From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   rcp27g@gmail.com wrote:   
      
   >One risk with this line of thinking is that if you focus too strongly on   
   >one failure mode, solutions that reduce harm in that situation may   
   >increase it in others.  The best way to reduce deaths and injuries in   
   >grade crossing collisions is to prevent the collisions.  This might mean   
   >closing less used crossings, grade separating where possible, or putting   
   >in positive singalling control on others (ie where the crossing is   
   >protected by railway signals that aren't cleared for the train until the   
   >barriers are down and the crossing positively checked to be clear). . . .   
      
   I'm not sure you're properly weighing risk and reward either. PTC grade   
   crossings will never justify their expense, and if you require them   
   everywhere operate below 80 mph, you might as well shut down all the   
   nation's railroads.   
      
   Grade separation isn't possible at all railroad crossings either, nor is   
   closing every lightly-used crossing. You can't cut off access to nearby   
   land or create situations in which miles of additional driving is required.   
      
   You know what's cost effective? Street lights at grade crossings, making   
   sure lightly used grade crossings are well lit, even if the roads themselves   
   are unlit.   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)