Traffic study first step in determining future of Riverdock rail crossing

by Philip A. Janquart
 Washington County Commissioners met with representatives of the Idaho Transportation Department and Union Pacific Railroad on Thursday, Sept. 23 to discuss the future of the Riverdock Road rail crossing.
 ITD requested the meeting following a recent train v. car collision that left one man dead. There have reportedly been other fatalities at the crossing.
 The meeting was not open to public comment, though a small group of residents who oppose the road’s closure were in attendance.
 “We are talking about the possibility of a crossing closure at Riverdock Road. This request did not come from U.P. Railroad … but it is Union Pacific’s policy, and we fully endorse the USDOT’s policy, to reduce the total number of at-grade crossings on the railroad’s networks … The decision about whether a grade crossing should be eliminated depends on the safety, operational costs, and other considerations,” explained U.P.’s Manager of Industry and Public Projects, Peggy Ygbuhay.
 Washington County Commission Chairman Nate Marvin cited public communications expressing opposition to closing the crossing, which some say would create an undue challenge to first responders.
 “I think the biggest concern that the commissioners are receiving is … concerns getting emergency services across the tracks; ambulance, fire, and sheriff’s deputies,” he said. “I think people could adapt to driving to Sunnyside or Airport crossings, but their biggest concern is getting emergency services out there.”
 “I’m terrified that emergency vehicles wouldn’t be able to help my baby,” Sarah Jones, who lives on nearby Ross Road, told the Weiser Signal American. “We have a petition that includes businesses.”
 Tracey Benzie, who is spearheading the petition and is Jones’ neighbor, said it’s not the first time there has been discussion about closing the Riverdock crossing.
 “It’s one of the most dangerous out there and the most highly used one,” she said. “So, we went door-to-door, also to businesses because it affects all of us. We were going to get lights, we were going to get turn lanes, but nothing happened. All that happened was that a yield sign was put up.”
Why no upgrades?
 Marvin asked ITD’s Blain Schwendiman why the Riverdock crossing, which Schwendiman said is rated as the eighth most dangerous crossing in Idaho, never received upgrades and improvements.
 “At one time, when they did the Weiser River Bridge, the project was supposed to go clear out to that crossing and they were going to put in additional right of way, lights, arms and stacking lane, but it just kind of disappeared off the radar,” he said. “Whatever happened to that?”
 “That was due to lack of funding to be able to carry the project out that far,” Schwendiman said. “There is a project out there, but it’s way out there, like six years.”
Why yield signs?
 Marvin also questioned both Ygbuhay and Schendiman about yield signs that reportedly replaced stop signs at area crossings about two years ago.
 “One thing that was brought up, some time back, all the stop signs were taken down and yield signs put up, and I don’t know if that was ITD or the railroad. Who did that?” he asked.
 “The federal government did, actually,” Ygbuhay said in response. “They changed the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) in 2009 with their 10th edition and basically said it was determined that a crossbuck wasn’t really noticeable as a yield sign.
 “So crossbuck means yield … and it was determined at that time to place a yield sign in addition to the crossbuck because a yield sign is uniformly recognized by all motor vehicle drivers, so if you put that yield, it’s a double message, which is not normal, but in the instance of railroad crossings, there are not really that many at-grade crossings compared to the number of intersections that you encounter every day.
 “We did go out and, in partnership with the railroad and ITD, had a sign program to put yield signs on our crossbuck posts. That was in 2019.”
 During the roughly hour-long meeting, Schwendiman questioned the need for Riverdock Road crossing considering the Sunnyside Road crossing located a mile farther south, which has arms and lights, as well as other crossings.
 “I’d venture to guess that Riverdock is probably the busiest of all three crossings, even though you can’t take truck traffic across it,” Commissioner Lyndon Haines told Schwendiman. “I think exploring the idea of some type of safety devices would probably be more fitting.”
What next?
 At the conclusion of the meeting, all parties agreed that the first step would be to conduct a traffic study to determine traffic count at the crossing.
 “The second step would be to have what’s called an onsite diagnostic meeting with all the stakeholders, the road authority, the railroad, ITD to then go out and make determinations for recommendations for safety enhancements,” Ygbuhay said. “Those recommendations can include anything: lights, gates, cantilevers, grade crossing closure, grade separation, traffic signal lights, and intersection with the state highway because you do have short storage distance at all of these crossings.”
 Travis Campbell is the state coordinator for the national non-profit Operation Lifesaver, a leader of rail safety education aimed at preventing collisions, injuries, and fatalities on and around railroad tracks and highway at-grade crossings.
 He said that at the end of the day, motorists must always be aware of the dangers of rail crossings.
 “We want to remind people that a railroad crossing is an intersection and just like when you look both ways when you cross the street, look both ways before you cross railroad tracks,” said Campbell who served seven years in the U.S. Army Medical Corps. and has been a locomotive engineer with U.P. since 2004.
 He also holds a degree in Clinical Laboratory Sciences from George Washington University.
 “We want everybody to be safe and get where they are going safely,” he said. “We want to put that in the forefront of people’s minds.”