Bill Overview
Title: Blocked Rail Crossings Safety Improvement Act of 2021
Description: This bill addresses safety and congestion along railroad right-of-way and highway-rail grade crossings. For example, the bill directs the Department of Transportation (DOT) to provide grants to (1) assist state, local, and tribal governments in funding the cost of highway-rail grade crossing separation projects; and (2) help nonprofit organizations carry out public information and education programs to help prevent and reduce rail-related pedestrian, motor vehicle, and other incidents, injuries, and fatalities, and to improve awareness along railroad right-of-way and at highway-rail grade crossings. Additionally, the bill prohibits railroad carriers from obstructing travel at public highway-rail crossings for more than 10 minutes, except under limited circumstances (e.g., safety issues). Further, DOT must (1) establish a national blocked crossings database for the public to report blocked crossing incidents; (2) conduct a comprehensive review of the national highway-rail crossing inventory; and (3) revise its regulations, guidance, or other relevant agency documents to include the number of suicides on a railroad crossing or railroad right-of-way in the total number of rail fatalities it reports each year.
Sponsors: Rep. Carson, Andre [D-IN-7]
Target Audience
Population: People living in regions with railroad crossings
Estimated Size: 150000000
- The bill targets safety improvements at highway-rail grade crossings, which affects people living near railroads or frequently using these crossings.
- The grant provision to state, local, and tribal governments implies a direct impact on these communities by funding projects that separate highway traffic from rail traffic.
- The focus on reducing rail-related incidents targets individuals who are motorists, pedestrians, or cyclists crossing railroads.
- Improved regulations on the duration a railroad can block crossings will affect motorists and residents who rely on free passage along these routes.
- The bill impacts entities involved in reporting and addressing rail safety issues, including the Department of Transportation (DOT), safety agencies, and local governments.
Reasoning
- The policy targets areas with significant rail traffic, meaning both urban and rural populations will be affected.
- A high commonness score indicates many people living near railways could experience impacts, majorly in terms of time savings and increased safety.
- Implementation capacity is limited by budget, affecting project scope and regions benefiting from grant funding.
- Safety outcomes can significantly raise wellbeing scores, but the cost limit means not all rail crossings are immediately upgraded.
- The policy will have varying effects on different demographic groups; people commuting by car or living near major rail routes will experience greater impact. Heavy rail regions will prioritize due to budget constraints.
Simulated Interviews
nurse (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry about the safety of my kids with the frequent train crossings near our school.
- The blocking of the road by trains makes my commute a hassle sometimes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
retired farmer (Rural Nebraska)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Sometimes tech problems with rail crossings lead to long waits.
- Safety is a concern with blocked crossings, especially when emergency services need quick access.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
software developer (New York, New York)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More investment in rail safety is good, but doesn't directly affect subway commuters like me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
teacher (Atlanta, Georgia)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Waiting for trains regularly is frustrating and causes delays to my schedule.
- Improved safety measures would be very beneficial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
city planner (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a long-needed policy to address urban transit issues.
- Enhancing rail safety is critical for city planning.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
student (Miami, Florida)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Biking is hazardous near train tracks, glad there's focus on safety improvement.
- Less waiting times would be a big advantage.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
truck driver (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a truck driver, time lost at rail crossings is frustrating.
- Rail traffic management improvements will help optimize my scheduling.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
retired (Salt Lake City, Utah)
Age: 67 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Safety improvements along rail lines are of utmost importance.
- Glad to see measures being taken to reduce blocked crossing times.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
bicycle courier (Portland, Oregon)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like this improve my ability to navigate the city safely.
- Less few rail-related slowdowns will make my job easier.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
factory worker (Dallas, Texas)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Rail crossings make my commute longer and more stressful.
- Speedy implementation would be a relief.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $68000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $75000000)
Year 2: $70500000 (Low: $62000000, High: $78000000)
Year 3: $73000000 (Low: $64000000, High: $81000000)
Year 5: $78000000 (Low: $67000000, High: $86000000)
Year 10: $85000000 (Low: $72000000, High: $94000000)
Year 100: $110000000 (Low: $93000000, High: $122000000)
Key Considerations
- The timeline for infrastructure projects can vary widely depending on region and scale, impacting the timing of economic benefits.
- Political and community support may influence the speed and effectiveness of project rollout.
- Technological solutions for database management and operational efficiency will require careful planning to control long-term costs.