SF 1169

as introduced - 81st Legislature (1999 - 2000) Posted on 12/15/2009 12:00am

  1.1                          A bill for an act 
  1.2             relating to railroads; providing for minimum safety 
  1.3             standards for southern rail corridor grade crossings; 
  1.4             proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, 
  1.5             chapter 219. 
  1.6   BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: 
  1.7      Section 1.  [219.445] [SOUTHERN RAIL CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT 
  1.8   PLAN.] 
  1.9      Subdivision 1.  [CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT.] The commissioner of 
  1.10  transportation shall develop a corridor improvement plan for 
  1.11  grade crossings intersecting or crossing a railway in or near 
  1.12  the communities of Winona, Goodview, Minnesota City, Stockton, 
  1.13  Lewiston, Utica, St. Charles, Dover, Eyota, Chester, Rochester, 
  1.14  Byron, Kasson, Mantorville, Dodge Center, Claremont, Havana, 
  1.15  Owatonna, Meriden, Waseca, Janesville, Smith's Mill, Eagle Lake, 
  1.16  Mankato, North Mankato, Judson, Cambria, New Ulm, Essig, Sleepy 
  1.17  Eye, Cobden, Springfield, Sanborn, Lamberton, Revere, Walnut 
  1.18  Grove, Tracy, Garvin, Balaton, Burchard, Tyler, Lake Benton, and 
  1.19  Verdi in the counties of Winona, Olmsted, Dodge, Steele, Waseca, 
  1.20  Blue Earth, Brown, Redwood, Lyon, and Lincoln. 
  1.21     Subd. 2.  [GRADE SEPARATION RECOMMENDATIONS.] (a) The 
  1.22  commissioner shall include in the plan recommendations for grade 
  1.23  separation at those crossings with levels of exposure exceeding 
  1.24  300,000, based upon projected ten-year and 20-year volumes of 
  1.25  trains and vehicles, except where the affected local governing 
  2.1   body advises the commissioner that a separated grade crossing is 
  2.2   not feasible.  For purposes of this section, "levels of 
  2.3   exposure" means average daily vehicle traffic multiplied by the 
  2.4   number of trains per day at a grade crossing. 
  2.5      (b) The commissioner shall include in the plan 
  2.6   recommendations for grade separation at those crossings: 
  2.7      (1) that meet at least one of the following criteria to be 
  2.8   a candidate for grade separation: 
  2.9      (i) the train speeds at the crossing are 40 miles per hour 
  2.10  or greater, the roadway carries four or more lanes of traffic, 
  2.11  and either: 
  2.12     (A) the roadway immediately preceding the crossing has a 
  2.13  posted speed of 30 miles per hour or greater and a current 
  2.14  average daily traffic (ADT) of 5,000 vehicles or more; or 
  2.15     (B) the roadway immediately preceding the crossing has a 
  2.16  posted speed of 55 miles per hour or greater and a current ADT 
  2.17  of 3,000 vehicles or more; 
  2.18     (ii) there are active warning devices, and there has been a 
  2.19  vehicle-train accident at the grade crossing involving a 
  2.20  fatality or two property damage or personal injury accidents 
  2.21  within the last five years; or 
  2.22     (iii) an increase in public safety would result from 
  2.23  construction of the grade separation by eliminating another 
  2.24  safety problem area such as an accident-prone roadway 
  2.25  intersection; and 
  2.26     (2) the commissioner determines that a grade separation 
  2.27  should be constructed and determines its location after 
  2.28  considering the following factors: 
  2.29     (i) previous use of the crossing by emergency vehicles; 
  2.30     (ii) accident history for the last five years; 
  2.31     (iii) use of the crossing by vehicles carrying hazardous 
  2.32  materials, vehicles carrying passengers for hire, and school 
  2.33  buses; 
  2.34     (iv) volume of vehicular traffic and operating speed; 
  2.35     (v) volume of train traffic and operating speed; 
  2.36     (vi) number of tracks; 
  3.1      (vii) vertical and horizontal alignments, and the need for 
  3.2   and availability of additional right-of-way; 
  3.3      (viii) other grade crossings in the area; 
  3.4      (ix) other factors that might adversely affect the safety 
  3.5   of roadway users, pedestrians, bicyclists, and recreational 
  3.6   users; 
  3.7      (x) costs and benefits of constructing a grade separation 
  3.8   and the cost participation that would be required of each of the 
  3.9   parties involved, as well as the availability of funds; and 
  3.10     (xi) public opinion regarding construction of the grade 
  3.11  separation. 
  3.12     (c) The commissioner shall also consider grade separation 
  3.13  at those crossings where extreme hazard is determined to be 
  3.14  present due to a combination of high train or vehicle speed and 
  3.15  poor sight distance or at those crossings having a historically 
  3.16  high level of accident incidents for which other improvements 
  3.17  are unlikely to be effective in reducing the accident rate. 
  3.18     Subd. 3.  [OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS.] (a) The commissioner 
  3.19  shall develop minimum recommendations for crossings with 
  3.20  moderate levels of exposure or hazard with the use of 
  3.21  "Guidelines for Signals at Railroad-Highway Grade Crossings," in 
  3.22  the handbook titled "Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Issues" 
  3.23  published by the department in December 1996. 
  3.24     (b) The commissioner shall develop additional 
  3.25  recommendations when warranted based on cost-benefit analyses 
  3.26  and addressing, but not limited to: 
  3.27     (1) safety impacts related to the disruption of emergency 
  3.28  services; 
  3.29     (2) the potential for increased accident hazard resulting 
  3.30  from geometric design deficiencies at specific locations in the 
  3.31  corridor; and 
  3.32     (3) the importance of the crossing to the movement of 
  3.33  children to and from schools, either by bus or by walking. 
  3.34     (c) In developing the corridor improvement plan, the 
  3.35  commissioner shall also consider current and projected ten-year 
  3.36  and 20-year train and vehicle traffic volumes in order to 
  4.1   provide future programming and planning guidance to any affected 
  4.2   railroad company, the department, and affected local units of 
  4.3   government. 
  4.4      Subd. 4.  [LOCAL GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION; FEDERAL REVIEW.] 
  4.5   The commissioner shall provide an opportunity for any affected 
  4.6   railroad company and local governing body to participate in 
  4.7   developing the corridor improvement plan.  The commissioner 
  4.8   shall allow an affected local governing body the opportunity to 
  4.9   review the plan before executing any agreement between the 
  4.10  commissioner and an affected railroad company and before 
  4.11  forwarding plan recommendations to the federal Surface 
  4.12  Transportation Board. 
  4.13     Subd. 5.  [FINAL PLAN; HOLD HARMLESS.] (a) The commissioner 
  4.14  shall prepare a final plan following review by the affected 
  4.15  local governing bodies and submit it to any area transportation 
  4.16  partnerships established within the corridor area.  The initial 
  4.17  plan for review must be completed by January 1, 2000.  
  4.18     (b) Unless otherwise specifically agreed to as part of the 
  4.19  plan, the development of a corridor improvement plan does not 
  4.20  bind the state or any local government unit to a specific 
  4.21  implementation timetable or to funding the full cost of proposed 
  4.22  recommended safety upgrades. 
  4.23     Sec. 2.  [EFFECTIVE DATE.] 
  4.24     Section 1 is effective July 1, 1999.