[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 101 (Thursday, July 28, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 28, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
               RAILGRADE CROSSING SAFETY ENHANCEMENT ACT

                                 ______


                        HON. PETER J. VISCLOSKY

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 28, 1994

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation--with 
all of my House colleagues from Indiana as original cosponsors--that is 
critical to the safety of people in the Hoosier State, as well as 
across the country. This bill, the Railgrade Crossing Safety 
Enhancement Act of 1994, is identical to legislation, S. 2286, which 
was introduced in the Senate by my colleague from Indiana, Senator 
Lugar.
  The Railgrade Crossing Safety Enhancement Act of 1994 would give 
States that do not have seatbelt and helmet laws on the books the 
flexibility to use Federal surface transportation funds diverted to 
nonconstruction safety education programs for the installation of 
warning devices at rail crossings.
  Under section 153 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
Act of 1991, States that do not have laws enforcing seatbelts for 
motorists and helmets for motorcycle riders must devote 1.5 percent of 
their Federal surface transportation funds to nonconstruction safety 
education programs beginning in fiscal year 1995. This percentage 
increases to 3 percent in fiscal year 1996 and in future fiscal years. 
This provision limits States' ability to apply these funds for other 
legitimate safety enhancing projects.
  While I support safety education programs, I believe that public 
safety would be further enhanced by providing States the flexibility to 
use these diverted funds for one specific, additional purpose: the 
installation of protective warning devices at rail crossings.
  I have a great deal of personal interest in this issue because, 
several years ago, my mother was involved in a serious rail crossing 
accident. This year alone, several hundred people across the country 
will be killed and thousands more injured as a result of vehicle-train 
collisions. While rail crossing accidents declined last year, the 
number of fatalities from these accidents increased in 1993 by 8.1 
percent.
  This problem is particularly acute in Indiana, which ranked third in 
the country in crossing accidents in 1993, and fourth in people killed. 
These statistics are especially dire for the communities I represent in 
northwest Indiana because of the concentration of railroads traversing 
the area. In 1992, 33 people were killed at crossings in Indiana, one-
third of which were in the northwest region of the State. Between 1986 
and 1992, 68 people died at railroad crossings in our area. Given these 
statistics, it is difficult to deny the serious safety hazard posed by 
unsafe rail crossings.
  This legislation is not designed to undermine the safety regulations 
contained in ISTEA. Railgrade crossing improvements differ from other 
highway safety projects because they provide a visible and quantifiable 
return on investment. The sole purpose of safety improvements at grade 
crossings is to reduce accidents and save lives.
  States with a high number of rail crossings and crossing accidents 
would benefit from the additional flexibility this bill provides. In 
1993, 40 percent of grade crossing accidents in the United States--and 
31 percent of fatalities--occurred in States that did not meet the 
Federal safety belt and helmet law requirement in ISTEA.
  With this legislation, Governors could request that all or a portion 
of the diverted surface transportation funds be used to install 
protective devices at hazardous rail crossings as part of a 
comprehensive, statewide rail safety improvement and rail safety 
education initiative.
  The purpose of section 153 of ISTEA is to improve safety on our 
Nation's highways. Because the only conceivable purpose of rail 
crossing safety equipment is safety, I believe this measure conforms to 
the original spirit and intent of section 153.
  This critical legislation was developed with the full cooperation and 
support of the Indiana Department of Transportation and the Northwest 
Indiana Planning Commission. I would like to thank all of my Indiana 
colleagues for joining in this effort to give greater flexibility to 
States' safety initiatives. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you 
and the rest of my House colleagues to cosponsor this important bill 
and work together to see that this crucial provision is signed into 
law.

                          ____________________