Appendices

INtroduction

The highway-rail grade crossing is unique in that it constitutes the intersection of two transportation modes which differ in both the physical characteristics of their traveled ways and their operations. Railroad transportation in the United States had its beginning during the 1830s and became a major factor in accelerating the great westward expansion of the country by providing a reliable, economical, and rapid method of transportation. Today, railroads are major movers of coal, ores, minerals, grains, and other farm products; chemicals and allied products; food and kindred products; lumber and other forest products; motor vehicles and equipment; and other bulk materials and products. In addition, railroads contribute to the movement of non-bulk intermodal freight, which also moves by water and highway during the journey from origin to destination. Finally, although few privately-operated passenger services operate on Class I railroads, publicly-funded long distance, corridor, and commuter services as well as light-rail transit (LRT) lines all may operate through grade crossings. The number of railroad line miles grew until a peak was reached in 1920, when 252,845 miles of railroad line were in service. Line Miles are defined as the actual length of the corridor within which the track is located. Track miles are defined as the total centerline length of mainline trackage in a corridor (Railroad Facts, 2017). (71) The number of railroad line miles and track miles has been decreasing since the 1930s, as shown in Table A-1. Highway-rail grade crossings became more of a concern with the advent of the automobile in the early 1900s. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) increased from 47.6 billion in 1920 to approximately 3.2 trillion by 2016. US lane miles totaled approximately 8.7 million by 2016. (72) The number of highway-rail grade crossings grew with the increase in highway miles. In many cities and towns, the grid method of laying out streets was utilized, particularly in the Midwest and west. A crossing over the railroad was often provided for every street, resulting in about 10 crossings per mile. As of July 2015, there are 211,631 highway-rail crossings, 58.5 percent are public, 40.4 percent are private, and 2 percent are pedestrian. (73) Crossings are divided into categories. Public crossings are those on highways under the jurisdiction of, and maintained by, a public authority and open to the traveling public. In 2017, there were 164,604 public crossings, of which 128,878 were at grade and 35,726 were grade separated. Private crossings are those on roadways privately owned and utilized only by the landowner or tenant. There were 83,415 private crossings in 2017. Pedestrian crossings are those used solely by pedestrians. There were 4,376 pedestrian crossings in 2017. (74) Please note that since the Inventory form revision in 2015, crossings can now be marked as public or private and highway or pedestrian, rather than public, private or pedestrian. Table A-1. Class 1 Railroad Line Miles and Track Miles

Year Line miles Track miles

1929 229,530 381,417 1939 220,915 364,174 1947 214,486 355,227 1955 211,459 350,217 1960 207,334 340,779 1970 196,479 319,092 1980 164,822 270,074 1990 119,758 200,074 2000 99,250 168,535 2002 100,125 170,048 2003 99,126 169,069 2004 97,662 167,312 2005 95,830 164,291 2006 94,942 162,056 2007 94,440 161,114 2008 94,209 160,734 2009 94,048 160,781 2010 95,700 161,926 2011 95,514 162,393 2012 95,391 162,306 2013 95,235 161,980 2014 94,372 161,240 2015 93,628 160,692 2016 93,339 160,141 Source: Railroad Facts, page 47, Washington, DC, Association of American Railroads, 2017. Sixty percent, or 77,214 of public at-grade crossings were in rural areas, compared to 50,195 in urban areas. For both urban and rural areas, most crossings are located on local roads, as depicted in Table A-2. Twenty-two percent of public at-grade crossings are located on federal- aid highways, as shown in Table A-3. Table A -2. Public At-Grade Crossings by Functional Classifications, 2017

Functional Classification Number

Rural

Interstate* 69

Other principal arterial 1,095

Minor arterial 3,200

Major collector 10,871

Minor collector 7,367

Local 54,570

Other freeways and expressways 23

Not reported 19

Total—Rural 77,214

Urban

Interstate* 129

Other principal arterial 4,711

Minor arterial 9,126

Major Collector 10,158

Minor Collector 282

Local 25,477

Other freeways and expressways 214

Not reported 98

Total—Urban 50,195

Total not reported as Rural or Urban 1,469

Grand Total 128,878

*Note: Crossings classified as “Interstate” are typically located on ramps. Source: Unpublished data from Federal Railroad Administration. Table A -3. Public At-Grade Crossing by Highway System, 2017

Highway System Number

Interstate Highway System 151

Federal-aid, not National Highway System 28,001

Non-federal-aid 93,830

Other National Highway System 4,778

Not reported 2,118

Total 128,878

*Note: Crossings classified as “Interstate” are typically located on ramps. Source: Unpublished data from Federal Railroad Administration. 178KEY STATISTICS

Safety and Operations at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings

National statistics on crossing collisions have been kept since the early 1900s resulting from the requirements of the Accident Reports Act of 1910. The act required rail carriers to submit reports of collisions involving railroad personnel and railroad equipment, including those that occurred at crossings. Since this time, the Federal Rail Administration (FRA) Office of Railroad Safety developed the FRA Guide for Preparing Accident/Incident Reports , which includes a section on reporting thresholds for accidents/incidents. The reporting threshold is updated annually, so users should check the latest information regarding these thresholds. This information can be accessed online at this link: (https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/ publicsite/ProposedFRAGuide.aspx). Figure A-1 Shows data for the past 10 years. Figure A -1. Railroad Crossing deaths, injuries, and incidents from 2008–2017 Source: USDOT FRA, Safety Data Statistic of Railroad Crossing deaths, injuries, & incidents from 2008–2017. Data from Report 1.12. https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0855 . 179These reporting requirements remained essentially the same until 1975, when the FRA redefined the threshold for a reportable highway-rail grade crossing collision. Under the new guidelines, any impact “between railroad on-track equipment and an automobile, bus, truck, motorcycle, bicycle, farm vehicle, pedestrian or other highway user at a rail-highway crossing” was to be reported.(75) Table A-4 gives the number of fatalities occurring at public highway-rail grade crossings from 1920 to 2017. Also, shown separately, are fatalities resulting from collisions involving motor vehicles. Table A-5 provides data on the number of collisions, injuries, and fatalities at public highway-rail grade crossings for the period from 1975 to 2017. Collisions and injuries from 1920 to 1974 are not provided because not all collisions and injuries were required to be reported during those years. The variation in the number of motor vehicle fatalities appears to be related to various occurrences over the years. From 1920 to 1930, railroad expenditures for the construction of grade separations and crossing active traffic control devices were extensive. During the early four-year period of the depression, railroad expenditures for crossing improvements lagged, and the number of motor vehicle fatalities increased. Starting in 1935, some special federal programs were initiated to improve crossing safety, and the number of motor vehicle fatalities began to decrease. During the wartime 1940s, crossing improvement work was reduced, and the number of motor vehicle fatalities remained constant. Since 1946, federal aid has increased. During the period between 1960 and 1967, the number of fatalities increased despite continual federal funding for grade separations and crossing traffic control device improvements. A national concern for crossing safety developed, as witnessed by national conferences to address the increase in casualties. The U.S. Congress responded by establishing a categorical funding program for crossing safety improvements in the 1973 Highway Act. This categorical safety program was extended in the 1976 Highway Act and the 1978 and 1982 Surface Transportation Acts. The result of this safety program and other emphases on crossing safety is demonstrated in Table

A-4, which

shows the dramatic reduction in the number of fatalities involving motor vehicles. Approximately 6.3 million motor vehicle traffic collisions occurred in 2015. Crossing collisions accounted for less than 0.05 percent of all motor vehicle collisions on roads; however, the severity of crossing collisions demands special attention. In 2015, there were 153 motor vehicle fatalities at crossings and a total of 32,539 motor vehicle fatalities. Therefore, crossing fatalities accounted for 0.5 percent of all motor vehicle fatalities. 0.5 percent of vehicle collisions resulted in a fatality, but 8 percent of crossing collisions resulted in a fatality. (76,77) In 2017, 821 fatal incidents occurred involving rail. A large portion of these fatalities involved trespassers.(78) In addition to the possibility of a collision between a train and a highway user, a highway-rail grade crossing presents the possibility of a collision that does not involve a train. Non-train collisions include collisions in which a vehicle that has stopped at a crossing is hit from the rear; collisions with fixed objects such as signal equipment or signs; and non ‑collision accidents in which a driver loses control of the vehicle. Most collisions with trains involve mainline freight operations, as shown in Table A-6. 180Table A -4. Fatalities at Public Crossings, 1920–2017

YearAll

FatalitiesMotor

Vehicle

Fatalities YearAll

FatalitiesMotor

Vehicle

Fatalities YearAll

FatalitiesMotor

Vehicle

Fatalities

1920 1,791 1,273 1953 1,494 1,328 1986 578 507 1921 1,705 1,262 1954 1,303 1,161 1987 598 533 1922 1,810 1,359 1955 1,446 1,322 1988 652 594 1923 2,268 1,759 1956 1,338 1,210 1989 757 682 1924 2,149 1,688 1957 1,371 1,222 1990 648 568 1925 2,206 1,784 1958 1,271 1,141 1991 565 497 1926 2,491 2,062 1959 1,203 1,073 1992 536 466 1927 2,371 1,974 1960 1,364 1,261 1993 584 517 1928 2,568 2,165 1961 1,291 1,173 1994 572 501 1927 2,371 1,974 1960 1,364 1,261 1993 584 517 1928 2,568 2,165 1961 1,291 1,173 1994 572 501 1929 2,485 2,085 1962 1,241 1,132 1995 524 455 1930 2,020 1,695 1963 1,302 1,217 1996 449 377 1931 1,811 1,580 1964 1,543 1,432 1997 419 378 1932 1,525 1,310 1965 1,534 1,434 1998 385 325 1933 1,511 1,305 1966 1,780 1,657 1999 363 309 1934 1,554 1,320 1967 1,632 1,520 2000 369 306 1935 1,680 1,445 1968 1,546 1,448 2001 386 315 1936 1,786 1,526 1969 1,490 1,381 2002 316 271 1937 1,875 1,613 1970 1,440 1,362 2003 300 249 1938 1,517 1,311 1971 1,356 1,267 2004 333 256 1939 1,398 1,197 1972 1,260 1,190 2005 329 258 1940 1,808 1,588 1973 1,185 1,077 2006 325 267 1941 1,931 1,691 1974 1,220 1,128 2007 299 227 1942 1,970 1,635 1975 888 786 2008 266 199 1943 1,732 1,396 1976 1,066 978 2009 226 161 1944 1,840 54 1977 944 846 2010 226 136 1945 1,903 1,591 1978 1,018 926 2011 211 138 1946 1,851 1,575 1979 834 727 2012 199 135 1947 1,790 1,536 1980 788 708 2013 207 141 1948 1,612 1,379 1981 697 623 2014 235 144 1949 1,507 1,323 1982 580 526 2015 208 127 1950 1,576 1,410 1983 542 483 2016 227 129 1951 1,578 1,407 1984 610 543 2017 241 139 1952 1,407 1,257 1985 537 480 Source: Data from the Federal Railroad Administration. 181Table A -5. Collisions, Fatalities, and Injuries at Public Crossings, 1975–2017

Year Collisions Fatalities Injuries

1975 11,409 888 3,736 1976 12,374 1,066 4,535 1977 12,595 944 4,646 1978 12,667 1,018 4,260 1979 11,777 834 4,172 1980 9,926 788 3,662 1981 8,698 697 3,121 1982 7,324 580 2,508 1983 6,691 542 2,467 1984 6,798 610 2,723 1985 6,497 537 2,508 1986 5,965 578 2,328 1987 5,891 598 2,313 1988 6,027 652 2,417 1989 5,980 757 2,683 1990 5,237 648 2,254 1991 4,864 565 1,923 1992 4,478 536 1,830 1993 4,480 584 1,744 1994 4,523 572 1,829 1995 4,168 524 1,754 1996 3,799 449 1,486 1997 3,416 419 1,370 1998 3,097 385 1,179 1999 3,110 363 1,264 2000 3,113 369 1,079 2001 2,843 386 1,038 2002 2,713 316 866 2003 2,606 300 921 2004 2,663 333 957 2005 2,643 329 921 2006 2,517 325 933 2007 2,354 299 881 2008 2,081 266 907 2009 1,644 226 644 2010 1,771 226 782 2011 1,789 211 885 2012 1,700 199 819 2013 1,781 207 848 2014 1,969 235 736 2015 1,783 208 944 2016 1,739 227 727 2017 1,833 241 734 Source: Federal Railroad Administration Safety Data website (safetydata.fra.dot.gov/officeofsafety). 182Table A -6. Collisions at Public Crossings Involving Motor Vehicles by Type of Train, 2004.

Type of train Collisions

Freight 1,199

Passenger/commuter 179

Yard switching 84

Other*155

Total 1,617

* Note: “Other” includes work trains, light locomotiv es, single car, short group of cars being switched, maintenance/inspection car, and special maintenance-of-way equipment. Source: Unpublished data from Federal Railroad Administration.

Crossing Improvement Funding Programs

The first authorization of federal funds for highway construction occurred in 1912 when Congress allocated $500,000 for an experimental rural post road program. The Federal ‑ Aid Road Act of 1916 provided federal funds to the States for the construction of rural post roads. These funds could be expended for safety improvements at highway-rail grade crossings, as well as for other highway construction. The States had to match the federal funds on a 50-50 basis and often required railroads to pay the State’s 50 percent share or more. Since then, the program has gone through various revisions. The remainder of this section will focus on how the current program has been more recently shaped. The Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) of 1987 established Section 130 of Chapter 23 of the United States Code, giving the Federal-Aid Rail-Highway Grade Crossing Safety Program permanent status under the law for the first time. (79) In 1991, Congress passed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). This act established the National Highway System (NHS) and Surface Transportation Program (STP). The NHS consists of the interstate system and other highways of national significance, plus certain intermodal connections; the STP covers all other public roads and streets. Section 1007(d)(1) of ISTEA required that 10 percent of each State’s STP funds be set aside for safety improvements under Sections 130 and 152 (Hazard Elimination) of Title 23. It further required that the State reserve in each fiscal year an amount not less than the amount apportioned in each program for fiscal year 1991. If the total set aside was more than the 1991 total for these programs, the surplus was to be used for safety, but may be used for either program; if the total is less than the total 1991 apportionment, the safety set-aside funds were to be used proportionately for each program. ISTEA, therefore, provided for the continuation of categorical safety programs. (80) The ISTEA removed the potential to fund railroad grade separations at 100 percent, or G-funded projects as referred to at that time. It also reduced the percentage of a State’s federal funds that could be used for G-funded work from 25 percent, which had been in effect for many years, to 10 percent. 183Section 1021(c) of ISTEA permitted an increased federal share on certain types of safety projects, including traffic control signalization; pavement marking; commuter carpooling and vanpooling; or installation of traffic signs, traffic lights, guardrails, impact attenuators, concrete barrier end treatments, breakaway utility poles, or priority control systems for emergency vehicles at signalized intersections. FHWA determined that railroad grade crossing signals are included in the category “traffic control signalization.” In 1995, Congress passed the NHS Designation Act, which included a provision that made any activities associated with the closure of a highway-railroad grade crossing eligible for 100 percent federal funding. This increased federal share was discontinued with the subsequent passage of Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act—A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA ‑LU). Congress enacted the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) in 1997. This act extended the funding arrangements (safety set-asides and other provisions) that had been established in ISTEA and the NHS Designation Act. In the summer of 2005, Congress passed the SAFETEA-LU, which was signed into law by the President on August 10, 2005. The SAFETEA-LU requires that each State develop a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), which addresses engineering, management, education, enforcement, and emergency service elements of highway safety as key factors in evaluating highway safety projects. Highway-rail grade crossing safety may be considered part of the SHSP. The SAFETEA-LU created the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), elevating it to a new core federal ‑aid funding program beginning in fiscal year 2006, with the aim of achieving a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. This new program replaced the 10 percent safety set-aside program element of the STP established under ISTEA. It also restored categorical funding for each of the highway safety construction programs. SAFETEA-LU continued the Section 130 program as a set-aside under the new HSIP and established that the federal share payable on any Section 130-funded project shall be 90 percent. A total of $220 million in highway ‑railroad crossing safety funds was apportioned among the States for fiscal years 2006 through 2009. Half of these funds were apportioned among the States according to the formula for apportionment of STP funding; the other half were apportioned according to the number of public highway-rail crossings in each State. To aid in the implementation of the new program, FHWA published fact sheets on the new HSIP and the Rail-Highway Crossing provisions. (80) The SAFETEA-LU continued the requirement that a State spend a minimum of 50 percent of its apportionment for the installation of protective devices at railway-highway crossings. The remaining funds could be spent for other types of improvements as defined in Section 130, including for installation of protective devices at railway-highway crossings. At a minimum, each State was to receive of one-half percent of the total program funding. The SAFETEA- LU also contained a provision to use up to 2 percent of the funds apportioned to a State for compilation and analysis of data for the required annual report to the Secretary on the progress being made to implement the railway-highway crossings program. It also contained a Special Rule under 23 U.S.C. 130(e) that if a State could demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary 184it had met all of its needs for installation of protective devices at railway-highway crossings, funds could be used for other highway safety improvement purposes.(81) The program further required each State to conduct and systematically maintain a survey of all highways to identify those railroad crossings that may require separation, relocation, or protective devices, and established a schedule of projects for this purpose. At a minimum, this schedule was to provide signs for all railway-highway crossings (23 U.S.C. 130(d)). (81) Through the HSIP planning process, each State was required to incorporate analyzing safety data to develop a Rail-Highway Crossings Program that (A) considered the relative risk of rail crossings based on a hazard index formula; (B) includes on-site inspection; and (C) resulted in a program of safety improvement projects with special emphasis on providing standard signing and marking at all rail crossings (23 CFR 924.9(a)(4)(ii)). (82) After several continuing resolutions extended SAFETEA-LU, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act passed in July 2012 continuing funding of the Section 130 Railway- Highway Crossings Program at $220 million per year through 2014 with minimal changes. The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, passed in late 2015, authorized $225 million starting in fiscal year 2016 and increasing by an additional $5 million each year through fiscal year 2020.(83) In addition, the 2016 Department of Transportation (DOT) Appropriations Act raised the Section 130 set ‑aside for fiscal year 2016 to $350 million. The FAST Act also continues all prior program eligibilities in addition to extending eligibility to include the relocation of highways to eliminate railway-highway grade crossings and projects at crossings to eliminate hazards posed by blocked crossings due to idling trains. Apart from the new authorized amounts and eligibility described herein, the FAST Act makes no changes to the Section 130 Railway-Highway Crossings Program. Additional information can be found online at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/ . In summary, there are three sources of federal funding for construction of highway-rail grade crossing safety improvements:

•The State’s normal federal-aid highway funding may be used. This may include Bridge

Replacement, NHS, or STP funding

•Section 130 set-aside funds may be used

•Funding from other safety programs, such as other HSIP funds, may be used if such use is consistent with the State’s SHSP and the project meets HSIP program eligibility requirements Activities eligible for the use of Section 130 safety funds are as follows:

•Crossing consolidations (including the funding of incentive payments up to $7,500 to local jurisdictions for crossing closures if matched by the railroad)

•Projects that eliminate hazards at railway-highway crossings

•Separation or protection of grades at crossings

•Reconstruction of existing railroad grade crossing structures 185• Relocation of highways to eliminate grade crossings

•Projects at grade crossings to eliminate hazards posed by blocked grade crossings due to idling trains

•Signage at crossings

•Pavement marking at crossings

•Illumination at crossings

•Signals at crossings, including interconnection and preemption

•Improved crossing surfaces

•Sight distance or geometric improvements at crossings

•Data analysis in support of annual reporting requirements (up to 2 percent of apportionment) The purpose of Section 130 funds is for the elimination of hazards at railway-highway crossings and therefore are not eligible for new crossings or quiet zones to address noise abatement. Many States have been active in crossing improvement programs for decades. States have been responsible for initiating and implementing projects under the various federal programs. In the past, States have required the railroad or the local government to provide the funds needed to match the federal contribution. States may utilize State funds for crossing improvements and to provide the 10 percent match requirement. In addition to financing costs directly associated with the improvement of highway-rail grade crossings, all States contribute incidentally to crossing components. In general, for crossings located on the State highway system, States provide for the construction and maintenance of the roadway approaches and for signs, markings, and other traffic control devices not located on the railroad right of way. Typically, these include advance warning signs and pavement markings. Local governments have contributed to highway-rail grade crossing safety improvements by providing the matching funds for improvement projects constructed under Section 130 programs. Localities have also contributed for decades through the construction and maintenance of street approaches to crossings and the signs and pavement markings in advance of the crossings. Some cities and counties conduct traffic engineering and safety studies at specific crossing locations. Although public agencies have established funding programs for crossing elimination and improvements, the railroads have continued to contribute as well. In some cases, the railroad may pay all, or a part of, the required matching share of a project, or the railroad may contribute “in- kind” by way of supplying materials, providing for flagging services, or constructing or signing a detour route during construction of an improvement. Railroads may also contribute through their track and crossing surface maintenance programs or through vegetation or right-of-way (ROW) clearance programs to improve sight distances at crossings. Some railroads make direct cash contributions to local jurisdictions for crossing consolidations or closures. 186RESPONSIBILITIES

Fundamental Issues of Highway-Rail Crossings

An issue as old as the grade crossing safety problem is the question of who should provide and pay for traffic control devices at highway ‑rail grade crossings. During the years between 1850 and 1890, tremendous growth in population followed the railroads west. Consequently, there was a need for new highways and streets, practically all of which crossed the railroads at grade. In most cases, the responsibility for these crossings automatically fell upon the railroads. There were occasional collisions at crossings, but they usually were not as serious as those occurring today. One early collision, involving a train and a wagon in Lima, Indiana, resulted in a suit that eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 1877. In Continental Improvement Co. v. Stead, the Supreme Court had to decide who was responsible for the damages incurred. In its decision, the Supreme Court said that the duties, rights, and obligations of a railroad company and a traveler on the highway at the public crossing were “mutual and reciprocal.” It also said that the train had the right of way at over crossings because of its “character,” “momentum,” and the “requirements of public travel by means thereof.” The railroad, however, was bound to give reasonable and timely warning of the train’s approach. The Supreme Court further stated that “those who are crossing a railroad track are bound to exercise ordinary care and diligence to ascertain whether a train is approaching.” This Supreme Court decision indicated that there was a responsibility upon railroads to warn travelers on highways of approaching trains and a responsibility upon travelers to look, listen, and stop for approaching trains. This expanded federal highway construction program had a great deal of influence on the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. v. Walters in 1935. Justice Brandeis, writing for the majority of the Court, said: The railroad has ceased to be the prime instrument of danger and the main cause of accidents. It is the railroad which now requires protection from dangers incident to motor transportation. 187Government Agency Responsibility and Involvement Today, because a highway-rail crossing involves the intersection of two transportation modes— one public and the other private—safe and efficient operation requires strict cooperation and coordination of the involved agencies and organizations. At the federal level, six agencies within the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) and two agencies outside USDOT have specific safety ‑related roles with respect to highway ‑rail grade crossings:

•Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

•Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)

•National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

•Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)

•Federal Transit Administration (FTA)

•Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)

•National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)

•Surface Transportation Board (STB) At the State level, program administration and responsibility include the following:

•State highway departments

•State departments of transportation

•State regulatory agencies (usually called public service commissions or public utility commissions)

•State highway safety agencies

•State departments of public safety (State police or highway patrol) At the local level, public agencies involved include the following:

•State highway department field maintenance organizations

•County or township road departments

•City street departments or public works agencies

•County or local law enforcement agencies Each of these involvements is described below.

FHwa

The FHWA provides oversight for the State administered federally-funded programs, several of which are available for crossing improvements. FHWA apportions funds to the States according to a legislated formula and in the amounts authorized by Congress for each program. It establishes procedures by which the States obligate the funds to specific projects and oversees the overall implementation of the federally-funded programs. The FHWA establishes standards for traffic control devices and systems at crossings and publishes them in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). (1) FHWA also has adopted various design criteria and guidelines developed by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and other organizations for use on federal ‑ aid construction and reconstruction projects. It approves State-developed design directives and 188design criteria for resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation projects and other activities. The FHWA provides technical assistance to States and local agencies through the distribution of state- of-the-art publications, training classes, and the activities of State Local Technical Assistance Program centers. The FHWA conducts research to support the previously listed activities, and research conducted by the States is often funded using Federal-Aid State Planning and Research funds. Typical research topics include traffic control devices, roadside safety, collision causation, program management tools, and collision countermeasures. Any FHWA crossing research is coordinated with FRA. FHWA promotes the maintenance of individual State grade crossing inventories and the updating of the national Inventory database.

FRa

The FRA maintains the national Railroad Accident/Incident Reporting System that contains information reported by the railroads on crossing collisions. The FRA also serves as custodian of the National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory that contains the physical and operating characteristics of each crossing. The information in the Crossing Inventory is submitted and updated by the railroads and the States. The FRA prepares, publishes, and distributes reports summarizing collision and crossing data and makes the data available on the Internet. The FRA generally conducts field investigations of railroad accidents/incidents, including crossing collisions, which result in the death of a railroad employee or the injury of five or more persons. FRA also investigates complaints by the public pertaining to crossings and makes recommendations to the industry as appropriate. The FRA conducts research to identify solutions to crossing problems, primarily from a railroad perspective. Typical research involves program management tools, train-borne warning devices, train car and locomotive reflectorization, and track circuitry improvements. Research is coordinated with FHWA. Both FHWA and FRA have field offices located throughout the United States that collaborate with State agencies and individual railroads on program and project issues. They ensure that policies and regulations are effectively implemented and provide feedback to headquarters regarding needs identified at the field level. The FRA also sponsors a considerable amount of research into railroad and crossing safety issues. A significant portion of this research is carried out by the John A. V olpe National Transportation Systems Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Other research is performed through the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), administered by the Transportation Research Board. The FRA regulations enhance highway ‑rail crossing safety by requiring railroads to:

•Report any impact between a highway user and railroad on-track equipment at a highway-rail grade crossing

•Equip locomotives with auxiliary lights to improve the conspicuity of approaching trains 189• Place retro ‑reflective material on railroad rolling stock to make them more visible during the night or reduced light situations

•Periodically maintain, inspect and test automatic warning devices

•Sound locomotive horns when approaching public highway-rail crossings, unless the crossing is located within a quiet zone

•Have an Emergency Notification System by which the public may report unsafe conditions at crossings to the railroad

•Submit accurate, up-to-date railroad-related crossing information to the National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory

NHtsa

The NHTSA maintains the Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS), a database containing information on all fatal highway collisions. The NHTSA coordinates with FRA and FHWA to provide information in FARS pertinent to crossings. The NHTSA also funds educational programs and selective law enforcement programs at crossings through State highway safety offices.

FMcsa

The FMCSA was established as a separate administration within USDOT on January 1, 2000, pursuant to the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999. The primary mission of FMCSA is to reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities involving large trucks and buses. The FMCSA is committed to increasing grade crossing safety messages to the freight and passenger motor carrier industry, as well as to its safety oversight and enforcement partners. The FMCSA encourages States to use their Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) contacts to distribute grade crossing safety materials focused on motor carrier needs and issues at crossings. The FMCSA also develops informational packages for firms in the motor carrier industry.

FTa

The FTA is one of 10 modal administrations within USDOT. It provides financial and technical assistance to local public transit systems including buses, subways, light rail, commuter rail, monorail, trolleys and ferries. FTA maintains the Safety Management System which compiles and analyzes transit safety and security data. FTA also maintains the National Transit Database (NTD) which provides a repository of data about the financial, operating and asset conditions of transit systems. PHMSAThe PHMSA is a separate operating administration for pipeline safety and hazardous materials transportation safety operations. The PHMSA is the federal agency charged with the safe and secure movement of almost one million daily shipments of hazardous materials by all modes of transportation, including by rail. The agency also oversees the U.S. pipeline infrastructure, which accounts for 64 percent of the energy commodities consumed in the United States. The agency establishes national policy, sets and enforces standards, educates, and conducts research 190to prevent incidents. The PHMSA also prepares the public and first responders to reduce consequences if an incident does occur.

NTsb

The NTSB provides a comprehensive review of the safety aspects of all transportation systems. Through special analyses and collision investigations, it identifies specific safety problems and recommends associated remedies that are presented as recommendations to specific agencies and organizations. (84)

STb

The STB was created as an economic regulatory agency with the ICC Termination Act of 1995 and is the successor agency to ICC. The STB serves as both an adjudicatory and a regulatory body. The agency has jurisdiction over railroad rate and service issues and rail restructuring transactions including mergers, line sales, line construction, and line abandonments.

State and Local Level

Jurisdiction over highway-rail grade crossings resides primarily with the States. State highway and transportation agencies are responsible for the implementation of a program that is broad enough to involve any public crossing within the State. Within some States, responsibility is assigned to a regulatory agency referred to as a public service commission, a public utilities commission, or similar designation. In other States, the authority is divided among the public administrative agencies of the State, county, or city having jurisdiction over the respective highway and street systems—practitioners are advised to verify current local responsibilities. State and local law enforcement agencies are responsible for the enforcement of traffic laws at crossings. Local government bodies are responsible for ordinances governing traffic laws and operational matters relating to crossings. States have State ‑specific laws that can affect how their programs (including funding and maintenance) are managed. The historical shifting of responsibility for safety at crossings from the railroads to the public and the increasing availability of federal funds have led to more of that responsibility being placed on State and local agencies. This shift culminated with the inclusion of Part VIII, “Traffic Control Systems for Highway-Rail Grade Crossings,” in the 1978 edition of MUTCD. Part VIII consolidated certain information that had been scattered throughout MUTCD and superseded the Association of American Railroads (AAR) bulletins covering crossing signalization that had been issued by AAR Committee D. The FHWA has also issued regulations specifying criteria for the selection of traffic control devices at highway ‑rail grade crossings. The highway agency having jurisdiction at public crossings is the entity responsible for determining appropriate traffic control devices. Even though the railroads retain the responsibility for the installation and maintenance of Crossbuck signs at passive crossings and for the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of railroad crossing signals, State transportation and regulatory agencies have the responsibility to assure that the standards set forth in MUTCD and elsewhere in federal regulations are followed. The street or highway agency is also responsible for the installation and maintenance of all traffic control devices on the 191approaches to the crossing; for the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of highway traffic signals that may be interconnected with the grade crossing signals; and for the installation and maintenance of certain passive signs at the crossing, such as STOP signs or “Do Not Stop on Tracks” signs. Although the railroads retain responsibility for the construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of the track structure and the riding surface at the highway-rail intersection, their obligation for the roadway usually ends within a few inches of the outside ends of the ties that support the rails and the crossing surface. The street or highway agency has responsibility for the design, construction, and maintenance of the roadway approaches to the crossing, even though these approaches may lie within the railroad’s ROW. (85)

Railroad Responsibility and Involvement

Railroads work with State, county, and municipalities to alleviate operational and safety concerns at highway-rail grade crossings. Typically, Class I carriers have “public projects” staff who work with State and local highway authorities to implement improvements to grade crossings, grade crossing closures, grade separations, and quiet zone improvements. Railroads also conduct some research to identify and apply new technology and further new concepts regarding crossing safety and operations. Founded in 1934, the AAR leads a wide range of policy, research, standards setting, and technology related to the operations of the U.S. freight rail industry. The AAR full members include the major freight railroads in the United States, Canada and Mexico, as well as Amtrak. The AAR railroad affiliate and associate members include non ‑Class I and commuter railroads, rail supply companies, engineering firms, signal and communications firms, and rail car owners.

Policy Making

Working with elected officials and leaders in Washington, DC, AAR works to advance sound public policy that supports the interests of the freight rail industry to ensure it will continue to meet America’s transportation needs.

Standard Setting

As the standard setting organization for North America’s railroads, AAR establishes safety, security, and operating standards that provide for seamless and safe operations across America’s 140,000-mile freight rail network. Industry Data, Reports and PublicationsThe AAR prepares weekly, quarterly, and annual statistical reports providing comprehensive insight into the operations of North America’s freight railroads. The AAR members may access the publications catalog, covering many aspects of freight railroading from the latest economic statistics to the correct means of loading and securing various freight shipments and research reports from AAR’s Transportation Technology Center, Inc. (TTCI). These publications offer economic, financial, policy, and general statistical information, and can be purchased from their online catalog. 192Research and Technology Initiatives Through its two subsidiaries, TTCI and Railinc, AAR supports continued research and development projects to enhance the safety, security, and efficiency of the railroad industry. The TTCI is the world’s leading research, development, and testing facility, and develops next-generation advancements in safety and operational efficiency. Railinc serves as the rail industry’s leading resource for rail data, information technology, and information services, and uses one of the world’s largest data networks to track customer shipments. The AAR also supports the Railroad Research Foundation, a world-class policy research organization dedicated to sustaining a safe, secure, and technologically advanced rail network. The AAR has been active in crossing programs and has established a State-Rail Programs Division within its Operations and Maintenance Department. This division provides information to Congress and USDOT to assist in the administration and establishment of crossing programs. Railroad interests and concerns regarding crossing programs are typically coordinated through the AAR office. The State ‑Rail Programs Division has an appointed railroad employee in each State to serve as the AAR State representative on crossing safety matters. A list of State representatives is available from AAR. Other railroad-related companies and suppliers also participate in crossing safety programs. The signal suppliers and manufacturers of crossing surface systems provide guidance for the selection of a specific device or crossing surface. In addition, these companies are actively conducting research to improve their products. 193B. APPENDIX—COMPONENTS OF A HIGHWAY-RAIL GRADE CROSSING A highway-rail grade crossing can be viewed as simply a special type of highway intersection, in that the three basic elements of any intersection are present: the driver , the vehicles, and the physical intersection. As with a highway intersection, drivers must appropriately yield the ROW to opposing traffic; unlike a highway ‑highway intersection, the opposing traffic—the train— is not required to yield the ROW to the highway vehicle. Drivers of motor vehicles have the flexibility of altering their path of travel and can alter their speed within a short distance. T rain operators, on the other hand, are restricted to moving their trains down a fixed path, and changes in speed can be accomplished much more slowly. Because of this, motorists bear most of the responsibility for avoiding collisions with trains. The railroad Crossbuck sign is defined in the MUTCD as a regulatory sign. In ef fect, it is a YIELD sign, and motorists have the obligation to so interpret it. T raffic and highway engineers can assist motorists with the driving task by providing them with proper highway design, adequate sight distances, and proper traffic control devices. The components of a highway ‑rail grade crossing are divided into two categories: the highway and the railroad. The highway component can be further classified into several elements including the roadway, drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists, and vehicles. The railroad component is classified into train and track elements. The location where these two components meet should be designed to incorporate the basic needs of both highway vehicles and trains. Traffic control devices are utilized to provide road users with information concerning the crossing. Typically, an advance warning sign and pavement markings inform the motorist that a crossing lies ahead in the travel path. The crossing itself is identified and located using the Crossbuck. These traffic control devices—the advance sign, pavement markings, and Crossbuck—are termed “passive” because their message remains constant with time. “Active” traffic control devices tell the motorist if a train is approaching or occupying a crossing and, thus, give a variable message. Typical active traffic control devices are flashers or flashers and automatic gates. A highway traffic signal may also be interconnected to the crossing signals and would form part of the traffic control system at the crossing. The USDOT National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory provides information on the number of crossings having each type of traffic control device, as shown in Table B-1.

HIghway Components

Driver

The driver is responsible for obeying traffic control devices, traffic laws, and the rules of the road. Highway and railroad engineers who plan and design initial installations or later improvements to traffic control systems at railroad grade crossings should be aware of the several capabilities, requirements, needs, and obligations of the driver. This information will help them, through the proper engineering design of improvements, assisting drivers in meeting their responsibilities. 194Table B -1. Public Crossings by Warning Device, 2017 1 (Updated data can be found on the FRA’s Office of Safety Analysis website [also known as Safetydata] at https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov ) Warning device Number Percent

Active devices

Gates 50,018 39.16 Flashing lights 17,613 13.79 Highway signals, wigwags, or bells 1,326 1.04 Speciala908 0.71 Total active 69,865 54.69

Passive devices

Crossbucks 43,289 33.89 STOP signs 11,877 9.30 Other signs 265 0.21 Total passive 55,431 43.39 No signs or signals 2,442 1.91 Total 127,738 100.00 a Note: “Special” are traffic control systems that are not train activated, such as a crossing being flagged by a member of the train crew. Source: Federal Railroad Administration.1 This section deals with the duties of the motor vehicle driver. As of 2000, the Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC) is a specimen set of motor vehicle laws designed or advanced as a comprehensive guide or standard for State motor vehicle and traffic laws .(86) It describes the actions a driver is required to take at highway-rail grade crossings. The UVC defines the “appropriate actions” vehicle operators are required to take for three situations: vehicle speed approaching the crossing; vehicle speed traversing the crossing; and stopping requirements at the crossing. The provisions in UVC for these actions are set out below:

•Approach Speed (Sec. 11-801). No person shall drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing. Consistent with the foregoing, every person shall drive at a safe and appropriate speed when approaching and crossing an intersection and railroad grade crossing….

•Passing (Sec. 11-306). (a) No vehicle shall be driven on the left side of the roadway under the following conditions… …2. When approaching within 100 feet of or traversing any intersection or railroad grade crossings unless otherwise indicated by official traffic control devices… 195• Vehicles Approaching a Highway-Rail Grade Crossing (Sec. 11-701) (a) Whenever any person driving a vehicle approaches a railroad grade crossing under any of the circumstances stated in this section, the driver of such vehicle shall stop within 50 feet but not less than 15 feet from the nearest rail of such railroad, and shall not proceed until it is safe to do so. The foregoing requirements shall apply when: 1. A clearly visible electric or mechanical signal device gives warning of the immediate approach of a railroad train; 2. A crossing gate is lowered or when a human flagger gives or continues to give a signal of the approach or passage of a railroad train; 3. A railroad train approaching within approximately 1,500 feet of the highway crossing emits a signal audible from such distance, or such railroad train by reason of its speed or nearness to such crossing is an immediate hazard; 4. An approaching railroad train is plainly visible and is in hazardous proximity to such crossing. (b) No person shall drive any vehicle through, around or under any crossing gate or barrier at a railroad crossing while such gate or barrier is closed or is being opened or closed.

•Designated Vehicles Must Stop at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings (11-702) (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the driver of any vehicle described in regulations issued pursuant to subsection (c), before crossing at grade any track or tracks of a railroad, shall stop such vehicle before the stop line (if present) and not less than 15 feet from the nearest rail of such track, and while so stopped shall listen and look in both directions along such track for any approaching train and for signals indicating the approach of a train and shall not proceed until it is safe to do so. After stopping as required, upon proceeding when it is safe to do so, the driver shall cross only in a gear of the vehicle that will not require manually changing gears while traversing such crossing and the driver shall not manually shift gears while crossing the track or tracks. (b) This section shall not apply at: 1. Any railr oad grade crossing at which traffic is controlled by a police officer or flagger; 2. Any railr oad grade crossing at which traffic is regulated by a traffic-control signal; 3. Any railr oad grade crossing protected by crossing gates or an alternately flashing light signal intended to give warning of the approach of a railroad train; 4. Any railr oad grade crossing at which an official traffic control device gives notice that the stopping requirement imposed by this section does not apply. (c) The (commissioner or other appropriate State official or agency) shall adopt regulations, as may be necessary, describing the vehicles that must comply with the stopping requirements of this section. In formulating those regulations, the (commissioner or other appropriate State 196official or agency) shall give consideration to the number of passengers carried by the vehicle and the hazardous nature of any substance carried by the vehicle in determining whether such vehicle shall be required to stop. Such regulations shall correlate with, and so far as possible, conform to the most recent regulation of the United States Department of Transportation. Each State has its own traffic laws, which may vary from those above. The pertinent sections of the State code and the State driver licensing handbook should be consulted for more information.

Vehicle

The design and operation of a railroad grade crossing should reflect the number and types of vehicles that can be expected to use it. In this regard, crossings are exposed to the full array of vehicle types found on highways, from motorcycles to truck tractor/triple-trailer combinations, although the use of crossings by the largest vehicle types is rare. Typically, the largest vehicles that will use an at-grade crossing are full-size passenger buses or design trucks such as WB-50. The vehicles utilizing highway-rail grade crossings have widely different characteristics that will directly influence the design elements of the crossing. Equally important is the car go these vehicles carry, especially children in school buses and hazardous materials in trucks.

Table

B-2 summarizes collisions at crossings by vehicle type. Rates are defined as collisions per billion miles of travel. The data provides some indication of the relative hazards for each of the vehicles. Trucks have the highest collision rates of all vehicle types. Motorcycles have a higher fatality rate, probably because of the lack of operator protection provided by the vehicle. Several physical and performance characteristics influence the safety of vehicles at crossings. These include vehicle dimensions, braking performance, and acceleration performance. Vehicle DimensionsThe length of a vehicle has a direct bearing on the inherent safety of the vehicle at a grade crossing and, consequently, is an explicit factor considered in the provision of sight distances. Long vehicles and vehicles carrying heavy loads have longer braking distances and slower acceleration capabilities; hence, long vehicles may be exposed to a crossing for an even greater length of time than would be expected in proportion to their length. Vehicle length is explicitly considered in determining the effect of sight distance, and the corner sight triangle on the safe vehicle approach speed toward the crossing and in determining the sight distance along the track for vehicles stopped at the crossing. The design lengths of various vehicles are specified by the AASHTO and shown in Table B-3. 197Table B -2. Motor Vehicle Collisions and Casualties at Public Crossings by Vehicle Type, 2017 — AutomobilesaBuses TrucksbMotorcycles Total

Total collisions

Number 1,828 7 587 9 2,431

Ratec0.67 1.05 2.59 0.90 0.84 Percent 75.19 0.29 24.15 0.37 100.00

Total fatalities

Number 204 0 35 2 241

Ratec0.08 0.00 0.15 0.20 0.08 Percent 84.65 0.00 14.52 0.83 100.00

Total injuries

Number 648 7 225 5 885

Ratec0.24 1.05 0.99 0.50 0.31 Percent 73.22 0.79 25.42 0.57 100.00

Vehicle miles of

travel (billions)2,719.32 6.64 226.51 10.05 2,890.89 Registered vehicles 228,276,000 795,000 8,171,000 5,781,000 236,761,000

Collisions per

million vehicles8.01 8.81 71.84 1.56 10.27 a “Automobiles” includes passenger cars, pick-up trucks, vans, and sport utility vehicles. b “Trucks” includes both single-unit trucks and combination trucks. c “Rate” is the number of collisions, fatalities, or injuries div ided by billions of vehicle miles traveled. Source: FRA and FHWA. 198Table B -3. U.S. Customary Lengths for Design Vehicles

Design vehicle type Designation Length (feet)

Passenger car P 19

Single-unit truck SU 30

Buses

Intercity bus (motor coaches) BUS-40 40

BUs-45 45

City transit bus CITY-BUS 40

Conventional school bus (65 passengers) S-BUS 36 35.8

Large school bus (84 passengers) S-BUS 40 40

Articulated bus A-BUS 60

Trucks

Intermediate semitrailer WB-40 45.5

Intermediate semitrailer WB-50 55

Interstate semitrailer WB-62*68.5 Interstate semitrailer WB-65** or WB-67 73.5 “Double-bottom” semitrailer/trailer WB-67D 73.3 Triple-semitrailer/trailers WB-100T 104.8 Turnpike double-semitrailer/trailer WB-109D*114

Recreational Vehicles

Motor home MH 30

Car and camper trailer P/T 48.7

Car and boat trailer P/B 42

Motor home and boat trailer MH/B 53

*Design vehicle with 48-foot trailer as adopted in the 1982 Surface Transportation Assistance Act. ** Design vehicle with 53-foot trailer as adopted grandfathered in with the 1982 Surface Transportation Assistance Act. Source: From A Policy on Geometric Design of Highway and Streets, 2011, by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC. Used by permission. The AASHTO recognizes 20 design vehicle classes. This reflects the increase in the size of tractor-semitrailers, which began with the passage of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, as well as the increasing presence of articulated buses in the U.S. transit fleet and the increasing popularity of recreational vehicles and motor homes. (87) Unless trucks are prohibited at the crossing, it is desirable that the design vehicle be at least a tractor-semitrailer truck (WB-15 SI Metric, or WB-50). Typically, the design vehicle should be a “double-bottom” vehicle (WB-18 SI Metric, or WB-60) for those crossings on routes designated for longer trucks, although consideration should be given especially to long vehicles where 199applicable. On major arterials with significant truck traffic, the design vehicle should be an “interstate” semitrailer truck (WB-62 or WB-65). The width of the vehicle may be an issue when selecting the crossing surface. Since the passage of the 1982 STAA, trucks and intercity buses are permitted to have widths of 102 inches, as indicated in Table 2 ‑1b of the AASHTO: A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets.(87)

Braking Performance

One component of stopping sight distance is a function of a vehicle’s braking performance. If a crossing experiences a significant percentage of heavy trucks, any given sight distance will dictate a slower speed of operation to allow for the braking performance of these vehicles.

Acceleration Performance

Acceleration of vehicles is important to enable a stopped vehicle to accelerate and clear the crossing before a train that was just out of sight or just beyond the train detection circuitry reaches the crossing. Large trucks that have poor acceleration capabilities coupled with long lengths are particularly critical in this type of situation. There are three phases of operation for a truck that has stopped at a crossing: start ‑up when the clutch is being engaged; acceleration from the point of full clutch engagement; and continued travel until the crossing is cleared. Another aspect of the acceleration performance of vehicles at crossings is the design of the crossing approaches coupled with the condition of the crossing surface. Crossings and approaches on a steep grade are difficult and time ‑consuming to cross. Also, vehicles will move more slowly over crossings that have rough surfaces.

Special Vehicles

The following three vehicle types are of particular concern for crossing safety: trucks carrying hazardous materials; any commercial motor vehicle transporting passengers; and school buses. Collisions involving these vehicles can result in numerous injuries and/or fatalities, perhaps in catastrophic proportions if certain hazardous cargoes are involved. In a special study conducted by the NTSB, it was determined that an average of 62 collisions involving a train and a truck transporting hazardous materials occur annually. NTSB’s examination of the collision data revealed that these collisions tend to occur near truck terminals. (88) Requirements for commercial vehicles to stop or slow at highway-rail grade crossings are contained in 49 CFR 392.10, which requires that the driver of a specified commercial motor vehicle: Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the driver of a commercial vehicle specified in paragraphs (a) (1) through (6) of this section shall not cross a railroad track or tracks at grade unless he/she first: Stops the commercial motor vehicle within 50 feet of, and not closer than 15 feet to, the tracks; thereafter listens and looks in each direction along the tracks for an approaching train; and ascertains that no train is approaching. When it is safe to do so, the driver may drive the commercial motor vehicle across the tracks in a gear that permits the 200commercial motor vehicle to complete the crossing without a change of gears. The driver must not shift gears while crossing the tracks. Vehicles to which this rule pertains include but are not limited to the following:

•Every bus transporting passengers and vehicles transporting migrant workers. (“Bus” is defined at 49 CFR 390.5 as “as any motor vehicle designed, constructed, and or used for the transportation of passengers, including taxicabs.”)

•Every commercial motor vehicle which, in accordance with the regulations of USDOT, is required to be marked or placarded with hazardous materials including the following: ̶Poison Gas ̶Flammables ̶Chlorine ̶Poison ̶Oxygen ̶Combustible liquids As required by 49 CFR 398.4, all such motor vehicles shall display a sign on the rear reading, “This Vehicle Stops at Railroad Crossings.” Finally, 49 CFR 392.11 provides that: Every commercial motor vehicle other than those listed in §392.10 shall, upon approaching a railroad grade crossing, be driven at a rate of speed which will permit said commercial motor vehicle to be stopped before reaching the nearest rail of such crossing and shall not be driven upon or over such crossing until due caution has been taken to ascertain that the course is clear Provisions to enhance safety for these special vehicles are further discussed in Chapter 6, Special Topics.

Pedestrians

In 2017, collisions involving pedestrians at crossings accounted for 8.1 percent, or 172, of all crossing collisions. As might be expected, these collisions almost always result in an injury or fatality. In 2017, there were 86 pedestrian fatalities, comprising 31.7 percent of all crossing fatalities. These statistics do not include pedestrian collisions occurring elsewhere along railroad tracks. Excluding collisions and incidents at crossings, 535 trespasser fatalities occurred on railroad property during 2017. This represents 63 percent of all railroad-related fatalities.

Table

B-4 shows the number of highway-rail grade crossing collision fatalities and trespasser fatalities from 2008 to 2017. During this 10-year period, crossing collision fatalities and trespasser fatalities fluctuated. Each year since 2008, the number of trespasser fatalities has been greater than the number of highway-rail grade crossing collision fatalities. 201Table B -4. Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Collision Fatalities versus Trespasser Fatalities, 2008–2017 2 Updated data can be found on the FRA’s Office of Safety Analysis website (also known as Safetydata) at https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov . YearHighway-Rail Grade

Crossing Collision

Fatalities Trespasser Fatalities

2008 290 457 2009 248 416 2010 261 441 2011 246 399 2012 231 405 2013 232 427 2014 262 470 2015 236 449 2016 253 465 2017 271 535 Source: Federal Railroad Administration Safety Data website (safetydata.fra.dot.gov/officeofsafety).2

Roadway

A major component of the crossing is the physical configuration of the highway on the approach and at the crossing itself. The following roadway characteristics are relevant to the design and control of highway ‑rail grade crossings:

•Location—urban or rural

•Type of road—arterial, collector, or local

•Traffic volumes

•Geometric features—number of lanes, horizontal and vertical alignment, sight distance, crossing angle, etc.

•Crossing surface and elevation

•Nearby intersecting highways

•Illumination Urban crossings often carry more vehicular traffic than rural crossings and have sight restrictions due to developed areas. Urban crossings also involve obstructions to continuous traffic flow , such as controlled intersections, driveways, business establishments and distracting signs, significant lane interaction, and on-street parking. 202All other factors being the same, for a given train volume, collision frequency increases with increasing traffic volume. However, traffic volume alone is not a sufficient forecaster of collisions at crossings. The geometric features that can affect traffic operations at highway ‑rail grade crossings include the following:

•Number of lanes and pavement width

•Horizontal and vertical alignment

•Crossing angle

•Crossing elevation These features, in turn, affect sight distances to and at crossings.

Number of Lanes

Less than 10 percent of all public crossings are on highways with more than two lanes.(75) It is not known how many crossings with two lanes have an approach width greater than two lanes. The reduction of lanes at a crossing can cause vehicle-vehicle collisions as well as collisions with trains. At two-lane crossings, a pullout lane may be provided for trucks or buses that may be required to stop for the crossing. By providing a pullout lane, the likelihood of rear-end collisions may be reduced. Crossings with more than two lanes are usually candidates for cantilevered flashing light signals to improve the visibility of the signals for drivers.

Horizontal Alignment

Sight distance to the crossing is affected by the vertical and horizontal alignment of the crossing and by the crossing angle. Crossings located around a curve or over the crest of a hill may require special attention from the motorist and may need additional signing or active advance warning devices. For new crossings, or major reconstruction, it is desirable to have the crossing angle as close to 90 degrees as possible.

Crossing and Approach Surfaces

The roughness of a crossing surface and the profile of the surface and its approaches may be major areas of concern for road users. A rough surface may contribute to a collision by diverting the road user’s attention from the prime tasks of observing the crossing signals and looking for a train.

Crossing Elevation or Profile

Another aspect of the crossing is its elevation. Vehicles that cross the tracks from a stopped position cannot accelerate quickly on steep grades. In addition, trucks with low ground clearances may become trapped on high ‑profile or “hump ‑backed” crossings, delaying highway and rail traffic and, possibly, being struck by a train. 203Intersecting Highways Frequently, roads parallel the railroad, and intersecting roads intersect the railroad, resulting in a crossing near the highway intersection. The higher occurrence of collisions at these intersections is due in part to a short storage area for vehicles waiting to move through the crossing and the intersection. If the intersection is signalized or if the approach from the crossing is controlled by a STOP sign, queues may develop across the crossing, leading to the possibility of a vehicle becoming “trapped” on the crossing. Also, there are more distractions to the motorist, leading to the possibility of vehicle ‑vehicle conflicts. Crossings within a close distance to a signalized or STOP-controlled intersection should be carefully evaluated for proper controls. STOP controls should be evaluated where either the crossing or the intersection, or both, is not signalized. Traffic signal timing should be carefully evaluated, and an interconnection circuit installed if needed. Joint inspections of interconnected or preempted signals by the railroad and the highway agency should be made on a regular basis to assure that the crossing signals and the highway traffic signal are functioning properly and that the phasing and timing plans are still appropriate. The critical distance between a highway-rail crossing and a highway-highway intersection is a function of the number of vehicles expected to be queued up by the intersection traffic control. For additional information, refer to MUTCD Section 4D.27 Preemption and Priority Control of Traffic Control Signals.

Illumination

Illumination of the crossing can definitely aid the motorist. Illumination may be ef fective in reducing collisions at night; as it will assist road users, including bicyclists and pedestrians, in traversing the crossing at night. USDOT Inventory reports that commercial power is available at more than 90 percent of public crossings. Therefore, lighting is feasible at most crossings; depending, of course, on the reliability of the power source.

Traffic Control Devices

The responsibility for the design, placement, operation, and maintenance of traffic control devices normally rests with the governmental body having jurisdiction over the road or street. For the purpose of installation, operations and maintenance of devices constituting traffic control devices at highway-rail grade crossings, it is recognized that any crossing of a public road with a railroad is situated on a right of way that is available for the use of both highway traffic and railroad traffic on their respective roadway and tracks. This requires joint responsibility in the traffic control function between the public agency and the railroad. The determination of need and the selection of devices at a grade crossing are normally made by the public agency having jurisdiction. Subject to such determination, the design, installation, and operation of such devices shall be in accordance with the principles and requirements set forth in MUTCD. 204Due to the character of operations and the potentially severe consequences of collisions, traffic control devices at highway-rail grade crossings and on the approaches thereto need to be viewed as a system. The combination of approach signs and pavement markings on the roadway approach and the Crossbucks or signals at the crossing provides the road user with multiple notices of the presence of the crossing and the likelihood of encountering a train. For those sections where rail tracks run within a roadway, which is a common practice for light rail and streetcar operations, traffic control may be provided by a combination of signs, pavement markings, and typical “highway” type control devices such as STOP signs and traffic signals. However, for the broader case, where rail tracks are in a separate ROW with designated crossings of highways and pedestrian pathways, traffic is typically controlled with one of three types of devices, each requiring a distinct compliance response per the UVC, various Model T raffic Ordinances and State regulations:

•A Crossbuck is a type of YIELD sign—The driver should be prepared to stop at least 15 feet before the near rail unless, and until, the driver can make a reasonable decision that there are no trains in hazardous proximity to the crossing and it is safe to cross.

•Operating flashing lights have the same function as a STOP sign—A vehicle is required to stop completely at least 15 feet short of the near rail. Then, even though the flashing lights may still be operating, the driver can proceed after stopping (subject to State or local laws), when safe to do so.

•Flashing lights with lowered gates are equivalent to a red vehicular traffic signal indication— A vehicle is required to stop short of the gate and remain stopped until the gates go up. Motorist comprehension and compliance with each of these devices is mainly a function of education and enforcement. The traffic engineer should make full use of the various traffic control devices as prescribed in MUTCD to convey a clear, concise, and easily understood message to the driver.

RAilroad Components

Train

Headlights

FRA regulations require that, for locomotives operated through one or more public highway-rail grade crossings at speeds greater than 20 miles per hour, auxiliary lights are to be placed at the front of the locomotive to form a triangle with the headlight. (89) The inclusion of auxiliary lights helps crossing users determine the distance and approximate speed of an approaching train.(90) 205Train Horns Locomotives are equipped with air-powered horns to sound a warning of a train’s approach to a crossing and for various other signals in railroad operations. FRA requires the horn to produce a minimum sound level of 96db(A) and a maximum of 110 db(A) at 100 feet forward of the locomotive. The locomotive engineer sounds the horn in advance of a crossing in a sequence of two long blasts, followed by a short blast, then followed by one long blast. Additional information can be found under Title 49 CFR 222.21 and Title 49 CFR 229.129. (89, 91)

Reflectorization

FRA regulations governing the reflectorization of rail freight rolling stock (49 CFR Part 224) apply to “railroad freight cars and locomotives that operate over a public or private highway-rail grade crossing and are used for revenue or work train service.”(92) These reflectorization regulations require railroads to install yellow or white reflective materials on freight cars and locomotives before placing them in service. Figure B-1 illustrates the application on a typical freight car. Figure B -1. Reflectorization Example—Standards Applicable to Boxcars Source: Reflectorization of Rail Freight Rolling Stock final rule, 70 FR 62166 (October 28, 2005). 206Braking Primarily because of their enormous weight, railroad trains are slow to accelerate and decelerate. Numerous factors affect a train’s acceleration capability, such as the number of locomotive units, the horsepower rating of each unit and, of course, the number and weight of freight cars. At low speeds, a commuter train may accelerate at 1.5 miles per hour (mph) per second; a fast freight train may accelerate at 0.3 mph per second. As speed increases, the acceleration rate decreases. A freight train with 4.0 horsepower per ton can accelerate at only about 0.1 mph per second at 70 mph. The braking system used on trains is the air brake that provides adequate uninterrupted pressure from car to car. The single air hose at the end of each car is manually connected to its neighbor, then the brake system is charged. When braking is required, the pressure in the brake pipe leading back through the train is reduced. This causes the valve on each car to use air from the auxiliary reservoir to build pressure in the brake cylinder, thus applying the brakes. For an emergency application, the brake valve opens the brake pipe to atmospheric pressure and the resulting rapid rate of brake pipe pressure reduction causes the car valves to dump the contents of both auxiliary and emergency reservoirs into the brake cylinder. Braking distances are dependent on many factors that vary for each train, such as the number and horsepower rating of locomotives; number and weight of cars; adhesion of wheels on rails; speed; and grade. Therefore, the braking distance of a train cannot be stated exactly. An estimate is that a typical 100-car freight train traveling at 60 mph would require more than one mile to stop in emergency braking.

Track

In the United States, railroad track is classified into nine classes based upon maximum allowable operating speed. FRA’s Track Safety Standards set maximum train speeds for each class of track, as shown in Table B-5 and specified in FRA’s regulations at 49 CFR 213.9 and 213.307. Initially, there were many different track gauges; however, in 1863, President Lincoln designated 4 feet, 8.5 inches as the gauge for the railroad to be built to the Pacific coast. Other railroads then began changing to this gauge. The rolling resistance that provides many of the technological advantages for railroads as a means of transportation is made possible by the steel wheel rolling on a steel rail. This steel- wheel-to-steel-rail contact involves the transfer of pressures from the rail to a steel plate under the rail (tie plate), which spreads the load over a tie, which spreads the load over ballast (crushed rocks or other materials), which spreads the load to a sub-ballast (usually gravels, cinders, or sand), which spreads the load to the subgrade consisting of either the native soil below or some superior material obtained off site. 207Table B -5. Maximum Train Speeds by Class of Track3 3 Trains operating at Class 6–9 speeds must be qualified in accordance with 49 CFR sections 213.329 and 213.345. There are additional requirements for freight trains and trains operating at or above 125 mph, as provided in 49 CFR 213.307(a). 4 Federal Register V olume 78, Issue 49 (March 13, 2013). https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/FR ‑2013 ‑03‑13/2013 ‑04679 .Class of track Freight Passenger

Class 1 10 mph 15 mph

Class 2 25 mph 30 mph

Class 3 40 mph 60 mph

Class 4 60 mph 80 mph

Class 5 80 mph 90 mph

Class 6 110 mph 110 mph

Class 7 125 mph 125 mph

Class 8 160 mph 160 mph

Class 94220 mph 220 mph

Rail is rolled from high-quality steel. Rail being rolled today weighs from 115 to 140 pounds per yard and is 6 to 8 inches high. Currently, the standard rail length is 78 feet. In track, these rails are held together by bolted joint bars or are welded end-to-end in long strings. Bolted joints are, however, less rigid than the rest of the rail so that the rail ends wear more rapidly. Continuously welded rail is often used today, particularly on mainline tracks. Rail is welded into lengths of about 1,500 feet and taken to the point of installation. The remaining joints can be eliminated by field welding in place. The steel rails are spiked to ties typically made of wood with preservative impregnated to prevent decay. The ties hold the rails to gauge, support the rails, distribute the load to the ballast, and provide flexibility to cushion impacts of the wheels on the rail. Pre ‑stressed concrete ties have come into greater use on railroads in recent years. Spikes or other rail fasteners are used to fix the rail to the ties for the primary purpose of preventing the rail from shifting sideways. Because rail tends to move lengthwise, rail anchors can be used, particularly on heavy-duty track. Ballast is used to hold the ties in place, to prevent lateral deflections, and to spread out the load. Ballast should be able to resist degradation from the effects of tie motion that generates “fines” that may “cement” into an impervious mass. FRA regulations (49 CFR 213.103) require that ballast provide good drainage, which is especially important for the strength of the subgrade and prevents mud from working its way up to contaminate the ballast. Railway track is normally maintained by track gangs (small groups of maintenance-of-way employees) for small scale repairs or by sophisticated, high production, mechanized equipment for large scale projects. As an example, track surface is maintained by tamping machines that raise the track and compact the ballast under the ties. In this process, it is often necessary to raise the track a few inches. The best track stability will occur if this raise can continue through the crossing area instead of leaving a dip in the track. Lowering track is a very costly operation and can lead to subgrade instability problems. 208Similar to highways, railroad track is classified into several categories dependent on its utilization in terms of traffic flow. Main tracks are used for through train movements between and through stations and terminals. Branch lines typically carry freight from its origin to the mainline on which it moves to its destination or to another branch line to its destination. Passing tracks, normally called sidings, are used for meeting and passing trains. Side tracks and industrial tracks are generally used to store cars and to load or unload them. Table B-6 provides a tabulation indicating the number of tracks present on various categories of track. 5 Updated data can be found on the FRA’s Office of Safety Analysis website (also known as safety data) at https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov Table B -6. Public At-Grade Crossings by Type of Track, 2017 No. of TracksType of Track

Main Siding Yard Transit Industry

0 14,825 80,152 79,972 85,831 77,313 1 102,963 7,710 4,911 110 8,454 2 10,441 924 1,119 130 889 3 543 177 330 0 149 4 61 47 146 1 34 5 12 11 67 0 15 > 5 28 8 60 0 29

Total 128,873 89,029 86,605 86,072 86,883

Source: Unpublished data from Federal Railroad Administration.5 209C. APPENDIX—ASSESSMENT OF CROSSING SAFETY AND OPERATION

COllection And Maintenance Of Data

The FHWA requires each State to develop and implement a HSIP that consists of three components: planning, implementation, and evaluation. The process for improving safety and operations at highway-railroad grade crossings consists of the same three components and may be considered part of a State’s HSIP. FHWA policy and procedures for an HSIP are contained in the Federal-Aid Policy Guide (FAPG) Title 23—Code of Federal Regulations (and Non-Regulatory Supplements). (93) The purpose of an HSIP is to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, including the development of a data-driven Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), Railway-Highway Crossings Program, and program of highway safety improvement projects. Types of safety data includes, but are not limited to, crash, roadway characteristics, and traffic data on all public roads. For railway ‑ highway crossings, safety data also includes the characteristics of highway and train traffic, licensing, and vehicle data.

USDOT Grade Crossing Inventory

Under FRA regulations in subpart F to 49 CFR Part 234, railroads are required to report highway-rail and pathway crossings to the National Crossing Inventory. (94) The USDOT National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory was developed in the early 1970s through the cooperative efforts of FHWA, the FRA, the AAR, individual States, and individual railroads. Originally this was a voluntary effort by the various stakeholders. A PDF file of the USDOT Crossing Inventory Form can be downloaded from: https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L16197 . The railroads assign each crossing a unique DOT Crossing Inventory Number consisting of six numeric characters and an alphabetic character. To obtain new DOT Crossing Inventory Numbers, railroads should email RequestDOTGXNumber@dot.gov and provide the following:

•Name of person requesting the number(s)

•Title of person requesting the number(s)

•Email address of the person request the number(s)

•Railroad name

•Railroad mailing address

•Number of DOT crossing numbers(s) requested The FRA is the custodian for the Crossing Inventory database. The data for the Inventory is provided by the railroad and States. The railroads and States can find the Guide for Preparing USDOT Crossing Inventory Forms (Guide). The Guide explains what information is required for each box of the Inventory Form. The Guide also includes information on what fields of the Inventory are the responsibility of the railroads and what fields are the responsibility of the States. According to the Guide, a railroad must update the Crossing Inventory record for each open at-grade crossing at least once every three years; however certain changes require more frequent updates:

•New crossings must be reported to the Inventory within 6 months of becoming operational

•Closure or sale of a crossing must be reported to the Inventory within 3 months

•Change in crossing surface must be reported to the Inventory within 3 months

•Changes in warning devices must be reported to the Inventory within 3 months To maintain consistency with accident history and other data, once an Inventory Number is assigned to a crossing it should not be assigned to another location.

Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Collision Data

Information on highway-rail grade crossing collisions is also needed to assess safety and operations. Data on collisions involving trains are essential in identifying crossings with safety problems. In addition, data on collisions not involving trains but occurring at or near a crossing are useful. For example, non ‑train‑involved collisions may indicate a deficiency in stopping sight distance such that a vehicle suddenly stops at a crossing, causing the following vehicle to hit the leading vehicle in the rear. Collision data is available from several sources, including State and local police and FRA. In addition, the NHTSA and FHWA maintain some information on crossing collisions. The FRA’s Office of Safety Analysis has a website (also known as Safetydata) where their updated data is uploaded. This can be accessed at https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov . Information regarding accidents, reporting, and investigations can be accessed at https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0037 . The FRA Guide for Preparing Accident/Incident Reports can be found online at https://www. fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L18093#p1_z5_gD_kpreparing%20accident . A PDF file of the Accident Report Form for Federal Railroad Administration can be downloaded from: https://safetydata. fra.dot.gov/officeofsafety/publicsite/Newregulation.aspx?doc=F6180_54_Expires06302020.pdf . NHTSA maintains a database on all fatal highway traffic collisions, including those occurring at highway-rail grade crossings. The FARS database can be accessed at https://www ‑fars.nhtsa.dot. gov/Main/index.aspx (see Figure C-1). The FMCSA maintains data on highway collisions involving motor carriers. An accident is “an occurrence involving a commercial motor vehicle operating on a highway engaged in interstate or intrastate commerce which results in (i) a fatality; (ii) bodily injury to a person who, as a result of the injury, immediately receives medical treatment away from the scene of the accident; or, (iii) one or more motor vehicles incurring disabling damage as a result of the accident, requiring the motor vehicle(s) to be transported away from the scene by a tow truck or other motor vehicle” (49 CFR 390.5). (95) In the past, FMCSA required motor carriers to report crashes directly to the agency. This is no longer the case. This information is now forwarded by States; however, motor carriers must maintain accident registers for three years after the date of each accident occurring on or after April 29, 2003 (49 CFR 390.15). Collisions involving the transport of hazardous materials are reported to PHMSA. The PHSMA develops regulatory programs to help ensure the safe and secure movement of hazardous materials. The PHSMA also enforces the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations which can be found in 49 CFR 350-399. Significant transportation accidents are investigated by the NTSB. The NTSB issues a report for each accident investigated. The report presents the circumstances of the accident, the data collected, and the analysis of the data as well as conclusions, which are identified as “findings” of NTSB. In addition, NTSB issues specific recommendations to various parties for improvement of safety conditions. Figure C -1. Rail Equipment Accident/Incident Report Form Source: FRA, Office of Safety (website accessed) https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/officeofsafety/ publicsite/Newregulation.aspx?doc=F6180_54_Expires06302020.pdf .

HAzard Indices And Accident Prediction Formulae

A systematic method for identifying crossings that have the most need for safety and/or operational improvements is essential to ensure that federal and State funds for highway-railroad grade crossing improvement projects are spent at the locations that are considered to be most in need of improvement. Considerations for prioritizing locations for improvement include the following:

•The potential reduction in the number and/or severity of collisions

•The cost of the projects and the resources available

•The relative hazard of public highway-rail grade crossings based on a hazard index formula

•Collision history of a particular crossing location

•On-site inspections of public crossings

•The potential danger to large numbers of people at public crossings used on a regular basis by passenger trains, school buses, transit buses, pedestrians, bicyclists, or by trains and/ or motor vehicles carrying hazardous materials

•Other criteria as appropriate in each State To support the prioritization process, various hazard indices and collision prediction formulae have been developed to assist with ranking the hazard potential of highway-rail grade crossings. A hazard index ranks crossings in relative terms (the higher the calculated index, the more hazardous the crossing), whereas the collision prediction formulae are intended to compute the actual collision occurrence frequency at the crossing. These are commonly used to identify crossings to be investigated in the field. A 2017 review of State DOT hazard ranking practices found that 39 out of 50 States (78 percent) utilized some type of hazard ranking index, collision prediction formula, or other systematic method for prioritization. (96) This section discusses the application of hazard index techniques and crash prediction formula techniques for highway-railroad grade crossing hazard ranking. Procedures for conducting the on-site inspection are discussed in the next section. It should be noted that hazard indices or crash prediction formulas are not the exclusive method used by State DOTs and other agencies to identify hazardous highway-railroad grade crossings. Crossings may also be selected for field investigation because of requests or complaints from the public. State district offices, local governmental agencies, other State agencies, and railroads may also request that a crossing be investigated for improvement. A change in highway or railroad operations over a crossing may justify the consideration of that crossing for improvement. For example, a new residential or commercial development may increase the volume of highway traffic over a crossing such that its hazard index would increase. Other crossings may be selected for a field investigation because they are utilized by buses, passenger trains, and vehicles transporting hazardous materials. Some States incorporate these considerations into a hazard index, thus providing an objective means of assessing the potential danger to large numbers of people. Finally, professional judgment on the part of the highway-rail intersection safety specialist in determining the appropriateness of a particular warning device project at a particular crossing location should also be considered in the process.

Hazard Index

The hazard index approach to prioritization of grade crossing locations requires the analyst to calculate a ranking metric or value that will provide insight into the hazard level of a particular crossing relative to other crossing locations. A commonly used index is the New Hampshire Hazard Index ranking methodology. Historically, the New Hampshire Hazard Index was the most common hazard ranking model used by State DOTs. A 2017 review of State DOT grade crossing hazard ranking practices found that at least seven States were utilizing the New Hampshire Hazard Index, or a State ‑specific variation thereof, for prioritization activities.(96) The New Hampshire Hazard Index is the most basic form of the hazard index model type consisting of the exposure index (cross product of the AADT and train volume) with a “protection factor” adjustment for the type of warning device provided at the crossing. The New Hampshire Hazard Index formula is as follows: HI = (V) * (T) * (PF), where:

•HI = Calculated Hazard Index Value

•V = Highway Traffic V olume at Crossing (AADT)

•T = T rain Movements per Day at Crossing

•PF = Protection Factor based on Warning Device Type The original New Hampshire Hazard Index formula utilized protection factors of 0.1 for automatic gates, 0.6 for flashing lights, and 1.0 for signs only. Some States have revised these protection factors to include more refined levels of protection available at a crossing. For example, the Michigan DOT utilizes the New Hampshire Hazard Index with 13 different values of protection factors based on the presence of additional warning device features. (97) The primary advantage of the hazard index approach is that it is easily understood. An increase in either highway traffic volume or train traffic volume increases the risk of a crash at a crossing location; that risk is lower if more sophisticated protective devices are present at that location. The primary disadvantage of the hazard index approach is that the hazard index value is calculated relative to other crossings; consequently, the hazard index value for a single crossing without reference to other crossings has limited usefulness for prioritization.

Crash Prediction Model

The crash prediction model approach to prioritization of grade crossing locations utilizes a mathematical formula to predict the expected annual crash frequency at a crossing location; this value is used as the ranking metric for prioritization purposes. A crash prediction model is intended to estimate, in absolute terms, the likelihood of a collision occurring over a given period of time based on the given conditions at the crossing. Some crash prediction models also allow for the severity of crashes to be predicted. The structure of the crash prediction models includes all the characteristics or factors that are thought to significantly influence the risk of a crash at a grade crossing. A crash prediction model can also be used to either rank crossings or identify potential high-accident locations for further review. Additionally, the model output can be combined with economic data on crash costs to support a comprehensive economic analysis of proposed grade crossing improvement projects. A 2017 review of State DOT grade crossing hazard ranking practices found that at approximately half of the States utilized a crash prediction formula of some type for prioritization activities. Crash prediction formulas currently in use by State DOTs include the USDOT Accident Prediction Model, the NCHRP 50 Accident Prediction Model, the Peabody-Dimmick formula. Additionally, some States have developed crash prediction models based on State ‑specific crash trends and experiences. Among the crash prediction models currently in use, the USDOT Accident Prediction Model is the most prevalent, with at least 19 States (38 percent) reporting the use of this model for prioritization activities. Additional details of the USDOT Accident Prediction Model are presented in this section; details of other, less commonly-used crash prediction models, are available elsewhere. (96)

USDOT Accident Prediction Model

The USDOT Accident Prediction Model is an accident prediction model that was developed in the mid-1970s to support a comprehensive grade crossing project selection process known as the Rail-Highway Crossing Resource Allocation Procedure.(98) The most up-to-date version of the USDOT Accident Prediction Model is described in detail in the FRA’s GradeDec.net Crossing Evaluation Tool Reference Manual , which was published in 2014.(99) The USDOT crash prediction model is a multi-stage calculation that combines three independent calculations to produce a crash prediction value. The basic formula provides an initial hazard ranking based on a crossing’s characteristics, like other formulae such as the Peabody-Dimmick formula and the New Hampshire Index. The second calculation utilizes the actual collision history at a crossing over a determined number of years to produce a collision prediction value. This procedure assumes that future collisions per year at a crossing will be the same as the average historical collision rate over the time period used in the calculation. The third equation adds a normalizing constant, which is adjusted periodically to keep the procedure matched with current collision trends. If desired, the analyst can also predict the annual frequency of crashes by crash severity (fatality, injury, or property damage only). The basic steps to utilize the USDOT Accident Prediction Model are as follows:

•Step 1: Gather Required Input Data

•Step 2: Generate Preliminary Crash Frequency Estimate

•Step 3: Adjustment for Crash History

•Step 4: Normalizing Constant Adjustment for Crash Trends

•Step 5: Estimate of Crash Severity (Optional) The specific requirements for each step listed above are described in the following sections. Specific formula information and numerical parameters are obtained directly from the FRA GradeDec.net manual.(99) The FRA has provided a web-based tool, known as the Web Accident Prediction System , where highway-rail intersection safety specialists may view current estimates of the predicted annual crash frequency for any public highway-rail intersection in the national Inventory.

ENgineering Study

Federal requirements (23 U.S.C. 130(d)) dictate that each State develop a crossing program based on the following:

•The potential reduction in collisions or collision severities

•The project costs and available resources

•The relative hazard of each crossing based on a hazard index formula

•An onsite inspection of each candidate crossing An engineering study is the comprehensive analysis and evaluation of available pertinent information, and the application of appropriate principles, provisions, and practices. MUTCD Part 1A.13 requires that an engineering study shall be performed by an engineer, or by an individual working under the supervision of an engineer, through the application of procedures and criteria established by the engineer. Based on a review of these conditions, an assessment of existing and potential hazards can be made. If safety deficiencies are identified, countermeasures can be recommended. An engineering study should be conducted of highway-rail crossings that have been selected from the priority list. The purpose of this study is to accomplish the following:

•Review the crossing and its environment

•Identify the nature of any problems

•Recommend alternative improvements

Diagnostic Team Study Method

The Diagnostic Team Study Method is the procedure adopted in FHWA’s Highway Safety Engineering Study Procedural Guide and adopted in concept by several States.(100) This survey procedure utilizes experienced individuals from several sources. The procedure involves the Diagnostic Team’s evaluation of the crossing as to its deficiencies and consensus as to the recommended improvements. The primary factors to consider when determining stakeholders to be a part of the Diagnostic Team, are that the team is interdisciplinary, and representative of all groups having responsibility for the safe operation of crossings. This enables each of the vital factors relating to the operational and physical characteristics of the crossing to be identified properly . Individual team members are selected based on their specific expertise and experience. The overall structure of the team is built upon the following three desired areas of responsibility:

•Local responsibility

•Administrative responsibility

•Advisory capability For the purpose of the Diagnostic Team, the operational characteristics of crossings can be classified into the following three areas:

Traffic Operations

This area includes both vehicular and train traffic operation. The responsibilities of highway traffic engineers and railroad operating personnel chosen for team membership include, among other criteria, specific knowledge of highway and railroad safety , types of vehicles and trains, and their volumes and speeds.

Traffic Control Devices

Highway maintenance engineers, signal control engineers, and railroad signal engineers provide the best source for expertise in this area. Responsibilities of these team members include knowledge of active traffic control systems, interconnection with adjacent signalized highway intersections, traffic control devices for vehicle operations in general and at crossings, and crossing signs and pavement markings. AdministrationMany issues relating to crossing safety also involve the apportionment of administrative and financial responsibility. This should be reflected in the membership of the Diagnostic Team. The primary responsibility of these members is to advise the team of specific policy and administrative rules applicable to the modification of crossing traffic control devices. To ensure appropriate representation on the Diagnostic Team, it is suggested that the team be comprised of at least a traffic engineer with safety experience as well as a railroad signal engineer. Following are other disciplines that might be represented on the Diagnostic Team:

•Railroad administrative official

•Highway administrative official

•Human factors engineer

•Law enforcement officer

•Regulatory agency official

•Railroad operating official

•Local government agencies

•Regional transportation planning organization

•Pedestrian/bicycle coordinator

•Emergency services representative

•Commercial motor carrier

•Stakeholders and special interest groups The Diagnostic Team should study all available data (including as-built plans and/or proposed improvement plans that may impact the location) and inspect the crossing and its surroundings with the objective of determining the conditions that affect safety and traffic operations. In conducting the study, a questionnaire is recommended to provide a structured account of the crossing characteristics and their effect on safety. Some States are now using automated diagnostic review forms to facilitate the collection, storage, and analysis of crossing data. Figure C-2 shows a sample questionnaire, which can be altered to fit individual agency needs. The questionnaire shown in Figure C-2 is divided into the following four sections:

•Distant approach and advance warning

•Immediate highway approach

•Crossing proper

•Summary and analysis Important considerations when studying traffic flow and operations at a highway ‑rail grade crossing are traffic volumes (daily and peak hour); speeds; the mix of vehicle types; intersecting volumes and turning movements at intersections near the crossing; the capacity of the road; delays; and the formation of any traffic queues. These should be reviewed in light of current conditions and how they might be affected by changes at the crossing. Key concerns are routing and access for emergency vehicles and the use of the crossing by special vehicles such as low clearance vehicles, buses, and trucks transporting hazardous materials. Locational Data: Street Name: ___________________________________________________________________ City: __________________________________________________________________________ Railroad: _______________________________________________________________________ Crossing Number: ________________________________________________________________ VEHICLE DATA: No. of Approach Lanes: ______________________________________________ Approach Speed Limit: __________________________________________ AADT: ____________ Approach Curvature: ________________________________ Approach Gradient: ____________ TRAIN DATA: No. of Tracks: ____________________________ Train Speed Limit: ____________ Trains Per Day: __________________________________________________________________ Track Gradients: _________________________________________________________________ SECTION I—Distance Approach and Advance Warning 1. Is advance warning of railroad crossing available? If so, what devices are used? _____________________________________________________________________________ 2. Do advance warning devices alert drivers to the presence of the crossing and allow time to react to approaching train traffic? _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. Do approach grades, roadway curvature, or obstructions limit the view of advance warning devices? ______ If so, how? _____________________________________________________________________________ 4. Are advance warning devices readable under night, rainy, snowy, or foggy conditions? _____________________________________________________________________________ SECTION II—Immediate Highway Approach 1. What maximum safe approach speed will existing sight distance support? _____________________________________________________________________________ 2. Is that speed equal to or above the speed limit on that part of the highway? _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. If not, what has been done, or reasonably could be done, to bring this to the driver’s attention? _____________________________________________________________________________ 4. What restrictive obstructions to sight distance might be removed? _____________________________________________________________________________ 5. Do approach grades or roadway curvature restrict the driver’s view of the crossing? _____________________________________________________________________________ 6. Are railroad crossing signals or other active warning devices operating properly and visible to adequately warn drivers of approaching trains? _____________________________________________________________________________ SECTION III—Crossing Proper 1. From a vehicle stopped at the crossing, is the sight distance down the track to an approaching train adequate for the driver to cross the tracks safely? _____________________________________________________________________________ 2. Are nearby intersection traf fic signals or other control device affecting the crossing operation? If so, how? _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. Is the stopping area at the crossing adequately marked? _____________________________________________________________________________ 4. Do vehicles required by law to stop at all crossings present a hazard at the crossing? _________ Why? ________________________________________________________________________ 5. Do conditions at the crossing contribute to, or are they conducive to, a vehicle stalling at or on the crossing? _____________________________________________________________________________ 6. Are nearby signs, crossing signals, etc. adequately protected to minimize hazards to approaching traffic? _____________________________________________________________________________ 7. Is the crossing surface satisfactory? ____________ If not, how and why? _____________________________________________________________________________ 8. Is surface of highway approaches satisfactory? _______________________________________ If not, why? _____________________________________________________________________________ SECTION IV—Summary and Analysis 1. List major attributes of the crossing which may contribute to safety. _____________________________________________________________________________ 2. List features which reduce crossing safety. _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. Possible methods for improving safety at the crossing (including closure, if practicable): _____________________________________________________________________________ 4. Overall evaluation of crossing: _____________________________________________________________________________ 5. Other comments: _____________________________________________________________________________ Figure C -2. Sample Questionnaire for Diagnostic Team Evaluation To help the Diagnostic Team identify viewpoints of reference for the field evaluation, traffic cones can be placed on the approaches, as shown in Figure C-3. Figure C -3. Study Positions for Diagnostic Team

Crossing Approach Zone

Cone A is placed at the point where the driver first obtains information that there is a crossing ahead. This distance is also the beginning of the approach zone. Usually, this information comes from the advance warning sign, the pavement markings, or the crossing itself. The distance from the crossing is based on the decision sight distance (refer to bottom row of Table C-1), which is the distance required for a driver to detect a crossing and to formulate actions needed to avoid colliding with trains. In calculating sight distances, a level approach is assumed. If this is not the case, an allowance should be made for the effects of positive or negative approach grades. Table C -1. Sight Distances for Combinations of Highway Vehicle and Train Speeds

Train

Speed

(MPH)Case B

Departure

from StopCase A Moving Vehicle

Vehicle Speed (MPH)

— 0 10 20 34 40 50 60 70 80

Distance Along Railroad Crossing from dT (ft)

10 255 155 110 102 102 106 112 119 127 20 509 310 220 203 205 213 225 239 254 30 794 465 331 305 307 319 337 358 381 40 1019 619 441 407 409 426 450 478 508 50 1273 774 551 509 511 532 562 597 635 60 1528 929 661 610 614 639 675 717 763 70 1783 1084 771 712 716 745 787 836 890 80 2037 1239 882 814 818 852 899 956 1017 90 2292 1394 992 915 920 958 1012 1075 1144

Distance Along Highway from Crossing, dH (ft)

— — 69 135 220 324 447 589 751 931 Source: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO): A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 7th Edition, Washington, DC, 2018.

Safe Stopping Point

Cone B is placed at the point where the approaching driver has adequate corner sight distance to see an approaching train so that a safe stop can be made if necessary. This point is located at the end of the approach zone and the beginning of the non-recovery zone. Distances to point B are based on the design vehicle speed and maximum authorized train speed (refer to “Case A—Moving Vehicle” in Table C-1).

Stop Line

Cone C is placed at the stop line, which is assumed to be 15 feet from the near rail of the crossing, or 8 feet from the gate if one is present. The questions in Section I of the questionnaire ( refer to Figure C -2) are concerned with the following:

•Driver awareness of the crossing

•Visibility of the crossing

•Effectiveness of advance warning signs and signals

•Geometric features of the highway When responding to questions in this section, the crossing should be observed from the beginning of the approach zone, at traffic cone A. The questions in Section II of the questionnaire ( refer to Figure C -2) are concerned with whether the driver has sufficient information to detect an approaching train and make correct decisions about crossing safely. Observations for responding to questions in this section should be made from cone B. Factors considered by these questions include the following:

•Driver awareness of approaching trains

•Driver dependence on crossing signals

•Obstruction of view of train’s approach

•Roadway geometrics diverting driver attention

•Potential location of standing railroad cars

•Possibility of removal of sight obstructions

•Availability of information for stop or go decision by the driver The questions in Section III of the questionnaire ( refer to Figure C -2) apply to observations adjacent to the crossing, at cone C. Of concern, especially when the driver must stop, is the ability to see down the tracks for approaching trains. Intersecting streets and driveways should also be observed to determine whether intersecting traffic could af fect the operation of highway vehicles over the crossing. Questions in this section relate to the following:

•Sight distance down the tracks

•Pavement markings

•Conditions conducive to vehicles becoming stalled or stopped on the crossing

•Operation of vehicles required by law to stop at the crossing

•Signs and signals as fixed object hazards

•Opportunity for evasive action by the driver In Section IV of the questionnaire (see Figure C-2), the Diagnostic Team is given the opportunity to do the following:

•List major features that contribute to safety

•List features that reduce crossing safety

•Suggest methods for improving safety at the crossing

•Give an overall evaluation of the crossing

•Provide comments and suggestions relative to the questionnaire In addition to completing the questionnaire, team members should take photographs of the crossing from both the highway and the railroad approaches. Current and projected vehicle and train operation data should be obtained from the team members. Information on the use of the crossing by buses, school buses, trucks transporting hazardous materials, and passenger trains should be provided. The evaluation of the crossing should include a thorough evaluation of collision frequency, collision types, and collision circumstances. Both train-vehicle collisions and vehicle-vehicle collisions should be examined. Team members should drive each approach several times to become familiar with all conditions that exist, at or near, the crossing. All traffic control devices (signs, signals, markings, and train detection circuits) should be examined as part of this evaluation. If the crossing is equipped with signals, the railroad signal engineer should activate them so that their alignment and light intensity may be observed. The MUTCD should be a principal reference for this evaluation. Also, A User’ s Guide to Positive Guidance provides information for conducting evaluations of traffic control devices. (101) After the questionnaire has been completed, the team is reassembled to discuss it. Each member should summarize his or her observations pertaining to safety and operations at the crossing. Possible improvements to the crossing may include the following:

•Closing of crossing—available alternate routes for highway traffic

•Site improvements—removal of obstructions in the sight triangle, highway realignment, improved cross section, drainage, or illumination

•Crossing surfaces—rehabilitation of the highway structure, the track structure, or both; installation of drainage and subgrade filter fabric; adjustments to highway approaches; and removal of retired tracks from the crossing

•Traffic control devices—installation of passive or active control devices and improvement of train detection equipment The results and recommendations of the Diagnostic Team should be documented. Recommendations should be presented promptly to programming and implementation authorities. Current practice is to use a team in order to ensure all stakeholder perspectives are included. Sight Distance ComputationAvailable sight distances help determine the safe speed at which a vehicle can approach and clear a crossing. Refer to the AASHTO “Green Book” for additional information. (87) The following three sight distances should be considered (refer to Figures C-4 and C-5 ):

•Distance ahead to the crossing—Approach stopping sight distance

•Distance to and along the tracks on which a train might be approaching the crossing from either direction—Corner sight distance

•Sight distance along the tracks in either direction from a vehicle stopped at the crossing—Clearing sight distance Figure C -4. Sight Distance for Moving Vehicle Source: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO): A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 7th Edition, (Figure 9-77), Washington DC, 2018. The formula for computing safe stopping distance for vehicles approaching a crossing is set forth in the following formula (refer to Figure C-4): where:

•A = constant = 1.47

•B = constant = 1.075

•dH = sight distance measured along the highway from the nearest rail to the driver of a vehicle, which allows the vehicle to be safely stopped without encroachment of the crossing area, feet

•Vv = velocity of the vehicle, mph

•t = perception-reaction time, seconds, assumed to be 2.5 seconds

•a = driver deceleration, assumed to be 11.2 feet per second2

•D = distance from the stop line or front of vehicle to the near rail, assumed to be 15 feet

•de = distance from the driver to the front of the vehicle, assumed to be 8 feet 225The minimum safe sight distances, dH, along the highway for selected vehicle speeds are shown in the bottom line of Table C-1. As noted, these distances were calculated for level approaches to 90-degree crossings and should be increased for less favorable conditions. The second sight distance utilizes a so-called “sight triangle” in the quadrants on the vehicle approach side of the track. This triangle is formed by:

•The distance (dH) of the vehicle driver from the track

•The distance (dT) of the train from the crossing This sight triangle is depicted in Figure C-4. The distance along the along the railroad (dT) is determined by the vehicle speed and maximum timetable train speed and is set forth in the following formula: where:

•dT = sight distance along the railroad tracks to permit the vehicle to cross and be clear of the crossing upon arrival of the train

•VT = velocity of the train, mph

•Vv = velocity of the vehicle, mph

•A = constant = 1.47

•B = constant = 1.075

•t = perception-reaction time, seconds, assumed to be 2.5 seconds

•a = driver deceleration, assumed to be 11.2 feet per second

•D = distance from the stop line or front of vehicle to the near rail, assumed to be 15 feet

•L = length of vehicle, assumed to be 65 feet

•W = distance between outer rails (for a single track, this value is 5 feet)

Clearing Sight Distance

In the case of a vehicle stopped at a crossing, the driver needs to see both ways along the track to determine whether a train is approaching and to estimate its speed. The driver needs to have a sight distance along the tracks that will permit sufficient time to accelerate and clear the crossing prior to the arrival of a train, even though the train might come into view as the vehicle is beginning its departure process.

Figure

C-5 illustrates the maneuver. These sight distances, for a range of train speeds, are given in the column for a vehicle speed of zero in Table C-1. These values are obtained from the following formula: where:

•dT = sight distance along the railroad tracks to permit the vehicle to cross and be clear of the crossing upon arrival of the train

•VT = velocity of the train, mph

•VG = maximum speed of vehicle in selected starting gear; assumed to be 8.8 feet per second

•a1 = acceleration of vehicle in starting gear, assumed to be 1.47 feet per second2

•D = distance from the stop line or front of vehicle to the near rail, assumed to be 15 feet

•L = length of vehicle, assumed to be 65 feet (see Table C-2 for further clarification)

•W = distance between outer rails (for a single track, this value is 5 feet)

•d = distance the vehicle travels while accelerating to maximum speed in first gear, assumed to be 26.4 feet

•J = Perception-reaction time (3 seconds) Adjustments for longer vehicle lengths, slower acceleration capabilities, multiple tracks, skewed crossings, and other than flat highway grades are necessary. The formulas in this section may be used with proper adjustments to the appropriate dimensional values. It would be desirable that sight distances permit operation at the legal approach speed for highways, however, this is often impractical. Figure C -5. Sight Distance for Stopped Vehicle Source: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO): A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 7th Edition, (Figure 9-68), Washington DC, 2018.

Pedestrian Sight Distance Triangle

Evaluation of clearing sight distance at a pedestrian crossing should consider the pedestrian walking speed, the maximum authorized speed of trains at the crossing, as well as a decision/ reaction distance and buffer zone (refer to Figure C-6). Table C-2 provides computed values for both pedestrians as well as typical highway vehicles. The pedestrian sight distance, which is shown in the right-hand column, is based upon the following quantities: walking speed of 3.5 feet per second, 10 feet for decision/reaction distance (about 2.8 seconds), 15-foot track centers, a dynamic envelope of 11 feet, and a 6-foot buffer zone. In this example, the pedestrian will traverse the 42-foot distance in 12 seconds. The required sight distance is then computed by considering the distance the train will traverse in 12 seconds based upon the approach speed. At crossings where this distance is not available, active control devices should be considered. It should be noted that crossing users cannot be expected to reliably judge the precise approach speed of a train, so practitioners should consider that the required distances represent an absolute minimum. Figure C -6. Pedestrian Sight Distance Triangle (Double Track Crossing) Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers. Table C -2. Clearing Sight Distances (in Feet)

Train

SpeedaCaraSingle-unit

TruckaBusaWB-50

Semitrucka65-foot

Double

TruckaPedestrianb

10 105 185 200 225 240 180 20 205 365 400 450 485 355 25 255 455 500 560 605 440 30 310 550 600 675 725 530 40 410 730 795 895 965 705 50 515 910 995 1,120 1,205 880 60 615 1,095 1,195 1,345 1,445 1,060 70 715 1,275 1,395 1,570 1,680 1,235 80 820 1,460 1,590 1,790 1,925 1,410 90 920 1,640 1,790 2,015 2,165 1,585 a A single track, 90-degree, level crossing. b W alking 3.5 feet per second across two sets of tracks 15 feet apart, with a 2-second reaction time to reach a decision point 10 feet before the center of the first track, and clearing 10 feet beyond the centerline of the second track. Two tracks may be more common in commuter station areas where pedestrians are found. Source: Guidance on Traffic Control Devices at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration, Highway/Rail Grade Crossing Technical Working Group, November 2002.

Corridor Approach

The procedures for evaluating highway-rail grade crossings are generally based upon the physical and operational characteristics of individual crossings. A typical crossing safety program consists of several individual crossing projects. Funding for crossing safety is approved based on the requirements of these individual projects. Therefore, crossing evaluation, programming, and construction follow traditional highway project implementation procedures. The corridor approach may be applied to an urban area, city, or community. In this case, all public crossings within the jurisdiction of a public agency are evaluated and programmed for improvements. The desired outcome is a combination of engineering improvements and closures such that both safety and operations are highly improved. A corridor approach developed for crossings in a specified community or political subdivision provides for a comprehensive analysis of highway traffic operations. Thus, unnecessary crossings can be closed, and improvements can be made at other crossings. This approach enhances the acceptability of crossing closures by local officials and citizens. Initially, all crossings in the system, both public and private, should be identified and classified by jurisdictional responsibility (for example, city, county, and State for public crossings; parties to the agreement for private crossings). This also includes crossings with train speeds from 80–110 mph. Information should be gathered on highway traffic patterns, train operations, emergency access needs, land uses, and growth trends. Inventory records for the crossings should be updated to reflect current operational and physical characteristics. A

Diagnostic Team

consisting of representatives from all public agencies having jurisdiction over the identified crossings and the railroads operating over the crossings should make an on-site assessment of each crossing (as described in the previous section). The Diagnostic Team’s recommendations should consider, among other things, crossing closure, installation of traffic control devices, upgrading existing traffic control devices, crossing elimination by grade separation, surface improvements, and improvements in train detection circuits. For railroad crossing locations interconnected to the traffic signaling system, appropriate timing should be re ‑evaluated to determine whether simultaneous or advanced preemption is suitable. The use of pre-signals and queue-cutter signals should also be explored, where warranted, to assist the preemption phasing to safely clear vehicles off the track prior to the activation of the railroad flasher lights and gates. Federal, State, and local crossing funding programs should be reviewed to identify the eligibility of each crossing improvement for public funding. Other funding sources including railroads, urban renewal funds, land development funds, and other public or private funding sources should also be explored. There are several advantages of the corridor approach. A group of crossings may be improved more efficiently through the procurement of materials and equipment in quantity , thus reducing product procurement and transportation costs. Usually, only one agreement between the State, local jurisdiction, and railroad is necessary for all the improvements. Train detection circuits may be designed as a part of the total railroad signal system rather than custom designed for each individual crossing. Electronic components, relay houses, and signal transmission equipment may be more efficiently utilized. Labor costs may be significantly reduced and travel time of construction crews may be reduced when projects are near each other. If a crossing consolidation is contemplated, the effects on traffic circulation and the impact on the operation of adjacent intersections should be considered. Frequently, the consolidation of crossings also leads to the consolidation of traffic on other facilities and may permit the construction of a traffic signal at a nearby intersection or other improvements that could not be justified otherwise. In light of these and other potential impacts, communication with first responders on any changes with crossings should be considered a priority. Railroads benefit from the application of the systems approach in several ways. T rain speeds may be increased due to safety improvements at crossings. Maintenance costs may be reduced if enough crossings are closed. Other improvements may enhance the efficiency of rail operations. Safety improvements are an obvious benefit to the public. Other benefits include reduced vehicular delays and better access for emergency vehicles. The traffic study should also consider the impacts of crossing operations on the community . Considerations include frequency and length of train operations, pedestrian and bicycle access, and the need for crossings to provide adequate access to schools and services. Standard data collection procedures can be found in several sources, including the Highway Safety Engineering Studies Procedural Guide or the Manual of Transportation Engineering Studies from the Institute of Transportation Engineers.(100, 102) 233D. APPENDIX—DIAGNOSTIC TEAM CROSSING EVALUATION

REporting Examples From States

This appendix provides two example forms. The first shown in Figure D-1 is an example of a Diagnostic Team Crossing Evaluation Report, Preliminary Document from the Texas Department of Transportation. The second is a link to an example of a Railroad Safety Diagnostic Team Crossing Evaluation Report Review Form for Quiet Zones from the State of Nevada Department of Transportation.

•State of Texas Department of Transportation Review Form (Figure D-1)

•State of Nevada Department of Transportation Diagnostic Review Form 234254PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT NOT FOR RELEASE PURSUANT TO 23 U.S.C. SECTION 409

OFfice Use Only

MInimum Warning Time

20 seconds Minimum Time (MT) seconds Clearance Time (CT) seconds Minimum Warning Time (MWT) seconds Buffer Time (BT) seconds Equipment Response Time (ERT) seconds Advance Tra ffic Signal Preemption Time (APT) seconds TOTAL APPROACH TIME Salvaged equipment: YES NO Total estimated cubic yards of fill material: This project is actual cost for reimbursement of payment to the Railroad Company as agreed to by: This project is lump sum cost for reimbursement of payment to the Railroad Company as agreed to by: TxDOT: Railroad Company:

Existing cross bucks meet TMUTCD guidelines

Existing cross bucks do not meet TMUTCD guidelines and need to be replaced repaired. If replacement or repair is needed the railroad company or its contractor will make necessary arrangements, within 30 days of diagnostic

Notify TRF/RR when discrepancies are correct

RxR pavement markings are to be installed, per the guidelines in the TMUTCD

No RxR pavement markings are to be installed because

Stop bars are to be installed, per the guidelines in the TMUTCD

No stop bars are to be installed because

Side lights are to be installed at this location. (Crossing is 50 feet or less from the parallel roadway) No side lights will be installed at this location. (Crossing is greater than 50 feet from the parallel roadway)

AC power service is available at this location

AC power service is not available at this location

A signalized intersection is located ft from crossing. Distance measured from the warning device to the edge of road/shoulder.

Attach copy of the preemption form

No signalized intersection at this location

Letter to proceed with project development was given to the Railroad Company No letter to proceed with project development wa s given to the Railroad Company because No yield or stop signs are to be installed by the State because Yield signs were recommended by the diagnostic team on an interim basis, per the guidelines in the TMUTCD. The local road authority was notified at Diagnostic . will be notified in writing. Yield signs to be installed within 30 days of diagnostic.

Notify TRF/RR when signs are installed

Stop signs were recommended by the diagnostic team on an interim basis, per the guidelines in the TMUTCD. The local road authority was notified at Diagnostic. will be notified in writing. Stop signs to be installed within 30 days of diagnostic.

Notify TRF/RR when signs are installed

Memo to install signs given to the district

DIagnostic Team Project Information

Average Daily Traffic (ADT)

Special Vehicle moves

MPh

through trains at mph per day switch moves at mph per day COUNTY: DOT No.: CONTROL: PROJECT: LOCATION: RAILROAD: MILEPOST: Date of Inspection: Date Layout Due: 235 255PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT NOT FOR RELEASE PURSUANT TO 23 U.S.C. SECTION 409

GEneral Notes

1. Signal circuits are designed to give 20 seconds Minimum Wa rning Time prior to the arrival of the fastest train at this crossing. Refer to signal circuit layout for total approach time. 2. Constant warning Phase motion C Style /AC-DC circuits are to be used at this location. Upgrades required; for circuit compatibility. 3. Conduit, fill dirt and crushed cover rock to be furnished in place by the Railroad Company or its Contractor at state’s expense. 4. The Railroad Company or its Cont ractor will remove the existing cross bucks mast flashers cantilevers and dispose of the foundations. 5. The State or its Contractor will fu rnish and install or replace the appropriate pavement markings as outlined on the attached layout and standard sheet and in accordance with the guidelines in the Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 6. The State or its Contractor will furnish and install or replace the follow ing signs in accordance with the guidelines in the Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (TMUTCD) and the Standard Highway Sign Designs Manual for Texas(SHSD): ea.(W10-1 ), ea.(W10-2), ea.(W10-3), ea.(W10-4), ea.(R15-4 ). Additional signs to be added. 7. The State County City agrees to maintain the pavement markings and advance warning signs placed along the roadways under their jurisdiction in accordance with t he guidelines in the Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and as shown on the layout and standard sheets as acknowledged on the Title Sheet. 8. The Railroad Company or its Contractor shall furnish, inst all and maintain sign mounting brackets for the report sign (R15-4) at the States expense. 9. The Railroad Company or its Contractor shall stencil t he DOT-AAR numbers on the signal masts facing the adjacent roadway in 2” black lettering. 10. The State County City agrees to trim and maintain trees an d vegetation for adequate visibility of the crossing signals and advance warning signs as acknowledged on the Title Sheet. 11. The Railroad Company or its Contractor will provide traffic control in accordance with the guidelines in the Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 12. The State Railroad Company or its Contractor will install metal beam guard fence as shown on the layout, at the State’s Railroads expense. 13. The State Railroad Company or its Contractor will install retaining wall as shown on the layout, at the State’s Railroads expense . 14. The Railroad or its Contractor will furnish and install a relay to provide simultaneous advance preemption to existing traffic signal proposed traffic signal advance flasher . Normally a closed circuit is required between the control relay of the grade crossing warning device and the traffic signal controller or flasher as stated in the Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

ADditional Notes

DEscription Of Project

Complete gate assemblies with gate arm

Complete cantilever assemblies with foot arm

Ea. R15-2, ( Tracks) 12” lamp housing shall be used and equipped with LED’s ( light emitting diodes), oper ated at not less than 8.5 volts under normal operating conditions.

REport Problems

TO 1-800 -772 - 7677

CROSSING # 123456A W10-1

W10-2

W10-3

W10-4

R15-4

R15-2

R8-8

Source: Texas Department of Transportation. Figure D-1. State of Texas Department of Transportation Diagnostic Review Form E. APPENDIX—PREEMPTION CALCULATION PROCEDURES,

EXample From State Of Texas

The following pages are the forms used by Texas DOT for preemption calculation procedures. Figure E -1. Texas DOT—Guide for Determining Time Requirements for Traffic Signal

Preemption at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings

Please visit this website for the original forms: http://www.txdot.gov/txdoteforms/GetForm?formName=/2304.pdf&appID=/TRF&status=/ reportError.jsp&configFile=WFServletConfig.xml Download a PDF file of Texas Department of Transportation— Guide for determining time requirements for traffic signal preemption at highway-rail grade crossings: appeniform.pdf To view PDF files, you can use the Adobe® Reader®.