08162017Headline:

Kansas City, Missouri

HomeMissouriKansas City

Email Brett Emison Brett Emison on LinkedIn Brett Emison on Twitter Brett Emison on Facebook Brett Emison on Avvo
Brett Emison
Brett Emison
Attorney • (800) 397-4910

Why Don’t Railroad Companies Guard All Railroad Crossings?

6 comments

Most Railroad Crossings Are Not Properly GuardedI have written frequently about railroad crossing accidents and dangers.

A fatal train crash in Missouri sheds additional light on these dangers. The Springfield News Leader reported on a railroad crossing crash involving a dump truck and a Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad freight train.

The railroad crossing was not protected by flashing lights, bells, or gates. Instead, like the vast majority of railroad crossings across the country, the crossing was "protected" by only small "crossbuck" signs — the "X" shaped "Railroad Crossing" signs familiar at many crossings.

Why aren't the crossings protected by proper lights, bells, and gates? Because the railroads refuse to pay for them and because local governments don't have enough money.

Eric Curtit, administrator of railroads with the Missouri Department of Transportation, said there is simply not enough money to upgrade all of the passive crossings across Missouri.

"We only have so many dollars," he said.

Instead, Curtit said MoDOT has assessed the roughly 3,800 public crossings throughout the state and rates them in what he called "a severity index."

Governments "only have so many dollars", railroad companies won't protect their own crossings, and so people die.

In Missouri, 13 people have died in railroad crossing collision just this year.

Perhaps even more dangerous than no lights and gates are malfunctioning lights and gates. On the same day as the fatal railroad crossing accident in Seymour, warning lights and gates malfunctioned in Aurora, Missouri. The lights and gates were active, but no train was near. Railroad officials later admitted the lights and gates were malfunctioning.

Such malfunctions can confuse drivers and give a false sense of security. In Aurora, a bus driver is now under investigation for driving through the malfunctioning lights and gates after several minutes of waiting.

Last year, Union Pacific Railroad increased its shareholder dividend by 22% and bought back stock from investors to increase its share price. UP had operating revenues of more than $14 billion in 2009 with a net profit of nearly $3.5 billion, resulting in a 24% profit. If Union Pacific had been content with a 20% profit margin (rather than 24%), it could have invested more than $500 million to improving railroad crossing safety. It didn't. It kept the money or distributed it to shareholders rather than ensuring its crossings were safe.

Missouri has been one of the top 10 deadliest states for railroad crossing crashes. But the problem is not limited to Missouri. Too many people are being killed by freight trains and passenger trains across the country because railroad companies, like Union Pacific and BNSF, refuse to take responsibility for protecting motorists from their massive trains.

Last year, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) ordered the 10 states with the most railroad crossing crashes to implement safety improvements or lose millions of dollars in federal grants. Those states had one year to make plans for the safety improvements and five years to implement them.

But why should taxpayers pay to safeguard railroad property? Would you expect the federal, local, or state governments to come in and pay for safety improvements for your home or business? Why should taxpayers be giving a safety bailout to corporations that made more than $3 billion, upped shareholder dividends and bought back stock to reward its shareholders?

For BNSF, not only does it expect the government (or you and I) to pay for its safety improvements, it goes the extra step of trying cover up its conduct by destroying evidence. In October 2009, BNSF was hit with a $4 million penalty — on top of a $21.6 million jury verdict — because of its "staggering" pattern of misconduct that included destroying evidence in an attempted cover-up of its role in the deaths of four young people who were killed at one of its railroad crossings. The court found BNSF destroyed evidence, fabricated other evidence, interfered with an investigation, and purposefully lied and advanced misleading facts in order to conceal the truth.

Every railroad crossing can prove dangerous. but, ultimately, it is the railroad company’s responsibility for maintaining a safe crossing.

Railroad companies should be held accountable for dangerous railroad crossings. There shouldn't be a different set of rules for railroad companies than for everyone else. We're responsible for making sure our businesses are safe. So should railroad companies. Railroads need to stop putting profits ahead of safety. We don't need a railroad bailout when these companies have the resources to make their own tracks safe.

[More on Railroad Crossing Dangers]

Read More:

(c) Copyright 2011 Brett A. Emison

Follow @BrettEmison on Twitter.

6 Comments

Have an opinion about this post? Please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.

  1. Tom White says:
    up arrow

    In most cases, highways are built across pre-existing railroad tracks. When highways are built across other privately-owned lands, the landowner is not expected to pay for what are essentially highway safety devices. Why should railroads be treated differently in that case than other landowners? Obviously, they shouldn’t be. Equally obviously, the public entity responsible for the road built across pre-existing tracks should have the obligation to pay for lights, gates and other highway safety devices at tracks.

  2. J M says:
    up arrow

    In the absence of personal responsibly, you seek others to blame. Why not partnership with Operation Livesaver, and help educate people about the dangers of railroad crossings?

  3. Brett Emison says:
    up arrow

    JM – you speak of personal resonsibility, but what of corporate responsibility?

    Certainly, I am for educating the public about railroad crossing dangers. That is the primary reason for posts such as this. I have never advocated an abandonment of responsibility. In fact, I have done just the opposite. I have demanded responsibility.

    Why should we grant amnesty to railroad companies that ignore safety, fail to properly maintain their railroad crossings and safety equipment, and attempt to cover up their own fault? Are they not responsible? Are they not accountable? Shouldn’t railroad companies accept their responsibility also?

  4. Robert Pines says:
    up arrow

    I would be interested in a statewide class action against the state and railroad for mass misappropriation of the the Federal funds we pay and millions in safety money missing from the 25 cent vehicle registration ear marked for railroad safety. Talking billions in stolen equipment by railroads when lights are replaced with gates and the lights are stolen by the railroad. (Stand alone gates can be installed for 40% of the cost.)

    And audit of the states own transportation plan shows how mis-spent OUR tax funds go.

    The state guy LIES on how many crossings there are. 1000s of these crossings haven’t seen trains for years. MANY with crossing lights with the tracks paved over.

    http://www.modot.org/plansandprojects/construction_program/STIP2010-2014/documents/Sec07Multimodal.pdf

    http://www.nytimes.com/ref/national/deathonthetracks_index.html
    http://csx-sucks.com/SiteDist.pdf

  5. up arrow

    I agree that railroad companies have a corporate responsibility to maintain crossings for safety. I recently came to a place where a fast moving train zipped across the crossing at 35 miles per hour. The only signage at this crossing is a cross buck that reads: Railroad Crossing. There are no gates protecting traffic from running up in front of the train, it’s a recipe for disaster.

  6. Robert Pines says:
    up arrow

    http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/notices/n4510723t1.htm626098M
    VIRGINIA —$4,487,023
    CSX put in the lights but the tax-payers pay the railroad what the railroad wants since there is no invitation to bid as required by law. Virginia received almost $4.5 million from the Feds last year which the state is supposed to match 10% I believe.

    Looking at the FRA inventory for this crossing the speed limit for trains is 20 mph not like 35 mph. 1,000s of vehicle crossing a day are shaved off the inventory over the years and like a 100 school bus crossings a day are shaved off.

    The collision history of 14 collisions (all listed with train speeds under 20 mph) and 8 injuries would put the crossing way up there towards the top in collision history.
    I find like two crossing signal projects for the $5 million in safety funds alloted last year in the state transportation plan. One for $940,000 for lights only when lights are taken out all the time when gates are installed. The railroad makes $900,000 on just that one. Ask the state where they and their railroad buds wasted the rest of the safety funds which they are experts at!!

    Oh— But the railroad needs 8 times the $5 million to raise a bridge so they can double stack the train cars (In transportation plan) No problem.
    FROM: 103 Ft North of Rt. 360 TO: At NSRR Crossing #715210S
    TOTAL COST $206,662
    http://www.virginiadot.org/about/resources/stip/FFY12-STIP-APPROVED.pdf
    Picadilly St.-Install Flashing Light Signals w/Bell FROM: At Intersection with Kent Street TO: at CSX RR Crossing #139448J
    ROUTE/STREET PICADILY STREET (0000) TOTAL COST $940,000