GradeDec.NET

Federal Railroad Administration

Office of Policy and Program Development

Training Course and Workbook

October 2003
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • i

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK FOR GRADE CROSSING 

IMPROVEMENTS EVAULATION USING GRADEDEC.NET

TABLE OF CONTENTS

MODULE 1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................1

1.1 Introduction of Instructors and Participants..................................................... 1

1.2 Course Goals and Objectives............................................................................... 1

1.2.1 To gain a working knowledge of: ................................................................... 1

1.2.2 Discussion of Goals and Objectives ............................................................... 1

1.3 Course Overview................................................................................................... 2

1.4 Course Materials................................................................................................... 2

MODULE 2 USING GRADEDEC.NET..........................................5

2.1 Introduction........................................................................................................... 5

2.2 GradeDec.NET – System Overview .................................................................... 5

2.3 Registration and Logon........................................................................................ 5

2.4 Navigation.............................................................................................................. 6

2.5 Modes of Use.......................................................................................................... 6

2.5.1 Safety Analysis ............................................................................................... 6

2.5.2 Full Investment Analysis ................................................................................ 6

2.6 The Data Hierarchy in GradeDec.NET .............................................................. 7

2.6.1 User................................................................................................................. 9

2.6.2 Dataset............................................................................................................. 9

2.6.3 Model Parameters and Other Data.................................................................. 9

2.6.4 Model ............................................................................................................ 10

2.6.5 Corridor......................................................................................................... 10

2.6.6 Region........................................................................................................... 10

2.6.7 Scenario......................................................................................................... 10

2.6.8 Results........................................................................................................... 10

2.7 Steps in Conducting a GradeDec.NET Analysis.............................................. 11

2.7.1 Overview....................................................................................................... 11

2.7.2 Safety Analysis ............................................................................................. 11

2.7.2.1 (Optional) Create and select a new dataset ........................................... 11
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • ii

2.7.2.2 Create and select a new corridor (or region)......................................... 12

2.7.2.3 Set values for corridor (or region) characteristics................................. 12

2.7.2.4 (Optional) Modify or Add Time-of-Day Traffic Distributions............. 12

2.7.2.5 (Optional) Set default crossing device cost data................................... 13

2.7.2.6 Import data from Grade Crossing Inventory......................................... 13

2.7.2.7 Verify and refine data, assumptions and choice of alternatives............ 13

2.7.2.8 Calculate predicted accidents, view/print reports and charts................ 13

2.7.3 Full Investment Analysis .............................................................................. 13

2.7.3.1 Create new results set............................................................................ 14

2.7.3.2 Create new scenario .............................................................................. 14

2.7.3.3 Modify the scenario data with forecast values and assumptions for your 

analysis 14

2.7.3.4 Verify or modify parameters and other data values.............................. 14

2.7.3.5 Set the simulation parameters and run the simulation .......................... 15

2.7.3.6 View results table and charts, print report ............................................ 15

MODULE 3 STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS IN EVALUATION

17

3.1 Conceptual Framework for Evaluation............................................................ 17

3.2 Objectives of Evaluation..................................................................................... 17

3.2.1 Safety Analysis ............................................................................................. 18

3.2.2 Analysis of Compliance with 49 CFR Parts 222 and 229 ............................ 18

3.2.3 Non-Safety Impacts ...................................................................................... 18

3.2.4 Investment Analysis and Resource Allocation Decisions ............................ 18

3.3 Evaluation Context ............................................................................................. 18

MODULE 4 WORKSHOP CASE STUDY...................................19

4.1 Introduction......................................................................................................... 19

4.2 The Case Study.................................................................................................... 19

4.2.1 The Study Area ............................................................................................. 19

4.3 The Case Study Data in GradeDec.NET........................................................... 20

4.3.1 Customizing the Crossing Data for the Analysis.......................................... 20

4.3.2 Additional Data (Required for Investment Analysis)................................... 21

4.3.2.1 Defining the scenario ............................................................................ 21

4.3.2.2 Populating the scenario with data ......................................................... 21

4.3.2.3 Sources of Data..................................................................................... 22

MODULE 5 DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES ...................23

5.1 Introduction......................................................................................................... 23
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • iii

5.2 Identify Accident Risk in the Corridor............................................................. 23

5.3 Summarizing Improvement Targets................................................................. 24

5.4 Developing Alternatives...................................................................................... 25

5.4.1 Select Candidates for Closures ..................................................................... 25

5.4.2 Select Candidates for Grade Separation ....................................................... 25

5.4.3 Select Other Improvements........................................................................... 25

5.4.4 The Alternate Case........................................................................................ 26

5.4.5 Creating Additional Alternatives.................................................................. 26

5.5 Managing your Data and Creating Versions ................................................... 26

MODULE 6 SAFETY ANALYSIS USING THE ACCIDENT 

PREDICTION AND SEVERITY MODEL (APS)...............................27

6.1 Introduction......................................................................................................... 27

6.2 Analysis with the Crossing Pages ...................................................................... 27

6.3 Analysis Results................................................................................................... 27

MODULE 7 SAFETY ANALYSIS USING THE HIGH SPEED 

RAIL MODEL 33

7.1 Introduction......................................................................................................... 33

7.2 Analysis with the Crossing Page........................................................................ 33

7.3 Analysis Results................................................................................................... 34

MODULE 8 INVESTMENT ANALYSIS ......................................35

8.1 Introduction......................................................................................................... 35

8.2 General Framework............................................................................................ 35

8.3 Measures of Economic Worth and Efficiency.................................................. 37

8.4 Comparing Alternatives..................................................................................... 37

8.5 Timing Assumptions........................................................................................... 38

8.6 Social Costs.......................................................................................................... 38

8.7 Current, Constant and Present Value Dollars................................................. 38
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • iv

8.8 The Discount Rate............................................................................................... 39

8.9 Costs and Benefits............................................................................................... 40

8.10 Costs..................................................................................................................... 41

8.10.1 Capital........................................................................................................... 41

8.10.2 Operating and Maintenance Costs................................................................ 41

8.10.3 Lifecycle Costs.............................................................................................. 41

8.11 Benefits................................................................................................................. 41

8.11.1 Safety (Accident Reduction)......................................................................... 42

8.11.2 Other Benefits............................................................................................... 42

8.11.2.1 Time Savings .................................................................................... 42

8.11.2.2 Vehicle Operating Costs................................................................... 42

8.11.2.3 Emissions Reductions and Environmental Benefits......................... 42

8.11.2.4 Network Delay.................................................................................. 43

8.11.2.5 Benefits/Disbenefits of Induced/Discouraged Demand.................... 43

MODULE 9 NON-SAFETY BENEFITS.......................................47

9.1 Introduction......................................................................................................... 47

9.2 Overview .............................................................................................................. 47

9.3 Queuing Model in GradeDec.NET.................................................................... 49

9.4 Time Savings........................................................................................................ 50

9.5 Vehicle Operating Cost Savings ........................................................................ 50

9.6 Reduction in Emissions....................................................................................... 51

9.7 Network Delay..................................................................................................... 51

MODULE 10 RISK ANALYSIS.....................................................61

10.1 Introduction......................................................................................................... 61

10.1.1 What is Risk Analysis? ................................................................................. 61

10.1.2 Why Use Risk Analysis in GradeDec.NET.................................................. 62

10.2 Selecting a Distribution and Populating with Data ......................................... 62

10.3 Running a Risk Analysis .................................................................................... 63

10.4 Reading the Results............................................................................................. 63

10.5 Comparing Alternatives with Risk Analysis.................................................... 64
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • v

10.6 Using the Tornado Chart to Refine Inputs....................................................... 64

MODULE 11 CAPITAL PROGRAMMING....................................67

11.1 Introduction......................................................................................................... 67

11.2 Creating a Capital Program .............................................................................. 67

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES ..................................................69

APPENDIX 1 DATA SHEETS .......................................................71
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 1

MODULE 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction of Instructors and Participants

1. The course will be conducted by instructors from FRA or its consultant.

2. Participation is critical to success in the course. Participants bring invaluable 

local experience to the course. Instructors intend to learn from the participants 

and incorporate their experiences in the course as it evolves.

3. This course was originally developed in 2001 by DecisionTek, LLC under the 

leadership of FRA’s Office of Policy and Program Development with input and 

oversight by the Offices of Railroad Development and Safety.

4. The course will be divided in time between presentation/discussion sessions and 

lab sessions. The lab sessions will involve hands-on direct use with 

GradeDec.NET.

1.2 Course Goals and Objectives

1.2.1 To gain a working knowledge of:

• The evaluation of safety impacts from grade crossing improvements.

• The evaluation of other benefits from grade crossing improvements.

• The use of GradeDec.NET to support resource allocation decisions.

• The use of GradeDec.NET to plan and evaluate grade crossing solutions on 

proposed Next Generation High Speed Rail corridors.

1.2.2 Discussion of Goals and Objectives

The goal of this course is to provide a comprehensive and practical understanding of the 

GradeDec.NET software for the planning and evaluation of highway-rail grade crossing 

improvements. Cost-benefit analysis of infrastructure investment is often a complex 

process that may require close interaction and coordination among professionals, 

decision-makers, rail operators and citizen groups. GradeDec.NET incorporates best 

practice models, analytic tools and data management capabilities to facilitate the analysis, 

whose purpose is to assess a range of economic, social and environmental impacts and 

tradeoffs so as to enable informed decision-making.

This course seeks to impart a good working knowledge of using GradeDec.NET while 

reviewing the principles and practice of benefit-cost analysis that are critical to 

supporting sound decisions. The course presents: a conceptual framework; 

methodologies of evaluation used in GradeDec.NET; review of computational 

algorithms; modes of use; and, a discussion of data requirements. The sections on safety 

and non-safety impacts include explicit exercises that replicate the calculations in the 

software. A hypothetical case study accompanies the course and demonstrates the 

practical application of GradeDec.NET.
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 2

1.3 Course Overview

The course is presented over a period of two days and covers 10 modules, including this 

Introduction (Module 1). Presentations will be interspersed with lab sessions in which 

participants will work with GradeDec.NET and apply skills acquired.

Figure 1 Course Overview

Evaluation

Framework and

Basic Usage Skills

Alternatives

Development and

Grade Crossing

Data

Safety Analysis

with Accident

Prediction and

Severity Model

Safety Analysis for

High Speed Rail

Non-Safety

Impacts and

Social Benefits

and Costs

Risk Analysis and

Evaluation Criteria

Comprehensive

Analysis

COURSE OVERVIEW

Day 1

Day 2 Day 2

Day 1

Day 1 Day 1

Day 2

Capital

Programming

Day 2

1.4 Course Materials

• Workbook

• PC or terminal with browser and Internet connection

• User’s Manual
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 3

• Reference Manual

GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 5

MODULE 2 USING GRADEDEC.NET

2.1 Introduction

This section is a description of GradeDec.NET and how to use it to conduct analyses. 

Parts of this section will be covered in the “Introduction” session of the workshop. The 

remaining parts of this section are for the participant’s reference. The material in this 

section also appears in the User’s Manual.

2.2 GradeDec.NET – System Overview

GradeDec.NET is a web-based application deployed over the Internet. This enables 

many users to access the system simultaneously, while using minimal resources from 

each user’s computer.

Figure 2 Schema of GradeDec.NET

INTERNET

DATABASE

GRADEDEC.NET SERVER

USER 1

USER 2

USER 3

GRADEDEC.NET

MODEL

Advantages to the web-based system over desktop systems:

♦ No special hardware or software user requirements

♦ No need for installation on secure systems

♦ Model and data updates immediately accessible to all users

♦ Few demands on user to manage data and analyses

2.3 Registration and Logon

To use GradeDec.NET you must register the first time you logon. You will then use the 

user ID and password that you select during registration to logon during subsequent 

sessions.

The logon page includes a toolbar at the top, which link to “About”, “Terms of Use” and 

“Messages”. You should check the messages periodically. Also, read and understand the 

terms of using the system.
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 6

2.4 Navigation

After logging in, you will be shown the Settings page. From this page you select the data 

object (see 1.8 below). On the left side of the screen is a navigation bar, which enables 

access to all the pages of GradeDec.NET.

2.5 Modes of Use

GradeDec.NET has several modes of use, and the specific mode of use that you choose 

will depend upon the type of decision that your analysis should support. This section 

identifies and describes the two principal modes of use with GradeDec.NET. These are:

♦ Safety analysis, and

♦ Full investment analysis

2.5.1 Safety Analysis

For a safety analysis, the user examines predicted accidents at grade crossings and for the 

corridor (or region) as a whole. The safety analysis is, essentially, a comparison of a 

“before” and “after” situation, where “before” represents the status quo and “after” 

reflects the impact of crossing improvements (through device upgrade, closures, 

separations, traffic management measures, etc). The safety analysis is restricted to 

examining the safety impacts at a crossing. The safety analysis reflects a snapshot of 

current conditions and does not account for the forecast growth of highway traffic or rail 

operations.

2.5.2 Full Investment Analysis

A full investment analysis supports resource allocation and planning decisions. The full 

investment analysis accounts for safety benefits and, as well, other highway user costs. 

These user costs include time savings, vehicle operating costs and emissions. The full 

investment analysis monetizes the benefits from each benefits category and sums the 

benefits from the improvements over the time horizon of the investment. This analysis 

includes user assumptions regarding the forecast of traffic growth, by highway and rail, 

and analyzes the risk associated with the forecast values.

A “safety analysis” will involve a subset of the GradeDec.NET features required for a 

“full investment analysis”. The following table shows the two modes of use, purposes 

associated with each, and the functional pages in GradeDec.NET used in each type of 

analysis.
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 7

Table 1 GradeDec.Net Modes of Use

Mode of Use Purpose Functional Pages in 

GradeDec.NET 

to Use

Safety analysis Calculate accident risk and 

impacts of improvements, 

identify improvement 

programs, analyze safety 

regulatory impacts

Support safety and 

regulatory compliance 

decisions.

Settings, Import, 

Crossings, Parameters

Full investment 

analysis

Benefit-cost and risk analysis 

of programs of 

improvements; analyze 

safety, delay and user cost 

impacts

Support resource allocation 

and investment decisions. 

Support planning process. 

Settings, Import, 

Crossings, Parameters, 

Scenario, Simulation, 

Results

2.6 The Data Hierarchy in GradeDec.NET

In order to conduct analyses effectively in GradeDec.NET you should be familiar with its 

data hierarchy. 

Every active session of GradeDec.NET has a data hierarchy that is populated with values 

at all times. These values correspond to the current selections of data collections that are 

viewable, editable and are used in GradeDec.NET model calculations. You navigate 

among different data collections by making selections on the Settings page, which sets 

the values in the data hierarchy. 

The data hierarchy is shown in the figure below. A brief description of each of the nodes 

(boxes) in the figure follows at the end of this section.
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 8

Figure 3 Data Hierarchy in GradeDec.NET

Collection of

Scenario data

Collection of

Crossing data

Collection of

model

parameters

and other

data

User

Dataset

Model

Corridor

or Region Scenario Results

The connecting lines in the data hierarchy figure mean that the lower node is a “child” of 

the parent node above it to which it is connected. When you change the value of a parent 

node (by making a selection in the Settings page) you are also re-populating the nodes in 

the hierarchy below the parent with values that represent data collections belonging to the 

newly selected parent node value. 

For example, when a newly registered user logs on, the data hierarchy is populated with 

values like in the table below.

Table 2 Data Heirarchy at New User Logon

Data Hierarchy 

Node

Value

User Your user id

Dataset “Initial dataset”

Model “Corridor Model”

Corridor “South Empire”

Scenario “Strong rail growth”

Result “Placeholder – Corridor Model”

Suppose the user then changes the Model selection in the Settings page to “Regional 

Model”. The data hierarchy will then be populated with the following values (changed 

values in italics):
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 9

Table 3 Data Heirarchy After Changing Model

Data Hierarchy 

Node

Value

User Your user id

Dataset “Initial dataset”

Model “Regional Model”

Region “Montgomery, MD”

Scenario “Strong highway growth”

Result “Placeholder – Regional Model”

For every parent node value there are designated default values for its child nodes, which 

fill the data hierarchy when the parent node value is selected. When you first register as 

a GradeDec.NET user you are assigned an “Initial Dataset” that includes data collections 

with sample values, and the system designates some of these data collections as defaults. 

You can never delete a data collection that is a default of its parent node. You can 

designate another data collection to be a default, and then delete the collection that was 

previously designated as default. You can create and delete data collections, set their 

defining values and set defaults from the Settings page.

The following are descriptions of the nodes in the data hierarchy.

2.6.1 User

When you log in to GradeDec.NET, a value representing your user account is set in the 

User node. This never changes during your session and ensures that users can only 

access their own data and not those of others.

2.6.2 Dataset

User data for analyses are organized in datasets in the GradeDec.NET database. A user 

may create and maintain up to 10 datasets. A dataset is a comprehensive container of 

data collections used in GradeDec.NET analyses. Note that data from different datasets 

cannot be combined in a single analysis. You can use datasets to preserve a baseline 

analysis, and then develop new analyses from copies of the baseline. You can download 

a dataset to your computer and restore it to the system at a later date. You can also share 

data with a colleague by sending him or her your downloaded dataset, which your 

colleague can then upload during a session with GradeDec.NET.

Access the options for selecting, creating, deleting, downloading and uploading datasets 

from the Settings page.

2.6.3 Model Parameters and Other Data

Each dataset contains a set of model parameters (including: crossing device effectiveness 

rates; model coefficients for emissions and fuel consumptions calculations; high speed 

rail model calculations – see the Model Reference for a full description). “Other data” 

refers to traffic time-of-day distributions and cost data for grade crossing device and 

supplementary safety measures. 
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 10

These parameter and data are specific to the selected dataset and can be viewed and 

modified from the Parameters page.

2.6.4 Model

GradeDec.NET has both a corridor model and a regional model. The data requirements 

are slightly different for each model so that data collections below the Model node are 

specific to the selected model.

2.6.5 Corridor

A corridor has a set of defining values (these can be viewed and modified in the data grid 

at the bottom of the Settings page – see Section 2.1 Settings Page below) and refers to a 

collection of grade crossings along a single rail alignment. A corridor is selected in the 

data hierarchy only if the Model node is set to the corridor model. A dataset will contain 

at least one corridor and may contain as many as 50.

Create and delete corridors, and modify their defining values in the Settings page. After 

selecting a corridor, view or modify its crossings data from the Crossings page.

2.6.6 Region

A region has a set of defining values (these can be viewed and modified in the data grid 

at the bottom of the Settings page – see Section 2.1 Settings Page below) and refers to a 

collection of grade crossings in a designated region. A region is selected in the data 

hierarchy only if the Model node is set to the regional model. A dataset will contain at 

least one region and may contain as many as 50.

Create and delete regions, and modify their defining values in the Settings page. After 

selecting a region, view or modify its crossings data from the Crossings page.

2.6.7 Scenario

A scenario has a set of defining values (a description, start year, last year of near term, 

and end year) and an associated collection of scenario data. A dataset will contain at 

least one scenario for each of the two models, and may contain as many as 30 scenarios 

for each model.

Create and delete scenarios, and modify their defining values from the Settings page. 

After selecting a scenario, view and modify the scenario data from the Scenario page.

2.6.8 Results

GradeDec.NET sets the defining values of a results set automatically when you run a 

simulation. You can set the description for a results set.

Create and delete result sets, and modify its description from the Settings page. After 

selecting a results set and running a simulation, view results from the Results page.
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 11

2.7 Steps in Conducting a GradeDec.NET Analysis

2.7.1 Overview

The following table shows a sample set of steps that you would undertake to conduct 

each of the two analyses. The sections that follow walk you through these steps in a 

sample analysis. 

Table 4 GradeDec.Net Modes and Sample 

Mode of Use Functional Steps Page

(Optional) Create and select a new 

dataset

Settings

Create and select a new corridor (or

region)

Settings

Set values for corridor (or region) Settings

(Optional) Set default crossing 

device cost data

Defaults

Import data from Grade Crossing 

Inventory

Import

Verify and refine data, assumptions 

and choice of alternative

Crossings

Safety analysis

Calculate predicted accidents, 

view/print reports and charts

Crossings

Conduct all of the steps in the 

“Safety analysis” mode of use listed 

above

Create new results set Settings

Create new scenario Settings

Populate the scenario data with 

forecast data and assumptions

Scenario

Verify and modify parameters and 

other data values

Parameters

Set the simulation parameters and 

run the simulation

Simulation

Full investment 

analysis

View results table and charts, print 

report

Results

2.7.2 Safety Analysis

In this example you will set up an analysis for 10 crossings in a freight rail corridor in 

Lincoln County, Nebraska.

2.7.2.1 (Optional) Create and select a new dataset

If you skip this step, then in subsequent steps you will be using the default or other 

existing dataset. 

On the Settings page, click on the link “New” on the row with “Selected Dataset”. This 

will transfer you to the New Dataset page. On this page you choose to either “Copy an 
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 12

existing dataset” – in which case you select one of your datasets from the drop down list 

– or choose “Use sample values”. Select the second option.

Enter a name for the new dataset (i.e., “Sample analyses”.) and then click create. This 

will transfer you back to the Settings page. From the dataset drop down list, select the

dataset that you just created.

2.7.2.2 Create and select a new corridor (or region)

This section will assume that the Corridor Model is suitable for your analysis.

Select the “Corridor Model” (or ensure that it is selected) from the drop down list 

On the Settings page, click on the link “New” to the right of “Selected Corridor”. This 

will transfer you to the New Corridor page. On this page select “Use sample values and 

no crossings (modify values and add crossings later)”. Enter a name for the new corridor 

(e.g., Lincoln 1) and then click create. This will transfer you back to the Settings page. 

Enable the “Corridor” drop down list by selecting the radio button by “Selected Corridor” 

(or, ensure that it is selected).

From the “Selected Corridor” drop down list, select the corridor that you just created.

2.7.2.3 Set values for corridor (or region) characteristics

In the table at the bottom of the Settings page you need to set the characteristics that 

correspond to your corridor. This includes: the number of daily trains by type, the timeof-day distribution for rail operations in the corridor, specify yes/no whether highway 

traffic signals in the corridor are synchronized with crossing signals.

In this example, set:

♦ Passenger trains to 0

♦ Freight trains to 108

♦ Switch trains to 1

♦ Rail TOD (time-of-day) distribution to Uniform

♦ Signal Synchronization to False

Set these values by clicking “Edit” in the table next to the value to modify, enter or select 

the suitable value, then click on “Update”.

2.7.2.4 (Optional) Modify or Add Time-of-Day Traffic Distributions

If the sample time-of-day traffic distributions provided, adequately reflect the 

distributions of highway traffic at crossings and for rail movements in the corridor, then 

skip this step. Otherwise, browse to the Parameters page by clicking on the link on the 

main navigation menu. On this page select from the toolbar at the top “Other data”. 

Add new time-of-day crossings distributions as needed.
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 13

2.7.2.5 (Optional) Set default crossing device cost data

If in your analysis of safety you have no interest in the costs of improvements, then skip 

this step.

Browse to the Parameters page by clicking on the link on the main navigation menu. 

On this page select from the toolbar at the top “Other data”. From the drop down list 

select crossing device costs. Enter alternative values to the ones listed, as needed.

2.7.2.6 Import data from Grade Crossing Inventory

From the main navigation menu, select the Import page. From the drop down lists on 

the left select:

♦ State: Nebraska

♦ County: Lincoln

♦ Area: Whole County

The “Selected Areas” table will show your selection. Click on the button “Create list of 

corridors in selected areas”. The list of corridors will appear as options in the following 

drop down list. Select the corridor: UP Nebr Eastern 4 Crossings. This is the corridor 

with crossings in the selected area for the UP railroad, Nebraska division, Eastern 

subdivision. In this example there are four crossings.

You can view the National Grade Crossings Inventory data for the selected crossings at 

the table at the bottom of the page. You can modify the options and criteria that appear 

on the right side of the page (see the section 5.1 Import Page section for full description), 

or you can just click on “Import crossings data” to import your data to your Lincoln 1 

corridor. After clicking import, your browser will automatically shift to the Crossings

page.

2.7.2.7 Verify and refine data, assumptions and choice of alternatives

In the Crossings you can browse the imported data and make any modifications that you 

need. Also, in the “General” section you can view and modify the choices for the 

improvement alternative.

2.7.2.8 Calculate predicted accidents, view/print reports and charts

When you are satisfied with the data and the alternative selections, click on the calculator 

button on the toolbar in order to calculate the predicted accidents for each crossing and 

for the whole corridor. You can view the results in the “Accident Prediction” section of 

the page.

You can generate a report for viewing and printing by pressing the report icon button. 

You can view a chart of the predicted accidents by selecting the chart icon button.

2.7.3 Full Investment Analysis

For a full investment analysis, complete the steps above for the safety analysis.
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 14

2.7.3.1 Create new results set

On the main navigation menu, click on the link Settings to return to the Settings page. 

On the Settings page, click on the radio button on the next to “Selected results set” and 

then click the lower of the two “New” links. This will launch the New Results page. On 

this page, enter the name of the new results set “Lincoln UP, Base” and then click the 

“Create” button. Your browser will create the results set and shift back to the Settings 

page. Now from the drop down list select the newly created results set. 

2.7.3.2 Create new scenario

Now click on the radio button next to “Selected scenario” and then click the lower of the 

two “New” links. This will launch the New Scenario page. Select “Copy an existing 

scenario” and select from the drop down list the sample “Base scenario” scenario. You 

can leave the year settings (Start year: 2003, last year near term: 2007, end year: 2027) at 

their default values, or modify them if you wish. These vales determine the first and last 

years of the analysis time horizon, and, the periods in which the respective near-term and 

far-term growth rates are applied. Enter a name for the scenario (e.g., Lincoln base) and 

click on “Create”. Your browser will create the scenario and shift back to the Settings 

page. Now from the drop down list select the newly created scenario. 

2.7.3.3 Modify the scenario data with forecast values and assumptions for your 

analysis

Click on the Scenario link of the main navigation menu. Your browser will transfer to 

the Scenario page. This page will display the scenario that you selected. This scenario is 

pre-populated with the sample values copied from the “Base scenario”. Modify these 

values to suit your analysis.

The scenario data variables are organized by topic areas: rail operations, highway, social 

costs and prices. You select a topic area by using the drop down list on the upper left. 

You select a variable within a topic area by browsing to it using the up and down 

pointing finger icons, or by clicking on a “Select” link in the table in the lower part of the 

page.

The data for the scenario variables are either a fixed value, or two or three values that 

define a probability distribution. You select the type of probability distribution (skewed 

bell, normal, uniform or triangle) from the drop down list at the upper left of the page. 

You enter values in the designated text boxes and buttons on the toolbar allow you to 

commit (“save”) your modifications, undo them or refresh the chart and the tables on the 

page.

2.7.3.4 Verify or modify parameters and other data values

Browse to the Parameters page by clicking on the link on the main navigation menu. 

On this page select from the toolbar at the top “Model Parameters”. Select from the drop 

down list a table of values to view. If for your analysis you have local information that is 

better suited than the standard values supplied with GradeDec.NET, then edit the model 

values here (see the Model Reference) for documentation of the equations in the 

GradeDec.NET model.
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 15

2.7.3.5 Set the simulation parameters and run the simulation

Browse to the Simulation page by clicking on the link on the main navigation menu. On 

this page set the parameters for running a risk analysis of the benefit-cost of the program 

of improvements defined in Crossings, with the probability distributions described in 

Scenario. You can run your simulation with the default values, or modify them and take 

advantage of the options on this page. When ready, click on the green traffic light icon to 

run the simulation. When completed, your browser will shift to the Results page.

2.7.3.6 View results table and charts, print report

On the Results view your analysis results on the tables and charts that this page makes 

available.

GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 17

MODULE 3 STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS IN 

EVALUATION

3.1 Conceptual Framework for Evaluation

EVALUATE

Impacts

Benefit-Cost and ROR

Overal Merit

Legal/Regulatory

Compliance

SET GOALS AND

BOUNDARIES

Objectives

Concerns of decision-makers

Budget and funding

Legal, regulatory and administrative

EVALUATION FRAMEWORK

COLLECT DATA

Base Case Configuration

Costs

Operational data

Social cost inputs

DEVELOP

ALTERNATIVES

DECISION-MAKING

3.2 Objectives of Evaluation

An analysis of grade crossing improvements can have one or several objectives:

• To address acute safety issues for a crossing, corridor or region.

• To support funding allocation decisions for safety improvements.

• To support investment analysis decisions considering the additional 

benefits of congestion relief and emissions reduction.

• To develop a grade crossing improvement program to accommodate 

high speed rail initiatives.

• To evaluate compliance with new and emerging regulations that 

govern horn-blowing, whistle bans and grade crossing quiet zones.
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 18

3.2.1 Safety Analysis

• Estimate predicted accidents and severity for specified corridor or 

region and evaluate the safety impacts of improvements and mitigating 

measures.

• Mitigation of risk for high-speed rail corridors.

3.2.2 Analysis of Compliance with 49 CFR Parts 222 and 229

• Analyze the change in predicted accidents and severity in corridor or 

region with “quiet zones” and mitigating measures.

3.2.3 Non-Safety Impacts

• Non-safety benefits stem from reduced queuing at crossings. In 

general, these benefits (or, disbenefits) will accrue only in the event 

that improvements include grade separations. Grade crossing closures 

may result in safety benefits, but also may cause highway travelers to 

drive circuitous routes and queue more at other crossings.

3.2.4 Investment Analysis and Resource Allocation Decisions

• Conduct analyses supporting resource allocation decisions. Evaluate 

the comprehensive benefits and costs associated with improvement 

alternatives in a crossing or region.

• Recommend alternatives based upon objective decision criteria

3.3 Evaluation Context

• Conduct your evaluation with concerns of decision makers in mind.

• Conduct discussions with stakeholders to gauge their concerns. Listen 

especially to the concerns of the rail operators, affected agencies and 

affected citizens.

• Understand the impacts of rules, regulations and pre-existing 

agreements that could affect improvements and their cost- and 

liability-bearing implications.
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 19

MODULE 4 WORKSHOP CASE STUDY

4.1 Introduction

In this section we present a case study from which subsequent examples in the course 

will be drawn. The case study is a hypothetical analysis that does not correspond to an 

actual plan under consideration.

4.2 The Case Study

4.2.1 The Study Area

(Note: the case study has been developed for exposition purposes and use in the 

training workshop. While based on an actual corridor, some of the data do not 

reflect actual conditions in this corridor).

The corridor under evaluation is a six-mile segment of a freight line belonging to CSX in 

Broward County, Florida (on the map below, it is the western alignment). The corridor is 

situated within a dense, urban highway network and there are 5 crossings, some with 

highway traffic volumes between 13000 and 59000 AADT. At two of the crossings there 

have been accidents in the previous five years. There are 38 daily freight trains and 3 

switch trains in the corridor. The time-of-day distribution of rail traffic closely resembles 

the AM Peak distribution.

The local jurisdiction seeks solutions for improved safety and reduced highway 

congestion. Initial budget guidelines include up to $5 million for rail crossing device 

improvements and up to $15 million of highway funding for roadway improvements 

including grade separations.
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 20

Figure 4 Map of the Case Study Area

4.3 The Case Study Data in GradeDec.NET

From the Settings page select the corridor labeled “CSX - South Florida

4.3.1 Customizing the Crossing Data for the Analysis

With the default options in the Import Crossing Data Form, alternate crossing 

improvements were assigned to each crossing that was imported. You can manually 

customize the alternate crossing. In addition, you should review each crossing and set 

data and parameters that best reflect the conditions at the crossing. This should be done 

in conjunction with developing alternatives (see the following section).

In particular you should review and examine the following factors:

• Supplementary Safety Measures – GradeDec.NET allows for seven 

supplementary safety measures that are available for gated crossings 

and you can include these in your crossing improvements. The seven 

measures are: four quadrant-gates (without detection), four-quadrant 

gates (with detection), four-quadrant gates with 60 foot medians, 

mountable curbs, barrier curbs, one-way street, and photo 

enforcement.

• Time-of-day Traffic Distribution – In the corridor definition (see the 

Settings Form), the user sets the time-of-day distribution for rail 

operations in the corridor. The time-of-day distribution of highway 

traffic at the crossing will determine the degree of exposure to accident 

risk. For each crossing, the user can set the time-of-day distribution 
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 21

for each of three highway traffic segments: car, truck and bus. There 

are five default time-of-day distributions. However, you can enter 

additional distributions in the Default Values and Parameters Form. 

See the Reference Manual for additional discussion of the time-of-day 

distribution.

• Traffic Management Measures – An additional option to consider in 

the alternate case is the implementation of traffic management 

measures (i.e., signage, restricted turns, restrictions on trucks, periodic 

closure of crossings) that result in changes to the flow of highway 

traffic at the crossing. If the box is checked for “Measures in 

alternative the re-direct traffic flow at crossing”, then the user needs to 

specify the anticipated changes to AADT and time-of-day distribution 

of traffic by segment (car, truck, bus) at the crossing.

• Costs (for investment analysis only) – The base case costs (operating 

and maintenance, other lifecycle) and alternate case costs (O&M, other 

lifecycle and capital costs) should be specified for each crossing. The 

user can specify default values (set in the Default Values and 

Parameters Form). 

4.3.2 Additional Data (Required for Investment Analysis)

The data in the previous section are all entered from the Corridor Crossings Form. With 

this data alone, the user can conduct safety impact analyses from within this form. The 

user can view a ranking of the crossings for the base case and the alternate case, generate 

reports and evaluate the corridor-wide safety impacts.

In order to conduct an investment analysis of proposed improvements, the user needs to 

define a scenario, or specify an existing scenario, and populate the scenario with data.

4.3.2.1 Defining the scenario

From the Settings Form, the user either selects a scenario or creates a new scenario by 

selecting the “Create new scenario” option from the menu. To define a scenario the only 

requirements are to enter values for: scenario name, start year of the analysis, last year of 

near term, and last year. The user can select to pre-populate the scenario with data from 

an existing scenario, or, all scenario data can be initialized as zero.

4.3.2.2 Populating the scenario with data

The scenario contains variables and data that are divided into five groups: Rail 

operations, highway operations, social costs and prices. For each variable, the user can 

specify either a fixed value or one of several probability distributions. The probability 

distributions require either 2 or 3 values that describe a range from which values are 

sampled during a simulation (see the section on risk analysis). When entering data for a 

new scenario it is often helpful to export the data to a spreadsheet using the export option 

from the toolbar in the Scenario Form, and then modify the data in a spreadsheet and 

import it back to GradeDec.NET.
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 22

The sections on Investment Analysis, Safety and Non-Safety Benefits discuss how the 

scenario data are used to arrive at the calculation of benefits.

4.3.2.3 Sources of Data

Users can look to a number of sources for your data. For rail and highway operations 

data, the railroads and state DOTs are good, likely sources. Regarding forecast traffic 

growth the best source is likely to be the local MPO (for metropolitan areas). For social 

costs you may want to rely on the default values that come packaged with 

GradeDec.NET, unless the user has access to better sources reflecting local conditions.

The Reference Manual contains a complete description of the data requirements for 

GradeDec.NET. Appendix A contains blank and sample data sheets that you can use for 

collecting data for your analysis.
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 23

MODULE 5 DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES

5.1 Introduction

In this section we review the crossing data and identify improvements in accordance with 

the study’s objectives. For the Case Study, the objectives are: Improve safety and 

mitigate traffic congestion.

5.2 Identify Accident Risk in the Corridor

Two of the convenient features for identifying accident risk in the corridor are: 1) the 

corridor summary of predicted accidents and 2) the Corridor Risk Charts.

Double-click on the “Crossings” link on the navigation bar to browse to the Crossings 

page. On the page, click on the tab “Accident Prediction”. This shows you the predicted 

accidents by type for the crossing and the corridor. For now we focus on the Base Case. 

The Alternate Case reflects the automatic assignment of improvements from the data 

import process – in this section we seek to refine the improvements in the alternate case.

Note that the table shows total annual predicted accidents in the corridor to be .648125 in 

the base case. 

Figure 5 Case Study - Summary Table of Predicted Accidents

The table also shows that for the selected crossing (Milepost 1018.78) the predicted 

accidents in the base case is 0.03903. You can browse each crossing to find its predicted 

accident and pick out the higher risk crossing. 
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 24

An easier way to accomplish this is using the charting feature. Click on the bar chart icon 

in the tool bar. The first chart you see displays crossings by predicted fatal accidents. 

This gives you a good initial indicator of which crossings contribute the most to accident 

risk in the corridor.

The chart below is the crossings for the Case Study corridor:

Figure 6 Case Study - Ranking of Accident Risk by Crossings in Corridor

By selecting options in the drop-down lists you can show the cumulative risk in the 

corridor and rank the crossings by predicted fatal accidents.

The chart shows us that the first two riskiest crossings contribute nearly 80% of the 

accident risk in the corridor. In developing alternatives, this should indicate where to 

devote resources to best meet your safety objective.

5.3 Summarizing Improvement Targets

For the Case Study corridor the following table shows the ranked fatal accident risk by 

crossing. For corridors with a large number of crossings you may want to focus only on 

the crossings that contribute 50 or 80 percent of the total risk in the corridor.

Table 5 Ranking of Crossings with over 50% of Accident Risk in Corridor

Rank ID Milepost Predicted annual 

fatal accidents

1 628290Y 1021.10 0.0376

2 628281A 1019.83 0.0152

3 628282G 1020.85 0.0078

4 628280T 1019.30 0.0070

5 628279Y 1018.78 0.0051
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 25

The next table looks at crossings from the perspective of the congestion management 

objective. Here the crossings are ranked by AADT.

Table 6 Crossings in Case Study Corridor Ranked by AADT

Rank ID Milepost AADT

1 628281A 1019.83 59000

2 628282G 1020.85 32900

3 628290Y 1021.10 29700

4 628280T 1019.30 15500

5 628279Y 1018.78 13674

All crossings in the corridor are gated.

5.4 Developing Alternatives

In developing alternatives, use the information that has been gathered in this section to 

screen and assign alternatives to crossings in the corridor. You should, of course, 

examine additional factors that are covered in a comprehensive engineering review. 

These factors include: roadway geometry, humped crossings, line-of-sight issues and 

others. For a comprehensive review of factors to consider consult the “Rail-Highway 

Grade Crossing Handbook”.

5.4.1 Select Candidates for Closures

Candidates for closures are high-risk, low-volume crossings. Closures can adversely 

impact neighborhoods and businesses, especially if alternative routings are long and 

circuitous. Agencies considering closures should gauge the local impacts to determine 

the suitability of closure.

In the Case Study corridor, the low volume crossings are also the lowest risk crossings 

and have no accident history. No closures are recommended in the Case Study corridor.

5.4.2 Select Candidates for Grade Separation

The natural candidates to consider for grade separation are those crossings that are high 

risk and high volume. Grade separation practically eliminates accident risk and 

congestion, however, usually at a high cost. Separation may be extremely costly in urban 

settings where solutions potentially infringe upon developed and valued real estate.

5.4.3 Select Other Improvements

Other improvements in the corridor could follow a broad policy guideline. Apply the 

following guideline to select the other improvements in our Case Study corridor.

Upgrade crossings to four quadrant gates that meet either or both of the following 

criteria:
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 26

• At least one accident in the previous five year period, or

• AADT exceeds 10,000

Also, upgrade the passive crossing to lights and gates.

5.4.4 The Alternate Case

The following table shows the crossing device improvements to include in the alternate 

case. 

Enter costs for each crossing or use the default costs. The default costs can be modified 

in the Parameters and Default Values Form.

Table 7 Alternatives for Crossings in Corridor

ID Milepost Alternative

628281A 1019.83 Grade separation

628282G 1020.85 Barrier curbs

628290Y 1021.10 4Quad - 60’ 

medians

628280T 1019.30 Mountable curbs

628279Y 1018.78 4Quad - 60’ 

medians

5.4.5 Creating Additional Alternatives

You can create and save more than one alternative set of improvements. Do this by 

returning to the Settings Form and create a new corridor, this time using the Case Study 

corridor as the source to copy. Give the new corridor a name like “CSX, South Florida –

Alternative 2”. Develop your alternative and enter the data in the crossings for the newly 

defined corridor.

5.5 Managing your Data and Creating Versions

GradeDec.NET automatically stores your data on the GradeDec.NET server. Data are 

saved automatically when you import from the National Grade Crossing Inventory and 

when you click on either the “Update” or “Calculate Predicted Accidents” icons.

From the Settings page you can download your dataset and save it locally as a backup 

(or, in case you wish to delete your data from GradeDec.NET server. You can upload 

your dataset for use in a subsequent session.
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 27

MODULE 6 SAFETY ANALYSIS USING THE ACCIDENT 

PREDICTION AND SEVERITY MODEL (APS)

6.1 Introduction

This section covers safety benefits using the Department of Transportation Accident 

Prediction and Severity Models. This model is one of two models in GradeDec.NET that 

is used for estimating safety impacts and is available for both the Corridor and Regional 

models. The other model, the High Speed Rail model, is available only in the Corridor 

Model.

In GradeDec.NET, there are two levels of safety analysis:

• The Crossing pages show predicted accidents and includes ranking 

charts for the base year data.

• The simulation results report on the monetized safety benefits, corridor 

summary and by crossings, for the full forecast time horizon. The 

results also report the changes between base and alternate predicted 

accidents for selected years.

6.2 Analysis with the Crossing Pages

In the Corridor and Regional Crossing pages, you can evaluate the predicted accidents in 

the base year (this is the year that precedes the “Start” year of the analysis). Select the 

tab “Accidents”. This shows a table of the predicted accidents for the selected crossing 

and the corridor (or region), for each of the three accident categories (fatal, injury and 

property damage only). The values here are calculated based upon the data for the 

corridor or region and each of the individual crossings. 

At the end of this section there is a demonstration of the calculation of predicted 

accidents using the Accident Prediction and Severity Models.

In addition to this table, by clicking on the bar chart icon on the toolbar of the Crossing 

page you can view summary charts that rank crossings by predicted fatal accidents in the 

base year.

Analysis from the Crossing page is useful in identifying those crossings with the highest 

risk. You can use this information to screen and develop alternatives, prior to conducting 

you full analysis (that covers all benefit categories and all years of the forecast time 

horizon).

6.3 Analysis Results

Run a simulation (see Module 9) after completing the following tasks:

• Select the alternative for each crossing and enter data as required

• Select a scenario and modify data as required

• Verify that the parameter and default values are suited to your locale
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 28

When a simulation completes the results form appears. From the results form you can 

view the safety benefits that comprehensively cover the time horizon of the proposed 

improvement program. The following results metrics track the safety benefits in 

GradeDec.NET. The “safety benefits” in the GradeDec.NET results is:

• The reduction in predicted accidents (base less alternate) by accident 

type (fatal, injury and property damage only), with each type 

multiplied by its social cost and summed. Total safety benefits for the 

corridor is summed over the crossings in each year and the present 

value of the safety benefit stream is reported in the “Benefits and 

Benefit-Cost Summary” sheet of the Results page.

Safety benefits are also tracked in the results through the following:

• The present value safety benefit is given for each individual grade 

crossing in the “Benefit by GCX – Safety” sheet. 

• A quantity measure, the decrease in predicted fatal, injury and property 

damage only accidents is reported for each of three years: the start 

year, the last year of the near term and the last year.

• The Ranking Charts Form will show a ranking of crossings by their 

safety benefit (charts include bar chart, horizontal bar, first/next chart, 

cumulative chart and benefits with costs chart).
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 29

ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS

SAFETY BENEFITS (Module 6)

A. Predicted Accidents - Calculate Exposure Correlation Factor

D E F G

Determine Inputs

Early AM Late AM Early PM Late 

PM

6 Time-of-day distribution of trains 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.4

7 Time-of-day distribution of autos 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.1

8 Time-of-day distribution of trucks 0.1 0.5 0.35 0.05

9 Time-of-day distribution of buses 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.1

10

11 of this, % trucks 28

12 of this, % buses 2

13

14 Share of auto traffic 0.7

15 Share of truck traffic 0.28

16 Share of bus traffic 0.02

17

18 Calculate Factor

19 Weighted highway time-of-day 

distribution

0.1 0.428 0.386 0.086 =SUMPRODUCT(D7:D9,$D$14:$D$16)

20 Weighted with time-of-day 

distribution

0.1558 =SUMPRODUCT(D19:G19,D6:G6)

21 Sum-of-squares, train distribution 0.34 =SUMPRODUCT(D6:G6,D6:G6)

22 Sum-of-squares, weighted 

highway distribution

0.349576 =SUMPRODUCT(D19:G19,D19:G19)

23 Exposure Correlation Factor 0.445683 =D20/MAX(D22,D21)
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 30

ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS

SAFETY BENEFITS (Module 6)

B. Predicted Accidents - Calculate Factors and Predicted 

Accidents

(Calculation for a gated crossing)

B C D

2

3

4 Exposure - "EI"

5 Average daily train operations 16

6 AADT 4500

7 Exposure correlation factor 0.44568277

8 Exposure factor 43320.365 =1.35*D4*D5*D6

9 "EI" 37.1323 =((D7+0.2)/0.2)^0.2942

10

11 Day Through - "DT"

12 Total day through trains 10

13 "DT" 1.3 =((B10+0.2)/2)^0.1781

14

15 Maximum Timetable Speed - "MS"

16 Maximum timetable speed 55

17 "MS" 1 Fixed for gated crossings

18

19 Number of Tracks - "MT"

20 Number of tracks 2

21 "MT" 1.35310 =EXP(0.1512*B19)

22

23 Number of Highway Lanes - "HL"

24 Number of lanes 2

25 "HL" 1.152576649 =EXP(0.142*(B23-1))

26

27 Highway Pavement - "HP"

28 Paved=1, Not paved=2 1

29 "HP" 1 Fixed for gated crossings

30

31 Constant 0.000575 Fixed for gated crossings

32 Adjustment factor 0.4921 Fixed for gated crossings

33

34 Number of accidents - first estimate 0.044469386 =B8*B12*B16*B20*B24*B28*B30

35 Adjusting factor 10.58543982 =1/(0.05+B33)

36 Number of Accidents at crossing in 5 years 0

37 Number of accidents - revised estimate 0.030203062 =((B33*B34)+B35)/(B34+5)
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 31

ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS

SAFETY BENEFITS (Module 6)

A. Number of Accidents by Severity

B C D

3 Maximum timetable speed 55

4 Maximum speed factor fatal accidents 0.018321 =C3^-0.9981

5 Maximum speed factor casualty accidents 0.252962 =C3^-0.343

6 Number of through trains 12

7 Through trains factor 0.799584 =(C6+1)^-0.0872

8 Number of switch trains 4

9 Switch trains factor 1.150668 =(C8+1)^0.0872

10 If urban then 1, else 0 1

11 Urban factor fatal accidents 1.429179 =EXP(C10*0.3571)

12 Urban factor casualty accidents 1.34447 =EXP(C10*0.296)

13 Number of tracks 2

14 Track factor 1.259355 =EXP(C13*0.1153)

15 Number of predicted accidents 0.030203

16

17 Fatal Accidents 0.000796 =C15/(1+440.9*C4*C7*C8*C11)

18 Casualty Accidents 0.005142 =C15/(1+4.481*C5*C7*C8*C12)

19 Injury Accidents 0.004345 =C18-C17

20 Property Damage Only Accidents 0.025061 =C15-C17-C19
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 32
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 33

MODULE 7 SAFETY ANALYSIS USING THE HIGH 

SPEED RAIL MODEL

7.1 Introduction

This section covers safety benefits using the High Speed Rail Model (HSR) that was 

developed by the Federal Railroad Administration and the Volpe National Transportation 

Center. This model is only available for corridor analysis.

The HSR model was developed to assist in evaluating risk along corridors that are 

designated for new, higher speed rail service. These services will operate with speeds 

exceeding 80 mph. Two of the issues for higher speed rail that are not addressed by the 

Accident Prediction and Severity model are:

• Accident severity increasing with train speed, and

• Identification of casualties by mode.

The first issue is important because speed is a distinguishing characteristic of proposed 

new rail services and the safety and risk associated with them are basic concerns. Note 

that in the current version of GradeDec.NET (corresponding to the most recently 

published version of the HSR model), predicted accidents are not a function of the 

crossing’s accident history (as is the case with 

Identifying predicted casualties by mode is important because of the need to closely 

scrutinize the safety of new public carrier services.

As with the APS model, there are two levels of safety analysis for the HSR model:

• The Crossing page shows predicted accidents and includes ranking 

charts for the base year data.

• The simulation results report on the monetized safety benefits, corridor 

summary and by crossings, for the full forecast time horizon. The 

results also report the changes between base and alternate predicted 

accidents for selected years.

7.2 Analysis with the Crossing Page

In the Corridor and Regional Crossing page, you can evaluate the predicted accidents in 

the base year (this is the year that precedes the “Start” year of the analysis). Click on the 

tab in the toolbar “HSR Model”. This shows a table of the predicted fatalities and 

injuries by mode, and, then number of accidents for the selected crossing and the 

corridor. The values here are calculated based upon the data for the corridor or region 

and each of the individual crossings. 

At the end of this section there is a demonstration of the calculation of predicted 

accidents using the High Speed Rail Model.

Use the Summary Charts as described in the previous section.
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 34

7.3 Analysis Results

Run a simulation (see Module 9) after completing the following tasks:

• Select the alternative for each crossing and enter data as required

• Select a scenario and modify data as required

• Verify that the parameter and default values are suited to your locale

When a simulation completes the results form appears. From the results form you can 

view the safety benefits that comprehensively cover the time horizon of the proposed 

improvement program. The following results metrics track the safety benefits in 

GradeDec.NET. The “safety benefits” in the GradeDec.NET results is:

• The reduction in predicted fatalities, injuries and property damage 

(base less alternate), with each incident multiplied by its social cost 

and summed. Total safety benefits for the corridor is summed over the 

crossings in each year and the present value of the safety benefit 

stream is reported in the “Benefits and Benefit-Cost Summary” sheet 

of the Results page.

Safety benefits are also tracked in the results through the following:

• The present value safety benefit is given for each individual grade 

crossing in the “Benefit by GCX – Safety” sheet. 

• A quantity measure, the decrease in predicted fatalities, injuries and 

accidents is reported for each of three years: the start year, the last year 

of the near term and the last year.

• The ranking charts will show a ranking of crossings by their safety 

benefit (charts include bar chart and cumulative chart, and benefits 

with costs chart).
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 35

MODULE 8 INVESTMENT ANALYSIS

8.1 Introduction

This section covers the investment analysis framework of GradeDec.NET. It examines 

the scope of benefits and costs, the timing assumptions, measures of project worth, the 

model logic for investment analysis and decision support for choosing a preferred 

alternative. A discussion of the benefits and their calculations are presented in sections 6, 

7 and 9.

8.2 General Framework

There may be several factors that motivate the identification and evaluation of 

improvements at grade crossings. For instance:

• A jurisdiction may seek to develop new passenger service on an 

existing freight or passenger line, and thus needs to address the new 

accident risk that arises at crossings.

• Highway traffic growth, a recent spate of accidents or a local initiative 

to improve safety in a corridor or region may spawn a search for 

solutions.

• In some areas residents have demanded “quiet zones” where trains 

approaching crossings cannot sound whistles or horns. In such cases, 

a jurisdiction needs to implement supplementary safety measures to 

achieve at least the prescribed level of safety set forth in Federal 

regulations.

Whatever the motivation, the jurisdiction has a clear vision of the future that includes 

specified levels of highway and rail traffic. This vision (which may include new rail 

service, or perhaps, involves only the status quo plus projected growth) represents the 

base case of the analysis. The base case is the default case against which alternative 

improvement programs are to be compared. The base case could be a pure “no build” 

case, or, it could include a minimal set of crossing improvements that might be 

implemented as a default improvement program.

The evaluation (benefit-cost or investment analysis) compares the effects of 

improvements to the grade crossings (the alternate case) with the effects of the crossings 

in the base case. “Effects” are quantities that may have a positive value to consumers 

(like induced trips) and are benefits. Effects of grade crossings are typically negative and 

are properly called “disbenefits” (e.g., predicted accidents, vehicle delay, emissions). 

The highway benefit-cost literature often calls these disbenefits “user costs”. The 

benefits from improvements are, for the most part, a reduction in the disbenefits incurred 

at grade crossings.

In order to aggregate the benefits across categories and compare them with the costs of 

capital investment and changes in operating costs, the benefit quantities are monetized 

(converted to money values) by multiplying them by “social costs”, which are unit 
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 36

prices (see discussion below). In order to compare the benefits and costs that occur in 

different years, the money values are discounted which brings them to their present value 

equivalent. The principal measures of economic worth and efficiency, which are benefitcost decision criteria, are derived from the monetized streams of benefits and costs and 

are discussed in the next section.

GradeDec.NET implements the investment analysis framework in the following manner. 

First, the model re-assigns highway traffic as a result of closures or grade separation in 

the alternate case. In each year, the model determines the projected growth of rail and 

highway traffic and evaluates the benefits and costs at each crossing and the results are 

summarized for each crossing and year, and for the entire forecast period as well. Note 

that GradeDec.NET conducts risk analysis using a technique called Monte Carlo 

simulation (see the section on risk analysis) so the above procedure is repeated for each 

trial of a simulation.

The following diagram illustrates the logic flow of a GradeDec.NET analysis.

loop on years

loop on

crossings

Evaluate predicted

accidents - base

and alt cases

Evaluate nonsafety impacts -

base and alt cases

Calculate benefits

and costs

Sum for corridor

Calculate PV and

benefit-cost

summary

next year

done

done next crossing

start simulation

trial

Re-assign base

year traffic for

closures and

separations

End of simulation

trial

Calculate growth

factors and price

indices

Evaluate highway

volume at

crossings for base

and alt cases

Figure 7 Investment Analysis Logic Flow in GradeDec.NET
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 37

8.3 Measures of Economic Worth and Efficiency

The measures of economic worth are presented in the following table. The summary 

results of GradeDec.NET include the present value of each benefits category for the 

corridor or region, and each of the measures of economic worth.

Measure Threshold Value - “Passes” 

the Benefit-Cost Test

Meaning

NPV

Net Present Value NPV>0

The Net Present Value is the 

present value of benefits less the 

costs. Maximizing NPV is 

society’s best solution if capital 

resources are unconstrained.

BCR

Benefit-Cost Ratio BCR>1

The Benefit-Cost Ratio is the 

present value of benefits divided 

by the cost. The BCR is an 

indicator of “bang for the buck” –

it tells how much benefit is gained 

per dollar of cost. 

ROR

Rate of Return ROR>discount rate

The ROR is the breakeven 

discount rate (i.e., for given cost 

and benefit streams, NPV=0 when 

the discount rate equals ROR). 

ROR is an indicator of investment 

performance and enables 

comparisons with returns on 

financial instruments

Table 8 Summary Measures and their Meanings

These measures are similar and at the threshold levels they are equivalent. However, 

each of the three measures can yield a different ranking of alternatives. The ranking by 

NPV is best for determining the absolute economic worth. However, when capital 

resources are constrained the BCR ranking tells you which alternative gives the most 

yield per dollar of cost expended. The ROR ranking allows ready comparison with 

alternative financial investments (however, note that the social benefits, while possessing 

economic value, may not be associated with an identifiable or capturable flow of funds).

8.4 Comparing Alternatives

The purpose of evaluation is to aid decision-makers and other interested parties in 1) 

determining whether the costs of improvements are justified by the anticipated benefits, 

2) understanding key differences among alternatives 3) demonstrating the extent to which 

corridor improvements meet objectives. 

The main evaluation criteria of GradeDec.NET address overall economic worth. A 

crossing improvement program's evaluation should be supplemented with qualitative 

material that informs with regard to overall environmental implication, equity of 
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 38

improvements (especially impacts of closures), financial feasibility, legal and 

administrative feasibility, and community acceptance.

The results and reporting capabilities of GradeDec.NET enable the user to view the 

outcomes with a full drill down by benefits category and grade crossing. This is useful 

for honing in on specific problems and refining your alternative so that it best meet 

objectives while avoiding inefficiencies.

8.5 Timing Assumptions

In GradeDec.NET you specify the time horizon of the analysis in the scenario definition, 

entering the start year, the end year and the last year of the near term. By assumptions, 

capital investments are made at the end of the year preceding the start year (or, if your 

analysis includes capital programming, in the year prior to the improvement’s first year 

of operation). The effects at the crossings in the base and alternate cases are evaluated 

from the start year forward, when the benefits of the improvements begin to accrue. 

Thus capital investment outlays are made in the year preceding the start year and in each 

year there are incremental (alternate less base) costs of operating and maintaining the 

crossings. In each year from start to end there are benefit streams that equal base case 

accident and user costs less those costs in the alternate case.

8.6 Social Costs

In calculating benefit components, GradeDec.NET recognizes that these are a direct 

function of travel forecasts on the highway and rail modes, which tend to grow over time.

For each year of the analysis GradeDec.NET evaluates the effects at each crossing in 

each benefit category. These effects are converted to money values using the appropriate 

social cost as a price. What are social costs? They are the equivalent money value of 

benefits to the consumer and society. For goods that are bought and sold in competitive 

markets, social costs are equal to the market price. However, other costs - like the value 

of a statistical life, travel time, or the cost of emissions - have no directly observable 

market price tag. These are estimated through techniques that impute social cost through 

survey methods or from indirect, but observable data. 

Social costs effectively apply weights to the different benefits. In general, it is best to 

defer to "accepted" values that are in use by Federal, State or local agencies, or, that have 

been employed in major studies. There may indeed exist local conditions or preferences 

that justify deviating from accepted values. However, the analyst should feel confident 

that there is ample justification for pursuing alternate social cost values.

8.7 Current, Constant and Present Value Dollars

One should be aware of three different dollar measures, these are:

Current Dollars – current dollars refer to the actual dollars that are expended in some 

given year. For instance, an item that costs $100 today may cost $110 five years from 

now because of price inflation. $110 is the current dollar cost of the item five years from 

now.
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 39

Constant Dollars – constant dollars refer to expenditures in any year in terms of the 

prices from a specified year (in GradeDec.NET, the base year is used). The item that 

costs $100 this year costs $100 in constant dollars in any future year. Constant dollars 

equal current dollars net of the effects of price inflation.

Present Value Dollars – Present value dollars are explained in the next section on the 

discount rate.

In GradeDec.NET, all of the dollar values of the inputs (scenario data and grade crossing 

cross data) are constant dollar values. GradeDec.NET includes two price indices in the 

scenario data – one for general price inflation and one for fuel price inflation. Since fuel 

prices may diverge significantly from the general price level, these two indices are used 

to calculate the constant dollar value of fuel and oil cost savings (due to reduced vehicle 

time-in-queue at crossings) in future years. For the use of these price indices, see the 

GradeDec.NET Reference Manual, Equation 23.

8.8 The Discount Rate

Costs and benefits that accrue in different time periods are comparable through 

discounting. Discounting reflects society’s preference for realizing benefits sooner rather 

than later. A discount rate also represents the opportunity cost of capital – presumably, if 

capital were not invested in grade crossing improvements it could be put to use in 

alternative investments that would, on average, yield a return equal to or exceeding the 

discount rate. The discount rate should not be confused with price changes due to 

inflation.

The discount rate represents society’s choice of the appropriate rate of return on its 

investments and reflects current views on the cost and availability of capital. The choice 

of discount rate is a policy decision.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) specifies a discount rate for use in 

evaluating federal investments. A proposed rate is based on consideration of capital 

availability, market conditions, general social preferences for consumption in the present 

versus consumption in the future. In the 1970s and 1980s OMB recommended a 10 

percent discount rate. In the 1990s, a 7 percent constant dollar rate was recommended by 

OMB. Some economists recommend that the discount rate for long-term infrastructure 

investment be set as low as 4 percent.

Why is this important? Because many investments will pass a benefit-cost test at a low 

discount rate, but will fail at a higher rate. 

The example below shows a benefits stream in constant dollars, its present value 

equivalent (at 5 percent discount rate) and the present value for the analysis period 

(which is the sum of the present value of the benefit in each period).

Table 9 Example of Discounting and Present Value

SAFETY BENEFITS FOR CORRIDOR

Constant 

Dollars

Present 

Value

2002 450.00 428.57

2003 459.00 416.33
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 40

2004 468.18 404.43

2005 477.54 392.88

2006 487.09 381.65

2007 496.84 370.75

2008 506.77 360.15

2009 516.91 349.86

2010 527.25 339.87

2011 537.79 330.16

2012 548.55 320.72

2013 559.52 311.56

2014 570.71 302.66

2015 582.12 294.01

PV for Analysis Period 

======>

5003.60

Note that the values in the above table are net of the effects of inflation. The annual 

increase in benefits is due largely to the increase in traffic and exposure at the grade 

crossings.

8.9 Costs and Benefits

The figure below shows the benefits and costs that GradeDec.NET evaluates. The 

following sections describe these.

COSTS

ü Capital

ü Operating and Maintentance

ü Other Lifecycle Costs

BENEFITS

ü Reduced accidents

ü Reduced highway travel delay

ü Reduced user borne vehicle operating costs

ü Reduced emissions

ü Reduced network delay

ü Benefits and costs of discouraged or induced travel

Figure 8 Benefits and Costs in GradeDec.NET
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 41

8.10 Costs

8.10.1 Capital

Capital costs are the outlays for grade crossing improvements. The capital costs include 

the expenses for construction, mechanical devices and any associated expenditures on 

wiring and communications. The GradeDec.NET model assumes that capital 

expenditures on grade crossing improvements are made in the year that precedes the first 

year of the analysis (if your analysis includes capital programming then investments in 

one or two phases can be specified for any year for each crossing).

8.10.2 Operating and Maintenance Costs

Operating and maintenance costs are the equivalent fixed annual expenditures in constant 

dollars required for the sound upkeep and operations of the grade crossing traffic control 

devices, signage and barriers.

8.10.3 Lifecycle Costs

These costs represent periodic refurbishment of equipments that are not expended 

annually. The maintenance schedule for the crossing devices may call for certain 

replacements every three or five years. The lifecycle cost represents the annualized value 

of the lifecycle cost (i.e., suppose that every third year a crossing device requires a 

$1,000 refurbishment. A payment of $317.21 in each of three years, with a five percent 

discount rate is equivalent to a payment of $1000 every third year.

$317.21 [1 (1 .05) (1 .05) ] $1000 2⋅ + + + + =

Or, the annual equivalent of $1000 every third year is equal to:

[ ( ) ( ) ]

2

1 1 .05 1 .05

$1000 $317.21

+ + + +

=

Since $1000 is the anticipated expenditure every three years, $317.21 is the equivalent 

annual lifecycle cost expenditure in each year of the analysis.

8.11Benefits

Benefits in GradeDec.NET can be broadly divided into safety and non-safety benefits. 

Safety is singled out for the following reasons: 

• The relatively high incidence of roadway accidents at crossings. 

• Safety concerns at crossings are paramount when considering new rail 

service.

• Earmarked federal funding for grade crossing improvements address 

the safety concerns almost exclusively.

• Safety effects tend to dominate grade crossing evaluations due to the 

high relative social cost of accidents: For social cost values currently 

in use, the cost of a fatal accident is equivalent to hundreds of 

thousands of vehicle-hours of delay.
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 42

8.11.1 Safety (Accident Reduction)

Safety benefits are realized when more effective devices or measures are installed at 

crossings. 

The quantity metrics for the safety metric differ with each of the two safety models in 

GradeDec.NET, per the following table:

DOT Accident Prediction and Severity Model High Speed Rail Safety Model

• Predicted fatal accidents

• Predicted injury accidents

• Predicted property damage only 

Accidents

• Predicted fatalities by 

mode

• Predicted injuries by 

mode

• Predicted property 

damage

Table 10 Quantity Metrics for Safety by Model

One advantage of the High Speed Rail Model is the evaluation of injuries and fatalities 

by the rail and highway modes. Jurisdictions considering high speed rail are often more 

sensitive to safety on the public carrier mode.

8.11.2 Other Benefits

Other benefits evaluated by grade crossings include several that derive from changes in 

queuing at grade crossings. The final benefits category – benefits from induced trips –

derives from the change in the generalized cost of travel along routes with the grade 

crossing.

8.11.2.1 Time Savings

Time savings are measured from reduced vehicle delay. Vehicle delay is counted from 

the time a vehicle slows to enter a queue at a crossing until the time that the vehicle has 

left the queue and has returned to its “free flow” speed.

In GradeDec.NET changes in vehicle delay occur when queue lengths change. This can 

happen under two conditions: 

• Grade separation or closure, or,

• Changes in AADT at a crossing due to reassignment given changes at 

adjacent crossings.

8.11.2.2 Vehicle Operating Costs

Vehicle operating costs benefit accrue when queuing is reduced. The crossing vehicle 

operating costs are the consumption of fuel and oil by vehicles when queued at a

crossing. 

8.11.2.3 Emissions Reductions and Environmental Benefits

The environmental effects of infrastructure investment are far-reaching and span a 

number of impact categories. These include:
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 43

• Air quality

• Noise

• Other, including water quality, community impacts, wetlands, 

floodplains, parkland, threatened and endangered species, historical 

and archaeological sites, hazardous waste sites, secondary and 

cumulative impacts.

Clearly, major construction for a grade separation could result in some of the other 

impacts cited above. If your improvement program does involve such construction, then 

conduct the appropriate environmental assessments as required.

GradeDec.NET explicitly evaluates reduced emissions as a benefit. While 

GradeDec.NET does not evaluate the impacts of noise, it does evaluate whether 

mitigation programs for "quiet zones" reduces accident risk to compliant levels in 

accordance with the proposed rule.

GradeDec.NET reports the reduced levels of pollutants (CO, HC and NOx) in each of 

three years (start, last year near term, and end). For high traffic roads, the reduction in 

emissions from crossing improvements may contribute towards meeting compliance 

threshold levels of these Clean Air Act criteria pollutants.

The social costs for the criteria pollutants are based on EPA estimates. 

8.11.2.4 Network Delay

Network delay from grade crossings are the impacts of queues at crossings backing into 

adjacent intersections and thus causing additional delays beyond those of the queued 

vehicles at the crossing.

8.11.2.5 Benefits/Disbenefits of Induced/Discouraged Demand

By making improvements at crossings a jurisdiction effectively reduces the generalized 

cost of highway travel - a typical trip over the improved crossing will have lower 

accident risk and, in some cases, travel time and other delay-related benefits will be 

realized. While the impact on the total trip cost may be small or negligible, benefit-cost 

analysis instructs us to account for the benefits from trips that are induced by the 

reduction in total cost. The traveler's trip-making decision considers only his or her 

internal cost. However, an induced trip generates external costs (in the form of emissions 

and added congestion and these costs should be accounted for as well).

The sum of the benefits to existing users and those accruing to new users is called the 

consumer surplus. 
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 44 COST PER TRIP

TRIPS

PB

PA

QB QA

Benefits to

new users

Benefits to

existing

users

Figure 9 Consumer Surplus and Benefits to New and Existing Users

GradeDec.NET uses two additional parameters to evaluate the benefits of induced 

demand and the disbenefits from external costs. Values for these parameters are found in 

the “Highway” section of the scenario data and need to be specified along with the other 

data in the scenario.

The first value relates travel demand, the quantity of trips, with the generalized cost per 

trip. The generalized cost per trip is the average cost to the highway user including outof-pocket costs (fuel, maintenance, etc.) and other user costs (travel time, accident risk). 

The ratio of the percent change in trips given a percent change in generalized cost is 

called the demand elasticity with respect to generalized cost. Since demand increases 

when its cost to the consumer decreases, this elasticity will have a negative value. 

Studies show this value to be in the range of -.1 to -.05. 

The second value that is used to estimate the benefits of induced demand is the percent of 

user borne trip cost (accident risk and delay) due to the crossing. The following example 

shows how to estimate this value for a specific corridor.

Suppose, for instance, the average trip using the crossing is 5 miles and we know that per 

mile vehicle operating cost (without the crossing) is $0.101 per mile, travel time cost is 

$0.22 per mile and accident risk cost is $0.04. Suppose also that the average trip faces a 

10% probability of a 2-minute delay at the crossing and a 1 in 10 million chance of a 

collision. The calculation of the percent of user borne trip cost is shown in the table 

below.

In most cases, the benefits of induced demand comprise a very small share of the total 

benefits.

 

1

 This value is representative for many conditions. It includes fuel, oil, tire wear and maintenance, accident 

risk and use depreciation. It does not include insurance, time depreciation or other fixed costs of car 

ownership.
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 45

Note that induced demand in GradeDec.NET only affects the automobile segment of 

highway traffic.

Table 11 Sample Calculation of the Average Percent of Trip Cost at Crossing for a 

Highway User

Vehicle operating cost per mile (dollars) 0.10

Travel time cost per mile 0.22

Accident risk cost per mile 0.04

Number of miles of average trip 10

Trip cost without crossing (dollars) 3.62

Probability of delay 5%

Duration of delay (minutes) 2

Value of time (dollars / hour) 10.00

Vehicle operating cost of delay (dollars / hour) 1.20

Crossing delay cost (dollars) 0.037

Probability of accident at crossing 0.00001%

Cost of accident - average severity (dollars) 200000

Crossing accident risk cost 0.020

Total crossing cost of trip 0.057

Total cost of trip 3.680

Percent of trip cost at crossing 1.6%

GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 47

MODULE 9 NON-SAFETY BENEFITS

9.1 Introduction

In this section we examine the non-safety benefits from grade crossing improvements. 

GradeDec.NET evaluates the benefits due to reduced queuing at crossings. Reduced (or 

increased) queuing and motor vehicle delay can occur in a corridor if there is at least one 

closed or grade separated grade crossing. 

In the case of closure, GradeDec.NET assigns the traffic from the closed crossing to 

adjacent crossings. 

For an improvement of grade separation, if adjacent crossings are sufficiently close to the 

grade separated crossing, some traffic will divert towards the grade separated crossing. 

Thus, in addition to the reduced delay of the base case traffic at the grade separated 

crossings, the drawing of traffic away from queues at other crossings will further reduce 

queuing in the corridor.

Queuing of highway vehicles, and the changes in queuing that result from crossing 

improvements, results in the following benefits (disbenefits) for reduced (increased) 

queuing:

• Travel time savings

• Vehicle operating cost savings

• Emissions reductions

• Network delay savings

9.2 Overview

This overview provides a brief description of the calculation of the non-safety benefits:

• The railroad operating characteristics (train speed, train length, average car 

length) in the corridor determine the crossing closure time.

• The highway operating characteristics (lanes, AADT, traffic mix) determine 

the queuing at the crossings, the delay and the time-in-queue.

• The delay and the vehicle mix enable the calculation of the changes in delay 

and travel times.

• The time-in-queue enables the calculation of the vehicle operating costs and 

the emissions from idling while queuing at the crossings.

• Network delay (highway network impacts not including the queued vehicles at 

the crossing) is imputed by the relationship of queue length to the distance 

from the nearest intersection to the crossing.
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 48

Table 12 Overview of Process for Calculating Non-Safety Benefits

Calculate average crossing

blockage time

Calculate the delay and

time-in-queue

Time savings = difference

between delay in base case

and alternate case

Inputs to

process:

train speed

cars per train

length of car

Inputs to

process:

AADT

lanes

traffic mix

t-o-d

distribution of

traffic

Inputs to

process

tim-in-queue

fuel burn

factors

fuel prices

Average block time

Calculate vehicle operating

cost savings

Calculate reduction in

emissions and savings

Time-in-queue

Inputs to

process

time-in-queue

emission

factors

emission

costs
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 49

9.3 Queuing Model in GradeDec.NET

Accurate estimates of the non-safety benefits due to grade crossing investments depend 

upon properly quantifying the time highway vehicles spend queued behind closed gates. 

Most often, the conventional time-space model developed in the 1985 Highway Capacity 

Manual2 is used to estimate highway vehicle delay associated with grade crossings. This 

approach can be time consuming and does not lend itself to easily identifying distinct 

values for “delay” and “time in queue”. Delay, or the difference in travel time caused 

by blocked grade crossings, is the appropriate measure for estimating all time-related 

benefits. However, when estimating benefits associated with reduced energy 

consumption and emissions, the appropriate measure to use is the time spent in queue. 

Recent work3 has remapped the conventional time-space queuing model into a graphical 

construct plotting the cumulative vehicles in queue against time. With some relatively 

unrestrictive simplifying assumptions, time-in-queue is derived as a multiple of delay. 

Both highway delay and time in queue are readily calculated using easy-to-obtain data. 

The analysis framework is shown in Figure 1.

 

2 Highway Capacity Manual, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 1985.

3 Using Input-Output Diagram to Determine Spatial and Temporal Extents of Queue Upstream of a 

Bottleneck, Tim Lawson, David J. Lovell, and Carlos F. Daganza, Transportation Research Record 1572. 

pp. 140-147.
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 50

K M

V(t)

B1(t)

D2(t)

0

NK

N

L

t

t

J

tK

B2(t)

l

D1 J(t)

m

Figure 10 Model for calculating delay and time-in-queue

9.4 Time Savings

Time savings in GradeDec.NET are the time value of the travelers on the highway mode 

time the social cost. For each of the traffic segments:

• Auto – time savings (base less alternate) equals vehicle-hours of delay 

times vehicle occupancy times the social cost (value of time).

• Truck – time savings (base less alternate) equals vehicle hours times 

the truck value of time.

• Bus – time savings (base less alternate) vehicle-hours of delay times 

average bus occupancy time the value of time plus the driver’s value 

of time.

9.5 Vehicle Operating Cost Savings

Vehicle operating cost savings are calculated for each vehicle type (auto, truck and bus). 

GradeDec.NET includes burn factors for fuel and oil for each vehicle type. The model 

calculates the quantities of fuel and oil that are consumed by each traffic segment and 

multiplies by the appropriate cost.
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 51

Because there may be significant fluctuations between the general increases in the price 

level and those of petroleum-based products, GradeDec.NET allows user input for 

general price increases and oil price increases.

9.6 Reduction in Emissions

The calculations for emissions reductions are similar to those of vehicle operating cost 

saving. The emissions model is based upon models developed by the Environmental 

Protection Agency and is based upon the three principal criteria pollutants from the Clean 

Air Act Amendment – carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides and hydrocarbons. 

9.7 Network Delay

The network delay calculation assumes that when queuing at crossings backs into the 

nearest intersection, some disruption of traffic flow occurs. For crossings that are in 

close proximity to highway intersections, these network delays can be significant. 
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 52

ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS

NON-SAFETY BENEFITS (Module 8)

A. Average Crossing Block Time

STEPS SOURCE OR EQUATION

A1. Determine average number of daily rail 

operations in corridor by type (passenger, 

freight, switch) and average speed at the 

crossing.

Example:

Trains per day by type

6 passenger, 4 freight, 4 switch

Average train speed at crossing (mph)

55 passenger, 30 freight, 20 switch

A2. Determine the average car length and 

the number of cars by train type

Example: 

Number of cars per train

6 passenger, 72 freight, 4 switch

Length of car (ft.)

50 passenger, 60 freight, 40 switch

A3. Calculate the train length by type Train Length = number of cars * car 

length + length of locomotive 

Passenger=6*50+50=350 feet

Freight = 60*72+50=4370 feet

Switch = 40*4+50=210 feet

A4. Calculate the block time by train type

Note: The factor 36/60 accounts for a gate 

closure lead time of 36 seconds.

Block time minutes = train length / train 

speed * units conversion factors+(36/60)

Passenger train block time = 

+ =

60

36

1

60 *

5280

1

*

55

350

hour

minutes

feet

mile

mph

feet

.6723 minutes

Freight train block time = 

+ =

60

36

1

60 *

5280

1

*

30

4420

hour

minutes

feet

mile

mph

feet

2.255 minutes

Switch train block time = 

+ =

60

36

1

60 *

5280

1

*

20

210

hour

minutes

feet

mile

mph

feet

.7193 minutes

A5. Calculate the average block time Average block time = 

Sum (number of trains*train block time) 

/(Total number of trains)

Average block time =

(0.6723*6+2.255*4+0.7193*4)/(6+4+4)=

1.138 minutes
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 53

ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS

NON-SAFETY BENEFITS (Module 8)

B. Calculate Highway Vehicle Delay Due to Crossing Closure

STEPS SOURCE OR EQUATION

B1. Determine: Average annual 

daily traffic (AADT) at crossing; 

composition of highway traffic 

by traffic segment (auto, truck, 

bus); time-of-day percent of 

highway traffic by segment in 

period; number of highway lanes 

at crossing

Example:

AADT

Percent auto 

Percent truck

Percent bus

For Period Late AM (6-12)

Daily auto traffic in period 

Daily truck traffic in period 

Daily bus traffic in period

Number of highway lanes

15500

76%

22%

2%

15%

25%

50%

2

B2. Determine total number of 

daily trains; percent daily trains 

in period; average block time

Total number of daily trains =14 (see A1 above)

Example:

For Period Late AM (6-12)

Daily trains in period 20%

Average block time = 1.138 *60 

= 68.282 seconds (see A5 above)

B3. Calculate the number of 

trains in period

Trains in period = daily number of trains * % of 

daily trains in period

Trains in period = 14*0.2=2.8

B4. Determine highway speed of 

freeflow, traffic density at speed 

0, vehicle dispersal rate per lane 

when closure ends

Example:

Freeflow highway speed

Traffic density at speed 0

Vehicle dispersal rate

45 mph

0.05 veh/ft

0.5 veh/sec

B5. Calculate total vehicles in 

period

Vehicles=AADT*percent type in traffic*percent of 

daily traffic in period

Auto = 15500*0.76*0.15 = 1767

Truck= 15500*0.22*0.25 = 852.5

Bus = 15500*0.02*0.5 = 155

Total Vehicles = Auto+Truck+Bus = 2774.5

B6. Calculate vehicle arrival 

rate per lane at crossing in 

period

Arrival rate =Total Vehicles / (lanes * seconds in 

period)

Arrival rate =

period

hours

hour

lanes

vehicles

* 6

sec 2 * 3600

2774.5

=

.06422 veh/sec/ lane
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 54

STEPS SOURCE OR EQUATION

B7. Calculate the number of 

affected vehicles (entering 

queue) per lane per closure

Number of affected vehicles =

Arrival rate*dispersal rate* average block 

time/(dispersal rate-arrival rate)

Affected vehicles = 

0.5 0.06423

0.06423* 0.5*68.282

−

=5.032

B8. Calculate delay per lane per 

closure

Delay= Affected vehicles* (block time + 

(1/dispersal rate – 1/arrival rate))*(affected 

vehicles+1)/2

Delay = 















 +





























 −











+

2

(5.032 1)

*

0.06423

1

0.5

1

5.032 * 68.282

=137.64 vehicle-seconds

B9. Calculate total delay per 

closure and convert to veh-hours

Total Delay = Delay per lane*lanes*unit 

conversion factor

Total Delay =137.64*2*(1 hour / 3600 sec)

=0.0765 veh-hours

B10. Allocate delay per closure 

to highway traffic segments

Delay by traffic segment = Delay * vehicles in

segment / total vehicles

Auto Delay=

2774.5

1767 0.0765 * = 0.0487 veh-hours

Truck Delay=

2774.5

852.5 0.0765 * = 0.0235 veh-hours

Bus Delay =

2774.5

155 0.0765 * = 0.00427 veh-hours

B11. Multiple by number of 

closures in period

Delay = delay per closure * closures

Auto Delay = 0.0487*2.8= 0.1364 veh-hours

Truck Delay=0.0235*2.8 = veh-hours

Bus Delay=0.000427*2.8 = 20 veh-hours

B12. Calculate in each period 

and sum for daily delay by 

traffic segment

Repeat above procedure for other periods of day and 

sum
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 55

ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS

NON-SAFETY BENEFITS (Module 8)

C. Calculate Highway Vehicle Time-in-Queue Due to Crossing 

Closure

STEPS SOURCE OR EQUATION

C1: Determine: Freeflow 

speed; traffic density at 

speed 0; average block 

time; arrival rate; dispersal 

rate; number of affected 

vehicles; highway vehicles 

in period by traffic 

segment; trains in period; 

number of lanes.

Freeflow speed (see B4)

Traffic density at speed 0 (see 

B4)

Average block time (see B2)

Arrival rate (see B6)

Dispersal rate (see B4)

Affected vehicles (see B7)

Highway vehicles in period

(see B5) of this,

 Auto

 Truck

 Bus

Trains in period (see B3)

Number of lanes (see B1)

45 mph

0.05 veh/ft

68.282 sec

0.0642 veh/sec/lane

0.5 veh/sec

5.032 vehicles

2774.5

1767

852.5

155

2.8

2

C2 Calculate the time rate 

of growth of the back of 

the queue during closure

dt

d (Back of queue)

=

freeflow speed traffic density arrival rate

arrival rate freeflow speed traffic density

* −

* *

= 

45 * (5280 / 3600) * 0.05 0.0642

0.0642 * 45 * (5280 / 3600) * 0.05

−

= 0.0655 feet / second

C3 Calculate the time-inqueue per lane

Time-in-queue=

























= −



















 +

+

disperal rate d back of queue dt

where

affected vehicles

affected vehicles block time

( )

1 1

2

( 1)

*

* (

D

D

=5.0317*(68.282+((1/.5-1/.0642)*(5.0317+1)/2)

=142.24 veh-sec

C4. Calculate total time-inqueue per closure and 

convert to vehicle-hours

Time-in-Queue = Time-in-Queue per lane*lanes*unit 

conversion factor

Total Time-in-queue =142.24*2*(1 hour / 3600 sec)

=0.07902 veh-hours
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 56

STEPS SOURCE OR EQUATION

C5. Allocate time-in-queue 

per closure to highway 

traffic segments

Time-in-queue by traffic segment per closure = 

Time-in-queue * vehicles in segment / total vehicles

Auto Time-in-queue =

2774.5

1767 0.07902 * = 0.05033 veh-hrs

Truck Time-in-queue=

2774.5

852.5 0.07902 * =0.02428 veh-hrs

Bus Time-in-queue=

2774.5

155 0.07902 * =0.00442 veh-hrs

C6. Multiple by number of 

closures in period to yield 

total time in queue in 

period by traffic segment

Time-in-queue = Time-in-queue per closure * closures

Auto Delay = 0.05033*2.8= 0.14092 veh-hours

Truck Delay=0.02428*2.8 = 799 veh-hours

Bus Delay=0.004415*2.8 = 2361 veh-hours

C7. Calculate in each 

period and sum for time-inqueue by traffic segment

Repeat above procedure for other periods of day and sum
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 57

ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS

NON-SAFETY BENEFITS (Module 8)

D. Calculate Time Savings Benefit

STEPS SOURCE OR EQUATION

D1. Determine total daily 

delay by highway traffic 

segment in base and 

alternate cases

Base Case

 Auto

 Truck

 Bus

Alt Case

 Auto

 Truck

 Bus

0.91 veh-hrs

0.26 veh-hrs

0.02 veh-hrs

0 veh-hrs

0 veh-hrs

0 veh-hrs

Base on calculations in D 

for all 4 periods in the 

day.

D2. Determine average 

vehicle occupancy

Auto 1.15

Bus 10

D3. Determine passenger 

value of time and truck 

vehicle hour

Passenger 10.40 $/hr/occ

Truck 18.06 $/hr/veh

D4. Calculate the daily 

time savings by traffic 

segment

Base case delay – Alt case delay

Auto 0.91 veh-hrs

Truck 0.26 veh-hrs

Bus 0.02 veh-hrs

D5. Calculate the daily 

benefit

Auto = Delay Savings*Average Occupancy * Pass Value 

of time

Truck = Delay Savings*Truck Value of Time

Bus=Delay Savings*(Average Occupancy*Pass Value of 

Time + Truck Value of Time)

$10.87 = 0.91*1.15*10.40

$4.75 = 0.26*18.06

$2.92=.02*(10*10.40+18.06)

D6. Calculate annual 

benefits

Annual benefit= Sum of daily benefit by mode * 

annualization factor

$5192.69=(10.87+4.75+2.92)*280
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 58

ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS

NON-SAFETY BENEFITS (Module 8)

E. Calculate VOC Savings

STEPS SOURCE OR EQUATION

E1. Determine total daily 

time-in-queue by highway 

traffic segment in base and 

alternate cases

Base Case

 Auto

 Truck

 Bus

Alt Case

 Auto

 Truck

 Bus

0.94 veh-hrs

0.27 veh-hrs

0.02 veh-hrs

0 veh-hrs

0 veh-hrs

0 veh-hrs

Base on calculations in D 

for all 4 periods in the 

day.

E2. Determine idle burn 

rates Fuel Oil

Auto .00969 .00063

Truck .01841 .00134

Bus .02067 .00119

E3. Determine fuel and oil 

costs

Gasoline 1.59 $/gal

Diesel 1.43 $/gal

Oil 3.76 $/qt

E4. Calculate quantities of 

fuel and oil saved by traffic 

segment

Fuel saved=veh-hrs time-in-queue reduction* 60 * fuel 

burn rate

Oil saved = veh-hrs time-in-queue reduction * 60 * oil 

burn rate

Fuel

Auto = 0.94 * 60 * .00969 = 0.55 gal

Truck = 0.27 * 60 * .01841 = 0.30 gal

Bus = 0.02 * 60 * .02067 = 0.03 gal

Oil

Auto=0.94*60 * .00063 = .00059 qt

Truck = 0.27*60*.00134=.00036 qt

Bus = 0.02 * 60 *.00119 = .00003 qt

E5. Calculate value of fuel 

and oil saved

Value of Fuel Saved =Sum(Fuel)*Price

Value of Oil Saved =Sum(Oil)*Price

Value of fuel saved=(0.55+0.03)*1.59+0.3*1.43=$1.3468

Value of oil 

saved=(.00059+.00036+.00003)*3.76=$0.0037

Total daily vehicle operating cost savings = $1.35

Total annual VOC savings = $1.35*280=$378.13
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 59

ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS

NON-SAFETY BENEFITS (Module 8)

F. Calculate Emissions Reduction Benefit

9.7.1.1.1.1.1 STEPS SOURCE OR EQUATION

F1. Determine total daily 

time-in-queue by highway 

traffic segment in base and 

alternate cases

Base Case

 Auto

 Truck

 Bus

Alt Case

 Auto

 Truck

 Bus

0.94 veh-hrs

0.27 veh-hrs

0.02 veh-hrs

0 veh-hrs

0 veh-hrs

0 veh-hrs

Base on calculations in D 

for all 4 periods in the 

day.

F2. Determine emission 

burn rates

The following are emission rates of idling vehicles, grams 

per minute

HC CO NOx

Auto 0.302985 4.85986 0.091555

Truck 0.2559 3.1446 0.2754

Bus 0.6655 11.85 0.183

F3. Determine emission 

costs HC 2040 $/ton

CO 50 $/ton

NOx 2765 $/ton

F4. Calculate quantity of 

emissions saved

Emission Saved = Reduction in Time-in-queue * 

emissions rate * 60

HC

Auto = 0.94*0.302985*60=17.08 grams

Truck= 0.27*0.2559*60=4.18 grams

Bus=0.02*0.6655*60=0.99 grams

CO

Auto = 0.94*4.85986*60=273.94 grams

Truck= 0.27*3.1446*60=51.31 grams

Bus=0.02*11.85*60=17.58 grams

NOx

Auto = 0.94*.091555*60=5.16 grams

Truck= 0.27*0.2754*60=4.49 grams

Bus=0.02*0.183*60=0.27 grams

F5. Calculate average daily 

benefit from emissions 

reduction

Benefit from Emissions Reduction = 

Sum(Emissions_Saved)*Cost*1 ton/ 907185 grams

HC = (17.08+4.18+0.99)*2040/907185=$0.05001

CO = (273.94+51.31+17.58)*50/907185=$0.01889

NOx = (5.16+4.49+0.27)*2765/907185=$0.03025

Total = $0.05001+$0.01889+$0.03025=$0.09916

F6. Annual benefit $0.09916*280=$27.76

GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 61

MODULE 10 RISK ANALYSIS

10.1Introduction

GradeDec.NET conducts an analysis of benefits and costs over the time horizon of the 

project. Over the course of this time horizon there are considerable uncertainties and, 

consequently, the outcome of the analysis is itself highly uncertain. Since 

GradeDec.NET is supporting resource allocation and other decisions, we need a means of 

getting a handle on the uncertainty in order to reach truly informed decisions.

There are three principal pages and several charts in GradeDec.NET that accommodate 

risk analysis. These are:

• The Scenario page – in this page the analyst enters input probability 

distribution ranges. Using this page, the analyst can visualize the input 

distributions using the automated charting capability.

• The Simulation page – in this page the analyst sets the risk analysis 

simulation parameters and runs the analysis. Here the analyst can 

choose to run central values only and whether or not to conduct a risk 

sensitivity analysis (see discussion below under the section on Using 

the Tornado Chart).

• The Results page – in this page the user can navigate among and view 

the risk analysis results. From this page the user can also invoke 

special results chart and the tornado chart for each results variable.

10.1.1 What is Risk Analysis?

Risk analysis is a means of quantifying the uncertainty inherent in an analysis. One of 

the principal sources of uncertainty in an analysis is forecasting the future (i.e., growth in 

highway and rail traffic). Since, to one degree or another, forecasts will always be 

wrong, there is limited value in a point estimate forecast. Two possible solutions to the 

point estimate dilemma are: 1) high-low-middle forecasts and 2) sensitivity analysis. 

Both of these approaches have serious shortcomings.

High-low forecasts are developed through arbitrarily tweaking the middle result upwards 

and downwards, or by tweaking several key model variables. While some analyst has 

offered a judgment that the outcome will “likely” fall in the range between high and low, 

no real information about the probability of outcomes is offered. The proliferation of 

alternative outcomes without quantifying what each outcome actually represents may in 

fact confuse instead of clarify. An equally unfortunate possibility is that the high-lowmiddle approach falsely lulls decision-makers into believing that the true risks of the 

forecast have been accounted for.

With sensitivity analysis one input variable is allowed to vary over a range while all other 

variables are held fixed. This is your classic “what if” analysis, however, in real life 

variables don’t move one at a time while everything else remains fixed. In this regard the 

information afforded by a sensitivity analysis is very limited.
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 62

Risk analysis offers an alternative approach to dealing with uncertainty. The risk and 

uncertainty of a result is best reflected as a probability distribution. Instead of a forecast 

result that says “the answer is 10” as with a point estimate, a probability distribution 

enables descriptive statements like “the expected value of the result is 10 and there is an 

80% probability that the value will lie between 8 and 13”.

The risk analysis method for arriving at the probability distributions of results is given by 

the following steps:

• Define your analytic model that is used for deriving point estimates 

(also called a deterministic model).

• Find probability distributions for each of the model’s input variables (a 

section below describes this process). 

• Randomly sample from the input distributions and solve the model. 

Repeat this process hundreds or thousands of times (this repeated 

process of sampling and solving is called Monte Carlo simulation).

• The multiple results for a given result variable describe a probability 

distribution. 

10.1.2 Why Use Risk Analysis in GradeDec.NET

Risk analysis provides richer information to decision makers. One example of its 

usefulness is in analyzing risk-yield tradeoffs (see section below).

Another use of risk analysis is to find an outcome level that has a probability of 

achievement. Rather than committing to an expected value, decision makers can commit 

to more certain outcomes.

Finally, the analysis can reveal the risks and weaknesses that really affect the project and 

can use the information to iteratively refine the alternatives and thus mitigate risks.

10.2Selecting a Distribution and Populating with Data

Follow the steps below to populate an input variable in the Scenario Data Form:

• Select a central value – the central value is your “best guess” value 

that you would use in a point estimate analysis.

• Select a distribution based upon the best available data

• Choose a range that accommodates that the full range of possible 

values and their probabilities.

The following describes the available distributions in GradeDec.NET and how they might 

be used in your analysis. 

Skewed bell – this distribution, which is a normal distribution when no skew is present, 

is a good choice for a wide range of variables. You need either data or good judgments 

that indicate the 10% upper and lower limits. 

Normal - suited for variables that are symmetric and may be normally distributed. Only 

requires two input values: mean and standard deviation.
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 63

Triangle – the triangle distribution is well-suited for ranges that have firm maximum and 

minimum values and a most likely value.

Uniform – use the uniform distribution when there is equal probability that the actual 

will lie anywhere in a designated range.

It’s good practice to document you selections on forms like the one in the figure below.

10.3Running a Risk Analysis

Follow these steps to run a risk analysis:

1. Enter and verify the data in your corridor definition (Settings Form), crossings 

(Corridor Crossings Form), scenario definition (Settings Form) and scenario.

2. Be sure that the corridor, scenario and results file for your analysis are selected 

(e.g., they show in the “Current Selections” frame).

3. Invoke the simulation form.

4. Enter the number of trials (51 trials should be adequate for a first cut, use 500 

trials for a final analysis). Select whether or not to conduct a risk sensitivity 

analysis (this feature enables the tornado charts, however, it can be timeconsuming).

5. Click on the "Run Simulation" button.

10.4Reading the Results

Figure 11 Principal Display of Results
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 64

The above shows the Results page when the results variable “Safety benefits, thous $ 

PV” is selected. The summary statistics show that the mean or expected value of the 

result is $6.958 million. The gray region on the chart show the 80% confidence interval, 

that is, they mark the 10 percent lower and upper limits (the 10th and 90th percentiles) of 

the range of the variable. The results tell us that:

• There is 80 percent confidence that the result will lie between $6.085

million and $8.015 million.

• There is a 90 percent probability that the result will exceed $6.085 

million.

• There is a 10 percent probability that the result will exceed $8.015

million.

10.5Comparing Alternatives with Risk Analysis

Risk matters. If the anticipated NPV of two alternatives are roughly equal, yet one has 

much larger downside risk, then the less risk alternative is preferred. The risk analysis of 

alternatives will typically offer trade-offs between the risk and yield associated with 

alternatives. In the figure below we chart the mean NPV (yield) against the standard 

deviation of NPV (risk). 

10.6Using the Tornado Chart to Refine Inputs

If when running your simulation you checked the box to run a risk sensitivity analysis, 

then you can view tornado charts like the one below. The tornado chart shows how the 

result varies when all the inputs are held at their mean values except for one input 

variable, which is allowed to vary between its 10th and 90th percentile. The inputs are 

ranked in the order of their impact on the variance of the result.

The tornado chart is useful in identifying the factors that are the largest contributors to 

risk. With this information the analyst can focus efforts on refining input ranges so as to 

reduce the variance of results and not waste time on factors whose variance has little or 

no impact on the outcomes.
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 65

Figure 12 Tornado Chart

GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 67

MODULE 11 CAPITAL PROGRAMMING

11.1 Introduction

When working with a small number of crossings, it may be reasonable to assume that the 

improvements to the corridor will be executed all at once. The alternative case, which is 

to be compared with the base case in the investment analysis, will have all the 

improvements made to all the crossings in the base year (i.e., in year 1 of the analysis all 

improvements will be operational in the alternative case). However, for corridors with 

many crossings the budget and schedule for improvements may span a number of years. 

Moreover, when examining improvements over a 20 year time horizon, budgets and 

priorities may dictate phased improvements at a crossing. For instance, a Phase I 

investment in year 2 may upgrade a crossing from lights to gates while a Phase II 

investment in year 14 may grade separate the crossing. Note also that regardless of 

budget considerations, a phased deployment may be the most cost-beneficial: A grade 

separation may payoff only after highway traffic and rail service at the crossing have 

grown significantly.

Large, multi-year corridor improvements require identifying not only the improvements, 

but also the timing of the improvements. 

In a corridor with capital programming the alternative case may have the crossing with 

the base case device for several years, the Phase I improvement device for several years, 

then the Phase II improvement for the remaining years. Potentially, there may be 

improvements in each year of the analysis.

11.2 Creating a Capital Program

The first step in creating a capital program for a corridor is to edit the value on the 

Settings page with Corridor (or Region) selected, “Allow capital programming?”, and 

change it to True. When this parameter is set to True, the format of the Crossings page 

will include the following changes:

• For each crossing there will be drop-down lists for Phase I 

improvements and Phase II improvements.

• For each crossing, in each Phase there will be a drop-down list 

designating the year of implementation (i.e., the year before the first 

year of operation with the improvement).

• In the toolbar there will be a number designating year. This is the year 

in the alternate case for which predicted accidents will be evaluated in 

the Accidents and HSR Model sections of the Corridor page. Note 

that while predicted accidents reflect the crossing devices in place in 

the alternative for the specified year, the traffic volumes and numbers 

of trains reflect base year conditions.
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 68

• In order to view the improved crossings in the corridor by year, there 

is a “Capital programming report” that is accessed from the Actions 

menu on the Corridor page.

Table 13 Alternatives for Crossings in Corridor (Phased)

ID Milepost Phase I Improvement

Year to

Implement

Phase I 

Phase II Improvement

Year to

Implement

Phase II 

628281A 1019.83 Barrier curbs Base Grade separation 8

628282G 1020.85 Barrier curbs Base (no Phase II) -

628290Y 1021.10 4Quad - 60’ medians 3 (no Phase II) -

628280T 1019.30 Mountable curbs 3 (no Phase II) -

628279Y 1018.78 4Quad - 60’ medians 3 (no Phase II) -

In the above plan, the crossings at mileposts 1019.83 and 1020.85 will be improved in the 

base year (first year of operation with the improvement is year 1). In year 3, the other 

three crossings will be improved. In year 8, the program specifies to implement the 

Phase II improvement that grade separates the crossing at milepost 1019.83.

The table below shows the crossing status for each year of operation and the capital cost 

improvement at each crossing. Note that the year of implementation and the expenditure 

occur in the year prior to the first year of operation.

Table 14 Annual Capital Program for Crossing 628281A

Year Main Device Capital Cost 

(thous. $)

Supp Safety Device Capital Cost 

(thous. $)

Total Capital Cost 

(thous. $)

Base Gates 0 None 50 50

1 Gates 0 Barrier Curbs 0 0

2 Gates 0 Barrier Curbs 0 0

3 Gates 0 Barrier Curbs 0 0

4 Gates 0 Barrier Curbs 0 0

5 Gates 0 Barrier Curbs 0 0

6 Gates 0 Barrier Curbs 0 0

7 Gates 0 Barrier Curbs 0 0

8 Gates 5000 Barrier Curbs 0 5000

9 Separation 0 None 0 0

10 Separation 0 None 0 0

From the Crossings page Actions menu you can print a report of the capital program for 

the corridor.
GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 69

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES

GradeDec.NET User’s Manual, Federal Railroad Administration, October 2003

GradeDec.NET Model Reference, Federal Railroad Administration, October 2003

Rail-Highway Crossing Resource Allocation Procedure, User’s Guide, Third Edition, E. 

Farr. Implementation Package. DOT/FRA/OS-87/10

“Summary of Rail-Highway Crossing Resource Allocation Procedure – Revisited”, 

Edwin H. Farr, Office of Safety Analysis, Federal Railroad Administration, June 1987

Assessment of Risks For High Speed Rail Grade Crossings on the Empire Corridor, 

Technical Information Exchange, The Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, 

1998

Consequences of Highway-Railroad at-Grade Crossing Collisions, D. Tyrell, J.C. Dorsey, 

H. Weinstock, Report, 1995.

HERS Technical Report v3.26 Appendix H: A Numerical Example, June 2000.

“Passenger Car Fuel Economy – A Report to Congress”, January 1980, Environmental 

Protections Agency.

Using Input-Output Diagram to Determine Spatial and Temporal Extents of Queue 

Upstream of a Bottleneck, Tim Lawson, David J. Lovell, and Carlos F. Daganza, 

Transportation Research Record 1572. pp. 140-147.

Highway Capacity Manual, Federal Highway Administration, Department of 

Transportation, 1985.

Federal Register, January 13, 2000, 49 CFR Parts 222 and 229, Use of Locomotive Horns 

at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings; Proposed Rule.

Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook - 2nd Edition, B.H. Tustin, H. Richards, 

H. McGee, and R. Patterson, Federal Highway Administration, September 1986

GRADEDEC.NET TRAINING COURSE AND WORKBOOK PAGE • 71

APPENDIX 1 DATA SHEETS

GRADEDEC 2000 CORRIDOR DATA SHEET

For reference:

NAME EARLY AM LATE AM EARLY PM LATE PM

Uniform 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

AM Peak 0.1 0.5 0.35 0.05

PM Peak 0.05 0.35 0.5 0.1

Day Flat 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.1

Night Flat 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.4

Corridor Name

Number of Passenger Trains

Number of Freight Trains

Number of Switch Trains

Rail operations time-of-day distribution

Signal synchronization

Technology factor

TIME OF DAY DISTRIBUTIONS
GRADEDEC 2000 CROSSING DATA SHEET Corridor: ___________________________

Crossing ID: ___________ (inventory number) Milepost: ______________ (Mile.hundreths)

General

Yes/No

Yes/No

Street or intersection name

Device type

Device type

Device type

Device type

Number

Miles (i.e., 0.1 =one-tenth of a mile)

Vehicles per day

Percent

Percent

Percent

Distribution type

Distribution type

Distribution type

Yes/No

Vehicles per day

Percent

Percent

Percent

Distribution type

Distribution type

Distribution type

Number

Mph

Mph

Mph

Mph

Number

Thous. dollars

Thous. dollars

Thous. dollars

Thous. dollars

Thous. dollars

Thous. dollars

Thous. dollars

Thous. dollars

Thous. dollars

Thous. dollars

SEE ATTACHED TABLES FOR DEVICE TYPES AND TIME OF DAY DISTRIBUTIONS

Paved/Unpaved?

Urban/Rural?

Crossing description (street)

Base device type (see table)

Base supplementary device (gated crossings only - see table)

Alternate device type (see table)

Alternate supplementary device (gated crossings only - see table)

Highway

Number of lanes

Distance to closest intersection

Total AADT in base year

Of AADT, percent trucks

Of trucks, percent truck-trailers

Of AADT, percent buses

Auto traffic time-of-day distribution (see table)

Truck traffic time-of-day distribution (see table)

Bus traffic time-of-day distribution (see table)

 Alternate Case Traffic Management Measures

In alternate case , are there measures to manage traffic at crossings?

 if no then leave rest of this section blank

With alternate measures - Total AADT in base year

With alternate measures - of AADT, percent trucks

With alternate measures - of trucks, percent truck-trailers

With alternate measures - of AADT, percent buses

With alternate measures - Auto traffic t-o-d distribution (see table)

With alternate measures - Truck traffic t-o-d distribution (see table)

With alternate measures - Bus traffic t-o-d distribution (see table)

Rail Operations

Number of tracks at crossing (total)

Maximum timetable train speed

Average passenger train speed

Average freight train speed

Average switch train speed

Accident History

Number of accidents at crossing in preceeding 5-year period

Cost Data

Base case annual maintenance cost

Base case annualized lifecycle cost

Alternate case capital cost

Alternate case annual maintenance cost

Alternate case annualized lifecycle cost

 If there are supplementary measures in the base or alternate case

Base case annual maintenance cost - supplementary measures

Base case annualized lifecycle cost - supplementary measures

Alternate case capital cost - supplementary measures

Alternate case annual maintenance cost - supplementary measures

Alternate case annualized lifecycle cost - supplementary measures

1 1/25/2002
GRADEDEC 2000 CROSSING DATA SHEET - REFERENCE TABLES

TYPE 

CODE

P

L

G

C

GS

NT

TYPE 

CODE

4QND

4QDE

4QME

MC

OWS

PE

NAME EARLY AM LATE AM EARLY PM LATE PM

Uniform 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

AM Peak 0.1 0.5 0.35 0.05

PM Peak 0.05 0.35 0.5 0.1

Day Flat 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.1

Night Flat 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.4

GRADE CROSSING DEVICE TYPES

Passive

4-quadrant gates - no detection

4-quadrant gates - with detection

4-quadrant gates - with 60' medians

TIME OF DAY DISTRIBUTIONS

Lights

Gates

Closure

Grade separation

New technology

Mountable curbs

One-way street

Photo enforcement

SUPPLEMENTARY MEASURE 

TYPES

2 1/25/2002
GRADEDEC 2000 REGION DATA SHEET

Region Name

Percent benefits due to closure

Technology factor
GRADEDEC 2000 SCENARIO DATA SHEET SCENARIO NAME:

SPECIFY DATA FOR SELECTED DISTRIBUTION TYPE

 Start Year: Last year near term: End year:

Fixed

Value 10% 

Lower Median

10% 

Upper Mean StDev Min Mode Max Min Max

Rate of growth in rail traffic, near term, 

%

Rate of growth in traffic, long term, %

Freight rail cars per train

Passenger rail cars per train

Switch cars per train

Average length of freight rail car, feet

Average length of passenger train rail 

car, feet

Average length of switch train car, feet

Avg annual growth in hway traffic, near 

term, %

Avg annual growth in hway traffic, long 

term

Average auto vehicle occupancy

Avg bus vehicle occupancy

Annualization factor

Elasticity of auto AADT w.r.t. generalized 

cost of travel

Average % of auto trip costs that are 

GCX-related, percent

Discount rate, %

Cost of a fatal accident, thous $

Cost of an injury accident, thous $

Cost of a property damage only 

accident, thous $

Cost per fatality (for HSR Model), thous 

$

Cost per injury (for HSR model), thous $

Average out-of-pocket cost per accident 

(for HSR model), thous $

Value of time for auto travel, $ / hr

Value of truck driver time, $ / hr

Cost of HC emissions, thous $ / ton

Cost of NOX emissions, thous $ / ton

Cost of CO emissions, thous $ /ton

Base year gasoline fuel cost, $ / gal

Base year diesel fuel cost, $ / gal

Base year oil cost, $ / qt

% additional local benefits, %

Fuel price inflation, year 2002, %

Fuel price inflation, year 2003, %

Fuel price inflation, year 2004, %

DISTRIBUTION TYPE

Skewed Bell Normal Triangle Uniform

Page 1
GRADEDEC 2000 SCENARIO DATA SHEET SCENARIO NAME:

SPECIFY DATA FOR SELECTED DISTRIBUTION TYPE

 Start Year: Last year near term: End year:

Fixed

Value 10% 

Lower Median

10% 

Upper Mean StDev Min Mode Max Min Max

DISTRIBUTION TYPE

Skewed Bell Normal Triangle Uniform

Fuel price inflation, year 2005, %

Fuel price inflation, year 2006, %

Fuel price inflation, year 2007, %

Fuel price inflation, year 2008, %

Fuel price inflation, year 2009, %

Fuel price inflation, year 2010, %

Fuel price inflation, year 2011, %

Fuel price inflation, year 2012, %

Fuel price inflation, year 2013, %

Fuel price inflation, year 2014, %

Fuel price inflation, year 2015, %

Fuel price inflation, year 2016, %

Fuel price inflation, year 2017, %

Fuel price inflation, year 2018, %

Fuel price inflation, year 2019, %

Fuel price inflation, year 2020, %

Fuel price inflation, year 2021, %

Fuel price inflation, year 2022, %

Fuel price inflation, year 2023, %

Fuel price inflation, year 2024, %

Fuel price inflation, year 2025, %

Fuel price inflation, year 2026, %

Fuel price inflation, year 2027, %

Fuel price inflation, year 2028, %

Fuel price inflation, year 2029, %

Fuel price inflation, year 2030, %

Fuel price inflation, year 2031, %

Fuel price inflation, year 2032, %

Fuel price inflation, year 2033, %

Fuel price inflation, year 2034, %

Fuel price inflation, year 2035, %

Fuel price inflation, year 2036, %

Fuel price inflation, year 2037, %

Fuel price inflation, year 2038, %

Fuel price inflation, year 2039, %

General price inflation, year 2002, %

General price inflation, year 2003, %

General price inflation, year 2004, %

General price inflation, year 2005, %

General price inflation, year 2006, %

General price inflation, year 2007, %

General price inflation, year 2008, %

General price inflation, year 2009, %

General price inflation, year 2010, %

Page 2
GRADEDEC 2000 SCENARIO DATA SHEET SCENARIO NAME:

SPECIFY DATA FOR SELECTED DISTRIBUTION TYPE

 Start Year: Last year near term: End year:

Fixed

Value 10% 

Lower Median

10% 

Upper Mean StDev Min Mode Max Min Max

DISTRIBUTION TYPE

Skewed Bell Normal Triangle Uniform

General price inflation, year 2011, %

General price inflation, year 2012, %

General price inflation, year 2013, %

General price inflation, year 2014, %

General price inflation, year 2015, %

General price inflation, year 2016, %

General price inflation, year 2017, %

General price inflation, year 2018, %

General price inflation, year 2019, %

General price inflation, year 2020, %

General price inflation, year 2021, %

General price inflation, year 2022, %

General price inflation, year 2023, %

General price inflation, year 2024, %

General price inflation, year 2025, %

General price inflation, year 2026, %

General price inflation, year 2027, %

General price inflation, year 2028, %

General price inflation, year 2029, %

General price inflation, year 2030, %

General price inflation, year 2031, %

General price inflation, year 2032, %

General price inflation, year 2033, %

General price inflation, year 2034, %

General price inflation, year 2035, %

General price inflation, year 2036, %

General price inflation, year 2037, %

General price inflation, year 2038, %

General price inflation, year 2039, %

Page 3
GRADEDEC 2000 MODEL PARAMETER AND DEFAULT VALUES

DEFAULT COSTS FOR GRADE CROSSINGS (THOUS. DOLLARS)

Type ID Capital 

Costs

O&M 

Costs

Other 

Lifecycle 

costs

1

2

3

4

5

6

DEFAULT COSTS FOR SUPPLEMENTARY MEASURES (THOUS. DOLLARS)

Type ID Capital 

Costs

O&M 

Costs

Other 

Lifecycle 

costs

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

VEHICLE EMISSIONS COEFFICIENTS - IDLING RATES, GRAMS PER MINUTE

Vehicle 

ID

1

2

3

FUEL BURN RATES WHILE IDLING

Vehicle 

ID

1

2

3

Type

Passive

Flashing lights

Lights and gates

Closure

Grade separation

New Technology

Type

Barrier curbs

One-way street

Photo Enforcement

Cars

4 quadrant - no detection

4 quadrant - with detection

4 quadrant - with 60' median

Mountable curbs

Vehicle Type Fuel 

(gallons / minute)

Vehicle Type

Cars

Buses

Trucks

Hydrocarbons

Oil 

(quarts/minute)

Carbon Monoxide Nitrogen Oxides

Trucks

Buses

1 1/25/2002
EFFECTIVENESS MULTIPLIERS

Type ID <=10 

trains per 

day, 

single 

track

<=10 

trains per 

day, multitrack

> 10 

trains per 

day, 

single 

track

> 10 

trains per 

day, 

single 

track

1

2

3

EFFECTIVENESS MULITPLIERS FOR SUPPLEMENTARY MEASURES

Type ID

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

HSR - BREAKOUT OF ACCIDENTS BY TYPE

HSR - MODEL COEFFICIENTS FOR TRAIN STRIKES HIGHWAY VEHICLE ACCIDENTS

Type ID Auto Truck Trailer

1

2

3

4

5

6

HSR - MODEL COEFFICIENTS FOR TRAIN STRIKES HIGHWAY VEHICLE ACCIDENTS

Type ID Auto Truck Trailer

1

2

Type

Passive to lights

Passive to gates

Lights to gates

Type Effectiveness 

4 quadrant - no detection

4 quadrant - with detection

4 quadrant - with 60' median

Type

Highway fatalities

Train strikes highway vehicle

Mountable curbs

Barrier curbs

One-way street

Photo Enforcement

Highway vehicle strikes train

Type

Highway fatalities

Train fatalities

Train fatalities

% accidents with severe derailments

added severity with sev. Derailments

Speeds of maximum severity (highway)

Lights to gates

2 1/25/2002