Highway-Rail Intersection GPS-Based In-Vehicle 

Warning Systems—Literature Review and 

Recommendations

U.S. Department of 

Transportation

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Office of Research 

and Development

Washington, DC 20590

Safety of Highway-Rail Grade Crossings

DOT/FRA/ORD-12/23 Final Report

December 2012
NOTICE

The United States Government does not endorse products or 

manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely 

because they are considered essential to the objective of this report.

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. 

Any opinions, findings and conclusions, or recommendations expressed in 

this material do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the United 

States Government, nor does mention of trade names, commercial 

products, or organizations imply endorsement by the United States 

Government. The United States Government assumes no liability for the 

content or use of the material contained in this document.
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

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

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

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

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

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

December 2012

3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

Technical Report

July 2008 – May 2010

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Highway-Rail Intersection Intelligent Transportation Systems Global Positioning SystemsLiterature Review and Recommendations

5. FUNDING NUMBERS

RR97A1/FG273

6. AUTHOR(S) RR97A1/HG273

Steven M. Peck and Paul E. Bousquet

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-10-06

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

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration

Office of Research and Development

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

DOT/FRA/ORD-12/23

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Safety of Highway-Rail Grade Crossings series

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)

In 2008, there were 2,395 incidents at highway-rail intersections (level crossings) in the United States, resulting in 939 injuries 

and 287 fatalities. Crossing elimination, grade separation, and the implementation of traditional warning devices are not always 

economically feasible. The development of new intelligent transportation systems and the advancement of such technologies 

could potentially provide a solution to enhance safety at these intersections.

The concept of in-vehicle warning systems for level crossings is not new. Multiple systems have been developed and tested 

using proprietary equipment and technology in the 1990s as evidenced by the former Federal Highway Administration Joint

Program Office (JPO). The Réseau Ferré de France (French Rail Network) and the Valtion Teknillinen Tutkimuskeskus (VTT 

Technical Research Centre of Finland) have independently initiated in-vehicle level crossing warning system development 

programs. The system architectures vary from previously U.S.-developed systems and use advanced and cost-effective 

technologies. At varying stages of development, the two in-vehicle warning system designs address many of the shortcomings of 

previous generation systems and show great promise at meeting the design goals of being a cost-effective, reliable warning 

system. They also have the potential for additional capabilities and easy integration into other roadway vehicle intelligent

transportation safety systems being developed in both the United States and internationally. The advancement of commercially 

available technology and equipment create the environment for the development and deployment of a viable global-positioning 

system-based in-vehicle warning system for highway-rail intersections.

14. SUBJECT TERMS

Highway-rail, grade crossings, in-vehicle warning, Finland, France, Finnish, French, level 

crossing, railroad safety, GPS, global positioning system, navigation system, intelligent 

transportation systems, advanced technology, multimodal integration, highway-rail intersections

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

33

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
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 CONVERSIO

 -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
i

Acknowledgments

The U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) 

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

authors would like to thank Sam Alibrahim, P.E., Office of Research and Development, Chief of 

the Train Control, and Communications Division (FRA) and Tarek Omar, D.Sc., Program 

Manager, Train Control, and Communications Division (FRA) for their guidance and direction in 

developing this report.

The author would also like to acknowledge Marco DaSilva, Highway-Rail Grade Crossing and 

Trespass Safety Research Program Manager, Systems Safety and Engineering Division, U.S. 

DOT Research and Innovative Technology Administration’s John A. Volpe National 

Transportation Systems (Volpe Center), Anya A. Carroll, Principal Investigator of Multimodal 

Surface Transportation Systems, Center of Innovation for Physical Infrastructure Systems, Volpe 

Center, and John McGuiggin, P.E., (former) Chief of the Systems Safety and Engineering

Division, Volpe Center, for their leadership and direction.

Cover photo from Risto Oorni and Ari Virtanen’s In-Vehicle Warning System for Railway Level 

Crossing, VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland [23].
ii

Contents

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

1 Introduction............................................................................................................................. 2

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

1.2 Highway-Rail Intersections in the United States............................................................. 3

2 Previous Highway-Rail Intersection In-Vehicle Warning Systems........................................ 5

2.1 In-Vehicle Warning Systems in the United States........................................................... 5

2.1.1 Minnesota: In-Vehicle Warning ......................................................................... 5

2.1.2 Illinois: Gary-Chicago-Milwaukee Corridor In-Vehicle Warning ..................... 6

2.1.3 IntelliDriveSM ....................................................................................................... 7

2.2 International In-Vehicle Warning Systems...................................................................... 9

2.2.1 France................................................................................................................... 9

2.2.2 Finland ............................................................................................................... 11

3 GPS-Based In-Vehicle Warning Systems............................................................................. 17

3.1 Commercial Off-the-Shelf Systems ................................................................................ 17

3.2 Human Factors Considerations...................................................................................... 19

4 Conclusions and Recommendations..................................................................................... 20

5 References............................................................................................................................. 23

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

Illustrations

Figure 1. In-Vehicle Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Warning [10]............................................... 6

Figure 2. Gary-Chicago-Milwaukee Corridor In-Vehicle Warning Device [2] ............................ 7

Figure 3. U.S. DOT IntelliDriveSM Logo [13]............................................................................... 7

Figure 4. High-Level VII System Architecture [16]...................................................................... 8

Figure 5. RFF Level Crossing Data Set Website [16] ................................................................. 11

Figure 6. Finnish Rail Network (RHK) [20]................................................................................ 12

Figure 7. Finnish In-Vehicle Warning System Architecture [22]................................................ 13

Figure 8. Roadway In-Vehicle Device Query Sequence Diagram [23]....................................... 15

Figure 9. Commercial In-Vehicle Navigation Displays. ............................................................. 17
iv

Tables

Table 1. Count and Type of Highway-Rail Intersections in the United States (2008).................. 3

Table 2. Count by Warning Device Type of Public Highway-Rail Intersections in the 

United States (2008) ........................................................................................................ 3

Table 3. Incident, Injury, and Fatality Counts at Highway-Rail Intersections in the 

United States (2008) ........................................................................................................ 4

Table 4. French Level Crossing Statistics (2007)........................................................................ 10
1

Executive Summary

Highway-rail grade crossings, also referred to as highway-rail intersections (HRIs), continue to 

be a source of unnecessary incidents, injuries, and fatalities on our Nation’s roads and railways. 

Based on FRA safety data for 2008, the most recent data available at the time of this report (May 

2010), there were 2,395 incidents resulting in 939 injuries and 287 fatalities at crossings in the 

United States alone [1].

Crossing closure or consolidation, grade separation, and traditional warning device 

implementation are not always economically feasible; however, the development of new 

intelligent transportation systems and the use of advanced technology could potentially provide a 

means to enhance safety at these intersections.

The concept of in-vehicle warning systems for crossings is not new, as evidenced by past reports 

published by the Federal Highway Administration’s former Joint Program Office (JPO),

currently the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) Research and Innovative 

Technology Administration’s (RITA) JPO. Multiple systems have been developed, prototyped,

and tested in the United States and internationally using proprietary equipment and technology. 

Although not fully evaluated or deployed, the systems displayed some measure of success and 

were deemed an improvement by users, bus drivers, for example, who were surveyed during the 

evaluations.

The U.S. DOT Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) Office of Railroad Policy and 

Development has advocated and continues to advocate crossing enhancements to improve safety. 

FRA has participated in the research, development, and field operational testing of past invehicle advance warning systems within the United States and continues to monitor progress in 

technology that may be used to enhance safety at crossings.

The past decade has witnessed strong advancements in technology and equipment related to 

wireless communication and precise geospatial positioning. In addition, U.S. DOT has

spearheaded major initiatives related to the implementation of these technologies to improve 

safety on the Nation’s roadway network. This includes the current U.S. DOT/RITA/JPO’s 

IntelliDriveSM Program aimed at increasing motor vehicle and roadway safety and efficiency.

Internationally, public and private entities have also invested resources in the investigation and 

development of in-vehicle highway-rail intersection advance warning systems. In Europe, the 

Réseau Ferré de France (French Rail Network) and the Valtion Teknillinen Tutkimuskeskus

(VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland) have independently initiated the development of 

two HRI in-vehicle warning systems that vary in design and architecture from previously 

developed systems.

Advances in technology and the continued investment by U.S. DOT have resulted in the 

commercial availability of devices that may potentially address issues that limited previously 

tested in-vehicle warning systems. Currently available technology and components show great 

promise in meeting the design goals of creating a cost-effective, reliable warning system with the 

potential for additional capability. 
2

1. Introduction

Significant progress has been made in the past 30 years in improving safety at highway-rail 

grade crossings. Collisions have declined 41 percent, and fatalities have declined 48 percent 

between 1993 and 2003 [1]. The goal is to continue this downward trend, especially where 

funding for crossing closure or improvement is limited.

The installation cost of traditional crossing active warning device systems, such as bells, flashing 

lights, and gates, can cost several hundred thousand U.S. dollars per crossing [2]. This

investment is justified in urban areas with significant highway and rail traffic, and locations with 

significant risk; however, funding is not available to equip all crossings. New technologies and 

the transfer of technologies from other modes of transportation, including the development and 

deployment of roadway in-vehicle warning systems, have the potential to increase safety at 

crossings at substantially lower cost per improvement.

Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) applications at highway-rail intersections as an 

alternative means to improve safety have been heavily researched within the United States and 

abroad. Within the past decade, several roadway in-vehicle warning systems were demonstrated 

in the United States. To date, none of the systems have been fully deployed. Several reports, 

papers, and presentations have been written to document ITS applications at crossings including 

Intelligent Transportation Systems at Highway-Rail Intersections: A Cross-Cutting Study report

[3], In-Vehicle Warnings at Level Crossings [4], Review of Intelligent Systems Applications at 

Highway-Rail Intersections in the United States [5], and Intelligent Transportation Systems 

Research and Development Plan for Canada: Innovation through Partnership [6]. Furthermore,

in the 1990s, activities within the ITS field included development of ITS Architecture User 

Service #30 [7]. Formal activities within the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers’

(IEEE) standards for communications between HRI infrastructure and other highway 

infrastructure and motor vehicles included the development of IEEE 1570-2002 Standard for the 

interface between the rail subsystem and highway subsystem at highway-rail intersections [7].

In addition, the U.S. DOT continues to support the advancement of ITS technology to provide 

national, multimodal transportation solutions. The new ITS Strategic Plan, 2010–2014 [9] 

focuses on an interconnected transportation environment allowing vehicles, infrastructure, and 

portable devices to communicate in a way that provides public benefits such as reduction in 

congestion and improvement to safety. The plan includes an ITS Rail Exploratory Initiative 

research effort to expand the capability and benefits of the U.S. DOT/RITA/JPO’s IntelliDriveSM

program into the rail environment [9].

International entities such as the French Rail Network (Réseau Ferré de France) and the Valtion 

Teknillinen Tutkimuskeskus (VTT) Technical Research Centre of Finland are independently 

developing roadway in-vehicle crossing warning systems. Those systems are based on slightly 

different technological approaches from past research and are at varying stages of development 

and demonstration.

The current state of global positioning system (GPS) technology and commercial availability of 

interoperable products have created a more favorable environment for the design and 

development of GPS-based in-vehicle warning systems. In addition, significant resources are 
3

being expended by the public and private sectors nationally and internationally to develop invehicle display and communication systems and the related infrastructure.

1.1 Background

Although great progress has been made in improving the safety of highway-rail intersections

(HRIs) over the past 30 years, there continues to be a disconcerting number of incidents resulting 

in property damage and preventable injuries and fatalities. U.S. DOT continues to dedicate 

resources to the advancement of safety for all crossing users. In addition, private sector 

corporations—Class 1 Railroads, nonprofit organizations such as Operation Lifesaver, Inc. and 

academia—invest resources in the advancement of crossing user safety.

1.2 Highway-Rail Intersections in the United States

In 2008, there were approximately 224,000 crossings in the United States, of which 

approximately 137,000 are public, as shown in Table 1 [10]. These numbers are based on FRA 

safety data for 2008, the most recent data available at the time of the report (May 2010).

Table 1. Count and Type of Highway-Rail Intersections in the United States (2008)

Crossing Type

Number of 

Crossings % of Total

Public 137,331 61.3%

Private 84,641 37.8%

Pedestrian 1,963 0.9%

TOTAL 223,935 100.0%

Source: U.S. DOT/FRA Railroad Safety Statistics 2008 Annual Report [10]

As shown in Table 2, approximately 48.5 percent or 66,562 public crossings have active warning 

devices including gates, lights, and bells; of that group, 29.5 percent or 40,546 are equipped with 

gates. The remaining 51.5 percent or 70,769 public crossings are equipped with passive warning 

signs. 

Table 2. Count by Warning Device Type of Public Highway-Rail Intersections in the 

United States (2008)

Warning Device Number of Crossings %

Active 66,562 48.5%

Gates 40,546 29.5%

Passive 70,769 51.5%

TOTAL 137,331 100.0%

Source: U.S. DOT/FRA Railroad Safety Statistics 2008 Annual Report [10]

As detailed in Table 3, approximately 2,400 incidents occurred at the crossings in the United 

States in 2008, resulting in 939 injuries and 287 fatalities. 
4

Table 3. Incident, Injury, and Fatality Counts at Highway-Rail Intersections in the United 

States (2008)

Count Count Count

Public Private TOTALS

 Incidents 2,057 Incidents 338 Incidents 2,395

 Injuries 856 Injuries 83 Injuries 939

 Fatalities 264 Fatalities 23 Fatalities 287

Source: U.S. DOT/FRA Railroad Safety Statistics 2008 Annual Report [10]
5

2. Previous Highway-Rail Intersection In-Vehicle Warning Systems

The concept and development of roadway in-vehicle warning systems are not new, as evidenced 

by past reports and current research funded by U.S. DOT. Many systems have been developed, 

demonstrated, and deployed for highway users, including multiple in-vehicle warning systems 

targeting highway-rail intersection safety. 

2.1 In-Vehicle Warning Systems in the United States

There have been several in-vehicle HRI warning systems developed and demonstrated in the 

United States. Systems demonstrated include the Minnesota In-Vehicle Warning and the GaryChicago-Milwaukee Corridor In-Vehicle Warning. Each system relied on proprietary equipment 

integrated with traditional railroad track circuitry for train detection. In each case, the system

was developed, demonstrated, and then removed from service. In each case, evaluations 

identified the benefits of an in-vehicle system, but also identified issues associated with cost and 

implementation, in terms of available technologies.

U.S. DOT, in coordination with stakeholders, spearheads several major ITS initiatives to 

improve safety, mobility, and productivity through the development and advancement of 

communication technology. Many of these U.S. DOT initiatives, such as the RITA/JPO’s 

IntellidriveSM initiative, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Cooperative 

Intersection Collision Avoidance System (CICAS), and the Vehicle Infrastructure Integration

(VII) program, are targeted at roadway safety but have the potential to be adapted for application 

to in-vehicle crossing safety and multimodal safety strategies.

2.1.1 Minnesota: In-Vehicle Warning

The Minnesota Department of Transportation, in partnership with 3M Corporation and Dynamic 

Vehicle Safety Systems, developed and conducted from December 1997 through May 1998 a 

field operational test of an in-vehicle crossing warning system. The system used 3M’s wireless 

vehicle and roadside communication antennas to transmit train presence. The system relied on 

railroad train detection technology to initiate warning signals and an onboard system designed by 

Dynamic Vehicle Safety Systems to provide an audible and visual warning to roadway users.

The system was designed with proprietary equipment and required traditional track circuitry to 

provide train detection capability. The system was limited to crossings equipped with track 

circuitry or train presence detection and commercial power for the wayside transmitter. The invehicle proprietary dashboard design is shown in Figure 1.

An evaluation of the system was conducted, and based on surveys of test users, was determined 

to be effective at providing a warning of the motorist’s proximity to a crossing. However, 

changes to motorist behavior could not be quantified based on the field operational test and data 

collected. Further development and testing would be required for broad scale deployment [11].
6

Figure 1. In-Vehicle Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Warning [11]

2.1.2 Illinois: Gary-Chicago-Milwaukee Corridor In-Vehicle Warning

The Illinois Department of Transportation, ITS Program Office, contracted a team of companies 

including Raytheon Company, Cobra Electronics, Calspan SRL, and Metro Transportation 

Group to design and install an in-vehicle crossing warning system and to conduct a field 

operational test from March through December 2000. The system relied on traditional track 

circuitry to detect approaching trains. The information was communicated by a transmitter 

located wayside at the crossing to a custom receiver that was mounted in roadway vehicles. The 

crossing-based system sent out a broadcast whenever a train was occupying the track circuit and 

properly equipped roadway vehicles in the vicinity of the crossing were notified and provided a 

warning.

The system was designed with proprietary equipment and required interconnection with 

traditional track circuitry at crossings. Therefore, the system was inherently limited to crossings

equipped with required track circuits and commercial power for the wayside transmitter. The invehicle proprietary equipment is shown in Figure 2.

Evaluation of the system determined that the technology at the time of development was not 

reliable or readily available; however, the pilot study indicated the promise of in-vehicle 

warnings. Additional challenges that were identified included multiagency coordination, 

stakeholder participation, and user training [12, 13].
7

Figure 2. Gary-Chicago-Milwaukee Corridor In-Vehicle Warning Device [3]

2.1.3 IntelliDriveSM

U.S. DOT/RITA/JPO-sponsored IntelliDriveSM, formerly the VII program, combines leading 

edge technologies to provide the capability for vehicles and infrastructure to identify and 

communicate threats and hazards over a wireless network. The system relies on a combination 

of advanced technologies that include advanced wireless communications, in-vehicle computers, 

advanced sensors, and GPS.

The heart of the IntelliDriveSM program is the networked environment supporting high-speed 

vehicle-to-vehicle, vehicle-to-infrastructure, and vehicle-to-device communication. Although 

much of the current focus is on the highway network, there is ample opportunity for applications 

where the highway and railway meet at HRIs. Technology being developed for vehicle-tovehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communication could potentially be made interoperable 

with the rail network systems to deliver in-vehicle crossing warnings [14].

Figure 3. U.S. DOT IntelliDriveSM Logo [14]

Cooperative Intersection Collision Avoidance System

Intersection collision avoidance systems utilize vehicle infrastructure-based technology to 

provide real-time information to approaching roadway users. The systems have the potential to

notify and warn users about possibly dangerous situations.

Through the U.S. DOT/RITA/JPO-sponsored CICAS initiative, research and development is 

being conducted to provide collision avoidance warnings at roadway-roadway intersections. The 
8

devices developed for roadway-roadway notifications could be used to communicate the state of 

crossings and provide in-vehicle warnings to drivers [15]. In addition, there is the potential to 

adapt the system to provide in-vehicle warnings for highway-rail intersections. One key area for 

future development involves the warning exhibited by highway STOP signs in relation to vehicle

infrastructure capabilities. Many of our nation’s passive HRIs are currently being equipped with

STOP signs and could conceivably benefit from this technology.

Vehicle Infrastructure Integration

The VII initiative is sponsored by the U.S. DOT/RITA/JPO to demonstrate technologies 

necessary to equip new automobiles with advanced driver assistance systems that help drivers 

avoid rear-end collisions, unplanned road departures, and lane change collisions. A high-level 

system architecture schematic is shown in Figure 4.

Through a partnership between the Federal Government and the domestic automotive industry, 

multiple projects and programs are being conducted to develop and field test ways to obtain, 

transmit, and communicate information that assists drivers in avoiding and reacting to potentially 

dangerous situations. There is potential to adapt and use some of the VII-developed systems to 

provide crossing warnings. Through the adaptation and implementation of the developed 

systems and the interconnection of these systems with the rail network, in-vehicle real-time, and 

advanced crossing warnings could be provided to drivers [16, 17].

Figure 4. High-Level VII System Architecture [17]
9

2.2 International In-Vehicle Warning Systems

There have been several in-vehicle HRI warning systems developed and demonstrated 

internationally. Currently, there are systems under development being tested in France and 

Finland; additional research may also be under way in other countries. Both the French and 

Finnish systems use GPS technology to provide geospatial location and notification to roadway 

users approaching HRIs. Although not ready for full-scale deployment, both proposed systems 

demonstrate promise for in-vehicle advance warning systems at HRIs that use GPS technology 

and commercially available components.

2.2.1 France

The French rail network is owned and maintained by the Réseau Ferré de France (RFF), a Staterun company. The operation of rail services, passenger and freight, and the maintenance and 

signaling of the French rail network are handled by the Société Nationale des Chemins de fer

français, French National Railway (SNCF), which is also a public enterprise.

As manager of the French rail network, RFF is required by the French Government to maintain 

the network and ensure the safety of its entire infrastructure, including level crossings. A 

primary goal of RFF is to reduce the number of incidents, injuries, and fatalities at level 

crossings. This is addressed in a number of ways including level crossing closure, regulation, 

guidance, engineering treatments, public education, and the funding of research toward crossing 

improvements.

As of January 2008, the French rail network totaled 53,452 kilometers (km) (33,213.5 miles 

[mi]) of main-line track including 29,213 km (18,152 mi) of rail line open to commercial usage. 

A little over half of the open rail line, 15,164 km (9,422.5 mi), was electrified, and 1,875 km 

(1,165 mi) of rail line were designated high-speed lines or Train à Grande Vitesse (TGV). The 

French TGV network carries passenger service at speeds of up to 280 km/hour (h) (174 miles per 

hour [mph]) [18].

Over half of the French rail network is equipped with some form of automatic block signaling 

including 10,638 km (6,610.1 mi) of luminous automatic block (BAL); 4,212 km (2,617.2 mi) of 

automatic block with limited permissiveness (BAPR); and 527 km (327.5 mi) of automatic block 

for single lines (BAVB). There are 5,162 km (3207.5 mi) of track equipped with manual blocks 

and 1,798 km (1,117.2 mi) of high-speed track equipped with the French track to train 

transmission (TVM) system of cab signaling [18].

As of December 31, 2007, there were roughly 18,851 level crossings in France. Of these, 17,653 

were public, and 1,198 were private. Of the 18,851 total crossings, approximately 2,600 were 

located on inactive rail lines that see no rail traffic, leaving approximately 16,250 public and 

private crossings currently in use (Table 4).
10

Table 4. French Level Crossing Statistics (2007)

TYPE Number of Crossings 

Public 17,653

 Barrier (automatic or manual) (12,879)

 No Barrier (1,350)

 Pedestrian (871)

 Crossings on Inactive lines (2,553)

Private 1,198

TOTAL 18,851 

Source: Réseau Ferré de France (RFF) Web site (accessed July 2009) [18]

France, like the United States, has seen a trend of fewer incidents and fatalities at level crossings. 

There has been an average of 135 incidents per year at level crossings over the past 10 years in 

France, resulting in an average of 15 seriously injured persons and 40 fatalities annually. The 40 

annual fatalities represent less than 1 percent of annual roadway fatalities in France. More 

recently, there were 115 incidents resulting in 38 fatalities (2008) [18].

RFF has a stated goal of reducing the number of incidents, injuries, and fatalities at level 

crossings. To accomplish this goal, RFF, SNCF, governmental agencies, and local authorities 

are working together through a series of parallel actions. Those actions include crossing closure,

traffic redirection, adjustment to highway driver behavior through education, researching new 

solutions, supporting public education, limiting the creation of new crossings, and activities 

targeting problematic crossings.

One research effort addresses level crossing safety based on an in-vehicle level crossing warning 

system that utilizes commercially available GPS technology. To date, RFF has posted the 

latitude and longitude information for all crossings on a Web site, 

http://www.securitepassageaniveau.fr/index_E.php, for the public to access (Figure 5). Users are 

able to download the information in a format that allows for upload to commercially available 

GPS navigation devices [19].
11

Figure 5. RFF Level Crossing Data Set Web Site [17]

Currently, only the physical location (latitude and longitude) of all level crossings, public and 

private, in France is available for use by the public. RFF hopes to but has not yet developed a 

warning system or in-vehicle interface/warning message. RFF has indicated that a functional invehicle warning system, based on GPS technology, has been identified and discussed; however,

at this time, research and funding resources have been allocated to other level crossing 

enhancement programs.

2.2.2 Finland

The Finnish Rail Administration (RHK) manages the rail network of Finland through planning, 

developing, maintaining, and controlling the rail traffic on the system. RHK is responsible for 

the reliability and safety of the rail network and infrastructure, including level crossings. In 

2006, the Finnish Rail Agency became the authority in charge of safety of the Finnish railway 

system with regulatory and supervisory authority [20]. The Finnish Rail Agency is under the 

Finnish Ministry of Transport and Communications.

RHK is tasked with developing and maintaining Finland’s rail network and keeping the rail 

network operational and safe to meet the service demands of the people of Finland. Currently,

there are 5,919 km (3,677.9 mi) of rail line in Finland; 5,349 km (3,323.7 mi) are single track 

and 3,067 km (1,905.7 mi) are electrified. Figure 6 shows an image of the Finnish Rail Network 

[21].

RHK has a level crossing strategy that calls for the elimination of level crossings where feasible. 

Level crossings along high-speed main lines and other locations that present high risk are 

targeted first. The Finnish high-speed rail network carries Pendolino tilting passenger trains that 

travel at up to 220 km/h (136.7 mph). Where it is cost-prohibitive to eliminate level crossings, 
12

special attention is provided to ensure safety through the implementation of level crossing 

engineering treatments. RHK works with other government agencies and local authorities to 

address level crossing safety and to fund research to develop alternative solutions to level 

crossing safety issues, in addition to providing regulation and guidance.

Level crossing safety research is being conducted at the VTT Technical Research Centre of 

Finland. VTT is a multi-technological applied research organization and part of the Finnish 

innovation system under the Ministry of Employment and Economy. VTT has developed and 

tested an in-vehicle warning system for level crossings in Finland.

Figure 6. Finnish Rail Network (RHK) [21]

In December 2008, there were 3,515 level crossings in Finland, 2,988 of which were located on 

main lines. The total number of level crossings has been steadily decreasing as a result of 

Finland’s push to eliminate level crossings. In 1995, there were over 4,500 level crossings in 
13

Finland. In 2004, Finland’s rail network had 3,835 level crossings, of which 21 percent, or 794, 

were equipped with gates and 79 percent, or 3,041 had no warning devices [22].

In 2008, there were approximately 39 incidents at level crossings resulting in 3 injuries and 8 

fatalities. The numbers were similar for the previous 2 years, 2006 and 2007. The fatalities 

represent approximately 3.5 percent of the total number of fatalities on the roadways in Finland 

in 2008 and roughly 50 percent of the annual fatalities from railroad incidents [21].

The VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland has been conducting a program aimed at testing 

and implementing an in-vehicle warning system for railway level crossings. A prototype system,

based on GPS technology combined with general packet radio service (GPRS) cellular 

communication and onboard laptop computers, was developed and tested on the Hanko-Karjaa 

railway line in Southern Finland.

In 2004, there were 52 incidents at level crossings in Finland resulting in 8 fatalities [21]. Most 

of the individuals involved were regular crossing users who had likely become so accustomed to 

using the crossing that they gradually became less vigilant. Because of fiscal limitations, 

crossing elimination is not always practical and because of physical characteristics of some 

crossings, crossing improvements are also not always feasible. VTT, like many other 

transportation research centers around the world, is trying to develop cost effective solutions 

such as highway vehicle-based warning systems for level crossings.

Because of site location limitations, for example, lack of electrical power at many level 

crossings, a radio transmitter-equipped crossing network-based system that allows the 

infrastructure to communicate to properly equipped highway vehicles was not feasible. VTT 

developed a system based on a wireless communications network with client-server architecture 

that continually tracked trains and uses a commercial cellular service to provide information to 

highway vehicle users.

The system is composed of two components that are connected through a client server system, as 

shown in Figure 7. The first component consists of a train tracking system that uses GPS or 

Galileo global navigation systems and GPRS communication systems. The second component is 

a roadway vehicle warning system that uses GPS or Galileo global navigation systems and GPRS 

communication systems. 

Figure 7. Finnish In-Vehicle Warning System Architecture [23]
14

The train tracking component is composed of a positioning module, a locomotive in-vehicle 

computer, and a wireless data system. The location of the train is obtained using the position 

module (GPS or Galileo) and then transferred, along with the train speed and direction of travel,

via GPRS cellular service to the client server system, as shown in Figure 7.

All trains broadcast their position, direction of travel, and velocity to the client server. The 

client-server hosts software that uses the real-time data to determine the status of all crossings on 

the network. The roadway in-vehicle component is programmed to connect to the client server 

when the vehicle is in the vicinity of a crossing in order to obtain the latest crossing information. 

However, the crossings are not equipped to connect to the client-server.

The client-server software needs to have detailed information on the rail network to overlay the 

train information and calculate crossing status. The rail network and train route need to be 

precisely known in order to ensure accurate calculation of crossing status.

The roadway user in-vehicle warning is based on location and direction of travel of the vehicle, 

the onboard crossing database, and the information housed on the client server. Roadway 

vehicles are equipped with a positioning module, a computer, and a wireless data system. The 

location of the vehicle is obtained via the positioning module (GPS or Galileo). The onboard 

system, through GPS technology, monitors location, direction of travel, and speed of the vehicle. 

When the onboard system detects a level crossing within a defined proximity, the system is 

programmed to connect to the client-server system via GPRS cellular service and query the 

status of the crossing.

The in-vehicle device queries the client-server to determine the status of the level crossing; the 

sequence of queries is shown in Figure 8. The server responds by providing the status of the 

crossing identified. Depending on the status, either the driver is warned or no message is shared.
15

Figure 8. Roadway In-Vehicle Device Query Sequence Diagram [24]

Because of limitations to determining roadway vehicle heading measurements and the potential 

for multiple crossings to be within range, the system was designed to obtain the status of the 

closest physical crossing.

On June 16, 2006, VTT conducted a field operational test of a prototype system on a 

nonelectrified single track section of rail line from Karjaa to Hanko in Southern Finland [22]. 

The test was confined to a single equipped rail bus (motorized single-body passenger rail car) 

that traveled the section of track multiple times that day through level crossings in Raasepori and 

Lappohja at a maximum speed of 120 km/h (74.6 mph).

The roadway vehicle was equipped with the onboard in-vehicle warning equipment and a video 

camera system to monitor and capture system performance, movement of trains, and roadway 

vehicle movement. The function of the in-vehicle system was compared with the level crossing 

warning equipment and the train movements.

Operation was limited to four simulations that witnessed roadway vehicle approach to a crossing 

with a train on approach. The system was deemed to perform as designed and similarly to the 
16

level crossing warning equipment in place during the four simulations. The onboard camera 

system was able to capture and document three of the four instances; however, poor light 

conditions limited the recording of the fourth simulation [23, 24, 25].

The prototype system showed great promise in providing an accurate and reliable in-vehicle 

warning to roadway users approaching level crossings. The system provided a viable 

demonstration of commercially available technologies such as GPS, GPRS, and client-server 

services for integration and operation of a warning system for level crossings.

The prototype system developed did have limitations, but many of them could be addressed to 

deploy a fully operational system. The client-server software and database would need to have 

accurate rail network information to accurately calculate and estimate crossing status in real 

time. In addition, determining the heading of roadway vehicles in conjunction with the roadway 

network and proximity to crossings required a better algorithm.

The equipment used in the prototype was not ideal, and it was not functional for a full 

deployment. Additional development and field operational testing is required to verify the 

reliability and effectiveness of a modified in-vehicle warning system based on GPS, wireless 

communication, and a client-server system.
17

3. GPS-Based In-Vehicle Warning Systems

The ability to acquire accurate location, speed, and direction of travel through inexpensive 

commercially available products enables the development of a cost effective HRI warning 

system for motor vehicles. Not only are GPS navigation devices commercially available in the 

aftermarket industry, but many original equipment manufacturers are equipping their vehicles 

with this technology direct from the dealer. As the prevalence of this technology increases, the 

ability to provide in-vehicle advance warnings for drivers at HRIs is expected to become more 

cost effective and more practicable.

Figure 9. Commercial In-Vehicle Navigation Displays

3.1 Commercial-Off-the-Shelf Systems

With the increasing use of and reliance upon GPS navigation systems in commercial and 

personal vehicles, the potential to adapt these systems for additional uses including HRI safety 

appears to be better than ever. Because these devices have become so prevalent, they provide a 

clear advantage over propriety warning systems that have been tried in the past. Although no 

specific numbers are readily available for actual systems installed in vehicles, a 2009 NAVTEQ 

study showed that in the United States, 48 percent of respondents said they used a navigation 

system, which is up from 22 percent in 2006 [28]. Vehicle operators who currently use the 

devices are familiar with their operation and may be eager to embrace more safety features that 

could be added to the existing systems [26–28].

Many systems are offered as standard equipment in vehicles and as aftermarket accessories. 

Garmin and TomTom are two suppliers of these types of aftermarket products. These systems’ 

main purpose is to provide navigational assistance to vehicle operators. Common use of such a 

system involves entering the address of a desired destination, after which the unit provides turnby-turn navigation through both a visual display and voice commands to the vehicle operator. 

Current systems can also provide lane assist information that allows the driver to shift the vehicle 

to the appropriate lane when a direction change is imminent. Many systems are also capable of 

providing speed and proximity warnings if the vehicle is exceeding posted speed limits or if the 

vehicle reaches a destination sooner than anticipated. Additionally, some of the systems provide 

options for receiving real-time traffic data.
18

Detailed maps are stored within some of these systems and the mapping data is frequently 

updated to provide greater detail and improved accuracy. Some require users to install software 

and synchronize the devices with a computer online. Combined with precision global 

positioning satellite systems, these navigation devices could play a key role in providing 

increased safety at HRIs. 

Because these GPS navigation systems allow for updates to their map database and provide for 

optional points of interest or POI, it is suggested that the location of all crossings or, at a 

minimum, all high-risk crossings as identified by FRA through the crossing database, be added 

to the navigation systems databases. Precise latitude and longitude points for HRIs could be 

added to the base maps that are provided with navigation systems or entered through the POI

add-on feature that many units have for customizing the user’s maps.

For example, Garmin’s POI system consists of free software (POI Loader) for a desktop 

computer that allows for uploading customized POIs to a compatible Garmin device. With the 

help of POI Loader, it is possible to update a Garmin GPS with the latest restaurants, safety 

camera locations, tourist destinations, and more. The POI Loader allows you to configure 

proximity alerts that provide visual and audio warnings when within a certain distance of a POI 

or when driving over a certain speed near a POI. Suggested uses for this feature include

warnings for upcoming school zones, red lights, enforcement cameras, limited clearance, etc.

Using this customizable feature, one could create an in-vehicle warning system for HRI 

locations. With the location of each HRI system embedded within the navigation device, it 

would be possible to provide an in-vehicle safety alert (similar to a passive roadside crossing 

approach sign) when nearing an HRI. With many of the devices, it would also be possible to 

provide a speed alert upon approaching a HRI. And in the event that the GPS coordinates for the 

HRIs were inaccurate or not current, they could be validated through the FRA crossing database.

Locations of HRIs can be entered via the POI loader using the free tools provided by several 

manufacturers. There are many third-party companies using these tools to provide custom POIs 

for other purposes such as tourism information. By using the tools provided by the 

manufacturers of the GPS devices, it is possible to develop a HRI POIs data set. 

A crucial part of having a system that can provide the type of warning necessary in this type of 

system is an accurate and documented HRI database system. To develop and upload the HRI 

POIs data set, the exact location of each HRI in the area of travel is needed. Presumably, this 

could be accomplished on a nationwide basis through FRA’s Grade Crossing Inventory 

Database. Each HRI data set would require the GPS coordinates for its location, which could 

then be fed to the GPS navigation device via the POIs tool. The Rail Safety Improvement Act 

(RSIA) of 2008 specifies the reporting requirements for each grade crossing, and it is assumed 

that the latitude and longitude of each crossing location will be a required data field in the 

database.

There is flexibility on how this system could operate. POIs could be limited to those HRIs that 

are deemed high risk. HRIs with certain challenging physical characteristics such as clearance 

issues for low-clearance vehicles could be highlighted for these types of vehicles through their 

own POI set.
19

Clearly, the GPS devices available on today’s market are very capable and adaptable devices that 

could play a role, for those who have or own them, in in-vehicle warning systems for HRIs. 

Tools are also available to customize these devices for a particular need, and it is assumed that 

these capabilities will expand in time as the popularity of GPS devices grows.

3.2 Human Factors Considerations

Clearly, some study of human factors will be needed to provide the necessary checks on what 

should be provided to the vehicle operator in terms of in-vehicle warnings for HRIs. The 

technology is available to provide a safety alert to an operator before crossing a highway-rail 

intersection, but more analysis should be conducted to determine what makes for a beneficial 

warning system to the driver without interfering with the operation of the vehicle.

What types of messages should be provided to the operator? When and how often? Is an 

acknowledgment by the operator necessary? Because current systems sometimes provide both 

an initial approach warning to a crossing and an active warning system (red light and gate 

activation based on train approach), is it necessary or prudent to provide a train approaching 

warning to the operator inside the vehicle? 

Previous prototype in-vehicle warning systems have not conducted detailed studies on how the 

drivers have reacted to these systems. In addition, previous efforts in developing these systems 

have not focused on this type of singular approach involving off-the-shelf navigation systems. 

Since driver distraction and information overload are two key issues with providing successful 

in-vehicle warning systems, it is of the utmost importance that the development of these systems 

be in concert with human factors best practices for such systems. With the promulgation of 

ITSs, the coordination amongst the various ITS projects with respect to human factors is vital.

What makes the idea of in-vehicle warnings attractive is the fact that previous research on the 

habits of vehicle operators suggests that they do not demonstrate a stepped-up readiness when 

approaching a crossing during their normal travelling activities. The implementation of some 

type of ubiquitous in-vehicle warning system would provide the notification and awareness

needed to engage the operator, ideally resulting in less risky behavior and increased safety. For 

operators to respond to warnings consistently, the systems must be commonplace, and GPS 

navigation devices are reaching this level of use.
20

4. Conclusions and Recommendations

Technology has enabled motor vehicle operators to enjoy the benefits and convenience of GPSenabled navigation. As these systems become ubiquitous and their prices become more 

affordable, it makes sense to review their capabilities for use as tools in the fight to improve 

safety at highway-rail intersections. The devices, along with the POI software tools provided by 

their manufacturers, are considered to be very capable systems and can likely be adapted to 

provide in-vehicle warning functions. Work is still required to (1) review the human factors 

aspect of the use of these devices in providing visual and audible warnings to vehicle operators, 

and (2) address the numerous legal, public policy, and practical concerns that are raised.

Also, before the locations of highway-rail intersections are gathered, analysts might consider the 

best approach to systematically collect and validate this information; although with the RSIA of 

2008, this process should be under way. It is important to work this idea in conjunction with 

future updates to FRA’s Grade Crossing Database and with the ITSs that are now being 

prototyped by U.S. DOT’s ITS JPO.

The concept of an in-vehicle warning system for level crossings is not new. There have been 

multiple systems developed and demonstrated in the past; however, none of the previous systems 

was without issues that limited widespread deployment and usage. Major concerns included the 

use of proprietary hardware and software, the installation of hardware and interconnection of this 

hardware into the rail network infrastructure, and the overall cost of development and 

implementation. 

The two international systems under development rely on commercially available technology 

and equipment. Advances in GPS technology and the cost associated with this technology have

made it an attractive component to provide spatial location, direction of travel, and even speed. 

In addition, commercial cellular service has the capability of transferring large packets of 

information over a robust and widespread network.

The system under development through RFF has been postponed, but, currently, the company 

does offer the capability to download crossing data for use with personal navigation devices. If 

RFF chooses to move forward with a prototype design and demonstration, it would warrant 

further investigation and review. Although not a fully functional in-vehicle warning system,

FRA could make spatial-level crossing data available for personal use to the public in a userfriendly manner similar to the French. This would allow citizens to access the information at 

their own discretion and potentially initiate independent research and development of GPS-based 

in-vehicle crossing warning systems.

The system demonstrated by VTT shows great promise and could be further developed, tested,

and evaluated. VTT identified many items requiring further development, including a spatial 

railway network database and roadway-user algorithm. In addition, the single-day demonstration 

only experienced four positive activations, which is not enough data to provide the statistical 

validity required to fully evaluate the system’s performance accurately.

On the basis of the development and status of the two programs reviewed and the current status 

of enabling technology, the following actions are recommended:
21

1. Explore development and adoption of GPS-based warning systems

2. Form multimodal partnership for ITS-related research projects

3. Demonstrate commercial vehicle viability of ITSs at HRIs

4. Develop regulations or guidance to promote development of ITSs for HRIs

GPS Technology

The GPS-based Finnish in-vehicle warning system demonstrated promise for the adaptation and 

implementation of GPS-based warning systems for level crossings. The commercial availability 

of reliable GPS technology has advanced greatly over the past decade. The maturity of the 

technology and the commercial availability of equipment make the technology an affordable and 

realistic candidate.

In addition, a fully developed and operational in-vehicle warning system, based on the Finnish 

design, has the potential to transmit additional information and to automate some operations that 

are currently manual. The system also has the potential to be easily integrated into other invehicle and roadway infrastructure systems that are being developed to improve safety in the 

United States.

Partnership

Internationally, public financing to fully fund the development and implementation of an invehicle warning system is not attainable at this time. Partnerships, public-private, among 

governmental agencies and even among international government and private groups, should be 

investigated. If intellectual and financial resources were pooled, the goal of a viable in-vehicle 

warning system would likely be realized more quickly.

The results of the Finnish design and demonstration justifies further evaluation. A similar 

system, based on the Finnish design could be developed and demonstrated in the United States. 

Both on the rail and road networks, conditions related to traffic volumes are drastically different 

in the United States. To truly evaluate the operation and effectiveness of such a system within 

the United States, it would need to be tested in the environment in which it would be utilized.

An intermediate step would be for FRA to seek a partnership, if possible, with VTT, GPS 

manufacturers, or other interested parties as an avenue to proceed with the prototype 

development of the system. Through cooperation and shared resources, FRA (with its partners)

may be able to enhance the safety of level crossings through continued development of the 

system and build and test a more advanced prototype. Transport Canada has also shown an 

interest in utilizing these types of technologies in its own demonstration program and may have 

an interest in partnering on the international level.

Partnerships should be pursued with other DOT modal administrations that have been involved 

in developing ITS-like applications beneficial to multiple modes. For example, FRA has 

recently begun its roll out of positive train control (PTC) technologies and the rule governing 

PTC encourages the use of advanced technologies to monitor grade crossings. As part of the 

IntelliDriveSM program, plans contain safety and mobility applications that may include aspects 
22

related to rail. It is through the suggested partnerships that rail needs may be addressed within 

the IntelliDriveSM Program.

Demonstrate Commercial Vehicle ITS Applications

The use of GPS navigation systems is increasing within the commercial vehicle and transit 

markets. Examples of their application include fleet management of rental cars, snow plow 

tracking, and street sweeper tracking. In a 2004 ITS Deployment Survey, 10 States reported 

using a GPS to monitor operations of such fleets. Use of GPS has expanded in transit

applications as well, where use of GPS has climbed to 15 percent in fixed bus route systems and 

20 percent in rural transit systems. Because these systems are already equipped with existing 

GPS devices, it may be advantageous to partner with such a user to demonstrate the viability of 

an in-vehicle warning system concept.

Regulation and Guidance

Technology implementation studies are needed to determine the full extent and implications of 

using these types of technologies. In addition to searching for additional funding sources, modal 

administrations should develop regulations and guidance. In-vehicle warnings and subsequent 

guidance are being developed for many highway applications through current programs funded 

by U.S. DOT. In-vehicle level crossing warnings should be considered in conjunction with these 

programs for an integrated approach to safety.
23

5. References

[1] U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Safety 

Analysis <http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/>.

[2] Ogden, Brent D. (2007 Aug.). Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook – Revised 

Second Edition 2007 (Report No. FHWA-SA-07-010). U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Federal Highway Administration.

[3] U.S. Department of Transportation. (2001). Intelligent transportation systems at highwayrail intersections: A cross-cutting study (Report No. FHWA-OP-01-149). Washington, 

DC: United States Department of Transportation.

[4] Bousquet, P., and Peck, S. In-vehicle warning at level crossings. 10th World Level 

Crossing Symposium Safety and Trespass Prevention, June 25, 2008. 

<http://www.levelcrossing2008.com/plugins/UIC_SPIP_kit/doc_download.php?id=83>.

[5] Bousquet, P., and Peck, S. (2005 Jan.) Review of intelligent transportation systems 

application at highway-rail intersections in the United States (Report No. 05-0829), 84th

Annual Meeting. Washington, DC: Academy of Science, Transportation Research Board.

[6] (2003 April). Intelligent transportation systems research and development plan for 

Canada: Innovation through partnership (Report No. TP14051E). Ottawa, Ontario, 

Canada: Transport Canada.

[7] U.S. Department of Transportation. National ITS Architecture Version 6.1, User Service 

1.10 Highway-Rail Intersection. <http://www.iteris.com/itsarch/index.htm>.

[8] (2002). 1570-2002: IEEE standard for the interface between the rail subsystem and the 

highway subsystem at highway-rail intersections (ISBN 0-7381-3367-1).

[9] Research and Innovative Technology Administration. (2010 Jan.). ITS Strategic Research 

Plan, 2010–2014: Executive Summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Transportation.

[10] Federal Railroad Administration. (2009 April 17). Railroad safety statistics, 2008 

preliminary annual report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation.

[11] SRF Consulting Group. (1998 Aug.). In-vehicle signing for school buses at railroadhighway grade crossings: evaluation report. Minneapolis, MN: SRF Consulting Group.

[12] (1997 Aug. 20). Pilot study of advisory on-board vehicle warning systems at railroad 

grade crossings. Springfield, IL: Illinois Department of Transportation, Office of 

Planning and Programming.

[13] Aycin, M., and Benekohal, R. (2002 May). Performance evaluation of the pilot study of 

advisory on-board vehicle warning systems at railroad grade crossings. University of 

Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering.

[14] U.S. Department of Transportation IntelliDriveSM program. <http://www.intellidrive.org/.>

[15] U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technologies Administration, 

Cooperative Intersection Collision Avoidance Systems (CICAS). 

<http://www.its.dot.gov/cicas/index.htm.>
24

[16] U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technologies Administration, 

Vehicle Infrastructure Integration (VII). 

<http://www.its.dot.gov/itsnews/fact_sheets/vii.htm.>

[17] Booz, Allen, Hamilton. (2008 April). Vehicle Infrastructure Integration (VII) Proof-ofConcept (POC) Test: An overview. 2008 Intelligent Transportation Society of Virginia 

Annual Conference.

[18] Reseau Ferre de France (RFF). <www.rff.fr.>

[19] RFF Level Crossing Web Site. <www.securitepassageaniveau.fr/index_E.php.>

[20] Finnish Rail Agency. <www.rautalievirasto.fi/en/front_page.>

[21] Ratahaluntokeskus Banforvaltningscentralen (RHK) (Finnish Railway Administration). 

<www.rhk.fi/in_english/.>

[22] Tiehallinto (Finnish Roadway Administration). <www.tiehallinto.fi/.>

[23] Oorni, R. In-vehicle warning system for railway level crossings, presentation.

[24] Oorni, R., Virtanen, A. In-vehicle Warning System for Railway Level Crossing. VTT 

Technical Research Centre of Finland.

[25] Oorni, R., and Virtanen, A. (2006). In-vehicle warning about approaching trains at level 

crossing: Testing of the technical implementation (ISBN 952-201-983-6).

[26] Van Dyke, K. GPS applications in the United States transit. May 2008 Asia-Pacific 

Economic Cooperation Innovative Summit.

[27] 2004 ITS Deployment Survey.

<http://www.itsdeployment.its.dot.gov/SurveyOutline1.asp?SID=etc.>

[28] NAVTEQ 20009 Tracking Study. 

<http://corporate.navteq.com/webapps/NewsUserServlet?action=NewsDetail&newsId=840

&lang=en&englishonly=false.>
25

Abbreviations and Acronyms

BAL luminous automatic block signaling

BAPR automatic block signaling with limited permissiveness

BAVB automatic block signaling for single lines

CICAS Cooperative Intersection Collision Avoidance System

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

GPRS general packet radio service

GPS global positioning system

HRI highway-rail intersection

ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems

JPO Joint Program Office

POI point of interest

PTC positive train control

RFF Réseau Ferré de France (French Rail Network)

RHK Finnish Rail Administration

RITA Research & Innovative Technology Administration

SCNF Société Nationale des Chemins de fer français (French National Railway)

TVM French Track to Train Transmission Cab Signaling 

U.S. DOT U.S. Department of Transportation

VII vehicle infrastructure integration

Volpe Center U.S. DOT/RITA/John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

VTT Valtion Teknillinen Tutkimuskeskus (“governmental technical research centre”)

VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland