After
scathing articles in the New York Times over the past year
that were, among other things, highly critical of the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) in regard to its railroad-crossing
practices; after similar criticisms by The Angels On Track
Foundation’s educational subsidiary, Crossing To
Safety; several United States Senators; the Attorney General
of New York; former FRA employees, and other safety experts;
after the FRA Administration was virtually forced to resign
following a finding by the United States Department of
Transportation Inspector General that she was too close
to the railroad industry; and in the face of an increased
number of accidents and deaths from railroad-crossing accidents
in 2004 – FRA has responded. In its “Action
Plan For Addressing Continual Railroad Safety Issues” (May
16, 2005), FRA has identified the steps it plans to take
in order to improve its efforts in the area of railroad-crossing
safety. As discussed below, FRA’s so-called “plan” is
nothing new. It offers nothing that should not have already
been implemented, is shallow and narrow, and fails to come
to grips with the major issues and problems inherent in
railroad-crossing safety.
FRA gets its plan off to a wayward start by blaming the
increased accident rate in 2004 on traffic. As FRA states: “. .
. the growth in rail and motor vehicle traffic continues to
present challenges, as evidenced by an increase in crossing
fatalities in 2004 over 2003.”
But traffic has been increasing for years and the accident
rate had been falling. What FRA consistently fails to mention
is that in each and every year since the mid-1970’s,
a substantial number of railroad crossings have been eliminated
and many automated gates –
the safest type of device at crossings – have been installed.
These two factors surely have been responsible for the vast
portion of the improvement in railroad-crossing safety, and
they didn’t stop in 2004. In fact, they should have more
than offset traffic gains. Isn’t it just possible that
FRA’s attitude, procedures and practices have had something
to do with the reversal in 2004? Isn’t it possible that
the so-called FRA-railroad “partnership”
was a bad idea for a regulatory agency? Isn’t it possible
that the lack of a federally mandated standard for motorist
sight obstructions at railroad crossings contributed to the
level of accidents? Isn’t it possible that FRA’s
lack of investigating railroad-crossing accidents has left
the agency in the dark as to the real cause of accidents? Isn’t
it possible that FRA relies on faulty data
– mostly provided by railroads – to establish its
procedures? Isn’t it possible that the New York Times
and other critics have gotten at least some things right?
FRA indicates that it will undertake three initiatives that
in total constitute its new plan for railroad-crossing safety.
These are as follows:
- Build
partnerships with States and local agencies
FRA states that it will “build partnerships with
States and local agencies,” but doesn’t give
specifics. However, it does provide an example. It will
help Louisiana construct a Corridor Risk Index and “will
work with” the grade-crossing safety community
to determine responses to the increased rate of pedestrian
fatalities at crossings. Terms such as “build partnerships”
and “work with” are not only vague, they
lack meaning. Furthermore, they have no association with
responsibility and accountability. Surely, the self-professed
under-staffed FRA doesn’t intend to be a consultant
to all State governments. And shouldn’t FRA already
have established working relationships, joint programs,
shared-data arrangements, and the like with State agencies.
Communication with, and being accessible to, State and
local agencies is part and parcel of FRA’s very
being.
- Disseminate
information
FRA plans to disseminate information as to its
capabilities to obtain locomotive event recorder
data and to evaluate sound functioning of warning
systems? It’s hard
to believe that after almost 40 years in the business
that FRA has not disseminated such information before.
Where are the rules for obtaining event recorders? Who
enforces them? Why do railroads not always turn over
event recorders following accidents? In general, why
should the FRA plan include one of its obvious responsibilities?
Again, disseminating information is an expected and normal
function of FRA.
- Call
railroads’
attention to their safety duties
FRA claims that it has met its third goal of calling
railroads’
attention to their safety duties, by publishing in the
Federal Registry, a notice that railroads need to review
warning circuitry and to train their employees. At best,
this is an overstatement of the obvious. At worst, it
is an insult to everyone involved in, and affected by,
railroad-crossing safety – in other words, to literally
everyone. It is FRA’s continual job to enforce
safety rules, and calling the railroads’ attention
to their own responsibilities should be an assumed daily
chore. What’s more important is to clearly define
railroad responsibilities in areas of obvious need. For
example, since motorists are required by law to yield
to trains and stop within a zone of 15-50 feet from a
crossing if they hear and/or see an approaching train,
it should be the responsibility of railroads to ensure
that their warning devices are adequately sounded and
that their rights-of-way are clear of overgrown vegetation
and other obstacles. And yet, FRA has not proposed a
national sight-obstruction law and does not embrace sight-obstruction
standards published by its sister agency – the
Federal Highway Administration. In fact, FRA is silent
on this very serious problem, as it is on accident-reporting
accuracy and accident-investigation needs.
As can readily
be seen from FRA intentions, its so-called safety plan
is nothing new at all. Once again the implicit message
from FRA is that the victims of railroad-crossing accidents
are at fault for their own collisions, and it has done,
and will continue to do, a good job – no matter what
evidence exists to the contrary. |
