Overgrown vegetation that obstructs the ability of motorists to adequately see approaching trains at railroad crossings, has been a contentious and frustrating matter. On one hand, public policy recognizes the need for adequate sight distances at railroad crossings. As stated by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) in its Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, The primary requirement for the geometric design of a grade crossing is that it provides adequate sight distance for the motor vehicle operator to make an appropriate decision as to whether to stop or proceed. Furthermore, Ohio law addresses the removal of obstructive vegetation at railroad crossings, and the adequacy of sight distance is supposed to be a factor that the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) considers in determining the relative dangers of railroad crossings. Still, inadequate sight distance remains a major hazard at railroad crossings, as demonstrated by the findings in litigated railroad-crossing accident cases. Understanding the issues and the needs relating to overgrown vegetation at railroad crossings requires an appreciation as to the limitations of federal and state law on the subject of both vegetation and sight distance.

Adequate Sight Distance
Sight distance is the distance from points where motorists approach railroad crossings, to the left and right of the track structure at those crossings. (These distances form a triangle and are also referred to as sight triangles). The adequacy of sight distance depends on the speed of the approaching motor vehicles and trains. In its Handbook, FRA provides a table of “required” sight distance for combinations of motor vehicle and train speeds, in 10 mile-per-hour increments up to 70 miles-per-hour for motor vehicles and 90 miles-per-hour for trains. The FRA sight-distance figures are designated as being required for safe crossing, and have long been accepted in transportation circles as the proper standards.

Federal Law
Federal legislation addresses vegetation in stating that: Vegetation on railroad property which is on or immediately adjacent to roadbed shall be controlled so that it does not:

(a) Become a hazard to track-carrying structures;
(b) Obstruct visibility of railroad signs and signals along the rights of way, and at highway-rail crossings;
(c) Interfere with railroad employees performing normal track-side duties;
(d) Prevent proper functioning of signal and communication lines; or
(e) Prevent railroad employees from visually inspecting moving equipment from their normal duty stations. (U.S.C. 49213.321)

What is patently evident about the above federal provisions is that they are limited to railroad property; they do not address overgrown vegetation which obscures the sight of approaching trains; and, they are not accompanied with FRA-required, sight-distance numbers.

Ohio Law
Ohio 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. (Revised Code 4955.36). The State has established procedures whereby complaints of excessive weeds and vegetation on railroad property can be made to PUCO. Following a complaint, the applicable railroad can remedy the situation; the complaint can be dismissed or investigated; a hearing can be held; and/or a remedy can be imposed by PUCO. While Ohio law is more explicit than federal law in regard to sight distance (it includes a standard of 600 feet), the FRA-required-for-safety, sight-distance figures FRA are not adopted. Furthermore, although seemingly illogical, there may be claims of preemption in regard to State authority over adequate sight distance in that the federal government addresses, although it does not adopt, sight-distance standards.

Vegetation on Private Property
There are no laws that require private property owners to maintain vegetation at levels that permit ample visual views of approaching trains at railroad crossings. In fact, the position that private property owners have no obligation to remedy overgrown vegetation at railroad crossings has been confirmed in the courts. Contrary laws are unlikely to be enacted as they are thought to be in conflict with the rights of private land ownership.

The Bottom Line
Overgrown vegetation at railroad crossings presents a major problem in that current laws are limited as to their ability to prevent overgrown vegetation. Various solutions are possible. First, railroads could voluntarily maintain their rights-of-way to prevent overgrown vegetation at their crossings. Second, tort law could induce railroads to develop pro-active, vegetation-control plans at crossings, through substantial financial judgments against railroads whose overgrown vegetation contributed to an accident. (At least one major railroad has already adopted such a vegetation policy based on the determination that it is economical to do so.) Third, where overgrown vegetation exists on private property, unless an agreement is reached with the applicable private-property owner to maintain vegetation at acceptable levels, automated gates could be installed. Fourth, gates could be installed at all crossings where overgrown vegetation is expected to be a chronic problem. Fifth, Federal legislation could be amended which would adopt the sight-distance figures recommended by FRA in its Handbook. And finally, Ohio law could be altered to supplant its 600-foot reference, with FRA-recommended sight-distance figures. In regard to these last two solutions, for the government to do less would be akin to recognizing the solution to a problem and doing nothing to implement it.