www.safety.fhwa.dot.gov

Highway-Railway Grade Crossing Action Plan 

and Project Prioritization 

NOTEWORTHY

PRACTICES GUIDE
HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

2

2

Notice

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department 

of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government 

assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document.

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks 

or manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered 

essential to the objective of the document.

Quality Assurance Statement

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information 

to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public 

understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the 

quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically 

reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure 

continuous quality improvement. 

Cover photo source: Texas Transportation Institute
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72)

1. Report No. 

FHWA-SA-16-075

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle 

Highway-Railway Grade Crossing Action Plan and Project 

Prioritization Noteworthy Practices Guide

5. Report Date

November 2016

6. Performing Organizations Code

7. Authors

 Allan Rutter, Curtis Morgan, Jeff Warner, and Brett Graves 

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Leidos Transportation Solutions Division

111251 Roger Bacon Drive

Reston, VA 20190

Texas A&M Transportation Institute

The Texas A&M University System

College Station, Texas 77843-3135

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-10-D-00024

 Task Order No. T-12-003

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Federal Highway Administration

Office of Safety Research and Development

6300 Georgetown Pike

McLean, VA 22101

13. Type of Report and Period 

 Final Report

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

The Federal Railroad Administration worked in coordination with the Federal Highway Administration 

to develop this document consistent with the requirements in Section 11401 of the Fixing America’s 

Surface Transportation Act.

16. Abstract

Development of State Highway-railway Grade Crossing Action Plans (State Action Plans (SAPs)) were 

initially required by Section 202 of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA08), Public Law 110-

432, Division A, for the 10 States identified with the highest number of highway-railway grade crossing 

collisions over a specific 3-year period. The National Transportation Safety Board recommended to 

the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Railroad Administration (Recommendations 

H-12-60 and H-12-61) the development of a model grade crossing action plan that can be used as 

a resource document by all States interested in producing a SAP similar to those required for the 10 

States in RSIA08. Section 11401 of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act requires the Federal 

Railroad Administration to issue rules for developing a model state highway-railway grade crossing 

action plan and requires States to submit a SAP. It outlines a process for preparing a SAP and suggests 

an outline for SAP content. This document also details five overall noteworthy practices employed 

by State agencies in administering Federal and State highway-railway grade crossing protection 

programs.

17. Key Words

Section 130, grade crossing, State Action Plan, highwayrailway grade crossing, railroad crossing, prioritization

18. Distribution Statement 

No restrictions. 

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this 

page) Unclassified

21. No of Pages

 72

22. Price 

 N/A

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized.

Technical Report Documentation Page

i
HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

ii

FACTORS APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS

SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL

LENGTH

In. inches 25.4 millimeters mm

ft feet 0.305 meters m

yd yards 0.914 meters m

mi miles 1.61 kilometers km

AREA

in.2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2

ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2

yd2 square yard 0.836 square meters m2

ac acres 0.405 hectares ha

mi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2

VOLUME

fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL

gal gallons 3.785 liters L

ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3

yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3

NOTE: volumes greater than 1,000 L shall be shown in m3

MASS

oz ounces 28.35 grams g

lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg

T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 megagrams (or "metric ton") Mg (or "t")

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees)

°F Fahrenheit 5 (F-32)/9 or 

(F-32)/1.8 

Celsius °C

ILLUMINATION

fc foot-candles 10.76 lux lx

fl foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 cd/m2

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS

lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N

lbf/in.2 poundforce 

per square inch

6.89 kilopascals kPa

SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION 
 HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

iii

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS

SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL

LENGTH

mm millimeters 0.039 inches in.

m meters 3.28 feet ft

m meters 1.09 yards yd

km kilometers 0.621 miles mi

AREA

mm2 square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in.2

m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2

m2 square meters 1.195 square yards yd2

ha hectares 2.47 acres ac

km2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2

VOLUME

mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz

L liters 0.264 gallons gal

m3 cubic meters 35.314 cubic feet ft3

m3 cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd3

MASS

g grams 0.035 ounces oz

kg kilograms 2.202 pounds lb

Mg (or "t") megagrams (or "metric ton")1.103 short tons (2000 lb) T

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees)

°C Celsius 1.8C+32 Fahrenheit °F

ILLUMINATION

lx lux 0.0929 foot-candles fc

cd/m2 candela/m2 0.2919 foot-lamberts fl

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS

N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf

kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce 

per square inch 

lbf/in2

SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION (Continued)

 HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

v

Table of Contents

PART I: MODEL GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN..........................................................1

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background....................................................................1

STATE ACTION PLAN PREVIOUS ACTIVITIES.......................................................................................1

LEGISLATION REQUIRING ALL STATES TO DEVELOP A STATE ACTION PLAN ......................................3

PURPOSE ...........................................................................................................................................3

MODEL STATE ACTION PLAN SOURCES ............................................................................................3

MODEL STATE ACTION PLAN OVERVIEW ..........................................................................................4

GENERAL DISCUSSION OF STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION, FINANCIAL RESOURCES, AND USDOT 

GUIDELINES.......................................................................................................................................5

Chapter 2. Recommended Process for Preparing a State Action Plan.......................9

PLANNING AND PREPARING TO DEVELOP A STATE ACTION PLAN ..................................................9

DEVELOPING A STATE ACTION PLAN ..............................................................................................11

Chapter 3. Implementation and Evaluation...............................................................13

MONITORING AND COMMUNICATION..........................................................................................13

MEASUREMENT AND REPORTING ...................................................................................................13

ADAPTING TO RESULTS OR CHANGING CIRCUMSTANCES............................................................13

EVALUATION DIRECTED TO FUTURE STATE ACTION PLANS ..............................................................14

Chapter 4. Content and Recommended Outline for a State Action Plan .................15

INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................16

STATEWIDE HIGHWAY-RAILWAY CROSSING SAFETY EFFORTS .........................................................16

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ....................................................................................................................17

DATA ANALYSIS ...............................................................................................................................18

RISK ASSESSMENT ...........................................................................................................................18

HIGHEST PRIORITY HIGHWAY-RAILWAY CROSSING SAFETY CHALLENGES IN THE STATE.................20

ACTION PLAN .................................................................................................................................20

DETERMINE NEXT STEPS .................................................................................................................22

v
HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

vi

PART 2: NOTEWORTHY METHODS IN PROJECT PRIORITIZATION...................................23

Chapter 5. Background on Prioritization.....................................................................23

Chapter 6. Noteworthy Prioritization Practices...........................................................25

PRACTICE 1—STATES ARE TAILORING RISK FORMULAS TO STATE NEEDS........................................25

PRACTICE 2—STATES ARE INCORPORATING BENEFIT-COST EVALUATIONS INTO PROJECT 

SELECTION ......................................................................................................................................26

PRACTICE 3—STATES ARE SUPPLEMENTING FEDERAL SECTION 130 HIGHWAY-RAILWAY CROSSING 

PROGRAM FUNDING WITH STATE DOLLARS ...................................................................................28

PRACTICE 4—STATES ARE INVESTING PLANNING DOLLARS (2 PERCENT ALLOWANCE) IN 

INVENTORY IMPROVEMENTS ..........................................................................................................29

PRACTICE 5—STATES ARE APPLYING INNOVATIVE IMPROVEMENTS TO PROJECT EXECUTION ......30

OTHER ISSUES OF NOTE ..................................................................................................................31

Chapter 7. References ................................................................................................33

APPENDIX A. State Highway-Railway Grade Crossing Information Sources for 

Noteworthy Practices..................................................................................................35

APPENDIX B. Summary of State Action Plans Submitted Under 

Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008.........................................................................37

ALABAMA .......................................................................................................................................37

CALIFORNIA....................................................................................................................................38

FLORIDA ..........................................................................................................................................40

GEORGIA........................................................................................................................................42

ILLINOIS...........................................................................................................................................43

INDIANA..........................................................................................................................................45

IOWA...............................................................................................................................................46

LOUISIANA ......................................................................................................................................48

OHIO...............................................................................................................................................49

TEXAS..............................................................................................................................................50

APPENDIX C. Blocked Highway-Railway Grade Crossings ........................................53

Identification and Evaluation of Safety Risks ...............................................................................53

Best Practices ................................................................................................................................54

APPENDIX D. Costs and Benefits of Various Crossing Improvements ........................57
 HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

vii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Photo. Crash scene in Miriam, Nevada, in June 2011..........................................2

Figure 2. Diagram. State action plan resources and related plans...................................9

Figure 3. Diagram. Goals and “SMART” objectives............................................................12

Figure 4. Photo. Highway-railway grade crossing and flashing lights..............................16

Figure 5. Photo. Highway-railway crossing and safety devices.........................................19

Figure 6. Photo. Highway-railway crossing and truck avoiding gate arms......................21

Figure 7. Diagram. North Carolina benefit-cost analysis methodology for 

highway-railway crossing safety programs.......................................................................27

List of Tables 

Table 1. State action plan summary table..........................................................................5

Table 2. Model State action plan outline...........................................................................15

 HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

ix

List of Acronyms

3E education, engineering, and enforcement

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act 

BCA benefit-cost analysis

CPUC California Public Utilities Commission

EMS emergency medical services

FAST Act Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

GIS geographic information systems

HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program

HSR high-speed rail 

LA DOTD Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development

LED light-emitting diode

MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act

NCDOT North Carolina Department of Transportation

NTSB National Transportation Safety Board

OIG Office of the Inspector General

PennDOT Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

RSIA08 Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008

SAP State Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Action Plans (State Action Plans)

SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plan

SMART specific, measurable, agreed upon, realistic, and time bound

TRIMS Texas Railroad Information Management System

TxDOT Texas Department of Transportation

USC United States Code

USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation

 HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

1

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

STATE ACTION PLAN PREVIOUS ACTIVITIES

Background

Development of State highway-railway grade crossing action plans (State action plans (SAP)) was 

initially required by Section 202 of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA08), Public Law 110-

432, Division A, for the 10 States identified with the highest number of highway-railway grade crossing 

collisions over a specific 3-year period (calendar years 2006, 2007, and 2008) as outlined in the statute. 

This requirement was later codified in 49 Code of Federal Regulations 234.11, and procedures for 

completing SAPs were determined through an official rulemaking process, which concluded on 

June 28, 2010. 

The 10 States identified for compliance with the development of SAPs based on calendar years 2006 

through 2008 crash data were Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, 

Ohio, and Texas. Each of these States was required to complete a SAP that:

 Identifies specific solutions for improving safety at crossings, including highway-railway grade 

crossing closures or grade separations.

 Focuses on crossings that have experienced multiple accidents or that were at high risk for such 

accidents.

 Covers a 5-year time period.

In completing this process to comply with RSIA08, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) identified the potential value of other States developing SAPs to 

address highway-railway grade crossing safety issues. The primary objective of this study is to develop 

a model SAP outlining best practices from the existing plans and other noteworthy practices that could 

be included in the model SAP for use by State departments of transportation (DOTs), local agencies (e.g., 

cities, counties, towns, and tribal governments), and railroad companies.

Developmental History

The requirement in RSIA08 for States to develop SAPs followed a June 2004 U.S. Department of 

Transportation (USDOT) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report, which found that several States had 

high numbers of grade crossing collisions at the same locations. In 2006, the Louisiana Department of 

Transportation and Development (LA DOTD) completed a pilot Highway-Railway Grade Crossing Action 

Plan with the assistance of FHWA and FRA, which modeled the potential format and contents for other 

States to follow in developing such plans. As a result of the efforts with LA DOTD, the Texas Department 

of Transportation (TxDOT) soon began to develop its action plan in early 2007. After passage of RSIA08 

and completion of the rulemaking process in 2010, the 10 designated States began to work on specific 

action plans based upon the observed collision conditions in their State. Because each State and specific 

site had varying conditions and crash causes, each State varied in its approach to developing the SAP. 

PART I 

MODEL GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN
HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

2

National Transportation Safety Board Recommendation

In its January 28, 2013, report regarding a June 24, 2011, railroad grade-crossing collision in Miriam, 

Nevada, shown in Figure 1, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommended that FHWA 

and FRA (Recommendations H-12-60 and H-12-61) develop a model grade crossing action plan that 

can be used as a resource document by all States interested in producing an action plan similar to those 

required for the 10 States in RSIA08. In this particular crash, a truck traveling north on US 95 struck an 

Amtrak passenger train, killing the truck driver, train conductor, and four train passengers. The NTSB 

recommendation suggested that a model plan would incorporate available information from USDOT 

and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), as well as best 

practices and lessons learned after 5 years of the SAPs following RSIA08 passage.

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) administered by FHWA requires a data-driven 

strategic approach to improving highway safety on all public roads that focuses on performance.[1]The 

Railway-Highway Crossings Program (Section 130) funds are set aside from the HSIP apportionment for 

the elimination of hazards and installation of protective devise at public highway-railway crossings. In 

accordance with 23 United States Code (USC) 130(d), each State is required to conduct and systematically 

maintain a survey of all highways to identify those highway-railway grade crossings that may require 

separation, relocation, or protective devices and to establish and implement a schedule of projects for 

this purpose. At a minimum, this schedule is to provide signs for all public highway-railway crossings.[2] 

States adhere to this requirement by developing systematic prioritization methods to identify crossings 

that cause the greatest hazard to the traveling public. These prioritization methods vary among the 

States to accommodate their unique situations. Development of a SAP would go beyond this statutory 

requirement to focus attention and additional funding on safety improvements at highway-railway 

grade crossings.

Figure 1. Photo. Crash scene in Miriam, Nevada, in June 2011.

Source: National Transportation Safety Board, Accident Involving Amtrak Train and Truck-Trailer, Accident Investigation Summary website
 HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

3

FRA/FHWA Guidance in July 2015

On July 29, 2015, FRA published an interim resource document titled Model State Action Plan Resource 

Guide for Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety. This document outlines many of the steps recommended by 

FRA in producing a model SAP. The interim resource document is replaced by this document.

LEGISLATION REQUIRING ALL STATES TO DEVELOP A STATE ACTION PLAN

Section 11401 of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act requires each State to develop a 

SAP. The 10 States that developed a SAP under RSIA08 are required to update their SAP and must submit 

a report to FRA describing how they implemented their previous SAP. After this document is published, 

FRA will develop additional regulations outlining plan requirements and due dates.

FRA will review and approve the new and updated SAPs. If FRA finds that a SAP is deficient, it will notify 

the State, which will have 60 days to update it. After the SAP is approved, FRA will publish the SAP on its 

website in accordance with the FAST Act.

For assistance with the SAPs required under the FAST Act, a State should contact Debra Chappell at 

debra.chappell@dot.gov.

PURPOSE

“Part I: Model Grade Crossing Action Plan” examines all 10 SAPs from the initial RSIA08 requirements 

for potential best practices that a State should consider adding to its SAP, which is required under the 

FAST Act. 

“Part II: Noteworthy Methods in Project Prioritization” also provides a summary of noteworthy grade 

crossing project prioritization practices. It describes the results of interviews with several additional 

States not included in the initial RSIA08 requirement. These States have been identified as having 

noteworthy practices related to highway-railway grade crossing safety and closure activities based 

upon their annual Section 130 reports to FHWA. Their practices also have the potential to be included 

in future SAPs.

MODEL STATE ACTION PLAN SOURCES

This model SAP was prepared by reviewing a number of different sources, including guidance from 

FHWA and FRA, reports from both Federal modal administrations incorporating State submissions, State 

submissions of reports of highway-railway grade crossing activities as part of the State HSIP reports, SAPs 

submitted under RSIA08 requirements, and other related documents. In addition to these documents, 

nine different States were selected for interviews. These States comprised both those that had prepared 

SAPs and those that were not required to do so. The States represent a geographical balance as well as a 

variety of highway-railway grade crossing prioritization processes.
HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

4

MODEL STATE ACTION PLAN OVERVIEW

What Is a SAP?

A SAP is an important part of the grade crossing program management process. It is the mechanism to 

implement an organizational strategy. While the strategic plan is vital to creating the framework for a 

State to meet its goals and support its mission statement, it is the action plan that provides the means by 

which a State may accomplish this. 

Like a strategic plan, a SAP can be adjusted based on, but not limited to, context-sensitive data, incident 

trends, and regulatory and legislative requirements on highway-railway grade crossings. 

Summary of SAPs Submitted under RSIA08

Because RSIA08 allowed flexibility for the States to develop their SAPs, the SAPs submitted had common 

elements (including a focus on multiple-accident crossings) but different approaches. Appendix B 

contains a detailed summary of each SAP, but the following themes or trends can be noted.

Common Elements of Data Analysis

The 10 SAPs presented different levels of grade crossing data analysis, although each plan went beyond 

information regularly submitted as part of their HSIP reporting. Since many States have upgraded grade 

crossing inventory systems, more data are available for reporting. Many States are also upgrading their 

motor vehicle crash databases as part of their Strategic Highway Safety Plans, so some States are also 

correlating crash data fields into grade crossing inventories to enhance crash information. 

Stakeholder Engagement

A number of States involved rail safety stakeholders in the preparation of their SAPs. One State involved 

its traffic safety colleagues and contacted railroads in the State; other States convened meetings of 

stakeholders (railroads, Operation Lifesaver, FHWA, FRA, and local engineers) to identify action items and 

recommendations. Some States posted their plans for public comment, and others involved stakeholders 

at the outset to help generate strategies and goals. 

Broader Focus

The congressional mandate to focus on grade crossings with multiple crashes resulted from a 

recommendation from the 2004 USDOT OIG report. Most States included information on crossings with 

multiple crashes and tied strategies to those locations, but many States faced grade crossing safety issues 

that went beyond these particular crashes and addressed those issues in their plans.

Put the Action in Action Plans

A number of States established strategies and specified responsible parties, timelines, and evaluation 

measures for each strategy. Table 1 summarizes information from the 10 submitted SAPs.
 HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

5

GENERAL DISCUSSION OF STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION, FINANCIAL 

RESOURCES, AND USDOT GUIDELINES

Benchmarking against Other Plans

Action plans for highway-railway grade crossing safety fit within the context of many other plans that 

State DOTs and other related agencies prepare and implement. State rail plans are also multiyear, datadriven plans for State investments in passenger and freight railroad services. FRA has issued guidance for 

the content and format of State rail plans, which include rail safety matters as part of the overall State rail 

system inventory in the plan. Highway-railway grade crossing statistics and funding programs are usually 

described in State rail plans but not to the depth of typical action plans. State rail plans are required by 

49 U.S.C. Sections 22701 to 22706, and Section 11401 of the FAST Act requires SAPs for all States. 

As part of the HSIP, States are required to develop a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP),1 which is a 

statewide coordinated safety plan that provides a comprehensive framework for reducing highway 

fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. An SHSP identifies a State’s key safety needs and guides 

investment decisions toward strategies and countermeasures with the most potential to save lives 

and prevent injuries. The State department of transportation develops a SHSP in a cooperative process 

with local, State, Federal, tribal, and private-sector safety stakeholders. It is a data-driven, multiyear 

comprehensive plan that establishes statewide goals, objectives, and key emphasis areas and integrates 

the four E’s (4E’s) of highway safety: engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency medical 

services (EMS). States are not required to include strategies for highway-railway grade crossings in their 

SHSPs. However, if a State does include strategies as an emphasis area, then the SAP and SHSP goals 

related to highway-railway grade crossings should be consistent. 

 Table 1. State action plan summary table.

State/Agency

Structure/ Time 

Frame

Multiple-Crash/ 

High-Risk 

Crossings?

Major Themes/Special 

Conditions Analyses Noteworthy Practices

Alabama

Alabama Department 

of Transportation 

Bureau of Multimodal 

Transportation, 

Railroad Safety 

Program

8 program areas 

for improving 

safety

2006–2010

Sections on 

multiple incidents 

and high-risk 

crossings

Emphasizes road user 

safety at grade crossings

Includes high-speed rail 

(HSR) grade crossings, 

although State not 

currently pursuing HSR

Data on crashes, 

fatalities, and injuries 

included, as well as 

activity measures

State participated in testing 

of crossing protection 

devices that stretched across 

roadway lanes

California

California Public 

Utilities Commission

10 specific 

strategies, a 

mix of new 

and traditional 

approaches

5-year action plan

Appendix E 

includes crossing 

details and 

evaluation

Reducing grade crossing 

accidents through 

improvements, closures, 

and grade separations

Includes passenger rail 

and rail transit

Extensive analysis 

of 10-year crash 

trends, including 

benchmarking to 

other States

A number of State and local 

funding programs for grade 

separations; improving 

inventory with additional 

data such as near-miss 

reports

1 More information on Strategic Highway Safety Plans can be found at http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/shsp/.
HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

6

State/Agency

Structure/ Time 

Frame

Multiple-Crash/ 

High-Risk 

Crossings?

Major Themes/Special 

Conditions Analyses Noteworthy Practices

Florida

Florida Department of 

Transportation

Eight strategy 

areas

Not explicit but 

appears to be 5 

years

Evaluation of 

74 incidents at 

multiple accident 

locations, with 

overall mitigation 

assessment

In a high-population 

State, most incidents 

occur at public crossings 

with active crossing 

devices involving risky 

driver behavior

Grade separations in flat 

coastal conditions are 

more expensive

Extensive analysis 

of incidents, causes, 

and results, multiincident locations

Combines FRA safety data 

and driver contributing 

factors from crash data; 

corridor approach on hightrain-volume corridors

Georgia

Georgia Department 

of Transportation, 

Office of Utilities, 

Railroad Crossing 

Program

Four categories: 

education, 

engineering, 

enforcement, and 

data analysis

2012–2017

Addressed 

through data 

analysis, inclusion 

in strategies 

(more diagnostics 

at locations)

Corridor approach in 

overall State rail planning, 

follows with grade 

crossing evaluations

No special conditions 

specified

Crash analysis by 

subdivision, not just 

by railroad; specific 

discussion of short 

lines and passenger 

rail

Ties multiple crash locations 

to outreach strategies; 

school districts report route 

data at crossings with 

active devices for inventory 

updates; plan developed 

with opportunity for 

stakeholder comments

Illinois

Illinois Commerce 

Commission, Illinois 

Department of 

Transportation

Seven 

strategies with 

accompanying 

goals

5-year action plan

Addressed 

throughout the 

plan

Active plan with multiple 

approaches

Includes pedestrian rail 

crossings

Crossing data 

analysis by type, 

railroad, county, and 

conditions; crash 

data at 5- and 10-

year periods

Addresses private crossings; 

collision investigations use 

diagnostic exercises; 5 year 

grade crossing program 

updated annually

Indiana

Indiana Department 

of Transportation, Rail 

Office

Seven 

strategies, three 

performance 

measures

5-year plan with 

goals

Each crossing 

with multiple 

collisions is 

presented and 

analyzed

Two thirds of collisions 

at grade crossings 

with active protection 

devices in place, data 

trends identified with 

countermeasures

Private crossings are an 

issue in HSR corridors in 

the State, even if State has 

no authority to regulate 

those crossings

Crossing data 

analysis and State 

benchmarking

Strategies include discussion 

of implementation 

challenges; motor vehicle 

crash data used in collision 

analyses

Table 1. State action plan summary table (continued).
 HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

7

State/Agency

Structure/ Time 

Frame

Multiple-Crash/ 

High-Risk 

Crossings?

Major Themes/Special 

Conditions Analyses Noteworthy Practices

Iowa

Iowa Department of 

Transportation, Office 

of Rail Transportation

Solutions 

developed with 

railroads and 

Office of Traffic 

Safety, 12 actions 

identified

2012–2016

Included 

throughout data 

analysis

Longer-term data trend 

highlighted with a range 

of projected values for the 

plan period

No special conditions 

specified

Extensive data 

analyses with 

information on 

demographics, time, 

modes, and locations 

of collisions

Goals are discussed 

with responsibilities of 

stakeholders; goals have 

timelines; each crossing 

receives a benefit-cost 

calculation number

Louisiana

Louisiana Department 

of Transportation and 

Development

12 action items, 

with agency leads 

and outcomes

5-year action plan

Included in data 

analysis

Updating 2006 plan 

(adopted as pilot for other 

States)

No special conditions 

specified

Updated extensive 

data analysis from 

2006 plan, including 

multiple crash 

locations

Strategies identified after 

stakeholder meeting; each 

action item is assigned to an 

agency with timeline

Ohio

Ohio Rail 

Development 

Commission, Public 

Utilities Commission 

of Ohio

Six safety 

program 

objectives, 

with strategies, 

activity plans, and 

measurements

At least 5 years, 

objectives have 

2- to 10-year 

horizons

No explicit 

mention

Railroads play important 

role in State economy 

given Ohio’s geography in 

the nation’s rail system

Two agencies involved in 

grade crossing protection 

with independent funding

No specific data 

analysis

Performance measurement 

a regular part of grade 

crossing activities; State 

funding programs provide 

for crossing surface 

improvements

Texas

TxDOT Rail Division

14 strategies 

under evaluation 

and engineering, 

4 strategies under 

education and 

enforcement

5-year action plan

Addressed in two 

appendices of 

extensive data 

analysis

Large number of railroad 

miles and railroad 

crossings

Passenger and commuter 

rail collisions included

Very extensive data 

analysis, including 

detailed examination 

of multiple crash 

locations

Plan includes stakeholder 

meeting; close interaction 

with FRA; 18 strategies have 

an implementation timeline

Table 1. State action plan summary table (continued).
HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

8

SAPs and Current Section 130 Reporting

FHWA has issued guidance for the annual reports that are required as part of the Section 130 Program.[3]

The reporting guidance provides a suggested format for consistent reporting among all the States. The 

annual reports include general information about the State’s program for administering the funds and 

for reporting project data from the current fiscal year. It also includes reporting on the effectiveness 

of previously completed projects (which includes before and after crash data to be used for project 

evaluation). States are given the flexibility to report based on calendar years, State fiscal years, or Federal 

fiscal years, but they are encouraged to be consistent from year to year. 

SAPs would not supplant or duplicate this reporting of Section 130 funding. The Section 130 annual 

reports generally describe how a State obligated its funding in previous years and how it administers 

its program. However, SAPs would be more comprehensive in scope (looking forward multiple years), 

examine detailed highway-railway grade crossing trends, and identify strategies to address those trends. 

The SAPs described in this document identify overall highway-railway grade crossing safety challenges 

and overall strategies and actions to address those challenges. Application of Section 130 funding is part 

of those actions, but the SAPs involve more than grade crossing improvement projects and strategies 

that are funded through the Section 130 Program.
 HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

9

Chapter 2. Recommended Process for Preparing a 

State Action Plan

PLANNING AND PREPARING TO DEVELOP A STATE ACTION PLAN 

To gain the most benefit from developing a State action plan (SAP), States should map out the process 

for completing the plan that reflects the unique railroad and safety environment in the State. This process 

should be approached as an opportunity to maximize results from public and private highway-railway 

grade crossing safety efforts, and include consideration of matching the planning work to available 

resources (data, people, and time) in the SAP. 

Develop the Internal and External Team to Prepare a State Action Plan

State highway-railway grade crossing program administrators should talk to others internal and external 

to their agencies to gain insights and additional perspectives to apply to the development of the SAP, as 

illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Diagram. State action plan resources and related plans.

Grade 

Crossing 

Program

FHWA 

Division 

Office

Operation 

Lifesaver, Inc.

FRA Regional 

Grade 

Crossing Staff

Law 

Enforcement

Public Health/ 

EMS

Railroads Public 

Engagement

Long-Range 

Transportation 

Plan

Strategic 

Highway 

Safety Plan

 Highway 

Safety 

Improvement 

Plan

State Rail 

Plan

INTERNAL EXTERNAL
HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

10

State crossing managers should consider involving other safety planners familiar with the Highway 

Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and Strategic Highway Safety Program (SHSP) as well as those 

responsible for the State rail plan and long-range transportation plan. These partners can offer expertise 

in data analysis, public engagement, performance measurement, and plan implementation. Agency 

public engagement staff can also apply agency-wide practices and resources for stakeholder outreach 

for the SAP. When a State develops or updates a SAP, the objectives of the SAP should be compelling 

enough to influence other agency officials and experts to deliver the SAP.

Transportation planning generally includes stakeholder engagement, through both formal steering or 

advisory committees and broader public outreach. Crossing managers have relationships with railroads 

(crossing program and overall risk mitigation staff) in their States as well as Operation Lifesaver, Inc.—

participants that can be leveraged for SAP preparation. States should also talk to the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) safety staff at the division level, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) regional 

grade crossing specialists, and freight and safety planners at metropolitan planning organizations. 

States should engage law enforcement associations and agencies, freight railroad police, emergency 

responders, and State health planners. In addition, community partners such as school districts, cycling 

associations, and others may be included if there are impacts that affect them. 

A structured external committee can be a valuable resource in obtaining feedback and proof-testing 

recommendations. It can also be a conduit for information dissemination to the broader organizations 

represented by the committee members. These groups can meet remotely and in person to be respectful 

of private citizens’ time and travel costs. The groups can offer valuable insights in setting goals and 

objectives for the SAP and in reviewing SAP content (should States choose to engage them in interim 

product reviews). The committee members can help disseminate SAP information to outside groups. 

Even though the SAP may identify strategies and objectives that involve stakeholders outside the State 

agency, this committee structure can help gain comments and commitments to action items.

Review Previous Plans and Develop the Scope for the SAP

When developing or updating a SAP, States should consult other planning documents and program 

manuals related to its highway-railway crossing programs. The State’s SHSP should be reviewed so that 

action plans can be consistent with and build upon State commitments already in place.

The 10 SAPs submitted in response to RSIA08 offer examples, templates, formats, and structure for 

developing or updating a SAP. They can also help identify the responsible parties for implementing a SAP. 

However, each State faces unique rail safety challenges including, but not limited to, the State’s:

 Geography.

 Rail traffic (e.g., freight versus commuter rail).

 Vehicle traffic.

 Population demographics.

 Economic activity.

Each State agency responsible for highway-railway crossing programming and project execution is also 

unique, with different institutional relationships, planning capacity, and available resources. Each State 

should tailor its SAP to available data and resources (people, time, and money). Clear expectations, time 

commitments, and resource allocations should guide the preparation of the SAP. States should carefully 

consider how a SAP can make a positive difference in reducing crashes and associated losses (i.e., 

injuries, fatalities, property damage, and economic losses) through goals and actions that the State and 

associated stakeholders can expect to achieve.
 HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

11

Prepare the Highway-Railway Grade Crossing Data Needed for SAP Development

States should collect and manage available data to use in preparing a SAP. Many States maintain crossing 

inventory data that can be aggregated to produce inventory snapshots based on crossing types, 

protection devices, and crash data. The inventory data can also be used to identify the risk exposure 

based on highway and rail traffic volumes at crossings. Some States link crossing inventory databases 

with crash record data that have additional information on crash causes and conditions at crossing 

locations. FRA can also provide access to national inventory data and reports of highway-railway crossing 

collisions created through railroad data submissions. 

States completing State rail plans or State freight plans may also have commercial data or waybill sample 

data from the National Transportation Safety Board (NSTB) that include rail traffic density, commodities 

by rail corridors, and origin/destination data—at least at the county level. These data can augment the 

economic assessment that can inform a SAP.

Data collection and organization should be part of the planning process prior to actual SAP 

development. Taking time to identify the available data will help right-size the scope of the SAP, which is 

part of the process. Since the SAP is intended to add value to rail safety efforts, the work of developing 

the SAP should fit within existing resources instead of requiring third-party help (unless that choice is 

made by the State). Many States have been upgrading grade crossing inventory data as part of their 2 

percent allowance under Section 130 funding, and these new data sets can enhance the analysis tools 

and visualization methods that can benefit the SAP.

DEVELOPING A STATE ACTION PLAN

This section describes the processes associated with putting the SAP together, after the proper planning 

and preparation have been completed.

Establish Goals and Objectives

As part of the SAP preparation process, States can assess trends in highway-railway crossing safety issues 

and identify the kinds of improvements the State wishes to see in crashes (e.g., frequency, severity, and 

outcomes), risk factors (e.g., accident prediction results), and protection devices (deployed by location, 

corridor, or crossing type). These desired improvements can be expressed in terms of goals 

and objectives.

According to FHWA’s Performance Based Planning and Programming Guidebook,a goal is defined as 

“a broad statement that describes a desired end state.” [4] An objective is “a specific, measurable 

statement that supports achievement of a goal.” Objectives are means of measuring progress toward 

achievement of a goal. The FHWA guidebook further recommends the adoption of objectives that 

are “SMART” (specific, measurable, agreed upon, realistic, and time bound). Figure 3 illustrates these 

relationships and descriptions.
HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

12

Some examples of goals and objectives are as follows:

 Goal: Passive devices at public highwayrailway crossings will be reflectorized.

• Objective: For the three years 

beginning 2015, 20 percent of 

available, annual Federal and State 

crossing funding will be allocated to 

upgrading installation of retroreflective 

material for passive protection devices 

at public crossings.

• Objective: By October 1, 2018, 

75 percent of all passive crossing 

protection devices will be reflectorized 

according to current Manual on Uniform 

Traffic Control Devices standards.

 Goal: State and Federal highway-railway 

crossing protection funding will be fully 

allocated and expended.

• Objective: 100 percent of annual Federal Section 130 allocations will be obligated to projects 

or programs within 18 months of notification of contract authority.

• Objective: 100 percent of annual Federal Section 130 funding will be expended within 

30 months of notification of contract authority.

Develop Data for State Action Plan Execution and Evaluation

The SAP preparation process identifies sources of data to be used in developing the plan. This includes 

data that can be used to measure progress toward meeting objectives along the way to achieving goals. 

Careful attention should be paid to data used in performance-based planning because the data will 

guide strategies and investments to achieve the goals of the SAP. These data should be available, reliable, 

and sustainable over the course of the SAP. Data availability will play a role in setting SMART objectives.

Identify Strategies, Programs, and Institutional Arrangements, and Tie Strategies to 

Time Periods

Strategies are a plan or method to achieve a goal (progress toward which is measured by objectives), and 

actions are tactics to execute the strategy. The SAP includes specific strategies for reaching objectives 

and outlines actions to be taken in carrying out the strategies. The SAP can also describe how current 

or proposed programs can advance the strategies. The SAP takes advantage of current or proposed 

institutional arrangements among rail safety entities as a means of advancing strategies.

The objectives and strategies should be time constrained as opposed to open ended. Some actions will 

necessarily precede others, and the SAP should map out the relationships among strategies and actions.

The stakeholder outreach process in developing the SAP allows States to gain commitments from 

external stakeholders for actions and strategies that advance the SAP’s objectives.

Figure 3. Diagram. Goals and “SMART” objectives.

GOAL OBJECTIVE

A broad 

statement 

that 

describes 

a desired 

end state

Specific

Measurable

Agreed upon

Realistic

Time bound

A specific, 

measurable 

statement 

that 

supports 

achievement 

of a goal
 HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

13

Chapter 3. Implementation and Evaluation

MONITORING AND COMMUNICATION

After developing and finalizing the State action plan (SAP), the State should determine a process to 

monitor progress of the SAP. The State should regularly check in with parties assigned actions listed in 

the SAP to obtain information on the status of the action items. This monitoring process should produce 

information that can be shared with the responsible State agencies and rail safety stakeholders. As the 

SAP reaches its objectives, success should be shared with all stakeholders to maintain momentum and 

affirm commitments to the goals, objectives, and actions in the SAP. Conversely, if goals, strategies, or 

objectives are not met (or are not on track to be met by a specified time goal), then discussion should 

take place to determine the reasons, with adjustments being made as necessary.

MEASUREMENT AND REPORTING

Responsible parties within the State should be designated to consult grade crossing data to 

measure progress toward the objectives and goals of the SAP. The data collection cycles may create 

natural demarcations and milestones to use in measuring actual experience compared to the goals 

and objectives of the SAP. These same timing milestones can generate reporting elements that can 

be communicated within the annual Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Section 130 

reporting process. 

Crossing program managers should transmit annual reports on SAP accomplishments to the entity 

within the State that approves the SAP. This ensures that the program managers are communicating 

with the agency executives, the governing board, or the commission that adopted the SAP. The State 

may want to consider communicating these annual reports to members of the stakeholder advisory 

committee (if any) the State created to assist in developing the SAP.

ADAPTING TO RESULTS OR CHANGING CIRCUMSTANCES

The SAP is developed to respond to a certain set of safety challenges, data trends, and economic and 

political environments. The elements that informed the SAP could change over its time horizon. The 

State could achieve results much faster and with much more impact than anticipated, or challenges 

(either anticipated in the plan or not) could deter accomplishment of goals and objectives. As the 

circumstances change, the State should be ready to use the measurement and reporting cycles in the 

SAP’s implementation process to consider amending it. States should be prepared to reset goals and 

objectives in light of new data and action item results. 
HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

14

EVALUATION DIRECTED TO FUTURE STATE ACTION PLANS

Each State determines the time horizon for its SAP, and as that time period nears completion, the State 

should begin to assess feedback for future iterations, considering the data collected and results. As the 

SAP achieves its objectives, a new planning cycle needs to build upon that success and the new baseline 

of grade crossing safety. The State and the stakeholders involved in the development of the SAP should 

take stock of the planning process itself and decide whether changes and improvements are necessary. 

The passage of time should give participants perspective on what processes worked and what could be 

improved. States are encouraged to consider how this model SAP and guidelines could also be changed 

and communicate those improvement ideas to the Federal Highway Administration and Federal 

Railroad Administration.
 HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

15

Chapter 4. Content and Recommended Outline for 

a State Action Plan

Table 2 is the outline of the model State action plan (SAP). States should modify this outline to meet their 

goals based on their individual needs and circumstances as discussed previously.

Table 2. Model State action plan outline.

Section Elements

Introduction Mission statement

Scope

Goals and objectives

Statewide Highway-railway Grade Crossing 

Safety Efforts

Highway-railway grade crossing planning

Highway-railway grade crossing program administration

Public Engagement Process for stakeholder involvement in SAP development

Stakeholder involvement in SAP implementation

Data Analysis Data discussion

Broad overview of highway-railway grade crossing environment

Crash data

Risk Assessment Individual crossings and corridors

Higher-level safety considerations

Highest-Priority Highway-railway Grade Crossing 

Safety Challenges in the State

How the challenges were determined

Results

Action Plan Goals and objectives for addressing safety challenges

Action plan for accomplishing goals and objectives

Process and metrics for measuring progress

Challenges to meeting goals and objectives

Determine Next Steps Short-term actions

Long-term actions
HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

16

INTRODUCTION

Mission Statement

The SAP contains a statement about its purpose, explaining why it exists.

Scope

The SAP specifies some of the elements identified in the planning process, including the external 

stakeholders being consulted and the time period covered.

Goals and Objectives

The SAP details and explains the goals and objectives that are to be achieved, as explained in the 

planning process.

STATEWIDE HIGHWAY-RAILWAY CROSSING SAFETY EFFORTS

Highway-Railway Crossing Planning

This section describes the relationship of highway-railway crossing safety planning for other State plans, 

including the State Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), State rail plan, and State transportation improvement 

program. Figure 4 shows a highway-railway grade crossing and signal.

Figure 4. Photo. Highway-railway grade crossing and flashing lights.

Source: Operation Lifesaver, Inc.
 HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

17

Highway-Railway Crossing Program Administration

This section summarizes information already being submitted as part of the programmatic description in 

State Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Section 130 annual reports. This information includes 

details of how:

 Highway-railway crossing projects are identified and selected.

 Federal and State funds are applied to crossing projects.

 Stakeholders are involved in project identification.

 Diagnostic reviews are conducted at crossings selected for funding.

 Highway-railway crossing programs are governed and administered, including descriptions of 

interagency agreements and sharing of responsibility (if it occurs).

Connected to the description of how crossing programs are governed, the State action plan (SAP) also 

describes current statewide programs for crossing safety because some States have programs to address 

specific crossing safety issues and circumstances with State and local funding. This inventory of current 

programs also describes how State safety programs addressing trespasser injuries and fatalities are 

connected to highway-railway crossings.

This section of the SAP also explains how highway-railway crossing projects, once selected and funded, 

are executed. This describes the relationship of State-level grade crossing program managers and 

local project contracting and administration (which in some States can be the same organization), the 

processes for working with freight and passenger railroads, the coordination with the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) division office, the coordination with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

regional office, and the provisions for contract completion and closure.

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

Process for Stakeholder Involvement in State Action Plan Development 

The SAP describes the process of engaging highway-railway crossing safety stakeholders and the 

general public. States should consider the best means of gaining outside input into the SAP without too 

much expense. Public outreach in some States with large areas and dispersed populations can be very 

expensive to conduct using traditional open-house meetings. Careful consideration of public outreach 

methods should also include State agency public engagement specialists because traditional methods 

are becoming increasingly ineffective at reaching members of the general public. Virtual open houses 

and web-based briefings, with interactive content and hosted chat to respond to public questions, can 

be very inclusive without as much expense. This model SAP is not prescriptive about the type of outreach 

to be employed, only that the State describe the process of seeking and responding to external views.

Stakeholder Involvement in State Action Plan Implementation

The implementation program, with cycles for data collection, reporting on strategies and objectives, and 

mid-term revisions, needs to include provisions for sharing information on the SAP’s accomplishments 

with external stakeholders. The program managers should take advantage of in-house public 

engagement expertise to identify techniques and methods that work effectively for a given State’s 

population, stakeholders, and transportation networks. 
HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

18

DATA ANALYSIS

Data Discussion

The SAP lists the data used in its development and implementation. This includes a description of the 

highway-railway crossing inventory system managed by the State and how the data are organized, 

collected (including data from outside sources), updated, and reported. If the SAP uses data beyond the 

inventory, then the additional data sets can be explained in a similar fashion (organization, collection, 

and maintenance), including explanations of how the data are used. 

For example, some States integrate crash record systems with highway-railway grade crossing identifiers 

to add details to crossing incident analyses. Not every State has the same data in the same formats or the 

same details—States should describe how the available data inform the SAP’s strategies, objectives, and 

action items.

Broad Overview of the Highway-Railway Crossing Environment

The SAP explains the highway-railway crossing safety environment, in terms of inventory and risk factors. 

Tables and geographic information systems (GIS) mapping can explain inventory data regarding the 

number of public and private crossings and the protection devices at crossings. Additional details on 

safety risk factors can include:

 Maps of train counts and tonnage density on rail lines in the State.

 Major rail corridors (in terms of train volumes or economic importance, or through traffic volumes 

and commodities).

 Trends in vehicle miles traveled, registered drivers and vehicles, and other factors. 

 This section is similar to the inventory assessments in State rail plans.

Crash Data

This section includes safety data:

 Crashes.

 Fatalities and injuries.

 Crashes by geography (county or region) and by railroad.

 Available causal information for crashes.

 10-year trends.

 Crashes and protection devices at crossings. 

 Multiple crash locations.

RISK ASSESSMENT

Individual Crossings and Corridors

Whether a State uses a crash prediction model that processes inventory data or not, highway-railway 

crossing safety professionals understand the confluence of factors that create higher risks at some 

crossings than at others. The SAP includes a discussion of safety risks at certain crossings or along certain 

corridors—risks identified through an analysis of crossing data presented in the section on data analysis. 

This risk analysis helps identify crossings, types of crossings, and corridors with crossings where focused 

attention might make a positive impact and reduce crashes and their consequences.
 HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

19

Higher-Level Safety Considerations

The data analysis section of the SAP can present information on trends that can have effects on grade 

crossing safety beyond a certain crossing or corridor. (Figure 5 shows examples of safety devices at a 

grade crossing.) The SAP discusses general safety risks, particularly those factors that lend themselves to 

policy or programmatic strategies and mitigation.

Higher level safety considerations can include, but are not be limited to, the following situations:

 States or metropolitan regions that have a high level of commuter rail traffic. This 

increases the exposure due to the large number of passengers on the trains. In addition, the 

commuter rail lines also generally operate at the same time that the roads have peak travel times, 

which further increases the exposure.

 States that have a high number of energy products and HAZMAT shipments by rail or 

trucks. This increases the likelihood of a larger impact if there is a collision. In addition, special 

consideration should be given to highway-railway crossings by those States that have rapidly 

developing areas where energy products are extracted. The roadways in these areas are generally 

low volume, with lower levels of protective devices at crossings, but can quickly become higher 

volume roadways due to truck traffic.

 States and regions that have crossings frequently blocked by idling trains. The hazards 

from blocked crossings include but are not limited to:

• Delays to emergency response personnel to fire, medical emergencies, or criminal activity.

• The risk of road users driving into the side of a stopped train during nighttime or low-visibility 

conditions.

• The risk of motor vehicle collisions from turning around to seek an alternative route.

• Pedestrians cutting through or under a train to access homes, schools, or businesses on the 

other side of the idling train.

See Appendix C for more information on blocked crossings.

Figure 5. Photo. Highway-railway crossing and safety devices.

Source: Indiana Department of Transportation, Section 130 Website
HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

20

HIGHEST PRIORITY HIGHWAY-RAILWAY CROSSING SAFETY CHALLENGES IN 

THE STATE

Based on the data analysis and risk assessment, the SAP presents a summary of the highest-priority 

highway-railway crossing safety challenges facing the State. The goals of the SAP are aimed at resolving 

or mitigating these challenges, and progress toward these goals is measured by the SAP’s objectives.

States are encouraged to consider their unique or specific safety challenges. For instance, one State may 

decide to pay particular attention to crossings along corridors with frequent crude-by-rail unit trains, but 

another State may not need to address that particular hazardous materials issue if it has no major crude 

oil rail movements.

States are also encouraged to base these challenges (and the related goals and objectives) on data 

presented and explained in the SAP. Stakeholder involvement in the SAP’s development may generate 

suggestions for the challenges in this section, but such ideas need to be anchored to data in the SAP 

to be consistent with the other kinds of performance-based planning that exists at the local, State, and 

Federal level.

States are also encouraged to consider the additional safety benefits that may be achieved at relatively 

little additional cost when selecting the types of improvements to be installed. For example, when 

upgrading a passive crossing to automatic warning devices, installing a flashing lights with gates 

system instead of a flashing lights only system would provide an 88-percent increase to safety instead 

of a 64-percent increase at the cost of an additional $30,000 to $50,000. Appendix D provides a table of 

typical cost ranges and estimated risk reductions for the improvements. 

ACTION PLAN

This section of the SAP links goals and objectives to the safety challenges listed in the previous section, 

including tactical actions to be taken to meet the objectives and accomplish the goals. 

Goals and Objectives for Addressing Safety Challenges

As stated in the planning preparation sections, FHWA planning documents define a goal as “a broad 

statement that describes a desired end state.” An objective is “a specific, measurable statement that 

supports achievement of a goal.” These goals should be tied to and address the safety challenges just 

listed. Just as the safety challenges are prioritized into a manageable list, so too should the goals and 

objectives be reachable and reasonable. The objectives offer the State and rail safety stakeholders 

measurable benchmarks for assessing progress toward meeting the goals. The objectives should be 

defined so they can be measured by available data maintained by or accessible to the State.

Action Plan for Accomplishing Goals and Objectives

This section contains the action elements to reach the goals to address the safety challenges. The actions 

in this list are specific, measurable, time bound, and assigned to responsible parties. The overall time 

horizon of the actions is up to each State to determine. The State and stakeholders are encouraged to 

delegate actions to parties outside the State agency preparing the SAP, so long as the stakeholders 

accept the responsibilities through the public engagement process. The listed actions may extend over 

the SAP’s time frame, and some may be sequential and build on each other.
 HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

21

Example SAPs are as follows.

Iowa Department of Transportation

The SAP prepared by the Office of Rail Transportation of the Iowa Department of Transportation 

(DOT), incorporates enumerated strategies, lists expected time frames for accomplishment, discusses 

institutions and organizations involved in implementation, and identifies performance metrics for 

measuring strategy success. An example of this approach is summarized for Education Action Item B: 

Family Partnerships:[5]

 Strategy: Inventory public safety and health advocacy groups that already provide traffic safety 

training (Iowa Center for Ag Safety and Health and the Blank Children’s Hospital Advocacy Group), 

and work with groups to include highway-railway grade crossing safety content. 

 Timeline: 5 years.

 Involved parties: Office of Rail Transportation and Iowa Operation Lifesaver.

 Success measurement: The number of persons receiving highway-railway grade crossing safety 

training or safety training materials through cooperative efforts.

Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development

The SAP from Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LA DOTD) updates an earlier 

SAP prepared as a pilot effort with the cooperation of FHWA and FRA. The SAP includes detailed action 

items, strategies and outcomes, timelines for implementation, responsible parties (including names), 

and evaluation measurements. An example of this approach is summarized for Item 4, Crossing Closure/

Consolidation Project List:[6]

 Action item: Develop a list of candidate closures and consolidations, and implement LA DOTD 

policy and State law.

 Outcome/purpose: To 

include a list of strong closure 

candidates, close redundant 

and unnecessary highwayrailway grade crossings, 

and improve public safety 

statewide. (Figure 6 shows 

warning signs, signals, and 

deployed gate arms being 

avoided by a driver.)

 Responsible party/

parties: LA DOTD.

 Timeline/progress/

comments: Prepare 

the recommended closure 

candidate list each year, present the closure list to the Railroad Safety Program Committee, and 

initiate at least two closure/consolidation proceedings each year.

Figure 6. Photo. Highway-railway crossing and truck avoiding gate arms.

Source: Operation Lifesaver, Inc.
HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

22

The Texas Department of Transportation

The SAP for the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) lists strategies in two categories, evaluation 

and engineering and education and enforcement. These strategies are listed in action plans for each of 

the five years covered in the plan. An example of this information is summarized for an evaluation and 

engineering action item on signal preemption:[7]

 Action: Identify and mitigate signal preemption issues at signalized crossings experiencing 

multiple collisions located adjacent to highway intersections.

 Plan Year 1 Actions: Obligate FHWA Section 130 funds to perform diagnostic team inspections at 

the multiple-collision crossings located adjacent to highway intersections.

 Plan Year 2 Actions: Continue to perform diagnostic team inspections at identified crossings 

under the 2011 program; identify projects’ scope of work; authorize plans, specifications, and 

engineering preparation and approval; obligate FHWA funding and approval for construction 

(i.e., crossing signals, preemption upgrades, and crossing closures); monitor performance workload; 

and measure the percentage reduction of crossings experiencing multiple collisions.

 Plan Year 3 Actions: Same actions as Plan Year 2.

 Plan Year 4 Actions: Same actions as Plan Years 2 and 3, plus assessing the effectiveness of 

mitigation efforts and project safety improvements at completed crossing project locations.

 Plan Year 5 Actions: Same actions as Plan Year 4.

Process and Metrics for Measuring Progress

This section includes a discussion of the means by which inventory and crash data are employed to 

measure progress in accomplishing the plan objectives. The SAP identifies the parties responsible for 

collecting information on activities assigned in action plan items, and specifies the timing and content 

of periodic reporting on progress.

Challenges to Meeting Goals and Objectives

This section includes a discussion of the possible challenges or impediments that may affect the 

accomplishment of the actions, objectives, and goals of the SAP. This is a normal part of any project 

management plan, and each challenge listed is paired with a possible means of overcoming the 

challenge, mitigating the problems, or establishing benchmarks for determining whether alternative 

actions may be necessary to reach the objectives of the SAP.

DETERMINE NEXT STEPS 

The planning elements listed above—safety challenges, goals, objectives, and actions—and the 

planning process and engagement of stakeholders may identify some actions that are less tactical 

and more programmatic. For example, a State may administer a legislatively directed program with a 

dedicated funding source to address a particular grade crossing issue, and the State and stakeholders 

may conclude that the challenges and goals that led to the creation of that program no longer apply 

or have been superseded by other, higher-impact challenges and needs. The SAP may conclude with a 

series of programmatic initiatives or recommendations for policy makers within the State agency or at 

the legislative level.

This section outlines next steps at a higher level (if necessary) and discusses the extent to which accomplishment of these programmatic changes may require reassessment of the SAP in part or as a whole.
 HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

23

Chapter 5. Background on Prioritization

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) requires a data-driven strategic approach to improving 

highway safety on all public roads that focuses on performance.Railway-Highway Crossings Program 

(Section 130) funds are set aside from the HSIP apportionment for the elimination of hazards and 

installation of protective devices at highway-crossings. In accordance with 23 USC 130(d), each State 

is required to conduct and systematically maintain a survey of all highways to identify those railroad 

crossings that may require separation, relocation, or protective devices. Each State is also required to 

establish and implement a schedule of projects for this purpose. At a minimum, this schedule is to 

provide warning signs for all highway-crossings.

States adhere to this requirement by developing systematic prioritization methods to identify crossings 

that have the greatest hazard to the traveling public. These prioritization methods are tailored by the 

States to accommodate their unique situations, in part due to the number of crossings and crashes and 

the size and scale of the grade crossing protection program.

Based on the review of the 10 State action plans and discussions with several States, the approaches to 

prioritize projects generally follow a few general types: 

 Process driven: States ask railroads and local governments for suggested crossing improvements 

on a regular basis.

 Data and formula driven: States apply database information (often matched with accident/risk 

prediction models) to rank crossings for protection consideration.

 Hybrid approaches: States apply data and formulas in combination with project identification 

from stakeholders.

PART 2 

NOTEWORTHY METHODS IN PROJECT PRIORITIZATION

 HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

25

Chapter 6. Noteworthy Prioritization Practices

This section summarizes the investigation findings into major practice areas associated with 

prioritization practices. The practices outlined in this section highlight programs in certain States 

to implement five general practice areas. The programs listed represent a sample of all activities 

undertaken by States and may not fully describe the detailed processes undertaken by the example 

States in implementing these practices. The purpose is to give a brief summary of how individual 

States have innovated within each area.

This information was compiled from a number of sources: 

 Interviews with selected State highway-railway crossing administrators.

 Review of State action plans (SAP) submitted under the Rail Safety Improvement Act 

of 2008 (RSIA08).

 Review of annual highway-railway grade crossing reports submitted under the Highway Safety 

Improvement Program (HSIP).

 Supplemental information provided in interviews.

 Previous Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) highway-railway grade crossing reports 

to Congress.

Appendix A summarizes information for this section, including contact information for more information 

about State highway-railway grade crossing programs.

PRACTICE 1 – STATES ARE TAILORING RISK FORMULAS TO STATE NEEDS

Overview

There is no one-size-fits-all risk formula that is used by all States, although several common elements 

are used by many States. Some States have adjusted weighting factors and constants to reflect State 

experience. Others have internal programs for different purposes, each with a specific project selection 

process/formula. One State uses the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) GradeDec.net as a what-if 

simulator to evaluate corridors under changing rail traffic profiles or economic development prospects. 

Additionally, some States use railroad-supplied information on near misses at crossings as part of 

the evaluation/risk assessment process. Other States connect State crash records with inventories to 

obtain more potential causal information on crossing-related crashes. Some States evaluate categories 

of crossings separately—passive against passive, active against active, and gates/lights against similar 

crossings. Even so, some States are responding to special external issues through highway-railway 

grade crossing programs, focusing on passenger routes with passive crossings or rail lines carrying 

crude oil trains.
HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

26

Example Practices

New Jersey

New Jersey focuses its efforts on those crossings located along corridors with crude oil trains. New Jersey 

also focuses on improving crossings with 8-inch incandescent lights to upgrade these warning signals to 

12-inch light-emitting diodes (LEDs).1 Since most of the State’s identified issues at the local level relate 

to crossing surface conditions, New Jersey is creating a listing of those crossings with surface condition 

issues noted within its inspection process for renewal.

Ohio

Ohio has four major grade crossing programs that use a combination of both Federal and State funds. 

The use of four separate programs allows for flexibility to maximize needed improvements at the State’s 

at-grade crossings. The four programs are as follows:

 The formula-based upgrade program is based on a calculation of the most hazardous crossings. 

 The corridor-based upgrade program provides a framework for systematically considering, 

identifying, and prioritizing projects that have public safety benefits at multiple grade crossings 

along a railroad corridor. Ohio identifies these corridors in collaboration with the railroads. The 

Heartland Corridor is an example of a corridor-based project that runs through the State. 

 The constituent-identified upgrade program considers project referrals from a number of sources 

and makes selections based on hazard rankings, extenuating conditions, and funding availability. 

 The preemption program upgrades warning devices and traffic signals to establish appropriate 

traffic signal preemption when a train approaches a crossing that has a highway traffic signal in 

close proximity.

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania’s project prioritization process uses the FRA’s GradeDec.net tool to compare safety 

differences if physical infrastructure or traffic (rail and highway) conditions change, which could include 

new customers along rail lines, track speed changes, and train traffic level adjustments. This tool allows 

for adjustments to items such as train traffic distribution throughout the day, when trucks or other 

vehicles arrive, and when heavy transit or bus traffic happens. 

PRACTICE 2—STATES ARE INCORPORATING BENEFIT-COST EVALUATIONS INTO 

PROJECT SELECTION

Overview

A number of States build benefit-cost analysis (BCA) into their project evaluation processes to varying 

degrees. Some states are using BCAs more comprehensively, integrating the practice department wide 

in order to build in consideration and monetization of indirect costs for highways (e.g., delay, rerouting, 

logistics, and road closure time) and railroads (e.g., passenger and freight delays, lack of alternative 

routes, logistics needs delayed, track closure time, and dispatch chaos). Other States include BCAs in 

order to rank specific safety improvement projects.

1 Section 4D.07 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devicesrequires 12-inch signals on allenw signal faces.
 HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

27

Example Practices

California

California includes a cost-benefit factor as part of the final ranking process. This measure is specifically 

applied during the second phase of its defined project selection methodology.

North Carolina

North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is currently transitioning to using benefit-cost 

evaluations within its existing prioritization methodology as part of an agency-wide effort, as explained 

in Figure 7. 

NCDOT’s Rail Division has contracted with a consultant to develop a benefit-cost calculation that takes 

into account both direct and indirect costs and benefits. This approach is scalable and adaptable, 

allowing NCDOT to incorporate items not currently considered in grade crossing project selection. Also, 

this process allows for a BCA similar to roadway improvements in the State, which will permit future 

grade crossing safety projects to be evaluated alongside and compete with all traffic safety projects 

including in additional State funding categories.

Wisconsin

Wisconsin directly uses a BCA calculation within its project selection process. Wisconsin analyzes 

statewide crossing improvement needs using BCA methods to evaluate a data set extracted from the 

Wisconsin DOT Rail Crossing Data Base. The procedure follows the USDOT Accident Protection and 

Severity formulas and is used to develop upgrade priority groups, which are then further reviewed using 

additional procedures such as BCA.

Figure 7. Diagram. North Carolina benefit-cost analysis methodology 

for highway-railway crossing safety programs.

Source: NCDOT

 Total crash costs: crash probability x (primary effect cost + secondary effect cost)

 Hazard Index considers crash risks, not relative crash outcomes

 Incorporate broader secondary effects

 Considers safety effects primarily

Measure cost of highway-rail grade crossing crash

Use crash costs to screen for high-risk crossings

Perform benefit cost analysis for each project

Prioritize safety improvements with highest benefit cost 

analysis scores under resource constraints

 Primary effect costs: fatality and injury costs, property damage

 Secondary effect costs (NCHRP 756): vehicle delays, rerouting, logistics costs
HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

28

PRACTICE 3—STATES ARE SUPPLEMENTING FEDERAL SECTION 130 HIGHWAYRAILWAY CROSSING PROGRAM FUNDING WITH STATE DOLLARS

Overview

Some States have special funding set-asides for highway-railway crossing protection and roadway 

improvements that have been established by their respective State legislatures. Other States are using 

flexible State and Federal HSIP funding for crossings. Many of the State-based funds of this type are used 

for projects not eligible for Section 130 (e.g., pavement treatments at grade crossings) or bundling of 

State and Federal funds to complete grade separations.

Example Practices

Illinois

Illinois supplements the State’s Section 130 program funding with State funds from gas tax revenues 

to support its Grade Crossing Protection Fund. These monies assist with funding grade crossing 

improvement projects along local Illinois roadways, whereas State roadways are addressed using Federal 

funds. Created in 1955, the Grade Crossing Protection Fund is administered by the Illinois Commerce 

Commission and funds improvements such as:

 Signal system upgrade or replacement.

 Crossing closures.

 Bridges (i.e., replacement/new structure).

 Pedestrian grade separations.

 Interconnect projects.

 Funding to local agencies for highway approach grading.

 Construction of connecting roads for closing projects.

 Remote monitoring systems for railroad companies. 

 Renewing crossing surfaces. 

Nebraska

Nebraska State statutes provide for a financial incentive to local road authorities that agree to the 

elimination of a highway-railway crossing by closing the crossing or rerouting the roadway. It does 

this by providing $5,000 from the State Grade Crossing Protection Fund and $5,000 from the railroad 

involved. The local road authority also receives actual costs associated with the closure, up to a cap 

of $12,000. These costs cover such things as barricades and the removal of the approach roadway. In 

addition, a State fund collected from fuel taxes can be used for crossing surfacing, with local matching 

funds required.

Nebraska also has a special State fund specifically for highway-railway grade separations, funded through 

a train mile tax. In addition, some HSIP dollars are moved into grade separation projects, given the scale 

of such projects. All grade separations in the State require two crossing closures, the one being replaced 

and another one nearby.
 HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

29

Texas

Texas supplements the Federal Section 130 program by administering additional programs. The State 

Replanking Program replaces crossing surfaces on the State highway system. TxDOT also provides 

funding to railroads for crossing signal maintenance through the Railroad Signal Maintenance Payment 

Program and allocates State funding for grade separations.

PRACTICE 4—STATES ARE INVESTING PLANNING DOLLARS (2 PERCENT 

ALLOWANCE) IN INVENTORY IMPROVEMENTS

Overview

States are using inventory systems and specialized modules from consultants and vendors to expand 

management capabilities and tailor systems to State needs. They are expanding the reach of GIS 

capabilities to inventory systems and also including photos. Some States use inventory systems to create 

asset-management-like systems for crossing improvements and diagnostics. The States use a variety of 

consultants, in-house staff, or student interns to keep inventory data up to date. 

Example Practices

California

California is utilizing the 2 percent allowance on a major grade crossing inventory update for the entire 

State. The multiyear project is split into multiple completion phases, with the first phase consisting of 

passive crossings and subsequent project years updating active crossings.

Oklahoma, Nebraska, and North Carolina

Oklahoma, Nebraska, and North Carolina are examples of other States using the 2 percent allowance for 

inventory improvements, with Nebraska maintaining a consultant under contract to provide continuing 

maintenance of its web-based railroad inventory management system.

Texas

The new database program in Texas, the Texas Railroad Information Management System (TRIMS), 

was placed into service in March 2013. Since that time, several enhancements have been made to the 

program to expand its functionality. Scheduled periodic updates of train and highway traffic levels by 

staff and consultants are an example of the types of inventory data that TRIMS maintains.
HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

30

PRACTICE 5—STATES ARE APPLYING INNOVATIVE IMPROVEMENTS TO 

PROJECT EXECUTION

Overview

States are working directly with railroads to identify projects and improve project execution. In the case 

of most complicated pre-emption projects, States could benefit from better railroad appreciation and 

understanding of the highway traffic engineering processes required for implementation. Similarly, 

highway agencies would benefit from understanding the needs and requirements of railroad companies 

in the construction of combined projects. (A proposed process for highway agency–railroad company 

cooperation was outlined in the recent Strategic Highway Research Program 2 report R16-RR-1, Strategies 

for Improving the Project Agreement Process between Highway Agencies and Railroads.) 

Many States depend on FHWA division office safety staff to understand the unique issues about the 

projects associated with Section 130 program funding. FHWA division staff often make the difference in 

getting Federal funds authorized on a timely basis. The following examples highlight several innovative 

ways in which States have improved project execution.

Example Practices

California

California recognized that the contracted local agency and railroad do not always coordinate their 

efforts to implement the construction aspects of the project. This led to confusion between the agencies 

and frequent project delays. To better facilitate the project’s implementation, the California DOT and 

the California Public Utilities Commission are now coordinating a joint project kick-off teleconference 

once the contracts have been executed to ensure that expectations are understood and lines of 

communication are established. 

New Jersey

New Jersey maintains a master agreement with every railroad operating in the State. This expedites 

the project execution process by developing each project as a task/change order within the standing 

agreement. The State’s annual report also highlights the positive relationship with the local FHWA staff 

member, who thoroughly understands rail safety, resulting in improvements to the FHWA 

review process.

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania administers a State-level short-line railroad development program through Pennsylvania 

DOT district personnel. The same personnel are directly involved in grade crossing safety prioritization 

decisions. Their activities with short-line economic development processes and stakeholders give them 

detailed knowledge of unique rail operational needs, specific circumstances, or needs that may be in 

play at candidate funding locations. The assignment of knowledgeable staff across these varied functions 

improves the overall selection process.
 HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

31

OTHER ISSUES OF NOTE

North Carolina is working to connect grade crossing inventory information into the North Carolina 

Department of Motor Vehicles oversize/overweight permitting systems for trucks as well as to include 

railroad contact information if crossings become blocked. In March 2015, an Amtrak train crashed into 

an oversized load that was blocking a grade crossing while attempting a turn onto an adjacent highway. 

The load was being escorted, but the trucking company did not anticipate the narrow turning radius 

complicated by the grade crossing, and the company and its escort vehicles did not communicate its 

position to the railroad responsible for the grade crossing. 

While the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) and the FAST Act are causing 

more departments of transportation to use performance measurements, applicable performance 

measurement tools for the highway-railway grade crossing program remain hard to come by:

 HSIP reporting on before-and-after behavior can be misleading, given the infrequency of crashes 

and crashes that are not the result of crossing conditions (e.g., suicides).

 Some States measure program activity—inspections, diagnostic reviews, and crossing projects 

completed—instead of results.

 HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

33

Chapter 7. References

1. Federal Highway Administration. Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). http://safety.fhwa.

dot.gov/hsip/. Accessed on September 21, 2015. 

2. Federal Highway Administration. Railway-Highways Crossing (Section 130) Program. http://safety.

fhwa.dot.gov/xings/. Accessed on September 30, 2015.

3. Federal Highway Administration. Railway-Highway Crossings Program Reporting Guidance. 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/guidance/guiderhcp.cfm. Accessed on September 20, 2015.

4. Federal Highway Administration. Performance Based Planning and Programming Guidebook. 

September 2013.

5. Iowa Department of Transportation, Office of Rail Transportation. State of Iowa Highway-Rail Grade 

Crossing Safety Action Plan. August 2012.

6. Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development. Crossing Safety Action Plan Report. 

August 2011.

7. Texas Department of Transportation. Texas Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety Action Plan. 

August 2011.

 HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

35

State Highway-Railway Grade Crossing Information 

Sources for Noteworthy Practices

State/Contact Interview

RSIA08 State 

Action Plan

HSIP Annual 

Report Extra Documents Reports to Congress

California Yes Yes Yes 2012, 2014

Bree Arnett, California Public Utility Commission, bree.arnett@cpuc.ca.gov; 

Lauren Clauson, Chief Railroad Crossing Safety Branch, Division of Rail, California Department of Transportation, lauren.clauson@dot.ca.gov

Illinois Yes Yes Yes 2012, 2014

Michael Stead, Rail Safety Program Administrator, Illinois Commerce Commission, mstead@icc.illnois.gov; 

Jason Johnson, P.E., Rail Safety Engineer, Illinois Department of Transportation, Jason.Johnson@illinois.gov

Nebraska Yes Yes Model development report 2014

Bev Vonasek, Nebraska Department of Roads Railroad Liaison Manager, Beverly.Vonasek@nebraska.gov

New Jersey Yes Yes 2014

Todd Hirt, Supervising Engineer, Bureau of Railroad Engineering, New Jersey Department of Transportation, Todd.Hirt@dot.state.nj.us

North Carolina Yes Yes 2014

Andrew R. (Drew) Thomas, MSE, P.E., Data Analysis and Inventory Manager, Engineering Coordination and Safety Branch, Rail Division, 

North Carolina Department of Transportation, dthomas@ncdot.gov

Ohio Yes Yes Yes Ohio Rail Development 

Commission Programs PDF 2010, 2012, 2014

Cathy Stout, Manager, Safety Programs, Ohio Rail Development Commission, Catherine.Stout@dot.ohio.gov

Oklahoma Yes

Craig Moody, Rail Programs Division Manager, Oklahoma Department of Transportation, cmoody@odot.org

Pennsylvania Yes Yes 2012, 2014

Greg Vaughn, Central Grade Crossing Unit, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, grvaughn@state.pa.us; 

Daniel D. Leonard, P.E., Grade Crossing Engineer, Bureau of Project Delivery, danleonard@state.pa.us

Texas Yes Yes 2010, 2012, 2014

Robert Travis, P.E., Branch Manager—Rail Highway Safety, Rail Safety Section, Traffic Operations Division, Texas Department of 

Transportation, Robert.travis@txdot.gov

Wisconsin Yes Yes Presentation; Prioritization PDF 2012, 2014

Mark Morrison, Railroad Engineering and Safety Unit, Wisconsin Department of Transportation, mark.morrison@dot.wi.gov

APPENDIX A

 HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

37

Summary of State Action Plans Submitted Under 

Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008

ALABAMA

Attributes of Plan

The Alabama State action plan (SAP) is 18 pages in length, uses headings and graphics throughout 

the document, and has a table of contents that contains the section headings. The SAP states that the 

Alabama Department of Transportation (DOT) Bureau of Multimodal Transportation’s Railroad Safety 

Program developed the plan. 

Adherence to SAP Mandate

Specific Solutions

The Alabama SAP addresses efforts to improve safety for the following areas:

 Crossing closures.

 Grade crossing separations.

 Multiple crashes at a crossing.

 High-risk crossings.

 High-speed rail corridors.

 Pedestrians.

 Implementation/experimentation of innovative technologies at grade crossings.

 Engineering, enforcement, and education (3Es).

Multiple-Crash/High-Risk Crossings

Sections exist for both crossings with multiple incidents and high-risk crossings. The section about 

multiple-incident crossings discusses five strategies already undertaken to reduce the number of 

collisions. A table showing the specific crossings that experienced multiple accidents between 2006 and 

2010 shows the status of these crossings, including whether they are scheduled for improvements. The 

high-risk crossings are identified using the USDOT Accident Prediction Formula Index on an annual basis. 

Improvements are undertaken using the Federal Section 130 funding program.

5-Year Period

Crossing accident and other data are presented for the 5-year period from 2006 to 2010. The SAP 

indicates that it was developed in accordance with the mandate. The scope reveals the plan is effective 

for the 5-year period following approval.

Findings

Major Themes

The SAP states that it emphasizes road user safety at public highway-railway grade crossings.



APPENDIX B
HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

38

Special Conditions

The SAP includes a section discussing high-speed rail crossing safety; however, it also says that Alabama 

is not currently pursuing high-speed corridors.

Analyses

No extensive data analyses were performed in the Alabama SAP: total accidents, broken down by the 

number of accidents, fatalities, and injuries, are presented for the 5-year period from 2006 to 2010. The 

number of crossing closures, the number of multiple-accident crossings, and corridor projects are also 

presented for that time period. 

Noteworthy Practices

Alabama was willing to participate in a project to install and monitor a technology that would stretch 

across roadway lanes to prohibit vehicles from entering a crossing upon deployment.

CALIFORNIA

Attributes of Plan

The California SAP is 67 pages long and includes a main body report (39 pages) and seven appendices 

(28 pages). The document is well put together with a table of contents and a breakdown of ideas with 

headings throughout the text. Graphics and tables are used throughout to visualize data elements. It 

appears to have been developed internally by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC).

The general flow of the SAP includes an introduction that summarizes the mandate to perform the 

plan and background information related to the oversight of grade crossing safety in California and 

improvement efforts and initiatives already used. Another chapter provides a short list followed by 

detailed discussion of the action plan strategies identified for the SAP. A chapter containing a summary 

and conclusion completes the main body report. The appendices include an acronyms and abbreviations 

list, a summary of the final rule, and a letter from the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) dictating the 

need to develop the SAP. Additionally, appendices list each multiple-accident crossing, summarize the 

grade separation bond fund, and report the 10-year accident data for 2000 to 2009.

Adherence to SAP Mandate

Specific Solutions

The SAP identifies and discusses 10 specific strategies. The plan states that among these 10 items are “a 

number of new initiatives and projects coupled with more traditional approaches to hazardous crossing 

identification, evaluation, and improvement project development.” 

Multiple-Crash/High-Risk Crossings

The multiple-crash crossings for the years 2006 and 2011 are listed in Appendix E of the SAP. The number 

of incidents over the 5-year period is disclosed along with a notes field that comments on recent and/

or planned improvements. Based on crossing comments, it appears that the incidents per crossing 

include pedestrians, with suicides noted. Therefore, some crossings may be on the list due to intentional 

actions and not necessarily due to safety hazards. The table signifies that each crossing was evaluated 

individually. 



APPENDIX B
 HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

39

5-Year Period

The plan clearly states the mandate requirements and seems to present action items focused on a 5-year 

period. The SAP provides a 10-year accident history in the appendix. 

Findings

Major Themes

From an overall program perspective, CPUC has made it policy to reduce the number of at-grade 

crossings, both through improvements (closure/separation) and the development of policies that make 

it very difficult to add new crossings on mainline tracks. California has a robust crossing and rail safety 

program that continually addresses rail safety (freight, commuter, and transit rail) within the state.

Special Conditions

The SAP discusses pedestrian safety and commuter trains, along with transit rail crossings.

Analyses

Appendix G of the SAP contains crash data for the 10-year period of 2000 through 2009. Graphs include 

total incidents, fatalities, and injuries over that period; gated and non-gated incidents, fatalities, and 

injuries; and auto, pedestrian, and truck incidents, fatalities, and injuries. Incidents and casualties 

(fatalities plus injuries) are provided by type of railroad equipment, including freight, passenger, 

commuter, switching, and other. Incidents by railroad and county are also presented. Several graphics are 

included that compare California to other States.

Noteworthy Practices

The following are California’s noteworthy practices:

 Policies are in place to make it difficult for new at-grade crossings to be added to mainline track 

throughout the State. 

 A dedicated, funded grade separation program helps local agencies with funding of grade 

separation projects.

 A voter-approved infrastructure bond package included funding specifically for grade separations 

and other crossing improvements.

 Several other funds can be used for grade separations.

 Strategies include updating the inventory of crossings throughout the State and incorporating 

additional data elements into the decision-making process that were not previously or have not 

traditionally been included, such as near-miss data.

 CPUC actively attempts to address the impacts to rail crossings and corridors of new developments 

or planned future developments. CPUC believes it is more effective to address impacts during 

development rather than later during inspections or accident investigations.

 One of the strategies is to “broaden communication and interaction between other involved State 

and Federal agencies to identify funding opportunities, safety initiatives to pursue, and laws and 

regulations that should be modified or updated to improve rail crossing safety.”

APPENDIX B
HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

40

 A strategy to review and update CPUC general orders and laws relating to railroad crossings will 

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

deficiencies in current laws and regulations.”

 PCUC provides and sponsors training opportunities for California roadway authority and railroad 

personnel to improve knowledge and skills in the crossing design and traffic signal preemption 

fields.

FLORIDA

Attributes of Plan

The 36-page Florida SAP is organized effectively with a table of contents, list of tables, list of figures, and 

breakdown of ideas with headings throughout the text. Graphics, tables, and maps are used throughout 

to visualize data elements. There is no mention of outside consulting for the production of the Florida 

SAP.

The general flow of the Florida SAP includes an introduction providing an overview of Florida, Florida’s 

rail system, and Florida’s railroad crossings. The following three sections include United States and 

Florida general rail crossing statistics, Florida crossing safety challenges, and Florida’s Highway-Railroad 

Improvement Program. The final section in the SAP discusses action plan strategies for eight areas.

Adherence to SAP Mandate

Specific Solutions

The eight areas that guide Florida’s action strategies include:

 Grade crossing closures/consolidations.

 Signal safety program.

 Grade separations—new and reconstruction.

 Corridors.

 Pedestrian issues and American with Disabilities Act (ADA).

 Research and analysis through data improvements.

 Public education and awareness programs: Operation Lifesaver.

 Law enforcement.

Each area discussion largely provides an overview of existing efforts to address safety related to that area. 

Multiple-Crash/High-Risk Crossings

Within the action plan strategy discussion for the signal safety program is a section dedicated to 

multiple-incident locations. The plan includes an evaluation of the number of crossings with multiple 

incidents, with a table breaking down the 74 incidents evaluated for remedial measures by type of 

incident. The section also presents two improvement matrices that highlight possible strategies. 

Strategies are selected based on driver behavior or the physical characteristics of the crossing area.



APPENDIX B
 HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

41

5-Year Period

The SAP does not specifically address the 5-year mandate or specifically indicate that the strategies 

are for a 5-year horizon. However, the reviewer feels that the development of the SAP was designed in 

accordance with the mandates.

Findings

Major Themes

According to the Florida SAP, it is the goal of the State of Florida to carry out a highway-railway safety 

program that promotes a safe, economical, and efficient transportation system in the public interest. 

Florida is a large State with high population levels and several unique challenges. Since the early 1970s, 

the department has been very proactive in systematically addressing crossing safety hazards. During the 

statistical analysis, it was determined that the majority of incidents occur at public crossings, are a result 

of risky driver behavior, involve motor vehicles, and occur at locations with active warning devices. The 

same conclusions can also be associated with multiple-incident locations.

Special Conditions

The plan indicates that it is more difficult to construct grade-separated highway-railway crossings in 

Florida due to the flat terrain.

Analyses

The plan includes a brief analysis of crossings in the State, including presenting the location of at-grade 

crossings on a map. A more thorough analysis is presented pertaining to incidents within a section titled 

“Incident Statistics.” For all incidents, the data analysis includes a multi-year notation of the number of 

incidents, fatalities, and injuries for the whole State. It presents the total number of incidents by public 

or private crossings. After reviewing and analyzing detailed incident reports from FRA, the analysis 

determined the number of incidents involving vehicles by incident type (e.g., stopped on rails, went 

around gate, did not stop/yield, or stalled). Non-vehicle incidents included pedestrian, pedestrian 

suicide, and bicycle. A final table for total incidents breaks down the incidents by type of crossing, active 

crossings without gates, active crossings with gates, and other crossings. These same analyses were 

performed specifically on the multiple-incident locations. In addition, multiple-incident locations are 

divided into urban and rural. A final bar chart demonstrates the percentage of incidents at crossings with 

active warning devices each year from 2000 to 2010.

Noteworthy Practices

The following are Florida’s noteworthy practices:

 The plan analyzes data from FRA and identifies driver contributing factors.

 The plan presents matrices of remedial measures for given driver contributing causes and physical 

contributing causes. For each measure, a colored circle indicates whether the anticipated benefit 

from the countermeasure will offset or exceed the risk of the per-driver or physical contributing 

cause.

 The department has begun installing LED fixtures on east/west crossings to improve warning 

visibility for the motoring public.

 The Florida Rail System Plan needs assessment includes grade separations for several time periods.

APPENDIX B
HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

42

 The Florida DOT works with the railroads to identify corridors where train volumes have increased, 

train speeds have increased, low-cost improvements can be implemented, and/or crossing 

consolidations are possible.

 Recent efforts have focused on ADA accessibility at crossings, and the department continues 

to include ADA accessibility reviews as part of diagnostic field reviews. The department also 

implemented a calling tree that can be activated in the event of a reported issue in order to contact 

the correct people for action, follow-up, and information.

GEORGIA

Attributes of Plan

The Georgia SAP is 61 total pages in length, with a 30-page main report and appendices comprising the 

remainder. The document is effectively organized with a table of contents and breakdown of ideas with 

headings throughout the text. Graphics and tables are used throughout to visualize data elements. The 

SAP provides two introductory chapters (“Introduction” and “Problem Identification”), followed by five 

chapters focused on the action strategies. Appendices provide additional background information and 

data analysis. It was prepared with assistance from a consultant.

Adherence to SAP Mandate

Specific Solutions

The SAP specifically indicates “the objective of the plan is to identify specific solutions that will reduce 

collisions between trains or on-track equipment, and pedestrians or vehicles at crossings.” The action 

items are categorized within four categories: education, engineering, enforcement, and data analysis. The 

first three adhere to the 3E approach of addressing grade crossing safety, while data analysis is critical for 

measuring and monitoring progress. 

Multiple-Accident/High-Risk Crossings

Under the action item “Increase Publicity and Awareness,” multiple-accident and high-risk locations are 

mentioned as locations for targeted publicity and awareness. The Georgia Department of Transportation 

has also initiated diagnostics for each of the multiple crash locations identified in the investigation. The 

data analysis section includes analysis and discussions related to multiple crash crossings. 

5-Year Period

The Georgia SAP provides an overview of the mandate and specifically indicates the plan applies through 

2017, which represents the 5-year period after plan approval.

Findings

Major Themes

The department has taken a programmatic corridor approach in prioritizing crossings for diagnostic 

evaluation. It then applies programming improvements based on the evaluation. Amtrak and school bus 

operations are identified by the department as high-risk situations.



APPENDIX B
 HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

43

Special Conditions

No noteworthy special conditions exist for Georgia.

Analyses

The Georgia SAP presents crossing and crash data in a variety of ways. Data analysis as a specific strategy 

points to the department’s desire to measure and monitor crossing safety in the State. As stated, 

“measurement and analysis are necessary to improve hazard elimination strategies, as well as develop 

and evaluate new strategies and measures to reduce crashes.” One analysis presents crashes by Class I 

railroad segments in the State, which presents the information at a finer level than just the entire crashes 

per railroad. The analysis specifically addresses Amtrak and short line railroad crashes. Crossings with 

Amtrak operations are considered high-risk crossings.

Noteworthy Practices

The following are Georgia’s noteworthy practices:

 The plan highlights using the locations of multiple crashes and high-risk crossings as areas for 

increased publicity and awareness.

 The department has begun using a new strategy—packaging grade crossing improvements 

with closures/consolidations as incentives to local areas to close crossings and receive additional 

improvements.

 The analysis specifically addresses Amtrak and short line railroad crashes.

 School districts in Georgia are requested to report school bus use of crossings equipped with active 

warning devices every 5 years; that information is then used to update inventory databases.

ILLINOIS

Attributes of Plan

The 46-page Illinois SAP is well organized with a table of contents, list of tables, list of figures, and 

breakdown of ideas with headings throughout the text. Graphs and tables are used throughout to 

visualize data elements. There is no mention of outside consulting in the production of the plan.

The general flow of the Illinois SAP includes several introductory/background sections, a section 

containing the seven action plan strategies, sections containing analysis of crossings and collisions, and a 

final conclusion section.

Adherence to SAP Mandate

Specific Solutions

The Illinois SAP identifies seven strategies, with each strategy assigning specific goals. Some of the goals 

listed are very specific in nature, such as closing 50 highway-railway grade crossings within 5 years, while 

others are goals to maintain existing activities.

Multiple-Accident/High-Risk Crossings

Multiple-accident/high-risk crossings are addressed throughout the plan among the document 

sections. No single section addresses only multiple accidents, but the presentation of information and 

data is extensive.



APPENDIX B
HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

44

5-Year Period

The SAP adheres to the 5-year planning horizon according to the mandate.

Findings

Major Themes

The grade crossing safety efforts in Illinois are extensive, with the Illinois Commerce Commission and its 

partners actively pursuing improved safety levels throughout the State. The robust program addresses 

safety through the 3Es of railroad crossing safety in order to approach the problem from every angle.

Special Conditions

The plan includes analysis of pedestrian-pathway-rail crossings.

Analyses

The Illinois SAP incorporates extensive analyses for both crossings and collisions. The crossing analysis 

includes a breakdown of the type of crossing and type of warning device by county and railroad 

operating in the State. The plan also includes tables presenting exposure (the number of trains multiplied 

by the number of vehicles) by type of railroad, type of roadway, type of warning device, region of Illinois, 

location of interconnected warning devices, and nearby intersections. 

The collision data analysis begins with analyses that include both public and private crossings. Collisions 

are documented for 5- and 10-year periods in terms of frequency, fatalities, and injuries. The 80 counties 

that experienced one or more collisions and 117 cities that experienced two or more collisions over a 

5-year period are listed. A listing of the private crossings that experienced two or more collisions is also 

included, along with pedestrian pathway crossings with two or more collisions.

Focusing on public crossing collisions, the analysis provides a number of tables and graphics displaying 

the information for five general categories: general description of collisions, highway user characteristics, 

time and seasonal characteristics, highway characteristics, and railroad characteristics.

Noteworthy Practices

To the extent possible, the Illinois SAP includes private crossings within the data analysis. The most 

detailed analysis only uses public crossings due to data limitations. Noteworthy practices include the 

following:

 Illinois considers collision investigation as fact-finding evaluations of train-vehicle and trainpedestrian incidents to identify causal trends. The State uses the results of the collision 

investigation when making determinations where crossing safety improvements are necessary.

 Illinois publishes an annual 5-year Crossing Safety Improvement Program that itemizes projects 

programmed for the next 5-year period using program funds.

 The plan includes a section that develops the average collision at a public highway-railway 

crossing.

APPENDIX B
 HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

45

INDIANA

Attributes of Plan

The Indiana SAP is 34 pages in length and is clearly presented with a table of contents and breakdown 

of ideas with headings throughout the text. Graphics and tables are used throughout to visualize data 

elements. It appears to have been done internally by the Indiana Department of Transportation Rail 

Office. The SAP includes an executive summary followed by three additional chapters: introduction, 

problem identification, and action plan strategies. 

Adherence to SAP Mandate

Specific Solutions

For purposes of evaluating the action plan, three performance measures are used: three-year average 

grade crossing collisions, the number of fatal and injury collisions at public grade crossings, and the 

number of multiple-crash crossings with more than two crashes. Each performance measure provides 

a safety improvement goal to strive for by 2017 (the 5-year period). Seven action plan strategies are 

included in the strategy chapter. Challenges to implementing each strategy are also included.

Multiple-Crash/High-Risk Crossings

Each crossing with multiple collisions is presented in the plan, along with a breakdown of the 

characteristics of those crossings (warning devices, railroad class, and counties). One of the strategies 

addresses multiple-crash crossings. 

5-Year Period

The Indiana plan adheres to the mandate requirement and identifies three performance measures for 

the plan that have 5-year goals.

Findings

Major Themes

Having the fifth highest density of public grade crossings of any State, Indiana recognizes the need to 

further eliminate grade crossings through closures and separations. The Indiana DOT also notes that to 

achieve further reductions in grade crossing collision levels, a change in the approach to grade crossing 

safety is needed. The department supports this statement by adding that two-thirds of collisions occur at 

grade crossings with train-activated warning devices already in place.

The SAP highlights how grade crossing collisions are a tiny fraction of the number of the State’s overall 

motor vehicle collisions, but that the consequences are more significant in nature.

Special Conditions

One section discusses how the State has no authority to regulate private grade crossings, but that private 

crossings are problematic along high-speed rail corridors.



APPENDIX B
HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

46

Analyses

The Indiana SAP provides data for the number of grade crossings in the State by protection device 

and tables on how the Indiana grade crossings compare to other States. The plan contains a section 

summarizing collisions and casualties that includes a table on collisions by warning device and a table on 

primary factors in grade crossing collisions, among others. 

An entire analysis section is focused on multiple-collision grade crossings, including a listing of each of 

those crossings. Other tables include multiple crossings by nearby signalized intersections, by warning 

device, and by railroad class. A final table in that section shows the number of multiple collision crossings 

by county.

The SAP includes a findings section that provides four conclusions related to the data analysis, with each 

of these conclusions offering two possible countermeasures to the trend.

Noteworthy Practices

The following are Indiana’s noteworthy practices:

 The strategy discussions include challenges to implementation.

 Collisions at grade crossings are immediately directed to the Indiana DOT Rail Office Section 

130 program manager for quick review. This rapid evaluation includes review of police reports, 

the corresponding inventory record, and the collision history to assist in determining possible 

improvements. 

 Indiana uses State motor vehicle collision reports to gather additional information regarding 

contributing factors for collisions not captured by the FRA incident reports and to combine with 

FRA incident reports to provide a more complete picture of the contributing factors in those 

collisions.

IOWA

Attributes of Plan

The Iowa SAP is 33 pages in length with a title page, table of contents, table of figures, and executive 

summary; sections are divided by major headings. Graphs and tables are used throughout to visualize 

data elements. There is no mention of outside consulting in the production of the plan.

The SAP begins with a clearly written executive summary that conveys the requirements to perform the 

report, what is included in the plan, the major findings of the data analysis, and the specific action items.

Adherence to SAP Mandate

Specific Solutions

Specific actions to include within the plan were selected from a broad list of possible solutions 

developed with input from the Office of Rail Transportation, Office of Traffic and Safety, and railroads. 

The selected actions are emphasized in terms of their affiliation with education, engineering, and 

enforcement. A fourth category of funding programs is also used. Each of the 12 actions identifies an 

expected timeline for implementation, most of which fall within the 5-year plan timeline. A later section 

discusses evaluation measurements for the action items.



APPENDIX B
 HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

47

Multiple-Crash/High-Risk Crossings

The extensive data analysis incorporates all crossings, including those with multiple collisions in recent 

years.

5-Year Period

The Iowa SAP clearly indicates on the title page that the plan is for the 5-year period from 2012 to 2016. 

Findings

Major Themes

The Iowa SAP includes a graphic that plots the trend of grade crossing collisions since 1980. As part 

of the graphic, the plan also incorporates upper and lower control limits and forecasts out to 2016. 

The conclusions indicate that the State’s goal is to maintain or improve the historic trend of accident 

reductions.

Special Conditions

No noteworthy special conditions exist for Iowa.

Analyses

The Iowa SAP includes an extensive crash data analysis organized into demographics, temporal, modal, 

and location groups. The significant findings section specifies that more analyses were conducted than 

is presented in the plan. Using the analyses, this section also presents typical collision conditions, such 

as the fact that the most typical driver of a vehicle that collides with a train is a male 25 years of age or 

younger.

Noteworthy Practices

The following are Iowa’s noteworthy practices:

 Iowa developed a list of possible solutions from input from the Office of Rail Transportation, Office 

of Traffic and Safety, and the railroads. These solutions were narrowed based on a wide array of 

considerations to determine the actions to pursue as part of the SAP.

 A section within the plan discusses the responsibilities of the entities involved in grade crossing 

safety and the expectations of those entities in achieving the goals of the SAP.

 Each action item has an associated expected timeline for implementation, and a discussion notes 

how the action items will be measured for progress. 

 Iowa calculates a benefit-cost calculation ratio number for each public grade crossing in the State 

annually.

APPENDIX B
HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

48

LOUISIANA

Attributes of Plan

The Louisiana SAP is 89 total pages in length. Louisiana developed a safety action plan in 2006, which 

was amended to meet the mandate. The plan provides a table of contents, graphics, and tables, and 

breaks the information down into sections with major headings. The flow of the report includes a main 

body that summarizes background information, lists the action items, and discusses programs. The 

appendix contains the 2006 SAP, amended action items, and a new data analysis for the time period 

preceding the new time frame.

Adherence to SAP Mandate

Specific Solutions

The Louisiana SAP contains a list of 12 clearly defined safety action items. Provided in a table, each item 

contains the action items, desired outcome, lead agency, and timeline/progress (what, why, who, and 

when).

Multiple-Crash/High-Risk Crossings

Both the original 2006 Louisiana SAP and the amended version performed extensive data analysis, which 

included evaluations of the multiple-collision grade crossings. The evaluations include a table of each 

of the multiple-collision crossings with the current protection level and the status of upgrades for those 

crossings.

5-Year Period

The Louisiana SAP clearly focuses on the action items within a 5-year period. 

Findings

Major Themes

Louisiana had proactively developed a safety action plan in 2006 that developed a wide-ranging list of 

action items. The latest plan is an amended version of the previously developed plan. 

Special Conditions

No noteworthy special conditions exist for Louisiana.

Analyses

Louisiana performed extensive data analysis for the 2006 SAP and updated that analysis for this SAP. 

Generally, all aspects of grade crossing collision data analysis are included within the SAP’s analyses, 

including an analysis of the crossings with multiple collisions in recent years. As an update to the 2006 

version, the new SAP offers some comparison between the 2006 and 2011 SAP data analyses.



APPENDIX B
 HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

49

Noteworthy Practices

The following are Louisiana’s noteworthy practices:

 Louisiana had developed a safety action plan prior to the mandate requiring one be performed. 

The new action plan was an amended version of the original.

 Each action item has a desired outcome, lead agency responsible for the item, and timeline for 

implementation (i.e., what, why, who, and when).

 A stakeholder meeting was held to assist with identifying the most appropriate safety action plan 

items for Louisiana. 

OHIO

Attributes of Plan

The Ohio SAP is 31 pages in length with a title page, table of contents, and sections divided by 

major headings. It uses subheadings, bullets, and graphics to more clearly delineate and present the 

information. It begins with the State’s mission or goal statement, followed by an executive summary 

and program description. Each of the six objectives is written in more of a template format than the 

remaining body text. This formulated structure clearly presents the objective, planned completion date, 

plans, and defined measures. The SAP concludes with the State inspection and grant programs, State 

program challenges, and State program contacts. There is no mention of using outside consultants to 

develop the SAP.

Adherence to SAP Mandate

Specific Solutions

The Ohio SAP includes six State safety program objectives. Each objective write-up includes a year 

initiated and year of planned completion. A problem statement defines the problem and is accompanied 

by a performance objective. For each objective, there are program strategies, activity plans, activity 

measures, and monitoring and evaluation. One objective has two strategies, while the others have one. 

Multiple-Crash/High-Risk Crossings

No mention or analysis of multiple-crash/high-risk crossings is included in the plan.

5-Year Period

The objectives included in the Ohio SAP present a clearly defined year of initiation and year of planned 

completion. Some of the objectives were initiated prior to the mandate to develop the SAP. The time 

horizons for the six objectives generally range between 2 and 10 years.

Findings

Major Themes

The State of Ohio recognizes the tremendous role railroads have played and continue to play in the State 

and views grade crossing and rail safety as an important activity. The Public Utility of Ohio maintains 

several programs that provide State money for grade crossing improvements.



APPENDIX B
HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

50

Special Conditions

Ohio has two State agencies participating in grade crossing safety activities. Each agency has a number 

of programs.

Analyses

No data analysis is presented in the Ohio SAP.

Noteworthy Practices

The following are Ohio’s noteworthy practices:

 Performance measurement for objectives and inspection programs seems to be a regular part of 

the program as a means of monitoring progress.

 The Public Utility Commission of Ohio maintains several programs that provide State money for 

grade crossing improvements.

 The Ohio Rail Development Commission maintains several different programs that allow for 

addressing grade crossing improvements from several perspectives.

 Each year the Public Utility Commission of Ohio contacts over 700 Ohio school districts, 

encouraging their transportation personnel to report any concerns with public grade crossings 

through which they travel.

 Through passage of a one-time legislation, the State administered a program that helped pay for 

profile improvements at crossings by decreasing the elevation between the roadway and railroad.

TEXAS

Attributes of Plan

The robust Texas SAP is 218 pages in length with a title page, table of contents, and sections divided by 

major headings. It uses subheadings, bullets, graphics, and maps throughout to display the information 

contained within the text. The 66-page main report contains four sections and an executive summary. 

Nine appendices contain additional information and extensive data analyses. The SAP was developed inhouse by Texas DOT’s Rail Division (crossing managers now belong to the Traffic Operations Division).

Adherence to SAP Mandate

Specific Solutions

Texas DOT held a stakeholder meeting where a diverse group of local traffic engineers, railroad partners, 

representatives from Texas Operation Lifesaver, and staff from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 

FRA, and TxDOT developed a list of action plan recommendations. The recommendations were developed 

under four program areas for grade crossing safety improvements: evaluation, engineering, education, 

and enforcement. The extensive list of action items is divided into two strategy categories: evaluation/

engineering and education/enforcement. The Texas SAP includes a section that offers an implementation 

timeline, where the action items are assigned to each fiscal year of the 5-year time frame.



APPENDIX B
 HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

51

Multiple-Crash/High-Risk Crossings

The Texas SAP contains a major data analysis section and two appendices that identify and analyze 

crossing locations with multiple crashes. The SAP also identifies significant findings for multiple-crash 

locations as part of the strategy development section and includes maps showing the location of each of 

the crossings that experience multiple crashes.

5-Year Period

The Texas SAP clearly focuses on the implementation of the identified action items over a 5-year period. 

It includes a section that offers an implementation timeline where the action items are assigned to each 

fiscal year of the 5-year time frame.

Findings

Major Themes

Texas has a large rail network and large number of highway-railway grade crossings. TxDOT used the 

knowledge and input of its many rail crossing safety partners to help facilitate the plan. 

Special Conditions

Passenger and commuter rail collisions were identified and included in the SAP.

Analyses

The Texas SAP performed a tremendous amount of data analysis, virtually examining grade crossings and 

grade crossing collisions in the State from every angle. Additional specific analyses were performed on 

the multiple-collision crossings.

Texas used the data analysis to determine major findings associated with grade crossing collision 

locations, casualty information, and highway users . A major section also presents significant findings 

associated with multiple-crash locations.

Noteworthy Practices

The following are Texas’s noteworthy practices:

 TxDOT held a stakeholder meeting where a diverse group of local traffic engineers, railroad 

partners, Texas Operation Lifesaver representatives, and staff from FHWA, FRA, and TxDOT 

developed a list of action plan recommendations.

 In addition to the overall stakeholder meeting, the SAP indicates that TxDOT worked closely with 

FRA to develop the action items.

 The Texas SAP includes a section that offers an implementation timeline, where the action items 

are assigned to each fiscal year of the 5-year time frame.

APPENDIX B

 HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

53

APPENDIX C

Blocked Highway-Railway Grade Crossings

Highway-railway grade crossings blocked by standing trains can pose multiple risks to public safety. 

Emergency response times can be dangerously impacted if responders find the fastest route to an 

incident is blocked by a train in a crossing. For example, Emergency Medical Technicians responding to 

a victim with heart attack symptoms could be delayed as they try to find an alternate route when the 

crossing is blocked by a standing train. Fire trucks and response teams, if forced to take another route 

because of a stopped train, may arrive at a fire scene too late to prevent major structure damage or to 

safely evacuate trapped victims. Delayed police response can lessen the chance to apprehend a criminal 

or prevent a more serious crime.

There may be other negative consequences when a train is stopped on a crossing as well. For example, 

a blocked crossing on a signed truck route can result in the detouring of large trucks over local streets 

not designed for their use and that cannot safely accommodate their large turning circles or heavy axle 

loadings. This can expose local neighborhoods to increased risk of collisions or blocked access when 

these trucks encounter difficulty maneuvering through small, local streets not intended for their use.

Blocked crossings can greatly impact pedestrians in areas with a significant amount of non-motorized 

users because any increase in detour routes significantly increases the time to travel between 

destinations at walking or cycling speeds. Blocked crossings near schools are especially critical safety 

hazards due to the potential for children to cut through the idling trains.

Blocked crossings can also create a time-consuming inconvenience on the motoring public as well. 

Travel to accomplish daily tasks such as commuting to work, school, shopping, and similar activities can 

create secondary ramifications that could affect quality of life, extend travel times, and increase vehicle 

emissions. Depending on the length of time that a crossing is blocked, the type of vehicles at a blocked 

crossing, and the configuration of the highway, drivers could experience dangerous or illegal responses 

if the driver attempts to seek an alternate route. Drivers also may try to “outrun the train” by speeding to 

cross the tracks before the oncoming train reaches the crossing at locations that are frequently blocked.

Identification and Evaluation of Safety Risks

While the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) does not collect data on blocked crossings, anecdotal 

evidence which includes a significant amount of correspondence seems to indicate the frequency at 

which highway-rail grade crossings are blocked by standing trains is increasing. Therefore, FRA strongly 

encourages States to address blocked crossings in their SAPs.

States should consider making a concerted effort to collect and track reports of blocked crossings. These 

reports can come from many sources such as local citizens, law enforcement, emergency responders, 

and parcel delivery drivers. Therefore, States are encouraged to publicize their efforts to collect and track 

reports of blocked crossings at stakeholder meetings. As data on crossing blockages is accumulated, 

trends in causation and negative effects can start to be extracted. However, effective data collection will 

depend upon creating a standardized data collection form with all relevant information the States want 

to receive from the blocked crossing report. Instructions for the form should indicate standard formats 

and syntax for recording blocked crossing information such as the street name, railroad involved, the 

locomotive numbers (if possible), the USDOT National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory number, and the 

time, date and duration of the blockage.
HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

54

Best Practices 

Improved Communication 

In cases where crossings are found to be regularly blocked at the same time of day, routine railroad 

operations may be contributing to the problem. Making contact with local railroad personnel should 

be the first step for localities seeking to reduce the number and duration of crossing blockages. FRA’s 

Regional Highway-Rail Crossing Managers can often provide contact information for local railroad 

personnel and help facilitate communication between the local community and the railroad.

It may well be that railroads can hold trains waiting to enter a yard or industry facility at a location that 

would not require blocking grade crossings. Railroads also can sometimes change places where trains 

wait to enter single track territory to avoid blocking a nearby crossing.

Localities and railroads can both benefit from improved working relationships with each other. 

Frequent interaction between local governments and railroad personnel on safety issues important 

to both parties can provide the opportunity to address the problems resulting from trains blocking 

grade crossings. Good working relationships can facilitate major mitigation projects, such as crossing 

consolidation and grade separations. Providing information to the motoring public, particularly in areas 

where block crossings occur frequently, can also mitigate travel challenges. Communication to highway 

travel management centers, which serve as highway travel communication hubs, will also assist with 

transportation operations.

Coordination between Emergency Services and Local Railroad Personnel

An improved relationship between the locality and the railroad can also provide greater understanding 

and collaboration to address the complex operational needs of modern emergency response agencies as 

well as the issues surrounding safe and efficient operation of the railroad. Once emergency services have 

established their preferred response routes for various neighborhoods or businesses, they should share 

those routes with the railroad so railroads can anticipate and avoid blocked crossing conflicts through 

good planning and cooperation. Similarly, when a highway-rail grade separation project is completed, 

the highway authority should contact local emergency services so those emergency services can adjust 

their preferred response routes to take full advantage of the newly enhanced accessibility provided by 

the grade separation structure.

Relocation of Railroad Infrastructure

Sometimes, where there are large railroad corridors carrying high volumes of rail traffic that cross busy 

arterials or run through city centers, it can become financially viable to consider relocating the railroad 

infrastructure (by means of a rail bypass or a rail grade separation project). An example is the Alameda 

Corridor in the Los Angeles area. This type of project requires large expenditures by railroads and can 

involve reconfiguration of local roadway networks to accommodate the new railroad facilities. Close 

collaboration between railroads and localities is central to the completion of such a large-scale planning 

and engineering undertaking.

Likewise, it is important to consider the potential of crossing blockages during the design phase of a new 

crossing or when evaluating the possible relocation of an existing crossing. For example, the likelihood 

of a crossing being blocked by a standing train is much less if the roadway crosses the tracks at a location 

other than one where trains meet or pass each other. Therefore, communication between the locality 

and the railroad to determine where a new highway-rail grade crossing should be located is critical.

APPENDIX C
 HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

55

Land-use Planning and Zoning Considerations

Localities with jurisdiction over land-use planning and zoning should always consider the location 

and number of grade crossings that could be impacted by long-term land development and the 

establishment of new residential developments that would be dependent on grade crossings for access 

into and out of new communities. For example, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) noted 

in its State Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Action Plan that it actively attempts to address the impacts new 

developments or planned future developments have on grade crossings and railroad corridors. The 

CPUC notes that it is more effective to address impacts during development rather than later during 

inspections or accident investigations.

When selecting a site for a new emergency services facility, localities should consider the location of 

nearby grade crossings and assess the potential negative impacts on response times that could result 

should a crossing become blocked during an emergency event.

Enforcement

Some State and local governments have laws or ordinances intended to limit the time a highwayrailway grade crossing may be blocked by trains or other rail equipment. Therefore, the State or local 

government could seek to enforce any relevant requirement it has. 

However, many State laws in this area have the effect of regulating aspects of railroad operations 

currently regulated by FRA (such as train speed, train length, air brake testing, other air brake safety 

requirements, and the operation of trains at crossings). Therefore, courts have found some State laws on 

this issue to be preempted, either by Federal railroad safety statutes and regulations, or by the Interstate 

Commerce Commission Termination Act, which establishes the general authority of the Surface 

Transportation Board over certain aspects of railroad operations.

Additional Signage

Where alternative routes exist which enable a motorist to avoid a blocked crossing, providing signs 

to reroute traffic is a way to mitigate the effects of the blocked crossing. One example of an excellent 

solution that mitigates the impacts of a blocked crossing is from downtown Kirkwood, MO. Amtrak 

trains servicing the passenger station in Kirkwood frequently block Kirkwood Road, a major arterial also 

known as US-61 and US-67. The street network is a grid. A parallel street one block from Kirkwood Road 

has an overpass over the tracks. When the Kirkwood Road’s crossing’s automatic warning devices are 

activated, a sign lights up on Kirkwood Road at the adjacent intersections on each side of the tracks that 

directs motorists to the overpass on the parallel street. The illuminated sign has an arrow that reads “Use 

Overpass 1 Block.” A driver unfamiliar with the area would probably not know there is an overpass one 

block away without the sign due to buildings blocking the view of the overpass.

APPENDIX C

 HIGHWAY-RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING ACTION PLAN

NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES 

57

Costs and Benefits of Various Crossing 

Improvements

There are a wide variety of crossing treatments that will improve crossing safety and may help mitigate 

blocked crossings. However, the costs of these treatments may vary greatly depending on the specific 

physical and operating characteristics of a crossing. The chart below provides a list of some of the 

common infrastructure improvements that reduce the risk of a crossing collision occurring. It also 

provides typical cost ranges and estimated risk reductions for the improvements.

Improvement Estimated Cost Range* Effectiveness**

No signs to passive (crossbuck assembly) $500 to $1500 25%

Passive to flashing lights $120,000 to $250,000 64%

Passive to flashing lights with gates $150,000 to $300,000 88%

Flashing lights to flashing lights with gates $150,000 to $250,000 44%

Flashing lights with gates to 4 quadrant gate system $250,000 to $500,000 82%

Flashing lights with gates to flashing lights with gates 

and medians

$30,000 and up depending on construction 

and right-of-way acquisition 80%

Flashing lights with gates to flashing lights with gates 

and channelization $15,000 75%

Grade separation $5M - $40M 100%

Closure $25,000 to $100,000 100%

* Based on 2015 dollars.

** The effectiveness of a treatment refers to the expected reduction in the number of highway-railway collisions at a location. It does not reflect a reduction in the severity 

of collisions or a reduction in the number of fatalities.

APPENDIX D


FHWA-SA-16-075

NOVEMBER 2016

For More Information:

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/