Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Railroad Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill to keep railroad crossing signals active for maintenance crews; sponsor to clarify "on‑track maintenance equipment" language
Summary
House Bill 2259 would expand railroad-safety statutes to include on-track equipment used for maintenance, ensuring crossing signals/controls accommodate maintenance operations; the sponsor and union representatives agreed to clarify language and the bill received a due-pass recommendation.
House Bill 2259, intended to improve safety for workers who maintain railroad tracks, was returned with a due-pass recommendation by the Arizona House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
Kylie (staff member) told the committee HB 2259 "includes other on track equipment into railroad safety statutes mentioning a railroad track." Sponsor Representative Trisha Hernandez said the bill is a simple, non‑fiscal change to allow crossing controls and timing to account for maintenance equipment that is heavier and sometimes requires longer intervals for work at crossings.
Representative Hernandez said current timing in state statute forces crossing signals to resume on a set schedule and requires legislative action for certain deviations; that timing can leave maintenance crews exposed while signs and gates re-enable. Hernandez cited national data on crossing incidents and said the change protects maintenance workers and public safety.
Ronnie Long (identified in the transcript as a maintenance representative) and Mark Cardenas, representing Teamsters Local 104 and the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Workers, described how modern maintenance equipment approaches the size and weight of locomotives and can trigger automatic sensors that time out after a short interval. Cardenas said crews sometimes must drive back-and-forth to retrigger sensors and that workers have experienced assaultive behavior including thrown objects and threats; he said the bill could reduce those dangers.
Several committee members asked whether the statutory language should specifically say "on-track maintenance equipment." Mark Cardenas said he and the unions would be "happy to add the word 'maintenance' in that legislation" to clarify the scope. The sponsor agreed to work with counsel and the committee to refine the wording by floor amendment if necessary.
The committee moved the bill forward; the transcript records the committee giving House Bill 2259 a due-pass recommendation by recorded voice and roll call. The clerk announced a roll call result of 7 ayes, 0 nays.
