OHIO’S SIGHT-OBSTRUCTION LAW AT RAILROAD CROSSINGS:
A PAPER TIGER OR WHAT?
By: Dr. Harvey A. Levine, Director, Crossing to Safety®

My experience as an expert witness in railroad-crossing accident proceedings reveals that motorist sight obstruction is a contributing cause of a significant number of collisions between trains and motor vehicles. While the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials has embraced a complex matrix of adequate sight distances, originally based on recommendations of the United States Department of Transportation, Ohio has its own law addressing the issue. Initially, the law states that a railroad:

Shall destroy or remove plants, trees, brush, or other obstructive vegetation upon its right-of-way at each intersection with a public road or highway, for a distance of six hundred feet or a reasonably safe distance from the roadway of such public road or highway as shall be determined by the Public Utilities Commission. (Ohio Revised Code 4955.36).

While the Ohio law addresses obstructed vegetation, rather than obstructions in general (including piles of material, buildings, stored items, etc.), it has also been my experience that a large portion of sight obstructions are vegetation related. Although some of these sight obstructions may have been on private property, many were on railroad property. Thus, it seems that not all railroads are complying with Ohio law and at the same time, Ohio’s sight-obstruction law may not be effectively enforced. In fact, aside from my personal observations in Ohio, the Ohio Public Utilities Commission (PUCO) implicitly acknowledges the existence of sight obstructions in stating that it takes such obstructions into account when determining which crossings are candidates for the installation of automated gates and flashing lights. Thus, a key question that should be addressed by Ohio officials is: If, and when, railroads do not comply with the 600-foot obstruction law, how can enforcement be best implemented?

By all reasonable standards, it appears that enforcement responsibility for the sight-obstruction law rests with PUCO. This is because: (1) the applicable law falls under the Ohio Revised Code that is directed to the Public Utilities Commission – that is, Title XLIX (2) since PUCO can override the 600-foot law with its own determination of sight-distance adequacy, it if does not do so, it implicitly accepts the 600-foot standard, and the accompanying right to enforce it, and (3) PUCO measures sight-view obstructions as part of its crossing-inventory program that is used to make determinations as to safety needs at crossings; PUCO’s “Field Survey and Investigation” form includes “Item 2 – Sight View Obstructions,” whereby 300-feet of track on each side of the crossing, are analyzed for the “type vegetation (weeds, brush, trees, etc.) if any, on railroad property that obstruct sight views.”

Now the question becomes: “Does PUCO enforce the 600-foot, sight-obstruction standard, and if so, to what degree? This is a question that only PUCO can, and should, answer. But no matter what the answer, it seems to be prudent to involve local officials – especially when the second part of the Ohio law cited above, has a role for such officials, as follows:

When any railroad company fails to destroy or remove such vegetation after ten-day written notice served on its local agent, the commission, board of county commissions, board of township trustees, or legislative authority of a municipal corporation, in which the intersection is located, having the care of such road or highway, shall remove such plants, trees, brush or other obstructive vegetation and shall recover the cost of removal from the responsible railroad company. (Ohio Revised Code 4955.36).

In essence, if railroads do not remove obstructed vegetation with 10 days of notification, local officials can do so on their own and charge the railroad for expenses. If the railroad refuses to pay the local authority for vegetation-clearance expenses, the monies can be collected as a tax or other assessment from the railroad. Furthermore, PUCO has a “Supplemental Assistance Program” which pays up to $3,000 to local communities for such crossing improvements as rumble strips, illumination, improved signage, vegetation control or other safety enhancements.

The point is that the enforcement matter should not be left up to the courts, and/or addressed only after an accident occurs. Post-accident determinations of irresponsibility come at the expense of people’s lives. Prevention is far preferable to retribution. Ohio law should, and must, be enforced. PUCO should have an aggressive program to enforce Ohio’s sight-obstruction law, which includes written documentation of each violation. Local officials should assist PUCO by identifying sight-obstructed, railroad crossings in their jurisdictions, and reporting them to both the railroads and PUCO. The Ohio Rail Development Commission should promote the concept of railroad crossings having to be in compliance with Ohio’s sight-obstruction law. Operation Lifesaver should develop a parallel program to its “Trooper on the Train” effort, so that law-breaking crossings, and not only law-breaking motorists, can be cited. Law-enforcement personnel should be trained to identify crossings that are in violation of Ohio’s sight-obstruction law, and where such crossings are found, they should be identified to railroads, PUCO and local officials. Ohioans throughout the State should be made aware of the sight-obstruction law, so that they have the opportunity to identify and report violations. And above all, railroads should be put on notice that the sight-obstruction law – which is directed to them -- will be strictly enforced, and that a paper trail will be established to record violations and ensuing responses.