i 

U.S. Department of 

Transportation

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Private Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety 

Research and Inquiry, Volume I

Office of Research

and Development

Washington, DC 20590

DOT/FRA/ORD-10/02 Final Report

February 2010
Notice

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of 

the Department of Transportation in the interest of 

information exchange. The United States Government 

assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof.

Notice

The United States Government does not endorse 

products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ 

names appear herein solely because they are 

considered essential to the objective of this report.
i 

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

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

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

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.

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

February 2010

3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Private Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety Research and Inquiry, Volumes I & II

5. FUNDING NUMBERS

RR97/EG064

RR97/DG064

RR97/CG064 6. AUTHOR(S)

Steven M. Peck, Anya A. Carroll, and Miriam Kloeppel

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

U.S. Department of Transportation

Research and Innovative Technology Administration

John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

Cambridge, MA 02140

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

REPORT NUMBER

DOT-VNTSC-FRA-08-02.1

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

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Railroad Administration

Office of Research and Development

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

FRA/ORD-10/02

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety Research series

Program Manager: Leonard Allen

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

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

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

This report provides a summary of the private highway-rail grade crossing safety inquiry conducted by the United States 

Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration and the Volpe Center. The safety inquiry consisted of a series of 

public meetings to solicit oral commentary on the safety of the nation’s private highway-rail grade crossings, a docket for 

electronic comment submission, a panel discussion at the Transportation Research Board’s annual meeting, and other activities as 

described in the table of contents.

14. SUBJECT TERMS

Grade crossings; private highway-rail grade crossings, rail safety

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

114

16. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF REPORT

Unclassified

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF THIS PAGE

Unclassified

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified

20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

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

Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18

298-102 
ii

METRIC/ENGLISH CONVERSION FACTORS

ENGLISH TO METRIC METRIC TO ENGLISH

LENGTH (APPROXIMATE) LENGTH (APPROXIMATE)

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

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

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

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

1 kilometer (km) = 0.6 mile (mi)

AREA (APPROXIMATE) AREA (APPROXIMATE)

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

(cm2

) 

1 square centimeter (cm2

) = 0.16 square inch (sq in, in2) 

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

yd2

) 

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

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

(km2

) 

10,000 square meters (m2

) = 1 hectare (ha) = 2.5 acres

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

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

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

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

1 short ton = 2,000 

pounds (lb)

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

=

1,000 kilograms (kg)

1.1 short tons

VOLUME (APPROXIMATE) VOLUME (APPROXIMATE)

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

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

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

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

1 pint (pt) = 0.47 liter (l)

1 quart (qt) = 0.96 liter (l)

1 gallon (gal) = 3.8 liters (l)

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

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

TEMPERATURE (EXACT) TEMPERATURE (EXACT)

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

QUICK INCH - CENTIMETER LENGTH CONVERSION

0 1 2 3 4 5

Inches

Centimeters 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 987 1110 1312

QUICK FAHRENHEIT - CELSIUS TEMPERATURE CONVERSIO

 -40° -22° -4° 14° 32° 50° 68° 86° 104° 122° 140° 158° 176° 194° 212°

 

°F

 °C -40° -30° -20° -10° 0° 10° 20° 30° 40° 50° 60° 70° 80° 90° 100°

For more exact and or other conversion factors, see NIST Miscellaneous Publication 286, Units of Weights and 

Measures. Price $2.50 SD Catalog No. C13 10286 Updated 6/17/98
iii

Acknowledgements

Under sponsorship from the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Federal 

Railroad Administration’s (FRA) Offices of Safety and Research and Development, the USDOT

Research and Innovative Technology Administration’s (RITA) John A. Volpe National 

Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center) supported a safety inquiry into the current state of 

private highway-rail grade crossing safety in the United States. 

The authors wish to thank Grady C. Cothen, Deputy Associate Administrator, and Ron E. Ries 

and Miriam Kloeppel, all from FRA Office of Safety, as well as James A. Smailes, Office of 

Research and Development (retired), for their guidance and support. Also, the authors thank 

FRA Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Managers for all their support in the coordination and 

conduct of these public meetings. In addition, the authors thank Mirna Gustave, CASE LLC, for 

her tireless efforts in coordinating the numerous public meetings and Tashi Ngamdung, Volpe 

Center, for his technical support. 

The authors also thank the California Department of Transportation, the California Public 

Utilities Commission, the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, the 

Minnesota Department of Transportation, the New York State Department of Transportation, and 

the North Carolina Department of Transportation for their support in hosting their individual 

public meetings. 

The authors also thank our international partners, Phil Poichuk, Transport Canada, and Aidan C. 

Nelson, the United Kingdom Rail Safety and Standards Board (formerly), for providing 

information and graphics of their respective countries’ positions on private highway-rail (level) 

grade crossings. 

Note: Appendices listed in the table of contents are available in Volume II.
iv

Contents

Acknowledgments..............................................................................................................iii 

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

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 3

2 Background ............................................................................................................. 4

2.1 Movement toward Safety Inquiry ..................................................................... 4

2.2 Federal Regulations and Jurisdictional Issues .................................................. 5

3 Safety Inquiry Structure .......................................................................................... 6

3.1 Federal Register/Private Crossing Website ...................................................... 6

3.2 Electronic Docket.............................................................................................. 7

3.3 Survey of State and Local Authority ................................................................ 7

3.4 International Perspective ................................................................................... 8

3.5 Private Crossing Data Evaluation ..................................................................... 8

3.6 Public Meetings ................................................................................................ 9

3.7 Additional Outreach .......................................................................................... 9

3.8 Private Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Reported Incidents ............................ 10

4 Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Inventory and Incident Review ........................... 11

4.1 Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Incident, Injury, and Fatality Statistics.......... 12

4.2 Private Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Data Review ...................................... 14

4.2.1 Warning Device Type ............................................................................... 18

4.2.2 Train Speed ............................................................................................... 21

4.2.3 Type of Development ............................................................................... 24

4.2.4 Roadway User ........................................................................................... 26

4.3 Data Review Summary ................................................................................... 30

5 State and Local Authority ..................................................................................... 33

6 International Perspective on Private Crossing Authority...................................... 36

6.1 Canada............................................................................................................. 36

6.2 United Kingdom.............................................................................................. 37

7 Public Meetings .................................................................................................... 40

7.1 Fort Snelling, MN: Federal Register Topical Questions ................................ 41

7.2 Raleigh, NC: Engineering ............................................................................... 45

7.3 San Francisco, CA: Responsibility ................................................................. 50

7.4 New Orleans, LA: Data Elements ................................................................... 56

7.5 Syracuse, NY: Policy Considerations ............................................................. 61

8 Additional Outreach .............................................................................................. 68

9 Private Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Reported Incidents .................................. 75

9.1 Incident Number: HQ-2006-40, Jackson, MI ................................................. 75

9.2 Incident Number: HQ-2006-42, Axis AL ....................................................... 76

9.3 Incident Number: HQ-2006-50, Boutte, LA ................................................... 77

9.4 Incident Number: HQ-2006-53, LeMont, IL .................................................. 78

9.5 Incident Number: HQ-2006-62, Castle Rock, WA ......................................... 80

9.6 Incident Number: HQ-2006-73, Rome, NY ................................................... 81

9.7 Incident Number: HQ-2006-76, Wayne, MI................................................... 83

9.8 Incident Number: HQ-2006-21, Sledge, MS .................................................. 85

9.9 Incident Number: HQ-2007-43, Plant City, FL .............................................. 86
v 

9.10 Summary ......................................................................................................... 88

10 Summary of Public Comments ............................................................................. 90

10.1 Private Crossing Definitions ........................................................................... 90

10.2 Private Crossing Categorization ..................................................................... 90

10.3 Data Collection ............................................................................................... 91

10.4 Change in Use ................................................................................................. 91

10.5 Public Awareness and Education .................................................................... 92

10.6 Stakeholder Involvement ................................................................................ 92

10.7 Design and Signage Standards ........................................................................ 92

10.8 National Guidelines ........................................................................................ 94

10.9 Public Funding ................................................................................................ 94

10.10 Rights and Responsibilities ............................................................................. 95

10.11 Legislation....................................................................................................... 95

11 Summary of Findings ............................................................................................ 96

12 Options Presented for Discussion ....................................................................... 101

Abbreviations and Acronyms....... ................................................................................. 106

Appendices 

A.1 Public Meeting, Fort Snelling, MN

A.2 Public Meeting, Raleigh, NC

A.3 Public Meeting, San Francisco, CA 

A.4 Public Meeting, New Orleans, LA

A.5 Public Meeting, Syracuse, NY

A.6 Transportation Research Board Panel Discussion, Washington, DC 

A.7 Docket Submissions 

A.8 State Law Compilations

A.9 Statistical Data Review

A.10 Contact Database

A.11 USDOT FRA National Crossing Inventory Form with Instructions 

A.12 Canada: Grade Crossing Regulation (Draft) December 3, 2002 

A.13 United Kingdom: Level Crossing to Which the Public have Access – Guidance on 

Legislation and Enforcement, RGD-2005-03 

A.14 Northern Ireland: The Private Crossings (Signs and Barriers) Regulations, 2007 SR No. 

41 
vi 

Illustrations

Figure 1. USDOT National Crossing Inventory Form................................................................. 11

Figure 2. Annual Number of Incidents at Public Crossings, 1985–2006 .................................... 12

Figure 3. Annual Number of Incidents at Private Crossings, 1985–2006 ................................... 13

Figure 4. Annual Number of Incidents at All Highway Crossings, 1985–2006 .......................... 13

Figure 5. Annual Number of Incidents, Fatalities, and Injuries at Private Crossings,

1985–2006 .................................................................................................................... 15

Figure 6. Number of Incidents by Warning Device, 1997–2006 ................................................. 16

Figure 7. Number of Incidents by Train Speed, 1997–2006........................................................ 16

Figure 8. Number of Incidents by Type of Development, 1997–2006 ........................................ 17

Figure 9. Number of Incidents by Roadway User Type, 1997–2006 .......................................... 18

Figure 10. Number of Private Crossings Equipped with Warning Devices ................................ 18

Figure 11. Number of Private Crossings Equipped with Warning Devices by Type 

of Crossing, November 2006 ...................................................................................... 19

Figure 12. Private Crossing Incident Proportion by Warning Device, 1997–2006 ..................... 20

Figure 13. Number of Private Crossing Incidents by Warning Device, 1997–2006 ................... 20

Figure 14. Private Crossing Incident Proportion by Train Speed, 1997–2006 ............................ 21

Figure 15. Public Crossing Incident Proportion by Train Speed, 1997–2006 ............................. 22

Figure 16. Total Private Crossing Incidents by Train Speed and Type of Equipment, 

1997–2006................................................................................................................... 22

Figure 17. Total Public Crossing Incidents by Train Speed and Type of Equipment, 

1997–2006................................................................................................................... 23

Figure 18. Private Crossing Injuries and Fatalities by Train Speed at Impact, 1997–2006 ........ 23

Figure 19. Number of Crossings by Type of Development, 1997–2006 ..................................... 24

Figure 20. Private Crossing Incidents by Development and Roadway User, 1997–2006 ........... 25

Figure 21. Private Crossing Incident Proportion by Roadway User Type, 1997–2006 .............. 27

Figure 22. Public Crossing Incident Proportion by Roadway User Type, 1997–2006 ................ 27

Figure 23. Number of Private Crossing Incidents by Roadway User, 1997–2006 ...................... 28

Figure 24. Unrestricted Nonvehicular Grade Crossing (Pedestrian and Bicycle) ....................... 37

Figure 25. Private Highway-Rail Grade Crossing in Great Britain ............................................. 39

Figure 26. Examples of Signs at Private Crossing ....................................................................... 49

Figure 27. Private Crossing, USDOT ID No. 545296H, Jackson, MI ......................................... 75

Figure 28. Private Crossing, USDOT ID No. 309452U, Lemont, IL .......................................... 79

Figure 29. Private Crossing, USDOT ID No. 092479W, Castle Rock, WA ............................... 80

Figure 30. Private Crossing, USDOT ID No. 512670G, Rome, NY ........................................... 82

Figure 31. Private Crossing, USDOT ID No. [unknown], Wayne, MI ....................................... 84

Figure 32. Private Crossing, USDOT ID No. 300586M, Sledge, MS ......................................... 85

Figure 33. Private Crossing, USDOT ID No. 624310U, Plant City, FL ..................................... 87

Figure 34. Private Crossing Unique Signage Examples .............................................................. 93

Figure 35. Additional Private Crossing Unique Signage Examples ............................................ 93

Figure 36. Additional Private Crossing Signage Example .......................................................... 94
vii 

Tables

Table 1. Private Crossing Incidents by Development and Train Speed, 1997–2006 .................. 26

Table 2. Private Industrial Crossing Incidents by Roadway User and Warning Device, 

1997–2006...................................................................................................................... 29

Table 3. Public Industrial Crossing Incidents by Roadway User and Warning Device, 

1997–2006...................................................................................................................... 29

Table 4. State Authority over Private Crossings .......................................................................... 33

Table 5. Private Crossing Categorization by Use: Minnesota Public Meeting............................ 45

Table 6. Organizations Required for a Technical Working Group .............................................. 48

Table 7. Private Crossing Categorization by Use: North Carolina Public Meeting .................... 48
1 

Executive Summary

Private highway-rail grade crossing safety has been a matter of concern to both the 

United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) and the National Transportation 

Safety Board (NTSB) for more than a decade. USDOT’s Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) hosted an open meeting on July 13, 1993, to initiate an 

industrywide discussion concerning private crossing safety. Since then, both USDOT 

and NTSB have publicly weighed in on the topic. The 1994 USDOT Rail-Highway 

Action Plan addressed the need to review safety concerns at private highway-rail grade 

crossings. In the 2004 USDOT Highway-Rail Crossing Safety and Trespass Prevention 

Action Plan, the department committed to lead an effort to define responsibility for safety

at private highway-rail grade crossings.

Private highway-rail grade crossings are intersections of highways and railroads on 

roadways either not open to public travel or not maintained by a public authority. 

According to the National Crossing Inventory maintained by FRA, more than 94,400 

private crossings existed in the United States in 2006. Typical types of private crossings 

include: 

• Farm crossings that provide access between tracts of land lying on both sides 

of the railroad. 

• Industrial plant crossings that provide access between plant facilities on both 

sides of the railroad. 

• Residential access crossings over which the occupants and their invitees reach 

private residences from another road, frequently a public road parallel and 

adjacent to the railroad right of way. 

• Temporary crossings established for the duration of a private construction 

project or other seasonal activity. [Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing 

Handbook; Revised Second Edition, 2007. FHWA-SA-07-010] 

The USDOT Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Manual on Uniform Traffic 

Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD) (2003 edition) defines a public 

roadway as any road or street under the jurisdiction of and maintained by a public agency 

and open to public travel. If either approach to a crossing does not qualify as a public 

roadway, then the crossing is typically classified as a private crossing.

Approximately 400 incidents resulting in more than 30 fatalities occur at private 

highway-rail grade crossings per year. Historically, the number of fatalities at private 

crossings has exceeded the total number of on-duty deaths among railroad employees in 

all rail operations. During the past two decades, the number of incidents at public 

highway-rail grade crossings has decreased by approximately 60 percent, whereas the 

number of incidents at private crossings has decreased by approximately 26 percent. 

Many safety treatments and initiatives have been implemented at public crossings. The 

steep decline in incidents at public crossings is likely associated with this 

implementation. However, because of the characteristics of and the inherent 
2 

responsibilities regarding private property, private crossings have not received many of 

the public grade crossing treatments and initiatives.

Private highway-rail grade crossings may be governed by legal agreements between 

private property owners and private railroad companies. Currently, few Federal 

regulations pertain to the safety, operation, maintenance, or responsibility designations at 

private highway-rail grade crossings, although some States and local jurisdictions have 

assumed varying degrees of authority over them. 

To initiate a national discussion on safety issues at private highway-rail grade crossings, 

FRA conducted a safety inquiry from July 2006 through July 2007 with the intention of 

soliciting comments from all affiliated parties to determine current practices and 

regulations that pertain to private highway-rail grade crossing safety and the best course 

of action to improve safety. 

The safety inquiry consisted of several parallel efforts to gain information. Staff 

conducted literature reviews, surveys of relevant State authorities, analyses of existing 

data, and interviews with representatives from international partnering nations. 

Comments from electronic docket submissions, five public meetings, and additional 

outreach sessions also contributed to the safety inquiry. 

A wealth of information was received from railroads, labor organizations, State 

Department of Transportations (DOTs), private crossing holders, and the general public 

in the course of the safety inquiry. Although many different topics were discussed, 

certain topics recurred. Areas of particular interest and need for further consideration 

include: 

o Enhanced definition of a private crossing 

o Identification of crossing categories 

o Data collection 

o National Crossing Inventory requirements

o Notification of change in use of property 

o Signage requirements

o Engineering treatments

o Education 

o Rights and responsibilities

o Funding sources 

This report documents the information gathered during the safety inquiry. The report 

includes the process used by FRA and the John A. Volpe National Transportation 

Systems Center (Volpe Center), written and oral commentary, and a summary of regional 

and local regulations, standards, and practices specific to private crossings. The report 

documents results and deliberations for activities conducted during this safety inquiry. 
3 

1. Introduction

The FHWA MUTCD defines a public highway-rail grade crossing as any intersection between a 

public roadway and railroad. The roadway on either side of the crossing must be a public 

roadway, i.e., under the jurisdiction of, and maintained by, a public authority and open to public 

travel. If either approach to a crossing does not qualify as a public roadway, then the crossing is 

typically classified as a private crossing. 

In 2006, more than 94,400 private highway-rail grade crossings in the United States were in 

existence, at which over 400 incidents occurred, resulting in more than 30 fatalities. 

Currently, accurate estimations of the physical conditions, operations, maintenance procedures, 

and estimated risks at private highway-rail grade crossings in the United States are unavailable, 

in large part because private crossing data are limited, incomplete, and in some instances 

inaccurate. Furthermore, the nature of private ownership and the contractual rights between 

private-property owners and railroads have complicated Federal, State, and local governmental

authority regarding these types of crossings.

From July 2006 through July 2007, FRA, with support from USDOT/RITA/Volpe Center, 

conducted a safety inquiry to solicit comments from private crossing owners, railroads, and other 

interested parties on safety issues at private highway-rail grade crossings. 

This report documents the information gathered during the safety inquiry. The document 

includes the process used by FRA and the Volpe Center, written and oral commentary, and a 

summary of regional and local regulations, standards, and practices specific to private crossings. 
4 

2. Background

Private highway-rail grade crossings have been a matter of concern to the USDOT, industry, and 

the general public for a long time. All items of concern cannot be addressed immediately 

because of constraints on time and resources; however, multiple agencies within the USDOT are 

involved in this effort. In particular, FRA and FHWA have made efforts to advance the safety of 

private highway-rail grade crossings. 

2.1 Movement toward Safety Inquiry

On July 13, 1993, FRA hosted a public meeting to initiate a national, industrywide discussion on 

private highway-rail grade crossing safety. 

In 1994, through the 1994 USDOT Rail-Highway Crossing Safety Action Plan, the USDOT

further committed to address the safety of private highway-rail grade crossings by proposing to 

“develop and provide national, minimum safety standards for private crossings, and to eliminate 

the potential impediment to high speed rail operations posed by private crossings.” 

In 1998, NTSB publicly commented on the need for improved safety at private crossings through 

a study entitled Safety at Passive Grade Crossings, Volume 1: Analysis (No. SS-98-02). The 

report highlighted the need to improve safety at highway-rail grade crossings and recommended

that the USDOT, in conjunction with the States, determine governmental oversight responsibility 

for safety at private highway-rail grade crossings. 

In 1999, NTSB issued a report entitled Collision of Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation 

District 102 with a Tractor-Trailer, Portage Indiana (No. RAR-99-03) in which it reiterated the 

need for improved safety at private crossings. NTSB recommended that the USDOT “eliminate 

any difference between private and public highway-rail grade crossings with regard to providing 

funding for, or requiring the implementation of, safety improvements.” 

In 2004, USDOT committed to leading an effort to define responsibility for safety at private 

highway-rail grade crossings in the 2004 USDOT Highway-Rail Crossing Safety and Trespass 

Prevention Action Plan. As stated in the 2004 Action Plan, the USDOT made a commitment to 

determine minimum criteria for signage, identify safety needs at private highway-rail grade 

crossings, and expedite efforts to develop policy considerations for future FRA actions. 

On July 27, 2006, FRA posted a notice in the Federal Register, stating its intent to conduct a 

safety inquiry into private highway-rail grade crossings. The effort included a series of public 

meetings throughout the United States in cooperation with State agencies to facilitate an open, 

industry wide dialogue into issues related to private crossing practices, responsibility, and safety. 

In addition, FRA opened a public docket on these issues for interested parties to submit written 

comments for public review and consideration. 

In 2007, FHWA released an updated Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook (Revised 

Second Edition, 2007), describing certain safety concerns regarding private highway-rail grade 

crossings.
5 

Finding: 

• The safety of private crossings is a longstanding priority, which the government has 

only recently been able to begin to address. 

2.2 Federal Regulations and Jurisdictional Issues

Private crossings present a unique set of safety challenges and issues because of their private, or 

nonpublic, character. Ownership of private crossings can vary, ranging from outright ownership 

of the underlying property to documented easements to prescriptive easements to documented 

licenses under contract to verbal agreements. In addition, private highway-rail grade crossings 

serve the needs of large, disparate populations of businesses and individuals with very different 

requirements. The highly localized needs, risks, and ownership arrangements that are therefore 

present at the Nation’s private highway-rail grade crossings have complicated any efforts to 

develop a cohesive strategy for addressing safety on a national scale. 

FHWA has regulatory and statutory authority regarding over public roadways, including those at 

public highway-rail grade crossings, on the basis of Title 23 U.S. Code Sections 130 and 646. 

These regulations afford authority over public crossings and Federal aid programs funded 

through transportation bills such as the current SAFETEA-LU. Under this bill, States can request 

and receive funding to address the use of safety warning devices at public highway-rail grade 

crossings. FRA has regulatory and statutory authority over the Nation’s rail networks, including 

safety, maintenance, and operations. 

State and local authorities are largely reluctant to exercise any jurisdiction over operations and 

safety at private crossings because they consider private crossings to be private property. Title 

23 of the U.S. Code also prohibits funding of private crossing improvements with few 

exceptions, such as private crossings on designated high-speed rail corridors (discussed in 

Section 5, State and Local Authority). 

Finding: 

• Within DOT, FRA is the only agency with statutory authority directly relevant to the 

subject matter. However, in the interest of effectively serving the multimodal 

populations at risk, other DOT surface modes should participate in program 

development. 
6 

3. Safety Inquiry Structure

FRA and the Volpe Center used a broad set of activities to engage the public and provide an 

open line of communication on the developments of the safety inquiry on private highway-rail

grade crossing safety. The activities included the following: use of the Federal Register and a 

Web site to post updates; establishment of an electronic docket to solicit written commentary; a 

survey of current Federal, State, and local authority related to private crossings; analysis of

available private crossing data; interviews of representatives of the international community to 

gain an international perspective; solicitation of oral commentary at five public meetings; 

additional outreach at industry-specific events such as the Transportation Research Board’s 

(TRB) Annual Meeting; and investigation summaries for reported private crossing incidents that 

occurred during the safety inquiry. All activities were publicly documented and posted on the 

electronic docket. 

3.1 Federal Register/Private Crossing Web site

FRA used the services of the Office of Federal Register, National Archives and Records 

Administration to publish communications regarding the safety inquiry, scheduled dates for 

public meetings, and updates to scheduled meetings. The Federal Register is the official daily 

publication for rules, proposed rules, and notices of Federal agencies and organizations. 

FRA posted an initial notice of intent to facilitate a safety inquiry in the Federal Register on 

Thursday, July 27, 2006. The initial posting contained a summary of the intended safety inquiry, 

supplemental information regarding private crossing safety, the schedule for the first public 

meeting, and contact information. Notices for subsequent public meetings were posted in the 

Federal Register prior to each meeting. Update notices for scheduled meetings were also posted 

in the Federal Register. 

In addition, FRA hosted a website that provided updated information regarding the safety 

inquiry. This information included links to the safety inquiry’s Federal Register notices, a link 

to the electronic docket for the inquiry, and contact information for FRA staff managing the 

safety inquiry. 

Questions of Interest

In the initial Federal Register notice, FRA solicited discussion and commentary on many areas 

related to private highway-rail grade crossings. To facilitate discussion and target specific areas, 

commentary was encouraged regarding 10 topics as follows: 

 At-grade highway-rail crossings present inherent risks to users, including the railroad and 

its employees, and to other persons in the vicinity, should a train derail into an occupied 

area or release hazardous materials. When passenger trains are involved, the risks are 

heightened. From the standpoint of public policy, how do we determine whether creation 

or continuation of a private crossing is justified?
7 

 Is the current assignment of responsibility for safety at private crossings effective? To 

what extent do risk management practices associated with insurance arrangements result 

in ‘‘regulation’’ of safety at private crossings?

 How should improvement and/or maintenance costs associated with a private crossing be 

allocated?

 Is there a need for alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to handle disputes that may 

arise between private crossing owners and the railroads?

 Should the State or Federal government assume greater responsibility for safety at private 

crossings?

 Should there be nationwide standards for warning devices at private crossings or for 

intersection design of new private grade crossings? 

 How do we determine when a private crossing has a public purpose and is subject to 

public use? 

 Should some private crossings be categorized as commercial crossings rather than as 

private crossings?

 Are there innovative traffic control treatments that could improve safety at private 

crossings on major rail corridors, including those on which passenger service is 

provided? 

 Should DOT request enactment of legislation to address private crossings? If so, what 

should it include? 

3.2 Electronic Docket

FRA established an electronic docket to facilitate public participation in the safety inquiry on 

private highway-rail grade crossings. The electronic docket provided an outlet for information 

dissemination and written comment submission through the U.S. Docket Management System at 

http://dms.dot.gov/ or http://www.regulations.gov/ [Safety of Private Highway-Rail Grade 

Crossing: Safety Inquiry, Docket No. FRA-2005-23281]. 

A full list of submissions received in the docket can be found in Appendix A.7. 

3.3 Survey of State and Local Authority

The Volpe Center conducted a review of past and present authority related to private highwayrail grade crossings. The survey was implemented through the use of available documentation 

and contact with States. This review researched State legislative authority specific to safety and 

closure of private highway-rail grade crossings.

In large part, authority over crossing safety and the closure of at-grade crossings resides with the 

State agency that regulates and oversees transportation. However, in some States, crossing 

closure responsibility resides with regulatory bodies such as a State public utility commission, 

and in some cases, the responsibility is shared between two State agencies or a State agency and 

a local authority.

The level of regulatory authority granted to State agencies through legislation varies depending 

on the State. For example, some States have the authority to regulate warning device installation 
8 

at private crossings. Florida requires signage at private highway-rail grade crossings to comply 

with the MUTCD, while South Carolina requires private highway-rail grade crossings to be 

equipped with the same warning devices as public crossings. 

Other States have regulatory authority over the evaluation and creation of new private highwayrail grade crossings and the closure of existing private highway-rail grade crossings. Virginia 

appears to have the authority to forbid the creation of new private highway-rail grade crossings. 

Rhode Island appears to have the authority to close existing private highway-rail grade crossings. 

California appears to have the authority to close existing private highway-rail grade crossings 

through their environmental review process, which contains a dispute resolution component. 

Twenty-two States that have regulations granting some varying level of authority over the safety 

and closure of private highway-rail grade crossings. The remaining 28 States do not appear to 

have specific regulatory authority over the safety or closure of private highway-rail grade 

crossings. From interviews, public meetings, and docket submissions, the statement could be 

made that not all States that have authority over private crossings exercise or are successfully 

exercising this authority. 

3.4 International Perspective

In an effort to determine the state of private crossings internationally, a review of partnering 

nations’ regulatory authority was conducted. The USDOT has memoranda of understanding 

with certain countries that facilitate information sharing between those nations and the United 

States. These memoranda enabled staff to interview representatives of Canada and the United 

Kingdom to gain insight into their regulations or other authorities specific to safety and closure 

of private highway-rail grade crossings. 

3.5 Private Crossing Data Evaluation

FRA’s National Crossing Inventory and Railroad Accident and Incident Reporting System 

(RAIRS) databases contain publicly available highway-rail grade crossing information. The 

National Crossing Inventory was developed as a voluntary database to provide a uniform 

inventory that could be combined with incident data and used to support planning and 

implementation of crossing safety improvements implemented by States. States and railroads 

both file extensive information on every public grade crossing but submit a much smaller data 

set on each private crossing. RAIRS contains several databases that document the circumstances 

and outcomes of incidents and incidents occurring on the Nation’s railroads. Railroads are 

required to submit data to the RAIRS databases on a timely basis. Of particular interest for the 

purposes of this study, one of the RAIRS databases, the Grade Crossing Incident Report (GXIR) 

database, contains a record for every grade crossing incident occurring nationwide, regardless of 

whether the crossing is public or private. 

Although limited by the relative lack of inventory information, the private crossing data available 

were reviewed and analyzed in an effort to understand the physical conditions and incidents 

associated with private highway-rail grade crossings. Initial analysis examined the incident, 

injury, and fatality rates of private crossings relative to public crossings. Further analysis was 
9 

conducted in an effort to obtain an understanding of the incident, injury, and fatality rates at 

private crossings relative to public crossings. 

3.6 Public Meetings

FRA and the Volpe Center hosted a series of five public meetings throughout the United States 

to solicit comments from State agencies, industry, and the general public. Each meeting was 

coordinated and conducted in conjunction with the respective State agencies for the locality in 

which the meeting was held. Meetings were conducted in five cities: Fort Snelling, MN; 

Raleigh, NC; San Francisco, CA; New Orleans, LA; and Syracuse, NY.

 

Each public meeting was conducted in an organized, uniform format. The meetings provided 

background information on private crossing safety and the safety inquiry, time for individuals 

and organizations to submit statements, and an interactive open discussion. 

At each of the public meetings, the interactive open discussion was tailored to a specific topic. 

Topics included the 10 initial topical questions, rights and responsibilities, engineering, data 

needs, and policy considerations. Topic-specific discussions were held in regions of the country 

that have demonstrated particular interest or advancement in private crossing safety or that have 

innovative procedures or authority to address concerns in that area (see Section 6).

An official transcript of each meeting was recorded and posted on the electronic docket (see 

Appendices A1–A5).

USDOT conducted many outreach activities in an effort to publicize related activities. Each 

meeting was announced publicly via a press release. In addition, FRA developed a database of 

government, industry, and academic contacts by combining the contact lists from FRA Railroad 

Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) and the 23 U.S.C. Section 130 Funding Program. National 

metropolitan planning organizations, trucking associations, agricultural associations, police 

authorities, delivery companies, commercial organizations, and railroad supply companies were 

added to the database. A letter of invitation was mailed to each individual or organization listed 

in this extended database (more than 700 contacts) prior to each meeting. 

3.7 Additional Outreach

In an effort to broaden outreach as much as possible, the Volpe Center hosted a panel discussion 

session on safety at private highway-rail grade crossings at the National Academy of Sciences 

(NAS) Transportation Research Board’s (TRB) 86th Annual Meeting on January 23, 2007, in 

Washington, DC. The TRB annual meeting attracts roughly 10,000 transportation professionals 

from around the world, including policymakers, administrators, practitioners, and researchers 

and representatives from industry, academia, and government. 

The panel discussion was hosted by TRB’s Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Committee, AHB60, 

and included six members representing government, industry, and labor unions with concerns 

regarding private crossing safety. Representatives from FRA, FHWA, North Carolina 

Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Railroad Controls Limited, Association of American 
10 

Railroads (AAR), and Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB), United Kingdom, each provided 

brief statements and facilitated a discussion with the audience (see Section 7).

3.8 Private Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Reported Incidents

During the course of the safety inquiry, FRA conducted a series of incident investigations to 

provide current field data on selected private crossings. In addition to collecting the data 

required for a grade crossing investigation, FRA inspectors collected information specific to the 

incident-involved private crossing. The additional data included information about the frequency 

and types of rail and highway traffic, some data about the geometric configuration at the 

crossing, signage that was present, and any ownership or maintenance agreement information 

available. The summaries of nine incident investigations completed during the safety inquiry are 

listed in Section 8. 
11 

4. Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Inventory and Incident Review

The National Crossing Inventory and the RAIRS Grade Crossing Incident Report databases were 

used to conduct an analysis of the physical conditions and incidents associated with private 

highway-rail grade crossings. Initially, the Volpe Center compared the incident, injury, and 

fatality rates of private crossings with those of public crossings. Further review was conducted 

in an effort to examine the incident, injury, and fatality rates at private crossings. 

Highway-rail grade crossing physical characteristics are collected and submitted by the railroads 

and the States to the National Crossing Inventory on a standard form (FRA F 6180.71, Rev. 

11/99) (Figure 1). The database was designed to capture public crossing information to facilitate 

analysis supporting grade crossing safety improvement programs using Federal funds under a 

program commonly referred to as Section 130 (U.S.C. Section 130); currently, the submission of 

crossing data is voluntary. Because crossing improvement programs funded through Section 130 

are generally limited to public crossings, only a small subset of the data elements listed on the 

form is requested for private crossings. Consequently, limited characteristic data exist for the 

Nation’s private crossings. 

 Note: Private crossing information is highlighted in blue

Figure 1. USDOT National Crossing Inventory Form

Because the database is updated on a voluntary basis and contains detailed records for more than 

240,000 crossings nationwide, it is not possible to verify accuracy, timeliness, or completeness 

of the data for private crossings. A simple examination of the average dates on which records 

were updated reveals differences between records for public crossings and those for private 
12 

crossings. As of December 2007, the average age of public crossing records in the National 

Crossing Inventory is 6.7 years; the corresponding average age of private crossing records is 13.9 

years. About one-third of the private crossing data records in the National Crossing Inventory 

have been updated since 2001, but roughly the same proportion of the current private crossing 

data records have never been updated. 

All highway-rail grade crossing incident, fatality, and injury data are submitted by the railroads. 

The railroads are required to report all rail-related grade crossing incidents to FRA on a monthly 

basis through submission of the standard FRA Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Accident/Incident 

Report form (FRA F 6180.57, Rev. 03/03). The submitted data are stored in the RAIRS GXIR 

database.

Finding: 

• The data currently stored in the National Highway-Railroad Crossing Inventory for 

private crossings are generally not current and not suited for most analyses, and were 

historically not intended to support effective resource allocation.

4.1 Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Incident, Injury, and Fatality Statistics

Approximately 240,000 at-grade highway-rail crossings exist in the United States. Of those 

240,000, over 39 percent (94,400) are private highway-rail grade crossings. Between 1985 and 

2006, there has been a reduction in the number of incidents at both public and private crossings. 

The reduction at public crossings of 60.6 percent has been much greater than that at private 

crossings, 26.0 percent (see Figures 2 and 3). 

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

1985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006

Year

Number of Incidents

60.6% reduction of annual 

incidents at Public Crossings

 Source: USDOT FRA RAIRS database, October 2007.

Figure 2. Annual Number of Incidents at Public Crossings, 1985–2006 
13 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006

Year

Number of Incidents

26.0% reduction of annual 

incidents at private crossings

 Source: USDOT FRA RAIRS database, October 2007. 

Figure 3. Annual Number of Incidents at Private Crossings, 1985–2006

An examination of the proportion of overall grade crossing incident reduction that can be 

attributed to each crossing category shows that private crossing incident count reductions 

account for a relatively small (3.7 percent) part (Figure 4). Despite the fact that traffic counts, 

both highway and railroad, at all crossings have generally increased over the relevant time 

period, creating higher risk levels, nevertheless public crossings have accounted for 96.3 percent 

of the reduction in incidents occurring at all crossings. 

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

1985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006

Year

Number of Incidents

Public Private

96.3% Reduction of annual 

incidents at all crossings

3.7% reduction of annual 

incidents at all crossings

 Source: USDOT FRA RAIRS Database, October 2007.

Figure 4. Annual Number of Incidents at All Highway Crossings, 1985–2006 
14 

One factor that may in part explain the disparity in incident reduction between the two types of 

crossings is that the population of motorists using a private crossing is generally more limited, 

suggesting that there may be fewer motorists who are unfamiliar with the private crossing than 

there might be at a public crossing. Studies suggest that drivers who habitually use a given 

crossing may develop an expectation that they will not encounter a train while traversing that 

crossing.1

 Research has also shown that because the frequency of trains at grade crossings is so 

low, drivers tend to bias their behavior toward not stopping.2 Accordingly, it may be that drivers 

who are not as familiar with a particular grade crossing may be more alert to the possibility of a 

train’s approach. A higher proportion of nonhabitual users at public crossings, therefore, may 

also translate to a higher proportion of drivers who are alert to the approach of a train than is the 

case at private crossings. 

Another factor that may play a role in decreasing incident incidence at public crossings is the use 

of highway enforcement to affect driver behavior. In at least one State, for example, photo 

enforcement has been shown to reduce the number of traffic violations occurring at grade 

crossings.3 Enforcement, however, whether photo enforcement or more traditional methods 

involving police personnel, is not generally available at private grade crossings.

A third, and possibly the most significant factor in the decrease in the number of incidents 

between public and private crossings, is due to the differences in the number of crossings that 

have been subject to engineering improvements during the relevant period. Upgrading warning 

devices, improving roadway or track geometry, and other physical improvements to the crossing 

environment have a positive effect on crossing safety. Engineering improvements, however, 

tend to come at a high price, more than many local jurisdictions, let alone private landowners, 

can afford. The most effective crossing improvements, therefore, are typically funded through 

the States using Federal funds from the Section 130 Program. As Section 130 funds may only be 

used at public crossings, with few exceptions, improvements at private crossings are very rare.

4.2 Private Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Data Review

In an effort to understand the factors affecting private crossing incidents, staff examined the

available data in further detail. This began with a review of the National Crossing Inventory. As 

noted in Section 4, relatively few data elements are submitted for private crossings. 

Furthermore, because the data submissions are voluntary, the existing private crossing data are in 

many cases not accurate and up to date. Indeed, in many instances, the particular data fields 

reviewed were recorded as unavailable or unknown. The RAIRS GXIR database offered a more 

complete dataset, but analyses combining the two datasets yielded results with undetermined 

 

1 National Transportation Safety Board. 1998. Safety at Passive Highway/Rail Grade Crossings, Volume 1: 

Analysis. No. SS-98-02, p. 48. Washington, DC. 2 Raslear, Thomas. 1996. Driver behavior at rail-highway grade crossings: a signal detection theory analysis. In: 

Safety of Highway-Railroad Grade Crossings: Research Needs Workshop. Vol. II: Appendices. DOT/FRA/ORD95/14.2; DOT-VNTSC-FRA-95-12.2, F-9–F-56, p. F-22). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Federal Railroad Administration.

3 Illinois Commerce Commission. 2002. Photo enforcement at highway-rail grade crossings: 2001 status report to 

the General Assembly. Working paper 2002–02; available at 

www.icc.illinois.gov/downloads/public/rr/0502_Photo%20Enforcement_Followup%20Report.pdf on January 8, 

2008. 
15 

accuracy. Nevertheless, an examination of the available data illustrated general trends and 

helped to identify problematic areas for further investigation. 

On average, during the past few years, approximately 400 incidents have occurred annually at 

private highway-rail grade crossings. These incidents resulted in 100–150 injuries and 30–40 

fatalities. Comparatively, approximately 2,600 incidents resulting in 900–1,000 injuries and 

350–400 fatalities occurred annually at public highway-rail grade crossings. Although the 

number of incidents has declined, the annual number of injuries and fatalities has remained 

relatively constant (Figure 5). 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006

Year

Count

Incidents Fatalities Injuries

 Source: USDOT FRA RAIRS Database, October 2007.

Figure 5. Annual Number of Incidents, Fatalities, and Injuries at Private Crossings, 

1985–2006 

On the basis of numerous analyses, four factors warranted additional review. The factors 

included the type of warning device in place at the time of an incident (warning device type), the 

speed at which a train was traveling at the time of an incident (train speed), the category of type 

of development in which the crossing was located (type of development), and the categorized 

roadway user type involved in the incident (roadway user type). Private crossing incident data 

were examined in reference to the four factors and compared with the corresponding data for 

public crossings. 

Warning Device Type 

When incidents are categorized according to the warning device in place at a crossing at the time 

of an incident, certain differences between incidences at public and private crossings appear 

(Figure 6). The highest number of incidents at private crossings occurs at passive crossings 

equipped with cross buck or stop signs. At public crossings, on the other hand, although the 

highest number of incidents again occurs at crossings equipped with the cross buck sign, a high 
16 

number of incidents occur at crossings equipped with either flashing lights or flashing lights and 

gates. 

Private Crossings

Gates

Lights1

Other Active Warning Devices2

Crossbucks

StopSign

Other3

None

PublicCrossings

Source: USDOT FRA RAIRS Database, October 2007. 1 Lights include incidents at crossings with standard and cantilever flashing lights. 2 Other active warning devices include incidents at wigwag, highway traffic signal, and audible.

3 Other includes incidents at crossing with watchman, flagged by crew, and other.

Figure 6. Number of Incidents by Warning Device, 1997–2006 

Train Speed

Incidents occurring between 1997 and 2006 at public and private crossings were distributed 

according to train speed documented on the incident form. For purposes of this analysis, staff 

grouped train speeds into 10-mile-per-hour (mph) increments. The highest numbers of incidents 

at private crossings occurred in the 0-to-10-mile-per-hour category, which can be correlated with 

yard and switching train movements. The highest numbers of incidents at public crossings 

occurred in the 40-to- 50-mile-per-hour speed category, which can be correlated with average 

speed of passenger and freight train service and with 0-to-10-mile-per-hour yard and switching 

train movements. Although the resultant curves for private and public crossings differ in 

magnitude (Figure 7), they show peaks in the same speed categories and are otherwise rather 

similar.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

0 to <10 10 to <20 20 to <30 30 to <40 40 to <50 50 to <60 60 to <70 70 to <80 80 to <90 90 to <100 100 to

<110

Average Train Speed

Number of Incidents

Private Public

 Source: USDOT FRA RAIRS Database, October 2007.

 Note: 2.25% of the incident data were not coded for train speed

Figure 7. Number of Incidents by Train Speed, 1997–2006 
17 

Type of Development

The National Crossing Inventory contains information about the characteristics of the area 

surrounding a crossing, but unfortunately the data for private and public crossings are stored in 

two different fields, each with its own categorization values. Private crossings are categorized as 

farm, recreational, residential, industrial, or commercial, whereas public crossings are 

categorized as residential, industrial, commercial, open space, or institutional. The differences 

between category definitions, coupled with the fact that the category was not always filled out 

for private crossings, means that no definitive comparison can be made. An examination of the 

category definitions suggests that, although the fields are defined differently, there nevertheless 

may be enough similarities to provide some insight. For example, the public crossing category 

“open space” is defined as sparsely or undeveloped, lightly populated, or agricultural; this 

category, therefore, likely bears some similarity to the private crossing category “farm.” 

Likewise, although there are private “commercial” and “industrial” categories, the public 

crossing categories of “commercial” and “industrial” are similar to the private crossing category 

“industrial.” The public crossing category “institutional,” although not identical to the private 

crossing category “recreational,” bears similarities to it, and both types of crossings have a 

“residential” category. 

The highest numbers of private crossing incidents between 1997 and 2006 where development 

type was known occurred at industrial and farm crossings. The highest numbers of incidents at 

public crossings occurred at open space, commercial, and residential crossings (Figure 8). 

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

12000

Farm/Open Space Recreational / Institutional Residential Industrial Not Available

Type of Development

Number of Incidents

Private Public

 Sources: USDOT National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory, November 2006; 

 USDOT FRA RAIRS Database, October 2007. 

Figure 8. Number of Incidents by Type of Development, 1997–2006 

Roadway User Type 

USDOT also examined whether different populations of motor vehicle types might be involved 

in more incidents at private crossings than at public crossings (Figure 9). According to RAIRS 

GXIS data, between 1997 and 2006, the highest numbers of incidents at private crossings 
18 

involved truck-trailers and automobiles. During that same time period, the majority of incidents 

at public crossings involved automobiles. 

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

Auto

Truck

Truck-trailer

Pickup truck

Van

Bus

School bus

Motorcycle

Other motor

vehicle

Pedestrian

Other (specify

Roadway Users

in narrative)

Number of Inicdents

Private Public

 Source: USDOT FRA RAIRS Database, October 2007.

Figure 9. Number of Incidents by Roadway User Type, 1997–2006 

The following sections provide a more detailed examination of what the data show when 

categorized by these four factors. 

4.2.1 Warning Device Type

Using the National Crossing Inventory as of November 2006, USDOT assembled private 

crossing counts grouped by warning device type (Figure 10). As noted above, data available are 

limited and incomplete in many instances. This point is clearly illustrated by the fact that for 

private crossings, the warning device field is predominantly blank. 

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

Gates

Lights

Other Active

Devices

Stop sign

Crossbucks

Other

None

Blank

Warning Device

Number of Crossings

 Source: USDOT National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory, November 2006.

Figure 10. Number of Private Crossings Equipped with Warning Devices
19 

Of the private crossing records for which a warning device was recorded (41 percent), the 

majority, roughly 80 percent, were equipped with no warning devices. When the crossings with 

nonblank warning device codes were further subdivided according to development type, it 

became apparent that in most development types, the second largest number of crossings were

equipped with stop signs (Figure 11). 

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

22000

Farm Residential Recreational Industrial Commercial

Type of Crossing

Number of Crossing

Gates Lights Other Active Devices Stop sign Crossbucks Other None

 Source: USDOT National Highway Rail Crossing Inventory, November 2006.

 Note: Fifty-nine percent of private crossings were not coded for warning device types and 1.8% of private

 crossings were not coded for private crossing development types.

Figure 11. Number of Private Crossings Equipped with Warning Devices by Type of 

Crossing, November 2006 

Organizing private crossings’ incident proportions, as seen in Figure 11, in order of descending 

magnitude, offered some insight (Figure 12). It is easy to see that passive crossings (those 

equipped with stop signs, cross buck signs, or no warning device) account for more than 88 

percent of the incidents. Again, the majority of private crossings are recorded as either having 

no warning devices or as having passive warning devices.
20 

4.4 2.9 1.7 1.6 0.9

22.9

34.5

31.1

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

STOP signs Crossbucks No signs or

signals

Flashing

lights

Automatic

gates

Watchman or

Flagged by

Crew

Other signs Highway

signal,

WigWag, or

Warning Device Audible

Percent of Total

 Source: USDOT FRA RAIRS Database, October 2007.

Figure 12. Private Crossing Incident Proportion by Warning Device, 1997–2006 

The relatively large number of private crossings equipped with stop signs and the concomitant 

large number of incidents at stop-sign–equipped private crossings may be related to recent 

activities on the part of some railroads. Before 2002, the highest annual number of incidents 

occurred at private crossings equipped with cross bucks. In 2002, however, this changed (Figure 

13). Since 2002, private crossings equipped with stop signs have experienced the highest annual 

number of incidents. During this same period, the railroad community, partly in response to 

recommendations made by NTSB,

4 initiated programs to attempt standardization of the signs at 

private crossings. This initiative resulted in large numbers of private crossings being equipped 

for the first time with stop signs during the period in question. 

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

325

350

375

400

425

450

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Number of Incidents

No signs or signals Crossbucks STOP signs

 Source: USDOT FRA RAIRS Database, October 2007.

Figure 13. Number of Private Crossing Incidents by Warning Device, 1997–2006 

 

4 National Transportation Safety Board. 1998. Safety at Passive Highway/Rail Grade Crossings, Volume 1: 

Analysis. (Number SS-98-02) Washington, DC.
21 

Research has shown that at many intersections (grade crossings included), the installation of 

warning devices or upgraded warning devices can have a positive effect on the safety of that 

intersection.

5

 Given the large number of private crossings at which no warning device at all is 

placed, it seems clear that, in all likelihood, requiring a minimum suite of warning devices would 

be effective in reducing the annual number of incidents. However, the implementation of stop 

signs may not be the universal solution considering that the majority of incidents at crossings 

equipped with a warning device are at those equipped with a stop sign. 

4.2.2 Train Speed

Grade crossing collisions involve trains that are traveling at speeds ranging from just a few miles 

per hour up through 110 mph. Between 1997 and 2006, the largest number of incidents at 

private crossings involved trains moving 9 mph or even slower (Figure 14). The second largest 

group of collisions private crossings involved trains traveling between 40 and 49 mph. At public 

crossings, however, the largest number of incidents involved trains traveling between 40 and 49 

mph, followed closely by incidents at train speeds less than 9 mph (Figure 15). The 

comparatively large number of low train speed incidents at private crossings may be related to 

the fact that, as noted in Section 4.2, a large proportion of private crossing incidents occur at 

industrial crossings, where it is common for trains to perform switching and other low-speed 

maneuvers.

 

18.6%

12.9%

2.9% 2.4% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%

14.5%

29.1%

10.6% 9.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

0 to <10 40 to <50 30 to <40 20 to <30 10 to <20 50 to <60 70 to <80 60 to <70 80 to <90 100 to 110 90 to <100

Train Speed (mph)

Percent of Incident

 Source: USDOT FRA RAIRS Database, October 2007.

Figure 14. Private Crossing Incident Proportion by Train Speed, 1997–2006 

 

5 Ogden, Brent. 2007. Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook – Revised Second Edition 2007. (FHWA-SA07-010) Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration: Section IV 

Identification of Alternatives, I. Active Traffic Control Devices (pages 97–99).
22 

19.3%

8.8%

3.4% 2.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%

13.7%

16.8% 15.9% 19.5%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

40 to <50 0 to <10 30 to <40 20 to <30 10 to <20 50 to <60 60 to <70 70 to <80 80 to <90 90 to <100 100 to 110

Train Speed (mph)

Percent of Incident

 Source: USDOT FRA RAIRS Database, October 2007.

Figure 15. Public Crossing Incident Proportion by Train Speed, 1997–2006 

An examination of the types of trains involved in incidents at different speeds provides further 

illumination (Figures 16 and 17). Incidents were sorted by train speed and by whether the train 

equipment involved was freight, passenger, or other equipment. For the purposes of this 

analysis, the category of freight included freight equipment, single cars, and cuts of cars. The 

passenger category included passenger and commuter equipment. “Other” included work, yard 

switching, light locomotive, maintenance, and inspection equipment. 

In incidents where the train speed was recorded between 40 and 49 mph, the largest category by 

count for public crossings, freight trains predominated at both public and private crossings. This 

is not particularly surprising, because freight trains operate more train-miles than do passenger 

trains, and relatively few “other” equipment types operate at such high speeds. In the low-speed 

incident category, however, the number of “other” equipment involved at private crossings is 

considerably higher than that of freight equipment, while the counts are roughly equivalent for 

the public crossing data. 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0 to <10 10 to <20 20 to <30 30 to <40 40 to <50 50 to <60 60 to <70 70 to <80 80 to <90 90 to <100 100 to 110

Train Speed 

Number of Incidents

Freight (Freight, Single Car, Cut of Cars) Passenger (Passenger, Commuter) Other (Work, Yard/Switching, Light Locomotive, Maintenance/Insepection)

 Source: USDOT FRA RAIRS Database, October 2007.

Figure 16. Total Private Crossing Incidents by Train Speed and Type of Equipment, 

1997–2006 
23 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

0 to <10 10 to <20 20 to <30 30 to <40 40 to <50 50 to <60 60 to <70 70 to <80 80 to <90 90 to <100 100 to 110

Train Speed

Number of Incidents

Freight (Freight, Single Car, Cut of Cars) Passenger (Passenger, Commuter) Other (Work, Yard/Switching, Light Locomotive, Maintenance/Inspection)

 Source: USDOT FRA RAIRS Database, October 2007.

Figure 17. Total Public Crossing Incidents by Train Speed and Type of Equipment, 

1997–2006 

Currently, establishing a means to prioritize limited resources for the implementation of crossing 

improvements is often difficult. An examination of the incidents, injuries, and fatalities at 

private crossings categorized by train speed at impact (Figure 18) may aid in developing a 

methodology.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 to <10 10 to <20 20 to <30 30 to <40 40 to <50 50 to <60 60 to <70 70 to <80 80 to <90 90 to <100100 to 110

Train Speed at Impact (mph)

Injury and Fatality Coun

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Incident Count

Fatalities

Injuries

Incidents

 Source: USDOT FRA RAIRS Database, October 2007.

Figure 18. Private Crossing Injuries and Fatalities by Train Speed at Impact, 

1997–2006 

Note that, although frequency does not increase uniformly with train speed, the proportion of 

incidents that involve either injury or fatality seems to grow as train speed increases. The trend 

is particularly notable at higher-speed ranges. This may provide insight that will help to 
24 

establish priorities, suggesting a risk-based approach that might reasonably focus on inner-city 

passenger operations. 

4.2.3 Type of Development

As previously mentioned, the sets of development types recorded in the National Crossing 

Inventory for public and private crossings are not the same. Private crossings are categorized as 

farm, recreational, residential, industrial, or commercial. Public crossings, on the other hand, 

may be categorized as residential, industrial, commercial, open space, or institutional. Although 

this causes some issues with comparing private and public crossing data, rough comparisons 

nevertheless may illuminate safety issues at private grade crossings. 

As noted previously, it is possible to consider the “Farm” category for private crossings to be 

somewhat analogous to the “Open Space” category of public crossings. Furthermore, the private 

crossing “Recreational” and the public crossing “Institutional” categories are somewhat similar. 

Interestingly, the number of “Farm” crossings is more or less equal to the number of “Open 

Space” crossings (Figure 19). The number of “Recreational” crossings also equates roughly to 

the number of “Institutional” crossings, and there is similar correspondence between the public 

and private crossing counts in “Industrial” developments. In the categories of residential and 

commercial crossings, however, public crossings outnumber private crossings by considerable 

margins. 

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

55000

Farm Open Space Residential Industrial Commercial Recreational Institutional Not Available

Type of Development

Number of Crossings

Private Public

 Source: USDOT National Highway Rail Crossing Inventory, November 2006.

 Note: Private crossing categories include Farm and Recreational, which public crossings do not. Public crossing

 categories include Open Space and Institutional, where private crossings do not.

Figure 19. Number of Crossings by Type of Development, 1997–2006 

Figure 8 shows that, between 1997 and 2006, the largest numbers of incidents at private 

crossings occurred at industrial crossings, followed by those at farm crossings. USDOT 

examined these incident data to determine what types of motor vehicles were involved in 

incidents in different development categories (Figure 20). At farm crossings, automobiles were 

involved in the largest number of incidents, followed by trucks of various types. Relatively few 

farm-crossing incidents were recorded involving other types of motor vehicles, the category most 
25 

likely to include tractors and other varieties of heavy agricultural equipment. Automobiles also 

predominated in incidents at commercial, recreational, and residential private crossings. At 

industrial crossings, however, truck-trailer combination vehicles accounted for the largest 

number of incidents.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

Auto

Truck

Truck-trailer

Pick-up truck

Van

Bus

School bus

Motorcycle

Other motor

vehicle

Pedestrain

Other

Roadway User

Number of Incidents

Commercial Recreational Residential Farm Industrial

 Sources: USDOT National Highway Rail Crossing Inventory, November 2006; 

 USDOT FRA RAIRS Database, October 2007.

Figure 20. Private Crossing Incidents by Development and Roadway User,

1997–2006 

The type of development in the vicinity of a crossing may also play a role in the speeds at which 

trains travel. An examination of incidents occurring between 1997 and 2006 shows that 

incidents where trains were traveling at speeds below 10 mph accounted for more than 40 

percent of industrial crossing incidents, the development type that accounted for the highest 

number of private crossing incidents. For other types of development, on the other hand, the 

incidents appear to involve trains moving at higher speeds (Table 1). At farm crossings, for 

example, which accounted for the second-highest number of private crossing incidents, the 

highest number of incidents involved trains traveling between 40 and 49 mph, and incidents 

involving trains speeds between 30 and 50 mph accounted for more than 48 percent of the total 

farm incidents.
26 

Table 1. Private Crossing Incidents by Development and Train Speed, 1997–2006 

Farm Residential Recreational Industrial Commercial N/A Total 

0 to <10 87 69 6 531 10 528 1231 

10 to <20 85 51 9 166 1 123 435

20 to <30 165 106 15 148 1 94 529

30 to <40 228 91 17 155 6 97 594 

40 to <50 366 127 14 164 2 91 764 

50 to <60 185 41 6 91 0 45 368

60 to <70 44 12 2 27 0 14 99

70 to <80 62 12 0 30 1 14 119 

80 to <90 1 0 4 0 0 0 5 

90 to <100 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

100 to 110 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 

TOTAL 1223 509 75 1312 21 1007 4147 

 Source: USDOT FRA RAIRS Database, October 2007.

The data illustrate that more than 30 percent of private crossing incidents occur at industrial 

crossings, and more than 29 percent of incidents occur at farm crossings. Trends in the incident 

data, sorted by the type of development, roadway user, and train speed, indicate that the most 

frequent occurrences of private crossing incidents were recorded at industrial crossings and 

involved truck-trailers and low-speed rail equipment. In addition, truck, pickup truck, and trucktrailer incidents at private farm crossings accounted for the second-largest category of incidents

at private farm crossings. The largest category of incidents at private farm crossings involved 

automobiles. 

4.2.4 Roadway User

A brief overview of the types of highway vehicles involved in private crossing incidents between 

1997 and 2006 shows that automobiles predominated, representing just more than 30 percent of 

the incidents (Figure 21). With only a slightly smaller proportion, truck-trailer combination 

vehicles accounted for just more than 28 percent of all private crossing incidents. 
27 

16.23

3.47 1.88 0.77 0.14 0.14 0.02 4.46

13.65

28.36

30.87

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Auto TrucktrailerTruck Pickup

truck

Other

motor

vehicle

Van Other

(specify in

narrative)

Pedestrian Bus MotorcycleSchool bus

Roadway Users

Percent of Total

 Source: USDOT FRA RAIRS Database, October 2007.

Figure 21. Private Crossing Incident Proportion by Roadway User Type, 1997–2006 

In comparison, automobile incidents accounted for more than half of all incidents occurring at 

public grade crossings during the same period (Figure 22). Furthermore, truck-trailer and truck 

incidents at public crossings, instead of nearly equaling the numbers involving automobiles, 

accounted for only about 23 percent of all public crossing incidents. The combined categories of 

truck-trailer and truck incidents accounted for a much higher percentage of private crossing 

incidents (44.6 percent) than public crossing incidents (22.7 percent). 

2.41 1.39 0.30 0.17 0.08 3.97 3.08

51.16

14.71 12.18 10.56

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Auto Pickup

truck

TrucktrailerTruck Van Pedestrian Other

motor

vehicle

Other

(specify in

narrative)

Motorcycle Bus School bus

Roadway Users

Percent of Total

 Source: USDOT FRA RAIRS Database, October 2007.

Figure 22. Public Crossing Incident Proportion by Roadway User Type, 1997–2006 
28 

Sorting the incident data by the year of occurrence provided a look at potential motor vehicle 

incident trends. For the most part, since private crossing incidents between 1997 and 2006 

generally involved automobiles, truck-trailers, trucks, or pickup trucks, analysis focused on these 

four groups (Figure 23). Historically, the highest proportion of private crossing incidents 

involved automobiles. During the period from 2003 through 2006, however, the number of 

truck-trailer incidents surpassed that of automobiles at private crossings. This phenomenon 

matches the national trend of increased commercial motor vehicle incidents over the same 

period. Additionally, truck-trailers and pickup trucks experienced on average an increase in the 

number of incidents during this period, whereas the other categories have held steady or 

declined.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Number of Incide

Truck Pickup truck Auto Truck-trailer

 Source: USDOT FRA RAIRS Database, October 2007.

Figure 23. Number of Private Crossing Incidents by Roadway User, 1997–2006 

USDOT also examined the data to determine whether any interactions existed between the type 

of motor vehicles involved and the type of warning devices in place at the incident crossings and 

whether the experience at public industrial crossings differed from that at private industrial 

crossings. Between 1997 and 2006, the highest number of incidents at private industrial 

crossings involved stop signs (35.7 percent) and cross buck signs (30.4 percent) (Table 2). In 

almost every warning device category, however, truck-trailers accounted for the highest number 

of incidents: some 44 percent of incidents at cross buck-equipped private industrial crossings, 49 

percent of incidents at stop-sign–equipped private industrial crossings, and 56 percent of 

incidents at gated private industrial crossings. The two categories of roadway users with the 

highest number of private industrial crossing incidents were truck-trailers (45.8 percent) and 

automobiles (17.5 percent); however, the number of truck incidents (17.1 percent) is similar to 

that of automobiles. Truck-trailers were involved in the highest individual category of incidents 

at private industrial crossings: 234 private industrial crossing incidents involved stop signs and 

truck-trailers (17.8 percent of total incidents), whereas 177 involved crossbuck signs and truck 

trailers (13.5 percent). In addition, the number of truck-trailer incidents at active (both gated and 
29 

flashing-light) private industrial crossings accounted for more than 50 percent of incidents at 

active private industrial crossings. 

Table 2. Private Industrial Crossing Incidents by Roadway User and Warning Device, 

1997–2006 

Gates

Cantilever 

or Standard 

FLS

Wig 

wags

Highway 

traffic 

signals

Audible Crossbucks Stop 

signs Watchman Flagged by crew

Other 

(specify 

in 

narrative)

None Total

Auto 12 16 1 0 2 85 71 0 4 3 35 229

Truck 3 22 1 1 0 71 74 1 4 4 43 224

Truck-trailer 28 50 2 1 1 177 234 0 14 11 83 601 

Pickup truck 4 9 1 1 2 42 51 1 2 5 24 142 

Van 0 1 0 0 0 9 18 0 2 0 24 54

Bus 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

School bus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Motorcycle 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other motor vehicle 0 3 0 0 0 10 16 0 3 1 12 45

Pedestrian 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 3

Other (specify in narrative) 2 1 0 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 2 13 

Total 50 102 5 3 5 400 469 2 29 24 223 1312 

Sources: USDOT FRA RAIRS Database, October 2007.

 USDOT National Highway Rail Crossing Inventory, November 2006.

The data at private industrial crossings sorted by roadway user illustrate that more than 66 

percent of private industrial crossing incidents occurred at passive crossings equipped with stop 

or cross buck signs, and an additional 17 percent of incidents occurred at private industrial 

crossings with no warning devices. Incidents at industrial crossings involving truck-trailers 

accounted for approximately 46 percent of total private crossing incidents. Incidents involving 

trucks and pickup trucks accounted for an additional 28 percent. 

Table 3. Public Industrial Crossing Incidents by Roadway User and Warning Device, 

1997–2006 

Gates

Cantilever 

or Standard 

FLS

Wig 

wags

Highway 

traffic 

signals

Audible Crossbucks Stop 

signs Watchman Flagged by crew

Other 

(specify 

in 

narrative)

None Total

Auto 821 483 5 17 3 600 116 0 13 4 10 2072 

Truck 106 118 2 0 9 156 33 0 2 1 7 434 

Truck-trailer 212 158 4 9 3 264 95 0 1 4 6 756 

Pickup truck 160 138 1 2 2 180 39 0 1 0 5 528

Van 60 41 0 1 2 43 10 0 0 0 1 158 

Bus 6 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 11 

School bus 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 

Motorcycle 2 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 9

Other motor vehicle 24 14 0 1 0 24 6 0 0 0 0 69 

Pedestrian 105 10 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 117 

Other (specify in narrative) 28 9 0 0 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 45 

Total 1526 977 12 30 19 1281 302 0 17 9 29 4202

Sources: USDOT FRA RAIRS Database, October 2007.

 USDOT National Highway Rail Crossing Inventory, November 2006. 
30 

In contrast, at public industrial crossings, the highest proportions of incidents involved 

automobiles at cross buck-sign–equipped crossings (19.5 percent) and automobiles at gated 

crossings (14.2 percent) (Table 3). At public industrial crossings, in fact, automobile-involved 

incidents account for the majority of incidents in almost all warning device categories, much as 

truck-trailer–involved incidents dominated at private industrial crossings. Truck-trailer incidents 

at public industrial crossings, regardless of warning device in place at the crossing, accounted for 

approximately 18 percent of all public industrial crossing incidents. 

4.3 Data Review Summary

Because of the limitations of the private crossing data in the National Crossing Inventory, only 

rudimentary analysis of the characteristics present at or near the Nation’s private grade crossings 

was possible. The incident data in RAIRS GXIR were more complete and provided the 

opportunity to learn about several aspects of private crossing incidents. Merging inventory 

records with incident records where possible enabled illustration of ways in which the crossing 

environments, trains, and roadway user characteristics may interact to increase the likelihood of 

incident occurrence. 

The percentage of collisions at private crossings that were reported as having no traffic control 

devices in place (17 percent of all private crossing collisions) suggests that requiring a minimum 

suite of standard warning devices may help to improve safety at the Nation’s private grade 

crossings. Given that the majority of incidents occurring at private crossings that had a warning 

device occurred at those equipped with a stop sign, however, it is not possible to say that the 

implementation of stop signs is a universal solution. Further study may be needed to determine 

the best approach for ensuring that private crossings are equipped with appropriate warning 

devices. 

Incident data indicate that a high proportion of private crossing incidents involve work train, 

yard switching, light locomotive, maintenance, and inspection equipment traveling at speeds less 

than 10 mph. These incidents also tend to involve truck-trailers and to occur at industrial 

crossings. This confluence of factors may indicate that focusing safety improvement efforts on 

industrial sites may be an effective strategy for improving safety at private crossings. 

 

Findings: 

• Available data for public and private crossing incidents related to train speed at 

impact differ in magnitude, but the data illustrate peaks in the same speed regimes 

and are otherwise similar.

• The highest numbers of private crossing incidents between 1997 and 2006, where 

development type was known, occurred at industrial and farm crossings. The highest 

numbers of incidents at public crossings occurred at open space, commercial, and 

residential crossings (Figure 8). 
31 

• The highest numbers of incidents at private crossings involved truck-trailers and 

automobiles. During that same time period, the majority of incidents at public 

crossings involved automobiles. 

• Given the large number of private crossings at which no warning device at all is 

placed, it seems clear that, in all likelihood, requiring a minimum suite of warning 

devices would be effective in reducing the annual number of incidents. However, the 

implementation of stop signs may not be a universal solution considering that the 

majority of incidents at crossings with a warning device occurred at those equipped 

with a stop sign. 

• Data show that incident frequency does not increase uniformly with train speed. The 

proportion of incidents that involve either injury or fatality seems to grow as train 

speed increases. The trend is particularly notable at higher speed ranges. This may 

provide insight that will help to establish priorities, suggesting a risk-based approach 

that might reasonably focus initially on intercity passenger operations, commuter 

service, and major corridors where freight train speeds are relatively high. 

• More than 30 percent of private crossing incidents occurred at industrial crossings 

and more than 29 percent at farm crossings. Trends in the incident data, sorted by the 

type of development, roadway user, and train speed, indicate that the most frequent 

occurrences of private crossing incidents were recorded at industrial crossings. With 

respect to private industrial crossing incidents, the majority involved truck-trailers 

and low speed rail equipment. Incidents at private farm crossings accounted for the 

second-largest category of private crossing incidents. Although a majority of private 

farm crossing incidents involved automobiles, trucks, pickup trucks, and truck-trailers 

were involved in a high percentage. Additionally, truck-trailers and pickup trucks 

experienced on average an increase in the number of private crossing incidents during 

this period, whereas the other categories of roadway users had numbers that held 

steady or declined. 

• Incidents involving truck-trailers at private industrial crossings accounted for 

approximately 46 percent of total private industrial crossing incidents. Truck-trailer 

incidents at public industrial crossings, on the other hand, regardless of warning 

device in place at the crossing, accounted for approximately 18 percent of public 

industrial crossing incidents. 

• The use of public funds to make improvements has played an important role in 

improving safety at public crossings. Except in very rare circumstances, however, 

public funding has not been and currently is not available for use at private crossings. 

As a result, the proportion of private crossings equipped with more effective warning 

devices, particularly active warning devices, is much lower than the proportion of 

public crossings so equipped. Improvements in safety (as reflected in the incident, 

fatality, and injury counts nationwide) at private crossings, therefore, have lagged 

behind the improvements seen at public crossings. 
32 

• In particular, current data are not sufficient to allow analyses of trends in either 

highway or rail traffic at private crossings. Assuming that exposure trends at private 

crossings are similar to those at public crossings in direction even if not in scale, it 

seems reasonable to believe that exposure at private crossings has risen somewhat 

during the past decade. Based on this assumption, incident, injury, and casualty rates 

at private crossings have likely fallen somewhat over the same time period; however, 

national rates are stagnant.
33 

5. State and Local Authority

A review of State and local statutes, ordinances, and regulations specific to the safety and closure 

of private highway-rail grade crossings was conducted. The focus of the review was on State 

and local authority at the State level. FRA’s Compilation of State Laws and Regulations on 

Matters Affecting Highway-Rail Grade Crossings (Third Edition), State supplements to the 

MUTCD, and direct discussion with a limited number of State representatives provided the basis 

for the review.

Typically, the overall authority over safety of at-grade crossings resides with the State agency 

that has responsibility regarding transportation issues. However, in some States, this

responsibility resides with regulatory bodies such as a State public utility commission, and in 

some cases, the responsibility is shared between two State agencies or a State agency and a local 

authority. 

Summary Compilation of State Laws and Standards

Based on the review of FRA’s Compilation of State Laws and Regulations Affecting HighwayRail Grade Crossings, 22 States (44 percent) have some varying level of regulation granting 

some degree of authority over the safety and closure of private crossings. The other 28 States 

(46 percent) do not have specific regulatory authority over the safety or closure of private 

crossings. 

The level of regulatory authority granted to States through legislation varies depending on the 

State. Some States have authority to regulate warning device installation at private crossings. 

For example, the State of Florida requires that signage at private crossings must comply with the 

Federal MUTCD. Another example is the State of South Carolina, which requires that private 

crossings be equipped the same as public crossings. 

Other States have regulatory authority over the evaluation and creation of new private highwayrail grade crossings and the closure of existing private highway-rail grade crossings. Virginia 

appears to have the authority to forbid the creation of new private highway-rail grade crossings. 

Rhode Island appears to have the authority to close existing private highway-rail grade crossings. 

California appears to have the authority to close existing private highway-rail grade crossings 

through its environmental review process, which contains a dispute resolution component. 

Table 4. State Authority over Private Crossings

State Comments

Alaska The State has acted to standardize responsibilities and treatments for private crossings. 

California

The State may order that stop signs be placed at all farm and private crossings where no automatic 

gates exist unless the signs would constitute an additional safety hazard. The State has the authority 

to close private crossings and provides a resolution process for disputes.

Florida

The State requires cross buck signs at all private highway-rail crossings. The State requires all traffic 

control devices, including those signs and pavement markings on private property where the public is 

invited, to meet MUTCD standards.

Iowa All unauthorized signs, signals, and markings are prohibited on public and private property.
34 

Railroads must construct and maintain private farm crossings when an entity owns farmland on both 

sides of the railroad or if the railroad cuts off access to farmland by running between farmland and a 

public roadway.

Kansas A railroad is required by State law to build and maintain a private crossing on a rail line that runs 

through any farm upon request. 

Maine

In a municipality where a private roadway is crossed by a railroad, municipal officers may act as 

agents of a railroad and collect maintenance and insurance charges from persons using a private 

crossing.

Maryland The conversion of a private road grade crossing to a public highway grade crossing is a projection of 

a public highway over the railroad by the public authority taking jurisdiction of the private road.

Massachusetts

The State plays a supporting role in investigating private highway-rail grade crossings for closure 

upon request. The State cannot order a railroad to construct or maintain a private crossing without 

consent unless the railroad is liable by law or an agreement.

Michigan

A farm crossing shall be constructed and maintained by the railroad at the expense of the requesting 

party. Any unauthorized traffic control device or other sign or message placed on a highway right of

way by a private organization must be removed.

Minnesota The State shall adopt rules that establish minimum safety standards at all private railroad grade 

crossings in the State. 

Missouri

If it is determined that a private crossing is utilized by the public to such an extent that it is necessary 

to protect the public safety, then the State may order the installation of crossing warning devices and 

apportion the cost among the parties according to the benefits accruing to each. If the orders are not 

complied with, the State may close the private crossing to public use.

Nebraska

The State has jurisdiction over all crossings outside of incorporated villages, towns, and cities, both 

public and private, across, over, or under all railroads in the State. 

Railroads are required to provide and maintain at least one adequate crossing for landowners with 

property on either side of the rail line. If petitioned, the State will conduct an investigation and issue 

orders as it deems necessary that may include grade separation, safety treatments, or relocation.

New 

Hampshire

When it is determined that a private crossing is being used to an extent that it may be considered a 

public highway, the State may require the grade crossing to be laid out as a public highway and

constructed and equipped as such. The railroad will not be charged.

New Jersey Railroads must provide and keep in good condition all private crossings and construct and maintain 

proper cattle guards at all such crossings. 

New York

If a new private crossing is established, the State may prescribe the manner of the crossing; whether it 

is to be at-grade or separated; the location; the type of warning devices; and the apportionment of the 

responsibility for maintenance thereof. The State has the authority to close private crossings on rail 

lines with passenger service.

North 

Carolina 

The State will close all private crossings where feasible and protect the ones that will remain open 

with cross bucks, automatic flashers, signals, and gates on federally designated high-speed corridors 

as the State develops the corridor.

Ohio

Landowners with 15 or more acres of land in one body that is intersected by a railroad in such a 

manner as to preclude freedom of movement to the land by the railroad can request a private crossing. 

If the railroad does not comply within 4 months, the landowner can construct his or her own crossing.

Oklahoma A railroad, upon request, is required to build and maintain a safe causeway or other safe and adequate 

crossing for any entity that owns land on both sides of the rail line. 

Oregon

The State has the authority to order a railroad to install and maintain warning devices at private 

crossings. The State has the authority to order the public roadway authority to install advanced 

warning devices. Private property owners are encouraged to conform to the MUTCD when installing 

devices.

Rhode Island The State public utilities commission can require a railroad to install a new private crossing and may 

close a private crossing if it is deemed hazardous to safety.

South 

Carolina The State is to protect private road crossings as the law requires it to protect public highways. 

South Dakota State law reserves the right to order railroads to construct and maintain a private crossing.

Utah

The State requires railroads to fence the right of way where the rail line passes through private 

property. The railroad may choose to provide gates at private crossings that are easily operated by 

private owners. 

Virginia The State forbids the construction of at-grade crossings of railroads and private roads. Such 

crossings must be grade-separated.
35 

Anecdotal information provided by States and by representatives of the railroad industry 

suggests that very few States exercise their authority over private crossings.

Finding: 

• With few exceptions, most public bodies at the State or local level are not vested with 

authority or responsibility for safety at private crossings.
36 

6. International Perspective on Private Crossing Authority

In an effort to determine the state of private crossings internationally, a review of partnering 

nations’ regulatory authority was conducted. The USDOT has memoranda of understanding 

with certain international countries that facilitate information sharing between those nations and 

the United States. These memoranda enabled staff to interview representatives of Canada and 

the United Kingdom to gain insight into their regulations or other authorities specific to safety 

and closure of private highway-rail grade crossings. The effort included an investigation of the 

present draft regulations in Canada and guidance specific to safety and closure of private 

highway-rail grade crossings provided in the United Kingdom. 

6.1 Canada

On December 3, 2002, Transport Canada provided a notice that proposed to change crossing

nomenclature of the Railway Safety Act from public and private highway-rail grade crossings to 

unrestricted and other than unrestricted highway-rail grade crossings. The full text of the draft 

regulations can be found in Appendix A.12. 

The original nomenclature labeled any crossing whose road is opened or maintained for public 

use by a road authority, including pedestrian or bicycle paths, as a public grade crossing. Any 

crossing whose road is not a public road was considered a private crossing. 

Under the new nomenclature, an unrestricted grade crossing refers to a public grade crossing or 

grade crossing whose road, trail, pedestrian path, or bicycle path is one of the following: (a) 

maintained by an organization, such as public parks that include snowmobile and hiking trails; 

(b) owned by a commercial or industrial establishment, including a business operated from a 

residential or farm property, that is used in connection with the establishment by persons other 

than employees of the establishment; (c) served three or more principal residences; (d) served 

three or more seasonal residences, access to which is not controlled by a gate equipped with a 

lock; (e) a private road that connects two public roads; or (f) a private road maintained by a 

natural resource company, such as a company involved in forestry or mining activities. 

Unrestricted crossings would be similar to public highway-rail grade crossings in the United 

States, although the Canadian regulations as drafted include private roadways that are open for 

public use as described above, therefore allowing public access and use. These crossings would 

be required to be equipped with appropriate warning devices including signage, bells, lights, and 

gates. Where possible, the crossing would be designed in such a way to provide perpendicular 

highway/pathway access to the railroad (Figure 24).
37 

 Figure 24. Unrestricted Nonvehicular Grade Crossing (Pedestrian and Bicycle)

Restricted crossings or those other than unrestricted crossings provide access to a select, 

approved individual or individuals similar to private highway-rail grade crossings in the United 

States. These crossings would still fall under governmental jurisdiction regarding safety 

improvements, maintenance, operation, and closure; however, they would not permit use by the 

general public.

Railway companies, road authorities, private road owners, and governments of municipalities 

each have specific responsibilities pertaining to other than unrestricted [private] grade crossings 

as defined by the legislation. 

The railway company is responsible for all aspects of the grade crossing, including sight lines, 

within the railway right-of-way. In addition, the railway company is responsible for the standard 

of construction of the road approach outside of the right-of way from natural ground level to the 

elevation of the track.

The other than unrestricted (private) road owner and road authority for any public road adjacent 

to the right-of-way are responsible for the standard construction, maintenance, and drainage of 

the road approaches and the traffic control devices on the road approaches. 

The findings from the review of Canadian draft regulations indicate that a private highway-rail

grade crossing that is openly used by the public is considered an “unrestricted” crossing and 

therefore falls within the purview of Transport Canada’s Road/Railway Grade Crossings: 

Technical Standards and Inspections, Testing, and Maintenance Requirements. 

6.2 United Kingdom

In September 2006, Her Majesty’s Railway Inspectorate and Safety Policy Directorate published 

Rail Guidance Document, RGD-2005-03, entitled Level Crossing to Which the Public Have 

Access—Guidance on Legislation and Enforcement. The purpose of the document is to provide 

guidance on the appropriate legislation to be used when enforcing physical standards at level 

crossings in England and Wales. The following discussion paraphrases the document for 

FRA/Volpe review with regard to private highway-rail grade crossing safety and closure. The 

full text of the draft regulations can be found in Appendix A.13. 
38 

Historically, crossings in the United Kingdom have been categorized as public or private. This 

distinction has been fundamental to the way in which protection methods are specified and 

provided. Public crossings are defined as vehicular, bridleway, or footpath crossings that have 

been authorized under an Act of Parliament, Consent, or the Light Railway Order. For public 

crossings, the railway has a duty to ensure that the crossing is properly maintained, safe, and 

suitable for use. 

A private crossing is defined as a vehicular, bridleway, or footpath crossing that was installed 

when the railway was built for the benefit of farmers and other individuals whose land was 

divided by the railway. Private crossings are considered either accommodation crossings, built 

to allow access to land divided by the railway, or occupation crossings, built to access private 

dwellings or buildings where a private access (occupation) road was crossed by the railway. For 

private crossings, the railway has a duty to provide certain protective facilities, but the authorized 

user has the greater responsibility to ensure that the crossing is used safely. Generally, the 

crossings are provided with signs and basic protective measures including hand-operated gates 

and occasionally telephones. Proper use of hand-operated gates and telephones is required of 

private crossing users. Private crossing users are required to use the telephones installed at the 

crossings to obtain clearance prior to using the crossing. Failure to comply with correct use is a 

punishable legal offense. 

Private crossings that experience circumstances such as change of land use or the adoption of 

private roads by local authorities may become labeled “crossings to which the public have 

access.” Some private crossings with limited protection that experience such circumstances are 

used by members of the public. The railway is expected to monitor these types of changes, asses 

the risk at the crossing, and review the existing protection methods. 

In Great Britain, the railway is subject to requirements that do not exist in the United States. One 

such obligation is that the railway is obliged to fence itself along the whole right-of-way. 

Because of this requirement, there are physical barriers (fenced gates) exist at all private 

crossings and the private crossing owner is held liable for usage of the private crossing (Figure 

25).
39 

Figure 25. Private Highway-Rail Grade Crossing in Great Britain

Subsequently, in Northern Ireland in January 2007, a statutory rule entitled The Private 

Crossings (Signs and Barriers) Regulations was promulgated. The act authorized a railway 

crossed by a private road or path to specify the placement of crossing signs or barriers, 

prescribed by regulation, near the crossing. Any person failing to comply with requirements, 

restrictions, or prohibitions conveyed by a crossing sign lawfully placed can be fined up to the 

level 3 fine on the standard scale (£1,000). The full text of the regulation can be found in 

Appendix A.14. 

The findings from the review of United Kingdom regulations indicates that a private highwayrail grade crossing that is openly used by the public is considered appropriate for public crossing 

warning device applications under the Railway Safety Act.

Finding: 

• Partnering nations exercise some authority over private crossings. However, the U.S. 

legal requirements and responsibilities are different. 
40 

7. Public Meetings 

USDOT conducted five public meetings throughout the United States to solicit comments from 

State agencies, industry, and the general public to obtain comments from as diverse and farreaching a portion of the private crossing user population as possible. Each meeting was 

coordinated and conducted in conjunction with the respective State agencies for the localities in 

which the meeting was held. 

In an effort to publicize the public meetings, FRA developed a database containing contact 

information for over 700 stakeholders. These stakeholders included State agencies, local 

agencies, railroads, rail industry, highway engineers, consultants, commercial and industry 

organizations, and academics (Appendix 10). Before each meeting, USDOT mailed a letter of 

invitation to each stakeholder providing information regarding pending meetings. In conjunction 

with this effort, FRA published press releases for each meeting locally and nationally. 

The five cities in which meetings were conducted were Fort Snelling, MN; Raleigh, NC; San 

Francisco, CA; New Orleans, LA; and Syracuse, NY. The cities were selected from different 

regions of the Nation to reach as diverse a population as possible, to provide access to as great a 

portion of the population as possible, and to target the local agencies with unique experience 

handling private crossing safety issues. 

 

At each public meeting, an informational packet was available. The information packets 

included the agenda for the meeting, the initial Federal Register notice that announced the 

initiation of FRA’s safety inquiry, the Federal Register notice specific to the meeting, copies of 

presentations by FRA, and other information specific to the meeting.

Each public meeting was conducted in an organized, uniform format to provide consistency in 

information distribution and to provide all interested parties with an opportunity to speak. The 

following generic agenda was used: 

 Call to Order 

 Safety Briefing

 Introductions and Welcome from FRA and Respective State Agency(ies)

 Meeting Format and Rules of Conduct 

 Prepared Statements

 Open Public Meeting 

 Closing Remarks 

 Adjournment 

FRA provided a presentation detailing the background of safety at the Nation’s private highwayrail grade crossings, including a historical perspective, current status, and statistics that compared

private crossings to public crossings. This presentation was included in the Prepared Statements 

section of the meeting.
41 

In addition to the FRA briefing, the Prepared Statements section included one or more 

presentations from a representative of the local agency or agencies in whose region the public 

meeting was held. This provided an opportunity for everyone to understand the intricacies that 

the local authority faces regarding private crossing safety in its State. 

In an effort to ascertain as broad of a category of information as possible, the interactive open 

public meeting at each event was tailored to a specific topic. Topic-specific discussions were 

held in regions of the country that have demonstrated particular interest or advancement or have 

innovative procedures or authority to address concerns in that area. The topics included: 

 Topical questions listed in the initial Federal Register notice (Fort Snelling, MN) 

 Engineering (Raleigh, NC) 

 Rights and Responsibilities (San Francisco, CA)

 Data needs and desires (New Orleans, LA)

 Policy considerations (Syracuse, NY)

Following the interactive, open discussion, the meetings were adjourned. FRA encouraged 

meeting attendees to continue participating with the safety inquiry by inviting them to attend 

subsequent meetings and by requesting submissions to the electronic docket submission system. 

The following sections summarize the main points and comments from each of the public 

meetings. An official transcript of each meeting was recorded by a professional stenographer 

and posted on the electronic docket; it can be found in the appendices of this report [Appendix 

A1–A6]. 

7.1 Fort Snelling, MN: Federal Register Topical Questions

The first meeting was held in Fort Snelling, MN, on August 30, 2006, in conjunction with the 

Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT). Four organizations provided prepared

statements before the open public meeting discussion. As at the initial public meeting, the topic 

area for the open discussion portion focused on the 10 topical area questions that were included 

in the initial Federal Register notice. 

Formal Statements 

Four organizations provided prepared statements prior to the public meeting discussion. The 

following is a summary of the prepared statements.

MNDOT 

Minnesota has between 2,000 and 2,500 private crossings and has State law that speaks to the 

appropriate crossing treatment at private crossings. The treatments for private crossings closely 

resemble what is expected at public crossings. 

MNDOT feels that the definition of a private crossing is unclear. Currently, if the roadway on 

both approaches to a highway-rail grade crossing is maintained by a public agency, then the 
42 

crossing is considered public. If either roadway approach cannot be determined as public, then 

the crossing remains private.

AAR

In most cases, railroads have no authority to close or relocate private crossings or to condition 

the use of a private crossing based on the institution of appropriate safety measures. One case in 

which railroads have limited authority over a private crossing is when the crossing exists as the 

result of a deed granted when the railroad right-of-way was created. Another example is when a 

State requires a railroad to grant farmers “suitable and convenient crossings.” In this case, the 

crossing may continue in existence regardless of the frequency with which it is used. 

Over time, the nature of a private crossing might change without the analysis of safety 

implications. A crossing that was used by an individual landowner when first created could turn 

into a busy residential, industrial, or commercial crossing later. If the crossing was a public 

crossing, a diagnostic team might evaluate the consequences of the change in use and 

recommend appropriate safety enhancements. In the case of a private crossing, there is no 

mandate that such an examination take place. Typically, the users of private crossings would 

bear the cost of the safety improvements at the crossing for the benefit they receive from the 

crossing; however, it may be appropriate for public funding to be provided at private crossings 

that resemble public crossings or permit public access.

Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen

The Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen (BRS) feels that the Federal Government should 

prohibit the creation of new private crossings and work toward eliminating as many existing 

private crossings as possible. BRS also feels that if the creation of new private crossings is 

allowed, at a minimum they should have a set of flashing light active warning signals at the 

grade crossing. There should also be nationwide standards for warning devices and for 

intersection design at private crossings, utilizing proven technology and patterned after the 

standards contained within Part 8 of the MUTCD. 

If this action is taken, the users of the private crossings will be conditioned to respond to the 

stimuli that they encounter at public crossings. This would provide the needed consistency in 

warning message regardless of the public or private nature of the crossing.

BRS feels that it is imperative that any private crossing serving an industry be held to the same 

warning signal system requirements and standards as public crossings. Because of the types of 

vehicles and cargo that they carry, the severity of an incident at an industrial crossing is greater 

than that of an incident between a car and a train. 

BRS believes that a private crossing should be defined as one used by a sole landowner or lessee. 

Once any other individuals routinely use the crossing, it should be considered a public crossing. 

BRS feels that maintenance costs should be split equally among State government, Federal 

Government, and the property owner; however, each case should be evaluated on its own merits. 
43 

There may be cases where the responsibility allocation should be adjusted, such as where a 

school bus or other public transportation entity utilizes the crossing. In this case, the State and 

Federal Government should split the cost of the crossing warning system. 

BRS believes that the State and Federal governments should assume greater responsibility. FRA

should request enactment of legislation to address private crossings. At a minimum, the 

legislation should include site-line distances, signage requirements, and grade crossing flashing 

light signals.

Citizens for Rail Safety

Citizens for Rail Safety stated that the rise in rail traffic that economists predict over the next 

decade will further put safety issues to the test at private crossings. They believe it is critical that 

the railroad industry find a solution to the growing safety concerns regarding private crossing 

safety. All private crossings are not created equal; some are used infrequently, whereas others 

are used so extensively that the term “commercial crossing” should be used instead.

Citizens for Rail Safety believes that there is a need to revisit a recommendation to treat private 

crossings the same as public crossings, with all the same safety regulations in place, and that 

there is also a need to explore public-private governmental partnerships to ensure that the most 

dangerous private crossings are protected with active warning devices. They believe that all 

stakeholders must work to actively eliminate the number of private crossings whenever possible. 

Interactive Public Meeting: 10 Topical Areas

The following section summarizes the interactive discussion from the public meeting. The full 

text from the interactive discussion can be read in Appendix A1. 

Question: At-grade highway-rail crossings present inherent risks to users, including the 

railroad and its employees, and to other persons in the vicinity, should a train derail into an 

occupied area or release hazardous materials. When passenger trains are involved, the risks are 

heightened. From the standpoint of public policy, how do we determine whether creation or 

continuation of a private crossing is justified?

 No nationwide decision-making process exists; each State may have unique statues, 

ordinances, and regulations regarding private crossings, and these are not always clearly 

known. Nationwide processes similar to established processes for prioritizing public 

crossing improvements are needed. 

 Local jurisdictions are urged to keep new developments private to minimize the public 

burden imposed when crossings are converted from private to public. 

 There may be no regulatory jurisdiction over private crossings, and it may be cost-prohibitive 

to close private crossings. 

 In many cases, the railroads negotiate with private landowners regarding the agreement and 

installation of new private crossings. 
44 

 FRA needs to prohibit the creation of new private crossings and eliminate as many existing 

private crossings as possible. If new private crossings are created, there should be at 

minimum active flashing light signals.

Question: Is the current assignment of responsibility for safety at private crossings effective? 

To what extent do risk management practices associated with insurance arrangements result in 

“regulation” of safety at private crossings?

 In many cases, no legal documentation is available to provide a basis for negotiations to 

modify or close the crossings. 

 In some cases, no legal documentation is available that formally acknowledges the existence 

of a private crossing.

 Insurance issues have not affected or restricted private crossing operation. 

Question: How should improvement and/or maintenance costs associated with private crossings 

be allocated?

 The apportionment of maintenance costs varies depending on the State and on the legal 

agreement between the railroads and private landowners. In some cases, the cost is split by 

the railroad and private owner, whereas in other cases, the railroad is responsible for the cost 

of maintenance.

 No organization appears to want to assume the financial responsibility associated with 

maintenance of new private crossings.

 In most instances, the railroads must research ownership and negotiate directly with each

landowner. 

Question: Is there a need for alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to handle disputes that 

may arise between private crossing owners and the railroads?

A few States provide mediation support between railroads and private landowners, but the 

majority of cases are dealt with directly between railroads and private landowners. In extreme 

cases, this is handled through a court of law. 

Question: Should the State or Federal Government assume greater responsibility for safety at 

private crossings?

 According to the State representatives present, most States lack the resources to address 

current requirements related to public crossings let alone the additional requirements inherent 

in private crossings. 

 Some participants felt there should be more Federal involvement from all DOT agencies. 

 

Question: Should there be nationwide standards for warning devices at private crossings or for 

intersection design of new private grade crossings?

 National standards would be beneficial. 
45 

 The first step would be to have an applicable national definition of a private crossing and 

possibly a means to differentiate between the varying types of private crossings. 

Question: How do we determine when a private crossing has a “public purpose” and is subject 

to public use?

 A clear, national definition of private crossing is needed to determine whether a crossing has 

a public purpose and is subject to public use. 

 In some cases, it may be difficult to ascertain a clear answer:

o There may be unsolicited users such as delivery companies or trespassers. 

o There are instances where private crossings provide access to the public for commercial 

sites on private property. 

o The public may have to use a private crossing for seasonal or recreational access to a boat 

ramp or marina.

 The users of a crossing may vary, making it difficult to determine whether the public is using 

the crossing. 

Question: Should some private crossings be categorized as “commercial crossings” rather than 

as “private crossings”?

A multitude of private crossing uses were discussed in great detail, with a list expanding beyond 

solely distinguishing commercial crossings (Table 5). Some categories of crossings, such as 

commercial, seasonal, and recreational crossings, can be heavily used by the public. Others, 

such as industrial or military crossings, may provide access for heavy trucks and hazardous 

materials. Each type or category may have a unique set of safety concerns.

Table 5. Private Crossing Categorization by Use: Minnesota Public Meeting

1 Agricultural/farm 7 Government/public facilities

2 Industrial 8 Military

3 Commercial 9 Railroad internal facility

4 Residential 10 Recreational

5 Nonvehicular (e.g., pedestrian/bicycle) 11 Seasonal

6 Institutional (e.g., university) 12 Temporary (e.g., jogging, construction)

Question: Are there innovative traffic control treatments that could improve safety at private 

crossings on major rail corridors, including those on which passenger service is provided?

 The implementation of any safety warning devices, particularly where there are currently 

none, would be beneficial. 

 Proven warning devices currently in use are preferable to unproven, innovative technologies. 

7.2 Raleigh, NC: Engineering

The second public meeting was held in Raleigh, NC, on September 27, 2006, in cooperation with 

NCDOT. North Carolina was selected as a meeting location because NCDOT has extensive 

experience with engineering treatment and design at private highway-rail grade crossings 
46 

through its ongoing Sealed Corridor Program. The knowledge and experience provided a basis 

for a discussion on engineering design and treatments. 

Formal Statements

Four organizations and one private citizen provided prepared statements prior to the public 

meeting discussion. The following is a summary of the prepared statements.

NCDOT

North Carolina does not have direct authority over private crossings, nor is the State seeking 

increased responsibility or authority. It just wants the tools needed to improve safety. 

The State has been able to partner with all crossing stakeholders to improve safety by 

consolidating redundant and unnecessary crossing through the implementation of the Sealed 

Corridor Program. Through this program, NCDOT has utilized the off-the-shelf, clear-minded 

solutions approach used for public crossings and applied it to private crossings, emphasizing 

closure, alternate access, the signalization of high-volume crossings, signage, and even new 

mandates and laws. In NCDOT’s experience, innovative treatments have not provided reduced 

cost or adequate safety improvements and as such do not justify their use for any but 

experimental institution in controlled test environments. 

Private agreements and deeds to private crossings may involve multiple parties over many years. 

NCDOT feels that resources to maintain an accurate inventory of private crossings in a 

comprehensive manner are not available at the State level. Additionally, it feels that the

categories used in the National Crossing Inventory need to be reviewed. NCDOT believes there

needs to be differentiation between potential traffic volumes and service to single versus multiple 

users at recreational, commercial, industrial, and residential crossings. Varied types of private 

crossings provide public use, including residential, farm, industrial, plant-to-plant, railroad, 

residential development, business, recreational, and golf-cart crossings.

NCDOT feels that all stakeholders, through the American Public Transportation Association 

(APTA), need to collaborate to develop a consistent approach such as was done with the 

Crossing Technical Work Group document that was developed through the Institute of 

Transportation Engineers (ITE). Stakeholders will eventually need to develop a methodology to 

share costs associated with grade crossing safety treatments, construction, and maintenance 

based on local conditions and users. 

Railroads engage in interstate commerce. NCDOT believes that dispute resolution should be 

considered for handling at the Federal level. It also believes there is merit in the development of 

an unbiased committee to determine the outcome of a dispute. Currently, disputes are handled 

through local courts that can be biased against the landowner. 

NCDOT feels that nationwide Federal guidelines should be considered for development through 

the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the 

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA), APTA, and 
47 

the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD). This would allow all 

parties to work through the process incrementally and learn accordingly. It also feels that 

innovative and cost-effective approaches should be encouraged, researched, and tested for the 

common good. 

The State feels that a technical working group with identified stakeholders should be considered 

to develop guidelines or criteria that distinguish between a true private crossing and one with a 

public purpose. This technical working group could also contribute guidance for warning device 

selection and application for private crossings. 

Gannett Fleming

Gannet Fleming is a consulting engineering, construction, and management services firm that 

was contracted by NCDOT to provide technical support to the State’s Sealed Corridor Program. 

During the course of the North Carolina Sealed Corridor Program, Gannett Fleming gained 

extensive experience with the evaluation and implementation of safety treatments at private 

crossings. 

During the evaluation of private crossings on a 313-mile section of the corridor, 25 private 

crossings had no written agreement recorded in the public land records. Copies of the 

agreements were obtained through Norfolk Southern Railroad. 

Private Citizen

A private citizen spoke about how she is currently affected by improvements on the railroad. 

Her property borders a railroad with a prescriptive easement contained within the railroad rightof-way. The house on the property was erected in the 1900s. Upon investigation, there was no 

recorded legal access. Legal counsel advised that the prescriptive easement allows continued 

access even though it was unrecorded. The land adjacent to the private citizen is undergoing a 

change in use to an industrial park, and she has concerns about her rights and options. 

Interactive Public Meeting: Engineering

The interactive public meeting was structured as a set of questions and topics posed to the 

meeting attendees for discussion. The following section summarizes the interactive discussion 

from the public meeting. The full text from the interactive discussion can be read in Appendix 

A2.

Question/Topic: Would it be valuable for a group to establish a base line parameter consisting 

of minimum engineering and warning device requirements? 

 A baseline parameter would be valuable and is needed. 

 Outreach would need to be made to as many stakeholders as possible. A list of organizations 

that should be involved was drafted (Table 6). 
48 

 The USDOT Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Technical Working Group6 released a guidance 

document for the selection of traffic control devices in 2002 and planned to revisit the work 

in 2007 (on the 5-year anniversary). The 2002 Technical Working Group had diverse 

audience participation because it held meetings at regional conferences. 

Table 6. Organizations Required for a Technical Working Group 

AASHTO

FHWA

FRA

Railroads

Planning associations

Track maintenance

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

(FMCSA)

ITE (2002 Technical Working Group)

Question/Topic: Developing groupings of private crossings based on characteristic such as 

passive crossing categorization?

 Private crossing categories were discussed in conjunction with the list created at the Fort 

Snelling, MN, public meeting. New categories were discussed, and the list was expanded

(Table 7). 

 Another means of differentiating private crossings is through use of the subcategories, i.e., 

annual average daily traffic (AADT), and types of traffic. 

Table 7. Private Crossing Categorization by Use: North Carolina Public Meeting

1 Agricultural/farm 8 Government/public facilities

2 Industrial (plant and access) 9 Military equipment

3 Low-density 10 Military nonequipment

4 Commercial (AADT criteria) 11 Railroad internal facility

5 Residential 12 Recreational

6 Nonvehicular (e.g., pedestrian/bicycle) 13 Seasonal

7 Institutional (e.g., university) 14 Temporary (e.g., jogging, construction)

Question/Topic: Data collection: what is the best method, and who should be responsible? 

 North Carolina collects information designating commercial, industrial, residential, 

recreational, and institutional crossing categories. 

 According to North Carolina, the States are in the best position to collect data regarding 

private crossings; however, there are safety concerns with entering private property.

Question/Topic: Distinguishing public crossings from private crossings 

 

6 The USDOT Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Technical Working Group was headed by the FHWA, FRA, FTA, and 

HTSA. The Technical Working Group released a guidance document intended to provide guidance on the selection 

of traffic control devices or other measures at highway-rail grade crossings. 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/media/twgreport.htm#1r
49 

 Changing from private to public status can be confusing and cause funding issues. 

 The best approach may be to create subcategories for private crossings.

 A private crossing with public access and no active warning could be perceived as allowing 

public use. 

 Currently, the ownership of the land, not the volume of vehicle use, determines the 

designation of a crossing. 

Question/Topic: Engineering design suggestions

 Currently, no uniformity in signage has been implemented. 

 No proven Intelligent Transportation Systems technologies are available to address the issue. 

 Current safety treatments range from installing stop signs at private crossings to some Class I 

railroads installing their own warning signs. Stop signs provide an opportunity for drivers to 

stop and look for an approaching train, whereas yield signs allow movement through the 

crossing without stopping. 

 Crossing closure would be the best scenario although it is not usually an option. 

 There are difficulties with the geometrics, as well as the construction standards used on 

roadways approaching private crossings. Each location must be evaluated, but many private 

crossings often follow their own geometry. Because private crossings are frequently not 

constructed in accordance with engineering standards used at public roadways, their 

roadways can prove inadequate, should traffic levels or types change or should a locality 

wish to convert the crossing to a public crossing. 

 Developers should be required to follow some standard. 

Question/Topic: Treatment options by crossing type

Currently implemented engineering safety treatments utilized at public crossings were discussed 

by type as passive or active.

 Passive crossings can have various signage, including unique railroad company signs, “look” 

signs, yield signs, and stop signs (Figure 26). 

 Some passive crossings have lockable gates. 

Active crossings can have humped crossing signs and agreements regarding vehicle type. 

Figure 26. Examples of Signs at Private Crossing 
50 

Question/Topic: How can the railroad ask for limited access?

It was believed that the State of New York has the authority to deny usage of a private crossing 

on its high-speed rail line.

7.3 San Francisco, CA: Responsibility

The third public meeting was held in San Francisco, CA, on October 26, 2006, in conjunction 

with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the California Public Utilities 

Commission (CPUC). California was selected as a meeting location because it has unique legal 

authority to close private crossings and a documented dispute resolution process. This State’s 

experience provided a basis for a topical discussion on responsibility. FRA Deputy 

Administrator Clifford C. Eby addressed the meeting with introductory remarks. 

Formal Statements

Two organizations provided prepared statements prior to the public meeting discussion. The 

following is a summary of the prepared statements.

CPUC

CPUC believes that a major problem with private highway-rail grade crossing safety is that the 

private property owners do not participate in public proceedings. Private property owners need 

to be heard, to participate, and to take responsibility for a lot of the private crossings on the 

railroad. The agencies granting authority to new developments have a responsibility to address 

railroad safety. CPUC exercises rail safety oversight over railroads in California under the 

California Public Utilities Code and under the State Participation Program with FRA. CPUC has 

exclusive jurisdiction over highway-rail crossings in the State. Specifically, in regard to private 

crossings, CPUC has the authority to determine the necessity for any private crossing and the 

place, manner, and conditions under which the crossing shall be constructed and maintained and 

to fix and assess the costs and expenses of that crossing. 

CPUC General Order 75(D) contains administrative rules governing the standardization and use 

of warning devices at highway-rail crossings and includes an entire regulation directed at 

warning devices at private crossings. It requires a minimum of a stop sign and a private crossing 

sign to be posted on each approach to the private crossing. General Order 75(D) also requires 

that a written agreement be developed to authorize the crossing between the parties.

Any time there is a probability that the public may be exposed to harm by a private crossing, it 

becomes a public safety issue requiring diagnostic review and special consideration. In such 

cases, State government oversight of the crossing is appropriate. The railroads and private 

crossing rights owners share the liability for safety at private crossings. Because there are few 

controls at most private crossings, assuring usage only by authorized parties, the use of the 

private crossings can change over time. There is no confidence that the identification of such 

change in use is conducted in a timely manner and addressed by the railroad or the landowner. 
51 

CPUC recommends some mechanism whereby the State or local government identifies a change 

in use and the dynamic effects it has to the highway-rail grade crossing. CPUC believes that the 

best time to determine an increase in motor vehicle, bicycle, or pedestrian usage at a railroad 

crossing is when a developer seeks approval of new commercial or residential projects. 

For the past 3 years, the CPUC has been reviewing proposed developments and concerns 

regarding potential impacts on public safety under the California Environmental Quality Act 

(CEQA). Under CEQA, the lead agency for the proposed development is required to respond to 

public comments concerning a project. There are many instances where CPUC is unaware of 

private crossings and therefore cannot make specific recommendations. Generally, allocation of 

improvement and maintenance costs is agreed to by the landowner and railroad as parties 

entering into the legal instrument establishing the private crossing. CPUC feels this to be 

appropriate. When the landowner and railroad disagree, CPUC may apportion the costs. 

CPUC allows for administrative legal review by public hearing in crossing matters. 

Administrative law judges hear crossing cases and prepare proposed decisions for consideration 

by the CPUC. The commission has its own alternative dispute resolution mechanism. Most 

private crossing issues involve property rights, contract law, and the safety responsibility for the 

traveling public, all of which have traditionally been the State’s responsibility. 

CPUC strongly recommends keeping the responsibility of the safety of private crossings with the 

States because of the nature of the contractual agreements. The Federal Government may issue 

guidelines and provide recommended language for laws and regulations for the benefit of States 

that do not have laws on this subject; however, CPUC contends that public and private crossing 

safety regulation is too dependent on State law and real property and contract law and is too 

focused on regional issues and concerns to permit Federal preemption of the topic. 

In California, private crossing design is generally specified between the railroad and the 

landowner in the crossing agreement. When a private crossing is used by the public or trains 

carrying hazardous material or passenger trains, existing guidelines for public crossings are used. 

Where crossings allow unfettered access of passage and routinely invite the general public to use 

the crossing, a public purpose has been established and CPUC feels that guidelines for public 

crossing treatments should be used. In other cases, CPUC recommends that FRA invite a group 

of experts to develop guidelines for the design of private crossings, similar to the highway-rail

grade crossing technical working group that issued the guidance on traffic control devices at 

public highway-rail grade crossings. 

It is extremely difficult to police the usage of each private crossing. Financial liability for 

private property owners does not provide the needed incentive. Private-property owners must be 

given incentive to upgrade the warning devices at the crossing when usage changes. Any 

guidelines on private crossings considered for adoption should address the changes in use over 

time and provide for reevaluation. 

California contends that existing protections, particularly under State law, are sufficient to 

protect the traveling public, provided that appropriate criteria for warning devices are used for 

both public and private crossings. CPUC recommends that the Federal Government assist in the 
52 

formation of a technical working group to prepare general guidelines for identifying dangerous 

private crossings and recommend guidelines to be considered in upgrading or designing such 

crossings.

Caltrans

Caltrans provides inner-city rail service to more than 4.5 passengers per year on three different 

routes. Caltrans has a highway-rail grade crossing improvement program with different funding 

sources: 23 U.S. Code § 1103(c) funds for crossing improvements and high-speed rail corridors 

from the FHWA Highway Trust Fund but administered through FRA, Federal Section 130 funds 

from and distributed by FHWA for improvements on public crossings, and State § 190 funds for 

grade separation. These programs provide more than $35 million a year for safety improvements 

at grade crossings; however, California does not have specific financial aid programs for 

improvements at private crossings. The State has used Federal 1010 and 1103 funding for highspeed rail corridor to consolidate and close private crossings. In most cases, the railroads and 

private crossing owners have shared the cost of improvements at private crossings. 

Most private crossings in California do not have train-activated warning devices, have poor 

crossing surfaces, and have poor approach surfaces. The State has limited funding for private 

crossing improvements; however, when Caltrans upgrades State-owned track, it replaces and 

upgrades the cross buck signage at private crossings. State funds have not been used to pay 

directly for these improvements; contracts and agreements are structured so that funds do not go 

through the railroad or private crossing owner. 

Caltrans believes that some Federal agency should take a leadership role in developing standards 

or guidelines for crossing protection, consolidation, and clear, safe operation at private crossings. 

These guidelines should be similar to those that are put forth in the MUTCD. In addition, 

Caltrans feels there is a need to investigate low-cost warning devices and that the Federal 

Government should take a more proactive approach to providing funding for improvements at 

private crossings, such as through §§ 1010 and 1103. 

Interactive Public Meeting: Responsibility for Private Crossings

The interactive public meeting section was structured in the form of case studies and 

hypothetical scenarios that were proposed to the meeting attendees for discussion. The following 

section summarizes the interactive discussion from the public meeting. The full text from the 

interactive discussion can be read in Appendix A3. 

Case Study Question: What rights are assigned to the holder of a long-established prescriptive 

easement? Does the developer/railroad have responsibilities toward the affected crossing 

holder? If so, what? Do State governments (outside the court systems) bear a responsibility for 

crossings created via prescriptive easements?

The State of California does not permit crossings by prescriptive rights; it is addressing crossing 

issues through the environmental document process, which provides a dispute resolution forum 

and procedure. 
53 

Case Study Question: Who bears responsibility for safety at the crossing: the developer, the 

homeowner, or the railroad? If a city or county chooses to convert it to a public crossing, who is 

responsible for reporting this to the State and railroad? Who will know, and when, regarding 

land development?

 California is the only State that appears to be addressing this issue. 

o Public hearings are held for zoning changes; however, experience has shown that cities 

and towns do not consider the impact on the crossing. 

o California has been requesting additional funding and staff in an effort to increase 

involvement in the process and meet with local planners to address rail safety. 

o There is a strict timeline for response within which the State must respond and the 

environmental team must evaluate and comment on impacts of crossings (new and 

upgrades). 

o Currently, it is illegal to widen crossings and not the roadway approaches, resulting in 

bottlenecks. 

 Many stakeholders learn of crossing issues when there is an incident or a complaint. 

Case Study Question: If a private crossing is converted to a public crossing, who is notified?

 Both California and Washington State have similar, formal processes that must be followed. 

o In California, CPUC can approve an application without a hearing. 

o Washington State uses its process to diagnose and evaluate crossings for elimination. 

 In most States, the railroad is not notified. 

Case Study Question: Is there a process for identifying the crossing holder? Can the crossing 

be closed by the railroad? Are there statutory or regulatory restrictions that govern this 

situation?

 Currently in most States, the only processes used for identifying the crossing holder through 

historical record searches and posting notification of closure at a crossing. 

 In California, there is a well-defined regulatory process for posting a closure notice. 

Hypothetical Scenario/Question: What if the USDOT establishes a requirement that every 

private crossing have a standard formal agreement? Crossings for which an agreement cannot 

be found or created will be closed.

 The State of California requires a written agreement for private crossings. 

 This requirement would be expensive for the railroad companies. 

 There are legal issues with changing existing deeds.

Hypothetical Scenario/Question: Standard formal agreements could be customized. Who would 

maintain agreements?

 Any deed or formal agreement should be filed in the county records office, and a copy should 

be held by both parties in the agreement. 
54 

 There are issues with trying to close private crossings used by landlocked property with no 

other access. 

 Control should be left to the State, not the Federal Government. 

Hypothetical Scenario/Question: What if a new, independent Federal agency (similar to the 

Surface Transportation Board) were created to oversee the resolution of private crossing 

disputes?

 Federal recommendations or guidelines would assist States that do not currently have a 

dispute resolution process; however, local interests will not want to deal with the Federal 

Government. Currently, in California, the State has to threaten private owners with crossing 

closure to obtain owner involvement. 

 Currently, California has a dispute resolution process in place. This control needs to be left 

with the States, not the Federal Government. 

Hypothetical Scenario/Question: What if the USDOT provided guidance or standards on 

crossing design and warning device implementation at private crossings?

 The Federal Government should use the same guidelines for public crossings at private 

crossings. 

 The minimum signage requirement at a private crossing should be a stop sign and a private 

crossing sign as mandated in California. 

Hypothetical Scenario/Question: Stop signs and private crossing signs are standard at most 

private crossings across the United States (default). How do we feel about stop versus yield

signs as the default signage requirement?

 NCUTCD is currently discussing the use of signage for private roadways with public use 

(e.g., shopping centers). 

 The MUTCD states the minimum requirements when Federal funds are used on public 

roadways. The MUTCD should be followed for private crossings. 

 The cost-effectiveness of any implementation needs to be investigated regarding resource 

expenditure versus measurable safety improvement. 

Hypothetical Scenario/Question: What if organizations such as AASHTO, AREMA, or the 

FHWA (with regard to salient documents such as the MUTCD and the Grade Crossing 

Handbook) were to include sections on private crossings in all existing guidance and standards 

documents?

 The inclusion of additional guidance for private crossing safety in existing guidance and 

standards documents would be beneficial; however, increased funding is required. 

 Guidance should be based on usage of the crossing and the frequency and speed of trains that 

traverse the crossing. 

 Specialty guidance could be used to establish minimum guidelines for low-volume/specialty 

crossings.
55 

 If a private crossing has gone through a change in use to serve the public that has not been 

recognized, there is a potential increase in safety risk if the safety treatments are based on its 

previous private crossing characteristics. 

Hypothetical Scenario/Question: What if the railroads were to require all private crossing 

holders to obtain liability insurance?

The railroads do not always have the legal right to require private crossing holders to obtain 

liability insurance. This right depends on the contract or agreement between the railroads and 

the private holders, and it is not easy to get these types of liability policies.

Hypothetical Scenario/Question: What if a Federal agency (FRA or other) established a process 

governing the creation, evaluation, and improvement of private crossings?

 There is a fear that this is the formula for preemption and is not the answer. 

 The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has the State safety oversight process. If a State 

does not have a process, it must adopt the Federal process. 

 If a Federal agency (FRA or other) establishes a process, it is not going to improve safety at 

private crossings.

Hypothetical Scenario/Question: What if the ultimate responsibility for safety at private 

crossings resided with State agencies?

 California and Washington believe that the responsibility currently resides with State 

agencies and should remain that way; however, there needs to be additional guidance and

incentives for closure and improvements. 

 The Federal Government’s role is in consolidation and closure policy. 

Hypothetical Scenario/Question: What if the ultimate responsibility for safety at private 

crossings resided with the railroads?

The railroads do not have the ability to control crossing usage and have no regulatory authority at 

crossings.

Hypothetical Scenario/Question: What if a private crossing were categorized based on traffic 

levels and type of use?

 Basing categorization on traffic levels and type of use is not a good idea. 

 It would be extremely difficult to develop a threshold and remain committed. How would a 

threshold be calculated? 

 Categorization based on traffic level and type of use would hinder crossing consolidation. 

Hypothetical Scenario/Question: What data should be collected to support analysis? How 

should such data be collected?

 Most States do not have the resources to collect public crossing information. 
56 

 There are no resources to collect private crossing data. 

Hypothetical Scenario/Question: How do we simplify the problem (e.g., survey form for 

locomotive engineers, satellite data, or use of geographic information systems [GIS] to collect 

information)?

 FRA should consider new funding similar to § 130 funding for private crossing 

improvements. 

 There should be specific, well-defined criteria to meet and address information regarding 

private crossings. 

 The applicability of global positioning systems and aerial photography may be limited.

7.4 New Orleans, LA: Data Elements

The fourth public meeting was held in New Orleans, LA, on December 6, 2006, in conjunction 

with the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LADOTD). Louisiana has a 

unique local legal system, conditions, and issues related to private highway-rail grade crossings. 

Formal Statements 

Six organizations and one private citizen provided prepared statements prior to the public 

meeting discussion. The following is a summary of the prepared statements.

LADOTD

Louisiana defines a private crossing as a crossing where the property on one or both sides of the 

railroad track is private property. The State has no authority over private crossings. Louisiana 

has a revised statute, 48:390.1, that grants LADOTD the authority to close existing public 

crossings on non-State-maintained highways. 

Louisiana Operation Lifesaver 

Operation Lifesaver (OLI) is a nonprofit international continuing public education program 

established in 1972 to end collisions, injuries, and fatalities at highway-rail grade crossings and 

along railroad rights-of-way. OLI educates the general public on safety at all highway-rail grade 

crossings independent of the highway owner. 

Rio Grande Pacific Corporation and New Orleans and Gulf Coast Railroad

Christovich and Kearney is counsel to the New Orleans and Gulf Coast Railway Company 

(NOGC), a subsidiary of the Rio Grande Pacific Corporation. NOGC is a shortline railroad that 

operates in and around New Orleans, and Rio Grande Pacific Corporation is a railroad holding 

company that owns four shortline railroads. The Rio Grand Pacific Corporation is having 

difficulty dealing with the closing of private crossings. 
57 

In 1999, NOGC had 276 at-grade crossings on its 24-mile rail network. The company created its 

own inventory list defining the use of all crossings on its network: private, industrial, 

commercial, and multifamily residential. There are limited or no-access issues along much of 

the network as a result of the rail line’s proximity to the Mississippi River. There is high 

resistance from local landowners to agree to consolidate crossings or enter into agreements. In 

some cases, landowners approach the local government to have private crossings declared public, 

voiding all the agreements made about signage and passive controls. NOGC feels that there is a 

lack of Federal standards and regulations addressing this issue.

During the past 2 years, the Rio Grande Pacific Corporation has spent roughly $600,000 in legal 

costs to battle the emergence of undocumented and illegal private crossings that continue to be 

created by private landowners. The local courts continually favor private landowners and 

disregard the railway’s rights. For a small railroad with high traffic in hazardous materials, 

resources are scarce and could have been applied more efficiently elsewhere. The only private 

crossing holders with high levels of cooperation are large commercial entities that are willing to 

close private crossings. 

The Rio Grande Pacific Corporation feels that it is imperative to recognize railroads as interstate 

highways of commerce and that this has been confirmed by many years of Interstate Commerce 

Commission and Federal Communications Commission doctrine. Railroads should be granted 

the responsibility and authority via safety mandate from the Federal Government to control what 

happens over, under, around, and through their railroad rights-of-way. No one should be able to 

build or alter the track structure without railroad company consent and permission, as is currently 

being done in Louisiana. 

NCUTCD

The NCUTCD Railroad and Light Rail Transit Technical Committee (the Committee) has the 

responsibility to comment to the FHWA on Parts 8 and 10 of the MUTCD. Private crossings 

continue to be one of the topics debated within the technical committee. Private crossings are a 

unique issue within NCUTCD because the MUTCD is a document established to deal with 

public travel and addresses issues relative to such travel. NCUTCD deals with roads open to 

public travel, a term that is not defined in the Code of Federal Regulations. NCUTCD has 

convened a task force to address traffic control devices on private property and develop 

guidelines for these devices.

The Committee believes that the real issue is the public’s expectation of access: does the public 

have the expectation of access to the crossing, to the intersection within a mall, or to whatever 

the facility might be where there’s some traffic-control-device requirement? This issue extends 

beyond private crossings to areas with malls, shopping centers, businesses, or business parks 

where a significant number of publicly operated vehicles access the private property. 

The Committee believes that the Federal Government should give consideration to the need for a 

third classification of crossing called semipublic. Semipublic crossings would be specifically 

narrowed to highway-rail grade crossings that are owned by an entity other than a public agency 

but to which the public expects free access. Examples would be shopping centers and various 
58 

commercial establishments, such as fast-food restaurants and convenience stores. In general,

semipublic crossings could fall into categories such as industrial, commercial, recreational, and

multiunit residential. If the public has access, the Committee believes in standardization, 

including the use of traditional cross buck and supporting advance warning signage. 

The Committee feels there is a need for a methodology to be able to apply standardized trafficcontrol devices and implement the diagnostic process as defined in Part 8 of the MUTCD. A 

semipublic crossing would go through a permitting-type process with oversight provided by 

FRA. Part of this permitting process would be to define the responsibility for access over the 

crossing. If the responsible agency failed to fulfill its goal to install or maintain devices, surface 

access, vegetation, and all the items that are considered issues at crossings, then the crossing 

should automatically be closed. The Committee feels there should be no recourse other than to 

have the crossing closed. 

The Committee encourages FRA to move forward with regulation with sufficient authority to 

provide some form of control so that local authorities can provide a level of enforcement to 

persons wishing to create a private or semipublic crossing over a railroad. 

Former Chair, Rail Section of American Trial Lawyers Association (Now Known as the 

American Association for Justice)

This individual believes the issue with highway-rail crossings is caused by allowing interaction 

between the rail network and the highway network. The solution to crossing safety issues is 

positive train separation. NTSB has published and advocated positive train separation for many 

years. By implementing positive train separation, highway users are not permitted to interact 

with trains.

Expensive overpasses at every crossing are not required to accomplish positive separation. 

Physical barriers and inexpensive ditches or bridges could also be used. 

Private Citizen

A private citizen spoke regarding an issue that he is currently dealing with regarding private 

crossings that provide access to the land that he works. The citizen is employed as a farmer and 

works land owned by four different landowners along a Union Pacific rail line. On July 7, 2005, 

in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Federal Government, the railroad posted signs 

at all the private crossings along the breadth of the property that he works, declaring the closure 

of the crossings. Only one crossing was not posted, and that crossing is believed to be a public 

road. The closure of the crossings poses a major problem to this citizen’s farming operation and 

a major safety concern to highway users in the area. The citizen must now move his farm 

equipment along highway roads to reach the only open crossing. 

The citizen attempted to negotiate with the railroad in an effort to allow the crossing to remain 

open to alleviate his limitations; however, the railroad refused to negotiate. The crossings that 

were closed were used seasonally; however, in season, they were heavily utilized. The railroad
59 

places great emphasis on safety in its operation, and the citizen offered to gate the private 

crossings and assume personal responsibility for the crossings if they were to be reestablished.

Interactive Public Meeting: Data Needs

The interactive public meeting section was structured in the form of case studies and 

hypothetical scenarios that were proposed to the meeting attendees for discussion. The following 

section summarizes the interactive discussion from the public meeting. The full text from the 

interactive discussion can be read in Appendix A4. 

Hypothetical Scenario/Question: Currently, most of the data available pertain to public 

crossings and are used in prioritizing safety treatments and funding allocation. NTSB and other 

sources have suggested additional data fields for the crossing inventory forms, including sight 

distance, presence of curves on the roadway and track, angle of intersection, presence of nearby 

intersections, and latitudinal and longitudinal coordinates. What data elements would be 

beneficial to collect?

 The typical class of vehicle using crossings should be identified and included. 

 The approach grade and sight distance should be identified. 

 A new classification system, possibly the semipublic and private depictions described by 

NCUTCD, should be used. 

 The railroads feel it is difficult to collect data such as AADT for private crossings because of 

roadway conditions, for example, traditional roadway counting devices could not be utilized 

on dirt roads. 

Hypothetical Scenario/Question: In addition to desired data, what about the methods for data 

collection, such as FRA proxy options?

 Statistical sampling as opposed to complete data collection should be considered. 

 Some railroads currently collect latitudinal and longitudinal information for all crossings and 

use GIS to map the railroads.

 Most of the existing private crossing information is collected and submitted by the railroads; 

FRA needs to seek alternative ways of collecting data. 

 FRA should improve the existing crossing inventory forms to make them more user-friendly 

and create electronic inventory submission. 

 There is concern regarding legal issues with submitting crossing information to FRA crossing 

inventory. Some information should remain private and not be made public, and there may 

be issues with the Department of Homeland Security.

 The focus should be on closing public crossings and consolidating private crossings. 

Hypothetical Scenario/Question: What if FRA in partnership with the FHWA developed a secure 

website where States and railroads could log in to input data?

 Highway-rail crossing issues should be viewed as a one DOT system.

 AAR is committed to the current crossing inventory and feels that if the current inefficiencies 

are addressed the process will improve.
60 

 There is concern about how secure the supplied data will be and how the USDOT will protect 

the data. 

 There is concern about legal action taken as a result of information being made public; many

feel this information should be used for engineering applications only. 

 States and railroads have not motivation to collect and submit data. Until data submission is 

made mandatory, it will remain a low priority.

Hypothetical Scenario/Question: What if the State supplied information on high-speed rail 

corridor ID, county map reference number, latitude (lat), longitude (long), and lat/long source 

[Blocks 21–25 on the USDOT Crossing Inventory Forms] that was used in conjunction with a 

GIS platform to locate and map private crossings?

 Some States currently have limited GIS information; however, there is concern that access to 

private property may be required for States to collect data regarding private crossings. Many 

private crossings are only accessible by private property. There is a trespass issue with 

anyone trying to physically access these private crossings.

 Many railroads currently have these data; however, it is a large and expensive administrative 

job to submit the data. 

Hypothetical Scenario/Question: What if States were required to collect the data?

This is not a good idea because of trespassing concerns with private property.

Hypothetical Scenario/Question: What if railroads were required to collect the data?

This would be a monumental burden and too great of a responsibility, with no benefit to the 

railroad.

Hypothetical Scenario/Question: What if the Federal Government created a team to collect the 

data?

 There are currently huge discrepancies among existing private crossing data that the Federal 

Government, State governments, and railroads have. 

 Currently, the railroads submit the data to the States and the Federal Government; the reason 

for the disconnect is the current inventory process. 

 If the Federal Government were responsible for collecting the data, there would be 

uniformity because a single entity would be collecting data. 

Hypothetical Scenario/Question: What if track geometry cars were used to automate data 

collection?

 Some railroads already have precision information from their equipment for all roads. 

 Some railroads use automated data collection, but the quantity and quality of the data 

collected is limited.
61 

Hypothetical Scenario/Question: What if, in the course of responding to a mandate on private 

crossing agreements, the railroad is required to assign a crossing ID number and update the 

USDOT crossing inventory?

 Some feel that FRA should use track inspectors to collect data when it is conducting 

inspections in the field.

 Others feel that the railroads posses the ability to collect the data and are the holders of the 

data. 

 If FRA imposed a restriction or deadline, it could force the railroads to prioritize data 

collection.

 The use or requirement of permitting crossings with serious legal consequences for violations 

is another option. 

 Some States need Federal requirements because the local jurisdiction often acts in favor of 

private landholders.

 Engineering alone is not the solution because of financial limitations.

7.5 Syracuse, NY: Policy Considerations

The fifth and final public meeting was held in Syracuse, NY, on July 26, 2007, in conjunction 

with the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT). NYSDOT has the authority 

and process to close private crossings on rail lines that carry passenger rail traffic. This unique 

authority provided an additional perspective to one of the major issues with private crossings. 

The discussion during the interactive public session of the meeting focused on FRA possible 

policy considerations. 

Formal Statements 

Two organizations provided prepared statements prior to the public meeting discussion. The 

following is a summary of the prepared statements.

NYSDOT

In 1994, the New York State legislature first granted authority for the NYSDOT to address 

private highway-rail grade crossing safety. There are two key safety factors that take priority 

when assessing risk at private crossings. The first such factor is an increase in public safety risk 

as a result of change in use of a private crossing. If the use of a private crossing has evolved to 

provide public use without a commensurate change in legal classification, typically national 

standards for warning device systems at public crossings are not followed. The second factor is 

the risk to passenger train operation. Private crossings along a passenger rail corridor have the 

potential to cause events with greater severity to the public. 

New York State has the largest commuter rail and transit operations in the United States, with 

ridership of more than 1.3 billion passengers per year. The Empire Corridor, from New York 

City to Albany and on to Buffalo, is a designated high-speed rail corridor where trains have 

operated along portions at speeds of up to 110 mph since 1980. A high-speed rail corridor refers 

to a natural grouping of metropolitan areas and markets that, by proximity and configuration, 
62 

lend themselves to efficient ground transportation service that is time-competitive with air and 

automobiles for trips in the 100-to-500-mile range. A designated high-speed corridor utilizes a 

series of technologies involving trains traveling at top speeds of 90 to 300 mph. 

According to FRA’s National Crossing Inventory, there are currently 2,878 public crossings and 

2,900 private crossings in the State of New York. Approximately 400 of these private crossing 

locations fall under New York’s regulatory jurisdiction. Through state and federally funded 

programs, New York has equipped over 70 percent of the public crossings with active warning 

devices. However, it is estimated that less than 1 percent of private crossings have any form of 

active warning devices. Signage at private crossings is and private crossing road profiles are 

often very poor. 

NYSDOT feels that FRA National Crossing Inventory has significant inaccuracies with regard to 

private crossing locations. In addition, there are no national standards to provide guidance on 

safety enhancements that should be utilized consistently at private crossings, including passive 

signs, and there are limited public funding sources that can be used for safety improvements at 

private crossings.

Railroads of New York, Inc.

Railroads of New York (RONY), Inc., represents the freight railroad industry in New York State, 

including the four Class I railroads, CSX Transportation, Inc., Canadian National, Canadian 

Pacific, and Norfolk Southern, and about 30 shortline and regional railroads. RONY has 

established a Regulatory Review Committee to identify State and local laws and regulations 

applicable to rail freight that should be eliminated, reformed, or made more cost-effective.

Railroads’ experiences differ by the type of territory within which they operate. Each railroad 

may encounter different issues in terms of design, function, and safety aspects of private 

crossings. In New York State, there are typically three types of crossings. The first type is

deeded crossings that can cover something that was agreed to at the time that the railroad 

acquired the property or right-of-way, usually in the nature of a covenant or an easement. In 

some cases, these agreements may be more than 150 years old and difficult to locate, or they 

may no longer exist. The second type of crossing is a licenses or license agreement. These 

crossings are more limited and are fairly rare in RONY’s experience. The last type of crossing 

falls under Section 52 of the New York State Railroad Law, which mandates, under certain 

highly limited circumstances, that a private farm or timber extraction crossing must be granted 

by the railroad.

Interactive Public Meeting: Policy Considerations 

The following section summarizes the interactive discussion from the public meeting. The full 

text from the interactive discussion can be read in Appendix A5. 
63 

Rights and Responsibilities

 Most States indicated that they have little or no jurisdiction to affect decisions about creation 

of private crossings or, except in fairly limited ways, even to determine the traffic control 

devices placed at such crossings. Railroads are often powerless to induce private landowners 

to make needed improvements. 

 Crossing benefits, in fact, fall almost entirely to the holder of the right to cross.

 There is no process in place to help the parties involved make decisions, to justify crossing 

creation or continuation, or to consider safety issues at private crossings. The railroads 

generally lack the authority to close or relocate private crossings or even to require 

appropriate safety measures. Many private crossing holders perceive the current methods for 

addressing crossing closure to be unfair, giving them little or no input into how their property 

would be affected.

 Some railroads indicated a preference for Federal policies and recommendations instead of 

regulations. Others advocated more uniformity in decision making through use of a 

permitting process overseen by FRA, and others opted for regulations, indicating that policies 

or other nonregulatory guidance could be used against railroads in court cases. Some States, 

such as California and Washington, are concerned that Federal preemption might damage 

existing protections at the State level.

 In many cases, there is no documentation available of assigning rights and responsibilities. 

Such legal documents often provide a basis for negotiations to modify or close a crossing, 

and their absence could render negotiations impossible. 

 There was little agreement among attendees on the issue of improvement and maintenance 

cost allocation. Currently, the allocation of costs varies according to State and any existing 

agreements between the railroads and crossing holders. In many cases, States and local 

authorities lack the funds and/or the staff to assume responsibility for the maintenance of 

private roadways. There are no State or Federal funds available for improvements at private 

crossing, with the exception of the limited application of Federal funding through the HighSpeed Rail Program. The stakeholders should develop a methodology to share the costs 

associated with grade crossing safety treatments, construction, and maintenance. 

 In most States, disputes must be solved through direct interaction between the railroad and 

the crossing holder, a process that is cumbersome and fraught with difficulties for both 

parties. Local courts may be biased in favor of the crossing holder, and the lack of Federal

standards has made it difficult for railroads to establish jurisdiction in Federal courts. 

Because of the legal issues involving property rights and contract law, responsibility for 

dispute mechanisms should remain with the States. Federal guidelines or recommendations 

could assist States that do not currently have dispute resolution processes. 

Crossing Categorization

 There is a long list of various ways in which crossings could be categorized. It would be 

difficult to revise the current FRA National Crossing Inventory to encompass all possible 

types of crossings, and overspecifying crossing categories may make it more difficult to 

arrange crossing consolidations and closures. 
64 

 A category known as public use, in which a crossing where the roadway is owned by an 

entity other than a public agency but to which the public has an expectation of free access, is 

one alternative. 

 Land-use change is a major issue. As land is developed, a farm field-to-field crossing can 

become access to a large residential development or even a commercial establishment like a 

shopping center. In most States, there is no mechanism for alerting the railroad or the State 

to any such change in use at a private crossing. Some feel that the best time to identify landuse changes is when a development is undergoing the planning and permitting process. For 

this reason, involving local permitting authorities is strongly recommended. Even where 

land use is not changing, it is important to identify existing private crossings with public use. 

Design and Signage Standards

 The development and application of national standards, both for crossing engineering design 

and for placement of traffic control devices at private crossings, would be beneficial. Some 

States and individual railroads have developed unique, independent standards. The 

appropriate guidelines should be developed through partnership with AASHTO, AREMA, 

APTA, and NCUTCD.

 The development of less expensive warning devices could be beneficial; none exist that 

provide enough cost reduction or safety improvement to justify their use on a system wide 

basis. Railroads cannot use non-fail-safe options because of liability considerations. 

Data Collection

 The existing National Crossing Inventory coverage of private crossing data is largely 

inadequate for most analyses as well as for resource allocation. Safety at private grade 

crossings would benefit from enhanced or improved data collection. 

 Requiring railroads to collect additional data would impose a substantial burden. The States 

do not have resources to conduct an inventory, nor in many cases would they be allowed to 

spend public monies on inventorying private property. Many private crossings are in remote 

or unsafe neighborhoods, and data collectors may face some personal risk. 

Legislation

 Numerous issues would need to be resolved, including those pertaining to identification of 

crossing users, establishment of crossing agreements, funding, and national security issues, 

before FRA should draft legislation. 

 Some parties strongly encouraged FRA to seek such legislation to gain enough authority to 

control safety issues through a permitting process resulting in increased safety.

Question: Should there be additional funding, and if so, where should it come from? Should it 

come from the railroad? The property holder? The public purse? The public purse at the 

Federal, State, or local level? How do we make this happen? 

 The railroads have gone beyond what is required under public law for improvements. They 

have contributed millions of dollars to improvements, crossing consolidations, and areas that 
65 

they feel have been to their benefit as good corporate citizens of the area where the crossings 

exist.

 The FHWA Section 130 program has had an enormous positive impact on improving safety 

at public crossings. A major concern that some railroads have is that the money available for 

crossing improvements may not be unlimited, and diluting the Section 130 program by 

enlarging the number of crossings to include private crossings is a concern. An increase in 

mandate without an increase in funding will have a dilutive impact on the overall prospects 

for the usefulness of that program. 

 There is no difference between a public grade crossing and a private grade crossing to the 

public. Every crossing is a significant crossing that deserves the same consideration as a 

highway-to-highway crossing. One recommendation is for speeds over 25 miles per hour, to 

adopt a physically separated network similar to that of the interstate highway concept 

through grade separation. 

 The United Transportation Union (UTU) feels that every agency, State government, and the 

U.S. Congress have to take action. Legislation is needed. UTU encourages FRA and the 

NYDOT to work together to find a model for State legislation that will give the authority and 

funding to address the problem. 

 FRA needs to find a way to broaden the coalition of people who are interested and to declare 

this as a number-one public safety problem. 

 The New York State legislature passed laws that gave NYSDOT authority over private 

crossings on intercity rail lines and commuter lines. New York State and Long Island 

Railroad have closed over 50 percent of private crossings that existed on intercity lines and 

commuter corridors since legislative authority was granted. However, the U.S. District Court 

for the Northern District of New York recently issued a decision in Island Park v. CSX 

Transportation, in which it found that Federal law preempts New York State authority to 

close grade crossings.

 Many feel that the issue is so significant it must be dealt with nationally, not State by State. 

It takes national legislation to address this problem. 

 State and local authorities may have conflicting priorities with regard to the issue and need to 

take railroad safety considerations into account. For public crossings, the State sets warning 

system requirements and tells railroads what type of warning system is required at a crossing 

based on use. This does not happen for private crossings. The railroad is put in a position of 

making the determination of what the appropriate level of warning system at a private 

crossing should be, and it assumes all the risk should an incident occur at that location. 

Governments and State organizations need to take responsibility to determine appropriate 

warning systems and apply them uniformly. 

 There are other USDOT modes interested in this issue that may or may not have specific 

relevant authority, including the FHWA, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

and FMCSA. 

Question: Does FRA need a new charter from Congress that would more carefully define the 

expectations of all stakeholders?

 Private-sector railroads could do the job if they were empowered. 

 Federal involvement through regulation would be beneficial. 
66 

 There is a need for broad performance standards that do not microprescribe the 

implementation process and policy to preempt defective local level authority. Legislation is 

desirable as opposed to policy because policy can be detrimental. 

 In New York State, the law prevents the creation of new private crossings until an 

administrative law hearing is conducted. 

 Public safety concerns need to be considered, with a focus on passenger train lines. Rail 

lines with passenger operations should be put into the public use category. 

Open Commentary

The following is a summary of the general commentary and discussion. 

 NYSDOT is currently developing standards for private crossing signage. These standards 

are in draft form at present, with approval being coordinated in conjunction with the 

Metropolitan Planning Associations. 

 Caution is needed with the term public use to define crossings. There are many different fact 

patterns and situations that require extensive examination. California currently designates 

publicly used private crossings after the CPUC has concluded a factual determination.

 Education of the general public’s responsibilities at private crossings is missing. There needs 

to be some level of driver education at the State or local level, possibly through driver 

education courses or new requirements similar to commercial driver training. This could be 

used to target higher-risk drivers.

 The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET) generally concur with 

FRA findings and support an approach that involves all relative stakeholders to ensure that 

the policy developed is thorough. Although the BLET feels that FRA can produce a national 

success through policy and guidance, it favors policy and legislation.

Findings: 

• Absence of a cohesive policy or regulatory structure has led to the existence of 

private crossings that are redundant, inadequately designed, and/or poorly maintained. 

• In most States, there are no publicly sanctioned engineering criteria for private 

crossings. Accordingly, users of those crossings may encounter a variety of signage, 

road surface conditions, and other engineering attributes.

• No process currently exists that predicates the creation of new private crossings or the 

continuation of existing crossings on considerations of public safety or necessity. 

• For most private crossings in the Nation, there is no agreement in place specifying the 

responsibilities of the railroad and the holder. Disputes must typically be resolved 

through direct interaction between the railroad and the crossing holder or, failing that, 

through litigation. 
67 

• In general, local planning and zoning authorities do not regularly take into account 

the impacts of the development decisions that they oversee on interstate rail 

transportation. 

• The contribution of education and awareness programs to safety at private crossings 

is not documented, but safety knowledge and awareness would appear relevant to 

private crossing safety, provided that engineering arrangements present suitable cues 

to facilitate safe traversing of the intersection.

• Because State laws applicable to public roadways do not apply at private crossings, 

and because most users of private crossings are likely authorized users, law 

enforcement does not appear to be a useful strategy for improving safety at private 

crossings.

• The level and type of highway use—that is, whether the public has an expectation of 

free access to a crossing—is a key factor affecting safety at that crossing.

• Population increases, changes in land use, and both recent and projected growth in 

rail and highway traffic suggest that exposure to incident risk at private crossings is 

likely to continue to increase. Accordingly, the number of opportunities for incidents, 

and therefore for casualties, will also increase unless new initiatives for improving 

private crossing safety are not identified and are effectively implemented.

• Railroads lack the authority to control roadway design or traffic control device 

selection and placement. They also lack the authority to control the highway usage of 

a given crossing.

• Railroads have made significant efforts to close or improve private crossings. 

However, they are often hampered by common law and, in some cases, by statutory 

law, which may not recognize the degree to which private crossings threaten the 

safety of road users, railroad employees, and potentially other members of the public 

in the vicinity. 

• Effective solutions to improving safety at the Nation’s private highway-rail grade 

crossings will require active collaboration between the parties involved. These 

parties include but may not be limited to:

 Private crossing holders 

 Railroads 

 Local public planning and zoning authorities 

 State agencies that enforce crossing design standards 

 Professional and/or industry organizations responsible for developing standards 

 USDOT
68 

8. Additional Outreach

In an effort to reach the professional transportation research community, a panel discussion 

session on safety at private highway-rail grade crossings was held at the Transportation Research 

Board’s (TRB) 86th Annual Meeting. The TRB Annual Meeting attracts roughly 10,000 

transportation professionals from around the world, including policymakers, administrators, 

practitioners, and researchers and representatives from industry, academia, and government. 

TRB Panel Discussion 

The panel discussion was hosted by TRB’s Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Committee, AHB60, 

on January 23, 2007, in Washington, DC. Six panel members provided prepared statements, 

followed by an open discussion. The panel members were Miriam Kloeppel, Office of Safety, 

FRA; Guan Xu, Office of Safety, FHWA; Paul Worley, NCDOT; Richard Campbell, Railroad 

Controls Limited and NCUTCD; William Browder, AAR; and Aidan Nelson, RSSB, United 

Kingdom. 

Formal Statements 

The following is a summary of the prepared statements provided by the panel members. 

FRA

The prepared statement delivered by FRA provided a brief overview of the safety inquiry, 

followed by summaries of the discussions held at the previous public meetings. 

FHWA

FHWA has regulatory and statutory authority over public highway-rail grade crossings based on 

Sections 130 and 646 of Title 23 of the United States Code. These regulations afford authority 

over highway-rail grade crossings and Federal aid programs funded through transportation bills, 

such as the current SAFETEA-LU, which authorized $220 million per year for FY 2006–2009. 

Under this bill, States can request and receive funding to address safety warning devices at 

public highway-rail grade crossings. This limitation on the types of grade crossings that are 

eligible for Federal funding is the basis for FHWA’s limited role with respect to safety concerns 

at private highway-rail grade crossings.

In 1999, FHWA proposed a section to the MUTCD that contained a definition, standard, and 

guidance for traffic control devices at private crossings. FHWA eventually withdrew the 

proposal because of railroad industry opposition challenging the agency’s lack of statutory 

authority and the economic impact that enactment of the proposal would place on the industry. 

A number of States also opposed the inclusion of private crossing standards because of State 

laws that limit the exercise of their jurisdiction over private roadways. 
69 

NCDOT

Following the Sealed Corridor Project in North Carolina, NCDOT realized a need to address 

private crossings. Through the Sealed Corridor approach, NCDOT implemented off-the-shelf 

technologies in different ways, emphasized the use of corridor diagnostic teams, and 

implemented closures and alternative access whenever possible to improve safety. NCDOT even 

signalized private crossings with high traffic volumes and public use. North Carolina is one of 

the few States to pursue private crossing safety projects and updating of the private crossing 

inventory data. It has done this through a $1.9 million grant from FRA‘s Next Generation HighSpeed Rail Program by virtue of the State’s having a federally designated high-speed rail 

corridor, the Southeast High-Speed Rail corridor. 

NCDOT first conducted a comprehensive diagnostic study of all 47 private crossings on its highspeed rail corridor to verify and update inventory data for accurate decisionmaking. It found a

lot of inaccuracies in inventory data and sparse coverage of private crossings. NCDOT believes 

that the best strategy has been to use the corridor diagnostic approach and to inventory all 

crossings, public and private, in a particular area. Currently, resources to maintain an accurate 

inventory of private crossings are not present at either the State DOT or the railroad level. 

Although crossing inventory data remain fairly important, resources for collection are not well 

staffed or well funded. 

Typically, by the time that private crossings present themselves as issues at the State level, they 

are politically charged. NCDOT has tried to encourage private individuals to keep talking with 

the railroads and to try to negotiate a win-win situation. A State DOT has to partner with the 

owning and operating railroads to find comprehensive and innovative approaches. There is a 

significant need to collect, correct, and update private crossing inventory data. All stakeholders, 

including Federal and State agencies, local government, transit authorities, railroads, and private 

crossing owners, may eventually need to develop some kind of methodology to share costs. This 

cannot all be put on the public side or shouldered by the railroads. 

In addition, there is no dispute resolution process. There needs to be some kind of model 

legislation. National guidelines should be considered for development by stakeholders. National 

standards for warning devices at private crossings are also needed. NCUTCD is currently 

researching this issue. 

NCUTCD

Private crossings are unique because they are largely considered private matters of interest 

between a railroad company and a private landowner. In many cases, there are no documents 

that serve to establish the relationship between a railroad and a landowner. To bring some 

degree of standardization to private crossings, the first thing that needs to be developed is a 

comprehensive private crossing inventory. The existing crossing inventory has traditionally

focused on public crossings. 
70 

FHWA and FRA will have to work closely together to develop a relationship that will allow the 

establishment of standardized traffic control devices and definitions for private crossings to 

achieve an effective cooperative effort.

The MUTCD does not specifically define public roadways separately from private roadways. A 

public roadway is defined as being any road or street under the jurisdiction of and maintained by 

a public agency and open to public travel. The MUTCD deals only with traffic control devices 

on public roadways or roadways open to public traffic. FHWA, through the regulatory 

amendment process, has attempted to more clearly define the term “open to public travel” 

through 23 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 655; however, the MUTCD lacks a definition of 

other than a public road, and there is a clear need for definition of a private roadway. 

A third category, “semipublic” roadway, was presented to the Edit Committee of NCUTCD. 

This category refers to any road or street under the jurisdiction of and maintained by a private 

entity and open to public travel. This provides for a unique classification of crossings that are 

clearly on private rights of way but are open to public travel. The creation and use of the 

semipublic crossing category could allow the discretionary use of public funding for traffic 

control devices or other types of improvements at publicly used private crossings. 

MUTCD-recommended traffic control devices at highway-rail grade crossings are developed 

through a process using a group known as a diagnostic team. A diagnostic team is defined in 23 

CFR 646 as a group of parties of interest in a highway-rail grade crossing matter. The same 

diagnostic team could be used to evaluate the need for Federal funds for semiprivate crossings.

NCUTCD encourages FRA to consider rulemaking that would provide some degree of authority 

through FRA or a State DOT to regulate the establishment of private crossings and to provide for 

an accurate private crossing inventory. The private crossing inventory should include 

information on maintenance responsibility, surface, traffic control devices, and other data 

specific to all crossings, including semipublic ones. 

AAR

AAR is a standards practices organization maintaining a number of different standards. It 

comprises and represents Class I railroads and other organizations in North America. The views 

expressed were those of William Browder and not the AAR’s espoused position. 

Railroads derive absolutely no benefit from highway-rail grade crossings. Railroads are not the 

experts on treatments at highway-rail grade crossings; rather, the expert is the Highway 

Authority. Railroads do not have a large force of individuals to design and promote crossing 

safety; they have to do it within their own engineering departments or through contractors. 49 

CFR Part 234 requires railroads to conduct an onsite inspection of every active warning device 

crossing. There are more than 65,000 such crossings equipped with active warning devices in the 

United States. Roughly 1,000 of the more than 94,400 private crossings have active warnings, 

most of which were equipped for the sake of safety because the railroad insisted. 
71 

The railroads have to establish relationships with 50 different State DOTs. The nature of these 

relationships varies, but there are some similarities in terms of safety. We commend the 

NCUTCD’s suggested semipublic term for private crossings that provide public access. There is 

no one-size-fits-all solution.

RSSB, United Kingdom

RSSB was established in April 2003 to lead and facilitate the railway industry’s work to achieve 

continuous improvement in the health and safety performance of the railways in Great Britain. 

RSSB believes that the first priority is to keep an updated and accurate account of the ownership 

and change in use of private crossings. This is a considerable challenge to the railway. In Great 

Britain, it has become a far greater challenge in recent years, with the planning rules being 

altered to permit development and to encourage agricultural properties to increase employment 

in rural areas. The authorized user is responsible for ensuring that its visitors understand the 

rules of engagement for the private-level crossing. In practice, most users do not do this. 

RSSB is now producing informational leaflets about the safe use of private crossings in a 

multitude of languages as a result of an incident involving non-native-English-speaking 

individuals. One of the obligations of the railway is to equip a crossing with a sign stating the 

arrangements of its use. This takes the form of a sign indicating that the crossing is private and a 

statement describing the penalty for abuse. 

In Great Britain, the railway has an obligation to fence itself. There is a five-bar gate on either 

side of private crossings. This is not the safest form of railroad crossing because, if it is to be 

used properly, the individual must exit the vehicle and open the near-side gate, traverse the 

crossing and open the far-side gate, traverse the crossing to retrieve the vehicle, drive the vehicle 

through the crossing, exit the vehicle and traverse the crossing to close the far-side gate, and 

traverse the crossing for the fifth time to reach the vehicle. Often, a crossing will be left open for 

the return trip, in which case the situation changes from a passive-user work crossing with a 

distinct barrier to indicate the presence of the railway to a passive open crossing. With passive 

open crossings, risk is actually increased. 

At private crossings with a high volume of use, RSSB has installed miniature warning lights to 

indicate whether the rail line is clear or if there is a train coming. The installation of such 

warning devices only converts the crossing from a passive open crossing to an active open 

crossing. 

Ireland has taken a radical approach and sought to reduce the number of private crossings, 

buying the agricultural land adjacent to rail lines from farmers who have land on both sides of 

the railway and then selling it to other farmers in an effort to consolidate the land holding on one 

side of the railway. This removes the need for access crossings. Ireland has also recognized that 

it can separate an agricultural crossing for far less money than a railway engineer’s estimate. By 

building user-appropriate grade separation rather than standard public grade separation, Ireland 

has managed to provide grade separation at a fraction of the cost of traditional separation 

structures. 
72 

A dilemma arises when a private crossing becomes a public crossing. The consequence of 

declaring a crossing public is that it has to be upgraded to a public space crossing. In Great 

Britain, at a minimum, public space crossings are active open crossings, with all associated costs 

falling to the railway. 

Great Britain has nonstatutory planning guidance stating that the planning authority should 

consult with the railway on any development likely to have a material impact on the use of the 

level crossing. A similar statutory obligation should be mandatory in the United States to 

address this issue.

General Discussion and International Views

Following the prepared statements, Phil Poichuk of Transport Canada provided a statement on 

the status of highway-rail grade crossings in Canada. Ray Lewis of the West Virginia 

Department of Transportation provided a summary of the crossing situation in West Virginia. 

The following section summarizes the statements and interactive discussion, including questions 

posed by the audience, from the open-discussion portion of the panel discussion. (The full text 

of the interactive discussion can be found in Appendix A6.) 

Transport Canada

Currently, Canadian standards are departing from the traditional definition of private highwayrail grade crossings Canada traditionally had two categories of private crossings: statutory (by 

right) and nonstatutory (by grace). Statutory private crossings were created in the late 1800s 

when the railway severed land and therefore had the obligation to provide crossings and maintain 

them. Nonstatutory crossings were created when a landowner whose land had not been initially 

severed later needed a crossing for another purpose. The landowner would enter into an 

agreement with the railroad and usually pay the associated cost of the crossing. The agreement 

typically dealt more with rights and financial aspects, such as maintenance of the crossing, than 

it did with the safety responsibility. 

Canada’s new grade crossing standards move away from traditional definitions relative to 

ownership. The national grade crossing manual, RTD 10, does not use the terms public or 

private. Canada now requires safety amenities based on whether or not a crossing is restricted or 

unrestricted relative to public use. 

West Virginia Department of Transportation

West Virginia tries to control access across rail lines through permitting. Everyone has a right to 

access the highway system from their property. However, the conditions of public use can be 

set. West Virginia requires driveway permits for private roadway access to the public highway 

system, and there is a fairly extensive manual for driveway permits. If a new or existing 

driveway crosses a rail line and is going to involve a change in use of the land, then the rules and 

regulations require the landowner to obtain a new permit to reflect the updated change. If a 

railroad is involved, the State asks for an agreement even if the crossing is deeded. 
73 

Question: Of the over 94,400 private crossings, what percentage are semipublic as defined by 

NCUTCD?

 This is difficult to estimate because private crossings are not currently inventoried to the 

same extent as public crossings with regard to usage, AADT, surface conditions, and warning 

devices. A rough estimate is 10 percent or less. 

 Some private crossing information is in the National Crossing Inventory; however, the 

information for most data categories is not. 

 A category designating whether or not there is public access was added to the inventory in 

November 1999. 

 Some States have not updated their private crossing inventory in the last 6 years. 

 The resource for most of the private crossing information in FRA’s inventory is the railroads. 

Some railroads have fairly extensive information in their private inventories. Unless a 

significant safety value is identified, it is a burden on the railroad’s daily operations to collect 

and provide this information to FRA. 

Question: Would a crossing that led to a trucking company’s facility that was used by delivery 

trucks of a few customers be considered a private or a semiprivate crossing? 

Under the NCUTCD proposed usage, a private crossing with delivery truck access would still be 

considered a private crossing because it provides access to a private business, which has control 

over its employees. Although there is access by external drivers, such as delivery companies, 

those individuals generally possess a commercial driver’s license and have had additional safety 

training in highway-rail grade crossings. 

Question: How does the industry currently deal with situations where a crossing is owned by an 

authority that believes the crossing is private and is not subject to FRA regulations?

 This is among the issues that have to be considered. Currently, if a crossing is listed in FRA

inventory as a private crossing, then it is considered private. 

 A motorist does not know if a roadway and crossing are open to the public unless the 

crossing is specifically signed, gated, and identified. 

Question: What is the panel’s opinion on the need for regulations, guidance, or standards on 

engineering design characteristics? Should such an effort come from the States that administer 

and possibly have jurisdiction over private crossings? From a DOT-wide task force that includes 

all stakeholders, such as FRA, FHWA, FMCSA, and FTA? Or should it be left to the local 

authorities to determine?

 There is a need for more pilot projects through both public and private partnerships around 

the country to attain experience with different approaches for closures, and with appropriate 

warning devices and other treatments for private crossings. Ultimately, a diagnostic team 

process headed by the State authority that has experience with crossing safety issues would 

be the best solution. The local diagnostic team can truly deal with all of the individual issues 

and address them onsite. 
74 

 There is a need for general Federal-level guidelines where Federal funding for private 

crossings is involved. States have a lot of power to define details. One reasonable way to 

have the Federal Government involved is through development of a process that leaves 

control in the hands of the States and local diagnostic teams. 

 In the United Kingdom, most private crossings are well run; however, there are still 

problems. In most instances, private landowners exercise their responsibilities and work with 

the railway. Issues such as a change in use where development has been allowed on one side 

of the railway without taking into account the impact on the railway is usually a matter of 

public policy. Once this sort of development is created, it should require a new form of 

agreement to recognize the new circumstances. 

Question: Should regulations and standards or guidance be developed, and how would they

interface with existing private agreements between the railroad and the landowner? Will 

regulations supersede that private agreement?

 If FRA were to develop regulations, one of the factors that would have to be considered is the 

interface with private crossing agreements. Some crossing agreements are based in deeds. 

There are situations where private-property rights might not apply, and rights would have to 

be negotiated. Pilot programs to gain experience with the different scenarios might be 

beneficial.

 The view of RSSB is that there should be a statutorily defined user interface for public 

highway crossings, public pedestrian crossings, and private level crossings. Everything else 

should be included within the standards of the railroad concerned.

Question: Only 22 States seem to have statutes addressing private crossings. We have heard 

that the authority over private crossings should be held at a State level. How can the Federal 

Government now step in to help States that have statutes and those that do not to manage the 

safety of private crossings? 

 Intrusion into the relationship between the property owner or licensee on the crossing and the 

railroad may create the situation of a taking. 

 Most private crossings never cause trouble. Private crossings that undergo a change in use 

have the greatest potential for problems. There is a need for a mechanism through State law 

or Federal regulation that would permit an existing deed to be rolled into a standard private 

crossing agreement. 

 The private crossings with issues are the ones that have free and unrestricted public access; 

they may require some additional treatment. 

 Monitoring crossing usage by AADT may be beneficial to regulation. If the change in 

AADT of a crossing exceeds a set percentage or fixed amount, a review of the use of the 

crossing could be prompted. 

 One necessary task with regard to land-use planning and smart growth is to convey 

information to land-use planners at county and municipal levels with regard to railroads. 

Information about the railroad must be considered by everyone involved in land-use 

planning. 
75 

9. Private Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Reported Incidents 

FRA conducted a series of incident investigations to provide current field data on selected 

private crossings. In addition to collecting the data required for a grade crossing investigation, 

FRA inspectors collected information specific to the incident-involved private crossing. The 

additional data included information about the frequency and types of rail and highway traffic, 

some data about the geometric configuration present at the crossing, signage present, and any 

ownership or maintenance agreement information available. The following section contains 

summaries of nine incident investigations completed during the course of this study. 

9.1 Incident Number: HQ-2006-40, Jackson, MI 

At about 1 p.m. on May 30, 2006, Amtrak train No. 350 struck an empty gravel truck at a private 

highway-railroad grade crossing near Jackson, MI. The train was traveling at about 74 mph with 

cab car 90218 in the lead when the truck entered the crossing in front of the train. One train 

crew member and 15 passengers received minor injuries; the truck driver sustained fatal injuries. 

Damages reportedly totaled $97,000 for railroad equipment and $3,000 for the highway vehicle. 

The private road at the incident crossing is used by an excavating company and two residences. 

On average, fewer than 30 highway vehicles and a dozen trains, eight of them Amtrak trains, 

traverse the crossing daily. The crossing was built in approximately 1948; there is no record of 

any maintenance contract between the business owner and Norfolk Southern Railway, the track 

owner. 

 Figure 27. Private Crossing, USDOT ID No. 545296H, Jackson, MI 
76 

 USDOT ID #: 545296H 

 Incident history? One prior incident, on October 24, 1999. 

 Does Amtrak or another passenger rail service operate over this crossing? Yes; Amtrak eight

trains per day. 

 Is the primary use of this crossing commercial or industrial? Commercial

o If so, are there other access routes to the facility? No 

o What if any grade crossing safety training have motorists at this facility received? 

None 

 Is this crossing being utilized at all by the public? No, with the exception of traffic due to 

two residences nearby. 

 What if any types of hazmat shipments are transported over this crossing either by train or 

motor vehicle? Minimal amount (four to five shipments daily) handled by the NS Railroad.

 What are the daily train and highway traffic counts? Four trains and roughly six highway 

vehicles.

 Is the motorist’s sight distance limited in any quadrant? No

 What is the crossing surface material, and what condition is it in? Gravel; in good condition. 

 How wide is the roadway (how many traffic lanes)? One lane—10 feet 

 How many tracks are at this crossing? One main track

 Does the crossing have a high vertical profile (hump crossing)? No 

 Who maintains the roadway approaches? NS Railroad and owner of property 

 Identify signage present, with measurements: height above ground, distances from nearest 

rail and from roadway edge, dimensions of signs. Stop sign, 6 feet in height; 75 feet from 

roadway to south rail of main track 

 When and how did this crossing come into being? For example, was there a formal creation? 

Was it created through a prescriptive easement (squatters’ rights)? No formal arrangement

 Is there an agreement in place between the private property owner and the railroad? No 

9.2 Incident Number: HQ-2006-42, Axis, AL 

On June 1, 2006, at 11:40 a.m. Central Daylight Time (CDT), a southbound Norfolk Southern 

Railway (NS) struck a westbound truck-trailer at a private highway railroad grade crossing near 

Axis, AL. The impact caused the locomotive and the first through fifth railcars to derail. The 

truck-trailer, loaded with sulfuric acid, became separated from the tractor and lodged under the 

front of the locomotive, but there was no release of the hazardous cargo. The fuel in the trucktrailer ignited as a result of the collision, and the truck-trailer and portions of the locomotive 

were involved in the fire, which was quickly extinguished by local fire personnel. Damages 

were reported in the amounts of $53,800 for railroad equipment, $8,000 for track and structures, 

and $120,000 for the highway vehicle. 

 USDOT ID #: DOT 727807V 

 Incident history: No previous incident history recorded. 

 Does Amtrak or another passenger rail service operate over this crossing? No

 Is the primary use of this crossing commercial or industrial? Industrial 

o If so, are there other access routes to the facility? No

o What if any grade crossing safety training have motorists at this facility received? 

Plant personnel participate in training conducted by the railroad every 3–5 years.
77 

 Is this crossing being utilized at all by the public? No

 What if any types of hazmat shipments are transported over this crossing, either by train or 

motor vehicle? Plant: sulfuric acid, carbon disulfide, sulfur chlorides, monochloracidic acid; 

railroad: chlorine, caustic soda, carbon disulfide, sodium hydrosulfide, sulfuric acid, fuel oil, 

aniline, anhydrous ammonia, isopropyline alcohol, propyline alcohol, isobutyldehybe, 

dipropylaminp, benzel, coke, sulfur chlorides, monochloracidic acid

 What are the daily train and highway traffic counts? Railroad: eight trains; highway: 

approximately 250–300 vehicles. 

 Is the motorist’s sight distance limited in any quadrant? Yes; cars located in a siding on the 

east side of the main track south of the crossing restrict the sight distance of vehicles leaving 

the plant. The railroad has green marks painted on the rail 100 feet from the crossing. 

o If yes, is the limitation likely to be seasonal? No

 What is the crossing surface material, and what condition is it in? Asphalt, fair-to-good 

condition 

 How wide is the roadway (how many traffic lanes)? Two lanes

 How many tracks are at this crossing? Two: main track and siding

 Does the crossing have a high vertical profile (hump crossing)? No

 Who maintains the roadway approaches? Plant

 Identify signage present, with measurements: height above ground, distances from nearest 

rail and from roadway edge, dimensions of signs. There are advance warning signs placed 

125 feet from the tracks for westbound traffic and 500 feet for eastbound traffic. All signage 

is standard dimension with a height of 6 feet from ground to top, including crossbucks with 

flashing lights. 

 When and how did this crossing come into being? For example, was there a formal creation? 

Was it created through a prescriptive easement (squatters’ rights)? The road was once a 

public road, Salco Road, before the plant was built. 

 Is there an agreement in place between the private property owner and the railroad? Yes. 

o If yes, does the agreement include maintenance of crossing and/or warning devices 

present? Yes, the plant is invoiced on an annual basis by the railroad for maintaining 

the crossing signals. The invoice references an agreement date of September 8, 1967, 

but the plant has been unable to locate its copy of the agreement.

9.3 Incident Number: HQ-2006-50, Boutte, LA 

On June 14, 2006, at 12:55 p.m., a westbound Amtrak train, the Sunset Limited, struck a tractortrailer at a private highway-railroad grade crossing near Boutte, LA. The driver of the tractortrailer sustained no injuries, but one member of the train crew reported minor injuries and four 

train passengers sustained minor-to-moderate injuries. Damages were reported in the amount of 

$100,000 for railroad equipment and $11,765 for the highway vehicle. 
78 

 USDOT ID #: 758008B 

 Incident history: Nonfatal incidents occurred on June 16, 1989, and October 14, 1990; a twofatality incident occurred on December 11, 1993; and a single-fatality incident occurred on 

February 23, 1999. 

 Does Amtrak or another passenger rail service operate over this crossing? Yes

 Primary crossing uses: Industrial (well service company)

 What types of hazmat shipments are transported over this crossing? Diesel fuel oil (in 

amounts less than 200 gallons) 

 What are the daily train and highway traffic counts? 14 trains 

 Is the motorist’s sight distance limited in any quadrant? Yes, but not for a vehicle stopped at 

crossing. 

o If yes, is the limitation likely to be seasonal? Yes, foliage

 What is the crossing surface material, and what condition is it in? Concrete, new

 How wide is the roadway (how many traffic lanes)? Two lanes

 How many tracks are at this crossing? One main track

 Does the crossing have a high vertical profile (hump crossing)? No 

 Traffic control devices: Stop signs on both approaches and advance warning signs mounted 

on same mast. Cross bucks on additional masts. Nonstandard warning signs reading “Stop 

look both ways before crossing railroad” also on both approaches. Masts and cross bucks for 

active gates and flashers installed, but active signal installation not complete and signals not 

functional at time of incident. 

9.4 Incident Number: HQ-2006-53, LeMont, IL

At about 7 p.m. (6:52) on June 21, 2006, Metra Train No. 921, traveling south at a recorded 

speed of 79 mph, struck a truck-trailer traversing a private grade crossing near Lemont, IL. A 

piece of the trailer became wedged under the snow pilot of the locomotive, and the locomotive 

derailed at the crossing. The driver of the tractor-trailer was not injured. There were 170 

passengers aboard the train: five claimed minor injuries and were treated and released. No train 

crew members reported any injury. Damages reportedly totaled $75,000 for railroad equipment, 

$8,000 for track and structures, and $3,000 for the highway vehicle. 

This crossing serves two commercial facilities to which there is no other access. Roughly 28 

trains and fewer than 30 highway vehicles use this crossing daily. The crossing is maintained by 

Canadian Northern, but there is no formal agreement.
79 

 Figure 28. Private Crossing, USDOT ID No. 309452U, Lemont, IL

 USDOT ID #: 309452U 

 Incident history: No previous incident history recorded. 

 Does Amtrak or another passenger rail service operate over this crossing? Amtrak; six trains 

daily.

 Is the primary use of this crossing commercial or industrial? Commercial

o If so, are there other access routes to the facility? None

o What if any grade crossing safety training have motorists at this facility received? 

None 

 Is this crossing being utilized at all by the public? No

 What if any types of hazmat shipments are transported over this crossing either by train or 

motor vehicle? Canadian National Railway reports approximately six per day. 

 What are the daily train and highway traffic counts? Canadian National Railway: 16 freight 

trains; Amtrak: 6 trains. Highway traffic is estimated at 25 vehicles. 

 Is the motorist’s sight distance limited in any quadrant? Yes, the motorist view’s is obscured 

on approach to the crossing. 

 What is the crossing surface material, and what condition is it in? Bituminous asphalt; in 

good condition. 

 How wide is the roadway (how many traffic lanes)? Two lanes, 16 feet

 How many tracks are at this crossing? Two tracks

 Does the crossing have a high vertical profile (hump crossing)? No 

 Who maintains the roadway approaches? Canadian National Railway

 Identify signage present, with measurements: height above ground, distances from nearest 

rail and from roadway edge, dimensions of signs. Stop signs (6 feet in height) located both 

north and south of the crossing approximately 8 feet from the nearest rail.
80 

 When and how did this crossing come into being? For example, was there a formal creation? 

Was it created through a prescriptive easement (squatters’ rights)? No formal agreement

 Is there an agreement in place between the private property owner and the railroad? No 

9.5 Incident Number: HQ-2006-62, Castle Rock, WA 

At about 4:40 p.m. on July 3, 2006, southbound Amtrak Train No. A507-03 struck a passenger 

vehicle at a private crossing near Castle Rock, WA. According to the Amtrak engineer, the 

incident occurred when the motorist entered the crossing after a northbound Union Pacific train

cleared it. Train crew and passengers sustained no injuries, but all four motor vehicle occupants 

sustained fatal injuries. Damages reportedly totaled $38,541 for railroad equipment and $8,000 

for the highway vehicle. 

The road leading to this crossing is a county road, but county maintenance ends shortly before 

the crossing, and the private road that extends beyond the crossing dead-ends after serving 11 

residences. About 60 trains daily traverse this crossing. It is not known when this crossing was 

created, and no maintenance contract has been located for it. 

 Figure 29. Private Crossing, USDOT ID No. 092479W, Castle Rock, WA

 USDOT ID #: 092479W 

 Incident history: One previous incident, on 12/13/88 

 Does Amtrak or another passenger rail service operate over this crossing? Yes

 Primary crossing uses: Residential

 Is this crossing used at all by the public? Yes 

 What types of hazmat shipments are transported over this crossing? Many types via freight 

train

 What are the daily train and highway traffic counts? 60 trains, 65 highway vehicles 
81 

 Is the motorist’s sight distance limited in any quadrant? Yes, but not for a vehicle stopped at 

the crossing

o If yes, is the limitation likely to be seasonal? Yes, foliage

 What is the crossing surface material, and what condition is it in? Concrete, in good 

condition 

 How wide is the roadway (how many traffic lanes)? 21 feet wide (two lanes)

 How many tracks are at this crossing? Two main tracks

 Does the crossing have a high vertical profile (hump crossing)? No

 Who maintains the roadway approaches? Eastbound approach maintained by county, 

westbound approach maintainer unknown. 

 Traffic control devices: stop signs and rectangular private crossing signs on both approaches 

12 to 15 feet from nearest rail. East of the crossing, there is an advance warning sign 183 

feet from the nearest rail. Also east of the crossing, there is a rectangular sign reading “End 

of County Road” approximately 17 feet from the nearest rail. 

 When and how did this crossing come into being? For example, was there a formal creation? 

Was it created through a prescriptive easement (squatters’ rights)? Initially listed in FRA

National Crossing Inventory as a public crossing, the crossing’s designation was updated in 

1998 to indicate that it was private.

o Is there an agreement in place between the private property owner and the railroad? 

None was found. 

9.6 Incident Number: HQ-2006-73, Rome, NY

On August 16, 2006, at 6:29 p.m. a westbound CSX freight train collided with an automobile at a 

highway-rail grade crossing near Rome, NY. Of the five motor vehicle occupants, one sustained 

serious injuries, three sustained critical injuries, and one sustained fatal injuries. Members of the 

train crew sustained no injuries. Damages reportedly amounted to $100 for railroad equipment 

and $10,000 for the highway vehicle. 

 
82 

Figure 30. Private Crossing, USDOT ID No. 512670G, Rome, NY 

 USDOT ID #: 512670G 

 Incident history: Nonfatal incidents on September 21 and 24, 1978, and March 20, 1996 

 Does Amtrak or another passenger rail service operate over this crossing? Yes

 Primary crossing uses: Residential

 Is this crossing used at all by the public? No, with the exception of nearby residences 

 What types of hazmat shipments are transported over this crossing? Hazmat shipments occur 

via rail. Only occasional shipments of heating oil are transported over the crossing by 

highway vehicles.

 What are the daily train and highway traffic counts? 55–65 freight trains, 8 passenger trains, 

and 18 highway vehicles daily 

 Is the motorist’s sight distance limited in any quadrant? Yes, northwest and northeast 

quadrants (incident vehicle’s approach quadrants) 

o If yes, is the limitation likely to be seasonal? Yes, dense foliage 

 What is the crossing surface material, and what condition is it in? Asphalt, in good condition 

 How wide is the roadway (how many traffic lanes)? Two lanes

 How many tracks are at this crossing? Two main tracks

 Does the crossing have a high vertical profile (hump crossing)? No
83 

 Who maintains the roadway approaches? Reports suggest road is owned and maintained by 

the City of Rome, NY.

 Traffic control devices: Standard MUTCD-compliant advance warning signs, cross buck 

signs, and stop signs. The mast for the cross buck signs on the south side of the crossing was 

35 feet from the nearest rail, while the cross buck mast on the northern approach was 53 feet 

from the nearest rail. The stop sign on the approach used by vehicle in the incident was 

almost completely obscured by foliage. There were no advance warning pavement markings 

or stop lines. 

 When and how did this crossing come into being? For example, was there a formal creation? 

Was it created through a prescriptive easement (squatters’ rights)? The crossing was 

established by Deed Covenant dated 1820 and passes by part of deed instrument with any 

transfer of ownership.

 Is there an agreement in place between the private property owner and the railroad? Yes.

o If yes, does the agreement include maintenance of crossing and/or warning devices 

present? Deed holds rail carrier responsible for maintenance of crossing surface only. 

Local municipality is responsible for maintenance and upkeep of passive signage. 

9.7 Incident Number: HQ-2006-76, Wayne, MI 

On September 8, 2006, at 7:58 a.m., westbound Amtrak Train No. 351 struck a motor vehicle at 

a private highway-rail grade crossing at the entrance to a railyard in Wayne, MI. The driver of 

the motor vehicle, an employee of the railroad, sustained serious injuries as a result of the 

collision. Damages reportedly amounted to $2,000 for railroad equipment and $15,500 for the 

highway vehicle.
84 

Figure 31. Private Crossing, USDOT ID No. [unknown], Wayne, MI 

 USDOT ID #: Unknown 

 Incident history: Unknown 

 Does Amtrak or another passenger rail service operate over this crossing? Yes

 Primary crossing uses: industrial—rail yard

o If industrial or commercial, are there other access routes to the facility? Yes

o What if any grade crossing safety training have motorists at this facility received? 

Unknown 

 Is this crossing used at all by the public? Unknown 

 What types of hazmat shipments are transported over this crossing? Unknown 

 What are the daily train and highway traffic counts? Unknown 

 Is the motorist’s sight distance limited in any quadrant? No

o If yes, is the limitation likely to be seasonal? 

 What is the crossing surface material, and what condition is it in? Asphalt, good

 How wide is the roadway (how many traffic lanes)? Two lanes

 How many tracks are at this crossing? Two main tracks (possibly one more track) 

 Does the crossing have a high vertical profile (hump crossing)? No

 Who maintains the roadway approaches? Norfolk Southern Corporation 

 Traffic control devices: One stop sign and private crossing sign mounted on a moveable post 

 When and how did this crossing come into being? For example, was there a formal creation? 

Was it created through a prescriptive easement (squatters’ rights)? Unknown
85 

 Is there an agreement in place between the private property owner and the railroad? 

Railroad is the private crossing owner 

9.8 Incident Number: HQ-2006-21, Sledge, MS 

On April 23, 2007, at 7:50 a.m. Central Standard Time (CST), southbound Amtrak passenger 

Train No. 59 collided with a pickup truck pulling a fuel trailer at a private farm crossing near 

Sledge, Mississippi. This private road crossing is protected by cross bucks. 

The pickup truck towing a trailer was traveling west on a private road, and the driver was the 

only occupant of the vehicle. The trailer contained a plastic tank loaded with 1,000 gallons of 

diesel fuel. Amtrak Train 59 was traveling southbound at 81 mph when the locomotive struck 

the center of the trailer, igniting the diesel fuel. The driver of the pickup truck was taken to 

Quitman County Hospital, where he was examined and released. There were no injuries to the 

train crew or passengers. Damages reportedly amounted to $85,000 for railroad equipment and 

$10,000 for the highway vehicle.

Figure 32. Private Crossing, USDOT ID No. 300586M, Sledge, MS 

 USDOT ID #: 300586M 

 Incident history: None recorded

 Does Amtrak or another passenger rail service operate over this crossing? Yes

 Is the primary use of this crossing commercial or industrial? Private farm crossing
86 

o If so, are there other access routes to the facility? No, the road leading to the crossing 

also serves as a turn row for the bean field. 

o What if any grade crossing safety training have motorists at this facility received? 

None 

 Is this crossing also being utilized at all by the public? No

 What if any types of hazmat shipments are transported over this crossing either by train or 

motor vehicle? Diesel fuel is the only hazmat transported by motor vehicle. Trains 

transporting hazmat tank cars operate over this track daily. 

 What are the daily train and highway traffic counts? There are 2 passenger trains and 24 

freight trains on this track daily. During planting and harvesting season, there are about 8 

trucks or tractors on most days; at other times of the year there is very little traffic.

 Is the motorist’s sight distance limited in any quadrant? There is at least a 350-feet sight 

distance in all directions.

o If yes, is the limitation likely to be seasonal? 

 What is the crossing surface material, and what condition is it in? Timber, in good condition 

 How wide is the roadway (how many traffic lanes)? 14 feet, 1 lane

 How many tracks are at this crossing? One

 Does the crossing have a high vertical profile (hump crossing)? Yes 

 Who maintains the roadway approaches? Canadian National 

 Identify signage present, with measurements: height above ground, distances from nearest 

rail and from roadway edge, dimensions of signs. Cross bucks, 17 feet from the nearest rail 

on the east side of the track and 23 feet from the nearest rail on the west side. Both cross 

bucks are 9 feet above the ground. 

 When and how did this crossing come into being? For example, was there a formal creation? 

Was it created through a prescriptive easement (squatters’ rights)? No record of date, but 

Mississippi law dating back to 1892 states that railroads will make and maintain plantation 

roads. 

 Is there an agreement in place between the private property owner and the railroad? No

9.9 Incident Number: HQ-2007-43, Plant City, FL 

On July 17, 2007, at 3:15 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), southbound Amtrak train No. 

PO92 collided with a flatbed truck at a highway-rail grade crossing in Plant City, FL. The 

flatbed truck was completely destroyed, and the truck driver was fatally injured. The train’s two 

locomotives and nine passenger cars derailed but remained upright. The locomotive engineer and 

the assistant conductor sustained moderate injuries and were transported to a local hospital for 

treatment. Four onboard service attendants and 16 passengers sustained minor injuries. They 

were taken to local hospitals, where they were treated and released. Damages reportedly totaled 

$875,000 for railroad equipment, $75,000 for track and structures, and $20,000 for the highway 

vehicle.
87 

Figure 33. Private Crossing, USDOT ID No. 624310U, Plant City, FL 

 USDOT ID #: 624310U 

 Incident history: None recorded

 Does Amtrak or another passenger rail service operate over this crossing? Yes, two 

southbound trains and two northbound trains. Trains No. 91 and 92 operate southward over 

the crossing, turn at Tampa, FL, and operate over the crossing northbound. 

 Is the primary use of this crossing commercial or industrial? Industrial 

o If so, are there other access routes to the facility? No

o What if any grade crossing safety training have motorists at this facility received? 

None 

 Is this crossing being utilized at all by the public? No

 What if any types of hazmat shipments are transported over this crossing either by train or 

motor vehicle? Propane and acetone transported by motor vehicle. 

 What are the daily train and highway traffic counts? There are 9 freight trains, 4 passenger 

trains daily, and 50 to 60 tractor-trailers Monday through Friday. Also, 35 employees 

working in the two industries use the road crossing to cross the railroad track Monday 

through Friday.
88 

 Is the motorist’s sight distance limited in any quadrant? No, tangent track both north and 

south for about one mile. 

o If yes, is the limitation likely to be seasonal? N/A

 What is the crossing surface material, and what condition is it in? Asphalt, in good condition 

 Identify signage present, with measurements: height above ground, distances from nearest 

rail and from roadway edge, dimensions of signs. Cross bucks are on both sides of the 

crossing. The crossbuck on the approach from the industry is located 5 feet to the right of the 

pavement and 11 from the rail. The height above ground to the center of the crossbuck is 11 

feet. The cross buck on the other side of the crossing is located 7 feet from the roadway edge

and 10 feet from the rail, and the height from the ground to the center of the crossbuck is 9 

feet. The cross buck arms are 9 inches wide by 4 feet long. A stop sign is mounted 3.5 feet 

from the ground to the center of the sign on the cross buck on the approach leading into the 

industrial area. 

 When and how did this crossing come into being? For example, was there a formal creation? 

Was it created through a prescriptive easement (squatters’ rights)? The road crossing was 

built in 1956 through a prescriptive easement. 

 Is there an agreement in place between the private property owner and the railroad? The road 

crossing crosses over the CSX main track and is on CSX property. The owner of the private 

property pays CSX for use of the crossing. 

o If yes, does the agreement include maintenance of crossing and/or warning devices 

present? Yes, CSX maintains the crossing and warning devices. 

 What if any State laws govern private crossings? Florida law requires crossbucks but not 

stop signs at private crossings. 

9.10 Summary

Between May 2006 and July 2007, inspectors from five of FRA’s Regional Offices completed 

nine targeted investigations on a series of accidents occurring at private crossings. These 

investigations provided detailed information about the accidents and the local conditions present 

at a small set of private crossings. Although the data from the accident investigations are not 

adequate for statistical analysis, nevertheless they provide sometimes dramatic illustrations of 

safety issues that can exist at private crossings.

For example, just as at public crossings, the accident set included incidents that involved a wide 

range of severities, from those where one or more persons sustained minor injuries, through 

those involving fire, hazardous materials releases, and multiple fatalities. These injuries were 

sustained by highway vehicle occupants, train crew members, and train passengers. In all, the 

nine exemplar accidents resulted in 54 injuries and six fatalities, and property damages amounted 

to over $200,000 in highway vehicle damage, $91,000 in railroad infrastructure damage, and 

over $1.3 million in railroad equipment damage. 

Many of the nine incidents also share similar characteristics. Five of the crossings have some 

form of sight obstruction and six of the crossings were equipped with stop signs. In addition, six 

of the incidents involved trucks (truck trailer, flatbed, or pickup) and eight of the crossings 

investigated are subject to hazardous materials shipments, either via rail or roadway. With these 

characteristics the risk and severity of an incident becomes elevated. 
89 

These incident summaries emphasize some of the issues raised in the course of the other 

activities conducted as a part of this safety inquiry. As was noted in discussions at many of the 

public meetings, for the majority of the crossings in the incident sample, no agreement, deed, or 

other documentation establishing responsibilities was available. Further, the signs present at and 

on the approach to the crossings varied greatly; there was no standard suite of signs at all 

crossings. A number of the incidents investigated involved commercial vehicles and/or 

commercial or industrial crossings. Finally, the fact that most of the incident crossings were 

traversed by Amtrak trains or freight trains that sometimes carried hazardous materials shipments 

highlighted the need to consider the safety needs, not only of the motorists using the crossings, 

but also of rail passengers and neighborhood inhabitants. All of these findings support NTSB’s 

recommendation (Section 2 Background) for the USDOT, in conjunction with the States, to 

determine governmental oversight responsibility of private crossings and to eliminate differences 

between public and private crossings with regard to funding and implementation requirements 

for safety improvements at crossings. 

Findings: 

• Motorists represent only a portion of the populations at risk because of incidents at 

private crossings. The risks of collision and of derailment mean that the train crews, 

train passengers, and others in the vicinity of the crossing may be exposed to 

derailing equipment or hazardous materials releases.

• Whether a crossing is public or private is immaterial in determining the calls of track 

(i.e., train speeds), the operation of passenger service through the crossing, or the 

transport of hazardous materials through the crossing. 

• On the basis of the data analysis for roadway user incidents at private crossings as 

shown in Section 4.2.4, Figure 21, approximately 58 percent of incidents involve 

trucks (truck trailer, flatbed, or pickup) and therefore trucks are heavily represented in 

the nine incidents discussed above. 

• Passenger train service operates through crossing regardless of whether hazardous 

material is transported through the crossing.

• Ownership of crossings, public or private, is sometimes uncertain and difficult to 

determine (e.g., Rome, NY). Formal agreements were available for only three of the 

nine crossings investigated. 

• Because crossing signage is inconsistent and can vary greatly depending on crossing, 

it is evident that a minimum standard is necessary. 
90 

10. Summary of Public Comments

A wealth of information was solicited from private crossing stakeholders and the general public 

during the course of the safety inquiry. Although many different topics were discussed, certain 

topics recurred frequently. Areas of particular interest and need for further consideration are 

listed as follows:

 Private crossing definition

 Identification of crossing categories 

 National Crossing Inventory requirements/Data collection 

 Notification of change in use of property 

 Public education and enforcement 

 Stakeholder Involvement

 Design and signage standardization

 National guidelines

 Funding sources 

 Rights and responsibilities

 Legislation

10.1 Private Crossing Definitions

A clear, national definition of private crossings is not currently available. Most authorities apply 

the MUTCD’s definition of a public roadway to determine whether a crossing is a public 

crossing. The MUTCD defines a public roadway as any road or street under the jurisdiction of 

and maintained by a public agency and open to public travel. If either approach to a crossing 

does not qualify as a public roadway, then the crossing is typically classified as a private 

crossing regardless of whether the crossing is open to public travel or provides public access. 

A crossing that provides public access but is classified as a private crossing, based on the 

existing definition, typically does not go through the established evaluation process and is not 

eligible, with few exceptions, for public funds to install the proper safety treatments. 

10.2 Private Crossing Categorization

In addition to the need for a clear definition of private crossings, meeting participants identified a 

variety of private crossing uses or types. Each crossing type has unique characteristics that pose 

unique safety concerns, some greater than others. Participants argued that identification of 

private crossings by type may provide help to identify high risk private crossings, something that 

is needed because funding for improvements is virtually nonexistent except for §1103(c) 

funding. 

Discussions led to the identification of as many as fourteen possible categories of private 

crossing type. Further elaboration, however, led to the proposition that crossings should perhaps 

be classified according to whether the roadway was used by the public. The term semipublic 

was used to define a private crossing that provides public access. It was posited that identifying 
91 

private crossings that provide public access would facilitate the accurate establishment of 

crossing improvement prioritization. Further, participants suggested that private crossings that 

were identified as having public use might become eligible for public funding of any safety 

improvements. 

10.3 Data Collection

Currently, data submission to the National Crossing Inventory for private crossings is voluntary, 

with most information being provided by the railroads in coordination with States. The 

inventory was initially created to capture public crossing data, not to address private crossing 

data; however, a limited subset of data has been collected for private crossings. Unfortunately, 

for numerous reasons, including the voluntary nature of the update process, as well as a lack of 

resources at States and railroad companies, much of the available private crossing information 

has not been updated for many years. Therefore the accuracy and completeness of the National 

Crossing Inventory private crossing data is unknown; it is, however, the only national database 

available.

As mentioned, the information requested for private crossings is limited in comparison to that of 

public crossings. Most sections of the National Crossing Inventory form are only requested for 

public crossings. Figure 1 depicts the USDOT National Crossing Inventory form with the subset 

of private information requested highlighted in blue. In addition, the existence of private 

crossings may be unknown to the railroads and States or the conditions at a private crossing may 

be such that the crossing does not lend itself to data collection. 

FRA relies on the States and railroads to provide crossing data from the National Crossing 

Inventory. In many instances, these organizations have limited resources to collect information 

for public crossings, let alone the additional burden of private crossings. 

The data currently stored in the National Crossing Inventory for private crossings are inadequate 

for most basic analyses and insufficient to support effective resource allocation. Current data are 

not sufficient to analyze trends in highway or rail traffic at private crossings.

No clear method to obtain the necessary data was determined. In many instances, access to 

private crossings is provided via private property or from the railway. Trespassing and safety 

issues were raised when the States or contractors were asked to provide additional private 

crossing information. 

Most stakeholders agreed that the overall safety at private highway-rail grade crossings would 

benefit from improved data collection. 

10.4 Change in Use

The continual growth in population has fueled the change in use of many properties located near 

or adjacent to rail lines, including those properties accessed by private crossings. The nature of 

use and the volume of private crossing users are changing with the development of open land. 

Changes in use include conversion of crossings from agricultural or other low traffic volume 
92 

uses to commercial, industrial, and higher density residential crossings. In most instances, there 

is no process or safeguard in place that alerts the railroads, States, or Federal Government when a 

change or shift occurs.

In general, most local planning and zoning authorities do not take into account the effect of 

development on the safety of highway-rail grade crossings. Experience has demonstrated that 

the ideal time for crossing stakeholders to get involved is during the planning phase of such 

developments. Meeting participants indicated that there is a need for some process to ensure this 

communication. 

10.5 Public Awareness and Education

The dangers associated with private highway-rail grade crossings in many cases are not limited 

to the authorized private crossing users and the railroads. These users represent only a portion of 

the populations potentially at risk because of an incident at a private crossing. The risk of a 

collision and derailment mean that the train crews, train passengers, and others in the vicinity of 

the crossing may be exposed to derailing equipment or hazardous materials releases.

The improvements to safety at crossings have been partially credited to the continuation and 

advancement of educational and awareness efforts, such as those of OLI. These programs are 

designed to educate the public regarding all highway-rail grade crossings; however it has not 

been documented as to whether these educational efforts have been effective in improving 

private crossing safety. It is unclear if the general public is aware of their responsibilities at 

private crossings.

10.6 Stakeholder Involvement

There is a need for active involvement and collaboration amongst all of the stakeholders to attain 

effective solutions for improving safety at the Nation’s private crossings. Currently, many 

stakeholders are not present or represented on the national level. 

Required stakeholders include but are not limited to: private crossing holders of the right to 

cross, railroads, local planning and zoning authorities, local and State agencies that enforce 

crossing design standards, professional and/or industry organizations responsible for developing 

crossing standards, and the appropriate Federal agencies.

10.7 Design and Signage Standards

Traffic control device selection and highway design for public roadways must conform to 

standards spelled out in the FHWA MUTCD and the AASHTO Green Book: A Policy on 

Geometric Design of Highway and Streets. The standards required for public roadways apply to 

public highway-rail grade crossings. By requiring this, the signage and crossing design at any 

public crossing is uniform and consistent with respect to signage and design of any other public 

crossing. Unfortunately, private crossings do not follow the same convention, and in most 

States, there are no publicly sanctioned engineering criteria for private crossings. 
93 

As a result of this lack of standardization, private crossing users encounter a variety of signage, 

road surface conditions, and other engineering attributes, depending on the private crossing they 

are using. This puts the crossing users in a situation where they must interpret and react, in many 

cases with no familiarity, at each crossing. Figures 34, 35, and 36 provide examples of signage 

at different private crossings. 

Figure 34. Private Crossing Unique Signage Examples

Figure 35. Additional Private Crossing Unique Signage Examples
94 

Figure 36. Additional Private Crossing Signage Example

10.8 National Guidelines

There are many guidelines currently in use that assist highway-rail grade crossing stakeholders in 

the review, analysis, and design of public crossings. Guidance documents such as the FHWA 

MUTCD and the AASHTO Green Book: A Policy on Geometric Design of Highway and Streets, 

fifth edition, are extensive resources for stakeholders. However, these guidelines are limited to 

public crossings and are not typically applied to private crossings. 

Most States lack the authority and responsibility for implementing the needed safety 

improvements at private crossings. Aside from the needed authority, most States do not have 

procedures in place, or the funding, to conduct an evaluation, design, or implementation of safety 

improvements at private crossings. In addition, with the exception of a few States, there are no 

dispute resolution processes to address disputes between private crossing rights holders and 

railroads. 

Meeting participants discussed the need for applicable national guidelines regarding private 

crossings extensively. Many argued that safety concerns at private crossings are no different 

from safety concerns at public crossings. They indicated, however, that desired guidelines 

should be general enough to accommodate existing procedures within individual States they 

exist. 

10.9 Public Funding

Publicly funded improvements play a significant role in improving the overall safety of the 

nation’s highway-rail grade crossings. However, with few exceptions, public funds are 

unavailable for safety enhancements at private crossings. As a result of public funding 

limitations, the total number and percentage of private crossings equipped with more effective 

warning devices, particularly active warning devices, is much lower than that of public crossings. 
95 

The lack of safety improvements to private crossings has contributed to an overall safety 

improvement record that has lagged behind that of public crossings. 

The private ownership by companies, and in many cases individual private citizens, typically 

prohibits the use of public funds for safety improvements at private crossings. Because of the 

cost of most safety improvements, private owners are not always able to fund the desired safety 

improvements. In addition to the funding required to maintain the warning devices is a resource 

burden most private crossing holders can not sustain. 

There are a few exceptions where public funds can be utilized for safety improvements at private 

crossings. Federal funds are available for closure and improvements of private crossings on 

designated high-speed rail corridors. In addition, some States have used public funds when 

addressing safety concerns at private crossings through specific rail programs. 

In addition to the need for public funding, there is a need for a process to prioritize and distribute 

funds. The use of a diagnostic team similar to that used for public crossing fund allocation was 

suggested as a viable option. 

10.10 Rights and Responsibilities

The lack of authority and jurisdiction to affect decisions about safety improvements and crossing 

closure by most States poses a problem in addressing safety issues at private crossings. In 

addition, the railroads often encounter difficulty when trying to address safety issues through the 

local authority. 

Nationally, for most private crossings, there is no documented agreement in place that specifies 

the current responsibilities of the parties involved. In some cases, the nature of the crossing has 

changed with time and a new agreement was never created. 

Currently, most disputes must be settled by direct communication between the railroad and 

private crossing holder. With the lack of a dispute resolution process in most States, many 

disputes are only resolved through lengthy and expensive litigation. 

10.11 Legislation

Participants were divided on the desire for legislation and the level of legislation that would be 

adequate to address safety concerns at private crossings. Additionally, many participants felt 

that any legislation implemented should preferably have no adverse affects on existing State 

authority and processes such as those currently being implemented in California. 

Many issues were identified that require resolution before the implementation of new legislation. 

The identification of private crossing owners and users, the establishment of crossing 

agreements, and the funding sources for safety improvements were all discussed as issues that 

would require remediation. Nevertheless, other parties, railroads included, strongly encourage 

legislation that provides a level of authority permitting the safety issues at private crossings to be 

addressed.
96 

11. Summary of Findings

The following section summarizes significant findings extracted from the information gathered 

during the course of the safety inquiry. The findings capture the ideas and suggestions solicited 

from private crossing holders, railroads, and other interested parties on issues related to the 

safety at private highway-rail grade crossings. The findings addressed crossing categories, 

characteristics, and data, national policy, State and railroad authority and enforcement, risk, 

change in use, ownership and agreements, stakeholder involvement, education, and funding. 

Crossing Categories, Characteristics, and Data 

 The level and type of highway use, i.e., whether the public has an expectation of free access 

to a crossing, is a key factor affecting the safety at that crossing.

 Based on data analysis for roadway user incidents at private crossings shown in Section 

4.2.4, Figure 21, approximately 58 percent of incidents involve trucks. This high percentage 

of truck involvement is represented in the incidents investigated. 

 Partnering nations exercise some authority over private crossings. However, the U.S. legal 

requirements and responsibilities are different. 

 Available data for public and private crossing incidents related to train speed at impact differ 

in magnitude, but the data illustrate peaks in the same speed regimes and are otherwise 

similar. 

 The highest numbers of private crossing incidents occurring between 1997 and 2006, where 

land-use categories were known occurred at industrial and farm crossings. The highest 

numbers of incidents at public crossings occurred at open space, industrial, and residential 

crossings (Figure 8). 

 The highest numbers of incidents at private crossings between 1997 and 2006 involved trucktrailers and automobiles. During that same time period, the majority of incidents at public 

crossings involved automobiles. 

 Given the large number of private crossings at which no warning device at all is placed, it 

seems clear that, in all likelihood, requiring a minimum suite of warning devices would be 

effective in reducing the annual number of incidents. However, the implementation of stop 

signs may not be the universal solution considering that the majority of incidents that occur 

at a private crossing equipped with a warning device occur at private crossings equipped with 

a stop sign.

 Trends in the incident data sorted by the type of development indicate that the most frequent 

occurrence of private crossing incidents were recorded at private industrial crossings (more 

than 30 percent). The majority of these incidents involved truck trailers and low speed rail 

equipment. 
97 

 Trends in the incident data sorted by the type of development indicate that the second most 

frequent occurrence of private crossing incidents sorted by type of development were 

recorded at farm crossings (more than 29 percent). Although a majority of private farm 

crossing incidents involved automobiles, truck, pickup truck, and truck trailers were involved 

in a high percentage of these incidents. 

 During the 10-year period 1997–2006, truck-trailers and pickup trucks have experienced on 

average an increase in the number of incidents while the other vehicle categories have 

observed a steady or declining state.

 Incidents involving truck-trailers account for approximately 46 percent of total private 

industrial crossing incidents. Truck-trailer incidents account for approximately 18 percent of 

all public industrial crossing incidents. 

 The data currently stored in the National Highway-Railroad Crossing Inventory for private 

crossings are generally not current and not suited for most analyses and were historically not 

intended to support effective resource allocation. 

 In particular, current data are not sufficient to allow analyses of trends in either highway or 

rail traffic at private crossings. Assuming, however, that exposure trends at private crossings 

are similar in direction to those at public crossings, even if they are not similar in scale, it 

seems reasonable to believe that exposure at private crossings has risen somewhat over the 

past decade. On the basis of this assumption, incident, injury, and casualty rates at private 

crossings have likely fallen somewhat over the same time period. National totals of 

incidents, injuries, and fatalities are stagnant, however. 

National Policy 

 The safety at private crossings is a long-standing priority, one which the government has 

only recently been able to begin addressing. 

 Absence of a cohesive policy or regulatory structure has led to the existence of private 

crossings that are redundant, inadequately designed, and/or poorly maintained. 

 In most States, there are no publicly sanctioned engineering criteria for private crossings. 

Accordingly, users of those crossings may encounter a variety of signage, road surface 

conditions, and other engineering attributes.

 No process currently exists that predicates the creation of new private crossings or the 

continuation of existing crossings on considerations of public safety or necessity. 

 Because crossing signage is inconsistent and can vary greatly depending on crossing, it is 

evident that a minimum standard is necessary. 
98 

State and Railroad Authority and Enforcement

 With few exceptions, no public bodies at the State or local level are vested with authority or 

responsibility for safety at private crossings. 

 Railroads lack the authority to control roadway design or traffic control device selection. 

They also lack the authority to control the highway usage of a given crossing. 

 Railroads have made significant efforts to close or improve private crossings. However; they 

are often hampered by common law and in some cases statutory law, which may not 

recognize the degree to which private crossings threaten the safety of road users, railroad 

employees, and potentially other members of the public in the vicinity. 

 Because State laws applicable to public roadways generally do not apply at private crossings, 

and since most users of private crossings are likely authorized users, law enforcement does 

not appear to be a useful strategy for improving safety at private crossings.

Risk

 Although incident frequency does not increase uniformly with train speed, the proportion of 

private crossing incidents that involve either injury or fatality seems to grow as train speed 

increases. The trend is particularly notable at higher speed ranges. This may provide insight 

that will help to establish priorities, suggesting a risk-based approach that might reasonably 

focus on inner-city passenger operations. 

 The public or private nature of a crossing is often not considered when determining the calls 

of track (i.e., train speeds), the operation of passenger service through the crossing, or the 

transport of hazardous materials through the crossing. 

 Motorists represent only a portion of the populations at risk due to incidents at private 

crossings. The risks of collision and of derailment mean that the train crews, train 

passengers, and others in the vicinity of the crossing may be exposed to derailing equipment 

or hazardous materials releases. 

 Whether a crossing is public or private is immaterial in determining the calls of track (i.e., 

train speeds), the operation of passenger service through the crossing, or the transport of 

hazardous materials through the crossing. 

Change in Use

 In general, local planning and zoning authorities do not regularly take into account the 

impacts on interstate rail transportation of the development decisions that they oversee. 

 Population increases, changes in land use, and both recent and projected growth in rail and 

highway traffic suggest that exposure to incident risk at private crossings is likely to continue 

increasing. Accordingly, the number of opportunities for incidents, and therefore for 
99 

casualties, will also increase unless new initiatives for improving private crossing safety are 

not identified and effectively implemented.

Ownership and Agreements

 Ownership of crossings, public or private, is sometimes uncertain and difficult to determine 

(e.g., Rome, NY). While conducting a series of private crossing incident investigations 

during the course of this safety inquiry, FRA discovered that formal agreements were 

available for only three of the nine crossings that were subject to incident investigations. 

 For most private crossings in the Nation, it appears that there is no agreement in place 

specifying the current responsibilities of the railroad and the holder. Disputes must typically 

be resolved through direct interaction between the railroad and the crossing holder or, failing 

that, through litigation. 

Stakeholder Involvement

 Within USDOT, FRA is the only agency with statutory authority directly relevant to the 

subject matter. However, in the interest of effectively serving the multimodal populations at 

risk, other USDOT surface modes should participate in program development. 

 Effective solutions to improving safety at the Nation’s private highway-rail grade crossings 

will require active collaboration between the parties involved. These parties include but may 

not be limited to:

 Private crossing holders 

 Railroads

 Local public planning and zoning authorities

 State agencies that enforce crossing design standards 

 Professional and/or industry organizations responsible for developing standards 

 USDOT

Education 

 The contribution of education and awareness programs to safety at private crossings is not 

documented, but safety knowledge and awareness would appear relevant to private crossing 

safety, provided that engineering arrangements present suitable cues to facilitate safe travel 

over the crossing. 

Funding

 The use of public funds to make improvements has played an important role in improving 

safety at public crossings. Except in very rare circumstances, however, public funding has 

not been and currently is not available for use at private crossings. As a result, the proportion 

of private crossings equipped with more effective warning devices, particularly active 

warning devices, is much lower than the proportion of public crossings so equipped. 
100 

Improvements in safety (as reflected in the incident, fatality, and injury counts nationwide) at 

private crossings, therefore, have lagged behind the improvements seen at public crossings. 
101 

12. Options Presented for Discussion

Prior to the Syracuse public meeting, FRA made available for discussion a draft of two options 

for action to improve safety at private crossings. The text of those options is reproduced below. 

Suggested Course of Action

Option 1: National Policy 

FRA proposes to publish new national policy to include the following:

 A clear declaration that new private crossings are disfavored, except where clearly necessary 

after evaluation of all reasonable alternatives. 

 A declaration that every private crossing should have a recorded agreement addressing, at a 

minimum, safety-related factors. 

 Establishment of an enhanced private crossing classification scheme for inclusion in the 

National Grade Crossing Inventory, and for use by diagnostic teams, that resembles the 

following: 

o Private crossings with private use (where there is not a perception that the general 

population is invited or allowed access) 

 Residential driveways (fewer than four units) 

 Farm field-to-field crossings 

o Private crossings with public use 

 Large residential driveways

 Commercial crossings where the public access is expected (shopping centers, 

business parks, medical offices, parking lots, sports arenas, other recreational 

sites)

 Industrial crossings (dependent on traffic count, design vehicle) 

 Note: In determining public use, the type of train traffic should also be a factor taking into 

consideration the impact of a collision on passengers on the train or on nearby facilities. 

 A declaration that States should establish programs for review of existing private crossings, 

and publication of exemplar State legislation for those States that do not currently exercise

jurisdiction over safety at private crossings.

 A declaration that States should establish or identify a process whereby they are notified of 

land use changes that might affect safety at a private grade crossing, and publication of 

exemplar State legislation for those States that do not currently exercise jurisdiction over 

safety at private crossings.
102 

 A declaration that States should establish or identify a process for notifying affected railroads 

of any land use changes that might affect safety at a private grade crossing, and publication 

of exemplar State legislation for those States that do not currently exercise jurisdiction over 

safety at private crossings. 

 Establishment of guidelines or thresholds of exposure or other factors affecting safety, to 

determine when those new private crossings or those crossings at which land use changes 

affect safety, when they are deemed necessary, should be subject to a risk-based evaluation 

by a diagnostic team. 

 Establishment of guidelines for diagnostic teams that promote a Nationally consistent 

approach to making improvements at private crossings, to include the following: 

o Risk levels should be calculated for each private crossing. Analysis should be 

performed to determine the appropriate risk remediation treatments. Risk above a 

certain threshold should trigger use of AASHTO roadway design standards. 

o Diagnostic teams should consider crossing closure before considering any other 

treatment option.

o Where possible, diagnostic teams should consider consolidating crossings. This may 

be accomplished by providing access either to a nearby public crossing or to a nearby 

private crossing that can be adequately upgraded to improve safety.

o Where closure or consolidation proves infeasible, diagnostic teams should examine 

the possibility of implementing inexpensive grade separations. 

o Should the preceding options prove infeasible, determination of the appropriate 

treatment should be predicated in part on whether the private roadway is open to 

public travel, and on whether there are access restrictions. 

o Crossings at which there is an expectation of public use should be treated in a manner 

consistent with the guidelines in the MUTCD. 

FRA would also pursue the following pilot project: 

 A study of the feasibility of using diagnostic team approach on private crossings in a 

corridor. 

 A study of the effectiveness or applicability of new low cost solutions. 

 Study methods of using best available technology for transmitting private crossing data to 

inventory. 
103 

Option 2: Legislation 

USDOT would seek legislation providing explicit authority to be vested in the Secretary, 

supplementing the Railroad Safety Laws, for regulation of safety at private highway-rail grade 

crossings. The legislation should be sufficiently broad to enable the following:

 Adopt a clear declaration of national policy that new private crossings are disfavored, except 

where clearly necessary after evaluation of all reasonable alternatives. 

 Require that a Statement of Essential Need be provided to the railroad before any new private 

crossing is created (whether public use, agricultural, or other) or change in use changes (e.g., 

light residential to commercial or industrial). 

 Require that the Statement of Essential Need specify the intended use (volume, type of 

traffic, nature of permission to use), and why alternative access is not available or is not 

suitable.

 Provide a procedure for the railroad, State agency, or FRA to challenge the statement or 

propose alternative access. 

 Establish that no new private crossing may be opened for traffic or subjected to a change in 

use, until equipped with necessary safety improvements. 

 Require that the railroad and private crossing holder enter into an agreement with specified 

elements where the crossing cannot be closed. 

 Specify the responsibilities of the crossing holder and the railroad. Where use of the crossing 

is determined by the holder, place a clear responsibility on the holder to participate in making 

necessary improvements at the crossing. 

 Provide a mechanism for the railroad(s) using the rail line to challenge the continued 

necessity for the crossing. 

 Provide one or more mechanisms for alternative dispute resolution when a dispute arises 

regarding the opening, closing, or improvement of a private crossing. (Shared cost, railroad, 

and private crossing holder.) 

 Provide a mechanism for dispute resolution, available only where alternative dispute 

resolution has failed. (Public cost.) 

 Provide a means of certifying any State agency capable of handling private crossing issues.

o Certification would be based on substantial conformity with the policies adopted at 

the national level, provision of legal opinion that the State agency is authorized to 

undertake the function, and periodic affirmation by the State agency that it is funded 

at a level permitting it to show progress in addressing the issue. 
104 

 Classify private crossings by use, providing suitable objective definitions. 

 Require treatments based on private crossing classifications, as follows: 

o All private crossings:

 Specify minimum signage to consist of a crossbuck, supplemented by a stop 

or yield sign, and, in the case of non-public use crossings, a standard plate 

stating, “Private Crossing - Authorized Users Only.” Require replacement of 

existing signage as needed, not to exceed 7 years from date of final rule. 

o Private crossings with public use:

 Provide that public use crossings shall conform to the MUTCD. 

 Make public use crossings eligible for improvement under Section 130 

funding; however, require a documented statement of public benefits before 

funds are expended. 

 Except where a quiet zone is in effect, require use of the train horn at public 

use crossings under the same rules as public crossings. 

 Provide risk-based regulatory requirements for improvements at public use 

crossings and other private crossings (except agricultural seasonal and

crossings; see below), including sight distance requirements as applicable. 

Consider factors such as road traffic, rail traffic, presence of rail passenger 

service, maximum train speeds, etc.

 After a period of progressive work to improve these crossings, require that 

they be closed if not equipped according to requirements. 

o Private crossings with seasonal or agricultural use:

 Specify use of locked gates or minimum signage (above) for agricultural 

crossings on tracks where the maximum authorized train speed exceeds 25 

mph. 

 Specify a requirement for railroad dispatcher approval to traverse the crossing 

where maximum authorized train speed exceeds 49 mph, except where some 

form of active warning is provided. 

 Improve the National Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Inventory with respect to private 

crossings:

o Require railroads to populate private crossing data fields in the inventory, providing 

updates not less frequently than once every 3 years.

o Add data elements as needed for analysis.

o Permit railroads to estimate information not directly available.
105 

Abbreviations and Acronyms

AADT annual average daily traffic

AAR Association of American Railroads

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

APTA American Public Transportation Association

BLET Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen 

BRS Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen

Caltrans California Department of Transportation 

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act 

CFR Code of Federal Regulation

CPUC California Public Utilities Commission

DOT Department of Transportation 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

FTA Federal Transit Administration

GIS geographic information system 

ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers 

LADOTD Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development 

MNDOT Minnesota Department of Transportation 

MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

NTSB National Transportation Safety Board

NCDOT North Carolina Department of Transportation 

NCUTCD National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

NOGC New Orleans and Gulf Coast Railway Company

NYSDOT New York State Department of Transportation

OLI Operation Lifesaver

RONY Railroads of New York 

RAIRS USDOT FRA Railroad Accident and Incident Reporting System

RSSB Rail Safety and Standards Board, United Kingdom 

USDOT United States Department of Transportation

UTU United Transportation Union 

Volpe Volpe National Transportation Systems Center