PB98-917004

NTSB/SS-98/02

NATIONAL

TRANSPORTATION

SAFETY

BOARD

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20594

SAFETY STUDY

Safety at Passive Grade Crossings

Volume 1: Analysis

7036

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1989 0-942-865
National Transportation Safety Board. 1998. Safety at passive grade crossings. Volume 1:

Analysis. Safety Study NTSB/SS-98/02. Washington, DC. 124 p.

More than 4,000 accidents occurred at the Nation’s active and passive grade crossings in

1996; 54 percent of the accidents and 60 percent of the fatalities were at passive grade

crossings, where drivers are not provided warning from train-activated devices. The Safety

Board conducted this study to identify some common causes for accidents at passive crossings

and to identify remedies to improve safety at passive crossings that are not scheduled for

closure or upgrade. The sample of 60 accidents investigated by the Board as part of the study

is not intended to be statistically representative of the entire population of accidents at passive

grade crossings during the study period, but rather to illustrate a range of passive grade

crossing accidents. The report also relates information obtained at the Board’s 1997 public

forum on passive crossing safety. The safety issues include (a) the adequacy of existing

warning systems to alert the driver to the presence of a passive crossing and an oncoming

train; (b) roadway and track conditions that affect a driver’s ability to detect the presence of an

oncoming train; (c) behavioral factors that affect a driver’s ability to detect the presence of an

oncoming train; (d) the adequacy of existing driver education material regarding the dangers

of passive grade crossings and driver actions required; (e) the need for a systematic and

uniform approach to passive grade crossing safety; (f) and the need for improved signage at

private passive crossings. Safety recommendations concerning these issues were made to the

U.S. Department of Transportation; the Federal Highway Administration; the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration; the Federal Railroad Administration; the States;

Operation Lifesaver, Inc.; the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators; the

American Automobile Association; the American Association of State Highway and

Transportation Officials; the Professional Truck Drivers Institute of America; the Advertising

Council, Inc.; the Association of American Railroads; the American Short Line and Regional

Railroad Association; and the American Public Transit Association.

The National Transportation Safety Board is an independent Federal agency dedicated to promoting aviation, railroad, highway, marine, pipeline, and hazardous materials safety. Established in 1967, the agency is mandated by

Congress through the Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 to investigate transportation accidents, determine the

probable causes of the accidents, issue safety recommendations, study transportation safety issues, and evaluate the

safety effectiveness of government agencies involved in transportation. The Safety Board makes public its actions

and decisions through accident reports, safety studies, special investigation reports, safety recommendations, and

statistical reviews.

Recent publications are available in their entirety on the Web at http://www.ntsb.gov/. Other information about

available publications also may be obtained from the Web site or by contacting:

National Transportation Safety Board

Public Inquiries Section, RE-51

490 L’Enfant Plaza, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20594

(800) 877-6799 or (202) 314-6551

Safety Board publications may be purchased, by individual copy or by subscription, from the National Technical

Information Service. To purchase this publication, order report number PB98-917004 from:

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, Virginia 22161

(800) 553-6847 or (703) 605-6000
Safety Study

Safety at Passive Grade Crossings

Volume 1: Analysis

NTSB/SS-98/02

PB98-917004 National Transportation Safety Board

Notation 7036 490 L’Enfant Plaza, S.W.

Adopted July 21, 1998 Washington, D.C. 20594

Contents iii Safety Study

Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. vii

Chapter 1

Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1

Chapter 2

Background............................................................................................................................... ................ 7

Regulatory Responsibility for Grade Crossings .............................................................................................. 7

Guidelines ..................................................................................................................................................... 10

A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets...................................................................... 10

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices........................................................................................ 11

Railroad–Highway Grade Crossing Handbook ................................................................................... 12

Manual for Railway Engineering......................................................................................................... 13

DOT Action Plan .......................................................................................................................................... 13

DOT Study of Locomotive Conspicuity........................................................................................................ 14

DOT Grade Crossing Safety Task Force....................................................................................................... 14

Previous Safety Board Activity..................................................................................................................... 15

Chapter 3

Methods and Overview of the Accident Sample....................................................................... 19

Study Cases................................................................................................................................................... 19

Selection and Notification Criteria....................................................................................................... 19

Investigative Procedures....................................................................................................................... 19

Public Forum................................................................................................................................................. 20

Overview of the Accident Sample................................................................................................................. 21

Time of Day.......................................................................................................................................... 21

Injury Severity and Fatalities................................................................................................................ 21

Crossing................................................................................................................................................ 21

Highway Vehicle Driver/Vehicle .......................................................................................................... 22

Train Conspicuity ................................................................................................................................. 23

Train Speed .......................................................................................................................................... 23

Train Horn............................................................................................................................................ 23

Traincrew.............................................................................................................................................. 25

Driver and Engineer Interviews............................................................................................................ 25

Probable Causes ................................................................................................................................... 25

Chapter 4

Description of the Accident Crossings:

Detecting the Presence of a Passive Crossing and an Oncoming Train........................... 27

Factors That Alert a Driver to the Presence of a Passive Crossing ............................................................... 27

Pavement Markings.............................................................................................................................. 29

Advance Warning Sign......................................................................................................................... 31

Crossbuck Sign..................................................................................................................................... 33

Multiple Tracks Sign ............................................................................................................................ 35

Stop Sign .............................................................................................................................................. 35

Reflectorization of Signs ...................................................................................................................... 36
Contents iv Safety Study

Physical Characteristics at Passive Crossings

That Affect a Driver’s Ability To See a Train............................................................................................ 40

Sight Distance....................................................................................................................................... 40

Angle of Intersection ............................................................................................................................ 43

Roadway or Track Curvature................................................................................................................ 45

Chapter 5

Driver Awareness of the Presence of a

Grade Crossing and an Oncoming Train .................................................................................... 47

Driver Expectations ...................................................................................................................................... 48

Driver Perception of Train Speed and Distance............................................................................................ 50

Driver Distractions........................................................................................................................................ 51

Audibility of the Train Horn ......................................................................................................................... 56

Chapter 6

Discussion: Measures To Improve Safety

at Passive Grade Crossings............................................................................................................... 61

Grade Separation, Crossing Closure, and

Installation of Train-Activated Warning Devices....................................................................................... 64

Improved Signage ......................................................................................................................................... 68

Stop Signs............................................................................................................................................. 68

Advance Warning and Crossbuck Signs ............................................................................................... 74

DOT Crossing Identifier....................................................................................................................... 75

Enforcement Activities at Crossings ............................................................................................................. 76

Grade Crossing Safety Education ................................................................................................................. 78

Intelligent Transportation Systems................................................................................................................ 80

Private Crossings .......................................................................................................................................... 84

Conclusions.............................................................................................................................................. 89

Recommendations................................................................................................................................. 91

Appendixes.............................................................................................................................................. 95

A: FRA Data on Passive Grade Crossing Accidents, 1991–1996 ............................................................. 95

B: Grade Crossing Signs as Illustrated in the MUTCD............................................................................. 97

C: Status of Previous Safety Recommendations Pertaining to Passive Grade Crossings ........................ 106

D: Agenda of the NTSB Public Forum on Passive Grade Crossing Safety..............................................111

E: Data From the NTSB Study Sample................................................................................................... 114

F: Supplemental Investigation on Train Horn Audibility........................................................................ 123

Conversion Factors for

International Standard (SI) Units

To convert from to multiply by

feet meters 0.3048

miles kilometers 1.6093

kilometers miles 0.6214

degrees Fahrenheit (°F) degrees Celsius (°C) 5/9 (°F minus 32)
Contents v Safety Study

Acronyms and Abridged Terms

Used in the Report

AAA American Automobile Association Handbook Railroad–Highway Grade Crossing

 Handbook published by the FHWA

AAMVA American Association of Motor

 Vehicle Administrators

ICC Interstate Commerce Commission (now

 the Surface Transportation Board)

AAR Association of American Railroads ID identification

AASHTO American Association of State

 Highway and Transportation Officials

IDEA Innovations Deserving Exploratory

 Analysis program of the

 Transportation Research Board

AASHTO

 Greenbook

A Policy on Geometric Design of

 Highways and Streets published by

 the AASHTO

ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation

 Efficiency Act of 1991

Action Plan 1994 DOT Action Plan developed by

 the FHWA, FRA, FTA, and NHTSA

ITS intelligent transportation systems

ADT average daily traffic ITS America Intelligent Transportation

 Society of America

AREA American Railway Engineering

 Association (now the American

 Railway Engineering and

 Maintenance of Way Association)

IVSAWS in-vehicle safety advisory and

 warning systems

CAS casualty file in the Railroad

 Accident/Incident Reporting

 System of the FRA

MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control

 Devices published by the FHWA

CFR Code of Federal Regulations NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety

 Administration

CSX CSX Corporation NPRM notice of proposed rulemaking

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation NTSB National Transportation Safety Board

FHWA Federal Highway Administration OL Operation Lifesaver, Inc.

FR Federal Register PTDIA Professional Truck Drivers Institute

 of America

FRA Federal Railroad Administration RAIR rail equipment accident/incident file

 in the Railroad Accident/Incident

 Reporting System of the FRA

FTA Federal Transit Administration U.S.C. United States Code

GAO General Accounting Office Volpe Center John A. Volpe National Transportation

 Systems Center

GCIR grade crossing accident/incident file in

 the Railroad Accident/Incident

 Reporting System of the FRA

VPAS vehicle proximity alerting systems

GCIS Grade Crossing Inventory System

 of the FRA

VTRC Virginia Transportation

 Research Council

Executive Summary Safety Study vii

Executive Summary

More than 4,000 accidents have occurred at the Nation’s active and passive grade

crossings each year from 1991 through 1996. Many of the accidents at active crossings

have involved highway vehicle drivers who did not comply with train-activated warning

devices installed at the crossings. This failure to comply often includes driver actions resulting from a deliberate decision, such as driving around a lowered crossing gate arm or

ignoring flashing lights. Drivers at passive crossings are not provided warnings from

train-activated devices; consequently, they must rely on a system of grade crossing signs

and pavement markings, passive devices, that are designed to warn drivers only of the

presence of a crossing. No element of this passive system changes to alert drivers to an

oncoming train. Further, the effectiveness of the passive system is influenced by characteristics of the physical layout of the crossing, such as an adequate view of the area

surrounding the crossing (sight distance) and roadway alignment, that affect the information given to an approaching motorist regarding an upcoming hazard.

According to the Federal Railroad Administration, there were 4,054 accidents in

1996 that involved highway vehicles at grade crossings; 54 percent (2,208) of those accidents occurred at passive grade crossings. About 60 percent of the fatalities from all

grade crossing accidents in 1996 (247 of 415 fatalities) were at passive grade crossings.

The cost to eliminate or upgrade passive grade crossings is very high. According

to the General Accounting Office, the average cost of adding lights and gates in 1995 was

$150,000 per grade crossing. The total cost to upgrade the 96,759 passive crossings on

public roadways would be about $14 billion. Gates and lights do not completely eliminate the hazards present at crossings, and, therefore, sole reliance on them would reduce

but not eliminate all the fatalities. The ultimate solution from a safety standpoint would

be a standard grade separation, which usually involves construction of bridges or overpasses and costs an estimated $3 million per crossing. The large number of passive grade

crossings, the high percentage of fatalities that occur at passive grade crossings, and the

cost to eliminate or upgrade passive grade crossings prompted the Safety Board to conduct this study to identify some of the common causes for accidents at passive grade

crossings, and to identify less costly remedies to improve safety at passive crossings not

scheduled for closure or upgrade.

For this study, the Safety Board investigated 60 grade crossing accidents that

occurred between December 1995 and August 1996. The Safety Board selected for study

accidents involving a collision between a train and a highway vehicle occurring at a

passive grade crossing, wherein the highway vehicle was sufficiently damaged to require

towing. The sample of accidents is not intended to be statistically representative of the

entire population of accidents at passive grade crossings during the study period, but

rather to illustrate a range of passive grade crossing accidents. A probable cause was

determined for each accident in the study. Overall, driver error was cited as the primary
Executive Summary Safety Study viii

cause in 49 of the 60 accident cases: driver disregard for the stop sign in 13 cases, and

the driver’s failure to look for a train in 16 cases. In 7 of the remaining 11 cases, the

probable cause was determined to be related to roadway conditions that affected the

driver’s ability to detect the presence of a passive crossing or an oncoming train; roadway

and track conditions were cited as the probable cause in 3 of the 11 cases.

In May 1997, the Safety Board convened a 2-day public forum in Jacksonville,

Florida, to gather information about issues affecting safety at passive grade crossings.

Witnesses included experts from the railroad industry; law enforcement; research groups;

Operation Lifesaver; and Federal, State, and local government agencies. Those involved

in grade crossing accidents, both highway vehicle occupants and traincrews, testified

about their personal experiences. In addition, representatives from Canada and Italy discussed passive grade crossing issues and experiences in their countries.

Based on the results of the Safety Board’s accident investigations and the information gathered at the public forum, the safety issues discussed in the report include the

following:

• the adequacy of existing warning systems to alert the driver to the presence of

a passive crossing and an oncoming train;

• roadway and track conditions that affect a driver’s ability to detect the

presence of an oncoming train;

• behavioral factors that affect a driver’s ability to detect the presence of an

oncoming train;

• the adequacy of existing driver education material regarding the dangers of

passive grade crossings and driver actions required;

• the need for a systematic and uniform approach to passive grade crossing

safety; and

• the need for improved signage at private passive crossings.

The issue of safety at passive grade crossings is complex; therefore, Volume 1

(NTSB/SS-98/02) of the report first discusses the problems drivers encounter at passive

crossings, then presents the Board’s analysis, conclusions, and recommendations.

Volume 2 (NTSB/SS-98/03) of the report contains case summaries of the 60 accidents

investigated by the Safety Board for this study.
Executive Summary Safety Study ix

As a result of this study, safety recommendations were issued to the U.S.

Department of Transportation; the Federal Highway Administration; the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration; the Federal Railroad Administration; the States;

Operation Lifesaver, Inc.; the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators; the

American Automobile Association; the American Association of State Highway and

Transportation Officials; the Professional Truck Drivers Institute of America; the

Advertising Council, Inc.; the Association of American Railroads; the American Short

Line and Regional Railroad Association; and the American Public Transit Association.

Chapter 1 1 Safety Study

Chapter 1

Introduction

In the afternoon of March 9, 1997, a Ford Aerostar passenger van was traveling

eastbound on Kirkwood Road in Shelby County, Ohio.1

 The family in the van resided in

Vandalia, Ohio, about 40 miles away; it is not known whether the driver was familiar

with the road. Light rain was falling, and the temperature was 54 °F. Shortly after 3 p.m.,

the van approached a passive grade crossing,2 which was equipped with a circular railroad

advance warning sign and a standard crossbuck sign. The required railroad crossing

pavement markings consisting of an “X,” the letters “RR,” a “no passing” mark, and

“certain transverse lines”3

 [to delineate the beginning and end of the pavement markings]

were not present on the two-lane asphalt road on either the eastbound or the westbound

approaches to the grade crossing.

Houses built along Kirkwood Road obstruct an eastbound motorist’s view of a

southbound train until the motor vehicle is within 118 feet of the crossing, at which point

the approaching train would be visible if it were within 207 feet of the crossing. The obstructed view is referred to as “limited sight distance.”4

 A motorist traveling at the

unposted speed limit of 55 miles per hour (mph) would not have had sufficient time to react to the presence of the train and to stop the vehicle prior to the crossing. One witness

estimated that the van was traveling at about 25–30 mph. At 25 mph, a motorist would

still require more than 160 feet of sight distance along the highway in order to see the approaching train, then react and stop the vehicle in time to avoid an accident.

According to the traincrew, the van driver slowed, looked toward the train, and

accelerated into the crossing; the van was struck by a southbound CSX Corporation

(CSX) freight train. Data from the locomotive event recorder indicated that the train’s

horn was sounding; the traincrew reported that the locomotive headlight and auxiliary

 1

 National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) accident No. NRH-97-FHX-08. The accident occurred

after the sampling period for this safety study and is not one of the accident cases in the Safety Board’s

analysis. The accident is described here to illustrate some of the problems at passive grade crossings.

2

 Passive grade crossings have only traffic control devices such as the crossbuck, stop signs, or

pavement markings that do not change to give the highway vehicle driver active visual or auditory warning

of an approaching train. Active warning devices such as flashing lights, bells, or gates are triggered by the

approach of a train along the tracks, providing advance warning to the oncoming motorist that a train is

approaching the crossing. Distinctions between active and passive crossings are discussed in more detail in

the following chapters.

3

 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 1988. Manual on uniform

traffic control devices. Washington, DC. Variously paged. (Section 8B-4.)

4

 Sight distance is discussed in detail in later chapters of this report.
Chapter 1 2 Safety Study

alerting lights were illuminated. The van overturned and came to rest 87 feet east of the

crossing. The driver, his wife, and their three children were killed; the traincrew were not

injured.

About 1:30 p.m. on August 23, 1996, a 1978 Ford Courier pickup truck was traveling along an earthen road west of Naponee, in Franklin County, Nebraska (study case

62). The weather was clear, and the temperature about 90 °F. The speed limit on the road

was 25 mph. The roadway runs nearly parallel with railroad tracks until about 1 mile

west of Naponee, where it makes a sharp left turn to intersect the tracks at an angle of

135°. Trees and brush limited the sight distance to within 15 feet of the grade crossing,

which was equipped, as required, with a circular railroad advance warning sign and a

standard crossbuck sign. According to the traincrew, the train’s headlight was illuminated, and the engineer sounded the horn prior to entering the crossing. The pickup

truckdriver, a former county supervisor for Franklin County, entered the grade crossing

and was struck by a Burlington Northern Santa Fe local freight train. The driver of the

pickup was killed; the traincrew were not injured.

The above accidents are examples of the more than 4,000 accidents that have occurred at the Nation’s active and passive grade crossings each year from 1991 through

1996.5 Many of the accidents at active crossings have involved highway vehicle drivers

who did not comply with train-activated warning devices installed at the crossings. This

failure to comply often includes driver actions resulting from a deliberate decision, such

as driving around a lowered crossing gate arm or ignoring flashing lights. Because passive crossings do not have train-activated devices at the crossings, drivers must rely on a

system of grade crossing signs and pavement markings, passive devices, that are designed

to warn drivers of the presence of a crossing. No element of this passive system changes

to alert drivers to an oncoming train.6 Further, the effectiveness of the passive system is

influenced by characteristics of the physical layout of the crossing, such as an adequate

view of the area surrounding the crossing (sight distance) and roadway alignment, that affect the information given to an approaching motorist regarding an upcoming hazard.

 5

 Not all data are available for 1997.

6

 Motorists at passive grade crossings must be able to see an oncoming train. Crossing characteristics

that affect the motorist’s ability to see a train are discussed in chapter 4 of this report. Motorists can also be

alerted to a train by the train horn, which traincrews are required to sound near active and passive grade

crossings, and by auxiliary locomotive alerting lights, which are sometimes activated as a train approaches

certain crossings. The effectiveness of the train horn and use of auxiliary locomotive lights to alert motorists

to an oncoming train are discussed in chapter 5 of this report.
Chapter 1 3 Safety Study

230

186

264

215 221

168

305

320

290

327

287

247

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

Number of fatalities

Active crossings

Passive crossings

Figure 1–1. Fatalities from accidents involving highway vehicles at

active and passive highway–rail grade crossings, 1991–1996. (Source:

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration.

1992–1997. Highway–rail crossing accident/incident and inventory

bulletin. Nos. 14–19. Washington, DC. Annual.)

In 1996, the States and railroads reported to the Federal Railroad Administration

(FRA) that there were 265,721 grade crossings; 75 percent, or 198,985, were passive

crossings. According to the FRA, there were 4,054 accidents in 1996 that involved highway vehicles at grade crossings;7

 54 percent (2,208) of those accidents occurred at

passive grade crossings. About 60 percent of the fatalities from all grade crossing accidents in 1996 (247 of 415 fatalities) were at passive grade crossings. Figure 1–1 shows

the number of fatalities from accidents involving highway vehicles at active and passive

crossings for the 1991–1996 period.

 7

 The annual statistics in this report are based on information reported to the Department of

Transportation’s FRA. They do not include statistics from organizations not subject to FRA authority.

Those organizations file safety reports with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).
Chapter 1 4 Safety Study

96,759

1,069

102,226

65,667

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

Active Passive

Number 

Private crossings

Public crossings

Figure 1–2. Number of active and passive, public and

private grade crossings in the United States, 1996. (Source:

U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad

Administration. 1997. Highway–rail crossing accident/

incident and inventory bulletin. No. 19. Washington, DC.)

Grade crossings are also categorized as either public or private. A private crossing is a grade crossing that is not classified by the FRA as a public crossing,8

 such as a

crossing on a private road giving access to a farm. Of the 103,295 private crossings reported to the FRA, only 1,069 have active signals, thus 99 percent of all private grade

crossings are also passive crossings (figure 1–2).

One of the primary distinctions between active and passive crossings is the

amount of traffic, both on the highways and on the railroad tracks, that utilizes them.

According to data from the FRA, the highway average daily traffic (ADT) at public active

crossings is 4,003 vehicles, and at public passive crossings the corresponding average

ADT is 849 vehicles.9

 The average reported daily train traffic is also higher at public

active crossings (13.7 trains) than it is at public passive crossings (6.2 trains). Although

the train and highway traffic is lower at passive crossings, these crossings still pose a risk.

 8

 A crossing is classified as public if “(a) the roadway is a part of the general system of public streets

and highways, and (b) under the jurisdiction of and maintained by a public authority, and (c) open to the

general traveling public.” (U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Office of

Safety. 1996. Highway-rail crossing inventory instructions and procedures manual. Washington, DC.

Variously paged (page 1-6).)

9

 Information on highway and train traffic at private crossings is not available.
Chapter 1 5 Safety Study

In an effort to reduce the number of fatalities at grade crossings, the FRA Administrator announced an initiative in 1991 intended to eliminate 25 percent of all grade

crossings by the year 2001.10 Despite active involvement by the railroads, States, and the

Federal government, however, the effort to eliminate crossings is progressing very slowly.

According to data from the FRA, the number of passive crossings, both public and private, has been decreasing about 2 percent per year since 1992, a statistic that includes

both the closure of crossings and the upgrade of some passive crossings to active by the

installation of active warning devices. The number of all crossings (active and passive)

decreased 9.3 percent between 1990 and 1996.11

The cost to eliminate or upgrade passive grade crossings is very high. According

to the General Accounting Office (GAO),12 the average cost of adding lights and gates in

1995 was $150,000 per grade crossing. The total cost to upgrade the 96,759 passive

crossings on public roadways would be about $14 billion. Gates and flashing lights do

not completely eliminate the hazards present at crossings,13 and, therefore, sole reliance

on them would reduce but not eliminate all the fatalities. The ultimate solution from a

safety standpoint would be a standard grade separation, which usually involves construction of bridges or overpasses and costs an estimated $3 million per crossing.14

The costs of a grade crossing accident, however, are also high. In 1994, a single

fatality cost society more than $830,000, and the average cost for each critically injured

survivor was $706,000.15 A single accident involving a passenger train, for example,

could easily result in costs to society of several million dollars. In addition, the railroads

and roadway users involved in accidents at grade crossings also incur direct costs from

property damage and loss of the use of equipment.

 10 Carmichael, Gilbert E. 1991. Highway-rail grade crossings: the unfinished safety agenda. In: The

job’s not done: Proceedings, 1991 national conference on highway-rail safety; 1991 July 7-10; Philadelphia,

PA. College Station, TX: TransCom: 5-9.

11 Safety Board staff conversation with the Staff Director of Federal Railroad Administration, Office of

Safety, Highway Rail Crossing and Trespasser Division, at a technical review meeting for a draft of this

report, May 21, 1998.

12 United States General Accounting Office. 1995. Railroad safety: status of efforts to improve railroad

crossing safety. GAO/RCED-95-191. Washington, DC. 58 p. (page 33.)

13 Erlich, Pat. 1989. Identifying improvement options. In: Rail-highway safety: today and tomorrow:

Proceedings, 1989 national conference on rail-highway safety; 1989 July 9-12; San Diego, CA. College

Station, TX: TransCom: 45-52.

14 GAO (1995, page 33).

15 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. [n.d.] The economic cost of motor vehicle crashes,

1994. NHTSA Technical Report. Washington, DC. (Report accessed on July 3, 1997, on the NHTSA Web

site: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/economic/ecomvc1994.html.)
Chapter 1 6 Safety Study

The large number of passive grade crossings, the high percentage of fatalities that

occur at passive grade crossings, and the cost to eliminate or upgrade passive grade

crossings prompted the Safety Board to conduct this study to identify some of the common causes for accidents at passive grade crossings, and to identify less costly remedies

to improve safety at passive crossings not scheduled for closure or upgrade.

Chapter 2 contains background on Federal and State regulatory responsibilities regarding grade crossings, including initiatives to address grade crossing safety, and on

previous Safety Board activity related to safety at grade crossings. Chapter 3 contains a

description of the study methods used by the Safety Board, as well as an overview of the

accident sample. A description of the accident crossings, including the presence and condition of the signs and warning devices used at passive crossings, is included in chapter 4.

Chapter 4 also discusses the physical characteristics at the accident crossings that affect a

driver’s ability to see an oncoming train. Chapter 5 discusses driver awareness of the

presence of a crossing and an oncoming train. Chapter 6 presents proposals to improve

safety at passive grade crossings. The last sections of the report contain the Safety

Board’s conclusions and recommendations.
Chapter 2 7 Safety Study

Chapter 2

Background

Grade crossing accidents like those described in the previous chapter are not new

to the railroad or highway safety communities. Similar accidents were mentioned in

newspaper and magazine articles as early as 1907,16 and official records maintained by

the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC, now the Surface Transportation Board) in

1917 reported 1,083 grade crossing fatalities involving motor vehicles.17 The Federal

Highway Safety Act of 1973 provided funding to the States specifically for grade crossing

improvement projects, and the number of fatalities at grade crossings began to decline.

Currently, 415 to 560 grade crossing fatalities occur each year.18 Appendix A provides

the number of grade crossing accidents, fatalities, and persons injured for 1991 through

1996.

Regulatory Responsibility

for Grade Crossings

In the 19th century, as the networks of railroad tracks and roads were being constructed, grade crossings were under the jurisdiction of the State or local authority in

whose territory they lay. A series of court cases attempted to assess the degrees to which

the railroad and the local authorities were responsible for safety at these grade crossings.

Along with safety responsibility came monetary responsibility for crossing improvements,

and for that reason the issue was intensely and repeatedly debated. Initial decisions in the

19th century generally determined that the owner of a property, in this case the railroad,

was responsible for maintaining that property in a condition that did not undermine public

safety, and that local authorities were within their rights to mandate specific crossing

improvements.19

 16 Batting, Charles W. 1907. Our railways’ annual slaughter. Van Norden Magazine, January. (page 62).

17 The number of fatalities remained between 1,000 and 2,200 per year until the mid-1970s.

18 These numbers represent the range of fatality counts occurring in the years 1991–1996.

19 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration; Federal Highway Administration. 1971. Railroad-highway safety. Part I: A comprehensive statement of the problem. Report to

Congress. Washington, DC. 95 p., plus appendixes. (page A-12).
Chapter 2 8 Safety Study

The advent of the motor vehicle changed both the magnitude of the safety problem at grade crossings and the level of Federal involvement in the matter. In the early

decades of the 20th century, Federal-aid funds were made available to build a system of

rural roads, and in some cases a portion of these funds were available for eliminating hazards at grade crossings.20 Beginning in 1917 and continuing through the mid-1960s, the

ICC maintained records of accidents occurring at grade crossings, but it did not have jurisdictional authority to regulate grade crossing warning or protective devices.21 In 1935,

the courts also determined that, because the primary beneficiaries to safety improvements

at grade crossings are the highway users rather than the railroads, the public should bear a

proportion of the cost to be determined by fairness and beneficial interest.22 According to

U.S law, for any project paid for by the Federal funds earmarked for grade crossing improvements, the railroads cannot be required to pay more than 10 percent of the project

costs.23 The Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), empowered by

Congress to determine the actual percentage to be paid by the railroads, has set the current

maximum at 5 percent of the project costs, and then only under very limited circumstances.24 On projects not paid for out of the Federal-aid funds, the railroads can pay a

higher proportion of the costs.

In late 1966, Congress passed the Department of Transportation Act, wherein the

Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Railroad Administration, among other

agencies, were created. The authority held by each of these administrations regarding

grade crossings is highlighted in the following paragraphs.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regulates aspects of the grade

crossing that affect highway safety. FHWA publications provide guidelines and standards

for correct design of grade crossings, assessment of safety at a grade crossing, and appropriate placement of traffic control devices at and on the approach to a grade crossing. The

FHWA also administers the distribution of funds authorized in Title 23 United States

Code (23 U.S.C.) Section 130, which allocates money to the States specifically for the

purpose of eliminating hazards at railroad–highway grade crossings.25

 20 FRA and FHWA (1971, page A-8).

21 FRA and FHWA (1971, page A-22).

22 FRA and FHWA (1971, page A-13).

23 The railroads’ 10-percent responsibility is current law. (23 U.S.C. [United States Code] §130 (b).

Highway Safety Act of 1973.)

24 The railroad, which may voluntarily pay more, is required to pay only 5 percent of the cost of

projects that involve the elimination of a grade crossing through grade separation or through railroad or

highway relocation. (23 CFR [Code of Federal Regulations] §646.210.)

25 As previously noted, the Federal Highway Safety Act of 1973 provided this funding. FHWA funds

for State use are discussed later in this report.
Chapter 2 9 Safety Study

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) regulates the aspects of grade

crossing safety pertaining specifically to the railroads: track safety, active signals, and

train safety and conspicuity. For example, the agency’s regulations specify the type of

lighting to be placed on a locomotive (49 CFR [Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations]

229.125), the audibility of the train horns (49 CFR 229.129), and the inspection, testing,

and maintenance standards for active grade crossing signal system safety (49 CFR 234).

The FRA also conducts research on topics affecting safety at grade crossings; this

research will be discussed in appropriate sections of this report.

When the FRA was created in 1967, it assumed the recordkeeping responsibilities

previously held by the ICC, and it currently requires railroads to report information on

accidents/incidents occurring at grade crossings. The information reported by the

railroads is contained in the Railroad Accident/Incident Reporting System, which consists

of three files: the casualty file (CAS), the rail equipment accident/incident file (RAIR),

and the highway–rail grade crossing accident/incident file (GCIR).26 The FRA also

maintains the Grade Crossing Inventory System (GCIS) database, a large file intended to

document every grade crossing in the United States. This reporting system is discussed in

more detail in chapter 6.

In 1970, Congress directed the Secretary of Transportation to “submit . . . a comprehensive study of the problem of eliminating and protecting railroad grade crossings.”27

The FRA and the FHWA responded with a two-part report: Part I included a statement of

the problem and was released in November 1971.28 Part II contained the recommended

solutions29 and was released in August 1972. Part II stated that

[t]o assist in a systematic approach to the planning and evaluation of programs for the

improvement of railroad–highway crossings, certain information is essential, both for

individual crossings and for groups of crossings. This essential information fits into two

categories, (1) inventory data and (2) accident statistics, with a third factor, crossing

identification, equally essential for correlation of the first two. Both the inventory and the

accident statistics information must be obtained on a crossing-by-crossing basis, and be of

sufficient detail for planning and program purposes.

 26 Deaths, injuries, or occupational illnesses arising from railroad operations are reported in CAS. The

RAIR contains data on events involving the operation of rail equipment and causing more than a certain

threshold dollar amount of damage, and the GCIR file contains data on “any impact, regardless of severity,

between a railroad on-track equipment consist and any user of a public or private crossing site.” (U.S.

Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Safety. FRA guide for preparing

accidents/incidents reports. DOT/FRA/RRS-22. Washington, DC. Variously paged (page VIII-1).)

27 U.S. Code Congressional and Administrative News. Laws of 91st Congress, Second Session.

Washington, DC. (page 1133).

28 Federal Railroad Administration; Federal Highway Administration. 1971. Railroad-highway safety.

Part I: A comprehensive statement of the problem. Report to Congress. Washington, DC. 95 p., plus

appendixes.

29 Federal Railroad Administration; Federal Highway Administration. 1972. Railroad-highway safety.

Part II: Recommendations for resolving the problem. Report to Congress. Washington, DC. 108 p. (page

58).
Chapter 2 10 Safety Study

Congress acted on these recommendations in the Federal Highway Safety Act of 1973,

wherein States are enjoined to “conduct and systematically maintain a survey of all highways to identify those railroad crossings which may require separation, relocation, or

protective devices,” and the Secretary of Transportation is required to provide an annual

report to include, among other things, an analysis and evaluation of each State program.30

The FRA, in order to facilitate the production of the required reports, established the

GCIS and accident/incident data files still in use today.31

Guidelines

Several organizations and agencies publish guidelines and standards for highway

or railroad design and engineering issues that pertain to grade crossings.

A Policy on Geometric Design

of Highways and Streets

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

(AASHTO) publishes A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (hereinafter called the AASHTO Greenbook), which contains guidelines to assist highway

engineers in the design of safe roadway systems.32 These guidelines include specifications for appropriate and safe vertical and horizontal roadway alignment at grade

crossings, and also include suggested formulas for calculating the sight distance requirements at grade crossings. The sight distance calculations use some assumptions about the

size and stopping distances of the vehicles and operators using the grade crossing: (1) the

design vehicle is assumed to be a large truck, because a large truck would require the

greatest stopping distance, and its length and slow acceleration capabilities mean that it

would occupy the crossing for a relatively long time;33 (2) the time that the highway

driver needs to perceive the danger and react appropriately is assumed to be 2.5 seconds;

(3) the speed of the highway vehicle is assumed to be the speed limit on the road; (4) the

 30 U.S. Code Congressional and Administrative News. Laws of 93rd Congress, First Session.

Washington, DC. (page 332).

31 The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) within the DOT also includes data

about grade crossings in its databases. The first of these databases is the Fatality Analysis Reporting

System, which contains information about every fatal accident occurring on public roadways. The second

database is the General Estimates System, which contains a statistical sample of nonfatal accidents

occurring on public roadways.

32 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 1990. A policy on geometric

design of highways and streets, 1990. Washington, DC. 1044 p.

33 Assumptions about the design vehicle drew upon information provided in the Railroad-Highway

Grade Crossing Handbook published by the FHWA and described later in this chapter. According to the

Handbook (page 35), “unless trucks are prohibited on the crossing, it is desirable that the design vehicle be

at least a tractor semi-trailer truck.”
Chapter 2 11 Safety Study

speed of the train is assumed to be the typical maximum train speed reported in the FRA

inventory database; and (5) stopping distances calculated assume a coefficient of friction

measured on wet road surfaces.

Manual on Uniform

Traffic Control Devices

This manual, referred to as the “MUTCD,” is published by the FHWA.34 It provides State and local highway engineers with standards for sign, signal, and pavement

marking design, as well as for their appropriate placement. The standards set forth in the

MUTCD become State law when States adopt them, and all States are required to either

adopt the MUTCD or adopt a State manual that conforms to the MUTCD.35 All 50 States

and the District of Columbia require that all traffic control devices on streets and highways under public agency jurisdiction conform to the specifications in the MUTCD.36

The next edition of the MUTCD is scheduled to be published in the year 2000.

The language in the MUTCD determines whether a particular traffic control device is mandatory, recommended, or whether it is simply permitted. The language in

question is defined as follows:

1. SHALL—mandatory condition. Where certain requirements in the design or

application of the device are described with the “shall” stipulation, it is mandatory when

an installation is made that these requirements be met.

2. SHOULD—an advisory condition. Where the word “should” is used, it is considered

to be advisable usage, recommended but not mandatory.

3. MAY—a permissive condition. No requirement for design or application is

intended.37

For example, the railroad crossing sign, or crossbuck (MUTCD designation R15-1), is

mandatory and “shall [emphasis added] be used on each roadway approach to every grade

crossing, alone or in combination with other traffic control devices.”38 If there are multiple tracks at the crossing, “the number of tracks shall [emphasis added] be indicated” by

an inverted T-shaped sign (R15-2). Other devices, such as the circular railroad crossing

advance warning sign (W10-1) (a yellow circular sign inscribed with a large “X” and the

letters “RR”) and the railroad crossing pavement markings (“to consist of an X, the letters

RR, a no passing marking . . . , and certain transverse lines”39), shall be placed on both

approaches to the crossing, but these may be omitted under certain conditions. In the case

 34 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 1988. Manual on uniform

traffic control devices. Washington, DC. Variously paged.

35 23 CFR §655.603.

36 Jennings, L. Stephen, comp., ed. 1995. Compilation of State laws and regulations affecting highwayrail grade crossings. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Federal Railroad Administration. Variously paged (page 5-1).

37 MUTCD (1988, page 1A-4).

38 MUTCD (1988, page 8B-1).

39 MUTCD (1988, page 8B-5).
Chapter 2 12 Safety Study

of the “do not stop on tracks” sign and a few other systems, the MUTCD says only that

they should or they may be installed. Appendix B contains a copy of the MUTCD

chapter that lists and illustrates the specific grade crossing signs and markings for which

design and placement standards are available.

The MUTCD classifies signs according to whether they inform the driver (1) of

the need to obey specific regulations (regulatory signs), (2) of the presence of hazards

(warning signs), or (3) of highway routes and directions (guide signs). Stop signs, yield

signs, and speed limit signs are all examples of regulatory signs, informing drivers of the

need to obey certain regulations, and providing them with explicit instructions. The

crossbuck and multiple tracks signs, placed at grade crossings, are regulatory signs.40

Warning signs “require caution on the part of the vehicle operator and may call for reduction of speed or a maneuver in the interest of his own safety.”41 The yellow diamondshaped signs, such as those indicating an upcoming “T” intersection, or a “stop ahead,”

are warning signs; the circular railroad crossing advance warning sign used at grade

crossings is classified as a warning sign.42 Guide signs, such as the shield-shaped interstate route signs are intended to guide drivers along roadways and to direct them toward

cities and other points of interest; none of the signs specific to grade crossings are guide

signs.

Railroad–Highway Grade

Crossing Handbook

The Railroad–Highway Grade Crossing Handbook (hereinafter called the Handbook) is published by the FHWA.43 It draws on a number of different sources (including

the MUTCD and the AASHTO Greenbook) to provide an overview of some of the legal

and jurisdictional considerations surrounding grade crossings, a brief discussion of the

grade crossing users, design issues involving the physical and geometric characteristics of

the crossing, and several formulas by which the risk at a crossing may be assessed. The

Handbook also provides guidelines for the identification and selection of active warning

devices. Also included are discussions of issues surrounding private grade crossings,

shortline railroads, high speed rail corridors, and special vehicles such as trucks carrying

hazardous materials. The Handbook was developed to provide a single source for all the

guidelines and alternative grade crossing improvements that had proved effective and that

had been accepted nationwide.

 40 MUTCD (1988, page 8A-1).

41 MUTCD (1988, page 2C-1).

42 MUTCD (1988, page 8B-3).

43 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 1986. Railroad-highway grade

crossing handbook. 2nd ed. FHWA-TS-86-215. Washington, DC. 261 p.
Chapter 2 13 Safety Study

Manual for Railway Engineering

This manual, published by the American Railway Engineering Association

(AREA, now the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association),

contains information and specifications for the engineering and design of railway roadway, track, and structures, including grade crossings.44 Among the grade crossing topics

covered in this manual are discussions of crossing surface materials, crossing profile, and

traffic control devices needed at crossings. The AREA manual is used by railroads and

consultants as guidelines for establishing policies and practices.

DOT Action Plan

In order to promote reductions in the numbers of accidents and fatalities at grade

crossings, the FHWA, the FRA, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and the

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published the Rail–Highway

Crossing Safety: Action Plan Support Proposals (hereinafter called the Action Plan).45 In

this 1994 Action Plan, the modal administrations identify six major initiatives through

which safety at all grade crossings could be improved:

• Increased law enforcement of traffic laws at crossings,

• Reviews of safety improvements at rail crossing corridors,

• Increased public education and Operation Lifesaver,46

• Safety at private crossings,

• Data and research, and

• Trespass prevention.

Within these major initiatives, the Action Plan identified 55 individual proposals, including those targeting specific needs, such as increasing truckdriver and busdriver

awareness of crossing safety, as well as those providing incentives to advance a program.

Proposals pertinent to this study on the safety at passive grade crossings will be discussed

in appropriate sections of this report.

 44 American Railway Engineering Association. 1996. Manual for railway engineering. Washington, DC.

Multiple vols.

45 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; Federal Railroad Administration; Federal Transit Administration; National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 1994. Railhighway crossing safety: action plan support proposals. Washington, DC: Federal Railroad Administration.

52 p.

46 Operation Lifesaver is identified and discussed later in this chapter.
Chapter 2 14 Safety Study

DOT Study of

Locomotive Conspicuity

In July 1995, the FRA published the results of a study on locomotive conspicuity

conducted by the Research and Special Programs Administration, John A. Volpe National

Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center).47 Staff of the Volpe Center conducted

field tests to determine the effectiveness of various external visual alerting devices designed to improve the ability of a motorist to detect a train at a crossing by making the

locomotive more conspicuous. The results of this testing suggested that the number of

accidents at grade crossings could be reduced through the installation and use of auxiliary

alerting light systems, such as crossing lights, placed on the locomotive so as to create a

triangular visual pattern with the headlight. In the spring of 1996, following publication

of the study, the FRA issued a final rule in which the locomotive safety standards (in 49

CFR 229.125) were amended to include a requirement for auxiliary alerting lights:

locomotives operated over public grade crossings at speeds greater than 20 mph must be

equipped with auxiliary lights. Railroads had to comply with the regulation by

December 31, 1997.48

DOT Grade Crossing

Safety Task Force

In November 1995, following the accident that occurred in October 1995 in Fox

River Grove, Illinois,49 in which seven high school students were killed when their school

bus was struck by a commuter train, the DOT formed an interagency task force to review

the processes for designing and operating grade crossings. Members of the task force

include representatives from the FRA, the FHWA, the NHTSA, the FTA, and the Office

of Intermodalism. The Safety Board also provides a representative. The task force is

focusing on the following five problem areas:

 47 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration. 1995. Safety of highwayrailroad grade crossings: use of auxiliary external alerting devices to improve locomotive conspicuity.

DOT/FRA/ORD-95/13; DOT-VNTSC-FRA-95-10. Washington, DC. Variously paged.

48 Locomotives with visibility measures in compliance with interim rulemaking were “grandfathered”

for 4 years after the date of the final rule. (Federal Register, Vol. 61, No. 45, dated March 6, 1996, pages

8881-8882.)

49 National Transportation Safety Board. 1996. Collision of Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter

Railroad Corporation (METRA) train and Transportation Joint Agreement School District 47/155 school

bus at railroad/highway grade crossing in Fox River Grove, Illinois, on October 25, 1995. Highway

Accident Report NTSB/HAR-96/02. Washington, DC. 74 p.
Chapter 2 15 Safety Study

1. Interconnected highway traffic signal and highway–rail crossing warning

devices (interconnected signals);

2. Available storage space for motor vehicles between highway–rail crossings

and adjacent highway–highway intersections (storage space);

3. High-profile crossings and low-clearance vehicles (high-profile crossings);

4. Light rail transit crossings (light rail); and

5. Special vehicle operating permits and information (special vehicles).50

The task force is not addressing issues specifically related to safety at passive crossings.

Previous Safety Board Activity

The Safety Board has had a longstanding concern about grade crossing safety.

Since its creation in 1967, the Board has investigated more than 400 accidents, including

the 60 accidents investigated for this study, occurring at grade crossings. The Safety

Board has also conducted several studies on grade crossing safety. In 1981, the Board issued a safety effectiveness evaluation on the improvement of nighttime conspicuity of

railroad trains,51 and a special study on grade crossing accidents involving trucks transporting bulk hazardous materials.52 In 1985, the Board conducted a grade crossing

review for calendar years 1983 and 1984.53 In 1986, the Board completed a safety study

on passenger/commuter train and motor vehicle collisions at grade crossings.54 Based on

the results of these accident investigations and studies, the Safety Board has issued about

100 safety recommendations relevant to grade crossings; 14 of these recommendations

were specifically aimed at passive grade crossing safety and are discussed where appropriate in this report.55 These recommendations have resulted in many improvements to

grade crossing safety.

 50 U.S. Department of Transportation. 1996. Accidents that shouldn’t happen. Washington, DC. 15 p.

51 National Transportation Safety Board. 1981. The improvement of nighttime conspicuity of railroad

trains. Safety Effectiveness Evaluation NTSB/SEE-81/03. Washington, DC. 45 p.

52 National Transportation Safety Board. 1981. Railroad/highway grade crossing accidents involving

trucks transporting bulk hazardous materials. Special Study NTSB/HZM-81/02. Washington, DC. 48 p.

53 National Transportation Safety Board. 1985. Railroad/highway grade crossing review—calendar

years 1983 and 1984. Safety Study NTSB/SS-85/05. Washington, DC. 65 p.

54 National Transportation Safety Board. 1986. Passenger/commuter train and motor vehicle collisions

at grade crossings (1985). Safety Study NTSB/SS-86/04. Washington, DC. 210 p.

55 A summary of these 14 recommendations and the status of each is included in appendix C.
Chapter 2 16 Safety Study

In 1972, the Union Pacific Railroad created a program that brought Idaho State

agencies and the railroad together to address grade crossing safety through public education; this program was called Operation Lifesaver. The Safety Board recognized the

value of these efforts, and in 1977 issued Safety Recommendation H-77-25, asking the

National Safety Council to serve as the coordinator for the total development, implementation, and evaluation of a nationwide Operation Lifesaver railroad–highway grade

crossing program.56 Primarily as a result of the Safety Board’s recommendation and aggressive followup, by the mid-1980s, 48 States had established Operation Lifesaver

programs. In 1986, the national program was established as an independent nonprofit organization, and it currently operates on a budget of about $1 million, half of which is

funded by the Federal government.57

The Safety Board investigated accidents at Intercession City, Florida, and in

Sycamore, South Carolina, where large, low-riding trucks became lodged on the tracks at

passive grade crossings and were struck by passenger trains.58 Issues revealed in these

investigations led the Safety Board to recommend improved signs to warn drivers of the

hazards presented by high profile (hump) crossings,59 and to recommend that railroads

implement 24-hour toll-free emergency telephone systems that motorists can use to warn

the railroads when a hazardous condition exists at a crossing.60 As a result of these

recommendations, the FHWA added a new sign to the MUTCD to warn of a hump

crossing, and several States and railroads are acting to install signs at all grade crossings

that provide an emergency phone number.

 56 This recommendation was classified “Closed—Acceptable Action” when the National Safety

Council accepted the responsibility for the first national Operation Lifesaver program in 1979.

57 The program is maintained by coordinators in each State, each of whom is supported by many

volunteers who give speeches and presentations to the public. Railroads, automobile associations, States,

safety associations and others historically have provided infusions of human resources and monies to keep

the program running smoothly. The FRA, the FHWA, and the Safety Board are among the Federal agencies

that participate in Operation Lifesaver activities.

58 (a) National Transportation Safety Board. 1995. Collision of Amtrak train No. 88 with Rountree

Transport and Rigging, Inc., vehicle on CSX Transportation, Inc., railroad near Intercession City, Florida;

November 30, 1993. Highway Accident Report NTSB/HAR-95/01. Washington, DC. 72 p. (b) National

Transportation Safety Board. 1996. Highway/rail grade crossing collision near Sycamore, South Carolina;

May 2, 1995. Highway Accident Report NTSB/HAR-96/01. Washington, DC. 96 p.

59 Safety Recommendation H-96-5 to the FHWA is classified “Open—Acceptable Response.”

60 Safety Recommendation R-96-3 is currently classified “Open—Acceptable Response” for 2 of the

Class I railroads; “Closed—Acceptable Action” for 1 of the railroads; “Open—Initial Response” for 1 of

the railroads; and “Open—Awaiting Response” for 6 of the 10 Class I Railroads. In April 1998, the Safety

Board sent followup letters to the 6 railroads that had not responded to the recommendation. Safety

Recommendation R-96-2 to the American Short Line Railroad Association is classified “Open—Awaiting

Response.”
Chapter 2 17 Safety Study

In addition to the above activities, the Safety Board has issued other recommendations over the years that have addressed nighttime conspicuity of trains, the clearing of

vegetation in the crossing vicinity, additional warning devices to be placed at passive

crossings scheduled for and awaiting upgrade to active devices, the enforcement of stop

signs at grade crossings, and the audibility of train horns. Pertinent recommendations

will be discussed, where appropriate, in this report.
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 3 19 Safety Study

Chapter 3

Methods and Overview

of the Accident Sample

For this study, the Safety Board (1) investigated 60 grade crossing accidents and

(2) obtained information during a public forum convened in May 1997 in Jacksonville,

Florida. This chapter provides a description of the study design and the data collection

method, and an overview of the accident sample.

Study Cases

Selection and Notification Criteria

The Safety Board selected for study accidents involving a collision between a

train and a highway vehicle occurring at a passive grade crossing, wherein the highway

vehicle was sufficiently damaged to require towing. To ensure timely accident investigations, qualifying accidents were limited to those occurring in States with close proximity

to the Safety Board’s regional offices located in California, Georgia, Illinois, New Jersey,

and Texas.

Accidents meeting the qualification criteria were accepted sequentially for investigation from December 1995 through August 1996, as the Safety Board received

notification; 60 accidents met the criteria and were included in the study analysis.61 The

sample of accidents is not intended to be statistically representative of the entire population of accidents at passive grade crossings during the study period, but rather to illustrate

a range of passive grade crossing accidents.

Investigative Procedures

The Safety Board used its standard investigative procedures for these accidents,

obtaining detailed information about the crossing area, the vehicles involved, and the vehicle occupants. A probable cause was determined for each accident in the study.

Although the accident scene was not typically secured for the Board’s investigators, there

was an inspection of each accident site and of the vehicles involved.62

 61 Two additional accidents were investigated (cases 2 and 24) but were determined not to meet the

qualification criteria; therefore, they were excluded from the analysis.

62 The locomotive involved in case 58 was dispatched from the accident scene prior to the

investigator’s arrival.
Chapter 3 20 Safety Study

In addition to collecting general information about the accident, Safety Board investigators gathered detailed data about the alignment, construction, and condition of

both the roadway and the railroad tracks at the crossing. Information about the presence

and condition of signs or pavement markings near the crossing was collected, as well as

the traffic frequency counts for both highway and railroad traffic. In the event that the

vertical profile of a given accident crossing was inconsistent with the guidelines set forth

by AASHTO,63 the investigators took detailed measurements of the crossing elevation

from the roadway. Investigators also documented the location of any objects they determined to be sight obstructions for the highway vehicle driver. The investigators

examined the methods used on each accident train, such as the use of lights or reflective

material, designed to make the train easier for a motorist to see both during the day and at

night.

When possible, Safety Board investigators conducted interviews with the person

operating the train at the time of the accident, and with the driver of the highway vehicle.

These interviews provided information on their perceptions, not only of the accident itself, but also of the surrounding area and the traffic control system in place at the

crossing.

Public Forum

In May 1997, the Safety Board convened a 2-day public forum in Jacksonville,

Florida, to gather information about issues affecting safety at passive grade crossings.

The agenda for the public forum is given in appendix D. Witnesses included experts

from the railroad industry; law enforcement; research groups; Operation Lifesaver; and

Federal, State, and local government agencies. Those involved in grade crossing accidents, both highway vehicle occupants and traincrews, testified about their personal

experiences. In addition, representatives from Canada and Italy discussed passive grade

crossing issues and experiences in their countries.

The topics addressed at the forum included public education, the role of the

media, physical characteristics of passive grade crossings, communications between railroad and highway officials, crossing closures, and Federal versus State responsibility for

grade crossing safety. Testimony from the public forum will be discussed in the relevant

sections later in this report.

 63 AASHTO guidelines recommend that the roadway surface be no more than 6 inches lower or

3 inches higher than the top of the tracks at 30 feet away from the nearest track. (AASHTO (1990, pages

842-843).)
Chapter 3 21 Safety Study

Overview of the Accident Sample

This section provides general information about the 60 accidents in the Safety

Board’s sample.64 Details regarding the crossings at which the accidents occurred are

reported in chapter 4.

Time of Day

Most of the accidents occurred during the daylight hours (47 of 60, or about 78

percent). In comparison, in 1996, about two-thirds of all accidents (1,213 of 1,817) at

public passive grade crossings occurred during daylight.65 Because certain issues pertain

to nighttime accidents specifically, the investigators made an effort to investigate a number of accidents that would help illustrate these issues; nighttime accidents were taken

sequentially as the Board received notification.

Injury Severity and Fatalities

More than half the highway vehicle drivers (35 of 60) and highway vehicle passengers (16 of 25) were fatally injured (table 3–1). The injury distribution seen in the

study case accidents, however, is not necessarily representative of the injury distribution

in all passive grade crossing accidents; the Safety Board is more likely to receive notification of an accident if there are serious or fatal injuries involved. According to FRA

data for 1996, about 12 percent (209 of 1,817) of all accidents at public passive grade

crossings involved a fatality.66

Crossing

Of the 60 accidents, 46 occurred at crossings on public roads and 14 occurred at

crossings on private roads. These private roads provided access to farms (three accidents), residential neighborhoods (four accidents), commercial areas (three accidents),

and industrial complexes (three accidents). The remaining accident was on a private road

that was used by all traffic when a nearby underpass was flooded. Thirty-five of the accident crossings had a vertical profile outside the limits recommended by AASHTO. Of

the 60 crossings in the study, 19 were not posted with the DOT crossing identification

(ID) number, and 2 were posted with an incorrect ID number.67 Information on the signs

and pavement markings present at the study accident crossings is discussed in the next

chapter.

 64 The study case number, date, and location of each accident are provided in appendix E, table E–1.

Appendix E also contains additional tables summarizing data from the accident sample. Volume 2 of this

report contains a narrative summary of each of the 60 accidents.

65 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration. 1997. Highway-rail crossing

accident/incident and inventory bulletin. No. 19. Washington, DC. 87 p. (page 43).

66 FRA (1997, page 43).

67 The FRA requires that reports of accidents occurring at grade crossings must include the crossing’s

unique DOT crossing ID number, and recommends that every crossing be posted with its ID number.
Chapter 3 22 Safety Study

Table 3–1. Number of persons injured in the 60 study accidents,

by injury severity.

Injury severity

Person involved Minor Serious Fatal

Number

not injured

All persons

involved

Highway vehicle driver 9 5 35 11 60

Highway vehicle passenger 3 2 16 4 25

Train crewmember 4 0 0 189 193

Train passenger 4 0 0 1,536 1,540

Total 20 7 51 1,740 1,818

Highway Vehicle Driver/Vehicle

Thirty-six drivers (60 percent) in the accident sample had no previous driving

convictions within the 3 years prior to the study accident.68 To put this in perspective, according to the NHTSA, 55.8 percent of the drivers involved in all fatal accidents

involving highway vehicles in 1995 had no previous driving convictions in the same time

period.69

Impairment because of drug or alcohol use was not common for the accidentinvolved drivers in the study. Of the 60 drivers, 27 were not tested, most commonly

because the officers on the scene determined that there was no evidence to warrant testing. Of the 33 drivers who were tested for the presence of alcohol and other drugs in their

system, 7 were found to have positive results. Information published by the NHTSA

indicates that one-third of the drivers involved in fatal grade crossing accidents on public

roadways had measurable amounts of alcohol in their bloodstream.70 In the Board’s

sample, however, only 1 of the 7 drivers with positive results was found to have had a

measurable amount of alcohol in his bloodstream; that driver was 1 of the 39 drivers

involved in a fatal accident.

 68 (a) Driving histories were not available for 2 of the 36 drivers because neither driver had ever held a

driver’s license in any State. (b) In the driving histories of the accident-involved drivers, 20 drivers had

previous speeding violations, 12 drivers had other previous violations, 7 drivers had a previous accident

within 3 years of the study accident, and 3 drivers had previous convictions for driving under the influence.

An individual driver may have had more than one prior driving conviction. One driver in the study had a

suspended license.

69 U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 1996. Traffic

safety facts. 192 p. (page 96).

70 U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 1994. Railhighway crossing safety: fatal crash and demographic descriptors. NHTSA Technical Report DOT HS 808

196. Washington, DC. 61 p. (page 18).
Chapter 3 23 Safety Study

Nineteen of the 60 highway vehicles were reported by the traincrews to be in motion at the time of impact, with no evidence of slowing or stopping.71 In 16 cases, the

highway vehicles reportedly either slowed and then proceeded, or were accelerating. Ten

drivers reportedly stopped their vehicles, then proceeded onto the tracks. In four cases,

the vehicles were either lodged or stalled on the tracks, and in five cases the vehicle was

attempting to stop and came to a stop on the tracks. Four other highway vehicles were

engaged in other actions,72 and in two cases the action taken by the highway vehicle

driver was unknown.

In three of the study accidents, the highway vehicle struck the side of a train already occupying the crossing (cases 8, 37, and 43). In all other cases, the train struck the

highway vehicle.73

Train Conspicuity

Fifty-nine of the 60 accident-involved trains were determined to have had a headlight in use at the time of the accident.74 Auxiliary alerting lights were installed on the

locomotives in 42 of the accident trains, and in 36 of the cases these lights were in use.

Twenty-five of the accident trains had reflective material on the locomotives to assist

highway vehicle drivers in detecting trains at nighttime, particularly if the trains are already occupying the crossing. It is not known how many trailing cars in each consist

were reflectorized, but 15 trains were reported as having some reflectorized trailing cars.

Train Speed

Train speed at impact (available from event recorders) was known for 56 of the

study cases. The impact speed ranged from 3 to 80 mph.

Train Horn

In 55 of the 60 cases, the Safety Board was able to determine that the train horn

sounded prior to impact.75 The train horn was sounded in 14 of the 18 cases in which the

Safety Board was able to interview the highway vehicle driver (table 3–2). Four of the 14

drivers in these cases reported that they heard the train horn before impact, but of these

 71 (a) The Safety Board acknowledges that the accuracy of reports made by traincrews or surviving

drivers is dependent on the ability (given memory limitations) and willingness of the individuals to provide

accurate information. (b) Three interviewed drivers were among the 19 drivers reported to have proceeded

without slowing or stopping; they corroborate the traincrews’ reports.

72 In case 3 the vehicle was reportedly backing off the tracks, in case 14 the vehicle was described as

decelerating, and in case 51 the vehicle was in motion but whether accelerating or decelerating is unknown.

The vehicle in case 43 struck the train, but whether it was accelerating or decelerating was not reported.

73 According to FRA data for 1996, the highway vehicle struck the train in 432 of the 1,817 accidents at

passive grade crossings (23 percent).

74 The Safety Board was not able to determine the headlight use on the locomotive involved in case 56.

75 Of the remaining five cases, the train did not sound its horn in one instance (case 8), and use of the

train horn could not be determined in four other instances (cases 9, 30, 52, and 61).
Chapter 3 24 Safety Study

Table 3–2. Recollections of 18 of the 60 highway vehicle drivers in the

study cases about whether they heard the train horn and whether there

were distractions at the time of the grade crossing accident.(a)

Case

number

Train horn

blown(b)

Driver heard

horn(b)

Driver aware of

oncoming train

Distraction

identified

08

09

15 ✔ ✔ Unknown

22 ✔ Stereo, passengers

25 ✔

26 ✔✔ ✔

27 ✔✔ ✔

28 ✔ ✔ Highway traffic

37 ✔ Passengers

38 ✔ Highway traffic

40 ✔ Highway traffic

48 ✔ ✔(c) Unknown Unknown

52 ✔

54 ✔ ✔(c) ✔ Stereo

55 ✔ Stereo

56 ✔ ✔ Passengers, loose items

57 ✔

58 ✔

(a) The remaining 42 drivers were not available to the investigators for interview.

(b) Determined by the accident investigator from data on event recorder, witness statements, or train

engineer.

(c) Driver was outside vehicle at the time of the accident.

4 drivers, 2 were not inside their vehicle at the time of impact. Of the remaining 10 drivers, who reported that they did not hear the train horn, 3 indicated that they were still

aware of the train’s approach before impact.76

Eight of the 10 highway vehicle drivers who did not hear the train horn reported

either internal and/or external sounds that distracted them from the horn’s audibility.

These distractions included the stereo, passengers, and traffic. Seven drivers had their

vehicles’ windows open, but four of these drivers still did not hear the train horn; two of

these four drivers reported distractions.

 76 These three drivers stated that they saw the train but thought it was far away (case 15), or that they

saw the train only after they were already on the tracks (cases 28 and 56).
Chapter 3 25 Safety Study

Traincrew

The train operators had experience ranging from 1 year to more than 25 years of

service. No member of any traincrew was determined by the investigating law enforcement officer to be impaired.

Driver and Engineer Interviews

Safety Board investigators were able to obtain interviews with 54 of the 60 engineers involved in the study accidents,77 and with 18 of the 25 surviving highway vehicle

drivers.

In interviews, 45 of the 54 engineers stated that they saw the highway vehicle

prior to the crash, and 51 engineers reported applying the train brakes prior to or upon

impact. The engineers in 8 cases reported that they believed the highway vehicle drivers

saw the train, and in 12 cases believed the drivers did not see the train; the engineers in

the remaining 25 cases were uncertain.

Probable Causes

The Safety Board determined the probable cause for all 60 accident cases investigated. Overall, driver error was cited as the primary cause in 49 of the 60 accident cases:

driver disregard for the stop sign in 13 cases, and the driver’s failure to look for a train in

16 cases (table 3–3). In 7 of the remaining 11 cases, the probable cause was determined

to be related to roadway conditions that affected the driver’s ability to detect the presence

of a passive crossing or an oncoming train; roadway and track conditions were cited as

the probable cause in 3 of the 11 cases.

 77 (a) The engineers involved in the six remaining accidents (cases 38, 39, 48, 50, 53, and 56) were

dispatched from the accident scene prior to the investigator’s arrival. (b) The Safety Board notes that in 6

of the 60 cases, the person at the train controls was not the engineer of record: in cases 3, 11, 31, and 55 it

was the assistant engineer; in case 27 it was a certified engineer on a familiarization run; and in case 29 it

was the fireman.
Chapter 3 26 Safety Study

Table 3–3. Probable causes and contributing factors for the 60 study

accidents at passive grade crossings.

Cause or contributing factor

Number of study

accidents in which cited

as primary cause

Number of study

accidents in which cited

as a contributing factor

Driver-related:

Disregard for stop sign(a) 13

Failure to look 16

Distraction 10 2

Judgment error(b) 5 1

Inattention(c) 4

Failure to follow procedure 1

Fatigue 1

Drugs 1

Vehicle-related:

Mechanical failure 1

Environment-related:

Roadway conditions 7 9

Roadway and track conditions 2 2

Inadequate signage 1 2

Train horn not sounded 2

Roadway and traffic conditions 1

Sun glare 1

(a) In case 46, the disregard for the stop sign was due to fatigue.

(b) In case 51, the driver’s judgment error was due to alcohol impairment.

(c) The driver inattention in case 4 was possibly due to drug impairment.
Chapter 4 27 Safety Study

Chapter 4

Description of the Accident Crossings:

Detecting the Presence

of a Passive Crossing and

an Oncoming Train

This chapter describes the accident crossings, specifically the information given to

motorists to advise them of the presence of a crossing and the physical characteristics at

the accident crossings that may have affected the driver’s ability to see the oncoming

train.

Factors That Alert a Driver to the

Presence of a Passive Crossing

At a passive grade crossing, the highway driver is alerted to the presence of a

grade crossing by the set of pavement markings and traffic signs on the roadway leading

to and at the grade crossing. These markings and signs are the same markings and signs

that are present at active crossings, which, unlike passive crossings, have additional traffic control devices to alert the driver to the presence of a train. For example, railroad

crossing advance warning signs and crossbuck signs are required at all public crossings.

Multiple-track warning signs are also required at all crossings where there are multiple

train tracks. Table 4–1 shows the number of passive crossings in the Board’s sample

where specific signs were required, and the number of crossings where they were present.

Under certain conditions, the MUTCD suggests additional crossing-related signs and requires additional roadway-related signs; 27 crossings had additional signs present (table

4–2).

The total number of signs at each crossing approach ranged from 0 to 6; the total

number of signs directly related to the presence of a grade crossing ranged from 0 to 3.

Safety Board investigators documented the presence of 129 signs in the vicinity of the
Chapter 4 28 Safety Study

Table 4–1. Required grade crossing signs present on the roadway approaches

to the 60 study accident crossings.(a)

Public crossings Private crossings

Grade crossing

sign required

Number of

crossings

where required

Number of

crossings

where present

Number of

crossings

where required

Number of

crossings

where present

Crossbuck 46 45(b) 1(c) 9

Railroad advance warning 46 22 0 0

Multiple tracks 7 5 0 1

(a) Federal Highway Administration requirements for grade crossing signs at public crossings are contained in the

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Of the 60 study cases, 46 involved public grade crossings and

14 involved private grade crossings, which are not subject to Federal requirements for grade crossing signs.

(b) The public grade crossing in case 41 did not have a standard crossbuck. Instead, it had an experimental sign

referred to as an “Ohio buckeye” crossbuck. This sign has red lettering, reflectorized strips the full length of the

mast, and a supplemental shield bearing red chevrons and the word “Yield.”

(c) The State of Florida requires a crossbuck sign at all public and private crossings.

Table 4–2. Optional grade crossing signs and

required roadway-related signs present on the

roadway approaches to the 60 study accident

crossings.

Sign

Number of crossings

where present

Optional grade crossing sign:(a)

Stop 22

Stop ahead 3

No passing zone 1

Required roadway-related sign:(b)

Chevron 3

T intersection 2

Speed limit 1

No trucks 1

Left reverse turn 1

Bump 1

(a) Federal Highway Administration requirements for grade crossing signs at

public crossings are contained in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control

Devices (MUTCD). The manual also addresses the appearance and size of

optional grade crossing signs that may be used at public crossings. The 14

private crossings involved in the National Transportation Safety Board study

cases are not subject to Federal requirements for grade crossing signs.

(b) Signs are present because of circumstances of the roadway. These

signs are not related to the presence of a grade crossing.
Chapter 4 29 Safety Study

accident grade crossings; 110 of these were related to the presence of the grade crossing.78

Twenty-three of the 110 crossing-related signs were not in good condition; many of these

signs had a combination of problems that made them difficult to be seen, including being

faded, dirty, bent, broken, punctured, or not aligned with the roadway. One hundred

thirteen masts supported the 129 signs, and all but five of the masts were free of sight

obstructions.

Pavement Markings

Of the 60 roads approaching the accident crossings, 45 were surfaced with asphalt, 1 was concrete, and 14 had either gravel or earthen surfaces. Nineteen of the 46

paved roads were required to have the full set of railroad crossing pavement markings described in the MUTCD (illustrated in figure 4–1) because they were paved public roads

with a traffic speed above 40 mph.79 Four of these 19 roads bore a full set of pavement

markings, 4 others bore partial sets of pavement markings, and the remaining 11 roads

had no pavement markings (table 4–3). The FRA inventory indicates that 75 percent of

public crossings, both active and passive, with paved roadway approaches have pavement

markings present, but it does not indicate how many of the roads without pavement

markings were exempt from the requirement.

The full set of pavement markings was not required on the remaining 27 paved

roads in the accident sample because either the prevailing speed was less than 40 mph or

they were private roads. Full or partial pavement markings were present, however, on 11

of these roads. According to the MUTCD, “[w]hen used, a portion of the pavement

marking symbol should be directly opposite the advance warning sign.”80 Of the 19 roads

with full or partial pavement markings (8 where the full markings were required, 11

where full markings were not required), 5 had markings that were placed in accordance

with the MUTCD near the advance warning sign (cases 7, 9, 32, 41, and 44), and 8 had

pavement markings that were placed too close to the crossing, with the marking at one

crossing ending only 15 feet away from the tracks (case 8). In three cases, there were

pavement markings but no advance warning sign (cases 10, 36, and 57). In addition, the

pavement markings on 10 of the 19 roads were worn and not in good condition.

 78 Ten of the 129 signs in the vicinity of the accident crossings were not listed in the MUTCD; thus,

Federal standards for these signs do not exist, and the States are not required to have the signs. Although 5

of the 10 unlisted signs were directly related to the presence of a grade crossing, they have not been counted

in the 110 signs.

79 The MUTCD requires both the “no passing zone” line and the railroad crossing pavement marking,

(which consists of an “X,” the letters “RR,” and certain transverse lines) in advance of the crossings on

paved public roads where the prevailing speed is higher than 40 mph.

80 MUTCD (1988, page 8B-4).
Chapter 4 30 Safety Study

Figure 4–1. Full set of pavement markings on a roadway approach paved with either

asphalt or concrete and with a traffic speed over 40 mph: “X,” “RR,” transverse lines, and

no-passing zone lines. Some portion of the pavement markings should be directly opposite

the advance warning sign but no closer than 50 feet from the crossing.
Chapter 4 31 Safety Study

Table 4–3. Pavement markings present on the roadway

approaches to the 46 study accident crossings on paved roads.

Number of crossings where present

and a full set of railroad crossing

pavement markings was—

Pavement markings Required(a) Not required(b)

Full set of railroad crossing

 pavement markings 4 7

No-passing zone line only 0 2

Railroad crossing pavement marking only 4 2

No pavement markings 11 16

Total 19 27

(a) The Federal Highway Administration’s Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices requires a

set of pavement markings on paved public roads where the prevailing speed is higher than 40

mph. The set comprises a no-passing zone line and the railroad crossing pavement markings

(an “X,” the letters “RR,” and certain transverse lines) in advance of the crossing.

(b) The full set of pavement markings was not required on the roadway approaches to these

crossings because either the prevailing speed was less than 40 mph or they were private

roads.

Advance Warning Sign

The 46 public crossings in the accident sample were required to have a circular

railroad crossing advance warning sign (figure 4–2); 24 crossings did not display the

sign.81 The 14 private crossings were not required to, and did not have, the advance

warning sign. Eight of the 24 public crossings without the advance warning sign had stop

signs, but the MUTCD does not cite the presence of a stop sign as cause for exemption

from using the circular advance warning sign. According to the MUTCD, the railroad

advance warning sign need not be used under the following circumstances:

On low-volume, low-speed roadways crossing . . . tracks . . . infrequently used and

 . . . flagged by crews;

In the business districts of urban areas . . . [where] active grade crossing traffic control

devices are in use;

 . . . [where] physical conditions do not permit even a partially effective display of the

sign.”82

 81 The MUTCD requires the presence of the railroad advance warning sign at public grade crossings far

enough in advance of the crossing to allow a driver to “perceive, identify, decide, and perform any

necessary maneuver.” The minimum recommended distance is 100 feet from a crossing.

82 MUTCD (1988, page 8B-3).
Chapter 4 32 Safety Study

Figure 4–2. Circular railroad crossing advance warning sign.

None of the 24 public crossings without the circular advance warning sign met the exemptions specified in the MUTCD. According to FRA data, about 61 percent of all

active and passive crossings are equipped with the circular advance warning sign.

A 1990 study sponsored by the Texas Department of Transportation surveyed a

number of highway vehicle drivers who had just passed through one of several test

crossings in Texas. When asked, 51 percent of the responding drivers were able to correctly indicate the meaning and position of the circular advance warning sign.83 One of

the researchers later reported that 50 percent of drivers surveyed were not aware that the

advance warning sign is used at both active and passive grade crossings.84 The Safety

Board asked the drivers in its study cases what signs were present in the crossing vicinity;

of the three drivers interviewed whose crossings were equipped with the advance warning

sign, only one remembered the presence and meaning of the sign.

 83 Bartoskewitz, Richard T.; Fambro, Daniel B. 1995. Passive signing research in Texas. In:

Proceedings, 3rd international symposium on railroad-highway grade crossing research and safety; 1994

October 24-26; Knoxville, TN. Knoxville: University of Tennessee: 75-90 (page 88).

84 Presentation to Safety Board staff at a session held in Knoxville, Tennessee; January 23-26, 1996.
Chapter 4 33 Safety Study

Figure 4–3. Crossbuck sign, multiple tracks sign, and stop sign placed at a crossing.

Crossbuck Sign

The crossbuck is a regulatory sign and was required at the 46 public crossings in

the Safety Board’s accident sample and at 1 of the private crossings.85 The sign was present at 45 of the public crossings, at the 1 private crossing where it was required, and at

8 private crossings where it was not required (figure 4–3). Thus, crossbuck signs were

present at 54 of the 60 accident crossings to advise the highway vehicle driver of a grade

crossing. Five of the six crossings without the standard crossbuck were on private roads;

the sixth, a public crossing, had a special, nonstandard, experimental crossbuck configuration.86 The FRA data do not indicate whether crossbuck signs were present at a

crossing, but they do indicate that in 1996, 31 percent of the public passive grade crossings did not meet the MUTCD standards for the crossbuck sign.87

 85 The State of Florida requires a crossbuck sign at all public and private grade crossings.

86 The crossbuck in case 41 is referred to as an “Ohio buckeye” crossbuck. The sign had red lettering,

reflectorized strips the full length of the mast, and a supplemental shield bearing red chevrons and the word

“Yield.” A report on the results of an extensive field test of this experimental configuration throughout Ohio

is scheduled for publication in the fall of 1998.

87 This number includes crossings with no crossbuck sign and crossings where the crossbuck is not

reflectorized.
Chapter 4 34 Safety Study

Table 4–4. Meaning of the crossbuck and driver

action required by the crossbuck according to

the accident-involved highway vehicle drivers at

18 of the 60 study accident crossings.(a)

Perceived meaning

and action required

Number of drivers who

indicated the crossbuck

meaning or action

Meaning of the crossbuck:

At a crossing now 10

Crossing ahead 7

Other 1

Action required by the crossbuck:

Stop 6

Yield 5

Slow down 4

No special action 2

Other 1

(a) The remaining 42 drivers were not available to the investigators for

interview.

Investigators asked the 18 accident drivers they interviewed what action the driver

thought was required by a crossbuck (table 4–4). Most (n = 10) of the drivers believed

that the crossbuck indicated the presence of tracks. Of the 18 drivers interviewed, 5 responded that a crossbuck required a driver to yield to a train, and 6 responded that a

crossbuck required a driver to stop. No States include in their motor vehicle codes any

special rules dictating what driver actions are to be taken when encountering a crossbuck

sign. Most States require the driver to slow down upon approaching a crossing and to be

prepared to stop.88 Although the crossbuck does not dictate the action required of a

driver, nor is it stated in any guidance what action is dictated by the crossbuck, the crossbuck sign is widely recognized by motorists as indicating the location of a grade crossing.

In a 1988 study of motorist understanding of traffic control devices, 76.3 percent of the

interviewed drivers identified the crossbuck as the sign placed at a crossing.89

 88 Jennings, L. Stephen, comp., ed. 1995. Compilation of State laws and regulations affecting highwayrail grade crossings. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Federal Railroad Administration. Variously paged.

89 Richards, Stephen H.; Heathington, K.W. 1988. Motorist understanding of railroad-highway grade

crossing traffic control devices and associated traffic laws. In: Traffic control devices 1988. Transportation

Research Record 1160. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council: 52-

59.
Chapter 4 35 Safety Study

Multiple Tracks Sign

According to the MUTCD, sign masts at public crossings with multiple train

tracks must bear, in addition to the standard crossbuck sign, an auxiliary sign to notify the

motorist of the number of tracks (figure 4–3). Seven of the study crossings required the

sign; five of the crossings had it. Five additional crossings with multiple tracks were on

private roads and were not required to have the sign; four of these private crossings did

not have the sign. The following accident illustrates the dangers presented to drivers at

crossings with multiple tracks.

About 9 p.m. on Wednesday, May 29, 1996, a northbound National Railroad

Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) train struck an eastbound Ford pickup truck on the No. 1

mainline track at the 2nd Street grade crossing in Lula, Georgia (case 29). According to

the locomotive event recorder, the Amtrak train horn was sounded prior to the crossing;

according to the traincrew, the headlight and auxiliary locomotive alerting lights were

illuminated. A witness to the accident stated that he observed the pickup stopped at the

crossing, awaiting the passage of a freight train on the nearer of two sets of tracks. The

only indication given to the pickup driver that there was a second set of tracks was the

small auxiliary sign below the crossbuck, the view of which was obscured by a “no

trucks” sign on another mast. When the last car of the freight train cleared the crossing,

the pickup driver moved to cross the intersection and was struck by the Amtrak train on

the second set of tracks. The pickup driver was fatally injured; the traincrew and passengers on the train were not injured. According to FRA data for 1996, about 24 percent

of the public passive crossings had more than one set of railroad tracks, but there is no

information about whether these crossings were equipped with the multiple tracks sign.

Stop Sign

At 22 of the 60 passive grade crossings in the study, stop signs were in place at the

time of the accident (figure 4–3). At these 22 crossings, traincrews reported that 11

highway vehicle drivers made no effort to stop (6 drivers proceeded without stopping or

slowing, 4 slowed, and 1 accelerated); 5 stopped before proceeding; 3 stopped on the

tracks; 2 were stalled on the tracks; and actions taken by 1 driver were unknown.

The 1988 edition of the MUTCD directed that stop signs be installed at grade

crossings only after an engineering study had specifically determined that it was necessary

and appropriate. The FHWA revised the MUTCD, pursuant to the passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), to state that “STOP or

YIELD signs may be used at highway–rail grade crossings, at the discretion of the responsible State or local jurisdiction, for crossings that have two or more trains per day

and are without automatic traffic control devices.”90

 90 FHWA final rule docket No. 92-11 (47 FR [Federal Register] 53029). The rule was effective

November 6, 1992.
Chapter 4 36 Safety Study

Table 4–5. Percentage of public passive grade

crossings equipped with stop signs compared with the

percentage of accidents at public passive grade

crossings with stop signs, 1992–1996.(a)

Year

Percent public passive

grade crossings

with stop signs

Percent public passive

grade crossing accidents at

crossings with stop signs

1992 9.94 13.28

1993 10.08 13.61

1994 10.84 15.33

1995 11.10 19.84

1996 11.19 20.36

(a) Prior to 1992, the FRA used a different definition of a stop sign-equipped

crossing; therefore, statistics for earlier years are not comparable to statistics for

1992–1996.

According to the annual FRA crossing inventory bulletins, the percentage of public passive grade crossings that are equipped with stop signs has increased from 9.94

percent in 1992 to 11.19 percent in 1996. In that same period, the percentage of accidents

involving public passive crossings with stop signs increased from 13.28 percent to 20.36

percent of accidents at all public passive crossings (table 4–5). The relatively small increase in the number of public passive grade crossings with stop signs may reflect a

tendency by highway engineers to place stop signs only at the crossings judged to be more

dangerous. The Safety Board does not have information on the number of highway vehicles that avoided being in a collision with a train when the vehicle driver stopped at a

crossing with a stop sign. Nor does the Safety Board have information about whether the

stop signs were installed at crossings with a high frequency of accidents or information on

possible changes in highway or train traffic, and whether these factors could have affected

the accident rates at the public passive crossings that are equipped with stop signs.

Therefore, the effectiveness of stop signs cannot be evaluated based on the information

from the FRA. The report addresses the role of stop signs at passive crossings in more

detail in chapter 6.

Reflectorization of Signs

Currently, the MUTCD requires that the crossbuck sign be reflectorized, but there

is no requirement regarding reflective material on the sign masts. Forty-five of the 54

standard crossbuck signs at the study crossings were reflectorized, but only 11 of the

crossbuck sign masts had any reflectorization. Only one of the 11 sign masts was

equipped with strips of reflectorized tape extending the mast’s full length on both the

front and back of the mast (case 41); this mast was the one supporting the experimental

Ohio buckeye crossbuck and shield. The remaining 10 masts had small rings of tape,
Chapter 4 37 Safety Study

small reflectorized panels, or reflective buttons. Accidents in the study sample occurred

during darkness or twilight at 13 crossings: 9 with reflectorized crossbuck signs, and 5

with reflectorized sign masts.

The height of the crossbuck can affect a driver’s ability to see the sign at night.

According to the MUTCD, the standard placement for a crossbuck is with the sign center

9 feet from the ground,91 a height that may be altered if local conditions dictate. Table 4–

6 shows the height to the center of the crossbuck at the 54 study accident crossings with

crossbuck signs: about 43 percent are between 8 and 9 feet or between 9 and 10 feet. A

considerable number of the crossbuck signs, however, were centered at 10 feet or higher

(46 percent). This height becomes questionable when considering the sign’s visibility to

drivers at night. A 1993 study sponsored by the FRA shows that the standard placement

of the crossbuck is too high to be effectively illuminated by typical automobile low-beam

headlights and recommends that the crossbuck be lowered 2 feet, to about 7 feet.92 As table 4–7 shows, of the 13 crossings where accidents occurred during twilight or darkness,

all but one had the crossbuck centered at or above 8 feet—too high to be effectively illuminated by low-beam automobile headlights, according to the 1993 FRA study.

When a slow-moving train occupies a crossing at night, it can be difficult for a

motorist to discern that the crossing is not clear. If the crossbuck masts are fully reflectorized on both the front and the back, a motorist may be able to see the reflective back of

the mast on the far side of the grade crossing flicker as the train cars pass. Further, when

the angle of the crossing is skewed, the view of reflective material high on the crossbuck

mast on the far side of the crossing may be obscured by the train cars, but the reflection

from the material at the base of the mast would still be visible from underneath the train

cars, an effect that could be further enhanced by the presence of reflective material on all

sides of the mast.

According to research by the Virginia Transportation Research Council (VTRC),

even in the event that a crossbuck can be seen at night, the most common configuration—

a reflectorized crossbuck on an unreflectorized mast—can leave motorists with the impression that the sign is “floating.”93 Researchers at Kansas State University suggest

reflectorization of the mast to which a crossbuck is attached as a way of giving more information to motorists about the exact location of a grade crossing.94 The VTRC research

shows that reflective strips the full length of both the front and back of the mast

 91 MUTCD (1988, page 8B-2).

92 Russell, E.R.; Kent, W. 1993. Highway-rail crossing safety demonstrations. Washington, DC: Federal

Railroad Administration. 266 p. (page 101).

93 Brich, S.C. 1995. Investigation of retroreflective sign materials at passive railroad crossings.

Charlottesville, VA: Virginia Transportation Research Council. 35 p. (page 12).

94 Russell, Eugene R.; Rys, Margaret; Liu, Libo. 1997. A program to improve safety at typical railroadhighway grade crossings on low-volume, rural roads. In: Proceedings, 25th annual conference of the

Canadian Society of Civil Engineering; 1997 May 27-30; Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada. [Publisher

unknown].
Chapter 4 38 Safety Study

Table 4–6. Height from the road surface to the center of the

crossbuck at the 54 study accident crossings with a standard

crossbuck sign.(a)

Height to center of

crossbuck (feet)

Number of

crossbuck signs

Percent of the study

crossings with a

standard crossbuck

Less than 6 1 1.9

Between 7 and 8 4 7.4

Between 8 and 9 7 12.9

Between 9 and 10 16 29.6

Between 10 and 11 8 14.8

Between 11 and 12 10 18.5

Between 12 and 13 4 7.4

Above 13 1 1.9

Unknown 3 5.5

(a) The crossing in case 41(Pickerington, Ohio) had an experimental crossbuck; the height

from the road surface to the center of the crossbuck was 9 feet.

Table 4–7. Height from the road surface to

the center of crossbuck at the 13 study

accident crossings where the accident

occurred in nondaylight conditions.

Height to center of

crossbuck (feet)

Number of

crossbuck signs

5.5 1

8-9 3

9-10 4

12-13 1

Unknown 2

Not applicable 2

best provide this information.95 In addition, anecdotal evidence indicates that reflective

strips on all four sides of a wooden sign mast may be beneficial in situations where the

roadway approach is curved or when drivers are approaching on nearby intersections.

Further, some train engineers have reported that in foggy conditions they have been

unable to see a whistle post indicating the upcoming crossing, but they have seen the

reflectorized sign masts.96

 95 Brich (1995, page 15).

96 Conversation with VTRC study manager on November 25, 1997.
Chapter 4 39 Safety Study

Figure 4–4. “Ohio buckeye” crossbuck, an

experimental configuration.

The experimental crossbuck configuration present at the grade crossing in study

case 41, the Ohio buckeye crossbuck (figure 4–4), may solve some of the nighttime visibility problems inherent in the standard crossbuck configuration. Reflective strips extend

the full length of both the front and back of the sign mast. In addition, a reflective shield

is placed below the crossbuck at a height that may be better illuminated by automobile

low-beam headlights. The sides of the shield are also angled to catch light from the

headlight of an oncoming train and reflect that light toward an oncoming highway vehicle. The lettering and chevrons are printed in red, rather than black, to enhance daytime

visibility. The crossing in case 41 was one of about 3,700 grade crossings in Ohio where

this crossbuck configuration was being tested; the testing concluded in December 1997,

and the report will be published in the fall of 1998.97 The Safety Board looks forward to

reviewing the report on the effectiveness of the buckeye crossbuck, and depending on the

results of the Ohio study, may issue recommendations about the buckeye crossbuck in the

future.

 97 Other States, including Idaho, are testing similar configurations.
Chapter 4 40 Safety Study

Physical Characteristics at Passive Crossings

That Affect a Driver’s Ability To See a Train

For each accident crossing, the Safety Board examined physical characteristics at

passive grade crossings that affect a driver’s ability to see a train: (1) the sight distance

available to the highway vehicle driver, (2) the angle at which the roadway meets the railroad tracks, and (3) curves on the roadway or railroad tracks.

Sight Distance

Sight distance is the technical term describing the set of distances along the highway and along the railroad tracks needed by a motorist to detect the presence of a train in

time to stop. According to AASHTO, a grade crossing should be designed so that an approaching motorist is able to perceive the train, react to its presence, and stop the highway

vehicle prior to the crossing. The required distance along the roadway (that is, from the

vehicle to the crossing) and along the railroad tracks (from the crossing to the oncoming

train) form two sides of a triangle. Together with the third side (an imaginary line from

the train back to the highway vehicle) they form an area referred to as “quadrant sight

distance,” or the “sight triangle,” the interior of which should be clear of any visual obstructions. For a vehicle stopped at the crossing, the driver must be able to see the train

far enough along the tracks to have time to accelerate the vehicle and clear the crossing

before the train’s arrival.

The quadrant sight distance needed varies according to the speed of the train and

of the highway vehicle, as well as the length and stopping distance of the highway vehicle. It is also affected by the angle at which the highway intersects the tracks and the

slope of the roadway. When a grade crossing is designed, sight distances should be calculated by highway engineers. Figure 4–5 uses the study accident grade crossing in

Doraville, Georgia (case 8), to illustrate the various sight distance requirements for a

stopped vehicle (V1) and an approaching vehicle (V2).98 A stopped vehicle will need

more sight distance along the track (A) to see the oncoming train and cross the track before the train arrives, whereas a moving vehicle will need enough sight distance along the

highway approach to the crossing (C) to see the train along the tracks (B) and to have

time to stop.

 98 The Safety Board used AASHTO guidelines, identified in the “Guidelines” section of chapter 2, to

calculate the sight distance at each of the study accident crossings. For purposes of this study, however, the

Board assumed the design vehicle to be the highway vehicle involved in the study case accident. A highway

engineer reviewed the formulas used to calculate the sight distances. Appendix E, table E–2 gives the

calculated sight distance needed by the driver of a design vehicle approaching each of the 60 accident grade

crossings and the sight distance available.
Chapter 4 41 Safety Study

Figure 4–5. Illustration of sight distances required by a highway vehicle stopped

at a grade crossing (V1), and by a highway vehicle approaching a grade

crossing (V2).

The railroad track approaches at the accident crossings were generally straight,

and the sight distance along the tracks that was available to the drivers of most types of

highway vehicles stopped at the crossing stop line (such as V1 in figure 4–5) was, for the

most part, adequate (n = 50). In 10 cases, however, there were sight obstructions for a

driver stopped at a crossing: in 7 cases, vegetation restricted visibility; in 2 cases, curvature of the tracks restricted visibility; and in 1 case, a building restricted visibility.

92 ft

334 ft

136 ft A

B

C

A: Distance needed for a stopped highway

vehicle to accelerate and clear crossing before

train arrival.

B: Distance along tracks needed for an approaching

m otorist to see train and stop before train arrival.

C: Distance along highway needed for an 

approaching m otorist to see train and stop 

before train arrival.

V1

V2
Chapter 4 42 Safety Study

The generally adequate sight distance for vehicles stopped at the crossings, however, did not hold true for motorists approaching the crossings (such as V2 in figure 4–5).

In 33 cases, the grade crossing area afforded an approaching motorist less sight distance

than was recommended by AASHTO guidelines.99 At the majority of the crossings with

limited sight distance (n = 24), the obstructions were trees, shrubs, or other types of

plants: in one case, the trees were described as a forest (case 27); and in another case, the

trees were fruit trees in an orchard (case 60). Six of the 33 cases had visual obstructions

that included buildings, and in one of these cases the motorist’s sight distance was obstructed by a hill. The following accident illustrates the potential consequences of

inadequate sight distances for drivers of highway vehicles in motion.

About 8:15 a.m. on April 5, 1996, an eastbound Kansas City Southern freight

train traveling about 40 mph struck a northbound Mazda at Golson Road near Calhoun,

Louisiana (case 16).100 The Mazda, traveling about 25 mph, which was about 10 mph

below the posted speed limit, skidded onto the railroad tracks when the driver tried too

late to stop her vehicle. The driver and her 8-year-old daughter in the right front seat of

the car were both killed.

According to the AASHTO guidelines and based on the speeds of the highway

vehicle and train in this case, the highway driver needed a clear sight triangle defined by a

distance of 271 feet along the highway and 422 feet along the railroad tracks to see the

train with enough time to safely stop the vehicle. However, because of the presence of a

forested area on private property adjacent to the crossing, this sight triangle was not clear.

As figure 4–6 illustrates, the driver in this case actually had a clear sight triangle with

only 72 of the 271 feet needed along the highway and 112 of the 422 feet needed along

the railroad tracks. By the time the driver saw the train and applied the brakes, she did

not have enough time to stop the vehicle prior to the crossing.

In addition to calculating the sight distance for each of the 60 accident crossings,

the Safety Board also examined each crossing in terms of the time an approaching

motorist needs to safely stop the vehicle prior to the crossing compared with the actual

time available, given the sight distance along the highway (appendix E, figure E–1). The

differences in time needed compared with actual time available ranged from no shortage

of time for some crossings to a shortage of 71⁄2 seconds. For 18 (58 percent) of the

crossings with limited sight distance, an approaching driver has only half or less of the

time needed to safely negotiate the crossing. With such differences between the time

needed and the time available, the driver’s task to safely negotiate the crossing becomes

more difficult. The Safety Board’s study cases show a strong association between

inadequate sight distance and accident occurrence.

 99 Three of the 33 crossings with limited sight distance for approaching motorists were on private roads.

100 According to the traincrew, the headlight and auxiliary alerting lights were illuminated, and the train

horn was sounded prior to the accident.
Chapter 4 43 Safety Study

Figure 4–6. Sight distance needed (shaded area) versus the sight distance

available at the accident crossing in Calhoun, Louisiana (case 16).

Angle of Intersection

The angle at which the roadway meets the railroad tracks may also affect the

driver’s ability to see an oncoming train. The following accident illustrates this problem.

About 1:10 p.m. on Thursday, May 30, 1996, a northbound Pontiac Grand Am

struck a westbound Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) freight train traveling about

48 mph at a passive grade crossing near Montrose, Illinois (case 37). The speed limit

along the road was 55 mph. The driver, who was transporting her 3-year-old child, stated

that she slowed her vehicle when approaching the crossing, but she did not hear or see the

train until just before impact. There were no injuries associated with this accident, but

the vehicle was destroyed. Although there were no obstacles in the sight triangle for the

approaching motorist, the highway met the railroad tracks at an angle of 35°; thus, the

train approached essentially from behind the highway vehicle.

422 ft

112 ft

271 ft

72 ft
Chapter 4 44 Safety Study

1

222

5

8

7

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89

Smallest angle of intersection (degrees)

Figure 4–7. Smallest angle of intersection between the railroad tracks

and roadway for the 27 study accident crossings with intersections that

did not meet at 90°.

According to AASHTO guidelines, “[r]egardless of the type of intersection, for

safety and economy, intersecting roads should generally meet at or nearly at right angles.”

AASHTO recommends that when there is an acute angle of intersection, the road be realigned so that the angle of intersection can be more nearly 90°.101 The distance a highway

vehicle must traverse in order to clear the intersection is greater when the angle is

skewed, and therefore the time it takes to safely cross is greater. Trucks are particularly at

risk in such a situation because elements of the truck cab environment can further obscure

the truckdriver’s view of the train.

The Safety Board examined the angle of intersection to the right of the roadway

on the side of the crossing from which each accident-involved vehicle approached.102 For

27 of the 60 study accident grade crossings (45 percent), the roadway did not meet the

tracks at right angles (figure 4–7). The Board’s study cases suggest that when the angle

of intersection deviates from 90°, safety may be compromised.

 101 AASHTO (1990, page 686).

102 For consistency, the Safety Board selected the angle on the right side of the intersection, although

measurements taken from the left side would also have provided sufficient information.
Chapter 4 45 Safety Study

Roadway or Track Curvature

Roadway or track curvature can also affect a driver’s ability to see an oncoming

train. Twenty-five of the 60 crossings in the Board’s sample had track and/or roadway

curvature: 9 sets of tracks were curved within the vicinity of the crossing, 13 of the

roadways had curves on the sections leading to the crossing, and 3 crossings had curves

on both the railroad tracks and the highway. There is no nationwide information on

roadway or track curvature for comparison, thus it is impossible to determine whether or

not the study sample contains an inordinately high number of crossings with nearby

curves in either the highway or the tracks.

AASHTO guidelines state that “to the extent possible, crossings should not be located on either highway or railroad curves.”103 Research into human perception shows

that when a driver’s trajectory includes a curve, the task of determining the speed and

distance of another vehicle is much more difficult. Further, the highway vehicle driver

may be distracted by the effort to correctly negotiate the curve.104 Curves on the railroad

tracks can obstruct a driver’s view of the train, both on the approach to the crossing and

while stopped at the crossing. In addition, AASHTO states that crossings where both the

highway and the railroad tracks are curved provide “poor rideability for highway traffic

due to conflicting superelevations.”105 This poor ride may cause a driver to concentrate

on controlling the highway vehicle rather than looking for trains. Thus, on roads where

either the roadway or tracks, or both, have a curve on the approach to the crossing, the

highway vehicle driver may fail to recognize the hazards presented by the crossing until it

is too late.

 103 AASHTO (1990, page 842).

104 Berthelon, C. 1993. Curvilinear approach to an intersection and visual detection of a collision.

Human Factors 35(3): 521–534 (page 522).

105 (a) AASHTO (1990, page 842). (b) Superelevation is the technical term describing the angle at

which a roadway is banked to enable a vehicle to operate smoothly around a curve at the design speed.
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 5 47 Safety Study

Chapter 5

Driver Awareness of the Presence

of a Grade Crossing and

an Oncoming Train

A driver’s attention at a crossing can be affected by what that individual expects

to see and by distractions inside and outside the vehicle.

Seventeen of the highway vehicle drivers in the Safety Board’s study cases stated

that they regularly drove over the crossing at which the accident occurred: 6 crossed on a

daily basis, 6 crossed each week, and 5 crossed each month.106 Sixteen of the 18 drivers

interviewed by the Safety Board investigators claimed to be aware of the presence of the

crossing on the day of the accident. Eight drivers reported they were aware of the train,

and six of these eight declared that they were actively looking for a train. One driver reported that although he was looking for a train, he was not aware of the train prior to

impact.

Despite their awareness of the crossing, 10 drivers did not detect the oncoming

train. For example, on August 12, 1996, a freight train struck a Mack trash truck at a

crossing near Bennettsville, South Carolina (case 57). Sight distance at this crossing was

unrestricted, and according to the traincrew, the engineer was sounding the train horn and

the locomotive headlights were on.107 The roadway was equipped with an advance

warning sign, crossbuck sign, and full pavement markings in good condition. The truckdriver, who sustained minor injuries, stated that he noticed no sources of distraction

inside or outside his truck. He also indicated that he drove over this crossing daily and

estimated that less than one train a day, on average, used the crossing. The actual number

of trains using the crossing daily was two. The driver reported that he did not look for a

train on the day of the accident.

 106 As noted in chapter 3, the Safety Board is aware that self-reporting may not be entirely reliable.

107 At the time of the accident, the locomotive was not equipped, nor was it required to be equipped,

with auxiliary alerting lights.
Chapter 5 48 Safety Study

Driver Expectations

Driver attention at railroad crossings has been measured indirectly by watching

drivers’ head movements as they approach the crossing. An Australian study on human

factors in grade crossing accidents shows that drivers’ looking behavior, as determined by

observable head movements, is far from optimal at grade crossings, with only about 30

percent of the drivers approaching a passive or active crossing conducting a search for a

train.108 Not only did very few of the drivers in that study look, but many of those that

did look waited until just before the crossing, and some were still looking as their

vehicles went over the crossing.

One factor that can affect whether a driver looks for a train is the driver’s expectation of seeing a train. Overall, each of the 18 drivers interviewed by the Safety Board

underestimated the frequency of train crossings per day, typically by a factor of 2 to 3 (table 5–1). This low estimate suggests that drivers do not expect trains and thus may not

look for trains at a crossing. Further, many train movements are unscheduled and would

not be known even to drivers who are familiar with the crossing and with scheduled train

traffic.

The driver’s perception that a train is not likely to be at the crossing is reinforced

each time that driver passes the crossing without seeing a train. Researchers have reported that a driver’s response to a potential hazard is a function of both the perceived

probability of the adverse event occurring and of the driver’s understanding of the severity of the consequence of the event.109 A person’s perception of the probability of a given

event is strongly influenced by past experience,110 and the frequency with which the

driver encounters a train at a crossing will influence the likelihood of that driver stopping.

Personal circumstances also cause a driver to associate certain costs with the outcome of a decision to stop or not to stop. Stopping might make the driver late or result in

a collision with the highway vehicle behind; conversely, not stopping might result in an

accident with a train. Research in signal detection theory has shown that because the

 108 Wigglesworth, E.C. [Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, Melbourne]. 1976. Report on human

factors in road-rail crossing accidents. Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: Ministry of Transport. [Inclusive

pages not known] (page 83).

109 Schoppert, D.W.; Hoyt, D.W. 1968. Factors influencing safety at highway-rail grade crossings.

National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 50. Washington, DC: National Academy of

Sciences; National Academy of Engineering. 113 p. (page 96).

110 Schoppert and Hoyt (1968, page 97).
Chapter 5 49 Safety Study

Table 5–1. Number of trains passing through 18 of the study

accident crossings per day and number estimated by the highway

vehicle driver involved in the accident at the crossing.(a)

Frequency of grade crossing

use by accident-involved

driver and case number

Driver-estimated number of

trains per day

Actual number of

trains per day

Daily:

09 3–6 17

26 3–6 11

40 3–6 7

56 1–2 24

57 <1 2

58 1–2 15

Weekly:

08 1–2 6

15 7–10 36

27 Unknown 18

37 1–2 15

38 1–2 6

54 7–10 24

Monthly:

25 1–2 4

28 Unknown 18

48 Unknown 3

52 3–6 11

55 1–2 4

Rarely:

22 1–2 4

(a) The remaining 42 drivers were not available to the investigators for interview.

frequency of trains at grade crossings is so low, drivers tend to bias their behavior toward

not stopping.111 The FRA has used signal detection theory models to predict which

crossings are likely to have accidents and has found that a low train frequency at crossings is associated with a higher rate of accidents.

 111 Raslear, Thomas. 1996. Driver behavior at rail-highway grade crossings: A signal detection theory

analysis. In: Safety of highway-railroad grade crossings: research needs workshop. Vol. II: Appendices.

DOT/FRA/ORD-95/14.2; DOT-VNTSC-FRA-95-12.2. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration: F-9 through F-56 (page F-22). [Workshop held at and in

conjunction with Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, MA.]
Chapter 5 50 Safety Study

Driver Perception of

Train Speed and Distance

Even when a driver looks for a train, it may be difficult to accurately gauge the

speed and arrival time of an approaching train. Once the train is detected, a driver must

decide whether it is safe to proceed across the tracks and then take appropriate action.

Guiding this decision will be the driver’s perceptual judgments of train velocity and distance. The difficulty of making this judgment is illustrated by the following accidents.

About 10:40 p.m. on August 12, 1996, in Columbus, Ohio, a truckdriver was

hauling trash to a nearby lot (case 58). As he approached a private passive crossing, he

observed a Conrail train that appeared to be standing still near the crossing. According to

the Conrail police department incident report, the locomotive headlight was illuminated;

auxiliary lighting use is unknown. According to the traincrew, the train horn was not

sounded prior to the accident. As the truckdriver reached the crossing, he realized the

train was moving. His realization came too late to avoid the collision.

On March 20, 1996, a tanker truckdriver was leaving a company lot in Clairton,

Pennsylvania, heading toward a two-track crossing (case 15). As he approached the

crossing, he had an unobstructed view of the tracks. Looking down the tracks, he saw a

Conrail freight train in the distance and decided it was safe to cross. According to the locomotive event recorder, the train horn was sounded prior to the accident; according to

the traincrew, the locomotive headlight was illuminated. However, the driver misjudged

how fast the train was moving, and as the truck crossed the tracks, it was struck by the

freight train.

Moving with traffic, merging into traffic, and turning left or right in front of traffic

are daily tasks that require a driver to judge the speed and distance of other highway vehicles. Similarly, a driver must judge the speed and distance of an oncoming train to gauge

the train’s arrival at a grade crossing. However, visual illusions can interfere with the

driver’s perception of train velocity and distance. For example, an illusion of perspective

can mislead a driver about the train’s distance:

Viewed from the crossing, railroad tracks produce the illusion of a great distance. That is

because the parallel lines of the rails converge toward the horizon. (It is the same illusion

used in art classes to create perspective.) The apparent convergence of the rails give the

impression that the train is farther from the crossing than it is.112

 112 Operation Lifesaver, Inc. 1997. School bus driver presentation. In: Operation Lifesaver Presenter

Guide. Alexandria, VA. [Section 7, page 15].
Chapter 5 51 Safety Study

Research describes illusions regarding train size that can mislead a motorist about

the train’s velocity.113 First, the larger an object, the more slowly it appears to be moving;

thus, because the train locomotive is a large object, it may appear to be moving more

slowly than it is, causing the driver to overestimate the amount of time available to safely

clear the crossing. Second, when a car and train are approaching each other at constant

speeds, or when a vehicle is stopped at a crossing and looking down the tracks, the principal perceptual cue available to the driver is the rate of growth of the train’s apparent

size in the visual field. This apparent rate of growth is not linear but hyperbolic. When

the train is at a distance, the apparent rate of growth for the object is slow, thereby giving

the impression of slow speed. However, as the train gets closer, the increase in the size of

the object in the visual field accelerates (figure 5–1). For example, a 10-foot-wide by 15-

foot-tall locomotive will occupy a visual angle of 0.43° when it is 2,000 feet from the observer. As the train reaches 1,000 feet, the locomotive’s visual angle has doubled to

0.86°. When the train is even closer to the observer, the visual angle also doubles even

though the train traverses less distance: the visual angle grows from 3.43° to 6.84° when

the train travels from 250 feet to 125 feet from the observer. Drivers tend to be effective

at estimating the speed of the train when it is closest because the change in visual angle is

rapid. However, drivers tend to decide on the safety of proceeding across the tracks when

the train is at greater distances, when the change in visual angle is slow and they are more

likely to underestimate the train’s speed.

Night also adds to the difficulty in perceiving train speed and distance. Drivers

can determine train speed by comparing the train movement with that of the background.

However, at night the background is not visible and drivers lose this important cue. The

driver in case 58, described previously, who believed a slow moving train was standing

still was observing the train at night.

Driver Distractions

Objects or events both inside and outside a vehicle can provide competing stimuli

or distractions that reduce driver attentiveness to the task of looking for a train. For example, as the driver in case 37 approached a passive crossing, she was reaching into the

back seat to get some food for her child. Prior to entering the crossing, she looked up,

saw a train, and hit the brakes. The driver was unable to stop the vehicle before striking

the train.

 113 Liebowitz, H.W. 1985. Grade crossing accidents and human factors engineering. American Scientist

73: 558-562.
Figure 5–1. Illustration of the apparent change in object size as a train approaches a crossing, a motorist stopped at the crossing. The train is traveling at 40 mph. (These images were tacomputer simulation produced by the National Transportation Safety Board, available on thttp://www.ntsb.gov/events/gradxing/default.htm.)
Chapter 5 53 Safety Study

Of the 18 interviewed drivers, 8 indicated they had been distracted by at least one

source.114 Stereo systems and passengers were the internal sources of distraction most

frequently cited by these drivers; highway traffic was the external source most frequently

identified (table 5–2). Two other drivers indicated that they might have been distracted,

but they could not identify the source of distraction. The Safety Board cited distraction as

the primary probable cause or contributing factor in 12 of the 60 study accidents (shown

earlier in chapter 3, table 3–3): 2 nonfatal accidents, and 10 fatal accidents.

Passengers, particularly passenger conversation, was a common source of distraction. Three interviewed drivers stated that they were talking with passengers in their

vehicles at the time of the accident, and in a fourth instance (case 6), witnesses stated they

saw the driver talking with his passenger (both the driver and the passenger in the highway vehicle were fatally injured in the accident). Research indicates that passenger

distraction accounts for the second biggest source of distraction in accidents; objects in

the vehicle is the biggest source.115

Another source of driver distraction was highway traffic. Three interviewed drivers were distracted by oncoming traffic, and in two of the fatal accidents (cases 41 and

50), distraction attributed to highway traffic was cited in the accident’s probable cause.

In two of the study accidents, the drivers apparently were preoccupied with vehicles directly in front of them: the fatally injured driver in case 53 followed closely behind a

vehicle that cleared the crossing just before the train arrived, and the fatally injured driver

in case 41 stopped his vehicle on the tracks to wait for a vehicle in front of him to clear a

nearby highway intersection. Even other drivers’ attempts to warn of an oncoming train

can distract drivers. In one accident (case 40), a driver was focused on another car flashing its headlights. The driver reported that he believed the flashing headlights indicated

an impending speed trap; the driver continued into the path of a train.

Intersecting roads and traffic may also distract a driver from looking for a train.

When another road intersects with the driver’s roadway just before or after the grade

crossing, it may increase the number of decisions the driver must make and distract the

driver from looking for a train. Similarly, a driver may also be presented with multiple

decisions when encountering a grade crossing immediately after turning off of an intersecting roadway onto a road with a grade crossing.

 114 One of the eight drivers was not in the highway vehicle at the time of the accident: the vehicle had

stalled while traversing the tracks and the driver had time to get out before the train arrived.

115 Tijerina, Louis; Kiger, Steven M.; Rockwell, Thomas H.; Tornow, Carina. 1995. Workload

assessment of in-cab text message system and cellular phone use by heavy vehicle drivers on the road. In:

Proceedings, 39th annual meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomic Society, Vol. 2; 1995 October 9-13;

San Diego, CA. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society: 1117-1121.
Table 5–2. Sources of distraction when approaching the grade crossing indicated by 10 of the 60 highwdrivers involved in the study accidents.(a) Internal source External source Case number Stereo Cellular phone Passenger Loose item Other Highway traffic Billboard Pedestrian Scenery Sec

tra

15 Unknown 22 ✔ ✔28

✔

37(b)

✔

38(b) ✔ ✔40

✔

48(c) Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unk54(d)

✔

55

✔

56 Unknown ✔ ✔ Unknown(a) Safety Board investigators interviewed 18 of the 60 drivers; 8 of the 18 indicated no distractions on their approach to the grade crossing. The remain

not available to the investigators for interview.

(b) Distraction was cited as the primary probable cause or contributing factor in the accident.(c) The highway vehicle had become lodged on the crossing; the driver was away to get assistance when the train arrived and struck the vehicle.(d) The highway vehicle had stalled while traversing the tracks; the driver had time to get out of the vehicle before the train arrived.
Chapter 5 55 Safety Study

In the afternoon of June 21, 1996, the driver of a Buick Park Avenue approached a

grade crossing in Pickerington, Ohio (case 41). About 22 feet beyond the tracks was an

intersection with another city street. A car traveling in the same direction as the Buick

had just crossed the tracks and was stopped at the intersection. According to witnesses,

the driver of the Buick, who appeared to be using a cellular phone, was stopped on the

tracks waiting for the vehicle in front of him to clear the intersection. While stopped, the

Buick was struck by an arriving Conrail freight train, and the driver was killed.

For the purposes of this study, the Safety Board defined a nearby intersection to be

one that lay within 75 feet of the crossing.116 Twenty-nine of the grade crossings in the

study cases had nearby highway intersections: on the far side of the crossing in 12 of the

study cases, on the side of the crossing from which the accident-involved highway driver

approached in 13 cases, and on both sides of the crossing in 4 cases.

A nearby highway intersection may present a distraction to the driver simply because the driver is aware of it. If a highway intersection on the departure side of the

crossing is visible to an approaching driver, the driver’s attention may be drawn toward

that intersection and away from the crossing. This may be particularly hazardous in urban

areas, where the driver’s concern for traffic at the upcoming intersection may result in

stopping directly on the tracks, as was the case in Pickerington, Ohio. In other situations,

the driver of a vehicle turning off a parallel roadway may come upon the crossing before

being able to direct attention away from negotiating the turn; at four study crossings, the

highway intersection was less than 25 feet from the crossing (cases 1, 15, 44, and 58). In

addition, if a train comes from the same direction as a highway vehicle on the parallel

roadway, it will come from behind the vehicle, and a driver turning onto the road with the

grade crossing may have few moments to react.

The presence of nearby intersections increases the risk at passive crossings. In the

Australian study, it was discovered that at a crossing with a nearby intersection, “driver

head movements and [train] search at Stanhope [the location of the crossing] were directed firstly at determining the presence of other road users and secondly at assessing the

possible development of conflict situations.”117 The drivers observed in that study were

more concerned with the dangers presented by other highway traffic and considered the

grade crossing only secondarily.

 116 The measurement of 75 feet is not intended to indicate an absolute boundary. Intersections farther

from (or closer to) a crossing than 75 feet may still present the opportunity for driver distraction. The FRA

inventory database indicates the presence of nearby highway intersections within 75 feet of the crossing;

therefore, the Safety Board selected a cutoff point of 75 feet to facilitate comparison between the study data

and data in the FRA inventory database.

117 Wigglesworth (1976, page 80).
Chapter 5 56 Safety Study

Because nearby intersections could present problems for motorists at passive

grade crossings, the Safety Board examined the FRA databases to determine how common nearby intersections are. Of the study accident crossings, 46.7 percent (28 of the 60)

qualify as having a nearby intersection on either the approach or the departure side of the

crossing, whereas 37.7 percent of all public passive crossings have such nearby intersections. The higher percentage of grade crossings with nearby intersections in the study

sample than in the FRA inventory database suggests that nearby intersections may be a

factor associated with passive grade crossing accidents.

Audibility of the Train Horn

The train horn, and certain auxiliary locomotive lights, are currently the only active signals given to a driver at a passive grade crossing to alert the driver that a train is

present. The sound of a train horn is effective as a warning only if the driver recognizes it

as a train horn; this recognition is affected by the interior vehicle noise levels, exterior

traffic noise, the sound characteristics of the train horn, driver expectations, and insertion

loss.118

Although the horn was sounded in 14 of the accidents in which the driver survived

and was interviewed by Safety Board investigators, only 4 drivers reported hearing the

horn; 2 of the 4 drivers were already outside of their vehicles. A 1986 Safety Board study

of 75 collisions between passenger/commuter trains and motor vehicles at grade crossings

found that in 27 cases the train’s audible warning system was ineffective because of either

high ambient interior noise levels of the vehicle or noise levels caused by vehicle engines.119 The fact that the occupants of the vehicles could not hear the audible warning

system of the train indicated that the existing audible warning system was inadequate as a

primary warning system. In this 1986 study, the Safety Board concluded that train horns

should be improved to better address the audibility concern, and accordingly issued

Safety Recommendation R-86-45 to the FRA.120

 118 Insertion loss is the difference between the measured values of a sound from an exterior sound

source taken outside the highway vehicle and inside the vehicle.

119 National Transportation Safety Board. 1986. Passenger/commuter train and motor vehicle collisions

at grade crossings (1985). Safety Study NTSB/SS-86/04. Washington, DC. 210 p.

120 Safety Recommendation R-86-45 was classified “Closed—Reconsidered” on September 4, 1990.

At that time, the FRA indicated that changing the sound characteristics of the train horn was very difficult to

justify, and increasing the volume was not acceptable. However, the FRA Office of Research and

Development now reports that it has studies underway on optimal sound characteristics of audible warning

devices and the adequacy of audible warning systems.
Chapter 5 57 Safety Study

The FRA’s regulation for audible warning devices states that “ . . . each locomotive shall be provided with an audible warning device that produces a minimum sound

level of 96 dB(A)121 at 100 feet forward of the locomotive in its direction of travel”

(Paragraph 229.129a in 49 CFR Part 229). According to research by an audiologist,

detecting the presence of a sound will not lead to appropriate action unless the sound is

identified or has reached the alerting level.122 For a sound to be identified, the warning

signal must be 3 to 8 dB above the threshold of detection;123 to reach the alerting level, a

warning signal must be about 10 dB above the ambient noise level such that the sound is

attention-getting.124 Different characteristics of the terrain surrounding a grade crossing

can affect the transmission of sound: acoustically hard surfaces can reflect the sound;

other surfaces can absorb sound waves. There may be crossings where the presence of

buildings and other landscape elements can block the sound of a train horn completely. If

a sound is not reflected or interrupted, its intensity drops 6 dB with each doubling of

distance.125

Additional audibility problems occur when the sound from a train horn must

penetrate the outer body of a vehicle. The Safety Board’s investigation of the 1995 collision between a school bus and a train in Fox River Grove, Illinois, found that the train

horn and grade crossing bell did not provide a warning sufficient to overcome the effects

of sound attenuation material installed in the bus.126 Supplementary investigation by the

Safety Board for this study on passive grade crossing safety indicates that for drivers of

some highway vehicles on the road today, the sound of a train horn 100 feet away is not

sufficient to penetrate the vehicle shell and to alert them to the presence of a train

(appendix F). In addition to warning a driver of the presence of an oncoming train, the

horn alerts the driver of the direction from which the train is coming. If a window is

 121 A decibel is a logarithmic unit that is used to compare one value with a reference value. When used

to describe sound levels, a reading of 0 decibels indicates the threshold of hearing of a young person with

normal hearing, and a reading of 120 decibels is the threshold of feeling sound vibrations. These limits can

vary depending on the person. There are different scales by which to measure sound levels; “(A)” denotes

the scale by which human hearing is measured. As used in this report, the levels are assumed to be measured

by this scale.

122 (a) Lipscomb, David M. 1982. Audibility and the law. In: Kramer, M.B.; Armbruster, J.M., eds.

Forensic Audiology. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press: 191-222. [Chapter 11.] (b) The “alerting level”

is the sound level at which a person is aware of a sound and recognizes the source.

123 The “threshold of detection” is the sound level at which a person is aware of a sound.

124 Skeiber, Stanley C.; Mason, Robert L.; Potter, R.C. 1978. Effectiveness of audible warning devices

on emergency vehicles. Sound and Vibration. February: 14-22.

125 Acoustical Society of America. 1994. Procedures for outdoor measurement of sound pressure level.

American National Standard ANSI S12.18-1994. New York, NY: American National Standards Institute. 18

p. (page 4).

126 (a) Highway Accident Report NTSB/HAR-96/02. (b) The sound levels at the busdriver’s position

were measured by the Safety Board when the horn from the cab control car was sounded at distances

ranging from the impact point to about 2,500 feet away. The train horn, at 100 feet from impact, was only

3–5 decibels above the ambient noise level within the school bus. The train’s horn exceeded the ambient

noise levels at the driver’s location only when it was located less than 100 feet from impact.
Chapter 5 58 Safety Study

partially open on the side of the vehicle opposite from the direction of the approaching

train, a driver may be misdirected and believe that the train is coming from the direction

of the open window.127

At the Safety Board’s public forum, an audiologist testified that “more emphasis

than is presently being given, [should] be given to the fact—not the idea, but the fact—

that horns are not and cannot be audible under many circumstances.”128 With automobile

manufacturers fabricating vehicles with enhanced sound attenuation qualities and communities promoting the reduction of train horn noise levels, the options available to

improve grade crossing safety using train-mounted audible warning devices are limited.

Safety Board testing shows that with the interior noise levels produced in everyday driving, in addition to the improved sound attenuation in today’s highway vehicles, it is

difficult for a driver to detect the presence of a train by its audible warning only and still

have sufficient time to react to its presence. There are circumstances under which the

horn can be heard, but there is a tradeoff between a sound traveling an optimal distance

and the ability to overcome ambient noise.

In 1990, the FRA published the results of a study that examined the accident experience at Florida East Coast Railway Company and CSX grade crossings affected by

Florida’s bans on the use of train horns.129 The FRA subsequently published the results

of a study examining the same issue on a nationwide basis; this study indicates that at

crossings where horn bans were instituted (more than 2,000 crossings), the occurrence of

accidents increased.130 In 1995, Transport Canada also published the results of a study

about the effect on safety of the use of train horn bans at about 400 crossings in Canada.131 All three of these studies indicated that completely eliminating the use of train

horns at grade crossings adversely affects safety. The Safety Board’s study shows, however, that the train horn often provides an ineffective warning, even when drivers have

their vehicle windows open.

 127 Lipscomb, David M. 1995. Auditory perceptual factors influencing the audibility of train horns. In:

Proceedings, 3rd international symposium on railroad-highway grade crossing research and safety; 1994

October 24-26; Knoxville, TN. Knoxville: University of Tennessee: 193-202.

128 Statement by a consulting audiologist, formerly a professor of audiology and speech pathologist at

the University of Tennessee. In: Transcript of the NTSB public forum on safety at passive grade crossings

(page 199).

129 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Safety. 1990.

Florida’s train whistle ban. Washington, DC. 11 p., plus appendixes.

130 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration. 1995. Nationwide study of

train whistle bans. Washington DC. 56 p.

131 Transport Canada, Railway Safety Branch. 1995. The effect on safety of eliminating whistling at

railway grade crossings. TP 12682. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Transport Canada, Railway Safety Branch. 42

p., plus appendixes. [Study conducted by Sypher:Mueller International, Inc., Ottawa, Ontario.]
Chapter 5 59 Safety Study

The Volpe Center is currently conducting research that involves enhanced trainmounted and wayside-mounted warning devices in an attempt to reduce the impact of

train noise in communities.132 Instead of blowing the horn mounted on the train, a stationary horn mounted at the crossing and directed toward approaching highway traffic

would be activated when the train approaches the grade crossing. Residents in the path of

the horn might receive a greater exposure to the noise, but those not directly in the path

would receive less exposure than from conventional train-mounted horns. Preliminary

results indicate that train engineers did not trust the wayside horn to work and were still

using the conventional train-mounted horns.133 Final results, including responses from

the local residents, are expected to be published in late summer of 1998. The Safety

Board looks forward to reviewing the results of the study and will monitor any subsequent action taken by the FRA and/or the railroads to implement wayside train horn

systems.

 132 Multer, Jordan. 1995. Field study of a wayside auditory warning for motorists. In: Proceedings, 3rd

international symposium on railroad-highway grade crossing research and safety; 1994 October 24-26;

Knoxville, TN. Knoxville: University of Tennessee: 203-215.

133 Multer (1995).
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 6 61 Safety Study

Chapter 6

Discussion: Measures To Improve

Safety at Passive Grade Crossings

In 1996, passive crossings accounted for about three-quarters of all grade crossings in the United States; although there is less highway and train traffic at passive

crossings than at active crossings, passive crossings accounted for 54 percent of all grade

crossing accidents and 60 percent of all grade crossing fatalities in that year.

Detecting a train at a passive crossing and making the correct decisions about

whether a highway vehicle should stop at the crossing or can cross the tracks safely before the train arrives is a complex task that has confronted the Nation’s motoring public

for decades. The task is affected by the driver’s ability to (1) detect the presence of the

crossing, (2) detect the presence of a train, and (3) accurately gauge the train’s speed and

arrival time at the crossing. The task is further complicated by the driver’s attention at a

crossing, which, as previously discussed, can be affected by what that individual expects

to see. The Safety Board concludes that a driver’s decision to look for a train may be adversely affected by the driver’s familiarity with and expectations at a specific passive

grade crossing and the driver’s experience with passive crossings in general. Also, as

previously discussed, the train horn—one of only two active signals given to a driver to

alert the driver that a train is present—is effective as a warning only if the driver recognizes it as a train horn. The Safety Board therefore concludes that in some circumstances,

audible warning devices on trains fail to meet their objective of alerting motorists to an

oncoming train because of highway vehicle design and environmental factors.

Despite the complexity of the task to detect the presence of a train at a passive

crossing, the approach to passive grade crossing safety has remained relatively unchanged

over the years. The current approach includes providing a sight distance triangle for an

approaching motorist to see a train and installing a railroad crossing advance warning

sign, pavement markings, and a crossbuck sign, where appropriate. As the accident sample in the Safety Board’s study illustrates, this approach has been inadequate in many

instances.

More than half of the crossings in the Safety Board’s sample (33 of 60) had conditions that limited the driver’s ability to see an oncoming train. Only 6 of the 33

crossings had permanent structures (for example, buildings or hills) within the sight triangle. In the cases where the sight obstructions were caused by vegetation (for example,
Chapter 6 62 Safety Study

trees, brush, crops, or weeds), the vegetation was often on the roadway or the railroad

rights-of-way, where it likely could and should have been cleared. The Board notes,

however, that it does not have the detailed information necessary to determine whether

the vegetation at each of these crossings was on the roadway as opposed to the railroad

rights-of-way, or whether the vegetation was on private property. The Board is aware that

it may not be possible to remove sight obstructions that occur on private property adjacent

to the crossing. The FHWA also acknowledges that it is not always possible to clear the

sight triangle, and recommends in such cases consideration of changes to the roadway

that would alter the size of the necessary sight triangle, such as speed limit reductions or

the installation of active warning devices.134

Witnesses at the Safety Board’s public forum indicate that problems with sight

distances at passive crossings are not limited to the crossings in the study sample. The

University of Florida transportation engineering coordinator performed a review of every

crossing in a particular county in Mississippi. According to the coordinator’s calculations, because of sight restrictions, about half of the crossings were safe only if the train

traveled no faster than 25 mph. He stated that, according to the railroad involved, the

crossings in that county were representative of that railroad’s crossings in other States in

which it operates.135 Kansas State University performed a similar survey of crossings in

Kansas. Of the 50 randomly selected crossings that were examined, 35 percent offered

limited sight distance to a motorist approaching the crossing, and 50 percent had limited

sight distance available to a motorist stopped at the crossing.136

In addition to problems with sight distances, the information being communicated

by railroad crossing advance warning signs, crossbuck signs, and multiple track signs is

not clear according to the responses of the 18 interviewed drivers in the Safety Board’s

sample. Currently, the advance warning signs do not communicate whether the crossing

ahead is active or passive, thus drivers may not understand the level of attention required

for the crossing just ahead, nor may the drivers understand that they need to start looking

for a train when or before they reach the position of the advance warning sign. The

Safety Board concludes that the action a driver needs to take at a passive grade crossing

should be communicated to the driver at the point of the advance warning sign.

Further, there is no uniformity of signage at passive crossings, and no one sign informs the driver that the crossing is passive. According to a witness at the Safety Board’s

public forum, the highway engineering approach to signs at passive grade crossings has

 134 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 1986. Railroad-highway grade

crossing handbook. 2nd ed. FHWA-TS-86-215. Washington, DC. 261 p. (page 135).

135 Statement by the University of Florida transportation engineering coordinator. In: Transcript of the

NTSB public forum on safety at passive grade crossings (page 175).

136 Remarks by the Director, Center for Transportation Research and Training, Kansas State University.

In: Transcript of the NTSB public forum on safety at passive grade crossings (page 186).
Chapter 6 63 Safety Study

hardly changed in more than half a century; in that time “our drivers have changed, our

vehicles have changed, other parts of the driving environment have all changed, yet our

approach to traffic control, warning and alerting drivers has changed almost none.”137

This witness concluded that “we need to incorporate and integrate traffic control systems

at passive crossings which give specific warnings about specific hazards.”

A 1994 study by Texas A & M University examined the effect of communicating

driver responsibilities on the grade crossing signs.138 The study examined the looking

behavior of drivers at crossings with only a crossbuck sign and at crossings that included

either a “yield to train” or a “look for train” sign. The study found a significant increase

in looking behavior for both signs that indicated and communicated the driver action

needed.

The FHWA measured driver understanding of the appropriate action to take upon

seeing a crossbuck sign compared to several experimental passive signs, including a

“yield to train” variant.139 The “yield to train” sign elicited the most correct responses to

what action the sign required; the standard crossbuck resulted in significantly more incorrect responses regarding the understanding of driver actions required.

In 1993, the FRA sponsored a project that examined technologies and practices

used in (1) signaling the approach of a train and detecting trains at active grade crossings,

(2) detecting grade crossing obstructions, (3) grade crossing warning devices and barrier

systems, and (4) determining the appropriate warning devices for grade crossings. For

this project, researchers from the Volpe Center and Battelle compared the practices of the

United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Spain, Italy, Germany, and Sweden.

According to Volpe Center researchers, the results are being drafted and will be released

in late fall of 1998.

In September 1997, the FHWA sponsored a technology assessment visit to five

countries in Europe (Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, and Spain) to survey

their grade crossing safety practices. According to a preliminary report, “warning signs

on highway approaches to crossings vary somewhat from country to country, but generally include an advance warning sign which indicates the type of crossing ahead (passive

 137 Statement by an official of the University of Tennessee Transportation Center. In: Transcript of the

NTSB public forum on safety at passive grade crossings (page 205).

138 Presentation by the study manager to Safety Board staff at a session held in Knoxville, Tennessee;

January 23-26, 1996.

139 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 1993. A preliminary

laboratory investigation of passive railroad crossing signs. FHWA-RD-93-153. Washington, DC. 22 p.
Chapter 6 64 Safety Study

or active).”140 In Denmark, for example, advance warning signs at passive crossings advise the motorist to look both ways, and the approach speed limit is 30 kilometers per

hour (about 19 mph).141

The data from the Safety Board’s study, testimony at the Safety Board’s public forum, and the research cited above indicate that the current set of traffic signs used at

passive crossings is not adequate.

To eliminate the continuing problems encountered by the motoring public at passive crossings, the Safety Board concludes that a systematic and hierarchic approach to

improving passive grade crossing safety is needed, an approach that does not depend

primarily on the ability of the driver approaching the crossing to see an oncoming train.

The hierarchic approach includes grade separation and closure, installation of active

warning devices, improved signage, and intelligent transportation systems technology.

The approach includes immediate and long-term measures.

Grade Separation, Crossing Closure, and

Installation of Train-Activated Warning Devices

Consolidation (the separation and closure) of passive crossings is the most effective means to eliminate accidents between highway vehicles and trains. As discussed

earlier in this report, in 1991, the Administrator of the FRA established a safety goal to

reduce the nearly 293,000 grade crossings (public and private, active and passive) by 25

percent by the year 2001. As of 1996, the FRA reported a decrease of about 27,000 grade

crossings, a cumulative reduction of 9.3 percent.142 Table 6–1 illustrates the extent to

which the FRA initiative has succeeded. Although there has been a slight overall decrease in accidents at passive crossings since 1993, given the short timeframe, this

decrease cannot be considered statistically significant:

Year

Number of accidents

at passive crossings

1993 2,478

1994 2,521

1995 2,373

1996 2,208

 140 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. [In preparation.] European

highway-rail crossing safety systems and practices: a U.S. DOT pre-scan assessment. 25 p. (page 24).

[Draft.]

141 FHWA (Draft in preparation, page 4).

142 Since 1992, there has been a cumulative reduction in all passive crossings of 8.4 percent. Although

available for public passive crossings, similar data are not available for private passive crossings prior to

1992.
Chapter 6 65 Safety Study

Table 6–1. Reduction in the number of grade crossings through

the Federal Railroad Administration initiative on crossing

elimination, 1991 through 1996.(a)

Year

Number of public and

private crossings

Decrease

since 1991

Percent reduction

since 1991

1990 (baseline) 292,839 — —

1991 289,519 3,320 1.1

1992 280,585 12,254 4.2

1993 276,468 16,371 5.6

1994 272,750 20,089 6.9

1995 268,676 24,163 8.3

1996 265,721 27,118 9.3

(a) The FRA’s goal is a 25-percent reduction in the number of crossings by the year 2001.

(Carmichael, Gilbert E. 1991. Highway–rail grade crossings: the unfinished safety agenda. In:

The job’s not done: Proceedings, 1991 national conference on highway–rail safety; 1991 July 7–

10; Philadelphia, PA. College Station, TX: TransCom: 5–9.)

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration. 1991–1997.

Highway–rail crossing accident/incident and inventory bulletin. Nos. 13–19. Washington, DC.

Annual.

Representatives at the Safety Board’s public forum discussed the difficulties they

face when trying to close dangerous and redundant crossings. The representative of one

railroad company reported that for every 15 crossing closures initiated by the railroad,

only one succeeds because if the public objects, few, if any crossings are closed, regardless of whether the grade crossings are dangerous.143 The witness from the State of

Missouri agreed that compromises on consolidation and closures must be reached

between the railroads and the municipal and county officials. In Missouri, a State task

force was created in 1993 with representatives from county and municipal government

associations, railroads, and State agencies. The representatives of county and municipal

government associations inform their constituents (county and municipal engineers,

county or municipal governments) of the State’s reasons for wanting to consolidate and

close crossings, thus making it easier for their constituents to understand the need for

these closures and to voice their concerns. Missouri is closing about 15 crossings

annually.

The Safety Board strongly supports the FRA Administrator’s goal to reduce the

number of grade crossings through separation and closure. However, the Safety Board

also recognizes that it will not be possible to close all passive grade crossings in the near

future; consequently, there is a need to carefully determine through a systematic approach

what level of improvement is appropriate for each passive crossing.

 143 Remarks by the manager of grade crossing safety, Norfolk Southern Corporation. In: Transcript of

the NTSB public forum on safety at passive grade crossings (pages 315-316).
Chapter 6 66 Safety Study

The Safety Board’s study identified several physical characteristics at passive

highway–rail grade crossings that appear to contribute to the occurrence of accidents because they make it difficult for the motorist to see a train (inadequate sight distance,

roadway–track intersection angles less than 90°, and roadway and track curvature), and/or

because they distract the motorist’s attention from the task of looking for a train (nearby

roadway intersections). The Safety Board concludes that these physical characteristics

can affect the level of safety at passive grade crossings. Roadway and/or track conditions,

which include all these characteristics, were determined to be the primary probable cause

or a contributing factor in 20 of the 60 study accidents.

Although the FHWA Handbook and the AASHTO Greenbook provide guidance

to assist highway engineers in the physical and geometric design of safe roadway systems,

the characteristics at 54 of the 60 study accident crossings failed to adhere to at least one

of these guidelines. The Safety Board concludes that the safety of passive grade crossings

is enhanced when their design adheres to the applicable standards and guidelines provided by the FHWA and AASHTO. The Safety Board believes, therefore, that the States

should evaluate periodically, or at least every 5 years, all passive grade crossings to determine compliance with existing FHWA and AASHTO guidelines regarding sight

distances, angle of intersection where the roadway meets the tracks, curves on the roadway or tracks, and nearby roadway intersections. For those crossings determined not to

be in compliance with the guidelines, the States should initiate activity to bring these

crossings into compliance, wherever possible. The Safety Board acknowledges that of

the four characteristics outlined above, it may be feasible to bring the crossings into compliance only with regard to sight distance. Where passive crossings cannot be brought

into compliance for reasons such as permanent obstructions at the stop line, the States

should target those crossings for installation of active warning devices, grade separation,

or closure.

If separation or closure is not possible, the next most desirable method to improve

safety at passive crossings is to equip passive crossings with active devices that warn the

motorist of an oncoming train. Section 130 of 23 U.S.C. provides for the allocation of

funds to the States for the specific purpose of improving safety at grade crossings. In order for a State to qualify for the funds, it must “conduct and systematically maintain a

survey of all highways to identify those railroad crossings which may require separation,

relocation, or protective devices, and establish and implement a schedule of projects for

this purpose.” Since the inception of Section 130 funds in 1973, the FHWA has disbursed

more than $3 billion to the States under the auspices of this program.144 States use various formulas to help them identify the best candidates for closure or upgrade. Most of

these formulas use information about the amount of train and highway traffic at a crossing, and some may incorporate information about accident history.

 144 States must annually report to the FHWA the amount of Section 130 money spent on (1) warning

devices at grade crossings and (2) all other crossing projects, including grade separations and crossing

closures.
Chapter 6 67 Safety Study

A survey of the States conducted by Auburn University in 1994 indicated that

more than half of the 41 responding States rely on methods or formulas that do not include information about sight distance, crossing angle, curvature, or nearby

intersections.145 The remainder of the responding States have developed their own formulas, but the survey report did not provide the specifics of these formulas or indicate

whether they incorporate data about the physical characteristics of interest. Information

from the FRA indicates that among the States with the largest number of passive crossings, some use versions of the formulas that may not address the safety effects of the

physical characteristics.146 States could better identify passive crossings in need of improvements by including information about the characteristics in their formulas. The

Safety Board believes, therefore, that the DOT should develop a standardized hazard index or a safety prediction formula that will include all variables proven by research or

experience to be useful in evaluating highway–rail grade crossings, and require the States

to use it.

State and Federal agencies as well as private entities use the FRA databases to

help them assess safety at grade crossings and to establish priority schedules for crossing

improvement projects.147 In April 1995, 75 delegates representing noted researchers from

both public agencies and private entities attended a workshop to develop consensus on

projected research needs regarding grade crossing safety. One of the topical areas discussed at this workshop was that of data requirements; the delegates expressed the need

for research to:

• [i]dentify data requirements for a broad range of safety studies;

• evaluate current data elements and data collection and/or management

systems;

• evaluate new data collection, storage, retrieval technologies; and

• develop recommendations for specific data to be collected, how it will be

collected and managed, and organizations responsible for these activities.148

 145 Bowman, Brian L.; Colson, Cecil. 1994. Current State practices and recommendations for

improving rail-highway grade crossing program. In: Traffic signing, signals, and visibility. Transportation

Research Record 1456. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council: 139-

145 (page 139).

146 Telephone conversation with staff of the FRA Office of Safety Analysis on April 17, 1998.

147 The FRA database system, which includes the Grade Crossing Inventory System (GCIS) and the

accident/incident databases, is sometimes used in conjunction with separate databases maintained by the

individual States. The GCIS consists of one large file intended to document all public and private grade

crossings in the United States. It was created and is maintained through voluntary submissions from both the

States and the railroads.

148 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration. 1996. Safety of highwayrailroad grade crossings: research needs workshop. Vol. I. DOT/FRA/ORD-95/14.1; DOT-VNTSC-FRA95-12.1. Washington, DC. Variously paged. [Workshop held at and in conjunction with Volpe National

Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, MA.]
Chapter 6 68 Safety Study

For the inventory database to be useful, it must contain elements that record data

on the crossing characteristics determined to affect safety at passive crossings. The

Safety Board’s study highlights four crossing characteristics that affect safety at passive

crossings. Currently, however, the GCIS contains data on only two of the physical characteristics of interest: the crossing angle of intersection, and the presence of nearby

roadway intersections. Without data in the GCIS on sight distances and on the presence

of curves on the roadway and on the tracks, States may not have adequate information by

which to evaluate safety improvements needed at passive crossings. Therefore, the Safety

Board believes that the FRA should modify the GCIS to include information on (1) the

sight distances available to a motorist, and (2) the presence of curves on the roadway and

on the tracks. Further, the FRA should direct the States to include these data as a part of

the regularly scheduled updates of the database.

The Safety Board acknowledges that not all passive grade crossings that fail to

adhere to the applicable guidelines will be upgraded with active warning devices in the

near future. The remainder of this discussion addresses improvements that can be made

in the meantime at grade crossings that will remain passive.

Improved Signage

The Safety Board’s study suggests the need for a system-wide approach that provides for uniformity of signage at passive crossings and instructs the driver what action is

needed while providing the driver adequate time to react accordingly.

Stop Signs

The issue of installing stop signs at highway–rail crossings has been debated for

many decades. A 1929 report by the National Association of Railroad and Utilities

Commissioners noted the following:

In many States, experience with the “Stop” law, that is, the law requiring all vehicles on

the highway to come to a full stop before passing over any railroad crossing at grade,

indicates that enforcement of this requirement is not practical. . . . [However,] . . . in some

States, where the stopping of highway traffic is required at certain crossings which are

designated “stop crossings” or “extra hazardous crossings,” . . . better results are being

secured.149

A report on highway–rail grade crossing accidents from 1935 to 1954 stated that “unrealistic regulations, such as the requirement that vehicles stop or slow down to 5 mph at the

approach to a crossing, are so generally disregarded that they are not effective and create

 149 National Association of Railroad and Utilities Commissioners. 1929. Report of committee on

railroad grade crossings, elimination and protection. [Publisher’s location not indicated.] 72 p.
Chapter 6 69 Safety Study

disrespect for warnings generally.”150 In 1985, however, the FHWA indicated that upgrading from no stop signs to stop signs at crossings resulted in an overall reduction in

the expected number of accidents of 35 percent.151

In response to requests for guidance on the selection of highway–rail grade crossings for the installation of stop and yield signs, the FHWA and the FRA in 1993 jointly

developed recommended guidance.152 The document developed by the FHWA and FRA

stated “it is recommended that the following considerations be met in every case where a

STOP sign is installed:”

1. Local and/or State police and judicial officials will commit to a program of

enforcement no less vigorous than would apply at a highway intersection

equipped with STOP signs.

2. Installation of a STOP sign would not occasion a more dangerous situation

(taking into consideration both the likelihood and severity of highway–rail

collisions and other highway traffic risks) than would exist with a YIELD

sign.

The document further stated that “any one of the following conditions indicate

that use of STOP signs would tend to reduce risk of a highway–rail collision. It is recommended that the following considerations be weighed against the [factors in opposition

to STOP signs]:”

1. Maximum train speeds equal or exceed 30 mph (a factor highly correlated

with highway–rail accident severity).

2. Highway traffic mix includes buses, hazardous materials carriers and/or large

(trash or earth moving) equipment.

3. Train movements are 10 or more per day, 5 or more days per week.

4. The rail line is used by passenger trains.

5. The rail line is regularly used to transport a significant quantity of hazardous

materials.

 150 Interstate Commerce Commission, Bureau of Transport Economics and Statistics. 1955. Railhighway grade-crossing accidents 1935-1954. Statement 5521; File 4-B-1. Washington, DC. 123 p. (page

60).

151 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 1985. Effectiveness of motorist warning devices at rail-highway crossings. FHWA/RD-85/015; DOT-TSC-FHWA-85-1. Washington,

DC. Variously paged (page 3-16). [Prepared by the Transportation Systems Center, Research and Special

Programs Administration.]

152 U.S. Department of Transportation; Federal Highway Administration; Federal Railroad Administration. 1993. Recommended guidance for stop and yield sign installation at highway-rail grade crossings.

Washington, DC. 3 p. [Attachment 2 to a memorandum from the Associate Administrator for Safety and

Systems Applications, FHWA, and the Associate Administrator for Safety, FRA, issued on July 8, 1993, to

the FHWA Regional Administrators and the FRA Regional Directors of Railroad Safety.]
Chapter 6 70 Safety Study

6. The highway crosses two or more tracks, particularly where both tracks are

main tracks or one track is a passing siding that is frequently used.

7. The angle of approach to the crossing is skewed.

8. The line of sight from an approaching highway vehicle to an approaching

train is restricted such that approaching traffic is required to substantially

reduce speed.

According to the document, “factors to be weighed in opposition to STOP signs,”

or “contra-indications,” include the following:

1. The highway is other than secondary in character. Recommended maximum

of 400 ADT [average daily traffic] in rural areas, and 1,500 ADT in urban

areas.

2. The roadway is a steep ascending grade to or through the crossing, sight

distance in both directions is unrestricted in relation to maximum closing

speed, and the crossing is used by heavy vehicles.

The Safety Board acknowledges that there has been some concern expressed

about the use of stop signs at passive crossings. According to one witness at the Board’s

public forum, “stop signs don’t seem to make a difference because people recognize it is a

stop sign at a railway crossing, not a stop sign at a road crossing.”153 Twenty-two accident crossings in the Safety Board’s study were protected by stop signs, but 11 highway

vehicle drivers made no effort to stop. The results of the Safety Board study are consistent with previous findings on stop sign compliance at passive crossings. A study funded

by the FHWA found that 60 percent of drivers stopped at crossing stop signs compared

with 80 percent who stopped at highway intersection stop signs where there was no grade

crossing.154 Another study reported that for familiar crossings, stopping compliance can

be as low as 29 percent.155 A third study indicated that as few as 18 percent of all motorists come to a full stop, even at crossings with no available sight distance.156 This is

 153 Statement by an official of the Canadian National Railway. In: Transcript of the NTSB public forum

on safety at passive grade crossings (page 114).

154 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 1978. Safety features of stop

signs at rail-highway grade crossings. Vol. 1: Executive summary. FHWA-RE-78-40. Washington, DC. 17 p.

[Prepared by BioTechnology; Falls Church, VA.]

155 Parsonson, P.S.; Rinalducci, E.J. 1982. Positive guidance demonstration project at a railroadhighway grade crossing. In: Automotive technology, information needs of highway users, and promotion of

safety belt usage. Transportation Research Record 844. Washington DC: Transportation Research Board,

National Research Council: 29-34.

156 Burnham, A. 1995. Stop sign effectiveness at railroad grade crossings (abuse without excuse). In:

Proceedings, 3rd international symposium on railroad-highway grade crossing research and safety; 1994

October 24-26; Knoxville, TN. Knoxville: University of Tennessee: 91-113 (page 105).
Chapter 6 71 Safety Study

particularly disconcerting because most of the highway vehicle drivers in the Safety

Board’s study cases had their accidents at familiar crossings, and many of the crossings

had less sight distance for approaching motorists than is recommended by AASHTO.

Another concern raised about stop signs, as described in chapter 5, is that drivers

have difficulty judging the speed of an approaching train, even when there is some apparent movement across the visual field, as occurs when a driver some distance away from

the crossing sees an approaching train. The cues provided by the lateral movement of the

train are not available to the driver who is stopped at the crossing; the only information

available to this driver comes from the rate of apparent change in the train’s size, which

varies according to the distance between the driver and the approaching train.

In addition, drivers of large trucks point out that if they are forced to come to a

full stop, it takes several seconds longer to clear a crossing than it does if the truck merely

drops down to a slow roll.157 Federal regulations in 49 CFR 392.10, however, require

certain commercial vehicles transporting hazardous materials to stop at all grade crossings, whether or not there is a stop sign present. Further, in its investigations of two

collisions involving trains and tank trucks transporting hazardous materials, the Safety

Board found that the collisions could have been avoided had the truckdrivers stopped at

the crossings.158

Despite concerns about the use of stop signs at passive crossings, the Safety Board

believes that the benefits of stop signs at passive crossings outweigh the concerns.

Foremost, in the Safety Board’s opinion, is the need for a system-wide approach that

provides consistent information and instruction to the driver. Installation of stop signs at

passive crossings accomplishes this objective. Specifically, (1) the action required by a

stop sign is well understood by drivers, (2) a driver stopped at a crossing has more time in

which to detect an approaching train, and (3) sight distance along the tracks when viewed

from a stop line is generally adequate, according to study accident data. In the Board’s 60

cases, sight obstructions existed for a driver stopped at the crossing in only 10 cases; in

comparison, there were 33 cases in which the visibility was limited on the approach to the

crossing. By placing a stop sign at a passive crossing, a clear, unambiguous message is

sent to the driver so that the driver knows both where the crossing is and what action

must be taken. Further, the presence of a stop ahead sign, required by the MUTCD before

a stop sign at a grade crossing, warns the driver in advance of what action is

 157 Remarks by a private-sector investigator of railroad crossing accidents. In: Transcript of the NTSB

public forum on safety at passive grade crossings (page 102).

158 (a) National Transportation Safety Board. 1971. Illinois Central Railroad Company, train No. 1

collision with gasoline tank truck at South Second Street grade crossing; Loda, Illinois; January 24, 1970.

Railroad/Highway Accident Report NTSB/RHR-71/1. Washington, DC. 28 p. (b) National Transportation

Safety Board. 1989. Consolidated Rail Corporation train collision with Island Transportation Corporation

truck; Roosevelt Avenue grade crossing near Lafayette Street; Carteret, New Jersey; December 6, 1988.

Railroad/Highway Accident Report NTSB/RHR-89/1. Washington, DC.
Chapter 6 72 Safety Study

needed. Requiring the driver to stop at passive crossings can eliminate some of the

problems created by limited sight distance or other physical characteristics such as

skewed angle of intersection along the roadway approach.

In the Safety Board’s study sample, several conditions existed that were consistent

with conditions that would prompt installation of stop signs according to the FHWA and

FRA joint guidance, including inadequate sight distance, skewed angle of approach, train

traffic exceeding 10 trains per day, and/or maximum train speeds equal to or exceeding 30

mph (table 6–2). Although many of the crossings in the Board’s sample met the conditions of the FHWA and FRA guidance that warranted installation of a stop sign, none

were installed. For example, in 36 of the study cases, the maximum authorized train

speed was greater than 30 mph, but stop signs were not present; in 20 of the study cases,

the average daily train traffic was greater than 10, but stop signs were not present. The

Safety Board is concerned that the use of stop signs is underutilized by the States.

The decision to install a stop sign, according to the 1993 guidance document developed by the FHWA and the FRA, is based on a determination of risk and is reasonable

from a systems planning approach. The Board’s study data, however, suggest that, given

the level of risk present at all passive grade crossings, wider use of stop signs would increase safety. Rather than using engineering studies to determine that a stop sign is

needed at a crossing, the Board believes that a more reasonable approach is for the States

to use engineering studies to determine why a stop sign should not be placed at a crossing. Thus, the Board questions the need to limit the use of stop signs based on the 1993

guidance provided by the FHWA and the FRA but concurs with the guidance regarding

the need for enforcement. The Safety Board concludes that installation and enforcement

of stop signs at passive grade crossings would provide consistent information, instruction,

and regulation to the motoring public and would improve the safety of the Nation’s passive grade crossings. The Board recognizes that the FHWA and the FRA believe that the

use of stop signs at certain crossings may increase the risk to the traveling public; for example, crossings where there is a steep ascending grade on the approach to or through the

crossing. However, the Safety Board believes that the States should, within 2 years of

receiving Federal funding, install stop signs at all passive grade crossings unless a traffic

engineering analysis determines that installation of a stop sign would reduce the level of

safety at a crossing. Crossings where conditions are such that the installation of stop

signs would reduce the level of safety should be upgraded with active warning devices or

should be eliminated.

The Safety Board considered whether stop signs should be installed only at dangerous passive crossings rather than at all passive crossings. The Board rejected this

option for a number of reasons. First, if stop signs were installed only at dangerous

crossings, the goal of uniformity of signs at all passive crossings would be defeated. Second, if stop signs were installed only at dangerous crossings, a new sign would be needed

at the crossings without stop signs because neither the advance warning sign nor the

crossbuck at those crossings instructs the driver what action is needed. Further, it would

be several years before a new sign would be developed, rulemaking enacted, and
Chapter 6 73 Safety Study

Table 6–2. Presence of stop signs at the study accident crossings

relative to FHWA/FRA guidance for the installation of stop signs at

passive grade crossings.

Number of study accident crossings

where stop signs were—

Considerations for installing stop

signs at passive grade crossings(a) Present Not present

Average daily highway traffic:

<400 vehicles (signs recommended) 7 13

>400 vehicles 9 10

Unknown 6 15

Total 22 38

Angle of roadway–track intersection:

Not 90° (signs recommended) 9 18

90° 13 20

Total 22 38

Sight distance:

Limited (signs recommended) 13 20

Not limited 9 15

Unknown 0 3

Total 22 38

Average daily train traffic:

>10 trains (signs recommended) 17 20

<10 trains 5 17

Unknown 0 1

Total 22 38

Number of tracks:

Multiple tracks (signs recommended) 6 6

Single tracks 16 32

Total 22 38

Maximum train speed:

>30 mph (signs recommended) 20 36

< 30 mph 2 2

Total 22 38

Passenger train use:

Rail line used (signs recommended) 8 8

Rail line not used 14 29

Total 22 38

(a) The considerations are outlined in Attachment 2 to a memorandum from the Associate

Administrator for Safety and Systems Applications, Federal Highway Administration, and the

Associate Administrator for Safety, Federal Railroad Administration, issued on July 8, 1993, to the

FHWA Regional Administrators and the FRA Regional Directors of Railroad Safety.
Chapter 6 74 Safety Study

the new sign installed. During that time, interim technology for intelligent transportation

systems is likely to be available that could alert motorists to the presence of a train.159

Accordingly, to ensure a systematic and uniform approach to signage at passive crossings,

the Safety Board chose to recommend the use of stop signs at all passive crossings unless

a traffic engineering analysis determines that installation of a stop sign would reduce the

level of safety at a crossing.

In 1996, there were 198,985 public and private passive crossings; installation of

stop signs, and the associated stop ahead signs, is estimated to cost between $1,200 and

$2,000 per crossing. The Safety Board believes that the DOT should provide full funding

within 3 years for the installation of stop and stop ahead signs at passive grade crossings.

Advance Warning and

Crossbuck Signs

The Safety Board considered whether the railroad crossing advance warning sign

or crossbuck sign present at passive crossings should be replaced with a sign that (1) was

unique to passive crossings, and (2) instructed the driver what action to take at the crossing. This issue was raised because neither the advance warning sign nor the crossbuck

sign instructs a highway vehicle driver what to do—such as stop, yield, or take any action—at a passive crossing. The Safety Board’s study indicates that the existing signs are

sufficient to advise drivers of the presence of a crossing, and in the Safety Board’s sample, most of the surviving drivers reported that they were aware of the crossing. The

Safety Board is particularly concerned about drivers who are familiar with an area and are

thus aware, from previous use, of the presence of a crossing. In these circumstances, ensuring that the driver looks for a train is of paramount importance. The Safety Board

determined that if drivers are stopped at a crossing, they are in a better position and more

likely to look for a train, in most cases. Thus, the Safety Board is recommending that

stop signs be installed at passive crossings. Although installation of stop signs will not result in a sign that is unique to passive crossings, stop and stop ahead signs adequately

communicate the driver action necessary at the crossing. In the Board’s opinion, there is

no need to replace either the current advance warning sign or the crossbuck sign.

Because the crossbuck sign does not dictate the action required by a driver, the

Safety Board questions whether the crossbuck is appropriately classified as a regulatory

sign. The Board is not recommending that the FHWA change the classification, however,

because such a change would be an administrative action and does not affect safety.

 159 The report discusses intelligent transportation systems technology in greater detail later in this

chapter.
Chapter 6 75 Safety Study

DOT Crossing Identifier

Where possible, Safety Board staff compared data in the FRA inventory database

(GCIS) on crossings involved in the study accidents with the data collected by investigators at the time of the accident. To search the database, staff needed the DOT crossing

identifier, the unique ID number assigned to each crossing. According to the FRA,

“[e]very crossing in the United States, including public, private and pedestrian, both at

grade and grade separated shall have a crossing inventory number assigned and recorded

in the National File.” Further, the FRA recommends that this unique number “be displayed on both sides of the track at each and every crossing;”160 that is, every crossing

should be posted with its number. About one-third (19) of the study accident crossings in

the Board’s sample did not have the number posted, and 2 had incorrect numbers posted

(cases 12 and 61).161 In one case (case 61), for example, the railroad company owning

the crossing had recycled signposts from another crossing and left the old ID numbers

intact on the posts.

The DOT crossing ID number was created and set in place so that the various

local authorities, State and Federal agencies, and the railroads would all have a common

method by which to refer to a particular crossing. The DOT crossing ID number enables

a county highway engineer, for example, to more easily communicate with a railroad

about a crossing at which there will be work crews. More importantly, if used correctly,

this number enables local police to notify railroads of trouble at a specific crossing, or the

railroad to identify to local emergency response personnel exactly where a grade crossing

accident has occurred. Any of this communication, some of it directly related to safety,

would have been impossible at one-third of the crossings in the study sample. The Safety

Board is concerned, given the number of crossings with a missing or incorrect ID number

in the study sample, that ID numbers may be missing or incorrect at many other crossings

throughout the system. The Board therefore believes that the FRA, the Association of

American Railroads (AAR), and the American Short Line and Regional Railroad

Association should encourage the railroads to ensure that the DOT identification number

is properly posted at all grade crossings.

 160 Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Safety. 1996. Highway-rail crossing inventory

instructions and procedures manual. Washington, DC. (p. 2-5).

161 In 17 of these 21 cases, the Board found the appropriate number by looking at track charts or private

crossing agreements, or someone at the railroad was able to provide it. At 4 of these 21 crossings (cases 32,

37, 57, and 58), the Board performed searches in the database using more general information, such as

railroad name, State, and County names; this general search succeeded in identifying only 1 of the 4

crossings (case 32).
Chapter 6 76 Safety Study

Enforcement Activities at Crossings

According to the AAR Railroad Industry Grade Crossing Policy Agenda, “the

violation of traffic laws relating to highway–rail grade crossings is the single most significant factor in grade crossing incidents. . . . Incidents annually occur at grade crossings

at which traditional highway ‘stop’ signs have been installed.”162

The 1994 DOT Action Plan developed by the four modal administrations

(described in chapter 2) outlined several initiatives to increase enforcement of traffic laws

at crossings. One initiative involved the use of Section 402163 funds to promote targeted

public education, and engineering and law enforcement strategies. The NHTSA and the

FHWA have advised the States that Section 402 funds are available for this purpose. The

initiative is continuing, and in fiscal year 1997, 15 States dedicated $346,661 for this

purpose.

Other enforcement initiatives outlined in the Action Plan included identifying and

detailing a police officer with training background to work with the FRA and Operation

Lifesaver in developing an outreach program to the enforcement community. According

to a summary status of Action Plan initiatives received by the Safety Board from the FRA

Office of Safety on May 27, 1998, one officer for each of the last 3 years has been detailed to the FRA and the outreach program is continuing. As part of an outreach to

judicial officials, the NHTSA and the FHWA have prepared and published two articles in

the National Traffic Law Center newsletter on the need for increased enforcement of traffic laws at active and passive crossings. The two modal administrations have also made a

presentation on this issue at a traffic court judges’ seminar and have published a pamphlet

for distribution to judicial officials. The pamphlet emphasizes how judicial support can

help reduce the number of accidents and fatalities at grade crossings through the use of

fines and penalties; it also provides the judges with names of individuals to contact within

the FRA.

The FHWA and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators

(AAMVA) have discussed the need for grade crossing violations to be considered as

“serious” for holders of a commercial driver’s license. Conviction of a serious violation

can result in a suspended license as opposed to only a traffic fine. A notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM) was issued on this topic on March 2, 1998. The comment period

ended May 1, 1998; the FHWA Office of Motor Carriers is currently reviewing the

comments.164

 162 The AAR Policy Agenda, developed in 1994 and revised in 1998, summarizes the Association’s

recommendations for improving the safety at highway-rail grade crossings.

163 23 U.S.C. §402 authorizes the Secretary of the DOT to approve and provide funding for certain

State highway safety programs.

164 Information provided by the Office of Motor Carriers, July 13, 1998.
Chapter 6 77 Safety Study

A witness at the Safety Board’s public forum reported on enforcement efforts in

Missouri. The witness acknowledged that in Missouri about 50 percent of the collisions

occur at grade crossings with an ADT count of 500 highway vehicles or less; 25 percent

of the collisions occur at grade crossings where the ADT is 50 vehicles or less.165 His observation was that most of the collisions involved local people familiar with the area and

the grade crossing. He provided these numbers as a preface to his remarks that law enforcement at passive grade crossings within his State is nonexistent and that scarce

resources cannot be diverted from other high priority areas to focus on passive crossings.

The Safety Board acknowledges that a considerable proportion of passive crossings lie in rural regions on roads with fairly low traffic volume. In addition, casualties at

grade crossings represent a very small percentage of overall highway casualties and, concurrently, a small part of law enforcement resources. Nevertheless, over 2,000 accidents

occur each year at passive crossings. The Safety Board is aware that Operation Lifesaver

(OL) organizations in several States have completed some innovative law enforcement

programs that address enforcement of grade crossing warning devices.166 These efforts

are primarily targeted at locations with active warning devices, but some of the programs

have addressed enforcement of stop signs at passive crossings. These programs, some

entitled “Trooper on the Train,” “Officer on the Train,” or “Operation Stopgate,” are often

run sporadically; Ohio, however, runs about 11 or 12 trains per year because of strong coordination between the full-time OL coordinator and the law enforcement community and

because of the interest of law enforcement in this initiative. Generally, the rail corridors

targeted for these enforcement trains are selected because of high accident rates and the

number of highway vehicle drivers who do not comply with active and passive warning

devices. For the most part, these programs follow the same basic format: law enforcement officers are placed on the train and at stationary locations on either side of the grade

crossings that are targeted for the program. Highway vehicle operators who do not comply with the lowered arm of a crossing gate and/or a flashing light or stop sign, and to a

much lesser degree the crossbuck sign, are stopped by law enforcement officers and are

ticketed. These programs also include video cameras that record the actions of the highway vehicle driver crossing in front of the train. The Safety Board emphasizes that one of

the fundamental considerations that must be met for stop signs to be effective is that law

enforcement officials must commit to a vigorous program of enforcement equal to the enforcement of stop signs at highway intersections. The Safety Board encourages OL and

the States to continue the innovative approaches to enforcement. The AAR stated in its

Policy Agenda that Federal highway safety “bonus awards” should be given to States for

innovative pilot programs to increase enforcement of grade crossing traffic laws. The

 165 From remarks by a representative of the Missouri State Police. In: Transcript of the NTSB public

forum on safety at passive grade crossings (pages 84-85).

166 Telephone conversations of Safety Board staff with the OL coordinators in selected States (North

Carolina, Ohio, Alabama, Georgia, and Florida) that have enforcement programs.
Chapter 6 78 Safety Study

Safety Board concurs with this position and, therefore, believes that the DOT should provide Federal highway safety incentive grants to States to advance innovative pilot

programs designed to increase enforcement of passive grade crossing traffic laws.

Grade Crossing Safety Education

The Safety Board’s study indicates that the motoring public does not clearly

understand the level of risk at passive crossings and the need for full driver attention each

time a crossing is used. Further, in a 1988 survey conducted by the University of

Tennessee, researchers asked drivers what motorists should do when approaching a

crossing that does not have railroad signals. In response, 24.3 percent of the drivers said

that the driver should slow down and be prepared to stop (which was determined by the

researchers to be the correct response), 69.6 percent declared that one should “stop, look,

and listen at the crossing for a train,” and 6.1 percent stated that the question was “not

applicable, because all crossings have railroad signals.”167

When stopped at the crossing, as recommended in this report, a driver will be

required to look for a train and judge the speed of a train if present. The Safety Board

examined material from various driver educational programs to determine if passive

crossings, the inherent risk at these crossings, and the driver’s tasks were adequately

addressed.

Highway safety education is provided to motorists by several organizations. The

AAMVA, founded in 1933, is a voluntary, not-for-profit educational organization representing the State and provincial officials in the United States and Canada who are

responsible for the administration and enforcement of motor vehicle laws. The AAMVA

serves as an “information clearinghouse” for motor vehicle administration, police traffic

services, and highway safety.168 The Professional Truck Drivers Institute of America

(PTDIA) develops curriculum and certification standards for training entry-level truck

drivers. Operation Lifesaver (OL) is a not-for-profit organization that provides information about grade crossing safety to motor vehicle operators through safety educational

programs.169 The American Automobile Association (AAA) has been involved in driver

education since the mid-1930s. The AAA writes and provides driver education materials

 167 Richards, Stephen H.; Heathington, K.W. 1988. Motorist understanding of railroad-highway grade

crossing traffic control devices and associated traffic laws. In: Traffic control devices 1988. Transportation

Research Record 1160. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council: 52-

59.

168 Information obtained on May 4, 1998, from the Web site of the American Association of Motor

Vehicle Administrators: http://www.aamva.org/aboutaamva.html.

169 OL volunteers give speeches at schools and community associations, and prepare exhibits for

regional fairs, in addition to other activities.
Chapter 6 79 Safety Study

for use in high school and in professional driver’s schools, conducts programs to assist

driver education teachers with their preparations, and also conducts driver improvement

programs for the general population.170

A review of the driver education material developed by the above organizations

found that very little information is provided on the dangers of passive grade crossings or

what actions are required of drivers at passive crossings. The AAA materials reviewed

by the Board specify that passive grade crossings require more care on the part of the

driver but do not discuss physical characteristics at grade crossings that can affect the

driver’s ability to see an approaching train. The PTDIA course outline material reviewed

by the Board makes no mention of grade crossings.

Further, a review of the OL Presenter Trainer’s Manual found that the section on

school bus driver presentation, as mentioned earlier, addresses the visual illusions to

which a driver is subject. However, the manual does not contain information about the

unique problems present at passive grade crossings that require full driver attention, nor

does it discuss how the physical characteristics of the crossing may affect the driver’s

ability to see a train approaching. Attendees at OL courses may not be aware of the

unique dangers present at passive grade crossings because OL presentations do not

address issues specific to passive grade crossings. The Safety Board is also concerned

that the States’ written driver examination may not always address issues specific to the

dangers of passive grade crossings. According to one witness at the Safety Board’s

public forum, the motor vehicle administration in his State has five versions of the written

driver’s examination, only two of which contain a single question about grade

crossings.171 The Safety Board concludes that the dangers of passive grade crossings are

not adequately addressed in current driver education material or in the States’ written

driver examinations. The Safety Board believes, therefore, that the States should ensure

that questions on safety at passive grade crossings are included in every version of the

State’s written driver examinations. Further, the Safety Board believes that Operation

Lifesaver, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, the American

Automobile Association, and the Professional Truck Drivers Institute of America should

include in their training manuals, presentations, and printed educational material

information about (1) the need for full driver attention at passive grade crossings, (2) the

fact that trains are often moving faster than they appear to be from a distance, and (3) the

ways in which the physical characteristics of the crossing affect the driver’s ability to see

an approaching train at a passive crossing. The Safety Board also believes that OL, the

AAMVA, the AAA, and the PTDIA should develop, in conjunction with the DOT, an

appropriate training module specific to safety at passive grade crossings to be included in

the organizations’ highway safety education programs.

 170 Telephone conversation with staff at the national office of the AAA, May 13, 1997.

171 Remarks by a representative of the Missouri State Police. In: Transcript of the NTSB public forum

on safety at passive grade crossings (page 96).
Chapter 6 80 Safety Study

Concurrent with the installation of stop signs at all passive crossings is the need to

inform the Nation’s motorists of the need to stop at all passive crossings. The Safety

Board believes that a national media campaign is warranted to inform motorists of newly

installed stop signs at passive crossings. The Advertising Council, Inc., has experience in

developing messages to the public in an understandable manner and has worked with the

DOT modal administrations on prior highway safety public service announcements.

Therefore, the Safety Board believes that the DOT, in conjunction with the Advertising

Council, should develop a media campaign to inform motorists that stops signs will be

installed at many of the Nation’s passive grade crossings, and to inform motorists of the

importance of obeying stop signs at passive grade crossings.

Intelligent Transportation Systems

The MUTCD indicates that stop signs should be an interim measure until active

warning devices can be installed. The Safety Board concurs that stop signs are an interim

measure and believes that a long-term solution to eliminating passive crossings and reducing collisions between highway and rail vehicles will be through the use of intelligent

transportation systems (ITS) that will be able to alert the motorist to the presence of a

train.172

Subcomponents of ITS that are applicable to grade crossings include in-vehicle

safety advisory and warning systems (IVSAWS) that use modern telecommunications

technology to broadcast a warning to specially equipped highway vehicles.173 The

IVSAWS consist of a device to detect the presence of a train (this may be a transmitter on

the locomotive, or a detection circuit at trackside) that sends a signal to a transceiver at

the grade crossing, which, in turn, sends a signal to the receiver on the highway vehicle.

The IVSAWS are not intended to serve only as a warning about trains. The ultimate objective of this part of the ITS program and the organizations developing the

technology is to design a system to warn drivers about numerous dangers on the roadway.

When fully implemented, the IVSAWS could warn drivers about such things as the approach of police or emergency vehicles, the presence of a stopped school bus, and the

approach of a train at a crossing. Given this multiple functionality, it will be necessary to

enable the driver to determine easily which hazard to look for. Guidelines and specifications for appropriate visual displays and audible messages are currently being developed.

 172 ITS is a cooperative effort between government and private entities to integrate modern computer

and communications technology into the transportation infrastructure. Its purpose is to test and to develop

technology, and to establish standards for enabling uniform application of that technology throughout the

Nation. (Information on the role of the Federal Government in ITS was obtained on February 4, 1998, from

the Web site of the DOT’s ITS Joint Programs Office: http://www.its.dot.gov/qa.web2.htm.)

173 Some of these systems are also referred to as “vehicle proximity alerting systems” (VPAS).
Chapter 6 81 Safety Study

The automobile manufacturers, recognizing that they will play an integral role in

the implementation of systems like IVSAWS, are active to different degrees in the development of the equipment and the standards. For example, several manufacturers are

members of the Intelligent Transportation Society of America (ITS America), the umbrella organization established by Congress in 1991 to coordinate development and

deployment efforts in ITS.174 Participation in ITS America permits the automobile manufacturers to keep informed of developments related to roadway and trackside equipment

and to participate in the standards development committees. The Safety Board is encouraged by the efforts made by the automobile manufacturers to keep themselves aware of

ITS developments and urges their active participation in all aspects of the development

process.

ITS applications cost far less than installing lights and gates and will also convert

passive crossings into active crossings. For the train detection and transmitting equipment for IVSAWS at each crossing, most cost estimates are below $5,000 per crossing,

and all cost estimates are below $10,000 per crossing.175 As noted earlier, it costs about

$150,000 per crossing for standard warning devices. Depending on the cost of the ITS

infrastructure, it is likely that the cost of ITS technology will be less than that for standard

active warning devices. The Safety Board supports efforts to encourage development of

ITS applications.

Unlike the gates and lights, however, the IVSAWS require, as a rule, a direct cost

to the driver of each highway vehicle, who must either purchase and install an aftermarket

device or pay extra for the system installed in a new car. Because the system will work

best when every vehicle on the road carries the receiver, the practicality of these devices

will depend on their near-universal availability in highway vehicles. Currently, estimated

prices for the receivers range from about $50 up to $250.176 The Safety Board recognizes

that once the in-car technology is available, it will take 15 to 20 years before all vehicles

on the road are equipped with the technology.

The Safety Board believes that interim ITS solutions may also be possible, such as

signs or signals that can alert a motorist to the presence of a train without depending on

expensive track circuitry. Less complex ITS applications have been proposed by the

FHWA for use at grade crossings, including variable message signs and roadside beacons

activated by wireless communications signals emitted by train detection equipment.177

One proposed solution being tested by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe and the Union

 174 According to ITS America (http://www.itsa.org/), the following automobile manufacturers are

members: Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Honda, Mazda, Nissan, and Toyota.

175 The cost for the ITS infrastructure (global control and communications technology to be used

everywhere) is not included in these estimates.

176 One proposed system piggybacks its warning device onto the vehicle radio, and any extra cost is

hidden from the consumer.

177 Federal Highway Administration. 1997. Highway rail intersections. Standards Requirements

Package 12. (Prepared by the Architectural Development Team, Lockheed Martin Federal Systems,

Rockwell International.)
Chapter 6 82 Safety Study

Pacific railroads is to utilize Global Positioning System tracking and computer projections to accurately determine a train’s actual speed and position, and radio frequency

satellite communications to activate whatever variable message signs or roadside beacons

are installed at crossings in time to give motorists sufficient warning of the train. The

grade crossing component of this project is being tested by the Texas Transportation Institute on the Pacific Northwest high speed rail corridor.178 Equipment that

communicates with the crossing warning devices has been successful in laboratory tests

and will be field-tested in the summer of 1998, according to personnel at the Institute.

Cost estimates for the grade crossing equipment are not yet available.

Other systems are being tested as a part of the Transportation Research Board’s

Innovations Deserving Exploratory Analysis (IDEA) program. For example, two proposed systems use different radar technologies to detect the presence and the speed of an

approaching train, and then activate the warning devices. In the case of one of the radar

systems just mentioned, the final contract is being completed, and therefore testing has

not commenced. In the case of the other radar system, field testing will be conducted

during the summer of 1998, and a viable product is expected by September.179

The Safety Board concludes that IVSAWS and other ITS applications proposed

have the potential to reduce accidents and injuries at passive grade crossings by alerting

drivers to an oncoming train. They appear to be less costly and more effective than installation of active warning devices for passive grade crossings. Initial testing of five

IVSAWS was completed by the FRA in 1995, and two of the systems tested were determined to merit further testing, which was scheduled to begin early in 1998.180 At the time

this report was prepared, however, the testing had not yet been scheduled. Two States are

currently funding tests of two different IVSAWS at railroad grade crossings independent

of the U.S. Department of Transportation. In addition, several other IVSAWS have been

developed, including systems in Italy and in portions of the United States, that warn drivers about several different highway hazards, such as hidden driveways and construction

zones; the Italian system is already in use in more than 50,000 highway vehicles.181

Given that several systems have proven effective and the potential of ITS to reduce accidents at passive crossings, the Safety Board believes that efforts to test and implement

these systems should be a high priority. Therefore, the Safety Board believes that the

DOT should (1) develop and implement a field test program for IVSAWS, variable message signs, and other active devices, and then (2) ensure that the private entities who are

 178 Roop, Stephen. 1997. Specific applications of ITS to grade crossings. In: Intelligent transportation

systems and their implications for railroads: Proceedings, Joint FRA-ITS America Technical Symposium;

1997 June 4-5; Washington, DC. DOT/FRA/ORD-97/11; DOT-VNTSC-FRA-97-8. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration. Washington, DC: VI-1 to VI-7 (page VI1).

179 Telephone conversation with staff of the Transportation Research Board, ITS-IDEA Program,

May 8, 1998.

180 Telephone conversation with the FRA project manager, January 27, 1998.

181 Briefing for Safety Board staff on May 20, 1997, by representatives of the Italian manufacturer,

Electronic Security Systems Equipment Generation International Corporation.
Chapter 6 83 Safety Study

developing advanced technology applications modify those applications as appropriate for

use at passive grade crossings. Following the modifications, the DOT should take action

to implement use of the advanced technology applications. Because of the multimodal

nature of this technology, the Safety Board believes that it would be prudent for the modal

administrations—including the NHTSA, the FHWA, and the FRA—and the modal associations—including the American Association of State Highway and Transportation

Officials, the Association of American Railroads, the American Short Line and Regional

Railroad Association, and the American Public Transit Association—to participate and

cooperate fully with the ITS development.

Some ITS applications utilize technologies already in existence. For example, a

representative of an automobile manufacturer has informed Safety Board staff that vehicles with a remote control door lock/unlock feature are already equipped with short-range

receivers, a technology that could be adapted to suit the purposes of IVSAWS. The current generation of proposed IVSAWS includes systems that make use of radios currently

on the market, and one that uses well-established radar detector technology. This means

that the process of adapting and testing current technologies is faster than a process in

which fundamentally new technology must be developed. However, each of the proposed

systems uses a different radio frequency and utilizes different message codes to indicate

the presence and type of hazard; if all are viable, there is a potential for implementation of

different systems in different regions of the country. Should this become true, motorists

could not rely on the warning from the system in their vehicle when traveling from one

region to another. There is a need, therefore, for the establishment of national standards

for radio frequencies to be used, auditory alerts, and specific message codes to be sent.

The DOT, rather than imposing standards, is, in conjunction with ITS America, supporting, guiding, and funding the efforts of five standards development organizations in

determining the standards for all ITS applications. According to information provided by

the DOT, however, these standards are not yet in place for ITS at grade crossings, nor has

any timetable been established for publishing these standards.182 In fact, it has not yet

been determined which standards need to be developed,183 and until they are developed,

there is no guarantee that any ITS system would be uniformly applied across the Nation.

The Safety Board concludes that in order to achieve the greatest safety at passive grade

crossings as quickly as possible, standards for ITS applications must be established in a

timely manner. The Safety Board believes that the DOT should establish a timetable for

the completion of standards development for ITS applications at highway–rail grade

crossings, and it should act expeditiously to complete the standards.

 182 Telephone conversation with the standards program manager at DOT’s ITS Joint Program Office,

June 8, 1998.

183 Telephone conversation with the director of systems integration, ITS America, May 18, 1998.
Chapter 6 84 Safety Study

Private Crossings

Fourteen of the study accidents occurred on private roads, including farm, residential, commercial, and industrial access roads. Seven of these 14 accidents were fatal,

resulting in 11 fatalities. Five of the private crossings in the study did not have the standard crossbuck sign: three had special “private crossing” signs (figure 6–1), and two had

no signs. Four private crossings in the study had multiple tracks but did not have the appropriate multiple tracks sign. None of the private crossings in the study had railroad

crossing advance warning signs. Seven of the roads leading to the private crossings in the

study were paved with asphalt; only one had pavement markings. Of the four private

crossings in the Board’s study for which ADT was available, two reportedly had fewer

than 20 highway vehicles per day, one crossing had more than 1,000 vehicles, and one

had an ADT of over 500 vehicles per day.184

Of the 14 private crossings in the study, 5 had sight obstructions: 3 had limited

sight distance for a motorist approaching the crossing, 1 had limited sight distance for a

motorist stopped at the crossing, and 1 had limited sight distance both on the approach to

and for a vehicle stopped at the crossing. Six of the private crossings had curves in either

the roadway or the track, and three had angles of intersection that were not 90°.

According to FRA records, about half of all passive grade crossings are on private

roadways, about 99 percent of the private crossings are passive, and private passive

crossings account for about 15 percent of all passive grade crossing fatalities. Crossings

determined to be on private roads are not subject to and, as illustrated in the study cases,

rarely comply with requirements for highway design, signage, or pavement markings.

The FHWA does not in any way regulate passive crossings on private roads, and the

FRA’s oversight is limited to operations on the railroad rights-of-way. Although some

railroads make it a policy to see that a crossbuck has been placed at every crossing, there

is no Federal requirement that the sign be placed at every private crossing. Further, maintenance at railroad crossings may be subject to contractual obligations, but where it is not,

maintenance is at the discretion of the landowner.

The extent to which States assume the responsibility for private crossings varies.

Oregon, for example, recently enacted legislation to give the State jurisdiction over

private crossings on high speed rail lines. Many States, however, have no laws about

private crossings. Further, some States require special private crossing signs; other States

do not. This lack of uniformity in signs leads to a system wherein drivers do not receive

consistent information about the action to take at passive grade crossings, whether public

or private.

 184 An ADT of 500–1,000 is not considered low, but these were industrial crossings, which might be

expected to have more traffic than, for example, a farm crossing would have.
Chapter 6 85 Safety Study

Figure 6–1. Private crossing sign used by some railroads at private

crossings on their property.

Closure of private crossings is accomplished through an agreement between the

landowners and the railroad. Problems may arise if ownership of the private road is unknown. According to an official of one railroad, only 20 percent of the 22,000 private

grade crossings on the railroad’s property had any written formal agreements between the

railroad and the landowner.185

With respect to private crossings, the FHWA and FRA 1994 Action Plan stated

the following:

[The] FRA has traditionally taken the position that private crossing matters should be

settled by the private parties involved. However, from a safety perspective, this approach

has proven inadequate. A few states, including Alaska and California, have also reached

this conclusion and have acted to standardize responsibilities and treatments for private

crossings.186 Despite this, the overall national result is that responsibilities are most often

undefined or are inconsistently acknowledged and applied.

 185 Remarks by an official of Union Pacific Railroad. In: Transcript of the NTSB public forum on safety

at passive grade crossings (page 335).

186 According to the Chief of Engineering and Operations of the Alaska Department of Transportation

and Public Utilities, the State of Alaska published a policy on treatment of private grade crossings, but this

policy is not acted upon in practice. According to an Agreements Engineer at Caltrans, a California State

transportation agency, California does not have a policy regarding treatment of private grade crossings.
Chapter 6 86 Safety Study

Similarly, traffic control or traffic warning standards have been defined in only a few

instances and are not consistently applied. The FHWA lacks jurisdiction, as do most state

and local departments. FHWA has endorsed the concept of applying MUTCD warning

device standards to private highway–rail crossings, but lacks the jurisdiction to follow

through.

According to the Action Plan, “the Department [DOT] proposes to develop and

provide national, minimum safety standards for private crossings and to eliminate the

potential impediment to high speed rail operations proposed by private crossings.” To accomplish this, the Action Plan outlined three initiatives. First,

Operational definitions will be developed for each of the four categories [of private grade

crossing—farm, residential, recreational, and industrial]. . . . As appropriate, minimum

safety requirements, warning device standards, and responsibilities will be defined

beginning with the category(ies) with the most severe problems; i.e., probably with

Private Industrial Crossings.

The second initiative, according to the Action Plan, was that the FRA would hold

an informal safety inquiry to further review the concept of defining minimum safety standards for private crossings, or for certain categories of crossings, “up to and including

standards for closure and consolidation under certain conditions.” According to the Action Plan, the inquiry would address the “allocation of responsibilities and costs

associated with private crossings and the need for dispute resolution mechanisms regarding that allocation.” The third initiative involved the “feasibility of placing gates with

remotely activated cipher locks at private crossings.” According to the Action Plan, “in

this scenario, the gate would normally be closed and locked. A potential user would call

the railroad dispatcher, possibly from a special call box at the crossing.”

The summary status of the Action Plan received by the Safety Board from the

FRA in May 1998 indicated that with respect to the first initiative outlined above, “statistics and comments from previous safety inquiry are being reviewed.” With respect to the

second initiative, the summary status indicated “pending time and resources.” With respect to the third initiative, the summary status indicated that the States of New York and

Oregon were studying the concept and that “demonstrations [were] being planned in both

States.”

The Safety Board acknowledges the proposed actions and initiatives outlined in

the 1994 Action Plan. However, it appears, based on the summary status report received,

that little progress has been made to complete these initiatives. Implementation of the

first initiative outlined above would be a positive step toward addressing the issue of

standardization and uniformity of signs. The Safety Board concludes that safety at private passive crossings would be enhanced if there were clear responsibility for their safety

and maintenance, including the installation and maintenance of the standard traffic
Chapter 6 87 Safety Study

control devices outlined in the MUTCD. The Safety Board thus believes that the DOT, in

conjunction with the States, should determine within 2 years governmental oversight responsibility for safety at private highway–rail grade crossings and ensure that traffic

control on these crossings meets the standards within the Manual on Uniform Traffic

Control Devices.
This page intentionally left blank.
Conclusions Safety Study 89

Conclusions

1. In 1996, passive crossings accounted for about three-quarters of all grade crossings in

the United States; although there is less highway and train traffic at passive crossings

than at active crossings, passive crossings accounted for 54 percent of all grade

crossing accidents and 60 percent of all grade crossing fatalities in that year.

2. A systematic and hierarchic approach to improving passive grade crossing safety is

needed, an approach that does not depend primarily on the ability of the driver

approaching the crossing to see an oncoming train. The hierarchic approach includes

grade separation and closure, installation of active warning devices, improved

signage, and intelligent transportation systems technology.

3. Consolidation (the separation and closure) of passive crossings is the most effective

means to eliminate accidents between highway vehicles and trains. The next most

desirable method to improve safety at passive crossings is to equip these crossings

with active devices that warn the motorist of an oncoming train.

4. Installation and enforcement of stop signs at passive crossings would provide

consistent information, instruction, and regulation to the motoring public and would

improve the safety of the Nation’s passive grade crossings.

5. Stop signs are an interim measure to improve the safety at passive grade crossings;

the long-term solution to eliminating passive crossings and reducing collisions

between highway and rail vehicles will be through the use of intelligent

transportation systems that will alert the motorist to the presence of a train.

6. In-vehicle safety and advisory warning systems and other applications of intelligent

transportation systems (ITS) have the potential to reduce accidents and injuries at

passive grade crossings by alerting drivers to an oncoming train. In order to achieve

the greatest safety at passive grade crossings as quickly as possible, standards for ITS

applications must be established in a timely manner.

7. The sight distances available to a motorist, the crossing angle of intersection, the

presence of curves on the roadway or on the tracks, and the presence of nearby

roadway intersections can affect the level of safety at passive grade crossings. Not

all States include these factors in the formulas used to determine the selection of

crossings for elimination or improvement, and only the crossing angle of intersection

and the presence of nearby roadway intersections are recorded in the Grade Crossing

Inventory System of the Federal Railroad Administration.
Conclusions Safety Study 90

8. A driver’s decision to look for a train may be adversely affected by the driver’s

familiarity with and expectations at a specific passive grade crossing and the driver’s

experience with passive crossings in general.

9. The action a driver needs to take at a passive grade crossing should be communicated

to the driver at the point of the advance warning sign. The current set of traffic signs

used at passive grade crossings does not do so.

10. Although the Railroad–Highway Grade Crossing Handbook by the Federal Highway

Administration and A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets by the

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials provide

guidance to assist highway engineers in the physical and geometric design of safe

roadway systems, the characteristics at 54 of the 60 study accident crossings failed to

adhere to at least one of these guidelines. The safety of passive grade crossings is

enhanced when their design adheres to the applicable standards and guidelines.

11. For stop signs at passive crossings to be most effective, law enforcement officials

must commit to a vigorous program of enforcement.

12. The dangers of passive grade crossings are not adequately addressed in current driver

education material or in the States’ written driver examinations.

13. In some circumstances, audible warning devices on trains fail to meet their objective

of alerting motorists to an oncoming train because of highway vehicle design and

environmental factors.

14. The safety at private passive crossings would be enhanced if there were clear

responsibility for their safety and maintenance, including the installation and

maintenance of the standard traffic control devices outlined in the Manual on

Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

15. About one-third of the study accident crossings in the National Transportation Safety

Board’s sample did not have the U.S. Department of Transportation identification

number posted, and two had incorrect numbers posted. Exact communication about

where a grade crossing accident occurred would have been impossible at these

crossings in the study sample.
Recommendations Safety Study 91

Recommendations

As a result of this safety study, the National Transportation Safety Board made the

following recommendations:

To the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation—

Provide full funding within 3 years for the installation of stop and stop

ahead signs at passive grade crossings. (H-98-28)

Provide Federal highway safety incentive grants to States to advance

innovative pilot programs designed to increase enforcement of passive

grade crossing traffic laws. (H-98-29)

Develop, in conjunction with Operation Lifesaver, Inc., the American

Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, the American Automobile

Association, and the Professional Truck Drivers Institute of America, an

appropriate training module specific to safety at passive crossings to be

included in the organizations’ highway safety education programs. (H-98-

30)

Develop, in conjunction with the Advertising Council, Inc., a media

campaign to inform motorists that stop signs will be installed at many of

the Nation’s passive grade crossings, and to inform motorists of the

importance of obeying stop signs at passive grade crossings. (H-98-31)

Develop and implement a field test program for in-vehicle safety and

advisory warning systems, variable message signs, and other active

devices; then ensure that the private entities who are developing advanced

technology applications modify those applications as appropriate for use at

passive grade crossings. Following the modifications, take action to

implement use of the advanced technology applications. (I-98-1)

Establish a timetable for the completion of standards development for

applications of intelligent transportation systems at highway–rail grade

crossings, and act expeditiously to complete the standards. (I-98-2)

Determine within 2 years, in conjunction with the States, governmental

oversight responsibility for safety at private highway–rail grade crossings

and ensure that traffic control on these crossings meets the standards

within the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. (H-98-32)
Recommendations Safety Study 92

Develop a standardized hazard index or a safety prediction formula that

will include all variables proven by research or experience to be useful in

evaluating highway–rail grade crossings, and require the States to use it.

(H-98-33)

To the Federal Railroad Administration—

Modify the Grade Crossing Inventory System to include information on

(1) the sight distances available to a motorist, and (2) the presence of

curves on the roadway and on the tracks. Direct the States to include these

data as a part of the regularly scheduled updates of the database. (R-98-41)

Encourage the railroads to ensure that the U.S. Department of

Transportation identification number is properly posted at all grade

crossings. (R-98-42)

To the States—

Install, within 2 years of receiving Federal funding, stop signs at all

passive grade crossings unless a traffic engineering analysis determines

that installation of a stop sign would reduce the level of safety at a

crossing. Crossings where conditions are such that the installation of stop

signs would reduce the level of safety should be upgraded with active

warning devices or should be eliminated. (H-98-34)

Determine within 2 years, in conjunction with the U.S. Department of

Transportation, governmental oversight responsibility for safety at private

highway–rail grade crossings and ensure that traffic control on these

crossings meets the standards within the Manual on Uniform Traffic

Control Devices. (H-98-35)

Evaluate periodically, or at least every 5 years, all passive grade crossings

to determine compliance with existing guidelines of the Federal Highway

Administration and the American Association of State Highway and

Transportation Officials regarding sight distances, angle of intersection

where the roadway meets the tracks, curves on the roadway or tracks, and

nearby roadway intersections. For those crossings determined not to be in

compliance with the guidelines, initiate activity to bring these crossings

into compliance, wherever possible. Where passive crossings cannot be

brought into compliance for reasons such as permanent obstructions at the

stop line, target those crossings for installation of active warning devices,

grade separation, or closure. (H-98-36)
Recommendations Safety Study 93

Ensure that questions on safety at passive grade crossings are included in

every version of the State’s written driver examinations. (H-98-37)

To Operation Lifesaver, Inc., the American Association of Motor Vehicle

Administrators, the American Automobile Association, and the

Professional Truck Drivers Institute of America—

Include in training manuals, presentations, and printed educational

material information about (1) the need for full driver attention at passive

grade crossings, (2) the fact that trains are often moving faster than they

appear to be from a distance, and (3) the ways in which the physical

characteristics of the crossing affect the driver’s ability to see an

approaching train at a passive crossing. (H-98-38)

Develop, in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Transportation, an

appropriate training module specific to safety at passive grade crossings to

be included in the organizations’ highway safety education programs. (H98-39)

To the Advertising Council, Inc.—

Develop, in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Transportation, a

media campaign to inform motorists that stop signs will be installed at

many of the Nation’s passive grade crossings, and to inform motorists of

the importance of obeying stop signs at passive grade crossings. (H-98-40)

To the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Federal Highway

Administration, the Federal Railroad Administration, the American Association

of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the Association of American

Railroads, the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association,

and the American Public Transit Administration—

Participate and cooperate fully with the development of intelligent

transportation systems that will be able to alert drivers to an oncoming

train at passive grade crossings. (I-98-3)

To the Association of American Railroads and the

American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association—

Encourage your member railroads to ensure that the U.S. Department of

Transportation identification number is properly posted at all grade

crossings. (R-98-43)
Recommendations Safety Study 94

By the National Transportation Safety Board

James E. Hall John A. Hammerschmidt

Chairman Member

Robert T. Francis II John Goglia

Vice Chairman Member

George W. Black, Jr.

Member

July 21, 1998
Appendix A Safety Study 95

Appendix A

FRA Data on Passive

Grade Crossing Accidents,

1991–1996

Table A–1. Preliminary data regarding active and

passive public highway–rail grade crossings in the

United States, 1997.(a)

All crossings

Item Active Passive

Number of public crossings 61,564 99,491

Average daily highway traffic 4,003 849

Average daily train traffic 13.7 6.2

Number of accidents 1,541 1,717

(a) Preliminary numbers provided by the Federal Railroad Administration’s

Office of Safety Analysis, Systems Support Division.
Appendix A Safety Study 96

Table A–2. Grade crossing data, 1991–1996.

Public crossings Private crossings All crossings

Data item and year Active Passive Active Passive Active Passive Total

Number of grade

crossings:

1991 64,344 109,741 NA NA NA NA NA

1992 64,271 106,351 923 108,958 65,194 215,309 280,503

1993 64,396 103,720 971 107,381 65,367 211,101 276,468

1994 64,834 101,201 993 105,722 65,827 206,923 272,750

1995 65,096 98,821 1,034 103,725 66,130 202,546 268,676

1996 65,667 96,759 1,069 102,226 66,736 198,985 265,721

Number of grade crossing

accidents involving

highway vehicles:

1991 2,394 2,283 62 433 2,456 2,716 5,172

1992 2,168 2,101 48 367 2,216 2,468 4,684

1993 2,138 2,102 45 376 2,183 2,478 4,661

1994 2,176 2,120 49 401 2,225 2,521 4,746

1995 2,001 1,971 42 402 2,043 2,373 4,416

1996 1,795 1,817 51 391 1,846 2,208 4,054

Number of fatalities in

grade crossing accidents

involving highway vehicles:

1991 228 269 2 36 230 305 535

1992 185 281 1 39 186 320 506

1993 262 255 2 35 264 290 554

1994 214 287 1 40 215 327 542

1995 220 235 1 52 221 287 508

1996 168 209 0 38 168 247 415

Number of persons injured

in grade crossing

accidents involving

highway vehicles:

1991 969 897 20 143 989 1,040 2,029

1992 813 939 10 129 823 1,068 1,891

1993 797 880 7 76 804 956 1,760

1994 817 947 8 113 825 1,060 1,885

1995 749 947 11 118 760 1,065 1,825

1996 642 786 14 103 656 889 1,545

NA = not available. (The FRA did not begin publishing inventory information about private crossings until 1992.)

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration. 1992–1997. Highway–rail crossing

accident/incident and inventory bulletin. Nos. 14–19. Washington, DC. Annual.
Appendix B 97 Safety Study

Appendix B

Grade Crossing Signs

as Illustrated in the MUTCD
Appendix B 98 Safety Study
Appendix B 99 Safety Study
Appendix B 100 Safety Study
Appendix B 101 Safety Study

Appendix B 103 Safety Study
Appendix B 104 Safety Study
Appendix B 105 Safety Study
Appendix C Safety Study 106

Appendix C

Status of Previous Safety Recommendations

Pertaining to Passive Grade Crossings

Safety Recommendation No.: H-68-7

Date Issued: September 16, 1968

Recipient: States

Status: Closed—No Longer Applicable

Recommendation:

Establish a requirement that the door of a school bus be opened for a sufficiently

long period while stopped to allow the whistle or horn of a train to be heard at

unprotected grade crossings, if your State does not now have such a requirement.

____________________________________

Safety Recommendation No.: H-68-17

Date Issued: September 16, 1968

Recipient: The Federal Railroad Administration, Office of High

Speed Ground Transportation (FRA); The

Association of American Railroads (AAR); Railroads

operating the Northeast corridor; and States having

safety regulatory authority over railroads

Status: FRA: Closed—Reconsidered

AAR: Closed—No Longer Applicable

Railroads operating in the Northeast corridor:

 Closed—No Longer Applicable

States: Closed—No Longer Applicable

Recommendation:

Consider the implications of this accident analysis for logical and necessary train

operating speed reductions under restricted visibility wherever tracks cross

unprotected grade crossings.

____________________________________

Safety Recommendation No.: H-73-15

Date Issued: June 21, 1973

Recipient: The International Association of Chiefs of Police

Status: Closed—No Longer Applicable
Appendix C Safety Study 107

Recommendation:

Use the Association’s influence and resources to redirect the attention of law

enforcement agencies to the need for uniform enforcement of traffic laws

pertaining to railroad-highway grade crossings (1963 IACP resolution F-18,

Highway Safety Policies for Police Executives). Such enforcement should

provide special emphasis on those crossings protected solely with stop signs.

____________________________________

Safety Recommendation No.: H-80-41

Date Issued: May 14, 1980

Recipient: City of Spokane, Washington

Status: Closed—No Longer Applicable

Recommendation:

Examine the effects of closing Stone, Lee, and Crestline Street crossings using the

Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook as a guide and take appropriate

action to either close these crossings or install active crossing protective devices,

and inform the Safety Board of the action taken.

____________________________________

Safety Recommendation No.: H-80-42

Date Issued: May 14, 1980

Recipient: City of Spokane, WA

Status: Closed—No Longer Applicable

Recommendation:

Erect railroad advance warning signs and pavement markings on Napa Street at

the crossing with the Spokane International Railroad. The signs and markings and

their installation should be in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic

Control Devices.

____________________________________

Safety Recommendation No.: H-80-43

Date Issued: May 14, 1980

Recipient: City of Spokane, Washington

Status: Closed—No Longer Applicable
Appendix C Safety Study 108

Recommendation:

Prohibit the parking of railroad boxcars within the critical sight triangle of those

railroad-highway grade crossings where only passive control devices exist.

Require that flagmen be provided when such standing is necessary during loading

or unloading.

____________________________________

Safety Recommendation No.: R-82-113

Date Issued: December 29, 1982

Recipient: State of Alabama

Status: Closed—Acceptable Action

Recommendation:

Install stop and stop ahead signs immediately on County Road 42 where it

intersects the track of the Southern Railway Company.

____________________________________

Safety Recommendation No.: R-82-114

Date Issued: December 29, 1982

Recipient: State of Alabama

Status: Closed—Acceptable Action

Recommendation:

Immediately repaint the stop line east of the tracks and the centerline on both

approaches of County Road 42 to the Southern Railway Company track.

____________________________________

Safety Recommendation No.: R-82-115

Date Issued: December 29, 1982

Recipient: State of Alabama

Status: Closed—Acceptable Action

Recommendation:

Complete the review of the recommendations of the diagnostic team that

examined the Southern Railway system, County Road 42 crossing on October 4,

1982, and develop appropriate additional action as necessary.
Appendix C Safety Study 109

____________________________________

Safety Recommendation No.: H-89-36

Date Issued: December 5, 1989

Recipient: Federal Highway Administration

Status: Closed—Reconsidered

Recommendation:

Delete the provision contained in Section 392.10(b) of the Federal Motor Carrier

safety regulations which permits certain vehicles transporting hazardous materials

to cross railroad grade crossings used exclusively for industrial switching

purposes without stopping and determining that it is safe to proceed.

____________________________________

Safety Recommendation No.: H-89-37

Date Issued: December 5, 1989

Recipient: National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc.

Status: Open—Await Response

Recommendation:

Notify your membership of the facts and circumstances of the train/truck collision

which occurred in Carteret, New Jersey, on December 6, 1988, and request your

members to advise their hazardous materials truckdrivers not to cross over any

grade crossing without stopping unless the crossing is marked as being exempt.

____________________________________

Safety Recommendation No.: R-81-96

Date Issued: October 6, 1981

Recipient: The Association of American Railroads

Status: Closed—Acceptable Alternate Action

Recommendation:

Encourage railroads to develop programs for train crewmembers to report: (1)

truck carriers identified as transporters of bulk hazardous materials, (2) crossings

with passive warning devices which are used frequently by bulk hazardous

materials trucks, and (3) bulk hazardous materials trucks which are involved in

near-collisions.
Appendix C Safety Study 110

____________________________________

Safety Recommendation No.: R-86-51

Date Issued: January 13, 1987

Recipient: Federal Highway Administration

Status: Closed—Reconsidered

Recommendation:

Develop and require installation of a specific advance warning sign for grade

crossing locations identified by States as hazardous at locations awaiting upgrade

to an active warning device.

____________________________________

Safety Recommendation No.: R-86-52

Date Issued: January 13, 1987

Recipient: Federal Highway Administration

Status: Closed—Acceptable Action

Recommendation:

Issue an “On Guard” bulletin to all motor carriers, advising that the audible

warning systems currently used by passenger trains and high speed freight trains

cannot be relied on to warn of a train’s approach and that it is imperative that

drivers approach any grade crossing with passive warning devices as an extremely

hazardous location.
Appendix D Safety Study 111

Appendix D

Agenda of the NTSB Public Forum on

Passive Grade Crossing Safety

Jacksonville Hilton Hotel

Jacksonville, Florida

Thursday, May 8, 1997

8:30 a.m.–9 a.m. OPENING PRESENTATIONS:

Welcome

The Honorable Robert Francis, Vice Chairman,

 National Transportation Safety Board

Overview of Grade Crossing Crashes

Mr. Robert Lauby, Chief, Railroad Division,

 National Transportation Safety Board

Grade Crossing Issues in Europe

The Honorable Giuseppe Soriero, Undersecretary of Rail and

 Navigation, Italian Ministry of Transportation and Navigation

9 a.m.–9:30 a.m. PANEL 1: Grade Crossing Collision Experiences

Mrs. Jennifer Duval, New Castle, Indiana

Mrs. Bambi Gardner, St. John, Indiana

9:30 a.m.–10 a.m. PANEL 2: Grade Crossing Collision Experiences

Mr. Doug Manson, Train Engineer, Amtrak

Mr. Billy Parker, Train Engineer, Amtrak

10 a.m.–10:15 a.m. Break

10:15 a.m.–11:30 a.m. PANEL 3: Passive Grade Crossing Concerns

Mr. Carmen Bianco, Assistant Vice President of Safety,

 Amtrak

Mr. Achille Ferrusi, Assistant Vice President, Canadian

 National North America

Ms. Anya Carroll, Principal Investigator,

 Transportation Systems Center

Captain Clarence Greeno, Missouri State Highway Patrol

11:30 a.m.–1 p.m. Lunch
Appendix D Safety Study 112

1 p.m.–2 p.m. PANEL 4: Grade Crossing Study Through

Education and the Media

Mr. Ross Simpson, NBC Mutual Radio

Mrs. Gerri Hall, President, Operation Lifesaver, Inc.

Ms. Nathalie Herbst, Florida Operation Lifesaver/AAA

2 p.m.–2:45 p.m. PANEL 5: Physical Characteristics of

Passive Grade Crossings

Dr. Gary Long, Transportation Engineering Coordinator,

 University of Florida

Dr. Stephen Richards, Director, Transportation Center,

 University of Tennessee

Dr. Gene Russell, Director, Center for Transportation

 Research and Training, Kansas State University

Mr. Hoy Richards, President, Richards & Associates, Inc.,

 College Station, Texas

Dr. David Lipscomb, President, Correct Services,

 Stanwood, Washington

2:45 p.m.–3 p.m. Break

3 p.m.–4 p.m. PANEL 5 (continued)

Friday, May 9, 1997

8:30 a.m.–10 a.m. PANEL 6: Communications Between Railroad

and Highway Officials

Ms. Lucy Amerman, Vice President, Consolidated Rail

 Corporation

Mr. Marty Fiorentino, Vice President, CSX

 Transportation, Inc.

Mr. Otto Sonefeld, Program Director, American Association

 of State Highway and Transportation Officials

Mr. Star L. Rheynard, P.E., National Association of County

 Engineers, Mercer County, Illinois

10 a.m.–10:15 a.m. Break
Appendix D Safety Study 113

10:15 a.m.–Noon PANEL 7: Crossing Closures and Private/Public Crossings

Mr. Cliff Shoemaker, Director, Industry and Public Projects,

 Union Pacific Railroad

Mr. Danny Gilbert, Manager, Grade Crossing Safety,

 Norfolk Southern Railroad

Mr. Richard T. Mooney, Manager, Railroad Safety,

 State of Missouri

Mr. Hoy Richards, President, Richards & Associates, Inc.,

 College Station, Texas

Noon–1:30 p.m. Lunch

1:30 p.m.–3 p.m. PANEL 8: Responsibility for Grade Crossing Safety

Mr. Bruce George, Staff Director, Highway-Rail Crossing

 and Trespasser Division, Federal Railroad Administration

Mr. Fred Small, Acting Chief, Safety Management and

 Policy Division, Federal Highway Administration

Mr. Bill Browder, Director of Operations,

 Association of American Railroads

Mr. Otto Sonefeld, Program Director, American Association

 of State Highway and Transportation Officials

3 p.m. CLOSING REMARKS:

The Honorable Robert Francis, Vice Chairman,

 National Transportation Safety Board
Appendix E Safety Study 114

Appendix E

Data From the NTSB Study Sample

Table E–1. National Transportation Safety Board accident

numbers, dates, and locations for the 60 study accidents.

Case

number(a)

NTSB accident

number Accident date Accident location

01 SRH96FHX01 01/10/96 Childersburg, AL

03 CRH96FHX03 02/04/96 Duson, LA

04 WRH96FHX05 02/08/96 Magnolia, TX

05 CRH96FHX04 02/28/96 Millsap, TX

06 WRH96FHX06 03/05/96 Bernalillo, NM

07 SRH96FHX03 03/08/96 Fort Payne, AL

08 SRH96FHX05 03/12/96 Doraville, GA

09 SRH96FHX06 03/18/96 Theodore, AL

10 ATL96FRX13 03/09/96 Murfreesboro, TN

11 ATL96FRX05 12/14/95 Ponchatoula, LA

12 CRH96FHX05 03/19/96 Robstown, TX

13 LAX96FRX08 03/25/96 Luxora, AR

14 NRH96FHX05 03/15/96 Waxahachie, TX

15 NRH96FHX06 03/20/96 Clairton, PA

16 CRH96FHX06 04/05/96 Calhoun, LA

17 LAX96FRX09 03/27/96 Jonesboro, AR

18 SRH96FHX07 04/19/96 Avinger, TX

19 SRH96FHX08 04/21/96 Strafford, MO

20 SRH96FHX10 05/03/96 Alton, LA

21 SRH96FHX09 05/03/96 Saraland, AL

22 CRH96FHX07 04/13/96 Bristow, OK

23 CHI96FRX12 04/24/96 Bettendorf, IA

25 ATL96FRX14 05/09/96 Greenway, AR

26 CRH96FHX08 05/01/96 Bonita, LA

27 WRH96FHX07 05/27/96 Tickfaw, LA

28 WRH96FHX08 05/28/96 Walls, MS

29 SRH96FHX11 05/29/96 Lula, GA

30 WRH96FHX09 05/29/96 Seward, OK

31 WRH96FHX10 06/02/96 Greenwood, MS

32 WRH96FHX11 04/29/96 Ada, OK

33 CRH96FHX09 06/03/96 Trumann, AR

34 ATL96FRX16 05/22/96 Texarkana, AR

35 ATL96FRX17 05/28/96 Rayville, LA

36 CHI96FRX16 05/29/96 Racine, MO

37 CHI96FRX17 05/30/96 Montrose, IL

38 CRH96FHX10 06/24/96 Como, TX

39 LAX96FRX12 06/19/96 San Jose, CA

40 NRH96FHX11 06/21/96 St. Albans, VT

41 CHI96FRX18 06/21/96 Pickerington, OH

42 SRH96FHX13 07/15/96 Jasper, AL

(continued)
Appendix E Safety Study 115

Table E–1. National Transportation Safety Board accident

numbers, dates, and locations for the 60 study accidents.

Case

number(a)

NTSB accident

number Accident date Accident location

(continued)

43 WRH96FHX12 07/15/96 Floyd, TX

44 CHI96FRX20 07/09/96 Cromwell, IN

45 NRH96FHX12 07/24/96 Rosedale, MD

46 SRH96FHX16 08/06/96 Bryan, TX

47 ATL96FRX21 08/03/96 Simpson, NC

48 SRH96FHX17 08/13/96 Austin, TX

49 SRH96FHX18 08/17/96 Hazelhurst, GA

50 SRH96FHX19 08/18/96 Cuba, MO

51 CHI96FRX21 07/20/96 Pass Christian, MS

52 CHI96FRX22 08/13/96 Knob Noster, MO

53 CRH96FHX12 08/13/96 Poteau, OK

54 SRH96FHX20 08/21/96 Napton, MO

55 NRH96FHX13 08/27/96 Roxbury, VT

56 ATL96FRX25 07/30/96 Perry Township, OH

57 ATL96FRX23 08/12/96 Bennettsville, SC

58 ATL96FRX24 08/12/96 Columbus, OH

59 SRH96FHX22 08/26/96 Hawthorne, FL

60 WRH96FHX15 08/27/96 Los Molinos, CA

61 CRH96FHX13 08/23/96 Brownsboro, TX

62 LAX96FRX13 08/23/96 Naponee, NE

(a) Cases 02 and 24 were determined not to meet the qualification criteria for the study;

therefore, they were excluded from the analyses.
Appendix E Safety Study 116

Table E–2. Sight distances required by the driver of a highway vehicle

approaching the 60 grade crossings involved in the study accidents

and the sight distances available.(a)

In feet

Along the roadway(c) Along the tracks(d)

Case

number(b)

Required

sight

distance

Actual sight

distance

Shortfall in

available

site distance

Required

sight

distance

Actual sight

distance

Shortfall in

available

site distance

01 271 175 -96 467 300 -167

03 219 211 -8 582 550 -32

04 128 128 473 473

05 570 546 -24 392 376 -16

06 67 67 786 786

07 281 86 -185 516 156 -360

08 334 255 -79 92 69 -23

09 342 80 -262 789 184 -605

10 69 69 618 618

11 164 164 603 603

12 578 511 -67 656 574 -82

13 172 172 451 451

14 404 213 -191 334 178 -156

15 45 45 140 140

16 271 72 -199 422 112 -310

17 94 94 483 483

18 173 61 -112 396 143 -253

19 94 94 484 484

20 170 81 -89 397 198 -199

21 129 84 -45 387 252 -135

22 753 144 -609 585 187 -398

23 65 65 407 407

25 NA NA NA NA

26 758 758 616 616

27 167 57 -110 620 501 -119

28 404 404 762 762

29 94 94 542 542

30 127 53 -74 421 178 -243

31 404 194 -210 672 324 -348

32 179 76 -103 443 150 -293

33 565 260 -305 498 296 -202

34 271 43 -228 425 67 -358

35 168 168 381 381

36 660 423 -237 691 58 -633

37 564 564 537 537

38 70 57 -13 508 406 -102

39 165 165 594 594

40 NA NA NA NA

41 132 132 330 330

42 129 40 -89 389 121 -268

43 567 567 539 539

44 574 167 -407 661 192 -469

45 173 101 -72 524 293 -231

46 111 28 -82 257 65 -192

47 251 39 -212 416 65 -351

(continued)
Appendix E Safety Study 117

Table E–2. Sight distances required by the driver of a highway vehicle

approaching the 60 grade crossings involved in the study accidents

and the sight distances available.(a)

In feet

Along the roadway(c) Along the tracks(d)

Case

number(b)

Required

sight

distance

Actual sight

distance

Shortfall in

available

site distance

Required

sight

distance

Actual sight

distance

Shortfall in

available

site distance

(continued)

48 94 94 363 363

49 129 31 -98 391 96 -295

50 96 96 473 473

51 77 51 -26 375 245 -130

52 65 33 -32 704 359 -345

53 170 170 361 361

54 94 94 363 363

55 173 173 584 584

56 NA NA NA NA

57 408 408 254 254

58 70 70 145 145

59 94 45 -49 542 264 -278

60 65 54 -11 656 536 120

61 657 29 -628 685 28 -657

62 216 156 -60 243 168 -75

NA = not available.

(a) Sight distances are the distances along the roadway and along the railroad tracks needed by a motorist to detect the

presence of a train in time to stop. Distances in this table have been rounded to the nearest foot. To calculate the sight

distances, the Safety Board used the guidelines recommended by the American Association of State Highway and

Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in A Policy on Geometric Design of Highway and Streets published in 1990. For

purposes of this study, however, the Board assumed the design vehicle to be the highway vehicle involved in the study

case accident. A highway engineer reviewed the formulas used to calculate the sight distances.

(b) Cases 02 and 24 were excluded from the analyses because they were determined not to meet the qualification

criteria for the study.

(c) The distance from the highway vehicle approaching the grade crossing to the grade crossing.

(d) The distance from the grade crossing to the oncoming train.
Appendix E 118 Safety Study

Figure E–1. Safe stopping time needed by highway vehicles approaching the

passive grade crossings in the study cases compared with the stopping time

available given the sight distance along the roadway. (Data were not available

for the crossings in cases 25, 40, and 56.)

0 5 10 15

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

1

Seconds

Time

required

Time

available

0 5 10 15

62

61

60

59

58

57

56

55

54

53

52

51

50

49

48

47

46

45

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36

35

34

33

Seconds

Time

required

Time

available
Appendix E Safety Study 119

Table E–3. Ages of the highway vehicle drivers involved in the

60 study accidents.

Age

Number of

male drivers

Percent of

male drivers

Number of

females

Percent of

female drivers

Under 20 3 6.82 0 0.00

20-29 11 25.00 3 18.75

30-39 7 15.91 7 43.75

40-49 8 18.18 2 12.50

50-59 8 18.18 2 12.50

Over 60 7 15.91 2 12.50

Total 44 100.00 16 100.00

Table E–4. Number of traffic violations accrued by the 24

accident-involved drivers who had violations in their driving

history for the 3-year period prior to the study accident.(a)

Violation

Number of convictions

or incidents

Percent of the total

number of convictions

or incidents(b)

Speeding 20 33.3

Accident 7 11.6

Driving under the influence 3 5.0

Other 12 20.0

Total 42 100.0

(a) Of the 60 drivers involved in the study case accidents, 36 (60 percent) had no driving

convictions in their driving history for the previous 3 years. Driving histories were not

available for 2 of those 36 drivers because neither driver had ever held a driver’s license in

any State.

(b) A driver might have had more than one conviction.
Appendix E Safety Study 120

Table E–5. Prior accident experience of the train

engineers involved in the 60 study accidents.(a)

Type of accident

Number of

engineers(b)

Number of

accidents(c)

Train struck highway vehicle 36 141

Train derailed 17 37

Highway vehicle struck train 13 22

Train collided with another train 2 2

Other 5 13

(a) This information was not available for the engineers involved in cases 21, 38, 45,

and 58. The engineers in cases 23, 41, and 42 reported no previous accident

experience.

(b) Some engineers had experienced more than one type of accident.

(c) Some engineers had experienced more than one accident of a given type.

Table E–6. Number of private passive highway-rail grade

crossings in the Federal Railroad Administration inventory by

type of development in the vicinity of the crossing, 1996.

Type of development

Number of

crossings

Percent of private

passive crossings

Farm 62,942 60.94

Residential 12,037 11.65

Recreational 1,605 1.55

Industrial 24,374 23.60

Unknown 2,337 2.26

All types 103,295 100.00
Appendix E Safety Study 121

Table E–7. Types of highway vehicles and

trains involved in the accidents at the 60

study accident crossings.

Type Number of cases

Highway vehicle:

Passenger car 26

Light truck 22

Tractor semi-trailer 8

Single unit truck 1

Step van 1

School bus 1

Other 1

Train:

Through freight 39

Passenger 11

Local freight 6

Work train 2

Commuter 1

Light locomotive 1

Table E–8. Action of the highway vehicle driver prior to the grade

crossing accident.

Driver’s pre-crash action

Number

of cases Case number

Proceeded without stopping or slowing 19 1, 4, 6, 8(a), 10, 12, 21, 23, 31, 34, 35,

36, 42, 45, 47, 50, 55, 57(a), 62

Slowed, then proceeded or accelerated 16 7, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 32(b), 37(a),

38, 40, 46, 49, 56, 58, 59

Stopped, then proceeded 10 5, 13, 17, 26(c), 27, 29, 39, 44, 53, 61

Lodged or stalled on tracks 4 25, 48, 52, 54

Stopped on tracks 5 11, 28, 33, 41, 60

Other 4 3(c), 14, 43(a), 51

Unknown 2 9, 30

(a) The highway vehicle struck the train.

(b) The highway vehicle reportedly stopped on the tracks, backed away, then accelerated forward.

(c) The vehicle was described as backing off the tracks.
Appendix E Safety Study 122

Table E–9. Number of the 60 study accidents by

weather condition and road condition.

Weather

condition

Number of

accidents

Road surface

condition

Number of

accidents

Overcast 14 Wet 4

Rain 2 Snow/slush 0

Snow 0 Ice 0

Sleet 0 Sand/dirt/oil 0

Hail 0 Other 0

Haze 0 Dry 56

Fog 0

Clear 44

Table E–10. Crossing surface material at

the 60 study accident crossings.

Crossing surface material

Number of crossings

where present

Sectional timber 27

Asphalt 23

Full wood plank 6

Rubber slab 2

Concrete slab 1

Unconsolidated 1
Appendix F Safety Study 123

Appendix F

Supplemental Investigation

on Train Horn Audibility

In December 1996, the Safety Board, in cooperation with Oklahoma Operation

Lifesaver, the Oklahoma Department of Transportation, and Burlington Northern Santa

Fe Railroad, conducted tests in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, to determine the audibility of

a train horn within 13 different passenger and emergency vehicles representing the current

generation of highway vehicles. Testing was conducted according to the specifications

established in American National Standard S12.18–1994,1 using a Bruel & Kaer

audiometer type 2232, a sound level calibrator type 4230, and a 1-inch wind screen. The

test horn, a three-chime Leslie horn, was mounted on a locomotive positioned 100 feet

from the test vehicles, and had a sound level of 96 dB(A)2 at 100 feet from the source, as

required by the FRA’s regulations. The Safety Board measured (1) the insertion loss for

each highway vehicle,3

 (2) the audibility of the train horn with the highway vehicle

engine idling, and (3) the audibility of the train horn with the highway vehicle engine

idling and the air conditioning fan on the “high” setting. Testing showed a maximum

insertion loss of 33 dB, in a 1986 Chevrolet Corvette, and a minimum insertion loss of 17

dB, in a 1986 Freightliner cab-over tractor (table F–1).

Safety Board measurements determined that in one test vehicle (a 1997

Thomas/Ford school bus) the sound level of the train horn was not audible above the

noise level of the idling engine. In seven test vehicles, the sound level was not audible

above the idling engine and fan noise. In no test vehicle that had both the engine idling

and the fan operating did the train horn provide the 10 dB above ambient noise level

necessary to “alert” a motorist to the train (table F–2). Because the ambient noise levels

within a highway vehicle increase with additional noise from sources such as road surface

texture, radio use, environment and conversations within the vehicle, the levels in the

Safety Board’s tests are an underestimation of the interior noise levels that occur in

everyday driving.

 1

 Acoustical Society of America. 1994. Procedures for outdoor measurement of sound pressure level.

American National Standard ANSI S12.18-1994. New York, NY: American National Standards Institute. 18

p.

2

 There are different scales by which to measure sound levels; “(A)” denotes the decibel scale by which

human hearing is measured. As used in the report and in this appendix, the levels are assumed to be

measured by this scale.

3

 Insertion loss is the difference between the measured values of a sound from an exterior sound source

taken outside the highway vehicle and inside the vehicle.
Appendix F Safety Study 124

Table F–1. Insertion loss from vehicle shell of

current generation highway vehicles.(a)

Highway vehicle

Insertion loss

(decibels)

1986 Freightliner cab-over truck-tractor 17

1996 Freightliner conventional truck-tractor 18

1996 Thomas/International school bus 21

American La France fire truck 21

1994 Dodge Ram 1500 pickup truck 26

1990 Ford F-350 ambulance 27

1997 Thomas/Ford school bus 27

1978 TMC Crusader coach bus 28

1991 Chevrolet Lumina 28

1996 Ford F-250 diesel pickup truck 28

1987 Mercedes 300 SDL turbo 29

1995 Oldsmobile Achieva 32

1986 Chevrolet Corvette 33

(a) Insertion loss is the difference between the measured values of a

sound from an exterior sound source taken outside the highway vehicle

and inside the vehicle.

Table F–2. Noise level of a 96-decibel train horn measured in the interior of current

generation highway vehicles 100 feet from the train horn.

In decibels

Highway vehicle

In vehicle

interior with

windows

closed

In vehicle interior

with windows

closed and

engine idling

In vehicle interior

with windows

closed, engine idling,

and fan running

1986 Freightliner cab-over truck-tractor 79 10 8

1996 Freightliner conventional truck-tractor 78 12 7

1996 Thomas/International school bus 75 11 -2

American La France fire truck 75 5 0

1994 Dodge Ram 1500 pickup truck 70 25 4

1990 Ford F-350 ambulance 69 8 4

1997 Thomas/Ford school bus 69 -2 -11

1978 TMC Crusader coach bus 68 8 -1

1991 Chevrolet Lumina 68 21 1

1996 Ford F-250 diesel pickup truck 68 12 2

1987 Mercedes 300 SDL turbo 67 14 0

1995 Oldsmobile Achieva 64 17 -2

1986 Chevrolet Corvette 63 1 -3