C

5

S

U

A

RA

CALIF

CALIFORN

505 VAN N

SAN FRAN

Updated

April, 2013

AIL CRO

Su

S

FORNIA

NIA PUB

NESS AVE

NCISCO,

3

2

OSSING

ubmitte

STATE O

A PUBLI

LIC UTIL

ENUE

CA 94102

2012‐201

G SAFET

d on beh

OF CALI

By the

IC UTILI

LITIES CO

2

7

TY ACTI

half of th

IFORNIA

ITIES C

OMMISSIO

ION PLA

he  

A

OMMIS

ON

AN

SSION
ii 

RAIL CROSSING SAFETY ACTION PLAN

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The California Public Utilities Commission staff would like to

acknowledge the contribution of the California Department of

Transportation – Division of Rail in development and implementation of

this plan.
iii 

RAIL CROSSING SAFETY ACTION PLAN

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

2012 ‐ 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  ......................................................................................................... 1

2. INTRODUCTION  ...................................................................................................................... 2

3. BACKGROUND  ........................................................................................................................ 3

A  Rail Crossing Safety Oversight in California ............................................................ 4

B Crossing Improvement Efforts and Initiatives ........................................................... 9

4. ACTION PLAN STRATEGIES ................................................................................................. 15

5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................ 39

APPENDICES

A. Abbreviation and Acronym List  ............................................................................................ 40

B. Summary of Final Rule Changes to 49 CFR Part 234............................................................ 41

C. FRA Letter to California to Submit Action Plan ................................................................... 44

D. California Railroad Listing (with crossing data) .................................................................. 46

E. Status of California Multiple Accident Crossings................................................................. 49

F. California Bond Fund Grade Separation Project Summary................................................. 52

G. California Crossing Accident Data 2000‐2009....................................................................... 59
California Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan 2012-2017 

 Page 1 of 67 

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Section 202 of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, which was signed into

law on October 16, 2008, requires the Secretary of Transportation to identify the

ten States with the most grade crossing collisions in the prior three years, and to

require those States to develop action plans to identify specific solutions for

improving safety at crossings.  California was identified as one of those ten

states.  Due to its jurisdiction over railroad and rail transit crossings within

California, the California Public Utilities Commission took the lead in developing

this action plan.

The plan outlines the current state of rail crossing safety in California and the

Federal, State and local agency roles and responsibilities relative to improving

safety.  The plan also outlines a strong relationship with Operation Lifesaver Inc.,

to further the rail crossing safety message.

The action Plan outlines the significant investments made by the State of

California to construct grade separation structures to eliminate existing crossings

and to improve existing at‐grade crossings to eliminate hazards.   The plan

makes it clear that California is already investigating crossing accidents in detail

and addressing its multiple collision locations, as required by the Rail Safety

Improvement Act of 2008.

The Action Plan identifies a number of existing and new strategies to be

undertaken to further improve crossing safety in California.   

The Action Plan will serve to guide the California Public Utilities Commission

and its partner agencies in the coming years in order to further reduce injuries

and fatalities at railroad and rail transit crossings in California.  The State will

continue to work closely with its Federal and local agency partners to implement

the identified strategies and will continue on an ongoing basis to review and

update the plan as the strategies are evaluated and effectiveness determined.
California Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan 2012-2017 

 Page 2 of 67 

2.  INTRODUCTION

On June 28, 2010, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) issued its final rule,

effective August 27, 2010, requiring the ten states with the highest number of

highway‐rail crossing accidents, on average, over the past three years to develop

rail crossing safety action plans.  (Relevant portions of the final rule and adopted

regulation are found in Appendix B.)  The rule was intended to comply with

section 202 of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA), Public Law 110‐

432, Division A, which was signed into law on October 16, 2008.  Section 202

requires the Secretary (delegated to the Federal Railroad Administrator by 49

CFR 1.49) to identify the ten States, and to require those States to develop their

action plans, within a reasonable period of time, as determined by the Secretary.

Section 202 further provides that these plans must identify specific solutions for

improving safety at crossings, including highway‐rail grade crossing closures or

grade separations, and must focus on crossings that have experienced multiple

accidents or are at high risk for such accidents.

From the database FRA maintains of reported railroad accidents, FRA identified

the ten States with the most reported highway‐rail grade crossing collisions at

public and private grade crossings during 2006, 2007, and 2008, to be, as follows:

Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Ohio,

and Texas.   The methodology used to identify the ten States did not account for

the rate or frequency of highway‐rail grade crossings and motor vehicle traffic,

because the statute, in RSIA section 202(a), expressly directed FRA to identify the

ten States that have had the most highway‐rail grade crossing collisions, on

average, over the past three years.  

On August 4, 2010, the FRA Administrator notified the two primary state

agencies in California dealing with rail transportation issues, Caltrans and the

CPUC, that it had identified California as one of the ten states that were required

to submit the grade crossing safety action plan under the law and under the

newly adopted 49 CFR 234.11 ‐ State highway‐rail grade crossing action plans.   

(See Appendix C) Caltrans and the CPUC mutually agreed that the CPUC should

take primary responsibility for the creation of the plan due to its jurisdiction over

rail crossings and rail safety in California.

This action plan outlines current and proposed activities that are being

implemented or which are being pursued that will improve crossing safety

throughout the state or at specific crossings.   
California Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan 2012-2017 

 Page 3 of 67 

3.  BACKGROUND

The U.S. railroad and rail transportation systems are a vital component of the

nation’s transportation infrastructure, carrying millions of passengers and

millions of tons of freight, including hazardous materials, daily.  That system

consists of heavy rail (freight, passenger, and commuter rail) and light rail transit

systems.  In California, nearly all of these rail systems have street level at‐grade

crossings with roadways and pedestrian pathways.

Over the 3 year period FRA considered in identifying the 10 States requiring

action plans, nationwide, there were 2,772 highway‐rail crossing accidents in

2007, 2,409 in 2008, and 1,896 in 2009 resulting in a total of 873 fatalities,

according to the FRA.  In California during those years there were 168, 148 and

115 highway‐rail crossing accidents, respectively, resulting in a total of 101

fatalities.  While these figures represent a general continuing decline, they

remain unacceptably high.  Ten year crossing (excluding transit crossings)

accident data is below.

California Rail Network

The California freight rail network is dominated by two Class One railroads, the

Union Pacific Railroad Company and the BNSF Railway Company.  There are

also 28 short line railroads, operating over shorter territories.  Combined they

have over 10,000 miles of track.  In addition there are four commuter railroads

FRA Reported California Highway-Rail Crossing Incidents 

2001-2010

180

140 142

158 151

170 168

148

115

124

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

California Highway Rail Crossing Incidents

FRA Reported California Highway-Rail Crossing Incidents, 

Fatalities and Injuries 

2001-2010

180

140 142

158 151

170 168

148

115 124

54

30 27 33

23

36

47

25 29 29

49 55

66

54 62

40

78

97

33

72

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

California Highway Rail Crossing Incidents Fatalities Injuries
California Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan 2012-2017 

 Page 4 of 67 

that operate passenger trains, primarily on shared track with freight operations,

as well as a number of small passenger excursion operations.  Amtrak trains

operate intercity service over a number of these lines and Amtrak of California

operates three of the 5 busiest Amtrak routes in the nation along these lines.  In

total, California railroads have approximately 10,000 miles of track that contain

over 12,000 public and private highway‐rail and pathway‐rail crossings.  

Additionally there are approximately 1,000 additional rail transit crossings

operated by seven rail transit agencies.

Appendix D contains a listing of California railroads and their crossing numbers.

Rail Crossing Safety Oversight in California

Citizens and visitors of California who travel using roadways or rail transit, or

live or work near heavy rail corridors or rail transit systems all depend upon the

Commission’s rail safety programs to protect their safety and preserve their

quality of life.  With increasing urbanization and rapid economic growth forcing

greater use of railroad and rail transit corridors, increased movement of

hazardous materials, and greater security concerns, prompt and effective

oversight and enforcement is required to prevent more frequent and serious

accidents.

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) provides for states to enforce federal

railroad safety regulations within their borders, to compliment the FRA

inspection forces.  The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requires that safety

and security oversight of rail transit be the responsibility of state‐designated

agencies.  However, jurisdiction over the location and treatments at highway‐rail

and pedestrian crossings is under state law.  The State of California designated

the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), as the agency to house these

safety programs.  The CPUC has assigned its Safety and Enforcement Division

(SED) to manage these programs.

California Public Utilities Commission

The California Public Utilities Commission is a constitutionally created agency

with broad regulatory powers.  Its five Commissioners are appointed by the

Governor and approved by the State Senate.  In addition to housing the state’s

rail safety programs, the agency regulates public utilities for rates and safety and

also regulates transportation of household goods and for‐hire passenger carriers.  

The Commission’s SED directs all of the safety programs under the CPUC’s

jurisdiction.
California Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan 2012-2017 

 Page 5 of 67 

Governor

President

Executive

Director

Figure 1 - Organizational Structure Diagram

Federal mandates, State regulation and Commission General Orders drive the

scope of primary authority and workload within the responsibility of the CPUC

rail safety programs.  The CPUC rail safety programs consist of 2 branches: (a)

Railroad Operations Safety Branch (ROSB) and (b) Rail Transit and Crossings

Branch (RTCB).  Within RTCB there are 2 sections: (a) Rail Transit Safety Section

(RTSS) and (b) Rail Crossings Engineering Section (RCES).

Figure 2 - SED Organizational Structure Diagram 

California has the largest program of any state participating in the FRA State

Participation Program in SED’s Rail Operations Safety Branch.  It has federally

certified inspectors that enforce federal regulations along with some state specific

regulations that are not federally preempted.  The commission currently has
California Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan 2012-2017 

 Page 6 of 67 

safety oversight responsibility for 30 Railroad corporations, and approximately

10,000 miles of track.

SED’s Rail Transit Safety Section is charged to manage the rail transit State Safety

Oversight Program.  CPUC has regulatory authority over all fixed rail guideway

systems in California.  These systems are collectively referred to as Rail Transit

Agencies (RTAs).  The CPUC’s regulatory authority is exercised in conjunction

with both the FTA and the RTAs in order to assure and enhance public safety.  

The CPUC program is the largest in the nation, with oversight responsibility for

more RTAs than any other state.   

In addition to safety oversight of railroad and rail transit agencies, the

Commission has safety oversight responsibility for approximately 13,000 public

and private railroad and light rail transit crossings, of which approximately

10,000 are at‐grade.  The Commission’s Rail Crossings Engineering Section

(RCES) has primary responsibility for implementation of its rail crossing safety

program.

The Commission’s ROSB, RTSS, RCES, and the FRA and FTA cooperate on

various levels to manage rail safety in California and enforce safety regulations,

investigate incidents and otherwise conduct oversight under the jurisdictions

granted by federal and state laws.  ROSB and RCES share safety data and

information extensively with FRA in conducting their oversight activities of

heavy rail systems.  

The RCES of the CPUC carries out the Commission’s program administering its

exclusive jurisdiction over the safety of crossing of highways and railroad tracks,

which includes the power to determine their design, location, and terms of

installation, operation, maintenance, use, and warning devices (California Public

Utilities Code 1201 – 1202).  This includes the following responsibilities:  

 Review and process applications for Commission authority to construct new,

or to alter existing rail crossings;  

 Investigate train‐involved collisions at railroad crossings;

 Perform safety inspections of crossings;

 Review and respond to public complaints (e.g., rough or unsafe crossings,

noise issues);

 Prepare recommendations to enhance safety at specific crossings;  

 Develop Commission policies to enhance safety of all crossings in the State;
California Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan 2012-2017 

 Page 7 of 67 

 Perform field reviews of crossings to update crossing inventory database;

 Administer and maintain of the Commission’s crossing Accidents database;

 Review, analyze and provide written comment on environmental documents

required to be submitted under state law, for impacts on the safety of rail

corridors or crossings in or near the project area;

 Administer the CPUC portion of the Federal Section 130 program;

 Administer the CPUC portion of the state’s Section 190 grade separation

program;

 Administer the state’s Automatic Grade Crossing Warning Device

Maintenance Fund program (that reimburses local City and County portion

of crossing maintenance costs);

 Conduct railroad quiet zone evaluations and receive, analyze and respond to

Notices of Quiet Zone Intent and Establishment under FRA regulations;

 Participate in state and national committees that examine and recommend

rule and standards changes to improve crossing safety;

 Monitor, analyze and comment upon Federal rulemakings and initiatives,

proposed state laws, new standards and regulations under consideration;

 Monitor and review existing state laws and Commission General Orders to

identify opportunities for improvement and update;

 Develop and publish policy and guidance documents on crossing issues to

promote effective safety strategies and consistent application of crossing

treatments;

 Promote and provide training to railroad and local roadway agency

personnel regarding highway‐rail and pathway‐rail crossing safety; and

 Analyze new crossing safety technology.

RCES currently has a total of 19 employee positions throughout California,

located in three regional areas: San Francisco, Sacramento and Los Angeles.   

California Department of Transportation  

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the California

Transportation Commission (CTC) are responsible for development, construction

and maintenance of the primary state transportation network in California.  They

receive, allocate and distribute nearly all state and federal funds relating to all

facets of the highway system in California.  As such Caltrans and the CTC are

primary funding sources for implementing grade separations and crossing
California Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan 2012-2017 

 Page 8 of 67 

improvement projects in California.  In addition, Caltrans improves existing

crossings and grade separates a significant number of existing crossings in

implementation of transportation projects in furtherance of its primary mission

to develop and maintain California roadways and the inter‐city passenger rail

service for which it is responsible.

Relative specifically to crossing safety, Caltrans, through its Division of Rail,

administers the Caltrans portion of the Federal Section 130 Program and State

Section 190 Grade Separation Program.  Both of these crossing improvement

programs are jointly administered by Caltrans and the CPUC.  Because Caltrans

receives the state and federal funding for these and other programs, they

perform the contracting and implementation elements of these programs, while

the CPUC conducts the data analysis and development of prioritization lists of

projects meeting the requirements for the programs.  

Relative to the State’s rail infrastructure, Caltrans Division of Rail, operates

Amtrak of California.  They work with the class I railroads, whose system they

operate over, to implement improvements adding track and other infrastructure

to provide additional service or improve existing service.  As these infrastructure

projects are implemented, highway‐rail crossings are frequently grade separated

or improved and redesigned to enhance safety and mobility.  

In addition to these core programs, Caltrans also administers the State of

California 2006 infrastructure bond funds.  On November 7, 2006 California

voters approved the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port

Security Bond Act of 2006 (2006 Bond Act).  That Act approved $19.925 Billion of

state general obligation bonds for specified purposes, including improvements or

grade‐separations of highway‐rail crossings.  A $250 million subaccount was

specifically set aside to grade separate railroad crossings, with a number of sub

accounts being eligible to also fund crossing grade separations or at‐grade

crossing improvements where they were involved in infrastructure projects that

were the focus of that sub account.  

High Speed Rail

The California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) is currently changed with

developing a high speed rail system in California.  Although the project and its

alignment remain controversial, it continues to progress and the first segment

environmental document has been certified.  A number of routes are under

consideration for the various segments, but most parallel existing rail corridors
California Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan 2012-2017 

 Page 9 of 67 

so that if and when the project proceeds, hundreds of existing highway‐rail

crossings within the existing freight rail corridor are likely to be closed or grade

separated as part of the project.  The CPUC’s RCES has been working closely

with the CHSRA and its consultants to address the safety of any at‐grade

crossings that would remain along the parallel freight corridors, as part of the

project.

Crossing Closure and Improvement Efforts and Initiatives

The CPUC has adopted the policy of the Federal Railroad Administration to

reduce the number of at‐grade highway‐rail crossings in California, and has

included this policy statement in Section 2 of its General Order 75‐D – Standards

for Warning Devices for At‐grade Highway‐Rail Crossings, which states:

2. POLICY ON REDUCING NUMBER OF AT-GRADE CROSSINGS 

As part of its mission to reduce hazards associated with at-grade crossings, 

and in support of the national goal of the Federal Railroad Administration 

(FRA), the Commission’s policy is to reduce the number of at-grade crossings 

on freight or passenger railroad mainlines in California. 

Thus, at‐grade crossings on mainline track are rarely approved by the CPUC,

and when they are approved, the criteria has been set very high.  The CPUC

requires among other things a demonstration of a compelling public need, that a

grade separation at the location is impracticable, and a convincing showing that

the proposed design eliminates all potential safety hazards.  Crossings that have

been authorized at‐grade are typically on industrial spurs and other non‐

mainline tracks, with low train counts and speeds and/or lightly used roadways.

While very few new crossings have been authorized in California in the past 5

years, hundreds have or are in the process of being upgraded.  Commission

authority to modify crossings has increased significantly in the past several

years.  In calendar year 2010, the CPUC authorized 165 crossing improvement

projects.  These have typically been the urban and suburban crossings where the

crossings and roadways are experiencing congested conditions, improving their

efficiency and more safely accommodating the expected motor vehicle and

pedestrian traffic.

CPUC Staff endeavor to identify crossings that are good candidates for closure

during any crossing projects it evaluates, including quiet zone projects, new

grade separations, transit extensions and other projects.
C

Pede

Calif

adop

pede

Bay a

stand

off q

rail c

and s

cross

comm

fund

gates

A sig

(OCT

appr

The p

reven

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

rossing A

estrian Safe

fornia comm

ption and im

estrian cross

area and th

dards that i

uadrant pe

channelizat

signage.  Th

sings on tho

mitments to

ding is acqu

s for many

gnificant pr

TA) crossin

roved a $70

project is a

nues to fun

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2001

California R

Applicat

ty and Cali

muter railro

mplementat

sing treatm

he Metrolink

include aut

edestrian de

ion, detecta

he adopted

ose systems

o continue t

uired.  These

of the cross

roject of not

ng improvem

‐million pr

county‐wid

nd 88% of th

2003

Rail Crossing

 Pa

tions and

2

ifornia Com

oads have b

tion of auto

ments.  Both

k system in

tomatic ped

evices), eme

able warnin

d standards

s and those

their imple

e standards

sings.

te is the Ora

ment projec

ogram to en

de project t

he improve

2005

g Safety Act

age 10 of 67

d Modifi

001‐2010

mmuter Rail

been leadin

omatic pede

h the Caltrai

n Southern C

destrian cro

ergency exi

ng tactile st

are already

e commuter

ementation

s include im

ange Count

ct.  In 2005,

nhance rail

that uses loc

ments, with

2007

tion Plan 20

ication R

lroads

ng the state

estrian cros

in system in

California h

ossing gates

it swing gat

trips, and p

y implemen

r systems ha

as projects

mplementat

ty Transpo

, OCTA’s B

l safety thro

cal transpo

h the local C

2009

12-2017 

Requests

and the na

ssing gates

n the San F

have adopt

s (including

tes, fencing

avement m

nted at man

ave made

are identif

tion of four

ortation Aut

Board of Dir

oughout the

ortation sale

Cities payin

9

(GO88)

tion in the

and other

rancisco

ted crossing

g addition o

g and pipe

markings

ny of the

fied and

r quadrant

thority

rectors

e county.

es tax

ng 12%.  

Applic

Go 88

g

of

cations

's
California Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan 2012-2017 

 Page 11 of 67 

The project has been completed and has implemented the Metrolink grade

crossing standards at all 50 Orange County crossings in the Metrolink system.  

The improvement project implements the pedestrian treatments as well as 4

quadrant gates, medians, traffic signal improvements, and street and sidewalk

improvements.  The results are vastly improved crossings with state of the art

equipment for vehicles and pedestrians.  The final configurations will improve

overall safety and will also allow the Cities to pursue quiet zones.   

Grade Separations and the 2006 State Transportation Bonds

The State of California has a funding program that helps local agencies with

funding of grade separation projects.  The program is known as the Section 190

Grade Separation Program.  It allocates $15 million of dedicated annual state

funding to assist local agencies in developing projects to grade separate crossings

to accomplish local safety and transportation goals.  The process a formal CPUC

proceeding where local agencies nominate projects to receive funding and the

CPUC RCES staff evaluates a nominated project against a formula developed for

that purpose.  Once the projects are ranked in priority order, local agencies may

request the funds as their projects are made ready to go.  While the program has

limited funding, it provides a resource for local agencies to complete their

funding pieces to implement their projects.

In 2006 California voters approved infrastructure bonds that have led to many

grade separation and other crossing improvement projects.   This demonstrates a

significant statewide investment and commitment to eliminating at‐grade

crossings for both safety and mobility purposes.

One of the specific Bond fund sub accounts was the Highway‐Rail Grade

Crossing Safety Account, a $250 million account specifically to fund grade

separation projects.  $150 million of projects were identified through use of the

state Section 190 Grade Separation priority list created through a formulaic

evaluation process that is undertaken at the CPUC.  The remaining $150 million

was identified in consultation between the CPUC, Caltrans and the California

High Speed Rail Authority.  These bond funds were allocated to the projects as

shown in Appendix F.

Additionally, funds from other bond sub accounts were also allocated to crossing

grade separation projects.  The Trade Corridors Improvement Fund was

allocated to improve the flow of goods along all transportation modes from the

California ports that ship and receive so much of the nation’s trade.  That

subaccount has included many grade separation projects and at a minimum

accounts for an additional $658 million investment in grade separation projects.
California Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan 2012-2017 

 Page 12 of 67 

Thus, the 2006 California infrastructure bonds has resulted in nearly $1 billion

investment in grade separation projects by the State of California over the past

several years, with most of the projects under or nearing construction.  That

figure does not include the local funds contributed to those projects.  These

investment levels demonstrate a serious commitment to crossing grade

separations in California.

Crossing Closures

As noted above, the Commission, acting through its jurisdictional authority, has

adopted a policy in its General Order 75‐D to reduce the number of at‐grade

crossings in California on passenger and mainline track.  The Commission takes

that policy very seriously and has set very high criteria to justify a new at‐grade

crossing on such track.  That policy is furthered by a proactive rail crossings

safety staff in the Commission’s RCES that promote grade separation and

crossing closure as a matter of routine, while working with railroad and local

roadway authority personnel to implement their projects, seeking to always

improve overall crossing safety.

However, any roadway authority or railroad may propose to construct an at‐

grade crossing over staff’s objections by filing a formal application with the

Commission.  Under the quasi‐judicial process and administrative law

procedures in effect, the Staff may then file a protest to the application, stating

the reasons why the Commission should not grant approval.  Staff then becomes

a party to the case and seeks through the process to prevent authorization of the

crossing as proposed, or seeks to have the Commission order changes to the

crossing proposal to address the identified safety issues.

Additionally, the Commission staff my identify a safety issue with a particular

crossing or series of crossings, and if they are unable to get the responsible

roadway authority and/or railroad to address the deficiency, can request the

Commission open a formal investigation proceeding to bring the parties together

to evaluate staff’s allegations and assertions regarding the safety of the crossing.  

The formal investigation may result in testimony and hearings to develop a

record upon which the Commission can render a final decision ordering

improvements, grade‐separation or closure.

Recent formal crossing Applications and formal Investigations relating to

crossings include CPUC Staff’s attempts to close a crossing in Los Angeles along

the Metrolink passenger corridor with poor geometry, sightlines and adjacent to

a bulk propane storage facility, as well as staff’s protest of the City of Davis
California Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan 2012-2017 

 Page 13 of 67 

application to build a pedestrian crossing across the tracks at the Davis Amtrak

station on the busy Capitol Corridor line between Sacramento and the Bay Area.  

Also demonstrating the CPUC’s commitment to eliminate redundant or

unnecessary crossings is the firm stance to eliminate and reduce crossings along

the North Coast Rail Authority and Sonoma‐Marin Rail Transit (SMART) system

rail line being brought back into service after having been shut down in the late

1990’s by an FRA Emergency Order (EO‐21).  The line has been rehabbed and

brought back into service, initially providing for modest freight service of about

two to three trains per week.  The line will ultimately host freight trains as well

as commuter rail trains under temporal separation.  The CPUC Staff has sought

closure and consolidation of existing public and private crossings along the line

to minimize crossings along the new passenger route.

In addition to the Commission’s crossing closure and consolidation efforts, both

of the Class 1 railroads in California have proactive crossing closure programs,

which CPUC staff has been supporting.  The crossing closures are a mix of public

crossings and private crossings.  Each has made a concerted effort to identify

private crossings where no valid crossing agreement exists, and to require users

to produce an agreement or other proof that they have the rights to legitimately

cross the tracks at that location.  If no valid agreement for the crossing exists,

there is a presumption that it is not legitimately authorized and closure is sought

unless it’s the only access point to the property.   

While this Action Plan sets no specific goals for crossing closures because it is

unrealistic to do so, the continuous and ongoing efforts of the CPUC staff urging

closure of existing redundant or unnecessary crossings will continue.

Rail Transit Crossings

The Commission has jurisdiction over a further approximate 1100 at‐grade rail

transit crossings.  These crossings are in a variety of configurations including

traditional at‐grade crossings of exclusive rail transit right‐of‐ways with local

streets, and median and street‐running lines, where crossings are at street

intersections where traffic is controlled by traditional traffic signals.  These

crossings are largely in the more congested urban and suburban areas, and

experience heavy vehicular and pedestrian traffic.  Transit crossing data is found

below.
California Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan 2012-2017 

 Page 14 of 67 

Transit System Crossing Counts

CPUC 

Code 

FRA 

Code 

At-Grade 

w/Gates 

AtGrade 

Other 

GradeSep At-Grade 

Total Total Crossings 

BART ---- 0 1 236 1 237 

MTA LACZ 48 116 178 164 342 

MUNX MUNX 0 520 11 520 531 

SDAE SDAE 61 66 44 127 171 

SDTI SDTI 0 28 27 28 55 

SRTD SCRT 66 66 10 132 142 

VTA VTAZ 30 136 60 166 226 

  

Rail Transit Crossings

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Rail Transit Agency

Number of crossings

Grade-Sep

AG Other

AG Gates

Grade-Sep 11 178 236 60 44 10 27

AG Other 520 116 1 136 66 66 28

AG Gates 0 48 0 30 61 66 0

MUNX MTA BART VTA SDAE SRTD SDTI
California Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan 2012-2017 

 Page 15 of 67 

4.  ACTION PLAN STRATEGIES

The strategies to be pursued to improve rail crossing safety in California under

this action plan include a number of new initiatives and projects coupled with

more traditional approaches to hazardous crossing identification, evaluation and

improvement project development.  As is often the case, addressing individual

crossings and developing projects to improve them can be largely a function of

whether there is any funding available to improve them.

Specific strategies to be undertaken by the CPUC, as the State agency responsible

for crossing safety oversight, identified herein include:

1. Development and implementation of a comprehensive rail programs

database, including a rail crossing inventory system, for the

Commission’s rail safety programs that will allow enhanced

integration and analysis of all available crossing data sources;

2. Identifying funding to undertake a state‐wide comprehensive crossing

inventory project to populate the new CPUC database solution with

complete and accurate data on every California crossing, including

sightline analysis of existing passive crossings for STOP/YEILD sign

placement;

3. Refining and enhancement of objective data‐driven risk‐analytic

processes for evaluation of crossings for Section 130 and other funding;

4. Continuation and further development of CPUC program and

resources for evaluating environmental documents for actual or

potential safety impacts to rail crossings and rail corridors, for the

purpose of identifying those impacts and requiring mitigations of

project proponents or their local agency sponsors to address them;

5. Undertake a comprehensive review of all crossings with traffic signal

preemption installed to identify deficiencies in device warning time or

traffic signal configuration (reference FRA Safety Advisory 2010‐02);

6. Continue commitment to education and to the California Operation

Lifesaver and the national Operation Lifesaver organizations to

promote rail crossing safety and trespass prevention and continue to

participate in activities that promote rail crossing safety;

7. Broaden communication and interaction between other involved state

and federal agencies to identify funding opportunities, safety

initiatives to pursue, and laws and regulations that should be modified

or updated to improve rail crossing safety;
California Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan 2012-2017 

 Page 16 of 67 

8. Develop and publish an annual rail accident report;

9. Review and update Commission General Orders relating to rail

crossing safety;

10. Continue to provide and sponsor training opportunities for California

roadway authority and railroad personnel to improve knowledge and

skills in crossing design and traffic signal preemption fields.
California Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan 2012-2017 

 Page 17 of 67 

1. Development of Comprehensive Rail Safety & Security Information

Management System (RSSIMS)

The Commission has sought and acquired funding to undertake a project that

will provide the Commission’s rail safety programs a comprehensive rail

programs database information management system.  The system will provide a

comprehensive data management system across all of the Commission’s rail

programs that will allow greater integration and data analysis to identify trends

that should be examined more thoroughly or otherwise addressed through

regulatory means.

The CPUC sought and was granted four Risk Assessment positions for its rail

safety programs.  One engineer was specifically acquired for each of the three rail

programs, Rail Operations Safety, Rail Transit Safety and Rail Crossings Safety,

plus one additional non‐engineer position.  These positions have been filled and

those individuals are working on improving CPUC data and learning the

intricacies of the three safety programs.  The individuals will be responsible for

developing risk assessment methodologies to complement the existing safety

oversight programs, so that safety efforts can be focused on the areas of highest

risk and/or consequence.

Existing Rail Data Systems

The existing rail safety information systems across all Branches of the

Commission’s SED are inadequate, disjointed, and inhibit the Commission’s

ability to investigate, manage and report on rail crossing and rail safety issues.  

This impairs the ability of the CPUC to meet all of its federal and state legislative

mandates.  Due to the limitations of these systems, CPUC staff resorts to making

decisions based on multiple, independent MS Access databases, Word files, Excel

spreadsheets, and physical documents and reports.  Combine this inefficient use

of inspector and staff time with increasing requirements in the area of rail safety,

and numerous projects under way due to the 2006 Bond Act, the federal

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and high speed rail, and it became

clear that the data and information systems currently in use could no longer

sustain the programs.   

The data and information system opportunities that exist and the solution

identified will enable CPUC to satisfy its critical business needs through the

implementation of an integrated, fully functional information management system

and revised business processes that reduce costs through new efficiencies, and

most importantly, meet all of its statutory mandates to create a much safer

railroad system.
California Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan 2012-2017 

 Page 18 of 67 

To carry out the Commission’s rail safety mission, CPUC’s SED must manage

large inventories of inspection, accident, infrastructure, complaint, formal

proceeding, and historical data. These data sets are maintained in various

unlinked electronic databases, and various other unlinked electronic and non‐

electronic media.   

The principal databases, all in Microsoft (MS) Access, are:

  Crossing Inventory Database (RRX‐CA). Holds all CPUC data on existing and

closed rail crossings in the state. CPUC staff validate and update crossing data

in this database, and use the information to identify unsafe crossings and

trends in crossing safety.

  Rail Accidents Database (RR‐ACC). Stores all information about railroad, rail

transit, and rail crossing rail accidents collected by CPUC units.

  Rail Transit and Crossings Branch Case Tracking Database (RTCB Filings).

Contains information about cases, including formal applications, informal

complaints, time extension requests, General Order filings and waivers, and

other special projects.

  Railroad Safety Inspection Report (RSIR).  Database used to record CPUC

General Order defects and violations (of state requirements) found by Railroad

Operations Safety Branch inspectors during inspections, and to report them to

the railroads.  Each inspector has his or her own copy of RSIR on their laptop

computer, and there are no centralized files that can be accessed by personnel.

 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Records data about CPUC staff

responses to CEQA notices and documents with actual or potential impacts to

crossing safety, including: notice or document title, State identification

number, brief project description, county, and date a CPUC comment letter

was sent. Copies of comment letters are kept in separate MS Word or pdf files.   

SED’s current rail safety databases have a variety of problems which impede

staff capabilities to manage and analyze data, lower the ability of management to

efficiently allocate inspector and other staff resources, and increase the

Commission’s operating costs.  Implementing a new database that integrates the

existing databases and adds new capabilities will reduce these problems, and

improve SED’s ability to identify and target areas of unsafe practices by railroad

and rail transit operators, to detect trends in crossing and other accidents, and to

accurately maintain its rail crossing inventory.  In addition, the new database
California Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan 2012-2017 

 Page 19 of 67 

will assist the State in meeting new federal requirements for database accuracy

set in the RSIA.  

CPUC Information Management Project

The Commission has selected and approved management and implementation

contractors for its new rail data management system, the Rail Safety and Security

Information Management System (RSSIMS).  Delivery of the RSSIMS system for

testing and training and implementation occurred in April of 2013.

General objectives of the RSSIMS project are listed below:

Improve Rail Safety and Security.  RSSIMS will enable identification of trends in

accidents and inspection data, and to allow staff and the Commission to respond

proactively.  

Create an Automated Environment that Enhances Service and Efficiency.  

RSSIMS will give CPUC a tool for centralizing information and analyzing

oversight activities.  Specific objectives include:  

 Provide a data repository that consolidates data from CPUC rail units to

reduce redundant data entry and storage.

 Provide a consolidated data repository that supports analysis of hazards and

trends across the disciplines of railroad, rail transit, and crossing safety.

 Eliminate the need to compare and reconcile data across multiple databases.

 Develop query and reporting capabilities which can provide a complete

history of crossings within an area, including location information, changes,

accident information, and references in CPUC proceedings.

 Enhanced data, such as crossing geometry parameters.

 Structured data that allows queries by multiple methods.  

 Provide a system that at a minimum allows for 150 concurrent users.  

 Provide a system that allows offline data entry and synchronization for field

work.

 Provide a system that meets state and federal information security

requirements including Security Sensitive Information and Personal

Identifying Information.

 Provide a system which meets high availability best practices.

 Provide an automated storage mechanism for data presently stored in various

forms such as paper or on the CPUC network as flat files.  This includes but is

not limited to activity reports, focused inspection reports, internal safety audits

of rail transit agencies, periodic inspection reports, near‐miss data, and

triennial audits of rail transit agencies.
California Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan 2012-2017 

 Page 20 of 67 

 Provide mechanisms that prompt for the timely accomplishment of time‐

sensitive activities.

 Coordinate inspections to meet legal mandates, while maximizing efficient use

of resources.  

 Record complaints and complaint resolution information in a system that

enhances analysis, process review, improvement, and standardization using

keywords and other mechanisms.

 Make complaint information easily accessible.

 Create a knowledge base for regulatory interpretive precedents, e.g.,

settlement agreements, Memorandum of Understandings, Commission

Resolutions and Decisions.

 Create links from grade crossing diagnostic data together to other data within

the system or other systems to improve end‐user capabilities.

 Permit the analysis and display of trends geographically, using the CPUC

geographic information (GIS) system.

 Integrate rail transit only (i.e., no United States Department of Transportation

(DOT) identification) highway‐rail crossing inventory with railroad highway‐

rail crossing inventory, to include integration with the CPUC GIS system.

Manage Increasing Workload.  Presently, CPUC’s rail units are struggling to

meet the demands of the overall rail program, and must develop more efficient

means to accommodate the increasing demands on the programs.  Areas

where increased efficiency will be critical are:   

 Tracking proposed and approved crossing projects

 Evaluating and incorporating railroad updates to the Federal Railroad

Administration’s (FRA) National Crossing Inventory and state inventory

repositories.

 Tracking functional and/or maintenance problems at highway‐rail crossings.

 Data collected and represented such that it will allow safety issues to be

studied and valid conclusions drawn.  

 Tracking compliance of railroad and rail transit operators with safety

requirements and Commission orders.   

 Tracking safety violations for the three rail safety programs.   

Implementation of the project, along with potential future incorporation of

Caltrans geographic information system data on rail lines will significantly

improve the capabilities of the CPUC and the State to proactively identify and

take actions to mitigate crossing and trespass hazards.
California Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan 2012-2017 

 Page 21 of 67 

2. Improve State Crossing Inventory Data

The CPUC is the state agency responsible for the State rail crossing inventory

data.  Because of the existing database inadequacies and the failure of roadway

authorities and railroads to notify the CPUC on all changes at rail crossings as

they are implemented, the current state of the California highway‐rail crossing

inventory is less than adequate.  The data on specific crossings is spotty, and

although the CPUC has made significant strides in improving the data in recent

years, there is a significant need to conduct a comprehensive inventory project in

California.  As such, the CPUC is making efforts to identify and acquire the

significant funding that such a project would require.

The number of crossings in California is approximately 13,000 public and private

rail and rail transit crossings.  Under CPUC processes and FRA requirements,

whenever changes occur at crossings the party responsible for those changes is

responsible to see that those changes are communicated to the FRA and the

CPUC for updating of the national and state inventories.  As FRA knows, quite

often those changes occur, but the inventory data updates are either not fully

completed or not communicate to the FRA and/or State as required.  This has led

to degradation of the data over time, and lead to some of the requirements found

in RSIA requirements pertaining to crossing inventory updates and data

integrity.

Since the passing of the RSIA the CPUC staff has been working with the railroads

in the state to update the CPUC crossing inventory and reconcile the FRA, state

and railroad data so that the data is consistent between them.  However, due to

the number of crossings, resources available to reconcile data, varying accuracy

and format of railroad inventory data, and the dozens of data elements for each

crossing, progress has been slow.  Additionally, due to limited budgets and

resources, local roadway authorities are often unable to provide accurate

vehicular traffic counts for the crossings, a critical data point for evaluating risk

at the crossing.  Although basic information on the crossing, such as CPUC and

DOT numbers, warning device level and roadway name, can be reconciled

relatively easily, getting complete and updated data for each data element has

been more problematic, and has not yet been achieved.  We have been unable to

make serious progress in such efforts and recognize that only a comprehensive project to

field visit every crossing will result in the necessary data integrity going forward.

In order to attain accuracy in the CPUC inventory data and fully reconcile that

data with railroads and the FRA, an inventory project will be pursued.   This will

allow the new crossing inventory module of the CPUC data system, RSSIMS, to

be populated with accurate information that, with the new system capabilities,

will be able to be accurately maintained over time.
California Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan 2012-2017 

 Page 22 of 67 

We are currently seeking to receive 2% of the annual Federal Section 130 funds

California receives for the purpose of data acquisition and analysis as allowed

and provided for by Federal Law.  Federal Section 130 funds are received from

FHWA by Caltrans, who along with the CPUC jointly administer the Federal

Section 130 program.  Section 130 is funding to eliminate hazards at highway‐rail

crossings based on an analysis of crossing data that identifies the most hazardous

crossings.  The CPUC maintains the crossing inventory data and conducts the

analysis to identify the locations that are further reviewed to develop projects

that mitigate the identified hazards, thereby improving public safety and

reducing the potential for crossing incidents.  Once a project is identified,

reviewed and developed, Caltrans contracts with the local roadway authority

and/or railroad to construct/implement the project to improve the crossing.   

Federal law authorizing the Federal Section 130 program allows up to 2% of

these funds for data acquisition and analysis. CPUC is seeking these funds over a

multi‐year period (2% per year, current and prior year unspent funds) to be used

to contract for a crossing inventory project.   

Federal law in 23 USC Section 130 paragraph (k) specifically authorizes states to

utilize 2% of the allocated Section 130 funds to acquire and conduct data analysis

in support of Section 130 activities, and in their guidance on the Section 130

program the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) encourages states to do

so and to utilize data collected to update the FRA inventory data:

(k) Expenditure of Funds.— Not more than 2 percent of funds

apportioned to a State to carry out this section may be used by the State

for compilation and analysis of data in support of activities carried out

under subsection (g).  

And  

From the Guidance on 23 U.S.C. § 130 Annual Reporting Requirements for

Railway‐Highway Crossings published by FHWA

THE USE OF SECTION 130 FUNDS FOR DATA COMPILATION AND

ANALYSIS

As mentioned earlier. The new 23 U.S.C. § 130(k) allows the States to use

not more than 2 percent of funds apportioned to a State to carry out

section 130 for related data compilation and analysis. States should

compile and analyze data that will allow informed decisions to prioritize

railway‐highway crossing improvements (e.g., crash data., traffic volume

and mix, roadway inventory, etc.). States are strongly encouraged to

evaluate their database .systems to ensure that the data obtained is

analyzed in a comprehensive and efficient manner. FHWA also
California Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan 2012-2017 

 Page 23 of 67 

encourages States to consider utilizing this data to update the Federal

Railroad Administration (FRA) Grade Crossing Inventory.

California is experiencing increases in the number of light rail transit systems,

volume of heavy rail passenger and freight rail service in California, recent

changes in federal rules regarding the establishment of Quiet Zones, and the

significant construction and development in the vicinity of rail corridors and

crossings.  These factors have significantly increased the safety oversight

responsibilities of the Commission as it pertains to rail crossings and overall rail

safety.   

The citizens of California would greatly benefit from a comprehensive crossing

inventory data project undertaken with the 2% of Section 130 and other available

funding sources.  The project would improve the data currently analyzed to

identify hazardous crossings and assure that accurate data feeds into the various

analyses that are conducted by CPUC staff toward that end.  This is a high

priority need for the CPUC, especially in light of our RSSIMS project, because it

will allow the new inventory database module to be populated with updated

accurate information and data that can be soundly relied upon and more

accurately maintained.  The proposed project would directly resolve the

identified problem and the data integrity issues the State is currently facing.

The project was approved and CPUC is currently working with Caltrans to

identify the scope of the project given the funds allocated, and is identifying the

process to transfer the funds to proceed with the project.

2. Section 130 Program and Multiple Accident Crossings

The Federal Section 130 program is critical to California and the CPUC to

address the hazardous crossings identified through the program.  The Section

130 Program was established under United States Code Title 23 Section 130. Its

purpose is to reduce the number and severity of highway‐rail collisions by

eliminating hazards to vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians at existing railroad

crossings.  This is accomplished by funding highway safety improvements at

railroad crossings using Federal funds appropriated by the US Congress and

allocated to the States by the FHWA. In California, the Department of

Transportation (Caltrans) receives and expends the funds due to requirements of

the law and its established relationship with FHWA in receiving Federal

transportation funds.  The CPUC identifies and develops the projects with the

involved parties in recognition of its authority over railroad crossings in

California.  Thus, the CPUC and Caltrans jointly administer the program to fulfill

its goals.
California Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan 2012-2017 

 Page 24 of 67 

The Section 130 program is largely responsible for allowing the state to address

its hazardous crossings.  Accidents and both train and vehicular traffic are the

main factors driving the Section 130 analysis and hazardous crossing

identification under the program.  Thus, its continued funding by the US

Congress is strongly supported by the state and local agencies in California.

As shown in Appendix E, the multiple accident crossings have been addressed

using this resource, and California has been dealing with its multiple accident

crossings utilizing this resource for many years.  As shown in the Appendix,

nearly all of the multiple accident crossings are being upgraded or are part of

grade separation projects.

Section 130 Process

The CPUC conducts the data analysis of all public crossings in the state and

identifies hazardous crossings and determines project selection for the Section

130 program through a rigorous data driven process.  As part of this and its other

routine duties, the CPUC has developed, updates, and maintains the California

crossing inventory database that contains information about all public crossings

in the State.  Data that cannot be obtained by reviewing the site conditions, such

as vehicular and rail traffic volumes, is obtained through direct contact with

the railroad and local roadway agency.  Utilizing this data, a number of factors

are used in determining eligibility for funding and respective ranking, including

the use of a hazard index formula and other site‐specific factors as required by

statute.  The hazard index formula used is as described in section III, part B, of

the FHWA Railroad Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition.  In

addition, the State’s experience from post‐collision investigations is used to

identify common hazards specific to an area, type of crossing, or corridor of

crossings.  Other factors feeding into the analysis is any available near miss data,

sightline obstructions, use by school busses and hazmat vehicles, and a number

of other factors.

The CPUC determines the modifications required at each crossing in

consultation with the Diagnostic Team.  The Diagnostic Team is comprised of

experts from CPUC, railroad and roadway agencies, and possibly Caltrans and

FRA representatives.  Modifications to improve safety include the installation or

upgrade of active grade crossing equipment, such as flashers, gates, cantilevers,

upgrades from incandescent lights to light‐emitting diodes, traffic signal

interconnections, and constant time warning detection, as well as crossing

approach improvements, such as medians, traffic signals, pre‐signals, train‐

activated blank‐out signs, curbing, guardrails, illumination, and road closures.

This process is undertaken annually to incorporate all available data, to create a

prioritized list of projects for the next funding cycle. Once the process is complete
California Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan 2012-2017 

 Page 25 of 67 

the list is transmitted to Caltrans.  Caltrans uses the project recommendations

and cost estimates to submit the eligible crossings to the regional transportation

planning agencies, metropolitan transportation commissions, or local

transportation commissions.  Caltrans provides the programming

documentation, estimates, environmental assessments, and right‐of‐way

certifications to the FHWA, which upon approval of the material submitted,

obligates the funds.  Caltrans then negotiates and executes contracts with

railroads and local agencies to construct the projects.

Since the inception of the Section 130 program, the number of collisions and

resultant fatalities and injuries has declined even though the number of crossings

has remained relatively stable in recent years.  In addition, when viewed in light

of the increase in train and vehicular traffic volumes, the ratio of collisions to

volume continues to decline.  It is difficult to demonstrate quantitatively whether

the reductions are due specifically to the Section 130 program versus other

improvements that have been incorporated into the rail and highway systems

over the past several decades, as well as the small sample size of projects and

collision data.  Collisions at crossings are usually infrequent and a longer

evaluation period and larger number of projects are needed before conclusive

evaluation with reasonable level of statistical confidence can be made.  However,

the Section 130 program provides the only dedicated funding source to improve

at‐grade crossings identified by the data analysis as hazardous.  Numerous

crossings throughout California have been, and are currently being improved

through the program.

There are also many benefits of the program that are also not directly

quantifiable.  When a crossing is improved all necessary and required

improvements are made, not just the improvements related to mitigating the

known collision history.  For example, though a crossing may not have had any

pedestrian incidents, the pedestrian pathways are reviewed and often are

improved as part of the project, providing a defined path of travel with

additional pedestrian warning that was not there before.  Similarly, all crossings

where no medians are present pose a risk of gate drive‐around.  Each location is

individually analyzed and median treatments may be installed, reducing the

future risk of a collision.  These types of improvements are known to prevent

collisions from occurring in the future even though they may not have yet had

such incidents at each specific location.

Looking Forward

The CPUC continues to refine its data analysis for this program.  As additional

data becomes available or is identified as a need, that data is reviewed for ease of

collection, accuracy and applicability in the Section 130 analyses.  Near miss data

is a good example.  
California Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan 2012-2017 

 Page 26 of 67 

Federal fiscal year 2010‐2011 was the last year for which funding was guaranteed

for this program.  Congress has not yet passed a new transportation act, and

there has been a significant amount of discussion as to what the result will be.  In

an era of cutting deficits and reduced Federal spending, this program may be at

risk.  We recommend continued funding by Congress of this important program.  

Currently the funding continues under the Continuing Resolution process.

3. Rail Corridor CEQA Review Program

The State of California has a statutory requirement that development and

planning of future development is subject to public review under the California

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).  Notices and distribution to interested

parties primarily comes through the State Clearinghouse, which receives and

distributes notices of environmental document availability.  The CPUC and other

state agencies with permitting and regulatory responsibilities receive such

notices and have varying levels of responsibility to review and analyze the

proposed development or development planning document.  The goal is to

provide meaningful comments back to project proponents and the “lead” agency

approving or proposing the project, identifying actual or potential impacts and

adequacy of impact mitigation.

The CPUC takes these responsibilities very seriously and has become keenly

aware that it is a far more effective strategy to invest the resources in the

endeavor to identify impacts to rail crossings and corridors during development,

than to identify them during inspections or accident investigations.  As such, the

CPUC’s RCES has environmental staff specifically dedicated to receive and

review development documents to identify impacts to rail crossings and rail

corridors.  The environmental staff works closely with the CPUC’s RCES

engineers to provide detailed comments on the potential impacts and suggested

mitigations.  The primary objectives of the program are to identify actual or

potential impacts, to respond to the project proponents in writing identifying

those impacts and potential mitigations and to work with the parties to

implement crossing improvements to address the safety or capacity impacts that

are identified.

The CPUC CEQA review program has had more resources and structure

developed over approximately the past 5 years, and the results have been

promising.  Although many project CEQA documents have clearly given little

consideration to rail crossings and corridors in their development, CPUC Staff

notes that there has been significant progress in the level of analysis of rail
California Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan 2012-2017 

 Page 27 of 67 

crossings and corridors in such documents.  The program has been effective and

has resulted in significant additional attention being given to rail corridors and

crossings by developers, environmental planners and traffic study consultants.   

On average, over the past two calendar years, the CPUC staff has reviewed

approximately 300 projects per month and issued detailed comment letters in

response to CEQA notices on approximately 15 % of those.  

This education and interaction regarding crossing and rail safety matters with

the planning departments, their contractors/consultants and the approving

agencies is paying wider benefits.  Agencies that formerly gave little

consideration to crossings and rail corridors are now requiring such analysis

routinely in order to advance the project environmental document.  Additionally,

consultants and contractors working in California to develop environmental

documents and traffic studies for them are far more likely to include a proper

analysis of capacity and traffic queuing analysis that demonstrate the presence or

lack of impacts at the crossings.

Additionally, the CPUC CEQA program takes a broad view and also identifies

and recommends mitigation of actual or potential trespass situations that can

result from development around the rails.  Although there is no specific

requirement to fence rail corridors, such a feature is generally not a significant

economic impact to a specific project, while playing a large role in improved

safety by providing separation between the tracks and development.  Thus,

while not originally considered, fencing is often added to mitigate the potential

impacts identified by CPUC Staff.  Such reviews and analysis also can identify

locations where a new (grade‐separated) pedestrian crossing may be necessary

and appropriate.

The outcomes of the program are encouraging.  There are numerous examples

where CPUC identification of impacts, and subsequent exchanges with project

proponents has resulted in the project providing mitigations in the form of

crossing improvement projects, fencing along the rail corridor, roadway network

changes, traffic signal projects, and fair‐share contributions to local mitigation

funds held and accumulated for future improvements.  This provides both near

and long term benefits for California citizens by both improving the safety of

specific crossings as development occurs, and in the long‐term by preventing

approval of projects that result in impacts that then would later be required to be

address by local governments with very limited resources.

The CPUC has also been involved with reviewing and proposing changes to the

California Natural Resources Department CEQA regulations, guidelines and

environmental checklists, to specifically identify in their guidelines and

checklists the need to analyze rail crossings and corridors that may be impacted
California Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan 2012-2017 

 Page 28 of 67 

by a project in the project environmental documents.  Although this has not yet

occurred, we will persist in proposing and supporting it.

Additionally, the CPUC’s RCES has been using informally adopted internal

significance thresholds, which will require more rigorous evaluation and

analysis developing specific “significance thresholds” that could be widely

distributed to the planning community so that it would be clear when impacts

would result in the need for mitigation.   

Thus, the CPUC CEQA review program continues to function and be refined to

improve its effectiveness.  Going forward, the CPUC CEQA review program,

with the additional voices of Caltrans and the affected railroads joining in calls

for impact mitigation, will be a continuing valuable component of rail crossing

safety in California.

4. Crossings Interconnected with Traffic Signal Preemption

Crossings have been interconnected to nearby traffic signals for over 30 years.  

The practice is becoming more and more prevalent and necessary as rural and

suburban areas become more urbanized and more intersections near crossings

are signalized.  Preemption can take two forms, simultaneous preemption (where

traffic signals receive their preemption call at the same time the crossing warning

devices activate), and advanced preemption (where the interconnection circuitry

transmits the preemption call before the warning devices activate.)  Advance

preemption is often necessary to give traffic signal systems additional time over

the standard 25‐30 seconds of warning time for crossing devices, in order to end

prior signal phases, clear pedestrian cross walks and provide the necessary track

clearance green phase to clear the crossing area before the arrival of the train.   

Preemption gained national attention due to the October 25, 1995 crossing

incident where a school bus was struck by a train resulting in 7 fatalities and 21

injuries in Fox River Grove Illinois.  The National Transportation Safety Board

(NTSB) determined that the incident was primarily related to failure of the

system to clear the crossing in advance of the arrival of the train.

Because of the lengthy time preemption has been in use and no requirements for

periodic reviews of the phase timing, the likelihood that the signal phasing and

durations are no longer adequately clearing traffic from the crossing generally

increases over time.  This is due to increasing congestion and the level of service

of the nearby intersections, the longer traffic queues, and no requirement for

periodic inspections of the system settings.  Moreover, it has become clear that

local roadway traffic engineers or signal maintainers can inadvertently make

adjustments to signal controllers that could have a major impact to the railroad
California Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan 2012-2017 

 Page 29 of 67 

preemption timing and phasing which may result in an inability to clear the

track area as intended.  This results in motorist confusion, vehicles unable to

clear the tracks due to other vehicles not cleared from the routes leading away

from the crossing, vehicles taking evasive maneuvers to exit the crossing area,

and vehicles potentially trapped on the tracks, which may result in collisions.  

We have identified such scenarios as having occurred which have led to crossing

collisions.

The CPUC RCES staff has become increasingly concerned regarding the state and

adequacy of preempted crossings in California due to several recent accidents

and near miss incidents, and is developing a project to evaluate and document

preemption information in more detail.  Such a project would provide that the

CPUC Staff work closely with the affected railroads and local roadway

authorities to acquire updated information to assure our records have each

preempted crossing identified.  The project would then assure accurate complete

data sets on each (signal timing and phase diagrams, signal controller info, and

railroad track circuitry), conduct field observation for functional adequacy and

data collection, analysis of each location in the context of the data collected and

field observations, and development of a findings report with recommendations,

if any, for each location.  There are approximately 700 such locations in the state.

Although the CPUC’s RCES staff evaluate preemption timing when new

crossings are equipped with it (at the time the preemption interconnect is

requested to be authorized by CPUC for the crossing), the real problem is when

the crossing has existed for a period of time and numerous inspections of the

equipment and adjustments to the signal to address general traffic flow and

intersection level of service issues have been made, often by personnel that do

not have a full understanding of railroad preemption issues.  Any such

adjustments that do not consider their affect on the signal system during

preemption could compromise the system and its ability to clear the tracks in

advance of the train’s arrival.  

While the local roadway authorities have responsibility for the traffic signals under

their control, the CPUC finds the levels of expertise widley variable between

jurisdictions.  Many experienced traffic engineers lack any appreciable knowledge

on preemption due to its infrequent use by most local traffic agencies.  Since local

agencies are often not equipped with the expertise to properly evaluate crossing

preemption phasing and timing, the CPUC is the appropriate agency to develop a

project to bring the railroad and local agency together to conduct the study and

work with parties to resolve identified deficiencies to further public safety.

Additionally, CPUC Staff has recently become aware of a project by both of the

Class 1 railroads operating in California (UPRR and BNSF), conducting similar

preemption reviews at some locations.  Initial discussions suggest a joint effort
California Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan 2012-2017 

 Page 30 of 67 

would yeild the most beneficial project for all parties and result in the greatest

benefit for the safety of California citizens.  CPUC Staff has participated in those

reviews and is workijng to prioritize findings to address identified issues.

Although the issue is of concern to CPUC staff, we are currently unable to devote

the necessary resources to conduct a full review of each of the 700 locations in the

near term while still meeting other statutory mandates.  We believe that

approximately 20% of the preempted crossing will not require a full field

evaluation due to their recent vintage or full reviews what have occurred in the

recent past.  That results in approximately 560 crossings needing the full

evaluation.  Thus, a multi‐year project over the five 5‐year period of the Action

Plan, results in a more manageable project.  The project will benefit both the local

roadway agency and railroad by eliminating potential deficiencies in preemption

timing, thereby reducing the likelihood of crossing collisions and liability

exposure.  The project benefits the State and its citizens by reducing or

eliminating collisions which may otherwise occur, improving public safety.

FRA clearly shares concern with CPUC on this matter, as evidenced by it issuing

FRA Safety Advisory 2010‐02, in October of 2010, calling for periodic joint

inspections of preempted crossings, which are not required by current

regulation.

5. California Operation Lifesaver Education and Enforcement

Operation Lifesaver Inc. (OLI) is a non‐profit organization dedicated to

promoting rail safety education in an effort at reducing and eliminating accidents

and incidents at highway railroad grade crossings and railroad right of ways.  

CPUC staff, along with railroad employees and other knowledgeable railroad

safety professionals, contribute significantly to the educational efforts in this

regard, resulting in more knowledgeable California motorists and citizens.  

CPUC commitment to the program is demonstrated by the significant numbers

of staff that have become qualified OLI presenters and the efforts by those staff

members to arrange and make the presentations, and the agency making staff

time available for these efforts.

The CPUC Staff, in coordination with railroad personnel and the California

Operation Lifesaver State Coordinators, identify areas of greatest need based on

accidents and other data (for example, near‐miss data shared by railroads).  OLI

then targets civic groups, schools, bus and truck drivers, and law enforcement

officers in those areas for the OLI presentations.  This outreach also assists in

development of the Officer‐on‐the‐Train programs, which coordinate rail

crossing law enforcement sweeps along target rail corridors, often involving
California Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan 2012-2017 

 Page 31 of 67 

multiple law enforcement agencies.  The sweeps issue citations or warnings to

motorists and pedestrians, and also target trespassing along the railroad right‐of‐

way.  CPUC Staff participates in and promotes these efforts.

   

To track their participation in the OLI outreach effort, CPUC Staff submit

information to OLI , reporting information such as the date, time, location,

organization contact information, number of people attending,  and the type of

group receiving the message.  CPUC staff also has qualified presenters that can

do the presentation in Spanish.

As examples:  

 CPUC staff has made an intensive effort to increase railroad crossing and

trespass safety in the areas of Sonoma and Marin counties, as the rail

system of the North Coast Rail Authority is brought back into service after

a 10 year period of inactivity.  These rail corridors have just this summer

(2011) been brought back into service after having been shut down by

FRA due to poor condition.  With voter approval of funding for the

Sonoma‐Marin Area Rail Transit system, which is ultimately planned for

commuter service along the coast paralleling the busy highway US‐101

corridor, initial track rehabilitation has occurred that has allowed freight

service to be reinitiated.  Intensive OLI efforts were determined to be

necessary due to the long period of inactivity and the absence of train

traffic, with the CPUC staff conducting most of the presentations and

outreach.  Presentations were made to schools, local government and

elected officials, professional drivers and other groups.

 CPUC staff, along with other OLI qualified railroad personnel, citizens

and public officials have formed the Fresno Rail Safety Coalition, after

several pedestrian crossing fatalities involving children and teens

attempting to beat the train across a crossing occurred.  Coalition

members have teamed up with school district and city officials to target

OLI presentations and public service announcements toward the students

and teachers at schools in the area.

 Several Commission staff were recently recipients of the California

Operation Lifesaver “Mighty Mouse” awards, for dedication and coming

out to make presentation and staff the OLI booth at events on short notice

or when cancellations occurred.

 CPUC Staff has been staffing the OLI booth at numerous events on

evenings and weekends.

 The CPUC has posted the OLI public service TV spots and OLI links on its

Rail Crossings pages on its official web site.
California Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan 2012-2017 

 Page 32 of 67 

6. Annual Report of California Rail Accidents

The Commission formerly compiled and published an annual report of railroad

accidents in California, however that last such report generated was for calendar

year 1999.  The CPUC stopped generating the report due to the loss of personnel

and staffing shortages.  There is renewed interest in compiling and publishing

the report, and there have been numerous requests for such a report over the

intervening years since its production stopped.

The reports contain a complete review of all rail and rail transit accidents in the

state, and a rigorous data analysis and breakdown of those accidents.  The report

summarizes individual significant incidents that occurred that year and findings

that arose from the investigations.  The report shows data tables, charts and

graphical depiction of trends and data that relate to the various types of rail and

rail transit accidents, including crossing accidents.   

The annual accident report will be posted on the commission’s web site and

made widely available for use throughout California and the rail industry.  The

report will allow conclusions to be drawn and assist in the development of

priorities to address accident trends.

7. State, Federal and Local Agency Coordination

The CPUC RCES and ROSB staff have developed beneficial relationships with

other state and federal agencies involved in rail crossing safety to take advantage

of our mutual skill sets and synergies on initiatives or programs relating to the

CPUC’s rail safety programs.  These relationships provide an advantage to

California citizens by creating and fostering a cohesive safety culture as it relates

to crossings and rail corridor safety.  These relationships will continue to be

valuable for crossing safety overall and therefore will be maintained and

strengthened.

Federal Railroad Administration

The CPUC and operating railroads in California work closely with the Federal

railroad administration to further railroad and rail crossing safety.  CPUC staff

participates in FRA training and work closely with them on major accidents or

joint inspections.  CPUC RCES Staff work on crossing safety complaints and

quiet zone issues with FRA Grade Crossing Specialists.  Our mutual
California Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan 2012-2017 

 Page 33 of 67 

responsibility to maintain the accuracy of FRA inventory data, is an important

aspect of that relationship.  We analyze and provide comments on proposed

rules and FRA forms and documents, respond to Notices of Proposed

Rulemakings and reports/studies.

Federal Highway Administration

The CPUC has developed a strong relationship with the Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA) through both our joint administration (with Caltrans) of

the Section 130 program, as well as participation in the National Committee on

Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD) highway‐rail committee.  One of the

CPUC Staff members is a voting member of the NCUTCD, which is responsible

for development of the national version of Manual on Uniform Traffic Control

Devices.  We participate by attending the meetings and analyzing proposed

changes, offering comment, identifying unintended consequences, proposing

further changes, participating in committee exchanges on technical matters and

ultimately voting on proposed changes.  The participation is mutually beneficial

to both FHWA and the State of California.

Department of Homeland Security/Transportation Security Administration

The CPUC receives and distributes internally to its safety program management

team daily security and threat assessments.  These updates help identify actual

or potential risks due to individuals or groups that may be intent on terrorist acts

or societal disruptions relating to political views, or individuals intent on harm to

themselves or others.  CPUC takes these threats seriously and responds

accordingly.

Surface Transportation Board

The CPUC staff monitors the Surface Transportation Board (STB) filings that are

made by railroads operating in California.  CPUC and local roadway agencies

have found that such abandonment orders typically simply allow operations

over the line to cease with setting any requirements for the removal of the tracks

in the roadways, or the removal of the warning devices.  This leads to situations

where HazMat vehicles and busses continue to deal with required stops at

railroad tracks that are no longer connected to the general railroad system and

could not be traversed by trains.  Additionally, over time the rail and crossing

surface deteriorates and the rail can become loose and experience movement

when crossed. This creates unnecessary hazards for the motoring public,
California Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan 2012-2017 

 Page 34 of 67 

particularly on higher speed roadways, for motorcycles and other vehicles, and

is a significant crossing safety issue for local agencies.   Although crossing

collisions with on‐track equipment are not possible, abandoned crossings can

still present risks to the public.

To address this ongoing concern, CPUC Staff files comments in such

abandonment proceedings requesting abandonments authorized by STB in

California include an Order to remove the crossings from the roadways within 24

months of abandonment, and restore the roadway to current roadway authority

standards.  This has been a partially successful strategy, however we continue to

urge the STB to include this as a standing requirement in all abandonment

orders.  

California Highway Patrol and local law enforcement

CPUC staff that investigate crossing accidents have developed good working

relationships with law enforcement, including local law enforcement and the

California Highway Patrol (CHP).  These agencies are often familiar with CPUC

staff through their accident investigations and follow up inquiries.  They are

further exposed to crossing and rail safety as an integral component of the

“Officer on the Train” events where enforcement sweeps are organized with

railroads and one or more law enforcement agencies.  These events get wide

media coverage and generally involve local public employees and elected

officials.

CHP is also closely involved with the exempt crossing issue, and applicability to

school busses in California.  CHP district school bus coordinators provide

training and safety education to school districts and drivers, and CPUC staff

have had a number of exchanges regarding the California Vehicle Code

requirements at crossings in the context of the newer crossing configurations.  

These exchanges lead to a clearer understanding of the requirements and

potential flaws in the requirements or enforcement policies implemented by the

various state agencies.

California Department of Motor Vehicles  

The California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) publishes a driver training

handbook which was revised in 2009.  As part of that revision, the CPUC RCES

reviewed the handbook and made specific recommendations to DMV for

updating text and diagrams relating to rail and rail transit crossings.  The DMV

revision more accurately depicts crossings in the handbook and uses consistent

nomenclature in the text.  The DMV handbook is improved and more accurately
California Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan 2012-2017 

 Page 35 of 67 

informs motorists and future drivers about proper behavior and response to an

approaching train.

California Emergency Management Agency

The CPUC has an established relationship with the California Emergency

Management Agency (CalEMA) and receives notification on railroad accidents

through that system.  CalEMA is aware of the CPUC’s jurisdiction over railroads

and rail crossings and notifies CPUC based on reports from various entities,

including the railroads, of all accidents related to railroads.  This has provided an

effective accident notification process outside the FRA regulations, for state

environmental and emergency response purposes.   All railroad accidents,

including crossing accidents, are reported to CalEMA and distributed to various

federal, state and local agencies.

Local Roadway Agencies

While overall crossing safety jurisdiction resides with the CPUC, local roadway

agencies (and Caltrans on state routes) are primarily responsible for the crossings

on their roadway systems.  It is their responsibility to monitor their crossings and

take actions to improve or grade‐separate them as conditions warrant it.  The

CPUC and its rail crossings staff provide oversight and assist roadway

authorities in identifying problems and working with them to develop

mitigations to those problems.  The crossing evaluations, recommendation letters

issued, environmental document comment letters, Section 130 projects, crossing

safety training and other interaction between the CPUC and local agencies is

intended to provide a relationship and process that assures public safety is

addressed as conditions change.

8. Review and Update of Commission General Orders and Laws Relating

to Railroad Crossings

Applicable laws and regulations pertaining to railroad crossings will be

examined and reviewed with railroads and other state and local agencies to

improve and clarify requirements.  The reviews will identify outdated

requirements, clarify language and intent, and identify regulatory gaps and

deficiencies in current laws and regulations.  The CPUC will then work with the

relevant parties to develop proposals for rulemakings or statutory changes.

Commission General Orders
California Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan 2012-2017 

 Page 36 of 67 

The Commission has a number of General Orders (GOs) that pertain to railroad

crossings and their configuration, operation and maintenance.  These General

Orders are developed and updated through a formal rulemaking process at the

CPUC.  The relevant CPUC GOs are:

General Order 26‐D   Railroad Clearances

General Order 72‐B    Construction and Maintenance of Crossing Surfaces

General Order 75‐D   Standards for Warning Devices at Crossings

General Order 88‐B    Rules for Altering Public Highway‐Rail Crossings

General Order 145    Exempt Crossings

These GOs will be reviewed for needed updates and a rulemaking process

undertaken, as necessary and appropriate.  Currently CPUC RCES Staff believe

that GO 72‐B regarding crossing surfaces is a good candidate for review and

update.  The GO was last update in 1991, and should be updated to reflect newer

crossing surfaces currently in use, to more clearly delineate maintenance

responsibilities, and to examine the current crossing surface flangeway

specifications in the GO.   

In addition, GO 75‐D will be examined to review the need to require signal

cabinet placards identifying preemption interconnects for signals interconnected

to warning device systems, and the advisability of establishing standards for

automatic pedestrian gates and manual pedestrian swing gates.  Such updates

will bring the GOs up to date and reflect industry advances as well as state and

federal regulatory updates of recent years.

Also needing update is GO 145 relating to exempt crossings.  The GO has not

been updated for many years and the requirements to establish a crossing as

exempt (from the stopping requirements) and remove the exempt status are

difficult to understand and meet.

California Statutes

There are a number of California laws and code sections that pertain to crossings

that should be reviewed and updated to assure the requirements are still relevant

and purposeful.  These code sections are found primarily in the California Public

Utilities Code, Streets and Highways Code and Vehicle Code, however other

codes with laws relating to rail crossings are found in the California Government

Code, Penal Code, Civil Code and others.
California Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan 2012-2017 

 Page 37 of 67 

The current laws largely reflect the legislative intent, however many have not

been looked at closely in decades and may no longer be serving their original

purpose, may no longer be relevant or necessary, or may need to be modified to

allow for new technology, new/revised industry standards or statutory gaps that

should be addressed.  

For example, exempt crossings and the laws and regulations pertaining to them

are an area that should be closely reviewed with the other involved agencies,

including the California Highway Patrol.

9. Provide, Sponsor and Promote Crossing Training and Education

Commission Sponsored Training

The Commission’s RCES has provided a number of training programs

throughout California for local roadway agency and railroad personnel in

cooperation with railroads, other state and local agencies, and independent

contractors.  The CPUC has sponsored traffic signal preemption seminars,

California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) training

and “Crossings 101” training throughout the state.   

Additionally, to provide ongoing availability of the training, the training

presentations are posted and available for download on the CPUC web site at

this link: http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/transportation/crossings/training.htm  

While this effort is valued by the local roadway agency and railroad participants,

due to very limited resources, such training has not been offered in the past

several years.  Efforts will be made to reinitiate these training seminars to hold

them on an annual basis.

CPUC Pedestrian Guidance Document

The Commission’s RCES has developed and published on the CPUC web site a

guidance document regarding pedestrian‐rail crossings and their various

treatments and configurations in use throughout the state.  In addition, the

guidance document addresses the Americans with Disabilities Act requirements

for pedestrian paths of travel and placement of detectable warning tactile strips.  

The document was developed and published on the CPUC web site to address

the lack of any specific requirements for pedestrian crossings and the

acknowledgement that California was leading the way in innovative and

effective strategies for pedestrian safety at railroad and light rail transit

crossings.  The CPUC has received inquiries from all over the US and some other

countries relative to the document and pedestrian crossings in California.
California Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan 2012-2017 

 Page 38 of 67 

The pedestrian guidance document was finalized over four years ago and the

document should be updated.  The US Access Board has recently updated its

standards.  Additionally, there numerous inquiries to the CPUC regarding trails

and pedestrian pathways along rail corridors, and therefore a chapter or section

on pedestrian and bike trails along rail corridors and tracks in the revised

document is planned.  The chapter in this guidance document will address

desired trail attributes, including setbacks from the tracks, fencing and

channelization, maintaining sightlines and treatments at crossing locations.

The CPUC pedestrian guidance document was posted on the CPUC web site, but

is currently undergoing revision to adopt the updates in ADA requirements and

guidance by the US Access Board.  It will be re‐posted when it is updated.  

Rail Corridor Safety Conferences  

The CPUC and Caltrans Division of Rail are primary resources and participants

in the planning committee for the annual western region rail corridor safety

conference along with FRA, University of California Berkeley.  The RCES and

Division of Rail managers are typically committee members for the planning and

development of the conference.  RCES and Caltrans management and staff are

frequently presenters and panel members during the Conference.  Staff members

for both agencies typically attend and participate in giving and receiving the

training at these conferences.  The conferences provide a meaningful opportunity

for state agency staff to meet and confer with railroad and local roadway agency

personnel regarding crossing safety issues.  The conferences are widely attended

by railroad personnel and by local roadway agency staff and other interested

parties.  The 2012 conference planning was under way until just recently when

one of the primary sponsors, the University of California Berkeley Institute of

Transportation Studies announced that it had lost its funding source and could

no longer take the lead in putting together the conference and arranging for the

location and facilities.  The CPUC will continue with its commitment to

participate and promote this conference as we seek alternatives to the role UC

Berkeley performed in developing the conference.   
California Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan 2012-2017 

 Page 39 of 67 

5.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

California has been and will continue devote significant effort and resources to further

improve crossing safety for its citizens.  The numerous Federal, State and local crossing

safety programs and initiatives continue to prove beneficial towards those goals.  

Crossing improvement projects and grade separations implemented by local agencies

and the State continue to improve crossings and overall crossing safety.

The California commitment to crossing safety is clearly demonstrated by the nearly one

billion dollar investment by the State over the past several years for grade separation

projects.  Along with local and other matching funds, the amount is over two billion

dollars in grade separation investment.  These projects will eliminate many of the more

urban and congested crossings with relative higher risk and will continue to reduce

crossing collisions over time.

The efforts of the CPUC, Caltrans, and the local roadway agencies to identify hazardous

crossings through the Section 130 Program, particularly multiple accident locations, and

to improve them, is also clearly demonstrated by the information herein and the data

provided, which shows that California is addressing its multiple accident locations.  

These efforts will continue and such safety funding will continue to be directed to those

identified multiple collision locations.

Additionally, the safety jurisdiction exercised by the CPUC and the crossing safety

programs carried out by its Rail Crossings Engineering Section also demonstrate a

significant and ongoing commitment to crossing safety in California.  The CPUC’s

development and funding of the RSSIMS data management system, promotion of

Operation Lifesaver and crossing safety, provision of training and education on

crossing safety and design, the development and publication of guidance documents for

pedestrian safety at crossings, along with our web site resources and our coordination

with other Federal and State agencies to address crossing safety matters allows

California to fall far below its second place position (based on only the number of

crossing collisions) when accident rates are considered (about 15th).    

This Action Plan identifies continuing and ongoing efforts that are constantly being

reviewed for improvement, as well as new efforts to identify problem areas and

solutions to address them.  The CPUC, as the primary agency with jurisdiction over

crossing safety in California, will lead and coordinate such efforts in the State, however

all of the identified agencies have an impactful role relative to crossing safety and must

be vigilant.
Appendix A Page 1 of 1 

California Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan 2012-2017 

 Page 40 of 67 

APPENDIX A

ABBREVIATION and ACRONYM LIST

Abbreviation / Acronym Description

CalEMA California Emergency Management Agency  

CA MUTCD California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices  

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CHSRA California High Speed Rail Authority

CHP California Highway Patrol

CPUC or Commission California Public Utilities Commission

CTC California Transportation Commission

DMV California Department of Motor Vehicles

DOR Caltrans Division of Rail

FHWA   Federal Highway Administration

FRA   Federal Railroad Administration

GIS Geographic Information System

GO General Order

NCUTCD National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

NTSB National Transportation Safety Board

OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority

OLI Operation Lifesaver Inc.

RCES Rail Crossings Engineering Section

ROSB Rail Operations Safety Branch

RR‐ACC Rail Accidents Database

RRX‐CA Rail Crossings Inventory database

RSIA Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008

RSIR Rail Safety Inspection Report Database

RSSIMS Rail Safety & Security Information Management System

RTCB Rail Transit and Crossing Branch

RTCB Filings RTCB Case Tracking Database

RTSS Rail Transit Safety Section

SED Safety and Enforcement Division

STB Surface Transportation Board

   
Appendix B Page _of 3 

California Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan 2012-2017 

 Page 41 of 67 

APPENDIX B

Excerpt From FRA Final Rule issued June 22, 2010, published in the June 28, 2010

(Volume 75, Number 123) Federal Register, that amends Part 234 of chapter II,

subtitle B of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations

PART 234--GRADE CROSSING SIGNAL SYSTEM SAFETY AND STATE ACTION PLANS 

1. The authority citation for part 234 is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107; 28 U.S.C. 2461, note; Pub. 

L. 110-432, Div. A, Sec. 202; and 49 CFR 1.49. 

2. The heading for part 234 is revised to read as set forth above. 

3. Section 234.1 is revised to read as follows: 

Sec. 234.1 Scope. 

 This part imposes minimum maintenance, inspection, and testing 

standards for highway-rail grade crossing warning systems. This part 

also prescribes standards for the reporting of failures of such systems 

and prescribes minimum actions railroads must take when such warning 

systems malfunction. This part also requires particular identified 

States to develop State highway-rail grade crossing action plans. This 

part does not restrict a railroad or a State from adopting and 

enforcing additional or more stringent requirements not inconsistent 

with this part. 

4. Section 234.3 is revised to read as follows: 

Sec. 234.3 Application. 

 With the exception of Sec. 234.11, this part applies to all 

railroads except: 

 (a) A railroad that exclusively operates freight trains only on 

track which is not part of the general railroad system of 

transportation; 

 (b) Rapid transit operations within an urban area that are not 

connected to the general railroad system of transportation; and 

 (c) A railroad that operates passenger trains only on track inside 

an installation that is insular; i.e., its operations are limited to a 

separate enclave in such a way that there is no reasonable expectation 

that the safety of the public--except a business guest, a licensee of 

the railroad or an affiliated entity, or a trespasser--would be 

affected by the operation. An operation will not be considered insular 

if one or more of the following exists on its line: 

 (1) A public highway-rail crossing that is in use; 

 (2) An at-grade rail crossing that is in use; 

 (3) A bridge over a public road or waters used for commercial 

navigation; or 

 (4) A common corridor with a railroad, i.e., its operations are 

within 30 feet of those of any railroad. 
Appendix B Page _of 3 

California Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan 2012-2017 

 Page 42 of 67 

APPENDIX B (cont.)

Sec. 234.4 [Removed] 

5. Section 234.4 is removed. 

6. Section 234.6 is revised to read as follows: 

Sec. 234.6 Penalties. 

 (a) Civil penalty. Any person (an entity of any type covered under 

1 U.S.C. 1, including but not limited to the following: A railroad; a 

manager, supervisor, official, or other employee or agent of a 

railroad; any owner, manufacturer, lessor, or lessee of railroad 

equipment, track, or facilities; any independent contractor providing 

goods or services to a railroad; and any employee of such owner, 

manufacturer, lessor, lessee, or independent contractor) who violates 

any requirement of this part, except for any violation of Sec. 234.11 

of this part, or causes the violation of any such requirement is 

subject to a civil penalty of at least $650, but not more than $25,000 

per violation, except that: Penalties may be assessed against 

individuals only for willful violations, and where a grossly negligent 

violation or a pattern of repeated violations has created an imminent 

hazard of death or injury to persons, or has caused death or injury, a 

penalty not to exceed $100,000 per violation may be assessed. Each day 

a violation continues shall constitute a separate offense. Appendix A 

to this part contains a schedule of civil penalty amounts used in 

connection with this rule. The railroad is not responsible for 

compliance with respect to any condition inconsistent with the 

technical standards set forth in this part where such variance arises 

as a result of actions beyond the control of the railroad and the 

railroad could not have prevented the variance through the exercise of 

due diligence. The foregoing sentence does not excuse any instance of 

noncompliance resulting from the actions of the railroad's employees, 

agents, or contractors. 

 (b) Criminal penalty. Whoever knowingly and willfully makes, causes 

to be made, or participates in the making of a false entry in reports 

required to be filed by this part, or files a false report or other 

document required to be filed by this part, except for any document 

filed pursuant to Sec. 234.11 of this part, is subject to a $5,000 

fine and 2 years imprisonment as prescribed by 49 U.S.C. 522(a) and 

21311(a). 

Subpart B--Reports and Plans 

7. The heading to subpart B is revised to read as set forth above. 

8. Section 234.11 is added to subpart B to read as follows: 

Sec. 234.11 State highway-rail grade crossing action plans. 

 (a) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to reduce collisions at 

highway-rail grade crossings in the ten States that have had the most 

highway-rail grade crossing collisions, on average, during the calendar 

years 2006, 2007, and 2008. This section does not restrict any other 

State, or other entity, from adopting a highway-rail grade crossing 

action plan. This section also does not restrict any of the States 
Appendix B Page _of 3 

California Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan 2012-2017 

 Page 43 of 67 

APPENDIX B (cont.)

required to develop action plans under this section from adopting a 

highway-rail grade crossing action plan with additional or more 

stringent requirements not inconsistent with this section. 

 (b) Application. This section applies to the ten States that have 

had the most highway-rail grade crossing collisions, on average, during 

the calendar years 2006, 2007, and 2008. 

 (c) Action plans. (1) The ten identified States shall each develop 

a State highway-rail grade crossing action plan and submit such a plan 

to FRA for review and approval not later than August 27, 2011. 

 (2) A State highway-rail grade crossing action plan shall: 

 (i) Identify specific solutions for improving safety at crossings, 

including highway-rail grade crossing closures or grade separations; 

 (ii) Focus on crossings that have experienced multiple accidents or 

are at high risk for such accidents; and 

 (iii) Cover a five-year time period. 

 (d) Review and approval. (1) State highway-rail grade crossing 

action plans required under paragraph (c) of this section shall be 

submitted for FRA review and approval using at least one of the 

following methods: Mail to the Associate Administrator for Railroad 

Safety/Chief Safety Officer, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal 

Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 

20590; or e-mail to rrs.correspondence@fra.dot.gov. 

 (2) FRA will review and approve or disapprove a State highway-rail 

grade crossing action plan submitted pursuant to paragraph (d) of this 

section within 60 days of receipt. 

 (3) If the proposed State highway-rail grade crossing action plan 

is disapproved, FRA will notify the affected State as to the specific 

areas in which the proposed plan is deficient. A State shall correct 

all deficiencies within 30 days following receipt of written notice 

from FRA. 

 (4) FRA may condition the awarding of any grants under 49 U.S.C. 

20158, 20167, or 22501 to an identified State on the development of an 

FRA approved State highway-rail grade crossing action plan.
California Rail Crossing

 Pa

APP

FR

g Safety Act

age 44 of 67

PENDIX C

RA Letter

tion Plan 20

C

12-2017 
California Rail Crossing

 Pa

APPEN

FR

g Safety Act

age 45 of 67

NDIX C (co

RA Letter

tion Plan 20

ont.)

12-2017 

  
APPENDIX D

California Railroad Listing and Data

Railroad At-Grade Grade-Sep Ped Pub Pvt Total 

UP 4294 975 105 3752 1412 5269

BNSF 1310 243 26 1077 450 1553

SJVR 779 11 2 444 344 790

CFNR 714 59 8 403 362 773

TVRR 525 10 4 296 235 535

SCAX 311 223 49 445 40 534

EUKA 162 10 1 48 123 172

CCT 163 2 1 99 65 165

SERA 145 17 3 72 87 162

ATK 62 99 38 113 10 161

LAJ 133 3 3 82 51 136

SDIY 117 19 10 91 35 136

SDNX 71 43 4 99 11 114

NVWT 99 0 0 46 53 99

PHL 93 6 0 81 18 99

CORP 77 8 0 34 51 85

SMV 77 1 0 41 37 78

MET 77 0 3 45 29 77

MGLX 43 33 5 71 0 76

ARZC 66 4 0 29 41 70

MCR 64 2 0 35 31 66

SUN 62 2 0 13 51 64

SDTI 54 8 2 60 0 62

ATAX 7 49 1 52 3 56

CWR 52 0 1 11 40 52

OTR 49 3 0 43 9 52

SCRT 50 0 1 49 0 50

GWR 48 0 0 6 42 48

ABL 44 0 1 31 12 44

VCY 40 2 3 31 8 42

STE 40 0 0 33 7 40

SHLV 36 1 1 18 18 37

QRR 31 0 0 4 27 31

SCBG 26 4 1 19 10 30

NCRR 17 12 0 29 0 29

YSLR 28 1 0 11 18 29

XSBA 24 2 0 18 8 26

VTAZ 24 0 7 16 1 24

RPRC 23 0 0 22 1 23

USNZ 21 0 0 0 21 21

MTDB 20 0 0 20 0 20

WCRC 16 0 0 8 8 16

DOD 14 0 0 0 14 14

YW 14 0 0 10 4 14

AL 13 0 0 4 9 13
APPENDIX D

California Railroad Listing and Data

California Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan 2012-2017 

 Page 47 of 67 

Railroad At-Grade Grade-Sep Ped Pub Pvt Total 

NICX 9 4 0 6 7 13

PCJX 13 0 1 12 0 13

TRC 13 0 0 3 10 13

WFS 9 0 0 8 1 9

MNRR 8 0 0 7 1 8

NWP 8 0 1 6 1 8

AMC 6 1 0 7 0 7

WPSX 7 0 1 3 3 7

SAV 6 0 0 6 0 6

SFBR 4 0 0 2 2 4

CROP 3 0 0 0 3 3

HI 3 0 0 3 0 3

PRT 3 0 0 3 0 3

OERY 2 0 0 1 1 2

SFBY 2 0 0 0 2 2

SYPD 2 0 0 2 0 2

FMWX 1 0 0 1 0 1

HBL 1 0 0 1 0 1

IAIS 1 0 0 1 0 1

 

At-Grade Grade-Sep Ped Pub Pvt Total 

TOTAL 10236 1857 283 7983 3827 12093

Total Crossings By Railroad (Log Scale)

1

10

100

1000

10000

UP

BNSF

SJVR

CFNR

TVRR

SCAX

EUKA

CCT

SERA

ATK

LAJ

SDIY

SDNX

NVWT

PHL

CORP

SMV

MET

MGLX

ARZC

MCR

SUN

SDTI

ATAX

CWR

OTR

SCRT

Total
APPENDIX D

California Railroad Listing and Data

California Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan 2012-2017 

 Page 48 of 67 

Crossings by RR - At-grade / Grade-separated

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

UP BNSF SJVR CFNR TVRR SCAX EUKA CCT SERA ATK LAJ SDIY SDNX NVWT PHL CORP SMV MET MGLX

Grade-Sep

At-Grade

Crossings by RR - Private / Public / Pedestrian

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

UP

BNSF

SJVR

CFNR

TVRR

SCAX

EUKA

CCT

SERA

ATK

LAJ

SDIY

SDNX

NVWT

PHL

CORP

SMV

MET

MGLX

Pvt

Pub

Ped
Appendix E Page _ of 3 

California Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan 2012-2017 

 Page 49 of 67 

APPENDIX E

Status of California Crossings With more than 2 Accidents (2006‐2011)

 CPUC # US DOT # Accident 

count 

Street City County Railroad(s) status Comments 

001D-10.40 749712Y 5 HIGH ST OAKLAND ALAMEDA UPRR Open SECTION 130 PROJECT IS BEING 

DEVELOPED TO IMPROVE THIS 

CROSSING. 

003-22.40 811479J 5 NOGALES ST INDUSTRY LOS ANGELES UPRR Open GRADE SEPARATION 

APPROVED AND PENDING 

CONSTRUCTION 

001D-11.70 749720R 4 66TH AV OAKLAND ALAMEDA UPRR Open MEDIAN DELINEATORS 

INSTALLED in 2010. 12/16/09-

Preemption joint inspection with 

City, UP, and CPUC. 

Interconnected with San Leandro 

Blvd. Rec preemption upgrades. 

001D-9.80 749707C 4 FRUITVALE AV OAKLAND ALAMEDA UPRR Open A SECTION 130 PROJECT IS 

BEING DEVELOPED TO 

IMPROVE THIS CROSSING 

002-897.30 028380R 4 KRATZMEYER 

ROAD 

BAKERSFIELD KERN BNSF Open UPGRADED CROSSING TO 

GATES IN 2007. 

001B-498.20 746905M 3 PUENTE AV INDUSTRY LOS ANGELES UPRR Open CPUC will continue to monitor this 

crossing. Incidents were vehicle 

stalling on tracks, gate (and 

median) drive around, and a 

pedestrian wearing headphones 

that ignored active warning devices. 

002B-8.10 026476Y 3 CHICAGO AV RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE BNSF Open This crossing has experienced only 

one accident that could be 

addressed by engineerring fixes, as 

one was a suicide attempt and one 

was an alcohol impaired driiver. 

CPUC will monitor crossing. 

001E-406.25 745855H 3 RICE AV OXNARD VENTURA UPRR Open 1/12/10 -Attended a field diagnostic 

with the City of Oxnard's consultant 

and UPRR to review proposed 

crossing modifications as part of the 

Camino Del Sol project 

001BG-485.96-

C 

747585T 3 ALAMEDA & 37TH 

ST 

VERNON LOS ANGELES UPRR Open A SECTION 130 PROJECT IS 

BEING DEVELOPED TO 

IMPROVE THIS CROSSING 
Appendix E Page _ of 3 

California Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan 2012-2017 

 Page 50 of 67 

APPENDIX E (cont)

Status ofCalifornia Crossings With more than 2 Accidents (2006‐2011)

CPUC # US DOT # Accident

count 

Street City County Railroad status Comments 

105E-31.00 754998E 3 CHURCHILL AV PALO ALTO SANTA 

CLARA 

JPB Open CALTRAIN PROJECT 

AUTHORIZED IN FEB 2011 TO 

UPGRADE CROSSING 

001A-79.20 751224V 3 CO RD 32A/105 UNINCORP YOLO UPRR Open A SECTION 130 PROJECT IS 

BEING IMPLEMENTED TO 

IMPROVE THIS CROSSING 

002-1002.50 028583V 3 FRUIT AV FRESNO FRESNO BNSF Open A SECTION 130 PROJECT IS 

BEING IMPLEMENTED TO 

IMPROVE THIS CROSSING 

001D-17.50 749745L 3 HESPERIAN BL SAN LEANDRO ALAMEDA UPRR Open A SECTION 130 PROJECT IS 

BEING IMPLEMENTED TO 

IMPROVE THIS CROSSING 

002B-38.40 026560G 3 IMPERIAL HWY 

(SR 90) 

UNINCORP ORANGE BNSF Open CROSSING GRADE SEPARATED 

IN 2009 

004-90.40 833930J 3 INDUSTRIAL DR UNINCORP SAN 

JOAQUIN 

UPRR Open A SECTION 130 PROJECT IS 

BEING IMPLEMENTED TO 

IMPROVE THIS CROSSING 

002-266.60 026863R 3 LAUREL ST SAN DIEGO SAN DIEGO BNSF Open CITY CROSSING IMPROVEMENT 

PROJECT APPROVED in 2010 

CURRENTLY UNDER WAY 

002-153.40 027650J 3 LOS NIETOS RD SANTA FE 

SPRINGS 

LOS 

ANGELES 

BNSF Open CROSSING IMPROVEMENT 

PROJECT APPROVED in 2010 

CURRENTLY UNDER WAY 

002-908.00 028395F 3 MERCED 

AVENUE 

UNINCORP KERN BNSF Open SECTION 130 PROJECT 

UPGRADED CROSSING IN 2009 

001B-525.40 746964P 3 MILLIKEN AV ONTARIO SAN 

BERNARDIN

O 

UPRR Open GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT 

CURRENTLY UNDER 

CONSTRUCTION 

001BEL43.34 752887F 3 POWER INN RD SACRAMENTO SACRAMEN

TO 

UPRR Open SECTION 130 PROJECT 

UPGRADED CROSSING IN 2010 

105E-11.60-

D 

922713E 3 SAN BRUNO 

STATION PED 

XING NORTH 

SAN BRUNO SAN MATEO JPB Open GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT 

CURRENTLY UNDER 

CONSTRUCTION 
Appendix E Page _ of 3 

California Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan 2012-2017 

 Page 51 of 67 

APPENDIX E (cont)

Status of California Crossings With more than 2 Accidents (2006‐2011)

CPUC # US DOT # Accident 

count 

Street City County Railroad(s) status Comments 

002-899.50 028381X 3 SEVENTH / 7TH 

STANDARD 

ROAD 

UNINCORP KERN BNSF Open STATE SECTION 190 

PROGRAM - GRADE 

SEPARATION CURRENTY 

UNDER CONSTRUCTION 

002B-8.80 026478M 3 SPRUCE ST RIVERSIDE RIVERSIDE BNSF Open A SECTION 130 PROJECT IS 

BEING DEVELOPED TO 

IMPROVE THIS CROSSING 

101SG-15.12 

/ 001B-497.10 

746903Y 3 TEMPLE AVE INDUSTRY LOS 

ANGELES 

SCAX/ 

UPRR 

Open IDENTIFIED FOR SECTION 

130 REVIEW IN NEXT CYCLE 

002-158.40 027657G 3 VALLEY VIEW AV SANTA FE 

SPRINGS 

LOS 

ANGELES 

BNSF Open GRADE SEPARATION 

CONSTRUCTION TO BEGIN 

FALL 2011 

001BBH486.42 / 

084L-4.20 

747836K 3 VERNON AV LOS ANGELES LOS 

ANGELES 

UPRR / 

MTA 

Open Shared corridor with UPRR and 

Metro Light Rail. All have been 

pedestrian accidents. 

Experimental LOOK BOTH 

WAYS sign placed at station in 

2009. 

105E-33.00 755010S 3 W MEADOW DR PALO ALTO SANTA 

CLARA 

JPB Open CALTRAIN PROJECT 

AUTHORIZED FEB 2011 TO 

ADD AUTOMATIC 

PEDESTRIAN GATES, AND 

OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 

105E-24.80 754935A 3 WHIPPLE AV REDWOOD 

CITY 

SAN MATEO JPB Open CALTRAIN PROJECT 

COMPLETED JAN 2010 TO 

ADD MEDIAN, AUTOMATIC 

PEDESTRIAN GATES, AND 

OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 

001BBM499.92-C 747912B 3 WILMINGTON AV CARSON LOS 

ANGELES 

UPRR Open IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

UNDER DEVELOPMENT WITH 

UPRR AND CITY 

106E-99.60 / 

106-226.80 

026816H 3 WISCONSIN ST OCEANSIDE SAN DIEGO NCTD Open Crossing has 4 tracks, but was 

upgraded to latest standards in 

2007. All three accidents 

resulted from intentional acts of 

peds or motorists. 
California Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan 2012-2017 

 Page 52 of 67 

APPENDIX F

Caltrans Summary of 2006 State Infrastructure Bonds – Highway‐Rail Grade Crossing Safety Account

California Department of Transportation FY 2010-11 Fourth Quarter Report 

Proposition 1B April 1 – June 30, 2011 

Highway Railroad Crossing Safety Account (HRCSA) Attachment 

ID DST CNTY Applicant Project Name Total 

Project 

HRCSA 

Prgmd 

Beg 

Const 

End 

Const 

HRCSA 

Expnd 

Const 

Cmplt Scope Budget Schedule 

PART 1 

8 6 KER County of Kern 

BNSF Grade Sept 7th Standard Rd/Santa Fe 

Wy 28,853 9,926 Sep-09 Jul-11 $ 3,218 73% 

44 4 SM PCJPB San Mateo Bridges Grade Separation (GS) 13,440 1,445 Sep-11 $ 10 45% 

11 7 LA City of Los Angeles Riverside Drive GS Replacement 57,965 5,000 Jun-14 0 0 

39 4 SF PCJPB Jerrold Ave & Quint St Bridges GS 19,630 4,674 Jun-10 Sep-11 $ 386 50% 

18 10 MER City of Merced G Street Undercrossing 18,000 9,000 Mar-10 Dec-11 $ 3,171 41% 

9 6 KER County of Kern Hageman Rd/BNSF Railroad 35,300 17,650 Jul-12 $ 1,572 17% 

45 4 SM PCJPB San Bruno GS 147,000 26,727 Jul-10 Oct-12 $ 3,590 30% 

43 10 SJ City of Stockton Lower Sacramento 34,000 10,000 Nov-12 0 3% 

Total Part 1 354,188 84,422 

PART 2 

33 11 SD City of San Diego Park Blvd. at Harbor Dr./Pedestrian Bridge 27,000 6,000 Jan-10 $ 6,000 100% 

29 3 SAC City of Sacramento 6th St Overcrossing - Bridge 11,974 5,987 Oct-12 $ 598 73% 

48 6 TUL City of Tulare Cartmill Avenue GS 26,808 11,293 May-12 $ 1,099 16.2% 

46 6 TUL County of Tulare Betty Drive GS 28,075 12,175 Sep-11 * 25% 

40 10 SJ Port of Stockton Port of Stockton Expressway 11,500 4,400 Jun-12 * 2% 

41 10 SJ City of Stockton Eight Mile Road/UPRR (East) GS 31,000 8,500 Nov-12 * 33% 

42 10 SJ City of Stockton Eight Mile Road/UPRR (West) GS 25,000 8,500 Nov-12 * 37% 

20 12 ORA OCTA Sand Canyon GS 54,604 8,000 Jan-14 0 4% 

Total Part 2 215,961 64,855 

*Invoices received and paid July, 2011

2010 HRCSA (numbers in thousands)

DST CNTY Applicant Project Name Total 

Project 

HRCSA 

Prgmd 

Beg 

Const 

End 

Const 

HRCSA 

Expnd 

Const 

Cmplt Scope Budget Schedule 

PART 1 

6 TUL City of Tulare Bardsley Avenue Grade Separation 16,935 7,156 4/12 8/12 

7 LA ACE Nogales Street Grade Separation 89,049 25,600 2/12 4/16 

4 ALA City of Fremont Warren Avenue Grade Separation 57,168 9,600 11/11 11/14 

7 LA City of Los Angeles North Spring Street Grade Separation 48,766 5,001 6/12 12/14 

Total Recommended for Programming 211,918 47,357 

PART 2

3 SAC City of Sacramento 6th Street Overcrossing 16,102 7,865 2/12 2/13 

4 ALA City of Fremont Kato Road Grade Separation 52,265 10,000 8/11 2/13 

7 LA SCRRA Broadway-Brazil Street Grade Crossing 8,900 4,000 7/11 8/12 

12 ORA OCTA Dana Point & San Clemente Crossings 4,200 2,100 2/11 9/11 

12 ORA OCTA San Clemente Beach Trail Crossings 4,500 2,250 11/11 6/12 

12 ORA OCTA North Beach Crossing 1,200 600 11/11 6/12 

Total Recommended for Programming 87,167 26,805 

 Project is on-time, on-budget, and/or within scope 

 Allocation request is late or construction start date has been delayed 

 Schedule, scope or cost is changing, pending review and acceptance 
 Project has been delivered and is awaiti

Califo

ng allocation 

rnia Rail Crossi

P

ng Safety Actio

age 53 of 67 

n Plan 2012-20

2008 HR

017 

CSA (numbers in thousands)
Caltrans Summar

Califo

y of 2006 St

ornia Rail Crossi

P

AP

tate Infrastru

AP

ing Safety Actio

Page 54 of 67 

PPENDIX F

ucture Bond

PPENDIX F

on Plan 2012-20

ds – Trade Co

017 

orridor Improvement Fund
California Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan 2012-2017 

 Page 55 of 67 

Caltrans Summary of 2006 State Infrastructure Bonds – Trade Corridor Improvement Fund

APPENDIX F
California Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan 2012-2017 

 Page 56 of 67 

Caltrans Summary of 2006 State Infrastructure Bonds – Trade Corridor Improvement Fund
Caltra

 

ns Summar

 

Califo

y of 2006 St

ornia Rail Crossi

P

AP

tate Infrastru

ing Safety Actio

Page 57 of 67 

PPENDIX F

ucture Bond

on Plan 2012-20

s – Trade Co

017 

orridor Improvement Fund  

 
C

California 

alifornia

Rail Crossin

 P

APP

a Crossing

ng Safety Ac

age 58 of 67

PENDIX

g Acciden

ction Plan 20

7

G

nt Data (20

012-2017 

00‐2009)
California Rail Crossin

 P

g Safety Ac

age 59 of 67

ction Plan 20

7

12-2017 
California Rail Crossin

 P

g Safety Ac

age 60 of 67

ction Plan 20

7

12-2017 
California Rail Crossin

 P

g Safety Ac

age 61 of 67

tion Plan 2012-2017 
California Rail Crossin

 P

g Safety Ac

age 62 of 67

tion Plan 2012-2017 
California Rail Crossin

 P

g Safety Ac

age 63 of 67

tion Plan 2012-2017 
California Rail Crossin

 P

g Safety Ac

age 64 of 67

ction Plan 20

7

12-2017 
California Rail Crossin

 P

g Safety Ac

age 65 of 67

ction Plan 20

7

12-2017 
California Rail Crossin

 P

g Safety Ac

age 66 of 67

tion Plan 2012-2017 
By div

FRA c

approx

and is 

viding the tot

crossing inven

ximately 15th

approximate

al number of

ntory an aver

in such a ran

ely equal to Il

California 

f crossing inc

rage is found

nking, which

llinois (17th).

Rail Crossin

 P

cidents (2000

d for the num

h places the ac

.

ng Safety Ac

age 67 of 67

0 to 2009), an

mber of incide

ccident per c

ction Plan 20

7

nd dividing b

ents per cross

crossing well

012-2017 

by the numbe

sing in a give

l below Texa

er of at-grade

en state. Cali

as (5th) over th

e crossings in

fornia is 

e past decad

n the 

de,