Money in the
Grade Crossing Protection Fund is administered by the Illinois Commerce
Commission (ICC) but appropriated to the Illinois Department of
Transportation. The program was created
by the General Assembly to assist local jurisdictions (counties, townships and
municipalities) in paying for safety improvements at highway-rail grade
crossings on local roads and streets.
In carrying out its mandated responsibility, the ICC orders improvements
at public highway-rail grade crossings and bridges that it determines to be in
the interest of public safety. The cost
of these ordered improvements is shared by the State, the railroads, and local
governments. The majority of the cost
of these improvements is funded through the Grade Crossing Protection Fund.
Money for the Grade
Crossing Protection Fund (GCPF) comes from a portion of State motor fuel tax
receipts. Each month since Fiscal Year
2000, $2.25 million has been transferred from the Motor Fuel Tax Fund into the
Grade Crossing Protection Fund. This
amount provides the Fund with $27 million annually to be used for safety
improvements at highway-rail crossings on local roads and streets. Prior to Fiscal Year 2000, $1.5 million was
transferred monthly for a total of $18 million per year for projects.
Total expenditures
for Grade Crossing Protection Fund projects were $25 million in Fiscal Year
2001 and $34 million in Fiscal Year 2002.
These expenditures were typically used for warning device upgrades;
grade separations including construction, reconstruction, or repair of bridges
over or under railroad tracks; interconnects where crossing signals are
connected to the adjacent traffic signals so that the two systems operate in a
synchronized manner; road work including approaches and connecting roads;
remote monitoring devices which immediately alert the railroad to any problems
in warning device operations; or low cost improvements at crossings not
equipped with automatic warning devices.
The Motor Fuel Tax
Law has required the Illinois Commerce Commission to develop, each year since
Fiscal Year 2000, a one and five year Project Plan for rail crossing capital
improvements that will be paid for with monies from the Grade Crossing
Protection Fund. However, because of
the significant amount of time between the initiation of a project and the
expenditure of funds on a project, most projects with expenditures in Fiscal
Year 2002 were initiated prior to the 2002 Plan. Only $3,854 of the $34 million in Fiscal Year 2002 expenditures
were for projects from the Fiscal Year 2002 Project Plan.
Administration for
Grade Crossing Protection Fund projects is shared between the Illinois Commerce
Commission and the Illinois Department of Transportation. There is little written guidance available
on which agency has responsibility for the various required functions related
to managing Grade Crossing Protection Fund projects. In addition, limited on-site construction management is currently
done.
The majority of
project milestones for the projects we reviewed in detail were not achieved in
a timely manner. Railroads and local
government agencies were not timely at supplying plans, submitting progress
reports, and completing the project.
None of ten projects for which we did detailed testing completed all
project milestones in a timely manner.
The Illinois
Commerce Commission’s automated system does not capture certain date
information that would allow for more effective analysis and management of
Grade Crossing Protection Fund projects.
Not having these dates captured may be due to a lack of active on-site
construction management and because ICC staff are not routinely involved in the
completion of projects.
The ICC is
responsible for administering a rail safety program and expenditures for the
program are paid for from the Transportation Regulatory Fund. Over the past years, the statutory transfer
from the Grade Crossing Protection Fund to the Transportation Regulatory Fund
to support the administration of rail safety at the ICC has increased. From Fiscal Years 1993 to 1996, the annual
transfer was $750,000; from Fiscal Years 1997 through 2000, the annual transfer
was $1,500,000; and from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2004, the transfer was
$2,250,000.
The Grade Crossing
Protection Fund and the Transportation Regulatory Fund have both experienced
high fund balances carried over from year to year. The Grade Crossing Protection Fund has had an average year end
balance of over $40 million over ten years and the Transportation Regulatory
Fund averaged over $5 million. These
large fund balances have occurred during a time of increased transfers into the
Funds to be used for grade crossing projects and rail safety
administration. The Illinois Commerce
Commission and the Illinois Department of Transportation should work to
appropriately manage fund balances in the Grade Crossing Protection Fund.
Both the Illinois
Commerce Commission and the Illinois Department of Transportation have some
responsibilities for GCPF project expenditure review; however, neither agency
adequately reviews actual expenditures to verify the validity of the materials,
labor, or personnel expenses, as they relate to the scope of the project. In addition, there are no clear standards on
what documentation is to be included with billings for Grade Crossing
Protection Fund projects.
Expenditure
documentation submitted for payment varied from projects where significant
documentation was submitted, including items which were unrelated to projects,
to projects where little or no supporting documentation was submitted. Without consistent documentation and
thorough review of expenditures it is difficult to know whether expenditures
were appropriate or if all required elements of projects were done.
We did not identify
any instances where the Illinois Commerce Commission did not comply with
statutes guiding the Grade Crossing Protection Fund process. Most requirements related to the Fund are
found in a section of the Motor Fuel Tax Law (35 ILCS 505/8(c)).
The Illinois
Commerce Commission conducts investigations of all accidents at rail crossings
that involve a fatality but does not investigate all accidents. The Commission staff should investigate rail
accidents to help them in fulfilling their responsibility of assuring that
adequate warning devices are in place at grade crossings.
On July 12, 2002, the Legislative Audit Commission
adopted Resolution 123. The Resolution
directed the Auditor General to conduct a management audit of expenditures from
the Grade Crossing Protection Fund. The
Resolution asks us to include:
1.
The
amount and purpose of expenditures and transfers from the Grade Crossing
Protection Fund in Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002, including administrative versus
construction-related costs; and
2.
Whether
expenditures and transfers from the Grade Crossing Protection Fund made in
Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002 appeared to be in conformity with applicable
statutes. (page 3)
grade crossing protection fund pROGRAM
|
Illinois has 8,568 public grade level crossings.
|
The Illinois Commerce Commission has the statutory
responsibility to assure safety at all public highway-rail crossings in the
State of Illinois. In January of 2003, there
were 8,568 public grade level crossings in Illinois, of which 7,390 or 86
percent were on local roads and streets.
Illinois also had 2,739 grade separated crossings (bridges), 276
pedestrian grade crossings, and 76 pedestrian grade separated crossings
(bridges). At a “grade level crossing”
or “at-grade crossing” both the road and the rail are on the same level. The Grade Crossing Protection Fund is used
to help modify or upgrade crossings on local roads and streets. Upgrades on State roads are paid for with
State Road Fund monies.
|
Digest Exhibit 1
GRADE CROSSING PROTECTION FUND EXPENDITURES BY TYPE
Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002 combined
|
|
TYPE
|
Total
|
% of Total
|
|
Bridge
|
$29,636,687
|
50%
|
|
Signals/Gates
|
$8,493,339
|
14%
|
|
4-Quad Gates
and Signals
|
$5,539,514
|
9%
|
|
Interconnect
Circuitry
|
$4,809,592
|
8%
|
|
Signals/Gates/Roadwork
|
$4,172,542
|
7%
|
|
Detection
|
$4,142,869
|
7%
|
|
Bridge/Signals
|
$1,468,608
|
2%
|
|
Signals
|
$584,263
|
1%
|
|
Roadwork
|
$487,810
|
1%
|
|
Gates
|
$124,030
|
0%
|
|
Median
|
$78,158
|
0%
|
|
Grand Total
|
$59,537,412
|
100%
|
|
Note:
|
Percentages do not add
due to rounding.
|
|
Source:
|
ICC data analyzed by OAG.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
State financial support for crossing safety
improvement projects on local roads comes from the Grade Crossing Protection
Fund. The Motor Fuel Tax Law provides
that each month $2.25 million in State motor fuel tax receipts is transferred from
the Motor Fuel Tax Fund to the Grade Crossing Protection Fund. This amount provides $27 million annually to
be used for local crossing safety improvements. Digest Exhibit 1 shows expenditures by type from the Grade
Crossing Protection Fund for Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002. In Fiscal Year 2002 there were $34 million
in expenditures from the Fund and the year end fund balance was $30
million. Fiscal Year 2002 had the
highest expenditures and lowest fund balance in ten years.
Money in the Grade Crossing
Protection Fund is administered by the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) but
appropriated to the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT). The
program was created by the General Assembly to assist local jurisdictions
(counties, townships and municipalities) in paying for safety improvements at
railroad crossings on local roads. (pages 3-4, 27-30)
|
Annually, $27 million is transferred from the Motor Fuel
Tax Fund to the Grade Crossing Protection Fund for local crossing safety
improvements.
|
|
coordination between agencies
|
There is little written guidance available on which agency
has responsibility for the various required functions related to managing
Grade Crossing Protection Fund projects.
|
There is little written guidance available on which
agency has responsibility for the various required functions related to
managing Grade Crossing Protection Fund projects. In addition, limited project management is currently done. Administration for projects currently is
shared between the Illinois Commerce Commission and the Illinois Department of
Transportation. There is no interagency
agreement, nor are there administrative rules or statutes in place to describe
which agency is responsible for managing what aspect of the process. In addition, neither the ICC nor IDOT
currently has written policies or procedures in place to direct and assist its
employees with duties associated with Grade Crossing Protection Fund projects.
While there was some coordination between IDOT and
ICC, adoption of an Interagency Agreement would document which agency was
responsible for areas such as review of cost estimates and plans, review of
expenditures, project management, and close-out inspections. Such an agreement would eliminate the
possibility of duplication of efforts and oversight, as well as ensure that
essential elements of project management were being achieved. We recommended that the Illinois Commerce
Commission and the Illinois Department of Transportation develop written
policies and procedures and adopt an Interagency Agreement that clarifies each
agency’s management responsibilities relating to Grade Crossing Protection Fund
projects. (pages 16-17)
MANAGEMENT OF GCPF PROJECTS
Before the beginning of the
fiscal year, ICC staff create a Project Plan which is made up of two
components. The first component lists
projects expected to be undertaken in that given year and the second is a
four-year outlook listing for future projects.
Because of the significant amount of time between the initiation of a
project and the expenditure of funds on a project, most projects with
expenditures in Fiscal Year 2002 were initiated prior to the 2002 Plan. Only $3,854 of the $34 million of Fiscal
Year 2002 expenditures were for projects from the Fiscal Year 2002 Project
Plan.
Before an Order is issued, ICC staff are
significantly involved in developing stipulated agreements and assuring that
the work to be done will assure safety at the specified crossing or crossings. This involvement is particularly important
because assuring crossing safety is ICC’s statutory responsibility. However, ICC staff indicated to us that
their primary administrative responsibility ends after an Order is issued and
the detailed engineering plans have been approved, unless the railroad or the
local community asks for assistance or time to complete the project.
The ICC did not have adequate controls in place to
track and monitor compliance with the requirements that it placed in Orders for
GCPF projects. ICC Orders contain
several completion dates with which the railroads and local governments are
required to adhere. We found that
detailed plans were missing from 1 of 10 projects sampled, and were submitted
late for six of the other nine projects sampled where they were required by the
ICC Order. In addition, for the nine
projects sampled where progress reports were required by the Order, all were
either missing the required reports or the reports were not timely. Late or missing plans and progress reports
indicate that there is a lack of oversight or project management.
The ICC does not assure that prescribed work is
done, work is done on schedule, or that expenditures for the project are
appropriate. In addition to not
reviewing work in progress, ICC employees also generally do not review the work
when it is complete to assure that it was done appropriately. In some instances IDOT district engineers
may do a post completion review but they do not have the same level of
expertise about crossing safety device issues.
We recommended that the Illinois Commerce Commission
assure that Grade Crossing Protection Fund projects are adequately
managed. To do this, the expertise of
ICC Railroad Safety Specialists should be utilized through on-site construction
management to assure that the needed safety work is performed, that Order
requirements are met, and that project expenditures are proper. (pages 13-14,
17-19)
Timeliness of the Process
|
None of ten projects for which we did detailed testing
completed all project milestones in a timely manner.
|
The majority of project
milestones for the projects we reviewed in detail were not achieved in a timely
manner. Railroads and local government
agencies were
not timely at supplying plans, submitting progress reports, and completing the
project. None of ten projects for which
we did detailed testing completed all project milestones in a timely manner.
The projects in our sample
took an average of 3.8 years to complete from project initiation date to the
completion date. Of that time, 1.7
years was from the date of the Order to the completion date. The project initiation date is the date of
earliest documentation that identified the need for the project.
Seventy percent of projects
from our sample (7 of 10) had pre-Order periods longer than the total project
completion time from the Order date.
Some projects had pre-Order periods as high as four years or more. Sample projects which were on time or
slightly over had some of the longest pre-Order periods.
For the 84 projects that had expenditures in Fiscal
Years 2001 or 2002 and were completed in that period, the average project
completion time was 2.6 years from the year of the Order. Because an exact end date is not captured by
ICC’s existing computer system, the elapsed time was calculated by subtracting
the fiscal year of the Order from the fiscal year that the project was closed
out.
Incomplete Data
The Illinois Commerce Commission’s automated system does not capture certain date
information that would allow for more effective analysis and management of
Grade Crossing Protection Fund projects.
The ICC’s computer system does not capture project initiation date or
the date when all work required by the Order is completed. In addition to missing useful dates in its
computer system, the inventory of rail crossings was incomplete, including not
having data in all records that indicates whether or not a crossing was on a
State road.
We recommended that the Illinois Commerce Commission
assure that appropriate data is captured within computer systems to allow
adequate management and timely completion of Grade Crossing Protection Fund
projects. (pages 19-24)
Transportation Regulatory Fund
The ICC is responsible for administering a rail
safety program and expenditures for the program are paid from the
Transportation Regulatory Fund (TRF).
Annually, $2.25 million is transferred from the Grade Crossing
Protection Fund to the Transportation Regulatory Fund to pay the cost of
administration of the Illinois Commerce Commission's railroad safety program as
it relates to railroad crossings. In recent years, the statutory transfer from the
Grade Crossing Protection Fund to the Transportation Regulatory Fund to support
the administration of rail safety at the ICC has increased. From Fiscal Years 1993 to 1996, the annual
transfer was $750,000; from Fiscal Years 1997 through 2000, the annual transfer
was $1,500,000; and from Fiscal Years 2001 through 2004, the transfer was
$2,250,000.
ICC’s Rail Safety Section (RSS) is responsible
for identifying and prioritizing crossing safety improvements on an annual and
five-year cycle in addition to other rail safety responsibilities. The RSS works with local government agencies
and railroads to identify safety improvement projects for the Commission’s
Crossing Safety Improvement Program.
The RSS is directly responsible for selecting projects authorized by the
Commission to receive assistance from GCPF.
ICC railroad administrative expenditures consist
of various categories including payroll, travel, and equipment. The total amount of Fiscal Year 2001 TRF
expenditures was $9.1 million and the railroad portion of the expenditures was
$4.9 million or 54 percent of the total TRF expenditures. Fiscal Year 2002 TRF expenditures were $8.6
million and the railroad portion was $4.3 million or 50 percent.
Direct expenditures
for railroad are those that can be directly assigned either because of an
employee’s position or because expenditures are directly for railroad. We reviewed the direct expenditures and
found that they appear to be rail crossing safety related. The indirect expenses are allocated based on
a required statutory system.
Allocations of expenses are made from areas such as executive director,
legislative affairs, administrative services, and the office of general
counsel. Allocations are also made
between rail and motor carrier. (pages 31-32, 42)
Digest Exhibit 2
TRANSPORTATION REGULATORY Fund AND GRADE CROSSING
pROTECTION FUND Balances for Fiscal Years 1993 to 2002
Dollars in
Millions
|
Fiscal Year
|
TRF
Balance
|
GCPF Balance
|
|
1993
|
$2.3
|
$38.4
|
|
1994
|
$1.7
|
$45.8
|
|
1995
|
$1.9
|
$48.5
|
|
1996
|
$4.4
|
$45.8
|
|
1997
|
$6.3
|
$45.0
|
|
1998
|
$7.4
|
$41.3
|
|
1999
|
$8.0
|
$39.6
|
|
2000
|
$6.8
|
$39.7
|
|
2001
|
$7.3
|
$39.2
|
|
2002
|
$6.5
|
$29.9
|
|
Source:
|
OAG
financial/compliance audits, Comptroller, and Illinois CAFR data summarized
by OAG.
|
|
|
|
|
Both the Grade
Crossing Protection Fund and the Transportation Regulatory Fund have
experienced high fund balances carried over from year to year. The Grade Crossing Protection Fund has had
an average year end balance of over $40 million over ten years and the
Transportation Regulatory Fund averaged over $5 million. These large fund balances have occurred
during a time when the transfers into the Funds to be used for grade crossing
projects and rail safety administration have increased.
The OAG financial and
compliance audits of the Illinois Commerce Commission have included a finding
that the ICC carried a fund balance in the Transportation Regulatory Fund that
exceeds the fund balance permitted by law.
The finding has been repeated since 1997. The fund balance should not exceed $2,898,185, the limit placed
on the TRF in statute (625 ILCS 5/18c-1503).
Digest Exhibit 2 shows that the Fund has consistently exceeded this
amount since 1996. The exhibit shows
fund balances for both the Transportation Regulatory and the Grade Crossing
Protection Funds for ten years.
We recommended that
the Illinois Commerce Commission continue to work to manage the fund balance in
the Transportation Regulatory Fund to assure that it is maintained at a level
that is in compliance with the statute (625 ILCS 5/18c-1503). We also recommended that the Commerce
Commission and the Department of Transportation work to appropriately manage
fund balances in the Grade Crossing Protection Fund. (pages 33-34)
pROJECT
Expenditure REVIEW
|
Neither ICC nor IDOT are conducting adequate expenditure
reviews.
|
Both the Illinois
Commerce Commission and the Illinois Department of Transportation have some
responsibilities for GCPF project expenditure review; however, neither agency
is conducting adequate expenditure reviews.
Given the lack of adequate expenditure reviews, the State may be
overpaying for improvements to railroad crossings.
Illinois Commerce Commission
ICC staff said that
their role is to review the plans and costs of a project prior to the
Order. They also intervene when a
railroad or local government agency goes over either time or money as stated in
the Order. Finally, they can help if
the railroad or local government runs into a problem during the construction
phase of a project. They said that they
do not have the resources to check on all completed GCPF projects. ICC
staff noted that they maintain a “level
of trust” with the railroad companies that crossing projects are completed as
required by the Order. In the same
meeting, however, they noted some bills from railroads included additives and
equipment rental that seemed unreasonably high. ICC does not review expenditures to approve them either before or
after bills are paid by IDOT.
ICC exercises some
control over costs through the Order process.
Before an Order is entered, the ICC technical staff review preliminary
plans and make a determination whether proposed costs are appropriate. That cost is then used to establish the
maximum amount which can be paid under an Order. If there are cost overruns, a supplemental Order would be
required to pay any additional expenses.
The limits in the
Order can only be effective if detailed cost estimates are provided and
reviewed before the Order is established.
The ICC has no criteria established that could help them to set a cap on
expenditures for certain types of projects.
For example, standard lights and gates installed at a single track crossing
might have an established dollar cap and exceptions to that cap would require
justification. This could help to
control costs among the various railroads and communities doing projects.
Department
of Transportation
The Department of
Transportation initially sets up an obligation for a project when the ICC
provides an Order to them. When bills
are submitted for an Order, an IDOT employee verifies that an obligation has
been set up and only allows expenditures up to that obligation amount.
IDOT does not review
expenditures before payment. IDOT may,
however, do an audit after the project is closed. During Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002, IDOT performed 65 audits for
Grade Crossing Protection Fund projects regardless of expenditure year. Those audits included 11 with recoveries to
the Fund that totaled $65,551. This
compares to total expenditures for the same time period of $59.5 million. The audits with recoveries identified expenditures
billed to the wrong project, over-billing for equipment, and billing for
expenditures which were not allowable.
The equipment issues in particular are the type of issues we identified
in our expenditure reviews.
As of August 2003, 8
audits had been done from the 84 GCPF projects which had expenditures and were
completed in Fiscal Year 2001 or 2002.
IDOT officials noted that currently IDOT takes two or more years after
project completion to conduct these audits.
They noted that because of personnel losses they could get to be as much
as five years behind.
Although audits do
provide a level of control, there are some limitations about these audits. First, not all projects are audited. Second, the reviews are done by auditors and
not specialists like ICC engineers who are familiar with the projects and what
should be included. Third, some are
done as desk audits. Desk audits note
on their face that they are not detailed, are not done on site, and in some
cases source documents are available only on a very limited basis.
Questionable
Expenditures
Expenditures for some
projects that we reviewed seemed high based on documentation submitted. Furthermore, some projects submitted little
or no documentation to support the expenditures claimed.
As an example of
questionable expenditures, we reviewed two projects, both completed in Franklin
County. The railroad had not prorated
the use of equipment that they rented for the projects. These two projects were both relatively
simple projects for standard lights and gates.
The railroad submitted bills for five months usage of one trencher.
We asked the agencies
whether five months of rental for such projects seemed excessive. The IDOT employee that reviews bills told us
that he did not know exactly how long a trencher would be needed. An ICC employee who had technical expertise
on the projects estimated that the project with the trencher that was rented
for two months would probably have taken a week, and the project with the
trencher that was rented for three months could have taken a month.
|
Neither ICC nor IDOT does any on-site construction
monitoring.
|
In our testing, we
identified questionable expenditures but did not identify any clearly
documented overpayments. ICC officials
indicated that they believe that the State may sometimes be overcharged for
projects by railroads. However, as
noted, neither ICC nor IDOT does any on-site construction monitoring or any
additional expenditure reviews to address this issue.
Expenditure
Documentation
|
ICC and IDOT have no clear standards on what documentation
is to be included with billings for Grade Crossing Protection Fund projects.
|
ICC and IDOT have no
clear standards on what documentation is to be included with billings for Grade
Crossing Protection Fund projects.
Expenditure documentation submitted for payment varied from projects where
significant documentation was submitted, including items which were unrelated
to the projects, to projects where bills were submitted with little or no
supporting documentation. Some items
were difficult to trace back and sometimes could not be traced back to amounts
paid.
In our detailed review
of various files for ten projects, we found five projects with some supporting
documentation. The remaining five
projects had billings but did not include detail documentation. Without consistent documentation and
thorough review of expenditures it is difficult to know whether expenditures
were appropriate or if all required elements of projects were done.
We recommended that
the Illinois Commerce Commission assure that all expenditures for Grade Crossing
Protection Fund projects are reviewed in a timely manner to assure that they
are appropriate and adequately supported.
The Illinois Commerce Commission and the Illinois Department of
Transportation should work together to develop standards on what documentation
is required for Grade Crossing Protection Fund projects. (pages 18-19, 35-38)
Compliance
with statutory provisions
Although we identified
some issues related to the timeliness and management of projects, we did not
identify any instances where the Illinois Commerce Commission did not comply
with statutes guiding the Grade Crossing Protection Fund process. Most requirements related to the Fund are
found in a section of the Motor Fuel Tax Law (35 ILCS 505/8(c)).
Investigations
The Illinois Vehicle
Code gives the Illinois Commerce Commission responsibility for several types of
investigations. ICC staff could do more
to assure investigations are done. The
Commission has general power to administer and enforce provisions included in
the applicable chapter of the Vehicle Code.
Rail safety statutes require that rail carriers construct, maintain, and
operate all of their equipment, track, and other property in Illinois in such a
manner as to pose no undue risk to their employees or the person or property of
any member of the public. The
Commission’s general authority includes inspections that Commission staff do
related to such things as track safety and signal inspections (625 ILCS
5/18c-7401).
In addition, the ICC
has the general authority to require installation of adequate equipment to
safeguard the health and safety of the public based on its own information or
based on a complaint, after proper investigation. This general authority is also specified for crossings where
investigations which might lead to requiring installation of
interconnects. They also have
responsibility relating to hazardous materials and specific responsibility
related to the investigation of accidents.
Investigation of Accidents
The Illinois Vehicle
Code requires rail carriers to report promptly to the Commission any accident
involving their equipment, track, or other property which resulted in loss of
life to any person. In addition, such
carriers must file a written report with the Commission.
Statutes allow but do
not require the Commission to investigate all railroad accidents involving
fatalities reported by railroads. The
Commission is also allowed to investigate other accidents about which it
acquires knowledge independent of reports made by rail carriers (625 ILCS
5/18c-7402 (3)(b)). Based on those
investigations the Commission can enter temporary Orders to minimize the risk
of future accidents. The Commission
staff generally investigate accidents involving fatalities but do not routinely
investigate other accidents.
Signal Failures
The Commerce
Commission staff are not notified when signal failures occur. ICC staff told us that for 2002 Illinois
ranked first in the nation in the number of railroad crossing signal failures
reported to the Federal Railway Administration. Because Illinois has more at-grade crossings than all but one
other state, it may not be an appropriate comparison. Currently the ICC does not get copies of these failure
reports.
We recommended that
the Illinois Commerce Commission assure that they receive reports on failures,
accidents, and complaints and then investigate them appropriately. This should help them to fulfill their
statutory responsibility of assuring that adequate warning devices are in place
at grade crossings. (pages 39-45)
Collision
and Fatality Rates
In Fiscal Year 2002,
there were a total of 183 collisions at public rail crossings in Illinois. Total fatalities resulting from collisions
at highway-rail crossings in Illinois decreased from 28 in 2001 to 24 in 2002. According to ICC documents, however,
fatality statistics are not a particularly good measure of safety threats or
conditions. Collision related
fatalities are a function of random events, such as the number of occupants riding
in a vehicle involved in a collision, or multiple fatalities involved in a
single incident. (page 46)
__________________________________________
William G. Holland
Auditor
General
WGH\EKW
November 2003
