U.S. Department of 

Transportation

Federal Railroad 

Administration

North Carolina “Sealed Corridor” Phase I, 

II, and III Assessment

Safety of Highway-Railroad Grade Crossings

Office of Research

and Development

Washington, D.C. 20590

DOT/FRA/ORD-09/17 October 2009

Final Report
.

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.
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

October 2009 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

April 2006 - August 2008

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

North Carolina “Sealed Corridor” Phase I, II, and III Assessment

5. FUNDING NUMBERS

RR97/EG087

RR97A1/EG225

6. AUTHOR(S)

Patrick Bien-Aime

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

U.S. Department of Transportation

Research and Innovative Technology Administration

John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

Cambridge, MA 02142

8.PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

REPORT NUMBER

DOT-VNTSC-FRA-09-08

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

in

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

DOT/FRA/ORD-09/17

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Safety of Highway-Railroad Grade Crossings series

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

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

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) tasked the John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center to document the 

further success of the North Carolina DOT “Sealed Corridor” project through Phases I, II, and III. The Sealed Corridor is the 

section of the designated Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) Corridor that runs through North Carolina. The Sealed Corridor 

program aims at improving or consolidating every highway-rail grade crossing, both public and private, along the Charlotte to 

Raleigh rail route in North Carolina. The research on the Sealed Corridor assessed the progress made at the 189 crossings that 

have been treated with improved warning devices or closed between Charlotte and Raleigh, from March 1995 through September 

2004. Two approaches were used to describe benefits in terms of lives saved: a fatal crash analysis to derive lives saved, and 

prediction of lives saved based on the reduction of risk at the treated crossings. Both methods estimated that more than 19 lives 

have been saved as a result of the 189 improvements implemented through December 2004. Analysis also shows that the 

resulting reduction in accidents, due to the crossing improvements, is sustainable through 2010, when anticipated exposure and 

train speeds along the corridor will be increased. 

14. SUBJECT TERMS

Accident reduction, alternative safety measures, sealed corridor, education and enforcement, highway-rail 

intersections, safety, violation reduction

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

53

16. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF REPORT

Unclassified

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF THIS PAGE

Unclassified

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified

20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

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

Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18

298-102
ii

METRIC/ENGLISH CONVERSION FACTORS

ENGLISH TO METRIC METRIC TO ENGLISH

LENGTH (APPROXIMATE) LENGTH (APPROXIMATE)

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

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

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

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

1 kilometer (km) = 0.6 mile (mi)

AREA (APPROXIMATE) AREA (APPROXIMATE)

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

(cm2

)

1 square centimeter (cm2

) = 0.16 square inch (sq in, in2)

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

yd2

)

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

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

(km2

)

10,000 square meters (m2

) = 1 hectare (ha) = 2.5 acres

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

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

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

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

1 short ton = 2,000 

pounds (lb)

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

=

1,000 kilograms (kg)

1.1 short tons

VOLUME (APPROXIMATE) VOLUME (APPROXIMATE)

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

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

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

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

1 pint (pt) = 0.47 liter (l)

1 quart (qt) = 0.96 liter (l)

1 gallon (gal) = 3.8 liters (l)

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

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

TEMPERATURE (EXACT) TEMPERATURE (EXACT)

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

QUICK INCH - CENTIMETER LENGTH CONVERSION

0 1 2 3 4 5

Inches

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

QUICK FAHRENHEIT - CELSIUS TEMPERATURE 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
iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wants to thank the North Carolina Department of Transportation’s Rail Division for 

their assistance and input for this report, Paul Worley, and Andrew Thomas. The authors also 

want to thank James A. Smailes, Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Research and

Development, for his insight, guidance, and direction in developing this report.

Anya A. Carroll, Principal Investigator, Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety Research, John A. 

Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, provided overall direction of the technical 

information and the report preparation, and also provided invaluable guidance and leadership. 

Special thanks to John Mayers, Perla Garcia, Avinash Rao, and Joe Sposato, all of the Volpe 

Center, Rail and Transit Division for their support in data collection, Marco daSilva of the Volpe 

Center, Advanced Safety Technology Division for his efforts in report preparation, Marsha 

Haines of EG&G Technical Services for her efforts in modeling, and to Robert J. Hallett, JR., for

providing Geographic Information System support.
iv

Contents

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

1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................... 4

1.1 Background ............................................................................................................... 4

1.2 NC DOT “Sealed Corridor” Background.................................................................. 4

1.3 Corridor Description ................................................................................................. 5

1.4 Purpose ...................................................................................................................... 6

1.5 Objective ................................................................................................................... 7

1.6 Corridor Activities..................................................................................................... 7

1.7 Treatment Description............................................................................................... 8

2.0 Method and Results..................................................................................................... 20

2.1 Crash Analysis Method and Result ......................................................................... 20

2.2 Fatal Accident Prediction Method and Result......................................................... 31

3.0 Comparative Analysis (Old VS. New Results)........................................................... 39

3.1 Phase I 2001 results................................................................................................. 39

3.2 Phase I, II, and III Results....................................................................................... 39

4.0 Lessons Learned.......................................................................................................... 41

4.1 Findings Summary .................................................................................................. 41

4.2 Effectiveness and Cost ............................................................................................ 42

4.3 Conclusions and Recommendations........................................................................ 44

Appendix A....................................................................................................................... 47

References......................................................................................................................... 52

Acronyms.......................................................................................................................... 53
v

Figures

Figure 1. Risk Reduction through 2010 for Phases I, II, and III..................................................... 3

Figure 2. Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor .............................................................................. 5

Figure 3. Phase I, II, and III “Sealed Corridor” treated crossings through Sept. 2004.................. 8

Figure 4. View of Hackett Street after Closing.............................................................................. 9

Figure 5. 4-Quad Gates at Shamrock Road, Harrisburg, NC....................................................... 12

Figure 6. Longer Arm Gate at Orr Road, Charlotte, NC ............................................................. 14

Figure 7. Traffic Channelization Device at Turner Road, Charlotte, NC.................................... 17

Figure 8. Grade Crossing Sign and Emergency Number............................................................. 18

Figure 9. Fatal Crash Analysis of “Lives Saved” per Crossing................................................... 30

Figure 10. Corridor Risk for Phases I, II, and III......................................................................... 35

Figure 11. 1991, 2004, and 2010 Corridor Risk for Phases I, II, and III..................................... 36

Figure 12. Risk Reduction through 2010 with Speed Increased to 110 mph ............................... 37

Figure 13. Risk Reduction through 2010 with Speed Increased to 79 mph and No Speed 

Increased ..................................................................................................................... 38

Figure 14. Project Implementations by Date ................................................................................ 42

Figure 15. Risk Reduction through 2010 for Phases I, II, and III................................................. 46
vi

Tables

Table 1. Closures Completed Through September 2004.............................................................. 10

Table 2. Four-Quadrant gates Completed Through September 2004........................................... 13

Table 3. Long Gates Arm Completed Through September 2004 ................................................. 15

Table 4. Traffic Channelization Completed Through September 2004........................................ 17

Table 5. Health Monitoring Completed Through September 2004 .............................................. 19

Table 6. Five-Year Fatal Crash Analysis Pretreatment Fatalities................................................ 21

Table 7. Summary of Lives Saved Analysis Results by Warning Device Type.......................... 23

Table 8. Fatal Crash Analysis Results for Closure ....................................................................... 24

Table 9. Fatal Crash Analysis Results for 4-Quandrant gate........................................................ 25

Table 10. Fatal Crash Analysis Results for 4-Quad, Median Barrier and Health Monitoring ..... 26

Table 11. Fatal Crash Analysis Results for 4-Quadrant and Median Barrier............................... 27

Table 12. Fatal Crash Analysis Results for Long Gate and Health Monitoring........................... 27

Table 13. Fatal Crash Analysis Results for Long Gate................................................................. 28

Table 14. Fatal Crash Analysis Results for Median Barrier and Health Monitoring ................... 29

Table 15. Fatal Crash Analysis Results for Long Gate, Median Barrier, and Heath Monitoring. 29

Table 16. Risk-Based – Predicted “Lives Lost” Under Pretreatment Conditions ........................ 33

Table 17. Predicted “Lives Saved” for Treated Crossings Over the Posttreatment 

5-Year Period.............................................................................................................. 34

Table 18. Effectiveness and Cost of Crossing Improvements...................................................... 43
1

Executive Summary

In response to a request in the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations 

Act, 2001, P.L. 106-346, this report documents the benefits of the State of North Carolina’s Sealed 

Corridor initiative and the improvements completed at highway-rail grade crossings from March 

1995 through September 2004 in terms of lives saved. The analysis concludes that 19 lives were 

saved during the study period and that this positive benefit of the Sealed Corridor improvements 

will grow as vehicle volume, train frequency and speeds increase.

High-speed rail passenger service is being encouraged in the United States as evidenced by 

legislation such as the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), the 

Swift Rail Development Act of 1994, and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century 

(TEA-21). High-speed rail operations on corridors designated under TEA-21 could eventually 

result in train speeds above 110 mph.

The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NC DOT) plays a prominent role among states

pursuing high-speed ground transportation development. Part of the Southeast High Speed Rail 

(SEHSR) Corridor, which connects Washington, DC, through Richmond, VA, to Raleigh and 

Charlotte, NC, with extensions south to Columbia, SC, Savannah, GA, and southwest to 

Greenville, SC, Atlanta and Macon, GA, and Jacksonville, FL, runs through the State of North 

Carolina. Recognizing that improved safety must accompany improved service, the State has 

instituted an innovative Sealed Corridor program initiative, which aims at improving or closing 

every grade crossing, both public and private, along the chosen route between Charlotte and 

Raleigh, NC, via Greensboro on the North Carolina Railroad. The Sealed Corridor initiative is 

also a model research approach to examine grade crossing issues in other corridors.

The intent of this research is to assess the progress being made at the highway-rail grade crossings 

that have been treated with improved warning devices or closed between Charlotte and Raleigh. 

Some of the improvements include nonstandard devices such as traffic channelization and fourquadrant gates. The progress is described in terms of safety benefits. Crash data were examined 

through December 2004 to ensure any incidents that may have occurred at crossings improved 

through September 2004 would be included. This report also contains an analysis and evaluation 

of whether the resulting reduction in incidents is sustainable through the year 2010 when train 

speeds along the corridor could achieve 110 mph.

Safety benefits are developed through the use of two techniques: (1) a Fatal Crash Analysis 

approach to estimate lives saved through December 2004; and (2) a prediction of lives saved based 

on the reduction of risk at those treated crossings using a modified United States Department of 

Transportation (U.S. DOT) Accident Prediction Formula (APF). The resulting risk reduction that 

can be anticipated through the year 2010 is calculated at operating train speeds of 110 mph along 

the corridor.

The Sealed Corridor consists of 216 grade crossings, 44 of which are private crossings. Phase I, II, 

and III of the implementation plan for the corridor addresses 208 crossings between Charlotte and 

Raleigh. A total of 189 of the 208 crossings have been improved and/or closed. The research 

documented in this report calculates the number of lives saved based on the improvements made to 
2

the highway-rail intersections from March 1995 to September 2004. The results of this research 

provide a substantive analysis of the Sealed Corridor implementation and provide Federal, State 

and local organizations a successful model to utilize on their high-speed rail corridor. 

Conclusions

At least 19 lives have been saved.

The “fatal crash analysis method” was used to calculate the differences between the annual (or 

monthly) fatality rates, based on actual experience at the improved crossings, before and after the 

improvements were made at each crossing. To calculate lives saved, those differences were 

multiplied by the number of years (or months) that have transpired through December 2004 since 

each of the respective improvements were made. The sum of these results was then calculated for

all of the crossings that were improved. This resulted in an estimate of 19.7, or conservatively, 19

lives saved as a result of the 189 improvements implemented through December 2004.

The “modified U.S.DOT APF” recognizes the probabilistic nature of grade crossing fatalities and 

relies on a combination of actual experience at the improved crossings and an extensive database 

of experience at similar crossings nationwide. The formula was used to estimate the annual

fatality rates at each crossing before and after each improvement and these were accumulated for

corridor-wide results. This method estimated that the improvements implemented through 2004

are reducing fatalities by approximately 2.04 each year, or over two lives saved each year. The 

Modified U.S.DOT APF predicted 9 fewer lives saved compared to the Fatal Crash Analysis 

results. This may be due to the fact that the APF contains more variables, and addresses the 

crossing environment risk.

The accident reduction result is sustainable.

To estimate future incident reduction rates, the second of the above methods was used to ensure

increases in train and vehicle exposure over time were considered in the analysis. By the year 

2010 it is projected by NC DOT that the vehicle traffic volume and the frequency and speed of 

trains will increase. The second method is capable of taking these factors into account.

Figure 1 shows the estimated annual fatalities under two conditions: (1) all 208 crossings have

been treated (full build, and (2) without any improvements to the 208 crossings (no build). The 

graph shows a decrease in risk from 1992 to 1996, and an increase in risk with the introduction of 

the higher train frequency and speed. The graph shows the influence of the improvements, which 

were initiated in March 1995 on reducing the annual fatalities through 2004. The improvements at 

the remaining 19 crossings in the corridor were assumed to be implemented in 2008, resulting in a 

further reduction in annual fatalities. The gradual increase in traffic volume and train frequency 

from 2004 through 2010 is expected to gradually increase annual fatalities under all conditions. 

Finally, the increase in train speed to 110 mph, assumed to occur in 2010, would further increase 

all fatality rates.
3

Figure 1. Risk Reduction through 2010 for Phases I, II, and III.

As can be seen in Figure 1, the difference in annual fatalities (the number of lives saved per year) 

under all conditions (full build, and no build) would continue to increase throughout the period to

2010. By 2010, the fatality rate resulting from the full implementation of the entire Sealed 

Corridor would be 53 percent lower than if no implementation was executed and train speed 

increased to 110 mph. Further analysis indicates the fatality rate would be 51.9 percent lower if 

the speed increased to 79 mph only in 2010 and 46.7 percent lower with no increase in speed in 

2010. Discussions with NC DOT Rail Staff indicate train speeds will only increase to 79 mph. 

Therefore, approximately 52 percent of the risk would be eliminated. 

Risk 1990-2010

 No Build (79 mph in 2010); No Build (110 mph in 2010); 

Full Build (79 mph in 2010); Full Build (110 mph in 2010); 

Full Build-No Speed Increase

3.98 3.67 3.57 3.30 3.04 2.83

3.56 3.54 3.38 3.36 3.25 3.09 3.27 2.98 3.06 3.22 3.08

4.010661186 3.975047547 3.672935872 3.574662143 3.29706134 3.035162075 2.827892761

3.564156247 3.540270195 3.379546228 3.359050823 3.247150842 3.092166483 3.265348808 2.980351007 3.055773351 3.216644089 3.081812823 2.939642609

4.01 3.98

3.57 3.48 3.23 2.95 2.65

3.41

3.02 2.75 2.65

2.35 2.12 1.97 1.94 1.97 2.05 1.91 1.78

4.01 3.98

3.57 3.48 3.23 2.95 2.65

3.41

3.02 2.75 2.65

2.35 2.12 1.97 1.94 1.97 2.05 1.91 1.78

4.01 3.98

3.57 3.48 3.23 2.95 2.65

3.41

3.02 2.75 2.65

2.35 2.12 1.97 1.94 1.97 2.05 1.91 1.78

4.01

3.77

2.94

5.30

3.77397133

4.81

3.77

2.49

3.77

2.31

1.73

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Year

Risk (Fatalities / Yr)

No Build (110 mph in 2010) No Build (79 mph in 2010) Full Build (110 mph in 2010) Full Build (79 mph in 2010) Full Build (no speed increase)
4

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), the Swift Rail 

Development Act of 1994, and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) in 

1995, were evidence that high-speed rail passenger service was going to increase in the United 

States [1]. As a result of this legislation and other initiatives, ten high-speed rail passenger service 

corridors were designated in the United States. High-speed rail operations on these and other 

emerging corridors could eventually result in train speeds above 110 mph by the year 2010. 

Creating a high-speed rail corridor in any growing state will impact safety due to the increase in

exposure of vehicles to trains and higher train speeds. 

Recognizing that these risks must be addressed if high speed rail service is to be accomplished, the

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) developed guidelines for the installation of motorist warning 

and train protection devices at grade crossings on the designated high-speed rail corridors. In 

summary, FRA Guidelines [2] call for the following actions: eliminate all redundant or unnecessary 

crossings; protect rail movement with full width barriers capable of absorbing the impact of highway 

vehicles at train operating speeds between 111 and 125 mph; and close or grade separate all 

highway-rail crossings with train speeds above 125 mph. In 1998, FRA finalized new track safety 

standards [3]. In these new rules, FRA requires a carrier to submit warning or railroad protection 

plans for crossings where the speeds are authorized above 110 mph. The new high-speed rail 

standards prohibit crossings where track speeds exceed 125 mph. FRA published a final rule on 

passenger equipment safety standards on May 12, 1999 (64 FR 25540). The rule improves the 

crashworthiness of passenger trains to obtain increases in railroad passenger survivability at higher 

train speeds.

The organization of the report is as follows. Section 1 describes the North Carolina Sealed Corridor,

defines the treatment types, and lists crossings by upgrade. Section 2 describes the crash analysis

methods used and summarizes all 33 crossings within Phase I, II, and III that had fatal crashes from 

1987 through 2004. Section 2 also describes the Fatal Accident Prediction Method and details the

findings that determine the pretreatment fatalities and the post-improvement lives saved through 

December 2004. Section 2 also describes the modified U.S. DOT Accident Prediction Formula

(APF) [4, 5, 6], the assumptions used within the formula, and its results through December 2004. 

Finally, Section 2 describes results if all of the Phase I, II, and III crossings were treated as proposed 

by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NC DOT) by the year 2010. For the 2010 

analysis, five scenarios are developed and the Sealed Corridor risks are compared. Section 3 

compares the Phase I analysis results versus Phase I, II, and III results obtained from this analysis. 

Section 4 provides findings and conclusions of the assessment of the NC DOT Sealed Corridor

Phase I, II, and III program. Specific costs and effectiveness of the warning devices employed are 

also discussed. 

1.2 NC DOT Sealed Corridor Background

North Carolina plays an important role among states pursuing high-speed ground transportation 

development. Part of the Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) Corridor, which connects 
5

Washington, DC, through Richmond, VA, to Raleigh and Charlotte, NC, with extensions south to 

Columbia, SC, Savannah, GA, and southwest to Greenville, SC, Atlanta and Macon, GA, and 

Jacksonville, FL, and runs through the State of North Carolina (see Figure 2). The SEHSR 

Corridor is approximately 500 miles in length. The segment of the SEHSR corridor from 

Washington, DC, to Charlotte, NC, was one of the five original national high-speed rail corridors 

designated for improvements to high-speed status under ISTEA in 1991.

 

Figure 2. Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor

1.3 Corridor Description

The NC DOT corridor is usually single track including sidings with approximately one crossing per 

mile. The route carries 35 freight trains per day and approximately six daily passenger trains. It has 

a mix of public and private crossings and the route contains both urban and rural environs. Future 

plans for this corridor include operation at speeds up to 110 mph by the year 2010. North Carolina 

realized the increasing service has the potential of increasing the number of incidents along its high 

speed rail (HSR) corridor. For safety reasons, North Carolina has organized an innovative sealed 

corridor program, which aims at improving or closing every grade crossing, public and private along 

the Charlotte to Raleigh rail route. The warning devices and other improvement type are fourquadrant gates, traffic channelization devices, long gates, closure, video enforcement, grade 

separation, signs, pavement markings and health monitoring. The NC DOT Sealed Corridor 

includes 216 grade crossings, 44 of which are private crossings, over a distance of 173.3 miles.

The corridor has been broken into four phases, based on location:

Phase I East 36th Street, Charlotte northeastward to South Elm Street, Greensboro,
6

Phase II Gillespie Street, Greensboro eastward to Academy Street, Cary,

Phase III 1

Norfolk Southern Corporation’s main railroad line between Greensboro and Charlotte operates

over the North Carolina Railroad. It hosts high levels of freight traffic with up to 35 daily freight 

trains and six passenger trains moving over the corridor daily. Passenger train traffic is projected 

to increase to 23 daily trains by 2010. Historically, this route has had a high rate of crossing 

incidents due to the ever-growing highway traffic in the urban areas along the corridor. Between 

1987 and 2004, 282 crashes have occurred on the corridor, which involved 74 injuries and 55

fatalities.

Reedy Creek Road, Cary eastward to Royal Avenue, Raleigh, and

Phase IV Private Crossing Safety Improvement (PCSI) program, 44 private crossings 

between Charlotte and Raleigh.

1.4 Purpose

The United States Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) Research and Innovative Technology 

Administration’s Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center) was requested by the 

FRA Office of Research and Development in 2000 to assess Phase I between Charlotte and 

Greensboro of North Carolina’s Sealed Corridor program for all improvement crossings completed 

from 1987 to September 2000. Phase I addressed a total of 100 crossings, 52 of which were

improved and/ or closed as of September 2000. The objective was to determine the lives saved

through December 2000 along the Sealed Corridor Phase I program, and to determine whether the 

planned treatments for the entire Phase I corridor would provide a sustainable crash reduction 

condition through 2010. 

The purpose of this report is to update the 2001 Report to Congress Phase I [7] and document the 

benefits of the State of North Carolina’s Phase I, II, and III Sealed Corridor Program and the 

improvements completed through December 2004 at highway-rail grade crossing. A Fatal Crash 

Analysis method and a modified U.S. DOT APF were employed utilizing crash histories and 

fatalities from 1987 through December 2004. Benefits were estimated for the treatments used 

along the Sealed Corridor through December 2004 in terms of lives saved. 

This report documents an assessment of the benefits resulting from all 208 crossings of the Phase I, 

II, and III Sealed Corridor Program that have been improved through September 2004, and also 

contains an analysis and evaluation of whether the resulting reduction in crashes is sustainable 

through 2010, when train speeds along the corridor are projected to achieve 110 mph and all 208

crossings have been treated and/or closed. The baseline information for the study was obtained 

from the FRA Railroad Accident Incident Reporting System (RAIRS) database [8] from October 

2000 through September 2004, NC DOT collision reports, police reports, and newspaper articles. 

 Phase III has two segments. Fetner Junction to Boylan Junction, Cary and Reedy Creek Road, Cary to Royal Avenue, 

Raleigh.
7

1.5 Objective

The objectives of this assessment report are twofold:

• Determine the potential lives saved through September 2004 along the NC DOT 

Sealed Corridor Phase I, II, and III program, by using the Fatal Crash Analysis 

approach, and

• Determine whether the planned treatments for the entire Phase I, II, and III corridor 

provide a sustainable crash reduction condition through 2010 with train speeds 

increase to 110 mph in the year 2010, using a modified United States Department of 

Transportation (U.S.DOT) APF.

Risk is the product of probability and severity of a crash occurring. If one crossing has one crash 

per year with one fatality and another crossing has only one crash every 10 years, but there are 10

fatalities in that crash, the statistical risk is the same at each crossing—one fatality per year. 

Fatalities were chosen as being an essential measure of safety without some of the ambiguity 

involved in injury counts or other measures.

1.6 Corridor Activities

By using modified standard technologies, the NC DOT makes railroad operations safer by closing 

redundant crossings, and by using median barriers, long gate arms, four-quadrant gates, health 

monitoring, and other innovative signage and traffic control devices at the remaining crossings.

Figure 3 shows the locations of the 208 treated crossings through September 2004 of all three 

phases of the Sealed Corridor from Charlotte to Raleigh. The railroad tracks of the corridor belong 

to the North Carolina Railroad Company and CSX Transportation, Inc.

Detailed information about each of the 208 treated crossings analyzed in this report, including 

crossing number, milepost, road name, type of treatment, and the construction date is contained in 

Appendix A.
8

 

Figure 3. Phase I, II, and III “Sealed Corridor” Treated Crossings through September 2004

1.7 Treatment Description

Closings

A Traffic Separation Study (TSS) [9, 10] process was developed in 1995 by the NC DOT Rail 

Division to help close more crossings statewide by establishing a series of steps to improve 

coordination, communication and consistency among all stakeholders across the State. The TSS 

process helped close more crossings in many communities throughout the State by doing the 

following: educating the public on railroad crossing safety, identifying specific candidate crossings 

for closure, prioritizing concerns, and building consensus regarding closures in that community. 

Studies have also examined other possible safety enhancements to local streets and crossings to 

further improve public safety while accommodating current and projected highways, school bus 

routes, and emergency response traffic routes. When considering crossing improvements, it is 

important to evaluate whether crossing closure or consolidation is feasible and if there are multiple 

crossings in close proximity that provide access to the same area that could be considered

redundant. The NC DOT considers a crossing redundant if it is within a quarter of a mile of 

another crossing connected to the same street network. 
9

To identify specific candidate crossings for closure, the NC DOT Rail Division conducted a series 

of TSS to determine the need for improvements and/or elimination of public grade crossings based 

on specific criteria, which include accident history, existing and projected vehicular and train 

traffic, types of roadways and crossings, type of property being served, emergency and school bus 

routes, type of warning devices present, feasibility for improvements, and economic impact on the 

community if the crossing were to be closed. Figure 4 shows an example of a closure activity. 

Table 1 describes in detail the milepost, road name, type of crossing, and the construction date for

each crossing that was updated with closure.

Figure 4. View of Hackett Street after Closing
10

Table 1. Closures Completed Through September 2004

Milepost Road Name Type Crossing Upgrade Construction Date

160.64 Beryl Road Crossover Public CL 3/14/2001

163.1 Bashford Road Public CL 3/26/2002

68.66 Ashe Street Public CL 1/30/1997

63.98 Northern Telecom Road Public CL 6/15/2004

33.33 Walton Crossing Public CL 6/26/2002

17.05 Antioch Avenue Public CL 8/18/2003

16.66 South Holt Avenue Public CL 8/11/2000

14.75 Smith Street Public CL 8/8/2005

11.97 Bell Road/SR-2764 Public CL 9/25/2002

5.84 Four Mile Loop/SR-2827 Public CL 6/1/2001

288.01 Rucker Street Public CL 8/16/2004

288.26 Rail Street Public CL 8/16/2004

288.47 Boston Road Public CL 8/16/2004

293.11 Stanford Drive/ SR-1550 Public CL 6/1/2006

304.56 Unity Street/ SR-2051 Public CL 1/13/2003

305.6 College Street Public CL 5/24/1996

306.22 Loftin Street Public CL 12/15/1995

306.62 Hoover Street Public CL 8/15/2005

306.83 Boyles Street Public CL 12/15/1995

307 Peace Street Public CL 1/2/2004

316.2 Bristol Street Public CL 9/10/2001

316.35 Pond Street Public CL 9/10/2001

317.84 East 13th Avenue Public CL 10/1/2001

329.76 Hackett Street/ SR-2124 Public CL 3/15/2004

334.45 Knox Street Public CL 4/15/1997

334.61 Crawford Street Public CL 10/20/1998

335.2 East Harrison Street Public CL 8/17/1999

334.85 Lumber Street Public CL 11/3/1998

334.91 Mildred Avenue Public CL 10/20/1998

334.97 Vance Avenue Public CL 10/20/1998

350.28 C Avenue Public CL 4/15/1997

335.49 D Avenue Public CL 7/7/1998

335.66 Julian Road Public CL 11/5/1997

338.19 Peach Orchard Lane/SR2545 Public CL 1/31/1997

342.67 East Liberty Street Public CL 12/28/2004

343.01 Ketchie Street Public CL 1/4/1993

343.55 Chapel Street Public CL 5/12/2004

344.18 Bostian Rd./ SR-1221 Public CL 11/8/1999

346.07 East Round Street Public CL 10/11/2004

348.1 Ebenezer Road Public CL 4/12/1999

349.38 East C Street Public CL 4/12/1999

349.1 Plymouth Street Public CL 4/12/1999

354.7 Winecoff Avenue Public CL 11/4/2001

355.31 Misenheimer Drive Public CL 11/8/1999

356.01 Elm Street Public CL 11/8/1999

370.21 Turner Road/ SR-2841 Public CL 3/1/1993
11

Grade Separation

Grade separation of the highway and the railroad tracks is both the most effective and the most 

expensive treatment to eliminate risk at a grade crossing. A grade separation project can cost on 

average $3–5 million dollars per location [7]. Because grade separation is expensive, it is not used 

as often as closing grade crossings. NC DOT in its TSS for Salisbury identified three crossings for 

grade separation. In the city of Thomasville, two grade crossings have been selected for grade 

separation. At the time of documenting the 12 Sealed Corridor improvements, only one crossing 

had been grade separated, Old Linwood Road in Lexington, NC. The goal of the traffic separation 

studies performed by NC DOT was to consolidate redundant and/or unsafe grade crossings while 

identifying ways to improve highway-traffic flow across the rail corridor. 

Video Enforcement 

Digital video ticketing system is a photo-based system implemented in conjunction with 

instrumentation installed at a particular site by NC DOT and the Norfolk Southern Corporation to 

obtain evidence of violations. In August 1998, a digital video ticketing system was placed in 

service at the Henderson Street Crossing in Salisbury, NC. The Henderson Street Crossing 

consists of six tracks, on which operate both freight and passenger service. The frequency of trains 

at this location is approximately one every 15 minutes. This particular crossing had a history of 

violations and incidents. In cooperation with local law enforcement and judicial officials, violators 

were ticketed based on video-recorded evidence in a test that was the first of its kind in North 

Carolina. The University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center conducted 

comparisons of driver violation records and general users and also administered a survey on 

drivers’ perception of risk at railroad gate crossings. 

During the period of the video ticketing study from August to December of 1998 at the Henderson 

Street, Salisbury location, 64 documented instances were documented where drivers were observed 

to illegally proceed around the lowered crossing gates as a train was approaching. With the 

cooperation of local law enforcement, violators were ticketed and fined. This demonstration 

resulted in a reduction in violations by 72 percent [7], showing that photo-based video enforcement 

methods combined with a fine/penalty structure are an effective alternative to traditional 

enforcement.

Four-Quadrant Gate 

Four-quadrant gate systems are rising in popularity. These installations add another pair of gates to 

the conventional gated crossing. This results in a crossing that has gates blocking all lanes of 

traffic on both sides of the crossing making it very difficult for a motorist to go around them in an 

attempt to beat an approaching train. Four-quadrant gates may be used where insufficient physical 

space prevents the installation of traffic channelization devices due to nearby highway 

intersections or driveways. Many communities seeking to establish quiet zones have chosen to use 

four-quadrant gate systems, despite their relative high cost, because of their demonstrated 

effectiveness in preventing train-vehicle collisions. 
12

The NC DOT has authorized engineering and construction of four-quadrant gate systems at several 

locations along the corridor. “Before” and “after” data on driver behavior at four-quadrant gates 

was gathered using a video monitoring system to show the effectiveness of the treatment. Sugar 

Creek Road in Charlotte was selected during the initial tests because it has the highest Average 

Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) in the corridor and more than 21,000 vehicles per day. The fourquadrant gates were found to improve safety by reducing violations by 86 percent [7]. Figure 5 

shows one of the installations of four-quadrant gates. When combined with 50 to 100-foot traffic 

channelization devices to further deter violations, the combination has been shown to be 98 percent 

effective in reducing violations [7]. Although the cost of this type of installation is considerably 

higher than a standard two-gate system, the improved safety benefit is appreciable. Table 2 list 

each crossing that was upgraded with four-quadrant gates. 

Figure 5. 4-Quad Gates at Shamrock Road, Harrisburg, NC 
13

Table 2. Four-Quadrant gates Completed Through September 2004

Milepost Road Name Type Crossing Upgrade Construction Date

160.77 Blue Ridge Road/SR-3072 Public 4Q 4/7/1999

72.7 Academy Street/SR-1312 Public 4Q 3/15/2004

72.58 North Harrison/SR-1652 Public 4Q 3/15/2004

62.83 Cornwallis Road Public 4Q 9/9/2002

57.57 Ellis Road/SR-1954 Public 4Q 3/5/2004

55.5 Fayetteville Street/SR-1118 Public 4Q 7/31/2003

55.45 Dillard Street Public 4Q 3/26/2002

55.09 Blackwell/Corcan Street Public 4Q 7/31/2003

53.76 Swift Avenue/SR-1322 Public 4Q 7/31/2003

53.21 Anderson Street Public 4Q 9/16/2003

52.04 North LaSalle Street Public 4Q 7/31/2003

31.64 Fifth St/NC-119 Public 4Q 3/18/2003

31.46 Third Street/SR-1962 Public 4Q 5/30/2003

29.83 Lake Latham Road/SR-1976 Public 4Q 9/19/2002

23.17 Washington Street/SR-1716 Public 4Q 2/28/2002

22.6 Queen Ann Street Public 4Q 5/30/2003

21.86 Gilmer Street Public 4Q 3/10/2003

21.36 Main Street Public 4Q 11/18/2002

20.63 Elmira Street/SR-1530 Public 4Q 5/28/2003

17.26 Oak Avenue/SR-1323 Public 4Q 5/30/2003

16.73 Williamson Avenue/SR-1301 Public 4Q 8/14/2002

3.01 Franklin Blouvardd/SR-3005 Public 4Q 8/19/2002

2.05 Holts Chapel Road Public 4Q 3/14/2006

1.83 North English Street Public 4Q 5/30/2003

0.67 South Dudley Street Public 4Q 2/25/2003

284.1 South Elm Street Public 4Q 7/28/2000

300.17 West Point Avenue Public 4Q 2/28/2006

317.99 East 15th Avenue Public 4Q 6/25/2002

318.68 Prospect Drive Public 4Q 2/9/2000

333.28 Henderson Street Public 4Q 4/5/2004

349.1 East 1st Street/ SR-1706 Public 4Q 2/24/2003

352.72

Winecoff School Road/ SR1790Public 4Q

5/27/2003

361.5 Pharr Hill Road/ SR-1158 Public 4Q 1/16/2003

362.88 Shamrock Road/ SR-1160 Public 4Q 10/13/2004

370.71 Hickory Grove Road/ SR-2853 Public 4Q 8/5/1999

374.87 East 36th Street Public 4Q 5/16/2000
14

Long Gate Arm

The longer gate arms systems cover at least three quarters of the roadway. Tests at the Orr Road 

Crossing in Charlotte were conducted by NC DOT to evaluate the effectiveness of longer gate

arms to reduce the drivers’ ability to run around the gates (see Figure 6). A total of three tests 

were conducted. The first test gathered driver violation data before treatment was installed. The 

second test gathered posttreatment violation after data of the effect of long arm gates and showed a 

67 percent reduction of crossing violations. A third test gathering “after” data on long gate arms 

was conducted at Orr Road a year after the first test to determine if the long gate arms retain their 

effectiveness. The results from the third test showed an even higher reduction of 84 percent in 

crossing violations compared with pretreatment “before” numbers. Longer gate arms are being 

used in conjunction with traffic channelization devices, but not where they would block a street or 

driveway intersection close to the crossing. Table 3 lists each crossing that was upgraded with 

Long Gate Arm. 

Figure 6. Longer Arm Gate at Orr Road, Charlotte, NC 
15

Table 3. Long Gates Arm Completed Through September 2004

Milepost Road Name Type Crossing Upgrade Construction Date

159.94 Beryl Road Public LG 5/24/2001

161.33 Powell Drive Public LG 4/19/2001

162.42 Nowell Road/SR-1657 Public LG 9/10/2001

67.02 McCrimmon PKWY/SR-1635 Public LG 10/17/2001

66.5 Barbee Road/SR-1706 Public LG 10/3/2001

65.29 Church Street/SR-1980 Public LG 10/3/2001

64.57 Hopson Road Public LG 10/3/2001

61.8 Lbm Access Road Public LG 2/28/2002

59.28 Wrenn Road/SR-1955 Public LG 10/3/2001

58.98 Glover Road/SR-1940 Public LG 10/17/2001

56.7 Driver Street Public LG 3/1/2004

56.4 Plum Street Public LG 3/5/2004

55.9 Ramseur Street Public LG 5/20/2004

54.2 Buchanan Road Public LG 7/9/2003

50.2 Neal Road Public LG 10/17/2001

47.07 Mt. Herman Church/SR-1713 Public LG 1/8/2002

46.28 University Station/SR-1712 Public LG 1/8/2002

41.2 Fairbault Lane/SR-1149 Public LG 1/8/2002

37.31 Mt. Willing Road/SR-1120 Public LG 1/16/2002

35.69 Redman Crossing/SR-1399 Public LG 1/9/2002

34.11 Buckhorn Road/SR-1114 Public LG 3/17/2003

32.79 Mattress Factory/SR-1402 Public LG 3/17/2003

31.56 Fourth Street Public LG 3/13/2003

30.69 Moore Road/SR-1965 Public LG 3/11/2003

29.36 Gibson Road/SR1940 Public LG 11/4/2002

26.02 Stone Street/SR-1935 Public LG 1/9/2002

23.67 Pomeroy Street/SR-1719 Public LG 12/3/2001

19.43 South Glenn Raven/SR-1523 Public LG 4/9/2002

19.21 Lakeview Drive/SR-1349 Public LG 1/9/2002

18.16 Gilliam Road/SR-1342 Public LG 2/12/2002

16.36 Church Street Public LG 8/14/2002

15.87 Cook Road/SR-1311 Public LG 1/23/2002

15.51 Huffines Street/SR-1310 Public LG 1/23/2002

14.87 Springwood Avenue/SR-2748 Public LG 5/30/2003

14.42 East Joyner Street Public LG 5/30/2003

13.67 Power Line Road/SR-2763 Public LG 1/23/2002

12.81 Wagoner Road/SR-2724 Public LG 3/3/2003

11.44 Cullen Road/SR-2801 Public LG 2/26/2003

9.09 Carmon Road/SR-2755 Public LG 11/5/2001

8.02 McLeansville Road/SR-2819 Public LG 5/30/2003

7.6 Frieden Church/SR-2746 Public LG 11/5/2001

4.92 Wagoner Bend Road/SR-3040 Public LG 9/26/2001

4.54 Buchanan Church Road/SR-3028 Public LG 11/5/2001

3.49 O'Ferrell Street/SR-3022 Public LG 6/27/2006

1.45 Gillespie Street Public LG 11/4/2002
16

335.2 Klumac Road/ SR-2541 Public LG 9/13/2000

346.82 East 29th Street Public LG 10/8/2001

367 Stroup Farm Road Public LG 10/28/1997

372.19 Orr Road Public LG 10/28/1997

Traffic Channelization Devices

Although the installation of flashing lights and gates reduces the likelihood of a collision by 75 

percent [7], it does not eliminate them. Because the deployment of these devices does not 

necessarily prevent all crossing collisions, FRA and its departmental partners are pursuing 

alternative means and innovative methods to improve their effectiveness. The use of traffic 

channelization devices or medians in advance of a gated crossing makes it much more difficult for 

a motorist to go around lowered gates. Traffic channelization devices consist of a prefabricated 

mountable island made of a composite material painted yellow. Reflectorized paddle delineators or 

tubes, 24-inches high with yellow and black stripes, are mounted on the curb barrier. To 

accommodate wide loads, such as mobile homes, all delineators are required to bend and return to 

their upright position. The paddle delineators are mounted on a flexible rubber boot, which allows 

them to return to their original vertical position after being impacted by vehicles. Concrete island 

median barriers are also used with the yellow striped delineators mounted to them.

NC DOT believes that traffic channelization devices, which cost on average about $10,000 per 

location, have proven to be a low-cost investment with a high rate of return in safety at crossings

[7] (see Figure 7). Considering their low maintenance cost and high effectiveness, traffic 

channelization devices are preferred by NC DOT to deter violators at crossings. On average, such 

treatments reduce the number of motorist violations by an additional 75 percent [7]. Table 4 list 

each crossing that was upgraded with traffic channelization and median barrier devices.
17

Figure 7. Traffic Channelization Device at Turner Road, Charlotte, NC

Table 4. Traffic Channelization Completed Through September 2004

Milepost Road Name Type Crossing Upgrade Construction Date

164.47 Ready Creek Road Public MB 4/24/2001

60.27 Ellis Road/SR-1954 Public MB 5/14/2002

17.91 York Road Public MB 5/30/2003

10.74 Colony Road/SR-2800 Public MB 1/9/2002

296.99 Pendleton Street Public MB 8/7/1997

311.18 Upper Lake Road./ SR-2024 Public MB 2/12/2002

313.09 Turner Road/ SR-2005 Public MB 2/12/2002

317.21 East 7th Avenue Public MB 6/13/2001

332.94 East 11th Street Public MB 9/19/2000

333.77 East Council Street Public MB 3/17/2004

334.2 East Monroe Street/ SR-1703 Public MB 9/19/2000

338.66 Peeler Road/ SR-2538 Public MB 2/11/2002

340.07 Webb Road/ SR-3490 (SR-1500) Public MB 2/11/2002

347.28 East 22nd Street/ SR-1254 Public MB 10/11/2000

356.3 Corban Avenue Public MB 2/11/2002

363.95 Hickory Ridge Road/ SR-1138 Public MB 5/17/2000

365.24 Caldwell Road/ SR-1173 Public MB 6/1/1998

374.02 Sugar Creek Road Public MB 2/11/2002
18

Signs, Pavement Markings and Health Monitoring 

Sign and pavement marking upgrades were determined based on the condition of the existing 

markings at crossings. Signs advising the motorist where to stop for activated crossing signals, 

such as in Figure 8, were placed on all crossings receiving treatment. Another sign placed at all 

crossings that receive treatment on the Sealed Corridor program provided a 1-800 emergency 

phone number that motorists can use to call the railroad to report any malfunctions of the crossing 

signals. 

An intelligent signal monitoring system was placed at some treated public crossing to notify 

railroad personnel about malfunctions, and to improve the reliability of warning devices. A 

roadway equipped with four-quadrant gates is very hard to go around when the gates are activated; 

therefore, the devices have a very high level of reliability and performance. Table 5 lists each 

crossing that was upgraded with health monitoring devices.

Figure 8. Grade Crossing Sign and Emergency Number
19

Table 5. Health Monitoring Completed Through September 2004

Milepost Road Name Type Crossing Upgrade Construction Date

294.25 Oakdale Mill Road./ SR-1352 Public HM 1/10/2001

295.76 Scientific Street/ SR-1332 Public HM 8/8/2000

296.99 Pendleton Street Public HM 8/7/1997

300.73 Prospect Avenue Public HM 11/4/1999

305 Turner Street/ SR-2165 Public HM 3/15/2001

305.97 Salem Street/ NC-109 Public HM 4/12/2000

306.11 Fisher Ferry Road Public HM 2/3/2000

311.18 Upper Lake Road/ SR-2024 Public HM 2/12/2002

311.99 Lower Lake Road/ SR-2020 Public HM 10/12/2000

317.21 East 7th Avenue Public HM 6/13/2001

324.29 SR-1135 Public HM 2/12/2002

330.18 Long Ferry Rd/SR-2120 Public HM 10/11/2000

332.94 East 11th Street Public HM 9/19/2000

333.57 East Kerr Street/ SR-2052 Public HM 2/22/2002

333.77 East Council Street Public HM 3/17/2004

334.11 East Horah Street Public HM 1/21/2002

334.2 East Monroe Street/ SR-1703 Public HM 9/19/2000

336.24

Henderson Grove Road./ SR1526Public

HM 11/8/2000

337.98 Peach Orchard Road./ SR-2539 Public HM 3/13/2001

338.66 Peeler Road./ SR-2538 Public HM 2/11/2002

340.07

Webb Road./ SR-3490 (SR1500)Public HM

2/11/2002

340.96

Mt. Hope Church Road./ SR1505 Public

HM 10/24/2001

342.86 East Church Street/ SR-1337 Public HM 2/21/2001

343.2 East Centerview Drive Public HM 2/26/2001

343.94 West Thom Street/ SR-1232 Public HM 2/26/2001

344.44 Eudy Road./ SR-1220 Public HM 2/26/2001

345.61 East Ryder Avenue/ SR-1210 Public HM 4/16/2003

345.69 East Mills Street Public HM 6/12/2001

347.28 East 22nd St./ SR-1254 Public HM 10/11/2000

347.55 East 18th Street Public HM 7/23/2001

355.12 McGill Avenue Public HM 2/22/2000

356.3 Corban Avenue Public HM 2/11/2002

363.95 Hickory Ridge Road./ SR-1138 Public HM 5/17/2000

364.12 Robinson Church Road./ SR1166Public HM 5/17/2000

365.62 Milbrook Road./ SR-1182 Public HM 10/29/2001

374.02 Sugar Creek Road. Public HM 2/11/2002

374.39 West Craighead Road. Public HM 3/17/1995
20

2 Method and Results

The Volpe Center conducted a site visit along the corridor to captured pictures of all crossings with 

or without treatment and also examined various databases including the FRA RAIRS update 

database, NC DOT Collision reports, police reports, and newspaper articles by using two different 

methods to estimate the number of lives saved and the potential for sustainability of a reduction in 

collisions through 2010. The Volpe Center teams created a database with the following categories 

for each crossing: crossing ID, milepost, road name, location, county, phase, public versus private 

crossings, gated versus passive crossings, type of treatment, status of treatment, and the completion 

date.

The first method used by the Volpe Center was the fatal crash analysis to calculate the differences 

between the annual/monthly fatality rates, based on actual experience at the improved crossings, 

before and after the improvements at each crossing. The differences were multiplied by the 

number of years/months that transpired through December 2004 since each improvement was

made. The sum of these results was then calculated over all of the crossings that were improved. 

The second method used was the modified U.S. DOT APF, which recognizes the probabilistic 

nature of grade crossing fatalities and relies on a combination of actual experience at the improved 

crossings and an extensive database of experience at similar crossings nationwide. The formula 

was used to estimate the annual fatality rate at each crossing before and after each improvement.

To estimate future accident reduction rates, the second of the stated methods was used to ensure 

increases in train and vehicle exposure over time and were considered in the analysis. By 2010, it 

is projected by NC DOT that the vehicle traffic volume and the frequency and speed of trains will 

increase. The second method is capable of taking these factors into account under full build, and 

no build conditions. 

2.1 Crash Analysis Method and Result

The ability to review the before and after conditions of highway-rail grade crossings with fatal 

crashes is very useful in determining the benefits of the treatment used. Thirty-three grade 

crossings were analyzed to assess the number of fatalities that occurred in the pretreatment 

conditions and lives saved under the posttreatment condition through December 2004 along the 

Sealed Corridor. All crashes from 1987 through December 2004 were considered for the Fatal 

Crash analysis, but only crossings with fatal crashes were selected. From 1987 to the time the 

treatment took place, a fatality-rate was calculated by using the crash history for each of the 

crossings by holding the warning device constant for pretreatment period. From the time of the 

Sealed Corridor treatment through December 2004, actual experience was compared with the 

pretreatment fatality rate to determine the potential lives saved. Between 1987 and 2004, 282 

crashes occurred on the corridor resulting in 74 injuries and 55 fatalities. Table 6 shows the 

historical fatalities for 5 years before treatment and illustrates an average of 2.75 fatalities per year 

during the pretreatment condition. 
21

Table 6. Five-Year Fatal Crash Analysis Pretreatment Fatalities

Improvement Crossing Name Mile Post

Historical Fatalities (five 

years prior to Treatment)

MB/HM Hickory Ridge Road 370.71 0 

MB/HM Corban Avenue 356.30 1 

MB/HM Ellis Road 57.57 1 

LG/MB/HM E. 22nd St./ SR-1254 347.28 1 

LG/MB/HM East Council Street 333.77 0 

LG/HM East Centerview Drive 343.2 0 

LG/HM East Mills Street 345.69 1 

LG/HM East 18th Street 347.55 0 

LG Lower Lake Road 311.99 0 

LG Powell Drive 161.33 0 

LG Hopson Road 64.57 0 

LG Plum Street 56.4 0 

LG Mt. Herman Church Road 47.07 0 

LG Fairbault Lane 41.20 0 

LG Randhurst Road 7.60 0 

CL C Avenue 335.40 1 

CL East 13th Avenue 317.84 0 

CL Ebenezer Road 348.06 0 

CL Lumber Street 334.85 2 

CL Knox Street 334.45 0 

CL Bashford Road 163.10 4 

CL Ashe Street 68.66 0 

CL Turner Crossing(SR-2841) 370.21 1 

4Q/MB/HM Sugar Creek Street 374.02 0 

4Q/MB/HM East 11th Street 332.94 0 

4Q/HM Salem Street/ NC-109 305.97 0 

4Q/HM West Craighead Road 374.39 0 

4Q/HM East Kerr Street/ SR-2052 333.57 0 

4Q Henderson Street 336.24 0 

4Q Winecoff School Road 352.72 0 

4Q Main Street 21.36 0 

4Q Fifth Street 31.64 0 

4Q Gilmer Street 21.86 0 

 Average Fatalities per year 2.75
22

Table 7 shows the summary results of potential lives saved Analysis by warning device type. It 

also illustrates the development of the fatal crash rate and the distribution of that rate over the 

posttreatment time period to obtain the number of lives saved as a result of the treatment. The 

fatality rate was calculated by dividing the number of pretreatment fatalities for each crossing from 

1987 through when it was treated by the pretreatment time period. The fatal crash rate for each 

crossing was then multiplied by the posttreatment time period. Any posttreatment fatalities were

subtracted from the estimated lives saved. The final calculation determined the lives saved

through December 2004 for each crossing. 

As shown in Table 7, crossings with closure for treatment had a total of 15 fatalities before the 

crossing was closed during in average time of 142 months and no fatalities after treatment during 

in average time of 68 months. Crossings equipped with four-quadrant gates, median barriers, and 

health monitoring had a total of 14 fatalities before treatment and 2 fatalities after treatment. 

Crossings treated with long gates, median barriers, and health monitoring had a total of 16 

fatalities before treatment and only one fatality after treatment. Finally, crossings with median 

barriers and health monitoring had only three fatalities before treatment and no fatalities after 

treatment. Closure and grade separation were shown to be the most effective treatments at grade 

crossings, each with 100 percent effectiveness. Four-quadrant gates with median barriers showed 

92 percent effectiveness, median barriers an 80 percent effectiveness, and long gate arm showed a 

75 percent effectiveness. Overall, the analysis estimated a total of 19 lives potentially saved.

Tables 8–15 summarize the results broken down by warning device type for each crossing in this 

case study. Figure 9 illustrates the fatal crash analysis of lives saved per crossing through 

December 2004. As previously documented, the Sealed Corridor project Phase I, II, and III 

encompassed a total of 208 crossings. At the time of this study, 189 had been treated and the 

remaining 19 were in the design stage or awaiting construction.
23

Table 7. Summary of Lives Saved Analysis Results by Warning Device Type 

Phase I, II and III 

Pretreatment Posttreatment 

Warning Device 

Improvement Fatalities

Ave Time 

Frame 

(Months)

Fatalities

Ave Time 

Frame 

(Months)

Analysis of 

Lives Saved

Closure Subtotal 15 142 0 68 8.727

4-Quadrant Gate 

Subtotal 14 139 2 49 6.013

Long Gate Subtotal 16 135 1 36 4.012

Median Barrier Subtotal 3 157 0 51 0.988

Totals 48 3 19.74
24

Table 8. Fatal Crash Analysis Results for Closure 

 Phase I, II, and III Pre-Treatment Post-Treatment

Improvement Crossing Name Mile Post Fatalities

Time Frame 

(Months) Fatalities

Time Frame 

(Months)

Analysis of 

Lives 

Saved

CL C Avenue 335.40 1 116 0 88 0.759

CL E. 13th Ave 317.84 1 166 0 38 0.229

CL Ebenezer Rd 348.06 1 159 0 57 0.358

CL Lumber Street 334.85 3 145 0 71 1.469

CL Knox Street 334.45 3 124 0 92 2.226

CL Bashford Rd 163.10 4 172 0 33 0.767

CL Ashe Street 68.66 1 109 0 95 0.872

CL Turner Xing(SR-2841) 370.21 1 63 0 129 2.048

Subtotal 15 0 8.727
25

Table 9. Fatal Crash Analysis Results for 4-Quandrant gate

 Phase I, II, and III Pre-Treatment Post-Treatment

Improvement Crossing Name Mile Post Fatalities

Time Frame 

(Months) Fatalities

Time Frame 

(Months)

Analysis of 

Lives 

Saved

4Q Henderson St 336.24 4 93 0 49 2.108

4Q Winecoff School Rd 352.72 1 185 0 17 0.092

4Q Main St 21.36 1 179 0 25 0.140

4Q Fifth St 31.64 0 147 1 21 -1.000

4Q Gilmer St 21.86 1 185 0 19 0.103

Subtotal 7 1 1.442
26

Table 10. Fatal Crash Analysis Results for 4-Quad, Median Barrier and Health Monitoring

 Phase I, II, and III Pre-Treatment Post-Treatment

Improvement Crossing Name Mile Post Fatalities

Time Frame 

(Months) Fatalities

Time Frame 

(Months)

Analysis of 

Lives 

Saved

4Q/MB/HM Sugar Creek St 374.02 1 104 0 112 1.077

4Q/MB/HM E. 11th St. 332.94 1 153 0 39 0.255

Subtotal 2 0 1.332
27

Table 11. Fatal Crash Analysis Results for 4-Quadrant and Median Barrier

 Phase I, II, and III Pre-Treatment Post-Treatment

Improvement Crossing Name Mile Post Fatalities

Time Frame 

(Months) Fatalities

Time Frame 

(Months)

Analysis of 

Lives 

Saved

4Q/HM Salem St./ NC-109 305.97 0 148 1 56 -1.000

4Q/HM W. Craighead Rd 374.39 3 99 0 117 3.545

4Q/HM E. Kerr St./ SR-2052 333.57 2 98 0 34 0.694

Subtotal 5 3.239

Table 12. Fatal Crash Analysis Results for Long Gate and Health Monitoring

 Phase I, II, and III Pre-Treatment Post-Treatment

Improvement Crossing Name Mile Post Fatalities

Time Frame 

(Months) Fatalities

Time Frame 

(Months)

Analysis of 

Lives 

Saved

LG/HM E. Centerview Dr. 343.2 1 159 0 46 0.289

LG/HM E. Mills St. 345.69 2 159 0 42 0.528

LG/HM E. 18th St. 347.55 1 163 0 41 0.252

Subtotal 4 1.069
28

Table 13. Fatal Crash Analysis Results for Long Gate 

 Phase I, II, and III Pre-Treatment Post-Treatment

Improvement Crossing Name Mile Post Fatalities

Time Frame 

(Months) Fatalities

Time Frame 

(Months)

Analysis of 

Lives 

Saved

CL C Avenue 335.40 1 116 0 88 0.759

CL E. 13th Ave 317.84 1 166 0 38 0.229

CL Ebenezer Rd 348.06 1 159 0 57 0.358

CL Lumber Street 334.85 3 145 0 71 1.469

CL Knox Street 334.45 3 124 0 92 2.226

CL Bashford Rd 163.10 4 172 0 33 0.767

CL Ashe Street 68.66 1 109 0 95 0.872

CL Turner Xing(SR-2841) 370.21 1 63 0 129 2.048

Subtotal 15 0 8.727
29

Table 14. Fatal Crash Analysis Results for Median Barrier and Health Monitoring

 Phase I, II, and III Pre-Treatment Post-Treatment

Improvement Crossing Name Mile Post Fatalities

Time Frame 

(Months) Fatalities

Time Frame 

(Months)

MB/HM Hickory Ridge Rd 370.71 1 149 0 55 0.369

MB/HM Corban Avenue 356.30 1 150 0 66 0.440

MB/HM Ellis Rd 57.57 1 173 0 31 0.179

subtotal 3 0 0.988

Table 15. Fatal Crash Analysis Results for Long Gate, Median Barrier, and Heath Monitoring

 Phase I, II, and III Pre-Treatment Post-Treatment

Improvement Crossing Name Mile Post Fatalities

Time Frame 

(Months) Fatalities

Time Frame 

(Months)

Analysis of 

Lives 

Saved

LG/MB/HM E. 22nd St./ SR-1254 347.28 1 147 0 50 0.340

LG/MB/HM E. Council St. 333.77 1 111 0 9 0.081

Subtotal 2 0.421
30

-1.000

0.000

1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

Lives Saved

Hickory Ridge Rd

Corban Avenue*

Ellis Rd

E. 22nd St./ SR-1254

E. Council St.

E. Centerview Dr.

E. Mills St.

E. 18th St.

Lower Lake Rd

Powell Drive

Hopson Rd

Plum Street

Mt. Herman Church Rd

Fair bault lane

Randhurst Rd

C Avenue

E. 13th Ave

Ebenezer Rd

Lumber Street

Knox Street

Bashford Rd

Ashe Street

Turner Xing(SR-2841)

Sugar Creek St

E. 11th St.

Salem St./ NC-109

W. Craighead Rd*

E. Kerr St./ SR-2052

Henderson St

Winecoff School Rd.

Main St

Fifth St

Gilmer St

Street Name

Figure 9. Fatal Crash Analysis of Lives Saved Per Crossing
31

2.2 Fatal Accident Prediction Method and Result

The U.S. DOT Fatal APF was used as the baseline to calculate risk in the corridor. The DOT 

standard formula developed by the Volpe Center has many variables to predict the severity of a 

crash at a grade crossing. The formula handles high-speed rail and additional enhancements and 

is based on the U.S. DOT Fatal APF with updates to the collision severity portion [4, 5, 6]. To 

determine accident probability, the study used the standard U.S. DOT APF weighted with actual 

crash history. To obtain accident rate estimates for improved crossings, an effectiveness rate was 

applied to the baseline accident prediction result. To differentiate between freight and passenger 

train operations and to account for higher train speeds, the severity calculation from the APF was 

not used. Instead, the independent severity model described in the Empire Corridor Risk 

Assessment Study was used. This severity model includes the use of vehicle mix in the 

determination of severity in passenger train operations as one of its attributes. 

A few variables used the crossing’s characteristics obtained from the FRA AAR Crossing 

Inventory and NC DOT inventory files such as number of tracks, number of train movements, 

and types of crossing warning devices. Other variables used the FRA Highway-Rail Grade 

Crossing Accident/Incident Reports for crossing crash history. Individual crossing information 

was used to help determine the final risk at each crossing. 

The APF is dominated by the exposure index term that combines the average daily traffic count 

and the number of trains. Risk is the product of the probability of an event occurring and the 

severity of the event. Probability is defined as the predicted number of grade crossing crashes 

along a set of crossings per year. Severity is defined in this report in terms of fatalities per 

collision, either to train or motor vehicle occupants. Risk is presented as the number of predicted 

fatalities per year at the set of crossings.

The crash history factor is the collision history of the crossing of the previous 5-year period of 

time. Many states regularly use the APF to help prioritize grade crossings for improvements. 

The validity of the APF is very reliant on the previous 5-year collision history. Changes in 

crossing characteristics can affect the result of the modeled prediction, so the most accurate data 

available is used. The Rail-Highway Crossing Resource Allocation Procedure User’s Guide 

recommends that data older than 5 years may be misleading because of physical changes that 

could have occurred at the crossing. Therefore, each year’s calculated risk is influenced by only 

the past 5 years of crash history. The risk is a weighted average of the crossing characteristics 

and the historical crashes at the crossing. This factor adjusts the final probability of a fatal crash 

based on historical collision information at the crossing.

A modified APF was developed to predict the future fatalities of the treated crossings through 

2010. To be consistent with the fatal crash analysis, the modified APF estimated the risk for 5-

year intervals for both pre- and posttreatment time periods for warning device effectiveness 

calculations. It is populated with year-by-year input variables from both the FRA Inventory and 

NC DOT data. The model then calculates the effect of the 5-year actual incident history for 

prediction of future incidents. A 2 percent per year growth in annual average daily traffic

(AADT) and train frequency was assumed in the model after the year 2004, and train speeds 

were assumed to increase to 110 mph for the year 2010 only. 
32

2.2.1 Risk Formula Result with Fatal Incidents

The risk-based fatalities for the pretreatment condition were calculated for the 33 grade crossings 

analyzed with fatal crash histories and are shown in Table 16. The pretreatment risk in fatalities 

was determined by summing the annual risk for the 5 years before the date of the grade crossing 

treatment. As shown in Table 16, the risk-based methodology calculated the total number of 

fatalities in the 5-year pretreatment condition to be 4.07 fatalities, or a rate of 0.81 fatalities per 

year.

The lives saved for the same set of crossings was determined from formula predictions. The 

posttreatment risk was calculated by using the 5-future years from the date of the grade crossing 

improvement. The risk-based lives saved for the posttreatment condition for the 33 crossings are 

shown in Table 17. The posttreatment risk in fatalities was determined by summing the annual 

risk for the 5 years after the date of the grade crossing treatment. As shown in Table 17, the riskbased methodology calculated total fatalities in the 5-year posttreatment condition of 1.94, or a 

rate of 0.39 fatalities per year. The difference between the pre- and posttreatment risk also 

provided in Table 17 and illustrates the yearly lives saved at each crossing.

Therefore, the calculated lives saved using the risk-based 5-year before and after condition 

indicate that approximately 2.13 lives have been saved, which is equivalent to 0.43 lives saved 

per year. The results for both methods, the fatal crash analysis and the modified U.S. DOT 

formula, have trend results indicating a reduction of risk.
33

Table 16. Risk-Based – Predicted “Lives Lost” Under Pretreatment Conditions

Improvement Crossing Name Mile Post

Pre-treatment Risk 

(Fatalities / 5 yrs)

MB/HM Hickory Ridge Rd 370.71 0.08

MB/HM Corban Avenue 356.30 0.13

MB/HM Ellis Rd 57.57 0.21

LG/MB/HM E. 22nd St./ SR-1254 347.28 0.07

LG/MB/HM E. Council St. 333.77 0.03

LG/HM E. Centerview Dr. 343.2 0.07

LG/HM E. Mills St. 345.69 0.15

LG/HM E. 18th St. 347.55 0.15

LG Lower Lake Rd 311.99 0.10

LG Powell Drive 161.33 0.08

LG Hopson Rd 64.57 0.02

LG Plum Street 56.4 0.12

LG Mt. Herman Church Rd 47.07 0.04

LG Fair bault lane 41.20 0.02

LG Randhurst Rd 7.60 0.06

CL C Avenue 335.40 0.21

CL E. 13th Ave 317.84 0.02

CL Ebenezer Rd 348.06 0.05

CL Lumber Street 334.85 0.38

CL Knox Street 334.45 0.05

CL Bashford Rd 163.10 0.41

CL Ashe Street 68.66 0.11

CL Turner Xing(SR-2841) 370.21 0.14

4Q/MB/HM Sugar Creek St 374.02 0.15

4Q/MB/HM E. 11th St. 332.94 0.04

4Q/HM Salem St./ NC-109 305.97 0.04

4Q/HM W. Craighead Rd 374.39 0.35

4Q/HM E. Kerr St./ SR-2052 333.57 0.10

4Q Henderson St 336.24 0.17

4Q Winecoff School Rd. 352.72 0.34

4Q Main St 21.36 0.07

4Q Fifth St 31.64 0.05

4Q Gilmer St 21.86 0.06

 Total 5 yr Pre-treatment Fatalities 4.07

 Total Pre-treatment Fatalities / Yr 0.81
34

Table 17. Predicted Lives Saved for treated Crossings over the Posttreatment 5-Year Period

Improvement Crossing Name

Pre-treatment Risk 

(Fatalities / 5 yrs)

Post-treatment Risk 

(Fatalities / 5 yrs)

Predicted "Lives 

Saved" for five years 

After Treatment

MB/HM Hickory Ridge Rd 0.08 0.05 0.03

MB/HM Corban Avenue 0.13 0.10 0.03

MB/HM Ellis Rd 0.21 0.14 0.07

LG/MB/HM E. 22nd St./ SR-1254 0.07 0.05 0.02

LG/MB/HM E. Council St. 0.03 0.03 0.00

LG/HM E. Centerview Dr. 0.07 0.05 0.02

LG/HM E. Mills St. 0.15 0.05 0.10

LG/HM E. 18th St. 0.15 0.07 0.08

LG Lower Lake Rd 0.10 0.02 0.08

LG Powell Drive 0.08 0.11 -0.03

LG Hopson Rd 0.02 0.01 0.01

LG Plum Street 0.12 0.04 0.08

LG Mt. Herman Church Rd 0.04 0.03 0.01

LG Fair bault lane 0.02 0.02 0.00

LG Randhurst Rd 0.06 0.02 0.04

CL C Avenue 0.21 0.00 0.21

CL E. 13th Ave 0.02 0.00 0.02

CL Ebenezer Rd 0.05 0.00 0.05

CL Lumber Street 0.38 0.00 0.38

CL Knox Street 0.05 0.00 0.05

CL Bashford Rd 0.41 0.00 0.41

CL Ashe Street 0.11 0.00 0.11

CL Turner Xing(SR-2841) 0.14 0.00 0.14

4Q/MB/HM Sugar Creek St 0.15 0.19 -0.04

4Q/MB/HM E. 11th St. 0.04 0.02 0.02

4Q/HM Salem St./ NC-109 0.04 0.06 -0.02

4Q/HM W. Craighead Rd 0.35 0.25 0.10

4Q/HM E. Kerr St./ SR-2052 0.10 0.08 0.02

4Q Henderson St 0.17 0.14 0.03

4Q Winecoff School Rd. 0.34 0.13 0.21

4Q Main St 0.07 0.11 -0.04

4Q Fifth St 0.05 0.12 -0.07

4Q Gilmer St 0.06 0.05 0.01

4.07 1.94

 Predicted Average 5 Yr "Lives Saved" 2.13

 Pridicted Average "Lives Saved" / Yr 0.43
35

2.2.2 Total Sealed Corridor Risk Formula Result

Figure 10 compares the risk along the Sealed Corridor for 1991 before any type of treatment was 

in place for all 208 crossings, and for 2004 for the entire Sealed Corridor (189 treated plus the 19

untreated crossings). The results show that between 1991 and 2004 the risk for the Sealed 

Corridor crossings was reduced by 50.9 percent, which is equivalent to 2.04 lives saved per year. 

The entire corridor risk, had it been completed by 2004, would have been reduced by an 

additional 6.4 percent.

Figure 10. Corridor Risk for Phases I, II, and III

Risk by Treatment Status - Phases I-III

1.4422

4.0107

0.5278

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

1991 2004

Year

Risk (Fatalities / Yr)

Not Treated

Treated

4.0107

1.9700
36

2.2.3 Projected Sealed Corridor Risk Formula Result in 2010

Figure 11 shows the projected risk for the entire Sealed Corridor in 2010 using the U.S. DOT 

fatal APF. The projected 2010 risk is 2.3 fatalities per year. The figure also indicates that the 

greatest proportion of this risk is to highway vehicle occupants. The change in risk of fatality to 

highway occupants from 1991 to 2004 is decreased by a substantial 51 percent and 43 percent 

from 1991 to 2010, even with increases in vehicle and train traffic.

Figure 11. 1991, 2004, and 2010 Corridor Risk for Phases I, II, and III

Total Risk - 1991, 2004 and 2010

0.31 0.16 0.21

3.70

1.81

2.10

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

1991 2004 2010

Year

Rosk (Fatalities / yr)

Train Highway 

Vehicle
37

2.2.4 Year 2010 Build and No-Build Results

Figure 12 shows the risk reduction through the year 2010 if no treatments were implemented on 

the Sealed Corridor with the speed increased to 110 mph and the risk reduction through the year 

2010 for all treated crossings with speed increased to 110 mph.

Risk 1990-2010

 No Build (110 mph in 2010); 

Full Build (110 mph in 2010)

3.98 3.67 3.57 3.30 3.04 2.83

3.56 3.54 3.38 3.36 3.25 3.09 3.27 2.98 3.06 3.22 3.08

4.01 3.98

3.57 3.48 3.23 2.95 2.65

3.41

3.02 2.75 2.65 2.35 2.12 1.97 1.94 1.97 2.05 1.91 1.78

5.30

2.94

3.77

4.01

2.49

3.77

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Year

Risk (Fatalities / Yr)

No Build (110 mph in 2010) Full Build (110 mph in 2010)

Figure 12. Risk Reduction through 2010 with Speed Increased to 110 mph

Figure 13 shows the risk reduction through the year 2010 if no treatments were implemented on 

the “Sealed” corridor with the speed increased to 79 mph, the risk reduction through the year 

2010 for all treated crossings with speed increased to 79 mph, and the risk reduction through the 

year 2010 for all treated crossings with no speed increase.

For the treated crossings (Full Build 79 in 2010, and Full Build 110 in 2010) condition assumed 

all of the crossing treatments and enhancements were implemented as planned. For the 2010 alltreated crossings risk factor, the condition of the corridor in 2004 was projected for 2010 after 

application of modest growth factors. Because information about future trends and collision 

statistics were not available, certain assumptions were made. Year 2004 train volumes in the 

corridor were assumed to grow by two percent per year through 2010 and the train operating 

speed for 2010 for the corridor was assumed to increase to 79 mph and 110 mph respectively, 

year 2004 AADT was assumed to grow by a factor of two percent per year through 2010, and the 

Full Build scenario assumes a 2008 implementation date for all the grade crossing safety 

improvements. Closed and grade separated crossings had zero AADT growth applied. For 

collisions, the 2004 collision data were applied as a constant to the 2010 scenario. In 2010, two 

main tracks were used for the entire corridor as projected by the NC DOT. 
38

Risk 1990-2010

 No Build (79 mph in 2010);

Full Build (79 mph in 2010);

Full Build-No Speed Increase

4.010661186 3.975047547 3.672935872 3.574662143 3.29706134 3.035162075 2.827892761

3.564156247 3.540270195 3.379546228 3.359050823 3.247150842 3.092166483 3.265348808 2.980351007 3.055773351 3.216644089 3.081812823

4.01 3.98

3.57 3.48 3.23 2.95 2.65

3.41

3.02 2.75 2.65 2.35 2.12 1.97 1.94 1.97 2.05 1.91 1.78

4.01 3.98

3.57 3.48 3.23 2.95 2.65

3.41

3.02 2.75 2.65 2.35 2.12 1.97 1.94 1.97 2.05 1.91 1.78

2.939642609

3.77397133

4.81

3.77

2.31

1.73 3.77

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Year

Risk (Fatalities / Yr)

No Build (79 mph in 2010) Full Build (79 mph in 2010) Full Build (no speed increase)

Figure 13. Risk Reduction through 2010 with Speed Increased to 79 mph and No Speed 

Increased

For the no-treatment (No Build 79 in 2010 and No Build 110 in 2010) condition, preimplementation crossing warning devices were assumed to remain in place through 2010—no 

treatment or enhancements were applied to the crossing. The 2010 No Build scenario used preimplementation AADT with a two-percent growth factor applied through 2010, and train speed

for 2010 was assumed to increase to 79 mph and 110 mph respectively. The number of train 

movements was increased by two percent annually. For collision data, the last preimplementation collision rate was used.

With the assumption of speed increase to 110 mph in the year 2010, the no build (without the 

application of enhanced grade crossing devices) condition shows an increase in risk of 2.8

fatalities per year more than the 2010 full build (all treated crossings) condition (5.30 versus 

2.49). If speeds were increased to only 79 mph, the no build condition shows an increase in risk 

of 2.5 fatalities per year more than the full build (4.81 versus 2.31). Further analysis indicates an

increase of 1.52 fatalities per year more than the 2010 full build condition, if no speed increase

was to occur. By 2010, the fatality rate resulting from the full implementation of the entire 

Sealed Corridor would be 53 percent lower than if no implementation was executed and speed 

increase to 110 mph. The fatality rate would be 51.9 percent lower if the speeds increased to

only 79 mph in 2010, and 46.7 percent lower with no increase in speed in 2010. This risk 

assessment, therefore, illustrates that the treatments and crossing enhancements made in the 

Sealed Corridor program have resulted in a benefit in lives saved through 2010 and will save 

even more lives for years thereafter.
39

3 Comparative Analysis (Old Versus New Results)

3.1 Phase I 2001 results

The Sealed Corridor project Phase I had a total of 100 crossings, but only 52 were treated and/or 

closed at the time of the first report [1]. The remaining 48 were in the design stage or were 

waiting for construction at the time. There were 154 crashes for all of the Phase I crossings from 

1987 through December 2000. Ten grade crossings with fatal crashes were analyzed to assess 

the number of fatalities that occurred in the pretreatment conditions and to estimate lives saved

under the posttreatment condition through December 2000. The results yielded an estimate of 

5.8, or conservatively, five lives saved as a result of the 52 improvements implemented through 

December 2000. The risk-based fatalities for the pretreatment condition were calculated for the 

10 grade crossings analyzed with fatal crash histories. The pretreatment risk in fatalities was

determined by summing the annual risk for the 5 years before the date of the grade crossing 

treatment. The risk-based methodology calculated the total number of fatalities in the 5 year 

pretreatment condition to be 2.65 fatalities, or a rate of 0.53 fatalities per year.

The lives saved for the same set of crossings was determined from formula predictions. The 

posttreatment risk was calculated by using the 5-future years from the date of the grade crossing 

improvement. The posttreatment risk in fatalities was determined by summing the annual risk 

for the 5 years after the date of the grade crossing treatment. The risk-based methodology 

calculated the total number of fatalities in the 5-year posttreatment condition to be 0.72, or a rate 

of 0.14 fatalities per year. The calculated lives saved using the risk-based five year “before and 

after” conditions indicated approximately 1.95 lives have been saved. Therefore, the rate of lives 

saved is equivalent to 0.39 lives per year. The results for both methods, the fatal crash analysis 

and the modified U.S. DOT formula, have trend results indicating a reduction of risk.

Phase I risk for 1991 and 2000 for the 52 treated crossings and for the entire Phase I corridor 

(100 crossings) were compared. The results showed that between 1991 and 2000 the risk for the 

treated crossings was reduced by 84 percent or 1.3 lives saved per year. The entire Phase I risk, 

had it been completed by September 2000, would have been reduced by 80 percent for the same 

time period. This showed that a significant potential existed to reduce risk in the corridor even 

though the crossings with the highest risk were addressed first. The projected 2010 risk for 

Phase I was 1.8 fatalities per year. The change of risk to highway occupants from 1991 to 2000 

would decreased by a substantial 43 percent even with increases in vehicle and train traffic.

3.2 Phase I, II, and III Results 

The second part of the Sealed Corridor project which included the remaining 48 crossings from 

Phase I, and all the crossings from phase II and III, covered a total of 208 crossings, 189 of

which had been treated and 19 were in the process of being treated at the time of this report. 

There were 282 crashes for all of the Phase I, II, and II crossings from 1987 through December 

2004. A total of 33 grade crossings with fatal crashes were analyzed to assess the number of 

fatalities that occurred in the pretreatment conditions and to estimate lives saved under the 

posttreatment condition through December 2004. The results yielded an estimate of 19.7, or, 

conservatively, 19 lives saved as a result of the 189 improvements implemented through 
40

December 2004. The risk-based fatalities for the pretreatment condition were calculated for the 

33 grade crossings analyzed with fatal crash histories. The pretreatment risk in fatalities was 

determined by summing the annual risk for the 5 years before the date of the grade crossing 

treatment. The risk-based methodology calculated the total number of fatalities in the 5-year 

pretreatment condition to be 4.07 fatalities, or a rate of 0.81 fatalities per year.

The lives saved for the same set of crossings was determined from formula predictions. The 

posttreatment risk was calculated using the 5-future years from the date of the grade crossing 

improvement. The posttreatment risk in fatalities was determined by summing the annual risk 

for the five years after the date of the grade crossing treatment. The risk-based methodology 

calculated the total number of fatalities in the five-year posttreatment condition to be 1.94, or a 

rate of 0.39 fatalities per year. The calculated lives saved using the risk-based 5-year “before 

and after” conditions indicated that approximately 2.13 lives have been saved. Therefore, the 

rate of lives saved is equivalent to 0.43 lives per year. The results for both methods, the fatal 

crash analysis and the modified U.S. DOT formula, have trend results indicating a reduction of 

risk. 

Phase I, II, and III risk for 1991 (before any treatments) and 2004 for the 189 treated crossings

plus the 19 untreated crossings were compared. The results showed that between 1991 and 2004

the risk for the treated crossings was reduced by 50.9 percent or 2.04 lives saved per year. The 

entire corridor Phase I, II, and III risk, had it been completed by September 2004, would have 

been reduced by 57.3 percent for the same time period. The projected 2010 risk for Phase I, II, 

and III was 2.3 fatalities per year. The change of risk to highway occupants from 1991 to 2004

decreased by a substantial 51 percent and estimated to decrease 43 percent from 1991 to 2010,

even with increases in vehicle and train traffic.
41

4 Lessons Learned

4.1 Findings Summary

The Sealed Corridor project employed several grade crossing warning technologies and

techniques, each with varying degrees of effectiveness. These treatments were four-quadrant 

gates, long-arm gates, traffic channelization devices, video enforcement, crossing closures, grade 

separations, and health monitoring. These treatments were used individually and in combination 

to reduce risk of human injury and fatality resulting from grade crossing crashes. 

The Sealed Corridor consists of 208 crossings, 189 of which have been upgraded and 19 are in 

the process of being upgraded. Before the project was started 85 gated crossings, four crossings 

with flashing lights, and 11 passive crossings existed. The most employed method of treatment 

was Long-arm gates, which occurred at 77 crossings. Long-arm gates solo were installed at 49 

crossings, long-arm gates with heath monitoring were installed at 22 crossings, long-arm gates 

with median barrier at 3 crossings, and long-arm gates with median barrier and health monitoring 

at 3 crossings. The next most frequent grade crossing treatment was composed of four-quadrant 

gates, which were installed at 49 crossings. Four-quadrant gates solo were installed at 37 

crossings, four-quadrant gates and health monitoring at 10 crossings, and four-quadrant gates, 

health monitoring and median barrier at two crossings. Grade separation occurred at one 

crossing and median barrier with health monitoring at seven crossings. Figure 14 shows the 

Sealed Corridor project crossing upgrade implementation schedule. Most of the upgrades were 

installed between 1998 and 2004. 

Future activities include the installation of four-quadrant gates at four locations, median barriers 

at two locations, health monitoring at two locations, crossings closures at three locations, and 

eight remaining crossings with treatments yet to be determined. Completion of all pending 

crossing treatments will further reduce risk of human injury and fatality in the Sealed Corridor. 

Completion of the whole Sealed Corridor is scheduled for late 2008. Upon completion of the 

project, the most numerous treatments deployed will be crossings with longer arm gates, and 

crossings with four-quadrant gates.

Private crossings still need to be assessed. Predictions indicate that additional lives will be saved 

with the implementation of Phase IV, Private Crossing Safety Initiative (PCSI) [11].
42

Crossing Treatment Implementations by Date - Phases I-III

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Treated

Future

Figure 14. Project Implementations by Date

4.2 Effectiveness and Cost

The Sealed Corridor assessment study utilized information from FRA’s Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking on Railroad Horn Systems to determine the effectiveness of the devices employed. 

Although the results are preliminary, they provide a reasonable approximation of the 

effectiveness of such systems. Note that the cost estimated is based on the assumption that all 

warning device types can be installed at all crossings and that the average cost is the same at 

each crossing, regardless of crossing geometry. No extensive increase in maintenance costs is 

anticipated by NC DOT for the treatments used.

The numbers shown in Table 18 represent the effectiveness of the treatment in terms of expected 

risk reduction above the two-quadrant gate system. However, the actual change in risk at any 

particular crossing might be different depending on changes in variables such as AADT, train 

movements, or train speed.
43

Table 18. Effectiveness and Cost of Crossing Improvements

Closure Long 

Gate Arm

Traffic 

Channelization 

Devices

Video 

Enforce

ment

4-Quad 

Gates

4-Quad Gates 

with 

Channelization

Grade 

Separation

Effectiveness * 100% 75%** 80% 72% 82% 92% 100%

Cost Estimate $15K $5K $10K $55K $125K $135K $4M

* Effectiveness over standard gates in reducing crashes taken from the FRA NPRM on Railroad Horns 

** Volpe estimate based on FRA NPRM estimates of other supplemental safety devices

Table 18 demonstrates grade separation and closure are the most effective applications at grade 

crossings, each with 100 percent effectiveness over and above gates. Once the crossing does not 

exist for highway vehicle travel the risk is reduced to zero. The cost of grade separation, 

however, is the most expensive while crossing closures is one of the least expensive measures to 

implement once local and community agreement have been reached. 

Longer arm gates have proven to be a low-cost investment with a high rate of return in safety at 

crossings. An upgrade to longer arm gates achieved an almost comparable effectiveness to fourquadrant gates. A 75 percent reduction in crashes is assumed, but with an average cost of $5,000 

per application which is 96 percent less in cost than four-quadrant gates. Considering the low 

installation cost, they are a cost-effective deterrence for violators at crossings.

Four-quadrant gates as an upgrade to two-quadrant gates have been proven to be an effective tool 

to reduce risky behavior at highway-rail intersections. This technique has been proven 

successful in Connecticut as well as North Carolina. As an upgrade to the standard two-quadrant 

gate system, the average cost per installation is $125,000. To install four-quadrant gates on 

passive crossings, the cost was estimated at $250,000.

Traffic channelization devices have proven to be a low-cost investment with a high rate of return 

in safety at crossings. These devices will cost an average of $10,000 per location and achieve 80 

percent effectiveness in reducing crashes at grade crossings. They are the second least expensive 

of the applications to implement. The low maintenance cost of this device is also very attractive.

Video enforcement has the lowest effectiveness rate of the methods described here at reducing 

crashes over conventional gates at 72 percent based on highway-highway and highway-rail 

applications nationwide. The range of costs of the video enforcement system, when used at 

highway-highway intersections, is $40,000 to $70,000 per installation based on the ITS

benefits/cost database. A midrange cost of $55,000 is used for this analysis.

The costs of grade separation, four-quadrant gates, and four-quadrant gates with channelization 

are the most expensive and effective applications deployed along the Sealed Corridor project. 
44

4.3 Conclusions and Recommendations

This report documents the benefits of North Carolina’s Sealed Corridor Program at highway-rail 

grade crossings. The specific route encompassing the Sealed Corridor consists of 173.3 miles of 

Norfolk Southern track that runs through Raleigh, Cary, Durham, Hillsborough, Burlington,

Greensboro, High Point, Salisbury, Kannapolis, and Charlotte. 

The total Sealed Corridor includes 216 crossings, 172 of which are public crossings and 44 are

private crossings. This report assesses Phase I, II, and III of the Sealed Corridor program that 

encompasses rail lines that run between Charlotte and Greensboro with future predictions for 

reductions in fatalities through 2010. Several types of grade crossing treatments to reduce the 

risk of fatality were investigated by NC DOT. These grade crossing improvements included 

video monitoring and enforcement, four-quadrant gate systems, long arm gate systems, traffic

channelization devices, health monitoring, and combinations thereof. 

The North Carolina Sealed Corridor architecture is typical of the five originally designated highspeed rail corridors nationwide. The NC DOT corridor is typically single track including sidings 

and approximately one crossing per mile. The route carries 35 freight trains per day and

approximately six daily passenger trains. It has a mix of public and private crossings, and the 

route contains both urban as well as rural environs and the railroad operating speeds fall within 

the track Class 4 category. Future plans for this corridor include operation at speeds up to 110 

mph. 

A review was conducted of the 189 treated crossings along the Sealed Corridor. The Sealed 

Corridor consists of 208 crossings, but 19 crossings have not been treated. The crash history for 

the Sealed Corridor indicates 282 crashes occurred between 1987 and September 2004. A total 

of 55 fatalities were reported for those 282 highway vehicle-train crashes. Examination of the

accident reports of the 33 treated crossings with fatal accident histories was conducted. A total 

of 51 fatalities resulting from 40 crashes occurred among the treated crossings. Ninety percent 

of the crashes resulted from the driver of the vehicle driving around or through the grade 

crossing gates.

A fatal crash rate was determined for each of the 33 crossings that had a fatal crash history from 

1987 through December 2004. The crash rate was distributed over the posttreatment period to 

obtain a value for lives saved in the posttreatment period through December 2004. The

treatments to improve grade crossing safety at the treated crossings resulted in 19.7 lives saved

through December 2004. 
45

At least 19 lives have been saved

The fatal crash analysis method resulted in an estimate of 19.7, or, conservatively, 19 lives saved 

as a result of the Sealed Corridor improvements implemented through December 2004. The 

Modified USDOT APF estimated that the improvements implemented through 2004 are reducing 

fatalities by approximately 2.04 each year, or over two lives saved each year. The Modified 

USDOT APF predicted 9 fewer lives saved compared to the Fatal Crash Analysis results. This 

may be due to the fact that the APF contains more variables, and addresses the crossing 

environment risk.

The accident reduction result is sustainable

To estimate future accident reduction rates, the second of the above methods was used to ensure

increases in train and vehicle exposure over time were considered in the analysis. Because 

vehicle traffic volume and frequency and speed of trains are expected to increase, the second 

method was used because it is capable of taking these factors into account. 

Figure 15 shows the estimated annual fatalities under two conditions: (1) all 208 crossings have

been treated (full build), and (2) without any improvements to the 208 crossings (no build). The 

graph shows a decrease in risk from 1992 to 1996 and an increasing risk with the introduction of 

the HSR. The graph shows the influence of the improvements, which were initiated in March 

1995, on reducing the annual fatalities through the year 2004. The improvements at the 

remaining 19 crossings in the corridor were assumed to be implemented in 2008, resulting in a 

further reduction in annual fatalities. The gradual increase in traffic volume and train frequency 

from 2004 through 2010 is expected to gradually increase annual fatalities under all conditions. 

Finally, the increase in train speed to 110 mph, assumed to occur in 2010, would further increase 

all fatality rates.

The analysis of the NC DOT project provides support to the following recommendations:

• The crossings along the Sealed Corridor are also typical of conditions on the ten other 

high speed rail corridors designated under Section 104 (d) (2) of Title 23 U.S. Code. 

This suggests that similar plans for corridor grade crossing improvements be given 

serious consideration with high-speed rail upgrades in these corridors.

• The implementation of the North Carolina Sealed Corridor initiative is a demonstration of 

nonstandard corridor highway-railroad grade crossing improvements. The Sealed 

Corridor should be monitored to serve as a basis for assessing the potential impact of 

similar programs in other corridors.

• Assessment of Phase IV PCSI.

• Enhancement and implement the Volpe Center methodologies to additional high-speed 

rail corridors nationwide.
46

Figure 15. Risk Reduction through 2010 for Phases I, II, and III

Risk 1990-2010

 No Build (79 mph in 2010); No Build (110 mph in 2010); 

Full Build (79 mph in 2010); Full Build (110 mph in 2010); 

Full Build-No Speed Increase

3.98

3.67 3.57 3.30 3.04 2.83

3.56 3.54 3.38 3.36 3.25 3.09 3.27 2.98 3.06 3.22 3.08

4.010661186 3.975047547

3.672935872 3.574662143 3.29706134 3.035162075 2.827892761

3.564156247 3.540270195 3.379546228 3.359050823 3.247150842 3.092166483 3.265348808 2.980351007 3.055773351 3.216644089 3.081812823 2.939642609

4.01 3.98

3.57 3.48 3.23 2.95 2.65

3.41

3.02 2.75 2.65 2.35 2.12 1.97 1.94 1.97 2.05 1.91 1.78

4.01 3.98

3.57 3.48 3.23 2.95 2.65

3.41

3.02 2.75 2.65 2.35 2.12 1.97 1.94 1.97 2.05 1.91 1.78

4.01 3.98

3.57 3.48 3.23 2.95 2.65

3.41

3.02 2.75 2.65 2.35 2.12 1.97 1.94 1.97 2.05 1.91 1.78

4.01

3.77

2.94

5.30

3.77397133

4.81

3.77

2.49

3.77

2.31

1.73

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Year

Risk (Fatalities / Yr)

No Build (110 mph in 2010) No Build (79 mph in 2010) Full Build (110 mph in 2010) Full Build (79 mph in 2010) Full Build (no speed increase)
47

5 Appendix A

Table A1. Phase I, II, and III Completed Treatments through September 2004

Crossing 

Number Milepost Road Name

Type 

Crossing Upgrade* Upgrade Date

630471D 56.7 Driver Street Public LG 3/1/2004

630472K 56.4 Plum Street Public LG 3/5/2004

630474Y 55.9 Ramseur Street Public LG/TS 5/20/2004

630477U 55.45 Dillard Street Public 4Q/TS 3/26/2002

630646E 159.73 Royal Street Public LG/HM 5/22/2001

630647L 159.94 Beryl Road Public LG/TS 5/24/2001

630649A 160.64 Beryl Road Crossover Public CL 3/14/2001

630650U 161.33 Powell Drive Public LG 4/19/2001

630654W 162.42 Nowell Road (SR-1657) Public LG 9/10/2001

630655D 163.01 Bashford Road Private CL 3/26/2002

630657S 163.43 Old Trinity Road (SR-1655) Public 3Q 8/13/2001

630662N 164.47 Ready Creek Road Public LG/MB 4/24/2001

633973A 160.77 Blue Ridge Road (SR-3072) Public 4Q/TS 4/7/1999

643351A 164.2 NE Maynard Road Public 4Q/TS 5/23/2001

715269G 335.8 Julian Road Public CL 11/5/1997

715270B 335.49 D Avenue Public CL 7/7/1998

715272P 335.4 C Avenue Public CL 4/15/1997

715273W 335.2 Klumac Road (SR-2541) Public LG 9/13/2000

715276S 334.97 Vance Avenue Public CL 10/20/1998

715277Y 334.91 Mildred Street Avenue Public CL 10/20/1998

715278F 334.85 Lumber Street Public CL 11/3/1998

715279M 334.72 East Harrison Street Public CL 8/17/1999

715280G 334.7 Crawford Street Public CL 10/20/1998

715282V 334.45 Knox Street Public CL 4/15/1997

715284J 334.2 East Monroe Street (SR-1703) Public LG/HM 9/19/2000

715285R 334.11 East Horah Street Public LG/HM 1/21/2002

715289T 333.77 East Council Street Public LG/MB/HM 3/17/2004

715290M 333.57 East Kerr Street (SR-2052) Public 4Q/HM 2/22/2002

715301X 333.28 East Henderson Street Public 4Q 4/5/2004

715302E 332.94 East 11th Street Public 4Q/MB/HM 9/19/2000

715307N 330.18 Long Ferry Road (SR-2120) Public LG/HM 10/11/2000

715308V 329.76 Hackett Street (SR-2124) Public CL 3/15/2004

715312K 356.01 Elm Street Public CL 11/8/1999

715319H 356.3 Corban Avenue Public G/MB/HM 2/11/2002

715328G 362.97 Shamrock Road (SR-1160) Public 4Q/MB 10/13/2004

715330H 363.95 Hickory Ridge Road (SR-1138) Public G/MB/HM 5/17/2000

715331P 364.12 Robinson Church Road (SR-1166) Public LG/HM 5/17/2000

715334K 365.62 Milbrook Road (SR-1182) Public LG/HM 10/29/2001

715338M 367.00 Stroup Farm Road Public LG 5/28/2002

715347L 370.21 Turner Crossing (SR-2841) Public CL 3/1/1993

715348T 370.71 Newell-Hickory Grove Rd (SR-2853) Public 4Q 8/5/1999
48

Crossing 

Number Milepost Road Name

Type 

Crossing Upgrade* Upgrade Date

715350U 372.19 Orr Road Public LG 8/27/1998

715352H 374.02 East Sugar Creek Road (SR-2975) Public 4Q/MB/HM 2/11/2002

715355D 374.3 West Craighead Road Public 4Q/HM 3/27/1995

715356K 374.87 East 36th Street Public 4Q 5/16/2000

722197X 324.29 Southern Railroad Rd (SR-1135) Public LG/HM 2/12/2002

722301P 321.3 Old Linwood Road (SR-1104) Public CL 4/1/1996

722302W 318.68 Prospect Drive Public 4Q 2/9/2000

722303D 317.99 East 15th Avenue Public 4Q 6/25/2002

722304K 317.84 East 13th Avenue Public CL 10/1/2001

722306Y 317.21 East 7th Avenue Public LG/MB/HM 6/13/2001

722309U 316.35 Pond Street Public CL 9/10/2001

722310N 316.2 Bristol Street Public CL 9/10/2001

722314R 313.09 Turner Road (SR-2005) Public G/MB 2/12/2002

722315X 311.99 Lower Lake Road (SR-2020) Public LG/HM 10/12/2000

722316E 311.18 Upper Lake Road (SR-2024) Public G/MB/HM 2/12/2002

722319A 307 Peace Street Public CL 1/2/2004

722320U 306.83 Boyles Street Public CL 12/15/1995

722322H 306.22 Loftin Street Public CL 12/15/1995

722323P 306.11 Fisher Ferry Street Public 4Q/HM 2/3/2000

722324W 305.97 Salem Street (NC-109) Public 4Q/HM 4/12/2000

722325D 305.6 College Street Public CL 5/24/1996

722327S 305 Turner Street (SR-2165) Public LG/HM 3/15/2001

722328Y 304.56 Unity Street (SR-2051) Public CL 1/13/2003

722332N 300.73 Prospect Avenue Street Public 4Q/HM 11/4/1999

722352A 295.76 South Scientific St (SR-1332) Public LG/HM 8/8/2000

722355V 294.25 Oakdale Mill Road (SR-1352) Public 4Q/HM 1/10/2001

722359X 291.67 MacKay Road (SR-1549) Public 4Q/HM 2/10/1999

722362F 288.47 Boston Road Public CL 8/16/2004

722364U 288.26 Rail Street Public CL 8/16/2004

722365B 288.01 Rucker Street Public CL 8/16/2004

722374A 284.1 South Elm Street Public 4G 7/28/2000

722812A 19.21 Lakeview Drive (SR-1349) Public LG 1/9/2002

722813G 19.43 South Glenn Raven Rd (SR-1523) Public LG 4/9/2002

722814N 20.63 Elmira Street (SR-1530) Public 4Q 5/28/2003

722817J 21.36 Main Street Public 4Q 11/18/2002

722906B 0.67 South Dudley Street Public 4Q 2/25/2003

722954R 1.45 Gillespie Street Public LG 11/4/2002

722955X 1.83 North English Street Public 4Q 5/30/2003

722959A 3.01 Franklin Boulevard (SR-3005) Public 4Q 8/19/2002

722965D 4.54 Buchanan Church Road (SR-3028) Public LG 11/5/2001

722966K 4.92 Wagoner Bend Road (SR-3040) Public LG 9/26/2001

722970A 5.84 Four Mile Loop (SR-2827) Public CL 6/1/2001

722975J 7.6 Frieden Church Road (SR-2746) Public LG 10/24/2001

722976R 8.02 McLeansville Road (SR-2819) Public LG 5/30/2003

722978E 9.09 Carmon Road (SR-2755) Public LG 10/30/2001

722981M 10.74 Colony Road (SR-2800) Public MB 10/24/2001
49

Crossing 

Number Milepost Road Name

Type 

Crossing Upgrade* Upgrade Date

722982U 11.44 Cullen Road (SR-2801) Public LG 2/26/2003

722983B 11.97 Bell Road (SR-2764) Public CL 9/25/2002

722984H 12.81 Wagoner Road (SR-2724) Public LG 3/3/2003

722986W 13.67 Power Line Road (SR-2763) Public LG 1/23/2002

722987D 14.42 East Joyner Street Public LG 5/30/2003

722990L 14.87 Springwood Avenue (SR-2748) Public LG 5/30/2003

722991T 15.51 Huffines Street (SR-1310) Public LG 1/23/2002

722992A 15.87 Cook Road (SR-1311) Public LG 1/23/2002

722993G 16.36 Church Street Public LG 8/14/2002

722994N 16.66 South Holt Avenue Public CL 8/11/2000

722995V 16.73 Williamson Avenue (SR-1301) Public 4Q 8/14/2002

722996C 17.05 Antioch Avenue Public CL 8/18/2003

722997J 17.26 Oak Avenue (SR-1323) Public 4Q 5/30/2003

722998R 17.91 York Road Public LG/MB 5/30/2003

723001E 18.16 Gilliam Road (SR-1342) Public LG 2/12/2002

724362M 336.24 Henderson Grove Road (SR-1526) Public LG/HM 11/8/2000

724367W 337.98 Peach Orchard Road (SR-2539) Public LG/HM 3/13/2001

724368D 338.19 Peach Orchard Lane (SR-2545) Public CL 1/31/1997

724369K 338.4 Peeler Road (SR-2538) Public G/MB/HM 2/11/2002

724374G 340.07 Webb Road / SR-3490 (SR-1500) Public G/MB/HM 2/11/2002

724376V 340.96 Mt. Hope Church Road (SR-1505) Public LG/HM 10/24/2001

724381S 342.67 East Liberty Street Public CL 12/28/2004

724382Y 342.86 East Church Street (SR-1337) Public LG/HM 2/21/2001

724383F 343.01 Ketchie Street Public CL 1/4/1993

724384M 343.2 East Centerview Drive Public LG/HM 2/26/2001

724386B 343.55 Chapel Street Public CL 5/12/2004

724388P 343.94 West Thom Street (SR-1232) Public LG/HM 2/26/2001

724389W 344.18 Bostian Road (SR-1221) (Elm St) Public CL 11/8/1999

724390R 344.44 Eudy Road (SR-1220) Public LG/HM 2/26/2001

724394T 345.61 East Ryder Avenue (SR-1210) Public LG/HM 4/16/2003

724395A 345.69 East Mills Street Public LG/HM 6/12/2001

724396G 346.07 East Round Street Public CL 10/11/2004

724397N 346.82 East 29th Street Public LG 10/8/2001

724398V 347.28 East 22nd Street (SR-1254) Public LG/MB/HM 10/11/2000

724399C 347.55 East 18th Street Public LG/HM 7/23/2001

724400U 348.1 Ebenezer Road (SR-1267) Public CL 4/12/1999

724404W 349.1 East 1st Street (SR-1706) Public 4Q 2/24/2003

724405D 349.38 East C Street Public CL 4/12/1999

724407S 350.28 Plymouth Street (SR-2048) Public CL 4/12/1999

724410A 352.72 Winecoff School Road (SR-1790) Public 4Q 5/27/2003

724415J 354.7 Winecoff Avenue (SR-1397) Public CL 11/4/2001

724418E 355.12 McGill Avene (SR-1394) Public 4Q/HM 2/22/2000

724419L 355.35 Misenheimer Drive Public CL 11/8/1999

734735L 58.98 Glover Road (SR-1940) Public LG 10/17/2001

734736T 59.28 Wrenn Road (SR-1955) Public LG 10/3/2001

734737A 60.27 Ellis Road (SR-1954) Public G/MB 5/14/2002
50

Crossing 

Number Milepost Road Name

Type 

Crossing Upgrade* Upgrade Date

734740H 61.58 IBM Driveway (SR-2029) Public G/LGC 1/1/2006

734742W 62.83 Cornwallis Road Public 4Q 9/9/2002

734746Y 64.57 Hopson Road Public LG 10/3/2001

734748M 65.29 Church Street (SR-1980) Public LG 10/3/2001

734749U 66.5 Barbee Road (SR-1706) Public LG 10/3/2001

734750N 67.02 McCrimmon Parkway (SR-1635) Public LG 10/17/2001

734751V 67.75 Long Beverage Road Private LG 4/30/2002

734752C 68.66 Ashe Street Public CL 1/30/1997

734753J 68.78 Morrissville Carpenter Road Public 4Q/HM 1/23/1997

734755X 72.58 North Harrison Street (SR-1652) Public 4Q 3/15/2004

734756E 72.7 Academy Street (SR-1312) Public 4Q 3/15/2004

735138H 33.33 Walton Crossing Public CL 6/26/2002

735141R 34.11 Buckhorn Road (SR-1114) Public LG 3/17/2003

735142X 35.69 Redman Crossing (SR-1399) Public LG 1/9/2002

735143E 36.71 Grimes Chapel Road (SR-1316) Public LG/HM 1/8/2002

735145T 37.31 Mt. Willing Road (SR-1120) Public LG 1/16/2002

735151W 40.36 West Hill Avenue (SR-1161) Public LG/HM 2/11/2003

735152D 40.61 Bellevue Street (SR-1172) Public LG/HM 2/11/2003

735157M 41.2 Fairbault Lane (SR-1149) Public LG 1/8/2002

735189T 43.89 Byrdsville Road Public LG 9/16/2002

735191U 46.28 University Station (SR-1712) Public LG 1/8/2002

735192B 47.07 Mt. Herman Church Rd (SR-1713) Public LG 1/8/2002

735202E 50.2 Neal Road Public LG 10/17/2001

735205A 52.04 North LaSalle Street Public 4Q 7/31/2003

735223X 53.76 Swift Avenue (SR-1322) Public 4Q 7/31/2003

735225L 54.2 Buchanan Boulevard Public LG 7/9/2003

735227A 54.6 South Duke Street (SR-1445) Public 2G 7/31/2003

735229N 55.09 Blackwell/Corcan Street Public 4Q 7/31/2003

735231P 55.14 Mangum Street (US-15) Public 2G 7/31/2003

735236Y 57.57 Ellis Road (SR-1954) Public 4Q 3/5/2004

735443T 21.86 Gilmer Street Public 4Q 3/10/2003

735445G 22.6 Queen Ann Street Public 4Q 5/30/2003

735448C 23.17 Washington Street (SR-1716) Public 4Q 2/28/2002

735456U 23.67 Pomeroy Street (SR-1719) Public LG 12/3/2001

735462X 26.02 Stone Street (SR-1935) Public LG 1/9/2002

735464L 29.36 Gibson Road (SR-1940) Public LG 11/4/2002

735465T 29.83 Lake Latham Road (SR-1976) Public 4Q 9/19/2002

735468N 30.69 Moore Road (SR-1965) Public LG 3/11/2003

735469V 31.46 Third Street (SR-1962) Public 4Q 5/30/2003

735471W 31.56 Fourth Street Public LG 3/13/2003

735472D 31.64 Fifth Street (NC-119) Public 4Q 3/18/2003

735474S 32.79 Mattress Factory Road? (SR-1402) Public LG 3/17/2003

736173A 63.98 Northern Telecom Road Private CL 6/15/2004

736223B 61.8 IBM Access Road Private CL 1/6/2004

736238R 297 North Pendleton Street Public G/MB 8/7/1997

904436A 69.7 Morrisville Parkway Public G/MB 1/15/1997
51

Crossing 

Number Milepost Road Name

Type 

Crossing Upgrade* Upgrade Date

910579L 52.56 West Durham Lumber Company Private LG 10/7/1992

910594N 53.21 Anderson Street Public 4Q/TS 9/16/2003

910605Y 55.5 Fayetteville Street (SR-1118) Public 4Q 7/31/2003

*Note: 4Q – Four quadrant gates, TCD – Traffic Channelization Devices, LG – Long gates, CL – Closure, 

GS – Grade Separation, VE – video Enforcement, HM – Health Monitoring.
52

6 References

[1] U.S. Department of Transportation, Secretary of Transportation, Rail-Highway Crossing Safety Action 

Plan, Washington, DC: U.S. DOT, June 1994.

[2] FRA. Rail-Highway Crossing Safety Action Plan Support Proposals. Washington, DC: 

Federal Railroad Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1994.

[3]Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 213 et al, Track Safety Standards Proposed Rule. Federal 

Register, Vol. 62, No. 184. September 23, 1997.

[4] US DOT, FRA, Rail-Highway Crossing Resource Allocation procedure User’s Guide, Third Edition, 

1987. DOT-TSC-FRA-87-1.

[5] Worley, P., and Mastrangelo, A., “Sealed Corridor” Draft Study Results, North Carolina Department 

of Transportation and Norfolk Southern Corporation Report, 1997.

[6] Mironer, M., Coltman, M., and McCown, R. Assessment of Risks for High-Speed Rail Grade 

Crossings on the Empire Corridor – Next Generation High-Speed Rail Program” Final Report. 

Washington, DC: Federal Railroad Administration, August 2000. DOT-VNTSC-FRA-00-03, 

DOT/FRA/RDV-00/05.

[7] Carroll, A. North Carolina “Sealed Corridor” Phase I: U.S. DOT Assessment Report. Report to 

Congress. . www.bytrain.org/SAFETY/sealed/pdf/esvolpe.pdf, August 2001.

[8] FRA. Railroad Accident Incident Reporting System . 

http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/publicsite/crossing/crossing.aspx

[9] Carroll, A., and Saks, J. North Carolina DOT Traffic Separation Studies (TSS) Volume I –

Assessment. Washington, DC: Federal Railroad Administration, DOT/FRA/ORD – 04/15.I. September 

2004.

[10] Carroll, A., and Saks, J. North Carolina DOT Traffic Separation Studies (TSS) Volume II – Findings 

by Community. Washington, DC: Federal Railroad Administration, DOT/FRA/ORD – 04/15.II, 

September 2004.

[11] Gannett Fleming. Private Crossing Safety Initiative. Crossing Evaluations and Recommendations: 

Next Generation High Speed Rail Program. FRA: North Carolina Railroad/Norfolk Southern, Charlotte 

to Raleigh, State Project No. WBS 32198, 2003. 

http://www.bytrain.org/safety/sealed/pdf/PSCIProjectReportOct03.pdf.
53

Acronyms

AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic

APF Accident Prediction Formula

CSX CSX Corporation

DOT Department of Transportation

FRA Federal Railroad Administration 

HSR High-Speed Rail 

ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act

NC DOT North Carolina Department of Transportation

PCSI Private Crossing Safety Initiative 

RAIRS Railroad Accident Incident Reporting System 

SEHSR Southeast High-Speed Rail Corridor” 

TSS Traffic Separation Study 

TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century 

U.S. DOT United States Department of Transportation

Volpe Center John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center