Closure or Separation
The first alternative that should always be considered for a highway ‑rail crossing is elimination, which can be accomplished by the following:
•Replacing the crossing with a grade separated facility
•Closing the crossing to highway traffic and removing the roadway crossing surface
•Closing the crossing to railroad traffic through the abandonment or relocation of the rail line and removal of the railroad tracks Closure of a crossing provides the highest level of crossing safety compared to other alternatives, because the point of intersection between highway and railroad is removed. However, the effects of closure on highway and railroad operations may not always be completely beneficial. The major benefits of crossing closure include reductions in certain types of collisions and decreased delays to highway and rail traffic, as well as lowered maintenance costs. Decisions about whether a crossing should be eliminated or simply improved depends upon safety, operational, and cost considerations. However, federal regulation (23 CFR 646.214(c)) specifies that “all crossings of railroads and highways at grade shall be eliminated where there is full control of access on the highway (a freeway) regardless of the volume of railroad or highway traffic.” The following four types of delay can occur on highway traffic by crossings:
•Presence of crossing—This delay occurs regardless of whether a train is approaching or occupying the crossing. Motorists usually slow in advance of crossings so that they can stop safely if a train is approaching. This is a required safe driving practice in conformance with the Uniform Vehicle Code, which states “…vehicles must stop within 15 to 50 feet from the crossing when a train is in such proximity so as to constitute an immediate hazard.”(9) Therefore, the existence of a crossing may cause some delays to motorists who slow to look for a train.
•Traffic control devices—Road users are subject to delay at passive crossings with STOP or YIELD signs as well as at active crossings when traffic control devices are actuated.
•Trains blocking crossings—Trains may stop and block a crossing in response to a train signal indication or during switching operations.
•Special vehicles—Under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) regulations, all vehicles transporting passengers and trucks carrying many types of hazardous materials must stop prior to crossing tracks at a highway-rail crossing (49 CFR 392.10). If following vehicles do not anticipate such stops and/or fail to maintain safe stopping distance, collisions may result. Another benefit of crossing closure is the alleviation of maintenance costs of surfaces and traffic control devices. As discussed in Chapter 5, these costs can be quite substantial for both highway agencies and railroads. Some States have incentive programs intended to encourage crossing closure. Additionally, railroads may participate in a project resulting in a closure either on a case-by-case basis or as part of an initiative (one State’s program is described in the following section). Crossing closures are usually accomplished by closing the highway. The number of crossings needed to carry highway traffic over a railroad in a community is influenced by many characteristics of the community itself. A study of community travel demand should be conducted to determine major origin and destination points and assess what is needed to provide adequate highway capacity then needed to satisfy demand. Thus, optimum routes over railroads can be determined. Traffic over several crossings may be consolidated to a nearby crossing with flashing ‑lights and gates or over a nearby grade separation. Alternative routes should be within a reasonable travel time and distance from a closed crossing. The alternative routes should have sufficient capacity to accommodate the diverted traffic safely and efficiently. The impact on pedestrian travel should be evaluated as well. Identifying and eliminating redundant, closely spaced, or unneeded crossings should be a high priority. The decision to close or consolidate crossings requires balancing public safety, convenience, and access with the needs of the railroad to operate trains safely and efficiently . The crossing closure decision should be based on economics—comparing the cost of retaining the crossing (e.g., maintenance, collisions, and cost to improve the crossing to an acceptable level if it remains, etc.)—against the cost (if any) of providing alternate access and any adverse travel costs incurred by users having to cross at some other location. While this can be a political and sensitive or controversial issue at the local level, the economics of the situation cannot be ignored. This subject is addressed in the FRA’s Research Results: Crossing Consolidation Guidelines, RR 09 -12.(10) Challenges to obtain successful closures include negative community feedback, funding, and the lack of forceful State laws authorizing closure or the reluctant utilization of State laws that permit closure. As part of the process of implementing a crossing closure, it is important to consider whether the diversion of highway traffic may be sufficient to change the type or level of traffic control needed at other crossings. The surrounding street system should be examined to assess the effects of diverted traffic. Often, coupling a closure with the installation of improved or upgraded traffic control devices at one or more adjacent crossings can be an effective means of mitigating local political resistance to the closure. Legislation that authorizes a State agency to close crossings facilitates the implementation of closures. These State agencies should utilize their authority to close crossings whenever possible. A State agency may be able to accomplish closure where local efforts may not have achieved success. Local opposition sometimes can be overcome by emphasizing the benefits resulting from closure, such as improved traffic flow and safety as traffic is redirected to grade separations or crossings with active traffic control devices. Railroads often support closure not only due to safety concerns but also because closure eliminates maintenance costs associated with the crossing. Refer to the following document for State ‑by‑State specifics: “Compilation of State Laws and Regulations Affecting Highway-Rail Grade Crossings.” (11) Achieving consensus is integral to the closure process. Closure criteria vary by locality but typically include consideration of the following:
•Train and roadway traffic volume
•Speed of trains
•Number of tracks
•Material being carried
•Crossing location
•Visibility
•Distance to traffic signals
•Number of crashes Locations with more than four crossings per railroad route-mile with fewer than 2,000 vehicles per day and more than two trains per day are prime candidates for closure. To assist in the identification of crossings that may be closed, the systems approach might be utilized, as discussed in Chapter 3. With this method, several crossings in a community or rail corridor are improved by the installation of traffic control devices, while other crossings are closed or grade separated. This is accomplished following a study of traffic flows in the area to ensure continuing access across the railroad. Traffic flows are sometimes improved by the installation of more sophisticated traffic control systems at the remaining crossings. Another important matter to consider regarding crossing closure is access over the railroad by emergency vehicles. Crossings frequently utilized by emergency vehicles should be candidates for grade separations or the installation of active traffic control devices. Specific criteria to identify crossings that should be closed are difficult to establish because of the numerous and various factors that should be considered. Refer to Chapter 3 for criteria that may be used for crossing closure and to Section 8A.05 of the MUTCD for provisions relevant to crossing closure. Additional information regarding grade crossing closure and improvement programs can be found on pages 485–486 of the Traffic Control Devices Handbook. (2) It is important that these criteria not be used without professional, objective, engineering, and economic assessment of the positive and negative impacts of crossing closures. When a crossing is permanently closed to highway traffic, the crossing surface and approaches should be obliterated and removed, leaving as few traces of the former crossing as is practicable. When a crossing is closed to train traffic, the highway authority , where practical, should remove the tracks within the highway to reduce future maintenance costs. Paving over tracks with asphaltic paving is not recommended because it is possible for “reflection cracks” to subsequently emerge. Generally, the railroad is responsible for removing the crossing surface and traffic control devices located at the crossing, such as the Crossbuck sign, flashing ‑light signals, and gates. The railroad is also generally responsible for restoring the ditch line and removing any evidence of a crossing on railroad property, including the drainage. Depending on the agreement between a highway authority and the operating railroad(s), the highway authority may be responsible for actions including but not limited to the following:
•Removing traffic control devices in advance of the crossing, such as the advance warning signs and pavement markings.
•Upon termination of any interconnection in cooperation with the railroad, the highway authority may be charged with making any adjustments to the highway traffic signal system, now that the interconnection has been severed, and railroad preemption will no longer occur. The MUTCD shows examples of some effective road closure traffic controls in Part 6. Many States also have effective, MUTCD-compliant road closure signing packages in their standards.
•Installing warning and regulatory signing in accordance with the MUTCD to alert motorists that the crossing is now closed. These signs include the “ROAD CLOSED” sign (R11-2), “LOCAL TRAFFIC ONLY” sign (R11-3, R11-4), and appropriate advance warning signs as applicable to the specific crossing.
•Removing roadway surface approaches. Consideration should also be given to advising motorists of alternate routes across the railroad. If motorists use the crossing being closed, they should be given advance information about the closure at points where they can conveniently alter their route. Consideration should be made for pedestrian activity at closures as well; nearby, easy alternative routes should be provided for pedestrians to use to discourage trespassing.