Collision Between

Metrolink Train 210 and

Ford Crew Cab, Stake Bed Truck

at Highway-Rail Grade Crossing,

Burbank, California,

January 6, 2003

Highway Accident Report

NTSB/HAR-03/04

PB2003-916204

Notation 7580

National 

Transportation

Safety Board

Washington, D.C.

Highway Accident Report

Collision Between

Metrolink Train 210 and

Ford Crew Cab, Stake Bed Truck

at Highway-Rail Grade Crossing,

Burbank, California,

January 6, 2003

NTSB/HAR-03/04

PB2003-916204 National Transportation Safety Board

Notation 7580 490 LíEnfant Plaza, S.W.

Adopted December 2, 2003 Washington, D.C. 20594
National Transportation Safety Board. 2004. Collision Between Metrolink Train 210 and Ford Crew

Cab, Stake Bed Truck at Highway-Rail Grade Crossing, Burbank, California, January 6, 2003.

Highway Accident Report NTSB/HAR-03/04. Washington, DC.

Abstract: On January 6, 2003, Metrolink commuter train 210 struck a Ford F-550 crew cab, stake bed

truck at a grade crossing in Burbank, California. Upon impact, the truckís cab moved with the train, until

the train derailed about 1,300 feet from the crossing. The truckdriver was fatally injured. Of the trainís 59

passengers and 2 crewmembers, 32 sustained injuries; 1 passenger died 15 days later from internal injuries

that were probably sustained during the accident.

The major safety issues discussed in this report are the use of ìall-red-flashî railroad hold intervals at

signalized highway-rail grade crossings and adherence to applicable engineering guidance in designing

traffic signals and other safety features at grade crossings.

As a result of its investigation, the Safety Board makes recommendations to the Federal Highway

Administration; the California Department of Transportation; the city of Burbank, California; the

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials; the Institute of Transportation

Engineers; the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices; the National Committee on

Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances; and the Transportation Research Board.

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 LíEnfant 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 PB2003-916204 from:

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, Virginia 22161

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

The Independent Safety Board Act, as codified at 49 U.S.C. Section 1154(b), precludes the admission into evidence or use of Board reports

related to an incident or accident in a civil action for damages resulting from a matter mentioned in the report. 
iii Highway Accident Report

Contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

Factual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Accident Narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Injuries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Meteorological Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Personnel Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Truckdriver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Train Crew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Vehicle and Wreckage Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Railroad Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Traffic Control, Intersection, and Grade Crossing Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Intersection Signals, Markings, and Other Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Railroad Crossing Signals and Gate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Railroad Traffic Signal Preemption Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Caltrans Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

MUTCD Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Federal Highway Administration Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

National Cooperative Highway Research Program Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Tests and Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Exemplar Truck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Observations of Intersection and Crossing Traffic Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Exclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

The Accident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

The Signal System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Presignals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Extended Median . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Availability of Design Guidelines and Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Probable Cause . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Investigation and Public Hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
iv Highway Accident Report

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials

Amtrak National Railway Passenger Corporation 

BDPW Burbank Department of Public Works 

Caltrans California Department of Transportation 

CDL commercial driverís license 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CPUC California Public Utilities Commission 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers

LOS level of service

MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

SCRRA Southern California Regional Rail Authority 

TRB Transportation Research Board 
v Highway Accident Report

Executive Summary

On January 6, 2003, about 9:30 a.m. Pacific standard time, eastbound Metrolink

commuter train 210 struck a Ford F-550 crew cab, stake bed truck at the North Buena

Vista Street grade crossing in Burbank, California. Upon impact, the truckís fuel tank was

compromised, releasing fuel and resulting in a postcrash fire that consumed the stake bed,

which remained at the crossing, while the truckís cab, which was not on fire, continued

eastward with the train. The train derailed and came to a stop about 1,300 feet east of the

crossing. The cab and second cars of the train came to rest on their sides; the remaining

two cars and the locomotive remained upright. The truckdriver was fatally injured. Of the

trainís 59 passengers and 2 crewmembers, 32 sustained injuries; 1 passenger, who was

treated and then released from a local hospital, died 15 days later from internal injuries

that were probably sustained during the accident.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of

this accident was the design of the traffic signalsí railroad hold interval, which displayed a

flashing red arrow for the eastbound North San Fernando Boulevard left turn lane,

improperly implying that, after stopping, the truckdriver was permitted to make a left turn

onto North Buena Vista Street. Contributing to the accident was the lack of a raised

median at the crossing that would have obstructed the path used by the truckdriver to

make the left turn.

The major safety issues discussed in this report are the use of ìall-red-flashî

railroad hold intervals at signalized highway-rail grade crossings and adherence to

applicable engineering guidance in designing traffic signals and other safety features at

grade crossings.

As a result of its investigation, the Safety Board makes recommendations to the

Federal Highway Administration; the California Department of Transportation; the city of

Burbank, California; the American Association of State Highway and Transportation

Officials; the Institute of Transportation Engineers; the National Committee on Uniform

Traffic Control Devices; the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and

Ordinances; and the Transportation Research Board.

1 Highway Accident Report

Factual

Accident Narrative

On January 6, 2003, about 9:30 a.m. Pacific standard time, eastbound Metrolink

commuter train 210 struck a Ford F-550 crew cab, stake bed truck at the North Buena

Vista Street grade crossing in Burbank, California. The train consisted of four bi-level

passenger cars and one locomotive, positioned at the rear and controlled from a cab car in

the lead. The railroad grade crossing is about 50 feet north of the North Buena Vista Street

intersection with North San Fernando Boulevard. (See figure 1.)

The train had made all scheduled stops and departed Sun Valley, the last stop

before the accident site, about 9:23 a.m. According to the engineer, he had accelerated the

train to its authorized track speed of 79 mph and was using dynamic braking1

 to maintain

speed on the downgrade to Burbank. The engineer said that as the train approached the

Figure 1. Accident scene.

North Buena Vista Street

North San Fernando Boulevard

Automatic gate

Double yellow lines

C EL RA

KEEP

C EL RA

KEEP

C EL RA

KEEP

Raised median
Factual 2 Highway Accident Report

accident crossing, he began sounding the cab carís horn at a point adjacent to an airport

hotel that was his reference point for the crossingís whistle post; data later downloaded

from the trainís event recorder confirmed this information. The engineer stated that shortly

before the train arrived at the crossing, he saw the accident vehicle make a left turn onto

North Buena Vista Street and onto the tracks.

The Ford truck, which had been traveling eastbound on North San Fernando, had

stopped for a red arrow traffic light in the left turn lane leading to North Buena Vista

Street. The signal from the approaching train preempted the highway traffic signals and, as

a result, all traffic lights at the crossing began flashing red. After the lights went into the

flashing mode, the truckdriver allowed an oncoming westbound vehicle to pass,

accelerated to a witness-estimated speed of 15 to 20 mph, and made the left turn from

North San Fernando. A witness in the vehicle immediately behind the accident truck noted

that the truckís four-way flashers were operating during this time. The truck drove on the

wrong side of the roadway, that is, left of the double yellow centerline, past the end of the

lowered crossing gate arm (see exemplar truck in figure 2) and proceeded onto the tracks,

where it was struck on the left side by the commuter train. According to the Metrolink

engineer, the driver looked toward the train ìonly a momentî before impact and exhibited

a ìfrightened expression.î

Witnesses stated that the automatic crossing gates were down, and witnesses, as

well as data from the cab car event recorder, indicated that the trainís warning whistle was

being sounded at the time of the collision. The engineer did not recall whether he placed

the trainís brakes into emergency. Data downloaded from the event recorder showed a

drop in brake line pressure about 3 seconds before impact. Two witnesses, the one in the

vehicle stopped immediately behind the accident truck and a motorist behind the

automatic gates on southbound North Buena Vista Street, reported that they sounded their

vehiclesí horns to warn the truckdriver immediately prior to the collision.

Upon impact, the truckís fuel tank was compromised, releasing fuel and resulting

in a postcrash fire that consumed the stake bed, which remained at the crossing, while the

truckís cab, which was not on fire, continued eastward with the train. The train derailed

almost immediately and came to a stop about 1,300 feet east of the crossing. The cab car

of the train came to rest on its side; its leading end faced west. The second car also came to

rest on its side at a 90° angle to the track. The remaining two cars and the locomotive

remained upright. The truck cab came to a rest about 1,000 feet east of the crossing. The

truck was destroyed; estimated damage to the train and track was $3 million.

1 Dynamic braking is a method of train braking in which the locomotiveís traction motors are

converted to electric generators driven by kinetic energy from the moving train. The generated electricity

flows into a resistor grid on the locomotive and is dissipated as heat. This electrical ìloadî on the traction

motor/generator acts to slow the motor shaft rotation, resulting in a braking action being applied to the train

wheels. Dynamic braking on the locomotive is completely independent of the air braking system on the cars

themselves.
Factual 3 Highway Accident Report

Figure 2. Reenactment of accident truckís left turn.
Factual 4 Highway Accident Report

Injuries

As a result of the collision, the truckdriver was fatally injured. Of the trainís 59

passengers and 2 crewmembers, 12 were transported to area hospitals and 20 others, who

sustained minor injuries, were treated and released at the scene. The conductorís injuries

were minor and the engineer suffered a broken wrist. One passenger, a 76-year-old

woman, who was treated and then released from a local hospital, died 15 days later from

internal injuries that were probably sustained during the accident.

Meteorological Information

The temperature at the time of the accident was 68° F; visibility was clear; and

winds were 11.5 to 12.7 mph, gusting from 26.5 to 33.3 mph. The train engineer stated

that the glare from the sun did not affect his ability to operate the train but indicated that

he may have had the cab carís sun visor down; the truckdriver did not face the sun in the

direction that he was traveling.

Personnel Information

Truckdriver

The 63-year-old truckdriver had operated trucks, ranging from small pick-ups to

truck tractor-semitrailer combinations, for 30 years in the metropolitan Los Angeles area.

He had been a driver-trainer at various times during his career. Family members described

him as a ìcareful driver.î He typically worked from 6:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; on the day of

the accident, he arose about 4:30 a.m. and reported for work about 5:30 a.m. According to

his son, the driver had no known major medical problems and had retired between 9:00

p.m. and 10:00 p.m. and arisen about 5:00 a.m. during the 3 days preceding the accident.

The truckdriver held a valid California class AM1 commercial driverís license

(CDL) with a ìTî endorsement and no restrictions; it had been issued on March 17, 1999,

and was due to expire on April 26, 2004. The M1 designation indicated that he was also a

licensed motorcycle operator, and the ìTî endorsement allowed him to operate a vehicle

towing double or triple trailers. Review of his CDL records showed that the truckdriver

had no previous accidents and no convictions for prior traffic violations. He had operated

trucks in the area of the accident; whether he was familiar with the accident intersection is

unknown.

Three days after the accident, on January 9, 2003, the Los Angeles County

Coronerís Office performed an autopsy on the truckdriverís body. According to the

pathologist who did the autopsy, no blood or other bodily fluids were available for

analysis. The head-on collision had resulted in massive traumatic injuries to the driver.

The pathologist conducted toxicology tests on tissue samples from the liver, which

revealed an alcohol concentration of 0.09 mg/dL. 
Factual 5 Highway Accident Report

Train Crew

The engineer of Metrolink train 210 began working for the National Railway

Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) as an assistant conductor in March 1989 and was

promoted to engineer in February 1991. He last attended a class of instruction and testing

on railroad operating rules in May 2002. Between July 2002 and January 6, 2003, Amtrak

records indicate that he successfully completed 80 rules compliance or ìefficiencyî tests.2

The engineer told investigators that he was in good health and not taking any medications.

The conductor of Metrolink train 210 was hired by Amtrak as an assistant

conductor in March 1987 and was promoted to passenger conductor in October 1988. He

last attended a class of instruction and testing on railroad operating rules in September

2002. Between July 2002 and January 6, 2003, Amtrak records indicate that he

successfully completed 99 rules compliance tests.

The train crewís most recent Amtrak physical examinations took place on July 11,

2001, and February 28, 2002. The crew did not provide samples for toxicological testing

after the accident, nor were they required to do so.3

Vehicle and Wreckage Information

The accident truck, owned by Nawola, Inc., and leased to Helldorado Productions,

was a two-axle vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of 17,500 pounds. Ford Motor

Company had manufactured the truck at its Kentucky assembly plant in Jefferson County.

The truck was originally built as an incomplete vehicle and later modified by the addition

of a Marathon Industries stake bed cargo compartment. In California, any person holding a

valid driverís license could legally operate this vehicle without a special license class or

endorsement. At the time of the accident, the vehicle was carrying a load that comprised

work gloves, some bolts, and a spool of cable; given the nature of the vehicleís operation,

the driver was not subject to either interstate or intrastate motor carrier regulations.

As a result of the collision, the vehicle separated into two pieces. Both frame rails

were severed near the truck cab. The engine and transmission detached from their frame

mounting points and separated from each other. The cab was completely destroyed; the

seat assemblies remained within the confines of the passenger compartment, which did not

exhibit signs of fire damage. The stake bed cargo area of the truck was heavily damaged

from the collision and sustained extensive fire damage. Postaccident inspection of the

vehicle did not reveal mechanical conditions or defects that might have contributed to the

crash, but the extent of damage precluded examination of the truckís steering, braking, and

other controlling systems.

2 FRA regulations at 49 Code of Federal Regulations 217 require railroads to conduct operational tests

and inspections to verify that crews are following proper procedures. These tests, commonly referred to as

efficiency tests, typically involve unannounced observations and review of event recorder data.

3 Federal regulations at 49 Code of Federal Regulations 419.201(b) do not require postaccident

toxicological testing of train crewmembers involved in highway-rail grade crossing accidents.
Factual 6 Highway Accident Report

The rear section of the truckís chassis and smaller pieces, such as the drive shaft

and a cargo door, were observed along the west side of the crossing. Much of the rear

chassis assembly came to rest adjacent to the crossing gate, about 55 feet southwest of the

impact area. The gateís metal post and the surrounding pavement were discolored from the

postcrash fire. The surface of the crossing deck, as well as the wooden cross ties, had cuts

and gouges, all of which were oriented from west to east. The north concrete wall

separating the railroad tracks from Interstate 5 had impact marks from the collision.

Railroad Information

In 1991, the transportation commissions of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and

San Bernardino Counties established the Southern California Regional Rail Authority

(SCRRA) as a joint powers agency to plan, design, construct, and administer the operation

of regional passenger rail lines (Metrolink) within the multicounty region. Metrolink

serves more than 35,000 passengers in 50 cities throughout the region. It maintains 7

scheduled routes, operates about 507 route miles and 138 trains on weekdays, and

maintains its headquarters and dispatching center in Pomona, California.

Aspects of Metrolink operations fall under the regulatory authority of the Federal

Railroad Administration (FRA), as set forth in 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

Parts 200-299. California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) personnel enforce FRA

regulations under a State participation program set forth in 49 CFR Part 212. Metrolink

contracts with Amtrak to manage its rail operations. Metrolink conductors, engineers, and

line managers are Amtrak employees.

A single Metrolink track crosses North Buena Vista Street (Metrolink milepost

12.77) at grade. The tangent track, which has an eastbound descending grade of 1.33

percent, is constructed of 136-pound continuously welded rail on wood ties set in granite

ballast. A switch east of North Buena Vista Street allows eastbound trains to enter

Brighton siding through a left turnout. The eastbound whistle post is 1,458 feet west of the

accident crossing. (See table 1 for daily train traffic at this location.)

Table 1. Train volumes on the North Buena Vista Street crossing.

Type of train Number of trains Train direction

Metrolink 12 East

Metrolink 12 West

Union Pacific 3 East

Union Pacific 4 West
Factual 7 Highway Accident Report

Traffic Control, Intersection, and Grade Crossing Information

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) provides legally binding

guidance on State traffic control devices and other matters in its Caltrans Traffic Manual,

which was in substantial conformance with the national Manual on Uniform Traffic

Control Devices (MUTCD) until publication of the MUTCD 2000 (Millennium Edition).4

The 1996 edition of the Caltrans Traffic Manual remains current until Caltrans adopts the

MUTCD 2000 and California supplement, which it planned to do by December 31, 2003,

according to the agency. The California supplement will augment the MUTCD 2000 and

clarify which State policies, practices, and standards differ from it.

The CPUC regulates railroad operations within the State and must approve any

changes to the operation of highway-rail grade crossings.

Reconstruction of the accident intersection and grade crossing was completed in

June 2002 to provide more highway traffic-carrying capacity and safer operation when

trains approached the crossing, which had a history of train-motor vehicle collisions.

Many of these accidents were related to congestion and queuing from the adjacent traffic

signal. The reconstruction project included a new eight-phase5

 digital traffic signal

controller to regulate traffic at the roadway intersection. The controller provided signal

indications and timing for all through, turning, and pedestrian movements. New

interconnected railroad signal equipment was installed at the same time. The following

tables show the history of traffic accidents at this location.

Table 2. Grade crossing accidents.

4 The MUTCD, published by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway

Administration, sets national standards governing traffic control devices placed on streets and highways by

authority of a public body or official having jurisdiction to regulate, warn, or guide traffic.

5 A ìphaseî is a separate timing element for traffic signal operation. In this case, the controller timed

the intersectionís four through-traffic and four left turn movements.

Accident 

date

Number 

injured

Number 

killed Train type

Train 

speed Causal factora

a. Causal factors obtained from the investigating officerís report.

12/06/00 0 0 Metrolink 79 mph Vehicle stopped between 

crossing gate and tracks

11/22/00 0 0 Metrolink Unknown Vehicle stopped between 

crossing gate and tracks

07/16/00 1 0 Union Pacific 45 to 50 

mph

Vehicle stuck on tracks

05/31/95 0 0 Metrolink Unknown Vehicle stopped between 

crossing gate and tracks

01/13/94 0 0 Metrolink 79 mph Vehicle drove around 

crossing gate

10/08/92 0 0 Southern 

Pacific

30 to 10 

mph

Vehicle stopped between 

crossing gate and tracks

09/19/92 0 0 Southern 

Pacific

Unknown Vehicle stuck on tracks
Factual 8 Highway Accident Report

Table 3. Intersection traffic accidents.

The Burbank Department of Public Works (BDPW) initiated the reconstruction

project on October 15, 2001, when it submitted a request to the CPUC for approval to

make modifications to the intersection and railroad grade crossing. The letter stated that

the city of Burbank and the SCRRA agreed on the need for the following improvements to

the site at North Buena Vista Street and North San Fernando Boulevard:

ï Widening of the crossing

ï Addition of a westbound right turn lane from North San Fernando Boulevard

onto North Buena Vista Street

ï Construction of new curb and gutter on both sides of the street

ï Installation of raised median islands along the center of North Buena Vista

Street

ï Modification of the advanced warning devices at the crossing

The letter also detailed improvements, including the installation of six 6-foot-long

rubber panels, which allow a smoother ride for vehicles traveling over the rails, that were

to be made to the surface of the grade crossing deck. On October 22, 2001, the CPUC

approved the BDPW request.

In addition to making the crossing improvements, the BDPW decided, based on a

1998 traffic study, to modify the left turn lane for southbound North Buena Vista Street

from a single lane to a dual left turn arrangement that increased storage length and

improved traffic capacity. A consulting firm had prepared the study, entitled Burbank

Empire Center Traffic and Circulation Analysis, in conjunction with a proposed mixeduse redevelopment project to be built at a location formerly used by the Lockheed

Corporation as an aircraft manufacturing facility. The site encompassed about 2,237,000

square feet in central Burbank bounded by North Buena Vista Street, Victory Place,

Victory Boulevard, and Empire Avenue.

Included in the study was an evaluation of morning and afternoon peak hour traffic

conditions at 27 intersections that might be affected by the proposed development. The

analysis concluded that the project would have significant adverse operational impacts at

Year Property damage Number injured Fatalities

2002 4 5 0

2001 3 6 0

2000 5 4 0

1999 2 4 0

Total 14 19 0
Factual 9 Highway Accident Report

many intersections, including the one at North Buena Vista Street and North San Fernando

Boulevard. Data showed that even without the new development, the intersection was

providing a level of service (LOS) F.6 The study states:

The project will add heavy movements between the north and east legs of this

intersection. Provision of a second exclusive southbound left turn lane and an

exclusive westbound left turn lane would facilitate these project trips and improve

the intersection operation, but would not mitigate the project impacts to a level of

insignificance, and the intersection would still operate at LOS F. To mitigate the

project impacts and achieve an acceptable level of service, this intersection will

require construction of a grade separation as identified in the Infrastructure

Blueprint and documented in the Project Study Report on Interstate 5 between

North Hollywood Way and West Burbank Boulevard.

As proposed in the 1998 study, a grade separation, that is, either an underpass or an

overpass that will eliminate the accident crossing, is part of a Caltrans interstate widening

project that is scheduled for completion about 2006.

Intersection Signals, Markings, and Other Devices

The 17 signal heads used to control traffic at the accident intersection were

mounted on 8 poles (2 at each corner) and were interconnected with the active railroad

grade crossing signals, as specified in the Caltrans Traffic Manual and the MUTCD.7 (See

figure 3.) The traffic signal heads comprised 12-inch-diameter circular indication lenses

and left and right arrow lenses. The arrows were in place at those approaches where

turning was permitted, such as the eastbound left turn lane, by which the accident vehicle

entered the intersection. Right arrows were also in place on the westbound approach to

North San Fernando Boulevard to control traffic turning right onto the crossing.

When an approaching train preempted the operating interval of the traffic control

signals, it interrupted the signal timing cycle and activated an interval intended to clear

southbound vehicles queued on North Buena Vista Street and the tracks.8

 This 25-second

interval, designed to extend beyond the time that the gates were fully deployed, gave vehicles stopped on the railroad tracks an opportunity to clear the tracks as the automatic

crossing gates came down. Following the ìclear trackî interval, and in tandem with the 

6 According to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO),

LOS F for urban and suburban arterials, as described in the publication A Policy on Geometric Design of

Highways and Streets, provides an average travel speed between 25 and 30 percent of free flow speed.

Vehicular backups and high approach delays at signalized intersections are encountered.

7 The 17 signal heads do not include the 6 signal faces used to regulate pedestrian traffic.

8 The clearance phase of the preemption sequence began with a 20-second green indication, was

followed by a 3.5-second yellow indication, and concluded with a 1.5-second red indication.
Factual 10 Highway Accident Report

flashing-light railroad signals at the grade crossing, the highway traffic control signals

transitioned to an ìall-red-flash modeî at all intersection approaches and turn signal locations. The all-red-flash mode, also known as a ìrailroad holdî interval, included the circular red signal indications and the red arrow signal indications.9

In events leading up to the accident, witnesses reported that the truckdriver had

originally stopped his vehicle at the intersection while facing a left red arrow signal

indication. While the truck was stopped, the approaching Metrolink train preempted the

traffic signals, and as a result, 25 seconds later, the traffic signals switched to the all-redflash mode or railroad hold interval. From the eastbound left turn lane, both the flashing

red circular and the flashing red left arrow traffic control signal indications would have

been in the truckdriverís line of sight. In addition, at least one double-headed railroad

crossing flashing light signal would have been within his view (see figure 4). According to

witnesses, the truckdriver pulled into the intersection after the signals had entered into the

all-red-flash interval.

Figure 3. Intersection signals and gates.

9 According to the BDPW traffic signal manager, the traffic control signals only operated in a flashing

mode when an approaching train preempted them or when they encountered an operational conflict within

the system program.
Factual 11 Highway Accident Report

Other regulatory devices, passive and active, at the railroad grade crossing

included pavement markings, automatic gates, audible warning devices, and Do Not Stop

on Tracks signs.10 The northbound approach had one such sign post-mounted to the traffic

control signal support at the northeast corner of the intersection. This sign was aligned so

that it was visible to northbound motorists. Another sign posted at this corner on a separate

support was oriented toward the southwest and was visible to motorists traveling through

the intersection from the eastbound left turn lane; it was most likely to have been within

the truckdriverís line of sight as he traversed the intersection. A third sign at this corner

was aligned toward the east and was visible to westbound drivers approaching the

crossing from the right-turn-only lane. Two other signs, one each posted on the left and

right sides of the roadway, were visible to motorists in the southbound approach lanes.

Both the north and southbound approaches also included pavement markings, and

adjacent to each marking was a Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Advance Warning sign

(W10-2 in the MUTCD 2000, Millennium Edition). The advance warning sign on North

San Fernando Boulevard along the eastbound approach to the intersection (220 feet west

of the left turn lane) was completely obscured by foliage (see figure 5). In each through

lane of the northbound approach, standard pavement markings were in place about 325

Figure 4. Accident driverís line of sight (reenactment).

10 Listed in the MUTCD 2000, Millennium Edition, December 2001, as R8-8.
Factual 12 Highway Accident Report

feet south of the crossing. In the southbound lanes, the same markings were about 275 feet

north of the crossing. The MUTCD does not require use of such markings at this

crossing.11 Nonstandard pavement markings12 were present on the north side of the

crossing; in white thermoplastic letters located between the stop line and the railroad

tracks, they displayed the message KEEP CLEAR. The BDPW had applied three of these

markings, one in each of the southbound through lanes and a third in one of the two left

turn lanes, at the request of the SCRRA.13

11 MUTCD 2000, Millennium Edition, Part 8, ìTraffic Controls for Highway-Rail Grade Crossings,î

Section 8B.16 ñ Pavement Markings, states that pavement markings shall not be required at highway-rail

grade crossings where the posted or statutory highway speed is less than 60 kph (40 mph) or in urban areas,

if an engineering study indicates that other installed devices provide suitable warning or control.

12 The term nonstandard refers to the fact that the MUTCD does not mention these pavement markings.

According to the BDPW, Caltrans uses the markings, which are listed in the 1996 edition of its Standard

Plans Manual.

Figure 5. Obscured advance warning sign.

13 The SCRRA made the request in March 2002 because it was concerned about southbound North

Buena Vista Street vehicles that frequently stopped on the tracks. The BDPW applied the markings only on

the north side because space was insufficient along the south side.
Factual 13 Highway Accident Report

Railroad Crossing Signals and Gate

Each of the 12 flashing-light railroad signals at the crossing comprised two 12-

inch-diameter lenses. Signal placement on the south side included three post-mounted

assemblies and three signals attached to a cantilever arm. The post-mounted assemblies

were aligned so that one faced northbound motorists and one faced southbound motorists;

the third was oriented so that a driver who was stopped in the eastbound left turn lane of

North San Fernando Boulevard directly faced the signal. The third post-mounted assembly

was the railroad signal most likely to have been visible to the truckdriver. Of the three

cantilever-mounted signals, two faced northbound motorists and one faced southbound

traffic. Signal placement on the north side was similar. One of the three post-mounted

signals there was positioned to the left of the southbound approach to the crossing gate;

the other two were positioned to the right, one facing northbound traffic and one facing

southbound traffic. Of the three cantilever-mounted signals on the north side, two faced

southbound motorists and the third faced northbound motorists. 

In addition, a single automatic gate spanning both northbound through lanes was in

place at the south side of the crossing. Its placement conformed to specifications in the

MUTCD.14 The gate, which was neither parallel to the tracks nor perpendicular to the

northbound approach,15 was not completely visible to motorists in the eastbound left turn

lane. Two automatic gates, positioned opposite one another, were also in place on the west

and east sides of the roadway at the north side of the crossing. The ends of the gates met

about midpoint in the roadway, and both gates were aligned perpendicular to the roadway.

The gate on the east side was mounted on a 10-foot-wide raised concrete median.

After the accident, investigators downloaded data from the railroad signal

equipmentís event recorder, a device that records several data sets associated with the

operation of the crossing signals. The data recorded during this accident sequence showed

the following:

ï Warning time ñ 41 seconds16

ï Train speed when first detected ñ 81 mph

ï Average train speed ñ 76 mph17

ï Train speed over island circuit ñ 73 mph18

The event recorder download yielded no significant faults in the crossing signal system.

14 MUTCD 2000, Millennium Edition, December 2001, Part 8, ìTraffic Controls for Highway-Rail

Grade Crossings,î Section 8D.04 ñ Automatic Gates.

15 The gate was aligned, using North San Fernando Boulevard as a baseline, so that its relative angle to

the roadway was about 11 degrees.

16 Although warning times can vary due to the effect of environmental conditions on track circuits, the

system design ensures a minimum warning time.

17 Average speed between first detection by the signal equipment and arrival at the crossing.

18 The island circuit is at the crossing itself, so this measurement is the trainís speed as it passed over the

crossing.
Factual 14 Highway Accident Report

Railroad Traffic Signal Preemption Design

When the grade crossing signal equipment detects the approach of a train, it sends

an electronic signal to the roadway traffic signal equipment. The railroad signal equipment

is programmed to provide a minimum warning time sufficient to allow the traffic signal to

complete its preemption sequence and clear the crossing of traffic before the train arrives.

In the case of the accident grade crossing, the minimum warning time was 35 seconds.

After appropriate yellow clearance intervals, this preemption sequence forces the traffic

signal into a ìclear trackî interval. The traffic signal then enters a ìrailroad holdî interval

until the train passes the crossing.

Various options are available for the railroad hold, or traffic signal preemption

dwell, interval that immediately follows the clear track interval and remains for the

duration of the railroad preemption. Regardless of the mode of operation, the purpose of

the dwell interval is to prevent traffic movements toward the crossing, and, if applicable,

maintain traffic movements through the intersection. In deciding to implement the all-redflash mode, the BDPW followed guidance19 provided by Caltrans. According to the

BDPW traffic signal manager, the department has used the all-red-flash mode for the

signal preemption dwell interval for about 20 years. Before then, the signals operated in

the limited operation mode, allowing green indications for the through traffic on North

San Fernando Boulevard but stopping other traffic that conflicted with movement of a

train. The traffic signal manager stated that he believed the limited operation mode

resulted in a more efficient flow of traffic, but the flash mode resulted in a safer operation.

During reconstruction of the intersection in 2002, the BDPW changed the

preemption dwell mode from all-red-flash to limited operation for about a 2-week period

in February. The department indicated that it did so because traffic moved more efficiently

in the limited operation mode. The BDPW noted that the area had recently experienced

tremendous growth in traffic demand and that the limited operation mode allowed more

vehicles to move through the intersection during preemption. When asked why the

department reverted to the all-red-flash mode, BDPW officials responded that during a

February 28 meeting with SCRRA staff, the latter recommended that the lights be returned

to the all-red-flash mode. According to the SCRRA, its staff had suggested that only the

southbound traffic control signals revert to the flash mode, thereby providing a final

escape route for traffic, particularly buses or large trucks, that might otherwise be stopped

too close to the tracks.20

Caltrans Guidance

Section 9, subsection 9-03.29, of the 1996 edition of the Caltrans Traffic Manual

provides guidance to be followed in California when grade crossing warning equipment is

19 The Caltrans Traffic Manual, Chapter 9, 9-03.29 (d) Railroad Preemption, permits both the all-redflash and ìlimited operationî preemptive dwell modes. The manual contains no criteria for selecting

between the two.

20 According to the BDPW, Caltrans prohibits limited use of flashing red traffic signal indications such

as that proposed by the SCRRA. The MUTCD also prohibits it.
Factual 15 Highway Accident Report

located within 197 feet (60 meters) of a signalized intersection. Once a train has occupied

the crossing, it states:

d. Depending on traffic requirements and phasing of the traffic signal controller,

the traffic signal may then do one of the following:

(1) Go into flashing operation, with flashing red or flashing yellow indications for

the approaches parallel to the railroad tracks and flashing red indications for all

other approaches. Pedestrian signals shall be extinguished. If flashing red is used

for all approaches, an all-red or other clearance interval shall be provided prior to

returning to normal operation.

(2) Revert to limited operation with those signal indications controlling through

and left turn approaches towards the railroad tracks displaying steady red.

Permitted pedestrian signal phases shall operate normally. This operation shall be

used only if the grade crossing warning equipment includes gates.

MUTCD Guidance

The MUTCD 2000, Millennium Edition, (Chapter 4, Section 4D.04 ñ Meaning of 

Vehicular Signal Indications) defines the meaning of flashing traffic signal indications as 

follows:

D. Flashing signal indications shall have the following meanings:

1. Flashing yellowóWhen a yellow lens is illuminated with rapid intermittent

flashes, vehicular traffic may proceed through the intersection or past such signal

indication only with caution.

2. Flashing redóWhen a red lens is illuminated with rapid intermittent flashes,

vehicular traffic shall stop at a clearly marked stop line; but if there is no stop line,

traffic shall stop before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection;

or if there is no crosswalk, at the point nearest the intersecting roadway where the

driver has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway before

entering the intersection. The right to proceed shall be subject to the rules

applicable after making a stop at a STOP sign.

3. Flashing RED ARROW and flashing YELLOW signal indications have the

same meaning as the corresponding flashing circular signal indication, except that

they apply only to vehicular traffic intending to make the movement indicated by

the arrow.

The MUTCD provides a limited discussion of traffic signal preemption near grade

crossings. Section 4D.13, which addresses preemption and priority operation of traffic

controls, states that when active grade crossing signal devices are within or near a

highway intersection controlled by traffic control signals, the two signal systems should

be interconnected, as indicated in section 8D.
Factual 16 Highway Accident Report

Section 8D addresses the systemic operation of the circuits that control the two

signal systems, as well as the interaction between the systems. It states:

After the track clearance phase, the highway intersection traffic control signals

should be operated to permit vehicle movements that do not cross the tracks, but

shall not provide a through circular green or arrow indication for movements over

the tracks. This does not prohibit green indications for highway traffic movements

on a roadway paralleling the tracks.

Similarly, section 4D.13 notes, ìTraffic control signals operating under preemption

control or under priority control should be operated in a manner designed to keep traffic

moving.î

Federal Highway Administration Guidance

Chapter IV, ìIdentification of Alternatives,î of the Federal Highway

Administrationís (FHWAís) 1986 publication, Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing

Handbook,21 is another source of guidance on highway traffic signal preemption. Section 5

of this chapter presents considerations concerning design elements and general guidance

on vehicle movements. It does not offer specific guidelines for the operational modes of

traffic control signals. The general discussion states, in part:

When preempted by train movements, the traffic control signal (after provision of

the proper phase change intervals) will immediately provide a short green interval

to the approach crossing the track. This is done to clear any vehicles that may be

on, or so close to, the track as to be in danger, or where vehicles may interfere

with the operation of crossing gates. The traffic signal will subsequently display

indications to prevent vehicles from entering the track area, while at the same time

traffic movements that do not conflict with the railroad movement may be

permitted. If, at the time of preemption, the green interval is on an approach that

does not cross the track, that green interval would be immediately terminated with

a standard yellow phase change interval in order that green time may be given to

the approach crossing the track. Conflicting indications must not be permitted and

every green signal indication must be terminated with a yellow indication as

specified in the MUTCD. Turning movements onto the highway with the crossing

should be prohibited through the use of blank out signs that display "No Right

Turn" or "No Left Turn" as appropriate.

National Cooperative Highway Research Program Findings

In 1999, the Transportation Research Board (TRB) published a paper22 that

included a discussion of railroad hold intervals and strategies used by various localities

once queued vehicles have been cleared from the railroad tracks. Among the traffic signal

modes employed were: 1) all red, 2) flashing all red, 3) flashing red-flashing yellow, and

4) limited operation. The section on the all-red-flash mode stated:

21 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Railroad-Highway Grade

Crossing Handbook, 2nd ed., FHWA TS-86-215 (Washington, DC: FHWA 1986).

22 TRB, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Traffic Signal Operations Near HighwayRail Grade Crossings. A Synthesis of Highway Practice 271. (Washington, DC: TRB, 1999).
Factual 17 Highway Accident Report

This control mode allows motor vehicles to proceed through the intersection after

coming to a complete stop at the stop line similar to an all-way STOP sign

controlled intersection. This traffic signal control mode allows motor vehicles

traveling toward the highway-rail grade crossing to turn left or right onto the

parallel roadway and allows motor vehicles traveling parallel to the rail alignment

to cross the roadway that intersects with the tracks. 

It may be confusing to motorists and would be very difficult to differentiate

between the railroad flashing operation (during preemption) and late night

flashing operation of the traffic signals (automatic flash). Furthermore, the traffic

signals may go to all red flashing because of a malfunction, which motorists may

confuse as a "train approaching" message if flashing all red is the preferred

preemption hold phase. [Emphasis added.]

While investigating the Burbank accident, Safety Board staff noted that the traffic

signals displayed flashing red indications both for traffic movements at the intersection

that would conflict with traversal of the grade crossing and for those movements that

would not conflict.

The Uniform Vehicle Code states that drivers must stop at flashing red grade

crossing signals and remain stopped until the train has passed and the flashing ceases.

Discussions with BDPW and CPUC engineers on the design of the intersection

revealed that they were unaware of the studies and publications issued following the

October 25, 1995, Fox River Grove, Illinois, highway-rail grade crossing accident,23 a

previous fatal collision in which the functioning of the signal systems was a causal factor.

As a result of the Fox River Grove accident investigation, the TRB,24 the FHWA,25 and the

Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)26 all revised or issued new guidance on traffic

signal design. Discussions with a random sample of other consulting, State, and local

traffic engineers revealed a similar lack of familiarity with these publications.

In its introduction to traffic signal design, the Caltrans Traffic Manual lists several

references for traffic signal design, including the MUTCD, two publications of the ITE,

and two FHWA handbooks. Several of these references were outdated and none had been

prepared after the Fox River Grove accident. 

23 National Transportation Safety Board, 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: NTSB, 1996).

24 TRB, Traffic Signal Operations Near Highway-Rail Grade Crossings. A Synthesis of Highway

Practice 271.

25 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway/Rail Grade Crossing

Technical Working Group, ìGuidance on Traffic Control Devices at Highway-Rail Grade Crossingsî

(Washington, DC: FHWA, 2002).

26 ITE, ìPreemption of Traffic Signals at or Near Railroad Grade Crossings with Active Warning

Devices,î Recommended Practice RP-025A (Washington, DC: ITE, 1997).
Factual 18 Highway Accident Report

Presignals, sometimes called ìfar-side signals,î are one option available to traffic

engineers who are designing or redesigning intersections at highway-rail grade crossings.

They are traffic signal heads positioned on the approach side of the tracks and, like the

intersection signals, are operated by the highway traffic signal controller. When the

intersection signals are green for the approach crossing the tracks, the presignal heads are

also green. When the approach interval is about to be terminated, the presignals change to

red before the intersection signals do, thereby allowing traffic already on the crossing to

clear.

Tests and Research

Exemplar Truck

On January 9, 2003, Safety Board investigators and staff from the Burbank Police

Department performed on-site testing to evaluate visibility and assess the truckís probable

approach path as it traversed the intersection. To perform these tests, the team used an

exemplar vehicle similar to the accident truck. (See figure 2.)

Initially, the vehicle was parked in the eastbound left turn lane, the same location

from which the accident truck entered the intersection. While the vehicle was stopped, a

train passed through the crossing, activating the crossing warning devices and preempting

the highway traffic control signals. Observations of the crossingís flashing signals and

automatic gates, their visibility, and conspicuity were made from the driverís position.

When the driver was looking toward the crossing, the flashing signal mounted at the

northeast corner and aligned to the southwest was clearly visible. The flashing red arrow

indication on the post-mounted traffic signal head was also in clear view. The alignment of

the intersection, in combination with the angle of the automatic gate relative to the

roadway, limited the visibility of the flashing red lights mounted on the automatic gate

from the driverís seat. 

The operator drove the truck from the eastbound left turn lane onto the crossing.

The vehicleís turning radius was sufficient to maneuver through the intersection without

approaching the face of the south automatic gate. Initially, the vehicle was driven at a slow

speed through the intersection and stopped at the approximate location of the tire marks

left by the accident truck during the collision. In another test, the vehicle was accelerated

to the point that it experienced moderate body roll and a slight loss of traction as it

maneuvered through the intersection. At this higher speed, the operator still reported no

difficulty in maintaining a sharp enough turn to avoid the crossingís fully deployed

automatic gate. In both tests, the path required that the operator drive the truck on the

wrong side of the roadway. As the truck entered northbound North Buena Vista Street, it

was clearly to the left of the double yellow centerline. Raised medians had not been

installed on the centerline near the gates.
Factual 19 Highway Accident Report

Observations of Intersection and Crossing Traffic Operations

Safety Board investigators reviewed the design plans for the intersection

reconstruction, new traffic signal installation, and grade crossing signals at the accident

site. They also observed traffic at the intersection and crossing, as well as several other

intersections near the tracks in the area, and noted:

1. Southbound traffic on North Buena Vista Street routinely queued from North

San Fernando Boulevard onto the crossing deck and through the area where the

pavement was marked KEEP CLEAR. The traffic signal for the intersection of

North Buena Vista Street and Winona Avenue caused northbound traffic on

North Buena Vista Street to queue onto the crossing. This traffic signal had no

railroad preemption to discharge that queue before the arrival of a train.

2. During the preemption or ìclear trackî interval of the traffic signal at the

accident site, vehicles went around the gates or stopped between the gates and

the tracks.

3. The path of vehicles executing left turns from eastbound North San Fernando

Boulevard onto northbound North Buena Vista Street could be identified by an

ìoil dripî trail that extended from the left turn lane on North San Fernando

Boulevard across the crossing deck. The retroreflective, thermoplastic double

yellow centerline on North Buena Vista Street near the southbound left turn

lane ìstop barî at the crossing was also worn from left-turning vehicles that

had traversed it. This wear mark aligned with the ìoil dripî path.

4. Observation of all crossings on both the accident line and another SCRRA line

to the west revealed that many of them have similar (or worse) traffic queuing

on the crossings. Much of the railroad and highway signal equipment appeared

to be older than that at the accident crossing. (See figure 6.)

Figure 6. Postaccident queuing at accident site.
20 Highway Accident Report

Analysis

General

In the following analysis, the Safety Board will first exclude those factors that did

not cause or contribute to the accident. It will then identify the factors that led to the

accident, focusing, in particular, on the use of ìall-red-flashî railroad hold intervals at

signalized highway-rail grade crossings. It will also address adherence to applicable

engineering guidance in designing traffic signals and other safety features at grade

crossings and consider the ready availability of such guidance.

Exclusions

At the time of the accident, the weather was clear and dry with gusting winds. The

Metrolink engineer stated that glare from the sun in the east did not impede his operation

of the train, but noted that he may have had the cab carís sun visor down. The truckdriver,

who also faced east, had within view the post-mounted railroad signal located south of the

tracks and positioned to assist drivers in the left turn lane. The morning sun may have

partially backlit this signal, thereby reducing the contrast of the light and, in turn, the

conspicuousness of its flashing red arrow. Nonetheless, the driverís actionsóhe stopped at

the red arrow when it was solid and only proceeded to turn after it had begun to flash and

traffic had clearedówere consistent with accurate perception of the traffic signals.

A review of maintenance records and event recorder data for the railroad crossing

signals did not reveal malfunctions that might have contributed to the accident.

Postcollision testing did not yield evidence of malfunctions in the roadway traffic signals

or in the interconnection between the roadway signals and railroad crossing signal

equipment. Review of track inspection records showed no anomalies with the track.

Postaccident inspection of the model year 2000 Ford truck revealed no mechanical

condition or defect that might have contributed to the collision. While extensive damage

to and destruction of some systems, such as braking and steering, precluded examination

of critical components, the truckdriver apparently accelerated from a stopped position in a

controlled manner. Witnesses did not note irregularities in the vehicleís turning maneuver

that would suggest a mechanical problem. 

The engineer was experienced in operating Metrolink commuter passenger trains

and had successfully completed the requisite operational tests and inspections. Event

recorder data corroborate the engineerís account of his actions before impact, and

evidence does not indicate that he was impaired or fatigued. 
Analysis 21 Highway Accident Report

The truckdriver held a valid California CDL with a ìTî endorsement and no

restrictions. He had functioned as a driver-trainer at various times during his career.

Review of his CDL records showed that he had no previous accidents or convictions for

traffic violations. Although toxicological testing indicated alcohol in the driver's liver

tissue, the alcohol detected could have been the result of either ingestion or postmortem

production. 

Therefore, the Safety Board concludes that the weather, the track, the signal

system, the mechanical condition of the train and accident truck, and the qualifications of

the train crew and accident driver neither caused nor contributed to this accident.

The Safety Board could not determine whether the driver was impaired by alcohol

at the time of the accident because vitreous fluid and urine, substances that do not

normally support the postmortem production of alcohol, were not available for

toxicological analysis. Although the pathologist who conducted toxicological tests on

tissue samples from the driver found an alcohol concentration of 0.09 mg/dL, the alcohol

detected could have been the result of either ingestion or postmortem production,

particularly given the massive traumatic injuries sustained by the driver and the 3-day

delay in obtaining the tissue specimen. Even if the alcohol were known to have resulted

from ingestion, the level cannot be used to ascertain potential impairment, since tissue

levels of alcohol do not reliably correlate with blood levels, and no blood was available for

evaluation.

The Accident

Operation of Metrolink commuter train 210 conformed to standard procedures,

and the trip was uneventful until the accident occurred. As the train approached the grade

crossing, the engineer sounded the cab carís horn at the whistle post, as he was required to

do. A witness in the vehicle stopped directly behind the accident truck reported that, even

though his windows were up, he could hear the trainís horn and the crossingís electronic

bells; he also said that he could see the train through his left rear view mirror.

Shortly before the train arrived at the crossing, the engineer stated that he saw the

accident truck turn left onto North Buena Vista Street and then onto the tracks. He

reported that he did not remember whether he placed the trainís air brakes into emergency

at this point. Data from the locomotive event recorder indicated that the train line air

pressure dropped sharply at the approximate time of impact with the truck. The drop may

have occurred either because the engineer placed the brake lever into the emergency

position or as a result of the impact. Regardless, the stopping distance was insufficient to

avoid the collision.

According to witnesses, when the truckdriver approached the North San Fernando

Boulevard-North Buena Vista Street intersection, the traffic signal was displaying a solid

red left arrow, and the driver stopped in compliance to the signal. While the truck was

stopped in the left turn lane, the traffic signal changed to all-red-flash mode because of the
Analysis 22 Highway Accident Report

approaching Metrolink train, which had prompted the railroadís signal equipment to send

an electronic impulse to the traffic signal controller that changed signal aspects at the

intersection. The left turn arrow governing the truckís movement, as well as all other

traffic signal heads (arrow and circular) visible to the truckdriver, changed from solid to

flashing indications.

As the truckdriver initiated the left turn toward the tracks, his vehicle would have

been oriented toward 2 of the 20 railroad grade crossing signals that were alternately

flashing red and required that he stop. The automatic gates were also in the down position.

He apparently either discounted or did not hear the train horn and the horns sounded by

nearby motorists. After the truckdriver proceeded left on a wide curved path around the

west end of the automatic railroad crossing gate that was in the down position, his vehicle

was struck by the Metrolink train. The Safety Board concludes that the accident truck

collided with the Metrolink train when the truckdriver made a shallow left turn onto North

Buena Vista Street after activation of the flashing red left turn arrow.

The Safety Board considered possible explanations for the accident driverís

behavior, which belies his extensive experience as a truckdriver and his record of no

vehicular accidents or violations. The discussion below will examine factors related to the

driverís actions and explain the potentially confusing message of the all-red-flash mode

used for traffic signals at the site.

An anomaly during this accident sequence, as reported by one witness, was the

truckdriverís activation of the vehicleís emergency flashers. Typically, an operator uses

emergency flashers to signify an unstable or oversize load, a mechanical malfunction, a

medical problem, or a temporary stop to make a delivery. The accident vehicle was

carrying a load that comprised work gloves, some bolts, and a spool of cable, making the

first of these four explanations unlikely. Although the second two cannot be ruled out, the

Safety Board notes that the driver accelerated in a controlled manner and at a prudent

speed as he was executing the turn; available evidence does not support the occurrence of

a mechanical malfunction or medical emergency. Since he was returning from picking up

materials near the accident site, the fourth explanation is plausible, assuming he forgot to

turn the flashers off after completing the pickup of materials. Or, the driver may have

inadvertently activated the flashers. Both visual and auditory cues in the vehicle would

have alerted him that they were activated, but he may have failed to perceive them.

Regardless of whether the activation was deliberate or unintentional, it suggests

some degree of distraction, either due to the factors that led the driver to activate the

flashers or to those that prevented him from noticing that he had inadvertently activated

them. Fatigue can reduce an individualís ability to cope with distraction, and the accident

driver may have been experiencing sleep restriction and its associated performance effects

on the day of the accident. If he retired between 9:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. the night before

the accident and arose about 4:30 a.m. the following morning, his maximum time in bed

would have been 6.5 to 7.5 hours, and he was not necessarily asleep for that entire time.

While individuals vary significantly, adults typically need slightly more than 8

hours of sleep nightly. Thus, the accident driver, who arose earlier than usual due to the
Analysis 23 Highway Accident Report

constraints of his work schedule, may not have been adequately rested on the day of the

accident. Research has shown that even small reductions in sleep can result in measurable

changes in vigilance,27 and the circumstances of this accident suggest that the accident

driverís perceptual, attentional, or decision-making performance was less than optimal on

January 6, 2003. In light of evidence that the driver did not receive his customary amount

of sleep on the preceding night, fatigue cannot be ruled out as a factor in this accident.

The unique geometry of the North San Fernando Boulevard-North Buena Vista

Street intersection and close proximity of the railroad tracks to it required a degree of

alertness and acuity on the part of drivers turning left from North San Fernando Boulevard

to traverse the grade crossing. The intersection is not a perpendicular one; the two streets

intersect one another at a 52° angle, and the grade crossing is about 50 feet north of the

intersection. As a result, from the vantage point of the left turn lane, drivers may not be

aware that the road intersects with the railroad tracks almost immediately upon making the

turn.

Because of the acute angle at the intersection, drivers turning left from eastbound

North San Fernando Boulevard follow a path that crosses over the south ends of the dual

left turn lanes and double yellow centerline on North Buena Vista Street. Wear to the

pavement markings in that area and an ìoil dripî path on the pavement are evidence of this

movement. The path is the same one followed by drivers of the exemplar vehicle during

postaccident testing.

The single automatic gate spanning the two northbound lanes of North Buena

Vista Street was neither parallel to the tracks nor perpendicular to the northbound

approach; it would not have been completely visible to the accident driver, who was in the

eastbound left turn lane. Similarly, the alignment of the intersection, together with the

angle of the automatic gate, limited visibility from the driverís seat of the flashing grade

crossing signals on both the gate and overhead cantilever, as testing with the exemplar

truck showed; only the flashing red arrow indication and the two flashing red grade

crossing signals, located at the northeast corner and aligned to the southwest, were in clear

view for the driver.

An advance warning sign located on North San Fernando Boulevard along the

eastbound approach to the intersection (220 feet west of the turn lane) was completely

obscured by foliage and, therefore, not visible to the truckdriver and unavailable to

increase his expectancy or awareness. This sign, which is W10-2 in the MUTCD,

Millennium Edition, graphically depicts railroad tracks just to the left of a roadway

intersection (see figure 5).

The active controls in place at this siteósignals and crossing gatesódo not

provide drivers with a spatial representation of the highway-rail grade crossing, that is,

they do not give them a complete picture of just how close the railroad tracks are to the

intersection. Even if the truckdriver heard the train horn, as witnesses stated they did, his

27 R.T. Wilkinson, R.S. Edwards, and E. Haines, ìPerformance Following a Night of Reduced Sleep,î

1966, Psychonomic Science, 5, 471-472.
Analysis 24 Highway Accident Report

ability to localize the sound and project the trainís path might not have been intuitive in

the absence of familiarity with the intersection, which had been reconfigured 6 months

earlier, or the expectation that a left turn would place him immediately in the path of a

train. Also, if he did hear the horn and observe the flashing red railroad signals, a lack of

spatial awareness is more likely to have been a factor in this accident. The ìfrightened

expressionî on the truckdriverís face just before impact, as reported by the train engineer,

suggests a surprised driver who was not expecting to encounter a train. Therefore, the

Safety Board concludes that the accident driver lost situational awareness in an ambiguous

and confusing environment that required significant mental alertness and vigilance;

consequently, he missed the cues alerting drivers to an approaching train. 

The Signal System

In addition to the spatial challenges that the accident driver encountered at this site,

he received confusing, potentially contradictory, messages from the highway-rail signal

system that governed traffic movement. The interconnected signal system, which had been

installed less than a year before the accident, did not malfunction. As it was designed to

do, the approach of the Metrolink train caused the railroad signals at the crossing to

alternately flash red, an indication requiring all oncoming traffic to stop until the signal

aspect was extinguished. Flashing red railroad signals are intended to have no other

meaning.

The approaching train also preempted the normal operation of the highway traffic

signals, which, following a track clearance interval, transitioned to all-red-flash mode for

all circular red and red arrow indications. The Safety Board concludes that the signal

system functioned as designed and that the accident driver behaved accordingly, stopping

his vehicle for the continuous red arrow that governed the left turn lane; only after that

arrow changed to the all-red-flash mode did he proceed into the intersection and onto the

crossing, and the collision occurred. The Caltrans Traffic Manual permits use of the allred-flash mode in California when grade crossing warning equipment is within 197 feet of

a signalized intersection, but it thereby presents motorists with a potentially conflicting

message that, as in this case, can have fatal consequences. 28

The MUTCD (Section 8.B.05) explicitly states that ìall existing turning

movements toward the highway-rail grade crossing should be prohibited during the signal

preemption sequences.î Yet both the MUTCD and Uniform Vehicle Code, which is the

primary source for standards on the meaning of vehicular signal indications, agree that the

all-flash-red mode essentially has the same meaning as an octagonal STOP sign, that is,

vehicles are to stop and then proceed with caution. The accident driver thus encountered

railroad signals that directed him to stop and highway signals that could be interpreted

more permissively. Possibly compounding the confusion was the fact that southbound

traffic on North Buena Vista Street had cleared after the crossing gate on the north side of

28 The westbound North San Fernando Boulevard approach to make a right turn onto northbound North

Buena Vista Street also displayed a flashing red arrow, sending the same potentially conflicting message.
Analysis 25 Highway Accident Report

the tracks descended, and, as a result, cross traffic no longer posed a risk to the accident

driver.

In fact, the more permissive meaning of the all-red-flash mode is the more

common one. If motorists encounter flashing red signals at all, they are most likely to do

so either late at night, which is usually a period of lower traffic volume, or when a signal

malfunctions and its internal monitoring equipment, having detected a fault, automatically

places the signal in all-red-flash.29 In either situation, drivers may proceed as they would

at a four-way STOP intersection. Had a train arrived at this intersection while the traffic

signals there were malfunctioning and consequently in the all-red-flash mode, all traffic

signals would have been the same indications that they were at the time of the accident.

The Safety Board therefore concludes that use of the all-red-flash mode for traffic

signals at a railroad grade crossing has ambiguous meaning, can be confusing to motorists,

and, as a result, creates unnecessary risks to life and property. The Board believes that

Caltrans should prohibit the all-red-flash option for traffic signal indications during the

railroad hold interval at grade crossings. The Board further believes that the National

Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and the National Committee on Uniform

Traffic Laws and Ordinances should limit the use of highway traffic signals in the all-redflash mode to situations in which they permit motorists to stop and proceed with caution. 

In 2002, during reconstruction of the accident intersection, the BDPW had briefly

changed the preemption mode from all-red-flash to limited operation, an option allowed

by the Caltrans Traffic Manual. Under limited operation, a steady red arrow or circular

signal indication prohibits traffic movements that conflict with the grade crossing. Traffic

movements that do not conflict, such as those that run parallel to the railroad tracks, are

permitted. Thus, at the accident intersection, traffic along North San Fernando Boulevard

continued to flow during the period of limited operation from February 13, 2002, through

February 28, 2002. After those 2 weeks, the BDPW returned the signals to the all-redflash preemption mode.

City engineers stated that they had changed to the limited operation mode to

improve efficiency during preemption by allowing traffic that did not conflict with the

crossing to continue to move. They reverted to all-red-flash after a meeting between

representatives of Metrolink and the BDPW, during which Metrolink expressed concern

that southbound traffic on North Buena Vista Street continued to stop inside the automatic

gates and on the crossing during normal signal operation. This situation had contributed to

several previous accidents at the crossing in the preceding decade (see table 2).

Metrolink was concerned that the steady circular red traffic signal indication

displayed after the ìclear trackî interval and during the ìrailroad holdî interval would

discourage ìtrappedî vehicles from exiting the crossing.30 Metrolink officials asked

Burbank to instead configure the signal system to display a flashing circular red indication

29 Both the Caltrans Traffic Manual and the MUTCD also allow the option of all-yellow-flash on one

street and all-red-flash on the other street; they defer to ìengineering judgmentî in choosing between

options.
Analysis 26 Highway Accident Report

during the limited operation mode. The city correctly maintained that such a combination

of steady and flashing red signals would conflict with both MUTCD and Caltrans Traffic

Manual guidance. Burbank then decided to return traffic signals at the crossing to the allred-flash mode.

This exchange with Metrolink offered the city another opportunity to review the

design of and operations at the intersection and crossing before reconstruction was

complete. Clearly, queuing of southbound traffic on North Buena Vista Street was still

creating a hazard at the crossing.

Limited operation along North San Fernando Boulevard could have served as a

deterrent to vehicles that might otherwise have turned left onto the crossing. When drivers

perceive a risk of collision because opposing traffic has not ceased, they often ignore

traffic signals that give them the right of way. Thus, had westbound traffic continued to

flow along North San Fernando Boulevard, as would have been the case if the limited

operation mode of preemption were in place, the accident driver might have been deterred

from or not had the opportunity to turn onto North Buena Vista Street before the train

arrived. The limited operation mode of preemption would have presented the truckdriver

with the following signal indications:

ï Driving east on North San Fernando Boulevard, as he approached the

intersection, the accident driver would have seen steady red arrow and red

circular displays on the traffic signal heads. At this point, the signals would

have been in the ìclear trackî interval for North Buena Vista Street.

ï Next, the traffic signals would have entered the ìrailroad holdî interval, during

which any traffic that did not cross the railroad tracks would have been allowed

to move in normal sequence. Since westbound traffic on North San Fernando

Boulevard did not traverse the railroad tracks, the accident driver would have

continued to encounter that traffic as he waited to turn.

ï The truckdriver would also have continued to see a steady red arrow on the left

turn signal display because the turn conflicted with train movements.

ï Once the train had passed, the traffic signals would have returned to normal

operation.

Therefore, the Safety Board concludes that, had the limited-operation mode of

traffic signal preemption been in place, giving the accident driver a solid red arrow and

allowing traffic parallel to the railroad tracks to continue to move, the truckdriver might

have been discouraged from making a left turn onto the grade crossing.

Burbank had ample opportunity to determine that this crossing and intersection

presented hazardous conditions. Several serious grade crossing accidents had occurred in

the decade before the reconstruction project began; this accident history should have

prompted the city to research all sources of information pertaining to the design of

30 In postaccident observation of traffic at the crossing, investigators noted that vehicles were in fact

ìtrappedî during almost every cycle of the traffic signals.
Analysis 27 Highway Accident Report

roadway intersections near grade crossings. In addition, the concerns expressed by

Metrolink before completion of the project served notice that the intersection and crossing

continued to pose problems that merited an intensified search for design solutions.

Burbank was also aware of the 1998 traffic study that recommended construction of a

grade separation at this site and, following the accident, developed plans to construct one.

Therefore, the Safety Board concludes that, had the city of Burbank been aware of

information available for redesigning and reconstructing intersections near grade

crossings, the likelihood of this accident occurring would have been reduced and safety at

the site would have improved significantly. 

Presignals

Several months after the accident, queuing was still occurring on this crossing, and

Safety Board investigators also observed vehicles queuing from the traffic signal at the

intersection of North Buena Vista Street and Winona Avenue just north of the accident

site. The traffic signal at North Buena Vista Street and Winona Avenue apparently was not

interconnected with the signals at the accident intersection, thereby compounding the

queuing problem and adding to the potential hazard. Although storage of vehicles queued

onto the crossing from an adjacent traffic signal was not a factor in this accident, it did

contribute to several previous train-vehicle accidents at the Burbank crossing.

Use of presignals can reduce the problem of queuing and, in particular, reduce the

likelihood that vehicles will queue on the grade crossing itself. Presignals are traffic signal

heads erected on the side of the crossing opposite the intersection traffic signal and in

advance of the automatic railroad gates. In normal operation, the presignal heads begin to

cycle through the green-to-yellow-to-red sequence before the traffic signals at the

intersection do so, thereby preventing vehicles from stopping on the crossing deck or

inside the automatic gates (assuming motorists obey the signal indications). After the

traffic signals go through their sequence for the other traffic movements, the presignals

change to green before the traffic signals at the intersection do, allowing traffic to

approach an upcoming green signal at the intersection.

When the approach of a train activates the railroad crossing signals, the crossing

should be clear of vehicles because traffic has stopped at the presignals outside the

automatic gates. As an additional safety measure, the traffic signals still cycle through a

ìclear trackî interval to allow any violators of the presignal indications to move off the

crossing. The traffic signals then change to a ìrailroad holdî interval until the train clears

the crossing.

If the reconstructed accident intersection and crossing had included a presignal

system, traffic safety could have been enhanced. As in the case of the limited operation

mode of preemption, information on presignals was readily available to city officials and

traffic engineers. Several reports issued following the Safety Boardís investigation of the

1995 Fox River Grove, Illinois, grade crossing accident recommended use of this traffic

control measure. The city stated that it had not considered the presignal option because it
Analysis 28 Highway Accident Report

was unaware that it existed. Construction of a grade separation at this location, tentatively

scheduled for completion about 2006, will eliminate any need for traffic or railroad

signals. In the meantime, to reduce the incidence of southbound traffic on North Buena

Vista Street stopping on the deck and tracks of the accident crossing, the city of Burbank

could install presignals on the North Buena Vista Street approach to the intersection with

North San Fernando Boulevard.

Extended Median

To enter northbound North Buena Vista Street, the accident driver drove around

the west end of the crossingís automatic gate while making a shallow left turn. Since the

gate extended across both northbound lanes of the roadway, the driver briefly operated his

truck on the wrong side of the yellow double centerline pavement markings, but the turn

was not a difficult or unusual one to execute. Figure 2 shows an exemplar truck, driven by

a Burbank police officer, reenacting the accident vehicleís precollision path to the area of

impact. Unless traffic or a barrier prevents it, a shallow left turn may be easier for a driver

to execute than the wider turning maneuver demanded by the intersection geometry.

Use of raised medians for the centerline approaches to grade crossings is often an

effective way to discourage gate running. These medians are barriers several inches high

that are intended to prevent or discourage drivers from violating the traffic laws regarding

railroad grade crossing signals and automatic gates. At the accident intersection, raised

median barriers could also be useful in restricting shallow turns, thus forcing motorists to

encounter the grade crossing gates. Several publications issued following the Fox River

Grove accident investigation recommend use of raised medians at grade crossings. 

The design for the reconstruction of the accident intersection included raised

medians on the north side of the crossing, but the medians did not extend to the immediate

vicinity of the crossing (see figure 7).31 The Safety Board concludes that if the design of

the accident crossing and roadway had included a raised median that extended from the

crossing to the end of the double yellow centerlines just south of the tracks, the accident

driver might have been discouraged from attempting to cross that median to execute a

shallow turn, thus avoiding the lowered gate. While an extended median would have to be

broken for the ìdynamic envelopeî32 of the tracks, it would still present a physical and

visual barrier to drivers and deter them from traveling on the wrong side of the yellow

centerlines on North Buena Vista Street. The Safety Board believes that the city of

Burbank should install a raised median or other barrier system at the North San Fernando

Boulevard-North Buena Vista Street grade crossing that extends from the crossing to the

end of the double yellow centerlines south of the tracks. 

31 If a raised median were extended to this point, it would have to be discontinued upon reaching the

ìdynamic envelopeî of the tracks, leaving about a 16-foot gap between the end of the median and the tracks.

Even so, it would provide a barrier sufficient to discourage gate running.

32 The MUTCD 2000 defines dynamic envelope as the clearance required for the train and its cargo

overhang due to any combination of loading, lateral motion, or suspension failure.
Analysis 29 Highway Accident Report

Availability of Design Guidelines and Information

During its investigation, Safety Board staff reviewed frequently used publications,

Internet Web sites, and other sources of guidance on traffic engineering design.33 These

included AASHTOís publications on the design of highway intersections near highwayrail grade crossings, as well as its 2001 publication, A Policy On Geometric Design of

Highways and Streets, which refers users to the MUTCD for information on the design of

traffic signals and signing. However, the MUTCD contains only general information on

the design of highway-rail signals near crossings and does not include references.

Figure 7. Existing and extended medians at accident site.

33 Engineers for Burbank delegated responsibility for design of the grade crossing and signals to the

cityís consulting engineering firm. The consultant declined to respond to the Safety Boardís request for

information on which, if any, resources the firm used in designing the site. The cityís engineers stated that

they did not have knowledge of current signal or grade crossing design guidelines.

North Buena Vista Street

North San Fernando Boulevard

LC E RA

EK EP

C EL

RA

KEEP

C EL

RA

K EE P

Extended

median

Existing

median
Analysis 30 Highway Accident Report

Handbooks published by the ITE, all of which had been revised since the Fox

River Grove accident, contained little useful information. Most referred readers to the

MUTCD. Only the ITEís Traffic Control Devices Handbook - 2001 had extensive

guidance on the design of signals near grade crossings. Through its Web site, ITE also

made available its in-depth 1997 publication, Recommended Practice for Preemption of

Traffic Signals at or Near Railroad Grade Crossings with Active Warning Devices, which

had guidance directly relevant to the design of the accident crossing. It discouraged use of

the all-red-flash preemption mode for the railroad hold interval, for example, and also

defined and explained application of presignals for crossings such as the one at the

accident location.

The TRB did list its research paper, Traffic Signal Operations Near Highway-Rail

Grade Crossings. A Synthesis of Highway Practice 271, which provides useful discussions

of railroad hold intervals and related topics. However, several searches were required to

locate it. Moreover, like AASHTO and ITE publications, it was not available to

government or other agencies without cost.

The FHWAís Web site had the most valuable resources, including the FHWA

Grade Crossing Safety Task Forceís 1996 report, Accidents That Shouldnít Happen, issued

following the Fox River Grove accident, and a 2002 report prepared by the task forceís

Technical Working Group, entitled Guidance on Traffic Control Devices at Highway-Rail

Grade Crossings. Both reports could be downloaded from the site without cost, but

locating them required extensive searching. Also on the FHWA Web site was the

Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, 2nd edition, FHWA TS-86-215,

September 1986, which is currently being updated.

The Safety Board concludes that current information and guidelines for designing

safe highway-rail grade crossings and traffic signals are available but can be difficult to

find and expensive to obtain. Therefore, the Safety Board believes that the FHWA,

AASHTO, the ITE, and the TRB should improve the ease with which transportation and

civil engineers can locate and obtain safety design guidelines and related information on

Internet Web sites, as well as through other means, and make available to governmental

entities a no-cost option for obtaining critical safety design guidelines. The Safety Board

further believes that the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices should

incorporate into chapter 1 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, at the time

of each update, a list of references, including Internet Web sites, for traffic and safety

engineering design guidelines. 
31 Highway Accident Report

Conclusions

Findings

1. The weather, the track, the signal system, the mechanical condition of the train and

accident truck, and the qualifications of the train crew and accident driver neither

caused nor contributed to this accident; whether the driver was impaired by alcohol at

the time of the accident could not be determined.

2. The accident truck collided with the Metrolink train when the truckdriver made a

shallow left turn onto North Buena Vista Street after activation of the flashing red left

turn arrow. 

3. The accident driver lost situational awareness in an ambiguous and confusing

environment that required significant mental alertness and vigilance; consequently, he

missed the cues alerting drivers to an approaching train.

4. The signal system functioned as designed and the accident driver behaved

accordingly, stopping his vehicle for the continuous red arrow that governed the left

turn lane; only after that arrow changed to the all-red-flash mode did he proceed into

the intersection and onto the crossing, and the collision occurred.

5. Use of the all-red-flash mode for traffic signals at a railroad grade crossing has

ambiguous meaning, can be confusing to motorists, and, as a result, creates

unnecessary risks to life and property.

6. Had the limited-operation mode of traffic signal preemption been in place, giving the

accident driver a solid red arrow and allowing traffic parallel to the railroad tracks to

continue to move, the truckdriver might have been discouraged from making a left

turn onto the grade crossing.

7. Had the city of Burbank, California, been aware of information available for

redesigning and reconstructing intersections near grade crossings, the likelihood of

this accident occurring would have been reduced and safety at the site would have

improved significantly.

8. If the design of the accident crossing and roadway had included a raised median that

extended from the crossing to the end of the double yellow centerlines just south of

the tracks, the accident driver might have been discouraged from attempting to cross

that median to execute a shallow turn, thus avoiding the lowered gate.

9. Current information and guidelines for designing safe highway-rail grade crossings

and traffic signals are available but can be difficult to find and expensive to obtain.
Conclusions 32 Highway Accident Report

Probable Cause

The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of

this accident was the design of the traffic signalsí railroad hold interval, which displayed a

flashing red arrow for the eastbound North San Fernando Boulevard left turn lane,

improperly implying that, after stopping, the truckdriver was permitted to make a left turn

onto North Buena Vista Street. Contributing to the accident was the lack of a raised

median at the crossing that would have obstructed the path used by the truckdriver to

make the left turn.
33 Highway Accident Report

Recommendations

 To the California Department of Transportation: 

Prohibit the all-red-flash option for traffic signal indications during the

railroad hold interval at grade crossings. (H-03-28)

To the city of Burbank, California:

Install a raised median or other barrier system at the North San Fernando

Boulevard-North Buena Vista Street grade crossing that extends from the

crossing to the end of the double yellow centerlines south of the tracks. 

(H-03-29)

To the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and the National 

Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances:

Limit the use of highway traffic signals in the all-red-flash mode to

situations in which they permit motorists to stop and proceed with caution.

(H-03-30)

To the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices:

Incorporate into chapter 1 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control

Devices, at the time of each update, a list of references, including Internet

Web sites, for traffic and safety engineering design guidelines. (H-03-31)

To the Federal Highway Administration, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the Institute of Transportation Engineers, and the

Transportation Research Board:

Improve the ease with which transportation and civil engineers can locate

and obtain safety design guidelines and related information on Internet

Web sites, as well as through other means, and make available to

governmental entities a no-cost option for obtaining critical safety design

guidelines. (H-03-32) 
Recommendations 34 Highway Accident Report

BY THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD 

Ellen G. Engleman John J. Goglia

Chairman Member

Mark V. Rosenker Carol J. Carmody

Vice Chairman Member

Richard F. Healing

Member

Adopted: December 2, 2003
35 Highway Accident Report

Appendix A

Investigation and Public Hearing

The National Transportation Safety Board was notified of the Burbank, California,

accident on January 6, 2003. Investigative team members were dispatched from the Fort

Worth, Texas, and Los Angeles, California, offices.

Participating in the investigation were representatives of the Federal Railroad

Administration, the California Public Utilities Commission, the Southern California

Regional Rail Authority, and the city of Burbank, California.

No public hearing was held; no depositions were taken.