23 C.F.R. § 646.206
Types of projects
(a) Projects for the elimination of hazards, to both vehicles and pedestrians, of railroad-highway crossings may include but are not limited to:
(1) Grade crossing elimination;
(2) Reconstruction of existing grade separations; and
(3) Grade crossing improvements.
(b) Other railroad-highway projects are those which use railroad properties or involve adjustments to railroad facilities required by highway construction but do not involve the elimination of hazards of railroad-highway crossings. Also included are adjustments to facilities that are jointly owned or used by railroad and utility companies.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1995–2023 · leading case: Hargrove v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 925 So. 2d 25 (La. Ct. App. 2006).
Hargrove v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 925 So. 2d 25 (La. Ct. App. 2006). “Furthermore, 23 C.F.R. § 646.206 provides, in pertinent part, that: (a) Projects for the elimination of hazards, to both vehicles and pedestrians, of *34 railroad-highway crossings may include but are not limited to: (1) Grade crossing elimination; (2) Reconstruction of existing…”
Nye v. CSX Transp., Inc., 300 F. Supp. 2d 529 (N.D. Ohio 2004). “23 C.F.R. § 646.206 . 5 Thus, regardless of the program’s characterization, pre-emption applies to this federally funded state project, which was intended to explore “cost effective improvements for reducing the accident problem at passive railroad-highway grade crossings.”
Hamilton v. Illinois Cent. R.R., 894 F. Supp. 1014 (S.D. Miss. 1995). “23 C.F.R. § 646.206 (1994). With respect to federal funding of these, and other railroad hazard projects, the regulations provide that any eligible State may choose an appropriate federal funding alternative set forth in 23 U.”
Dallari v. S. Pac. R.R., 923 F. Supp. 1139 (E.D. Ark. 1996). “23 C.F.R. § 646.206 (a) (1995). The Court also finds that the fact that federal funds participated in the installation of the cross-bucks legally presupposes that the Secretary approved and authorized that expenditure, which in turn legally presupposes that the Secretary…”
Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Danner (W.D. Wash. 2023). “The FHWA used the term “elimination of hazards of railway-highway grade 10 crossings” in the regulations ( 23 C.F.R. § 646.206 (a) and 23 C.F.R. § 646.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.