) 

 18 MR. COTHEN: Mr. Rick Campbell, of 

 19 Railroad Controls Limited, has been solicited to 

 20 speak today and help us understand the 

 21 relationship among this issue, public-crossing 

 22 issues, and highway-based traffic control 

 23 standards, and in particular the thought that 

 24 folks are putting into the issue of public-access 

 25 private grade crossings. 
 81 

 1 So, Rick, please come forward, 

 2 introduce yourself for the record, and proceed. 

 3 Thank you for being here. 

 4 MR. CAMPBELL: Good morning. I'm Rick 

 5 Campbell, and the spelling is C-A-M-P-B-E-L-L, 

 6 like the soup. No relation. And I have the 

 7 pleasure of knowing most everyone in this room 

 8 from various dealings and meetings that we've 

 9 attended. And I wanted to thank FRA and Grady 

 10 and his staff for inviting me to speak today. 

 11 Private crossings are an issue that we 

 12 deal with, and I'm going to qualify that "we." I 

 13 work for a firm called Railroad Controls Limited. 

 14 But part of my duties, we're very active in 

 15 support of standards and recommended practices 

 16 within the railroad industry. 

 17 And I'm involved with both AREMA, 

 18 which is the American Railway Engineering and 

 19 Maintenance of Way Association, and highway-rail 

 20 grade crossings, and I'm also involved with a 

 21 group called the National Committee on Uniform 

 22 Traffic Control Devices, or NCUTCD. 

 23 And NCUTCD -- to give you a little 

 24 background on NCUTCD, they are a private 

 25 organization. They're not connected with FHWA. 
 82 

 1 They do date back to the 1920s through various 

 2 associations and organizations. And NCUTCD is 

 3 made up of slightly over 200 professionals that 

 4 are involved with all elements of traffic-control 

 5 devices, traffic and transportation engineering. 

 6 Within the NCUTCD there are various 

 7 subcommittees or technical committees, as they're 

 8 referred to, one of which is the Railroad and 

 9 Light Rail Transit Technical Committee, of which 

 10 I serve as chair, being elected by my peers. 

 11 Within our technical committee we have 

 12 responsibility to comment to FHWA on parts 8 and 

 13 10 of the NCUTCD, part 8 being the section that 

 14 deals with railroads and part 10 being the 

 15 section that deals with transit, specifically 

 16 light rail transit but also other types of 

 17 transit such as streetcars and on-rail running. 

 18 Within that group, of course, we're 

 19 responsible for changes, edits, comments to those 

 20 particular parts of the manual, and it's 

 21 interesting because one of the things that we 

 22 wrestle with within our technical committee is 

 23 private highway-rail grade crossings. 

 24 And private highway-rail grade 

 25 crossings are a unique issue within NCUTCD 
 83 

 1 because NCUTCD is a document that is actually set 

 2 up to deal with public travel and addresses 

 3 issues relative to that public travel. 

 4 NCUTCD -- and I'm going to read an 

 5 excerpt here regarding NCUTCD from comments on 

 6 the FHWA Web site -- is that at the present time 

 7 NCUTCD deals with roads that are open to public 

 8 travel. And "open to public travel" is a term 

 9 that's not defined in the Code of Federal 

 10 Regulations. 

 11 There is an underlying effort on 

 12 behalf of the national committee, who has 

 13 convened a task force to deal with traffic- 

 14 control devices on private property. And what's 

 15 interesting is this task force spun out of 

 16 traffic-control issues on private property for 

 17 things that you might consider like shopping 

 18 centers and malls. 

 19 And their goal is, as Tom Hicks, who 

 20 has served as chair of that task force, has told 

 21 me: He says, "Our goal has been to prevent green 

 22 stop signs." And I'm sure everybody in here has 

 23 driven through some type of private facility 

 24 where you find a green stop sign or a stop sign 

 25 that may be square or round because it was part 
 84 

 1 of an architectural enhancement. 

 2 But while it had a specific traffic- 

 3 control function, it didn't conform to standards 

 4 within the NCUTCD. Hence this development of the 

 5 task force to be able to go in and try and set up 

 6 guidelines for traffic-control devices on private 

 7 property. 

 8 One of the things I think that we get 

 9 sidetracked on in part of this entire process is 

 10 the whole public-private-type issue: Who owns 

 11 the land, or who actually is the titleholder to 

 12 the access way for whatever facility it is? 

 13 And it strikes me that that's not 

 14 really not the issue; that we've dealt with 

 15 public and private ownership, but the real issue 

 16 has to deal with expectation of access: Does the 

 17 public have the expectation of access to the 

 18 crossing, to the intersection within a mall, to 

 19 whatever the facility might be where there's some 

 20 traffic-control-device requirement? 

 21 And this issue of course extends 

 22 beyond private crossings. It gets into that, the 

 23 area that we find with malls and shopping centers 

 24 and businesses or business parks where there's 

 25 actually a large number, a significant number of 
 85 

 1 vehicles, publicly operated vehicles, that access 

 2 that private property, if you will. 

 3 And as part of that, I would like to 

 4 encourage FRA to give consideration maybe to the 

 5 fact that there's a need for a third 

 6 classification that we apply besides public and 

 7 private. And I would like to suggest that FRA 

 8 consider what we call semipublic. 

 9 And semipublic would be an access way, 

 10 and specifically narrowed to our hearing today, a 

 11 highway-rail grade crossing that is owned by 

 12 other than a public agency but to which the 

 13 public expects free access. 

 14 And examples of that could be of 

 15 course shopping centers and various commercial 

 16 establishments. It could be a large facility or 

 17 crossing to access a single facility such as a 

 18 fast-food restaurant or a convenience store. We 

 19 generally find that these semipublic crossings 

 20 could fall into categories such as industrial, 

 21 commercial, recreational, or to access 

 22 multifamily homes. 

 23 So I would like to propose that we at 

 24 least give consideration to the term "semipublic" 

 25 as it might apply to highway-rail grade crossings 
 86 

 1 and all types of traffic-control devices. We 

 2 would still retain the category as private 

 3 crossings, but we would generally define that as 

 4 crossings that there is no public expectation of 

 5 free access. 

 6 And examples of those might be 

 7 crossings that serve a single residence or a 

 8 crossing that a landowner has for access from 

 9 field to field or for access from a public 

 10 roadway to a field or private access outside of a 

 11 residence. 

 12 Those are crossings that are generally 

 13 assumed not to have just open access to the 

 14 public, and in many cases they're fenced and 

 15 locked; or in the case of a driveway to a private 

 16 residence, one that there's very limited access 

 17 by the public, generally the landowners or 

 18 residents of the residence and service providers, 

 19 such as delivery trucks, commercial vehicle 

 20 operators who could have training to be able to 

 21 deal with access over these crossings and private 

 22 facilities. 

 23 So that begs the question. Once we 

 24 can define what this particular crossing is, is 

 25 how do we actually deal with private crossings 
 87 

 1 and need for traffic-control devices? And some 

 2 thoughts that we've struggled with within the 

 3 Railroad and Light Rail Technical Committee 

 4 involve if we do have a private or a semiprivate- 

 5 type crossing, do we have a need for a specific 

 6 traffic-control device to deal with access over 

 7 that crossing? 

 8 Many states -- of course California, 

 9 through their Public Utilities Commission, has 

 10 taken a lead in development of a sign to be used 

 11 at private crossings which clearly denotes that 

 12 the crossing is private. And of course the 

 13 underlying statement there would be that there's 

 14 no trespassing allowed to the general public. 

 15 And if we support that type of sign 

 16 within our technical committee, that there does 

 17 need to be a distinction that the crossing is off 

 18 limits to the general public and that the 

 19 specialized sign could possibly be adopted for 

 20 these semipublic crossings, however, we also 

 21 support the fact that if the public has access, 

 22 we believe in standardization, which would then 

 23 involve the use of traditional crossbuck and 

 24 supporting advance warning signage. 

 25 So just in closing with my comments, I 
 88 

 1 think that it would behoove FRA to be able to 

 2 step in and try and assist with the problems that 

 3 we've heard with private crossings and access to 

 4 private facilities, but as I say, to take it to 

 5 the step that we look at, Does the public have 

 6 some expectation of free access? 

 7 And if so, we need a methodology to be 

 8 able to apply standardized traffic-control 

 9 devices and at the same time to go through a 

 10 diagnostic process as is already spelled out in 

 11 part 8 of the NCUTCD. And as part of that, the 

 12 semipublic crossing would go through permitting- 

 13 type process that we would like to see FRA have 

 14 oversight over this. 

 15 And things that would be considered to 

 16 be part of this permitting process would be to 

 17 define the responsibility for access over the 

 18 crossing: Who's actually responsible for -- who 

 19 is the jurisdiction responsible for the crossing? 

 20 Ultimately that of course would carry over to 

 21 responsibility for traffic-control devices at the 

 22 crossing and of course for maintenance at the 

 23 crossing. 

 24 And as part of that agreement that if 

 25 the responsible agency failed to fulfill its goal 
 89 

 1 to install or maintain devices, surface access, 

 2 vegetation, all the items that we could consider 

 3 issues at crossings, that the crossing would 

 4 automatically be closed, that there would be no 

 5 recourse other than to have the crossing closed. 

 6 And that alone would serve as an 

 7 incentive to a commercial or an industrial-type 

 8 facility to continue the maintenance and access- 

 9 way improvements necessary to retain the crossing 

 10 in an open and passable condition. 

 11 And finally, in closing, I'd just like 

 12 to encourage FRA generally in the private- 

 13 crossing endeavor, that this is an issue that 

 14 both the national committee and numerous states 

 15 that I work with wrestle with: How we deal with 

 16 treatments at private crossings and what rules 

 17 apply? 

 18 And I certainly applaud your effort to 

 19 deal with this. I encourage you to move forward 

 20 with regulation and to be able to have enough 

 21 regulatory teeth to be able to give us some form 

 22 of control where we can actually provide a level 

 23 of enforcement to persons wishing to create a 

 24 private or a semipublic crossing over a railroad. 

 25 Thank you. 
 90 

 1 MR. COTHEN: We have notice of two 

 2 additional individuals who would like to present 

 3 on behalf of themselves or others. The first is 

 4 Mr. Ben Saunders, Association of Trial Lawyers of 

 5 America; and then on behalf of himself, Mr. John 

 6 Van Mol, who introduced himself this morning and 

 7 can give us a perspective from a point of view of 

 8 private-crossing owners, which we very much look 

 9 forward to as well. 

 10 So let me ask Mr. Saunders to step 

 11 forward and introduce yourself for the record, 

 12 spell your name, if you would, and proceed. 

 13 MR. SAUNDERS: My name is Ben Saunders, 

 14 and I served about ten years ago as chairman of 

 15 what's called the Trial Lawyers Railroad Law 

 16 Section. It's at the American Trial Lawyers, 

 17 ATLA, which I know from some of the earlier 

 18 comments is not necessarily a word or a group 

 19 that's very engendered by the business industry 

 20 or defense lawyers. 

 21 But the truth is that ATLA represents 

 22 us. And when I say "us," I mean you and me. 

 23 ATLA's purpose is people. And so that I don't 

 24 misconstrue where I'm coming from or you don't 

 25 misconstrue or downplay what I have to say, let 
 91 

 1 me say this: I don't do pedestrian crossing 

 2 cases, so the folks with the short-line railroad 

 3 here in Louisiana, I don't represent those folks 

 4 that have the circular driveways going across 

 5 your track. 

 6 Who I do represent are the locomotive 

 7 engineers. And those locomotive engineers share 

 8 a unity of interest with the railroads in that 

 9 the railroads don't want to lose their engines or 

 10 their engineers. And we're not talking about a 

 11 situation where the train hits a car, where the 

 12 train always wins. We're talking about 

 13 situations like this gentleman referred to 

 14 earlier about the industries that he serves with 

 15 the highly flammable cars and leakages into 

 16 communities. 

 17 And I don't do class actions either; 

 18 okay? So I really don't have a dog in the 

 19 crossing fight or the class-action fight. I only 

 20 care about the guys operating the trains, because 

 21 that's my chosen profession, just like this other 

 22 gentlemen writes through the NCUTCD. So that's 

 23 where I'm coming from, so it's not like here's 

 24 one of those trial lawyers looking to play the 

 25 lawsuit lottery. That's not my game. I don't 
 92 

 1 have a dog in that fight. 

 2 But what I do say is this: Jolie 

 3 Molatores (phonetic) was the FRA director several 

 4 years ago, and she asked a group of us to come up 

 5 and talk to her. She said, you know, "I want to 

 6 be responsive, more responsive to the people who 

 7 I'm chosen to serve and not just the industries 

 8 that I also have the privilege of serving. And I 

 9 know that you guys represent the people, and I 

 10 want to hear at least what you have to say." 

 11 And what we had to say was, you know, 

 12 corporations -- I went to a very liberal Catholic 

 13 law school here in New Orleans. It was a Jesuit 

 14 school, and they said, "You know, corporations 

 15 are fictitious persons and corporations exist to 

 16 serve the people." 

 17 And this gentleman said, "Jolie 

 18 Molatores, even though she philosophically 

 19 disagrees with me, you know," he says, "we're 

 20 here -- we're here to protect the people. We 

 21 want to have separations so these accidents can't 

 22 happen." 

 23 So although we may philosophically be 

 24 coming from different parts of the country, at 

 25 the end of the day we agree that the name of the 
 93 

 1 game here is to serve the people and use the 

 2 money that we can get from the government to make 

 3 life safe for the railroad, the railroad 

 4 engineer, and those people who have these, 

 5 quote -- I'm using this as kind of a joke -- 

 6 these circular driveways across railroad tracks, 

 7 which are ridiculous, aren't they? 

 8 FROM THE FLOOR: Amen. 

 9 MR. SAUNDERS: I knew you'd like that. So 

 10 my point being, we can talk about regulation, 

 11 making the federal government bigger, having the 

 12 politics that we have, having the courts do this 

 13 and the courts do that. 

 14 But what's the problem? The problem 

 15 -- once again, you observed it, sir: The problem 

 16 is that you have to have an inability for a human 

 17 being who either works for a railroad or a human 

 18 being who's driving a vehicle to interact. 

 19 And where is the solution to this 

 20 problem? It's been in Washington for years. The 

 21 National Transportation Safety Board for years 

 22 has published and advocated what is called -- and 

 23 once again I'm on the page with you -- positive 

 24 train separation. What is positive train 

 25 separation? You can't have an interaction with 
 94 

 1 human beings. 

 2 Why? Because we can make all the 

 3 rules you folks want to make, all the 

 4 regulations, pass responsibility, have your 

 5 insurance-premium quote go up sky high. In New 

 6 Orleans we know how bad insurance is. Look at 

 7 the Hurricane Katrina claims. This poor fellow's 

 8 trying to run a small company, and his premiums 

 9 are skyrocketing. Okay. 

 10 So you've to say how you solve the 

 11 problem. The problem is solved by not having an 

 12 interaction. So does it cost $3 million a 

 13 crossing or $300,000 a crossing? Do all 

 14 overpasses have to be built? That's not what the 

 15 National Transportation Safety Board said. 

 16 All of y'all ought to do yourselves a 

 17 favor and drive down Airline Highway on your way 

 18 home and go by what's called the Cold Storage 

 19 Facility, where the Kansas City Southern and 

 20 IC -- I can't remember which railroad -- has a 

 21 few telephone poles built up with a roadway that 

 22 goes under it so that when a train is coming from 

 23 New Orleans going to Baton Rouge, the trucks 

 24 going to the cold storage can't -- cannot -- 

 25 interact with the train. 
 95 

 1 That's the shortcut we took from 

 2 Metairie to Uptown to go to law school since the 

 3 '60s. Never been a wreck there, because they 

 4 can't interact. Don't worry about reading the 

 5 sign. You can preach "Stop, look, and listen" 

 6 all you want. You can put up flashing lights, 

 7 you can put up stop signs there. It's your 

 8 responsibility. It's not the state's 

 9 responsibility. 

 10 But look at this problem: Human 

 11 beings are going to operate like human beings. 

 12 Governor Blanco said, "Oh, my uncle was killed by 

 13 Union Pacific. He just forgot to stop one day." 

 14 I understand that Governor Blanco at the hearings 

 15 in Baton Rouge, I understand that, because people 

 16 err. To err is human. We make mistakes. 

 17 So how do we design it out? By not 

 18 having the train operate in a fashion that it can 

 19 interact with an eighteen-wheeler or a lowboy 

 20 hang up, a chemical truck, and, going down, a mom 

 21 and a pop who are having an argument in the car 

 22 and they stop on top of the track and get 

 23 whacked; okay? 

 24 So my suggestion to everyone is -- and 

 25 it's not really part of the paper. ATLA made a 
 96 

 1 presentation or a paper. This gentleman has 

 2 that. Y'all can read all of that. But my 

 3 comments are, Why don't we use our heads? Sir, 

 4 you mentioned everybody in Europe. I've been to 

 5 Europe and I've watched in every country in 

 6 Europe the positive train separation. 

 7 He was talking about Australia and 

 8 going to the Far East and so forth and so on, but 

 9 I've watched it. You go to Italy and you don't 

 10 cross the track. A bar doesn't just come down 

 11 like this. The bar comes across, and you don't 

 12 have a choice. 

 13 You do not have the option of driving 

 14 across the track. That's a solution. You can't 

 15 drive around. You'd have to drive through the 

 16 barrier. You can't hook a left then a right and 

 17 get around it. That's No. 1. 

 18 No. 2, do something cheap, like the 

 19 cold storage, when they're going through Nebraska 

 20 through the corn fields, and you want to have a 

 21 situation where the truck is going to some 

 22 processing plant and you don't want that 

 23 eighteen-wheeler to have any ability to interact 

 24 with the train. 

 25 And then obviously, if you look again 
 97 

 1 at Metairie Road, you have to build in some 

 2 instances overpasses, but the engineering and the 

 3 technology are there. And again, if we can spend 

 4 billions and billions and billions of dollars 

 5 freeing Iraq, why can't we spend a few million 

 6 protecting our people: You, me, the good guys 

 7 like him and the bad guys like me, the trial 

 8 lawyers? What's wrong with that? 

 9 And I say that facetiously, and that's 

 10 my whole speech. 

 11 MR. COTHEN: Somebody behind me was 

 12 talking about how we couldn't get out of here 

 13 without talking about Metairie Road. Ben's taken 

 14 care of it, so let's just let it lie. Thank you, 

 15 sir. 

 16 Mr. John Van Mol, still with us? 

 17 There he is. Could you come up, please, and 

 18 identify yourself for the record and proceed. 

 19 MR. VAN MOL: I'm John Van Mol. I'm a -- 

 20 looks like I'm kind of slim and minority here 

 21 this morning. I don't work for the railroad, I 

 22 don't work for the government, I'm not an 

 23 attorney, and I have been known to drive a truck 

 24 from time to time. 

 25 It's just from listening to some of 
 98 

 1 you guys this morning that kind of makes me 

 2 wonder if we did away with the lawyers and the 

 3 truck drivers, from the railroad's point of view 

 4 we'd be in pretty good shape. I don't know how 

 5 Wal-Mart would fare, or the grocery store. 

 6 I'm a farmer. I have a cotton gin, 

 7 interest in a grain elevator. And all of these 

 8 things put me in basically the same predicament 

 9 most of you are in: We have people that work for 

 10 us that depend on us to make decisions for them. 

 11 We have a responsibility to their families. 

 12 Sometimes when I'm really frustrated 

 13 with different employees, I try to remind myself 

 14 that that guy's out here buying diapers for 

 15 somebody. And that's important to me, that it's 

 16 a person, just like you alluded to a minute ago. 

 17 This is one of the farms that I farm, 

 18 and it's owned by four different landowners. The 

 19 Union Pacific Railroad is identified right here, 

 20 running through the middle of it. Highway 71 is 

 21 the northernmost border. 

 22 This piece of property belongs to one 

 23 landowner, this piece of property belongs to 

 24 another, this piece of property belongs to a 

 25 fellow that fought in the Battle of the Bulge, 
 99 

 1 D-Day plus zero, and he's not very railroad- 

 2 friendly, by the way. And this piece of property 

 3 here belongs to another landowner. 

 4 July the 7th of 2005, in an attempt to 

 5 live up to the rules and regulations that the 

 6 Federal Rail Administration has set forth, they 

 7 came through and posted all the private crossings 

 8 along the breadth of this property that we're 

 9 farming with the exception of this 427-860-D, 

 10 which at that time and for the last fifty years 

 11 prior to that was always believed to be a public 

 12 road. 

 13 It was -- on public record it was 

 14 called the Oilfield Road. According to our farm 

 15 management team, the Oilfield Road is a little 

 16 further down, but according to the public record 

 17 that's the way it was. That was July the 7th 

 18 when they were posted. 

 19 August 18th: We started harvesting 

 20 corn and we stopped shelling corn long enough to 

 21 attend a meeting, a public hearing, public 

 22 gathering that the Union Pacific had in the small 

 23 town of Cheneyville, underneath an oak tree out 

 24 by the bank where they used to gather to play 

 25 dominoes. So it was kind of a real nice, relaxed 
 100 

 1 atmosphere. 

 2 At that time I met with a railroad 

 3 representative and gave him basically a list of 

 4 the crossings, private crossings, that were -- 

 5 that I was involved in, and asked him that these 

 6 crossings be left in place. At that time I also 

 7 inquired about this crossing, No. 427-860-D, 

 8 which is the main corridor for the entire acreage 

 9 there. 

 10 The farm headquarters is located here, 

 11 where it's identified as a shop. And of course 

 12 we service the different fields from that area. 

 13 That was the 22nd of August. 

 14 The 26th of August: I'm sitting in my 

 15 pickup, and the phone's been buzzing, buzzing, 

 16 buzzing, buzzing. I know all of y'all have one 

 17 of those. And I'm ignoring it because I'm doing 

 18 something else. 

 19 And then the radio comes through, and 

 20 the train hit it. The train hit the truck. The 

 21 train hit the truck. I didn't know if one of my 

 22 sons was in that truck or not, because I have a 

 23 number of children. So it's not just a fatality 

 24 anymore. All of a sudden it's real personal. 

 25 So the safety aspect of everything 
 101 

 1 we're talking about here today is not just 

 2 rhetoric as far as I'm concerned. It's real. 

 3 And for just a few -- until I heard him on the 

 4 radio saying -- you know, talking to someone 

 5 else, I was very concerned that my eighteen-year- 

 6 old son, soon to leave for college in just a few 

 7 days, could possibly have been involved. That 

 8 was the 26th of August. 

 9 Of course the truck driver in his 

 10 infinite wisdom, who was unhurt, filed a lawsuit 

 11 the next day against the railroad. I kind of 

 12 want to tell the whole truth and be fair to 

 13 everyone. And you know, it wasn't my truck. It 

 14 was an independent trucker that I had hired. But 

 15 he filed a lawsuit against the railroad. 

 16 But just kind of some notes from my 

 17 diary to let you know the framework of the 

 18 average citizen, August 27th: Elevators are 

 19 full. River traffic on the Red and the 

 20 Atchafalaya rivers has stopped. 

 21 August the 28th: All trucks are full. 

 22 Can't find a truck anywhere. August the 29th: 

 23 Katrina hits New Orleans 6:00 a.m. September the 

 24 8th: We finish up going to Cheneyville, moved to 

 25 Alexandria, another farm. 
 102 

 1 September the 9th: The Union Pacific 

 2 Railroad posted this crossing. And I don't know 

 3 how to do this. There we go. Union Pacific came 

 4 along and put us a little sign there saying that 

 5 it was now subject to closure. So be it. They 

 6 posted the crossing. 

 7 September the 12th: We're exfoliating 

 8 cotton as fast as we can. There are three more 

 9 storms out in the Caribbean. September 22nd, ten 

 10 days later: We're picking this field of cotton 

 11 very close to this sign, and I walked by the sign 

 12 and I noticed that -- in my mind I think to 

 13 myself, "Well, the railroad has done it again. 

 14 They're duplicating what they did. Somebody 

 15 forgot to do it last time." But I had spoken to 

 16 the man in charge of the railroad, who spoke with 

 17 authority and said that he was in charge. And he 

 18 said this is a public road. It's not subject to 

 19 closure. 

 20 The next morning at 5:00 a.m. we moved 

 21 out on the highway to go up to the Alexandria 

 22 farm to pick cotton. September 24th: Rita makes 

 23 landfall. We had sixteen inches of rain. That's 

 24 what it looked like after that (indicating). I 

 25 don't know if y'all can see, but the next time we 
 103 

 1 saw this sign, I personally saw it, it did not 

 2 stand out in my mind very clear. 

 3 I had just lost enough money for all 

 4 of us to retire on from the storm. The letters 

 5 are washed off. Not a big deal. Nothing to be 

 6 extremely concerned about. 

 7 In February, I see a track crew doing 

 8 some maintenance on the railroad. In passing by, 

 9 I stopped. There was a piece of broken rail on 

 10 the ground. This crossing has a tendency to hold 

 11 water close to the crossing here. It would hold 

 12 water and it would have spongy places. I don't 

 13 know if any of y'all are familiar with that in 

 14 maintaining your tracks. 

 15 But they had taken a backhoe and dug 

 16 some trenches alongside of the track, and there 

 17 was a broken piece of rail. And the workers led 

 18 me to believe that "We're repairing the track. 

 19 It's bad and soft, and we'll be back." That was, 

 20 I believe, to be mid-February. 

 21 In mid-April we rolled back in. We're 

 22 starting to plant, to do plowing operations. And 

 23 the track still isn't back. The railroad is 

 24 not -- from a personal point of view, has not 

 25 been real responsive to phone calls. It's seldom 
 104 

 1 that I call someone at the railroad and they 

 2 answer the telephone. Quite often it takes a 

 3 number of days of repeated messages, that sort of 

 4 thing. 

 5 And that's kind of downplayed once you 

 6 get them on the phone. They're the only ones 

 7 that are really very busy, although according to 

 8 my wife, I quite often work ninety-hour weeks. 

 9 But anyway, we finally got ahold of the railroad, 

 10 and the landowner and I and my partner met with 

 11 the railroad. 

 12 And at that meeting they made it clear 

 13 that this crossing was going to be closed and 

 14 that we had adequate -- I'm going to go back 

 15 here. Let's see. That's not right. They said 

 16 we have adequate crossings. 

 17 "We're going to take your main road 

 18 out, and you have a crossing here," which that's 

 19 D-Day. And I'm not trying to put down D-Day. 

 20 D-Day is very old. He's paid his dues. He 

 21 doesn't like to be fooled with. 

 22 But we have a crossing here. We also 

 23 have another crossing here. And here's our 

 24 headquarters, by the way. So "That's adequate. 

 25 Be happy with what you have. Good luck to you. 
 105 

 1 So if you want to try to put in an application, 

 2 you can put in an application. In fact you don't 

 3 have applications on file with the Union Pacific 

 4 Railroad on any of these crossings, and as far as 

 5 the Union Pacific is concerned, they're all 

 6 subject to closure." 

 7 And you know, "The railroad, the Union 

 8 Pacific Railroad, does not owe you a crossing. 

 9 The railroad does not owe you a right-of-way. 

 10 And as long as there's any possibility of you 

 11 getting to that property any other way, that must 

 12 be totally exhausted first." 

 13 Well, that building right there is 

 14 movable. It can be moved. So can the railroad 

 15 track. You can just get plumb outlandish with 

 16 how much money you can spend, but in the course 

 17 of just trying to make the best of a bad 

 18 situation, we said, "Okay. We have to farm, 

 19 because it's kind of like raising children: Once 

 20 you have them, you've got to keep going." 

 21 We started putting our guys out on the 

 22 highway, whatever we needed to normally go down 

 23 this little 500-feet distance and cross the 

 24 railroad track and disperse on the other side of 

 25 the farm. We were going south to one side of the 
 106 

 1 farm and north to the other side. But our 

 2 problem is, this is a real sharp curve in the 

 3 road. Like here, this is normally a sugarcane 

 4 field. 

 5 So it's basically from where you're at 

 6 right there on, you're blind. And that's really 

 7 a lot easier trip to the center of the farm to go 

 8 down this road than to enter the highway in this 

 9 very sharp curve. Can y'all see that truck? 

 10 That's one of your truck drivers, guys. He's 

 11 probably doing seventy miles an hour around that 

 12 curve, and it just so happened that we caught it. 

 13 But you can see the road goes up and 

 14 banks and dips back down. We have a number -- 

 15 this year we've had two separate occasions where 

 16 people came around this curve and made a beeline 

 17 through those first two telephone poles you see 

 18 on the slide right there. You can see the 

 19 dropoff there by that telephone pole. It's four 

 20 or five feet of it. 

 21 We go down this road. After we go 

 22 down this road, we're going to turn in by this 

 23 sign. And that's all well and good, but our 

 24 equipment quite often is twenty feet or wider, 

 25 and so we really have a problem occupying both 
 107 

 1 the shoulder and the lane in the highway that we 

 2 were traveling down. 

 3 And when we turn in this road, we 

 4 actually have to slow down enough to maneuver 

 5 around some obstacles here. The road has not 

 6 held up. You know, the railroad pointed out to 

 7 me that the economics of two roads being easier 

 8 to maintain than one is not their concern. 

 9 To this point and date I've spent 

 10 about ten, twelve thousand dollars improving 

 11 drainage along these roads in order to help them 

 12 stand up to the increased traffic of putting all 

 13 that traffic on one. We've cleaned out some 

 14 ditches. We've done a number of things, and it 

 15 still doesn't hold up. 

 16 This particular slide right here is a 

 17 module truck driver. I don't know if you're 

 18 familiar with what a cotton module looks like. 

 19 It's very heavy. He came into the road, loaded 

 20 cotton, and went back out. That's one trip, and 

 21 it rained, so it wasn't as easy. 

 22 We also have a northern route that we 

 23 can go back to get back to these same places. 

 24 And it's a nice, wide-open road right there. We 

 25 have a pretty narrow crossing right there, too. 
 108 

 1 This also you can see that railroad crossing is 

 2 in place. We offered to the railroad to exchange 

 3 crossing for crossing. There was no -- from our 

 4 standpoint, there was no negotiating with the 

 5 railroad. 

 6 The only option that I was given was 

 7 "You remove three crossings," which, you know, 

 8 I'm not the landowner, so I have to go and have 

 9 body parts cut off, literally get scalped, and 

 10 ask for these things. 

 11 These men, the people were not 

 12 interested in giving up their access, but I went 

 13 and asked anyway. And the prospect of giving 

 14 three crossings up in order to get the main 

 15 road -- crossing at the main road reestablished 

 16 was a bit much. It just didn't work. 

 17 We needed our crossing put back in. I 

 18 still need my crossing put back in. We're good 

 19 people. We're just trying to take care of our 

 20 people. We have never had a problem with the 

 21 railroad before. We've always been a good 

 22 neighbor to the railroad, and we're not -- 

 23 You know, as a farmer, the railroad 

 24 comes through quite often and leaves all kinds of 

 25 obstacles for us to pick up and take care of. 
 109 

 1 And I understand it is their right-of-way, but 

 2 the railroad in itself creates some safety 

 3 hazards, too, and putting folks back out on the 

 4 highway was a concern of mine. 

 5 This slide right here represents a 

 6 good percentage of my cotton crop, as you can see 

 7 it across the railroad track right there. That 

 8 cotton sat there for six weeks longer than it 

 9 should have, through the month of October while 

 10 it rained because the Mexican went through the 

 11 field and ruined the road when he shouldn't have, 

 12 but it would have normally been very accessible. 

 13 The cotton gin ran out of cotton. I'm 

 14 one of the principal people involved in the gin, 

 15 so our cotton -- I'm a co-op, but I'm the last. 

 16 And it cost me dearly, just kind of a haphazard 

 17 way that the railroad has pursued this, in my 

 18 mind. 

 19 Now, this meeting is all about safety, 

 20 and I am interested in safety. And I am trying 

 21 to see things from the railroad's point of view, 

 22 and I understand that I have a crossing that is 

 23 not a continuous crossing. 

 24 My men and machinery are not 

 25 continuously crossing that railroad. Even a 
 110 

 1 public road, there's not continuous use of the 

 2 crossing. We use these crossings seasonally, 

 3 but -- we use them seasonally, but when we're 

 4 using them, we're using them a lot. We put a lot 

 5 of emphasis on safety in our operation. 

 6 And in talking to the railroad, they 

 7 are very anxious to remove absolutely as many 

 8 private crossings as they can. But I propose for 

 9 my -- for the well-being of my farm, I think that 

 10 it would be very easy if this crossing were 

 11 reestablished for me to gate it to where it's 

 12 denied access during off-period times. When 

 13 we're not using it, we go for a month or two 

 14 months or three months at a time. It's not 

 15 abandoned. Basically it's used very 

 16 infrequently. 

 17 Cable that crossing or gate that 

 18 crossing some kind of way. I'm willing to do 

 19 that. I don't know -- I believe previous 

 20 speakers alluded to that sort of thing. You just 

 21 can't rip them all out, just like you can't get 

 22 rid of all the truck drivers and all the people 

 23 who cause the inconvenience. 

 24 But I haven't heard that really 

 25 mentioned here, but I need -- and I'm willing 
 111 

 1 personally to -- like the man -- I'm sorry, I 

 2 didn't catch your name -- but be responsible for 

 3 who comes and goes across the crossings. And I 

 4 don't have a circular driveway or anything. 

 5 Thank y'all very much. 

 6 MR. COTHEN: Thank you very much, sir. 

 7 Are there others who want to speak in 

 8 a general way to these issues before we 

 9 adjourn -- recess; excuse me -- for a lunch 

 10 break? After which we'll have a topical 

 11 discussion. 

 12 Hearing none, first I'd like to thank 

 13 all of the speakers this morning, starting with 

 14 the Louisiana DOT for the welcome introduction, 

 15 and I'd like to thank all the speakers for their 

 16 contributions and for their courtesy to others 

 17 and the sense of inclusiveness that they 

 18 maintained in addressing the issues. 

 19 We have waited until late, and 

 20 therefore we'll be probably difficult to get 

 21 food. And so is there any objection to a 2:00 

 22 o'clock restart? Is there anybody who is going 

 23 to lose in terms of discussion? Can we do that? 

 24 Would you -- it's okay. Not wanting to be 

 25 blamed. Okay. 
 112 

 1 Let's come back at 2:00 o'clock. I 

 2 don't anticipate that we'll go terribly late this 

 3 afternoon, but we do have this until 5:00, and so 

 4 we'll see you back at 2:00 o'clock sharp, please. 

 5 Thank you. 

 6 (After a lunch recess, the proceedings resumed 

 7 as follows:) 

 8 MR. COTHEN: I'm pleased to turn over the 

 9 proceedings to Miriam Kloeppel to begin the first 

 10 two sessions of discussion for the afternoon. I 

 11 would encourage any of those around the back who 

 12 are interested in filling in and joining directly 

 13 into the discussion to do so, as several folks 

 14 have had to leave for the afternoon. So you're 

 15 welcome at the table. 

 16 MS. KLOEPPEL: Good afternoon, everyone. 

 17 As Grady mentioned, this is going to be a more 

 18 focussed discussion, this part of the meeting, in 

 19 which we hope to really isolate, if possible, 

 20 what kind of data are needed, and if we identify 

 21 which data are needed, how do we get those data. 

 22 A quick review: This is just a 

 23 tabulation of the number of private crossings, 

 24 percentages throughout our geographic regions. 

 25 As you can see, in each of our geographic 
 113 

 1 regions, the FRA geographic regions, private 

 2 crossings do constitute a significant percentage 

 3 of all crossings. 

 4 In total, I didn't put the number on 

 5 the slide, but we have about 93,000 private 

 6 crossings nationwide. In recent years, in the 

 7 last ten years -- oops; excuse me -- looks like 

 8 about twenty years here, we've had a significant 

 9 improvement in the number of collisions, 

 10 accidents at public and public grade crossings, 

 11 thirty percent in the past ten years, but we have 

 12 had more or less a static performance at private 

 13 crossings in that same decade. The improvement 

 14 or change has only been about ten percent, and 

 15 the numbers are small, so that ten percent could 

 16 be an artifact of small numbers. 

 17 I also want to emphasize that you're 

 18 to free feel free to interrupt me at any point. 

 19 This is just a series of slides with some of the 

 20 current experience at private crossings. If you 

 21 have any questions or comments, please speak up. 

 22 What we have in this slide is the 

 23 incidence at both public and private crossings 

 24 per 100 crossings, and we've broken it out by 

 25 warning-device type. It's quite possible that 
 114 

 1 you can't see because the letters are probably a 

 2 little small, but we've got it broken by gates, 

 3 lights, other active warning devices, crossbucks, 

 4 stop signs, and other; so some other kind of 

 5 sign, and also crossings at which there's 

 6 nothing, or for which the field in our database 

 7 in the national inventory was blank. 

 8 We normalized it by the number of -- 

 9 by 100 crossings with warning-device type in 

 10 order to give a kind of picture, a grounds for 

 11 real comparison. And it does appear, based on 

 12 this, that we may have some, an abnormally high 

 13 incidence at private crossings. 

 14 Based on our inventory, this is the 

 15 number of private crossings by the type of 

 16 development. In the first column we've got farm 

 17 or agricultural crossings. The second column is 

 18 residential driveways, essentially. The third 

 19 column is recreational, so access to parks or 

 20 some sort of thing like that. 

 21 Industrial. And in fact nationwide it 

 22 looks like industrial crossings constitute about 

 23 twenty-three percent of all the private 

 24 crossings. Those that are categorized as 

 25 commercial are only .3 percent of the crossings, 
 115 

 1 and we do still have a number of records: 1.8 

 2 percent for which there's -- that field is blank. 

 3 Yes, sir? 

 4 FROM THE FLOOR: Do you have a breakdown 

 5 of accidents per type? 

 6 MS. KLOEPPEL: I think I may. Yes: 

 7 Number of incidents at private crossings by type 

 8 of development. In fact, let me step back for a 

 9 second. 

 10 Here's the number of crossings. For 

 11 farm crossings, sixty percent of crossings, 28.7 

 12 percent of the accidents or incidents. The 

 13 industrial crossings, again, 23.6 percent, but 

 14 30.4 percent of the incidents. 

 15 And most interestingly to me, we have 

 16 1.8 percent of the crossings for which we don't 

 17 have the information, but 27.9 of the incidents 

 18 occur at those crossings where we don't have that 

 19 information. Don't yet know why that would be, 

 20 but it is something that's raising questions: 

 21 What characteristics of those crossings makes it 

 22 so? 

 23 We also broke it up by the number of 

 24 number of incidents by the type of train 

 25 equipment and the train speed. The light blue 
 116 

 1 column is for freight trains. That's long 

 2 freight trains, single cars, or a cut of cars. 

 3 The dark blue column is for passenger or commuter 

 4 operations. 

 5 And the kind of teal green one is for 

 6 anything else, and that includes work trains, 

 7 yard or switching trains, like locomotives. And 

 8 as you go across the bottom from left to right, 

 9 you're getting an increase in speed, and of 

 10 course it makes sense that we're seeing more 

 11 incidents of higher speeds in the passenger 

 12 operations. So I don't know if there's anything 

 13 particularly startling about this. 

 14 FROM THE FLOOR: It's purple up here on 

 15 the screen. 

 16 MS. KLOEPPEL: Is it? Thank you. I guess 

 17 I'll look up there. Light blue here, but -- 

 18 FROM THE FLOOR: Light purple, dark 

 19 purple. 

 20 MS. KLOEPPEL: Dark purple? All right. I 

 21 beg your pardon. No deep purple. 

 22 In the US DOT national grade crossing 

 23 inventory, thirty-two percent of the private- 

 24 crossing records have been updated since 2001. 

 25 Twenty-one percent of the private-crossing 
 117 

 1 records have never been updated since they were 

 2 created in the early '70s. 

 3 I don't expect you to read this. This 

 4 is just a shot of the form, the inventory form. 

 5 I just wanted to demonstrate that for a public 

 6 crossing, whoever is filling it out, railroad or 

 7 state, almost all of those fields on both of 

 8 these pages need to be filled out. That's for 

 9 public. 

 10 For private crossings, only the area 

 11 I've shaded is necessary. As you can see, that 

 12 brings about a huge disparity in the amount and 

 13 type of data that are available for -- between 

 14 the two types. Yes, sir? 

 15 MR. SHREWSBERRY: I wanted to clarify that 

 16 only the public tax graded crossings are filled 

 17 out. 

 18 MS. KLOEPPEL: That's true. Thank you. I 

 19 guess there's not much point in doing it for the 

 20 ones that are grade separated. I appreciate the 

 21 correction. 

 22 I wanted to step back and think about 

 23 the uses to which these data are put, and in this 

 24 case principally we're talking about public 

 25 crossings. Many people have many different 
 118 

 1 reasons for collecting and using these data, and 

 2 these are just a few of the -- it's just an 

 3 example of a few. 

 4 In many cases they are used for 

 5 resource allocation or prioritizing which 

 6 crossings are supposed to get some kind of 

 7 treatment. And examples of programs where we do 

 8 that, we have the US DOT formula, the resource- 

 9 allocation formula, and there are various state 

 10 formulae. 

 11 Data are also used to help us 

 12 determine which warning devices are more 

 13 appropriate for a given crossing, and a couple of 

 14 examples of programs to assist in that is the 

 15 GradeDec allocation system, which has been 

 16 created and is run by the FRA's office policy. 

 17 And there is also the FRA's quiet zone 

 18 calculator, and some people are familiar with 

 19 that. When you're trying to develop a quiet 

 20 zone, we have an online tool that enables people 

 21 to see what the effect of a change in the warning 

 22 device would have on the risk that's present in 

 23 that crossing. 

 24 And another purpose for the collection 

 25 of data would include, say, the warning-device 
 119 

 1 evaluation: How effective is a particular 

 2 warning device? And in that case, the example I 

 3 have is the North Carolina field-corridor study. 

 4 Here I've just listed the data 

 5 elements that are used in the US DOT resource- 

 6 allocation formula, and this formula gets used in 

 7 the quiet-zone calculator and is one of the 

 8 formulae that can be used by GradeDec. And in 

 9 fact a number of states also use this for their 

 10 allocations. 

 11 My point here is that these are fields 

 12 that are important for public-crossing 

 13 evaluation. And the red box at the bottom 

 14 outlines basically sort of whether or not that 

 15 data would be available for a private crossing. 

 16 So out all of those fields, you get -- sort 

 17 of you get the warning devices present and you 

 18 get accident frequency at private crossings. 

 19 This is just a quick shot of the 

 20 quiet-zone calculator, and basically we have the 

 21 same issue. The same fields are being required 

 22 here, and you're going to have the same issue of 

 23 most of these data not being available for 

 24 private crossings. 

 25 In the past, a number of different 
 120 

 1 sources have recommended other data collection, 

 2 and I'm not here just focussing on private 

 3 crossings. If there are other data fields that 

 4 people think are of value in determining risk at 

 5 a crossing or anything like that, I encourage you 

 6 to speak up and talk about it here today. I 

 7 don't want to just focus on whether it's 

 8 available for public and not for private. 

 9 And to sort of spur that conversation 

 10 on, I looked back at the NTSB study on passive 

 11 crossings. They had some recommendations wherein 

 12 they suggested that people collect information on 

 13 the sight distance available, the presence of 

 14 curves on the roadway or the tracks, angle of 

 15 intersection or the presence of nearby 

 16 intersections. 

 17 And they had a catchall phrase in 

 18 there about any other data that affects the 

 19 safety at a crossing. And also we do collect 

 20 latitudes and longitudes, but it may be possible 

 21 for us to do even more with it than what we're 

 22 trying to do. 

 23 If anybody has any other suggestions 

 24 about data, we'd certainly love to hear about 

 25 them. Yes, sir? 
 121 

 1 MR. CAMPBELL: Miriam, I might throw out a 

 2 few things to think about, and maybe this will 

 3 spur the conversation a little bit. 

 4 Having done some research tools for 

 5 some different railroads to do analysis of 

 6 private crossings, you need to look at -- some of 

 7 the things you need to look at are additional 

 8 physical characteristics, like the approach and 

 9 departure grade for the crossing on both sides, 

 10 in both directions. 

 11 Another thing you need to know is the 

 12 typical class of vehicle that operates over the 

 13 crossing; like, for example, a residential 

 14 crossing is more than -- in all likelihood it 

 15 will be a passenger car, SUV, or pickup truck, 

 16 you know, a smaller vehicle, where an industrial 

 17 crossing will be a larger vehicle. 

 18 We did some rough analysis of the 

 19 quality of the surface, because a degraded 

 20 surface will obviously increase the time to 

 21 clear. And then once you get those other 

 22 elements with what NTSB has recommended, you can 

 23 look at and develop essentially a clearing-sight 

 24 distance. 

 25 In other words, for the given class of 
 122 

 1 vehicle, approach grade, distance across the 

 2 crossing the NCUTCD, you can calculate a time 

 3 required for that vehicle to be able to start up 

 4 and clear the crossing. And it's important, one 

 5 of the things that's happened at a lot of private 

 6 crossings is installation of a stop sign. But 

 7 when we introduce a stop at a crossing, the 

 8 clearing-sight distance grows exponentially. 

 9 So if you take the clearing-sight 

 10 distance, then you can take the maximum 

 11 authorized speed of the trains on that given 

 12 section of the track and determine a sight 

 13 distance that you need to be able to adequately 

 14 clear, because some of the crossings we go in and 

 15 put these treatments in, and we create a scenario 

 16 where, based on physical characteristics, 

 17 vegetation, either on or off the railroad right- 

 18 of-way, generally off, it generally is crops or 

 19 vegetation off the railroad right-of-way where 

 20 you can't actually come to a stop to comply with 

 21 the rules, start up and clear prior to train 

 22 arrival at maximum authorized speed. 

 23 So there are some inherent hazards 

 24 that need to be understood, and collecting some 

 25 additional data would help to be able to gather 
 123 

 1 that information. 

 2 MS. KLOEPPEL: And is that a complete list 

 3 of the additional elements that you found useful 

 4 or -- 

 5 MR. CAMPBELL: As far as my brain right 

 6 this minute. I could probably e-mail you a list 

 7 of them all. 

 8 MS. KLOEPPEL: That would be great. 

 9 Anyone else with other suggested data? 

 10 What about the prospect of requiring 

 11 for private crossings the same data that you have 

 12 for public crossings or these critical fields 

 13 that are used in evaluations? Mr. Shrewsberry? 

 14 MR. SHREWSBERRY: Well, I like what Rick 

 15 was saying about the classifications a little bit 

 16 more from a semipublic to fully private. But one 

 17 of my concerns as an engineer, although we're 

 18 involved in the public crossings, which are 

 19 parish or counties or cities or states approach 

 20 roadways, we have issues collecting data as far 

 21 as the traffic for these public reads. 

 22 It would be very, very difficult to do 

 23 it for private, you know. But I think the way 

 24 Rick's presented this option would be good to 

 25 look at and get some guidance federally from 
 124 

 1 that, you know, that I just don't think it's 

 2 really feasible to get all the data that for 

 3 every one of these crossings. 

 4 We've got almost as many private 

 5 crossings as public, and we work to try to keep 

 6 our data fairly well up to date, but I just don't 

 7 think it's realistic to get the other data for 

 8 the private ones. 

 9 MS. KLOEPPEL: Yes, sir? 

 10 MR. MEYER: I just want to second that 

 11 point. As I understand it, we have a tremendous 

 12 number of private crossings all over the system, 

 13 many of which may see only a handful of vehicles 

 14 a day. 

 15 Furthermore, some of these are dirt 

 16 roads, which makes data collection even more 

 17 difficult, because the -- somebody can correct me 

 18 on whatever these vehicle-counting devices are -- 

 19 they usually lay some kind of tube across the 

 20 road. 

 21 From what I understand, those are 

 22 ineffective on dirt roads, because you actually 

 23 have to have a live human being counting every 

 24 car that goes by, so realistically it would be a 

 25 nearly impossible task to achieve for every 
 126 

 1 there ways we can get at it without putting a man 

 2 on the ground? 

 3 MR. MEYER: Gabriel Meyer, Union Pacific. 

 4 One thing we would be open to 

 5 exploring would be, I think you're describing 

 6 here, some kind of a proxy, some kind of 

 7 statistical sampling process whereby we look at a 

 8 certain number of private crossings in a given 

 9 area that appear to have similar characteristics, 

 10 and then we can use our data sample to 

 11 extrapolate from there. I don't know exactly how 

 12 we would pursue that, but again, it's something 

 13 we would be willing to consider. 

 14 MS. KLOEPPEL: Mr. DePaepe? 

 15 MR. DePAEPE: Tim DePaepe, Brotherhood of 

 16 Signalmen. 

 17 I want to step back just a little bit 

 18 when it comes to identifying. Before breaking 

 19 down into various types, semiprivate and private, 

 20 my comments are mainly directed at Class I right 

 21 now, but they will expand to Class II railroads. 

 22 A lot of railroads are doing GPS 

 23 mapping of their territories and their 

 24 properties. As they do this type of mapping, 

 25 they should be able to identify the exact 
 125 

 1 private crossing. 

 2 MS. BRUNTE: (Inaudible) right-of-way 

 3 issues can be (inaudible) obstruction (inaudible) 

 4 bushes on a lot of issues (inaudible). 

 5 MR. TESSLER: Excuse me. Before you make 

 6 a comment, could you introduce yourself so the 

 7 court reporter can -- and obviously she can't 

 8 hear you. 

 9 MR. MEYER: Gabriel Meyer, with Pacific 

 10 Railroad. 

 11 MS. BRUNTE: Kim Brunte. 

 12 MS. KLOEPPEL: Well, if we acknowledge 

 13 that not all fields can be readily collected, are 

 14 there proxies? Are there other ways to get at a 

 15 sort of what -- what if we grouped crossings? 

 16 I'm just talking off the top of my head here. 

 17 You can shoot me down. 

 18 Suppose we had the private crossings 

 19 and the semiprivate crossings and the public 

 20 crossings. Within the private category, what if 

 21 you had just sort of boxed-in categories: You 

 22 had fewer than ten vehicles a day or fewer than a 

 23 hundred vehicles a day? And then in semiprivate 

 24 you'd probably have more opportunity to collect 

 25 the data. But also in other types of data, are 
 127 

 1 location of any crossing, be it public, private, 

 2 semiprivate, or highway-rail grade, to get exact 

 3 longitude and latitude locations of where these 

 4 are at. 

 5 Then once you have that data, you can 

 6 break it down into the smaller categories if you 

 7 want. That's the first problem, because, as you 

 8 know, with both public and private crossings, 

 9 regardless if passive or active, they're 

 10 miscategorized, and that database is still not 

 11 one hundred percent correct. That's how you get 

 12 the total amount of crossings and exactly where 

 13 they're at. Then you can break it down from 

 14 there. 

 15 My recommendation, as I've said in the 

 16 past at other forums, we're not leery of any 

 17 regulation, but if they're going to use these 

 18 technologies, they should be required to do that 

 19 specific type of mapping when they map their 

 20 territory for their turnouts and everything else. 

 21 They should be required to map every crossing, be 

 22 it stone, rock, asphalt, or whatever. 

 23 MS. KLOEPPEL: Thank you. Mr. Browder? 

 24 MR. BROWDER: Bill Browder, Association of 

 25 American Railroads. 
 128 

 1 Let me preface my remarks by 

 2 reiterating from 23 CFR the FHWA highways portion 

 3 that railroads derive absolutely no benefit from 

 4 highway-rail grade crossings. Therefore, any 

 5 enforcement of potential actions by government 

 6 agencies, including the FRA, need to have a 

 7 substantial safety basis, including the 

 8 collection of data. 

 9 And the reason that I would suggest 

 10 that is because AAR has concerns about the 

 11 expenses involved for our members in these 

 12 endeavors. I can tell you from my thirty-six- 

 13 plus years' experience with Class I railroads 

 14 that we don't have an excess of staff 

 15 engineering, operations, transportation people to 

 16 collect, maintain, conduct diagnostic testing of 

 17 these particular crossings. Okay. That's my 

 18 preface. 

 19 Now, back to the subject at hand, 

 20 taking another step back with Timmy, he's flashed 

 21 up the inventory form up there, and I can relate 

 22 to the public inventory form, which is a 

 23 partnership between the highway authority and the 

 24 railroad or the rail operator for that territory. 

 25 Now, for the part you have in blue for 
 129 

 1 the private crossings, do you have any 

 2 perspective on who are the people who submit that 

 3 for private crossings? That's a yes-or-no 

 4 question, and if it's a yes, maybe you can give 

 5 us a number or a percentage. 

 6 MS. KLOEPPEL: I don't -- I believe it 

 7 would be a hundred percent railroad. 

 8 MR. BROWDER: That would be my first 

 9 guess. And you're talking about expanding this 

 10 forum into areas that are in my opinion somewhat 

 11 unrelated to the expertise, let alone 

 12 capabilities, of the railroad to collect. 

 13 Whether the data-driven information 

 14 could be useful to safety, we have always 

 15 attempted to be good corporate citizens of local, 

 16 state, and federal communities in conducting this 

 17 thing. 

 18 In fact, AAR developed this form in 

 19 the early '70s. And again, we're glad to share 

 20 it with people and we were pleased, as a matter 

 21 of fact, after I came with AAR in 1995, to see it 

 22 renamed US DOT form from the AAR form. I 

 23 certainly get less calls than I used to. 

 24 But seriously, I think it's something 

 25 that we need to look after, because again, just 
 130 

 1 reiterating my point, I totally agree with you, 

 2 Miriam. The railroads and my members and the 

 3 short lines probably do submit a hundred percent 

 4 of the information that you receive on private 

 5 grade crossings. 

 6 I couple that with the idea that FRA 

 7 is the regulator of the railroads, not the 

 8 highway authorities or other people. And I get 

 9 concerned especially since, if I remember 

 10 correctly, this administration and previous 

 11 administrations and friends in Congress have 

 12 proposed that this inventory be mandatory and 

 13 become part of the Code of Federal Regulations. 

 14 And in talking about it, it's going to 

 15 put an additional burden on what I feel from my 

 16 rough calculations, we probably spend in the 

 17 neighborhood in terms of highway-rail grade 

 18 crossings, 250 to 300 million dollars a year 

 19 right now on those crossings. And -- 

 20 MS. KLOEPPEL: Nationwide? 

 21 MR. BROWDER: Excuse me? 

 22 MS. KLOEPPEL: Nationwide, you're saying? 

 23 MR. BROWDER: Nationwide annually. And 

 24 again, from the AAR's perspective for our 

 25 members, have become very much concerned about 
 131 

 1 any additional monetary burden that may be placed 

 2 on them in terms of developing data as such. And 

 3 I would urge everyone to look at alternative ways 

 4 and constructive means to obtain data that's 

 5 safety related to improve the situation. 

 6 MS. KLOEPPEL: Now you've beat me to the 

 7 punch. I was going to ask if there were any 

 8 suggestions for alternative ways, and it's 

 9 obvious that this could -- I mean, a wholesale 

 10 demand that everybody fill out all of the data 

 11 elements for all private crossings would be 

 12 obviously very burdensome, but I would love to 

 13 hear from people about what they think in terms 

 14 of other ways to get at the information or 

 15 whether in fact all of it would be necessary. 

 16 MR. BROWDER: I was very much encouraged 

 17 at a recent meeting in West Virginia, the Eastern 

 18 Region Grade Crossing Conference by FRA's Tom 

 19 Wall, who is involved with this inventory and 

 20 some of the items that he distributed for making 

 21 the inventory forms more user friendly. 

 22 And I understand secondhand, although 

 23 I don't have the details, that there is some sort 

 24 of a pilot project under way that would promote 

 25 the electronic submission of the data for these 
 132 

 1 inventory forms to the inventory system. 

 2 I would share with you a comment from 

 3 one of my members who told me antidotally that, 

 4 given the opportunity and two or three hundred 

 5 thousand dollars in money, that they could fix 

 6 the problem of having to submit the current 

 7 process on this inventory form which that member 

 8 had told me cost them many, many times more than 

 9 the current process. 

 10 And I would urge that maybe there's 

 11 some kind of capability, notwithstanding the 

 12 progress that Tom's making with the process, that 

 13 this could be something to be considered, not 

 14 just for private crossings but for the whole 

 15 crossing-inventory program. 

 16 Now, I don't know the details, but I'd 

 17 be more than happy to put you in touch with this 

 18 member and see if they can put their mouth where 

 19 their money is. I'm through. 

 20 MS. COOK: Okay. Bill, did you mean to 

 21 say that the current process -- oh, I'm sorry. 

 22 This is Carolyn Cook with the Federal Railroad 

 23 Administration. Did you mean to say that the 

 24 current process cost many more times than the 

 25 process that (inaudible)? 
 133 

 1 MR. BROWDER: That's what I meant to say, 

 2 is that this member claims, and I have no reason 

 3 to doubt their claim, that with a good programmer 

 4 and a couple hundred thousand dollars with a 

 5 contractor, they could solve this problem that 

 6 both the states and the railroads have with the 

 7 submission of these inventory forms, both public 

 8 and private, and make it so that it is a more 

 9 current, effective tool that could be used in 

 10 terms of data collection. 

 11 What are you shaking your head for? 

 12 MS. KLOEPPEL: I think we would love to 

 13 hear from this constituent of yours. 

 14 MR. BROWDER: Okay. Well, we're going to 

 15 have to -- we'll do more than love to hear from 

 16 him, but maybe we can talk, because I'm not 

 17 familiar and AAR's not familiar with this 

 18 process. I've been to the point where I've 

 19 gotten so frustrated with the idea in the current 

 20 format, even though I know the AAR would support 

 21 such an effort, that I would be more than happy 

 22 to approach this member and see if we can do some 

 23 constructive things together. 

 24 MS. KLOEPPEL: Okay. Thank you. Mr. 

 25 Shrewsberry? 
 134 

 1 MR. SHREWSBERRY: Bill Shrewsberry, 

 2 Louisiana DOTD. 

 3 I want to just bring up a couple of 

 4 things for the record. This initial inventory 

 5 was basically developed for the Highway Safety 

 6 Act about thirty years ago, and the form that's 

 7 on there now is not necessarily the inventory 

 8 that we started out with, nor that Louisiana has 

 9 within our database system. 

 10 Some of this form was developed -- I 

 11 know I had some concerns as a state when this 

 12 form was introduced in the other fields and 

 13 various responsibilities. Also the attorney 

 14 general's office, the state attorney general's 

 15 office and the department has been concerned 

 16 about the regularly availableness of this 

 17 information, which was developed for the purposes 

 18 of engineering tools to help distribute limited 

 19 federal railroad-safety funds. 

 20 There have been legal issues. I'm not 

 21 an attorney. I'm going to try to see if the AG's 

 22 office or someone else can better articulate what 

 23 I'm trying to say. But there have been Homeland 

 24 Security issues and other issues about the 

 25 availability of the data that started out to help 
 135 

 1 evaluate the public at-grade crossings. 

 2 You know, but since I didn't have 

 3 much input on this form that's got developed 

 4 here, one of the things Louisiana does in 

 5 thinking outside the box is our most significant 

 6 thing is to close crossings of convenience for 

 7 effective consolidation. 

 8 There's not a reference within the 

 9 form what's up and down the line in all of this 

 10 thing, the proximity of crossing on the rail. 

 11 Our database for Louisiana deals with rail, and 

 12 there's a program that we have where computer 

 13 people have set up one, two, three, four down 

 14 that line. 

 15 I don't think the inventory form was 

 16 set up that way. But when we're looking at 

 17 things to move into the future, we've got to look 

 18 at closing public crossings and definitely 

 19 consolidating these private crossings. And there 

 20 doesn't seem to be a place within the individual 

 21 form to deal with that. 

 22 You know, one of the first things we 

 23 asked when we got the surveys all over the state 

 24 is, Can this crossing be closed? That's the 

 25 first thing that we look at from our engineering 
 136 

 1 responsibility. And that needs to be addressed 

 2 if we're going to be looking at these things. 

 3 What's up and down the rail line is some of the 

 4 other things. 

 5 And that's just kind of thinking 

 6 outside of the box for the record. Thank you. 

 7 MS. KLOEPPEL: That's what I was hoping 

 8 for. Thank you. Anyone else have any additional 

 9 comments about the types of data that might be 

 10 valuable? Carolyn? 

 11 MS. COOK: Carolyn Cook with FRA. 

 12 Does GradeDec have the ability to look 

 13 at a corridor by linking in the information and 

 14 bringing in the mile posts and DOT? Is that a 

 15 tool that would be good for corridor analysis? 

 16 MS. KLOEPPEL: It's intended for corridor 

 17 analysis, but I'm not sure how it -- it may rely 

 18 upon the user to tell it what the crossings are 

 19 in the corridor. I don't think that they have 

 20 any fancy algorithm to identify subdivision and 

 21 division and mile post or anything like that. 

 22 Anyone else? Well, I thank you all 

 23 for your comments. We have one in the back? 

 24 MR. ZELLER (phonetic): Yes. Just a quick 

 25 one. I'm Pete Zeller, for Laredo. 
 137 

 1 I was just going back to your data and 

 2 your chart there. It seems like we need to 

 3 figure out what "other" is, because you've got 

 4 thirty percent of your accidents occurring in a 

 5 category that you have no clue as to what type of 

 6 crossing it is. 

 7 MS. KLOEPPEL: That's a good comment. How 

 8 should we get that data? I'm just being mean. 

 9 Thank you for your comment. 

 10 MR. ZELLER: Well, no. I can go to -- you 

 11 know, talking about the funding, the fuel tax 

 12 would have been a great way to fund it. 

 13 MS. KLOEPPEL: Interesting point. 

 14 MR. BROWDER: Whose fuel tax are you 

 15 talking about? 

 16 MR. ZELLER: Yours. 

 17 MS. KLOEPPEL: Mr. Campbell? 

 18 MR. CAMPBELL: Rick Campbell. Miriam, are 

 19 you going to move on to other elements or are you 

 20 going to -- 

 21 MS. KLOEPPEL: We can, but I'm trying 

 22 to -- 

 23 MR. CAMPBELL: Well, what I wanted to 

 24 clear up, and maybe it's relevant to stick this 

 25 in now. This isn't a data-related issue, but two 
 138 

 1 or three people have mentioned in discussion and 

 2 comments made about my suggestion of a third 

 3 category, and two or three times I've heard the 

 4 term "semiprivate." And I want clarify that. 

 5 I specifically called it a semipublic 

 6 crossing. And let me read from NCUTCD in chapter 

 7 1. We have a series of definitions, and number 

 8 56 is a public road. And it's "any road or 

 9 street under the jurisdiction of and maintained 

 10 by a public agency and open to public travel." 

 11 Now, I think we can split the 

 12 categories to semipublic and private pretty 

 13 simply if we take the public-road definition and 

 14 say, "Any road or street under the jurisdiction 

 15 of and maintained by a private entity and open to 

 16 public travel," and a private road or a private 

 17 crossing could be "any road or street under the 

 18 jurisdiction of and maintained by a private 

 19 entity and not open to public travel." 

 20 So I split those categories out, but I 

 21 think it's important that we consider semipublic. 

 22 And part of the idea, we've had some conversation 

 23 over lunch, and one issue was in regards to the 

 24 consolidation plan that Mr. Bertel had talked on 

 25 his railroad, and one of the elements that I 
 139 

 1 talked about as part of my proposal was that a 

 2 private crossing would include a driveway or 

 3 access way for a single residence. 

 4 Now, the type of plan that was 

 5 proposed with a consolidation project where 

 6 driveways from multiple homes were consolidated 

 7 to a single crossing, that would change the 

 8 status of that crossing from private to 

 9 semipublic. 

 10 And part of the logic behind the whole 

 11 semipublic thing is that FRA, either through 

 12 their regulatory process, and hopefully in 

 13 conjunction with FHWA, a key player with this, 

 14 through this designation of semipublic, would 

 15 pull in the availability in some instances of the 

 16 use of public funds, and that the designation or 

 17 determination to do that would be made as part of 

 18 the diagnostic process, so all elements of the 

 19 diagnostic process at a semipublic crossing would 

 20 apply, including determination as to adequacy of 

 21 traffic-control devices. 

 22 It could be, if a semipublic crossing 

 23 it to serve a mall owner, that it's determined 

 24 that a hundred percent of the cost of the devices 

 25 and maintenance would be paid by the property 
 140 

 1 owner. But in the case of a semipublic 

 2 crossing -- see, I'm making the same mistake -- a 

 3 semipublic crossing that served residences, that 

 4 there may be either a ninety-percent public share 

 5 or some split as determined by the diagnostic 

 6 team as to the types of devices and cost share 

 7 and funding for these devices. 

 8 So there's some method to my madness 

 9 about semipublic instead of semiprivate. I just 

 10 wanted to kind of clarify the record on that. 

 11 MS. KLOEPPEL: I very much appreciate the 

 12 clarification. I'm sorry. I'm one of the guilty 

 13 parties. Thank you. Yes, sir? 

 14 MR. ZELLER: Going back to your point, how 

 15 do you get the data, as the gentleman pointed out 

 16 here, you make the railroad provide the data. 

 17 That's how you get it. 

 18 MS. KLOEPPEL: Could you say your name 

 19 again, please, for the court reporter? 

 20 MR. ZELLER: Pete Zeller, with Laredo. 

 21 MS. KLOEPPEL: Thank you. Any other 

 22 comments, questions? 

 23 MR. DePAEPE: Tim DePaepe on behalf of 

 24 Railroad Signalmen. 

 25 I would just like to point out to all 
 141 

 1 the members here that many other parties have 

 2 commented on this at previous public hearings, 

 3 like my organization commented extensively about 

 4 the definitions, because the original notice 

 5 asked for specific comments on about nine 

 6 different items. So if you'd like to see those 

 7 comments without them all being repeated again, 

 8 they're on the Web site. I'd like to be point 

 9 that out. 

 10 MS. KLOEPPEL: Thank you, Tim. I think 

 11 we've sort of reached a lull in the conversation, 

 12 and I may now rely on Anya Carroll to revive it. 

 13 Thank you. 

 14 MS. CARROLL: Thank you. Good afternoon, 

 15 everybody. 

 16 FROM THE FLOOR: Good afternoon. 

 17 MS. CARROLL: Nap time's over. What we're 

 18 going to do for the second half of this afternoon 

 19 is do some brainstorming. We're going to be 

 20 creative. We've discussed a lot of topics about 

 21 what types of data, how we use the data. 

 22 Well, now it's time to put on your 

 23 thinking caps and think about, Well, how could we 

 24 possibly collect this data? Let's think out of 

 25 the box, as Bill Shrewsberry had mentioned. So 
 142 

 1 we're going to go through a number of scenarios 

 2 here, and I'd like it to be interactive. 

 3 FROM THE FLOOR: There she is. Can't get 

 4 away from that dog. 

 5 MS. CARROLL: That's my female black 

 6 Labrador, Shadow. She's six years old. 

 7 So we've developed a scenario, maybe 

 8 eight to ten scenarios that we would like to have 

 9 you help us work through today, this afternoon, 

 10 and brainstorm together as a community to see if 

 11 we could come up with any answers. 

 12 So the first one is, and we've touched 

 13 upon this a little bit, the one where the FRA in 

 14 partnership with FHWA developed a secure Web site 

 15 where states and railroads could log in their 

 16 input data on the inventory. This is being done 

 17 for private crossings, but also it would be 

 18 available for public crossings. 

 19 MR. BROWDER: Haven't we already done 

 20 that? That's what I just said a few minutes ago. 

 21 MS. CARROLL: You beat me to the punch, 

 22 Bill. You were being creative before it was time 

 23 to be creative. 

 24 MR. BROWDER: All right. I'll strike my 

 25 comment. 
 143 

 1 MS. CARROLL: Is there -- do you have any 

 2 feedback from the state of Louisiana? Is this a 

 3 possibility? Mr. DePaepe? 

 4 MR. DePAEPE: Tim DePaepe, for the 

 5 Brotherhood of Signalmen. 

 6 What's the motivation? Why do it with 

 7 a secure Web site if they're not doing it now? I 

 8 mean, I'm all for this. I think it's a great 

 9 thing. But if it's not required as far as the 

 10 priority list, this gets put way to the bottom. 

 11 MS. CARROLL: Accessibility and 

 12 flexibility to be able to do it in an easier 

 13 manner, to provide the data, whether it's 

 14 mandatory or voluntary. 

 15 MR. BROWDER: The answer is, it's not at 

 16 the bottom, Tim. Everybody does it now. All 

 17 forty-nine states, all Class I railroads do it 

 18 now. It's a very significant factor in looking 

 19 at data, and they do it voluntarily. And it 

 20 works very well, as it has for the last thirty 

 21 years, when AAR had it. 

 22 And it will continue to work well, 

 23 despite the inefficiencies of the current 

 24 process. And if we could get by the inefficiency 

 25 of the current process, we could do it better, 
 144 

 1 more efficiently and more timely. 

 2 MR. DePAEPE: I stand corrected. I 

 3 appreciate the response, Bill. It's just in my 

 4 personal experience out in the field, I've found 

 5 that provided to leave wanting for better 

 6 accuracy. But I stand corrected by AAR, and God 

 7 bless them. 

 8 MR. BROWDER: To stand on what Tim's 

 9 saying, it is very fortunate in the United States 

 10 that a lot of his people from the BRS are now 

 11 responsible for light-rail and transit facilities 

 12 that are under construction or expansion in the 

 13 United States, because in my view, this should 

 14 not be an FRA endeavor. It should be DOT. 

 15 And I understand and I've heard Ron 

 16 say it and other people say that this should be a 

 17 one-inventory system for all of the highway-rail 

 18 grade crossings. And as a matter of fact, Tom 

 19 Wall and I work very closely with APTO to develop 

 20 their standards and practices for grade 

 21 crossings. 

 22 And quite frankly, the encouraging 

 23 thing is that the signal maintainers and 

 24 supervisors are the people that have ensured that 

 25 a lot of these light-rail and rail-transit 
 145 

 1 crossings that are concentric to the ones that 

 2 the Class I's have, have gotten into the system 

 3 that FRA maintains for the DOT. So this system 

 4 basically works. Could it be more efficient? 

 5 The answer is yes. 

 6 MR. SHREWSBERRY: Bill Shrewsberry, State 

 7 of Louisiana DOT. 

 8 I like this idea. Louisiana works 

 9 very hard to upgrade its state internal database 

 10 with regard to public crossings. You know, there 

 11 are some things that are cross-referenced to the 

 12 old grade crossing information form that was done 

 13 over ten years ago for individual information as 

 14 far as circuitry and other stuff. 

 15 If this could be made available, now 

 16 we have old data to call the railroads and talk 

 17 to us to try to enter it into our database. But, 

 18 you know, our computer people would have to talk 

 19 with y'all to be sure it is. 

 20 But we work real hard. Some of the 

 21 railroads don't have the staff to update this, 

 22 but we work hard to oversee the public program 

 23 for our limited funds. 

 24 I think it is being done, but because 

 25 of the problems with FRA and the communication 
 146 

 1 effort, we do not report to the FRA. We keep it 

 2 internally and evaluate that, you know, when 

 3 changes are made. And that's got to be resolved 

 4 between our attorneys and what they tell us 

 5 today. Thank you. 

 6 MS. CARROLL: Thank you. In the back? 

 7 MR. ZELLER: I was going to ask what the 

 8 "secure" means. 

 9 MS. CARROLL: In this day and age of high 

 10 tech, there are multiple ways that you could 

 11 provide secure Web sites with multiple levels of 

 12 log-ins, depending on what you want to give 

 13 people access to. So one scenario would be 

 14 similar to your logging in to get your e-mail, 

 15 that if you are a state and you wanted to input 

 16 for state data, that you log in with a secure 

 17 password. And that allows you to change your 

 18 data, but it doesn't allow you to change any 

 19 railroad data. 

 20 MR. ZELLER: My question was on the lines 

 21 of public records and public information and 

 22 public information, knowing that some of this 

 23 information would not be available to the public. 

 24 MR. COTHEN: Let me address that. 

 25 Currently national inventory information clearly 
 147 

 1 is available online in full detail to anyone who 

 2 wants it. And the Department of Transportation, 

 3 U.S. Department of Transportation, does not 

 4 consider any of that information to be security- 

 5 sensitive information. 

 6 The individual states have their own 

 7 issues and policies, depending upon their own 

 8 state law, liability incurred and so forth, and 

 9 under current circumstances we have no way to 

 10 break through that. In fact I think what we're 

 11 interested in maintaining for national purposes, 

 12 which is a slightly different focus than the 

 13 state DOT, which IS allocating resources in 

 14 realtime, what we're looking at trying to do is 

 15 to have a database program that is suitable for 

 16 safety analysis. 

 17 It's suitable for safety analysis and 

 18 it may be a basis for building tools that can be 

 19 used in defining risk. Risk is the probability 

 20 of a mishap times the length and severity of the 

 21 mishap. 

 22 And we're not exactly where we need to 

 23 be across the nation in that regard, with regard 

 24 to our investment policies, but we're not far 

 25 off, because almost everybody is looking at the 
 148 

 1 likely frequency of events and through the use of 

 2 diagnostic teams and other risk-ranking factors. 

 3 The Federal Railroad Administration 

 4 over the past few years has issued regulations on 

 5 alerting lights, probably attributable to about 

 6 ten-percent reduction in the collision rate out 

 7 there from the mid-'90s forward. 

 8 Recently there have been requirements 

 9 for locomotive reflectorization, freight-car 

 10 reflectorization, which has sort of taken hold 

 11 for freight or whatever. It may be a bust or it 

 12 may be a boom. We'll see. But certainly, before 

 13 it's over, it will be 1.6 million units in North 

 14 American rolling stock. 

 15 And we have issued a (inaudible) rule 

 16 which is affecting hundreds of communities across 

 17 the community. In each of those efforts, we used 

 18 all the safety data we could find that seemed to 

 19 be relevant, certainly including the inventory 

 20 data, as a basis for understanding what the 

 21 exposure was. 

 22 We can't go much farther. We can go 

 23 farther, but there's a limit to how far we can go 

 24 in safety analysis on a national basis in order 

 25 to build public policy and provide tools to all 
 149 

 1 of those folks who actually need to make things 

 2 happen without having adequate data, particularly 

 3 in the private-crossing areas we're discussing 

 4 today, being able to associate that with 

 5 collision risk and likely severity of those 

 6 collisions. 

 7 You know, we've talked earlier during 

 8 the day about solutions that might be available, 

 9 but all those solutions cost money, and may cost 

 10 money because it's necessary to resolve disputes 

 11 among folks who have an interest in crossings 

 12 that could be in the category of excess 

 13 crossings, depending upon the ability to 

 14 consolidate money associated with doing 

 15 engineering improvements. 

 16 We've spent on the board of $4 billion 

 17 since the 1976 Act. If you upgraded that based 

 18 on inflation, it still would be more than about 

 19 probably ten, something like that. 

 20 And then to talk about spending $15 

 21 billion on private crossings again, one tenth of 

 22 the problem worked off, actually more like one 

 23 fiftieth going back to 1976, something that's 

 24 going to be hard to swallow for the public fisc 

 25 at the national level, just as it be would be to 
 150 

 1 say the level for railroad grades to make 

 2 contributions to it or individual property owners 

 3 were asked to make contributions to it. 

 4 But why? We need to figure out where 

 5 the biggest problems are. The only way to do 

 6 that is to get the data to conduct analysis that 

 7 doesn't disintegrate as not being statistically 

 8 significant the first time somebody touches it. 

 9 And believe me, we have been in those 

 10 disputes. It doesn't matter how much reason you 

 11 use or how much common sense you use. People 

 12 want statistical cases that are really nice and 

 13 firm, and even then they're going to argue with 

 14 you. So objectively, just having a good data, 

 15 data of adequate quality to include reasonable 

 16 currency, because things change out in the world. 

 17 And if we can't get it all at once, we might just 

 18 get enough of it early enough to make a 

 19 difference in people's lives without breaking the 

 20 bank. Yes, sir? 

 21 MR. SUAREZ: Mark Suarez, with Louisiana 

 22 DOT. 

 23 The point I needed to make, when you 

 24 say secure Web site, what is it secure from? 

 25 MR. COTHEN: Thank you for raising that 
 151 

 1 point. It's an ambiguous term. You can have a 

 2 secure Web site that is secure insofar as it 

 3 authenticates the user who's inputting data -- 

 4 that's the reference that Anya was making -- so 

 5 that we know that it's Louisiana DOT or New 

 6 Orleans and Gulf Coast Railroad or whoever it is 

 7 who's entering the data in those respective 

 8 fields, so the data is sourced. And I think 

 9 that's what Anya was talking about. 

 10 The second aspect of the problem at 

 11 issue is access to the data. And we don't -- as 

 12 I said, from our point of view we're looking to 

 13 get data that we can work with it every day and 

 14 have credibility in terms of the work that we've 

 15 done with it for National. 

 16 And I understand that that creates an 

 17 issue for some states, and one would hope it 

 18 wouldn't, because there's -- obviously there's a 

 19 provision of federal law that's supposed to 

 20 protect against misuse of data gathered in 

 21 support of a Section 130 resource allocation. 

 22 Why that isn't effective is difficult 

 23 for me to say, but if -- you know, if we're going 

 24 to get at the remainder of the highway-rail 

 25 crossing safety problem in our generation, we're 
 152 

 1 going to need good data out. We're going to need 

 2 enough of it for it to be meaningful, and we're 

 3 going to have to understand a great deal about 

 4 the richness of diversity within the data. Not 

 5 every community is alike. 

 6 So there are things that we need to do 

 7 from the federal level to make it more possible 

 8 for state agencies or others to provide current 

 9 data in sufficient detail. That could be 

 10 certainly a subject of discussion here. Thank 

 11 you for bringing us back to that. 

 12 MR. SUAREZ: The next point I wanted to 

 13 make, Louisiana's legal jurisprudence, as I 

 14 understand it, the term for this matter, our 

 15 attorney general's office wants very much to meet 

 16 with the FRA legal group to determine ways to 

 17 protect that data, and we would provide it if it 

 18 was protected from legal discovery. 

 19 If it's on a Web site that anybody can 

 20 access, that means lawyers are going to sue us to 

 21 access that data and use it against us, even 

 22 though it's supposed to be protected. The 

 23 attorney general's office pretty much has told us 

 24 not to deliver the data that are not protected. 

 25 FHWA -- Mary -- she's not here -- 
 153 

 1 verbally told me over and over again she concurs 

 2 with the attorney general's office on that 

 3 matter, because of the, I guess, more lawyers per 

 4 capita than any other place. And so we're on the 

 5 cusp of completely getting it stopped or not 

 6 being able to stop it. 

 7 And that, you know, as the gentleman 

 8 said earlier, a lot of local judges have local 

 9 constituencies and local flavors of the local 

 10 lawyers, and they're going to rule in favor of 

 11 those people for the state over the federal 

 12 government if they get a chance to do it in some 

 13 cases. 

 14 But data has to be secured or somehow 

 15 protected to where it can only be used for 

 16 engineering reevaluation, not be used for legal 

 17 discovery. I mean, that's what it supposedly 

 18 says, but it's not quite the case. 

 19 MR. COTHEN: Let me ask Mark Tessler for 

 20 his recommendation. He's a lawyer and he sits in 

 21 on those discussions, and I'm sure he'd welcome 

 22 the opportunity to do so. 

 23 MR. TESSLER: I'll speak to you. I'll be 

 24 happy to meet with you folks. 

 25 MR. COTHEN: I have a follow-up-question: 
 154 

 1 What success are Louisiana lawyers having at 

 2 getting at the data currently? 

 3 MR. SUAREZ: Well, because it's not on the 

 4 FRA database, they're not getting it. If it's on 

 5 the FRA database, as it currently stands anybody 

 6 can get to it, so it will be readily available 

 7 for them. 

 8 And I guess I'm not saying they 

 9 wouldn't use the data exactly verbatim, but they 

 10 could pull together enough data to come up with 

 11 some kind of semblance of "You're negligent" or 

 12 "You're this" or "You're that" because of the 

 13 preponderance of data that's out there. 

 14 They can find that data and use that 

 15 data to develop their plan of attack to have an 

 16 overall summary on how they would go after 

 17 something. So absence of data means they got to 

 18 figure it out on their own, and that's tough to 

 19 do. 

 20 Now, if you have the data in front of 

 21 you, you can twist data around and you can come 

 22 up with some kind of preponderance that, okay. 

 23 DOT and FHWA decided to work on this crossing. 

 24 Why don't you work on these other fourteen 

 25 crossings? Or why do you pick this one instead 
 155 

 1 of that one? Those kind of things. 

 2 I mean, that's supposed to be 

 3 protected; right? But if they can get their 

 4 access to it and somehow try to come up with some 

 5 kind of negligence, local orders are going to 

 6 rule. If you're going to have to go to federal 

 7 court, you're going to have to go to the Supreme 

 8 Court and things like that to get it overturned. 

 9 So -- 

 10 MR. COTHEN: So the compulsory process 

 11 thus far has not been successful in requiring you 

 12 to turn over your database to the lawyers? 

 13 MR. SUAREZ: No. They can't do it. 

 14 That's how we've prevented it. But it's in the 

 15 FRA database, which is currently available on the 

 16 Web. It's there for them to use. I'm speaking 

 17 to this matter, and I really think that I'm 

 18 trying to explain something I have no expert 

 19 ability to do so. I prefer the lawyers discuss 

 20 this in great detail, and they can discuss it at 

 21 a level of intelligence that we can't discuss 

 22 here, because I just don't have that background 

 23 and ability. 

 24 But I've heard them say over and over 

 25 and over again that they want to talk to the FRA 
 156 

 1 before they give them the data and they want 

 2 guarantees that the data won't be made available. 

 3 MR. COTHEN: Right. And you know, we're 

 4 currently not in a position to give those kind of 

 5 guarantees. 

 6 MR. SUAREZ: Right. So it would take 

 7 changes in the law. 

 8 MR. COTHEN: One of the issues that we 

 9 noticed for comment here was that we do need 

 10 legislation related to the private-crossing 

 11 issue, and we made legislation related to a 

 12 variety of things. It might affect public 

 13 crossings as well. And I don't know where that 

 14 takes us, but it's certainly worthy of 

 15 discussion, and there are a variety of ways to do 

 16 that. 

 17 So just setting that issue aside for 

 18 now, Mark, if you don't want to pursue it more 

 19 here, we'll, I guess, pick up with Anya's 

 20 (inaudible). 

 21 MS. CARROLL: Okay. Bill, did you have 

 22 another comment to make? 

 23 MR. SHREWSBERRY: No. 

 24 MS. CARROLL: Okay. Well, that was 

 25 thinking out of the box. We got lots of 
 157 

 1 interesting issues that came out of that what-if 

 2 caution. 

 3 Let's go to the next one: What if the 

 4 state supplied information blocks 21 through 25 

 5 on the US DOT crossing inventory forms that 

 6 Miriam showed earlier were used in conjunction 

 7 with a geographical information system platform 

 8 to locate and map private crossings? 

 9 This was mentioned, I think, by Tim 

 10 DePaepe as far as the railroads' capability to 

 11 collect this data for their own use. Does 

 12 anybody have any thoughts on this particular 

 13 scenario? Mr. Shrewsberry? 

 14 MR. SHREWSBERRY: Bill Shrewsberry, for 

 15 Louisiana DOT. 

 16 When this was first brought up a while 

 17 back, my concern as a state agency was, although 

 18 we have gone out there and done some checks for 

 19 GIS for public crossings, at private crossings 

 20 could we be considered trespassers if we're going 

 21 out there and doing a field survey? 

 22 And some of these crossing are only 

 23 accessible by the railroad and other things, so I 

 24 don't necessarily think the state should be doing 

 25 that if they want to go this way. I also think 
 158 

 1 it needs to be protected information. Thank you. 

 2 MS. CARROLL: So your point is that it's 

 3 probably the railroad operator who has access to 

 4 the crossing should be the responsible party to 

 5 collect this data and use it in their platform? 

 6 MR. SHREWSBERRY: I don't think -- again, 

 7 I don't think the states can just go out there on 

 8 the railroad property or private crossings and 

 9 get that data in an easy manner. 

 10 MS. CARROLL: Can I ask a clarifying 

 11 question before we have another one? Does the 

 12 state of Louisiana have a GIS platform base for 

 13 their road network or their rail network or 

 14 their -- 

 15 MR. SHREWSBERRY: We do in theory, so -- 

 16 however accurate it is, just like some of the 

 17 platforms of the FRA are different levels of 

 18 accuracy. But -- I'm not the GIS expert, but I 

 19 know we do have different areas that we're 

 20 working with, and our computer people work with 

 21 the FRA for the inventory database. 

 22 MR. SUAREZ: Right. Mark Suarez. 

 23 They use the ESRI platform for GIS, 

 24 and we do have our state road network in there to 

 25 a certain degree of accuracy. We have very poor 
 159 

 1 representation of the city streets and parish 

 2 roads, and our primary focus is on funding of 

 3 doing projects on the state system. So the other 

 4 system is very much not a part of the mainstream 

 5 GIS solution, because we have no jurisdiction 

 6 over those city streets or parish roads. So -- 

 7 MS. CARROLL: But DOTD does have the 

 8 capability. They are -- they do have the GIS, 

 9 however accurate and whatever characteristics it 

 10 has. 

 11 MR. SUAREZ: It has an arc map or ESRI arc 

 12 map. 

 13 MS. CARROLL: ESRI? 

 14 MR. SUAREZ: Yes. 

 15 MS. CARROLL: Yes? 

 16 MS. MEYER: Mary Beth Meyer, Christovich & 

 17 Kearney law firm, representing NOGC. 

 18 My comment really is, we have an 

 19 inventory, we have the data; but to communicate 

 20 that would be very expensive. I mean, for us to 

 21 input it, to draw it out -- I mean, how do we -- 

 22 is there a way to get that information to you 

 23 that, you know, would not require administrative 

 24 time that we don't have to give to that? It's 

 25 expensive to ferret that information out. You 
 160 

 1 know, how would we do that? 

 2 MR. SUAREZ: Technically if you have the 

 3 crossing number and the lat and long for the 

 4 crossing number, it's a matter of -- it's in a 

 5 spreadsheet format. It's a matter of seconds for 

 6 inputting that data into a system if the lats and 

 7 longs are accurate. 

 8 I mean, sometimes you put lat/long in 

 9 a database and in a system, and the lat/long 

 10 might end up in Texas instead of south Louisiana 

 11 because there's an error in the data, a 

 12 typographical error or something. 

 13 MS. MEYER: Talking about, like, Excel 

 14 spreadsheets talking to your Excel spreadsheet, 

 15 or -- 

 16 MR. SUAREZ: Well, no. Do you know what 

 17 the lat/long is, or latitude-longitude 

 18 coordinate? 

 19 MS. MEYER: We have that information. 

 20 MR. SUAREZ: If you have that coordinate 

 21 and it's accurate, you have it tied to the 

 22 crossing number, it can be sucked into the GIS 

 23 database in a matter of seconds and displayed in 

 24 any existing map feature base. 

 25 MS. MEYER: Somebody has to type in, you 
 161 

 1 know -- 

 2 MR. SUAREZ: If you have -- 

 3 MS. MEYER: -- data-entry that 

 4 information, that's part of my point. 

 5 MR. SUAREZ: If you have it on a 

 6 spreadsheet, that's always (inaudible). If you 

 7 don't have it in a -- if you have it in 

 8 individual sheets, somebody would have to capture 

 9 that data in one form, a spreadsheet, and then 

 10 that could be entered, captured, and drawn into 

 11 the database. 

 12 MS. MEYER: Electronically? 

 13 MR. SUAREZ: Correct. 

 14 MS. MEYER: Thank you. 

 15 MR. COTHEN: Let's just take a little 

 16 detour to the sidetrack here, if you don't mind, 

 17 and let Ron Ries address briefly with you some of 

 18 the issues that we're looking at, the 

 19 opportunities that we're looking at with regard 

 20 to the inventory. 

 21 We understand that we have a 

 22 responsibility on behalf of all stakeholders to 

 23 make the process as easy as it can be made. I 

 24 think that part of the difficulty is that we all 

 25 use a different data format sometimes. We define 
 162 

 1 our fields differently. 

 2 There are even multiple ways to 

 3 designate lat and long, apparently. At some 

 4 point the Bureau of Transportation Statistics is 

 5 supposed to resolve a uniform way of doing that, 

 6 if they haven't already. 

 7 We would hope that the federal 

 8 grandees would, over time, accommodate that, but 

 9 we currently do accept in a prescribed format 

 10 electronic downloads of information to update the 

 11 inventory, so it's not a manual process. 

 12 However, compatibility of databases is always a 

 13 big issue. Ron knows more about this, so he can 

 14 bail me out. 

 15 MR. RIES: That's exactly one of the big 

 16 issues that we're dealing with as the states and 

 17 the railroads develop databases for their -- to 

 18 do their job. They each did it independently, 

 19 and as a result, probably no two states' database 

 20 or two railroads' databases are identical. 

 21 And so when you try and put that into 

 22 one big database, you get all sorts of 

 23 compatibility issues. So we have, you know, 

 24 fifty states with different databases. We have 

 25 650 railroads with different databases. 
 163 

 1 And for example, if we code the DOT 

 2 inventory codes crossing services 1 through 9, 

 3 and state codes crossing services, you know, 1 

 4 through 15, and a railroad does it A through E or 

 5 whatever, getting that information to translate 

 6 is a big issue. 

 7 We've had some very serious 

 8 discussions with our safety-data folks about 

 9 looking at really analyzing and putting a 

 10 contract out to look at ways that we can overcome 

 11 these issues. So we're really looking at finding 

 12 a way that we can make it easier for everyone to 

 13 update. 

 14 One of the things that we are doing 

 15 proactively is we're working with one of the 

 16 Class I railroads on XML format. I'm certainly 

 17 not an IT person or a software person, but 

 18 basically it's a software-driven Web-based system 

 19 that will automatically check for accuracy and 

 20 look for problems in the data development and do 

 21 batch updates through the Internet almost 

 22 realtime from the time it's put in. And we can 

 23 take a look at the information and make sure that 

 24 it fits right. 

 25 Another thing that we are -- a couple 
 164 

 1 of other things that we're doing now, we 

 2 inventoried and established some specific sets of 

 3 business rules for the inputting of data to avoid 

 4 the issue of states providing information in a 

 5 certain data element; the railroad comes in, 

 6 provides information, and that same data element 

 7 wipes out the information. So every data element 

 8 will have pretty much just one party that would 

 9 be -- that we would accept that data from. 

 10 Certainly we would work in conjunction 

 11 with the state; say, you know, "We'll be the 

 12 clearing house. The railroad should give us the 

 13 information, and we'll send it on to FRA." And 

 14 we'll certainly accept that type of information 

 15 as well. Those rules are in place. 

 16 About four years ago we had a series 

 17 of outreach meetings on the inventory and what's 

 18 needed, what would be desired, ways we can make 

 19 it better. And we're very close to putting out 

 20 summaries of that and actually encourage you to 

 21 be checking your e-mails, looking for inventory 

 22 contacts, passing the word on down, because we'll 

 23 have something on there for you to look at in the 

 24 very near future. 

 25 Then the other thing -- this is part 
 165 

 1 of the lat/long, the GIS system -- we also are 

 2 setting up lat/long boundary rules, so if we get 

 3 a lat/long and it's supposed to be in the state 

 4 of Louisiana and it shows up in Texas, we're not 

 5 going to accept that. 

 6 We need to narrow that down to within 

 7 a county, and we're looking at protocols to help 

 8 assure that the information that's in there now, 

 9 the information is submitted (inaudible). 

 10 We're looking at data elements that 

 11 are entered in the (inaudible), and we certainly 

 12 have issues like that. And we do take electronic 

 13 in almost any format you can think of for 

 14 updating inventory from database to Excel sheets. 

 15 We have several products that FRA has developed 

 16 itself for that. 

 17 So we really do -- we hear very loud 

 18 and clear we have issues with making it more 

 19 easier and more productive for putting 

 20 information into the inventory, and we are 

 21 looking at attacking it from several different 

 22 directions right now. 

 23 MR. BROWDER: Any more questions to go? 

 24 While you're waiting for that, may I make one 

 25 other comment? Bill Browder, from the AAR. 
 166 

 1 I notice one group that is noticeably 

 2 absent from today's session, and I really 

 3 wouldn't have thought about them except that 

 4 today's session is on data -- is that there have 

 5 been a number of states who have their own state 

 6 inventory system that have used contractors to 

 7 create and update and maintain these states' 

 8 systems. 

 9 And Anya, you're asking a lot of 

 10 questions that, when I think about it, you ought 

 11 to ask them, too, because they've got a wealth of 

 12 experience. The first one that comes to my mind 

 13 is Ohio. I know that Susan Kirkland and the Ohio 

 14 Rail Development Commission paid big bucks to 

 15 some contractor that I met at a regional meeting, 

 16 and there are others out there. 

 17 And you guys probably know them better 

 18 than I ever would, but there's a resource that 

 19 you ought to go to if you're looking at data 

 20 collection, and get their feedback on what they 

 21 think, not only of your ten questions -- I'll be 

 22 glad to give -- and will tell you what I think of 

 23 the ten questions, but also what they have for 

 24 input to the system itself. 

 25 Are you back up? 
 167 

 1 MS. CARROLL: Getting there. 

 2 MR. BROWDER: That's what they say about 

 3 me sometimes. 

 4 MS. CARROLL: I know there are numerous 

 5 states that have actually worked on automating as 

 6 much as they can and integrating it into more a 

 7 multi-use database. Texas is one. Illinois is 

 8 another state that we could work with on a case- 

 9 study basis, possibly, to determine best 

 10 practices for data collection using their 

 11 contractors. So I think that's a very good 

 12 comment, and we've captured it. 

 13 Sorry. Please excuse the 

 14 technological interruption. The plug was 

 15 unplugged from the wall. 

 16 MR. BROWDER: I feel like I know this dog. 

 17 MS. CARROLL: Shadow's a good girl. What 

 18 can I say? 

 19 MR. BROWDER: I'll bring my dogs. 

 20 MS. CARROLL: I actually was asked at our 

 21 last meeting for an autographed picture. 

 22 MR. RIES: Bob, while we're finishing up, 

 23 just to sort of let you know, we've sent out over 

 24 700 invitations twice or three times for this 

 25 meeting, and all the state inventory contacts and 
 168 

 1 Section 130 folks were all made aware of this. 

 2 So we -- one of the things we will be doing is 

 3 looking at ways we can improve the inventories 

 4 and certainly getting information from the people 

 5 that use it on the state and locals that are out 

 6 there. 

 7 MS. MEYER: I'm just curious about what 

 8 kind of interface you have with the Surface 

 9 Transportation Board about these issues and the 

 10 economic implications of a lot of these 

 11 proposals. Are you talking to the Surface 

 12 Transportation Board about any of these issues? 

 13 MR. COTHEN: FRA briefs STB on issues from 

 14 time to time. We do not have an active dialogue 

 15 with the STB at this point on any crossing issues 

 16 of which I'm aware, and we're certainly happy to 

 17 do so. 

 18 As you know, the STB functions much 

 19 differently than the executive agency, and they 

 20 do their business in a rather more formal way. 

 21 So when we provide briefings, it's a very tightly 

 22 targeted subject matter, relevant and in an 

 23 appropriate format and forum. It's something we 

 24 think we should be doing. And -- 

 25 MR. RIES: Also, I was just going to say 
 169 

 1 we have occasions when we work to provide data. 

 2 One example is when the STB was looking at the 

 3 D&E Powder River Culm Basin. We provided a lot 

 4 of coordination on grade-crossing incidents and 

 5 inventory through that, in that process. So 

 6 there are some times when there is discussion 

 7 with that. 

 8 MS. CARROLL: Mr. Browder? 

 9 MR. BROWDER: Just one brief comment, 

 10 Grady, was -- Bill Browder again, from AAR. 

 11 You've jogged my memory. I'm so 

 12 doggone old that I forget. But during the heat 

 13 of the Conrail/Norfolk Southern/CSX situation, it 

 14 came to AAR's attention, and we actually made 

 15 this recommendation as part of a policy to 

 16 Administrator Molatores, that they consider a 

 17 formal relationship with STB in consideration of 

 18 abandonments and changes whereby it would be a 

 19 requirement that crossings involved in those 

 20 processes be provided for use in relation to the 

 21 US DOT inventory. 

 22 I don't think it ever was pursued. I 

 23 could be wrong. But the idea would be -- and it 

 24 came from the fact that one of your staff, Ron, 

 25 told me that he had 6200 crossings in 
 170 

 1 Pennsylvania that were not resolved as far as 

 2 status was concerned, and that obviously it had 

 3 come about through holes in the crack between the 

 4 Conrail to CSX and NS situation. 

 5 And one way to overcome that issue 

 6 would be an application to the STB that it 

 7 require that such be included, as it does now, 

 8 that the administrator included -- and this was 

 9 another one of our suggestions -- that the train 

 10 traffic sign that's been incorporated into the 

 11 FRA practice for changes that come about as a 

 12 result of change in ownership, that that's 

 13 something that you might want to consider and 

 14 would provide an excellent resource in data. 

 15 That's it. Sorry for reminding. 

 16 MR. COTHEN: That's good. 

 17 MS. CARROLL: We talked a little bit about 

 18 this. What if states were required to collect 

 19 the data on private crossings? And we touched on 

 20 this a little bit. Mr. Shrewsberry? 

 21 MR. SHREWSBERRY: Bill Shrewsberry, 

 22 Louisiana DOTD. Not a good idea. 

 23 MS. CARROLL: Bill, I think you were out 

 24 of the room when Bill made this comment a few 

 25 minutes earlier. And you had referred to a 
 171 

 1 statement or a premise before that you think that 

 2 it's the railroads that provide pretty much all 

 3 of the private-crossing data to the FRA. 

 4 MR. BROWDER: Miriam first made that. I 

 5 just affirmed it. 

 6 MS. CARROLL: Okay. Well, Bill mentioned 

 7 that as he, as a state employee, may be 

 8 considered a trespasser on private property if he 

 9 were going to try and collect data from a grade 

 10 crossing. 

 11 MR. BROWDER: That's an interesting 

 12 perception. I don't know that it would have a 

 13 factual basis, but anything's possible. 

 14 MS. CARROLL: Yes? 

 15 MR. BERTEL: Rick Bertel. As an operator 

 16 of a railroad that's been there 120 years here in 

 17 the state of Louisiana, as late as last week I 

 18 was accused of being a trespasser on my own 

 19 railroad. So, you know, all of this data 

 20 collection is -- I support it, I applaud it. It 

 21 will make neat charts and graphs. I know we need 

 22 data for everything. 

 23 But I'm just trying to figure out is 

 24 in my lifetime, are we going to talk about a 

 25 solution to the private-crossing problem that 
 172 

 1 deals with what we're here to talk about? 

 2 MS. CARROLL: I'll divert that question to 

 3 Grady. 

 4 MR. BERTEL: They're part of inventory. I 

 5 can't keep up with them, because they keep 

 6 putting them in so fast I have no authority from 

 7 anywhere to stop them. 

 8 MR. BROWDER: But you're not going to get 

 9 the funding without data, and the data supports 

 10 funding requests. Analysis of the data requires 

 11 the proof that there's an issue here that has to 

 12 be solved, so you got to have the data to have 

 13 the analysis to have the funding. So it's like a 

 14 circular Catch-22. 

 15 MR. BERTEL: But have we not proved any 

 16 data with the public crossings over the fifteen 

 17 or eighteen years that we've been doing this? 

 18 MS. CARROLL: Oh, we've decreased the 

 19 incident rate by close to fifty percent. We've 

 20 been very successful. 

 21 MR. BERTEL: Is there any relationship 

 22 between a public crossing and a private crossing? 

 23 MR. COTHEN: One of the interesting 

 24 questions is whether or not the models that we 

 25 use to evaluate the likelihood of future events 
 173 

 1 at public crossings, whether they're transferable 

 2 or not. It would be nice to be able to do a good 

 3 study to test the hypothesis that that's the 

 4 case. 

 5 Let me just say one thing. We have 

 6 our colleagues from the city of Laredo back here, 

 7 but I do want to say that we're letting -- we're 

 8 trying to let you all talk. If you want to hear 

 9 us talk, you'd better look at your watch, because 

 10 we do have to be out of here before 5:00, but I 

 11 assure you we won't be out of here a minute 

 12 before 5:00. 

 13 The FRA team, individually and 

 14 collectively, is beginning to acquire some views 

 15 on the subject. Mark Tessler and I were involved 

 16 in the 1994 session on private-crossing 

 17 guidelines which FRA drafted and put on the 

 18 table. It's remarkable the number of themes from 

 19 that document that are similar to the filing by 

 20 the New Orleans and Gulf Coast Railroad. 

 21 And the railroad said, "No. We don't 

 22 want guidelines." And we said, "Well, the 

 23 administration's changing. The administrator's 

 24 interested in private crossings. Seems like it's 

 25 going by the board. We're going to have to come 
 174 

 1 back to this at some point." And here we are. 

 2 And you know, it's our desire at this 

 3 point to put together a package of suggestions to 

 4 the federal railroad administrator, and he'll be 

 5 chairing the last of these meetings in Syracuse, 

 6 hopefully in February, and come out with some 

 7 sort of policy on this issue in consultation with 

 8 our colleagues in the US DOT. 

 9 And then that could send us to a 

 10 legislative proposal, a regulatory proposal, a 

 11 suggestion that this -- we're going to be chasing 

 12 our tails forever, and that there's nowhere to 

 13 go, and therefore over the next decade we're 

 14 going to have to accept on the order of 400 

 15 fatalities. I don't think that's the answer, 

 16 that last one. 

 17 MS. CARROLL: Sir? 

 18 MR. ZELLER: I just wanted to address that 

 19 very thing: Exactly what would it take to 

 20 implement something, to mandate the states to do 

 21 it? Would it take an amendment to the just- 

 22 passed transportation bill, or is it something 

 23 that would be done in the reauthorization that's 

 24 coming up in three or four years? 

 25 Exactly how would that be done? I 
 175 

 1 think we spoke to that issue of the legislative 

 2 process, to actually do that, force the states to 

 3 do it. I don't know that it's necessarily a bad 

 4 idea. They're likely to push it down to the MBO 

 5 anyway. 

 6 MR. COTHEN: And again, we've got two 

 7 subject matters here: One is keeping the 

 8 inventory current and at as high quality as 

 9 possible. And we introduced that issue of 

 10 additional data elements may be useful for both 

 11 public and private crossings. 

 12 That's a bucket of issues right there; 

 13 okay. That bucket of issues, we have previously 

 14 addressed some portion of them that made 

 15 legislative proposals from US DOT that we make 

 16 updating of the inventory periodically a 

 17 mandatory item. 

 18 But that doesn't answer the question 

 19 about the other bucket, and that's the unique set 

 20 of problems associated with private highway-rail 

 21 crossings with which we've done much less work 

 22 over the years, I think we can say collectively 

 23 in the room, everybody perhaps except the 

 24 railroads. And you can see an excellent example 

 25 this morning: a short-line railroad has done 
 176 

 1 extensive work in the area with little 

 2 satisfaction. 

 3 But from the public sector, our 

 4 contributions have been minimal. And the 

 5 question before the house is, Is there more that 

 6 we could do productively, cost effectively, from 

 7 the point of view of having it be a safer place 

 8 out there for the users of those crossings, 

 9 whether it be the railroad or the road user? 

 10 MS. CARROLL: Thank you, Grady. We're 

 11 going to try and move through these questions a 

 12 little bit more quickly. What if the railroads 

 13 were required to collect the data on private 

 14 crossings? Consensus, opinions? The statement 

 15 was made that -- 

 16 MR. MEYER: Gabriel Meyer, Union Pacific. 

 17 I just want to restate what I already 

 18 said earlier: For us to go out and collect data 

 19 on all of the private crossings would be a 

 20 monumental burden, and I would question what, if 

 21 any, benefit is going to come from that. 

 22 MR. BROWDER: And Bill Browder. I would 

 23 question our authority to obtain data on private 

 24 crossings. 

 25 MS. CARROLL: You mean the highway data? 
 177 

 1 MR. BROWDER: Yeah. Highway, any data. I 

 2 mean, you don't clarify the data that you're 

 3 talking about, so I'm not going to clarify the 

 4 data that I'm going to collect. I'll just make 

 5 it all-encompassing, as you have -- 

 6 MS. CARROLL: Okay. 

 7 MR. BROWDER: -- and say it's of -- you 

 8 know, I don't know that we could do it. 

 9 MS. CARROLL: Okay. Any other comments on 

 10 the question? 

 11 Moving right along, what if the 

 12 federal government created a team to collect the 

 13 data? 

 14 MR. HARRIS: We'd all agree with that. 

 15 MS. CARROLL: Your name, sir? 

 16 MR. HARRIS: Randy Harris, CN. I've got 

 17 agreement: The burden on the railroad would 

 18 be -- I mean, look at the job we're doing now. 

 19 To be honest with you, none of our inventories 

 20 coincide with the federal government, let alone 

 21 with the states, the individual states we operate 

 22 in. 

 23 I've recently done some work on our 

 24 inventory from Memphis south down through here, 

 25 and I couldn't believe the discrepancies between 
 178 

 1 our inventory, the GS 32, the FRA's database, and 

 2 the individual states' inventory. If someone -- 

 3 if there was one person that could do it all and 

 4 farm it out to the railroads and the states, it 

 5 would be wonderful. 

 6 MS. CARROLL: Can anybody else comment on 

 7 that? 

 8 MR. BROWDER: It's hard to conceive -- 

 9 MS. CARROLL: Mr. Browder? 

 10 MR. BROWDER: This is Bill Browder. 

 11 It's hard to conceive that a railroad 

 12 person would make that comment in light of the 

 13 fact that we, the railroads, are the ones who 

 14 submitted the data originally to FRA. So where 

 15 is the disconnect? I would maintain it's not 

 16 with the railroads. It's with the process. 

 17 MS. CARROLL: Any other comments? 

 18 MR. MEYER: Gabriel Meyer, Union Pacific. 

 19 Just as an observation, this is 

 20 something that I think we would seriously 

 21 consider if it were offered on the table. The 

 22 one observation I would have about this, and I 

 23 think it's a positive one, is that if you had the 

 24 federal government doing this, there would 

 25 probably be much more uniformity in the data 
 179 

 1 collection. 

 2 And although I don't have firsthand 

 3 knowledge of how one railroad's data collection 

 4 may differ from another's, I think anytime you 

 5 have one central body with its own formal rules 

 6 and procedures for collecting the data, I think 

 7 overall quality of the data gathered will be 

 8 better. It's like apples to apples as opposed to 

 9 apples to oranges. 

 10 MS. CARROLL: Thank you. I think that's a 

 11 very good comment. Anyone else? 

 12 Moving along, what if track geometry 

 13 cars were utilized to automate their data 

 14 collection at private crossings? 

 15 MR. RADDY (phonetic): Paul Raddy, Union 

 16 Pacific. The Union Pacific already has on track 

 17 precision-measurement vehicles that measure 

 18 locations for signals and crossings, and that's 

 19 been in place for years. I don't know how or if 

 20 that information is available. 

 21 MS. CARROLL: Does that include private 

 22 crossings as well as -- 

 23 MR. RADDY: All of the crossings. 

 24 MS. CARROLL: All road crossings. 

 25 MR. BROWDER: Yours gets submitted, 
 180 

 1 though, doesn't it, your grade-crossing 

 2 information from the track geometry cars? 

 3 MR. RADDY: There was a point brought up, 

 4 too: We don't go down our yard tracks, so it 

 5 wouldn't necessarily cover integrity, but it does 

 6 cover many lines at this time. 

 7 MS. CARROLL: And how many miles per year 

 8 do you cover? 

 9 MR. RADDY: I'm not sure what the total 

 10 is. I know the entire system has been covered. 

 11 MS. CARROLL: Okay. Any other railroads 

 12 have a comment? Mr. Browder? 

 13 MR. BROWDER: Automate the data-collection 

 14 system. Basically I think there's some railroads 

 15 that are doing that now and incorporate that into 

 16 providing changes and updates to the inventory 

 17 system. But that's a very limited number of 

 18 fields in the total collection of the data. 

 19 You're not talking about trying to 

 20 collect -- I mean, there's a wealth of other data 

 21 that is included on that inventory form that has 

 22 absolutely no relation to the track geometry 

 23 cars, such as train speeds, number of trains, 

 24 capacity. 

 25 Number of tracks might be able to be 
 181 

 1 collected, but there are a number of other areas, 

 2 and certainly the highway side of the information 

 3 would not be able to be collected by a track 

 4 geometry car. 

 5 MS. CARROLL: Not to say that all the data 

 6 could be collected, but pieces of the data may 

 7 be -- could be automatically collected to feed 

 8 into the entire database. Anybody else? 

 9 MR. RIES: I was just going to point out 

 10 for the benefit of the discussion that Bill is 

 11 certainly right: There is data out there that 

 12 could be captured by track geometry cars. 

 13 There's also some other things that 

 14 with some of the technology that's out there, and 

 15 demonstration of a laser linar (phonetic) system 

 16 that could be mounted on a track geometry car, 

 17 and the resolution to get to the back of it, and 

 18 even how many tracks, measure the width of the 

 19 crossing and all sorts of other. 

 20 So there's some technology out there 

 21 that, you know, probably goes above and beyond 

 22 just lat/long, but certainly they don't capture 

 23 just one particular part of it. I think 

 24 currently in the DOT inventory about eighty 

 25 percent of the records have lat/longs on them. 
 182 

 1 Some of them are actual measures -- I 

 2 think the majority of them are actual measures 

 3 interpolated by other GIS systems, and 

 4 (inaudible) did some work with us on that. 

 5 We also are taking the office policies 

 6 GIS system and doing a match on what they have on 

 7 their system for records of grade crossings and 

 8 matching it to the DOT inventories and finding 

 9 the mismatching and working on resolving that. 

 10 MS. CARROLL: Does anybody else have a 

 11 comment on this one? Okay. 

 12 No. 7: What if in the course of 

 13 responding to a mandate on private-crossing 

 14 agreement the railroad is required to assign a 

 15 crossing ID number and update the US DOT crossing 

 16 inventory? 

 17 MR. BROWDER: Well, who does it now but 

 18 the railroads? 

 19 MS. CARROLL: Well, we -- obviously I 

 20 don't think we know who's supplying it. It's a 

 21 question that I think we need to answer as to 

 22 who's supplying the private-crossing data. You 

 23 seem to indicate and think it's a hundred percent 

 24 of the railroads that's responding. 

 25 MR. BROWDER: Well, again, and Miriam did, 
 183 

 1 too. I think that that's factual, that at least 

 2 the vast lion's share of the information being 

 3 submitted on private crossings and ID numbers -- 

 4 I know that when it was initially done and when 

 5 it's updated, including the track geometry car- 

 6 type things, that the submissions come from the 

 7 railroads on private crossings. 

 8 MS. CARROLL: Okay. Anybody else? 

 9 MR. DRAKE: Tom Drake, FRA. 

 10 Anya, I think I understand what you've 

 11 got here on No. 7. Are you saying that -- are 

 12 you suggesting that the government mandates a 

 13 uniform private-crossing-agreement scheme? Okay. 

 14 I think that would be a good idea, 

 15 because we don't have it right now, and here in 

 16 Louisiana we've heard the problems this morning. 

 17 I've not seen that problem in Region 3. Maybe 

 18 we're fortunate. 

 19 How about, as well as being required 

 20 to assign a crossing ID number and update the 

 21 crossing inventory, what about the civilian party 

 22 to the agreement? In other words, the user makes 

 23 this part of their consideration for getting the 

 24 agreement, let them absorb the burden. They want 

 25 the agreement, they want the crossing. 
 184 

 1 The crossing, as stated earlier, is of 

 2 no benefit to the railroad. It is to the user. 

 3 And this would be a small price to pay with a 

 4 tax, if you wish, a safety tax. But it could be 

 5 applied evenly at probably a fairly low cost. 

 6 Here I am being generous with the 

 7 taxpayers' money, but we do that sometimes. But 

 8 I think that would be a good idea. 

 9 MS. CARROLL: So you would include the 

 10 private property owner as supplying basically the 

 11 roadway data to supplement the railway data? 

 12 MR. DRAKE: Let them participate. 

 13 MS. CARROLL: Yes, sir? 

 14 MR. WHITEMORE: Shane Whitemore, CSX 

 15 Transportation. 

 16 As part of this process, if you're 

 17 suggesting that as somebody comes to the railroad 

 18 and if you mandated an agreement process, you 

 19 know, and you have categories of crossings that 

 20 they have to fall into a certain briefing that 

 21 they have to have a primary agreement with the 

 22 railroad, then the application process could 

 23 include the data elements that you desire. 

 24 It shouldn't -- you know, you just 

 25 send out the application to them and then work 
 185 

 1 through the issues, and they have to fill that 

 2 data in prior to (inaudible). But there is going 

 3 to be a burden on the railroad going back and 

 4 forth to validate all those fields are filled in. 

 5 But there is a benefit. 

 6 Now, I'm going to go on and AAR will 

 7 probably beat me up, but there is a benefit to 

 8 the railroads to get these crossings under some 

 9 type of formal arrangement, right, which they 

 10 don't have today. So if there was a mandate that 

 11 said, you know, hypothetically it said you have 

 12 to have some type of arrangement. Either you 

 13 have a deed restriction or you have some other 

 14 kind of requirement that's there. 

 15 We're going to say you have to have an 

 16 arrangement with the railroad, because it's a 

 17 safety issue. We have to know who's using the 

 18 crossing and how it's being used, and here's this 

 19 form with these data elements that we need to be 

 20 filled out, whether it be electronic submissions 

 21 or whatever it is. It could be a benefit to the 

 22 railroad industry, help them both out. 

 23 MS. CARROLL: Mr. Browder? 

 24 MR. BROWDER: Bill Browder, from the AAR. 

 25 I haven't polled the AAR members, but 
 186 

 1 Shane's, I think, on target for our -- what I've 

 2 heard from our members. I have not heard any 

 3 objection to this. 

 4 My question, though, Anya, is, What 

 5 prompts this question to begin with? Is there 

 6 some sort of data-driven basis that you or FRA is 

 7 aware of that there is some egregious shortcoming 

 8 in the inventory in terms of initial reporting or 

 9 maintenance of private-crossing ID numbers? 

 10 MS. CARROLL: Not necessarily the ID 

 11 numbers, but as Miriam's -- one of Miriam's 

 12 graphs showed that 27.9 percent of the incidents 

 13 were at private crossings that have no 

 14 information. They were blank fields. They had a 

 15 crossing ID, but there was no information to 

 16 determine where it fit into type of land use or 

 17 warning-device category and the like. 

 18 MR. BROWDER: Then I submit that your 

 19 problem would not be solved by the assignment of 

 20 an ID number to private crossings, because if I 

 21 understand you correctly, that's currently being 

 22 done by the railroads or somebody in terms of its 

 23 status. So what's the point of the question? 

 24 MR. COTHEN: No. I think, Bill, you know, 

 25 we have -- based on the number of records that 
 187 

 1 have been updated since initially submitted, we 

 2 have a pretty strong feeling that there are 

 3 crossings out there that don't exist. It 

 4 wouldn't surprise us if we found many public 

 5 crossings that were supposed to be out there, and 

 6 you go to take a picture, and it's not there. 

 7 The rail's been pulled up. 

 8 And conversely, there's some surprise 

 9 crossings out there. You know, Mr. Bertel's 

 10 going to go back home this evening, and he may 

 11 see one he didn't know was there when he left 

 12 this morning. And you can hardly blame him that 

 13 that's not in the inventory. 

 14 From time to time we do need to 

 15 refresh the inventory and know that we have a 

 16 current record on it, because otherwise what you 

 17 end up doing is you end up dividing by larger and 

 18 smaller numbers for any particular routine, 

 19 statistical routine you do than you should have, 

 20 and getting results that are very likely 

 21 misleading. 

 22 So we think we -- you know, we're 

 23 pretty sure we might need some additional data 

 24 elements. And if we need some additional data 

 25 elements, it's not going to be any easier to keep 
 188 

 1 the voluntary system. 

 2 Maybe we do need more partners doing 

 3 this so that we have those who control movements 

 4 over the private crossing kicking in some 

 5 additional information. Maybe we need to have an 

 6 ability for a railroad surveyor in an obvious 

 7 case where there's a problem to go out and take a 

 8 look at the geometry of the crossing the same way 

 9 Rick Campbell was talking about earlier, to 

 10 determine whether or not that combine can 

 11 possibly stop and get over that crossing, because 

 12 it may be the railroad, and it may be that the 

 13 railroad's train encounters that combine on that 

 14 crossing to the detriment of both. 

 15 So we're looking for currency of data, 

 16 but also real live partnerships out there that 

 17 permit us to all manage the safety case in 

 18 realtime as much as possible. 

 19 MR. BROWDER: Grady, in light of your 

 20 comments and in light of Anya bringing up about 

 21 track geometry for us, AAR would like to throw 

 22 back to the FRA a suggestion that we had put 

 23 forward several times before: That since 

 24 operating-practices inspections normally make 

 25 inspections in company with railroad-track 
 189 

 1 personnel online and over grade crossings, that 

 2 they might monitor and provide input information 

 3 for the inventory. Just a suggestion. 

 4 MR. COTHEN: Is this suggestion part of 

 5 track inspectors or ordinary practices? 

 6 MR. BROWDER: Well, either one or both. 

 7 On occasions where they are in a situation where 

 8 they are involved with highway-rail grade 

 9 crossings, why not ask them to be the additional 

 10 eyes and ears to the railroad people in looking 

 11 at and seeing if we have done our job correctly, 

 12 and if not, bring it -- either bring it to our 

 13 attention rather than mandating a regulation or 

 14 ensuring that it gets included in the inventory. 

 15 It's a rhetorical question. You don't have to 

 16 answer it. 

 17 MR. COTHEN: Well, actually it's not a 

 18 rhetorical question. Actually it's a -- and we 

 19 keep finding or trying to find ways of those who 

 20 are invested in the FRA part of the grade- 

 21 crossing program in leveraging our resources. 

 22 And if we can get a GIS in place that 

 23 gives us a good trail of what we have out there 

 24 so that we can put it in the hands of FRA 

 25 personnel who are on the property, readily usable 
 190 

 1 material for checking the data on file -- 

 2 MR. TESSLER: Excuse me, Grady. Somebody 

 3 -- there is an undercurrent of noise. The court 

 4 reporter's having difficulty hearing. If we 

 5 could have one person speak at a time. Thank 

 6 you. 

 7 MR. COTHEN: Thank you, Mark. 

 8 There's a possibility of doing 

 9 something on that order. I would point out, 

 10 however, that we are out there on an average of 

 11 about once a year, and your track inspectors are 

 12 there twice a week on the main lines. 

 13 MS. CARROLL: Tim DePaepe? 

 14 MR. DePAEPE: Tim DePaepe, Brotherhood of 

 15 Railroad Signalmen. 

 16 That was my point earlier about 

 17 prioritization. It was not a slap at the 

 18 railroads or the short lines or anyone else that 

 19 they're not doing this, but it's like any data 

 20 collection that we've tried to get collectively 

 21 through labor and management or through the FRA: 

 22 Possessors of the data are the railroads 

 23 themselves. 

 24 And I was going to make up the point 

 25 earlier that we had this gentleman, a COO, who 
 191 

 1 said his numbers changed on a daily basis, and 

 2 he's there -- I mean, his people are there. And 

 3 every time they do their inspection, they're not 

 4 surprised to find a new one. 

 5 Well, a lot of that may be just 

 6 indigenous to the short lines, where they maybe 

 7 don't have the personnel that the Class I's have. 

 8 But the railroads possess the ability to collect 

 9 this data. I'm all for trying any other ways to 

 10 get that data, but if there's not a commitment by 

 11 the railroads -- 

 12 And as Bill has said, there has been a 

 13 commitment. They've tried to do a good job. As 

 14 the other gentleman back here just said, he was 

 15 surprised at the differences between his data 

 16 that he just got and the data the state got and 

 17 the data the FRA had. So we've got to start with 

 18 the railroads. 

 19 And again, I don't know if it warrants 

 20 regulation, but if you don't put -- you know, I 

 21 worked seventeen years in the field as a signal 

 22 maintainer. I was asked once in seventeen years 

 23 to go get the numbers that the railroad had put 

 24 on every crossing designating what it was, what 

 25 the DOT number was. In seventeen years I was 
 192 

 1 asked to do it once, just on my territory. 

 2 It wasn't a system-wide, it wasn't a 

 3 railroad-wide procedure. And again, that's just 

 4 my bias, my situation. My suggestion would be, 

 5 and I don't care what the time frame is, I would 

 6 throw out: Make it something reasonable. Ten 

 7 years, twenty years, I don't care. It's better 

 8 than no year that we have now. 

 9 We've got to put some restriction, 

 10 because then people will make it a priority to 

 11 get it done. Because on the railroads, there's 

 12 always something else more to do. As someone who 

 13 worked in a craft that did a lot of things 

 14 required by regulations, the priority is, if it's 

 15 a monthly task, if it's a quarterly task, a 

 16 semiannual or annual or five years, a ten-year 

 17 task, you did the tasks that were due first, and 

 18 everything else waited. 

 19 So if you had -- and the ones that had 

 20 no timeline, if you can get all this done, you 

 21 can go that get list for us, Tim, and that list 

 22 probably never got done. 

 23 And that's the only way you're going 

 24 to get at that data. And saying and even 

 25 suggesting that the government do it, you've got 
 193 

 1 what, 800 fellow people in the FRA? You've got a 

 2 small handful of actual inspectors that go and do 

 3 anything when it comes to the nuts and bolts of 

 4 the track in maintenance and engineering. 

 5 Unless you know about a whole boatload 

 6 of money that's coming in to FRA that I'm not 

 7 aware of, I don't see you getting this done that 

 8 way. 

 9 MS. CARROLL: Thank you, Tim. Mr. Suarez? 

 10 MR. SUAREZ: I'm Mark Suarez, from 

 11 Louisiana DOT. 

 12 You know, thinking out of the box is 

 13 something I like to do, but I have to ask a 

 14 question: How much of this cargo we're hauling 

 15 that's dangerous, has all these issues for 

 16 Homeland Security Richard talked about earlier in 

 17 the day, the stuff that he's hauling up from the 

 18 coast, and all these private crossings showing up 

 19 that he has no way to combat? 

 20 To me, it would seem like a serious 

 21 safety risk for the government and the FRA to 

 22 deal with, to address, because one derailment 

 23 wipes out a town or whatever because he doesn't 

 24 even know the crossing existed, and they hit it, 

 25 and it derails a train. 
 194 

 1 Is there a possibility -- and maybe 

 2 it's a question you'll have later on -- 

 3 permitting private crossings through the FRA, and 

 4 the railroad has to be involved also to prevent 

 5 these fly-by-night crossings that come up with 

 6 serious legal ramifications if you do that, 

 7 because, I mean, you're endangering everybody in 

 8 that area with potential derailment of a poison 

 9 car. Okay? 

 10 And I just can't comprehend that 

 11 that's even a possibility that people could do 

 12 that for the simple fact that, you know, those 

 13 kind of things are going to be accidental 

 14 terrorist acts, when you get out there and you 

 15 build a crossing, that they have no jurisdiction, 

 16 authorization, or ability to do. 

 17 And you know, downtown New Orleans, 

 18 downtown wherever, hometown, you know, a little 

 19 bitty old podunk place, you wipe out everybody. 

 20 And it's just -- I'm just thinking out of the 

 21 box: Why wouldn't we permit those crossings? 

 22 Why wouldn't we have FRA permit for 

 23 private crossings to mandate that everything's 

 24 done exactly right and in accordance to any 

 25 standards that we might come up with? Is that 
 195 

 1 something that has been brought up, or a 

 2 possibility? 

 3 MR. COTHEN: Okay. We have not used the 

 4 word "permitting," to my knowledge, in any of the 

 5 questions that we've raised for this proceeding, 

 6 but implicit in the discussion that we have had 

 7 about responsibilities and about whether or not 

 8 there's a warrant for any crossing to be out 

 9 there to start with is the notion of putting a 

 10 -- should there be some kind of threshold showing 

 11 in this case, not of public need but of 

 12 sufficient private need and that is not in 

 13 concert with the public interest, so that the 

 14 crossing could be maintained? And that all goes 

 15 to under what conditions? And that goes to what 

 16 kind of traffic; right? And what are the 

 17 characteristics of the rail traffic involved? 

 18 And so it's a complex set of issues, 

 19 and I don't think we want to find ourselves as a 

 20 federal government with 95,000, or however many 

 21 it turns out to actually be, permits showing up 

 22 in our mail system, particularly since all our 

 23 mail gets irradiated in Ohio, and it's virtually 

 24 unreadable when it's received. 

 25 But I do think that one of the 
 196 

 1 questions, Mark, that we're raising in this 

 2 proceeding is, Do we need a process with 

 3 criteria? If we do, what kind of process should 

 4 it be? How might it be executed? If there are 

 5 conflicts that arise associated with it, how 

 6 might those be resolved? 

 7 It might be you could be involved in 

 8 administration of the process you know, first of 

 9 all, who has a stake in that process? If you 

 10 have a semipublic crossing, do the local -- state 

 11 and local authorities have an interest in the 

 12 process? All of those things we've got to 

 13 wrestle until we get them in hand. Yes, sir? 

 14 MR. SUAREZ: And I guess, again, I guess 

 15 the point I'm trying to make is that Mr. Richard 

 16 has already indicated that the local authorities 

 17 have no vested interest in the railroad. They 

 18 have a vested interest in their local political 

 19 body, political people, the votes they're going 

 20 to get. 

 21 So it has to come from a federal- 

 22 mandated, federal-jurisdictional-type thing to 

 23 solve the problems that we're going to face. 

 24 There's no state issues that that we can get 

 25 ourselves involved in that would allow us to 
 197 

 1 solve this problem. 

 2 I mean, we had that state law, the 

 3 closure law, and it came about because of some 

 4 serious accidents that occurred back to back to 

 5 back. And, you know, that still put us in a 

 6 position where we can be overturned by local 

 7 governmental jurisdictional-legal-type mechanisms 

 8 or courts of law. 

 9 And federal cases are much harder to 

 10 defeat than federal jurisprudence. The federal 

 11 law, federal courts, in my opinion, would seem to 

 12 have more weight. For instance, let's just give 

 13 you an example. We'll do a rough -- we'll -- we 

 14 have a lot of Operation Lifesaver stuff, very -- 

 15 Betsey's operation. I'll call it one of the 

 16 superior Operation Lifesaver groups in the 

 17 country. 

 18 They do a lot of cops on the train, 

 19 and they ride out and give a bunch of tickets, 

 20 you know, go into local courts, and the local 

 21 judge will throw every ticket out. They'll write 

 22 a hundred tickets and they'll all be thrown out, 

 23 because "Y'all just targeted all these people, 

 24 and that's just not fair to penalize my local 

 25 people." 
 198 

 1 Now, and that's the kind of stuff 

 2 that's going to go on and continue to go on. 

 3 That's what Richard's up against. And I would 

 4 encourage you to focus on more the federal 

 5 mandate, federal law, federal jurisdictional-type 

 6 things to prevent those types of things from 

 7 happening. 

 8 MS. CARROLL: Thank you, Mark. Moving on 

 9 to -- yes? 

 10 MR. SAUNDERS: I'm sitting here -- 

 11 MS. CARROLL: Will you state your name, 

 12 please? 

 13 MR. SAUNDERS: I'm Ben Saunders, for the 

 14 American Trial Lawyers. 

 15 I'm sitting here more as an observer 

 16 today. Do you realize, folks, that there is no 

 17 problem legally with his company, with the AAR, 

 18 with CSX, with UP if the problem is solved? 

 19 There's a solution to the problem. 

 20 The solution, in my humble opinion, 

 21 listening to all of this talk today, is not data 

 22 collection. It's not, sir, Mr. Suarez using his 

 23 shield to block yourself legally, which you're 

 24 obsessed with. 

 25 The problem is to solve the problem 
 199 

 1 from an engineering standpoint. Okay. I heard 

 2 somebody earlier today say one of the solutions 

 3 is closing private crossings. That's a solution. 

 4 Why? Because the train can't interact with the 

 5 car. 

 6 I heard another person say 

 7 consolidating private crossings makes less 

 8 crossings, therefore less accidents, less 

 9 communities vulnerable. You just described a 

 10 situation, three tragic accidents in Louisiana in 

 11 a row, which led to some legislation. 

 12 Legislation is good if it eliminates litigation, 

 13 but it doesn't solve the problem, does it? 

 14 What solves the problem? Not lawyers, 

 15 not bureaucrats, not presidents of companies. 

 16 Engineering. Not studying the data and writing 

 17 books. Engineering, mechanical engineering. 

 18 Have gates you don't drive around. 

 19 That's an engineering solution. Have trestled 

 20 crossings in the rural country, especially with 

 21 an industry that's producing chemicals. Then you 

 22 can't have a town wiped out by a train hitting a 

 23 car. 

 24 My engineers don't want to get killed. 

 25 They don't want to kill anybody. They don't to 
 200 

 1 be involved in that. But they want to serve out 

 2 thirty-five years with the railroad because 

 3 they're vulnerable, too. So the answer is an 

 4 engineering solution to the problem, not talking 

 5 about it. 

 6 Once again, I've never met Mr. Bertel 

 7 in my life. He's right. He said, "I support you 

 8 collecting all this data, but I want to solve the 

 9 problem. I want to drive down the river and I 

 10 don't want to the see all this stuff." He wants 

 11 the problem rectified, and it can only be 

 12 rectified from an engineering standpoint. 

 13 And if I misspoke, I apologize, but I 

 14 think that the NTSB years ago had said, "You need 

 15 positive train separation." It's the last time 

 16 I'll say it today, but I've sat here diligently 

 17 and listened to everybody talk about questions 1 

 18 through 7 about acquiring more data to make 

 19 another study, to get more information to the 

 20 federal government. We'll go to the FRA 

 21 regulator, we'll maybe go to Congress, we'll 

 22 maybe go to the president, and then we'll hear 

 23 the results of that on the NBC Nightly News. 

 24 Is the problem solved? No. When CSX 

 25 runs from Jacksonville to New Orleans and then 
 201 

 1 through the rural part of Mississippi, is their 

 2 problem solved? Is the pedestrian's problem 

 3 solved? No. The problem's solution is 

 4 engineering, in my humble opinion. 

 5 And I apologize if I've misspoken, if 

 6 I've stepped out of my field. 

 7 MR. SUAREZ: Mark Suarez again, to address 

 8 part of your comments. 

 9 It's not engineering per se, because 

 10 we have 8 million a year in the 1331 crossings 

 11 that we have passive crossings at right now. It 

 12 would take between twenty-five and fifty years to 

 13 gate all of those crossings, with the price 

 14 ranging from one hundred and fifty to three 

 15 hundred thousand dollars. No inflation, not 

 16 touching anything we've already done, you're 

 17 looking at twenty-five to fifty years. Every 

 18 grade separation costs anywhere from 10 to 20 

 19 million. 

 20 The realities are is that there's a 

 21 lot of, lot of stuff that can't be done by 

 22 engineering. The law that we're talking about 

 23 was a closure law. We had nothing but 

 24 negotiation power to get closures on crossings 

 25 that were redundant. After those accidents, we 
 202 

 1 had a closure law, and it gave us a lot more 

 2 leverage to get closures on redundant crossings. 

 3 And that's what we're focussing on. 

 4 So we're trying to close some of these 

 5 1331 crossings. That has nothing to do with the 

 6 2800 or whatever the number is of private 

 7 crossings that we don't look at or deal with in 

 8 any way, shape, or form. There's another, you 

 9 know, double the money, double the years, another 

 10 fifty to a hundred years to deal with those 

 11 crossings with the money that we have now. 

 12 So it's not just an engineering 

 13 concept. It's a financial concept. Closures are 

 14 the Fed, Federal Highway Administration, the FRA 

 15 and the DOT. The federal DOT has said, "Closures 

 16 is a major requirement, a major push, a major 

 17 function for the simple fact that we can't 

 18 possibly afford to deal with what we've already 

 19 got." And that's a part of where they're going. 

 20 And if they're wide open, public 

 21 crossings -- private crossings anywhere they 

 22 want, there's no way to stop that. And he's 

 23 going to court, he's lost the court case, he 

 24 says -- then it's more than just an engineering 

 25 issue; okay? And if it was just an engineering 
 203 

 1 issue, we'd solve the problem, you know, because 

 2 the engineering's easy to do. 

 3 You know, it's easy to put up a gate 

 4 and block a crossing if you've got enough money 

 5 and stuff like that. Dealing with the public 

 6 crossings is a finite problem. Dealing with the 

 7 private crossings is not a finite problem. 

 8 MS. CARROLL: We have two more questions 

 9 to go, and as Grady said, we have to be out of 

 10 here before one minute before 5:00. 

 11 MR. SAUNDERS: Very quickly, if the money 

 12 is there, say the money's unlimited, would 

 13 engineering solve the problem? 

 14 MR. SUAREZ: (Inaudible) the money -- 

 15 MR. SAUNDERS: Can engineering solve the 

 16 problem of vehicles colliding with trains and 

 17 trains colliding with vehicles? 

 18 MR. SUAREZ: You have to look at North 

 19 Carolina's closed corridor. Is it -- did it have 

 20 any accidents on that corridor? 

 21 MR. COTHEN: Yeah, they still do have 

 22 some, but they've been significantly reduced. 

 23 And there's a pretty good study on our Web site 

 24 about the sealed-corridor program. 

 25 And I certainly wouldn't challenge the 
 204 

 1 importance of engineering and I don't think 

 2 anybody here would want to denigrate it. It was 

 3 our first topic of discussion when we got into 

 4 political issues in this series of meetings, and 

 5 it was in North Carolina. 

 6 And I think if I could summarize what 

 7 we heard in this part on the engineering front is 

 8 that certainly that many of the solutions that 

 9 are suitable for public crossings are equally 

 10 suitable for private crossings, grade separations 

 11 or grade -- and there have been grade separations 

 12 of private crossings that involved heavy 

 13 industrial traffic, and perhaps some other 

 14 illustrations as well. 

 15 But that -- they start at about $3 

 16 million there, assuming you can maintain the 

 17 footings. And so we're looking for as many good, 

 18 cost-effective solutions as we've got. One of 

 19 the strategies is to close some crossings so that 

 20 the limited resources that are available can be 

 21 expended at those that remain, and also so that 

 22 we close higher-risk crossing that cannot be made 

 23 safe, which is an engineering solution in itself. 

 24 So I don't think there's a lot of 

 25 conflict in what people are saying here. It's 
 205 

 1 just moving toward practical implementation. 

 2 MR. BROWDER: One more comment before you 

 3 close the discussion: Six years ago AAR 

 4 solicited with TTI input from low-cost active 

 5 warning devices at crossings, and we did not have 

 6 any success. 

 7 My outside-the-box suggestion is that 

 8 maybe it's time for these low-exposure crossings, 

 9 public and private, to look at something less 

 10 than a fail-safe system to provide 

 11 active-warning-device indications at these 

 12 crossings. 

 13 My legislative people have said that 

 14 if you were able to get the cost down below 

 15 $50,000 a crossing -- and we heard $150,000 

 16 thrown out as an average here today -- that they 

 17 would possibly be listened to by Congress in 

 18 providing that at all at-grade crossings. 

 19 So maybe y'all want to consider that 

 20 perspective in terms of engineering action, that 

 21 there would be something less restrictive than 

 22 fail-safe protection, which in my perception 

 23 currently discourages a number of innovations 

 24 from being used at these crossings. 

 25 MR. COTHEN: And, you know, that's 
 206 

 1 something we're going to have to continue to work 

 2 with, Bill. We did authorize a demonstration of 

 3 a technology which probably cannot be 

 4 administered fail-safe. It was closed-loop in 

 5 its application, so as not to take a bad 

 6 situation and make it worse, involving a GPS 

 7 train location and made a radio-link activation 

 8 of highway-rail crossings. This was a project 

 9 sponsored by the Minnesota Department of 

 10 Transportation. 

 11 That particular technology appears 

 12 making commercialized major signal houses headed 

 13 down that road, but it does require that all the 

 14 locomotives in the territory be equipped for it 

 15 to be an effective system. And there are some 

 16 other limitations that would have to be analyzed, 

 17 depending on the application. 

 18 But, you know, the Federal Railroad 

 19 Administration certainly is open to taking 

 20 prudent risks to drive the overall risk level 

 21 down. 

 22 MS. CARROLL: Just one last comment before 

 23 we move to No. 8. 

 24 MR. DePAEPE: Tim DePaepe, Brotherhood of 

 25 Railroad Signalmen. 
 207 

 1 I can't let Bill's suggestion go 

 2 unheeded and unresponded to. I'm all for 

 3 thinking outside the box, but if you're going to 

 4 look into that type of equipment that Bill's 

 5 talking about, the FRA has to make sure that they 

 6 also explore the law of unintended consequences; 

 7 that is, where you have an engineer who may rely 

 8 on this highly reliable system too much and not 

 9 exercise the same caution. Now you've caused an 

 10 accident that may not have happened if you had no 

 11 protection there at all. I mean, that's the 

 12 problem that's been with these systems since 

 13 they've been talked about in the last five, ten 

 14 years. 

 15 Also I throw out, even though I'm a 

 16 labor person, a former railroad worker, I care 

 17 that my railroad makes money. And if you're 

 18 going to put a system out there that's pretty 

 19 good but not fail-safe, when there is a wreck, 

 20 the liability is going to be through the roof, 

 21 and it's going to be on the railroad. And I'm 

 22 not aware currently of any federal law or rule 

 23 that gets them out of that liability now. 

 24 MS. CARROLL: Okay. Moving on to question 

 25 No. 8: What if the railroads, with support from 
 208 

 1 the states, are required to locate all the 

 2 crossings and collect the needed data? This is 

 3 just looking at one piece of the puzzle, one data 

 4 field, the lat/long. We talked a little bit 

 5 about this with the track geometry car, possibly. 

 6 Are there any other automated means 

 7 that would -- the track geometry car collecting 

 8 the lat/long and maybe the grade-crossing number 

 9 fed into the kind of system Louisiana DOT has, 

 10 where all they need is a spreadsheet that could 

 11 then be mapped on their current system. That's 

 12 it? 

 13 We're going to No. 9: What if private 

 14 crossings were required to have latitude and 

 15 longitude information and be located through the 

 16 use of global positioning satellite systems, 

 17 whether it be the state that does that or a 

 18 railroad that does that, the private landowner: 

 19 Is that a viable means for collecting data? 

 20 MR. COTHEN: And I guess one version of 

 21 this is, Is there a good routine we could use to 

 22 check what we got? The railroads obviously have 

 23 crossings on main lines geolocated already and 

 24 that have already sneaked up on some populations 

 25 empty, as I understand it, lat/long data fields 
 209 

 1 in the inventory in order to support GIS 

 2 applications. You know, is it possible to take 

 3 -- to proceed from the railroad's information to 

 4 cross-check that, since in fact most of the Class 

 5 I railroads have data on file? 

 6 MS. CARROLL: I think we've run out of 

 7 gas, Grady. I think we've thought out of the 

 8 box. 

 9 MR. COTHEN: And administratively, the 

 10 answer to the question is clear: That we could 

 11 do it. We have the will and resources to do it, 

 12 but like so many other things, you've got to do 

 13 it right. Okay. 

 14 We've worked y'all pretty hard today. 

 15 We appreciate as many as had sticking with it and 

 16 the number of others that just had to leave 

 17 because of the hour of the day. 

 18 Other business: Mr. Browder? 

 19 MR. BROWDER: I'd like to put one more 

 20 statement on the record and indicate that in 

 21 considering endeavors that have to do with safety 

 22 and highway-rail grade crossings, the states as 

 23 well as the FRA have been very supportive of a 

 24 number of different efforts, not just Operation 

 25 Lifesaver efforts. 
 210 

 1 Another major effort that AAR believes 

 2 in and the FRA has provided support has been the 

 3 national and regional meetings that have been 

 4 conducted, usually sponsored by a state or group 

 5 of states, to promote safety between highway 

 6 authorities and the railroads. 

 7 A number of these meetings, in 

 8 particular state meetings in Illinois, Wisconsin, 

 9 Kansas, which now combines areas with Missouri; 

 10 regional meetings, in particular the string of 

 11 meetings in the Southeast Region, the Midwest 

 12 Region, the Eastern Region and to a lesser degree 

 13 in the Western Region, have received a tremendous 

 14 amount of support from the individual states and 

 15 the federal government. 

 16 In particular I'd like to say thank 

 17 you to the Louisiana DOT for the support. And I 

 18 interface quite a lot with Bill Shrewsberry, who 

 19 is on Rick Campbell's Railroad Technical 

 20 Committee. I'd like to point out that AAR has 

 21 supported the initiative that the FHWA now has 

 22 become involved and supportive of to add a yield 

 23 sign to all public passive crossings. 

 24 And that initiative and the language 

 25 from the national committee came from a TAG, a 
 211 

 1 Technical Advisory Group, out of that Rick 

 2 Campbell's committee. And the chair of that 

 3 committee was Bill Shrewsberry over here, of 

 4 Louisiana DOT. 

 5 And he did yeoman work, along with 

 6 Daniel McDonald of Oregon DOT, John Blair of 

 7 Illinois DOT, in getting that to the surface. 

 8 And it's a support that AAR believes will pay in 

 9 a reduction in the number of fatalities and 

 10 injuries at public passive crossings. 

 11 One problem that exists that needs 

 12 more support than just the FRA is, it is becoming 

 13 more and more difficult for these state employees 

 14 and other highway authority officials to come to 

 15 these meetings that are held on a national or 

 16 regional basis. 

 17 And we need to encourage FRA and US 

 18 DOT to support measures that will provide funding 

 19 where appropriate to the states to allow highway 

 20 authorities and state employees to come to these 

 21 very important meetings where they have an 

 22 opportunity such as we have had today to 

 23 interface and exchange ideas and efforts that are 

 24 going on as such. 

 25 Anya also chairs the Highway-Rail 
 212 

 1 Grade Crossing Committee on the Transportation 

 2 Research Board, which I've always told people I 

 3 think is one of the most complete committees of 

 4 stakeholders in the grade-crossing arena and 

 5 needs the support of all of the people that are 

 6 involved in crossings and the support to generate 

 7 the funds for all of the stakeholders and the 

 8 people who do this kind of work to participate in 

 9 these meetings. Thank you. 

 10 MR. COTHEN: Thanks very much, Bill. I 

 11 want to just close by saying that we recognize 

 12 that in the public-crossing arena that 

 13 enforcement plays a big role. Clearly that 

 14 wasn't going to be a very productive topic of 

 15 discussion when it comes to private highway-rail 

 16 grade crossings, given the number of those 

 17 crossings and the difficulty of access along 

 18 150,000 miles and more of railroad right-of-way, 

 19 and so we didn't go there, but it's an important 

 20 dimension to consider, given the fact that in 

 21 many places in the country, there is, with 

 22 encouragement from a lot of members, an active 

 23 effort for enforcement and effective judicial 

 24 outreach in support of that. 

 25 Here we have further difficulties, 
 213 

 1 because we're talking about people who feel 

 2 themselves entitled to utilize the crossings in 

 3 whatever way they see fit, a very -- virtually 

 4 impossible job in terms of, quote, "policing," 

 5 end quote, that on the part of railroads. 

 6 I want to thank the Louisiana 

 7 Department of Transportation and Development, 

 8 Mark and Bill and staff. We really appreciate 

 9 y'all being here, bringing this sense of reality 

 10 and practicality and urgency to the discussion, 

 11 and congratulate you for the directions that 

 12 you're taking with your program and the hard work 

 13 that you do in engineering and the outreach and 

 14 cooperation with the railroads and communities 

 15 every day, and for being good partners with FRA. 

 16 We thank you very much for partnering with us in 

 17 this forum. I learned a lot. 

 18 We don't have any additional business, 

 19 to my knowledge. Anya, do you have an 

 20 announcement? 

 21 MS. CARROLL: Yeah. Bill had just 

 22 reminded me as chair of the TRB Committee on AAR 

 23 grade crossings, we are supporting a panel 

 24 session on January 23rd in Washington, D.C., in 

 25 the afternoon at the Marriott Hotel that will 
 214 

 1 discuss safety at private crossings. 

 2 And secondly, the fifth and final 

 3 meeting is tentatively scheduled for Syracuse, 

 4 New York, in the Windham Hotel on February 15th, 

 5 so you can be looking for an announcement on 

 6 that. Thank you. 

 7 MR. COTHEN: Syracuse in February. You'll 

 8 love it. Thank you. We'll adjourn. 

 9 (Whereupon, the proceedings were concluded, 

 10 at approximately 5:00 p.m.) 

 11 ...oOo... 

 12 

 13 

 14 

 15 

 16 

 17 

 18 

 19 

 20 

 21 

 22 

 23 

 24 

 25 
 215 

 1 

 2 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 

 3 

 4 I, Kathryn L. Paintin, Certified Court 

 5 Reporter in and for the State of Louisiana, do 

 6 hereby certify that the foregoing proceedings 

 7 were reported by me by the stenotype reporting 

 8 method and transcribed by me or under my personal 

 9 direction and supervision, and that the foregoing 

 10 is a true and correct transcript, to the best of 

 11 my ability and understanding; 

 12 That I am not of counsel nor in any way 

 13 related to counsel or any of the parties herein, 

 14 and that I am in no wise interested in the 

 15 outcome of this matter. 

 16 

 17 

 18 

 ________________________ 

 19 KATHRYN L. PAINTIN 

 Certified Court Reporter 

 20 No. 81029 (Louisiana) 

 

 21 

 22 

 23 

 24 

 25 
Anyone read this private crossing dribble? The IN CHARGE RR handmaidens saying 

don't use stop signs because it's more dangerous sometimes. But the same clowns 

have school buses and haz-mat vehicles stopping everywhere at public/private 

crossings. The railroads rules have rail employees stopping everywhere at 

public/private crossings. Some states have stop signs all over. Where are the 

DON'T STOP HERE RAILROAD CROSSING SIGNS? 

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p86/406577.pdf 

RICHARD CAMPBELL President Railroad Controls Limited 

But when we introduce a stop at a crossing, the clearing-sight distance grows 

exponentially. So if you take the clearing-sight distance, then you can take the 

maximum authorized speed of the trains on that given section of the track and 

determine a sight distance that you need to be able to adequately clear, because 

some of the crossings we go in and put these treatments in, and we create a 

scenario where, based on physical characteristics, vegetation, either on or off 

the railroad right- of-way, generally off, it generally is crops or vegetation 

off the railroad right-of-way where you can't actually come to a stop to comply 

with the rules, start up and clear prior to train arrival at maximum authorized 

speed. So there are some inherent hazards that need to be understood, and 

collecting some additional data would help to be able to gather that 

information. 

MR. RIES: Bob, while we're finishing up, just to sort of let you know, we've 

sent out over 700 invitations twice or three times for this meeting. 

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p86/414284.txt 

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p86/415127.pdf 

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p86/415387.txt 

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p87/416379.pdf 

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p87/419689.pdf Minnessotta 

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p87/419690.pdf North Carolina 

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p87/420067.txt 

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p87/420169.pdf 

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p87/421026.txt 

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf98/422018_web.pdf 

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p88/430055.pdf 

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf99/430150_web.pdf 

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p88/430262.txt 

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p88/431995.txt 

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p88/432189.pdf Trial Lawyers of America 
http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p88/433327.txt 

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p88/433368.pdf 

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p88/434828.pdf 

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p88/434946.pdf 

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p88/436049.pdf 

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p89/442904.txt 

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p89/443484.txt 

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf100/446224_web.pdf Minnessota 2 

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf100/446225_web.pdf North Carolina 2 

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf100/446226_web.pdf California 

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf100/446227_web.pdf Louisiana 

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p89/446134.txt California 2 

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p89/446136.txt Louisiana 2 
I am writing to contribute to the FRA’s discussion on private railroad 

crossings. It seems to me that nationwide standards for warning devises at rail 

crossings would be beneficial. We live in a highly mobile society, and creating 

uniform standards would help system users, whether they are in automobiles, on 

bicycles, or on foot, to recognize upcoming crossings no matter where the 

crossing is located. If such standards are, in fact, adopted, I would presume 

that some agency would be responsible for enforcement. 

In addition, I feel that some notification that the private line is, in fact, 

active might aid drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians. Knowing that the line is 

active might encourage those who approach the crossing to do so with additional 

caution. 
Computer-Generated Letterhead Serving Since 1863

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen 

A Division of the Rail Conference — International Brotherhood of Teamsters 

NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE OFFICE 

25 Louisiana Avenue, NW, Room A-704 • Washington, DC 20001 

Phone: (202) 624-8776 • Fax: (202) 624-3086 • tolman@ble-t.org

 JOHN P. TOLMAN 

 Vice President and 

 National Legislative Representative 

February 15, 2007 

Docket Clerk 

DOT Central Docket Management Facility 

Room PL-401 

400 7th Street, SW (Plaza Level) 

Washington, DC 20590-0001 

Re: Docket No. FRA-2005-23281 

Dear Docket Clerk: 

On July 27, 2006, the Federal Railroad Administration (“FRA”) published a Notice of safety inquiry, regarding the Safety of Private Highway-Rail Grade Crossings, which was assigned DOT 

DMS Docket No. FRA-2005-23281. FRA therein solicited comments from interested parties. 

71 FR 42713. 

These comments are submitted by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, a 

Division of the Rail Conference of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (“BLET”), which 

is the duly designated and recognized collective bargaining representative for the craft or class of 

Locomotive Engineer employed on all Class I railroads. BLET also represents operating and 

other employees on numerous Class II and Class III railroads. Consequently, the issue of safety 

at private highway-rail grade crossings has a significant impact upon our members. 

The BLET believes that private railroad grade crossings in the United States lack a uniform approach to safety, which endangers the lives of our members and the general public. There is a 

complete absence of regulation involving private grade crossings. This absence endangers both 

the public and railroad workers. 

While accidents and injuries at public highway-rail grade crossings have declined by between 

one-third and one-half in the past decade, accidents at private crossings have declined by only 10 

percent, and the number of injuries in private crossing accidents has actually increased by one 

percent. This increase is an unfortunate side-effect of both the government and the railroads failing to pay appropriate attention to this issue. We are fortunate, however, that no major accidents 

or incidents have occurred at such crossings. Nonetheless, the risk remains unacceptable. The 
DOT Docket Clerk 

February 15, 2007 

Re: Docket No. FRA-2005-23281 

Page 2 

risks of collision and of derailment mean that train crews and the public may be exposed to injury or death caused by derailing equipment or hazardous materials releases.

The boundaries between public and private crossings are often blurred. There are over 94,000 

private highway-rail grade crossings in the United States; many of which are used by more than 

one individual. A private crossing should be defined as one used by a sole land owner or lessee. 

Once any other individuals routinely use the crossing, it should no longer be considered a private 

crossing but as a public crossing. We believe it is imperative that any private crossing that 

serves an industry should be held to the same standards for the highway-rail grade crossing signal system requirements. Due to the types and sizes of trucks, and the materials that they carry, 

the severity of an accident at these crossings would be greater than an accident between an automobile and a train. 

The BLET feels that, at a minimum, all crossings should be required to have active warning devices and must be in compliance with the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Active 

warning devices can significantly improve the level of safety at these grade crossings. 

However, we would prefer that FRA prohibit the creation of new private crossings and work toward eliminating as many existing private crossings as possible. If the FRA determines that it 

wants to allow the creation of new private crossings, then the new private crossings should have 

active warning devices installed prior to use. FRA should request enactment of legislation to address private crossings. 

It is unfortunate that for many years our nation’s railroads have chosen to sweep this issue under 

the rug — ignoring these private crossings until the level of safety had degraded so far that they 

have become a danger to railroad workers and the general public. We appreciate the fact that 

FRA has undertaken this effort, and are grateful for the opportunity to participate.

Respectfully submitted, 

Vice President and National Legislative Representative 

cc: Thomas A. Pontolillo, Director of Regulatory Affairs 
800 Lincoln Way, Ames, Iowa 50010 Phone: 515-239-1052 

 Fax: 515-233-7983 

February 20, 2007 

Docket Clerk 

U.S. DOT Dockets 

Room PL-401 

400 Seventh Street, SW 

Washington, DC 20590 

RE: Safety of Private Highway-Rail Grade Crossings; Notice of Safety Inquiry 

 Docket No. 2005-23281 

Dear Mr. Ries: 

The Iowa Department of Transportation submits comments in response to the 

Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) Notice of Safety Inquiry regarding private 

highway-rail grade crossings (July 27, 2006 Federal Register). 

The Iowa Department of Transportation does not gather, maintain or perform any 

safety analysis relative to private crossings. State regulation of private crossings is 

limited to private farm crossings established solely for farming or agricultural 

purposes. All other private crossings established in Iowa would be governed by 

terms of contracts or agreements negotiated by the railroads and the owners of 

private property. 

The FRA solicits discussion and comments on all areas of safety relative to private 

crossings and on ten topics listed in the notice. Comments are as follows: 

 At-grade highway-rail crossings presents inherent risks to users, including 

the railroad and its employees, and to other persons in the vicinity should a 

train derail into an occupied area or release hazardous materials. When 

passenger trains are involved, the risks are heightened. From the standpoint 

of public policy, how do we determine whether creation or continuation of a 

private crossing is justified? 

Currently in Iowa the only statutory supported creation of a private crossing is to 

establish access to land that has no other access available and the “private farm 

crossing” is used solely for farming or agricultural purposes: 

Iowa Code 327G.11 PRIVATE FARM CROSSINGS. 

When a person owns farmland on both sides of a railway, or when a 
Docket Clerk 

February 20, 2007 

Page 2 

2

railway runs parallel with a public highway thereby separating a farm from 

such highway, the corporation owning or operating the railway, on request of 

the owner of the farmland, shall construct and maintain a safe and adequate 

farm crossing or roadway across the railway and right-of-way at such 

reasonable place as the owner of the farmland may designate. A private farm 

crossing established or installed pursuant to this section shall be used solely 

for farming or agricultural purposes. 

Any continuation or creation of a private crossing for any other purpose requires 

negotiations between the railroad and private property owners. Thus the parties 

entering into negotiations for a private crossing would be the most knowledgeable 

about the use of the crossing and its associated risks. 

 Is the current assignment of responsibility for safety at private crossings 

effective? To what extent do risk-management practices associated with 

insurance arrangements result in “regulation” of safety at private crossings?

Currently, the railroads and private property owners share the responsibility for 

safety at private crossings. We do not gather or have knowledge of the insurance 

arrangements relative to risk-management associated with safety at private crossings. 

 How should improvement and/or maintenance costs associated with private 

crossings be allocated?

We do not support using public funds for improvements or maintenance of private 

crossings. Private crossings should be created by formal agreement, and the 

responsibility of improvement and/or maintenance costs should be determined by the 

agreement between the railroad and the property owners. 

 Is there a need for alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to handle 

disputes that may arise between private crossing owners and the railroads?

Iowa Code section 327G.12 provides for an administrative dispute resolution 

process: 

Iowa Code 327G.12 OVERHEAD, UNDERGROUND, OR MORE THAN 

ONE CROSSING. 

The owner of land may serve upon the railroad corporation a request in 

writing for more than one private crossing, or for an overhead or 

underground crossing, accompanied by a plat of the owner's land designating 

the location and character of crossing desired. If the railroad corporation 
Docket Clerk 

February 20, 2007 

Page 3 

3

refuses or neglects to comply within thirty days of a written request, the 

owner of the land may make written application to the department to 

determine the owner's rights. The department of inspections and appeals, 

after notice to the railroad corporation, shall hear the application and all 

objections to the application, and make an order which is reasonable and just, 

and if it requires the railroad company to construct any crossing or roadway, 

fix the time for compliance with the order and apportion the costs as 

appropriate. The order of the department of inspections and appeals is 

subject to review by the state department of transportation. The decision of 

the state department of transportation is the final agency action. 

 Should the State or Federal government assume greater responsibility for 

safety at private crossings?

Private crossings should be created by formal agreement, and the responsibility of 

improvement and/or maintenance costs should be determined by the agreement 

between the railroad and the property owners. Since railroads operate as interstate 

commerce and are already subject to federal safety regulations, the federal 

government should determine guidelines for appropriate signage at private crossings. 

 Federal guidelines on signage should provide national uniformity, and should 

provide a consistent message to the road user, whether the crossing is public or 

private. 

 Should there be Nationwide standards for warning devices at private 

crossings, or for intersection design of new private crossings?

Yes, guidelines should be developed by committees of experts similar to the 

NCUTCD and the Technical Working Group established by the U.S.DOT. 

 How do we determine when a private crossing has a “public purpose” and is 

subject to public use?

Guidance, appropriate descriptions and definitions should be provided in the 

“Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory Instructions and Procedures Manual” published 

by the FRA. The railroads, with the cooperation of private property owners, should 

be required to provide adequate data or other information regarding the intended use 

of the private crossing. 

 Should some crossings be categorized as “commercial crossings” rather 

than as private crossings? 

No, the option of identifying a private crossing as “commercial” already exists on the 
Docket Clerk 

February 20, 2007 

Page 4 

4

inventory form. 

 Are there innovative traffic control treatments that could improve safety at 

private crossings on major rail corridors, including those on which 

passenger service is provided? 

The same traffic control devices considered for use at public crossings should be 

used for private crossings. 

 Should the DOT request enactment of legislation to address private 

crossings? If so, what should it include? 

The responsibility for maintenance, signage and safety improvements should remain 

with the railroad and private road owner. Enactment of new legislative mandates 

should only be considered if adequate funding is appropriated. The Iowa DOT does 

not have legal authority to enter onto private property for inventory or regulatory 

purposes at private crossings, nor do we wish to obtain that authority. 

 Other comments

According to the national crossing inventory maintained by the FRA, Iowa has 3,423 

private crossings of the following types: 73 % farm; 16% industrial; 9% residential; 

1% recreational; less than 1% commercial. However, we believe the FRA inventory 

count is not accurate. As an example, Union Pacific records indicate 654 private 

crossings in Iowa versus the 1426 UP crossings shown in the national inventory 

maintained by FRA. 

The Iowa Department of Transportation appreciates this opportunity to submit 

comments regarding safety at private highway-railroad grade crossings. If you have 

any questions, please contact me at 515-239-1052. 

 

Sincerely, 

Peggy Baer, Director 

Office of Rail Transportation 

 
 1 SAFETY AT PRIVATE HIGHWAY RAIL GRADE CROSSINGS 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 COMMITTEE HEARING 

10 WASHINGTON, D.C. 

11 JANUARY 23, 2007 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 ATKINSON-BAKER, INC. 

 COURT REPORTERS 

22 500 BRAND BOULEVARD, THIRD FLOOR 

 GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA 91203 

23 (800) 288-3376 

24 REPORTED BY: CARLA L. ANDREWS, CSR NO: 78506 

25 FILE NO.: A00A5A9 

 1 
 1 SAFETY AT PRIVATE HIGHWAY RAIL GRADE CROSSINGS 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 Committee meeting, taken at the Marriott Hotel 

 9 Washington, D.C., commencing at 3:50 p.m., Tuesday 

10 January 23, 2007, before CARLA L. ANDREWS, CSR No. 

11 78506. 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 2 
 1 A P P E A R A N C E S 

 2 

 3 FOR THE PANEL: 

 4 MIRIAM KLOEPPEL 

 5 GUAN XU 

 6 PAUL WORLEY 

 7 RICHARD CAMPBELL 

 8 WILLIAM BROWDER 

 9 AIDAN NELSON 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 3 
 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 

 2 THE MODERATOR: The session today No. 071 is 

 3 a panel session on the safety of private highway rail 

 4 grade crossings. My name is Anya Carroll, and I am the 

 5 chair of the Highway Rail Grade Crossings Committee, HB 

 6 60. And I am happy to be here today to moderate this 

 7 session with our distinguished panel, which I will 

 8 introduce in a moment. 

 9 The TRB Committee is happy to support the FRA 

10 in its safety inquiry on private crossings. And as 

11 such, an occurrence today is that we have a 

12 stenographer with us, which will be transcribing the 

13 comments so that we can capture everybody's ideas and 

14 thoughts and questions on the private crossing issue. 

15 So because of that occurrence, I would like 

16 to make sure that before you speak, you actually 

17 introduce yourself -- your first and last name. If you 

18 could spell your last name the first time that you 

19 speak, that would be helpful to the stenographer. 

20 Also, if you speak a bit more slowly, she is more than 

21 likely to capture your thoughts more accurately. 

22 So thank you all for attending. 

23 Our distinguished panel today from the 

24 Federal Railroad Administration is Miriam Kloeppel. 

25 And she is with the Office of Safety. We have Guan Xu 

 4 
 1 from the Federal Highway Administration; Bill Browder 

 2 from the Association of American Railroads; Rick 

 3 Campbell from Railroad Controls, Limited; Paul Worley 

 4 from North Carolina, DOT; and Aidan Nelson from the 

 5 Rail Safety and Standards Board in the United Kingdom. 

 6 I would like to welcome our panel of distinguished 

 7 guests. 

 8 With that, I just have a few more opening 

 9 remarks. As far as the temperament of the panel 

10 session this afternoon, each panel member will give a 

11 five- to ten-minute position statement, which will take 

12 us to about 45, 50 minutes of the session. And then it 

13 will be an open discussion amongst all of us here in 

14 attendance and the panel members. 

15 And we are open to any comments, questions, 

16 concerns that you have about the safety of private 

17 highway rail grade crossings. Two other things that I 

18 would like to mention is our committee meeting, the 

19 Highway Rail Grade Crossing Committee meeting, will be 

20 tomorrow at 8 a.m. till noon. And it is in Lincoln II, 

21 which is on the exhibition level across from the poster 

22 sessions. And I would also like to invite you to 

23 Syracuse, New York on February 15, at the Doubletree 

24 Hotel where we will be holding our fifth and last 

25 public meeting on safety of private crossings highway 

 5 
 1 rail grade crossings. 

 2 So with that, I will have the panel members 

 3 give a short introduction of themselves and we will 

 4 continue. So we will start with Miriam Kloeppel. 

 5 MS. KLOEPPEL: Good afternoon, ladies and 

 6 gentlemen. Thank you for coming. Private crossing 

 7 safety has for some time been a matter of concern to 

 8 the U.S. Department of Transportation and to other 

 9 federal agencies. In 1993 the FRA hosted an open 

10 meeting to initiate industry-wide discussions. 

11 And in a 1994 rail highway safety action 

12 plan, the U.S. DOT proposed to develop national minimum 

13 standards for private crossings. In a 1997 study on 

14 safety at passive grade crossings, the NTSB highlighted 

15 the need for some system to improve private crossing 

16 safety and recommended that U.S. DOT, in conjunction 

17 with the states, determine governmental oversight 

18 responsibility for safety at private grade crossings. 

19 In 1999 the NTSB weighed in again in its 

20 report on private grade crossings incidents in Portage, 

21 Indiana. In this case, the NTSB recommended that the 

22 DOT eliminate any differences between public and 

23 private crossings with regard to funding or 

24 requirements for safety improvements. 

25 In 2004 the U.S. DOT published an updated 

 6 
 1 action plan in which the FRA committed to leading an 

 2 effort to define responsibility for safety of private 

 3 crossings. Today's meeting is a vital part of that 

 4 effort. 

 5 The FRA, for any of you who are not familiar 

 6 with us, has eight regional offices geographically 

 7 distributed across the country. As you can see from 

 8 this chart, regardless of the region, private crossings 

 9 constitute a significant percentage of all grade 

10 crossings. The total combination wide is about 

11 94,000. 

12 Although accidents at public crossings have 

13 declined considerably over the past 20 years, declining 

14 by one third over the past decade alone, the number of 

15 accidents at private crossings has remained 

16 comparatively stable, declining only 10 percent over 

17 the past decade. In most years, the number of 

18 fatalities occurring in accidents at private crossings 

19 exceeded the number of on-duty deaths among railroad 

20 employees in all rail operations. 

21 Now, the FRA has not entered into this 

22 initiative with any preconceived notions of what 

23 direction we are going to take ultimately. In order to 

24 best guard the information and the input from members 

25 of the public and from members of interested parties, 

 7 
 1 we have conducted a series of public meetings. As you 

 2 can see, they have been scattered across the country. 

 3 And we have had good attendance, although occasionally 

 4 some bashful participants. And as I have mentioned, we 

 5 will have our last one on February 15. You know, I 

 6 left off the seven, so it may be hard because it's 

 7 going to be February 15, 200. That's a little bit in 

 8 the past. Sorry about that. But, yes, it will be next 

 9 month. 

10 Among the issues that we have discussed in 

11 the public meetings are these here, particularly the 

12 need for standardization, both in science and in 

13 design, various rights and responsibilities, according 

14 to the different parties involved, private crossing 

15 owners and railroads, and what the data might mean. 

16 There are obviously other subject areas. These were 

17 just a principal topic area. And we have quite a few 

18 comments on them. But I don't want to dive into what 

19 all those were because I need to make room for 

20 everybody else, including you all, to have time to 

21 discuss things. 

22 I will be happy to answer questions. 

23 Information from the FRA will be published in our 

24 report based on the discussions that were held. And we 

25 do have a docket in place. As you can see, it's on the 

 8 
 1 U.S. DOT docket web page. And it is Docket Nos. 

 2 23281. So if you are curious about the specifics of 

 3 what went on in the public meetings or if you have 

 4 comments of your own to contribute, I would like to 

 5 encourage you to do so. 

 6 Thank you. 

 7 MS. XU: Good afternoon. My name is Guan 

 8 Xu. I am the program manager for Railroad Highway 

 9 Safety Program and Office of Safety Federal Highway 

10 Administration. When I told my team leader that I was 

11 put on a panel at the TRB to talk about issues 

12 regarding safety at private crossings, he asked me what 

13 are you talking about? We haven't done anything for 

14 private crossings. Our program is limited to public 

15 crossing only. And that's beyond our programmatic 

16 authority. So I said, I just got an idea of what I 

17 want to say. I think I will talk, you know, briefly 

18 about our program. It may be helpful for people to 

19 understand why we have not done anything yet. And, you 

20 know, also to help people to understand the issues and 

21 challenges that we are facing when it comes to private 

22 crossings. 

23 The Federal Highway Rail Grade Crossing 

24 Safety Program, as most of you already know, is often 

25 referred to as the Section 130 because we got our 

 9 
 1 regulatory and statutory authority from Section -- from 

 2 Title 23 U.S. Code, Section 130, and also from the 23 

 3 CFR, Part 646. That part gives us problematic 

 4 authority over the railroad highway grade crossings. 

 5 And the program is one of the federal aid funding 

 6 programs. So it is funded through transportation 

 7 bills. The current transportation bill, SAFETEA-LU, 

 8 authorized $220 million per year was authorized from 

 9 fiscal year '06 to fiscal year '09 and set aside funds 

10 under the Highway Safety Improvement Program. 

11 And Section 130 can be used on installation 

12 and updating the protective devices, such as flashing 

13 lights, gates, and signs. And it is also attributable 

14 to possible public policies. And I will emphasize that 

15 one of the important factors for the Section 130 funds 

16 is the number of public at-grade crossings in each 

17 state. So each state gets their portions based on, you 

18 know, 50 percent of Section 130 funds based on the 

19 number of public crossings. 

20 You can see that the current Section 130 

21 program is a federal-aid funding program. And current 

22 regulations on federal-aid programs limits FHWA's 

23 problematic authority to only public grade crossings. 

24 And I think this is one of the reasons why we have not 

25 been successful to take on issues at private 

 10 
 1 crossings. For example, in 1999, FHWA proposed a 

 2 section to the MUTCD that contained a definition, 

 3 standard, and guidance for traffic control devices at 

 4 private crossings. But FHWA eventually had to withdraw 

 5 their proposal because the railroad industry objected 

 6 to the proposal, challenging FHWA's lack of statutory 

 7 authority and the economic impact on the industry. And 

 8 a number of states also opposed the inclusion of 

 9 private crossing standards due to state laws associated 

10 with their lack of jurisdiction of public roads. 

11 So the issue that needs to be addressed 

12 includes the allocation of responsibilities, associated 

13 costs, and appreciated traffic control devices and, 

14 also, what's the appropriate traffic control on these 

15 crossings. 

16 As Miriam had talked about, FRA has initiated 

17 a safety inquiry to investigate safety concerns at 

18 private crossings. And FHWA will continue working with 

19 FRA and will take appropriate actions accordingly 

20 depending on the outcomes from the FRA's private 

21 crossing initiative. And that's all I have to say. 

22 Thank you. 

23 MR. WORLEY: Good afternoon, I am Paul 

24 Worley. I am director of Engineering & Safety with the 

25 North Carolina Department of Transportation. I was 

 11 
 1 asked to come to be on this panel to talk to you this 

 2 afternoon about private railroad crossings. And I want 

 3 to talk to you some about our experience and some of 

 4 the things we have done in North Carolina. I don't 

 5 have any slides here, per se. 

 6 But you may have heard about our project, the 

 7 Sealed Corridor. Following the Sealed Corridor 

 8 Project, we realized that we needed to do something at 

 9 private crossings because when we had done diagnostics 

10 on our corridor between Raleigh and Charlotte, we 

11 discovered there were many, many private crossings in 

12 various states of maintenance and ownership. 

13 Using the Sealed Corridor approach, we used 

14 off-the-shelf technologies different ways. We also 

15 emphasized used corridor diagnostic teams and closures 

16 and alternative access whenever possible. So we took 

17 that same approach when we looked at the private 

18 crossing safety initiatives. We even signalized 

19 crossings with high volumes and some public use as 

20 well. 

21 North Carolina is one of the few states to 

22 pursue private crossing safety projects and inventory. 

23 We have done this through a $1.9 million grant from the 

24 FRA through the Next Generation High-Speed Railway 

25 Program by virtue of North Carolina having a federally 

 12 
 1 designated high-speed railway corridor -- the Southeast 

 2 high-speed railway corridor. 

 3 And the approach that we have taken with 

 4 private crossings, first of all, was to do a 

 5 comprehensive diagnostic of all 47 crossings that 

 6 remain between Raleigh and Charlotte. And the approach 

 7 there was -- you always hear about data; garbage in and 

 8 garbage out. We want to make sure we have the most 

 9 appropriate inventory data that we could provide and 

10 use them to make decisions. So we were able to fund 

11 that particular study, do that comprehensive 

12 diagnostic. And we found that, you know, we had a lot 

13 of inaccuracies in inventory. We had already very 

14 sparse coverage on private crossings. We also had the 

15 sheer number of private crossings out there to deal 

16 with as well. 

17 So it certainly opened the eyes of our 

18 diagnostic teams and our department as we looked at 

19 crossing safety in corridors because in North Carolina 

20 we believe that our best approach has been to use the 

21 corridor diagnostic approach and creating all the 

22 crossings into a particular area, both public and 

23 private. 

24 There are many changes that are involved with 

25 private crossings. And it is our point of view. We 

 13 
 1 are not representing any one policy. But this is a 

 2 unit of government that took on this project and has 

 3 completed a good part of it. 

 4 As far as the challenges go, generally there 

 5 are no public funds for private crossings that are out 

 6 there because, as Guan said, you cannot use Section 130 

 7 money. You can use Section 130 money for crossings 

 8 that are lightly travelled public roads because you 

 9 can't use it for heavily travelled private crossings. 

10 So there is a real dichotomy there and issues that have 

11 to be within the policy. 

12 There are varied types of private crossings. 

13 Various folks have their own definitions. What we 

14 looked at were private-use residential, farm, 

15 industrial, plant to plant within an industry, railroad 

16 use, private crossings. We also had public use for 

17 residential development, such as private communities, 

18 business, industrial, recreational, and what's most 

19 important in North Carolina, golf cart crossings. 

20 Now, by the time private crossing present 

21 themselves at the state level and make their way to my 

22 office, they are politically charged. And I know this 

23 comes as a shock to you, but often all we can do is 

24 listen. Sometimes it may be a farmer who has driven 

25 all the way to Raleigh and wants someone just to listen 

 14 
 1 to them because the railroads are going to close their 

 2 private crossing. And that's what we have had to do in 

 3 the past. We have tried to listen. We have tried to 

 4 understand. We have tried to encourage private 

 5 individuals to keep talking with the railroads and try 

 6 to negotiate a win-win situation. We try to express 

 7 why the railroads need less private crossings and 

 8 better protected private crossings. 

 9 Private agreements and deeds may cover the 

10 crossings -- private crossings -- and may involve 

11 multiple parties over multiple years. And it is very 

12 difficult to go back and find one agreement for each 

13 crossing on a particular corridor. So you have to do a 

14 lot of digging and a lot of research, and still you may 

15 not final all the data you are looking for. Resources 

16 in state DOT's to maintain an accurate inventory of 

17 private crossings are not there at the state DOT or 

18 even at the railroad level. We are really trying to 

19 work harder on our public rail crossing inventory. But 

20 inventory and data gathering remains fairly important. 

21 But at the same time, it is something that is 

22 unfortunately not well staffed and well funded. 

23 We have also, in addition to looking at the 

24 federally designated high-speed corridor, we also 

25 looked at private crossing as part of the corridor 

 15 
 1 studies. We did a commuter line in the Charlotte area 

 2 in the private crossings there as far as what could be 

 3 closed, what should be improved, what should be 

 4 consolidated down to public access crossings. And 

 5 through doing this, we have learned that we have got to 

 6 partner with the owning and operating railroads to find 

 7 comprehensive and innovative approaches. 

 8 When we started and we hosted the FRA 

 9 hearings back earlier late last year in North Carolina, 

10 we talked about some of the issues that faced the 

11 private crossings that faced FRA and faced the states. 

12 And we talked about like, for instance, is the current 

13 assignment of responsibility, is that effective. You 

14 know, our thoughts on that was it is not consistent. 

15 Each railroad determines what can be done to 

16 improve the safety and manage the risk at private 

17 crossing. They do their own things. We feel there is 

18 a significant need to collect, correct, and update 

19 inventory information into the national and state 

20 inventories. 

21 And U.S. DOT through the railroads, through 

22 the states, through rail transit operators should 

23 collaborate to develop a consistent approach, such as 

24 was done with the Crossing Technical Workgroup to 

25 develop that document through the ITE. 

 16 
 1 One of the issues was cost -- maintenance 

 2 cost, improvement cost. Stakeholders, federal and 

 3 state agencies, local governments, transit authorities, 

 4 and railroads, and private crossing owners may 

 5 eventually need to develop some kind of methodology to 

 6 share costs. It can't all be put on the public side. 

 7 It can't all be shouldered by the railroads. There is 

 8 a need to develop a methodology to share costs 

 9 associated, construction and maintenance, based on 

10 local conditions and needs. 

11 Considerations are these transit corridors 

12 where there are passenger rail corridors that travel at 

13 higher speeds. Are there quiet zones? Are there 

14 critical inter-modal corridors for rail freight? All 

15 of these have a private and public sector interest as 

16 part of a multi-modal transportation system. And 

17 capitalization of future maintenance costs should also 

18 be considered. That was one of the big issues we 

19 had. While we have federal grant funds to pay for the 

20 devices and capital, we did not have ongoing 

21 maintenance. So we worked with railroad to capitalize 

22 maintenance. So that's the approach we considered as 

23 well. 

24 Also, disputes. We talk about the farmer 

25 coming to your office or property owner and his concern 

 17 
 1 about losing their private crossing. There is no way 

 2 to handle these disputes. There is no dispute 

 3 resolution process. There needs to be some kind of 

 4 model legislation. One of the issues was should the 

 5 state or Federal Government assume a higher level of 

 6 responsibility. Our feelings were that, first, 

 7 national guidelines should be considered for 

 8 development by the stakeholders. You have got to get 

 9 the stakeholders together to figure out what way to go 

10 with this. 

11 We talked about warning device standards. 

12 Should there be national standards for warning devices 

13 at private crossings. And some of this is being done 

14 through the National Conference of Uniform Traffic 

15 Control Devices. And then, finally, how do you 

16 determine a crossing is public purpose and it is 

17 subject to public use. Again, we get back to the 

18 stakeholder. You need to look at commercial crossings 

19 versus private crossings. So there are a number of 

20 issues out there as well before you even get to 

21 legislation. 

22 That's basically my summary of the issues 

23 that we have. We feel that we had a pretty good level 

24 of success. But it is not to have funding to be able 

25 to go and negotiate with the property owners and buy 

 18 
 1 alternative access to close any troublesome private 

 2 crossing or to be able to signal any crossing that may 

 3 lead into a private trailer park with a lot of 

 4 residents that need the crossing, too. So that's one 

 5 of the luxuries we have had in North Carolina. We feel 

 6 like we can make most of the money. And we think that 

 7 we could have the beginning of a model that uses the 

 8 Diagnostic Team process and designates crossings that 

 9 could perhaps be put to use elsewhere in the public 

10 corridors. Thank you. 

11 MR. CAMPBELL: Good afternoon. I am Rick 

12 Campbell with Railroad Controls, Limited. And I am 

13 here to speak to you, I guess, on behalf of Rick 

14 Campbell and a number of different groups that I work 

15 with, including the National Committee on Uniform 

16 Traffic Control Devices, where I chair the Railroad and 

17 Light Rail Transit Technical Committee. However, I 

18 want to clarify that a lot of the views that you are 

19 going to hear aren't my own. They are derived from 

20 numerous meetings and organizations that I work with. 

21 The issue of private highway rail grade 

22 crossings, as you have already begun to develop 

23 ideas -- and certainly a lot of folks in this room are 

24 familiar with -- is a complex issue. It involves the 

25 railroad, a private landowner, and then potentially 

 19 
 1 other governmental agencies, such as FRA and FHWA. And 

 2 private highway rail grade crossings are unique because 

 3 they have largely been considered to be private matters 

 4 of interest between the railroad company and the 

 5 private landowner. And one of the things is they have 

 6 been researched and inventoried. And some railroads 

 7 have made significant strides towards inventory of 

 8 private highway rail grade crossings. And in many 

 9 cases, there are no documents that serve to establish 

10 the relationship between the railroad and the 

11 landowner. And that would include, of course, right of 

12 way over the crossing, maintenance of the crossing, and 

13 other safety issues, such as site distance and traffic 

14 control devices, and who has the responsibility for 

15 those. 

16 So from the very basic beginnings of the 

17 private highway rail grade crossings, there's a point 

18 that exists relative to those crossings and the 

19 supporting documentation. In some states as well, 

20 although they are not public crossings, the State 

21 Public Utility Commission or Commerce Commission has 

22 assumed some degree of regulatory authority over 

23 private highway rail grade crossings from an agreement 

24 perspective but ordinarily from a traffic control 

25 device perspective, although this is inconsistent 

 20 
 1 throughout the United States. However, the lack of 

 2 progress made in reducing crashes at private highway 

 3 rail grade crossings has led FRA to undertake a series 

 4 of information-finding proceedings to solicit comments 

 5 from railroads, landowners, state departments of 

 6 transportation, and other stakeholders that have an 

 7 interest in private highway rail grade crossings to be 

 8 able to formulate opinions and ideas and possibly even 

 9 rule making on how to address the private highway rail 

10 grade crossing issue. 

11 In order to bring some degree of 

12 standardization of private highway rail grade 

13 crossings, one of the first things that's going to have 

14 to be developed is an inventory that's comprehensive on 

15 the private highway rail grade crossing. And, 

16 traditionally, the inventory that has been established 

17 and maintained by the railroads and FRA has been 

18 limited to public highway rail grade crossings. So 

19 this is going to provide another large expansion of the 

20 inventory. 

21 In addition, FHWA and FRA are going to have 

22 to work closely to be able to develop a relationship 

23 that will allow establishment, standardized traffic 

24 control devices, and definitions as to private highway 

25 rail grade crossings in order to have an effective 

 21 
 1 cooperative effort. 

 2 At the present time, the manual on uniform 

 3 traffic control devices does not specifically define 

 4 public roadways separately from private roadways. 

 5 MUTCD deals only with traffic control devices on public 

 6 roadways or roadways open to public traffic. And 

 7 recently FHWA has gone through an amendment and 

 8 regulatory process to more clearly define the term open 

 9 to public travel. That was handled through 23 CFR 655 

10 and has recently been enacted as a final rule. 

11 One of the things, though, that MUTCD lacks 

12 is the definition of other than a public road, which we 

13 do have a definition of a public roadway, that being 

14 any road or street under the jurisdiction of and 

15 maintained by a public agency and open to public 

16 travel. So you see where the open to public travel 

17 comes into this. MUTCD is silent about any other type 

18 of roadway that's not public. 

19 In order to try and bring some order to these 

20 different types of crossings because you have already 

21 heard some comments from Paul about classes of 

22 crossings -- and obviously there is a clear need for a 

23 definition of a private roadway. And if we take what 

24 exists in MUTCD today and expand on that, one could 

25 derive that the definition of a private roadway would 

 22 
 1 be any road or street under the jurisdiction of and 

 2 maintained by a private entity and not open to public 

 3 travel. 

 4 Well, those are fairly easy to define as well 

 5 because that could be a roadway that's closed by a 

 6 locked gate, posted with no trespassing signs, or there 

 7 is some other type of barrier or gated access that 

 8 prohibits the general public from access into this 

 9 particular roadway. But one of the problems begins to 

10 surface when we have crossings that serve businesses. 

11 For example, a private roadway that has a highway rail 

12 grade crossing, which allows access to a retail 

13 development or restaurants or other types of commercial 

14 facilities, those that are clearly owned by a private 

15 agency but from the public's perspective are open to 

16 public travel. 

17 And for that, I have proposed a third 

18 category and actually presented this to the Edit 

19 Committee of the National Committee on Uniform Traffic 

20 Control Devices. And what I proposed is a category 

21 known as a semi-public public roadway. And that would 

22 be any road or street under the jurisdiction of and 

23 maintained by a public entity and open to public 

24 travel. 

25 And this third category allows us then to 

 23 
 1 classify these crossings, which are clearly on private 

 2 rights of way but, from the public's perspective, open 

 3 to public travel. Now, this work, of course, will have 

 4 to go on within FHWA and MUTCD. But one of the 

 5 benefits of this particular category -- and not to 

 6 duplicate what Paul just talked about. But one of the 

 7 points of having a semi-public category is that it 

 8 would allow the discretionary use of public funding for 

 9 traffic control devices or other types of 

10 improvements. And because this is such a broad 

11 category, I don't know that we are going to be able to 

12 find successfully a definition to cover all 

13 applications. 

14 So with MUTCD traffic control devices at 

15 highway rail grade crossings, they are actually 

16 developed through a process using a group of folks 

17 known as a Diagnostic Team. And the definition of a 

18 Diagnostic Team exists in 23 CFR 646. And it is a 

19 group of parties of interest in a highway rail grade 

20 crossing matter. And if we take that Diagnostic Team 

21 concept and expand it to the semi-public crossing 

22 category, we now have a means where the Diagnostic 

23 Team, which would include representation from the 

24 public agency -- applicable public agency. We would 

25 have some means to make a determination as to 

 24 
 1 applicability of federal funds and how they might be 

 2 applied. 

 3 For example, a semi-public crossing that 

 4 serves a retail development would in probably all 

 5 circumstances not be deemed to be one which would be 

 6 subject to the use of federal funds because we looked 

 7 at a developer or landowner responsible for those 

 8 traffic control devices. However, a semi-public 

 9 crossing that serves -- and I will use Paul's example 

10 of a private trailer park where there are numerous 

11 residents and potentially school buses, which use this 

12 crossing -- may be determined to be in the public's 

13 best interest received some or all federal or public 

14 funding to be able to provide improvements to the 

15 crossing and traffic control devices. So it is the 

16 ability and the discretion of the Diagnostic Team to be 

17 able to on a case-by-case basis make an allocation of 

18 whether the use of federal funding is appropriate. 

19 And then finally from FRA's perspective, 

20 there was some mention earlier about a short-line 

21 railroad that exists in south of New Orleans called the 

22 New Orleans Gulf Coast Railroad. And they are 

23 currently fighting a battle with unauthorized private 

24 highway rail grade crossings. And the establishment 

25 through local citizens of the private crossings at will 

 25 
 1 can literally back up a dump truck and dump asphalt 

 2 over the tracks and establish a private crossing 

 3 clearly trespassing upon private right of way owned by 

 4 the railroad company. However, because there is no 

 5 clear-cut regulatory authority over these private 

 6 crossings, the state boards have been reluctant to 

 7 enforce actions by the railroad to be able to establish 

 8 their right of way and protect their right of way from 

 9 these illegal private crossings. 

10 So as the third leg to the stool, if you 

11 will, I would like to suggest that FRA, as part of 

12 their fact-finding process, consider the rule making 

13 which would provide some degree of authority through 

14 FRA or a state department of transportation to regulate 

15 the establishment of private highway rail grade 

16 crossings to provide for the inventory and that that 

17 inventory would include data, including maintenance 

18 responsibility, surface traffic control devices, and 

19 other information, which would be applicable at each 

20 crossing. 

21 And as a closing point, I would say that were 

22 the party responsible for maintenance of the devices 

23 fail to maintain the devices or the surface or track 

24 structure or various elements that the crossing would 

25 be subject to closure. 

 26 
 1 So I will close with those comments. Like I 

 2 say, in closing I want to make the comment that I think 

 3 that in the past we have been somewhat misdirected by 

 4 the fact that we have looked at ownership of the 

 5 roadway as establishing public or private and that the 

 6 real issue is not ownership or maintenance of the 

 7 roadway itself but the expectation of free access by 

 8 the public. 

 9 Thank you. 

10 MR. BROWDER: Good afternoon. I am Bill 

11 Browder from the Association of American Railroads. 

12 And I want to apologize upfront to those of you that 

13 have had to listen to my presentation at least one or 

14 more times before because a lot of what I will talk 

15 about is material that AAR and myself have presented in 

16 the past. First, let me tell you a little bit about 

17 the Association of American Railroads. It is an old 

18 established organization created back in 1888 after the 

19 war for the primary purpose of standards and 

20 practices. 

21 And the first standard that we established 

22 and still use today is standard time. We were the 

23 inventors of standard time just like Al Gore says he's 

24 the inventor of the Internet. But we put it all 

25 together back in 1888 because everybody had a one- or 

 27 
 1 two-minute's difference in the time that they kept in 

 2 every locality around that country in those days. And 

 3 so we created the time zones. 

 4 Now, we don't take any credit for Daylight 

 5 Savings Time. Mark on your calendar March 11 because 

 6 we will be going back to that before we ever see the 

 7 sun again in Washington, D.C. or we get away from the 

 8 snow. But that's your U.S. Congress at work. 

 9 More about the AAR. The AAR still is a 

10 standards practices organization today maintaining a 

11 number of different standards. We also operate for the 

12 Federal Railroad Administration the Testing Center in 

13 Colorado. And it was premier Testing Center in the 

14 world. And folks from all around the world come and 

15 use the facilities there for a number of different 

16 venues that exist. We also have another profit-making 

17 subsidiary in North Carolina outside of Paul's hometown 

18 of Raleigh there that is responsible for the 

19 interchange documents that we are involved in. 

20 AAR is an association of the members in North 

21 America of the Class One railroads and some other 

22 folks. And we basically represent them. And the only 

23 costs that we have, unlike the Federal Railroads 

24 Administration command and control authority through 

25 the code of federal regulation, is interchange. We 

 28 
 1 don't have any more control over any of our members 

 2 other than interchange. You know, the rails out there 

 3 again after the war are 56 and half inches apart. And 

 4 if you want to run them on those rails, you have got to 

 5 have your equipment 56 and half inches apart. And it 

 6 goes downhill from there as far as standards are 

 7 concerned, but we have managed to do that since 1888. 

 8 And it has developed a long and lasting relationship by 

 9 private companies who are in business to make money for 

10 their stockholders, for their shareholders. 

11 And so as such, AAR has many concerns about 

12 any issue that the government may be interested in 

13 addressing. I think there isn't a person in this room 

14 or organization that isn't interested in the common 

15 objective of safety at highway rail grade crossings. 

16 To AAR -- and the views that I will express, 

17 especially since they are being transcribed, will be my 

18 own and not the AAR's espoused position because we have 

19 quite a few members who have different views concerning 

20 these particular issues. And I am sure if you talked 

21 to them individually and they have come to these public 

22 sessions, they will be more than happy to provide 

23 comments upon the issues from their individual 

24 perspectives. I will give you a few things, though, 

25 that do apply. 

 29 
 1 First of all, at any highway rail grade 

 2 crossing, railroads derive absolutely no benefit from 

 3 those crossings being there. And that's stated in 23 

 4 CFR distinctly in the highway section of the CFR. And 

 5 that's a very important thing to us. Another important 

 6 thing to the railroads is that we are not the experts 

 7 on treatments at highway rail grade crossings. The 

 8 Highway Authority is the expert. Now, we are involved 

 9 in private railroad crossing by default in the issue of 

10 treatments at grade crossings. But, again, we have a 

11 lot of concerns about those issues, especially as I 

12 mentioned in that it affects our stockholders. And 

13 these are expensive with the 93,000 private crossings 

14 and add to it the 150-sum public crossings that are out 

15 there today. Railroads in the United States spend over 

16 half a billion dollars a year on highway rail grade 

17 crossings, $500 million plus in maintenance, upkeep, 

18 liability, and activities that go on at grade 

19 crossings. 

20 We don't have any large force of individuals 

21 out there to design and promote. We have got to do it 

22 within our own engineering departments or contract 

23 people to do that. The maintenance that we have to do 

24 to CFR Part 234 requires us to make an on-site 

25 inspection of every active warning device crossing. 

 30 
 1 And there are over 65,000 of those out there in the 

 2 United States. And you can imagine the cost of sending 

 3 an individual to those crossings. Only about a 

 4 thousand of the 93,000 private crossings have active 

 5 warning devices. So they are few and far between. And 

 6 most of them happen to be there because of the railroad 

 7 insisting with everyone from state DOT's to private 

 8 industries that they be installed for safety sake at 

 9 crossings. I don't think that anything that comes out 

10 of hearings and studies will show that there is a 

11 one-size-fits-all solution with the number of 

12 stakeholders that we have that are involved in this 

13 issue. 

14 You can already tell from those that are 

15 involved that we have to deal with 50 different state 

16 DOT's even though we get 120 through the 130 program to 

17 administer the programs that we have. Now, we have 

18 very established relationships, but different things 

19 work in different places. If you look at the Docket 

20 23281 in case you missed it the first time around in 

21 the hearing, you will see a little short-line railroad 

22 down in Louisiana. I mean, that's a deposition in the 

23 making for you lawyers out there of what happens at 

24 private rail crossings. And that includes such things 

25 as folks in the good parishes down there going out and 

 31 
 1 dumping a load of asphalt across their right of way and 

 2 identifying that as a private highway rail grade 

 3 crossing. So it is a fertile field as far as issued by 

 4 the way that railroad took it to court. They have been 

 5 to federal court twice and had been thrown out. And 

 6 they spent about $700,000 fighting these innumerable 

 7 illegal crossings that they say exists down there. 

 8 But there are some common things that we can 

 9 talk about in terms of safety because safety is first, 

10 always has been and always will be. And when I say 

11 safety, first, there is safety of our employees. We 

12 don't get anything out of those crossings, but we get 

13 our employees hurt, we get them killed, we get 

14 derailments. We get all kinds of issues that occur. 

15 UPS and FedEx, two of our best customers, don't care 

16 that we have a crossing accident at a private crossing 

17 some place on the right of way that delays the delivery 

18 of their traffic. And their customers are calling into 

19 the FedEx people wanting to know where their materials 

20 are. And so are our other industry customers, whether 

21 they are J.C. Penney and your sneakers that you are 

22 getting or they are a plant or a Chevrolet someplace 

23 that needs a widget to complete an auto on an assembly 

24 line. 

25 So those are factors that we are interested 

 32 
 1 in. And, again, it is an important thing to our 

 2 operations, our equipment, our employees, and safety 

 3 overall. There are a number of things that have been 

 4 done. I commend Rick's suggestion in terms of 

 5 semi-public access -- semi-public crossing for those 

 6 that have public access. I don't think there is any 

 7 one-size-fits-all solution, as I said. And I think, 

 8 quite frankly, I have got to commend the FRA for taking 

 9 the initiative to at least get the process going on the 

10 issue. 

11 So with that, I will finish and pass it along 

12 to the other side of the pond. And we are happy to 

13 have Aidan here to talk about where all the action is. 

14 MR. NELSON: Thank you. I stood in this room 

15 about five years ago when we first talked about 

16 managing risk at private crossings. So I thought, 

17 well, however the presentation runs, I will just give 

18 some thoughts. And the thoughts start right back in 

19 the middle of the 19th century because private 

20 crossings were the price that railways had to pay to 

21 get their line of routes approved. 

22 And for every crossing that was created, it 

23 was public. There were very distinct obligations 

24 placed on the railway. If it was private, there were 

25 pretty generic and often discreet obligations placed on 

 33 
 1 the railway. But for every crossing that was private 

 2 back in 1850, it was an agreed, main, authorized user. 

 3 So the first issue is trying to keep tabs of 

 4 the succession from the original authorized user or 

 5 users if more than one property was accessed a private 

 6 crossing. It's a considerable challenge to the 

 7 railway. And in Britain, it has become a far greater 

 8 challenge in recent years with the planning rules being 

 9 altered to permit development and agricultural 

10 properties to encourage employment in rural areas. And 

11 that's actually moved this quite a long way from a 

12 single farmer and his family and those associated with 

13 his business. 

14 We have a situation, which the authorized 

15 user is supposedly responsible for ensuring that his 

16 visitors understand the rules of engagement for the 

17 private-level crossing. In practice, most farmers will 

18 say they do it but don't do anything. And indeed, with 

19 a move from farmers having their own hired hands to 

20 agricultural contracting, we have moved even further 

21 from the idea that the authorized user knows who's 

22 coming to work on his land. 

23 We have recently had an accident in which 

24 there were a gang of immigrants from Britain, some 

25 illegal, none of which had an adequate command of 

 34 
 1 English to understand the instructions for the use of 

 2 the crossing. 

 3 So in certain parts of the country, we are 

 4 now producing information leaflets about the safe use 

 5 of private crossings in a multitude of languages from 

 6 Polish to Iraqi and Arabic. So we have got that. 

 7 We have a second language in parts of 

 8 Britain -- Welsh. And that gives us a complication 

 9 because you have in Wales signs in both English and 

10 Welsh. But the longer you make the signs, the less 

11 people pay attention to them, particularly if Welsh 

12 comes first, which hardly anyone uses it, other than 

13 officially. That's one of the obligations on the 

14 railway is to sign the crossing with the arrangements 

15 of its use. And that takes the form of a sign to 

16 indicate that it is private, a statement that the 

17 penalty for abusing the crossing which, in most cases, 

18 is a function of it being five-bar gate on either side 

19 of the railway because the railway has an obligation to 

20 fence itself. And that was a continuous fence. So at 

21 each private crossing you have a five-bar gate on 

22 either side. 

23 It is not the safest form of railroad 

24 crossing because if you are going to use it properly, 

25 you first get off your vehicle, you open the near-side 

 35 
 1 gate. You walk across the grade crossing to open the 

 2 far-side gate. You remember to look again, and you 

 3 come back to get to your vehicle. You mount your 

 4 vehicle, take it across your third crossing of the 

 5 railway, you get off. You remember to look again, you 

 6 walk back over, you close the gate. You come back over 

 7 for the fifth time and close the other gate. 

 8 And if you are the mailman and you are only 

 9 going to the farm to deliver the mail, what do you do? 

10 You leave the gates open for your return. And you 

11 think, well, it is Friday, the refuse man comes. So 

12 you leave the gates open again. And what you go from 

13 is a passive user work crossing with a distinct barrier 

14 to indicate the presence of the railway to a passive 

15 open crossing. 

16 We all know what happens on passive open 

17 crossings. You actually increase the risk. Now, we 

18 have been, some would say, a little stupid in Britain 

19 where we have high use of property crossings. We have 

20 put in miniature warning lights to indicate whether the 

21 line is clear or there is a train coming. And that 

22 just converts it to an active open crossing. And the 

23 idea of returning the barrier and closing the gate is 

24 even further from the user's mind. 

25 So we have got a dilemma. What are we going 

 36 
 1 with regards to the dilemma? Well, first, we are 

 2 trying to close the things. We have been reasonably 

 3 successful. But most of the farmers and most of our 

 4 crossings are in rural areas. Our private crossings 

 5 are worked out. If the railway wants to close the 

 6 train crossing and it wants to close a lot of them, it 

 7 might be paying some reasonable sums of money. But in 

 8 some cases, the railway has paid reasonable sums of 

 9 money to close it. In others, it has become 

10 extorsion. And they have become ransom trips. And I 

11 think whatever you do in the way of legislation, you 

12 have got to take the ransom element out of it. And you 

13 have got to promote rational armistices. 

14 I have been particularly impressed by what 

15 the Irish are doing. And they have just taken a very 

16 radical look and sought to reduce the number of private 

17 crossings so that you are buying the land from farmers 

18 who have land on both sides of the railway and selling 

19 the land to other farmers. So they have consolidated 

20 the holding on one side of the railway and removed the 

21 need for the crossings. 

22 They have also recognized that you can 

23 separate an agricultural crossing for far less money 

24 than railway engineers would have you believe. They 

25 want you to build something appropriate for the 

 37 
 1 separation of the public highway. 

 2 So if all you have got is to get cattle from 

 3 one side to the other, you want something cattle sized. 

 4 You don't want to take the biggest truck you can 

 5 imagine underneath the railway. If you would go over 

 6 the railway and all you have got to do is to round up 

 7 the cattle and bring them back across, they can go up 

 8 around a steep of gradients and you can build suitable 

 9 bridges. So they have actually gone quite a long way 

10 into the British standard of having a solution. 

11 The dilemma we have is when something becomes 

12 public. You can blame the Canadians because of this 

13 because their first prime minister was born in 

14 Scotland. And it was some years ago that the local 

15 authority put a sign at the end of the farmer's lane 

16 pointing out the birthplace -- a tourist sign pointing 

17 out the birthplace of the first Canadian prime 

18 minister. That was seen as an invitation to public 

19 use. 

20 Common sense did prevail, and I think the 

21 sign was taken down because the consequence of going to 

22 something that is declared public is that you have to 

23 upgrade the crossing to a public space crossing, which 

24 in Britain is usually, at the very least, an active 

25 open crossing. All the costs would fall to the 

 38 
 1 railway. So what the railway has become is pretty 

 2 expert at challenging all of these indications of a 

 3 public invitation to cross or where there is an 

 4 established public invitation. But it is clearly a 

 5 private right of way to reinforcing the private 

 6 right-of-way dimension. 

 7 Sometimes the industry is forced into putting 

 8 staff out on Saturdays and the holiday season because 

 9 they give access to the camp sites. So everyone who 

10 uses the crossing on the Saturday when they are coming 

11 into camp for the week gets a leaflet advising them of 

12 the arrangements. 

13 But that's done in partnership between the 

14 railway and the landowners. The biggest issue for me 

15 in relation to private crossings is that we know quite 

16 a lot about the risk profile. We know that on average 

17 the vehicles that use the crossings are bigger than 

18 most of our rural public crossings, plus farm machinery 

19 on average is pretty heavy. Therefore, the potential 

20 for a passenger train derailment is increased when 

21 compared to the ordinary car. 

22 We know that regular users of grade crossings 

23 on work-related journeys are the ones who are most 

24 likely to have an accident. And that's a pretty 

25 central characteristic of the access of the private 

 39 
 1 level crossings. 

 2 So if we are going to be effective there, we 

 3 have got to target the employers who are not usually 

 4 the authorized users at the crossings. That's 

 5 something that falls to the railway and something 

 6 that's done to varying degrees of effectiveness. 

 7 We have got one other dimension, which I 

 8 think is particularly important. We have a 

 9 nonstatutory planning guidance that says the planning 

10 authority must consult with -- sorry, should consult 

11 with the railway on any development likely to have a 

12 material impact on the use of the level crossing. 

13 We believe that should be a mandatory 

14 statutory obligation to consult the railway because if 

15 we actually got that consultation going first, we might 

16 actually get some sense in the planning approvals, 

17 which would force the hand of the beneficiary for the 

18 planning approval to work with the railway to create an 

19 alternative access. 

20 So I think that the possible quick win for us 

21 is toughening the planning regime to create a statutory 

22 obligation to consult and, in light of that, to use 

23 that as leverage to promote alternative access for 

24 developments of the road. Thank you. 

25 THE MODERATOR: I would like to thank the 

 40 
 1 panel one last time. And we will open up for questions 

 2 after that. Thank you very much. Since the term rules 

 3 of engagement were used by Aidan in his last speech, I 

 4 would just like to express again the need for -- if you 

 5 intend to make a comment or ask a question of the 

 6 panel -- and it could be separate entities on the panel 

 7 or the whole panel -- please step up to the mic, state 

 8 your name, spell your last name for the stenographer, 

 9 and ask your question and don't speak too quickly. 

10 So with that, is there anybody in the 

11 audience that would like to make a statement? 

12 AUDIENCE ATTENDEE: Hi, I am Rich Brown with 

13 TransCo Industries. That's B-r-o-w-n. And my question 

14 is for Rick Campbell. Rick, the 94,000 population of 

15 private crossings, what percentage of those crossings 

16 are semi-public as you defined semi-public? 

17 MR. CAMPBELL: Rich, we have had some 

18 discussion about that. And because private crossings 

19 are not currently inventoried, there is no real way to 

20 know. However, there has been a group -- well, Tom is 

21 going to come up and tell us about it. Maybe I should 

22 say not inventoried to the point that we have the types 

23 of data that we have at public crossings in terms of 

24 usage of ADT and surface and warning devices. We just 

25 don't have the degree of information. It is hard to 

 41 
 1 say. 

 2 However, some folks, I guess, that would be 

 3 considered experts or extremely knowledgable in the 

 4 field can talk. And we feel that the number is not 

 5 tremendously large. It's maybe in the neighborhood of 

 6 10 percent or potentially less than all of the private 

 7 highway rail grade crossings. Sorry, Tom, if I said 

 8 that wrong. 

 9 AUDIENCE ATTENDEE: Tom Woll, W-o-l-l, 

10 Federal Air Administration. Most people know me. 

11 Yeah, I have got to correct that. Private crossings 

12 are in the inventory, okay. So that's a misstatement. 

13 You are correct that we don't have ADT's in some of the 

14 other information. Sometimes the railroads will 

15 provide the train counts on that. But somebody has got 

16 to go out there and count those automobiles or whatever 

17 is going to cross that. And the question is, Who is 

18 going to do it? Obviously, the states are not going to 

19 do it. 

20 There is a category for whether or not there 

21 is public access in the inventory. We changed that in 

22 November of 1999. However, I don't think that it has 

23 been updated by all of the various states and 

24 railroads. In fact, unfortunately, it was mentioned 

25 earlier in one of the other sessions. There are 20 

 42 
 1 states. And some of them -- I won't say that they are 

 2 present here -- have not updated their inventory in the 

 3 last six years and haven't initiated any updates. So 

 4 if we could get that -- they probably have the data. 

 5 We would just like for them to send it to us. So 

 6 that's where the big problem is. And that's why the 

 7 inventory, in some cases, is not up to date. 

 8 AUDIENCE ATTENDEE: My name is Gary Drouin, 

 9 D-r-o-u-i-n, and I am with Transport Canada. I guess 

10 my first comment goes to Aidan. And my question is, 

11 was that sign in both Canadian official languages, 

12 French and English, because maybe that's what caused 

13 the confusion and not necessarily for the private or 

14 public voracity. I am just joking. 

15 My real question goes to Rick. In the 

16 semi-public crossing if -- well, say, there's a 

17 trucking company and there's trucks of course going 

18 in -- delivery trucks going in and maybe a few 

19 customers like FedEx and so on and so forth. Would you 

20 consider that as a private crossing or semi-private 

21 crossing? 

22 MR. CAMPBELL: As part of the proposed usage, 

23 we would consider that to be a private crossing because 

24 it is a private business, which has control over its 

25 employees. And then although you do have access by 

 43 
 1 drivers, such as FedEx or UPS or other types of 

 2 delivery, all types of delivery, those are generally 

 3 drivers that possess a commercial driver's license and 

 4 have had additional training, which includes additional 

 5 safety training in highway rail grade crossings. And 

 6 clearly, that would be -- if that crossing was 

 7 exclusively used to service that private business, if 

 8 you will, that you would look to the private business 

 9 to make any funding to support active or improved 

10 traffic control devices, which even to this day they 

11 could freely do. And, in fact, many private industrial 

12 facilities, especially if there are hazardous materials 

13 and things, actually do have active traffic control 

14 devices at those private crossings. 

15 AUDIENCE ATTENDEE: Okay. Thank you. 

16 MR. BROWDER: I want to go back to 

17 Mr. Drouin's inquiry about private grade crossings. 

18 And as I stated in the New Orleans public hearing for 

19 the 93 or 94,000 that are out there, the resource for 

20 most of those in the FRA inventory are the railroads. 

21 They are the people that are doing all of the work and 

22 submitting the data -- limited amount of data that Tom 

23 Woll requires. Again, we are a private company. We 

24 don't derive any benefit. We don't see an incredible 

25 safety benefit to providing this information for public 

 44 
 1 purposes. 

 2 As a matter of fact, some of our members 

 3 choose to have fairly extensive information on their 

 4 private inventories. But, again, that's a matter of 

 5 choice as far as the stockholders of that company are 

 6 concerned. And unless we could identify any kind of 

 7 significant safety value to us to collecting and 

 8 examining that, right now it is a burden on our daily 

 9 operations to collect and provide this information to 

10 the FRA. Thank you. 

11 AUDIENCE ATTENDEE: Maurice Rached, 

12 R-a-c-h-e-d. This question is for Miriam Kloeppel. 

13 Miriam, how do we deal with situations where the 

14 crossing is owned by an authority that believes that 

15 the crossing is private and does not -- and is not 

16 subject to FRA regulations? 

17 MS. KLOEPPEL: Are you talking something like 

18 a park or something that is apparently a private road 

19 but it has public use like access to a municipal dump? 

20 AUDIENCE ATTENDEE: That's a good example. 

21 MS. KLOEPPEL: Those are among the things 

22 that have to be considered. But at the moment, if it 

23 is in our inventory as private crossing, that's all we 

24 know about it. 

25 AUDIENCE ATTENDEE: Okay. So you are not 

 45 
 1 taking any action in that regard at the present? 

 2 MS. KLOEPPEL: Well, I guess ultimately we 

 3 may. But, as I said, this whole effort is to determine 

 4 what kind of action we should take for any private 

 5 crossing. This is just one possible category of many. 

 6 AUDIENCE ATTENDEE: Because I agree with Rick 

 7 and the other panelists when they indicated that the 

 8 motorist doesn't know if it's a roadway open to the 

 9 public like the motorist on a public roadway and 

10 crossing unless it is specifically assigned and gated 

11 and identified. Okay. Thank you. 

12 MS. KLOEPPEL: Thank you. 

13 THE MODERATOR: Aidan brought a different 

14 perspective to us on how Britain deals with private 

15 crossings. I was wondering if I could ask Mr. Poichuk 

16 to describe the Canadian practice of private crossings 

17 and classification for us. Mr. Poichuk. 

18 AUDIENCE ATTENDEE: Phil Poichuk, 

19 P-o-i-c-h-u-k, Transport Canada. Currently, our 

20 standards are departing from the traditional 

21 definition. In Canada, traditionally we had private 

22 crossings in two categories -- basically statutory and 

23 nonstatutory. They are also referred to as by right or 

24 by grace. By right being where the railway in the late 

25 1800's severed land and therefore had a right 

 46 
 1 to -- had the obligation to provide the crossing and, 

 2 in fact, maintain it. By grace was where subsequently 

 3 a landowner who hadn't had his land severed originally 

 4 would need a crossing for other purposes. And then 

 5 they would be -- they would enter an agreement with the 

 6 railway and usually pay the cost. And, in fact, that 

 7 was the by grace one. 

 8 It basically dealt more with rights and 

 9 money, i.e., the maintenance of it, than it did with 

10 the safety responsibility. Our new grade crossing 

11 standards, which I believe Anya and I believe Steve 

12 actually asked me to speak about tomorrow, gets away 

13 from traditional definitions relative to ownership. 

14 And, in fact, in our grade crossing manual RTD 10, as 

15 it is called, we don't use the word public or private. 

16 We get away from that distinction. And we now require 

17 safety amenities based on whether or not it is 

18 restricted or unrestricted for public use. 

19 THE MODERATOR: Thank you, Phil. 

20 Does the panel have any comments on the 

21 Canadian description and classification? 

22 MS. KLOEPPEL: I think I think they are very 

23 interesting. But it is an interesting different way of 

24 looking at categorization of the crossing. 

25 AUDIENCE ATTENDEE: Jim Burnett, former 

 47 
 1 chairman of the NTSB. What kind of records have been 

 2 kept of the meetings so far and held in the FRA public 

 3 meeting series? Are there transcripts of those 

 4 meetings? 

 5 MS. KLOEPPEL: Yes, sir, there are 

 6 transcripts. And I have been put them up on our -- in 

 7 our docket as best as I can. 

 8 AUDIENCE ATTENDEE: Is the docket available 

 9 on the Internet? 

10 MS. KLOEPPEL: Yes, it's actually on our 

11 docket server. 

12 THE MODERATOR: If you don't have one of 

13 these brochures yet, on the back is the docket number. 

14 And if you go to the DMS system, if you type in the 

15 last five digits, it will take you right to the 

16 docket. And it will start with the oldest submission. 

17 And there is a little button that you can hit that says 

18 reverse order so you see the newest submission first. 

19 MR. BROWDER: There are 21 items on the 

20 docket as of yesterday on 23281 that most of them 

21 concern. There are two of the transcripts that are 

22 already up there that she is talking about. 

23 MR. BURNETT: Thank you. 

24 MR. BROWDER: Don't put the year in when you 

25 search. 

 48 
 1 THE MODERATOR: Okay. I have a question. I 

 2 have attended all four of the last public hearings. 

 3 And I have heard the panel's opinions this afternoon on 

 4 the safety of private crossings. And in order to find 

 5 a solution, we need to try and push the envelope to 

 6 determine what options do we have to move forward. 

 7 And I would like to ask the panel their 

 8 opinions on if there were regulations or some guidance 

 9 or standards that were developed for design 

10 characteristics, should that effort come from the 

11 states that administer and possibly have legislation 

12 over private crossings or should it come from a 

13 DOT-wide task force that includes not only the FRA, the 

14 FHWA, but stakeholders like the mortar carriers, the 

15 Transit Administration, or should it be left to the 

16 locals to determine through their Diagnostic Teams the 

17 appropriate approaches? 

18 MR. WORLEY: What I will say is the first 

19 thing you need is money. There needs to be some more 

20 pilot projects, I think, around the country to get some 

21 experience with different approaches for private 

22 crossings, be it public or private partnerships for 

23 closures, for how to go about equipping with warning 

24 devices or other treatments. So that would be the 

25 first positive step -- to get some experience. I think 

 49 
 1 ultimately you have got to look at a diagnostic team 

 2 process that's headed up by the authority that has the 

 3 experience in the states we are involved in. And that 

 4 would be the state DOT's right now. And that's my 

 5 opinion. And it is quite biased because, you know, you 

 6 look at it and see you have a good idea of how to 

 7 resolve things based on experience and what has to be 

 8 accomplished. So I would say that would be the start 

 9 because I would hate to see us get into something where 

10 you constantly try to write a lot of policy and write a 

11 lot of specifications without a lot of real world 

12 experience out there to draw from. 

13 And, also, by having private crossings and 

14 real world experience, you certainly build the support 

15 toward doing something. So I think we are clearly 

16 moving towards doing something. It is just difficult. 

17 I think it also depends on money, which there is not a 

18 lot. 

19 MR. CAMPBELL: I think I might add to that, 

20 too. I will just say that I agree with Paul because 

21 the state agency is the one that really has the clear 

22 picture of crossing safety issues within their 

23 jurisdictions. And that's exactly why that's included 

24 as a part of my proposal that the Diagnostic Team 

25 ultimately has say-so in terms of the crossing and what 

 50 
 1 might be done there. 

 2 Also, of course, as many as you know, there 

 3 are some pretty interesting issues in Section 409 that 

 4 provides some protection for the Diagnostic Team in 

 5 terms of isolating their decisions. And there is 

 6 certainly a large degree of logic that maintains that 

 7 protection that exists. However, there are some things 

 8 that the Diagnostic Team could have some latitude in 

 9 where, for example, it might be possible to take a 

10 number of private crossings. In other words, a private 

11 driveway that starts at a single-family home and to 

12 consolidate those crossings. In other words, take 

13 those five or six driveways and build a connecting 

14 roadway and then a single crossing to serve that. And 

15 then in that case convert those multiple private 

16 crossings into a single semi-public crossing. And that 

17 may very well be, in that case, a good use of public 

18 funding. And it may also be as part of that process 

19 that some part of those costs are allocated or assessed 

20 to the landowners. 

21 And, again, that would be within the 

22 Diagnostic Team's jurisdiction to decide if public 

23 funds are to be used and, if so, what percentage and if 

24 the landowner should share in the burden of improvement 

25 costs as well. So, again, that's why I support that 

 51 
 1 the local Diagnostic Team really can deal with all of 

 2 the individual issues and address them on site and then 

 3 ultimately handle the deal through the DOT if there is 

 4 one. 

 5 MS. XU: Well, I agree with what Paul and 

 6 Rick just said. Basically, you know, states should 

 7 have something they demand from, you know, the state 

 8 level. But I would like to say that at the point that 

 9 federal funding is involved, then we do need some 

10 federal-level guidelines in the general terms. There's 

11 all kind of federal guidelines. You know, they are all 

12 in general. And the state has a lot -- the states have 

13 a lot of power to define details. And so, you know, we 

14 would like to have some kind of guidelines in terms of 

15 how to initiate the process. 

16 MS. KLOEPPEL: I just wanted to agree 

17 effectively with what Guan Xu gave. What I have heard 

18 in various meetings suggests that if there is a federal 

19 involvement, it should be something to do with 

20 establishing a process. Now, I won't say that it is 

21 the specific direction the FRA will go, but it is 

22 consistent with what we have been hearing from a number 

23 of meetings that participants in the meetings have a 

24 sense that there is no process and there is even no way 

25 to begin attacking the problem. So one reasonable 

 52 
 1 federal way to be involved is to help with the 

 2 development of that process and leave in the hands of 

 3 the people who know best what they are doing the 

 4 factual decision-making about individual funds, state, 

 5 and local Diagnostic Teams. 

 6 MR. BROWDER: I hope you don't mind me saying 

 7 this, but it really scares me because I think it shows 

 8 a lack of understanding and naivete concerning the 

 9 issues, especially after we have been to the public 

10 hearings about the seriousness of the issue itself. I 

11 would grant, the last thing the railroads want is 

12 probably regulation. But it's one more step down the 

13 line. It's something that opens up regulation to more 

14 entities out there, such as states, municipalities, and 

15 people like that. The current system for public 

16 crossings is a mess. We shot ourselves on the 

17 railroad -- shot ourselves in the foot when we agreed 

18 to the 130 plan. 

19 Finally, I mentioned the amount of money it 

20 costs us in maintenance. That continues to go up every 

21 year. We are scared to death that that might continue 

22 within the private sector. And when I hear you talking 

23 about opening up some kind of a process to state and 

24 local governments to interface with private companies 

25 that don't have large staffs to entertain regulation, I 

 53 
 1 have concern. 

 2 Now, having said that, let me say I think 

 3 there are some constructive steps that can be done. 

 4 And I don't disagree about what Miriam and Guan said 

 5 about things that can proactively address Paul's 

 6 comments about pilot projects. I can tell you one 

 7 thing that I think the railroads agree on and may be 

 8 interested in having whatever the Federal Government 

 9 entity is that's responsible for. It is to allow us to 

10 get agreements on all private crossings. We can't even 

11 do that now. 

12 And one thing that would help with the 

13 administration of private crossings would be that, 

14 although we are not the experts on highway traffic 

15 control devices, certainly if there was an agreement 

16 that was required of the individual stakeholders, 

17 namely, the railroad and the highway user, that that 

18 would be, like a couple thousand lawyers tied to the 

19 bottom of the ocean, a good start. Thank you. 

20 THE MODERATOR: Thank you, Bill. 

21 MR. NELSON: I think the important thing for 

22 me is that we don't make problems that don't exist. 

23 And we have problems with private crossings. But very 

24 many private crossings are well run. The landowners 

25 exercise their responsibilities and they work the 

 54 
 1 railway. And I think that while you have got something 

 2 that works, just leave it. 

 3 When you haven't got things that work, it is 

 4 usually because, as a matter of public policy, 

 5 developments have been allowed on one side of the 

 6 railway without taking account of the impact on the 

 7 railway. 

 8 If it is public policy for the development, 

 9 it is allowed. And once you create that sort of 

10 development, you should avoid the issue of agreements. 

11 And it should be a new form of agreement to recognize 

12 the new circumstances. And the greater burden is on 

13 those who benefit from the development. 

14 AUDIENCE ATTENDEE: My name is Ray Lewis, 

15 L-e-w-i-s. I am with the Division of Highways in West 

16 Virginia. We are one of about six or seven states, I 

17 think, that has more private crossings than public 

18 crossings. And that's not a distinction we would have 

19 sought. You said something there that really struck a 

20 cord with me as far as managing the crossings. 

21 First of all, in my opinion, out of out 1900 

22 private crossings, probably 1750 of them will never 

23 cause of us any trouble except at random because they 

24 tend to be farm field crossings. They tend to be 

25 individual residential crossings. They go to one or 

 55 
 1 two dwellings. There is not any room for expansion, 

 2 say, between the railroad and the river. And you just 

 3 have to make sure that the responsibility to carry out 

 4 the farm doesn't do something too close to the tracks 

 5 or the railroad and at least keep the roads passable 

 6 for whatever usage. And that may have been a crossing 

 7 for agricultural use or you may need to add an asphalt 

 8 surface for the residents going in and out several 

 9 times a day. 

10 The second thing is that access across the 

11 tracks. When we have a highway system we can't 

12 control, we can't keep people from coming onto out 

13 highway system. Anybody has a right to come on our 

14 highway system, but we can set the condition under 

15 which they do so. And we require driveway permits. 

16 And we have a fairly extensive manual for driveway 

17 permits. If that driveway is a new driveway crossing 

18 the tracks or it's a change in use of the land to cross 

19 the tracks as an existing driveway, then our rules and 

20 regulations require the landowner to get a new permit 

21 to reflect what's actually going to happen there. And 

22 if there is a railroad involved, we do ask for an 

23 agreement. Even if the crossing is in there by deed, 

24 we feel like we have the right to ask for an 

25 agreement. 

 56 
 1 One of the big problems with private 

 2 crossings is the records are very difficult to locate. 

 3 The problem really started to get out of hand on 

 4 July 4, 1828, when Charles Carroll was the cornerstone 

 5 of -- but there are different records on different 

 6 crossings and everything is kept different ways by 

 7 different railroads. Some are kept by evaluation 

 8 statements. And you can find a list of all the 

 9 agreements on the sheets on evaluation sheets. Some of 

10 them are kept in separate files in different offices. 

11 So it makes it a real interesting search to find out 

12 exactly how a crossing got there. I think from what I 

13 have seen, one of the bigger problems with private 

14 crossings is a sudden change in use of the land. 

15 I had an experience one time when somebody 

16 from the Brotherhood of Locomotives Union called and 

17 said they were real upset about a private crossing. 

18 And I knew where the crossing was. I said, Well, what 

19 is the problem? I said, You know, one farmer goes in 

20 and out of there. He says, No, no, our guy is on a 

21 lumber truck. And I go, What lumber truck? Well, one 

22 was carrying lumber up there to that property that had 

23 been subsidized and was getting 120 houses built on 

24 it. So that translates to about a thousand vehicles a 

25 day crossing the tracks at that point. So possibly 

 57 
 1 that will start some discussion. Thank you. 

 2 AUDIENCE ATTENDEE: I am John Henikchen, and 

 3 my comments are for the panel. I would like to hear 

 4 what you have in response to what I have to ask less 

 5 Bill of course. Should regulations and standards or 

 6 guidance be developed, how will those regulations and 

 7 guidance standards be interfaced with the existing 

 8 agreements -- private agreements that we have between 

 9 the railroad and the landowner? In other words, will 

10 your regulations supercede that private agreement? 

11 MS. KLOEPPEL: I hate to disappoint you, but 

12 I have to say that I think that's one of those things 

13 that is yet to be determined. If we were to develop 

14 regulations, that is one of the factors that we would 

15 have to consider. But we would certainly have to be 

16 sensitive to that as an issue. 

17 MS. XU: I don't have any comment. I think 

18 before I say anything, I will have to ask our lawyers. 

19 AUDIENCE ATTENDEE: If we are going to leave 

20 it up to the lawyers, then I guess we don't have to 

21 worry about this issue. So that will be another 10 

22 years and I will be retired. 

23 MR. NELSON: Last Friday before I -- sorry, 

24 Thursday before I came over here, I signed the RSVP 

25 response to a consultation from our regulator about 

 58 
 1 what should be in their standards, their principal 

 2 documents for level crossings in the ground. The view 

 3 of RSVP is that there should be a statutory defined 

 4 user interface for public highway crossings, public 

 5 pedestrian crossings, and private level crossings. And 

 6 beyond that user interface, everything else should be 

 7 dealt with within the standards of the railroad 

 8 concerned. 

 9 MR. WORLEY: One other thing to consider is 

10 if you have got some of those agreements out there and 

11 some of the crossings are based in deeds. And if 

12 someone has a right to that crossing in the deed, you 

13 get into a situation where you can't take their 

14 property. You can't take it. So you then have to 

15 negotiate. So it comes back down to -- I get back into 

16 having that pilot program and getting the experience. 

17 You learn what are the different scenarios when you can 

18 negotiate to try to close and try to eliminate the 

19 crossings. It is kind of like the old politician back 

20 in North Carolina that once told me. He said, You have 

21 got to have something in the sack. You have got to 

22 talk to these folks. You have got to have something in 

23 the sack. You have got to try to negotiate with them. 

24 And I think that's what you are going to have to do. 

25 THE MODERATOR: I would like to get back to 

 59 
 1 Ray Lewis. Ray Lewis represents a state 

 2 representative. And as shown in the latest FRA 

 3 compilation of state laws, there are only 32 -- 22 

 4 states that currently have statutes dealing with 

 5 private crossings. Now, what we heard from Rick and 

 6 from Paul, with Bill's agreement, is that it should be 

 7 at a local level. How can the Federal Government now 

 8 step in to help you that have statutes and those that 

 9 don't actually be able to manage the safety of private 

10 crossings? 

11 AUDIENCE ATTENDEE: (Ray Lewis) Well, I 

12 think that the point that Paul made is very pertinent 

13 in that if you start intruding into this relationship 

14 between property owner or the licensee on the 

15 crossing -- it is usually the same person but not 

16 always -- I think you get yourself possibly in the 

17 position where you could have takings. I don't want to 

18 have 1900 takings. You know, I don't want to retire 

19 and been responsible for having to go out and have 1900 

20 railroad transactions or more if the railroad happened 

21 to run down the property line and you have got two 

22 people with underlying interests in something like 

23 that. 

24 It goes back to my comments that most of 

25 those crossings are never going to cause us any 

 60 
 1 trouble. I think that the ones that are going to cause 

 2 us the most potential to cause trouble are the ones 

 3 that were in the deed but the family has, granted the 

 4 property has been subsidized, a trailer park has been 

 5 put in or something. And I think that at that point, 

 6 there may need to be some mechanism in state law or 

 7 maybe federal regulations -- I am not sure of the 

 8 appropriate form -- that would permit that deed to be 

 9 rolled over into an agreement into a standard private 

10 crossing agreement. 

11 When something like this happens, usually 

12 there is money being made. And the developer very 

13 frequently has the opportunity, as he did with the one 

14 with the 120 houses and lumber trucks, to get out from 

15 under his obligation to provide good and safe access to 

16 his tenants or the people to whom he sells the property 

17 or whatever. 

18 Unfortunately, at least in West Virginia we 

19 have all of this new case law on change in use. And 

20 what we do is come out of circuit courts. And it 

21 hasn't been reported, but I think that might be the 

22 most fruitful area to look at to try to identify those 

23 crossings that are going to pop up and cause you 

24 problems. 

25 THE MODERATOR: Thank you. 

 61 
 1 MR. CAMPBELL: I might add that I agree with 

 2 what Ray says wholeheartedly. And also to follow-up 

 3 with John, by and large, I think the majority of the 

 4 private crossings are not going to be an issue. And we 

 5 don't need to go into this potential rule-making 

 6 process and change what goes on at those locations. 

 7 The ones that are in issue are the ones that do have 

 8 this free and unrestricted public access and may 

 9 require some additional treatment. So I think right 

10 there we narrow this down to a smaller group of 

11 crossings. Potentially I would see that the existing 

12 private crossings be retained. However, one thing that 

13 we might look at as a benefit to some regulation would 

14 be that if the usage for the ADDT on the crossing 

15 changes by some percentage or fixed amount that it 

16 would prompt a review into the use of the crossing 

17 because that's one of our big concerns is if a private 

18 landowner sells some or all of the large tract of 

19 property, all of a sudden it would become a multifamily 

20 access way or potentially a sporting-type facility or 

21 other facility where the public all of a sudden gets 

22 this expectation of free access. 

23 So the rule-making process, as I see it, 

24 really would have minimum impact on a large number of 

25 crossings. But the ones where there are changes or 

 62 
 1 where we do find public access are the ones that need 

 2 to be addressed. And that's where it would be 

 3 beneficial. 

 4 MR. WORLEY: As Ray was talking, one thing I 

 5 wrote down was plans and outreach. And I propose a 

 6 book called the Land Use Planner's Guide to Railroads 

 7 because I think one thing you have got to try to do if 

 8 the Feds can do something from a level or the states, 

 9 as we look at land-use planning and smart growth as we 

10 talk about that, is to get information out to land-use 

11 planners on county levels and municipal levels what is 

12 the railroad about. You know, it is not a dying 

13 artery. It is growing. It has got more traffic, but 

14 you have got to consider the railroad and the facts 

15 about railroads when you are looking at land-use 

16 planning. 

17 We went through the steps for working groups 

18 on public crossings. Maybe there needs to be some kind 

19 of, you know, information in that Land Use Planner's 

20 Guide to Railroads, Copyright 2007, Part One, that 

21 states all of that information where they can refer to 

22 and know that when they approve a subdivision rezoning 

23 perhaps they need to require them to get alternative 

24 access to private crossings. I think that's the way 

25 you continually try to work through these things 

 63 
 1 because the problems aren't created overnight. And 

 2 they won't be resolved. And we will all be crazy and 

 3 muttering before they are ever resolved. But that book 

 4 is on sale very soon. 

 5 THE MODERATOR: Anyway, our time is near 

 6 closing. I would like the panel members to -- if 

 7 anybody has one last comment on the topic. Otherwise, 

 8 I would like to give them all one last round of 

 9 applause. 

10 Once again, I thank you all for attending. 

11 And if you are interested in this topic and any of the 

12 other TRB Committee topics, we will be discussing them 

13 all tomorrow at the eight o'clock in the morning till 

14 noon in Lincoln II. And I also extend an invitation to 

15 you if you still have an interest in safety at private 

16 crossings to join us in Syracuse, New York in 

17 February -- it should be lovely weather -- at the 

18 Doubletree Hotel in Syracuse, New York. Thank you very 

19 much. The session is closed. 

20 (At 5:34 p.m., the session was concluded.) 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 64 



Alaska is a young, large, largely empty state with emerging infrastructure. 

There is enough room for approximately 26 other states with their railroads etc. 

However, we have one railroad to serve the needs of this large, empty state. 

The Bureau of Land Management in the 1980's issued deeds to applicants in the 

past that placed residential property in some cases immediately adjoining the 

railroad right of way. Earlier in Alaska a frontier cooperative spirit existed 

among all the federal and state agencies. These residential placements 

alongside railroad tracks were not considered problematic by the AK Railroad. 

One half the population of Alaska lives in Anchorage. There is a strong desire 

along the perimeter of Anchorage to branch out for recreational purposes. 

Private land owners along the perimeter of Anchorage have emerging land title 

plant needs for access to dwellings. There is a race of recreational coalitions 

and partnerships who have partnered with the AK Railroad to foreclose the 

residential use by private land owners. Private land use is seen as the 

antithesis of recreational efforts. Private land owners still need the private 

crossings as the only available access possible at all to meet minimum building 

standards - a driveway to a road from a habitable dwelling. The model of a 

public crossing for residential needs can cost $250,000 just to bring in nonexisting electricity; additionally $350,000 construction costs for a public 

crossing standard, and $75,000 maintenance annually for a familial dwelling. 

There is currently NO road existing tying to these properties which are 

"inholdings". A private crossing is still needed. FRA should encourage the 

Alaska Railroad to recognize the needs of these "inholders", catalogue their 

locations, and urge the issuance of private crossings because terrain in Alaska 

the northernmost state and largest state as an improvement within this municipal 

city limit. FRA could suggest reasonable stipulations for such private 

crossings in a rural area in recognition that only approximately one percent of 

the huge empty state of Alaska is in private ownership. We still have a lot of 

growing to do and ANILCA crossings must be granted to allow residential 

development and safety. The FRA best practices should recognize the early 

primitive stage of development in many parts of Alaska and should encourage and 

support AK Railroad to continue to deal kindly and supportively with the 

emerging private property needs...i.e. allow private crossings where 

environmentally required and suggest engineering and signage which private 

individuals can afford with strong crossing agreements which are individualized 

to private owners. AK railroad has contractors with whom it does business and 

it should allow private individuals to have work done by these trusted 

contractors to adequate private crossing standards. A private crossing where a 

road does not exist in the middle of a swamp costing $1 million dollars is not a 

reasonable and only solution. FRA should realize the early development stages 

of within Alaska and FRA should suggest to Alaska Railroad to be reasonable 

because these sites are finite and issuing private crossings at grade is an 

improvement from the horse trail era from which these properties are emerging. 

It may be premature and cavalier to discontinue private crossings in Alaska at 

this time. The ARR should be discouraged form forming "partnerships" with 

agencies such as the USFS which has published desires to "maintain rustic" 

standards and recreational facilities built to recreational rustic consistency 

in this seismic area (1964 earthquake) when private residences are prohibited by 

egress denials of private crossings (the only access at all) to develop to the 

minimum safety standards adopted by the State of Alaska by refusal of ARR to all 

private at grade crossings. This is unreasonable. We are reasoning and 

reasonable people. Thank you for taking and considering this comment. 
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Notices 13343 

committee consensus on a draft for 

Final Review and Comment (FRAC). 

The committee will also consider plans 

for coordination and implementation of 

its recommendation on T-PED spurious 

emissions. Working group sessions are 

on Tuesday and Thursday afternoon. 

Plenary Sessions are Wednesday and 

Thursday. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–

463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is 

hereby given for a Special Committee 

202 Portable Electronic Devices 

meeting. The agenda will include: 

• April 17: 

• Chairmen’s Strategy Session—

MacIntosh-NBAA & Hilton-ATA Rooms 

• Progress and Status Update, Overall 

Review of Plan and Schedule for 

Document Completion, 

recommendations coordination and 

implementation 

• Working Group 5 Kickoff and 

Coordination—MacIntosh-NBAA & 

Hilton-ATA Rooms 

• Working Groups Sessions 

• Working Group 5 Overall DO-YYY 

Document—MacIntosh-NBAA & HiltonATA Rooms 

• Working Group 6: PED Spurious 

Emissions Recommendations—ARINC 

Conference Room 

• Sub Group on PED Statistical 

Analysis and Characterization—Small 

Conference Room 

• Sub Group on IPL Test—Colson 

Board Room 

• Sub Group on Certification 

Aspects—Garmin Room 

• Chairmen’s Strategy Session 

• Coordinate Recommendations to 

Plenary: Plan and Schedule for 

Remaining Committee Work. 

• April 18 and 19: 

• Opening Plenary Session (Welcome 

and Introductory Remarks, Review 

Agenda, Review/Approve previous 

Summary) 

• Results of RTCA PMC Meeting 

March 22, 2007 on revisions to SC–202 

TOR 

• Update from Regulatory Agencies 

(FAA, UK–CAA, Canadian TSB, FCC, or 

others present) 

• Update on EUROCAE Working 

Group WG58 Status 

• Update on CEA activities, including 

the CEA Bulletin-Recommended 

Practice for T–PEDs 

• Overview of Work on DO–YYY 

‘‘Aircraft Design and Certification for 

Portable Electronic Device (PED) 

Tolerance’’

• Update on Aircraft IPL Test 

Methods by WG5 Sub Group 

• Update on Target IPL Values for 

aircraft design by WG5 IPL Sub Group 

• Summary of PED Emissions 

Statistical Characterization by WG5–T–

PED Characterization Sub Group 

• Summary of Certification Aspects 

WG5 Certification Sub Group 

• Working Group 5: Airplane Design 

and Certification Guidance 

• Plan to complete remaining work, 

schedule and process for completion of 

open issues, recommendation to publish 

FRAC draft, identify any risks to 

completing final document at the July 

Plenary and proposed action to mitigate 

that risk 

• Working Group 6: PED Spurious 

Emissions Recommendations 

Coordination 

• Implementation Assessment (joint 

working group with CEA) 

• Schedule and plan for dialog with 

CE manufactures 

• Committee Discussion on Final 

Phase 2 Work Plan and Schedule for 

DO–YYY Document 

• Committee Discussion on Final 

Phase 2 Work Plan and Schedule for 

DO–YYY Document 

• Break-out Session for WG’s 

Required 

• WG5 Overall Document and 

Process—MacIntosh—NBAA & HiltonATA-Rooms 

• WG6 PED Spurious Emissions 

Recommendation—ARINC Conference 

Room 

• Sub Group on PED Statistical 

Analysis and Characterization—Small 

Conference Room 

• Sub Groups on IPL Test—Colson 

Board Room 

• Sub Group on Certification 

Aspect—Garmin Room 

• April 19 

• Chairman’s Day 2 Opening Remarks 

and Process Check 

• Final Overall Working Group 

Report 

• Identification and Plan for Closure 

of Open Issues 

• Remaining work plan and Schedule 

for Completion of DO–YYY 

• Recommendation on publication of 

FRAC draft 

• Working Group 5 Airplane Design 

and Certification Guidance 

recommendation for FRAC 

• Working Group 6 PED Spurious 

Emissions Recommendations (reporting 

on plan for completion of 

recommendations coordination and 

implementation) 

• Plenary Consensus on Plans to: 

• DO–YYY Recommended Guidance 

for Airplane Design and Certification 

ready for FRAC 

• WG6 plan to coordinate and 

implement PED Spurious Emissions 

Recommendations 

• Closing Session (Other Business, 

Date and Place of Upcoming Meetings 

(Nineteenth Plenary at RTCA, July 23–

27, 2007,) 

• Complete Disposition of FRAC 

comments on draft Airplane Design & 

Guidance Recommendation draft 

• Committee consensus to 

recommend publication of DO–YYY 

• CEA/SC–202 Consenses 

Recommendation for implementation of 

SC–202 recommendation 

• Plenary Session Tuesday & 

Thursday, WG Monday, Wednesday, 

Friday 

• Adjourn to Break-out sessions for 

Working Groups if required and time 

permits 

Attendance is open to the interested 

public but limited to space availability. 

With the approval of the chairmen, 

members of the public may present oral 

statements at the meeting. Persons 

wishing to present statements or obtain 

information should contact the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. Members of the public 

may present a written statement to the 

committee at any time. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 13, 

2007. 

Francisco Estrada C., 

RTCA Advisory Committee. 

[FR Doc. 07–1343 Filed 3–20–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

[Docket No. FRA–2005–23281, Notice No. 

4] 

Safety of Private Highway-Rail Grade 

Crossings; Notice of Safety Inquiry 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of safety inquiry. 

SUMMARY: On July 27, 2006, FRA 

published a notice announcing its intent 

to conduct a series of open meetings 

throughout the United States, in 

cooperation with appropriate State 

agencies, to consider issues related to 

the safety of private highway-rail grade 

crossings. To date, FRA has conducted 

four meetings and on January 5, 2007, 

FRA published a notice announcing the 

scheduling of an additional meeting to 

be held February 15, 2007, in Syracuse, 

New York. Due to inclement weather, it 

was necessary to reschedule the 

February 15 meeting for April 26, 2007. 

At the meeting, FRA intends to solicit 

oral statements from private crossing 

owners, railroads and other interested 

parties on issues related to the safety of 

private highway-rail grade crossings, 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
13344 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Notices 

which will include, but not be limited 

to, current practices concerning 

responsibility for safety at private grade 

crossings, the adequacy of warning 

devices at private crossings, and the 

relative merits of a more uniform 

approach to improving safety at private 

crossings. FRA has also opened a public 

docket on these issues so that interested 

parties may submit written comments 

for public review and consideration. 

DATES: The fifth public meeting will be 

held in Syracuse, New York on April 26, 

2007, at the Renaissance Syracuse Hotel, 

701 East Genesee Street, Syracuse, New 

York 13210, beginning at 9:30 a.m. 

Persons wishing to participate are 

requested to provide their names, 

organizational affiliation and contact 

information to Michelle Silva, FRA 

Docket Clerk, 1120 Vermont Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 

202–493–6030). Persons needing sign 

language interpretation or other 

reasonable accommodation for disability 

are also encouraged to contact Ms. Silva 

at the above-referenced telephone 

number. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron 

Ries, FRA Office of Safety, 1120 

Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 

20590 (telephone: 202–493–6299); 

Miriam Kloeppel, FRA Office of Safety, 

1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202–

493–6299); or Kathryn Shelton, FRA 

Office of Chief Counsel, 1120 Vermont 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20590 

(telephone: 202–493–6038). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

additional information, please see the 

initial notice published July 27, 2006 in 

the Federal Register (71 FR 42713) and 

available at http:// 

a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/ 

01jan20061800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/ 

2006/pdf/06–6501.pdf. 

Request for Comments 

While FRA solicits discussion and 

comments on all areas of safety at 

private highway-rail grade crossings, we 

particularly encourage comments on the 

following topics: 

• At-grade highway-rail crossings 

present inherent risks to users, 

including the railroad and its employees 

and other persons in the vicinity, 

should a train derail into an occupied 

area or release hazardous materials. 

When passenger trains are involved, the 

risks are heightened. From the 

standpoint of public policy, how do we 

determine whether the creation or 

continuation of a private crossing is 

justified? 

• Is the current assignment of 

responsibility for safety at private 

crossings effective? To what extent do 

risk management practices associated 

with insurance arrangements result in 

‘‘regulation’’ of safety at private 

crossings? 

• How should improvement and/or 

maintenance costs associated with 

private crossings be allocated? 

• Is there a need for alternative 

dispute resolution mechanisms to 

handle disputes that may arise between 

private crossing owners and the 

railroads? 

• Should the State or Federal 

government assume greater 

responsibility for safety at private 

crossings? 

• Should there be nationwide 

standards for warning devices at private 

crossings or for intersection designs of 

new private grade crossings? 

• How do we determine when a 

private crossing has a ‘‘public purpose’’

and is subject to public use? 

• Should some crossings be 

categorized as ‘‘commercial crossings’’

rather than as ‘‘private crossings?’’

• Are there innovative traffic control 

treatments that could improve safety at 

private crossings on major rail corridors, 

including those on which passenger 

service is provided? 

• Should the Department of 

Transportation request the enactment of 

legislation to address private crossings? 

If so, what should it include? 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 15, 

2007. 

Jo Strang, 

Associate Administrator for Safety. 

[FR Doc. E7–5143 Filed 3–20–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[DOT Docket No. NHTSA–06–26554] 

Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping 

Requirements 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Request for public comment on 

proposed collection of information. 

SUMMARY: This notice solicits public 

comment on continuation of the 

requirements for the collection of 

information on safety standards. Before 

a Federal agency can collect certain 

information from the public, it must 

receive approval from the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). Under 

procedures established by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

before seeking approval, Federal 

agencies must solicit public comment 

on proposed collections of information, 

including extensions and reinstatement 

of previously approved collections. 

This document describes a collection 

of information associated with 49 CFR 

Part 574, Tire Identification and 

Recordkeeping. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 20, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Comments must refer to the 

docket notice number cited at the 

beginning of this notice and be 

submitted to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, Att’n: Desk 

Officer for NHTSA, 725 17th Street, 

NW., Washington, DC 20503. Please 

identify the proposed collection of 

information for which a comment is 

provided, by referencing its OMB 

clearance number. It is requested, but 

not required, that 2 copies of the 

comment be provided. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Complete copies of each request for 

collection may be obtained from Mr. 

George Soodoo, NVS–122, National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 

20590. Mr. Soodoo’s telephone number 

is (202) 366–5274. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

before a proposed collection of 

information is submitted to OMB for 

approval, Federal agencies must first 

publish a document in the Federal 

Register providing a 60-day comment 

period and otherwise consult with 

members of the public and affected 

agencies concerning each proposed 

collection of information. The OMB has 

promulgated regulations describing 

what must be included in such a 

document. Under OMB’s regulation (at 

5 CFR 1320.8(d)), an agency must ask 

for public comment on the following: 

(i) Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(ii) The accuracy of the agency’s 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

collection of information, including the 

validity of the methodology and 

assumptions used; 

(iii) How to enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to 

be collected; and 

(iv) How to minimize the burden of 

the collection of information on those 

who are to respond, including the use 

of appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms of 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Correction --- To date the FRA has had NO safety meetings. A safety meeting 

would consist of more than brainwashed railroad clowns getting together for a 

"HO"DOWN. 

A. The crossing is safe or B. YOU MURDERED THEM!!! 
18730 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 71 / Friday, April 13, 2007 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

[Docket No. FRA–2005–23281, Notice No. 

5] 

Safety of Private Highway-Rail Grade 

Crossings; Notice of Safety Inquiry 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of open meeting date 

change. 

SUMMARY: On July 27, 2006, FRA 

published a notice announcing its intent 

to conduct a series of open meetings 

throughout the United States, in 

cooperation with appropriate State 

agencies, to consider issues related to 

the safety of private highway-rail grade 

crossings. FRA has conducted four 

meetings to date and on March 17, 2007, 

FRA published a notice announcing the 

scheduling of an additional meeting to 

be held April 26, 2007, in Syracuse, 

New York. Due to recently developed 

scheduling conflicts, however, it is 

necessary to postpone this April 26 

meeting. This Notice No. 5 is an 

announcement that the Syracuse, New 

York, meeting has been rescheduled for 

July 26, 2007. FRA regrets any 

inconvenience this date change may 

have caused. 

At the meeting, FRA intends to solicit 

oral statements from private crossing 

owners, railroads, and other interested 

parties on issues related to the safety of 

private highway-rail grade crossings, 

which will include, but not be limited 

to, current practices concerning the 

responsibility for safety at private grade 

crossings, the adequacy of warning 

devices at private crossings, and the 

relative merits of a more uniform 

approach to improving safety at private 

crossings. FRA has also opened a public 

docket on these issues so that interested 

parties may submit written comments 

for public review and consideration. 

DATES: The fifth public meeting will be 

held in Syracuse, New York on July 26, 

2007, at the Renaissance Syracuse Hotel, 

701 East Genesee Street, Syracuse, New 

York 13210, beginning at 9:30 a.m. 

Persons wishing to participate are 

requested to provide their names, 

organizational affiliation, and contact 

information to Michelle Silva, FRA 

Docket Clerk, 1120 Vermont Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 

202–493–6030). Persons needing sign 

language interpretation or other 

reasonable accommodation for disability 

are also encouraged to contact Ms. Silva 

using the aforementioned information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron 

Ries, FRA Office of Safety, 1120 

Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 

20590 (telephone: 202–493–6299); 

Miriam Kloeppel, FRA Office of Safety, 

1120 Vermont Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202–

493–6299); or Kathryn Shelton, FRA 

Office of Chief Counsel, 1120 Vermont 

Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20590 

(telephone: 202–493–6038). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

additional information, please see the 

initial notice published July 27, 2006, in 

the Federal Register (71 FR 42713) and 

available at http:// 

a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/ 

01jan20061800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/ 

2006/pdf/06–6501.pdf 

Request for Comments 

While FRA solicits discussion and 

comments on all areas of safety at 

private highway-rail grade crossings, we 

particularly encourage comments on the 

following topics: 

• At-grade highway-rail crossings 

present inherent risks to users, 

including the railroad and its 

employees, and to other persons in the 

vicinity should a train derail into an 

occupied area or release hazardous 

materials. When passenger trains are 

involved, the risks are heightened. From 

the standpoint of public policy, how do 

we determine whether the creation or 

continuation of a private crossing is 

justified? 

• Is the current assignment of 

responsibility for safety at private 

crossings effective? To what extent do 

risk management practices associated 

with insurance arrangements result in 

the ‘‘regulation’’ of safety at private 

crossings? 

• How should improvement and/or 

maintenance costs associated with 

private crossings be allocated? 

• Is there a need for alternative 

dispute resolution mechanisms to 

handle disputes that may arise between 

private crossing owners and the 

railroads? 

• Should the State or Federal 

Government assume greater 

responsibility for safety at private 

crossings? 

• Should there be nationwide 

standards for warning devices at private 

crossings, or for intersection design of 

new private grade crossings? 

• How do we determine when a 

private crossing has a ‘‘public purpose’’

and is subject to public use? 

• Should some crossings be 

categorized as ‘‘commercial crossings,’’

rather than as ‘‘private crossings?’’

• Are there innovative traffic control 

treatments that could improve safety at 

private crossings on major rail corridors, 

including those on which passenger 

service is provided? 

• Should DOT request enactment of 

legislation to address private crossings? 

If so, what should it include? 

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 9, 

2007. 

Jo Strang, 

Associate Administrator for Safety. 

[FR Doc. E7–7064 Filed 4–12–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Notice of Application for Approval of 

Discontinuance or Modification of a 

Railroad Signal System or Relief From 

the Requirements of Title 49 Code of 

Federal Regulations Part 236 

Pursuant to Title 49 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) part 235 and 49 

U.S.C. 20502(a), the following railroad 

has petitioned the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) seeking approval 

for the discontinuance or modification 

of the signal system or relief from the 

requirements of 49 CFR part 236 as 

detailed below. 

[Docket Number FRA–2007–27287] 

Applicant: BNSF Railway Company, Mr. 

Gregory C. Fox, Vice President 

Engineering, P.O. Box 961034, Fort 

Worth, Texas 76161–0034. 

BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) seeks 

relief from the requirements of the 

Rules, Standards and Instructions, Title 

49 CFR part 236, Section 236.377 

Approach Locking, 236.378 Time 

locking, 236.379 Route Locking, 236.380 

Indication Locking, and 236.381 Traffic 

Locking, on processor-based systems to 

the extent that only the following be 

required every four years after initial 

testing or program change: 

• Verification of the CRC/Check Sum/ 

UCN of the existing location specific 

application logic to the previously 

tested version. 

• Tests on equipment outside the 

processor (switch indication, track 

indication, searchlight signal indication, 

approach locking (if external)) are 

verified to the processor’s inputs and 

switch locking is tested from the 

processor’s output to the switch 

machine. 

• Testing of the duration of any 

timers with variable settings. 

Applicant’s justification for relief: 

Many of BNSF’s interlockings and 

control points are controlled by solidstate processor-based systems. The 2- 

year signal locking tests for solid-state 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Let's see. CSX was overchargeing in 1993 and now the prices have doubled with 

more overchares. Is the USDOT OIG a lier and a murdering co-thief with his 

railroad buds? GOD knows!!! 

January 24, 2007 

Report 300-4008 

CSXT Billing Information Review 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The purpose of this Advisory is to report the results of our limited review of 

allegations made by a former CSX Transportation (CSXT) employee – Mr. David 

Nelson. The allegations relate to improper or illegal CSXT financial practices. 

Our review is based on review of invoices, industry knowledge, and discussions 

with the USDOT Inspector General’s Office (USDOT OIG) staff. The ten 

allegations, which fall into 5 categories, are discussed below. 

Due to the impact of these allegations on other states and the federal 

government, a federal inquiry may be more appropriate. We were unable to 

substantiate any of the allegations and discontinued our review when the USDOT 

OIG dropped their review of similar allegations. We will share some of these 

allegations with the next AASHTO multi-state invoice audit team so they can be 

considered during the team’s next audit. 

BACKGROUND 

This is not the first time that Mr. Nelson has made allegations against CSXT. In 

1994, the Department received a refund from CSXT based partially on Mr. Nelson’s 

allegations. Our discussions with USDOT OIG disclosed that Mr. Nelson had made 

allegations to them similar to the ones below. The ten allegations made to us 

were: 

? Overtime is being invoiced to the Department by the Savannah Georgia Signal 

Shop but the Savannah Georgia Signal Shop employees do not work overtime; 

? Indirect costs and overhead costs are billed for the Signal Shop employees; 

? Burco, a supplier of railroad materials, is obtaining materials at lower 

prices but the cost savings are not passed on to the State; 

? There is a conflict of interest between Safetran and Burco; 

? CSXT unnecessarily overcharges freight by sending materials back and forth 

between Savannah Georgia, West Virginia, and South Carolina; 

? Sales Tax is, but should not be, billed to the States for materials; 

? Materials are billed at the highest cost; 

? CSXT refurbishes crossing materials from road crossing projects and sells the 

materials; 

? Equipment used on Non-State projects is billed to State projects; and 

? Crossings are not safe due to signaling issues. 

According to USDOT OIG staff, they found no basis to the complaints that 

warranted additional work and since none of the allegations were substantiated, 

the decision was made not to proceed with the investigation. When the decision 

was made by the USDOT OIG not to pursue inquiry, the employee’s Qui Tam attorney 

dropped the case as well. 

Report No. 300-4008 • Page 1 

Florida Department of Transportation 

Office of Inspector General 

Report No. 300-4008 • Page 2 

PURPOSE, SCOPE and METHODOLOGY 

The purpose of this limited review was to evaluate allegations made by a former 

CSX Transportation (CSXT) employee – Mr. David Nelson. 

The scope was limited to a review of the ten allegations. 

In order to evaluate the allegations we used the following methodology: 

• we reviewed CSXT invoices to determine if we could substantiate any of the 

allegations, 
• we applied our industry knowledge to determine the reasonableness of the 

allegations, and 

• we discussed the allegations with USDOT OIG staff. 

FINDINGS 

Category 1. Savannah, Georgia Signal Shop Overtime and Indirect Costs 

Allegation: Overtime is being invoiced to the Department by the Savannah, 

Georgia Signal Shop but the Savannah, Georgia Signal Shop employees do not work 

overtime. 

The following CSXT contract invoices were reviewed to evaluate the allegations 

of overtime being invoiced: 

District 

Contract No. 

Amount 

O/T Invoiced 

2 

AL460 

$43,818 

No 

2 

AN585 

$111,450 

No 

7 

AK008 

$46,363 

No 

7 

AG713 

$358,755 

No 

7 

AK903 

$93,411 

No 

We examined the payroll register of the Savannah Georgia Signal Shop. Of the 

approximately 57,000 hours worked, there were only 423 hours of employee 

overtime recorded. For the five invoices selected for review, there were not any 

instances where CSXT invoiced the Department for overtime. Based on our past 

experience, Signal Shop overtime is rarely billed. 

Allegation: Indirect costs and overhead costs are billed for the Signal Shop 

employees. 

The State of Florida allows the billing of overhead rate in addition to the 

indirect rates for the Savannah, Georgia Signal Shop. These are two separate 

cost pools and not duplicate costs. 

Category 2. Burco 

Allegation: Burco, a supplier of railroad materials, is obtaining materials at 

lower prices but the cost savings are not passed on to the State. 

The USDOT OIG investigated this broad allegation and found no corroborating 

information. A provision in the CSXT/Burco contract allows Burco to purchase 

materials for CSXT projects from vendors at the CSXT purchase prices. In the 

event that Burco negotiates a lower price, the contract between CSXT and Burco 

provides for sharing of such savings (i.e., 50% Burco and 50% CSXT). We will 

share this allegation with the next AASHTO multi-state invoice audit team so 

that it can be considered during the team’s next audit. 

Florida Department of Transportation 

Office of Inspector General 

Report No. 300-4008 • Page 3 
Allegation: There is a conflict of interest between Safetran and Burco. Burco is 

a wholly owned subsidiary of Safetran and Safetran provides engineering services 

to CSXT. Saftran decides what materials are needed for a project then orders 

those materials from Burco. 

The USDOT OIG investigated this issue and found no corroborating evidence 

supporting the allegation. 

Allegation: CSXT unnecessarily charges freight by sending materials back and 

forth between Savannah Georgia, West Virginia and South Carolina. 

Burco has locations in both West Virginia and South Carolina and the CSXT Signal 

Shop is located in Savannah, Georgia. The Savannah Georgia Signal Shop assembles 

signal houses but has subsequently sub-contracted some work to Burco. In 

Florida, freight billed by CSXT is supported by invoices from third party 

vendors who provide the transport. We did not review to see if these freight 

charges resulted in higher cost or analyze this business practice to determine 

if it is cost effective. 

Category 3. Materials 

Allegation: Sales Tax is, but should not be, billed to the States for materials. 

The railroads purchase most of the materials used on State projects from third 

party vendors who charge sales tax because they are selling to CSXT and not the 

government. Federal Acquisition Regulations require that we reimburse the costs 

incurred by the railroads. 

Allegation: Materials are billed at the highest cost. 

It is our understanding that CSXT uses average costing for materials pricing 

which is allowed by the Federal Acquisition Regulations. We will share this 

allegation with the next AASHTO multi-state invoice audit team so that it can be 

considered during their next audit. 

Allegation: CSXT refurbishes crossing materials from road crossing projects and 

sells the materials. 

Department agreements provide for salvage credits for recovered materials. These 

credits are required to be reported on billings. Mr. Nelson did not provide 

specifics on where this occurred and we did not review further. 

Category 4. Equipment 

Allegation: Equipment that is being used on Non-State projects is billed to 

State projects. 

Mr. Nelson did not provide specifics on where this occurred and we did not 

review further. 

Category 5. Safety Concern 

Allegation: Crossings are not safe due to signaling issues. 

The main issue concerns a safety feature of the fail safe signal circuit. Mr. 

Nelson alleges it is not fail safe. Since we do not possess the requisite 

expertise to evaluate these safety issues, we passed them along to the FDOT Rail 

Office for consideration. The Rail Office looked into this matter but was unable 

to confirm or refute the allegation. Recently a similar allegation has been made 

by Mr. Nelson and the Rail Office is responding. 

Florida Department of Transportation 

Office of Inspector General 

Report No. 300-4008 • Page 4 

We appreciate the opportunity to provide this service. If you have questions or 

need additional information, please call Joseph K. Maleszewski at (850) 410-

5506, or Carlos Mistry, (850) 410-5832. 

ATTACHMENT A - DISTRIBUTION 

Fred Wise, Rail Office Manager, FDOT Rail Office 

Copies of this report were distributed to the following: 

David Nelson 

Marion Hart Jr., State Public Transportation and Modal Administrator 

Gina Laney, FHWA Resource Center 

Tammy Montanez, Railroad and Utility Audit Manager, North Carolina DOT 
ATTACHMENT B - ENGAGEMENT TEAM 

Engagement Team: 

Tom Abney, CGAP, Senior Contract Auditor 

Carlos Mistry, CIA, Audit Manager 

Joe Maleszewski, CIA, CISA, CIG, Audit Director 
...With a current inspector workforce of 385, FRA has limited capability to 

investigate approximately 3,000 grade crossing collisions that occur each year. 

Instead, it places heavy reliance on railroad self-reporting.... 

Geez, at the hillbilly high I went to that's less than 10 crossing collisions a 

year per inspector. Do we have total FEDERAL corruption here letting the killers 

self-investigate? YOU BET!!! 
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division 

of the 

International Brotherhood of Teamsters 

July 18, 2007 

Michelle Silva, Docket Clerk 

Attn: Docket No. FRA-2005-23281, Notice No. 1 

U.S. Department of Transportation Dockets 

400 Seventh Street, S.W, Room PL-401 

Washington, DC 20590-0001 

RE: Safety of Private highway-Rail Grade Crossings; Notice of Safety Inquiry; 

Docket No. 2005-23281, Notice No. 5 

Dear Ms. Silva: 

The Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division (BMWED) submits the 

following written comments for consideration regarding the safety of private highway-rail grade 

crossings, referenced as Docket No. FRA-2005-23281, Notice No. 5. We appreciate the opportunity 

to participate with FRA in this safety effort. 

 The purpose of the public hearings to which we submit these comments is to examine (1) 

the current practices concerning responsibility for safety at private grade crossings; (2) the 

adequacy of warning devices at private grade crossings; and, (3) the relative merits of a more 

uniform approach to improving safety at private crossings. 

FRA specifically requested comments on the following bullet points. BMWED’s 

comment on each of these points will follow in the order presented: 

• At-grade highway-rail crossings present inherent risks to users, including the railroad 

and its employees, and to other persons in the vicinity should a train derail into an 

occupied area or release hazardous materials. When passenger trains are involved, the 

risks are heightened. From the standpoint of public policy, how do we determine whether 

creation or continuation of a private crossing is justified? 

BMWED believes that FRA should limit the creation of new private grade crossings to 

those absolutely necessary which meet strictly defined usage guidelines for private crossings 
2

with private use. BMWED believes private crossings should be eliminated where alternative 

access is practicable. BMWED also believes private crossings must be limited to those used 

exclusively for farm-to-field crossings and residential driveways (fewer that 4 units). Use of 

such crossing for commerce, i.e., as assess to a commercial business or other use not consistent 

with the farm and residential guidelines mentioned above, should trigger a designation as a 

public crossing. Each existing private crossing should be subject to a periodic risk assessment 

to determine whether they continue to meet established criteria for “private crossings” and if 

active warning devises are deemed necessary based upon train speed, line density, train types and 

consists, site distances, and vehicular crossing usage. All new private crossings should be 

required, at a minimum, to be protected by a grade crossing signal system flashing light signals. 

• Is the current assignment of responsibility for safety at private crossings effective? To 

what extent do risk management practices associated with insurance arrangements result 

in “regulation” of safety at private crossings? 

Clearly, the current assignment of responsibility for safety at private crossings is not as 

effective as it needs to be. This is reflected in the marginal improvement (10%) in the number 

of private grade crossing accidents over the past decade, the relatively unchanged rate of 

fatalities which have occurred between 1996 and 2005, and the slight increase in the number of 

injuries which occurred at private crossing over the past decade. 

BMWED strongly believes that the Federal Railroad Administration should establish, in 

cooperation and consultation with state agencies, Rail Labor, and other direct stakeholders, 

enforceable regulations setting minimum site distances for vehicular traffic at all private and 

public grade crossings without active warning devises. It is BMWED’s opinion that insurance 

arrangements do little to influence safety at private grade crossings due to the inability of 

insurance underwriters to enforce usage restrictions. 

• How should improvement and/or maintenance costs associated with private crossings be 

allocated? 

Improvement and maintenance costs for new private grade crossings should be split 

equally between the State government, Federal government and the property owner. However, 

each case should be evaluated on its own merit. There may be some cases where the 

responsibility allocation should be adjusted. The State & Federal government for instance should 

split the cost of a crossing warning system where school buses are required to use the crossing to 

pick up or discharge school children, or where emergency vehicles require assess. 

Furthermore, BMWED believes that, in all fairness, existing property owners should be 

grandfathered from full cost sharing and the bulk of the cost for protecting existing private 

crossings should be shared primarily between the state and federal government, based upon 

priorities determined by a comprehensive risk assessment of each private crossing. 

• Is there a need for alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to handle disputes that may 

arise between private crossing owners and the railroads? 

The BMWED chooses not to comment on this matter because such should be jointly 

determined by the private crossing owners and the railroad. 
3

• Should the State or Federal government assume greater responsibility for safety at 

private crossings, or for intersection design of new private crossings? 

Yes, the State and Federal governments should assume greater responsibility for safety at 

private crossings. As evidenced by the data contained in Docket No. FRA-2005-23281 there is a 

known safety problem at private crossings. There are far too many accidents and an unacceptable 

number of fatalities along with these accidents. As stated previously, the BMWED believes that 

there should be no private crossings created in the future unless they are equipped with active 

crossing warning devices. If the DOT/FRA is going to allow for the creation of future private 

crossings, then the State and Federal governments should have regulatory oversight for 

intersection design, inclusive of line-of-site distances, of these new private crossings. 

• Should there be nationwide standards for warning devices at private crossings, or for 

intersection design of new private grade crossings? 

Yes, BMWED believes there should be nationwide standards for warning devices at 

private crossings and for intersection design. BMWED believes that the standards should be 

uniform and consistent to facilitate the “conditioning” of private crossing users to respond to 

signage and warning devises they encounter at any grade crossing. BMWED believes the 

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Part 8, Traffic Controls for HighwayRail Grade Crossings could provide useful guidance in this area. 

• How do we determine when a private crossing has a ‘public purpose’ and is subject to 

‘public use’? 

BMWED believes that the term “private crossing” must be clearly and narrowly defined 

to identify only those private crossings used exclusively for farm-to-field crossings and 

residential driveways (fewer that 4 units). Any “private crossing” used in commerce, i.e., for 

private business purposes, used by employees, contractors, and suppliers of private businesses, 

and those used by the public to enter commercial facilities should be re-designated as public 

grade crossings and be subject to the safety protocols and regulations related thereto. 

• Should some crossings be categorized as ‘commercial crossings’ rather than as ‘private 

crossings’? 

BMWED believes that “commercial crossings” are public crossings and should be designated 

as such. 

• Are there innovative traffic control treatments that could improve safety at private 

crossings on major rail corridors, including those on which passenger service is 

provided? 

The BMWED is not aware of any proven “innovative traffic control treatments” outside 

of standard active warning devises. We believe that “innovative traffic control treatments” may 

play a significant role at private crossings in the future, especially once the cost and reliability of 

such systems makes their widespread application at private crossings feasible. However, to 

address the immediate risk, basic grade crossing flashing light signals and/or gates are proven 
4

technology that would instantly decrease the hazards inherent with all crossings that lack an 

active warning system. 

• Should the Department of Transportation request enactment of legislation to address 

private crossings? Is so, what should it include? 

Yes, the DOT should request enactment of legislation to address private crossings. As 

stated previously, there is not enough being done to reduce accidents and fatalities at private 

crossings. At a minimum the legislation should include the sight line distances; signage 

requirements; and grade crossing signal system flashing light signals. 

The Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Division appreciates this opportunity 

to submit these written comments to the docket. BMWED looks forward to working with all 

stakeholders to address this important public safety issue. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 Rick Inclima (signed) 

 BMWED Director of Safety 

 

cc: Mr. Grady Cothen 




















Name: Robert Pines 

E-mail: 

Employed as: Other, non-employee, for N/A 

Posted: 24 July 2007 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxJWspDonYs 

Here's another math question for ya Slackie. 

Hillary says there are 219,000 miles of track. 

Hillary says the FRA inspects point two per-cent of this track. 

That would be 438 miles of track inspected a year or 438 x 5280 = 

2,312,640 feet of track inspected a year 

Hillary says there are 400 FRA inspectors 

There are 2,080 working hours in a year. (52 x 8 x 5) 

The FRA inspectors are off say 20% of these hours for vacation, sick 

days, and holidays so 1,664 hours times 400 inspectors = 665,600 FRA 

hour inspections. 

2,312,640/665,600 = 3.47 feet of track inspected per FRA inspection 

hour. 

What size shoe does Hillary wear and where do the FRA inspectors sleep? 
Safety at Private Highway-Rail Crossings 

Alternative Approach Discussion Topics 

Findings: 

1. The use of public funds to make improvements has played an important role 

in improving safety at public crossings. Except in very rare circumstances, 

however, public funding has not been, and currently is not available for use at 

private crossings. As a result, the proportion of private crossings equipped 

with more effective warning devices, particularly active warning devices, is 

much lower than the proportion of public crossings so equipped. 

Improvements in safety (as reflected in the accident, fatality, and injury counts 

Nationwide) at private crossings, therefore, have lagged behind the 

improvements seen at public crossings. 

2. The data currently stored in the National Highway-Railroad Crossing 

Inventory for private crossings are inadequate for most analyses, and 

insufficient to support effective resource allocation. 

3. In particular, current data are not sufficient to allow analyses of trends in 

either highway or rail traffic at private crossings. Assuming, however, that 

exposure trends at private crossings are similar in direction to those at public 

crossings, even if they are not similar in scale, it seems reasonable to believe 

that exposure at private crossings has risen somewhat over the past decade. 

Based on this assumption, accident, incident, and casualty rates at private 

crossings have likely fallen somewhat over the same time period. National 

totals of accidents, incidents, fatalities, and injuries are stagnant, however. 

4. Population increases, changes in land use, and both recent and projected 

growth in rail and highway traffic suggest that exposure to accident risk at 

private crossings is likely to continue increasing. Accordingly, the number of 

opportunities for accidents, and therefore for casualties, will also increase 

unless new initiatives for improving private crossing safety are identified and 

effectively implemented. 

5. Absence of a cohesive policy or regulatory structure at any level has led to the 

existence of private crossings that are redundant, inadequately designed, 

and/or poorly maintained. 

6. Motorists represent only a portion of the populations at risk due to accidents at 

private crossings. The risks of collision and of derailment mean that the train 

crews, train passengers, and others in the vicinity of the crossing may be 

exposed to derailing equipment or hazardous materials releases. 

7. With few exceptions, no public bodies at the State or local level are vested 

with authority or responsibility for safety at private crossings. 

DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION 

Safety at Private Highway-Rail Crossings 

Alternative Approach Discussion Topics 

2 

8. No process currently exists that predicates the creation of new private 

crossings or the continuation of existing crossings on considerations of public 

safety or necessity. 

9. In most States, there are no publicly-sanctioned engineering criteria for 

private crossings. Accordingly, users of those crossings may encounter a 

variety of signage, road surface conditions, and other engineering attributes. 

10. For most private crossings in the Nation, there is no agreement in place 

specifying the responsibilities of the railroad and the holder. Disputes must 

typically be resolved through direct interaction between the railroad and the 

crossing holder, or, failing that, through litigation. 

11. The level and type of highway use, i.e. whether the public has an expectation 

of free access to a crossing, is a key factor affecting the safety at that crossing. 

12. In general, local planning and zoning authorities do not regularly take into 

account the impacts on interstate rail transportation of the development 

decisions that they oversee. 

13. Railroads’ ability to control roadway design or traffic control device selection 

and placement is limited. They also often lack the authority to control the 

highway usage of a given crossing 

14. .At substantial cost, railroads make significant efforts to close or improve 

private crossings. However; they are hampered by common law, and in some 

cases statutory law, which do not recognize the degree to which private 

crossings threaten the safety of road users, railroad employees, and potentially 

other members of the public in the vicinity. 

15. The contribution of education and awareness programs to safety at private 

crossings is not documented, but safety knowledge and awareness would 

appear relevant to private crossing safety, provided that engineering 

arrangements present suitable cues to facilitate safely traversing the 

intersection. 

16. Since State laws applicable to public roadways do not apply at private 

crossings, and since most users of private crossings are likely authorized 

users, law enforcement does not appear to be a useful strategy for improving 

safety at private crossings. 

17. Effective solutions to improving safety at the Nation’s private highway-rail 

grade crossings will require active collaboration between the parties involved. 

These parties include, but may not be limited to: 

• the holders of the right to cross the railroad, 

• the railroads, 

• local public planning approval authorities, 
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION 

Safety at Private Highway-Rail Crossings 

Alternative Approach Discussion Topics 

3 

• state agencies that enforce crossing design standards, 

• professional and/or industry organizations responsible for developing 

standards, 

• the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). 

18. Within the DOT, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is the only 

agency with statutory authority directly relevant to the subject matter. 

However, in the interest of effectively serving the multimodal populations at 

risk, other DOT surface modes should participate in program development. 

Proposed Actions 

Option A 

The FRA proposes to publish new National Policy, to include the following: 

• A clear declaration that new private crossings are disfavored, except where clearly 

necessary after evaluation of all reasonable alternatives. 

• A declaration that every private crossing should have a recorded agreement 

addressing, at a minimum, safety-related factors. 

• Establishment of an enhanced private crossing classification scheme for inclusion 

in the National Grade Crossing Inventory, and for use by diagnostic teams, that 

resembles the following: 

o Private crossings with private use (where there is not a perception that the 

general population is invited or allowed access) 

 Residential driveways (fewer than 4 units) 

 Farm field-to-field crossings 

o Private crossings with public use 

 Large residential driveways 

 Commercial crossings where the public access is expected 

(shopping centers, business parks, medical offices, parking lots, 

sports arenas, other recreational sites) 

 Industrial crossings (dependent on traffic count, design vehicle) 

• Note: In determining public use, the type of train traffic should also be a factor 

taking into consideration the impact of a collision on passengers on the train or on 

near-by facilities. 

• A declaration that States should establish programs for review of existing private 

crossings, and publication of exemplar State legislation for those States that do 

not currently have jurisdiction over safety at private crossings. 
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION 

Safety at Private Highway-Rail Crossings 

Alternative Approach Discussion Topics 

4 

• A declaration that States should establish or identify a process whereby they are 

notified of land use changes that might affect safety at a private grade crossing, 

and publication of exemplar State legislation for those States that do not currently 

have jurisdiction over safety at private crossings. 

• A declaration that States should establish or identify a process for notifying 

affected railroads of any land use changes that might affect safety at a private 

grade crossing, and publication of exemplar State legislation for those States that 

do not currently have jurisdiction over safety at private crossings. 

• Establishment of guidelines or thresholds of exposure or other factors affecting 

safety, to determine when those new private crossings, or those crossings at which 

land use changes affect safety, when they are deemed necessary, should be subject 

to a risk-based evaluation by a diagnostic team. 

• Establishment of guidelines for diagnostic teams that promote a Nationally 

consistent approach to making improvements at private crossings, to include the 

following: 

o Risk levels should be calculated for each private crossing. Analysis 

should be performed to determine the appropriate risk remediation 

treatments. Risk above a certain threshold should trigger use of AASHTO 

roadway design standards. 

o Diagnostic teams should consider crossing closure before considering any 

other treatment option. 

o Where possible, diagnostic teams should consider consolidating crossings. 

This may be accomplished by providing access either to a nearby public 

crossing, or to a nearby private crossing that can be adequately upgraded 

to improve safety. 

o Where closure or consolidation proves infeasible, diagnostic teams should 

examine the possibility of implementing inexpensive grade separations. 

o Should the preceding options prove infeasible, determination of the 

appropriate treatment should be predicated in part on whether the private 

roadway is open to public travel, and on whether there are access 

restrictions. 

o Crossings at which there is an expectation of public use should be treated 

in a manner consistent with the guidelines in the MUTCD. 

FRA will also pursue the following pilot project: 

• A study of the feasibility of using diagnostic team approach on private crossings 

in a corridor. 

• A study of the effectiveness or applicability of new low cost solutions. 
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION 

Safety at Private Highway-Rail Crossings 

Alternative Approach Discussion Topics 

5 

• Study methods of using best available technology for transmitting private crossing 

data to inventory. 

Option B 

U.S. DOT will seek legislation providing explicit authority to be vested in the Secretary, 

supplementing the Railroad Safety Laws, for regulation of safety at private highway-rail 

grade crossings. The legislation should be sufficiently broad to enable the following: 

• Adopt a clear declaration of National Policy that new private crossings are 

disfavored, except where clearly necessary after evaluation of all reasonable 

alternatives. 

• Require that a Statement of Essential Need be provided to the railroad before any 

new private crossing is created (whether public use, agricultural, or other) or the 

use changes (e.g., light residential to commercial or industrial). 

• Require that the Statement specify the intended use (volume, type of traffic, 

nature of permission to use), and why alternative access is not available or is not 

suitable. 

• Provide a procedure for the railroad, State agency, or FRA to challenge the 

Statement or propose alternative access. 

• Establish that no new private crossing may be opened for traffic, or subjected to a 

change in use, until equipped in according with the requirements above. 

• Require that the railroad and holder enter into an agreement with specified 

elements where the crossing cannot be closed. 

• Specify the responsibilities of the crossing holder and the railroad. Since use of 

the crossing is determined by the holder, place a clear responsibility on the holder 

to participate in making necessary improvements at the crossing. 

• Provide a mechanism for the railroad(s) using the rail line to challenge the 

continued necessity for the crossing. 

• Provide one or more mechanisms for alternative dispute resolution when a dispute 

arises regarding the opening, closing or improvement of a private crossing. 

(Shared cost, railroad and holder.) 

• Provide a mechanism for dispute resolution, available only where alternative 

dispute resolution has failed. (Public cost.) 

• Provide a means of certifying any State capable of handling these issues within 

the State. 

o Certification would be based on substantial conformity with the policies 

adopted at the National level, provision of legal opinion that the State 

agency is authorized to undertake the function, and periodic affirmation by 
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION 

Safety at Private Highway-Rail Crossings 

Alternative Approach Discussion Topics 

6 

the State agency that it is funded at a level permitting it to show progress 

in addressing the issue. 

• Classify private crossings by use, providing suitable objective definitions. 

• Require treatments based on private crossing classifications, as follows: 

o All private crossings: 

 Specify minimum signage to consist of a crossbuck, supplemented by 

a stop or yield sign, and, in the case of non-public use crossings, a 

standard plate stating, “Private Crossing - Authorized Users Only.” 

Require replacement of existing signage as needed, not to exceed 7 

years from date of final rule. 

o Private crossings with Public Use: 

 Provide that public use crossings shall conform to the MUTCD. 

 Make public use crossings eligible for improvement under section 130; 

however, require a documented statement of public benefits before 

funds are expended. 

 Except where a quiet zone is in effect, require use of the train horn at 

public use crossings under the same rules as public crossings. 

 Provide risk-based regulatory requirements for improvements at public 

use crossings and other private crossings (except agricultural 

crossings; see below), including sight distance requirements as 

applicable. Consider factors such as road traffic, rail traffic, presence 

of rail passenger service, maximum train speeds, etc. 

 After period of progressive work to improve these crossings, require 

that they be closed if not equipped according to requirements. 

o Private Crossings with Seasonal or Agricultural Use: 

 Specify use of locked gates or minimum signage (above) for 

agricultural crossings on tracks where the maximum authorized train 

speed exceeds 25 mph. 

 Specify a requirement for railroad dispatcher approval to traverse the 

crossing where maximum authorized train speed exceeds 49 mph, 

except where some form of active warning is provided. 

• Improve the National Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Inventory with respect to 

private crossings: 

o Require railroad to populate private crossing data fields in the inventory, 

providing updates not less frequently than once every 3 years. 

o Add data elements as needed for analysis. 

o Permit railroad to estimate information not directly available. 
1

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

COMMENTS TO DOCKET NO. FRA-2005-23281 

SAFETY OF PRIVATE HIGHWAY-RAIL GRADE CROSSINGS

I. BACKGROUND ON NEW YORK LAWS

To address safety at private rail-highway crossings, the New York State Legislature enacted 

Railroad Law, Sections 97 and 97-a in 1994 and 2001, respectively. (Attachment 1) These 

laws authorize the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Transportation 

(NYSDOT) to regulate private rail crossings on lines where “intercity rail passenger service” 

(such as Amtrak) or commuter rail service is operated on a regularly scheduled basis.* 

The Railroad Law defines public crossings as locations where a public street existed prior to 

1897 or where such crossings have been designated as such by order of the Commissioner of 

Transportation. Other crossings, which are private, are classified into three categories: 

1. Farm Crossings. Farm crossings are authorized by Section 52 of Railroad Law. 

(Attachment 1) As used in this section, the term “farm crossings” means at-grade rail 

crossings that are utilized primarily as access to and from adjoining property that is actively 

used for farming or agricultural purposes by the owner or the tenant of such property. 

2. Deeded Crossings. Deeded crossings exist where landowners have priority crossing rights, 

granted them when a rail line was constructed and recorded in a deed. 

3. Agreement Crossings. Agreement crossings are established by formal agreement between 

railroads and land owners or occupants; the clearest agreement will document the allocation 

between the railroad and the landowner/occupant of cost responsibility for the 

establishment, inspection and maintenance of the crossing. 

II. IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTIONS 97 AND 97-a OF THE RAILROAD LAW

NYSDOT has promulgated regulations under Section 97 of the Railroad Law (17 NYCRR Part 

919) (Attachment 2), and, in consultation with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority 

(“MTA”), NYSDOT is drafting regulations under Section 97-a. In addition, NYSDOT is 

preparing new standards and specification guidelines for the design and protection of private 

rail crossings, along with guidelines for the allocation of cost responsibility associated with 

establishing and maintaining new private crossings. 

NYSDOT has created an updated inventory of all private crossings covered under Sections 97 

 *

In addition, the Commissioner of Transportation retains the power to acquire any real 

property, easements, rights-of-way or similar rights with respect to private crossings pursuant 

to the New York Eminent Domain Procedure Law. Notably, this authority has not been 

exercised to date. 
2

and 97-a, identifying locations with the highest vehicular use. NYSDOT is using this 

information to prioritize efforts to improve protection at private crossings or to close those 

crossings that present the highest safety exposure. Since 2002, the Long Island Railroad has 

actively pursued closure of private crossings and has successfully eliminated approximately 

50% of all private crossings on the Long Island Railroad. 

The legal basis for a private crossing is not always discernable. Records do not generally exist 

for farm crossings. And, even when there is a deed or agreement documenting the legal basis 

for a private crossing’s creation, such records can be difficult and sometimes impossible to 

locate. A search of county real estate records may provide some information for deeded rights 

to a private crossing, but there appear to be few deeded crossings, and a search for such records 

can be extremely time intensive. Often, records have been misplaced over the years, 

particularly where railroad consolidations have occurred. 

And yet, no public inventory of these sites existed until 1974, when the Federal Railroad 

Administration (“FRA”) created its first Crossing Inventory. Since the enactment of Section 97 

of New York’s Railroad Law, an extensive effort involving railroad, NYS and FRA 

representatives has been undertaken to improve inventory information for both public and 

private grade crossings along corridors where passenger trains operate. 

III. CONCERNS

NYSDOT has encountered a number of obstacles in its efforts to address safety at private 

crossings and the following four (4) interconnected issues should be considered as FRA 

develops an overall action plan.

1. Lack of Funding – NYSDOT has a pending grant application under the High Speed 

Hazard Mitigation Program for federal funds for private grade crossing safety. But the 

High Speed Hazard Mitigation Program, which was first created in Intermodal Surface 

Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and reauthorized in SAFETEA-LU, allocated 

very limited federal funding for state regulation of the safety of private rail crossings, 

and such funds can only be used on designated High Speed Corridors. Existing grade 

crossing safety funds available under the Section 130 program are not only restricted to 

public rail crossings, but are also insufficient to address all the needs that exist on the 

public highway system. An expansion of that program to cover private crossings would 

not be recommended without a commensurate increase in funding levels. In short, there 

is a need for increased federal grade crossing safety funds, and for the funds to be 

available for improvements on private crossings outside the High Speed Corridors. 

2. Lack of Records – Managing private crossings will require updating the existing 

federal inventory of all private crossings, including, where available, the legal 

provenance (agreement or deed) of the particular crossing. The federal inventory is, of 

course, a valuable resource for the states. A complete and accurate inventory is an 

essential first step to defining the scope of the project and to identifying the parties 

responsible for private crossings. Historically, railroads have not consistently managed 

access to their right-of-way so as to adequately restrict usage over private crossings. As 

a result, some private crossings have transitioned from use for legitimate farming 
3

purposes to a much greater level of non-farming use with no limitations or protection. 

(Accordingly, New York State recently clarified the definition of “farm crossings” to 

crossings actively utilized primarily for farming purposes by the owner or by the tenant 

of such property.) The railroads should be required to report data on private crossings 

to the FRA, which should continue to build and refine the existing federal inventory. 

3. Litigation 

A. Federal Preemption – The United States District Court for the Northern 

District of New York recently held that the Interstate Commerce Commission 

Termination Act of 1995 (“ICCTA”), 49 USC sections 10101, et seq., preempts an 

order issued by NYSDOT under section 97 of the New York Railroad Law to close a 

private rail crossing. Notwithstanding the State’s legitimate police power to protect the 

public safety at railroad crossings, the court permanently enjoined New York State from 

using section 97 of the Railroad Law to close this crossing. The court found that the 

private crossing and the closure order fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the 

Surface Transportation Board, as established by the ICCTA. New York State has 

appealed this decision to the Second Circuit United States Court of Appeals. A decision 

is not expected for some time. A copy of the decision in Island Park, LLC v CSX, et al., 

2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46608 (June 26, 2007, Kahn, DJ) is attached as Attachment 3. 

B. Private Property Rights – Property owners and railroads have sued NYSDOT 

to block the Department’s efforts to limit access points to private crossings, to close 

private crossings, or to require the installation of enhanced warning systems or 

protective devices. Challenges can arise out of cost considerations or out of 

NYSDOT’s allocation of cost and responsibility between landowner and railroad. In 

addition, landowners may allege an unconstitutional taking and may seek either 

compensation or an injunction to block enforcement if closing a private crossing will 

leave private property landlocked. In a recent case challenging NYSDOT’s 

determination to designate a private crossing as a farm crossing and to direct the 

railroad to install appropriate grade crossing warning devices, the New York State 

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed NYSDOT’s authority 

under section 97-a of the Railroad Law to render such determinations to alter private 

railroad crossings. A copy of the decision in Long Island Railroad Company v 

Madison, Commissioner of NYSDOT, 36 A.D.3d 1106 (3d Dept. 2007) is attached as 

Attachment 4. 

The unique operating characteristics encountered at private grade crossings necessitate 

application of different treatments for both passive and active devices than presently 

exist in the national Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Device (MUTCD). As an 

example, restricted access is generally appropriate for private crossings versus open 

access at all public grade crossings. 

IV. RESPONSE TO FRA QUESTIONS
4

1. How do we determine whether creation or continuation of a private crossing is 

justified?

New York State Railroad Law requires administrative hearings prior to establishing any 

new private crossings or modifying existing private crossings. This process provides all 

parties with an opportunity to explain their position before an Administrative Law Judge, 

whose recommendation to the Commissioner is guided by the considerations set forth in the 

Railroad Law. 

2. Is the current assignment of responsibility for safety at private crossings effective? To 

what extent do risk management practices associated with insurance arrangements 

result in “regulation” of safety at private crossings?

There is currently no formal assignment of responsibility for safety at private crossings; the 

determination is made only on a case by case basis. A formal assignment of responsibility 

might better address the increased need for public safety on lines on which passenger trains 

operate. Insurance arrangements only apply to crossings where a formal agreement exists 

between the railroad and property owner; this represents a very small percentage of the total 

number of crossings. 

3. How should improvement and/or maintenance costs associated with private grade 

crossings be allocated?

NYSDOT is currently developing cost allocation guidelines for private crossings. An 

Administrative Law Judge may consider the unique characteristics of a particular case in 

assigning responsibility for cost. 

4. Is there a need for alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to handle disputes that 

may arise between private crossing owners and the railroads?

More facts are needed to answer this question. Mechanisms for alternative dispute 

resolution could be helpful. 

 

5. Should the State or Federal Government assume greater responsibility for safety at 

private grade crossings?

There is a clear need for government action at both the state and federal levels to foster 

greater responsibility for safety at private crossings where the public is impacted. At a 

minimum, the FRA should address private crossings which are open to public usage and 

crossings along lines where passenger trains are operated. National standards consistent 

with the MUTCD should be created which address the unique operating characteristics of 

these private roads. 

6. Should there be nationwide standards for warning devices at private crossings, or for 

 intersection design of new private grade crossings?
5

Nationwide standards should be adopted for warning devices at private crossings and for 

intersection designs which are consistent with the MUTCD. 

7. How do we determine when a private crossing has a ‘public purpose’ and is subject to 

public use?

Government has a responsibility to address safety for the traveling public. A private 

crossing should be considered to have a public use whenever passenger trains are operated 

over the line or when the public has access over the crossing. 

8. Should some crossings be categorized as ‘commercial crossings’ rather than as 

‘private crossings’?

Under New York State Railroad Law, crossings are categorized as public, if they existed as 

public roads over the crossing prior to 1897 or were designated by the Commissioner as 

public through the regulatory hearing process. All other crossings are private (farm, 

deeded, or agreement) crossings. Most commercially used crossings are subject to 

agreement between the railroad and property owner. There does not appear to be a need to 

create a new category of “commercial crossings.” The level of highway traffic using such a 

crossing, along with train speed and volumes, should dictate whether or not warning 

devices are required. 

9. Are there innovative traffic control treatments that could improve safety at private 

crossings on major rail corridors, including those on which passenger service is 

provided?

Private crossings present unique operating characteristics that are not encountered at public 

crossings. Treatments are needed that can effectively restrict access over a private crossing 

and provide warning of an approaching train. New York State is preparing design 

standards that recognize the need for some custom systems to address specialized 

conditions, such as secure gate activation systems, impenetrable barriers and vehicle 

presence detection systems. 

10. Should the Department of Transportation request enactment of legislation to address 

private crossings? If so, what should it include?

It is recommended that USDOT sponsor federal legislation to address private crossings 

patterned after New York State statutes. Consideration should also be given to cover all rail 

lines where the public could be impacted. In order to avoid pre-emption claims it is critical 

that federal statutes and regulations recognize and validate the jurisdiction of the states to 

address safety concerns related to all grade crossings, including those categorized as 

private. 

V. CLOSING 
6

NYSDOT requests that the FRA take steps to update the crossing inventory to create a 

complete, accurate, and accessible database of all private crossings, including the legal basis for 

the crossings. In addition, NYSDOT recommends that FRA help secure funding for minimal 

safety improvements on private crossings, and establish national standards for the installation 

and use of safety devices at private crossings. Resolving these interconnected issues will 

enable New York State to continue its efforts to improve safety on both public and private 

crossings. 
MEMORANDUM

To: Docket No. FRA-2005-23281

From: Kathy Shelton

FRA Office of Chief Counsel

Date: August 14, 2007

Re: Summary of Meeting on Private Crossing Issues

On July 17, 2007, FRA hosted a meeting to discuss private crossing issues with

representatives of the railroad industry. The following individuals were in attendance at the

meeting:

Douglas Werner, Burlington Northern Sante Fe Railway 

Stuart Schwartz, Norfolk Southern Corporation

William Browder, Association of American Railroads

Thomas Healey, Canadian National

David Reeves, Kansas City Southern

Grady Cothen, FRA 

Ronald Ries, FRA

Miriam Kloeppel, FRA

Kathy Shelton, FRA 

During the meeting, participants discussed the wide-ranging variations in private

crossings, from agricultural crossings to private commercial crossings, and the attendant

difficulty in establishing a uniform policy to effectively address private crossing issues. The

lack of extensive involvement in private crossing issues by State and local governments was also

discussed. 

Railroad representatives at the meeting shared the view that private highway-rail grade

crossings do not benefit railroads, as they generally interfere with railroad operations and create

litigation and maintenance-related burdens. However, the conversion of private crossings into

public crossings can also impose a burden on railroads, especially when crossing conversions

occur without any notification to, or input from, the affected railroad(s). Therefore, FRA was

asked to facilitate communication between railroads and the communities they serve. 

A number of railroad representatives also expressed interest in a uniform private crossing

sign that could incorporate a stop message for motorists. 
August 23, 2007 

Docket Clerk 

U.S. DOT Dockets 

Room PL-401 

400 Seventh Street, SW 

Washington, DC 20590 

Response to Request for Comments; FRA-2005-23281

To Whom It May Concern: 

After reading the entire contents of the public docket on this topic, this concerned citizen feels 

compelled to submit several points for your consideration. As a matter of generic introduction, 

the writer has studied the railroad industry for over 30 years and worked for over 10 years in 

private service enterprise and 10 years with public transportation agencies. 

The thoughts presented herein are intended to provide a balanced perspective on the issue. 

Comments are based upon a solid working knowledge of the FRA’s inventory system and the 

FHWA’s Section 130 requirements, as well as a good familiarity with the location-specific 

concerns facing railroad companies and public employees at highway-railroad grade crossings. 

This contribution to the discussion is organized in the same order as the original FRA issues were 

presented, with the FRA questions reprinted in italics: 

FRA Issue: At-grade highway-rail crossings present inherent risks to users, including the 

railroad and its employees, and to other persons in the vicinity should a train derail into 

an occupied area or release hazardous materials. When passenger trains are involved, 

the risks are heightened. From the standpoint of public policy, how do we determine 

whether creation or continuation of a private crossing is justified? 

Public transportation policy and programs should not bear the cost and burden of determining 

conditions of access, use or establishment of crossing facilities that exist only to serve private 

interests. Instead, as necessary, the involved private entities should consult their own respective 

legal representation for the purpose of allowing existing property law and negotiation determine 

the outcome of whether or not private crossings are justified. Public policy should remain fixed 

on addressing the safety needs of all public highway-railroad crossings. 

It is interesting to note that the same inherent risks to users of highway-rail crossings also exist at 

rail-rail crossings. While certainly lesser in number, those types of crossings surely present 

possible incidents of far greater magnitude – yet there is no demand for public policy or 

government oversight regarding creation or continuation of rail-rail crossings. Consequently, 

participants in this discussion should realize that the root issue here may not really be so much 

about ‘public safety’ as much as it is about resolving long-standing fundamental disagreements 

between private property owners. As such, any proposed changes to public safety policy should 

be very carefully considered as there are significant far-reaching consequences of introducing 

new policy related to grade crossing regulation. 

FRA Issue: Is the current assignment of responsibility for safety at private crossings 

effective? To what extent do risk management practices associated with insurance 

arrangements result in “regulation” of safety at private crossings? 
Regardless of the current assignment of responsibility for safety at private crossings, the 

motorist’s decision-making process is the primary contributing factor in any car-train crash. 

Because trains cannot steer or stop, it is contingent upon road users to make intelligent judgments 

as to safe operation over railroad tracks. 

Private property owners and railroads can assist motorists in making good decisions at grade 

crossings by installing appropriate warning devices and providing good crossing maintenance – 

but the bottom line is that ultimate responsibility still lies with the person behind the wheel. No 

amount of rule-making or legislation will ever change that simple fact. 

Lacking familiarity with risk management practices associated with insurance arrangements, it is 

difficult to assess whether those practices may create an informal regulatory atmosphere. 

FRA Issue: How should improvement and/or maintenance costs associated with private 

crossings be allocated? 

All costs for private crossings should be borne proportionally by the private entity or entities that 

benefit from the use of the crossing on a case-by-case basis. This should be spelled out in the 

private crossing agreement. 

FRA Issue: Is there a need for alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to handle 

disputes that may arise between private crossing owners and the railroads? 

Disputes should be settled through the use of existing mechanisms such as direct negotiation, 

impartial third-party arbitrators or the court system. If enough documented evidence exists to 

suggest that current practices are unsatisfactory to all parties, it may be advisable to develop – in 

consultation with appropriate legal counsel – a new procedure that would be mutually acceptable 

to advocates representing private property owners and the railroad industry. 

FRA Issue: Should the State or Federal government assume greater responsibility for 

safety at private crossings? 

If private crossing safety becomes subject to public agency jurisdiction, it is reasonable to predict 

that the sheer volume and nature of private crossing data management will create an immense 

workload for public agencies, not to mention the myriad of complications that would arise, such 

as but not limited to the following issues: 

1. Many private crossings are actually inside large industrial or manufacturing facilities. 

Who will be responsible for funding and coordinating the extensive and often 

confidential safety training required to enable public employees to enter said facilities 

for the purpose of crossing regulation? Will there be any concern on the part of 

private industry regarding proprietary or trade secret issues that would be unduly 

exposed by access to certain facilities? 

2. Many private crossings are located well within private property, such as in farmed 

fields, on grazing land or several hundred feet down secluded driveways. What are 

the location-specific risks or liabilities to be faced by public employees entering upon 

private property for the purpose of crossing regulation, and how will these be 

mitigated? 

3. If access to private crossings is currently restricted by gates, will private property 

owners provide keys and/or timely cooperation to public agencies for the purpose of 
enabling crossing inspection? For adequate review of sight distances on crossing 

approaches, will private land owners allow public employees free access to all 

necessary areas of their property? 

4. Will private property owners be willing to remove vegetation or other obstacles that 

may restrict view of the private crossing; and if not, what authority will the public 

agency have to enforce safety recommendations affecting private property? 

5. A review of the FRA database shows that most states have a volume of private 

crossings that is roughly 50-75% the volume of public crossings. However, while 

public crossings are spread through a limited number of public road agencies having 

permanent contact data (on the order of a few hundred per state), most private 

crossings will be individually owned and subject to frequent change of ownership (on 

the order of thousands per state). Without added funding and personnel, how will the 

states be expected to handle the addition, review and management of what can 

reasonably be predicted as thousands of new crossing contacts? 

6. With so many public crossings still in need of safety enhancements, how will the 

state or federal government be able to justify any expenditure of time or funding to 

enhance private property? Won’t there be a public outcry the moment there is a 

fatality at an unimproved public crossing, if that crossing remained unimproved due 

to the reallocation of resources toward private crossings? 

Given that each of these issues would seem to have expensive, if not impossible or highly 

impractical solutions, it would seem inadvisable for the state or federal government to extend 

their respective jurisdictions to private crossings. 

FRA Issue: Should there be Nationwide standards for warning devices at private 

crossings, or for intersection design of new private grade crossings? 

For continuity and consistency of motorist information, existing national standards for traffic 

control devices on public roads should be used as a guideline for the private crossing issue. The 

same could be said for the design of the crossing surfaces and roadway approaches. 

FRA Issue: How do we determine when a private crossing has a ‘public purpose’ and is 

subject to public use? 

There may currently be crossings having a ‘public purpose’ subject to ‘public use’ incorrectly 

listed as ‘private’ in the national inventory. Some of these ‘public purpose-public use’ crossings 

may include driveways to local, state or federal government office facilities, public park 

entrances or public boat launches, national forest roads, and roads on college or university 

campuses that are recognized as having public agency status. In all cases, these types of crossings 

exist to allow the general public to directly access some type of publicly-funded facility directly 

from a public road. These types of so-called ‘private crossings’ should be re-classified as public. 

Other crossings listed as ‘private’ in the national inventory may also have ‘public use’ but the use 

is not for a ‘public purpose.’ For example, entrances to retail establishments or other private 

business property may be accessible to the general public, but the use of said crossings would be 

for the benefit of the private property owner. Absent the property owner’s desire to generate 

sales and profit, the crossing would not exist – therefore it would seem clear that this type of 

crossing should remain classified as private. 

 

FRA Issue: Should some crossings be classified as ‘commercial crossings’ rather than as 

private crossings. 
No. The current FRA inventory form already contains a commercial crossing classification as a 

type of private crossing. Due to the fact that a commercial operation takes place to generate 

income for private gain, it would seem logical that the expenses required to allow public access to 

the facility would be the burden of private business. 

If the intent of creating a ‘commercial crossing’ classification is to establish these types of 

crossings as somehow being quasi-public or ‘public use’ crossings eligible for public regulation 

or funding, this would appear to be misguided. The reason for this judgment is that even though 

the public may use these crossings, they do so for the sole purpose of frequenting commercial 

property wherein the private property owner stands to gain the benefit of the public use. 

Therefore, it would stand to reason that the private party who would benefit from the public use 

of the crossing should be responsible for the costs associated with the crossing, and the crossing 

should remain classified as private. 

For example, if there was a river or a stream to cross in order to gain access to a private 

commercial operation, it would be contingent on the private business to adequately resolve that 

access issue. Any subsequent bridge would not be a ‘public’ bridge, nor would it be eligible for 

public inspection or funding. The construction, maintenance, safety, insurance and liability 

elements of the bridge are quite simply a cost of doing business when deciding to establish a 

facility on the other side of a previously existing obstacle. 

It would seem that the same logic should apply to the matter of a private railroad crossing. 

FRA Issue: Are there innovative traffic control treatments that could improve safety at 

private crossings on major rail corridors, including those on which passenger service is 

provided? 

Full roadway gates, barrier gates, raised median dividers or other channelization and barrier-type 

devices would appear to be reasonable methods that could be used to contain traffic at crossings 

of high-volume/high-speed/passenger lines. 

FRA Issue: Should the Department of Transportation request enactment of legislation to 

address private crossings? If so, what should it include? 

No. If anything, public policy and legislation should be strengthened in such a manner that 

enables the states to increase their efforts toward improving safety at public crossings. However, 

if there is any legislation to address private crossings, it should direct private crossing owners to 

use as a guideline the national standards established in current highway design manuals 

governing construction and traffic control. 

Summary Statement

While the FRA initiative to better research and clarify private crossing issues is to be 

commended, this writer is greatly concerned by the many complications and implications of 

adding private crossings to the jurisdiction of state and federal agencies. If anything of public 

benefit is to come of this effort, perhaps the best result would be to establish standards that clearly 

define the difference between public and private crossings and to develop a set of guidelines for 

the review, re-classification and subsequent treatment of any public crossings which may be 

omitted from or improperly categorized in the current national public crossing inventory. 

Thank you for allowing public contribution on this important subject. 
1

Safety at Private HighwayRailroad Grade Crossings

Federal Railroad Administration 

Safety Inquiry

Good morning, Ladies and Gentlemen. Thank you for coming.
2

Background

1993—FRA initiated discussion 

1994—USDOT Action Plan

1997—NTSB Passive Crossing Study

1999—NTSB Accident Report

2004—USDOT Updated Action Plan

Private crossing safety has for some time been a matter of concern to the US 

Department of Transportation and to other Federal Agencies.

• In 1993, the FRA hosted an open meeting to initiate industry-wide discussions. 

•In its 1994 Rail-Highway Safety Action Plan, the USDOT proposed to develop 

national minimum standards for private crossings.

•In its 1997 study on Safety at Passive Grade Crossings, the NTSB highlighted the 

need for some system to improve private crossing safety, and recommended that 

the USDOT, in conjunction with the States, determine governmental oversight 

responsibility for safety at private grade crossings.

•In 1999, the NTSB weighed in again in its report on a private grade crossing 

accident in Portage, Indiana. In this case, the NTSB recommended that the DOT 

eliminate any differences between public and private crossings with regard to 

funding or requirements for safety improvements.

•In 2004, the USDOT published an updated Action Plan, in which the FRA 

committed to leading an effort to define responsibility for safety at private crossings. 

Today’s meeting is a vital part of this effort.
3

Total 241,608 39%

Region 8 27,207 46%

Region 7 16,115 38%

Region 6 34,920 40%

Region 5 34,478 36%

Region 4 43,295 33%

Region 3 44,075 36%

Region 2 27,945 43%

Region 1 13,573 44%

Private 

Crossing 

Percentage

All 

FRA Region Crossings

As you can see, regardless of the geographic region, private crossings constitute a 

significant percentage of all at-grade crossings. The total count Nationwide is about 

94,000.
4

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Public

Private

Accidents at public and private grade crossings

1985-2005

Although accidents at public crossings have declined considerably over the past 20 

years (declining by 1/3 over the past decade alone), the number of accidents at 

private crossings has remained comparatively stable, declining only 10 percent over 

the past decade. 

In most years, the number of fatalities occurring in accidents at private crossings 

exceeded the number of on-duty deaths among railroad employees in all rail 

operations. 

The following are a few examples:
5

Jackson, MI

About 1 pm on May 30, 2006, Amtrak train no. 350 struck an empty gravel truck at a 

private highway-railroad grade crossing near Jackson, Michigan. The train was 

traveling about 74 mph with cab car 90218 in the lead when the truck entered the 

crossing in front of the train. One train crewmember and 15 train passengers 

received minor injuries in the accident; the truckdriver sustained fatal injuries.

The private road at the accident crossing is used by an excavating company and by 

two residences, and on average fewer than 30 highway vehicles and a dozen trains, 

8 of them Amtrak trains, traverse the crossing daily. It is estimated that the crossing 

was created about 1948, and there is no record of any maintenance contract 

between the business owner and Norfolk Southern Railway, the track owner. 
6

Castle Rock, Washington

About 4:40 p.m. on July 3, 2006, southbound Amtrak train A507-03 struck a 

passenger vehicle at a private crossing near Castle Rock, Washington. According 

to the Amtrak engineer, the accident occurred when the motorist entered the 

crossing after a northbound UP train cleared it. Traincrew and train passengers 

sustained no injuries, but all four motor vehicle occupants sustained fatal injuries.

The road leading to this crossing is a county road, but county maintenance ends 

shortly before the crossing and the private road that extends beyond the crossing 

dead-ends after serving 11 residences. About 60 trains daily traverse this crossing. 

It is not known when this crossing was created, and no maintenance contract has 

been located for this crossing.
7

Lemont, Illinois

About 7 p.m. (6:52) on June 21, 2006, Metra Train No. 921, traveling south at a 

recorded speed of 79 mph, struck a truck trailer traversing a private grade crossing 

near Lemont, Illinois. A piece of the trailer became wedged under the snow pilot of 

the locomotive and the locomotive derailed at the crossing. The driver of the 

tractor/trailer was not inured. There were 170 passengers aboard the train, five 

passengers claimed minor injuries and were treated and released, no train crew 

members reported any injury.

This crossing serves two commercial facilities to which there is no other access. 

Roughly 28 trains and fewer than 30 highway vehicles use this crossing daily. The 

crossing is maintained by the CN, but there is no formal agreement.

Note: about 6 months prior to this accident (December 19, 2005), another accident 

occurred at this crossing. The truckdriver in the December accident sustained fatal 

injuries.
8

National Inventory 

• 32 % of the private crossing 

records have been updated since 

2001

• 21 % of the private crossing 

records have never been updated

The FRA maintains a national inventory of all crossings, public, private, or 

pedestrian, at grade or grade separated. The data are used by many State, 

Federal, or private organizations for research, or for resource allocation 

(determining which crossings are most in need of improvements). It is updated by 

the States and by the railroads on a voluntary, not mandatory basis.

As you can see, only about 1/3 of the records for private crossings have been 

updated within the past five years, and a significant portion of the records have 

never been updated. Analysis on data of this quality must necessarily be somewhat 

tentative. 

The data for public crossings are typically updated more often than this.
9

This is a shot of the form on which crossing data are collected for the National 

Inventory. Almost all the data elements are required for public crossings. For 

private crossings, however, only the sections I have shaded are collected.
10

AADT X

X

Number of 

highway 

lanes

(partial)

Active 

Warning 

Devices

Train counts X

Private 

Crossing

Public 

Crossing

Data Item

Data Collection Comparison

As a result, even when the private crossing record is up-to-date, potentially useful 

data are not collected. This slide shows a small sample of the data collection 

differences.
11

State responsibilities

• VA: State forbids creating new private atgrade crossings

• NJ, OK: railroad must provide and maintain 

private crossings, when required

• RI: State may close private crossings

According to the FRA’s 2002 Compilation of State Laws and Regulations affecting 

Highway-Rail Grade Crossings, the States’ approaches to private crossing safety 

are highly varied. Take, for example, these examples of the extent of control held 

over the creation or closure of private crossings. 
12

State Responsibilities

• FL: crossbucks required at all 

crossings, signs must comply with 

MUTCD

• SC: private crossings to be 

equipped in same way as public 

crossings

Here are some examples of the degree to which traffic control devices are 

standardized at private crossings.
13

State Responsibilities

• 28 States have no private 

crossing statutes

According to FRA’s 2002 Compilation of State Laws and Regulations Affecting 

Highway-Railroad Grade Crossings, more than half the States have no laws or 

regulations related to private crossings.
14

Federal Responsibilities

• 49 C.F.R. §234 –signal system 

inspection, testing, and maintenance

– About 1% of all private crossings

• 49 C.F.R. §224 – freight car 

reflectorization

– Under 25% of all crossing accidents

• Manual on Uniform Traffic Control 

Devices

– Applies to public crossings

The Federal Government, in the guise of various U.S. DOT agencies, does offer 

some regulations or guidance documents that may touch on safety at private 

crossings. As you can see in this sample, however, none of these really covers a 

significant portion of the Nation’s private crossings.
15

Federal Responsibilities

• No Federal regulation addresses 

private crossings’ special issues

In fact, there is no Federal regulation or guidance that promotes safety at private 

grade crossings by specifically or uniformly addressing the special issues presented 

at private crossings.
16

Private Crossing Uses

Some private crossings may be used only seasonally, like certain farm crossings 

used only for agricultural equipment movements, or they may be used only for 

routine personal use, like crossings that serve residences.
17

Other private crossings, such as this industrial access crossing, are used 

extensively for private business purposes by employees, contractors, and suppliers. 

In still other cases, they may be used very heavily by the public to enter commercial 

facilities.

This slide also illustrates that in some cases, there is no alternative access provided 

the private property owner.
18

Legal Status

• Ownership of fee simple

• Documented easements

• Prescriptive easements

• Documented licenses

• Verbal licenses

The rights assigned to the private crossing holders vary greatly

An holder of the right (or privilege) to cross may hold outright ownership of the 

underlying property, or have a documented easement over the railroad property. 

Where it is recognized, the holder may have a prescriptive easement (squatter’s 

rights). There may be a documented license under contract, or maybe only a verbal 

license subject to revocation without notice.
19

Legal Status

• Insurance policies

• Contracts

Railroads may require the crossing holders to purchase insurance or provide some 

other protection in the event of a collision at the crossing.

Contracts or other legal documents may further define responsibilities, such as 

maintenance of the crossing surface, or providing notifications under stated 

conditions.
20

Warning Devices at Public 

Crossings

The conformation and use of signs, signals, pavement markings, and any other 

traffic control devices placed at public crossings generally conform to the guidance 

provided in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
21

Warning Devices at Private 

Crossings

In most States, this is not true of private crossings.
22
23
24

The arrangement of private crossing signs can be highly individual.
25
26
27
28
29

And sign maintenance may be sketchy,
30

Or almost nonexistent.
31

Request for Comments

• Creation or continuation criteria

• Public use definition

• Allocation of responsibilities

• Alternative dispute resolution

• Commercial crossings

The FRA solicits discussion and comments on all areas of safety at private 

crossings, but particularly encourages discussion on the following topics: 

At-grade highway-rail crossings present an inherent risk to users, including the 

railroad and its employees, as well as to other persons in the vicinity should a train 

derail into an occupied area or release hazardous materials. From the standpoint of 

public policy, how do we determine whether creation or continuation of a private 

crossing is justified?

How do we determine when a private crossing has a public purpose, and is subject 

to public use?

How should improvement or maintenance responsibilities be allocated?

Is there a need for alternative dispute mechanisms to handle disputes between 

private crossing owners and railroads?

Should some crossings be categorized as commercial crossings, rather than as 

private crossings?
32

Request for Comments

• Nationwide standards 

• Innovative warning devices

• Safety responsibility assignment

• Increased State and Federal 

involvement

• Legislation

Should there be Nationwide standards for warning devices at private crossings, or 

for intersection design for newly created private crossings?

Are there innovative traffic control devices that could improve safety at private 

crossings on major rail corridors, including those on which pax service is provided?

Is the current assignment of responsibility for safety at private crossings effective? 

Do risk management practices associated with insurance arrangements result in 

‘regulation’ of safety at private crossings?

Should the State and Federal governments cooperatively work to determine 

responsibility and to provide oversight?

Should the USDOT request enactment of legislation to address private crossings? 

If so, what should it include?
33

Electronic Docket 

Submissions

• U.S. DOT Docket Management System

– http://dms.dot.gov/

– Docket number FRA-2005-23281

I’d like to open the discussion now, but I’ll leave this information up on the screen in 

case any of you would also like to provide a written statement to the docket.
1

Safety at Private HighwayRailroad Grade Crossings

Federal Railroad Administration 

Safety Inquiry

Good morning, Ladies and Gentlemen. Thank you for coming.
2

Background

1993—FRA initiated discussion 

1994—USDOT Action Plan

1997—NTSB Passive Crossing Study

1999—NTSB Accident Report

2004—USDOT Updated Action Plan

Private crossing safety has for some time been a matter of concern to the US 

Department of Transportation and to other Federal Agencies.

• In 1993, the FRA hosted an open meeting to initiate industry-wide discussions. 

•In its 1994 Rail-Highway Safety Action Plan, the USDOT proposed to develop 

national minimum standards for private crossings.

•In its 1997 study on Safety at Passive Grade Crossings, the NTSB highlighted the 

need for some system to improve private crossing safety, and recommended that 

the USDOT, in conjunction with the States, determine governmental oversight 

responsibility for safety at private grade crossings.

•In 1999, the NTSB weighed in again in its report on a private grade crossing 

accident in Portage, Indiana. In this case, the NTSB recommended that the DOT 

eliminate any differences between public and private crossings with regard to 

funding or requirements for safety improvements.

•In 2004, the USDOT published an updated Action Plan, in which the FRA 

committed to leading an effort to define responsibility for safety at private crossings. 

Today’s meeting is a vital part of this effort.
3

Total 241,608 39%

Region 8 27,207 46%

Region 7 16,115 38%

Region 6 34,920 40%

Region 5 34,478 36%

Region 4 43,295 33%

Region 3 44,075 36%

Region 2 27,945 43%

Region 1 13,573 44%

Private 

Crossing 

Percentage

All 

FRA Region Crossings

As you can see, regardless of the geographic region, private crossings constitute a 

significant percentage of all at-grade crossings. The total count Nationwide is about 

94,000.
4

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Public

Private

Accidents at public and private grade crossings

1985-2005

Although accidents at public crossings have declined considerably over the past 20 

years (declining by 1/3 over the past decade alone), the number of accidents at 

private crossings has remained comparatively stable, declining only 10 percent over 

the past decade. 

In most years, the number of fatalities occurring in accidents at private crossings 

exceeded the number of on-duty deaths among railroad employees in all rail 

operations. 

The following are a few examples:
5

Jackson, MI

About 1 pm on May 30, 2006, Amtrak train no. 350 struck an empty gravel truck at a 

private highway-railroad grade crossing near Jackson, Michigan. The train was 

traveling about 74 mph with cab car 90218 in the lead when the truck entered the 

crossing in front of the train. One train crewmember and 15 train passengers 

received minor injuries in the accident; the truckdriver sustained fatal injuries.

The private road at the accident crossing is used by an excavating company and by 

two residences, and on average fewer than 30 highway vehicles and a dozen trains, 

8 of them Amtrak trains, traverse the crossing daily. It is estimated that the crossing 

was created about 1948, and there is no record of any maintenance contract 

between the business owner and Norfolk Southern Railway, the track owner. 
6

Castle Rock, Washington

About 4:40 p.m. on July 3, 2006, southbound Amtrak train A507-03 struck a 

passenger vehicle at a private crossing near Castle Rock, Washington. According 

to the Amtrak engineer, the accident occurred when the motorist entered the 

crossing after a northbound UP train cleared it. Traincrew and train passengers 

sustained no injuries, but all four motor vehicle occupants sustained fatal injuries.

The road leading to this crossing is a county road, but county maintenance ends 

shortly before the crossing and the private road that extends beyond the crossing 

dead-ends after serving 11 residences. About 60 trains daily traverse this crossing. 

It is not known when this crossing was created, and no maintenance contract has 

been located for this crossing.
7

Lemont, Illinois

About 7 p.m. (6:52) on June 21, 2006, Metra Train No. 921, traveling south at a 

recorded speed of 79 mph, struck a truck trailer traversing a private grade crossing 

near Lemont, Illinois. A piece of the trailer became wedged under the snow pilot of 

the locomotive and the locomotive derailed at the crossing. The driver of the 

tractor/trailer was not inured. There were 170 passengers aboard the train, five 

passengers claimed minor injuries and were treated and released, no train crew 

members reported any injury.

This crossing serves two commercial facilities to which there is no other access. 

Roughly 28 trains and fewer than 30 highway vehicles use this crossing daily. The 

crossing is maintained by the CN, but there is no formal agreement.

Note: about 6 months prior to this accident (December 19, 2005), another accident 

occurred at this crossing. The truckdriver in the December accident sustained fatal 

injuries.
8

National Inventory 

• 32 % of the private crossing 

records have been updated since 

2001

• 21 % of the private crossing 

records have never been updated

The FRA maintains a national inventory of all crossings, public, private, or 

pedestrian, at grade or grade separated. The data are used by many State, 

Federal, or private organizations for research, or for resource allocation 

(determining which crossings are most in need of improvements). It is updated by 

the States and by the railroads on a voluntary, not mandatory basis.

As you can see, only about 1/3 of the records for private crossings have been 

updated within the past five years, and a significant portion of the records have 

never been updated. Analysis on data of this quality must necessarily be somewhat 

tentative. 

The data for public crossings are typically updated more often than this.
9

This is a shot of the form on which crossing data are collected for the National 

Inventory. Almost all the data elements are required for public crossings. For 

private crossings, however, only the sections I have shaded are collected.
10

AADT X

X

Number of 

highway 

lanes

(partial)

Active 

Warning 

Devices

Train counts X

Private 

Crossing

Public 

Crossing

Data Item

Data Collection Comparison

As a result, even when the private crossing record is up-to-date, potentially useful 

data are not collected. This slide shows a small sample of the data collection 

differences.
11

State responsibilities

• VA: State forbids creating new private atgrade crossings

• NJ, OK: railroad must provide and maintain 

private crossings, when required

• RI: State may close private crossings

According to the FRA’s 2002 Compilation of State Laws and Regulations affecting 

Highway-Rail Grade Crossings, the States’ approaches to private crossing safety 

are highly varied. Take, for example, these examples of the extent of control held 

over the creation or closure of private crossings. 
12

State Responsibilities

• FL: crossbucks required at all 

crossings, signs must comply with 

MUTCD

• SC: private crossings to be 

equipped in same way as public 

crossings

Here are some examples of the degree to which traffic control devices are 

standardized at private crossings.
13

State Responsibilities

• 28 States have no private 

crossing statutes

According to FRA’s 2002 Compilation of State Laws and Regulations Affecting 

Highway-Railroad Grade Crossings, more than half the States have no laws or 

regulations related to private crossings.
14

State Responsibilities

• American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation 

Officials (AASHTO)

– Standing Committee on Rail 

Transportation

SCORT provides an arena whereby member States and the railroads can exchange 

technical information, review existing legislation and regulations, and propose 

changed or new legislation or regulations. 

Currently SCORT has adopted a resolution on Railroad Safety Improvement and 

Enforcement calling for research and development into improved and lower-cost 

technologies for warning systems. The resolution also believes that any future 

‘comprehensive national transportation program must continue to provide funds for 

consolidating, separating, or otherwise protecting railroad-highway grade crossings’. 

Neither the committee’s policy statements nor its resolutions make any overt 

distinction between public and private crossings, but it should be remembered that 

the majority of members represent States. (unlikely to reach beyond current extent 

of jurisdictions)
15

Federal Responsibilities

• 49 C.F.R. §234 –signal system 

inspection, testing, and maintenance

– About 1% of all private crossings

• 49 C.F.R. §224 – freight car 

reflectorization

– Under 25% of all crossing accidents

• Manual on Uniform Traffic Control 

Devices

– Applies to public crossings

The Federal Government, in the guise of various U.S. DOT agencies, does offer 

some regulations or guidance documents that may touch on safety at private 

crossings. As you can see in this sample, however, none of these really covers a 

significant portion of the Nation’s private crossings.
16

Federal Responsibilities

• No Federal regulation addresses 

private crossings’ special issues

In fact, there is no Federal regulation or guidance that promotes safety at private 

grade crossings by specifically or uniformly addressing the special issues presented 

at private crossings.
17

Private Crossing Uses

Some private crossings may be used only seasonally, like certain farm crossings 

used only for agricultural equipment movements, or they may be used only for 

routine personal use, like crossings that serve residences.
18

Other private crossings, such as this industrial access crossing, are used 

extensively for private business purposes by employees, contractors, and suppliers. 

In still other cases, they may be used very heavily by the public to enter commercial 

facilities.

This slide also illustrates that in some cases, there is no alternative access provided 

the private property owner.
19

Legal Status

• Ownership of fee simple

• Documented easements

• Prescriptive easements

• Documented licenses

• Verbal licenses

The rights assigned to the private crossing holders vary greatly

An holder of the right (or privilege) to cross may hold outright ownership of the 

underlying property, or have a documented easement over the railroad property. 

Where it is recognized, the holder may have a prescriptive easement (squatter’s 

rights). There may be a documented license under contract, or maybe only a verbal 

license subject to revocation without notice.
20

Legal Status

• Insurance policies

• Contracts

Railroads may require the crossing holders to purchase insurance or provide some 

other protection in the event of a collision at the crossing.

Contracts or other legal documents may further define responsibilities, such as 

maintenance of the crossing surface, or providing notifications under stated 

conditions.
21

Electronic Docket 

Submissions

• U.S. DOT Docket Management System

– http://dms.dot.gov/

– Docket number FRA-2005-23281

I’d like to open the discussion now, but I’ll leave this information up on the screen in 

case any of you would also like to provide a written statement to the docket.
22

Request for Comments

• Creation or continuation criteria

• Public use definition

• Allocation of responsibilities

• Alternative dispute resolution

• Commercial crossings

The FRA solicits discussion and comments on all areas of safety at private 

crossings, but particularly encourages discussion on the following topics: 

At-grade highway-rail crossings present an inherent risk to users, including the 

railroad and its employees, as well as to other persons in the vicinity should a train 

derail into an occupied area or release hazardous materials. From the standpoint of 

public policy, how do we determine whether creation or continuation of a private 

crossing is justified?

How do we determine when a private crossing has a public purpose, and is subject 

to public use?

How should improvement or maintenance responsibilities be allocated?

Is there a need for alternative dispute mechanisms to handle disputes between 

private crossing owners and railroads?

Should some crossings be categorized as commercial crossings, rather than as 

private crossings?
23

Request for Comments

• Nationwide standards 

• Innovative warning devices

• Safety responsibility assignment

• Increased State and Federal 

involvement

• Legislation

Should there be Nationwide standards for warning devices at private crossings, or 

for intersection design for newly created private crossings?

Are there innovative traffic control devices that could improve safety at private 

crossings on major rail corridors, including those on which pax service is provided?

Is the current assignment of responsibility for safety at private crossings effective? 

Do risk management practices associated with insurance arrangements result in 

‘regulation’ of safety at private crossings?

Should the State and Federal governments cooperatively work to determine 

responsibility and to provide oversight?

Should the USDOT request enactment of legislation to address private crossings? 

If so, what should it include?
24

Warning Devices at Public Crossings

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

HIGHWAY/RAIL GRADE CROSSING TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP (TWG)

NOVEMBER 2002

GUIDANCE ON TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES AT 

HIGHWAY-RAIL GRADE CROSSINGS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Technical Working Group (TWG) established by the U.S. Department of Transportation, is led 

by representatives from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA). The cooperation among the various representatives of the TWG 

represents a landmark effort to enhance communication between highway agencies, railroad 

companies and authorities, and governmental agencies involved with developing and 

implementing policies, rules and regulations.

There is some standardization of treatments at public crossings across the Nation. 

For example, the conformation and use of signs, signals, pavement markings, and 

any other traffic control devices placed at public crossings generally conform to the 

guidance provided in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. In addition, in 

2002, the DOT published a guidance document created through the efforts of a 

Technical Working Group made up of representatives from both the public and the 

private sectors. 
25

Warning Devices at Private 

Crossings

In most States, there is no such standardization at private crossings.
26

The arrangement of private crossing signs can be highly individual.
27

And sign maintenance may be sketchy,
28

Or almost nonexistent.
29

Public Meetings

• August 30, Fort Snelling, MN

• September 27, Raleigh, NC

• October 26, San Francisco, CA

• December 6, New Orleans, LA

To gather information on the current state of the art, as well as ideas about possible 

solutions to existing problems, the FRA is holding a series of public meetings. The 

first of these was held August 30 in Fort Snelling, Minnesota.
30

Discussion Update:

Fort Snelling, MN

• AAR

• BRS

• Citizens for Rail Safety

• State of Minnesota

• State of Wisconsin

• State of Iowa

This is not a complete list of organizations represented at the meeting in Fort 

Snelling, but rather those who provided either formal statements or substantial input 

during the meeting.
31

Discussion Update:

Fort Snelling, MN

• No Private Crossing Processes

– Creating

– Evaluating

– Upgrading

– Closing

• No clear private crossing 

definition 

• Many types/uses of private 

crossings

Numerous topics were discussed in Fort Snelling, but to my mind, they fell into a 

few of different categories. In the first, it seemed that attendees agreed that there is 

no existing process that would provide consistent structures to create (or to 

evaluate the relative need for) new private crossings, or to upgrade or close existing 

private crossings.

Attendees also seemed to indicate that different parties often used different 

definitions to decide whether a crossing was public or private.

In addition, much discussion centered on the fact that private crossings are created 

for a wide variety of reasons, (residential, industrial, commercial, institutional (govt), 

or temporary), may be used to varying degrees by members of the general public, 

and may be traversed by users ranging from pedestrians to construction vehicles or 

HazMat tank trucks.
1

Safety at Private HighwayRailroad Grade Crossings

Federal Railroad Administration 

Safety Inquiry

Good morning, Ladies and Gentlemen. Thank you for coming.
2

Total 241,608 39%

Region 8 27,207 46%

Region 7 16,115 38%

Region 6 34,920 40%

Region 5 34,478 36%

Region 4 43,295 33%

Region 3 44,075 36%

Region 2 27,945 43%

Region 1 13,573 44%

Private 

Crossing 

Percentage

All 

FRA Region Crossings

As you can see, regardless of the geographic region, private crossings constitute a 

significant percentage of all at-grade crossings. The total count Nationwide is about 

94,000.
3

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Public

Private

Accidents at public and private grade crossings

1985-2005

Although accidents at public crossings have declined considerably over the past 20 

years (declining by 1/3 over the past decade alone), the number of accidents at 

private crossings has remained comparatively stable, declining only 10 percent over 

the past decade. 

In most years, the number of fatalities occurring in accidents at private crossings 

exceeded the number of on-duty deaths among railroad employees in all rail 

operations. 
4

National Inventory 

• 32 % of the private crossing 

records have been updated since 

2001

• 21 % of the private crossing 

records have never been updated

The FRA maintains a national inventory of all crossings, public, private, or 

pedestrian, at grade or grade separated. The data are used by many State, 

Federal, or private organizations for research, or for resource allocation 

(determining which crossings are most in need of improvements). It is updated by 

the States and by the railroads on a voluntary, not mandatory basis.

As you can see, only about 1/3 of the records for private crossings have been 

updated within the past five years, and a significant portion of the records have 

never been updated. Analysis on data of this quality must necessarily be somewhat 

tentative. 

The data for public crossings are typically updated more often than this.
5

This is a shot of the form on which crossing data are collected for the National 

Inventory. Almost all the data elements are required for public crossings. For 

private crossings, however, only the sections I have shaded are collected.
6

AADT X

X

Number of 

highway 

lanes

(partial)

Active 

Warning 

Devices

Train counts X

Private 

Crossing

Public 

Crossing

Data Item

Data Collection Comparison

As a result, even when the private crossing record is up-to-date, potentially useful 

data are not collected. This slide shows a small sample of the data collection 

differences.
7

State responsibilities

• VA: State forbids creating new private atgrade crossings

• NJ, OK: railroad must provide and maintain 

private crossings, when required

• RI: State may close private crossings

According to the FRA’s 2002 Compilation of State Laws and Regulations affecting 

Highway-Rail Grade Crossings, the States’ approaches to private crossing safety 

are highly varied. Take, for example, these examples of the extent of control held 

over the creation or closure of private crossings. 
8

State Responsibilities

• FL: crossbucks required at all 

crossings, signs must comply with 

MUTCD

• SC: private crossings to be 

equipped in same way as public 

crossings

Here are some examples of the degree to which traffic control devices are 

standardized at private crossings.
9

State Responsibilities

• 28 States have no private 

crossing statutes

According to FRA’s 2002 Compilation of State Laws and Regulations Affecting 

Highway-Railroad Grade Crossings, more than half the States have no laws or 

regulations related to private crossings.
10

State Responsibilities

• American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation 

Officials (AASHTO)

– Standing Committee on Rail 

Transportation

SCORT provides an arena whereby member States and the railroads can exchange 

technical information, review existing legislation and regulations, and propose 

changed or new legislation or regulations. 

Currently SCORT has adopted a resolution on Railroad Safety Improvement and 

Enforcement calling for research and development into improved and lower-cost 

technologies for warning systems. The resolution also believes that any future 

‘comprehensive national transportation program must continue to provide funds for 

consolidating, separating, or otherwise protecting railroad-highway grade crossings’. 

Neither the committee’s policy statements nor its resolutions make any overt 

distinction between public and private crossings, but it should be remembered that 

the majority of members represent States. (unlikely to reach beyond current extent 

of jurisdictions)
11

Federal Responsibilities

• 49 C.F.R. §234 –signal system 

inspection, testing, and maintenance

– About 1% of all private crossings

• 49 C.F.R. §224 – freight car 

reflectorization

– Under 25% of all crossing accidents

• Manual on Uniform Traffic Control 

Devices

– Applies to public crossings

The Federal Government, in the guise of various U.S. DOT agencies, does offer 

some regulations or guidance documents that may touch on safety at private 

crossings. As you can see in this sample, however, none of these really covers a 

significant portion of the Nation’s private crossings.
12

Federal Responsibilities

• No Federal regulation addresses 

private crossings’ special issues

In fact, there is no Federal regulation or guidance that promotes safety at private 

grade crossings by specifically or uniformly addressing the special issues presented 

at private crossings.
13

Private Crossing Uses

Some private crossings may be used only seasonally, like certain farm crossings 

used only for agricultural equipment movements, or they may be used only for 

routine personal use, like crossings that serve residences.
14

Other private crossings, such as this industrial access crossing, are used 

extensively for private business purposes by employees, contractors, and suppliers. 

In still other cases, they may be used very heavily by the public to enter commercial 

facilities.

This slide also illustrates that in some cases, there is no alternative access provided 

the private property owner.
15

Legal Status

• Ownership of fee simple

• Documented easements

• Prescriptive easements

• Documented licenses

• Verbal licenses

The rights assigned to the private crossing holders vary greatly

An holder of the right (or privilege) to cross may hold outright ownership of the 

underlying property, or have a documented easement over the railroad property. 

Where it is recognized, the holder may have a prescriptive easement (squatter’s 

rights). There may be a documented license under contract, or maybe only a verbal 

license subject to revocation without notice.
16

Legal Status

• Insurance policies

• Contracts

Railroads may require the crossing holders to purchase insurance or provide some 

other protection in the event of a collision at the crossing.

Contracts or other legal documents may further define responsibilities, such as 

maintenance of the crossing surface, or providing notifications under stated 

conditions.
17

Request for Comments

• Creation or continuation criteria

• Public use definition

• Allocation of responsibilities

• Alternative dispute resolution

• Commercial crossings

The FRA solicits discussion and comments on all areas of safety at private 

crossings, but particularly encourages discussion on the following topics: 

At-grade highway-rail crossings present an inherent risk to users, including the 

railroad and its employees, as well as to other persons in the vicinity should a train 

derail into an occupied area or release hazardous materials. From the standpoint of 

public policy, how do we determine whether creation or continuation of a private 

crossing is justified?

How do we determine when a private crossing has a public purpose, and is subject 

to public use?

How should improvement or maintenance responsibilities be allocated?

Is there a need for alternative dispute mechanisms to handle disputes between 

private crossing owners and railroads?

Should some crossings be categorized as commercial crossings, rather than as 

private crossings?
18

Request for Comments

• Nationwide standards 

• Innovative warning devices

• Safety responsibility assignment

• Increased State and Federal 

involvement

• Legislation

Should there be Nationwide standards for warning devices at private crossings, or 

for intersection design for newly created private crossings?

Are there innovative traffic control devices that could improve safety at private 

crossings on major rail corridors, including those on which pax service is provided?

Is the current assignment of responsibility for safety at private crossings effective? 

Do risk management practices associated with insurance arrangements result in 

‘regulation’ of safety at private crossings?

Should the State and Federal governments cooperatively work to determine 

responsibility and to provide oversight?

Should the USDOT request enactment of legislation to address private crossings? 

If so, what should it include?
19

Warning Devices at Public Crossings

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

HIGHWAY/RAIL GRADE CROSSING TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP (TWG)

NOVEMBER 2002

GUIDANCE ON TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES AT 

HIGHWAY-RAIL GRADE CROSSINGS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Technical Working Group (TWG) established by the U.S. Department of Transportation, is led 

by representatives from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA). The cooperation among the various representatives of the TWG 

represents a landmark effort to enhance communication between highway agencies, railroad 

companies and authorities, and governmental agencies involved with developing and 

implementing policies, rules and regulations.

There is some standardization of treatments at public crossings across the Nation. 

For example, the conformation and use of signs, signals, pavement markings, and 

any other traffic control devices placed at public crossings generally conform to the 

guidance provided in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. In addition, in 

2002, the DOT published a guidance document created through the efforts of a 

Technical Working Group made up of representatives from both the public and the 

private sectors. 
20

Warning Devices at Private 

Crossings

In most States, there is no such standardization at private crossings.
21

The arrangement of private crossing signs can be highly individual.
22

And sign maintenance may be sketchy,
23

Or almost nonexistent.
24

Public Meetings

• August 30, Fort Snelling, MN

• September 27, Raleigh, NC

• October 26, San Francisco, CA

• December 6, New Orleans, LA

To gather information on the current state of the art, as well as ideas about possible 

solutions to existing problems, the FRA is holding a series of public meetings. The 

first of these was held August 30 in Fort Snelling, Minnesota.
25

Discussion Update:

Fort Snelling, MN

• AAR

• BRS

• Citizens for Rail Safety

• State of Minnesota

• State of Wisconsin

• State of Iowa

This is not a complete list of organizations represented at the meeting in Fort 

Snelling, but rather those who provided either formal statements or substantial input 

during the meeting.
26

Discussion Update:

Fort Snelling, MN

• No Private Crossing Processes

– Creating

– Evaluating

– Upgrading

– Closing

• No clear private crossing 

definition 

• Many types/uses of private 

crossings

Numerous topics were discussed in Fort Snelling, but to my mind, they fell into a 

few of different categories. In the first, it seemed that attendees agreed that there is 

no existing process that would provide consistent structures to create (or to 

evaluate the relative need for) new private crossings, or to upgrade or close existing 

private crossings.

Attendees also seemed to indicate that different parties often used different 

definitions to decide whether a crossing was public or private.

In addition, much discussion centered on the fact that private crossings are created 

for a wide variety of reasons, (residential, industrial, commercial, institutional (govt), 

or temporary), may be used to varying degrees by members of the general public, 

and may be traversed by users ranging from pedestrians to construction vehicles or 

HazMat tank trucks.
27

Discussion Update: 

Raleigh, NC

• State of North Carolina

• State of West Virginia 

• Association of American 

Railroads

• Contractors

• Attorneys

• Private Citizens
28

Discussion Update:

Raleigh, NC

• North Carolina’s Private Crossing 

Safety Initiative

• Need for a baseline set of traffic 

control devices

• More crossing categories

• Design standards suggestions
29

Electronic Docket 

Submissions

• U.S. DOT Docket Management System

– http://dms.dot.gov/

– Docket number FRA-2005-23281

I’d like to open the discussion now, but I’ll leave this information up on the screen in 

case any of you would also like to provide a written statement to the docket.
1

Safety at Private HighwayRailroad Grade Crossings

Federal Railroad Administration 

Safety Inquiry

Good morning, Ladies and Gentlemen. Thank you for coming.
2

Background

1993—FRA initiated discussion 

1994—USDOT Action Plan

1997—NTSB Passive Crossing Study

1999—NTSB Accident Report

2004—USDOT Updated Action Plan

Private crossing safety has for some time been a matter of concern to the US 

Department of Transportation and to other Federal Agencies.

• In 1993, the FRA hosted an open meeting to initiate industry-wide discussions. 

•In its 1994 Rail-Highway Safety Action Plan, the USDOT proposed to develop 

national minimum standards for private crossings.

•In its 1997 study on Safety at Passive Grade Crossings, the NTSB highlighted the 

need for some system to improve private crossing safety, and recommended that 

the USDOT, in conjunction with the States, determine governmental oversight 

responsibility for safety at private grade crossings.

•In 1999, the NTSB weighed in again in its report on a private grade crossing 

accident in Portage, Indiana. In this case, the NTSB recommended that the DOT 

eliminate any differences between public and private crossings with regard to 

funding or requirements for safety improvements.

•In 2004, the USDOT published an updated Action Plan, in which the FRA 

committed to leading an effort to define responsibility for safety at private crossings. 

Today’s meeting is a vital part of this effort.
3

Jackson, MI

About 1 pm on May 30, 2006, Amtrak train no. 350 struck an empty gravel truck at a 

private highway-railroad grade crossing near Jackson, Michigan. The train was 

traveling about 74 mph with cab car 90218 in the lead when the truck entered the 

crossing in front of the train. One train crewmember and 15 train passengers 

received minor injuries in the accident; the truckdriver sustained fatal injuries.

The private road at the accident crossing is used by an excavating company and by 

two residences, and on average fewer than 30 highway vehicles and a dozen trains, 

8 of them Amtrak trains, traverse the crossing daily. It is estimated that the crossing 

was created about 1948, and there is no record of any maintenance contract 

between the business owner and Norfolk Southern Railway, the track owner. 
4

Castle Rock, Washington

About 4:40 p.m. on July 3, 2006, southbound Amtrak train A507-03 struck a 

passenger vehicle at a private crossing near Castle Rock, Washington. According 

to the Amtrak engineer, the accident occurred when the motorist entered the 

crossing after a northbound UP train cleared it. Traincrew and train passengers 

sustained no injuries, but all four motor vehicle occupants sustained fatal injuries.

The road leading to this crossing is a county road, but county maintenance ends 

shortly before the crossing and the private road that extends beyond the crossing 

dead-ends after serving 11 residences. About 60 trains daily traverse this crossing. 

It is not known when this crossing was created, and no maintenance contract has 

been located for this crossing.
5

Lemont, Illinois

About 7 p.m. (6:52) on June 21, 2006, Metra Train No. 921, traveling south at a 

recorded speed of 79 mph, struck a truck trailer traversing a private grade crossing 

near Lemont, Illinois. A piece of the trailer became wedged under the snow pilot of 

the locomotive and the locomotive derailed at the crossing. The driver of the 

tractor/trailer was not inured. There were 170 passengers aboard the train, five 

passengers claimed minor injuries and were treated and released, no train crew 

members reported any injury.

This crossing serves two commercial facilities to which there is no other access. 

Roughly 28 trains and fewer than 30 highway vehicles use this crossing daily. The 

crossing is maintained by the CN, but there is no formal agreement.

Note: about 6 months prior to this accident (December 19, 2005), another accident 

occurred at this crossing. The truckdriver in the December accident sustained fatal 

injuries.
6

State Responsibilities

• 28 States have no private 

crossing statutes

According to FRA’s 2002 Compilation of State Laws and Regulations Affecting 

Highway-Railroad Grade Crossings, more than half the States have no laws or 

regulations related to private crossings.
7

Federal Responsibilities

• 49 C.F.R. §234 –signal system 

inspection, testing, and maintenance

– About 1% of all private crossings

• 49 C.F.R. §224 – freight car 

reflectorization

– Under 25% of all crossing accidents

• Manual on Uniform Traffic Control 

Devices

– Applies to public crossings

The Federal Government, in the guise of various U.S. DOT agencies, does offer 

some regulations or guidance documents that may touch on safety at private 

crossings. As you can see in this sample, however, none of these really covers a 

significant portion of the Nation’s private crossings.
8

Federal Responsibilities

• No Federal regulation addresses 

private crossings’ special issues

In fact, there is no Federal regulation or guidance that promotes safety at private 

grade crossings by specifically or uniformly addressing the special issues presented 

at private crossings.
9

Private Crossing Uses

Some private crossings may be used only seasonally, like certain farm crossings 

used only for agricultural equipment movements, or they may be used only for 

routine personal use, like crossings that serve residences.
10

Other private crossings, such as this industrial access crossing, are used 

extensively for private business purposes by employees, contractors, and suppliers. 

In still other cases, they may be used very heavily by the public to enter commercial 

facilities.

This slide also illustrates that in some cases, there is no alternative access provided 

the private property owner.
11

Legal Status

• Ownership of fee simple

• Documented easements

• Prescriptive easements

• Documented licenses

• Verbal licenses

The rights assigned to the private crossing holders vary greatly

An holder of the right (or privilege) to cross may hold outright ownership of the 

underlying property, or have a documented easement over the railroad property. 

Where it is recognized, the holder may have a prescriptive easement (squatter’s 

rights). There may be a documented license under contract, or maybe only a verbal 

license subject to revocation without notice.
12

Legal Status

• Insurance policies

• Contracts

Railroads may require the crossing holders to purchase insurance or provide some 

other protection in the event of a collision at the crossing.

Contracts or other legal documents may further define responsibilities, such as 

maintenance of the crossing surface, or providing notifications under stated 

conditions.
13

Warning Devices at Public Crossings

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

HIGHWAY/RAIL GRADE CROSSING TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP (TWG)

NOVEMBER 2002

GUIDANCE ON TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES AT 

HIGHWAY-RAIL GRADE CROSSINGS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Technical Working Group (TWG) established by the U.S. Department of Transportation, is led 

by representatives from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA). The cooperation among the various representatives of the TWG 

represents a landmark effort to enhance communication between highway agencies, railroad 

companies and authorities, and governmental agencies involved with developing and 

implementing policies, rules and regulations.

There is some standardization of treatments at public crossings across the Nation. 

For example, the conformation and use of signs, signals, pavement markings, and 

any other traffic control devices placed at public crossings generally conform to the 

guidance provided in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. In addition, in 

2002, the DOT published a guidance document created through the efforts of a 

Technical Working Group made up of representatives from both the public and the 

private sectors. 
14

Warning Devices at Private 

Crossings

In most States, there is no such standardization at private crossings.
15

The arrangement of private crossing signs can be highly individual.
16

And sign maintenance may be sketchy,
17

Or almost nonexistent.
18

Public Meetings

• August 30, Fort Snelling, MN

• September 27, Raleigh, NC

• October 26, San Francisco, CA

• December 6, New Orleans, LA

To gather information on the current state of the art, as well as ideas about possible 

solutions to existing problems, the FRA is holding a series of public meetings. The 

first of these was held August 30 in Fort Snelling, Minnesota.
19

Discussion Update:

Fort Snelling, MN

• AAR

• BRS

• Citizens for Rail Safety

• State of Minnesota

• State of Wisconsin

• State of Iowa

This is not a complete list of organizations represented at the meeting in Fort 

Snelling, but rather those who provided either formal statements or substantial input 

during the meeting.
20

Discussion Update:

Fort Snelling, MN

• No Private Crossing Processes

– Creating

– Evaluating

– Upgrading

– Closing

• No clear private crossing 

definition 

• Many types/uses of private 

crossings

Numerous topics were discussed in Fort Snelling, but to my mind, they fell into a 

few of different categories. In the first, it seemed that attendees agreed that there is 

no existing process that would provide consistent structures to create (or to 

evaluate the relative need for) new private crossings, or to upgrade or close existing 

private crossings.

Attendees also seemed to indicate that different parties often used different 

definitions to decide whether a crossing was public or private.

In addition, much discussion centered on the fact that private crossings are created 

for a wide variety of reasons, (residential, industrial, commercial, institutional (govt), 

or temporary), may be used to varying degrees by members of the general public, 

and may be traversed by users ranging from pedestrians to construction vehicles or 

HazMat tank trucks.
21

Discussion Update: 

Raleigh, NC

• State of North Carolina

• State of West Virginia 

• Association of American 

Railroads

• Contractors

• Attorneys

• Private Citizens
22

Discussion Update:

Raleigh, NC

• North Carolina’s Private Crossing 

Safety Initiative

• Need for a baseline set of traffic 

control devices

• More crossing categories

• Design standards suggestions
23

Discussion Update: 

San Francisco, CA

• State of California

• State of Washington

• Union Pacific Railroad

• Metrolink

• Norfolk Southern Corp.

• Attorneys at Law
24

Discussion Update:

San Francisco, CA

• State of California’s methods

• California Environmental Quality 

Act (CEQA)

• Case Studies

• Hypothetical Questions
25

Electronic Docket 

Submissions

• U.S. DOT Docket Management System

– http://dms.dot.gov/

– Docket number FRA-2005-23281

I’d like to open the discussion now, but I’ll leave this information up on the screen in 

case any of you would also like to provide a written statement to the docket.
1

Safety at Private HighwayRailroad Grade Crossings

Federal Railroad Administration 

Safety Inquiry

Good afternoon, Ladies and Gentlemen. Thank you for coming.
2

Plant City, Florida

Photo Courtesy of the Tampa Tribune

I’m going to start off with a quick reminder of why we are looking into this issue. 

Just last week, on July 17, 2007, a northbound Amtrak train collided with a tractor 

semitrailer combination vehicle loaded with scrap metal at a private grade crossing 

near Plant City, Florida.

This accident is currently under investigation, but preliminary data are available.
3

Current reports state that both locomotives and 9 passenger cars derailed, but 

remained upright. Between 16 and 18 passengers were treated, and as many as 5 

train crewmembers were treated for injuries sustained in this accident.
4

The accident crossing lies on an access road to an industrial area, and is equipped 

with crossbuck signs.
5

Reports indicate that the truckdriver was ejected from his vehicle, and that he 

sustained fatal injuries.
6

Background

1993—FRA initiated discussion 

1994—USDOT Action Plan

1997—NTSB Passive Crossing Study

1999—NTSB Accident Report

2004—USDOT Updated Action Plan

Private crossing safety has for some time been a matter of concern to the US 

Department of Transportation and to other Federal Agencies.

• In 1993, the FRA hosted an open meeting to initiate industry-wide discussions. 

•In its 1994 Rail-Highway Safety Action Plan, the USDOT proposed to develop 

national minimum standards for private crossings.

•In its 1997 study on Safety at Passive Grade Crossings, the NTSB highlighted the 

need for some system to improve private crossing safety, and recommended that 

the USDOT, in conjunction with the States, determine governmental oversight 

responsibility for safety at private grade crossings.

•In 1999, the NTSB weighed in again in its report on a private grade crossing 

accident in Portage, Indiana. In this case, the NTSB recommended that the DOT 

eliminate any differences between public and private crossings with regard to 

funding or requirements for safety improvements.

•In 2004, the USDOT published an updated Action Plan, in which the FRA 

committed to leading an effort to define responsibility for safety at private crossings. 

Today’s meeting is a vital part of this effort.
7

Total 241,608 39%

Region 8 27,207 46%

Region 7 16,115 38%

Region 6 34,920 40%

Region 5 34,478 36%

Region 4 43,295 33%

Region 3 44,075 36%

Region 2 27,945 43%

Region 1 13,573 44%

Private 

Crossing 

Percentage

All 

FRA Region Crossings

The FRA maintains offices in each of 8 geographic regions. As you can see, 

regardless of the region, private crossings constitute a significant percentage of all 

at-grade crossings. The total count Nationwide is about 94,000.
8

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Public

Private

Accidents at public and private grade crossings

1985-2005

Although accidents at public crossings have declined considerably over the past 20 

years (declining by 1/3 over the past decade alone), the number of accidents at 

private crossings has remained comparatively stable, declining only 10 percent over 

the past decade. 

In most years, the number of fatalities occurring in accidents at private crossings 

exceeded the number of on-duty deaths among railroad employees in all rail 

operations. 
9

Public Meetings

• August 30, Fort Snelling, MN

• September 27, Raleigh, NC

• October 26, San Francisco, CA

• December 6, New Orleans, LA

• February 15, 2007, Syracuse, NY

To gather information on the current state of the art, as well as ideas about possible 

solutions to existing problems, the FRA has held a series of public meetings. 
10

Discussion Topics

• General Comments

• Grade Crossing Categories

• Design and Signage Standards

• Rights and Responsibilities

• Data Needs

The FRA sought comments on a wide variety of subjects relating to private 

crossings. These are some of the principle topic areas.
11

General Comments

• States often lack jurisdiction

• States also lack staffing

• Laws, regulations, judicial support 

differ widely across nation

• Railroads lack authority

• Railroads receive no benefits

• Private crossing uses extremely varied

At each meeting, a number of attendees emphasized the difficulty in approaching a 

solution to the problem of safety at private crossings. Most States, for example, 

indicated that they had little or no jurisdiction to affect decisions about creation of 

private crossings, or, except in fairly limited ways, even determine the traffic control 

devices placed at such crossings. Railroads indicated that, although safety at all 

grade crossings was a matter of vital interest to them, they were often powerless to 

induce private landowners to make needed improvements.

Railroads also noted that they receive no benefits from the existence of most private 

crossings—benefits fall almost entirely to the holder of the right to cross.
12

• Create process

• Limit new crossings

• Consolidate existing crossings

• Respect crossing holder’s rights, 

needs

• Partner with States, Railroads, 

crossing holders

General Comments

The FRA asked a series of questions in this initiative’s initial Federal Register 

notice. One of these was “How should we justify crossing creation or continuation?

Many meeting attendees indicated that there is currently no process in place to help 

the parties involved make decisions that consider safety issues at private crossings. 

Several parties, including the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen and Citizens for 

Rail Safety advocated fairly aggressive elimination of private crossings, by 

prohibiting the creation of new crossings, and by closing or consolidating existing 

private crossings.

Other parties pointed out that this was more difficult than it sounded, with the New 

Orleans and Gulf Coast Railroad stating that in their case, local authorities gave 

them little or no support in their efforts to close redundant crossings or prevent new 

ones. 

Some private crossing holders perceived the current methods for addressing 

crossing closure to be unfair, giving them little or no input into how their property 

would be affected.

The State of North Carolina, however, appears to have had some success at 

resolving these types of apparently conflicting interests by partnering with the 

interested parties to improve safety at private crossings.
13

Grade Crossing Categories

• Many categories

– Seasonal agricultural

– Residential

– Commercial, etc

• Need to look at expected use levels

– Private

– Public Use

Meeting attendees provided a long list of the various ways in which crossings can 

be categorized. 

They asserted that it would be difficult to revise the inventory to encompass all 

possible types of crossings, and expressed concern that by ‘over-specifying’

crossing categories, the railroads might find it much more difficult to arrange 

crossing consolidations and closures.

Later discussions focused on the benefits of creating a category known as ‘public 

use’, which would be a crossing where the roadway was owned by other than a 

public agency, but to which the public had an expectation of free access.
14

When do private crossings have 

public purpose, subject to public 

use?

• Railroads often not notified

• Land use authorities should be 

involved

• Must determine expectation of 

access

In expanding on the ‘public use’ categorization, attendees centered the discussion 

around the instances where land use changes. As land is developed, a farm fieldto-field crossing can become access to a large residential development, or even a 

commercial establishment like a shopping center. Attendees stated that when this 

occurs, the amount of highway traffic can increase dramatically, and the risk at that 

crossing will rise with it.

Attending railroad representatives stated that in most states, there is no mechanism 

for alerting the railroad to any such change in use at a private crossing. They 

indicated that, in their experience, the State of California is unique in its ability to 

identify such land use changes, and to effect crossing improvements at such private 

crossings.

Under the California Environmental Quality Act, the CPUC has the authority to 

review all proposed developments concerning potential impact on public safety. 

They have done so for the past three years. In the CPUC’s opinion, the best time 

to identify land use changes is when the development is undergoing the planning 

and permitting process; for this reason they strongly advocate involving local 

permitting authorities.

Even where land use is not changing, attendees agreed that it was important to 

identify existing private crossings with public use. One participant suggested that it 

would be most valuable to identify whether the public has an expectation of free 

access to the private roadway.
15

Design and Signage Standards

• Nationwide standards beneficial

• Some States, Railroads have their 

own standards

• Different standards were 

proposed

Should there be Nationwide standards for signs and roadway design? Meeting 

attendees all seemed to agree that development and application of Nationwide 

standards, both for crossing engineering design and for placement of traffic control 

devices at private crossings would be beneficial.

It was noted, however, that a handful of States, as well as several individual 

railroads, have created standards of their own, each one different from the other.

Some attendees suggested that private crossings should be treated exactly the 

same as public crossings, but others believed that appropriate guidelines should be 

developed through partnership with AASHTO, AREMA, APTA, and the National 

Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
16

Are innovative traffic control 

devices available?

• Need exists

• None yet ready for widespread 

use

• Liability, cost, lack of 

effectiveness hinder 

implementation

Although most attendees agreed that the development of less expensive warning 

devices could be beneficial, none had found one that had provided enough of a cost 

reduction, or enough of a safety improvement, to justify their use on a systemwide

basis. Further comments suggested that railroads could not use non-failsafe 

options because of liability considerations.
17

Rights and Responsibilities: Should 

State or Federal Government assume 

greater responsibility?

• Almost no States have jurisdiction

• Railroads have limited authority 

over crossing use, warning 

devices

• Some parties uneasy about too 

much Federal involvement

• Others seek uniformity, permitting 

process, Federal funds

Although the State of California asserted a willingness to continue their strong 

presence in the area of private crossing safety, most States indicated that they did 

not even have the ability to keep up with their responsibilities at public crossings, let 

alone private crossings.

California and Washington were concerned that Federal preemption might damage 

existing protections at the State level, and one railroad indicated a preference for 

Federal policies and recommendations instead of regulations.

Others, however, advocated more uniformity in decisionmaking through use of a 

permitting process overseen by the FRA; one party also suggested that the FRA 

should take a more proactive approach to providing funding for improvements at 

private crossings.
18

Rights and Responsibilities: Is 

current assignment of 

responsibility effective?

• Need documentation

• Need authority, tools to improve 

crossing safety

• Should involve local planning 

authorities

Meeting attendees agreed that in many cases, there is no documentation available 

assigning rights or responsibilities for safety at private crossings. Attendees 

indicated that such legal documents often provide a basis for negotiations to modify 

or close a crossing, and that their absence could render negotiations impossible.

The Association of American Railroads indicated that railroads generally lacked the 

authority to close or relocate private crossings, or even to require appropriate safety 

measures. Like numerous other States, the State of North Carolina indicated that 

they lacked direct authority over private crossings, and stated that they needed 

tools to improve safety.

By comparison, the California Public Utilities Commission stated that, unlike a great 

many States, they have the authority to determine necessity for crossing, and to 

require safety improvements. They emphasized the need, however, for the local 

authorities who give permission for new development to accept responsibility to 

address railroad safety.
19

Rights and Responsibilities: How 

should improvement/ maintenance 

costs be allocated?

• Currently not consistent

• States, local authorities, railroads 

do not want responsibility

• Stakeholders need method for 

sharing costs

Not too surprisingly, there was little agreement between attendees on this issue. 

Currently, the allocation of costs vary according to the State, and according to any 

existing agreements between the railroads and crossing holders.

The State of Wisconsin explained that in many cases, States and local authorities 

lacked the funds and/or the staff to assume responsibility for the maintenance of 

private roadways. 

The Association of American Railroads suggested that the private crossing user 

should bear the costs, while others proposed various schemes for sharing the costs 

between the government and the private crossing user.

The State of North Carolina pointed out that there are generally no State or Federal 

funds available for improvements at private crossings, and suggested that the 

Stakeholders (Federal, State, and Local governments, transit authorities, railroads, 

and private crossing holders) should develop a methodology to share the costs 

associated with grade crossing safety treatment, construction, and maintenance.
20

Rights and Responsibilities: Is 

there a need for Alternative 

Dispute Resolution mechanisms?

• Direct negotiation not always 

satisfactory

• Local courts may be biased

• California program successful

In most States, disputes must be solved through direct interaction between the 

railroad and the crossing holder, a process that is cumbersome and fraught with 

difficulties for both parties. Representatives of the New Orleans and Gulf Coast 

Railroad indicated that their ability to negotiate is weakened by the lack of any 

Federal standards or guidelines, and that, therefore, their negotiations often fail.

Failed negotiations may be resolved in a court of law. Both the railroads and the 

States, however, indicated that local courts may be biased in favor of the crossing 

holder, and the lack of Federal standards has made it difficult for railroads to 

establish jurisdiction in Federal courts.

The State of California indicated that the CPUC allows for administrative legal 

review, and has a dispute resolution process in place. They suggested that, 

because of the legal issues involving property rights, and contract law, responsibility 

for dispute mechanisms should remain with the States, and that Federal guidelines 

or recommendations could assist States that do not currently have dispute 

resolution processes.
21

Data Collection

• Important, but:

– Railroads receive no benefits

– States lack resources

– Data collectors have safety 

concerns

The existing National Inventory coverage of private crossing data was deemed 

largely inadequate for most analyses, as well as for resource allocation. Some 

participants suggested additional fields, others looked for greater specificity in the 

data currently collected. On the whole, participants agreed that safety at private 

grade crossings would benefit from enhanced or improved data collection.

They noted several issues, however, that would need to be resolved in order for 

data collection efforts to be successful. First, although the existing private crossing 

data are currently collected by the railroads, the railroads believe that they receive 

no material benefit from performing this work. They add that requiring railroads to 

collect additional data would impose a substantial burden.

Second, States indicated that they do not have staff to conduct an inventory, nor in 

many cases would they allowed to spend public monies to inventory private 

property.

Thirdly, many private crossings are in remote or less safe neighborhoods, and data 

collectors may face some personal risks just to collect the data.
22

Should the Department of 

Transportation seek legislation 

to address private crossings?

• Could be premature

• Many issues to resolve

• Might need legislation

• Basis should be to improve safety

When we raised this question, we elicited some rather spirited responses. Several 

participants suggested that such an action would be premature until the FRA had 

had time to consider the comments of the interested parties. Others noted that 

numerous issues would need to be resolved, including identification of crossing 

users, establishing crossing agreements, funding, and National security issues.

Other parties, however, strongly encouraged the FRA to seek such legislation, in 

order to gain enough “regulatory teeth” to control safety issues through a permitting 

process.

The AAR noted that, should such legislation be sought, the basis for any regulation 

or action by the FRA would have to be that of increased safety.
23

Electronic Docket 

Submissions

• U.S. DOT Docket Management System

– http://dms.dot.gov/

– Docket number FRA-2005-23281

The Volpe Center and the FRA will be publishing a report based on the discussions 

held at the public meetings.
1

Safety at Private HighwayRailroad Grade Crossings

What if...
2

What if:

• 1. US DOT establishes a requirement that 

every private crossing have a standard 

formal agreement. Crossings for which an 

agreement cannot be found or created will 

be closed.
3

What if...

• 2. A new independent Federal agency 

(similar to the Surface Transportation 

Board) were created to oversee the 

resolution of private crossing disputes?
4

What if...

• 3. The US DOT provided guidance or 

standards on crossing design and warning 

device implementation at private 

crossings?
5

What if...

• 4. Organizations such as AASHTO, 

AREMA, and the NCUTCD were to include 

sections on private crossings in all existing 

guidance and standards documents?
6

What if...

• 5. The railroads were to require all private 

crossing holders to obtain liability 

insurance?
7

What if...

• 6. A Federal Agency (FRA or other) 

established a process governing the 

creation, evaluation, and improvement of 

private crossings?
8

What if...

• 7. The ultimate responsibility for safety at 

private crossings resided with State 

Agencies?
9

What if...

• 8. The ultimate responsibility for safety at 

private crossings resided with the 

railroads?
10

What if...

• 9. A private crossing were categorized 

based on traffic levels and type of use?
11

What if...

• The FRA were to require that all data 

currently collected for public crossings 

also be collected for private crossings?
1

Safety at Private HighwayRailroad Grade Crossings

Case studies
2
3

Case 1:

• For 75 years, sole access to historical 

home provided by prescriptive easement

• Neighboring developer puts in siding that 

eliminates the private crossing leading to 

the residence
4

Case 1

• What rights are assigned to the holder of a 

long-established prescriptive easement?

• Does the developer/railroad have 

responsibilities toward the affected 

crossing holder? If so, what?

• Do State governments (outside the court 

systems) bear a responsibility for 

crossings created via prescriptive 

easements?
5

Case 2:

• A developer converts farmland to a large 

residential neighborhood. A private 

crossing serving the farm suddenly sees a 

vast increase in traffic counts, and in the 

type of vehicles using the crossing.
6

Case 2:

• Who bears responsibility for safety at the 

crossing? The developer, homeowners, or 

railroad?

• If a city or county chooses to convert it to a 

public crossing, who is responsible for 

reporting this to the State and railroad?
7

Case 3:

• A private crossing is apparently unused.
8

Case 3:

• Is there a process for identifying the 

crossing holder?

• Can the crossing be closed by the 

railroad?

• Are there statutory or regulatory 

restrictions that govern this situation?
1

1

Safety at Private HighwayRailroad Grade Crossings

Data Needs
2

2

Total 241,608 39%

Region 8 27,207 46%

Region 7 16,115 38%

Region 6 34,920 40%

Region 5 34,478 36%

Region 4 43,295 33%

Region 3 44,075 36%

Region 2 27,945 43%

Region 1 13,573 44%

Private 

Crossing 

Percentage

All 

FRA Region Crossings

As you can see, regardless of the geographic region, private crossings constitute a 

significant percentage of all at-grade crossings. The total count Nationwide is about 

94,000.
3

3

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Public

Private

Accidents at public and private grade crossings

1985-2005

Although accidents at public crossings have declined considerably over the past 20 

years (declining by 1/3 over the past decade alone), the number of accidents at 

private crossings has remained comparatively stable, declining only 10 percent over 

the past decade. 

In most years, the number of fatalities occurring in accidents at private crossings 

exceeded the number of on-duty deaths among railroad employees in all rail 

operations. 

The following are a few examples:
4

4

Incidents at Private and Public Crossings per 100 Crossings, by Warning Device Type 

1996 - 2005

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

Gates Lights Other Active

Warning Devices

Crossbucks StopSign Other None & Blank

Type of Warning Devices

Incidents per 100 Crossings

Private Crossings

Public Crossings
5

5

Number of Private Crossings by Type of Development

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

Farm Residential Recreational Industrial Commercial Not Available

Type of Development

Number of Crossings

60.1%

12.6%

1.7%

23.6%

0.3% 1.8%
6

6

Number of Incidents at Private Crossings by Type of Development (1996-2005)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Farm Residential Recreational Industrial Commercial Not Available

Type of Development

Num ber of Incidents

28.7%

10.9%

1.6%

30.4%

0.5%

27.9%
7

7

Incidents at Private Crossings by Type of Equipment and Train Speed (1996-2005)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0 to <10 10 to <20 20 to <30 30 to <40 40 to <50 50 to <60 60 to <70 70 to 80

Train Speed

Number of Incidents

Freight (Freight, Single Car, Cut of Cars) Passenger (Passenger, Commuter) Other (Work, Yard/Switching, Light Locomotive, Maintenance)
8

8

National Inventory 

• 32 % of the private crossing 

records have been updated since 

2001

• 21 % of the private crossing 

records have never been updated

The FRA maintains a national inventory of all crossings, public, private, or 

pedestrian, at grade or grade separated. The data are used by many State, 

Federal, or private organizations for research, or for resource allocation 

(determining which crossings are most in need of improvements). It is updated by 

the States and by the railroads on a voluntary, not mandatory basis.

As you can see, only about 1/3 of the records for private crossings have been 

updated within the past five years, and a significant portion of the records have 

never been updated. Analysis on data of this quality must necessarily be somewhat 

tentative. 

The data for public crossings are typically updated more often than this.
9

9

This is a shot of the form on which crossing data are collected for the National 

Inventory. Almost all the data elements are required for public crossings. For 

private crossings, however, only the sections I have shaded are collected.
10

10

Data Uses

• Resource Allocation

– USDOT Formula

– State Formulae

• Crossing Treatment Selection

– GradeDec

– FRA Quiet Zone Calculator

• Warning Device Evaluation

– Sealed Corridor Study
11

11

Resource Allocation

• US DOT resource allocation formula

– Highway and rail traffic counts

– Number of daily through trains

– Maximum timetable speed

– Number of main tracks

– Highway paved 

– Number of Highway lanes

– Warning devices present

– Accident frequency
12

12

Crossing Treatment Selection

• FRA Quiet Zone Calculator

Essentially the same fields as for resource allocation
13

13

Other Data Desires

• NTSB recommendations:

– Sight distance

– Presence of curves on roadway and 

track

– Angle of Intersection

– Presence nearby intersections
14

14

Other Data Desires

• Latitude/Longitude

• Other suggestions?
1

Safety at Private HighwayRailroad Grade Crossings

Federal Railroad Administration 

Safety Inquiry

Good afternoon, Ladies and Gentlemen. Thank you for coming.
2

Overview

• States often lack jurisdiction

• States also lack staffing

• Laws, regulations, judicial support 

differ widely across nation

• Railroads lack authority

• Private crossing uses extremely 

varied

At each meeting, a number of attendees emphasized the difficulty in approaching a 

solution to the problem of safety at private crossings. Most States, for example, 

indicated that they had little or no jurisdiction to affect decisions about creation of 

private crossings, or, except in fairly limited ways, even determine the traffic control 

devices placed at such crossings. Railroads indicated that, although safety at all 

grade crossings was a matter of vital interest to them, they were often powerless to 

induce private landowners to make needed improvements.
3

How should we justify crossing 

creation or continuation?

• Create process

• Limit new crossings

• Consolidate existing crossings

• Respect crossing holder’s rights, 

needs

• Partner with States, Railroads, 

crossing holders

Many meeting attendees indicated that there is currently no process in place to help 

the parties involved make decisions that consider safety issues at private crossings. 

Several parties, including the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen and Citizens for 

Rail Safety advocated fairly aggressive elimination of private crossings, by 

prohibiting the creation of new crossings, and by closing or consolidating existing 

private crossings.

Other parties pointed out that this was more difficult than it sounded, with the New 

Orleans and Gulf Coast Railroad stating that in their case, local authorities gave 

them little or no support in their efforts to close redundant crossings or prevent new 

ones. 

Some private crossing holders perceived the current methods for addressing 

crossing closure to be unfair, giving them little or no input into how their property 

would be affected.

The State of North Carolina, however, appears to have had some success at 

resolving these types of apparently conflicting interests by partnering with the 

interested parties to improve safety at private crossings.
4

Is current assignment of 

responsibility effective?

• Need documentation

• Need authority, tools to improve 

crossing safety

• Should involve local planning 

authorities

Meeting attendees agreed that in many cases, there is no documentation available 

assigning rights or responsibilities for safety at private crossings. Attendees 

indicated that such legal documents often provide a basis for negotiations to modify 

or close a crossing, and that their absence could render negotiations impossible.

The Association of American Railroads indicated that railroads generally lacked the 

authority to close or relocate private crossings, or even to require appropriate safety 

measures. Like numerous other States, the State of North Carolina indicated that 

they lacked direct authority over private crossings, and stated that they needed 

tools to improve safety.

By comparison, the California Public Utilities Commission stated that, unlike a great 

many States, they have the authority to determine necessity for crossing, and to 

require safety improvements. They emphasized the need, however, for the local 

authorities who give permission for new development to accept responsibility to 

address railroad safety.
5

How should improvement/ 

maintenance costs be allocated?

• Currently not consistent

• States, local authorities, railroads 

do not want responsibility

• Stakeholders need method for 

sharing costs

Not too surprisingly, there was little agreement between attendees on this issue. 

Currently, the allocation of costs vary according to the State, and according to any 

existing agreements between the railroads and crossing holders.

The State of Wisconsin explained that in many cases, States and local authorities 

lacked the funds and/or the staff to assume responsibility for the maintenance of 

private roadways. 

The Association of American Railroads suggested that the private crossing user 

should bear the costs, while others proposed various schemes for sharing the costs 

between the government and the private crossing user.

The State of North Carolina pointed out that there are generally no State or Federal 

funds available for improvements at private crossings, and suggested that the 

Stakeholders (Federal, State, and Local governments, transit authorities, railroads, 

and private crossing holders) should develop a methodology to share the costs 

associated with grade crossing safety treatment, construction, and maintenance.
6

Is there a need for Alternative 

Dispute Resolution mechanisms?

• Direct negotiation not always 

satisfactory

• Local courts may be biased

• California program successful

In most States, disputes must be solved through direct interaction between the 

railroad and the crossing holder, a process that is cumbersome and fraught with 

difficulties for both parties. Representatives of the New Orleans and Gulf Coast 

Railroad indicated that their ability to negotiate is weakened by the lack of any 

Federal standards or guidelines, and that, therefore, their negotiations often fail.

Failed negotiations may be resolved in a court of law. Both the railroads and the 

States, however, indicated that local courts may be biased in favor of the crossing 

holder, and the lack of Federal standards has made it difficult for railroads to 

establish jurisdiction in Federal courts.

The State of California indicated that the CPUC allows for administrative legal 

review, and has a dispute resolution process in place. They suggested that, 

because of the legal issues involving property rights, and contract law, responsibility 

for dispute mechanisms should remain with the States, and that Federal guidelines 

or recommendations could assist States that do not currently have dispute 

resolution processes.
7

Should State or Federal 

Government assume greater 

responsibility?

• Most States not able to assume 

more responsibility

• States, railroads uneasy about too 

much Federal involvement

• Other parties seek uniformity, 

permitting process, Federal funds

The responses to this question were also varied. Although the State of California 

asserted a willingness to continue their strong presence in the area of private 

crossing safety, most States indicated that they did not even have the ability to keep 

up with their responsibilities at public crossings, let alone the private crossings.

The States of California and Washington were concerned that the Federal 

government might damage existing protections by seeking to preempt State laws, 

and one railroad indicated a preference for Federal policies and recommendations, 

rather than regulation.

Other parties, on the other hand, advocated more uniformity in decisionmaking 

through a permitting process overseen by the FRA; one party also suggested that 

the FRA should take a more proactive approach to providing funding for 

improvements at private crossings.
8

What if Railroads were 

responsible?

• Railroads should have the right to 

control what goes on railroad 

rights-of-way

• Railroads can’t control crossing 

usage, have no regulatory authority 

at crossings

One railroad insisted that railroads should be recognized to be interstate highways 

of commerce, and that they should have the right to control what goes on their 

rights of way.

Others, however, noted that railroads cannot control crossing usage, and that they 

have no regulatory authority at crossings. 

It was generally agreed that trying to place the full responsibility for safety at private 

crossings on the railroads would likely not lead to a successful program of safety 

improvements.
9

Should there be Nationwide 

standards for signs and 

roadway design?

• Nationwide standards beneficial

• Some States, railroads have a 

standard

• Different standards proposed

Most attendees agreed that development and application of Nationwide standards, 

both for crossing engineering design, and for placement of warning devices at 

private crossings would be beneficial. 

Although some States, as well as some individual railroads, currently require 

standard signage at private crossings, each standard differs from the others. 

While some attendees proposed that private crossings be treated exactly the same 

as public crossings, others suggested that appropriate guidelines and standards 

should be developed through partnering with AASHTO, AREMA, APTA, and the 

National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
10

When do private crossings have 

public purpose, subject to public 

use?

• Railroads often not notified

• Land use authorities should be 

involved

• Must determine expectation of 

access

Much of this discussion centered around the instances where land use changes. As 

land is developed, a farm field-to-field crossing can become access to a large 

residential development, or even a commercial establishment like a shopping 

center. Attendees stated that when this occurs, the amount of highway traffic can 

increase dramatically, and the risk at that crossing will rise with it.

Attending railroad representatives stated that in most states, there is no mechanism 

for alerting the railroad to any such change in use at a private crossing. They 

indicated that, in their experience, the State of California is unique in its ability to 

identify such land use changes, and to effect crossing improvements at such private 

crossings.

Under the California Environmental Quality Act, the CPUC has the authority to 

review all proposed developments concerning potential impact on public safety. 

They have done so for the past three years. In the CPUC’s opinion, the best time 

to identify land use changes is when the development is undergoing the planning 

and permitting process; for this reason they strongly advocate involving local 

permitting authorities.

Even where land use is not changing, attendees agreed that it was important to 

identify existing private crossings with public use. One participant suggested that it 

would be most valuable to identify whether the public has an expectation of free 

access to the private roadway.
11

Should some private crossings 

be “commercial crossings”?

• Crossings have many uses

• Who determines usage thresholds

• Canada uses “restricted” and 

“unrestricted”

• Could create “semi-public”

category

Meeting attendees listed a great many different uses for private crossings, each 

with its own risk characteristics. They noted, however, that it would be hard to 

reach agreement about thresholds for categorization based on traffic counts or 

traffic types. One railroad also contended that such categorization might hinder 

efforts at consolidation.

More than one attendee noted that in Canada, instead of depending on roadway 

ownership to determine appropriate treatment levels, they classify crossings as 

either “restricted” or “unrestricted” based on whether the public has access.

One attendee suggested that we adopt a categorization system almost as simple as 

that used in Canada. He proposed that crossings could be public, private, or semipublic. He defined a semipublic crossing to be a highway-railroad grade crossing 

that is owned by other than a public agency but to which the public expects free 

access.
12

Are innovative traffic control 

devices available?

• Need exists

• None yet ready for widespread 

use

• Liability, cost, lack of 

effectiveness hinder 

implementation

Although most attendees agreed that the development of less expensive warning 

devices could be beneficial, none had found one that had provided enough of a cost 

reduction, or enough of a safety improvement, to justify their use on a systemwide

basis. Further comments suggested that railroads could not use non-failsafe 

options because of liability considerations.
13

Should the Department of 

Transportation seek legislation 

to address private crossings?

• Could be premature

• Many issues to resolve

• Might need legislation

• Basis should be to improve safety

When we raised this question, we elicited some rather spirited responses. Several 

participants suggested that such an action would be premature until the FRA had 

had time to consider the comments of the interested parties. Others noted that 

numerous issues would need to be resolved, including identification of crossing 

users, establishing crossing agreements, funding, and National security issues.

Other parties, however, strongly encouraged the FRA to seek such legislation, in 

order to gain enough “regulatory teeth” to control safety issues through a permitting 

process.

The AAR noted that, should such legislation be sought, the basis for any regulation 

or action by the FRA would have to be that of increased safety.
14

Data Collection

• Important, but:

– Railroads receive no benefits 

– States lack resources

– Data collectors have safety 

concerns

The existing National Inventory coverage of private crossing data was deemed 

largely inadequate for most analysis, as well as for resource allocation. Some 

participants suggested additional fields, or more specificity in the existing data. On 

the whole, meeting attendees agreed that safety at private crossings would benefit 

from enhanced or additional data collection.

They noted, however, a series of issues that would need to be resolved in order for 

data collection efforts to be successful. First, although data on private crossings are 

currently collected by railroads, the railroads believe they receive no material benefit 

from doing this work—they add that requiring railroads to collect additional data 

would impose a serious burden. 

Second, States do not have the staff to conduct an inventory, nor in many cases 

would they be allowed to spend public monies to inventory private property.

Thirdly, some private crossings are in remote or less safe neighborhoods, and the 

data collectors may face some personal risks just to collect the data. 
15

Next Steps...

• U.S. DOT Docket Management System

– http://dms.dot.gov/

– Docket number FRA-2005-23281
1

Alternative Approach 

Discussion Topics

Good afternoon, Ladies and Gentlemen. Thank you for coming.
2

Private Crossing Findings

• Safety not improving as rapidly as at 

public crossings

– Public funding helps improve safety

– Public funding generally not available 

at private crossings

– Proportionately fewer active crossings

The use of public funds to make improvements has played an important role in 

improving safety at public crossings. Except in very rare circumstances, 

however, public funding has not been, and currently is not available for use at 

private crossings. As a result, the proportion of private crossings equipped with 

more effective warning devices, particularly active warning devices, is much 

lower than the proportion of public crossings so equipped. Improvements in 

safety (as reflected in the accident, fatality, and injury counts Nationwide) at 

private crossings, therefore, have lagged behind the improvements seen at 

public crossings.
3

Private Crossing Findings

• Accident, incident, and casualty 

rates may have dropped

– Inventory data lacks traffic counts

• Accident, incident, and casualty 

counts remain stagnant

• Opportunities for accidents may rise

– Population increases

– Changes in land use

– Growth in highway and rail traffic

• Current data are not sufficient to allow analyses of trends in either highway or 

rail traffic at private crossings. Assuming, however, that exposure trends at 

private crossings are similar in direction to those at public crossings, even if they 

are not similar in scale, it seems reasonable to believe that exposure at private 

crossings has risen somewhat over the past decade. Based on this assumption, 

accident, incident, and casualty rates at private crossings have likely fallen 

somewhat over the same time period. National totals of accidents, incidents, 

fatalities, and injuries are stagnant, however.

• Population increases, changes in land use, and both recent and projected 

growth in rail and highway traffic suggest that exposure to accident risk at 

private crossings is likely to continue increasing. Accordingly, the number of 

opportunities for accidents, and therefore for casualties, will also increase unless 

new initiatives for improving private crossing safety are identified and effectively 

implemented.
4

Private Crossing Findings

• No cohesive policy, regulatory 

structure

– Redundant crossings

– Inadequately designed crossings

– Poorly maintained crossings

• Numerous populations at risk

– Motorists

– Train occupants

– Others in crossing vicinity

• Absence of a cohesive policy or regulatory structure at any level has led to the 

existence of private crossings that are redundant, inadequately designed, and/or 

poorly maintained.

• Motorists represent only a portion of the populations at risk due to accidents at 

private crossings. The risks of collision and of derailment mean that the train 

crews, train passengers, and others in the vicinity of the crossing may be 

exposed to derailing equipment or hazardous materials releases. 
5

Private Crossing Findings

• States, local authorities generally 

lack jurisdiction

• Crossings created without 

considering public safety, 

necessity

• No Standards (in most States)

– Signage

– Roadway design

• With few exceptions, no public bodies at the State or local level are vested with 

authority or responsibility for safety at private crossings.

• No process currently exists that predicates the creation of new private crossings 

or the continuation of existing crossings on considerations of public safety or 

necessity.

• In most States, there are no publicly-sanctioned engineering criteria for private 

crossings. Accordingly, users of those crossings may encounter a variety of 

signage, road surface conditions, and other engineering attributes.
6

Private crossing Findings

• Most crossings lack agreements

• Public use a key safety concern

• Local planning departments not 

involved

• For most private crossings in the Nation, there is no agreement in place 

specifying the responsibilities of the railroad and the holder. Disputes must 

typically be resolved through direct interaction between the railroad and the 

crossing holder, or, failing that, through litigation.

• The level and type of highway use, i.e. whether the public has an expectation of 

free access to a crossing, is a key factor affecting the safety at that crossing.

• In general, local planning and zoning authorities do not regularly take into 

account the impacts on interstate rail transportation of the development 

decisions that they oversee. 
7

Private Crossing Findings

• Railroad authority limited

• Efforts to make improvements 

hampered

• Education programs may help

• Law enforcement programs likely 

ineffective

• Railroads’ ability to control roadway design or traffic control device selection and 

placement is limited. They also often lack the authority to control the highway 

usage of a given crossing

• At substantial cost, railroads make significant efforts to close or improve private 

crossings. However; they are hampered by common law, and in some cases 

statutory law, which do not recognize the degree to which private crossings 

threaten the safety of road users, railroad employees, and potentially other 

members of the public in the vicinity. 

• The contribution of education and awareness programs to safety at private 

crossings is not documented, but safety knowledge and awareness would 

appear relevant to private crossing safety, provided that engineering 

arrangements present suitable cues to facilitate safely traversing the 

intersection.

• Since State laws applicable to public roadways do not apply at private crossings, 

and since most users of private crossings are likely authorized users, law 

enforcement does not appear to be a useful strategy for improving safety at 

private crossings. 
8

Private Crossing Findings

• Effective solutions require 

collaboration

– Private crossing holders

– Railroads

– Local planning approval authorities

– State agencies

– Standard-developing organizations

– U.S. DOT

Effective solutions to improving safety at the Nation’s private highway-rail grade 

crossings will require active collaboration between the parties involved. These 

parties include, but may not be limited to:

• the holders of the right to cross the railroad,

• the railroads,

• local public planning approval authorities,

• state agencies that enforce crossing design standards,

• professional and/or industry organizations responsible for developing 

standards,

• the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
9

Private Crossing Findings

• FRA has relevant authority

• Other DOT modes should also 

participate

Within the DOT, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is the only agency with 

statutory authority directly relevant to the subject matter. However, in the 

interest of effectively serving the multimodal populations at risk, other DOT 

surface modes should participate in program development.
10

Policy Regulation

• Discourage 

crossing creation

• Recommend States 

track land use 

changes

• Recommend States 

notify RRs of land 

use changes

• Discourage 

crossing creation

• Require Statement 

of Essential Need

• Specify use

• Explain lack of 

alternative

• Forbid crossing 

creation, use if 

lacking

• Create dispute 

process

The FRA proposes to publish new National Policy, to include the following:

•A clear declaration that new private crossings are disfavored, except where clearly necessary after 

evaluation of all reasonable alternatives.

•A declaration that States should establish or identify a process whereby they are notified of land use 

changes that might affect safety at a private grade crossing, and publication of exemplar State 

legislation for those States that do not currently have jurisdiction over safety at private crossings.

•A declaration that States should establish or identify a process for notifying affected railroads of any 

land use changes that might affect safety at a private grade crossing, and publication of exemplar 

State legislation for those States that do not currently have jurisdiction over safety at private 

crossings.

U.S. DOT will seek legislation providing explicit authority to be vested in the Secretary, 

supplementing the Railroad Safety Laws, for regulation of safety at private highway-rail grade 

crossings. The legislation should be sufficiently broad to enable the following:

•Adopt a clear declaration of National Policy that new private crossings are disfavored, except where 

clearly necessary after evaluation of all reasonable alternatives.

•Require that a Statement of Essential Need be provided to the railroad before any new private 

crossing is created (whether public use, agricultural, or other) or the use changes (e.g., light 

residential to commercial or industrial).

•Require that the Statement specify the intended use (volume, type of traffic, nature of permission to 

use), and why alternative access is not available or is not suitable.

•Establish that no new private crossing may be opened for traffic, or subjected to a change in use, 

until equipped in according with the requirements above.

•Provide a procedure for the railroad, State agency, or FRA to challenge the Statement or propose 

alternative access.
11

Policy Regulation

• Recommend 

crossing 

agreements

• Recommend State 

crossing review 

programs

• Draft example State 

legislation

• Require crossing 

agreements

– Specify 

responsibilities

– Require holder 

participation

• Empower States, 

Railroads to 

challenge continued 

crossing use

Policy:

•A declaration that every private crossing should have a recorded agreement 

addressing, at a minimum, safety-related factors.

•A declaration that States should establish programs for review of existing private 

crossings, and publication of exemplar State legislation for those States that do not 

currently have jurisdiction over safety at private crossings.

Regulation:

•Require that the railroad and holder enter into an agreement with specified 

elements where the crossing cannot be closed.

•Specify the responsibilities of the crossing holder and the railroad. Since use of the 

crossing is determined by the holder, place a clear responsibility on the holder to 

participate in making necessary improvements at the crossing.

•Provide a mechanism for the railroad(s) using the rail line to challenge the 

continued necessity for the crossing.
12

Policy Regulation

• Classify 

crossings

– Private use

• Residential

• Farm field-to 

field

– Public use

• Multi-residential

• Commercial

• Industrial

• Require treatments 

based on crossing 

usage

– All

• Minimum signage

– Public use

• MUTCD

• Section 130

• Train horn use

• Risk-based evaluations

• Close if not up to spec

Policy:

•Establishment of an enhanced private crossing classification scheme for inclusion in the National Grade Crossing Inventory, 

and for use by diagnostic teams, that resembles the following:

•Private crossings with private use (where there is not a perception that the general population is invited or allowed 

access)

•Residential driveways (fewer than 4 units)

•Farm field-to-field crossings

•Private crossings with public use

•Large residential driveways

•Commercial crossings where the public access is expected (shopping centers, business parks, medical 

offices, parking lots, sports arenas, other recreational sites)

•Industrial crossings (dependent on traffic count, design vehicle)

•Note: In determining public use, the type of train traffic should also be a factor taking into consideration the impact of a 

collision on passengers on the train or on near-by facilities. 

Regulation:

•Classify private crossings by use, providing suitable objective definitions.

•Require treatments based on private crossing classifications, as follows:

•All private crossings:

•Specify minimum signage to consist of a crossbuck, supplemented by a stop or yield sign, and, in the 

case of non-public use crossings, a standard plate stating, “Private Crossing - Authorized Users Only.”

Require replacement of existing signage as needed, not to exceed 7 years from date of final rule.

•Private crossings with Public Use:

•Provide that public use crossings shall conform to the MUTCD.

•Make public use crossings eligible for improvement under section 130; however, require a documented 

statement of public benefits before funds are expended. 

•Except where a quiet zone is in effect, require use of the train horn at public use crossings under the 

same rules as public crossings.

•Provide risk-based regulatory requirements for improvements at public use crossings and other private 

crossings (except agricultural crossings; see below), including sight distance requirements as applicable. 

Consider factors such as road traffic, rail traffic, presence of rail passenger service, maximum train 

speeds, etc.

•After period of progressive work to improve these crossings, require that they be closed if not equipped 

according to requirements.
13

Policy Regulation

• Guidelines to trigger 

diagnostic team

• Guidelines for 

diagnostic team 

evaluations

– Risk analysis

– closure

– Consolidation

– Grade separations

– Public use?

• Use MUTCD

• Require treatments 

based on crossing 

usage (continued)

– Seasonal or 

Agricultural

• Locked gates

• RR dispatcher 

approval

Policy:

•Establishment of guidelines or thresholds of exposure or other factors affecting safety, to determine when 

those new private crossings, or those crossings at which land use changes affect safety, when they are deemed 

necessary, should be subject to a risk-based evaluation by a diagnostic team. 

•Establishment of guidelines for diagnostic teams that promote a Nationally consistent approach to making 

improvements at private crossings, to include the following:

•Risk levels should be calculated for each private crossing. Analysis should be performed to 

determine the appropriate risk remediation treatments. Risk above a certain threshold should trigger 

use of AASHTO roadway design standards.

•Diagnostic teams should consider crossing closure before considering any other treatment option.

•Where possible, diagnostic teams should consider consolidating crossings. This may be 

accomplished by providing access either to a nearby public crossing, or to a nearby private crossing 

that can be adequately upgraded to improve safety.

•Where closure or consolidation proves infeasible, diagnostic teams should examine the possibility of 

implementing inexpensive grade separations.

•Should the preceding options prove infeasible, determination of the appropriate treatment should be 

predicated in part on whether the private roadway is open to public travel, and on whether there are 

access restrictions. 

•Crossings at which there is an expectation of public use should be treated in a manner consistent with 

the guidelines in the MUTCD.

Regulation:

•Private Crossings with Seasonal or Agricultural Use:

•Specify use of locked gates or minimum signage (above) for agricultural crossings on tracks where 

the maximum authorized train speed exceeds 25 mph.

•Specify a requirement for railroad dispatcher approval to traverse the crossing where maximum 

authorized train speed exceeds 49 mph, except where some form of active warning is provided.
14

Policy Regulation

• Provide shared cost 

alternative dispute 

resolution (ADR)

• Provide publicly 

funded “appeal”

ADR

• Certify States 

– Conforms to 

National policies

– Legal opinion

– Periodic affirmation

Regulation:

•Provide one or more mechanisms for alternative dispute resolution when a dispute 

arises regarding the opening, closing or improvement of a private crossing. (Shared 

cost, railroad and holder.)

•Provide a mechanism for dispute resolution, available only where alternative 

dispute resolution has failed. (Public cost.)

•Provide a means of certifying any State capable of handling these issues within the 

State.

•Certification would be based on substantial conformity with the policies 

adopted at the National level, provision of legal opinion that the State agency 

is authorized to undertake the function, and periodic affirmation by the State 

agency that it is funded at a level permitting it to show progress in addressing 

the issue.
15

Policy Regulation

• Study diagnostic 

team feasibility

• Study new low 

cost solutions

• Study new 

inventory 

technology

• Improve 

Inventory

– Require railroads 

to populate data 

fields

– Add fields as 

necessary

– Allow estimation

FRA will also pursue the following pilot projects:

•A study of the feasibility of using diagnostic team approach on private crossings in 

a corridor.

•A study of the effectiveness or applicability of new low cost solutions.

•Study methods of using best available technology for transmitting private crossing 

data to inventory.

Regulation:

•Improve the National Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Inventory with respect to 

private crossings:

•Require railroad to populate private crossing data fields in the inventory, 

providing updates not less frequently than once every 3 years.

•Add data elements as needed for analysis.

•Permit railroad to estimate information not directly available.
1

Safety at Private HighwayRailroad Grade Crossings

Federal Railroad Administration 

Safety Inquiry

Good afternoon, Ladies and Gentlemen. Thank you for coming.
2

Background

1993—FRA initiated discussion 

1994—USDOT Action Plan

1997—NTSB Passive Crossing Study

1999—NTSB Accident Report

2004—USDOT Updated Action Plan

Private crossing safety has for some time been a matter of concern to the US 

Department of Transportation and to other Federal Agencies.

• In 1993, the FRA hosted an open meeting to initiate industry-wide discussions. 

•In its 1994 Rail-Highway Safety Action Plan, the USDOT proposed to develop 

national minimum standards for private crossings.

•In its 1997 study on Safety at Passive Grade Crossings, the NTSB highlighted the 

need for some system to improve private crossing safety, and recommended that 

the USDOT, in conjunction with the States, determine governmental oversight 

responsibility for safety at private grade crossings.

•In 1999, the NTSB weighed in again in its report on a private grade crossing 

accident in Portage, Indiana. In this case, the NTSB recommended that the DOT 

eliminate any differences between public and private crossings with regard to 

funding or requirements for safety improvements.

•In 2004, the USDOT published an updated Action Plan, in which the FRA 

committed to leading an effort to define responsibility for safety at private crossings. 

Today’s meeting is a vital part of this effort.
3

Total 241,608 39%

Region 8 27,207 46%

Region 7 16,115 38%

Region 6 34,920 40%

Region 5 34,478 36%

Region 4 43,295 33%

Region 3 44,075 36%

Region 2 27,945 43%

Region 1 13,573 44%

Private 

Crossing 

Percentage

All 

FRA Region Crossings

The FRA maintains offices in each of 8 geographic regions. As you can see, 

regardless of the region, private crossings constitute a significant percentage of all 

at-grade crossings. The total count Nationwide is about 94,000.
4

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Public

Private

Accidents at public and private grade crossings

1985-2005

Although accidents at public crossings have declined considerably over the past 20 

years (declining by 1/3 over the past decade alone), the number of accidents at 

private crossings has remained comparatively stable, declining only 10 percent over 

the past decade. 

In most years, the number of fatalities occurring in accidents at private crossings 

exceeded the number of on-duty deaths among railroad employees in all rail 

operations. 

The following are a few examples:
5

Public Meetings

• August 30, Fort Snelling, MN

• September 27, Raleigh, NC

• October 26, San Francisco, CA

• December 6, New Orleans, LA

• February 15,200, Syracuse, NY

To gather information on the current state of the art, as well as ideas about possible 

solutions to existing problems, the FRA has held a series of public meetings. 
6

Discussion Topics

• General Comments

• Grade Crossing Categories

• Need for Standard Signs

• Design Standards

• Rights and Responsibilities

• Data Needs

The FRA sought comments on a wide variety of subjects relating to private 

crossings. These are some of the principle topic areas.
7

General Comments

• States often lack jurisdiction

• States also lack staffing

• Laws, regulations, judicial support 

differ widely across nation

• Railroads lack authority

• Railroads receive no benefits

• Private crossing uses extremely varied

At each meeting, a number of attendees emphasized the difficulty in approaching a 

solution to the problem of safety at private crossings. Most States, for example, 

indicated that they had little or no jurisdiction to affect decisions about creation of 

private crossings, or, except in fairly limited ways, even determine the traffic control 

devices placed at such crossings. Railroads indicated that, although safety at all 

grade crossings was a matter of vital interest to them, they were often powerless to 

induce private landowners to make needed improvements.

Railroads also noted that they receive no benefits from the existence of most private 

crossings—benefits fall almost entirely to the holder of the right to cross.
8

• Create process

• Limit new crossings

• Consolidate existing crossings

• Respect crossing holder’s rights, 

needs

• Partner with States, Railroads, 

crossing holders

General Comments

Many meeting attendees indicated that there is currently no process in place to help 

the parties involved make decisions that consider safety issues at private crossings. 

Several parties, including the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen and Citizens for 

Rail Safety advocated fairly aggressive elimination of private crossings, by 

prohibiting the creation of new crossings, and by closing or consolidating existing 

private crossings.

Other parties pointed out that this was more difficult than it sounded, with the New 

Orleans and Gulf Coast Railroad stating that in their case, local authorities gave 

them little or no support in their efforts to close redundant crossings or prevent new 

ones. 

Some private crossing holders perceived the current methods for addressing 

crossing closure to be unfair, giving them little or no input into how their property 

would be affected.

The State of North Carolina, however, appears to have had some success at 

resolving these types of apparently conflicting interests by partnering with the 

interested parties to improve safety at private crossings.
9

Grade Crossing Categories

• Many categories

– Seasonal agricultural

– Residential

– Commercial, etc

• Need to look at expected use levels

– Private

– Public Use

Meeting attendees provided a long list of the various ways in which crossings can 

be categorized. 

They asserted that it would be difficult to revise the inventory to encompass all 

possible types of crossings, and expressed concern that by ‘over-specifying’

crossing categories, the railroads might find it much more difficult to arrange 

crossing consolidations and closures.

Later discussions focused on the benefits of creating a category known as ‘public 

use’, which would be a crossing where the roadway was owned by other than a 

public agency, but to which the public had an expectation of free access.
10

Design and Signage Standards

• Nationwide standards beneficial

• Some States, Railroads have their 

own standards

• Different standards were 

proposed

Meeting attendees all seemed to agree that development and application of 

Nationwide standards, both for crossing engineering design and for placement of 

traffic control devices at private crossings would be beneficial.

It was noted, however, that a handful of States, as well as several individual 

railroads, have created standards of their own, each one different from the other.

Some attendees suggested that private crossings should be treated exactly the 

same as public crossings, but others believed that appropriate guidelines should be 

developed through partnership with AASHTO, AREMA, APTA, and the National 

Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
11

Rights and Responsibilities

• Almost no States have jurisdiction

• Railroads have no authority over 

crossing use, warning devices

• Some parties uneasy about too 

much Federal involvement

• Others seek uniformity, permitting 

process, Federal funds

The responses to this question were also varied. Although the State of California 

asserted a willingness to continue their strong presence in the area of private 

crossing safety, most States indicated that they did not even have the ability to keep 

up with their responsibilities at public crossings, let alone private crossings.

California and Washington were concerned that Federal preemption might damage 

existing protections at the State level, and one railroad indicated a preference for 

Federal policies and recommendations instead of regulations.

Others, however, advocated more uniformity in decisionmaking through use of a 

permitting process overseen by the FRA; one party also suggested that the FRA 

should take a more proactive approach to providing funding for improvements at 

private crossings.
12

Rights and Responsibilities

• Need documentation

• Need authority, tools to improve 

crossing safety

• Should involve local planning 

authorities

Meeting attendees agreed that in many cases, there is no documentation available 

assigning rights or responsibilities for safety at private crossings. Attendees 

indicated that such legal documents often provide a basis for negotiations to modify 

or close a crossing, and that their absence could render negotiations impossible.

The Association of American Railroads indicated that railroads generally lacked the 

authority to close or relocate private crossings, or even to require appropriate safety 

measures. Like numerous other States, the State of North Carolina indicated that 

they lacked direct authority over private crossings, and stated that they needed 

tools to improve safety.

By comparison, the California Public Utilities Commission stated that, unlike a great 

many States, they have the authority to determine necessity for crossing, and to 

require safety improvements. They emphasized the need, however, for the local 

authorities who give permission for new development to accept responsibility to 

address railroad safety.
13

Data Collection

• Important, but:

– Railroads receive no benefits

– States lack resources

– Data collectors have safety 

concerns

The existing National Inventory coverage of private crossing data was deemed 

largely inadequate for most analyses, as well as for resource allocation. Some 

participants suggested additional fields, others looked for greater specificity in the 

data currently collected. On the whole, participants agreed that safety at private 

grade crossings would benefit from enhanced or improved data collection.

They noted several issues, however, that would need to be resolved in order for 

data collection efforts to be successful. First, although the existing private crossing 

data are currently collected by the railroads, the railroads believe that they receive 

no material benefit from performing this work. They add that requiring railroads to 

collect additional data would impose a substantial burden.

Second, States indicated that they do not have staff to conduct an inventory, nor in 

many cases would they allowed to spend public monies to inventory private 

property.

Thirdly, many private crossings are in remote or less safe neighborhoods, and data 

collectors may face some personal risks just to collect the data.
14

Should the Department of 

Transportation seek legislation 

to address private crossings?

• Could be premature

• Many issues to resolve

• Might need legislation

• Basis should be to improve safety

When we raised this question, we elicited some rather spirited responses. Several 

participants suggested that such an action would be premature until the FRA had 

had time to consider the comments of the interested parties. Others noted that 

numerous issues would need to be resolved, including identification of crossing 

users, establishing crossing agreements, funding, and National security issues.

Other parties, however, strongly encouraged the FRA to seek such legislation, in 

order to gain enough “regulatory teeth” to control safety issues through a permitting 

process.

The AAR noted that, should such legislation be sought, the basis for any regulation 

or action by the FRA would have to be that of increased safety.
15

Electronic Docket 

Submissions

• U.S. DOT Docket Management System

– http://dms.dot.gov/

– Docket number FRA-2005-23281

The Volpe Center and the FRA will be publishing a report based on the discussions 

held at the public meetings.
 1 --------------------------------------------x 

 2 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

 3 FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION 

 4 

 5 Safety at Private Highway-Rail 

 6 Grade Crossings 

 7 

 8 

 9 Public Meeting 

10 

11 --------------------------------------------x 

12 

13 Public Meeting held on July 26, 2007, at 9:33 AM, 

14 at the Renaissance Syracuse Hotel, 701 East Genesee Street, 

15 Syracuse, New York, before Sally B. Maiorano, Registered 

16 Merit Reporter, Certified Realtime Reporter, Certified CART 

17 Provider, Certified Shorthand Reporter, and Notary Public in 
18 and for the State of New York. 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 ATKINSON-BAKER, INC. 

23 COURT REPORTERS 

 (800) 288-3376 

24 www.depo.com 

25 FILE NO.: A1061DD 

 1 
 1 Panel Representatives: 

 2 

 3 GRADY C. COTHEN, JR., Deputy Associate Administrator for 

 4 Safety Standards and Program Development, Federal Railroad 

 5 Administration 

 6 

 7 ANYA A. CARROLL, Principal Investigator, Rail and Transit 

 8 Systems Division, Volpe National Transportation Systems 

 9 Center 

10 

11 RONALD E. RIES, Staff Director, Crossing Safety & Trespass 

12 Prevention Program, Federal Railroad Administration 

13 

14 MIRIAM KLOEPPEL, Highway-Rail Grade Crossing and Trespasser 

15 Safety Division, Office of Safety, Federal Railroad 

16 Administration 

17 
18 

19 Also Present: 

20 

21 CLARENCE W. "IKE" SCOTT, Director of Rail Safety, New York 

22 State Department of Transportation, Office of Safety and 

23 Security Services 

24 

25 

 2 
 1 Also Present (Continued): 

 2 

 3 WILLIAM D. BURT, Chairman, Regulatory Review Committee, 

 4 Railroads of New York, Incorporated 

 5 

 6 STUART A. SCHWARTZ, Norfolk Southern Corporation 

 7 

 8 JAMES P. LOUIS, Secretary-Treasurer, Brotherhood of 

 9 Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen 

10 

11 GREGORY LUND, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and 

12 Trainmen 

13 

14 BRIAN K. SALTZ, General Attorney, Long Island Railroad 

15 

16 WILLIAM M. BROWDER, Director of Operations, Association of 

17 American Railroads 
18 

19 JAMES STEM, Alternate National Legislative Director, United 

20 Transportation Union 

21 

22 CAROL A. HARRIS, General Commerce Counsel, Union Pacific 

23 Railroad 

24 

25 

 3 
 1 Also Present (Continued): 

 2 

 3 PHILLIP R. POICHUK, Senior Crossing Engineer, Railway Safety 

 4 Inspector, Engineering Branch, Transport Canada 

 5 

 6 SHANE WHITEMORE, CSX Transportation 

 7 

 8 RANDY DICKINSON, Regional Program Manager for Grade Crossing 

 9 Safety, Federal Railroad Administration 

10 

11 MARK H. McKEON, Regional Administrator, United States 

12 Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration 

13 

14 CARL FORD, Regional Director, New York State Department of 

15 Transportation 

16 

17 
18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 4 
 1 MR. COTHEN: Let's try to get settled if 09:33 

 2 we can. Can you hear me back there? Sort of? 09:33 

 3 Okay. Perhaps we'll try as time goes on 09:33 

 4 to turn up the mikes a little bit. Please be 09:33 

 5 generous in letting us know if you're having 09:33 

 6 trouble hearing anyone today. If we can't 09:33 

 7 communicate we can't make progress. 09:33 

 8 Good morning. This is the Federal 09:33 

 9 Railroad Administration safety inquiry on 09:33 

10 private highway-rail grade crossing safety. 09:33 

11 We're glad you're here today. But we 09:34 

12 always start out all FRA meetings, as all 09:34 

13 railroad-related meetings start out, with a 09:34 

14 safety briefing. Randy Dickinson from FRA's 09:34 

15 Region 1 will present the briefing. Randy? 09:34 

16 MR. DICKINSON: Thanks, Grady. 09:34 

17 A couple of housekeeping items. First of 09:34 
18 all, for those of you who want to make 09:34 

19 comments later on, we have mikes around the 09:34 

20 room, and we can pass those around. 09:34 

21 Right outside the main doors there are 09:34 

22 the restrooms on the right. You'll notice 09:34 

23 over those two doors and these two doors back 09:34 

24 here you have exit signs in the event of the 09:34 

25 need for an emergency evacuation from the 09:34 

 5 
 1 building. The main entrance is down that 09:34 

 2 hallway. 09:34 

 3 There's also another entrance over here: 09:34 

 4 Go out the door, turn to the left, turn to the 09:34 

 5 left again, and they're out here. 09:34 

 6 For those of us at this end of the room 09:34 

 7 we can use these to go right out to the 09:34 

 8 street. 09:34 

 9 Is anyone CPR -- Bob. And we got the CSX 09:34 

10 guys. Anybody else? So if somebody has a 09:35 

11 heart attack, God forbid, or any other kind of 09:35 

12 problem, these fellas will be responsible for 09:35 

13 that. 09:35 

14 And if we need an ambulance, anybody got 09:35 

15 cell phones in the room want to be responsible 09:35 

16 for calling the ambulance? Show of hands. 09:35 

17 Bob, okay. And I think that should pretty 09:35 
18 much be it. Did I miss anything? I guess 09:35 

19 that's it. Thanks. 09:35 

20 MR. COTHEN: Thank you, Randy. In a 09:35 

21 minute we'll make introductions of the FRA 09:35 

22 staff so you can -- and our colleagues so that 09:35 

23 you can know who to contact as we proceed with 09:35 

24 discussion of these issues. 09:35 

25 What I'd like to very quickly ask Carl 09:35 

 6 
 1 Ford, who's Regional Director of New York 09:35 

 2 State Department of Transportation, to bring 09:35 

 3 greetings. Carl? 09:35 

 4 MR. FORD: Thank you and good morning. 09:36 

 5 On behalf of Governor Eliot Spitzer, 09:36 

 6 Commissioner Astrid Glynn, and the New York 09:36 

 7 State Department of Transportation, it is my 09:36 

 8 privilege to welcome -- excuse me. It's my 09:36 

 9 privilege to welcome Deputy Associate 09:36 

10 Administrator Grady Cothen and the Federal 09:36 

11 Railroad Administration to Syracuse for 09:36 

12 today's public meeting on safety at private 09:36 

13 highway-rail grade crossings. 09:36 

14 Commissioner Glynn has demonstrated a 09:36 

15 strong personal commitment to all modes of 09:36 

16 transportation, primarily to enhance the 09:36 

17 efficiency of moving people and goods, but 09:36 
18 most importantly to improve the safety of the 09:36 

19 transportation network. 09:36 

20 The department is very pleased to have 09:36 

21 the opportunity to participate in today's 09:36 

22 public meeting. We trust this will be a most 09:36 

23 productive session. Thank you. 09:36 

24 MR. COTHEN: Thanks very much, Carl. The 09:37 

25 federal Railroad Administration has a very 09:37 

 7 
 1 close and productive working relationship with 09:37 

 2 the New York Department of Transportation, as 09:37 

 3 of course as do other modes of the 09:37 

 4 department -- U.S. Department of 09:37 

 5 Transportation. So we're particularly pleased 09:37 

 6 that we have strong participation from the 09:37 

 7 New York DOT today. 09:37 

 8 I want to talk just a minute about who's 09:37 

 9 here and who's not here. This has been a 09:37 

10 rather frustrating exercise for all of us 09:37 

11 putting this meeting together. Those of you 09:37 

12 who followed the developments have noted that 09:37 

13 we were going to be here in February, and 09:37 

14 Administrator Boardman was going to be here. 09:37 

15 And I went up to his office that cold day, it 09:37 

16 was even cold in Washington, D.C., so you know 09:37 

17 it was cold up here, and he got on the phone 09:37 
18 to the guys at New York DOT who clear the snow 09:37 

19 and take care of the emergencies up here, and 09:38 

20 he said, Grady, we're going to have to cancel. 09:38 

21 Of course, he's the former commissioner 09:38 

22 of New York State Department of 09:38 

23 Transportation, so he knew who to call. 09:38 

24 We tried again in April, and we had to 09:38 

25 scrub the event because of a Congressional 09:38 

 8 
 1 hearing. And Administrator didn't want to 09:38 

 2 reschedule, he said go on without me, it's 09:38 

 3 embarrassing, you know. We said no, boss, we 09:38 

 4 want you here. 09:38 

 5 So we scheduled for today, and you 09:38 

 6 guessed it, another Congressional hearing, 09:38 

 7 this time before the Senate Surface 09:38 

 8 Transportation Subcommittee, and it's on rail 09:38 

 9 safety legislation. It's a very serious 09:38 

10 hearing for everybody involved with railroad 09:38 

11 safety, and the subcommittee of course expects 09:38 

12 the Administrator to be there. And we managed 09:38 

13 to convince the boss that that's where he 09:39 

14 needed to be to represent us. 09:39 

15 But he's very frustrated and displeased 09:39 

16 that he's not here with you today to lead this 09:39 

17 event. And he wants me -- he wanted me to 09:39 
18 express his regrets that he could not be here. 09:39 

19 Obviously we've made -- he had made every 09:39 

20 effort to participate in this activity. 09:39 

21 This is the concluding public conference 09:39 

22 of our safety inquiry on private crossings. 09:39 

23 We've been around the country now from 09:39 

24 Minnesota to North Carolina to Louisiana to 09:39 

25 California and concluding here. And at each 09:39 

 9 
 1 stop we've gotten a little bit different 09:39 

 2 perspective on the problem, and we certainly 09:39 

 3 learn more. 09:39 

 4 This is an opportunity to sort of wrap 09:39 

 5 up, summarize, and talk about some 09:40 

 6 preliminarily crystallized options for further 09:40 

 7 action. 09:40 

 8 We will do the proceeding a little bit 09:40 

 9 differently today because we'll save the 09:40 

10 summation of what we've learned today to a 09:40 

11 point in the proceedings after the initial 09:40 

12 speakers for this session. And then we'll try 09:40 

13 to very quickly in our own minds internalized 09:40 

14 what we've learned from them and then 09:40 

15 integrate that into the summary of proceedings 09:40 

16 today. 09:40 

17 And then in the afternoon, rather than 09:40 
18 focusing on a particular topic such as 09:40 

19 engineering or public/private responsibilities 09:40 

20 or whatever topical kind of issues we've done 09:40 

21 at some of the meetings in the past, we will 09:40 

22 talk about what is preliminarily identified 09:41 

23 options and ask for your participation in it. 09:41 

24 Let me make sure that we have our team 09:41 

25 introduced first. It's comprised of folks 09:41 

 10 
 1 from the FRA region headquartered at 09:41 

 2 Cambridge, Massachusetts, but these folks live 09:41 

 3 all over the place, including the state of 09:41 

 4 New York. 09:41 

 5 The second group is our highway-rail 09:41 

 6 crossing safety team at the Federal Railroad 09:41 

 7 Administration headquarters in field. 09:41 

 8 And the third is the team from the Volpe 09:41 

 9 Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, 09:41 

10 Massachusetts, which has supported and 09:41 

11 continues to support this effort from the 09:41 

12 beginning and is our valued partner across a 09:41 

13 wide range of issues in railroad safety. 09:41 

14 Let me first call on Mark McKeon, who's 09:41 

15 the regional administrator for this region. 09:42 

16 Mark is the dean of railroad safety. I get to 09:42 

17 name the dean, and he's it, senior regional 09:42 
18 administrator and jack-of-all-trades, and Mark 09:42 

19 I'm sure will be proud to introduce his 09:42 

20 colleagues here. 09:42 

21 MR. McKEON: Thank you, Mr. Cothen. One 09:42 

22 of course acquires deanship by not dying, and 09:42 

23 in relating seniority, and I've managed to do 09:42 

24 that. 09:42 

25 I'd like to welcome everyone to FRA 09:42 

 11 
 1 Region 1, which is comprised of the six 09:42 

 2 New England states, New York, and New Jersey. 09:42 

 3 Accompanying me today are -- I'll ask 09:42 

 4 them to stand up as they're introduced -- Bob 09:42 

 5 Winstel is signal and train control inspector 09:42 

 6 headquartered in the Buffalo area. Randy 09:42 

 7 Dickinson we have already met, is our grade 09:42 

 8 crossing and trespasser program manager 09:42 

 9 headquartered in the Albany area. Mike 09:43 

10 Grizkewitsch is our assistant grid crossing 09:43 

11 and trespasser program manager who is 09:43 

12 headquartered in the Boston area. 09:43 

13 All these folks are available to attempt 09:43 

14 to meet your needs and concerns, both on the 09:43 

15 subject of private crossings and other 09:43 

16 railroad safety issues. Thank you. 09:43 

17 MR. COTHEN: Thanks, Mark. Ron Ries is 09:43 
18 staff director for grade crossing safety and 09:43 

19 trespass prevention at the Federal Railroad 09:43 

20 Administration. He's the key guy on these 09:43 

21 program areas. And Ron will introduce our 09:43 

22 colleagues from FRA. 09:43 

23 MR. RIES: Thank you, Grady. In addition 09:43 

24 to our Region 1 crossing managers, we also 09:43 

25 have with us today Evelyn Hendricks. And 09:43 

 12 
 1 Evelyn, would you stand? She works in grade 09:43 

 2 crossing safety in Region 2 and is based out 09:43 

 3 of Ohio. 09:44 

 4 And all the way from Chicago we have 09:44 

 5 crossing managers Tammy Wagner and Michael 09:44 

 6 Bennett, who are here with us as well. 09:44 

 7 And I would also like to introduce, who 09:44 

 8 you'll hear from later, Miriam Kloeppel. 09:44 

 9 Miriam is a very valued member of -- was a 09:44 

10 very valued -- she's still very valued, but 09:44 

11 she is transitioning to a new job at FRA but 09:44 

12 still will retain grade crossing safety 09:44 

13 interest in her things. 09:44 

14 We look forward to your comments today, 09:44 

15 and if you have any grade crossing safety 09:44 

16 issues, trespass prevention, feel free to 09:44 

17 cross -- contact any of us on the crossing 09:44 
18 team. Thank you. 09:44 

19 MR. COTHEN: I certainly won't suggest 09:44 

20 that Anya is a part of the gainships or 09:44 

21 anything because she's not that old, but Anya 09:44 

22 is certainly the senior staff person who's 09:44 

23 worked with us over the years on grade 09:45 

24 crossing safety issues and has led a variety 09:45 

25 of research that's benefited all of us here 09:45 

 13 
 1 for a number of years. And we continue to 09:45 

 2 benefit from the initiatives that she has 09:45 

 3 helped to volunteer. 09:45 

 4 So Anya Carroll, will you please 09:45 

 5 introduce your colleagues in the Volpe Center? 09:45 

 6 MS. CARROLL: Good morning. Thank you 09:45 

 7 very much, Grady. 09:45 

 8 Welcome to Syracuse, New York. I hope 09:45 

 9 you enjoy the meeting and the space, and if 09:45 

10 you have any questions, please don't hesitate 09:45 

11 to ask myself or anyone of our staff. 09:45 

12 In the back corner we have Mr. Glenn 09:45 

13 Goulet, who is the chief of the Rail and 09:45 

14 Transit Systems Division at the Volpe Center. 09:45 

15 Steve Peck, who is standing by the door, is 09:45 

16 one of our mechanical engineers who's been 09:45 

17 helping to shepherd this effort throughout 09:45 
18 these five meetings. And Mirna Gustave is out 09:45 

19 at the registration desk. She's our 09:46 

20 conference coordinator and has helped to set 09:46 

21 up this meeting and all five of them to date. 09:46 

22 So thank you very much for attending, and 09:46 

23 I hope you enjoy the day. 09:46 

24 MR. COTHEN: Thanks, Anya. Now we come 09:46 

25 to the highlight of the meeting. 09:46 

 14 
 1 We always have a legal officer statement, 09:46 

 2 and if I never hear one of these -- another 09:46 

 3 one of these as long as I live, it will be too 09:46 

 4 soon. But this is go going to be a special 09:46 

 5 treat because we don't have our legal officer 09:46 

 6 here today. Ron will read the statement, and 09:46 

 7 if I have to I'll come out of retirement as a 09:46 

 8 lawyer and provide advice to the chair, which 09:46 

 9 should be fairly simple. 09:46 

10 MR. RIES: Thank you, Grady. This is a 09:46 

11 little bit like the Holiday Inn Express 09:46 

12 commercials where the people are able to do 09:46 

13 brain surgery because they stayed at the 09:46 

14 Holiday Inn. I am not an attorney, but I am 09:46 

15 married to one, so that gives me some 09:46 

16 credence. 09:47 

17 Good morning. This statement will be in 09:47 
18 response to the legal officer's statement. 09:47 

19 The purpose of this meeting is to provide an 09:47 

20 opportunity for the public to provide 09:47 

21 information to the FRA about issues related to 09:47 

22 safety at private highway-rail grade 09:47 

23 crossings. We are here to listen to you and 09:47 

24 to provide an opportunity for you to state 09:47 

25 your view on the record for review and 09:47 

 15 
 1 consideration. 09:47 

 2 In order to provide an equal opportunity 09:47 

 3 to express your views, the following procedure 09:47 

 4 will be used: Anyone who wishes will be 09:47 

 5 permitted to make an oral statement. Persons 09:47 

 6 representing the same group may appear 09:47 

 7 together. At the beginning of your oral 09:47 

 8 statement please identify yourself, spell your 09:47 

 9 name, and identify whether you are appearing 09:47 

10 as an individual or as a representative of an 09:47 

11 organization. It may also be helpful to 09:47 

12 provide a business card to our court reporter 09:47 

13 at the time. 09:48 

14 At the end of your statement FRA 09:48 

15 representatives may ask questions in order to 09:48 

16 obtain clarification of points made during 09:48 

17 your statement. We will then move on to the 09:48 
18 next person wishing to make an oral statement. 09:48 

19 If you will be referring to a document in 09:48 

20 your oral statement, or if you have a prepared 09:48 

21 statement, please provide it to me either 09:48 

22 before or after your statement so that it can 09:48 

23 be added to the public docket of this meeting. 09:48 

24 Today's meeting is being transcribed and 09:48 

25 will become part of the public docket on this 09:48 

 16 
 1 issue. The transcript of this and other 09:48 

 2 public meetings in this series and all other 09:48 

 3 documents related to the inquiry will be 09:48 

 4 available for viewing and downloading at the 09:48 

 5 Department of Transportation's Docket 09:48 

 6 Management System website at 09:48 

 7 http://dms.dot.gov. 09:48 

 8 The entire docket is also available for 09:48 

 9 inspection at the DOT's docket facility at 09:48 

10 400 7th Street Southwest in Washington, D.C. 09:48 

11 Thank you. 09:49 

12 MR. COTHEN: Thanks, Ron. 09:49 

13 Just very preliminarily, we're here to 09:49 

14 talk about private crossings because every 09:49 

15 year 30 or 40 fatalities occur and serious 09:49 

16 injuries occur at private crossings across the 09:49 

17 nation. 09:49 
18 And as Miriam will describe in more 09:49 

19 detail, while we seem to be making significant 09:49 

20 headway in the public crossing arena, it's 09:49 

21 been more difficult to make headway with 09:49 

22 respect to private crossings. The nation is 09:49 

23 growing in population, and developments are 09:49 

24 springing up all over the place and on both 09:49 

25 sides of the railroad. 09:49 

 17 
 1 And what that means is that even though 09:49 

 2 the consolidation of the National Rail System 09:49 

 3 has occurred so that traffic is more 09:50 

 4 concentrated on fewer lines, nevertheless, 09:50 

 5 exposure now again probably will go up, just 09:50 

 6 because we're a growing nation. 09:50 

 7 We would like to see what we can do as 09:50 

 8 the U.S. Department of Transportation to help 09:50 

 9 address the problem. It's key first to 09:50 

10 understand what the problem is; secondly, what 09:50 

11 the options are; third, what partners we have 09:50 

12 available to work on this. 09:50 

13 Very frankly, to this point, with the 09:50 

14 exception of some activity in minority of the 09:50 

15 states, this has been a burden carried largely 09:50 

16 by railroads, large and small, passenger and 09:50 

17 freights. And they've tried to work with 09:50 
18 local property owners and others who have the 09:50 

19 right to cross the railroad, and we call those 09:50 

20 folks holders, holders of the right to cross, 09:50 

21 and they may own the underlying property, they 09:50 

22 may have a prescriptive easement, they may 09:50 

23 have a license under a agreement to cross, or 09:51 

24 they may just have been doing it for years and 09:51 

25 it's kind of hard to stop. 09:51 

 18 
 1 So it's an important issue, it's one that 09:51 

 2 we need to share responsibility for, but we 09:51 

 3 also need to more carefully define specific 09:51 

 4 responsibilities. So that's our task today. 09:51 

 5 We would like to start out by hearing 09:51 

 6 from speakers who signed up ahead of time. 09:51 

 7 And they're two in number. 09:51 

 8 The first is Ike Scott, who's director of 09:51 

 9 Intermodal Projects Bureau in the Freight and 09:51 

10 Economic Development Division of the New York 09:51 

11 State Department of Transportation. 09:51 

12 Ike's been involved in railroading issues 09:51 

13 in the state of New York for a number of 09:51 

14 years; we've had the pleasure to work with 09:51 

15 him. We'll hear from Ike, and then Bill Burt, 09:52 

16 representing Railroads in New York State, will 09:52 

17 be speaking. 09:52 
18 Are there others who want to make 09:52 

19 preliminary statements before we begin hearing 09:52 

20 from those gentlemen? Just kind of so we know 09:52 

21 where we are in the agenda as we go along. 09:52 

22 Okay. And then I hope everyone 09:52 

23 understands that as the morning goes on, if it 09:52 

24 goes into the afternoon that's good, that any 09:52 

25 and all persons wishing to participate in the 09:52 

 19 
 1 discussion are encouraged to do so. And that 09:52 

 2 includes anybody who heard about the meeting 09:52 

 3 on the radio or the TV this morning or saw a 09:52 

 4 note in the local periodical who can bring us 09:52 

 5 information. That's why we're here. 09:52 

 6 Ike, would you come forward, please, sir, 09:52 

 7 and address the issue from New York State 09:52 

 8 perspective. We appreciate it. 09:53 

 9 MR. SCOTT: Thank you for the opportunity 09:53 

10 to speak to this group. First I'd like to 09:53 

11 correct the record a little bit. Just for the 09:53 

12 record, my full name is Clarence Scott; 09:53 

13 everyone knows me as Ike. 09:53 

14 And also, within our organization we've 09:53 

15 had a reorganization of the department, and at 09:53 

16 this time I'm Director of Rail Safety, 09:53 

17 Department of Transportation, in the Office of 09:53 
18 Safety and Security Services. 09:53 

19 As Director of Rail Safety for New York 09:53 

20 DOT I welcome Federal Railroad 09:53 

21 Administration's interest in private highway 09:53 

22 grade crossing safety. 09:53 

23 Your efforts to solicit input from across 09:53 

24 the country should provide valuable 09:53 

25 information to better define the scope of this 09:53 

 20 
 1 problem and help to identify reasonable 09:53 

 2 solutions. 09:54 

 3 Based on experience gained in New York 09:54 

 4 since 1994, when the state legislature first 09:54 

 5 granted authority for the commission of DOT to 09:54 

 6 address this subject, it's become apparent 09:54 

 7 that two key safety factors take priority when 09:54 

 8 assessing risk at private crossings. 09:54 

 9 First and foremost is the public safety 09:54 

10 risk encountered when use of a private 09:54 

11 crossing has evolved to public usage without a 09:54 

12 commensurate change in legal classification or 09:54 

13 application of national standards for warning 09:54 

14 systems. 09:54 

15 Second is the location of many of these 09:54 

16 private crossings along passenger train 09:54 

17 corridors which creates derailment potentially 09:54 
18 in the event of an accident. 09:54 

19 New York State has the largest commuter 09:54 

20 rail and transit operations in the United 09:54 

21 States, with ridership of more than 09:54 

22 1.3 billion passengers per year. In addition, 09:54 

23 Amtrak provides intercity passenger service 09:54 

24 across the state with connections to some of 09:54 

25 the busiest stations in the country. 09:54 

 21 
 1 The Empire Corridor, from New York City 09:55 

 2 to Albany and on to Buffalo, is a designated 09:55 

 3 high-speed rail corridor where trains have 09:55 

 4 operated at speeds up to 110 miles per hour 09:55 

 5 since 1980 over portions of the corridor. 09:55 

 6 As efforts were advanced to expand and 09:55 

 7 improve high-speed service, it was recognized 09:55 

 8 that safety concerns at private rail crossings 09:55 

 9 must be addressed due to the potential 09:55 

10 accident risk at such locations. 09:55 

11 New York State's Public Transportation 09:55 

12 Safety Board identified similar concerns on 09:55 

13 commuter lines. New York State has a long 09:55 

14 history of safety improvements at public rail 09:55 

15 highway crossings with extensive efforts to 09:55 

16 reduce the total number of crossings and a 09:55 

17 program to install the highest level of active 09:55 
18 warning devices at the remaining locations. 09:55 

19 According to FRA inventory data, there 09:55 

20 are presently 2,878 public crossings and 2,900 09:55 

21 private crossings in the state, with 09:56 

22 approximately 400 of these private locations 09:56 

23 falling under New York's regulatory 09:56 

24 jurisdiction. 09:56 

25 Through state- and federally-funded 09:56 

 22 
 1 programs, New York now has over 70% of the 09:56 

 2 public crossings equipped with active warning 09:56 

 3 devices. However, it's estimated that less 09:56 

 4 than 1% of private crossings have any form of 09:56 

 5 active devices. There is also inconsistent 09:56 

 6 application of signage at private crossings, 09:56 

 7 and road profiles are often very poor. 09:56 

 8 As New York State advanced efforts in the 09:56 

 9 mid '90s to improve high-speed passenger 09:56 

10 service, it became necessary to expand state 09:56 

11 authority for grade crossing safety to include 09:56 

12 private crossing locations. 09:56 

13 The following problems were encountered 09:56 

14 in this effort: First, the federal inventory 09:56 

15 has significant inaccuracies with regard to 09:56 

16 private crossing locations. For example, a 09:56 

17 field review of the Amtrak rail corridors 09:56 
18 revealed the existence of some new crossings 09:57 

19 not in the inventory, while many crossings 09:57 

20 shown on the inventory no longer existed. 09:57 

21 Accurate records of the legal basis for 09:57 

22 the existence of a private crossing have not 09:57 

23 always been maintained regularly by involved 09:57 

24 parties. There are no national standards to 09:57 

25 provide guidance on safety enhancements that 09:57 

 23 
 1 should be utilized consistently at private 09:57 

 2 crossings, including passive signs. 09:57 

 3 And lastly, and most importantly, there 09:57 

 4 are very limited public funding sources that 09:57 

 5 can be utilized for safety improvements at 09:57 

 6 private crossings. 09:57 

 7 As requested, the FRA give careful 09:57 

 8 consideration to address these issues as an 09:57 

 9 action plan is developed from the public 09:57 

10 meetings held across the United States. I've 09:57 

11 provided testimony to enter into the docket 09:57 

12 that really outlines kind of the background of 09:57 

13 New York's laws and covers these in more 09:57 

14 detail the complications that we've 09:58 

15 encountered and provides copies of the -- a 09:58 

16 couple legal cases that we've encountered in 09:58 

17 our efforts to try to address these locations 09:58 
18 and take actions to close. I would be glad to 09:58 

19 answer any questions on here. 09:58 

20 In the testimony we've addressed the ten 09:58 

21 key questions raised by the FRA, but I didn't 09:58 

22 want to bore the group with the details of all 09:58 

23 this. Whichever way you would like to go. 09:58 

24 MR. COTHEN: Very much your call, 09:58 

25 Mr. Scott. Obviously we're going to go 09:58 

 24 
 1 through things topically later today, and if 09:58 

 2 you would like to interject at that point, 09:58 

 3 feel more comfortable doing that, we would 09:58 

 4 love to have it. 09:58 

 5 MR. SCOTT: Okay. Very good. Thank you. 09:58 

 6 MR. COTHEN: Thank you, sir. William 09:58 

 7 Burt. 09:59 

 8 Bill is a working railroader and chairman 09:59 

 9 of the Regulatory Review Committee, Railroads 09:59 

10 of New York, Incorporated. 09:59 

11 MR. BURT: Thank you, Grady. I'm here 09:59 

12 today representing the Railroads of New York. 09:59 

13 I would like to acknowledge first that I 09:59 

14 see several of our members here have their own 09:59 

15 representation and undoubtedly have good 09:59 

16 detail and background to add from their own 09:59 

17 experiences and on their own railroads. 09:59 
18 One of the things we've found in 09:59 

19 preparing for today's testimony is that the 09:59 

20 experiences of railroads differ by the type of 09:59 

21 territory that they operate in. Some people 09:59 

22 may be, for instance, in mountainous 09:59 

23 territory, others may be running through flat 09:59 

24 country and they may encounter different 09:59 

25 issues in terms of design and the functioning 10:00 

 25 
 1 and the safety aspects of private crossings. 10:00 

 2 I'd like to comment for those who are 10:00 

 3 unaware of the organization what it covers 10:00 

 4 briefly here. 10:00 

 5 Railroads of New York represents the 10:00 

 6 freight railroad industry in New York State, 10:00 

 7 including the four Class I railroads, CSX, 10:00 

 8 Canadian National, Canadian Pacific, and 10:00 

 9 Norfolk Southern, and about 30 short line and 10:00 

10 regional railroads. 10:00 

11 RONY members carry over 99% of all goods 10:00 

12 moved by rail in New York State. RONY's 10:00 

13 mission is to provide a trade association for 10:00 

14 all freight railroads that operate in the 10:00 

15 state of New York to advocate for rights and 10:00 

16 needs of railroads and their customers, as 10:00 

17 well as to encourage economic growth within 10:00 
18 the state of New York. 10:00 

19 RONY's mission is also supported by many 10:00 

20 industries, including suppliers and customers, 10:00 

21 industrial users of railroads, and their 10:00 

22 employees which are dependent upon New York's 10:01 

23 railroads. 10:01 

24 RONY advocates for a successful 10:01 

25 resolution of key issues facing the rail 10:01 

 26 
 1 industry. And this issue here today is a good 10:01 

 2 example of the work we do in the regulatory 10:01 

 3 area. 10:01 

 4 To do that work RONY has established a 10:01 

 5 Regulatory Review Committee to identify state 10:01 

 6 and local laws and regulations applicable to 10:01 

 7 rail freight that either should be eliminated, 10:01 

 8 reformed, or made more cost effective. And 10:01 

 9 these comments are submitted in my capacity as 10:01 

10 chairman of the committee. 10:01 

11 I'm also the president/chief operating 10:01 

12 officer of three railroads, Livonia, Avon & 10:01 

13 Lakeville Railroad, the B & H Rail Corp., and 10:01 

14 the Western New York & Pennsylvania Railroad. 10:01 

15 And at the present time those railroads in 10:01 

16 New York and Pennsylvania operate just under 10:01 

17 400 miles of track. 10:01 
18 So we've had in our own specific 10:01 

19 experience some experience with private 10:02 

20 crossings as we have brought some of those 10:02 

21 lines back from inactivity to higher levels of 10:02 

22 activity, which usually brings these issues 10:02 

23 into some focus. 10:02 

24 I'd like to just talk briefly about 10:02 

25 what's in 19 pages of testimony that's in the 10:02 

 27 
 1 docket as of a couple of days ago. It -- I 10:02 

 2 haven't figured out how to make a .pdf file 10:02 

 3 yet that isn't a monster, so it may be too 10:02 

 4 big, and if it is feel free to contact me 10:02 

 5 through either anyone here that can provide my 10:02 

 6 name, I would be happy to send a printed copy, 10:02 

 7 and I have nine extra copies here, ten extra I 10:02 

 8 guess actually counting the one in my hand, 10:02 

 9 that I would be happy to leave behind here 10:02 

10 with anyone who's interested in having a copy. 10:02 

11 I'll summarize briefly by saying that in 10:02 

12 New York State we find we have three types of 10:02 

13 crossings, typically. They are deeded 10:03 

14 crossings, which is a catchall term that can 10:03 

15 cover something that was agreed to at the time 10:03 

16 that the railroad acquired the property or 10:03 

17 acquired a right-of-way in some cases across 10:03 
18 the property. That deed is usually in the 10:03 

19 nature of a covenant or an easement. It may 10:03 

20 be in many cases more than 150 years old at 10:03 

21 this point. 10:03 

22 And so the record keeping on a lot of 10:03 

23 that has suffered through the decades of 10:03 

24 railroad bankruptcies, transitions, property 10:03 

25 changes, you know. And people who wonder why 10:03 

 28 
 1 all this isn't perfect should take into 10:03 

 2 account the fact that on some of the lines 10:03 

 3 that we've revived in my own experience we've 10:03 

 4 found houses built on railroad property. How 10:03 

 5 that came to be, how the building code officer 10:03 

 6 permitted that, how the town board, 10:03 

 7 responsible officials permitted that no one 10:03 

 8 knows, but if that can happen, surely it 10:04 

 9 suggests there's a little bit of chaos out 10:04 

10 there in some of these places relating to the 10:04 

11 record keeping. And it varies jurisdiction by 10:04 

12 jurisdiction. 10:04 

13 Deeded crossings are often not available. 10:04 

14 The language, the text, the documentation not 10:04 

15 available to the current operator, as I said, 10:04 

16 because of bankruptcies, a lot of that 10:04 

17 documentation may have disappeared about 30 or 10:04 
18 40 years ago and never was passed on. 10:04 

19 What you typically get in a short line 10:04 

20 environment, and here I speak from a short 10:04 

21 line perspective, is that if you're taking 10:04 

22 over a line that is being leased or acquired 10:04 

23 from a Class I, you're going to get a 10:04 

24 quitclaim deed or a as-is, where-is type 10:04 

25 lease. 10:04 

 29 
 1 And so you attempt to obtain in that 10:04 

 2 transaction as much documentation as you can, 10:04 

 3 but you won't necessarily get perfection; a 10:04 

 4 long ways from it. 10:04 

 5 The Class Is are normally very 10:05 

 6 cooperative in that effort, but again, they're 10:05 

 7 starting from a standpoint of not necessarily 10:05 

 8 having all the information as well. 10:05 

 9 There's deeded crossings, then there is a 10:05 

10 more -- a limited category of recent, let's 10:05 

11 say within the last 50 years or 30 years in 10:05 

12 some cases, licenses, license agreements. 10:05 

13 They're actually fairly rare in our 10:05 

14 experience, although larger railroads may have 10:05 

15 a different experience. 10:05 

16 The large railroads at this point are 10:05 

17 typically, judging from the printed material 10:05 
18 on their websites, very reluctant to grant new 10:05 

19 crossings. 10:05 

20 Norfolk Southern, I'll single that out as 10:05 

21 an example, is very blunt on the real estate 10:05 

22 page, and this is in my testimony quoted, 10:05 

23 essentially they say the only safe crossing is 10:05 

24 no crossing. And they go on to say they work 10:05 

25 hard to eliminate crossings in compliance with 10:05 

 30 
 1 long-standing state and federal policies to 10:05 

 2 reduce the number of crossings. 10:06 

 3 I think all of us in the business who 10:06 

 4 have respect for the demands of the track and 10:06 

 5 what's needed to establish and build up and 10:06 

 6 keep good track understand that crossings 10:06 

 7 present a variety of problems, and that's 10:06 

 8 worth talking about here today if people have 10:06 

 9 the interest, because that's underlying some 10:06 

10 safety issues or potential safety issues. 10:06 

11 Last but not least, in New York State you 10:06 

12 have Section 52 of the Railroad Law, which 10:06 

13 mandates essentially a crossing on demand 10:06 

14 under certain highly limited circumstances 10:06 

15 that are referred to as either farm crossings 10:06 

16 or timber extraction crossings. 10:06 

17 The people who believe that they have a 10:06 
18 right to a crossing under Section 52 10:06 

19 ordinarily take a much more expansive view of 10:06 

20 that right than the law actually provides. 10:06 

21 And the other thing that bears on this is 10:07 

22 that as Section 52 is fairly specific -- 10:07 

23 because it's fairly specific about what 10:07 

24 qualifies for those crossings, when the 10:07 

25 circumstances change, that crossing can be 10:07 

 31 
 1 removed and is no longer something that's an 10:07 

 2 entitlement. 10:07 

 3 So that's something that the people 10:07 

 4 that -- the landowners that the railroads deal 10:07 

 5 with ordinarily tend not to understand very 10:07 

 6 well. So there's a great deal of, shall we 10:07 

 7 say, learning that goes on where the 10:07 

 8 conversations occur. 10:07 

 9 But that will bring me to my final 10:07 

10 comments here. We do appreciate the effort, 10:07 

11 and Grady, I want to thank you personally, 10:07 

12 because I know that you think long and hard 10:07 

13 about areas in which the FRA might have 10:07 

14 overlooked anything in safety, and I think 10:07 

15 that may be part of what I see here, is that 10:07 

16 there is a problem, it is a varying problem, 10:07 

17 in some places a large one, in other places a 10:08 
18 small one, but it's clearly not working as it 10:08 

19 should, the system that's in place. 10:08 

20 So -- and part of it I would describe 10:08 

21 simply as a breakdown in the function of -- 10:08 

22 you can almost say the rule of law, because as 10:08 

23 railroads, especially small railroads, attempt 10:08 

24 to defend and act upon their property rights, 10:08 

25 they find that they're not being upheld in 10:08 

 32 
 1 many cases, and so we are actually in many 10:08 

 2 cases unable to do what we know to be right 10:08 

 3 because we are faced with either excessive 10:08 

 4 litigation or an unfriendly hearing in a court 10:08 

 5 of law, perhaps. 10:08 

 6 So it's an issue that's worthy of 10:08 

 7 discussion. I don't think -- certainly I 10:08 

 8 don't come here with any total answer to this, 10:08 

 9 and I doubt that many of our railroads do. 10:08 

10 We've all -- we've talked -- those of us 10:08 

11 out in the audience talked with our track 10:09 

12 people about this issue, we're well aware that 10:09 

13 there's an ongoing issue that we all live 10:09 

14 with, and as you said in your opening 10:09 

15 comments, have largely borne the burden of 10:09 

16 over the past several years and with varying 10:09 

17 degrees of success. 10:09 
18 So with that, as preliminary comments I 10:09 

19 would offer to provide copies here until I run 10:09 

20 out, and I hope to participate in the 10:09 

21 conversation and answer any questions I can. 10:09 

22 Thanks. 10:09 

23 MR. COTHEN: Thanks very much, Bill. As 10:09 

24 we transition into the next phase of the 10:09 

25 activity here I'd like to just call attention 10:09 

 33 
 1 to something that's probably obvious to most 10:09 

 2 in the room but nevertheless deserves to be 10:09 

 3 said. 10:09 

 4 And that is that there are an awful lot 10:09 

 5 of people who have an interest in safety at 10:09 

 6 private highway-rail crossings. They include, 10:09 

 7 among others, railroad employees who operate 10:10 

 8 equipment over these crossings, trains, 10:10 

 9 high-rail vehicles over those crossings, and 10:10 

10 who may be adversely affected by a collision 10:10 

11 with a heavy motor vehicle who will definitely 10:10 

12 be affected by any collision that involves a 10:10 

13 casualty, because that's not something that 10:10 

14 that employee in most cases can prevent, yet 10:10 

15 that employee becomes an unwilling witness. 10:10 

16 All users of that crossing are 10:10 

17 potentially affected if appropriate safety 10:10 
18 measures are not provided, including a person 10:10 

19 who has the whatever legal right it is to 10:10 

20 cross, and those -- that person's personal 10:10 

21 guests, business guests, others who may happen 10:10 

22 to be on the property and try to negotiate 10:10 

23 that crossing. 10:11 

24 Others in the community are potentially 10:11 

25 affected. A collision with a heavy vehicle at 10:11 

 34 
 1 a highway-rail crossing can result in 10:11 

 2 derailment of a train. And that can affect 10:11 

 3 passengers on board or it can affect members 10:11 

 4 of the community as a result of release of 10:11 

 5 hazardous materials. 10:11 

 6 So this is a -- an issue that has -- 10:11 

 7 should have broad interest, but as it happens, 10:11 

 8 that broad interest is spread very thin in the 10:11 

 9 sense that we've got a lot of these crossings, 10:11 

10 they're all over the country, and the 10:11 

11 manifestations of the risk which they present 10:11 

12 are not always evident to each of us in our 10:11 

13 normal daily lives. 10:11 

14 So that's the issue that we've got, and I 10:11 

15 think you've heard from a public policy and a 10:11 

16 railroad point of view what perspectives we 10:11 

17 have here in the state of New York. 10:12 
18 Before we have the beginning of a 10:12 

19 recapitulation of the findings to date, are 10:12 

20 there any others -- I'll make one other 10:12 

21 invitation -- are there others, any member of 10:12 

22 the public, other person here who would like 10:12 

23 to make official remarks before we proceed? 10:12 

24 Because that's what we're here for. 10:12 

25 We have tried to make a -- as you can 10:12 

 35 
 1 see, there's -- we've had press in and out 10:12 

 2 this morning. We've had -- made every effort 10:12 

 3 to try to contact press so that those who may 10:12 

 4 be affected by this issue could come and talk. 10:12 

 5 Okay, not hearing from anybody now 10:12 

 6 doesn't mean you're foreclosed from speaking 10:12 

 7 later. Please feel free to do so as we get 10:12 

 8 into the topical discussion. 10:12 

 9 At this point I would like to call on 10:12 

10 Miriam Kloeppel. And Miriam will be giving 10:12 

11 you a recapitulation of issues and findings to 10:13 

12 date. Miriam? 10:13 

13 MS. KLOEPPEL: Good morning, everyone. 10:13 

14 There we go. I thought I would actually start 10:13 

15 on the first page here. 10:13 

16 My plan was actually to start off with a 10:13 

17 very brief reminder of why we're looking into 10:13 
18 this issue at all. 10:13 

19 Just last week on July 17th of this 10:13 

20 year a northbound Amtrak train collided with a 10:13 

21 tractor-semi-trailer combination vehicle 10:13 

22 loaded with scrap metal at a private grade 10:13 

23 crossing near Plant City, Florida. 10:13 

24 This accident is currently under 10:13 

25 investigation, but we do have some preliminary 10:13 

 36 
 1 data available. Current reports state that 10:13 

 2 both locomotives and nine passenger cars 10:13 

 3 derailed but remained upright. Between 16 and 10:14 

 4 18 passengers were treated, and as much as 10:14 

 5 five train crew members were treated for 10:14 

 6 injuries sustained in this accident. 10:14 

 7 The accident crossing lies on an access 10:14 

 8 road to an industrial area and is equipped 10:14 

 9 with crossbuck signs. Reports indicate that 10:14 

10 the truck driver was ejected from his vehicle 10:14 

11 and that he sustained fatal injuries. 10:14 

12 Because accidents like this occur all the 10:14 

13 time, and have for quite some time, private 10:14 

14 crossing safety has for some time been a 10:14 

15 matter of concern to the U.S. Department of 10:14 

16 Transportation and to other federal agencies. 10:14 

17 In 1993 the FRA hosted an open meeting to 10:14 
18 initiate industry-wide discussions. In its 10:14 

19 1994 Rail-Highway Safety Action Plan the 10:15 

20 United States Department of Transportation 10:15 

21 proposed to develop national minimum standards 10:15 

22 for private crossings. 10:15 

23 In its 1997 study on safety at passive 10:15 

24 grade crossings, the NTSB, National 10:15 

25 Transportation Safety Board, highlighted the 10:15 

 37 
 1 need for some system to improve private 10:15 

 2 crossing safety and recommended that the U.S. 10:15 

 3 DOT in conjunction with the states determine 10:15 

 4 governmental oversight responsibility for 10:15 

 5 safety at private crossings. 10:15 

 6 In 1999 the NTSB weighed in again in its 10:15 

 7 report on a private grade crossing accident in 10:15 

 8 Portage, Indiana. In this case the NTSB 10:15 

 9 recommended that the DOT eliminate any 10:15 

10 differences between public and private 10:15 

11 crossings with regard to funding or 10:15 

12 requirements for safety improvements. 10:15 

13 In 2004 the U.S. DOT published an updated 10:15 

14 action plan in which the FRA committed to 10:15 

15 leading an effort to define responsibility for 10:16 

16 safety at private crossings. As with the 10:16 

17 other meetings, today's meeting is a vital 10:16 
18 part of this effort. 10:16 

19 The FRA maintains offices in each of 10:16 

20 eight geographical regions across the nation, 10:16 

21 and as you can see, regardless of the region, 10:16 

22 private crossings constitute a significant 10:16 

23 percentage of all at-grade crossings. The 10:16 

24 total count nationwide is about 94,000 private 10:16 

25 crossings. 10:16 

 38 
 1 Although accidents at public crossings 10:16 

 2 have declined considerably over the last 20 10:16 

 3 years, declining by one-third over the past 10:16 

 4 decade alone, the number of accidents at 10:16 

 5 private crossings has remained comparatively 10:16 

 6 stable, declining only 10% in the last decade. 10:16 

 7 In most years the number of fatalities 10:16 

 8 occurring in accidents of private crossings 10:17 

 9 exceeded the number of on-duty deaths among 10:17 

10 railroad employees in all rail operations. 10:17 

11 To gather information on the current 10:17 

12 state of the art, as well as ideas about 10:17 

13 possible solutions to existing problems, the 10:17 

14 FRA's held a series of public meetings. And 10:17 

15 as you can see, the -- we started in Fort 10:17 

16 Snelling, Minnesota, last August, went to 10:17 

17 Raleigh, North Carolina, San Francisco, 10:17 
18 California, New Orleans, Louisiana, and 10:17 

19 intended to be here, as Grady mentioned, in 10:17 

20 February. But since Grady has already 10:17 

21 capitulated the reasons for our being here 10:17 

22 today, I'm not going to dwell on it anymore. 10:17 

23 What my plan here was -- at this point 10:17 

24 was to summarize the -- what we got out of the 10:17 

25 participant comments at these previous 10:18 

 39 
 1 meetings. And in the act of summarizing these 10:18 

 2 things we actually came across basically these 10:18 

 3 basic categories. 10:18 

 4 We have some general comments. There was 10:18 

 5 much discussion of grade crossing 10:18 

 6 categorization; also in -- much discussion of 10:18 

 7 the design and signage standards, rights and 10:18 

 8 responsibilities, and data needs. 10:18 

 9 At each meeting a number of attendees 10:18 

10 emphasize the difficulty in approaching a 10:18 

11 solution to the problem of safety at private 10:18 

12 crossings. Most states, for example, 10:18 

13 indicated that they had little or no 10:18 

14 jurisdiction to effect decisions about 10:18 

15 creation of private crossings or, except in 10:18 

16 fairly limited ways, even to determine the 10:18 

17 traffic control devices placed at such 10:18 
18 crossings. 10:18 

19 Railroads indicated that although safety 10:18 

20 at all grade crossings was a matter of vital 10:18 

21 interest them, they were often powerless to 10:19 

22 induce private landowners to make needed 10:19 

23 improvements. Railroads also noted that they 10:19 

24 receive no benefits from the existence of most 10:19 

25 private crossings; that benefits, in fact, 10:19 

 40 
 1 fall almost entirely to the holder of the 10:19 

 2 right to cross. 10:19 

 3 And as I mentioned, we also indicated 10:19 

 4 that the types of users and the types of 10:19 

 5 crossings in fact are extremely varied, as 10:19 

 6 Grady mentioned, all the different populations 10:19 

 7 that can be affected by this. 10:19 

 8 The FRA asked a series of questions in 10:19 

 9 this initiative's Federal Register Notice. 10:19 

10 One of these was how should we justify 10:19 

11 crossing creation or continuation. 10:19 

12 Many meeting attendees indicated that 10:19 

13 there is currently no process in place to help 10:19 

14 the parties involved make decisions that 10:20 

15 consider safety issues at private crossings. 10:20 

16 Several parties, including the 10:20 

17 Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen and Citizens 10:20 
18 for Railroad Safety, advocated fairly 10:20 

19 aggressive elimination of private crossings by 10:20 

20 prohibiting the creation of new crossings or 10:20 

21 by closing and consolidating existing private 10:20 

22 crossings. Other parties pointed out that 10:20 

23 this was more difficult than it sounded, with 10:20 

24 the New Orleans and Gulf Coast Railroad 10:20 

25 stating that in their case local authorities 10:20 

 41 
 1 gave them little or no support in their 10:20 

 2 efforts to close redundant crossings or to 10:20 

 3 prevent new ones. 10:20 

 4 Some private crossing holders perceive 10:20 

 5 the current methods for addressing close -- 10:20 

 6 crossing closure to be unfair, giving them 10:20 

 7 little or no input into how their property 10:20 

 8 would be affected. 10:20 

 9 The state of North Carolina, however, 10:20 

10 appears to have had some success at resolving 10:20 

11 these types of -- of apparently conflicting 10:21 

12 interests by partnering with all of the 10:21 

13 interested parties to improve safety at the 10:21 

14 private crossings. 10:21 

15 On to the second of these general 10:21 

16 categories, meeting attendees provided a long 10:21 

17 list of the various ways in which crossings 10:21 
18 could be categorized. They asserted that it 10:21 

19 would be difficult to revise the inventory to 10:21 

20 come -- encompass all possible types of 10:21 

21 crossings and expressed concern that by 10:21 

22 overspecifying crossing categories the 10:21 

23 railroads might find it much more difficult to 10:21 

24 arrange crossing consolidations and closures. 10:21 

25 Later discussions focused on the benefits 10:21 

 42 
 1 of creating a category known as public use, in 10:21 

 2 which a crossing where the roadway is owned by 10:21 

 3 somebody other than a public agency but to 10:21 

 4 which the public had an expectation of free 10:22 

 5 access would be established. 10:22 

 6 Can I get that out of there? No, I 10:22 

 7 can't. Pardon me, I'm going deal with some 10:22 

 8 technical issues here. I just wanted to be 10:22 

 9 sure I got to the right slide. Good, I've 10:22 

10 gotten rid of the extraneous thing. Sorry 10:22 

11 about that. 10:22 

12 In expanding on the public use 10:22 

13 categorization, attendees centered on -- 10:23 

14 centered the discussion around the instances 10:23 

15 where land use changes. As land is developed, 10:23 

16 a farm field-to-field crossing can become 10:23 

17 access to a large residential development or 10:23 
18 even a commercial establishment like a 10:23 

19 shopping center. 10:23 

20 Attendees stated that when this occurs 10:23 

21 the amount of highway traffic can increase 10:23 

22 dramatically, and the risk of a crossing will 10:23 

23 rise with it. 10:23 

24 Attending railroad representatives stated 10:23 

25 that in most states there's no mechanism for 10:23 

 43 
 1 alerting the railroad to any such change in 10:23 

 2 use at a private crossing. They indicated 10:23 

 3 that in their experience the state of 10:23 

 4 California is unique in its ability to 10:23 

 5 identify such land use changes and to effect 10:23 

 6 crossing improvements at such private 10:23 

 7 crossings. 10:23 

 8 Under the California Environmental 10:23 

 9 Quality Act, the California Public Utilities 10:23 

10 Committee -- Commission, excuse me, the CPUC, 10:23 

11 has the authority to review all proposed 10:24 

12 developments concerning potential impact on 10:24 

13 public safety. They have done so for the past 10:24 

14 three years. 10:24 

15 In the CPUC's opinion, the best time to 10:24 

16 identify land use changes is when the 10:24 

17 development is undergoing the planning and 10:24 
18 permitting process. For this reason they 10:24 

19 strongly advocate involving local permitting 10:24 

20 authorities. 10:24 

21 Even where land use is not changing, 10:24 

22 attendees agreed that it was important to 10:24 

23 identify existing private crossings with 10:24 

24 public use. One participant suggested that it 10:24 

25 would be most valuable to identify whether the 10:24 

 44 
 1 public has an expectation of free access to 10:24 

 2 the private roadway. 10:24 

 3 Another of the questions the FRA asked in 10:24 

 4 its Federal Register Notice was should there 10:24 

 5 be nationwide standards for signs and roadway 10:24 

 6 design. 10:24 

 7 Meeting attendees all seemed to agree 10:24 

 8 that development and application of nationwide 10:24 

 9 standards, both for crossing engineering 10:24 

10 design and for placement of traffic control 10:25 

11 devices at private crossings would be 10:25 

12 beneficial. It was noted, however, that a 10:25 

13 handful of states as well as several 10:25 

14 individual railroads have created standards of 10:25 

15 their own, each one different from the other. 10:25 

16 Some attendees suggested that private 10:25 

17 crossings should be treated exactly the same 10:25 
18 as public crossings, but others believed that 10:25 

19 appropriate guidelines should be developed 10:25 

20 through partnership with AASHTO, AREMA, APTA, 10:25 

21 the National Committee on Uniform Traffic 10:25 

22 Control Devices. Now, AASHTO -- someone may 10:25 

23 need to help me out on it this -- is the 10:25 

24 Association -- America -- 10:25 

25 MR. BROWDER: American Association of 10:25 

 45 
 1 State Highway and Transportation Officials. 10:25 

 2 MS. KLOEPPEL: Thank you, Mr. Browder. 10:25 

 3 And AREMA. 10:25 

 4 MR. BROWDER: American Railroad 10:25 

 5 Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way 10:25 

 6 Association. 10:25 

 7 MS. KLOEPPEL: APTA is the American 10:25 

 8 Public Transit Association, is it not? 10:25 

 9 MR. COTHEN: Transportation. 10:26 

10 MS. KLOEPPEL: Transportation? 10:26 

11 MR. BROWDER: Transportation, that's 10:26 

12 right. Thank you, Grady. 10:26 

13 MS. KLOEPPEL: I knew I would need help. 10:26 

14 I appreciate it. 10:26 

15 Another of the questions was are 10:26 

16 innovative traffic control devices available. 10:26 

17 Although most attendees agreed that the 10:26 
18 development of less expensive warning devices 10:26 

19 could be beneficial, none had found one that 10:26 

20 provided enough of a cost reduction or enough 10:26 

21 of a safety improvement to justify their use 10:26 

22 on a system-wide basis. 10:26 

23 Further comments suggested that railroads 10:26 

24 could not use non-fail-safe options because of 10:26 

25 liability considerations. 10:26 

 46 
 1 Should state or federal government assume 10:26 

 2 greater responsibility? 10:26 

 3 Although the state of California asserted 10:26 

 4 a willingness to continue their strong 10:26 

 5 presence in the area of private crossing 10:26 

 6 safety, most states indicated that they did 10:26 

 7 not even have the ability to keep up with 10:27 

 8 their responsibilities at public crossings, 10:27 

 9 let alone private crossings. California and 10:27 

10 the state of Washington were concerned that 10:27 

11 federal preemption might damage existing 10:27 

12 protections at the state level, and one 10:27 

13 railroad indicated a preference for federal 10:27 

14 policies and recommendations instead of 10:27 

15 regulations. 10:27 

16 Others, however, advocated more 10:27 

17 uniformity in decision making through use of a 10:27 
18 permitting process overseen by the FRA. One 10:27 

19 party also suggested that the FRA should take 10:27 

20 a more proactive approach to providing funding 10:27 

21 for improvements at private crossings. 10:27 

22 Is the current assignment of 10:27 

23 responsibility effective? 10:27 

24 Meeting attendees agreed that in many 10:27 

25 cases there is no documentation available 10:27 

 47 
 1 assigning rights and responsibilities, as we 10:27 

 2 just heard this morning. Attendees indicated 10:28 

 3 that such legal documents often provide a 10:28 

 4 basis for negotiations to modify or close a 10:28 

 5 crossing and that their absence could render 10:28 

 6 negotiations impossible. 10:28 

 7 The Association of American Railroads 10:28 

 8 indicated that railroads generally lacked the 10:28 

 9 authority to close or relocate private 10:28 

10 crossings or even to require appropriate 10:28 

11 safety measures. Like numerous other states, 10:28 

12 the state of North Carolina indicated that 10:28 

13 they lacked direct authority over private 10:28 

14 crossings and stated that they needed tools to 10:28 

15 improve safety. 10:28 

16 By comparison, the California Public 10:28 

17 Utilities Commission stated that, unlike a 10:28 
18 great many states, they have the authority to 10:28 

19 determine the necessity for a crossing and to 10:28 

20 require safety improvements. They emphasize 10:28 

21 the need, however, for the local authorities 10:28 

22 who give permission for new development to 10:28 

23 accept responsibility to address railroad 10:28 

24 safety. 10:28 

25 How should improvement or maintenance 10:29 

 48 
 1 costs be allocated? 10:29 

 2 Not too surprisingly, there was little 10:29 

 3 agreement between attendees on this issue. 10:29 

 4 Currently, the allocation of costs vary 10:29 

 5 according to state and according to any 10:29 

 6 existing agreements between the railroads and 10:29 

 7 crossing holders. 10:29 

 8 The state of Wisconsin explained that in 10:29 

 9 many cases states and local authorities lacked 10:29 

10 the funds and/or the staff to assume 10:29 

11 responsibility for the maintenance of private 10:29 

12 roadways. The Association of American 10:29 

13 Railroads suggested that the private crossing 10:29 

14 user should bear the costs, while other 10:29 

15 proposed various schemes for sharing the costs 10:29 

16 between the government and the private 10:29 

17 crossing user. 10:29 
18 The state of North Carolina pointed out 10:29 

19 that there are generally no state or federal 10:29 

20 funds available for improvements at private 10:29 

21 crossings and suggested that the stakeholders, 10:29 

22 federal, state, and local governments, transit 10:29 

23 authorities, railroads, and private crossing 10:30 

24 holders, should develop a methodology to share 10:30 

25 the costs associated with grade crossing 10:30 

 49 
 1 safety treatment, construction, and 10:30 

 2 maintenance. 10:30 

 3 Is there a need for alternative dispute 10:30 

 4 resolution mechanisms? 10:30 

 5 In most states disputes must be solved 10:30 

 6 through direct interaction between the 10:30 

 7 railroad and the crossing holder. A process 10:30 

 8 that is cumbersome and fraught with 10:30 

 9 difficulties for both parties. 10:30 

10 Representatives of the New Orleans and 10:30 

11 Gulf Coast Railroad indicated that their 10:30 

12 ability to negotiate is weakened by the lack 10:30 

13 of any federal standards or guidelines and 10:30 

14 that therefore their negotiations often fail. 10:30 

15 Failed negotiations may be resolved in a court 10:30 

16 of law. 10:30 

17 Both the railroads and the states, 10:30 
18 however, indicated that local courts may be 10:30 

19 biased in favor of the crossing holder, and 10:30 

20 lack of federal standards has made it 10:31 

21 difficult for railroads to establish 10:31 

22 jurisdiction in federal courts. 10:31 

23 The state of California indicated that 10:31 

24 the CPUC allows for administrative legal 10:31 

25 review and has a dispute resolution process in 10:31 

 50 
 1 place. They suggested that because of the 10:31 

 2 legal issues involving property rights, 10:31 

 3 contract law -- and contract law, 10:31 

 4 responsibility for dispute mechanisms should 10:31 

 5 remain with the states and that federal 10:31 

 6 guidelines or recommendations could assist 10:31 

 7 states that do not currently have dispute 10:31 

 8 resolution processes. 10:31 

 9 The discussion on data collection 10:31 

10 indicated that the existing national inventory 10:31 

11 coverage of private crossing data is largely 10:31 

12 inadequate for most analyses as well as for 10:31 

13 resource allocation. Some participants 10:32 

14 suggested additional fields; others looked for 10:32 

15 greater specificity in the data currently 10:32 

16 collected. 10:32 

17 On the whole, participants agreed that 10:32 
18 safety at private grade crossings would 10:32 

19 benefit from enhanced or improved data 10:32 

20 collection. They noted several issues, 10:32 

21 however, that would need to be resolved in 10:32 

22 order for data collection efforts to be 10:32 

23 successful. 10:32 

24 First, although the existing private 10:32 

25 crossing data are currently collected by the 10:32 

 51 
 1 railroads, the railroads believe that they 10:32 

 2 receive no material benefit from performing 10:32 

 3 this work. They add that requiring railroads 10:32 

 4 to collect additional data would impose a 10:32 

 5 substantial burden. 10:32 

 6 Second, states indicated that they do not 10:32 

 7 have staff to conduct an inventory, nor in 10:32 

 8 many cases would they be allowed to spend 10:32 

 9 public monies on inventorying private 10:32 

10 property. 10:32 

11 Thirdly, many private crossings are in 10:32 

12 remote or less safe neighborhoods, and data 10:33 

13 collectors may face some personal risks just 10:33 

14 to collect data. 10:33 

15 Should the Department of Transportation 10:33 

16 seek legislation to address private crossings? 10:33 

17 When we raised this question we elicited 10:33 
18 some rather spirited responses. Several 10:33 

19 participants suggested that such an action 10:33 

20 would be premature until the FRA had had time 10:33 

21 to consider the comments of the interested 10:33 

22 parties. Others noted that numerous issues 10:33 

23 would need to be resolved, including 10:33 

24 identification of the crossing users, 10:33 

25 establishing crossing agreements, funding, 10:33 

 52 
 1 national security issues. 10:33 

 2 Other parties, however, strongly 10:33 

 3 encouraged the FRA to seek such legislation -- 10:33 

 4 why I write a sentence that's so difficult to 10:33 

 5 say I'm not sure -- in order to gain enough 10:33 

 6 regulatory teeth to control safety issues 10:34 

 7 through a permitting process. 10:34 

 8 The Association of American Railroads 10:34 

 9 noted that should such legislation be sought, 10:34 

10 the basis for any regulation or action by the 10:34 

11 FRA would have to be that of increasing 10:34 

12 safety. 10:34 

13 This actually concludes my summarizing 10:34 

14 the comments from the previous meetings. And 10:34 

15 I'd like to know, does anyone have any 10:34 

16 questions or statements? Mr. Browder. 10:34 

17 MR. BROWDER: Bill Browder from the 10:34 
18 Association of American Railroads, Miriam. 10:34 

19 Just an administrative question. I know 10:34 

20 that your statement will be made part of a 10:34 

21 docket, but could I ask that you ensure that 10:34 

22 the PowerPoint presentation be posted on the 10:34 

23 docket also so people can have access to the 10:35 

24 update that's contained in there? 10:35 

25 MS. KLOEPPEL: I would be glad to do 10:35 

 53 
 1 that. 10:35 

 2 MR. BROWDER: Great. 10:35 

 3 MS. KLOEPPEL: Other questions? Thank 10:35 

 4 you. 10:35 

 5 MR. COTHEN: Thank you, Miriam. Okay. 10:35 

 6 We've had preliminaries and some introductory 10:35 

 7 statements, summary of the work to date. We 10:35 

 8 need to take a break. 10:35 

 9 Let's do that and please be back at ten 10:35 

10 minutes before the hour. Thank you. 10:35 

11 (A brief recess was taken from 10:35 AM until 10:35 

12 10:55 AM.) 10:35 

13 MR. COTHEN: If we can ask folks to begin 10:55 

14 to move toward their seats. 10:55 

15 Around the country in any given year 10:56 

16 there are a number of events that focus on how 10:56 

17 railroad crossing safety wanted to feature the 10:56 
18 next regional activity. 10:56 

19 Ike, would you go ahead, please? 10:56 

20 MR. SCOTT: I just wanted to make a quick 10:56 

21 announcement that this year the Regional 10:56 

22 Railroad Grade Crossing Conference is go to be 10:56 

23 held in New York in the Albany area at the 10:56 

24 beginning of October, I believe. Bill, I 10:56 

25 think it's October 3rd? Bill Browder? 10:56 

 54 
 1 And I'd like to welcome everybody to 10:56 

 2 attend. There will be information posted on 10:56 

 3 it on our website very soon. Bill, that 10:56 

 4 conference was October 3rd? 10:56 

 5 MR. BROWDER: October the 2nd to 4th at 10:57 

 6 the Holiday Inn in Albany, New York. And it's 10:57 

 7 for the Eastern region, which is all of 10:57 

 8 New England and down through Virginia, as a 10:57 

 9 matter of fact, and through Pennsylvania. 10:57 

10 It's Regions 1 and 2. 10:57 

11 And Randy Dickinson up here can also 10:57 

12 help, besides Ron and his staff there in 10:57 

13 Washington, D.C. 10:57 

14 MR. SCOTT: We're just organizing now, 10:57 

15 and we're looking for anybody that would like 10:57 

16 to do a presentation at the conference. We 10:57 

17 welcome input. Thank you. 10:57 
18 MR. COTHEN: Very good. Thank you, sir, 10:57 

19 for that commercial announcement. Not 10:57 

20 commercial announcement, of course. These 10:57 

21 conferences are put together as a labor of 10:57 

22 love to try to address these issues, and we 10:57 

23 appreciate it. 10:57 

24 We've got two representatives of the 10:57 

25 Connecticut Department of Transportation here 10:58 

 55 
 1 today, Julie Thomas and Stephen Curley. Could 10:58 

 2 you all say hello there? 10:58 

 3 We're glad you're here and obviously 10:58 

 4 invite your active participation in the 10:58 

 5 discussion to follow. 10:58 

 6 I'd also like to point out, very often, 10:58 

 7 you know, you get the Office of the Inspector 10:58 

 8 General, the General Accounting Office, the 10:58 

 9 press, they all want know do you ever talk to 10:58 

10 your colleagues internationally, you might 10:58 

11 learn something. And actually, we do with 10:58 

12 some regularity. Phil Poichuk from Transport 10:58 

13 Canada is here. 10:58 

14 Phil, would you just stand and -- thank 10:58 

15 you very much for being here. We are in 10:58 

16 conversation with Transport Canada about these 10:58 

17 and many other railroad safety issues on a 10:58 
18 regular basis, and it's great that Phil could 10:58 

19 come down and be here for this meeting. 10:58 

20 Okay. I think that's the introductions 10:59 

21 for now. 10:59 

22 The next order of business is not an easy 10:59 

23 one to pull off, I think. We have a 10:59 

24 PowerPoint to sort of guide the discussion. 10:59 

25 You have in your packet a one-page list of 10:59 

 56 
 1 questions that we initially brought to this 10:59 

 2 activity, and we started in Fort Snelling and 10:59 

 3 it's still open for comment in the docket. 10:59 

 4 The -- and I believe it's correct to say, 10:59 

 5 Miriam, that that docket remains open 10:59 

 6 indefinitely at this point? 10:59 

 7 MS. KLOEPPEL: Yes, sir. 10:59 

 8 MR. COTHEN: When we say indefinitely, 10:59 

 9 don't figure it's going to go on forever, 10:59 

10 because it's not. What we're going to try to 10:59 

11 do is this fall include a report that will be 11:00 

12 prepared with the assistance of the Volpe 11:00 

13 Center and then specific recommendations to 11:00 

14 Administrator Boardman and the Secretary 11:00 

15 regarding how to proceed in this area. And 11:00 

16 we'll bring it together as quickly as we can. 11:00 

17 But certainly within the next few weeks 11:00 
18 following this meeting you would be safe to 11:00 

19 submit any additional thoughts that you have 11:00 

20 and could be sure that they would be 11:00 

21 considered. 11:00 

22 There is also in your pocket a draft for 11:00 

23 discussion captioned safety and highway-rail 11:00 

24 crossing alternative approach discussion 11:00 

25 topics. That document is in three sections. 11:00 

 57 
 1 The first section is a set of suggested 11:00 

 2 findings. The second two portions consist of 11:00 

 3 two kind of generic alternative approaches to 11:00 

 4 the subject matter. 11:01 

 5 What we've done for this discussion is to 11:01 

 6 skip over the findings, which I really -- I 11:01 

 7 won't -- I'll invite comment on that, but the 11:01 

 8 purpose of this PowerPoint presentation is to 11:01 

 9 focus on the two alternative approaches. And 11:01 

10 as you can imagine, one of them is sort of a 11:01 

11 voluntary initiative package. The other is 11:01 

12 your usual heavy-handed federal approach. And 11:01 

13 we don't believe for a moment that the 11:01 

14 individual items in those are mutually 11:01 

15 exclusive necessarily, except for in some 11:01 

16 limited respects. 11:01 

17 So we can certainly pick from either 11:01 
18 column, and we can mix and match. And that 11:01 

19 should certainly be part of the discussion 11:01 

20 today. We don't want to put ourselves in the 11:01 

21 context of an either/or kind of discussion; 11:02 

22 however, we did want to present preliminary 11:02 

23 options in a specific enough way so as to 11:02 

24 elicit as much feedback as possible. That was 11:02 

25 our purpose. 11:02 

 58 
 1 So I believe you've had the opportunity 11:02 

 2 to have access prior to today to these, but if 11:02 

 3 you haven't because you weren't on our email 11:02 

 4 list or whatever, we do have a list of 11:02 

 5 findings. 11:02 

 6 Here are some of the highlights: Public 11:02 

 7 funding helps improve safety. We've done a 11:02 

 8 lot of studies at FRA and others have done 11:02 

 9 studies that show that pretty clearly. We're 11:02 

10 thinking principally of funding for 11:02 

11 engineering improvements. And since 1976? 11:02 

12 MR. RIES: '73. 11:03 

13 MR. COTHEN: '73, over $4 billion has 11:03 

14 been committed by the Federal Government and 11:03 

15 hundreds of millions of additional dollars by 11:03 

16 state and local governments to improve 11:03 

17 conditions at public highway-rail crossings. 11:03 
18 Very little money has been spent at private 11:03 

19 crossings. 11:03 

20 There is what's known colloquially as 11:03 

21 1103 Program, which is for designated 11:03 

22 high-speed rail corridors, and I think you 11:03 

23 heard some of the -- a flavor of reference to 11:03 

24 that in Mr. Scott's remarks. And we certainly 11:03 

25 heard it in North Carolina and elsewhere, 11:03 

 59 
 1 where public funding has been available for 11:03 

 2 corridors that have the potential to serve 11:03 

 3 city pairs through high-speed rail. 11:03 

 4 There has been some federal money 11:03 

 5 available for closing and making improvements 11:03 

 6 in private crossings. And certainly the state 11:04 

 7 of New York has been energetically involved in 11:04 

 8 a lot of that here on the Empire Corridor, 11:04 

 9 perhaps elsewhere. 11:04 

10 The question being should there be 11:04 

11 additional funding; if so, where should it 11:04 

12 come from. Should it come from the railroad; 11:04 

13 should it come from the property holder; 11:04 

14 should it come from the public purse; should 11:04 

15 it come from public purse at the federal, 11:04 

16 state, or local level? How do we make this 11:04 

17 happen? 11:04 
18 We have very few private crossings that 11:04 

19 have automated warning systems. Put in an 11:04 

20 automated warning system and you're going to 11:04 

21 cut your risk on the order of 70% at that 11:04 

22 crossing, depending upon the installation. 11:04 

23 Obviously many private crossings couldn't 11:04 

24 support that kind of investment because of the 11:05 

25 low traffic volume, and thousands and 11:05 

 60 
 1 thousands of farm crossings where that clearly 11:05 

 2 wouldn't be warranted. 11:05 

 3 But increasingly, as I think commenters 11:05 

 4 in this room pointed out, the growth of 11:05 

 5 developments on either side of the railroad 11:05 

 6 presents situations where investments really 11:05 

 7 are needed. And if investments can't be made, 11:05 

 8 then public authorities need to adopt those 11:05 

 9 crossings. 11:05 

10 Comments on these proposed findings in 11:05 

11 this category. Mr. Browder has got his tent 11:05 

12 up. 11:05 

13 MR. BROWDER: Grady, I know it wasn't 11:05 

14 intentional, but I would just like to add to 11:05 

15 the individuals that you identified as 11:05 

16 provided funding to crossings, both public and 11:05 

17 private, that the railroads have gone way 11:05 
18 beyond what is required under public law and 11:06 

19 for improvements, and that they have 11:06 

20 contributed literally millions of dollars in 11:06 

21 the improvements, crossing consolidations, and 11:06 

22 areas that they feel have been to their 11:06 

23 benefit as good corporate citizens of the area 11:06 

24 where the crossings exist. And that that is a 11:06 

25 significant factor in them being a stakeholder 11:06 

 61 
 1 in that particular agenda. 11:06 

 2 MR. COTHEN: Thank you, Bill. And that 11:06 

 3 goes to the point that I made earlier about 11:06 

 4 the railroads carrying the burden of this 11:06 

 5 issue. And it's not just investment in 11:06 

 6 signage campaigns; for instance, a number of 11:06 

 7 railroads have gone throughout their system to 11:06 

 8 put new signage at all their private 11:07 

 9 crossings. 11:07 

10 Investments have also been made through 11:07 

11 their local vice presidents, law departments, 11:07 

12 and all sorts of folks working with crossing 11:07 

13 holders. Bill Burt referred earlier to the 11:07 

14 efforts being made by short line railroads on 11:07 

15 a retail basis to try to deal with crossing 11:07 

16 hazards at individual locations and with 11:07 

17 individual landowners and others affected. 11:07 
18 And that time is money in any business, and 11:07 

19 that's a substantial investment, and I 11:07 

20 certainly, certainly don't want to understate 11:07 

21 that at all. 11:07 

22 MR. BROWDER: Two big examples of that 11:07 

23 out in Ms. Harris' area include the Alameda 11:07 

24 Corridor and the Reno Trench that have been 11:07 

25 very successful endeavors that have spent an 11:08 

 62 
 1 incredible amount of money to address at-grade 11:08 

 2 crossings. 11:08 

 3 MR. COTHEN: Those are notable 11:08 

 4 public-private partnerships that certainly 11:08 

 5 have greatly beneficial impacts on quite 11:08 

 6 densely packed urban communities. 11:08 

 7 Any -- can I elicit more comments on 11:08 

 8 these findings? Are we over or understating 11:08 

 9 it here? Do we need to add thoughts? 11:08 

10 MR. SCHWARTZ: Grady. 11:08 

11 MR. COTHEN: Mr. Schwartz, could you 11:08 

12 identify yourself, please? 11:08 

13 MR. SCHWARTZ: Stuart Schwartz, 11:08 

14 S-T-U-A-R-T, S-C-H-W-A-R-T-Z, Norfolk Southern 11:08 

15 Corporation. 11:08 

16 It's clear that over the 30 years or so 11:08 

17 that the Section 130 program has been in 11:08 
18 effect that it's had an enormous positive 11:09 

19 impact on improving -- it's clear that the 11:09 

20 Section 130 program has had an enormous 11:09 

21 positive impact on improving safety at public 11:09 

22 highway-rail grade crossings. You see that 11:09 

23 constant downward trend in the curve that each 11:09 

24 of the railroads can show individually and 11:09 

25 that as a group we can all show. It's in your 11:09 

 63 
 1 statistics I think as well. 11:09 

 2 But a major concern that our company has, 11:09 

 3 and I suspect some of the other companies have 11:09 

 4 as well, is that the pot of money available 11:09 

 5 for crossing improvements may not be 11:09 

 6 unlimited, and we all do have a concern that 11:09 

 7 diluting the impact of the Section 130 program 11:09 

 8 by increasing or enlarging the number of 11:09 

 9 crossings that would be eligible for the use 11:09 

10 of that money is a concern. 11:09 

11 It's not to suggest we want to discourage 11:09 

12 the notion that there are appropriate 11:10 

13 crossings where public funds should be 11:10 

14 expended, because clearly public safety is at 11:10 

15 issue, but we do have concern that to increase 11:10 

16 the mandate without increasing the funding, 11:10 

17 that does have a dilutive impact on the 11:10 
18 overall prospects for the usefulness of that 11:10 

19 program. 11:10 

20 MR. COTHEN: So the scarce resources 11:10 

21 currently devoted to investments in 11:10 

22 engineering improvements, the Safety Loop Bill 11:10 

23 did up the amount a little bit but probably 11:10 

24 didn't even compensate for inflation in terms 11:10 

25 of long-term trend of federal investment, and 11:10 

 64 
 1 we're still in a situation where we have a 11:10 

 2 minority of public crossings with automated 11:10 

 3 warning systems among the improvements that 11:10 

 4 are available to be made. 11:10 

 5 Mr. Stem, do you want to identify 11:10 

 6 yourself? You're next up. 11:10 

 7 MR. STEM: Yes, good morning. My name is 11:10 

 8 James Stem. I'm here today representing the 11:10 

 9 United Transportation Union. 11:11 

10 I was going to hold my comments until 11:11 

11 later in the day, but Mr. Cothen specifically 11:11 

12 asked for comment on this concept. 11:11 

13 I'd like to make three points: Number 11:11 

14 one, to the passengers and the neighbors of 11:11 

15 the crossing that Miriam showed a few minutes 11:11 

16 ago in Plant City, Florida, as well as the 11:11 

17 operating crew, there's no difference between 11:11 
18 a public grade crossing and a private grade 11:11 

19 crossing. Whether you live next to the track, 11:11 

20 whether you're a passenger on that track, 11:11 

21 whether you're a business that is shipping a 11:11 

22 car that's contained in that train that's 11:11 

23 operating on that track, you don't know 11:11 

24 whether that crossing that's involved in a 11:11 

25 collision, whether it's involved in a 11:11 

 65 
 1 discussion about public safety, is a private 11:11 

 2 crossing or a public crossing. 11:11 

 3 I'm somewhat dismayed at the fact that we 11:11 

 4 have conceded that less than 1% of these 11:11 

 5 private crossings have any type of warning 11:12 

 6 protection other than a passing cross button. 11:12 

 7 My second point is that safety not 11:12 

 8 improving as rapidly as public crossings. And 11:12 

 9 I agree with Mr. Schwartz that Section 130 11:12 

10 funds and their allocation should be involved 11:12 

11 in this equation. 11:12 

12 I'd like to inject the thought that maybe 11:12 

13 we should segregate these crossings according 11:12 

14 to track place. Using a traditional risk 11:12 

15 assessment model, the risk of a private grade 11:12 

16 crossing on Class I or II track where the 11:12 

17 speed is either 10 miles an hour or 25 miles 11:12 
18 an hour is much less than what we saw at Plant 11:12 

19 City, Florida, where that was a private 11:12 

20 crossing and the class of track and the track 11:12 

21 speed was considerably higher. 11:12 

22 And to the operating crew and to those 11:12 

23 passengers, every one of those crossings is a 11:12 

24 significant crossing that deserves the same 11:13 

25 consideration as a highway-to-highway 11:13 

 66 
 1 crossing. We would recommend that speeds 11:13 

 2 above 25 miles an hour that we try to adopt 11:13 

 3 the same interstate highway concept where you 11:13 

 4 separate those grades. 11:13 

 5 And my third and final comment is I don't 11:13 

 6 think the government has a choice. And I 11:13 

 7 don't mean the state of New York, I don't mean 11:13 

 8 the Federal Railroad Administration, I mean 11:13 

 9 the representatives of the public. Every 11:13 

10 agency, state government, and the United 11:13 

11 States Congress. We've got to take some 11:13 

12 action. 11:13 

13 There's no doubt in my mind that 11:13 

14 legislation is needed. And I encourage FRA 11:13 

15 and the New York DOT to work together to find 11:13 

16 a model for both state legislation that will 11:13 

17 give them the authority and hopefully the 11:13 
18 funding to address this problem, and I 11:14 

19 encourage FRA also to develop a model and 11:14 

20 solicit support not only from the industry, 11:14 

21 but the employees, private interest groups. 11:14 

22 I know that Amtrak passengers have 11:14 

23 several organizations that consider grade 11:14 

24 crossing collisions to be a top safety 11:14 

25 priority. 11:14 

 67 
 1 I encourage you to find a way to broaden 11:14 

 2 that coalition of people that's interested 11:14 

 3 enough to be here today to declare this as a 11:14 

 4 number one public safety problem. 11:14 

 5 MR. COTHEN: Thank you, James. Anything 11:14 

 6 else on that before we move to the next? 11:14 

 7 Mr. Scott? 11:14 

 8 MR. SCOTT: I would like to comment that 11:14 

 9 certainly I support what you just said, and 11:14 

10 I'd like to explain a little bit what we've 11:14 

11 encountered in New York in our efforts to 11:14 

12 address this issue. 11:15 

13 Our legislature did pass laws that gave 11:15 

14 us authority over private crossings on 11:15 

15 intercity rail lines and commuter lines, and 11:15 

16 we've actively been working on trying to 11:15 

17 address the safety at those locations; 11:15 
18 however, approximately three weeks ago, as a 11:15 

19 result of a challenge to our authority, a 11:15 

20 federal court issued a decision which preempts 11:15 

21 the state's laws. It's our intent to appeal 11:15 

22 that decision, and that's discussed in the 11:15 

23 testimony I presented. 11:15 

24 This federal court decision concluded 11:15 

25 that the STB has sole authority over 11:15 

 68 
 1 crossings, all crossings; it didn't say 11:15 

 2 private. So this presents another hurdle that 11:15 

 3 will have to be sorted out in the courts now. 11:15 

 4 But that's been our biggest problem is 11:15 

 5 you can pass the laws and try to exercise that 11:15 

 6 authority, but you keep running into legal 11:16 

 7 challenges as you move forward in that area. 11:16 

 8 Thank you. 11:16 

 9 MR. COTHEN: Thank you. Important point. 11:16 

10 My colleagues at the STB staff will be shocked 11:16 

11 to hear they have that responsibility. 11:16 

12 MR. SCOTT: I thought that may be the 11:16 

13 case. 11:16 

14 MR. SCHWARTZ: If I may respond to that, 11:16 

15 Mr. Cothen. 11:16 

16 This is one of the issues of rail safety 11:16 

17 that states have been unsuccessful in 11:16 
18 regulating. And from a laymen's standpoint, 11:16 

19 what that judge -- what the federal judge told 11:16 

20 the state of New York is positive, not 11:16 

21 negative. 11:16 

22 And the message he sent to all of us is 11:16 

23 that this issue is so significant it must be 11:16 

24 dealt with nationally, not state by state. 11:16 

25 So I would hope that that was an 11:16 

 69 
 1 encouragement for you to then go to Senator 11:16 

 2 Schumer and Senator Clinton and the 11:17 

 3 Congressional representatives you have in the 11:17 

 4 state of New York with that message: We agree 11:17 

 5 with the federal judge, it takes national 11:17 

 6 legislation to address this problem. 11:17 

 7 And that's one of about three issues that 11:17 

 8 are being resolved that had been preempted or 11:17 

 9 rule preempted by a federal judge in current 11:17 

10 rail safety legislation that's moving in 11:17 

11 Congress today. 11:17 

12 MR. COTHEN: Okay. With the threat we 11:17 

13 may not get to slide two, I'm just going to go 11:17 

14 to it, okay? And this is good because what we 11:17 

15 end up doing is getting right to the heart of 11:17 

16 it. And these are just ways of trying to get 11:17 

17 us there. 11:17 
18 Here you see some findings regarding 11:17 

19 accidents. And we've discussed each of those 11:17 

20 issues, Miriam has or you have in the 11:17 

21 discussion already. 11:17 

22 Any further comment on accident trends, 11:17 

23 the whys, wherefores? You think these 11:18 

24 findings are okay? Okay. 11:18 

25 I think we would have to say in light of 11:18 

 70 
 1 the feedback that we have from New York State 11:18 

 2 today, which has made an effort on its 11:18 

 3 passenger lines to provide the leadership, 11:18 

 4 that clearly we are faced with what is not as 11:18 

 5 a practical matter de facto a cohesive policy 11:18 

 6 in regulatory structure in this area. There 11:18 

 7 are a lot of redundant crossings out there; 11:18 

 8 that's evidence of that. Many of them are 11:18 

 9 inadequately designed, they were just thrown 11:18 

10 in quickly, sometimes by folks that didn't 11:18 

11 even ask the railroad. And some, 11:18 

12 unfortunately, are poorly maintained for 11:18 

13 various reasons. 11:19 

14 And then I think we talked about the 11:19 

15 populations that are at risk. Any further 11:19 

16 comment about this? State's local authorities 11:19 

17 generally lack jurisdiction. Bill? 11:19 
18 MR. BURT: Grady, I would like to comment 11:19 

19 just to the extent of adding a focus on four 11:19 

20 examples that I'll draw from the written 11:19 

21 testimony that were put into the docket, but 11:19 

22 perhaps to add something to the discussion 11:19 

23 here. 11:19 

24 The risk involved in crossings that are 11:19 

25 inadequately designed, and maintenance comes 11:19 

 71 
 1 out of design in some cases, but redundant 11:19 

 2 crossings and the lack of a policy or a 11:19 

 3 structure, that leads to a couple of things. 11:19 

 4 It leads to defects in the track that are 11:20 

 5 often not the focus of these discussions. And 11:20 

 6 I've noticed that a little bit this morning. 11:20 

 7 So far we've talked about the potential for 11:20 

 8 collisions at crossings, but I can cite at 11:20 

 9 least four different types of situations here 11:20 

10 that we see out in the field. 11:20 

11 We see people trying to take tracked 11:20 

12 vehicles across private crossings, 11:20 

13 steel-tracked vehicles, such as an excavator 11:20 

14 or a dozer. That, of course, presents the 11:20 

15 risk of throwing the track out of gauge, and 11:20 

16 of course they don't know it, or if they do 11:20 

17 they're not telling us. It gets caught in the 11:20 
18 next track inspection hopefully, but that may 11:20 

19 not be soon enough. 11:20 

20 We have people skidding logs across 11:20 

21 crossings. The same kind of issues arise. We 11:20 

22 tell crossing holders time and time again not 11:20 

23 to do that, or if you're going to do that make 11:20 

24 sure we've got an employee on the scene 11:20 

25 supervising the operation so to at least 11:20 

 72 
 1 inspect the track immediately after it to see 11:21 

 2 that there was no damage. Because we do have 11:21 

 3 some people that insist on their right legally 11:21 

 4 to skid logs across the crossing. And under 11:21 

 5 Section 52 in New York State they may indeed 11:21 

 6 have such a right, depending on how the courts 11:21 

 7 would view that. 11:21 

 8 And then you have oversized farm 11:21 

 9 equipment. The farm equipment that's in use 11:21 

10 today is often wide enough now that it can't 11:21 

11 even go down the highway within the right-hand 11:21 

12 lane and needs to occupy both the right-hand 11:21 

13 lane and the shoulder, and that tells you 11:21 

14 something. That tells you that when that farm 11:21 

15 equipment gets to your 12-foot-wide planks on 11:21 

16 the private crossing, it's not going to go 11:21 

17 across those planks, it's going to drop down 11:21 
18 into the gauge. Some portion of the frame of 11:21 

19 that equipment or the hubs on the wheels may 11:21 

20 well hook and once again hook the rail, drag 11:21 

21 it out of gauge. And the farmer will do that 11:21 

22 feeling that he has a God-given right to do 11:21 

23 it, and you're blocking him otherwise from 11:21 

24 getting to his property. 11:21 

25 So the other answer would be to provide I 11:21 

 73 
 1 suppose 25-foot-wide planks, but whose expense 11:22 

 2 is that going to be and how do we know where 11:22 

 3 it's even required. 11:22 

 4 Finally, last but not least, I provided 11:22 

 5 some photos in the written testimony of side 11:22 

 6 hill drainage situations in some of the hilly 11:22 

 7 territory that we have here in this part of 11:22 

 8 the country, not so much in the Northern Tier 11:22 

 9 of New York, but in the Southern Tier. 11:22 

10 Many, many crossings are at the foot of a 11:22 

11 side hill road where there is absolutely 11:22 

12 nothing done about the drainage except to let 11:22 

13 the water run down the road and down the sides 11:22 

14 of the road until it encounters the railroad, 11:22 

15 and in a cloudburst it floods the railroad 11:22 

16 repeatedly. 11:22 

17 And so the crossing becomes filled in, a 11:22 
18 focal point of siltation and mud that's 11:22 

19 carried to the railroad. And the farm 11:22 

20 occupant or the crossing holder is not alone 11:22 

21 in this regard. Municipalities and many 11:22 

22 others often view the railroad as the dumping 11:22 

23 ground for their drainage issues, where if 11:22 

24 they were private developers doing this under 11:23 

25 the normal building code process in New York 11:23 

 74 
 1 State they would be required to have a storm 11:23 

 2 water discharge plan. But in the case of the 11:23 

 3 railroad it seems to be a free shot. You get 11:23 

 4 to dump your water to the railroad, and then 11:23 

 5 it becomes the railroad's problem with 11:23 

 6 whatever came along with it in the way of silt 11:23 

 7 and mud. 11:23 

 8 Those are the four examples. And they -- 11:23 

 9 they come in under your populations at risk, 11:23 

10 because the risk is not just collision, it's 11:23 

11 also derailment due to tract defects which may 11:23 

12 be gradual over time or may be sudden in the 11:23 

13 nature of a piece of equipment, for instance, 11:23 

14 hooking the track and putting it -- throwing 11:23 

15 it out of gauge. 11:23 

16 I looked at that photo of the Amtrak 11:23 

17 derailment in Florida, and my eye immediately 11:23 
18 went to the fact that there was a dip in that 11:23 

19 crossing. I don't know if anybody else saw 11:23 

20 that. And on supposedly what presumably was 11:23 

21 good 50-mile-an-hour, 60-mile-an-hour track. 11:23 

22 So that again we see a lot of. 11:24 

23 MR. COTHEN: And our FRA track inspectors 11:24 

24 certainly see that as well. Thank you, Bill. 11:24 

25 Okay. We talked about the absence of a 11:24 

 75 
 1 cohesive policy, the folks who are at risk. 11:24 

 2 Bill calls attention to the fact that there's 11:24 

 3 a derailment risk. 11:24 

 4 Pretty much outside of California and 11:24 

 5 New York, with the caveats that Mr. Scott has 11:24 

 6 provided, we've seen that state governments 11:24 

 7 generally lack jurisdiction over private 11:24 

 8 crossing issues. We have state of Connecticut 11:24 

 9 reps here today, and they can correct us if 11:24 

10 there's a different situation there. 11:25 

11 So what you have -- thank you very much, 11:25 

12 Anya. 11:25 

13 MS. CARROLL: Sure. 11:25 

14 MR. COTHEN: What you have is that you 11:25 

15 have no counterpoint to the legitimate 11:25 

16 interests of the property owner accessing that 11:25 

17 field or proceeding with the development. You 11:25 
18 don't have the kind of tension that needs to 11:25 

19 be there in public policy to ensure that both 11:25 

20 the public and private goods are met. And 11:25 

21 that the private interests are worked out as 11:25 

22 well. 11:25 

23 When it comes to engineering design, 11:25 

24 again, there's largely a vacuum, and that's 11:25 

25 already been referred to in testimony and 11:25 

 76 
 1 remarks today. 11:25 

 2 Any further comments on this slide and 11:25 

 3 these findings? Mr. Dickinson. 11:25 

 4 MR. DICKINSON: I might comment, Grady, 11:26 

 5 as far as engineering designs are concerned, 11:26 

 6 if there is indeed a consensus that the Agency 11:26 

 7 needs to establish standards for engineering 11:26 

 8 designs, you were actually involved, as we 11:26 

 9 were, in the corridor between Charlotte and 11:26 

10 Burlington, Vermont, several years ago. And 11:26 

11 most of those crossings up there were private 11:26 

12 crossings, and those folks have done some very 11:26 

13 innovative things up there to private 11:26 

14 crossings, and I think there could be some 11:26 

15 lessons learned there. 11:26 

16 So you might make a note of that and look 11:26 

17 at those in the future as far as establishing 11:26 
18 these kinds of standards. 11:26 

19 MR. COTHEN: Randy Dickinson, again from 11:26 

20 Region 1. And Randy is referring to a case 11:26 

21 where interesting train horn issues generated 11:26 

22 some creative activity in a community which 11:26 

23 extended to what were effectively private 11:26 

24 crossings. 11:26 

25 Ms. Harris. 11:27 

 77 
 1 MS. HARRIS: Yes. I just wanted to make 11:27 

 2 the point that public safety and necessity, or 11:27 

 3 public convenience and necessity, as we call 11:27 

 4 it in California, isn't necessarily an 11:27 

 5 adequate safeguard, because unless it's tied 11:27 

 6 back into land use planning, you find yourself 11:27 

 7 in a situation where the subdivision has 11:27 

 8 already been approved and now you've got a lot 11:27 

 9 of people that are landlocked. 11:27 

10 So it's got to go -- it's actually -- 11:27 

11 from a planning standpoint it's got to start a 11:27 

12 lot earlier if you want to produce a situation 11:27 

13 that will minimize at-grade crossings. 11:27 

14 MR. COTHEN: The Federal Railroad 11:27 

15 Administration started working on this issue 11:27 

16 actively in the 1990s, and I think it's a 11:27 

17 former -- as a former resident of California 11:27 
18 we used to say California leads the nation. 11:27 

19 It's very indicative of the state of play 11:27 

20 of this issue that California is now getting 11:27 

21 around to -- and to their credit they're 11:27 

22 getting around to some active public 11:28 

23 discussion through a commission established by 11:28 

24 the state legislature that includes the point 11:28 

25 that Carol Harris just made. 11:28 

 78 
 1 And how long it will take, you know, to 11:28 

 2 move across the breadth of the nation is hard 11:28 

 3 to say, but we're interested in doing whatever 11:28 

 4 we can. 11:28 

 5 I just saw I'm spotted on a meeting of 11:28 

 6 the Transportation Committee of the National 11:28 

 7 Conference of State Legislature is coming up, 11:28 

 8 so Miriam is in charge of making sure that I 11:28 

 9 adequately address that issue to that group. 11:28 

10 We'll take it to every venue that we can. 11:28 

11 Okay. Yes, sir. 11:28 

12 MR. WHITEMORE: Shane Whitemore, 11:28 

13 W-H-I-T-E-M-O-R-E, with CSX Transportation. 11:28 

14 To address the zoning and the land use 11:28 

15 plans that we've brought up earlier, I've had 11:28 

16 the opportunity to participate in no fewer 11:29 

17 than ten local zoning boards in the areas 11:29 
18 where we operate where housing communities are 11:29 

19 being designed and planned trying to take a 11:29 

20 preemptive stance to go out there and say hey, 11:29 

21 consider us in your plans. 11:29 

22 Because the states and local authorities 11:29 

23 may have conflicting priority with the issue 11:29 

24 because they want to develop their areas, they 11:29 

25 don't take our comments as being necessarily 11:29 

 79 
 1 part of the decision. So any kind of 11:29 

 2 overarching plan as a land use must consider 11:29 

 3 this would be appropriate in my opinion. 11:29 

 4 Also, as we sit there and we look at 11:29 

 5 design of crossings within the design 11:29 

 6 engineering and warning systems on private 11:29 

 7 crossings, the state for public crossings sets 11:29 

 8 that warning system requirement. They come to 11:29 

 9 us and they say we want this type of warning 11:29 

10 system at this crossing based on use. 11:29 

11 The private crossings don't have that, so 11:29 

12 the railroad is then put in a position of 11:30 

13 trying to make that determination, what is the 11:30 

14 appropriate level of warning system at this 11:30 

15 crossing. Which puts the railroad in a 11:30 

16 position -- the unenviable position of 11:30 

17 assuming all the risk should an accident occur 11:30 
18 at that location. 11:30 

19 So as we look at governments and state 11:30 

20 organizations taking responsibility of trying 11:30 

21 to determine appropriate warning systems with 11:30 

22 stop sign, crossbars, it needs to be applied 11:30 

23 uniformly, and the railroad doesn't assume all 11:30 

24 that risk because our first inclination would 11:30 

25 go to four-quadrant gates and, you know, 11:30 

 80 
 1 systems out there that would be cost 11:30 

 2 prohibitive. Of course, the private 11:30 

 3 individual doesn't have the ability to pay for 11:30 

 4 those kinds of things. 11:30 

 5 So thank you. 11:30 

 6 MR. COTHEN: Thank you, Shane. 11:30 

 7 Okay. Here is some additional findings: 11:30 

 8 There are a lot of agreements out there, and 11:30 

 9 there are a lot of title documents back in the 11:30 

10 registrar's office, if the county court hasn't 11:31 

11 burned. I believe we had at least one burned 11:31 

12 down county courthouse as we went around the 11:31 

13 country. 11:31 

14 But most crossings lack agreement, formal 11:31 

15 arrangements between the railroad and the 11:31 

16 holder to allocate responsibilities. You 11:31 

17 know, is the drainage adequate, is the surface 11:31 
18 properly maintained within and outside the 11:31 

19 gauge of the approach, and is that sign 11:31 

20 appropriate given the type of vehicle that's 11:31 

21 moving over the crossing and so forth. 11:31 

22 You know, frankly, the Federal Railroad 11:31 

23 Administration is highly unlikely to get into 11:31 

24 the business of liability and allocation of 11:31 

25 liability, but putting that aside, most of the 11:31 

 81 
 1 elements -- essential elements of a crossing 11:31 

 2 agreement are going to be of interest at some 11:31 

 3 point to the public. And that there is an 11:31 

 4 agreement and that it's kept current is 11:31 

 5 something that appears to be important and 11:32 

 6 useful to making headway here. 11:32 

 7 We talked about public use being a key 11:32 

 8 safety concern. It's clearly Department of 11:32 

 9 Transportation policy -- U.S. Department of 11:32 

10 Transportation policy that public use 11:32 

11 crossings should get the same engineering 11:32 

12 treatments that the Manual for Uniform Traffic 11:32 

13 Control Devices applies to public crossings, 11:32 

14 but it's easy enough to say it, it's not so 11:32 

15 easy to make it happen. 11:32 

16 And we've talked about the absence of 11:32 

17 involvement by local planning departments at 11:32 
18 this juncture, something we'd like to see 11:32 

19 changed. Stop me at any point. 11:32 

20 Additional findings: Railroads have got 11:32 

21 some muscle, but they're facing a lot of 11:32 

22 obstacles, so their authority clearly is 11:32 

23 limited in terms of looking out for the public 11:33 

24 interest as well as their own. 11:33 

25 Very often efforts to make improvements 11:33 

 82 
 1 may be hampered. It can include obstacles 11:33 

 2 presented by budding landowners who won't 11:33 

 3 provide for an access road so we can close 11:33 

 4 some crossings. 11:33 

 5 We concluded in going around the country 11:33 

 6 and just talking to people that public 11:33 

 7 education and awareness probably helps in this 11:33 

 8 regard. It's probably why our numbers are -- 11:33 

 9 along with the railroad's efforts, it's 11:33 

10 probably why our numbers are flat rather than 11:33 

11 going up. 11:33 

12 But obviously in our three E array of 11:33 

13 tools here, engineering, education, and 11:33 

14 enforcement, there's a limited amount that can 11:33 

15 be done on the enforcement side. The 11:33 

16 railroads clearly continue to employ -- the 11:34 

17 larger railroads police forces, but they're 11:34 
18 spread over a very large area. 11:34 

19 Phil, could you introduce yourself for 11:34 

20 the record and take a mike there? 11:34 

21 MR. POICHUK: Phil Poichuk, Transport 11:34 

22 Canada. Poichuk is spelled P-O-I-C-H-U-K. 11:34 

23 Grady, you mentioned that in many cases 11:34 

24 there is a lack of an agreement, and also I 11:34 

25 believe you previously alluded to the fact 11:34 

 83 
 1 that in many cases the actual rights are no 11:34 

 2 longer documented for whatever reason in those 11:34 

 3 cases where the crossing has rights. 11:34 

 4 In the U.S. do railroads routinely 11:34 

 5 challenge these cases, challenge the right to 11:34 

 6 the crossing where, in fact, they can find no 11:34 

 7 agreement or expression of rights? 11:34 

 8 MR. COTHEN: Who would like to from the 11:34 

 9 railroad side explain some of the efforts 11:35 

10 being made? Mr. Browder can -- meets with 11:35 

11 these people on a regular basis and can give 11:35 

12 us an overview. 11:35 

13 MR. BROWDER: Phil, why don't I give you 11:35 

14 a generic answer, and that answer is that the 11:35 

15 Class Is, the seven Class Is have a very 11:35 

16 assertive campaign to close crossings. And 11:35 

17 they have a program that they have initiated. 11:35 
18 In some cases they have established 11:35 

19 standards and practices for closing private 11:35 

20 crossings. In many cases those standards and 11:35 

21 practices don't work without citing any 11:35 

22 specific railroad. 11:35 

23 I would relate an incident that occurred 11:35 

24 to one of the Class Is in South Carolina where 11:35 

25 after establishing a program and initiating 11:35 

 84 
 1 action they actually went out to private 11:35 

 2 crossings that they could identify and didn't 11:36 

 3 know who the landowner was, didn't know who 11:36 

 4 the user was, if anyone, and posted signs 11:36 

 5 showing that in 90 days if they didn't contact 11:36 

 6 this particular railroad that they were 11:36 

 7 going -- planning on closing that particular 11:36 

 8 crossing. And the railroad eventually became 11:36 

 9 frustrated because they got thrown out of 11:36 

10 local court so many times. 11:36 

11 We have found that it is much better to 11:36 

12 work assertively with the local governments 11:36 

13 and with the state DOTs in efforts to 11:36 

14 consolidate crossings. And we don't neglect 11:36 

15 any opportunity to do that. 11:36 

16 And as was mentioned earlier by 11:36 

17 another -- in reference to another Class I 11:37 
18 railroad, there is a very assertive program 11:37 

19 not to permit new crossings except where they 11:37 

20 meet criteria and establish things that make 11:37 

21 them in the interest of all parties or in the 11:37 

22 public good. 11:37 

23 So it is a very instrumental program that 11:37 

24 goes on, it's very frustrating to railroads, 11:37 

25 but they do have a very clearly defined 11:37 

 85 
 1 programs within their own companies to close 11:37 

 2 crossings and to consolidate crossings as 11:37 

 3 such. 11:37 

 4 I would add, and I mentioned this to the 11:37 

 5 FRA several times recently, is that one area 11:37 

 6 that appears to be providing more assistance 11:37 

 7 in consolidating crossings to date has been 11:38 

 8 the implementation of the train horn rule and 11:38 

 9 the accompanying quiet zone initiatives. And 11:38 

10 those communities that have initiated quiet 11:38 

11 zone initiatives appear to be providing 11:38 

12 additional local support for some of the 11:38 

13 railroad initiatives to close private 11:38 

14 crossings. 11:38 

15 Because I used to cite -- my figures were 11:38 

16 that I would go to 15 public hearings to get 11:38 

17 one crossing closed. Because if there was one 11:38 
18 person or local voter who opposed the closing 11:38 

19 of that crossing, usually that was the kiss of 11:39 

20 death with whatever the supervisory 11:39 

21 organization was that was considering action 11:39 

22 on that proposal. And now with the quiet zone 11:39 

23 initiative there appears to be in some cases 11:39 

24 local pressure from the general public, the 11:39 

25 community, and local government to work 11:39 

 86 
 1 constructively toward realistic programs to 11:39 

 2 eliminate especially those crossings that have 11:39 

 3 a higher probability of a collision occurring. 11:39 

 4 I hope I answered your question. 11:39 

 5 MR. COTHEN: Okay. Thank you for that. 11:39 

 6 MR. SCOTT: Grady, can I -- I would 11:39 

 7 just -- 11:39 

 8 MR. COTHEN: Mr. Scott. 11:39 

 9 MR. SCOTT: Just like to say that we've 11:40 

10 actually found in New York since we had the 11:40 

11 legislation on the books that grants us 11:40 

12 authority over, as I said, intercity lines and 11:40 

13 commuter corridors, we've worked with the Long 11:40 

14 Island Railroad, who has actively pursued 11:40 

15 efforts to close private crossings, and over 11:40 

16 the past two to three years they've 11:40 

17 successfully closed over 50% of the crossings 11:40 
18 that did exist on their lines. 11:40 

19 So it can work, you have the laws on the 11:40 

20 books that help the railroads out and clarify 11:40 

21 the definition. Thank you. 11:40 

22 MR. COTHEN: Excellent. Thank you. We 11:40 

23 had a finding related to the necessity for 11:40 

24 some cooperative work among the parties 11:40 

25 involved. 11:40 

 87 
 1 You know, we can fight all we want to and 11:40 

 2 run up the legal bills and tie up the courts 11:40 

 3 and so forth, but I think most would agree 11:41 

 4 that what we're looking for here is 11:41 

 5 cooperative efforts. And these are the 11:41 

 6 parties that have been identified to date. 11:41 

 7 Anybody else you would like to add? 11:41 

 8 MR. WHITEMORE: Grady, I would suggest 11:41 

 9 that adjacent landowners. You have the 11:41 

10 private crossing holder -- 11:41 

11 MR. COTHEN: Yes. 11:41 

12 MR. WHITEMORE: -- but in a lot of cases 11:41 

13 when you look for alternate access, adjacent 11:41 

14 landowners are also part of the process. 11:41 

15 MR. COTHEN: Thank you. Anybody else? 11:41 

16 Okay. So here we get to the dry stuff, 11:41 

17 right? FRA has some relevant authority. Our 11:41 
18 relevant authority is over railroads and 11:41 

19 railroad safety. 11:41 

20 You know, Farmer Smith doesn't know us 11:41 

21 from nobody, and that's I think the problem. 11:41 

22 And the local resident who with two or three 11:41 

23 other residents uses the crossing, they have 11:42 

24 no idea who we are. 11:42 

25 They've heard of the Federal Aviation 11:42 

 88 
 1 Administration, they saw a sign at the 11:42 

 2 airport, but they don't know who we are. And 11:42 

 3 we don't know in many cases, of course, their 11:42 

 4 needs and concerns as well. 11:42 

 5 Other Department of Transportation modes 11:42 

 6 are interested in this issue. The Federal 11:42 

 7 Highway Administration has ensured that it 11:42 

 8 stays in play with regard to the Manual for 11:42 

 9 Uniform Traffic Control Devices. And clearly 11:42 

10 National Highway Traffic Safety 11:42 

11 Administration, Federal Motor Carrier Safety 11:42 

12 Administration are interested in this issue 11:42 

13 but may not have specific relevant authority 11:42 

14 to bring to bear here. 11:42 

15 Another reason, by the way, that 11:42 

16 probably, you know, we're keeping these 11:42 

17 numbers flat is our automobiles are safer 11:42 
18 today. And if you do have a collision down 11:43 

19 below 25 miles an hour, with a side air bag, 11:43 

20 you may mitigate or even prevent in some cases 11:43 

21 an injury. 11:43 

22 We're working across a broad front of 11:43 

23 issues as a society to reduce the risk here, 11:43 

24 but, you know, if that motor vehicle gets hung 11:43 

25 up or if it's a higher-speed collision, 11:43 

 89 
 1 there's only so much reasonably that can be 11:43 

 2 done in that regard. So those are just kind 11:43 

 3 of straightforward actual findings. 11:43 

 4 But Mr. Browder had a comment? 11:43 

 5 MR. BROWDER: Well, I can't help but when 11:43 

 6 you ask about other modal agencies within the 11:43 

 7 DOT go back to one question that AAR has 11:43 

 8 raised for a number of years concerning the 11:43 

 9 issue of highway-rail grade crossings. 11:43 

10 You mentioned the interest of the Federal 11:44 

11 Highway Authority with the MUTCD, and I can 11:44 

12 attest as the token representative from the 11:44 

13 railroads to the National Committee that FRA 11:44 

14 has done a excellent job in supporting the 11:44 

15 initiatives of the National Committee, 11:44 

16 including the proposal to FHWA to add yield or 11:44 

17 stop signs where -- as appropriate for public 11:44 
18 crossings. 11:44 

19 The other part of the initiative though 11:44 

20 that I see and I've seen in my activities 11:44 

21 involves the Federal Transit Administration, 11:44 

22 the National Highway Traffic Safety 11:44 

23 Administration, and the initiative that has 11:44 

24 either converted former highway-rail grade 11:45 

25 crossings from Class Is and short lines to 11:45 

 90 
 1 transit or new ones that have appeared in 11:45 

 2 transit modal organizations. 11:45 

 3 And similar to the perspectives that 11:45 

 4 James so eloquently presented about the 11:45 

 5 general public not knowing the difference 11:45 

 6 between a public and a private crossing, I 11:45 

 7 would allow that a vehicle operator out here 11:45 

 8 doesn't know the difference between a Class I 11:45 

 9 railroad crossing and a rail transit crossing 11:45 

10 if it's in the traditional mode of having 11:45 

11 highway bells, gates, and lights. 11:45 

12 I point out with some trepidation that 11:45 

13 the U.S. DOT inventory maintained by FRA may 11:45 

14 or may not include those public and private 11:46 

15 crossings that exist under the Rail Transit 11:46 

16 Administration. And many of them do. And 11:46 

17 they do because of the tireless effort of 11:46 
18 FRA's staff, of the railroads and their staff, 11:46 

19 of railroad suppliers, of former railroad 11:46 

20 signal and communications people that are now 11:46 

21 employed in the rail transit industry to 11:46 

22 maintain and keep the inventory under FRA. 11:46 

23 And the suggestion that AAR has been 11:46 

24 putting forward for several years consistent 11:46 

25 with Anya Carroll's Volpe Center and the 11:46 

 91 
 1 Transportation Research Board looking at 11:47 

 2 studies to improve safety at highway-rail 11:47 

 3 grade crossing is -- really is an intermodal 11:47 

 4 issue that you're absolutely right, you need 11:47 

 5 to involve those other stakeholders. 11:47 

 6 I've bugged you several times about FHWA 11:47 

 7 participation. I believe they have come to 11:47 

 8 one session in New Orleans. And that again 11:47 

 9 for a even more complete discussion I'm sure 11:47 

10 you'll be contacting the other modal agencies, 11:47 

11 the American Public Transportation 11:47 

12 Administration and others, to ensure that we 11:47 

13 get a perspective in that area. 11:47 

14 I couldn't help but add that, Grady. 11:47 

15 MR. COTHEN: I assure you, Secretary 11:48 

16 Peters, who's the Federal Highway 11:48 

17 Administrator, will ensure the DOT agencies 11:48 
18 work together on this issue. 11:48 

19 MR. BROWDER: But she doesn't have much 11:48 

20 time left. 11:48 

21 MR. COTHEN: Doesn't have much time left. 11:48 

22 Okay. Looking around the room. 11:48 

23 We are now in the -- what is this, 11:48 

24 point-counterpoint, is that it -- portion of 11:48 

25 the discussion. And we just broke out 11:48 

 92 
 1 topically, you know, elements of Plan A and 11:48 

 2 Plan B. Plan A we just captioned policy and 11:48 

 3 Plan B regulation. We're not trying to bias 11:48 

 4 you against Plan B, but we had to have a 11:48 

 5 title. 11:48 

 6 Here are some matched initiatives under 11:48 

 7 each of these plans or options. And as you 11:48 

 8 can see, in the first instance it's the same 11:49 

 9 idea, whatever else we do we want to 11:49 

10 discourage creating new crossings. That 11:49 

11 doesn't mean there won't be some; there will 11:49 

12 be a public necessity for some to be created 11:49 

13 or a private necessity for some to be created. 11:49 

14 But we want to discourage that. 11:49 

15 That could be matched up with some 11:49 

16 additional initiatives that are shown there, 11:49 

17 including some state-level oversight of land 11:49 
18 use changes. That's difficult, and that 11:49 

19 assumes relationships between state-level 11:49 

20 bodies and regional and local planning boards 11:49 

21 that may or may not exist. However, at least 11:49 

22 in the state of California through their 11:49 

23 environmental process it's something that 11:49 

24 they're giving a try at. 11:50 

25 With that would of course go the notion 11:50 

 93 
 1 that states would have a flow of information 11:50 

 2 to the railroad so that the railroads know how 11:50 

 3 they need to interact perspectively with those 11:50 

 4 who are planning changes in land use abutting 11:50 

 5 or affecting the railroad. 11:50 

 6 And a counterpoint to that or a different 11:50 

 7 way of doing it would be some sort of 11:50 

 8 requirement that for each new crossing there 11:50 

 9 be a statement of essential need that would 11:50 

10 have whatever attributes were called out 11:50 

11 there, but certainly including the use that 11:50 

12 was to be put to and some explanation as to 11:50 

13 why there's not alternative access on a 11:50 

14 reasonable basis. 11:50 

15 And it would be the ability there to 11:50 

16 simply say no. And then there would be the 11:51 

17 need for some kind of way to resolve disputes 11:51 
18 that might arise. 11:51 

19 We have some further discussion, I 11:51 

20 believe, of dispute resolution downstream from 11:51 

21 this, so let's not get hung up on this on this 11:51 

22 slide, but we'll get back to it I'm pretty 11:51 

23 sure. And if I don't, Miriam will make sure 11:51 

24 that I do. 11:51 

25 Comments on these notions here? We'll 11:51 

 94 
 1 start with Stu and then go to Phil. 11:51 

 2 MR. SCHWARTZ: Grady, I guess my comment 11:51 

 3 would be directed not towards the specifics of 11:51 

 4 any bullet points within those two categories, 11:51 

 5 just to the general notion of the choices the 11:51 

 6 agency has to make about whether to proceed 11:51 

 7 with policy or regulation. 11:52 

 8 And speaking for myself and perhaps for 11:52 

 9 my company, we don't think the policy is a 11:52 

10 good policy choice. Given the lack of 11:52 

11 interest among the various states in 11:52 

12 regulating private grade crossings -- or 11:52 

13 addressing -- addressing private grade 11:52 

14 crossings, let's leave the word regulation out 11:52 

15 of it. Given the lack of interest in most of 11:52 

16 the states, apparently 48 of them, have in 11:52 

17 addressing questions of private grade 11:52 
18 crossings, it strikes me that having a policy 11:52 

19 out there and on the shelf that somebody could 11:52 

20 refer to is not going to make those states 11:52 

21 anymore interested in addressing those issues 11:52 

22 than they are now. 11:52 

23 The FRA has -- or DOT has over the years 11:52 

24 expressed itself most vociferously that the 11:52 

25 best crossing is a closed crossing and that we 11:53 

 95 
 1 should be closing crossings. 11:53 

 2 It's still no less torturous a process 11:53 

 3 than it was when the DOT first expressed that 11:53 

 4 theme. When the question comes down to is 11:53 

 5 this landowner going to lose his crossing, the 11:53 

 6 judge or the local regulatory body, most 11:53 

 7 likely is going to be a judge, is going to 11:53 

 8 make that decision not based on whether the 11:53 

 9 federal government has a policy that 11:53 

10 discourages the existence of private grade 11:53 

11 crossings, but he's going to make that 11:53 

12 decision based on the local impact it's going 11:53 

13 to have on that particular landowner and 11:53 

14 perhaps his neighbors. 11:53 

15 I know regulation is kind of a dirty 11:53 

16 word, and there is -- there are all kinds of 11:53 

17 degrees of regulation, and once we get to 11:53 
18 regulation we can talk about details. But 11:53 

19 what I'm suggesting is that as a general 11:53 

20 proposition a policy option does not advance 11:54 

21 the ball down the field. 11:54 

22 MR. COTHEN: Okay. Phil? 11:54 

23 MR. POICHUK: Grady, I would like to 11:54 

24 address your point of forbidding crossings for 11:54 

25 creation and the use of the crossing if it's 11:54 

 96 
 1 lacking. 11:54 

 2 My understanding of the American 11:54 

 3 government system is that it is not unlike the 11:54 

 4 Canadian one relative to the jurisdictional 11:54 

 5 problems that exist between municipal levels 11:54 

 6 of government versus state or provincial 11:54 

 7 versus the federal. And what I am curious 11:54 

 8 about is what legal instrument would it take 11:54 

 9 to allow you to actually forbid a lower level 11:55 

10 of government to exercise its own rights that 11:55 

11 were traditionally given to it? 11:55 

12 MR. COTHEN: Where is our lawyer? 11:55 

13 The issue that -- and actually, you know, 11:55 

14 it was first Administrator Gil Carmichael who 11:55 

15 said we ought to take a run at these issues 11:55 

16 back in the 1990s. He's from Mississippi, and 11:55 

17 nobody's going to accuse him of being a 11:55 
18 flaming liberal. 11:55 

19 But his point was that the nation needs 11:55 

20 the service of its railroads in aid of 11:55 

21 interstate commerce, including a growing role 11:55 

22 for passenger rail as well as freight rail. 11:55 

23 And Mr. Carmichael's point was that we 11:55 

24 all as a nation have an interest in that and 11:56 

25 that dealing with these issues related to 11:56 

 97 
 1 safety at highway-rail crossings was necessary 11:56 

 2 to meet the nation's transportation mobility 11:56 

 3 needs, and that the Commerce Clause of the 11:56 

 4 U.S. Constitution, which permits the Congress 11:56 

 5 to regulate interstate commerce, should be -- 11:56 

 6 give impetus to this kind of effort, and the 11:56 

 7 Supremacy Clause of the Constitution does 11:56 

 8 permit preemption of conflicting state and 11:56 

 9 local policies. And you can do that in a 11:56 

10 variety of ways but allowing greater or lesser 11:56 

11 discretion for action at the state or local 11:56 

12 level and still having a national policy. 11:56 

13 The interesting question that's presented 11:56 

14 here that's the other side of the issue of 11:56 

15 Farmer Smith doesn't know the Federal Railroad 11:57 

16 Administration is, you know, to what extent we 11:57 

17 could view those folks as somewhat -- somehow 11:57 
18 within the ambit of our current statutory 11:57 

19 jurisdiction, that is the jurisdiction that 11:57 

20 the Congress gives us. 11:57 

21 And that's an interesting question. When 11:57 

22 we first addressed this back in the 1990s we 11:57 

23 said, well, what about the notion of we tell 11:57 

24 the railroad you get an agreement with that 11:57 

25 crossing holder or you put the barricades up. 11:57 

 98 
 1 And that's sort of the issue writ large. 11:57 

 2 So what we're looking for here is a model 11:57 

 3 that says, okay, here is a national policy 11:57 

 4 that takes into consideration the interest of 11:57 

 5 people across the country in safety and the 11:57 

 6 mobility of our society, and it then asks of 11:57 

 7 each of us appropriate responses so that, you 11:58 

 8 know, the kid who's driving for the first time 11:58 

 9 by herself is going to cross to see the 11:58 

10 neighboring kid on the other side of the 11:58 

11 private crossing is just as safe traversing 11:58 

12 that private crossing as she would be a public 11:58 

13 crossing in the community. 11:58 

14 So I don't -- our team doesn't think and 11:58 

15 our counsel doesn't think that we're without 11:58 

16 authority in the matter currently. We are 11:58 

17 asking the question whether or not we need a 11:58 
18 new charter from the Congress that would more 11:58 

19 carefully define what the expectations are of 11:58 

20 all of us, including role for state agencies 11:58 

21 that are trying to get their job done in terms 11:58 

22 of serving members of the communities here in 11:58 

23 New York and elsewhere. 11:58 

24 We think this is something that can be 11:58 

25 done, but we're asking the question of whether 11:58 

 99 
 1 or not and how to proceed. 11:59 

 2 And Mr. Burt I guess is -- 11:59 

 3 MR. BURT: Grady, just as Stuart thought 11:59 

 4 he ought to dive in at the head end of this 11:59 

 5 presentation, I guess my feeling is the same 11:59 

 6 as I look down through the slides I think I 11:59 

 7 better try to contribute this 2 cents' worth 11:59 

 8 now. 11:59 

 9 Our written testimony stated in several 11:59 

10 places that if the private sector railroads 11:59 

11 were only empowered to do the job, they would 11:59 

12 do the job. And that is a balanced job. 11:59 

13 That's a job that takes into account the 11:59 

14 deeded rights of those who have deeded rights, 11:59 

15 yet at the same time takes into account the 11:59 

16 pressing safety issues involved and the public 11:59 

17 safety of them as well as the safety of the 11:59 
18 employees of the railroads and the safety of 11:59 

19 the private crossing holders themselves. 11:59 

20 And yet I haven't heard -- and I guess 11:59 

21 you could infer in that position a certain 11:59 

22 caution in representing the diverse members of 12:00 

23 our organization, large and small, with 12:00 

24 various types of views on a wide range of 12:00 

25 things. But I haven't heard any one of the 12:00 

 100 
 1 members come to any one of our executive 12:00 

 2 committee and say we will not consider one 12:00 

 3 thing or another as we approach this question. 12:00 

 4 It's far too early in process for people to do 12:00 

 5 that I think. 12:00 

 6 So with that in mind, my perception of it 12:00 

 7 is, and perception of many that I talked to in 12:00 

 8 our organization, is that we really have three 12:00 

 9 options on the table. We can take the most 12:00 

10 conservative option if that's a possible label 12:00 

11 and simply try to make the private property 12:00 

12 system work better. 12:00 

13 The falling down of that seems to be that 12:00 

14 the local courts in many cases won't enforce 12:00 

15 it probably, and we get caught in this 12:00 

16 situation of local politics, and the private 12:00 

17 crossing holder may be the brother-in-law of 12:01 
18 the judge, that sort of thing. 12:01 

19 So that -- I won't say it's a nonstarter, 12:01 

20 it's awful attractive to a lot of people who 12:01 

21 believe in trying to make more traditional 12:01 

22 methods work, but it does seem to have that 12:01 

23 major defect. 12:01 

24 And that New Orleans -- the railroad down 12:01 

25 in Louisiana stated passionately and in a way 12:01 

 101 
 1 that many of our members would agree with. 12:01 

 2 The second option which should not be 12:01 

 3 dismissed entirely is the state level. I'd 12:01 

 4 like to say a kind word for the processes that 12:01 

 5 we go through as railroads with New York State 12:01 

 6 to close public crossings. There is a process 12:01 

 7 to take it in front of an administrative law 12:01 

 8 judge. We work cooperatively with DOT. The 12:01 

 9 interests of the communities, the neighboring 12:01 

10 landowners, everyone's interests are taken 12:01 

11 into account, and there seems to be 12:01 

12 remarkably, although I'm sure maybe I have a 12:01 

13 skewed sample, but in our experience a 12:01 

14 surprisingly good, effective process there 12:02 

15 with less controversy than one would think, 12:02 

16 partly because everyone involved understands 12:02 

17 there is a bottom line here and that is that 12:02 
18 the state's policy is to further reduce the 12:02 

19 number of public crossings and to discourage 12:02 

20 the creation of new public crossings if at all 12:02 

21 possible. 12:02 

22 So, you know, it's not hard to 12:02 

23 extrapolate from that the possible scenario 12:02 

24 that perhaps if similar authority were 12:02 

25 extended to private crossings we might be able 12:02 

 102 
 1 to make that work. But once again I think we 12:02 

 2 do have a problem evident there with local 12:02 

 3 courts, lawsuits, litigation, dragging that 12:02 

 4 into a less effective process than it might 12:02 

 5 otherwise be. 12:02 

 6 When we consider the third option of 12:02 

 7 federal regulation or federal -- greater 12:02 

 8 federal involvement more broadly, I would like 12:02 

 9 to at least suggest the possibility, and I -- 12:02 

10 trepidation is a good word here, I say this 12:02 

11 with trepidation since there are greater 12:03 

12 experts in the room, most notably yourself, 12:03 

13 about how to do this kind of a process. 12:03 

14 But my understanding is that in the past 12:03 

15 the FRA has found it possible to occupy the 12:03 

16 field and draw up certain very broad standards 12:03 

17 without necessarily micro-prescribing the ways 12:03 
18 in which those regulations are implemented. 12:03 

19 And I know that's a very broad statement, 12:03 

20 but the bridge issues in the past come to mind 12:03 

21 and the way that bridge inspections have been 12:03 

22 handled over a number of years. 12:03 

23 And I think that's part of what some of 12:03 

24 our members have suggested in our 12:03 

25 conversations, that perhaps there's a way here 12:03 

 103 
 1 for the FRA to make statements to policy and 12:03 

 2 occupy the field in such a way that preempts 12:03 

 3 the defective processes we see at a local 12:03 

 4 level but at the same time doesn't result in 12:03 

 5 an unnecessary amount of regulation. 12:04 

 6 So with those thoughts, perhaps I put 12:04 

 7 those out now rather than try to weigh in at a 12:04 

 8 later stage when we're down to the details. 12:04 

 9 MR. COTHEN: Okay, thank you. I'm 12:04 

10 reassured to hear that we're making headway 12:04 

11 with public crossings in New York State. 12:04 

12 Mr. Scott, you want to add to that? 12:04 

13 MR. SCOTT: I just wanted to add in 12:04 

14 support of what Bill was saying that in 12:04 

15 New York the laws that we have on the books 12:04 

16 for private crossings has a section in it that 12:04 

17 prevents the creation of any new private 12:04 
18 crossing until we have an administrative law 12:04 

19 hearing, which gives the parties an 12:04 

20 opportunity to present their case. 12:04 

21 And we found that to be quite effective, 12:04 

22 at least controlling the numbers of any new 12:04 

23 ones. Dealing with the existing ones has 12:04 

24 turned out to be an entirely different story. 12:04 

25 And I would also like to note under your 12:05 

 104 
 1 policy comments that I would tend to think 12:05 

 2 from a state perspective that it's difficult 12:05 

 3 for the states to track land use changes, and 12:05 

 4 certainly we think that the railroads are in a 12:05 

 5 better position to do that because they have 12:05 

 6 people out along the railroad all the time. 12:05 

 7 We've usually found that the railroads 12:05 

 8 advise us when there's a -- change is taking 12:05 

 9 place, and then we can act on it. But I'm not 12:05 

10 quite sure how the states would have that 12:05 

11 information. 12:05 

12 MR. COTHEN: Yeah, I think with what 12:05 

13 we're struggling with, you know, the 12:05 

14 roadmaster goes out there and sees the 12:05 

15 utilities going in, yeah, the railroad's aware 12:05 

16 and probably before you are, but it's too late 12:05 

17 and -- very often. 12:05 
18 So I guess what we were asking is whether 12:05 

19 or not from a planning point of view we could 12:05 

20 get -- whether it would be possible to have 12:05 

21 communication mechanisms within state, 12:06 

22 regional, and local government to get these 12:06 

23 things identified early enough so that you can 12:06 

24 deal with them in the least costly manner. 12:06 

25 That's basically the question. 12:06 

 105 
 1 Yes, Randy. 12:06 

 2 MR. DICKINSON: I have just one 12:06 

 3 suggestion, Grady. That there may be a third 12:06 

 4 way between policies and regulations to skin 12:06 

 5 the cat, so to speak. 12:06 

 6 But before I get started on that I should 12:06 

 7 apologize, earlier I didn't identified myself 12:06 

 8 for purposes of the recorder there. 12:06 

 9 My name is Randy Dickinson, R-A-N-D-Y, 12:06 

10 last name is D-I-C-K-I-N-S-O-N. And I'm the 12:06 

11 Regional Program Manager for Grade Crossing 12:06 

12 Safety for the Federal Railroad 12:06 

13 Administration. 12:06 

14 And I'm sitting listening to this and I'm 12:06 

15 thinking that we're debating back and forth 12:06 

16 between policy and regulation or mandate and 12:06 

17 persuasion, and there may actually be a third 12:07 
18 way, and that might be to approach it from an 12:07 

19 incentive standpoint. And I'm just wondering 12:07 

20 if there has been -- I'm sure that we 12:07 

21 wouldn't -- that our agency wouldn't get 12:07 

22 necessarily involved in it, but for some of 12:07 

23 the other organizations, the AAR and various 12:07 

24 other organizations, there may be some merit 12:07 

25 in approaching the tax incentive approach. 12:07 

 106 
 1 And in other words, providing perhaps tax 12:07 

 2 incentives or property tax relief to the 12:07 

 3 private crossing holders for purposes of 12:07 

 4 relieving the financial burden for any costs 12:07 

 5 that they may have to bear, and it may 12:07 

 6 actually provide incentives for them to close 12:07 

 7 crossings outright. 12:07 

 8 So that's just a suggestion you might 12:07 

 9 want to put on the record. 12:07 

10 MR. COTHEN: Okay, thank you. I do want 12:07 

11 to emphasize that this is for purposes of 12:08 

12 eliciting comment, and, you know, you might 12:08 

13 just -- regulation may not be a regulation, it 12:08 

14 might be a federal statute that specifies 12:08 

15 goods and responsibilities and that leaves 12:08 

16 administration to the states or private 12:08 

17 parties. It doesn't necessarily have to 12:08 
18 involve -- doesn't necessarily have to involve 12:08 

19 FRA, although clearly we want to help if we 12:08 

20 can. 12:08 

21 Okay. Here is some more of the same sort 12:08 

22 of stuff. We could offer a model state law 12:08 

23 related to crossing agreements. We could -- 12:09 

24 on the other hand, there could be something 12:09 

25 more clearly mandatory from the federal level. 12:09 

 107 
 1 And I think you see the conundrum there 12:09 

 2 under existing statutory law and when we talk 12:09 

 3 about requiring holder participation in the 12:09 

 4 agreement. It's easy enough to say railroad, 12:09 

 5 go make an agreement. It's less -- you know, 12:09 

 6 that's easy for us, but then the railroad 12:09 

 7 first has to determine who the holder is, as 12:09 

 8 you've heard, and then somehow elicit 12:09 

 9 cooperation and get an agreement, and on a 12:09 

10 basis that's fair, how do you do that? 12:09 

11 We have a state safety participation 12:09 

12 program for our regulations that apply to the 12:09 

13 railroads, and we invite the participation by 12:09 

14 the states in terms of enforcement of those 12:10 

15 regulations. States supplement federal 12:10 

16 regulations in areas where we have not, quote, 12:10 

17 occupied the field, end quotes. 12:10 
18 And it's possible if we go to the 12:10 

19 Congress on this to imagine a tailor-made 12:10 

20 structure which provides for appropriate 12:10 

21 involvement by those states that are able to 12:10 

22 participate. It would empower them to act 12:10 

23 under the federal stated policies or 12:10 

24 requirements. And it might provide the 12:10 

25 railroads a friend before the Administrative 12:10 

 108 
 1 Law Judge or in court or wherever if a dispute 12:10 

 2 cannot be worked out so that there's a balance 12:10 

 3 of public policy presented. 12:10 

 4 Whether there is an ability to eventually 12:11 

 5 remove a dispute to federal court could also 12:11 

 6 be addressed in any legislation. 12:11 

 7 Comments about these particular bullets 12:11 

 8 other than the thoughts we've already had? 12:11 

 9 I should note that when we talk about 12:11 

10 state safety participation, and New York DOT 12:11 

11 among others is among the 30 states 12:11 

12 participating, not only does the state need to 12:11 

13 have, you know, a blessing from Uncle Sam, but 12:11 

14 it also needs to have authority under its own 12:11 

15 state law to engage in this activity. So it's 12:11 

16 a decision by the legislature and Governor to 12:11 

17 get into the fray. 12:11 
18 We've had, by the way, you know, 12:11 

19 additional states participate in this activity 12:11 

20 where the staffs of the respective departments 12:11 

21 of transportation or public utilities 12:12 

22 commission have indicated an interest from 12:12 

23 their standpoint in playing a more significant 12:12 

24 role or continue a significant role that 12:12 

25 they're currently playing. 12:12 

 109 
 1 And I take it that while they are careful 12:12 

 2 to say they're not authorized to speak on 12:12 

 3 behalf of the full legislature or perhaps even 12:12 

 4 the Governor's office in that regard, that 12:12 

 5 that indicates an awareness within the state 12:12 

 6 of the importance of the issue. 12:12 

 7 A lot of discussion during this road show 12:12 

 8 has gone into the issue of appropriate 12:12 

 9 treatments for different types of crossings. 12:12 

10 And Miriam has addressed that in her remarks. 12:12 

11 We've suggested here, it's possible, 12:13 

12 though not without difficulty and not without 12:13 

13 exceptions, to sort of group some of the 12:13 

14 typical categories. 12:13 

15 And it matters a lot what you think a 12:13 

16 public use crossing is. And it's difficult to 12:13 

17 say what a public use crossing is. 12:13 
18 A multi-residential community, for 12:13 

19 instance, even if it's a gated community, is 12:13 

20 going to have the plumber and the yard service 12:13 

21 and so forth in and out. And not only that, 12:13 

22 the personal guests of those who live there. 12:13 

23 So one can argue there is some public 12:13 

24 use. If it's a shopping center, commercial 12:13 

25 use, certainly there's going to be the public 12:13 

 110 
 1 freely accessing that area. Industrial 12:14 

 2 crossing may have mostly trucks full of gravel 12:14 

 3 or it may have a more active or diverse use. 12:14 

 4 And we're sensitive to the fact that some 12:14 

 5 of the categories might move between the super 12:14 

 6 categories that have been put on there, but 12:14 

 7 one of the jobs that we would have together if 12:14 

 8 we move forward on this is to appropriately 12:14 

 9 classify crossings, and any hard, tough 12:14 

10 examples you have that you can throw in the 12:14 

11 public docket would I think help us think 12:14 

12 about that with a higher degree of resolution. 12:14 

13 I got a question from a reporter out here 12:14 

14 during the break about the Rome, New York, 12:14 

15 collision which was, quote, in a private 12:14 

16 crossing. However, I believe it's correct to 12:15 

17 say, Ike, that after investigation we all 12:15 
18 concluded it was a public road. 12:15 

19 MR. SCOTT: Yes, it's a public road, but 12:15 

20 it has not gone through process to make it a 12:15 

21 public crossing. And in this state our laws 12:15 

22 are quite clear that if a public road existed 12:15 

23 as of 1897 it was grandfathered in as a public 12:15 

24 crossing. After that time the only way it can 12:15 

25 become a public crossing is through the 12:15 

 111 
 1 regulatory process. 12:15 

 2 Therefore, we do wind up occasionally we 12:15 

 3 see situations where a road has been made 12:15 

 4 public but they have not gone through the 12:15 

 5 correct process to make the crossing public. 12:15 

 6 So that's a difficult one. 12:15 

 7 MR. COTHEN: And that's the level of 12:15 

 8 nuance that I will say it totally escaped us 12:15 

 9 to this point, but indicative of the potential 12:15 

10 complexity of, you know, the issue. 12:16 

11 But obviously if we're having trouble 12:16 

12 deciding what's a public crossing versus a 12:16 

13 private crossing, the first thing that 12:16 

14 happened after the -- you're going to have to 12:16 

15 help me out now -- oh, the accident at 12:16 

16 Portage, Illinois -- Indiana, Portage, 12:16 

17 Indiana, was a great deal of weeping and 12:16 
18 wailing and gnashing of teeth as to whether 12:16 

19 that was a public or a private crossing. 12:16 

20 It had steel coil trucks just one after 12:16 

21 another after another. You could just sit 12:16 

22 there watching the trucks go through with -- 12:16 

23 almost without having a time when there wasn't 12:16 

24 a truck in view. And it had flashing lights 12:16 

25 and gates and I don't know what, four or five 12:16 

 112 
 1 tracks, Amtrak service, NICTD service, which 12:16 

 2 is the commuter authority there, and freight 12:16 

 3 rail service on Conrail. And was this a 12:16 

 4 public or a private crossing. 12:17 

 5 Well, in the end of the day it didn't 12:17 

 6 matter, you know, it -- I mean, but the 12:17 

 7 circumstances of the crossing certainly 12:17 

 8 mattered to the three people who were killed 12:17 

 9 in that collision. It only took I think four 12:17 

10 or five years after that to get a grade 12:17 

11 separation in, as I recall. Dave Blackmore 12:17 

12 from our regional office in Chicago put days 12:17 

13 and days into that to try to get that one 12:17 

14 crossing addressed. And it was. 12:17 

15 But the point is sometimes it's difficult 12:17 

16 to tell, and these things matter, I guess, 12:17 

17 are -- those are the take-aways from it that 12:17 
18 we have to this point. 12:17 

19 Bill or Ike, did you have something more? 12:17 

20 MR. SCOTT: Can I add, when we looked at 12:17 

21 this situation we also considered the public 12:17 

22 safety concerns and therefore focused on the 12:17 

23 lines that have passenger trains operating 12:17 

24 over them. 12:18 

25 So in addition to the use -- highway use 12:18 

 113 
 1 over a crossing, we have to look at the rail 12:18 

 2 usage as well because of the passengers on the 12:18 

 3 train. I feel you should put it into the 12:18 

 4 public use category when there's passenger 12:18 

 5 trains operating in the corridor. 12:18 

 6 MR. BURT: I just wanted to mention, 12:18 

 7 Grady, with the assistance of the New York 12:18 

 8 DOT, Western New York and Pennsylvania 12:18 

 9 Railroad just closed an example of what we 12:18 

10 were talking about here, a private crossing 12:18 

11 that had slipped in public use. And when we 12:18 

12 went to investigate the responsibilities for 12:18 

13 that so-called public crossing, the local 12:18 

14 jurisdictions disavowed any responsibility for 12:18 

15 it. 12:18 

16 But apparently one of the predecessor 12:18 

17 railroads deep in the past had allowed 12:18 
18 crossbucks to be put up there, and it was an 12:18 

19 absolutely horrendous engineering layout, a T 12:18 

20 intersection with a busy public highway right 12:19 

21 next to the railroad on a steep grade. So we 12:19 

22 were happy to get rid of it. 12:19 

23 And I think when short lines get into 12:19 

24 some of these acquisitions that -- of lines 12:19 

25 that have been neglected for a few years, they 12:19 

 114 
 1 usually come with a collection of these 12:19 

 2 situations. So it's not unknown. 12:19 

 3 MR. COTHEN: Okay. Phil? 12:19 

 4 MR. POICHUK: Phil Poichuk, Transport 12:19 

 5 Canada again. 12:19 

 6 In the United States do you -- do you 12:19 

 7 have any legal instrument of convenience that 12:19 

 8 can allow an empowered individual to -- 12:19 

 9 federal probably, to declare a particular 12:19 

10 crossing de facto public for purposes of 12:19 

11 crossing usage? 12:19 

12 MR. COTHEN: I think it's fair to say 12:19 

13 that there are -- unless the Surface 12:19 

14 Transportation Board has been working 12:19 

15 diligently over the last few days, that the 12:20 

16 answer to that is no, we don't have at the 12:20 

17 federal level such an ability. 12:20 
18 Obviously states manage differently from 12:20 

19 state to state the issue of what sometimes we 12:20 

20 call adoption of private crossings, in effect 12:20 

21 making them public roadways. And I'm not an 12:20 

22 authority on that, but Mr. Scott is for 12:20 

23 New York. 12:20 

24 MR. RIES: Grady, I would add for 12:20 

25 purposes of discussion, we've used the 12:20 

 115 
 1 definition of public crossing as what Federal 12:20 

 2 Highway Administration has deemed for use of 12:20 

 3 the Section -- eligibility for Section 130 12:20 

 4 funding. So that's the definition of the term 12:20 

 5 public. 12:20 

 6 MR. COTHEN: Okay. One of our folks 12:20 

 7 stuck under my nose lunch options. I'm not 12:21 

 8 sure what she was -- what Anya was suggesting. 12:21 

 9 Are you suggesting that maybe we need to 12:21 

10 have lunch? Is that -- 12:21 

11 MS. CARROLL: Yeah, that would be a good 12:21 

12 idea. 12:21 

13 MR. COTHEN: Okay. I guess we have to do 12:21 

14 that then. I've got a revolt in the ranks. 12:21 

15 Why don't we try to do it between now and 12:21 

16 1:30. Anya, you want to explain what options 12:21 

17 folks have? 12:21 
18 MS. CARROLL: Yeah. There's some menus 12:21 

19 and also a list of options of restaurants in 12:21 

20 this area that are on the registration desk 12:21 

21 for you to pick up and use. There's also a 12:21 

22 menu for the restaurant that's in the hotel 12:21 

23 itself. And there are three or four different 12:21 

24 options listed, including pizzeria and subs 12:21 

25 and salads and deli options. 12:22 

 116 
 1 So please make use of the information the 12:22 

 2 hotel has put together for us, and we'll see 12:22 

 3 you back here at 1:30. Thank you. Enjoy. 12:22 

 4 MR. COTHEN: We're in recess. 12:22 

 5 (A luncheon recess was taken from 12:22 PM 12:22 

 6 until 1:33 PM.) 12:22 

 7 MR. COTHEN: Out of deference to 13:33 

 8 everybody that is here, and quite a few are, 13:33 

 9 why don't we go ahead and kind of settle back 13:33 

10 into our places, and hopefully others will 13:33 

11 come in here shortly. 13:33 

12 So we'll resume. And where we left off, 13:33 

13 the slide in front of you was up, we were 13:33 

14 talking about, among other things, categories 13:33 

15 of private crossings. 13:33 

16 One of the, you know, probably most 13:33 

17 difficult issues because it involves execution 13:33 
18 of engineering improvements is on the left -- 13:34 

19 or right-hand side of the page there, and I 13:34 

20 suppose it needn't be displayed quite that 13:34 

21 way. We've had a good deal of comment to this 13:34 

22 point in the proceeding that it probably would 13:34 

23 be helpful at some point to convene, either 13:34 

24 reconvene or reconstitute or have something 13:34 

25 like a technical working group, which was used 13:34 

 117 
 1 by the Department of Transportation to freshen 13:34 

 2 up the guidance for treatments at public 13:34 

 3 highway-rail crossings a couple of years back. 13:34 

 4 That group did an excellent job, very 13:34 

 5 professional job, and whether or not you have 13:34 

 6 a more directive role federally it would seem 13:34 

 7 to me useful at some point to have that kind 13:34 

 8 of work done and available for reference, even 13:35 

 9 if only as a voluntary standard. 13:35 

10 But in contrast to a voluntary standard, 13:35 

11 it's possible to imagine some pretty directive 13:35 

12 federal guidance similar to the MUTCD or as a 13:35 

13 part of the MUTCD that would, for instance, 13:35 

14 provide for minimum treatments at crossings. 13:35 

15 There's been a fair amount of suggestion 13:35 

16 at your typical farm crossing a locked gate 13:35 

17 works pretty well. The gate's often there 13:35 
18 because the livestock need to be controlled, 13:35 

19 and the lock on the gate is an indication that 13:35 

20 the guy who comes through in a four-wheel 13:35 

21 drive vehicle wanting to go hunting on the 13:35 

22 other side of the railroad really shouldn't be 13:35 

23 traversing that crossing. Maybe a practical 13:35 

24 impediment. 13:36 

25 On the other hand, the farmer's got the 13:36 

 118 
 1 key to the padlock and in season when he or 13:36 

 2 she needs to can traverse the crossing and 13:36 

 3 take care of business. 13:36 

 4 For all other crossings it would seem 13:36 

 5 that some kind of standard for minimum signage 13:36 

 6 be required. We have a de facto -- I say de 13:36 

 7 facto because of the actions of states and 13:36 

 8 railroads -- de facto standard sign of private 13:36 

 9 crossings now, which probably if you look at 13:36 

10 the preponderance of crossings consists of a 13:36 

11 small crossbuck and small stop sign. I don't 13:36 

12 know how many of them are reflectorized on 13:36 

13 both sides of the post. And the -- in other 13:36 

14 cases simply a crossbuck. 13:36 

15 Bill's referenced the fact that we want 13:36 

16 to be going to a regime in which every 13:36 

17 crossbuck has something else on it that's 13:36 
18 appropriate for that location, either a stop 13:37 

19 or yield sign in particular so that the 13:37 

20 motorist is not required to guess at what the 13:37 

21 intended action is at that crossing. 13:37 

22 The subject of exactly how you would 13:37 

23 execute that seems to me would be something 13:37 

24 that a technical working group would need to 13:37 

25 work out. 13:37 

 119 
 1 Right now the predominant regime seems to 13:37 

 2 be on the public side, somebody can correct me 13:37 

 3 who knows more, a number of people in this 13:37 

 4 room, a room full of people know more than I 13:37 

 5 do, but seems to be trending toward a default 13:37 

 6 for a yield sign with standard crossbuck and 13:37 

 7 then the stop sign where an engineering study 13:37 

 8 indicates that's appropriate. And there is 13:37 

 9 some guidance from Federal Highway and Federal 13:37 

10 Rail encouraging use of the stop sign in 13:37 

11 appropriate cases. 13:38 

12 On the private crossing side the default 13:38 

13 again, as I indicated, seems to be a stop 13:38 

14 sign. Clearly there are going to be some 13:38 

15 industrial crossings where it's good to have 13:38 

16 an evaluation of what kind of motor vehicles 13:38 

17 are using that crossing on a regular basis, 13:38 
18 what the sight distances are, and the timing, 13:38 

19 the relevant timing in terms of traversing the 13:38 

20 crossing from a dead stop. And the -- and 13:38 

21 whether or not if there's not a stop sign 13:38 

22 there's going to be an opportunity to have a 13:38 

23 good preview of the rail approaches from the 13:38 

24 roadway approach. 13:38 

25 In some of these cases if some of the 13:38 

 120 
 1 research done in Canada is any indication, you 13:38 

 2 know, you're going to find locations where the 13:38 

 3 crossing can't be made safe within the 13:39 

 4 available geometry. 13:39 

 5 And what do we do now? And again, if you 13:39 

 6 go back to a previous slide, one of the 13:39 

 7 options is a mandate for a crossing which 13:39 

 8 cannot be made safe to be closed. 13:39 

 9 Discussion about minimum signage and 13:39 

10 whether we're chasing something that's not 13:39 

11 really important or whether it's something we 13:39 

12 really should be emphasizing because of the 13:39 

13 desire to be consistent in terms of how the 13:39 

14 motorist responds, pedestrian for that matter, 13:39 

15 responds to the signage provided. 13:39 

16 Obviously we're not writing regulations 13:39 

17 under this new statute yet, but the question 13:39 
18 is what, if any, advances can we make here 13:39 

19 from a safety standpoint by taking a more 13:39 

20 consistent and rigorous approach. 13:39 

21 Must have been good pizza. 13:40 

22 MR. SALTZ: Brian Saltz from Long Island 13:40 

23 Railroad. Sorry, I came in about a minute 13:40 

24 late, so you may have already mentioned this. 13:40 

25 We had a question about this issue that's 13:40 

 121 
 1 coming up now in New York State, what's the 13:40 

 2 minimum signage. Where did they come up with 13:40 

 3 you have the stop sign right above the private 13:40 

 4 crossing sign right above -- I assume that's a 13:40 

 5 sign with a phone number underneath that. 13:40 

 6 MR. COTHEN: Well, we've seen a variety 13:40 

 7 of signage. In some cases you see a crossbuck 13:40 

 8 above the stop sign, then the other way. I 13:40 

 9 think that's an emergency notification plate 13:40 

10 down below that particular one, which is 13:40 

11 recommended by U.S. DOT. And I think as a 13:41 

12 matter of fact there's going to be a Senate 13:41 

13 bill introduced today that may require that. 13:41 

14 That is not a MUTCD recommended plate. I 13:41 

15 believe we ended up sticking with blue 13:41 

16 background and the white lettering? No? 13:41 

17 Bill. 13:41 
18 MR. BROWDER: It's being changed. The 13:41 

19 national committee has recommended that that 13:41 

20 be a standard in the MUTCD, but it's also -- 13:41 

21 blue and white is what Fred and I came up with 13:41 

22 in 2000 and stuck with MUTCD as a compromise, 13:41 

23 and of course there were concerns about size 13:41 

24 also. 13:41 

25 But essentially there's a 15-year 13:41 

 122 
 1 implementation period once that MUTC is 13:41 

 2 enacted in 2009 to go to this more traditional 13:42 

 3 sign that would be the standard. 13:42 

 4 So if all else fails in the U.S. 13:42 

 5 Congress, and heaven forbid that they 13:42 

 6 shouldn't pass legislation to require that, it 13:42 

 7 will be in the MUTCD and we'll be doing it 13:42 

 8 anyway. Excuse me, Grady. 13:42 

 9 MR. COTHEN: That's all right. You know, 13:42 

10 there has been a press for standardization. A 13:42 

11 lot of people did a lot of good things in the 13:42 

12 initial years of emergency notification to get 13:42 

13 something out there that was helpful to 13:42 

14 motorists, and then we all said hmm, maybe we 13:42 

15 ought to try to do it the same way everywhere 13:42 

16 so we're not looking for the sign over here on 13:42 

17 the signal house one place and the -- you 13:42 
18 know, the crossbuck post in other place and so 13:43 

19 forth and so on. 13:43 

20 And undoubtedly it would be a progressive 13:43 

21 process of trying to move toward greater 13:43 

22 standardization. Bill again. 13:43 

23 MR. BROWDER: That was another education 13:43 

24 process by you and AAR and others of the 13:43 

25 highway authority in terms of those signs. 13:43 

 123 
 1 And another good example of the issues that 13:43 

 2 occur because of the lack of communication and 13:43 

 3 understanding with media and the general 13:43 

 4 public concerning issues that address us as 13:43 

 5 stakeholders was again the highway people felt 13:43 

 6 that that sign should face the motoring public 13:43 

 7 and be large enough for them to see coming 13:43 

 8 down the highway at whatever the speed limit 13:43 

 9 sign -- limit was. 13:43 

10 And we said no, we want it as it is in 13:43 

11 the manual right now, facing the crossing 13:43 

12 where the vehicle would be or where the 13:44 

13 situation would be. And it doesn't need to be 13:44 

14 so large, it just needs to be read by the 13:44 

15 people at the crossing rather than somebody a 13:44 

16 half a mile away with the motoring public. 13:44 

17 Couldn't help but add that, Grady. 13:44 
18 MR. COTHEN: Right. No, that's fine. 13:44 

19 I don't know, Mr. Scott, does New York 13:44 

20 DOT have guidance for the private crossing 13:44 

21 signs? 13:44 

22 MR. SCOTT: We're developing standards. 13:44 

23 They're in draft form. But we have to 13:44 

24 coordinate the approval of those with the MPA. 13:44 

25 So I originally had them included with my 13:44 

 124 
 1 testimony, but we took it out. So shortly I 13:44 

 2 should be able to provide you that 13:44 

 3 information. I can follow up on that 13:44 

 4 testimony once we get concurrence from -- 13:44 

 5 through the MPA. 13:44 

 6 MR. COTHEN: So another shoe is going to 13:45 

 7 drop in New York. 13:45 

 8 MR. SALTZ: Since we're a subsidiary of 13:45 

 9 the MPA, that's why I brought this issue up, 13:45 

10 because we had a question when we did get 13:45 

11 those draft standards. So I assume at some 13:45 

12 point we'll work it out. 13:45 

13 MR. COTHEN: I'm sure you will. 13:45 

14 Again, the real question before the House 13:45 

15 is not which sign, but should there be 13:45 

16 standard signs and what kind of considerations 13:45 

17 would go into it. 13:45 
18 Obviously one thing that would go into it 13:45 

19 would be a gradual transition if signage was 13:45 

20 changed out, if we should ever go there, 13:45 

21 nobody wants to waste money. 13:45 

22 The other thing one can imagine, and this 13:45 

23 is a little bit -- this is by all means 13:45 

24 bolder, it kind of goes to the core of the 13:45 

25 issue here. One can imagine if we had public 13:46 

 125 
 1 use crossings subject to full MUTCD 13:46 

 2 requirements and a requirement for -- I 13:46 

 3 suppose the term in the trade is warrants for 13:46 

 4 automated warning devices in situations where 13:46 

 5 it seemed to make sense. 13:46 

 6 Is that -- in the public arena we have a 13:46 

 7 certain amount of money and we accept for 13:46 

 8 whatever reason the premise that, you know, 13:46 

 9 we'll get to it when we're able given the 13:46 

10 funding stream. 13:46 

11 In the private crossing arena if we came 13:46 

12 out of this discussion with a desire to go 13:46 

13 farther and no funding stream, I mean, 13:46 

14 obviously if we had -- if Section 130 was 13:47 

15 augmented, for instance, that might define for 13:47 

16 us to some extent how fast we could go in 13:47 

17 terms of addressing problem industrial and 13:47 
18 commercial crossings, depending upon the 13:47 

19 contemplated shares that others would kick in. 13:47 

20 If we came out of this with no such 13:47 

21 augmentation, then we would be asking, you 13:47 

22 know, what are we going to require of whoever 13:47 

23 is identified as responsible. 13:47 

24 FRA has posited in the past, and not just 13:47 

25 because we work with the railroads every day, 13:47 

 126 
 1 that in many situations the benefit derived 13:47 

 2 from the crossing is one that is directly 13:47 

 3 proportional to the gain that the private 13:48 

 4 holder gets out of that arrangement. And 13:48 

 5 that, in fact, a control over the use in most 13:48 

 6 cases is with the holder and not with the 13:48 

 7 railroad. So that holder should be expected 13:48 

 8 to take care of the safety issue at the 13:48 

 9 crossing. 13:48 

10 And of course in an industrial/commercial 13:48 

11 kind of setting that would not be an unusual 13:48 

12 position to take from a public policy 13:48 

13 standpoint. 13:48 

14 If we went down that course, then we 13:48 

15 would be looking at risk-based evaluations of 13:48 

16 the crossings, much in the same way that 13:48 

17 New York DOT or another state transportation 13:48 
18 agency would look at a plan for public 13:48 

19 crossings and would be asking for 13:48 

20 participation through agreement to make those 13:49 

21 improvements over what period of time seemed 13:49 

22 to be appropriate up to the limit where we 13:49 

23 couldn't pay for those improvements with 13:49 

24 societal benefits. And that's the avoidance 13:49 

25 of loss of life, personal injury, property 13:49 

 127 
 1 damage to the motorist and anyone surrounding 13:49 

 2 the area, property damage to the railroad, 13:49 

 3 potential in worst cases for injury to 13:49 

 4 passengers, crew members, road crew members. 13:49 

 5 And those more serious events. All of which 13:49 

 6 should be taken into consideration. 13:49 

 7 As Mr. Scott I think has referenced, 13:49 

 8 increasingly in doing transportation planning 13:49 

 9 for passenger rail corridors we try to take 13:50 

10 all of that into consideration. 13:50 

11 The consequence is -- and obviously there 13:50 

12 would be some requirement depending on the 13:50 

13 circumstances for some public -- either public 13:50 

14 in the case of passenger rail probably, or 13:50 

15 railroad contribution, freight railroad 13:50 

16 contribution, depending upon the 13:50 

17 circumstances. 13:50 
18 Transactionally, for instance, Surface 13:50 

19 Transportation Board from time to time in the 13:50 

20 environmental area has required freight 13:50 

21 railroads involved in transactions to ante up 13:50 

22 some money for improvements at crossings where 13:50 

23 traffic will increase in those kinds of 13:50 

24 situations where things are changing on the 13:50 

25 railroad rather than in terms of the private 13:50 

 128 
 1 use of the crossings. That seems would be 13:50 

 2 relevant as well. 13:51 

 3 But if we got to the point then where we 13:51 

 4 would make it a risk-based evaluation, we 13:51 

 5 would determine that by warrant this crossing 13:51 

 6 needed flashing lights and gates, and if the 13:51 

 7 funds were not available to do it, then the 13:51 

 8 consequence would be that crossing needed to 13:51 

 9 be closed. That would be logical outcome of 13:51 

10 that kind of reasoning. 13:51 

11 Comments on that, please, on that sort of 13:51 

12 radical suggestion. Yes, Phil. 13:51 

13 MR. POICHUK: Grady, Phil Poichuk again. 13:51 

14 How easy would it be to close a crossing 13:51 

15 if, in fact, it was demonstrated by the -- if 13:51 

16 it was a crossing that had rights attached to 13:52 

17 it, private though it was, how easy could it 13:52 
18 be to close it if you could demonstrate that 13:52 

19 it was the only reasonable access? 13:52 

20 MR. COTHEN: Well, that's the -- that's 13:52 

21 the question, you know, the public policy 13:52 

22 question. You know, the public policy 13:52 

23 question is how seriously do we take safety. 13:52 

24 And I think one question is reasonable 13:52 

25 access to what. You know, we ended up on 13:52 

 129 
 1 Northeast Corridor between New York and Boston 13:52 

 2 with a half dozen crossings left after the -- 13:52 

 3 a major effort to close crossings. And 13:52 

 4 because it was a major passenger route, mostly 13:52 

 5 federal money and Amtrak's passenger money 13:53 

 6 went into some fairly elaborate treatments on 13:53 

 7 each and every one of those crossings. 13:53 

 8 You know, but very truly, there were a 13:53 

 9 number of locations along there where one was 13:53 

10 hard-pressed from a public policy standpoint 13:53 

11 to explain why that -- why that crossing 13:53 

12 needed to remain so light was the use of the 13:53 

13 property. 13:53 

14 And of course to the extent that a 13:53 

15 crossing is of really high value and we can't 13:53 

16 make it safe otherwise, grade separation may 13:53 

17 be an option. 13:53 
18 So what -- how much do we value what's 13:53 

19 going on on the other side of the railroad 13:53 

20 versus the risk that the public's going to 13:53 

21 incur traversing the railroad in order to get 13:53 

22 to that location. 13:53 

23 And I don't know that -- you know, in the 13:53 

24 end I think a lot of the decisions -- and 13:54 

25 please forgive me -- but a lot of these 13:54 

 130 
 1 decisions do end up getting made politically. 13:54 

 2 But happily, you know, in the case of 13:54 

 3 these crossings on the Northeast Corridor 13:54 

 4 subject to the improvement project, at least 13:54 

 5 there was a major effort to make the crossings 13:54 

 6 as safe as possible. In that case by tying in 13:54 

 7 four-quadrant gates to the cab signal system 13:54 

 8 so that if we had somebody on the crossing at 13:54 

 9 least we had a mitigation. 13:54 

10 And which is a plausible mitigation for 13:54 

11 heavily-used passenger line; it's not 13:54 

12 necessarily a plausible litigation for 13:54 

13 heavily-used freight line because the 13:54 

14 considerations are simply different. 13:54 

15 Mr. Scott? 13:54 

16 MR. SCOTT: I'd just like to note that 13:54 

17 based on the experience gained in New York 13:54 
18 since we've had laws on the books, I think it 13:54 

19 would be very difficult to close a crossing 13:55 

20 simply because there's no funds to pay for 13:55 

21 warning devices that are deemed necessary. I 13:55 

22 think the courts would not allow that to -- 13:55 

23 that action. You would have to have a 13:55 

24 stronger case than simply lack of funds. 13:55 

25 It's -- particularly if you're looking to the 13:55 

 131 
 1 private property owner to provide those funds. 13:55 

 2 That's just for the limited amount of 13:55 

 3 experience that we've gained. 13:55 

 4 MR. COTHEN: Right. And I understand 13:55 

 5 what you're saying. I don't know, maybe we 13:55 

 6 should have a lawyers' caucus here, but thus 13:55 

 7 far to the extent that I've been, you know, 13:55 

 8 able to follow the case law on a federal 13:55 

 9 level, we're not yet at the point where our 13:55 

10 Supreme Court has taken the notion of a taking 13:55 

11 to the extent that a reasonable regulation is 13:56 

12 foreclosed. 13:56 

13 This is one of those cases that would -- 13:56 

14 might get up there, you know, but we're not -- 13:56 

15 we're not -- this construct is not suggesting 13:56 

16 that someone would be left landlocked except 13:56 

17 in the case where public safety required it. 13:56 
18 And I don't know. It's interesting. We 13:56 

19 would find out. 13:56 

20 From the point of view of -- from the 13:56 

21 point of view of writing a federal statute, 13:56 

22 that's easy enough. From the point of view I 13:56 

23 believe of the federal bar and judiciary 13:56 

24 taking federal statute seriously and saluting 13:57 

25 and going along, I don't think that it would 13:57 

 132 
 1 be a serious issue. Not withstanding that the 13:57 

 2 private property owner ended up with something 13:57 

 3 they couldn't use in that situation. 13:57 

 4 But whether or not it would present a 13:57 

 5 Constitutional issue at that point, you know, 13:57 

 6 I -- make the last four appointments to the 13:57 

 7 court I suppose is the cynical way of looking 13:57 

 8 at it. 13:57 

 9 But then I would never say that, being a 13:57 

10 member of the district of Columbia bar. 13:57 

11 All I can tell you is I've been told in 13:57 

12 my career over and over again the things that 13:57 

13 couldn't be done because the courts were going 13:57 

14 to strike it down, and we're doing pretty well 13:57 

15 so far. 13:57 

16 MR. SCHWARTZ: Presumably if the 13:58 

17 crossings that are deemed to be appropriate 13:58 
18 for that kind of treatment, presumably those 13:58 

19 crossings would be ones that have a higher 13:58 

20 level of commercial traffic or industrial 13:58 

21 traffic with a going concern, holding the 13:58 

22 crossing in a position to contribute a 13:58 

23 substantial portion of the cost of doing that. 13:58 

24 You're not talking about putting up 13:58 

25 four-quad gates so a farmer can get over his 13:58 

 133 
 1 crossing to plow his field. You're talking 13:58 

 2 about a steel mill or a coal transload 13:58 

 3 facility or something like that where you got 13:58 

 4 a commercial business and it's going to be a 13:58 

 5 part of their cost of doing business. 13:58 

 6 And clearly to the extent that you're 13:58 

 7 putting active warning devices at these 13:58 

 8 crossings if that's what was mandated, the 13:58 

 9 railroad is under -- is going to incur an 13:58 

10 expense as well, a perpetual expense for the 13:58 

11 continued maintenance of that crossing. 13:59 

12 So we clearly would be undertaking some 13:59 

13 kind of burden as well, unless that cost is 13:59 

14 accounted in some kind of agreement. 13:59 

15 But again, if you're talking about doing 13:59 

16 this where you've got a going concern there, 13:59 

17 presumably there should be some kind of pot of 13:59 
18 money, perhaps with federal or state 13:59 

19 assistance, but there would be a pot of money 13:59 

20 to pay for the installation. 13:59 

21 MR. COTHEN: And I appreciate that. And 13:59 

22 I think that the happy correspondence of 13:59 

23 events, you know, would obtain in most cases. 13:59 

24 It's also true that litigation costs a 13:59 

25 lot of money on the other hand. 13:59 

 134 
 1 Carol Harris. 13:59 

 2 MS. HARRIS: Yes, this is Carol Harris, 13:59 

 3 Union Pacific. 13:59 

 4 And I just wanted to caution that in 13:59 

 5 terms of the definition and the way that 14:00 

 6 crossings get classified as public use, there 14:00 

 7 are -- you're dealing with so many different 14:00 

 8 kinds of fact patterns and situations, that in 14:00 

 9 itself could require quite an extensive 14:00 

10 examination. 14:00 

11 What they've got where we've done it in 14:00 

12 California, they have publicly-used private 14:00 

13 crossings, it's one category. But they're not 14:00 

14 defined as such until they've been 14:00 

15 judicially -- the commission has gone through 14:00 

16 and evaluated the situation and made a factual 14:00 

17 determination. I think in any kind of 14:00 
18 regulatory scenario you would have to have a 14:00 

19 process for that. 14:00 

20 And then in terms of the attention that 14:00 

21 they get for the in-depth examination of the 14:00 

22 safety evaluations, there would have to be 14:00 

23 some kind of a prioritization, because 14:01 

24 otherwise we would be left suddenly with 14:01 

25 thousands, conceivably, of these crossings 14:01 

 135 
 1 that would have to be addressed in -- there's 14:01 

 2 got to be some orderly fashion for working 14:01 

 3 through the inventory, because there would be 14:01 

 4 quite a few, whatever the thresholds are, that 14:01 

 5 are set for public. 14:01 

 6 MR. COTHEN: Well, without question. 14:01 

 7 Talking about progressive improvements in 14:01 

 8 safety here, nothing -- nothing happens in 14:01 

 9 this arena all at once without creating 14:01 

10 enormous disruption and disappointment. 14:01 

11 So Carol's point is that simply the 14:01 

12 designation of public is an issue. 14:01 

13 Seasonal or agricultural crossings, I 14:02 

14 think we talked about the notion of something 14:02 

15 just to deter casual use by those who are on 14:02 

16 the property for other reasons other than the 14:02 

17 principal reason the property is maintained. 14:02 
18 The farmer clearly knows the railroad's 14:02 

19 there, so we're not so worried about the 14:02 

20 farmer. 14:02 

21 There have been arrangements contemplated 14:02 

22 on passenger lines, higher-speed passenger 14:02 

23 lines over time that would require some kind 14:02 

24 of interlock that might require some kind of 14:02 

25 acknowledgement and release from a dispatching 14:02 

 136 
 1 center or through a train control system. And 14:02 

 2 that's perhaps a technology that's available 14:02 

 3 in a case that warrants it. 14:03 

 4 Mr. Burt? 14:03 

 5 MR. BURT: Just to pick up on that 14:03 

 6 thought, we have landowners who make money by 14:03 

 7 leasing out the property during certain 14:03 

 8 seasons to hunting clubs, to snowmobile 14:03 

 9 organizations, to ATV clubs. They most often 14:03 

10 do so without contacting the railroad. We may 14:03 

11 find out about it when we see signage, 14:03 

12 sometimes snowmobile clubs have gotten into 14:03 

13 the habit of putting up various types of 14:03 

14 signage in and around railroad crossings on 14:03 

15 railroad property, again, without notifying 14:03 

16 anybody. So that's the first time we find out 14:03 

17 about it. 14:03 
18 So there's a lot more in background than 14:03 

19 a simple agricultural versus nonagricultural, 14:03 

20 because most of these folks are attempting to 14:03 

21 keep up with the property tax burden and the 14:04 

22 costs of running a farm by doing side 14:04 

23 businesses that complicate this question 14:04 

24 frequently enormously. So just a thought. 14:04 

25 MR. COTHEN: You left out the paint ball 14:04 

 137 
 1 people. 14:04 

 2 Okay. Good point. And in a presenting 14:04 

 3 landscape that's changing, I'm sure, all the 14:04 

 4 time. 14:04 

 5 So, if we stirred up this pot, the last 14:04 

 6 pot we stirred, you know, was train horns, and 14:04 

 7 there's still people mending their wounds over 14:04 

 8 train horns. Probably will be for several 14:04 

 9 years to come. 14:04 

10 And, you know, our staff is basically 14:04 

11 saying about this issue -- I know they are 14:04 

12 because I have a listening device in the 14:05 

13 office. You know, that's not true, but I know 14:05 

14 what they're thinking, same thing I would 14:05 

15 think, and that is for crying out loud, let us 14:05 

16 get on top of the workload we've got. 14:05 

17 This would be obviously something for 14:05 
18 everyone concerned, railroads, state agencies 14:05 

19 involved, and private holders that would 14:05 

20 become, very rapidly, if we went to a 14:05 

21 regulatory model, something that would really 14:05 

22 kick up the dust. Really kick up the dust. 14:05 

23 And if we were to do something like this 14:05 

24 we would want to learn as much as we could 14:05 

25 from the efforts of states and others that 14:05 

 138 
 1 have had some success in this arena. And 14:05 

 2 that's one of the things we've been trying to 14:05 

 3 do with this road show. 14:05 

 4 The -- I'll tell you that I kind of get 14:06 

 5 three versions of it. I believe it's three 14:06 

 6 versions I get. I get a version from some 14:06 

 7 railroads who have been working successfully 14:06 

 8 in this area leave us alone, we're doing 14:06 

 9 pretty good; we're getting some -- we're 14:06 

10 getting a lot of them closed. 14:06 

11 And basically, you know, I think the 14:06 

12 message is we're not down to the point yet 14:06 

13 where we need anybody's help; there's still 14:06 

14 plenty of low-hanging fruit, and we just want 14:06 

15 to work on it. 14:06 

16 Now, those are -- that's one or two or 14:06 

17 more big railroads with good-sized law 14:06 
18 departments and lots of legal talent on 14:06 

19 retainer in the field. 14:06 

20 And so that's one thing to be taken into 14:06 

21 consideration, because you don't want to 14:06 

22 double the hill there, and if good things are 14:06 

23 getting done, then you don't want to 14:06 

24 interfere. 14:06 

25 Now, you've heard from Bill today, and we 14:06 

 139 
 1 heard elsewhere on the road, the difficulty 14:06 

 2 that the smaller railroads sometimes have. 14:07 

 3 And usually after really having gone out of 14:07 

 4 the way to explain things to people, to be 14:07 

 5 flexible about what they request, to take into 14:07 

 6 consideration the needs of the community in 14:07 

 7 which -- which they serve, and do they want to 14:07 

 8 be good corporate citizens and still facing 14:07 

 9 greater or lesser obstacles, depending upon 14:07 

10 where they're operating. But usually almost 14:07 

11 always significant obstacles. 14:07 

12 And then we have the public policy model 14:07 

13 which involves some sweetening in the sense of 14:07 

14 state or federal money involved to begin to 14:07 

15 work with these situations and get it done. 14:07 

16 And if there is an administrative process 14:08 

17 within the state that can be utilized, it's 14:08 
18 difficult, but there's some success. And then 14:08 

19 we hear but the courts may not weigh things in 14:08 

20 the balance quite the way that we do at the 14:08 

21 state government level. 14:08 

22 94,000, maybe only 90 left, depending 14:08 

23 upon what the inventory is, you know, how bad 14:08 

24 the inventory really is, maybe 87, but that's 14:08 

25 a lot. We got thousands and thousands still 14:08 

 140 
 1 out there. And anecdotally, but saying that 14:08 

 2 in a sense of lots of anecdotes, still 14:08 

 3 situations that could be a lot better, despite 14:08 

 4 the good efforts of many in this room over a 14:08 

 5 significant period of time now. 14:08 

 6 So we would assume that if there was some 14:09 

 7 public policy impetus from the federal level 14:09 

 8 to get this done somewhat more rapidly, like 14:09 

 9 in our lifetime, then we probably would need 14:09 

10 some kind of dispute resolution mechanisms. 14:09 

11 What the folks who study this a lot say, 14:09 

12 and the American Arbitration Association, the 14:09 

13 American Bar Association, there's a whole 14:09 

14 community out there of people who are involved 14:09 

15 in alternative dispute resolution, what they 14:09 

16 say is that we really ought to -- whenever we 14:09 

17 have the potential for folks going head to 14:09 
18 head in the courts in particular, we really 14:09 

19 ought to have mechanisms to deal with those 14:09 

20 issues short of tying up our court system. 14:09 

21 Or if it's not going to go through the 14:10 

22 courts, per se, at least on the facts and 14:10 

23 administrative law kind of system, because 14:10 

24 even an administrative law system can be 14:10 

25 extraordinarily costly and involve a lot of 14:10 

 141 
 1 time and money. And incidentally, is probably 14:10 

 2 as hard as courts to corral in terms of 14:10 

 3 keeping the eye on the ball in terms of 14:10 

 4 administrative -- that is, the public policy 14:10 

 5 objectives that are trying to be achieved. 14:10 

 6 There are various forms, and there are 14:10 

 7 people in the room, again, that know much more 14:10 

 8 about this than I do, of alternative dispute 14:10 

 9 resolution that are available, various models 14:10 

10 of mediation and arbitration that proceed in 14:10 

11 different ways. One can lead to another; the 14:10 

12 whole thing can stop right there. There can 14:10 

13 be recourse or no recourse depending upon the 14:10 

14 determination at arbitration, although 14:11 

15 normally -- normally arbitration is final, 14:11 

16 absent fraud or -- and here you go -- public 14:11 

17 policy being thrown out the door. And so we 14:11 
18 would want to describe processes that worked 14:11 

19 well. 14:11 

20 One possibility, and I don't even know if 14:11 

21 you could do this or not from a due process 14:11 

22 standpoint, would be to create a significant 14:11 

23 incentive, at least, for parties to use, 14:11 

24 shared cost ADR at the front end, before we 14:11 

25 got into more difficult types of conflict. 14:11 

 142 
 1 I mean, it's increasingly the case, I 14:12 

 2 believe, that the federal judges are in effect 14:12 

 3 intelligently forcing parties to evaluation of 14:12 

 4 the use of these kinds of alternatives in 14:12 

 5 order to manage caseloads. It would seem that 14:12 

 6 there should be a way for the Congress to do 14:12 

 7 it. 14:12 

 8 But probably at some point there would be 14:12 

 9 need for a safety valve, we hypothesize. If 14:12 

10 we had to do this from a federal level we 14:12 

11 would need a lot of help. And we hypothesize 14:12 

12 that states that already have existing 14:12 

13 mechanisms that are interested in working in 14:12 

14 this area and were responsive to whatever the 14:12 

15 federal policy was that came down could be 14:12 

16 recognized to handle the issues in order to 14:13 

17 bring more resources to bear and in order to 14:13 
18 ensure to the maximum extent possible needs of 14:13 

19 all the citizens in the state were taken into 14:13 

20 consideration. 14:13 

21 So that's that side. Now, what do you 14:13 

22 think? Can something like this be structured 14:13 

23 that would actually work? Or would we all be 14:13 

24 in the ditch within the first six months? 14:13 

25 What do you think? Yes, sir? 14:13 

 143 
 1 MR. LUND: Greg Lund, L-U-N-D, with the 14:13 

 2 Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers. 14:13 

 3 I'm just saying this as somebody that 14:13 

 4 will probably be on a locomotive tomorrow 14:13 

 5 going over one of these crossings. 14:14 

 6 The one thing that I see kind of missing 14:14 

 7 in all of this is essentially education. And 14:14 

 8 it's educating the general public as far as 14:14 

 9 what their responsibilities are when they come 14:14 

10 to either a private crossing when they see 14:14 

11 signage. It's something that can be 14:14 

12 accomplished on a state level through like 14:14 

13 driver education courses. I mean, most states 14:14 

14 require like a five-hour course before you 14:14 

15 license somebody, or in the retraining courses 14:14 

16 where essentially you're targeting your 14:14 

17 higher-risk drivers. A lot of your trucking 14:14 
18 companies require safety training. 14:14 

19 Does that safety training include what 14:14 

20 that -- what the driver's responsibilities are 14:14 

21 when they approach a cross? Maybe that's 14:14 

22 something that could be included in either the 14:14 

23 policy or the regulation, that there be some 14:14 

24 sort of educational requirement if, say, a 14:14 

25 company uses a private crossing on a regular 14:15 

 144 
 1 basis. 14:15 

 2 MR. COTHEN: Very good point. And 14:15 

 3 somewhere back up here we did reference 14:15 

 4 education; we haven't emphasized it. But to 14:15 

 5 the extent that we have problem crossings that 14:15 

 6 are industrial or commercial, particularly 14:15 

 7 industrial crossings, targeted education is a 14:15 

 8 very important aspect. 14:15 

 9 As you know so well, Operation Lifesaver, 14:15 

10 Inc., Federal Railroad Administration do a lot 14:15 

11 of this work, including with private and 14:15 

12 interstate truckers. 14:15 

13 But that clearly is something that can be 14:15 

14 included in the mix of mitigations and make a 14:15 

15 big difference if it's a sustained effort. 14:16 

16 Thank you. Other comments? Mr. Schwartz 14:16 

17 is back up, and then Mr. Burt. 14:16 
18 MR. SCHWARTZ: I think from our 14:16 

19 standpoint, this is not to downplay the 14:16 

20 importance of this aspect of the whole 14:16 

21 process, but up until now we've been talking 14:16 

22 about the substance of what the agency or the 14:16 

23 government should or shouldn't do in 14:16 

24 addressing the safety of private grade 14:16 

25 crossings. 14:16 

 145 
 1 If you can accomplish what that policy 14:16 

 2 should be, this -- I don't want to say this 14:16 

 3 part would be easy, but it should be easier. 14:16 

 4 This is -- this is implementation. 14:17 

 5 I don't mean to say it's easy, it isn't, 14:17 

 6 certainly won't be easy when you suddenly 14:17 

 7 change the status of 94,000 crossings. But if 14:17 

 8 you think -- it seems to me that the hard part 14:17 

 9 is coming up with policy or regulatory regime 14:17 

10 in the first place. And this part, addressing 14:17 

11 how you resolve disputes, will be a simpler 14:17 

12 matter. 14:17 

13 The government, the U.S. Government and 14:17 

14 all the state governments already have 14:17 

15 procedures in place to address disputes that 14:17 

16 arise out of regulations. So it strikes me as 14:17 

17 not beyond the ability of the FRA to design a 14:17 
18 process that does same thing. 14:17 

19 Some of these disputes may get very ugly 14:17 

20 because they will involve private property 14:17 

21 rights, and some guy who has had a crossing in 14:17 

22 the family for 180 years and all of a sudden 14:17 

23 he has to justify the existence of it, I mean, 14:18 

24 at some points it may not be very pretty. But 14:18 

25 if you can get the policy right or the 14:18 

 146 
 1 regulation right, this part I think won't be 14:18 

 2 as much of a struggle. It may be for the 14:18 

 3 first couple years, it may be very clogged up 14:18 

 4 and slow; presumably this whole process is 14:18 

 5 going to be rolled out over a period of time 14:18 

 6 anyway so that you're not going to have a rush 14:18 

 7 down to the ALJ 85,000 petitions on the first 14:18 

 8 day that the regulations go into effect, but I 14:18 

 9 think that this part shouldn't worry us as 14:18 

10 much as the other stuff. 14:18 

11 MR. COTHEN: Okay. Bill? 14:18 

12 MR. BURT: I've been listening throughout 14:18 

13 the whole day wondering how this will play 14:18 

14 when it's first taken out into the field, and 14:19 

15 I guess my comments here will be aimed at both 14:19 

16 the legalities of it and the education aspect 14:19 

17 of it. 14:19 
18 This audience seems to be knowledgeable 14:19 

19 and cares about railroad safety. What we 14:19 

20 encounter much of the time, and I think it's 14:19 

21 true of large railroads as well as small, is 14:19 

22 really a rampant attitude of entitlement on 14:19 

23 the part of the crossing holders and very 14:19 

24 little sense of responsibility; the 14:19 

25 responsibility for rail safety in particular. 14:19 

 147 
 1 The cutting edge of that that we've seen 14:19 

 2 in some cases is that when we even tried to 14:19 

 3 determine the legal status of the crossing, 14:19 

 4 the lawyers that were retained by their 14:19 

 5 clients, crossing holders, basically said do 14:19 

 6 your own legal research and stop bothering my 14:19 

 7 clients. And in a sense perhaps they were 14:19 

 8 within, strictly speaking, their legal rights 14:19 

 9 in that regard. 14:20 

10 I think there is an argument to be made 14:20 

11 for a broader understanding of the 14:20 

12 responsibilities of everyone concerned. You 14:20 

13 would think at a minimum that a crossing 14:20 

14 holder would have some shared responsibility 14:20 

15 to produce the documents if they have a deed 14:20 

16 in their possession to produce it and make it 14:20 

17 available to the railroad if the railroad 14:20 
18 doesn't have it. Is that too much to ask, for 14:20 

19 instance? 14:20 

20 So but my point here will be that we need 14:20 

21 to have that initiative beyond firm legal 14:20 

22 footing when it comes out of the box, and at 14:20 

23 the same time engage in a very strong effort 14:20 

24 to educate. 14:20 

25 I'm certain that the railroads would be 14:20 

 148 
 1 partners in that, but it will need to come 14:20 

 2 from whatever arm of government or arms of 14:20 

 3 government are involved in order to make it 14:20 

 4 clear that it is based on strong legal 14:20 

 5 footing. 14:20 

 6 If we have some legal basis to set aside 14:20 

 7 deeded crossings or modify the terms of deeded 14:21 

 8 crossings, we should be prepared to say so. 14:21 

 9 Much of the time -- and I'm sure this is 14:21 

10 part of the feedback you've been getting when 14:21 

11 you say that railroads say we've been making 14:21 

12 progress -- much of the time that progress can 14:21 

13 be made simply by engaging all parties and 14:21 

14 finding out what people have. But again, a 14:21 

15 lot of the time we can't even get to that 14:21 

16 point because there's a simple refusal to 14:21 

17 accept any responsibility and any need to 14:21 
18 engage. 14:21 

19 So I don't know how you overcome that, 14:21 

20 but it says to me that we have both a need for 14:21 

21 a good, strong legal approach on this and also 14:21 

22 education. That point is an excellent point. 14:21 

23 And it's probably the single biggest part of 14:21 

24 what we need to overcome out there right now 14:21 

25 at the cutting edge of it is just the simple 14:21 

 149 
 1 lack of understanding of what these issues are 14:21 

 2 all about, with people on one hand saying we 14:21 

 3 have all the rights and none of the 14:21 

 4 responsibilities, and the railroads the 14:21 

 5 railroads. 14:22 

 6 MR. COTHEN: Okay. Thank you. 14:22 

 7 Any further thoughts right here? 14:22 

 8 Just to let you know, Federal Railroad 14:22 

 9 Administration has one hearing officer, and he 14:22 

10 handles all the locomotive engineer 14:22 

11 certification, appeals for the nation. Does a 14:22 

12 good job, makes the parties work. And DOT has 14:22 

13 a small stable of ALJs. But I think we're 14:22 

14 looking at a budget request to go with this 14:22 

15 policy, if that's the one we choose. 14:22 

16 Okay. This is good stuff. You all are 14:23 

17 doing a good job today. 14:23 
18 Here is one that always churns up some 14:23 

19 interest, and that's the national crossing 14:23 

20 inventory. 14:23 

21 Back at the shop our folks have been 14:23 

22 working hard to improve the means by which 14:23 

23 updates can be provided. My understanding is 14:23 

24 we've segmented the field so responsibility is 14:23 

25 clearer. It's all been pretty clear for 14:23 

 150 
 1 private crossings; the railroads have got the 14:23 

 2 responsibility. 14:23 

 3 If we did a more aggressive effort in 14:23 

 4 this area we would either need on the policy 14:23 

 5 side to find ways of addressing things on a 14:23 

 6 retail basis in terms of the use of diagnostic 14:23 

 7 teams, which would be a whole new model since 14:24 

 8 we don't have a highway traffic authority to 14:24 

 9 go out there with us. We would need to study 14:24 

10 low-cost solutions, which is something 14:24 

11 actually we're always doing in the crossing 14:24 

12 area, and studying new inventory technology. 14:24 

13 I think it's fair to say -- Ron, you want 14:24 

14 to comment a little bit on this -- that 14:24 

15 Rinelle Rivera back at our shop is looking at 14:24 

16 a variety of options for easing the updating 14:24 

17 of the inventory. 14:24 
18 MR. RIES: We are currently involved in a 14:24 

19 pilot project with CSX using realtime internet 14:24 

20 transfer of information using XML type of 14:24 

21 protocol, and I'll be real honest with you, I 14:24 

22 don't understand what that is, but the system 14:24 

23 would enable state and/or railroad to provide 14:24 

24 information to the inventory. It would do a 14:25 

25 lot -- do the auto-checks, make sure that 14:25 

 151 
 1 everything is compatible with the field that's 14:25 

 2 being entered into, much the same that our 14:25 

 3 contractor does now. 14:25 

 4 And then once it -- if it doesn't meet 14:25 

 5 the parameters it would get sent back 14:25 

 6 immediately so the state or railroad would 14:25 

 7 know that there's a problem, rather than 14:25 

 8 waiting for the batch process, which depending 14:25 

 9 on when it's sent in by the state or railroad, 14:25 

10 could take up to 60 days for it to be returned 14:25 

11 to them. And also it would enable a much 14:25 

12 faster update of the inventory information 14:25 

13 that would be available to the public. 14:25 

14 MR. COTHEN: So hopefully we'll see this 14:25 

15 get better. As you know, the department has 14:25 

16 also sent a Bill to the Hill that would 14:25 

17 require mandatory updating of the inventory by 14:25 
18 railroads and states on a periodic basis, and 14:25 

19 including getting any crossings in that are 14:26 

20 not in there today. 14:26 

21 It looks like we -- well, we do have 14:26 

22 support in the House of Representatives for 14:26 

23 that bill, and it looks like we may get 14:26 

24 support as of today from the United States 14:26 

25 Senate. 14:26 

 152 
 1 The railroads obviously have a difficult 14:26 

 2 task in addressing -- see if I can make this 14:26 

 3 work. Here is the crossing inventory form, 14:26 

 4 two pages. And there is the portion of 14:26 

 5 this -- I don't know how Miriam pulled this 14:26 

 6 off -- but those are the fields that are 14:26 

 7 filled out for private crossings. 14:26 

 8 And it's a much more modest dataset. And 14:26 

 9 railroads of course have been instrumental in 14:26 

10 getting the information that we do have into 14:26 

11 inventory. If we were to make -- take a 14:26 

12 risk-based approach to private crossings, we 14:27 

13 would need additional data. And the 14:27 

14 possibility of getting that data from tens of 14:27 

15 thousands of crossing holders is slim to none. 14:27 

16 So it would probably mean some additional 14:27 

17 burden on the railroads to give us some 14:27 
18 information about the characteristics of the 14:27 

19 traffic over the crossing at least. And I 14:27 

20 suppose we need more on the geometry. What do 14:27 

21 we need? Miriam? 14:27 

22 MS. KLOEPPEL: Well, you -- currently the 14:27 

23 risk calculations that we perform for public 14:27 

24 crossings include such information as the 14:28 

25 number of trains that go over the crossing, 14:28 

 153 
 1 the amount of highway traffic that goes over 14:28 

 2 the crossing -- and feel free to pitch in too, 14:28 

 3 Ron -- the number of accidents that have 14:28 

 4 occurred at that crossing within a certain 14:28 

 5 number of years. 14:28 

 6 MR. RIES: Train speed, number of lanes 14:28 

 7 of traffic, number of tracks, and the type of 14:28 

 8 warning device. The setting, whether it's 14:28 

 9 urban or rural, is also used. 14:28 

10 MR. COTHEN: So we would have a big job, 14:28 

11 which, again, if we did it, it couldn't be 14:28 

12 done all at once and would need to be 14:28 

13 prioritized. 14:28 

14 And then we would need to build a -- 14:28 

15 either from scratch or off the existing APF 14:28 

16 suite we would need to build a risk calculator 14:29 

17 for use in determining warrants for these 14:29 
18 crossings. 14:29 

19 Any regime that we had would also need 14:29 

20 some impetus to ensure that upon inquiry 14:29 

21 crossing holders would provide at least some 14:29 

22 information to the railroad. Because I don't 14:29 

23 think it's reasonable to suppose we're going 14:29 

24 to have railroads putting out traffic 14:29 

25 counters, for instance. And that would need 14:29 

 154 
 1 to be a part of the agreement process. 14:29 

 2 Arguing against doing something like this 14:29 

 3 is thousands and thousands of data points that 14:29 

 4 have to be kept up over a long period of time. 14:29 

 5 Arguing for it would be the ability to focus 14:30 

 6 potentially on areas of greatest need, get the 14:30 

 7 job done there, and get it done over a shorter 14:30 

 8 period of time, with tools, hopefully -- some 14:30 

 9 tools provided from the federal level. 14:30 

10 Thoughts; current concerns; 14:30 

11 considerations; unfunded mandates? Anybody? 14:30 

12 We've also had discussions on the road 14:30 

13 about the possibility that state governments 14:30 

14 could produce the public -- the highway side 14:30 

15 portion of the inventory here. And, you know, 14:30 

16 it's -- it doesn't sound too plausible, 14:31 

17 frankly, from what we've been told. 14:31 
18 And it is private property, in many cases 14:31 

19 we're talking about, in order to just simply 14:31 

20 even access the site. The railroad can do it 14:31 

21 on a high rail vehicle. The railroad may have 14:31 

22 some privity with these individual crossing 14:31 

23 holders, or should by agreement, and so that 14:31 

24 seems to be the logical channel for 14:31 

25 information to come in through it. 14:31 

 155 
 1 But it's one more thing for very large 14:31 

 2 railroads to do on a very large scale. 14:31 

 3 Ms. Harris? 14:31 

 4 MS. HARRIS: Yeah, I think -- I think one 14:31 

 5 of the biggest problems of -- you noted that 14:31 

 6 the traffic volumes would be difficult. We 14:31 

 7 can't establish traffic counters, obviously, 14:31 

 8 at these crossings. But also ascertaining the 14:31 

 9 public character of the crossings is very 14:31 

10 tough. 14:31 

11 Now, it's possible that under a 14:31 

12 regulatory approach there could be some burden 14:32 

13 on the crossing holder to disclose that, and 14:32 

14 maybe even some liability that would flow if 14:32 

15 they didn't disclose it. 14:32 

16 I mean, I think that it should be 14:32 

17 incumbent upon them. If they're operating 14:32 
18 seasonal Christmas tree farms or this kind of 14:32 

19 thing where they are inviting the public onto 14:32 

20 the property, they're going to know about it. 14:32 

21 Or even if it's multiple use, they should know 14:32 

22 about it. 14:32 

23 And it's very hard for the railroad to 14:32 

24 start that out because we don't know 14:32 

25 whether -- even if we could count the 14:32 

 156 
 1 vehicles, we don't know whether they're 14:32 

 2 invited guests or not. Or where they're 14:32 

 3 going. 14:32 

 4 MR. COTHEN: Excellent point. So you 14:32 

 5 want to keep your crossing, you need to ante 14:32 

 6 up some information, would be the theory that 14:32 

 7 would be obtained. Which is arguably fair, 14:33 

 8 but not only fair, necessary in order to have 14:33 

 9 a risk-based approach. 14:33 

10 It does not ask too much of crossing 14:33 

11 holders but asks what's reasonable from those 14:33 

12 who need to respond. 14:33 

13 Other thoughts about data? Anybody got 14:33 

14 some ready-made sources of data that we could 14:33 

15 plug into the computer? Bring any tapes with 14:33 

16 you? Or what's the media now? I guess it's 14:33 

17 DVD these days. 14:33 
18 Okay. Miriam and Anya included a chart 14:33 

19 here that shows that we've used in previous 14:34 

20 meetings on the data elements that are 14:34 

21 collected currently from public and private 14:34 

22 crossings. I think the railroad probably 14:34 

23 knows the train counts for those private 14:34 

24 crossings. 14:34 

25 But certainly the issue of the traffic 14:34 

 157 
 1 and the characteristics of the traffic over 14:34 

 2 the crossing is something that would be very 14:34 

 3 difficult to catch as you're going by at 14:34 

 4 49 miles an hour. 14:34 

 5 Okay. That's the set piece part of this 14:34 

 6 conference. Maybe something we put up or 14:34 

 7 something someone else said has caused 14:34 

 8 somebody to have a thought about a dimension 14:34 

 9 of this issue that we haven't even considered 14:34 

10 today. 14:35 

11 The floor is open. And again, we looked 14:35 

12 at this and had a conference in 1993, and 14:35 

13 everybody said this problem can't be solved. 14:35 

14 But people have been working on it ever since. 14:35 

15 We've come back to it now, and we need 14:35 

16 final recommendations to give to our 14:35 

17 administrator and the Secretary as to a 14:35 
18 direction to take. 14:35 

19 Shall we fold our tents; shall we charge 14:35 

20 boldly ahead into the valley; or some 14:35 

21 combination thereof? 14:35 

22 Yes, sir? 14:35 

23 MR. LOUIS: Thank you. James Louis, 14:36 

24 L-O-U-I-S. I'm the treasurer of the New York 14:36 

25 State Legislative Board, and I'm the Alternate 14:36 

 158 
 1 General Chairman for the Conrail-CSX-Northern 14:36 

 2 Committee. 14:36 

 3 I'm representing Vice President and 14:36 

 4 National Legislative Chairman John Tolman, 14:36 

 5 who's also unable to be here today because 14:36 

 6 he's testifying before the Senate on the rail 14:36 

 7 bill. 14:36 

 8 But John asked me if he could pass along 14:36 

 9 his regrets for not being here, especially 14:36 

10 because this one was being held, of course, as 14:36 

11 John puts it, in Joe Boardman's neighborhood, 14:36 

12 and because Central New York is proud of 14:36 

13 Administrator Boardman's accomplishments, as 14:36 

14 we are proud of our working relationship that 14:36 

15 we have with the Administrator and with the 14:36 

16 FRA under his leadership. 14:36 

17 On February 15th we submitted comments 14:36 
18 to the dockets in this matter, which I would 14:36 

19 like to incorporate by reference at this time. 14:36 

20 Having done that, we'd now like to 14:36 

21 specifically comment on the discussion draft 14:36 

22 previously circulated by the FRA. 14:36 

23 We generally concur with the FRA 14:36 

24 findings. Furthermore, we support an approach 14:37 

25 to a problem of private crossing safety that 14:37 

 159 
 1 involves all relative stakeholders to ensure 14:37 

 2 that the policy development is thorough. 14:37 

 3 It appears to us that the most 14:37 

 4 significant difference between the two options 14:37 

 5 proposed by the FRA is that option A would 14:37 

 6 have the FRA take a point of developing, 14:37 

 7 promoting, and implementing a national policy 14:37 

 8 to standardize the various processes by which 14:37 

 9 private road crossing safety can be enhanced, 14:37 

10 while option B would provide the statutory 14:37 

11 framework within the FRA to oversee the safety 14:37 

12 enhancements. 14:37 

13 We applaud the bold action proposed by 14:37 

14 the FRA in dealing aggressively with the 14:37 

15 private road crossing safety; moreover, we are 14:37 

16 confident the FRA has what it takes to produce 14:37 

17 a national success with option A. 14:37 
18 That being said, however, we favor option 14:37 

19 B. We do so because we believe option B is 14:37 

20 more likely to produce a greater degree of 14:37 

21 improved private crossing safety in the 14:38 

22 broadest possible way. 14:38 

23 The first proposed option requires that a 14:38 

24 level of enthusiasm, the commitment on the 14:38 

25 part of each state that equals the energy that 14:38 

 160 
 1 the FRA has brought forth in this process in 14:38 

 2 order to maintain maximum success. Given 14:38 

 3 sometime the vast differences in the available 14:38 

 4 resources and the laws among the various 14:38 

 5 states, we question whether it's realistic to 14:38 

 6 expect that across-the-board commitment by 14:38 

 7 states to treat private road crossings as a 14:38 

 8 priority issue in absence of a strong federal 14:38 

 9 incentive. 14:38 

10 We believe the legislation approach 14:38 

11 outlined in option B provides that such an 14:38 

12 incentive. Legislation as outlined in option 14:38 

13 B will focus the attention of all states on 14:38 

14 the needs to prioritize private crossing 14:38 

15 safety in a way that can lead to the 14:38 

16 development and implementation of policies to 14:38 

17 harmonize the current jumble of conditions. 14:38 
18 Further, those states who do share our 14:38 

19 commitment of the serious improvements can 14:39 

20 step up to the plate. Even the state 14:39 

21 certification process. 14:39 

22 Finally, option B provides railroads a 14:39 

23 single set of conditions with dealing with 14:39 

24 crossing holders. 14:39 

25 These advantages will, we believe, 14:39 

 161 
 1 maximize the positive safety outcome, and 14:39 

 2 therefore, best serve our interest. 14:39 

 3 Of course, because I am filling in for 14:39 

 4 Brother John Tolman today, I would ask you to 14:39 

 5 direct any question you have to his attention. 14:39 

 6 And I thank you very much. 14:39 

 7 MR. COTHEN: Thank you, sir. I've got 14:39 

 8 John's testimony in my computer here if 14:39 

 9 anybody wants to see what he's saying today. 14:39 

10 Actually, my computer is over there. 14:39 

11 Sorry John couldn't be here. We 14:39 

12 appreciate your bringing the views from BLET. 14:39 

13 Anyone else? Yes, sir? 14:39 

14 MR. SALTZ: Brian Saltz, Long Island 14:40 

15 Railroad. I know we've talked today about the 14:40 

16 cost issues and federal funding, but has there 14:40 

17 been -- when all is said and done, is there a 14:40 
18 belief on how much of these costs will be on 14:40 

19 the railroads, and do we expect to get the 14:40 

20 federal funds to have this done? 14:40 

21 MR. COTHEN: I think an important thing 14:40 

22 to do is to -- before we get too much farther 14:40 

23 down this road is to understand what kind of 14:40 

24 impacts, order of magnitude we're talking 14:40 

25 about. 14:40 

 162 
 1 You know, my own sense is that certainly 14:40 

 2 new start-up commuter railroads, for instance, 14:40 

 3 generally have made a pretty good effort to 14:40 

 4 get the private crossings out at time when -- 14:40 

 5 as part of the design process, and where 14:40 

 6 they're not able to get them out to include in 14:41 

 7 the initial capital investment a standard 14:41 

 8 array of automated warning devices. 14:41 

 9 So that's just in the case of commuter 14:41 

10 railroads. Commuter railroads that are a 14:41 

11 legacy system that are working off some of 14:41 

12 these issues on branch lines and so forth, you 14:41 

13 know, may have needs that we simply don't 14:41 

14 understand. But we need to understand them. 14:41 

15 So, you know, for instance, on behalf of 14:41 

16 Long Island Railroad, which carries more 14:41 

17 passengers than any other passenger railroad 14:41 
18 in the United States, if you've got some 14:41 

19 information you can give us about what you see 14:41 

20 on your property, that would help us to 14:41 

21 understand what we need to be asking for. 14:41 

22 Right now there's nothing, quote, in the 14:42 

23 works, that's going to provide a new pot of 14:42 

24 money to address this need from a federal 14:42 

25 standpoint. But if there are impacts on 14:42 

 163 
 1 federal transit administration budget or 14:42 

 2 Federal Highway Administration budget or 14:42 

 3 Federal Railroad Administration budget, that's 14:42 

 4 one of the things we need to understand. 14:42 

 5 MR. BURT: On behalf of the Railroads of 14:42 

 6 New York, once again I would like to thank you 14:42 

 7 and your colleagues at FRA for taking an 14:42 

 8 interest and the work you've put into these 14:42 

 9 road shows, as you put it. 14:42 

10 I think we're all at an early stage in -- 14:42 

11 engaged in this process, but obviously, as you 14:42 

12 indicated, the thought process in your shop 14:43 

13 has gone on for a number of years. 14:43 

14 I believe I can speak for our 14:43 

15 organization in saying that we urge you not to 14:43 

16 accept the advice that the problem can't be 14:43 

17 solved, so that it's worth sticking to it; 14:43 
18 it's worth progressing. I'm not sure any of 14:43 

19 us here in the room knows exactly what we 14:43 

20 would do to fix it, but it needs to be fixed. 14:43 

21 And with that, I've been impressed with 14:43 

22 the level of seriousness of the discussion all 14:43 

23 around the room, and we look forward to 14:43 

24 working with you as we go forward on this and 14:43 

25 other issues. 14:43 

 164 
 1 MR. COTHEN: Thanks very much. If 14:43 

 2 there's -- that's a good note to end on if 14:43 

 3 there are no further necessary comments. 14:43 

 4 I do want to -- I do want to say that we 14:43 

 5 had hoped that coming out, you know, would 14:43 

 6 draw in some folks who had issues with private 14:43 

 7 crossings because their residence is on the 14:43 

 8 other side of the tracks. 14:43 

 9 We've had a few of those folks, a very 14:43 

10 few of those folks happily in other meetings 14:44 

11 have come in, but we really would have wished 14:44 

12 to expand this discussion further. And, in 14:44 

13 fact, the Volpe Center on our behalf has made 14:44 

14 a number of contacts with a number of 14:44 

15 organizations representing those kinds of 14:44 

16 interests in a specific targeted effort to get 14:44 

17 them involved. 14:44 
18 That's I think our only serious regret at 14:44 

19 the end of this series of public conferences, 14:44 

20 that we didn't hear more from those folks. 14:44 

21 But we understand they too have busy lives, 14:44 

22 and we'll try to take their concerns into 14:44 

23 consideration as we go forward. 14:44 

24 Thanks to everybody, staff for putting 14:44 

25 this together. Thanks very much to New York 14:44 

 165 
 1 DOT for hosting us here and for participating 14:45 

 2 actively in the meeting. Thanks to all of you 14:45 

 3 who came, some of you from a good, long way, 14:45 

 4 to participate in the meeting and to listen 14:45 

 5 and learn, as we have tried to do. 14:45 

 6 And we promise to put in the docket this 14:45 

 7 fall a report summarizing our findings and 14:45 

 8 probably at some point after that a addendum 14:45 

 9 that will indicate clearly the policy 14:45 

10 direction that we're going to take, there 14:45 

11 having been decisions by folks well above our 14:45 

12 level. 14:45 

13 But I know Administrator Boardman would 14:46 

14 want me to note again his distress at not 14:46 

15 being with you today and not having the 14:46 

16 opportunity to hear from you directly. He did 14:46 

17 want to be here; he does take this issue very 14:46 
18 seriously; and he does miss the opportunity to 14:46 

19 be back in New York. That's when he seems to 14:46 

20 smile the broadest, when he's heading back 14:46 

21 home. 14:46 

22 If there's nothing else, we will stand 14:46 

23 adjourned. Thanks to everybody. 14:46 

24 (The proceeding was concluded at 2:46 PM.) 14:46 

 166 
 1 C E R T I F I C A T I O N 

 2 

 3 

 4 I, SALLYANNE B. MAIORANO, Registered Merit 

 5 Reporter, Certified Realtime Reporter, Certified CART 

 6 Provider, Certified Shorthand Reporter, and Notary Public in 

 7 and for the State of New York, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that I 

 8 attended the foregoing proceedings, took stenographic notes 

 9 of the same, that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of 

10 same and the whole thereof. 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 
18 

19 _________________________________________ 

20 SALLYANNE B. MAIORANO, RMR, CRR, CCP, CSR 

21 

22 

23 Dated: August 7, 2007 

24 

25 

 167 
BEFORE THE

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

DOCKET NO. FRA-2005-23281:

SAFETY OF PRIV A TE HIGHWAY-RAIL GRADE

CROSSINGS: NOTICE OF SAFETY INQUIRY

COMMENTS OF THE

ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS

The Association of American Railroads (AAR),l on behalf of itself and its

member railroads, submits the following written comments regarding FRA' s

inquiry into the safety of private highway-rail grade crossings. AAR and member

railroads participated in each of the public meetings conducted by FRA on this

issue. These comments supplement statements made by AAR representatives at

those meetings.

Grade-crossing safety is of paramount concern to the railroad industry.

While the number of grade-crossing fatalities has declined 56 percent since 1980

and 47 percent since 1990, grade-crossing accidents do account for 40 percent of

the railroad industr's fatalities. As the statistics published by FRA show, a

significant percentage of the grade-crossing fatalities, roughly 10 percent, are

attributable to private crossings.

There are a wide variety of private grade crossings, ranging from agricultural

crossings that might be used only a couple of times annually to crossings widely

used by the public, but located on private property. From a public safety

perspective, the crossings of most concern are the quasi-public crossings that are

1 AAR is a trade association whose membership includes freight railroads that

operate 76 percent of the line-haul mileage, employ 93 percent of the workers, and

account for 95 percent of the freight revenue of all railroads in the United States;

and passenger railroads that operate intercity passenger trains and provide

commuter rail service.
private in name but that have a traffic volume that closely resembles public

crossings.

A significant problem with these quasi-public crossings is that while they

present all the problems that public crossings do, public agencies generally do not

take responsibility for the crossings from a safety perspective. It would make sense

for public authorities to take responsibility for such crossings. After all, private

crossings do not exist for the benefit of the railroad industry.

Another step that would make sense would be to prohibit the creation of new

private crossings unless there was a specific agreement with the railroad owning the

track and a public authority determines that the crossing is needed. Agreements

ensure that responsibilities for the crossing are well understood.

Of course, the best solution to grade-crossing accidents of all types is to close

grade crossings. While many grade crossings are a necessary component of a

transportation system and cannot be closed, some are redundant and can be closed

relatively easily and in other cases it is worth the investment to separate the motor

vehicle traffic from the railroad right-of-way or secure rights to alternative access

that avoids an at-grade crossing. Grade-crossing closure is a specific objective of

DOT's 2004 action plan for highway-rail crossing safety and should remain a

Department objective.2 In particular, AAR encourages rail corridor crossing safety

reviews that focus on identifying opportnities for closure and consolidation of both

public and private crossings.

For the public meetings, FRA circulated an "options paper" containing two

options. AAR's comments on the two options follow.

Option A provides for a new "National Policy" addressing private grade

crossings. It contains some laudable policies, such as:

2Secretary's Action Plan: Highway-Rail Crossing Safety and Trespass

Prevention, p. 8 (http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/safety/action--lan_2004.pdt).

2
. a declaration that new private crossings are disfavored except where the

need is clearly established;

. a declaration that every private crossing should have a recorded agreement;

. a declaration that states should be notified of land use changes that might

affect safety at a private crossing; and

. national guidelines for diagnostic teams evaluating private crossings.

It is unclear that option A would actually result in any improvements. Many of the

objectives are admirable, but option A avoids the difficult question of how to

accomplish them. Indeed, many of the objectives have been discussed before.

Merely identifying the objectives in a national policy would not bring the nation

significantly closer to accomplishing them.

Furthermore, option A would rely heavily on encouraging states to increase

involvement in safety at private crossings even though most states do not choose to

exercise jurisdiction over private crossings and there is little reason to believe that

mere encouragement of such involvement would actually yield positive results. At

best, adoption of recommended standards by some states and not others would lead

only to widely divergent and inconsistent practices across the countr.

Under option B, Congress would explicitly give DOT the authority to

regulate safety at private grade crossings. DOT regulations would embody some of

the same objectives contained in option A and would include the following features:

. provide a procedure for railroads, state agencies, and FRA to challenge the

creation of new private crossings;

. provide a procedure for railroads to challenge the continued necessity for

existing private crossings;

. require agreements between railroads and the holders of private crossing

rights;

3
. provide a dispute resolution procedure where disputes arise between

railroads and holders of private crossing rights;

. specify signage;

. require signage or locked gates for agricultural crossings where train speed

exceeds 25 mph;

. require the approval of a railroad dispatcher to cross where the maximum

authorized train speed exceeds 49 mph;

.. treat "public use" private crossings as if they were public crossings for the

purposes of signage and train horns; and

. require railroads to include private crossings in their inventories.

It is unclear to AAR why FRA is suggesting new legislation for Option B. It would

be problematic if legislation were necessary, because it is extremely unlikely

legislation would be enacted in the foreseeable future. Rail safety reauthorization

legislation is currently winding its way through Congress and it likely wil be a

considerable period of time before a new reauthorization bil is considered. A

second problem with Option B is that such an approach is likely to engender

considerable opposition from holders of private crossing rights and the general

public at large. (For example, communities might strongly oppose the proposal to

treat private crossings the same as public crossings for the purpose of sounding the

train horn.) A third problem is that there has been no analysis showing that the

benefits of the various provisions would be commensurate with the costs, i.e.,

would the provisions really enhance safety at private crossings? Finally, while

AAR believes it premature to address all the details of this option, the concept of

using a railroad dispatcher to control motor vehicle traffic is inimical to safety.

AAR recognizes that it is "easy to be a critic." Clearly, there is no simple

solution to the "problem" of private crossings. AAR does believe that the public

meetings in this docket have been very helpful in shedding light on this difficult

situation and in identifying some of the constraints on government intervention at

the federal, state, and local levels. AAR and its members are certainly wiling to

explore with FRA and other interested parties ways that FRA could work with the

4
railroads to improve the safety of private crossings. For example, government can

playa useful role in promoting public education and should consider incentive

programs similar to the Section 130 program for public crossings.

Respectfully submitted,

~~

Louis P. Warchot

Michael J. Rush

Counsel for the Association

of American Railroads

50 F St., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20001

(202) 639-2503

September 28, 2007

5

Appendix A.8 

State Law Compilations 
Private Crossings: State Laws Outline 6/4/2008

1999 

edition

Supplement or State 

MUTCD (as of 2005)

$ Provided by 

FRA In 2002 RHCSAPSP Comments

Region1

CT 1 XX X

ME 1 XMA 1 X X XNH 1 X

State Law states that when it is determined that a private crossing is being used to an extent that it may be considered a public highway, the State may require the grade crossing to be laid out as a public highway, constructed and equipped as such. The railroad will not be charged.

NJ 1 X Railroads must provide and keep in good condition all private crossings.

NY 1 X X X $1,500,000 X If any new private crossing is established, the state may prescribe the manner of the crossing, whether it is to be at grade or separated, the location, the type of warning devices and the apportionment of the responsibility for maintenance thereof.

RI 1 X The state may close a private crossing if it is deemed hazardous to safety.

VT 1

Region 2

DE 2 X X

MD 2 X X The conversion of a private road grade crossing to a public highway grade crossing is a projection of a public highway over the railroad by the public authority taking jurisdiction of the private road.

OH 2 X X X $163,000 X

PA 2 XVA 2 X X X The state forbids the construction of at-grade crossings of railroads and private roads. Such crossings must be grade separated.

WV 2 X (under development)

Region 3

AL 3 X $383,000 XFL 3 X X

The state requires crossbuck signs be erected at all private highway-rail crossings. The state also requires all traffic control devices, including those signs and pavement markings on private property where the public is invited, to meet MUTCD standards

GA 3 X

KY 3 X

MS 3 X $1,417,000

NC 3 X The state will close all private crossings where feasible and protect the ones that will remain open with crossbucks, automatic flashers, signals and gates

SC 3 X X $800,000 The state is to protect private road crossings as the law requires them to protect public highways

TN 3 X

Region 4

IL 4 X X

IN 4 X X

MI 4 X X X State law states that any unauthorized traffic control device or other sign or message placed on highway right-of-way by a private organization should be removed.

MN 4 X X X $250,000 X The state shall adopt rules that establish minimum safety standards at all private railroad grade crossings in the state.

WI 4 X X $250,000 X

Region 5

AR 5

LA 5 X $200,000

NM 5

OK 5 X The railroad is required by state law to build and maintain a private crossing upon request

TX 5 X X

U.S. Department of Transportation / Research and Innovative Technologies Administration / John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center RR97 / CG064 Page 1 of 2
Private Crossings: State Laws Outline 6/4/2008

1999 

edition

Supplement or State 

MUTCD (as of 2005)

$ Provided by 

FRA In 2002 RHCSAPSP Comments

Region 6

CO 6 X

IA 6 X In section 321.259, the state law states that all unauthorized signs, signals and markings are prohibited on public and private property

KS 6 X X The railroad is required by state law to build and maintain a private crossing upon request

MO 6 X X

If it is determined that a private crossing is utilized by the public to such an extent that it is necessary to protect the public safety, then the state may order the installation of crossing warning devices and apportion the cost among the parties according to the benefits accruing to each

NE 6 X X X The state has jurisdiction over all crossings outside of incorporated villages, towns, and cities, both public and private, across, over or under all railroads in the state.

Region 7

AZ 7 X

CA 7 X X X $200,000 X The state may order STOP signs be placed at all farm and private crossings where no automatic gates exist, unless the signs would constitute an additional safety hazard.

NV 7UT 7 X X

Region 8

AK 8 X X Alaska is mentioned in the Railroad-Highway Crossing Safety Action Plan Support Proposal as a state who has acted to standardize responsibilities and treatments for private crossings

ID 8 X

MT 8ND 8

OR 8 X X X The state shall, at every private crossing with no automatic protective device installed, install and maintain one or more stop signs. Also, private property owners are encouraged to conform to the MUTCD when installing devices.

SD 8 X State law reserves the right to order railroads to construct and maintain a private crossing.

WA 8 X

WY 8

U.S. Department of Transportation / Research and Innovative Technologies Administration / John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center RR97 / CG064 Page 2 of 2

Appendix A.9 

Statistical Data Review 

A.9 - 1
Year Public Private Total

1985 6353 566 6919

1986 5868 528 6396

1987 5859 532 6391

1988 6025 590 6615

1989 5979 546 6525

1990 5235 481 5716

1991 4862 525 5387

1992 4478 449 4927

1993 4480 455 4935

1994 4523 476 4999

1995 4168 481 4649

1996 3799 469 4268

1997 3416 451 3867

1998 3097 424 3521

1999 3110 402 3512

2000 3113 476 3589

2001 2843 394 3237

2002 2709 368 3077

2003 2607 370 2977

2004 2654 423 3077

2005 2633 420 3053

2006 2505 419 2924

TOTAL 90316 10245 100561

Max 6353 590 6919

Min 2505 368 2924

% Change 60.6% 37.6% 57.7%

Source: US DOT FRA RAIRS Database, October 2007

Crossing Incidents, 1985-2006

A.9 - 2
Year Incidents Fatalities Injuries

1985 566 45 137

1986 528 38 110

1987 532 26 107

1988 590 37 150

1989 546 44 141

1990 481 49 130

1991 525 43 140

1992 449 44 130

1993 455 41 83

1994 476 43 107

1995 481 54 117

1996 469 39 122

1997 451 42 133

1998 424 43 97

1999 402 39 136

2000 476 56 140

2001 394 35 119

2002 368 41 133

2003 370 34 114

2004 423 38 137

2005 420 30 128

2006 419 44 133

Source: US DOT FRA RAIRS Database, October 2007

Collision at Private Crossings, 1986-2006

A.9 - 3
Gates Lights1

Other Active 

Warning Devices2 Crossbucks StopSign Other3 None Total

Private 122 183 36 1289 1432 137 948 4147

Public 8860 6272 376 9927 2988 97 167 28687

Source: US DOT FRA RAIRS Database, October 2007

1 Light includes incident at crossing with Standard & Cantilever Flashing Lights

Number of Incidents at Crossings by Warning Devices, 1997-2006

2

 Other Active Warning Devices includes incidents at WigWag, Highway Traffic Signal, and Audible

3

 Other includes incidents at crossing with Watchman, Flagged by Crew, and Other

A.9 - 4
0 to <10 10 to <20 20 to <30 30 to <40 40 to <50 50 to <60 60 to <70 70 to <80 80 to <90 90 to <100 00 to <110 TOTAL

1997 110 49 64 52 110 43 8 9 0 1 1 447

1998 126 50 53 59 81 29 12 12 0 0 1 423

1999 132 37 48 55 68 33 10 16 0 0 0 399

2000 135 51 56 73 77 53 10 14 1 0 0 470

2001 105 46 40 65 74 39 8 14 0 0 0 391

2002 102 36 52 43 63 39 11 16 2 0 0 364

2003 97 39 59 55 66 27 11 12 0 0 0 366

2004 113 51 59 66 81 31 11 6 2 0 0 420

2005 135 40 45 70 70 37 8 9 0 0 0 414

2006 139 36 53 56 74 37 10 11 0 0 0 416

TOTAL 1194 435 529 594 764 368 99 119 5 1 2 4110

Note: 2.25% of the incident data were not coded for train speed.

Source: US DOT FRA RAIRS Database, October 2007

Collision at Private Crossings by Train Speed, 1997-2006

A.9 - 5
Farm/Open 

Space

Recreational / 

Institutional Residential Industrial

Not 

Available Total

Private 1223 75 509 1333 1007 4147

Public 8337 320 6338 11910 1782 28687

US DOT FRA RAIRS Database, October 2007

Number of Incidents at Crossings by Type of Development, 1997-2006

Source: USDOT National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory, November 2006

A.9 - 6
Auto Truck Trucktrailer

Pickup 

truck

Van Bus School 

bus

Motorcycle Other motor 

vehicle

Pedestrian Other (specify 

in narrative)

Total

Private 1280 673 1176 566 144 6 1 6 185 32 78 4147

Public 14674 3028 3493 4220 1140 49 22 86 690 883 400 28685

Number of Incidents at Crossings by Roadway Users, 1997-2006

Source: US DOT FRA RAIRS Database, October 2007

A.9 - 7
Gates Lights Other Active 

Devices

Stop sign Crossbucks Other None Blank Total

Farm 100 35 24 2707 944 213 20314 31511 55848

Residential 45 28 16 606 466 25 3495 6991 11672

Recreation 12 8 1 68 34 1 471 972 1567

Industrial 143 144 88 826 439 60 6465 13759 21924

Commercia 11 12 5 25 57 4 123 29 266

Not Availab 1 0 0 4 3 0 261 1382 1651

Total 312 227 134 4236 1943 303 31129 54644 92928

Source: US DOT National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory, November 2006

Type of Private Crossing by Warning Devices

Note: 59% of the private crossing were not coded for warning device types 

and 1.8% of private crossing were not coded for private crossing types

A.9 - 8
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

1997 14 3.1 21 4.7 4 0.9 6 1.3 111 24.6 167 37.0 118 26.2 10 2.2 451 100.0

1998 11 2.6 20 4.7 7 1.7 10 2.4 104 24.5 146 34.4 122 28.8 4 0.9 424 100.0

1999 12 3.0 13 3.2 5 1.2 5 1.2 121 30.1 127 31.6 113 28.1 6 1.5 402 100.0

2000 8 1.7 21 4.4 4 0.8 9 1.9 103 21.6 164 34.5 159 33.4 8 1.7 476 100.0

2001 12 3.0 14 3.6 3 0.8 7 1.8 84 21.3 142 36.0 126 32.0 6 1.5 394 100.0

2002 13 3.5 14 3.8 2 0.5 2 0.5 69 18.8 128 34.8 132 35.9 8 2.2 368 100.0

2003 14 3.8 21 5.7 3 0.8 7 1.9 93 25.1 111 30.0 115 31.1 6 1.6 370 100.0

2004 18 4.3 21 5.0 6 1.4 4 0.9 100 23.6 101 23.9 168 39.7 5 1.2 423 100.0

2005 12 2.9 22 5.2 0 0.0 6 1.4 81 19.3 114 27.1 177 42.1 8 1.9 420 100.0

2006 8 1.9 16 3.8 2 0.5 16 3.8 82 19.6 89 21.2 202 48.2 4 1.0 419 100.0

Source: US DOT FRA RAIRS Database, October 2007

Motor Vehicle Collisions at Private Crossings by Traffic Control Device, 1986-2006

Watchman, or 

Flagged by crew

No signs or signals Crossbucks STOP signs Other signs Total

Year

 Automatic gates Flashing lights Highway signals, 

wigwag, or Audible

A.9 - 9
Incidents Percent Cumulative %

143 34.5 34.5

129 31.1 65.6

95 22.9 88.5

18 4.4 92.9

12 2.9 95.8

7 1.7 97.6

7 1.6 99.1

4 0.9 100.0

414

Source: US DOT FRA RAIRS Database, October 2007

g g y

year 1997-2006

Traffic control device

STOP signs

Crossbucks

No signs or signals

Flashing lights

Automatic gates

Watchman or Flagged by Crew

Other signs

Highway signal, WigWag, or Audible

Total

A.9 - 10
Train Speed Incident % of Incident Cumulative %

0 to <10 1194 29.1% 29.1%

40 to <50 764 18.6% 47.6%

30 to <40 594 14.5% 62.1%

20 to <30 529 12.9% 75.0%

10 to <20 435 10.6% 85.5%

50 to <60 368 9.0% 94.5%

70 to <80 119 2.9% 97.4%

60 to <70 99 2.4% 99.8%

80 to <90 5 0.1% 99.9%

90 to <100 1 0.0% 100.0%

100 to 110 2 0.0% 100.0%

TOTAL 4110

Source: US DOT FRA RAIRS Database, October 2007

Train Speed Incident % of Incident Cumulative %

40 to <50 5444 19.5% 19.5%

0 to <10 5400 19.3% 38.8%

30 to <40 4688 16.8% 55.5%

20 to <30 4450 15.9% 71.4%

10 to <20 3847 13.7% 85.2%

50 to <60 2459 8.8% 93.9%

60 to <70 955 3.4% 97.4%

70 to <80 710 2.5% 99.9%

80 to <90 25 0.1% 100.0%

90 to <100 5 0.0% 100.0%

100 to 110 0 0.0% 100.0%

TOTAL 27983

Source: US DOT FRA RAIRS Database, October 2007

Incident at Private Crossings by Train Speed, 1997-2006

Incident at Public Crossings by Train Speed, 1997-2006

A.9 - 11
0 to <10 10 to <20 20 to <30 30 to <40 40 to <50 50 to <60 60 to <70 70 to <80 80 to <90 90 to <100 100 to 110 TOTAL

1997 647 472 517 559 679 279 93 77 2 0 0 3325

1998 602 435 448 509 604 274 91 66 3 0 0 3032

1999 571 408 474 513 580 309 122 62 1 0 0 3040

2000 539 413 483 530 610 273 119 80 2 1 0 3050

2001 532 378 455 472 495 261 98 74 4 1 0 2770

2002 527 354 426 452 491 221 99 77 1 0 0 2648

2003 503 363 385 414 501 211 80 75 4 2 0 2538

2004 472 360 446 430 497 222 91 72 4 0 0 2594

2005 519 353 424 406 488 211 90 59 1 1 0 2552

2006 488 311 392 403 499 198 72 68 3 0 0 2434

TOTAL 5400 3847 4450 4688 5444 2459 955 710 25 5 0 27983

Source: US DOT FRA RAIRS Database, October 2007

0 to <10 10 to <20 20 to <30 30 to <40 40 to <50 50 to <60 60 to <70 70 to <80 80 to <90 90 to <100 100 to 110 TOTAL

1997 335 351 455 515 619 240 49 4 0 0 0 2568

1998 282 313 387 472 555 236 38 8 0 0 0 2291

1999 273 288 416 458 527 256 60 4 1 0 0 2283

2000 283 312 421 473 569 232 68 10 0 0 0 2368

2001 269 242 385 436 454 226 59 8 0 0 0 2079

2002 265 248 368 403 461 198 59 10 0 0 0 2012

2003 264 271 326 378 457 177 48 7 0 0 0 1928

2004 230 265 391 392 447 201 44 4 0 0 0 1974

2005 257 256 376 369 452 180 48 6 0 0 0 1944

2006 219 227 341 371 460 168 38 2 0 0 0 1826

TOTAL 2677 2773 3866 4267 5001 2114 511 63 1 0 0 21273

Source: US DOT FRA RAIRS Database, October 2007

0 to <10 10 to <20 20 to <30 30 to <40 40 to <50 50 to <60 60 to <70 70 to <80 80 to <90 90 to <100 100 to 110 TOTAL

1997 12 16 24 23 29 24 43 73 2 0 0 246

1998 5 9 20 13 27 33 51 58 3 0 0 219

1999 10 23 20 32 31 43 61 57 0 0 0 277

2000 11 20 20 25 28 33 49 70 2 1 0 259

2001 14 15 19 20 30 29 39 66 4 1 0 237

2002 3 13 25 25 18 20 40 67 1 0 0 212

2003 2 11 20 20 27 31 32 68 4 2 0 217

2004 10 14 18 22 34 17 43 66 4 0 0 228

2005 10 18 17 15 23 28 42 52 1 1 0 207

2006 8 15 16 23 26 28 32 66 3 0 0 217

TOTAL 85 154 199 218 273 286 432 643 24 5 0 2319

Source: US DOT FRA RAIRS Database, October 2007

0 to <10 10 to <20 20 to <30 30 to <40 40 to <50 50 to <60 60 to <70 70 to <80 80 to <90 90 to <100 100 to 110 TOTAL

1997 299 105 38 21 31 15 1 0 0 0 0 510

1998 315 113 41 24 22 5 2 0 0 0 0 522

1999 288 97 38 23 22 10 1 1 0 0 0 480

2000 245 81 42 32 13 8 2 0 0 0 0 423

2001 249 121 51 16 11 6 0 0 0 0 0 454

2002 259 93 33 24 12 3 0 0 0 0 0 424

2003 235 80 39 16 17 3 0 0 0 0 0 390

2004 224 75 37 16 16 4 4 2 0 0 0 378

2005 239 72 31 21 13 3 0 1 0 0 0 380

2006 241 64 33 9 13 2 2 0 0 0 0 364

TOTAL 2594 901 383 202 170 59 12 4 0 0 0 4325

Source: US DOT FRA RAIRS Database, October 2007

Incidents at Public Crossings by Train Speed 

Freight Train Incidents at Public Crossings by Train Speed 

Passenger Train Incidents at Public Crossings by Train Speed 

Other Train Incidents at Public Crossings by Train Speed 

A.9 - 12
0 to <10 10 to <20 20 to <30 30 to <40 40 to <50 50 to <60 60 to <70 70 to <80 80 to <90 90 to <100 100 to 110 TOTAL

1997 110 49 64 52 110 43 8 9 0 1 1 447

1998 126 50 53 59 81 29 12 12 0 0 1 423

1999 132 37 48 55 68 33 10 16 0 0 0 399

2000 135 51 56 73 77 53 10 14 1 0 0 470

2001 105 46 40 65 74 39 8 14 0 0 0 391

2002 102 36 52 43 63 39 11 16 2 0 0 364

2003 97 39 59 55 66 27 11 12 0 0 0 366

2004 113 51 59 66 81 31 11 6 2 0 0 420

2005 135 40 45 70 70 37 8 9 0 0 0 414

2006 139 36 53 56 74 37 10 11 0 0 0 416

TOTAL 1194 435 529 594 764 368 99 119 5 1 2 4110

Source: US DOT FRA RAIRS Database, October 2007

0 to <10 10 to <20 20 to <30 30 to <40 40 to <50 50 to <60 60 to <70 70 to <80 80 to <90 90 to <100 100 to 110 TOTAL

1997 43 30 54 50 106 35 2 0 0 0 0 320

1998 42 32 47 55 74 25 5 2 0 0 0 282

1999 48 21 41 51 59 31 6 2 0 0 0 259

2000 48 27 49 70 72 43 6 0 0 0 0 315

2001 40 34 35 60 66 34 6 2 0 0 0 277

2002 30 22 44 39 57 35 5 2 0 0 0 234

2003 33 27 53 51 60 24 9 2 0 0 0 259

2004 38 29 48 61 74 26 8 1 0 0 0 285

2005 49 28 38 64 65 32 4 0 0 0 0 280

2006 39 23 48 51 69 31 7 0 0 0 0 268

TOTAL 410 273 457 552 702 316 58 11 0 0 0 2779

Source: US DOT FRA RAIRS Database, October 2007

0 to <10 10 to <20 20 to <30 30 to <40 40 to <50 50 to <60 60 to <70 70 to <80 80 to <90 90 to <100 100 to 110 TOTAL

1997 333107690 1 1 34

1998 5 3 0 2 4 3 7 10 0 0 1 35

1999 1 2 2 2 2 2 4 14 0 0 0 29

2000 3 3 2 1 3 8 3 14 1 0 0 38

2001 3 2 0 2 4 5 2 12 0 0 0 30

2002 1 1 1 1 4 4 5 14 2 0 0 33

2003 2 2 2 1 3 2 2 10 0 0 0 24

2004 113051352 0 0 21

2005 110215390 0 0 22

2006 2 2 2 2 3 5 3 11 0 0 0 30

TOTAL 22 20 15 14 29 42 38 108 5 1 2 296

Source: US DOT FRA RAIRS Database, October 2007

0 to <10 10 to <20 20 to <30 30 to <40 40 to <50 50 to <60 60 to <70 70 to <80 80 to <90 90 to <100 100 to 110 TOTAL

1997 64 16 7 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 93

1998 79 15 6 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 106

1999 83 14 5 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 111

2000 84 21 5 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 117

2001 62 10 5 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 84

2002 71 13 7 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 97

2003 61 10 4 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 82

2004 73 21 7 5 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 111

2005 83 9 6 4 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 107

2006 98 9 3 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 116

TOTAL 758 138 55 28 33 9300 0 0 1024

Source: US DOT FRA RAIRS Database, October 2007

Incidents at Private Crossings by Train Speed 

Freight Train Incidents at Private Crossings by Train Speed 

Passenger Train Incidents at Public Crossings by Train Speed 

Other Train Incidents at Public Crossings by Train Speed 

A.9 - 13
0 to <10 10 to <20 20 to <30 30 to <40 40 to <50 50 to <60 60 to <70 70 to <80 80 to <90 90 to <100 100 to 110 TOTAL

1997 110 49 64 52 110 43 8 9 0 1 1 447

1998 126 50 53 59 81 29 12 12 0 0 1 423

1999 132 37 48 55 68 33 10 16 0 0 0 399

2000 135 51 56 73 77 53 10 14 1 0 0 470

2001 105 46 40 65 74 39 8 14 0 0 0 391

2002 102 36 52 43 63 39 11 16 2 0 0 364

2003 97 39 59 55 66 27 11 12 0 0 0 366

2004 113 51 59 66 81 31 11 6 2 0 0 420

2005 135 40 45 70 70 37 8 9 0 0 0 414

2006 139 36 53 56 74 37 10 11 0 0 0 416

TOTAL 1194 435 529 594 764 368 99 119 5 1 2 4110

Source: US DOT FRA RAIRS Database, October 2007

0 to <10 10 to <20 20 to <30 30 to <40 40 to <50 50 to <60 60 to <70 70 to <80 80 to <90 90 to <100 100 to 110 TOTAL

1997 17 15 12 19 34 24 5 6 0 0 0 132

1998 18 8 18 9 21 12 3 8 0 0 0 97

1999 16 13 20 31 24 13 10 8 0 0 0 135

2000 19 15 13 18 38 19 4 10 3 0 0 139

2001 14 6 18 23 32 11 3 11 0 0 0 118

2002 14 9 11 13 30 17 2 15 20 0 0 131

2003 12 4 17 15 30 6 5 24 0 0 0 113

2004 14 11 26 22 37 15 5 6 1 0 0 137

2005 22 5 17 27 26 13 10 5 0 0 0 125

2006 14 5 22 22 23 12 8 26 0 0 0 132

TOTAL 160 91 174 199 295 142 55 119 24 0 0 1259

Source: US DOT FRA RAIRS Database, October 2007

0 to <10 10 to <20 20 to <30 30 to <40 40 to <50 50 to <60 60 to <70 70 to <80 80 to <90 90 to <100 100 to 110 TOTAL

1997 1 0 4 4 18 6 3 5 0 0 1 42

1998 0 0 1 8 17 8 4 4 0 0 1 43

1999 0 2 1 6 12 7 3 8 0 0 0 39

2000 1 0 2 14 12 14 8 4 0 0 0 55

2001 1 0 1 6 12 6 3 6 0 0 0 35

2002 2 0 1 5 11 12 4 6 0 0 0 41

2003 0 0 1 3 7 5 10 8 0 0 0 34

2004 0 0 2 9 7 11 2 6 1 0 0 38

2005 1 1 1 2 11 7 5 2 0 0 0 30

2006 2 0 2 5 14 8 3 10 0 0 0 44

TOTAL 8 3 16 62 121 84 45 59 1 0 2 401

Source: US DOT FRA RAIRS Database, October 2007

Private Crossing Incidents by Train Speed, 1997-2006

Private Crossing Injuries by Train Speed, 1997-2006

Private Crossing Fatalities by Train Speed, 1997-2006

A.9 - 14
Farm

Open 

Space Residential Industrial Commercial Recreational Institutional

Not 

Available Total

Private 55846 N/A 11672 21924 266 1567 N/A 1651 92926

Public N/A 55298 34048 22903 30883 N/A 1802 0 144934

Source: US DOT National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory, November 2006

Overall Distribution of Crossings by Type of Development

A.9 - 15
Auto Truck Truck-trailePick-up trucVan Bus School busMotorcycle Other motoPedestrain Other Total

1997 185 92 118 30 6 1 0 0 8 1 10 451

1998 133 88 117 46 13 0 0 0 20 2 5 424

1999 142 65 104 47 18 1 0 0 12 4 9 402

2000 165 79 112 72 16 0 0 0 19 1 12 476

2001 114 57 112 59 11 1 1 0 14 4 21 394

2002 116 59 102 54 11 1 0 1 11 0 13 368

2003 104 59 102 58 16 1 0 0 25 3 2 370

2004 98 68 121 80 16 0 0 1 32 6 1 423

2005 107 56 142 62 25 0 0 2 20 3 3 420

2006 116 50 146 58 12 1 0 2 24 8 2 419

TOTAL 1280 673 1176 566 144 6 1 6 185 32 78 4147

Source: US DOT National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory, November 2006

Source: US DOT FRA RAIRS Database, October 2007

Auto Truck Truck-trailePick-up trucVan Bus School busMotorcycle Other motoPedestrain Other Total

1997 53 25 23 7 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 113

1998 46 32 21 13 1 0 0 0 11 1 2 127

1999 41 18 13 12 5 0 0 0 6 1 3 99

2000 63 28 19 37 4 0 0 0 7 0 8 166

2001 43 16 19 19 3 0 0 0 8 1 11 120

2002 42 19 19 19 4 0 0 1 1 0 6 111

2003 36 24 15 27 3 0 0 0 15 1 1 122

2004 36 14 21 32 3 0 0 1 18 4 0 129

2005 34 15 28 23 6 0 0 2 8 2 2 120

2006 36 14 20 15 1 0 0 1 10 3 1 101

TOTAL 430 205 198 204 30 0 0 5 86 13 37 1208

Source: US DOT National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory, November 2006

Source: US DOT FRA RAIRS Database, October 2007

Auto Truck Truck-trailePick-up trucVan Bus School busMotorcycle Other motoPedestrain Other Total

1997 32 21 47 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 108

1998 21 27 55 11 2 0 0 0 3 0 1 120

1999 30 18 43 10 5 0 0 0 2 0 2 110

2000 27 25 51 14 4 0 0 0 7 0 0 128

2001 19 14 65 22 3 0 0 0 2 1 4 130

2002 20 26 55 13 4 1 0 0 7 0 4 130

2003 22 21 60 16 5 0 0 0 4 1 0 129

2004 20 29 64 21 8 0 0 0 4 0 0 146

2005 21 27 76 15 11 0 0 0 9 0 0 159

2006 16 13 75 12 9 0 0 0 6 1 1 133

Total 228 221 591 139 53 1 0 0 44 3 13 1293

Source: US DOT National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory, November 2006

Source: US DOT FRA RAIRS Database, October 2007

Auto Truck Truck-trailePick-up trucVan Bus School busMotorcycle Other motoPedestrain Other Total

1997 200000000002

1998 010000000001

1999 000000000000

2000 010000000001

2001 201000000003

2002 201000000003

2003 001010000002

2004 110100000003

2005 300000001004

2006 100100000002

Total 11 3 3 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 21

Source: US DOT National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory, November 2006

Source: US DOT FRA RAIRS Database, October 2007

Collision at Private Crossings by Roadway User, 1997-2006

Collision at Farm Private Crossings by Roadway User, 1997-2006

Collision at Industrial Private Crossings by Roadway User, 1997-2006

Collision at Commercial Private Crossings by Roadway User, 1997-2006

A.9 - 16
Auto Truck Truck-trailePick-up trucVan Bus School busMotorcycle Other motoPedestrain Other Total

1997 401000000016

1998 311100000118

1999 101300000005

2000 6 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 12

2001 221000000117

2002 401100000006

2003 411110000008

2004 132100000007

2005 202210000007

2006 521100000009

Total 32 10 12 12 3 0 0 0 0 2 4 75

Source: US DOT National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory, November 2006

Source: US DOT FRA RAIRS Database, October 2007

Auto Truck Truck-trailePick-up trucVan Bus School busMotorcycle Other motoPedestrain Other Total

1997 15 10 5 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 36

1998 19 5 9 3 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 39

1999 23 10 2 3 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 42

2000 28 4 3 8 3 0 0 0 1 0 1 48

2001 26 7 7 8 1 0 0 0 1 1 3 54

2002 28 5 3 11 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 53

2003 23 4 5 10 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 48

2004 23 10 5 10 3 0 0 0 3 1 1 56

2005 26 8 15 18 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 69

2006 26 4 11 14 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 57

Total 237 67 65 89 14 0 0 0 17 5 8 502

Source: US DOT National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory, November 2006

Source: US DOT FRA RAIRS Database, October 2007

Collision at Recreational Private Crossings by Roadway User, 1997-2006

Collision at Residential Private Crossings by Roadway User, 1997-2006

A.9 - 17
Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent

Auto 128 30.87 15.6 38.81 37.9 29.84

Truck-trailer 117.6 28.36 3.5 8.71 37.1 29.21

Truck 67.3 16.23 6.2 15.42 22.5 17.72

Pickup truck 56.6 13.65 8.9 22.14 18.1 14.25

Other motor vehicle 18.5 4.46 1.7 4.23 4.4 3.46

Van 14.4 3.47 1.1 2.74 5.1 4.02

Other (specify in narrative) 7.8 1.88 0.8 1.99 0.8 0.63

Pedestrian 3.2 0.77 2.3 5.72 0.7 0.55

Bus 0.6 0.14 0 0.00 0.2 0.16

Motorcycle 0.6 0.14 0.1 0.25 0.2 0.16

School bus 0.1 0.02 0 0.00 0 0.00

Total 414.7 100.00 40.2 100.00 127 100.00

Source: US DOT FRA RAIRS Database, October 2007

Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent

Auto 1467.4 51.16 157.5 44.59 515.3 49.60

Truck 302.8 10.56 33.4 9.46 121.3 11.68

Truck-trailer 349.3 12.18 14.4 4.08 120.2 11.57

Pickup truck 422 14.71 55.4 15.69 155.6 14.98

Van 114 3.97 20.2 5.72 46.5 4.48

Bus 4.9 0.17 0 0.00 2.3 0.22

School bus 2.2 0.08 0.6 0.17 5.5 0.53

Motorcycle 8.6 0.30 2 0.57 3.4 0.33

Other motor vehicle 69 2.41 9.6 2.72 24.5 2.36

Pedestrian 88.3 3.08 50.6 14.33 31.2 3.00

Other (specify in narrative) 40 1.39 9.5 2.69 13.1 1.26

Total 2868.5 100.00 353.2 100.00 1038.9 100.00

Source: US DOT FRA RAIRS Database, October 2007

Roadway User

Average Collisions at Public Crossings by Roadway Users for year 1997-2006

Collisions Fatalities Injuries

Fatalities Injuries

Roadway User

Collisions

Average Collisions at Private Crossings by Roadway Users for year 1997-2006

A.9 - 18
Year Truck Pickup truck Auto Truck-trailer Total

1997 92 30 185 118 425

1998 88 46 133 117 384

1999 65 47 142 104 358

2000 79 72 165 112 428

2001 57 59 114 112 342

2002 59 54 116 102 331

2003 59 58 104 102 323

2004 68 80 98 121 367

2005 56 62 107 142 367

2006 50 58 116 146 370

Total 673 566 1280 1176 3695

Source: US DOT FRA RAIRS Database, October 2007

A.9 - 19

Appendix A.10 

Contact Database 
Identifier Last Name First Name Company Name Industry Address City State/Province Postal Code

1 GA- Chatham Urban Transportation Study MPO 110 East State Street Savannah GA 31412- 

2 Carson City MPO MPO 3303 Butti Way Carson City NV 89701- 

3 Ohio Steel Association Steel

4 Associated General Contractors of America Construction 2300 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 400 Arlington VA 22201- 

5 Association of Construction Inspectors Construction 1224 North Nokomis NE Alexandria Minnesota 56308- 6 Baltimore Chemical Association Chemical 928 Whispering Ridge Lane Bel Air MD 21015- 

7 Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufactures Associatio Chemical 1850 M St NW, Suite 700 Washington DC 20036-5810

8 American Chemical Society Chemical 1155 16th St, NW Washington DC 20036- 

9 Chemical Industries Association Chemical Kings Buildings Smith Square London

10 Louisiana Chemical Association Chemical One American Place, Suite 2040 Baton Rouge LA 70825- 

11 Illinois Fertilizer and Chemical Association Chemical 1201 East Bell St. PO Box 1326 Bloomington IL 61701-1326

12 National Association of Chemical Distributors Chemical 1560 Wilson Blvd, Suite 1250 Arlington VA 22209- 

13 Southwest Chemical Association Chemical Huston TX 77001- 

14 Canadian Chemical Producers Association Chemical 350 Sparks St. Suite 805 Ottawa ON

15 Chemical Manufacturers Association Chemical

16 Association of Chemical Consultants and Chem-Es Chemical ACC&CE PO Box 297 Sparta NJ 07871- 

17 Chemical and Industrial Consultants Association Chemical The CICA Honorary Secretary, 12, Oughton Close Yarm

18 Wisconsin Fertilizer and Chemical Association Chemical 2317 International Lane, Suite 102 Madison WI 53704-3154

19 Huston Chemical Association Chemical 1960 West #348 Huston TX 77069- 

20 American Chemistry Council Chemical 1300 Wilson Blvd. Arlington VA 22209- 

21 Chlorine Institute, Inc. Chemical 1300 Wilson Blvd. Arlington VA 22209- 22 Fertilizer Institute Chemical 820 First St. N.E., Suite 430 Washington DC 20002- 

23 Virginia Association of Realtors Realtor 10231 Telegraph Road Glen Allen VA 23059-4578

24 Charlotte Regional Realtor Association Realtor 1201 Greenwood Cliff Charlotte NC 28204- 

25 Greater Greenville Association of Realtors Realtor 50 Airpark Ct. Greenville SC 29607- 

26 Realtors Association of Bowling Green Realtor 180 W. Professional Park Court Bowling Green KY 42104- 

27 Illinois Association of Realtors Realtor 3180 Adloff Lane, Suite 400 Springfield IL 62703- 

28 Realtor Association of Southern Minnesota Realtor 2115 Rolling Green Lane North Mankato MN 56003- 

29 Alaska Association of Realtors Realtor 4205 Minnesota Dr. Anchorage AK 99503- 

30 West Contra Costa Association of Realtors Realtor 423 46th St. Richmond CA 94805-230131 Firelands Association of Realtors Realtor 2710 Campbell St. Sandusky OH 44870- 

32 Greater Syracuse Association of Realtors Realtor 1020 Seventh North St., Suite 140 Liverpool NY 13088- 

33 Eugene Association of Realtors Realtor 2139 Centennial Plaza Eugene OR 97401- 

34 Chicago Association of Realtors Realtor 200 South Michigan Ave., Suite 400 Chicago IL 60604- 

35 Nebraska Realtors Association Realtor 145 South 56th St., Suite 100 Lincoln NE 68510-2150

36 Nierzwicki Frank IN- Bloomington Area Transportation Study MPO

Showers Center City Hall, Suite 160 401 North Morton Street Bloomington IN 47404- 

37 Ackermans Faye Canadian Pacific Railway - AAR 401 9th Avenue, SW., Suite 2000 Alberta Calgary T2P 4Z4

38 Adair Richard Richland County Regional Planning Commission MPO 35 North Park Street, Suite 230 Mansfield OH 44902- 

39 Aguilar Jay Cache MPO MPO North Main Street, Room 305 Logan UT 84321- 

40 Ahlert Glen FL- Lee County MPO MPO 4980 Bayline Drive, 4th Floor North Fort Myers FL 33918- 

41 Ahrendsen Mark Durham-Chapell Hill-Carrboro MPO MPO 101 City Hall Plaza, 4th Floor Durham NC 27701- 

42 Albright William Kingsport MPO MPO 225 West Center Street Kingsport TN 37660- 

43 Allen Robert Abilene MPO MPO 555 Walnut Street Abilene TX 79604- 

44 Althof John Montana Department of Transportation US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL 2701 Prospect Avenue, P.O. Box 201001 Helena MT 59620-1001

45 Ameen Patrick T. AAR 50 F Street NW Washington DC 20001

46 Anderson Eric AZ- Maricopa Association of Governments MPO 302 North 1st Avenue, Suite 300 Phoenix AZ 85003- 

47 Anderson Janet Erie MPO MPO

Erie County Courthouse, Room 119 140 West 6th Street Erie PA 16501- 

48 Anderson Bill Tennessee Dept. of Transportation US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL James K. Polk Building, Suite 400 Nashville TN 37243- 

49 Arch Robert MD - Hagerstown-Eastern Panhandle MPO MPO County Administrative Annex 80 West Baltimore Street Hagerstown MD 21740- 

50 Armstrong James AK- Anchorage Met. Area Trans. Solutions MPO 4700 South Bragaw Anchorage AK 99507- 

51 Ashburn Ron Iron and Steel Society (AIST) Steel 186 Thorn Hill Road Warrendale PA 15086- 52 Atkinson Michael Canadian Construction Association (CCA) Construction 75 Albert Street, Suite 400 Ottawa ON K1P 5E7

53 Aulick Michael Capital Area MPO MPO 1101 San Jacinto, 2nd Floor Austin TX 78701- 

54 Aull Adam IL- Danville Area Transportation Study MPO 17 West Main Street Danville IL 60606- 

55 Averey Dan IN- Northeastern Indiana Regional Coord. Council MPO

City-County Building, Room 630 One East Main Street Ft. Wayne IN 46802-1804

56 Ayer Lucie FL- Hillsborough County MPO MPO

County Center Building, 18th Floor 601 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa FL 33601- 

57 Baechtold Dan French Broad River MPO MPO 70 Court Plaza, Mezzanine Asheville NC 28801- 
Identifier Last Name First Name Company Name Industry Address City State/Province Postal Code

58 Bailey Ronald Lancaster County Transportation Coordinating Commi MPO

New Courthouse, 6th Floor 50 North Duke Street Lancaster PA 17608-3480

59 Baker Tim Colorado Dept. of Transportation US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL 4201 East Arkansas Ave., Empire Park Denver CO 80222- 

60 Baker Chuck National Railroad Construction & Maintenance Association 122 C Street NW Washington DC

61 Baldwin Ira Public Service Commission of West Virginia 201 Brooks Street Charleston WV 25301

62 Ball Charles AL- Gadsden-Etowah MPO MPO 90 Broad St. (City Hall, c/o City of Gadsden) Gadsden AL 35901- 

63 Ballinger Forrest GE Transportation Systems AHB60 MEMBER P.O. Box 600 Grain Valley MO 64029- 

64 Balster Ron Kansas Dept. of Transportation US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL Docking State Office Bldg., Room 830 Topeka KS 66612- 

65 Barley Harold FL- METROPLAN Orlando MPO 315 East Robinson Street, Suite 355 Orlando FL 32801- 

66 Barrett Bruce FL- Tallahassee - Leon County MPO MPO

City Hall, 4th Floor 300 South Adams Street Tallahassee FL 32301- 

67 Basden Bruce Steel Erectors Association of America Steel 2216 W. Meadowview Rd. Greensboro NC 27407- 68 Batory Ronald L. Conrail 1000 Howard Boulevard Mount Laurel NJ 8054

69 Becker Scott Association of Railway Museums One Museum Road Washington PA 15301

70 Beigay Bradford Cambria County MPO MPO 401 Candlelight Drive, Suite 213 Ebensburg PA 15931- 

71 Beleon David Harlingen-San Benito MPO MPO 502 East Tyler Street Harlingen TX 78550- 

72 Bernard R. A. (Bob) CSX Transportation - AAR 500 Water St. Jacksonville FL 32202

73 Berrada Sam Canadian National - AAR 935 de la Gauchetiere St West-15th Floor Montreal Quebec H3B 2M9

74 Bigham Robert Lawton MPO MPO 103 SW 4th Street Lawton OK 73501-4078

75 Bishop Ricahrd

GA- Columbus Annex Center 420 10th Street MPO

Columbus Annex Center 420 10th Street Columbus GA 31902- 

76 Black George National Transportation Safety Board AHB60 MEMBER 490 L'Enfant Plaza East, SW Washington DC 20594- 

77 Blair Jerry MO - East-West Gateway Coordinating Council MPO 10 Stadium Plaza St. Louis MO 63102-1714

78 Blanshan Kevin IA- Black Hawk Metro Area Trans. Policy Board MPO 501 Sycamore Street, Suite 333 Waterloo IA 50703- 

79 Blindum Ulrik Niels Juels Gade 13 AHB60 MEMBER PO Box 9018 Copenhagen K Denmark

80 Bloom Harvey S. MD - Baltimore Regional Transportation Board MPO 2700 Lighthouse Point East, Suite 310 Baltimore MD 21224-4774

81 Bodeman Dan BNSF 2600 Lou Menk Drive Fort Worth TX 76161

82 Bohne Bill International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers - IBEW 900 7th Street, NW Washington DC 20001

83 Boice James Connecticut Dept. of Transportation US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL P.O. Box 317546 Newing CT 06131- 

84 Bolton Bernadette Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees 10 G Street, NW Washington DC 20002

85 Bosley Molly Killeen-Temple Urban Transportation Study MPO 550 East 2nd Avenue Belton TX 76513- 

86 Bostinelos Michelle Janesville Area MPO MPO

Municipal Building, 3rd Floor 18 North Jackson Street Janesville WI 53545- 

87 Boucher Anita Nevada Dept. of Transportation US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL 1263 South Stewart Street Carson City NV 89792- 

88 Bovee Darlene Iowa Dept. of Transportation US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL 800 Lincoln Way Ames IA 50010- 

89 Bowgren Michael International Brotherhood of Elecrical Workers - IBEW 900 7th St. NW Washington DC 20001

90 Bowman Clair ID- Comm. Planning Asso. of Southwestern Idaho MPO 800 South Industry Way, Suite 100 Meridian ID 83642- 

91 Bowman Brian Auburn University AHB60 MEMBER 236 Harbert Engineering Center Auburn AL 36849- 

92 Bragdon David Metro MPO 600 NE Grand Avenue Portland OR 97232-273693 Brawley Eddie AR- West Memphis Area Trans. Study MPO 796 West Broadway West Memphis AR 72301- 94 Brewin Nicole Railway Supply Institute 50 F Street, N.W. Suite 7030 Washington , DC 20001

95 Bridges Jerrold IN- Madison County COG MPO 16 East 9th Street, Room 100 Anderson IN 46016- 

96 Bridwell Alan Johnson City Metropolitan Transportation P.O. MPO 137 West Market Street Johnson City TN 37604- 

97 Brienzo Michael Lincoln MPO MPO 531 Westgate Boulevard, Suite 100 Lincoln NE 68528- 

98 Briers Ken Parsons 1133 15th Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington DC 2000599 Bright Robert Fargo-Morehead Metropolitan COG MPO

Case Plaza, Suite 232 1 North 2nd Street Fargo ND 58102- 

100 Brooks Walter R. LA - Regional Planning Commission MPO Amoco Building, Suite 2100 1340 Poydras Street New Orleans LA 70112-5276

101 Browder Bill AAR 50 F Street NW Washington DC 20001

102 Brubeck Greg Corpus Christi MPO MPO 5151 Flynn Parkway, Suite 404 Corpus Christi TX 78411- 

103 Brummett Ronald CA- Kern COG MPO 1401 19th Street, Suite 300 Bakersfield CA 93301- 

104 Brunkerhoefer J James M. United Transportation Union 304 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE Washington DC 20003

105 Bryan Jerry FL- Martin County MPO MPO

Martin County Administrative Center 2401 SE Monterey Road Stuart FL 34996- 

106 Bubb Donald York Area MPO MPO

York County Government Center 100 West Market Street York PA 17401- 

107 Bulat Denise IL- Bi-State Regional Commission MPO 1504 Third Avenue Rock Island IL 61204- 

108 Bunnewith Denise FL- First Coast MPO MPO 128 East Forsyth Street, Suite 304 Jacksonville FL 32202- 

109 Burges Sicking Terri KY- FIVCO Area Development District MPO 3000 Louisa Street Catlettsburg KY 41129- 

110 Burgh J. Dan Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Montgomery Area MPO MPO 755 Roanoke Street Christiansburg VA 24073-3181111 Burket Wesley Blair County Planning Commission MPO 301 Valley View Boulevard, East Wing Altoona PA 16602-6409112 Buss Mike Florida East Coast Rwy. One Malaga Street St. Augustine FL 32085
Identifier Last Name First Name Company Name Industry Address City State/Province Postal Code

113 Butler James CT- Southeastern Connecticut COG MPO 5 Connecticut Avenue Norwich CT 06360-4592

114 Buxton Robin IBEW 25 Woodard Circle East Ridge TN 37412

115 Byington Mori ID- Bannock Planning Organization MPO 214 East Center Pocatello ID 83205- 

116 Byrne Angie AR- Hot Springs Area MPO MPO P.O. Box 700 Hot Springs AR 71902- 

117 Byrne Terry URS AHB60 MEMBER 38 Chauncy Street Boston MA 02111- 

118 Campbell David Delaware Transit Corporation US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL 400 South Madison Street Wilmington DE 19801- 

119 Cannito Peter A. MTA Metro-North Railroad 347 Madison Avenue New York MY 10017

120 Capon Ross National Association of Railroad Passengers 900 Second St., NE Washington DC 20002

121 Carpenter David Las Cruces MPO MPO City Office Center 575 South Alameda Blvd. Las Cruces NM 88005- 

122 Carroll Anya Volpe Center AHB60 MEMBER 55 Broadway Cambridge MA 02142-1093

123 Casteel Anthony Cleveland Area MPO MPO 185 Second Street, NE, Suite 1 Cleveland TN 37311- 

124 Chambers Sir Vithaldas Indian Chemical Manufacturers Association Chemical 16 Mumbai Samachar Marg Mumbai 40002-3 

125 Chambers Ray National Railroad Construction & Maintenance Association 122 C Street, NW Washington DC 20001

126 Chappell Chuck Wasatch Front Regional Council MPO 295 North Jimmy Dolittle Road Salt Lake City UT 84116- 

127 Chatman Donnie Goldsboro Urban Area MPO MPO City Hall Annex 222 North Center Street Goldsboro NC 27530- 

128 Chelius Timothy South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization MPO 782 S. Brewster Road, Unit B-6 Vineland NJ 08361- 

129 Chew Jonathan CT- Housatonic Valley Council of Elected Officials MPO Old Town Hall Route 25 and 133 Brookfield CT 06804- 

130 Chicka Ron MN - Duluth-Superior Metro Interstate Committee MPO 221 West 1st Street Duluth MN 55802- 

131 Chinn Bruce Missouri Dept. of Transportation US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL P. O. Box 1216 Jefferson City MO 65102- 

132 Church David Newburgh-Orange County Transportation Council MPO 1887 County Building 124 Main Street Goshen NY 10924- 

133 Ciaramella Pasquele MA - Old Colony MPO MPO 70 School Street Brockton MA 02301-4097134 Clark Jon CA- Butte County Association of Governments MPO 965 Fir Street Chico CA 95928- 135 Clark Alan Houston-Galveston Area Council MPO 3555 Timmons, Suite 120 Houston TX 77027- 

136 Clarkson James Transportation Security Administration 601 South 12th Street Arlington VA 22202

137 Claytor Preston Rail America, Inc. - AAR 5300 Broken Sound Blvd., N.W. Boca Raton FL 33487

138 Clements Andrew MO - St. Joseph Area Trans Study Organization MPO 1100 Frederick Avenue, Room 204 St. Joseph MO 64501- 

139 Colegrove Geoffrey CT- Midstate Regional Planning Agency MPO 100 DeKoven Drive Middletown CT 06457- 

140 Conard Richard Massachusetts Highway Department US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL 10 Park Plaza, Room 6340 Boston MA 02116- 

141 Conley Yvette 1666 K Street, NW Washington DC 20006

142 Conyers Max KY- Lexington Area MPO MPO

Government Center, 10th Floor 200 East Main Street Lexington KY 40507- 

143 Cook Chapin W. MI - Genesee County Metro Planning Commission MPO 1101 Beach Street, Room 223 Flint MI 48502- 

144 Cook Robert Mecklenburg-Union MPO MPO 600 East Fourth Street Charlotte NC 28202- 

145 Cooper Eli Puget Sound Regional Council MPO 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle WA 98104- 146 Copeland Cynthia Seacoast MPO MPO 2 Ridge Street Dover NH 03820- 

147 Corcoran Jr. Andrew P. Norfolk Southern Corporation - AAR 3 Commercial Place Norfolk VA 23510

148 Covey Becky Ohio Steel Association Steel P.O. Box 369 Columbus Ohio 43216-0369

149 Cox Robert Midland-Odessa MPO MPO 2910 LaForce Blvd Midland TX 79711- 

150 Craig Don ME - Androscoggin Transportation Resource Center MPO 125 Manley Road Auburn ME 04210- 

151 Craig Michelle KYOVA Interstate Planning Commission MPO 1221 6th Avenue Huntington WV 25701- 

152 Cronk Jay R. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers 9000 Machinists Place Upper Marlboro MD 20772

153 Croome Jim Construction Suppliers’ Association Construction Sandersville Builders Supply P.O. Box 1116 Sandersville GA 31082- 

154 Cruz Ric North Carolina Dept. of Transportation US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL P.O. Box 25201 Raleigh NC 27611- 

155 Cunningham James CPR Gulf Canada Square Calgary AB T2P 4Z4

156 Curtis James AL- Calhoun Area MPO MPO 1130 Quintard Ave., Quintard Tower, Suite 300 Anniston AL 36201- 

157 Dalton Leah Ohio Public Utilities Commission US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory Colombus OH 43215- 

158 D'Amato Jim Spartanburg Area Transportation Study MPO 366 North Church Street Spartanburg SC 29303- 

159 Danjczek Thomas A. Steel Manufacturers Association Steel 1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 715 Washington D.C. 20036- 160 Davidson Cliff CO- North Front Range MPO MPO 235 Mathews Street Fort Collins CO 80524- 

161 Davidson Jeff IA- Johnson County COG MPO 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240- 

162 Davis Roger Licking County Area Transportation Study MPO 20 South 2nd Street Newark OH 43055- 

163 Day Sandeeo MI - Western Michigan Shoreline Regional Dev. Comm MPO 316 Morris Avenue, Suite 340 Muskegon MI 49443- 

164 de Aragon Fernando Ithaca-Tompkins County Transportation Council MPO 121 East Court Street Ithaca NY 14850- 

165 Deardorff Thomas FL- Polk Trans. Planning Organization MPO 330 West Church Street Bartow FL 33830- 166 Dearing Mike IN- Indianapolis MPO MPO 200 East Washington Street, Suite 1841 Indianapolis IN 46204- 

167 DeCarli Ronald CA- San Luis Obispo COG MPO 1150 Osos Street, Suite 202 San Luis Obispo CA 93401- 

168 DeGoyler Lisa Construction Owners Association of America Construction 2727 Paces Ferry Road Atlanta GA 30339- 169 DePaepe Tim Brotherhood of Railway Signalmen AHB60 MEMBER 9175 Shenandoah Shores Road Front Royal VA 22630- 170 DePaepe Timothy J. Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen 917 Shenandoah Shores Road Front Royal VA 22630171 DesGroseilliers Rich Lakeway MPO MPO 100 West 1st North Street Morristown TN 37814- 

172 DeVerter II Paul L AAPRCO 12114 Taylorcrest St. Houston TX 77024

173 Devine Steve Rhode Island Dept. of Transportation US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL 2 Capital Hill, Room 231D Providence RI 02903- 
Identifier Last Name First Name Company Name Industry Address City State/Province Postal Code

174 Dewhurst Philip Nuclear Industry Association (UK) Nuclear Carlton House 22a St James's Square London England SW1Y 4JH

175 Diaz Nacho MN - Metropolitan Council MPO Mears Park Center 230 East 5th Street St. Paul MN 55101- 

176 Dickinson Bob South East Texas Regional Planning Commish MPO MPO 2210 Eastex Freeway Beaumont TX 77703- 

177 Dickson Gary CA- Stanislaus COG MPO 900 H Street, Suite D Modesto CA 95354- 

178 Dimit John IL- Champaign-Urbana Urban Area Trans. Study MPO 1776 East Washington Street Urbana IL 61803- 

179 Dix Dennise FL- Hernando County MPO MPO 20 North Main Street, Room 262 Brooksville FL 34601- 

180 Dorpalen Peter CT- Council of Gov of the Central Naugatuck Valley MPO 20 East Main Street, Suite 303 Waterbury CT 06702-2399

181 Dowd Robert Danville MPO MPO 1 Starling Avenue Martinsville VA 24112- 

182 Dowell Michael Florida Department of Transportation US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL 605 Suwannee Street, MS-25 Tallahassee FL 32399-0450

183 Drake John CSX Transportation - AAR 500 Water Street - J260 Jacksonville FL 32202

184 Drouin Gary Transport Canada AHB60 MEMBER Place de Ville Ottawa Ontario K1A ON5

185 Duane James Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional COG MPO 720 East Pete Rose Way, Suite 420 Cincinnati OH 45202- 

186 Duffy Dennis Union Pacific Railroad - AAR 1416 Dodge Street, Rm 1206 Omaha NE 68179187 Duncan John ME - Portland Area Comprehensive Trans Committee MPO 233 Oxford Street Portland ME 04101- 

188 Durst Randy Wood-Washington-Wirt Interstate Planning Commish MPO 531 Market Street Parkersburg WV 26101- 189 Dysard David Toledo Metropolitan Area COG MPO 300 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive Toledo OH 43602- 190 Edmonds Richard National Conference of Firemen an Oilers 972 Norburne Ave Vinton VA 24179

191 Edmunds Rhonda Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO MPO 300 East Main Street, 1st Floor Charlottesville VA 22902- 

192 Edwards Billy GA- Hinesville MPO MPO 115 East Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive Hinesville GA 31313- 193 Edwards Jim Rock Hill-Fort Mill Area Transportation Study MPO 155 Johnston Street Rock Hill SC 29731-1706

194 Edwards Steve Mississippi Dept. of Transportation US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL P.O. Box 1850 Jackson MS 39215- 

195 Egelhaff John MI - Southwestern Michigan Commission MPO MPO 185 East Main Street, Suite 701 Benton Harbor MI 49022- 

196 Eich Austin Southeastern COG MPO 1000 NW Avenue Suite 210 Sioux Falls SD 57104- 

197 Eigen Richard CT- Valley COG MPO Derby Railroad Station 12 Main Street Derby CT 06418- 198 Eisele Donald New Jersey Transit AHB60 MEMBER One Penn Plaza Est Newark NJ 07105-2246

199 Elkin Robin Santa Fe MPO MPO 200 Lincoln Avenue Santa Fe NM 87504- 

200 Elliott Diane American Association of Private Railroad Car Owners 630-B Constitution Avenue, NE Washington DC 20002

201 Elliott David J. LTK Engineering Services 317 Madison Ave. New York NY 10017

202 Elmer Lowell Dixie MPO MPO P.O. Box 1550 St. George UT 84771- 

203 Elston Murray Canadian Nuclear Association Nuclear 130 Albert Street, Suite 1610 Ottawa Ontario K1P 5GA

204 Ernst Steven IL- Rockford Area Transportation Study MPO 425 East State Street Rockford IL 61104- 

205 Errett Gregory Winston-Salem Urban Area MPO MPO

City Hall South, Room 307 100 East First Street Winston-Salem NC 27102- 

206 Evans Adam AL- Auburn - Opelika MPO MPO 2207 Gateway Drive Opelika AL 36801-6834

207 Evenson Philip Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commish MPO West 239 North 1812 Rockwood Drive Waukesha WI 53188- 

208 Faella Tom La Crosse Area Planning Committee MPO

400 4th St. North La Crosse County Administrative Building La Crosse WI 54601- 

209 Fanning Dallas AL- Huntsville Area Transportation Study MPO 308 Fountain Circle Huntsville AL 35801- 

210 Farmer Dwight Hampton Roads MPO MPO

The Regional Building 723 Woodlake Drive Chesapeake VA 23320- 

211 Fast Melba MO - Capital Area MPO MPO 320 East McCarty Street Jefferson MO 65101- 

212 Fawver Gary Pennsylvania Dept. of Transportation US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL 400 North Street, 7th Floor Harrisburg PA 17120- 

213 Felton Mark BCKP Regional Intergovernmental Council MPO 315 D Street South Charleston WV 25303- 

214 Filipovic Mark International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers 9000 Machinists Place Upper Marlboro MD 20772

215 Finger Linda KS- Lawrence-Douglas County Metro Planning Office MPO

City Hall, 1st Floor 6 East 6th Street Lawrence KS 66044- 

216 Fink Fred Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO 5390 Karen Isle Willoughby OH 44094217 Finney George CA- Tulare County Association of Governments MPO 5961 South Mooney Boulevard Visalia CA 93277- 

218 Fisher Tom CO- Grand Junction / Mesa County MPO MPO 750 Main Street Grand Junction CO 81501- 

219 Fisk James Kansas City Southern Railway - AAR 114 West 12th Street Kansas City MO 64105

220 Fitzgerald Cheri FL- St. Lucie MPO MPO 2300 Virginia Avenue, Room 203 Fort Pierce FL 34982- 

221 Fitzpatrick Gary Florida Department of Transportation US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL 605 Suwannee Street, MS-25 Tallahassee FL 32399-0450

222 Flagg Diane FL- Collier County MPO MPO 2685 South Horseshoe Drive Naples FL 34104- 

223 Fleck John MO - Columbia Area Trans. Study Organization MPO 701 East Broadway Columbia MO 65205- 

224 Fontenot Abe LA - Imperial Calcasieu Regional Planning & Dev. C MPO Lake Charles City Hall, 4th Floor 326 Pujo Street Lake Charles LA 70602- 

225 Forbes F. James Greenville Area Transportation Study MPO 301 University Ridge, Suite 400 Greenville SC 29601- 

226 Foskett Richard State of Delaware, DOT US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL PO Box 778 Dover DE 19903- 

227 Fountain Jesse GA- Warner Robins Area Transportation Study MPO 700 Watson Boulevard Warner Robins GA 31099- 

228 Fraga Robert Construction Management Association of America Construction 7918 Jones Branch Drive, Ste. 540 McLean VA 22102- 229 Fraley Charles Sheet Metal Workers International Association 3512 E. Lydius Street Guilderland NY 12303

230 Friedman C. Marshall C. Marshall Friedman, P.C. - TCIU/BRC 1010 Market Street St. Louis MO 63101

231 Garland Dewey Sheet Metal Workers International Association 1750 New York Ave, NW Washington DC 20006
Identifier Last Name First Name Company Name Industry Address City State/Province Postal Code

232 Gates Danny Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees 10 G St. NE, Suite 460 Washington DC 20006

233 Gayle Steven Binghamton Metropolitan Transportation Study MPO

Broome County Office Building, 5th Floor 44 Hawley Street Binghamton NY 13902- 

234 Gellerman Tom Minnesota Department of Transportation US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL 395 John Ireland Blvd. St. Paul MN 55155- 

235 Getchey John Eastgate Regional COG MPO 5121 Mahoning Avenue Austintown OH 44515- 

236 Ghirardi Kevin LA - Houma-Thibodaux MPO MPO 5058 West Main Street Houma LA 70360- 

237 Gibson David Arizona Department of Transportation US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL 1739 W. Jackson St. 064R Phoenix AZ 85250- 

238 Gibson Gary Indiana Harbor Belt Railway 2721 161st Street Hammond IN 46323

239 Gilbert Darien California Public Utilities Commission US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL 515 “L” Street, Suite 1119 Sacramento CA 95814- 

240 Gilbert Danny Rail Safety Consultants AHB60 MEMBER 1820 Dorset Drive Roanoke VA 24018- 241 Gilyard Roy El Paso MPO MPO 10767 Gateway Boulevard West,Suite 605 El Paso TX 79935- 

242 Gleason Steve Genesee Transportation Council MPO

CityPlace, Suite 8112 50 West Main Street Rochester NY 14614-1227

243 Gonzales Henry New Mexico Dept. of Transportation US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL P.O. Box 1149, San Mateo Plaza, 1st Floor Santa Fe NM 87504-1149

244 Goodwin Barbara CA- Council of Fresno County Governments MPO 2100 Tulare Street, Suite 619 Fresno CA 93721- 

245 Gott Judy CT- South Central Regional COG MPO 127 Washington Avenue, 4th Floor West North Haven CT 06473- 

246 Grady James Conrail ( AAR) 1000 Howard Blvd. Mt. Laurel NJ 8054

247 Graham James (Hank) Gaston Urban Area MPO MPO 181 South Street Gastonia NC 28052- 

248 Gray Carter Memphis Urban Area MPO MPO

1075 Mullins Station Rd. NW Wing, 1st floor Memphis TN 38134- 

249 Greene Julia CA- San Joaquin COG MPO 6 South El Dorado Street, Suite 400 Stockton CA 95202-2804

250 Griffin Brad GA- Madison-Athens Clarke Oconee Reg Trans Study MPO 120 West Dougherty Street Athen GA 30601- 251 Grimaila Robert M. Union Pacific Railroad 1400 Douglas Street Omaha NE 68179

252 Grizard Bill American Public Transportation Association AHB60 MEMBER 1666 K Street NW Washington DC 20006- 

253 Gross John AZ- Yuma MPO MPO 502 South Orange Avenue Yuma AZ 85364- 

254 Groves Kenneth AL- Montgomery Area MPO MPO 103 North Perry Street, Room 121-Q Montgomery AL 36104- 255 Grzymski Andy High Point Urban Area MPO MPO 211 South Hamilton St., Room 210 High Point NC 27261- 

256 Guffain Pam The Fertilizer Institute 820 First Street, N.E., Suite 430 Washington DC 20002

257 Guldner Ralf World Nuclear Association Nuclear Carlton House, 22a St. James's Square, London SW1Y 4JH London

258 Gumula Mark FL- Charlotte County - Punta Gorda MPO MPO 28000 Airport Road, A-6 Punta Gorda FL 33982-2409

259 Guthrie John AR- Bi-State MPO MPO 1109 South 16th Street Fort Smith AR 72901- 

260 Guy Michael FL- Sarasota-Manatee MPO MPO 7632 15th Street East Sarasota FL 34243-3248

261 Hahs D. M. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers 1370 Ontario Street Cleveland OH 44113

262 Hall Gerri Operation Lifesaver Inc AHB60 MEMBER 1420 King Street Alexandria VA 22314- 

263 Halstead Lori Washington Utilities & Transportation Comm. US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL P.O. Box 47250 Olympia WA 98504- 

264 Hambley Jim Navy Nuclear Weapons Association Nuclear

265 Hamilton Paul MI - Tri-County Regional Planning Commission MPO Southwind Office Building, Suite 201 913 West Holmes Road Lansing MI 48910- 

266 Hammer Ed Marathon County Metropolitan Planning Commission MPO 210 River Drive Wausau WI 54403- 

267 Hansen William G. MN - St. Cloud Area Planning Organization MPO 1040 County Road 4 St. Cloud MN 56303-0643

268 Hanson Kenneth Akron Metropolitan Area Transportation Study MPO 146 South High Street, Room 806, Citicenter Akron OH 44308-1423

269 Hardy Clarence Australian Nuclear Association Nuclear P.O. Box 85, Peakhurst, NSW Australia, 2210 Peakhurst NSW 2210

270 Harkrader Bob Burlington-Graham MPO MPO 425 S. Lexington Avenue Burlington NC 27215- 271 Harpole Keith KY- Green River Area Development District MPO 3860 U.S. Hwy 60 West Owensboro KY 42301-0200

272 Harris Brad MA - Montachusett MPO MPO R 1427 Water Street Fitchburg MA 01420- 273 Hasenstab Michael D. Healey Railroad Corporation 1500 Huguenot Rd Suite 101 Midlothian VA 23113

274 Hassinger James Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission MPO 425 6th Avenue, Suite 2500 Pittsburgh PA 15219-1852

275 Hatley Dan Charleston Area Transportation Study MPO 5290 Rivers Avenue, Suite 400 North Charleston SC 29406- 

276 Haugen Earl Grand Forks-East Grand Forks MPO MPO

City Hall, Room 202 225 North 4th Street Grand Forks ND 58206- 

277 Hawkins Jeff AR- Northwest Arkansas Regional Trans. Study MPO 1311 Clayton Street Springdale AR 72762- 

278 Hawley James IN- Tippecanoe County Area Plan Commission MPO 20 North 3rd Street Lafayette IN 47901- 

279 Headley Kim CO- Pueblo Area COG MPO 229 West 12th Street Pueblo CO 81003- 280 Hebert Roland J. MA - Southeastern Regional Planning & Economic Dev MPO 88 Broadway Taunton MA 02780- 

281 Heckler Herb Kingston MPO MPO 244 Fair Street Kingston NY 12401- 282 Heicksen Rick Fayetteville Area MPO MPO 130 Gillespie Street, 2nd Floor Fayetteville NC 28302-1829

283 Heinz Glenn 204A Riverbend Drive London KY 40744

284 Hellstrom Carl E. MA - Central Massachusetts MPO MPO 35 Harvard Street Worcester MA 01609-2801

285 Heminger Steve CA- Bay Area MPO MPO Metro Center 101 8th Street Oakland CA 94607- 286 Henderson Mell MO - Mid-Amercia Regional Council MPO 300 Rivergate Center 600 Broadway Kansas City MO 64105-1554

287 Hendrix David AL- South Wiregrass Area MPO MPO

Roy Drigger Municipal Building, Room 303 126 North St. Andrews Street Dothan AL 36303- 

288 Henn Raymond W. American Underground Construction Association Construction 3001 Hennepin Avenue, So., Suite D202 Minneapolis MN 55408- 
Identifier Last Name First Name Company Name Industry Address City State/Province Postal Code

289 Herstein Robert Maryland State Highway Administration US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL 7491 Connelley Drive Hanover MD 21076- 

290 Higgins Sue MI - Macatawa Area Coordinating Council MPO 400 136th Avenue, Suite 416 Holland MI 49424- 

291 Hill Jim Wheeling and Lake Erie Railway Company - AAR 100 East First Street Brewster OH 44613

292 Hiller Sue GA- Floyd-Rome Urban Transportation Study MPO 607 Broad Street Rome GA 30162- 

293 Hilton Cynthia Institute of Makers of Explosives 1120 Nineteenth St., NW, Suite 310 Washington DC 20036

294 Himes Larry Clark County-Springfield Transportation Study MPO

City Hall 76 East High Street Springfield OH 45502- 

295 Hinrichs Rex Wisconsin Department of Transportation US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL 4802 Sheboygan Ave., Room 933 Madison WI 53707-7913

296 Hissong Tina Michigan Dept. of Transportation US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL P.O. Box 30050 Lansing MI 48909- 

297 Hoge William Sumter Urban Area Transportation Study MPO 33 North Main Street Sumter SC 29151- 

298 Hokenstad Carl Bismark-Mandan MPO MPO 221 North 5th Street Bismark ND 58506- 299 Holden Martin Sheboygan MPO MPO

Old Fort Square, Suite 211 211 North Broadway Green Bay WI 54303-2757

300 Holst Richard AL- Northwest Alabama Council of Local Govs. MPO 103 Student Drive Muscle Shoals AL 35661- 

301 Hooper Fran American Public Transportation Association (APTA) 1666 K Street, NW Washington DC 20006

302 Hopkins Harry IL- Springfield Area Transportation Study MPO 200 South 9th Street, Room 212 Springfield IL 62701-1629

303 Horn Roger A. Safe Travel America 1793 East Fort Douglas Circle Salt Lake City UT 84103

304 Horton Willie MS - Hattiesburg-Petal-Forrest-Lamar MPO MPO 200 Forrest St Hattiesburg MS 39401-1898

305 Horton Patsy Rapid City Area MPO MPO 300 Sixth Street Rapid City SD 57701- 

306 Hull Steve Indiana Department of Transportation US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL 100 N. Senate Ave, Indianapolis IN 46204- 307 Ice Carl Burlington Northern Santa Fe - AAR 2600 Lou Menk Drive Ft. Worth TX 76161

308 Inclima Rick A. Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes 10 G Street, N.E. Washington DC 20002

309 Itani Abed MI - Grand Valley Metropolitan Council MPO 40 Pearl Street NW, Suite 410 Grand Rapids MI 49503- 

310 Ives Larry IN- Kokomo & Howard County Gov Coordinating Counci MPO 120 East Mulberry Street, Suite 116 Kokomo IN 46901- 

311 Jaeger Paul Stark County Area Transportation MPO 201 3rd Street, NE, suite 201 Canton OH 44702- 312 Jilla Robert Alabama Department of Transportation US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL 1100 John Overton Drive Montgomery AL 36110- 

313 Johnson Edison Capital Area MPO MPO 127 West Hargett St. Raleigh NC 27601- 

314 Johnson Arthur Safe Travel America 10600 Red Barn Lane Potomac MD 20854

315 Johnson David National Association of Railroad Passengers 900 Second St. NE Washington DC 20002

316 Johnson Julie Ann Association of Railway Museums 28W351 Geneva Road West Chicago IL 60185317 Johnson Richard A. Transportation Communications International Union/BRC 3 Research Place Rockville MD

318 Kaiser Michael Lehigh Valley Transportation Study MPO 961 Marcon Boulevard, Suite 310 Allentown PA 18109- 

319 Kamm Bob FL- Brevard MPO MPO

Transportation Planning Office 2725 Judge Fran Jamieson Way, Building A, Room 109 Viera FL 32940- 

320 Kane Tom IA- Des Moines Area MPO MPO

Merle Hay Centre, Suite 300 West 6200 Aurora Avenue Urbandale IA 50322-2866

321 Karns Nathaniel W. MA - Berkshire MPO MPO 1 Fenn Street Pittsfield MA 01201- 322 Karr Patricia A. MI - Battle Creek Area Transportation Study MPO Springfield Municipal Building 601 Avenue A Springfield MI 49015-1474

323 Kawada Kim CA- San Diego Association of Governments MPO 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego CA 92101- 

324 Keane Bob Canadian National - AAR 17641 South Ashland Avenue Homewood IL 60430

325 Keating Robert FL- Indian River County MPO MPO

County Administration Building 1840 25th Street Vero Beach FL 32960- 

326 Keller Ray IL- DeKalb-Sycamore Area Transportation Study MPO 223 South Fourth Street, Suite A DeKalb IL 60115- 

327 Kelly Patrick American Petroleum Institute 1220 L Street NW Washington DC 20005

328 Kemp Jim CA- Santa Barbara County Association of Gov. MPO 260 North San Antonio Road, Suite B Santa Barbara CA 93110- 

329 Kenerson Rob ME - Bangor Area Comprehensive Trans. System MPO One Cumberland Place, Suite 300 Bangor ME 04401- 330 Kerr Steve Winchester-Frederick County MPO MPO 103 East 6th Street Front Royal VA 22630- 331 Kholbuss Terry IL- Peoria-Peskin Urban Area Trans. Study MPO

Associated Bank Building, Suite 2001 411 Hamilton Boulevard Peoria IL 61602- 

332 Kienzler Jim Canadian Pacific Railway - AAR Suite 500, Gulf Canada Square Calgary AB T2P 4Z4

333 Kiesow Harlan Appleton-Oshkosh-Fond du Lac MPO MPO 132 Main Street Menasha WI 54952-3100

334 Kirby Ronald DC- National Capital Region Trans. Planning Board MPO 777 North Capitol Street, NE, Suite 300 Washington DC 20002- 

335 Kirn Marjie CA- Merced County Association of Governments MPO 369 West 18th Street Merced CA 95340- 

336 Klette Cynthia Missoula Transportation Policy Coordinating Commit MPO 435 Ryman Street Missoula MT 59802- 

337 Knight William Chittenden County MPO MPO 30 Kimball Avenue, Suite 206 South Burlington VT 05403-6825

338 Knoblauch Glenn Reading Area Transportation Study MPO

Berks County Services Center, 14th Floor 633 Court Street Reading PA 19601-4309

339 Koegler-Vaughan Tammy Steel Industry Systems Association Steel Gallatin Steel Company U.S. Hwy. 42 West Ghent Kentucky 41045- 

340 Komornick Anthony MA - Merrimack Valley MPO MPO 160 Main Street Haverhill MA 01830- 341 Kouzchkanani Amir A. MA - Pioneer Valley MPO MPO 26 Central Street, Suite 34 West Springfield MA 01089-2787342 Kovacich Daniel CA- Shasta County Regional Trans. Planning Agency MPO 1855 Placer Street Redding CA 96001- 343 Krause Linda CT- CT River Estuary Regional Planning Agency MPO 455 Boston Post Road Old Saybrook CT 06475- 
Identifier Last Name First Name Company Name Industry Address City State/Province Postal Code

344 Krause Gregory Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe Cty MPO 600 Sutro Street Reno NV 89512- 

345 Krautler Charles GA- Atlanta Regional Commission MPO 40 Courtland Street, NE Atlanta GA 30303- 

346 Kreie Gregory S. 10 G Street, NW Washington DC 20002347 Kruzelnick Richard New Jersey Dept. of Transportation US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL 1035 Parkway Avenue P.O. Box 600 Trenton NJ 08625- 

348 Kunishige Karl Hawaii Dept. of Transportation US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL 869 Punchbowl Street Honolulu HI 96813- 

349 Kush Donald Chippewa-Eau Claire MPO MPO 800 Wisconsin Street, Mail Box 9 Eau Claire WI 54703- 

350 Kushner Mark Tri-Cities Metropolitan Area Trans. Study MPO 1622 Terminal Drive Richland WA 99352- 

351 Kyle Joe Oklahoma Dept. of Transportation US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL 200 N. E. 21st Street Oklahoma City OK 73105- 

352 Laffey Steve Illinois Commerce Commission AHB60 MEMBER 527 East Capital Avenue Springfield IL 62701- 

353 Lake Robert AL- Tuscaloosa Area MPO MPO 4200 Highway 69 North, Suite 1 Northport AL 35473- 

354 Lamb Stephen Mechanical Contractors Association of Chicago Construction 221 N. LaSalle St. Suite 3400 Chicago IL 60601- 

355 Lamine Chuck Green Bay MPO MPO

City Hall, Room 608 100 North Jefferson Street Green Bay WI 54301-5026

356 Lanning David Oregon Dept. of Transportation US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL 555 13th Street NE, Suite 3 Salem OR 97310- 

357 Largent Richard MO - Joplin MPO MPO 303 East 3rd Street Joplin MO 64801- 

358 Larreau Jimmy D. SEIU, NCFO S.C. 19 12697 Saddle Road North Platte NE 69101

359 Lasker Jerry Indian Nations COG MPO 201 West 5th Street, Suite 600 Tulsa OK 74103-4236

360 LaSut Linda Bryan-College Station MPO MPO 3608 East 29th Street, Suite 113 Bryan TX 77802- 

361 Lawler Robert Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission MPO 285 East Main Street Columbus OH 43215- 

362 Lawrence Wendell KY- Radcliff-Elizabethtown MPO MPO 613 College Street Road Elizabethtown KY 42702-0604

363 Lehman Briad Arizona Department of Transportation US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL 1739 W. Jackson St. 064R Phoenix AZ 85250- 

364 Lenox Jack MD - Salisbury-Wicomico MPO MPO P.O. Box 870 Salisbury MD 21803- 

365 Lewis Ted R. Union Pacific Railroad 1400 Douglas Street Omaha NE 68179

366 Lewis II Charles West Virginia DOT; Division of Highways AHB60 MEMBER 1900 Kanawha Blvd East Charleston WV 25305- 

367 Lindsay Harry Lackawanna-Luzerne Transportation Study MPO

Courthouse Annex Building, 6th Floor 200 Adams Avenue Scranton PA 18503- 

368 Lindsey Alan BNSF Railway 2600 Lou Menk Drive Fort Worth TX 76161

369 Lingenfelter Chad IA- Sioux City MPO MPO 507 Seventh Street, Suite 401 Sioux City IA 51102- 

370 Lockhart Lawrence Mississippi Dept. of Transportation US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL P.O. Box 1850 Jackson MS 39215- 

371 Lookingbill Dean Southwest Washington Regional Trans. Council MPO

Clark County Public Service Center 1300 Franklin Street, 4th Floor Vancouver WA 98660- 

372 Lott Doug Utah Steel Fabricators Association Steel

373 Lund Mark Brownsville MPO MPO 1150 East Adams St. El Tapiz Building Brownsville TX 78520- 

374 Lupo Vincent F. Municipal Construction Officials Association of NJ Construction C/O MUNCO 475 Demott Lane Somerset NJ 08873- 

375 Lynn Tommy West Kentucky Construction Association Construction 2201 McCracken Blvd., P.O. Box 1059 Paducah KY 42001- 

376 Lysy Daniel Richmond Area MPO MPO 2104 West Laburnum Avenue, Suite 101 Richmond VA 23227- 377 MacDonald Robert CO- Pikes Peak Area COG MPO 15 South 7th Street Colorado Springs CO 80905- 

378 MacNicol Alex Policy Committee of the Erie Regional Planning Com MPO 2900 Columbus Avenue Sandusky OH 44870- 

379 Maier Howard Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency MPO 1299 Superior Avenue Cleveland OH 44114-3204

380 Maley Patricia CA- Madera County Trans. Commission MPO 1816 Howard Road, Suite 8 Madera CA 93637- 

381 Mann Lawrence M. Alper, Mann and Weisbaum - UTU 9205 Redwood Avenue Bethesda MD 20817

382 Manster Stephen Fredericksburg Area MPO MPO 3304 Bourbon Street, 3rd Floor Fredericksburg VA 22408- 

383 Marceau Rick 14600 Detroit Avenue Cleveland OH 44107384 Marvin Robert E. Ohio Public Utilities Commission 180 East Broad Street Columbus OH 43215

385 Marzec Dennis KCS Railway 4601 Shreveport-Blanchard Hwy Shreveport LA 71107

386 Maslanka Gary Transport Workers Union of America AFL-CIO 1700 Broadway - 2nd Floor New York NY 10019

387 Mason Thomas Cheyenne MPO MPO 2101 O'Neil Avenue, Room 309 Cheyenne WY 82001- 

388 Mastrangelo M. Norfolk Southern Corporation AHB60 MEMBER 110 Franklin Road SE Roanoke VA 24042- 

389 Mather Dick AHB60 MEMBER 1485 Ammon Street NW Salem OR 97304-2035

390 Matthews Ronald AL- Decatur MPO MPO 216 Jackson Street, SE Decatur AL 35601- 

391 Mattingly Joe L. Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen 400 Contessa Lane Trenton KY 42286392 Mattix Ramona Yellowstone County Planning Board MPO

Parmly Library, 4th Floor 510 North Broadway Billings MT 59101- 

393 Mazur Tom Lima-Allen County Regional Planning Commission MPO 130 West North Street Lima OH 45801- 

394 McCaleb Brad Texarkana MPO MPO 220 Texas Blvd. Texarkana TX 75501- 

395 McCann F. Leo American Train Dispatchers Association 1370 Ontario St. Suite 1040 Cleveland OH 44113

396 McCaskill Mark Roanoke Valley MPO MPO 313 Luck Avenue, SW Roanoke VA 24016- 

397 McDaniel Harold Amarillo MPO MPO

City Hall, Room 204 509 SE 7th Avenue Amarillo TX 79105-1971

398 McDonald Robert Madison Area MPO MPO 121 South Pinckney Street, Suite 400 Madison WI 53703- 

399 McDonald George J. Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO 1700 Broadway - 2nd Floor New York NY 10019

400 McDougal Brian GA- South Georgia Reg. Development Center MPO 327 West Savannah Avenue Valdosta GA
Identifier Last Name First Name Company Name Industry Address City State/Province Postal Code

401 McIntosh Kevin KCS Cathedral Square Kansas City MO 64105402 McKenna Francis G. Anderson & Pendelton, CA, Inc. - Tourist Railway Assoc. 206 N. Washington Street, S. 330 Alexandria VA 22314

403 McKenzie Jim AR- Metroplan MPO 501 West Markham Street, Suite B Little Rock AR 72201- 

404 McKenzie Maurice Anderson Area Transportation Study MPO 401 South Main Street Anderson SC 29624- 

405 McKinnon Jim AR- Jonesboro Area Trans. Study Policy Committee MPO P.O. Box 1845 Jonesboro AR 72403-1845

406 McNeely Hugh Waco MPO MPO 300 Austin Avenue Waco TX 76701- 

407 Meddin Jeffrey D. RailWorks Corporation 4027 Log Trail Way Reisterstown MD 21136408 Mehta Jamsheed KS- Wichita-Segwick County Metro Area Plannin Comm MPO City Hall, 10th Floor 455 North Main Street Wichita KS 67202-1688

409 Mesa Jose Luis FL- Miami - Dade MPO MPO 111 NW 1st Street, Suite 910 Miami FL 33128- 410 Meyer Bill GA- Gainesville MPO MPO 440 Prior Street, SE Gainesville GA

411 Meyer Tyler Greensboro Urban Area MPO MPO 300 West Washington Street Greensboro NC 27402- 

412 Meyer M. Lee Lebanon County MPO MPO

Municipal Building, Room 206 400 South 8th Street Lebanon PA 17042-6794

413 Mikorski Jeff Morgantown-Monongalia County Transportation P.O. MPO 389 Spruce Street Morgantown WV 26505- 

414 Miles Glenn Spokane Regional Transportation Council MPO 221 West First Avenue, Suite 310 Spokane WA 99201-3613

415 Miller Harry Herkimer-Oneida Counties Transportation Study MPO

Boehlert Center at Union Station 321 Main Street Utica NY 13501- 

416 Miller Ray Victoria MPO MPO 700 Main Center, Suite 201 Victoria TX 77901- 

417 Miller Jim Whatcom COG MPO 314 East Champion Street Bellingham WA 98225- 

418 Miller D. Rocky Mountain Steel Construction Association Steel 2875 W. Oxford Ave. #3 Englewood CO 80110- 

419 Miller, Jr. John LA - Rapides Area Planning Commission MPO 5610 East Coliseum Boulevard Suite E Alexandria LA 71303- 

420 Mitchell Douglas LA - Ouachata Council of Governments MPO 1913 Stubbs Ave. Monroe LA 71201- 421 Mogan Dennis METRA (NIRC) 547 West Jackson Blvd Chicago IL 60661422 Molitor Edward Hidalgo County MPO MPO 311 North 15th Street McAllen TX 78501-4705

423 Moller Jeffrey F. AAR 50 F Street NW Washington DC 20001

424 Monning Jay West Virginia Dept. of Transportation US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL 1900 Kanawha Blvd., East Charleston WV 25305- 

425 Montgomery Rex Bristol MPO MPO City Hall Annex 104 8th Street Bristol TN 37621- 

426 Moody Marta IN- Delaware-Muncie Met. Planning Commission MPO

Delaware County Building, Room 206 100 West Main Street Muncie IN 47305-2827

427 Moon Young-Jun The Korea Transport Institute AHB60 MEMBER 2311 Daehwa-dong, Llsan-gu Koyang-city Kyonggi-do

428 Moore Dan Rogue Valley COG MPO 155 North 1st Street Central Point OR 97502- 

429 Morales Bill Tyler Urban Transportation Study MPO MPO Address 423 West Ferguson Tyler TX 75702- 

430 Morgan Bill AL- Mobile Area Transportation Study MPO 651 Church Street Mobile AL 36633- 

431 Morganbesser Marvin Connecticut Construction Industries Association Construction 912 Silas Deane Highway Wethersfield CT 06019- 

432 Morris Michael North Central Texas COG MPO 616 Six Flags Drive, Suite 200 Dallas/Fort Worth TX 76011-6347

433 Morris Dennis Tri Cities Area MPO MPO 1964 Wakefield Street Petersburg VA 23805- 

434 Morse Hal Greater Buffalo-Niagara Regional Transportation ` MPO 438 Main Street, Suite 503 Buffalo NY 14202- 435 Mumford Bob MA - Cape Cod MPO MPO 3225 Main Street Barnstable MA 02630- 436 Munn Darrell South Carolina Dept. of Transportation US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL P.O. Box 191 Columbia SC 29202- 

437 Munoz Rosa California Public Utilities Commission US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL 320 West 4th Street, Suite 500 Los Angeles CA 90013- 

438 Napier Marvin Transportation Communications International Union/BRC 3 Research Place Rockville MD 20850439 Neisler Don LA - Capital Regional Planning Commission MPO 333 North 19th Street Baton Rouge LA 70802- 440 Nelson Dan Mountainland Association of Governments MPO Stratford Park 586 East 800 North Orem UT 84097-4146

441 Nelson Aidan Rail Safety & Standards Board AHB60 MEMBER 160 Euston Road London England

442 Nolat Merv IN- West Central Indiana Economic Dev. District MPO 1718 Wabash Avenue Terre Haute IN 47808- 

443 Northcraft James Wheeling and Lake Erie Railway Company -AAR 100 East First Street Brewster OH 44613

444 Novakovic Alex Transportation Communications International Union/BRC 3 Research Place Rockville MD 20850

445 Nunn Mike Cabarrus-South Rowan Urban Area MPO MPO 118 South Main St. Kannapolis NC 28081- 

446 Olasimbo Noble FL- Lake Sumter MPO MPO 123 N. Sinclair Avenue Tavares FL 32778- 

447 Owen Karen Longview MPO MPO 300 West Cotton Street Longview TX 75601- 

448 Pagano Philip A. METRA - AAR 547 W. Jackson Blvd Chicago IL 60661

449 Pajunen Kirsi VTT Building and Transport AHB60 MEMBER P.O. Box 1800

450 Palombo Carmine MI - Southeast Michigan COG MPO 535 Griswold Street, Suite 300 Detroit MI 48226-3602

451 Papadakis Nicholas CA- Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments MPO 445 Reservation Road, Suite G Marina CA 93933- 

452 Paprocki Mike Brook-Hancock-Jefferson Metropolitan Planning Comm MPO 124 North 4th Street Steubenville OH 43952- 

453 Parcall Darby KY- Bowling Green MPO MPO 177 Graham Avenue Bowling Green KY 42102-9005

454 Pardlo Greg A American Train Dispatchers Association 1681 Summit Ave Willow Grove PA 19090455 Pardlo Sr. Greg American Dispatchers Association AHB60 MEMBER 1681 Summit Avenue Willow Grove PA 19090- 456 Park Drew Pacific Northwest Steel Fabricators Association Steel

Columbia Wire & Iron Works, Inc.5555 N Channell Ave., Bldg 4 Annex Portland OR 97217- 

457 Patty George GA- Augusta Regional Transportation Study MPO 525 Telfair Street Augusta GA 30901- 

458 Payne George Tourist Railway Association Inc 420 West Greenwood Linthicum Hgts. MD 21090
Identifier Last Name First Name Company Name Industry Address City State/Province Postal Code

459 Peacock Thomas American Public Transportation Association (APTA) 1666 K Street, NW Washington DC 20006

460 Peagler Joseph Idaho Transportation Department US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL P.O. Box 7129 Boise ID 83707- 

461 Pebworth B.J. Florence Area Transportation Study MPO 218 West Evans St. Florence SC 29501- 

462 Penne Leo Intermodal and Industry Activities - AASHTO 444 North Capital Street, NW Room 249 Washington DC 20001

463 Peters Don National Chemical Credit Association Chemical 1100 Main St Buffalo NY 14209-2356

464 Peterson John GA- Brunswick Area Transportation Study MPO 1803 Glouchester Street, Suite 100 Brunswick GA 31520- 465 Phillips James Georgia Dept. of Transportation US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL 935 E. Confederate Ave, Bldg 24 Atlanta GA 30316- 466 Phipps William Belmont-Ohio-Marshall Transportation Study MPO 105 Bridge Street Plaza Wheeling WV 26003-0290

467 Pickett Dan Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen 917 Shenandoah Shores Road Front Royal VA 22630

468 Pierce Jerry Rocky Mount Urban Area MPO MPO One Government Plaza Rocky Mount NC 27801- 

469 Pike Dan Skagit COG MPO 204 West Montgomery Mt. Vernon WA 98501-1284470 Pilant Stanley Jackson Urban Area MPO MPO 111 East Main Street, Suite 201 Jackson TN 38301- 

471 Pisano Mark CA- Southern California Association of Governments MPO 818 West 7th Street, 12th Floor Los Angeles CA 90017- 

472 Poichuk Phillip Rail Safety Transportation Canada AHB60 MEMBER 330 Sparks St. Ottawa Ontario

473 Pontolillo Tom Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen 1370 Ontario Street Cleveland OH 44113

474 Poorman John Capital District Transportation Committee MPO 5 Computer Drive West Albany NY 12205-1606

475 Porth Richard CT- Capital Region COG MPO 241 Main Street, 4th Floor Hartford CT 06106-5310

476 Prusak Paul AK- Fairbanks Metro Area Trans. Study MPO 2301 Peger Road Fairbanks AK 99709- 

477 Puko Dennis Shenango Valley Area Transportation Study MPO 2491 Highland Road Hermitage PA 16148- 478 Rael Lawrence Mid-Region COG MPO 317 Commercial Street NE, Suite 104 Albuquerque NM 87102- 

479 Ramsey Alene Omaha-Council Bluffs Metropolitan Area Trans. Agcy MPO 2222 Cuming Street Omaha NE 68102-4328

480 Randall James Texas Department of Transportation US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL P.O. Box 149217 Austin TX 78714- 

481 Ranfranz James IN- Northwest Indiana Regional Planning Commission MPO 6100 Southport Road Portage IN 46368- 482 Rangel Benjamin Great Falls City-County Planning Board MPO Great Falls Civic Center 2 Park Drive South Great Falls MT 59403- 

483 Raub Richard Northwestern University AHB60 MEMBER 405 Church Street Evanston IL 60208- 

484 Reid Ray International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 7100 SW Shady Lane Portland OR 97223

485 Reinauer Tom ME - Kittery Area Comprehensive Trans. Study MPO 21 Bradeen Street, Suite 304 Springvale ME 04083- 

486 Reiner Frank Chlorine Institute, Inc. 1300 Wilson Blvd Arlington VA 22209

487 Reisdorf Charles MI - Region 2 Planning Commission MPO Jackson County Tower Building, 16th Floor 120 W Michigan Ave Jackson MI 49201- 

488 Reithel Jay MI - Saginaw Metro Area Transportation Study MPO 615 Court Street Saginaw MI 48602- 

489 Rezendes Guy Massachusetts Highway Department US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL 10 Park Plaza, Room 6340 Boston MA 02116- 

490 Rhodes Karen Chattanooga Urban Area MPO MPO

Development Resource Center, Suite 2000 1250 Market Street Chattanooga TN 37402-2713

491 Ries Ron Federal Railroad Administration AHB60 MEMBER 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW Washington DC 20590- 

492 Risk Mike Kentucky Transportation Cabinet US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL 501 High Street Frankfort KY 40622- 

493 Rivera Eddie Federal Highway Administration US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL

Federal Building, U.S. Courthouse, Room 329Carlos Chardon Street San Juan PR 00918- 

494 Robertson Jim Construction Association of South Florida Construction 3550 Northwest Ninth Avenue Ft. Lauderdale FL

495 Robinett William Casper Area MPO MPO 200 North David Street, Room 203 Casper WY 82601- 

496 Robinette P. Michael Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission MPO 40 West 4th Centre, Suite 400 Dayton OH 45402- 

497 Robinson Rob Illinois Dept. of Transportation US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL 2300 South Dirksen Parkway Springfield IL 62764- 

498 Robusto Ron National Rail Passenger Corporation 1 High Speed Way Willmington DE 19801499 Roe Bill Union Pacific Railroad 1400 Douglas Street Omaha NE 68179

500 Rogers J. Kent LA - Northwest Louisiana COG MPO 401 Market Street, Suite 460 Shreveport LA 71101- 

501 Rogers Rhonda Jacksonville MPO MPO 211 Johnson Blvd Jacksonville NC 28540- 

502 Roop Steve Texas A&M University AHB60 MEMBER 3135 TAMU College Station TX 77843-2135

503 Root Rick Bend MPO MPO 710 Wall Street Bend OR 97709- 

504 Rouse Ken Union Pacific Railroad AHB60 MEMBER 24125 Aldine Westfield Spring TX 77373- 

505 Rousseau Kevin Maine Department of Transportation US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL 16 State House Station Augusta ME 04333-0016

506 Rowlands Mary Syracuse Metropolitan Transportation Council MPO

100 Clinton Square, Suite 100 126 North Salina Street Syracuse NY 13202- 

507 Royer Jennifer Vermont Agency of Transportation US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL National Life Building Montpelier VT 05633- 

508 Ruble Steve IN- Columbus Area MPO MPO 123 Washington Street Columbus IN 47201- 

509 Rudge Daniel MO - Springfield Area MPO MPO 840 Boonville Avenue Springfield MO 65802- 

510 Russel Paul IL- McLean County Transportation Study MPO 211 West Jefferson Street Bloomington IL 61701- 511 Russell Eugene Kansas State University AHB60 MEMBER 2118 Fiedler Hall Manhattan KS 66506-2905

512 Salomon Kealy Poughkeepsie-Dutchess County Transportation Counci MPO 27 High Street, 2nd Floor Poughkeepsie NY 12601- 

513 Sanderson Marlie FL- Metropolitan Trans. Planning Organization MPO 2009 NW 67th Place, Suite A Gainsville FL 32653-1603

514 Scardelletti Bobby 3 Research Place Rockville MD 20850

515 Scharl Christian New York State Dept. of Transportation US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL 1220 Washington Avenue, State Campus Albany NY 12232- 

516 Schaufele Jennifer FL- Broward County MPO MPO 115 South Andrews Avenue, Room 329H Fort Lauderdale FL 33301- 

517 Schell Ann Fond du Lac Area MPO MPO 160 South Macy Street Fond du Lac WI 54936- 
Identifier Last Name First Name Company Name Industry Address City State/Province Postal Code

518 Schick Tom American Chemistry Council 1300 Wilson Boulevard Arlington VA 22209

519 Schissell Jay Elmira-Chemung Transportation Council MPO 400 East Church Street Elmira NY 14901- 

520 Schmid Richard Salem-Keizer Area Transportation study MPO 105 High Street, SE Salem OR 97301- 

521 Schmitz Joe Farmington MPO MPO 800 Muncipal Drive Farmington NM 87401- 

522 Schulze Tom New York Metropolitan Transportation Council MPO 199 Water Street, 22nd Floor New York City NY 10038- 

523 Schulze Mark BNSF 2600 Lou Menk Drive Ft Worth TX 76131

524 Schwetz Thomas Lane COG MPO 99 East Broadway, Suite 400 Eugene OR 97401-3111525 Scott Donald C. National Railroad Passenger Corporation - AMTRAK (Amtrak Training Center) 1 High Speed Way Willmington DE 19801526 Seanor Sandra IN- Michiana Area COG MPO 227 West Jefferson Boulevard, Room 1120 South Bend IN 46601- 

527 Seely Mike Utah Department of Transportation US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL 4501 South 2700 West Salt Lake City UT 84114- 

528 Seese Steve Wichita Falls MPO MPO 2100 Seymour Highway Wichita Falls TX 76301- 

529 Selig Mike Arkansas Highway & Transportation Dept US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL P.O. Box 2261 Little Rock AR 72203- 

530 Selman Keith Laredo Urban Transportation Study MPO 1110 Houston Street Laredo TX 78042-0579

531 Shannis Donald Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission MPO 111 South Independence Mall East Philadelphia PA 19106- 

532 Sharkey John Safetran Systems Corporation AHB60 MEMBER 37W890 Acorn Lane Elgin IL 60123- 

533 Sharkey, III Andrew G. American Iron and Steel Institute Steel 1140 Connecticut Ave., NW Suite 705 Washington D.C. 20036- 

534 Sharma Manindra Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission MPO 438 Dubuque Street Manchester NH 03102- 

535 Shrewsberry Bill Louisiana Dept. of Transportation & Development US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL Capitol Station, Room 501P P.O. Box 94245 Baton Rouge LA 70804- 

536 Siipola Rosemary Longview-Kelso-Rainier MPO MPO 207 4th Avenue North Kelso WA 98626- 

537 Simpson Fred BMWE Division 20300 Civic Center Drive, Suite 320 Southfield MI 48076

538 Simpson Thomas D. Railway Supply Institute, Inc 50 F Street, N.W. Washington DC 20001

539 Singer Robert A. Construction Association of Michigan Construction 43636 Woodward P.O. Box 3204 Bloomfield Hills MI 48302- 

540 Sinnott Cliff Salem-Plaistow-Windham MPO MPO 156 Water Street Exeter NH 03833- 

541 Skinner Allan AR- Southeast Arkansas Regional Planning Comm. MPO 1300 Ohio Street Pine Bluff AR 71601- 

542 Skone Don Yakima MPO MPO 6 South 2nd Street, Suite 605 Yakima WA 98901- 

543 Slay Greg FL- Ocala - Marion County MPO MPO 121 SE Watula Ave. Ocala FL 34478- 

544 Sleemi Rashid D.C. Traffic Services Administration US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL 2000 14th Street, NW, 7th Floor Washington DC 20009- 

545 Smart Gilbert Connecticut Dept. of Transportation US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL P.O. Box 317546 Newing CT 06131- 

546 Smetana E'Lisa San Angelo MPO MPO 72 West College Avenue San Angelo TX 76903-5814

547 Smith Mark IL- Decatur Urbanized Area Transportation Study MPO 141 South Main Street, Room 501 Decatur IL 62523- 

548 Smith Larry T. MS - Central Mississippi Planning & Dev Distric MPO 1170 Lakeland Drive Jackson MS 39269- 549 Smith Kurt Alaska Dept. of Transportation & PF US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL 3132 Channel Drive Juneau AK 99801- 

550 Smith Tim Georgia Dept. of Transportation US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL 935 E. Confederate Ave, Bldg 24 Atlanta GA 30316- 551 Smith Greg Kentucky Transportation Cabinet US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL 501 High Street Frankfort KY 40622- 552 Smoot Chuck Indiana Department of Transportation US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL 100 N. Senate Ave, Indianapolis IN 46204- 

553 Snow Jacob Regional Transportation Commission of S. NV MPO 600 South Grand Central Parkway Suite 350 Las Vegas NV 89106- 

554 Sokolsky Joseph Railroad Safety & Health 1100 N. Eutan St. Room 300 Baltimore MD 21201555 Solie Cynthia Oregon Cascades West COG MPO Corvallis OR

556 Soolman Arnie MA - Boston MPO MPO State Transportation Building, Suite 2150 10 Park Plaza Boston MA 02116- 

557 Soper Michael New Hampshire Dept. of Transportation US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL 1 Hazen Drive, P.O. Box 483 Concord NH 03302- 

558 Spenle Robert State Line Area Transportation Study MPO City Hall, 3rd Floor 100 State Street Beloit WI 53511- 

559 Spinar Ronald AZ- Flagstaff MPO MPO 211 W. Aspen Ave. Flagstaff AZ 86001- 

560 Sposato Suzanne US DOT/RSPA/Volpe Center AHB60 MEMBER 55 Broadway Cambridge MA 02414-2 

561 Srankenseld Aaron Adirondack/Glens Falls Transportation Council MPO

Washington County Municipal Center, A-231 383 Upper Broadway Fort Edward NY 12828- 

562 Stanley Gary M. MI - Bay City Area Transportation Study MPO 515 Center Avenue, Suite 505 Bay City MI 48708-5126

563 Start Jonathon MI - Kalamazoo Area Transportation Study MPO 3801 East Kilgore Road Kalamazoo MI 49001-5534

564 Stem James A. United Transportation Union 304 Pennsylvania Ave, SE Washington DC 20003

565 Stephani Carl CT- Central Connecticut Regional Planning Agency MPO 225 North Main Street, Suite 304 Bristol CT 06010-4993

566 Stevens Jeanne Nashville Area MPO MPO 730 2nd Avenue South Nashville TN 37201- 

567 Strachan R. Stephen National Railroad Passenger Corporation - AMTRAK 15 S. Poplar Street, Consolidated National Operations Center Willmington DE 19801

568 Streicher Thomas E. ASLRRA 50 F Street, N.W. Washington DC 20001

569 Strider William Harrisonburg-Rockingham MPO MPO 112 MacTanly Place Staunton VA 24401- 

570 Styron Jim North Dakota Dept. of Transportation US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL 608 E. Boulevard Avenue, Room 323 Bismarck ND 58505- 571 Suder Steve Centre Region MPO MPO 2643 Gateway Dr., Suite 4 State College PA 16801- 572 Sullivan Tom UTU Local 7-E 1711 West Philip North Platte NE 69101

573 Swanson Tom AZ- Pima Association of Governments MPO 177 N. Church Avenue, Suite 405 Tucson AZ 85701- 

574 Swint Robert ATA Associates AHB60 MEMBER 1301 Gemini Houston TX 77058- 

575 Szymborski James Harrisburg Area Transportation Study MPO 112 Market Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg PA 17101- 

576 Taylor Zach Association of Central Oklahoma Governments MPO 21 East Main Street, Suite 100 Oklahoma City OK 73104-2405577 Teel Mitzi Columbia Area Transportation Study MPO 236 Stoneridge Drive Columbia SC 29210- 

578 Thomas James GA- Macon Area Transportation Study MPO 682 Cherry Street, Suite 1000 Macon GA 31201- 
Identifier Last Name First Name Company Name Industry Address City State/Province Postal Code

579 Thomas Scott Alaska Dept. of Transportation & PF US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL PO Box 196900 Anchorage AK 99519- 

580 Thompson C. Kenneth Grand-Strand Area Transportation Study MPO 1230 Highmarket Street Georgetown SC 29440- 

581 Thompson Bill Wyoming Transportation Department US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL P.O. Box 1708 Cheyenne WY 82003- 

582 Thompson Dinetha ATT Associates AHB60 MEMBER 9796 Thornbush drive Fairfax station VA 22039- 

583 Thompson Jonathan Virginia Tech AHB60 MEMBER

584 Thompson Paul C. United Transportation Union 304 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE Washington DC 20003

585 Thurbon David KS- Topeka-Shawnee County Metro Plannin Commission MPO 515 South Kansas Street, Suite 404 Topeka KS 66603- 

586 Tingle Carl A. 9015 Lemon Rd Slaughter LA 70777

587 Tinkler Mark Wilmington Urban Area MPO MPO 305 Chestnut Street, 4th floor Wilmington NC 28401- 

588 Tippett John Unifour MPO MPO 736 Fourth Street SW Hickory NC 28602- 

589 Tobin Bill IA- Dubuque Metro Area Transportation Study MPO 3999 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 200 Dubuque IA 52002- 

590 Tolman John Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers andf Trainmen 25 Louisiana Ave NW Washington DC 20001

591 Tramel Tony LA - Lafayette MPO MPO 705 W. University Lafayette LA 70506- 

592 Trapani Katherine State Planning Council MPO 1 Capitol Hill Providence RI 02908- 

593 Tull Harold KY- Kentuckiana Regional Planning & Dev. Agency MPO 11520 Commonwealth Drive Louisville KY 40299- 

594 Tuttle Martin CA- Sacramento Area COG MPO 1415 L Street, Suite 300 Sacramento CA 95814- 595 Tysinger Tom Greenville Urban Area MPO MPO 1500 Beatty Street Greenville NC 27834- 

596 Uden Doug FL- Pasco County MPO MPO 7530 Little Road, Suite 320 New Port Richey FL 34654- 

597 Van den Bosch Larry GA- North Georgia Regional Development Center MPO 503 West Waught Street Dalton GA 30720-3475

598 Van Miller Mike IL- Kankakee Area Transportation Study MPO 189 East Court Street, Suite 201 Kankakee IL 60901- 

599 VanderClute Bob AAR 50 F Street, N. W. Washington DC 20001

600 Vaughn Gary C. WATCO Companies, Inc 315 W. 3rd Street Pittsburg KS 66762601 Viciudas Aristides IL- Chicago Area Transportation Study MPO 300 West Adams Street, 2nd Floor Chicago IL 60606- 

602 Vidal Guillermo CO- Denver Regional COG MPO 4500 Cherry Creek Drive South, Suite 800 Denver CO 80246- 

603 Voeltz David South Dakota Dept. of Transportation US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL 700 East Broadway Avenue Pierre SD 57501- 

604 Vonasek Beverly Nebraska Department of Roads US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL P.O. Box 94759 Lincoln NE 68509-4759605 Waldrip John Arkansas Highway & Transportation Dept US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL P.O. Box 2261 Little Rock AR 72203- 

606 Wallis Jason Colorado Dept. of Transportation US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL 4201 East Arkansas Ave., Empire Park Denver CO 80222- 

607 Walls Jerry Williamsport Area Transportation Study MPO 48 West 3rd Street Williamsport PA 17701- 

608 Walsh Joanne San Antonio-Bexar County MPO MPO 1021 San Pedro San Antonio TX 78212- 

609 Want James CT- Greater Bridgeport / Valley MPO MPO 525 Water Street Bridgeport CT 06604-4902

610 Ward Sarah FL- Pinellas County MPO MPO 600 Cleveland Street, Suite 750 Clearwater FL 33755- 

611 Waters Kathryn D. Dallas Area Rapid Transit 1401 Pacific Avenue Dallas TX 75266

612 Watson Steve ID- Lewis-Clark Valley MPO MPO

613 Watts Larry AL- Birmingham MPO MPO 1731 First Ave. North, Suite 200 Birmingham AL 35203- 

614 Wehrmeister Charles J. Norfolk Southern Corporation - AAR 110 Franklin Road, SE - Box 73 Roanoke VA 24042

615 Weigand Paul IA- Ames Area MPO MPO 515 Clark Avenue Ames IA 50010- 

616 Weiner Joel North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority MPO One Newark Center, 17th Floor Newark NJ 07102- 

617 Welch Jeffrey Knoxville Regional Transportation P.O. MPO 400 Main Street, Suite 403 Knoxville TN 37902- 

618 Welzenbach Karl FL- Volusia County MPO MPO 1190 Pelican Bay Drive Daytona Beach FL 32119-1381

619 West Darell ID- Bonneville MPO MPO 380 Constitution Way Idaho Falls ID 83405- 

620 Wheatley Dean IA- Linn County Regional Planning Commission MPO 50 2nd Ave. Bridge, 6th floor Cedar Rapids IA 52401- 

621 Wheeler Philip H. MN - Rochester-Olmsted COG MPO 2122 Campus Drive SE Rochester MN 55904- 

622 White Bob Central Virginia MPO MPO 915 Main Street, Suite 202 Lynchburg VA 24504- 

623 Whitifield Randy FL- Palm Beach County MPO MPO 160 Australian Avenue, Suite 201 West Palm Beach FL 33406- 

624 Wieczoreck Juanita DE- Dover / Kent County MPO MPO 655 Bay Road, Suite 208 Dover DE 19903- 

625 Wiggins Richard Tahoe MPO MPO 128 Market Street Stateline NV 89449-5310

626 Wigglesworth Eric Accident Research Centre AHB60 MEMBER Monash University Clayton Victoria627 Wilkens Jeff Wenatchee Valley Transportation Council MPO 300 South Columbia Street Wenatchee WA 98801- 

628 Wilkinson Elaine G. MS - Gulf Regional Planning Commission MPO 1232 Pass Road Gulfport MS 39501- 

629 Willet Mike AZ- Central Yavapai MPO MPO

c/o Yavapai County 1100 Commerce Drive Prescott AZ 86305- 

630 Williams Stephen Nashua Regional Planning Commission MPO 115 Main Street Nashua NH 03061- 

631 Williams Stan Clarksville Urban Area MPO MPO 329 Main Street Clarksville TN 37040- 632 Williams Jenny Alabama Department of Transportation US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL 1100 John Overton Drive Montgomery AL 36110- 

633 Wills Doug W. Union Pacific Railroad - AAR 1400 Douglas Street Omaha NE 68179

634 Wilson Robert CT- South Western Region MPO MPO 888 Washington Boulevard Stamford CT 06901- 

635 Wimmer Bill Union Pacific Railroad - AAR 1416 Dodge Street Omaha NE 68179

636 Wise Henry Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees 3465 Smith Hill Road Slatington PA 18080

637 Wood Robert Sherman-Denison MPO MPO 1117 Gallagher Dr., Suite 300 Sherman TX 75090- 

638 Woods Beverly A. MA - Northern Middlesex MPO MPO Gallagher Terminal, Floor 3B 115 Thorndike Street Lowell MA 01852-3308

639 Woods Samuel Lubbock MPO MPO Address 916 Main Street, Suite 706 Lubbock TX 79401- 
Identifier Last Name First Name Company Name Industry Address City State/Province Postal Code

640 Wooten Richard GA- Albany - Dougherty County Planning Comm. MPO 240 Pine Ave., 3rd floor Albany GA 31702- 

641 Worley Paul North Carolina DOT AHB60 MEMBER 1556 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 27699-1556

642 Wray Michael Virginia Department of Transportation US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL 1401 East Broad Street Richmond VA 23219-2000

643 Wyrick Lon Thurston Regional Planning Council MPO 2404 Heritage Court SW, Suite B Olympia WA 98502- 644 Xu Guan Fedearl Highway Administration AHB60 MEMBER 400 7th Street NEW Washington DC 20590- 

645 Zacker Mark Missouri Dept. of Transportation US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL P. O. Box 1216 Jefferson City MO 65102- 

646 Zaldivar Fernando Michigan Dept. of Transportation US DOT HIGHWAY-RAIL P.O. Box 30050 Lansing MI 48909- 

647 Zegeye Tigist DE- Wilmington Area Planning Council MPO 850 Library Avenue, Suite 100 Newark DE 19711-7146648 Zeigler Mike FL- Okaloosa-Walton Trans. Planning Organization MPO 3435 North 12th Avenue Pensacola FL 32503- 

649 Zigenfus Rose IN- Evansville Urban Transportation Study MPO 1 NW Martin Luther King Boulevard Evansville IN 47708-1833

650 Zumwalt William CA- Kings County Association of Governments MPO 1400 West Lacey Boulevard Hanford CA 93230- 

Appendix A.11 

USDOT FRA National Crossing Inventory 

Form with Instructions 

A.11 - 1
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION (FRA)

U.S. DOT CROSSING INVENTORY FORM

OMB No. 2130-0017

 FORM FRA F 6180.71 (Rev. 11/99) OMB approval expires 8/31/2009

A. Initiating Agency B. Crossing Number (max. 7 char.) C. Reason for Update

Railroad State

D. Effective Date

Changes in (MM/DD/YYYY)

Existing Data New Crossing Closed Crossing

or Abandoned

Part I: Location and Classification Information

1. Railroad Oper. Co. (code (max. 4 char.) or name) 2. State (2 char.) 3. County (max 20 char.)

4. Railroad Division or Region (max. 14 char.) 5. Railroad Subdivision or District (max. 14 char.) 6. Branch or Line Name (max. 15 char.) 7. RR Milepost (max. 7 char.)

 (nnnnn.nn)

8. RR I.D. No. (max. 10 char.) 9. Nearest RR Timetable Station (max. 15 char.)

(optional)

10. Parent RR (max. 4 char.)

(if applicable)

11. Crossing Owner (RR or Company name)

(if applicable)

12. City (max. 16 char.)

(check 

one)

In

Near

13. Street or Road Name (max. 17 char.) STATE SUPPLIED INFORMATION

21. HSR Corridor ID (2 char.)

22. County Map Ref. No. (max. 10 char.)

23. Latitude (max. 10 char., nn.nnnnnnn)

24. Longitude (max. 11 char., nnn.nnnnnnn)

25. Lat/Long Source

Actual Estimated

14. Highway Type & No. (max. 7 char.) 15. ENS Sign Installed (1-800)

Yes No

16. Quiet Zone

No Partial

24 hr Unknown

17. Crossing Type

(choose one only)

Public

Private

Pedestrian

18. Crossing Position

At Grade

RR Under

RR Over

19. Type of Passenger Service

AMTRAK

AMTRAK & Other

Other

None

20. Average Passenger Train

Count Per Day

26. Is There an Adjacent Crossing With a Separate Number?

Yes No If Yes, Provide Number _________________________________ (7 characters)

27. PRIVATE CROSSING INFORMATION

27.A. Category

(check one) Recreational

Industrial

Commercial

Farm

Residential

27.B. Public Access

Yes

No

Unknown

27.C. Signs/Signals

None

Signs

Signals

Specify (max. 15 char.) __________________________________________ 

Specify (max. 15 char.) __________________________________________ 

28.A. Railroad Use (max. 20 char.)

28.B. Railroad Use (max. 20 char.)

28.C. Railroad Use (max. 20 char.)

28.D. Railroad Use (max. 20 char.)

30. Narrative (max. 100 char.)

29.A. State Use (max. 20 char.)

29.B. State Use (max. 20 char.)

29.C. State Use (max. 20 char.)

29.D. State Use (max. 20 char.)

31. Emergency Contact (Telephone No.) 32. Railroad Contact (Telephone No.) 33. State Contact (Telephone No.)

MUST COMPLETE REMAINDER OF FORM FOR PUBLIC VEHICLE CROSSINGS AT GRADE

Part II: Railroad Information

1. Number of Daily Train Movements

1.A. Total Trains

 __________

1.B. Total Switching Trains

 __________

1.C. Total Daylight Thru Trains (6 AM to 6 PM)

 __________

1.D. Check if Less Than One Movement Per Day

2. Speed of Train at Crossing

3. Type and Number of Tracks

2.A. Maximum Time Table Speed (mph) ____________

2.B. Typical Speed Range Over Crossing (mph) from ____________ to ____________

Main __________ Other __________ If Other, Specify (max. 10 char.) ______________________________________

4. Does Another RR Operate a Separate Track at Crossing?

Yes

No

If Yes, Specify RR (max. 16 char.)

____________, ____________, ____________, ____________

5. Does Another RR Operate Over Your Track at Crossing?

Yes

No

If Yes, Specify RR (max. 16 char.)

____________, ____________, ____________, ____________

PAGE 1 OF 2

____________

A.11 - 2
U.S. DOT CROSSING INVENTORY FORM

D. Effective Date

 (MM/DD/YYYY)

Part III: Traffic Control Device Information

1. No Signs or Signals

2.A. Crossbucks

 __________

3.F. Other Flashing Lights

Part V: Highway Information

B. Crossing Number (max. 7 char.)

PAGE 2

Check if Correct

2.B. Highway Stop Signs (R1-1)

 __________

2.C. RR Advance Warning 

 Signs (W10-1)

Yes No

2.D. Hump Crossing Sign (W10-5)

Yes No Unknown

2.E. Pavement Markings

Stoplines RR Xing Symbols None

2.F. Other Signs (specify MUTCD type)

Number __________ Specify Type (max. 10 char.) __________________________________ 

Number __________ Specify Type (max. 10 char.) __________________________________ 

3. Type of Warning Device at Crossing – Train Activated Devices (specify number of each)

3.A. Gates

 __________

3.B. Four-quadrant (or

 full barrier) Gates

Yes No

3.C. Cantilevered (or Bridged) Flashing Lights

Over Traffic Lane (number) _________ 

Not Over Traffic Lane (number) _________ 

3.D. Mast Mounted 

 Flashing Lights (number)

 __________

3.E. Number of Flashing 

 Light Pairs 

 __________

Number __________ Specify Type (max. 9 char.) ____________________________ 

3.G. Highway Traffic Signals

(number)

3.H. Wigwags (number) 3.J. Bells (number)

3.K. Other Train Activated Warning Devices: (specify)

(max. 9 char.) _______________________________________________________ 

4. Specify Special Warning Device NOT Train Activated (max. 20 char.) 5. Channelization Devices With Gates

All Aproaches One Approach None

6. Train Detection

DC/AFO

Other

None

Constant Warning Time

Motion Detectors

7. Signalling for Train Operation:

 Is Track Equipped with Train Signals?

Yes

No

8. Traffic Light Interconnection/Preemption

Not Interconnected

Simultaneous Preemption

Advance Preemption

N/A

9. Reserved For Future Use 10. Reserved For Future Use 11. Reserved For Future Use 12. Reserved For Future Use

Part IV: Physical Characteristics

1. Type of Development

Open Space Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional

2. Smallest Crossing Angle

0 - 29 30 - 59 60 - 90

5. Is Highway Paved?

Yes No

3. Number of Traffic Lanes 4. Are Truck Pullout Lanes Present?

 Crossing Railroad

 _____________

6. Crossing Surface (on main line)

1. Timber 2. Asphalt 3. Asphalt and Flange 4. Concrete 5. Concrete and Rubber

6. Rubber 7. Metal 8. Unconsolidated 9. Other (Specify) ______________________________

7. Does Track Run Down a Street?

Yes No

8. Nearby Intersecting Highway?

Less than 75 feet 75 to 200 feet 200 to 500 feet N/A

Is it Signalized? Yes

No

10. Is Commercial Power Available? 11. Space Reserved For Future Use

Yes No

9. Is Crossing Illuminated? (street lights

 within approx. 50 feet from nearest rail)

Yes No

1. Highway System

Interstate Federal Aid, Not NHS

Nat. Hwy System (NHS) Non Federal Aid

6. Estimate Percent Trucks

 _______

2. Is Crossing on State Highway System?

Yes No

3. Functional Classification

 of Road at Crossing

 _________

4. Posted Highway Speed

 ___________

7. Average Number of School Buses

 Over Crossing per School Day

 _______________

5. Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT)

Year ____________ AADT ____________________ 

2. Type of Warning Device at Crossing – Signs (specify number of each)

Yes No

Public reporting burden for this information collection is estimated to average 15 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data 

sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a federal 

agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of 

information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 2130-0017. All responses to this 

collection of information are voluntary. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection, including suggestions for reducing this burden 

to: Information Collection Officer, Federal Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

A.11 - 3
DRAFT 11/2/99 1

11/2/99

DRAFT

U.S. DOT CROSSING INVENTORY FORM INSTRUCTIONS

(Form version dated 11/1/99)

1.1 Recording Instructions

The U.S. DOT Crossing Inventory Form is one of several methods to submit crossing inventory

changes. The previous form consisted of one page with four colored sheets. The new form will consist

of two pages, normally printed back-to-back on white paper. The appropriate copies should be made

by using photocopy reproduction on standard white paper. The following explains the process of filling

out the new U.S. DOT Crossing Inventory Form, Form FRA F 6180.71. 

1.2 U.S. DOT Crossing Inventory Form Heading

A. Initiating Agency

Enter a check mark in the appropriate box (for either Railroad or State) to indicate the initiator

of the update, adding a new crossing, or closing a crossing. 

B. Crossing Number

Enter a valid crossing inventory number (6-digits followed by an alpha character). 

C. Reason for Update

Enter a check mark in the appropriate box to indicate the reason for submittal of the form: 

(1) change(s) in existing data, 

(2) adding a new crossing, or

(3) crossing being closed or abandoned

D. Effective Date

Enter the date (MM/DD/YYYY) the change was completed or put into effect. Ideally, all

public, private and pedestrian crossings, including grade-separated, should be updated to at

least verify that the crossings still exist. A current effective date should be indicated. If it is

verified that there are no changes in the data and the crossing still exists, an effective date of

January 1 of the current year (e.g., 01/01/1999) should be indicated. 

A.11 - 4
DRAFT 11/2/99 2

1.3 Part I: LOCATION AND CLASSIFICATION INFORMATION

Item 1. Railroad Operating Company

Enter the valid railroad code for the "operating" railroad company, i.e., the railroad that

operates train movements over the crossing. The operating railroad will normally be the

reporting railroad, but may or may not own and maintain the roadbed, tracks, and signal system

controlling the crossing. If the operating railroad company is not the owner of the track, it is

suggested the owner's name be entered in Item 6, Branch or Line Name and/or Item 11,

Crossing Owner. Valid railroad codes can be obtained or will be assigned by FRA. 

NOTE: Crossings are to be assigned to the operating railroad, that is, the identity of the

railroad company that operates over the trackage where the crossing is located

and not necessarily to the owner of the track or property itself, unless it is also the

operating railroad. Thus, designations such as "XYZ Corporation" should be

changed to the name of the railroad that is actually operating on the specific line

since they are the operating railroad. 

When this data is processed, a maximum of 4 characters will be allowed. If the

valid Railroad or Company Code is not known, and instead the name is provided,

FRA will match the name to the valid code and will enter that code. If the name

cannot be matched to a code, the report cannot be processed. Either a new

code will be assigned or the form will be returned to the Initiating Agency for

correction. 

Item 2. State

Enter the abbreviation for the name of the State where the crossing is located. If the crossing is

located on a State boundary so that parts of the crossing lie in two or more States, agreement

must be made between the two States as to which shall claim the crossing for inventory record

purposes. When a crossing is located on a State line, it is suggested that the crossing be

inventoried by and in the State that is south or east geographically. 

Item 3. County

Enter the name of the county where the crossing is located. If the crossing is on a county line

so that parts of the crossing lie in two or more counties, a decision must be made to place it in

one county only. When a crossing is located on a county line, it is suggested that the crossing

be inventoried in the county that is south or east geographically. 

A.11 - 5
DRAFT 11/2/99 3

Item 4. Railroad Division or Region

Enter the name of the division, region, or major district, if the railroad system is divided into

such groups. 

Item 5. Railroad Subdivision or District

Enter the name of the sub-division or other classification, if the railroad system is divided into

such groups. 

Item 6. Branch or Line Name

Enter the name of the line or branch as used by the railroad to describe this segment of track. If

the track is an industry lead, industry spur, yard lead, wye, etc., enter the name of the track or

industry.

Item 7. Railroad Milepost

Enter the railroad milepost number in miles and hundredths of miles (53 feet is approximately

1/100 mile.) Enter the number with the decimal point (nnnn.nn). 

NOTE: Because of data-retrieval anomalies, alphabetical letters in the milepost field need to be

avoided. 

Item 8. RR I.D. No.

Enter the railroad identification of the crossing or the track line segment number. If a crossing

has an identification number other than the DOT number, such as a State agency number (e.g.,

a Public Utility Commission (PUC) assigned number), enter that number. However, with the

expansion of the data fields, State PUC’s should now consider using one of the “State Use”

fields (Items 29.A.-D.; preferably Item 29.A.) for the State PUC number. 

Item 9. Nearest RR Timetable Station

This is now an optional field. Enter the name of the nearest timetable station of the operating

company. 

Item 10. Parent RR

A.11 - 6
DRAFT 11/2/99 4

If applicable, enter the code for the parent railroad (that is, the railroad which is parent to the

railroad entered in Part I, Item 1, Railroad Operating Company. This must be a valid railroad

code. 

Item 11. Crossing Owner (Railroad or Company name)

If applicable, enter the code for the owner of the crossing. This must be a valid railroad or

company code, and if unknown, it can be obtained from FRA. 

When this data is processed, a maximum of 4 characters is allowed. If the valid Railroad or

Company Code is not known, and the name is instead provided. An attempt will be made to

match the name to its valid code, and that code will be entered. If the name cannot be matched

to a code, the report cannot be processed. Either a valid code will be assigned or the form will

be returned to the Initiating Agency for correction. 

Item 12. City

Enter a check mark to indicate if the crossing is located “In” or “Near” the city to be specified. 

If the crossing is not within the boundaries of a city, town, or village, enter a check mark in the

box for “Near.” 

Enter the name of the city, town, or village where the crossing is located (maximum of 16

characters) which must be a valid location within the State. If “In” is checked, the entered city

name must be located in the county specified in Part I, Item 3, County. If the crossing is on a

city line so that parts of the crossing lie in two or more cities, identify only one city. 

Item 13. Street or Road Name

Enter the name of the highway or street, if the highway or street has a name. If it is a private

roadway and it has a name, enter the name of the road or the owner's name, otherwise just

enter "private."

Item 14. Highway Type and No.

Enter the type of highway such as Interstate (I), U.S. numbered (US), State (ST), county (C),

local (L), etc., and number of the highway, if it has one. Please abbreviate, as I-95, US-1, ST234, C-2096, etc. The number of the highway should be posted on the highway or found on

State or county maps. If there is more than one number, enter the most important route, or all

the numbers.

Item 15. ENS Sign Installed (1-800)

A.11 - 7
DRAFT 11/2/99 5

If there is an Emergency Notification System (ENS) sign installed at the crossing, check the box

preceding “Yes.” Otherwise, check the box preceding “No.” 

The ENS sign may be any sign posted at the crossing that displays a phone number (e.g., a 1-

800 number) that the public, motorists, State Highway, Law Enforcement, and others can call

to report problems, signal malfunctions, or emergencies at a highway-rail crossing. This sign

will also usually display the Crossing Number for the crossing. 

Item 16. Quiet Zone

Enter a check in the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a whistle ban is in effect for the

crossing. If a whistle ban is in effect, indicate if it is for 24 hours per day or only a partial day

(usually 10 p.m. to 6 am). This item must be completed for public, private, and pedestrian

crossings.

Note: The “Whistle Ban” NPRM (expected release is Fall 1999) will provide for a whistle

(horn) ban area where a quiet zone can be established.

Item 17. Crossing Type

Enter a check in the appropriate box to indicate the type of crossing. Valid choices are (1)

Public, (2) Private, or (3) Pedestrian. 

Item 18. Crossing Position

Enter a check in the appropriate box for the position of the railroad relative to the crossing. 

Valid choices are (1) At Grade, (2) Railroad Under, or (3) Railroad Over.

Item 19. Type of Passenger Service

If there is passenger service over the crossing, enter a check in the appropriate box to indicate

the type(s) of passenger trains using this crossing. Valid values are:

• AMTRAK only 

• AMTRAK and Other (commuter, tourist, etc.)

• Other, including commuter, tourist, etc.

• None (no passenger service)

Item 20. Average Passenger Train Count Per Day

A.11 - 8
DRAFT 11/2/99 6

Enter the average number of passenger trains using this crossing, per day, on a typical operating

day. The value cannot exceed the total train count in Part II, Item 1, Typical Number of Daily

Train Movements, 1.A. Total Trains. If the passenger type in Part I, Item 19, Type of

Passenger Service is “None,” then the passenger train count should be 0. 

Item 21. HSR Corridor ID (State Supplied Information)

Enter the High Speed Rail (HSR) Corridor Identifying Code from the pre-identified list of

corridor codes (if in question, contact FRA) if the crossing is located on such a corridor. This

field is used to identify the "Section 1010" or “Section 1103" high-speed rail corridor on which

the crossing is located. 

FRA will provide the HSR ID and will assign a code for each corridor. Once assigned, States

can modify records to add or delete crossings (e.g., when deleting a crossing, a State can

remove code if crossing is not on the corridor). 

Item 22. County Map. Ref. No. (State Supplied Information)

Enter the county map identification or other reference number provided by the highway agency

to specifically identify the crossing on the street and road system. If it is not available, leave this

entry blank. 

Item 23. Latitude (State Supplied Information)

Enter the crossing latitudinal coordinate as measured at the center of the crossing. This field,

along with Longitude, is used to identify the crossing location using a standardized GPS location

point. Latitude should be entered in decimal format (nn.nnnnnnn). 

In order to convert latitude from degrees, minutes, seconds to decimal form: 

 Latitude in Decimal Format = Degrees + (Minutes divided by 60) + (Seconds divided by 3600)

Item 24. Longitude (State Supplied Information)

Enter the crossing longitudinal coordinate as measured at the center of the crossing. This field,

along with Latitude, is used to identify the crossing location using a standardized GPS location

point. Longitude should be entered in decimal format (nnn.nnnnnnn). It will be processed as a

negative value. 

In order to convert longitude from degrees, minutes, seconds to decimal form: 

A.11 - 9
DRAFT 11/2/99 7

 Longitude in Decimal Format = Degrees + (Minutes divided by 60) + (Seconds divided by 3600)

Item 25. Lat/Long Source (State Supplied Information)

Enter a check in the appropriate box to indicate the source of the Latitude and Longitude

coordinates provided, “Actual” or “Estimated.” Actual values are those where GPS

measurements are taken at the crossing or determined by some other positive identification

method. Otherwise, the values are indicated as “Estimated.” Latitude and Longitude values, in

general, should be measured at the center of the highway-rail crossing. 

Item 26. Is there an Adjacent Crossing with a Separate Number? 

Enter a check in the appropriate box to indicate whether or not there is an adjacent crossing

with a separate number. If there is, enter the valid crossing number (6-digits followed by an

alpha character). 

Item 27 PRIVATE CROSSING INFORMATION

When the type of crossing is Private, this item must be completed. 

Item 27.A. [Private Crossing] Category

Enter a check in the box which best describes the usage of the private crossing based on the

following categories: 

Category Descriptions: 

Farm. A farm crossing is any crossing used for the movement of farm motor vehicles, farm

machinery or livestock in connection with agricultural pursuits, forestry, or other landproductive purposes.

Residential. A residential crossing is any crossing used to provide vehicular access for

residence owners.

Note: In 1997, FRA hired a contractor to determine the latitude and longitude (by

interpolation) of about 80% of the crossings in the Nation. In January 1999, these

values were inserted into the National file and are shown as “Estimated.” 

A.11 - 10
DRAFT 11/2/99 8

Recreational. A recreational crossing is any crossing used to provide access to recreational

areas.

Industrial. An industrial crossing is any crossing used to provide access to industrial plant

facilities or other industrial areas.

Commercial. A Commercial crossing is any crossing used to provide access to privately

owned commercial facilities that openly invite and solicit the general public as patrons (e.g.,

shopping centers and stores). 

Item 27.B. [Private Crossing] Public Access

Enter a check in the box to indicate “Yes” if the private crossing is open to public access or

“No” if it is not, or “Unknown” if it is not known. 

Examples where “Yes” is appropriate are shopping centers, certain residential areas,

fairgrounds, parks, schools, libraries, hospitals, clinics, airports, bus terminals, beaches, piers,

boat launching ramps, and recreational facilities.

Item 27.C. [Private Crossing] Signs/Signals

Enter a check in the appropriate box(s) for the type(s) of crossing warning device. If signs

and/or signals exist, enter a brief description in the spaces provided. 

Items 28.A., 28.B., 28.C., and 28.D. Railroad Use

The railroad may enter text or data of its choice in these fields. No editing will be performed on

these fields.

Items 29.A., 29.B., 29.C., and 29.D. State Use

The State may enter text or data of its choice in these fields. No editing will be performed on

these fields. It is suggested that a State which has a separate PUC number for a crossing may

wish to use one of the Item 29, State Use, fields for this purpose. (For those States that have

used the RR I.D. field for this in the past, FRA will move that data to Item 29 if requested.) 

Item 30. Narrative

Enter any narrative comments desired in this field. No editing will be performed on this field. 

Item 31. Emergency Contact (Telephone No.)

A.11 - 11
DRAFT 11/2/99 9

Enter the telephone number (area code and phone number) for the Emergency Notification

System Contact (e.g., Law Enforcement, Railroad Emergency Contact, or State Emergency

Contact) associated with the crossing. Normally, this will be the ENS telephone number

posted at the crossing or along the railroad branch line. This should be a 24-hour number that

can be called to speak with an Emergency Notification Center who can send emergency

responder(s) to the crossing in the event of problems, signal malfunctions, or other emergencies

at the crossing. (This might be performed as a mass update by contacting FRA.) 

Item 32. Railroad Contact (Telephone No.)

Enter the telephone number (area code and phone number) of the railroad contact associated

with the crossing. This would normally be the Railroad Inventory Contact or Public Project

Coordinator. (This can be performed as a mass update by contacting FRA.) 

Item 33. State Contact (Telephone No.)

Enter the telephone number (area code and phone number) of the State highway contact

associated with the crossing. This may be the State Inventory Contact or the DOT Engineering

Contact responsible for crossing improvement projects. (This can be performed as a mass

update by contacting FRA.) 

 

NOTE: If the crossing is Public at-Grade, Parts II, III, and IV must be completed before the

data can be entered into the file. For Private at-Grade crossings, complete or partial

submittals are optional, but all submitted information will be entered into the file. 

1.4 Part II: RAILROAD INFORMATION 

Item 1. Typical Number of Daily Train Movements

Item 1.A. Total Trains 

Item 1.B. Total Switching Trains 

Item 1.C. Total Daylight Thru Trains (6 AM to 6 PM) 

Enter the number of the train movements through the crossing and the number of switching

movements at the crossing, as follows: 

A.11 - 12
DRAFT 11/2/99 10

Total Trains are the total of the number of through trains and switching trains (per day)

through the crossing during normal railroad operating periods. 

Total Switching Trains are the number of switching trains through the crossing (per day)

during normal railroad operating periods. 

Total Daylight Thru Trains are the number of through trains through the crossing between

the hours of 6 AM and 6 PM. 

Typical number of daily train movements means the normal or average daily train movements. 

“Through Trains” are trains whose primary responsibility is to move cars over the road, and

there may be a limited number of pickups and setouts along the route. Classify all others, (i.e.,

locals, industrial runs, switch engine) as switching movements. Include the total number of the

train movements both for the reporting "operating" railroad and for any other railroad operating

over the crossing.

 

Item 1.D. Check if Less Than One Movement Per Day

Enter a check in the box if train frequency is less than one train per day. 

Item 2. Speed of Train at Crossing

Item 2.A. Maximum Timetable Speed

Enter the maximum timetable speed in miles per hour (mph). This field must not be less than the

value in Item 2.B, Typical Speed Range Over Crossing. 

Item 2.B. Typical Speed Range Over Crossing

Enter the typical minimum speed (“from”) over the crossing in miles per hour (mph). This must

be less than the maximum timetable speed in Item 2.A. 

Enter the typical maximum speed (“to”) over the crossing. This cannot be greater than the

maximum timetable speed in Item 2.A. and cannot be less than the typical minimum speed

range. 

Item 3. Type and Number of Tracks

Enter the number of main line tracks and specify the number and type of any “Other” tracks. A

track is considered main if through trains operate on the track. If “Other,” specify. 

A.11 - 13
DRAFT 11/2/99 11

Item 4. Does Another RR Operate a Separate Track at Crossing?

Enter a check mark in the appropriate box to indicate if another railroad operates a separate

track at the crossing. If “Yes,” enter the FRA railroad code for all railroads that operate a

separate track within the warning devices at the crossing. Up to four railroad codes, in codes

of up to four characters each, may be entered in this field. 

Item 5. Does Another RR Operate Over Your Track at Crossing?

Enter a check mark in the appropriate box to indicate if another railroad operates over the

track at the crossing. If Yes, enter the FRA railroad code for all railroads that operate trains

over the track at the crossing. Up to four railroad codes, in codes of up to four characters

each, may be entered in this field. 

1.5 Part III: TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICE INFORMATION

Item 1. No Signs or Signals

Enter a check to indicate if no signs or signals are present. If no signs or signals are present,

there is no need to complete Items 2 or 3. 

Item 2. Type of Warning Device at Crossing - Signs.

NOTE: If more than one type of warning device is present, indicate all applicable

types of warning device(s). Enter a "9" where the number is 9 or greater. 

Provide short descriptions of "Other" devices in the appropriate spaces.

Item 2.A. Crossbucks

Enter the number of masts with crossbucks, not a count of all crossbuck signs. Two or more

crossbucks mounted on a single mast are counted as one crossbuck. Include in the count all

masts with crossbucks, without making a distinction as to the reflectivity type. 

Item 2.B. Highway Stop Signs (R1-1)

Enter the number of Standard Highway Stop Signs (this is the MUTCD specified Stop Sign,

R1-1). A standard highway stop sign is red with white letters and has eight sides as defined in

the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). 

A.11 - 14
DRAFT 11/2/99 12

Any other non-standard MUTCD stop signs should be listed in the field for “Other Signs.” 

Item 2.C. RR Advance Warning Signs (W10-1)

Enter a check in the appropriate box to indicate the existence of advance warning signs along

the highway approaches that are in compliance with the MUTCD (normally, would be on both

sides). 

Item 2.D. Hump Crossing Sign (W10-5)

Enter a check in the appropriate box to indicate whether or not high profile hump surface signs

are present at the crossing or such are scheduled for installation in the immediate future. The

standard Advance Warning Signs for High-Profile Crossings is identified in the MUTCD as

W10-5. Non-standard warning signs or advisories should be listed in “Other Signs.” 

Item 2.E. Pavement Markings

Enter a check in the appropriate box for each type of pavement marking present that conforms

to the MUTCD. If both stop lines and RR crossing symbols are present, check both boxes. If

neither stop lines nor RR crossing symbols are present, check "None." 

Item 2.F. Other Signs

Enter the number and specify the type of any other passive signs at crossing. Specify MUTCD

Type. Non-standard stop signs should also be reported in this item. 

Item 3. Type of Warning Device at Crossing - Train Activated Devices

Item 3.A. Gates

Enter the count of gates. Include in the count all gates without making a distinction as to the

color or reflectivity of the gate or arms. 

Item 3.B. Four-quadrant (or full barrier) Gates

Enter a check in the appropriate box to indicate whether or not four-quadrant (or full barrier)

gates are present at the crossing. Full barrier gates apply in the case of 1-way streets or where

the gate arms reach across the entire roadway. 

Item 3.C. Cantilevered (or Bridged) Flashing Lights

A.11 - 15
DRAFT 11/2/99 13

Enter the number of cantilevered (or bridged) flashing lights in the appropriate block. Separate

cantilevered flashers from those over traffic lanes and those not reaching the roadway (over

only parking lanes, turnout lanes, or shoulders). Count individual cantilever units; do not count

the flasher head pairs mounted on the units.

Item 3.D. Mast Mounted Flashing Lights

Enter the number of mast mounted flashing light units. Count all flashers on a single mast as

one flasher. Do not count flasher heads or a pair of flashing lights separately. 

Item 3.E. Number of Flashing Light Pairs

Enter the total number of pairs of flashing lights mounted on signal masts in Item 3.D. and on

cantilever (or bridge) units in Item 3.C. and/or on other masts or poles. 

Item 3.F. Other Flashing Lights

Enter the number of other flashing lights not in accordance with the MUTCD. Specify type. 

Item 3.G. Highway Traffic Signals

Enter the number of highway traffic signals (red-yellow-green signals) that are train activated

and which control street traffic over the crossing. Do not count highway signals controlling a

nearby intersection even if they are interconnected with the crossing devices.

Item 3.H. Wigwags

Enter the number of wigwag signals. 

Item 3.J. Bells

Enter the number of all bells, if present, that are either alone or in conjunction with other train

activated warning devices. 

Item 3.K. Other Train Activated Warning Devices

A.11 - 16
DRAFT 11/2/99 14

List any train activated devices not otherwise specified, such as an arrester net, dragnet or other

new technology. 

Item 4. Specify Special Warning Device NOT Train Activated

Enter the type of any special warning device which is not train activated. Examples of special

warning devices not train activated are:

a. Manually operated signals and/or gates

b. Train crew flagging the crossing

c. Watchmen

d. Floodlights (may be train activated)

For watchmen and for manually operated gates, the number of hours daily in effect should also

be indicated. For floodlighting, the number of masts with lights should be reported. Only

floodlighting which is distinctive from other ordinary street lighting in intensity, light distribution,

focus or color is to be reported. 

Item 5. Channelization Devices With Gates

Enter a check in the appropriate box to indicate whether or not there are channelized devices

(i.e., median barriers) with gates at the crossing. If channelized devices are present, indicate if

they are on all approaches or just one approach. 

Item 6. Train Detection

Enter a check to indicate type of train detection used at the crossing. Choices are: 

• Constant Warning Time (or Predictors)

• Motion Detectors

• DC/AFO

• Other

• None 

The following apply to active crossings only: Constant Warning Time, Motion Detectors,

DC/AFO, or Other. If the crossing is not active, “None” should be checked. 

A.11 - 17
DRAFT 11/2/99 15

 NOTE: This item, Train Detection, replaces Part II, Item 8, Does Crossing Signal

Provide Speed Selection for Trains? (Yes, No, N/A) that was on the

previous version of the inventory form (Form FRA F 6170.71 (8-84)). Data in

the system provided for Does Crossing Signal Provide Speed Selection for

Trains? will be converted (on or before December 31, 1999) as follows: 

 Speed Selection Train Detection

(Previous Values) (Converted Values)

Yes —> CWT

No —> DC/AFO

N/A —> None

None of the data will be converted to Motion Detectors or Other. 

Item 7. Signalling for Train Operation: Is Track Equipped with Train Signals? 

Enter a check to indicate whether the track has train operation or interlocking signals to control

train operations. 

Item 8. Traffic Light Interconnection/Preemption

Enter a check in the appropriate box to indicate the type of crossing interconnection/

preemption. 

DEFINITIONS:

The following are definitions for highway and rail signal interconnections. The definitions which

are in italics are those defined by the Technical Working Group (TWG) on Rail-Highway

Intersections: 

1. Interconnection: The electrical connection between the railroad active warning

system and the traffic signal controller assembly for the purpose of preemption. 

Interconnection consists of an electrically connected control circuit at a highway-rail

intersection which has railroad active warning devices utilizing a supervised closedcircuit principle activated by the approach or presence of a train and which is used to

preempt the normal operation of a highway traffic signal. 

2. Preemption: The transfer of the normal operation of traffic signals to a special

control mode. 

A.11 - 18
DRAFT 11/2/99 16

Preemption is the activity when, as a result of a signal received from the railroad active

warning device system, the normal operation of a highway traffic signal is interrupted

and transferred to a specific programmed sequence. 

3. Simultaneous Preemption: The notification of an approaching train is

forwarded to the highway traffic controller unit or assembly and the railroad

active warning devices at the same time. 

Simultaneous Preemption is the activity when the highway traffic signal controller

receives notice from the interconnection control circuitry and is activated at the same

time as the railroad active warning system. Usually, this will be used to prohibit

highway vehicular traffic from traversing through the crossing intersection. 

4. Advanced Preemption: The notification of an approaching train is forwarded to

the highway traffic controller unit or assembly by the railroad equipment for a

period of time prior to activating the railroad active warning devices. 

Advance Preemption is the activity when the highway traffic signal controller receives

notice from the interconnection control circuit before the railroad active warning system

is activated (usually 20-25 seconds before train arrival) to interrupt the signal’s normal

operation to begin its specific programmed sequence. Usually, this will be used to

move the highway vehicular traffic through a storage area between the highway-rail

intersection and the highway-highway intersection well before the railroad active

warning devices start to operate to clear the crossing and eliminate the potential of

vehicular entrapment on the crossing. 

Items 9-12. Reserved for Future Use

These items are reserved for future use. No input required. 

1.6 Part IV: PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

Item 1. Type of Development

Enter a check in the appropriate box which best describes the predominant type of

development in the vicinity (up to 1000 feet) of the crossing based on the following categories:

1. Open Space. Sparsely or undeveloped, lightly populated, or agricultural.

2. Residential. Built-up residential area.

3. Commercial. Retail stores and businesses, offices, personal services.

A.11 - 19
DRAFT 11/2/99 17

4. Industrial. Manufacturing, construction, heavy products, factories, and

warehouses.

5. Institutional. Schools, churches, hospitals, parks, and other community facilities.

Item 2. Smallest Crossing Angle

Enter a check in the appropriate box which most closely describes the smallest angle between

the highway and the track. (The angle may be estimated by eye or with a simple device, such

as a protractor.) 

Item 3. Number of Traffic Lanes Crossing Railroad

Enter the number of through traffic lanes crossing the track. Do not include shoulders or lanes

that may be used for parking. 

Item 4. Are Truck Pullout Lanes Present?

Enter a check in the appropriate box for special added lanes provided to accommodate

commercial vehicles which are required to stop at the crossing. 

Item 5. Is Highway Paved?

Enter a check in the "Yes" box if the highway is paved with material on which pavement

markings can be effectively maintained. Enter a check in the box preceding "No" if the highway

surface is gravel, dirt, or has a surface treatment on which markings cannot be maintained. 

Item 6. Crossing Surface (on main line)

Enter a check in the appropriate box which most closely fits one of the following descriptions. 

If there are multiple tracks which have different types of surfaces, indicate the lower grade

surface material on the Inventory Form. 

1. Timber. Includes Sectional Treated Timber and Full Wood Plank: 

Sectional Treated Timber is prefabricated units approximately 8 feet in length of

treated timber individually installed and removable for maintenance and replacement

purposes. Full Wood Plank is a timber surface which covers the entire crossing area

above the crossties, made of ties, boards, bridge ties, etc.

2. Asphalt. Asphalt surface over the entire crossing area. 

A.11 - 20
DRAFT 11/2/99 18

3. Asphalt and Flange. Asphalt surface in the area between flange timber planks or

other material forming flangeway openings which may include the use of rubber. 

4. Concrete. Includes Concrete Slab and Concrete Pavement.

Concrete Slab is precast concrete sections which are usually individually installed and

removable for maintenance and replacement purposes. Concrete Pavement is a

concrete surface which is continuous over the track area and is not removable except

by destruction of the surface.

5. Concrete and Rubber. An installed crossing surface which consists of both concrete

and rubber materials. 

6. Rubber. Preformed rubber sections which are usually individually installed and

removable for maintenance and replacement purposes.

7. Metal. Includes Metal Sections and Other Metal. 

Metal Sections are sections of steel or other metal which are usually individually

installed and removable for maintenance and replacement purposes. Other Metal

includes other metal materials which are usually not removable in sectional units which

provide complete coverage of the crossing area within the track. 

8. Unconsolidated. Ballast or other unconsolidated material placed over crossties, with

or without planks, on one or both sides of the running rails.

9. Other (Specify). Surfaces other than the previously described surfaces and would

include structural foam, plastic, "high-tech," etc.

Note: On or before December 31, 1999, the Crossing Surface data will be converted as follows: 

New Categories Old Categories

1. Timber Sectional Treated Timber (1) and Full Wood Plank (2)

2. Asphalt Asphalt (3)

3. Asphalt and Flange (New)

4. Concrete Concrete Slab (4) and Concrete Pavement (5)

5. Concrete and Rubber (New)

6. Rubber Rubber (6)

7. Metal Metal Sections (7) and Other Metal (8)

8. Unconsolidated Unconsolidated (9)

9. Other (Specify) Other (0)

A.11 - 21
DRAFT 11/2/99 19

Item 7. Does Track Run Down a Street?

Enter a check in the appropriate box for whether the crossing involves a railroad track which is

parallel to and within a street or highway. 

Item 8. Nearby Intersecting Highway?

Enter a check in the appropriate box for whether the street or highway at this crossing is

intersected by another street or highway and at what approximate distance from the crossing. 

Valid values are: 

Yes, within 500 feet = Less than 75 feet; 75 to 200 feet; 200 to 500 feet

No, or greater than 500 feet = N/A

Note: Conversion of data previously entered will be: 

Yes –> Less than 75 feet

No –> N/A

Is it Signalized?

Enter a check mark (Yes or No) to indicate if the nearby intersecting highway contains

traffic signals. 

Item 9. Is Crossing Illuminated?

An Illuminated Crossing is defined as when overhead street lighting provides reasonable

illumination of trains present at the crossing and is within approximately 50 feet of the crossing. 

If street lights are present within 50 feet of the nearest rail, the “Yes” box should be checked. 

Since street lamp light-intensity can vary, sufficient lighting may be present for street lights

located up to 100 feet from the crossing. 

Item 10. Is Commercial Power Available?

Enter a check to indicate if there is commercial electric power available within 500 feet of the

crossing.

Item 11. Space Reserved for Future Use 

A.11 - 22
DRAFT 11/2/99 20

This item is reserved for future use. No input is required. 

1.7 Part V: HIGHWAY INFORMATION

Item 1. Highway System

Enter a check for the correct highway system code. 

The Highway System Codes for the National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory File were

revised as a result of the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, (ISTEA)

Section 1006. ISTEA required the redefinition of the National Highway System (NHS) which

is included in the total Federal-Aid Highway (FAH). The three classifications are: (1) National

Highway System, (2) Other Federal-Aid Highway, and (3) Non-Federal-Aid. The National

Crossing Inventory File uses this classification, but subdivides the National Highway System

into "Interstate" and "Other NHS."

The Highway System Codes are listed in the following table.

Code Definition Included

1 Interstate National Highway

System

Interstate, rural, and urban

2 Other National Highway System Other urban and rural principal arterial, Non Interstate

3 Other Federal-Aid Highway, Not

NHS

Rural major collector and higher category, or urban

collector and higher category, not part of NHS

8 Non Federal Aid Local rural roads, rural minor collectors, and local urban

city streets or any other non-Federal-Aid roadway

Table 1-1. Highway System Codes

A.11 - 23
DRAFT 11/2/99 21

Item 2. Is Crossing on State Highway System?

Enter a check in the appropriate box to indicate whether (or not) the crossing is on a State

highway system.

If “Yes” is indicated, be sure that the Highway Type and Number are entered in Part I (Item

14). 

Item 3. Functional Classification of Road at Crossing

Enter the appropriate code for the highway functional classification which the State has

determined in accordance with the Federal-Aid Highway Program Definitions. The current

functional classification codes are listed in Table 1-2.

Category Codes Functional Classification

Rural 01 Interstate

Rural 02 Other principal arterial

Rural 06 Minor arterial

Rural 07 Major collector

Rural 08 Minor collector

Rural 09 Local

Urban 11 Interstate

Urban 12 Other freeway and expressway

Urban 14 Other principal arterial

Urban 16 Minor arterial

Urban 17 Collector

Urban 19 Local

Table 1-2. Functional Classification Codes

NOTE: The tens digit for the Rural codes must be "0" and for Urban must be "1".

A.11 - 24
DRAFT 11/2/99 22

Item 4. Posted Highway Speed

Enter the posted highway speed at the crossing. The “Posted Speed” is defined as the assigned

roadway speed limit. Where no speed signage exists, the State’s statutory speed limit would

apply. 

Item 5. Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT)

Enter the annual average daily traffic (total both directions) based on available traffic

information. A reasonable estimate of the AADT is acceptable if actual traffic counts are not

readily available. Enter the year which matches the AADT data supplied. 

Item 6. Estimate Percent Trucks

Enter the estimated percentage of trucks in the traffic stream. 

Item 7. Average Number of School Buses Over Crossing per School Day

Enter the daily average number of scheduled school buses passing over the crossing on a

normal school day. Back and forth counts as 2. 

A.11 - 25

Appendix A.12 

CANADA: Grade Crossing Regulation 

(Draft) 

December 3, 2002 

A.12 - 1
Railway/Road Grade 

Crossing Policy 

October 2000

A.12 - 2
RAILWAY/ROAD CROSSING POLICY 

October 16th/2000 

1 

RAILWAY SAFETY ACT

RAILWAY/ROAD GRADE CROSSING POLICY 

Table of Contents 

1) Policy objective

2) Policy background

3) Authority

4) Policy requirements

5) Role and responsibilities

6) Monitoring

7) Inquiries

1. Policy objective 

The objective of the crossing policy is to clarify Transport Canada`s (TC) role and 

responsibilities concerning railway/road crossings at grade. 

(NOTE: The railway/road grade crossing regulation will specify the roles of other 

parties concerned with road crossings.) 

2. Policy background 

Historically, federal government agencies have been significantly involved with the 

day to day responsibility to ensure safety at railway road crossings. The basis for 

this was the requirement to issue orders for virtually all aspects of the crossings, 

including construction details and financial responsibilities. In practice, the federal 

agencies usually took the lead in involving the railways and road authorities in 

discussions and decisions on crossing issues prior to issuance of an “Order”. A 

Canadian Transport Commission (CTC) “Order” relating to crossing works was, in 

both origin and effect, a legal and binding record of a decision taken by 

consensus, or in the absence of consensus, by the CTC itself. 

The Railway Safety Act (RSA) of 1989 and the amendments which came into 

force on June 1st 1999 redefined roles by implicitly placing crossing safety 

responsibilities on the railways and the road authorities. This policy reflects the 

objectives of Section 3 of the RSA, which are to: 

A.12 - 3
RAILWAY/ROAD CROSSING POLICY 

October 16th/2000 

2 

a) promote and provide for the safety of the public and personnel, and the 

protection of property and the environment, in the operation of railways; 

b) encourage the collaboration and participation of interested parties in improving 

railway safety; 

c) recognize the responsibility of railway companies in ensuring the safety of their 

operations; and 

d) facilitate a modern, flexible and efficient regulatory scheme that will ensure the 

continuing enhancement of railway safety. “

Transport Canada’s national transportation strategy calls for a transportation 

system that is safe, smart, strategic, and sustainable — the top priority being

safety. The Safety and Security Strategic Plan (see next page) defines how the 

department intends to contribute to the safety and security of Canada’s 

transportation system. The railway/road crossing policy, through its requirements, 

will support and fulfill the mandate of the Strategic Plan. 

A.12 - 4
RAILWAY/ROAD CROSSING POLICY 

October 16th/2000 

3 

THE SAFETY & SECURITY STRATEGIC PLAN OVERVIEW

Where we are headed- Our Vision

The safest transportation system in the world 

The impact we want to have - Our intended Outcomes

Protection of life, health, environment and property 

Public confidence in the safety & security of our transportation system 

How we get there - Our Mission 

To further advance the safety and security of an efficient, accessible and sustainable transportation 

system through: 

Awareness & Education 

Monitoring & Enforcement 

Establishment and Implementation of Policies & Rules 

What we want to achieve 

Safe Practices Risk Reduction Stakeholder Awareness 

Positive External and Internal Impact Effective Intervention 

How we do it

Continue to develop a new safety culture 

Build constructive relationships internally and with stakeholders 

Implement a systematic approach to risk management 

Improve our tools, practices & techniques 

Adopt a systems approach to human resources management 

Broker international best practices 

A.12 - 5
RAILWAY/ROAD CROSSING POLICY 

October 16th/2000 

4 

3. Authority 

Under subsection 2.(2) of the RSA, the federal government has jurisdiction in 

“respect of transport by railways to which Part III of the Canada Transportation Act 

applies”. In general, this means that TC has jurisdiction over companies which 

have a certificate of fitness issued by the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA). 

This jurisdiction applies to all road crossings on rail lines under federal jurisdiction. 

The authority to regulate engineering standards of road crossings is provided in

Section 7 of the RSA. The authority to regulate the operation and maintenance of 

crossing works is provided under subsection 18.2 of the RSA. Under 

subsection 24.(1) this authority respecting road crossings is not limited to the 

physical crossing itself but also extends to vehicles, pedestrians, road approaches 

and adjoining lands. Jurisdiction includes items such as approach grades, 

signage, nearby intersections, removal of sight line obstructions, and under 

subsection 31.(2.1), further includes powers respecting the method of operating a 

vehicle over a road crossing. 

The jurisdiction of the federal government is intended only to extend to those

aspects which have a direct relationship to the safety of the road crossing, 

respecting the jurisdiction of the Provinces for the design, construction and 

maintenance of roads within the Province. 

4. Policy requirements 

To maximize the department’s impact on transportation safety, the focus of this 

policy is to ensure a positive approach to railway/road crossing safety through 

awareness of regulatory requirements, education through guidance, counselling 

and advice, and compliance monitoring to ensure compliance of regulated parties. 

Departmental activities to fulfil this policy will be accommodated in the Rail Safety 

Business Plan, in accordance with approved resources. 

The policy of Transport Canada is to:

1) Maintain and enhance public safety by requiring through regulation or other 

means permitted under the RSA, uniform safety standards for all farm, private 

and public railway/road crossings at grade. The regulation will establish 

responsibilities for implementation of the standards by all federally regulated 

railways, 2,500 road authorities and many individuals and companies that have 

railway/road crossings under federal jurisdiction. 

A.12 - 6
RAILWAY/ROAD CROSSING POLICY 

October 16th/2000 

5 

2) Promote awareness of regulatory requirements and education through 

guidance, counselling and advice to railways, road authorities, municipalities, 

police departments, consultants and other interested and affected parties 

concerning railway/road crossing safety. 

3) Maintain a compliance monitoring program including surveillance, site 

inspections and audits to assess regulatory compliance and ensure effective 

intervention. 

4) Support, initiate and conduct railway/road crossing safety research to identify 

emerging technologies and best practices and to encourage railways, road 

authorities and municipalities to adopt those best practices which are not 

regulatory requirements. 

5) Obtain data through research, accident/incident investigation, and in 

partnership with railways, road authorities, municipalities, police departments 

and other government departments. 

6) Analyse data to identify safety concerns, trends and emerging risks for use 

directly at individual railway/road crossings or systemically in the orientation of 

our regulatory, research or program activities. 

7) Support and carry out safety promotional activities with respect to crossing 

safety through continued support of Direction 2006, Operation Lifesaver as well 

as TC programs. 

8) Funding grade crossing safety improvement and crossing consolidation 

projects based on risk management principles. 

5. Role and responsibilities 

The Rail Safety Directorate is responsible to ensure the regulatory instruments 

(i.e. regulations) are enacted and enforced and to develop the national programs, 

policies, guidelines, data analysis requirements and methodologies for consistent 

application throughout the Regions. A key role is to establish constructive and 

beneficial relationships with partners through comprehensive consultation. 

The Surface Regions are responsible to ensure that regulated parties meet the 

regulatory requirements and that regional activities are implemented and carried 

out consistently and in accordance with the national programs, policies, 

guidelines, data collection requirements and methodologies. A key role is to 

contribute and participate with headquarters during formulation of national policy 

and programs. 

A.12 - 7
RAILWAY/ROAD CROSSING POLICY 

October 16th/2000 

6 

In accordance with Section 31 of the RSA, Railway Safety Inspectors shall take 

action where a threat or immediate threat is identified. 

6. Monitoring 

The implementation and effectiveness of this policy will be assessed by the 

Director General Rail Safety through periodic internal audits, program reviews and 

input from interested and affected parties.

7. Inquiries 

Inquiries about this policy should be directed to

Rail Safety 

Place de Ville 

Tower C, 10th Floor 

330 Sparks Street 

Ottawa, Ontario 

K1A 0N5 

Phone:(613) 998-2985 

Fax:(613) 990-7767 

A.12 - 8
Transport Canada 

IDENTIFICATION AND EXAMINATION OF SAFETY AT 

PRIVATE CROSSINGS 

PHASE 2 INTERIM REPORT - REFERENCE #T8200-044506 

JUNE 2006

A.12 - 9
IBI GROUP PHASE 2 INTERIM REPORT - REFERENCE #T8200-044506 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

June 2006 Page i. 

1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................1

1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Phase 2 Scope and Objectives............................................................................................................. 1

2. STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION PROCESS ......................................................................2

2.1 Stakeholder Categories and Level of Participation............................................................................ 2

2.2 Interview Process.................................................................................................................................. 3

2.3 Reporting Process ................................................................................................................................ 3

3. PRIVATE RAIL CROSSING “LIFE CYCLE”...........................................................................3

3.1 New Crossing Submission/Provisions................................................................................................ 5

3.1.1 Existing Legislation, Regulations and Policies............................................. 5

3.1.2 Decision Process, Negotiation and Arbitration ............................................. 5

3.1.3 Agreement Terms ....................................................................................... 6

3.1.4 Financial Responsibility ............................................................................. 7

3.2 Crossing Construction ......................................................................................................................... 7

3.3 Operations and Maintenance ............................................................................................................... 9

3.3.1 Existing Legislation, Regulations and Policies............................................. 9

3.3.2 Crossing Inspection and Maintenance.........................................................10

3.3.3 Private Crossing Inventory and Tracking ....................................................11

3.3.4 Insurance and Fees ...................................................................................11

3.3.5 Security and Access Control ......................................................................12

3.3.6 Warning and Information Signs/Devices......................................................13

3.3.7 Supplemental Safety Devices .....................................................................16

3.3.8 Vehicle Use and Type ................................................................................17

3.3.9 User Information and Education .................................................................18

3.3.10 Train Activity Notification .................................................................19

3.4 Change in Ownership/Access............................................................................................................ 19

3.4.1 Existing Legislation, Regulations and Policies............................................19

3.4.2 Rail Authority Notification .........................................................................20

3.4.3 Agreement Transfer ...................................................................................21

3.5 Crossing Closure and Consolidation ................................................................................................ 21

A.12 - 10
IBI GROUP PHASE 2 INTERIM REPORT - REFERENCE #T8200-044506 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT’D)

June 2006 Page ii. 

3.5.1 Existing Legislation, Regulations and Policies............................................21

3.5.2 Negotiation and Arbitration........................................................................23

3.5.3 Closure Physical Works .............................................................................23

4. IDENTIFICATION OF CONTRIBUTORY FACTORS ............................................................24

4.1 Comprehensive List of Potential Contributory Factors................................................................... 24

4.1.1 New Crossing Submission/Provisions .........................................................24

4.1.2 Crossing Construction...............................................................................24

4.1.3 Operations and Maintenance ......................................................................24

4.1.4 Change in Ownership/Access .....................................................................25

4.1.5 Crossing Closure and Consolidation...........................................................26

5. RISK MITIGATION STRATEGIES.........................................................................................26

6. OVERALL FINDINGS.............................................................................................................28

7. PHASE 3 WORK PLAN .........................................................................................................28

7.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 28

7.2 Communication and Project Management........................................................................................ 28

7.3 Project Schedule and Project Progress ............................................................................................ 29

7.4 Work Plan............................................................................................................................................. 29

7.4.1 Task 3.1 – Develop Conclusions and Recommendations ...............................29

7.4.2 Task 3.2 – Final Documentation..................................................................30

7.5 Phase 3 Budget ................................................................................................................................... 30

LIST OF EXHIBITS 

Exhibit 3-1: Private Crossing "Life Cycle" ..........................................................................................4

Exhibit 5-1: Potential Risk Mitigation Strategies ..............................................................................26

Exhibit 7-1: Phase 3 – Primary Study Contacts...............................................................................28

LIST OF APPENDICES 

Appendix A: Interview Summaries 

A.12 - 11
IBI GROUP PHASE 2 INTERIM REPORT - REFERENCE #T8200-044506 

Transport Canada

IDENTIFICATION AND EXAMINATION OF SAFETY AT PRIVATE CROSSINGS 

June 2006 

1. INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Background 

Over the past several years, the safety of private crossings has come under increasing scrutiny. 

Between 1995 and 2003 there has been an average of 45.1 collisions per year at private and farm 

crossings. These incidents can affect numerous stakeholders, such as the vehicle and equipment 

drivers, railway operating personnel, railway passengers, property owners, municipalities, and 

federal authorities. 

Some potential causes of grade-crossing incidents have been identified and include, but are not 

limited to, increased exposure times, operator expectancy violations, poor crossing designs, and 

lack of education and notification. 

In July 2005, IBI Group in association with UMA Engineering Ltd. (hereafter referred to as the IBI 

Group Team) was retained to complete a study to identify and examine the key factors of safety at 

private crossings (Reference Number: T8200-044506). 

The study is comprised of the following three phases: 

• Phase 1: Review of Available Information and Data – Obtain and evaluate available 

literature, statistics and data relating to private crossing collisions/incidents, warning 

systems and signage, access, operations, maintenance, user education and applicable 

laws and regulations; 

• Phase 2: Collection of New Information and Data – Conduct surveys and interviews 

of stakeholders in relation to the provision, use, operation, management and safety of 

private crossings. These tasks will then be used to identify and assess risk mitigation 

strategies specific to these crossing types; and 

• Phase 3: Conclusions and Recommendations – The formulation and documentation 

of the conclusions and recommendations relating to the root causes, symptoms and 

risk mitigation strategies relating to collisions/collision potential at private crossings. 

Phase 1 has been completed and submitted to the Project Steering Committee. The Phase 2 

stakeholder interviews have been completed. This document represents an Interim Report covering 

Phase 2 of the study. 

1.2 Phase 2 Scope and Objectives 

Phase 2 comprised of the following tasks and objectives: 

• Task 1: Develop Phase 2 Plan – IBI submitted a detailed work program for review 

and comment. This work program included a comprehensive description of the tasks to 

be undertaken in Phase 2 and the specific methodology for each. A revised project 

schedule was created. 

• Task 2: Survey Instrument Design and Approvals – IBI designed a survey 

instrument that facilitated the collection of information from identified stakeholder 

groups. Stakeholder groups and potential interview candidates were selected. IBI 

focused on conducting interviews via telephone, and created a summary template for 

A.12 - 12
IBI GROUP PHASE 2 INTERIM REPORT - REFERENCE #T8200-044506 

Transport Canada

IDENTIFICATION AND EXAMINATION OF SAFETY AT PRIVATE CROSSINGS 

June 2006 Page 2. 

documenting information presented by the stakeholders. The interview questions and 

the summary template were reviewed and approved by the Project Steering 

Committee. 

• Task 3: Conduct and Analyze Surveys/Interviews – IBI prepared meeting notes for 

each stakeholder. IBI followed up with participants to ensure that the conversations 

were properly documented. IBI met with the PSC to provide an overview of the 

consultation responses to date. 

• Task 4: Identify and Assess Risk Mitigation Strategies – IBI prepared a 

comprehensive private crossing “Life Cycle” analysis based on Phase 1 findings and 

the stakeholder consultation. IBI identified and assessed the contributory factors to 

determine the areas of risk associated with private crossings and identified risk 

mitigation strategies. 

2. STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION PROCESS 

The following subsections describe the stakeholder consultation process, including the types and 

numbers of individuals consulted, the interview and reporting processes, and the challenges 

encountered along the way. 

2.1 Stakeholder Categories and Level of Participation 

Six general stakeholder categories were identified for participation in Phase 2. The six stakeholder 

categories are listed below; the level of participation (i.e., the number of stakeholders interviewed) 

for each category is given in parenthesise; and a brief description of the types of individuals 

interviewed is provided: 

• Railway Engine Crews (6) – Locomotive engineers representing the passenger train 

and freight train sectors; 

• Railway Regulatory Affairs/Public Works/Technical Services Officers (15) – Public 

works managers, railway planning managers, commuter rail officials, real estate 

departments, track supervisors, and public services agents; 

• Private Crossing Owners and Users (11) – Farmers, snowmobile clubs, small 

business owners, cottage owners, industries, golf course directors, and land 

developers; 

• Railway Regulatory Officials (5) – Transport Canada officials/crossing inspectors, 

and railway works engineers; 

• Transportation Safety Board (TSB) Accident Investigators (5) – Senior TSB 

accident investigators from across Canada; and 

• Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) Officials (2) – Senior CTA officials familiar 

with all practices of the agency as they pertain to railway crossings. 

The varying levels of participation for the six stakeholder groups are representative of the diversity 

of the types of individuals that make up the category and the depth and consistency of the 

information provided by the stakeholders in the category. 

A.12 - 13
IBI GROUP PHASE 2 INTERIM REPORT - REFERENCE #T8200-044506 

Transport Canada

IDENTIFICATION AND EXAMINATION OF SAFETY AT PRIVATE CROSSINGS 

June 2006 Page 3. 

2.2 Interview Process 

After identifying potential interview candidates and arranging for their participation in the study, 

interviews were scheduled, and a letter containing a brief project description and a list of 

stakeholder-group-specific discussion questions was e-mailed to each participant. For the most 

part, the interviews were conducted one-on-one via telephone (some interviews were conducted inperson) and were treated more as open, candid discussions, rather than formal surveys. 

Initially, it was expected that each stakeholder interview would take approximately 30 minutes; 

ultimately, the interviews ended up lasting, on average, between one and two hours, due to the 

abundance of information provided by the stakeholders and their interest in discussing the subject. 

Identifying and making initial contact with stakeholders also proved more difficult than originally 

anticipated, and finding participants from the crossing owners and users category was particularly 

challenging. However, a broad cross-section of participants was eventually assembled, and the 

insight that they provided has resulted in a wealth of information regarding the state of private 

crossings in Canada. The assurance that the stakeholders’ identities would be kept confidential 

contributed to their candidness. 

2.3 Reporting Process 

The project team interviewers recorded important/relevant discussion items (not formal minutes) 

during the stakeholder interviews, and later transcribed those notes into standardized stakeholder 

survey note forms. The completed survey note forms were forwarded to the corresponding 

stakeholders, generally via e-mail, for their approval. Once any comments received from the 

stakeholders were incorporated into the records, the survey notes were finalized. Versions of the 

finalized notes, with all stakeholder-identifying information removed, were then posted to the 

Transport Canada FTP site for review by the Project Steering Committee. A complete set of survey 

notes is included in Appendix A. 

3. PRIVATE RAIL CROSSING “LIFE CYCLE” 

The initial work plan for Phase 2 described plans to develop a “weighted cumulative factors” risk 

assessment model for identifying and evaluating contributory factors related to the level of safety 

associated with a private crossing. Through the efforts of Phases 1 and 2 and discussions with the 

Project Steering Committee, it was determined that the initially proposed methodology was poorly 

suited to assessing safety at private crossings for the following reasons: 

• The risk of a collision at a private crossing may be attributed to one or two major 

deficiencies and would not be properly identified through a cumulative factors 

approach, i.e., change in ownership and subsequent use of a crossing by uninformed 

users; and 

• There are fundamental policy, operating and maintenance issues relating to private 

crossing safety that require remedial action, regardless of their apparent “weighted 

effect” on risk. 

Based on this assessment of the initially proposed methodology, a new evaluation process was 

developed. The new evaluation process is more intuitive and involves describing and analysing the 

private crossing “life cycle.” Using the information collected through Phases 1 and 2 of this study of 

safety at private crossings, the IBI Group Team was able to gain an understanding of and document 

the events, processes, and stages that comprise the private crossing “life cycle.” Exhibit 3-1

illustrates the private crossing “life cycle.” 

A.12 - 14
IBI GROUP PHASE 2 INTERIM REPORT - REFERENCE #T8200-044506 

June 2006 

Exhibit 3-1: Private Crossing "Life Cycle" 

CTA

Mediation

Crossing

Application

Crossing

Agreement

Crossing 

Location and 

Financial 

Responsibility

CTA

Hearing

CTA

Decision

TC

Assessment

NEW CROSSINGS SUBMISSION/PROVISION

Properly 

Maintained 

Private Crossing 

Used by 

Authorized Users/

Vehicles

Maintenance 

Required

Security or Access Becomes an Issue

Train Crew Experience 

Safety Issue

Inappropriate Vehicle Use3⁄4 Type3⁄4 Volume3⁄4 Unfamiliar Users3⁄4 Seasonal Users

Train Activity Changes

Railway or 

TC Crossing 

Inspection

Owner 

Identifies 

Maintenance Requirement

OPERATIONS & MAINTENANC

NEW CROSSING CONSTRUCTION

Determine 

Crossing Use/

Requirements

Crossing Design

RTD-10

Or

G4-A

Construction on 

Rail R of W

Construction on 

Private Lands

A.12 - 15
IBI GROUP PHASE 2 INTERIM REPORT - REFERENCE #T8200-044506 

Transport Canada

IDENTIFICATION AND EXAMINATION OF SAFETY AT PRIVATE CROSSINGS 

June 2006 Page 5. 

The remainder of Section 5 describes the various stages of the private crossing “life cycle” in detail. 

The information presented in Section 5 is based on the research conducted in preparing the Phase 

1 report and is supported by new information gathered from the stakeholder interviews. The 

information is primarily verifiable and fact-based; however, the opinions and observations of 

stakeholders are also provided, where they demonstrate the perceived state of private crossings in 

Canada. 

3.1 New Crossing Submission/Provisions 

3.1.1 EXISTING LEGISLATION, REGULATIONS AND POLICIES 

The Canada Transportation Act (1996) governs the authorization of new private crossings. 

Administering the Act is the primary responsibility of the Canadian Transportation Agency. With 

respect to private crossings, the relevant sections of the Act are Part III, Division II, Construction 

and Operation of Railways, Sections 100 to 103. The relevant sections of the Act, as they pertain 

to new crossing authorization, are described in detail in Sections 5.1 and 6.1 of the Phase 1 report. 

The informal terms crossing “by right” and crossing “by grace” are used by the CTA when referring 

to crossings authorized under Sections 102 and 103 of the Canada Transportation Act, 

respectively. The terms crossing “by right” and crossing “by grace” have been adopted, for 

simplicity sake, for use in this report. 

The CTA has no specific safety mandate, but rely on the railways and Transport Canada to ensure 

that all crossings are safe. If no particular safety issues are identified to the CTA with the crossing 

application, it is assumed that no extraordinary safety concerns exist. If safety concerns are 

identified during the application process, any authorized crossing (a “suitable crossing” in the terms 

used by the CTA) would have to meet the requirements for safety as stipulated by Transport 

Canada. All new crossings, private or otherwise, authorized by the CTA are authorized on the 

conditions that the crossing must comply with the safety requirements mandated by the Railway 

Safety Act. The Railway Safety Act is treated in greater detail in Section 6.2 of the Phase 1 report. 

The existing application, review and approvals process does not 

appear to be explicitly negatively affecting the level of private 

crossing safety.

3.1.2 DECISION PROCESS, NEGOTIATION AND ARBITRATION 

In general, there are three means by which a crossing agreement can be reached: 

• Independent settlement between the railway and the landowner – Independent 

negotiation between the railway and the landowner is the most common means of 

establishing a crossing agreement. Section 101 of the Canada Transportation Act 

states that agreements reached between parties can be filed with the CTA, and upon 

filing, those agreements become Orders of the CTA; 

• Agreement between the railway and the landowner mediated by the CTA - For 

several years the CTA has been offering its services as mediators, providing the 

service when landowners and railway companies are unable to reach an agreement on 

their own, but both parties are interested in achieving a negotiated settlement. The 

agreements reached through mediation are binding, but the negotiation process often 

allows the parties to achieve certain compromises that might not present themselves 

otherwise (e.g., the agreement might include a provision allowing the railway to 

A.12 - 16
IBI GROUP PHASE 2 INTERIM REPORT - REFERENCE #T8200-044506 

Transport Canada

IDENTIFICATION AND EXAMINATION OF SAFETY AT PRIVATE CROSSINGS 

June 2006 Page 6. 

traverse the landowner’s property to access their right-of-way), and it generally helps to 

build a more positive working relationship between parties; or 

• Decision handed down by a CTA tribunal – In cases where the railway and the 

landowner are unable to reach an agreement the CTA can be called upon to rule on 

the matter. The decisions of the CTA are final and binding. 

The CTA decision/arbitration process includes a review of the 

crossing usage and vehicle type; however, there is no 

legislative/legal documentation of these conditions in the 

resultant decision. Although not a direct safety concern, this 

deficiency does have implications in other aspects of the 

crossing “life cycle”. 

3.1.3 AGREEMENT TERMS 

For independently negotiated crossing agreements, the railway’s real estate department is the 

primary point of contact between the railway and the landowners [It should be noted that many 

smaller railway companies do not have their own real estate departments.]. At Canadian Pacific 

(CP), requests for new crossings are generally received from the landowner via one of three means: 

direct contact, through the engineering department, or on the Community Connect line/website. 

Generally, the railways have standard private crossing agreement procedures; however, the 

specific details of every crossing agreement are exclusive to the crossing. The railway companies 

generally have three common (i.e., non-site-specific) requests when it comes to negotiating a 

crossing: 

• The landowner must pay an annual fee for the right to a crossing; 

• The landowner must show proof of having liability insurance for the crossing; and 

• The landowner must agree to a provision stating that the railway company can 

terminate the crossing agreement given 30 days notice. 

Often, a caveat is added to the agreement stipulating that if the use of the crossing changes 

significantly (e.g., changes in operating equipment or frequency of use) the appropriateness of the 

crossing will have to be reviewed. Many railway industry stakeholders cited changes in crossing 

use as a major safety risk, since often the crossing is not designed to accommodate the usage. 

There is also a concern that landowners are not forthcoming enough when it comes to informing the 

railways of changes in usage, and frequently the railways only discover such changes through 

coincidental observations. 

Inability (due to prohibitive costs) or unwillingness on the part of the landowner to accommodate 

these requests often results in the case ending up at a CTA hearing. The rulings handed down by 

CTA tribunals are based on precedent; as such, the decisions reached are very consistent. 

Crossing authorizations granted by the CTA indicate the location where the crossing is to be built, 

the parties responsible for the cost of construction, maintenance, etc., and the conditions under 

which the crossing is authorized. 

Many older crossings have no documentation of terms or formal agreements. As such, the railways 

are often unable to determine whom they should contact regarding crossing issues, and the 

landowners are not always aware of the conditions and/or responsibilities that apply to their 

crossing. The lack of a comprehensive database of all private crossings and their related 

A.12 - 17
IBI GROUP PHASE 2 INTERIM REPORT - REFERENCE #T8200-044506 

Transport Canada

IDENTIFICATION AND EXAMINATION OF SAFETY AT PRIVATE CROSSINGS 

June 2006 Page 7. 

agreements is a fundamental disconnect in the current private crossing system; this reality is further 

described in Section 3.3.3. 

3.1.4 FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY 

Financial responsibility is dependent on the terms of the agreement reached between the railway 

and the landowner or the terms of the decision handed down by the CTA. 

Independently negotiated agreements and agreements reach through mediation often result in part 

of the cost being apportioned to the railway and part to the landowner. The relative size of the 

apportioned costs is specific to the particular agreement. 

When a CTA tribunal decides to authorize a crossing “by right,” usually, the railway is financially 

responsible for all costs associated with establishing a safe crossing. When a crossing “by grace” is 

granted, the landowner is usually financially responsible for all costs associated with establishing a 

safe crossing. The CTA does not have the discretion to apportion costs for crossing granted “by 

grace” or by the Agency's discretion under section 103 of the Canada Transportation Act. 

The allocation of financial responsibility for the crossing 

construction and maintenance does not appear to have a direct 

impact on the resultant level of crossing safety.

3.2 Crossing Construction 

Construction practices are dictated by the safety requirements mandated by the railways, which are 

based on Transport Canada safety requirements (e.g., the Railway Safety Act). In order to 

determine the long-term, best-fit crossing requirements, the landowner is asked to provide 

information regarding the purpose of the crossing, the intended frequency of use, the type of 

equipment that will be used, and if the applicant has intentions of significantly changing or 

increasing the use in the foreseeable future, with regards to; development, subdivision, or 

significant commercial or industrial plans. 

Once the intended use of the crossing has been determined, a request is sent to the railway’s 

engineering, operations, and capacity groups for their approval. If they have no objections to the 

crossing, a drawing is created showing the location of the new crossing, and the requirements with 

respect to approaches, culverts, gates, signs, etc. are determined. All construction that takes place 

on the railway right-of-way is conducted by railway personnel or authorized private contractors. 

Depending on the terms of the crossing agreement, the applicant might be responsible for the 

construction of the approaches, any culverts or drainage features that are required, and installation 

of signs and/or gates. Typically, all work has to be done under flag protection by the railway. The 

typical private crossing is at grade, with a timber-plank crossing surface, and has gravel/dirt 

approaches. 

During the interviews with stakeholders, differing viewpoints were expressed concerning the 

technical standards that are used for the design of private crossings. Most often, the technical 

standard now used for the design of public crossings is the proposed standard “RTD-10 

Road/Railway Grade Crossing Technical Standards and Inspection, Testing and Maintenance 

Requirements.” Certain stakeholders feel that this document is adequate for the design of private 

crossings; however others (including both railway and Transport Canada representatives) 

expressed many concerns. The list below provides a summary of the thoughts expressed by the 

stakeholders concerning technical standards. 

A.12 - 18
IBI GROUP PHASE 2 INTERIM REPORT - REFERENCE #T8200-044506 

Transport Canada

IDENTIFICATION AND EXAMINATION OF SAFETY AT PRIVATE CROSSINGS 

June 2006 Page 8. 

• The requirement to include the design vehicle characteristics into the calculation of 

sightlines (under RTD-10) is seen as beneficial by some due to the very long and wide 

equipment sometimes accommodated at farm crossings, these participants had not 

had difficulty obtaining the correct information and found the methods to be adequate 

despite the amount of time required to obtain information; 

• The calculations required by RTD-10 address many safety concerns that currently exist 

at private crossings; 

• A simplified form of RTD-10 is required; 

• Some railway personnel have identified the consideration of design vehicle 

characteristics in the calculation of sightlines as very difficult or complex. Comments 

provided indicated that technical data required is rarely available; owners are not able 

to provide the level of detail required (such as acceleration characteristics), especially 

for farm equipment. 

• Railways are not always provided with the correct information and indicated that 

observation is the only way of obtaining the information required for RTD-10 

calculations. As well, the specific types of vehicles using crossings change rapidly. 

• The existing and less complex “Minimum Railway/Road Crossing Sightline 

Requirements for all Grade Crossings without Automatic Warning Devices, G-4A” 

continues to be used in some areas, especially for low volume private crossings. 

• Some comparisons conducted by railway personnel have indicated that the G4-A 

method yields similar results to RTD-10. Others have indicated that a past study 

showed that clearance time required for certain vehicles under RTD-10 greatly 

exceeded the requirements set out in G-4A; 

• Participants indicated that a simplified tool/calculation/method for RTD-10 is needed 

especially for low use crossings (similar to the current G-4A); 

• The complexity of the RTD-10 may require some owners to pay engineering firms to do 

the design work necessary for the development of drawings needed when applying for 

a crossing, thereby increasing the costs to the applicant; 

• Software that could be used in the field, that would be able to provide the requirements 

of the crossing based on crossing data entered on location (slopes etc.) was 

suggested; 

• There are few technical standards that are applicable to private crossings, but 

experience along with standards for public crossings is usually sufficient; 

• Requirements for different types of crossings should be included in the new regulations 

and the standards should also address items such as fencing and farm gates at 

crossings leading to multiple residences. 

The primary issue relating to the initial crossing construction is 

the cost/delay associated with the application of technical 

standards. At the time of construction the crossings are 

constructed to operate in a safe manner. The main concerns 

arise during the operations and maintenance stages.

A.12 - 19
IBI GROUP PHASE 2 INTERIM REPORT - REFERENCE #T8200-044506 

Transport Canada

IDENTIFICATION AND EXAMINATION OF SAFETY AT PRIVATE CROSSINGS 

June 2006 Page 9. 

3.3 Operations and Maintenance 

This section describes operations and maintenance procedures and practices, as they pertain to 

both new and existing private crossings. 

3.3.1 EXISTING LEGISLATION, REGULATIONS AND POLICIES 

The interview process has yielded the following information concerning existing legislation, 

regulations and policies with respect to the operation and maintenance of private crossings. 

Owners of private and farm crossings are typically unaware of the legislation and regulations that 

apply to their crossing. Some owners are aware of the contents of an agreement that they may 

have with the railway (usually for crossings “by grace”), however this is not always the case. 

Certain owners indicated that they feel that the railway should be providing them with much more 

information in this regard. Owners of crossings that have existed for many years seem to be the 

least aware of legislation and agreements, whereas owners who have recently obtained permission 

to a crossing are the most aware. Some owners indicated that the only legislation that they are 

aware of is the provincial Highway Code. In the case of snowmobile users in Ontario, they 

indicated that they are aware of the Motorized Snow Vehicle Act, which requires them to stop at all 

railway crossings. 

Crossing agreements and owner information need to convey 

both the owner’s and the railway’s responsibilities regarding 

maintenance, vehicle use, access, etc.

The railway representatives indicated that the railways are responsible for the maintenance of the 

crossings; however, responsibility for the maintenance of the approaches and sightlines varies. 

The railways are responsible for maintaining all aspects of crossings granted “by right,” the 

agreements established between the railway and the crossing owner govern the responsibilities for 

the maintenance of crossings granted “by grace”. In all cases, the railway is responsible for 

conducting all maintenance within the railway right-of-way (crossing approach maintenance is not 

typically the responsibility of the railways). However, for a crossing granted “by grace” the crossing 

owner may pay fees to the railway to cover these costs. In some cases, the agreements entered 

into by the railway and crossing owner stipulate the type of vehicle that is permitted to use the 

crossing as well as the type of use permitted (such as access to a small business) and require the 

owner to advise the railway if they plan to use any other type of vehicle or modify the type of use. 

The railways are of the opinion that these types of agreements are important; however, the crossing 

owners do not always abide by them. Some agreements may be lacking in clauses relating to 

maintenance of, or use permitted at crossings, posing a challenge to the railways. The addition of 

such clauses would improve safety at crossings. 

Transport Canada personnel indicated that they may intervene with either the railway or the 

crossing owner in cases where there is a threat to safety at an existing crossing. They do not 

usually provide recommendations; rather they require that dangerous situations be corrected. 

Usually Transport Canada will intervene with the Railway rather than with the crossing owner. 

Certain different methods of intervention were identified. Transport Canada may issue “Notices” or 

“Notices and Orders” in cases where there are safety concerns. A “Notice” issued to a railway 

allows the railway 14 days to advise Transport Canada of the corrective measures to be applied, 

however, one Transport Canada representative indicated that the solutions presented may be weak 

and unsatisfactory, based on economics. Alternatively, a “Notice and Order” may be issued which 

may restrict train operations (often applies speed restrictions on the railway), or crossing use, until 

the situation is corrected. Transport Canada finds this to be very effective in correcting dangerous 

A.12 - 20
IBI GROUP PHASE 2 INTERIM REPORT - REFERENCE #T8200-044506 

Transport Canada

IDENTIFICATION AND EXAMINATION OF SAFETY AT PRIVATE CROSSINGS 

June 2006 Page 10. 

situations; often the threat of issuing a “Notice and Order” is sufficient to ensure that adequate 

corrective measures are applied. Alternatively, Transport Canada has the authority to order a 

crossing to be closed; this seems to be used in exceptional cases. Currently Transport Canada 

inspectors do not have the power to issue fines immediately on site upon detection of unsafe 

situations or behaviour at crossings. The desire to have this power (as currently exists in the United 

States at the Federal Railroad Administration) was expressed. As well, it was indicated that 

enacting the currently proposed new regulation and associated technical standard (RTD-10) would 

address certain safety concerns at these crossings. 

It is a widely held belief amongst railway industry stakeholders 

that many of the safety issues created by inadequate designs in 

the past and/or current maintenance practices, could be 

addressed by putting the RTD-10 guidelines into force. 

Currently, there are no enforceable standards for private 

crossing design and maintenance that can be used to force 

crossing upgrades. 

Railway personnel interviewed (public works officers, real estate representatives, track supervisors) 

have provided differing viewpoints concerning existing legislation as it refers to the maintenance of 

sightlines at crossings. The majority of those interviewed indicated that the current “Minimum 

Railway/Road Crossing Sightline Requirements for all Grade Crossings without Automatic Warning 

Devices, G-4A” is adequate for use during inspections of private crossings, and that it is a tool that 

is easily applicable in the field. These participants indicated that they are concerned that the 

proposed technical standard, RTD-10, is too difficult for use in the field by track supervisors. They 

indicated that a simplified tool is required for use in the field during inspections. Other parties 

interviewed indicated that the proposed standard is superior for this use, given its consideration for 

design vehicles. 

3.3.2 CROSSING INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE 

The railways generally have policies in place to inspect all of their crossings on a yearly basis; 

however, a general lack of resources to perform inspections is having an impact on the actual 

frequency of private crossing inspections. 

When the railways conduct inspections the focus is generally on sightlines and crossing surface 

condition. Depending on who is conducting the inspections, sightlines could be evaluated using 

either the G4-A or RTD-10 guidelines; it seems to be a matter of individual preference. 

Transport Canada undertakes annual inspections of all crossings (public, farm, private) to ensure 

that all crossings are safe. An inspection report is issued to the railway that is then responsible to 

ensure that deficiencies are corrected. In particular, signage and sightlines are reviewed. The 

railways are now looking at a more programmed approach to ensuring that sightlines are 

adequately maintained, according to one stakeholder, there has been a marked improvement in 

recent years. 

There must be an easily accessible, consistent and formal 

mechanism for the crossing owner to inform the railways of 

inspection needs.

All maintenance on the railway right-of-way is conducted by railway personnel or approved private 

contractors. Occasionally, landowners will do some brush trimming to clear sightlines, but 

A.12 - 21
IBI GROUP PHASE 2 INTERIM REPORT - REFERENCE #T8200-044506 

Transport Canada

IDENTIFICATION AND EXAMINATION OF SAFETY AT PRIVATE CROSSINGS 

June 2006 Page 11. 

technically they are not authorized to do any such work on the railway right-of-way. Conversely, 

more than one railway industry stakeholder cited challenges in gaining access to private land for the 

purpose of clearing brush or tree limbs (originating from that land) that where obstructing sightlines. 

3.3.3 PRIVATE CROSSING INVENTORY AND TRACKING 

During the interviews conducted with both railway and Transport Canada personnel, it became 

clear that significant challenges exist regarding maintaining an up-to-date inventory of private 

crossings. 

Transport Canada does not maintain a database of these crossings. Railways have difficulties in 

maintaining their databases, especially for crossings granted “by right” since they are not made 

aware of changes in land ownership. As a result, the databases become outdated quickly. Short 

line railways indicated that they did not acquire up-to-date lists of crossings and owners, or even the 

crossing agreements, at the time they purchased the railway line. The representatives of these 

railways indicated that they do not have the personnel required to establish and maintain a 

database, although some have made significant efforts in this regard and are in the process of 

cataloguing the crossings on their lines. Crossings governed by agreement (typically crossings “by 

grace”) are often easier to track than those without agreements (typically crossings “by right”) since 

the railways regularly issue invoices for maintenance fees to the owners of the crossings. There 

are cases, however, where the documents concerning existing crossings are missing and 

ownership information is no longer available. The department responsible for establishing and 

maintaining inventory listings varies by railway; this may be done by the Real Estate or Technical 

Services departments, or by the General Manager’s office. 

The lack of a comprehensive and current inventory of all private 

crossings and their owners creates critical communication 

deficiencies throughout the “life cycle” of a private crossing. 

Ultimately, a comprehensive crossing (private and public) inventory/database is fundamental and 

critical to crossing safety across the country. To some extent the railways have recognized this 

necessity, and numerous railway divisions have begun the process of cataloguing their private 

crossings; however, the scope and accessibility of those databases is extremely limited (sometimes 

they are only available to one railway department). The absence of a proper, truly comprehensive, 

accessible inventory of crossings delays and/or prevents the notification and communication 

processes and significantly impacts crossing safety. 

3.3.4 INSURANCE AND FEES 

Typically the railways request that the owner of a crossing granted “by grace” pay an annual 

maintenance fee to the railway and that the owner show proof of liability insurance (usually $5M). 

These elements are regularly included in the agreement governing the crossing. Annual fees and 

proof of insurance are not required in the case of a crossing granted “by right.” 

Information provided by representatives of the CTA indicated that, in cases where they are required 

to intervene, the railway’s request for maintenance fees and liability insurance are frequently 

reviewed. In cases where the owner has no other access to his land, the Agency will typically 

decide that the annual fee must be waived, as well, since there is no legal obligation for the 

landowner to carry liability insurance for the crossing, the Agency almost always determines that it 

is up to the landowner to determine the necessity of carrying such insurance. 

A.12 - 22
IBI GROUP PHASE 2 INTERIM REPORT - REFERENCE #T8200-044506 

Transport Canada

IDENTIFICATION AND EXAMINATION OF SAFETY AT PRIVATE CROSSINGS 

June 2006 Page 12. 

Railway representatives indicated that there are frequently instances of crossing owners neglecting 

or refusing to pay their annual fees, and yet they will continue to use the crossing. 

The financial responsibility for maintenance or insurance does 

not appear to have a direct effect on private crossing safety; 

however, it may have a direct impact on the owner’s awareness 

of their liability/responsibilities associated with the crossing.

In cases where improvements are required to a crossing “by grace,” the railways require that the 

owner pay the costs of the necessary work. In some cases, the costs are significant and the 

owners cannot afford to pay. Transport Canada officials indicated that this has happened in certain 

instances where Transport Canada has imposed restrictions on the railway, due to an unsafe 

crossing, and the railway then passes on the often-prohibitive costs of the improvements to the 

crossing owner. It was suggested that legislation should be established requiring that owners be 

responsible for the cost of the works to upgrade/modify crossings, especially when the modifications 

are due to changes in use of the crossing, changes in vehicle type, and changes in the volume of 

traffic using the crossing. 

3.3.5 SECURITY AND ACCESS CONTROL 

Controlling the use of private crossings is a challenge, based on the information provided by the 

many user groups interviewed. It is difficult for railways to control unauthorized use of these 

crossings. 

Few of the participants indicated that access to their crossings was physically restricted (for 

example, by farm gates). In addition, differing opinions were provided concerning the safety of the 

use of farm gates at crossings. One Transport Canada representative indicated that there should 

be a regulation requiring locked gates at restricted crossings, thereby preventing unauthorized 

access. On the other hand, one experienced locomotive engineer indicated that safety problems 

frequently occur when a crossing user parks their vehicle on the tracks, in order to unlock or open a 

farm gate. The suggestion was made that in locations where farm gates are deemed necessary, 

they should be set well back from the tracks in order to provide sufficient space for a vehicle 

between the gate and the track. Another situation was described concerning a farm gate installed 

on one side of the track only, thereby allowing unrestricted access onto the track but not allowing a 

vehicle to get off the track, creating a safety risk. 

In cases where a crossing leads to camps, or seasonal cottages, the camp members or residents 

are the only ones authorized to use the crossing. However, in reality, visitors to these locations use 

the crossings, as well as hunters, etc. One crossing owner indicated that the installation of signs 

and gates had been effective in stopping unauthorized use. 

Unrestricted access to a private crossing is a fundamental 

safety risk.

Railway representatives indicated that safety issues could result from a crossing owner allowing 

others to use their crossing for a use that was not intended when the crossing was established. An 

example of such a situation is the authorization given to a snowmobile club to run their trail across 

private land and then to use the owner’s railway crossing. Owners are not all aware that they must 

restrict access to their crossings and adhere to the stipulations set forth in the agreement with the 

railway. The railway representatives indicated that improvements are required, that owners must 

become responsible concerning the access and use of their crossings. 

A.12 - 23
IBI GROUP PHASE 2 INTERIM REPORT - REFERENCE #T8200-044506 

Transport Canada

IDENTIFICATION AND EXAMINATION OF SAFETY AT PRIVATE CROSSINGS 

June 2006 Page 13. 

Railway representatives also indicated that access control is also affected when there is a change 

in property owners, new owners are often unaware of the requirements associated with the use of 

their crossing, and the railway is unaware of a change in ownership (this will be addressed further in 

Section 3.4). 

Private crossing owners may not understand the responsibility 

and implications of authorizing the use of their crossing by 

others. This may include employees (permanent or temporary), 

visitors, recreational users, or negotiated property access.

The example was provided of old logging roads where the public uses the crossings since there is 

unrestricted access to them; these crossings may then become unrestricted de facto public 

crossings. 

One railway representative indicated that there seem to be fewer accidents and incidents at 

crossings for farm use, granted “by right,” than at private crossings granted “by grace” since often 

crossings for farm use have limited access whereas other private crossings allow unrestricted 

access. 

One participant indicated that a golf course was located across a private crossing, and that both 

members and the public use the course. In this case there is no control over the access to the 

crossing. 

In order to restrict access to a large, fully automated, private crossing, located in the centre of a 

transport company’s fenced yard, the company had installed crossing gates (operated through the 

use of a magic eye type detector) in advance of the railway crossing gates, in order to ensure that 

no traffic could access the track without being well aware of the manner in which to proceed safely. 

This particular crossing was designed and is maintained as if it were a public crossing, with 

additional access restrictions. 

3.3.6 WARNING AND INFORMATION SIGNS/DEVICES 

In many cases, unfamiliar or occasional users of private crossing have little education or 

understanding regarding the safe use of the crossing. The only opportunity may be the information 

and guidance provided at the crossing itself through signing and warning devices. 

Nearly all of the stakeholders interviewed provided input regarding warning and information signs at 

private crossings, concerning the signs that exist as well as their views concerning improvements to 

be made. It was found that most private crossings (especially “farm” crossings) do not have any 

warning or information signs posted. The most popular suggestion in order to improve safety at 

these types of crossings is to post cross bucks and stop signs on both approaches to every 

crossing that does not having an automated warning system. 

The information provided from the stakeholders is summarized below. 

Stop Signs 

Improper use of access control devices poses a safety risk that 

is at least as significant as unrestricted access. 

A.12 - 24
IBI GROUP PHASE 2 INTERIM REPORT - REFERENCE #T8200-044506 

Transport Canada

IDENTIFICATION AND EXAMINATION OF SAFETY AT PRIVATE CROSSINGS 

June 2006 Page 14. 

• Stop signs are seen as an effective way of ensuring that users stop and look for 

approaching trains, they are considered to be effective since they are a standard sign 

that drivers are used to and tend to respect; 

• The use of stop signs at private crossings varies by railway and even by subdivision. 

The size and condition of sign are not regulated and therefore some stop signs are 

small and easily overlooked, while others are not properly maintained; 

Standard regulatory, warning and information signs are the 

foundation of all transportation intersections. Private crossings 

should not be an exception to this principle.

• Some railway representatives indicated that they feel stop signs should be placed at 

each approach to every private crossing (at both “by grace” and “by right” crossings) 

and that this should be standard practice; 

• Snowmobile clubs post their own signage along their trails, one representative 

contacted indicated that there are supposed to be “stop ahead” signs in advance of the 

crossing and “stop” signs at the crossings, these signs are considered to be effective; 

and 

• Crossbucks should be placed at all crossings along with stop signs, on each approach. 

Whistle Posts 

Whistling is typically not required at private crossings and often is only employed in emergency 

situations. 

Owners having a crossing located close to a public crossing where trains are required to whistle 

indicated that the train whistle provided a significant safety benefit. It is important to note that this 

benefit might only exist for trains travelling in one direction. The safety benefit is not as significant 

when the crossing is further away in areas where train speeds are slow. There are whistle posts at 

very few private crossings. The requirement to whistle at a private crossing may be added by the 

railway for safety reasons. Transport Canada will only order whistling reluctantly as they believe 

other measures are more effective in correcting safety deficiencies. Snowmobile users, and other 

similar users, are unlikely to hear the train whistle due to their insulated helmets and the noise from 

their machines. 

Whistling has a proven safety benefit, and would be especially 

effective at private crossings where sight lines are limited. 

A.12 - 25
IBI GROUP PHASE 2 INTERIM REPORT - REFERENCE #T8200-044506 

Transport Canada

IDENTIFICATION AND EXAMINATION OF SAFETY AT PRIVATE CROSSINGS 

June 2006 Page 15. 

Automated Warning Systems 

• Few fully automated warning systems are installed at private crossings. They tend to 

be installed at large crossings with higher vehicular traffic, such as at private industrial 

crossings; these are typically crossings granted “by grace” and are governed by an 

agreement; 

• Requests by owners for fully automatic flashing lights, bells and gates in order to 

improve safety at a crossing are often forgotten when the cost of such devices is 

discovered; 

• The addition of flashing lights would draw further attention to crossings thereby 

improving safety; 

• Railway and Transport Canada stakeholders along with some owners expressed a 

desire for Transport Canada to establish grants for the installation of automated 

warning systems. 

Mirrors 

Mirrors have been placed at certain locations in order to offer better visibility, such as close to a 

rock cut (placed at low use private crossings). Few short line railways indicated that they have used 

mirrors. Information was provided indicating that both convex mirrors and flat mirrors are used, 

although one railway representative indicated that convex mirrors give a false sense of security 

since the train is actually closer to the crossing than it appears in the mirror, and drivers think that 

they have more time to cross that is actually available. Mirrors must be well maintained in order to 

ensure that their angle of placement does not change and that their reflecting surfaces are in good 

condition. Mirrors can become damaged easily. Also, mirrors can fog up or cause visibility 

problems by reflecting the sun at certain times of day. 

Emergency Contact Numbers 

At present, emergency contact number are not provided at most crossings. Emergency contact 

numbers should be posted at all crossings to ensure that owners and users know where to call in 

case of a safety issue or other problem. 

Emergency contact numbers have repeatedly been identified as 

a critical piece of information that should be posted at every 

crossing. 

Other 

The following real or perceived safety improvements have been incorporated at some specific 

crossings: 

• “Private crossing”, “Caution look both ways”, “No trespassing” and “Use at own risk” 

signs posted at the crossing; 

• Conventional roadway signs such as “Walk/Don’t Walk” signals; 

• The use of a private flagman where there have been safety problems (close calls); 

A.12 - 26
IBI GROUP PHASE 2 INTERIM REPORT - REFERENCE #T8200-044506 

Transport Canada

IDENTIFICATION AND EXAMINATION OF SAFETY AT PRIVATE CROSSINGS 

June 2006 Page 16. 

• Flashing amber lights installed by owners; 

• Large signs describing how to safely use the crossing; 

• Signs on high speed corridors reminding users to be careful due to high speed trains; 

• Signs at locations having poor visibility reminding users to look carefully; 

• Retro-reflective materials on signs and sign posts; 

• Rumble strips in paved approaches to alert drivers to the crossing; 

• Colour schemes for signs that would allow them to stand out from their surroundings. 

A poorly marked or maintained crossing may lead an unfamiliar 

user to incorrectly assume that the railway operations are not 

active, nor a substantial threat. 

The absence of signage, or damaged signage, at crossings leads users to believe that the train line 

is no longer used. This misconception leads users to believe that it is safe to cross the tracks at all 

times. 

Information obtained during the interviews with Transportation Safety Board investigators provided 

additional insight into the issues relating to signage. The information provided is as follows: 

• The investigators indicated that most often deficiencies found relate to lack of signage 

and/or poor maintenance practices; 

• Emergency contact numbers should be posted on signs at all crossings; 

• Lack of reflective surfaces on signage is a factor contributing to collisions; 

• A standardized private crossing sign should be developed to increase visibility and 

conspicuousness of private crossings. 

It was also noted that, a change in ownership of the railway might lead to changes in the way 

signage is maintained. As well, a new railway owner may not understand the reasoning behind 

certain specific warning signs placed at a certain location for safety reasons, and may remove them. 

This was noted to be particularly problematic for railways where the management is not situated 

locally to the operations. Issues relating to changes in ownership are addressed in greater detail in 

Section 3.4. 

3.3.7 SUPPLEMENTAL SAFETY DEVICES 

The issue of supplemental safety devises is somewhat contentious. Some stakeholders expressed 

an interest in testing out new technologies while others were adamant that minor improvements to 

safety could not justify the costs and risks associated with applying any type of experimental 

technology. 

Those who refuted the use of new technologies indicated that the available safety devices (e.g., 

mirrors, bells, gates, whistles, etc.) were sufficient. In addition to cost concerns, the primary 

objection to using unproven safety devices was that they would need to be failsafe. Also, the 

A.12 - 27
IBI GROUP PHASE 2 INTERIM REPORT - REFERENCE #T8200-044506 

Transport Canada

IDENTIFICATION AND EXAMINATION OF SAFETY AT PRIVATE CROSSINGS 

June 2006 Page 17. 

remoteness of many private crossing locations would make testing and maintenance challenging, 

given that the railways are already short on resources. 

Those who supported the use of supplemental safety devices suggested the following 

technologies/systems: 

• Block repeater systems whereby the presence of a train is communicated to 

downstream crossings; 

• Low-cost automatic warning systems (possibly solar powered); 

• LED lights on gate arms; 

• Flashing lights instead of signs (particularly in areas prone to fog, etc.); 

• Illuminated signs; 

• Wayside warning systems (horns situated at the crossing and directed more effectively 

to the approaching motorists, not just on trains); and 

• In-vehicle crossing warning systems. 

3.3.8 VEHICLE USE AND TYPE 

New and reconstructed private crossing are designed and constructed to accommodate a range of 

vehicles based on the available information and technical knowledge at the time. According to 

several railway industry stakeholders, the fact that the railways and railway authorities do not have 

control over the types of vehicles that can use a crossing is one of the biggest issues facing 

crossing safety. 

Issues pertaining to vehicle use and type exist across the country; furthermore, there appear to be 

some regional inconsistencies regarding those issues. For example, in western Canada, the 

vehicle type issues seem to centre on industrial and agricultural uses, whereas, in the eastern part 

of the country, recreational clubs and passenger vehicles were mentioned more frequently. 

Most of the railway industry stakeholders were able to identify specific vehicle types that are 

frequently involved in incidents at private crossings. They also noted that when incidents occur, it is 

often as a result of an incompatibility between the vehicle and the crossing design (i.e., the crossing 

being used by vehicles for which it was not designed). Such an observation reinforces the need for 

disclosure and due diligence, on the part of the crossings owners and users, in notifying the 

railways of the types of vehicles that are operating on their crossings. That disclosure and due 

diligence is equally important during the crossing application process and throughout the life of the 

crossing if the crossing usage changes. As mentioned in Section 3.1.3, crossing owners/users are 

not always very forthcoming with information regarding changes in crossings usage, and as a result, 

incidents of vehicle/crossing design incompatibility can occur. Conversely, where crossing owners 

are unaware of the type of vehicles for which their crossing was designed, it might not occur to them 

to notify the railway when their use of the crossing changes. Given the general lack of knowledge 

that exists on the part of the crossing owners with respect to crossing agreements, etc., it is 

probable that many are unaware of the terms that govern the types of vehicle that should be used 

with their crossing. 

A.12 - 28
IBI GROUP PHASE 2 INTERIM REPORT - REFERENCE #T8200-044506 

Transport Canada

IDENTIFICATION AND EXAMINATION OF SAFETY AT PRIVATE CROSSINGS 

June 2006 Page 18. 

Use of a private crossing by a vehicle for which it was not 

designed is a fundamental safety issue. 

In addition to vehicle/crossing design incompatibilities, issues related to vehicle type and crossing 

maintenance where mentioned by stakeholders. For example, several railway industry 

stakeholders described incidents where frequent snowmobile use at private crossings (usually by 

members of snowmobile clubs) resulted in snow and ice becoming compacted between the rail and 

the rut, which is derailment risk. When the railways are aware that snowmobile clubs are using a 

crossing they can adjust their maintenance practices accordingly; however, clubs sometimes 

arrange to use private crossings without notifying the railways, which can lead to issues like that 

described above. 

Ensuring the crossing is designed for, and used only by, 

appropriate vehicle types is a safety issue that spans the entire 

“life cycle” of the crossing. There are concerns associated with 

legal, education, communication and ownership aspects.

Where they do not already exist, streamlined processes by which crossing owners can notify the 

proper railway authorities of intended changes in or deviations from normal crossing use should be 

developed and communicated to all crossing owners. 

3.3.9 USER INFORMATION AND EDUCATION 

Although there are a few sceptics, the general opinion amongst all of the stakeholder groups 

interviewed is that education campaigns and public information sessions have a positive impact on 

crossing safety. However, many stakeholders also identified deficiencies in the current education 

and information dissemination practices, particularly with respect to informing crossing owners and 

users about private crossing procedures and responsibilities. Below is a list of areas where 

stakeholders identified deficiencies: 

• Crossing owners are not provided with any safety information or training. Many users 

do not even have the contact information for the railways; 

• Often, driver training and driver handbooks give very little attention to crossing safety 

In some instances crossing information has been removed from handbooks or has 

been omitted from training programmes; 

• The general public need to be educated on what procedures they should follow if their 

vehicle becomes disabled on a railway crossing (private or otherwise); 

• Commercial drivers and farm equipment operators are two user groups that need to be 

targeted by education and information campaigns; 

• Children are well targeted by existing general education and awareness campaigns, 

but adults are not as effectively reached; and 

• Non-railway police and 911 operators need to be better educated to deal with crossing 

incidents. 

Those who criticise information and education practices typically cited one or more of the following 

issues: 

A.12 - 29
IBI GROUP PHASE 2 INTERIM REPORT - REFERENCE #T8200-044506 

Transport Canada

IDENTIFICATION AND EXAMINATION OF SAFETY AT PRIVATE CROSSINGS 

June 2006 Page 19. 

• Education and awareness campaigns are not far-reaching enough; 

• They don’t target the right user groups; 

• The campaigns work initially, but people quickly become complacent and revert to old 

behaviours; 

• There are not sufficient resources to reach everyone who needs to be educated; and 

• Information needs to be redistributed or re-taught every year (or more frequently) 

requiring more resources. 

Several stakeholders raised the idea of distributing information packages to private crossing owners 

during the application process as well as periodically throughout the life of the crossing. Doing so 

would have the double benefit of keeping owners and users informed about crossing safety and 

procedures, plus it would maintain a state of ongoing communication between them and the 

railways. 

The need for safety information and education is at the site, not 

on a billboard. Signage and information distributed directly to 

crossing owners is more likely to reach and impact its target 

audience. 

3.3.10 TRAIN ACTIVITY NOTIFICATION 

The vast majority of private crossing owners and users receive no notification regarding train activity 

at or around their crossing from the railways. As such, the only information that crossing owners 

and users have is based on their personal experience. The railway industry stakeholders 

interviewed all took the opinion that informing crossing users of scheduled train activity breeds 

complacency. The railways would like all crossing users to live by the adage that “anytime is train 

time.” The crossing owners and users interviewed for the study stated that knowing roughly when 

to expect trains at their crossings would allow them to better plan their activity at the crossings and 

avoid times when trains were more likely to be in the area. 

There are currently no formal mechanisms for railways to inform 

crossing owners that train activity at a particular crossing is 

changing. 

Owners and users whose crossings are located near adjacent public crossings noted that train 

whistles sounded at those public crossings provided them with some advanced warning of 

approaching trains. 

3.4 Change in Ownership/Access 

3.4.1 EXISTING LEGISLATION, REGULATIONS AND POLICIES 

Changes in land ownership may bring changes in the owner’s right to a crossing, changes to 

existing agreements, or changes to the status of a crossing. 

A.12 - 30
IBI GROUP PHASE 2 INTERIM REPORT - REFERENCE #T8200-044506 

Transport Canada

IDENTIFICATION AND EXAMINATION OF SAFETY AT PRIVATE CROSSINGS 

June 2006 Page 20. 

The most straightforward case occurs when a landowner having a crossing granted “by right” giving 

access to his land located on either side of the railway tracks sells his land, without subdividing it. In 

such cases the new owner retains the right to the crossing. Since these crossings are not governed 

by an agreement with the railway, the new owner is not required to enter into a revised agreement 

with the railway, and does not pay any fees. 

The situation changes when an owner subdivides his property, and may become more complex. 

Section 102 of the Canada Transportation Act stipulates, “When the construction of a railway line 

crosses a landowner’s land, the landowner has the right to a suitable crossing of the railway.” This 

right is determined based on historical data (i.e., records regarding the previous ownership and 

subdivision of the land). In cases where land is subdivided and sold, the railway track may no 

longer sever the owner’s property, eliminating the right to a crossing. 

The third type of land transfer identified is the sale of land on which a crossing “by grace” (subject to 

the terms of the agreement between the landowner and the railway) exists. In these cases, the 

agreement between the railway and the landowner must be modified; the title on the land ownership 

registry must match the title on the crossing agreement. 

Regardless of the type of crossing, there should be a legal 

mechanism that requires railway notification prior to land 

ownership or land use changes. 

3.4.2 RAIL AUTHORITY NOTIFICATION 

During the interviews conducted with railway stakeholders it was indicated that that the second type 

of land sales identified above (cases where land is subdivided) have caused significant problems. 

These problems were noted in all regions of Canada, and on all railways. In fact, this was indicated 

as being one of the most significant difficulties with private crossings in Canada. 

Numerous situations have arisen where property has been subdivided, and a lot on one side of the 

tracks has been sold without any legal access to that lot. The only means of accessing the property 

is across the railway tracks. Landowners do not realize that the right to the crossing (as per Section 

102 of the Canada Transportation Act) is negated upon division of their land, and they falsely 

assume that the ownership of a crossing comes along with the purchase of land. 

From the discussions, it became clear that lawyers/notaries do not verify that there is legal access 

to a lot before finalizing the land sale. In many cases, land is sold and housing subdivisions are 

built without any access except across the tracks. Municipalities have issued building permits 

without ensuring that there is legal access to the new residential area. 

Transport Canada and railway representatives have indicated that this is a serious problem that 

must be addressed. Transport Canada representatives indicated that the railways should be 

responsible for ensuring that these situations do not occur by identifying activity near the tracks and 

intervening quickly. Railway representatives indicated that they are not advised, by anyone, prior to 

or upon the sale or subdivision of land, and that they are therefore unable to intervene until it is too 

late; they have no control over the use of the crossing. There do not seem to be any standards to 

control the change in vocation of a crossing, or to support the decision of a railway to ban access to 

a crossing when such changes occur. 

A solution proposed by railway representatives is that municipalities should ensure that access 

roads are built to existing public crossings (significantly improving safety); that 

lawyers/notaries/municipalities should be required to verify that there is legal access to land prior to 

finalizing sales agreements/issuing building permits; and that they be obliged to contact and consult 

A.12 - 31
IBI GROUP PHASE 2 INTERIM REPORT - REFERENCE #T8200-044506 

Transport Canada

IDENTIFICATION AND EXAMINATION OF SAFETY AT PRIVATE CROSSINGS 

June 2006 Page 21. 

with adjacent landowners (including the railway) during this process. It was noted that this process 

had been followed in one recent case in Western Canada with success, but that there does not 

seem to be any legal requirement to do so. Once houses are built, the crossing becomes used by 

all residents and is required for emergency services access, and therefore it cannot be closed. The 

crossing becomes a de facto public crossing, providing unrestricted use that the crossing was not 

designed for, but does not fall under the responsibility of the road authority because there is no 

agreement governing it. The railway becomes the only one responsible for the crossing. 

For crossings where there is a change in status from a crossing “by right” to a crossing “by grace” 

the landowner/road authorities requiring the crossing must negotiate with the railway and apply to 

obtain a crossing “by grace,” which must be governed by an agreement. The owner is responsible 

for the fees associated with the crossing, as per the terms of the agreement with the railway. In 

these cases, safety concerns arise as the crossings may not be located in the best place in terms of 

safety, based on the modified usage. Additional safety devices may also be required, based on 

visibility and changes usage. Cases of this nature may be brought to the Canadian Transportation 

Agency if the railway and the owner are unable to come to an agreement. If the Agency deems the 

crossing to be necessary for the owner to enjoy his land, they may issue an order allowing the 

crossing to remain. Grants to upgrade these types of crossings may be available through the 

“Grade Crossing Improvement Fund,” subject to certain conditions. 

3.4.3 AGREEMENT TRANSFER 

Railway representatives indicated, once again, that often the railway is not advised during the land 

transfer process and that new land owners are often unaware of their responsibilities concerning 

the crossing, including stipulations regarding usage permitted, associated fees, maintenance 

requirements etc. As well, the new owners are often unaware of the safety implications of owning 

and using their crossing. 

Formal information outlining the owner’s responsibilities with 

respect to a crossing should be provided to the new owner at 

the time when the new owner takes possession of the land. 

Upon the sale of land having a crossing granted “by grace”, the new owner must arrange for a 

revised crossing agreement with the railway, in the name of the new owner. The railway will be 

required to review the crossing and ensure that it is suitable for the use that is intended by the new 

owner. This owner is responsible for respecting all clauses of the agreement, including fees and 

costs of any modifications required to the crossing, based on usage. Due to the fact that the 

railways are seldom advised of changes in ownership, there are many agreements that are not in 

the name of the present owner, but rather are still in the name of the original owner. 

On occasions where agreements are transferred, often no training/safety information is provided to 

the new owner. This agreement transfer process could be modified to ensure that safety 

information is provided. 

3.5 Crossing Closure and Consolidation 

3.5.1 EXISTING LEGISLATION, REGULATIONS AND POLICIES 

Different ways in which crossings may be closed were identified; the three ways discussed are as 

follows: 

A.12 - 32
IBI GROUP PHASE 2 INTERIM REPORT - REFERENCE #T8200-044506 

Transport Canada

IDENTIFICATION AND EXAMINATION OF SAFETY AT PRIVATE CROSSINGS 

June 2006 Page 22. 

Voluntary Closure 

The crossing owner may close crossings voluntarily. As discussed in Section 7.5 of Phase 1 of this 

report, Transport Canada’s Grade Crossing Closure Program currently in place offers subsidies to 

voluntarily close passive crossings permanently. The subsidy offered for the closure of a private 

crossing is $5,000. This grant is offered to the person with whom the rights to the crossing reside, 

and in accepting the grant, the owner gives up their right to use the crossing. 

Transport Canada representatives interviewed indicated that there has been a varied response to 

the Grade Crossings Closure program. In certain regions the program is seen to be effective due to 

the efforts of railways in encouraging owners to close crossings, while there have been no closures 

in other regions. Both Transport Canada and Railway representatives indicated that the subsidy 

offered is not sufficient to encourage owners to give up their rights to a crossing. They have 

indicated that additional subsidies should be available to grant alternative access to property (to 

permit the closure of private crossings) or to pay for other safety improvements aside from closure. 

Transport Canada should have the freedom to provide subsidies 

to pay for safety improvements and alternative access, in 

addition to crossing closures. 

Transport Canada Order 

In addition to voluntary crossing closures, according to discussions with Transport Canada 

representatives, Transport Canada does have the authority to permanently order a crossing to be 

closed where there is a threat to safety. This action is rarely taken, however an example of such a 

situation was provided where Transport Canada ordered the closure of a farm crossing, in the case 

discussed, the Canadian Transportation Agency was asked to intervene by the crossing owner and 

the Agency ruled in favour of the closure of the crossing. 

One Transportation Safety Board representative interviewed indicated that they feel that Transport 

Canada needs to have the authority to enforce the closure or consolidation of redundant or unsafe 

crossings. 

Railway Initiated Crossing Closure 

Railways, being responsible for safety, may also order the closure of crossings that have been 

established “by grace”, such as where a crossing owner does not respect the stipulations of the 

crossing agreement that is in place. This seems to be done in extreme circumstances only; in some 

cases the threat to close the crossing may generate a change in behaviour at the crossing and an 

improvement in safety. In cases where the railway orders a crossing closed, the owner may appeal 

to the Canadian Transportation Agency who will review the case. Railways will also remove 

crossings that are no longer in use. 

Railway companies actively promote the closure and consolidation of crossings, and expressed a 

desire to receive more active participation from Transport Canada in this process, including the 

desire for Transport Canada to exercise their authority to require the closure of certain crossings for 

safety reasons. As well, non-financial active involvement in promoting voluntary crossing closures 

was suggested. 

Railway representatives interviewed indicated that it is difficult to close private crossings when the 

crossing owner involves the Canadian Transportation Agency. The individuals interviewed 

indicated that the Agency might allow the crossing to be kept even if the railway, supported by 

Transport Canada, wished to close the crossing for safety reasons. Both Transport Canada and 

A.12 - 33
IBI GROUP PHASE 2 INTERIM REPORT - REFERENCE #T8200-044506 

Transport Canada

IDENTIFICATION AND EXAMINATION OF SAFETY AT PRIVATE CROSSINGS 

June 2006 Page 23. 

railway representatives indicated that the Canadian Transportation Agency’s decisions seem to go 

against the desire to close crossings in some cases. They feel that there is not enough interest from 

the Agency concerning the closure of crossings and that the Agency should be more proactive in 

this regard when making decisions regarding the authorization of crossings. 

3.5.2 NEGOTIATION AND ARBITRATION 

Within the context of Transport Canada’s grade Crossing Closures Program, some railways have 

begun contacting crossing owners to review the need for their crossings, and to look at alternative 

access options. The owner would be the recipient of the federal grant discussed above if they 

agree to the permanent closure of their crossing. 

The Canadian Transportation Agency may become involved in cases where the railway has 

removed a crossing and the landowner wishes to have the crossing reinstated, and the landowner 

and the railway cannot come to an agreement regarding the crossing or its status. As well, in cases 

where the crossing is one that was initially authorized by the Agency, the railway must obtain a new 

ruling from the Agency to close the crossing. 

Railways have made considerable efforts to contact owners of private crossings that are not used, 

in order to close these crossings. Railways endeavour to close unused crossings as quickly as 

possible, limiting the possibility of unauthorized use. As well, the railways may negotiate with 

owners of multiple crossings to consolidate their crossings, or may negotiate the use of a single 

crossing by multiple users. 

It was also indicated that small private crossings for residential use are nearly impossible to close, 

no matter how dangerous they may be. These crossings are often the only access to the property. 

An example was provided of the successful closure of two crossings. In the case presented, the 

railway was able to convince owners of two separate crossings located near a curve to use a 

roadway alongside the track instead of their crossing. 

Railways also find the there is some confusion regarding the number of crossings that a landowner 

is entitled to, and that this can cause difficulties when negotiating the closure or consolidation of 

crossings. They indicated that it would be very useful if there were standards dictating the number 

of crossings permitted by lot, or the number permitted over a certain length of track. There are 

cases where 4 or 5 crossings exist, over a distance of 500 feet along the track. As well, the 

suggestion was provided to establish a distance from a public crossing along which no private 

crossings would be permitted. 

Many stakeholders interviewed indicated that the closure of many private crossings could be 

accomplished if access roads leading to a public crossing or to a consolidated private crossing 

could be built. Train crews indicated that the closure of crossings is highly desirable as there are far 

too many crossings; that many crossings should be consolidated since many are redundant. 

3.5.3 CLOSURE PHYSICAL WORKS 

The railway must do physical work within the railway right-of-way. When a crossing is closed, all 

planking is removed, fencing may be added and approaches may be modified or removed. 

In some cases, track supervisors are asked to remove crossings that do not seem to be in use. If a 

request to reinstate the crossing is received by the owner, the crossing will be rebuilt, on the 

condition that the owner still has the right to a crossing. 

A.12 - 34
IBI GROUP PHASE 2 INTERIM REPORT - REFERENCE #T8200-044506 

Transport Canada

IDENTIFICATION AND EXAMINATION OF SAFETY AT PRIVATE CROSSINGS 

June 2006 Page 24. 

On occasion, railways will cut through crossing approaches during ditching works when it appears 

that a crossing is not in use, limiting access to the crossing. Again, if it is subsequently found that 

the crossing is required, the approaches are repaired. 

Some railways remove seasonal use crossings for the off-season to ensure that they are not used 

illegally. These crossings are reinstated annually. 

4. IDENTIFICATION OF CONTRIBUTORY FACTORS 

Based on the Phase 1 work and the analysis of the stakeholder interviews, a number of primary 

issues have been identified, that solely, or in combination, have the potential to contribute to safety 

concerns at private rail crossings. Provided below is a summary of these potential contributing 

factors. 

4.1 Comprehensive List of Potential Contributory Factors 

To maintain consistency with the rest of the report, the potential contributory factors are presented 

as they apply to the major stages of the private crossing ‘life cycle.” 

4.1.1 NEW CROSSING SUBMISSION/PROVISIONS 

• The CTA decision/arbitration process includes a review of crossing usage and vehicle 

type; however, there is no legislative/legal documentation of these conditions in the 

resultant decision. Although it is not a direct safety concern, this deficiency does have 

implications in other aspects of the crossing “life cycle.” 

4.1.2 CROSSING CONSTRUCTION 

• The primary issue relating to the initial crossing construction is the cost and/or delay 

associated with the application of technical standards, as most new crossings are built 

using the guidelines identified in RTD-10. At the time of construction, the crossings 

are constructed to operate in a safe manner. 

4.1.3 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE 

• Crossing agreements and owner information need to convey both the owner’s and the 

railways’ responsibilities regarding maintenance, vehicle use, access, etc., to establish 

a permanent record of those responsibilities. The absence of formal records could 

lead to confusion, disagreements and/or issues that affect safety. 

• Currently, there are no enforceable standards for private crossing design and 

maintenance that can be used to force crossing upgrades (for safety or otherwise). It 

is a widely held belief amongst railway industry stakeholders that many of the safety 

issues resulting from inadequate designs and maintenance could be addressed by 

putting the RTD-10 guidelines into force. 

• To compensate for long delays between inspections, there must be an easily 

accessible, consistent and formal mechanism for the crossing owner to inform the 

railways of maintenance needs. 

A.12 - 35
IBI GROUP PHASE 2 INTERIM REPORT - REFERENCE #T8200-044506 

Transport Canada

IDENTIFICATION AND EXAMINATION OF SAFETY AT PRIVATE CROSSINGS 

June 2006 Page 25. 

• The lack of a comprehensive and current inventory of all private crossings and their 

owners creates critical communication deficiencies throughout the “life cycle” of a 

private crossing. Such disconnects in communication compound safety issues by 

delaying remedial action. 

• Unrestricted access to a private crossing is a fundamental safety risk. It allows the 

crossings to be used by individuals who are more likely to be unfamiliar with crossing 

use restrictions and emergency procedures. 

• Private crossing owners may not understand the responsibility and implications of 

authorizing the use of their crossing by others. This may include employees 

(permanent or temporary), visitors, recreational users, or negotiated property access. 

• Improper use of access control devices poses a safety risk that is at least as significant 

as unrestricted access. For example, stopping on the railway tracks to unlock a gate is 

a serious safety hazard. 

• The lack of standard regulatory, warning and information signs could result in improper 

use of crossings due to drivers not being familiar with the signs used. 

• A poorly marked or maintained crossing may lead an unfamiliar user to incorrectly 

assume that the railway operations are not active or a substantial threat. 

• The standard practice of not whistling at private crossings might be resulting in an 

unnecessary safety risk, especially given the proven safety benefit shown at public 

crossings. 

• Many crossing users are unfamiliar with the appropriate action to be taken in the event 

of an incident at a crossing. As such, emergency contact numbers have repeatedly 

been identified as a critical piece of information that should be clearly posted at every 

crossing. 

• Use of a private crossing by a vehicle for which it was not designed is a fundamental 

safety issue. Therefore, it is imperative that the owners, users, and the railways be 

aware of the types of vehicles for which the crossing is designed and is being used 

throughout the crossing “life cycle.” 

• Safety information and education is does not always reach and impact its target 

audience. Therefore, the need for safety information and education is at the site not in 

a general public information campaign. 

• There are currently no formal mechanisms for railways to inform crossing owners to 

that train activity at a particular crossing is changing. The complacency that can 

develop on the part of the crossing user increases the risk of incidents when normal 

train activity changes, and no warning is provided. 

4.1.4 CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP/ACCESS 

• Regardless of the type of crossing, there should be a legal mechanism that requires 

railway notification prior to land ownership or land use changes, to increase the 

likelihood that information reaches the appropriate parties. 

• Formal information outlining the owner’s responsibilities with respect to a crossing 

should be provided to the new owner at the time when the new owner takes 

A.12 - 36
IBI GROUP PHASE 2 INTERIM REPORT - REFERENCE #T8200-044506 

Transport Canada

IDENTIFICATION AND EXAMINATION OF SAFETY AT PRIVATE CROSSINGS 

June 2006 Page 26. 

possession of the land, which would help the transition process and reduce 

breakdowns in communications. 

4.1.5 CROSSING CLOSURE AND CONSOLIDATION 

• Transport Canada does not have the freedom to provide subsidies to pay for safety 

improvements and alternative access, in addition to crossing closures, to provide a 

safer transportation environment for as many people as possible. In some cases a 

railway crossing is the only feasible option for accessing a parcel of land. 

5. RISK MITIGATION STRATEGIES 

Each of the safety-related issues identified in Sections 6 and 7 were reviewed to determine 

potential approval, legal/regulatory, physical and/or operational strategies, which would address 

their fundamental cause. Outlined in Exhibit 5-1 is a summary of the potential risk mitigation 

strategies. 

Exhibit 5-1: Potential Risk Mitigation Strategies 

Contributory Causes Potential Risk Mitigation Strategy 

New Crossing Submission and Approval: 

• Railway/land owner agreements 

are not created for all crossings 

• Railway/land owner agreement must be created for 

all private crossing regardless of type: “by right” or 

“by grace” 

• Agreements and CTA decisions do 

not document crossing use and 

vehicle type permissions 

• Agreements and CTA decisions must explicitly 

document intended crossing use and vehicle type at 

time of approval 

Operations and Maintenance: 

• Railways are not properly notified 

of changes in crossing use or 

vehicle type 

• Crossing owners should be provided with explicit 

information regarding their crossing permissions. 

This could be conveyed through the railway/owner 

agreement and reiterated in a crossing owner 

“information package”. 

• Crossing owners need explicit 

information regarding the use and 

operations of their crossing 

• Crossing owners need explicit information regarding 

their crossing responsibilities, use, maintenance, 

liabilities and communication protocol 

• Railway operators do not have a 

comprehensive list of private 

crossing nor their ownership 

• Establish a comprehensive and current list of private 

crossing locations and ownership status. 

• Unfamiliar or infrequent users of a 

private crossing are not provided 

with education with regards to the 

crossing operations 

• Create and distribute one comprehensive crossing 

owner’s information package, which outlines basic 

safety at private crossing education materials, 

including contact information. 

A.12 - 37
IBI GROUP PHASE 2 INTERIM REPORT - REFERENCE #T8200-044506 

Transport Canada

IDENTIFICATION AND EXAMINATION OF SAFETY AT PRIVATE CROSSINGS 

June 2006 Page 27. 

Contributory Causes Potential Risk Mitigation Strategy 

• Unfamiliar or infrequent users of a 

private crossing are not always 

provided with widely recognized 

and understood regulatory, 

warning and information signs. 

• Emergency contact information is 

not provided at the crossing site. 

• Poorly marked or maintained 

crossing may lead an unfamiliar 

user incorrectly assuming the 

railway operations are not active or 

a substantial threat. 

• Crossbucks, stop signs and emergency contact 

numbers must be posted at all private crossings and 

kept in a good state of repair 

• Crossing owners may not 

understand the responsibility and 

implications of authorizing the use 

of their crossings by other 

• Create and distribute one comprehensive crossing 

owner’s information package, which outlines the 

safety implications and responsibilities of allowing 

access to their private crossing. 

• Crossing owners are not provided 

with procedures or contact 

information to convey maintenance 

or operational issues to the 

appropriate rail official 

• Create and distribute one comprehensive crossing 

owner’s information package, which outlines rail 

general and emergency contacts and basic crossing 

maintenance and operations information, i.e., sight 

lines, approach condition, etc. 

• There are no standard designs or 

operating procedures for access 

control devices such as gates 

• Develop standard access control applications. 

• There are no formal mechanisms 

for railways to inform crossing 

owners that train activity at a 

particular crossing is changing 

• Establish a comprehensive and current list of private 

crossing locations and ownership status. 

Change in Ownership/Access:

• Railways are not properly notified 

of changes in ownership 

• Legal transfer of lands adjacent to rail right-of-way 

must include railway notification or approval 

• Railways are not properly notified 

of changes in land use 

permissions 

• Municipalities should treat railways as stakeholders 

for development next to railway rights-of-way. 

• Owners/potential owners are not 

properly notified of their crossing 

operations and ownership 

responsibilities 

• Crossing owners should be provided with explicit 

information regarding their crossing permissions 

• Legal transfer of lands adjacent to rail right-of-way 

must include railway notification or approval 

• Private crossing information must be forwarded to 

new owner with real estate documents. A crossing 

owner information package would facilitate this 

process. 

Crossing Closure and Consolidation: 

• The ability to reduce the number of 

private crossings is limited to the 

crossing closure incentive program 

and limited railway/owner 

negotiations. 

• Transport Canada should have the freedom to 

provide subsidies to pay for safety improvements 

and alternative access, in addition to crossing 

closures. 

The intention is to carry forward these potential risk mitigation strategies into Phase 3 of the 

study where each strategy will be further described in terms of applications, benefits, delivery 

participants/responsibility, costs, funding sources and implementation issues. 

A.12 - 38
IBI GROUP PHASE 2 INTERIM REPORT - REFERENCE #T8200-044506 

Transport Canada

IDENTIFICATION AND EXAMINATION OF SAFETY AT PRIVATE CROSSINGS 

June 2006 Page 28. 

6. OVERALL FINDINGS 

Based on the work completed as part of the Phase 2 component of the Safety at Private 

Crossing Study, a number of fundamental policy, operation, and communication/ 

documentation deficiencies were identified that have the potential to affect the level of safety 

at a private rail crossing. The objective of Phase 3 of the study, outlined in the following 

section, will be to assess the application of the preliminary risk-mitigation strategies, their 

benefits, costs and implementation feasibility. 

7. PHASE 3 WORK PLAN 

7.1 Introduction 

In July 2005, IBI Group in association with UMA Engineering Ltd. was retained to complete a study 

to identify and examine the key factors or drivers of safety at farm and private crossings (Reference 

Number: T8200-044506). The first task of the study is to provide a detailed work plan and schedule 

to complete the project 

This document represents the proposed work plan and schedule derived from the Project 

Implementation Plan and the IBI Group Team proposal submission. 

7.2 Communication and Project Management 

Provided below in Exhibit 7-1 are the key contacts for the project management of the Safety at 

Farm and Private Crossings project. Day-to-day project management and correspondence will be 

communicated between the TDC and IBI Group Project Manager. Alternative contacts for the IBI 

Group Team are also noted below. 

Exhibit 7-1: Phase 3 – Primary Study Contacts 

Project Role Contact Information 

Technical Authority 

Transportation Development Centre Project 

Manager 

Anthony Napoli 

Senior Project Manager 

Transportation Development Centre 

Transports Canada 

800 West Rene Levesque Blvd, 6th Floor 

Montreal, Quebec, H3B 1X9 

514-283-6609 

Fax: 514-283-7158 

napolia@tc.gc.ca

IBI Group Team Project Manager Ron Stewart, P. Eng. 

Associate Director 

230 Richmond Street West 

Toronto, Ontario, M5V 1V9 

416-596-1930 X1347 

Fax: 416-596-0644 

rstewart@ibigroup.com

A.12 - 39
IBI GROUP PHASE 2 INTERIM REPORT - REFERENCE #T8200-044506 

Transport Canada

IDENTIFICATION AND EXAMINATION OF SAFETY AT PRIVATE CROSSINGS 

June 2006 Page 29. 

Project Role Contact Information 

IBI Group Deputy Project Manager Russell Brownlee, P. Eng. 

Associate 

230 Richmond Street West 

Toronto, Ontario, M5V 1V9 

416-596-1930 X1344 

Fax: 416-596-0644 

rbrownlee@ibigroup.com

7.3 Project Schedule and Project Progress 

The TDC Project Implementation Plan and IBI Group Team proposal identified a one-month 

duration for Phase 3 of the study. It is proposed that this project timeline be maintained. 

Project progress reports will be prepared in the format specified in the project RFP and as identified 

in the project schedule. Progress reports will be submitted prior to Project Steering Committee 

(PSC) meetings and approximately on a monthly basis. 

7.4 Work Plan 

Provided below is a summary of the detailed work plan for Phase 3 of the subject study. For each 

task, the activities, deliverables and assistance/data/information to be supplied by others are 

identified. 

7.4.1 TASK 3.1 – DEVELOP CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

For this task, the IBI Group Team will: 

• Develop a set of risk mitigation strategies and outline the: 

− Primary benefits of each strategy and its application to a specific contributory 

factor or group of factors; 

− Implementation of pilot or trial projects, preliminary study designs (including 

potential deployment milestones) and future research requirements for each; 

− Probable delivery participants and if applicable, potential partnerships initiatives; 

− Budgetary level costs and potential funding sources; and 

− Potential barriers to implementation including legal, regulatory, project finance, 

technical, land owner acceptance. 

Deliverables:

• To be incorporated into the Final Report. 

Assistance/Data/Information to be Supplied by Others:

• None identified. 

A.12 - 40
IBI GROUP PHASE 2 INTERIM REPORT - REFERENCE #T8200-044506 

Transport Canada

IDENTIFICATION AND EXAMINATION OF SAFETY AT PRIVATE CROSSINGS 

June 2006 Page 30. 

7.4.2 TASK 3.2 – FINAL DOCUMENTATION 

For this task, the IBI Group Team will: 

• Prepare a draft of the final report in accordance with TDC Publication Standards and 

Guidelines for Contractors (TP 929), which will include: 

− An executive summary; 

− A description of data/information sources, study methodologies and task 

findings; and 

− Conclusions and recommendations including future directions and 

implementation thereof. 

• Meet with the PSC (PSCM #10) to present the rationale behind the conclusions and 

recommendations and receive input. 

• Prepare a final draft of the report, incorporating input from the PSC; 

• Upon acceptance, digital and hard copies of the final report in English will be provided 

to the Technical Authority for translation; and 

• Provide the Technical Authority with the final version of the reports. 

Deliverables:

• Draft project report; 

• Meeting minutes from PSC Meeting #10; and 

• 100 copies in English and 50 copies in French of the final report. In addition, camera 

ready and digital copies of the report will be provided in accordance with Section 8.3 of 

the RFP. 

Assistance/Data/Information to be Supplied by Others:

• Technical Authority and PSC to review and comment on the draft Project Report. 

7.5 Phase 3 Budget 

The Phase 3 Budget will be $20,190.00. This represents no change from the current contract. 

J:\10174\5.0 Design (Work) Phase\Phase 2\Interim Report\TTR Phase 2 Interim Report_Outline 2006-06-05.doc\2006-06-05\AED 

J:\10174\5.0 Design (Work) Phase\Phase 2\Interim Report\TTR Phase 2 Interim Report_Outline 2006-06-05.doc\2006-06-05\RB

A.12 - 41
IBI GROUP PHASE 2 INTERIM REPORT - REFERENCE #T8200-044506 

Transport Canada

IDENTIFICATION AND EXAMINATION OF SAFETY AT PRIVATE CROSSINGS 

June 2006 

APPENDIX A 

STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW NOTES

A.12 - 42
Safety at Private Crossings – Crossing Owner #1 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

Where are your private crossing(s) located? Were you the land owner/user prior to the 

crossing’s construction, or has it always been there? 

The crossing is located at St-Charles de Bellechasse, Québec. The crossing has been 

there since we have owned the property. 

Do you know the railway name, the subdivision and the mileage point that corresponds to 

your crossing? 

The railway concerned is CN. The subdivision and mileage point are unknown. T 

Do you know whom to contact, and how to contact them, if a problem arises at your 

crossing? 

No. 

M 

C 

Could you briefly describe the characteristics of the private railway crossing, and the 

challenges you have met?

Number of lanes to cross? 

One railway line. 

Type of surface on approach (i.e. paved, treated, boards, gravel/sand, etc.)? 

The approaches are gravel. 

The size, slope or state of the crossing? 

The approaches are one lane wide. The crossing is in good condition. The approach 

slopes were lessened compared to those that were there in the past. 

The physical environment surrounding the crossing (i.e. curves in the road or railway, hills 

or slopes, lines of sight, etc.)? 

The visibility is very good. The trees have been cut in order to ensure adequate visibility. 

Questions of maintenance? 

Maintenance is done well by CN. 

M 

M 

Does your private crossing have a warning system or some other device that advertises 

the presence of an oncoming train (i.e. an automatic warning system, mirrors, etc.)? 

There are stop signs as well as crossbucks installed on either side of the line. W 

A.12 - 43
Safety at Private Crossings – Crossing Owner #1 - 2 - May 29, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

Can you hear the train whistle beforehand from a nearby public crossing? If this is the 

case, do you consider this to be a significant security benefit for your crossing? 

No, the train’s whistle at public crossings is not heard at this location. W 

Regarding private crossing(s) that you have or use: 

Who uses it? How often is it used? Are there times of day, week or year where the 

frequency of use changes significantly? 

The crossing is used by company employees, as well as owners of nearby neighbourhood 

cottages. The crossing is used from May to November, and is travelled more frequently 

Monday to Friday. There are approximately 50 to 60 users who use the crossing each 

day. 

What types of vehicles use the crossing (ex. Passenger vehicles, trucks, heavy 

equipment, recreational vehicles, farm equipment, etc.)? Do you know how long it takes 

these vehicles to cross? 

Cars, 10-wheel trucks transporting peat, tractors and low-floored tractor-trailers use this 

crossing. The approaches were modified so that the trucks with low floors could safely 

cross the railway. 

He is not sure of the time required to stop, to start up again and clear the crossing. 

Are there operating features of the vehicles that affect the detection of approaching trains 

or could have an impact on the release time of the crossing? 

No. 

Are there any particular conditions concerning line of sight or lighting that affect the 

crossing? 

No. 

Do all of the trains that travel on your crossing pass at about the same speed or do 

speeds vary significantly? Do you know at what speeds they move, approximately?

The train speeds vary. Ultramar’s “Ultra-Train” passes slowly. Other trains carrying 

passengers pass more quickly. 

What safety precautions or training, if necessary, do those using the crossing receive? 

There are regular meetings with employees. Employees are advised to obey the railway 

crossing stops at all times. No safety information was ever received from the railway. 

U 

V 

T 

O 

T 

A.12 - 44
Safety at Private Crossings – Crossing Owner #1 - 3 - May 29, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

Can you comment on the effect of environmental conditions on visibility and the time it 

takes to travel across the crossing? 

No comment. The crossing is never used in the winter. 

What legislation are you aware of that affect crossing operations? Can you comment on 

exchanges or communication you’ve had with a rail company or with a regulator regarding 

possession, operations or access to your private railway crossing? 

He knows a little about legislation. They asked the railway to install a system with lights 

and barriers. The railway recommended a system that could be placed at the owner’s 

expense at a cost of approximately $300 000. They decided to keep the stop signs. In 

the case of a power failure, the stop signs would be safer than a system of lights that isn’t 

functioning properly. 

A 

Based on your experiences, what modifications (physical or procedural) would you 

suggest to improve the safety of private crossings? 

The addition of lights and barriers would improve safety at this crossing. There has 

already been an incident at this crossing, where a train hit a truck. The train now whistles 

at the crossing. 

C 

Is there any other information or personal experience you would like to share relating to 

the overall safety of railway crossings or to a problem with your crossing? 

Safety is the primary goal at this location. He has always wanted to have an automatic 

warning system with lights and barriers, but doesn’t understand why the costs are so high. 

He would like to get a subsidy for this system. 

They considered installing an ordinary traffic light at this location but this is not safe in a 

power outage. So, this type of system is not good enough. The system has to be safe at 

all times. 

W 

C 

J:\10174\5.0 Design (Work) Phase\Phase 2\Interviews\Interview Notes to be Posted on FTP\Crossing Owners and Users\Crossing_Owner_#1_2006-06-02.doc\2006-06-05\AED 

A.12 - 45
Safety at Private Crossings – Crossing Owner #2 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

1. Where is the location of your private crossing(s)? Did you own/use the 

property prior to the private crossing being built, or has it always been there? 

There are 2 crossings, located about 9.5 miles apart, leading from the highway to 2 

camps. These crossings existed prior to his purchase of the land. These crossings give 

access to other peoples camps as well, and a lake, and also serve as a fire road for these 

camps. 

U 

2. Do you know the name of the railway, subdivision, and mileage marker that 

correspond to your crossing? 

• North East Railway (former CN line); 

• One crossing is located at mile 34.1, but unsure of the name of the subdivision. 

The second crossing is located 9.5 miles from the first 

3. Do you know who to contact, and how to contact them, in the case that there is 

a problem at your crossing? 

Yes, although it took some time to obtain this information, eventually the name of the 

correct contact person was provided by someone at Transport Canada, and the telephone 

number was found in the Yellow Pages. 

M 

A.12 - 46
Safety at Private Crossings – Crossing Owner #2 - 2 - April 19, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

4. Could you briefly describe the characteristics and any particular challenges you 

have with the private crossing? 

4.1. Number of tracks to cross? 

One track to cross. 

4.2. Approaches to the crossing, i.e., paved, surface treated, planks, gravel/dirt, etc.? 

One of the crossings is elevated, with a difference in elevation of about 8ft. from the 

ground to the rail, the approach grades are quite steep. The second crossing is 

quite flat. The crossing surfaces are made of planking, and the approaches are 

gravel. 

4.3. Width, grade or condition of the crossing? 

The crossings are about 12ft wide. 

4.4. Physical surrounding of the crossing, i.e., roadway or railway curves, hills or 

grade issues, sightlines, etc? 

The track is straight, for about 50 miles, visibility is good, except when brush is 

allowed to grow to the point where it restricts sightlines. 

4.5. Maintenance issues? 

There have been difficulties with the crossing maintenance. There was a situation 

where a car caught the planking of the crossing, and subsequently a second car 

caught the planking. It took many phone calls before the crossing was repaired, 

initially the railway did not respond to the phone calls. Eventually, once the correct 

contact person was found (through Transport Canada) repairs were made. 

At one of the crossings, the railway does a poor job of ensuring that brush is cut to 

ensure that there are adequate sightlines for those using the crossing. In particular, 

sightlines are poor for passenger car drivers. 

M 

C 

M 

M 

5. Does your private crossing have a warning system or other device that assists 

in determining the presence of an approaching train (i.e., automated warning 

system, mirrors, etc.)? 

No, there are no cross-bucks either. One of the crossings has a stop sign in place. W 

6. Do you ever hear train whistles from nearby public crossings? If so, do you 

consider this to be a significant safety benefit to your crossing? 

Yes. There are public crossings located near both of the crossings. Train whistles 

at these crossings provide a significant safety benefit. W 

A.12 - 47
Safety at Private Crossings – Crossing Owner #2 - 3 - April 19, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

7. In relation to the private crossing(s) that you have or use: 

7.1. Who uses the crossing? How often is it used? Are there particular times of the 

day, week or year, where the frequency of use changes significantly? 

The crossings are used by owners of the camps. There is no traffic in the winter, 

most use occurs in the summer and in the fall. 

7.2. What types of vehicles use your crossing (e.g., passenger vehicles, trucks, 

heavy construction equipment, recreational vehicles, farm equipment, etc.)? Do 

you know how long it takes for those vehicles to clear the crossing? 

The crossing is used by passenger cars and ATVs. It only takes seconds for them 

to clear the crossing. In the past, once of the crossings was used by logging trucks 

(no longer the case, the land has now been cleared). The approaches were built 

up for use by the logging trucks at the time. Also, these trucks tended to block the 

highway (60 ft between the highway and the track) when crossing the track. 

7.3. Are there any vehicle operating characteristics that affect the detection of 

approaching trains or that would impact its time to clear the private crossing? 

No. 

7.4. Are there any particular sightline or lighting conditions that affect the operations 

at the private crossing? 

The only ongoing issue is brush that needs to be cleared as it blocks sightlines. 

7.5. Are all the trains that pass your crossing travelling at roughly the same speed, or 

do their speeds vary significantly? Do you know approximately how fast they are 

moving? 

Speeds vary; there are passenger trains that travel at about 60mph, and freight 

trains that are slower. As well, there is a siding located close to one of the 

crossings, trains entering/exiting travel at different speeds. There are some slow 

orders at times as well. 

7.6. What, if any, precautions or training are given to the people using the crossing in 

regards to safety? 

None. 

U 

V 

M 

C 

O 

T 

8. Can you comment on the effects of environmental conditions on visibility and 

the time it takes to clear the private crossing? 

No problems experienced to date. 

A.12 - 48
Safety at Private Crossings – Crossing Owner #2 - 4 - April 19, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

9. What legislation are you aware of which affects the operation of the private 

crossing? Can you comment on any dealings or communications you have had 

with any railway or regulatory authority in relation to the ownership, operations 

or access relating to your private crossing? 

Dealings with the railway were not simple, until someone provided the correct 

contact person. Would like to know more about the status (farm/private) of the 2 

crossings. 

A 

10. Based on your experience, what modifications (physical or process-based) 

would you suggest to improve safety at private crossings? 

• Keep the brush cut to improve visibility; 

• Install stop signs at all private/farm crossings; 

• All crossings that do not have bells should have stop signs installed. 

M 

W 

W 

11. Is there any other anecdotal information or personal experience that you would 

like to share, with respect to overall private crossing safety or your specific 

location? 

The owner was not provided any information about the crossings when he purchased the 

properties. He recently purchased his second parcel of land and was not provided any 

information about the crossing. He was later told that the crossing was a private one and 

that he would have to pay to maintain it, even though tit leads to other peoples’ property 

as well. Eventually it was determined that it is, in fact, a farm crossing. 

He is aware of an instance when someone sold their property because they were unable 

to use the property since the railway would not allow them to have a crossing in order to 

access it. The new property owner fought to have a crossing and was granted one in 

order to access the same plot of land. 

A 

A 

J:\10174\5.0 Design (Work) Phase\Phase 2\Interviews\Interview Notes to be Posted on FTP\Crossing Owners and Users\Crossing_Owner_#2_2006-06-02.doc\2006-06-05\AED 

A.12 - 49
Safety at Private Crossings – Crossing Owner #3 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

Where are your private crossing(s) located? Were you the land owner/user prior to the 

crossing’s construction, or has it always been there?

The crossing existed before Robert Transport was present. The crossing is located in the 

middle of the land. The lot is cut by the railway line. Robert Transport purchased the land 

on the other side of the rail line. They received permission from CN to have a railway 

crossing. 

Do you know the railway name, the subdivision and the mileage point that corresponds to 

your crossing?

The railway name is known (CN), and the other information is stored on file. 

Do you know whom to contact, and how to contact them, if a problem arises at your 

crossing?

Yes. They have a toll-free number for CN. They have contacted CN in a case of 

defectiveness, broken equipment (barriers). There haven’t been any incidents to date.

A.12 - 50
Safety at Private Crossings – Crossing Owner #3 - 2 - May 25, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

Could you briefly describe the characteristics of the private railway crossing, and the 

challenges you have met?

Number of lanes to cross? 

One rail line. 

Type of surface on approach (i.e. paved, treated, boards, gravel/sand, etc.)? 

The crossing is paved, with mud rails. 

It consists of a private road with controlled access. The yards on either side of the rail line 

are fenced. The crossing was built according to very high standards and according to the 

requirements of the vehicles circulating. Also, there is private signalisation that was 

added and trained. 

The approaches are channelled with company barriers, which are equipped with a magic 

eye to sense vehicles (barriers do not work with pedestrians), giving access to the 

crossing situated ± 75 feet in front of the railway barriers. The private barriers do not 

lower if the truck has not yet completely crossed the passageway so that the truck can 

always cross completely. The approaches are constructed in such a manner that only 

one truck at a time in either direction can cross. Vigilance is required, nevertheless, 

because the yard barriers are not connected to those of the railway crossing. The fact 

that the yard barrier is open does not guarantee that there is no train. The railway lights 

should always be minded. 

The size, slope or state of the crossing?

The approaches have a slight slope. The crossing is well maintained. 

The physical environment surrounding the crossing (i.e. curves in the road or railway, hills 

or slopes, lines of sight, etc.)? 

The lane is straight, without curves. The yard is mostly used for trailer parking. The 

approaches are well built and do not obstruct visibility. 

Questions of maintenance?

Call the railroad in case of difficulties. There haven’t been any problems he is aware of.

Does your private crossing have a warning system or some other device that advertises 

the presence of an oncoming train (i.e. an automatic warning system, mirrors, etc.)? 

Yes, there is a complete system with flashing lights, warning sounds and barriers. 

Additionally, there is a sign describing the “modus operandi” to use the crossing and the 

approaches (company barriers, railway barriers, etc.) 

A.12 - 51
Safety at Private Crossings – Crossing Owner #3 - 3 - May 25, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

Can you hear the train whistle beforehand from a nearby public crossing? If this is the 

case, do you consider this to be a significant security benefit for your crossing? 

Yes, there is a public crossing located ± 300 metres from this private crossing. 

Regarding private crossing(s) that you have or use: 

Who uses it? How often is it used? Are there times of day, week or year where the 

frequency of use changes significantly?

The crossing is used often. There are few times when the crossing is not used. The 

crossing is a connection between two areas. There are lots of heavy vehicles that travel 

between the two yards. The yards are made up of warehouses, parking and offices. 

The crossing is used more often during rush hours (05:00 to 08:00 and 15:00 to 19:00) 

What types of vehicles use the crossing (ex. Passenger vehicles, trucks, heavy 

equipment, recreational vehicles, farm equipment, etc.)? Do you know how long it takes 

these vehicles to cross? 

There are some cars, but mostly trucks, heavy equipment and semi-trailers, which roll at 

low speed. 

Trucks with 53 ft trailer take ± 5 to 8 seconds to traverse the crossing. 

Are there operating features of the vehicles that affect the detection of approaching trains 

or could have an impact on the release time of the crossing? 

Yes. Drivers should never change gear when crossing the rail line (manual transmission). 

With the new automatic transmissions, the clutch is computer controlled but the vehicle 

still should not stop and start while crossing the rail line. For this type of transmission, 

there can be a slight delay when starting to move the truck forward. So, drivers must still 

pay attention to avoid action that could cause the truck to stop, even with an automatic 

transmission. Ex. Drivers have a bad habit of stopping after they’ve crossed the barrier if 

they see the lights begin to flash. 

This crossing is built at a 90 ̊ angle to the railway line. The long truck cabins do not impair 

the visibility of this type of crossing. On the other hand, if the crossing angle is more 

severe, the driver must stop and get up to see out of the passenger window to see what is 

on the right-hand side of the vehicle (based on experiences at other locations.) 

A.12 - 52
Safety at Private Crossings – Crossing Owner #3 - 4 - May 25, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

Are there any particular conditions concerning line of sight or lighting that affect the 

crossing? 

Well lit even at night (the yard is well lit), visibility is not a problem. 

Do all of the trains that travel on your crossing pass at about the same speed or do 

speeds vary significantly? Do you know at what speeds they move, approximately? 

The speeds of the trains can vary. This crossing is located near a residential area and a 

switchyard where there are railway operations. There are no passenger trains and the 

trains do not travel at high speeds.

What safety precautions or training, if necessary, do those using the crossing receive? 

Training is given to operators and there are clear guidelines attached to the crossing, 

which are useful to all, but mostly for the drivers of non-company cars that are driving in 

the yards. 

Also, there is some training given to non-drivers that includes general safety training. 

Can you comment on the effect of environmental conditions on visibility and the time it 

takes to travel across the crossing? 

There are few difficulties (system automated with barriers) in addition to the company 

barriers. The drivers are aware of the crossing because is it very well marked. 

Visibility is nevertheless good (locomotive light) even with rain and snow. Fog is very 

rare. 

What legislation are you aware of that affect crossing operations? Can you comment on 

exchanges or communication you’ve had with a rail company or with a regulator regarding 

possession, operations or access to your private railway crossing? 

The only known legislation is the road safety code. 

There have been no exchanges with rail companies except for repair. 

Based on your experiences, what modifications (physical or procedural) would you 

suggest to improve the safety of private crossings? 

Having driven the trucks in the large rail company yards, there should be improvements to 

the crossing angle (an angle hinders visibility) and there should be indications and 

lights/barriers to the crossings in the yards, particularly since there are other vehicles 

travelling around. 

A.12 - 53
Safety at Private Crossings – Crossing Owner #3 - 5 - May 25, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

Is there any other information or personal experience you would like to share relating to 

the overall safety of railway crossings or to a problem with your crossing? 

In situations where barriers are broken by a truck, the cause is often hesitation on the part 

of the driver when the lights start to flash. 

It would be desirable for the barriers of the company to be interconnected with those of 

CN. It seems it is not possible. 

J:\10174\5.0 Design (Work) Phase\Phase 2\Interviews\Interview Notes to be Posted on FTP\Crossing Owners and Users\Crossing_Owner_#3_2006-06-02.doc\2006-06-02 

A.12 - 54
Safety at Private Crossings – Crossing Owner #4 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

1. Where is the location of your private crossing(s)? Did you own/use the 

property prior to the private crossing being built, or has it always been there? 

The crossing is located off the highway, 4.5 miles south of Carberry, Manitoba, and it 

gives access from the highway to the golf course. There is about 70 to 80 feet between 

the highway and the track. The crossing is at 90% to the track. 

The crossing was already there when the land for the golf course was purchased in 1983 

(the land was a farm before). 

2. Do you know the name of the railway, subdivision, and mileage marker that 

correspond to your crossing? 

The track belongs to Canadian National, on the Carberry Subdivision, unsure of the 

mileage point. 

M 

3. Do you know who to contact, and how to contact them, in the case that there is 

a problem at your crossing? 

If there is a problem, they are to contact CN in Brandon, Manitoba, unsure of the 

telephone number to use. 

M 

4. Could you briefly describe the characteristics and any particular challenges you 

have with the private crossing? 

4.1. Number of tracks to cross? 

One track to cross. 

4.2. Approaches to the crossing, i.e., paved, surface treated, planks, gravel/dirt, etc.? 

The approaches are gravel. 

4.3. Width, grade or condition of the crossing? 

The crossing was rebuilt last year and is in excellent condition. The approaches 

are flat and are 16 to 20 feet wide. 

4.4. Physical surrounding of the crossing, i.e., roadway or railway curves, hills or 

grade issues, sightlines, etc? 

There is a curve in the track about 800 yards away from the crossing, with a steep 

grade. There is good visibility to the end of the curve on one side, and on the other 

side of the crossing there is good visibility for at least 1 mile. 

4.5. Maintenance issues? 

The crossing is very well maintained. 

M 

A.12 - 55
Safety at Private Crossings – Crossing Owner #4 - 2 - April 18, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

5. Does your private crossing have a warning system or other device that assists 

in determining the presence of an approaching train (i.e., automated warning 

system, mirrors, etc.)? 

There are crossing signs and stop signs on both sides of the tracks. There are no lights, 

bells or crossing arms. 

W 

6. Do you ever hear train whistles from nearby public crossings? If so, do you 

consider this to be a significant safety benefit to your crossing? 

There is a public crossing about 1 mile away, but they don’t always hear the train whistle. 

The train speeds are low, about 15 mph, so it takes a while for the train to get to the golf 

course crossing. The whistle at the public crossing does not provide much of a safety 

benefit. 

W 

A.12 - 56
Safety at Private Crossings – Crossing Owner #4 - 3 - April 18, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

7. In relation to the private crossing(s) that you have or use: 

7.1. Who uses the crossing? How often is it used? Are there particular times of the 

day, week or year, where the frequency of use changes significantly? 

The crossing is used by golf course users (members and the public). The course is 

open from April until the end of October. There are a few hundred cars per day, 

plus occasional delivery trucks. As well, one farmer uses the crossing a few times 

per year to haul hay from land that the golf course leases out to him. 

7.2. What types of vehicles use your crossing (e.g., passenger vehicles, trucks, 

heavy construction equipment, recreational vehicles, farm equipment, etc.)? Do 

you know how long it takes for those vehicles to clear the crossing? 

90% of the vehicles using the crossing are passenger cars, the remaining 10% is 

delivery trucks and the occasional farm truck and hay wagon. It takes a few 

seconds for cars to cross the tracks. 

7.3. Are there any vehicle operating characteristics that affect the detection of 

approaching trains or that would impact its time to clear the private crossing? 

No. 

7.4. Are there any particular sightline or lighting conditions that affect the operations 

at the private crossing? 

Nothing significant. There are dusk to dawn lights in the parking lot located about 

100 yards away from the crossing, and the trains have bright lights. 

7.5. Are all the trains that pass your crossing travelling at roughly the same speed, or 

do their speeds vary significantly? Do you know approximately how fast they are 

moving? 

All trains travel at about 15mph, there is a steep grade limiting their speed. There 

is 1 coal train per day plus the occasional extra train. 

7.6. What, if any, precautions or training are given to the people using the crossing in 

regards to safety? 

No particular training or precautions are given. 

U 

V 

O 

T 

8. Can you comment on the effects of environmental conditions on visibility and 

the time it takes to clear the private crossing? 

There have been no issues to date, no fog or adverse conditions. As well, there is 

good visibility and train speeds are slow. 

A.12 - 57
Safety at Private Crossings – Crossing Owner #4 - 4 - April 18, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

9. What legislation are you aware of which affects the operation of the private 

crossing? Can you comment on any dealings or communications you have had 

with any railway or regulatory authority in relation to the ownership, operations 

or access relating to your private crossing? 

Pleased with dealings with the railway to date. At one point, CN wanted to close 

the crossing. The golf course has rights to a crossing at another location, however 

this second location is on a curve in the track. In the end, CN agreed to leave the 

crossing in its existing location. The golf course has an agreement in place with the 

railway and pays maintenance fees for the crossing. 

A 

10. Based on your experience, what modifications (physical or process-based) 

would you suggest to improve safety at private crossings? 

The crossing to the golf course is quite safe. The addition of flashing lights and a 

bell would further enhance safety as they draw extra attention to the crossing. 

W 

11. Is there any other anecdotal information or personal experience that you would 

like to share, with respect to overall private crossing safety or your specific 

location? 

Nothing further. 

J:\10174\5.0 Design (Work) Phase\Phase 2\Interviews\Interview Notes to be Posted on FTP\Crossing Owners and Users\Crossing_Owner_#4_2006-06-02.doc\2006-06-05\AED 

A.12 - 58
Safety at Private Crossings – Crossing Owner #5 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

The crossing was first authorized in 1992 for the previous owner; the crossing agreement 

was transferred/renegotiated, by the owner’s son, when the land was purchased. 

A 

If there were ever a problem with the crossings, the owner would contact the track 

maintenance supervisor for the area. 

O 

Crossing Characteristics: 

• One set of tracks to cross (used to be two); 

• Approaches are gravel roads; 

• There is a downhill grade leading towards the crossing on the road side 

(terrain is level at the crossing), there is a locked gate near the crossings on 

the road side, which was request by CP as part of the crossing agreement; 

• The crossing surface is approximately 25 feet wide (standard is 16 feet); and 

• As part of the crossing agreement, the owner is responsible for clearing 

brush around the crossing; the railway does all other maintenance. 

A, S, O 

There are whistle posts on at least one (probably both) side of the crossing; on that side 

the tracks curve in the distance. There are no other warning systems at the crossing. 

W 

Camp members are the only ones authorized to use the crossing. There are 20 

members, but only 10 have cabins on the land, at present. The crossing is used 

infrequently in the winter. 

U 

Traffic at the crossing is composed of passenger cars and pickup trucks. V 

All trains that pass the crossing are travelling roughly the same speed (50-60mph), and 

they are all freight trains. 

V 

A.12 - 59
Safety at Private Crossings – Crossing Owner #5 - 2 - April 7, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

All crossing user are told to keep the gate closed and locked at all times, as stipulated in 

the crossing agreement. The requirement to stop, get out of the vehicle, and unlock/open 

the gate when crossing acts as a safety procedure, and requires users to think about the 

crossing often. 

S, T 

Winter maintenance (e.g., snow clearing) conducted by the railway prevents any 

environmental issues at the crossing. 

M 

In general, the experience of dealing with the railway has been easy and friendly. The 

owner pays an annual fee for the crossing and also has liability insurance for the crossing, 

as part of the agreement with the railway. 

A 

Whistle posts at all private crossing accessible to the public would be a good way of 

improving safety. 

W 

J:\10174\5.0 Design (Work) Phase\Phase 2\Interviews\Interview Notes to be Posted on FTP\Crossing Owners and Users\Crossing_Owner_#5_2006-06-02.doc\2006-06-02\AED 

A.12 - 60
Safety at Private Crossings – Crossing Owner #6 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

The crossing is about 3km outside of the town of Wabigoon, ON. It is a driveway crossing 

on the north edge of the property. The current owner acquired the land in 1998; however, 

the owner estimates that the crossing has been around for about 80 years. 

A 

The only communications between the owner and the railway have been related to the 

payment of the annual crossing fees. 

A 

Crossing characteristics: 

• 2 sets of tracks; 

• Gravel road approaches; 

• Crossing surface is timber planks (roughly 16’ wide); 

• The approach form the road to the crossing is fairly level and the there is a 

slight grade from the property to the crossing; 

• Visibility at the crossing is good (open fields, no hills, curves or cuts); and 

• There have been no issues with respect to crossing maintenance. 

C, M 

The only warning devices at the crossing are crossbucks. W 

There is a public crossing approximately a half-mile to the east. The train whistle for that 

crossing can be heard, and the owner considers that a safety benefit. 

W 

There are two homes on the property; family and friends of the homeowners use the 

crossing, as do patrons of the weekend storage business that is operated by the owner. 

Vehicle composition is mostly passenger cars; however, storage traffic can include RVs, 

boats on trailers, and infrequently tractor-trailers. 

U, V 

A.12 - 61
Safety at Private Crossings – Crossing Owner #6 - 2 - April 18, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

Most of the trains that pass the crossing are traveling the same speed (estimates roughly 

50mph). 

U 

Crossing users are given no formal training. T 

It is possible that the approaches could get slippery if there was freezing rain; the 

municipality owns the road on both sides of the crossing, and they are responsible for 

snow removal and de-icing. 

O 

The owner is not familiar with the regulations that govern private crossings. Plans to 

further develop the land were disrupted when the municipality sided with the railway’s 

objections to the development. 

R, A 

Safety could be improved through better communications between the railway and 

owners, enforceable safety regulations, and “simple” automatic warning systems. 

A, R, W 

There have been a number of crossing incidents in the area recently, so the general 

public might be more aware of the dangers, and it might be a good time to enact an 

education campaign. 

T 

J:\10174\5.0 Design (Work) Phase\Phase 2\Interviews\Interview Notes to be Posted on FTP\Crossing Owners and Users\Crossing_Owner_#6_2006-06-02.doc\2006-06-02\AED 

A.12 - 62
Safety at Private Crossings – Crossing Owner #7 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

Three adjacent landowners use the crossing for farming purposes. There is also a cattle 

underpass at this location (not in use). At times, there is a warn, dirt path that links the 

crossing to Fairview Line. 

U 

The relative location or the crossing and subdivision name are known, but not the exact 

mileage. 

Owner is aware of the 1-800 emergency contact numbers for crossings, but doesn’t have 

the number at home. 

T 

Crossing Description (photos were provided by owner): 

• Crosses 2 sets of tracks; 

• Approaches are grass and dirt with a 6-8% grade; 

• Crossing surface: wood planking, asphalt, and loose stone (currently in a 

state of disrepair, but according to track supervisor maintenance is 

scheduled); 

• Adjacent land on both sides is flat ploughed fields; and 

• Sightlines were cleared in recent years and generally allow for good visibility. 

M 

The crossing currently features no advanced warning systems or signage. W 

Trains must whistle at the HWY 40 crossing, which can be heard at the private crossing. W 

Crossing users consist of three people from three farms and on rare occasions a 

neighbour. The crossing is used an average of 10 times per year between may and 

October. 

U 

A.12 - 63
Safety at Private Crossings – Crossing Owner #7 - 2 - March 10, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

The vehicles using the crossing are farm pickups and tractors with ploughs, which take a 

maximum of 1 minute to make a crossing. 

V 

No formal training is provided to crossing users, they all use cautions and their own 

discretion when crossing. 

T 

The crossing was established “by right” many years ago. The current owner is the third 

owner of the land divided by the railway. 

A 

Safety Improvement Recommendations: 

• Safety information mailed along the annual crossing invoice; 

• Warning signs (e.g. crossbucks); 

• Post emergency contact numbers at private crossings; and 

• Gates are not necessary in most cases. 

S, T, W 

J:\10174\5.0 Design (Work) Phase\Phase 2\Interviews\Interview Notes to be Posted on FTP\Crossing Owners and Users\Crossing_Owner_#7_2006-06-02.doc\2006-06-02\AED 

A.12 - 64
Safety at Private Crossings – Crossing Owner #8 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

There is a CN depot just down the road that is where he would go if there were a problem 

at one of the crossings. He also has the mailing address for a contact a CN if there were 

a less urgent issue. 

O 

Crossing characteristics are as follows: 

• Two sets of tracks; 

• Gravel/dirt approach, which is pretty steep and should probably be longer; 

• Surface is 20’ wide timber planks; 

• The land on both sides of the crossings is worked (i.e., fields); 

• The crossing at the 210.1 mark is on a curve (CN has expressed that they 

would like to close the crossing due to sightline issues; and 

• All three crossings are well maintained. 

C, M 

There are no warning systems at any of the crossings. A letter was received from CN 

stating that they were going to install mirrors at the crossing, but it never happened. 

W 

There is a public crossing at a side road 1 mile east of the crossings where trains whistle, 

and it provides some advanced warning of westbound trains. 

W 

The owner and part-time help are the only users of the crossing. The crossing is used 

almost daily in the spring, summer, and fall, but very infrequently in the winter. 

U 

Traffic at the crossing is made up of pickup trucks and various types of farm equipment. V 

Train speeds vary significantly, the crossings are located on a high-speed corridor. Both 

passenger trains and freight trains used the corridor (46 trains per day, 24 passenger and 

22 freight). 

U, V 

A.12 - 65
Safety at Private Crossings – Crossing Owner #8 - 2 - April 3, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

The only recent dealing between the owner and the railway company has been regarding 

the closure of the crossing at mile 210.1. In the past the railway has been very good 

about reinstalling the crossings when they have been removed for track maintenance. 

O 

J:\10174\5.0 Design (Work) Phase\Phase 2\Interviews\Interview Notes to be Posted on FTP\Crossing Owners and Users\Crossing_Owner_#8_2006-06-02.doc\2006-06-02\AED 

A.12 - 66
Safety at Private Crossings – Crossing Owner #9 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

Bear’s Pass, ON, roughly a half-mile from milepost 68.1 (i.e., mile 68.6), established in 

1943 or 1944, crossing “by grace.” 

A 

Have the telephone number for the CN Road Master in case of emergencies or issues 

related to the crossing. 

C 

Crossing characteristics: 

• One set of tracks; 

• Gravel road approach; 

• Timber plank crossing surface; 

• One side of the crossing is in a rock cut, the other is open; 

• There is a hydro right-of-way at the same location; and 

• Maintenance is carried out by CN and has never been a problem. 

C, M 

CN asked to have a mirror installed at the crossing because of the rock cut. The owners 

also installed a gate and turning circle between the crossing and the road, and they put up 

signs that inform others to the gate and crossing. CN posted “use at own risk” and stop 

signs at the crossing. 

S, W 

Trains whistle at the lift bride approximately a half-mile east of the crossing and 100-150m 

west of the crossing there is a whistle post. 

W 

Only family and friends use the crossing, and it is used almost exclusively in the summer 

and on weekends. There used to be a lot of hunters that would use the crossing, but the 

gate and signs have pretty much stopped that. 

U 

Traffic at the crossing is composed of mostly passenger vehicles with some hydro and CN 

vehicles and the odd snowmobile in the winter. 

V 

A.12 - 67
Safety at Private Crossings – Crossing Owner #9 - 2 - April 4, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

Trains passing the crossing are travelling at slower speeds as they approach and depart 

the lift bridge. The trains haul mostly grain and coal. Over the past few years, the 

frequency of trains has decreased, but they are longer than they used to be. 

U 

Family have been using the crossing they whole lives. No formal training is provided for 

crossing users. 

T 

Owner’s father negotiated the original crossing agreement. The agreement has been 

transferred to the current owners. Generally, a fee is paid on a 5-year basis for the use 

and maintenance of the crossing. 

A 

J:\10174\5.0 Design (Work) Phase\Phase 2\Interviews\Interview Notes to be Posted on FTP\Crossing Owners and Users\Crossing_Owner_#9_2006-06-02.doc\2006-06-02\AED 

A.12 - 68
Safety at Private Crossings – Crossing Owner #10 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

It is estimated that the club uses more than 400 crossings across the province. Every 

crossing was established through an agreement with the appropriate railway company 

and/or a landowner. 

A 

Railroad contacts are identified in through the crossing agreements. However, in an 

emergency, members contact local authorities, who, in turn, will contact the appropriate 

railway personnel. 

O 

Given the large number of crossings that the club deals with, it is impossible to comment 

on the physical characteristics of each one; however, the railways work with the clubs to 

ensure that the crossings meet their needs. 

C 

Not aware of any type of automated warning system at any of the private crossings. All 

crossings are supposed to have stop ahead (100-120m out) and stop signs. Drivers are 

required by law to stop at every crossing. Police patrol trails. 

W, R 

None of the private crossings have whistle posts, but those that are near public crossings 

might get some benefit form whistling. 

W 

Crossing users are primarily club members, trespassing is only a minor issue. The peak 

season goes from early January to late February. Rail companies used to remove 

crossings in the off-season, but now they leave them in year-round. 

U 

In addition to snowmobiles, trail groomers also use the crossings, and they can be as long 

as 50 feet. Some multi-use trails may also be used by ATVs. 

V 

Operating characteristics of snowmobiles are not a major concern at private crossings 

(i.e., they don’t require much time to cross and stopping distances are not excessive). 

V 

A.12 - 69
Safety at Private Crossings – Crossing Owner #10 - 2 - April 3, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

The crossings can be over single or multiple sets of tracks (mainline or sidings), trains 

speeds range from approximately 60mph down. No club crossings cross high-speed 

corridors. 

O 

Rail crossings are addressed specifically in the motorized snow vehicle act. Drivers must 

stop at all rail crossings. Drivers between the ages of 12 and 16 year of age are required 

to take a mandatory course before they can be licensed (some adults take the course 

too); the course highlights railway crossings safety. 

R, T 

Communications with the railways have been very positive. The railways are quick to 

point out any issues or deficiencies at crossings, and they ensure that those issues get 

resolved promptly. 

C 

The existing signage and rule seem to be working. Building up the approach with snow 

can often be an effective way of treating approach grade issues. A greater police 

presence on the trails would be welcome. 

O, W 

Safety awareness campaigns are generally well received by the club members, and 

effective in informing them of safety issues. 

T 

J:\10174\5.0 Design (Work) Phase\Phase 2\Interviews\Interview Notes to be Posted on FTP\Crossing Owners and Users\Crossing_Owner_#10_2006-06-02.doc\\AED 

A.12 - 70
Safety at Private Crossings – Crossing Owner #11 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

There are 10 private crossings authorized for club use (4 CN, 3CP, and 3INCO). All of 

the crossings were established through negotiations with the railways and landowners (for 

land use permission). The club has the subdivision and milepost information for all of the 

crossings on file; they also have contacts in both the real estate and engineering 

departments of the railways. 

A 

Crossing characteristics: 

• One crossing is for mainline and a siding, all the rest are single track 

crossings; 

• The approaches are made of dirt or gravel and the trails are groomed in the 

winter; 

• An effort has been made to ensure that all crossings are level (i.e., no 

significant grade at the tracks); 

• Crossing surfaces are either 10 or 12 feet in width, made of timber planks; 

• Surrounding land uses vary, but there are no sightline issues at any of the 

crossings; 

• The crossings are maintained by the railways for a fee; and 

• Signage is provided by the club and is in place year-round. 

O, M 

There are no automated warning systems at any of the crossings. W 

Don’t know of any whistle posts near crossings and given engine noise and helmets, 

users might not hear them regardless. 

W, C 

Two of the club’s crossings are shared with hydro; the others are for the exclusive use of 

club members (non-members are trespassing). The crossings are used exclusively in the 

winter. 

U 

Snowmobiles, groomers, and hydro vehicles use the crossings. The groomers are the 

greatest safety concern, given that they can be over 30 feet long and travel at 10km/h. 

V, C 

A.12 - 71
Safety at Private Crossings – Crossing Owner #11 - 2 - April 4, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

Train speeds at the crossings very, but the maximum is about 50-60mph. There are no 

high-speed corridors crossings. 

U 

Groomer operators are asked to stop, look both ways, open the doors, and proceed with 

caution at all crossings. 

T 

Members are required (through the motorized snow vehicle act) to stop at all crossings; 

the club also encourages them to shut off their machines and listen for trains. 

T 

The club also conducts educational programmes with CN and CP Police Services at 

schools and community events. 

T 

J:\10174\5.0 Design (Work) Phase\Phase 2\Interviews\Interview Notes to be Posted on FTP\Crossing Owners and Users\Crossing_Owner_#11_2006-06-02.doc\\AED 

A.12 - 72
Safety at Private Crossings – Crossing Owner #12 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

The crossing is a driveway crossing; it is accessible to the public, and has been there as 

long as the owner has owned the land. The crossing is most likely a crossing “by grace.” 

A 

If there were ever a problem with the crossing they would contact Rail Term (they do all of 

the track maintenance in the area). 

O 

Crossing characteristics: 

• There is one set of tracks at the crossing; 

• The approach on one side of the crossing is paved, the other side is gravel, 

and the approach is relatively level; 

• The crossing is sufficiently wide for all traffic; 

• The property is tree lined on the business side and vehicles must go slowly 

up to the crossing; and 

• Rail Term carries out all crossing maintenance. 

M 

The crossing has no automatic warning systems. There are stop signs, but they are small 

and easily overlooked. 

W 

Train whistles can be heard from a nearby public crossing as they approach the private 

crossing in one direction. 

W 

Crossing users consist of employees, suppliers, and sometimes solicitors. There is less 

traffic in the winter. 

U 

The composition of traffic at the crossing varies from passenger cars and pickup trucks to 

transport trucks and dump trucks. The transport trucks have to back into the property 

(the owner always assigns an observer to help) and they occupy the crossing for a 

maximum of 30 seconds. 

V 

A.12 - 73
Safety at Private Crossings – Crossing Owner #12 - 2 - April 7, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

There are no sightline issues beyond the tree line, which is set back from the crossing. C 

The trains that pass the crossing are almost all high-speed commuter trains (100mph), 

and there is usually one freight train per night. 

V 

The owner warns all expected visitors of the crossing prior to their arrival, and provides 

observers when necessary. Employees are all aware of the trains and the use of the 

crossing. 

T 

The only communications that they’ve had with railway officials have been regarding 

looking into alternative access options (i.e., closing the crossing). It is unlikely that the 

funding offered would cover the costs of constructing a new driveway that would connect 

to the road and not cross the tracks. 

A, S 

J:\10174\5.0 Design (Work) Phase\Phase 2\Interviews\Interview Notes to be Posted on FTP\Crossing Owners and Users\Crossing_Owner_#12_2006-06-02.doc\\AED 

A.12 - 74
Safety at Private Crossings – Railway Industry Stakeholders 

#1 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

Factors contributing to collisions: 

• Sightlines – in addition to environmental obstructions (e.g. brush, buildings, 

etc.), sightline are sometimes blocked by the large side mirrors on the 

vehicles themselves; 

• Driver behaviour – drivers are often distracted and inattentive when using 

crossings at times they simply ignore warning signs and even stop signs at 

seldom used crossings; and 

• Vehicle and crossing characteristics – vehicle speed, crossing grade and 

angle, crossing surface condition, etc. 

C 

Poor maintenance of crossing surface and/or sightlines are common deficiencies. If it is 

not possible to achieve the desired sightlines at a crossing, additional warning systems 

(e.g. whistle posts) can be recommended. 

C, M, W 

Generally, crossing users/owners are willing and quick to comply with safety advisories. C 

Emergency contact 1-800 numbers should be clearly posted at all farm and private 

crossings. 

W 

Any private crossings that are accessible to the general public should feature full 

identification (e.g. crossbucks). 

W 

A TV add campaign focussing on farm crossing safety would be particularly beneficial. 

There seem to be fewer television commercials related to crossing safety these days then 

there were a couple years ago. 

T 

J:\10174\5.0 Design (Work) Phase\Phase 2\Interviews\Interview Notes to be Posted on FTP\Railway Industry Stakeholders\Railway_Industry_#1_2006-06-02.doc\\AED 

A.12 - 75
Safety at Private Crossings – Railway Industry Stakeholders 

#2 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

Factors contributing to Collisions: 

• Approach conditions (e.g. geometric design, grade, materials, and 

maintenance); 

• User complacency; and 

• Driver inattention or lack of training. 

C 

TSB identifies safety deficiencies at crossings and reports them to Transport Canada. 

Transport Canada then decides what improvements should be made to improve safety. 

C, O 

TSB issues an Investigation Report or Safety Advisory to Transport Canada, and then 

TSB evaluates the response by Transport Canada. TSB investigators have very little 

contact (usually only during the investigation) with crossing owners/users. 

O 

High-speed commuter rail lines (e.g. CN Kingston subdivision) are the main safety 

concern with respect to crossing. 

C 

Education/Training: Local and Railway police organizations are doing a good job 

educating school-aged children about railway crossing safety. However, adults don’t 

regularly tend to congregate in such large groups, which makes it harder to get the 

message to them. 

T 

Regulations should require crossing owners and users to inform the railways of the types 

of vehicles using the crossings, and the owners/users should have to inform the railways 

of changes in the types of vehicles and/or goods crossing. 

U, R, V 

Transport Canada need to have the authority to enforce the closure or consolidation of 

redundant or unsafe crossings. 

R, A 

J:\10174\5.0 Design (Work) Phase\Phase 2\Interviews\Interview Notes to be Posted on FTP\Railway Industry Stakeholders\Railway_Industry_#2_2006-06-02.doc\2006-06-05\AED 

A.12 - 76
Safety at Private Crossings – Railway Industry Stakeholders 

#3 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

Via has a vested interest in this study, and would like to see the industry take a proactive 

approach to private crossing safety using remote warning systems (e.g., pilot studies 

similar to the one for remote public crossings done by UNB). 

The current standards and regulations for establishing private crossings are reasonable; 

however, there should be some legislation put in place for consolidating (redundant) 

existing crossings (e.g., 3 crossings on one plot of land). 

R 

Crossings “by right” can become an issue in land mergers or where development makes 

crossings unnecessary, whereby the right still exists, but there is a safer alternative to a 

private crossing(s). 

R 

The proposed RTD-10 guidelines are comparatively user-friendly and provide a step-bystep process for crossing design. The consideration for a design vehicle is also a step in 

the right direction; however, at present there is no requirement for users to inform the 

railways of changes in operating vehicle type, and inspection/observation is the only way 

of getting information. 

R, U, V 

High-speed trains travelling at 80-100mph can require sight lines of 2000’ or more to 

provide advance warning via whistles. 

R, W 

Crossing approach grades and materials have a significant impact on vehicle operating 

characteristics. Crossing surface condition and width are just as important when it comes 

to affecting crossing time/speed. 

C, M 

Vehicle type is a definite issue, the size, speed, and manoeuvrability of the vehicle all 

affect the time required for it to clear the crossing. Also, the contents of the vehicle (e.g., 

dangerous goods) are a concern. 

V 

Noise in the driver cab can over power the sound of train whistles. V, W 

A.12 - 77
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #3 - 2 - February 24, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

There is a concern that current education programmes are not getting the information to 

the actual crossing users (e.g., farm hands, migrant workers, machinery operators, 

delivery people). 

T 

Many private crossings are in isolated locations, which poses a problem given that the 

primary means of reporting a collision risk at a crossing is via telephone. 

C, W 

Mirrors and pedestrian heads at private crossings are helpful, but can’t be used at all 

locations where sight lines are an issue or warning systems are required. 

W 

There is definite interest in seeing some pilot deployments of stand-alone warning 

systems using solar panels, LED lights, and track sensors. In general, there is interest in 

exploring potential uses for new technologies in private crossing warning systems. 

W 

J:\10174\5.0 Design (Work) Phase\Phase 2\Interviews\Interview Notes to be Posted on FTP\Railway Industry Stakeholders\Railway_Industry_#3_2006-06-02.doc\\AED\ 

A.12 - 78
Safety at Private Crossings – Railway Industry Stakeholders 

#4 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

An engineer’s knowledge of his territory (including the locations of private crossings) is 

based primarily on experience and information shared with other engineers. Engineers 

often rely on visual reference points to orient themselves along their routes. 

T 

Via locomotive engineers generally work one territory for their entire career, which allows 

them to become very familiar with the routes. 

T 

Unsafe or potentially dangerous situations are encountered quite frequently at private 

crossings, particularly in the summertime and during the framing season; most such 

situations result from drivers being distracted by a variety of outside factors. 

C 

Recreational vehicles and farm equipment are more frequently involved in near misses at 

private crossings than passenger vehicles. Tractor-trailers are generally not an issue at 

crossings, which could be a result of their drivers having a better understanding/familiarity 

of their equipment and surroundings. The general public seem to be less familiar with 

crossing environments (quasi public crossings) and often appear more distracted (e.g., 

radios and cell phones). 

C 

A crossing’s location relative to curves or hills is one characteristic that contributes 

significantly to collision risk. 

Multiple tracks at a crossing is also a serious concern (second train incidents). 

C 

Inadequate sightlines (resulting from curves, hills or overgrown brush) are a serious 

collision risk. 

C 

A.12 - 79
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #4 - 2 - March 17, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

The public needs to be better informed of the dangers that exist at private crossings, this 

could be achieved through: 

• Rail police education programmes; 

• Adds on the sides of buses and/or locomotive engines; and 

• Handing out information pamphlets along with drivers licence renewals. 

T 

Farmers and recreational groups need to be targeted and emphasis needs to be placed 

on private crossing safety in add campaigns. 

T 

J:\10174\5.0 Design (Work) Phase\Phase 2\Interviews\Interview Notes to be Posted on FTP\Railway Industry Stakeholders\Railway_Industry_#4_2006-06-02.doc\\AED 

A.12 - 80
Safety at Private Crossings – Railway Industry Stakeholders 

#5 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

When a landowner and a railway company are unable to reach an agreement regarding 

the construction of a private crossing, the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) will 

hear their arguments, and determine if the construction of a crossing should be 

authorized. 

A 

The railway companies generally have three common (i.e., none site specific) requests 

when it comes to constructing a crossing: 

• That the landowner pay an annual fee for the right to a crossing; 

• That the landowner show proof of having liability insurance for the crossing 

($5M); and 

• That the landowner agrees to a provision stating that the railway company 

can terminate the crossing agreement given 30 days notice. 

Inability (due to prohibitive costs) or unwillingness on the part of the landowner to meet 

these requests often results in the case ending up at a CTA hearing. 

A 

If the railroad company sites a safety issue as a reason for opposing the construction of a 

crossing, Transport Canada will be asked by the CTA to evaluate the concern and 

determine what is necessary to ensure a safe crossing. 

C 

The CTA authorizes the construction of private crossings on one of two conditions: 

• “By right,” (Section 102 of the Canada Transportation Act) where private 

land has been subdivided by the construction of a railway, and the landowner 

is entitled to a crossing (to be constructed and maintained at the expense of 

the railway); or 

• “By grace,” (Section 103 of the Canada Transportation Act) where a 

landowner requires a crossing for access to and proper enjoyment of his land 

(in this case the costs of construction and maintenance are incurred by the 

landowner). 

R 

A.12 - 81
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #5 - 2 - March 16, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

 

The rulings handed down by CTA tribunals are based on precedent; as such, the 

decisions reached are very consistent. 

A 

Whether a crossing is authorized “by right” or “by grace” the decisions regarding the three 

common railway company requests are typically as follows: 

• Since the landowner is either entitled to the crossing or has no other options 

but a crossing to enjoy his land, the annual fee is waived; 

• Since there is no legal obligation for the landowner to have liability insurance 

for the crossing, it is up to him to determine its necessity; and 

• Since the CTA authorized the crossing, the railway company must seek a 

new ruling to terminate the crossing. 

A 

 

Crossing authorizations from the CTA indicate the location where the crossing is to be 

built, the parties responsible for the cost of construction, maintenance, etc., and the 

conditions under which the crossing is authorized. 

A 

All crossing authorizations issued by the CTA are conditional in that the crossing must 

comply with the safety requirements mandated by Transport Canada in the Railway 

Safety Act. 

C 

For some time now CTA has been offering their services as mediators, providing the 

service when landowners and railway companies are unable to reach an agreement on 

their own, but both parties are interested in achieving a negotiated settlement. 

A 

The agreements reached through mediation are binding, but the negotiation process often 

allows the parties to achieve certain consolations that might not present themselves 

otherwise (e.g., the agreement might include a provision allowing the railway to traverse 

the landowner’s property to access their railway), and it generally helps to build a more 

positive working relationship between parties. 

A 

A.12 - 82
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #5 - 3 - March 16, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

Depending on the circumstances, mediation proceeding could include representatives 

form a number of stakeholder groups (e.g., Transport Canada, local municipalities, 

adjacent landowners, etc.). 

A 

In some cases the mediation process can result in multiple landowners agreeing to share 

one crossing, thereby reducing the number of crossings that might otherwise be 

constructed. 

A 

In the previous parliament, there was a proposed bill that would have changed the 

mediation process – currently, both parties must agree to go into mediation; under the 

proposed bill, if one party request mediation then both parties would be required to 

participate in at least one mediation session. 

A 

In addition to agreements on constructing crossings, mediation can also be used after the 

fact to come to terms on agreements for other issues (e.g., maintenance, etc.). 

A 

J:\10174\5.0 Design (Work) Phase\Phase 2\Interviews\Interview Notes to be Posted on FTP\Railway Industry Stakeholders\Railway_Industry_#5_2006-06-02.doc\\AED 

A.12 - 83
Safety at Private Crossings – Railway Industry Stakeholders 

#6 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

Dealing with private crossings “by right” can be challenging in that many older crossings 

have no documentation of the crossing agreement or maintenance contracts. 

A, M 

With respect to new crossings, if a crossing is authorised it is subject to 

appropriate/thorough safety regulations. 

R 

RTD-10 needs to be put into force, because it addresses many of the concerns that 

currently exist regarding private crossings. 

G4-A only requires 10 seconds of sightline distance. 

The calculations required under RTD-10 are involved, but they address a lot of the safety 

issues. 

In general, RTD-10 is the answer to many safety issues; the regulations could be 

grandfathered in or phased in to help manage costs and effort. 

R 

Approach and crossing surface conditions have a significant impact on safety, but a lot 

depends on the vehicle characteristics. Grades can cause stopping issues in winter. 

Speeds on approaches are also an issue there need to be enforceable speed limits on 

approaches or stop signs at all crossings. 

C, W 

Large farm and industrial equipment can be an issue at private crossings. Many 

operators are not professional drivers (and as such are not required to log time at the 

controls) they work long days and are not always alert or are distracted when it comes 

time to cross the tracks at the end of the day (farmers are a particularly important user 

group). 

U, V 

Out West, industrial areas are a real problem, particularly site operated by small 

developers since they generally have less experience with crossings. 

Town want to grow so they allow development “anywhere” with no regard for safety or 

long-term planning. 

A 

A.12 - 84
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #6 - 2 - April 18, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

CN and Cp police services run education programmes at schools that are effective. 

Industrial drivers could be targeted at union meeting or tailgate meetings and educated on 

crossing safety (may need to get gory with details to impact this group). 

Police services do a good job, but they don’t appear to have the resources to reach 

everyone that they should. 

T 

Mitigating measures: 

• RTD-10 has a section on crossbucks with retro reflective materials that is a 

good idea; 

• The colour schemes for signs, pavement markings, etc. around railway 

crossings could be changed (i.e., made different than other areas) to make 

crossings more visible; and 

• Rumble strips could be used on paved crossings (one crossing had speed 

bumps installed, but a car got hung up on them and a near miss resulted – 

not a good idea). 

W 

J:\10174\5.0 Design (Work) Phase\Phase 2\Interviews\Interview Notes to be Posted on FTP\Railway Industry Stakeholders\Railway_Industry_#6_2006-06-02.doc\\AED 

A.12 - 85
Safety at Private Crossings – Railway Industry Stakeholders 

#7 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

Factors contributing to collisions: 

• Sightlines (impaired by vegetation or structures); 

• Crossing gradient; and 

• Maintenance. 

C 

Today, many private crossings (especially on the CN Kingston subdivision) are located 

within a short distance of a public crossing. As such, a lot of public crossings could be 

closed or consolidated; however, this would likely require the construction of access 

roads, which would have to be maintained by some road authority. 

O 

Not every railway crossings incident triggers a full TSB investigation; however, identifying 

safety deficiencies to stakeholders is usually worth the effort. Generally stakeholders will 

acknowledge safety deficiencies, but often actions are delayed by the perception of 

liability. As such reaching an agreement amongst stakeholders can be a challenge. 

C 

 

The existing legislation regarding how private crossings are granted should be changed. 

Private crossings should only be granted as an absolute last resort. 

A 

Regulations should focus on sightlines and proper design based on the type of vehicle 

using the crossing. The regulations need to be enforceable and not be “grandfathered” in. 

R 

Crossing mileposts and emergency 1-800 numbers should be installed at every private 

crossing. 

W 

Driver education and handbooks need to address crossing safety, they also need to make 

drivers aware of emergency contact numbers. Driver training with respect to railway 

safety needs to be consistent across all provinces. Truck driver training also needs to 

address railway crossing safety with greater emphasis. 

T 

J:\10174\5.0 Design (Work) Phase\Phase 2\Interviews\Interview Notes to be Posted on FTP\Railway Industry Stakeholders\Railway_Indsutry_#7_2006-06-02.doc\\AED 

A.12 - 86
Safety at Private Crossings – Railway Industry Stakeholders 

#8 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

Factors contributing to collisions: 

• Sightlines (impaired by vegetation, structures, or topography); 

• Road approach grades too steep; 

• Lack of signage and reflective surfaces (i.e. no stop signs or crossbucks); 

• Driver behaviour (e.g. complacency, don’t obey signs, don’t know speed of 

trains); 

• Crossing surface condition/materials in disrepair; 

• No whistling at private crossings; and 

• Traffic at many crossings is increasing and many crossings are now very 

close to busy roadways. 

C 

TSB has no authority to enforce safety improvements, they only conduct investigations 

and identify deficiencies. 

C 

A standardized private crossing sign (e.g. crossbucks with a “private crossing” tag) should 

be developed to increase visibility/conspicuousness of private crossings. 

W 

What legal bearing does a stop sign at a private crossing (on private land) have? W 

Trucking companies should have to provide drivers with regular, formal training/education 

regarding private crossings. 

T 

Farmers and farm hands need to be trained in the use of private crossings and associated 

emergency procedures. 

T 

A.12 - 87
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #8 - 2 - March 13, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

Driver education programmes and manuals need to place more emphasis on railway 

crossings safety and emergency procedures. 

T 

Non-railway police need to know how to deal with railway incidents in an efficient 

comprehensive manor. 

T 

911 operators need to know how to get the necessary information from callers (e.g. 

mileage, Transport Canada call number, etc.). 

T 

J:\10174\5.0 Design (Work) Phase\Phase 2\Interviews\Interview Notes to be Posted on FTP\Railway Industry Stakeholders\Railway_Industry_#8_2006-06-02.doc\AED 

A.12 - 88
Safety at Private Crossings – Railway Industry Stakeholders 

#9 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

All crossings are dealt with on a case-specific basis. The CTA has no specific safety 

mandate. If no particular safety issues are identified to the CTA, it is assumed that no 

extraordinary safety concerns exist. If safety concerns are identified, any authorized 

“suitable crossing” would meet the requirements for safety as stipulated by Transport 

Canada. 

C 

Instances where crossings are not granted occur more frequently with Section 102 

applications, since the rulings are based on demonstrable historical facts. Under Section 

103 crossings are granted based on a proven need. 

A, R 

The CTA only gets involved in crossing affairs when there is a dispute between the 

railway and the landowner. 

A 

The existing regulations are sufficient given the mandate of the CTA. The government 

has been quite clear as to what it expects from the CTA. Funding seems to be one of the 

major hurdles with respect to crossing safety. 

R 

Generally, the CTA is pleased with the mediation process, it is becoming more common 

and the success rate is high. 

A 

Existing crossings usually only come up when land is transferred and the new landowner 

has an issue with the existing agreement (that can’t be resolved with the railway) or the 

landowner simply wants to renegotiate the crossing agreement. 

Also, CTA may become involved in cases where a crossing has been removed and the 

landowner has requested to have it replaced. 

A 

The CTA no longer has the discretion to apportion costs for crossing granted “by grace” or 

by the Agency's discretion under section 103 of the Canada Transportation Act. 

R 

J:\10174\5.0 Design (Work) Phase\Phase 2\Interviews\Interview Notes to be Posted on FTP\Railway Industry Stakeholders\Railway_Industry_#9_2006-06-02.doc\\AED 

A.12 - 89
Safety at Private Crossings – Railway Industry Stakeholders 

#10 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

There seems to be some confusion about the difference between farm and private 

crossings; there needs to be one clear definition used across the industry. 

Some of the issues in dealing with private crossings include the inability to enforce speed 

limits on private land, a lack of formal records regarding crossing agreements, and the 

fact that there is typically no train whistling. 

C, A 

Rather than simply authorizing crossings based on landowner rights, there should be 

some enforceable criteria that can be applied to determine if a crossing is safe and/or 

required at particular location. 

R 

G4-A doesn’t make direct reference to private crossings, but it does recommend speed 

limits for crossing approaches; unfortunately, there is no way of enforcing those speed 

limits at private crossings. The RTD-10 references to design vehicles are a good addition 

given the types of vehicles that might be using private crossings (e.g., farm equipment). 

There can be significant costs associated with the RTD-10 requirements (e.g., if a land 

survey is necessary). 

R 

Crossing approach grades have a direct impact on the acceleration and breaking abilities 

of vehicles using the crossing. RTD-10 takes those factors into consideration. 

C, R 

Education programs have the potential to make a big difference, but they can be difficult 

to administer. It’s hard to target everyone that uses the crossings. Education would be 

most effective if administered on a crossing-specific basis, targeting the particular users at 

the crossing. 

T 

Go Transit has crossbucks, “caution look both ways” signs, “no trespassing” signs, and 

stop signs at all private crossings. They also have a plan to post emergency contact 

numbers at the crossings. 

W 

A.12 - 90
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #10 - 2 - April 3, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

Possible considerations for improved safety at private crossings include low-cost warning 

systems, lights/flashers, and wayside warning systems. 

W 

J:\10174\5.0 Design (Work) Phase\Phase 2\Interviews\Interview Notes to be Posted on FTP\Railway Industry Stakeholders\Railway_Industry_#10_2006-06-02.doc\\AED 

A.12 - 91
Safety at Private Crossings – Railway Industry Stakeholders 

#11 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

Crossing users often have trouble judging the speed of approaching trains until it is too 

late. 

C 

Traffic at most crossings on the subdivision seems to be seasonal with most of the activity 

occurring during the spring and summer months. 

U 

Driveway crossings are used year-round and generally it seems that crossing users 

exercise more caution at driveway crossings. 

U 

Speed restrictions have been imposed on one section of the subdivision where the 

desired sightline distances can’t be met due to the curvature of the tracks at two private 

crossings. 

C 

Some private crossings along the subdivision receive indirect whistling as a result of 

whistle posts at nearby upstream public crossings. However, no private crossings have 

their own whistle posts. 

W 

Several sets of mirrors have been installed at private crossings along the subdivision in 

the past year or so. 

W 

Locomotive engineers are not provided with any records of the locations of private 

crossings and must rely on experience and memory to know where private crossings 

exist. 

T 

Trains speeds are more or less dictated by speed restrictions and on-time performance 

requirements; as such, they can’t really slow the train in areas were they know there is a 

lot of crossing activity. Additionally, if they sound the train whistle at private crossings 

they often receive complaints. 

W 

A.12 - 92
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #11 - 2 - March 13, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

Crossings could be equipped with LED flashers in addition to crossbucks to help increase 

their visibility to drivers who are often distracted or only focused on what is directly in front 

of them. 

W 

J:\10174\5.0 Design (Work) Phase\Phase 2\Interviews\Interview Notes to be Posted on FTP\Railway Industry Stakeholders\Railway_Industry_#11_2006-06-02.doc\\AED 

A.12 - 93
Safety at Private Crossings – Railway Industry Stakeholders 

#12 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

Crossings “by right” can pose additional challenges in that they are sometimes authorized 

at locations that do not suite the railway (e.g., multiple tracks, poor sightlines, etc.), efforts 

are made to negotiate on the location of such crossings, but it doesn’t always workout. 

A 

Mediation has been used as a means of trying to reach an agreement that works for both 

parties. Crossing agreements can at times take a very long time to negotiate. 

A 

One major issue with older crossings (particularly older crossings “by right”) is that they 

are not always documented and there is no record of who owns them. 

A 

The CP Real Estate department handles most of the initial negotiations between the 

railway and landowners regarding new private crossings. The CP Real Estate department 

has put together a document for new crossing requests that contains a sample crossing 

plan and identifies technical requirements that are based on RTD-10. Real Estate informs 

operations personnel of any potential impacts that might result of new crossings; however, 

at times, there can be some disconnect in the communications between the two groups. 

A, R 

Another challenge occurs when new landowners takeover crossings as part of land 

transfers; they are often not aware of their responsibilities with respect to the crossing. 

A, O 

At present there is no real trigger for review of crossing uses/vehicle types. Railway 

personnel do try to anticipate the types of vehicles that will be using a private crossing 

when they are installing it. 

U, V 

G4-A is a good document; it’s easy to use and understand. The calculations that are 

required for RTD-10 can be difficult for some. Comparisons of sightline requirements 

based on G4-A and RTD-10 showed that the two methods yielded similar results. 

R 

A.12 - 94
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #12 - 2 - April 4, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

Crossings surface condition plays an important role in collision risk. The standard 

crossing is constructed of timber planks. The condition of the timbers relates directly to 

the amount of time it takes vehicles to cross. It is also important that the crossing is wide 

enough to accommodate the vehicles using it. 

C, O, V 

Sometimes, it happens that old logging roads with private crossings are abandoned and 

get used by the public. As such, the crossings become de facto public crossings, but they 

don’t get proper upgrades. The new users are often infrequent users that are unfamiliar 

with the crossing and its operations. 

U 

Typically, education programmes are only moderately effective, they work well enough at 

firs, but compliance diminishes after a while. One reason for the pattern is that users 

(e.g., logger, truckers, etc.) come from all over and there is a lot of user turnover. 

U 

It might be a good idea to send out crossing safety packages (containing emergency 

contact information, etc.) to crossing owners every couple of years. One possible 

challenge with the idea is that may crossing owners are not registered (i.e., there is no 

record of who they are). 

T 

Measures to improve safety at private crossings: 

• Flagmen at logging, mining, industrial crossings; 

• Automated warning systems (very costly); 

• Safety reviews with owners/users after near misses or observed noncompliances; 

• Mirrors; 

• Whistle posts; and 

• Users have installed their own flashing amber lights. 

W 

Private crossings safety could be improved by adopting the practice of posting stop signs 

at all crossings, using more retro-reflective materials at crossings, ensuring proper 

sightlines, and closing many private crossings. 

W, R 

J:\10174\5.0 Design (Work) Phase\Phase 2\Interviews\Interview Notes to be Posted on FTP\Railway Industry Stakeholders\Railway_Industry_#12_2006-06-02.doc\\AED 

A.12 - 95
Safety at Private Crossings – Railway Industry Stakeholders 

#13 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

Factors Contributing to Collisions: 

• Driver Behaviour: inattention, distraction, taking unnecessary risks, and 

complacency; 

• Crossing Design: multiple sets of tracks, approach geometry, crossing angle, 

sightlines, grade; 

• Visibility: Inadequate audible or visual indicators of the presence of 

approaching trains and inadequate protection at crossings (e.g., not enough 

reflective surfaces on trains, no warning signs); and 

• Frequency of train traffic: irregular/infrequent train traffic can increase risk. 

C 

Typically, TSB investigators point out deficiencies and report them to Transport Canada 

and/or other action agents who determine what corrective action should be taken. Most 

often deficiencies relate to lack of signage and/or poor maintenance practices (particularly 

with respect to sightlines). 

C, S 

Missing, damaged or lack of signage, infrequent train traffic, poor crossing conditions, 

and/or sightlines not being maintained may lead crossing users to believe that the 

crossing is no longer in use. 

C, W, M 

Landowners should be provided a crossing safety awareness course, the course should 

be re-offered every time the land changes hands. 

T 

Railway crossings in general need to be more of a focus in driver training courses and 

examinations, and crossing safety and emergency contacts should be featured in driver 

handbooks. 

T 

A.12 - 96
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #13 - 2 - March 30, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

More thought should be given to providing more effective warning at private crossings 

rather than simply relying on signs, such as crossbucks, and locomotive horns on the 

trains (e.g., horns situated at the crossing and directed more effectively to the 

approaching motorists, not just on trains). 

W 

The existing legislation is adequate, provided that inspections are carried out and a real 

effort is made to improve safety at dangerous crossings. 

R 

J:\10174\5.0 Design (Work) Phase\Phase 2\Interviews\Interview Notes to be Posted on FTP\Railway Industry Stakeholders\Railway_Industry_#13_2006-06-02.doc\\AED 

A.12 - 97
Safety at Private Crossings – Railway Industry Stakeholders 

#14 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

Historically, the majority of crossings “by right” were used for farming purposes, which 

usually translated into fewer crossings, and most crossing activity was seasonal. Land 

uses are changing with development, and private crossings “by right” are being used by 

the general public, which is resulting in higher crossing volumes and more crossings by 

users with limited crossing experience. 

U, C, A 

When crossing “by right” are authorized, they are generally located wherever the 

landowner wants them, which can become very expensive for the railway companies, 

given that they are required to meet all safety measures mandated by Transport Canada 

(e.g., grade separations, warning systems, etc.). 

R, C 

There are also issues with crossings “by grace” with respect to changes in land use (e.g., 

if a landowner builds a house on an otherwise inaccessible segment of land their private 

crossing becomes a necessity and user composition changes). 

U, C 

Another issue with crossings “by grace” arises when the land changes hands; typically, 

the rights of the crossing agreement are transferred to the new owner through the real 

estate department, and no training etc. is provided. As a result, new owners often don’t 

have any real understanding of the railway operations at their new crossing. 

A, C, T 

There are sufficient regulations in place to determine if a crossing should be authorized 

(and TC will conduct a safety review if there are concerns). However, the railways should 

have more input into the exact placement of crossings “by right” (for reasons of both 

safety and cost). 

R, A 

G4-A guidelines for sightlines are straightforward and the table of distances is easy to 

apply. The calculations required under RTD-10 can be difficult for some to compute, but 

the provision for design vehicles is more comprehensive. 

R, V 

A.12 - 98
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #14 - 2 - March 27, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

Crossing surface condition and crossing approach grade impact safety if they are 

incompatible with the vehicles using the crossing. Generally, the only time that CP hears 

about crossing uses (vehicle types) is when there is an incompatibility issue; there should 

be some requirement for owners/users to disclose that information to the railways. 

C, U, R, V 

Vehicle type and user do have an impact on collision risk. Crossings accessible to the 

public (e.g., driveway crossings) are often used by new or infrequent crossers that don’t 

understand the dynamics of the crossings. 

C, U, V 

New drivers need more training on how to deal with crossings and the situations that can 

arise at crossings. Crossings should be more of an issue in driver training and 

handbooks. All crossing users should have some degree of training, but the logistics 

involved in arranging training would be a challenge. 

T 

Types of safety systems that have been seen in the past: 

• Crossbucks and/or stop signs; 

• Whistling posts (installed at the request of the owner); 

• Convex mirrors (particularly effective at night); and 

• Pedestrian type “walk”/”don’t walk” signals (not endorsed by CP as they are 

not a standard installation for railway crossings). 

W 

Crossing closures are always welcome; however, crossing consolidation has the potential 

to change usage patterns, traffic composition, and user groups, which could be 

problematic. 

R, U 

J:\10174\5.0 Design (Work) Phase\Phase 2\Interviews\Interview Notes to be Posted on FTP\Railway Industry Stakeholders\Railway_Industry_#14_2006-06-02.doc\AED 

A.12 - 99
Safety at Private Crossings – Railway Industry Stakeholders 

#15 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

Crossing users often have trouble judging the speed of approaching trains until it is too 

late. 

C 

Traffic at most crossings on the subdivision seems to be seasonal with most of the activity 

occurring during the spring and summer months. 

U 

Driveway crossings are used year-round and generally it seems that crossing users 

exercise more caution at driveway crossings. 

U 

Speed restrictions have been imposed on one section of the subdivision where the 

desired sightline distances can’t be met due to the curvature of the tracks at two private 

crossings. 

C 

Some private crossings along the subdivision receive indirect whistling as a result of 

whistle posts at nearby upstream public crossings. However, no private crossings have 

their own whistle posts. 

W 

Several sets of mirrors have been installed at private crossings along the subdivision in 

the past year or so. 

W 

Locomotive engineers are not provided with any records of the locations of private 

crossings and must rely on experience and memory to know where private crossings 

exist. 

T 

Trains speeds are more or less dictated by speed restrictions and on-time performance 

requirements; as such, they can’t really slow the train in areas were they know there is a 

lot of crossing activity. Additionally, if they sound the train whistle at private crossings 

they often receive complaints. 

W 

A.12 - 100
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #15 - 2 - March 13, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

Crossings could be equipped with LED flashers in addition to crossbucks to help increase 

their visibility to drivers who are often distracted or only focused on what is directly in front 

of them. 

W 

J:\10174\5.0 Design (Work) Phase\Phase 2\Interviews\Interview Notes to be Posted on FTP\Railway Industry Stakeholders\Railway_Industry_#15_2006-06-02.doc\AED 

A.12 - 101
Safety at Private Crossings – Railway Industry Stakeholders 

#16 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

Real estate is the primary contact between the railway and the landowners with respect to 

private crossing agreements. 

Requests for new crossings are generally received from the landowner via one of three 

means: Direct contact; Through the engineering department; or The Community Connect 

line/website. 

Upon receiving a request the real estate department will contact the owners to request 

information about their intents regarding the use of the crossing. Having knowledge of the 

area where the crossing is being requested helps in anticipating future changes in 

crossing usage. The real estate department can also get information on planned 

development. Disclosure is sometimes an issue. 

In order to determine the long-term, best-fit crossing requirements, the landowner is 

asked to provide information regarding the purpose of the crossing, the frequency of use, 

the type of equipment that will be used, and if the applicant has intentions of significantly 

changing or increasing the use in the foreseeable future, with regards to; development, 

subdivision, or significant commercial or industrial plans. 

Once the intended use of the crossing has been determined/identified the request is sent 

to the railway’s engineering, operations, and capacity groups for their approval. If they 

have no objections to the crossing a drawing is created showing the location of the new 

crossing, and the requirements with respect to approaches, culverts, gates, signs, etc. are 

determined. 

The railway has a more or less standard crossing agreement. Often, a caveat is added to 

the agreement stipulating that if the use of the crossing changes the appropriateness of 

the crossing will have to be reviewed. Copies of the plans and agreement are sent to the 

landowner to be signed. The agreements are then executed by CPR and copies of the 

fully signed agreements and plans are returned to the applicant for their records. 

A.12 - 102
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #16 - 2 - May 3, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

The owner makes arrangements with the track maintenance supervisor to have the 

crossing constructed. CPR constructs the crossing surface (planks, asphalt, rubber, or 

concrete, depending upon what the applicant wants to pay for) only -- the applicant 

constructs the approaches and any culverts or drainage that is required and installs the 

signs and gates. All work has to be done under flag protection by CP. 

With respect to existing crossings, documentation of the crossing agreements does not 

always exist. The real estate department has access to real estate title searches, which 

can be used to identify the current owner of a plot of land. Track maintenance 

supervisors usually make the requests for searches. 

When land is sold, due diligence, on the part of the purchaser and the real estate agents, 

is necessary to ensure that the crossing agreements are updated/transferred to the new 

owners. This seems for be happening more frequently of late. 

According to the lawyers, CP cannot put a restrictive covenant on land that belongs to 

someone else based on a crossing that is on CP land. 

Potentially, the railway could ask to have a registered notation put on land titles for 

properties with private crossings; however, it would cost money. 

CP does not have an interdepartmental database of all private crossings. They have 

paper files for all crossings with documented agreements. Conversion of old paper 

documents to digital files is in progress. 

When asked CPR will assist the smaller railway companies that are leasing and operating 

former CPR lines where CPR is still the underlying landowner, as the issues relate to land 

title issues. 

J:\10174\5.0 Design (Work) Phase\Phase 2\Interviews\Interview Notes to be Posted on FTP\Railway Industry Stakeholders\Railway_Industry_#16_2006-06-02.doc\\AED 

A.12 - 103
Safety at Private Crossings – Railway Industry Stakeholders 

#17 

Applicability – Internal use only: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

1. In your opinion, what specific crossing placements, approach scenarios, or 

surrounding conditions create an elevated risk of incidents at private crossings? 

Sightlines and excessive grades: – however this seems to vary regionally. In Eastern 

Canada the railways are old and have many curves, as well the approaches have a lot of 

curves. These elements create poor sightlines. This may not be the case in the Prairie 

region. 

Approach grades of 7 %to 9% are seen, (occasionally grades over 15% exist) 

Sightline maintenance should be a dual responsibility between the owner and the railway 

Transport Canada undertakes annual inspections of all crossings (public, farm, private) to 

ensure that all crossings are safe. An inspection report is issued to the railway that is 

then responsible to ensure that deficiencies are corrected. In particular, signage and 

sightlines are reviewed. The railways are now looking at a more programmed approach 

to ensuring that sightlines are adequately maintained, there has been a marked 

improvement in recent years. Corrections are made by the railways. 

In cases where there is a siding used to park trains, there are difficulties when trains are 

not parked far enough away to ensure that sightlines are respected. This situation causes 

the user’s view of the mainline to be blocked. In the Atlantic region, many sidings are 

being removed so this may become less of a problem 

C 

M 

O 

A.12 - 104
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #17 - 2 - March 30, 2006 

Applicability - Internal use only: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

1. In your opinion, what specific crossing placements, approach scenarios, or 

surrounding conditions create an elevated risk of incidents at private crossings? 

.....continued 

Changes in technology – farm crossings are now used by semi-trailers instead of small 

trucks as they were in the past. These larger vehicles encounter difficulties at crossings 

due to differences in elevation of tracks where there are multiple tracks, and due to 

approach grades. Trucks have become stuck on the rails in cases where the mainlined 

and a siding are not at the same elevation. These difficulties must be addressed on a 

case by case basis. 

Changes in operating procedures: in cases where there has been a change in railway 

ownership, such as when a rail line is sold, some elements that were added to improve 

safety at specific locations (such as the requirement to whistle at a specific farm crossing) 

are removed by a new operator who may be unaware or uninterested in the local problem. 

This is especially true in cases where the new owner is not local. 

Crossing surface: The condition of the crossing surface is becoming more problematic. 

Track lifts are undertaken during standard maintenance and road approaches are not 

adjusted accordingly. The rough condition increases exposure time at the crossing. 

New regulations: How will the new regulations be applied at farm crossings? The new 

regulation allows a maximum approach grade of 2 %. 

Many farm crossings are actually unrestricted as very few are gated. As well, there are 

cases where crossings have a gate on one side of the track only; this creates the 

dangerous situation of allowing access to the track but not allowing access off the track 

once a vehicle is on the crossing. 

Complacency – the opinion that since a crossing has been in existence for over 100 

years, therefore that it must be fine as it is. 

Changes in land use: Farms are transformed into land for other uses, such as conversion 

to campgrounds. The vehicles using the crossing change and approaches are not 

modified to suit the new vehicle type. For example, in a campground and there will be 

long RVs using the crossing. Railways should be cognisant of these changes in land use 

and should be interceding and correcting the situation before Transport Canada has to 

intervene. 

C 

T 

O 

C 

R 

C 

U 

T 

A.12 - 105
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #17 - 3 - March 30, 2006 

Applicability - Internal use only: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

2. Please, provide some examples of mitigation measures recommended in the past at 

private crossings, and comment on their effectiveness in improving private crossing 

safety.

Transport Canada does not say what must be done, however Transport Canada will 

indicate if something is unsafe. However, through discussions with stakeholders ideas 

are discussed. 

Transport Canada will step in and require railways to reduce train speeds, and will 

threaten to issue an order for the railway to “Stop and proceed”. The railways react very 

quickly to correct the situation in these cases. 

The closing of crossings would be beneficial in certain instances, although to date no 

crossings have been closed in the Atlantic region in response to Transport Canada’s new 

program offering financial compensation for the closure of a crossing. 

Examples of mitigating measures: 

1) There was a case where there were 3 or 4 private crossings, serving 1 or 2 homes 

each, having restricted sightlines. Convex mirrors were placed in the quadrant having 

restricted sightlines. 

2) The case of a private crossing located near a rock cut. Transport Canada advised that 

the crossing was not safe, and the railway advised the owner that the crossings would 

have to be removed. Consequently, the owner would no longer have access to his 

property. The result was that the owner spent a significant amount of money to cut the 

rock in order to maintain his access. 

3) In the case where a private crossing became a “de facto” public crossing due to the 

development of a new subdivision, if the crossing has been used by the public for 3 or 

more years, Transport Canada may be able to provide a financial contribution to close 

other nearby crossings and install warning devices at the crossing (via the Grade 

Crossing Improvement Fund) 

W 

C 

A.12 - 106
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #17 - 4 - March 30, 2006 

Applicability - Internal use only: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

3. What, if any, difficulties have you encountered in the past in ensuring that the changes 

suggested/requested are put in place? Have there been any particular jurisdictional 

challenges? 

No real jurisdictional challenges have been experienced so far. However, since 1989, 

Transport Canada has been operating without a regulation and without an approved 

technical standard. Road authorities have agreed with the intent of respecting the 

proposed standard (RTD-10) 

Transport Canada’s threat of issuing “Orders” and “Notices” is quite effective, situations 

get corrected quickly. 

Transport Canada offers comments when requested on proposed crossings, but does not 

approve crossing placement/configuration. 

In cases of short line railways that are under provincial jurisdiction, there have been 

instances where the province indicates that crossing issues must be sorted out between 

the land owner and the railway. These cases become “political” and both politicians and 

Transport Canada may be drawn into the case. Transport Canada will review the case 

form a safety standpoint if needed. 

R 

4. What specific changes (to technical requirements, legislation, education or other 

areas) would you like to see implemented to reduce the risk of collisions at private 

crossings?

- Approval of the new regulation and RTD-10 as soon as possible; 

- RTD-10 to be presented in a simplified form for use by owners and small municipalities; 

- Low cost warning devices to be reviewed. Currently if the devices does not respect the 

old general order E-6 to the letter it is not permitted. There is a hesitancy to try something 

new. 

R 

R 

W 

A.12 - 107
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #17 - 5 - March 30, 2006 

Applicability - Internal use only: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

5. Is there any other anecdotal information or personal experience that you would like to 

share, with respect to private crossing safety?

- Railways react after Transport Canada threatens to become involved where there is a 

safety issue at a crossing. The railways could be more proactive instead of waiting. 

- Crossing surfaces are worse than they were in the past, due to a reduction in railway 

staff. The railways seem to be trying to “put out fires” and end up letting some 

maintenance go. Feels that this is due to in house budgeting at the railways. 

- All crossings are different and must be handled individually. 

- Sightline brush clearing is always a temporary measure and must be constantly 

reviewed. As well, railways should check sightlines from within a passenger car on the 

crossing approaches, not from within a high-rail truck as the perspective from a car is very 

different. 

- About 20 or 25 years ago CN placed stop signs at some farm and private crossings, 

however the signs have not been maintained and many have deteriorated significantly. 

C 

M 

M 

M 

J:\10174\5.0 Design (Work) Phase\Phase 2\Interviews\Interview Notes to be Posted on FTP\Railway Industry Stakeholders\Railway_Industry_#17_2006-06-02.doc\\AED 

A.12 - 108
Safety at Private Crossings – Railway Industry Stakeholders 

#18 

Applicability – Internal use only: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

1. In your opinion, what specific crossing placements, approach scenarios, or 

surrounding conditions create an elevated risk of incidents at private crossings? 

• Skewed crossings, in particular where one quadrant has blind spot; 

• Steep grades, most important in winter with icy conditions; 

• Crossings where there is a highway parallel to the tracks located less than 8 

meters away. In these cases, longer vehicles can foul the track and get hit by a 

train because they cannot get onto the road due to traffic on the road; 

• Poor sightlines due to vegetation, curvature, obstructions (buildings and rock 

cuts); 

• Rotted crossing planks – vehicles get stuck (including wheel chairs); 

• Humped crossing – low bed trailers get caught or hook rail; 

• Super-elevation – low vehicles can hit the rail and become incapacitated on track 

(highest risk for these incidents is on double track); 

• New developments – in these cases a private crossing gets unrestricted use 

which it was not designed for; 

• High speed tracks with crossings without protection or whistling; 

• Use by low vehicles (cars, lowbed trucks); 

• Have cases of snowmobiles using crossing in winter only (seasonal use) in the 

off-season the crossing becomes an access point to the tracks (trespassing) 

• Complacency by regular users of crossings, cases of a homeowner with their own 

crossing the user became complacent and there have been accidents; 

• Cell phones and other distractions (i.e. disciplining children in car) – Education 

needed. 

2. Please, provide some examples of mitigation measures recommended in the past at 

private crossings, and comment on their effectiveness in improving private crossing 

safety. 

• Closure of crossings: Transport Canada had to order the closure of a farm 

crossing with small business (hay, produce store, shop). The user did go to the 

CTA but CTA ruled in favour of TC (this happens very rarely). Closing a crossing 

solves the entire problem 

• Should increase the contribution for closure of a crossing beyond $5000. 

Contributions should pay for moving infrastructure, and for making modifications 

such as a road to access another crossing. 

• Speed restrictions by Notice & Order. Railways react and remedy situations very 

quickly in these cases 

• Transport Canada will order whistling reluctantly (speed restrictions are more 

effective). When whistling is ordered in some cases will order 10 seconds 

whistle, not 1⁄4 mile, there have been good results from this 

• Order vegetation to be cut 

• Relocate crossings 

• Restrict length / type of vehicle using crossing by order of Transport Canada 

(especially used when track is close to a parallel road) 

A.12 - 109
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #18 - 2 - March 31, 2006 

Applicability - Internal use only: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

3. What, if any, difficulties have you encountered in the past in ensuring that the changes 

suggested/requested are put in place? Have there been any particular jurisdictional 

challenges? 

Transport Canada issues Notices or Notice and Orders to railways in cases where there 

are safety concerns: 

• A Notice is issued when there is a threat to railway safety, it gives a railway 10 to 

14 days to advise Transport Canada of the solutions/measures that will be put in 

place. The problem with a Notice is that the solutions presented by the railways 

are often very weak, based on economics and are unsatisfactory 

• A Notice and Order is issued when there is an immediate threat and will restrict 

trains / crossing use until problem resolved. 

Few notices issued now, more Notices and Orders issued because 100% of the time this 

gets timely attention for serious deficiencies from the railway. 

There is often reluctance on part of the railways to admit that there are safety issues. 

In many cases, the high cost of remedial action is passed on to the crossing owner by the 

railway after Transport Canada gets tough with the railway. For example, a railway did 

assessments of all crossings, and prepared a timeline to fix them, they then gave 

estimates of the required work to the owners of the crossings ($30 000 and up). This 

caused a political nightmare. 

Transport Canada does have a tribunal that is set up to hear appeals where a railway or 

road authority may refute a Notice and Order, this tribunal has ruled in favour of Transport 

Canada on the one case in Western Canada 

In cases where an appeal is made to the CTA by a crossing owner after a railway has 

indicated that they object to the placement of a crossing, 99% of the time the CTA rules in 

favour of crossing owner, unless Transport Canada can prove that a valid safety concern 

exists. The CTA will order a railway to make a suitable crossing at a particular location. If 

it is not at all safe, the railway can then involve Transport Canada. The CTA will then try to 

mediate 

Transport Canada and the railways wish to have as few level crossings as possible, in 

certain cases Transport Canada will even contact the CTA directly. There is a good 

relationship between the CTA and Transport Canada. 

A.12 - 110
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #18 - 3 - March 31, 2006 

Applicability - Internal use only: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

4. What specific changes (to technical requirements, legislation, education or other 

areas) would you like to see implemented to reduce the risk of collisions at private 

crossings? 

• There should be regulations with respect to locked gates at restricted crossings, 

would like to see this based on railway speed. 

• Would like to see G4-A as a regulation 

• More government funding needed to relocate and close crossings 

• Enact the proposed Grade Crossing Regulations as soon as possible 

• More powers for Transport Canada inspectors, including 

o The power to request and receive documents from the railways without 

having to be on site; 

o Strengthen the RSA, there is too much discretion, Section 11 needs to be 

strengthened (a qualified engineer must take responsibilities for all 

railway work.) 

o Would like Transport Canada’s inspectors to be able to issue fines (ticket 

book) to users / railways for unsafe use of crossing, and to have 

inspectors given the power to issue fines immediately (not to be done via 

the Minister) (as is done at the FRA) 

• Specific crossing accidents should be investigated jointly by the railway and 

regulator 

• Transport Canada can close crossings to vehicular access, they do have the 

authority to do so. 

5. Is there any other anecdotal information or personal experience that you would like to 

share, with respect to private crossing safety? 

• The railways’ response to Transport Canada’s involvement varies based on 

attitudes. For example: One national railway has had many slow orders placed at 

crossings in British Columbia due to unsafe use. They have assessed all of their 

crossings and provided timelines for improvement. There has been a major 

improvement in crossing maintenance. The other national railway challenges 

Transport Canada on every issue irrespective of the safety ramifications, and 

accuses Transport Canada of being unprofessional. The result is that the 

conditions at their crossings in British Columbia are much poorer than at their 

competitor’s crossings. 

• Short-line railways don’t have the money or the personnel to assess and to 

maintain crossings as needed. These lines have more injuries and more 

accidents. 

• Funding for public crossings in the West has been increased for Transport 

Canada, there are some pedestrian crossings with automatic protection, paid for 

privately. 

J:\10174\5.0 Design (Work) Phase\Phase 2\Interviews\Interview Notes to be Posted on FTP\Railway Industry Stakeholders\Railway_Industry_#18_2006-06-02.doc\AED 

A.12 - 111
Safety at Private Crossings – Railway Industry Stakeholders 

#19 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

1. Can you comment on the different challenges, be they technical, administrative, 

jurisdictional, or otherwise, involved in dealing with private crossings “by right” versus 

other types of crossings?

Technical – not too many challenges, few problems. Sight lines and approaches must be 

well maintained. 

Administrative – quite simple, no agreements required 

Jurisdictional – no challenges 

2. Are there sufficient technical standards available in order to establish if a private 

crossing should be permitted and under what conditions?

Transport Canada’s draft RTD-10 contains extensive information concerning minimum 

standards, these are sufficient. 

Once the railway receives a request, they meet with the applicant and go to the site to 

review all issues before putting a crossing in place. 

3. Do you have any thoughts regarding the determination or the preservation of 

sight lines at private crossings:

3.1 G4-A vs. the new requirements taking into account specific vehicle types, as set out 

in RTD-10?

G4-A is not as elaborate as RTD-10, but does not cause problems. 

3.2 Calculation of minimum sight line requirements?

NBEC has completed a review and evaluation of the sightlines at all of their crossings last 

year. 

3.3 Are the methods adequate and can the required information be readily collected?

No bad experiences so far. Usually applicants are able to provide the equipment 

information that is required. 

Private crossings are governed by an agreement, in which the type of vehicle using the 

crossing is identified. The owner must advise the railway if they plan to use any other 

type pf vehicle. 

A.12 - 112
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #19 - 2 - March 16, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

4. Do you feel that the private crossing condition or the approach grades have a 

significant impact on the crossing safety? What associated issues have you 

experienced?

Both are significant. If the crossing surface planks are in poor condition, cehicles can get 

stuck. The surface must be well maintained. 

Approach grades: have had few incidents. During visits to the sites, approaches are 

identified and they try to create a flat an approach as possible within +/- 15 feet from the 

track to allow improved visibility and crossing time. 

5. In your experience, does the type of vehicle (e.g., passenger vehicles, trucks, heavy 

construction equipment, recreational vehicles, farm equipment, etc.) or certain types of 

users affect the collision risk at the private crossing?

Yes. The type of vehicle is critical. For example: an owner requested that heavy 

equipment be brought onto their property. The contractor tried to cross at a private 

crossing with questionable grades for the specific vehicle (low flat bed). The vehicle 

became caught on the rails and was hit by an approaching train. The tracks were 

damaged and the train derailed. Luckily there were no injuries. 

Vehicles such as Winnebagos with trailers require a longer time to cross than smaller 

vehicles. 

ATVs and snowmobiles are not the worst type at crossings (however they cause many 

problems trespassing) 

6. Do you feel that education, awareness or training could be used effectively to address 

a particular type of user or groups of users?

Yes. With reference to the example in #5, it was discovered that the contractor had 

absolutely no knowledge of how to approach/negotiate the crossing with his vehicle. 

Education is needed for heavy equipment operators, this must be improved. Public 

crossings are very different from private/farm crossings. As well, the owner did not 

contact the railway prior to bringing the heavy equipment over the crossing (as was 

required by the agreement). 

A.12 - 113
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #19 - 3 - March 16, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

7. What types of mitigating measures have you seen implemented to improve safety or 

address a specific concern at a private crossing? Do you have any suggestions for 

additional remedial measures?

- Control sightlines 

- Try to eliminate crossings; NBEC is currently negotiating to close some. A successful 

example is a recent occasion in Belledune where 2 individuals had crossings near a curve 

where the railway convinced the owners to use a roadway alongside the tracks instead of 

a crossing. 

- NBEC does not have any mirrors in place at the moment 

 - Has seen other locations on CN territory with mirrors, an another location with a signal 

indication that there is a vehicle on the track 

- Typically there is a Private Crossing Sign at most of these crossings, some have cross 

bucks and stop signs 

8. Can you suggest any specific changes that you would like to see enacted to reduce 

the risk of incidents at private crossings?

Education and awareness. This could be coordinated through the Railway Association of 

Canada and Direction 2006 and directed specifically for farm and private crossing users, 

as well as to target specific groups such as heavy equipment operators. The level of 

awareness among farm crossing owners/users is variable. 

9. Is there any other anecdotal information or personal experience that you would like to 

share, with respect to overall private crossing safety or a specific problem location?

When at CN, participated in a detailed review of RTD-10 

VIA travels at a maximum of 70 mph, freight trains travel at a maximum of 55 mph. 

J:\10174\5.0 Design (Work) Phase\Phase 2\Interviews\Interview Notes to be Posted on FTP\Railway Industry Stakeholders\Railway_Industry_#19_2006-06-02.doc\\AED 

A.12 - 114
Safety at Private Crossings – Railway Industry Stakeholders 

#20 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

1. How do you become familiar with the locations, and conditions, of private 

crossings? How do you use that knowledge? 

By experience, these are not identified on train bulletins. Be aware, however the train 

speed and schedule are to be maintained. 

2. How often do you encounter situations at private crossings that you would 

consider unsafe or dangerous? Could you please describe examples of unsafe or 

high-risk situations that you have encountered in the past? 

Once per trip (at any type of crossing or trespassing issue) 

Private / farm crossings: more common 

Example: Picnics beside track – not fenced next to a park in Pointe-St-Charles 

Crews report areas where pedestrians are seen often 

3. In your experience, what types of vehicles are most commonly involved in near 

misses, risky-behaviour or collisions (e.g., passenger vehicles, trucks, heavy construction 

equipment, recreational vehicles (ATVs or snowmobiles), farm equipment, etc.)? 

No particular vehicle types, can be any type including 

- trucks 

- busses 

- (School buses → rare) 

- Les Cèdres – ATV death 

- Mostly “normal” people doing stupid things 

- Young kids on ATVs alone are the most dangerous. 

- Farm equipment pretty good – no problems on corridor (Montreal – Toronto) 

- Semi-trailers – close to CP / CN 

 Get caught between gates 

 Brighton to Grafton a bad spot 

A.12 - 115
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #20 - 2 - March 10, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

4. Which of the following crossing location/design characteristics do you feel 

contributes the most to the collision risk at a private crossings:

4.1 Proximity to a curve, siding or hill? 

Curves worst 

Eliminate some crossings: example Brockville: 4 to 5 crossings within 100 feet 

Farm crossings – don’t need all as some not used and should be eliminated 

4.2 Sightlines for crossing users or train crews?

Sightlines are not well enough maintained for train crews: 

- Varies by location 

- Montreal – Cornwall an effort has been made recently and CN has done a good 

job 

- West of Cornwall - problems (brush) 

- Alexandria 

- Different zones – not solved yet 

4.3 Crossing approach or surface condition?

 - 

4.4 Number of tracks to cross?

Double track worst. Example 2 girls were killed because they didn’t notice the second 

train 

5. What impact do the following have on collision risk at a private crossing:

5.1 Weather conditions such as snow, rain, fog, etc? 

- people may not see signs 

5.2 Time of day or night?

Worst time of day : once school is out. 

Season: holiday season, i.e .summer when there is no school (problems with kids) 

A.12 - 116
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #20 - 3 - March 10, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

5.3 Lighting conditions?

Seem to be less problems at night – train is more visible, as well cars with lights on can 

see signs well. 

6. What role do surrounding conditions (i.e., urban, agricultural area, industrial area, 

woodlands, etc.) play in private crossing safety?

Urban areas have big problems. Montreal has trespassing issues and the Toronto area 

has a lot of fatalities (trespassing people cut fences regularly, such as at DeCourcelles in 

Montreal next to Acceuil Bonneau (mission for the homeless). Someone was even 

crossing the tracks with his snow blower on the track) 

Kingston: people cross fields 

Brockville: has blind spots 

No whistling at farm/private crossings 

(public crossings: Belleville has added crossing guards) 

(public crossing at St-Ambroise in Montreal is bad) 

7. Is there any other anecdotal information or personal experience that you would like to 

share, with respect to overall private crossing safety or a specific problem location?

R. Hart has participated in Operation Lifesaver and has given presentations to this group 

in the past 

Crossing design is not always conducive to safety; Locomotive Engineers should be 

consulted for design. The Human Factors affecting the crew must be accounted for. The 

effect of a fatality on the train crew is enormous (serious stress, psychological trauma, 

burnout 

Farm crossings – too many – how many does a farmer need? Find way to group together 

People think their “rights” prevail over safety concerns. 

Best solution everywhere is to install 4 quadrant gates or full width gates. 

People are stupid: 

- no age group in particular 

- “It won’t happen to me” syndrome 

- People in too much of a hurry and will try to save 10 seconds by going in front of a 

train 

A.12 - 117
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #20 - 4 - March 10, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

7. Is there any other anecdotal information or personal experience that you would like to 

share, with respect to overall private crossing safety or a specific problem location?

...continued: 

Mirrors not useful for Locomotive Engineer, train travels too fast for them to be useful 

Rang Ste-Catherine - lots of switching – people race crossings 

Eliminate brush = eliminate hiding spots 

Public crossings should all be GCP protected 

Lancaster crossing with Highway 38 dangerous 

Geographically – certain crossings more dangerous (before curve or after hill) – should be 

removed 

Guess that there must be ± 900 to 1000 crossings between Montreal and Toronto, ± 350 

that whistle is applied at 

LED lights on gate arms would be a good improvement 

Flashing lights instead of signs (especially in foggy conditions) would be very useful at 

private/farm crossings 

Low cost warning devices would be useful, example: solar powered, or illuminated signs 

visible at night 

(Interviewer’s observations: 

- generally good visibility from locomotive due to height, but significantly affected by 

brush, curves, natural obstacles. 

- very high number of crossings on territory from Montreal to Kingston, both public and 

farm, fewer private) 

J:\10174\5.0 Design (Work) Phase\Phase 2\Interviews\Interview Notes to be Posted on FTP\Railway Industry Stakeholders\Railway_Industry_#20_2006-06-02.doc\\AED 

A.12 - 118
Safety at Private Crossings – Railway Industry Stakeholders 

#21 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

1. How do you become familiar with the locations, and conditions, of private crossings? 

How do you use that knowledge? 

Familiar based on experience on the route. The best crew on one route would be the 

worst on another route because of their knowledge of the territory 

Cobourg / Trenton to Brighton – dangerous areas 

Locations where CP and CN tracks are close together: example: 2 Freightliner trucks 

stuck between the CN and CP tracks (near Ile Perrot, Quebec) 

2. How often do you encounter situations at private crossings that you would consider 

unsafe or dangerous? Could you please describe examples of unsafe or high-risk 

situations that you have encountered in the past? 

2 times in 10 runs will see a dangerous situation at a crossing 

3. In your experience, what types of vehicles are most commonly involved in near 

misses, risky-behaviour or collisions (e.g., passenger vehicles, trucks, heavy construction 

equipment, recreational vehicles (ATVs or snowmobiles), farm equipment, etc.)?

No particular vehicle type 

Example: Private transport company: accidents because drivers always racing trains 

across crossings, also had limited visibility. Possible solution: company to add a flagman 

to ensure drivers cross tracks safely. This was even suggested by the crew to the 

crossing owner after a near miss. 

A.12 - 119
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #21 - 2 - March 10, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

4. Which of the following crossing location/design characteristics do you feel 

contributes the most to the collision risk at a private crossings: 

4.1 Proximity to a curve, siding or hill? 

Farmers – less of a problem. No particular age group 

Owners OK – visitors can be dangerous 

Industrial crossings are often gated. 

Stop signs are a good idea 

Granby subdivision (CN) – many accidents in the past 

- People not aware of safety issues 

- Park right next to the track 

Farm gates help 

Mirrors are not useful for train crew but likely help owner 

Skidoo / ATVS – few problems at crossings (however there are many problems with these 

groups due to trespassing) 

Curves are the worst issue 

People don’t expect train to come quickly 

4.2 Sightlines for crossing users or train crews?

Restricted speed due to sightlines at some location 

4.3 Crossing approach or surface condition?

 - 

4.4 Number of tracks to cross?

People often do not see a train on a second track, they are impatient to cross the tracks 

and do not check well (true at all crossings) 

5. What impact do the following have on collision risk at a private crossing:

5.1 Weather conditions such as snow, rain, fog, etc? 

A.12 - 120
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #21 - 3 - March 10, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

5.2 Time of day or night?

At night, the trains have good headlights and can be well seen 

5.3 Lighting conditions?

As above 

6. What role do surrounding conditions (i.e., urban, agricultural area, industrial area, 

woodlands, etc.) play in private crossing safety? 

More developed area = more people around to use crossings. Example: problems in 

Brockville due to youths engaging in risky behavior at crossings 

7. Is there any other anecdotal information or personal experience that you would like to 

share, with respect to overall private crossing safety or a specific problem location?

Idea – put stop sign at every farm crossings 

Pedestrian crossing (at Morgan Rd. ) multiple tracks – a dangerous location. The 

difficulties with the road crossing have been addressed but there is still a pedestrian 

crossing (commuter train station) 

J:\10174\5.0 Design (Work) Phase\Phase 2\Interviews\Interview Notes to be Posted on FTP\Railway Industry Stakeholders\Railway_Industry_#21_2006-06-02.doc\\AED 

A.12 - 121
Safety at Private Crossings – Railway Industry Stakeholder 

#22 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

Regarding railway crossings, what specific crossing locations, approach conditions or 

environmental conditions create an elevated risk of incident, in your opinion? 

Conditions affecting line of sight, including curves in the road, gradients, vegetation, 

visible pollution, and automobile headlights, as they could be confused with train 

headlights. 

Gradients affect a vehicles acceleration time. 

The vehicle type, especially because of the slopes, and the time needed to clear a 

crossing (long vehicles). 

Provide some examples of mitigative measures recommended in the past regarding 

private railway crossings, and comment on their effectiveness to improve safety. 

Transport Canada does not provide those recommendations. Rather, the role of 

Transport Canada is to require the problem to be corrected. Nevertheless, some 

measures that have been beneficial are: 

- the addition of crossing St-André 

- the addition of a sign at private crossings 

- the addition of stop signs 

- the installation of a completely automated system 

- the installation of a system using block repeaters could be effective (the lights are lit 

when there is no train; the lights go out when a train is in the block) 

The question of using low-cost automatic systems is still under investigation since these 

installations must be “fail safe.” They have to do with developing new techniques. 

What difficulties, if any, have you encountered in the past in verifying that 

suggested/required changes were implemented? Were there any particular jurisdictional 

challenges?

Problems are usually settled. 

A.12 - 122
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholder #22 - 2 - May 25, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

What specific changes (with the technical, legislative, educational requirements or other 

areas) would you like to see introduced in order to reduce the risk of collision at private 

crossings?

There exists a lack of tools. It is necessary to better define the requirements in the 

regulations for different types of private crossings and the standards should better define 

what to do at these locations. Also, specific technical standards should be established. 

For example, standards indicate the type of protection (fence or no fence, etc.) when 

there is a crossing providing access to more than one house. 

There should be a contact telephone number affixed to crossings that is not only for 

emergency cases. 

There is currently a subsidy program for farm crossings. It would be useful to have one 

for private crossings as well (particularly to improve the private crossings that have been 

around for a long time.) 

Is there any other information or personal experience that you would like to share 

regarding the overall security of private crossings?

Private crossings have more problems and more users who are not accustomed to the 

crossing type, as opposed to farm crossings, with which users are more familiar. 

There is a significant problem when developers build housing without making a request 

that private crossings be made into public crossings. In this case, the railway lines are not 

sufficiently vigilant and allow the construction of these developments without access. 

The definitions of crossing type (private, farm, open, restricted, etc.) should be cleared up. 

J:\10174\5.0 Design (Work) Phase\Phase 2\Interviews\Interview Notes to be Posted on FTP\Railway Industry Stakeholders\Railway_Industry_#22_2006-06-02.doc\AED 

A.12 - 123
Safety at Private Crossings – Railway Industry Stakeholders 

#23 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

Private Crossings: Agreements signed in the past have been lost during the change of 

ownership of the railroad. It is difficult to find these documents and to do follow-up. The 

new owners do not know about the agreements and their responsibilities. The bigger 

problem occurs when owners of private crossings give approval to other users, without 

informing the railroad of it. The level crossings are not built for everyday use. The 

owners believe that they can do whatever they want. 

Farm Crossings: There are difficulties when an owner only sells land on one side of the 

tracks. The railroad is not informed at the time of the sale of the land. Education is 

necessary in order to avoid these situations. Since 2005, much work has been done to 

close crossings, which are not used. The railroad wants to remove them as quickly as 

possible. 

Over the last 2 years, the railroad has closed ± 10 farm crossings (which were not 

necessary any more because the grounds had been divided) 

Changes in ownership (railroad or landowner) bring confusion. 

The railroad has problems convincing landowners to pay and sign crossing agreements. 

For example, a level crossing providing access to a residence has expenses associated 

with it but the owner does not want to pay. 

Also, there is a problem with several private level crossings because the former owner of 

the railroad began the process of negotiating an agreement with the owners, but there 

was no agreement of concluded. Nonetheless, people use the level crossings anyway. It 

would take a full-time person (for 3 to 4 months) to sort it all out. This would be too 

expensive for the railroad. 

The existing standards for authorizing crossings are sufficient. 

A.12 - 124
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #23 - 2 - April 24, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

Regarding sightlines, the G4-a standard is rather clear and adequate. 

There are situations there where there can be breaks in communications (especially with 

respect to public level crossings) which could cause a doubt in the establishment of 

sightlines, this needs to be clarified. 

The G4-a standard is used primarily. The conservation of sightlines is not easy when 

there are rocks, etc. Sometimes, requests for new crossings result in speed limits being 

imposed in order to have the necessary sightlines. Also, there are difficulties with 

maintenance when the vegetation is not on railway property. It is not easy to access 

private lands (there are a staff and resource shortages) 

The methods outlined in RTD-10 are rather clear. (For public crossings, it is necessary to 

imply the municipalities. For example, the City will install advanced warning signs telling 

the drivers to prepare to stop. The small municipalities do not know about the necessary 

steps the majority of the temps for establishing a crossing) 

Le railroad can generally get the necessary information to calculate sightline 

requirements. On the other hand, it all has to be put in order. It is difficult to approach the 

owners in order to negotiate. 

Regarding new requests, the costs as well as the steps to be followed discourage the 

applicants from proceeding. These people do not know about the regulation and the 

necessary steps. 

The approach slopes are problematic in several places. When there are steep slopes, the 

tractors do not want to stop, therefore, they do not take the time to look around well. This 

is often the cause of situations of near misses. 

The surface of crossing must be kept in good condition (must avoid the ice in winter and 

the holes). 

A.12 - 125
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #23 - 3 - April 24, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

Farm equipment us very broad and farm crossings must be widened in order to 

accommodate it. Private crossings have fewer problems related of the widths of the 

approaches. 

Largest of the problems is with recreational vehicles. The users do not think that there is 

a danger or that there are trains using the tracks. There is a lack of respect and/or 

ignorance of the dangers. The railroad transmits correspondences each autumn 

explaining the dangers associated with the railways, etc., but the railroad does not receive 

replies from the organizations. There are ± 12 snowmobile clubs on the territory, which 

use the private level crossings (they obtain an agreement of the owners before travelling 

on their land). Very often, these level crossings are defined for the exclusive use of the 

owners but the latter are not aware that they should not allow other users to use their 

crossings. The snowmobile clubs are not well informed. The railroad threatened to close 

these level crossings if people do not conform to the regulations. It is necessary that 

these clubs seek other trails because it is a very big problem. Also, especially for railways 

with little traffic, the snowmobiles cause a problem of snow and ice at the level crossings 

because these machines compact snow between the rail and the rut. This can cause a 

derailment and thus more maintenance is necessary. Also, trespassing is a major 

problem with snowmobiles. 

There have been improvements in dealing with contractors. The large contractors all 

know about the steps to be taken during work close to the railway. They were trained. 

On the other hand, small contractors know less the dangers and procedures. The latter 

trust the schedules of the trains and do not think that there can be a train in any time. 

More training and of education is required, particularly with the snowmobile clubs. It 

would be easier if the railroad could contact a provincial association, which would be 

given the responsibility to train their clubs. It is difficult when volunteers manage the 

clubs. 

Regarding owners, they must learn to be more responsible concerning the use of their 

level crossings. If they want to modify the use of their level crossings, they must make a 

request to the railways. 

Concerning the maintenance costs, the owners never want to pay these expenses but 

they want to use their crossings nevertheless (there are especially problems with 

crossings established by the former owner of the railroad whose agreements are not 

easily available) 

A.12 - 126
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #23 - 4 - April 24, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

Every fall and winter, the railroad transmits a letter to the municipalities, explaining the 

dangers associated with level crossings, such as snowdrifts at crossings and poor 

visibility. Also, the railroad explains the dangers with the association of snowmobile clubs 

as well as the problems, which they can cause. 

At private level crossings, additional panels indicating that the crossing is a private 

crossing were added in addition to the crossbucks and of the stop signs.The railroad does 

not install mirrors at crossings. There are very few crossings on curves (5 or 6%). 

On the roughly 200 miles of tracks operated by the railway there must be several hundred 

private crossings. 

The installation of stop signs on each side of the private level crossings is recommended. 

These are reflective and draw the driver’s attention. There is another small railroad, 

which adopted these measures and installed crossbucks with a stop sign at each 

crossing. This would increase safety on the territory. 

It is necessary to improve training and education. It is necessary to clarify the rules with 

the municipalities, the users and the clubs so that they pay more attention. The users 

should be trained to not rely on the schedules of the trains (often, those who are struck by 

trains are those who live near the railways and rely blindly on the schedules, without 

considering the dangers. 

J:\10174\5.0 Design (Work) Phase\Phase 2\Interviews\Interview Notes to be Posted on FTP\Railway Industry Stakeholders\Railway_Industry_#23_2006-06-02.doc\\AED 

A.12 - 127
Safety at Private Crossings – Railway Industry Stakeholders 

#24 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

1. Can you comment on the different challenges, be they technical, administrative, 

jurisdictional, or otherwise, involved in dealing with private crossings “by right” versus 

other types of crossings? 

Problems associates with Farm crossings: 

- the railway has no control over usage; 

- vehicles using crossings change often; 

- safety often not addressed by user; 

- property owners change and new owners are not aware of the dangers of “by 

rights” crossings; 

- difficult for railway to restrict unauthorized use 

- land owners operations can change yet the railway is still responsible for the 

crossing: 

Examples: case where a farm became a golf course and a sod company took over a farm, 

both new owners become upset when their crossings (farm crossing) becomes blocked by 

trains 

2. Are there sufficient technical standards available in order to establish if a private 

crossing should be permitted and under what conditions?

- Uses personal experience. 

- Railways are not required to allow the construction of private crossings, and when they 

do allow them they are governed by an agreement 

- Does not feel that technical standards are required, a location by location assessment is 

performed by CN and by the prospective crossing owner based on the railways 

experience with crossings; 

- All technical standards that are used for public crossings are a resource for private 

crossings. The railway decides if it can build the crossing safely, and the owner must 

follow the restrictions that are placed according to the agreement. 

- Old crossings must be upgraded to meet current requirements. Track supervisors must 

assess the crossing (they have the responsibility to monitor safety) and to modify the 

crossing with the costs assessed as per the agreement. Crossings are closed if needed. 

A.12 - 128
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #24 - 2 - April 24, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

3. Do you have any thoughts regarding the determination or the preservation of 

sight lines at private crossings: 

3.1 G4-A vs. the new requirements taking into account specific vehicle types, as set out 

in RTD-10?

- Not much difference between G4-A and RTD-10, as G4-A indicates that sightlines must 

be increased by 1⁄2 if needed for the type of vehicle. 

- RTD-10 requires the use of a design vehicle. This is based on observation, local 

knowledge and common sense. Example: in Saskatchewan a “super-B truck” 80 feet 

long (3 trailers) is now used, and therefore the railway s must accommodate this vehicle 

at crossings. 

- Private crossings are under agreement. Since the railway is responsible for safety, they 

can barricade a crossing if required to ensure safety. No further restrictions are required. 

- Farm crossings cannot be closed. No additional guidelines are needed. Users must be 

educated. Also, when repairs/modifications are required to approaches, the users must be 

aware not to use the crossing until these approaches have been repaired. 

3.2 Calculation of minimum sight line requirements?

No further rules are required. The railway is responsible to make crossings safe, therefore 

they are responsible for accidents and incidents at farm crossings 

3.3 Are the methods adequate and can the required information be readily collected? 

Sightlines must be determined using common sense and must be monitored by the 

railway. G4-A and RTD-10 are resources only. 

4. Do you feel that the private crossing condition or the approach grades have a 

significant impact on the crossing safety? What associated issues have you 

experienced?

No, they don’t. Experience dictates that private crossing owners must maintain their 

crossings in good shape (maintenance const them money). If the railway is afraid of a 

safety issue they must repair the crossings (at no cost to the railway), there is no excuse. 

-Has not found a private crossing where the grades/planks are unsafe. 

- Farm crossings are similar. If planks are rotten it is an indication that the crossing is not 

used and can be removed (the railway can put the crossing back if it receives a request to 

do so). Farm users are not aware of sightlines, they are aware that they must cross 

safely. 

A.12 - 129
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #24 - 3 - April 24, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

5. In your experience, does the type of vehicle (e.g., passenger vehicles, trucks, heavy 

construction equipment, recreational vehicles, farm equipment, etc.) or certain types of 

users affect the collision risk at private crossings?

Yes. Private crossing owners are less at risk since they have good communication with 

the railway. It is up to CN and the owner to assess the risk and implement proper 

measures or close the crossing. When under agreement the owner has a responsibility 

for use and for costs. It is the railway’s responsibility to ensure safety. The owners are not 

educated concerning risks. 

6. Do you feel that education, awareness or training could be used effectively to address 

a particular type of user or groups of users?

Yes. In the case of private crossings, the agreement becomes a training tool. Owners 

are aware of what they have signed. Transport Canada’s brochures are handed out to 

private crossing owners in order to describe risks & responsibilities. 

As a public works officer, seldom have the occasion to talk directly to owners. Track 

supervisors do communicate with the owners to straighten out issues. 

Snowmobile clubs are getting better as they now install signs along their trails. At 

locations where snowmobiles use old abandoned crossings, the railway closes the 

crossing. It is difficult for clubs with large membership to control all of their members. 

7. What types of mitigating measures have you seen implemented to improve safety or 

address a specific concern at a private crossing? Do you have any suggestions for 

additional remedial measures?

Mitigating measures seen: 

- installation of standard cross buck at private crossings; 

- installation of stop signs at private crossings; 

- locked gates; 

- “Watch for trains” signs; 

- stop signs at farm crossings; 

- implement whistling at certain locations, depending on risk; 

- mirrors have been successful so far, but they must be maintained (correct angle, and 

kept in good condition – sometimes they get used for target practice) 

- Track supervisors provide a report concerning the condition of all crossings in their 

territory (farm, private, public), so conditions are well reported and this allows good follow 

up by the regulatory officer 

Additional suggestions: 

- Close as many crossings as possible (no crossing = no risk); 

- Crossings should be established based on a need and not on a right - not all are needed 

- Transport Canada and the CTA must understand that many crossings that were installed 

a very long time ago and have not been assessed in time, vehicles have changed and 

owners do not understand the need to modify the crossings based on their usage (change 

from horse & buggy to “super B” trucks). 

A.12 - 130
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #24 - 4 - April 24, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

8. Can you suggest any specific changes that you would like to see enacted to reduce 

the risk of incidents at private crossings?

- Correct the false assumption that the ownership of a private crossing comes along with 

the purchase of land. This assumption creates dangers. If the railways were involved 

during the sale of land, they would have the opportunity to discuss the safety and 

responsibility issues related to the crossing. 

9. Is there any other anecdotal information or personal experience that you would like to 

share, with respect to overall private crossing safety or a specific problem location?

No new private crossings have been permitted in the past 2 years in this territory. The 

first answer provided to someone requesting a crossing is to “find another way.” As well, 

often the construction of a crossing is too costly for the owner/user. 

A problem occurred when the City of Saskatoon sold land where there was no legal 

access to the property. An owner cannot sell property with a crossing without negotiating 

rights for the railway crossing. The name on the land title must match the name on the 

crossing agreement. Legally, one cannot provide access to another person’s property. 

In this territory, land is very flat and generally farm crossings are quite safe. There was 

one issue with the CTA (that was only negotiated over the telephone) whereby the railway 

had to accept a crossing with the farmer paying a portion of the costs. 

Few situations are taken to the CTA. 

The railway informs farmers that a crossing may be granted, not as many as they want. 

Usually the need for a crossing is understood, as well as the need to build the crossing 

the right way. There are some grey areas: in particular the definition of “a crossing”, this 

seems to vary by location and becomes problematic when land is subdivided. 

Track supervisors are told that if a crossing is not being used, to take it out. If a farmer 

then complains, the railway will put the crossing back in service after performing a title 

check (land ownership) and ensuring that the person requesting the crossing has the right 

to it. 

Data bases of owners (private crossings) are difficult to maintain, this requires extensive 

follow-up (railway not advised when land is sold). Municipal participation is requested 

when updating the data base of farm crossings, eliminating the need for the railway to 

perform title searches. 

J:\10174\5.0 Design (Work) Phase\Phase 2\Interviews\Interview Notes to be Posted on FTP\Railway Industry Stakeholders\Railway_Industry_#24_2006-06-02.doc\\AED 

A.12 - 131
Safety at Private Crossings – Railway Industry Stakeholders 

#25 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

There have not been a lot of implications to date as Technical Services usually took care 

of these elements. 

He is consulted concerning visibility and obstacles: 

The elements that generate bad visibility are: big slopes, bends, and rock cuts. 

Train speed equally affects visibility. 

There have not been any administrative or jurisdictional issues. 

No issues so far, the existing technical standards are sufficient for determining whether or 

not private crossings should be permitted. 

Rule G4A is presently used for determining sightline distances. 

He does the calculations on the spot according to the rule G4A, especially for the farm 

crossings. 

The calculations for RTD-10 are not so simple/clear. 

Appraisal of methods and availability of data is often an issue of the individual’s 

interpretation of the requirements and depends on experience and knowledge of the 

territory. 

Yes. For example: 

At farm crossings: tractor-trailers with heavy loads can have problems because of the 

approaches. 

The slopes can also create problems for ploughs. 

Long equipment can be problematic, the situation can arise where the tractor is on one 

side of the tracks and the trailer is on the other; this position creates a big risk with 

hanging on the rail. In these situations, the rail can be broken without the driver even 

realizing it. 

Often, issues arise out of a general lack of information. 

A.12 - 132
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #25 - 2 - April 18, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

Long vehicles 

Example: Private crossings at a golf club. The club did the snow clearing at the crossing 

with a small shovel and they were completely unaware of how dangerous their actions 

were. 

Furthermore, if the owners do not clear the snow from their crossing correctly, the snow 

can become very hard. Recently, a train derailed under similar conditions. The owners 

are not aware of the problems that can be created by their actions. 

Again, people often lack information or they are not aware of the dangers. 

Recreational vehicles (e.g., snowmobiles, 4 wheelers) are very dangerous. These users 

do not generally use enough caution/sensibility. 

The conditions can equally be different, depending on the manner in which the crossing 

was built. 

Example: When he was at CN, there were private crossings used by a lot of truck drivers. 

The risk depended on the driver and his education concerning the safe use of the 

crossing. 

Yes. Sensibility is required since there is a general lack of information concerning the 

dangers. 

Example: Snowmobile clubs can have an authorization for a crossing, but these clubs do 

not give any information to the users. The railways feel powerless facing the clubs, etc. 

since there is an impact on the local economy (tourism) if the crossings are closed on a 

trail. 

There are no mirrors used on the territory of the CFMG, but maybe it would be 

advantageous to some to add them in places with rock cuts. 

There is a lack of information from the municipalities. The municipalities should have to 

consult the railways before issuing a construction permit. 

Example: A municipality granted a construction permit for cottages, when the lone access 

was through a farm crossing. As a result the people now use this crossing as municipal 

access. The municipalities are not concerned with the status of the crossings. They 

should have to try to channel traffic towards a public crossing that is already built. 

A.12 - 133
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #25 - 3 - April 18, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

The municipalities should me made aware of the required procedures concerning private 

crossings, especially regarding construction permit agreements (these problems rarely 

exist for the public crossings). They should have to consult the railways before issuing 

permits. 

J:\10174\5.0 Design (Work) Phase\Phase 2\Interviews\Interview Notes to be Posted on FTP\Railway Industry Stakeholders\Railway_Industry_#25_2006-06-02.doc\AED 

A.12 - 134
Safety at Private Crossings – Railway Industry Stakeholders 

#26 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

Technical challenges: The configuration (slope and width); the number of level 

crossings (many); how to improve the existing level crossings at farms (in comparison, the 

new private level crossings, can refer to RTD-10 and can refuse some if it is necessary); 

in general, tries to avoid building new level crossings at farms but must agree to build 

some even if the conditions are not ideal because these owners have a right acquired to 

the passage.

Administrative challenges: How to control the use of these level crossings. In the case 

of the level crossings at farms, it is extremely difficult to make the follow-up with the 

owners and the users (sale of grounds etc). It will be necessary to develop regulations 

considering this reality. In the case of the new private level crossings, they are built and 

signposted according to RTD-10. A contract is signed between the parties, which makes 

management much easier. 

Jurisdictional challenges: The closing of level crossings at farms, or even the refusal, is 

difficult when an owner decides to involve the Office of Transport. The OTC can grant the 

right to conserve/construct the level crossing even if the railroad, supported by Transports 

Canada, wishes to close it or not to allow the construction of a new level crossing at a 

farm, for reasons of safety. 

The technical standards are rather clear. The regulations suggested prohibited the 

construction of all level crossings when the speed of the trains is more 80mph. On the 

other hand, the legal standards lack precision, for example, the number of level crossings 

of per lot or owner, or over a certain length of the way, is not defined. 

A.12 - 135
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #26 - 2 - April 13, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

i) RTD-10 must be simplified in order to apply it to the level crossings at farms. 

Necessary time to cross to the passage must be provided. The type of 

vehicle using the level crossings at farms changes very quickly. Concerning 

the level crossings at farms and the private level crossings, precise 

information that will be required by RTD-10 concerning the vehicles is seldom 

available. With respect to the private level crossing of a company, the level 

crossing is built according to the standards for public level crossings, and 

information is usually available. Given how serious the consequences of an 

accident can be, we also have to use our best judgement to determine the 

sightlines, e.g., increase necessary time in comparison with the necessary 

time calculated according to RTD-10. 

ii) It is difficult to apply RTD-10 to the site. It is necessary to have a simple 

chart, which could be applied by the personnel on the spot. Also, it is difficult 

to apply the new requirements to existing level crossings. 

iii) It is necessary to simplify the procedures, necessary information are not 

available for the level crossings at farms. For the majority of the private level 

crossings, too much research is necessary in order to obtain the information 

from the owners. 

The technical element having the most impact seems to be the visibility. The second 

element seems to be the configuration including the slope, especially for farm crossings. 

It is difficult to establish the sedentary maximum slope, in order to make sure that the 

equipment does not get hung-up on the tracks. The equipment using the crossings 

changes with time. The modernization of the equipment creates a risk because the level 

crossings at farms were not conceived with consideration this equipment. The railroads 

are not specialists in farm equipment (dimensions, acceleration, etc.). 

Equipment such as trucks "low-beds" can get hung-up on the rails because of the 

approaches. It seems however that we have fewer accidents at farm crossings in 

comparisons with the private crossings because there is often public access to the private 

crossings. 

The various types of vehicles can generate variances on the severity of the consequences 

of an accident. The farm equipment seems less problematic because their users know 

their equipment well and are aware of the risks associated with it. 

The collision risk, in my opinion, is associated with the users more than with the vehicles. 

There is often a lack of concentration on the part of the drivers, which generates a more 

significant risk for collisions. Also, there is a higher risk when the users trust the usual 

hours planned for the passage of the trains. 

A.12 - 136
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #26 - 3 - April 13, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

Education is a good tool, but more training and awareness is necessary. This would be 

an effective means to improve safety with the level crossings. The creation of targeted 

advertising campaigns, including the setting in specific situation would be probably 

beneficial (e.g. of the advertisements to television directed to the users of farm or private 

crossings). More training is provided for public level crossings (by the railroads with the 

municipalities and by Transports Canada) compared to what is made for the private level 

crossings. When the railroad is in liaison with the users of the private level crossings, 

there is indirect training/awareness. Concerning farm crossings, there is little or no 

contact with the owners. The railroads do not have a database of the owners. The track 

supervisor is, in many cases, the only contact with these people. 

Mitigating measurements: 

- To require the trains to sound their whistles; 

- The addition of mirrors improves the visibility. 

- "Walk/Don' T walk" pedestrian signals (at farm crossings); 

- Automatic Warning Systems (for transport companies, factories, etc.). 

Suggestions: 

- To consolidate level crossings in order to eliminate some; 

- To give responsibility for the maintenance of the approaches of the level farm 

crossing owners (as has been done for the private crossings). 

To set up subsidies for automated systems at level crossings with public access (e.g. 

country cottages, etc.) especially those which are pseudo-public level crossings. This 

would improve safety and could interest the municipalities to take part. Also, by improving 

these level crossings, it could make it possible to close other level crossings in the vicinity. 

More initiative on the part of Transport Canada and the Office of transportation of Canada 

to consolidate and close level crossings, e.g. proactive approach, contact the owners in 

order to offer subsidies. 

A.12 - 137
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #26 - 4 - April 13, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

The pseudo-public level crossings seem more at risk. They cannot be closed because 

they give access to several properties and must also give access to emergency services. 

The railroad does not have control over the users. The right to use the level crossing is 

usually given to an owner, but, as an example in the case of access to a country cottage, 

several residences can be added without the railroad being informed, so they don’t have a 

chance to intervene. The possibility that several users use the level crossing is very 

probable. Level crossings at farms as well as the level crossings without restricted 

access are exposed to this type of risk. 

J:\10174\5.0 Design (Work) Phase\Phase 2\Interviews\Interview Notes to be Posted on FTP\Railway Industry Stakeholders\Railway_Industry_#26_2006-06-02.doc\AED 

A.12 - 138
Safety at Private Crossings – Railway Industry Stakeholders 

#27 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

1. Can you comment on the different challenges, be they technical, administrative, 

jurisdictional, or otherwise, involved in dealing with private crossings “by right” versus 

other types of crossings? 

Technical:

Farm crossings – problems with existing crossings. Crossings were placed where the 

farmer wanted them, not necessarily at the safest place. More vigilance is applied today. 

The type of equipment used at farm crossings today is larger machinery As equipment 

usage has changed over the years as the technology of moving goods has changed. 

Existing conditions do not support the type of equipment that is now used. Owners should 

be required to pay to upgrade their crossing according to the usage of unusual vehicles. 

Technical information isn’t always available. 

Example: farm crossings typically 16 to 20 feet wide in the past. Now, equipment 

(combines, sprayers, etc.) now require 40 feet plus for crossing surfaces. Trucks are 

heaver and longer than the 5 ton truck used in the past. 

Administrative:

Small private crossings for residential use are almost impossible to close, no matter how 

dangerous they can be. 

Example: 1.) Cost to protect crossing may exceed users’ ability to pay, however still need 

crossing to access home. 

2.) A property having access via a small private crossing can get subdivided and lots sold 

off. The crossing then becomes a “de facto” public crossing that the railway is responsible 

for (no road authority involved). 

A.12 - 139
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #27 - 2 - March 15, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

1. Can you comment on the different challenges, be they technical, administrative, 

jurisdictional, or otherwise, involved in dealing with private crossings “by right” versus 

other types of crossings? 

Continued:

A solution to this type of problem is to implement a requirement that developers’ permits 

be screened by adjacent land owners (including the railways). Some improvement has 

been seen in the Edmonton area in this regard. 

Jurisdictional:

Have received rulings form the CTA in the past that were based on convenience, not 

necessarily on safety. The CTA must be more critical in their definition of necessity 

versus convenience. 

There is room for involvement from the CTA to help reduce the number of crossings. A 

push to consolidate crossings has not been seen from the CTA. 

2. Are there sufficient technical standards available in order to establish if a private 

crossing should be permitted and under what conditions?

Currently use the Highway-Railway Grade crossing regulations, Transport Canada 

sightlines, the TAC Manual and RTD-10. These are also used at private and farm 

crossings within limitations. 

Small private crossings can be difficult because the owners are not aware of these 

standards and cannot provide adequate information in order to use the standards easily. 

These can be the worst type of crossing. 

Larger private crossing (i.e. industries) can usually provide the required information. 

The railways use the standards to ensure that crossings meet the requirements. 

A.12 - 140
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #27 - 3 - March 15, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

3. Do you have any thoughts regarding the determination or the preservation of 

sight lines at private crossings:

3.1 G4-A vs. the new requirements taking into account specific vehicle types, as set out 

in RTD-10?

RTD-10 will be hard to achieve due to the lack of information available regarding vehicle 

types that are used at these crossings. This information is not often available to the 

railway. 

Currently use G4-A and increase the time by 50% for vehicles or grades. 

Some relaxing of the rules may be required for certain types of crossings, such as for low 

use private crossings, or seasonal crossings (snowmobile trails that are only used for part 

of the year). 

Preservation of sight lines: Private crossings achieve G4-A requirements when they are 

installed. However, the areas around these crossings get built up later (sheds, hay bales, 

trees, etc. sometimes intentionally to reduce noise from the railway tracks). The owners 

are not aware of the importance of the preservation of sightlines. As well, there is a lack 

of information regarding the responsibility of the owner/user in this regard. 

3.2 Calculation of minimum sight line requirements?

Currently use G4-A + 50%. 

Applicants do not understand the requirements, and it may become necessary to involve 

engineering firms for this. 

3.3 Are the methods adequate and can the required information be readily collected?

It becomes questionable if the methods using G4-A plus 50% is adequate. A past study 

undertaken by Transport Canada regarding truck acceleration showed that trucks can 

require as much as 30 seconds plus to cross tracks. G4-A + 50% is not sufficient in these 

cases. 

Always try to account for the vehicle type when an applicant is requesting a crossing. 

However, the railways are not always provided with the correct information. 

A.12 - 141
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #27 - 4 - March 15, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

4. Do you feel that the private crossing condition or the approach grades have a 

significant impact on the crossing safety? What associated issues have you 

experienced?

Grades play a major role in the clearance time. 

Approaches must be well kept, the gravel approaches must be well maintained and may 

not have an earth crossing within the distance of the largest vehicle using the crossing in 

order to ensure that the vehicle can get onto and off of the tracks as quickly as possible. 

The approaches must be well maintained to ensure that the vehicle has good traction. 

Curvature of the approaches just after a crossing must be carefully considered (example: 

a fork in the road just after the crossing) 

The build up pf signage can block sightlines (example: small business signs) 

5. In your experience, does the type of vehicle (e.g., passenger vehicles, trucks, heavy 

construction equipment, recreational vehicles, farm equipment, etc.) or certain types of 

users affect the collision risk at the private crossing?

Yes. 

Vehicles: Large slow moving vehicles at industrial crossings with passive signs, where no 

whistling is required are dangerous. Similar for farm crossings. 

Users: The most dangerous are drivers paid by the haul, they are always in a rush. 

(ATVs and snowmobiles cause few problems at crossings, clubs are not bad at self 

policing, this is more of a trespassing issue) 

6. Do you feel that education, awareness or training could be used effectively to address 

a particular type of user or groups of users?

Yes. However, one can give a lot of information out, but driver attitude will still be the 

controlling factor. 

Example: Transport Canada has brochures designed specifically for users of farm and 

private crossings. These are given out when a crossing is granted. 

Large industries having Health and Safety officers are not bad, their drivers are aware of 

safety issues. It is much more difficult to impose industry safety rules on independent 

drivers; however safety should be part of their contract to work. 

A.12 - 142
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #27 - 5 - March 15, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

7. What types of mitigating measures have you seen implemented to improve safety or 

address a specific concern at a private crossing? Do you have any suggestions for 

additional remedial measures?

Anything that is used at public crossings can be used at a farm or private crossing, 

including full automatic warning systems although this is often a last resort due to the cost 

and is more common at industries. 

Mirrors have been installed at farm crossings. 

Flagmen (private) have been used at location where many close calls were observed. 

Example: an industry where a high number of independent drivers used the crossing was 

advised that their crossing would be closed unless they used a flagman to ensure that no 

vehicles crossed the tracks when trains were approaching. This initiative was also 

backed by Transport Canada. 

Small independent crossing owners cannot afford signal systems. Transport Canada 

should make funding available to these owners, especially in situations where the 

crossing usage has changed. 

Crossings should be consolidated and closed. This is especially desirable in cases where 

warning systems become necessary, it is better to build a road to a public road, or use a 

better crossing location. 

8. Can you suggest any specific changes that you would like to see enacted to reduce 

the risk of incidents at private crossings?

Grant fewer crossings 

There is a need for more awareness of the standards required, it is difficult for residential 

applicants to understand the requirements and to provide the required information. 

Must continue to refuse to grant crossings. Once a crossing had been refused, applicants 

then take their case to the CTA. The CTA’s role is to arbitrate concerning the necessity of 

the crossing, the application does not include information required to review the safety of 

the crossing. While the CTA does consult Transport Canada, the CTA often does not 

require detailed plans, therefore it is not possible for Transport Canada or the railway to 

determine if the crossing is safe. 

More consultation is required concerning the minimum information required for a proper 

review. 

A.12 - 143
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #27 - 6 - March 15, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

9. Is there any other anecdotal information or personal experience that you would like to 

share, with respect to overall private crossing safety or a specific problem location?

There are now as many farm and private crossings as public crossings. Some work has 

been done with Transport Canada to consolidate public crossings. Would like to see 

Transport Canada become involved in the consolidation of private crossings (in terms of 

funding). Currently the $5000 that Transport Canada grants for the closure of a 

farm/private crossing is the only funding available. 

Railways need the backing of Transport Canada in order to get municipalities involved in 

cases regarding access to cottages etc., in order to build a common road for landowners 

(need finding to purchase land and for construction). 

J:\10174\5.0 Design (Work) Phase\Phase 2\Interviews\Interview Notes to be Posted on FTP\Railway Industry Stakeholders\Railway_Industry_#27_2006-06-02.doc\\AED 

A.12 - 144
Safety at Private Crossings – Railway Industry Stakeholders 

#28 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

Requests for new crossings: the railroad generally refuses them in order to avoid the 

addition of level crossings on their network. At present, these three railroads together 

have more than 200 private level crossings or farm crossings on 1130 miles of railway. 

When a request is received, the railroad warns the applicant to re-examine the 

surrounding level crossings in order to close some or to combine the crossings before 

building new ones. Until now, there no was call to TC. 

Existing Crossings: these level crossings are re-examined if the SMS (Safety 

Management System) requires it, or according to an incident/investigation. These 

crossings are re-examined according to the RTD-10 guidelines. Following the evaluation, 

there are level crossings, which change status (2 recent cases). 

When there are recommendations put forth to the owners by the railroad, the owners 

accept them because they want to preserve their level crossings. To date, a complete 

database of these level crossings is under development. This is a challenge because of 

the resources required. 

An administrative challenge is the lack of contracts in certain cases or the clauses 

concerning maintenance. This railroad is a small railroad, which has bought lines of a 

"Class 1" railway company in 1997; the original documents are often missing. 

There are sufficient technical standards for determining if private crossings should be 

allowed. At the legal or regulatory level, if they oppose the TC requirements, since RTD10 is not yet the official standard, it could create difficulties. 

The G4-a standard is not used. RTD-10 is the basic tool for a detailed evaluation for new 

requests. 

Calculations are done according to the requirements' of RTD-10. The observations are 

made on the spot and a detailed evaluation is made with the agent. 

The information is available and the methods are adequate. However, to collect 

information, that takes resources and time. 

The standard is current and applies relatively well (RTD-10). 

A.12 - 145
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #28 - 2 - April 19, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

Absolutely, crossing surface and approach conditions affect crossing safety. 

For example, a company, which refills cisterns for propane gas has a private level 

crossing where the slopes are not adequate, the approaches will have to be re-examined. 

The visibility is inadequate also. There have been dangerous incidents there. 

Yes, the type of vehicle is important. 

For example, the company that refills cisterns for propane gas has many tankers for 

propane/gasoline. The municipal regulation requires that the supply center be enclosed 

(protected). This causes a problem with the private level crossing approaches; there are 

fences on each side of the crossing, which increases the possibility of obstructions 

("queuing") from these trucks full of dangerous goods. A better geometric configuration 

and the installation of barriers would help decreased the risk. 

Technically, it is a private level crossing, but contactors also use it. Also, there are ±30 

passages per day, which is far more than the 2 outlined in the agreement. 

The education/training/awareness could be effective if there were penalties enforceable 

by the law to support the actions. 

Information is provided when an applicant makes an application for a level crossing. The 

owners understand the importance of safety but do not invest in improvements if they do 

not have obligations to do so. 

The work of Transport Canada/Direction 2006 is very good. There could be even more 

awareness training aimed at the public. 

Changes to standards, as well as changes to existing level crossings, over time, create 

non-conforming crossings. 

Observations to date: private level crossings and farm crossings do not have automatic 

warning systems. The approaches (levelling) and the sightlines are significant. Lighting 

and fences are installed were need. 

Last year, there was a crossbuck installation program for private crossings (work was 

carried out by a private contractor) 

Convex mirrors could be also added, at particular locations. 

A.12 - 146
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #28 - 3 - April 19, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

Transport Canada could create a data-processing tool in order to index the data in the 

field, plus an algorithm, which would give requirements following the data-processing 

analysis, would be useful. 

RTD-10 is not easy to put into action within a day or two because of the resources it 

requires. Prioritisation is thus needed to determine what needs to be done first. 

It is unfortunate that there are not enough resources for the small railways. 

Until RTD-10 becomes obligatory by legislation, the thing to do would be to urge the 

provincial and municipal governments to close level crossings (not to open some). At 

present, no municipality is taking the initiative to close level crossings. It seems that they 

do not know about the benefit associated with closures. 

The financial assistance should be offered for the construction of alternative means of 

access (i.e., not rail crossings). The current Transport Canada practice of giving 

subsidies of $5000 (private) and $20 000 (public) for crossing closures is not sufficient. 

J:\10174\5.0 Design (Work) Phase\Phase 2\Interviews\Interview Notes to be Posted on FTP\Railway Industry Stakeholders\Railway_Industry_#28_2006-06-02.doc\\AED 

A.12 - 147
Safety at Private Crossings – Railway Industry Stakeholders 

#29 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

The majority of these crossings were constructed many years ago. Often it is impossible 

to get in touch with the owner when the land has been sold. The owners sell or subdivide 

the grounds without informing the railroad. Thus there are difficulties because the railroad 

does not have control, nor are they informed. 

It would be necessary to make sure that the passages meet the minimal standards of 

today, on the other hand it can be very expensive to modify certain level crossings in 

order to be in conformity with the standards of today. 

Over of the years, there are cases where certain level crossings were granted “by right,” 

ignoring the existing laws of the time and the crossings should not be considered level 

crossings “by grace." When this type of crossing is removed and that thereafter the 

owner makes a request to get it back, it is difficult to convince people that they do not 

have the right to have a level crossing. 

With regard to farm crossings, the owners can do what they want with them, example: 

change of vocation, subdivision, etc. With regard to private level crossings, there are few 

technical standards. For example, there are no applicable technical standards for the 

level crossings for all terrain vehicles or snowmobiles. There are many risks associated 

with these types of level crossings and there are more and more crossings of this type. 

Equally, concerning companies that ask for private level crossings, there are few technical 

standards, but one can use those that apply to public level crossings. However, the 

difficulties arrive when owners ask for level crossings for use by cars, small trucks, or for 

the personal use, but later, they start to use it for larger equipment and the level crossing 

is not conceived for this use. 

There are no standards to control the change of vocation of a level crossing and are there 

not of standards to support the decision of the railroads to prohibit the access to them. 

A.12 - 148
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #29 - 2 - April 19, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

The vehicle type used at a level crossing is often difficult to determine. Transport Canada 

should make a study with RTD-10 in order to check if the requirements of the G4-A 

standard would not be always acceptable. It is necessary to simplify the analysis and the 

data requirements. At present, the railroad uses the G4-A standard for the sightlines 

during inspections. In my opinion, new RTD-10 seems to give results similar to the G4-A 

standard. 

The track supervisors are responsible for maintaining sightlines. RTD-10, in its current 

form, is too complicated to use for the private level crossings. In general, it is complicated 

for a track supervisor to use RTD-10 on the site and it is not very practical (not very "userfriendly"). 

Normally, information is extracted according to discussions' with the applicant. It 

becomes more difficult in the cases of change of vocation, (e.g. in the beginning, a user 

having a house uses its crossing for access with a car but later the owner builds a garage 

for 18-wheel trucks, etc.) 

There are problems with approach slopes. There are many cases of steep slopes and 

especially on dirt tracks, ice forms quickly in winter. It thus becomes difficult to go up to 

the approaches and moreover, to descend a slope slipping towards the railway increases 

the risk of accidents. Perhaps other recommendations could be made in order to increase 

necessary time according to G4-A? For example to include more adjustments which 

could be applied in order to take account of particular conditions. 

When inspecting a level crossing, it is necessary to inspect the sightlines according to the 

sitting position in a vehicle, because there is a great difference in visibility between this 

position and that a person standing trackside. 

The surface of a crossing must be well maintained. If the surface is jolty, the vehicles will 

slow down and take more time to cross the tracks. 

Slow vehicles, as well as the slow and long vehicles bring more risks. Also, low vehicles 

("flatbeds") can have difficulty because they rub on the rail and get wedged (there were 

recent incidents of this nature). 

Equally, I was recently a witness at an incident with a truck at an un-signed level crossing. 

The approaches were gravel. The truck-driver did not stop, but rather slowed down until 

the level crossing and accelerated thereafter. He did not have the chance to check well if 

a train approached. The truck could easily have been struck by a train. In this case, the 

sightlines were not adequate for the user of the level crossing. 

A.12 - 149
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #29 - 3 - April 19, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

It is not very probable that the education/training makes a great difference. The public 

adopts an attitude, which is difficult to change. There is a complacency, which is well 

anchored in the practices of the users. 

People cross the crossings 10 times per day during several years and believe that they 

are in control. It is difficult to reverse this attitude. It would be perhaps useful to reinforce 

the idea that a train can circulate in any time, on the mainlines. 

Attenuating measures include: 

• The installation of mirrors in the event of lack of visibility 

• The mirrors can help 

• Applicable to level crossings having a very low volume only, that will 

not be adequate for situations with many users 

• Stop signs 

• Were installed at farm crossings on two complete subdivisions 

• These signs are more effective because people are accustomed using 

them 

Other suggestions: 

• On the high-speed lines, install signs indicating to pay attention because 

there are trains at high-speed. These panels will have to be standardized, 

especially for the less frequent users. 

• At the places where there is a geographical situation, which could divert the 

attention of the user, add a sign reminding them to look around and use 

mirrors at the places where it is warranted, etc. 

• To have Transport Canada subsidies in order to improve these level 

crossings. 

A.12 - 150
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #29 - 4 - April 19, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

Require owners to make the necessary investments/improvements to the level crossings. 

Often level crossings built 70 years ago are adequate for use of today. The vocation often 

changes. At the time, small vehicles used the crossings, now large trucks use them. 

Also, there are level crossings, which gave access to small companies, but these 

companies have changed and the public now has access to these places via the small 

level crossing. 

Have a requirement, which would require the owner to warn the railroad when there are 

changes of crossing usage. 

Obligation for the owners of private crossings to combine level crossings and build ways 

on the private properties in order to connect them together. There are many situations 

where there are 4 or 5 crossings in a distance of ± 500 feet. Also, it would be desirable to 

have subsidies for this work. 

A.12 - 151
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #29 - 5 - April 19, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

It would be significant to educate the municipalities and lawyers implied in the sales of 

land. The problem is that the municipalities and the lawyers do not always check if there 

is a legal access to a property at the time of a sale. There is no communication with the 

railroad during this process. Often, the new owner does not have any right to have a level 

crossing. There should be a legislation to force the municipalities to make necessary 

research to check if there is a legal access to the properties, before the purchase or the 

construction of a residence. 

It would be significant to have subsidies form Transport Canada in order to improve the 

safety of level crossings as much as the public level crossings. 

Often, if the railroad refuses to grant a level crossing, thereafter the applicant implies the 

CTA. The CTA decides that the applicant has the right to have a level crossing because it 

is landlocked. In these cases, the CTA should be a little more reticent with these 

requests. For example, with a distance X (to be determined) of a public level crossing, 

there should not be private level crossing. One should try not to increase the number of 

private level crossing. For example, a resident asks to have a level crossing which 

existed 60 years ago and which was dismantled 20 years ago. In this type of situation, 

the CTA should require a look at the possibility of having access other than by a private 

crossing. 

A recent example: The railroad refused to grant a level crossing (the applicant did not 

have the right to have one). Then, the applicant demanded a private level crossing but did 

not want to pay to have it (construction and maintenance). The railroad tried to convince 

the applicant to build a driveway towards another level crossing. There is one on each 

side, a public and private. This alternative would be probably less expensive than the 

adjustment of a new level crossing. Clear standards should be established. 

The owner has the impression that the railroad is responsible for all and expects to 

receive this access without large expenditure. It would be better to have additional 

support from Transport Canada (non-financial), such as a more active participation in the 

closing of level crossings. 

J:\10174\5.0 Design (Work) Phase\Phase 2\Interviews\Interview Notes to be Posted on FTP\Railway Industry Stakeholders\Railway_Industry_#29_2006-06-02.doc\\AED 

A.12 - 152
Safety at Private Crossings – Railway Industry Stakeholders 

#30 

Applicability – Internal use only: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

1. In your opinion, what specific crossing placements, approach scenarios, or 

surrounding conditions create an elevated risk of incidents at private crossings? 

- Steep approach grades; 

- Poor sightlines due to curves, brush, rock cuts; 

- Road intersections very close to crossing generating conditions where there is not 

enough room for a tractor with a trailer. 

M 

C, V 

2. Please, provide some examples of mitigation measures recommended in the past at 

private crossings, and comment on their effectiveness in improving private crossing 

safety. 

- Any measures taken are usually taken against the Railway, however Transport 

Canada may apply measures against a private individual or against a road authority 

as well; 

- Measures applied against the railway usually consist of slow orders which are 

required until remedial measures have been applied. The application of slow orders 

is very effective; 

- Transport Canada often participates in meetings with the railway and the crossing 

owner when there are difficulties, and may discuss appropriate measures to be 

taken; 

- Rarely suggests the addition of mirrors, while may be effective at crossings used by 

an individual farmer, they can also have problems due to the reflection of the sun at 

certain times of day, and they may also fog up; 

- Rarely suggests the addition of stop signs at farm crossings; 

- Often suggests improvements to approach grades; 

- Transport Canada may refuse to allow the construction of a crossing for a given 

reason, if the elements based on which the crossing was refused are corrected, 

Transport Canada may not refuse to permit the installation of a crossing. 

C 

C 

S 

S 

M 

R 

3. What, if any, difficulties have you encountered in the past in ensuring that the 

changes suggested/requested are put in place? Have there been any particular 

jurisdictional challenges? 

Few difficulties have been experienced. Most railways and municipalities will react quickly 

if a “Notice & Order” is issued, although these are rarely issued. The threat of a “Notice & 

Order” is often sufficient to generate a response. 

A.12 - 153
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #30 - 2 - May 15, 2006 

Applicability - Internal use only: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

4. What specific changes (to technical requirements, legislation, education or other 

areas) would you like to see implemented to reduce the risk of collisions at private 

crossings? 

The coming into effect of the new regulation and associated standard (RTD-10) will be 

adequate. Once the regulation will have been enacted, education will be required for the 

preparation of Safety Assessments (as well, the safety assessments are too detailed and 

he feels that this process needs to be modified and simplified). 

He feels that RTD-10 is applicable at farm and private crossings. 

R 

5. Is there any other anecdotal information or personal experience that you would like to 

share, with respect to private crossing safety? 

To his knowledge, no difficulties have arisen in Ontario due to the sale or subdivision of 

land having a private or farm crossing. In his experience, the railways are always aware of 

upcoming developments and are involved. He is not aware of any situations where land 

was sold without proper access. 

In the past (10 years ago) there seem to have been more safety issues with these types 

of crossings. Crossing surfaces and grades have been improved, and crossing 

approaches have been widened to accommodate larger farm equipment. 

As well, the crossing closures program has been effective due to the efforts made by the 

railways in encouraging owners to close crossings. 

U 

J:\10174\5.0 Design (Work) Phase\Phase 2\Interviews\Interview Notes to be Posted on FTP\Railway Industry Stakeholders\Railway_Industry_#30_2006-06-02.doc\\AED 

A.12 - 154
Safety at Private Crossings – Railway Industry Stakeholders 

#31 

Applicability – Internal use only: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

1. In your opinion, what specific crossing placements, approach scenarios, or 

surrounding conditions create an elevated risk of incidents at private crossings? 

All farm and private crossings are dangerous simply by their existence, 

The government has no control over design and placement regarding safety matters for 

these types of crossings. There are no legislative requirements for Transport Canada to 

oversee the design, or location of these crossings. This will partly be mitigated by the 

proposed crossings legislation to be enacted as this proposed legislation will address the 

main issues. 

The biggest issue is that there is no control by a railway or by Transport Canada over the 

vehicles used at farm crossings, often these were built for use by horse and buggy. Now 

large vehicles with hazardous materials use these crossings. By law, the users have the 

right to cross. (RTD 10 will help this issue – design vehicle requirement) 

2. Please, provide some examples of mitigation measures recommended in the past at 

private crossings, and comment on their effectiveness in improving private crossing 

safety. 

Not many mitigating measures recommended by Transport Canada 

At some locations the following are used: 

 convex mirrors 

 Block indicators or lights indicating the presence of trains are of assistance 

. 

Transport Canada does not regulate the design of these types of crossings. They must 

ensure that is safe from railway point of view. Generally, railways do not consult TC for 

these. 

Obviously, if Transport Canada sees one with an obvious threat to safety, they will act. 

3. What, if any, difficulties have you encountered in the past in ensuring that the changes 

suggested/requested are put in place? Have there been any particular jurisdictional 

challenges? 

Transport Canada cannot order road authority / private owner to make changes, instead 

Transport Canada can place speed restrictions on the railway as the railway is 

responsible for ensuring safety. In the past, Transport Canada has encouraged the 

railways to act with individuals, this works reasonably well. 

Transport Canada will intervene when there is an immediate threat to safety. 

A.12 - 155
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #31 - 2 - March 20, 2006 

Applicability - Internal use only: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

4. What specific changes (to technical requirements, legislation, education or other 

areas) would you like to see implemented to reduce the risk of collisions at private 

crossings? 

Putting the proposed legislation & RTD-10 into place is an absolute must, as quickly as 

possible. Under the current legislation there is no clear definition of who is responsible for 

safety, this will be remedied by the proposed new regulation (including the associated 

technical standard RTD-10) 

Transport Canada and the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) have a good 

relationship. The CTA is only involved in cases of dispute and they always consult 

Transport Canada if they are involved. If the CTA is not involved, Transport Canada does 

not necessarily know that a crossing will be put in. The CTA rules based on the legal right 

to a crossing. Transport Canada has no ability to deny a crossing, they may only provide 

recommendations based on safety that may make the crossing prohibitive. 

. 

5. Is there any other anecdotal information or personal experience that you would like to 

share, with respect to private crossing safety? 

Generally, road use on farm and private crossing is fairly low. Generally they don’t pose 

as high a threat as is associated with the higher level-of-use of public crossings. 

In the prairies there seems to be fairly good knowledge by farmers as they are closely 

linked to the railway. They seem to be a bit more aware than farmers in other regions. 

There have been few accidents in the 3 Prairie provinces. 

Transport Canada is involved with railways for closure of farm crossings. However, there 

has been somewhat limited success to date. There is little incentive for the farmers to 

close the crossings. Even if the crossing gets closed, they can apply and have it put back 

into place. There is a bit of a “disconnect” between the CTA and the farm crossing 

closures program, this needs to be clarified. 

Private and farm crossings typically fall below the radar, Transport Canada does not have 

a database of these crossings and does not inspect them unless there is a problem 

(manpower issue). There are probably about 4000 private/farm crossings in Manitoba, 

Saskatchewan and Alberta. 

J:\10174\5.0 Design (Work) Phase\Phase 2\Interviews\Interview Notes to be Posted on FTP\Railway Industry Stakeholders\Railway_Industry_#31_2006-06-02.doc\\AED 

A.12 - 156
Safety at Private Crossings – Railway Industry Stakeholders 

#32 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

Locomotive engineers familiarize themselves with the locations and conditions of private 

crossings on their subdivisions through experience, trial and error, and the shared 

experiences of other engineers. They are provided with subdivision profiles; however, the 

lack of details in the profiles seriously limits their usefulness. 

T 

Crossing conditions generally change very slowly over time (as brush, trees grow along 

the right-of-way). However, when brush or trees grow to a size where there inhibit 

sightlines, it can be a challenge and can take a significant while to get sightlines cleared 

when the obstruction originates on private lands. 

O 

For safety sake, the railways should be granted the authority to clear sightline 

obstructions that originate on private lands after a significant notification period, if the 

landowners do not act on their own. 

R 

Locomotive engineers encounter some type of unsafe behaviour/activity on virtually every 

trip (e.g., stalled vehicles on the tracks, cars or people playing “chicken” with the train, 

ATVs or snowmobiles on the tracks, people not paying attention/distracted by other 

activities – cell phones are a major distracter). 

C 

One of the major detriments to crossing safety in western Canada is the installation/use of 

farm gates at private crossings. All too frequently crossings users will park their vehicles 

across the tracks when they get out of their vehicles to unlock/open the gates. 

C 

In situations where farm gates a deemed necessary for farming activities or access 

control, the gates should have to be set back (100m) from the railway right-of-way. Texas 

gates could be used as an alternative to farm gates to prevent livestock from wandering 

onto the railway right-of-way. 

S 

A.12 - 157
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #32 - 2 - May 24, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

Based on experience, the worst types of users are as follows: 

1. Passenger vehicles (particularly SUVs and old beaters); 

2. Farm equipment and bulk fuel delivery vehicles; 

3. Commercial trucks (tractor trailers); 

4. Bicycles; and 

5. Recreational vehicles (ATVs, dirt bikes, and snowmobiles). 

V 

The railways have a near miss policy; however, “most near misses go unreported.” The 

justification is that the relative speeds of trains and vehicles make getting the required 

details virtually impossible. As such, nothing generally results of reporting a near miss, 

and engineers take to opinion that it is not worth their effort to make a report. A 

conservative estimate is that 75% of near misses don’t even get called in. 

R 

The following features have a significant impact on crossing safety: 

• Crest of hill – limits sightlines; 

• Sidings – no crossing should ever be authorized over/near a siding; 

• Crossing surface condition – poor conditions causes an increase in crossing 

time; 

• The number of tracks – second train issues, greater exposure 

• Multiple users served by a single crossing – lakeside cottages or 

subdivisions. 

C 

Extreme weather conditions have a significant impact on crossing safety, particularly 

weather events that reduce visibility (e.g., hoarfrost, whiteouts). The fact that whistle 

posts have a white backing doesn’t help in these conditions. 

C 

A.12 - 158
Safety at Private Crossings 

Railway Industry Stakeholders #32 - 3 - May 24, 2006 

Applicability: 

A – Arbitration or Negotiations, C - Collision Risk/Safety Issues, M – Crossing Maintenance, 

O - Operations and Maintenance Procedures, R - Regulations, S – Crossing Security and Access, 

T- Training/Awareness, U – Crossing Utilization, V – Types of Vehicles, W – Warning System/Signage 

Discussion Item Applicability 

Time-of-day and/or time-of-year factors affect crossing safety. For example, holidays and 

rush-hour spikes in traffic volumes increase the probability that an incident will occur 

(increased exposure). 

 

C 

Lighting conditions affect visibility and crossing safety; darker conditions allow for greater 

contrast and it is easier to spot headlights, whereas well-lit crossings are easier to 

navigate. 

C 

Industrial areas are particularly dangerous, because of their characteristic close quarters 

and buildings that extend to the edge of the railway right-of-way. 

C 

Suggestions: 

• Billboards and other roadside distractions/obstructions should not be 

allowed near crossings; 

• The industry should move towards building more parallel access roads rather 

than more private crossings; and 

• The railway authorities should close or consolidate as many private crossings 

as possible. 

C 

Has been involved in several (including fatal) crossing collisions and has vivid firsthand 

understanding/appreciation of the dangers and impacts. 

J:\10174\5.0 Design (Work) Phase\Phase 2\Interviews\Interview Notes to be Posted on FTP\Railway Industry Stakeholders\Railway_Industry_#32_2006-06-02.doc\\AED 

A.12 - 159
A.12 - 160
A.12 - 161
A.12 - 162
A.12 - 163
A.12 - 164
A.12 - 165
A.12 - 166
A.12 - 167
A.12 - 168
A.12 - 169
A.12 - 170
A.12 - 171
A.12 - 172
A.12 - 173
A.12 - 174
A.12 - 175
A.12 - 176
Government of

Saskatchewan RTS 2003

Section:

STANDARDS Provincial Railway

 Technical Standards Subject:

PRIVATE CROSSINGS

Date

2003 09 11

Page

1 of 3

GENERAL: Private crossings provide access to industrial sites, private properties 

or other areas not open to the public, or provide grade level crossings 

of tracks within such sites.

Responsibilities for design, construction and maintenance of private 

crossings are to be delegated by private agreement between the railway 

and property owner.

Design and maintenance must, at a minimum, be to the standards 

described in this section.

RTS 2003.1 CROSSING ATTRIBUTES

CROSSING SURFACE: Flangeway Width: Minimum: 65 mm

 Maximum: 100 mm 

Flangeway Depth: Minimum: 50 mm

 Maximum: Top of crosstie

Thickness: Dependant on material and attachment method

 Wear Tolerance: Top of rail to top of surface: ± 50 mm

Performance 1. Surfacing to be installed level with top of

Requirements: rails.

2. Flangeway must be maintained and 

gauge side of rail protected at all times.

3. Surfacing material to be selected to 

provide stability and wear resistance. 

4. Crossing surfacing must provide riding 

surface for crossing vehicles, but need 

not provide continuous plane across 

crossing.

5. Non-standard crossing surfaces may be 

utilized with agreement of property 

owner and written approval of railway 

inspector.

CROSSING WIDTH: 1. Crossings surfaces shall be constructed to a width as agreed 

to, in a written agreement, between the railway and the 

property owner.

2. All such agreements as referred to above, and any 

changes/modifications made thereto, must be copied to the 

department. 

A.12 - 177
Government of

Saskatchewan RTS 2003

Section:

STANDARDS Provincial Railway

 Technical Standards Subject:

PRIVATE CROSSINGS

Date

2003 09 11

Page

2 of 3

APPROACHES: 1. Approaches are to be constructed and maintained by the 

property owner.

2. Gradient approaching and leaving a crossing shall be at the 

discretion of the property owner. Gradient shall not be so 

steep as to pose risk of equipment hanging up on track or 

causing damage to track.

3. Crossing shall be level across the track.

4. Approaches shall have provisions to allow free drainage or 

passage of water from one side of the approach to the other 

side. 

5. Any damage to the track, rail bed or railway property during 

or after installation of the crossing approach is the 

responsibility of the property owner.

2003.2 AGREEMENTS

MAINTENANCE: 1. Crossings shall be maintained in accordance with the 

standards set out herein and with any other requirements 

specifically defined in the crossing agreement between the 

railway and the property owner.

2. All such crossing agreements and any 

changes/modifications made thereto, must be copied to the 

department. 

3. Costs and labour for maintenance and installation of 

crossings shall be determined in accordance with the 

crossing agreement. 

2003.3 SIGNAGE

DISCRETIONARY 1. Discretionary signage may be added to the SRCS post

SIGNAGE: and/or the AWS post as appropriate upon approval by a 

railway inspector.

2. Discretionary signage may be ordered installed by the 

railway inspector where required. 

3. All discretionary signage must be listed in this section or 

adhere to standard design and materials as listed below.

4. At no time shall any equipment, sign, fence or permanent or 

temporary structure be placed within the clearance box of 

the railway track without the written consent of the railway.

A.12 - 178
Government of

Saskatchewan RTS 2003

Section:

STANDARDS Provincial Railway

 Technical Standards Subject:

PRIVATE CROSSINGS

Date

2003 09 11

Page

3 of 3

LOOK

760

210 210

150

300

50

LOOK SIGN Look sign is installed directly below the SRCS (or stop sign 

where appropriate) to increase driver attention to the need to 

look in both directions for oncoming train traffic.

Look signs are installed where, in the opinion of a railway 

inspector, additional caution is required by traffic due to 

partially obscured sightlines (due to topography, structures or 

vegetation) or driver attention may be distracted or drawn away 

from the crossing.

Look signs are to be installed only at the discretion of a railway 

inspector, however road authorities or railways may request a 

recommendation from an inspector.

 

 All dimensions in millimetres

BUMP AHEAD Bump ahead sign is installed below AWS sign to warn of 

rough crossing surface. This sign should be temporary until 

the rough crossing surface is repaired.

WHISTLE POSTS: 1. Whistle posts are to be placed at a distance from the 

crossing that provides 20 seconds advance warning to 

motorists prior to the train reaching the crossing.

2. Whistle posts in place prior to these guidelines must be 

relocated to ensure the correct warning time is provided to 

road traffic approaching grade crossings unless otherwise 

temporarily approved by a railway inspector.

3. Whistle boards are to be installed adjacent to the rail track 

outside of the clearance box, but clearly visible to the 

operating personnel.

A.12 - 179

Appendix A.13 

UNITED KINGDOM: Level Crossing to 

Which the Public Have Access – Guidance on 

Legislation and Enforcement 

 RGD-2005-03 

A.13 - 1
HM Railway Inspectorate 

& Safety Policy Directorate

Rail Guidance Document 

RGD-2005-03 

LEVEL CROSSINGS TO WHICH THE PUBLIC HAVE ACCESS – 

GUIDANCE ON LEGISLATION AND ENFORCEMENT

Open Government Status Fully Open 

Date of issue/last review 09/01/2006 Date of next review 23/05/2009 

RGD postholder/owner Topic Strategist - Level Crossings: 

National Team (where appropriate) Level Crossing NET 

RGD cleared by

RGD type Policy_____________________

Information________________ 

Procedure_________________ 

Target audience HMRI____________________ 

Policy____________________ 

Inspectors________________ 

Admin___________________ 

Assign to block Process/New Legislation_____ 

Topic/Technical____________ 

Stakeholder Management____ 

Legal____________________ 

Business Support/Transition__ 

Keywords LEVEL CROSSINGS; PUBLIC ACCESS; STANDARDS; ENFORCEMENT

Summary This Rail Guidance Document (RGD), gives guidance on the health and 

safety legislation governing level crossings to which the public has 

access and gives advice to Inspectors on the approach to be adopted 

when considering enforcement action. 

Page 1 of 10 

A.13 - 2
Detail 1 The purpose of this RGD is to give guidance on the appropriate 

legislation to be used when enforcing physical standards at level 

crossings in England and Wales. Similar advice may be appropriate for 

level crossings in Scotland, but different legal provisions may

apply.Enforcement for crossing misuse is dealt with in RGD-2004-08. 

2 Level crossings currently present the largest source of train accident 

risk. There are some 7,800 railway level crossings on the mainline 

railway and a further 1,000 or so on heritage railways and in docks and 

other industrial premises. 

3 Definition of ‘crossing operator’ – The crossing operator referred to in 

this RGD is the company that manages the railway. In relation to the 

Level Crossings Act 1983 (LCA) (as amended) it is defined as the 

organisation responsible for maintenance of the permanent way at the 

crossing. In most cases on the national network this will be the 

infrastructure controller, Network Rail, although in some cases such as 

freight only lines it may be a train operator such as EWS. 

LEVEL CROSSING TYPES AND STATUS 

4 Historically crossings have been categorised as public or private; this 

status is fundamental to the ways in which protection methods are 

specified and provided. 

5 Public crossings are either vehicular, bridleway, or footpath 

crossings; the crossing operator has a duty to ensure that the crossing 

is properly maintained, safe and suitable for use. Public level crossings 

are normally authorised under an Act of Parliament, Consent, or Light 

Railway Order. [Not to be confused with Level Crossing Orders (made 

under the LCA) which only specify or modify protection arrangements]. 

6 Private crossin gs are usually vehicular crossings but can be 

footpath or bridleway crossings. The crossing operator has a duty to 

provide certain protective facilities but there is a greater responsibility on 

the authorised user to ensure the crossing is used safely, for example 

obeying any warning signs, closing the gates, or using the telephone (if 

one is provided) before crossing. 

7 Crossings to which the public have access. Private crossings may 

become ‘crossings to which the public have access’ due to 

circumstances such as changes in land use, or adoption of private roads 

by local authorities. In these circumstances the protection methods may 

have to be reviewed. 

Public vehicular crossings 

8 “Public carriage road” level crossings were created and identified by 

name in the original Act of Parliament, which authorised the construction 

of the railway The relevant Act normally incorporates section 47 of the

Page 2 of 10 

A.13 - 3
Railways Clauses Consolidation Act 1845. Some crossings may have 

been authorised under subsequent Railway Acts, for example where a 

new road was required to cross an existing railway. The construction of 

new crossings may be authorised under an Order made under the 

Transport and Works Act 1992 (section 1). 

Public bridleway and footpath crossings 

9 These crossings are not specifically identified by name in the original 

Act authorising the construction of the railway, but have been authorised 

using alternative powers such as those in s46 of the Railways Clauses

Consolidation Act 1845 for highways other than public carriage roads. 

Private crossings 

10 Private crossings were installed when the railway was built, for the 

benefit of farmers and other individuals whose land was divided by the 

railway. These are either: 

Accommodation level crossings built to let landowners gain 

access to their land when it was divided by the railway; or 

Occupation level crossings built to access private dwellings, 

farm buildings etc, when a private access (‘occupation’) road was 

crossed by the railway. 

11 Inspectors should be aware that some private level crossings with 

limited protection are being used by members of the public as a result of 

changes in land use or by the public gaining access to the countryside. 

The crossing operator should be monitoring these situations and 

understand the type (vehicular or pedestrian) and amount of additional 

usage. As an independent regulator it is HMRI’s responsibility to ensure 

that the crossing operator controls the risks on the infrastructure. In 

such situations the crossing operator should risk assess the crossing 

and ensure that there is adequate protection for the type and level of 

usage or move to close or secure the crossing to prevent additional use. 

Combined crossings 

12 There may be locations where more than one crossing type exists 

side by side, for example a private road and adjacent public footpath. 

These should be treated as two separate crossings with their own safety 

arrangements. 

PROTECTION ARRANGEMENTS 

Public vehicular crossings 

13 Generally these crossings will have a Level Crossing Act Order if 

they have been upgraded or changed since 1983. Crossings built under 

the original railway Act had to have “Good and sufficient gates and

Page 3 of 10 

A.13 - 4
employ a proper person to operate them” with the crossing either open 

to rail or to road. Most of these have been upgraded and those that 

remain are generally distinguished by the presence of mechanical gates 

and a signal box overlooking the crossing. When the protection 

measures at a crossing require to be upgraded the provisions of the 

original Act are modified by a level crossing Order.1

14 A small but significant number of crossings are covered by 

‘consents’ made under various pieces of other Railway Legislation, such 

as Light Railway Orders, or consents under the Road and Rail Traffic 

Act 1933. Inspectors should be aware that many of these look very 

similar to a Level Crossing Order, but are not enforceable. 

15 The relevant Order for the crossing will specify the signs, signals, 

road markings and method of operation of the crossing. 

Public bridleway and footpath crossings

16 Generally these crossings may have a Level Crossing Act Order if it 

they have been upgraded or changed since 1983. 

17 Gates or stiles normally protect these crossings. Gates should be 

self-closing without any latches and should open away from the railway. 

It is essential to provide the same facility at each side of the crossing 

(i.e. gates and stiles are not intermixed at one crossing, and both gates 

must be of the same width) so that users do not become trapped on the 

crossing. Miniature red and green warning lights may be provided 

where sighting distance is limited and, as a last resort, whistle boards 

provided to give further warning of an approaching train. 

18 It should be possible for horse riders to open gates on bridleway 

crossings without dismounting, unless there is a risk of contact with 

overhead power lines. 

Private crossings

19 These crossings generally do not have Level Crossing Act Orders; 

they are provided with signs and basic protective measures, usually 

hand operated gates or barriers and sometimes telephones. Their safe 

operation relies on the user operating them properly. Signs are 

specified under the Private Crossings (Signs and Barriers) Regulations 

1996. As with footpath crossings, red and green warning lights or 

whistle boards are sometimes used to reinforce the basic protection 

measures provided. 

Guidance on protection arrangements 

20 Full guidance on protection arrangements is detailed in HS(G)153/6 

Railway Safety Principals & Guidance (RSPG) part 2 section E. 

However the requirements of the RSPG are not retrospective and

Page 4 of 10 

A.13 - 5
protection arrangements that were specified prior to 1996 may not 

comply with the current guidance. 

ENFORCEMENT 

Public crossings - Securing changes to existing protective 

arrangements or requiring new protective arrangements 

21 In this situation Inspectors should use the LCA 1983, as the 

requirements are more specific than the general requirements of HSWA.

 22 A Notice can be issued requiring the crossing operator to seek a 

new level crossing order or requiring changes to an existing order. 

Such a Notice would be issued under the LCA 1983. Inspectors should 

consult the Level Crossing National Expertise Team (see paragraph 32) 

if they are considering a formal enforcement notice in these 

circumstances. 

Public Crossings - Failing to maintain existing protective 

arrangements 

23 Protective arrangements are normally specified in a LCA Order. It is 

a requirement under Reg 3(1) of the Level Crossing Regulations 1997 to 

comply with the requirements of a Level Crossing Order and failure to 

do so constitutes an offence. An Improvement Notice (under HSWA) 

can be used where appropriate to require compliance with a LCA Order 

(an example of an IN is attached as appendix 1). Note that the 

requirements of an Order are absolute and not subject to a “reasonable 

practicability” test unless explicitly permitted in the Order. 

24 Where deficiencies in the protection arrangements are noted EMM 

should be applied to determine the risk gap. A list of matters to consider 

is given in appendix 2. Serious deficiencies to the decking or in the 

boom’s mechanism may warrant a notice. The method of operation of 

the crossing will normally also be a relevant matter. 

25 Simple non-compliance with a Level Crossing Order such as 

incorrect signage should be brought to the attention of the crossing 

operator and confirmed in writing. It may be worthwhile reminding 

crossing operators that motorists might have a technical defence of 

improper use of the crossing if they can show that incorrect or deficient 

signage was provided at the crossing. It is the responsibility of the 

crossing operator in the first instance to liaise with the Highway 

Authority to rectify any problems with signs. 

26 Disputes involving the Highway Authority regarding the maintenance 

of signage, cutting back of vegetation etc. should be discussed with both 

the crossing operator and the Highway Authority. 

Non-vehicular crossings 

Page 5 of 10 

A.13 - 6
27 These are mainly footpath crossings. The HSWA will be the primary 

legislation to apply at such crossings since the majority of issues likely 

to arise are concerned with vegetation clearance, decking and sighting 

times, which are not generally covered by other legislation. 

Private crossings 

28 The crossing operator has a duty to provide a safe and suitable 

crossing. Subsequent changes in use may require increased protection 

arrangements, however there may be difficulties in actioning and 

funding these as most crossing operators believe they have limited 

liability under the original railway Act. This can lead to disputes and 

delays and Inspectors may have to intervene to ensure that safety is 

maintained, (e.g. by prohibiting increased use until suitable protective 

arrangements are in place). Any changes introduced by the crossing 

operator (e.g. increased speeds over a crossing) would make the 

crossing operator liable for upgrading the crossing. 

29 A common failing by users of private crossings is to leave gates 

open. This is an offence under the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act 

1845 and Transport and Works Act 1992 but is not enforceable by HSE. 

Inspectors should liaise with the BTP or other relevant police forces over 

the investigation of such offences. 

30 Where the user is a duty holder under the HSWA, (e.g. a farmer), 

and the crossing is used in the course of the conduct of a business, or 

employment, inspectors should consider enforcement against the misuser under S3 of HASWA, (see RGD 08-2004-08 for more information 

and liaison arrangements) 

FURTHER INFORMATION AND CONTACT 

31 Inspectors will come across a range of level crossings made under 

different legislation in the course of their work. Guidance on the 

category of individual crossings can be obtained from the HSE Level 

Crossing Database, (currently under development), or from the crossing 

operator directly. 

32 For information on legal operational matters arising from this RGD 

please contact S Johnston or M Whitham (Scotland Team) or for 

technical matters John Tilly, Level Crossing NET. 

1

 Historically this was done by using powers in various pieces of 

legislation but is now done by making an Order under the LCA that 

specifies the protection arrangements for the individual crossing

Page 6 of 10 

A.13 - 7
Earlier Orders made under s66 of the British Transport 

Commission Act 1957 and under s124 of the Transport Act 1968 

are effectively considered as Orders made under s10(A) of the 

LCA 1983.

APPENDIX 1 

 Improvement Notice

Page 7 of 10 

A.13 - 8
To: Name Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd 

Addres

s 

40 Melton Street 

London NW1 2EE 

Trading 

as 

Network Rail 

Inspector's 

full name 

I, ***** ********** 

Inspector's 

official 

designation 

one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Health and Safety, being an Inspector 

appointed by an instrument in writing made pursuant to section 19 of the 

said Act and entitled to issue this Notice 

Official 

address 

of Rose Court, 2 Southwark Bridge, London SE1 9HS 

Telephone 

number 

01234 56780 

hereby give you notice that I am of the opinion that 

Location of 

premises or 

place of 

activity 

at Summer House Automatic Half Barrier Level Crossing, 

Lincolnshire 

you, as The level crossing operator 

are contravening the following statutory provisions : ̃

Regulation 3(1) of the Level Crossing Regulations 1997 

The British Railways (Summer House Level Crossing) Order 1989

The reasons for my said opinion are: 

That you are failing to comply with the requirements of the level 

crossing Order 

Date for 

compliance 

and I her eby requir e y ou to remedy the said 

contraventions 

or, as the case may b e, the matters 

occasioning them, by

30th April 2004

[SM1]and I direct that the measures specified in 

the Schedule which forms part of this Notice shall 

be taken to remedy the said contraventions or 

matters 

Signature .............................................................................. Date 

............................... 

[SM2]An Improvement Notice is also being served 

on 

Page 8 of 10 

SEE NOTES 

OVERLEAF or 

ATTACHED 

A.13 - 9
The said contraventions shall be remedied by: 

1. Repair or replacement of the crossing surface between both Stop 

lines so as to create ‘a good and even surface’ removing all tripping 

hazards as required by item 22 of Schedule 2, Part II of the Level 

Crossing Order. 

2. Applying White Lining, and fitting reflective road studs, in 

accordance with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General 

Directions 2002 as required by items 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Schedule 

2, Part I of the Level Crossing Order. 

3. Applying Yellow box marking, in accordance with the Traffic Signs 

Regulations and General Directions 2002 as required by item 15 of 

Schedule 2, Part I of the Level Crossing Order. 

4. Repair or replacement of the cattle-cum-trespass guards as

required by item 20 of Schedule 2, Part I of the Level Crossing 

Order 

5. Review of the system of inspection, maintenance and repair of level 

crossing defects and implementation of a time bound action plan to 

develop a system to ensure that the requirements of the Level 

Crossing Order are complied with. 

A.13 - 10
Rail Guidance Document 

APPENDIX 2 

When inspecting crossings, the critical physical standards to consider are as 

follows:

a) The condition and safety of the decking system over the crossing - both 

from the car driver and pedestrian viewpoint. Loose or poorly fitted 

decking is a risk to users and could also derail a train. Where 

proprietary (removable unit type) decking is used, end restraints to 

prevent the units moving along the track are an important safety 

feature. 

b) At automatic public vehicular level crossings, the vertical road profile - 

this should be designed and maintained to prevent grounding of long 

low road vehicles. 

c) Vegetation clearance - to ensure that signs and warning equipment are 

visible and not obscured, and at footpath, bridleway and user-worked 

crossings the sighting distances for trains are maintained. 

Vegetation clearance on the highway is the responsibility of the 

Highway Authority, but the crossing operator may need to raise this 

with the Highway Authority. 

d) Cattle/trespass guards –should be provided where livestock is regularly 

moved over the crossing, or where there is a significant risk of trespass 

by pedestrians. Guards should be provided on all crossings where the 

railway is electrified by a live conductor rail and be accompanied by a 

gap in the conductor rail. Where fitted, guards should be in sound 

condition with no missing or loose rails. 

e) All road markings such as white line/yellow box markings/ reflective 

studs detailed in the crossing Order are the responsibility of the 

crossing operator (including the centre of carriageway markings on the 

crossing approach). The use of rubber surfaced crossings has resulted 

in the need to renew road markings on crossings more frequently. 

f) Signage detailed in the crossing Order is the responsibility of the 

crossing operator. Other signage (usually warning signage) is the 

responsibility of the Highway Authority 

Page 10 of 10 

A.13 - 11
[SM1]Delete or strike-through if no Schedule[SM2]Delete or strike-through 

[SM2]Delete or strike-through these four lines if not required 

A.13 - 12
HM Railway Inspectorate 

& Safety Policy Directorate

Rail Guidance Document 

RGD-2005-03 

LEVEL CROSSINGS TO WHICH THE PUBLIC HAVE ACCESS – 

GUIDANCE ON LEGISLATION AND ENFORCEMENT

Open Government Status Fully Open 

Date of issue/last review 09/01/2006 Date of next review 23/05/2009 

RGD postholder/owner Topic Strategist - Level Crossings: 

D. Whitmarsh 

National Team (where appropriate) Level Crossing NET 

RGD cleared by

RGD type Policy_____________________

Information________________ 

Procedure_________________ 

Target audience HMRI____________________ 

Policy____________________ 

Inspectors________________ 

Admin___________________ 

Assign to block Process/New Legislation_____ 

Topic/Technical____________ 

Stakeholder Management____ 

Legal____________________ 

Business Support/Transition__ 

Keywords LEVEL CROSSINGS; PUBLIC ACCESS; STANDARDS; ENFORCEMENT

Summary This Rail Guidance Document (RGD), gives guidance on the health and 

safety legislation governing level crossings to which the public has 

access and gives advice to Inspectors on the approach to be adopted 

when considering enforcement action. 

Page 1 of 10 

A.13 - 13
Detail 1 The purpose of this RGD is to give guidance on the appropriate 

legislation to be used when enforcing physical standards at level 

crossings in England and Wales. Similar advice may be appropriate for 

level crossings in Scotland, but different legal provisions may 

apply.Enforcement for crossing misuse is dealt with in RGD-2004-08. 

2 Level crossings currently present the largest source of train accident 

risk. There are some 7,800 railway level crossings on the mainline 

railway and a further 1,000 or so on heritage railways and in docks and 

other industrial premises. 

3 Definition of ‘crossing operator’ – The crossing operator referred to in 

this RGD is the company that manages the railway. In relation to the 

Level Crossings Act 1983 (LCA) (as amended) it is defined as the 

organisation responsible for maintenance of the permanent way at the 

crossing. In most cases on the national network this will be the 

infrastructure controller, Network Rail, although in some cases such as 

freight only lines it may be a train operator such as EWS. 

LEVEL CROSSING TYPES AND STATUS 

4 Historically crossings have been categorised as public or private; this 

status is fundamental to the ways in which protection methods are 

specified and provided. 

5 Public crossings are either vehicular, bridleway, or footpath 

crossings; the crossing operator has a duty to ensure that the crossing 

is properly maintained, safe and suitable for use. Public level crossings 

are normally authorised under an Act of Parliament, Consent, or Light 

Railway Order. [Not to be confused with Level Crossing Orders (made 

under the LCA) which only specify or modify protection arrangements]. 

6 Private crossin gs are usually vehicular crossings but can be 

footpath or bridleway crossings. The crossing operator has a duty to 

provide certain protective facilities but there is a greater responsibility on 

the authorised user to ensure the crossing is used safely, for example 

obeying any warning signs, closing the gates, or using the telephone (if 

one is provided) before crossing. 

7 Crossings to which the public have access. Private crossings may 

become ‘crossings to which the public have access’ due to 

circumstances such as changes in land use, or adoption of private roads 

by local authorities. In these circumstances the protection methods may 

have to be reviewed. 

Public vehicular crossings 

8 “Public carriage road” level crossings were created and identified by 

name in the original Act of Parliament, which authorised the construction 

of the railway The relevant Act normally incorporates section 47 of the

Page 2 of 10 

A.13 - 14
Railways Clauses Consolidation Act 1845. Some crossings may have 

been authorised under subsequent Railway Acts, for example where a 

new road was required to cross an existing railway. The construction of 

new crossings may be authorised under an Order made under the 

Transport and Works Act 1992 (section 1). 

Public bridleway and footpath crossings 

9 These crossings are not specifically identified by name in the original 

Act authorising the construction of the railway, but have been authorised 

using alternative powers such as those in s46 of the Railways Clauses 

Consolidation Act 1845 for highways other than public carriage roads. 

Private crossings 

10 Private crossings were installed when the railway was built, for the 

benefit of farmers and other individuals whose land was divided by the 

railway. These are either: 

Accommodation level crossings built to let landowners gain 

access to their land when it was divided by the railway; or 

Occupation level crossings built to access private dwellings, 

farm buildings etc, when a private access (‘occupation’) road was 

crossed by the railway. 

11 Inspectors should be aware that some private level crossings with 

limited protection are being used by members of the public as a result of 

changes in land use or by the public gaining access to the countryside. 

The crossing operator should be monitoring these situations and 

understand the type (vehicular or pedestrian) and amount of additional 

usage. As an independent regulator it is HMRI’s responsibility to ensure 

that the crossing operator controls the risks on the infrastructure. In 

such situations the crossing operator should risk assess the crossing 

and ensure that there is adequate protection for the type and level of 

usage or move to close or secure the crossing to prevent additional use. 

Combined crossings 

12 There may be locations where more than one crossing type exists 

side by side, for example a private road and adjacent public footpath. 

These should be treated as two separate crossings with their own safety 

arrangements. 

PROTECTION ARRANGEMENTS 

Public vehicular crossings 

13 Generally these crossings will have a Level Crossing Act Order if 

they have been upgraded or changed since 1983. Crossings built under 

the original railway Act had to have “Good and sufficient gates and

Page 3 of 10 

A.13 - 15
employ a proper person to operate them” with the crossing either open 

to rail or to road. Most of these have been upgraded and those that 

remain are generally distinguished by the presence of mechanical gates 

and a signal box overlooking the crossing. When the protection 

measures at a crossing require to be upgraded the provisions of the 

original Act are modified by a level crossing Order.1

14 A small but significant number of crossings are covered by 

‘consents’ made under various pieces of other Railway Legislation, such 

as Light Railway Orders, or consents under the Road and Rail Traffic 

Act 1933. Inspectors should be aware that many of these look very 

similar to a Level Crossing Order, but are not enforceable. 

15 The relevant Order for the crossing will specify the signs, signals, 

road markings and method of operation of the crossing. 

Public bridleway and footpath crossings

16 Generally these crossings may have a Level Crossing Act Order if it 

they have been upgraded or changed since 1983. 

17 Gates or stiles normally protect these crossings. Gates should be 

self-closing without any latches and should open away from the railway. 

It is essential to provide the same facility at each side of the crossing 

(i.e. gates and stiles are not intermixed at one crossing, and both gates 

must be of the same width) so that users do not become trapped on the 

crossing. Miniature red and green warning lights may be provided 

where sighting distance is limited and, as a last resort, whistle boards 

provided to give further warning of an approaching train. 

18 It should be possible for horse riders to open gates on bridleway 

crossings without dismounting, unless there is a risk of contact with 

overhead power lines. 

Private crossings

19 These crossings generally do not have Level Crossing Act Orders; 

they are provided with signs and basic protective measures, usually 

hand operated gates or barriers and sometimes telephones. Their safe 

operation relies on the user operating them properly. Signs are 

specified under the Private Crossings (Signs and Barriers) Regulations 

1996. As with footpath crossings, red and green warning lights or 

whistle boards are sometimes used to reinforce the basic protection 

measures provided. 

Guidance on protection arrangements 

20 Full guidance on protection arrangements is detailed in HS(G)153/6 

Railway Safety Principals & Guidance (RSPG) part 2 section E. 

However the requirements of the RSPG are not retrospective and

Page 4 of 10 

A.13 - 16
protection arrangements that were specified prior to 1996 may not 

comply with the current guidance. 

ENFORCEMENT 

Public crossings - Securing changes to existing protective 

arrangements or requiring new protective arrangements 

21 In this situation Inspectors should use the LCA 1983, as the 

requirements are more specific than the general requirements of HSWA.

 22 A Notice can be issued requiring the crossing operator to seek a 

new level crossing order or requiring changes to an existing order. 

Such a Notice would be issued under the LCA 1983. Inspectors should 

consult the Level Crossing National Expertise Team (see paragraph 32) 

if they are considering a formal enforcement notice in these 

circumstances. 

Public Crossings - Failing to maintain existing protective 

arrangements 

23 Protective arrangements are normally specified in a LCA Order. It is 

a requirement under Reg 3(1) of the Level Crossing Regulations 1997 to 

comply with the requirements of a Level Crossing Order and failure to 

do so constitutes an offence. An Improvement Notice (under HSWA) 

can be used where appropriate to require compliance with a LCA Order 

(an example of an IN is attached as appendix 1). Note that the 

requirements of an Order are absolute and not subject to a “reasonable 

practicability” test unless explicitly permitted in the Order. 

24 Where deficiencies in the protection arrangements are noted EMM 

should be applied to determine the risk gap. A list of matters to consider 

is given in appendix 2. Serious deficiencies to the decking or in the 

boom’s mechanism may warrant a notice. The method of operation of 

the crossing will normally also be a relevant matter. 

25 Simple non-compliance with a Level Crossing Order such as 

incorrect signage should be brought to the attention of the crossing 

operator and confirmed in writing. It may be worthwhile reminding 

crossing operators that motorists might have a technical defence of 

improper use of the crossing if they can show that incorrect or deficient 

signage was provided at the crossing. It is the responsibility of the 

crossing operator in the first instance to liaise with the Highway 

Authority to rectify any problems with signs. 

26 Disputes involving the Highway Authority regarding the maintenance 

of signage, cutting back of vegetation etc. should be discussed with both 

the crossing operator and the Highway Authority. 

Non-vehicular crossings 

Page 5 of 10 

A.13 - 17
27 These are mainly footpath crossings. The HSWA will be the primary 

legislation to apply at such crossings since the majority of issues likely 

to arise are concerned with vegetation clearance, decking and sighting 

times, which are not generally covered by other legislation. 

Private crossings 

28 The crossing operator has a duty to provide a safe and suitable 

crossing. Subsequent changes in use may require increased protection 

arrangements, however there may be difficulties in actioning and 

funding these as most crossing operators believe they have limited 

liability under the original railway Act. This can lead to disputes and 

delays and Inspectors may have to intervene to ensure that safety is 

maintained, (e.g. by prohibiting increased use until suitable protective 

arrangements are in place). Any changes introduced by the crossing 

operator (e.g. increased speeds over a crossing) would make the 

crossing operator liable for upgrading the crossing. 

29 A common failing by users of private crossings is to leave gates 

open. This is an offence under the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act 

1845 and Transport and Works Act 1992 but is not enforceable by HSE. 

Inspectors should liaise with the BTP or other relevant police forces over 

the investigation of such offences. 

30 Where the user is a duty holder under the HSWA, (e.g. a farmer), 

and the crossing is used in the course of the conduct of a business, or 

employment, inspectors should consider enforcement against the misuser under S3 of HASWA, (see RGD 08-2004-08 for more information 

and liaison arrangements) 

FURTHER INFORMATION AND CONTACT 

31 Inspectors will come across a range of level crossings made under 

different legislation in the course of their work. Guidance on the 

category of individual crossings can be obtained from the HSE Level 

Crossing Database, (currently under development), or from the crossing 

operator directly. 

32 For information on legal operational matters arising from this RGD 

please contact S Johnston or M Whitham (Scotland Team) or for 

technical matters John Tilly, Level Crossing NET. 

1

 Historically this was done by using powers in various pieces of 

legislation but is now done by making an Order under the LCA that 

specifies the protection arrangements for the individual crossing

Page 6 of 10 

A.13 - 18
Earlier Orders made under s66 of the British Transport 

Commission Act 1957 and under s124 of the Transport Act 1968 

are effectively considered as Orders made under s10(A) of the 

LCA 1983.

APPENDIX 1 

 Improvement Notice

Page 7 of 10 

A.13 - 19
To: Name Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd 

Addres

s 

40 Melton Street 

London NW1 2EE 

Trading 

as 

Network Rail 

Inspector's 

full name 

I, ***** ********** 

Inspector's 

official 

designation 

one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Health and Safety, being an Inspector 

appointed by an instrument in writing made pursuant to section 19 of the 

said Act and entitled to issue this Notice 

Official 

address 

of Rose Court, 2 Southwark Bridge, London SE1 9HS 

Telephone 

number 

01234 56780 

hereby give you notice that I am of the opinion that 

Location of 

premises or 

place of 

activity 

at Summer House Automatic Half Barrier Level Crossing, 

Lincolnshire 

you, as The level crossing operator 

are contravening the following statutory provisions : ̃

Regulation 3(1) of the Level Crossing Regulations 1997 

The British Railways (Summer House Level Crossing) Order 1989

The reasons for my said opinion are: 

That you are failing to comply with the requirements of the level 

crossing Order 

Date for 

compliance 

and I her eby requir e y ou to remedy the said 

contraventions 

or, as the case may b e, the matters 

occasioning them, by

30th April 2004

[SM1]and I direct that the measures specified in 

the Schedule which forms part of this Notice shall 

be taken to remedy the said contraventions or 

matters 

Signature .............................................................................. Date 

............................... 

[SM2]An Improvement Notice is also being served 

on 

Page 8 of 10 

SEE NOTES 

OVERLEAF or 

ATTACHED 

A.13 - 20
The said contraventions shall be remedied by: 

1. Repair or replacement of the crossing surface between both Stop 

lines so as to create ‘a good and even surface’ removing all tripping 

hazards as required by item 22 of Schedule 2, Part II of the Level 

Crossing Order. 

2. Applying White Lining, and fitting reflective road studs, in 

accordance with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General 

Directions 2002 as required by items 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Schedule 

2, Part I of the Level Crossing Order. 

3. Applying Yellow box marking, in accordance with the Traffic Signs 

Regulations and General Directions 2002 as required by item 15 of 

Schedule 2, Part I of the Level Crossing Order. 

4. Repair or replacement of the cattle-cum-trespass guards as

required by item 20 of Schedule 2, Part I of the Level Crossing 

Order 

5. Review of the system of inspection, maintenance and repair of level 

crossing defects and implementation of a time bound action plan to 

develop a system to ensure that the requirements of the Level 

Crossing Order are complied with. 

A.13 - 21
Rail Guidance Document 

APPENDIX 2 

When inspecting crossings, the critical physical standards to consider are as 

follows:

a) The condition and safety of the decking system over the crossing - both 

from the car driver and pedestrian viewpoint. Loose or poorly fitted 

decking is a risk to users and could also derail a train. Where 

proprietary (removable unit type) decking is used, end restraints to 

prevent the units moving along the track are an important safety 

feature. 

b) At automatic public vehicular level crossings, the vertical road profile - 

this should be designed and maintained to prevent grounding of long 

low road vehicles. 

c) Vegetation clearance - to ensure that signs and warning equipment are 

visible and not obscured, and at footpath, bridleway and user-worked 

crossings the sighting distances for trains are maintained. 

Vegetation clearance on the highway is the responsibility of the 

Highway Authority, but the crossing operator may need to raise this 

with the Highway Authority. 

d) Cattle/trespass guards –should be provided where livestock is regularly 

moved over the crossing, or where there is a significant risk of trespass 

by pedestrians. Guards should be provided on all crossings where the 

railway is electrified by a live conductor rail and be accompanied by a 

gap in the conductor rail. Where fitted, guards should be in sound 

condition with no missing or loose rails. 

e) All road markings such as white line/yellow box markings/ reflective 

studs detailed in the crossing Order are the responsibility of the 

crossing operator (including the centre of carriageway markings on the 

crossing approach). The use of rubber surfaced crossings has resulted 

in the need to renew road markings on crossings more frequently. 

f) Signage detailed in the crossing Order is the responsibility of the 

crossing operator. Other signage (usually warning signage) is the 

responsibility of the Highway Authority 

Page 10 of 10 

A.13 - 22
 User Worked and Footpath Level Crossing Research

Railway Safety’s response to the 

Arthur D Little Research Report

Summary Report September 2002 

A.13 - 23
The picture on the cover was reproduced with the kind permission of 

Arthur D Little

© Copyright 2004 Rail Safety and Standards Board 

This publication may be reproduced free of charge for research, private study or for internal 

circulation within an organisation. This is subject to it being reproduced and referenced accurately 

and not being used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as the copyright 

of Rail Safety and Standards Board and the title of the publication specified accordingly. For any 

other use of the material please apply to RSSB's Head of Research and Development for 

permission. Any additional queries can be directed to research@rssb.co.uk. This publication can 

be accessed via the RSSB website 

www.rssb.co.uk

A.13 - 24
Railway Safety’s response to the report by Arthur D Little entitled ‘User 

Worked and Footpath Level Crossing Risk Review Study’

1. Purpose

1.1. The purpose of this paper is to outline Railway Safety’s response to the 

attached report, and to summarise the actions being taken by Railway 

Safety. 

1.2. The report, commissioned by Railway Safety, was prepared by Arthur 

D Little. The research was designed to explore the hazards and risks 

at ‘passive’ level crossings ie those at which the person crossing, 

whether in a vehicle or on foot, is responsible for making the decision 

to cross. Specifically, it examines the relationship between user 

perceptions of risk and other locational factors such as sighting times. 

It goes on to examine and recommend ways of improving risk controls 

and data collection.

1.3. Included is the Executive Summary of the report, plus exerpts covering 

data collection, an overview of risk factors and scoring, and an 

explanation of a simulation model developed as part of the research. 

Some examples of the case studies of level crossings are also 

included. The full report is available on CD-Rom from Railway Safety. 

2. Railway Safety’s response

2.1. Railway Safety recommends the general adoption of a standardised 

and enhanced data collection methodology with priority being given to 

its application, including user interviews, at all crossings with a history 

of accidents and near misses. The methodology developed by Arthur D 

Little should form the basis of this as it appears effective in helping to 

identify the presence of bad actor factors relating to both the crossing 

environment and user behaviour.

2.2. Railway Safety recommends the development of an enhanced and 

standardised approach to the gathering and recording of evidence as to 

the factors and underlying causes of accidents and incidents occurring 

on level crossings. Railway Safety is to identify how Safety 

Management Information System (SMIS) might be upgraded to support 

analysis of this data and will consider incorporation of the agreed 

approach as a mandatory Railway Group Standard requirement.

2.3. Railway Safety recommends and will facilitate the further use of the 

‘risk scoring’ method developed by AD Little to support better 

identification of crossings to which particular attention should be given.

A.13 - 25
2.4. Railway Safety recommends that remedial actions to address sighting 

time deficiencies are not considered in isolation and are always 

developed in the context of the development of measures to address 

the risk factors of ‘high’ crossing utilisation, ‘gates left open’ and 

infrequent trains which appear to have the potential to make a more 

significant contribution to risk reduction. Railway Safety further 

recommends that HM Railway Inspectorate always take these 

dependencies into account should they need to consider enforcement 

action.

2.5. Railway Safety is to commission further research to better understand 

user perception of risks associated with the use of passive level 

crossings with particular regard to the factors associated with the work 

related user, gate abuse and failures to use the telephones where 

provided.

2.6. In light of the outputs of the further research pertaining to user 

perception of risks Railway Safety will consider further development of 

the scenario based simulation model.

2.7. Railway Safety will commission research to explore the benefits that 

might be gained from a more general use of train (or wayside) horns on 

the approach to passive level crossings.

2.8. Railway Safety is developing a research proposal for ‘low cost’ coacting gates / barriers that would reduce the number of traverses per 

vehicle traverse at a properly used crossing from five to one.

2.9. Railway Safety will solicit views and consider mandating a maximum 

traffic moment that is acceptable at an unimproved pedestrian or user 

worked crossing / user worked crossing with telephones.

2.10. Railway Safety will continue to work with Railtrack PLC in Railway 

Administration (known as Railtrack), the Health and Safety Executive 

and British Transport Police to secure the development of a national 

level crossing strategy that supports the management of risk at all level 

crossings to as low as is reasonably practicable through enabling, 

engineering, education and enforcement activities.

2.11. In doing so, Railway Safety will continually champion the importance of 

railway businesses having ‘zero tolerance’ of unsafe conditions, unsafe 

decisions and unsafe acts that have the potential to lead to a 

catastrophic rail accident that might result from striking a vehicle on a 

level crossing.

2.12. Railway Safety recognises transferable lessons from this work and 

commends their application to the development of controls at ‘active’ 

level crossings.

A.13 - 26
2.13. Railway Safety will use the outputs of this research to support the 

development of the Railway Group Safety Plan.

3. Contact

3.1. For a full copy of the report please contact:

Guy Woodroffe

Stakeholder Manager

Railway Safety Research Programme

020 7904 7971

woodroffeg.railwaysafety@ems.rail.co.uk

A.13 - 27
RT/70988/14rep.doc iv

User Worked and 

Footpath Level 

Crossings: Risk 

Review

A.13 - 28
RT/70988/14rep.doc v

Executive Summary

Introduction

Railway Safety commissioned research in March 2000 to explore the hazards and risks 

at ‘passive’1 level crossings, specifically to examine the relationship between user 

perception of risk and other locational factors such as traffic moment. 

Aims and Objectives

The overall aim of the study is to facilitate the development of improved risk control 

strategies at passive level crossings and to inform the development of Railway Group 

Safety Plan objectives. The study has involved the following key aspects:

• Survey of literature in human behaviour and level crossing risks.

• Identification of hazards at level crossings working with Railtrack Level Crossing 

Managers.

• A survey of over 300 passive level crossings (approximately 5% of the total 

network population) involving 121 user interviews, observation of user behaviour, 

as well as a recording of physical crossing characteristics and the environment in 

which the crossing is located.

• A comprehensive analysis of accident data, to establish the suitability of current 

data recording, and to help gain an understanding of the causes of accidents.

Conclusions

The results of the work provide evidence for the influence of certain ‘risk factors’, i.e. 

crossing and user characteristics that influence the risks at passive level crossings. The 

results also provide recommendations for improving risk controls and data collection.

Risk Factors

Certain crossing and user characteristics recorded in the survey are more prevalent at 

crossings where accidents have occurred; these are considered to be ‘risk factors’. The 

study reveals that such risk factors can be associated with some 80% of crossings where 

accidents have occurred, compared with 50% of crossings where no accidents have 

occurred. Therefore, whilst accidents at passive level crossings are very scattered and 

rarely repeat at the same location, there are some common characteristics for the 

locations where accidents do occur, which is encouraging from the perspective of 

developing effective risk controls. The risk factors are shown in the figure, and 

described below.

 

1

 ‘Passive’ crossings are those at which the user is responsible for making the decision to cross (including crossings with telephones 

which may be used in order to make a more informed decision on whether to cross or not).

A.13 - 29
RT/70988/14rep.doc 6

‘Risk Factors’

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Proportion of Crossings

Gates left open Sight time less than

traverse time

High utilisation for

type

Occasional trains None of these

Non-accident crossings

Accident crossings

Gates left open

A problem at nearly one-third of crossings surveyed 

where accidents have occurred, compared with only 8% 

of crossings with no accident history.

High crossing utilisation

 

A characteristic of nearly one-third of crossings 

surveyed where accidents have occurred, compared with 

only 4% of crossings with no accident history.

Occasional trains 

Occasional trains (two or fewer trains per hour) is a 

marginally more common characteristic of crossings 

with accidents than those without accidents (25% versus 

20% receptively).

Conversely, the analysis provides little evidence that crossings with poor sight times2

are associated with the occurrence of accidents. This is counter to the traditional view 

that providing good sighting at passive level crossings is the most important factor in 

risk control.

 

2

 Either sight times that are measured to be less than the nominal traverse time, or there is less than five seconds spare time during 

which a decision to cross can be made

A.13 - 30
RT/70988/14rep.doc 7

User perception of risks

The study highlights the importance of the users’ perception of the risk at the level 

crossing, how this influences their behaviour, and therefore the extent of risk to which 

they are exposed. The interviews conducted reveal that users generally perceive:

• crossings to be ‘dangerous’ where there are fast trains and sighting is poor,

• crossings to be ‘safe’ where there is good sighting, and trains are slow and 

infrequent.

These perceptions underlie the risk compensation behaviour which explains the weak 

correlation between poor sight times and occurrence of accidents. Crossing users are 

aware of poor sight times, and will respond by traversing more rapidly with 

heightened vigilance. To a lesser extent where trains are infrequent regular users may 

not regard the risks as so significant, and behave less cautiously.

Vehicles are involved in a proportionally greater number of accidents

A review of accident statistics reveals that accidents involving vehicles are 

comparatively more frequent than might be expected from their total exposure in 

comparison with pedestrian accidents. Whilst the reasons for this are not fully 

understood, many vehicle accidents can be associated with the abuse of gates and the 

failure to use telephones where provided. The survey revealed instances of regular 

users such as farm workers and delivery vehicles deliberately taking ‘short-cuts’ when 

working gated crossings.

Current data reporting

Current data reporting provides neither sufficiently detailed nor consistent data on 

which to develop a significantly more advanced understanding of the factors which 

influence the risks at passive level crossings. Recommendations for improved data 

collection are provided.

Recommendations

Based on the survey and analysis, recommendations are made for improving risk 

controls, and for improving incident reporting and data collection activities, which in 

many cases are required in order to gain a better definition of the extent of risks.

Overall, it is recommended that the findings of this study and those of the recently 

completed review of the application of the automatic crossing risk model are 

synthesised to ensure that lessons learned are realised across the spectrum of 

crossings.

When developing new infrastructure risk controls for passive level crossings, care 

should be taken to avoid lowering the user perception of the risks as this could have a 

detrimental influence on user behaviour. In other words, providing the user with a 

false sense that ‘risks are low’ without actually increasing the protection could lead to 

an increase in accidents.

A.13 - 31
RT/70988/14rep.doc 8

Risk controls

• The traffic moment is a key factor and must be monitored closely to ensure that 

any potential increases in level or type of use are anticipated and appropriate risk 

controls implemented before incidents occur. 

• Drivers of works vehicles need an improved understanding of risks at level 

crossings which might be achieved through contacting HGV driving schools, 

delivery depots, etc. In some instances (for example at busy construction sites or 

during peak harvest times) consideration should be given to mandating crossing 

wardens as part of the conditions of use.

• At certain crossings where gate abuse is a problem Railtrack should pursue the 

development of alternative technical solutions such as:

− Pneumatically or electrically driven barriers that can be operated from a push 

button (interlocked with the railway). 

− Advanced warning systems using new technologies.

• Crossings that are to be affected by increased train frequencies and/or line speeds 

should be considered as ‘high risk’ and action taken according to ensure that 

regular users are made aware of the increasing risk caused by the proposed 

change in train movements.

• Level crossings on lines with low train frequencies (e.g. less than 2 per hour) 

should not necessarily be regarded as ‘low risk’. Consideration should be given 

to sounding the whistle on approach to such crossings.

• To ensure that whistles are sounded consistently by all trains, consideration 

should be given to development of a device that automatically activates the 

whistle on approach to crossings.

• Consideration should be given to providing clearly marked decision points where 

possible, such as painted lines on road surfaces.

Improving data records

Improved accident data reporting is considered to be essential in gaining a further 

definition of risk factors, and therefore the development of improved risk controls. 

We recommend that the following additional data be collected:

• Details of the vehicle or pedestrian involved (reason for use, type of vehicle, etc). 

It would be particularly useful to record any accidents to vehicle users who were 

traversing on foot while working the crossing.

• Details of gate abuse. 

• Evidence of failure to use the telephone including a regular audit of signallers 

logs.

A.13 - 32
RT/70988/14rep.doc 9

• Whether the accident victim was a regular user of the crossing or an unfamiliar 

user.

• Whether the train involved was scheduled and on time, scheduled but not on time, 

or unscheduled.

• For vehicle accidents, a record should be made of whether the vehicle was stuck 

or otherwise stopped on the crossing, making the traverse, or ‘nosing out’, i.e. 

foul of the line while making a decision on whether to cross.

• A steep fall in occasional crossing use can be anticipated during the current 

period of restricted access during the ‘Foot and Mouth’ epidemic. A special data 

collection and analysis effort should be mounted to take analytical benefit from 

this temporary reduction in crossing usage.

A.13 - 33
RT/70988/14rep.doc 1

Data Collection

This section provides an overview of the data collection activities. 

The survey work was a core activity of the project with the aim of collecting crossing 

and user data for a sample of passive level crossings. The process comprised two

main elements:

• A survey of the crossing itself, including physical characteristics, and notes 

regarding the environment of the crossing (e.g. situation relative to nearby 

residential and commercial areas).

• Behaviour of level crossing users, based on interviews and observation. As 

expected, it was not possible to carry out interviews at the majority of the 

crossings surveyed as many of these crossings are, by their very nature, not 

heavily used. However, wherever possible, interviews have been conducted and 

recorded. Interviews focused on the users’:

− Awareness of the crossing features such as signs.

− Perceptions of risks (e.g. “Dangerous”, “Like crossing the road”, “Safe”)

− Opinions as to how the crossing might be improved.

− Knowledge of other users and accidents / near misses.

308 passive level crossings have been surveyed across the seven Railtrack Zones, 

(Figure 1). The surveys were conducted over a period of approximately six months 

(May to October 2000) with comparatively full foliage in situ.

Figure 1 Crossings Surveyed by Type

Crossing 

Type

Total With at 

least one 

interview

With 

accident 

history

Footpath 145 34 18

UWC 61 15 6

UWC/T 99 37 10

MWL* 3 1 -

Total 308 87 34

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

UWC UWC/T FP MWL

No. with no interviews

No. with at least one

interview

 

Note: MWL were included in the surveys so as to identify any differences in use and user behaviour than at other passive crossings

A total of 121 interviews were conducted at 87 crossings. Most of the interviews 

were conducted after the individual had used the crossing, allowing observation of 

use, although to extend the interview sample as far as possible some interviews were 

held with users away from the crossing (for example at their homes). The distribution 

of interviews conducted by age group and gender (Figure 2) shows a bias towards 

males and adults (adult males representing about 50% of the interviewee sample).

A.13 - 34
RT/70988/14rep.doc 2

Figure 2 Summary of Interviews

 

Total Elderly

Other 

Adult

Child 

alone

Male 84 18 61 3

Female 37 9 28 0

Total 121 27 89 3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Male Female

Child alone

Other Adult

Elderly

 

Users were seen at 96, just under a third, of the 308 crossings surveyed. Figure 3 

shows the proportion of crossings where users were seen during the survey. By far 

the most common users seen were pedestrians (seen at 16% of crossings) closely 

followed by dog walkers (12%). Vehicles were much less common, particularly 

‘work vehicles’ such as tractors, vans and HGVs, which were seen at only about 5% 

of the crossings surveyed.

Figure 3 Proportion of Crossings Surveyed Where Users Seen

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

Proportion of Crossings Where Users 

Seen

Pedestrian Pedestrian

w ith dog

Horse Bike Car Van HGV Farm vehicle /

trailer

Of the 121 users interviewed over half were using the crossing for recreational 

purposes, with the remainder fairly evenly split between using for work, travelling to 

or from work, or to and from the shops (Figure 4).

Over half of users used the crossing at least daily, with a further 37% using the 

crossing at least weekly (Figure 5).

A.13 - 35
RT/70988/14rep.doc 3

Figure 4 Interview Sample: Reasons for Use 

18%

18%

53%

11% Working

To / from work

Recreation

Shopping

Figure 5 Interview Sample: Familiarity

52%

37%

8% 3%

Daily or more

Weekly or more

Infrequent

Never

A.13 - 36
RT/70988/14rep.doc 4

Risk Factors

This exert identifies factors that influence the risk at passive level crossings, based on 

the results of the survey, and available accident data for those crossings. 

In addition, it discusses how different factors associated with crossing features and 

user characteristics may be combined to produce risk scenarios as the basis for a 

simulation model of crossing accident opportunities.

Overview

An overview of the influence of readily identifiable risk factors on the occurrence of 

accidents is shown in Figure 6 which compares the distribution of risk factors at 

crossings surveyed with no history of accidents, with those where accidents have 

occurred. 

Overall, it is shown that 80% of the crossings surveyed where accidents have occurred 

can be associated with at least one risk factor. By contrast, about half of those 

crossings surveyed where no accidents have been recorded have any of these risk 

factors. 

In summary, the analysis has identified the following risk factors:

• “High crossing utilisation” appears to be a much more dominant factor at 

crossings where there have been accidents than crossings where there is no record 

of accidents (31% versus 4% respectively).

• Similarly “Gates left open” is a characteristic of 32% of crossings surveyed where 

accidents have been recorded, compared with 8% of crossings with no accident 

history.

• “Occasional trains”. There also appears to be some evidence that occasional 

trains (i.e. about two or fewer trains per hour) are a factor in accidents, with 25% 

of the accident crossings versus 20% of the sample as a whole having two trains 

an hour or fewer. Whilst initially the evidence does not appear to be that strong, 

it must be remembered that intuitively, one would expect accidents to increase 

directly with the number of trains that pass a crossing (probabilistically more 

chance of a train arriving during the traverse).

While accidents at passive level crossings are very scattered and rarely repeat at the 

same location the survey findings suggest some common characteristics for the 

locations where they do occur, which is encouraging from the perspective of 

developing effective risk controls.

A.13 - 37
RT/70988/14rep.doc 5

Figure 6 Distribution of Risk Factors

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Proportion of Crossings

Gates left open Sight time less than

traverse time

Sight time less than

traverse time plus 5

sec decision time

High utilisation for

type

Occasional trains None of these

Non-accident crossings

Accident crossings

Conversely, the analysis provides little evidence that crossings with poor sight times 

can be associated with the occurrence of accidents. Two cases are considered:

• Crossings where the smallest measured sight time is less than the measured 

traverse time. This is a characteristic of 22% of crossings surveyed where no 

accident had occurred compared with 28% of crossings surveyed with accident 

histories.

• Crossings where the sight time is less than five seconds greater than the traverse 

time (in this case an allowance of five seconds is given for the decision time taken 

by the user before making the traverse). This is a characteristic of 48% of 

crossings surveyed where no accident had occurred compared with 50% of 

crossings surveyed with accident histories.

These findings show that sight times alone do not adequately discriminate crossings at 

which there have been accidents from all other crossings. This is counter to the 

traditional view that providing good sighting at a passive level crossings is the most 

important factor in risk control. Additionally, because such a high proportion of 

crossings, some 50% based on those surveyed, appear to have poor sight times, this 

alone cannot provide an effective basis for focussing risk controls.

Figure 7 shows how a simple ‘risk score’, given to each crossing, is able to 

differentiate crossings where accidents have previously occurred from those with no 

accident history. It must be noted that the ‘risk score’ is not intended to be an 

accurate measure of risk, rather a quick and simple way of describing the main risk 

characteristics, based on a comparatively short inspection time at each crossing. The 

risk score is derived from readily identifiable crossing and user characteristics which 

were observed during the inspection, such as the level of utilisation, whether gates are 

left open, signage, crossing surface, etc.

Nevertheless, a comparison of the scores obtained for those crossings where accidents 

have occurred with crossings with no accident history provides further evidence that 

accidents can be associated with fairly simple ‘risk factors’:

A.13 - 38
RT/70988/14rep.doc 6

• 28% of crossings surveyed with no accident history were scored in the ‘highest 

risk score’ category, (i.e. above 10), with 36% scoring 10 or more.

• For crossings with accident histories, the proportion in the ‘highest risk score’ 

category is greater at 47%, with 73% scoring 10 or more.

In other words, most accidents (i.e. 73%) can be associated with a combination of 

simple risk factors.

However, the remaining 27% of accidents cannot be accounted for by the simple 

scoring system, and further investigation is required to establish the cause of these 

accidents, or whether they were ‘random’ events.

Figure 7 Distribution of Risk Scores Across Survey Sample

8%

26% 28%

47%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Proportion of Crossings

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >10

Risk Score

Non-accident crossings

Accident crossings

Note: the ‘risk score’ is not intended to be an accurate measure of risk, rather a quick and simple way of describing the main risk 

characteristics, based on a comparatively short inspection time at each crossing. It is based on readily identifiable crossing and user 

characteristics which were observed during the inspection, such as the level of utilisation, whether gates are left open, signage, 

crossing surface.

A.13 - 39
RT/70988/14rep.doc 7

Risk Scenarios

This section describes how crossing characteristics may be combined with the way 

that crossings are used by different user types to produce a series of ‘risk scenarios’. 

The scenarios represent how a user may be at risk because:

• He or she has a particular mental model of the crossing, and may therefore 

traverse when it is not safe to do so. 

• The sight time is less than the time taken for the user to traverse – so despite 

taking care when approaching the crossing and making the traverse they are 

caught out.

• They get stuck on the crossing or for some reason take longer than ‘normal’ to 

traverse (e.g. they cross with their dog off the lead which wanders onto the line, 

their pushchair gets stuck on a poor surface, etc). 

These scenarios have been developed from the information gathered during the survey 

(interviews, crossing features, and direct observation), the evidence for risk factors 

provided by the analysis, and a workshop with Railtrack Level Crossing Managers. 

The purpose of the scenarios is to:

• Form a basis for a model that simulates the occurrence of potential accidents for 

each scenario based on random arrival of users and a number of trains through the 

day. 

• Provide further evidence, based on the simulation model, for factors that 

adversely influence risk.

The scenarios are summarised in Table 1. 

A.13 - 40
RT/70988/14rep.doc 8

Table 1 Risk Scenarios 

Scenario Description Sequence of Events Leading to 

Accident

Crossing Features User 

Characteristics

1 “Nip across” - user 

crosses in front of 

approaching train but 

misjudges time

• User arrives at crossing and sees 

approaching train

• User begins to traverse quickly

• User has misjudged the speed of the 

approaching train or the time taken to 

traverse - unable to get out of the way

• Good sight time

• Variable train 

approach speeds

• Straight track 

(more difficult to 

judge speed)

• High train 

frequency

• Familiar users 

short of time –

use for going to 

work / jogging / 

etc

• Poor judges of 

speed

2 “Lazy user” - vehicle 

user passes through 

gates left open 

without taking due 

care

• User arrives at crossing and gates are open

• User does not telephone and passes through 

gates without taking due care to look for 

approaching train

• Train arrives and user is unable to get out of 

the way

• High utilisation by 

a few regulars

• Low train 

frequency

• Leaves gates 

open 

• Vehicle

• Regular use or 

work for intensive 

period

3 “Disregard” - user fails 

to acknowledge risk of 

crossing

• User approaches crossing unaware of 

danger

• They begin the traverse at normal pace 

without taking due care to look for a train

• They may see the train as it gets close but 

the user is then unable to get out of the 

way

• Low train 

frequency

• Nearby 

distractions

• Gates left open or 

no barriers

• Distracted

• Regular user with 

low perception of 

risk (e.g. 

infrequent trains)

• Unfamiliar with 

crossings and 

unaware of risks

4 “Mis-communication” 

– error in 

misunderstanding of 

information provided 

by telephone

• Vehicle user arrives at crossing and calls 

signalman on telephone provided

• User misunderstands signalman’s 

instruction not to proceed, or signalman 

gives incorrect information

• User begins traverse with perception that 

a train will not come

• They may see the train as it gets close but 

the user is then unable to get out of the 

way

• Telephones 

provided 

• Error by signalman 

or information is 

inaccurate (e.g. 

long sections of 

line)

• Fails to 

understand 

signalman’s 

instructions

5 “Stuck” - user gets 

‘stuck’ or otherwise 

takes longer to cross 

than expected

• User arrives at crossing and takes care to 

stop, look and listen for a train

• They begin the traverse at a normal pace

• During the traverse they get stuck or fall, 

chase a dog that is off the lead, or their 

vehicle gets grounded or stalls

• The train approaches and the user is 

unable to get out of the way

• Uneven surface

• Queues develop 

on crossing

• Exit gates difficult 

and close to the 

line

• Encumbered with 

bicycle, pram, or 

elderly and infirm 

• Dog walkers with 

dogs off lead

• Livestock 

handlers

6 “Unseen train” - user 

caught out by 

negative sighting time

• User arrives at the crossing and takes 

care to stop look and listen for a train

• The train either does not sound its horn or 

is not heard by the user

• The user begins the traverse moving 

quickly as they are aware of the short 

sight time

• A train comes into sight and the user is 

unable to get out of the way before the 

train arrives at the crossing

• Short sight time

• Long traverse time 

(surface, many 

tracks, angle, exit 

not opposite 

entrance)

• Take longer to 

traverse than 

sight time

7 “Second train comes” 

– user waits for train 

to pass but is caught 

out by second train 

from opposite 

direction

• User arrives at the crossing and sees an 

approaching train

• They wait for the first train to pass 

• They fail to look in the opposite direction 

for an approaching train, or the view is 

blocked by the first train

• They begin the traverse at normal pace

• The second train arrives at the crossing 

and the user is caught by surprise

• Double track

• Many trains

• Trains scheduled 

to pass (e.g. near 

station)

• Track curvature 

conceals second 

train

• User fails to 

check both 

directions i.e. 

thinks it is safe to 

cross when a 

train has passed

A.13 - 41
RT/70988/14rep.doc 9

Simulation Model

A mathematical model has been developed which simulates the opportunity for 

accidents (i.e. a user struck by a train) for each of the risk scenarios described above.

In overview, the model comprises two main parts:

• Estimation of the relative likelihood of each risk scenario actually arising based 

on consideration of user and crossing features (as shown for each scenario in 

Table 1). For example, where gates are left open, this is deemed to make 

‘disregard’ more likely, and poor surfaces are judged to make getting ‘stuck’ 

more likely.

• Simulation of an accident occurring based on train arrivals distributed evenly 

through the day (and subject to a certain degree of random punctuality) and the 

random arrival of users. An accident may occur if the user begins the traverse, 

and during the traverse the train arrives at the crossing.

The product of these provides the output of the model: a number of theoretical 

opportunities for an accident in a year by scenario. The model does not include the 

probability that a user can avoid the accident, so the output is the number of ‘events’ 

(or potential accidents) per year, not actual accidents.

What does simulation tell us about risks?

A selection of model outputs are presented in Figure 8, in which results for crossings 

on the same line of route are shown on each graph.

In overview, the model tests show the following:

• Proportionately higher number of events for crossings with high traffic moments 

(as expected).

• There is a comparatively small chance of two randomly distributed trains passing 

a crossing in close succession so that the user may be caught out by the second 

train (Scenario 7). This, of course, does not apply to crossings where trains are 

timetabled to pass close together.

• Users can be caught out by ‘unseen trains’ (Scenario 6) at crossings with sight 

times shorter than the traverse time. However, there is usually a correspondingly 

smaller chance of other events such as ‘nipping across’ (Scenario 1), and 

‘disregard’ (Scenario 3). 

• ‘Lazy users’ (Scenario 2) can increase the overall number of events where gates 

are left open.

• The results for getting ‘stuck’ on the crossing (Scenario 5) are very sensitive to 

whether the crossing is judged to have a surface on which users might get stuck.

In summary, a model based on a Monte Carlo simulation may be a useful basis for 

predicting the chance of random accidents at passive crossings. However, to model 

A.13 - 42
RT/70988/14rep.doc 10

more accurately the relative contributions of different accident scenarios, further work 

would be required. In particular, a more detailed understanding of how user 

behaviour is influenced by crossing features would be required to develop more 

robust ‘weightings’ for each scenario.

Figure 8 Example Simulation Model Outputs – Predicted Events/Year

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Simulated events / year

FP - previous accident, no

barriers, busy cross community

link

FP - gates, light use

Single line, occasional trains • Dominance of utilisation on results 

(first crossing over 100 users 

per day, second crossing very 

few traverses per day).

• The main problem at first crossing 

is disregard (there are few 

trains and no barriers).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Simulated events / year

UWC/T - multiple

accidents, gate / phone

abuse, regular use by

familiar users, good

sighting

UWC - good sighting,

tricky surface

UWC/T - gates closed,

but phone not alw ays

used, good sighting

UWC/T - good sighting,

gates sometimes open,

used by farm vehicles

Single line, occasional trains • Effect of gate abuse on results 

(“Lazy User” at first and fourth 

crossings).

• Problem of grounding at

second crossing makes 

chances of ‘getting stuck’ 

greater

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Simulated events / year

FP - previous accident, poor

sighting (similar to traverse time),

fairly heavy use 

FP - reasonable sighting, regular

use

Double line • Simulation of negative spare 

sight times. First crossing has 

poor sighting, and “Unseen 

train” is the dominant problem. 

Whilst the simulation of 

occurrences of being caught by 

the unseen train is quite low, 

the result dominates because 

the likelihood of other scenarios 

is low (e.g. unlikely to 

“disregard” or “nip across”)

• At the second crossing 

‘”nipping across” is the 

dominant problem, sighting is 

not a problem

A.13 - 43
RT/70988/14rep.doc 11

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Simulated events / year

100 random

trains 

100 trains - 50

pass per day

200 random

trains

200 trains - 100

pass per day

• Shows effect of increasing 

number of trains from 100 to 

200 per day.

• At this crossing, the dominant 

risks are “nip across” and 

“disregard”.

• The crossing is on double line, 

but where train are randomly 

distributed, the simulation 

shows the chances of two 

passing in close succession to 

be low.

• However, where trains are 

timetabled to pass (second and 

third columns) the risk of being 

caught by two trains is much 

more significant

"Nip 

across"

"Lazy user" "Disregard"

"Miscomm""Stuck" "Unseen 

Train"

"2nd train"

A.13 - 44
RT/70988/14rep.doc 12

Examples of Case Studies of Level Crossings

Crossing Oudenarde 1 OS Ref N0149175 Zone Scotland Date/Time 23/10/00 11am

Location Crossing Information

 

Oudenarde 1

Type:

Users count:

Evidence of other use:

Train count:

Speed (mph): 

Distance across tracks (m): 

Distance along tracks (m): 

Angle with track (deg):

Accident history:

Other Information:

UWC

None

Interview suggested 

seasonal use by farmer 

and farm workers

1 2 car PT-DMU

40, visual estimate

50

3.5

60o

None known of

Single track

Photographs

North approach. No signs due to 

farmers request.

Crossing between private farm land.

 

North side looking west. 

 

Protection of the line (awareness of crossing) Score

A single track leads from a quiet road, past farm building to the north side of the crossing. Farmers fields are on the south side of 

the crossing. Both gates were closed and padlocked. No signs on farmers request. No telephone. 

1

Warning of train approach (basis for decision) Score

Sighting times approximately 50 seconds looking east and reduced to 25 seconds looking west due to a bridge. Crossing time is 

9 seconds but may be much longer for large farm vehicles. The train that passed did not sound its horn.

1

Risks of crossing use Score

The user could be distracted by the nearby busy road. There are trip hazards on the crossing and the crossing is slippery when 

wet for pedestrians – but mainly used by vehicles.

3

Traffic moment Score

Estimated traffic moment: Approximately 25 trains pass the crossing per day. The number of users per day is estimated to be 2. 3

Main Risk Factors Total

Long crossing times with farm vehicles. Trip and slip hazards on crossing. 8

Remediation Options Based on Observation

Overgrown hedges should be cut back. A telephone could be installed to improve the safety of the crossing if the user would agree. 

A.13 - 45
RT/70988/14rep.doc 13

Crossing Pilgrims Way OS Ref TQ533593 Zone Southern Date/Time 23/8/00 12.30pm

Location Crossing Information

 

Pilgrims Way

Type:

Users count:

Evidence of other use:

Train count:

Speed (mph): 

Distance across tracks (m): 

Distance along tracks (m): 

Angle with track (deg):

Accident history:

Other Information:

FPS

1 child

2 elderly pedestrians

Clearly a frequently used 

crossing

1 3 car PT-EMU

varies

11.0

1.5

60o

None known of

One interview carried out

Station visible from 

crossing

Photographs

West side of crossing looking north. 

Note adjacent station. Some trains 

are fast and do not stop at station.

 

Trip hazard on crossing.

 

West side of crossing looking south. 

Good visibility. Train speeds vary.

Protection of the line (awareness of crossing) Score

Stiles generally appear to be in good condition although both are worn. Signs faded and obscured by bushes, otherwise in good 

condition.

1

Warning of train approach (basis for decision) Score

1 train passed the crossing during the visit and sounded its horn. Sighting times vary due to slowing and accelerating trains at 

the adjacent station.. 

2

Risks of crossing use Score

Generally the crossing appears to be in good condition however crossing boards have cracked and some are at various levels 

producing trip hazards for pedestrians users. Decision point is lineside of stiles.

2

Traffic moment Score

Estimated traffic moment: Approximately 70 trains per day 4

Main Risk Factors Total

Crossing boards at various levels present tripping hazards for pedestrians. User distraction from adjacent station and varying 

train speeds also present risks to crossing users.

9

Remediation Options Based on Observation

Repair crossing boards to provide even crossing for all users. Cut back bushes on approaches to crossing to improve visibility of signs.

A.13 - 46
RT/70988/14rep.doc 14

Crossing Johnsons OS Ref TL 492216 Zone Anglia Date/Time 28/06/00

Location Crossing Information

Type:

Users count:

Evidence of other use:

Train count:

Speed (mph): 

Distance across tracks (m): 

Distance along tracks (m): 

Angle with track (deg):

Accident history:

Other Information:

FP

1 elderly pedestrian

1 pedestrian with 5 dogs

2 cyclists and 2 

unaccompanied school 

children

Heavy use – “cross 

community link”

5 4 car PT-EMU

70

9.0

1.5

90

unknown

The stiles on either side of 

the crossing are heavily 

worn

Photographs

 

Protection of the line (awareness of crossing) Score

Johnsons crossing is a FP crossing on a public footpath into a local recreation park near the town and nearby residential areas. 

Stiles worn (complaints from interviewee) but robust - and signs are OK.

0

Warning of train approach (basis for decision) Score

3 out of 5 trains sounded their horns during the visit. Traverse times about 6 secs (longer – about 10 secs - for a lady walking 

her 5 dogs) compared with sighting times of between 10 and 20 secs (10 for East looking North).

4

Risks of crossing use Score

The crossing surface is in poor condition and requires remedial works to prevent tripping/slipping accidents. Also decision point 

is on lineside of styles and due to vegetation not in position of safety (may change during Autumn / Winter).

5

Traffic moment Score

Estimated traffic moment: 5

Main Risk Factors Total

Large numbers of public using the crossing to gain access to town and parks on either side, together with high trains speeds.

14

Remediation Options Based on Observation

Crossing looking west Note

poor condition of crossing 

boards and temporary works

West side looking south

East approach stile 

Note worn condition of stile

Johnsons

A.13 - 47
RT/70988/14rep.doc 15

Review use of stiles – consider gates – elderly complained during interview. Condition of crossing is poor and requires improvements to 

prevent tripping accidents.

A.13 - 48
RT/70988/14rep.doc 16

Crossing

Waterslack Quarry OS Ref SD 470 769

Zone

North West Date/Time 16/8/2000 14:00 to 14:50

Location Crossing Information

 

Type:

Users count:

Evidence of other use:

Train count:

Speed (mph): 

Distance across tracks (m): 

Distance along tracks (m): 

Angle with track (deg):

Accident history:

Other Information:

UWC/T Manned

13HGV

1 Car

10 Pedestrian

Very regular HGV use

Very regular footpath 

2 x 2 car DMU

45

10

9

75

Unknown

Crossing serves 

Middlebarrow Quarry

Records indicate:-

80-100 HGV / day

25 Trains / day (15/8/00)

Photographs

 

 West side looking South East side approach View from East side

 Typical long sighting distance Quarry in background

Protection of the line (awareness of crossing) Score

Signs OK.

Gates OK. 0

Warning of train approach (basis for decision) Score

Minimum sight time = 23 secs (West side looking South)

Crossing Time = 7 secs (HGV) , 9 secs (Pedestrian) , 14 secs (Pedestrian Group)

Warning Time – Crossing Time = Over 10 secs 0

Risks of crossing use Score

Decision Point is on lineside of stile.

Background noise and quarry activity may cause user distraction – although careful use should be ensured through manning 

arrangements. 3

Traffic moment Score

Estimated Traffic Moment: Over 1000 (2 Trains per hour, 20 to 30 Walkers per day , 80 to 100 HGV’s per day , 20 Cars per day) 5*

Main Risk Factors Total

Very heavily used by construction vehicles..

Procedure for closing gates is for signaller to ring up the crossing operator to warn of an approaching train and instruct the gates 

to be closed. This is not fail safe if the signaller fails or cannot contact the crossing operator. N/A

Waterslack 

Quarry

A.13 - 49
RT/70988/14rep.doc 17

Remediation Options Based on Observation

Monitor and review crossing procedures to ensure that the system provides suitable protection from potentially high consequence 

accidents.

A.13 - 50
RT/70988/14rep.doc 18

Crossing

Penny’s OS Ref SK 630 970 Zone North East Date/Time

25/10/2000 12:45 to 13:20

Location Crossing Information

 

Type:

Users count:

Evidence of other use:

Train count:

Speed (mph): 

Distance across tracks (m): 

Distance along tracks (m): 

Angle with track (deg):

Accident history:

Other Information:

FPG

1 Dog Walker

Regularly used by 

pedestrians

3 x 10 Car HST

1 x 22 Car Freight

100 – 125 (HST)

30 (Freight)

12

2

80

None known of

Adjacent to open heath 

land with evidence of high 

usage particularly for dog 

walking

Photographs

 West side approach View from West side East side gate East side looking South

 Fence missing Note: regularly used path 

 inside fenceline

Protection of the line (awareness of crossing) Score

Signs are in acceptable condition. Fence alongside West gate has been removed, probably to provide access for motorbikes.

East gate is rotten and does not self close fully.

Evidence of regular walking routes on lineside of fencing.

3

Warning of train approach (basis for decision) Score

Minimum sight time = 26 secs (West side looking South). 

Crossing Time = 10 secs

Warning Time – Crossing Time = 16 secs

Trains do not always use horns (Based on interview, 2out of 4 observed)

1

Risks of crossing use Score

Decision Point is on lineside of gate. No crossing boards are provided in the 6 foot which may cause a trip hazard. 3

Traffic moment Score

Estimated Traffic Moment: Over 1000 (6 Trains per hour, 20 to 40 Users per day) 5

Main Risk Factors Total

Penny’s

A.13 - 51
RT/70988/14rep.doc 19

Very high usage and high numbers of very fast trains.

Lack of protection provided and possible use of lineside walking routes.

Trip hazards caused by partial crossing boarding.

12

Remediation Options Based on Observation

Reinstate lineside fencing and replace gates immediately.

Investigate use of lineside walking routes and if possible fence off to restrict them. Provide crossing boards across full width of crossing.

A.13 - 52
RT/70988/14rep.doc 20

A.13 - 53

Appendix A.14 

NORTHERN IRELAND: The Private 

Crossings (Signs and Barriers) Regulations 

 2007 SR No. 41 

A.14 - 1
A.14 - 2
A.14 - 3
A.14 - 4
A.14 - 5
A.14 - 6
A.14 - 7
A.14 - 8
A.14 - 9
A.14 - 10
A.14 - 11
A.14 - 12
A.14 - 13
A.14 - 14