2021_03-23_PWETCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

2. Nighttime Closure of a Crossing —The roadway would be closed by the use of some type of barricade(s) that can completely close off the crossing. This would be used only if a part-time quiet zone is requested. The closure must include a process that will verify that a crossing has been closed for the night. Other cities have used an automatic barricade that is locked into place and provides a warning light to the train that the crossing is closed. 3. Permanent Closure of the Crossing —This means that the roadway would be closed and barricaded permanently. The railroad signals and surface would be removed. Under the FRA risk computations, the closure allows a credit in the risk assessment that may allow other options at the remaining crossings in the zone. 4. Raised Center Medians — Raised center medians a minimum of 60 feet long (100 feet long preferred) are installed to prevent vehicles from driving around the gates. If the median is less than 6 inches tall, traffic delineators are required. If a roadway is of sufficient width, medians are relatively inexpensive to install. The disadvantage of medians is disruption to local access. Four Quadrant Gates — Four quadrant gates are regular railroad gates with two additional gates being added to the exit traffic lanes. This will completely close off the crossing. The exit gates are on a delay that will allow a vehicle to clear the crossing before descending. Traffic loop detectors may be required to detect if a vehicle is stopped on the tracks. The advantage of this SSM is that no additional roadway work is usually needed for the gates to be installed. The disadvantage is that there is a potential to trap a vehicle, they are expensive to install, the City may assume maintenance of the loop detectors and the City may be responsible for the extra maintenance for the extra gates. If SSMs or Risk Index level is insufficient, Alternate Safety Measures (ASM) can be proposed to the FRA for individual crossings. These ASMs can be non -engineering solutions, such as traffic enforcement, photo enforcement, or education programs. Other engineering solutions can be proposed if shown effective in improving safety. These may include different styles of medians or a new type of warning device. A community is required to provide documentation that an ASM is effective. This documentation may require video camera installation, review of police efforts to enforce crossing violations, or a record of public service announcements. The level of documentation is not well defined in the rules. The three most popular ASMs are: 1. Photo Enforcement of Traffic Violations —This is a system of cameras that monitor the railroad crossings and will issue traffic tickets to violators. In Minnesota, it is against state law to photo enforce traffic violations.