Program Development

Program development is one of the final steps in the overall process. It is the selection of the specific improvement projects (including the type of improvement to be made along with the estimated cost of such improvement) to be included in a highway-railroad crossing improvement program. This selection process is data ‑driven for efficiency and effectiveness. These projects are then moved forward into implementation. A program should use an established method, consider all locations, and prioritize projects based on risk and other objective criteria. It is important for an agency to document the project selection process and method. The prioritization of a crossing for improvement can be done individually, or a corridor approach can be used. The corridor approach evaluates many crossings along a railroad line. Utilizing this method, the potential for improving the efficiency of railroad and highway operations may be considered. The total program should include more projects than can reasonably be funded. This is to ensure that substitutions can be made in the priority list following field evaluation of the crossings by the Diagnostic Team or if other unforeseen issues arise that delay a project, another project can be advanced. To aid in the programming of projects, a resource allocation model (as discussed in Chapter 3) has been developed to assist in making allocation decisions. The methodology, using a highway-railroad crossing crash or incident prediction formula, traffic control device system ef fectiveness, and cost parameters, provides a funding priority ranking of projects. On the State and local levels, it can be used to prioritize crossing projects and options through a data-driven process. It should be emphasized that, in the use of ranking procedures (for example, hazard indices or resource allocation), the quantitative ranking does not dictate the final decision. These tools should be considered only as an aid to State and local officials and railroad management for making decisions. Local conditions and the judgment of State and local officials should also play a role in this evaluation process. Note: This document summarizes current practices but does not set standards; practitioners are advised to check current local standards and requirements (refer to Disclaimer and Quality Assurance Statement). Users of the data provided within this document should anticipate possible variations from current information within the FRA databases, which are updated monthly.