(a) State laws requiring railroads to share in the cost of work for the elimination of hazards at railroad-highway crossings shall not apply to Federal-aid projects.
(b) Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 130(b), and 49 CFR 1.48:
(1) Projects for grade crossing improvements are deemed to be of no ascertainable net benefit to the railroads and there shall be no required railroad share of the costs.
(2) Projects for the reconstruction of existing grade separations are deemed to generally be of no ascertainable net benefit to the railroad and there shall be no required railroad share of the costs, unless the railroad has a specific contractual obligation with the State or its political subdivision to share in the costs.
(3) On projects for the elimination of existing grade crossings at which active warning devices are in place or ordered to be installed by a State regulatory agency, the railroad share of the project costs shall be 5 percent.
(4) On projects for the elimination of existing grade crossings at which active warning devices are not in place and have not been ordered installed by a State regulatory agency, or on projects which do not eliminate an existing crossing, there shall be no required railroad share of the project cost.
(c) The required railroad share of the cost under § 646.210(b)(3) shall be based on the costs for preliminary engineering, right-of-way and construction within the limits described below:
(1) Where a grade crossing is eliminated by grade separation, the structure and approaches required to transition to a theoretical highway profile which would have been constructed if there were no railroad present, for the number of lanes on the existing highway and in accordance with the current design standards of the State highway agency.
(2) Where another facility, such as a highway or waterway, requiring a bridge structure is located within the limits of a grade separation project, the estimated cost of a theoretical structure and approaches as described in § 646.210(c)(1) to eliminate the railroad-highway grade crossing without considering the presence of the waterway or other highway.
(3) Where a grade crossing is eliminated by railroad or highway relocation, the actual cost of the relocation project, the estimated cost of the relocation project, or the estimated cost of a structure and approaches as described in § 646.210(c)(1), whichever is less.
(d) Railroads may voluntarily contribute a greater share of project costs than is required. Also, other parties may voluntarily assume the railroad's share.
Notes of Decisions
CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658 (1993).
· cites it 2× “, 23 CFR § 646.210 (c)(3) (describing the elimination of "a grade crossing" as "the .”
Iowa, Chicago & E. R.R. Corp. v. Washington Cnty., Iowa, 384 F.3d 557 (8th Cir. 2004).
· cites it 3× “23 C.F.R. § 646.210 (a). They expressly provide that projects to reconstruct existing grade separations (such as bridges) “are deemed to generally be of no ascertainable net benefit to the railroad and there shall be no required railroad share of the costs” absent a contractual…”
Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Shanklin, 529 U.S. 344 (2000).
· cites it 2× “23 CFR § 646.210 (b)(1) (1999). Today the railroads have achieved a double windfall: the Federal Government foots the bill for installing safety devices; and that same federal expenditure *361 spares the railroads from tort liability, even for the inadequacy of devices designed…”
Vill. of Barrington v. Surface Transp. Bd., 636 F.3d 650 (D.C. Cir. 2011).
“Challenging the Board’s cost-allocations for the Ogden Avenue and Lincoln Highway grade separations, Canadian National argues that they far exceed well-established federal and state policies that cap railroad contributions to grade separation projects at 5%.”
Armijo v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 754 F. Supp. 1526 (D.N.M. 1990).
· cites it 2× “” 23 C.F.R. § 646.210 (a) (1990). The Secretary of Transportation determined that “projects for grade crossing improvements are deemed to be of no ascertainable net benefit to the railroads and there shall be no required share of the costs.”
Charles Moreno, Cross-Appellee v. Consol. Rail Corp., 99 F.3d 782 (6th Cir. 1996).
“23 CFR § 646.210 (b)(1) & (2). In the case of “projects for the elimination of existing grade crossings at which active warning devices are in place or ordered to be installed by a State regulatory agency,” the railroad bears only five percent of the cost.”
Hamilton v. Illinois Cent. R.R., 894 F. Supp. 1014 (S.D. Miss. 1995).
· cites it 3× “There is generally no requirement that railroad companies share the costs of hazard elimination projects with the State, 23 C.F.R. §§ 646.210 (b)(l)-(4), unless they receive a net benefit from the project as determined by the Secretary of Transportation.”
Hamlin v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 686 So. 2d 1115 (Ala. 1996).
· cites it 2× “214(b)(4), which covers federally funded installations at crossings that do not feature multiple tracks, heavy traffic, or the like, explicitly notes that railroad participation in the initial determination of `the type of warning device to be installed' at particular crossings…”
Robert E. Hatfield v. Burlington N. R.R. Co., 64 F.3d 559 (10th Cir. 1995).
“Furthermore, the government made a clear commitment to a project to upgrade this particular crossing with a federally approved crossing device — a project to which Burlington was expressly excused from contributing funds.”
D & H Corp. v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm'n, 613 A.2d 622 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1992).
· cites it 8× “” 23 C.F.R. § 646.210 (a) provides: (a) State laws requiring railroads to share in the costs of work for the elimination of hazards at railroad — highway-crossings shall not apply to federal aid projects.”
Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. H & P, Inc., 949 F. Supp. 1556 (M.D. Ala. 1996).
“at 1741 ; see 23 C.F.R. § 646.210 (b)(1). In summary, when federal funds are used to install warning devices, the Secretary of Transportation has made the determination as to which warning devices to install.”
— 23 C.F.R. § 646.210(b) — 3 cases
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.