1

Pilot Programs 

for 

Emergency Notification Systems 

at 

Highway-Rail Grade Crossings 

A Report to Congress

Federal Railroad Administration 

Office of Safety 

May 2006
 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ...............................................................................................................3 

Background ............................................................................................................................3 

Main Findings ........................................................................................................................4 

Recommendations ..................................................................................................................4 

Background ............................................................................................................................6 

Historical Crossing Problem ..................................................................................................6

Texas Initiative .......................................................................................................................7 

Experience in Delaware and Connecticut ..............................................................................8 

FRA Actions ..........................................................................................................................8 

Congressional Action .............................................................................................................9 

Subsequent Railroad Actions .................................................................................................10

 NTSB Recommendation ...............................................................................................10 

 FRA Letter of Agreement with CSX Transportation, Inc. ............................................10 

 Major Railroads Follow Suit .........................................................................................12 

 Small Railroads .............................................................................................................12 

The FRA Response ................................................................................................................12 

Modernizing the Texas System ..............................................................................................13 

 Results - Review of 30 months’ data ............................................................................14 

Regional Collective Program .................................................................................................16

 Results - Review of data ...............................................................................................18 

Regional Railroad Demonstration Project .............................................................................18 

 Paducah and Louisville Railroad (P&L) .......................................................................18 

Conclusions ............................................................................................................................19 

Recommendations and FRA Actions .....................................................................................20 

Appendix A ............................................................................................................................21 

 Chapter 471 of Texas’ Transportation Code .................................................................21 

Appendix B ............................................................................................................................26 

 Title 49, U.S. Code, Sec. 20152, “Emergency Notification of Grade Crossing 

 Problems,” As Amended ...............................................................................................26 

Appendix C ............................................................................................................................27 

 Safety Action Agreement Executed with CSX Transportation, Inc. ............................27 

Appendix D ............................................................................................................................29 

 Samples of Texas ENS Data Analysis ..........................................................................29 

Appendix E ............................................................................................................................35 

 Memorandum of Understanding, September 20, 2000, between SEDA-COG JRA, 

 NSRAC, Clinton County Board of Commissioners, PennDOT and FRA ....................35 

Appendix F.............................................................................................................................36 

 Supplementary Information on the Pennsylvania Regional Collective Program .........36 
 3

Executive Summary 

Background 

In 1983, Texas established the first toll-free call-in program for the public to notify a 

State call center of problems at highway-rail crossings (crossings) equipped with 

automated warning devices. The State Call Center in turn notified the railroad involved. 

The call-in system required that a sign be posted at the crossing with the crossing’s 

unique identifying number under the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) National 

Crossing Inventory (Inventory), as well as a toll-free 1-800 telephone number. At the 

State’s Emergency Management Center there was a dedicated computer with a modified 

inventory data base that facilitated the call recipient’s identification of the relevant 

crossing and railroad. The Center operator then called the railroad and relayed the 

reported problem. Today, the Texas system handles more than 1,200 calls per month for 

the State’s public and private crossings, even though only those crossings equipped with 

active warning devices are equipped with the signs containing the call center’s toll-free 

telephone number. 

Following the successful establishment of this program in Texas, at the urging of the 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the National Transportation Safety Board 

(NTSB), our Nation’s major railroads have adopted similar systems for their crossings, 

sometimes including all crossings, i.e., not limited to just public crossings or to just those 

equipped with active warning devices. Currently, approximately 50 percent of all 

crossings are included in such a system. 

Over 90,000 crossings belonging to our Nation’s 600 short line railroads are not included, 

however. Most of these railroads do not have 24-hour operations, and most do not have 

the resources to establish such a call-in program. 

In 1994, Congress directed FRA to conduct pilot emergency notification system (ENS) 

projects in at least two States to demonstrate the efficiency of such programs. Funding 

for this effort was provided in Fiscal Year 1997. 

Initial efforts were spent in a cooperative effort with the Texas Department of Emergency 

Management evaluating the Texas system. Texas was designated one of the pilot States, 

and an extensive list of software, hardware, and operating improvements was developed. 

The FRA prepared and implemented new software on an upgraded system in 1999. After 

receiving comments and suggestions, further improvements were implemented in 2001 

when the Texas call center operation was transferred to the Texas Department of Public 

Safety. This 2001 version was modified for use by a 911 center in Clinton County, 

Pennsylvania with the participation of eight short-line railroads. A 30-month 

demonstration program was initiated in November 2001. 
 4

In 2002, an agreement was reached with the Paducah & Louisville Railroad (P&L) to 

conduct an additional pilot project (the third). This is a regional railroad with 24-hour 

operations. The FRA modified the software to accommodate the railroad’s needs, but 

implementation was delayed pending changing P&L management priorities and 

completion of a re-inventory of all of the railroad’s crossings. The program is currently 

operational. 

Main Findings 

The pilot projects in Texas and Pennsylvania have resulted in independently and 

successfully operating ENS programs. Fielding more than 1,200 calls per week, the 

Texas ENS system has likely resulted in the prevention of numerous accidents, injuries, 

and fatalities. Developed on a much smaller scale, the program in Pennsylvania has 

demonstrated that it is possible to create emergency call systems through the 

development of agreements with multiple railroads. The Pennsylvania program also 

showed the value of including all crossings, not just those with train-activated warning 

devices. 

The programs initiated and run by the major railroads have also provided valuable 

information, not only to the railroad which use it to focus maintenance efforts, but also to 

motorists seeking to notify railroads of problems. Because the crossings subject to these 

programs constitute the majority of crossings in the Nation, and because calls placed 

directly to 24-hour railroad operations centers are likely to be most effective in abating 

emergency situations, FRA does not believe that extending the Texas model to other 

States is necessary. The FRA notes that gaining the cooperation of a large number of 

additional State agencies would likely be very difficult, if not impossible. 

Because of the multiplicity of programs, however, FRA notes that there is considerable 

variety in the size, configuration, and information contained on the notification signs. 

This may make the signs somewhat confusing or hard for a motorist to read. The FRA 

believes that there will be substantial benefit to motorists if signs compliant with the 

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) were used at new installations, or 

where signs are replaced. 

Recommendations 

Based on the findings of this report, the FRA recommends:

1. Class I railroads continue to implement, augment, and review the emergency 

notification programs they have initiated. 

2. Smaller railroads, including commuter railroads, work cooperatively through the 

American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association, or another suitable 

organization or organizations, to establish emergency notification systems 
 5

serving member railroads. To facilitate such development, FRA would provide 

operating software and limited start-up funding. 

3. Signs hereafter installed or replaced at crossings be displayed prominently (e.g., 

mounted on signal masts where practicable) and that the signage be in 

compliance with the guidance in the MUTCD.

4. Any program that does not currently include passive crossings be expanded to 

include, at minimum, all such public crossings where it is practicable to do so. 

The FRA is taking specific actions to advance these recommendations that are described 

in the body of this report. 
 6

Background 

Historical Crossing Problem 

In 1970, Congress directed the Secretary of Transportation to submit a study of how best 

to protect or eliminate grade crossings across the Nation.1

 The FRA and the Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA) responded with a joint two-part report published in 

1971 and 1972.2 3 In 1972, then Secretary of Transportation, John A. Volpe, also 

announced an initiative, the goal of which was the reduction of grade crossing fatalities 

by 33 percent within 10 years. Congress responded in 1973 with the passage of the 

Highway Safety Act of 1973, which provided Federal funding for grade crossing 

improvements. By 1982, fatalities had dropped from 978 in 19754

 to 607, accomplishing 

Secretary Volpe’s objective. Due to continued efforts by the DOT, State, and local 

agencies, and the railroads, the number of grade crossing fatalities has continued to 

decline, falling to 368 in 2004. 

The Federal funding source established in the Highway Safety Act of 1973, known as the 

“Section 130 Program”, has been responsible for enabling significant safety 

improvements at the Nation’s grade crossings for more than 30 years.5

 The collision 

history illustrates the dramatic benefits these investments have had on improving safety at 

crossings. In 1975, there were 12,126 collisions at grade crossings, resulting in 917 

deaths. By 2004, the number of collisions had shrunk to 3,052 with 368 deaths. 

These decreases have occurred despite a significant increase of more than 14.8 percent in 

train traffic over the past decade and an increase of more than 23 percent in highwayvehicle-miles traveled over the same period. The number of fatalities has steadily 

declined from 615 deaths in 1994 to 368 in 2004. In fact, the incident rate per million 

train miles went from 7.6 in 1994 to 3.9 in 2004. 

It is important to note, however, that although there have been significant reductions in 

the number of accidents, injuries, and fatalities at grade crossings, such collisions remain 

the second leading cause of all rail-related fatalities in the U.S., accounting for nearly 41 

percent of those deaths. Further, grade crossing collisions pose a particular risk to train 

occupants. A singularly graphic illustration of this point occurred on March 15, 1999, in 

Bourbonnais, Illinois, when an Amtrak passenger train struck a tractor-semi trailer 

combination vehicle. According to NTSB, 11 passengers died and 122 were transported 

 

1 Section 204(a), Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 (Pub. L. No. 91-458), U.S. Code Congressional and 

Administrative News, Laws of 91st Congress, Second Session, Washington, DC., page 1133. 

2 FRA; FHWA. 1971. Railroad-highway safety, Part I: A comprehensive Statement of the problem, Report 

to Congress, Washington, DC., 95 pages, plus appendixes.

3 FRA; FHWA. 1972. Railroad-highway safety, Part II: Recommendations for resolving the problem, 

Report to Congress, Washington, DC, 108 p., page 58. 4

 Although grade crossing accident and incident data were collected prior to 1975, they are not directly 

comparable with subsequent data because of substantial changes in reporting requirements. 

5

 23 U.S.C. 130. 
 7

to local hospitals as a result of this accident.6

 In addition, between 1995 and 2004 

Amtrak trains collided with 304 unoccupied vehicles that were reported as stalled or 

stopped on railroad tracks at crossings.7

 

Texas Initiative 

With its vast territory and its extensive track mileage, the State of Texas has long had a 

significant proportion of the Nation’s total count of grade crossings, and a 

correspondingly large share of the Nation’s grade crossing accidents and casualties. In 

1982, there were 857 crossing collisions involving motor vehicles in Texas, roughly 

12.5 percent of the Nation’s total; in those collisions, 89 people lost their lives, nearly 

17 percent of the Nation’s grade crossing fatalities. The State’s proportion of public 

crossings, which numbered 14,631, however, did not entirely account for these high 

percentages, as they amounted to only about 7 percent of all public grade crossings. 

Recognizing a need for more aggressive action, in 1983 the Texas State Legislature

enacted, and the Governor signed, the Railroad Crossing Safety Information Act, since 

codified in Chapter 471 of Texas’ Transportation Code, establishing a State-wide toll-free 

“telephone service to report malfunctions of mechanical safety devices at crossings.” 

(See appendix A). 

This legislation provided a means for the public to notify authorities and railroads of 

malfunctioning warning devices at crossings. By enabling faster reporting of problems, 

and theoretically enabling repairs to be made sooner, the proposed notification system 

reduced the time during which the crossing warning devices were inoperable, thereby 

increasing the devices’ credibility in the eyes of motorists. Note that not all grade 

crossings are equipped with train-activated warning devices such as gates or flashing 

lights (those so equipped are known as active crossings), and that the system as 

established did not address how to report trouble at those crossings lacking active devices 

(passive crossings). It was considered important to address problems at active crossings, 

however, because more than half of all accidents occurred at active crossings. 

Under the Texas legislation, Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) is charged with 

receiving telephone reports of crossing problems, malfunctions, and emergencies, and 

with relaying that information to the appropriate railroads. The DPS is further charged 

with maintaining a computerized list of all crossings noting the installed equipment and 

the crossing number. The Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT) is tasked with 

providing a sign that displays “the telephone number, an explanation of its purpose, and 

the crossing number” for every public crossing that is equipped with active warning 

devices. 

 

6

NTSB, Collision of National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) Train 59 With a Loaded TruckSemitrailer Combination at a Highway/Rail Grade Crossing in Bourbonnais, Illinois, available on the web 

at http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2002/RA$0201.htm adopted June 14, 2004. 

7

Per information extracted from FRA=s Railroad Incident Reporting System (RIRS) a/o May 18, 2004. 
 8

The legislation also provided important protections, sheltering State agencies, State

political subdivisions, and railroads from lawsuits that might stem from the operation of 

the ENS. Sheltering the various entities from such litigation promoted the railroads’ 

cooperation and participation with the program. 

Implementation: TXDOT initially installed signs at the 2,002 crossings on the Statemaintained highway system that were equipped with active warning devices. The DPS 

established the telephone number, obtained computer lists of crossings (provided by the 

State Department of Highways and Public Transportation (SDHPT)) and railroad contact 

telephone numbers, prepared a log, and had the system in operation by September 1983. 

Despite the fact that the State made no effort to inform the public of this call-in 

opportunity (other than the signs at the crossings), in the first 4 months of operation 589 

calls were received for an average of slightly under 5 calls per day, or 148 per month. 

However, by late 1988, the call rate was over 13 per day, or 400 per month. 

Experience in Delaware and Connecticut 

In 1988, the State of Delaware contracted with the Consolidated Rail Corporation 

(Conrail) for the placement of signs at Conrail’s 183 public crossings. The State 

provided a toll-free telephone number for reporting problems. This program was later 

subsumed by successor railroads when Conrail was partitioned. 

In 1990, the State of Connecticut, with a small number of crossings (fewer than 400 

public crossings), directed railroads to place signs at approximately 150 active crossings 

where trains operate at speeds over 25 miles per hour. The signs advise callers to report 

problems at the crossings by telephoning 911. The 911 operators notify local police, who 

in turn call the railroads. 

As of 2004, there has been no assessment of either program. 

FRA Actions 

In the late 1980s, FRA contracted with the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) for an 

evaluation of the Texas railroad notification program (the 1-800 Program). The 

evaluation deemed the program a success. According to the evaluation, the toll-free 

number was accepted and used by the public, and when railroads were notified about 

reported crossing problems, they responded. The evaluation further indicated that the 

program was of relatively low cost, and did not place an undue burden on the 

participants, and, as it led to timely correction of problems, the program did in fact 

improve grade crossing safety.8

 

8

Lamkin, Jack T., Jr. and Richards, Hoy A., An Evaluation of the Texas 1-800 Program (TTI, College 

Station, TX), June 1989: p. i.
 9

The evaluation made several suggestions for improving the program, e.g., broadening the 

coverage to all of Texas’ active grade crossings rather than just those on the State 

highway systems, automating the crossing number lookup by providing a computer and 

databases (instead of hardcopy lists) to DPS, computerizing the log maintained by the 

DPS, and periodically providing summarized data to the SDHPT and the railroads. The 

evaluation opined that potential was lost by not using the logged data for program 

planning, maintenance, and upgrading. 

The TTI determined that costs were in the range of “$125-252 per location for start-up, 

and $9-$10 per location for annual operation.”9

Following review of this evaluation, FRA sought to promote the program to other States. 

The FRA republished the evaluation report, and a videotape presentation was prepared 

and distributed. The FRA continued to monitor the program. A second and more 

thorough evaluation was prepared in March 1992 that examined data through 1989;10 the 

call rate had risen to nearly 15 calls daily. In its 1994 Action Plan,11 DOT proposed a 

total automation of the system, but this effort was overtaken by action on the part of 

Congress. 

Congressional Action 

In 1994, Congress directed the Secretary of Transportation to: 

conduct a pilot program to demonstrate an emergency notification system 

utilizing a toll-free telephone number that the public can use to convey to railroad 

carriers, either directly or through public safety personnel, information about 

malfunctions or other safety problems at railroad-highway grade crossings. The 

pilot program, at a minimum-- 

 (1) shall include railroad-highway grade crossings in at least two States; 

 (2) shall include provisions for public education and awareness of the program; 

and 

 (3) shall require information to be posted at the railroad-highway grade crossing 

describing the emergency notification system and instructions on how to use the 

system. (See Appendix B, 49 U.S.C. 20152) 

 

9

Ibid, p. ii.

10Richards, Hoy A. and Lamkin, Jack T., Jr., Texas 1-800 Statistical Analysis (TTI, College Station, TX), 

March 1992.

11Rail-Highway Crossing Safety Action Plan Support Proposals (USDOT, FRA), June 13, 1994: p. 17.
 10

Based on this charge, FRA established the following five demonstration program goals: 

1. Provide a means for the public to notify railroads and safety responders of 

emergencies, malfunctions, and problems at crossings. 

2. Provide a means for the public to notify railroads and public authorities of 

suspicious activity on railroad rights-of-way. 

3. Provide a database for safety analysis and generate reports regarding malfunctions 

and recurrent problems. 

4. Improve highway-rail safety by responding to problems in a more timely fashion 

and thus improve the credibility of warning devices at crossings. 

5. Fulfill the requirements of both the Congressional mandate and DOT’s 1994 

Action Plan.12

Subsequent Railroad Actions 

NTSB Recommendation 

On May 2, 1995, a collision with a truck tractor-semitrailer combination vehicle near 

Sycamore, South Carolina, derailed southbound Amtrak Train 81 injuring 33 passengers. 

The truck in question was towing a low-clearance trailer that became lodged on the tracks 

at a high-profile or “humped” crossing. Though the truck driver attempted for 

35 minutes to dislodge the trailer, he did not notify the railroad or the police. There was 

no sign at the crossing indicating which railroad owned the track, no telephone number to 

report a problem, nor was the crossing’s National Inventory identification number posted. 

In its report on the accident, NTSB stated that had “emergency notification information 

been posted at the accident crossing, the truck driver may have used it to notify the 

railroad, thereby avoiding the accident.”13 As a consequence of this conclusion, NTSB 

recommended that Class I railroads and railroad systems: 

Develop and implement, without delay, a 24-hour toll-free emergency notification 

telephone system for use by the public in promptly reporting emergencies at all 

your highway-rail grade crossings, both active and passive, and provide 

information at each crossing to inform the public of the 24-hour telephone system. 

(Class II, Priority Action)(R-96-3)14

FRA Letter of Agreement with CSX Transportation, Inc. 

Following another Amtrak passenger train collision with an immobilized truck tractorsemi-trailer combination vehicle with low clearance at a crossing on October 9, 1997, 

CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) executed a Safety Action Agreement with FRA. (See 

 

12Ibid.

13Highway/Rail Grade Crossing Collision near Sycamore, South Carolina, May 2, 1995, Highway 

Accident Report (NTSB, Washington, DC), adopted March 11, 1996: p. 47.

14Ibid, p. 51.
 11

Appendix C.) The CSXT agreed to place emergency notification signs with a “1-800 

Telephone Number and Grade Crossing Identifier” at all crossings on the CSXT system. 

In addition, train dispatch center personnel were to be trained in the proper procedures to 

follow when receiving a call. This established a system-wide “1-800 Number System” 

on CSXT affecting nearly 24,000 crossings in 20 States. 

 

Photos of 1997 Amtrak Passenger Train Collision with Immobilized Truck TractorSemitrailer Combination Vehicle 

In addition, CSXT notified trucking companies about this initiative through Operation 

Lifesaver, Inc. presentations. Law enforcement agencies, fire departments, and schools 

were also advised. Additional staff was added at the CSXT train dispatch center. The 

CSXT estimated its initial costs at $125.00 per crossing.15 A year later, their total 

system-wide cost to establish and operate the program was estimated at $4.7 million. The 

CSXT notes the system has paid for itself, e.g., 47 tractor-trailer trucks had been reported 

as “stuck on tracks,”16 but collisions were successfully prevented. 

 

15The Highway & Rail Safety Newsletter, April 1998: p. 8. 16Total cost and number of calls provided by CSXT based on project status and calls received through 

November 25, 1998. 
 12

Major Railroads Follow Suit 

The CSXT experience and the efficacy of this program, along with the NTSB 

recommendation, were not lost on the other major (Class I) railroads. A poll conducted 

by FRA in late 1999 found that 56 percent of all public at-grade crossings would have a 

posted 1-800 Number by the end of 1999. For an additional 10 percent of all crossings, 

emergency telephone numbers were provided by the railroad to local emergency services 

organizations (e.g., police, fire, medical). These included crossings on the Burlington 

Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company, the Union Pacific Railroad Company, the 

Norfolk Southern System, the Illinois Central Railroad Company, and CSXT. This 

totaled 78 percent of all active crossings in the Nation. Some of the railroads were 

considering expanding their programs to include all public at-grade and private crossings. 

Small Railroads 

However, this individual railroad approach does not provide universal coverage. The 

smaller short line railroads, especially those without 24-hour operations and/or without 

central dispatch centers, are precluded. Only the Texas model, a State-based approach, 

includes all railroads. Unfortunately, other States were not receptive when approached 

and encouraged by FRA to consider an emergency notification system based on the 

Texas model. 

The FRA held brief discussions with some of the major railroads regarding the possibility 

of including small railroads in their systems. Under this approach, the short line 

railroads’ crossing inventory data would be included in the larger Class I railroad’s 

database. The larger railroads’ dispatch center would receive incoming toll-free calls and 

pass on the alert to the smaller railroads based on the inventory look-up. This approach 

was rejected outright by the major railroads based on significant liability concerns. 

FRA Response 

The Congressional mandate for “ENS” pilot programs prompted a rethinking and change 

of approach from the 1994 Action Plan initiative (total automation of the system) started 

by FRA earlier that same year. The FRA concluded that total automation (incoming tollfree calls answered by a computer) was not compatible with either Congress’ or the 

public’s perception of how an “emergency” call should be handled, and decided that the 

Texas model merited further consideration. 

However, development of a universal system based on the Texas model would have 

failed to take advantage of the railroad-based systems already in place or then being 

developed by the major railroads. In order to fulfill the Congressional mandate for 

demonstration projects in at least two States while at the same time not preempting ongoing railroad efforts, FRA planned a four-pronged approach: 
 13

1. Continue to encourage the major railroads to post their own signs at all of their 

crossings (public and private, active and passive) and to handle toll-free calls 

through their own 24-hour dispatch centers. 

2. As a demonstration, review and modernize the Texas program. 

3. As a demonstration, establish a regional collective program involving multiple 

local short line railroads. 

4. As a demonstration, assist a medium size regional railroad (one with operations 

24-7) to establish a program. 

Modernizing the Texas System 

By 1998, the Texas system had been operational for 15 years. The Texas DPS was 

handling, on average, more than 35 calls per day. Unfortunately, no funds were available 

for upgrading or even keeping the hardware, software, and files current. Though the 

system worked, there was no ability to address the program deficiencies identified during 

its 15 years of experience. A June 1998 joint review of the Texas system by FRA and the 

Department of Emergency Management (DEM) noted numerous opportunities for 

improvement. Following completion of this review, the Texas DPS expressed 

“enthusiastic” support for participating in the development of improved procedures and 

software as a demonstration for other States and railroads.17

In response to the deficiencies noted in the June 1998 review of the Texas system, a 

completely new system and software package was developed based on new computers 

and a current operating system. For example: 

1. Procedures were established for periodic downloading of State Inventory data 

from the National database via the FRA’s Office of Safety Web site and 

importing the data into the local ENS database. 

2. The new ENS software operates using Microsoft Windows 2000 and Windows 

XP Professional operating systems running Microsoft Access 2000 as its 

database. (While originally designed to operate with Windows 95 and 98, FRA 

and its contractor no longer support either Windows 95 or 98 because they do not 

meet DOT’s security access control requirements.) 

3. Based on caller-provided information, the new system allows for using county, 

city and/or street name/number to search for a crossing within the database. 

4. Written logs are no longer required or maintained. All incoming calls reporting a 

problem at a railroad crossing are logged and time-stamped by the ENS software 

as the data are entered by the operator. Similarly, outgoing calls to the 

appropriate railroads are also time-stamped by the ENS operator when the call is 

completed. 

 

17Millwee, Tom, State Coordinator, DEM, Texas DPS, letter to Mr. Thomas P. Woll, Highway Rail 

Crossing Safety Engineer, FRA, dated July 14, 1998. 
 14

5. The ENS software now has the optional capability to send a facsimile problem 

report directly to the railroad. (This requires the computer itself to have a fax 

modem and a direct telephone line available.) 

6. A data entry field is now available to the ENS operator to note actions attempted 

(e.g., calls made to the railroad but not answered, or being placed on hold by the 

railroad). An operator can quickly redisplay any problems awaiting 

communication or resolution with the railroad at any time for further action. 

7. The new ENS has an integrated map display for each State that shows the 

locations of the crossings and rail lines overlaid on a street map. Crossings 

identified within ENS can easily be shown on the appropriate map display. 

Likewise, selecting any crossing on the map will display the crossing 

identification number and additional information about the type of crossing, its 

ownership, and warning devices installed at the crossing. 

A prototype system was installed at the Texas DPS in December 1999. After receiving 

comments regarding operation of the prototype system and concurrent with a change in 

venue, a revised and yet again improved system was installed in DPS’ Special Police 

Operations in June 2001. 

Results - Review of 30 months’ data 

During the 30-month period beginning on July 1, 2001, and 

ending on December 31, 2003, Texas DPS ENS logged 37,549 

calls. The average number of calls per month was 1,252 for 62 

individual railroads out of a total of 69 railroads operating in 

the State of Texas. Interestingly, 10 of these railroads received 

96 percent of the calls. Table 1 presents a summary of the 

calls received by DPS for the 30-month period. Callers 

reported problems at 4,798 crossings on 

62 different railroads. Significantly, of the 4,798 crossings reported, 48 specific 

crossings each were the subject of 50 or more calls. These 48 crossings accounted for 

3,331 calls, nearly nine percent of all calls received. Thirty-seven of these crossings, 

which generated 2,610 calls, belong to one railroad. Texas DPS discussed the reports 

with the railroad involved; FRA does not know the results of these discussions. 

Dispatcher Operating the ENS Software
 15

Table 1. Summary of ENS calls received between July 

2001 and December 2003 

Number of 

Calls 

Number of 

Railroads 

Number of 

Crossings 

Monthly Call 

Average 

37,549 62 4,798 1,252 

Each caller identified a crossing location and stated a problem. Other data were entered 

when appropriate, or automatically generated based on the crossing number selected. 

Table 2 lists the data captured. The resulting database provides sufficient information to 

assess trends and issues affecting crossings. 

Table 2. Data recorded as a result of an ENS call 

Caller supplied data Automatically generated data 

Crossing ID number Call date and time 

Caller type Location (State, County, and City) 

Location Railroad 

Problem type Railroad milepost 

As mentioned above, 48 crossings were the subject of 50 or more calls each. Data from 

the ENS system were analyzed to shed light on the problems at these crossings, as shown 

in Table 3. 

Table 3. Reported problem types for crossings that were the subject of more than 

50 calls

Number of Calls 

Number of 

Crossings 

Problem Type Cited 

Signals Trains Other 

Over 50 48 77% 18% 5% 

Over 60 29 76% 18% 6% 

Over 75 12 71% 25% 5% 

As suggested by this quick analysis, the ENS databases can be used to identify problem 

areas that could be effectively addressed. Highway and railroad officials may also use 

the databases to guide and schedule their program and/or site reviews, or prioritize 

crossing maintenance and upgrades. Further examples of analyses that these data can be 

used to produce are contained in Appendix D. 
 16

Regional Collective Program 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) As noted previously, one of FRA’s intended 

responses to address the Congressional requirement for demonstration projects was to 

develop a regional collective program involving multiple local short line railroads. In the 

autumn of 2000, an agreement was reached and signed (September 20, 2000) "to conduct 

a pilot program to demonstrate an emergency notification system using a toll-free 

telephone number for the public to report malfunctions and/or other safety problems at 

highway-rail grade crossings." The pilot project was to span 30 months (see Appendix E) 

and began on October 15, 2001. The following parties were signatories: 

 Susquehanna Economic Development Authority Council of Governments' Joint 

Rail Authority (SEDA-COG's JRA) 

 North Shore Railroad and Affiliated Companies (NSRAC) 

 Clinton County Board of Commissioners 

 Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) 

 FRA 

The project involved the following eight short line railroads: 

 Juniata Valley Railroad (JVRR) 

 Lycoming Valley Railroad (LVRR) 

 Nittany and Bald Eagle Railroad (NBER) 

 North Shore Railroad (NSHR) 

 Shamokin Valley Railroad (SVRR) 

 Stourbridge Railroad (SBRR) 

 Union County Industrial Railroad (UCIR) 

 Wellsboro and Corning Railroad (WCOR) 

The first five railroads are part of SEDA-COG JRA, and the latter three belong to 

NSRAC. The eight short line railroads included in this pilot program operate over 

approximately 251 railroad miles throughout central and northeastern Pennsylvania. 

Funding, Signing, Inventory, and Call Center A budget plan for the 30-month 

demonstration called for expenditures of $222,500 either in direct funding or in-kind 

services (e.g., installing signs). Appendix F shows a breakdown of these expenditures. 

The Project Plan called for an MUTCD-compliant sign (white text on a blue background 

with a white border, all reflective) with the following message:18

 

18SEDA-COG Joint Rail Authority, FRA Progress Report I, May 1, 2002, p. 4.
 17

The signs for public crossings were to be paid for by PennDOT using Section 130 grade 

crossing improvement funds. The FRA was to pay for signs at private crossings at an 

average cost of $19 per sign, including delivery.19 The railroads agreed to pay for 

installation, which averaged $148 per crossing.

The Project Plan noted that "[i]t is extremely important that there is complete and 

accurate data available for all crossings which are covered under a 1-800 ENS system."20 

As with Texas' ENS, the National Crossing Inventory retained by FRA provided the 

crossing data incorporated in the ENS database. Participants, therefore, conducted field 

surveys to ensure that the National Inventory was updated appropriately. The field 

surveys resulted in a determination that the number of at-grade crossings on the eight 

railroads was 414, of which 119 were equipped with train-activated signals.21 Only 320 

crossings (229 public and 91 private) were actually signed. The remaining 94 were not 

signed "for various reasons, including public access restrictions, usage limitations and 

geographical isolation." Most of the unsigned crossings were restricted to "farm use, 

while others were for seasonal access to dwellings, or it was determined that the risk/cost 

of vandalism to ENS signs was prohibitive."22

Participants determined that the most efficient implementation involved partnering with 

an existing 911 Call Center.23 The Clinton County Communications Center in Lock 

Haven, Pennsylvania, agreed to participate in the program. The FRA agreed to defray 

start-up costs to include all computer and telephone connection hardware and software. 

The NSRAC agreed to underwrite the Communication Center's on-going service costs by 

providing up to $100 monthly,24 with FRA covering the excess. (Over the first 6 months 

service fees totaled $2,700 or $450 per month.)25 

 

19 Ibid, FRA Progress Report I, p.4. 20Ibid., FRA Project Plan, p. 7. 21Numbers compiled from the National Crossing Inventory as of June 9, 2004. 22FRA Pilot Project Emergency Notification System for Shortline Railroads in the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania, Progress Report II Summary, undated: p. 1-2. 23Ibid., FRA Project Plan, p. 7. 24Ibid., FRA Project Plan, p. 10-11. 25Ibid., SEDA-COG Joint Rail Authority 

Figure 1. MUTCD-Compliant Sign 
 18

Results - Review of data 

The demonstration officially started October 15, 2001. In the following 19 1⁄2 months, 

through 31 May 2003, the Clinton County Communications Center received 124 calls. In 

the first 3 months they received four calls. In the last 3 months they received 22. It was 

“anticipated that the system would receive approximately six to eight calls per week....”26 

It should be noted that three of the railroads (with 90 crossings, 

22 signalized) did not participate during the first year. 

During a 6-month period of the demonstration project, information was sought from the 

railroads regarding their follow-up. Of the 30 calls where signal malfunctions were cited, 

the railroads reported that the warning devices were functioning, but no train was present 

in 19 instances. Six of the 30 calls reported that signals had failed to activate when a 

train was present; at two of these, testing found no problem, while at four others, it was 

found that the signals were indeed out of service, and that railroad flagmen were on hand. 

In three of the 30 cases, damaged equipment was found. Two calls were determined not 

to be credible. 

Regional Railroad Demonstration Project 

Paducah and Louisville Railroad (P&L) 

On April 9, 2002, the P&L provided a letter outlining its agreement to establish an ENS 

pilot project using the system and software developed by FRA for the States of Texas and 

Pennsylvania. The FRA modified the software to meet the needs of a single railroad 

user. The P&L declined, for liability reasons, to include other short line railroads in the 

project. 

Due to various P&L management priorities, little progress was made until spring 2004, 

when P&L reaffirmed its interest in moving forward with the project. In the ensuing 

months, P&L performed a total re-inventory of all its passive and active public and 

private crossings. This was completed in December 2004. The FRA made further 

changes to the software to accommodate the request of P&L management to provide a 

street address for each crossing as well as hard copies of the data. Texas has also 

expressed an interest in the street address option. With the inventory complete and the 

system hardware in place, FRA re-installed the ENS Software and retrained the staff on 

February 15, 2005, making the entire P&L Railroad ENS System operational. 

The P&L currently has signs at signalized crossings (self-adhesive signs on signal 

cabinets) advising the public of a crossing’s number and presenting a toll-free number to 

call. (No records of calls are kept.) The P&L has approached the Commonwealth of 

Kentucky’s Department of Transportation regarding funding for procurement and 

installation of signs conforming to MUTCD requirements. 

 

26Ibid., FRA Project Plan, p. 6. 
 19

Conclusions 

The purpose of a railroad ENS is to enhance highway and rail safety by providing the 

motoring public the means to conveniently and efficiently notify the proper public and 

railroad authorities of problems at crossings. The pilot programs, both in Texas and 

Pennsylvania, have done this and more. Not only is the general public afforded a quick 

and easy means of alerting railroad officials of problems, but also commercial motor 

vehicle operators and public officials (police, school districts, city, county, and State 

employees) have made calls. The preponderance of calls have reported broken or 

malfunctioning warning devices, but other calls have reported trains blocking crossings, 

rough roadway surfaces, obstructions on tracks (often vehicles that are stuck,) fires, 

vandalism, trespassers, etc. Trains have been slowed or stopped to avoid obstructions. 

Warning devices have been repaired more quickly because railroads have been provided 

more timely notifications that problems existed. 

One key element to the success of both the Texas ENS and the regional collective 

program in Pennsylvania has been incorporation of data from a current and accurate 

National Inventory. With accurate National Inventory information, call recipients have 

been able to correctly identify the railroad involved, and to determine important 

characteristics of the crossing, including the presence of warning devices and expected 

traffic levels. 

The protection from litigation that the Texas legislature established for its ENS was also 

beneficial. The railroads involved in Texas were reluctant to participate in the program 

because of concerns that such participation might increase their liability exposure. 

Explicitly protecting ENS-related data, therefore, ensured the participation of the 

railroads (see Appendix A, Texas Transportation Code, §471.1003(f), 1995.) 

The two pilot projects in Texas and Pennsylvania have resulted in independently and 

successfully operating ENS programs. Fielding more than 1,200 calls per week,Texas 

ENS system has likely resulted in the prevention of numerous accidents, injuries, and 

fatalities. Developed on a much smaller scale, the program in Pennsylvania has 

demonstrated that it is possible to create emergency call systems through the 

development of agreements with multiple railroads. The Pennsylvania program also 

showed the value of including all crossings, not just those with train-activated warning 

devices. 

The programs initiated and run by the major railroads have also provided valuable 

information, not only to the railroads that use it to focus maintenance efforts, but also to 

motorists seeking to notify railroads of problems. 

Because of the multiplicity of programs, however, FRA notes that there is considerable 

variety in the size, configuration, and information contained on the notification signs. 

This may make the signs somewhat confusing or hard for a motorist to read. The FRA 

believes that there will be substantial benefit to motorists if MUTCD-compliant signs are 

used at new installations, or where signs are replaced. 
 20

Recommendations and FRA Actions 

Based on the findings of this report, FRA makes the following recommendations and will 

encourage implementation of those recommendations as follows: 

 Recommendation: Class I railroads should continue to implement, augment, and 

review the emergency notification programs they have initiated. 

FRA Actions: The FRA will continue to work through its Railroad System 

Oversight Managers to encourage those railroads that have not provided signage 

for all crossings to do so. The FRA regions will also be asked to verify with 

Amtrak and commuter railroads that lines which they own and maintain are 

included in emergency notification systems and that proper signage is displayed. 

 Recommendation: Smaller railroads, including commuter railroads, should work 

cooperatively through the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association, 

or another suitable organization or organizations, to establish emergency notification 

systems serving member railroads. 

FRA Actions: To facilitate such development, FRA would provide operating 

software. In addition, FRA would consider provision of limited start-up funding 

for a combined ENS center serving small railroads. It is emphasized, however, 

that such a function would benefit the participating railroads and should be swiftly 

transitioned to fee-based cost recovery. 

 Recommendation: Signs hereafter installed or replaced at crossings should be 

displayed prominently to crossing users (e.g., mounted on signal masts where 

practicable); and that signage should be in compliance with MUTCD guidance.

FRA Actions: The FRA worked with FHWA to identify appropriate MUTCDcompliant signage for this purpose, and FRA will communicate through 

dissemination of this report and other means the importance of utilizing this 

signage as signs are replaced and as additional signs are installed. 

 Recommendation: Finally, FRA recommends that any program that does not 

currently include passive crossings be expanded to include, at minimum, all such 

public crossings where it is practicable to do so. 

FRA Actions: The FRA will encourage all railroads to fill out their ENS 

programs with appropriate signage at public crossings and private crossings 

providing public access (e.g., to industrial parks, shopping centers, residential 

developments). 
 21

Appendix A 

Chapter 471 of Texas’ Transportation Code 

TRANSPORTATION CODE 

SUBTITLE Z. MISCELLANEOUS ROADWAY PROVISIONS 

CHAPTER 471. RAILROAD AND ROADWAY CROSSINGS 

' 471.001. DUTY TO MAINTAIN CROSSINGS. 

(a) A railway company shall maintain the part of its roadbed and right-of-way that 

is crossed by a public street of a Type B general-law municipality in proper condition for 

use by travelers. 

(b) A railway company that does not make needed repairs before the 31st day 

after the date the municipal marshal gives written notice to the section boss of the section 

where repairs are needed is liable to the municipality for a penalty of $25 for each week 

the railway company does not make needed repairs. The municipality may sue to recover 

the penalty. 

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, ' 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. 

' 471.002. SIGNS AT CROSSINGS. 

(a) A railway company shall place at each place where its railroad crosses a first 

or second class public road a sign with large and distinct letters giving notice that the 

railroad is near and warning persons to watch for railroad cars. The sign must be high 

enough above the road to permit the free passage of vehicles. 

(b) A railway company that does not erect a sign required by Subsection (a) is 

liable for a resulting injury to a person or resulting damage to property. 

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, ' 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. 

' 471.003. TELEPHONE SERVICE TO REPORT MALFUNCTIONS OF 

MECHANICAL SAFETY DEVICES AT CROSSINGS. 

(a) The Department of Public Safety shall maintain a State-wide toll-free 

telephone service to receive a report of a malfunction of a device, including a signal or 

crossbar, placed at an intersection of a railroad track and a public road to promote safety. 

(b) At each intersection of a railroad track and a public road that is maintained by 

the State or a municipality and at which a mechanical safety device is placed, the Texas 

Department of Transportation shall affix on the crossbars of the device the telephone 

number, an explanation of its purpose, and the crossing number. At each intersection of a 

railroad track and a public road that is maintained by a political subdivision other than a 

municipality and at which a mechanical safety device is placed, the political subdivision 

shall affix on the crossbars of the device the telephone number, an explanation of its 

purpose, and the crossing number. The Texas Department of Transportation shall 
 22

provide to the political subdivision the sign or label displaying the telephone number. A 

railway company shall permit personnel to affix the telephone number on the company's 

property as required by this subsection. 

(c) The Department of Public Safety shall notify the identified railway company 

of each report of a malfunction received under Subsection (a). 

(d) The Department of Public Safety shall maintain a computerized list of each 

intersection of a railroad track and a public road and of the railroad crossing safety 

equipment located at each intersection, using crossing numbers compiled by the Texas 

Department of Transportation. 

(e) Not later than the fifth day after the date it places railroad crossing safety 

equipment in operation at an intersection subject to this section, a State agency or a 

political subdivision of the State other than a municipality shall notify the Department of 

Public Safety of: 

(1) Location and type of the equipment installed; and 

(2) Date it was placed in operation. 

(f) The State, an agency or political subdivision of the State, or a railway 

company is not liable for damages caused by an action taken under this section or failure 

to perform a duty imposed by this section. Evidence may not be introduced in a judicial 

proceeding that the telephone service required by this section exists or that the State or 

railway company relies on the service. 

(g) Except as provided by Subsection (d), a State agency is not required to make 

or retain a permanent record of information obtained in implementing this section. 

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, ' 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. 

' 471.004. WARNING SIGN VISIBILITY AT RAILROAD GRADE CROSSINGS. 

(a) The department shall develop guidelines and specifications for the installation 

and maintenance of reflecting material at each unsignaled crossing. The material shall be 

affixed to the back and support post of each crossbuck in a manner that reflects light from 

vehicle headlights to focus attention on the presence of the unsignaled crossing. 

(b) The department shall pay the cost of initial installation of reflecting material 

from money appropriated to the department to maintain grade crossing warning devices. 

The department or the local jurisdiction responsible for maintaining the roadway at each 

grade crossing shall pay the maintenance costs of the material. 

(c) The State, an agency or political subdivision of the State, or a railway 

company is not liable for damages caused by an action taken under this section or failure 

to perform a duty imposed by this section. Evidence may not be introduced in a judicial 

proceeding that reflecting material exists or that the State or railway company relies on 

the material. 

(d) The department shall adopt rules governing the installation and maintenance 

of reflecting material at grade crossings. 

(e) A railway company shall permit department personnel to affix the reflecting 

material on the company's property. 

(f) In this section: 

(1) "Active warning device" means an automatically activated warning 

device, including a bell, flashing light, gate, or wigwag. 
 23

(2) "Crossbuck" means a standard grade crossing warning sign designated 

as Number R 15-1 and described in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control

Devices issued by the United States Department of Transportation, Federal 

Highway Administration. 

(3) "Department" means the Texas Department of Transportation. 

(4) "Grade crossing" means the intersection at grade of a railroad and a 

roadway constructed and maintained with public money. 

(5) "Reflecting material" means material that reflects light so that the 

paths of the reflected light rays are parallel to those of the incident rays. 

(6) "Unsignaled crossing" means a grade crossing not protected by active 

warning devices. 

(7) "Warning device" means a traffic control sign, including an active 

warning device or crossbuck, the purpose of which is to alert motorists of a grade 

crossing. 

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, ' 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. 

' 471.005. DISMANTLING OF WARNING SIGNALS AT RAILROAD GRADE 

CROSSINGS; OFFENSE. 

(a) A person may not dismantle a warning signal at a grade crossing on an active 

rail line, as defined by rule of the Texas Department of Transportation, if the cost of the 

warning signal was originally paid entirely or partly from public money unless the 

person: 

(1) Obtains a permit from the governmental entity that maintains the road 

or highway that intersects the rail line at the grade crossing; and 

(2) Pays that governmental entity an amount equal to the present salvage 

value of the warning signal, as determined by the governmental entity. 

(b) The governmental entity shall grant the permit if: 

(1) Payment is received; and 

(2) The entity finds that removal of the warning signal will not adversely 

affect public safety. 

(c) Money received under Subsection (a)(2) shall be deposited in the State 

treasury. 

(d) This section does not apply to a Class I or Class II railroad, as defined by 

Inter-State Commerce Commission regulations. 

(e) A person commits an offense if the person violates this section. An offense 

under this section is a Class C misdemeanor. 

(f) The Texas Department of Transportation may adopt rules necessary to 

administer this section. 

(g) In this section: 

(1) "Grade crossing" has the meaning assigned by Section 472.004(f). 

(2) "Warning signal" means a traffic control device that is activated by the 

approach or presence of a train, including a flashing light signal, an automatic 

gate, or a similar device that displays to motorists a warning of the approach or 

presence of a train. 
 24

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, ' 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. 

' 471.006. USE OF BELL AND WHISTLE OR SIREN AT CROSSINGS; OFFENSE. 

(a) A railway company shall place on each locomotive: 

(1) A bell weighing at least 30 pounds; and 

(2) A steam whistle, air whistle, or air siren. 

(b) The engineer in charge of the locomotive shall ring the bell and blow the 

whistle or siren at least one-quarter mile from the place where the railroad crosses a 

public road or street. The engineer shall continue to ring the bell until the locomotive has 

crossed the road or stopped. 

(c) The railway company is liable for any damages sustained by a person because 

of a violation of Subsection (a) or (b). 

(d) The engineer in charge of the locomotive commits an offense if the engineer 

violates Subsection (b). An offense under this subsection is a misdemeanor punishable 

by a fine of not less than $5 or more than $100. 

(e) Notwithstanding Subsections (a) and (b), the governing body of a municipality 

having a population of at least 5,000 may regulate by ordinance the ringing of bells and 

blowing of whistles and sirens within its limits. Compliance with the ordinance is 

compliance with those subsections and a sufficient warning to the public at a crossing the 

ordinance affects. 

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, ' 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. 

' 471.007. OBSTRUCTING RAILROAD CROSSINGS; OFFENSE. 

(a) A railway company commits an offense if a train of the railway company 

obstructs for more than 10 minutes a street, railroad crossing, or public highway. 

(b) An offense under this section is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not 

less than $100 or more than $300. 

(c) An officer charging a railway company for an offense under this section shall 

prepare in duplicate a citation to appear in court and attach one copy of the citation to the 

train or deliver the copy to an employee or other agent of the railway company. The 

citation must show: 

(1) The name of the railway company; 

(2) The offense charged; and 

(3) The time and place that a representative of the railway company is to 

appear in court. 

(d) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the train obstructs the 

street, railroad crossing, or public highway because of an act of God or breakdown of the 

train. 

(e) The hearing must be before a magistrate who has jurisdiction of the offense in 

the municipality or county in which the offense is alleged to have been committed. 

(f) An appearance by counsel complies with the written promise to appear in 

court. 

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, ' 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., 

ch. 1023, ' 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999. 
 25

' 471.008. FRANCHISE TO OBSTRUCT STREET CROSSING. 

(a) The governing body of a municipality by ordinance may grant a franchise to a 

railway company to obstruct a street crossing, other than a crossing of a designated State 

highway, by a passenger train for the purpose of receiving or discharging passengers, 

mail, express, or freight for a longer period than specified by Section 472.007. 

(b) Section 471.007 does not apply to a street crossing named in an ordinance 

granting a franchise under this section. 

(c) This section does not apply to a municipality having a special charter unless it 

amends its charter to adopt this section. 

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, ' 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. 
 26

Appendix B 

Title 49, U.S. Code, Sec. 20152, “Emergency Notification of Grade Crossing 

Problems,” As Amended 

TITLE 49--TRANSPORTATION 

SUBTITLE V--RAIL PROGRAMS 

PART A--SAFETY 

CHAPTER 201--GENERAL 

SUBCHAPTER II--PARTICULAR ASPECTS OF SAFETY 

Sec. 20152. Emergency notification of grade crossing problems 

 (a) Pilot Programs.--The Secretary of Transportation shall conduct a pilot 

program to demonstrate an emergency notification system utilizing a toll-free telephone 

number that the public can use to convey to railroad carriers, either directly or through 

public safety personnel, information about malfunctions or other safety problems at 

railroad-highway grade crossings. The pilot program, at a minimum-- 

 (1) shall include railroad-highway grade crossings in at least 2 States; 

(2) shall include provisions for public education and awareness of the program; 

and 

(3) shall require information to be posted at the railroad-highway grade crossing 

describing the emergency notification system and instructions on how to use the 

system. 

The Secretary may, by grant, provide funding for the expense of information signs and 

public awareness campaigns necessary to demonstrate the notification system. 

 (b) Report.--The Secretary shall complete the pilot program not later than 24 

months after November 2, 1994, and shall submit to Congress not later than 30 months 

after November 2, 1994, an evaluation of the pilot program, together with findings as to 

the effectiveness of such emergency notification systems. The report shall compare and 

contrast the structure, cost, and effectiveness of the pilot program with other emergency 

notification systems in effect within other States. Such evaluation shall include analyses 

of the safety benefits derived from the programs, cost effectiveness, and the burdens on 

participants, including railroad carriers and law enforcement personnel. 

(Added by Pub. L. 103-440, title III, Sec. 301(a), Nov. 2, 1994, 108 Stat. 4626; amended 

by Pub. L. 104-287, Sec. 5(50), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3393.) 

Amendments 

1996--Subsec. (b). Pub. L. No. 104-287 substituted ``November 2, 1994'' for ``the date 

of enactment of this section'' and ``November 2, 1994, an evaluation'' for ``that date an 

evaluation''. 
 27

Appendix C 

Safety Action Agreement Executed with CSX Transportation, Inc. 
 28
 29

 Appendix D 

Samples of Texas ENS Data Analysis 

Problem Type Problem Subtypes 

Accident Auto/Auto 

Auto/Train 

Pedestrian/Train 

Other 

Bridge Not Safe 

Debris/Trash On/Near Crossing 

On/Near Tracks 

Derailment of Train 

Fire Grass 

Equipment 

Flooding of Tracks 

Information request for 

Obstruction On Tracks 

On Crossing 

Other/Miscellaneous 

Road Surface Rough Crossing (Planks or Holes) 

Defective Track 

Hump Crossing 

Other 

Sign Crossbuck Sign Broken/Down/Missing 

Other Warning Sign Broken/Missing 

Signals Activated - No Train 

Broken 

Damaged 

Defective 

Not Activated by Train 

Other 

Road Blocked 

Track Rails 

Ties 

Spikes 

Train Blocking Crossing 

Passing Train Equipment Problems 

Sparks Produced by Train Cars 

Other 
 30

Problem Type Problem Subtypes 

Trespasser on Tracks 

Vehicle (Hwy) Stalled/Stopped on Tracks 

Wires/Cables Hanging Down Across Tracks 

View Blocked by Parked Railroad Cars 

by Vegetation 

Warning Needed at Crossing 

Table 1. Highway-Rail Crossings 

in the State of Texas 

Source: FRA’s National Highway-Rail 

Crossing Inventory a/o Feb. 2003

Description Number

"At-Grade" (level) 

Crossings 

17,929

 Public 11,780

 Private 6,116

 Pedestrian 33

Table 2. Summary of ENS 

Received Calls between July 2001 

and December 2003

Description Number

Calls 37,549

Unique Railroads 62

Unique Crossings 4,798

Average Calls per Month 1,252

Ten Railroads Account for 

96% of all Calls 36,218
 31

Table 3. ENS Call Record Data 

Data Provided by Caller Generated Data 

Crossing Number Call Date and Time 

Caller Type State, County and City 

Location (address, road, etc.) Railroad 

Problem Type Mile Post 

Figure 1. Number of Calls to ENS System per Month, July 2001–December 2003 

(Texas)

Number of Calls Per Month

1484

1673

1498

1334

1255

1080 1060

1179

1228 1252 1280 1273

1470

1386

1236

1129

832 848

1003

931

1156 1201

1394 1377 1370

1441 1402

1338

1229

1169

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Jul-01

Sep-01

Nov-01

Jan-02

Mar-02

May-02

Jul-02

Sep-02

Nov-02

Jan-03

Mar-03

May-03

Jul-03

Sep-03

Nov-03

Month

Number of Calls
 32

Average Number of Calls By Time of Day

0.78

0.63

0.48 0.46 0.35

0.60

1.16

1.96

2.59 2.55 2.52

2.86 2.86

2.59

2.78

3.04

2.82

2.39

1.90

1.61

1.13 1.09

0.80

1.02

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Hour

Average Number of Calls

Figure 2. Average Number of Calls over a 24-Hour Period (Texas) 

Table 4. Caller Types 

ID Type ID Type 

1 City Employee 5 Public 

2 County 

Employee 

6 Railroad 

3 Law Enforcement 7 School District

4 Other 8 TXDOT 
 33

Number of Calls By Caller Type

2.3% 0.3%

32.9%

2.0%

58.7%

0.6% 2.2% 1.1%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

City Employee

County Employee

Law Enforcement

Other

Public

Railroad

School District

Texas DOT

Caller Type

Percentage of Calls

Figure 3. Number of Calls by Caller Type (Texas) 

Number of Calls By Problem Type

0.4% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 1.1% 0.8% 1.2% 2.8% 0.0%

78.0%

1.3%

13.2%

0.0% 0.7% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

Accident

Bridge

Debris/Trash

Derailment

Fire

Flooding

Information

Obstruction

Other/ Misc

Road Surface

Sign

Signals

Track

Train

Trespasser

Vehicle (Highway)

View Blocked

Warning Needed

Wires / Cable

Problem Type

Percentage of Calls

Figure 4. Calls Based on Problem Type (Texas) 
 34

Number of Calls By Sub-Problem for "Signals" Category

58.9%

1.5%

6.0%

4.2%

3.3%

1.9%

24.2%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Activated - No

Train

Broken Damaged Defective Not Activated

By Train

Other Road Blocked

Sub-Problem Category

Percentage of Calls

Figure 5. Sub-divisions of Signal Problem Type (Texas) 

Table 5. Reported Problem Type for 

Crossings with more than 50 Calls 

Number of 

Crossings 

Total 

Calls Signals Trains Other 

48 >50 77% 18% 5% 

29 >60 76% 18% 6% 

12 >75 71% 25% 5% 
 35

Appendix E 

Memorandum of Understanding, September 20, 2000, between SEDA-COG JRA, 

NSRAC, Clinton County Board of Commissioners, PennDOT and FRA 
 36

Appendix F 

Supplementary Information on the Pennsylvania Regional Collective Program 

Budget Breakdown for 30-Month Demonstration 

Source Amount Purpose 

FRA $65,000 

For private crossing signs, communications 

center start up, monthly operations support, 

report preparation. 

FRA’s Contractor $87,500 

Modify Texas version of software, procure and 

install computers, briefing and training for 

communications center, update operator 

documentation, provide system and software 

support. 

PennDOT (from 

Section 130) $60,000 For signs at public crossings. 

SEDA-COG $3,000 Prepare evaluation reports. 

Railroads $4,500 Support communications center operations, 

report preparation 

Clinton County 

Communications 

Center 

$2,500 

House equipment, make personnel available for 

training, provide data for evaluation reports, 

answer the telephone. 

TOTAL $222,500 

SEDA-COG Highway-Rail Crossings

Description Number Signed* 

"At-Grade" (level) 

Crossings 

414 320

 Public 229 229

 Private 178 91

 Pedestrian 7 0

*Not all private crossings were signed. 
 37

SEDA-COG Breakdown of Crossing Calls by Railroad or Railroad System

Railroad 

Total Level 

Crossings 

Signalized 

Crossings 

Number of 

Calls* 

Juniata Valley Railroad Company 

(JVRR) 32 9 5 

Lycoming Valley Railroad 

Company (LVRR) 52 11 19 

Nittany and Bald Eagle (NBER) 104 27 12 

North Shore Railroad (NSHR) 80 28 50 

Stourbridge Railroad Company 

(SBRR) 28 7 0** 

Shamokin Valley Railroad 

Company (SVRR) 56 22 26 

Union County Industrial Railroad 

Company (UCIR) 33 11 0** 

Wellsboro and Corning Railroad 

Company (WCOR) 29 4 0** 

Consolidated Rail Corporation 

(CR) 1,554*** 266*** 5 

Delaware and Hudson Railway 

Company, Inc. (DH) 70*** 26*** 1 

Norfolk Southern Railroad 

System (NS) 2,021*** 603*** 4 

TOTAL Involved 414 119 122 

*Two callers did not provide a crossing number. 

**Three railroads did not participate during the first year of the project. 

***Denotes railroads and/or railroad systems that were not part of the project but 

for which calls were received.