REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188 

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this 

burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, 

Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management 

and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503. 

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 

December 2006 

3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED 

Final Report 

July 2003-October 2004 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

Public Education and Enforcement Research Study 

5. FUNDING NUMBERS 

6. AUTHOR(S) RR97/CB072 

Suzanne Sposato, Patrick Bien-Aime, and Mina Chaudhary 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Research and Innovative Technology Administration 

John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center 

Cambridge, MA 02142 

8.PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

REPORT NUMBER 

DOT-VNTSC-FRA-06-03 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Office of Research and Development 

1120 Vermont Avenue, SW 

Washington. DC 20590 in 

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING 

 AGENCY REPORT NUMBER 

DOT/FRA/ORD-06/27 

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

Safety of Highway-Railroad Grade Crossings series 

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, 

Springfield, VA 22161. 

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE 

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words) 

The Public Education and Enforcement Research Study (PEERS) was a collaborative effort between the Federal Railroad Administration, the 

Illinois Commerce Commission, and local communities in the State of Illinois. The purpose of the project was to promote safety at highwayrail intersections by reducing incidents, injuries, and fatalities through new technologies and methodologies. The role of the John A. Volpe 

National Transportation Systems Center was to monitor and evaluate highway-rail intersections in Illinois communities using video data 

collection while the communities conducted education and enforcement campaigns. The data collection and analysis efforts focused on three 

highway-rail intersections in Arlington Heights, IL. The effectiveness of the programs was determined by counting the number of motorists 

and pedestrians that violated the crossing warning devices during three project phases. These violations were divided into three types based on 

highway-user assumed risk. The crossings in Arlington Heights saw an overall reduction in violations from the pre-test to the post-test of 30.7 

percent. The largest reduction, 71.4 percent, occurred in the most risky type of violation, type III. Pedestrians most often committed these 

types of violations. At the crossing with an adjacent commuter rail station, a reduction of 76.3 percent occurred in the most risky pedestrian 

violations. Overall, highway-user behavior changed for the safer during the study, and pedestrians, especially commuters, were the most 

affected by the PEERS programs. 

14. SUBJECT TERMS 

Accident reduction, alternative safety measures, education and enforcement, highway-rail intersections, 

safety, video data, violation reduction 

15. NUMBER OF PAGES 

110

16. PRICE CODE 

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 

OF REPORT 

 Unclassified 

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 

 OF THIS PAGE 

 Unclassified 

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 

OF ABSTRACT 

 Unclassified 

20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT 

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18 

298-102 
ii 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

sponsored the work leading to this report, Public Education and Enforcement Research Study. The 

authors would like to extend a special appreciation to Ron Ries, Staff Director, Highway-Rail 

Crossing and Trespasser Division, FRA; James Smailes, Program Manager of High Speed Rail and 

Grade Crossings, Track Research Division, FRA; and Tom Raslear, Program Manager of Human 

Factors, Equipment and Operating Practices Research Division, FRA; for their guidance and 

support. 

The authors also wish to thank Steve Laffey, Policy Analyst, Illinois Commerce Commission, for 

his ideas, active participation, and cooperation. 

Appreciation is also due to Union Pacific, Metra, and Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroads and 

their employees, as well as town employees from Arlington Heights, Bartlett, and Macomb, IL, for 

their much-needed cooperation to keep the field systems running. Operation Lifesaver, Inc. 

volunteers deserve thanks for the energy and time spent promoting crossing safety. The local law 

enforcement officers who participated and public utilities commission employees who created 

educational materials are acknowledged for their dedication to educating the public in rail safety 

issues. 

The authors would also like to acknowledge USDOT Volpe National Transportation Systems 

Center (Volpe Center) team members. Anya A. Carroll, Principal Investigator, Highway-Rail 

Grade Crossing Safety Research, Volpe Center, provided overall direction and invaluable guidance 

and leadership. William Baron, Volpe Center, and Alan Kauffman, CSC, installed all field 

systems and maintained them for the project’s life. Barry Mickela and Andy Lam, both of the 

Volpe Center, provided technical leadership. Steven Peck, Volpe Center, supplied technical 

support. Frank Foderaro, Volpe Center, analyzed the data and organized the results. Cassandra 

Oxley of CASE, LLC, provided the report editing and formatting. 

Finally, Tashi Ngamdung, John Mayers, Perla Garcia, Avinash Rao, and Malachi Hul, all of the 

Volpe Center, contributed countless hours to viewing the video data and populating the database. 

iii 
iv 
Contents 

Illustrations ....................................................................................................................... vii 

Tables...............................................................................................................................viii 

Executive Summary............................................................................................................ 1 

1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................... 3 

1.1 Background ............................................................................................................... 3 

1.2 Research Origin......................................................................................................... 3 

2.0 Objective and Scope ..................................................................................................... 5 

2.1 Objective ................................................................................................................... 5

2.2 Project Success Definition ........................................................................................ 5 

2.3 Assumptions.............................................................................................................. 5 

2.4 Overview ................................................................................................................... 6 

2.5 PEERS Project Participants....................................................................................... 7 

2.6 Change in Scope........................................................................................................ 7 

3.0 Site Selection ................................................................................................................ 9 

3.1 Chosen Communities ................................................................................................ 9 

3.2 Arlington Heights...................................................................................................... 9 

4.0 Research Approach ..................................................................................................... 11 

4.1 Site Location Surveys.............................................................................................. 11 

4.2 Remote Data Collection System ............................................................................. 13 

4.3 Data Collection........................................................................................................ 15 

4.4 Analysis Method ..................................................................................................... 16 

5.0 Data Analysis.............................................................................................................. 19 

5.1 Data Analysis Plan .................................................................................................. 19 

5.2 Selection of Data Attributes .................................................................................... 19 

5.3 Database Development............................................................................................ 20 

5.4 Performance Measures ............................................................................................ 21 

5.5 Results ..................................................................................................................... 21 

6.0 Conclusions................................................................................................................. 39 

6.1 Conclusions and Recommendations........................................................................ 39 

6.2 Lessons Learned...................................................................................................... 40 

Appendix A. Site Survey Documents .............................................................................. 43 

Appendix B. Remote Data Collection System Equipment and Design Documents........ 81 

Appendix C. Data Analysis Plan ..................................................................................... 95 

Appendix D. Violation Frequency Histogram and Difference of LS-Means .................. 99 

References....................................................................................................................... 105 

Acronyms........................................................................................................................ 107 

Glossary .......................................................................................................................... 109 

v 
vi 
Illustrations 

Figure 1. Sample Operation Lifesaver Safety Poster........................................................................ 6 

Figure 2. Map of Illinois and Selected Communities ....................................................................... 9 

Figure 3. Arlington Heights Crossings Schematic.......................................................................... 11 

Figure 4. PEERS Light Pole Power System Schematic.................................................................. 13 

Figure 5. Field System Schematic .................................................................................................. 14 

Figure 6. Remote Data Collection Schematic................................................................................. 15 

Figure 7. (Clockwise) Type I Violation, Type II Violation, Pedestrian Type III Violation, Motorist

Type III Violation .......................................................................................................... 17 

Figure 8. Total Violation Counts by 2-Month Period..................................................................... 22 

Figure 9. Violation Rate for All Crossings ..................................................................................... 23 

Figure 10. Violation Rates by Violation Type, All Crossings........................................................ 25 

Figure 11. Type I Violation Counts by Mode of Transportation.................................................... 26 

Figure 12. Type II Violation Counts by Mode of Transportation................................................... 27 

Figure 13. Type III Violation Counts by Mode of Transportation ................................................. 27 

Figure 14. Pedestrian Violation Rates by Violation Type, All Crossings ...................................... 28 

Figure 15. Motorist Violation Rates by Violation Type, All Crossings ......................................... 30 

Figure 16. (Left to Right) Arlington Heights Road, Evergreen Avenue, and Dunton Avenue 

Distribution of Violations by Mode of Transportation.................................................. 31 

Figure 17. Motorist and Pedestrian Violation Rates, Arlington Heights Road .............................. 32 

Figure 18. Motorist and Pedestrian Violation Rates, Evergreen Avenue ....................................... 34 

Figure 19. Motorist and Pedestrian Violation Rates, Dunton Avenue ........................................... 35 

Figure 20. Count of Train Events on Blitz and Non-Blitz Days..................................................... 36 

Figure 21. Test Period Violation Rates versus All and Mode-Specific Blitz Days Violation Rates 

by Mode of Transportation ............................................................................................ 37 

Figure 22. Law Enforcement Requires Compliance with the Crossing Warning Devices, Dunton 

Avenue ........................................................................................................................... 41 

vii 
Tables 

Table 1. Data Dictionary for Video Events .................................................................................... 20 

Table 2. Total Violation Counts by 2-Month Period ...................................................................... 22 

Table 3. Overall Violation Rates by Period.................................................................................... 23 

Table 4. Probabilities for Differences of LS-Means, All Violations and Crossings....................... 24 

Table 5. Violation Rates by Violation Type, All Crossings ........................................................... 25 

Table 6. Violation Counts by Transportation Mode and Violation Type ....................................... 26 

Table 7. Probabilities for Differences of LS-Means, Pedestrian Violations, All Crossings........... 28 

Table 8. Pedestrian Violation Rates by Violation Type, All Crossings.......................................... 28 

Table 9. Probabilities for Differences of LS-Means, Pedestrian Violations, All Crossings........... 29 

Table 10. Probabilities for Differences of LS-Means, Motorist Violations, All Crossings............ 29 

Table 11. Motorist Violation Rates by Violation Type, All Crossings .......................................... 30 

Table 12. Differences of LS-Means, Motorist Violations, All Crossings ...................................... 31 

Table 13. Motorist and Pedestrian Violation Rates, Arlington Heights Road................................ 32 

Table 14. Motorist and Pedestrian Violation Rates, Evergreen Avenue ........................................ 33 

Table 15. Motorist and Pedestrian Violation Rates, Dunton Avenue............................................. 35 

Table 16. Test Period Violation Rates versus Blitz Days Violation Rate ...................................... 36 

Table 17. Test Period Violation Rates versus All and Mode-Specific Blitz Days Violation Rates 

by Mode of Transportation ............................................................................................ 37 

Table 18. Violation Rates for Type II Violations, Before and After the First Train ...................... 38 

viii 
ix 
x 
Executive Summary 

Under sponsorship from the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal 

Railroad Administration (FRA), the John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe 

Center) participated in the Public Education and Enforcement Research Study (PEERS). The 

Volpe Center monitored eight highway-rail grade crossings in three communities in the State of 

Illinois to determine the effectiveness of safety education and enforcement programs. Cameras 

collected video images of the crossings when warning devices were activated. The communities 

participating in the study sporadically conducted education and enforcement programs for 12 

months. The Volpe Center team collected video images for 16 months: 2 months of pre-test data, 

12 months of data while the safety programs were conducted, and 2 months of post-test data. 

This report focuses on the results from the community of Arlington Heights, IL, where the Volpe 

Center team monitored three highway-rail grade crossings at Arlington Heights Road, Evergreen 

Avenue, and Dunton Avenue. The crossings are in close proximity, about 700 feet apart; and all 

have two-quadrant gates, flashing lights, and bells. A Northeastern Illinois Regional Commuter 

Rail (Metra) station is adjacent to the Dunton Avenue crossing. The station produces considerable 

pedestrian activity at the crossing. 

The Volpe Center team analyzed the video images collected for pedestrian and motorist violations 

of the crossing warning devices. The violations were divided in three types based on the amount 

of risk in the highway-user’s behavior: (1) a type I violation occurs when a motorist or pedestrian 

enters the crossing when the warning lights are flashing but before the gate arms have begun to 

move; (2) a type II violation happens when a highway-user enters the crossing when the gate arms 

are in motion, either in their descent (before train arrival) or ascent (after train departure); (3) a 

type III violation occurs as a highway-user enters the crossing after the gate arms are in their 

horizontal position. 

The PEERS project can be deemed a success if one of two goals are met. The first goal is for the 

research to produce meaningful, transferable results. The amount of data collected must be 

sufficient to determine the effectiveness of the treatments. A sufficient sample size indicates that 

the analyses and results gathered from the data would be able to be replicated in other 

environments under similar circumstances. This goal was met; the Volpe Center team recorded 

over 60,000 train events and 120,000 violations. 

The second goal is for the PEERS program to be effective in changing behavior around highwayrail grade crossings. The programs are considered successful if the violation rate is reduced by 50 

percent over the course of the study. The violation rate was calculated as the violation count for a 

given time period divided by the associated number of train events. For the three grade crossings 

in Arlington Heights, the violation rate for the three types combined was reduced by 30.92 percent 

from the pre-test to the post-test period. 

Although the 50 percent reduction goal was not achieved when examining all three grade crossings 

as a whole, the study included plans to examine the violation rates individually. The following are 

areas in which the PEERS programs were considered a success. Analysis of the violation rate by 

type revealed a 71.4 percent decrease from pre-test to post-test period for the most risky, or type 

III, violations. Further segregation by type of violation and mode of transportation revealed 

successful reductions from the pre-test to post-test periods, in both pedestrian type I (61 percent) 

1 
and pedestrian type III (71 percent) violation rates. Finally, when considering the individual 

crossings, the Dunton Avenue crossing experienced a successful reduction from pre-test to posttest periods in pedestrian type III violations (76.3 percent). 

One of the most effective education and enforcement programs were the crossing safety blitzes. 

These occur when police officers at highway-rail grade crossings encourage and enforce good 

safety practices. Violation rates on days when blitz activity occurred were lower than other days in 

the test period. The data suggests that pedestrians responded more positively than motorists to the 

crossing safety blitzes. The results of this study suggest the PEERS programs were most effective 

in reducing the most dangerous pedestrian behaviors and were especially effective on commuters 

who were regularly exposed to enhanced education and enforcement programs. 

2 
1.0 Introduction 

1.1 Background 

The USDOT Volpe Center provides technical support to FRA on all aspects of highway-rail grade 

crossing safety research, as well as rail safety research in general. One major effort has been to 

develop a more precise understanding of what risks are present at grade crossings and how best to 

decrease or eliminate these various risk elements. The Volpe Center has supported FRA since 

1971 in the conduct of grade crossing safety research. Significant progress has been made in 

improving the safety of public highway-rail grade crossings. Although both motor vehicle and 

train traffic have increased for the years between 1993 and 2003, data have shown that the number 

of collisions at grade crossings has decreased by 41 percent, from 4,892 to 2,909, respectively. 

More importantly, the number of fatalities has declined from 626 to 325 (48 percent). A more 

recent data snapshot shows that since 2000, collisions at grade crossings have declined by 16.4 

percent, fatalities by 22.6 percent, and injuries by 17.8 percent. Though these trends are all 

positive, the challenge is to continue to improve the safety of highway-rail grade crossings since 

they represent a significant portion of the overall risk from highway and railroad operations. 

In the State of Illinois, over 63 percent of all highway-rail grade crossing collisions occur at 

crossings where active warning devices exist. In 1994, the USDOT’s Grade Crossing Action Plan 

Support Proposals [1] set a goal to reduce grade crossing collisions and fatalities nationwide by 50 

percent over 10 years. Education and enforcement were two of the six broad categories 

undertaken by USDOT to meet this goal. In 2004, the Secretary’s Action Plan on Highway-Rail 

Crossing Safety and Trespass Prevention [2] identified expanding educational outreach and 

energizing enforcement as key elements. PEERS analyzed the implementation of education and 

enforcement programs as an alternative safety measure (ASM) at active grade crossings in Illinois. 

1.2 Research Origin 

The Federal Railroad Safety Authorization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-440, November 2, 1994) 

required that every train approaching a highway-rail grade crossing sound the locomotive horn. A 

community may be exempt from this requirement if horn silence is determined not to present 

significant risk with respect to loss of life or injury, or a supplemental safety measure (SSM) exists 

that fully compensates for the absence of the locomotive horn. In 2000, FRA announced the 

Notice of Proposed Rule Making on the Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade 

Crossings. The rule proposed guidelines and firm criteria to silence a train horn at a grade 

crossing. Under the Final Rule on the Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings 

published in 2004, a community must present a quiet zone risk index that does not exceed the 

crossing risk when the horn is sounded or that does not exceed the average national risk for gated, 

public crossings where train horns are sounded. This inspired a desire to evaluate low-cost safety 

measures to reduce the risk of grade crossing collisions and fatalities. Non-engineering ASMs, 

including programmed enforcement and public education and awareness, can be used in 

establishing a quiet zone to lower the quiet zone risk index. Each community must validate the 

effectiveness of the ASM with a documented violation rate reduction. 

FRA and the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) provided matching funds to support a study of 

education and enforcement alternative safety measures. FRA and ICC bestowed grants on 

3 
communities to establish a 12-month grade crossing safety education and enforcement program. 

The PEERS project also included a field operational test (FOT) of education and enforcement 

applications by an objective third party, the Volpe Center. The Volpe Center installed video 

cameras at selected grade crossings to monitor pedestrian and motor vehicle driver behavior. The 

focus of this report is the analysis of three crossings in Arlington Heights, IL, from July 1, 2003, 

through October 31, 2004. 

4 
2.0 Objective and Scope 

2.1 Objective 

The Volpe Center’s role in the PEERS project was to observe driver and pedestrian behavior at 

highway-rail grade crossings. Specifically, the Volpe Center monitored the crossings for 

violations of the grade crossing warning devices. The first objective was determining whether 

enough data could be collected to provide significant and meaningful results about the 

effectiveness of education and enforcement activities. The final objective was for the Volpe 

Center to determine whether community education and/or enforcement activities were successful 

in significantly reducing the violation rate at the subject highway-rail grade crossings. Violation 

rate is the count of violations for a time period divided by the number of opportunities a violation 

can occur, established in this report as a train event. A train event is defined as any time the 

crossing warning devices are activated, either when a train is on approach or in the event of a false 

activation. 

2.2 Project Success Definition 

The PEERS project can be deemed a success if one of two goals are met. The first is for the 

research to produce meaningful, transferable results. The amount of data collected must be 

sufficient to determine the effectiveness of the treatments. A sufficient sample size indicates that 

the analyses and results gathered from the data could be replicated in other environments under 

similar circumstances. 

The second goal is for the PEERS program to be effective in changing behavior at highway-rail 

grade crossings. The programs are considered successful if the violation rate is reduced by 50 

percent over the course of the study. A reduction in violations corresponds to a reduction in 

incidents, therefore creating a safer environment. The report entitled Photo Enforcement At 

Highway-Rail Grade Crossings in the United States: July 2000-July 2001 [3] provides case 

studies of violation reductions and corresponding reductions in incidents. 

2.3 Assumptions 

The evaluation team made no assumptions as to the quality, quantity, or usability of the data 

collected. Provided good data was collected, the following assumptions were made: 

• Commercial, off-the-shelf equipment purchased would be reliable to collect FOT data. 

• Video data would be transferred from the remote sites to the Volpe Center in 

Cambridge, MA, via the Internet. 

• The Volpe Center would receive community activity plans to conduct case study 

analyses. 

• Coordination among all parties involved would facilitate a productive work 

environment. 

• Staff required to view and populate the database would be available to deliver timely 

results. 

5 
2.4 Overview 

The PEERS evaluation project conducted by the Volpe Center was designed to analyze the effects 

of education and enforcement programs on motorist and pedestrian behavior at highway-rail grade 

crossings. In this report, the term pedestrian refers to all nonmotorized traffic (for example, 

walkers or bicyclists). ICC initially selected four cities to receive grants under the program. The 

program later expanded to include 22 participant communities. 

Three of the four original communities, Arlington Heights, Bartlett, and Macomb, implemented 

similar, well-defined education and enforcement activities targeted at reducing or eliminating 

pedestrian and motorist violations at grade crossings. The fourth community, Downer’s Grove, 

chose to evaluate photo enforcement as the selected SSM. Each community prepared a 

comprehensive plan that combined education and enforcement activities. 

The communities enacted education and enforcement activities that focused on highway-rail grade 

crossing safety. Some activities were passive, including safety inserts with utility bills, radio and 

television public service announcements, poster campaigns, and train station public address 

announcements. Some initiatives were proactive and involved members of local law enforcement 

and the community. These included participation in the Officer on a Train program, sponsored by 

Operation Lifesaver, Inc., an increase in Operation Lifesaver presentations throughout the 

community, and police education and enforcement blitzes. 

Three kinds of blitzes were scheduled sporadically throughout the life of the program. Information 

blitzes notified highway-users of the dangers associated with disobeying crossing warning devices. 

During both motorist and pedestrian enforcement blitzes, police officers issued citations to 

violators of the crossing warning devices. Figure 1 shows an example of a poster used in the 

safety campaign. 

Figure 1. Sample Operation Lifesaver Safety Poster 

6 
To evaluate safety, the evaluation team used video cameras to observe motorist and pedestrian 

behavior at eight grade crossings. Safety was measured by observing the frequency with which 

motorists and pedestrians violated the traffic control devices that warned them of approaching 

trains. The team selected violations rather than accidents because violations occur at a much 

higher frequency. Accidents at the eight grade crossings occur at too low a frequency to detect 

performance differences. Motorist and pedestrian violations represent a reasonable surrogate since 

this behavior is a precursor to grade crossing incidents [4]. 

To evaluate the effectiveness of the education and enforcement programs, it was necessary to 

measure the number of the motor vehicle and pedestrian violations that occur before, during, and 

after the program was implemented. Therefore, the lifespan of the project was divided into three 

phases. The pre-test phase occurred before the communities began their education and 

enforcement programs. This period lasted 2 months, from July 1, 2003, through August 31, 2003. 

The test phase was 12 months long, from September 1, 2003, through August 31, 2004. During 

this time, the communities conducted their education and enforcement plans. The final 2 months 

of the study, September 1, 2004, through October 31, 2004, were a post-test measurement of 

violations. This data was useful in determining any lasting effects from the programs. 

2.5 PEERS Project Participants 

The PEERS project was a cooperative effort between FRA and the ICC. FRA served as the project 

sponsor by providing half of the funds for the community grants and funding the Volpe Center to 

conduct the evaluation program and prepare the effectiveness results. The ICC provided the other 

half of the funds for the community grants. The participating communities and crossings were 

chosen under the guidance of the ICC. The Volpe Center served as an independent third party to 

collect and analyze data from the selected crossings; its responsibilities included acquiring 

necessary equipment for the PEERS project, obtaining permission from the necessary agencies to 

install equipment, collecting data, and providing an analytical final report. 

Cooperation was needed from various parties to make this project a success. The participating 

communities of the Village of Arlington Heights, the City of Macomb, and the Village of Bartlett 

were responsible for drafting a proposal and budget addressing identified railroad safety concerns. 

They were also accountable for outlining and conducting the education and enforcement activities. 

The communities made certain that electric power was available for the video cameras. In 

addition, three railroads were involved in the PEERS project. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe 

Railway (BNSF), Metra, and Union Pacific Corporation (UP) all granted permission to connect the 

Volpe Center video surveillance systems to the warning devices. BNSF also generously allowed 

Volpe Center electronic equipment to be installed inside of their crossing bungalows. 

2.6 Change in Scope 

Over the course of the project, unanticipated events resulted in adjusting the scope to meet the 

project needs. The Volpe Center team collected video data images from all three participating 

communities. The estimated total number of train events for the 8 crossings was 183,120. A 

viewer could watch and record information for approximately 70 train events per workday. In the 

interest of providing timely results, the analysis portion of the project focused solely on the Village 

of Arlington Heights. This reduced the project duration. As a result, the Volpe Center team 

7 
recorded 60,942 train events and observed 120,234 violations. Raw video data from the remaining 

two communities is available for future review and analysis. 

The time frames for the pre-test and post-test case phases were shortened from the original 

statement of work. Equipment and software troubleshooting resulted in shortening the phases 

from 3 months to 2 months. The Volpe Center team observed an additional type of violation in the 

preliminary data viewing. This violation was labeled type IV and occurred when train passengers 

debarked onto a center platform and exited the crossing while the warning devices were still 

active. These violators were clearly taking a risk, especially in second train coming situations. 

The local law enforcement officials decided not to enforce type IV violations for fear that the 

passengers would cross at a more dangerous place along the tracks. Because these violators were 

not targeted in the enforcement efforts, they were not included in the study. Raw video data of this 

type of violation is available for future review and analysis. 

8 
3.0 Site Selection 

3.1 Chosen Communities 

The PEERS program was conceived in part by Senator Richard J. Durbin (D-IL). Senator 

Durbin’s staff chose the original four communities based on perceived rail safety needs. The four 

communities were Arlington Heights, Macomb, Bartlett, and Downer’s Grove. Each community 

responded to the request for grant proposals and agreed to actively participate in the education and 

enforcement initiatives. The Village of Downer’s Grove opted to participate in a photoenforcement campaign, instead of law enforcement blitzes, and was not included in the Volpe 

Center’s evaluation study. Figure 2 shows diagram of the communities’ locations in the State of 

Illinois. Because of the decision to focus only on Arlington Heights in this report, Appendix A 

contains the detailed information about Macomb and Bartlett. 

Figure 2. Map of Illinois and Selected Communities 

3.2 Arlington Heights 

The Village of Arlington Heights is a suburb of Chicago in Cook County, located approximately 

22 miles from the downtown area. The population is 76,031. The village has 10 public at-grade 

crossings, 2 pedestrian crossings, and 2 Metra stations. The line through Arlington Heights is a 

triple track owned and operated by UP. Metra commuter trains utilize this line. The line carries, 

on average, 63 Metra trains plus another dozen UP freight trains each weekday. 

The three crossings included in the PEERS study are Arlington Heights Road, Dunton Avenue, 

and Evergreen Avenue. Prior to the passage of the Final Rule on the Use of Locomotive Horns at 

Highway-Rail Grade Crossings, the community of Arlington Heights established a quiet zone and 

the locomotive horn was not sounded through the crossings. Each crossing is equipped with 

flashing lights and motorist and pedestrian gates. The track circuitry utilizes constant warning 

time and simultaneous preemption for the three adjacent crossings. The crossings are four traffic 

lanes wide. In February 2002, FRA published the Report on High Risk Crossings and Mitigation 

9 
Efforts by State [3]. The highway-rail grade crossing at Arlington Heights Road was designated as 

one of Illinois’ State-suggested high-risk crossings. 

10 
4.0 Research Approach 

4.1 Site Location Surveys 

The Volpe Center PEERS evaluation team conducted grade crossing site surveys on June 25-26, 

2002, and September 23-25, 2002. The purpose of these site surveys was to gather pertinent 

information about the crossings and determine suitable locations for camera and field computer 

equipment. At each crossing, the team was accompanied by railroad personnel. In Arlington 

Heights, the three crossings are located approximately 700 feet apart. Figure 3 shows a schematic 

of the three crossings in Arlington Heights. 

Dunton Avenue is the farthest west, followed by Evergreen Avenue and then Arlington Heights 

Road. A Metra station is located adjacent to the Dunton Avenue crossing. Dunton Avenue has the 

heaviest pedestrian traffic flow and the lightest motor vehicle flow, with an estimated average 

annual daily traffic (AADT) of 1,600 vehicles. Evergreen Avenue has moderate pedestrian traffic 

volume and heavier motor vehicle flow, with an estimated AADT of 3,400 vehicles. Arlington 

Heights Road has light pedestrian traffic volume and the heaviest AADT at 28,400 vehicles. 

While on location, the team surveyed each grade crossing, examined the surrounding area, 

photographed the sites, interviewed railroad personnel, and documented their findings. Appendix 

A provides the complete site survey document. 

Figure 3. Arlington Heights Crossings Schematic 

4.1.1 Dunton Avenue 

The Dunton Avenue crossing (DOT Crossing Number 176925Y) consists of three main tracks 

owned by UP. The milepost number is 0022.46. Train speeds through the crossing range from 20 

11 
to 40 miles per hour. The smallest crossing angles are between 60 and 90 degrees. Four highway 

traffic lanes cross the tracks. A Metra station is adjacent to the crossing, has a center track 

platform, and is located west of the street. Continuous pedestrian traffic occurs in the vicinity of 

the crossing. The surrounding area is designated for commercial use. 

The crossing has active warning devices. The signage at the crossing consists of two reflective 

crossbuck signs and two “3-TRACKS” signs. Six red and white reflective gates (four of which are 

pedestrian gates), four sets of mast-mounted flashers, one cantilever-mounted flasher, and one bell 

are in place. All gates at the crossing are train activated. In the history of this crossing, three 

accidents have occurred. These resulted in one pedestrian injury. The last reported accident 

occurred on June 19, 2002. The vehicle was unoccupied during the collision, and no one was 

injured. The two best locations for the cameras were the northeast and southeast corners. 

Appendix A includes photographs and diagrams of the Dunton Avenue grade crossing. 

4.1.2 Evergreen Avenue 

The Evergreen Avenue crossing (DOT Crossing Number 176924S) is located at milepost number 

0022.39. The train speeds through the crossing range from 20 to 40 miles per hour. The smallest 

crossing angles are between 60 and 90 degrees. Two motor vehicle traffic lanes are over the 

crossing. The Dunton Avenue crossing is 325 feet to the west, and the Arlington Heights Road 

crossing is 306 feet to the east. The surrounding area is designated for commercial use; however, 

pedestrian activity is limited. 

The crossing has active warning devices. The crossing signage consists of two reflective 

crossbuck signs and two “3-TRACKS” signs. Six red and white reflective gates (four of which are 

pedestrian gates), four sets of mast-mounted flashers, and one warning bell are in place. All gates 

are train activated. There has been no report of incidents at the crossing. The team chose to locate 

the cameras on the northeast and southwest corners. Appendix A includes photographs and 

diagrams of the Evergreen Avenue grade crossing. 

4.1.3 Arlington Heights Road 

The Arlington Heights Road crossing (DOT Crossing Number 176923K) is located at milepost 

number 0022.31. The train speeds through the crossing range from 20 to 40 miles per hour. The 

smallest crossing angles are between 60 and 90 degrees. Four highway traffic lanes traverse the 

crossing. A complicated intersection is north of the crossing at Arlington Heights Road and 

Northwest Highway. The roads carry heavy automobile traffic, but pedestrian activity is limited. 

The surrounding area is designated for commercial use. 

The crossing has active warning devices. The signage at the crossing includes two reflective 

crossbuck signs, two “3-TRACKS” signs, and one dynamic “NO TURN” lighted sign. Three red 

and white reflective gates (one of which is a pedestrian gate), two sets of cantilever-mounted 

flashers, two sets of mast-mounted flashers, and one warning bell are in place. In the history of 

this crossing, nine accidents have occurred. These resulted in three fatalities and four injuries. 

The last reported accident occurred October 29, 2002. A vehicle stopped on the crossing was 

unoccupied when struck by a freight train. The last fatal accident at the Arlington Heights Road 

crossing occurred March 3, 1998. A passenger train struck a pick-up truck that had driven around 

or through the active gate system. The driver was killed and the passenger injured. The two 

12 
cameras were placed on the northwest and southeast corners. Appendix A includes photographs 

and diagrams of the Arlington Heights Road grade crossing. 

4.2 Remote Data Collection System 

Even though data analysis was only performed on data collected from three crossings located in 

the community of Arlington Heights, data was collected from a total of nine crossings. These 

crossings were located in Arlington Heights, Bartlett, and Macomb, IL. A total of 4 computers, 17 

video cameras, 17 camera pole mounts, 17 transmitter and power supply box pole mounts, the 

PEERS light pole power system, and the PEERS Volpe Box system were used at the 9 crossings. 

The Volpe Center evaluation team developed the PEERS light pole power system, which 

contained an AC power outlet, high current battery charger, RB30 relay, video transceiver, and a 

12 volt 12 AH battery. This system was necessary in order to provide sufficient power for some of 

the study cameras. At specific locations, the only available power was from the street lighting 

system. This system only received power during the nighttime hours of operation. During the 

night by use of the Volpe light pole power system, the batteries would be charged. Then, at dawn 

and throughout the day, the cameras and transmitters would operate only on battery power. Figure 

4 shows a camera and pole schematic. 

High Current 

Battery 

Charger 

12 

VDC 

Power 

Supply 

12 Volt 

Battery 

NC 

NO 

C 

RB-5 

Relay 

+ 

Coil 

- Light 

Pole 

Power 

Video Transmitter 

Antenna 

Camera 

Figure 4. PEERS Light Pole Power System Schematic 

The PEERS Volpe remote data collection box system stored the receiver, the radio frequency 

video receiver, the computer processor unit, and the digital subscriber line modem (DSL). Figure 

5 shows a diagram of the field system. 

13 
XR-4 

Receiver 

RF Video 

Receiver 

Loronix 

CPU 

RF 

Pulse 

Antenna 

Antenna Antenna 

HOAC 

Power 

Track 

Circuitry 

Traffic 

Control 

Signal 

Output 

Module 

Track 

Circuitry 

Traffic 

Control 

Signal 

Output 

Module 

Adjacent Crossing 

Bungalows Crossing Bungalow 

Volpe Remote Data Collection Box 

DSL 

Trench 

Figure 5. Field System Schematic 

The Arlington Heights crossings consisted of three parallel east-west traveling mainline railroad 

tracks and three north-south traveling roadways. The Volpe Center remote data collection system 

consisted of one computer, six video cameras (two at each crossing—one on the north side and the 

other on the south side both facing the crossing), six camera pole mounts, six PEERS light pole 

power system box pole mounts, six PEERS light pole power system boxes (two at each crossing, 

mounted on the pole a few inches below each camera), and one PEERS Volpe remote data 

collection box system (stored adjacent to the railroad crossing signal bungalow at Evergreen 

Avenue). 

The Volpe Center remote data collection box also housed a telephone line to permit direct 

connection with the onsite computer and high-speed DSL Internet service, the track circuitry 

traffic signal output module, and the RF pulse transmitter. All electrical power was supplied by 

the Village of Arlington Heights and UP. Appendix B provides diagrams of the project equipment 

and design. 

The Loronix software package was selected for the video data collection. The Volpe Center 

evaluation team had previous experience with the Loronix software. The video data files were 

divided into two types, alarm and non-alarm. The cameras collected video data around the clock. 

An alarm file was created when the track circuitry indicated that the crossing warning devices had 

been activated. All other images were labeled as non-alarm files. The software allowed the alarm 

files to be separately designated and had the capability to remotely access the video database. The 

Loronix software also offered electronic code stamping, which branded each video image with a 

time and date stamp. The Volpe Center video analysis technical staff attended training sessions to 

14 
familiarize themselves with the software and its applications. Selected PEERS evaluation team 

members took Loronix Basic User Operator Training; one individual also attended Loronix 

Administrator Training. 

The information gathered from each video clip was stored in a database created in Microsoft 

Access. Access provides a large data storage capacity, which allows for the data to easily be 

queried. 

4.3 Data Collection 

Video data was collected and stored onsite in each community and then transmitted to the Volpe 

Center via the Internet. Each camera captured, digitized, and catalogued alarm video on the 

remote stations. Three computers with an in-house Internet connection were used to download the 

site data to the Volpe Center. One workstation per community was designated for study 

participation. Based on the large volume of data collected, a backup hard drive was necessary as 

additional storage for data that would be accessed later for analysis. All video images collected 

were transferred to DVD media for viewing and archiving. The Volpe Center workstations used a 

local client to access the remote database. By using structured query language (SQL) calls, the 

Volpe Center could call up the appropriate alarm data and pull the video and associated 

information off the remote systems and upload them to the Volpe Center workstations. Figure 6 

shows a schematic of this remote data collection system. 

Volpe 

Bartlett 

Arlington Hts 

Macomb 

Internet 

Figure 6. Remote Data Collection Schematic 

15 
The crossings were monitored by six cameras (two at each crossing, facing the railroad tracks from 

opposing directions). Both cameras were continuously recording data, and alarm events triggered 

by warning device activations were tagged and saved for a minimum of 60 days. These events 

recorded activity starting 10 seconds before warning device activation and continued 30 seconds 

after the warning devices were deactivated. Only one camera per crossing was analyzed for 

violation activity, and the other cameras were used as a backup or if a closer unobstructed view 

was needed from the opposite direction. The video data files were divided into alarm files and 

non-alarm files. The files of interest to this project were the alarm files, which contained footage 

of the activated crossing warning devices. Non-alarm video files were deleted first from the 

computer memory to preserve alarm video files. Data was downloaded to the Volpe Center 

workstation via the Internet and backed up on DVD media for processing and archiving purposes. 

The data was transmitted using commercially available Internet connections. In Arlington Heights 

and Bartlett, the systems were connected to the Internet through public DSL; in Macomb, the 

connection was via high-speed cable access. The video data was uploaded from the field 

computers to the Internet and then downloaded from the Internet to the Volpe Center workstations. 

The PEERS team was not allowed to connect to the remote field computers using the Volpe 

Center’s local area network (LAN). Newly instituted Federal security guidelines would not 

accommodate the needs of the PEERS project. The main issue was that the data was collected and 

stored on publicly accessible PCs. The remote computer systems were not trusted networks and 

were not certified, according to U.S. Federal standards. Instead, the PEERS team used a separate 

high-speed T3 line for faster download outside the Volpe Center’s network. The PEERS project 

took advantage of the existing Internet service provider connection to the Volpe National 

Transportation Systems Center network (VNTSC network) by installing a dedicated router outside 

the VNTSC network firewall and then creating a new subnet for the PEERS project. To alleviate 

any security concerns, the router was configured only to allow selected internal public addresses. 

The PEERS team also determined the Internet Protocol addresses for internal and external access. 

Once completed, the staff created access restrictions to assure that no other traffic was allowed in 

or out of the PEERS segment. The VNTSC network was chosen over the Volpe Center’s LAN 

because it was not possible to pass the type of video and database information transmitted by the 

Loronix equipment through the LAN firewall. This connection provided the PEERS team greater 

control over the VNTSC network server firewall, permitting secure connectivity with the remote 

PEERS recorders. 

File transfer protocol and direct connection were used to download alarm video data to the 

workstations at the Volpe Center. The Volpe Center workstations were connected remotely 

through the Internet to access the site databases using SQL calls. The appropriate alarm data was 

queried, and the video and associated information was uploaded from the remote systems to the 

Volpe Center workstations. Data was stored on local hard disk drives and backed up on DVD 

media for processing and archiving. 

4.4 Analysis Method 

The data were collected and analyzed as a before-during-after study. Although the before-duringafter study has recently come under some criticism due to the regression to mean phenomenon, the 

16 
Volpe Center has had success in using this method in the past [4]. The test data was collected over 

a period greater than 1 year in an attempt to eliminate any seasonal affects on the data. 

A grade crossing violation occurs when a motor vehicle or a pedestrian disregards active crossing 

warning devices either audible, visual, or both and enters the grade crossing zone. In Arlington 

Heights, the crossings were equipped with flashing lights, gates, and bells; however, no train horn 

was sounded during the study period. Activation time is when the track circuitry activates the 

warning devices at the crossing. 

Three commonly categorized types of violations exist: type I, II, and III. The definition of each 

type is listed below. 

• A type I violation occurs when a violator traverses the crossing while the lights are 

flashing, the bells are ringing, but before gate descent. 

• A type II violation occurs when a violator traverses the crossing during gate descent or 

ascent with audible devices sounding. 

• A type III violation occurs when a violator traverses the grade crossing after the gates 

finish their descent and are fully deployed in a horizontal position. 

Type III violations are the most risky and type I the least. The type I violation occurs at the first 

warning that a train is on approach to the crossing. Type II violations occur both before and after 

the train arrival at the crossing. This type of violation is of particular concern during second train 

coming events, as the first train departs and the second train is arriving. During a type III 

violation, the gate is in the horizontal position, and a motorist or pedestrian would have to go 

around, or through, the downed gate. Figure 7 shows examples of each violation. 

Figure 7. (Clockwise) Type I Violation, Type II Violation, Pedestrian Type III Violation, 

Motorist Type III Violation 

17 
A before-during-after design was used to evaluate the benefit of public awareness programs in 

each neighborhood. The collected data was divided into three parts. The 2 months of data 

collected before implementation of the program served as a pre-test. This data reflected population 

behavior without any (safety) influence from the PEERS programs. This is not to say, however, 

that no safety awareness programs existed during this time. Operation Lifesaver, for example, 

continued its normal activities in the community during this test period. 

The data collected during the 12-month period following the pre-test period reflects motorist and 

pedestrian behavior while exposed to the PEERS enhanced safety initiatives and is referred to as 

the test period. The initiatives implemented during the test period included safety inserts with 

utility bills, radio and television public service announcements, poster campaigns, and train station 

public address announcements. Some initiatives were proactive and involved members of local 

law enforcement and the community. These included an increase in Operation Lifesaver 

presentations throughout the community and police education and enforcement blitzes. The test 

data was compared with the pre-test period data to evaluate the effect the PEERS project had on 

motorist and pedestrian behavior. 

The final set of data was collected immediately following the test period and is referred to as the 

post-test data. This data was collected for 2 months following the conclusion of the PEERS 

project, during which time all enhanced safety initiatives were stopped. This data was examined to 

evaluate the lasting effects of the safety initiatives. 

18 
5.0 Data Analysis 

5.1 Data Analysis Plan 

Before the start of the project, a data analysis plan was developed, outlining the types and quantity 

of data to be collected and the methods of interpreting the data to obtain an understanding of the 

changes in highway-user behavior. All data fields were gathered from the train event video 

images. In Arlington Heights, the predicted number of train events was 76,300, giving a sufficient 

sample size and satisfying a requisite power determination. The results obtained from this data can 

be replicated in other environments under similar circumstances and satisfy the first established 

goal of producing meaningful, transferable results. 

As the second goal of the project was to reduce highway-rail grade crossing violations by 50 

percent, accurate methods for calculating violation frequency, time-to-collision, warning time, and 

violation time were necessary. These are factors that may affect a change in highway-user 

behavior and require more complete inspection. Appendix C contains the complete data analysis 

plan. 

5.2 Selection of Data Attributes 

The 16 months of video collection provided a valuable data source about driver behavior at these 

highway-rail grade crossings in Illinois. The data points extracted from these video clips were 

chosen to aid in determining the amount of risk a motorist or pedestrian was taking. The team 

used Field Evaluation of a Wayside Horn at Highway-rail Grade Crossings [5] and Evaluation of 

the School Street Four-Quadrant Gate/In-Cab Signaling Grade Crossing System [6] as references 

in selecting the data attributes. Table 1 provides a list of the data gathered from the video alarm 

events recorded. 

19 
Table 1. Data Dictionary for Video Events 

Data Description 

Date Date event occurred 

Crossing Name Name of street crossing 

Crossing Activation Time Specific time when the track circuitry 

trigger activates the safety devices at the 

crossing 

Gate Activation Time Time when the gates begin to descend 

Train Presence Yes or No (false alarm) 

Train Arrival Time Time when train arrived at the grade 

crossings 

Type of Train Freight, passenger, track maintenance 

Motor Vehicle Arrival Time Time when the motor vehicle arrived at the 

grade crossing 

Pedestrian Arrival Time Time when the pedestrian arrived at the 

grade crossing 

Violation: Type I Number of violators that went through the 

crossing while lights were flashing but 

before gate descent 

Violation: Type II Number of violators that went through the 

crossing during gate descent 

Violation: Type III Number of violators that went through the 

grade crossing after gate descent 

Violation After Train but Before Gates 

Ascend 

Yes or No 

Violator Direction The direction (N, S, E, W) from which the 

violator approached the crossing 

Train Direction The direction (N, S, E,W) from which the 

train approached the crossing 

Track The track that the train is on when it 

traverses the crossing (north side or south 

side, east side or west side) 

Second Train Event Yes or No 

End of Event Time Time when the train has completely cleared 

the crossing and gates have retracted or the 

recording timed out 

5.3 Database Development 

The database for the PEERS project was constructed in Microsoft Access. Every train event 

viewed is a unique entry into the database regardless of whether a violation occurs or not. A 

unique number identifies each train event and violation. Three linked tables store all pertinent 

information from each train event. The train event table captures basic details about the warning 

device activation, train presence, and violation occurrence. One entry is in the train event table for 

every train event viewed. The violation table captures a summary of the violation counts during 

the train event and details about the train movement. One entry is in the violation table for every 

20 
train event viewed. The third table is the violation details table. The data gathered in this table is 

detailed information on the violator movements. There is one entry for each violation observed; 

for one train event numerous entries can exist. 

Volpe Center PEERS evaluation team members viewed the recorded video images. The data was 

tabulated manually for each train event. An observer viewed and recorded data for approximately 

70 train events per workday. In total, 60,942 train events and 120,234 violations were observed at 

the three highway-rail grade crossings in Arlington Heights during the 16-month study period. 

5.4 Performance Measures 

From the observed data the evaluation team can gather performance measures to evaluate the 

success of the PEERS FOT program. The first performance measure is the frequency of 

violations. For each phase of the project, the number of train events observed varied. Thus, it is 

necessary to use a rate of violations per train event. The violation frequency data can be 

demarcated into the three violation types, the three crossings, and the two modes of transportation 

used by the violator. This specific level of detail enabled the Volpe Center evaluation staff to 

establish trends in data and determine how the PEERS program was most effective. 

Time-to-collision, warning time, and violation time were also examined to evaluate the degree of 

risk associated with driver and pedestrian behavior. Time-to-collision is a performance measure of 

time, in seconds, of the estimated train arrival at the location of the violator when the violator 

enters the crossing zone. Warning time is the measure, in seconds, of the amount of time the 

motorist or pedestrian has to respond to the warning signals at the crossing. Violation time, in 

seconds, is a performance measure of the length of time between the activation of the crossing 

warning signals and the time of the violation. 

The PEERS enhanced education and enforcement activities were conducted over the course of 12 

months; for the majority of those activities, it is not possible to isolate their effect on crossing 

safety. With the exception of the information and enforcement blitzes, it is impossible to 

determine who was exposed to the PEERS initiatives. The blitzes were scheduled to target 

specific audiences. The effects of a blitz can be seen in the violation rate on the days the police are 

present. 

5.5 Results 

The project suffered minor data loss in most months. The most extreme occurred during March 

2004. For this reason, the violation count from March 1, 2004, to April 31, 2004 (denoted by an * 

in Table 2 below), is much lower than other months. Table 2 and Figure 8 show violation counts 

by 2-month periods. 

21 
Table 2. Total Violation Counts by 2-Month Period 

Total Violation Counts by 2-Month Period 

Period 

Violation 

Count 

Pre-Test-July-August 2003 18,066 

September-October 2003 16,353 

November-December 2003 14,372 

January-February 2004 14,005 

March-April 2004 *10,777 

 May-June 2004 15,670 

July-August 2004 15,444 

Post-Test-September-October 2004 15,547 

0 

6 

12 

18 

Violation Count

(in thousands) 

Jul-Aug Sep-Oct Nov-Dec Jan-Feb *Mar- May-Jun Jul-Aug Sep-Oct 

03 03 03 04 Apr 04 04 04 04 

Figure 8. Total Violation Counts by 2-Month Period 

Before beginning data analysis, an alpha level of 0.05 was chosen to test for significance at a 95 

percent level of confidence. The raw data was organized into a number of tables, with summary 

totals of violations calculated by train event. In this manner, analyses are normalized by train 

event. In addition, the data was segregated into three periods: the pre-test period from July 

through August 2003, the test period from September 2003 through August 2004, and the post-test 

period from September through October 2004. The data was subsequently analyzed using SAS 

Institute software. 

Initially, summary statistics were calculated to determine the spread and nature of the data. 

Univariate analysis was run on the data, examining the total number of all violations over the three 

distinct test periods. In addition, a histogram was produced from this data (see Appendix D). 

From the histogram, it is evident that the data fits a typical Poisson distribution. 

As the data was unbalanced, a mixed model approach was chosen. The specific model was 

constructed with weighted violations as the dependent variable and period as the sole independent 

variable. Period, as opposed to days, was used to reflect the change over time attributable to the 

efforts of education and enforcement. The difference of least squares means (LS-means) is an 

22 
arithmetic difference between two value estimates that are calculated using a method of LS-means 

estimation. It is used when the study is not strictly tied to the parameterization of the design. The 

data displayed a typical Poisson distribution, but the data collection process was interrupted 

producing unbalanced data; therefore, the mixed method of analysis using LS-means estimation 

compensated for these non-normal circumstances. These differences can be viewed as differences 

in violation rates between test periods. 

5.5.1 Total Violation Counts and Rates 

Violation counts were normalized over each project phase. The violation rate was calculated as 

the violation count for a given time period divided by the associated number of train events. Using 

these adjusted figures, the reduction in violation rate was measured from the pre-test period to the 

post-test period, producing a 30.92 percent reduction. Table 3 and Figure 9 show these results. 

Breaking the data down by type of violation, mode of transportation, and crossing will reveal the 

specific areas that achieved a 50 percent reduction. 

Table 3. Overall Violation Rates by Period 

Overall Violation Rate

 Period 

 Pre-Test Test Post-Test 

Violation Count 18,066 86,621 15,547 

Train Events 6,963 45,305 8,674 

Rate 2.59 1.91 1.79 

Total Violation Rate 

0 

0.5 

1 

1.5 

2 

2.5 

3 

7/1/2003-

8/31/2003

9/1/2003-

10/31/2003

11/1/2003-

12/31/2003

1/1/2004-

2/29/2004

3/1/2004-

4/30/2004

5/1/2004-

6/30/2004

7/1/2004-

8/31/2004

9/1/2004-

10/31/2004 

PreTest Test Case PostTest 

Violation Rate

Violation Rate 

Poly. (Violation Rate) 

Figure 9. Violation Rate for All Crossings 

The model was tested using data from all crossings and for all types of violations, producing 

significant results (p<0.0001). When the data is examined for differences by test period, 

significant findings are observed in all three possible scenarios. Table 4 shows the associated 

probabilities. These findings suggest that overall highway-user behavior changed at the three 

23 
Arlington Heights grade crossings examined. (Please note that a positive difference denotes a 

decrease in the rate of violations between the two associated test periods.) 

Table 4. Probabilities for Differences of LS-Means, All Violations and Crossings 

Probabilities 

Differences of LS-Means 

All Violations, All Crossings 

Period – Period Difference Probability 

 Pre-Test – Test 0.6826 <0.0001 

 Pre-Test – Post-Test 0.8022 <0.0001 

 Test – Post-Test 0.1196 0.0009 

However, these summary counts and significance tests on the data, taken as a whole, do not 

provide much insight into the nature and frequency of the types of violations witnessed and 

program effectiveness. Violation counts are affected by mode of travel, as well as specific grade 

crossing site locations. By stratifying the data into distinct classes by mode of travel, grade 

crossing site location, and type of violation, more information on the PEERS program 

effectiveness becomes evident. 

5.5.2 Violation Counts and Rates by Type of Violation 

Because the violations are divided into three types, varying degrees of risky behavior can be 

analyzed. As mentioned earlier, a type III violation is associated with riskier highway-user 

behavior than a type II (or type I violation) because a type III violation occurs closer in time to the 

train’s arrival at the highway-rail grade crossing. 

From the pre-test period to the test period, no significant (p=0.2651) detectable change was 

observed in the type I violation rate. From the pre-test period to the post-test period, however, a 

minimal increase in the type I violation rate was observed. The increase was found to be 

statistically significant (p=0.0003). A type I violation occurs when warning lights and audible 

signals have begun but before gates have begun to move. This is the first indication that a train is 

approaching the crossing. A motorist nearing the crossing at this time may not be able to stop 

safely, and nonmotorized users feel they have enough time to complete their crossing activities. 

The type I violation could be denoted as a less conscious decision to violate the warning devices, 

similar to a yellow light signal at a highway-highway intersection or the countdown to a pedestrian 

crossing signal, and is thus expected to be less affected by the education and enforcement 

programs than the other types of violations. An increase in type I violations occurred; therefore 

the 50 percent reduction goal was not met in this specific circumstance. 

A significant decrease in the type II violation rate was observed between the pre-test period and 

the test period (-20.8 percent, p<0.0001), as well as between the pre-test period and the post-test 

period (-23.0 percent, p<0.0001). Although a marked decrease in type II violations occurred, it did 

not meet the designated 50 percent reduction goal. 

A significant decrease in the type III violation rate was observed between the pre-test period and 

the test period (-53.4 percent, p<0.0001), as well as between the pre-test period and the post-test 

period (-71.4 percent, p<0.0001). These results suggest that taken as a whole, pedestrians and 

motorists were taking fewer risks in situations where the level of risk is high. The reduction in 

24 
type III violations is a success because it exceeds the designated 50 percent goal. Table 5 and 

Figure 10 show violation rates by type for the pre-test, test, and post-test periods. 

Table 5. Violation Rates by Violation Type, All Crossings 

Violation Rates by Violation Type 

for All Crossings 

Violation Pre-Test Test Post-Test 

Type I 0.46 0.48 0.53 

Type II 1.35 1.07 1.04 

Type III 0.78 0.36 0.22 

Violation Rates by Violation Type, All Crossings 

Violation Rate

1.6 

1.4 

1.2 

1 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0 

Type I 

Type II 

Type III 

Pre-Test Test Post-Test 

Figure 10. Violation Rates by Violation Type, All Crossings 

5.5.3 Violation Counts and Rates by Transportation Mode 

The nature of violations committed by pedestrians and motorists differ. During the course of this 

evaluation study, pedestrians were more likely to disobey a fully deployed gate than motorists. 

Motorists also tend to be impatient and violate the warning devices as they are deactivated. The 

data show that pedestrians and bicyclists commit 99 percent of all type III violations, while 

motorists commit 82 percent of all type II violations and 96 percent of all type I violations. As a 

result of these differences, the data are analyzed by the mode of transportation involved. Initially, 

raw violation counts are presented as a basis for further examination (see Table 6). Figure 11, 

Figure 12, and Figure 13 are pie charts that show the mix of motorist and pedestrian violations by 

violation type. 

25 
Table 6. Violation Counts by Transportation Mode and Violation Type 

Violation Counts 

By Mode of Transportation 

and Violation Type 

Pedestrian 

Type I 1,062 

Type II 12,243 

Type III 23,678 

Motorist 

Type I 28,409 

Type II 54,630 

Type III 212 

1,062 

28,409 

Pedestrians 

Motorists 

Figure 11. Type I Violation Counts by Mode of Transportation 

26 
12,243 

Pedestrians 

Motorists 

54,630 

Figure 12. Type II Violation Counts by Mode of Transportation 

212 

23,678 

Pedestrians 

Motorists 

Figure 13. Type III Violation Counts by Mode of Transportation 

Initially, an examination of all pedestrian violations was undertaken to determine whether a 

relationship exists between test (or time) period and violation counts. Using a mixed model, the 

analysis produced significant results of a decrease between the pre-test period and test period, as 

well as between the pre-test period and post-test period, as detailed in Table 7. Given these results, 

a more stratified analysis was performed. 

27 
0 

Table 7. Probabilities for Differences of LS-Means, Pedestrian Violations, All Crossings 

Probabilities 

Differences of LS-Means 

Pedestrian Violations, All Crossings 

Period – Period Difference Probability

 Pre-Test – Test 0.5085 <0.0001

 Pre-Test – Post-Test 0.6247 <0.0001

 Test – Post-Test 0.1161 <0.0001 

A significant decrease in pedestrian type I, II, and III violation rates was observed between the pretest period and the test period (p<0.0001), as well as between the pre-test period and the post-test 

period (p<0.0001). Table 8 and Figure 14 contain pedestrian violation rates by type of violation, 

while Table 9 contains associated probabilities based upon differences of LS-means analysis. (A 

positive decrease is again indicative of a decrease in the violation rate.) 

Table 8. Pedestrian Violation Rates by Violation Type, All Crossings 

Pedestrian Violation Rates by Violation Type 

for All Crossings 

Violation Pre-Test Test Post-Test

 Type I .04 .01 .01

 Type II .26 .19 .21

 Type III .78 .36 .22 

Violation Rate

0.9 

0.8 

0.7 

0.6 

0.5 

0.4 

0.3 

0.2 

0.1 

Pedestrian Violation Rates by Violation Type, All Crossings 

Type I 

Type II 

Type III 

Pre-Test Test Post-Test 

Figure 14. Pedestrian Violation Rates by Violation Type, All Crossings 

28 
Table 9. Probabilities for Differences of LS-Means, Pedestrian Violations, All Crossings 

Probabilities 

Differences of LS-Means 

Pedestrian Violations, All Crossings 

Type I Violations 

Period – Period Difference Probability 

 Pre-Test – Test 0.0223 <.0001 

 Pre-Test – Post-Test 0.0227 <.0001 

 Test – Post-Test 0.0004 0.8351 

Type II Violations

 Pre-Test – Test 0.0697 <.0001 

 Pre-Test – Post-Test 0.0477 <.0001 

 Test – Post-Test -0.0220 0.0078 

Type III Violations

 Pre-Test – Test 0.4166 <.0001 

 Pre-Test – Post-Test 0.5543 <.0001 

 Test – Post-Test 0.1377 <.0001 

Relatively few type I violations were committed by pedestrians; however, the violation rate was 

reduced by nearly 61 percent when measuring differences between the pre-test and the post-test 

periods. The type II violation rate for pedestrians for the same period was reduced by 18 percent. 

The type III violation rate experienced the greatest reduction, showing a reduction in violations of 

71 percent. All three types of pedestrian violations experienced a statistically significant reduction 

during the PEERS programs. Based upon these analyses, strong evidence exists that pedestrian 

behavior was affected at the Arlington Heights highway-rail grade crossings. The reduction in 

type I pedestrian violations was successful based on the designated 50 percent reduction project 

goal; the reduction in type II pedestrian violations was not deemed successful against the 

designated target goal; and the reduction in type III violations was deemed successful. 

An examination of all motorist violations at all crossings was undertaken to determine whether a 

relationship exists between test (or time) period and violation counts. The motorist violations were 

significantly reduced from the pre-test to the test period (p<0.0001) and from the pre-test to the 

post-test period (p<0.0001) (see Table 10). 

Table 10. Probabilities for Differences of LS-Means, Motorist Violations, All Crossings 

Probabilities 

Differences of LS-Means 

Motorist Violations, All Crossings 

Period – Period Difference Probability

 Pre-Test – Test 0.1741 <0.0001 

 Pre-Test – Post-Test 0.1775 <0.0001 

 Test – Post-Test 0.0035 0.8692 

The spread of the motorist violation data suggested the need for further testing of violations by 

type. Most motorist violations were type II violations. (See Table 6 above for violation counts.) 

Table 11 and Figure 15 contain motorist violation rates by type of violation, while 

29 
0 

Table 12 contains associated probabilities based upon differences of LS-means analysis. Over 

time, the type II violation rate decreased by 24 percent (p<0.0001), when measuring differences 

between the pre-test and the post-test periods. Although a reduction occurred in the type III 

violation rate for the motorist population for the same period, the change was not found to be 

statistically significant (p=0.1407). In addition, the data were too sparse for further analyses and 

showed a large variance. In contrast to the riskier type II and III violations, the motorist type I 

violation rate experienced an increase of 21 percent (p<0.0001) over the project duration. Motorist 

violations only saw a significant reduction in type II violations; however, this did not achieve the 

designated 50 percent reduction goal. With these findings, sufficient evidence does not exist to 

support the hypothesis that motorist behavior was affected on the whole. 

Table 11. Motorist Violation Rates by Violation Type, All Crossings 

Motorist Violation Rates by Violation Type 

for All Crossings 

Violation Pre-Test Test Post-Test

 Type I .42 .46 .51

 Type II 1.09 .88 .83

 Type III .01 .00 .00 

Motorist Violation Rates by Violation Type, All Crossings 

Violation Rate

1.2 

1 

0.8 

Type I 

0.6 Type II 

Type III 

0.4 

0.2 

Pre-Test Test Post-test 

Figure 15. Motorist Violation Rates by Violation Type, All Crossings 

30 
Table 12. Differences of LS-Means, Motorist Violations, All Crossings 

Differences of LS-Means 

Motorist Violations, All Crossings 

Type I Violations 

Period – Period Difference Probability 

 Pre-Test – Test -0.0385 0.0078 

 Pre-Test – Post-Test -0.0893 <0.0001 

 Test – Post-Test -0.0507 0.0001 

Type II Violations

 Pre-Test – Test 0.2113 <0.0001 

 Pre-Test – Post-Test 0.2627 <0.0001 

 Test – Post-Test 0.0514 <0.0001 

Type III Violations

 Pre-Test – Test 0.0013 0.5608 

 Pre-Test – Post-Test 0.0041 0.1407 

 Test – Post-Test 0.0028 0.1665 

5.5.4 Violation Counts and Rates by Crossing 

Each crossing in this study has different demographic and traffic characteristics. Arlington 

Heights Road carries primarily motor vehicle traffic and has a busy highway-highway intersection 

immediately to the north. Evergreen Avenue also carries primarily motor vehicle traffic, although 

not as heavy as Arlington Heights Road. Dunton Avenue has an adjacent commuter rail station 

and is therefore bustling with pedestrian activity, especially during the morning and evening rush 

hours. For these reasons, it is beneficial to separate the data by crossing. Figure 16 shows the 

distributions of violations by mode of transportation for each crossing. 

Pedestrian 

Motorist 

Figure 16. (Left to Right) Arlington Heights Road, Evergreen Avenue, and Dunton Avenue 

Distribution of Violations by Mode of Transportation 

A total of 20,717 train events were recorded at the Arlington Heights Road crossing over the 

course of the project. Traffic across the Arlington Heights Road crossing is primarily motorist 

traffic, with limited pedestrian activity. Table 13 and Figure 17 show motorist and pedestrian 

violation rates at Arlington Heights Road. 

The type I motorist violation rate experienced an increase throughout the course of the project. 

Motorist type II violations at Arlington Heights Road experienced a statistically significant 

reduction (p=0.0072) from the pre-test to the post-test period. The type II motorist violation rate at 

Arlington Heights Road was reduced by 16.3 percent from the pre-test to test period. An increase 

2% 

98% 

19% 

81% 

65% 

35% 

31 
Type

I 

ype

I I

Type

I II

Type

I 

Type

I I

Type

I II

Type

I 

Type

I I

Type

I II

(10.0 percent) in the type II motorist violation rate was observed, however, when measuring the 

difference between the test and post-test periods, indicating a rebound of the motorist behavior to 

past unsafe (violation of warning device) behaviors following the conclusion of the PEERS 

programs. Differences in the type III motorist violation rates between the three testing periods 

were minimal due to the very small sample size. The reduction from the pre-test to the post-test 

period in motorist type III violations at Arlington Heights Road were not found to be statistically 

significant (p=0.4665). Motorist violations at Arlington Heights Road were not reduced enough, 

or at all, to be considered a designated 50 percent reduction success. 

The magnitudes of the estimated differences for pedestrian violations at Arlington Heights Road 

were so small relative to other violation differences that the results were insignificant. Appendix 

D provides difference of LS-means tables for Arlington Heights Road. 

Table 13. Motorist and Pedestrian Violation Rates, Arlington Heights Road 

Arlington Heights Road 

Motorist and Pedestrian Violation Rates 

by Violation Type/Period 

Violation Type Mode Pre-Test Test Post-Test 

Type I M 1.09 1.17 1.21 

P 0.005 0.003 0.003 

Type II M 1.11 0.93 1.02 

P 0.08 0.03 0.02 

Type III M 0.004 0.004 0.001 

P 0.06 0.01 0.01 

1.6 

1.2 

0.8 

0.4 

0 

T

Pedestrian 

Motorist 

Pre-T

est

Test

Post-Test 

Figure 17. Motorist and Pedestrian Violation Rates, Arlington Heights Road 

32 
Like the Arlington Heights Road crossing, the Evergreen Avenue crossing had similar motorist 

and pedestrian traffic patterns. Table 14 and Figure 18 show motorist and pedestrian violation 

rates for Evergreen Avenue. 

The motorist violation rates for type I violations showed a slight reduction between the pre-test and 

test periods and a slight increase between the test and post-test periods. The net effect was one of 

no difference between the pre-test and post-test period type I motorist violation rates. The 

reduction in motorist type I violations from the pre-test to the post-test period was not statistically 

significant (p=0.9890). Motorist type II violations at Evergreen Avenue were reduced 

significantly from the pre-test to the post-test period (p<.0001). However, motorist type II 

violations only showed a reduction of 21.2 percent from the pre-test to the post-test period. 

Finally, the sample size for motorist type III violations at Evergreen Avenue was too small to draw 

any conclusions. The reduction in motorist type III violations from the pre-test to the post-test was 

not found to be statistically significant (p=0.1708). Overall, the reduction in motorist violation 

rates at Evergreen Avenue does not meet the designated 50 percent reduction goal. 

The magnitudes of the estimated differences in type I pedestrian violations at Evergreen Avenue 

were too small to draw any conclusions. The type II pedestrian violation rates between the pre-test 

and post-test periods was reduced 12.9 percent, but the reduction in type II violations during those 

periods was not found to be statistically significant (p=0.0742). The reduction in type III 

pedestrian violations was statistically significant (p<0.0001), and the violation rate was reduced 

37.6 percent. Although a reduction in type II and type III pedestrian violations occurred, at 

Evergreen Avenue, the designated 50 percent reduction goal was not met. Appendix D provides 

difference of LS-means tables for Evergreen Avenue. 

Table 14. Motorist and Pedestrian Violation Rates, Evergreen Avenue 

Evergreen Avenue 

Motorist and Pedestrian Violation Rates 

by Violation Type/Period 

Violation Type Mode Pre-Test Test Post-Test 

 Type I M 0.10 0.06 0.10 

P 0.04 0.01 0.01 

 Type II M 1.27 1.13 1.00 

P 0.26 0.21 0.23 

 Type III M 0.01 0.005 0.001 

P 0.11 0.04 0.07 

33 
II epyT 

II epyT 

II epyT 

1.5 

Type I

Type III

Type I

Type III Pedestrian 

Motorist 

Type I

Type III

1 

0.5 

0 

Pre-Test

Test

Post-Test 

Figure 18. Motorist and Pedestrian Violation Rates, Evergreen Avenue 

Unlike both the Arlington Heights Road crossing and the Evergreen Avenue crossing, the Dunton 

Avenue crossing has an adjacent Metra commuter rail station stop and, as such, has extremely 

different motorist and pedestrian traffic patterns. For this reason, heavy pedestrian activity occurs 

at the crossing, and this crossing exhibits the highest number of type III violations. Eighty-three 

percent of all pedestrian violations occurred at the Dunton Avenue crossing. Table 15 and Figure 

19 show motorist and pedestrian violation rates at Dunton Avenue. 

The type I motorist violation rate at Dunton Avenue did not change from the pre-test period to the 

test period and was reduced only slightly (12.4 percent) from the pre-test period to the post-test 

period. The reduction in pre-test and post-test period type I motorist violations was not significant 

(p=0.1207). The reduction in motorist type II violations was statistically significant (p<0.0001), 

and the motorist type II violation rate was reduced 38.7 percent from the pre-test period to the 

post-test period. The estimated differences in motorist type III violations at Dunton Avenue were 

too small to draw any meaningful conclusions. The reduction in all types of motorist violations at 

Dunton Avenue failed to meet the designated 50 percent reduction goal. 

The magnitudes of the estimated differences for type I pedestrian violations at Dunton Avenue 

were too small to yield any positive results. The type II pedestrian violation rates decreased 11.4 

percent from the pre-test period to the post-test period, but a statistically significant reduction did 

not occur (p=0.0597). Neither the reduction in pedestrian type I nor type II violations at Dunton 

Avenue met the designated 50 percent reduction goal. The type III pedestrian violation rates 

experienced a large reduction (76.3 percent) between the pre-test and post-test periods. The 

reduction in pre-test and post-test pedestrian type III violations at Dunton Avenue was statistically 

significant (p<0.0001). This reduction may be indicative of a behavioral change for pedestrians, 

most of whom are commuters, at the Dunton Avenue crossing. The reduction in pedestrian type 

III violations at Dunton Avenue is considered a success because it exceeds the designated 50 

percent goal. Appendix D provides difference of LS-means tables for Dunton Avenue. 

34 

2 
Type I 

Type I I Type I II

Type I 

Type I I

Type I II

Type I 

Type I I

Type I II

2.8 

2.1 

Pedestrian 

Motorist 1.4 

0.7 

0 

Pre-Test

Test

Post-Test 

Table 15. Motorist and Pedestrian Violation Rates, Dunton Avenue 

Dunton Avenue 

Motorist and Pedestrian Violation Rates 

by Violation Type/Period 

Violation Type Mode Pre-Test Test Post-Test 

Type I M 0.13 0.13 0.11 

P 0.07 0.03 0.03 

Type II M 0.88 0.61 0.54 

P 0.43 0.33 0.39 

Type III M 0.0004 0.003 0.001 

P 2.20 0.96 0.52 

Figure 19. Motorist and Pedestrian Violation Rates, Dunton Avenue 

5.5.5 Violation Counts and Rates During Blitz Activity 

Blitz activity occurred at all three crossings at various times during the 12-month test period, 

between September 1, 2003, and August 31, 2004. Three types of blitzes were conducted: 

information blitzes, motor vehicle enforcement blitzes, and pedestrian enforcement blitzes. 

Citations were only issued during the enforcement blitzes. Over the 12-month test period, the 

Arlington Heights police force conducted 8 information blitzes, 12 pedestrian enforcement blitzes, 

and 16 motor vehicle enforcement blitzes. The penalty for disobeying the grade crossing warning 

devices in Illinois is a mandatory $250 fine or 25 hours of community service. Eighty-three 

citations were issued during the blitzes: 9 to pedestrians, 5 to trespassers, and 69 to motor vehicle 

drivers. 

Only 29 of the 337 days of data collected in the test period experienced some blitz activity. Figure 

20 is a pie chart of the number of train events observed during the test period and whether they 

occurred on a blitz day or not. 

35 
4,607 

40,698 

Blitz Train Events 

Non-Blitz Train Events 

Figure 20. Count of Train Events on Blitz and Non-Blitz Days 

For analysis, the three types of blitzes were first combined into one because the effects are similar. 

The blitzes were not scheduled regularly nor were they evenly distributed throughout the 12-month 

period. For example, during the period of September 1, 2003, through October 31, 2003, 11 days 

had blitz activity as compared to the period of November 1, 2003, through December 31, 2003, 

where only 1 day had blitz activity. This made a balanced approach difficult. For this reason, 

Table 16 shows three time periods: the overall test period and the two 2-month periods with the 

most blitz activity. Comparing the entire test period with rates calculated only on associated blitz 

days, the violation rate for the days associated with the blitz efforts was only slightly lower than 

the violation rate calculated for all days within the test period. In periods with the most blitz 

activity, however, the violation rates were lower than the overall violation rate for that period. 

Table 16. Test Period Violation Rates versus Blitz Days Violation Rate 

Test Period Violation Rates versus 

Blitz Days Violation Rates 

9/1/03-

8/31/04 

9/1/03-

10/31/03 

7/1/04-

8/31/04 

Test Period 1.82 2.20 1.70 

Blitz Days 1.78 2.00 1.61 

Motorists and pedestrians were targeted differently during the blitz activities. The pedestrian 

enforcement blitzes had more officers present at the crossings than the motor vehicle enforcement 

blitzes. Pedestrians also had an opportunity to interact with the officers about crossing safety. For 

this reason, the evaluation team examined the effects of the blitzes on motorist and pedestrians 

separately. Table 17 and Figure 21 show the motorist and pedestrian violation rates for the test 

period, all blitz days, and the days on which the blitz targeted the mode of travel. Motorist 

36 
violation rates exhibited no change on all blitz and motor vehicle enforcement blitz days. 

Pedestrian violation rates, however, were 18.1 percent lower on all blitz days than the overall test 

period and 30.8 percent lower on days when there was a pedestrian enforcement blitz. These 

numbers suggest that pedestrians responded more positively to the information and enforcement 

blitzes. 

Table 17. Test Period Violation Rates versus All and Mode-Specific Blitz Days Violation 

Rates by Mode of Transportation 

Test Period Violation Rates versus All and 

Mode-Specific Blitz Days Violation Rates 

 Test Period 

All Blitz 

Days 

ModeSpecific 

Blitz Days 

Motorist 1.347 1.356 1.328 

Pedestrian 0.565 0.463 0.391 

1.6 

1.4 

Violation Rate

1.2 

1 

0.8 

Pedestrian Violation Rate 

Motorist Violation Rate 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0 

Test Period All Blitz Days Mode-Specific Blitz 

Days 

Figure 21. Test Period Violation Rates versus All and Mode-Specific Blitz Days Violation 

Rates by Mode of Transportation 

5.5.6 Violation Counts and Rates During Second Train Events 

During the course of the study, unforeseen environmental factors existed that could have affected 

the PEERS evaluation results. These factors were highway-rail grade crossing user incidents that 

occurred in the Chicago area during the PEERS study period. These incidents were high profile 

pedestrian fatalities; several of them included children. In particular, two of the fatalities were the 

result of a second train situation. A second train event occurs on a rail line with multiple tracks 

when two trains occupy the crossing warning block at the same time. The fatalities may have 

occurred because the victims did not expect another train to pass through the crossing. 

37 
Consideration was given to the potential effects of these incidents on highway-user behavior. Of 

particular interest was whether or not highway-users behaved more cautiously when a possibility 

of a second train event existed. This was done by comparing the violation rates for the pre-test and 

post-test periods. More specifically, this included comparing the violation rates for before the first 

train enters a crossing to the violation rates for after the first train departs a crossing. Table 18 

shows the comparison between pre-test and post-test type II violation rates for both before and 

after the first train. Only type II violation rates were used because type I and type III violation 

rates were considered too small to provide meaningful results. 

Table 18. Violation Rates for Type II Violations, Before and After the First Train 

Type II Violation Rates Before and After the First Train 

Pre-Test Post-Test Percent Reduction 

Type II 

Overall 1.35 1.04 23.0% 

Before First Train Arrival 0.33 0.31 6.1% 

After First Train Departure 1.02 0.73 28.4% 

For type II violation rates during the pre-test period, three times as many violations occurred after 

the first train departs as violations before the first train arrives. This is believed to be because 

when the train leaves the crossing, people are instilled with a false sense of security and ignore the 

crossing warning devices. The rate for before first train arrival was minimally reduced from pretest to post-test (6 percent). The type II violation rate for after the first train departure, however, 

was reduced almost 30 percent. This would indicate that highway-users were more sensitive to the 

possibility of a second train event. This behavior change may have been prompted by media 

attention to the fatal accidents. Because highway-users appeared sensitive to the possibility of 

second train coming situations, it can be hypothesized that their behavior would also be affected by 

additional safety improvements, such as passive or active second train warning devices. 

5.5.7 Other Performance Measures 

Time-to-collision, warning time, and violation time were also examined to evaluate the degree of 

risk associated with driver and pedestrian behavior. Time-to-collision is a performance measure of 

time, in seconds, of the estimated train arrival at the location of the violator when the violator 

enters the crossing zone. Warning time is the measure, in seconds, of the amount of time the 

motorist or pedestrian has to respond to the warning signals at the crossing. Violation time, in 

seconds, is a performance measure of the length of time between the activation of the crossing 

warning signals and the time of the violation. 

Time-to-collision and violation time were unchanged during the course of the study. These 

performance measures do not take into account the fact that fewer violations were committed in 

the test and post-test periods. The times are based on motorists and pedestrians that continue to 

commit violations. This result indicates that those highway-users who continue to commit 

violations continue to do so in the same manner. The warning times at the Arlington Heights 

crossings were consistent over the course of the study. This performance measure did not provide 

any new information. 

38 
6.0 Conclusions 

6.1 Conclusions and Recommendations 

The PEERS project can be deemed a success if one of two goals were met. The first goal was for 

the research to produce meaningful, transferable results. The second goal was for the PEERS 

program to be effective in changing behavior around highway-rail grade crossings. The programs 

are considered successful if the violation rate is reduced by the designated 50 percent goal over the 

course of the study. The first goal was met. The second goal was met for type III violations, 

which is representative of the most risky behavior. The PEERS project can therefore be 

considered successful. 

The results of the data analysis of the PEERS project revealed an overall decrease of 30.7 percent 

in the violation rate at the three crossings in Arlington Heights. However, more detailed 

information was available from the data collected during the PEERS evaluation study. The type of 

violation recorded conveyed additional information about specific highway-user behavior. The 

results showed decreases for the more risky type II and the most risky type III violations. A 

considerable reduction of 71.4 percent occurred in type III violations. This indicates that the 

PEERS programs were most effective in changing exceptionally risky behavior. 

The analysis of the data by mode of travel revealed that the reduction in motorist violations was 

not statistically significant. The reduction in all pedestrian violations was statistically significant. 

This indicates a safety conscious change in pedestrian behavior at the three grade crossings in 

Arlington Heights. By examining the data more closely, the majority of reductions in violations 

occurred at the Dunton Avenue crossing. The results showed the most significant reductions in 

pedestrian violations, especially the most risky, type III violations. The pedestrians at the Dunton 

Avenue crossing were mostly commuters accessing the adjacent commuter rail station. This group 

of highway-users entered the crossing zone on a regular basis and was likely exposed to most, if 

not all, of the blitz activities. The results determined a significant decrease in violations on blitz 

days, indicating the blitzes were an effective grade crossing safety tool for pedestrians. While 

waiting for trains to clear the highway-rail grade crossing, the commuters were a captive audience 

with time to listen, and experience enhanced education and enforcement efforts underway at the 

station and the crossing. The PEERS programs were effective in reducing the most dangerous 

pedestrian behaviors and were especially effective on commuters that were exposed to the crossing 

and the programs on a daily basis. 

Outside events may have impacted the results. For example, high profile fatal pedestrian incidents 

occurred at other crossings in the Chicago area. These may have affected highway-user behavior 

during second train events. 

The Volpe Center viewed and recorded over 60,000 train events and over 120,000 violations at the 

three Arlington Heights crossings. The sample size collected was large enough to provide 

statistical confidence in the results. The results are transferable and could be replicated under 

similar circumstances. 

The analysis of the PEERS enhanced education and enforcement programs provides support to the 

following recommendations: 

39 
• Crossing demographics and characteristics were determined to play a large role in 

the results of the PEERS programs; therefore, data from other communities could 

be analyzed with a stronger focus on the crossing environment. 

• A more global picture can be developed by conducting a comparison study of 

PEERS efforts in rural versus urban/suburban communities. The raw video data 

collected from Macomb, IL, could be analyzed for a rural perspective. 

• The Microsoft Access database for Arlington Heights contains additional 

information not used in the analysis in this report. These data fields may be used 

for future studies exploring driver behavior or other areas. 

• The enhanced education and enforcement initiatives could be evaluated using a cost 

benefit study. This study could use potential lives saved versus the cost of law 

enforcement to conduct blitzes. 

• Another area worthy of pursuit is investigating how often blitzes should be 

performed to maximize effectiveness. 

• Second train warning devices (either active or passive) may be useful in 

discouraging risky highway-user behavior at multiple track crossings. 

6.2 Lessons Learned 

During the course of the project, the PEERS team encountered unexpected obstacles and 

complexities. These situations were handled accordingly and provide a basis of knowledge that 

will serve to improve future remote data collection projects. A major point of interest during the 

PEERS was cyber and network security. Government networks and connections must be certified, 

as directed under new guidance and regulation, to adhere to security standards and procedures. In 

addition to in-house equipment, the field computers must also meet stringent security guidelines. 

The use of firewall and anti-virus software can protect against computer hacking and virus 

infiltration. In addition to security, the PEERS team also encountered slow data transfer speeds to 

the Volpe Center. The reason was an inadequate upload speed from the field computers. The 

project incurred additional cost to increase the upload speed so that files could be transferred at a 

reasonable rate. 

The installation of the field camera equipment also provided some learning experiences. The 

Arlington Heights street lights were on a photocell, operating only during the dark hours. A solar 

powered battery pack was designed to resolve this issue. However, the pole mounted battery 

compartments must be tightly secured to reduce vibration and movement that could result in 

camera malfunction. 

The involvement of many stakeholders proved another challenge for the PEERS team. Creating a 

working relationship with a variety of stakeholders takes time, effort, patience, and compromise. 

The project schedule must account for additional time to get all parties involved. 

Anytime people are forced to change their behavior, there will be those who will resist. On 

enforcement blitz days, police officers required highway-users to comply with the crossing 

warning devices. At times, this compliance meant passengers missing their trains. Articles were 

published in the local newspaper detailing the public’s difficulty accepting the enforced grade 

crossing safety rules. Figure 22 shows a photograph of a law enforcement officer requiring 

commuters to comply with the crossing warning devices. 

40 
Figure 22. Law Enforcement Requires Compliance with the Crossing Warning Devices, 

Dunton Avenue 

41 
42 
Appendix A. 

Site Survey Documents

43 
Technical Report U.S. Department of Transportation 

Research and John A. Volpe

Special Programs National Transportation Systems Center 

Administration 

Subject: Public Education and Enforcement Research Date: November 14, 2002 

Study: Technical Site Survey Report 

From: William Baron, Patrick Bien-Aime, Anya Carroll, Alan Reply to 

Attn of: Volpe Center, DTS-75 Kauffman, Andy Lam, Steven M. Peck, and Suzanne Sposato 

To: Ron Reis, Manager of Grade Crossing Safety Programs 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Steve Laffey, Transportation Policy Analyst 

Illinois Commerce Commission 

The Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety Research Team of the Volpe Center was tasked by the 

FRA Office of Safety to work with the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) on a project entitled 

the “Public Education and Enforcement Research Study (PEERS)”. The PEERS team includes 

William Baron, Patrick Bien-Aime, Anya Carroll, Alan Kauffman, Andy Lam, Steven M. Peck, 

and Suzanne Sposato. The objective of this project is to demonstrate that through enhanced 

education and awareness activities, in combination with targeted enforcement, violations of traffic 

laws at highway-railroad grade crossings can be significantly reduced. The Volpe Center has been 

tasked to purchase and install video surveillance systems, to collect, monitor and analyze data, and 

to develop a report summarizing the motorist and pedestrian behavior at eight grade crossings in 

three Illinois communities. 

The project entails the collection and analysis of motorist and pedestrian behavior data for 18 

months at eight highway-rail grade crossings in three communities in Illinois. The three 

communities are Macomb, Bartlett, and Arlington Heights. There are three grade crossings in 

Macomb, two grade crossings in Bartlett, and three grade crossings in Arlington Heights. Site 

surveys were initially conducted on June 25 – 26, 2002 and then again on September 24 – 26, 

2002. 

This memorandum discusses (1) the observations and findings at each grade crossing from the site 

visit and (2) additional issues that need to be addressed the Volpe Center. 

The PEERS team conducted grade crossing site surveys in Macomb on June 25, 2002 and on 

September 25, 2002, and in Bartlett and Arlington Heights on June 26, 2002 and on September 24 

and 26, 2002. At each grade crossing railroad personnel accompanied the team. The team 

44 
surveyed each grade crossing, examined the area surrounding the grade crossing, interviewed 

railroad personnel, and documented their findings. Listed below are the findings for each grade 

crossing broken down by community. 

Macomb, IL 

Macomb is located 200 miles west of Chicago and home to Western Illinois University. The 

town’s approximate population is 18,558, which includes the university’s enrollment of 10,573 

undergraduate students. 

Macomb is situated along the Burlington Northern and Sante Fe Railroad Company (BNSF) 

railroad that carries approximately 20 trains per day, two Amtrak trains and eighteen freight trains. 

The grade crossings to be evaluated are Jackson Street crossing, Ward Street crossing, and 

Lafayette Street crossing. 

The findings of the site visit including the technical survey list, digital photographs, and proposed 

pole locations are included in Attachment 1 (Site Survey List – Macomb, IL). 

Bartlett, IL 

Bartlett is a suburb of Chicago approximately thirty-five miles to the northwest. The village of 

Bartlett has an approximate population of 37,000 residents. 

Bartlett is situated along a Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation (Metra) 

line that is owned and operated under contract by the Union Pacific Railroad. The two grade 

crossings to be evaluated in Bartlett are the Oak Ave crossing and the Western Ave crossing. 

The two grade crossings are approximately 900 feet apart with a Metra station located between the 

two grade crossings, adjacent to the Oak Ave crossing. 

The findings of the site visit including the technical survey list, digital photographs, and proposed 

pole locations are included in Attachment 2 (Site Survey List – Bartlett, IL). 

Arlington Heights, IL 

Arlington Heights is a suburb of Chicago approximately twenty-two miles to the north. The 

village of Arlington Heights has an approximate population of 76,031 residents. 

Arlington Heights is also situated along a Metra line that is owned 

and operated under contract by the Union Pacific Railroad. The 

three grade crossings to be evaluated are the Dunton Street crossing, 

the Evergreen Street crossing, and the Arlington Heights Road 

crossing. 

The three grade crossings are located approximately 700 feet apart with a Metra station located 

adjacent to the Dunton Avenue crossings. 

45 
The findings of the site visit including the technical survey list, digital photographs, and proposed 

pole locations are included in Attachment 3 (Site Survey List – Arlington Heights, IL). 

The Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety Research Team of the Volpe Center attended the PEERS 

project kick-off meeting on June 27, 2002 in Downers Grove, IL. The meeting consisted of the 

introductions of each group involved in the project, a presentation by the Volpe PEERS Project 

Manager detailing the Volpe Center’s capabilities, and a discussion of what needs to be done to 

continue the project in a timely manner. The presentation and the meeting minutes are contained 

in Attachment 4. 

The site surveys conducted in June and September of 2002 provided valuable information required 

to proceed farther with this project. Many additional issues have surfaced as a result of the 

surveys. Currently the Volpe PEERS team is working on solutions for these problems. The main 

issues that require attention include high-speed Internet connection, active continuous power 

sources, system issues, and camera issues. 

The following issues were address at the PEERS team meeting held on October 28, 2002 Room 6-

625 at the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center in Cambridge, MA: 

General information 

Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) has to be a mile within company’s central office in order for it to 

properly connect. There is no problem in Arlington Heights, but Bartlett and Macomb still remain 

questionable. A PEERS team member will look up an online map and assign a street addresses for 

the Bartlett and Macomb bungalows and determine their distances from the nearest DSL central 

office. The lead time for DSL is about two weeks. 

The cameras will not have landline cables connecting them to the system. Video will be send back 

wirelessly to the bungalows. Therefore, power is needed for the cameras to operate. There will be 

six cameras connected to each system. 

1. DSL issues 

Arlington Heights 

• Arlington Heights has a phone line with high speed provider Ameritech. 

• Union Pacific (UP) doesn’t want the PEERS system in their railroad bungalow, therefore, a 

separate box will be mounted outside next to the railroad bungalow (see Arlington Heights 

block diagram). 

Bartlett 

• Western Avenue and Oak Avenue have no addresses and no phone lines. 

Macomb 

46 
• Jackson Street has a phone line, but not with Ameritech and an Ameritech line is needed to 

get DSL. 

• Lafayette Street and Ward Street have no addresses, and therefore, no phone line. 

Power issues 

Arlington Heights 

• Dunton Avenue North – IDOT Traffic Signal pole will be used, an electrician will be hired 

to install an outlet. 

• Dunton Avenue South – Outlet exists, but it is on photo cell timer, therefore, power supply 

to the poles is needed. 

• Evergreen Avenue North-IDOT Traffic Signal pole will be used, an electrician will be 

hired to install an outlet. 

• Evergreen Avenue South – Outlet exist, but it is on photo cell timer, therefore, power 

supply to the poles is needed. 

• Arlington Heights Road North-IDOT Traffic Signal pole will be used, an electrician will be 

hired to install an outlet. 

• Arlington Heights Road North-IDOT Traffic Signal pole will be used, an electrician will be 

hired to install an outlet. 

Bartlett 

• Western Avenue North-Outlet already exist, but power is on photo cell timer. Rechargeable 

power supply is needed for the poles. 

• Western Avenue South-Outlet already exist, but it is on photo cell timer. Rechargeable 

power supply is needed for the poles. 

• Oak Avenue North-Outlet already exist, but it is on a photo cell timer. Rechargeable power 

supply is needed for the poles. 

• Oak Avenue South-Outlet already exist, but it is on photo cell timer. Rechargeable power 

supply is needed for the poles. 

Macomb 

• Lafayette Street East-No power problem, an outlet was added by an electrician and will be 

sending a bill for $140.00. 

47 
• Lafayette Street West-No power problem, outlet already in place. 

• Jackson Street East-No problem, power will be running from an adjacent bungalow. 

• Jackson Street West – Ameran, a private company, will provide power after the Volpe 

Center provides receptacle mast and weather head. 

• Ward Street North – Ameran, a private company, will provide power after the Volpe 

Center provides receptacle mast and weather head. 

• Ward Street East. Ameran, a private company, will provide power after the Volpe Center 

provide receptacle mast and weather head. 

System issues 

• The new Loronix system has no audio input and no modem, but it has a network interface 

card and different video compression. 

• The PEERS project will use two new Loronix systems and if possible two older Loronix 

systems will be upgraded. 

Cameras issues 

• An uninterruptible power supply (UPS) will be used for the poles without photo cell timers. 

48 
Arlington Heights – Dunton Ave, Evergreen Ave, and Arlington Heights Rd

Block Diagram

49 
Volpe Box Diagram for Evergreen Avenue in Arlington Heights 

Dunton and 

Al. Heights Evergreen 

Bungalow Bungalow 

XR-4 

RF Video Receiver Loronix 

RF Pulse 

(XT-1) 

Antenna 

Antenna Antenna 

HOAC 

Power Track Circuitry 

Traffic Control 

Signal Output 

Module 

Track Circuitry 

Traffic Control 

Signal Output 

Module 

Phone 

DSL 

Modem 

Trench 

Volpe Box 

(This is an 

interconnect we 

are requesting 

from the RR) 

50 
Evergreen Avenue - Arlington Heights 

Fence Behind Bungalow

 Top View

4 ft 3 in 

 Front View 

Railroad Bungalow 

Railroad Bungalow 

4 ft 

51 
Attachment 1-Site Survey List U.S. Depart

of Tran

ment 

sportation 

Research and John A. Volpe

Special Programs National Transportation Systems Center 

Administration 

Location: Macomb, IL Date: June 25, 2002 

September 25, 2002 

Surveyor: VOLPE PEERS TEAM 

Contact: Corzett, Dan – Signal Supervisor; BNSF 

Golder, Dwight – Manager Signals; BNSF 

BNSF Flag man 

Notes: 

On June 25, 2002 three Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway 

Company (BNSF) representatives provided the PEERS team with a 

safety briefing and then accompanied the PEERS team to all three 

crossings in the village of Macomb. 

On September 25, 2002 two BNSF representatives accompanied the 

PEERS team at all three crossings in the village of Macomb. The 

railroad bungalows were opened and the PEERS team was permitted 

to view the inside. The positions of possible poles to mount cameras 

were recorded. The Ward Street crossing has streetlights on the 

north and south sides that would make reasonable choices. The 

railroad tracks cross Jackson Street, a five-lane highway, at an angle. 

In order to capture all crossing activity poles nearly 300 feet away 

will have to be used. The Lafayette Street crossing does not offer 

any options for pole mounts on the north side. It will be 

unconventionally monitored with both cameras on the south side. 

The PEERS team was met later that afternoon with an official of the 

Village of Macomb Department of Public Works to discuss electrical 

power in the selected poles. 

General Information 

* All three crossings are on the same section of BNSF track. 

1 City: Macomb 

2 County: McDonough 

3 Track Owner: BNSF 

4 Number of Tracks: One 

5 Train Frequency: 20 / Day 

52 
6 Train Type: 2 Amtrak 

18 Freight 

7 Rail Road Personnel Assistance: Yes 

8 Rail Road Property Access: Yes 

Lafayette Street Crossing 

1 DOT Crossing Number: 072896B 

2 Bungalow Mile Post Number: 202.36 

3 Type of Tracks: Main 

4 Type of Crossing: Public At Grade 

5 Speed Range: 1 to 79 

6 Maximum Speed: 79 

7 Warning Device: Signs: 3 Reflective Cross Bucks 

8 Warning Device: Train Activated: 3 R/W Reflective Gates 

3 Sets of Mast Mounted FL 

3 Sets of Cantilever Mounted FL 

1 Bell 

9 Commercial Power Available: Yes 

10 Type of Development: Commercial 

11 Smallest Crossing Angle: 30 to 59 Degrees 

12 Number of Traffic Lanes Crossing Tracks: 5 

13 Pavement Crosshatch Markings: Yes 

14 Estimated AADT: 9100 

15 Blue Print Availability: Yes 

16 Pole Locations: See Lafayette Street Drawing 

17 Recent Accident History: 

No major accidents recently. On average one gate a month is broken off. There has been a 

maximum of four gates broken in one month. 

18 Environment Description: 

The area is commercial. There are businesses on either side of Lafayette street to the north of 

the grade crossing. There are businesses and the town common to the south side. The crossing 

is complex (See attached drawing and digital photographs.). 

19 Gate Description: 

There are gates from all approaches. Three gates total. No pedestrian gates. The gates are all 

train activated. 

20 Pedestrian Description: 

There did not appear to be much pedestrian activity, however the town common and businesses 

are on one side of the crossing with commercial and residential areas on the other. 

Jackson Street Crossing 

1 DOT Crossing Number: 072890K 

2 Bungalow Mile Post Number: 202.91 

3 Type of Tracks: Main 

4 Type of Crossing: Public At Grade 

5 Speed Range: 1 to 79 

6 Maximum Speed: 79 

7 Warning Device: Signs: 2 Reflective Cross Bucks 

8 Warning Device: Train Activated: 2 R/W Reflective Gates 

2 Sets of Cantilever Mounted FL 

4 Sets of Mast Mounted FL 

1 Bell 

9 Commercial Power Available: Yes 

10 Type of Development: Commercial 

11 Smallest Crossing Angle: 30 to 59 Degrees 

12 Number of Traffic Lanes Crossing Tracks: 5 

53 
13 Pavement Crosshatch Markings: Yes 

14 Estimated AADT: 12100 

15 Blue Print Availability: Yes 

16 Pole Locations: See Jackson Street Drawing 

17 Recent Accident History: 

There has been one recent accident. A car was pushed into the crossing by a tractor-trailer. 

The train did see the car and slowed to less than 10 mph. No one was hurt, everyone had 

evacuated from the vehicles. 

18 Environment Description: 

The area is commercial. The track crosses the road at an angle of approximately 22 degrees. 

There is over 300 feet between the gates. Within this span, there are entrance/exits to four 

businesses. Two of the businesses appear closed. Another is a car wash and the last is a 

business with an entrance/exit outside of the gates and crossing. The road is 5-lane highway 

with 2 lanes in both directions and a center turning lane. The gates do not block the turning 

lane. (See attached drawing and digital photographs.) 

19 Gate Description: 

There are gates on both approaches that are train activated. The gates cover 2 lanes of traffic 

each, leaving the center lane un-gated. 

20 Pedestrian Description: 

There did not appear to be much pedestrian foot traffic. 

Ward Street Crossing 

1 DOT Crossing Number: 072906E 

2 Bungalow Mile Post Number: 203.11 

3 Type of Tracks: Main 

4 Type of Crossing: Public At Grade 

5 Speed Range: 1 to 79 

6 Maximum Speed: 79 

7 Warning Device: Signs: 2 Reflective Cross Bucks 

8 Warning Device: Train Activated: 2 R/W Reflective Gates 

2 Sets of Mast Mounted FL 

1 Bell 

9 Commercial Power Available: Yes 

10 Type of Development: Commercial 

11 Smallest Crossing Angle: 30 to 59 Degrees 

12 Number of Traffic Lanes Crossing Tracks: 2 

13 Pavement Crosshatch Markings: No 

14 Estimated AADT: 8200 

15 Blue Print Availability: Yes 

16 Pole Locations: See Ward Street Drawing 

17 Recent Accident History: 

There have not been any accidents at the crossing within the past ten years. 

18 Environment Description: 

The area is commercial. There is steady motor vehicle traffic. There is a dirt road parallel to 

the tracks to the north; it accesses a Wendy’s parking lot. There is a road parallel to the tracks 

to the south; it accesses a storage facility on the southwest corner and an auto body shop on the 

southeast corner. (See attached drawing and digital photographs.) 

19 Gate Description: 

There are gates on both approaches that are train activated. The gates are typical two-quadrant 

gates. 

20 Pedestrian Description: 

There did not appear to be much pedestrian foot traffic. 

54 
Lafayette St. 

Randolph St. 

Not to scale 

Calhoun St. 

90 ft 

Mile post 0202.28 

Mile post 0202.36 

Mile post 0202.91 

107 ft 

Car wash 

Jackson St. E. Jackson St. 

55 

N 

Macomb – Randolph, Lafayette, and Jackson Street. 

Macomb–Lafayette St., Jackson St., Block Diagram 
56 

Macomb–Lafayette Street Crossing # 079896B 

Railroad Milepost: 0202.36

 N 

Bungalow 

Gate 

 Wood pole 

 Not to scale 

Lafa

yette St. 

Calhoun St 

RR Station 

RR Platform

 Town 

Common 
Lafayette Street Crossing 

Macomb, IL

Figure 1. Southeast corner facing northwest. Figure 2. Southwest corner facing north. 

Figure 3. Northeast corner facing south. Figure 4. Northwest corner facing southeast. 

2. 

Figure 6. Northwest corner facing southeast. Figure 7. Northeast corner facing southwest. 

57 
Macomb–Jackson Street Crossing # 072890K 

Railroad Milepost: 0202.91 

Car Wash 

Bungalow 

Gate 

 Wood Pole 

Jackson St. 

36 ft 

285 ft 

333 ft 

39 ft 

N 

 Not to scale 

58 
Jackson Street Crossing

Macomb, IL

Figure 1. Northeast corner facing west. Figure 2. Southwest corner facing west. 

Figure 3. Southeast corner facing northeast. Figure 4. Northwest corner facing east. 

Figure 5. Southeast corner facing northwest. Figure 6. Southeast corner facing northeast. 

59 
N

Bungalow 

Gate 

Wood pole 

120 ft 

6 ft 72 ft 

78 ft 

60 

Macomb–Ward Street Crossing # 072906E 

Railroad Milepost: 0203.14 

 Not to scale 
Ward Street Crossing 

Macomb, IL

Figure 1. Northwest corner facing south. Figure 2. Northeast corner facing west. 

Figure 3. Southwest corner facing northeast. Figure 4. Southwest corner facing north. 

Figure 5. Southwest corner facing east. Figure 6. Southeast corner facing northwest. 

61 
Location: Bartlett, IL 

Surveyor: VOLPE PEERS TEAM 

Date: June 26, 2002 

September 24, 2002 

Contact: Gasinski, Jack-Metra Safety Official 

McCormack, Elizabeth – Village of Bartlett Administrative Assistant 

Kuester, Paul – Village of Bartlett Department of Public Works 

Notes: 

Jack Gasinski of Metra accompanied the PEERS team at the grade crossings in the village of 

Bartlett and the village of Arlington Heights. The official provided a safety briefing before the 

grade crossing evaluations in the village of Arlington Heights. 

The two grade crossings are on the same section of Metra rail line. 

The two grade crossings are located approximately 842 feet apart 

with a Metra station located adjacent to the Oak Avenue grade 

crossing and between the grade crossings. 

On September 24, 2002 a Mr. Gasinski accompanied the PEERS 

team at both grade crossings in the village of Bartlett. The 

bungalows could not be opened. Contacts within the Metra 

signaling department were suggested to obtain a dedicated line 

within the relay house. Representatives from the Village of 

Bartlett and the Department of Public Works were contacted to 

obtain permission to use town-owned decorative light poles to 

mount cameras. 

General Information (All Crossings) 

* Both crossings are on the same section of Metra track. 

1 City: Bartlett 

2 County: Cook 

3 Track Owner: Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter 

Railroad Corporation (Metra) 

4 Number of Tracks: 2 

5 Train Frequency: 46 

Attachment 2-Site Survey List U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Research and John A. Volpe

Special Programs National Transportation Systems Center 

Administration 

62 
6 Train Type: 

7 Rail Road Personnel Assistance: Yes 

8 Rail Road Property Access: Yes 

Oak Avenue Crossing 

1 DOT Crossing Number: 372206B 

2 Bungalow Mile Post Number: 0030.09 

3 Type of Tracks: Main 

4 Type of Crossing: Public At Grade 

5 Speed Range: 1 – 70 

6 Maximum Speed: 70 

7 Warning Device: Signs: 2 Reflective Cross Bucks 

8 Warning Device: Train Activated: 2 R/W Reflective Gates 

1 Colored Gate 

2 Sets of Mast Mounted FL 

1 Bell 

9 Commercial Power Available: Yes 

10 Type of Development: Commercial 

11 Smallest Crossing Angle: 60 to 90 Degrees 

12 Number of Traffic Lanes Crossing Tracks: 2 

13 Pavement Crosshatch Markings: Yes 

14 Estimated AADT: 8900 

15 Blue Print Availability: Yes 

16 Pole Locations: See Oak Avenue Drawing 

17 Recent Accident History: 

No recent accidents. The last documented accident occurred on September 24, 1980. 

18 Environment Description: 

The area is commercial on both sides of the tracks. There is a Metra station adjacent to the 

crossing. There are non-gated pedestrian crossings. See attached drawing and digital 

photographs. 

19 Gate Description: 

There are gates for both approaches. Both gates are train activated. There are no pedestrian 

gates. There are also 2 pedestrian crossings located further away from the crossing. Neither of 

these pedestrian crossings have any type of warning device. 

20 Pedestrian Description: 

There appears to be much pedestrian traffic at and around the crossing. There are Metra station 

platforms on either side of the tracks, with a station building only on one side. 

Western Avenue Crossing 

1 DOT Crossing Number: 372207H 

2 Bungalow Mile Post Number: 0030.26 

3 Type of Tracks: Main 

4 Type of Crossing: Public At Grade 

5 Speed Range: 10 to 70 

6 Maximum Speed: 70 

7 Warning Device: Signs: 2 Reflective Cross Bucks 

8 Warning Device: Train Activated: 2 Colored Gates 

2 Sets of Mast Mounted FL 

1 Bells 

9 Commercial Power Available: Yes 

10 Type of Development: Open Space 

11 Smallest Crossing Angle: 60 to 90 Degrees 

12 Number of Traffic Lanes Crossing Tracks: 2 

13 Pavement Crosshatch Markings: Yes 

63 
14 Estimated AADT: 500 

15 Blue Print Availability: Yes 

16 Pole Locations: See Western Avenue Drawing 

17 Recent Accident History: 

No recent accidents. The last documented accident occurred on January 23, 1998. 

18 Environment Description: 

The area is open on one side of the crossing and commercial on the other. There does not 

appear to be much pedestrian or vehicle traffic at this crossing. See attached drawing and 

digital photographs. 

19 Gate Description: 

There are gates on both approaches. Both gates are train activated. There are no pedestrian 

gates. 

20 Pedestrian Description: 

There does not appear to be much pedestrian traffic at the crossing. 

64 
 N 

Western Ave.

Oak Ave.

Hickory Ave. 

Bartlett Ave. 

Main St. 

842 ft 

Parking 

Lot Parking 

Platform 

Metra Station 

Bartlett–Western, and Oak Avenue

65 
 One way

212 ft 

RR station platform 

83 ft 

78 ft 

Pole 

Bungalow 

Pedestrian 

Gate 

Pole 

Pole 

Oak Ave. 

RR station Platform 

Metra Station 

102 ft 

102 ft 

40 ft 

19 ft 

Bartlett–Oak Avenue Crossing # 372206B 

Railroad Milepost: 0030.09 

N 

 Not to scale 

66 
Oak Avenue Crossing 

Bartlett, IL 

Figure 1. Southeast corner facing northwest. Figure 2. Southwest corner facing north. 

Figure 3. Northwest corner facing southeast. Figure 4. Northeast corner facing south. 

Figure 5. Northeast corner facing west. Figure 6. Southwest corner facing east. 

67 
68 

Bartlett–Western Avenue Crossing # 372207H 

Railroad Milepost: 0030.26

N 

 Not to scale 

 29 ft 

38 ft 

Bungalow 

Pedestrian 

Gate 

Pole 

Western Ave. 

150 ft 

25.5 ft 

39 ft 

Telephone 

25 ft 

26 ft 

30 ft 
Western Avenue Crossing 

Bartlett, IL 

Figure 1. Southeast corner facing northwest. Figure 2. Southwest corner facing north. 

Figure 3. Northwest corner facing southeast. Figure 4. Northeast corner facing south. 

Figure 5. Southeast corner facing north. Figure 6. Southwest corner facing northeast. 

69 
Attachment 3-Site Survey List U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Research and John A. Volpe

Special Programs National Transportation Systems Center 

Administration 

Location: Arlington Heights, IL Date: June 26, 2002 

September 26, 2002 

Surveyor: VOLPE PEERS TEAM 

Contact: Gasinkski, Jack – Metra Safety Official 

Lienemann, Jerry – Union Pacific Manager Of Field Engineering 

Free, Rich – Union Pacific Manager of Signaling Projects 

Ferguson, Leon – Union Pacific District Signal Foreman 

Mullany, Steve – Village of Arlington Heights Department of Public Works 

Notes: 

Jack Gasinski of Metra Safety gave the PEERS team a safety briefing before the crossing 

evaluations and accompanied the PEERS team at all three crossings in the village of Arlington 

Heights. 

The Metra line through Arlington Heights is owned and operated by the Union Pacific Railroad 

Company (UP) under contract with Metra. Mr. Gasinski did not know the specifics of the three 

crossings and suggested the team contact UP. Mr. Gasinski tried to contact UP with the PEERS 

team present but was unable to receive any information. 

The three crossings are on the same rail line within an approximately 1000-foot span. 

There are no town or utility poles available in the village of Arlington Heights. All lines are 

buried, including the railroad lines. There are however, traffic poles and street light poles that 

may be available for use to mount cameras. 

On September 26, 2002 representatives from UP accompanied the PEERS team at all three 

crossings. UP expressed its desire to have the recording system housed in an external box 

behind the bungalow. A cable to connect the system to the track activation circuitry can be taken 

into the bungalow. The UP workers currently use digital radios that operate at 900 MHz and 930 

MHz. It is essential that the system transmission signals do not interfere with the UP radio 

signals. The UP must be provided design specifications of the system and the interconnection to 

the railroad circuitry. They also must be notified in advance of the date and duration of the 

installation visit. There are sufficient poles for which to mount cameras. In the afternoon, a 

representative of the Village of Arlington Heights Department of Public Works met with the 

70 
PEERS team to discuss power supply issues in the desired, suitable poles chosen to mount 

cameras. 

General Information (All Crossings) 

* All three crossings are on the same section of Union Pacific Railroad Company track. 

1 City: Arlington Heights 

2 County: Cook 

3 Track Owner: Union Pacific Railway (UP) 

4 Number of Tracks: Three 

5 Train Frequency: 75 

6 Train Type: 63 Metra 

12 Freight 

7 Rail Road Personnel Assistance: Yes 

8 Rail Road Property Access: Yes 

Dunton Avenue Crossing 

1 DOT Crossing Number: 176925Y 

2 Bungalow Mile Post Number: 0022.46 

3 Type of Tracks: Main 

4 Type of Crossing: Public At Grade 

5 Speed Range: 20 to 40 

6 Maximum Speed: 40 

7 Warning Device: Signs: 2 Signs that state “3-TRACKS” 

2 Reflective Cross Bucks 

8 Warning Device: Train Activated: 6 R/W Reflective Gates 

4 Sets of Mast Mounted FL 

1 Set of Cantilever Mounted FL 

1 Bell 

9 Commercial Power Available: Yes 

10 Type of Development: Commercial 

11 Smallest Crossing Angle: 60 to 90 Degrees 

12 Number of Traffic Lanes Crossing Tracks: 4 

13 Pavement Crosshatch Markings: Yes 

14 Estimated AADT: 1600 

15 Blue Print Availability: Yes 

16 Pole Locations: See Dunton Avenue Drawing 

17 Recent Accident History: 

The last reported accident at the crossing occurred on June 19, 2002. This accident involved an 

automobile in the North Direction stopped in the crossing. The vehicle was unoccupied during 

the collision and no one was injured. The next most recent accident occurred in February of 

1977. 

18 Environment Description: 

The area is commercial on both sides of the track. There is a Metra station adjacent to the 

crossing. See attached drawing and digital photographs. 

19 Gate Description: 

There are traditional gates on both approaches and pedestrian gates at all 4 corners. All gates 

are train activated. 

20 Pedestrian Description: 

There is a Metra station adjacent to the crossing. There is a center track platform. There is 

continuous pedestrian traffic moving about the crossing. 

71 
Evergreen Avenue Crossing 

1 DOT Crossing Number: 176924S 

2 Bungalow Mile Post Number: 0022.39 

3 Type of Tracks: Main 

4 Type of Crossing: Public At Grade 

5 Speed Range: 20 to 40 

6 Maximum Speed: 40 

7 Warning Device: Signs: 2 Signs that state “3-TRACKS” 

2 Reflective Cross Bucks 

8 Warning Device: Train Activated: 6 R/W Reflective Gates 

4 Sets of Mast Mounted FL 

1 Bell 

9 Commercial Power Available: Yes 

10 Type of Development: Commercial 

11 Smallest Crossing Angle: 60 to 90 Degrees 

12 Number of Traffic Lanes Crossing Tracks: 2 

13 Pavement Crosshatch Markings: Yes 

14 Estimated AADT: 3400 

15 Blue Print Availability: Yes 

16 Pole Locations: See Evergreen Avenue Drawing 

17 Recent Accident History: 

No accidents reported at this crossing. 

18 Environment Description: 

The area is commercial on both sides of the track. Dunton Ave crossing is 325 feet to the west 

and Arlington Heights Road crossing is 306 feet to the east. See attached drawing and digital 

photographs. 

19 Gate Description: 

There are gates on both approaches and pedestrian gates at all 4 corners. All gates are train 

activated. 

20 Pedestrian Description: 

The area around the crossing is commercial; however there does not appear to be much 

pedestrian activity in the area. 

Arlington Heights Road Crossing 

1 DOT Crossing Number: 176923K 

2 Bungalow Mile Post Number: 0022.31 

3 Type of Tracks: Main 

4 Type of Crossing: Public At Grade 

5 Speed Range: 20 to 40 

6 Maximum Speed: 40 

7 Warning Device: Signs: 2 Signs that state “3-TRACKS” 

2 Reflective Cross Bucks 

1 Dynamic “No Turn” Lighted Sign 

8 Warning Device: Train Activated: 3 R/W Reflective Gates 

2 Sets of Cantilever Mounted FL 

2 Sets of Mast Mounted FL 

1 Bell 

9 Commercial Power Available: Yes 

10 Type of Development: Commercial 

11 Smallest Crossing Angle: 60 to 90 Degrees 

12 Number of Traffic Lanes Crossing Tracks: 4 

13 Pavement Crosshatch Markings: Yes 

14 Estimated AADT: 28400 

72 
15 Blue Print Availability: Yes 

16 Pole Locations: See Arlington Height Road Drawing 

17 Recent Accident History: 

The last reported accident occurred on January 4, 1999. The accident involved an automobile 

traveling in the north direction that drove into the crossing and was hit by a train. No injury 

was reported. Since 1980, there have been 8 accidents including the one in January of 1999. 

As a result of these accidents there has been 3 fatalities and 4 injuries reported. The last fatality 

occurred as a result of an accident on March 3, 1998. 

18 Environment Description: 

The area on either side of the tracks is commercial. The roads have heavy automobile traffic. 

There is not as much pedestrian traffic. This is a slightly more complicated crossing that is 

located at the crossing of Arlington Heights RD and Northwest Highway (See attached drawing 

and digital photographs.). 

19 Gate Description: 

Gates form both approaches. There is only one pedestrian gate at this crossing. 

20 Pedestrian Description: 

There did not appear to be much pedestrian activity. 

73 
Arlington Heights–Dunton Ave, Evergreen Ave, and Arlington Heights Rd 

74 

Davis St. 

Dunton Ave.

Evergreen Ave. 

Campbell St. 

325 ft 

306 ft 

Northwest Highway-U.S. Route 14 

Lot E 

Evergreen Ave. Underground Garage 

Lot 

Lot 

Metra Station 

RR Platform 
Arlington Heights–Dunton Avenue Crossing # 176925Y

Railroad Milepost: 0022.46 

100ft 

8 ft 

N 

Bungalow 

Gate 

Pole 

Dunton Ave. 

RR Station 

RR Platform 

84 ft 

 Not to scale 

75
Figure 2. Southwest corner facing north. 

Figure 5 Southeast corner facing north

Dunton Avenue Crossing 

Arlington Heights, IL 

Figure 1. Southeast corner facing northwest. 

Figure 3. Northwest corner facing southeast. Figure 4. Southeast corner facing north. 

Figure 6. Southwest corner facing north. 

76
 91 ft 

59 ft 

Bungalow 

Gate 

Pole 

Evergreen Ave. 

Arlington Heights–Evergreen Avenue Crossing # 176924S

Railroad Milepost: 0022.39 

N 

 Not to scale 

77
Evergreen Avenue Crossing 

Arlington Heights, IL 

Figure 1. Northwest corner facing southeast. Figure 2. Northwest corner facing south. 

Figure 3. Southeast corner facing northwest. Figure 4. Southeast corner facing north. 

Figure 5. Southeast corner facing north. Figure 6. Northeast corner facing south. 

78
 55 ft 

Arlington Heights–Arlington Heights Road Crossing # 176923K

Railroad Milepost: 0022.31

Traffic light Bungalow

 28 ft 

N 

Bungalow 

Gate 

Pole 

Arlington H

eights Rd. 

168 ft 

135 ft 

 Not to scale 79
Arlington Heights Road Crossing 

Arlington Heights, IL

Figure 1. Northwest corner facing southeast. Figure 2. Northeast corner facing south 

Figure 3. Southeast corner facing northwest. Figure 4. Southwest corner facing north. 

Figure 5. Northwest corner facing south. Figure 6. Northwest corner facing east. 

80
Appendix B. 

Remote Data Collection System Equipment and Design Documents 

81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
Video 

Transmitter 

Light 

Pole 

Power 

Antenna 

Camera 

91
92
93
Bartlett Camera Macomb Camera 

Arlington Heights Camera 

94
Appendix C. 

Data Analysis Plan 

95
Data Analysis Plan for PEERS Project 

Video data of motorist and pedestrian behavior will be collected to determine the effect, if any, 

of the Public Education and Enforcement Research Study in each community on risky 

driver/pedestrian behavior. A before-during-after design will be used to evaluate the benefit of 

public awareness program initiatives in each neighborhood. Data will be collected for the 3 

months before the implementation of the programs, 12 months during the project, and 3 months 

following the conclusion of the programs. The Volpe Center will gather the data on two 

workstations that back up each other. The video footage will be transmitted from the remote 

location to the Volpe Center via the Internet. 

The data collection has been divided into three parts. The 2 months of data collected before the 

implementation of the program serves as a base case. This data is representative of the 

population behavior without any added safety influence from the education and enforcement 

program. The data collected during the 12-month project is a sample of driver/pedestrian 

behavior while being exposed to enhanced safety initiatives. Comparing the results of this data 

with the pre-test period the evaluation team will be able to evaluate the effect the PEERS project 

had on risky driver/pedestrian behavior. The final stage is the collection of post-test data. This 

is data for 2 months following the conclusion of the PEERS project. This data is important to 

assess the lasting effects of the safety initiatives. 

The estimated total number of train events for the 8 crossings for the duration of the project is 

134,000. Macomb, IL, has 3 crossings and 20 trains per day. There will be 2,600 events in both 

the pre- and post-test periods and 21,000 during the education and enforcement program. 

Bartlett, IL, has 2 crossings and 68 trains per day. There will be 3,600 events in both the preand post-test periods and 40,000 during the education and enforcement program. Arlington 

Heights, IL, has 3 crossings and 70 trains per day. There will be 7,600 events in both the pre and 

post-test periods and 51,100 during the education and enforcement program. 

The table lists the data that will be gathered from the video recorded events. An event will be 

defined as an activation of the warning signals at the crossing. Each community has developed 

their own education and enforcement program. The data will be grouped by town to evaluate the 

effectiveness of each program. The data from each town will be further broken down by month 

in the second and third phases. This classification will be useful to see if the longer the program 

is running, when (if at all) it begins to make a difference in violation rates. And it will also be 

helpful in the post-test period to see if a drop-off in effectiveness of the program occurs as more 

time elapses. 

96
Data Description 

Date Date event occurred 

Crossing Name Name of street crossing 

Crossing Activation Time Time when the train triggers the track 

circuitry to activate the safety devices at 

the crossing 

Gate Activation Time Time when the gates begin to descend 

Train Presence Yes or No (false alarm) 

Train Arrival Time Time when train arrived at the grade 

crossings 

Type of Train Freight, passenger, track maintenance 

Motor Vehicle Arrival Time Time when the motor vehicle arrived at the 

grade crossing 

Pedestrian Arrival Time Time when the pedestrian arrived at the 

grade crossing 

Violation: Type I Number of violators that went through the 

crossing while lights were flashing but 

before gate descent 

Violation: Type II Number of violators that went through the 

crossing during gate descent 

Violation: Type III Number of violators that went through the 

grade crossing after gate descent 

Violation After Train but Before Gates 

Ascend 

Yes or No 

Violator Direction The direction (N, S, E, W) from which the 

violator approached the crossing 

Train Direction The direction (N, S, E, W) from which the 

train approached the crossing 

Track The track that the train is on when it 

traverses the crossing (north side or south 

side, east side or west side) 

Second Train Event Yes or No 

End of Event Time Time when the train has completely cleared 

the crossing and gates have retracted or the 

recording timed out 

From the observed data, the team can gather performance measures by which to judge the 

success of the PEERS project. The first performance measure is the frequency of violations. 

The frequency of violations can be separated by the three types of violations listed above. Type 

III violations are the most risky, type I the least. 

In addition to measuring the success of the project by violation frequency, the riskiness of 

driver/pedestrian behavior can be measured by the time events. The three performance measures 

generated are warning time, time-to-collision, and violation time. Warning time is the measure 

of the amount of time the motorist or pedestrian has to respond to the warning signals at the 

97
crossing. It is the difference between the time the train arrives and the time the crossing signals 

are activated. The time-to-collision is a measure of driver/pedestrian behavior. It measures how 

far away, in seconds, the train is from the violator when he/she crosses the crossing. It is the 

difference between the train arrival time and the motor vehicle/pedestrian arrival time. The 

shorter the time-to-collision is the more risky the violation. Violation time is also a measure of 

human behavior. Violation time measures how much time passed between the activation of the 

crossing warning signals and the time of the violation. It is the difference between the motor 

vehicle/pedestrian arrival time and crossing activation time. The larger the violation time, the 

greater the risk of a collision. 

The purpose of the data evaluation is to determine whether or not a statistically significant 

difference exists in driver/pedestrian behavior in the pre-test, testing, and post-test periods. 

Significant changes in the following are important: an increase in collision time, decrease in 

violation time, decrease in the number of violations, and a decrease in the number of risky (type 

II and III) violations. 

98
Appendix D. 

Violation Frequency Histogram and Difference of LS-Means 

99
100
Differences of LS-Means 

Arlington Heights Road 

Motorist Violations 

Period – Period Difference Probability 

Type I Violations 

 Pre-Test – Test -0.0873 0.0201 

 Pre-Test – Post-Test -0.1263 0.0058 

 Test – Post-Test -0.0390 0.2262 

Type II Violations

 Pre-Test – Test 0.1805 <.0001 

 Pre-Test – Post-Test 0.0871 0.0072 

 Test – Post-Test -0.0934 <.0001 

Type III Violations

 Pre-Test – Test 0.0001 0.9861 

 Pre-Test – Post-Test 0.0028 0.4665 

 Test – Post-Test 0.0027 0.3113 

Differences of LS-Means 

Arlington Heights Road 

Pedestrian Violations 

Period – Period Difference Probability 

Type I Violations 

 Pre-Test – Test 0.0019 0.1505 

 Pre-Test – Post-Test 0.0024 0.1377 

 Test – Post-Test 0.0005 0.6669 

Type II Violations

 Pre-Test – Test 0.0495 <.0001 

 Pre-Test – Post-Test 0.0620 <.0001 

 Test – Post-Test 0.0125 0.0064 

Type III Violations

 Pre-Test – Test 0.0445 <.0001 

 Pre-Test – Post-Test 0.0505 <.0001 

 Test – Post-Test 0.0060 0.0972 

101
Differences of LS-Means 

Evergreen Avenue 

Motorist Violations 

Period – Period Difference Probability 

Type I Violations 

 Pre-Test – Test 0.0352 <.0001 

 Pre-Test – Post-Test 0.0001 0.9890 

 Test – Post-Test -0.0351 <.0001 

Type II Violations

 Pre-Test – Test 0.1398 <.0001 

 Pre-Test – Post-Test 0.2697 <.0001 

 Test – Post-Test 0.1298 <.0001 

Type III Violations

 Pre-Test – Test 0.0056 0.2594 

 Pre-Test – Post-Test 0.0092 0.1708 

 Test – Post-Test 0.0036 0.4932 

Differences of LS-Means 

Evergreen Avenue 

Pedestrian Violations 

Period – Period Difference Probability 

Type I Violations 

 Pre-Test – Test 0.0274 <.0001 

 Pre-Test – Post-Test 0.0254 <.0001 

 Test – Post-Test -0.0019 0.5742 

Type II Violations

 Pre-Test – Test 0.0545 <.0001 

 Pre-Test – Post-Test 0.0333 0.0742 

 Test – Post-Test -0.0212 0.1485 

Type III Violations

 Pre-Test – Test 0.0647 <.0001 

 Pre-Test – Post-Test 0.0409 <.0001 

 Test – Post-Test -0.0238 0.0013 

102
Differences of LS-Means 

Dunton Avenue 

Motorist Violations 

Period – Period Difference Probability 

Type I Violations 

 Pre-Test – Test -0.0036 0.6736 

 Pre-Test – Post-Test 0.0162 0.1207 

 Test – Post-Test 0.0198 0.0065 

Type II Violations

 Pre-Test – Test 0.2643 <.0001 

 Pre-Test – Post-Test 0.3397 <.0001 

 Test – Post-Test 0.0754 <.0001 

Type III Violations

 Pre-Test – Test -0.0023 0.4905 

 Pre-Test – Post-Test -0.0002 0.9702 

 Test – Post-Test 0.0022 0.4454 

Differences of LS-Means 

Dunton Avenue 

Pedestrian Violations 

Period – Period Difference Probability 

Type I Violations 

 Pre-Test – Test 0.0383 <.0001 

 Pre-Test – Post-Test 0.0420 <.0001 

 Test – Post-Test 0.0037 0.4289 

Type II Violations

 Pre-Test – Test 0.1065 <.0001 

 Pre-Test – Post-Test 0.0499 0.0597 

 Test – Post-Test -0.0566 0.0022 

Type III Violations

 Pre-Test – Test 1.2322 <.0001 

 Pre-Test – Post-Test 1.6764 <.0001 

 Test – Post-Test 0.4441 <.0001 

103
104
References 

1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Secretary of Transportation, “Rail-Highway Crossing 

Safety Action Plan,” Washington, DC: U.S. DOT, June 1994. 

2. U.S. Department of Transportation, Secretary of Transportation, “Secretary’s Action Plan 

for Highway-Rail Crossing Safety and Trespass Prevention,” Washington, DC: U.S. 

DOT, June 2004. 

3. Carroll, A. and Warren, J., “Photo Enforcement At Highway-Rail Grade Crossings in the 

United States: July 2000-July 2001,” prepared for Transportation Research Board, 

Washington, DC, January 2002. 

4. Abraham, J., Datta, T., and Datta, S., “A Study of Surrogate Measures for Rail-Highway 

Crossing Accidents,” prepared for Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 

January 1997. 

5. Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Safety and Federal Highway Administration, 

Office of Safety, “Report on High Risk Crossings and Mitigation Efforts by State,” 

Washington, DC: U.S. DOT/FRA, February 2002. 

6. Park, Y. and Saccomanno, F., “Evaluating Factors Affecting Safety at Highway-Railway 

Grade Crossings,” prepared for Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 

January 2004. 

7. Multer, J. and Rapoza, A., “Field Evaluation of a Wayside Horn at a Highway-Rail Grade 

Crossing,” prepared for Federal Railroad Administration, Cambridge, MA: U.S. 

DOT/FRA, June 1998. 

8. Hellman, A., Carroll, A., and Chappell, D., “Evaluation of the School Street FourQuadrant Gate/In-Cab Signaling Grade Crossing System,” prepared for Federal Railroad 

Administration, Cambridge, MA: U.S. DOT/FRA, June 2003. 

105
106
Acronyms 

AADT annual average daily traffic 

ASM alternative safety measure 

BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway 

DSL digital subscriber line 

FOT field operational test 

FRA Federal Railroad Administration 

ICC Illinois Commerce Commission 

LAN local area network 

LS-Means least squares means 

Metra Northeastern Illinois Regional Commuter Rail 

PEERS Public Education and Enforcement Research Study 

SQL structured query language 

SSM supplemental safety measure 

UP Union Pacific Corporation 

USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

VNTSC network Volpe National Transportation Systems Center network 

Volpe Center John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center 

107
108
Glossary 

Blitz–Presence of police officers at the highway-rail grade crossings encouraging and enforcing 

good safety practices 

Difference of Least Squares Means–An arithmetic difference between two value estimates that 

are calculated using a method of least squares means estimation 

Highway-user–Any motorist or pedestrian who uses the highway-rail grade crossing 

Least Squares Means Estimation–A method of estimation used to minimize the expectation of 

the squared residual 

Motorist–Persons using motorized modes of transportation through the grade crossing 

Operation Lifesaver, Inc.–An international, nonprofit education and awareness program 

dedicated to ending tragic collisions, fatalities, and injuries at highway-rail grade crossings and 

on railroad rights of way 

Pedestrian–Persons using nonmotorized modes of transportation (on foot, on bicycle) through the 

grade crossing 

Post-test period–Two months after the conclusion of the enhanced grade crossing safety 

initiatives 

Pre-test period–Two months before implementation of the enhanced grade crossing safety 

initiatives 

Quiet zone–Areas where train horns can be silenced, provided that certain safety measures are 

put in place 

Second train event–Occurrence on a rail line with multiple tracks when two trains occupy the 

crossing warning block at the same time 

Test period–A 12-month period when communities enacted enhanced grade crossing safety 

initiatives 

Time-to-collision–A performance measure of time, in seconds, of the estimated train arrival at 

the location of the violator when the violator enters the crossing zone 

Train event–An opportunity for a highway-user to commit a violation because the crossing 

warning devices have been activated 

Type I violation–A highway-user enters the grade crossing when the warning flashers are active 

but gates have not been activated (vertical position) 

109
Type II violation–A highway-user enters the grade crossing when warning flashers are active and 

the gates are in motion 

Type III violation–A highway-user enters the grade crossing when warning flashers are active 

and the gates are fully deployed (horizontal position) 

Type IV violation–Debarking passengers violate the crossing by exiting the center platform 

while the warning devices are active 

Violation rate–The count of violations normalized by the number of train events 

Violation time–A performance measure, in seconds, of the length of time between the activation 

of the crossing warning signals and when the violation occurs 

Warning time–A measure of the amount of time, in seconds, the motorist or pedestrian has to 

respond to the warning signals at the crossing 

110