THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION CAN 

IMPROVE HIGHWAY-RAIL GRADE CROSSING 

SAFETY BY ENSURING COMPLIANCE WITH 

ACCIDENT REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND 

ADDRESSING SIGHT OBSTRUCTIONS 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Report Number: MH-2007-044 

Date Issued: May 3, 2007 
U.S. Department of 

Memorandum

Transportation 

Office of the Secretary 

of Transportation 

Office of Inspector General 

Subject: ACTION: The Federal Railroad Administration 

Can Improve Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety 

by Ensuring Compliance With Accident Reporting 

Requirements and Addressing Sight Obstructions 

Report Number: MH-2007-044 

Date: May 3, 2007 

From: Kurt W. Hyde 

Assistant Inspector General 

 for Surface and Maritime Programs 

Reply to 

Attn. of: JA-40 

To: Federal Railroad Administrator 

This report presents the results of the Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) audit of 

the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) activities to oversee safety at the 

Nation’s highway-rail grade crossings (grade crossings).1

 In response to 

congressional concerns about grade crossing safety, we conducted this audit at the 

request of Representatives James L. Oberstar and Corrine Brown of the House 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and Senator Daniel K. Inouye of 

the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. 

This report is a follow-up to the audit report we issued on November 28, 2005, 

which addressed three key grade crossing safety issues. In the 2005 report,2

 we 

found that FRA had: (1) not identified collisions that the railroads were required 

to report to the National Response Center (NRC),3

 (2) conducted investigations on 

less than 1 percent of grade crossing collisions, and (3) not taken strong actions to 

 

1

 Grade crossings are classified as public and private. Public grade crossings are eligible for improvements using 

Federal funds under the Section 130 program (Title 23, United States Code, Section 130) and are maintained by 

public transportation authorities. Private grade crossings are on roadways owned by private companies or citizens 

and are not eligible for these Federal funds. 2

 OIG Report No. MH-2006-016, “Audit of Oversight of Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Accident Reporting, 

Investigations, and Safety Regulations,” November 28, 2005. OIG reports can be accessed on our website at: 

www.oig.dot.gov. 3

 As part of the Department of Homeland Security, NRC is the Federal Government’s 24-hour point of contact for 

environmental discharges in the United States and its territories. In addition, through agreements containing criteria 

that serve as triggers for reporting, NRC notifies FRA and other Federal agencies of fatal and serious train accidents 

and grade crossing collisions. 
2

enforce critical safety laws. To its credit, FRA agreed to take corrective actions to 

address these safety issues. For example, FRA implemented a reconciliation 

process in July 2004 to determine whether the railroads report all fatal and serious 

grade crossing collisions to NRC, as required by Federal regulations.4

 

Subsequently, in March 2005, FRA began issuing civil penalties to railroads that 

failed to immediately report grade crossing collisions to NRC. The findings 

presented in our current audit address the non-NRC reporting requirement where 

railroads must report every grade crossing collision to FRA within 30 days of the 

end of the month in which the collision occurred. This audit report, and the one 

issued in 2005 will close out this body of congressionally requested work. 

Our body of work on FRA’s oversight programs has found grade crossing safety 

to be a “centerpiece” of rail safety.5

 The second highest percentage of train 

accident fatalities—42 percent from 1995 through 2005—is due to collisions at 

grade crossings.6

 The objective of this audit was to assess the adequacy of FRA’s 

oversight of the railroads’ reporting of grade crossing collisions, as required by 

Federal law.7

 Our audit was based on the requirements contained in Title 49, 

Part 225 of the Code of Federal Regulations and the FRA Guide for Preparing 

Accident/Incident Reports.

8

 Trespassing fatalities and injuries on railroad 

property were not included in this audit. 

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with Generally Accepted 

Government Auditing Standards prescribed by the Comptroller General of the 

United States. Exhibit A contains details on the objective, scope, and 

methodology we used in conducting this audit and information on our prior audit 

coverage. Exhibit B lists the activities we visited or contacted. 

BACKGROUND 

From 1995 through 2005,9 the U.S. Department of Transportation (Department), 

state transportation agencies, railroads, law enforcement agencies, and safety 

advocacy groups made significant progress in reducing the number of grade 

crossing collisions and fatalities. The total number of grade crossing collisions 

fell by 34 percent, from 4,633 at the end of 1995 to 3,050 at the end of 2005. 

During the same time period, the total number of fatalities decreased from 579 to 

357, or by 38 percent. Exhibit C presents the total number of grade crossing 

 

4

 See 49 CFR, Part 225.9. 

5

 OIG Testimony CC-2007-018, “Reauthorization of the Federal Railroad Safety Program,” January 30, 2007. 

6

 Trespassing fatalities is the leading category of rail-related fatalities for that period, accounting for 52 percent. 7

 See 49 CFR, Part 225.19 and Title 49, United States Code, Section 20901, et seq. 8

 The FRA guide provides instructions to the railroads for reporting rail-related accidents and incidents. 9

 Throughout this report, unless otherwise indicated, calendar year data are reported. The number of grade crossing 

collisions, fatalities, and injuries were obtained from FRA, as of March 1, 2007, and represent the most reliable 

annual statistics available. Statistics for 2006 were too preliminary for inclusion in this report. 
3

collisions, fatalities, and injuries reported by the railroads from 1995 through 

2005. Exhibit D shows, by state, the reported number of collisions and fatalities 

that occurred at grade crossings in the United States during 2005. 

Although significant progress was made over the last decade—1995 to 2005—

reported grade crossing collisions increased from 2003 to 2005. During the latter 

period, collisions rose from 2,977 to 3,050 (3 percent) and the number of fatalities 

increased from 334 to 357 (7 percent), with 2004 documenting a higher increase 

than 2005. These increases and the upward trend in the volume of train and 

highway traffic indicate that more must be done at the Federal and state level to 

improve grade crossing safety. Our body of work on grade crossing safety has 

shown the need for FRA to develop more focused strategies to further reduce 

collisions and fatalities. 

RESULTS IN BRIEF 

We found that FRA can do more to improve grade crossing safety by ensuring 

compliance with its mandatory reporting requirements for crossing collisions and 

addressing sight obstructions that block highway users’ view of approaching 

trains. Nationwide, on average, one person died and three people were injured 

every day in grade crossing collisions that occurred in 2005, based on data 

reported by the railroads to FRA. The railroads investigate grade crossing 

collisions involving their on-track equipment and are required to report each 

collision to FRA within a specified time frame.10 Accurate, timely, and complete 

reporting of each grade crossing collision can help FRA to identify safety 

problems so appropriate corrective actions can be taken. Complete information on 

grade crossing collisions is also important to state transportation officials who 

must decide where to spend Federal funds set-aside annually for crossing safety 

improvements. 

Specifically, we found that: 

• FRA can do more to ensure compliance with mandatory reporting 

requirements, including reviewing the railroads’ grade crossing collision 

records and assessing civil penalties for reporting failures. Federal safety 

regulations require the railroads to report every grade crossing collision to 

FRA within 30 days of the end of the month in which the collision 

occurred. Accurate, timely, and complete reporting of grade crossing 

collisions serves the important purpose of ensuring that railroad inspections 

are properly targeted and state transportation officials have essential 

 

10 Railroads are required to report grade crossing collisions to FRA within 30 days of the end of the month in which 

the collision occurred. For example, a collision that occurred on any day in March should be reported to FRA by 

April 30. 
4

information when spending Federal funds on grade crossing safety 

improvements. Moreover, FRA has the authority to issue a violation and 

assess a civil penalty when a railroad fails to report a grade crossing 

collision. 

Our work identified 12 railroads between 1999 and 2004 that did not report 

139 collisions to FRA on time, with some being reported nearly 3 years 

late. These collisions resulted in 2 fatalities and 20 injuries, as ultimately 

reported by the railroads. Although these numbers are not large, FRA does 

not know whether all collision reports have been submitted, as required, 

because it had not routinely reviewed the grade crossing collision records 

maintained by the railroads to ensure compliance with its reporting 

requirements. 

We also found that FRA did not consistently issue violations and assess 

civil penalties each time a railroad failed to report a grade crossing collision 

to its accident reporting system. For example, for the 139 instances of 

noncompliance with mandatory reporting requirements, FRA issued 57 

violations to 8 of the 12 railroads and opted not to issue violations for the 

other 82 collision reports. The need for FRA to take consistent actions to 

enforce mandatory reporting requirements is an area that calls for additional 

measures. 

We recommend, among other actions, that FRA develop and implement an 

action plan for reviewing grade crossing collision records maintained by the 

railroads. Further, FRA should issue a violation every time a railroad does 

not report a grade crossing collision in accordance with Federal 

requirements. A violation notice triggers the assessment of civil penalties, 

and railroads that repeatedly fail to report grade crossing collisions 

appropriately should receive higher penalties. 

• FRA has no assurance that sight obstructions are addressed at passive 

grade crossings (those without automated warning devices) in most states. 

We found that greater attention is needed to ensure that highway users have 

a full view of approaching trains at the Nation’s grade crossings. When 

grade crossings are not protected by automatic gates, flashing lights, and 

other automated warning devices, it is imperative that highway users have a 

clear view of approaching trains to determine when it is safe to cross. Sight 

obstructions—structures that block highway users’ view of approaching 

trains and overgrown vegetation—can be a contributing factor in grade 

crossing collisions, based on FRA’s data. From 2001 through 2005, 

689 grade crossing collision reports submitted to FRA by the railroads 
5

documented a sight obstruction.11 These 689 collisions resulted in 

87 fatalities and 242 injuries. 

As of March 2007, 37 states lacked laws or regulations for addressing all 

types of sight obstructions at grade crossings with passive warnings. FRA 

should work with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to develop 

model legislation for states to improve safety by addressing sight 

obstructions at grade crossings without automated warning devices. 

FINDINGS 

FRA Has Not Periodically Reviewed the Railroads’ Grade Crossing 

Collision Records and More Can Be Done To Ensure Compliance 

With Mandatory Reporting Requirements 

Railroads are required by Federal law to report every impact, regardless of 

severity, between a railroad’s on-track equipment and any user of a public or 

private grade crossing. Although FRA officials told us that the railroads report 

most grade crossing collisions, as required, our audit work continues to identify 

areas where this did not occur. As a result, there are steps that FRA can take to 

improve safety. Specifically, we found that FRA’s oversight for grade crossing 

safety did not include periodic reviews of railroads’ collision records to ensure the 

railroads had complied with FRA’s mandatory reporting requirements. Without 

such an oversight activity, FRA can not ensure that the 15,416 grade crossing 

collisions the railroads reported from 2001 through 2005 represent all the 

collisions that occurred during those years. In addition, FRA’s oversight does not 

include testing random samples of railroads’ grade crossing collision reports to 

determine whether the information is accurate, timely, and complete. 

Under Federal safety regulations, the railroads are required to report each collision 

to FRA within 30 days of the end of the month in which the collision occurred. 

For instance, a grade crossing collision that occurred on any day in March should 

be reported to FRA by April 30. However, past reviews of grade crossing 

collision reports conducted by FRA, state transportation agencies, and our office 

identified issues with the completeness of FRA’s accident reporting system. 

These reviews identified 12 railroads that did not report 139 collisions to FRA in 

accordance with mandatory reporting requirements. We documented 135 

collisions—involving 2 fatalities and 20 injuries—that were reported from 

2 months to nearly 3 years late to FRA’s accident reporting system and 4 that have 

never been reported. 

 

11 FRA’s grade crossing collision report requires the railroads to document the conditions at a collision scene. The 

report does not require the railroads to identify a primary or secondary cause. 
6

When FRA took enforcement action, it issued 57 violations to 8 of the 12 railroads 

for not complying with its mandatory reporting requirements for grade crossing 

collisions and opted not to issue violations for the other 82 collision reports. 

Specific information about the 139 grade crossing collisions that were not reported 

in accordance with Federal requirements is discussed below. 

• From 1999 through 2001, a Class I freight railroad12 did not report 95 grade 

crossing collisions. These collisions resulted in 2 fatalities and 15 injuries. 

FRA officials conducted a system-wide review of this railroad’s grade 

crossing collision reporting process in August 2001, after a Florida 

transportation official informed FRA of 11 unreported collisions that 

occurred in 1999. Subsequently, FRA issued violations for 20 of the 95 

grade crossing collisions that the railroad had not reported. Because of 

FRA’s practice of bundling or combining multiple violations into one 

enforcement case,13 we could not identify the amount of civil penalties 

assessed and collected that related to grade crossing collision reporting. 

For the remaining 75 grade crossing collisions, FRA did not issue 

additional violations or assess civil penalties. 

• In January 2005, FRA officials conducted another review of the same Class 

I freight railroad cited above and found an additional 29 grade crossing 

collisions that the railroad had not reported to FRA’s accident reporting 

system in 2003 and 2004. These collisions resulted in 2 injuries and no 

fatalities. FRA issued violations and assessed civil penalties for each of the 

29 required collision reports that the railroad had not submitted because it 

had previously issued violations against this railroad for not complying 

with mandatory grade crossing reporting requirements. Again, we could 

not identify the amount of civil penalties the railroad paid because of 

FRA’s practice of bundling violations. 

• In 2003, another Class I freight railroad and two smaller railroads did not 

report five grade crossing collisions in Iowa. These collisions resulted in 

three injuries. An Iowa transportation official, as a result of reviewing 

police accident reports, notified the responsible railroads of the omissions. 

Because these railroads immediately submitted the required grade crossing 

collision reports to FRA when the discrepancies were identified, no 

violations were issued for noncompliance with Federal reporting 

requirements. 

 

12 As of 2006, Class I railroads were freight companies with annual operating revenues in excess of $289.4 million. 13 After violations are issued, FRA employees process the violation reports, combine them into cases, and determine the 

amount of civil penalties to assess for each case. Subsequently, Federal law allows FRA to compromise the amount 

of the civil penalty with each railroad, resulting in the collection of a lower dollar payment. 
7

• In 2005, we identified 10 grade crossing collisions that had occurred in 

Illinois in 2003, but had never been reported to FRA. We identified these 

unreported collisions by comparing motor vehicle accident reports filed by 

local police departments to data in FRA’s accident reporting system. After 

we informed FRA of these unreported grade crossing collisions, it issued 

violations against seven railroads for not reporting eight grade crossing 

collisions, as required by Federal law. FRA did not issue violations for the 

other two collisions. 

Further, for one Class I railroad, FRA officials identified problems with the 

accuracy of injury data in grade crossing reports submitted from January 2005 

through July 2006. In November 2006, FRA officials found an unusually low 

number of injuries reported for grade crossing collisions involving this railroad 

when the train and/or motor vehicle were traveling in excess of 35 miles per 

hour—no injuries were reported for 154 collisions. FRA officials concluded that 

this railroad was not adequately seeking or collecting injury information. 

Subsequently, FRA issued one safety violation to this railroad for failing to have 

an adequate procedure for determining the extent of injuries to highway users 

involved in grade crossing collisions. 

Accurate, timely, and complete reporting of grade crossing collisions serves an 

important purpose of identifying safety problems so appropriate corrective actions 

can be taken. Further, by ensuring that every grade crossing collision is reported 

on time, FRA and states will have access to critical data for identifying dangerous 

grade crossings and emerging accident trends. Complete information on grade 

crossing collisions is also essential for state transportation officials who must 

decide where to spend Federal funds set-aside annually for crossing safety 

improvements. For example, after written reports for the five unreported grade 

crossing collisions in Iowa were submitted to FRA, the Iowa Department of 

Transportation used the information provided by the railroads as the basis for 

allocating funds for safety improvements at two of the five grade crossings. If 

those unreported collisions had not been identified, it is likely that safety 

improvements would not have been made to these two dangerous crossings. 

At the time of our fieldwork, FRA did not (1) have an action plan for reviewing 

the railroads’ grade crossing collision records, (2) conduct periodic reviews of the 

railroads’ grade crossing collision records to assess their compliance with 

mandatory reporting requirements, or (3) test random samples of the railroads’ 

grade crossing collision reports to determine whether the information reported is 

accurate, timely, and complete. When we inquired about FRA’s actions to 

identify unreported collisions, FRA did not advise us that it had developed a plan 

for reviewing the railroads’ grade crossing collision records. However, after we 
8

issued our March 2007 draft report, FRA provided us excerpts from a National 

Safety Program Plan for reviewing railroads’ grade crossing collision records. 

FRA has yet to provide us a complete copy for review. 

Further, FRA has not consistently issued a violation and assessed a civil penalty 

each time a railroad failed to report a grade crossing collision in accordance with 

Federal requirements. FRA needs to strengthen its oversight activities to ensure 

that railroads comply with Federal safety laws to report each grade crossing 

collision. 

FRA Has No Assurance That Sight Obstructions Are Addressed in 

States That Lack Laws, but It Can Do More To Address This Safety 

Issue 

Our analysis of grade crossing collision reports and related audit work found that 

greater attention is needed to ensure that highway users have a full view of 

approaching trains at the Nation’s grade crossings. When grade crossings are not 

protected by automated warning devices, it is imperative that highway users have 

a clear view of approaching trains to determine when it is safe to cross. As 

illustrated in Figure 1, vegetation growth at grade crossings can significantly 

reduce a motorist’s ability to see the track and approaching trains. 

Figure 1. Photographs of Highway Users’ Line of Sight at a 

Grade Crossing Before and After Vegetation Was Cleared 

Highway Users’ View 

Before Clearing Vegetation

Highway Users’ View 

After Clearing Vegetation 

Source: Illinois Commerce Commission* 

*The State of Illinois requires every rail carrier to remove all brush, shrubbery, and trees from its right-of-way 

for a distance of at least 500 feet in either direction of a grade crossing. 

Based on FRA data, sight obstructions can be a contributing factor in grade 

crossing collisions. Of the 15,416 grade crossing reports submitted by the 

railroads from 2001 through 2005, 689 documented a sight obstruction. The 
9

reported sight obstructions included permanent structures (175), standing railroad 

equipment (82), passing trains (51), topography (76), vegetation (142), highway 

vehicles (53), and other obstructions (110). These 689 collisions resulted in 

87 fatalities and 242 injuries. 

Nationwide, there are nearly 76,000 public grade crossings that are not protected 

with automated warning devices. Currently, FRA regulations only require the 

railroads to address vegetation growth at these public crossings—as opposed to all 

types of sight obstructions—and only to the extent that vegetation reduces the 

visibility of railroad signs and signals. Further, as of March 2007, only 13 states 

had passed laws or issued regulations that address all types of sight obstructions at 

grade crossings.14 In the 37 states without such laws or regulations, highway users 

must rely on property owners to voluntarily comply with guidance from FHWA 

and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials and 

the policies and practices implemented by individual railroad companies. 

For the states that lack laws or regulations for addressing sight obstructions at 

grade crossings that are not protected with automated warning devices, such as 

gates and lights, more needs to be done. For those 37 states, immediate safety 

benefits could be achieved if laws were established to address all types of sight 

obstructions, such as structures that block highway users’ view of approaching 

trains and overgrown vegetation. Although guidelines to address sight 

obstructions exist at the national level, they are not enough. FRA should work 

with FHWA to develop model legislation for states to address sight obstructions at 

grade crossings that are equipped solely with signs, pavement markings, and other 

passive warnings. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

We recommend that FRA: 

1. Strengthen safety oversight by ensuring that the railroads comply with 

mandatory requirements to report each grade crossing collision to FRA’s 

accident reporting system by: 

a. Developing and implementing an action plan for conducting periodic 

reviews of the grade crossing collision records maintained by each 

railroad, including promptly notifying the responsible railroads when 

unreported collisions are identified. 

 

14 As of March 2007, 41 states had laws or regulations that address vegetation growth, but only 13 of these states had 

laws or regulations that address all types of sight obstructions. 
10

b. Testing random samples of the railroads’ grade crossing collision 

reports to determine whether the information is accurate, timely, and 

complete, including comparing such reports to those generated by local 

law enforcement agencies. 

c. Issuing a violation and assessing a civil penalty each time a railroad 

fails to submit a grade crossing collision report in accordance with 

Federal requirements, on a consistent basis. Moreover, FRA should 

assess higher civil penalties against each railroad that repeatedly fails to 

report crossing collisions. 

2. Work with FHWA to develop model legislation for states to improve safety by 

addressing sight obstructions at grade crossings that are equipped solely with 

signs, pavement markings, and other passive warnings. 

AGENCY COMMENTS AND OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

RESPONSE 

A draft of this report was provided to FRA for comment on March 22, 2007. On 

April 16, 2007, FRA provided us with its formal response, which is contained in 

its entirety in the Appendix. As a general point, in its response FRA stated that it 

has “no general mandate to oversee safety at the Nation’s highway-rail grade 

crossings.” Instead, FRA views grade crossing safety as “a shared, intermodal, 

and intergovernmental challenge.” We find this statement puzzling, since FRA is 

the Department’s central point of contact for rail safety. For example, the 

Secretary designated FRA as the lead for developing the Department’s 1994 and 

2004 action plans for grade crossing safety. We are, however, encouraged by 

FRA’s concluding remarks that it is prepared to do its part in addressing the 

challenges of grade crossing safety. 

Recommendation 1a: FRA did not specifically state that it concurred or 

disagreed with our recommendation to strengthen safety oversight by ensuring that 

the railroads comply with mandatory requirements to report each grade crossing 

collision to FRA’s accident reporting system. However, FRA stated that it has 

already taken actions to develop and implement an action plan, specifically the 

National Safety Program Plan, for conducting periodic reviews of the railroads’ 

grade crossing collision records. 

OIG Response: FRA actions to initiate its National Safety Program Plan 

generally meet the intent of our recommendation. However, since FRA did not 

inform us that it had developed this plan for reviewing railroads’ grade crossing 

collision records or provide us with a copy of the plan when we inquired about 

actions to identify unreported collisions, this recommendation will remain 
11

unresolved until FRA provides us a copy of its complete National Safety Program 

Plan for our review. 

Recommendation 1b: FRA generally agreed with this recommendation and 

stated that it “seeks further consultation regarding means of implementation as 

experience in working with available resources is gained.” 

OIG Response: Although FRA generally agreed with this recommendation, we 

do not consider its comments responsive. First, FRA’s comment regarding the 

need for further experience is unclear. Second, FRA did not state what testing will 

be done. Instead, FRA states what it has already done and what it “can and should 

require,” but did not provide any specific information regarding exactly what will 

be done or the timetable for completion. FRA also referred to a pilot study that 

addressed the feasibility of collecting independent information to corroborate the 

railroads’ reporting of grade crossing collisions. The pilot study began in 

April 2006 and was anticipated to take 12 months. However, as of April 2007, 

FRA had not issued those results. We continue to believe that FRA should not 

totally rely upon the railroads’ self-certification of grade crossing collision reports. 

Accordingly, we request that FRA reconsider its response and provide specific 

actions for testing samples of the railroads’ grade crossing collision records to 

determine whether the information is accurate, timely, and complete, including a 

target date for implementing this recommendation. 

Recommendation 1c: FRA generally concurred with this recommendation, but 

stated some reservations about assessing civil penalties on small railroads. 

OIG Response: Although FRA generally agreed with the intent of the first part of 

our recommendation, it did not propose any new actions or address the second part 

of the recommendation calling for assessing higher civil penalties for railroads that 

repeatedly fail to report grade crossing collisions. Accordingly, we request that 

FRA provide target dates for amending its regulation and related guidance for 

issuing violation reports for failures to report grade crossing collisions. We also 

request that FRA reconsider its response and provide specific actions, including a 

target completion date, for assessing higher civil penalties when railroads 

repeatedly fail to submit grade crossing collision reports. 

Recommendation 2: FRA supports the intent of our recommendation and stated 

that it will work with FHWA to develop model legislation for states to improve 

safety by addressing sight obstructions at grade crossings with passive warning 

signs. 
12

OIG Response: FRA’s response meets the intent of our recommendation. 

However, we request that FRA provide a target date for developing and 

distributing model legislation to the states. 

ACTIONS REQUIRED 

In accordance with DOT Order 8000.1C, we request that FRA provide us with 

additional information and target completion dates on all of our recommendations, 

as discussed above, within 30 calendar days from the date of this report. 

We appreciate the courtesies and cooperation of FRA representatives during this 

audit. If you have any questions concerning this report, please call me at 

(202) 366-5630 or Brenda R. James, Program Director, at (202) 366-0202. 
13

EXHIBIT A. OBJECTIVE, SCOPE, METHODOLOGY, AND PRIOR 

AUDIT COVERAGE 

Objective, Scope, and Methodology 

The objective of this audit was to assess the adequacy of FRA’s oversight of the 

railroads’ reporting of grade crossing collisions, as required by Federal laws. To 

accomplish this objective, we reviewed and analyzed Federal and state laws, 

regulations, policies, procedures, guidance, and other relevant information to 

understand FRA’s requirements for reporting grade crossing collisions. We 

conducted audit work at FRA Headquarters in Washington, D.C., by analyzing its 

Railroad Accident/Incident Reporting System15 to determine whether the 

information was accurate, timely, and complete and in compliance with Federal 

reporting requirements. To identify trends, we analyzed FRA’s public and private 

grade crossing collision data from 2001 through 2005. From January through 

August 2006, we temporarily suspended our work on this project to devote 

resources to our audit of emergency repair contracts awarded by the Mississippi 

Department of Transportation after Hurricane Katrina. 

We also conducted audit work through state transportation departments in Florida, 

Illinois, and Iowa. With their cooperation, we identified grade crossing collisions 

that were not reported to FRA from 1999 through 2004. We visited the four 

largest railroads—Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) in Fort Worth, 

Texas; CSX Transportation (CSX) in Jacksonville, Florida; Norfolk Southern 

Corporation (NS) in Norfolk, Virginia; and Union Pacific Railroad (UP) in 

Omaha, Nebraska. We met with the appropriate railroad representatives and 

discussed their roles and responsibilities, requirements, processes, and training 

programs for collision reporting. We used the information obtained to identify 

weaknesses and to assess compliance with Federal requirements for reporting 

grade crossing collisions. 

We conducted this performance audit from September 2004 through March 2007, 

in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards 

prescribed by the Comptroller General of the United States. It was conducted as 

part of the overall audit effort that resulted in our report on the “Audit of 

Oversight of Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Accident Reporting, Investigations, 

and Safety Regulations,” which was issued on November 28, 2005. 

 

15 This system collects data the railroads are required to report on grade crossing collisions, fatalities, and injuries and 

information on other rail-related accidents/incidents. 

Exhibit A. Objective, Scope, Methodology, and Prior Audit 

Coverage 
14

Prior Audit Coverage 

OIG Report Number RT-1999-140, “Rail-Highway Grade Crossing Safety,” 

September 30, 1999, disclosed that the Department’s efforts had reduced the 

number and the rate of grade crossing collisions and fatalities during the first 

5 years of the 1994 Action Plan. However, to make further progress, the OIG 

recommended that FRA focus on proven cost-effective strategies, improve the 

program’s collision and inventory data, and better monitor state spending of 

Federal funds. 

On June 16, 2004, we issued follow-up Report Number MH-2004-065, “HighwayRail Grade Crossing Safety Program.” We reported that the Department came 

close to meeting its 1994 Action Plan goal of fewer than 2,500 grade crossing 

collisions and 300 fatalities at the end of 2003. Much of this progress largely was 

attributable to addressing the “low-hanging fruit,” such as upgrading crossings 

with automatic gates and flashing lights. To achieve further improvements, we 

recommended that the Department adopt a targeted approach that focuses on states 

and public crossings that continued to have the most collisions. 

On November 28, 2005, we issued Report Number MH-2006-016, “Audit of 

Oversight of Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Accident Reporting, Investigations, 

and Safety Regulations.” We reported that railroads failed to immediately notify 

the National Response Center of 21 percent of reportable grade crossing collisions, 

the Federal Government investigated only 9 of the 3,045 collisions that occurred 

in 2004, and FRA recommended only 347 violations for the 7,490 critical safety 

defects it identified. Given the 2004 increase in collisions and fatalities, we 

recommended that FRA take a proactive oversight approach by clarifying its 

reporting requirements, collecting and analyzing independent grade crossing 

collision data, and increasing enforcement of existing safety regulations in the 

areas that posed the greatest threat to public safety. 

Exhibit A. Objective, Scope, Methodology, and Prior Audit 

Coverage 
15

EXHIBIT B. ACTIVITIES VISITED OR CONTACTED 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Office of the Associate Administrator for Safety 

State Agencies 

Department of Transportation 

Florida Illinois Iowa 

Railroads 

Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company 

CSX Transportation 

Norfolk Southern Corporation 

Union Pacific Railroad 

Exhibit B. Activities Visited or Contacted 
16

EXHIBIT C. NUMBER OF REPORTED GRADE CROSSING 

COLLISIONS, FATALITIES, AND INJURIES FOR CALENDAR 

YEARS 1995 THROUGH 2005 

Year Collisions Fatalities Injuries 

1995 4,633 579 1,894 

1996 4,257 488 1,610 

1997 3,865 461 1,540 

1998 3,508 431 1,303 

1999 3,489 402 1,396 

2000 3,502 425 1,219 

2001 3,237 421 1,157 

2002 3,077 357 999 

2003 2,977 334 1,035 

2004 3,075 372 1,090 

2005 3,050 357 1,012 

Total Percentage of 

Change 

From 1995 to 2005 

-34 -38 -47 

Source: FRA 

Exhibit C. Number of Reported Grade Crossing Collisions, 

Fatalities, and Injuries for Calendar Years 1995 Through 2005 
17

EXHIBIT D. U. S. MAP OF THE NUMBER OF REPORTED 

COLLISIONS AND FATALITIES AT GRADE CROSSINGS BY 

STATE IN 2005 

2

AZ

39

2

UT

18

3

MT

20

0

WY

1

4

NM

20

6

CO

36

16

AL

113 23

TX

323

9

MN

65

10

MS

79

1

O R

27

22

CA

148

1

NV

4

0

AK

2

1

6

8

2

12

7

6

20

8

17

6

13

31

5

21 8

12

17

7

9

6

2 1

1

ID

23

WA

57

ND

18

SD

18

NE

50

KS

63

O K

64

LA

131

AR

72

MO

64

IA

77

WI

84

IL

180

MI

96

IN

175

O H

134

GA

130

FL

103

KY

86

SC

75

NC

67

VA

51

WV

35 MD

19

5

13

0

0 0

PA

80

NY

43

ME

5

VT

4

NH

2

1

2

DE

8

NJ

44

1

0

3

MA

11

RI

1

CT

6

1

0

MD

19

DC

0

0

HI

1

Fatalities

Collisions

0-16 Fatalities

17-31 Fatalities

7

(43 States & DC)

(7 States)

TN 78

Source: OIG Analysis of FRA Data 

Exhibit D. U. S. Map of the Number of Reported Collisions and 

Fatalities at Grade Crossings by State in 2005 
18

EXHIBIT E. MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT 

THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS CONTRIBUTED TO THIS REPORT.

Name Title 

Brenda R. James Program Director 

Wendy M. Harris Project Manager 

Audrey L. White Senior Analyst 

Thomas E. Lehrich Chief Counsel 

Harriet E. Lambert Writer-Editor 

Exhibit E. Major Contributors to This Report 
19

APPENDIX. FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION COMMENTS 

Memorandum

U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Date April 16, 2007 

Subject: Response to Draft Audit on Highway-Rail Grade Crossings 

Project No. 06M3003M000 

From: Joseph H. Boardman 

Administrator 

To: Kurt W. Hyde 

Assistant Inspector General 

For Surface and Maritime Programs 

Thank you for your memorandum of March 22, 2007, transmitting the draft report in the 

subject audit. We at the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) appreciate the diligent 

work that has gone into this report. 

I do want to caution that FRA has no general mandate to “oversee safety at the Nation’s 

highway-rail grade crossings.” Grade crossing safety is a shared, intermodal and 

intergovernmental challenge, including: 

• Investments in grade separations and traffic control devices and proper 

engineering of highways at grade crossing locations; 

• Enactment of suitable laws governing vehicle operator and pedestrian behavior; 

• Training of motorists during the licensure process so that they know how to 

negotiate grade crossings safely; and 

• Enforcement of laws governing road user behavior. 

Appendix. Federal Railroad Administration Comments 
20

Appendix. Federal Railroad Administration Comments 

Nevertheless, given that reducing collisions at grade crossings is of utmost importance to 

the Nation and to safe rail operations, FRA has stepped forward to be a strong advocate 

for crossing safety within the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the railroad 

community. For instance, with two other modal administrations, we provide funding to 

Operation Lifesaver, Inc. (OLI), for public education and awareness, and FRA personnel 

serve as OLI trainers and presenters. FRA also has been instrumental in assembling the 

elements of Secretarial Grade Crossing Action Plans in 1994 and 2004. 

The FRA does carry a number of very specific and important responsibilities for 

ensuring that railroads do their part in grade crossing safety. FRA initiated the focus on 

the use of train horns at highway-rail crossings by issuing Emergency Order No. 15, and 

we have issued a final rule requiring use of the horn nationwide, except where criteria for 

quiet zones are met. We enforce regulations requiring the inspection, testing, and 

maintenance of grade crossing warning devices (which are maintained by the railroads 

for the States and local governments) that require effective warning at least 20 seconds 

before a train enters the crossing and that mandate prompt action when a crossing system 

malfunctions. We have previously required that locomotives be highly visible when 

approaching crossings (through the use of alerting lights), and railroads and car owners 

are presently applying retroreflective material to all freight rolling stock under an FRA 

rule so that trains already on a crossing can be clearly identified, even during hours of 

darkness or inclement weather. FRA’s Track Safety Standards also require that 

vegetation on railroad property be removed or trimmed back if it could block preview of 

grade crossing signage. FRA carefully investigates any allegation that the breach of a 

duty owed by a railroad under FRA regulations or railroad operating rules may have been 

the cause of a grade crossing collision; and, if breach of a duty is shown, we seek to take 

whatever actions are appropriate to prevent a recurrence. 

Apropos the instant topic, FRA requires railroads to report every impact at a grade 

crossing, regardless of consequences, and thereby assembles the primary database relied 

upon by the DOT, States, the research community, and others to assess and analyze 

grade crossing safety. This database is an important element of the Railroad 

Accident/Incident Reporting System, details of which are available to the public 24 hours 

a day through our SafetyData Web page. 

Findings and Recommendations Regarding Accident/Incident Reporting 

The draft report, which we have had under discussion jointly for several months, finds 

that FRA could do more to ensure mandatory compliance with grade crossing collision 

reporting requirements. In fact, FRA has already taken the lessons from this audit and is 

committed to a sustained effort. 
21

Appendix. Federal Railroad Administration Comments 

We have pointed out to OIG staff that, even prior to the vigorous reviews conducted on 

major railroads over the last 2 years, the likely outside limit for unreported collisions was 

on the order of 4 percent; and nothing in the current draft report would cause us to 

rethink that conclusion. We have further pointed out that the RAIRS data is consistently 

more complete and accurate with respect to crossing fatalities than its only public source 

equivalent (the Fatal Accident Reporting System). Nevertheless, with the information 

from participating States and OIG, we have concluded that diversion of additional staff 

hours from other work is warranted in order to more effectively ensure, insofar as is 

possible, that each collision and resulting casualty is reported. 

I am disappointed that the draft report did not refer to the action FRA has taken during 

the period of this audit. Our staff has worked diligently to determine railroad 

compliance with reporting requirements for incidents at highway-rail crossings. At this 

late date, it is simply erroneous to state that “Currently, FRA does not ... have an action 

plan for periodic reviews of the railroads’ grade crossing collision records” or to 

“conduct periodic reviews.” Please see attached excerpts from our National Safety 

Program Plan (NSPP). 

It is true that our current written plans do not include an element to “test samples” to 

determine the accuracy of data elements on the form; however, in fairness this was first 

proposed to FRA in the version of the draft report to which we now respond, likely 

based on techniques employed and findings made by FRA in auditing a railroad in 

November 2006. 

Your office deserves great credit for keeping these issues to the fore, and FRA’s safety 

program deserves credit for taking necessary actions. 

Our responses to your set of recommendations on this topic are interlineated below: 

OIG Recommendation: 

“Strengthen safety oversight by ensuring that the railroads comply with 

mandatory requirements to report each grade crossing collision to FRA’s accident 

reporting system by: 

“a. Developing and implementing an action plan for conducting periodic 

reviews of the grade crossing collision records maintained by each railroad, 

including promptly notifying the responsible railroads when unreported 

collisions are identified.” 
22

Appendix. Federal Railroad Administration Comments 

Response: After coordination with OIG staff, and effective this fiscal year, FRA 

put in place, as part of its NSPP, a multiyear planning process to review the 

records of major railroads not less than once every 3 years and with greater 

frequency, as necessary, to bring about corrective action for any significant 

deficiencies detected. This formalizes a process that has been in place since 

2005. We also have initiated reviews of commuter railroads and major regional 

railroads, with the objective to cover each at least once every 5 years (again with 

followup as needed). Excerpts from the NSPP are excerpted in the attachment. 

Additional guidance will be issued for FY 2008 to ensure that each region is 

following a parallel course. Railroads scheduled for periodic reviews under the 

NSPP together account for a very high percentage of crossing collisions, fatalities 

and injuries. FRA will continue to look at records of short line and tourist 

railroads as resources permit, in connection with the normal inspection and 

oversight process. 

“b. Testing samples of the railroads’ grade crossing collision reports to 

determine whether the information is accurate, timely, and complete, 

including comparing such reports to those generated by local law 

enforcement agencies.” 

Response: FRA generally agrees with this recommendation and seeks further 

consultation regarding means of implementation as experience in working with 

available resources is gained. 

The FRA has automated routines in place that are used by the database contractor 

to determine insofar as possible that reports are filed timely, that data within a 

report is consistent, and that data among the several primary reports (forms 

6180.57, 6180.54, 6180.55, etc.) are consistent. Reports found to have apparent 

errors or omissions are returned to the railroad for correction. 

During FRA audits of railroad reporting, exemplary records have been selected 

for audits to determine consistency among source records on the railroad. In the 

example cited in the OIG draft report, a set of records involving train speeds of 

35 mph or above was selected for more detailed examination to ascertain if 

casualties occurred that were not reported, based upon an unexpected absence of 

casualties in the subject data set. FRA will continue to seek to apply this type of 

sampling technique as it goes forward with railroad reporting reviews. 

As suggested by previous drafts of this report, FRA has encouraged participating 

and nonparticipating States to join with us in using police reports to verify that 

railroad reports are made and to identify any material discrepancies, including 
23

Appendix. Federal Railroad Administration Comments 

identification of any apparent injuries in the event. It should be noted that 

reconciliation of each of these data elements may not be feasible within existing 

resources. (For instance, under the reporting system, the injury must be followed 

up and reported only if medical treatment is provided, while a responding police 

officer will often only know that the vehicle occupant was transported to a 

hospital and may not be aware in some cases that only first aid or observation 

was ordered.) 

In the previous OIG audit report titled “Audit of Oversight of Highway-Rail 

Grade Crossing Accident Reporting, Investigations, and Safety Regulations,” 

dated November 28, 2005, you recommended that FRA: 

Collect and analyze independent information on crossing collisions 

(including event recorder data and accident reports) from railroads and 

local or state law enforcement agencies, using a pilot program. The pilot 

should be conducted in the States that have the most grade crossing 

accidents year after year and designed to collect information that will 

allow FRA to evaluate the cause of collisions, type of warnings in place, 

and railroads’ compliance with Federal safety regulations for each crossing 

fatality. 

In response to that recommendation, FRA structured a study that involves at least 

one State from each of FRA’s eight regions, including the States with the most 

crossings and collisions. State agencies have obtained and provided police 

reports, and State rail agencies that conduct their own investigations of these 

events have provided copies of the reports. These independent source documents 

have been compared with forms 6180.57 and related forms for the same events to 

determine (1) that all events have been reported and (2) that data contained on the 

form 6180.57 is accurate, including information bearing on the cause of the event. 

Although FRA is still completing the report of that pilot study, the following 

tentative conclusions have been reached: 

• For the great majority of police reports, matching forms 6180.57 

were filed. 

• There appears to be no pattern of discrepancies evident from the 

reports (e.g., no indication that railroads have misrepresented the 

events in question). 

• In general, the 6180.57 forms provided more useful detail, although 

in some cases police report narratives shed additional light on 

motorist behavior. 
24

Appendix. Federal Railroad Administration Comments 

Nevertheless, FRA agrees that when conducting onsite reviews of samples of 

railroad reports (6108.57 forms), FRA can and should require production of the 

matching police reports. 

“c. Issuing a violation and assessing a civil penalty each time a railroad fails 

to submit a grade crossing collision report in accordance with Federal 

requirements, on a consistent basis. Moreover, FRA should assess higher 

civil penalties against each railroad that repeatedly fails to report crossing 

collisions.” 

Response: FRA generally concurs in this recommendation, with the reservations 

expressed below. 

In mid-2004, the Acting Associate Administrator for Safety issued a verbal 

instruction that each clear-cut violation of an accident/incident reporting 

obligation—whether it related to a crossing collision, employee injury, or train 

accident—should, absent special circumstances, be the subject of a proposed civil 

penalty. The subject OIG report reflects that this policy has generally taken hold. 

However, it should be noted that use of civil penalty authority is subject to the 

general guidance contained in Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 

209, Appendix A, which specifies criteria to be applied in making these 

determinations, and Appendix C, which addresses small entities as required by 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (SBREFA). So, for example, should an FRA inspector encounter a 

single mistaken failure of a small railroad to report a grade crossing collision 

(e.g., out of confusion with the monetary threshold required for rail equipment 

accident/incidents), and should the railroad immediately file a report as required, 

FRA might omit use of a civil penalty out of deference to the congressional 

policy related to small entities and in recognition of the fact that the 

circumstances are unlikely to be repeated. 

The FRA does agree that accident/incident reporting is so fundamental to the 

system of railroad safety oversight and program development that strong 

emphasis on enforcement is warranted when noncompliance is detected. 

Accordingly, FRA will amend Part 209, the General Manual, and the Operating 

Practices Compliance Manual to make obligatory the submission of violation 

reports for each detected violation of 49 CFR Part 225, when the violation in 

question is a clear-cut failure to report (i.e., not involving any question with 

regard to interpretation of the regulation or sufficiency of the facts constituting 
25

Appendix. Federal Railroad Administration Comments 

the alleged failure), subject to application of SBREFA-mandated considerations 

where relevant. 

The FRA has the right to cite a railroad for each day a violation continues. This 

can represent a potentially very high liability for each accident/incident not timely 

reported. FRA will utilize this mechanism (citing for multiple days) to assess 

more substantial penalties where railroad conduct is persistent and without 

substantial justification. 

Finding and Recommendation Regarding Crossing Sight Distances 

The report finds that “FRA has no assurance that sight distances are maintained in States 

that lack laws, but it can do more to address this safety issue.” Once again, it is 

necessary to remind OIG that FRA does not have general authority or responsibility for 

grade crossing safety. Traffic control authorities at the State and local levels need to 

select traffic control devices that are suitable, given all circumstances at the crossing, 

including sight distances. A majority of States can and do try to ensure suitable sight 

distances by requiring removal of vegetation. 

Certainly, FRA’s reporting system gathers information regarding sight distance 

obstructions in crossing accidents because this can be important for safety. Obstructions 

can be permanent or temporary in nature (e.g., buildings, seasonal vegetation). They 

may occur on railroad property, private property, or public property abutting the 

crossing. They may be found at crossings where they are highly relevant to motorist 

behavior, because the traffic authority has provided only passive signage, or they may 

be of questionable concern because motorist behavior is unequivocally directed by 

traffic control devices, particularly flashing lights and gates. Obstructions may be 

objects to which society attaches great value (well-maintained improvements to 

property, mature trees of aesthetic value and trees relied upon as windbreaks to protect 

topsoil), or they may be of no intrinsic value. 

The FRA is in a position to address a very small segment of the issues associated with 

sight distances at crossings. It is interesting to note that of the 689 sight obstructions 

mentioned (accounting for less than 5 percent of the collisions for the study period), 

only standing rail equipment (82) and vegetation (142) are conditions that are 

realistically under the railroad’s control, and it is not feasible to avoid some compromise 

of sight distances with respect to standing rail equipment in every case. 

However, with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and other DOT modes, 

we have contributed to the development of suitable guidance regarding how adequate 

sight distance might be determined, and the results are published as a report of the 
26

Appendix. Federal Railroad Administration Comments 

Department’s Technical Working Group, titled “Guidance on Traffic Control Devices at 

Highway-Rail Grade Crossings” (November 2002). We are prepared to play a 

constructive role as part of the larger intermodal and intergovernmental grade crossing 

team to further advance this area of work. 

Your specific recommendation and our response follow: 

OIG Recommendation: 

“We recommend that FRA work with FHWA to develop model legislation for 

States to improve safety by addressing sight distances at grade crossings that are 

equipped solely with signs, pavement markings, and other passive warnings.” 

Response: FRA supports the intent of this recommendation. FRA will work with 

FHWA to develop model State legislation addressing sight distances at grade crossings 

equipped with passive warning signs. Such model legislation would be developed using 

existing State statutes as a guide and would be distributed to all States with the goal that 

they consider the legislation and take appropriate action as a result. 

Conclusion 

Once again, I want to compliment the OIG staff for diligence and creativity in 

approaching the issues involved in this and prior audits regarding grade crossing safety. 

Although there is no single entity at the Federal, State, or local level that is capable of 

addressing every area of concern unilaterally, each element of Government and each 

private entity implicated in the challenge of grade crossing safety should be willing to 

take the next steps that will be required to address growing populations, rising motor 

vehicles miles, and growing rail operations. FRA is prepared to do its part. 

# 
27

Appendix. Federal Railroad Administration Comments 

Attachment 

Excerpt from National Safety Program Plan, FY 2007 

Project Number: HQ-OP-04-07 

Name of Project: Part 225 System Audits (Accident/Incident Reporting) 

Time Frame: From: October 1, 2006 

To: September 30, 2007 

Brief description of proposed project, including purpose: FRA HQ is planning to 

arrange comprehensive Part 225 audits on the following Class I railroads during FY 

2007: 

1. CSX Transportation (CSX): Jacksonville, FL–October 2-6, 2006, and November 

13-17, 2006. 

2. Amtrak: Washington, DC–January 15-26, 2007. 

3. NS Railway: 

Decatur, IL–Illinois Division, March 5-9, 2007; 

Fort Wayne, IN–Lake Division, April 2-6, 2007; 

Roanoke, VA–Pocahantas Division, May 7-11, 2007; 

Roanoke, VA–System Reporting Office, June 4-8, 2007; 

Norfolk, VA–System Occupational Health Office, June 11-15, 2007. 

To address the Office of Inspector General (OIG) audit recommendations, FRA has 

commenced a cyclical review of highway-rail grade crossing accident/incident reporting 

by the major railroads and will maintain a maximum interval between the reviews of not 

more than 3 years. FRA also will conduct followup reviews as indicated. Beginning in 

2007, each FRA region also will specify in its segment of the NSPP the Class II 

railroads and commuter railroads on which it will conduct reviews during the period and 

will conduct a review on each railroad at least every 5 years. 

Brief description of reasons for the project: To determine whether or not 

accidents/incidents are being properly reported. Since FRA’s inspection focus is data 

driven, the accident/incident data reported to FRA by the Nation’s railroads must be 

accurate. 

Total and regional resources needed: Five to seven inspectors per project. Inspectors 

are requested from the regions where the specific railroad operates. 
28

Appendix. Federal Railroad Administration Comments 

FRA HQ Part 225 Audits 

 FY 2006 FY 2007 

 (See Above)

FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010

Union Pacific (UP) – 

Completed 11/10/05 

UP – TBD KCS – TBD UP – TBD

 

Canadian National (CN) –

Completed 2/17/06 

CN – TBD CSX – TBD CN – TBD 

Canadian Pacific (CP) –

Completed 3/3/06 

CP – TBD Amtrak – 

TBD 

CP – TBD 

BNSF Railway (BNSF) –

Completed 6/30/06 

BNSF – TBD NS – TBD BNSF – TBD 

Kansas City Southern (KCS) – 

Completed 8/11/06 

Region 1 Class II and Commuter Railroads 

 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011

Port Authority Trans Hudson 

(PATH) – Completed 11/13/06 

Mass Bay Commuter 

Railroad (MBAX) – 

TBD 

Pan Am Railways 

– TBD 

(CRSH) – TBD PATH – TBD 

New Jersey Transit (NJTR) – 

04/16/07 

Long Island Rail Road 

(LI) – TBD 

Providence & 

Worcester (PW) – 

TBD 

Buffalo & 

Pittsburg (BP) – 

TBD 

NJTR – TBD 

Conrail Shared Assets (CRSH) 

– 6/11/07 

New York & Atlantic 

(NYA) – TBD 

New York 

Susquehanna & 

Western (NYSW) 

– TBD 

New England 

Central (NECR) 

– TBD 

MMA – TBD 

Maine, Montreal & Atlantic 

(MMA) – 06/18/07 

Metro North Railroad 

(MNCW) – TBD 

Region 2 Class II and Commuter Railroads 

 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010

Wheeling and Lake Erie (WE) – 

3/2006 

Reading Blue 

Mountain and Northern 

(RBNW) – 3/2007 

Southeastern 

Pennsylvania 

Transportation 

(SEPTA) – TBD 

MARC (MTA) 

– TBD 

RBNW – TBD 

Virginia Railway 

Express (VRE) – TBD 

WE – TBD 
29

Appendix. Federal Railroad Administration Comments 

Conrail Shared Assets 

(CRSH) – TBD 

Region 3 Class II and Commuter Railroads 

FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 

Florida East Coast 

(FEC) – TBD 

Paducah & Louisville (PAL) PAL – TBD 

Tri-Rail (SFRTA) – 

TBD 

NC/ATK (ATK) – 

TBD 

Nashville & Eastern (NERR) NERR – TBD 

Region 4 Class II and Commuter Railroads 

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 

Elgin, Joliet, & Eastern Railway 

Co. (EJE) 

Northern Indiana 

Commuter 

Transportation District 

(NICD) – TBD 

Conrail Shared 

Assets (CRSH) 

– TBD 

Belt Railway of 

Chicago (BRC) 

– TBD 

Dakota, 

Minnesota & 

Eastern (DME) – 

TBD 

Wisconsin & Southern Railroad 

Company (WSOR) 

Northeast Illinois 

Regional Commuter 

District (NIRC/METRA) 

– TBD 

Indiana Harbor 

Belt (IHB) – 

TBD 

Region 5 Class II and Commuter Railroads 

FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 

Trinity Rail Express 

(TRE) 

Port Terminal 

Railroad 

Association 

(PTRA) – TBD 

TRE – TBD 

New Mexico Rail 

Runner Express 

(NMRX) 

NMRX – TBD 
30

Appendix. Federal Railroad Administration Comments 

Region 6 Class II and Commuter Railroads 

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 

Alton & Southern Railway 

Company (ALS) 

Iowa Interstate 

Railroad, Ltd (IAIS) – 

TBD 

ALS – TBD IAIS – TBD 

Iowa Chicago and Eastern 

Railroad Company (ICE) 

Missouri & Northern 

Arkansas Railroad 

Company (MNA) – 

TBD 

ICE – TBD MNA – TBD 

Kansas and Oklahoma Railroad 

Company (KO) 

Terminal Railroad 

Association of St. 

Louis (TRRA) – TBD 

KO – TBD TRRA – TBD 

Kyle Railroad Company 

(KYLE) KYLE – TBD 

Region 7 Class II and Commuter Railroads 

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 

Amtrak – Third Quarter FY 07 ACEX – TBD CORP – TBD ATK – TBD ACEX – TBD

Southern California Regional 

Rail Authority (SCAX) – 

Fourth Quarter FY 07 

NCDX – TBD PCJX – TBD SCAX – TBD NCDX – TBD

Altamont Commuter Express 

Authority (ACEX) 

Central Oregon Pacific Railroad 

(CORP) 

North County Transit District 

(NCDX)

Peninsula Corridor Joint 

Powers Board (PCJX)

Region 8 Class II and Commuter Railroads 

FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010

BNSF Ft. Worth, TX – 6/2006 Alaska Railroad (AAR) 

– Scheduled 9/2007 

DM&E – TBD AAR – TBD DM&E – TBD 

Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern 

(DM&E) – 5/2006 

Sound Transit – 

Scheduled 6/2007 

MRL – TBD Sound Transit – 

TBD 

MRL – TBD 

Montana Rail Link (MRL) – 

9/2006 
31

Section 508 Compliant Presentation 

The following page contains textual version of the graph found in this document. 

This page was not in the original document but has been added here to assist screen 

readers. 
32

Section 508 Compliant Presentation 

The Federal Railroad Administration Can Improve Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety 

Section 508 Compliant Presentation 

Exhibit D. U. S. Map of the Number of Reported Collisions and Fatalities at Grade 

Crossings by State in 2005 

2005 Grade Crossing Data Per State 

# State Collisions Fatalities Injuries 

1 Alabama 113 16 45 

2 Alaska 2 0 0 

3 Arizona 39 2 5 

4 Arkansas 72 8 40 

5 California 148 22 58 

6 Colorado 36 6 18 

7 Connecticut 6 3 2 

8 Delaware 8 1 3 

9 District of Columbia 0 0 0 

10 Florida 103 17 21 

11 Georgia 130 12 18 

12 Hawaii 1 0 0 

13 Idaho 23 1 6 

14 Illinois 180 31 82 

15 Indiana 175 21 26 

16 Iowa 77 6 32 

17 Kansas 63 7 32 

18 Kentucky 86 7 26 

19 Louisiana 131 20 44 

20 Maine 5 0 2 

21 Maryland 19 1 1 

22 Massachusetts 11 1 6 

23 Michigan 96 5 13 

24 Minnesota 65 9 28 

25 Mississippi 79 10 30 

26 Missouri 64 17 31 

27 Montana 20 3 4 

28 Nebraska 50 12 22 

29 Nevada 4 1 0 

30 New Hampshire 2 0 0 
33

Section 508 Compliant Presentation 

31 New Jersey 44 2 11 

32 New Mexico 20 4 7 

33 New York 43 13 10 

34 North Carolina 67 6 34 

35 North Dakota 18 8 4 

36 Ohio 134 8 37 

37 Oklahoma 64 6 34 

38 Oregon 27 1 4 

39 Pennsylvania 80 5 17 

40 Rhode Island 1 0 0 

41 South Carolina 75 9 17 

42 South Dakota 18 2 9 

43 Tennessee 78 7 28 

44 Texas 323 23 143 

45 Utah 18 2 8 

46 Vermont 4 0 3 

47 Virginia 51 2 12 

48 Washington 57 6 14 

49 West Virginia 35 1 4 

50 Wisconsin 84 13 20 

51 Wyoming 1 0 1 

 GRAND TOTAL.... 3,050 357 1,012