PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jul 11, 2005
Railroad Safety Improvement Act of 2005 - Amends federal transportation law to direct the Secretary of Transportation to establish an automated video image analysis pilot program in states with the highest rates of accidents at highway-rail grade crossings to record motorist violations at crossings equipped with automatic warning devices. Requires the Secretary to submit to Congress a plan to eliminate highway-rail grade crossings, with priority given to crossings where the number of accidents are high or there is insufficient or outdated protective equipment.
Directs the Secretary to: (1) review the safety of all public railway-highway grade crossings in the United States; and (2) compile and submit to Congress, based on such review, a list of the 5,000 railway-highway grade crossings most in need of safety improvements.
Authorizes the Secretary to award grants to states to make necessary improvements to crossings identified for elimination and improvement. Requires the Secretary, in awarding such grants, to: (1) give priority to projects to install automated warning systems at crossings in states with the highest number of accidents; and (2) strive to reduce the number of crossings without automated warning systems by not less than 50%.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Directs the Secretary to: (1) analyze all laws for preventing trespassing and vandalism on railroad property; and (2) develop model legislation providing for civil and criminal penalties for individuals who violate grade crossing signs, signals, or gates.
Requires the Secretary to inspect annually at least 2% of all highway-rail grade crossings in the 10 states with the highest rates of collisions at such crossings.
Requires the Secretary to investigate, and report to Congress, all fatal accidents in the United States (including fatal railroad accidents) that occur on or after enactment of this Act.
People & committees
Sen. Vitter, David [R-LA] · R–LA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.1380 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.1380 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.1380 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.1380 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.