U-Turns at Railroad Crossings

[Brian556]

The railroad crossing on FM 407 in Highland Village TX is a little unusual that they it is a median crossover that was not intended for vehicular use. Occasionally, you will see some a-hole use it as a U-turn, rudely obstruction the left lane while waiting for traffic to clear. I wonder about the legalities of this, but I would say its legal by loophole.

https://www.google.com/maps/@33.0716096,-97.0485185,3a,75y,150.04h,81.57t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sR3H2G7C7-WdwTgAYgTZIxA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DR3H2G7C7-WdwTgAYgTZIxA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D14.999491%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

[vdeane]

If they are waiting for traffic to clear, then it is most definitely not legal.  Note the sign that says "do not stop on tracks".  Grayer area if traffic is unobstructed, but I would still say not legal.  Who needs to, anyways?  There are median breaks near the crossing on either end, so those people would lose nothing by going to a legal crossing.  I'd add a no U turn sign to be safe.

[CtrlAltDel]

I have no comment about the median, but I did notice that the travel lanes are separated for quite a distance near the railroad crossing by solid (and not dashed) lines. I've seen that for short distances before, but not this fairly long one. Is this common in Texas, or just a fluke for this location?

[lepidopteran]

There was a location like that off DC-295 on Pennsylvania Ave.  If you were going SB on 295 and wanted to go into the city, there is/was no off-ramp to WB Penn. Ave. (inexplicably, though the proximity of the Anacostia River might have been a reason to avoid it).  But there is a ramp to EB Penn, so a lot of people would get off there and quickly make a U-turn.  It was possible to make a slightly shorter U-turn at the break in the median cut by a railroad track -- and not controlled by the traffic signal besides.

This is no longer much of an option since the tracks have since been abandoned.  Once dismantled, a jersey barrier was quickly placed in the median gap.  And besides, with the new 11th Street Bridge (not to mention the de-freeway-ing of Southeast Blvd., the movement is no longer really necessary.

[sparker]

These tracks look like they're in regular/main line use (railheads are shiny and there's plenty of ballast supporting the track structure), so this isn't just some rarely-used track situation.  The picture didn't show the road signage, but a "No U-Turn" sign posted in the median approaching the tracks would likely help (if such hasn't been posted already).  Also, if some sort of curbing were extended along the yellow median line to a couple of yards or so from the tracks (and painted yellow) that in itself might discourage use of the RR crossing as a median break. 

Of course, that wouldn't discourage assholes, drunks, or other miscreants from attempting a shortcut; it would likely take a locomotive demolishing the offender's vehicle (with the incident well-publicized) for any significant behavioral change to occur!     

[jeffandnicole]

There is no "No U-Turn" sign.  And because such sign is omitted, the turn itself is legal.  If someone stops on the tracks, that's illegal, but that's a separate violation. 

Blocking traffic for a turn?  That's actually legal as well. Think about someone turning from a basic 2 lane road - if they have to wait to turn left, they blocking everyone behind them until they make their turn.  Completely normal.

[froggie]

However, Jeff, in the specific scenario Brian asked about, traffic waiting to finish the U-turn is stopped on the tracks, which is illegal.

[jeffandnicole]

However, Jeff, in the specific scenario Brian asked about, traffic waiting to finish the U-turn is stopped on the tracks, which is illegal.

Which I pointed out is a separate violation:

...If someone stops on the tracks, that's illegal, but that's a separate violation.

Someone could make a U-turn without stopping and be perfectly fine.

[sparker]

However, Jeff, in the specific scenario Brian asked about, traffic waiting to finish the U-turn is stopped on the tracks, which is illegal.

Which I pointed out is a separate violation:

...If someone stops on the tracks, that's illegal, but that's a separate violation.

Someone could make a U-turn without stopping and be perfectly fine.

Hence, the need for the set of "no U turn" signs; just plain common sense.  Also, the tracks crossing the street at such an acute angle would pose issues for bicyclists attempting to use the opening for turns (such as getting caught in the rail channels on the concrete pads).  There's a similarly configured crossing in Riverside, CA on Magnolia Ave. (old US 91) -- but it's double-track and used by both BNSF and Metrolink, the L.A. area commuter rail; numerous incidents including vehicles being struck by trains have occurred over the past several decades, particularly since Magnolia functions as a rush-hour relief route for the perennially congested parallel CA 91 freeway.  Grade separations have been suggested but so far have not been formally proposed.