Red-Light Cameras for Grade Crossings

Often when there is a major grade crossing accident, or an uptick in more minor grade crossing incidents (broken gates, etc.), lawmakers will be called on to enable a red-light camera-style safety camera system at railroad crossings, to identify and ticket those attempting to go under or around crossing gates. Such systems have been proposed multiple times in the past...after the 2015 Metro-North Valhalla crash, NYS Senator Terrence Murphy introduced bill S5238A, which would have authorized local municipalities to use photo monitoring devices to enforce grade crossing compliance. The bill was basically a carbon copy of one of the several laws allowing select counties and cities to operate red light camera programs (with railroad crossings substituted for red lights). While the Senate passed the bill, the Assembly (A7646) did not take any action, and it died in committee.

A photo-enforced railroad grossing outside St. Louis
(Photo: Rick Graefe/St. Louis Metro Suburban Journals)

In the 2017-2018 legislative session, a similar bill was reintroduced by Assemblyman Thomas Abinanti (A3114), but that also died in committee (and doesn’t appear to have been even introduced in the Senate). Sen. Murphy introduced a new bill in 2017 (S2303C/A4795C) that would do the same thing but also allow commuter railroads (defined to include only the LIRR and Metro-North) to establish their own programs as well, but the text does not well address the logistics/implications of that kind of system. All three of these bills died in committee.

As eerie as this might perhaps sound, the bills was reintroduced in the Assembly the morning/afternoon before the Westbury crash, by Assemblyman Abinanti (A6012). Senator Kevin Thomas introduced a same as bill the next day (S4089). Both bills are currently sitting with the respective chamber's transportation committees.

Implementing a railroad crossing safety camera system would likely require the buy-in of the local municipalities where the cameras would be located. The proposed bills do not do a great job of addressing the logistical and technical challenges from the legal point of view. The MTA would have difficulty implementing such a program itself, since in most cases, the MTA does not issue summonses itself, and even when the MTA Police does, they are typically returnable to the local court system in which the violation was committed. So short of the MTA setting up an entirely parallel court system to adjudicate these violations, setting up a railroad crossing safety camera system would almost require the involvement of the various municipalities.

But the more likely Achilles heel of a grade crossing safety camera program would be cost… While most municipalities have implemented camera programs to generate cash (under the guise of improving road safety), the red light cameras generate only a small amount of revenue per violation. In Nassau County, the vendor keeps about $19 per ticket, and Nassau County gets an average of $96 between the fine and all of the fees they tack on. Suffolk’s much criticized camera contract with Xerox allows them to keep $23 per ticket issued, and pays the county $73 per violation.

But that assumes a fairly high violation rate. Suffolk’s contract has a stipulation that sets "minimum criteria" for determining which intersections Xerox will put new cameras at (outlined in the third amendment to the original contract).  The minimum criteria is defined as an intersection that generates at least 25 violations per 16-hour period (defined 6a-10p, Monday-Friday).  Intersections that don't meet the minimum criteria are considered “underperforming”, and the county has to pay Xerox $2,132 per month per underperforming intersection, plus give them a larger share of what revenue is generated from those cameras.

25 violations per day may be achievable at a busy road intersection, but it is not likely attainable for most grade crossings.  The MTA has never made available information on “near miss” incidents (e.g. cases where people go under or around a crossing with the gates fully lowered and a train oncoming but don’t get struck by a train), but observations suggest it doesn’t happen at nearly that frequency on a daily basis (I don't doubt that they happen, just not at this type of frequency).  In 2018, the LIRR saw 7 FRA-reportable grade crossing incidents and 123 broken gates.  Even if we assume that all of those happened while the gates were fully lowered, that's an average of 0.002 incidents per crossing per business day.  In 2018, MTA Police issued 1,204 summonses at 1,067 grade crossing details, or an average of just 1.1 violations per detail.

In 2004, the Office of the State Comptroller stationed observers at ten different grade crossings to observe frequency of violations.  Auditors observed an average of 20 violations per crossing per day, though 15% of those were by pedestrians or cyclists, about 30% were drivers proceeding over a crossing while the gates were going up (which is technically illegal, but the risk is very low).  Others were for illegal turns or U-turns made before the crossing but not at/over the crossing (to avoid having to wait at the crossing), or for school buses not making a full stop at a crossing.  Just about a third of the violations observed were cars crossing while the gates were lowered or coming down (though most of the old videos show the vehicles travelling through the crossing in the initial seconds of activation (in what would be the 'yellow light' phase for traffic lights)).

Camera operators bank on a certain number of violations per day, and a certain ‘profit’ per violation to break even on the expense to operate and maintain the cameras and the people to review the violations. If you’re talking at most a low single-digit number of violations per day, that breakeven point is going to be very high. Camera vendors would almost definitely require either the municipalities or the MTA to pay them to operate the cameras, making up the difference. Based on what prices and terms I’ve seen in some other camera contracts, the MTA may be required to shell out a lot of money per camera, paying the vendor, if they wanted to go that route.

Grade crossings have been used in a small handful of locations elsewhere in the US and across the world, at certain particularly busy crossings (outside St. Louis, Kent in the UK, and Queensland in Australia).  While cameras generally decreased the number of incidents at grade crossings, success on the financial front has not been as reliable.

Overall, when it comes to grade crossing traffic cameras, I don't think their a bad idea on its face.  But...when the cost side is factored in, it's a different story.  If the MTA could find an arrangement that would generate more revenue than it costs to operate and administer the system, then it may be worthwhile, but I think it would be wiser to put what funding is available towards grade crossing safety improvements to mitigate the risk of grade crossing accidents from happening in the first place, instead of fining those who have already put themselves at risk.