GATES HAVE TRACK RECORD
OF SAVING LIVES
Yet 75 percent of state's crossings
lack such devices
By Jeff Parrott
Journal and Courier
July 7, 2002
Each summer at about this time, Jim Davis sees the traffic pick
up on his quiet rural White County road as drivers, many of them
teen-agers with little experience behind the wheel, take a shortcut
to the county fair.
Davis, North White High School's head football coach, recalled
the time a few years ago when one of his players was riding in
the back of a pick-up truck bound for the fairgrounds and a train
struck it at the crossing of the road, County Road 100 North. Fortunately,
the youths escaped serious injury.
“I've seen a number of car and train accidents over the years, and cars
never win," said Davis, who has stressed the issue as a driver's education
instructor. "It's something you talk about all the time. Slow down, check
both ways. Even if there are lights there, I tell them, 'Don't assume they
work.'"
He can only hope young drivers heading to the fair this month heed
his advice when coming to the County Road 100 North crossing. That's
because despite having been the scene of six accidents since 1977,
it's one of dozens in Greater Lafayette that lack gates and flashing
lights. Another White County crossing at County Road 375 North,
just north of Reynolds, saw eight crashes and two deaths from 1988
to 1997, when lights and gates were installed. There have been
no crashes there since.
Steve Hull, engineering services manager in the Indiana Department
of Transportation's railroad section, said the agency is making
progress in upgrading crossings from "passive" to "active," meaning
they have automated signals.
As evidence, Hull noted that the number of highway/rail crashes
in Indiana fell to 166 last year, down from 194 in 2000 and 227
in 1997.
Filling in the 'gaps'
At the same time, Hull acknowledged that limited funding has meant
crossings with the highest highway and rail traffic volumes have
taken priority over those in less-populated rural areas, even though
trains move faster in rural areas.
In recent years, however, more of the less-traveled, rural crossings
have begun to get attention, he said.
“We're reaching the point where we're starting to fill in the gaps,"
Hull said. "There are so many crossings in the state it takes
a while to do them all."
Indeed, at current funding levels it would take Indiana 48 years
to install gates at every existing crossing, and that doesn't account
for existing signals that would need replacement by then. Over
the past few years, INDOT has upgraded about 100 crossings a year
at a cost of about $15 million a year -- $10 million in federal
money and $5 million in state funds that the agency started diverting
from other highway safety projects in 1999.
Of the 6,400 crossings in the state, about 75 percent, or 4,800,
lack gates. A set of gates and flashing lights typically costs
about $150,000. INDOT pays 80 to 90 percent of the cost, using
a mix of state and federal money, and the railroad pays the rest,
Hull said. Once the signals are installed, the railroad must cover
their annual maintenance costs. Railroad industry officials and
Operation Lifesaver, the nonprofit railroad safety advocacy group
that receives partial funding from the railroads and was founded
by Union Pacific Railroad, stress driver error as the cause of
most crashes at passive crossings. State transportation officials
tend to agree.
For instance, the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles Driver's Manual
section devoted to railroad crossings states, "Countless people
lose their lives or suffer tragic injuries due to train/vehicle
collisions. Invariably, the cause for such collisions is the disregard,
and often the willful evasion of, railroad crossing warnings by
drivers."
Still, Indiana lawmakers have determined that some passive crossings
are dangerous in their own right. The Legislature in 1998 created
the Passive Grade Crossing Improvement Project, which earmarks
state funds to pay for street markings, lighting, vegetation clearing
and advance warning signs at passive crossings. Under the program,
INDOT has obligated more than $900,000.
Federal research studies have repeatedly found that crossing gates
and lights reduce the risk of accidents by up to 90 percent. The
railroad industry agrees but refuses to share substantially in
the costs of safety upgrades, said Tom White, spokesman for the
American Association of Railroads.
The industry trade group testified before Congress June 27 seeking
more federal funding for crossing signals in next year's transportation
spending reauthorization bill. White said the railroads don't spend
their own money to improve crossing safety because they believe,
and courts have upheld, that crossing safety equipment is a public
responsibility.
Railroad: Not our fault
"The railroads did not create the hazard," White said. "In most
cases the railroad was there before the highway was. When a highway is built
over railroad tracks, that really is a highway safety device. The primary purpose
of the device is to protect the motorist."
That position has drawn the ire of several rail safety advocacy
groups, such as Angels on Track, an Ohio-based non-profit organization
that was founded by Denny and Vicky Moore in 1997 after their 16-year-old
son was killed at a crossing without gates or lights.
Only 20 percent of crossings nationally have gates, said Vicky
Moore. She founded Angels on Track with $5.4 million the couple
won in a lawsuit against Conrail. The group uses part of the proceeds
to award grants to local governments in Ohio that cannot afford
to install automated signals.
"There's no excuse why all the crossings in the country are not protected,"
Moore said. Her director of education, Harvey Levine, agrees.
"I think the railroads should do more," he said. "It's kind
of a two-edged sword for them. While they know gates save lives, they have
to pay to maintain them. And what happens if the gates fail?"
He also said railroads have an incentive not to spend their own
money on signals because of a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that
shielded them from liability in accidents at crossings with federally-funded
safety devices.
For 35 years, Levine was a railroad executive, spending his final
18 years as vice-president of the AAR. Now he lobbies Ohio's transportation
officials on the need for more crossing gates and lights.
Tom White, an AAR spokesman, said the characterization that railroads
leave crossings unprotected in order to save money and avoid liability
is untrue. He said railroads spend about $200 million a year to
maintain crossing equipment, but that does not deter them from
wanting signals installed.
"Railroads have not been reluctant at all to work with governments to
put up these devices," White said.
