Can Baltimore's light rail trolleys use white signal lights instead of the standard red, yellow, and green traffic lights?

Plain-English summary

Baltimore's Mass Transit Administration was building the Central Light Rail Line along city streets, including Howard Street, where trolleys would cross paths with ordinary vehicle and pedestrian traffic. Because a trolley's fixed rails sometimes curve across a lane where conventional traffic has a green light, and because the trolley operator often cannot safely proceed until every conflicting direction, not just the one facing the trolley, is stopped, MTA designed a separate signal box, distinct from the city's ordinary traffic lights, that shows the trolley operator a white bar instead of the standard red, yellow, or green lens. The City Solicitor asked whether this was legal under Maryland's Vehicle Law, which generally limits traffic control signals to green, red, and yellow, and bars unauthorized signals that resemble regular traffic devices.

The Attorney General concluded the white-bar signal is lawful. On federal law, the opinion first found the Railroad Safety Act's signal regulations don't apply at all, because a federal appeals court had already held that Congress never meant "railroad" in that act to cover urban rapid transit systems like Baltimore's, distinguishing genuine freight railroads from light rail trolleys confined to city streets. On state law, the opinion read the Vehicle Law's color requirement in light of its evident purpose: the statute's own rules (proceed on green, stop on red) presuppose a self-propelled vehicle that can choose its own path, which doesn't describe a trolley locked to a single rail alignment that sometimes must move when the facing light is red and other conflicting movements are stopped. Because a literal application of the ordinary color rule would either be nonsensical for a trolley or, worse, actively confuse drivers and pedestrians by showing the trolley a green light in situations where conventional cross-traffic also had a green light, the opinion concluded the Legislature never intended the color rule to reach this kind of purpose-built, clearly distinguishable transit signal.

Common questions

Do Baltimore's light rail trolleys have to obey the same red-yellow-green signal rules as cars?
No, according to this opinion. The Vehicle Law's color requirement for traffic control signals was written with conventional, freely maneuvering vehicles in mind, and the AG concluded it doesn't sensibly apply to a trolley confined to fixed rails that sometimes must proceed only when the facing light shows red.

Isn't a differently colored signal an "unauthorized" device the law prohibits?
The opinion said no, precisely because the white bar indicator is designed to look nothing like a conventional traffic signal, using a different shape, a different color scheme, and a separate physical box, which avoids the "resembling a traffic control device" problem the unauthorized-signal statute targets.

Does federal railroad safety law apply to the light rail signals?
No. The opinion relied on a federal appeals court decision holding that Congress never intended the Railroad Safety Act's "railroad" definition to reach urban rapid transit systems, and found the reasoning applied squarely to the portion of Baltimore's light rail line where no freight trains would ever run on the same track.

Why not just make the trolley follow the ordinary traffic light facing it?
Because a trolley sometimes needs to proceed exactly when the facing conventional signal is red (once all conflicting cross-traffic is also stopped), and conversely must sometimes stop even when facing a green light if its curved track crosses moving traffic. The opinion found that mismatch is the whole reason a distinct, purpose-built signal makes sense, and using the ordinary colors would actually risk confusing drivers and pedestrians rather than protecting them.

Background and statutory framework

Maryland's Vehicle Law, at Transportation Article §21-202(a), generally requires traffic control signals to use only green, red, and yellow lights, and §21-205 bars unauthorized signals that resemble a traffic control device. The statute's supporting definitions describe a "traffic control signal" as a device by which "traffic," including vehicles using a highway, is directed to stop or proceed, and while a light rail trolley qualifies as a "vehicle" using a highway (even though it isn't a "motor vehicle," since that term excludes vehicles operated on rails), the opinion found the color rule's surrounding provisions, describing how "vehicular traffic" reacts to green, red, and yellow signals, all assume a vehicle capable of turning or otherwise adjusting its path, not one fixed to a single rail alignment.

Applying the Court of Appeals' interpretive approach of looking past a statute's literal wording to its underlying purpose when a literal reading would produce an unintended or unsound result (Morris v. Prince George's County; Kaczorowski v. City of Baltimore), the opinion concluded the Legislature simply did not have a fixed-rail vehicle's unique signaling needs in mind when it wrote the ordinary color rule, and that applying the rule literally would either make no operational sense for the trolley or create genuine safety confusion for the public by showing conflicting colors to trolley operators and drivers facing the same intersection. On the separate federal question, the opinion applied Chicago Transit Authority v. Flohr, where the Seventh Circuit held Congress never intended the Railroad Safety Act of 1970's definition of "railroad" to reach urban rapid transit systems like Chicago's, and found that reasoning directly applicable to the Baltimore segment at issue, since no freight (Conrail) trains would ever run on that particular stretch of track.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• §21-202(a) of the Transportation Article (color requirement for traffic control signals)
• §21-205 of the Transportation Article (bar on unauthorized signals resembling traffic control devices)
• 45 U.S.C. §421 et seq. (Railroad Safety Act of 1970)

Cases:

• Chicago Transit Authority v. Flohr, 570 F.2d 1305 (7th Cir. 1977) (the Railroad Safety Act's "railroad" definition does not reach urban rapid transit systems)
• Morris v. Prince George's County, 319 Md. 597 (1990); Kaczorowski v. City of Baltimore, 309 Md. 505 (1987) (statutes are read in light of legislative purpose, not literal text alone, where a literal reading would be unsound)

Source

• Landing page: https://oag.maryland.gov/resources-info/Pages/attorney-general%E2%80%99s-opinions.aspx
• Original PDF: https://oag.maryland.gov/resources-info/Documents/pdfs/Opinions/1990/Volume75_1990.pdf (this opinion appears at printed pages 457-463 of the bound annual volume; Maryland's site does not publish a standalone PDF of this opinion)

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain, the linked PDF is authoritative.

TRANSPORTATION

Mass Transit Administration -- Statutory Construction -- Signals for Light Rail Transit Trolleys Are Lawful

November 14, 1990

Neal M. Janey, Esquire
City Solicitor, Department of Law

You have requested our opinion concerning the legality of the use of white lights in certain signals designed for the Light Rail Transit System.

For the reasons stated below, we conclude that the signals proposed to be used to guide the movement of the Light Rail Transit trolleys are lawful.[*]

I

Background

The Mass Transit Administration ("MTA") is now constructing the Central Light Rail Line, a portion of the new Light Rail Transit ("LRT") System. One part of this line will follow city streets, primarily Howard Street. A signaling system will be necessary so that an LRT trolley will proceed through an intersection only when all other conflicting traffic is stopped.

Cross-traffic is obviously conflicting, but sometimes parallel traffic is as well. For example, when a trolley travelling northbound on Howard Street stops for passengers at Saratoga Street, the tracks will place the trolley near the curb. The tracks will then curve westward, across the path of traffic proceeding north on Howard Street. When conventional traffic on Howard Street has a green light, the trolley operator cannot proceed. Nor can the trolley operator determine whether it is safe to proceed during the interval when the conventional traffic signal shows red for Howard Street traffic, because the operator will not be able to confirm, by looking at the conventional traffic signal, that traffic moving eastbound and westbound on Saratoga Street also has a red light.

Under the proposed signaling system, all conflicting vehicular and pedestrian traffic at an intersection will be stopped for a brief period of time to allow the LRT trolley to pass. These conventional traffic signals, maintained by the city, will be synchronized with a special display for the LRT operator.

The LRT signal will be on a separate box, physically apart from the conventional traffic signal.[1] In order to avoid any confusion on the part of a vehicle driver or pedestrian, the LRT signal will not use the conventional pattern of circular green, red, and yellow lights; instead, the status of traffic at the intersection will be displayed to the LRT trolley operator by the lighting of a horizontal, vertical, or diagonal bar colored white.[2]

II

Federal Law

If the portion of the LRT system in question were a "railroad" and therefore subject to the federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970, 45 U.S.C. §421 et seq., the signals used to control movement of the LRT trolleys might be subject to certain federal regulations. See 49 C.F.R. §236.23(d) (use of red, yellow, and green lights). In our view, however, the portion of the LRT system in question is not subject to the federal act.

In Chicago Transit Authority v. Flohr, 570 F.2d 1305 (7th Cir. 1977), the court was "convinced that Congress was not dealing with urban rapid transit, but with the conventional railroad network which spans the United States. Congress clearly never intended the word 'railroad' as used in the Railroad Safety Act of 1970 to include urban rapid transportation." 570 F.2d at 1309. Like the Chicago system, the LRT system will function solely as an urban transportation operation, using specially designed cars substantially smaller and lighter than railroad cars.

You have expressed some concern because in Flohr, the court pointed to the fact that the rails used for the Chicago transit system were not railroad rails and would be used exclusively for transit purposes. See 570 F.2d at 1307. On portions of the Central Light Rail Line, Conrail will have the right to operate its freight trains on the track at night, when the LRT system is closed.

But we do not read the court's passing reference to the Chicago system's exclusive use of the rails as implying that the court would have reached a different result if that fact were otherwise. Indeed, the court's focus on Congress' overall intent suggests that the fundamental character of the Chicago system, and not any one particular fact about it, was determinative.

In any event, no Conrail trains will run on the rails where the signals in question are to be installed; as in Flohr, this portion of the LRT system's right-of-way will be used exclusively for urban rapid transit. Hence, the reasoning and holding of Flohr squarely apply at least to this portion of the LRT System.[3]

III

State Law

The Maryland Vehicle Law regulates traffic signs, signals, and markings. In particular, §21-202(a) of the Transportation Article ("TR" Article) deals with the color of "traffic control signals":

    (1) Except for special pedestrian signals that carry a word legend, where traffic is controlled by traffic control signals that show different colored lights or colored lighted arrows, whether successively one at a time or in combination, only the colors green, red, and yellow may be used.

    (2) These lights apply to drivers and pedestrians as provided in this section.

TR §21-205 prohibits the display of "any unauthorized sign, signal, marking or device that attempts to direct the movement of traffic."

In considering whether these provisions of the Vehicle Law prohibit the use of white bar indicators for the LRT trolleys, we apply the methods of statutory construction endorsed by the Court of Appeals. We start with the statutory language itself, attempting to give effect to all of the words in the statute. Morris v. Prince George's County, 319 Md. 597, 603, 573 A.2d 1346 (1990). "But our endeavor is always to seek out the legislative purpose, the general aim or policy, the ends to be accomplished, the evils to be redressed by a particular enactment.... In the conduct of that enterprise, we are not limited to study of the statutory language." 319 Md. at 603-04.

A "traffic control signal" is "any traffic control device ... by which traffic alternately is directed to stop and permitted to proceed." TR §11-168. A "traffic control device," in turn, is "any sign, signal, marking, or device that ... [i]s placed by authority of an authorized public body or official to regulate, warn, or guide traffic." Finally, the term "traffic" means "pedestrians, vehicles and other conveyances ... while using any highway for travel." TR §11-166.

An LRT trolley is a "vehicl[e] ... using [a] highway for travel."[4] While the trolley will operate on a fixed rail, rather than on the paving of the street, in any meaningful sense the trolley will use a highway, Howard Street, for travel.[5] Thus, the LRT trolleys will be part of the "traffic" on Howard Street.

The context of TR §21-202(a) strongly suggests, however, that it was written with conventional types of traffic in mind, that is, vehicles capable of self-propelled movement in all directions, rather than a vehicle moving on fixed rails in a single direction. For example, TR §21-202(b) states that "[v]ehicular traffic facing a circular green signal may proceed straight through or, unless a sign at the place prohibits a turn, turn right or left." This provision makes perfect sense for motor vehicles and bicycles, but makes no sense at all for an LRT trolley sharing a highway with other traffic. If the conventional traffic light facing the LRT trolley is green, the trolley must still stop if there is a conflicting traffic movement across the tracks. Similarly, TR §21-202(h) enjoins "[v]ehicular traffic facing a steady red signal alone" to stop before entering the intersection. But in some situations an LRT trolley is able to proceed safely only when the facing traffic light is red (and the lights are red in the other quadrants as well). It could not have been the legislative objective to apply generally applicable signaling requirements to the movement of a conveyance that must heed its own special signal.

Nor could the General Assembly reasonably be understood to have mandated the use of a signal for the LRT trolleys that would only risk confusion by drivers or pedestrians. If the LRT System were required to use only green, red, and yellow lights in its signals, then in places the LRT signal would show a green light when the conventional traffic signal facing the same direction would be showing a red light. Drivers and pedestrians might well be confused about the signal applicable to them.

To be sure, at a few intersections in downtown Baltimore, the placement of the track would enable the trolley operator to follow the conventional traffic signal. But the use of mixed signaling, a special device at one corner, a conventional device at the next, would increase the risk that a trolley operator might become momentarily confused. Consistency about operational rules is an important safety consideration.

MTA's design for the LRT system signals virtually eliminates these problems by using a distinctive marking in a wholly separate and differently configured device for the entire portion of the system in downtown Baltimore. In our view, the General Assembly simply did not have this situation in mind when it enacted TR §21-202(a), and we should not allow an overly literal reading of the statute to bring about a result that was not intended and that would be contrary to sound policy. See Kaczorowski v. City of Baltimore, 309 Md. 505, 525 A.2d 628 (1987).

IV

Conclusion

In summary, it is our opinion that the signaling devices planned for the light rail trolleys traveling through downtown Baltimore are lawful.

                                          J. Joseph Curran, Jr.
                                          Attorney General

                                          Jack Schwartz
                                          Chief Counsel
                                            Opinions & Advice

[*] When this opinion was first issued, it contained certain factual errors not affecting the conclusion. This version of the opinion, dated and numbered to conform to the original version, corrects those errors.

[1] One of the designs is illustrated in the attachment to this opinion.

[2] The MTA has established the following design criteria for these devices, called "indicator heads": 1. The configuration or shape of the display on the LRT indicator heads will be different so as not to resemble a conventional city traffic control device. 2. The LRT indicator heads will be painted a color different from the city's traffic control devices. 3. The LRT indicator heads will only relay safety signal information to an LRT operator. They do not attempt to control or direct movement of traffic in any street crossing or intersection. 4. The LRT indicator heads will be positioned away from the city's standard traffic control signals and will not hide or interfere with the effectiveness of the latter system. 5. To prevent confusion with the city's use of green, red, and yellow traffic signaling lenses, the LRT heads will purposely display a white bar as a position light indicator to the LRT operator. The operator will proceed only when the LRT signal display confirms that all of the conventional traffic signals that control conflicting movements are red. The distinctive character of the LRT indicator heads will assure compliance with §21-205 of the Transportation Article, which in part prohibits "unauthorized" signals that "resembl[e]" a "traffic control device." See Part III below.

[3] We do not consider whether or to what extent the Railroad Safety Act might apply to other portions of the LRT system.

[4] A "vehicle" is "any device in, on, or by which any individual or property is or might be transported or towed on a highway." TR §11-176. An LRT trolley is not a "motor vehicle," however, because that term excludes any vehicle operated on rails. TR §11-135(a).

[5] A "highway" is "the entire width between the boundary lines of any way or thoroughfare of which any part is used by the public for vehicular travel ...." TR §11-127.