Compilation of Pedestrian Devices In Use At Grade Crossings

January 2008
Compilation of Pedestrian Devices In Use At Grade Crossings

January 2008

2

A COMPILATION OF PEDESTRIAN SAFETY DEVICES

IN USE AT GRADE CROSSINGS

Prepared by the Office of Safety, Federal Railroad Administration

As part of the US DOT Grade Crossing Safety Action Plan issued in June of 2004, FRA's Office

of Safety has been charged with developing an inventory of pedestrian warning devices in use at

grade crossings of all types. From the Action Plan:

"...the FRA will make available a compilation of pedestrian safety devices in use at

grade crossings. This will represent the current state of the practice of pedestrian

accommodation at grade crossings, including pedestrian-only crossings."

The FRA has worked to gather information on any signs, signals, pavement markings, or other

devices used to enhance the safety of pedestrians at grade crossings. State DOTs and rail transit

operators have made several submissions, which have included background information and

illustrations. These are presented here so that the larger grade crossing safety community might

benefit from the work of others in this important area.

The assistance of those who made a submission for this report has been most helpful in FRA’s

implementation of this important Action Plan initiative. We would like to express our

appreciation to these individuals and organizations for their participation in this compilation

effort:

Anita Boucher Railroad Safety Coordinator, Nevada Department of Transportation

William M. Browder, Director of Operations, Association of American Railroads

Stephen Laffey Illinois Commerce Commission

Jeff LaMora Rail Service Project Administrator, Utah Transit Authority

Ray Lewis Traffic Engineering Division, West Virginia DOT, Division of Highways

Rodney Massman Administrator of Railroads, Missouri DOT

Brent D. Ogden Korve Engineering, Inc.

John T. Sharkey Manager, Technology/ R&D, Safetran Systems Corporation

Mr. Alan Sovey Crossing Safety Signal Specialist, Oregon DOT

Anya Carroll, Chair. TRB Highway Rail Grade Crossings Committee AHB60.
Compilation of Pedestrian Devices In Use At Grade Crossings

January 2008

3

DEPICTION OF ITEMS NOT INCLUDED 

IN THE MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES

It should be noted that several of the devices depicted in this document are not included in the

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). This nationally recognized document

contains the standards that govern all traffic control devices. Public agencies rely on the Manual

to help them ensure uniformity in the messages conveyed to road users. The MUTCD has the

status of law as it pertains to signs, signals and pavement markings, and non-compliance with the

Manual can ultimately result in the loss of federal-aid funding, as well as in a significant increase

in tort liability incurred by the use of non-standard traffic control devices.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), which is the custodial agency for the MUTCD,

has established a process for the incorporation of new devices into the Manual. This process

involves rulemaking procedures that are published in the Federal Register and that encourage

public involvement. Any interested person or organization may participate by submitting

comments to the docket.

Agencies utilizing devices that are not currently included in the Manual are strongly encouraged

to participate in the MUTCD incorporation process, which is described in detail in Section 1A.10

of the Manual, entitled “Interpretations, Experimentations, Changes, and Interim Approvals.” 

This (and the entire Manual) can be found on the FHWA’s MUTCD website. This incorporation

process enables agencies desiring the experimental use of traffic control devices that show

promise in the enhancement of safety and mobility to evaluate these devices. Should they prove

successful, the wider transportation community may then more readily enjoy the benefits. Such

non-standard devices that have been shown to be effective in more than one geographic area

through scientific evaluation studies can be proposed for inclusion in the MUTCD through the

formal rulemaking process.

In light of the above, and considering the nature of this document as a basic compilation of

devices in use by local agencies and organizations, inclusion of any device herein should not be

considered as either an endorsement or a requirement of its use. 

As envisioned in the 2004 Grade Crossing Action Plan, this document is intended as a first step

in the evolution of future guidance on the selection and installation of pedestrian-focused traffic

control devices for use where pedestrians may legally cross railroad tracks. The information

contained herein has been voluntarily supplied by the agencies making use of the devices shown

here, and the experiences described here are those of the submitting agencies.

It is hoped that dissemination of this compilation of traffic control devices will foster the

exchange of information and experiences among transportation agencies and organizations that

are involved with pedestrian crossings of railroad tracks.
Compilation of Pedestrian Devices In Use At Grade Crossings

January 2008

4

A LOOK AT THE CURRENT LEVEL OF PEDESTRIAN INVOLVEMENT

IN HIGHWAY-RAIL GRADE CROSSING COLLISIONS

A review of the table below shows that pedestrian fatalities have comprised about 10 to 20

percent of all fatalities at highway-rail grade crossings, public and private, for the last five years.

Calendar

Year

Pedestrian

Grade Crossing

Incidents

Pedestrian

Grade Crossing 

Fatalities

Total Grade

Crossing

Fatalities

Pedestrian

Fatalities as

Percent of Total

2001 92 67 421 16%

2002 71 35 357 10%

2003 85 50 334 15%

2004 111 73 372 20%

2005 116 58 358 16%

Source: Federal Railroad Administration Safetydata website, “Highway-rail Incidents by Type Highway User from

Form FRA F 6180.57" for the years 2001 through 2005.

In this table, an “incident” is considered to be any impact between a railroad user and a

pedestrian at a designated crossing site, including walkways, sidewalks, and the like, that are

associated with the crossing.

As the charts that follow indicate, the trends for pedestrian incidents, fatalities, and percent of

total fatalities have not followed the general downward trend of all grade crossing fatalities

during the past five years. 

The problem of pedestrian safety at grade crossings is made more difficult to address by the lack

of knowledge about the type of devices in use that are directed at pedestrians at grade crossings. 

This compilation of currently in-place warning devices will enhance the general understanding

of how various safety devices are being employed to enhance pedestrian safety at grade

crossings.
Compilation of Pedestrian Devices In Use At Grade Crossings

January 2008

5

Source: Federal Railroad Administration Safetydata website, “Highway-rail Incidents by Type Highway User from

Form FRA F 6180.57" for the years 2001 through 2005.
Compilation of Pedestrian Devices In Use At Grade Crossings

January 2008

6

EDUCATION, OUTREACH AND ENFORCEMENT

ARE ESSENTIAL TO SOLVING THE PROBLEM

Obviously, the best safety devices in the

world cannot overcome poor judgement. 

Examples such as illustrated here indicate the

high value of law enforcement when coupled

with safety outreach and education programs

aimed at high-risk groups. At the same time,

it is important for localities to work with

railroads and transit operators to reduce

excessive blocking of high-use crossings that

are on known pedestrian routes, such as in

college or university settings, or on access

routes to sports facilities or fairgrounds.

It has been widely observed that pedestrians often tend to determine for themselves the shortest

distance between where they are and where they want to go, and then proceed along that line,

sometimes irrespective of paved pathways, sidewalks, or trails. 

In light of this, a guiding principle in the design and development of pedestrian crossing facilities

should be to cause as little deviation as is practical from a direct pathway.

Traffic control devices in use at pedestrian crossings can be generally placed in two categories,

Active or Passive. This classification is the same for warning devices used at all public

highway-rail grade crossings. 

Active devices are those devices that change their appearance or position upon receipt of a signal

that a train is approaching, usually from some type of train detection system. In this manner, a

warning signal, usually in the form of flashing lights and an audible warning such as a bell, is

presented to pedestrians approaching the crossing. Sometimes, a gate may be lowered into the

pedestrian traveled way as an additional form of warning. While their use is widely accepted at

highway-rail grade crossings, there is increasing debate about the effectiveness of ped gates as

commonly used on sidewalks and other walkways, given the ease of evasion of a lowered ped

gate.

Passive devices do not change their appearance or position. The most common of these is the

familiar crossbuck sign.
Compilation of Pedestrian Devices In Use At Grade Crossings

January 2008

7

ACTIVE WARNING DEVICES FOR PEDESTRIANS AT GRADE CROSSINGS

Light rail transit systems often include pedestrian grade crossings. As a result, they are also the

greatest source for warning devices aimed at pedestrians. Some examples are discussed here. 

This low-rise flashing pedestrian signal is in use on the Portland, OR, light rail transit system. 

This device was studied locally, and was found effective (in conjunction with the fencing used as

a pedestrian channelization improvement) based upon before and after data. 

The intended pathway for pedestrians in this situation is clearly defined. A design drawing for

this device, developed by Tri-Met, the light rail system in Portland, Oregon, is included on the

next page.
Compilation of Pedestrian Devices In Use At Grade Crossings

January 2008

8
Compilation of Pedestrian Devices In Use At Grade Crossings

January 2008

9

The State of Oregon has developed a pedestrian signal that has been used at stand-alone, “multi

use” crossings. It is similar to a standard flashing light signal except the lights are oriented in a

vertical line, rather than the more commonly seen horizontal alignment. One of Oregon’s most

recent installations of these devices is shown in the photo above, at a new pathway grade

crossing in Tualatin, OR. The railroad is the Washington County Commuter Rail line between

Beaverton and Wilsonville. Commuter rail service is anticipated to be underway within the next

couple of years.

Oregon also routes any pedestrian facility 5' behind any crossing gate arm assembly to account

for the position of the gate arm counterweight when the gate is horizontal. Additionally, Oregon

has expressed interest in the use of some sort of train-activated, in-pavement flashing lights at

high profile, high traffic pedestrian locations. To date, there have been none installed in Oregon. 

Such a train-activated device will likely involve coordination with the railroad involved, given

the need to establish (or interface with) a train detection system for device activation.
Compilation of Pedestrian Devices In Use At Grade Crossings

January 2008

10

Metra, one of the commuter railroads in the Chicago area, has developed the standard drawing

shown here for two of its pedestrian warning devices, intended for use mainly in station areas.

Illustrations of this and other similar devices are shown on the following pages.
Compilation of Pedestrian Devices In Use At Grade Crossings

January 2008

11

Lombard, IL

This is Lombard, IL, on Metra’s UP District West Line to Elburn. 
Compilation of Pedestrian Devices In Use At Grade Crossings

January 2008

12

Galewood, IL

This is a warning sign that the Illinois Commerce Commission, in cooperation with the Northeast

Illinois Regional Commuter Rail Corporation (Metra), is currently field testing at four locations

on Metra’s Milwaukee West commuter line: Mont Clare, Galewood, Mars, and River Grove.
Compilation of Pedestrian Devices In Use At Grade Crossings

January 2008

13

LaGrange, IL

Glenview, IL

ABOVE: Glenview, IL, on Metra’s Milwaukee

District North Line, has established a $250 fine

for any pedestrian who violates railroad warning

devices. Warning devices include both a bell

and flashing light signals.

LEFT: This signing is in place at LaGrange

Road Metra station. The numerous pedestrian

crossings in this area make tougher sanctions

necessary to prevent tragedies.
Compilation of Pedestrian Devices In Use At Grade Crossings

January 2008

14

Stone Avenue Metra station (ABOVE) in LaGrange, IL features these pedestrian warning

devices between inbound and outbound platforms. Short gate arms (BELOW) are used at the

LaGrange Road station.
Compilation of Pedestrian Devices In Use At Grade Crossings

January 2008

15

LEFT: In Henderson,

Nevada, along Horizon

Drive, both the bike lane

and the sidewalk are

included in the same

crossing. With the warning

device assembly located

behind the sidewalk, a

single gate arm serves

pedestrians, bicyclists and

motor vehicle traffic. The

crossing surface is

continuous across the tracks

to the other side,

delineating the safe

crossing path for

pedestrians.

RIGHT: In Utah, Salt Lake

City’s UTA TRAX light rail

system is evaluating the

effectiveness of specialized

warning signs for

pedestrians. Below is a

safety treatment that they

installed at one crossing,

which is close to a middle

school and other sources of

pedestrian traffic. Light rail

trains run at 55mph over this

crossing, so this was felt to

be a good test site for these

devices intended to provide

additional safety awareness

to pedestrians. Notice the

small sign placed on the

crossing gate counterweight.
Compilation of Pedestrian Devices In Use At Grade Crossings

January 2008

16

USING DEVICES TO FOCUS ATTENTION

The use of channelizing devices can help encourage some

of the desired behavior in pedestrians when they attempt

to cross the tracks. In the case shown above, the use of

“swing gates” at this light rail transit station serves to

focus the eyes of the pedestrian in the direction from

which a train on the near track would be entering the

station. This has reduced incidents related to passenger

inattention to trains in the station area.

In order to operate the gate, and enter the station, the user

must turn in the direction of oncoming train traffic, and

then stop to open the gate. This can reduce sudden,

inattentive “dart outs” into the path of an oncoming LRT

train. In addition, signing is used on each gate : PULL

TO OPEN, LOOK BOTH WAYS, along with a large

Watch For Trains sign posted in clear view.
Compilation of Pedestrian Devices In Use At Grade Crossings

January 2008

17

SECOND TRAIN COMING ISSUES FOR PEDESTRIANS

An innovative Second Train Coming warning sign at a transit station stop is in use at the Vernon

Avenue stop on the Los Angeles Metro Blue Line. The sign features a unique series of picture

images intended to remind pedestrians to look in both directions, on both tracks, for approaching

trains. This sign was originally designed and installed at Vernon Avenue as a demonstration
Compilation of Pedestrian Devices In Use At Grade Crossings

January 2008

18

project funded by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), under the Transit Cooperative

Research Program. The project evaluated the use of a train-activated device to give pedestrians

additional warning of the potential for two trains to enter the crossing at the same time.

The Vernon Avenue crossing was selected because it had one of the highest collision counts of

any crossing in the system. The crossing has two Blue Line light rail transit tracks adjacent to

two Union Pacific general system freight railroad tracks. The entrance to the adjacent Vernon

Avenue station is on the crossing, between the two Blue Line tracks.

The effectiveness of the new sign was evaluated by a “before and after” study, along with a

survey of pedestrians at the crossing. The intent of the survey was to ascertain pedestrian

awareness of the new sign, and to determine the level of understanding of the sign’s display.

The sign was found to successfully reduce the frequency of risky behaviors at the Vernon

Avenue crossing. The pedestrian survey revealed that over three-quarters (77%) of the 556

people interviewed said that they recalled seeing the new sign. 

At the same time, not many of them (4%) actually related its display to the presence of two trains

at the crossing at the same time. It should be noted, however, that the overwhelming majority of

those asked said that they understood that the sign’s display was meant to indicate danger.

The sign has recently had its operation modified so as to illuminate upon the approach of even a

single train on any track. It is believed that this will lead to better and more careful observation

of the crossing and tracks by pedestrians as they approach the Vernon Avenue crossing and

adjacent passenger station.
Compilation of Pedestrian Devices In Use At Grade Crossings

January 2008

19

The California Public Utilities Commission (CA PUC) is a state agency that regulates privately

owned utility companies as well as railroads and rail transit within the state. The CA PUC has 

worked extensively on enhancing safety at pedestrian crossings within the state. They have

developed several devices and strategies that focus on channelizing pedestrian flows to safe

crossing areas, and then guiding pedestrians across the tracks.

RIGHT: The “zigzag” or “Z-Gate” crossing is

a good example of channelization that also can

improve pedestrians’ observation of any

approaching trains as they traverse the

crossing approaches. Pedestrians are forced to

look in the direction of oncoming trains as

they make the turns approaching the crossing. 

While this type of crossing does increase the

distance that pedestrians have to travel, sturdy

fencing provides good compliance.

LEFT: As these two examples show, many

different types of fencing can be effective

as a channelization device. Fencing should

be substantial enough to command respect,

and provide positive guidance along the

desired travel pathway. But at the same

time, fencing is an element of the visual

environment, and must be reasonably

pleasing to the eye. 

Fencing does add a fair amount of

maintenance responsibility, as fences are

prime targets for graffiti and vandalism. 

Agencies that plan on using fencing

extensively need to plan on performing

regular maintenance on their runs of

fencing, in order to maintain effective

channelization as well as a pleasing

appearance to the area.
Compilation of Pedestrian Devices In Use At Grade Crossings

January 2008

20

THINGS TO WATCH OUT FOR IN PLANNING AND DESIGN Notice the very close

clearances between the lowered gate arm, the pedestrian refuge area, and the Light Rail Transit

(LRT) track. This must be a very unsettling place for pedestrians to stand and wait to cross,

whether or not the gate arms are lowered.
Compilation of Pedestrian Devices In Use At Grade Crossings

January 2008

21

Light rail systems that are the remnants of streetcar networks constructed in the early 20th

century often feature a higher frequency of pedestrian and street crossings. Many of these

systems retain crossings with restricted sight distances due to the development that has taken

place around the transit line. In this photo, there are railroad wayside signal cabinets adjacent to

the sidewalk approaching the light rail station, as well as the controllers for the grade crossing

system. For pedestrians walking downhill toward the station, sight distances to the right are

extremely limited. This makes the pedestrians very dependent upon the crossing warning

devices for notice of an approaching train.
Compilation of Pedestrian Devices In Use At Grade Crossings

January 2008

22

SPECIALIZED SOLUTION - TRAIN OPERATION ACCOMMODATES PEDESTRIANS

In rare circumstances within a station, a transit system may elect to have a safety stop for all

outbound vehicles. This stop is used to allow passengers to cross over to the inbound platform,

which only has access from this side.
Compilation of Pedestrian Devices In Use At Grade Crossings

January 2008

23

SOME STATE-LEVEL INVESTIGATIONS

OF PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ISSUES AT GRADE CROSSINGS

The Illinois Commerce Commission performed a study of pedestrian safety issues at grade

crossings in northeastern Illinois. At crossings that provided pedestrian access, the adequacy of

the warning devices in use was investigated. In addition, each crossing was reviewed with the

objective of finding any further safety enhancements that might be employed.

The effectiveness of pedestrian warning devices currently in use was analyzed by means of

looking at 39 incidents involving pedestrians struck by trains in northeastern Illinois between

2000 and 2004. 

For the purposes of the study, pedestrians, bicyclists and other types of non-motorized road users

were all considered to be pedestrians. The 39 pedestrian-train collisions that were included in

the study resulted in 25 fatalities and 14 injuries. 

With the available data and incident reports, 33 of the 39 collisions were more closely analyzed;

of the 33 pedestrian-train collisions, 66 percent were likely caused by pedestrians disregarding or

ignoring the pedestrian warning devices (as well as the adjacent highway warning devices).

The conclusions drawn from the study procedure were (taken from the ICC report):

1 Sixty-six percent (22 of 33) of these pedestrian-train collisions appear to have been

caused by the pedestrian disregarding the warning devices provided that indicated a train

was approaching; many of these crossings were equipped with pedestrian gates.

2 Twenty-one percent (8 of 39) of the pedestrian-train collisions occurred at Metra station

crosswalks that comprised only ten percent of all grade crossings in northeastern Illinois.

This is most likely due to the high volume of pedestrians exposed to train traffic at the

Metra station crosswalks.

3 The severity of train-pedestrian collisions is extreme. In northeastern Illinois between

2000 and 2004, 64 percent (25 of 39) of train-pedestrian collisions resulted in a fatal

injury to the pedestrian. This represents one of the highest severity rates of all

transportation related incidents.

4 Additional research is necessary to address the effectiveness of pedestrian safety

measures at rail grade crossings.

5 Pedestrian warning devices, including pedestrian gates, are commonly ignored and easy

to circumvent.
Compilation of Pedestrian Devices In Use At Grade Crossings

January 2008

24

Based upon these observations, the ICC made the following recommendations:

Recommendation 1 – Consideration should be given to initiate the research and development of

new types of pedestrian warning systems that improve pedestrian behavior when warning of an

approaching train is provided. In addition, consideration should be given to installing warning

signs at Metra station crosswalks and other pedestrian-rail crossings with similar pedestrian-train

exposure rates, where feasible.

Recommendation 2 – Expand efforts of Illinois Operation Lifesaver (OL) to educate the public

as to how to safely traverse highway rail grade crossings, as well as to the individual’s

responsibility related to crossing safety. For example, increasing the number of OL presentations

in areas where reports indicate patterns of pedestrian violations and also targeting those areas

with additional rail crossing safety public service announcements. In addition, continue Illinois

Operation Lifesaver’s work with local law enforcement through cooperative efforts, such as the

Commission’s Public Education and Enforcement Research Study (PEERS).
Compilation of Pedestrian Devices In Use At Grade Crossings

January 2008

25

The Nevada Department of Transportation has established the following standards for

pedestrian and bicyclist grade crossings: 

• Grade crossing design features follow all standards in the MUTCD, AASHTO

Greenbook, FHWA Guidance on Traffic Control Devices at Highway-Rail Grade

Crossings (Technical Working Group document), and FHWA Designing Sidewalks and

trails for Access Part II. 

• All signals are to be set behind the sidewalk, to provide the same level of warning for

pedestrians as motor vehicles. If this cannot be done, add pedestrian gates. 

• Crossing surface panels must be at least one foot wider than the sidewalk or edge or

roadway, if there is no sidewalk. 

• There must be a level turn-around area (for wheelchair users) next to the rail that is five

feet by five feet wide, on both sides of the track. The sidewalk slope can not increase

more than 1 in 12 after that. 

• The walkways can be no less than 36" wide but Nevada encourages the use of walkways

that are six feet wide. 

• With signals set in back of the sidewalks, Nevada has found that they do not run into

conflicts with the ADA prohibition of protrusions over the walkway.

• “RxR” pavement markings are applied in bicycle lanes and W10-1 Advance Warning

signs are placed next to the pavement markings. This is in addition to the W10-1 signs

placed further back for motorists. 

Nevada DOT has not constructed any new pedestrian-only crossings in the last fifteen years or

so, but they have used these standards in the last two years, while performing diagnostic reviews

for some possible pedestrian crossings. 

The NV DOT diagnostic review forms were very helpful and focused everyone on the issues. 

The potential crossing areas turned out to be very unacceptable for pedestrian access, when

viewed through the lens of the above manuals and standards. 

Nevada’s Diagnostic Review form for pedestrian / bicyclist crossings is included as Appendix A.
Compilation of Pedestrian Devices In Use At Grade Crossings

January 2008

26

POINTS TO CONSIDER DURING DEVICE SELECTION

The selection of a traffic control device for use where pedestrians are intended to cross railroad

tracks at grade should be the result of an engineering study whose simplicity or complexity will

be determined by conditions at the crossing in question. In general, the factors to be examined

during device selection should include the following:

• Collision experience, if any, at the crossing, as it involves pedestrians.

• Pedestrian volumes and peak flows, if any.

• Train speeds, numbers of trains, and railroad traffic patterns, if any.

• Sight distance that is available to pedestrians approaching the crossing.

• Skew angle, if any, of the crossing relative to the railroad tracks.

CONCLUSIONS

Based upon the information received during this compilation effort, it can be seen that effective

devices are a necessary complement to law enforcement initiatives and public outreach and

education efforts in the enhancement of pedestrian safety at grade crossings. 

Observations of pedestrian behavior often reveal that many pedestrians do not think of

themselves as part of the overall traffic stream, and therefore not really subject to traffic control

devices. Their crossing behaviors often indicate an “I’ll go when I want to; after all, I’m just

walking” attitude that can prove very difficult to overcome. Effective use of channelizing

devices that force pedestrians to look and move in certain directions and to cross tracks at certain

places can enhance safety at grade crossings by accumulating pedestrian traffic and flowing that

traffic through a single, well-designed crossing point. Many of the devices depicted in this

compilation perform such a function, although often in different ways, and to varying degrees.

Another fact that becomes clear upon reviewing the devices compiled herein is that transit

properties and local agencies have been developing their own signs, signals and pavement

markings, which are frequently not in compliance with the MUTCD, the established national

standard. Such non-standard devices are often not without merit, and may incorporate

innovative features. Non-standard devices that have been shown to be effective in more than one

geographic area through scientific evaluation studies should be proposed for inclusion in the

MUTCD, as outlined in Section 1A.10 of the Manual. Inclusion in the Manual makes effective

and innovative devices available for use by the wider community of transportation and

engineering professionals, and can enhance safety for more of the population.
Compilation of Pedestrian Devices In Use At Grade Crossings

January 2008

27

Development Type: Residential G Industrial G Commercial G Open Space G Institutional G

Are the advance warning signs in good condition? G yes G No

Path width _________’ Number of Travel Lanes __ Is Path Wide Enough (shared = 10’ + 2’ edges)? G Yes G No

Is there adequate capacity? G Yes G No

Does the path have a 2% cross slope? G Yes G No

Is the person’s attention being diverted? G Yes G No

Is there an adequate landing platform (10’ clear+ decision/reaction on table+ tracks+ 15’ between track)? G Yes G No

If the approach is inadequate, can it be adjusted? G Yes G No

Is there an adequate edge G Yes G No

Is there adequate drainage? List drainage present: Size: Location: G Yes G No

Do culverts, drop inlets, etc. need to be adjusted? 

Utilities adjustment needed? Overhead Lines G Buried Lines G Gas Vent Riser G G Yes G No

Are there adequate maintenance procedures, funds & RR agreements for path & crossing, including G Yes G No

Are there informational signs for non-standard path conditions, such as grades? G Yes G No

APPENDIX A

STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

RAILROAD SAFETY DIAGNOSTIC REVIEW FORM

PATHS WITHOUT MOTOR VEHICLES

TEAM MEMBER: AGENCY: REVIEW DATE: 

CROSSING DATA PATH DATA

DOT Number: Location: 

Railroad Company: Type of Path Use: G Shared G Bike G Pedestrian

Railroad Milepost: Bike/Trail Route/System G Yes G No 

Train Speed: Passenger______ Freight______ Pedestrian AADT:

Track Class: Bicycle AADT:

Number of Tracks & Type: Bicycle Speed:

Number of Trains: Passenger ______ Freight ______ Other Crossing Users:

Crash History: Property Damage User Destinations:

Injury Path Owner:

Fatality Level of Service: (A – F)

Principal Rail Line: GYes G No 

TYPE OF EXISTING OR PROPOSED WARNING DEVICES

Automatic Gates: 2-Quad G 4-Quad G Median G LOOK Signs: G Yes G No 

Flashing Lights: LED G Bulbs G Median G STOP Signs: G Yes G No 

Bells: Gong G Electronic G Emergency Notification G Yes G No

Crossbucks Double Faced Retroreflective: Yes G No G Access Control Devices - List G Yes G No

Multi Track Sign: 2-Track G 3-Track G 4-Track G 6-Track G Lighting: G Yes G No

Advanced Warning Signs: W10-1 G W10-2 G W10-3 G W10-4 G Swing Gates G Yes G No

Pavement Markings: Stop Bars G RxR G Lane Lines G Dynamic Envelope G Other G

List Other Devices & Condition of Devices: 

PATH SECTION

RAILROAD SECTION

Is the track on a curve? Degree of curve: ___o Super elevation: ___ “ Cross level: ___% G Yes G No

Are active warning devices needed? Type of circuitry: AC-DC G CWT G MS G G Yes G No

Is there adequate warning time from the railroad signals? Need 2.8 seconds per foot to cross + warning. G Yes G No

Can multiple tracks be removed? G Yes G No

Are gates warranted? Standard G Barrier G Swing G G Yes G No

Does the track height need to be adjusted? G Yes G No

Is the surface smooth? G Yes G No

Is surface rehabilitation required to facilitate signal installation? G Yes G No
Compilation of Pedestrian Devices In Use At Grade Crossings

January 2008

28

ADA

Are there curb cuts at nearby intersections and a clear path present to curb cuts at nearby intersections? G Yes G No

Are detectable warnings advised? G Yes G No

Is the path width adequate (36” is minimum)? G Yes G No

Are there vertical obstructions (standard: none between 27” to 80” above ground or within path)? G Yes G No

Slope of path transition (standard is 12:1 or less). G Yes G No

Landing platform (standard is level and 5’ x 5’ or more). G Yes G No

Is surface smooth (standard: passable by a wheelchair, no broken or buckled asphalt, edges < 1⁄4”)? G Yes G No

Panel length (crossing surface panel needs to extend 1’ behind back of path to be standard). G Yes G No

Are there flange gaps 21⁄2”, or less, or flange fillers? G Yes G No

Can full flange fillers be used in low speed applications? G Yes G No

Is grade 5% or less? If grade is over 5%, how long is grade? _________’ G Yes G No

If grade is 8% and 200’, 10% and 30’ or 12.5% and 10’, are there rest areas? G Yes G No

Are there 43” handrails for grades over 5%? G Yes G No

Is widening proposed? How wide? _____’. When? _____ Consider in project? _________ G Yes G No

Mitigation: 

AWARENESS OF XING

Overall awareness of railroad crossing, including visibility and effectiveness of possible signs,

signals and markings. 

G Acceptable

Horizontal and vertical alignment considerations. G Acceptable

Pedestrian Sight Distance: Clearing sight distance of_________’ from 17’ from rail needed. 

North/East Side of Xing ________’ South/West Side of Xing ________’ G Acceptable

Bicycle Sight Distance 1: Distance where crossing can be identified. 

North/East Side of Xing ________ feet South/West Side of Xing ________ feet G Acceptable

Bicycle Sight Distance 2: Need ______’ down tracks from ______’ down path. 

North/East Side Looking East/North ______’ West/South ______’ 

South/West Side Looking East/North ______’ West/South ______’

G Acceptable

G Recommend Improvement

Bicycle Sight Distance 3: Distance down path to see ______’ down tracks if #2 not acceptable. 

North/East Side Looking East/North ______’ West/South ______’

South/West Side Looking East/North ______’ West/South ______’

G Acceptable

G Recommend Improvement

Bicycle Sight Distance 4: Stopped 17’ from rail, need ______’ down tracks.

North/East Side Looking East/North _____’ West/South _______’

South/West Side Looking East/North ______’ West/South ______’

G Acceptable

G Recommend Improvement

Nighttime visibility, including ambient lighting. G Acceptable

Skew of Xing: ____° Does skew limit perception? G Yes G No

Are there simultaneous train movements on multiple tracks?

Can standing boxcars block the view? G Yes G No G

Do Pedestrians and bicycles violate warning devices? G Yes G No

Mitigation of inadequate perception: G Additional Signage G Luminaires & Where G Multiple Track Removal 

STOP AND YIELD SIGNS

THE FOLLOWING CONSIDERATIONS MUST BE MET IN EVERY CASE WHERE A STOP SIGN IS INSTALLED

STOP or YIELD signs may be used by path authority if there are two or more TADT and xing is passive. G Yes G No

Are law enforcement & judiciary committed to enforcement equal to road intersections with STOP signs? G Yes G No

Would installation of STOP sign create a more dangerous situation than would exist with YIELD sign? G Yes G No

ANY OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS INDICATE THAT A STOP SIGN MIGHT REDUCE RISK AT A CROSSING

Maximum train speeds equal, or exceed, 30 mph. G Yes G No

Train movements are 10 or more per day, five or more days per week. G Yes G No

The rail line is regularly used to transport a significant quantity of hazardous materials. G Yes G No

The path crosses two or more tracks, particularly where both tracks are main tracks or one track is a

passing siding that is frequently used. 

G Yes G No

The angle of approach to the crossing is skewed. G Yes G No
Compilation of Pedestrian Devices In Use At Grade Crossings

January 2008

29

The line of sight from an approaching path user to an approaching train is restricted such that

approaching path traffic is required to substantially reduce speed. 

G Yes G No

THE FOLLOWING CONSIDERATIONS SHOULD BE WEIGHED AGAINST PLACING STOP SIGNS

There are active warning devices. G Yes G No

STOP sign would cause queuing onto nearby road. G Yes G No

The path is other than secondary in character. G Yes G No

The path is a steep ascending grade to or through the crossing, sight distance in both directions is

unrestricted in relation to maximum closing speed, and bicycles or wheelchairs use the crossing. 

G Yes G No

REVIEW FOR AUTOMATIC GATES 

ACTIVE DEVICES WITH AUTOMATIC GATES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AT CROSSINGS WHENEVER AN ENGINEERING

STUDY BY A DIAGNOSTIC TEAM DETERMINES ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS EXISTS

If inadequate sight distance exists in one or more quadrants and ALL of the following are ‘Yes’: G Yes G No

 a. Is it physically or economically unfeasible to correct the sight distance deficiency? G Yes G No

 b. Is no acceptable alternate access available? If access exists, then close the crossing. G Yes G No

 c. On a life cycle cost basis, would the cost of providing acceptable alternate access or grade 

 separation exceed the cost of installing active devices with gates? G Yes G No

Is the crossing in near schools, industries or commercial areas where there is higher than normal usage. G Yes G No

Are there multiple main or running tracks through the crossing? G Yes G No

Does the expected accident frequency (EAF) for active devices without gates exceed 0.1? G Yes G No

Is there queuing across the tracks from a nearby intersection? G Yes G No

Does the diagnostic team have other reasons? G Yes G No

OPTIONAL USE OF AUTOMATIC GATES 

ACTIVE DEVICES WITH AUTOMATIC GATES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS AN OPTION WHEN 

THEY CAN BE JUSTIFIED ECONOMICALLY AND WHEN ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS EXISTS

Do multiple tracks exist? G Yes G No

Are there 20 or more trains per day? G Yes G No

Does the posted path speed exceed 40 mph in urban areas, or exceed 55 mph in rural areas? G Yes G No

Does the AADT exceed 2,000 in urban areas, or exceed 500 in rural areas? G Yes G No

Are there multiple lanes of traffic in the same direction of travel? G Yes G No

Does the product of the number of trains per day & AADT exceed 5000 urban, or 4000 rural? G Yes G No

Has an engineering study indicated the absence of active devices would result in the path facility

performing at a level of service below Level C? 

G Yes G No

Does the expected accident frequency (EAF) exceed 0.075? G Yes G No

Is this a new project or are the current active devices being replaced? G Yes G No

Does the diagnostic team have other reasons? G Yes G No

CANTILEVER FLASHING LIGHTS

Two or more lanes the same direction. G Yes G No

High speed paths regardless of number of lanes. G Yes G No

Objects on the side of the path can obstruct the visibility of mast mounted flashing lights. G Yes G No

Horizontal or vertical curves or other topographical features obstruct the mast mounted flashing lights. G Yes G No
Compilation of Pedestrian Devices In Use At Grade Crossings

January 2008

30

WARNING/BARRIER GATE SYSTEM

Crossing with high-speed trains. G Yes G No

Crossing in quiet zones. G Yes G No

As otherwise deemed necessary by the diagnostic review team. G Yes G No

PEDESTRIAN TREATMENTS

Can devices be designed to avoid stranding pedestrians between sets of tracks? G Yes G No

Can audible devices be added if determined necessary? G Yes G No

Would swing gates operate safely for disabled individuals? G Yes G No

Are skirted gates or other warning devices needed? G Yes G No

Can crossing controls/delays be used near stations? G Yes G No

Are added pedestrian signs needed? G Yes G No

List pedestrian signs needed: 

Notes:

CLOSURE

CROSSING SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR CLOSURE WHEN ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING APPLY

Does the crossing have nearby acceptable alternate bicycle and pedestrian access? G Yes G No

On a life cycle cost basis, would improvement exceed cost of providing acceptable alternate access? G Yes G No

If an engineering study determined any of the following. 

 a. FRA Class 1,2, or 3 track with daily train movements 

 1. AADT less than 500 in urban areas, acceptable alternate access within 1⁄4 mile, and the 

 median trip length would not increase by more than 1⁄2 mile. 

G Yes G No

 2. AADT less than 50 in rural areas, acceptable alternate access within 1⁄2 mile, and the 

 median trip length would not increase by more than 11⁄2 miles.

G Yes G No

 b. FRA Class 4 or 5 track with active rail traffic. 

 1. AADT less than 1,000 in urban areas, acceptable alternate access within 1⁄4 mile and the G Yes G No

 2. AADT less than 100 in rural areas, acceptable alternate access within 1 mile, and the trip G Yes G No

 c. FRA Class 6 or higher track with active rail traffic. 

 AADT less than 250 in rural areas, acceptable alternate access within 11⁄2 miles, and the

 median trip length would not increase by more than 4 miles.

G Yes G No

Does an engineering study determines the crossing should be closed because railroad operations will occupy or block

the crossing for extended periods of time on a routine basis and it is not physically or economically feasible to grade

separate or shift train operations to another location. Such locations would typically include the following areas: 

G Yes

G No

 a. Rail yards

b. Passing tracks primarily used for holding trains while waiting to meet or be passed by other trains

c. Locations where train crews are routinely required to stop trains because of cross traffic on intersecting lines, or switch cars

d. Switching leads at the ends of classification yards

e. Where trains are required to “double” in or out of yards and terminals

f. In the proximity of stations where long distance passenger trains are required to make extended stops to transfer baggage

g. Locations where trains must stop or wait for crew changes

GRADE SEPARATION

CROSSING SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR GRADE SEPARATION WHEN ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING APPLY

Is the path designed to have full control access? G Yes G No

Does the AADT exceed 100,000 in urban areas or 50,000 in rural areas? G Yes G No

Is the maximum authorized train speed over 110 mph? G Yes G No

Is there an average of 150 or more trains per day or 300 million gross tons per year? G Yes G No

Is there an average of 75 or more passenger trains per day in urban areas or 30 or more in rural? G Yes G No

Crossing exposure (product of trains per day & AADT) exceeds 1,000,000 in urban, 250,000 rural. G Yes G No

The expected accident frequency (EAF) for active devices exceeds 0.5? G Yes G No

Path user delays exceed 40 vehicle hours per day? G Yes G No

CROSSING SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR GRADE SEPARATION WHEN ONE OR MORE OF THE

FOLLOWING APPLY AND THE LIFE CYCLE COSTS CAN BE FULLY ALLOCATED

Is the path designed to have partial control access? G Yes G No

Does the path posted speed exceed 55 mph? G Yes G No

Does the AADT exceed 50,000 in urban areas or 25,000 in rural areas? G Yes G No

Is the maximum authorized train speed over 100 mph? G Yes G No

Is there an average of 75 or more trains per day or 150 million gross tons per year? G Yes G No
Compilation of Pedestrian Devices In Use At Grade Crossings

January 2008

31

Is there an average of 50 or more passenger trains per day in urban areas or 12 or more in rural? G Yes G No

Crossing exposure (product of trains per day & AADT) exceeds 500,000 in urban, 125,000 rural? G Yes G No

The expected accident frequency (EAF) for active devices exceeds 0.2? G Yes G No

Path user delays exceed 30 vehicle hours per day? G Yes G No

Does the engineering study indicate that the absence of a grade separation will result in the path facility G Yes G No

NEW CROSSINGS

PERMITTED AT EXISTING RAILROAD TRACKS AT-GRADE WHEN IT CAN BE DEMONSTRATED ALL FOLLOWING APPLY & NOT

ON MAINLINES

On public paths where there is a clear and compelling need (other than enhancing the value or

development potential of the adjoining property). G Yes G No

Grade separation cannot be economically justified (benefit to cost ratio on a fully allocated cost basis is

less than 1.0 & the crossing exposure exceeds 50,000 in urban areas & 25,000 in rural areas) 

G Yes G No

There are no other viable alternatives. G Yes G No

IF A CROSSING IS PERMITTED, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHOULD APPLY

The crossing will be equipped with active devices with gates. G Yes G No

The plans and specifications should be subject to the approval of the highway agency having jurisdiction

over the path (if other than a State agency), the State DOT or other State agency vested with the

authority to approve new crossings, and the operating railroad. 

G Yes G No

All costs associated with the construction of the new crossing should be borne by the party or parties

requesting the new crossing, including providing financially for the ongoing maintenance of the crossing

surface and traffic control devices where no crossing closures are included in the project.

G Yes G No

Whenever new public path-rail crossings are permitted, they should fully comply with all applicable

provisions of the TWG proposed recommended practice, MUTCD, AASHTO, ITE and other standards. 

G Yes G No

Whenever a new path-rail crossing is constructed, consideration should be given to closing one or more

adjacent crossings. 

G Yes G No

RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY

G Closure G Do Not Stop on Tracks Signs (for queuing) R8-8

G Grade Separation G LOOK Sign R15-8

G Crossing Relocation G Bicycle Signs

G Flashing Lights G Additional Signage

G Automatic Gates G Pavement Markings (No thermoplastic)

G Side Lights G Luminaires

G Cantilever Flashing Lights G Crossing Surface Smoothness 1⁄4 “, Width or Rehabilitation

G Circuitry, Timing, Intertie Adjustments – What? G Additional ADA

G Bells G Zigzag Approaches

G Stationary Horns G Storage Improvement for Queuing

G Active Second Train Coming Sign G Approach & Landing Platform Modification

G Pedestrian Amenities, Swing Gates G Detour Signage for Grades

G Barrier Gates or Skirted Gates G Parking & Pedestrian Channelization

G Retroreflective Double Faced Crossbucks & Post Stripes G Railings

G Texturing – Detectable G Utility & Culvert Adjustments

G Emergency Notification Sign I-13 G Path Surface or Edge

G Multi-Track Signs # Tracks ______ G Rest Areas on Grades

G Advance Warning Signs W10-1, W10-2, W10-3, W10-4 G Fixed Object Removal

G STOP Sign R1-1 G Maintenance

G YIELD Sign R1-2 G Other –
Compilation of Pedestrian Devices In Use At Grade Crossings

January 2008

32

RECOMMENDATION DESCRIPTION

PRECONSTRUCTION MITIGATION

What interim measures are needed? 

If improvements are needed but will not be done, document reasons. 

If no improvement needed, document adequacy of current devices. 

TYPE OF PROTECTION DURING CONSTRUCTION

G Detour with Flagger protection during the day. G Combination daylight flagging and stop signs. 

G 24 hour Flagger protection. G Construction of half the crossing at a time with work zone detour.

G Reopen main crossing at night with existing protection. G Temporary signal protection (only under stringent conditions).

G Work zone traffic control with lane closures and detours with railroad flagging during working hours. 

G Other

NEVADA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION AUTHORITY REQUIRED

APPLICATION REQUIRED APPLICATION NOT REQUIRED

G New Crossing G Signal Installation, Circuitry improvements, etc. 

G Closure G Surface Improvement, Install Prefab Crossing, etc. 

G Relocation G Passive Improvement, Signs, Markings, etc. 

G Major Modification (track removal, widening, etc.)