U.S. Department of 

Transportation

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Office of Railroad

Policy and Development

Washington, DC 20590

Public Education and Enforcement Research 

Study—Macomb, Illinois, Analysis

DOT/FRA/ORD-11/07 Final Report

March 2011

Safety of Highway-Railroad Grade Crossings
NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the 

Department of Transportation in the interest of information 

exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for 

its contents or use thereof.

NOTICE

The United States Government does not 

manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ 

solely because they are considered essential 

this report.

endorse products or 

names appear herein 

to the objective of 
i 

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

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

maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including 

suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, 

and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.

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

March 2011

3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

Technical Report

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Public Education and Enforcement Research Study—Macomb, Illinois, Analysis

5. FUNDING NUMBERS

RR97/DG082

RR97/EG082

RR97A1/EG223

RR97A1/FG223

6. AUTHOR(S)

Suzanne M. Horton

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

U.S. Department of Transportation

Research and Innovative Technology Administration

John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

Cambridge, MA 02142

8.PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

REPORT NUMBER

DOT-VNTSC-FRA-09-09

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

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration

Office of Railroad Policy and Development

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

DOT/FRA/ORD-11/07

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Safety of Highway-Railroad Grade Crossings series

Program Manager: Leonard Allen

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

This document is available to the public through the FRA Web site at http://www.fra.dot.gov.

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

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

Administration, the Illinois Commerce Commission, and local communities in the State of Illinois. This project was designed to 

promote safety at highway-rail grade crossings. The role of the John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center was to 

monitor and evaluate highway-rail grade crossings in Illinois communities using video data collection, while the communities 

conducted education and enforcement campaigns. The effectiveness of the programs was determined by counting the number of 

motorists and pedestrians that violated the crossing warning devices during three project phases. In 2006, results from one 

community, Arlington Heights, were published. This report focuses on the effectiveness of the PEERS programs in Macomb, IL, 

and compares the results to Arlington Heights. In Arlington Heights, overall violations were reduced nearly 31 percent, and the 

most risky pedestrian violations were reduced 76 percent. In Macomb, there were few pedestrian violations, but overall 

violations still increased slightly during the study. The variations in the effectiveness of the education and enforcement 

campaigns were accounted for by the differences in the communities and the way in which the program was implemented.

14. SUBJECT TERMS

Highway-rail grade crossing, accident reduction, alternative safety measures, education and enforcement

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

44

16. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF REPORT

Unclassified

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF THIS PAGE

Unclassified

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified

20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

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

Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18

298-102 
ii

METRIC/ENGLISH CONVERSION FACTORS 

ENGLISH TO METRIC METRIC TO ENGLISH

LENGTH (APPROXIMATE) LENGTH (APPROXIMATE)

1 inch (in) = 2.5 centimeters (cm) 1 millimeter (mm) = 0.04 inch (in)

1 foot (ft) = 30 centimeters (cm) 1 centimeter (cm) = 0.4 inch (in)

1 yard (yd) = 0.9 meter (m) 1 meter (m) = 3.3 feet (ft)

1 mile (mi) = 1.6 kilometers (km) 1 meter (m) = 1.1 yards (yd)

1 kilometer (km) = 0.6 mile (mi)

AREA (APPROXIMATE) AREA (APPROXIMATE)

1 square inch (sq in, in2) = 6.5 square centimeters 

(cm2)

1 square centimeter (cm2) = 0.16 square inch (sq in, in2)

1 square foot (sq ft, ft2) = 0.09 square meter (m2) 1 square meter (m2) = 1.2 square yards (sq yd, 

yd2)

1 square yard (sq yd, yd2) = 0.8 square meter (m2) 1 square kilometer (km2) = 0.4 square mile (sq mi, mi2)

1 square mile (sq mi, mi2) = 2.6 square kilometers 

(km2)

10,000 square meters (m2) = 1 hectare (ha) = 2.5 acres

1 acre = 0.4 hectare (he) = 4,000 square meters (m2)

MASS - WEIGHT (APPROXIMATE) MASS - WEIGHT (APPROXIMATE)

1 ounce (oz) = 28 grams (gm) 1 gram (gm) = 0.036 ounce (oz)

1 pound (lb) = 0.45 kilogram (kg) 1 kilogram (kg) = 2.2 pounds (lb)

1 short ton = 2,000 

pounds (lb)

= 0.9 tonne (t) 1 tonne (t) =

=

1,000 kilograms (kg)

1.1 short tons

VOLUME (APPROXIMATE) VOLUME (APPROXIMATE)

1 teaspoon (tsp) = 5 milliliters (ml) 1 milliliter (ml) = 0.03 fluid ounce (fl oz)

1 tablespoon (tbsp) = 15 milliliters (ml) 1 liter (l) = 2.1 pints (pt)

1 fluid ounce (fl oz) = 30 milliliters (ml) 1 liter (l) = 1.06 quarts (qt)

1 cup (c) = 0.24 liter (l) 1 liter (l) = 0.26 gallon (gal)

1 pint (pt) = 0.47 liter (l)

1 quart (qt) = 0.96 liter (l)

1 gallon (gal) = 3.8 liters (l)

1 cubic foot (cu ft, ft3) = 0.03 cubic meter (m3) 1 cubic meter (m3) = 36 cubic feet (cu ft, ft3)

1 cubic yard (cu yd, yd3) = 0.76 cubic meter (m3) 1 cubic meter (m3) = 1.3 cubic yards (cu yd, yd3)

TEMPERATURE (EXACT) TEMPERATURE (EXACT)

[(x-32)(5/9)] F = y C [(9/5) y + 32] C = x F

QUICK INCH - CENTIMETER LENGTH CONVERSION

0 1 2 3 4 5

Inches

Centimeters 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

QUICK FAHRENHEIT - CELSIUS TEMPERATURE CONVERSION

 -40° -22° -4° 14° 32° 50° 68° 86° 104° 122° 140° 158° 176° 194° 212°

 

°F

 °C -40° -30° -20° -10° 0 ° 10° 20° 30° 40° 50° 60° 70° 80° 90° 100°

For more exact and or other conversion factors, see NIST Miscellaneous Publication 286, Units of Weights and 

Measures. Price $2.50 SD Catalog No. C13 10286 Updated 6/17/98
iii

Acknowledgments

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

Office of Railroad Policy and Development sponsored the work leading to this report. The 

author would like to extend special appreciation to Sam Alibrahim, Chief of the Signals, Train 

Control, and Communications Division, FRA; Leonard Allen, Program Manager, Signals, Train 

Control, and Communications Division, FRA; Gary Carr, Chief of the Track Research Division, 

FRA; James Smailes, former Program Manager, Track Research Division, FRA; and Ron Ries, 

Staff Director, Highway-Rail Grade Crossing and Trespass Prevention, FRA for their guidance 

and support. 

The author wishes to thank Steve Laffey, Policy Analyst, Illinois Commerce Commission, for his 

ideas, active participation, and cooperation. 

The author would also like to acknowledge Anya A. Carroll, Principal Investigator of the 

Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety Research Program, Systems Engineering and Safety 

Division, USDOT Research and Innovative Technology Administration’s John A. Volpe 

National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center); Glenn Goulet, Chief of the 

Infrastructure and Facility Engineering Division, Volpe Center; and Marco daSilva, Systems 

Engineering and Safety Division, Volpe Center, for their leadership and direction. Mina 

Chaudhary and Frank Foderaro, Systems Engineering and Safety Division, Volpe Center, 

provided analytical support. Erica Squillacioti, Systems Engineering and Safety Division, Volpe 

Center; Mikio Yanagisawa, Crash Avoidance and Advanced Safety Systems Division, Volpe 

Center; and John Mayers, Michael Kirby, and Gregory Pierre-Louis, formerly of the Rail and 

Transit Systems Division, Volpe Center, reviewed the video data and populated the database. 

This project was conducted under the auspices of the Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety 

Research Program, Systems Engineering and Safety Division, Volpe Center. 
iv

Contents 

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

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 3

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

1.2 Project Overview ............................................................................................................. 3

1.2.1 Project Objective ........................................................................................................ 4

1.2.2 Field Operational Test................................................................................................ 4

1.3 Macomb ........................................................................................................................... 5

1.3.1 Lafayette Street .......................................................................................................... 6

1.3.2 Jackson Street............................................................................................................. 6

1.3.3 Ward Street ................................................................................................................ 7

2 Data Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 8

2.1 Data Analysis Plan ........................................................................................................... 8

2.1.1 Data Attributes ........................................................................................................... 8

2.1.2 Violation Types .......................................................................................................... 9

2.1.3 Performance Measures ............................................................................................. 10

2.2 Sampling Plan ................................................................................................................ 10

3 Arlington Heights PEERS Evaluation .................................................................................. 13

3.1 Arlington Heights........................................................................................................... 13

3.2 Results ............................................................................................................................ 13

3.2.1 Overall Results ......................................................................................................... 13

3.2.2 Stratified Violation Counts and Rates...................................................................... 14

4 Macomb Results.................................................................................................................... 17

4.1 Violation Counts and Rates ........................................................................................... 17

4.2 Arlington Heights Comparison ...................................................................................... 21

5 Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................................................................... 23

6 References ............................................................................................................................. 24

Abbreviations and Acronyms ....................................................................................................... 25

Appendix A. Macomb Site Survey .............................................................................................. 26
v

Illustrations 

Figure 1. Macomb Crossings Schematic ....................................................................................... 6

Figure 2. Violation Rates by a 2-Month Time Period, Macomb and Arlington Heights ............ 21
vi 

Tables 

Table 1. Data Dictionary for Video Events ................................................................................... 9

Table 2. Macomb Pretest Descriptive Statistics .......................................................................... 11

Table 3. Arlington Heights Overall Violation Rates by Period ................................................... 14

Table 4. Motorist and Pedestrian Violation Rates, Arlington Heights Road ............................... 15

Table 5. Motorist and Pedestrian Violation Rates, Evergreen Avenue ....................................... 15

Table 6. Motorist and Pedestrian Violation Rates, Dunton Avenue ............................................ 15

Table 7. Macomb Overall Violation Rates by Period .................................................................. 17

Table 8. Violation Counts and Rates by a 2-Month Period ......................................................... 18

Table 9. Pedestrian Violation Counts and Rates .......................................................................... 18

Table 10. Motorist Violation Counts and Rates........................................................................... 18

Table 11. Motorist Violation Counts and Rates by Type, Ward Street ....................................... 19

Table 12. Motorist Violation Counts and Rates by Type, Jackson Street ................................... 19

Table 13. Motorist Violation Counts and Rates by Type, Lafayette Street ................................. 19

Table 14. Ward Street Motorist Violation Counts and Rates, before the Train........................... 20

Table 15. Jackson Street Motorist Violation Counts and Rates, before the Train ....................... 20

Table 16. Lafayette Street Mtorist Violation Counts and Rates, before the Train ...................... 20
1

Executive Summary 

The John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center) was sponsored by 

the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to conduct a field operational test at highway-rail 

grade crossings in three communities in the State of Illinois. These three communities were 

Arlington Heights, Macomb, and Bartlett. The results from one community, the village of 

Arlington Heights, were detailed in the published report Public Education and Enforcement 

Research Study [1]. According to that study, the Public Education and Enforcement Research 

Study (PEERS) initiatives were successful in curbing overall violations and the most risky 

pedestrian violations. 

The purpose of this report is to determine the effectiveness of the PEERS education and 

enforcement programs in another Illinois community, the city of Macomb, and compare those 

results to the ones from Arlington Heights. Highway-user behavior at the grade crossings in 

Macomb did not change for the safer during the study period. The different population 

demographics, characteristics of the crossings, and activities planned during the study likely 

contributed to the difference in results. 

In 2004, the Secretary of the USDOT issued the action plan Highway-Rail Grade Crossing 

Safety and Trespass Prevention [2]. The action plan identified education and enforcement as key 

initiatives in reducing incidents, injuries, and fatalities at highway-rail grade crossings. To 

establish the effectiveness of education and enforcement as safety countermeasures, FRA 

conducted before-during-after field operational tests in three Illinois communities. These 

communities actively participated in grade crossing education and enforcement activities. 

The effectiveness of the PEERS activities was measured by counting the number of motorists 

and pedestrians who violated the crossing warning devices. Significant reductions in violations 

indicate a change in behavior that can be attributed to the education and enforcement initiatives. 

The crossings were monitored for a period of 16 months. Two months of pretest data were 

collected before the programs began, followed by test data collection during the 12 months of the 

education and enforcement programs, and an additional 2 months of posttest data collection after 

the programs were completed. The violations were counted and standardized by the number of 

opportunities the highway user had to violate the crossing. This resulted in a violation rate. 

Those rates were compared by time period to identify any change. 

The communities of Arlington Heights and Macomb have different demographics and traffic 

characteristics. The village of Arlington Heights is a more urban community. The rail line is a 

triple track that carriers approximately 70 trains per day, most of which are commuter trains. 

The city of Macomb is a rural community. Nearly one-half of the population is composed of 

students at the local university. The rail line through Macomb is a single track with 

approximately 20 freight trains per day. The reduction in violations that was witnessed at 

Arlington Heights did not occur in Macomb. Overall, violations in Arlington Heights were 

reduced by nearly 31 percent from the pretest to the posttest period. Violations in Macomb did 

not decrease from the pretest to the posttest period. 
2

As with the previous study in Arlington Heights, the violation data was stratified by grade 

crossing, mode of transportation, and type of violation. The violations were categorized into 

three types, based on highway-user risk. Stratification of the Macomb data revealed that the 

focus of the analysis should be motorist violations. The investigation by crossing and by type of 

violation did not reveal any significant reductions in violations. Motorist behavior at the 

highway-rail grade crossings in Macomb was largely unchanged throughout the study period. 

The violation data was further investigated for the difference in highway-user reactions to the 

PEERS programs in the two communities. A primary difference in the communities was the 

target audience of the PEERS programs. In Arlington Heights, the highway users that were most 

affected by the programs were pedestrians at the commuter rail station crossing. They used the 

crossing daily and received the safety messages on a regular basis. In Macomb, the primary 

users of the crossings were motorists, who may have used the crossings infrequently. 

Furthermore, because Macomb has seasonal population variations as a result of its large student 

population, the target audience was not exposed to crossing safety on a regular basis. 

Another difference in the two communities is the amount of time the trains occupy the crossing. 

In Arlington Heights, the trains are primarily commuter trains. They are relatively short and 

usually operate at faster speeds. On average, the gates were down at the Arlington Heights’ 

crossings for 2.1 minutes per train event. In Macomb, the trains are almost all freight trains. The 

freight trains tend to be longer and generally operate at slower speeds. On average, the gates 

were down at the crossings in Macomb approximately 3.7 minutes per train event. In the city of 

Macomb, motorists are delayed for a longer period when waiting for a train to pass. This may 

influence riskier behaviors. 

The final factor that was different among the two communities was the type of programs that 

were implemented as part of PEERS. In Arlington Heights, the town took a very active role. 

Throughout the life of the program, Arlington Heights continued to establish a police presence at 

the crossing to discourage unsafe behavior. The Macomb program relied on a passive approach 

to reach the community. The Macomb program did not specifically target the crossing users but 

was intended for the whole community. The results suggest that aggressive, persistent, and 

targeted education and enforcement programs are more likely to yield positive changes in 

behavior. 
3

1. Introduction 

1.1 Background 

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

crossing safety research. Under sponsorship of FRA, the Volpe Center participated in PEERS. 

The Volpe Center monitored eight highway-rail grade crossings located in three communities in 

Illinois to determine the effectiveness of education and enforcement programs. 

In 2005, the Final Rule on the Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings (Title 

49 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 222) went into effect. Nonengineering alternative safety 

measures, including grade crossing education and enforcement, are permitted in the 

establishment of a quiet zone to lower the quiet zone risk index. The effectiveness of the 

alternative safety measures must be validated with a documented reduction in crossing 

violations. 

In addition to safety measures for quiet zones, education and enforcement have been universally 

established as strategies to reducing incidents, injuries, and fatalities at highway-rail grade 

crossings. The Secretary’s Action Plan on Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety and Trespass 

Prevention identifies expanding educational outreach and energizing enforcement as key 

elements in improving safety at grade crossings [2]. Also in support of these data, the revised 

second edition of the Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook states that motorist 

understanding and compliance with crossing warning devices is ―mainly a function of education 

and enforcement‖ [3]. 

To explore the effectiveness of education and enforcement as safety measures, FRA and the 

Illinois Commerce Commission provided funds to support an analysis. Communities received 

grants to establish public education and enforcement programs that targeted highway-rail grade 

crossing safety. A field operational test was conducted in three communities by an objective 

third party, the Volpe Center. The final report, entitled Public Education and Enforcement 

Research Study, was published in 2006 and stated the findings on the effectiveness of education 

and enforcement programs in the community of Arlington Heights, IL [1]. The focus of this 

report is the analysis of three crossings in Macomb, IL, from July 1, 2003, through October 31, 

2004, and a comparison to the results gathered from Arlington Heights. 

1.2 Project Overview 

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

at highway-rail grade crossings. The project was designed to analyze the effects of education 

and enforcement programs as crossing safety measures. Three communities in Illinois 

implemented well-defined education and enforcement activities targeted at reducing pedestrian 

and motorist violations at grade crossings. These three communities were Arlington Heights, 

Macomb, and Bartlett. The first study and report focused on Arlington Heights. This study and 

report focuses on the efforts in Macomb. 

The communities enacted education and enforcement programs that targeted highway-rail grade 

crossing safety. Some of the program initiatives were direct mailings, poster campaigns, public 

service announcements, participation in Officer on the Train program, an increase in Operation 

Lifesaver presentations, and police enforcement blitzes. The effectiveness of the education and 

enforcement programs was evaluated by measuring the number of motor vehicle and pedestrian 
4

violations of the crossing warning devices. Violations were selected rather than incidents—or 

accidents—because violations occur at a much higher frequency. Accidents at the selected grade 

crossings over the study period would be too few to detect any performance differences. 

Violations represent a reasonable surrogate to incidents. The risk taken when committing a 

violation is a precursor to a grade crossing incident [4].

The study period for this project was 16 months. The lifespan of the project was divided into 

three phases: before, during, and after the communities implemented their PEERS programs. 

The pretest phase occurred before the education and enforcement programs began, from July 1, 

2003, through August 31, 2003. The test phase was 12 months during which the communities 

conducted their education and enforcement initiatives, from September 1, 2003, through August 

31, 2004. A posttest phase of data was also collected to measure any lasting effects of the 

programs from September 1, 2004, through October 31, 2004. 

1.2.1 Project Objective 

This second study on the PEERS programs had two objectives. The first objective was to 

determine whether the education and/or enforcement activities were successful in reducing the 

violation rate at highway-rail grade crossings in Macomb. Violation rate is the count of 

violations for a time period divided by the number of opportunities for violation to occur. The 

second objective was to compare the results of the study of Macomb to the results of the study of 

Arlington Heights. 

1.2.2 Field Operational Test

The Volpe Center was responsible for monitoring the selected highway-rail grade crossings for 

violations of the crossing warning devices. This monitoring was achieved through a remote data 

collection system. The system in Macomb consisted of two computers and seven cameras (two 

at each of the three crossings in the study, and one at a nearby ungated crossing that was not 

included). The images from the cameras at the Lafayette Street crossing were transmitted to one 

computer and the images from the Jackson Street and Ward Street crossings to the other. At 

each crossing, a camera was positioned from opposite directions for a complete view. The 

images from one camera were analyzed, and the other camera served as backup. The city of 

Macomb allowed the cameras to be mounted on municipal light poles and be power by the 

electricity there. 

The two remote data collection systems were housed in Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad 

(BNSF) bungalows at Lafayette Street and Jackson Street. The computers were loaded with 

video data collection software. High-speed cable access was available for Internet service. 

BNSF provided connections to the electrical power and the track circuitry traffic signal output 

module. 

The video data collection software recorded continuously and distinguished between alarm and 

nonalarm files. An alarm file was created when the track circuitry indicated that the crossing 

warning devices had been activated. All other images were labeled as nonalarm files. Nonalarm 

files were deleted by the software first to preserve computer memory for the alarm files. The 

software allowed the alarm files to be separately designated and had the capability to remotely 

access the video database. The alarm files were downloaded to workstations at the Volpe 

Center. 
5

Video data was collected and stored onsite in Macomb and then transmitted to the Volpe Center 

via the Internet. Computers with an in-house Internet connection were used to download the data 

to the Volpe Center. The Volpe Center workstations used structured query language calls to 

bring up the appropriate alarm data and upload the video and associated information from the 

remote systems. Data was stored on local hard disk drives and backed up on DVD media for 

processing and archiving. 

1.3 Macomb

Macomb is located in McDonough County in Illinois. The population is just over 18,000. The 

rail line through Macomb is a single track owned and operated by BNSF. Amtrak passenger 

trains also use this line. The line carries, on average, 18 freight trains and 2 Amtrak trains per 

day. 

The three crossings included in the PEERS study are Lafayette Street, Jackson Street, and Ward 

Street. Each crossing is equipped with flashing lights and gates. The track circuitry utilizes 

constant warning time at all three crossings and traffic signal preemption at the Lafayette Street 

crossing. 

Site location surveys were conducted in Macomb on June 25, 2002, and September 25, 2002. 

These site surveys determined suitable locations for the cameras and field equipment. At each 

crossing, the team was accompanied by BNSF personnel. Figure 1 shows a schematic of the 

three crossings in Macomb. Details, schematic drawings, and photographs of each crossing are 

found in Appendix A. 

The three crossings are less than 1 mile apart. There is an Amtrak station just west of the 

Lafayette Street crossing. Jackson Street is a five-lane road, and the railroad tracks cross the 

street at an angle. Both Lafayette and Jackson Streets are principal roads leading to the city 

center. Ward Street is a connector road off of Jackson Street.
6

Figure 1. Macomb Crossings Schematic 

1.3.1 Lafayette Street 

The Lafayette Street crossing (DOT Crossing Number 072896B) consists of a single mainline 

track owned by BNSF and is located at milepost 202.36. Train speeds range anywhere from 1 to 

79 miles per hour. The intersection has three directions of highway traffic that traverse the 

crossing. There are three reflective cross-buck signs, three red and white reflective gates, three 

sets of mast mounted flashing lights, three sets of cantilever mounted flashing lights, and one 

bell in place. There have been no major accidents at this crossing recently. On average, one gate 

per month is broken. The Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) was 12,400 in 2003. Although 

pedestrian activity is limited, this crossing is near the town commons and local businesses as 

well as the Amtrak station. 

1.3.2 Jackson Street 

The Jackson Street crossing (DOT Crossing Number 072890K) is located at milepost 202.91. 

The road is a five-lane highway that crosses the tracks at a 22-degree angle. The gates are 

separated by approximately 300 feet, and within this span are driveways to four businesses. The 

crossing is equipped with two reflective cross-buck signs, two red and white reflective gates, 

four sets of mast-mounted flashing lights, two sets of cantilever-mounted flashing lights, and one 

bell in place. The gates do not block the turning center lane. There was one recent accident at 

the Jackson Street crossing. The engineer noticed the car and was able to slow the train to 

10 miles per hour before impacting the car and there were no injuries or fatalities. The AADT at 

this crossing was 16,200 in 2003. There are sidewalks along the roadway, but pedestrian foot 

traffic appeared limited. 
7

1.3.3 Ward Street 

The Ward Street crossing (DOT Crossing Number 072906E) is located at milepost 203.11. 

There is one lane each north and south, and a road runs parallel to the tracks on the south. The 

area surrounding the crossing is commercial with an AADT of 8,100 in 2001. Both approaches 

to the crossing were equipped with two reflective cross-buck signs, two red and white reflective 

gates, two sets of mast-mounted flashing lights, and one bell in place. There have not been any 

accidents at the Ward Street crossing in the past 10 years. 
8

2. Data Analysis 

2.1 Data Analysis Plan 

The data was collected and analyzed as a before-during-after study. The purpose of organizing 

the study in this manner was to compare the data from the three phases of the study. The before 

(pretest) data is useful in identifying the grade crossing environment at the start of the study, 

before any enhanced education and enforcement activities. The during (test) period data 

ascertains whether the education and enforcement activities have affected behavior at the 

crossings, either positively or negatively. The after (posttest) period data shows whether the test 

period behavioral changes lasted or reverted after the programs had ended. The test data was 

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

data. 

In Macomb, three crossings were monitored. There are approximately 20 trains per day through 

the city. Each time the crossing warning devices are activated at one of the crossings, it is 

considered a train event. The estimated numbers of train events collected were 2,600 events 

during the pretest and posttest periods and 21,000 during the test period. 

2.1.1 Data Attributes 

Data points extracted from the PEERS video images were chosen to aid the determination of the 

amount of risk a motorist or a pedestrian was taking at the crossing. Two similar studies, Field 

Evaluation of Wayside Horn at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings [5] and Evaluation of the School 

Street Four-Quadrant Gate/In-Cab Signaling Grade Crossing System [6], were used as 

references when selecting data attributes for this analysis. Table 1 is a list of elements that were 

collected from each viewed train event. 
9

Table 1. Data Dictionary for Video Events 

Data Description

Date Date event occurred

Crossing Name Name of street crossing

Crossing Activation Time Specific time when the track circuitry 

trigger activates the safety devices at the 

crossing

Gate Activation Time Time when the gates begin to descend

Train Presence Yes or no (false alarm)

Train Arrival Time Time when train arrived at the grade 

crossings

Type of Train Freight, passenger, track maintenance

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

grade crossing

Pedestrian Arrival Time Time when the pedestrian arrived at the 

grade crossing

Violation: Type I Number of violators that went through the 

crossing while lights were flashing but 

before gate descent

Violation: Type II Number of violators that went through the 

crossing during gate descent

Violation: Type III Number of violators that went through the 

grade crossing after gate descent

Violation after Train but before Gates 

Ascend

Yes or no

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

violator approached the crossing

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

train approached the crossing

Track The track that the train is on when it 

traverses the crossing (north side or south 

side, east side, or west side)

Second Train Event Yes or no

End of Event Time Time when the train has completely cleared 

the crossing and gates have retracted or the 

recording timed out

2.1.2 Violation Types 

The evaluation of the effectiveness of the education and enforcement programs was based on the 

frequency with which motorists and pedestrians violated the warnings of approaching trains. In 

Macomb, the crossings were equipped with gates, flashing lights, and bells. The types of 

violations—during the train event—were based on when the violation occurred and how much 

risk the violator assumed. The violations were divided into three types: 
10

 Type I is when a violator traverses the crossing while the lights are flashing, the 

bells are ringing, but before gate descent; 

 Type II is when a violator traverses the crossing during gate descent or ascent 

with audible devices sounding; and 

 Type III is when a violator traverses the grade crossing after the gates finish their 

descent and are fully deployed in a horizontal position. 

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

warning that a train is approaching. Type II violations occur both before and after the train 

arrival at the crossing. During a type III violation, the gate is in the horizontal position, and the 

motorist or pedestrian would have to go around the downed gate. 

2.1.3 Performance Measures 

The performance of the education and enforcement programs was measured by using the 

frequency of violations. For each phase of the project, the number of train events observed 

varied. Thus, it was necessary to use a rate of violations per train event. The violation frequency 

data can be separated into the three violation types, the three crossings, and the two modes of 

transportation used by the violator. Analyzing the violation rate at this level of detail enabled the 

researchers to establish trends in the data and determine how and where the PEERS programs 

were most effective. 

2.2 Sampling Plan 

To complete the PEERS evaluation of Arlington Heights, over 70,000 video data clips were 

viewed and recorded. This amount of data extended the project many months. To reduce the 

workload and the cost of including Macomb, a sampling of train events was used. Before the 

evaluation of Arlington Heights, pretest data from Macomb was viewed and recorded. All train 

events in the 2-month period were analyzed. The data collected from the pretest period was used 

to determine a statistically significant sample size at the 95 percent confidence level for the 

remaining 14 months of data. Table 2 contains the descriptive statistics of the Macomb pretest 

data. 
11

Table 2. Macomb Pretest Descriptive Statistics 

Macomb Violations by Train 

Event

Mean 2.519612

Standard Error 0.043182

Median 2

Mode 2

Standard Deviation 2.234247

Sample Variance 4.991861

Kurtosis 1.505042

Skewness 1.162387

Range 14

Minimum 0

Maximum 14

Sum 6745

Count 2677

Using the formula 

2

/ 2

















z

n

 where 

n is the sample size, 



is the standard deviation, 

z / 2

is the measure of the distance in standard deviations of a sample from the mean, 

with a confidence level α, and

 E is the standard error. 

The sample size for the 14 months of remaining data was determined to be 10,284 train events. 

Once the sample size was determined, a method of sampling was chosen. Because variations in 

the data were expected both for each crossing and over time, a stratified random sample was 

chosen. A stratified random sample separates the items in the sample into unique groups. The 

data for the PEERS project was stratified by crossing and by month. It was assumed that the 

train events at each crossing and each month occur in equal proportion. Each stratified sample 

was composed of 245 train events per crossing per month. 

The train events for each crossing and each month were selected randomly. All of the train 

events were assigned a number, and random numbers were selected using a random-number 

generator. Each random number generated corresponded to a train event that would be viewed 

for the study. Viewed video clips and database entries were selected randomly for quality 

checks. These quality checks ensured each viewer was collecting accurate information. 
12

When the data was analyzed, it was discovered that during some months the data collection had 

been compromised. The video data from Jackson Street was lost from December 22 through 

March 8. The video data from Lafayette Street was lost from January 15 through February 20. 

The data loss was attributed to a variety of causes, including a lost connection with the cameras, 

a loss of electrical power, and errors transferring the images to DVD. The samples were 

determined before the discovery of the data loss, so adjusting the sample stratification was not an 

option. To collect more data from a particular street or during a particular month would skew the 

results. For months where less than 245 train events were available, all were viewed. The final 

sample size for the test and posttest periods was 9,297 train events. This data loss altered the 

confidence level to 93.7 percent for the Macomb results. 
13

3. Arlington Heights PEERS Evaluation 

3.1 Arlington Heights 

The first evaluation of the PEERS program focused on the village of Arlington Heights, IL. The 

results from that evaluation are summarized herein and detailed in the published report Public 

Education and Enforcement Research Study [1]. 

Arlington Heights is a suburb of Chicago and has a population of over 76,000. The village has 

10 public at-grade crossings, 2 pedestrian crossings, and 2 Northeastern Illinois Regional 

Commuter Rail (Metra) stations. The rail line through Arlington Heights is a triple track owned 

and operated by Union Pacific Corporation (UP). Metra commuter trains use this line. The line 

carries, on average, 63 Metra trains plus 12 UP freight trains each weekday. 

Three crossings were monitored for 16 months. Two months of pretest data were collected from 

July 1, 2003, through August 31, 2003. Then, 12 months of test case data was collected from 

September 1, 2003, through August 31, 2004. Finally, 2 months of posttest data were collected 

from September 1, 2004, through October 31, 2004. The three crossings were Arlington Heights 

Road, Dunton Avenue, and Evergreen Avenue. Each crossing is equipped with flashing lights 

and motorist and pedestrian gates. The crossing at Dunton Avenue is adjacent to a Metra 

commuter rail station. The station produces considerable pedestrian activity at the crossing. 

3.2 Results

The Arlington Heights PEERS data was analyzed for changes in motorist and pedestrian 

behavior at the three highway-rail grade crossings. The effectiveness of the PEERS programs 

was evaluated by using changes in the frequency of motorist and pedestrian violations during the 

pretest, test, and posttest periods. Violation counts were standardized over each project phase. 

The violation rate was calculated as the violation count for a given time period divided by the 

associated number of train events. The analysis was conducted for violations over the whole 

study period and then examined by type of violation, by mode of transportation, and by crossing. 

Once the data was stratified into distinct classes by mode of travel, grade crossing site location, 

and type of violation, more information on the PEERS program effectiveness became evident. 

3.2.1 Overall Results 

During the Arlington Heights study, train event and violation data was collected for 16 months. 

The overall program effectiveness was evaluated using all violations from all three crossings. 

The reduction in violations from the pretest to the posttest period was of the most interest. A 

reduction of 50 percent was considered a successful program. An analysis of least squared 

means was also conducted to check the statistical significance of the changes in violation rates. 

Table 3 shows the violation counts, train event counts, and violation rates for the three study 

periods. 
14

Table 3. Arlington Heights Overall Violation Rates by Period 

Overall Violation Rate

Period

Pretest Test Posttest

Violation Count 18,066 86,621 15,547

Train Events 6,963 45,305 8,674

Rate 2.59 1.91 1.79

The reduction in violation rate was measured from the pretest period to the posttest period, 

producing a 30.92 percent reduction. Data from all crossings and for all types of violations was 

tested and produced significant results. When the data was examined for differences by test 

period, significant findings were observed in all three possible scenarios. These findings suggest 

that overall highway-user behavior changed at the three Arlington Heights grade crossings 

examined. However, these summary counts and significance tests on the data, taken as a whole, 

do not provide much insight into the nature and frequency of the types of violations witnessed 

and effectiveness of the programs. 

3.2.2 Stratified Violation Counts and Rates 

Pedestrians and motorists behave differently at crossings. Furthermore, each crossing in this 

study has different demographic and traffic characteristics. Analyzing the Arlington Heights 

data by type of violation provided information on the types of behavior that were affected by the 

PEERS programs. The violation counts were affected by mode of travel, type of violation, and 

the specific grade crossing locations. Once the data was stratified into distinct classes, more 

information on the PEERS program was evident. 

The violation data was broken down by mode of travel, violation type, and crossing. Arlington 

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

intersection immediately to the north. Evergreen Avenue also carries primarily motor vehicle 

traffic, although not as heavy as Arlington Heights Road. Dunton Avenue has an adjacent 

commuter rail station and is, therefore, bustling with pedestrian activity. Table 4, Table 5, and 

Table 6 show the motorist and pedestrian violation rates at each crossing. 
15

Table 4. Motorist and Pedestrian Violation Rates, Arlington Heights Road 

Arlington Heights Road 

Motorist (M) and Pedestrian (P) Violation Rates

by Violation Type/Period

Violation Type Mode Pretest Test Posttest

 Type I M 1.09 1.17 1.21

P 0.005 0.003 0.003

 Type II M 1.11 0.93 1.02

P 0.08 0.03 0.02

 Type III M 0.004 0.004 0.001

P 0.06 0.01 0.01

Table 5. Motorist and Pedestrian Violation Rates, Evergreen Avenue 

Evergreen Avenue

Motorist (M) and Pedestrian (P) Violation Rates

by Violation Type/Period

Violation Type Mode Pretest Test Posttest

 Type I M 0.10 0.06 0.10

P 0.04 0.01 0.01

 Type II M 1.27 1.13 1.00

P 0.26 0.21 0.23

 Type III M 0.01 0.005 0.001

P 0.11 0.04 0.07

Table 6. Motorist and Pedestrian Violation Rates, Dunton Avenue 

Dunton Avenue

Motorist (M) and Pedestrian (P) Violation Rates

by Violation Type/Period

Violation Type Mode Pretest Test Posttest

 Type I M 0.13 0.13 0.11

P 0.07 0.03 0.03

 Type II M 0.88 0.61 0.54

P 0.43 0.33 0.39

 Type III M 0.0004 0.003 0.001

P 2.20 0.96 0.52

The Arlington Heights Road crossing and the Evergreen Avenue crossing had similar motorist 

and pedestrian traffic patterns. They were used primarily by motorists. Most of the violations 

that occurred at these crossings were motorist type I and type II violations. The motorist 

violation rates for type I violations showed no difference between the pretest and posttest period. 

Motorist type II violations at Arlington Heights Road and Evergreen Avenue were reduced 21.2 

and 8.1 percent from the pretest to the posttest period, respectively. The magnitudes of the 

estimated differences for pedestrian violations at Arlington Heights Road and Evergreen Avenue 

were so small relative to other violation differences that the results were insignificant. 
16

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

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

extremely different motorist and pedestrian traffic patterns. Heavy pedestrian activity occurs at 

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

percent of all pedestrian violations occurred at the Dunton Avenue crossing. 

Motorist violation rates at Dunton Avenue were reduced during PEERS. The type I motorist 

violation rate was reduced 12.4 percent, and the motorist type II violation rate was reduced 

38.7 percent from the pretest period to the posttest period. The estimated differences in motorist 

type III violations at Dunton Avenue were too small to draw any meaningful conclusions. 

Pedestrian violation rates experienced the greatest reductions. The magnitudes of the estimated 

differences for type I pedestrian violations at Dunton Avenue were too small to yield any 

positive results. The type II pedestrian violation rates decreased 11.4 percent from the pretest 

period to the posttest period. The type III pedestrian violation rates experienced a large 

reduction (76.3 percent) between the pretest and posttest periods. This reduction may be 

indicative of a behavioral change for pedestrians, most of whom are commuters, at the Dunton 

Avenue crossing. 

The results showed the most significant reductions in pedestrian violations, especially the most 

risky type III violations. The pedestrians at the Dunton Avenue crossing were mostly commuters 

accessing the adjacent commuter rail stations. While waiting for trains to clear the highway-rail 

grade crossing, the commuters were a captive audience with time to listen and experience the 

education and enforcement programs regularly. The PEERS programs in Arlington Heights 

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

on commuters that were exposed to the crossing on a daily basis. 
17

4. Macomb Results 

The raw data on violations and train events in Macomb was organized by type of violation, mode 

of transport, and crossing. The analyses were standardized by train event. In addition, the data 

was segregated into three periods: the pretest period from July through August 2003, the test 

period from September 2003 through August 2004, and the posttest period from September 

through October 2004. The data was subsequently analyzed using Statistical Analysis System 

software. 

Summary statistics were calculated to determine the spread and nature of the data. The total 

number of violations over the three test periods were stratified and analyzed. Each variable in 

the data set was examined separately. 

4.1 Violation Counts and Rates 

Violation counts were standardized over each test period. The violation rate was calculated as 

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

Overall violation counts and rates are given in Table 7. Over the whole study, violation rates 

increased in Macomb. 

Table 7. Macomb Overall Violation Rates by Period 

Overall Violation Rate

Period

Pretest Test Posttest

Violation Count 6,151 20,232 4,383

Train Events 2,453 7,832 1,471

Rate 2.51 2.58 2.98

Approximately one-half of the population in Macomb is made up of students at the local 

university. This results in a fluctuation in the number of citizens in the city based on the time of 

year. For this reason, the violation data was examined in 2-month time periods. Table 8 shows 

the counts of violations and train events and the violation rate in each 2-month time period. As 

mentioned in Section 2.2, a portion of data was lost during the January through February 2004 

block, and this resulted in an outlier. The data in Table 7 and Table 8 shows an increase in 

violations in the posttest period. Every September, approximately 25 percent of the student 

population is new to Macomb. The posttest data likely includes students who were not present 

during the test period and, therefore, were not exposed to the PEERS programs. Although this 

cannot explain all the variation in the violation data, the population shift does affect the behavior 

during the study period. Breaking the data down by mode of transport, type of violation, and 

crossing will reveal additional information on any affects of the PEERS programs. 
18

Table 8. Violation Counts and Rates by a 2-Month Period 

Violation 

Count Train Events Rate

Pretest 7/1/03–8/31/03 6,151 2,453 2.51

Test Case 9/1/03–10/31/03 2,906 1,260 2.31

11/1/03–12/31/03 2,719 1,423 1.91

1/1/04–2/29/04 1,069 770 1.39

3/1/04–4/30/04 3,961 1,450 2.73

5/1/04–6/30/04 5,172 1,461 3.54

7/1/04–8/31/04 4,236 1,468 2.89

Posttest 9/1/04–10/31/04 4,323 1,463 2.95

In the Arlington Heights study, one of the major differences in violator behavior was between 

motorists and pedestrians. The Macomb violation data was stratified by mode of transportation. 

Table 9 and Table 10 show the pedestrian and motorist violation counts and rates for each 

crossing. At each of the three crossings in Macomb, the estimated differences in pedestrian 

violations were too small to draw any meaningful conclusions. Therefore, the focus of the 

remaining analyses is motorist violations. 

Table 9. Pedestrian Violation Counts and Rates

Pretest Test Posttest

Ward 63 162 37

0.087 0.06 0.075

Jackson 76 174 61

0.098 0.072 0.124

Lafayette 160 314 68

0.168 0.115 0.139

Table 10. Motorist Violation Counts and Rates

Pretest Test Posttest

Ward 1120 3399 749

1.55 1.26 1.53

Jackson 2960 10469 2504

3.82 4.35 5.11

Lafayette 1772 5714 964

1.86 2.1 1.97

In an effort to gain a better understanding of motorist behavior at the highway-rail grade 

crossings, the data was stratified by crossing. Each crossing has different demographics and 

traffic characteristics. The geography and layout of the crossing are also important. The Ward 

Street crossing has the lowest AADT of the three. The Jackson Street crossing has the highest 

AADT of the three and is skewed. The Lafayette Street crossing has an AADT similar to 

Jackson Street with three gates and two sets of traffic signals. There is more pedestrian traffic at 

Lafayette than the other two crossings. The highway traffic signals at Lafayette may be why 

there are considerably fewer violations at Lafayette than at Jackson. The crossing is equipped 

with simultaneous preemption to clear the tracks when a train is approaching. Therefore, a 

driver would have to run a red light before they could violate the grade crossing. Table 11, Table 

12, and Table 13 show the motorist violation rates by type for each crossing. 
19

Table 11. Motorist Violation Counts and Rates by Type, Ward Street 

Pretest Test Posttest

Type I 100 290 88

0.14 0.11 0.18

Type II 1011 3081 655

1.40 1.14 1.33

Type III 9 28 6

0.01 0.01 0.01

Table 12. Motorist Violation Counts and Rates by Type, Jackson Street 

Pre-test Test 

PostTest

Type I 298 1093 294

0.38 0.45 0.60

Type II 2643 9313 2202

3.41 3.87 4.49

Type III 19 63 8

0.02 0.03 0.02

Table 13. Motorist Violation Counts and Rates by Type, Lafayette Street 

Pretest Test Posttest

Type I 561 1808 313

0.59 0.66 0.64

Type II 1190 3891 642

1.25 1.43 1.31

Type III 21 15 9

0.02 0.01 0.02

The examination of violations by type did not uncover any significant decreases in violation 

rates. The only violation rate reduction occurred at Ward Street for type II violations. This 

reduction, from 1.40 to 1.33, was 5 percent. 

The stratification of violation by type did reveal that the majority of violations were type II 

violations. The motorists stopped at the crossings during a train event were frequently 

committing type II violations after the train had passed, and the gates were still ascending. This 

behavior may be perceived as less risky than a type II violation before the train arrives. The 

violation data was categorized by before and after the train. Table 14, Table 15, and Table 16

show the motorist violation rates and counts before the train for each crossing. 
20

Table 14. Ward Street Motorist Violation Counts and Rates, before the Train 

Violation 

Type Pretest Test Posttest

Type I

97 284 85

0.13 0.11 0.17

Type II

63 253 74

0.09 0.09 0.15

Type III

8 21 3

0.01 0.01 0.01

Table 15. Jackson Street Motorist Violation Counts and Rates, before the Train 

Violation 

Type Pretest Test Posttest

Type I

297 1070 283

0.38 0.44 0.59

Type II

222 1083 111

0.29 0.45 0.23

Type III

13 32 3

0.02 0.01 0.01

Table 16. Lafayette Street Motorist Violation Counts and Rates, before the Train 

Violation 

Type Pretest Test Posttest

Type I

559 1774 308

0.59 0.65 0.63

Type II

135 523 75

0.14 0.19 0.15

Type III

20 11 8

0.02 0.00 0.02

The before-the-train-violation data does not indicate any change in behavior. Although the 

results were inconclusive, this data was examined because this behavior is more likely to result 

in a collision. If this behavior is altered, safety benefits will be realized. Future education and 

enforcement programs should include awareness of the risks of this behavior. 

The counts of type II violations before the train show that the majority of type II violations, at all 

crossings, occur after the train has passed and the gates are ascending. Illinois law states that the 

drivers shall remain stationary until the gates are fully raised and the flashing lights are no longer 

illuminated. This part of the law, however, is largely disregarded in Macomb. In Macomb, the 

majority of the trains are longer, slower moving freight trains. On average, the crossing warning 

devices are active for 3.7 minutes during a train event. This delay time could influence the 

motorists’ behavior after the train has traversed the crossing. 

Another phenomenon that was noted by the data entry staff was platooning. Platooning—when 

one motorist commits a risky maneuver and others follow—leads to higher numbers of 

violations. The data entry staff indicated this behavior was especially prevalent for type II 

violations after the train. The first motorist’s decision to violate the crossing warning device led 

to multiple violations by the motorists behind the first. This phenomenon contributed to the 

much higher after train violation counts compared with before training. 
21

4.2 Arlington Heights Comparison 

The results from the Macomb study are not similar to the results from Arlington Heights. The 

PEERS activities in each community did not yield the same changes in highway-user behavior. 

Figure 2 shows the violation rates of each community by 2-month time periods. In Arlington 

Heights, overall violations were reduced by nearly 31 percent from the pretest to the posttest 

period. In Macomb, there was an increase of 18.7 percent in overall violations from the pretest 

to the posttest period. The majority of the reduction in Arlington Heights was in pedestrian type 

III violations. The Macomb data contained too few pedestrian violations to analyze 

conclusively. The violations in Macomb were primarily motorist type II. 

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

7/1/03- 8/31/03

9/1/03-10/31/03

11/1/03- 12/31/03

1/1/04- 2/29/04*

3/1/04- 4/30/045/1/04- 6/30/047/1/04- 8/31/04

9/1/04- 10/31/04

* Data Loss Occurred in Macomb

Violation Rate

Macomb Arlington Heights

Figure 2. Violation Rates by a 2-Month Time Period, Macomb and Arlington Heights 

The studies were conducted over the same period of time but yielded strikingly different results. 

The reasons for these differences could be attributed to the length of time crossing warning 

devices are active, the target audience, and the design of the PEERS programs. 

In Arlington Heights, the trains through the community were primarily commuter rail trains. 

These trains tend to be shorter than freight trains and operate at faster speeds. In Macomb, 

almost all of the 20 trains per day were freight trains. Freight trains can be very long and 

generally operate at slower speeds. On average, in Arlington Heights, the crossing warning 

devices were active for 2.1 minutes per train event. In Macomb, the crossings warning devices 

were active for an average of 3.7 minutes per train event. On average, motorists and pedestrians 

in Macomb had to wait 76 percent longer at an activated crossing than in Arlington Heights. The 

motorists in Macomb were delayed for a longer time when the gates were deployed and therefore 

may have been more likely to disobey the crossing warning devices. 

The audience of the PEERS activities could have contributed to the success of the PEERS 

programs in Arlington Heights and hindered the program effectiveness in Macomb. In Arlington 
22

Heights, one of the monitored crossings was located adjacent to a commuter rail station. The 

pedestrians that used that crossing were mostly commuters. They used the crossing daily and 

were exposed to the crossing safety initiatives on a regular basis. The safety messages affected 

their daily routines. In Macomb, the crossing users were mostly motorists. These motorists may 

have been driving over the crossing infrequently and not exposed to the PEERS activities 

repeatedly. In addition, Macomb has a large student population. Because the students arrive and 

leave the community throughout the year, the population is continuously changing, and it may be 

more difficult to achieve the level of awareness needed for behavior modification. 

Another factor that could influence the effectiveness of the PEERS programs in the two 

communities is the type of program each implemented. Each community used the grant funds to 

design its own education and enforcement plans. The village of Arlington Heights created a very 

active program. Police presence at the crossing was a major part of the PEERS initiatives. The 

education and enforcement blitzes were conducted randomly but frequently throughout the study 

period. For example, from September 2003 through December 2003, Arlington Heights 

conducted 18 Operation Lifesaver presentations, 5 education blitzes, and 6 enforcement blitzes. 

By the end of the test period, Arlington Heights had expended all the available grant funds. 

The city of Macomb adopted a less rigorous program. The primary means of program to pass 

along the safety message were direct mailings, newsletters, posters, and public service 

announcements. These initiatives reach a wide audience, but they do not specifically target the 

crossing users as the blitzes do. During the same time period as in Arlington Heights, from 

September 2003 through December 2003, Macomb conducted four Operation Lifesaver 

presentations, one education blitz, and one trooper on the train event. At the conclusion of the 

test period, Macomb had approximately one-third of the grant funds remaining. 

The differences in results from the two communities indicate that a program that is more focused 

on the crossing users will reduce risky behavior. The active initiatives that targeted highway 

users for crossing safety outreach were more successful. 
23

5. Conclusions and Recommendations 

The analysis of highway-rail grade crossing violation data in Macomb was completed to

determine whether the results from the first PEERS analysis in Arlington Heights were replicated 

in a community with different characteristics and demographics. The two communities had 

different population demographics, traffic makeup, and grade crossing characteristics. In 

Arlington Heights, overall grade crossing violations were reduced from the pre-test to the posttest period. In addition, when the data was stratified, it revealed that the most risky type of 

violation, type III, had over a 70 percent reduction. The majority of the reduction was attributed 

to pedestrians at the crossing adjacent to the commuter rail station. 

In Macomb, overall grade crossing violations were not reduced from the pretest to the posttest 

period. The stratification of data did not reveal any behaviors that were affected by the PEERS 

programs. Grade crossing violations continued at the same rate, or increased, throughout the 

tenure of PEERS. The majority of violations in Macomb were committed by motorists. 

Pedestrian violations were too few to analyze conclusively. 

The reasons for the different levels of PEERS program success in the two communities can be 

attributed to the variations in the study parameters. Limiting the amount of time highway users 

have to wait for a train to pass may reduce risky behavior. The extended delay time in Macomb 

may have resulted in more violations, especially after the train had traversed the crossing. Those 

motorists who are familiar with the crossings may also be more inclined to disobey the crossing 

warning devices before the train arrived in order to avoid a lengthy delay. 

The target audience is extremely important in the success of the program. Citizens that use the 

crossing daily may be more likely to internalize the safety messages and adjust their behavior. 

The changing student population in Macomb introduced crossing users who were not exposed to 

the PEERS programs. The residents of Arlington Heights were continually subjected to the 

crossing awareness initiatives. The transient population in Macomb results in a turnover of 

students each year. These new students do not benefit from any past education and enforcement 

activities. 

The design of the PEERS programs was very influential in the program success. The Arlington 

Heights program focused on activities at the crossings and was an aggressive and active 

program. The presence of officers and volunteers at the crossings to promote and enforce safety 

was particularly effective. The program in Macomb used more passive approaches to reach a 

wider portion of the community. However, the approach did not specifically target the members 

of the community who use the crossing regularly, and it did not result in a reduction in highwayrail grade crossing violations. 

A guidance document is recommended as a next step in this area. On the basis of the first 

PEERS analysis and the analysis contained in this report, clearly, how the education and 

enforcement programs are implemented affects their effectiveness. A report on best practices 

and guidance would clarify the proper design of a successful crossing safety education and 

enforcement program. 
24

6. References

1. Sposato, S., Chaudhary, M., & Bien-Aime, P. ―Public Education and Enforcement 

Research Study,‖ prepared for the Federal Railroad Administration, Report 

DOT/FRA/ORD-06/27, Cambridge, MA: U.S. DOT/FRA, December 2006. 

2. U.S. Department of Transportation, Secretary of Transportation. ―Secretary’s Action 

Plan for Highway-Rail Crossing Safety and Trespass Prevention,‖ Washington, DC: U.S. 

DOT, June 2004. 

3. Ogden, B. ―Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook – Revised Second Edition 

2007,‖ prepared for the Federal Highway Administration, Report FHWA-SA-07-010, 

Washington, DC: U.S. DOT/FHWA, August 2007. 

4. Abraham, J., Datta, T., & Datta, S. ―A Study of Surrogate Measures for Rail-Highway 

Crossing Accidents,‖ prepared for Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 

January 1997. 

5. Multer, J., & Rapoza, A. ―Field Evaluation of a Wayside Horn at a Highway-Rail Grade 

Crossing,‖ prepared for Federal Railroad Administration, Report DOT/FRA/ORD-98/04, 

Cambridge, MA: U.S. DOT/FRA, June 1998. 

6. Hellman, A., Carroll, A., & Chappell, D. ―Evaluation of the School Street Four-Quadrant 

Gate/In-Cab Signaling Grade Crossing System,‖ prepared for Federal Railroad 

Administration, Report DOT/FRA/ORD-07/09, Cambridge, MA: U.S. DOT/FRA, 

March 2007. 
25

Abbreviations and Acronyms 

AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic 

BNSF Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway 

FRA Federal Railroad Administration 

Metra Northeastern Illinois Regional Commuter Rail 

PEERS Public Education and Enforcement Research Study 

UP Union Pacific Corporation 

USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

Volpe Center John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center 
26

Appendix A 

Macomb Site Survey 
27

Attachment 1-Site Survey List

U.S. Department

of Transportation

Research and John A. Volpe

Special Programs National Transportation Systems Center

Administration

Location: Macomb, IL Date: June 25, 2002

September 25, 2002

Surveyor: VOLPE PEERS TEAM

Contact: Corzett, Dan – Signal Supervisor; BNSF

Golder, Dwight – Manager Signals; BNSF

BNSF Flag man

Notes:

On June 25, 2002 three Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) 

representatives provided the PEERS team with a safety briefing and then accompanied the 

PEERS team to all three crossings in the village of Macomb.

On September 25, 2002 two BNSF representatives accompanied the PEERS team at all three 

crossings in the village of Macomb. The railroad bungalows were opened and the PEERS team 

was permitted to view the inside. The positions of possible poles to mount cameras were 

recorded. The Ward Street crossing has streetlights on the north and south sides that would 

make reasonable choices. The railroad tracks cross Jackson Street, a five-lane highway, at an 

angle. In order to capture all crossing activity poles nearly 300 feet away will have to be used. 

The Lafayette Street crossing does not offer any options for pole mounts on the north side. It 

will be unconventionally monitored with both cameras on the south side. The PEERS team was 

met later that afternoon with an official of the Village of Macomb Department of Public Works 

to discuss electrical power in the selected poles.

General Information

* All three crossings are on the same section of BNSF track.

1 City: Macomb

2 County: McDonough

3 Track Owner: BNSF

4 Number of Tracks: One

5 Train Frequency: 20 / Day

6 Train Type: 2 Amtrak

18 Freight

7 Rail Road Personnel Assistance: Yes

8 Rail Road Property Access: Yes

Lafayette Street Crossing

1 DOT Crossing Number: 072896B
28

2 Bungalow Mile Post Number: 202.36

3 Type of Tracks: Main

4 Type of Crossing: Public At Grade

5 Speed Range: 1 to 79

6 Maximum Speed: 79

7 Warning Device: Signs: 3 Reflective Cross Bucks

8 Warning Device: Train Activated: 3 R/W Reflective Gates

3 Sets of Mast Mounted FL

3 Sets of Cantilever Mounted FL

1 Bell

9 Commercial Power Available: Yes

10 Type of Development: Commercial

11 Smallest Crossing Angle: 30 to 59 Degrees

12 Number of Traffic Lanes Crossing Tracks: 5

13 Pavement Crosshatch Markings: Yes

14 Estimated AADT: 9100

15 Blue Print Availability: Yes

16 Pole Locations: See Lafayette Street Drawing

17 Recent Accident History:

No major accidents recently. On average one gate a month is broken off. There has been a 

maximum of four gates broken in one month.

18 Environment Description:

The area is commercial. There are businesses on either side of Lafayette street to the north of 

the grade crossing. There are businesses and the town common to the south side. The crossing 

is complex (See attached drawing and digital photographs.).

19 Gate Description:

There are gates from all approaches. Three gates total. No pedestrian gates. The gates are all 

train activated.

20 Pedestrian Description:

There did not appear to be much pedestrian activity, however the town common and businesses 

are on one side of the crossing with commercial and residential areas on the other.

Jackson Street Crossing

1 DOT Crossing Number: 072890K

2 Bungalow Mile Post Number: 202.91

3 Type of Tracks: Main

4 Type of Crossing: Public At Grade

5 Speed Range: 1 to 79

6 Maximum Speed: 79

7 Warning Device: Signs: 2 Reflective Cross Bucks

8 Warning Device: Train Activated: 2 R/W Reflective Gates

2 Sets of Cantilever Mounted FL

4 Sets of Mast Mounted FL

1 Bell

9 Commercial Power Available: Yes

10 Type of Development: Commercial

11 Smallest Crossing Angle: 30 to 59 Degrees

12 Number of Traffic Lanes Crossing Tracks: 5

13 Pavement Crosshatch Markings: Yes

14 Estimated AADT: 12100

15 Blue Print Availability: Yes

16 Pole Locations: See Jackson Street Drawing

17 Recent Accident History:

There has been one recent accident. A car was pushed into the crossing by a tractor-trailer. 

The train did see the car and slowed to less than 10 mph. No one was hurt, everyone had 

evacuated from the vehicles.
29

18 Environment Description:

The area is commercial. The track crosses the road at an angle of approximately 22 degrees. 

There is over 300 feet between the gates. Within this span, there are entrance/exits to four 

businesses. Two of the businesses appear closed. Another is a car wash and the last is a 

business with an entrance/exit outside of the gates and crossing. The road is 5-lane highway 

with 2 lanes in both directions and a center turning lane. The gates do not block the turning 

lane. (See attached drawing and digital photographs.)

19 Gate Description:

There are gates on both approaches that are train activated. The gates cover 2 lanes of traffic 

each, leaving the center lane un-gated.

20 Pedestrian Description:

There did not appear to be much pedestrian foot traffic.

Ward Street Crossing

1 DOT Crossing Number: 072906E

2 Bungalow Mile Post Number: 203.11

3 Type of Tracks: Main

4 Type of Crossing: Public At Grade

5 Speed Range: 1 to 79

6 Maximum Speed: 79

7 Warning Device: Signs: 2 Reflective Cross Bucks

8 Warning Device: Train Activated: 2 R/W Reflective Gates

2 Sets of Mast Mounted FL

1 Bell

9 Commercial Power Available: Yes

10 Type of Development: Commercial

11 Smallest Crossing Angle: 30 to 59 Degrees

12 Number of Traffic Lanes Crossing Tracks: 2

13 Pavement Crosshatch Markings: No

14 Estimated AADT: 8200

15 Blue Print Availability: Yes

16 Pole Locations: See Ward Street Drawing

17 Recent Accident History:

There have not been any accidents at the crossing within the past ten years. 

18 Environment Description:

The area is commercial. There is steady motor vehicle traffic. There is a dirt road parallel to 

the tracks to the north; it accesses a Wendy’s parking lot. There is a road parallel to the tracks 

to the south; it accesses a storage facility on the southwest corner and an auto body shop on the 

southeast corner. (See attached drawing and digital photographs.)

19 Gate Description:

There are gates on both approaches that are train activated. The gates are typical two-quadrant 

gates.

20 Pedestrian Description:

There did not appear to be much pedestrian foot traffic.
30

Macomb – Lafayette St., Jackson St., Block Diagram

 N

 

 Lafayette St. Randolph St.

Jackson St.

 Not to scale

Calhoun St.

E. Jackson St.

107 ft

90 ft

Macomb – Randolph, Lafayette, and Jackson Street. Mile post 0202.28 Mile post 0202.36

Mile post 0202.91

Car wash
31

Macomb – Lafayette Street Crossing # 072896B

Railroad Milepost: 0202.36

 N

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Bungalow 

 Gate

 Wood pole

 Not to scale

Lafayette St.

Calhoun St

RR Station

RR Platform

 Town 

Common
32

Lafayette Street Crossing

Macomb, IL

1.

Figure 1. Southeast corner facing northwest. Figure 2. Southwest corner facing north.

Figure 3. Northeast corner facing south. Figure 4. Northwest corner facing southeast.

Figure 6. Northwest corner facing southeast. Figure 7. Northeast corner facing southwest.
33

Macomb – Jackson Street Crossing # 072890K

Railroad Milepost: 0202.91

 Car Wash

 

 

 

 

 

 

N

 

 

 Bungalow 

 Gate

 Wood Pole

 Not to scale

Jackson St.

36 ft

285 ft

333 ft

39 ft
34

Jackson Street Crossing 

Macomb, IL 

Figure 1. Northeast corner facing west. Figure 2. Southwest corner facing west.

Figure 3. Southeast corner facing northeast. Figure 4. Northwest corner facing east.

Figure 5. Southeast corner facing northwest. Figure 6. Southeast corner facing northeast.
35

Macomb-Ward Street Crossing # 072906E 

Railroad Milepost: 0203.14 

N

 Not to scale

 Bungalow 

Gate

Wood pole

120 ft

6 ft 72 ft

78 ft
36

Ward Street Crossing 

Macomb, IL

Figure 1. Northwest corner facing south. Figure 2. Northeast corner facing west. 

 

Figure 3. Southwest corner facing northeast. Figure 4. Southwest corner facing north. 

 

Figure 5. Southwest corner facing east. Figure 6. Southeast corner facing northwest.