Crossing Consolidation and Safety Programs

A highly effective approach to improving safety involves the development of a program of treatments to eliminate significant numbers of crossings within a segment of rail line while improving those that are to remain at grade. Both FRA (10) and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)(12) have developed guidelines for crossing consolidation. State departments of transportation, road authorities, and local governments may choose to develop their own criteria for closures based on local conditions. Whatever the case, a specific criterion or approach should be used to avoid arbitrarily selecting crossings for closure. Preparation of a “traffic separation study” is a good way to start. As part of a comprehensive evaluation of traffic patterns and road usage for an entire municipality or region, traffic separation studies determine the need for improvements and/or elimination of public highway-rail crossings based on specific criteria. Traffic separation studies progress in three phases: preliminary planning, study, and implementation. Crossing information is collected at all public crossings in the municipality. Evaluation criteria include collision history, current and projected vehicular and train traffic, crossing condition, school bus and emergency routes, types of traffic control devices, feasibility for improvements, and economic impact of crossing closures. After discussions with the parties involved, these recommendations may be modified. Reaching a consensus is essential prior to scheduling presentations to governing bodies and citizens. A key element of a traffic separation study is the inclusion of a public involvement element, including crossing safety workshops and public hearings. The goal of these forums is to exchange information and convey the community benefits of enhanced crossing safety , including the potential neighborhood impacts from train derailments involving hazardous materials that can result from crossing collisions. The following examples describe crossing consolidation as undertaken by dif ferent stakeholders: State Program Example—North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Many States have crossing closure programs and procedures: Although older, a relevant example of a closure program is the effort begun by the NCDOT in 1993. North Carolina recorded its 300th crossing closure in 2017 and the NCDOT “Sealed Corridor” effort is an excellent model of a State-level crossing program which included grade separations, crossing closures, and improvements including four quadrant gate systems, medians, and test of vehicle detection radar to crossings left open. (13) The NCDOT’s crossing closure criteria considers the following:

•Crossings within one-quarter-mile of one another that are part of the same highway or street network

•Crossings where vehicular traffic can be safely and efficiently redirected to an adjacent crossing

•Crossings where a high number of crashes have occurred

•Crossings with reduced sight distance because of the angle of the intersection, curve of the track, trees, undergrowth, or man-made obstructions

•Adjacent crossings where one is replaced with a bridge or upgraded with new signaling devices

•Several adjacent crossings when a new one is being built

•Complex crossings where it is difficult to provide adequate warning devices or that have severe operating problems, such as multiple tracks, extensive railroad-switching operations, or long periods of blocked crossings

•Private crossings for which no responsible owner can be identified

•Private crossings where the owner is unable or unwilling to fund improvements and where alternate access to the other side of the tracks is reasonably available The NCDOT considers the following factors in deciding whether to close or improve a crossing:

•Collision history

•Vehicle and train traffic (present and projected)

•Type of roadway (e.g., thoroughfare, collector, local access, truck route, school bus route, or designated emergency route, etc.)

•Economic impact of closing the crossing

•Alternative roadway access

•Type of property being served (e.g., residential, commercial, or industrial, etc.)

•Potential for bridging by overpass or underpass

•Need for enhanced warning devices (four-quadrant gates, longer arm gates, or median barriers)

•Feasibility for roadway improvements

•Crossing condition (geometry, sight distance, and crossing surface)

•Available federal, State, and/or local funding Closure implementation strategies used by NCDOT include the following:

•Constructing a connector road or improving roadways along alternate routes to direct traffic to an adjacent crossing

•Dead ‑ending affected streets and rerouting traffic, creating cul ‑de‑sacs

•Constructing bridges

•Relocating or consolidating railroad operations Local Program Example—San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG) A local grade crossing closure program developed in the San Gabriel Valley in Southern California is one of the largest local programs of crossing improvements, closures, and grade separations. The SGVCOG conducted a study of 55 grade crossings which identified 19 grade separations to eliminate 23 crossings as well as improvements to crossings remaining at grade. (14) SGVCOG obtained local funding and established the Alameda Corridor—East Construction Authority in 1998. In 2018, the Authority was advancing the final grade separations for construction and is nearing the final stages of a large program which includes 19 grade separations to eliminate 23 at-grade crossings along with implementing safety and mobility upgrades at 53 crossings. (15) Railroad Program Example—BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) One crossing closure initiative was established by BNSF in 2000.(16) This initiative is part of BNSF’s crossing safety program, which has the goal of reducing crossing collisions, injuries, and fatalities. The crossing safety program also includes community education, enhanced crossing technology, crossing resurfacing, vegetation control, installation of warning devices, and track and signal inspection and maintenance. In March 2006, BNSF closed its 3,000th highway-rail crossing since the beginning of its crossing closure initiative. By eliminating unnecessary and redundant crossings, BNSF has made an important contribution to community safety while also improving the efficiency and safety of its rail operation. The following are the three key elements of BNSF’s crossing closure initiative:

•A closure team was assembled, bringing together field safety and the public projects group in engineering.

•Division engineering and transportation personnel identified closure candidates.

•A closure database was developed to track progress.