(The following article by Martha Deller was posted on the Fort Worth Star-Telegram website on January 12.)
FORT WORTH, Texas — When a car hit a train last week at the Alvarado crossing where his 9-year-old son was killed in 2001, James Lowery instinctively blamed Union Pacific Railroad for not warning people of the approaching train.
Like others, including Alvarado City Manager Mary Daly, Lowery thought the railroad was responsible for installing warning signals at crossings like the one at County Road 404, where his son, Conner, was killed and his wife, Patricia, was paralyzed.
It wasn’t until Thursday’s car-train collision that Lowery learned that the state, not the railroad, determines the placement of warning signs. Police said the 21-year-old driver was not seriously injured when his car hit the 133-car coal train.
“There’s a common misconception about who decides what type of crossing devices goes there,” said John Bromley, a Union Pacific spokesman. “A lot of people don’t understand that decision is made by the state, not the railroads.”
That’s because the signs are considered highway warning devices, Bromley said.
To protect motorists at railroad crossings, the federal government allocates highway safety grants to states. Each state determines which railroad crossings need warning signs based on a variety of factors.
The Texas Transportation Department annually decides which of the state’s nearly 18,000 railroad crossings will get new warnings signals with federal and state funds, said Val Lopez, a Fort Worth public information officer.
This year, the state has about $25.1 million — 90 percent of it federal funds — to provide new crossing gates or railroad warning signals, Lopez said.
At an average cost of $150,000 for gates and flashing lights at one crossing, the state will pay for 140 projects, he said. The railroads install the devices, with inspection and approval by the state, Lopez said. Bromley said the railroads also maintain the signals.
In Texas, crossings are chosen using a formula that includes the number of accidents, the number and speed of trains, the number of passenger vehicles and school buses, hazardous cargo traffic and existing protective factors, Lopez said.
Although the Alvarado crossing did not make the 2004 list, every crossing in the state is considered using the same formula each year, he said.
“We upgrade as many as we can every year,” Lopez said. “Because changes happen, we re-evaluate it every year to see if it becomes unsafe. If it meets that criteria, it makes the list.”
Lopez said it is theoretically possible for a railroad to pay for warning signals at a crossing if it gets permission from the state, but typically the state and railroads work together to determine which crossings need signals the most.
That, Bromley said, is the purpose of the system.
“States all have different formulas, but they all weigh the same things — auto and train traffic and accident history,” he said. “If they have an effective way to grade and rank crossings, they should be protected from the emotional demands after an accident like this.”
Still, Lowery said he intends to let state officials know that he thinks warning signals are needed to prevent accidents at the Alvarado crossing.
“Whether or not my asking for it has any direct effect on it, I’d still like them to know I’d like to see a crossing gate there to prevent this from happening to someone else,” he said.