https://maps.app.goo.gl/eNMyGJvMWBhKveRr9
This mainline railroad crossing US 3 near Twin Mountain, NH not only doesn't have gates, but also lacks signals as well.
Aren't crossings on major roads and railroads supposed to be signalized with gates?
No. Depends on traffic on the track.
Each state is responsible for the installation of warning devices at highway/railroad grade crossings. The railroad installs and maintains the equipment. Federal Railroad Administration regulations only require active warning devices at crossings when passenger train speeds exceed 79 MPH. (For passenger train speeds above 110 MPH, an impenetrable barrier is required; for passenger train speeds above 125 MPH, no grade crossings are permissible).
There are two primary funding programs available for highway/railroad grade crossing warning device improvements: (1) Railway-Highway Crossing Program (RHCP), and (2) the State Highway Safety Improvement Program (State HSIP); both of these programs are managed as part of the FHWA overall Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). States can contribute additional funds to these programs, and many do. Keep in mind that not all crossings are located on state-maintained highways and roads, so there is also a local component that can make improvement requests to the states. At one time, there were some states that managed these funds under different agencies, but I'm pretty sure that this is now managed by each states' DOT highway division.
An unsignalized railroad crossing is permissible as long as it has a yield or stop sign assigned to it.
US 130 at Klemm Ave in NJ: No lights, no gates. Marked Exempt. Live but infrequently used tracks.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/6PY5MBfqpTYXQyJ47?g_st=ac
Quote from: Big John on July 28, 2024, 08:52:34 PMAn unsignalized railroad crossing is permissible as long as it has a yield or stop sign assigned to it.
One crossing that has long skirted those rules:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/zCXsrSgi2a3HycBs6?g_st=ac
Quote from: Dirt Roads on July 28, 2024, 08:44:30 PMEach state is responsible for the installation of warning devices at highway/railroad grade crossings. The railroad installs and maintains the equipment. Federal Railroad Administration regulations only require active warning devices at crossings when passenger train speeds exceed 79 MPH. (For passenger train speeds above 110 MPH, an impenetrable barrier is required; for passenger train speeds above 125 MPH, no grade crossings are permissible).
There are two primary funding programs available for highway/railroad grade crossing warning device improvements: (1) Railway-Highway Crossing Program (RHCP), and (2) the State Highway Safety Improvement Program (State HSIP); both of these programs are managed as part of the FHWA overall Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). States can contribute additional funds to these programs, and many do. Keep in mind that not all crossings are located on state-maintained highways and roads, so there is also a local component that can make improvement requests to the states. At one time, there were some states that managed these funds under different agencies, but I'm pretty sure that this is now managed by each states' DOT highway division.
Not totally true -- at least, not in all states (indeed, your first two sentences are contradictory from NY's perspective).
In NY, railroads petition the State for use of Section 130/RHCP funding. The railroads outright own the right-of-way of their crossings (I believe 30 feet on either side, IIRC) and
they are responsible for their upkeep, not NYSDOT or any state agency. This includes warning devices -- flashers, gates, whatever else. That said, there is oversight by NYSDOT to ensure that the construction meets standards given that the federal funds flow through the state agency.
Section 130 funding actually flows to railroads. There was a recent project in Auburn where a railroad hired a low-bid driveway paving company to fix one of their crossings. The resulting mess is still being resolved.
"State HSIP" is something of a misnomer given that it's just your run-of-the-mill HSIP apportionment from FHWA. Again, due to railroads having the responsibility for maintenance of their crossings in NY, I can only think of one possible instance where it might have applied towards a rail crossing in central NY, and I'm still betting it was probably Section 130 in the end (it was a rail crossing with more than usual pavement work and even some sidewalk work done along with it in a bundle).
In NY, there was an effort some years ago to apply State Dedicated Funding (SDF) towards rail crossings, but that's long gone the way of the dodo. Funding of rail crossings really has been restricted to the special couple of "HSIP Rail" FHWA programs that really aren't considered part of either NYSDOT's regional planning targets or HSIP held back by Albany for statewide purposes. They're separate program codes in FMIS, anyway.
I drive over a gate-free and signal lacking rail crossing almost everyday at work. It used to be two until the High Speed Rail Authority built an overpass on my favored commuting farm road.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on July 28, 2024, 08:44:30 PMEach state is responsible for the installation of warning devices at highway/railroad grade crossings. The railroad installs and maintains the equipment. Federal Railroad Administration regulations only require active warning devices at crossings when passenger train speeds exceed 79 MPH. (For passenger train speeds above 110 MPH, an impenetrable barrier is required; for passenger train speeds above 125 MPH, no grade crossings are permissible).
There are two primary funding programs available for highway/railroad grade crossing warning device improvements: (1) Railway-Highway Crossing Program (RHCP), and (2) the State Highway Safety Improvement Program (State HSIP); both of these programs are managed as part of the FHWA overall Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). States can contribute additional funds to these programs, and many do. Keep in mind that not all crossings are located on state-maintained highways and roads, so there is also a local component that can make improvement requests to the states. At one time, there were some states that managed these funds under different agencies, but I'm pretty sure that this is now managed by each states' DOT highway division.
Quote from: Rothman on July 28, 2024, 10:13:49 PMNot totally true -- at least, not in all states (indeed, your first two sentences are contradictory from NY's perspective).
In NY, railroads petition the State for use of Section 130/RHCP funding. The railroads outright own the right-of-way of their crossings (I believe 30 feet on either side, IIRC) and they are responsible for their upkeep, not NYSDOT or any state agency. This includes warning devices -- flashers, gates, whatever else. That said, there is oversight by NYSDOT to ensure that the construction meets standards given that the federal funds flow through the state agency.
Section 130 funding actually flows to railroads. There was a recent project in Auburn where a railroad hired a low-bid driveway paving company to fix one of their crossings. The resulting mess is still being resolved.
"State HSIP" is something of a misnomer given that it's just your run-of-the-mill HSIP apportionment from FHWA. Again, due to railroads having the responsibility for maintenance of their crossings in NY, I can only think of one possible instance where it might have applied towards a rail crossing in central NY, and I'm still betting it was probably Section 130 in the end (it was a rail crossing with more than usual pavement work and even some sidewalk work done along with it in a bundle).
I should have more clear. States can utilize "run-of-the-mill" HSIP funding for crossing improvements; but none of the RHCP can be used for anything other than grade crossing work. Many states prefer to keep those funding pots totally separate. And, of course, there's a huge overlap here for grade crossing separation projects, which recently got a major funding boost from Section 22305 of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
I have seen several instances where some states have taken on the contracting for new crossing warning devices when the "railroad" was tiny an unable to carry out that size of a non-"track department" project. But indeed, the money does flow from the state to the railroad.
Quote from: Rothman on July 28, 2024, 10:13:49 PMIn NY, there was an effort some years ago to apply State Dedicated Funding (SDF) towards rail crossings, but that's long gone the way of the dodo. Funding of rail crossings really has been restricted to the special couple of "HSIP Rail" FHWA programs that really aren't considered part of either NYSDOT's regional planning targets or HSIP held back by Albany for statewide purposes. They're separate program codes in FMIS, anyway.
Indeed, states don't need to spend any of their own money on grade crossings. Here in North Carolina, we also have an unusual funding source that can be utilized. The State owns all of the shares of the North Carolina Rail Road, who leases the tracks to Norfolk Southern and returns the dividends to the NCDOT Rail Division to be used for rail corridor improvements. [Only a portion of which (from Greensboro -to- Charlotte) is considered mainline railroad; the rest is on a regional corridor from Greensboro -to- Raleigh -to- Morehead City]. Some of these funds can be used here for crossing improvements or crossing elimination (which includes crossing separation projects).
Quote from: Rothman on July 28, 2024, 10:13:49 PMNot totally true -- at least, not in all states (indeed, your first two sentences are contradictory from NY's perspective).
In NY, railroads petition the State for use of Section 130/RHCP funding. The railroads outright own the right-of-way of their crossings (I believe 30 feet on either side, IIRC) and they are responsible for their upkeep, not NYSDOT or any state agency. This includes warning devices -- flashers, gates, whatever else. That said, there is oversight by NYSDOT to ensure that the construction meets standards given that the federal funds flow through the state agency.
Are you referring to any situations where the railroads are requesting "upgrades"? (Such as the OP wondering about an upgrade from flashing light signals -to- flashing light signals and gates). I'm aware of some railroads making requests for state funds to replace existing warning devices that were obsolete or structurally deficient.
For the record, all of my "railroad" experience in New York State was with MTA-funded transit authorities, who have a different relationship with NYSDOT than the railroads typically have.
Quote from: Big John on July 28, 2024, 08:52:34 PMAn unsignalized railroad crossing is permissible as long as it has a yield or stop sign assigned to it.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 28, 2024, 09:00:51 PMOne crossing that has long skirted those rules:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/zCXsrSgi2a3HycBs6?g_st=ac
Nothing wrong with a crossing with crossbucks as the only warning device. Some states prefer to supplement the crossbucks with stop signs or yield signs, but (the last time I looked at MUTCD) these supplements were not recommended (and certainly not part of the standard).
There's been a long-running argument between states, railroads and commercial drivers about the application of stop signs at grade crossings. Historically, police cite that compliance with stop signs is much higher than compliance with the "Stop-Look-Listen" rule for crossbucks. [Actually, hardly anybody stops at crossbucks anymore, but that is a different story]. Commercial passenger buses/vans and hazmat trucks are required to stop. But many other commercial drivers complain that the chance of getting stuck on a railroad crossing is much higher when required to stop short.
Some old-fashioned railroads also complained that the location of stop signs with the crossbucks encouraged cars and trucks to stop inside the railroad right-of-way, increasing the chance of vehicles getting smacked by loose metal straps and other dragging equipment beneath the trains.
I believe that most of these issues have been forgotten over the span of my railroading career.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 28, 2024, 10:46:04 PMI drive over a gate-free and signal lacking rail crossing almost everyday at work. It used to be two until the High Speed Rail Authority built an overpass on my favored commuting farm road.
Not discounting your crossing, but the OP was raising the concern that his crossing over US-3 in New Hampshire was on a "major road". US-3 may not be a major road is some folks book, but AFAIK there is no Federal requirement for a minimum of flashing light signals and gates (FLS&G) on any true major highway. That being said, almost all states have prioritized the installation of FLS&G on two-lane highways with high traffic volumes and cantilevered flashing light signals and gates (CFLS&G) on multi-lane highways with high traffic volumes. Even when there is little to none railroad traffic at particular crossings. The chances of a catastrophic accident when there is an unexpected train is just too great (particularly in the dark).
Quote from: Dirt Roads on July 28, 2024, 11:34:14 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on July 28, 2024, 10:46:04 PMI drive over a gate-free and signal lacking rail crossing almost everyday at work. It used to be two until the High Speed Rail Authority built an overpass on my favored commuting farm road.
Not discounting your crossing, but the OP was raising the concern that his crossing over US-3 in New Hampshire was on a "major road". US-3 may not be a major road is some folks book, but AFAIK there is no Federal requirement for a minimum of flashing light signals and gates (FLS&G) on any true major highway. That being said, almost all states have prioritized the installation of FLS&G on two-lane highways with high traffic volumes and cantilevered flashing light signals and gates (CFLS&G) on multi-lane highways with high traffic volumes. Even when there is little to none railroad traffic at particular crossings. The chances of a catastrophic accident when there is an unexpected train is just too great (particularly in the dark).
The first one I'm referring to sees about 4,000 vehicles a day. It also is a publicly accessible roadway on a military base (probably the busiest on the installation). The fact that the military is involved no doubt plays a factor why several modern crossing features aren't present.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 28, 2024, 10:46:04 PMI drive over a gate-free and signal lacking rail crossing almost everyday at work. It used to be two until the High Speed Rail Authority built an overpass on my favored commuting farm road.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on July 28, 2024, 11:34:14 PMNot discounting your crossing, but the OP was raising the concern that his crossing over US-3 in New Hampshire was on a "major road". US-3 may not be a major road is some folks book, but AFAIK there is no Federal requirement for a minimum of flashing light signals and gates (FLS&G) on any true major highway. That being said, almost all states have prioritized the installation of FLS&G on two-lane highways with high traffic volumes and cantilevered flashing light signals and gates (CFLS&G) on multi-lane highways with high traffic volumes. Even when there is little to none railroad traffic at particular crossings. The chances of a catastrophic accident when there is an unexpected train is just too great (particularly in the dark).
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 28, 2024, 11:41:00 PMThe first one I'm referring to sees about 4,000 vehicles a day. It also is a publicly accessible roadway on a military base (probably the busiest on the installation). The fact that the military is involved no doubt plays a factor why several modern crossing features aren't present.
No doubt. I suspect that the railroad rules for operating over the crossing are probably different on a military base as well.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on July 28, 2024, 11:09:37 PMQuote from: Rothman on July 28, 2024, 10:13:49 PMNot totally true -- at least, not in all states (indeed, your first two sentences are contradictory from NY's perspective).
In NY, railroads petition the State for use of Section 130/RHCP funding. The railroads outright own the right-of-way of their crossings (I believe 30 feet on either side, IIRC) and they are responsible for their upkeep, not NYSDOT or any state agency. This includes warning devices -- flashers, gates, whatever else. That said, there is oversight by NYSDOT to ensure that the construction meets standards given that the federal funds flow through the state agency.
Are you referring to any situations where the railroads are requesting "upgrades"? (Such as the OP wondering about an upgrade from flashing light signals -to- flashing light signals and gates). I'm aware of some railroads making requests for state funds to replace existing warning devices that were obsolete or structurally deficient.
For the record, all of my "railroad" experience in New York State was with MTA-funded transit authorities, who have a different relationship with NYSDOT than the railroads typically have.
I'm referring to all maintenance activities within railroad-owned ROW, whether replacing in-kind or upgrading devices.
To cut down on quote tunnels, you also brought up the grade elimination funding. Keep in mind that's a grant program, rather than apportionment. The application and reporting requirements can be a huge disincentive for DOTs to seek after them. As one consultant I heard say, "The BIL might as well be called the Consultant Subsidy Bill." If a DOT did not retain consultants to pursue grants and their in-house staff was not at the level to handle the effect of the gazillion grant programs in BIL, then you'll see fewer applications from that DOT.
(personal opinion emphasized)
Quote from: Dirt Roads on July 28, 2024, 08:44:30 PMEach state is responsible for the installation of warning devices at highway/railroad grade crossings. The railroad installs and maintains the equipment.
Quote from: Rothman on July 28, 2024, 10:13:49 PMNot totally true -- at least, not in all states (indeed, your first two sentences are contradictory from NY's perspective).
In NY, railroads petition the State for use of Section 130/RHCP funding. The railroads outright own the right-of-way of their crossings (I believe 30 feet on either side, IIRC) and they are responsible for their upkeep, not NYSDOT or any state agency. This includes warning devices -- flashers, gates, whatever else. That said, there is oversight by NYSDOT to ensure that the construction meets standards given that the federal funds flow through the state agency.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on July 28, 2024, 11:09:37 PMAre you referring to any situations where the railroads are requesting "upgrades"? (Such as the OP wondering about an upgrade from flashing light signals -to- flashing light signals and gates). I'm aware of some railroads making requests for state funds to replace existing warning devices that were obsolete or structurally deficient.
For the record, all of my "railroad" experience in New York State was with MTA-funded transit authorities, who have a different relationship with NYSDOT than the railroads typically have.
Quote from: Rothman on July 29, 2024, 07:05:27 AMI'm referring to all maintenance activities within railroad-owned ROW, whether replacing in-kind or upgrading devices.
I'm inclined to stick with my original statement. To clarify, railroads see the installation of warning devices (ergo, selection of the appropriate form of warning devices and changes thereto) as a state responsibility. More importantly, railroads don't want to assume any liability for the situation that the OP was concerned about (that a particular crossing would be deemed safer with FLS&G instead of plain ole' FLS). That doesn't mean that railroads haven't got hit with crossing collision lawsuits where such arguments were used in certain states.
However, I should ask if you know of any instances where CSX/NS/CP (or in days gone by, Conrail or Delaware & Hudson) specifically requested an upgrade from one level of warning device to another. If you (anyone else does), all of my arguments go up in smoke.
Back in my day, there were a bunch of "unprotected" crossings (ergo, crossbucks only) that were on the list of getting their first set of active warning devices. I knew of one particular crossing engineer that would "help" states by complaining that they [didn't fully adhere to MUTCD recommendations] at certain new installations (when he thought that state could afford to spend more at the particular crossing), but he did so against company policy. Otherwise the railroads didn't participate in the selection of appropriate warning devices.
Just spoke to a NYSDOT rail coordinator and he rattled off half-a-dozen "recent" upgrade projects in central NY (past 2-3 years) that were at the behest of CSX or Finger Lakes. Confirmed that upgrades funded by Section 130 are always at the railroads' request.
One big issue CSX has in NY is that they thought they were getting rid of the line north of Syracuse by selling it off. Sale fell through and CSX is grumbling and now progressing the delayed maintenance of several crossings now along that line. It'll get done, but it's been a little interesting to watch projects that were crawling along suddenly get sped up. :D
That is certainly a big shift from my days, but the Class I railroads also pump a lot of money into crossing warning systems and crossing elimination, so I shouldn't be surprised.
Since you specifically mentioned the sale of the Massena Line and the Baldwinsville Sub, I'm also wondering if the sale didn't go through because the extra liability cost due to obsolete (or inadequate original) crossing applications. It's entirely possible that CSX requested these revisions in order to facilitate the sale to a nervous set of investors (and that my original pretext still applies to its mainline properties).
Anywhoosit, the state DOT folks (like yourself) may see warning device installations and maintenance costs as being paid to the railroad out of the same RHCP pot, but we railroaders had them in different pots with funding coming from a variety of different sources. The major railroads provide significant supplemental funding for these projects and maintenance efforts, and even those could be from different internal and external sources. Some of that funding goes towards a percentage of the cost of maintenance staffing, supervision and replacement parts. Sometimes those funds get earmarked to certain crossing projects (and in some cases, the word "earmark" is indeed political).
And, depending upon the railroad, sometimes the funds get used to close the accounting gaps in the middle (like when I was a signal maintenance supervisor but would also need to manage crossing improvement projects on my territory, some of my salary would get funded by particular crossing project budget, most of which came from whichever state). Something similar happens when the System Signal Inspectors would come out and perform test and commissioning on new crossing installations.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on July 28, 2024, 11:24:12 PMNothing wrong with a crossing with crossbucks as the only warning device. Some states prefer to supplement the crossbucks with stop signs or yield signs, but (the last time I looked at MUTCD) these supplements were not recommended (and certainly not part of the standard).
The 2009 national MUTCD introduced a requirement that any passive railroad crossing shall have a yield or stop sign installed (with yield being the default), either on the same support as the crossbuck or on a separate nearby post installed under the normal standards for those signs.
I seem to recall some discussion (maybe on this forum) that people thought that requirement was a bit overkill.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on July 29, 2024, 12:03:14 PMThat is certainly a big shift from my days, but the Class I railroads also pump a lot of money into crossing warning systems and crossing elimination, so I shouldn't be surprised.
Since you specifically mentioned the sale of the Massena Line and the Baldwinsville Sub, I'm also wondering if the sale didn't go through because the extra liability cost due to obsolete (or inadequate original) crossing applications. It's entirely possible that CSX requested these revisions in order to facilitate the sale to a nervous set of investors (and that my original pretext still applies to its mainline properties).
Anywhoosit, the state DOT folks (like yourself) may see warning device installations and maintenance costs as being paid to the railroad out of the same RHCP pot, but we railroaders had them in different pots with funding coming from a variety of different sources. The major railroads provide significant supplemental funding for these projects and maintenance efforts, and even those could be from different internal and external sources. Some of that funding goes towards a percentage of the cost of maintenance staffing, supervision and replacement parts. Sometimes those funds get earmarked to certain crossing projects (and in some cases, the word "earmark" is indeed political).
And, depending upon the railroad, sometimes the funds get used to close the accounting gaps in the middle (like when I was a signal maintenance supervisor but would also need to manage crossing improvement projects on my territory, some of my salary would get funded by particular crossing project budget, most of which came from whichever state). Something similar happens when the System Signal Inspectors would come out and perform test and commissioning on new crossing installations.
The sheer amount of public fiscal and legal subsidizing of railroads is staggering.
Quote from: Dirt Roads on July 28, 2024, 11:24:12 PMNothing wrong with a crossing with crossbucks as the only warning device. Some states prefer to supplement the crossbucks with stop signs or yield signs, but (the last time I looked at MUTCD) these supplements were not recommended (and certainly not part of the standard).
Quote from: roadfro on July 30, 2024, 12:11:35 PMThe 2009 national MUTCD introduced a requirement that any passive railroad crossing shall have a yield or stop sign installed (with yield being the default), either on the same support as the crossbuck or on a separate nearby post installed under the normal standards for those signs.
I seem to recall some discussion (maybe on this forum) that people thought that requirement was a bit overkill.
There was some confusion whether yield signs were required in the 2009 MUTCD. Indeed, the new
Section 8B.04 Crossbuck Assemblies with YIELD or STOP Signs at Passive Grade Crossings in the 2009 version required the use of yield signs (and the stop sign could only be applied if required by an engineering study...) However, the old
Section 8B.03 Grade Crossing (Crossbuck) Sign (R15-1) and Number of Tracks Plaque (R15-2P) at Active and Passive Grade Crossings (which didn't change much from the 2003 MUTCD) stated "As a minimum, one Crossbuck sign shall be used on each highway approach to every highway-rail grade crossing, alone or in combination with other traffic control devices", which does not appear to require any supplemental signage.
My final crossing projects were still governed under the 2003 MUTCD, so I didn't have to make this judgment call.
For what it's worth, this particular stretch of railroad in New Hampshire is not actively used. It's part of the Mountain Division, part of which is still used by the Conway Scenic Railroad, which ends a few miles south of this crossing. The active railroad crosses Route 302 a few times and those crossings have signals.
Quote from: Rothman on July 30, 2024, 01:41:44 PMThe sheer amount of public fiscal and legal subsidizing of railroads is staggering.
To your point, I know of one major "fallen flag" railroad that got pressed to triple its production of grade crossing projects. Six states supposedly colluded to force that railroad to crank out up to 220 new grade crossings each year, and the railroad responded with a plan for standardized crossing designs whereby the designer literally erased the crossing components and circuits that weren't required. The railroad got a flat rate for design work, which was about one-third (1/3rd) of the cost of an engineered crossing. (My understanding was that other efficiencies cut the cost of the average crossing project in half, but I never was able to get proof).
On the other hand, this railroad ended up with an entire (albeit small) sub-department devoted to crossing signal design with another person devoted to crossing signal material procurement. All under a dedicated Assistant Chief Engineer. And for a short time in 1987, (probably) all of those expenses were being charged against the brand-spanking new Title 23 Section 130 funding.
By the way, it was my understanding that several of those original six states tried to back out of their agreement when they realized how this was playing out. Some of the states this railroad operated in were not part of the original six, and they couldn't understand how the cost of crossing projects got reduced overnight.
Their next merger pushed all of this aside.
Here's an interesting one in PA that has no gates.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/NY88mUxs4Bc7egrU9
This is Butler Plank Road @ PA-8.
It's never had gates for as long as I've crossed it. The traffic lights do control crossing traffic, however, they used to have lightup 'NO RIGHT/LEFT/STRAIGHT TURN' signage (2007 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/vLdvxkBJBahMCwDJ8)) if a train did come thru.
Meanwhile, just beside it, the crossing for Walgreens has gates (https://maps.app.goo.gl/QwvfwYU5VS1sUQXt6). lol.
In my experience, passive RR crossings are usually such because:
-The line is abandoned (and marked Exempt so that vehicles normally required to stop at crossings don't have to)
-The line is a secondary branch of a mainline and sees little traffic, with typical speeds of 30mph or less.
-The line is a siding having a low speed limit and thus the conductor has to get out and manually flag the train over the crossing
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on August 08, 2024, 09:42:05 AMThe line is abandoned (and marked Exempt so that vehicles normally required to stop at crossings don't have to)
My wife chided me this week because I went through an Exempt crossing without slowing down for the Yield sign. I couldn't explain to her exactly what that meant, other than that the line wasn't used enough to make vehicles like tanker trucks and school buses stop. So not slowing for the Yield shouldn't have been an issue.
Quote from: GaryV on August 08, 2024, 07:14:01 PMQuote from: RobbieL2415 on August 08, 2024, 09:42:05 AMThe line is abandoned (and marked Exempt so that vehicles normally required to stop at crossings don't have to)
My wife chided me this week because I went through an Exempt crossing without slowing down for the Yield sign. I couldn't explain to her exactly what that meant, other than that the line wasn't used enough to make vehicles like tanker trucks and school buses stop. So not slowing for the Yield shouldn't have been an issue.
If the line is active, regardless how often it"s used, yielding seems warranted.
Quote from: GaryV on August 08, 2024, 07:14:01 PMQuote from: RobbieL2415 on August 08, 2024, 09:42:05 AMThe line is abandoned (and marked Exempt so that vehicles normally required to stop at crossings don't have to)
My wife chided me this week because I went through an Exempt crossing without slowing down for the Yield sign. I couldn't explain to her exactly what that meant, other than that the line wasn't used enough to make vehicles like tanker trucks and school buses stop. So not slowing for the Yield shouldn't have been an issue.
Oof. Your extension beyond what the "EXEMPT" sign is intended is a real stretch.
US 287/College Ave in Fort Collins, with a Union Pacific spur with no gates https://maps.app.goo.gl/MkaGpbTXg24KZdXA8 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/MkaGpbTXg24KZdXA8)
Two miles North, the UP spur crosses US 287 again, with no gates. https://maps.app.goo.gl/dJEeiVC418whuEn97 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/dJEeiVC418whuEn97)
According to trainorders, the line has trains each direction, once a week, servicing the Holcim Cement Plant.
Here is a spur line in east Plano with just a Yield sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.0070644,-96.6713619,3a,75y,97.97h,86.04t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1soCc4KWo4uzfGE3XXhksTgA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D3.9604168393362187%26panoid%3DoCc4KWo4uzfGE3XXhksTgA%26yaw%3D97.9677757318961!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDMxOS4xIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D). This same spur line crossed a major street in Plano (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.0045369,-96.6822506,3a,75y,356.32h,92.25t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1so6YqpT6Qx-qacNwJGLpgbg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-2.253049431522456%26panoid%3Do6YqpT6Qx-qacNwJGLpgbg%26yaw%3D356.31716004911647!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDMxOS4xIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D), but ends at a Packaging Corporation of America warehouse to the west of this crossing.
Although judging from other crossings on this spur route, I'm wondering if this spur was "abandoned in place".