Highway-Rail Crossing 

HANDBOOK 

Third Edition 
FOREWORD 

The Highway-Rail Crossing Handbook, 3rd Edition (Handbook) has been prepared to disseminate 

current practices and requirements for developing engineering treatments for highway-rail grade 

crossings (referred to herein as “crossings”). The Handbook is intended to provide practitioners 

of all levels of knowledge and experience with critical background information and “noteworthy 

practices” consistent with the 2009 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets 

and Highways (MUTCD) and more recent guidance developed by recognized subject matter 

experts. This edition constitutes a substantial update to and revision of the 2007 Handbook and 

efforts have been made to reorganize the contents. This edition includes “hotlinks” to facilitate 

navigation and access external information available on the web. 

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. This document does not 

constitute a standard, specification, or regulation and the contents of this document do not 

necessarily reflect official policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation.

This document contains images that are shown for illustration purposes only. For specific 

requirements, please refer to the 2009 edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control 

Devices for Streets and Highways.

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) and Federal Railroad Administration 

(FRA) provide 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. The FHWA and 

FRA periodically review quality issues and adjusts their programs and processes to ensure 

continuous quality improvement. 
I I I 

TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE (FORM DOT F 1700.7) 

Technical Report Documentation Page 

1. Report No. 

FHWA-SA-18-040/FRA-RRS-18-001 

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

4. Title and Subtitle 

Highway-Rail Crossing Handbook, 3rd Edition 

5. Report Date 

July 2019 

6. Performing 

Organization Code 

7. Author(s) 

Brent D. Ogden, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 

Chelsey Cooper, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 

8. Performing Organization 

Report No. 

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 

Institute of Transportation Engineers 

1617 Eye Street NW, Suite 600 

Washington, DC 20006 

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 

11. Contract or Grant No. 

TFH61-13-D-00026 

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 

Office of Safety Design 

Federal Highway Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

13. Type of Report and 

Period Covered 

14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

15. Supplementary Notes: 

FHWA Contracting Officer’s Task Order Manager: Kelly Morton; FRA Task Order Manager: Debra Chappell; 

ITE Project Manager: Lisa Fontana Tierney; ITE Technical Publications Manager: Deborah Rouse. 

16. Abstract 

The purpose of the Highway-Rail Crossing Handbook, 3rd Edition is an information resource developed to provide 

a unified reference document on prevalent and best practices as well as adopted standards relative to highwayrail grade crossings. The handbook provides general information on highway-rail crossings; characteristics of the 

crossing environment and users; and physical and operational changes that can be made at crossings to enhance 

the safety and operation of both highway and rail traffic over such intersections. The guidelines identified and 

potential alternative improvements presented in this handbook reflect current best practices nationwide. 

This handbook supersedes the Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition published in 

August 2007. This version includes a compendium of materials that were included in the previous one, supplemented 

with new information and applicable regulations in force that were available at the time of the update. 

17. Key Words 

Grade Crossing, Railroad, Traffic Control, Crossing Safety 

18. Distribution Statement 

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 

Unclassified 

20. Security Classif. (of this page) 

Unclassified 

21. No. of Pages 

250 

22. Price 

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

in2 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 1000 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) 

o

F Fahrenheit 5 (F-32)/9 or (F-32)/1.8 Celsius oC 

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/in2 poundforce per square inch 6.89 kilopascals kPa 

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM 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 in2 

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) 

oC Celsius 1.8C+32 Fahrenheit o

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 FACTORS 

ii 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................1 

GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................................2 

CHAPTER 2. ENGINEERED TREATMENTS .......................................................................11 

EXISTING LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES.......................................11 

CLOSURE OR SEPARATION...............................................................................................12 

CROSSING CONSOLIDATION AND SAFETY PROGRAMS .........................................16 

State Program Example—NCDOT .......................................................................................................16 

Local Program Example—San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG) .........................18 

Railroad Program Example—BNSF Railway Company (BNSF).........................................................18 

INACTIVE OR ABANDONED CROSSINGS ......................................................................18 

REMOVAL OF GRADE SEPARATION STRUCTURES ...................................................19 

State Level Guidance—Pennsylvania ...................................................................................................20 

RELOCATION.........................................................................................................................21 

SITE IMPROVEMENTS ........................................................................................................21 

Crossing Geometry................................................................................................................................22 

Removing Obstructions and Sight Distance..........................................................................................27 

Illumination ...........................................................................................................................................31 

Safety Barriers and Crossing Surfaces ..................................................................................................33 

NEW CROSSINGS ..................................................................................................................34 

PASSIVE CROSSING TREATMENTS.................................................................................34 

Signs ......................................................................................................................................................34 

Pavement Markings...............................................................................................................................47 

Exclusion Zone (Keep Clear) Treatments .............................................................................................48 

Edge Lines.............................................................................................................................................48 

Arrow Markings ....................................................................................................................................50 

Dynamic Envelope ................................................................................................................................50 

ACTIVE TREATMENTS........................................................................................................51 

Overview ...............................................................................................................................................51 

Train Detection and Device Activation .................................................................................................51 

Constant Warning Time Track Circuit...................................................................................................53 

Warning Time Considerations ...............................................................................................................53 

FLASHING-LIGHT SIGNALS ..............................................................................................55 

Cantilevered Flashing-Light Signals.....................................................................................................57 

Supplemental Flashing-Light Signals ...................................................................................................58 

AUDIBLE WARNING.............................................................................................................62 

Wayside Horn ........................................................................................................................................62 

AUTOMATIC GATES.............................................................................................................64 

Four-Quadrant Gates .............................................................................................................................70 

Barrier Gate ...........................................................................................................................................72 

USE OF CHANNELIZATION WITH GATES .....................................................................72 

Barrier Wall Systems.............................................................................................................................73 

iii 
Wide Raised Medians............................................................................................................................73 

Non-Mountable (Non-Traversable) Curb Islands .................................................................................73 

Mountable Raised Curb Systems (Traffic Separators)..........................................................................75 

PREEMPTION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS .............................................................................76 

Excerpts from ITE Recommended Practice on Preemption 

of Traffic Signals Near Railroad Crossings...........................................................................................78 

Pre-Signal and Queue Cutter Design Considerations............................................................................86 

Management of Queueing at Frontage Roads .......................................................................................93 

Adjacent Railroad Crossings.................................................................................................................95 

Active Advance Warning Signs.............................................................................................................96 

TRANSIT AND ON-STREET RAIL......................................................................................96 

Control of Motor Vehicle Turning Treatments ......................................................................................98 

LRT Bar Signals ..................................................................................................................................101 

Pedestrian and Bicycle Signals at LRT Crossings...............................................................................102 

PEDESTRIANS, BICYCLES, AND ACCESSIBILITY.....................................................102 

Channelization.....................................................................................................................................103 

Accessibility Standards .......................................................................................................................104 

MUTCD Provisions.............................................................................................................................104 

Current Practices .................................................................................................................................104 

Recommended Practices for Stop Lines and Detectable Warnings.....................................................105 

ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES OF PEDESTRIAN TREATMENTS...............................108 

Pathway Crossing Signing and Markings for Bicyclists and Skaters .................................................108 

Dynamic Envelope Markings..............................................................................................................109 

Pedestrian Barriers ..............................................................................................................................110 

Z-crossing Channelization...................................................................................................................111 

Swing Gates.........................................................................................................................................113 

Flashing-Light Signals ........................................................................................................................114 

Pedestrian Automatic Gates.................................................................................................................116 

Crossing Gate Skirt .............................................................................................................................116 

CHAPTER 3. TREATMENT SELECTION GUIDANCE.....................................................119 

TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP GUIDANCE ..............................................................119 

PEDESTRIAN TREATMENTS............................................................................................129 

DIAGNOSTIC STUDY METHOD.......................................................................................130 

ECONOMIC BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS ........................................................................130 

RESOURCE ALLOCATION PROCEDURE......................................................................131 

FRA GRADEDEC SOFTWARE...........................................................................................136 

MUTCD Interpretations, Experimentation, Changes, and Interim Approvals....................................136 

iv 
CHAPTER 4. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION....................................................................139 

PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT.............................................................................................139 

FUNDING ...............................................................................................................................140 

Federal Sources ...................................................................................................................................140 

State Funding.......................................................................................................................................142 

Local Agency Funding ........................................................................................................................143 

Railroad Funding.................................................................................................................................143 

AGREEMENTS .....................................................................................................................143 

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION .......................................................................................144 

TRAFFIC CONTROL DURING CONSTRUCTION ........................................................144 

Traffic Control Zones..........................................................................................................................145 

Traffic Control Devices.......................................................................................................................145 

Typical Applications............................................................................................................................146 

CHAPTER 5. MAINTENANCE, MANAGEMENT, AND OPERATIONS.........................149 

RESPONSIBILITIES ............................................................................................................149 

TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES ........................................................................................149 

INTERCONNECTED SYSTEMS ........................................................................................150 

ROADSIDE CLEAR ZONE .................................................................................................150 

ROADSIDE APPROACHES ................................................................................................151 

ROUTINE MAINTENANCE................................................................................................151 

BLOCKED CROSSINGS......................................................................................................152 

Solutions to Blocked Crossings...........................................................................................................153 

DOT CROSSING INVENTORY ..........................................................................................154 

CHAPTER 6. SPECIAL TOPICS ............................................................................................155 

PRIVATE CROSSINGS.........................................................................................................155 

SHORT LINE RAILROADS ................................................................................................156 

LIGHT RAIL AND BUSWAYS.............................................................................................157 

HIGH SPEED RAIL ..............................................................................................................160 

TRUCKS AND BUSES ..........................................................................................................163 

Trucks with Hazardous Material Cargo...............................................................................................163 

Buses ...................................................................................................................................................163 

Long and Heavily Laden Trucks .........................................................................................................164 

BICYCLES AND MOTORCYCLES ...................................................................................164 

ITS ...........................................................................................................................................165 

ITS National Architecture and User Service 30 ..................................................................................166 

Standard 1570......................................................................................................................................168 

v 
QUIET ZONES.......................................................................................................................168 

Overview .............................................................................................................................................168 

Requirement to Sound the Locomotive Horn......................................................................................169 

Creation of Quiet Zones ......................................................................................................................170 

Establishment of New Quiet Zones.....................................................................................................170 

Length of Quiet Zones.........................................................................................................................171 

Supplemental and Alternative Safety Measures..................................................................................171 

Automated Wayside Horn ...................................................................................................................172 

Special Circumstances.........................................................................................................................172 

EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT................................................................................172 

Education.............................................................................................................................................172 

Enforcement ........................................................................................................................................173 

APPENDICES............................................................................................................................175 

REFERENCES...........................................................................................................................243 

vi 
LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Highway-Rail Crossing Cross Section................................................................................23 

Figure 2. Fitting Three Vertical Curves to an Approach to a Railroad Crossing Profile ...................25 

Figure 3. Low Ground Clearance Warning Signs...............................................................................25 

Figure 4. Treatment for Low Ground Clearance ................................................................................26 

Figure 5. Approach Regions with Passive Traffic Control Devices...................................................28 

Figure 6. Pole and Luminaire Locations Where a Railroad ROW Crosses a Public Roadway ........32 

Figure 7. Regulatory Signs and Plaques for Crossings ......................................................................35 

Figure 8. Warning Signs and Plaques for Crossings...........................................................................36 

Figure 9. Crossing Sign (Crossbuck)..................................................................................................41 

Figure 10. Typical Sign System with STOP or YIELD......................................................................41 

Figure 11. Highway-Rail Crossing (Crossbuck) Sign and STOP or YIELD Sign on Same Post.....42 

Figure 12. Highway-Rail Crossing (Crossbuck) Sign and STOP Sign on Separate Posts................43 

Figure 13. Example of Emergency Notification Sign (ENS).............................................................45 

Figure 14. Placement of Advance Warning Signs with Parallel Roadway ........................................45 

Figure 15. Substandard Clear Storage Distance .................................................................................46 

Figure 16. Example of Placement of Warning Signs and Pavement Markings at 

Highway-Rail Crossings....................................................................................................47 

Figure 17. Use of Diagonal Exclusion Zone Striping Shown at Pre-Signal Location ......................49 

Figure 18. Illustration of Use of Tubular Markers (Metro North Harlem Subdivision, 

Green Lane Crossing, Bedford Hills, NY ID 529898H)...................................................49 

Figure 19. Example of Dynamic Envelopment Pavement Markings at Grade Crossings ................50 

Figure 20. DC Track Circuit................................................................................................................52 

Figure 21. Illustrative Example Showing Cantilever with 

Flashing-Light Devices......................................................................................................55 

Figure 22. Typical Alignment Pattern for Flashing-Light Signals with 

30-15 Degree Roundel, Two-Lane, Two-Way Roadway ..................................................57 

Figure 23. Use of Multiple Flashing-Light Signals for Adequate Visibility Horizontal 

Curve to the Left ................................................................................................................59 

Figure 24. Use of Multiple Flashing-Light Signals for Adequate 

Visibility Horizontal Curve to the Right............................................................................60 

Figure 25. Use of Sidelights for Frontage Roads ...............................................................................61 

Figure 26. Automated Wayside Horn..................................................................................................63 

Figure 27. Typical Location of Signal Devices ..................................................................................65 

Figure 28. Typical Crossing Gate Placement at 2-Lane Orthogonal Crossing..................................67 

Figure 29. Typical Crossing Gate Placement at Obtuse Angled Crossing.........................................67 

Figure 30. Typical Crossing Gate Placement at Acute Angled Crossing...........................................68 

Figure 31. Alternate Crossing Gate Placement at Acute Angled Crossing 

(Shown with Exit Gates)....................................................................................................68 

Figure 32. Typical Crossing Gate and Cantilever Placement at Multi-Lane Roadway with 

Medians and Median Gates—Cantilever Upstream from Gates.......................................69 

Figure 33. Typical Crossing Gate and Cantilever Placement at Multi-Lane Roadway 

with Medians and Median Gates—Cantilever Downstream from Gates.........................69 

Figure 34. Example of Location Plan for Flashing-Light Signals and Four-Quadrant Gates...........71 

vii 
Figure 35. Example of a Resistance Barrier.......................................................................................72 

Figure 36. Example of Combination of Mountable and Non-Mountable Curbs from Illinois 

Department of Transportation............................................................................................74 

Figure 37. Example of a Traffic Separator..........................................................................................75 

Figure 38. Clear Storage and Minimum Track Clearance Distance ..................................................77 

Figure 39. Illustrative Example Showing Use of Relocated Stop Line (Dallas Rapid 

Transit Red Line S. Hampton Rd Crossing at Wright Street, Dallas, TX) .......................87 

Figure 40. Illustrative Example Showing Displaced Stop Line (PCJX S. Mary Avenue 

Crossing at W. Evelyn Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA, USDOT 755037b)................................88 

Figure 41. Illustrative Example Showing Downstream Mounted Pre-Signal 

(SCAX Sierra Avenue Crossing at Orange Way, Fontana, CA, USDOT 026145L)........89 

Figure 42. Illustrative Example of a Cantilever-Mounted Pre-Signal (CSX 120th Avenue 

Crossing at E. Lakewood Boulevard in Holland, MI, USDOT 234648C).......................90 

Figure 43. Illustrative Example of Queue Cutter (SCAX Balboa Boulevard Crossing at 

Roscoe Boulevard in Los Angeles, CA, USDOT 745989G)............................................91 

Figure 44. Queue Prevention Strategies..............................................................................................92 

Figure 45. Illustrative Example of Stop Sign Placement ...................................................................94 

Figure 46. No Turns Internally Illuminated Signs..............................................................................99 

Figure 47. LRT Signals .....................................................................................................................101 

Figure 48. Example of Signing and Markings for a Pathway Crossing...........................................108 

Figure 49. Illustrative Example of an ADA Dynamic Envelope Delineation 

(Sacramento Regional Transit, K Street Pedestrian Mall, Sacramento, CA) .................109 

Figure 50. Illustrative Example of Dynamic Envelope Delineation through a 

Pedestrian Crosswalk (Portland TriMet, Morrison Street, Portland, Oregon)................109 

Figure 51. Diagram Depicting Use of Pedestrian Barriers...............................................................110 

Figure 52. Illustrative Example of a Pedestrian Barrier Application (BNSF 

Cotton Crossing, Peoria, AZ USDOT 025405Y)............................................................110 

Figure 53. Illustrative Example of a Z-Crossing Diagrammatic Plan for an In-Situ 

Application in Portland, Oregon......................................................................................112 

Figure 54. Illustrative Example of a Z-Crossing (Portland TriMet, Burnside Avenue, 

Portland, OR)....................................................................................................................112 

Figure 55. Diagrammatic Plan of a Swing Gate...............................................................................113 

Figure 56. Illustrative Example of Pedestrian Automatic Gate with Swing Gate ...........................114 

Figure 57. Flashing-Light Signal Placement Options ......................................................................115 

Figure 58. Examples of Placement of Pedestrian Gates...................................................................117 

Figure 59. Diagrammatic Example of Pedestrian Gate with Skirt...................................................118 

Figure 60. Illustrative Example of Pedestrian Gate with Skirt 

(DART Blue Line Lynn Haven Avenue Crossing, Dallas, TX)......................................118 

Figure 61. Resource Allocation Procedure Field Verification Worksheet........................................135 

Figure 62. Work in the Vicinity of a Crossing (TA-46)....................................................................147 

Figure 63. Crossing Work Activities, Closure of Side Road Crossing ............................................147 

Figure 64. Train Speed Warning Sign...............................................................................................162 

Figure 65. Design for Degree of Trail-Rail Crossing.......................................................................165 

Figure 66. Highway Rail Intersection Interface Overview ..............................................................166 

viii 
LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Federal Requirements for High-Speed Rail Crossings......................................................... 11 

Table 2. Sight Distance Zones.............................................................................................................28 

Table 3. Clearing Sight Distance Criteria by Mode............................................................................30 

Table 4. Current MUTCD Signs.........................................................................................................37 

Table 5. Comparison of Queue Management Devices and Techniques.............................................85 

Table 6. Use of Active Internally Illuminated Signs for Parallel Traffic Turning Across LRT Tracks.... 100 

Table 7. LRT Grade Separation....................................................................................................123 

Table 8. Collision Prediction and Resource Allocation Procedure Normalizing Constants ........134 

Table 9. Recommended Advance Warning Sign Minimum Spacing...........................................146 

Table 10. Possible Solutions to Observed Problems at LRT Crossings.......................................157 

Table 11. Potential Tier Structure for Passenger Systems at Highway-Rail Crossings ...............161 

ix 
APPENDICES 

A. APPENDIX—BACKGROUND...........................................................................................175 

INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................175 

KEY STATISTICS..............................................................................................................178 

Safety and Operations at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings .............................................................178 

Crossing Improvement Funding Programs.....................................................................................182 

RESPONSIBILITIES ........................................................................................................186 

Fundamental Issues of Highway-Rail Crossings............................................................................186 

Government Agency Responsibility and Involvement...................................................................187 

Railroad Responsibility and Involvement ......................................................................................191 

B. APPENDIX—COMPONENTS OF A HIGHWAY-RAIL GRADE CROSSING.............193 

HIGHWAY COMPONENTS.............................................................................................193 

Driver..............................................................................................................................................193 

Vehicle ............................................................................................................................................196 

Pedestrians......................................................................................................................................200 

Roadway.........................................................................................................................................201 

Traffic Control Devices..................................................................................................................203 

RAILROAD COMPONENTS...........................................................................................204 

Train................................................................................................................................................204 

Track...............................................................................................................................................206 

C. APPENDIX—ASSESSMENT OF CROSSING SAFETY AND OPERATION...............209 

COLLECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF DATA........................................................209 

USDOT Grade Crossing Inventory ................................................................................................209 

Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Collision Data ...............................................................................210 

HAZARD INDICES AND ACCIDENT PREDICTION FORMULAE.........................212 

Hazard Index ..................................................................................................................................213 

Crash Prediction Model..................................................................................................................213 

USDOT Accident Prediction Model...............................................................................................214 

ENGINEERING STUDY...................................................................................................215 

Diagnostic Team Study Method .....................................................................................................215 

Corridor Approach..........................................................................................................................229 

D. APPENDIX—DIAGNOSTIC TEAM CROSSING EVALUATION

REPORTING EXAMPLES FROM STATES.....................................................................233 

E. APPENDIX—PREEMPTION CALCULATION PROCEDURES,

EXAMPLE FROM STATE OF TEXAS..............................................................................237 

x 
APPENDICES: LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure A-1. Railroad Crossing Deaths, Injuries, and Incidents from 2008–2017 ...........................178 

Figure B‐1. Reflectorization Example—Standards Applicable to Boxcars.....................................205 

Figure C-1. Rail Equipment Accident/Incident Report Form..........................................................211 

Figure C-2. Sample Questionnaire for Diagnostic Team Evaluation...............................................218 

Figure C-3. Study Positions for Diagnostic Team............................................................................220 

Figure C-4. Sight Distance for Moving Vehicle ...............................................................................224 

Figure C-5. Sight Distance for Stopped Vehicle...............................................................................227 

Figure C-6. Pedestrian Sight Distance Triangle (Double Track Crossing)......................................228 

Figure D-1. State of Texas Department of Transportation Diagnostic Review Form .....................235 

Figure E‐1. Texas DOT—Guide for Determining Time Requirements for Traffic Signal

Preemption at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings ............................................................241 

xi 
APPENDICES: LIST OF TABLES 

Table A-1. Class 1 Railroad Line Miles and Track Miles ................................................................176 

Table A‐2. Public At‐Grade Crossings by Functional Classifications, 2017 ...................................177 

Table A-3. Public At-Grade Crossing by Highway System, 2017 ...................................................177 

Table A-4. Fatalities at Public Crossings, 1920–2017......................................................................180 

Table A-5. Collisions, Fatalities, and Injuries at Public Crossings, 1975–2017..............................181 

Table A-6. Collisions at Public Crossings Involving Motor Vehicles 

by Type of Train, 2004....................................................................................................182 

Table B-1. Public Crossings by Warning Device, 2017 ...................................................................194 

Table B-2. Motor Vehicle Collisions and Casualties at Public Crossings by 

Vehicle Type, 2017 .........................................................................................................197 

Table B-3. U.S. Customary Lengths for Design Vehicles................................................................198 

Table B-4. Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Collision Fatalities versus 

Trespasser Fatalities, 2008–2017 ...................................................................................201 

Table B-5. Maximum Train Speeds by Class of Track.....................................................................207 

Table B-6. Public At-Grade Crossings by Type of Track, 2017.......................................................208 

Table C-1. Sight Distances for Combinations of Highway Vehicle and Train Speeds....................221 

Table C-2. Clearing Sight Distances (in Feet)..................................................................................229 

xii 
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS 

AADT = annual average daily traffic

AAR = Association of American Railroads 

AASHTO = American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

AAWS = active advance warning sign 

ADA = Americans with Disabilities Act 

AREMA = American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association 

ASLRRA = American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association 

BRT = Bus Rapid Transit 

C&M = construction and maintenance 

CFR = Code of Federal Regulations 

Crossing(s) = At-Grade Highway-Rail Crossing(s) 

CSD = Clear Storage Distance 

DOT = Department of Transportation 

DSRC = Dedicated Short-Range Communications 

FAPG = Federal-Aid Policy Guide 

FARS = Fatal Accident Reporting System 

FAST Act = Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act 

FHWA = Federal Highway Administration 

FMCSA = Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

FRA = Federal Railroad Administration 

FTA = Federal Transit Administration 

GPS = Global Positioning System 

HSIP = Highway Safety Improvement Program 

ICC = Interstate Commerce Commission 

IEEE = Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers 

ISTEA = Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act

xiii 
ITE = Institute of Transportation Engineers 

ITS = Intelligent Transportation Systems 

LED = light emitting diode 

LRT = light-rail transit 

LRV = light-rail vehicles 

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

MCSAP = Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program 

MPH or mph = miles per hour 

MTB = Materials Transportation Bureau 

MTCD = Minimum Track Clearance Distance 

MUTCD = Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

NCDOT = North Carolina Department of Transportation 

NCHRP = National Cooperative Highway Research Program 

NCUTCD = National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

NHS = National Highway System 

NHTSA = National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

NSRT = Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold

NTD = National Transit Database 

NTSB = National Transportation Safety Board 

O&M = Operations and Maintenance 

OLI = Operation Lifesaver Incorporated 

PHMSA = Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

PL = Public Law 

PROWAG = [Draft] Proposed Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines 

QZRI = Quiet Zone Risk Index 

ROW = right-of-way 

SAFETEA‐LU = Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:

A Legacy for Users 

xiv 
SHSP= Strategic Highway Safety Plan 

SMIS = Safety Management Information System 

STAA= Surface Transportation Assistance Act 

STB = Surface Transportation Board 

STP = Surface Transportation Program 

TEA-21 = Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century 

TCRP = Transit Cooperative Research Program 

TMS = Traffic Management System

TRB = Transportation Research Board 

TTC = Temporary Traffic Control

TTCI = Transportation Technology Center, Inc. 

TWG = Technical Working Group 

U.S.C. = United States Code 

USDOT = United States Department of Transportation 

UVC = Uniform Vehicle Code 

WBAPS = Web Based Accident Prediction System 

xv 

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 

The Highway-Rail Crossing Handbook—Third Edition (Handbook) is a compendium of 

recommended safety engineering treatments for at-grade highway-rail crossings (crossings) which 

summarizes current noteworthy or best practices and provides a range of options for consideration.

It is an information resource to provide a unified reference document on prevalent and best

practices as well as adopted standards relative to highway-rail grade crossings. The purpose of the 

Handbook is not to establish standards, but to provide guidance about how existing standards and 

recommended practices may be applied in developing safe and effective treatments for crossings. 

For this purpose, the Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Revised Second Edition, 

August 2007, has been updated and re-organized to showcase noteworthy practices regarding 

device selection, while retaining relevant background information. 

The Handbook is intended for use by practitioners of all levels of knowledge and experience 

involved with the design and management of highway‐rail crossings. This includes: local 

highway agencies/authorities, municipal planners, traffic engineers, transportation planners, 

safety analysts, Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), State Departments of 

Transportation (DOT), and allied regulatory commissions (including people responsible for 

program development, safety management, and data management sections of the applicable 

State agency), railroad public project managers, public safety coordinators, railroad maintenance 

officials, and signal designers and maintainers, law enforcement agencies and emergency 

responders. Additionally, non-governmental advocates and organizations such as Operation 

Lifesaver, Inc.’s Authorized Volunteers, school transportation managers, commercial motor 

carriers, property developers and others may also benefit from sections of the Handbook. 

This edition of the Handbook is intended to be consistent with the 2009 edition of the Manual on 

Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).(1) Guidance in general use by practitioners within 

the industry that is not prescribed within the MUTCD has been characterized as “current 

practice.” If there are differences between this Handbook and the current edition of the MUTCD, 

then the MUTCD, Interim Approvals, and Interpretations should be followed. 

The Handbook is consistent with the 2013 version of the Traffic Control Devices Handbook 

prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and also incorporates portions of the 

Proposed Recommended Practice for Preemption of Traffic Signals Near Railroad Crossings, 

which was updated in 2019 by ITE.(2,3) 

Additionally, the Handbook provides an update to and supersedes the Guidance on Traffic 

Control Devices at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings originally developed in 2002 by the United 

States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

Highway/Rail Grade Crossing Technical Working Group (TWG). This update was accomplished 

by a task force of knowledgeable practitioners conversant with current best practices and as such 

the guidance provided in this Handbook supersedes the prior version. 

Note: This document summarizes current practices but does not set standards; practitioners are advised to check current local

standards and requirements (refer to Disclaimer and Quality Assurance Statement). Users of the data provided within this document

should anticipate possible variations from current information within the FRA databases, which are updated monthly.

1 
GLOSSARY 

Abandonment. The relinquishment of interest (public or private) in a ROW or activity thereon 

with no intention to reclaim or use again for the original purposes. 

Active Crossing. A grade crossing which includes an Active Grade Crossing Warning System as 

described below. 

Active Grade Crossing Warning System. The flashing‐light signals, with or without warning 

gates, together with the necessary control equipment used to inform road users of the approach or 

presence of rail traffic at grade crossings.

Advance Preemption. The notification of approaching rail traffic that is forwarded to the 

highway traffic signal controller unit or assembly by the railroad equipment in advance of the 

activation of crossing warning devices. 

Advance Preemption Time. The period of time that is the difference between the required 

maximum highway traffic signal preemption time and the activation of the railroad warning devices.

Alignment, Exclusive (“exclusive alignment”). The LRT track(s) or a busway alignment that 

is grade‐separated or protected by a fence or traffic barrier. Motor vehicles, pedestrians, and 

bicycles are prohibited within the traveled way. Subways and aerial structures are included with 

this group. 

Alignment, Mixed-Use (“mixed-use alignment”). An alignment where the LRT vehicles or 

buses operate in mixed traffic with all types of road users. This includes streets, transit malls, and 

pedestrian malls where the traveled way is shared. In a mixed-use alignment, the LRT vehicles or 

buses do not have right-of-way over other roadway users at crossings and intersections. 

Alignment, Semi-Exclusive (“semi-exclusive alignment”). The LRT track(s) or a busway 

alignment that is in a separate traveled way or along a street or railroad ROW where motor 

vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles have limited access and cross at designated locations only. In 

a semi-exclusive alignment, the LRT vehicles or buses usually have ROW over other roadway 

users at crossings. 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. A civil rights law that prohibits discrimination 

based on disability. Refers to the ADA of 1990 (PL 101-336) and the ADA Amendments Act of 

2008 (PL 110-325). 

Anchors. Rail-fastening devices used to resist the longitudinal movement of rail due to train 

operations and maintain proper expansion allowance for temperature changes at joint gaps. 

Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT). The total volume of traffic passing a point or segment 

of a highway facility in both directions for one year divided by the number of days in the year. 

Normally, periodic daily traffic volumes are adjusted for hours of the day counted, days of the 

week, and seasons of the year to arrive at average annual daily traffic.

2 
Apportionment. An administrative distribution of funds based on a prescribed formula 

provided in law by a governmental unit to another governmental unit for specific purposes and

for certain periods. 

Appropriation. The act of a legislative body that makes federal-aid highway funding available 

for obligation and expenditure with specific limitations as to amount, purpose, and duration.

Ballast. Material placed on a track roadbed to hold the track in alignment and elevation. It 

consists of crushed stone, generally 1 to 2 inches in size, angular, rough-surfaced, clean and free 

of sand, loam, clay, flat, elongated, soft or disintegrated pieces, and other deleterious substances. 

Bar Signals (LRT). An illuminated signal configured in the shape of a bar, normally positioned 

to appear in a vertical, angled, or horizontal orientation. These are used as aspects to convey 

a signal indication. Bar signals are typically used on LRT systems. LRT bar signals are white, 

monochrome bar signals that are separated in space from motor vehicle signals. 

Barrier Gate (Barrier Gate Arm, Warning/Barrier Gate, Vehicle Arresting System). An 

automatic gate of specialized design, which can be used as adjunct to flashing light signals 

to provide positive closure by blocking approaching traffic at a highway‐rail crossing and 

preventing vehicle penetration. 

Benefit-Cost Ratio. The economic value of the project benefits (e.g., reduction in fatalities, 

injuries, and property damage, reduced delay, reduced fuel and operating costs, reduction in 

emissions, etc.) divided by the cost of the project.(4) 

Blank-Out Sign. A sign that displays a single predetermined indication only when activated. 

When not activated, the sign legend should not be visible. 

Cantilevered Signal Structure (Cantilever). A structure that is rigidly attached to a vertical pole 

and used to provide overhead support of signal units; the term Cantilever refers to a Cantilevered 

Signal Structure with one or more flashing‐light units attached. 

Channelization Device. A traffic separation system made up of a raised longitudinal channelizer 

with vertical panels or tubular delineators. These devices can serve several purposes such as 

being placed between opposing highway lanes designated to alert or guide traffic in a particular 

direction, or as a fencing system used to separate modes (e.g., channelize pedestrians). 

Clear Storage Distance. The distance available for vehicle storage measured between six (6) 

feet from the rail nearest the intersection to the intersection stop line or the normal stopping point 

on the highway. 

Clearing Sight Distance. The distance measured along the track which a road user must be able 

to see to decide whether it is safe to cross based upon the speed of an approaching train and the 

acceleration characteristics of the highway vehicle. 

Clear Zone. The total roadside border area, starting at the edge of the traveled way, available 

for safe use by errant vehicles. This area may consist of a shoulder, a recoverable slope, a nonrecoverable slope, and/or a clear run-out area. 

3 
Constant Warning Time Detection. A means of detecting rail traffic that provides road users 

with relatively uniform warning times prior to the approach of through trains that neither 

accelerate nor decelerate after having been detected. 

Crossing Angle. The angle 90 degrees or less between the intersection of the centerlines of the 

railroad tracks and the roadway. 

Design Vehicle. The longest vehicle permitted by statute of the road authority (State or other) on 

that roadway. 

Diagnostic Team. A group of knowledgeable representatives of the parties of interest (such as 

the railroad, road authority, State regulatory agency, where applicable) in a highway-rail crossing 

or group of crossings who evaluate conditions at the crossing(s) to identify safety issues. 

Dynamic Envelope. The clearance required for the train and its cargo overhang due to any 

combination of loading, lateral motion, or suspension failure. 

Dynamic Exit Gate Operating Mode. A mode of operation where the exit gate operation is 

based on the presence of vehicles within the minimum track clearance distance. 

Easement. A right to use or control the property of another for a designated purpose. 

Examples include:

1. Drainage easement. An easement for directing the flow of water.

2. Planting easement. An easement for reshaping roadside areas and establishing, maintaining,

and controlling plant growth thereon.

3. Sight line easement. An easement for maintaining or improving the sight distance.

4. Slope easement. An easement for cuts or fills.

Economic Analysis. A determination of the cost-effectiveness of a project by comparing the 

benefits derived and the costs incurred in a project.

Entrance Gate. An automatic gate that can be lowered across the lanes approaching a grade 

crossing to block road users from entering the grade crossing. 

Exit Gate. A crossing gate that is used on the departing lanes of traffic to block users from 

entering a highway rail crossing. 

Exit Gate Clearance Time. For four-quadrant gate systems, the amount of time provided to 

delay the descent of the exit gate arm(s) after entrance gate arm(s) begin to descend. 

Exit Gate Management System. A system using a detector or detectors with processing logic 

to identify the presence of vehicles within the minimum track clearance distance and used to 

control the operation of the exit gates or for train control purposes. 

Exit Gate Operating Mode. For four-quadrant gate systems, the mode of control used to govern 

the operation of the exit gate. 

4 
Fail-Safe. A design practice applied to a system or device such that the result of failure either 

prohibits the system or device from assuming or maintaining an unsafe state or causes the system 

or device to assume a state known to be safe regardless of actual prevailing conditions. 

False Activation. A condition under which crossing warning devices are activated but there is no 

train approaching the crossing. 

Flagger (Flagging). A person who actively controls the flow of vehicular traffic into and/

or through a temporary traffic control zone using hand‐signaling devices or an Automated 

Flagger Assistance Device (AFAD). In the railroad context, a railroad flagger is a person who 

is authorized by the railroad to provide warning of the approach of a train or the presence of 

roadway workers along the right‐of‐way, and who may be authorized to control rail traffic 

through a construction zone along a railroad. 

Flashing-Light Signals. A warning device consisting of two red signal indications arranged 

horizontally that are activated to flash alternately when a train is approaching or present at a 

highway-rail grade crossing. 

Functional Classification. Designation of a transportation system into classes or systems by the 

nature of the service they provide in serving travel needs. 

Grade. The rate of ascent or descent of a roadway, expressed as a percent, or the change in 

roadway elevation per unit of horizontal length. 

Grade Crossing (Crossing). The general area where a highway and a railroad and/or lightrail transit route cross at the same level, within which are included the tracks, highway, and 

traffic control device for traffic traversing that area. In this Handbook, Grade Crossings may be 

referred to as “Crossings.” In this case, it is implied that the crossing is at grade. (See also LRT 

Grade Crossing.) When the term “Railroad” is used throughout this document; it is inclusive of 

LRT; however, when “LRT” is the term specifically used, the text is applicable to LRT only.

Grade Separation. A crossing of two roadways, or a roadway and railroad tracks, at different 

levels that do not physically meet. 

Guardrails. A safety barrier intended to deflect an errant vehicle back to the roadway, and 

prevent an errant vehicle from striking a roadside obstacle that is more hazardous than the 

guardrail itself. 

Highway (Street or Road). A general term for denoting public way for purposes of travel, 

including the entire area within the ROW. 

Highway-Rail Grade Crossing. A location where a highway, road, or street and the railroad 

ROW cross at the same level, within which are included the railroad tracks, highway, and traffic 

control devices for highway traffic traveling over the railroad tracks.

Interconnection (Preemption Interconnection). The electrical connection between the railroad 

crossing warning system and the highway traffic signal controller assembly for preemption. 

5 
Light Rail Transit (LRT). LRT is a mode of metropolitan transportation that employs LRT 

vehicles (commonly known as light rail vehicles, streetcars, or trolleys) that operate on rails 

in streets in mixed traffic, and LRT traffic that operates in semi‐exclusive rights‐of‐way, or in 

exclusive rights-of-way. Grade crossings with LRT can occur at intersections or at midblock 

locations, including public and private driveways. 

Locomotive. A piece of on-track equipment other than hi-rail, specialized maintenance, or other 

similar equipment: 1) With one or more propelling motors designed for moving other equipment; 

2) With one or more propelling motors designed to carry freight or passenger traffic or both; or

3) Without propelling motors but with one or more control stands.

Locomotive Cab or Cab Car. The space in a locomotive unit, diesel or electric multipleunit (DMU/EMU), or push-pull passenger “cab coach” containing the operating controls and 

providing shelter and seats for the engine crew. 

Locomotive Horn. An air horn, steam whistle, or similar audible warning device mounted on a 

locomotive or control cab car. The terms “locomotive horn,” “train whistle,” “locomotive whistle,” 

and “train horn” are used interchangeably in the railroad industry. 

LRT Grade Crossing (LRT Crossing). The general area where a highway and an LRT route 

cross at the same level, within which are included the tracks, highway, and traffic control device 

for traffic traversing that area. (See also Grade Crossing.) When the term “Railroad” is used 

throughout this document; it is inclusive of LRT; however, when “LRT” is the term specifically 

used, the text is applicable to LRT only. 

Main (Track). A track which is used for through trains operating between stations and 

terminals as distinguished from a siding which branches from a main line track and is of 

limited length. 

Manual on Uniform Traffc Control Devices (MUTCD). The Manual on Uniform Traffic 

Control Devices, approved by the Federal Highway Administration, is the national standard for 

all traffic control devices installed on any street, highway, or bicycle trail open to public travel 

in accordance with 23 U.S.C 109(d) and 402(a). For the purpose of the MUTCD applicability, 

“open to public travel” includes toll roads and roads within shopping centers, airports, sports 

arenas, and other similar business and/or recreation facilities that are privately owned but where 

the public is allowed to travel without access restrictions. Except for gated toll roads, roads within 

private gated properties where access is restricted at all times are not included in this definition.

Maximum Highway Traffic Signal Preemption Time. The maximum amount of time needed 

following initiation of the preemption sequence for the highway traffic signals to complete the 

ROW transfer and queue clearance, including separation time. 

Median. The area between two roadways of a divided highway measured from edge of traveled 

way to edge of traveled way, excluding turn lanes. The median width may be different between 

intersections, interchanges, and opposite approaches of the same intersection. 

6 
Minimum Track Clearance Distance (MTCD). For standard two-quadrant warning devices, 

the minimum track clearance distance is the length along a highway at one or more railroad 

or light rail transit tracks, measured from the highway stop line, warning device, or 12 feet 

perpendicular to the track center line, to 6 feet beyond the track(s) measured perpendicular to 

the far rail, along the center line or edge line of the highway, as appropriate, to obtain the longer 

distance. For Four-Quadrant Gate systems, the minimum track clearance distance is the length 

along a highway at one or more railroad or light rail transit tracks, measured either from the 

highway stop line or entrance warning device, to the point where the rear of the vehicle would 

be clear of the exit gate arm. In cases where the exit gate arm is parallel to the track(s) and is not 

perpendicular to the highway, the distance is measured either along the center line or edge line of 

the highway, as appropriate, to obtain the longer distance. 

Minimum Warning Time (MWT). The least amount of time the active crossing warning system 

is designed to remain activated prior to the arrival of a train at a highway-rail grade crossing. 

Passive Crossing. A crossing where warnings and traffic control is provided by passive devices 

such as signs and pavement markings where no Active Grade Crossing Warning System is present. 

Pathway. A general term denoting a public way for purposes of travel by authorized users 

outside the traveled way and physically separated from the roadway by an open space or barrier 

and either within the highway ROW or within an independent alignment. Pathways include 

shared-use paths but do not include sidewalks along the roadway traveled way. 

Pathway Crossing. Where a pathway and railroad or LRT tracks cross at the same level, within 

which are included the track, pathway, and traffic control devices for pathway traffic traversing 

that area. 

Pavement Markings. Markings set into the surface of, applied upon, or attached to the 

pavement for regulating, warning, or guiding traffic.

Preemption Clearance Interval. The part of a traffic signal sequence displayed as a result of a 

preemption request when vehicles are provided the opportunity to clear the railroad or LRT tracks, 

or a busway prior to the arrival of the train, or bus for which the traffic signal is being preempted.

Preemption. The transfer of normal operation of traffic signals to a special control mode that 

interrupts the normal sequence of traffic signal phases to accommodate train operation at or 

adjacent to the traffic signal‐controlled intersection.

Pre-signal. Traffic control signal faces that control traffic approaching a grade crossing in 

conjunction with the traffic control signal faces that control traffic approaching a highway‐

highway intersection beyond the tracks. Supplemental near‐side traffic control signal faces for 

the highway-highway intersection are not considered pre-signals. Pre-signals are typically used 

where the clear storage distance is insufficient to store one or more design vehicles.

Priority. Modification of the normal highway traffic signal operation process to assign who has 

the right‐of‐way in the intersection to accommodate train operation at or adjacent to a traffic 

signal controlled intersection. 

7 
Private Crossing. A location where a private highway, road, or street, including associated 

sidewalks or pathways, crosses one or more railroad tracks. 

Public Crossing. A highway-rail or pedestrian grade crossing where a roadway or a pathway, 

under the jurisdiction of and maintained by a public authority, intersects with the railroad tracks 

at the same level. No approach may be on private property, unless State law or regulation 

provides otherwise. 

Queue Clearance Time. The time required for a stopped design vehicle that is stopped inside 

the minimum track clearance distance to start up, move through, and clear the entire minimum 

track clearance distance. If pre-signals are present, this time must be long enough to allow the 

vehicle to move through the intersection or to clear the tracks if there is sufficient clear storage 

distance. If a four-quadrant gate system is present, this time must be long enough to permit the 

exit gate arm to lower after the design vehicle is clear of the minimum track clearance distance. 

Queue Cutter Signal. A traffic control signal that is located just upstream from a crossing where 

traffic has been observed to queue across the crossing due to a downstream condition. Queue 

cutters are intended to prevent vehicular queueing across tracks at a crossing and are activated 

either by detection of a traffic queue getting close to the crossing, or by the approach of a train. A

queue cutter signal is not operated as a part of a downstream intersection traffic control signal but 

is an independently controlled traffic control signal with interconnection to the adjacent crossing 

warning signal system. 

Quiet Zone. A segment of a rail line, within which is situated one or a number of consecutive 

public highway-rail crossings at which locomotive horns are not routinely sounded per 49 CFR 

Part 222.(5) (May include private and pedestrian crossings.) 

Right-of-Way (ROW). A general term denoting land, property, or interest therein, usually in 

a strip, acquired for or devoted to transportation purposes. Alternately, “right-of-way” is also a 

term that confers to a road user or train the priority to proceed in preference to other vehicles or 

pedestrians, depending upon the rules of the road and traffic control devices in use.

Right-of-Way Transfer Time. The maximum amount of time needed by the traffic signal system 

to change from its current signal indication to present the track clearance green indication. This 

includes any railroad or highway traffic signal control equipment time to react to a preemption 

call and any required traffic control signal green, pedestrian walk and clearance, yellow change, 

and red clearance intervals for conflicting traffic.

Roadway. The portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel 

and parking lanes, but exclusive of the sidewalk, berm, or shoulder even though such sidewalk, 

berm, or shoulder is used by persons riding bicycles or other human-power vehicles. 

Road User. Vehicle operators, pedestrians including persons with disabilities, or bicyclists within 

a road or highway. 

Separation Time. The portion of highway traffic signal preemption time during which the 

minimum track clearance distance is clear of vehicular traffic prior to the arrival of the train.

8 
Shoulder. The portion of the roadway adjacent to the traveled way that is primarily intended 

for accommodation of stopped vehicles for emergency use and for lateral support of base and 

pavement surface courses. 

Sidewalk. That portion of a street between the curb line or the lateral line of a roadway, and the 

adjacent property line or on easements of private property that is paved or improved and intended 

for use by pedestrians. 

Simultaneous Preemption. Notification of an approaching train is forwarded to the highway traffic

signal controller unit or assembly and railroad active crossing warning devices at the same time. 

Stopping Sight Distance. The length of highway required to safely stop a vehicle traveling at a 

given speed. 

Swing Gate. A self-closing fence-type gate designed to swing open away from the track area and 

return to the closed position upon release. 

Timed Exit Gate Operating Mode. A mode of operation where the beginning of exit gate 

descent is based on a predetermined time interval. 

Traffic Control Device. A sign, signal, marking, or other device used to regulate, warn, or 

guide traffic.

Train. One or more locomotives coupled with or without cars that operates on railroad or LRT 

tracks and to which State law requires that all other traffic must yield the ROW at highway‐rail 

grade crossings. 

Traveled Way. The portion of the roadway for the movement of vehicles, exclusive of shoulders. 

Volume. The number of vehicles passing a given point during a specified length of time.

Warrants. A threshold condition based upon average or normal conditions that, if found to be 

satisfied as part of an engineering study, shall result in analysis of other traffic conditions or 

factors to determine whether a traffic control device or other improvement is justified. Warrants 

are not a substitute for engineering judgment. The fact that a warrant for a particular traffic 

control device is met is not conclusive justification for the installation of the device.

Wayside Equipment. The signals, switches, and/or control devices for railroad operations 

housed within one or more enclosures located along the railroad ROW. 

Wayside Horn. A stationary horn located at a highway-rail crossing or pathway crossing, 

designed to provide, upon the approach of a locomotive or train, audible warning to oncoming 

motorists of the approach of a train. 

9 

CHAPTER 2. ENGINEERED TREATMENTS 

This chapter presents engineered treatments applicable to highway-rail and pedestrian crossings. 

The full range of options from closure, reconfiguration, and grade separation to application of 

passive treatments and active devices is addressed. The applicability of each option or treatment 

is presented in terms of those typical conditions that would indicate consideration of such a 

device or treatment. Specific guidance on device selection is presented in Chapter 3. This chapter 

also addresses over-arching legal and policy considerations that should be kept in mind. 

Note: Traffic control devices defined in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

(MUTCD) terms are referenced along with their respective sign number (in parentheses) 

throughout this section. 

EXISTING LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES 

Current FHWA regulations specifically prohibit at‐grade intersections on Interstate highways 

(AASHTO “A Policy on Design Standards—Interstate System,” May 2016).(6) Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) has established maximum permissible speeds by track class category 

(refer to Appendix B, Table B-5 for track classes and allowable speeds). Current FRA regulations 

require that crossings be separated or closed at locations where trains operate at speeds above 

125 mph—track Class 8 or 9 (49 CFR 213.347(a)). Additionally, on FRA track Class 7 (111–125 

mph), an application must be made to FRA for approval of the type of warning/barrier system 

to be used at highway-rail grade crossings along the track (49 CFR 213.347(b)). The regulation 

does not specify the type of system but allows the petitioner to propose a suitable system for 

FRA review. These requirements are summarized in Table 1. 

In 1998, FRA issued an Order of Particular Applicability for high-speed rail service on the 

Northeast Corridor.(7) In the Order, FRA set a maximum operating speed of 80 mph over any 

highway-rail crossing where only conventional warning systems are in place and a maximum 

operating speed of 95 mph where four-quadrant gates and presence detection are provided and 

tied into the signal system. Crossings are prohibited on the Northeast Corridor if maximum 

operating speeds exceed 95 mph. 

Table 1. Federal Requirements for High-Speed Rail Crossings 

— Active 

Warning/Barrier with 

FRA Approval 

Grade Separation 

or Closure 

Interstate highways Not allowed Not allowed Required 

High-speed rail > 79 mph 111–125 mph > 125 mph

Note: This document summarizes current practices but does not set standards; practitioners are advised to check current local

standards and requirements (refer to Disclaimer and Quality Assurance Statement). Users of the data provided within this document

should anticipate possible variations from current information within the FRA databases, which are updated monthly.

11 
Special consideration applies to crossings where train speeds are expected to exceed 110 mph. 

FRA regulations require the use of an approved “barrier system” if train operation is projected 

at 111–125 mph speeds. As stated in the 2009 Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Guidelines for 

High-Speed Passenger Rail published by the FRA(8), barrier systems need to meet the following 

criteria to be effective:

• Operate in concert with the crossing warning system, and the combined system provides critical

information about the health and status of the system to the train control system in real time

• Able to stop the heaviest motor vehicle operated on the roadway short of the crossing

• Include the capability to detect any significant obstruction (object) that remains on the crossing

after the barriers are in place

• Able to communicate the presence of any significant obstruction to approaching high‐speed trains

with enough time for the train to reduce speed or stop before reaching the crossing

The interaction between high-speed trains and pedestrians should be carefully considered 

when identifying appropriate warning systems and treatments to be implemented. The single 

largest cause of deaths associated with railroad operations is pedestrians trespassing on railroad 

property. Special consideration should be applied to controlling trespassing attempts. 

Private grade crossings on high-speed rail corridors are considered separately. Such crossings 

may be located along non-public roads within industrial, residential, or agricultural lands. 

Private crossings generally exist because of an agreement between a railroad and a land owner. 

Therefore, in most cases those parties determine the appropriate treatment for the crossing. 

Where private crossings are open to public travel, consideration should be given to providing 

similar treatment to that which would be provided at a public crossing. In addition, if private 

crossings exist within a proposed quiet zone, a diagnostics review may be required, and a 

determination should be made of an appropriate treatment. Additional information can be found 

in FRA’s regulations at 49 CFR 213.347, including the requirement that crossings be separated or 

closed at locations where train speeds exceed 125 mph. 

CLOSURE OR SEPARATION 

The first alternative that should always be considered for a highway‐rail crossing is elimination, 

which can be accomplished by the following:

• Replacing the crossing with a grade separated facility

• Closing the crossing to highway traffic and removing the roadway crossing surface

• Closing the crossing to railroad traffic through the abandonment or relocation of the rail line and

removal of the railroad tracks

Closure of a crossing provides the highest level of crossing safety compared to other alternatives, 

because the point of intersection between highway and railroad is removed. However, the effects 

of closure on highway and railroad operations may not always be completely beneficial. The 

12 
major benefits of crossing closure include reductions in certain types of collisions and decreased 

delays to highway and rail traffic, as well as lowered maintenance costs. 

Decisions about whether a crossing should be eliminated or simply improved depends upon safety, 

operational, and cost considerations. However, federal regulation (23 CFR 646.214(c)) specifies

that “all crossings of railroads and highways at grade shall be eliminated where there is full control 

of access on the highway (a freeway) regardless of the volume of railroad or highway traffic.”

The following four types of delay can occur on highway traffic by crossings:

• Presence of crossing—This delay occurs regardless of whether a train is approaching or

occupying the crossing. Motorists usually slow in advance of crossings so that they can stop

safely if a train is approaching. This is a required safe driving practice in conformance with the

Uniform Vehicle Code, which states “...vehicles must stop within 15 to 50 feet from the crossing

when a train is in such proximity so as to constitute an immediate hazard.”(9) Therefore, the

existence of a crossing may cause some delays to motorists who slow to look for a train.

• Traffic control devices—Road users are subject to delay at passive crossings with STOP or

YIELD signs as well as at active crossings when traffic control devices are actuated.

• Trains blocking crossings—Trains may stop and block a crossing in response to a train signal

indication or during switching operations.

• Special vehicles—Under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) regulations,

all vehicles transporting passengers and trucks carrying many types of hazardous materials must

stop prior to crossing tracks at a highway-rail crossing (49 CFR 392.10). If following vehicles do

not anticipate such stops and/or fail to maintain safe stopping distance, collisions may result.

Another benefit of crossing closure is the alleviation of maintenance costs of surfaces and traffic 

control devices. As discussed in Chapter 5, these costs can be quite substantial for both highway 

agencies and railroads. 

Some States have incentive programs intended to encourage crossing closure. Additionally, 

railroads may participate in a project resulting in a closure either on a case-by-case basis or 

as part of an initiative (one State’s program is described in the following section). Crossing 

closures are usually accomplished by closing the highway. The number of crossings needed to 

carry highway traffic over a railroad in a community is influenced by many characteristics of the 

community itself. A study of community travel demand should be conducted to determine major 

origin and destination points and assess what is needed to provide adequate highway capacity 

then needed to satisfy demand. Thus, optimum routes over railroads can be determined. Traffic 

over several crossings may be consolidated to a nearby crossing with flashing‐lights and gates 

or over a nearby grade separation. Alternative routes should be within a reasonable travel time 

and distance from a closed crossing. The alternative routes should have sufficient capacity to 

accommodate the diverted traffic safely and efficiently. The impact on pedestrian travel should 

be evaluated as well. 

Identifying and eliminating redundant, closely spaced, or unneeded crossings should be a 

high priority. The decision to close or consolidate crossings requires balancing public safety, 

13 
convenience, and access with the needs of the railroad to operate trains safely and efficiently. 

The crossing closure decision should be based on economics—comparing the cost of retaining 

the crossing (e.g., maintenance, collisions, and cost to improve the crossing to an acceptable 

level if it remains, etc.)—against the cost (if any) of providing alternate access and any adverse 

travel costs incurred by users having to cross at some other location. While this can be a political 

and sensitive or controversial issue at the local level, the economics of the situation cannot 

be ignored. This subject is addressed in the FRA’s Research Results: Crossing Consolidation 

Guidelines, RR 09-12.(10) 

Challenges to obtain successful closures include negative community feedback, funding, and 

the lack of forceful State laws authorizing closure or the reluctant utilization of State laws that 

permit closure. 

As part of the process of implementing a crossing closure, it is important to consider whether 

the diversion of highway traffic may be sufficient to change the type or level of traffic control 

needed at other crossings. The surrounding street system should be examined to assess the effects 

of diverted traffic. Often, coupling a closure with the installation of improved or upgraded traffic 

control devices at one or more adjacent crossings can be an effective means of mitigating local 

political resistance to the closure. 

Legislation that authorizes a State agency to close crossings facilitates the implementation of 

closures. These State agencies should utilize their authority to close crossings whenever possible. 

A State agency may be able to accomplish closure where local efforts may not have achieved 

success. Local opposition sometimes can be overcome by emphasizing the benefits resulting 

from closure, such as improved traffic flow and safety as traffic is redirected to grade separations 

or crossings with active traffic control devices. Railroads often support closure not only due 

to safety concerns but also because closure eliminates maintenance costs associated with the 

crossing. Refer to the following document for State‐by‐State specifics: “Compilation of State 

Laws and Regulations Affecting Highway-Rail Grade Crossings.” (11) 

Achieving consensus is integral to the closure process. Closure criteria vary by locality but 

typically include consideration of the following:

• Train and roadway traffic volume

• Speed of trains

• Number of tracks

• Material being carried

• Crossing location

• Visibility

• Distance to traffic signals

• Number of crashes

Locations with more than four crossings per railroad route-mile with fewer than 2,000 vehicles 

per day and more than two trains per day are prime candidates for closure. 

To assist in the identification of crossings that may be closed, the systems approach might be 

utilized, as discussed in Chapter 3. With this method, several crossings in a community or rail 

14 
corridor are improved by the installation of traffic control devices, while other crossings are 

closed or grade separated. This is accomplished following a study of traffic flows in the area 

to ensure continuing access across the railroad. Traffic flows are sometimes improved by the 

installation of more sophisticated traffic control systems at the remaining crossings.

Another important matter to consider regarding crossing closure is access over the railroad by 

emergency vehicles. Crossings frequently utilized by emergency vehicles should be candidates 

for grade separations or the installation of active traffic control devices. Specific criteria to 

identify crossings that should be closed are difficult to establish because of the numerous and 

various factors that should be considered. Refer to Chapter 3 for criteria that may be used for 

crossing closure and to Section 8A.05 of the MUTCD for provisions relevant to crossing closure. 

Additional information regarding grade crossing closure and improvement programs can be 

found on pages 485–486 of the Traffic Control Devices Handbook.(2) It is important that these 

criteria not be used without professional, objective, engineering, and economic assessment of the 

positive and negative impacts of crossing closures. 

When a crossing is permanently closed to highway traffic, the crossing surface and approaches 

should be obliterated and removed, leaving as few traces of the former crossing as is practicable. 

When a crossing is closed to train traffic, the highway authority, where practical, should 

remove the tracks within the highway to reduce future maintenance costs. Paving over tracks 

with asphaltic paving is not recommended because it is possible for “reflection cracks” to 

subsequently emerge. 

Generally, the railroad is responsible for removing the crossing surface and traffic control 

devices located at the crossing, such as the Crossbuck sign, flashing‐light signals, and gates. The 

railroad is also generally responsible for restoring the ditch line and removing any evidence of a 

crossing on railroad property, including the drainage. 

Depending on the agreement between a highway authority and the operating railroad(s), the 

highway authority may be responsible for actions including but not limited to the following:

• Removing traffic control devices in advance of the crossing, such as the advance warning signs

and pavement markings.

• Upon termination of any interconnection in cooperation with the railroad, the highway authority

may be charged with making any adjustments to the highway traffic signal system, now that the

interconnection has been severed, and railroad preemption will no longer occur. The MUTCD

shows examples of some effective road closure traffic controls in Part 6. Many States also have

effective, MUTCD-compliant road closure signing packages in their standards.

• Installing warning and regulatory signing in accordance with the MUTCD to alert motorists that

the crossing is now closed. These signs include the “ROAD CLOSED” sign (R11-2), “LOCAL

TRAFFIC ONLY” sign (R11-3, R11-4), and appropriate advance warning signs as applicable to

the specific crossing.

• Removing roadway surface approaches.

15 
Consideration should also be given to advising motorists of alternate routes across the railroad. 

If motorists use the crossing being closed, they should be given advance information about the 

closure at points where they can conveniently alter their route. Consideration should be made 

for pedestrian activity at closures as well; nearby, easy alternative routes should be provided for 

pedestrians to use to discourage trespassing. 

CROSSING CONSOLIDATION AND SAFETY PROGRAMS

A highly effective approach to improving safety involves the development of a program of 

treatments to eliminate significant numbers of crossings within a segment of rail line while 

improving those that are to remain at grade. Both FRA(10) and American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)(12) have developed guidelines for crossing 

consolidation. State departments of transportation, road authorities, and local governments may 

choose to develop their own criteria for closures based on local conditions. Whatever the case, a 

specific criterion or approach should be used to avoid arbitrarily selecting crossings for closure. 

Preparation of a “traffic separation study” is a good way to start. As part of a comprehensive 

evaluation of traffic patterns and road usage for an entire municipality or region, traffic 

separation studies determine the need for improvements and/or elimination of public highwayrail crossings based on specific criteria. Traffic separation studies progress in three phases: 

preliminary planning, study, and implementation. 

Crossing information is collected at all public crossings in the municipality. Evaluation criteria 

include collision history, current and projected vehicular and train traffic, crossing condition, 

school bus and emergency routes, types of traffic control devices, feasibility for improvements, 

and economic impact of crossing closures. After discussions with the parties involved, these 

recommendations may be modified. Reaching a consensus is essential prior to scheduling 

presentations to governing bodies and citizens. 

A key element of a traffic separation study is the inclusion of a public involvement element, 

including crossing safety workshops and public hearings. The goal of these forums is to 

exchange information and convey the community benefits of enhanced crossing safety, including 

the potential neighborhood impacts from train derailments involving hazardous materials that 

can result from crossing collisions. 

The following examples describe crossing consolidation as undertaken by different stakeholders:

State Program Example—North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 

Many States have crossing closure programs and procedures: Although older, a relevant example 

of a closure program is the effort begun by the NCDOT in 1993. North Carolina recorded its 

300th crossing closure in 2017 and the NCDOT “Sealed Corridor” effort is an excellent model 

of a State-level crossing program which included grade separations, crossing closures, and 

improvements including four quadrant gate systems, medians, and test of vehicle detection radar 

to crossings left open.(13) The NCDOT’s crossing closure criteria considers the following:

• Crossings within one-quarter-mile of one another that are part of the same highway or street network

16 
• Crossings where vehicular traffic can be safely and efficiently redirected to an adjacent crossing

• Crossings where a high number of crashes have occurred

• Crossings with reduced sight distance because of the angle of the intersection, curve of the track,

trees, undergrowth, or man-made obstructions

• Adjacent crossings where one is replaced with a bridge or upgraded with new signaling devices

• Several adjacent crossings when a new one is being built

• Complex crossings where it is difficult to provide adequate warning devices or that have severe

operating problems, such as multiple tracks, extensive railroad-switching operations, or long

periods of blocked crossings

• Private crossings for which no responsible owner can be identified

• Private crossings where the owner is unable or unwilling to fund improvements and where

alternate access to the other side of the tracks is reasonably available

The NCDOT considers the following factors in deciding whether to close or improve a crossing:

• Collision history

• Vehicle and train traffic (present and projected)

• Type of roadway (e.g., thoroughfare, collector, local access, truck route, school bus route, or

designated emergency route, etc.)

• Economic impact of closing the crossing

• Alternative roadway access

• Type of property being served (e.g., residential, commercial, or industrial, etc.)

• Potential for bridging by overpass or underpass

• Need for enhanced warning devices (four-quadrant gates, longer arm gates, or median barriers)

• Feasibility for roadway improvements

• Crossing condition (geometry, sight distance, and crossing surface)

• Available federal, State, and/or local funding

Closure implementation strategies used by NCDOT include the following:

• Constructing a connector road or improving roadways along alternate routes to direct traffic to an

adjacent crossing

• Dead‐ending affected streets and rerouting traffic, creating cul‐de‐sacs

• Constructing bridges

• Relocating or consolidating railroad operations

17 
Local Program Example—San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG) 

A local grade crossing closure program developed in the San Gabriel Valley in Southern 

California is one of the largest local programs of crossing improvements, closures, and grade 

separations. The SGVCOG conducted a study of 55 grade crossings which identified 19 

grade separations to eliminate 23 crossings as well as improvements to crossings remaining 

at grade.(14) SGVCOG obtained local funding and established the Alameda Corridor—East 

Construction Authority in 1998. In 2018, the Authority was advancing the final grade separations 

for construction and is nearing the final stages of a large program which includes 19 grade 

separations to eliminate 23 at-grade crossings along with implementing safety and mobility 

upgrades at 53 crossings.(15) 

Railroad Program Example—BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) 

One crossing closure initiative was established by BNSF in 2000.(16) This initiative is part of 

BNSF’s crossing safety program, which has the goal of reducing crossing collisions, injuries, and 

fatalities. The crossing safety program also includes community education, enhanced crossing 

technology, crossing resurfacing, vegetation control, installation of warning devices, and track 

and signal inspection and maintenance. In March 2006, BNSF closed its 3,000th highway-rail 

crossing since the beginning of its crossing closure initiative. By eliminating unnecessary and 

redundant crossings, BNSF has made an important contribution to community safety while also 

improving the efficiency and safety of its rail operation. The following are the three key elements 

of BNSF’s crossing closure initiative:

• A closure team was assembled, bringing together field safety and the public projects group

in engineering.

• Division engineering and transportation personnel identified closure candidates.

• A closure database was developed to track progress.

INACTIVE OR ABANDONED CROSSINGS 

The first step in addressing the problem of crossings on abandoned rail lines is to obtain 

information on actual abandonments from the Surface Transportation Board (STB) or a State 

regulatory commission. Railroads are required to apply to STB for permission to abandon a 

rail line (49 CFR Part 1152). In addition, some State laws require railroads to also apply for 

State permission or to notify a State agency of intent to abandon a railroad line. The State 

highway representative responsible for crossing safety and operations should be notified of these 

intentions. The State highway agency might work out an agreement with the State regulatory 

commission that any information on railroad abandonments is automatically sent to the State 

highway agency. Railroad personnel responsible for crossing safety and operations should also 

seek the same information from their operating departments. 

In a case where the railroad line has been abandoned, but the unused crossing warning devices 

remain in place, unnecessary delays may result, particularly for special vehicles required by 

federal and State laws to stop at every crossing. Additionally, if rail features such as track and 

warning devices are left in place on abandoned lines, road users may become conditioned to 

18 
ignoring such features, thus potentially reducing the credibility of crossing warning devices on 

other crossings. 

The desirable course of action for abandoned crossings is to remove all traffic control devices 

related to the crossing and remove the tracks. The difficulty is in identifying a statutorily 

abandoned railroad line, as opposed to a railroad that has simply fallen into disuse but remains 

open for railroad purposes. For example, a railroad may discontinue service over a line or a track 

with the possibility that another railroad, particularly a short-line railroad, may later purchase or 

lease the line to resume that service. These railroad lines are called inactive lines and removing 

the track will add substantial cost when reactivating the service. 

Another type of inactive rail line is one with seasonal service. For example, rail lines that serve 

grain elevators may only have trains during harvest season. The lack of use during the rest of the 

year may cause the same safety and operational problems described earlier. 

Once a rail line has been identified as already abandoned or as a candidate for abandonment, 

the crossings on that line should be identified. This can be determined from the State inventory 

of crossings or obtained from FRA, custodian of the USDOT National Highway-Rail Crossing 

Inventory. A field inspection of these crossings should be made to determine if all crossings 

on that line, both public and private, are listed in the inventory as well as to verify the type of 

crossing warning devices located at each crossing. 

This field inspection provides an excellent opportunity to assess the safety and operations of 

each crossing on that line. If the rail line is not abandoned, the necessary information has been 

gathered to improve each crossing by one of the alternatives described in following sections. 

If rail service has been discontinued, pending resolution of the abandonment application and 

formal abandonment, immediate measures should be taken to inform the public. For example, 

“EXEMPT” signs, if authorized by State law or regulation, can be placed at the crossing to notify 

drivers of special vehicles that a stop at the crossing is not necessary. Gate arms should be removed 

and flashing‐light signal heads should be hooded, turned, or removed. However, if train service is 

resumed, 49 CFR 234.247 requires that the crossing warning devices be operational and all FRArequired tests and inspections be conducted prior to operating any trains over the crossing. 

The track should be physically removed and all traffic control devices removed following official 

abandonment if no possibility exists for resumption of rail service. This can be determined by 

examining the potential for industry or business to require rail service. For example, if the rail 

line was abandoned because the industry that required the service has moved and other plans 

for the land area have been made, it could be determined whether need for the rail service will 

continue. An agreement may be necessary between the public authority and the railroad to 

accomplish the physical removal of the tracks. 

REMOVAL OF GRADE SEPARATION STRUCTURES 

The FRA data indicates as of 2017, there were approximately 36,000 public grade-separated 

highway-rail crossings in the United States—more than half of these grade-separated crossings 

have a bridge or highway structure over the railroad tracks. As these structures age, become 

19 
damaged, or are no longer needed because of changes in highway or railroad alignment, an 

engineering evaluation should be performed to determine whether the structures should be 

upgraded or removed. 

Currently, there are no nationally recognized guidelines for evaluating the alternatives available 

for the improvement or replacement of grade-separation structures; however, some States have 

developed evaluation methods for the selection of projects to remove grade-separation structures. 

State Level Guidance—Pennsylvania 

The purpose of the Pennsylvania guidance is to assist highway department personnel in the 

selection of candidate bridge removal projects where the railroad line is abandoned. Both bridges 

carrying highway over railroad and bridges carrying abandoned railroad over highway can be 

considered. The factors to be considered in selecting candidate projects are as follows:

For bridges carrying highway over an abandoned railroad:

• Bridges that are closed or posted for a weight limit because of structural deficiencies (the length of the

necessary detour is important)

• Bridges that are narrow and therefore hazardous

• Bridges with hazardous vertical and/or horizontal alignment of the highway approaches (accident

records can be reviewed to verify such conditions)

For bridges carrying abandoned railroad over a highway:

• Bridges that are structurally unsound and a hazard to traffic operating under the bridge

• Bridges whose piers and/or abutments are near the traveled highway and constitute a hazard

• Bridges whose vertical clearance over the highway is substandard

• Bridges where the vertical and/or horizontal alignment of the highway approaches are hazardous

primarily because of the location of the bridge

It should be noted that this guidance is applicable to situations that involve abandoned rail lines. 

In instances where a railroad continues to operate, some questions to consider prior to removing 

a grade separation over or under a rail line are as follows:

• Can the structure be removed and replaced with a crossing?

• Who is liable if an accident occurs at the new crossing?

• If the structure is to be rebuilt, who is to pay the cost or who is to share in the cost and to

what extent?

• To what standards is the structure to be rebuilt?

• What is the future track use and potential for increase in train frequency?

20 
• If the structure is replaced with a crossing, what delays to motorists and emergency service will

result? Are alternate routes available?

• What impact will a crossing have on railroad operations?

• What will be the impact on safety of a crossing versus a structure?

To ensure a proper answer to these and other related questions, an engineering evaluation, 

including relative costs, should be conducted. This evaluation should follow procedures 

described in Chapter 3 of this document. 

RELOCATION 

Other alternatives to highway-rail crossing improvement programs are relocation of the highway 

or railroad, or railroad consolidation. These alternatives provide a solution to railroad impacts 

on communities such as noise, traffic delays, and the land use “barrier” effect of a rail corridor; 

however, the costs associated with relocation or consolidation can be high. 

Benefits of railroad relocation in addition to those associated with crossing safety and operations 

include improved environment resulting from decreased noise and air pollution, improved land 

use and appearance, and improved railroad efficiency. Railroad relocation and consolidation may 

also eliminate obstructions to emergency vehicles and provide safer movement of hazardous 

materials. Collectively, the tangible and intangible benefits may justify the relocation or 

consolidation of railroad facilities; any one of the benefits alone might not provide sufficient 

justification for the expense.

Many factors should be considered in planning for railroad relocation. The new location 

should provide proper alignment, minimum grades, and adequate drainage. Sufficient ROW

should be available to provide the necessary horizontal clearances, additional rail facilities as 

service grows, and a buffer for abating noise and vibrations. The number of crossings should 

be minimized. 

The railroad corridor can be further isolated from residential and commercial activity by zoning 

the property adjacent to the railroad as light and heavy industrial. Businesses and industry 

desiring rail service can locate in this area. 

Highway relocations are sometimes accomplished to provide improved highway traffic flow 

around communities and other developed areas. Planning for highway relocations should 

consider routes that eliminate crossings by avoiding the need for access over railroad tracks or by 

providing grade separations. 

SITE IMPROVEMENTS 

In addition to the installation of traffic control systems, site and operational improvements can 

significantly contribute to the safety of highway‐rail crossings. Site improvements are discussed 

in four categories: crossing geometry, removing obstructions, illumination, and safety barriers.

21 
Crossing Geometry 

The ideal crossing geometry is a 90-degree intersection of track and highway with slightascending grades on both highway approaches to reduce the flow of surface water toward the 

crossing. Few crossings have this ideal geometry because of topography or limitations of ROW 

for both the highway and the railroad. Every effort should be made to construct new crossings in 

this manner. Horizontal and vertical alignment and cross-sectional design are discussed below. 

Horizontal Alignment 

Ideally, the highway should intersect the tracks with a minimum skew with no nearby 

intersections or driveways. This layout enhances the driver’s view of the crossing and tracks and 

reduces conflicting vehicular movements from crossroads and driveways. To the practical extent, 

crossings should not be located on either highway or railroad curves. Roadway curvature inhibits 

a driver’s view of a crossing ahead, and a driver’s attention may be directed toward negotiating 

the curve rather than looking for a train. Railroad curvature inhibits a driver’s view down the 

tracks from both the approach to the crossing and from a stopped position at the crossing. 

Crossings located on both highway and railroad curves present maintenance problems and poor 

rideability for highway traffic if conflicting superelevation is present. Similar difficulties arise 

when superelevation of the track is opposite to the grade of the highway. 

If the intersection between track and highway cannot be made at right angles, the variation from 

90 degrees should be minimized. At skewed crossings, motorists must look over their shoulders 

to view the tracks. Because of this more awkward movement, some motorists may only glance 

quickly and not take necessary precautions. 

Improvements to horizontal alignment can be expensive, depending on the extent of construction 

required. Special consideration should be given to crossings that have complex horizontal 

geometries, as described previously. These crossings may warrant the installation of active traffic 

control systems or, if possible, may be closed to highway traffic.

22 
Rail 

r 

9m(~ft)Min. ! 

I 

1'06m,

1 

I ; 

I 

ct 

Track ct 

Rail 

I 

I 9 m [30 ft) Min. l'-----i, I 

0.6m 

(2 ft] 

~- Level I 

75 mm (3 in.) Max.J- G!ade __ y_,_ _____ T...--1 _ _ 

Grade j 

Level 75 mm (3 in.) Max. 

Crossing Profile —Vertical Alignment 

It is desirable that the intersection of highway and railroad be as level as possible from the 

standpoint of sight distance, rideability, and braking and acceleration distances. Positive drainage 

is provided if the crossing is located at the peak of a vertical curve on the highway; however, the 

curve should be adequately flat to avoid hanging‐up of vehicles and of sufficient length to ensure 

an adequate view of the crossing consistent with the highway design or operating speed. 

When constructing new highway-rail at-grade crossings or enhancing existing locations, care 

should be taken to create horizontal and vertical profiles that provide smooth and safe travel for 

motorists approaching and using crossings. Vehicles or trailers low to the ground relative to the 

distance between axles pose the greatest risk of becoming stuck at crossings due to contact with 

the track or highway surface. Similarly, a low vehicle’s front or rear bumper overhang may strike 

or drag along the pavement surface in a sag vertical curve. 

The AASHTO presents a guideline which is traversable by a wide range of vehicles including 

those with long wheelbases and/or low ground clearance (this standard is also provided by 

AREMA). Shown in Figure 1, the guideline recommends that the crossing surface be in the 

same plane as the top of rails for a distance of 2 feet outside of the rails, and that the surface of 

the highway be not more than 3 inches higher or lower than the top of the nearest rail at a point 

30 feet from the rail for new construction. 

Figure 1. Highway-Rail Crossing Cross Section 

Source: Figure 9-102, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highway and Streets, Washington, DC, 

AASHTO, 2018. Used by permission.

Low-clearance vehicles pose the greatest risk of becoming immobilized at highway-rail crossings 

due to contact with the track or highway surface. Except for specialized vehicles such as tank trucks, 

there is little standardization within the vehicle manufacturing industry regarding minimum ground 

clearance. Instead, the requirements of shippers and operators guide manufacturers.(17) 

Two constraints often apply to the maintenance of crossing profiles: drainage requirements and 

resource limitations. Coordination of maintenance activities between rail and highway 

authorities, especially at the city and county levels, can be frequently informal and unstructured. 

Even when the need to coordinate has been identified, there may be a lack of knowledge 

regarding whom to contact. For these reasons, it is important to note that with any routine track 

23 
work, or any highway/roadway surface repaving work to be performed, notification of all parties, 

and acknowledgement of receipt of notice, should occur prior to any work commencing. 

Existing crossings constructed on an embankment for drainage purposes may be problematic for 

low ground clearance vehicles to negotiate. Historically, track maintenance may have raised the 

track over time if additional ballast was placed beneath the ties. Unless the highway profile was 

also adjusted, this practice can result in a “humped” profile that may adversely affect the safety 

and operation of highway traffic over the railroad. Modern maintenance equipment and practices 

re-set the track structure and “tamp” the ballast in place without modifying the track elevation. 

In some cases, highway authorities become aware of increases in track elevation only after 

maintenance activities have taken place. As a result, even if State standards exist, there is little 

opportunity to enforce them. Often, an individual increase in track elevation may not violate a 

guideline, but successive track raises may slowly create a high‐profile crossing. Over time, this 

can result in a condition referred to as a “hump crossing.” 

Strategies to address this problem could include the following:

• Designing a standard with maximum grades at the crossing

• Prohibiting truck trailers with a certain combination of under-clearance and wheelbase from using

the crossing

• Setting trailer design standards

• Posting warning signs in advance of the crossing

• Minimizing the rise in track due to maintenance operations

Because of the previously noted variations in vehicle configurations, it is difficult to determine

whether a crossing which does not meet the AASHTO guideline is traversable by all long 

wheelbase and low ground clearance vehicles. Also, there are many crossings which do not 

meet the AASHTO guideline exactly but nevertheless are unlikely to strand low ground 

clearance vehicles.

The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) published Design Guidelines for Highway 

Railroad Grade Crossing Profiles in Florida.(18) This document provides an in-depth discussion 

of the technical issues, lists various standards in use, and presents more practicable solutions for 

development of crest and sag curves which would prevent hang-up of low clearance vehicles. 

Figure 2 shows a crest curve treatment using three vertical curves. The project also resulted in 

the development of software known as HANGUP for evaluation of crossing profiles.

At locations where the profile is sufficiently abrupt to potentially immobilize vehicles, a Low 

Ground Clearance Grade Crossing (W10-5) warning sign and a LOW GROUND CLEARANCE 

(W10-5P) supplemental plaque, Figure 3, may be installed for each direction of travel to warn 

drivers of long wheelbase vehicles or drivers of vehicles that have a low ground clearance that 

they might encounter a hang-up situation if they attempt to use the crossing. (Figure 4 shows a 

typical treatment.) The USDOT Crossing Inventory Form(19), in Part III, Box 2E, provides a place 

to indicate if a crossing has such signs installed. 

24 
16 in. 

0+-00.0 

20 ft. \ lin. 

0+12.S 

PVC, 

0+20.0 

PVl1 

lfail T rnck 

20 ft. ~tin. 20 ft. Min. 

G3 - 0 

Vertkal Crest _ _ ,._ _ __ ---lf---- - -- Curn 2: L • 15f1. 

0+27.S 0+32.5 

PVT, PVC1 

LOW GROUND 

CLIARANC[ 

NOTE: 

G I - G2 s; J.33% 

G2 - GJ ~ 3.33% 

W1 0-5iP 

O+oO.O 

Figure 2. Fitting Three Vertical Curves to an Approach to a Railroad Crossing Profile

Source: Sobanjo, J., Design Guidelines for Highway Railroad Grade Crossing Profiles in Florida,

Figure 4.6, Florida State University, May 2006.

Figure 3. Low Ground Clearance Warning Signs 

Source: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2009 Edition.

25 
NOTES: Refer to MUTCD section 8B.23 

for information on "Rough Crossing" 

and advisory speed signs. 

W10-5 sign should be installed at 

the nearest intersecting highway 

where a vehicle can detour or at 

a point on the highway wide 

enough to permit a U-turn. 

...... 

...... 

R15-1 

(Refer to MUTCD sections 

8B.03 and 8B.04) 

~W10-5 

~ W10-5P 

lmnl W16-2aP 

a:: 

...... @ a. a. tt') tt') cs:, 

0 0 <b 

~ ~ ~ 

...... 

W10-1 

~ ral]~ 

~W10-5 

~ W10-5P 

J AHEAD I W16-9P 

i 

Figure 4. Treatment for Low Ground Clearance 

Source: Seyfried, R. K., (Ed.), Traffic Control Devices Handbook, 2nd Edition, Figure 11-5,

Washington, DC, ITE, 2013.

26 
Removing Obstructions and Sight Distance 

Clear Zone 

Outside of urban areas, where the approach roadway has a shoulder area, it is desirable to provide 

a “clear zone” approaching the crossing. A clear zone is an unobstructed, traversable roadside area 

that allows a driver to stop safely or to regain control of a vehicle that has left the roadway.

(20)

 This 

area should be free from obstacles such as unyielding sign and luminaire supports, non-traversable 

drainage structures, trees larger than 4 inches in diameter, utility or railroad line poles, or steep 

slopes. Design options for mitigating these features are generally considered in the following order:

• Remove the obstacle or redesign it so that it can be safely traversed

• Relocate the obstacle to a point where it is less likely to be struck

• Reduce impact severity by using an appropriate breakaway device

• Redirect a vehicle by shielding the obstacle by use of a longitudinal barrier or crash cushion

• Delineate the obstacle if the above alternatives are not appropriate

The term “clear zone” is also used to refer to a zone within the railroad corridor along the tracks 

free of sight distance restrictions. For example, Illinois regulations require a 500-foot clear 

zone which is to be kept “reasonably clear of brush, shrubbery, trees, weeds, crops, and all 

unnecessary permanent obstructions such as unauthorized signs and billboards.”(21) 

Sight Distance 

Adequacy of sight distance is critical at passive crossings; however, even where active devices 

are present or will be provided, sight distance is beneficial to confirm the ability to cross the 

tracks. The discussion on the following pages defines “desired” roadway user response based 

upon available sight distance. Drivers may not exercise best judgment under all conditions. The 

existence of sight distance deficiencies which cannot be corrected should consider the use of 

active devices at the crossing. (Refer to Appendix C for discussion of sight distance evaluation as 

part of a field diagnostic review of a specific crossing.)

The Traffic Control Devices Handbook (2nd Edition) indicates three zones within the approach 

to a crossing where drivers make decisions about their movements in relation to the crossing.(2) 

Figure 5 shows the three zones as well as the respective sight distance associated with each (dH 

and dTrepresent the respective distances from the crossing for the highway vehicle and train, and 

MTCD refers to the “minimum track clearance distance” at the crossing, which should be clear 

of vehicles when a train is approaching). Table 2 indicates for each zone the desired roadway 

user response, depending upon whether a train is visible. 

27 
,/ STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE : 

• ..~' .t> 

... ... 

ADVANCE NOTICE ZONE CROSSING APPROACH ZONE CROSSING ZONE 

ff 

 Figure 5. Approach Regions with Passive Traffic Control Devices

Source: Traffic Control Devices at Grade Crossings, Figure 11-15, Washington, DC, ITE, 2013.

It is desirable that sight distances permit operation at the design speed of the approach roadway 

to the greatest degree practical. To permit this, three areas should be kept free from obstruction: 

the advance notice zone, where the road user first realizes there is a crossing ahead, the crossing 

approach zone where adequate corner sight distance is desirable, and the crossing zone where 

clearing sight distance is required. 

Table 2 highlights the Traffic Control Devices Handbook guidance for sight distance.(2) 

Table 2. Sight Distance Zones 

Region 

Sight 

Distance 

Criteria 

Information 

Acquired by 

Roadway User Desired Roadway User Response 

Advance 

Notice Zone 

Stopping 

Sight 

Distance 

Grade crossing 

ahead (train may 

be at crossing) 

Look ahead and to both sides for more information; 

consider safe approach speed; stop if necessary 

Crossing 

Approach 

Zone 

Corner Sight 

Distance 

Grade crossing 

ahead (train may 

be at crossing) 

Slow down; stop ahead of crossing 

Train in crossing 

Slow down; stop ahead of crossing if train may 

arrive at crossing before roadway vehicle can clear 

the Crossing Zone 

Train 

approaching 

Slow down if corner sight distance impaired; prepare 

to stop if necessary 

No train visible Stop; wait for train to pass 

Crossing 

Zone 

(including 

MTCD) 

Clearing 

Sight 

Distance 

Train in crossing 

Stop ahead of crossing if required to do so by law; 

proceed with caution if roadway user can clear the 

Crossing Zone before train arrival 

Train 

approaching 

Stop if required to do so by law; proceed through 

crossing 

No train visible Look ahead and to both sides for more information; 

consider safe approach speed; stop if necessary 

28 
Approach Sight Distance 

The first region of concern is the approach sight distance where the road user becomes aware

of the presence of a crossing ahead. The approach area from the road user to the crossing 

should be evaluated to determine whether it is feasible to remove any obstructions that prevent 

the motorist from viewing the crossing ahead, a train occupying the crossing, or active control 

devices at the crossing. 

Obstructions in this area can be traffic control devices, roadside commercial signing, utility 

and lighting poles, or vegetation. Horizontal and vertical alignment can also serve to obstruct 

motorists’ view of the crossing. Clutter can sometimes be removed with minimal expense, 

improving the visibility of the crossing and associated traffic control devices. Traffic control 

devices unnecessary for the safe movement of vehicles through the crossing area should be 

relocated if possible. Vegetation should be removed or cut back periodically. Billboards should 

be prohibited on the approaches. 

Corner Sight Distance 

The second region of concern is the corner sight distance which allows an approaching road user 

the ability to see an approaching train. View obstructions often exist within the sight triangle, 

typically caused by structures, topography, crops or other vegetation (continually or seasonal), 

movable objects, or weather (fog or snow). Where restricted sight distances exist, motorists should 

reduce speed and be prepared to stop no less than 15 feet before the near rail, unless and until they 

are able to determine, based upon the available sight distance, that there is no train approaching and it 

is safe to proceed. Wherever possible, sight line deficiencies should be improved by removing structures

or vegetation within the affected area, regrading an embankment, or realigning the highway approach. 

Many conditions, however, may be difficult to correct because the obstruction is on private 

property or it is economically infeasible to correct the sight line deficiency. If available corner 

sight distance is less than what is required for the legal speed limit on the highway approach, 

supplemental traffic control devices, such as enhanced advance warning signs, or reduced speed 

limits (advisory or regulatory) should be evaluated. If the responsible highway authority wishes 

to allow vehicles to travel at the legal speed limit on the highway approach, active warning 

devices should be considered. 

Changes to horizontal and vertical alignment can be more expensive, depending on the scope of the 

desired change. When constructing new highways or reconstructing existing highways, however, 

care should be taken to minimize the effects of horizontal and vertical curves at a crossing. 

29 
Clearing Sight Distance 

The third region of concern is the clearing sight distance, which pertains to the visibility 

available to a road user along the track when stopped ahead of the crossing. Usually, this area 

is located on railroad ROW. Vegetation is often desired along railroad ROW to serve as an 

environmental barrier to noise generated from train movements; however, safety at crossings is 

of more importance and, if possible, vegetation within the rail right-of-way should be removed or 

cut back periodically. States or other authorities may require clear sight lines of 500 feet in each 

direction (refer to prior discussion on Clear Zones). Also, if practical, this sight distance area 

should be kept free of parked vehicles and standing railroad cars or locomotives. Care should be 

taken to avoid the accumulation of snow in this area. 

Table 3 provides clearing sight distance for cars, trucks, and pedestrians. The person or agency 

evaluating the crossing should determine the specific design vehicle, pedestrian, bicyclist, or 

other non-motorized conveyance and compute clearing sight distance if it is not represented 

in Table 3 using formulas provided in AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and 

Streets, 7th Edition, Chapter 9, Section 12.(22) Note that the table values are for a level, 

90-degree crossing of a single track. If other circumstances are encountered, the values should be

recomputed using the equations shown in AASHTO.

Table 3. Clearing Sight Distance Criteria by Mode 

Train Speed 

73.5-foot Double 

Truck(a) Car(b) Pedestrian(b) 

10 255 105 180 

20 509 205 355 

30 794 310 530 

40 1,019 410 705 

50 1,273 515 880 

60 1,528 615 1,060 

70 1,783 715 1,235 

Sources: (a) A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, AASHTO, Washington, DC, 

2018; (b) Guidance on Traffic Control Devices at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings, Highway/Rail 

Grade Crossing Technical Working Group, Washington, DC, 2002.

If there is insufficient clearing sight distance, and the driver is unable to make a safe 

determination to proceed, the clearing sight distance needs to be improved to safe conditions or 

flashing‐light signals with gates, closure, or grade separation should be considered.

An engineering study should be conducted to determine if the three types of sight distance can be 

adequately provided. If not, other alternatives should be considered. The posted highway speed 

might be reduced to a level that conforms to the available sight distance. It is important that the 

motorist understand why the speed reduction is necessary, otherwise, it may be ignored unless 

enforced. At crossings with passive control devices only, consideration might be given to the 

installation of active traffic control devices that warn of the approach of a train.

30 
Illumination 

Illumination at a crossing may be effective in reducing nighttime collisions. Illuminating most 

crossings is technically feasible because nearly all crossings have commercial power available. 

Illumination may be effective under the following conditions:

• Nighttime train operations

• Low train speeds

• Blockage of crossings for long periods at night

• Collision history indicating that motorists often fail to detect trains or traffic control devices at night

• Horizontal and/or vertical alignment of highway approach such that vehicle headlight beam does

not fall on the train until the vehicle has passed the safe stopping distance

• Restricted sight or stopping distance in rural areas

• Humped crossings where oncoming vehicle headlights are visible under trains

• Low ambient light levels

• A highly reliable source of power

Luminaires may also provide a low‐cost alternative to active traffic control devices on industrial 

or mine tracks where switching operations are carried out at night. 

Figure 6 shows a typical layout where a minimum of two luminaires are placed in opposite 

approach quadrants to illuminate the crossing and a 100-foot approach zone. Luminaire supports 

should be placed in accordance with the principles in the Roadside Design Guide(23) and the 

Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware(24). If they are placed in the clear zone on a high-speed 

road, they should be breakaway. 

31 
LEGEND: 

• Pole 

0 Luminaire 

100 ft 

(70nP. whP.rP. illumination 

requirements apply) 

~I 

( ) 

. 

30 ft (typ} I 

I 

I 30 ft (typ) 

I( ) 

•o-----. l 1------=--o100 ft 

{1rn 1e whe, e ill11111i11alio11 

requirements apply) 

Figure 6. Pole and Luminaire Locations Where a Railroad ROW Crosses a Public Roadway 

Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers.

Illumination guidance for crossings is provided in the ANSI/IES publication RP-8-14.(25) 

Illumination requirements for the 100-foot approach zone range from 3 lux (concrete) to 9 

lux (smooth asphalt). According to the ANSI/IES RP-8-14, there are several factors affecting 

visibility. As these factors heighten/increase, the visibility level of the target can significantly 

increase or decrease. The factors which should be taken into consideration include the following:

• Adaptation level—relative contrast sensitivity

• Age of the observer

• Contrast

• Disability glare

• Size

• Time of viewing

• Transient adaptation

32 
Safety Barriers and Crossing Surfaces 

Guardrails and Crash Cushions 

The purpose of a traffic barrier, such as a guardrail or crash cushion, is to protect the motorist by 

redirecting or containing an errant vehicle. The purpose is not to protect a traffic control device 

against collision and damage. The use of a traffic barrier should be limited to situations in which 

hitting the object, such as a traffic control device, is more hazardous than hitting the traffic 

barrier and redirecting the vehicle into a train. 

Longitudinal guardrails should not be used for traffic control devices at crossings unless the 

guardrail is otherwise warranted, such as for a steep embankment. The longitudinal guardrail 

might redirect a vehicle into a train. The ring type guardrail placed around a signal mast may 

be used at locations with heavy industrial traffic, such as trucks, and low highway speeds. Care 

should be taken not to create the same type of hazard as the signal mast itself (the guardrail may 

be a roadside obstacle). 

On some crossings, it may be possible to use crash cushions to protect the motorist from striking 

a traffic control device. Some crash cushions are designed to capture rather than redirect a 

vehicle and may be appropriate for use at crossings to reduce the redirection of a vehicle into the 

path of a train. 

A curb over 4 inches in height is not an acceptable treatment where vehicle speeds are high 

because it may cause vehicles to become airborne if struck at high speed. Curbs should be 

avoided on high-speed roads but, if needed, the curb can be located at the back of the shoulder. In 

some cases, curbs closer to the traveled way may be acceptable on a high-speed road where they 

fulfill an important function, such as blocking an illegal or undesirable traffic movement.

The Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH)(24) developed by AASHTO provides current 

standards for upgrading barriers, crash cushions, and other features. The AASHTO/FHWA 

jointly established an initiative in 2015 to upgrade existing highways to conform to the MASH 

standards. More information can be obtained from the Roadside Design Guide.(23) An engineering 

study should be completed to help determine the appropriate barrier treatment. 

Crossing Surfaces 

The AREMA Manual of Railway Engineering, Chapter 5, Part 8,(26) provides guidelines for the 

construction and reconstruction of highway‐rail crossings. The first section of Part 8 provides 

information on the following crossing surface materials:

• Crossing width

• Profile and alignment of crossings and approaches

• Drainage

• Ballast

• Ties

• Rail

• Flange widths

• New or reconstructed track through a crossing

33 
Proper preparation of the track structure and good drainage of the subgrade are essential to good 

performance from any type of crossing surface. Excessive moisture in the soil can cause track 

settlement, accompanied by penetration of mud into the ballast section. Moisture can enter the 

subgrade and ballast section from above, below, and/or adjacent subgrade areas. To the extent 

feasible, surface and subsurface drainage should be intercepted and discharged away from the 

crossing. Drainage can be facilitated by establishing an adequate difference in elevation between 

the crossing surfaces and ditches or embankment slopes. The highway profile at all crossings 

should be such that water drains away from the crossing. 

NEW CROSSINGS 

Like crossing closure/consolidation, opening a new public highway-rail crossing should likewise 

consider public safety, necessity, access, and economics. Generally, new crossings (particularly 

on mainline tracks) should not be permitted unless no other viable alternatives exist. Even in 

those instances, consideration should be given to closing one or more existing crossings. 

Communities, developers, and highway transportation planners need to be mindful that once a 

highway-rail crossing is established, drivers can develop a low tolerance for the crossing if blocked 

by a train for an extended period. If a new access is proposed to cross a railroad where railroad 

operation requires temporarily holding trains, only grade separation should be considered. 

PASSIVE CROSSING TREATMENTS 

Passive traffic control devices consist of regulatory signs, warning signs, guide signs, and 

pavement markings. These devices provide static messages of warning, guidance, and in some 

instances, mandatory action for the driver. Their purpose is to identify and direct attention to 

the location of a crossing to permit drivers and pedestrians to take appropriate action. Passive 

devices may be used at a passive crossing or may be used in conjunction with active devices 

at an active crossing. (Refer to the Sight Distance section for a discussion of sight distance 

requirements for passive crossings.) 

Signs and pavement markings are to be in conformance with the MUTCD. New editions of 

the MUTCD are released periodically. Between MUTCD updates, the FHWA provides official 

interpretations, manages traffic control device experimentations, and issues interim approvals for 

new traffic control devices. Practitioners should confirm all signs, dimensions, and criteria with 

the latest edition of MUTCD. 

Signs 

Part 8 of the MUTCD includes provisions for use of signs at crossings and contains two figures 

which provide “sign panels” depicting regulatory and warning signs which are most relevant to 

crossings (MUTCD Figures 8B-1 and 8B-4). Some of these signs are in general use; others are 

specific to crossings.

34 
RH 

TRACKS 

OUT Of 

SERVICE 

RS-9 

ii 

ONLY 

R15-4b 

RIS-1 

DO NOT 

DRIVE 

ON 

TRACKS 

R15·6a 

STOP 

Rl-2 ■■ HERE 

WHEN 

FLASHING 

~ Rs-10 

_I 

9 inches 

R3•1a Activated Blank-Out 

STOP 

HERE 

~N 

FLASHING 

R8-10a 

9 inches 

1-1 

-! 1- 27 indles - 1 

RIS-2P 

ii i* 

DO NOT 

ONLY PASS 

RIS-4c RIS-S 

% DIVIDED 

HIGHWAY ~ HIGHWAY 

RIS-7 R1S-7a 

R3-2a 

Activated Blank-Out 

STOP 

HERE ON 

RED 

~ 

RI0-6 

R15-3P 

DO NOT 

PASS 

STOPPED 

TRAIN 

R15-5a 

RIS-S 

DO NOT 

STOP 

ON 

TRACKS 

RS-8 

STOP 

HERE 

~ 

RED 

RI0-6a 

i 

ONLY 

R15-6 

Figure 7 depicts the regulatory sign panel. The “Crossbuck” sign (R15-1) is required to be used 

on each highway approach to every crossing, alone or in combination with other devices with 

a minor exception for LRT crossings where its use is optional in semi-exclusive or mixed-use 

alignments. At passive crossings, the Crossbuck sign is used within a “Crossbuck Assembly” in 

conjunction with use of a STOP or YIELD sign as further described below. Many of the other 

regulatory signs such as the NO RIGHT (LEFT) TURN ACROSS TRACKS (R3-1a/R3-2a) 

blank-out signs, the DO NOT STOP ON TRACKS (R8-8), and the “Stop Here” series (R8-

10/10a) and R10-6/6a) signs are used in conjunction with active devices. The signs in the fourth 

row are for use with LRT or street-running rail. 

Figure 7. Regulatory Signs and Plaques for Crossings 

Source: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2009 Edition. Figure 8B-1 Regulatory 

Signs and Plaques for Grade Crossings, Washington, DC, FHWA, 2009.

35 
8 

W10-1 

, .. 1 

W10-7 

Activated 

Blank-Out 

NO GATES 

OR LIGHTS 

w10-·13p 

IEXEMPTI 

W10-1aP 

W10-8 

NEXT 

CROSSING 

W10-14P 

W10-2 

W10·9 

USE NEXT 

CROSSING 

W10-14aP 

W10-9P 

ROUGH 

CROSSING 

W10-15P 

W10-3 W10-4 

100 rrrr 150 fffl 

BETWEEN BETWEEN 

TRACKS AND IIIGllWAY AND 

TRACKS HIGHWAY BEHIND YOU 

W10-11 W10-1 1a W10-11b W10-12 

Note: The W10-11 sign is a W10-3 sign modified for 

geometrics. Other signs can be oriented or revised as needed to better portray the geometrics of the 

roadways and the tracks. 

Figure 8 shows the warning sign panel. Part 8 of the MUTCD contains specific standards and

guidance for the use of these signs. This section summarizes key requirements and gives examples 

for specific conditions for which these signs were intended to address.

Figure 8. Warning Signs and Plaques for Crossings 

Source: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2009 Edition, Figure 8B-4 Regulatory 

Signs and Plaques for Grade Crossings, Washington, DC, FHWA, 2009.

Table 4 lists all the signs which are included in Part 8 of the MUTCD along with a brief 

description of the intended application or indication of the need for each. 

36 
Table 4. Current MUTCD Signs 

Sign Designation Section Sign or Plaque Application or Indication of Need 

R3-1 8B.08 No Right Turn Movement Prohibition 

R3-2 8B.08 No Left Turn Movement Prohibition 

R1-1 8B.04, 8B.05 STOP Standard—A STOP or YIELD sign is required 

to be used as part of a Crossbuck Assembly at 

passive crossings (refer to text for specifics). 

R1-2 8B.04, 8B.05 YIELD Standard—A STOP or YIELD sign is required 

to be used as part of a Crossbuck Assembly at 

passive crossings (refer to text for specifics). 

R8-8 8B.09 Do Not Stop on 

Tracks 

Should be used where an engineering study 

indicates the potential for vehicles to stop on 

the crossing is significant. 

R8-9 8A.05, 8B.10 Tracks Out of 

Service 

May be used with engineering judgement as 

a temporary provision before tracks will be 

removed or paved over. 

R8-10, 10a 8B.11 Stop Here When 

Flashing 

May be used at a highway-rail crossing to 

inform drivers of the location of the stop line or 

the point at which to stop when the flashinglight signals (Section 8C.02) are activated. 

R10-6, 6a 8B.12, 8C.09 Stop Here on Red May be used at locations where vehicles 

frequently violate the stop line or where it is 

not obvious to road users where to stop. 

R10-11a 8B.08, 8C.09 No Turn on Red May be used in conjunction with preemption of 

a traffic signal to prohibit turning movements 

toward the tracks (refer to text on preemption). 

R15-1 5F.02, 8B.03, 

8B.04, 8B.10, 

8C.02, 8C.13, 

Grade Crossing 

(Crossbuck) 

Standard—Required as part of a 

Crossbuck Assembly with limited exceptions 

(refer to text for specifics). 

R15-2P 5F.02, 8B.03, 

8B.04, 

8B.10, 

8C.02, 9B.14 

Number of Tracks Standard—Required as part of a Crossbuck 

Assembly at locations with two or more tracks 

and no gate; optional with gate. 

R15-3P 8B.07 Exempt Recommended where school buses and 

commercial vehicles that are usually required 

to stop at crossings are not required to do so 

where authorized by ordinance. 

R15-4a 8B.13 Light Rail Only 

Right Lane 

May be used for multilane operations where 

roadway users might need additional guidance 

on lane use and/or restrictions. 

R15-4b 8B.13 Light Rail Only Left 

Lane 

May be used for multilane operations where 

roadway users might need additional guidance 

on lane use and/or restrictions. 

37 
Sign Designation Section Sign or Plaque Application or Indication of Need 

R15-4c 8B.13 Light Rail Only 

Center Lane 

May be used for multilane operations where 

roadway users might need additional guidance 

on lane use and/or restrictions. 

R15-5 8B.14 Light Rail Do 

Not Pass 

May be used where vehicles are not allowed 

to pass LRT vehicles that are loading or 

unloading passengers at locations where no 

raised platform physically separates the lanes. 

R15-5a 8B.14 Do Not Pass 

Stopped Train 

Same as R15-5. 

R15-6 8B.15 Do Not Drive 

On Tracks Light 

Rail Symbol 

May be used where there are adjacent vehicle 

lanes separated from the LRT track only by a 

curb or pavement markings. 

R15-6a 8B.15 Do Not Drive 

On Tracks 

Same as R15-6. 

R15-7 8B.16 Light Rail Divided 

Highway Symbol 

May be used with appropriate 

geometric conditions. 

R15-7a 8B.16 Light Rail Divided 

Highway Symbol 

(T-intersection) 

Same as R15-7. 

R15-8 8B.17, 8C.13 Look May be used to advise pedestrians to anticipate 

a train or LRV coming from either direction. 

W10-1 8B.06, 8B.25 Grade Crossing 

Advance Warning 

Standard—Required device, with MUTCD 

exceptions (Section 8B.06). 

W10-1aP 8B.07 Exempt Should be used with W10-1 at Exempt 

locations (refer to R15-3P). 

W10-2,3,4 8B.06, 5F.03 Highway-Rail 

Grade Crossing 

Advance Warning 

Required on parallel roadways where there is 

an intersection within 100 feet of a crossing 

(refer to text for specifics). 

W10-5, W10-5P 8B.23 Low Ground 

Clearance 

Highway-Rail 

Grade Crossing 

Should be used as indicated by 

MUTCD guidelines, incident history, or 

local knowledge. 

W10-7 8B.19 Light Rail Activated 

Blank-Out Symbol 

May be used to warn road users of an 

approaching LRT vehicle. 

W10-8 8B.20 Trains May Exceed 

80 mph 

Should be used where train speed is 80 mph 

or faster. 

W10-9, W10-9P 8B.21, 9B.19 No Train Horn Required at crossings in FRA-authorized quiet 

zones. 

W10-11 8B.24 Storage 

Space Symbol 

Should be used where there is inadequate 

clear storage space between the crossing and 

a downstream intersection, as determined by 

engineering study. 

38 
Sign Designation Section Sign or Plaque Application or Indication of Need 

W10-11a 8B.24 Storage Space 

XX Feet Between 

Tracks and Highway 

Should be used in conjunction with W10-11. 

W10-11b 8B.24 Storage Space 

XX Feet Between 

Highway Tracks 

Behind You 

May be used in conjunction with W10-11. 

W10-12 8B.25, 9B.19 Skewed Crossing May be used at a skewed highway-rail 

crossing to warn drivers that the railroad 

tracks are not perpendicular to the highway. 

W10-13P 8B.22 No Gates or Lights May be installed at highway-rail crossings that 

are not equipped with active warning devices. 

W10-14P 8B.23 Next Crossing May be used in conjunction with other warning 

signs to advise drivers of alternate route. 

W10-14aP 8B.23 Use Next Crossing Refer to W10-14P. 

W10-15P 8B.23 Rough Crossing May be used if the highway-rail crossing 

is rough. 

I-13 8B.8 Emergency 

Notification 

Should be installed at all crossings to provide 

for emergency notification. 

Source: Adapted from Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2009 Edition. FHWA, 

Washington, DC, 2009.

The MUTCD Section 2A.16 (Standardization of Location) discusses Standards and Guidance for 

positions and locations of signage. In general, MUTCD specifies that signs should be located on 

the right-hand side of the highway, where the driver is looking for them. Signs should be located 

to optimize visibility. Signs should not be in a highway dip or beyond the crest of a hill. Care 

should be taken so that the sign is not obscured by parked cars or foliage or covered by roadside 

splatter or snow accumulation. 

Section 8A.04 of the MUTCD discusses the importance of retroreflective or illuminated signs 

and object markers to meet requirements both by day and by night. MUTCD Section 2A.15 

contains a wide range of provisions for increasing sign conspicuity including the use of LED 

enhancement. Section 2A.07 contains general provisions for retroreflectivity and illumination; 

signs may be “flashed” in accordance with flash rates specified in this section. Conditions under 

which enhancement may be desired include the following:

• Locations with visual clutter due to a combination of existing traffic control signs and adjacent

commercial signs

• Locations where the horizontal and/or vertical alignment of the approach roadway in combination

with sign placement requirements reduce sign visibility

• Locations where observation indicates low compliance with posted signs

39 
“GRADE CROSSING” (Crossbuck) sign (R15-1) and “NUMBER OF TRACKS” sign 

(R15-2): The “GRADE CROSSING” sign, commonly identified as the “Crossbuck” consists of 

a white reflectorized background with the words “RAILROAD CROSSING” in black lettering, 

as shown in Figure 9. Per Section 8B.03 of the MUTCD, the use of the Crossbuck sign at all 

highway-rail crossings is considered standard practice. The only exception to this requirement 

is for LRT crossings, where use of the Crossbuck is optional. The MUTCD requires use of the 

Crossbuck sign, along with the “NUMBER OF TRACKS” sign (where more than one track is 

present) on each approach to a public highway-rail crossing. The railroad Crossbuck sign and 

other supplemental signs attached to the Crossbuck mast are usually installed and maintained 

by the railroad company. (The agency responsible for maintenance of the roadway is normally 

responsible for advance warning signs and pavement markings.) 

Crossbuck signs should be located with respect to the highway pavement or shoulder as 

discussed above for all signs and should be located with respect to the nearest track in 

accordance with signal locations as discussed in the next section. Where unusual conditions 

exist, the placement of Crossbucks should provide the best combination of view and safety 

clearances as determined by engineering judgment. 

Crossbuck Assembly: For passive crossings, the Crossbuck sign is incorporated in a Crossbuck 

Assembly which includes, the “NUMBER OF TRACKS” sign (required if there is more than 

one track), and either a “YIELD” or “STOP” sign, with “YIELD” being the default sign subject 

to engineering study. (Where applicable, each State’s MUTCD supplements to these treatments 

should be considered.) Figure 11 and Figure 12 illustrate the Crossbuck Assembly, showing 

the different sign selections and orientations that are possible, as shown in Chapter 8B in the 

MUTCD. Figure 10 shows the typical layout on the approach to a crossing. 

The following standards and/or guidance can be considered for the installation of YIELD or 

STOP signs at passive crossings per the MUTCD:

• When the YIELD or STOP sign is installed on the same support as the Crossbuck sign, a strip

of retroreflective material shall be used on the front and back of the support. The color of the

retroreflective strip on the front of the support may be red or white (as per MUTCD Figure 8B‐2).

The color of the retroreflective strip on the back of the support shall be white. The dimensions and

placement of the retroreflective strips should be in conformance with the standards in Section 8B.04.

• When the YIELD or STOP sign is installed on a separate support, a retroreflective strip of red

may be installed on the front of the post. The separate Crossbuck support shall have a white strip

post front and back (see MUTCD 8B-3).

• When a STOP sign is installed in conjunction with the Crossbuck sign, a stop line should be

installed, if appropriate to the roadway surface, to indicate the point behind which vehicles are

required to stop, as per MUTCD Section 8B.28.

• When a YIELD sign is used in conjunction with the Crossbuck sign, either a yield line (per

MUTCD Section 3B.16) or a stop line (per MUTCD Section 8B.28 and Figure 8B-6) may be

installed to indicate the point behind which vehicles are required to yield or stop. When used, the

stop line or yield line (such as size, pattern, and location) must be in conformance with provisions

in Part 3 of the current edition of MUTCD).

40 
I 

...a.... ...... 

.. X G R1 •1 50 

OR 

RU-1 V R1-2 .. 

z 

IC 0 .. "'I;: ~ ii! C z 

0 <;> ~5 u • 

W3•1• .. J .. .. 

; OR 

~ 

....... 

m.i. ; 

Figure 9. Crossing Sign (Crossbuck) 

Source: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2009 Edition, Figure R15-1,

Washington, DC, FHWA, 2009.

Figure 10. Typical Sign System with STOP or YIELD 

Source: Traffic Control Devices Handbook, Washington, DC, ITE, 2013.

41 
• Height may be varied as required 

by local conditions and may be 

increased to accommodate signs 

mounted below the Crossbuck sign 

•· Measured to the ground level at 

the base of lhe support 

Notes: 

I 

See Notes 2, 3, and 4 

"-edge of roadway 

2-inch while or red 

retro reflective 

strip on front 

2-inch white 

retrorefteclive strip 

on back of support 

1. YIELD or STOP signs are used only at passive crossings. A STOP sign is used only if an engineering study 

determines that it is appropriate for that particular approach. 

2. Mounting height shall be at least 4 feet for installations of YIELD or STOP signs on existing Crossbuck sign supports. 

3. Mounting height shall be at least 7 feet for new installations in areas with pedestrian movements or parking. 

Figure 11. Highway-Rail Crossing (Crossbuck) Sign and STOP or 

YIELD Sign on Same Post 

Source: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 2009 Edition, Figure 8B-2,

Washington, DC, FHWA, 2009.

42 
2inchesMl~ 

6 ft f----MIN ----<, I • 

red Opt reit

onal roreflective 2-inch -i- strip on front 

5 ft MIN. 2-inch whtte 

retroreflective strip 

on front and bad< 

2 ft 

MIN. 

T 

7 ft MIN. 

RURAL AREA 

I 

2inches 

MIN. 

Optional 2-inch 

red retroreftective 

strip on front 

-,- 2 ft MAX. 

I 

-,-

2 ft MAX. 

I 

2-inch white 

retroreflective strip 

on front and bad< 

AREA WITH PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENTS OR PARKING 

Notes: 

1. STOP signs are used only at passive crossings and only if an engineering study determines that it is 

appropriate lor that particular approach. 

2. Place lhe face of the signs m the same plane and place the STOP sign closest to lhe traveled way. Provide 

a 2-inch minimum separation between the edge of the Crossbuck sign and the edge of the STOP sign. 

Figure 12. Highway-Rail Crossing (Crossbuck) Sign and STOP Sign on Separate Posts 

Source: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 2009 Edition, Figure 8B-3, STOP sign panel,

Washington, DC, FHWA, 2009.

43 
Emergency Notification sign (I-13): Except for crossings located within railroad yards or port 

and dock facilities, FRA regulations (49 CFR 234.311) require the installation of Emergency 

Notification System signs at highway‐rail and pathway grade crossings to provide information to

road users so that they can notify the railroad company about unsafe conditions or malfunctioning 

active crossing warning devices. Figure 13 shows an example of this sign, which is an approved 

alternate to the Emergency Notification (I‐13) sign shown in Figure 8B‐5 of the MUTCD.

Advance Warning Signs (Wl0-1, Wl0-2, Wl0-3, W10-4): The round, black, and yellow 

advance warning sign (W10-1) is located in advance of the crossings and serves to alert the

motorist that a crossing is ahead. The advance warning sign has a minimum diameter of 36

inches for conventional roads. Per the MUTCD, the sign is required in advance of all cross

except the following:

ings 

• On an approach to a highway-rail crossing from a T-intersection with a parallel highway, if the

distance from the edge of the track to the edge of the parallel roadway is less than 100 feet and

W10-3 signs are used on both approaches of the parallel highway

• On low-volume, low-speed highways crossing minor spurs or other tracks that are infrequently used

and are flagged by train crews

• In business districts where active highway‐rail crossing traffic control devices are in use

• Where physical conditions do not permit even a partially effective display of the sign

When the crossing is on a divided highway, it is desirable to place an additional advance warning 

sign on the left side of each approach. It may also be desirable to place an additional sign on 

the left side of a highway approach when the highway alignment limits the visibility of signs 

mounted on the right side. 

The distance from the advance warning sign to the track is dependent upon the highway speed, 

but in no case, should be less than 100 feet in advance of the nearest rail. This distance should 

allow the driver sufficient time to comprehend and react to the sign’s message and to perform 

any necessary maneuver. (Table 2C-4 in the MUTCD provides recommended placement. 

Condition A is used for advanced warning sign placement.) 

Where a road runs parallel to a railroad and the perpendicular distance between the two is less than 

100 feet, there is not enough distance to display the advance warning sign (W10‐1). For traffic 

turning from the parallel road, one of three other warning signs (W10-2, W10-3, and W10-4) can 

be used when their need has been determined from an engineering study (refer to Figure 14). 

Storage Space signs (W10-11 & W10-11a): These signs should be used where there is a highway 

intersection near a crossing and there is not enough storage space to accommodate a design vehicle 

between the intersection and the dynamic envelope of a train or LRT, subject to an engineering 

study. Figure 15 provides an illustrative example of sign placements to address this condition. 

44 
NOTE. 

DISTANCE 1111!:ASURED 

f!lK)MIEOOE d. 

OF HIOHWA'I' i 

lD FlltSJ RAIL _ 

i 

~ 

~ 

LJ 

REPORT PROBLEM 

OR EMERGENCY 

1-800-555-5555 

X-ING 836 597 H 

XYZ RAILROAD 

...L. ;'<-A~ 4Si'i'i 1~6') 

)( ~;·; NOTE: 

DlilA!lti iH.AiUP12D ~ 

ro =~=; P-11tn IUJi.. I ~ 

! 

§ 

CNO~ : ...... , .... .,.., 

HOT !J.'ttOWJI 

F'OR <CU.Am' 

► ~EJ!.TABU!zc-4 

QHAJ"ll:R 2C, MUTCD 

DPTIOiNAL 

...... 

LJ • 1 I 

- ~ ~ ,APPflO)( UmU&1 

X••LJ 

RliJII.ACHW2SERJEI w11&c1 

CROSS!tOAOs:tGlf9 

(IF USEDi , ,t; 

- Hll. TABlf 2C--4 , 

~HAP'N!R 2'C-. IMIJ1'CD; 

NIJTiar 

P,.VEr.Q:fn lt,IAIIJCIN(i 

NOTSflOWN 

l'Ol!t ouutll'Y 

<IM. y ONE APPRO"ACJ-1 Sl'IOWN iN El'.AMPL.1£ ONLY OHi: AFIPROACH SHOWN_. clCAMl"LE; 

' 

TYPICAL SIGN SYSTEM WHERiE PAMLL& HIGHWAY fftP.ICAL SIGN SYSTEM WHEiRE. PARALLEL HJGH'NAY 

IS 0\/',EiR 100 FEET IF'-ROM CROSSING tS wm-trN 100 FEET Of CROSSING 

Figure 13. Example of Emergency Notification Sign (ENS)

Source: Standard Highway Signs: Including Pavement markings and Standard Alphabet, 2004

Edition, 2012 Supplement, Figure 8B-5. FHWA, Washington, DC, 2012.

Figure 14. Placement of Advance Warning Signs with Parallel Roadway 

Source: Geometric Design Criteria for Highway-Rail Intersections (Grade Crossings),

Washington, DC, ITE, 2001.

45 
-

-

* some aocncies appty 

diagonal OI' (t0$$haleh 

pavement markings In 

lh!s area. 

~ 

-

NOTE: Refer lo MUTCO sections 

88.06. 8B.09, and 88.24 

~ 

-

T , 

t.:* 8 

~ 

V 

~ 

-

..... OR:,V:,.2 ... ••• . 

-·· •= 

W10-1 - 1b NOTE: W10· t 1b may be 

mounted under the 

.. 

$TOP or YIElO s.gn °' just p<ior t<> a 

signalized lntersec:tio n. 

- 00•~1 .......... X "" 

..... 

..... 

R15-1 

.. 

""'" R8-8 

NOTE: Refer lo M UTCO sections 

88.03 and 88.04 regarding 

er05Sbuck. assembly. 

~ W10-11 

~W10-11a 

W10-1 

Figure 15. Substandard Clear Storage Distance 

Source: Seyfried, R. K., (Ed.), Traffic Control Devices Handbook 2nd Edition, Figure 11-3,

Washington, DC, ITE, 2013.

46 
Dynamic envelope 

(see Figure 88-8) 

(if needed) (if needed) 

(optional) 

' t 

Legend 

- Direction of travel 

A three-lane roadway should be marked with a 

center line for two-lane approach operation on 

the approach to a grade crossing. 

If transverse lines are used at the grade 

crossing, yield lines may be used instead 

of stop lines if YIELD signs are used at 

the grade crossing. 

Stop fine approximately 8 ft 

upstream from gate (ii present) 

See 

Chapter2C, Table 2C-4 

+r 

Pavement 

Marking 

Symbol• 

On multi-lane roads, the transverse bands 

should extend across all approach lanes, 

and individual RXR symbols should be used 

in each approach lane. 

(see Figure 88-7) 

• When used, a portion ol lhe 

pavement marking symbol 

should be directly opposite the 

Advance Warning Sign (W10 -1). 

If needed, supplemental 

pavement marking symbol(s) 

may be placed between the 

AdVance Warning Sign and the 

grade c rossing, but should be 

at least 50 feet from the stop 

or yield line. 

Note: In an effort to simplify the 

figure to show waming sign 

and pavement marking 

placement, not all required traffic 

control devices are shown. 

Pavement Markings 

Pavement markings are used to supplement the regulatory and warning messages presented by 

crossing signs and signals. Pavement markings have limitations in that they may be obliterated by 

snow, may not be visible when wet, and may not be very durable when subjected to heavy traffic.

The MUTCD Section 8B.27 provides that on paved roadways, pavement markings in advance 

of highway-rail crossings shall consist of an X, the letters RR, a NO PASSING marking on 

two-lane, two-way highways with centerline markings, and certain transverse lines, as shown in 

Figure 16. Identical markings shall be placed in each approach lane on all paved approaches to 

crossings where crossing signals or automatic gates are located, and at all other crossings where 

the prevailing speed of highway traffic is 40 mph or greater. These markings are also to be placed 

at crossings where engineering studies indicate there is a significant potential conflict between 

vehicles and trains. These markings may be omitted at minor crossings or in urban areas if an 

engineering study indicates that other crossing devices provide suitable control. Figure 16 also 

shows a placement example of warning signs and pavement markings at highway-rail crossings. 

Figure 16. Example of Placement of Warning Signs and Pavement Markings 

at Highway-Rail Crossings 

Source: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 2009 Edition, Figure 8B-6,

Washington, DC, FHWA, 2009. 47 
The MUTCD requires that pavement markings specific to crossings shall be retroreflectorized. 

Other markings are required to comply with MUTCD provisions in Part 3 which requires use 

of retroreflective materials and/or illumination unless ambient illumination provides adequate 

night time visibility. Raised pavement markers can be used to supplement pavement markings 

in advance of crossings. The longitudinal lines, “X” symbol, and stop line can be delineated by 

raised retroreflective markers to provide improved guidance at night and during periods of rain 

and fog. Disadvantages of raised pavement markers include the initial cost and the possibility of 

being damaged or removed by snow plows. 

The MUTCD recommends all pavement markings be retroreflectorized white except for the NO 

PASSING markings that are to be retroreflectorized yellow. By this standard, the stop line is 

to be 2 feet in width and extend across the approach lanes, and the stop line should be located 

perpendicular to the highway centerline and approximately 15 feet from the nearest rail. Where 

automatic gates are installed, the stop line should be located approximately 8 feet in advance of 

where the gate arm crosses the highway surface. 

Exclusion Zone (Keep Clear) Treatments 

At locations where queueing on the tracks is of concern due to limited storage space downstream 

from the crossing, Do Not Block Intersection markings may be used to mark the edges of an 

intersection area that is in close proximity to a railroad crossing per MUTCD Section 3B.17. 

Options for the design of Do Not Block Intersection pavement markings are provided in 

MUTCD Figure 3B-18. 

The Illinois DOT design standard uses cross-hatching at pre-signal locations as presented in its 

design manual and supporting traffic control design standards, as shown in Figure 17. 

Edge Lines 

Widespread use of Global Positioning System (GPS) navigational guidance has been identified as 

a causative factor in collisions where road users inadvertently turned onto the tracks ahead of a 

highway intersection at night.(27) Carrying edge lines and centerlines across the tracks and careful 

placement of arrow markings can reduce the likelihood of this type of collision. 

Channelizing devices such as tubular markers can be used in conjunction with edge lines at 

locations where the alignment curves or in rural locations to guide users safely through crossings. 

Refer to MUTCD Section 3F. Figure 18 shows a typical treatment. 

48 
0 © © 

NO DO NOT CAUTION 

TURN STOP WM.KTIME 

ON $ N0Hlt:Hi:0 

ON W'Wf:NTANN 

TRACKS APPROACHES RED 

® © 

STOP STOP .... ..... .-:' 

RED RED ~ 

STOP STOP HERE ON HERE ON 

RED RED 

~ ' 

Figure 17. Use of Diagonal Exclusion Zone Striping Shown at Pre-Signal Location 

Source: Adapted from Signing and Pavement Marking at Railroad Crossings Memorandum, Typical

Supplemental Sign Pavement Marking for Railroad Crossing, IDOT District 1, April 8, 2014.

Figure 18. Illustration of Use of Tubular Markers (Metro North Harlem 

Subdivision, Green Lane Crossing, Bedford Hills, NY ID 529898H)

Source: Google Earth.

49 
-

- Note: In an effort to s implily the figure lo 

show the dynam 

all pavement m 

traffic control dev 

ic envelope markings, not 

arkings or other required 

ioes are shown. 

* The distance between the rail and the 

dynamic envelope pavement marking 

should be equal to 6 feet unless otherwise advised by the operating 

railroad or light rail transit agency. 

Dynamic 

envelope 

~ 

I ,.* 

~ 

Dynamic 

envelope 

Legend 

- Direction of travel 

\ Optional 4-inch 

while pavement markings 

Arrow Markings 

Where pavement arrow markings are needed, current practice is to place arrow markings 100 feet 

or more in advance of the stop line. Practitioners are advised to avoid placement of pavement 

arrows immediately in advance of the tracks; it may be necessary to place two sets of markings, 

one between the crossing and the downstream highway and another set well in advance of the 

crossing, if practicable. 

Dynamic Envelope 

The dynamic envelope, see Figure 19, is the region between and immediately adjacent to 

the tracks at a crossing where a road user could be struck by a train considering equipment 

sway. This zone may be delineated with four-inch white pavement markings or other means as 

described in MUTCD 8B.29. 

Figure 19. Example of Dynamic Envelopment Pavement Markings at Grade Crossings 

Source: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 2009 Edition, Figure 8B-8, Washington, DC,

FHWA, 2009.

The dynamic envelope is specific to the type of rail equipment, which may be operated on the 

tracks, e.g., the dynamic envelope for freight rail differs from the dynamic envelope for LRT 

trains. The dynamic envelope is a clearance envelope which considers not only the size and 

shape of the rail vehicles, but also the overhang and sway of the vehicles moving along the tracks 

and around curves. The Association of American Railroads (AAR) indicates 10 feet-8 inches as 

a standard width of the dynamic envelope, so marking the dynamic envelope just beyond 3 feet 

from the rail is a current practice applicable to freight rail. 

50 
ACTIVE TREATMENTS 

Overview 

Active traffic control devices are those that give visual and audible advance notice of the 

approach of a train. These include flashing‐light signals (both mast‐mounted and cantilevered), 

bells, automatic gates, active advance warning devices, and highway traffic signals. Active 

devices are typically activated by the passage of a train over a detection circuit in the track, 

except in those few situations where manual control or manual operation is used (LRT systems 

typically use loops or contacts because LRT tracks are used as an electrical “ground” to propel 

trains). Active traffic control devices are usually supplemented with the same signs and pavement 

markings used for passive control, except that STOP or YIELD signs are not used where active 

traffic control devices are installed. This section describes the different traffic control devices 

available for use. Additional guidance on the selection of alternatives can be found in Chapter 3. 

Driving tasks at crossings with active traffic control devices are different from those at

crossings with passive devices. Passive devices indicate that a crossing is present and that it is 

the road user’s responsibility to look for an approaching train and take appropriate action. At 

crossings with active traffic control devices, a motorist is told when a train is approaching or

is present at the crossing. It is the motorist’s responsibility to take appropriate action when the 

devices are activated. 

Train Detection and Device Activation 

Devices need to be actuated in advance of train arrival to allow road users to clear the track 

area. A key principle is “warning time”—the amount of advance notice of the arrival of a train. 

In addition to the time for road users to perceive and react to active warning devices and for 

pedestrians and vehicles to clear the tracks, active control devices present at a crossing must 

activate and operate in a logical sequence which may include “preemption” of downstream traffic

signals to allow vehicles to clear from the crossing, as well as activation of flashing‐light devices

and bells followed by descent of the crossing gates, if present. 

Active devices are actuated by means of train detection circuitry. Legacy train detection units 

rely upon conventional electronic components including coils, resistors, and relays. Current train 

detection is largely solid state driven, but the outputs are taken from relays activated by the solid 

state circuits. Shown in Figure 20, the fundamental concept is use of a railroad circuit which 

uses the rails as conductors. A voltage is applied across the rails at one end of a detection zone 

and a relay (or other circuitry) detects the voltage transmitted down the rails. The presence of a 

solid electrical path, as provided by the wheels and axles of a locomotive or railroad car, shunts 

(closes) the circuit, which causes the detection relay to trip. 

The system is also designed to be fail-safe; that is, any shunt of the circuit, whether by railroad 

equipment, vandalism, or an “open circuit” (e.g., a broken rail or track connection), will open the 

relay, which causes the crossing signals to be activated. 

51 
INSULATED RAIL JOINTS 

C> 

BATTERY OR 

POWER SUPPLY 

INSULATED RAIL JOINTS 

.,,,,•.- ·~ VARIABLE FEED 

~ 

RESISTOR (TO) 

Figure 20. DC Track Circuit 

Source: Adapted from Minor Railways Section Guideline on Train Detection DC Track Circuits,

Figure 1, Institute of Railway Signal Engineers, 2014.

Standard highway traffic signals always display a green, yellow, or red light except when 

power has failed and the signals are dark. Active crossing warning devices, however, usually 

incorporate some “fail-safe” design principles. In other words, the crossing warning system 

is designed to give an indication of an approaching train whenever the system fails. Crossing 

signals are normally dark unless a train is approaching or occupying the crossing, so there is no 

indication to the road user when power has failed. Therefore, crossing control systems include 

stand-by battery power should commercial power be terminated for any reason. Solar energy 

may be used to charge storage batteries to power signals at crossings in remote locations. 

Factors that may be considered in the design and installation of a train detection system include 

the following:

• Existing rail and ballast conditions

• Volume, speed, and type of highway and rail traffic

• Other train detection circuits that may be used on the same pair of rails for the regulation of

train movements

• Train propulsion currents on electrified lines

• Track switch locations within the approach warning distances for a crossing

• Train detection circuits used for other crossings within the approaches (overlapping)

• Number of tracks

• Warning time and system credibility

52 
Constant Warning Time Track Circuit 

Where constant warning time is provided, the track circuitry equipment has the capability to sense 

a train in the approach section, measure its speed and distance from the crossing, and activate the 

warning equipment to provide the selected minimum warning time. Thus, regardless of train speed, 

a uniform warning time is provided. If a train stops prior to reaching the crossing or is moving away 

from the crossing, the warning devices are deactivated to allow highway traffic to move over the

crossing. With constant warning time equipment, trains beyond 700 feet can move or switch on 

the approaches without reaching the crossing, and depending on their speed, not cause the crossing 

warning devices to be activated, thus eliminating unnecessary delays to highway traffic.

Warning Time Considerations 

Train detection systems are designed to provide the minimum warning time for a crossing. The 

MUTCD and FRA regulations (49 CFR 234.225) require that the system provide for a minimum of 

20 seconds of warning time. When determining if the minimum 20 seconds of warning time should 

be increased, some factors that should be considered include but are not limited to the following:

• Track clearance distances due to multiple tracks and/or angled crossings (add 1 second for each

10 feet of added crossing length in excess of 35 feet).

• The crossing is located within proximity of a highway intersection controlled by STOP signs

where vehicles have a tendency of stopping on the crossing.

• The crossing is regularly used by long tractor-trailer vehicles.

• The crossing is regularly used by vehicles required to make mandatory stops before proceeding

over the crossing (such as school buses and hazardous materials vehicles).

• The crossing’s active traffic control devices are interconnected with other highway traffic

signal systems.

• It is necessary to provide at least 5 seconds between the time the approach lane gates to the

crossing are fully lowered and when the train reaches the crossing (49 CFR 234.223).

• The crossing is regularly used by pedestrians and non-motorized components.

• The crossing and approaches are not level.

• Additional warning time is needed to accommodate a four-quadrant gate system.

• Other factors regarding crossing location as appropriate.

It should be noted that even when constant warning devices are used, the calculated arrival time 

of the train at the crossing is based on the instantaneous speed of the train as it enters the crossing 

circuit. Once the calculation is made, changes in the train speed will change the train arrival 

time at the crossing and, correspondingly, reduce (or increase) the elapsed warning time at the 

crossing. This factor must be considered at a crossing interconnected to a nearby highway traffic 

signal utilizing either a simultaneous or advance preemption sequence. 

53 
Excessive warning time has been determined to be a contributing factor in some collisions. 

Motorists who are stopped at an activated flashing‐light signal and see no train approaching or 

see a distant train moving very slowly might ignore the warning of the signals and cross the 

tracks. A collision could result as the signals may have been activated by a high-speed passenger 

train just out of sight, not by the slower freight. If motorists are successful in clearing the tracks, 

they may assume that other crossings have excessive warning time. When they encounter a 

crossing with minimum warning time, they may ignore the signals, move onto the crossing, and 

become involved in a collision. This credibility problem is strengthened if motorists continue to 

successfully pass through activated signals with excessive warning time. 

Reasonable and consistent warning times reinforce system credibility. Unreasonable or 

inconsistent warning times may encourage undesirable driver behavior. Research has shown 

that when warning times exceed 40–50 seconds, drivers will accept shorter clearance times 

at flashing‐lights and a significant number will attempt to drive around gates.(28) Although 

mandated maximum warning times do not yet exist, efforts should be made to ensure that traffic 

interruptions are reasonable and consistent without compromising the intended safety function of 

an active control device system’s design. 

Excessive warning times are associated with a permanent reduction in the class of track and/or 

train speeds without a concomitant change in the track circuitry or without constant warning time 

equipment. When not using constant warning train detection systems, track approach circuits 

should be adjusted accordingly when train speeds are permanently reduced. Another frequent 

cause of excessive warning times at crossings without constant warning time equipment is 

variable-speed trains, such as intercity passenger trains or fast commuter trains interspersed with 

slower freight trains. 

A major factor affecting system credibility is an unusual number of false activations at active 

crossings. Every effort should be made to minimize false activations through improvements in 

track circuitry, train detection equipment, and maintenance practices. A timely response to a 

system malfunction coupled with repairs made without undue delay can reduce credibility issues. 

Health monitoring systems capable of reporting to dispatch can improve response times. 

Design information about railroad interconnection circuits and approach length calculations can 

be found in the AREMA Communications and Signals Manual, Part 3.1.10, “Recommended 

Functional/Operating Guidelines for Interconnection Between Highway Traffic Signals and 

Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Warning Systems,” and Part 3.3.10, “Recommended Instructions 

for Determining Warning Time and Calculating Minimum Approach Distance for Highway-Rail 

Grade Crossing Warning Systems.”(29) 

54 
FLASHING-LIGHT SIGNALS 

The fundamental active warning device is the flashing‐light signal, refer to Figure 21, which 

shows the unit combined with an automatic crossing gate. Flashing-light signals consist of two light 

units that flash alternately at a rate of 35 to 65 times per minute. The signal lens is red and comes in a

variety of designs that direct the light toward the motorist. The lamp consists of a low-wattage bulb 

(legacy units) or LED assembly (current practice) used to ensure operation on stand-by battery power 

should commercial power fail. 

The LED units used in new installations offer many advantages over conventional incandescent 

lamps including the following:

• Higher visibility at greater distances for in-line observations

• Greater visibility on angles

• Wider beam pattern and therefore easier beam alignment

• Pure red signal with fast on/off transition, which improves conspicuity

• Lower current consumption at nominal voltage, thereby suitable for solar-powered applications

• Longer life expectancy

Figure 21. Illustrative Example Showing Cantilever with Flashing-Light Devices 

Source: Brent Ogden.

55 
Key MUTCD requirements (refer to Part 8C.02) include the following:

• If used, the flashing‐light signal assembly on the side of the highway shall include a standard

Crossbuck (R15-1) sign, and, where there exists more than one track, a supplemental Number of

Tracks (R15-2P) plaque, all of which indicate to motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians the location

of a crossing.

• The flashing‐light signal shall display toward approaching highway traffic two red lights mounted

in a horizontal line flashing alternately.

• Flashing‐light signals shall be placed to the right of approaching highway traffic on all highway

approaches to a crossing. They shall be located laterally with respect to the highway in compliance

with MUTCD Figure 8C-1 except where such location would adversely affect signal visibility.

• If used at a crossing with highway traffic in both directions, back‐to‐back pairs of lights shall be

placed on each side of the tracks. On multi‐lane one‐way streets and divided highways, flashing‐

light signals shall be placed on the approach side of the crossing on both sides of the roadway or

shall be placed above the highway.

• MUTCD requires 12-inch lenses for all new installations excepting signals controlling pedestrian

movements; however, where 8-inch units are already in place they may be retained for the

remainder of their useful service life.

Other MUTCD guidance includes the following:

• At highway-rail crossings, bells or other audible warning devices may be included in the

assembly as determined by a Diagnostic Team and may be operated in conjunction with the

flashing‐lights to provide additional warning for pedestrians, bicyclists, and/or other non‐

motorized road users.

• If determined by a Diagnostic Team, flashing‐light signals may be installed on overhead

structures or cantilevered supports, as shown in Figure 21, where needed for additional emphasis,

or for better visibility to approaching traffic, particularly along multi‐lane approaches or highways

with profile restrictions. If it is determined by a Diagnostic Team that one set of flashing‐lights on

the cantilever arm is not sufficiently visible to road users, one or more additional sets of flashing‐

lights may be mounted on the supporting post and/or on the cantilever arm.

Current practice is to provide one flashing‐light signal directed at each approach lane which may 

require use of an overhead cantilever and to provide supplemental flashing‐light units aimed at 

frontage road approaches, as discussed below. 

Proper alignment of the light is essential. The following guidance on aiming lights was 

developed originally for highly directional 12‐volt bulbs and reflectors. Current LED equipment, 

however, is more tolerant on the precision of aiming. Nevertheless, the aiming principles 

described should be followed. The flashing‐light unit on the right‐hand side of the highway is 

usually aligned to cover a distance far from the crossing. The light units mounted on the back of 

the signals on the opposing approach and, thus, on the left, are usually aligned to cover the near 

approach to the crossing. Figure 22 shows typical alignment patterns for a two-lane, two-way 

highway and for a multilane highway. 

56 
,~· 

~<H;:;::,,-t-~- 1,• 

35· )'. 

AXIS Of HORIZONTAL 6£.IJ,IS 

----------- ROACH LANE - 100'- --

HIGHWAY-- + --

. -~ood- MAXIMUM ~=tPLAN VIEW SHOWING AREA OF HIGHWAY COVERED BY HORIZONTAL 

LIGHT BEAMS WITH 20° DEFLECTING AND 30° AND 70° SPREADLIGHT 

ROUNDELS . 

ELEVATION VIEW SHOWING 5°, 10° ANO 15° DOWNWARD DEFLECTION. 

Figure 22. Typical Alignment Pattern for Flashing-Light Signals with 

30–15 Degree Roundel, Two-Lane, Two-Way Roadway 

Source: Communications & Signals Manual, Figure 335-1, Lanham, MD, AREMA, 2018.

Cantilevered Flashing-Light Signals 

Flashing‐light signals are post‐mounted, but where improved visibility to approaching traffic 

is required, cantilevered flashing‐light signals are used. Cantilevered flashing‐lights may be 

appropriate when any of the following conditions exist:

• Multilane highways (two or more lanes in one direction)

• Highways with paved shoulders or a parking lane that would require a post-mounted light to be

more than 10 feet from the edge of the travel lane

• Roadside foliage obstructing the view of post‐mounted flashing‐light signals

• A line of roadside obstacles such as utility poles (when minor lateral adjustment of the poles

would not solve the problem)

• Distracting backgrounds such as an excessive number of neon signs (conversely, cantilevered

flashing‐lights should not distract from nearby highway traffic signals)

• Horizontal or vertical curves at locations where the extension of flashing‐lights over the traffic

lane will provide sufficient visibility for the required stopping sight distance

57 
A typical installation consists of one pair of cantilevered lights on each highway approach, 

supplemented with a pair of lights mounted on the supporting mast. However, two or more pairs 

of cantilevered flashing‐lights may be desirable for multilane approaches, as determined by an 

engineering study. The cantilevered lights can be placed over each lane so that the lights are 

mutually visible from adjacent driving lanes. 

Most current installations utilize walkout cantilevers. The inclusion of a ladder and access 

walkway allows for easier maintenance with less impact to highway traffic. Standard cantilevers 

for mounting flashing‐lights are made with arm lengths up to 40 feet. Where cantilever arm 

length is more than 35 feet, a bridge structure is preferred. 

Supplemental Flashing-Light Signals 

Additional pairs of light units, sometimes referred to as “side lights” may also be installed for 

side roads intersecting the approach highway near the crossing or for horizontal curves. 

Figure 23 shows the use of multiple pairs of lights to cover a horizontal curve to the left on the 

approach highway. A horizontal curve to the right may be covered by placing another roadside 

flashing‐light unit on the opposite side of the highway, as shown in Figure 24. Figure 25 shows 

the use of side lights to provide warning to road users approaching from frontage roadways 

parallel the railroad. Mounting of angled side light units should maintain the 30-inch spacing 

indicated in MUTCD Figure 8C-1 from the vantage point of the road user. 

58 
Note: Not to scale, 

Pavement Markings Not Shown 

Area Covered by 

Normal Post -

Mounted Signal 

Area Covered by 

Cantilever- Mounted 

Signal 

Figure 23. Use of Multiple Flashing-Light Signals for 

Adequate Visibility Horizontal Curve to the Left 

Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers.

59 
Note: Not to scale, 

Pavement Markings Not Shown 

Area Covered by 

Normal Post -

Mounted Signal 

Area Covered by 

Additional Signal 

Figure 24. Use of Multiple Flashing-Light Signals for 

Adequate Visibility Horizontal Curve to the Right 

Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers.

60 
Note: Not to scale, 

Pavement Markings Not Shown 

11 Sidelight Detail 

Area Covered by 

Normal Signal 

Area Covered by 

Sidemount Signal 

Figure 25. Use of Sidelights for Frontage Roads 

Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers.

61 
AUDIBLE WARNING 

A crossing bell is an audible warning device used to supplement other active traffic control 

devices. A bell is most effective as a warning to pedestrians and bicyclists. 

When used, the bell is usually mounted on top of one of the signal support masts. Alternatively, 

the bell may be separately mounted on an arm attached to the signal mast. The bell is usually 

activated whenever the flashing‐light signals are operating. Bell circuitry may be designed so that

the bell stops ringing when the lead end of the train reaches the crossing. When gates are used, the 

bell may be silenced when the gate arms descend to within 10 degrees of the horizontal position. 

Silencing the bell when the train reaches the crossing or when the gates are down may be desired to 

accommodate residents of suburban areas. 

Crossing bell specifications indicate a range of a minimum of 75 dB(A) and a maximum of

105 dB(A). AREMA specifications detail how these measurements are taken, including the

following:

• Bell should operate between 100 and 325 strokes per minute.

• Electronic bells should emulate the sound of electro-mechanical bells.

• Practitioners should decide as to whether one audible device is adequate to serve the entire

crossing or if a second bell should be added at large crossings.

In addition to the audible device(s) provided at the crossing, FRA requires the sounding of 

locomotive mounted horns in advance of crossing occupancy by a train. Refer to “Requirement to 

Sound the Locomotive Horn” within the “Quiet Zones” topic in Chapter 6 for additional guidance. 

Wayside Horn 

Another form of audible warning is the wayside horn. The wayside horn system consists of 

a horn or series of horns located at a public highway-rail crossing and directed at oncoming 

motorists. (Refer to Figure 26 which shows a typical installation using two horns to alert road 

users approaching from each direction.) The system is designed on fail-safe principles and 

provides a means to verify sound output. The wayside horn system does the following:

• Simulates the sound and pattern of a train horn

• Provides similar response from road users

• Minimizes the audible footprint in comparison to a locomotive horn sounding when approaching

a highway-rail crossing

62 
Figure 26. Automated Wayside Horn 

Source: Campbell Technology Corporation.

A wayside horn system can be used as an adjunct to train-activated crossing warning systems to 

provide audible warning of an approaching train for traffic on each approach to the highway‐rail 

crossing. Wayside horns provide a directional sound which is aimed at approaching roadway 

users and pedestrians while minimizing the noise impact to properties adjacent to the railroad 

beyond the immediate crossing zone. (The wayside horn system does not need to be directed 

toward approaching roadway users on roadways adjacent to the railroad if a STOP sign or traffic 

signal control device controls roadway traffic.)

When a wayside horn system is used at highway-rail crossings where the locomotive-mounted horn 

is not sounded, the highway‐rail crossings should be equipped with flashing‐lights and gates, power‐

out indicator, and constant warning circuitry—where practical. In such instances, the wayside horn 

should also provide a “confirmation” indication to the locomotive engineer; in the absence of a

confirmation signal, the engineer would need to activate the locomotive‐mounted horn.

The wayside horn system simulates a train horn and sounds at a minimum of 15 seconds prior to 

the train’s arrival at the highway-rail crossing, until the lead locomotive has traversed the crossing. 

Where multiple tracks are present, the wayside horn system is immediately reactivated when 

another train is detected before the previous train clears the crossing. Wayside horn systems should 

include a 3‐ to 5‐second delay after activation of flashing‐lights signals before sounding.

Section 8C.07 of the MUTCD discusses the installation of wayside horn systems in compliance 

with 49 CFR 222.(5) These systems provide audible warning directed toward the road users at a 

highway-rail or highway-LRT crossing, or at a pathway crossing. 

Additional information regarding Quiet Zones can be found in this Handbook in the section 

regarding Quiet Zones. 

63 
AUTOMATIC GATES 

An automatic gate serves as a barrier across the highway when a train is approaching or occupying 

the crossing. The gate is reflectorized with vertical red and white stripes. To enhance visibility during

darkness, three red lights are placed on the gate arm. The light nearest to the tip remains steadily on; 

the other two flash alternately. The gate is combined with a standard flashing‐light signal that provide

additional warning before the arm starts to descend, while the gate arm is across the highway, 

and until the gate arm ascends to clearance. The gate mechanism is either supported on the same

post with the flashing‐light signal or separately mounted on a pedestal adjacent to the flashing‐

light signal post. Additional guidance regarding these devices can be found in Chapter 3. 

s

In a normal sequence of operation, the flashing‐light signals and the lights on the gate arm in its 

normal upright position are activated upon the detection or approach of a train. The MUTCD 

standard in Section 8C.04 requires that the gate arm should start its downward motion not less 

than 3 seconds after the signal lights start to operate, should reach its horizontal position before 

the arrival of the train, and should remain in that position while the train occupies the crossing. 

When the train clears the crossing, and no other train is approaching, the gate arm should ascend 

to its upright position normally in no more than 12 seconds, after which the flashing‐lights 

and the lights on the gate arm should cease operation. In the design of individual installations, 

accommodations for large and/or slow-moving highway vehicles (regarding timing the operation 

of the gate arm) should be considered. 

Section 9.6 of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) General Order 75-D requires 

that, when the gates are fully lowered, the gap between the ends of two complementary gates must 

be less than two feet. This CPUC General Order also requires that, if there is a median, centerline 

striping, or other form of channelization installed, the gap between the gate end and the channelization 

device must be within one foot.” Some railroads request reconfiguration of the crossing when gate

arm lengths would exceed 32 feet and it may be necessary to place gate assemblies in the median 

to cover the approach highway, in which case a 9-foot wide median should be used to provide 

adequate clearance. In these cases, crash cushions or other safety barriers may be desirable. Under 

no circumstances should signals or gate assemblies be placed in an unprotected painted median. 

Conversely, some railroads would prefer longer gate arms rather than a gate mechanism in 

the median. When no train is approaching or occupying the crossing, the gate arm is held in a 

vertical position and the minimum clearance from the face of the vertical curb to the nearest 

part of the gate arm or signal is 2 feet, for 17 feet above the highway. Where there is no curb, a 

minimum horizontal clearance of 2 feet from the edge of a paved or surfaced shoulder is required 

per MUTCD 8C.01, with a minimum clearance of 6 feet from the edge of the traveled highway. 

Where there is no curb or shoulder, the minimum horizontal clearance from the traveled way is 6 

feet. Where flashing‐lights or gates are located in the median, additional width may be required 

to provide the minimum clearances for the counterweight support. It should be noted that gate 

arms have a maximum standard length of 32–38 feet, depending upon the railroad. 

64 
Center or rail -. 

·• .. ,. __ 

'·- I -., __ u I 111'1"11't1'1'm· .. •'••-*illllli_,,,_"_dQ~~iltlMM11T111111tltt:i!l1~1tllt 

I ~ I 

t 

12' min• 

sing gate c 4'-2'f~~---_...-.Cros 

- 8' 

II '• 

·· .•. 

··stop Line 

Center of rail 

'· 

It' 

.... . . ~ 

- I 

12' min • 

4'-2"(typ) ___ .. Cros sing gate 

~ ,.,-·····. 

_,_ 14'( 8' II I 

typ) 

'· .. 

'• 

' ' ' ··--c antilever 

···-stop Line 

• • Some railroads require minimum clearance of 15 feet 

The lateral location of flashing light and gate assemblies should provide adequate clearance 

from the track as well as space for construction of the foundations. (The area for the foundation 

and excavation should be analyzed to determine the effect on sidewalks, utility facilities, and 

drainage.) Figure 27 indicates current standards: It should be noted that commercially available 

components may encroach on the desired 10-foot clearance between the face of the device and 

center of rail, therefore a 12-foot setback may be inadequate. For these reasons, some railroads 

require a 15-foot minimum clearance. 

Figure 27. Typical Location of Signal Devices 

Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers.

65 
If it is necessary to locate the supporting post in a potentially hazardous position to ensure 

adequate visibility, some type of safety barrier should be considered. These are discussed in a 

later section. 

Large multilane intersections and intersections with unusual configurations should be carefully 

studied to determine the appropriate layout of crossing gate locations. For such conditions, 

gate arm requirements may become a principal factor in the layout of the intersection geometry 

and channelization from the outset. The crossing gate (and, therefore, traffic control) treatment 

should be an integral part of the design of an intersection, not an afterthought. 

Discussion on pedestrian treatments can be found in the Pedestrian Treatments section of 

this document. 

It is desirable to place crossing gates perpendicular to the direction of travel on the approach 

roadway. Figure 28 provides an illustrative example for an orthogonal crossing. The crossing gate

mast should be 15 feet from the center of rail; where necessary, this distance can be reduced with 

concurrence from the railroad provided a minimum distance of 10 feet from the center of rail to 

the face of any part of the device is maintained. The crossing gate arm typically has a maximum 

length of 32 feet; if allowed by the railroad, longer gate arms may be used. At locations where the

crossing is at a skew angle, the crossing gates need to be set back to be installed perpendicular to 

the roadway while meeting the required minimum 12-foot distance from the center of rail (refer to

Figure 29 and Figure 30 for obtuse and acute angled crossings, respectively). At locations where 

there is a frontage road intersection close to the crossing, it may not be possible to achieve a 

mounting perpendicular to the approach roadway and angling the crossing gates may be required 

as shown in Figure 31. Angled crossing gates reduce the size of the zone between the crossing 

gate and rail, and may be helpful to prevent vehicles from driving around the entry gates. Current

retroreflective materials are activated over a very wide angle and should be visible at night; 

rotating the gates minimizes the area behind the gate and results in a shorter pedestrian zone 

behind the gates. 

Multi-lane highways typically require use of median-mounted crossing gates. A median-mounted 

gate may satisfy the criteria to have one set of flashing‐light devices aimed at each approach lane. 

If there are three or more approach lanes, a cantilever is usually required. Examples showing use 

of medians with median gates and with the cantilever mounted upstream and downstream from 

the crossing gates are shown in Figure 32 and Figure 33, respectively. 

Refer to the subsequent topic Use of Channelization with Gates for more information on 

median treatments. 

66 
32' MAX 1' MAX 

15' (PREFERRED) 

tTRACK - 1------

< 125' 

------ tTRACK 

10' MIN 

Figure 28. Typical Crossing Gate Placement at 2-Lane Orthogonal Crossing 

Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers.

Figure 29. Typical Crossing Gate Placement at Obtuse Angled Crossing 

Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers.

67 
~TtN~~~~t MAINT~ 

TWO DISTINCT LIGHT 

UNITS INCLUDING 

BACKGROUNDS FRONT LIGHTS 

ORIENTED TO MAINTAIN 

TWO DISTINCT LIGHT 

UNITS INCLUDING 

BACKGROUNDS 

10' MIN 

Figure 30. Typical Crossing Gate Placement at Acute Angled Crossing 

Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers.

Figure 31. Alternate Crossing Gate Placement at Acute Angled Crossing 

(Shown with Exit Gates) 

Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers.

68 
15' 

(PREFERRED 

4'MIN 

15· 

(PREFERRED) 

1 8.S' MIN I ISLAND 

I 32' MAX 1'MAX 

= I X 15' 

10'MIN (PREFERRED 

't TRACK - ---

't TRACK ----

I X I ~ 

,J,. I ,J,. -t 1-t 

I 

~ s.s- I 

ISLAND 

32. MAX I 1' MAX 

............................ ,.--·-- 10'MIN 

<t TRACK -'--------Ii--- - ---

-1------- <t TRACK --------!--- ---

VARIES 

Figure 32. Typical Crossing Gate and Cantilever Placement at Multi-Lane Roadway 

with Medians and Median Gates—Cantilever Upstream from Gates 

Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers.

Note: Location of crossing gate and cantilever may be switched

Figure 33. Typical Crossing Gate and Cantilever Placement at Multi-Lane Roadway with 

Medians and Median Gates—Cantilever Downstream from Gates 

Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers.

69 
Four-Quadrant Gates 

Four-quadrant gate1 systems consist of a series of automatic flashing‐light signals and gates in 

which the gates extend across all roadway lanes on both the approach and the departure side of 

the crossing. Unlike two-quadrant gate systems, four-quadrant gates provide additional visual 

constraints and inhibit most traffic movements over the crossing after the gates have been lowered.

The use of four‐quadrant gates has increased significantly in the past decade for two main 

reasons: (1) design criteria adopted by transit and commuter rail operators which requires use 

of gates on all crossing approaches, and (2) “Quiet Zones” where four-quadrant gates have been 

used for risk reduction. 

There are two recognized methods for operation of the exit gates: timed or dynamic. In the first

instance, exit gates operate on a delay timer to allow vehicles which pass by the entry gates to exit 

the crossing zone before the exit gates are lowered. In the second case, known as “dynamic exit 

gate operating mode,” an “exit gate management system” with detection loops in the crossing area 

is used to monitor vehicle presence within the crossing and hold open and/or raise the exit gates 

if vehicles are on the crossing after the entry gates are lowered. This second method is costlier to 

install and maintain but may be preferred at locations where the traffic flow rate is unpredictable to

assure exit gates do not descend on vehicles. On the other hand, it is possible for a vehicle to back 

up into the vicinity of an exit gate loop and cause the gate to raise. It should be noted that some 

jurisdictions may require use of the dynamic operating mode by policy.

2

Entry gates are designed to “fail-safe in the down position” (e.g., they are powered up and if the 

power fails, they will lower by gravity). However, the failure mode for exit gates is to “fail-safe 

in the up position” so that vehicles do not become trapped on the crossing in the event of a power 

failure. Additional guidance for Four-Quadrant Gate Systems operation can be found in MUTCD 

Section 8C.06. 

Four-quadrant gates are recognized as a “Supplemental Safety Measure” (SSM) in FRA 

regulations governing Quiet Zones (49 CFR Part 222, Appendix A). It should be noted that FRA 

has assigned a lower effectiveness rate to installations that include vehicle presence detection 

because the act of raising the exit gates may allow vehicles to enter the crossing. Figure 34 

shows four quadrant gate treatments for various conditions. 

1 Because of varying intersection configurations, not all crossings using exit gates have gates in all four quadrants; the term “Full Closure” is 

a broader characterization of crossings with gates to block exit lanes. 2 For example, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) requires use of a vehicle presence system “subject to a Commission staff 

diagnostic field meeting recommendation and an engineering study performed by railroad or local agencies” (General Order 75‐D).

70 
Median island between gates 

(as determined by an engineering study) 

OBTUSE ANGLE 

~ 

- Direction of travel 

N Entrance gate 

O--=~- Exit gate 

RIGHT ANGLE 

ACUTE ANGLE 

Lateral clearances shaR be in 

accordance with F,gure BC-1 

and Chapter ac. 

Note: In an effort to simplify the figure 

to show typical location plans for 

Hashing-light signals and fourquadrant gates, not all traffic 

control devices are shown on 

this figure. 

Figure 34. Example of Location Plan for Flashing-Light Signals and Four-Quadrant Gates 

Source: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2009 Edition, Figure 8C-2,

Washington, DC, FHWA, 2009.

71 
Barrier Gate 

The barrier gate is a movable automatic gate designed to close an approaching roadway temporarily 

at a highway-rail crossing (see Figure 35). A typical installation includes a housing containing 

electromechanical components that lower and raise the gate arm, the arm itself, and a locking 

assembly bolted to a concrete foundation to receive and hold the lowered gate arm in place. The 

barrier gate arm has been installed with a system consisting of three steel cables, the top and 

bottom of which are enclosed aluminum tubes. 

 

Figure 35. Example of a Resistance Barrier 

Source: B&B Roadway—Resistance Barrier. (n.d.). Retrieved July 17, 2018,

from http://bbroadway.com/site/products/vt-6802hdtr/

Barrier devices should at least meet the evaluation criteria for a MASH(24) attenuator; stopping an 

empty 4,500-pound pickup truck traveling at 43 mph. Barrier gates have been tested to safely 

stop a pick-up truck traveling at 45 mph. 

Barrier gates could be applied to situations requiring a positive barrier, such as closing-off road 

traffic and opening crossings only on demand. FRA regulations(7) also require use of FRAapproved barrier and/or enhanced warning systems for train operation over 110 mph. FRA 

has indicated that a barrier gate, if equipped with monitoring device, may be used to enforce a 

nighttime closure for partial quiet zones. 

USE OF CHANNELIZATION WITH GATES 

At many crossings, drivers can cross the centerline pavement marking and drive around a gate with 

little difficulty. The number of crossing gate violations can be reduced by restricting driver access

to the opposing lanes. Highway authorities have implemented various median separation devices, 

which have shown a significant reduction in the number of vehicle violations at crossing gates.(30) 

Various styles of median treatments include barrier wall systems, wide raised medians, and 

mountable raised curb systems. In addition to discouraging crossing gate evasion, such treatments 

may be used to restrict left-turns across the median to and from driveways or minor streets adjacent 

to the crossing thus reducing conflicting vehicular turning movements in the crossing vicinity. The

benefits of installing channelization should be considered along with possible adverse effects on

local access and circulation as well as the potential for a road user to strike the barrier. Medians 

and traffic channelizing devices need to be kept out of the path of turning vehicles to avoid being

72 
struck. The median should be designed to allow vehicles to make left turns or U-turns through the

median where appropriate, based on engineering judgment and evaluation. 

It should be noted that median treatments meeting the requirements of Appendix A of 49 CFR Part 

222 are considered supplemental safety measures by FRA for use in a quiet zone (see Quiet Zones).(5) 

Barrier Wall Systems

Concrete barrier walls and guardrails prevent drivers from crossing into opposing lanes throughout

the length of the installation. In this sense, they are the most effective deterrent to crossing gate

violations; however, the road should be wide enough to accept the width of the barrier and the

appropriate end treatment. Sight restrictions for vehicles with low driver eye heights and any 

special needs for emergency vehicles to make a U-turn maneuver should be considered (but not for 

circumventing the traffic control devices at the crossing). To increase the effectiveness of barrier

wall systems, they should extend from the crossing to a length of 100 feet. 

Wide Raised Medians

Curbed medians typically range in width from 4 to 16 feet, although wider medians may be 

present along divided highways. Although they do not present a true barrier, wide medians can 

be nearly as effective because a driver would have significant difficulty attempting to drive 

across to the opposing lanes. The impediment becomes more formidable as the width of the 

median increases. 

Drawbacks to implementing wide, raised medians include the availability of sufficient ROW

and the maintenance of surface and/or landscape. Additions such as trees, flowers, and other 

vegetation higher than 3 feet above the roadway can restrict drivers’ views of approaching trains. 

Maintenance can be expensive, depending on the treatment of the median. Limitation of access 

can cause property owner complaints, particularly for businesses. 

Non-Mountable (Non-Traversable) Curb Islands

Non-mountable curb islands are typically 6 to 9 inches in height and at least 2 feet wide and 

may have flexible, reflectorized tubular delineators or vertical panels. Drivers have significant 

difficulty attempting to violate these types of islands because the 6‐ to 9‐inch heights cannot be 

easily mounted and crossed. 

Some disadvantages should be considered. The road must be wide enough to accommodate 

a 2-foot median. The increased crash potential should be evaluated. AASHTO recommends 

that special attention be given to high visibility if such a narrow device is used in higher-speed 

(greater than 40 mph) environments.(22) Care should be taken to assure that an errant vehicle 

cannot bottom‐out and protrude into the oncoming traffic lane. Sight restrictions for low driver 

eye heights should be considered if tubular delineators or vertical panels are installed. Access 

requirements should be fully evaluated, particularly allowing emergency vehicles to cross 

opposing lanes (but not for circumventing the traffic control devices at the crossing). Paint and 

reflective beads should be applied to the curb for night visibility.

73 
PUN VIEW 

100 J:'t . MI N IMJM 100 fl. MINIMUM 

ESCAPE AREA 

M-CUR8 

• 

M-CUR8 

I ESCAPE AREA "- ' 8 --CURB 

• -

8 -CURB 

GATE/ F'LASMEA 

(TYP JCAU 

CROSS SECTION •-• 

C 

cnOSSINC ENTRANCE VAR. 

84RRIER CURB 

lAi'J..E Of 011,1£NSf0"'S ___ BARRIE_!! CURS 

I I 

• 

-

I 

-

• 

,o r1. 

1 , S:-Q; •IOiR CROSS SECTl~S/ AOOITfON• t.. lAN£S , A ~ Ol A'1 G.\lE IJ.\Y et l'ECESSAAY. t OOA:0 INU£ • ITH 1'H£ ff,\JL1t0-.0. 

8-CUR8 

-

8-<UR8 

ESCAPE 

.1.1-cu~e 

---

M-CURB 

ESCAPE 

VAil . 

t 

7 . US( W<-2 •HE:A( 1Ht SPE:£0 L. IMl l' I S GA£,Ht R THAM '1S IWH ,6,N(I .W-'I WH£AE 

THE SPEED l lMl 1 IS LESS l HAM S MPH, 

J. MJNIWUM &1EOl 1UI W!Ol H IS 8FT-GIN, 81+C:t: Of CURS TO 8,'Ct OF QJR8. 

<I , ACOll lCNlil MA.R;(l,SIC OR SICNINC S:-OR ES-.CA?£ AA£A M.\Y 9£ UTlllZ£0 

CJ , £ , P',Ht f£0 CUA8JNG1 Y£Lt.0W H)Ft w(O I AN, 1tHl 1£ f"OO OU'tS 10£ I . 

5. IF ORlvtu.rs ARE O?POSflt: TIE ESCAPE Af<EA, W:,-0 C\IR8 SHOIJLO BE UTIL IU:O, 

---

AREA 1 ' .J 

---

ARE 4 

CROSS ING DEPARTtm£ 

MOUNTABLE CURS 

I AE!!.E Of OIV!NS!ONS -~ TABtC CURB 

TTPE • • C 0 

--· IIO .. IOO .. tM•2..0&) ,,, <2) ) 

"' (:~~ lOO .. IOO .. "2> <1> 

'" ,,, 

·-IIO l00 (l,H .06) \6) ~ «i .. '" .,.,. lOO t00 'IS IOO 0,1•~ '2> 02> ,., <ll I ~.C l 

U-t0.4S ... t00 !V.-4.18) ~ "" "' 

. 

., 

.. 

(]) 

., 

"' ..

.. '" 

m 

.. 

(]) 

RECOMII.ENOEO CU IOEL JNES 

IM£0 1AN ANO CUR8 TREA1M£NTS 

.. HICHWAY --RAIL INTERSE:CHONS 

J 

., 

.. 

12> 

"' .,, 

.. 

.. 

•• 

The State of Illinois has developed a standard that uses a combination of mountable and nonmountable curbs to provide a wide, raised median with escape zones both in the median, as well as 

to the shoulder (see Figure 36). This treatment is intended to allow vehicles trapped on the tracks 

due to queued traffic to maneuver from the crossing to a safe area in the median or on the shoulder.

Figure 36. Example of Combination of Mountable and Non-Mountable Curbs 

from Illinois Department of Transportation 

Source: Illinois Department of Transportation, Bureau of Local Roads and Streets Manual,

Illinois DOT, Revised June 2018, Mountable Raised Curb Systems.

74 
Mountable Raised Curb Systems (Traffic Separators) 

Mountable raised curb systems or “traffic separators,” with flexible tubular delineators or vertical

panels present drivers with a visual impediment to crossing to the opposing traffic lane (see Figure 

37). The curbs are no more than 6 inches in height, less than 12 inches in width, and built with a 

rounded design to create minimal deflection upon impact. When used together, the mountable raised

median and tubular markers or vertical panels discourage passage. These systems are designed to 

allow emergency vehicles to cross opposing lanes (but not to circumvent the traffic control devices at

the crossing). Usually, such a system can be placed on existing roads without the need to widen them. 

Figure 37. Example of a Traffic Separator

Source: USDOT, Federal Railroad Administration, Research Results 10-03 

(Washington, DC, June 2010).

Because mountable curbs are intended to allow emergency vehicles to cross and are designed to 

deflect errant vehicles, they also are the easiest of all the barriers and separators to violate. Large,

formidable tubular delineators or vertical panels will inhibit most drivers. Care should be taken to 

ensure that the system can withstand normal traffic conditions and that retroreflective surfaces are

maintained in good condition for night-time visibility. Additional guidance is found in the MUTCD 

Section 3B.23. 

These mountable raised curb systems have proven effective and are relatively inexpensive 

compared to treatments which require roadway reconstruction.(30) These traffic separators are 

installed along the centerline of roadways, in most cases extending approximately 70 to 100 feet 

from the crossing. They prevent motorists from crossing lanes to “run around” activated crossing 

gates. The separators consist of prefabricated, mountable islands made of a composite material. 

Attached to the islands are vertical panels or tubular delineators with retroreflective surfaces 

for better visibility at night. The vertical panels or tubular delineator are flexible, yet securely 

anchored allowing them to return to their original positions if struck by a vehicle. 

75 
PREEMPTION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS 

Because a downstream traffic signal may cause traffic to back up toward and/or through a grade

crossing, it is essential that provisions be made to allow traffic to clear from the track area prior to

train arrival. This is accomplished by means of traffic signal “preemption”—the normal sequence

of operation is suspended and a programmed alternative sequence takes over. A preemption 

sequence compatible with railroad crossing active traffic control devices is extremely important

to provide safe vehicular and pedestrian movements. Such preemption serves to ensure that the 

actions of these separate traffic control devices complement rather than conflict with each other.

The MUTCD (see Section 8C.09) indicates that grade crossings with active warning devices 

(such as flashing‐light signals with or without gates) located within 200 feet of an intersection 

or midblock location controlled by a traffic signal should be interconnected with the nearby 

intersection’s traffic control system such that the railroad devices can send a preemption call to 

the highway signals upon detection of an approaching train. The MUTCD also indicates that 

coordination with the flashing‐light signal system, queue detection, or other alternatives should 

be considered for traffic signals located further than 200 feet, while taking into consideration 

traffic volumes, highway vehicle mix, highway vehicle and train approach speeds, frequency of 

trains, and queue lengths. 

At a signalized intersection located within 200 feet or less of a crossing, where the intersection 

traffic control signals are preempted by the approach of a train, all movements from the 

signalized intersection approaching the crossing should be prohibited during the signal 

preemption sequences. 

A blank‐out or Changeable Message Signs (CMS) and/or appropriate highway traffic control 

signal indication (such as a red arrow indication where a left-turn bay is present) or other similar 

type sign may be used to prohibit turning movements toward the highway-rail crossing during 

preemption. These signs may include supplemental blank-out legend which display the word or 

symbol for trains or LRT. 

To understand the concept of preemption, the practitioner should be familiar with two 

fundamental terms which are depicted in Figure 38. The Clear Storage Distance (CSD) is the 

space between the crossing and a downstream intersection where vehicles may safely queue and 

the Minimum Track Clearance Distance (MTCD) is the area which must be clear of roadway 

vehicles to avoid a collision with a train. These are defined as follows:

Clear Storage Distance. Per the MUTCD definitions, (Part 1A.13), the distance available 

for vehicle storage measured between 6 feet from the rail nearest the intersection to the 

intersection stop line or the normal stopping point on the highway. At skewed crossings and 

intersections, the 6-foot distance is measured perpendicular to the nearest rail either along 

the center line or edge line of the highway, as appropriate to obtain the shorter distance. 

Where exit gates are used, the distance available for vehicle storage is measured from the 

point where the rear of the vehicle would be clear of the exit gate arm. In cases where the 

exit gate arm is parallel to the track(s) and is not perpendicular to the highway, the distance 

is measured either along the center line or edge line of the highway, as appropriate, to obtain 

the shorter distance. 

76 
I DJ) 

[ lOJ) 

t 

Minimun Track 

Clear Storage Distance Clearance Distance 

(CSD) (MTCD) 

( 

I 

I 

NO SCALE 

Minimum Track Clearance Distance. For standard two-quadrant warning devices, the MTCD 

is the length along a highway at one or more railroad tracks or LRT tracks. Where flashing‐

light signals with automatic gates are used, the MTCD is measured from the portion of the 

gate arm farthest from the near rail. Where flashing‐light signals are used without automatic

gates, the MTCD is measured from the stop line. Where passive traffic control devices are

used, the MTCD is measured from the stop line. Where the roadway is not paved, the MTCD 

is measured from 10 feet perpendicular to the near rail. The MTCD ends 6 feet beyond the 

track(s) measured perpendicular to the near rail. The MTCD ends 6 feet beyond the track(s) 

measured perpendicular to the far rail, along the center line or edge line of the highway, as 

appropriate, to obtain the longer distance. For Four-Quadrant Gate systems (where exit gates 

are used), the MTCD is extended to the point where a vehicle is clear of the exit gate arm. In 

cases where the exit gate arm is parallel to the track(s) and is not perpendicular to the highway, 

the distance is measured either along the center line or edge line of the highway, as appropriate, 

to obtain the longer distance. 

Figure 38. Clear Storage and Minimum Track Clearance Distance 

Source: AECOM, Inc.

77 
 

 

Excerpts from ITE Recommended Practice on Preemption of Traffic Signals Near 

Railroad Crossings 

It is beyond the scope of this Handbook to incorporate all specifics regarding preemption of 

traffic signals near crossings. The following material has been synthesized from the recently

updated (2019) ITE Proposed Recommended Practice: Preemption of Traffic Signals Near Railroad

Crossings; practitioners involved with implementation of preemption should use the full 

document as a reference.(3) 

• Where a signalized highway intersection exists in close proximity to a railroad crossing

and either the crossing is impacted by queues from the intersection or the intersection is

impacted by queues from the crossing, the railroad signal control equipment and the traffic

control signal control equipment should be interconnected, and the normal operation of

the traffic signals controlling the intersection should be preempted to operate in a special

control mode when trains are approaching (MUTCD). A preemption sequence compatible

with railroad crossing active traffic control devices is extremely important to provide safe

vehicular and pedestrian movements. Such preemption serves to ensure that the actions of

these separate traffic control devices complement, rather than conflict with, each other.

• Where a signalized highway intersection is not in close proximity to a railroad crossing,

coordination between the traffic control signal and railroad warning devices may still be

necessary. Coordination is essential where vehicular queues periodically or routinely extend

onto the railroad crossing, and may include preemption or queue management techniques

such as queue detection, queue‐cutter signals, or dynamic control of traffic control signal

timing plans to eliminate queuing on the tracks.

• It is important that the traffic engineer responsible for designing the preemption system

understand with sufficient detail how the traffic control signal controller unit operates in

response to a call for a preemption sequence. The traffic engineer should also ensure that the

traffic control signal controller unit is capable of performing all of the functions required under

all possible rail movements in order to provide proper functioning of the preemption operation.

Rail operations such as multiple train movements, stops within the approach circuitry, and

re‐starts of stopped trains within the approach circuitry can result in insufficient queue

clearance time from the train detection circuitry. The traffic engineer should consult with

railroad personnel responsible for railroad signal design and operations to ensure that

appropriate equipment is specified and that both highway and railroad signal installations

operate properly and with full compatibility. Continuous cooperation between highway

and railroad personnel is essential for safe operation. Information concerning the type of

railroad signal equipment that can be used is available from the operating railroad and from

the AREMA Communications and Signal Manual.

(29) In addition, State and local regulations

should be consulted.

78 
When to Preempt 

If either of the following conditions is present, careful consideration should be given to 

interconnecting traffic signals on public and private highways with active warning devices 

at railroad crossings: 

• Highway traffic queues have the potential for extending across a railroad crossing from a

nearby highway traffic signal

• Traffic queues from a railroad crossing have the potential to interfere with a nearby

highway traffic signal

A railroad crossing equipped with a passive control device may need to be upgraded to an 

active warning device so that preemption of the traffic control signal can be effectively 

implemented. Such improvements are particularly important when the tracks are close 

to the signalized intersection or when certain conditions exist, such as vehicles queuing 

onto the tracks, high-speed train or highway approaches, tracks in highway medians, steep 

grades, or traffic that includes school buses or trucks carrying hazardous material. 

Traffic Queues Extend Across the Railroad Crossing 

If traffic queues extend onto the railroad crossing from a nearby highway traffic signal, 

then it is essential to provide some means of clearing vehicles off the tracks before a train 

arrives. Current practice is to consider use of preemption where a traffic signal is within 

200 feet of a crossing. However, the MUTCD notes that coordination with the flashing‐

light system, such as queue detection, should be considered for traffic signals located 

farther than 200 feet from the crossing. Two-hundred feet is an approximation of the 

distance within which traffic queuing is likely to occur. Regardless of the actual distance 

between the railroad crossing and a traffic signal, preemption or coordination should be 

considered whenever there is a likelihood that queuing will impact either the railroad 

crossing or the highway intersection. Factors that could affect queuing include traffic 

volumes, vehicle mix, train frequency, presence of driveways or unsignalized intersections, 

and traffic backed up from a nearby downstream intersection.

Long Distances 

Where the Clear Storage Distance (CSD) exceeds 200 feet, the likelihood of a queue 

extending across the tracks should be determined. One or more of the following methods 

may be used to make this determination:

• Anecdotal Evidence—Highway authority technical staff, police, train operators, or train

dispatchers may have observed queuing on the tracks. Anecdotal information may be

especially useful to identify time periods of concern or other causative factors which could

be verified through subsequent field observation.

79 
• Traffic Engineering Calculations3

—For isolated signalized intersections, conventional

computations can be developed to estimate queueing based upon vehicle arrival rates, the

vehicle mix, and traffic control signal timing. A wide range of commercially available

software may be used as well.

• Traffic Simulation Modeling—Intersections located along highly‐congested roadway

segments or which are operating as part of a coordinated system of signals may be

evaluated using traffic simulation software. Simulation software may also help address

unusual traffic patterns such as special event traffic.

• Field Observations—Visual queue arrival and dissipation studies may be made during

multiple peak travel demand times at the site. Video surveillance equipment may be

installed and data recorded during periods of concern. Field observations should consider

significant traffic generators which may impact queuing such as shopping centers during

peak seasons, schools when they are in session, and sporting events.

Neither the MUTCD 200-foot threshold nor the queue calculation equation is intended to 

provide a specific distance as the sole criterion for interconnecting railroad and highway 

signals. Special consideration should be given where upstream signals cause vehicles to 

arrive in platoons that could result in long queue lengths. Unusual 15-minute peak-period 

flow rates should be evaluated. For example, where a mix of long slow trains and short fast 

trains could be present at multi-track crossings, it is possible that a long queue of vehicles 

may develop at the crossing as a slow, long train passes; subsequently, this long platoon 

of vehicles could be advancing through the crossing when a fast, short train arrives. Presignals and queue cutters may be effective for long distances. 

Short Distances 

Where the CSD is not sufficient to store the longest vehicle known to use the crossing (the 

“design vehicle”), or if vehicles regularly queue across the tracks, a pre-signal may be 

considered. An engineering study should be performed to support this recommendation. 

Where no crossing gates are present, a pre-signal can discourage design vehicles from 

stopping in the CSD or in the MTCD. 

Additional Preemption Issues 

Other issues to consider in the evaluation of the implementation of preemption include 

the following:

• Trucks and Vehicles Required to Stop by Law—Additional clearance time may be required;

if a truck is turning toward the tracks and encounters lowered crossing gates it may be

stopped in a position blocking the departure lanes.

• Grades—The presence of an upgrade on the approach will require consideration of

additional clearance time, especially for heavy vehicles.

3 “Timing of Traffic Signal Preemption at Intersections Near Highway‐Rail Grade Crossings,” Robert K. Seyfried. ITE 2001 Annual 

Meeting and Exhibit CD-ROM, ITE, 2001. 

80 
• Crossing Gate Spillback—Even if traffic can clear from the tracks in advance of the arrival

of a train, queues may spill back into an adjacent intersection resulting in blockage of

movements. Interconnection can be used to address such issues.

• Circular Intersections—Although roundabouts and traffic circles are designed to operate

without traffic signals, they may become congested resulting in blockage of a crossing on

an approach leg. Mitigation may require installation of a traffic control signal or queue

cutter signal.

• Light Rail Crossings—Although gate down (A crossing gate is in the “down” or lowered

position when it is horizontal in accordance with the predetermined design from vertical,

which is typically 85 to 92 degrees depending on specific gate mechanism adjustment and

other factors) times for LRT are relatively short, frequent activations will require that the

system be designed to handle the approach of a second train possibly arriving during the

preemption sequence for the first train. Also, motion sensing and Constant Warning Time

(CWT) devices may not operate properly in electrified systems, and special devices or track

circuits will likely be required. Because there is typically little variability in train speeds on

LRT tracks, CWT devices are often not necessary.

Preemption Operation Modes 

Preemption of traffic signals may be either simultaneous or advance as determined by the 

diagnostic team. Simultaneous preemption occurs when notification of an approaching 

train is forwarded to the highway traffic control signal controller unit and the railroad 

active warning devices at the same time. Advance preemption occurs when notification of 

an approaching train is forwarded to the traffic control signal controller unit by railroad 

equipment for a period of time prior to the activation of the railroad active warning devices. 

Preemption operation, whether simultaneous or advance, requires the consideration of three 

fundamental timing parameters:

• Right of Way Transfer Time (RWTT)—The time required to transition into track clearance

• Queue Clearance Time—The time required to clear traffic from the MTCD

• Separation Time—The time between the clearance of the last vehicle and the arrival of a train

The sum of these three parameters is the Maximum Highway Traffic Signal Preemption 

Time (MPT). It is also the required minimum amount of time from when the preemption 

interconnection is activated and the time that the train arrives at the crossing. 

81 
Simultaneous Preemption Operation 

With simultaneous preemption, the railroad warning devices are active for the entire 

duration of the MPT since both systems are activated simultaneously. In most cases, 

calculation of the necessary time elements for preemption operation will find that additional 

warning time from the railroad is necessary. The additional time is specified as Clearance 

Time, which is added to the minimum warning time. 

Simultaneous preemption can be used at locations where the track is located in the center of the 

preempted intersection or where the CSD is very short and has a short queue clearance time. 

Advance Preemption Operation 

With advance preemption, the traffic control signal controller begins the preemption 

sequence for a period before the railroad warning devices are activated. The difference 

between the MPT and the activation of the railroad warning devices is called the advance 

preemption time. Where there is a long MPT, advance preemption can reduce the length of 

time the railroad warning devices operate before the preemption clearance interval begins. 

The use of advance preemption requires close coordination between highway agencies and 

the railroad companies to ensure that all parties fully understand the operation of each other’s 

system. The additional time required to be provided from the railroad signaling system 

to provide the MPT requirement may result in an increase in cost for the installation and 

maintenance due to the additional control equipment and complexity of the railroad circuitry. 

Interconnection Control Circuits 

The approach of a train to a railroad crossing de-energizes the interconnection or sends 

a message via a fail‐safe data communication protocol, which in turn activates the traffic

control signal controller preemption sequence. Preemption should be implemented 

with an interconnection using fail-safe design principles. Types of fail-safe connections 

include the following:

• Single Break with Supervision—A supervised preemption interconnection incorporates

both a normally-open and a normally-closed circuit from the crossing warning system to

verify the proper operation of the interconnection.

• Double Break (with or without Supervision)—In lieu of or in addition to supervision, a

double break preemption interconnection circuit utilizing two normally-closed circuits that

open both the source and return energy circuits may be used.

• Data Communication (IEEE 1570)—This standard utilizes the vital data protocol IEEE

1570. It is a hybrid between Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and rail signaling

technologies in which railroad warning devices are considered “vital equipment,” and as

such are designed using fail-safe principles.

82 
Queue Management 

Queue management can be provided through use of Pre-Signals, Queue Cutters, combination 

Pre‐Signal/Queue Cutter installations, or through use of coordinated traffic signals.

• Pre‐Signals—As defined by the MUTCD (Section 1A.13), Pre‐Signals are “traffic control

signal faces that control traffic approaching a grade crossing in conjunction with the traffic

control signal faces that control traffic approaching a highway‐highway intersection beyond

the tracks.” Pre‐signals can be used to stop vehicular traffic before the railroad crossing in

cases where the CSD, measured between 6 feet from the rail nearest the intersection to the

intersection stop line or the normal stopping point on the highway) is 50 feet or less (or

75 feet if the design vehicle is longer). Pre-signals can also be used where the CSD is as

much as 200 to 250 feet, depending on vehicle lengths. In this case, it is not expected that

all vehicles will be cleared from the CSD; only from the MTCD. (Note: Where the CSD is

one design vehicle length or less, relocating the stop line upstream of the crossing may be

sufficient to control queuing without the need for a pre‐signal.)

• Queue-Cutter Signals—In cases where the crossing is located farther than 450 to 500 feet

(depending on vehicle lengths) from the highway intersection, the use of preemption with

or without a pre-signal can lead to very long preemption times and approach circuits so that

all vehicles downstream from the crossing can move and allow the crossing to clear which

may be impractical. One remedy to consider in this case is a queue-cutter signal. A queuecutter is a traffic control signal which only controls traffic approaching a crossing and is

operated independently of other traffic signals in the vicinity. The concept of operation

of a queue‐cutter is to hold traffic (“cut the queue”) upstream from a crossing before a

queue caused by a downstream traffic control signal or other roadway congestion can grow

long enough to back up into the crossing. Queue-cutter signal operation may be based on

downstream queue loop detectors, timed operations, or a combination of the two.

• Combination Pre-Signal/Queue Cutter Signal—Queue-cutter signals are used where the

CSD exceeds 450 to 500 feet (depending on vehicle lengths) because room is needed

downstream from the crossing to detect the development of a queue as well as store

vehicles (including a design vehicle) which continue to cross until the approaching traffic

is stopped. Queue cutters may also be considered where the CSD is between 200 and 450

feet if they operate in a hybrid mode as a combination pre-signal and queue-cutter signal.

The presence of an effective queue-cutter can eliminate the need for preemption of the

downstream traffic signal. The suggested distances are guidelines and can vary depending

on traffic volumes, peaking characteristics, arrival patterns, and other factors.

• Coordinated Traffic Signals—As a variation of queue‐cutter signals, traffic control signal

coordination may be provided to manage queues along a roadway segment which includes

a crossing. Within a network of coordinated traffic signals, the likelihood of queuing within

the MTCD can be reduced by providing more green time and capacity at the traffic control

signal downstream from a crossing relative to the green time and capacity provided for

movements approaching the crossing.

83 
In addition to active traffic control of queuing, there may be locations where use of 

an active warning sign may be more appropriate. If traffic has the potential to back up 

from a STOP sign‐controlled intersection where signalization is not justifiable, or if 

traffic occasionally backs up due to special events, an active warning sign activated by 

time-of-day or queue detection could be provided to remind road users of the risk of 

stopping on the crossing. Options include use of an active blank-out “DO NOT STOP ON 

TRACKS” (R8-8) sign or a warning beacon and passive sign including the phrase “WHEN 

FLASHING” (refer to MUTCD Section 4L.03). 

Comparison of Queue Management Techniques 

Table 5 summarizes the typical CSD ranges and key operational characteristics of presignals, queue cutters, and traffic control signal coordination as used to control queuing 

near a crossing. The CSD ranges reflect variations in vehicle lengths. Where there is a 

significant percentage of long vehicles, the higher end of each range should be used. The 

CSD ranges are guidelines and can vary depending on traffic volumes, speeds, peaking 

characteristics, arrival patterns, and other factors. It should be noted that the operational 

parameters and design characteristics of Hybrid Pre-Signal/Queue Cutter signals need to 

be adapted to site geometric and traffic flow conditions especially regarding placements of 

signal heads, loop detectors, and pavement markings. 

Additional information provided in the ITE Recommended Practice. 

As noted in the introduction to the preemption topic, the information presented in the 

Handbook is intended as an introduction to preemption. The ITE Recommended Practice 

covers these topics and many more in depth as noted:

• Train Detection

• Interconnection Control Circuits

• Crossings Between Two Signalized Intersections

• Diagonal Intersections

• Pre-Signals Design and Operations

• Queue Cutter Design and Operations

• Preemption Timing Parameters

• Use of Gate Down Circuit

• Preemption Hold Interval

• Exit to Normal Operations

• Pedestrian Signal Indications

• Considerations with Exit Gates

• Case Studies

84 
Table 5. Comparison of Queue Management Devices and Techniques 

Clear Storage 

Distance Application Key Operational Characteristics 

Less than 

50–75 fta 

Relocated Stop 

Line with or 

without Pre-signal 

• Relocate stop line to upstream of tracks

• At the upper end of distance range, consider providing

a pre-signal

• Intersection signal timing plan should clear the CSD as

well as the MTCD

50–75 ft to 

200–250 fta 

Pre-signal • Pre-Signal operates continuously in coordination with

downstream traffic signal; should include green offset

• Timing plan provides queue clearance time sufficient to

clear the MTCD but vehicles may remain in CSD

200–250 ft to 

450–500 fta 

Hybrid Pre-signal/ 

Queue-Cutter 

• Hybrid pre-signal operates continuously in coordination

with downstream traffic signal; should include green offset

• Timing plan provides queue clearance time sufficient to

clear the MTCD but vehicles may remain in CSD

• Hybrid pre-signal should have queue detection to

extend the duration of the red interval until an adequate

downstream gap exists

• Queue-cutter signal generally operates independently of

downstream traffic control signal for queue prevention

on crossing in off-peak periods to reduce unnecessary

signal cycling

450–500 fta 

or more 

Queue-Cutter • Queue-cutter operates when required to prevent queuing

in MTCD

• Activation and timing plan designed to prevent vehicles

from queuing in the MTCD but vehicles may queue in CSD

• May eliminate need for preemption of downstream

traffic signal

Variable Coordinated 

Traffic Signals 

• Provided there is adequate CSD and traffic signals are

appropriately spaced, signals may be interconnected and

operated as a system to move vehicles through crossing

in manageable platoons such that queuing in the MTCD

is avoided; vehicles may queue in CSD

a

Based upon length of vehicle used as the basis for design.

85 
Pre-Signal and Queue Cutter Design Considerations 

This section provides illustrative examples of pre-signal and queue cutter treatments 

demonstrating various design options. Design considerations for pre-signals include placement 

of the pre-signal heads, stop line placement, and whether the downstream intersection signal 

should be modified to limit the visibility of the green indication. For queue cutters, in addition to 

the placement considerations, the means of operation (with or without detection) and location of 

the detection zone (if provided) are prime concerns. 

The location of pre-signal mast arm poles can be located upstream or downstream from the railroad 

crossing. In all cases, pre-signal poles should be located to maintain visibility of the railroad 

flashing‐lights. If an existing railroad cantilever exists, and upstream pre‐signals are used, the heads

may be mounted on the cantilever if permitted by the railroad or regulatory agency. If they are on 

a separate mount, they should be located to avoid blockage or interference with the visibility of

the railroad flashing‐lights. Railroad flashing‐lights should be located as specified in Chapter 8C of

MUTCD. Refer also to AREMA Communications and Signal Manual Parts 3.1.36 and 3.1.37 for 

additional guidance regarding the location of railroad warning devices.(29) 

Traffic control signal faces at the downstream intersection may be equipped with programmable‐

visibility heads or louvers as appropriate based on an engineering study to minimize road 

user confusion. The purpose of the signal programmable-visibility heads or louvers is to limit 

visibility of the downstream signal faces to the area from the intersection stop line to the 

location of the first vehicle behind the pre‐signal stop line. This is to prevent drivers stopped 

at the railroad crossing stop line from seeing the distant green signal indication which would 

be displayed during the track clearance interval. An engineering study should be conducted to 

review the specific site conditions, including the eye heights of drivers of vehicles likely to use 

the crossing, and establish the final design necessary to meet the visibility requirements.(31) 

Where the CSD is greater than that which is typical for a pre-signal, a combination pre-signal/ 

queue cutter should be considered. In addition to the head placement considerations associated 

with pre-signal design, queue cutter design should consider whether it is feasible to provide 

detection as well as the placement of the detection zone. If adequate storage exists such that a 

detection zone can be provided, an adequate distance beyond the crossing to store additional 

vehicles which would arrive during the detection, phase change and driver response time, then 

the queue cutter can operate independent of any downstream signal. On the other hand, if such 

storage does not exist, then the queue cutter may need to be tied into the downstream signal to be 

effective (resulting in a hybrid installation). If a hybrid signal is provided, then the detection zone 

can be placed closer to the crossing because its purpose is purely to determine when the hybrid 

signal can revert to a green indication. 

86 
Relocated Stop Line 

Figure 39 shows placement of the stop line ahead of the grade crossing, in conjunction with use 

of STOP HERE ON RED (R10-6) and DO NOT STOP ON TRACKS (R8-8) signs. As the CSD 

is minimal, it was not necessary to use a pre-signal at this location. 

Figure 39. Illustrative Example Showing Use of Relocated Stop Line 

(Dallas Rapid Transit Red Line S. Hampton Rd Crossing at Wright Street, Dallas, TX) 

Source: Google Earth V 7.1.7.2602. (September 6, 2016). Hampton Rd near

Wright St, Dallas, TX, USA.32°43’31.98”N, 96°51’24.76”W, Eye alt eye level. DirectX 2016.

Google Earth Pro. [January 30, 2019].

87 
Pre-Signal with Displaced Stop Line 

Figure 40 shows where the pre-signal stop line has been placed ahead of the crossing to comply 

with MUTCD traffic signal visibility requirements. Despite the long distance to both the crossing 

and the downstream intersection, there is a high degree of driver compliance with the pre-signal 

at this location. 

Figure 40. Illustrative Example Showing Displaced Stop Line 

(PCJX S. Mary Avenue Crossing at W. Evelyn Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA, USDOT 755037b) 

Source: Brent Ogden.

88 
Pre-Signal Mounted Downstream from Crossing 

Figure 41 shows a pre-signal mounted downstream from a single-track crossing. Placement of 

the pre-signal beyond the rail track allows placement of the stop line and crossing gates close to 

the track. The downstream signal has louvered heads on the green indications (see inset photo) to 

avoid confusion with the pre-signal red indication. 

Figure 41. Illustrative Example Showing Downstream Mounted Pre-Signal 

(SCAX Sierra Avenue Crossing at Orange Way, Fontana, CA, USDOT 026145L) 

Source: Brent Ogden.

89 
Pre-Signal Mounted on Railroad Cantilever 

Figure 42 shows a pre-signal mounted on the railroad cantilever. The CSD to E. Lakewood Blvd. 

is about 175 feet. Note the non‐conflicting placement of flashing‐light warning signals and traffic 

signal heads mounted on the railroad cantilever. 

Figure 42. Illustrative Example of a Cantilever-Mounted Pre-Signal 

(CSX 120th Avenue Crossing at E. Lakewood Boulevard in Holland, MI, USDOT 234648C) 

Source: Google Earth V 7.1.7.2602. (September 6, 2016). Lakewood Ave near Garden Ave, Holland,

MI, USA.42°48’17.52”N, 86°04’26.42”W, Eye alt eye level. DirectX 2016. Google Earth Pro.

[January 30, 2019].

90 
Queue Cutter 

Figure 43 shows a queue cutter which utilizes detection loops. The CSD at this location is about 

340 feet, and the detection zone is located about 100 feet downstream from the crossing which 

provides enough storage for vehicles which arrive during the detection—phase change—driver 

reaction time interval. Note that the primary queue cutter signal heads are located downstream 

from the crossing to assure the MUTCD visibility criteria is met; however, there are additional 

pole-mounted heads at the stop line along with a STOP HERE ON RED (R10-6) sign. 

Figure 43. Illustrative Example of Queue Cutter (SCAX Balboa Boulevard Crossing at 

Roscoe Boulevard in Los Angeles, CA, USDOT 745989G) 

Source: Google Earth V 7.1.7.2602. (September 6, 2016). Balboa Blvd near Roscoe Blvd,

Los Angeles, CA,, USA.34°13’20.42”N, 118°30’08.87”W, Eye alt eye level. DirectX 2016.

Google Earth Pro. [January 30, 2019].

91 
1. When queuos extend to Q : 1) ,tow or atop now at G) . ii:) 1top now at G), or 

3) provldt LRV•IC11Vl1Gd ~ 

"00 NOT STOP ON TRAatS" regulatory signs at \iiiP'. 

2, On oach c;yclt, tum (:) rod bofore (:), 

t:!DDll.:D 

...... 

Vohlcle Quau• 

Queue Prevention Strategies 

At highway‐rail crossings located near signalized intersections, where traffic congestion 

precludes using standard traffic control signal preemption, traffic control strategies may be used 

to prevent queues from extending back over the tracks (see Figure 44). Standard traffic control 

signal preemption operates under the assumption that motor vehicles queue back from the nearby 

signalized intersection (signal D in Figure 44). The preemption sequence (occurring at the traffic 

signals downstream of the crossing) then clears these queued vehicles off the tracks before the 

train arrives at the crossing. 

However, at some locations, it may not be practical or possible to clear vehicles from the tracks 

by preempting the downstream traffic signals. For example, if the roadway corridor extending 

downstream from the crossing is heavily congested, preempting the downstream traffic signals 

still may not allow motor vehicles to move forward enough to clear the crossing because of 

downstream congestion. If the level of traffic congestion is substantial, it may be necessary 

to preempt several downstream traffic signals, which requires an approaching train to be 

detected (and predicted) several minutes before it arrives at the crossing. In such cases, a queue 

prevention strategy may be more appropriate. 

Figure 44. Queue Prevention Strategies 

Source: Light Rail Service: Pedestrian and Vehicular Safety,

Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 69.

92 
The basic concept of queue prevention is as follows: If a queue is detected across a highway‐

rail crossing, traffic approaching the crossing will be stopped by a signal upstream of the 

crossing (signals B or C in Figure 44) to prevent the queue from building back across the tracks. 

As indicated, vehicle detectors can be installed at location A; if stopped or slow vehicles are 

detected at location A, logic built into the traffic control signal system could do the following:

• Stop the major flow of traffic at signal B (including control of turning traffic if necessary

and appropriate)

• Stop the flow of traffic at signal C by using traffic signals on the near side of the crossing (such as

pre-signals, previously described)

• Warn road users not to stop on the tracks by providing an activated, internally illuminated “DO

NOT STOP ON TRACKS” sign (R8‐8) mounted on a mast arm over each lane of traffic at

location C (these signs would activate when queues are detected at location A)

• Provide exclusion zone cross-hatch striping, or other approved “Do Not Block” markings as

described elsewhere in this Handbook

The advantage of queue management is that the crossing could potentially be kept clear of 

standing traffic regardless of whether a train was approaching the crossing, and the use of 

preemption would operate more as a fail-safe measure rather than a primary measure for keeping 

the tracks clear. 

Management of Queueing at Frontage Roads 

Use of STOP Signs 

Frontage roads may present queueing challenges at crossings, especially if the CSD is very 

short and/or parallel roadway volumes are high. At locations where the frontage roadway is the 

minor street compared to the street with the crossing, it may be possible to install STOP signs 

on all approaches except the direction departing from the crossing. This treatment is illustrated 

in Figure 45. Note that STOP signs have been placed on both frontage road approaches to the 

crossing as well as the approach opposite the crossing. To advise road users that the traffic 

departing the crossing does not stop, supplemental plaques from the W4-4 series (“CROSS 

TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP,” “TRAFFIC FROM LEFT (RIGHT) DOES NOT STOP,” or 

“ONCOMING TRAFFIC DOES NOT STOP”) may be used in conjunction with the respective 

STOP signs. 

93 
... 

Figure 45. Illustrative Example of Stop Sign Placement 

Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers.

Installation of New Traffic Control Signal 

Where the parallel road is the major street at a frontage road intersection, use of STOP signs may 

be impractical. Such locations may justify the installation of a traffic control signal to ensure 

vehicles have an opportunity to clear the tracks prior to the arrival of a train. The MUTCD 

includes Warrant 9 (Section 4C.10) for a traffic control signal based on the proximity of an 

intersection to a crossing. The warrant is specifically intended to apply to situations in which the 

following occur:

• A major roadway runs more or less parallel to a line of railroad, and a minor roadway intersects

both the major roadway and the line of railroad at grade.

• The resulting highway‐highway intersection does not otherwise meet any of the other traffic

control signal warrants in MUTCD.

• Motorist compliance with the existing (passive) traffic control devices at the highway‐

highway intersection often results in highway vehicles queuing across the nearby highwayrailroad crossing.

• Other strategies to mitigate such queuing are deemed impractical, inappropriate, or not feasible.

It is likely that any traffic signals installed pursuant to this warrant would need to include 

provisions for railroad preemption which would in turn require modifications to track circuits 

to detect arriving trains. In addition, the proximity of the new signal would most likely require 

consideration for use of a pre-signal, queue cutter, or combination pre-signal/queue cutter. 

94 
Adjacent Railroad Crossings 

Another circumstance which may result in queuing across a crossing is the presence of another 

nearby crossing—activation of the warning devices at one of the two crossings may result in 

queuing back across the adjacent crossing. In response to this concern, current practice (as 

presented in AREMA Chapter 3.1.11) may require interconnection between the two crossing 

warning systems.(29) 

The recommended practice is dependent upon the distance between the two crossings:

• Adjacent crossings within 100 feet—the crossings should be treated as one individual crossing.

• Adjacent crossings with 100 to 200 feet of separation—Additional signs or other appropriate

traffic control devices should be used to inform approaching road users of the long distance to

cross the tracks. “Interior” active devices (such as flashing‐light signals with or without crossing

gates) may be omitted.

• Adjacent crossings over 200 feet apart—Where the distance between tracks exceeds 200

feet, the operation of the devices should provide for additional time for vehicles to clear the

extended MTCD.

Additional guidance is in Part 3.1.11 of the AREMA Communications & Signals Manual.(29) Key 

provisions are as follows:

• Railroad companies should be provided with information regarding preemption and timing

parameters to assist in their design of appropriate train detection circuitry. Unless the Diagnostic

Team determines otherwise, normal sequence of traffic control signal indications should be

preempted upon the approach of through trains to provide a preemption clearance interval of

adequate duration to minimize the likelihood of vehicles not having sufficient time to clear the

minimum track clearance distance prior to the arrival of the train. Flashing-light signal systems

installed within 50 feet of any rail should be preempted upon the approach of a train.

• Activated by a supervised preemption interconnection, the approach of a train to a crossing

should de-energize the interconnection or send a message via a fail-safe data communication

protocol, which in turn should activate the traffic control signal controller preemption sequence.

This should establish and maintain the preemption condition during the time the crossing warning

system is activated to the point the automatic gates are energized to start their upward movement.

• At automatic gates, preemption clearance intervals which display green indications should be

designed such that the green indications are not terminated until the automatic gates(s) is/are

fully lowered.

95 
Active Advance Warning Signs 

The active advance warning sign (AAWS) consists of one or two 12-inch yellow warning 

beacons mounted in an assembly with the Advance Warning Sign (W10-1) and activated 

by detection of an approaching train. The beacons should be flashed in accordance with the 

provisions of MUTCD Chapter 4L. The AAWS is sometimes supplemented with a message, 

either active or passive, that indicates the meaning of the device, such as “TRAIN WHEN 

FLASHING.” A passive supplemental message remains constant; an active supplemental 

message changes when the device is activated by the approach of a train. The AAWS should 

continue to be activated until the crossing signals have been deactivated. 

A train-activated advance warning sign should be considered at locations where the crossing 

flashing‐light signals cannot be seen until an approaching motorist has passed the decision point 

(the distance from the track from which a safe stop can be made). Use of the AAWS may require 

some modification of the track circuitry. Consideration should be given to providing a back‐

up source of power in the event of commercial power failure. If such an advance device fails, 

the driver would not be alerted to the activated crossing controls. If there is concern for such 

failure, some agencies use a passive “RAILROAD SIGNAL AHEAD” sign to provide a full-time 

warning message. 

The AAWS should be placed at the location where the advance warning sign would normally 

be placed, dependent on vehicle speed and the geometric conditions of the roadway. To enhance 

visibility at crossings with unusual geometry or site conditions, the devices may be cantilevered 

or installed on both sides of the highway. An engineering study should determine the most 

appropriate location. 

TRANSIT AND ON-STREET RAIL 

The MUTCD Section 8A.01 refers to LRT as “a mode of metropolitan transportation that 

employs LRT vehicles (commonly known as light rail vehicles, streetcars, or trolleys) that 

operate on rails in streets in mixed traffic, and LRT traffic that operates in semi‐exclusive rights‐

of-way, or in exclusive rights-of-way. Grade crossings with LRT can occur at intersections 

or at midblock locations, including public and private driveways.” Traffic control for LRT is 

determined in part by the type of alignment:

• Exclusive—This type of alignment does not have grade crossings. The alignment is gradeseparated or protected by a fence or traffic barrier. Motor vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles

are prohibited within the traveled way. Subways and aerial structures are included within this

group. Because the alignment does not have grade crossings, there are no provisions for traffic

control devices.

• Semi-exclusive—An alignment where the LRT operates within a separate traveled way or along

a street or railroad ROW where motor vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles have limited access

and cross at designated locations only. In a semi-exclusive alignment, LRT vehicles usually have

ROW over other roadway users at grade crossings.

• Mixed‐use—An alignment where the LRT operates in mixed traffic with all types of road users.

This includes streets, transit malls, and pedestrian malls where the traveled way is shared. In a

96 
mixed-use alignment, the LRT vehicles or buses do not have ROW over other roadway users at 

grade crossings and intersections and LRT vehicles are usually controlled with the same devices 

used by general traffic.

It is important to understand that provisions in Part 8 of the MUTCD are intended to be 

applicable to both LRT and conventional railroads; therefore, when the phrase “grade crossing” 

is used by itself without the prefix “highway‐rail” or “highway‐LRT” it refers to both highway‐

rail and highway‐LRT crossings. Conversely, LRT‐specific provisions are indicated as applicable 

to “Highway-LRT Grade Crossings.” (In accordance with FRA requirements,(32) where LRT 

operates in the same corridor, e.g., “shared corridor” or on the same track as conventional rail, 

FRA requirements are applicable to both the conventional rail crossings as well as the LRT 

crossings in that corridor.) The MUTCD does not define the term “streetcar.” Although streetcar 

vehicles and trains resemble LRT, where streetcars operate in “mixed flow” in the same travel 

lane as other highway vehicles, traffic control treatments and provisions applicable to highway 

traffic in general are applicable to the streetcar operation. Where a streetcar operates in a semi‐

exclusive alignment, provisions and traffic control treatments applicable to LRT operating in a 

semi-exclusive alignment should be considered. 

The LRT Traffic Control Systems is the overarching term used to describe the combination of 

devices selected or installed at a specific highway‐LRT crossing. According to MUTCD Section 

8A.03, there is not a single standard system universally applicable due to the many significant 

variables to be considered. The selection of traffic control devices and the assignment of priority 

to LRT at a highway-LRT crossing is jointly determined by the highway agency with jurisdiction, 

the regulatory agency with statutory authority, if applicable, and the LRT authority. The normal 

rules of the road and traffic control priority identified in the “Uniform Vehicle Code” govern the 

order assigned to the movement of vehicles at an intersection unless the local agency determines 

that it is appropriate to assign a higher priority to LRT.

(9) 

The LRT‐specific MUTCD provisions are provided in Sections 8A.01 (Introduction), 8A.03 (Use 

of Standard Devices, Systems, and Practices), 8B.05 (STOP and YIELD signs), 8C.03 (FlashingLight Signals), 8C.05 (Automatic Gates) and 8C.10 (Traffic Control Signals at or Near Highway‐

LRT Grade Crossings), 8C.11 (Use of Traffic Control Signals for Control of LRT Vehicles), and 

8C.13 (Pedestrian and Bicycle Signals). Key requirements are as follows:

• Section 8A.03 requires that Highway-LRT grade crossings in semi-exclusive alignments shall

be equipped with a combination of automatic gates and flashing‐light signals, or flashing‐light

signals only, or traffic control signals, unless an engineering study indicates that the use of

Crossbuck Assemblies, STOP signs, or YIELD signs alone would be adequate.

• Section 8B.03 and 8B.04 contain provisions regarding the use and placement of Crossbuck signs

and Crossbuck Assemblies. Section 8B.05 describes the appropriate conditions for the use of

STOP of YIELD signs alone at a highway-LRT grade crossing. Sections 8C.10 and 8C.11 contain

provisions regarding the use of traffic control signals at highway‐LRT grade crossings.

• Section 8C.05 has various provisions depending upon the alignment, LRT speeds, and traffic

conditions which can be summarized as follows:

97 
̶ Where LRT speeds exceed 35 mph, highway-LRT crossings “should” be equipped with 

automatic gates and flashing‐light signals.

̶ At LRT crossings “within highway-highway intersections” where LRT speeds do not exceed 

35 mph, traffic control signals may be used instead of automatic gates.

̶ Where LRT speeds exceed 25 mph and a highway-LRT crossing is at a location “other than an 

intersection,” automatic gates and flashing‐light signals “may” be installed (but are not required).

̶ At LRT crossings “other than an intersection” where the roadway is a low-volume street 

where prevailing speeds do not exceed 25 mph and where LRT speeds do not exceed 25 

mph, traffic control signals or flashing‐light signals without automatic gates “may” be used.

For additional information, reference the MUTCD (2009) Section 8A.03, Use of Standard 

Devices, Systems, and Practices at Highway-LRT Crossings. 

Control of Motor Vehicle Turning Treatments 

Motor vehicles making illegal turns in front of approaching light-rail vehicles (LRV) are one of 

the most common types of collision for most LRT systems.(33)Moreover, when such a collision 

occurs, the door of the motor vehicle is the only protection between the driver/passenger and the 

LRV, which makes turning collisions one of the most severe types of collisions between motor 

vehicles and LRVs. Traffic control devices that regulate turns are critical to LRT and general 

traffic safety. Current practice is to provide dedicated turn lanes for traffic turning toward the 

LRT crossing where practicable with traffic control signal indications for such movements.

Where turning traffic crosses a non‐gated, semi‐exclusive LRT alignment and is controlled by left‐

or right-turn arrow signal indications, Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 17 

recommends that the LRT agency install an LRV‐activated, flashing, internally illuminated warning

sign displaying the front view LRV symbol (W10-7) when the LRV approaches.(34) When such a 

sign is used, the turn arrow signal indication serves as the primary regulatory control device and the 

flashing, internally illuminated warning sign supplements it, warning motorists of the increased risk

associated with violating the turn arrow signal indication. The MUTCD allows use of this sign at 

LRT crossings controlled by STOP signs or automatic gates.

Where turning traffic crosses a non‐gated, semi‐exclusive LRT alignment and is controlled by a 

STOP sign or signal without a turn arrow (such as a permissive left or right turn), TCRP Report 

17 recommends that an LRV-activated, internally illuminated “NO LEFT/RIGHT TURN” (R3-

2/R3-1) symbol sign be provided to restrict left or right turns when an LRV is approaching (see 

Figure 46).(34) Because these signs would serve as the primary control devices regulating turning 

movements, TCRP Report 17 recommends that two signs be provided for each parallel approach. 

The LRV-activated, internally illuminated sign displaying the legend NO LEFT/RIGHT TURN 

may be used as an alternate to the active, internally illuminated symbol sign. 

98 
PREFERRED 

A3·1 

24" X 30'' DIAMETER CIRCLE 

COLORS 

CIRCLE & DIAGONAL - RED (INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED) 

ARROW - WHITE (INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED) 

BACKGROUND - BLACK (NON-REFLECTIVE) 

NO 

RIGHT 

TURN 

ACROSS 

TRACKS 

A3-1a 

ALTERNATE 

24" X 30" 

COLORS 

NO 

LEFT 

TURN 

ACROSS 

TRACKS 

R3-2a 

LEGEND - RED (INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED) 

BACKGROUND - BLACK (NON-REFLECTIVE) 

Figure 46. No Turns Internally Illuminated Signs 

99 
Table 6 summarizes the recommended practices for the active, internally illuminated “NO 

LEFT/RIGHT TURN” symbol sign (regulatory) and the flashing, internally illuminated “TRAIN 

APPROACHING” sign (warning) for median or side-running LRT alignments where parallel 

traffic may proceed during LRV movements.

Table 6. Use of Active Internally Illuminated Signs for Parallel Traffic 

Turning Across LRT Tracks 

Alignment Type Intersection Traffic 

Control Device 

“NO LEFT/RIGHT 

TURN ACROSS 

TRACKS” Sign 

Train Icon Sign for 

Left/Right Turnsa 

Semi-exclusive 

gated 

Stopc Recommended May 

Traffic signal without 

arrowd 

Recommendedb May 

Traffic signal with arrowe Not recommended May 

Semi-exclusive 

non-gated 

Stopc Recommended May 

Traffic signal without 

arrowd 

Recommendedb May 

Traffic signal with arrowe Not recommended Recommended 

a Left-turn signs are for median and side-aligned LRT alignments; right-turn signs are for side-aligned 

LRT alignments only. 

b Alternatively, an all-red phase for motor vehicles and pedestrians may be used in combination with 

“No Turn On Red” (R10-11a) signs. 

c

 “Stop” refers to a STOP sign-controlled intersection. 

d “Without arrow” refers to a signalized intersection at which the turning traffic has no red arrow 

displayed when an LRV is approaching but has either a steady green ball, a red ball, or a flashing red 

ball displayed. 

e “With arrow” refers to a signalized intersection at which the turning traffic has a red arrow displayed 

when an LRV is approaching. 

When a turn arrow traffic signal indication is used, TCRP Report 17 recommends that an exclusive turn 

lane be provided. 

Source: Adapted from Korve, Hans W., Jose I. Farran, Douglas M. Mansel, et al. Integration of 

Light Rail Transit into City Streets, Washington, DC, TRCP Report 17, TRB, 1996.

For semi‐exclusive alignments, all traffic conflicting with LRV movements at intersections and 

crossings should be positively controlled through use of turn pockets, traffic signals, and active 

warning signs. 

100 
Three-Lens Signal 

SINGLE 

= LRT STOP ROUTE 

t 

PREPARE a Flashing TO STOP 

GO D TWO 

LRT 

= ROUTE 

DIVERSION 

~ a Fla•hlng 

D ~ (1) 

------------ ----------------------------

~ = a Floohlng 

13 0 (1) 

THREE 

LRT 

= ROUTE 

DIVERSION 

~ a Flashing 

13 D Pl(1) 

Notes: 

All aspects (or signal indications) are White. 

(1) Could be In single housing. 

Two-Lens Signal 

STOP 

co 

= 0 (2) 

= D ~ (1),(2} 

---------------------------

= 13 0 (1),(2) 

= 13 D Pl(1),P} 

(2) "Go" lens may be used in flashing mode to Indicate "prepare to stop". 

LRT Bar Signals 

The MUTCD Section 8C.11 provides the following guidance for use of LRT signals (refer to 

Figure 47):

• LRT movements in semi-exclusive alignments at non-gated crossings that are equipped with

traffic control signals should be controlled with LRT Bar Signals.

• LRT signals that are used to control LRT movements only should display the signal indications

illustrated in MUTCD Figure 8C-3.

• Standard traffic control signal indications may be used instead of LRT signals to control the

movement of LRT vehicles (see Section 8C.10).

• Note that Section 4D.27 contains information about the use of LRT signals for the control of

exclusive bus movements at “queue jumper lanes” and for the control of exclusive bus rapid

transit movements on semi-exclusive or mixed-use alignments.

Figure 47. LRT Signals 

Source: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2009 Edition, Figure 8C-3,

Washington, DC, FHWA, 2009.

101 
Pedestrian and Bicycle Signals at LRT Crossings 

The MUTCD Section 8C.13 requires use of standard traffic control signal pedestrian signal heads 

compliant with Section 4E.04 where such heads are used at LRT crossings. Consistent with 

current practice, the MUTCD indicates flashing‐light signals with a Crossbuck sign and audible 

device should be used where there is inadequate clearing sight distance (refer to sight distance 

information in Chapter 2), or where LRT speeds exceed 35 mph. 

The MUTCD also allows use of the LOOK sign (R15-8) and/or pedestrian gates subject 

to an engineering study which indicates a flashing‐light signal with Crossbuck would not

be adequate. In addition, the MUTCD allows use of pedestrian “swing gates” as an option. 

Common practice includes use of swing gates in conjunction with pedestrian automatic gates 

where the swing gates can be used to provide a means of egress for users who are within the 

crossing zone when crossing gates are activated. (Refer to MUTCD Chapter 8D for additional 

swing gate provisions.) 

PEDESTRIANS, BICYCLES, AND ACCESSIBILITY 

This section presents material on non-motorized transportation or “active” transportation 

which is defined by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as “any self‐propelled, 

human-powered mode of transportation, such as walking or bicycling” as well as accessibility 

considerations and requirements associated with the “Americans with Disabilities Act of 

1990” (ADA). PL 101-336, and the “ADA Amendments Act of 2008,” PL 110-325.”(35) Unless 

otherwise noted, the term “pedestrian” as used in this section refers to bicycles and other forms 

on non-motorized transportation in addition to pedestrians themselves. 

Non-motorist crossing safety should be considered at all highway-rail crossings, particularly at or 

near commuter stations and at non-motorist facilities, such as bicycle/walking trails, pedestrianonly facilities, and pedestrian malls. Although collisions between trains and pedestrians occur 

less often than collisions between trains and motor vehicles, they are more severe. Research

Results Digest 84

(36)

, which studied pedestrian/LRV collisions, cites “risky or inattentive 

behavior” as a factor in pedestrian collisions and cites various contributing factors taken from the 

National Transit Database4

 which were collaborated by transit agency staff:

• Rushing to catch trains or get across intersections

• Ignoring audible and/or visual warnings at crossings

• Distractions, such as cell phones and headsets

• Not paying attention in transit malls (usually involves little or no injury)

• Intoxication

• Trespassing(36) 

These behavioral factors can be exacerbated by the fact that LRVs—commuter trains operating 

in “push” mode—as well as conventional trains operating in designated Quiet Zones may be 

4 https://www.transit.dot.gov/ntd

102 
nearly silent approaching a crossing. For these reasons, appropriate pedestrian crossing control 

systems are critical for pedestrian safety. 

It should be noted that injuries and fatalities (whether accidental or intentional as with suicides) 

also occur due to trespassing within the rail ROW; however, these topics are beyond the scope 

of this Handbook. Practitioners should consult other resources provided by the FRA, the Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA), and other sources including Operation Lifesaver Incorporated 

(OLI) for information and guidance on treatments which complement grade crossing treatments. 

Pedestrian safety is enhanced when pathways and sidewalks are designed such that they cross the tracks 

as close to a right angle as practical. It is desirable that pathways and sidewalks be designed to maintain 

a relatively consistent horizontal alignment and profile of 12 feet from the nearest rail, the distance from

the nearest rail to the detectable warning (if present), or the distance from the nearest rail to the stop line 

(if present), whichever is greater, on each approach to the crossing. Providing a pedestrian refuge area 

in advance of the stop line or detectable warning surface so pedestrians have a place to wait while rail 

traffic approaches and occupies the crossing can be beneficial to pedestrian safety. When designing new

sidewalk crossings, placing the sidewalk outside of the area occupied by crossing traffic control devices

for vehicular traffic is important. This includes making sure that the counterweights and support arms for

the automatic gates for vehicular traffic do not obstruct the sidewalk when the gate is fully lowered.

Passive and active devices may be used to supplement highway-related active control devices to improve 

non-motorist safety at highway-rail crossings. Passive devices include fencing, swing gates, pedestrian 

barriers, detectable warning surfaces, pavement markings, texturing, refuge areas, and fixed message

signs. Active devices include flashers, audible active control devices, automated pedestrian gates,

pedestrian signals, variable message signs, and blank-out signs. These devices should be considered at 

crossings with high pedestrian traffic volumes, high train speeds or frequency, extremely wide crossings,

complex highway-rail crossing geometry with complex ROW assignment, school zones, inadequate 

sight distance; and/or multiple tracks.All pedestrian facilities should be designed to minimize pedestrian 

crossing time, and devices should be designed to avoid trapping pedestrians between sets of tracks. 

Channelization 

The behavior of pedestrians crossing railroads is difficult to control. There are a variety of 

reasons pedestrians may disobey or ignore traffic control devices. Also, pedestrians often seek 

the shortest path and therefore may not always cross the tracks at the highway or designated 

pedestrian crossing. Pedestrian movements should be channelized to designated engineered 

crossing locations which provide warnings and controls designed for pedestrian use. Current 

practice used by commuter rail and transit extends fencing 50 to 100 feet back from designated 

pedestrian crossings to direct pedestrians to the crossing. Where fencing is used, the height 

should be reduced to 3.5 feet maximum within 100 feet of the crossing to avoid restricting sight 

distance.(31) Alternatives to fencing less likely to impede sight distance include bollards or short 

posts with chains, or low landscaping. 

103 
Accessibility Standards 

The ADA gives civil rights protections against discrimination to individuals with disabilities. 

It affords equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities in public accommodations, 

employment, transportation, State and local government services, and telecommunications. 

Titles II and III of the ADA include the enforceable accessibility standards called the 2010 ADA 

Standards for Accessible Design. The Department of Justice’s 2010 ADA Standards include 

standards for Accessible Routes. The Draft Proposed Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines 

(PROWAG) published by the United States Access Board, which were in rulemaking when this 

Handbook went to press, address many geometric features pertaining to pedestrian facilities, 

including the following:

• Minimum widths and clearances

• Accessible routes and pedestrian pathways

• Curb ramps and ramps

• Detectable warning strips

• Protruding objects

These standards are available from the Access Board website at https://www.ada.gov/.(37) 

MUTCD Provisions 

The MUTCD presents provisions for LRT-pedestrian crossings in Sections 8C.13 and for 

“pathway” crossings in Section 8D. Pathways are defined in Section 1A.13 of the MUTCD as 

“a general term denoting a public way for purposes of travel by authorized users outside the 

traveled way and physically separated from the roadway by an open space or barrier and either 

within the highway right-of-way or within an independent alignment. Pathways include shareduse paths, but do not include sidewalks.” As such, pathways are distinguished from sidewalks 

which are considered part of the highway crossing. The FRA categorizes pedestrian crossings 

as either “pathway” or “station.” Practitioners should refer to MUTCD Section 8D for both 

“pathway” and “station” crossing treatments and provisions. 

The MUTCD Section 8C.13 includes provisions for pedestrian and bicycle signals at LRT 

crossings. Although designated for LRT crossings, the guidance can be applied at conventional 

rail crossings such as those located along sidewalks. It should be noted that 8C.13 requires that 

pedestrian signal heads where used shall comply with the provisions of MUTCD Section 4E.04. 

Provisions for “pathway” crossings not associated with sidewalks are found in Section 8D of the 

MUTCD. However, as noted in 8D.01, many treatments outlined in Section 8D are applicable to 

crossings along sidewalks. 

Current Practices 

Current practices and guidance, some of which have been developed from LRT-crossing 

research, are shown in the following sections with references to MUTCD provisions and 

illustrative examples of various treatments.

104 
Pedestrian Refuge Areas (Refer to MUTCD Section 8C.13) 

• Where adjacent tracks are present, pedestrian movements should be designed to avoid having

pedestrians wait between sets of tracks.

• Where a track crossing is immediately adjacent to a road in a semi-exclusive alignment, a

pedestrian refuge area or island between the tracks and the road should be provided to permit

pedestrians to stand clear of the tracks while waiting to cross the roadway. If there is insufficient

area for a pedestrian refuge area or island between the tracks and the road, additional pedestrian

signal heads, signing, and detectors (see MUTCD Section 4E.08) or flashing‐light signals should

be installed based on engineering judgement.

Pathway Crossing Signs and Markings (Refer to MUTCD Section 8D.03) 

• Pathway grade crossing signs shall be standard in shape, legend, and color.

• The minimum mounting height for post-mounted signs adjacent to pathways and sidewalks shall

be 4 feet, measured vertically from the bottom edge of the sign to the elevation of the near edge

of the pathway or sidewalk surface.

• Where used at a pathway grade crossing, the traffic control device or its support shall be at least

2 feet laterally from the near edge of the pathway. Where traffic control devices are placed over a

pathway or sidewalk, the vertical clearance shall be at least 8 feet for pathways.

Stop Lines and Edge Lines and Dynamic Envelope Markings (Refer to MUTCD Sections 

8D.04, 3B.06 and 8B.29) 

• If used at pathway crossings, the stop line should be a transverse line at the point where a

pathway user is to stop. The stop line should be placed at least 2 feet farther from the nearest rail 

than the gate, counterweight flashing‐light signal or Crossbuck assembly (if any of these are

present) is placed, and at least 12 feet from the nearest rail.

• Edge lines (see Section 3B.06) may be used on approach to and across tracks to delineate the

designated pathway user route.

• Refer to MUTCD Section 8B.29 for use of dynamic envelope markings. In an LRT/pedestrian

mall, the dynamic envelope may be delineated in its entirety.

(34) 

Recommended Practices for Stop Lines and Detectable Warnings 

Detectable warning surfaces mark boundaries between pedestrian and vehicular ways where 

there is no raised curb. Detectable warning surfaces contrast visually with adjacent walking 

surfaces, either light-on-dark, or dark-on-light. Detectable warning surfaces are required by 49 

CFR 37, Appendix A, 406.8 and by the ADA where curb ramps are constructed at the junction 

of sidewalks and the roadway, for marked and unmarked crosswalks. Proposed guidelines 

developed by the United States Access Board (R304.2.3) will require use of detectable warnings 

at all grade crossings whether along sidewalks or pathways located so that the edge nearest the 

rail crossing is 6 feet minimum and 15 feet maximum from the centerline of the nearest rail.(37) 

The March 2014 update by the Access Board provides recent information on the design and 

placement of detectable warning surfaces.(38) 

105 
• A stop line should be provided at a pathway crossing if the surface where the marking is to be

applied can retain the application of the marking

• Detectable warnings should be used at pathway crossings where pedestrian travel is permitted

and at sidewalk crossings and should extend across the full width of the pathway or sidewalk

• Detectable warnings should be placed immediately in advance of the pathway or sidewalk stop

line (if present)

• The near edge of the detectable warnings should be located no less than 12 feet from the nearest

rail and be at least 2 feet in depth

• Where the distance between the center line of two tracks exceeds 38 feet, additional detectable

warnings, designating the limits of a pedestrian refuge area, should be used at sidewalk or

pathway crossings

Crossbuck Assemblies and Swing Gates (Refer to MUTCD 8D.05) 

The MUTCD indicates a Crossbuck Assembly shall be installed on each approach to a pedestrian 

crossing except at station crossings and sidewalk crossings located within 25 feet of the traveled 

way. The MUTCD also contains provisions for use of swing gates which shall be designed to 

open away from the tracks and automatically return to the closed position. Use of swing gates 

should consider the crossing user’s ability to detect the presence of approaching rail traffic. 

(ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities [ADAAG] contains information 

regarding spring hinges and gate opening forces.) 

Active Traffic Control Devices (Refer to MUTCD 8D.06) 

The MUTCD requires that flashing‐light signals, where used at a pathway crossing, shall be

provided for each direction and that a bell or other audible warning device shall be provided. The 

flashing red lights shall be aligned horizontally. Reduced‐size lenses may be used at a lower height

at pathway crossings, however, the units shall have a diameter of at least 4 inches and a minimum 

mounting height of 4 feet except where installed between tracks, in which case a minimum 

mounting height shall be 1 foot. 

106 
Current practice considers the following:

• Flashing-light signals, bell or audible warning device may be omitted at pathway or sidewalk

crossings that are located within 25 feet of an active warning device at a crossing that is equipped

with those devices.

• Additional pairs of flashing‐light units, bell or audible warning devices may be installed on the

active traffic control devices at a crossing from the back side of those devices.

• Pedestrian signal heads as described in Chapter 4E (of the MUTCD) utilizing Upraised Hand and

Walking Person symbols should not be used at a pathway or sidewalk crossing except where a

traffic control signal is used to control both rail and highway vehicles.

Pedestrian Automatic Gates (Refer to MUTCD 8D.06) 

The MUTCD recommends that automatic gates used at pathway crossings should be a minimum 

of 2.5 feet and a maximum of 4 feet above the walkway, however, where a vehicular gate extends 

across a sidewalk, the location, placement and height prescribed for vehicular gates shall be used 

(see Section 8C.04.). 

Current practice considers the following:

• When an automatic gate is used at a sidewalk crossing, a separate mechanism should be provided

for the sidewalk gate, instead of a supplemental or auxiliary gate arm installed as a part of the

same mechanism.

• If used at a pathway or sidewalk crossing, automatic gate arms should be provided with a

minimum of one light as shown in MUTCD Figure 8C.6. This light should be continuously

illuminated whenever the warning system is active.

• If used, additional lights on the automatic gate arm should be installed in pairs and flashed

alternately in unison with other flashing‐light units (see MUTCD Figures 8C.5 and 8C.6.).

• Where automatic pedestrian gates are installed across pathway or sidewalk crossings, an

emergency escape route should be available to provide egress away from the track area when the

gates are activated.

• An emergency exit route can be provided by use of a swing gate in combination with a pedestrian

automatic gate. In this circumstance, the swing gate should be signed as an “Emergency Exit” on

the track side and provided with a “DO NOT ENTER” (R5-1) sign on the side facing away from

the tracks.

• If used at a pathway or sidewalk crossings, the gate configuration, which might include a

combination of automatic pedestrian gates and swing gates, should provide for full-width

coverage of the pathway or sidewalk on each approach to the crossing.

107 
Shared-use path 

* YIELD or STOP signs 

are used at passive 

crossings only 

12ftMIN. 

1 

___ 

1 

_l _ \ & IR15-8 (optional) 

~ 15-1 

Oft R15-2 R. 

R1·2 R1-1* 

50 ft 

LJ-L(§l W10-1 

ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES OF PEDESTRIAN TREATMENTS 

This section provides examples of pedestrian treatments including diagrams shown in the MUTCD 

and photographs of applications. For additional examples of pedestrian treatments, refer to the FRA 

reports “Compilation of Pedestrian Safety Devices in Use at Grade Crossings”(39) and “Guidance on 

Pedestrian Safety at or Near Passenger Stations”.(40) 

Pathway Crossing Signing and Markings for Bicyclists and Skaters 

Crossings which serve higher-speed users such as bicyclists and skaters should use a 

combination of treatments including advance warning signs and pavement markings along with a 

Crossbuck Assembly and optional LOOK (R15-8) sign as shown in Figure 48. 

Figure 48. Example of Signing and Markings for a Pathway Crossing 

Source: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2009 Edition, Figure 8D-1,

Washington, DC, FHWA, 2009.

108 
Figure 8B-9. Exomples of Light Roil Tronsit Vehicle Dynomic Envelope Markings 

for Mixed-Use Alignments 

A • P1vemtnl Markings 

Edge ___ !-

Otff«enhaJ.: 

oonlr~ p.,yomenl 

~•6M'otcol0t 

8 • Contrasting Color and/or Ttx1urt 

.......,, .. _ 

Edge_.. matklngs 

~ 

-+ Uwecuonortravt1 

Dynamic Envelope Markings 

As shown in Figure 49, ADA-compliant tactile warning strips have been used to delineate the 

dynamic envelope continuously through locations where pedestrians may cross the trackway. 

Figure 50 shows a treatment which uses contrasting pavement to delineate the dynamic envelope 

through a crosswalk. 

Figure 49. Illustrative Example of an ADA Dynamic Envelope Delineation 

Figure 50. Illustrative Example of Dynamic Envelope Delineation through a Pedestrian 

Crosswalk (Portland TriMet, Morrison Street, Portland, Oregon) 

Source: Google Earth V 7.1.7.2602. (September 6, 2016). Morrison St near 12th Ave,

Portland, Oregon, USA.45°31’14.06”N, 122°41’01.87”W, Eye alt eye level. DirectX 2016.

Google Earth Pro. [January 30, 2019].

109 
Fence with 43-inch MAX. height ------I 

Legend 

- Direction of travel 

I 

♦-

I 

I 2 ft I 

- 1..J I .• 

""'· ·-

... 

' ,, 

I 

Contrastin gp avement _/ 

color or texture 

t ____ ...... Fence with 43-inch MAX. height 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I ·' 

Pedestrian -♦ -path 

- I 2 It 

2tft \ I 

I 

\_ Pedestrian barriers wi th 

43-inch MAX. height 

Pedestrian Barriers 

Pedestrian barriers may be placed in an offset pattern to create a “maze” which forces pedestrians 

to turn and look both ways approaching a sidewalk crossing, especially in tight urban spaces 

where there is no fenced-in ROW, such as a pedestrian crossing at a street intersection. These 

barriers can also incorporate a pedestrian refuge zone between the trackway and an adjacent 

roadway. Figure 51 and Figure 52 show a diagram from the MUTCD as well as an in-situ 

application from Calgary, Alberta. 

Figure 51. Diagram Depicting Use of Pedestrian Barriers 

Source: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2009 Edition, Section 8C.13 Figure 8C-9,

Washington, DC, FHWA, 2009.

Figure 52. Illustrative Example of a Pedestrian Barrier Application 

(BNSF Cotton Crossing. Peoria, AZ USDOT 025405Y) 

Source: FHWA.

110 
Pedestrian barriers are less effective where trains operate in both directions in single or doubletrack territory because pedestrians may be looking the wrong way in some instances. Where 

fencing is installed to direct path or sidewalk users to the pathway or sidewalk crossing, 

it is desirable that this fencing be connected to any continuous existing or new fencing or 

channelization that has been installed parallel to the track(s) to discourage pedestrians from 

circumventing the crossing. Pedestrian barriers should be designed to permit the passage of 

wheelchairs and power-assisted mobility devices, and if bicycles are permitted, to permit the 

passage of dismounted bicyclist with tandem bicycles or bicycles with trailers. 

Z-crossing Channelization

Similar in function to a maze created with pedestrian barriers, a “Z-crossing” is designed to turn 

pedestrians toward approaching trains, forcing them to look in the direction of oncoming rail 

vehicles. Figure 53 and Figure 54 show a diagram from the MUTCD as well as an application 

from Portland, Oregon. Z-crossing channelization may be used at pathway crossings where 

pedestrians are likely to run unimpeded across the tracks, such as isolated, midblock, pedestrianonly crossings, particularly where there is good stopping sight distance and pedestrian volumes 

are low and active devices are not required. Standard configuration Z‐crossings are not suitable

for single- or double-track locations where trains operate in both directions on a regular basis. 

The angled crossing configuration can be adapted by extending the length of the diagonal zone so

users face both directions while traversing the crossing but angled crossings are more difficult for

wheelchairs and bicycles to navigate. 

111 
F== wfth 43·•=> MAX. oe,go< ---..., 

Contrasting 

pavement 

color or 

texture 

' 

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 

6.25 ft M IN .-i 1- -

1 

<i 

Lege nd 

- Direction of travel 

2 ft 

t 

Figure 53. Illustrative Example of a Z-Crossing Diagrammatic Plan for an In-Situ 

Application in Portland, Oregon 

Source: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2009 Edition, Section 8C.13 Figure 8C-10,

Washington, DC, FHWA, 2009.

Figure 54. Illustrative Example of a Z-Crossing 

(Portland TriMet, Burnside Avenue, Portland, OR) 

Source: Google Earth V 7.1.7.2602. (September 6, 2016). Burnside near E 176th Ave, Portland,

Oregon, USA.451°31’19.06”N, 122°28’54.69”W, Eye alt eye level. DirectX 2016. Google Earth Pro.

[July 18, 2018].

112 
',,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,, ,, f , ,,,, 1, 1 1 ,', 1 , ,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,, 

1 1 1 1 1 1 1'1'1'1'1 1 1 1 1 1'1'1'/1 '1 1 1 1' l1' J '1'1'1 1 •' 1 1 1'1'1'1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1'1'1'1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Contrasting pavement _ 

color or texture 

... 

4 ft MIN. 

Fence with 43-inch MAX. height 

I __ 

Legend 

-+ Direction of travel 

6.25 ft MIN. ~ \ --

Fence with 43-inch MAX. height 

Swing Gates 

The swing gate (sometimes used in conjunction with flashing‐lights and bells) alerts pedestrians 

to the presence of tracks and causes them to pause before crossing. This restriction of movement 

encourages pedestrians to assess the crossings’ surroundings and approaching rail traffic. The 

swing gate requires pedestrians to pull the gate to enter the crossing and push the gate to exit the 

protected track area; therefore, a pedestrian cannot physically cross the track area without pulling 

and opening the gate. Figure 55 shows how swing gates may be used to control a pedestrian 

crossing within a station area for movement between platforms. 

Figure 55. Diagrammatic Plan of a Swing Gate 

Source: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2009 Edition, Section 8C.13 Figure 8C-8,

Washington, DC, FHWA, 2009.

113 
Alternatively, a swing gate may be used as an exit gate from a crossing area which is 

controlled by pedestrian automatic gates. When used in this manner, the gate should be 

provided with a sign facing users within the crossing that it is provided as an “emergency 

exit” as well as with a “DO NOT ENTER” (R5-1) sign facing users approaching the crossing. 

Figure 56 shows an in-situ example. 

Figure 56. Illustrative Example of Pedestrian Automatic Gate with Swing Gate 

Source: Brian Gilleran, Federal Railroad Administration.

Flashing-Light Signals 

At pedestrian crossings where engineering study indicates the need to provide active warning, 

the flashing‐light signal assembly can be provided. Flashing‐light signals should be used in 

conjunction with a crossing bell or audible device and may be used either at pathway crossings 

as shown in Figure 57, Option A, or in quadrants opposite road gates as shown in Option B. 

When the red lenses of the flashing‐light signal are flashing alternately and the audible device of 

the flashing‐light signal is active, the pedestrian is required to remain clear of the tracks (Uniform 

Vehicle Code, Section 11-513).(9) A Crossbuck Assembly with the standard Crossbuck sign 

(R15-1) and, where there is more than one track, an auxiliary inverted T-shaped sign indicating 

the number of tracks (R15‐2) should be used in conjunction with the flashing‐light device.

114 
Flashin.9 

Light SlfJnaJ 

Ass•rntny 

OPTION A 

IF11aat1!ing ILlignt Signal AH'8mbly 

( Uns;gnallzed p edestrian-only c:rosslng 

v;Jllhot.Jt pedestlian automatic gates) 

Optiotw.l 

-

OPnON e 

(01'1--qt.mdnm, of ,yaf-t,d crossing~ 

withe<UL pedes.trian B.1.11ornatic ga.."es) 

Figure 57. Flashing-Light Signal Placement Options 

Source: Korve, Hans W., Jose I. Farran, Douglas M. Mansel, et al. Integration of Light Rail

Transit into City Streets, Transit Cooperative Research Report 17, Transportation Research Board,

Washington, DC, 1996.

115 
Pedestrian Automatic Gates

Pedestrian automatic gates are the same as standard automatic crossing gates except the gate 

arms are shorter. When activated by an approaching train, the automatic gates are used to 

physically prevent pedestrians from crossing the tracks. The “TCRP Report 17,” which evaluated 

LRT crossings, recommends this type of gate be used in areas where pedestrian risk of a collision 

as determined by engineering study is medium to high (for example, where stopping sight 

distance is inadequate and pedestrian volume is signi icant).(34) 

The preferred method is to provide pedestrian automatic gates in all four quadrants, either 

using separate pedestrian gates or with a combination of pedestrian gates and vehicular gates 

extending across the sidewalk as shown in Figure 58. Where ROW conditions permit, the 

vehicle automatic gate may be located behind the sidewalk on the back side away from the curb, 

so that the arm will extend across the sidewalk, blocking the pedestrian way (see top illustration 

in Figure 58). Longer and lighter gate arms make this installation feasible; however, experience 

suggests a maximum gate arm length of 38 feet for practical operation and maintenance. At 

crossings requiring the gate arm to be longer than 38 feet, a second automatic gate could be 

placed in the roadway median, or a separate pedestrian gate could be used as shown in the 

bottom illustration of Figure 58. Note that the effective coverage is less than 38 feet due to setback requirements and the size of the gate mechanism. 

It should be noted that pedestrians can be trapped behind the crossing gate when there is full 

closure. In principle, the minimum setback of 12 feet provides a refuge zone between the gate 

and dynamic envelope. However, to avoid potential panic, current practice uses a separate 

swing gate, as a designated emergency exit, where crossing gates would completely enclose the 

crossing (see Figure 56). 

Crossing Gate Skirt 

Crossing gate “skirts” which may be constructed by attaching a horizontal hanging bar to the 

gate arm have been shown to be effective at reducing the likelihood that pedestrians will violate 

a lowered crossing gate.(41) Crossing gate skirts were installed along the Dallas LRT system at 

sidewalk approaches to an elementary school to reduce the likelihood that children would duck 

under the gates while walking to school. Figure 59 and Figure 60 show a gate deployed at the 

Lynn Haven Avenue crossing in Dallas, Texas. 

116 
Fence with 43-inch MAX. height~ 

I 

I 

Pedestrian gate : 

-

-

Contrasting pavement 

color or texture 

t I/ Fence with 43-inch MAX. height 

I 

I 

I 

: Pedestrian/roadway gate 

Sidewalk 

Legend 

GATE SUPPORT BEHIND SIDEWALK - Direction of travel 

Fence with 43-inch MAX. height~ 

I 

' Pedestrian gate : 

-

-

Contrasting pavement 

color or texture 

t i/ Fence with 43-inch MAX. height 

I 

' : Pedestrian gate 

Sidewalk 

Roadway gate 

GATE SUPPORT BETWEEN SIDEWALK AND ROADWAY 

Figure 58. Examples of Placement of Pedestrian Gates 

Source: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2009 Edition, Section 8C.13 Figure 8C-7,

Washington, DC: FHWA, 2009.

117 
AUllBLE DEVIC£ 

.. 

.. 

PATHWAY OR SIDEWALi( 

NOTES. 

a • 4 foet MIN br pathways 

= 7 fee MIN br lldewalks (see Section 2A 18) 

b " 2 lea MIN br pathways 

" o foci MIN br 3idewalks (see Section 2A.19) 

c" 3 foot MIN • 4 feet MAX for patlways and sidewalks 

d = opuonal gate llght on SICIO'M!lks 

e = 15 lnChes MAX 

Figure 59. Diagrammatic Example of Pedestrian Gate with Skirt 

Source: Gabree, S & Chase, Stephanie & daSilva, Marco. Effect of Gate Skirts on Pedestrian 

Behavior at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings, FRA, Washington, DC, 2013.

Figure 60. Illustrative Example of Pedestrian Gate with Skirt 

(DART Blue Line Lynn Haven Avenue Crossing, Dallas, TX) 

Source: Brent Ogden.

118 
CHAPTER 3. TREATMENT SELECTION GUIDANCE 

This chapter discusses methods for selecting alternatives and provides information on MUTCD 

Interpretations, Experimentation, Changes, and Interim Approvals, which provide the best source 

of new guidance between updates to the MUTCD. 

Methods to evaluate and select alternatives through engineering study and economic analysis 

techniques which are presented include the following:

• Updated “Technical Working Group” (TWG) Guidance

• Field Diagnostic Team Review Procedure

• Benefit‐Cost Analysis

• Resource Allocation Procedure

• FRA GradeDec Software

Although procedures are provided for developing benefit‐cost analyses of alternative treatments, 

more recent trends place emphasis on risk avoidance and best practices. As a result, benefit‐

cost studies may only be useful for evaluating alternatives that involve a major investment. In 

addition, the Rail-Highway Crossing Resource Allocation Procedure is presented and other lowcost solutions are discussed. 

More involved economic analyses such as Benefit‐Cost Analysis, Resource Allocation 

Procedures, and use of GradeDec may be more appropriate approaches to utilize when looking at 

multi-crossing scenarios, such as rail corridors or statewide efforts, or when considering tradeoffs between at-grade improvements vs. closures and grade separations. 

The Technical Working Group TWG guidance, which relies upon readily available planning data, 

can provide a good initial approach. 

Confirmation of treatments should include a field review using the Diagnostic Team Review procedure.

TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP GUIDANCE 

Following the 1995 collision in Fox River Grove, IL, between a Metra commuter train and a 

school bus, which resulted in the deaths of seven students, the USDOT established a Technical 

Working Group (TWG) to develop “best practices” guidance on a selection of crossing 

treatments. The TWG included representatives from the FHWA, FRA, FTA, and NHTSA, along 

with traffic engineers and rail signaling engineers with a working knowledge of crossing 

treatments. The cooperation among the various representatives of the TWG represented a 

landmark interdisciplinary effort to enhance communication among railroad companies and 

governmental agencies involved in enhancing grade crossing safety.

Note: This document summarizes current practices but does not set standards; practitioners are advised to check current local

standards and requirements (refer to Disclaimer and Quality Assurance Statement). Users of the data provided within this document

should anticipate possible variations from current information within the FRA databases, which are updated monthly.

119 
The guidance developed by the TWG notes that a highway-rail crossing differs from a highwayhighway intersection in that the train always has the ROW. From this perspective, the TWG 

highlights key considerations for deciding what type of highway traffic control device(s) are to 

be installed, if in fact a grade crossing should be allowed to remain. This, in turn, requires an 

assessment of what information the road user (specifically non‐motorized system users) needs to 

be able to cross safely and whether the resulting driver response to a traffic control device is 

“compatible” with the intended function of the highway and railroad facility. The TWG 

guidance outlines the role of stopping sight distance, approach (corner) sight distance, and 

clearing sight distance, and integrates this with highway system needs based upon the type and 

classification of the roadway as well as the allowable track speeds by class of track for the 

railway system.

The TWG guidance provided in this Handbook has been updated to reflect current practice. It is 

intended to assist engineers in the selection of traffic control devices or other measures at 

highway-rail crossings. It is not to be interpreted as policy or standards and is not mandatory. 

Any requirements that may be noted are taken from the MUTCD or other standards. A number of 

measures are included which may not have been supported by quantitative research but are being 

used by States and local agencies. This TWG guidance is for information purposes only. 

120 
Minimum Devices: All highway-rail crossings, including street-running railroads or transit 

systems on public streets or highways should be equipped with approved passive warning 

devices, as shown in MUTCD Part 8. 

Minimum Widths: All highway-rail crossing surfaces should extend a minimum of 1 foot 

beyond the edge of the roadway shoulder, sidewalk, pathway or face of curb, as measured 

perpendicular to the roadway centerline. 

Closure: Highway-rail crossings should be considered for closure and physically removed 

from the railroad right‐of‐way whenever one or more of the following apply:

• An engineering study determines a nearby crossing otherwise required to be improved or

grade separated already provides acceptable alternate vehicular and pedestrian access

• If an engineering study determines any of the following apply:

̶ Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) less than 1,000

̶ Acceptable alternate access across the rail line exists within one (1) mile measured 

along the track 

̶ The median trip length normally made over the subject crossing would not increase by 

more than 2.5 miles 

• If railroad operations will occupy or block the crossing for extended periods of time on

a routine basis and it is determined that it is not physically or economically feasible to

either construct a grade separation or shift the train operation to another location, and

an engineering study determines that such a crossing should be closed to vehicular and

pedestrian traffic. Such locations would typically include the following:

̶ In or adjacent to rail yards and locations near industrial spur tracks where trains pick 

up or set out blocks of cars or switch local industries 

̶ Passing tracks primarily used for holding trains while waiting to meet or be passed by 

other trains 

̶ Locations where train crews are routinely required to stop for crew changes or for 

cross traffic on intersecting rail lines

̶ In the proximity of stations where trains dwell for extended periods of time and block 

the crossing 

It may be advisable to investigate whether to construct alternative roadway access in 

conjunction with closing the crossing when the subject crossing is currently the only access 

to a community. 

121 
Grade Separation: Grade separation should be provided at all limited access facilities and 

should be considered for whenever one or more of the following conditions exist:

• The posted highway speed equals or exceeds 55 mph

• AADT exceeds 30,000 in urban areas or 20,000 in rural areas

• Maximum authorized train speed exceeds 79 mph

• An average of 30 or more trains per day

• An average of 75 or more passenger trains per day in urban areas or 30 or more passenger

trains per day in rural areas

• An average of 150 or more transit trains per day in urban areas or 60 or more passenger

trains per day in rural areas

• Freight Train Crossing Exposure (the product of the number of trains per day and AADT)

exceeds 900,000 in urban areas or 600,000 in rural areas

• Passenger Train Crossing Exposure (the product of the number of passenger trains per day

and AADT) exceeds 2,250,000 in urban areas or 600,000 in rural areas

• Transit Train Crossing Exposure (the product of the number of transit trains per day and

AADT) exceeds 4,500,000 in urban areas or 1,200,000 in rural areas

• The expected accident frequency for active devices with gates, as calculated by the USDOT

Accident Prediction Formula including five‐year accident history, exceeds 0.5 (per year). If

the highway is a part of the designated National Highway System, the expected accident

frequency for active devices with gates, as calculated by the USDOT Accident Prediction

Formula including five‐year accident history, exceeds 0.2 (per year)

• Vehicle delay exceeds 30 vehicle hours per day with consideration for cost effectiveness

• Whenever a new grade separation is constructed, whether or not it replaces an existing

highway-rail crossing, consideration should be given to the possibility of closing one or

more adjacent crossings. In addition, the railroad should be consulted prior to starting.

design to determine the railroad’s future clear span requirements for the tracks crossed

• Utilize Table 7 for LRT grade separations

122 
Strips of retroreflective white or red should be installed on the sign posts in accordance 

with MUTCD. 

Table 7. LRT Grade Separation 

Trains Per Hour Peak-Hour Volume (Vehicles Per Lane) 

60 200 

40 400 

20 600 

Source: Light Rail Transit Grade Separation Guidelines, An Informational Report. 

Washington, DC, ITE, Technical Committee 6A-42, March 1992.

PASSIVE WARNING DEVICES 

• A circular railroad advance warning (W10-1) sign shall be used on each roadway in

advance of every highway-rail crossing except as described in MUTCD Section 8B.06.

• If a Yield Ahead or Stop Ahead sign is to be installed on the approach to the crossing, the

W10-1 sign should be installed upstream (further from the track) from the Yield Ahead or

Stop Ahead sign.

• Except for crossings located within railroad yards or port and dock facilities, FRA

regulations (49 CFR 234.311) require the installation of Emergency Notification System

signs at highway-rail and pathway grade crossings, to provide information to road users so

that they can notify the railroad company about unsafe conditions or malfunctioning active

crossing warning devices.

• Where the roadway approaches to the crossing are paved, pavement markings are to be

installed as described in MUTCD, subject to engineering evaluation.

• Where applicable, the “TRACKS OUT OF SERVICE” sign may be used to notify drivers

that the tracks have been temporarily or permanently abandoned, but only until the tracks

have been paved over or removed from the crossing.

• MUTCD Section 8B.04 discusses Crossbuck Assemblies, where one reflectorized

Crossbuck sign and either a Yield sign or a Stop sign shall be used on each roadway

approach to a highway-rail crossing.

̶ If there are two or more tracks, the number of tracks should be indicated on a 

supplemental sign (R15-2) of inverted T shape mounted below the Crossbuck. 

̶

123 
ACTIVE WARNING DEVICES 

If active devices are selected, railroad flashers with gates may be appropriate if the 

following conditions exist:

• Inadequate sight distance exists in one or more approach quadrants and it is not physically

or economically feasible to correct the sight distance deficiency

• Regularly scheduled passenger trains operate near industrial facilities, such as stone

quarries, log mills, cement plants, steel mills, oil refineries, chemical plants, and landfills

• Near schools, industrial plants, or commercial areas where there is substantially higher

than normal usage by school buses, heavy trucks, or trucks carrying dangerous or

hazardous materials

• Near a highway intersection or other highway‐rail crossings and the traffic control devices

at the nearby intersection cause traffic to queue on or across the tracks (in such instances,

if a nearby intersection has traffic signal control, it should be interconnected to provide

preempted operation, and traffic signal control should be considered if none)

• The crossing is in a rural area with tangent approaches that extend more than a mile and the

speed limit equals or exceeds 55 mph

• Multiple tracks exist at or in the immediate crossing vicinity where the presence of a

moving or standing train on one track effectively reduces the visibility of another train

approaching the crossing on an adjacent track (absent some other acceptable means of

warning drivers to be alert for the possibility of a second train)

• An average of 20 or more trains per day

• Posted highway speed equals or exceeds 40 mph in urban areas or equals or exceeds 55

mph in rural areas

• AADT exceeds 2,000 in urban areas or 500 in rural areas

• Multiple lanes of traffic in the same direction of travel (usually this will include

cantilevered signals)

• The crossing exposure (the product of the number of trains per day and AADT) exceeds

5,000 in urban areas or 4,000 in rural areas

• As otherwise recommended by an engineering study or diagnostic team

124 
If active devices are selected, a preempted traffic control signal without railroad warning 

devices may be appropriate if the following conditions exist:

• The crossing is located through the center of a roadway intersection. Typically, the traffic

signals will be preempted and will hold in a dwell phase showing a red traffic control signal

indication to all cross‐track traffic. The traffic control signal should include battery backup

power. Additional flashing‐lights are not necessary if the traffic control signal will be

controlling roadway traffic on and around the railroad track crossing.

• The crossing is located along the shoulder of the roadway that is parallel to the track and

there is little to no storage for a design vehicle. Consideration should always be given

to school bus use and truck traffic. If a traffic control signal is installed at the adjacent

roadway intersection, the stop line should be placed on the opposite side of the track from

the roadway intersection and the traffic control signal should be installed and operate in a

manner that routinely stops vehicles before they enter the track area.

If active devices are selected, railroad flashers without gates may be appropriate if the 

following conditions exist:

• The crossing is located through the center of a roadway intersection. Typically, the traffic

signals will need to be preempted and will hold in a dwell phase showing a red traffic

control signal indication to cross‐track traffic. The traffic control signal should have battery

backup power.

• The crossing is located near a yard or multi-track location where frequent switching

operations may occur within the approach circuit. Installation of gates may promote gate

runner behavior if motorists frequently observe active devices operating with trains that do

not cross the crossing. The use of flashing‐lights alone requires the driver to stop and assess

the situation before proceeding.

• The crossing is located on an industrial lead or spur track. Train operations through

industrial areas where multiple turnouts leading to multiple dead-end tracks tend to be

slow—near walking speed. As operations often necessitate stopping/switching in these

areas, gate installation prevents motorists from stopping and proceeding during operations

where the train will not cross into the roadway.

• The crossing is located next to an industry gate access. In these locations, train operations

often require the train to pull near the gate slowly and stop so a train crew member can get

off the train and unlock the gate before the train can proceed.

125 
Roadway Realignment: In some circumstances, a crossing may have adverse 

geometric features which can be improved by realignment of the roadway. Examples 

include the following:

• Skew Angle Crossings

• Crossings with Adverse Profile due to roadway constraints

• Crossings on an approach to a multi-leg intersection

• Adjacent crossings which are on approaches to closely-spaced intersections

• Crossings with extremely poor corner sight distance

• Crossings at locations subject to recurrent queuing which cannot be cleared with

typical treatments

• Crossings at locations near rail junctions subject to frequent blockage or switching activity

New Crossings: New highway-rail crossings should only be permitted when the following 

can be demonstrated:

• Where there is a clear and compelling public need (other than enhancing the value or

development potential of the adjoining property for new highways or streets)

• Grade separation cannot be economically justified, i.e., benefit‐to‐cost ratio on a fully

allocated cost basis is less than 1.0 (when the crossing exposure exceeds 50,000 in urban

areas or exceeds 25,000 in rural areas)

• There are no other viable alternatives to provide access

If a crossing is permitted, the following conditions should apply:

• Whenever a new highway-rail crossing is constructed, consideration should be given to

closing one or more adjacent crossings

• If it is a main track, the crossing should be equipped with active devices with gates

• The plans and specifications should be subject to the approval of the highway agency

having jurisdiction over the roadway (if other than a State agency), the State department of

transportation or other State agency vested with the authority to approve new crossings, and

the operating railroad

• All costs associated with the construction of the new crossing should be borne by the party

or parties requesting the new crossing, including providing financially for the ongoing

maintenance of the crossing surface and traffic control devices where no crossing closures

are included in the project

• Whenever new public highway-rail crossings are permitted, they should fully comply with

all applicable provisions of this proposed recommended practice

126 
Traffic Control Device Selection Procedure: 

Step 1—Minimum highway-rail crossing criteria: 

1. Gather preliminary crossing data:

Highway:

• Geometric configuration (number of approach lanes, alignment, median)

• AADT

• Speed (posted limit or operating)

• Functional classification

• Desired Level of Service (LOS)

• Proximity of other intersections (note active device interconnection)

• Availability and proximity of alternate routes and/or crossings

• Emergency response facilities

• Type of vehicle usage (trucks, buses, etc.)

• Stop line locations and storage distances

Railroad:

• Number of tracks (type: FRA classification, mainline, siding, spur)

• Number of trains (passenger, freight, other)

• Timetable track speed and operational characteristics

• Proximity of rail yards, stations, terminals, spurs, and railroad wayside equipment

(defect detectors, train signals, etc.)

• Crossing signal control circuitry

Traffic Control Device:

• Passive or active

• Existence of traffic signal(s) and preemption

• Road approach traffic control signal timing (coordinated or uncoordinated)

• Supplemental devices (approach warning beacons, supplemental flashers, etc.)

Prior Collision History 

2. Based on one or more of the above, determine whether any of the recommended

thresholds for closure, installing passive or active devices, or grade separation have been

met based on highway or rail system operational requirements

3. Consider crossing closure based on the criteria noted earlier in this section

127 
Step 2—Evaluate highway traffic flow characteristics:

1. Consider the required motorist response to the existing (or proposed) type of traffic

control device. At passive crossings, determine the degree to which traffic may need to

slow or stop based on evaluation of available corner sight distances

2. Determine whether the existing (or proposed) type of traffic control device and railroad

operations will allow highway traffic to perform at an acceptable LOS for the functional

classification of the highway

Step 3—Possible revision to the highway-rail crossing: 

1. If crossing closure or consolidation is being considered, determine the feasibility and

cost of providing of an acceptable alternate route and compare this to the feasibility,

benefits of safety modifications and cost of improving the existing crossing

2. If grade separation is being considered:

• Economic analysis should consider fully allocated life-cycle costs

• Consider highway classification and LOS

• Consider the possibility of closing one or more adjacent crossings

• Consider future traffic generation from population growth

3. If there is inadequate sight distance related to the type of control device for stopping,

approach speed, or clearing, consider measures such as:

• Trying to correct the sight distance limitation

• Closing the crossing

• Grade separating the crossing

• Performing an engineering study to determine the need for a STOP sign in lieu of the

required YIELD sign at the crossing

• Performing an engineering study to determine the safe approach speed and consider

either posting an advisory speed plaque at the advance warning sign or reduce the

regulatory speed limit on the approach

• Upgrading a passive or flashing‐light‐only traffic control device to active with gates

4. If active devices are being considered, the devices should be installed with consideration

to what is discussed earlier in this section

128 
PEDESTRIAN TREATMENTS 

The following discussion draws upon the research found in the Engineering Design for 

Pedestrian Safety at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings.(42) Pedestrian behavior at or adjacent to 

railroad tracks can be characterized as risky. 

Six criteria regarding the pedestrian crossing environment and the desired devices and controls 

for it, were published by the Transit Cooperative Research Program in Report 69:(31) 

• Pedestrian facilities and minimum pedestrian activity present or anticipated

• LRT speed exceeds 35 miles per hour

• Sight distance restricted on approach

• Crossing located in school zone

• High pedestrian activity levels occur

• Pedestrian surges or high pedestrian inattention

Whereas the above criteria were developed for LRT applications, these criteria may be used to 

evaluate the need for commonly-used pedestrian treatments. 

Devices and treatments identified in the Engineering Design for Pedestrian Safety at HighwayRail Grade Crossings include the following:

Passive devices for pedestrian crossings 

• Pedestrian swing gates

• Directional surface

• Flange fillers and surfacing

• Dynamic envelope markings

• Z-crossings (zig-zag)

• Channelization

• Oversized ballast

• Bedstead barriers

• Fencing

• Anti-trespass panels

Active devices for pedestrian crossings

• Smart warning systems

• Detectable warning and tactile strips

• Pedestrian gates

• Gate skirts

Pedestrian behavior that violates traffic control at crossings can undermine the effectiveness of 

treatments at crossings. It has been noted that new treatments installed to mitigate some types 

of risky pedestrian behavior result in new forms of risky behavior; for example, pedestrians 

may pull open a swing gate intended for emergency egress and evade a lowered pedestrian gate. 

129 
Determining the most applicable type of treatment to use is a site‐specific decision based on 

several criteria, site assessments, and other noteworthy practices. 

DIAGNOSTIC STUDY METHOD

Current practice in crossing treatment selection utilizes the diagnostic study method. The 

approach centers on a field survey procedure using a “Diagnostic Team” composed of 

experienced individuals knowledgeable in key disciplines including crossing design, safety 

engineering, rail operations and signaling, and traffic engineering.

This approach is intended to ensure that site‐specific features are considered in adapting guidance 

and standards for treatments to address the issues at a crossing. The diagnostic study method 

can also provide an interdisciplinary approach which reflects all the technical considerations in 

selection of a treatment alternative. 

As such, the diagnostic study method, supported by additional engineering analyses conducted 

offsite, provides a structured approach which might satisfy the various requirements for 

“Engineering Study” as defined in the MUTCD (Part 1A.13). Refer to Appendix C of this 

Handbook for specific procedures.

ECONOMIC BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS 

An economic analysis may be performed to determine possible alternative improvements that 

could be made at a highway‐rail crossing. The FHWA Highway Safety Benefit Cost Analysis 

Guide(43) and companion Highway Safety Benefit Cost Analysis Tool(44) and support materials 

available at the FHWA Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) website can be used 

by practitioners to evaluate safety improvement alternatives. Practitioners need to assemble 

information on the following elements, using the following best available facts and estimates:

• Collision costs

• Service life

• Initial improvement costs

• Maintenance costs

• Salvage value

• Traffic growth rates

Other considerations include the effectiveness of the improvement in reducing collisions and the 

effects on travel, such as reducing delays. 

The selection of collision cost values is of major importance in economic analyses. Considerable 

care should be used in establishing values for these costs. The following are the two most 

common sources of collision costs:

• National Safety Council (NSC)

• NHTSA

130 
The NSC costs include wage losses, medical expenses, insurance administrative costs, and 

property damage. The NHTSA includes the calculable costs associated with each fatality and 

injury plus the cost to society, such as consumption losses of individuals and society at large 

caused by losses in production and the inability to produce. Many States have developed their 

own State‐specific values. Whichever is selected, the values should be consistent with those used 

for other safety improvement programs. An appropriate method of discounting should be used 

to account for inflation and opportunity cost. The selected discount rate should be informed by 

current practices and should be documented as part of the analysis. 

The service life of an improvement should be equal to the time that the improvement can affect 

collision rates. Both costs and benefits should be calculated for this time. Hence, the service life 

is not necessarily the physical life of the improvement. For highway-rail crossings, however, it is 

a reasonable assumption that the improvement would be equally effective over its entire physical 

life. Thus, selecting the service life equal to the physical life would be appropriate. 

The selected service life can have a profound effect on the economic evaluation of improvement 

alternatives; therefore, it should be selected using the best available information. 

Project costs should include initial capital costs and maintenance costs and should be considered 

life-cycle costs; in other words, all costs are distributed over the service life of the improvement. 

The installation cost elements include the following:

• Preliminary engineering

• Labor

• Material

• Lease or rental of equipment

• Miscellaneous costs

The maintenance costs are all costs associated with keeping the system and components in 

operating condition. 

The salvage value may be an issue when a highway is upgraded or relocated, or a railroad line is 

abandoned. Salvage value is defined as the dollar value of a project at the end of its service life and,

therefore, is dependent on the service life of the project. For crossing signal improvement projects,

salvage values are generally very small. Due to the characteristics of crossing signals and control 

equipment as well as the liability concerns that arise from deploying signal equipment that has 

already been used, it is assumed that there is zero salvage value after 10 years.

RESOURCE ALLOCATION PROCEDURE 

In lieu of the economic analysis procedures described above, USDOT has developed a 

resource allocation procedure for highway-rail crossing improvements. The FRA’s User’s 

Guide, Rail-Highway Crossing Resource Allocation Procedure, Third Edition (1987), can be 

accessed here: https://www.fra.dot.gov/Elib/Document/1537. This procedure was developed to 

assist States and railroads in determining the effective allocation of federal funds for crossing 

traffic control improve

131 
The resource allocation model is designed to provide an initial list of crossing traffic control 

improvements that would result in the greatest collision reduction benefits based on cost‐

effectiveness considerations for a given budget. As designed, the results are checked by a 

diagnostic team in the field and revised as necessary. It should be noted that the procedure 

considers only traffic control improvement alternatives as described below:

• For passive crossings, single track, two upgrade options exist: flashing‐lights or gates

• For passive, multiple-track crossings, the model allows only the gate option to be considered in

accordance with the Federal-Aid Policy Guide

• For flashing‐light crossings, the only improvement option is gates

Other improvement alternatives, such as removal of site obstructions, crossing surface 

improvements, illumination, and train detection circuitry improvements, are not considered in the 

resource allocation procedure. 

The input data required for the procedure consists of the number of predicted collisions, the 

safety effectiveness of flashing‐lights and automatic gates, improvement costs, and the amount of 

available funding. 

The number of annual predicted collisions can be derived from the USDOT Accident Prediction 

Model or from any model that yields the number of annual collisions per crossing. 

Safety effectiveness studies for the equipment used in the resource allocation procedure have 

been completed by USDOT, the California Public Utilities Commission, and William J. Hedley. 

Effectiveness factors are the percent reduction in collisions occurring after the implementation of 

the improvement. 

The model requires data on the costs of the improvement alternatives. Life-cycle costs of the 

devices should be used, such as both installation and maintenance costs. 

Costs used in the resource allocation procedure are usually developed for each of the following 

three alternatives, as applicable:

• Passive devices to flashing‐lights1

• Passive devices to automatic gates

• Flashing-lights to gates

Caution should be exercised in developing specific costs for a few selected projects while assigning 

average costs to all other projects. If this is done, decisions regarding the adjusted crossings may be 

unreasonably biased by the algorithm. 

The amount of funds available for implementing crossing signal projects is the fourth input for the 

resource allocation procedure are at multiple track crossings. 

The discussion which follows assumes that a group of crossings, some of which are at single-track 

sections and others where there are two or more tracks are being evaluated and that some 

1 Practitioners are cautioned to determine whether use of flashing lights without gates is appropriate for such locations; refer to the Technical

Working Group guidance in this section. 

132 
crossings are passive whereas others have flashing‐lights but no gates. The goal of the analysis is to

prioritize crossings for improvement based upon cost-effectiveness, as explained further below. 

If, for example, a single-track passive crossing is considered, it could be upgraded with either 

flashing‐lights, with an effectiveness of E1

, or gates, with an effectiveness of E2. The number 

of predicted collisions at crossing “i” is Ai

. Therefore, the reduced accidents per year is AiE1 

for the flashing‐light option and AiE2 for the gate option. The corresponding costs for these two 

improvements are C1

 and C2. The accident reduction/cost ratios for these improvements are AiE1/C1 

for flashing‐lights and AiE2/C2 for gates. The rate of increase in accident reduction versus costs that 

results from changing an initial decision to install flashing‐lights with a decision to install gates at

the crossing is referred to as the incremental accident reduction/cost ratio and is equal to:

If, on the other hand, the crossing was a passive crossing in multiple-track territory, then 

improvements to flashing‐lights would not be an option. In this scenario, the upgrade from 

passive to gates would result in an effectiveness of E2

, a cost of C2, and an accident reduction/ 

cost ratio of Ai

E2/C2. If this multi‐track crossing was originally a flashing‐light crossing, the 

improvement from flashing‐lights to gates would be characterized with an effectiveness of E3

, a 

cost of C3

, and an accident reduction/cost ratio of AiE3/C3. 

The individual accident reduction/cost ratios associated with these improvements are selected 

by the algorithm in an efficient manner to produce the maximum accident reduction that can 

be obtained for a predetermined total cost. This total cost is the sum of an integral number 

of equipment costs (C1

, C2, and C). The total maximum accident reduction is the sum of the 

individual accident reductions of the form AxE. 

The USDOT Rail-Highway Crossing Resource Allocation Procedure, as described in the RailHighway Crossing Resource Allocation Procedure’s Guide, Third Edition, August 1987, DOT/ 

FRA/OS-87/10, uses three “normalizing constants” in the accident prediction formula.(45) These 

constants need to be adjusted periodically to keep the procedure matched with the current 

accident trends, the current number of open public at-grade crossings, and the changes in the 

warning devices. 

For the most recently calculated 2013 normalizing constants, the collision data that was used was 

for calendar years 2007–2011 (to predict 2012 accidents/incidents). The process of determining the 

three new normalizing constants for 2013 was performed such that the sum of the 2012 accident 

prediction values of all open public at-grade crossings in the National Highway Rail Crossing 

Inventory data that was used was made to equal the sum of the observed number of collisions. 

Note that while mismatched data records between accident/inventory reporting are included, 

those accidents which occurred prior to the date of a warning device change are excluded, and 

also excluded are accidents which occurred at closed crossings and nonpublic at-grade crossings 

as included in the Inventory data used. This process was performed for each of the respective 

formulae for the three types of warning device categories: passive, flashing‐lights, and gates. 

This process normalizes the calculated predictions for the current trend in collision data for each 

category and relative to each of the three types of warning device categories (see Table 8). 

133 
Table 8. Collision Prediction and Resource Allocation Procedure Normalizing Constants 

Warning 

Device 

Groups 

New* Prior years 

2013 2010 2007 2005 2003 1998 1992 1990 1988 1986 

Passive 0.5086 0.4613 0.6768 0.6407 0.6500 0.7159 0.8239 0.9417 0.8778 0.8644 

Flashinglights 0.3106 0.2918 0.4605 0.5233 0.5001 0.5292 0.6935 0.8345 0.8013 0.8887 

Gates 0.4846 0.4614 0.6039 0.6513 0.5725 0.4921 0.6714 0.8901 0.8911 0.8131 

Source: Federal Railroad Administration website 

(http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/officeofsafety/default.aspx).

The most current Normalizing Constants are used in FRA’s Web Accident Prediction System

(WBAPS), on the FRA Safety Data website. Practitioners are encouraged to access this system 

which can provide the risk reduction factors based upon data in the USDOT grade crossing 

database.(46) If the resource allocation procedure is used to identify high-hazard crossings, a 

field diagnostic team should investigate each selected crossing for accuracy of the input data 

and reasonableness of the recommended solution. A worksheet for performing this analysis is 

included in Figure 61 (or download from this link https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/xings/com_

roaduser/07010/sec05form3.pdf). 

This worksheet also includes a method for manually evaluating or revising the results of the 

computer model. 

134 
TblH worlullt el pro1~,i a r m.iil l:lrul. lr!!lt iooo 10!'UliO!nlliitdi."i'Ul~kmo10~tooolel'ml11 li'!Dili!II 

- O.dnlioDII f ''l!lVning ~ imtlllllatioo rom t 111t lle&oooo Al!looal.l.:m Ptot:.~11 _ u· 1lcl IR: rev! : ~ Slcyi - Ul!fOilglt 5, lllil~crihed 

bel o'II'. shcmld LB lollowell In m.11111 Ill! t:be dcjo1ruln1nlon. in al.'llti 1 a. the lnfillll ibl!!irmalion (I.en otrllum11 I le ohlaf11.Pd !Mm olli~ 

i m- nL :)I d<11t1 pr-i or I ti 1he field im1pe,c,-tion. In~ .t, jhe deul Jte,ii,, ,·..tt1,"l! tst • lit e(l. I1vlil llw l.w • AflvadloJ1 ::\todel pnnl t. 

Tm' I; ' dld.G D..A:tc, Wl!ld. In Cw:wMlng:Prooil!foo Aooldem.t.!i: 

CiPHic)g l.ih!!ffii'lktMlc 

c:ro illlg '.N!lmoor 

Location 

F.:Xl~lli1,f\·'i\rlliUg rtl 

'r OOil Train μer [~y 

,\Jmlltlli 1Wttag1J lltsll t(]gb.W11YTJILl£i.e tc, 

Day H1ru 'Trai~ (dl 

Nmnoor or f!l1l 'Il!lel.'iii (m.O 

111 Higbwoty Pa.ved'? thp) 

!!1nK!llnllll TilD~ r S)x-'Od, mJil amj 

lli~'I)'Pf' (M) 

Nu bc1 orn1,1WtLy Low.as Chi) 

Number- -~ of Acd .i\i Hi ('1') 

NUlilbr4' h:cldsnu. Ill T¥ctlrs (~ 

Pn,tlliJt d Aooldetit R.,j., (A} 

h1itiN lntbtm&Ci9P Reyf;,;t)dJnr , · ,;,,n 

STEP 2: Gal.cl:wl:le Fl.e¥h:ed Aco!ldent ,hedio!loo iJfln1 DOT Fltmul It lliii lb .ltfl ( · · bcCll &Ytlloo. 

Revitied Pr-edicled Att•ldenti; (A) 

STEP .a: \'alldal:c G06i ltlld lr'.JfooU.Vl!II 'r.lillli lbr ia.ec-mende,t ~, [i _!1~ 

~~LJJ1H .. '1i B!l ·eL i Y1:Jlgs~ of Reoom1110.t1ded W.u-nil Devloe, (E) _______ A..B8111m,;,II 

C .t ~rttc:,; i- 1,mdl'.'d Wl!l-rn:111g ioo ! ) 

RBL'Or:JJ.UJe>nded Wii11w11g De\'f1'1." r1•e!llllal r.m 

TEP -i: ~e 1:1 Rooommendl!d 'l\umn~ Devi hoold lie Rt. 1-1 If I\, ,, "°" U Jm;c 1..'himg!",d, 

1. (IU41110/,cl;i;i.ou CrJteriil lpaJues lrol!1 Re-1 .Alloollll1m Mod.et. oulpul: 

I)• = Lil!\ = __ 

11, Colnpare R WI h Apprq · •.. Declli:ioo Criteria &a .lJNJMi Below 

EXleUllg Pas& o Crossing' 

(Ch,&,.e.: I. 2, ii., ) 

Sl11gt 'l'rllllk 

:ide.tll~g f1 11.qivt1 e r a ing 

(Cl · i, l, 2, 3, 4), 

~- !liigl'kwllligl i#JI Cro (ClBliSi!& :t t,, 7) 

tl ., < R 

D~ < R.;DC. • l't < ix:; 

O&t~ 

FJ,isbi ~g Llghl" 

~Hoo 

M1.1ltl ·k;i; 

ComnrlP ])gpL,l.u11 

~ :l 

" rn a1>dh1tl n 

DC-f < R 

ll < OC, ' ol~lldioa 

d,. \•j;icd (!!) t'DdM Wttrn.11ljt I) Yhi11 J0&1nl.lu!Eon• _______________________ _ 

stEP ~ ~ermln.11 •!!iloor Oln1nuttet!Mb, •lhlil mizy unu_~-1'~ ~ Instllllll.tlo _ ~Sloos 

uh iplo treeks w r·c nt tt-oln/la umotl\'s EIUoo • or~ oomb1!1lll.iJJ11 o1,. h igh ,;ehiculllr 

m~y obseure visio.n af z1nothH nulrW lhllr.., v,.,Jm,·,.,g, M/,\1'1 !lUli! r.,o,rg ... ~ bKU'I 

I'\' (' t t ct:s lDrll'Btlrnlllli, s\tbel!illllhll mUDDEll'!I ol 9i!hod 

l'tlll8~TI r- tl'>,11ll ~r-,tl CoM m<t.-'r ..r...-"tRjf n_g ,,.-r)t !111<1&:!- !!~'ing'h!mvdn11i; 

H:i b. ~pt.•t><.I C rMtl!; \\•itb. limitt'd 11i ' 11 dislu.noe .. • m11Lei.l'Ji!ls, liRUBUil!fy reJ!lr Ill.oil &lcJit. 

Comhi 1111.tion of high ~peArl (lo 111,0~;, ~l\t,.ly ht,gt, d11!t;ftJJIJe l'JI' ~ ,. id !Inc□ ... \11:tl~i. o!higb.'""3)', niit , IL'il:tli.c .. 

"Tha oo~l L41td e"ecLfreneti,e n1hLi!<!! for the r-evl ed Wt!.ml og dl."'1.0P N(\ l'\1!8UUJe<I '" ,ra1- fill' th!) h1l\l, reoomrn lltiP.d! Wl!.l'l11r,g de\ llii rll't"1'111ltJ il:I SL'-1' a. 

tlll» iJ.y fil\ ,IMllOOl1t {J Q ItWlnlJ lo Ill~ cll111®3 .ill 

ingll ti; Ill', oo Oal:)I rl!COOIIII ad 11v.ningd 

8fllU'C'JI': Rllilroad-Ilil~ay ffl(le Cl';;k! ogHarnlbook, Sl:'oolKl Edlt . W ·,l(Jf(J~ DC: U.S.~ f1WUl lif'JWmJ;[Xlll,ilwn, Ji'l!dcmJ 

H#f/,tJNJIJ A.dr,;;,.;;.,Jn:tli<m, 1(,/Sff. 

Figure 61. Resource Allocation Procedure Field Veri ication 

Worksheet Source: Federal Highway Administration website.

135 
FRA GRADEDEC SOFTWARE 

The FRA developed the GradeDec.NET (GradeDec) highway-rail grade crossing investment 

analysis tool to provide grade crossing investment decision support. The GradeDec provides 

a full set of standard benefit‐cost metrics for a rail corridor, a region, or an individual grade 

crossing. Model output allows a comparative analysis of grade crossing alternatives designed to 

mitigate highway-rail grade crossing collision risk and other components of user costs, including 

highway delay and queuing, air quality, and vehicle operating costs. The online application can 

be accessed via FRA’s website.(47) 

The GradeDec is intended to assist State and local transportation planners in identifying the most 

efficient grade crossing investment strategies. The GradeDec modeling process can encourage 

public support for grade crossing strategies, including closure and separation, where project 

success often depends on getting the community involved in the early planning stages. The 

GradeDec computes model output using a range of values for many of the model inputs. This 

process allows individual stakeholders to influence how different investment options are weighed 

and evaluated. 

The GradeDec implements the corridor approach to reducing collision risk that was developed 

as part of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century’s Next-Generation High-Speed Rail 

Program (TEA-21, 1998, PL, 105-178). This approach can be an effective means of reducing the 

overall capital costs involved in constructing facilities for high-speed passenger rail service (at 

speeds between 111 and 125 mph), where grade crossing hazards and mitigation measures can be 

a major cost factor. 

The corridor approach can be used to demonstrate that acceptable levels of collision risk have 

been reached for all rail corridors, train types, and speeds. For example, exceptions to the 

proposed federal rule mandating whistle-sounding at all highway-rail grade crossings can be 

made by showing that appropriate safety measures have been taken to mitigate the additional risk 

otherwise presented by trains not sounding their horns. 

The GradeDec uses simulation methods to analyze project risk and generate probability ranges 

for each model output, including B/C ratios and net present value. The software also analyzes the 

sensitivity of project risk to GradeDec 2000 model inputs to inform users which factors have the 

greatest impact on project risk.(48) 

MUTCD Interpretations, Experimentation, Changes, and Interim Approvals 

As technology and research continue to progress, updates to guidance and standards outlined 

in this Handbook, as well as the MUTCD, may be required. The FHWA periodically updates the 

MUTCD; however, updates to the document must go through a federal “rulemaking” process which 

requires posting the document in a Notice of Proposed Action (NPA) and addressing comments 

received before posting the revised document as a “Final Rule.” A number of years may be required 

to provide a full update to the MUTCD. 

The 2009 MUTCD with revisions 1 and 2 is available at https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/

pdfs/2009r1r2/pdf_index.htm. 

136 
It should be noted that a “hotlinks” PDF version of the MUTCD which contains the most 

current updates to the MUTCD providing links to official interpretations, corrections to known 

errors, and other external documents is available at https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/

hotlinksfeatures.htm. 

During the intervening period between MUTCD updates, FHWA may provide “Interpretations” 

or “Interim Approvals” and practitioners may petition FHWA to conduct “Experimentation” for a 

new treatment following procedures presented in Section 1A.10 of the MUTCD:

• Interpretations—Practitioners can request FHWA to clarify the intent of MUTCD provisions by

formally requesting an official “Interpretation.”

• Interim Approvals—Section 1A.10 of the MUTCD contains a provision authorizing the FHWA

to issue Interim Approvals. Such approvals allow the interim use (pending official rulemaking)

of a new traffic control device, a revision to the application or manner of use of an existing traffic

control device, or a provision not specifically described in the MUTCD. Interim Approvals are

considered by the FHWA Office of Transportation Operations based on the results of successful

experimentation, studies, or research, and an intention to place the new or revised device into a

future rulemaking process for MUTCD revisions.

• Experimentation—Experimentation provides a means for a practitioner to install and evaluate a

new device. Although experimentation is a time-consuming process which requires installation

of testing and potentially removal of a trial device, it does provide an opportunity to establish

new treatments.

Practitioners should be aware of the following:

• Design, application, and placement of traffic control devices other than those adopted in this

Handbook should be prohibited unless the provisions provided in Section 1A.10 are followed.

• Except as provided in Paragraph 4, of Section 1A.10, requests for any interpretation,

permission to experiment, interim approval, or change should be submitted electronically to

FHWA, Office of Transportation Operations, MUTCD team, at the following e‐mail address:

MUTCDofficialrequest@dot.gov.

137 

CHAPTER 4. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 

Chapter 4 discusses a high-level approach to project implementation, including how projects 

are programmed, potential funding sources at different levels of government, and agreements 

that should be considered. This chapter also discusses the design and construction of the 

programmed improvements, as well as traffic control measures that should be considered

during construction phases. 

PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT 

Program development is one of the final steps in the overall process. It is the selection of the 

specific improvement projects (including the type of improvement to be made along with the 

estimated cost of such improvement) to be included in a highway-railroad crossing improvement 

program. This selection process is data‐driven for efficiency and effectiveness. These projects are 

then moved forward into implementation. 

A program should use an established method, consider all locations, and prioritize projects 

based on risk and other objective criteria. It is important for an agency to document the project 

selection process and method. The prioritization of a crossing for improvement can be done 

individually, or a corridor approach can be used. The corridor approach evaluates many crossings 

along a railroad line. Utilizing this method, the potential for improving the efficiency of railroad 

and highway operations may be considered. 

The total program should include more projects than can reasonably be funded. This is to ensure 

that substitutions can be made in the priority list following field evaluation of the crossings by 

the Diagnostic Team or if other unforeseen issues arise that delay a project, another project can 

be advanced. 

To aid in the programming of projects, a resource allocation model (as discussed in Chapter 3) 

has been developed to assist in making allocation decisions. The methodology, using a highwayrailroad crossing crash or incident prediction formula, traffic control device system effectiveness, 

and cost parameters, provides a funding priority ranking of projects. On the State and local 

levels, it can be used to prioritize crossing projects and options through a data-driven process. 

It should be emphasized that, in the use of ranking procedures (for example, hazard indices or 

resource allocation), the quantitative ranking does not dictate the final decision. These tools 

should be considered only as an aid to State and local officials and railroad management for 

making decisions. Local conditions and the judgment of State and local officials should also play 

a role in this evaluation process. 

Note: This document summarizes current practices but does not set standards; practitioners are advised to check current local

standards and requirements (refer to Disclaimer and Quality Assurance Statement). Users of the data provided within this document

should anticipate possible variations from current information within the FRA databases, which are updated monthly.

139 
FUNDING 

Sources of funds for highway-rail grade crossing improvements include federal, State, and 

local government agencies, and the railroad industry to a lesser extent. Additional information 

regarding funding sources and their history and legacies can be found in Appendix A, Section 2. 

Federal Sources 

Federal program sources of funding have grown and adapted over the years. This section will 

briefly discuss some of the more impactful funding sources that have been available in recent 

years and their importance. It is important to note that most federal-aid funding programs are 

State administered. 

Highway Safety Improvement Program 

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a core federal-aid Highway program 

with the purpose to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all 

public roads, including non-State-owned roads and roads on tribal land. The HSIP requires a 

data-driven, strategic approach to improving highway safety on all public roads with a focus on 

performance.(49) The HSIP is legislated under Section 148 of Title 23, United States Code (23 

U.S.C. 148) and regulated under Part 924 of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (23 CFR 924). 

The HSIP consists of three main components, the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), State 

HSIP or program of Highway Safety Improvement Projects and the Railway-Highway Crossing 

Program (RHCP). The RHCP is legislated under Section 130 of Title of the United States Code 

(23 U.S.C. 130), with funding allocated to States as a set-aside of the HSIP. 

Section 130 

The RHCP provides funds for the elimination of hazards at railway-highway crossings. Program 

requirements and eligibility information can be found on the FHWAOffice of Safety website at https://

safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/xings/. The Section 130 Program has been correlated with a significant 

decrease in fatalities at railway-highway grade crossings. Since RHCP’s establishment in 1987

through 2017, for which most recent data is available, fatalities at these crossings have decreased by 

approximately 56 percent according to FRA data.(50) The overall reduction in fatalities comes despite an 

increase in the vehicle miles traveled on roadways and an increase in the passenger and freight traffic 

on the railways.

The 2015 Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act, PL 114-94) continues the annual 

set-aside for railway-highway crossing improvements under 23 U.S.C. 130(e).(51) The funds are set-aside 

from a State’s Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) apportionment by a legislative formula 

and allocated to States, who administer the Federal-aid Highway Program with federal oversight. The 

FASTAct increased the set‐aside amount for each fiscal year as shown. In addition, the Consolidated

Appropriations Act of 2016 (Public Law 114‐113) provided a one‐time increase for fiscal year 2016.

• FY 2016: $350 million

• FY 2017: $230 million

• FY 2018: $235 million

• FY 2019: $240 million

• FY 2020: $245 million

140 
Other federal-aid highway funds may be used for improvements at crossings, depending upon the 

specific program eligibility guidelines. For example, HSIP funds other than Section 130 funds 

may be eligible for rail crossing safety improvements if a State has determined a need through its 

data-driven SHSP. Surface Transportation Block Grant Program funds may be another federalaid highway funding source. See Appendix A for more information on federal-aid crossings 

improvement programs. 

Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements Program (CRISI) 

The FRA periodically provides grant funding for rail improvements which may be used to pay 

for crossing elimination and improvements. This program provides a comprehensive solution 

to leverage private, State and local investments to support safety enhancements and general 

improvements to infrastructure for both intercity passenger and freight railroads. Congress 

authorized this grant program for the Secretary to invest in a wide range of projects within the 

United States to improve railroad safety, efficiency, and reliability; mitigate congestion at both 

intercity passenger and freight rail chokepoints; enhance multi-modal connections; and lead to 

new or substantially improved Intercity Passenger Rail Transportation corridors. Additionally, 

the program includes rail safety projects, such as grade crossing enhancements, and rail line 

relocations and improvements. Applicable work also includes the following: rail regional and 

corridor planning, environmental analyses and research, workforce development, and training. 

In 2018, the FRA issued a Notice of Funding Opportunity for the CRISI Program that includes 

more than $318 million in grant funding authorized under the FAST Act. The CRISI grant 

program directs at least 25 percent of available funds towards rural communities to safely 

connect and upgrade rural America’s rail infrastructure. 

In addition, selection preference is given to projects with a 50 percent non-federal funding 

match from any combination of private, State, or local funds. The USDOT will consider how 

well the project aligns with key objectives including supporting economic vitality; leveraging 

federal funding; preparing for life-cycle costs; using innovative approaches to improve safety 

and expedite project delivery; and holding grant recipients accountable for achieving specific, 

measurable outcomes. 

Additional requirements that may pertain to the use of federal‐aid funds are as follows:

• Federal funds are not eligible for costs incurred solely for the benefit of the railroad.

• At grade separations, federal funds are eligible to participate in costs to provide space for more

tracks than are in place when the railroad establishes to the satisfaction of the State highway

agency and FHWA that it has a definite demand and plans for the installation of the additional

tracks within a reasonable time.

• Railroad share in the cost of certain crossing improvement projects is specified in 23 CFR

646.210.(52) Exceptions include the following:

̶ State laws that require railroads to share in the cost of work for the elimination of hazards at 

highway-rail crossings shall not apply on federal-aid projects. 

141 
̶ Projects for crossing improvements are deemed to be of no ascertainable net benefit to the 

railroads and there shall be no required railroad share of the costs. 

̶ Projects for the reconstruction of existing grade separations are deemed to generally be of 

no ascertainable net benefit to the railroad and there should be no required railroad share 

of the costs, unless the railroad has a specific contractual obligation with the State or its 

political subdivision to share the costs. 

• As per 23 CFR 646.212(a)(3), the federal share of the cost of a grade separation should be

based on the cost to provide horizontal and/or vertical clearances used by the railroad in its

normal practice, subject to limitations as shown in the appendix or as required by a State

regulatory agency.(53) 

• The railroad share of federal-aid projects that eliminate an existing crossing at which active

control devices are in place or ordered to be installed by a State regulatory agency is to be 5

percent. These costs are to include costs for preliminary engineering, ROW, and construction as

specified below and in 23 CFR 646.210:

̶ Where a crossing is eliminated by grade separation, the structure and approaches required to 

transition to a theoretical highway profile that would have been constructed if there were no 

railroad present, for the number of lanes on the existing highway and in accordance with the 

current design standards of the State highway agency. 

̶ Where another facility, such as a highway or waterway, requiring a bridge structure is 

located within the limits of a grade-separation project, the estimated cost of a theoretical 

structure and approaches as described in 23 CFR 646.210 (c)(1) to eliminate the highwayrail crossing without considering the presence of the waterway or other highway. 

̶ Where a crossing is eliminated by railroad or highway relocation, the actual cost of the 

relocation project, the estimated cost of the relocation project, or the estimated cost for a 

structure and approaches as described in § 646.210 (c)(1) whichever is less. 

̶ Railroads may voluntarily contribute a greater share of project costs. Also, other parties may 

voluntarily assume the railroad’s share. 

Additional information can be found at the following websites:

• https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/federalaid/projects.cfm

• https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/factsheets/railwayhwycrossingsfst.cfm

• https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/olsp/fundingfederalaid/

State Funding 

Section 130 RHCP funds are allocated by legislative formula to States who administer the 

Federal-aid Highway Program under federal oversight. Historically, States also have participated 

in funding highway-rail crossing improvement projects through fuel taxes and other sources. 

Additionally, States sometimes finance entire crossing projects, particularly if the crossing is on a 

State highway, or a State may set aside a designated amount of State funds for specific work as a 

sub-program such as crossing surface improvements. 

142 
In general, for crossings on the State highway system, States provide for the maintenance of the 

highway approach and for traffic control devices not located on the railroad ROW. Typically, 

these include advance warning signs and pavement markings. 

Local Agency Funding 

Cities and counties can establish highway-rail crossing improvement programs in their local 

agencies. These types of programs can provide funding for partial reimbursement of railroad 

maintenance costs at crossings, or can meet the matching requirements of State and federal 

programs. Local agencies are often sources of funding for low-cost improvements such as 

removing vegetation and providing illumination. In addition, local agencies are responsible for 

maintaining the roadway approaches and the traffic control devices off the railroad ROW on 

highways under their maintenance jurisdiction. 

Railroad Funding 

Railroads often volunteer to participate if they receive some benefit from the project. For 

example, if a project includes the closure of one or more crossings, the railroad may benefit from 

reduced maintenance costs. Railroads also may assist in low-cost improvements such as changes 

in railroad operations, track improvements, ROW clearance, and others. 

AGREEMENTS 

A highway‐rail crossing project involves a minimum of two parties: the State and the railroad. If 

the crossing is not on the State highway system, an agreement with the county or municipality 

having maintenance and enforcement jurisdiction over the road will usually be required. The 

agreement between the State agency and the railroad should establish the project location, scope 

of work, standards to be applied, basis of payment, and billing procedures. The agreement 

between the State and the local jurisdiction should do the following:

• Provide the authority for the State and the railroad to work and control traffic on the local facility

• Provide the amount and basis of payment for any local share

• Establish the maintenance responsibility for the improvement

• Provide for the passage of a law or ordinance so that any traffic control devices being installed at

the crossing can be implemented and enforced

Current practice is to define project responsibilities of the highway authority and the railroad in 

construction and maintenance (C&M) agreements developed prior to initiation of final design 

and construction of improvements. The C&M agreements can include provisions regarding right 

of entry and railroad flagging.

The FHWA provides a variety of resources and tools that encompass strategies to help 

railroads and DOT’s mitigate the responsibilities between the two agencies. The publication 

Strategies for Improving the Project Agreement Process Between Highway Agencies and

Railroads is comprised of model documents that can be used as a resource for both agencies 

to help expedite negotiations.(54) 

143 
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 

The design of highway-rail crossing improvement projects is usually completed by the State or 

engineering consultant selected by the State (per FHWA federal-aid requirements for consultant 

selection) where federal and State funds are to be used or by the local roadway authority or its 

engineering consultant when local funds are to be used. 

The railroad signal department usually prepares the design for the active traffic control system, 

including the train detection circuits. In addition, the railroad signal department usually prepares 

a detailed cost estimate of the work. 

Adequate provision for needed easements, rights of way, temporary crossings for construction 

purposes, or other property interests should be included in the project design and covered in 

the agreement. 

TRAFFIC CONTROL DURING CONSTRUCTION 

Traffic control for highway‐rail crossing construction is very similar to traffic control for 

highway construction. The major difference is that the work area is in joint-use ROW, and 

the possibility of conflict exists between rail and highway traffic as well as in construction 

operations. Construction areas can present unexpected or unusual situations to the motorist as 

far as traffic operations are concerned. Because of this, special care should be taken in applying 

traffic control techniques in these areas.

Temporary Traffic Control (TTC), as found in Part 6 of the MUTCD, discusses the importance 

of each mode of transportation and road user in relation to highway construction, utility work, 

maintenance operations, and the management of traffic incidents. Additional information 

regarding the requirement for a Traffic Management Plan for significant projects and TTC 

for non‐significant projects can be found in Subpart J and K of the Work Zone Management 

Program’s Work Zone Safety and Mobility Rule (Subpart J) and the Temporary Traffic Control 

Devices Rule (Subpart K) (website: https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/resources/policy.htm). 

Traffic safety in construction zones should be an integral and high‐priority element of every 

project, from planning through design and construction. The TTC planning is important to 

provide continuity for the movements of all modes and highway-users during periods when the 

normal function of the roadway is suspended. Providing for the safe and effective movement of 

highway-users as they travel through or around a TTC zone, while also focusing on the safety of 

workers and first responders, is a key function of TTC. The basic safety principles governing the 

design of crossings should also govern the design of construction and maintenance sites. The 

goal should be to route traffic through such areas with geometries and traffic control devices 

comparable, as possible, to those for normal crossing situations.

A traffic control plan in detail appropriate to the complexity of the work project should be prepared

and understood by all responsible parties before the site is occupied. If traffic flow will be 

impacted or the roadway will be closed, advance notification to the public should be provided to 

the public through news releases, social media, and other means as needed. Information on the 

length and times of closure or impact as well as established detour information should also be 

provided. 

144 
When planning construction or maintenance work at highway-rail crossings, proper coordination 

with the railroad is essential. The safety of road users, highway and railroad work crews, and 

train crews can best be provided through the development of a work plan to meet the needs of 

rail and highway traffic.

Traffic Control Zones 

When traffic is affected by construction, maintenance, utility, or similar operations, traffic control 

is needed to safely guide and protect road users and workers in a traffic control zone. The traffic 

control zone is the distance between the first advance warning sign and the point beyond the 

work area where traffic is no longer affected. Temporary traffic control should be developed and/

or reviewed by the road authority, not the railroad. 

Traffic Control Devices 

Signs. Regulatory and warning signs are used in construction work areas. Regulatory signs 

impose legal restrictions and may not be used without permission from the authority having 

jurisdiction over the highway. Warning signs are used to give notice of conditions that are 

potentially hazardous to traffic.

Delineators. Delineators are reflective units with a minimum dimension of approximately 3 inches.

Delineators should not be used alone as channelizing devices in work zones but may be used to 

supplement these channelizing devices in outlining the correct vehicle path. They are not to be used 

as a warning device. To be effective, several delineators need to be seen at the same time. The color 

of the delineator should be the same as the pavement marking that it supplements. 

Pavement markings. Pavement markings, in conjunction with delineators, outline the vehicular 

path and, thus, guide the motorist through the construction area. Pavement markings include 

longitudinal markings such as center lines, edge lines and lane lines, as well as word, symbol and 

arrow markings. 

Channelizing devices. Channelizing devices consist of cones, tubular markers, vertical panels, 

drums, barricades, and barriers (refer to MUTCD Figure 6F-7). These types of devices are used 

to maintain traffic through work zones. 

Lighting devices. Three types of warning lights may be used in construction areas. Flashinglights are appropriate for use on a channelizing device to warn of an isolated hazard at night or 

call attention to warning signs at night. High-intensity lights are appropriate to use on advance 

warning lights during day and night. Steady-burn lights are appropriate for use on a series of 

channelizing devices or on barriers that either form the taper to close a lane or shoulder, or keep a 

section of lane or shoulder closed, and are also appropriate on the channelizing devices alongside 

the work area at night. 

Flagging. Flagging of the highway should be used only when required to control traffic or when 

all other methods of traffic control are inadequate to warn and direct drivers. The procedures 

for flagging traffic are contained in MUTCD Chapter 6E. It should be noted that construction 

activity within the railroad right‐of‐way will require railroad flagging. The industry standard 

145 
is that the operating railroad will provide flaggers with the appropriate safety certifications. 

Availability of railroad flaggers is limited and construction activities need to be carefully 

coordinated with the railroad which controls the scheduling of qualified flaggers.

Typical Applications 

Practitioners should refer to Part 6 of the MUTCD for various “Typical Applications” of 

temporary traffic control, some of which could be used where a construction detour near a 

crossing is required. Two examples showing applications of traffic control devices in crossing 

work zones are shown in Figure 62 and Figure 63 for work in the vicinity of a crossing and 

where there is work on a side road with a crossing, respectively. The dimensions shown in these 

figures may be adjusted to fit field conditions in accordance with the guidelines presented in 

MUTCD and the Traffic Control Devices Handbook. When numerical distances are shown for 

sign spacing, the distances are intended for rural areas and urban areas with a posted speed limit 

of 45 mph or more. For urban areas with a posted speed of 45 mph or less, the sign spacing 

should be in conformance with Table 9. 

Table 9. Recommended Advance Warning Sign Minimum Spacing 

Road Type 

Distance Between Signsb 

A B C 

Urban (low speed)a 100 feet 100 feet 100 feet 

Urban (high speed)a 350 feet 350 feet 350 feet 

Rural 500 feet 500 feet 500 feet 

Expressway/Freeway 1,000 feet 1,500 feet 2,640 feet 

a Speed category to be determined by the highway agency. 

b The column headings A, B, and C are the dimensions shown in Figures 6H-1 through 6H-46 (MUTCD). 

The A dimension is the distance from the transition or point of restriction to the first sign. The B 

dimension is the distance between the first and second signs. The C dimension is the distance between 

the second and third signs. (The “first sign” is the sign in a three-sign series that is closest to the TTC 

zone. The “third sign” is the sign that is furthest upstream from the TTC zone.) 

Source: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2009 Edition, Washington, DC, FHWA, 2009.

Signs with specific distances shown should not be used if the actual distance varies significantly 

from that shown. The word message “Ahead” should be used in urban areas and in other areas 

where a specific distance is not applicable. Standard crossing pavement markings are not shown 

in the figures for clarity but should be utilized where appropriate. All applicable requirements for 

traffic control in work areas set forth in MUTCD should apply to construction and maintenance 

of crossings. Additional traffic control devices other than those shown in the figures should be 

provided when highway and traffic conditions warrant. These devices should conform to the 

requirements of MUTCD. All traffic control devices that are not applicable at any specific time 

should be covered, removed, or turned to not be visible to the motorist. 

146 
IA!"~end 

■■ Conu 

Note: see Tables 6H-2 and 

6H-.~ tor lhP. OV!Anino 

of the symbols and/or 

letter OOdes used in 

thi.~fi!)ll!P,; 

.... Plegger Stat ion 

- T1l)tl III Barricade 

50to 10011 

I 

t/----x , - ;-+-~ lwo way 

-lralficll:lper I SOIO 100ft 

q:----~ 1111 

A l!!!!..J I (oplio<1al) 

~-: 

Typical Application 46 

D()IIIDT 

$101' 

.. llAt11$ 

Figure 62. Work in the Vicinity of a Crossing (TA-46) 

Source: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2009 Edition, Washington, DC, FHWA, 2009.

work 

Figure 63. Crossing Work Activities, Closure of Side Road Crossing 

Source: Railroad Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Revised Second Edition.

147 

CHAPTER 5. MAINTENANCE, MANAGEMENT, AND OPERATIONS 

RESPONSIBILITIES 

The highway-rail crossing is unique as compared to other highway features in that railroads 

install, operate, and maintain the traffic control devices located at the crossing. Even though 

much of the cost of designing and constructing crossings, including traffic control devices, is 

assumed by the public, current procedures place maintenance responsibilities for devices located 

in the railroad ROW with the railroad. The railroad may be responsible for crossing surface 

maintenance within the rail and for several feet outside of the rail proper, depending upon State 

law. The public agency having jurisdiction usually terminates its responsibility for the roadway 

at the crossing surface. 

Traffic control devices on the approach, in most instances, are the responsibility of the public 

agency. Maintenance-sharing with highway or other local authorities is typically included in 

C&M agreements developed prior to initiation of final design and construction of improvements. 

It should be noted that the railroad that usually installs and maintains the active warning system 

within the railroad right-of-way may require local jurisdictions to assume the added maintenance 

cost for treatments installed to obtain a Quiet Zone. 

The highway agency is usually responsible for traffic control devices that are outside of the 

railroad ROW. The highway authority is also usually responsible for all types of advance 

warning signs. 

TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES 

Traffic control devices on approaches to highway‐rail crossings require regular inspection and 

maintenance. Pavement markings, if present, may need to be replaced to maintain adequate 

retroreflectivity and legibility of word and symbol markings. Signs on the approaches will 

gradually lose their retroreflectivity and should be inspected as outlined in MUTCD Section 2A.08.

Lighting and active devices should be observed on a regular basis and re-lamped as necessary. 

Road crews should be on alert for missing or damaged devices. Road crews should also observe 

the approach roadway to confirm that vegetation does not obscure the traffic control devices from 

approaching drivers and should trim or cut trees or brush as necessary. 

Higher-quality materials, such as improved sign sheeting and preformed tape, thermoplastic, or 

other durable pavement marking materials, can offer dual benefits by increasing the effectiveness 

of the devices while reducing the required number of maintenance cycles. 

Note: This document summarizes current practices but does not set standards; practitioners are advised to check current local

standards and requirements (refer to Disclaimer and Quality Assurance Statement). Users of the data provided within this document

should anticipate possible variations from current information within this document should anticipate possible variations from

current information within the FRA databases, which are updated monthly.

149 
INTERCONNECTED SYSTEMS 

Interconnected traffic signals and AAWS signs should be jointly inspected on a regular basis 

by State and railroad signal personnel. County or municipal representatives need to be included 

in this inspection if they share the responsibility for operation or maintenance of the device. 

Operation of the preempt should be checked any time a railroad or roadway signal maintainer 

visits the crossing or the highway intersection. Installation of recording devices which monitor 

train detection and operation of the relays associated with operation of the railroad warning 

devices should be provided in accordance with current FRA policies. The highway agency and 

the local law enforcement agency should have a railroad company’s telephone number available 

24 hours per day to report railroad signal damage or malfunctions. 

Relevant Federal requirements include the following regulations, safety advisories, and 

technical bulletins:

• 49 CFR 234.261—Requires that a railroad test each highway traffic control signal pre‐emption

interconnection for which it has maintenance responsibility at least once each month.

• FRA Technical Bulletin S-12-01—“Guidance Regarding the Appropriate Process for the

Inspection of Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Warning System Pre-Emption Interconnections

with Highway Traffic Signals”: This technical bulletin recommends that the inspector conduct

the following: review circuit plans which should show the interconnection and designed pre‐

emption time; request maximum right-of-way transfer time (RTT), minimum track clearance

green (TCG) interval, and “worst‐case” traffic control signal condition from the highway

authority, and test pre-emption function by observing a train movement and implementation of

the pre-emption function.(55) 

• FRA Safety Advisory 2010-02—“Signal Recording Devices for Highway-Rail Grade Crossing

Active Warning Systems that are Interconnected with Highway Traffic Signal Systems”(56):

This safety advisory recommends that States, local highway authorities, and railroads install,

maintain, and upgrade railroad and highway traffic signal recording devices at crossings. This

safety advisory also recommends that States, local highway authorities, and railroads conduct

comprehensive periodic joint inspections of highway traffic signal pre‐emption interconnections

and use information obtained from any railroad and highway traffic signal recording devices

during those inspections to determine whether further investigation of any recorded operational

anomalies may be warranted. Additional information on recording devices can be found in an

Informational Report published by USDOT/FHWA.(57) 

ROADSIDE CLEAR ZONE 

As defined by the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide(23), the roadside clear zone is the total 

roadside border area, starting at the edge of the traveled way, available for safe use by errant 

vehicles. This area may consist of a shoulder, a recoverable slope, a non-recoverable slope, and/ 

or a clear run-out area. This area allows a driver to stop safely or regain control of a vehicle that 

has left the roadway. 

The AASHTO Roadside Design Guide recommends a clear zone width of 30 to 32 feet for flat,

level terrain adjacent to a straight section of a 60‐mph highway with an average daily traffic of

150 
6000 vehicles. For steeper slopes, AASHTO recommends a 36 to 44 foot zone. For horizontal 

curves, AASHTO indicates the clear zone can be increased by up to 50 percent from these figures.

The roadside clear zone serves the dual purpose of increasing the visibility of the crossing and 

traffic control devices as well as providing a safe recovery area for an errant motorist. The clear 

zone should be kept free of brush; trees that are more than 4 inches in diameter or that may 

obscure traffic control devices; and rocks, eroded areas, standing water, or other defects that may 

entrap an errant vehicle or lead to deterioration of the roadway or track structure. 

The maintenance of the sight triangle, beyond highway and railroad ROW, presents a unique problem. 

Except for portions on the railroad ROW, this often involves private property. The removal of 

trees, brush, crops, buildings, signs, storage facilities, and other obstructions to the driver’s view 

requires the landowner’s permission to access to the property to remove the obstruction. 

ROADSIDE APPROACHES 

In addition to typical roadway maintenance, the following are a few special considerations 

maintenance forces need to keep in mind on roadway approaches to a crossing:

• Roadway maintenance equipment can damage crossing surfaces or the adjacent track. Repairs

adjacent to the crossing should be done with care.

• Maintenance personnel should be aware of potential train movements and should be alert for

trains. Highway authorities should coordinate with the railroad before conducting roadway

maintenance in the vicinity of a crossing, and most railroads require use of a flagman if

maintenance activities are conducted within 8 feet of the near rail.

• Drainage from the crossing or track structure should not be blocked when maintaining pipes

and ditches.

• Snow removal and ice control should be done with care. Snow should not be plowed such that

longitudinal piles extend across the tracks. Snowplows can damage crossing surfaces. Chemicals

can corrode track and fittings and can short‐out track circuits. Snow and slush should not be

pushed or carried onto the crossing.

• Where possible, resurfacing operations should be coordinated with the railroad. Resurfacing

lifts should be feathered near the crossing so as not to leave the crossing surface in a hole or dip.

Drainage should be checked to assure that the additional roadway height has not directed water

onto the crossing surface. All necessary steps should be taken to prevent interference between

resurfacing equipment and personnel and trains.

ROUTINE MAINTENANCE 

Highway maintenance personnel should be aware of the design, operational, safety, and 

maintenance issues surrounding highway rail crossings and railroad track structure. In particular, 

activities which could affect the vertical profile and the interface between the rail right‐of‐way 

and the approach roadway should be coordinated with the railroad, and railroads should also 

coordinate maintenance activities that affect vertical profile with the adjacent highway authority. 

Pavement markings and signs should be kept up to date and worn, damaged, or missing signs 

151 
should be replaced. The railroad stop line should be maintained the proper distance from 

active warning devices and the placement of advance warning signs should be consistent with 

advance pavement markings. The roadway maintenance supervisor should pay attention to the 

crossings under his or her jurisdiction and coordinate with the railroad, as necessary, to resolve 

any problems. If maintenance is being done under a regular program, coordination with affected 

railroad(s) can address these issues at all relevant crossings. The maintenance supervisor should 

also contact the crossing program administrator, as necessary, should any needed improvements 

be identified. Railroad road masters, track supervisors, signal inspectors, and signal maintainers 

also have a critical role in maintaining features of a highway-rail crossing. 

BLOCKED CROSSINGS 

A crossing can become blocked when a train is required to stop for a signal or during switching 

operations. Even if the crossing is not physically occupied by a train, if a train is standing on the 

track circuits used to activate the crossing warning system, the flashing‐light signals and crossing 

gates may activate and indicate to road users that a train is approaching the grade crossing. 

Appendix C to the FHWA/FRA Noteworthy Practices Guide(58) notes the following consequences 

of blocked crossings:

• Excessive Roadway Delays

• Increased Emergency Response Time

• Truck Traffic Detours onto Local Streets

• Pedestrians Cutting Through or Under Trains

The FRA regulations do not specifically address the length of time a train may block a grade 

crossing. However, FRA regulations do address standing (idling) trains that unnecessarily 

activate grade crossing warning devices such as flashing lights and gate arms.(59) FRA 

regulations specifically prohibit standing trains, locomotives, or other rail equipment from 

interfering with the normal functioning of crossing warning devices without first taking 

measures to provide for the safety of highway traffic. 

Responsibility for grade crossings varies among the States. For some, it is divided between 

several public agencies and the railroad. In other States, jurisdiction is assigned to regulatory 

agencies such as public utility commissions, public service commissions, or State corporation 

commissions. Still other States split the authority among State, county, and city governmental 

agencies that have jurisdiction and responsibility for their respective highway systems.(11) Where 

there is a conflict between the State law and federal rail safety requirements, the courts have 

found the State law to be superseded by federal requirements. 

152 
Solutions to Blocked Crossings 

Appendix C to the Noteworthy Practices Guide addresses potential remedies and encourages States 

to address these issues in their respective State Action Plans.a

 Improved communication between 

the railroad, the local community, and local emergency services personnel is encouraged. 

Potential operational changes that a railroad might make include the following: 

• Hold a train outside the congested area until it can move through the grade crossing without stopping

• Improve management of rail yard traffic to accommodate train movements more efficiently

• Trains awaiting a crew change should be located in an area that allows minimal frequency of

blocked crossings

• Break a long train by de‐coupling two rail cars to allow the resumption of highway traffic when it

is anticipated that a grade crossing will be blocked for an extended period

Potential mitigation strategies for chronic grade crossing blockages include the following: 

• Use private and/or public investments to:

̶ Add tracks, lengthen sidings, or make other rail infrastructure improvements 

̶ Create grade separations where the highway is located above or below the tracks 

̶ Close and consolidate grade crossings to mitigate congestion and improve traffic flow

̶ Relocate a rail line to a completely new right-of-way 

• Provide advance warning of blocked grade crossings to motorists and emergency responders and

recommend possible alternate routes via Intelligent Transportation Systems

• Improve communication between, and provide training for, railroads, local communities, State

agencies, and emergency responders

• Encourage local governments to formally consider the potential for new residential or

commercial development to generate more highway traffic and how such developments may

impact grade crossing use, safety and emergency response

a The Railroad Safety Improvement Act (RSIA) of 2008 required the ten states with the highest number of grade crossing collisions 

during 2006, 2007 and 2008 to develop action plans identifying specific solutions for improving safety at crossings.

153 
DOT CROSSING INVENTORY 

The FRA is the custodian for the U.S. DOT National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory 

(“Crossing Inventory”), which is a national database of highway-rail and pathway crossings. 

Regulations governing railroad reporting to the Crossing Inventory were published by FRA in 

2015. See Appendix C, Section 1 for further details. 

The Guide for Preparing U.S. DOT Crossing Inventory Forms (“Inventory Guide”) provides 

instructions for how to fill out the Crossing Inventory form to submit crossing data to the 

Crossing Inventory. The Inventory Guide can be found at: https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/

OfficeofSafety/Documents/Crossing%20Inventory%20Guide%20Final.pdf. 

154 
CHAPTER 6. SPECIAL TOPICS 

Several issues are important to highway-rail crossing safety and operations that either were 

not specifically covered in previous chapters or warrant special consideration. These include

the following:

• Private Crossings

• Short-line Railroads

• LRT and Busways

• High-Speed Rail

• Trucks and Buses

• Bicycles and Motorcycles

• Intelligent Transportation Systems

• Quiet Zones

PRIVATE CROSSINGS 

Private highway-rail crossings are generally located on roadways not open to use by the public. 

Usually, an agreement between the land owner and the railroad governs the use of the private 

crossing. Typical types of private crossings are as follows:

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

• Industrial plant crossings that provide access between plant facilities on both sides of the railroad

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

from another road, frequently a public road paralleling and adjacent to the railroad ROW

• Utility access crossings over which a utility company or public authority reach electric, sewer,

water, flood control, or other facilities from another road

• Temporary crossings established for the duration of a private construction project or other

seasonal activity

• In some instances, changes in land use may result in a need for the private crossing to become

a public crossing. If the public uses a crossing, appropriate traffic control devices should

be installed for warning and guidance. Usually the conversion of a private crossing will be

governed by a construction and maintenance agreement with the public road authority and the

railroad. Some State laws may have minimum traffic control device requirements that apply to

Note: This document summarizes current practices but does not set standards; practitioners are advised to check current local

standards and requirements (refer to Disclaimer and Quality Assurance Statement). Users of the data provided within this document

should anticipate possible variations from current information within this document should anticipate possible variations from

current information within the FRA databases, which are updated monthly.

155 
the conversion of a private crossing to a public crossing. However, State and federal funds are 

generally not available for use at private crossings. 

 

As with public crossings, the first option to be considered for improving private crossings is 

closure. Adjacent public crossings should be evaluated to determine if they can be used instead 

of the private crossing. Every effort to close the crossing should be made. 

Some private crossings have sufficient train and roadway traffic volume to necessitate active 

traffic control devices. Considerations for the installation of these devices are the same as for 

public crossings. Federal funds and, often, State funds cannot be used for the installation of 

traffic control devices at private crossings. The railroad and the landowner usually come to an 

agreement regarding the financing of the devices.

SHORT LINE RAILROADS 

There are numerous short line railroads, and the number is growing due to federal deregulation. Short 

line railroads are typically Class III railroads, as defined by the STB. Class III railroads include all

switching and terminal companies and all line-haul railroads that have annual operating revenues 

of less than $35,809,698 million (as of 2017).(60) Many of these short line railroads provide 

switching and terminal services for the larger Class I and II railroad companies. Many short line 

railroads are members of the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA). 

The ASLRRA provides liaison with governmental agencies, serves as a source for information and 

assistance, and provides other benefits to short‐line railroads.

Ownership of these smaller rail lines varies from State or local governments, port authorities, 

other short lines, private entrepreneurs, and shipper groups. Many new owners of short lines 

are keenly aware of the costs of line acquisition, track and rolling stock rehabilitation, and 

other operational expenditures. However, new operators may be unaware of the substantial 

expenditures needed for rebuilding crossing surfaces, renewing older traffic control systems, and 

maintaining them. 

Costs associated with crossings may constitute a considerable portion of the limited annual 

maintenance-of-way budgets of short-line railroads. An abandoned plant, when acquired by the new 

owner, may not be in good condition. The track condition may be adequate, requiring little annual 

expense in comparison to other plant needs. Therefore, as annual track maintenance costs are 

reduced, crossing expenditures may constitute as much as 50 percent of the annual maintenanceof-way budget over a period of years. This depends on factors such as the location of the line in

relation to population centers and the volume of heavy truck traffic.

On short-line railroads, there is often a lack of specialized personnel in-house for handling 

crossing responsibilities, such as the continuing maintenance of highly complex electronic grade 

crossing warning systems. 

Although rail traffic on smaller lines tends to be sparse, as well as slow, grade crossing safety on 

smaller lines is no less important than those on larger railroads. National statistics indicate that 

the vast majority of crossing collisions occur at relatively low train speeds. 

156 
Adequate planning is essential to ensure the proper formation of new short line railroads and 

to improve their survival as a necessary part of the U.S. transportation system. State agencies 

can assist by informing short line railroads of the requirements for improving crossings on their 

system and direct them to other appropriate sources of information. State agencies should ensure 

that the short line railroads operating in their State are included in the lines of communication 

regarding crossings. Short line railroads also should be encouraged to participate in other 

crossing safety programs, such as Operation Lifesaver. 

LIGHT RAIL AND BUSWAYS 

Where LRT and Busways are separated from highway facilities, their design and operations can 

be very similar. These parallels can be seen in the configuration, signage, and policy guidance 

recommended for each type. It is important to note where an FTA-regulated rail service operates 

in a “shared corridor” with conventional rail, FRA regulations apply at crossings. The National 

Transit Database (NTD) is a valuable resource of data regarding operation and safety data for 

transit operations. The following section highlights some important considerations for both LRT 

and busway crossings. 

Table 10 presents typical issues and possible solutions at LRT crossings through which Light 

Rail Vehicles (LRVs) operate. These issues are separated into five categories: system design, 

system operations, traffic signal placement and operations, automatic gate placement, and 

pedestrian control. 

Table 10. Possible Solutions to Observed Problems at LRT Crossings 

Issue Possible Solution 

1. System design

Vehicles driving around closed 

automatic gates. 

Install raised medians with barrier curbs. 

Install channelization devices (tubular posts, vertical delineators). 

Install longer automatic gate arms. 

Photo enforcement. 

Four-quadrant gates. 

For parallel traffic, install protected signal indications or LRVactivated “NO RIGHT/LEFT TURN” signs (R3-1, 2). 

For parallel traffic, install turn automatic gates. 

LRV operator cannot visually 

confirm if gates are working. 

Install gate indication signals or in-cab wireless video link. 

Install and monitor at a central control facility a Supervisory Control 

and Data Acquisition system. 

Slow trains share tracks/ 

crossings with LRVs and 

near-side LRT station stops. 

Constant warning time. Use gate delay timers. 

157 
Issue Possible Solution 

Motorist disregard for regulatory 

signs at LRT crossings and 

crossing warning devices. 

Avoid excessive use of signs. Photo enforcement. 

Motor vehicles queue back 

across LRT tracks from a nearby 

intersection controlled by STOP 

signs (R1-1). 

Allow free flow (no STOP sign) off the tracks or signalize intersection 

and interconnect with crossing. 

Sight distance limitations at 

LRT crossings. 

Maximize sight distance by limiting potential obstructions to 3.5 feet 

in height within about 100 to 200 feet of the LRT crossing (measured 

parallel to the tracks back from the crossing). 

Motor vehicles queue across 

LRT tracks from downstream 

obstruction. 

Install “DO NOT STOP ON TRACKS” sign. Install “Keep Clear” 

zone striping. Install queue cutter signal. [See also “Do Not Block 

Intersection Markings” from MUTCD Section 3B.17]. 

Automatic gate and traffic signal 

interconnect malfunctions. 

Install plaque at crossing with 1-800 phone number and crossing 

name and/or identification number. [See also Emergency Notification 

Signs from MUTCD Section 8B.19]. 

2. System operations

Freight line converted to, or 

shared with, light-rail transit. 

For new LRT systems, initially operate LRVs slower, then increase 

speed over time. 

Collisions occur when 

second LRV approaches 

pedestrian crossing. 

When practical, first LRV slows/stops in pedestrian crossing, 

blocking pedestrian access until second, opposite direction LRV 

enters crossing. 

Motorists disregard crossing 

warning devices. 

Adequately maintain LRT crossing hardware (routinely align flashinglight signals) and reduce device “clutter.” 

Emergency preparedness. Training of staff and emergency response teams (fire, police, EMS). 

3. Traffic signal placement

and operation

Motorists confused about 

conflicting flashing-light signal 

and traffic signal indicators. 

Use traffic signals on the near side of the LRT crossing (pre-signals) 

with programmable visibility or louvered traffic signal heads for farside intersection control. 

Avoid using cantilevered flashing-light signals with cantilevered 

traffic signals. 

Track clearance phasing. Detect LRVs early to allow termination of conflicting 

movements (pedestrians). 

Excessive queuing near 

LRT crossings. 

Use queue prevention strategies, pre-signals. 

Turning vehicles hesitate during 

track clearance interval. 

Provide protected signal phases for through and turning motor vehicles. 

Vehicles queue back from 

closed gates into intersection. 

Control turning traffic toward the crossing. 

158 
Issue Possible Solution 

LRT crosses two approaches 

to a signalized intersection 

(diagonal crossing). 

Detect LRVs early enough to clear both roadway approaches and/or 

use pre-signals or queue cutter signals. 

Delay the lowering of the gates that control vehicles departing the 

common intersection. 

Motorists confused about gates 

starting to go up and then 

lowering for a second, opposite 

direction LRV. 

Detect LRVs early enough to avoid gate pumping (also allows for a 

nearby traffic signal controller to respond to a second LRV preemption). 

At near-side station locations, keep gates raised until LRV is ready 

to depart. 

LRT versus emergency 

vehicle preemption. 

At higher-speed LRT crossings (speeds greater than 55 km/hr. (35 

mph)), LRVs receive priority and emergency vehicles second priority. 

Turning motorists violate red 

protected left-turn indication due 

to excessive delay. 

Recover from preemption to phase that was preempted. 

With leading left-turn phasing, 

motorists violate red protected 

left-turn arrow during preemption. 

Switch from leading left-turn phasing to lagging left-turn phasing. 

4. Automatic gate placement

At angled crossings or for 

turning traffic, gates descend on 

top of or behind motor vehicles. 

Install gates parallel to LRT tracks. 

Install advanced traffic signal to control turning traffic. 

5. Pedestrian control

Limited sight distance at 

pedestrian crossing. 

Install pedestrian automatic gates (with flashing-light signals 

and bells (or alternative audible device)). 

Pedestrians dart across LRT 

tracks without looking. 

Install warning signs. Install swing gates. 

Pedestrians fail to look both 

ways before crossing tracks. 

Channel pedestrians (Z-crossings). 

Paint LRT directional arrow between tracks. 

Pedestrians ignore regulatory 

and warning signs.

Mount signs lower, but in accordance with MUTCD requirements, so 

they are closer to average eye level for pedestrians. Install active 

pedestrian warning devices. Provide education and enforcement.

Pedestrians stand too 

close to tracks as train 

approaches crossing. 

Install pedestrian stop bar with tactile warning outside of the 

dynamic envelope. 

Pedestrians and bicyclists 

routinely cross the LRT tracks 

behind the automatic gate 

mechanism while it is activated. 

Install positive control behind the sidewalk (if present) or 

roadway shoulder. 

Source: Korve, Hans W., Brent D. Ogden, Joaquin T. Siques, Douglas M. Mansel, et al. Light 

Rail Service: Pedestrian and Vehicular Safety. Washington, DC.: Transit Cooperative Research 

Project Report 69, Transportation Research Board, 2001.

159 
HIGH SPEED RAIL 

Special consideration should be given to highway-rail crossings on high-speed passenger train 

routes. The potential for a catastrophic collision injuring many passengers demands special 

attention. This not only includes dedicated routes with train speeds over 79 mph, but also other 

passenger routes over which trains may operate at speeds higher than freight trains, see Table 11. 

Variations in warning time may occur with high-speed passenger trains at crossings equipped 

with active crossing warning devices. Because of the wide variation in train speeds (passenger 

trains versus freight trains), train detection circuitry should be designed to provide the 

appropriate advance warning for all trains. 

All crossings located on high-speed rail corridors should either be closed, grade separated, or 

if remaining at grade, equipped in accordance with FRA recommended policies summarized 

below. The train detection circuitry should provide constant warning time. Where feasible, other 

site improvements may be necessary at these crossings. Sight distance should be improved by 

clearing all unnecessary signs, parking, and buildings from each quadrant. Vegetation should 

be periodically cut back or removed. Improvements in the geometries of the crossing should be 

made to provide the best braking and acceleration distances for vehicles. 

The FRA Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Guidelines for High-Speed Passenger Rail(61), address 

the following topics:

• Consolidation and Grade Separation

• Safety Improvements at Private Crossings

• Creation of “Sealed Corridors”

• Warning Systems and Other Highway Traffic Control Devices

• Train Control Integration

• Barrier Systems

• Pedestrian and Trespass Considerations

• Systems Approach

The “Sealed Corridors” approach involves a diagnostic process to assess the appropriate 

level of safety improvement needed for existing grade crossings which may include closure/ 

consolidation, enhanced warning devices, medians, and grade separation. For public highwayrail grade crossings within a “sealed corridor,” FRA expects highway authorities will consider 

installing equipment such as (a) four-quadrant gates, (b) three-quadrant gates (exit gate on one 

side with a 100-foot minimum non-traversable median on opposite side), (c) 100-foot minimum 

non-traversable medians, or (d) paired one-way streets. Similarly, FRA expects diagnostic teams 

will evaluate private crossings for closure or treatment with active warning systems, such as 

flashing‐lights and gates or a locked gate system interlocked with the railroad signal system.

160 
Table 11. Potential Tier Structure for Passenger Systems at Highway-Rail Crossings 

Tier I II III 

Service 

Description 

Feeder Regional Core 

Express 

Core 

Express 

Speed Range 

(mph) 

0–90 91–110 111–125 126–150 126–220 

Other Traffic 

Allowed on 

Same Track 

Mixed Use 

(passenger 

and freight) 

Mixed Use Mixed Use Mixed Use Dedicated 

ROW 

Maximum 

Track Class 

Class 5 Class 6 Class 7 Class 8 Class 9 

Signals and 

Train Control 

PTC PTC + vital 

perimeter 

protection 

PTC + vital 

perimeter 

protection 

PTC + 

HSR-125 

PTC + 

HSR-125 

Public Automated warning; Sealed corridor; Barrier/warning None above None above 

Highway— supplementary evaluate need systems required 125 mph 125 mph 

Rail Grade measures or sealed for presence per §213.247; 

Crossing corridor treatments detection and 

Treatments where necessary PTC feedback Presence 

detection tied 

to PTC 

Private Automated warning Automated Barrier/warning None above None above 

Highway— or manually locked warning or systems required 125 mph 125 mph 

Rail Grade gate preferred; locked gate per §213.247; 

Crossing cross-buck and stop with signal 

Treatments or yield sign where 

conditions permit 

interlock Presence 

detection tied 

to PTC 

Source: Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Guidelines for High-Speed Passenger Rail, FRA, 2009, 

as updated to reflect subsequent changes in FRA allowable maximum speeds.

161 
TRAINS 

AY EXCEE 

0 MP 

Special attention should be given to the interconnection of grade crossing warning systems 

with other traffic control systems, where applicable. This is to ensure that the traffic/railroad 

preemption timing is sufficient to safely clear vehicular traffic away from the crossing prior 

to the activation of the grade crossing flashing‐lights and gates. A traffic engineering study 

should be conducted to determine the appropriate timing for the interconnection; whether the 

interconnection should be simultaneous or advanced preemption. The use of pre-signals and 

queue-cutter signals should also be explored where warranted. 

Vehicle Presence Detection (VPD) technology should be considered when four-quadrant gates 

are present. At highway-rail grade crossings that are near highway-highway crossings, with 

vehicular storage constraints present, VPD should be provided in connection with the train 

control system when train speeds above 100 mph are present with crossings equipped with nontraversable medians. 

As stated in the 2009 Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Guidelines for High-Speed Passenger

Rail, the use of Remote Health Monitoring (RHM) technology at grade crossings on highspeed rail lines is clearly indicated. RHM allows immediate reporting to the railroad signal’s 

trouble desk (or railroad dispatcher) when an intermittent malfunction or a complete failure of 

the grade crossing signaling system occurs. RHM provides for the continuous monitoring of 

the crossing system’s health performance. Once a failure is detected and reported, the system 

enables responsive action by dispatchers, train crews, and signal maintainers to diagnose and 

correct the problem. 

Special signing might also be employed at these crossings to remind the public that the crossings 

are used by high-speed trains. The signing should be in conformance with the guidelines 

provided in MUTCD Section 8B.20, see Figure 64. 

Figure 64. Train Speed Warning Sign 

Source: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2009 Edition. Figure 5F-1 Highway-Rail Grade

Crossing Signs and Plaques for Low-Volume Roads, Washington, DC, FHWA, 2009.

162 
TRUCKS AND BUSES 

Highway-rail crossings are designed and controlled to accommodate the vehicles that use them. 

Trucks and buses have unique characteristics that should be considered. The following describes 

the additional evaluation and design taken into consideration for trucks and buses at crossings. 

Trucks with Hazardous Material Cargo 

Crossings used by vehicles with hazardous material cargo should be considered for improvements and, 

in turn, these improvements should consider the special needs of these vehicles. 

Based upon various NTSB studies of collisions involving trucks including those carrying 

hazardous materials, the following guidance should be considered:

• Trucks carrying bulk hazardous material should use routes that have grade separations or active

control devices. Where routes that have crossings with only passive control devices are near

terminals, the crossings should be considered for upgrading to active control.

• Ensure that active warning devices are activated with enough “warning time” (activation in

advance of the arrival of a train) so that trucks have the available distance required for stopping.

Also, for vehicles stopped at the crossing when signals are not operating, adequate warning time

should be provided for clearance of tracks by loaded trucks before the arrival of a train.

• If feasible, where there is an intersection near the crossing, increase the storage space (defined

as the “clear storage distance” in MUTCD) between the tracks and the intersecting highway. If

on a direct route to a truck terminal, also consider giving ROW to the critical movement through

control measures.

• Promote a program of education and enforcement to reduce the frequency of hazardous driving

and alert the driver of potential danger. Driver training and education programs such as Operation

Lifesaver should be expanded to include a specific program that addresses the problems.

• At crossings where a significant volume of trucks is required to stop, consideration should be

given to providing a pull-out lane. These auxiliary lanes allow trucks to come to a stop and then

to cross and clear the tracks without conflicting with other traffic. Hence, they minimize the

likelihood of rear-end collisions or other vehicle-vehicle collisions. They would be appropriate

for two-lane highways or for high-speed multilane highways.

Buses 

Because buses carry many passengers and have performance characteristics like large trucks, 

these vehicles also need special consideration. Many of the measures suggested for trucks 

with hazardous material apply to buses. Railroad-highway crossings should be taken into 

consideration when planning school bus routes. 

Potentially hazardous crossings, such as those with limited sight distance or horizontal or vertical 

alignment issues, should be avoided if possible. Crossings along school bus routes should be 

evaluated by the appropriate highway personnel to identify the need for improvements. Drivers 

should be instructed on safe crossing procedures and routes. 

163 
In addition to the recommendations that apply to trucks with hazardous cargo, the following 

should be considered when evaluating crossings where buses are likely to cross regularly: 

• Special training for bus drivers

• Pavement markings and stop lines to delineate where buses should stop when checking for

possible on-coming trains

Long and Heavily Laden Trucks 

Large trucks have problems at crossings because of their length and performance characteristics. 

Longer clearance times are required for longer vehicles and those slow to accelerate. Also, longer 

braking distances become necessary when trucks are heavily laden, thus reducing their effective 

braking capability. 

As truck sizes, configurations, and weights have increased over time, it is critical to address 

currently allowable large vehicles (such as the interstate semitrailer truck—WB-62 or WB65), where such vehicles may be expected to utilize a highway-rail crossing on a regular basis. 

Consequently, when considering improvements, the designer should be aware of and design for 

the amount and type of current and expected truck traffic. Areas that should be focused upon 

include the following:

• Longer sight distances

• Placement of advance warning signs

• Warning time for signals

• Approach and departure grades

• Storage area between tracks and nearby highway intersection

BICYCLES AND MOTORCYCLES 

The configuration of each trail‐rail intersection is unique. There are available reference guides, 

but solutions should be adapted to site conditions using standard treatments, where applicable. 

The FRA, State DOTs, and Class 1 railroads are working to close existing at-grade rail crossings 

to reduce liability, exposure, and incidents. 

To enhance visibility of the trail-rail intersection for approaching cyclists and other trail users, 

advance notice of the crossing should be displayed via pavement markings and signage. 

Allowing the cyclists enough time to assess the situation and choose whether to clear the 

intersection or stop prior to entering the crossing. The angle of the trail-rail crossing is another 

critical issue. Right-angle crossings are preferred. Where unable to meet these criteria (crossing 

angle is less than 45 degrees) additional width should be provided near the crossing. Figure 65 

illustrates this guidance. 

164 
FIGUHE 5.20 45° Trail-rail crossing 

\ 

Add1t1on;,I <uive 

width tobtprOYldt:d to :.How c:yd,tl$ IO 

('ho«e tht11(1Wn 

<r0$h•1g ,outes 

FIGUBE 5.21 90° Trail-rail c ro ssing 

Figure 65. Design for Degree of Trail-Rail Crossing 

Source:Adapted from Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned, Literature Review, Current Practices,

Conclusions, USDOT, FTA, FHWA, FRA,August 2002.

The crossing surface type will likely impact cyclists as well. Depending on the angle and type of 

crossing, a cyclist may lose control if the wheel becomes trapped in the flangeway. The surface 

materials and the flangeway width and depth should be evaluated. The more the crossing deviates 

from the ideal 90-degree crossing, the greater the potential for a cycle wheel to be trapped in 

the flangeway. If the crossing angle is less than 45 degrees, consideration should be given to 

widening the bikeway to allow sufficient width to cross the tracks at a safer angle.

For signing and markings at a crossing intended for use by bicyclists, refer to Figure 48, which 

shows the MUTCD treatment for a pathway crossing. 

ITS 

ITS extends into applications that can be implemented at railroad crossings and within vehicles 

which will affect traffic signal preemption. Typically, trains have the ROW at crossings, and

the crossings are managed to maximize safety of all users while minimizing delay to roadway 

traffic. This involves the coordination of railroad active safety devices with highway traffic

signals, as well as the dissemination of crossing status information to aid in route planning. 

The advancement of ITS applications can enhance these capabilities for all parties involved. 

165 
AUTOW.til; 

t;AT($ / IAARIEfq 

RaU:road System 

"'" '""" 

\ 

RAIL OPEIWlONS 

fOIMINATOR 

... INTERFACE 

Ro.actway System 

SMOflfWCIE 

COMNIINICmDlff 

lMfflC MA!iAG£ME Nf SYSRM 

U'tHICl,.t 

SYSltM$ 

ITS National Architecture and User Service 30 

Per FHWA, “National ITS Architecture (also “national architecture”) means a common 

framework for ITS interoperability. The National ITS Architecture comprises the logical 

architecture and physical architecture which satisfy a defined set of user services. The National 

ITS Architecture is maintained by the USDOT and is available on the DOT website.(62) 

The FHWA, in conjunction with FRA, has developed “User Service 30” to describe the ITS 

applications that relate to the highway‐rail crossing. These ITS applications have been defined 

in the National ITS Architecture, which is a framework for developing integrated transportation 

systems. The National ITS Architecture defines a set of “subsystems,” “terminators,” and 

“architecture flows” that describe the transfer of information between ITS systems.

Subsystems are the building blocks of the National ITS Architecture that perform the ITS 

functions identified in 33 user services (which include the highway‐rail crossing user service). 

Terminators are systems that interface with the ITS systems. Architecture flows are the definition 

of the information that is passed between subsystems or between subsystems and terminators. In 

the context of the National ITS Architecture, highway‐rail crossing functions are identified with 

the following three interfaces (refer to Figure 66):

• Roadway subsystem and the wayside equipment terminator

• Traffic management subsystem (TMS) and the rail operations terminator

• Highway‐rail intersection data, traffic management to roadway

Figure 66. Highway Rail Intersection Interface Overview 

Source: The National Architecture for ITS, USDOT.

166 
Roadway subsystem and the wayside equipment terminator. The roadway subsystem represents 

ITS field equipment, including traffic control signal controllers. The wayside equipment terminator

represents train interface equipment (usually) maintained and operated by the railroad and (usually) 

physically located at or near a crossing. The roadway subsystem interface with the railroad wayside 

equipment will provide crossing status and blockage notification to wayside equipment and,

conversely, real-time information about the approach (actual or predicted) of a train to the roadway 

subsystem. The interface operates as follows:

• The roadway subsystem sends the real-time crossing status to the wayside equipment. This

includes a confirmation that the crossing is closed (gates are down) and that trains may proceed at

full authorized speed.

• The roadway subsystem also sends a real-time indication of intersection blockage. This message

would be used to provide the information needed by the wayside equipment to alert the train to

reduce speed or stop.

• The wayside equipment provides a real-time indication of its operational status via the track

status flow. This would alert the roadside equipment to possible failures or problems in the

wayside equipment. The track status flow also includes the simple binary indication of a

train approaching, which is currently used when traffic control signal controller units are

interconnected with the wayside equipment.

• In future implementations, the wayside equipment would provide expected time of arrival and

length of closure via an arriving train information flow.

TMS and the rail operations terminator. The interface between the rail operations 

terminator and TMS provides for the exchange of management or near real-time data between 

these two key functions. 

• The rail operations function will send information to the TMS to support forecasting of

crossing closures. This includes train schedules and crossing maintenance schedules. In

addition, the rail operations function will send to the TMS information about rail incidents that

may impact vehicle traffic. This latter information would be in near real time; other schedule

information would be provided on a periodic basis (such as daily).

• The TMS would notify the rail operations function in near real time about equipment failure,

intersection blockage, or other incident information (such as a nearby hazardous material spill).

The TMS would also send information about planned maintenance activities occurring at or

near the crossing that would impact the railroad ROW.

Roadway subsystem and TMS. Beginning in 2011, FRA began researching connected 

vehicle concepts appropriate for highway-rail crossings. The primary objective of this research 

is to explore the feasibility of in-vehicle safety concepts capable of providing an alert of an 

approaching train to a highway vehicle approaching a highway-rail crossing. The technology 

is intended to be deployed at any highway‐rail crossing where benefit would be accrued by 

increasing situational awareness to minimize safety related incidents or improving the flow of 

roadway traffic.

167 
A set of the following potential scenarios were initially identified and evaluated for 

future implementation:

Highway-rail crossing equipped with active warning devices. Connected vehicle roadside 

equipment is activated by the highway-rail crossing signaling system preemption signal by 

means of a hardwire interconnection. Approaching highway vehicles received alerts over the 

connected vehicle Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC) communications channel. 

Trains equipped with advanced technology. This scenario would utilize emerging train 

positioning technology. Connected vehicle roadside equipment could receive train location 

information over the 220MHz communications network and provide alerts to approaching 

highway vehicles over the connected vehicle DSRC communications channel. 

Highway-rail crossing not equipped with active warning devices. A train is equipped with 

connected vehicle onboard equipment that allows it to transmit over a DSRC communications 

channel directly with highway vehicles. This is the only scenario that is dependent upon the 

installation of connected vehicle technology on trains. 

To this end, FRA has been exploring the feasibility of the first scenario and has developed 

concept of operations and system requirements documents to support this approach. Proof-ofconcept testing was performed in 2017 on a DSRC-based platform, but the effort remains in the 

exploratory phase. 

Standard 1570 

The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) empaneled a working group that 

developed IEEE Standard 1570, “Standard for the Interface Between the Rail Subsystem and 

the Highway Subsystem at a Highway Rail Intersection.”(63) This standard was developed to 

coordinate information transfer between the two with emphasis on digital data communication 

and to enable interoperability among the various types of equipment. 

QUIET ZONES 

Overview 

The FRA regulations on quiet zones allow localities nationwide to mitigate the effects of train horn 

noise, while maintaining a high level of safety at grade crossings located within quiet zones.(5) 

These regulations were developed to provide a consistent approach nationwide to enable local 

jurisdictions to establish quiet zones without compromising safety. They address use of the horn 

at public highway-rail grade crossings. 

The public authority responsible for traffic control or law enforcement at the highway‐rail grade 

crossing is the only entity authorized to establish a quiet zone. 

FRA regulations on quiet zones:

• Define engineering solutions known as “supplementary safety measures” (SSMs) for use at

highway-rail grade crossings without FRA approval.

168 
• Provide explicit flexibility for the modification of SSMs to receive credit as “alternative safety

measures” (ASMs).

• Include a provision that provides risk reduction credit for pre-existing SSMs and pre-existing

modified SSMs that were implemented prior to December 18, 2003.

• Allow use of education and enforcement options, including photo enforcement, subject to

verification of effectiveness.

Public authorities may establish quiet zones in which train horns will not be routinely sounded 

at grade crossings. The details for establishment of quiet zones differ depending on the type 

of quiet zone to be created (pre-rule or new) and the type of safety improvements to be 

implemented (if needed). 

FRA regulations governing quiet zones (49 CFR Part 222) also:

• Allow establishment of quiet zones that prohibit sounding of horns during the nighttime hours

only. These quiet zones are referred to as partial quiet zones.

• Require diagnostic team reviews of pedestrian crossings and private crossings that provide

access in active industrial or commercial sites, if the pedestrian and private crossings are

located within proposed new quiet zones.

• Require that public authorities retain automatic bells at public highway-rail grade crossings

subject to pedestrian traffic.

• Require public authorities to provide notification of their intent to create a new quiet zone.

During the 60-day period after the Notice of Intent is mailed, comments may be submitted to

the public authority.

• Require that public highway-rail grade crossings located within a Quiet Zone comply with

applicable MUTCD provisions.

Once a quiet zone is established, the railroad is generally barred from routine sounding of the 

horn at the affected grade crossings. However, railroads remain free to use the horn for other 

purposes as prescribed in railroad operating rules on file with FRA. In addition, railroads must 

use the horn as specified in other FRA regulations (see 49 CFR 222.23), even within quiet zones.

The FRA provides a web-based tool for communities to use in performing “what if” calculations 

and preparing submissions necessary to create or retain quiet zones. This tool, the Quiet Zone 

Calculator, may be found on FRA’s website.(64) 

The FRA regional personnel are available to participate in diagnostic teams evaluating options 

for quiet zones. 

Requirement to Sound the Locomotive Horn 

Outside of quiet zones, railroads must sound the horn 15–20 seconds prior to a train’s arrival 

at a public highway-rail grade crossing, but not more than one-quarter-mile in advance of the 

crossing (49 CFR 222.21). 

169 
Note: Before 49 CFR Part 222 was issued, State laws and railroad rules generally required that 

the locomotive horn begin sounding from a point one-quarter-mile in advance of the highwayrail grade crossing and continue sounding until the crossing is occupied by the lead locomotive 

of a train. For trains operating at less than 45 miles per hour, FRA’s current regulations in 49 

CFR Part 222 reduce the time and distance over which the horn is sounded, thereby reducing 

noise impacts on local communities. 

The required pattern for sounding the horn is two long, one short, and one long blast repeated 

or prolonged until the lead locomotive occupies the public highway-rail grade crossing. Train 

operators may vary this pattern as necessary where public highway-rail grade crossings are 

closely spaced; they are also authorized (but not required) to sound the horn in the case of an 

emergency, even in a quiet zone. 

The FRA regulations in 49 CFR 229.129 also prescribe a minimum and a maximum volume level 

for the train horn. The minimum level is 96 dB(A), and the maximum volume level is 110 dB(A). 

Creation of Quiet Zones 

The rule provides significant flexibility to communities to create quiet zones. This flexibility 

extends to communities that had existing whistle bans, as well as other communities that 

previously did not have an opportunity to restrict locomotive horn sounding at grade crossings. 

It should be noted that 49 CFR Part 222 permits implementation of quiet zones in low-risk 

locales without requiring the addition of safety improvements. 

• This concept utilizes a risk index approach that estimates expected safety outcomes (that is, the

likelihood of a fatal or non-fatal casualty resulting from a collision at a highway-rail crossing

including the existing risk caused by the absence of the sounding of the locomotive horn)

• Risk is averaged over the public highway-rail grade crossings in a proposed quiet zone. This

averaged risk is called the Quiet Zone Risk Index (QZRI)

• The QZRI within the proposed quiet zone is then compared with the average nationwide risk

at gated public highway-rail grade crossings where the horn is sounded (the “Nationwide

Significant Risk Threshold” [NSRT]). FRA periodically revises the NSRT

The effect of this approach is that it may be possible to establish quiet zones without significant 

expense if flashing‐lights and gates are already in place at the public highway‐rail grade 

crossings. Typically, these quiet zones have few trains traveling at low speeds. 

If the QZRI for a proposed new quiet zone exceeds the NSRT and the level of risk when horns are 

routinely sounded within the proposed quiet zone, SSMs or ASMs will need to be used to reduce that 

risk (to fully compensate for the absence of the train horn or to reduce risk to a level below the NSRT). 

Establishment of New Quiet Zones 

New quiet zones may be established if all public highway-rail grade crossings within the proposed 

quiet zone are equipped with flashing‐lights and gates; and either of these following specifications:

170 
• The QZRI within the proposed quiet zone is less than the NSRT

• SSMs are present at each public highway-rail grade crossing

• Safety improvements (SSMs or ASMs) are made to compensate for loss of routine sounding of

the train horn

• Safety improvements (SSMs or ASMs) are made to reduce the QZRI within the proposed quiet

zone to a level below the NSRT

Note: FRA regulations (49 CFR 222.35) require that the active warning system at each public 

highway‐rail grade crossing within a quiet zone consist of flashing‐lights and gates be equipped 

with power-out indicators, which provides information on the presence of commercial electrical 

power at the crossing. FRA regulations also require that the active crossing warning system be 

equipped with constant warning time train detection, if reasonably practical. Detailed instructions 

for establishing a quiet zone are available on FRA’s website.(65) 

Length of Quiet Zones 

FRA regulations require that a quiet zone be at least one-half-mile in length and include at least one 

public highway-rail grade crossing. (See 49 CFR sections 222.9 and 222.35 for more information.) 

Supplemental and Alternative Safety Measures 

Supplemental Safety Measures (SSMs) are engineering improvements that have been determined 

by FRA to be an effective substitute for the train horn. If employed at every public highway-rail 

grade crossing in the quiet zone, the public authority can establish the quiet zone by designation 

without prior FRA approval (subject to reporting requirements). They also may be used at some 

public highway-rail grade crossings in a proposed quiet zone to fully compensate for the lack of 

warning provided by the train horn or to reduce existing risk levels to a level below the NSRT. 

SSMs include the following:

• Temporary closure of a public highway-rail grade crossing (for partial quiet zone only)

• Permanent closure of a public highway-rail crossing

• Four-quadrant gates

• Gates with traffic channelization arrangements (for example, non‐mountable curb or mountable

curb with delineators) at least 100 feet in length on each side of the crossing (or 60 feet where

there is an intersecting roadway) and no commercial or industrial driveways located within 60

feet of the gate arm.

• One-way street with gate(s) across all approaching roadway lanes

Alternative Safety Measures (ASMs) may also be applied to reduce existing risk levels at one 

or more public highway-rail grade crossings within a proposed quiet zone. The public authority 

must apply (per 49 CFR 222.39(b)) to FRA for approval of the effectiveness rate that will be 

assigned to each ASM proposed for use at public highway-rail grade crossings in the quiet zone. 

ASMs include the following:

171 
• Any modified SSM (such as crossing gates with traffic channelization less than 60 feet in length)

• Education and/or enforcement programs (including photo enforcement) with verification

of effectiveness

• Engineering improvements, other than modified SSMs

• Combination of the above

FRA regulations provide that pre‐existing SSMs and pre‐existing modified SSMs can also be 

counted toward risk reduction. 

Automated Wayside Horn 

49 CFR Part 222 authorizes use of the automated wayside horn at highway-rail grade crossings 

equipped with flashing‐lights and gates (inside or outside a quiet zone) as a one‐to‐one substitute 

for the train horn. 

The MUTCD Section 8C.07 provides guidance on Wayside Horn Systems at crossings. 

Special Circumstances 

A public authority or railroad seeking relief from a regulatory provision in 49 CFR Part 222 may 

request a waiver from the provision from FRA. 

A railroad or public authority seeking a waiver from a regulatory provision in 49 CFR Part 222 

must first consult with the other party to find out whether the other party would be willing to 

submit a joint waiver request. If agreement to file a joint waiver petition cannot be achieved, the 

party may still request the regulatory relief by a waiver, provided the waiver petition reflects the 

efforts of the submitting party to reach agreement with the other party and explains why a joint 

waiver petition would not be likely to contribute significantly to public safety.

The FRA may grant waivers if in the public interest and consistent with the safety of highway 

and railroad users of the highway-rail crossings. 

EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT 

This Handbook presents guidance and standards which are applied to develop engineered treatments 

intended to improve safety and operations at crossings. Sound engineering is fundamental to safety. 

It is acknowledged that the synergy of the “Three E’s—Engineering, Education, and Enforcement” 

maximizes the benefits of engineering treatments. It is beyond the scope of this Handbook to provide 

an in-depth presentation of materials on education and enforcement, but practitioners should be 

aware that initiatives in these areas are fundamental to maximizing safety at crossings. 

Education 

Education on crossing safety at the national level is provided by Operation Lifesaver, Inc. (OLI) as 

well as several Federal agencies. The OLI is a nonprofit public safety and awareness organization

established in 1972, which provides educational resources, public awareness materials and 

172 
community involvement activities focused on crossing safety. The OLI engages volunteers who 

provide training on rail crossing safety. The OLI also partners with emergency responders and 

local law enforcement to support initiatives to promote crossing safety. The OLI partners with the 

USDOT in supporting “Rail Safety Week.” The first U.S. Rail Safety Week was held on September

24–30, 2017. This effort was timed to occur with the beginning of the school year when other 

safety initiatives take place. More information on OLI, its activities and materials can be found at 

its website at https://oli.org/.

Transit districts across the country promote education on crossing safety. Large urban transit 

districts also develop and disseminate safety-related materials within their districts using a 

wide range of venues. Examples include the Chicago Transit Authority “It’s Not Worth Your 

Life. Stay off the Tracks” campaign(66), New York MTA’s “Wait for the Gate” campaign

(67)

, 

and Los Angeles Metro, which has developed a series of “Safetyville” videos using stick 

figure animation to deliver graphic reminders of transportation‐related safety hazards and

consequences of risky behavior.(68) 

Enforcement 

Crossing collisions occur less frequently than collisions involving highway vehicles, bicycles, 

motorcycles, or pedestrians, and risky behavior at a crossing does not necessarily entail a legal 

violation. Local initiatives and targeted enforcement campaigns have been used to enhance 

crossing safety. A recent example was an “enforcement blitz” conducted in Portage County, WI, 

involving the State patrol, local police and CN railroad police in May 2018.(69) 

The Volpe Center prepared an in-depth study of enforcement campaigns in the Public Education 

and Enforcement Research Study (USDOT, December 2006).(70) The Public Education and 

Enforcement Research Study (PEERS) assessment describes two local initiatives and success 

factors. Improved safety was identified in the Arlington Heights, IL, initiative characterized by 

commuter train operations and a population of repeat crossing users versus Macomb, IL, where 

the rail traffic was predominantly long freight trains and the population more variable.

173 

A. APPENDIX—BACKGROUND

INTRODUCTION 

The highway-rail grade crossing is unique in that it constitutes the intersection of two 

transportation modes which differ in both the physical characteristics of their traveled ways and 

their operations. 

Railroad transportation in the United States had its beginning during the 1830s and became a 

major factor in accelerating the great westward expansion of the country by providing a reliable, 

economical, and rapid method of transportation. Today, railroads are major movers of coal, 

ores, minerals, grains, and other farm products; chemicals and allied products; food and kindred 

products; lumber and other forest products; motor vehicles and equipment; and other bulk 

materials and products. 

In addition, railroads contribute to the movement of non-bulk intermodal freight, which also 

moves by water and highway during the journey from origin to destination. Finally, although few 

privately-operated passenger services operate on Class I railroads, publicly-funded long distance, 

corridor, and commuter services as well as light-rail transit (LRT) lines all may operate through 

grade crossings. 

The number of railroad line miles grew until a peak was reached in 1920, when 252,845 miles 

of railroad line were in service. Line Miles are defined as the actual length of the corridor within 

which the track is located. Track miles are defined as the total centerline length of mainline 

trackage in a corridor (Railroad Facts, 2017).(71) The number of railroad line miles and track 

miles has been decreasing since the 1930s, as shown in Table A-1. 

Highway-rail grade crossings became more of a concern with the advent of the automobile in the 

early 1900s. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) increased from 47.6 billion in 1920 to 

approximately 3.2 trillion by 2016. US lane miles totaled approximately 8.7 million by 2016.(72) 

The number of highway-rail grade crossings grew with the increase in highway miles. In many 

cities and towns, the grid method of laying out streets was utilized, particularly in the Midwest 

and west. A crossing over the railroad was often provided for every street, resulting in about 10 

crossings per mile. As of July 2015, there are 211,631 highway-rail crossings, 58.5 percent are 

public, 40.4 percent are private, and 2 percent are pedestrian.(73)

Crossings are divided into categories. Public crossings are those on highways under the 

jurisdiction of, and maintained by, a public authority and open to the traveling public. In 2017, 

there were 164,604 public crossings, of which 128,878 were at grade and 35,726 were grade 

separated. Private crossings are those on roadways privately owned and utilized only by the 

landowner or tenant. There were 83,415 private crossings in 2017. Pedestrian crossings are those 

used solely by pedestrians. There were 4,376 pedestrian crossings in 2017.(74) Please note that 

since the Inventory form revision in 2015, crossings can now be marked as public or private and 

highway or pedestrian, rather than public, private or pedestrian. 

175 
Table A-1. Class 1 Railroad Line Miles and Track Miles 

Year Line miles Track miles 

1929 229,530 381,417 

1939 220,915 364,174 

1947 214,486 355,227 

1955 211,459 350,217 

1960 207,334 340,779 

1970 196,479 319,092 

1980 164,822 270,074 

1990 119,758 200,074 

2000 99,250 168,535 

2002 100,125 170,048 

2003 99,126 169,069 

2004 97,662 167,312 

2005 95,830 164,291 

2006 94,942 162,056 

2007 94,440 161,114 

2008 94,209 160,734 

2009 94,048 160,781 

2010 95,700 161,926 

2011 95,514 162,393 

2012 95,391 162,306 

2013 95,235 161,980 

2014 94,372 161,240 

2015 93,628 160,692 

2016 93,339 160,141 

Source: Railroad Facts, page 47, Washington, DC, Association of American Railroads, 2017.

Sixty percent, or 77,214, of public at-grade crossings were in rural areas, compared to 50,195 

in urban areas. For both urban and rural areas, most crossings are located on local roads, as 

depicted in Table A-2. Twenty-two percent of public at-grade crossings are located on 

federal- aid highways, as shown in Table A-3.

176 
Table A-2. Public At-Grade Crossings by Functional Classifications, 2017

Functional Classification Number 

Rural 

Interstate* 69 

Other principal arterial 1,095 

Minor arterial 3,200 

Major collector 10,871 

Minor collector 7,367 

Local 54,570 

Other freeways and expressways 23 

Not reported 19 

Total—Rural 77,214 

Urban 

Interstate* 129 

Other principal arterial 4,711 

Minor arterial 9,126 

Major Collector 10,158 

Minor Collector 282 

Local 25,477 

Other freeways and expressways 214 

Not reported 98 

Total—Urban 50,195 

Total not reported as Rural or Urban 1,469 

Grand Total 128,878 

*

Note: Crossings classified as “Interstate” are typically located on ramps.

Source: Unpublished data from Federal Railroad Administration.

Table A-3. Public At-Grade Crossing by Highway System, 2017 

Highway System Number 

Interstate Highway System 151 

Federal-aid, not National Highway System 28,001 

Non-federal-aid 93,830 

Other National Highway System 4,778 

Not reported 2,118 

Total 128,878 

*

Note: Crossings classified as “Interstate” are typically located on ramps.

Source: Unpublished data from Federal Railroad Administration.

177 
Railroad Crossing deaths, injuries, & incidents from 2008-2017 

2,~29 ■ Incidents at Railroad Crossings 

2400 2,296 ■ Highway-rail injuries 

■ Highway-rail deaths 

2200 

2,052 ?,004 2,120 

2000 2,049 

1,()33 1,91111 

1800 

1600 

- 1400 C 

:, 

8 1200 

1,040 

977 

1,045 

1000 

971 

800 870 852 036 

/43 

600 

400 

290 ?f,1 ?G? 255 '210 

200 ?411 ?4G 231 232 237 

0 

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 

KEY STATISTICS 

Safety and Operations at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings 

National statistics on crossing collisions have been kept since the early 1900s resulting from 

the requirements of the Accident Reports Act of 1910. The act required rail carriers to submit 

reports of collisions involving railroad personnel and railroad equipment, including those 

that occurred at crossings. Since this time, the Federal Rail Administration (FRA) Office of 

Railroad Safety developed the FRA Guide for Preparing Accident/Incident Reports, which 

includes a section on reporting thresholds for accidents/incidents. The reporting threshold is

updated annually, so users should check the latest information regarding these thresholds. 

This information can be accessed online at this link: (https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/

OfficeofSafety/ publicsite/ProposedFRAGuide.aspx). Figure A-1 shows data for the past 10 

years.

Figure A-1. Railroad Crossing deaths, injuries, and incidents from 2008–2017 

Source: USDOT FRA, Safety Data Statistic of Railroad Crossing deaths, injuries, & incidents 

from 2008–2017. Data from Report 1.12. https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0855.

178 
These reporting requirements remained essentially the same until 1975, when the FRA redefined 

the threshold for a reportable highway-rail grade crossing collision. Under the new guidelines, any 

impact “between railroad on-track equipment and an automobile, bus, truck, motorcycle, bicycle, 

farm vehicle, pedestrian or other highway user at a rail-highway crossing” was to be reported.(75) 

Table A-4 gives the number of fatalities occurring at public highway-rail grade crossings from 

1920 to 2017. Also, shown separately, are fatalities resulting from collisions involving motor 

vehicles. Table A-5 provides data on the number of collisions, injuries, and fatalities at public 

highway-rail grade crossings for the period from 1975 to 2017. Collisions and injuries from 

1920 to 1974 are not provided because not all collisions and injuries were required to be reported 

during those years. 

The variation in the number of motor vehicle fatalities appears to be related to various 

occurrences over the years. From 1920 to 1930, railroad expenditures for the construction of 

grade separations and crossing active traffic control devices were extensive. During the early 

four-year period of the depression, railroad expenditures for crossing improvements lagged, and 

the number of motor vehicle fatalities increased. Starting in 1935, some special federal programs 

were initiated to improve crossing safety, and the number of motor vehicle fatalities began to 

decrease. During the wartime 1940s, crossing improvement work was reduced, and the number 

of motor vehicle fatalities remained constant. Since 1946, federal aid has increased. 

During the period between 1960 and 1967, the number of fatalities increased despite continual 

federal funding for grade separations and crossing traffic control device improvements. A national

concern for crossing safety developed, as witnessed by national conferences to address the increase 

in casualties. The U.S. Congress responded by establishing a categorical funding program for 

crossing safety improvements in the 1973 Highway Act. This categorical safety program was 

extended in the 1976 Highway Act and the 1978 and 1982 Surface Transportation Acts. The result 

of this safety program and other emphases on crossing safety is demonstrated in Table A-4, which 

shows the dramatic reduction in the number of fatalities involving motor vehicles.

Approximately 6.3 million motor vehicle traffic collisions occurred in 2015. Crossing collisions 

accounted for less than 0.05 percent of all motor vehicle collisions on roads; however, the 

severity of crossing collisions demands special attention. In 2015, there were 153 motor vehicle 

fatalities at crossings and a total of 32,539 motor vehicle fatalities. Therefore, crossing fatalities 

accounted for 0.5 percent of all motor vehicle fatalities. 0.5 percent of vehicle collisions resulted 

in a fatality, but 8 percent of crossing collisions resulted in a fatality.(76,77) In 2017, 821 fatal 

incidents occurred involving rail. A large portion of these fatalities involved trespassers. (78) 

In addition to the possibility of a collision between a train and a highway user, a highway-rail 

grade crossing presents the possibility of a collision that does not involve a train. Non-train 

collisions include collisions in which a vehicle that has stopped at a crossing is hit from the rear; 

collisions with fixed objects such as signal equipment or signs; and non‐collision accidents in 

which a driver loses control of the vehicle. 

Most collisions with trains involve mainline freight operations, as shown in Table A-6. 

179 
1920

1925

1930

1935

1940

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Table A-4. Fatalities at Public Crossings, 1920–2017 

Year 

All 

Fatalities 

Motor 

Vehicle 

Fatalities Year 

All 

Fatalities 

Motor 

Vehicle 

Fatalities Year 

All 

Fatalities 

Motor 

Vehicle 

Fatalities 

1,791 1,273 1953 1,494 1,328 1986 578 507 

1921 1,705 1,262 1954 1,303 1,161 1987 598 533 

1922 1,810 1,359 1,446 1,322 1988 652 594 

1923 2,268 1,759 1956 1,338 1,210 1989 757 682 

1924 2,149 1,688 1957 1,371 1,222 648 568 

2,206 1,784 1958 1,271 1,141 1991 565 497 

1926 2,491 2,062 1959 1,203 1,073 1992 536 466 

1927 2,371 1,974 1,364 1,261 1993 584 517 

1928 2,568 2,165 1961 1,291 1,173 1994 572 501 

1929 2,485 2,085 1962 1,241 1,132 524 455 

2,020 1,695 1963 1,302 1,217 1996 449 377 

1931 1,811 1,580 1964 1,543 1,432 1997 419 378 

1932 1,525 1,310 1,534 1,434 1998 385 325 

1933 1,511 1,305 1966 1,780 1,657 1999 363 309 

1934 1,554 1,320 1967 1,632 1,520 369 306 

1,680 1,445 1968 1,546 1,448 2001 386 315 

1936 1,786 1,526 1969 1,490 1,381 2002 316 271 

1937 1,875 1,613 1,440 1,362 2003 300 249 

1938 1,517 1,311 1971 1,356 1,267 2004 333 256 

1939 1,398 1,197 1972 1,260 1,190 329 258 

1,808 1,588 1973 1,185 1,077 2006 325 267 

1941 1,931 1,691 1974 1,220 1,128 2007 299 227 

1942 1,970 1,635 888 786 2008 266 199 

1943 1,732 1,396 1976 1,066 978 2009 226 161 

1944 1,840 54 1977 944 846 226 136 

1,903 1,591 1978 1,018 926 2011 211 138 

1946 1,851 1,575 1979 834 727 2012 199 135 

1947 1,790 1,536 788 708 2013 207 141 

1948 1,612 1,379 1981 697 623 2014 235 144 

1949 1,507 1,323 1982 580 526 208 127 

1,576 1,410 1983 542 483 2016 227 129 

1951 1,578 1,407 1984 610 543 2017 241 139 

1952 1,407 1,257 537 480 

Source: Data from the Federal Railroad Administration.

180 
1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Table A-5. Collisions, Fatalities, and Injuries at Public Crossings, 1975–2017 

Year Collisions Fatalities Injuries 

11,409 888 3,736 

1976 12,374 1,066 4,535 

1977 12,595 944 4,646 

1978 12,667 1,018 4,260 

1979 11,777 834 4,172 

9,926 788 3,662 

1981 8,698 697 3,121 

1982 7,324 580 2,508 

1983 6,691 542 2,467 

1984 6,798 610 2,723 

6,497 537 2,508 

1986 5,965 578 2,328 

1987 5,891 598 2,313 

1988 6,027 652 2,417 

1989 5,980 757 2,683 

5,237 648 2,254 

1991 4,864 565 1,923 

1992 4,478 536 1,830 

1993 4,480 584 1,744 

1994 4,523 572 1,829 

4,168 524 1,754 

1996 3,799 449 1,486 

1997 3,416 419 1,370 

1998 3,097 385 1,179 

1999 3,110 363 1,264 

3,113 369 1,079 

2001 2,843 386 1,038 

2002 2,713 316 866 

2003 2,606 300 921 

2004 2,663 333 957 

2,643 329 921 

2006 2,517 325 933 

2007 2,354 299 881 

2008 2,081 266 907 

2009 1,644 226 644 

1,771 226 782 

2011 1,789 211 885 

2012 1,700 199 819 

2013 1,781 207 848 

2014 1,969 235 736 

1,783 208 944 

2016 1,739 227 727 

2017 1,833 241 734 

Source: Federal Railroad Administration Safety Data website (safetydata.fra.dot.gov/officeofsafety).

181 
Table A-6. Collisions at Public Crossings Involving Motor Vehicles by Type of Train, 2004. 

Type of train Collisions 

Freight 1,199 

Passenger/commuter 179 

Yard switching 84 

Other* 155 

Total 1,617 

* Note: “Other” includes work trains, light locomotives, single car, short group of cars being

switched, maintenance/inspection car, and special maintenance-of-way equipment.

Source: Unpublished data from Federal Railroad Administration.

Crossing Improvement Funding Programs 

The first authorization of federal funds for highway construction occurred in 1912 when 

Congress allocated $500,000 for an experimental rural post road program. The Federal‐Aid Road 

Act of 1916 provided federal funds to the States for the construction of rural post roads. These 

funds could be expended for safety improvements at highway-rail grade crossings, as well as for 

other highway construction. The States had to match the federal funds on a 50-50 basis and often 

required railroads to pay the State’s 50 percent share or more. 

Since then, the program has gone through various revisions. The remainder of this section will 

focus on how the current program has been more recently shaped. The Surface Transportation 

Assistance Act (STAA) of 1987 established Section 130 of Chapter 23 of the United States Code, 

giving the Federal-Aid Rail-Highway Grade Crossing Safety Program permanent status under 

the law for the first time.(79)

In 1991, Congress passed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). This 

act established the National Highway System (NHS) and Surface Transportation Program (STP). 

The NHS consists of the interstate system and other highways of national significance, plus 

certain intermodal connections; the STP covers all other public roads and streets. 

Section 1007(d)(1) of ISTEA required that 10 percent of each State’s STP funds be set aside for 

safety improvements under Sections 130 and 152 (Hazard Elimination) of Title 23. It further 

required that the State reserve in each fiscal year an amount not less than the amount apportioned 

in each program for fiscal year 1991. If the total set aside was more than the 1991 total for these 

programs, the surplus was to be used for safety, but may be used for either program; if the total is 

less than the total 1991 apportionment, the safety set-aside funds were to be used proportionately for 

each program. ISTEA, therefore, provided for the continuation of categorical safety programs.(80) 

The ISTEA removed the potential to fund railroad grade separations at 100 percent, or G-funded 

projects as referred to at that time. It also reduced the percentage of a State’s federal funds that could 

be used for G-funded work from 25 percent, which had been in effect for many years, to 10 percent. 

182 
Section 1021(c) of ISTEA permitted an increased federal share on certain types of safety 

projects, including traffic control signalization; pavement marking; commuter carpooling and 

vanpooling; or installation of traffic signs, traffic lights, guardrails, impact attenuators, concrete 

barrier end treatments, breakaway utility poles, or priority control systems for emergency 

vehicles at signalized intersections. FHWA determined that railroad grade crossing signals are 

included in the category “traffic control signalization.”

In 1995, Congress passed the NHS Designation Act, which included a provision that made any 

activities associated with the closure of a highway-railroad grade crossing eligible for 100 percent 

federal funding. This increased federal share was discontinued with the subsequent passage of Safe,

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act—A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA‐LU).

Congress enacted the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) in 1997. This 

act extended the funding arrangements (safety set-asides and other provisions) that had been 

established in ISTEA and the NHS Designation Act. 

In the summer of 2005, Congress passed the SAFETEA-LU, which was signed into law by 

the President on August 10, 2005. The SAFETEA-LU requires that each State develop a 

Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), which addresses engineering, management, education, 

enforcement, and emergency service elements of highway safety as key factors in evaluating 

highway safety projects. Highway-rail grade crossing safety may be considered part of the SHSP. 

The SAFETEA-LU created the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), elevating 

it to a new core federal‐aid funding program beginning in fiscal year 2006, with the aim of 

achieving a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. This 

new program replaced the 10 percent safety set-aside program element of the STP established 

under ISTEA. It also restored categorical funding for each of the highway safety construction 

programs. SAFETEA-LU continued the Section 130 program as a set-aside under the new 

HSIP and established that the federal share payable on any Section 130-funded project shall be 

90 percent. A total of $220 million in highway‐railroad crossing safety funds was apportioned 

among the States for fiscal years 2006 through 2009. Half of these funds were apportioned 

among the States according to the formula for apportionment of STP funding; the other half were 

apportioned according to the number of public highway-rail crossings in each State. To aid in the 

implementation of the new program, FHWA published fact sheets on the new HSIP and the RailHighway Crossing provisions.(80) 

The SAFETEA-LU continued the requirement that a State spend a minimum of 50 percent of 

its apportionment for the installation of protective devices at railway-highway crossings. The 

remaining funds could be spent for other types of improvements as defined in Section 130, 

including for installation of protective devices at railway-highway crossings. At a minimum, 

each State was to receive of one-half percent of the total program funding. The SAFETEALU also contained a provision to use up to 2 percent of the funds apportioned to a State for 

compilation and analysis of data for the required annual report to the Secretary on the progress 

being made to implement the railway-highway crossings program. It also contained a Special 

Rule under 23 U.S.C. 130(e) that if a State could demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary 

183 
it had met all of its needs for installation of protective devices at railway-highway crossings, 

funds could be used for other highway safety improvement purposes.(81) 

The program further required each State to conduct and systematically maintain a survey of 

all highways to identify those railroad crossings that may require separation, relocation, or 

protective devices, and established a schedule of projects for this purpose. At a minimum, this 

schedule was to provide signs for all railway-highway crossings (23 U.S.C. 130(d)).(81) Through 

the HSIP planning process, each State was required to incorporate analyzing safety data to 

develop a Rail-Highway Crossings Program that (A) considered the relative risk of rail crossings 

based on a hazard index formula; (B) includes on-site inspection; and (C) resulted in a program 

of safety improvement projects with special emphasis on providing standard signing and marking 

at all rail crossings (23 CFR 924.9(a)(4)(ii)).(82) 

After several continuing resolutions extended SAFETEA-LU, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 

21st Century (MAP-21) Act passed in July 2012 continuing funding of the Section 130 RailwayHighway Crossings Program at $220 million per year through 2014 with minimal changes.

The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, passed in late 2015, authorized $225 

million starting in fiscal year 2016 and increasing by an additional $5 million each year through 

fiscal year 2020.(83) In addition, the 2016 Department of Transportation (DOT) Appropriations 

Act raised the Section 130 set‐aside for fiscal year 2016 to $350 million. The FAST Act also 

continues all prior program eligibilities in addition to extending eligibility to include the 

relocation of highways to eliminate railway-highway grade crossings and projects at crossings to 

eliminate hazards posed by blocked crossings due to idling trains. Apart from the new authorized 

amounts and eligibility described herein, the FAST Act makes no changes to the Section 130 

Railway-Highway Crossings Program. 

Additional information can be found online at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/. 

In summary, there are three sources of federal funding for construction of highway-rail grade 

crossing safety improvements:

• The State’s normal federal-aid highway funding may be used. This may include Bridge

Replacement, NHS, or STP funding

• Section 130 set-aside funds may be used

• Funding from other safety programs, such as other HSIP funds, may be used if such use is

consistent with the State’s SHSP and the project meets HSIP program eligibility requirements

Activities eligible for the use of Section 130 safety funds are as follows:

• Crossing consolidations (including the funding of incentive payments up to $7,500 to local

jurisdictions for crossing closures if matched by the railroad)

• Projects that eliminate hazards at railway-highway crossings

• Separation or protection of grades at crossings

• Reconstruction of existing railroad grade crossing structures

184 
• Relocation of highways to eliminate grade crossings

• Projects at grade crossings to eliminate hazards posed by blocked grade crossings due to idling trains

• Signage at crossings

• Pavement marking at crossings

• Illumination at crossings

• Signals at crossings, including interconnection and preemption

• Improved crossing surfaces

• Sight distance or geometric improvements at crossings

• Data analysis in support of annual reporting requirements (up to 2 percent of apportionment)

The purpose of Section 130 funds is for the elimination of hazards at railway-highway crossings 

and therefore are not eligible for new crossings or quiet zones to address noise abatement. 

Many States have been active in crossing improvement programs for decades. States have been 

responsible for initiating and implementing projects under the various federal programs. In the 

past, States have required the railroad or the local government to provide the funds needed to 

match the federal contribution. States may utilize State funds for crossing improvements and to 

provide the 10 percent match requirement. In addition to financing costs directly associated with 

the improvement of highway-rail grade crossings, all States contribute incidentally to crossing 

components. In general, for crossings located on the State highway system, States provide for 

the construction and maintenance of the roadway approaches and for signs, markings, and other 

traffic control devices not located on the railroad right of way. Typically, these include advance 

warning signs and pavement markings. 

Local governments have contributed to highway-rail grade crossing safety improvements by 

providing the matching funds for improvement projects constructed under Section 130 programs. 

Localities have also contributed for decades through the construction and maintenance of street 

approaches to crossings and the signs and pavement markings in advance of the crossings. Some 

cities and counties conduct traffic engineering and safety studies at specific crossing locations.

Although public agencies have established funding programs for crossing elimination and 

improvements, the railroads have continued to contribute as well. In some cases, the railroad may 

pay all, or a part of, the required matching share of a project, or the railroad may contribute “inkind” by way of supplying materials, providing for flagging services, or constructing or signing a 

detour route during construction of an improvement. Railroads may also contribute through their 

track and crossing surface maintenance programs or through vegetation or right-of-way (ROW) 

clearance programs to improve sight distances at crossings. Some railroads make direct cash 

contributions to local jurisdictions for crossing consolidations or closures. 

185 
RESPONSIBILITIES 

Fundamental Issues of Highway-Rail Crossings 

An issue as old as the grade crossing safety problem is the question of who should provide and 

pay for traffic control devices at highway‐rail grade crossings.

During the years between 1850 and 1890, tremendous growth in population followed the 

railroads west. Consequently, there was a need for new highways and streets, practically all 

of which crossed the railroads at grade. In most cases, the responsibility for these crossings 

automatically fell upon the railroads. There were occasional collisions at crossings, but they 

usually were not as serious as those occurring today. 

One early collision, involving a train and a wagon in Lima, Indiana, resulted in a suit that 

eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 1877. In Continental Improvement Co. v. Stead, 

the Supreme Court had to decide who was responsible for the damages incurred. In its decision, 

the Supreme Court said that the duties, rights, and obligations of a railroad company and a 

traveler on the highway at the public crossing were “mutual and reciprocal.” It also said that 

the train had the right of way at over crossings because of its “character,” “momentum,” and 

the “requirements of public travel by means thereof.” The railroad, however, was bound to give 

reasonable and timely warning of the train’s approach. 

The Supreme Court further stated that “those who are crossing a railroad track are bound to 

exercise ordinary care and diligence to ascertain whether a train is approaching.” This Supreme 

Court decision indicated that there was a responsibility upon railroads to warn travelers on 

highways of approaching trains and a responsibility upon travelers to look, listen, and stop for 

approaching trains. 

This expanded federal highway construction program had a great deal of influence on the 

Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. v. Walters in 1935. Justice 

Brandeis, writing for the majority of the Court, said:

The railroad has ceased to be the prime instrument of danger and the main cause of accidents.

It is the railroad which now requires protection from dangers incident to motor transportation.

186 
Government Agency Responsibility and Involvement 

Today, because a highway-rail crossing involves the intersection of two transportation modes— 

one public and the other private—safe and efficient operation requires strict cooperation and 

coordination of the involved agencies and organizations. 

At the federal level, six agencies within the United States Department of Transportation 

(USDOT) and two agencies outside USDOT have specific safety‐related roles with respect to 

highway‐rail grade crossings:

• Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

• Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

• Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)

• Federal Transit Administration (FTA)

• Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)

• National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)

• Surface Transportation Board (STB)

At the State level, program administration and responsibility include the following:

• State highway departments

• State departments of transportation

• State regulatory agencies (usually called public service commissions or public utility commissions)

• State highway safety agencies

• State departments of public safety (State police or highway patrol)

At the local level, public agencies involved include the following:

• State highway department field maintenance organizations

• County or township road departments

• City street departments or public works agencies

• County or local law enforcement agencies

Each of these involvements is described below. 

FHWA 

The FHWA provides oversight for the State administered federally-funded programs, several 

of which are available for crossing improvements. FHWA apportions funds to the States 

according to a legislated formula and in the amounts authorized by Congress for each program. 

It establishes procedures by which the States obligate the funds to specific projects and oversees 

the overall implementation of the federally-funded programs. 

The FHWA establishes standards for traffic control devices and systems at crossings and 

publishes them in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).(1) FHWA also has 

adopted various design criteria and guidelines developed by the American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and other organizations for use on federal‐

aid construction and reconstruction projects. It approves State-developed design directives and 

187 
design criteria for resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation projects and other activities. The 

FHWA provides technical assistance to States and local agencies through the distribution of stateof-the-art publications, training classes, and the activities of State Local Technical Assistance 

Program centers. 

The FHWA conducts research to support the previously listed activities, and research conducted 

by the States is often funded using Federal-Aid State Planning and Research funds. Typical 

research topics include traffic control devices, roadside safety, collision causation, program 

management tools, and collision countermeasures. Any FHWA crossing research is coordinated 

with FRA. FHWA promotes the maintenance of individual State grade crossing inventories and 

the updating of the national inventory database. 

FRA 

The FRA maintains the national Railroad Accident/Incident Reporting System that contains 

information reported by the railroads on crossing collisions. The FRA also serves as custodian 

of the National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory that contains the physical and operating 

characteristics of each crossing. The information in the Crossing Inventory is submitted and 

updated by the railroads and the States. The FRA prepares, publishes, and distributes reports 

summarizing collision and crossing data and makes the data available on the Internet. 

The FRA generally conducts field investigations of railroad accidents/incidents, including 

crossing collisions, which result in the death of a railroad employee or the injury of five or more 

persons. FRA also investigates complaints by the public pertaining to crossings and makes 

recommendations to the industry as appropriate. 

The FRA conducts research to identify solutions to crossing problems, primarily from a 

railroad perspective. Typical research involves program management tools, train-borne warning 

devices, train car and locomotive reflectorization, and track circuitry improvements. Research 

is coordinated with FHWA. Both FHWA and FRA have field offices located throughout the 

United States that collaborate with State agencies and individual railroads on program and 

project issues. They ensure that policies and regulations are effectively implemented and provide 

feedback to headquarters regarding needs identified at the field level.

The FRA also sponsors a considerable amount of research into railroad and crossing safety 

issues. A significant portion of this research is carried out by the John A. Volpe National 

Transportation Systems Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Other research is performed 

through the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), administered by the 

Transportation Research Board. 

The FRA regulations enhance highway‐rail crossing safety by requiring railroads to:

• Report any impact between a highway user and railroad on-track equipment at a highway-rail

grade crossing

• Equip locomotives with auxiliary lights to improve the conspicuity of approaching trains

188 
• Place retro‐reflective material on railroad rolling stock to make them more visible during the

night or reduced light situations

• Periodically maintain, inspect and test automatic warning devices

• Sound locomotive horns when approaching public highway-rail crossings, unless the crossing is

located within a quiet zone

• Have an Emergency Notification System by which the public may report unsafe conditions at

crossings to the railroad

• Submit accurate, up-to-date railroad-related crossing information to the National Highway-Rail

Crossing Inventory

NHTSA 

The NHTSA maintains the Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS), a database containing 

information on all fatal highway collisions. The NHTSA coordinates with FRA and FHWA to 

provide information in FARS pertinent to crossings. The NHTSA also funds educational programs 

and selective law enforcement programs at crossings through State highway safety offices.

FMCSA 

The FMCSA was established as a separate administration within USDOT on January 1, 2000, 

pursuant to the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999. The primary mission of FMCSA 

is to reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities involving large trucks and buses. The FMCSA is 

committed to increasing grade crossing safety messages to the freight and passenger motor 

carrier industry, as well as to its safety oversight and enforcement partners. The FMCSA 

encourages States to use their Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) contacts to 

distribute grade crossing safety materials focused on motor carrier needs and issues at crossings. 

The FMCSA also develops informational packages for firms in the motor carrier industry.

FTA 

The FTA is one of 10 modal administrations within USDOT. It provides financial and technical 

assistance to local public transit systems including buses, subways, light rail, commuter rail, 

monorail, trolleys and ferries. FTA maintains the Safety Management System which compiles 

and analyzes transit safety and security data. FTA also maintains the National Transit Database 

(NTD) which provides a repository of data about the financial, operating and asset conditions of 

transit systems. 

PHMSA 

The PHMSA is a separate operating administration for pipeline safety and hazardous materials 

transportation safety operations. The PHMSA is the federal agency charged with the safe and 

secure movement of almost one million daily shipments of hazardous materials by all modes 

of transportation, including by rail. The agency also oversees the U.S. pipeline infrastructure, 

which accounts for 64 percent of the energy commodities consumed in the United States. The 

agency establishes national policy, sets and enforces standards, educates, and conducts research 

189 
to prevent incidents. The PHMSA also prepares the public and first responders to reduce 

consequences if an incident does occur. 

NTSB 

The NTSB provides a comprehensive review of the safety aspects of all transportation 

systems. Through special analyses and collision investigations, it identifies specific safety

problems and recommends associated remedies that are presented as recommendations to 

specific agencies and organizations.(84) 

STB 

The STB was created as an economic regulatory agency with the ICC Termination Act of 1995 

and is the successor agency to ICC. The STB serves as both an adjudicatory and a regulatory 

body. The agency has jurisdiction over railroad rate and service issues and rail restructuring 

transactions including mergers, line sales, line construction, and line abandonments. 

State and Local Level 

Jurisdiction over highway-rail grade crossings resides primarily with the States. State highway and 

transportation agencies are responsible for the implementation of a program that is broad enough 

to involve any public crossing within the State. Within some States, responsibility is assigned 

to a regulatory agency referred to as a public service commission, a public utilities commission, 

or similar designation. In other States, the authority is divided among the public administrative 

agencies of the State, county, or city having jurisdiction over the respective highway and street 

systems—practitioners are advised to verify current local responsibilities. State and local law 

enforcement agencies are responsible for the enforcement of traffic laws at crossings. Local

government bodies are responsible for ordinances governing traffic laws and operational matters

relating to crossings. States have State‐specific laws that can affect how their programs (including

funding and maintenance) are managed. 

The historical shifting of responsibility for safety at crossings from the railroads to the public 

and the increasing availability of federal funds have led to more of that responsibility being 

placed on State and local agencies. This shift culminated with the inclusion of Part VIII, “Traffic 

Control Systems for Highway-Rail Grade Crossings,” in the 1978 edition of MUTCD. Part VIII 

consolidated certain information that had been scattered throughout MUTCD and superseded 

the Association of American Railroads (AAR) bulletins covering crossing signalization that had 

been issued by AAR Committee D. The FHWA has also issued regulations specifying criteria for 

the selection of traffic control devices at highway‐rail grade crossings.

The highway agency having jurisdiction at public crossings is the entity responsible 

for determining appropriate traffic control devices. Even though the railroads retain the 

responsibility for the installation and maintenance of Crossbuck signs at passive crossings 

and for the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of railroad crossing signals, State 

transportation and regulatory agencies have the responsibility to assure that the standards set 

forth in MUTCD and elsewhere in federal regulations are followed. The street or highway 

agency is also responsible for the installation and maintenance of all traffic control devices on the 

190 
approaches to the crossing; for the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of highway 

traffic signals that may be interconnected with the grade crossing signals; and for the installation 

and maintenance of certain passive signs at the crossing, such as STOP signs or “Do Not Stop on 

Tracks” signs. 

Although the railroads retain responsibility for the construction, reconstruction, and maintenance 

of the track structure and the riding surface at the highway-rail intersection, their obligation for 

the roadway usually ends within a few inches of the outside ends of the ties that support the 

rails and the crossing surface. The street or highway agency has responsibility for the design, 

construction, and maintenance of the roadway approaches to the crossing, even though these 

approaches may lie within the railroad’s ROW.(85) 

Railroad Responsibility and Involvement 

Railroads work with State, county, and municipalities to alleviate operational and safety concerns 

at highway-rail grade crossings. Typically, Class I carriers have “public projects” staff who work 

with State and local highway authorities to implement improvements to grade crossings, grade 

crossing closures, grade separations, and quiet zone improvements. Railroads also conduct some 

research to identify and apply new technology and further new concepts regarding crossing 

safety and operations. 

Founded in 1934, the AAR leads a wide range of policy, research, standards setting, and 

technology related to the operations of the U.S. freight rail industry. The AAR full members 

include the major freight railroads in the United States, Canada and Mexico, as well as Amtrak. 

The AAR railroad affiliate and associate members include non‐Class I and commuter railroads, 

rail supply companies, engineering firms, signal and communications firms, and rail car owners.

Policy Making 

Standard Setting 

Industry Data, Reports and Publications 

Working with elected officials and leaders in Washington, DC, AAR works to advance sound 

public policy that supports the interests of the freight rail industry to ensure it will continue to 

meet America’s transportation needs. 

As the standard setting organization for North America’s railroads, AAR establishes safety, 

security, and operating standards that provide for seamless and safe operations across America’s 

140,000-mile freight rail network. 

The AAR prepares weekly, quarterly, and annual statistical reports providing comprehensive 

insight into the operations of North America’s freight railroads. The AAR members may access 

the publications catalog, covering many aspects of freight railroading from the latest economic 

statistics to the correct means of loading and securing various freight shipments and research 

reports from AAR’s Transportation Technology Center, Inc. (TTCI). These publications offer 

economic, financial, policy, and general statistical information, and can be purchased from their 

online catalog. 

191 
Research and Technology Initiatives 

Through its two subsidiaries, TTCI and Railinc, AAR supports continued research and 

development projects to enhance the safety, security, and efficiency of the railroad industry. 

The TTCI is the world’s leading research, development, and testing facility, and develops nextgeneration advancements in safety and operational efficiency. Railinc serves as the rail industry’s 

leading resource for rail data, information technology, and information services, and uses one 

of the world’s largest data networks to track customer shipments. The AAR also supports the 

Railroad Research Foundation, a world-class policy research organization dedicated to sustaining 

a safe, secure, and technologically advanced rail network. 

The AAR has been active in crossing programs and has established a State-Rail Programs 

Division within its Operations and Maintenance Department. This division provides information 

to Congress and USDOT to assist in the administration and establishment of crossing programs. 

Railroad interests and concerns regarding crossing programs are typically coordinated through 

the AAR office. The State‐Rail Programs Division has an appointed railroad employee in 

each State to serve as the AAR State representative on crossing safety matters. A list of State 

representatives is available from AAR. 

Other railroad-related companies and suppliers also participate in crossing safety programs. The 

signal suppliers and manufacturers of crossing surface systems provide guidance for the selection 

of a specific device or crossing surface. In addition, these companies are actively conducting 

research to improve their products. 

192 
B. APPENDIX—COMPONENTS OF A HIGHWAY-RAIL GRADE CROSSING

A highway-rail grade crossing can be viewed as simply a special type of highway intersection, 

in that the three basic elements of any intersection are present: the driver, the vehicles, and the 

physical intersection. As with a highway intersection, drivers must appropriately yield the ROW 

to opposing traffic; unlike a highway‐highway intersection, the opposing traffic—the train—

is not required to yield the ROW to the highway vehicle. Drivers of motor vehicles have the 

flexibility of altering their path of travel and can alter their speed within a short distance. Train 

operators, on the other hand, are restricted to moving their trains down a fixed path, and changes 

in speed can be accomplished much more slowly. Because of this, motorists bear most of the 

responsibility for avoiding collisions with trains. 

The railroad Crossbuck sign is defined in the MUTCD as a regulatory sign. In effect, it is a 

YIELD sign, and motorists have the obligation to so interpret it. Traffic and highway engineers 

can assist motorists with the driving task by providing them with proper highway design, 

adequate sight distances, and proper traffic control devices.

The components of a highway‐rail grade crossing are divided into two categories: the highway 

and the railroad. The highway component can be further classified into several elements 

including the roadway, drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists, and vehicles. The railroad component 

is classified into train and track elements. The location where these two components meet should 

be designed to incorporate the basic needs of both highway vehicles and trains. 

Traffic control devices are utilized to provide road users with information concerning the 

crossing. Typically, an advance warning sign and pavement markings inform the motorist 

that a crossing lies ahead in the travel path. The crossing itself is identified and located using 

the Crossbuck. These traffic control devices—the advance sign, pavement markings, and 

Crossbuck—are termed “passive” because their message remains constant with time. 

“Active” traffic control devices tell the motorist if a train is approaching or occupying a crossing 

and, thus, give a variable message. Typical active traffic control devices are flashers or flashers 

and automatic gates. A highway traffic signal may also be interconnected to the crossing signals 

and would form part of the traffic control system at the crossing.

The USDOT National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory provides information on the number of 

crossings having each type of traffic control device, as shown in Table B-1. 

HIGHWAY COMPONENTS 

Driver 

The driver is responsible for obeying traffic control devices, traffic laws, and the rules of the road.

Highway and railroad engineers who plan and design initial installations or later improvements 

to traffic control systems at railroad grade crossings should be aware of the several capabilities,

requirements, needs, and obligations of the driver. This information will help them, through the 

proper engineering design of improvements, assisting drivers in meeting their responsibilities. 

193 
Table B-1. Public Crossings by Warning Device, 2017 

Warning device Number Percent 

Active devices 

Gates 50,018 39.16 

Flashing lights 17,613 13.79 

Highway signals, wigwags, or bells 1,326 1.04 

Speciala 908 0.71 

Total active 69,865 54.69 

Passive devices 

Crossbucks 43,289 33.89 

STOP signs 11,877 9.30 

Other signs 265 0.21 

Total passive 55,431 43.39 

No signs or signals 2,442 1.91 

Total 127,738 100.00 

a Note: “Special” are traffic control systems that are not train activated, such as a crossing being 

flagged by a member of the train crew.

Source: Federal Railroad Administration.1

This section deals with the duties of the motor vehicle driver. 

As of 2000, the Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC) is a specimen set of motor vehicle laws designed

or advanced as a comprehensive guide or standard for State motor vehicle and traffic laws.

(86) It 

describes the actions a driver is required to take at highway-rail grade crossings. The UVC 

defines the “appropriate actions” vehicle operators are required to take for three situations: 

vehicle speed approaching the crossing; vehicle speed traversing the crossing; and stopping 

requirements at the crossing. The provisions in UVC for these actions are set out below:

• Approach Speed (Sec. 11-801).

No person shall drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under

the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing. 

Consistent with the foregoing, every person shall drive at a safe and appropriate speed when 

approaching and crossing an intersection and railroad grade crossing....

• Passing (Sec. 11-306).

(a) No vehicle shall be driven on the left side of the roadway under the following

conditions...

...2. When approaching within 100 feet of or traversing any intersection or railroad grade 

crossings unless otherwise indicated by official traffic control devices...

1 (Updated data can be found on the FRA’s Office of Safety Analysis website [also known as Safetydata] at https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov) 

194 
• Vehicles Approaching a Highway-Rail Grade Crossing (Sec. 11-701)

(a) Whenever any person driving a vehicle approaches a railroad grade crossing under any

of the circumstances stated in this section, the driver of such vehicle shall stop within 50 feet

but not less than 15 feet from the nearest rail of such railroad, and shall not proceed until it

is safe to do so. The foregoing requirements shall apply when:

1. A clearly visible electric or mechanical signal device gives warning of the immediate

approach of a railroad train;

2. A crossing gate is lowered or when a human flagger gives or continues to give a signal of

the approach or passage of a railroad train;

3. A railroad train approaching within approximately 1,500 feet of the highway crossing

emits a signal audible from such distance, or such railroad train by reason of its speed

or nearness to such crossing is an immediate hazard;

4. An approaching railroad train is plainly visible and is in hazardous proximity to

such crossing.

(b) No person shall drive any vehicle through, around or under any crossing gate or barrier

at a railroad crossing while such gate or barrier is closed or is being opened or closed.

• Designated Vehicles Must Stop at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings (11-702)

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the driver of any vehicle described in regulations

issued pursuant to subsection (c), before crossing at grade any track or tracks of a railroad,

shall stop such vehicle before the stop line (if present) and not less than 15 feet from the

nearest rail of such track, and while so stopped shall listen and look in both directions along

such track for any approaching train and for signals indicating the approach of a train and

shall not proceed until it is safe to do so. After stopping as required, upon proceeding when

it is safe to do so, the driver shall cross only in a gear of the vehicle that will not require

manually changing gears while traversing such crossing and the driver shall not manually

shift gears while crossing the track or tracks.

(b) This section shall not apply at:

1. Any railroad grade crossing at which traffic is controlled by a police officer or flagger;

2. Any railroad grade crossing at which traffic is regulated by a traffic-control signal;

3. Any railroad grade crossing protected by crossing gates or an alternately flashing light

signal intended to give warning of the approach of a railroad train;

4. Any railroad grade crossing at which an official traffic control device gives notice that

the stopping requirement imposed by this section does not apply.

(c) The (commissioner or other appropriate State official or agency) shall adopt regulations,

as may be necessary, describing the vehicles that must comply with the stopping requirements

of this section. In formulating those regulations, the (commissioner or other appropriate State

195 
official or agency) shall give consideration to the number of passengers carried by the vehicle

and the hazardous nature of any substance carried by the vehicle in determining whether such

vehicle shall be required to stop. Such regulations shall correlate with, and so far as possible,

conform to the most recent regulation of the United States Department of Transportation.

Each State has its own traffic laws, which may vary from those above. The pertinent sections of 

the State code and the State driver licensing handbook should be consulted for more information. 

Vehicle 

The design and operation of a railroad grade crossing should reflect the number and types of 

vehicles that can be expected to use it. In this regard, crossings are exposed to the full array of 

vehicle types found on highways, from motorcycles to truck tractor/triple-trailer combinations, 

although the use of crossings by the largest vehicle types is rare. Typically, the largest vehicles 

that will use an at-grade crossing are full-size passenger buses or design trucks such as WB-50. 

The vehicles utilizing highway-rail grade crossings have widely different characteristics that 

will directly influence the design elements of the crossing. Equally important is the cargo these 

vehicles carry, especially children in school buses and hazardous materials in trucks. 

Table B-2 summarizes collisions at crossings by vehicle type. Rates are defined as collisions per 

billion miles of travel. The data provides some indication of the relative hazards for each of the 

vehicles. Trucks have the highest collision rates of all vehicle types. Motorcycles have a higher 

fatality rate, probably because of the lack of operator protection provided by the vehicle. 

Several physical and performance characteristics influence the safety of vehicles at crossings. 

These include vehicle dimensions, braking performance, and acceleration performance. 

Vehicle Dimensions 

The length of a vehicle has a direct bearing on the inherent safety of the vehicle at a grade 

crossing and, consequently, is an explicit factor considered in the provision of sight distances. 

Long vehicles and vehicles carrying heavy loads have longer braking distances and slower 

acceleration capabilities; hence, long vehicles may be exposed to a crossing for an even greater 

length of time than would be expected in proportion to their length. 

Vehicle length is explicitly considered in determining the effect of sight distance, and the corner 

sight triangle on the safe vehicle approach speed toward the crossing and in determining the 

sight distance along the track for vehicles stopped at the crossing. The design lengths of various 

vehicles are specified by the AASHTO and shown in Table B-3. 

196 
Table B-2. Motor Vehicle Collisions and Casualties at Public Crossings by Vehicle Type, 2017 

— Automobilesa Buses Trucksb Motorcycles Total 

Total collisions 

Number 1,828 7 587 9 2,431 

Ratec 0.67 1.05 2.59 0.90 0.84 

Percent 75.19 0.29 24.15 0.37 100.00 

Total fatalities 

Number 204 0 35 2 241 

Ratec 0.08 0.00 0.15 0.20 0.08 

Percent 84.65 0.00 14.52 0.83 100.00 

Total injuries 

Number 648 7 225 5 885 

Ratec 0.24 1.05 0.99 0.50 0.31 

Percent 73.22 0.79 25.42 0.57 100.00 

Vehicle miles of 

travel (billions) 

2,719.32 6.64 226.51 10.05 2,890.89 

Registered vehicles 228,276,000 795,000 8,171,000 5,781,000 236,761,000 

Collisions per 

million vehicles 

8.01 8.81 71.84 1.56 10.27 

a

 “Automobiles” includes passenger cars, pick-up trucks, vans, and sport utility vehicles.

b

 “Trucks” includes both single-unit trucks and combination trucks.

c “Rate” is the number of collisions, fatalities, or injuries divided by billions of vehicle miles traveled.

Source: FRA and FHWA.

197 
Table B-3. U.S. Customary Lengths for Design Vehicles 

Design vehicle type Designation Length (feet) 

Passenger car P 19 

Single-unit truck SU 30 

Buses 

Intercity bus (motor coaches) BUS-40 40 

BUS-45 45 

City transit bus CITY-BUS 40 

Conventional school bus (65 passengers) S-BUS 36 35.8 

Large school bus (84 passengers) S-BUS 40 40 

Articulated bus A-BUS 60 

Trucks 

Intermediate semitrailer WB-40 45.5 

Intermediate semitrailer WB-50 55 

Interstate semitrailer WB-62* 68.5 

Interstate semitrailer WB-65** or WB-67 73.5 

“Double-bottom” semitrailer/trailer WB-67D 73.3 

Triple-semitrailer/trailers WB-100T 104.8 

Turnpike double-semitrailer/trailer WB-109D* 114 

Recreational Vehicles 

Motor home MH 30 

Car and camper trailer P/T 48.7 

Car and boat trailer P/B 42 

Motor home and boat trailer MH/B 53 

*Design vehicle with 48-foot trailer as adopted in the 1982 Surface Transportation Assistance Act.

**Design vehicle with 53-foot trailer as adopted grandfathered in with the 1982 Surface

Transportation Assistance Act.

Source: From A Policy on Geometric Design of Highway and Streets, 2011, by the American

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC. Used by permission.

The AASHTO recognizes 20 design vehicle classes. This reflects the increase in the size of 

tractor-semitrailers, which began with the passage of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act 

of 1982, as well as the increasing presence of articulated buses in the U.S. transit fleet and the 

increasing popularity of recreational vehicles and motor homes.(87) 

Unless trucks are prohibited at the crossing, it is desirable that the design vehicle be at least a 

tractor-semitrailer truck (WB-15 SI Metric, or WB-50). Typically, the design vehicle should be a 

“double-bottom” vehicle (WB-18 SI Metric, or WB-60) for those crossings on routes designated 

for longer trucks, although consideration should be given especially to long vehicles where 

198 
applicable. On major arterials with significant truck traffic, the design vehicle should be an 

“interstate” semitrailer truck (WB-62 or WB-65). 

The width of the vehicle may be an issue when selecting the crossing surface. Since the passage 

of the 1982 STAA, trucks and intercity buses are permitted to have widths of 102 inches, as 

indicated in Table 2‐1b of the AASHTO: A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets.(87) 

Braking Performance 

One component of stopping sight distance is a function of a vehicle’s braking performance. If 

a crossing experiences a significant percentage of heavy trucks, any given sight distance will 

dictate a slower speed of operation to allow for the braking performance of these vehicles. 

Acceleration Performance 

Acceleration of vehicles is important to enable a stopped vehicle to accelerate and clear the 

crossing before a train that was just out of sight or just beyond the train detection circuitry 

reaches the crossing. Large trucks that have poor acceleration capabilities coupled with long 

lengths are particularly critical in this type of situation. 

There are three phases of operation for a truck that has stopped at a crossing: start‐up when the 

clutch is being engaged; acceleration from the point of full clutch engagement; and continued 

travel until the crossing is cleared. 

Another aspect of the acceleration performance of vehicles at crossings is the design of 

the crossing approaches coupled with the condition of the crossing surface. Crossings and 

approaches on a steep grade are difficult and time‐consuming to cross. Also, vehicles will move 

more slowly over crossings that have rough surfaces. 

Special Vehicles 

The following three vehicle types are of particular concern for crossing safety: trucks carrying 

hazardous materials; any commercial motor vehicle transporting passengers; and school buses. 

Collisions involving these vehicles can result in numerous injuries and/or fatalities, perhaps in 

catastrophic proportions if certain hazardous cargoes are involved. 

In a special study conducted by the NTSB, it was determined that an average of 62 collisions 

involving a train and a truck transporting hazardous materials occur annually. NTSB’s 

examination of the collision data revealed that these collisions tend to occur near truck terminals.(88) 

Requirements for commercial vehicles to stop or slow at highway-rail grade crossings are contained 

in 49 CFR 392.10, which requires that the driver of a specified commercial motor vehicle:

Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the driver of a commercial vehicle specified 

in paragraphs (a) (1) through (6) of this section shall not cross a railroad track or tracks at 

grade unless he/she first: Stops the commercial motor vehicle within 50 feet of, and not closer 

than 15 feet to, the tracks; thereafter listens and looks in each direction along the tracks for 

an approaching train; and ascertains that no train is approaching. When it is safe to do so, 

the driver may drive the commercial motor vehicle across the tracks in a gear that permits the 

199 
commercial motor vehicle to complete the crossing without a change of gears. The driver must 

not shift gears while crossing the tracks.

Vehicles to which this rule pertains include but are not limited to the following:

• Every bus transporting passengers and vehicles transporting migrant workers. (“Bus” is defined at

49 CFR 390.5 as “as any motor vehicle designed, constructed, and or used for the transportation

of passengers, including taxicabs.”)

• Every commercial motor vehicle which, in accordance with the regulations of USDOT, is

required to be marked or placarded with hazardous materials including the following:

̶ Poison Gas 

̶ Flammables 

̶ Chlorine 

̶ Poison 

̶ Oxygen 

̶ Combustible liquids 

As required by 49 CFR 398.4, all such motor vehicles shall display a sign on the rear reading, 

“This Vehicle Stops at Railroad Crossings.” 

Finally, 49 CFR 392.11 provides that:

Every commercial motor vehicle other than those listed in §392.10 shall, upon approaching 

a railroad grade crossing, be driven at a rate of speed which will permit said commercial 

motor vehicle to be stopped before reaching the nearest rail of such crossing and shall not 

be driven upon or over such crossing until due caution has been taken to ascertain that the 

course is clear

Provisions to enhance safety for these special vehicles are further discussed in Chapter 6, 

Special Topics. 

Pedestrians 

In 2017, collisions involving pedestrians at crossings accounted for 8.1 percent, or 172, of all 

crossing collisions. As might be expected, these collisions almost always result in an injury 

or fatality. In 2017, there were 86 pedestrian fatalities, comprising 31.7 percent of all crossing 

fatalities. These statistics do not include pedestrian collisions occurring elsewhere along railroad 

tracks. Excluding collisions and incidents at crossings, 535 trespasser fatalities occurred on 

railroad property during 2017. This represents 63 percent of all railroad-related fatalities. 

Table B-4 shows the number of highway-rail grade crossing collision fatalities and trespasser 

fatalities from 2008 to 2017. During this 10-year period, crossing collision fatalities and 

trespasser fatalities fluctuated. Each year since 2008, the number of trespasser fatalities has been 

greater than the number of highway-rail grade crossing collision fatalities. 

200 
Table B-4. Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Collision Fatalities 

versus Trespasser Fatalities, 2008–2017 

Year 

Highway-Rail Grade 

Crossing Collision 

Fatalities Trespasser Fatalities 

2008 290 457 

2009 248 416 

2010 261 441 

2011 246 399 

2012 231 405 

2013 232 427 

2014 262 470 

2015 236 449 

2016 253 465 

2017 271 535 

Source: Federal Railroad Administration Safety Data website (safetydata.fra.dot.gov/officeofsafety).2

Roadway 

A major component of the crossing is the physical configuration of the highway on the approach 

and at the crossing itself. The following roadway characteristics are relevant to the design and 

control of highway‐rail grade crossings:

• Location—urban or rural

• Type of road—arterial, collector, or local

• Traffic volumes

• Geometric features—number of lanes, horizontal and vertical alignment, sight distance,

crossing angle, etc.

• Crossing surface and elevation

• Nearby intersecting highways

• Illumination

Urban crossings often carry more vehicular traffic than rural crossings and have sight restrictions 

due to developed areas. Urban crossings also involve obstructions to continuous traffic flow, such 

as controlled intersections, driveways, business establishments and distracting signs, significant 

lane interaction, and on-street parking. 

2 Updated data can be found on the FRA’s Office of Safety Analysis website (also known as Safetydata) at https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov. 

201 
All other factors being the same, for a given train volume, collision frequency increases 

with increasing traffic volume. However, traffic volume alone is not a sufficient forecaster of 

collisions at crossings. 

The geometric features that can affect traffic operations at highway‐rail grade crossings include 

the following:

• Number of lanes and pavement width

• Horizontal and vertical alignment

• Crossing angle

• Crossing elevation

These features, in turn, affect sight distances to and at crossings. 

Number of Lanes 

Less than 10 percent of all public crossings are on highways with more than two lanes.(75)

 It is not 

known how many crossings with two lanes have an approach width greater than two lanes. The 

reduction of lanes at a crossing can cause vehicle-vehicle collisions as well as collisions with trains. 

At two-lane crossings, a pullout lane may be provided for trucks or buses that may be required to stop 

for the crossing. By providing a pullout lane, the likelihood of rear-end collisions may be reduced. 

Crossings with more than two lanes are usually candidates for cantilevered flashing light signals 

to improve the visibility of the signals for drivers. 

Horizontal Alignment 

Sight distance to the crossing is affected by the vertical and horizontal alignment of the crossing 

and by the crossing angle. Crossings located around a curve or over the crest of a hill may 

require special attention from the motorist and may need additional signing or active advance 

warning devices. For new crossings, or major reconstruction, it is desirable to have the crossing 

angle as close to 90 degrees as possible. 

Crossing and Approach Surfaces 

The roughness of a crossing surface and the profile of the surface and its approaches may be major

areas of concern for road users. A rough surface may contribute to a collision by diverting the road 

user’s attention from the prime tasks of observing the crossing signals and looking for a train. 

Crossing Elevation or Profile 

Another aspect of the crossing is its elevation. Vehicles that cross the tracks from a stopped 

position cannot accelerate quickly on steep grades. In addition, trucks with low ground 

clearances may become trapped on high‐profile or “hump‐backed” crossings, delaying highway 

and rail traffic and, possibly, being struck by a train. 

202 
Intersecting Highways 

Frequently, roads parallel the railroad, and intersecting roads intersect the railroad, resulting in a 

crossing near the highway intersection. The higher occurrence of collisions at these intersections 

is due in part to a short storage area for vehicles waiting to move through the crossing and the 

intersection. If the intersection is signalized or if the approach from the crossing is controlled 

by a STOP sign, queues may develop across the crossing, leading to the possibility of a vehicle 

becoming “trapped” on the crossing. Also, there are more distractions to the motorist, leading to 

the possibility of vehicle‐vehicle conflicts.

Crossings within a close distance to a signalized or STOP-controlled intersection should be 

carefully evaluated for proper controls. STOP controls should be evaluated where either the 

crossing or the intersection, or both, is not signalized. Traffic signal timing should be carefully 

evaluated, and an interconnection circuit installed if needed. Joint inspections of interconnected 

or preempted signals by the railroad and the highway agency should be made on a regular basis 

to assure that the crossing signals and the highway traffic signal are functioning properly and that 

the phasing and timing plans are still appropriate. 

The critical distance between a highway-rail crossing and a highway-highway intersection is a 

function of the number of vehicles expected to be queued up by the intersection traffic control.

For additional information, refer to MUTCD Section 4D.27 Preemption and Priority Control of 

Traffic Control Signals. 

Illumination 

Illumination of the crossing can definitely aid the motorist. Illumination may be effective in 

reducing collisions at night; as it will assist road users, including bicyclists and pedestrians, in 

traversing the crossing at night. USDOT Inventory reports that commercial power is available 

at more than 90 percent of public crossings. Therefore, lighting is feasible at most crossings; 

depending, of course, on the reliability of the power source. 

Traffic Control Devices 

The responsibility for the design, placement, operation, and maintenance of traffic control 

devices normally rests with the governmental body having jurisdiction over the road or street. 

For the purpose of installation, operations and maintenance of devices constituting traffic control 

devices at highway-rail grade crossings, it is recognized that any crossing of a public road with 

a railroad is situated on a right of way that is available for the use of both highway traffic and 

railroad traffic on their respective roadway and tracks. This requires joint responsibility in the 

traffic control function between the public agency and the railroad.

The determination of need and the selection of devices at a grade crossing are normally 

made by the public agency having jurisdiction. Subject to such determination, the design, 

installation, and operation of such devices shall be in accordance with the principles and 

requirements set forth in MUTCD. 

203 
Due to the character of operations and the potentially severe consequences of collisions, traffic 

control devices at highway-rail grade crossings and on the approaches thereto need to be 

viewed as a system. The combination of approach signs and pavement markings on the roadway 

approach and the Crossbucks or signals at the crossing provides the road user with multiple 

notices of the presence of the crossing and the likelihood of encountering a train. 

For those sections where rail tracks run within a roadway, which is a common practice for light 

rail and streetcar operations, traffic control may be provided by a combination of signs, pavement 

markings, and typical “highway” type control devices such as STOP signs and traffic signals. 

However, for the broader case, where rail tracks are in a separate ROW with designated crossings 

of highways and pedestrian pathways, traffic is typically controlled with one of three types of 

devices, each requiring a distinct compliance response per the UVC, various Model Traffic 

Ordinances and State regulations:

• A Crossbuck is a type of YIELD sign—The driver should be prepared to stop at least 15 feet

before the near rail unless, and until, the driver can make a reasonable decision that there are no

trains in hazardous proximity to the crossing and it is safe to cross.

• Operating flashing lights have the same function as a STOP sign—A vehicle is required to stop

completely at least 15 feet short of the near rail. Then, even though the flashing lights may still be

operating, the driver can proceed after stopping (subject to State or local laws), when safe to do so.

• Flashing lights with lowered gates are equivalent to a red vehicular traffic signal indication—

A vehicle is required to stop short of the gate and remain stopped until the gates go up.

Motorist comprehension and compliance with each of these devices is mainly a function of 

education and enforcement. The traffic engineer should make full use of the various traffic 

control devices as prescribed in MUTCD to convey a clear, concise, and easily understood 

message to the driver. 

RAILROAD COMPONENTS 

Train 

Headlights 

FRA regulations require that, for locomotives operated through one or more public highway-rail 

grade crossings at speeds greater than 20 miles per hour, auxiliary lights are to be placed at the 

front of the locomotive to form a triangle with the headlight.(89) The inclusion of auxiliary lights 

helps crossing users determine the distance and approximate speed of an approaching train.(90) 

204 
xxxx 

000000 

....... ..,...,,.Wlieel.....,.tlle.:'.CC:{•St0 t ) ~ 

~~ 

llON(ilOl~etl$' lao.C-ar~ 

oar ctc~nc. ,,,11..­ t11-.t• ~ 111 - o1)'11io.t 

Train Horns 

Locomotives are equipped with air-powered horns to sound a warning of a train’s approach to a 

crossing and for various other signals in railroad operations. FRA requires the horn to produce 

a minimum sound level of 96db(A) and a maximum of 110 db(A) at 100 feet forward of the 

locomotive. The locomotive engineer sounds the horn in advance of a crossing in a sequence 

of two long blasts, followed by a short blast, then followed by one long blast. Additional 

information can be found under Title 49 CFR 222.21 and Title 49 CFR 229.129.(89, 91) 

Reflectorization 

FRA regulations governing the reflectorization of rail freight rolling stock (49 CFR Part 224) 

apply to “railroad freight cars and locomotives that operate over a public or private highway-rail 

grade crossing and are used for revenue or work train service.”(92) 

These reflectorization regulations require railroads to install yellow or white reflective materials 

on freight cars and locomotives before placing them in service. Figure B-1 illustrates the 

application on a typical freight car. 

Figure B-1. Reflectorization Example—Standards Applicable to Boxcars

Source: Reflectorization of Rail Freight Rolling Stock final rule, 70 FR 62166 (October 28, 2005).

205 
Braking 

Primarily because of their enormous weight, railroad trains are slow to accelerate and decelerate. 

Numerous factors affect a train’s acceleration capability, such as the number of locomotive units, 

the horsepower rating of each unit and, of course, the number and weight of freight cars. At low 

speeds, a commuter train may accelerate at 1.5 miles per hour (mph) per second; a fast freight train 

may accelerate at 0.3 mph per second. As speed increases, the acceleration rate decreases. A freight 

train with 4.0 horsepower per ton can accelerate at only about 0.1 mph per second at 70 mph. 

The braking system used on trains is the air brake that provides adequate uninterrupted pressure 

from car to car. The single air hose at the end of each car is manually connected to its neighbor, 

then the brake system is charged. When braking is required, the pressure in the brake pipe 

leading back through the train is reduced. This causes the valve on each car to use air from 

the auxiliary reservoir to build pressure in the brake cylinder, thus applying the brakes. For an 

emergency application, the brake valve opens the brake pipe to atmospheric pressure and the 

resulting rapid rate of brake pipe pressure reduction causes the car valves to dump the contents of 

both auxiliary and emergency reservoirs into the brake cylinder. 

Braking distances are dependent on many factors that vary for each train, such as the number 

and horsepower rating of locomotives; number and weight of cars; adhesion of wheels on rails; 

speed; and grade. Therefore, the braking distance of a train cannot be stated exactly. An estimate 

is that a typical 100-car freight train traveling at 60 mph would require more than one mile to 

stop in emergency braking. 

Track 

In the United States, railroad track is classified into nine classes based upon maximum allowable 

operating speed. FRA’s Track Safety Standards set maximum train speeds for each class of track, 

as shown in Table B-5 and specified in FRA’s regulations at 49 CFR 213.9 and 213.307. 

Initially, there were many different track gauges; however, in 1863, President Lincoln designated 

4 feet, 8.5 inches as the gauge for the railroad to be built to the Pacific coast. Other railroads then 

began changing to this gauge. 

The rolling resistance that provides many of the technological advantages for railroads as a 

means of transportation is made possible by the steel wheel rolling on a steel rail. This steelwheel-to-steel-rail contact involves the transfer of pressures from the rail to a steel plate under 

the rail (tie plate), which spreads the load over a tie, which spreads the load over ballast (crushed 

rocks or other materials), which spreads the load to a sub-ballast (usually gravels, cinders, or 

sand), which spreads the load to the subgrade consisting of either the native soil below or some 

superior material obtained off site. 

206 
Table B-5. Maximum Train Speeds by Class of Track3 

Class of track Freight Passenger 

Class 1 10 mph 15 mph 

Class 2 25 mph 30 mph 

Class 3 40 mph 60 mph 

Class 4 60 mph 80 mph 

Class 5 80 mph 90 mph 

Class 6 110 mph 110 mph 

Class 7 125 mph 125 mph 

Class 8 160 mph 160 mph 

Class 94 220 mph 220 mph 

Rail is rolled from high-quality steel. Rail being rolled today weighs from 115 to 140 pounds per 

yard and is 6 to 8 inches high. Currently, the standard rail length is 78 feet. In track, these rails 

are held together by bolted joint bars or are welded end-to-end in long strings. Bolted joints are, 

however, less rigid than the rest of the rail so that the rail ends wear more rapidly. Continuously 

welded rail is often used today, particularly on mainline tracks. Rail is welded into lengths of 

about 1,500 feet and taken to the point of installation. The remaining joints can be eliminated by 

field welding in place.

The steel rails are spiked to ties typically made of wood with preservative impregnated to prevent 

decay. The ties hold the rails to gauge, support the rails, distribute the load to the ballast, and 

provide flexibility to cushion impacts of the wheels on the rail. Pre‐stressed concrete ties have 

come into greater use on railroads in recent years. 

Spikes or other rail fasteners are used to fix the rail to the ties for the primary purpose of 

preventing the rail from shifting sideways. Because rail tends to move lengthwise, rail anchors 

can be used, particularly on heavy-duty track. 

Ballast is used to hold the ties in place, to prevent lateral deflections, and to spread out the load. 

Ballast should be able to resist degradation from the effects of tie motion that generates “fines” 

that may “cement” into an impervious mass. FRA regulations (49 CFR 213.103) require that 

ballast provide good drainage, which is especially important for the strength of the subgrade and 

prevents mud from working its way up to contaminate the ballast. 

Railway track is normally maintained by track gangs (small groups of maintenance-of-way 

employees) for small scale repairs or by sophisticated, high production, mechanized equipment 

for large scale projects. As an example, track surface is maintained by tamping machines that 

raise the track and compact the ballast under the ties. In this process, it is often necessary to raise 

the track a few inches. The best track stability will occur if this raise can continue through the 

crossing area instead of leaving a dip in the track. Lowering track is a very costly operation and 

can lead to subgrade instability problems. 

3 Trains operating at Class 6–9 speeds must be qualified in accordance with 49 CFR sections 213.329 and 213.345. There are additional 

requirements for freight trains and trains operating at or above 125 mph, as provided in 49 CFR 213.307(a). 4 Federal Register Volume 78, Issue 49 (March 13, 2013). https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/FR‐2013‐03‐13/2013‐04679.

207 
Similar to highways, railroad track is classified into several categories dependent on its 

utilization in terms of traffic flow. Main tracks are used for through train movements between and 

through stations and terminals. Branch lines typically carry freight from its origin to the mainline 

on which it moves to its destination or to another branch line to its destination. Passing tracks, 

normally called sidings, are used for meeting and passing trains. Side tracks and industrial tracks 

are generally used to store cars and to load or unload them. Table B-6 provides a tabulation 

indicating the number of tracks present on various categories of track. 

Table B-6. Public At-Grade Crossings by Type of Track, 2017 

No. of Tracks 

Type of Track 

Main Siding Yard Transit Industry 

0 14,825 80,152 79,972 85,831 77,313 

1 102,963 7,710 4,911 110 8,454 

2 10,441 924 1,119 130 889 

3 543 177 330 0 149 

4 61 47 146 1 34 

5 12 11 67 0 15 

> 5 28 8 60 0 29 

Total 128,873 89,029 86,605 86,072 86,883 

Source: Unpublished data from Federal Railroad Administration.5

5 Updated data can be found on the FRA’s Office of Safety Analysis website (also known as safety data) at https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov

208 
C.APPENDIX—ASSESSMENT OF CROSSING SAFETY AND OPERATION

COLLECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF DATA

The FHWA requires each State to develop and implement a HSIP that consists of three 

components: planning, implementation, and evaluation. The process for improving safety and 

operations at highway-railroad grade crossings consists of the same three components and may 

be considered part of a State’s HSIP. 

FHWA policy and procedures for an HSIP are contained in the Federal-Aid Policy Guide 

(FAPG) Title 23—Code of Federal Regulations (and Non-Regulatory Supplements).(93) The 

purpose of an HSIP is to reduce fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads, including the 

development of a data-driven Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), Railway-Highway 

Crossings Program, and program of highway safety improvement projects. Types of safety data 

includes, but are not limited to, crash, roadway characteristics, and traffic data on all public 

roads. For railway‐ highway crossings, safety data also includes the characteristics of highway 

and train traffic, licensing, and vehicle data. 

USDOT Grade Crossing Inventory

Under FRA regulations in subpart F to 49 CFR Part 234, railroads are required to report 

highway-rail and pathway crossings to the National Crossing Inventory.(94) The USDOT National 

Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory was developed in the early 1970s through the cooperative 

efforts of FHWA, the FRA, the AAR, individual States, and individual railroads. Originally this 

was a voluntary effort by the various stakeholders. A PDF file of the USDOT Crossing Inventory 

Form can be downloaded from: https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L16197. The railroads 

assign each crossing a unique DOT Crossing Inventory Number consisting of six numeric 

characters and an alphabetic character. To obtain new DOT Crossing Inventory Numbers, 

railroads should email RequestDOTGXNumber@dot.gov and provide the following:

• Name of person requesting the number(s)

• Title of person requesting the number(s)

• Email address of the person request the number(s)

• Railroad name

• Railroad mailing address

• Number of DOT crossing numbers(s) requested

The FRA is the custodian for the Crossing Inventory database. The data for the Inventory is provided 

by the railroad and States. The railroads and States can find the Guide for Preparing USDOT 

Crossing Inventory Forms (Guide). The Guide explains what information is required for each 

box of the Inventory Form. The Guide also includes information on what fields of the Inventory 

are the responsibility of the railroads and what fields are the responsibility of the States.

209 
According to the Guide, a railroad must update the Crossing Inventory record for each open at-grade 

crossing at least once every three years; however certain changes require more frequent updates:

• New crossings must be reported to the Inventory within 6 months of becoming operational

• Closure or sale of a crossing must be reported to the Inventory within 3 months

• Change in crossing surface must be reported to the Inventory within 3 months

• Changes in warning devices must be reported to the Inventory within 3 months

To maintain consistency with accident history and other data, once an Inventory Number is 

assigned to a crossing it should not be assigned to another location. 

Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Collision Data 

Information on highway-rail grade crossing collisions is also needed to assess safety and 

operations. Data on collisions involving trains are essential in identifying crossings with safety 

problems. In addition, data on collisions not involving trains but occurring at or near a crossing 

are useful. For example, non‐train‐involved collisions may indicate a deficiency in stopping sight 

distance such that a vehicle suddenly stops at a crossing, causing the following vehicle to hit the 

leading vehicle in the rear. 

Collision data is available from several sources, including State and local police and FRA. In 

addition, the NHTSA and FHWA maintain some information on crossing collisions. The FRA’s 

Office of Safety Analysis has a website (also known as Safetydata) where their updated data is 

uploaded. This can be accessed at https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov. 

Information regarding accidents, reporting, and investigations can be accessed at 

https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0037. 

The FRA Guide for Preparing Accident/Incident Reports can be found online at https://www.

fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L18093#p1_z5_gD_kpreparing%20accident. A PDF file of the Accident 

Report Form for Federal Railroad Administration can be downloaded from: https://safetydata.

fra.dot.gov/officeofsafety/publicsite/Newregulation.aspx?doc=F6180_54_Expires06302020.pdf.

NHTSA maintains a database on all fatal highway traffic collisions, including those occurring at 

highway-rail grade crossings. The FARS database can be accessed at https://www‐fars.nhtsa.dot.

gov/Main/index.aspx (see Figure C-1). 

The FMCSA maintains data on highway collisions involving motor carriers. An accident is “an 

occurrence involving a commercial motor vehicle operating on a highway engaged in interstate 

or intrastate commerce which results in (i) a fatality; (ii) bodily injury to a person who, as a result 

of the injury, immediately receives medical treatment away from the scene of the accident; or, 

(iii) one or more motor vehicles incurring disabling damage as a result of the accident, requiring

the motor vehicle(s) to be transported away from the scene by a tow truck or other motor

vehicle” (49 CFR 390.5).(95) 

In the past, FMCSA required motor carriers to report crashes directly to the agency. This is no 

longer the case. This information is now forwarded by States; however, motor carriers must 

210 
RAIL EQUIP'-'ENT ACCIOENTIINCIDENT REPORT l"IUD M,. -,11:n .ncnr 

~. O•fllM~ldMI S. ti..OfAt~~ 

·~.- I °7 I 'j AM O Ki: 0 

1lyp,9o/Ac~ ft~, .... M ,y.,_..booj 

(2tt-..0.1Jtd I I (ttTCDIO..••· I I 

I 

~-, ...... ~ 

NC)'I. INIJ~IIPtl'l_lllf,_..,tn;._,_. _ _, _ _..N_,,.."""'_.. -•-lllllf>Ol'\ot-.Cllf .. _,.•,,,""'4"" ..... --"fl";M .,....,.. .... __ ,..,.._o.c,~...,-~ .. ..,""""' ·ov•,t: r«:'.'I ·-l<)c.r• ,,s1~1 

I -

I 

n.Mlloo(.._,.,.._,..,_..,.,.~_._ .. ,e;"« ns.--.--,,._1..,•---.,,-.~.,-,.....,.-~ .. ,-.. _.,.,.., • .,. ,........-..:.,... ... _,_,_....,.. ........................................... -.... _....-~ ... -,-..,.,...._ di-"---·- ... ···-"',.._.....,_ ___ ay,.,. _ .... _ .. "")'lftf'C"I- "'-·--.... ll'"""Y...,-•-- .. - ..... ,,__ ... ,..... .. ,._ .. ,,.._._.,~ ...... ~.___, ...... OM., ........... t'IMOWI, ..... _,..,.,.,.. 

No0_11 ....... )l),0500,. 

FORIA FR.AF 8180,54 (R...,,0&'10) 0MB ;ipproved "2/2017, Al)pf0VII tJCph K Sl30l2020 

maintain accident registers for three years after the date of each accident occurring on or after 

April 29, 2003 (49 CFR 390.15). 

Collisions involving the transport of hazardous materials are reported to PHMSA. The PHSMA 

develops regulatory programs to help ensure the safe and secure movement of hazardous 

materials. The PHSMA also enforces the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations which can be 

found in 49 CFR 350-399. 

Significant transportation accidents are investigated by the NTSB. The NTSB issues a report 

for each accident investigated. The report presents the circumstances of the accident, the data 

collected, and the analysis of the data as well as conclusions, which are identified as “findings” 

of NTSB. In addition, NTSB issues specific recommendations to various parties for improvement 

of safety conditions. 

Figure C-1. Rail Equipment Accident/Incident Report Form 

Source: FRA, Office of Safety (website accessed) https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/

officeofsafety/ publicsite/Newregulation.aspx?doc=F6180_54_Expires06302020.pdf.

211 
HAZARD INDICES AND ACCIDENT PREDICTION FORMULAE 

A systematic method for identifying crossings that have the most need for safety and/or operational 

improvements is essential to ensure that federal and State funds for highway-railroad grade 

crossing improvement projects are spent at the locations that are considered to be most in need of 

improvement. Considerations for prioritizing locations for improvement include the following:

• The potential reduction in the number and/or severity of collisions

• The cost of the projects and the resources available

• The relative hazard of public highway-rail grade crossings based on a hazard index formula

• Collision history of a particular crossing location

• On-site inspections of public crossings

• The potential danger to large numbers of people at public crossings used on a regular basis by

passenger trains, school buses, transit buses, pedestrians, bicyclists, or by trains and/ or motor

vehicles carrying hazardous materials

• Other criteria as appropriate in each State

To support the prioritization process, various hazard indices and collision prediction formulae 

have been developed to assist with ranking the hazard potential of highway-rail grade crossings. 

A hazard index ranks crossings in relative terms (the higher the calculated index, the more 

hazardous the crossing), whereas the collision prediction formulae are intended to compute 

the actual collision occurrence frequency at the crossing. These are commonly used to identify 

crossings to be investigated in the field. A 2017 review of State DOT hazard ranking practices 

found that 39 out of 50 States (78 percent) utilized some type of hazard ranking index, collision 

prediction formula, or other systematic method for prioritization.(96) This section discusses the 

application of hazard index techniques and crash prediction formula techniques for highwayrailroad grade crossing hazard ranking. Procedures for conducting the on-site inspection are 

discussed in the next section. 

It should be noted that hazard indices or crash prediction formulas are not the exclusive method 

used by State DOTs and other agencies to identify hazardous highway-railroad grade crossings. 

Crossings may also be selected for field investigation because of requests or complaints from the 

public. State district offices, local governmental agencies, other State agencies, and railroads may 

also request that a crossing be investigated for improvement. A change in highway or railroad 

operations over a crossing may justify the consideration of that crossing for improvement. For 

example, a new residential or commercial development may increase the volume of highway 

traffic over a crossing such that its hazard index would increase. Other crossings may be selected 

for a field investigation because they are utilized by buses, passenger trains, and vehicles 

transporting hazardous materials. Some States incorporate these considerations into a hazard 

index, thus providing an objective means of assessing the potential danger to large numbers 

of people. Finally, professional judgment on the part of the highway-rail intersection safety 

specialist in determining the appropriateness of a particular warning device project at a particular 

crossing location should also be considered in the process. 

212 
Hazard Index 

The hazard index approach to prioritization of grade crossing locations requires the analyst to 

calculate a ranking metric or value that will provide insight into the hazard level of a particular 

crossing relative to other crossing locations. A commonly used index is the New Hampshire 

Hazard Index ranking methodology. Historically, the New Hampshire Hazard Index was the most 

common hazard ranking model used by State DOTs. A 2017 review of State DOT grade crossing 

hazard ranking practices found that at least seven States were utilizing the New Hampshire 

Hazard Index, or a State‐specific variation thereof, for prioritization activities.(96) The New 

Hampshire Hazard Index is the most basic form of the hazard index model type consisting of 

the exposure index (cross product of the AADT and train volume) with a “protection factor” 

adjustment for the type of warning device provided at the crossing. The New Hampshire Hazard 

Index formula is as follows:

HI = (V) * (T) * (PF), where:

• HI = Calculated Hazard Index Value

• V = Highway Traffic Volume at Crossing (AADT)

• T = Train Movements per Day at Crossing

• PF = Protection Factor based on Warning Device Type

The original New Hampshire Hazard Index formula utilized protection factors of 0.1 for 

automatic gates, 0.6 for flashing lights, and 1.0 for signs only. Some States have revised these 

protection factors to include more refined levels of protection available at a crossing. For 

example, the Michigan DOT utilizes the New Hampshire Hazard Index with 13 different values 

of protection factors based on the presence of additional warning device features.(97) The primary 

advantage of the hazard index approach is that it is easily understood. An increase in either 

highway traffic volume or train traffic volume increases the risk of a crash at a crossing location; 

that risk is lower if more sophisticated protective devices are present at that location. The 

primary disadvantage of the hazard index approach is that the hazard index value is calculated 

relative to other crossings; consequently, the hazard index value for a single crossing without 

reference to other crossings has limited usefulness for prioritization. 

Crash Prediction Model 

The crash prediction model approach to prioritization of grade crossing locations utilizes a 

mathematical formula to predict the expected annual crash frequency at a crossing location; 

this value is used as the ranking metric for prioritization purposes. A crash prediction model 

is intended to estimate, in absolute terms, the likelihood of a collision occurring over a given 

period of time based on the given conditions at the crossing. Some crash prediction models also 

allow for the severity of crashes to be predicted. The structure of the crash prediction models 

includes all the characteristics or factors that are thought to significantly influence the risk of a 

crash at a grade crossing. A crash prediction model can also be used to either rank crossings or 

identify potential high-accident locations for further review. Additionally, the model output can 

be combined with economic data on crash costs to support a comprehensive economic analysis 

of proposed grade crossing improvement projects. 

213 
A 2017 review of State DOT grade crossing hazard ranking practices found that at approximately 

half of the States utilized a crash prediction formula of some type for prioritization activities. 

Crash prediction formulas currently in use by State DOTs include the USDOT Accident 

Prediction Model, the NCHRP 50 Accident Prediction Model, the Peabody-Dimmick formula. 

Additionally, some States have developed crash prediction models based on State‐specific 

crash trends and experiences. Among the crash prediction models currently in use, the USDOT 

Accident Prediction Model is the most prevalent, with at least 19 States (38 percent) reporting 

the use of this model for prioritization activities. Additional details of the USDOT Accident 

Prediction Model are presented in this section; details of other, less commonly-used crash 

prediction models, are available elsewhere.(96) 

USDOT Accident Prediction Model 

The USDOT Accident Prediction Model is an accident prediction model that was developed 

in the mid-1970s to support a comprehensive grade crossing project selection process known as 

the Rail-Highway Crossing Resource Allocation Procedure.(98) The most up-to-date version of 

the USDOT Accident Prediction Model is described in detail in the FRA’s GradeDec.net

Crossing Evaluation Tool Reference Manual, which was published in 2014.(99) The USDOT crash 

prediction model is a multi-stage calculation that combines three independent calculations to 

produce a crash prediction value. The basic formula provides an initial hazard ranking based on 

a crossing’s characteristics, like other formulae such as the Peabody-Dimmick formula and the 

New Hampshire Index. The second calculation utilizes the actual collision history at a crossing 

over a determined number of years to produce a collision prediction value. This procedure 

assumes that future collisions per year at a crossing will be the same as the average historical 

collision rate over the time period used in the calculation. The third equation adds a normalizing 

constant, which is adjusted periodically to keep the procedure matched with current collision 

trends. If desired, the analyst can also predict the annual frequency of crashes by crash severity 

(fatality, injury, or property damage only). 

The basic steps to utilize the USDOT Accident Prediction Model are as follows:

• Step 1: Gather Required Input Data

• Step 2: Generate Preliminary Crash Frequency Estimate

• Step 3: Adjustment for Crash History

• Step 4: Normalizing Constant Adjustment for Crash Trends

• Step 5: Estimate of Crash Severity (Optional)

The specific requirements for each step listed above are described in the following sections.

Specific formula information and numerical parameters are obtained directly from the FRA

GradeDec.net manual.(99) The FRA has provided a web-based tool, known as the Web 

Accident Prediction System, where highway-rail intersection safety specialists may view 

current estimates of the predicted annual crash frequency for any public highway-rail 

intersection in the national inventory database.

214 
ENGINEERING STUDY 

Federal requirements (23 U.S.C. 130(d)) dictate that each State develop a crossing program 

based on the following:

• The potential reduction in collisions or collision severities

• The project costs and available resources

• The relative hazard of each crossing based on a hazard index formula

• An onsite inspection of each candidate crossing

An engineering study is the comprehensive analysis and evaluation of available pertinent 

information, and the application of appropriate principles, provisions, and practices. MUTCD 

Part 1A.13 requires that an engineering study shall be performed by an engineer, or by an 

individual working under the supervision of an engineer, through the application of procedures 

and criteria established by the engineer. Based on a review of these conditions, an assessment of 

existing and potential hazards can be made. If safety deficiencies are identified, countermeasures 

can be recommended. 

An engineering study should be conducted of highway-rail crossings that have been selected 

from the priority list. The purpose of this study is to accomplish the following:

• Review the crossing and its environment

• Identify the nature of any problems

• Recommend alternative improvements

Diagnostic Team Study Method 

The Diagnostic Team Study Method is the procedure adopted in FHWA’s Highway Safety 

Engineering Study Procedural Guide and adopted in concept by several States.(100) This survey 

procedure utilizes experienced individuals from several sources. The procedure involves the 

Diagnostic Team’s evaluation of the crossing as to its deficiencies and consensus as to the 

recommended improvements. 

The primary factors to consider when determining stakeholders to be a part of the Diagnostic 

Team are that the team is interdisciplinary, and representative of all groups having responsibility 

for the safe operation of crossings. This enables each of the vital factors relating to the 

operational and physical characteristics of the crossing to be identified properly. Individual team 

members are selected based on their specific expertise and experience. The overall structure of 

the team is built upon the following three desired areas of responsibility:

• Local responsibility

• Administrative responsibility

• Advisory capability

215 
For the purpose of the Diagnostic Team, the operational characteristics of crossings can be 

classified into the following three areas:

Traffic Operations 

This area includes both vehicular and train traffic operation. The responsibilities of highway 

traffic engineers and railroad operating personnel chosen for team membership include, among 

other criteria, specific knowledge of highway and railroad safety, types of vehicles and trains, 

and their volumes and speeds. 

Traffic Control Devices 

Highway maintenance engineers, signal control engineers, and railroad signal engineers provide 

the best source for expertise in this area. Responsibilities of these team members include 

knowledge of active traffic control systems, interconnection with adjacent signalized highway 

intersections, traffic control devices for vehicle operations in general and at crossings, and 

crossing signs and pavement markings. 

Administration 

Many issues relating to crossing safety also involve the apportionment of administrative and 

financial responsibility. This should be reflected in the membership of the Diagnostic Team. 

The primary responsibility of these members is to advise the team of specific policy and 

administrative rules applicable to the modification of crossing traffic control devices.

To ensure appropriate representation on the Diagnostic Team, it is suggested that the team 

be comprised of at least a traffic engineer with safety experience as well as a railroad signal 

engineer. Following are other disciplines that might be represented on the Diagnostic Team:

• Railroad administrative official

• Highway administrative official

• Human factors engineer

• Law enforcement officer

• Regulatory agency official

• Railroad operating official

• Local government agencies

• Regional transportation planning organization

• Pedestrian/bicycle coordinator

• Emergency services representative

• Commercial motor carrier

• Stakeholders and special interest groups

216 
The Diagnostic Team should study all available data (including as-built plans and/or proposed 

improvement plans that may impact the location) and inspect the crossing and its surroundings 

with the objective of determining the conditions that affect safety and traffic operations. In 

conducting the study, a questionnaire is recommended to provide a structured account of 

the crossing characteristics and their effect on safety. Some States are now using automated 

diagnostic review forms to facilitate the collection, storage, and analysis of crossing data. Figure 

C-2 shows a sample questionnaire, which can be altered to fit individual agency needs. The

questionnaire shown in Figure C-2 is divided into the following four sections:

• Distant approach and advance warning

• Immediate highway approach

• Crossing proper

• Summary and analysis

Important considerations when studying traffic flow and operations at a highway‐rail grade 

crossing are traffic volumes (daily and peak hour); speeds; the mix of vehicle types; intersecting 

volumes and turning movements at intersections near the crossing; the capacity of the road; 

delays; and the formation of any traffic queues. These should be reviewed in light of current 

conditions and how they might be affected by changes at the crossing. 

Key concerns are routing and access for emergency vehicles and the use of the crossing by special 

vehicles such as low clearance vehicles, buses, and trucks transporting hazardous materials. 

217 
_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

__ 

____________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________

_________________ 

___ 

Locational Data: 

Street Name: ___________________________________________________________________ 

City: __________________________________________________________________________ 

Railroad: _______________________________________________________________________ 

Crossing Number: ________________________________________________________________ 

VEHICLE DATA: No. of Approach Lanes: ______________________________________________ 

Approach Speed Limit: __________________________________________ AADT: ____________ 

Approach Curvature: ________________________________ Approach Gradient: ____________ 

TRAIN DATA: No. of Tracks: ____________________________ Train Speed Limit: ____________ 

Trains Per Day: __________________________________________________________________ 

Track Gradients: _________________________________________________________________ 

SECTION I—Distance Approach and Advance Warning 

1. Is advance warning of railroad crossing available? If so, what devices are used?

2. Do advance warning devices alert drivers to the presence of the crossing and allow time to react

to approaching train traffic?

3. Do approach grades, roadway curvature, or obstructions limit the view of advance warning

devices? ______ If so, how?

4. Are advance warning devices readable under night, rainy, snowy, or foggy conditions?

___________________________________________________________________________

SECTION II—Immediate Highway Approach 

1. What maximum safe approach speed will existing sight distance support?

_________________________________________________________________

2. Is that speed equal to or above the speed limit on that part of the highway?

3. If not, what has been done, or reasonably could be done, to bring this to the driver’s attention?

_____________________________________________________________________________

4. What restrictive obstructions to sight distance might be removed?

____________________________________________________________

5. Do approach grades or roadway curvature restrict the driver’s view of the crossing?

__________________________________________________________________________

6. Are railroad crossing signals or other active warning devices operating properly and visible to

adequately warn drivers of approaching trains?

_____________________________________________________________________________

218 
_____________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________

__________________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________

____ 

__________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________

_______________ 

_______________________________ 

__ 

_______________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________ 

SECTION III—Crossing Proper 

1. From a vehicle stopped at the crossing, is the sight distance down the track to an approaching

train adequate for the driver to cross the tracks safely?

2. Are nearby intersection traffic signals or other control device affecting the crossing operation?

If so, how?

3. Is the stopping area at the crossing adequately marked?

___________________________________________________

4. Do vehicles required by law to stop at all crossings present a hazard at the crossing? _________

Why? ________________________________________________________________________

5. Do conditions at the crossing contribute to, or are they conducive to, a vehicle stalling at or on

the crossing?

6. Are nearby signs, crossing signals, etc. adequately protected to minimize hazards to

approaching traffic?

_________________________________________________________________________

7. Is the crossing surface satisfactory? ____________ If not, how and why?

___________________________________________________________________

8. Is surface of highway approaches satisfactory? _______________________________________

If not, why?

SECTION IV—Summary and Analysis 

1. List major attributes of the crossing which may contribute to safety:

______________________________________________________________

2. List features which reduce crossing safety:

______________________________________________

3. Possible methods for improving safety at the crossing (including closure, if practicable):

___________________________________________________________________________

4. Overall evaluation of crossing:

______________________________

5. Other comments:

___________________

Figure C-2. Sample Questionnaire for Diagnostic Team Evaluation 

219 
'l'ramc OJn~ C 

Non Re(._,o\-ery 

Zon~ 

'J'ralfic Cone 8 

Trarfic Con~ 

A trn.fn al lbb; l)()IUi aUows \'C?ldck>s 

:\i. "8'' to t-afo\v pr'OOIX'd acroo.-i g,:;1dc.­

(r-0.5Ring. 

To help the Diagnostic Team identify viewpoints of reference for the field evaluation, traffic 

cones can be placed on the approaches, as shown in Figure C-3. 

Figure C-3. Study Positions for Diagnostic Team 

Crossing Approach Zone 

Cone A is placed at the point where the driver first obtains information that there is a crossing 

ahead. This distance is also the beginning of the approach zone. Usually, this information comes 

from the advance warning sign, the pavement markings, or the crossing itself. The distance from 

the crossing is based on the decision sight distance (refer to bottom row of Table C-1), which is 

the distance required for a driver to detect a crossing and to formulate actions needed to avoid 

colliding with trains. In calculating sight distances, a level approach is assumed. If this is not the 

case, an allowance should be made for the effects of positive or negative approach grades. 

220 
Table C-1. Sight Distances for Combinations of Highway Vehicle and Train Speeds 

Train 

Speed 

(MPH) 

Case B 

Departure 

from Stop 

Case A Moving Vehicle 

Vehicle Speed (MPH) 

— 0 10 20 34 40 50 60 70 80 

Distance Along Railroad Crossing from d (ft) T 

10 255 155 110 102 102 106 112 119 127 

20 509 310 220 203 205 213 225 239 254 

30 794 465 331 305 307 319 337 358 381 

40 1,019 619 441 407 409 426 450 478 508 

50 1,273 774 551 509 511 532 562 597 635 

60 1,528 929 661 610 614 639 675 717 763 

70 1,783 1,084 771 712 716 745 787 836 890 

80 2,037 1,239 882 814 818 852 899 956 1,017 

90 2,292 1,394 992 915 920 958 1,012 1,075 1,144 

Distance Along Highway from Crossing, d (ft) H 

— — 69 135 220 324 447 589 751 931 

Source: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO): 

A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 7th Edition, Washington, DC, 2018.

Safe Stopping Point 

Cone B is placed at the point where the approaching driver has adequate corner sight distance 

to see an approaching train so that a safe stop can be made if necessary. This point is located at 

the end of the approach zone and the beginning of the non-recovery zone. Distances to point B 

are based on the design vehicle speed and maximum authorized train speed (refer to “Case A— 

Moving Vehicle” in Table C-1). 

Stop Line 

Cone C is placed at the stop line, which is assumed to be 15 feet from the near rail of the 

crossing, or 8 feet from the gate if one is present. 

The questions in Section I of the questionnaire (refer to Figure C-2) are concerned with the following:

• Driver awareness of the crossing

• Visibility of the crossing

• Effectiveness of advance warning signs and signals

• Geometric features of the highway

When responding to questions in this section, the crossing should be observed from the 

beginning of the approach zone, at traffic cone A.

221 
The questions in Section II of the questionnaire (refer to Figure C-2) are concerned with whether 

the driver has sufficient information to detect an approaching train and make correct decisions 

about crossing safely. Observations for responding to questions in this section should be made 

from cone B. Factors considered by these questions include the following:

• Driver awareness of approaching trains

• Driver dependence on crossing signals

• Obstruction of view of train’s approach

• Roadway geometrics diverting driver attention

• Potential location of standing railroad cars

• Possibility of removal of sight obstructions

• Availability of information for stop or go decision by the driver

The questions in Section III of the questionnaire (refer to Figure C-2) apply to observations 

adjacent to the crossing, at cone C. Of concern, especially when the driver must stop, is the 

ability to see down the tracks for approaching trains. Intersecting streets and driveways should 

also be observed to determine whether intersecting traffic could affect the operation of highway 

vehicles over the crossing. Questions in this section relate to the following:

• Sight distance down the tracks

• Pavement markings

• Conditions conducive to vehicles becoming stalled or stopped on the crossing

• Operation of vehicles required by law to stop at the crossing

• Signs and signals as fixed object hazards

• Opportunity for evasive action by the driver

In Section IV of the questionnaire (see Figure C-2), the Diagnostic Team is given the 

opportunity to do the following:

• List major features that contribute to safety

• List features that reduce crossing safety

• Suggest methods for improving safety at the crossing

• Give an overall evaluation of the crossing

• Provide comments and suggestions relative to the questionnaire

In addition to completing the questionnaire, team members should take photographs of the 

crossing from both the highway and the railroad approaches. 

222 
Current and projected vehicle and train operation data should be obtained from the team 

members. Information on the use of the crossing by buses, school buses, trucks transporting 

hazardous materials, and passenger trains should be provided. The evaluation of the crossing 

should include a thorough evaluation of collision frequency, collision types, and collision 

circumstances. Both train-vehicle collisions and vehicle-vehicle collisions should be examined. 

Team members should drive each approach several times to become familiar with all conditions 

that exist, at or near, the crossing. All traffic control devices (signs, signals, markings, and train 

detection circuits) should be examined as part of this evaluation. If the crossing is equipped 

with signals, the railroad signal engineer should activate them so that their alignment and light 

intensity may be observed. 

The MUTCD should be a principal reference for this evaluation. Also, A User’s Guide to Positive 

Guidance provides information for conducting evaluations of traffic control devices.(101) 

After the questionnaire has been completed, the team is reassembled to discuss it. Each member 

should summarize his or her observations pertaining to safety and operations at the crossing. 

Possible improvements to the crossing may include the following:

• Closing of crossing—available alternate routes for highway traffic

• Site improvements—removal of obstructions in the sight triangle, highway realignment,

improved cross section, drainage, or illumination

• Crossing surfaces—rehabilitation of the highway structure, the track structure, or both;

installation of drainage and subgrade filter fabric; adjustments to highway approaches; and

removal of retired tracks from the crossing

• Traffic control devices—installation of passive or active control devices and improvement of

train detection equipment

The results and recommendations of the Diagnostic Team should be documented. 

Recommendations should be presented promptly to programming and implementation authorities. 

Current practice is to use a team in order to ensure all stakeholder perspectives are included. 

Sight Distance Computation 

Available sight distances help determine the safe speed at which a vehicle can approach and clear 

a crossing. Refer to the AASHTO “Green Book” for additional information.(87) The following 

three sight distances should be considered (refer to Figures C-4 and C-5):

• Distance ahead to the crossing—Approach stopping sight distance

• Distance to and along the tracks on which a train might be approaching the crossing from either

direction—Corner sight distance

• Sight distance along the tracks in either direction from a vehicle stopped at the crossing—

Clearing sight distance

223 
V V 

Stop Lim, Stop Line 

L D D 

Figure C-4. Sight Distance for Moving Vehicle 

Source: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO): A Policy on

Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 7th Edition, (Figure 9-77), Washington DC, 2018.

The formula for computing safe stopping distance for vehicles approaching a crossing is set forth 

in the following formula (refer to Figure C-4):

where:

• A = constant = 1.47 

• B = constant = 1.075 

• dH = sight distance measured along the highway from the nearest rail to the driver of a vehicle, 

which allows the vehicle to be safely stopped without encroachment of the crossing area, feet 

• Vv

 = velocity of the vehicle, mph 

• t = perception-reaction time, seconds, assumed to be 2.5 seconds 

• a = driver deceleration, assumed to be 11.2 feet per second2 

• D = distance from the stop line or front of vehicle to the near rail, assumed to be 15 feet 

• de = distance from the driver to the front of the vehicle, assumed to be 8 feet 

224 
The minimum safe sight distances, dH, along the highway for selected vehicle speeds are shown 

in the bottom line of Table C-1. As noted, these distances were calculated for level approaches to 

90-degree crossings and should be increased for less favorable conditions. 

The second sight distance utilizes a so-called “sight triangle” in the quadrants on the vehicle 

approach side of the track. This triangle is formed by:

• The distance (dH) of the vehicle driver from the track 

• The distance (dT) of the train from the crossing 

This sight triangle is depicted in Figure C-4. The distance along the along the railroad (dT) is determined 

by the vehicle speed and maximum timetable train speed and is set forth in the following formula:

where:

• dT = sight distance along the railroad tracks to permit the vehicle to cross and be clear of the 

crossing upon arrival of the train 

• VT = velocity of the train, mph 

• Vv

 = velocity of the vehicle, mph 

• A = constant = 1.47 

• B = constant = 1.075 

• t = perception-reaction time, seconds, assumed to be 2.5 seconds 

• a = driver deceleration, assumed to be 11.2 feet per second 

• D = distance from the stop line or front of vehicle to the near rail, assumed to be 15 feet 

• L = length of vehicle, assumed to be 65 feet 

• W = distance between outer rails (for a single track, this value is 5 feet) 

225 
dr = 1.47Vr(Vo + l+2D+W-d 

a, Ve +.I) 

Clearing Sight Distance 

In the case of a vehicle stopped at a crossing, the driver needs to see both ways along the track 

to determine whether a train is approaching and to estimate its speed. The driver needs to have a 

sight distance along the tracks that will permit sufficient time to accelerate and clear the crossing 

prior to the arrival of a train, even though the train might come into view as the vehicle is 

beginning its departure process. 

Figure C-5 illustrates the maneuver. These sight distances, for a range of train speeds, are given in the 

column for a vehicle speed of zero in Table C-1. These values are obtained from the following formula:

where:

• dT = sight distance along the railroad tracks to permit the vehicle to cross and be clear of the 

crossing upon arrival of the train 

• VT = velocity of the train, mph 

• VG = maximum speed of vehicle in selected starting gear; assumed to be 8.8 feet per second 

• a1

 = acceleration of vehicle in starting gear, assumed to be 1.47 feet per second2 

• D = distance from the stop line or front of vehicle to the near rail, assumed to be 15 feet 

• L = length of vehicle, assumed to be 65 feet (see Table C-2 for further clarification)

• W = distance between outer rails (for a single track, this value is 5 feet) 

• d = distance the vehicle travels while accelerating to maximum speed in first gear, assumed to be

26.4 feet 

• J = Perception-reaction time (3 seconds) 

Adjustments for longer vehicle lengths, slower acceleration capabilities, multiple tracks, 

skewed crossings, and other than flat highway grades are necessary. The formulas in this

section may be used with proper adjustments to the appropriate dimensional values. It would 

be desirable that sight distances permit operation at the legal approach speed for highways, 

however, this is often impractical. 

226 
l_ J 

T 

4-

\ 

.... 

~ 

I V I I' V I 

Stop Line --1 i--Stop l ine 

L I D w D 

I 

Figure C-5. Sight Distance for Stopped Vehicle 

Source: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO): A Policy on

Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 7th Edition, (Figure 9-68), Washington DC, 2018.

227 
dt 

Pedestrian Sight Distance Triangle 

Evaluation of clearing sight distance at a pedestrian crossing should consider the pedestrian 

walking speed, the maximum authorized speed of trains at the crossing, as well as a decision/ 

reaction distance and buffer zone (refer to Figure C-6). 

Table C-2 provides computed values for both pedestrians as well as typical highway vehicles. 

The pedestrian sight distance, which is shown in the right-hand column, is based upon the 

following quantities: walking speed of 3.5 feet per second, 10 feet for decision/reaction distance 

(about 2.8 seconds), 15-foot track centers, a dynamic envelope of 11 feet, and a 6-foot buffer 

zone. In this example, the pedestrian will traverse the 42-foot distance in 12 seconds. The 

required sight distance is then computed by considering the distance the train will traverse in 12 

seconds based upon the approach speed. At crossings where this distance is not available, active 

control devices should be considered. It should be noted that crossing users cannot be expected 

to reliably judge the precise approach speed of a train, so practitioners should consider that the 

required distances represent an absolute minimum. 

Figure C-6. Pedestrian Sight Distance Triangle (Double Track Crossing) 

Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers.

228 
Table C-2. Clearing Sight Distances (in Feet) 

Train 

Speeda Cara 

Single-unit 

Trucka Busa 

WB-50 

Semitrucka 

65-foot 

Double 

Trucka Pedestrianb 

10 105 185 200 225 240 180 

20 205 365 400 450 485 355 

25 255 455 500 560 605 440 

30 310 550 600 675 725 530 

40 410 730 795 895 965 705 

50 515 910 995 1,120 1,205 880 

60 615 1,095 1,195 1,345 1,445 1,060 

70 715 1,275 1,395 1,570 1,680 1,235 

80 820 1,460 1,590 1,790 1,925 1,410 

90 920 1,640 1,790 2,015 2,165 1,585 

a A single track, 90-degree, level crossing.

b Walking 3.5 feet per second across two sets of tracks 15 feet apart, with a 2-second reaction 

time to reach a decision point 10 feet before the center of the first track, and clearing 10 feet 

beyond the centerline of the second track. Two tracks may be more common in commuter 

station areas where pedestrians are found. 

Source: Guidance on Traffic Control Devices at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings. Washington, 

DC: Federal Highway Administration, Highway/Rail Grade Crossing Technical Working Group, 

November 2002. 

Corridor Approach 

The procedures for evaluating highway-rail grade crossings are generally based upon the 

physical and operational characteristics of individual crossings. A typical crossing safety program 

consists of several individual crossing projects. Funding for crossing safety is approved based on 

the requirements of these individual projects. Therefore, crossing evaluation, programming, and 

construction follow traditional highway project implementation procedures. 

The corridor approach may be applied to an urban area, city, or community. In this case, all 

public crossings within the jurisdiction of a public agency are evaluated and programmed for 

improvements. The desired outcome is a combination of engineering improvements and closures 

such that both safety and operations are highly improved. 

A corridor approach developed for crossings in a specified community or political subdivision 

provides for a comprehensive analysis of highway traffic operations. Thus, unnecessary crossings 

can be closed, and improvements can be made at other crossings. This approach enhances the 

acceptability of crossing closures by local officials and citizens.

229 
Initially, all crossings in the system, both public and private, should be identified and classified 

by jurisdictional responsibility (for example, city, county, and State for public crossings; parties 

to the agreement for private crossings). This also includes crossings with train speeds from 

80–110 mph. Information should be gathered on highway traffic patterns, train operations, 

emergency access needs, land uses, and growth trends. Inventory records for the crossings 

should be updated to reflect current operational and physical characteristics. A Diagnostic Team 

consisting of representatives from all public agencies having jurisdiction over the identified 

crossings and the railroads operating over the crossings should make an on-site assessment of 

each crossing (as described in the previous section). The Diagnostic Team’s recommendations 

should consider, among other things, crossing closure, installation of traffic control devices, 

upgrading existing traffic control devices, crossing elimination by grade separation, surface 

improvements, and improvements in train detection circuits. For railroad crossing locations 

interconnected to the traffic signaling system, appropriate timing should be re‐evaluated to 

determine whether simultaneous or advanced preemption is suitable. The use of pre-signals and 

queue-cutter signals should also be explored, where warranted, to assist the preemption phasing 

to safely clear vehicles off the track prior to the activation of the railroad flasher lights and gates.

Federal, State, and local crossing funding programs should be reviewed to identify the eligibility 

of each crossing improvement for public funding. Other funding sources including railroads, 

urban renewal funds, land development funds, and other public or private funding sources should 

also be explored. 

There are several advantages of the corridor approach. A group of crossings may be improved 

more efficiently through the procurement of materials and equipment in quantity, thus reducing 

product procurement and transportation costs. Usually, only one agreement between the State, 

local jurisdiction, and railroad is necessary for all the improvements. Train detection circuits 

may be designed as a part of the total railroad signal system rather than custom designed for each 

individual crossing. Electronic components, relay houses, and signal transmission equipment 

may be more efficiently utilized. Labor costs may be significantly reduced and travel time of 

construction crews may be reduced when projects are near each other. 

If a crossing consolidation is contemplated, the effects on traffic circulation and the impact 

on the operation of adjacent intersections should be considered. Frequently, the consolidation 

of crossings also leads to the consolidation of traffic on other facilities and may permit the 

construction of a traffic signal at a nearby intersection or other improvements that could not 

be justified otherwise. In light of these and other potential impacts, communication with first 

responders on any changes with crossings should be considered a priority. 

Railroads benefit from the application of the systems approach in several ways. Train speeds 

may be increased due to safety improvements at crossings. Maintenance costs may be reduced if 

enough crossings are closed. Other improvements may enhance the efficiency of rail operations.

Safety improvements are an obvious benefit to the public. Other benefits include reduced 

vehicular delays and better access for emergency vehicles. 

230 
The traffic study should also consider the impacts of crossing operations on the community. 

Considerations include frequency and length of train operations, pedestrian and bicycle access, 

and the need for crossings to provide adequate access to schools and services. 

Standard data collection procedures can be found in several sources, including the Highway 

Safety Engineering Studies Procedural Guide or the Manual of Transportation Engineering 

Studies from the Institute of Transportation Engineers.(100, 102) 

231 

D. APPENDIX—DIAGNOSTIC TEAM CROSSING EVALUATION

REPORTING EXAMPLES FROM STATES 

This appendix provides two example forms. The first shown in Figure D-1 is an example of a 

Diagnostic Team Crossing Evaluation Report, Preliminary Document from the Texas Department 

of Transportation. The second is a link to an example of a Railroad Safety Diagnostic Team 

Crossing Evaluation Report Review Form for Quiet Zones from the State of Nevada Department 

of Transportation. 

• State of Texas Department of Transportation Review Form (Figure D-1)

• State of Nevada Department of Transportation Diagnostic Review Form

233 
□ □ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ □ □ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ □ □ 

□ □ □ 

□ 

PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT 

NOT FOR RELEASE PURSUANT TO 23 U.S.C. SECTION 409 

OFFICE USE ONLY 

MINIMUM WARNING TIME 

20 seconds Minimum Time (MT) 

seconds Clearance Time (CT) 

 seconds Minimum Warning Time (MWT) 

seconds Buffer Time (BT)

 seconds Equipment Response Time (ERT) 

seconds Advance Traffic Signal Preemption Time (APT) 

seconds TOTAL APPROACH TIME 

 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) 

Special Vehicle moves 

MPH 

 through trains at mph per day 

 switch moves at mph per day 

Salvaged equipment: YES NO 

Total estimated cubic yards of fill material: 

 This project is actual cost for reimbursement of payment to the Railroad Company as agreed to by:

 This project is lump sum cost for reimbursement of payment to the Railroad Company as agreed to by: 

TxDOT: Railroad Company: 

 Existing cross bucks meet TMUTCD guidelines 

 Existing cross bucks do not meet TMUTCD guidelines and need to be replaced repaired. If replacement or repair is needed 

the railroad company or its contractor will make necessary arrangements, within 30 days of diagnostic 

Notify TRF/RR when discrepancies are correct

 RxR pavement markings are to be installed, per the guidelines in the TMUTCD 

 No RxR pavement markings are to be installed because 

 Stop bars are to be installed, per the guidelines in the TMUTCD 

 No stop bars are to be installed because 

 Side lights are to be installed at this location. (Crossing is 50 feet or less from the parallel roadway) 

 No side lights will be installed at this location. (Crossing is greater than 50 feet from the parallel roadway)

 AC power service is available at this location 

 AC power service is not available at this location 

A signalized intersection is located ft from crossing. Distance measured from the warning device to the edge of road/shoulder. 

Attach copy of the preemption form

 No signalized intersection at this location 

 Letter to proceed with project development was given to the Railroad Company 

 No letter to proceed with project development was given to the Railroad Company because 

 No yield or stop signs are to be installed by the State because 

Yield signs were recommended by the diagnostic team on an interim basis, per the guidelines in the TMUTCD. The local road 

authority was notified at Diagnostic . will be notified in writing. Yield signs to be installed within 30 days of diagnostic.

Notify TRF/RR when signs are installed 

Stop signs were recommended by the diagnostic team on an interim basis, per the guidelines in the TMUTCD. The local road 

authority was notified at Diagnostic. will be notified in writing. Stop signs to be installed within 30 days of diagnostic.

Notify TRF/RR when signs are installed

 Memo to install signs given to the district 

DIAGNOSTIC TEAM PROJECT INFORMATION 

COUNTY: 

DOT No.: 

CONTROL: 

PROJECT: 

LOCATION: 

RAILROAD: 

MILEPOST: 

Date of Inspection: 

Date Layout Due: 

234 
PRELIMINARY DOCUMENT 

NOT FOR RELEASE PURSUANT TO 23 U.S.C. SECTION 409 

GENERAL NOTES 

1. Signal circuits are designed to give 20 seconds Minimum Warning Time prior to the arrival of the fastest train at this

crossing. Refer to signal circuit layout for total approach time.

2. Constant warning Phase motion C Style /AC-DC circuits are to be used at this location.

Upgrades required; for circuit compatibility.

3. Conduit, fill dirt and crushed cover rock to be furnished in place by the Railroad Company or its Contractor at state’s W10-1 

expense.

4. The Railroad Company or its Contractor will remove the existing 

and dispose of the foundations.

5. 

attached layout and standard sheet and in accordance with the guidelines in the Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic

Control Devices. W10-2 

6. The State or its Contractor will furnish and install or replace the following signs in accordance with the guidelines in the

Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (TMUTCD) and the Standard Highway Sign Designs Manual for

Texas(SHSD): ea.(W10-1), ea.(W10-2), ea.(W10-3), ea.(W10-4), ea.(R15-4).

Additional signs to be added.

7. The State County City agrees to maintain the pavement markings and advance warning signs placed along

the roadways under their jurisdiction in accordance with the guidelines in the Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control W10-3 

Devices and as shown on the layout and standard sheets as acknowledged on the Title Sheet.

8. The Railroad Company or its Contractor shall furnish, install and maintain sign mounting brackets for the report sign

(R15-4) at the States expense.

9. The Railroad Company or its Contractor shall stencil the DOT-AAR numbers on the signal masts facing the adjacent W10-4 roadway in 2” black lettering.

REPORT PROBLEMS 

TO 1-800 -772 - 7677 City agrees to trim and maintain trees and vegetation for adequate visibility of the CROSSING # 123456A 

crossing signals and advance warning signs as acknowledged on the Title Sheet. 

11. The Railroad Company or its Contractor will provide traffic control in accordance with the guidelines in the Texas

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

12. The State Railroad Company or its Contractor will install metal beam guard fence as shown on the layout, at the 

State’s Railroads expense. 

13. The State Railroad Company or its Contractor will install retaining wall as shown on the layout, at the 

State’s Railroads expense. 

14. The Railroad or its Contractor will furnish and install a relay to provide simultaneous advance preemption to

existing traffic signal proposed traffic signal advance flasher. Normally a closed circuit is required

between the control relay of the grade crossing warning device and the traffic signal controller or flasher as stated in

the Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

R15-4

 R15-2 

□ □ □ 8 □ □ □ 

~ 

□ □ □ <& 

~ □ □ □ 

□ lnWKsl 

□ 

□ □ DO NOT 

STOP 

ON 

TRACKS 

R8-8 

ADDITIONAL NOTES 

DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT 

Complete gate assemblies with gate arm 

 Complete cantilever assemblies with foot arm

 Ea. R15-2, ( Tracks) 

12” lamp housing shall be used and equipped with LED’s (light emitting diodes), operated at not less than 8.5 volts 

under normal operating conditions. 

Source: Texas Department of Transportation. 

cross bucks mast flashers cantilevers

The State or its Contractor will furnish and install or replace the appropriate pavement markings as outlined on the

10. The State County 

255 

Figure D-1. State of Texas Department of Transportation Diagnostic Review Form 

235 

E. APPENDIX—PREEMPTION CALCULATION PROCEDURES,

EXAMPLE FROM STATE OF TEXAS 

The following pages are the forms used by Texas DOT for preemption calculation procedures. 

237 
ffllO<I 07/12n017 

RESET 

Texas Department of Transportation fOl'm 2304 

(llev.7/17) L~ 

GUIDE FOR DETERMINING TIME REQUIREMENTS FOR 

TRAFFIC SIGNAL PREEMPTION AT HIGHWAY-RAIL GRADE CROSSINGS 

City I CSJ ,._ _________ _., Date I County i----------4 District ._ ________ _., 

{t1J 

Show North Arrow 

Railroad t------------i Crossing DOT# ,. __________ _, 

Crossh,8 

Street 

Completed by 1'==========-t 

District Approval ._ _________ _. 

Parallel Street Name 

Crossing Street Name 

Railroad Contact 'i============l Phone ~----------~ 

NOTE: After approval by the District, a copy of this form, along with the traffic signal design sheets and the phasing diagrams 

for normal and preempted operation, shall be placed in the traffic signal cabinet. See Section 7 for traffic signal timings. 

SECTION 1: GEOMETRY DATA & DEFAULTS 

ovco 

cso MTCO OVL cs:o . Cll!ar S.l01'3'f" d .st anM {ft) 

MTO) a: M1nin"11.1m uac.k Cle-.)(3(,Ct' dlt,.t.)Oce (fl) 

sao - S1op b.1< s ei b.ld di.~ta:nce {h} 

~ OVL■ 0<-$.1gn vch,clclcngth fhl 

°'"...1.. , ----.e- L""t"---~~r----r,;-.::.::. -:-.::.::.::.::.::.::.::.::.::.::.::.::- I 

8 

l • Quc:\1c:.:,t,.irl ,1,1p di~t~•net:. 

,ll$0 s.top Ii.fl<: d 1~l,)OCC" (fl) 

OVCIJ • O\!SIQn vetilcle dear.ince d1.Uaoce tft) 

OYI • Offset distance to LefHu1n stop bar (ft) 

GEOMETRIC DATA FOR CROSSING 

1. Cle3r stor3ge distance (CSD. feet) ...... 1 . 

2. Minimum track clearance distance (MTCD, feet) . 2. 

3. StOP bar setback distance (SBD, feet) ..... 3. 

4. Width of receiving approach (B, feet) ... 4, 

5. Offset distance of left tum stop bar (Osa feet) 5. 

6. Approach grade % ( O 11 approach 1s on downgrade) . 6. 

7. Angle of tum at Intersection (9 , degrees) .... 7. 

DESIGN VEHICLE DATA 

8. Select Design Vehicle 

O sc11001 Bus D lntem1ediate Truck 

9. Default design vehicle lenglh (feet) .................. , , ..... .... 9. 

a. Add1tionat vehicle length, d needed (feet) . ..... 9a. 

10. Total design vehicle length (DVL. feet) ........................... .. 10. 

11. Centerline turning radius of design vehicle (R, fBtit) .. 11. 

12. Passenger car vehicle length (LV. feel) .... 12. 

..L.. 

0 

0 

8 

0 

0 

0.0 

90 

1$ = Oht:,nd' from curb lio,~ to Cf'ntc-r ot ol'.'ar~ t 

1,m c reooivlr\Q left tums (h) 

G • Aogle of turn (degrees) 

~ 

( nter "(J" If no stop bar Is pre,ent 

[Z] Interstate Semi-Truck O other 

75 8ased on selected Oes19n Vehicle 

0 UGe Otiy ti "Othef" $CIOOted 00 Ot'$gn VehCIC 

75 Sum of Int 9 and 9a 

41 8ased on $eleeted Oes.gn Ve~e 

19 Ot(dvatue 

V 

Page 1 

238 
Page 2 

SECTIO N 2: RIGHT-OF-WAY TRANSFER TIME CALCULATION 

Preempt verification and response lime 

13. Preempt delay dme (seconds) ...... ... ...... ... ...... ... ..•... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. 13. c:I:] 

14. Controller response time to preempt (seconds) ......... .. , ............... .......... 14. c::IC] tlentadwr. 

Fi'mw•• Version: 

15. Preempt verification and response time (seconds): add lines 13 and 14 ......... . m .... 15. ! 

V- 0.0 

Worst-case conflicting vehicle time moybt oclllaltd 

~ 

lo 11ttl lo<II 

16. Minimum green time during right-of-way transfer (seconds) ... . .... ..• ... 16. .-... 17. Other green lime during right-cl-way transfer (seconds) .... .... ............ 17. O 

18. Yellow change time (seconds) ........................ ............. 18. 0 0 

19. Red clearance lime (seconds) . . ............. .......... ..•... ............... 1 9. O O "---==:----------

20. Worst-case confllcllng llehicle time (seconds): add lines 5 16 through 19 ....................... 20. LI _ _.o__. 

Worst-case conflicting pedestrian time Value may ta •cljusted 

~ 

10 me.t tocal 

21 . Minimum walk lime during righl•of-wey transfer condatorc (seconds) ·· ······ 21 ~ Reftt to h1lr1.Jttlons tor peClestl'\ln 22. Pedestrian clearance lime during rlght•of·waytrans1er (seconds) ............ 22. 0 tnnuuon g'-'<l,nc• 

23. Vehlde yellow change time, If not Included on line 22 (seconds) ............ 23. 0.0 

24. Vehide red clearance hme, if nOI inciuded on lino 22 (seconds) ... 24. O O •--==::----------

25. worst-case confl1cllng peclestrian time (seconcls): add lines 21 through 24 ...... ..... ... 25 . ._I _ o._o__, 

Worst-case conflicting vehicle or conlllctlng pedestrian time 

26. :::r::.~:!~~~:"~~e·~ -~:.~'.~i·n·g·~e.~~'.'.·~.'.I.~~.(~~~·'..· ...................................... 26. 0 

27. Right-of-way transfer time (seconds): add lines 15 and 26 ................................................................ 27. ~,--5-0--

SECTION 3: QUEUE CLEARANCE TIME CALCULATION R2Jilj[lli 

28. Are there left-turns towards the tracks? D Yes IZI No 

29. Olstan~ traveled by truci< during left-tum (L TL. feel): ....... .. 29. Ln• nMVU!O 

30. Travel speed o1 left•turmng truck (S..n, mph): ................. .. 30. 10 

_ EqUIIJon: (line4 Dis +lnl tan + + ce required $ lht 12- to clear left-tuming lne 11) Int 29 + 1ruc 31 k from travel 31. 0 litt 10 lanes on track clearance approach (feet): ................ . 

. Add 8 EqUlllon itional : time l(llne required 31 ' 3600) I to clear lefl•tuming 18 truck (lino 30 ' 5280) • 1'1t • from 32 32. 0.0 lhtll) travel lanes on track clearance approach (seconds) ........ .. 

. Worst-case Left Turning Truck tone (seconds): 33 33, 

If line 28 = 'Yes". use line 32; Olhe""'1se Use O ...... ......... ................. ............ ..... .... 

~ L:::::......J 

34. Queue start-up distance, l (feel): add lines 1 through 3 .......... . .. .... ... 34 . I .... ____,8'----:1 __ _ 

35. Time required tor design vehicle tosterl moving (seconds): calculale es 2+(L•20) ........ 35. ! 2.4 

36. Design vehicte ctearence distance, DVCD (feet): add lines 2, 3 and 10...... 36. j 83 I 

37. nme for design vehide to accelente through the DVCD (seconds). l~I terrain ........... 37. 1-..:.12.:a·..:.1--l 

38. Factor to account for slower a.cceteration on uphill gn,de ...... .......... 38. f---1,.,_.0,cO:c.._-1 

_ Time for design vehcle to accelerate through DVCD (seconds), adjusted for grade: . 39 multip 12 1 ly lines 37 and 38 .................................... ... ......... ..................................... 39 . ._---4---~ 

40. Queue clearance limo (seconds): add lines 33, 35 1nd 39 ................................................... 40. 14.5 I 

SECTION 4: MAXIMUM PREEMPTION TIME CALCULATION Remarks 

41. Right-of-waytransfertime (seconds): line 27 ....... . .. ................ • 41. rn·O 

42. Queue clearance time (seconds): line 40 ... . ......... ......... .. . ... 42. 14.5 

43. Desired minimum separation time (seconds) ...... .................................. 43. 4 0 

44. Maximum preemption lime for Queue Clearance (seconds): add Imes 41 lhrc,ugh 43 ... «.1 23.5 

239 
5: SUFFICIENT WARNING TIME CHECK 

45. Required minimum lime. MT (seconds): per regulations 

46. Clearance lime. CT (seconds): (line 2-35) / 10 

(rounded up lo nearest second) ............................................ . 

45.pq 

46. ~ 

47. 

48. 

49. 

Total minimum warning lime, MWT, needed (seconds): 

add lines 45 and 46 (excludes buffer lime and equipment response lime).. 47 L.....:......J ~ 

Required aCJvance preemption time (APT) ttom railroad (seconds): 48 subtract line 47 lrom line 44, round up lo nearest lull second. enter O if less than O ••••..••. ••.•..•..••....•..••.......•...•... 

. ~ 

APT currently pr(llllded by railroad (seconds). Enter •o• 11 new crossing or signal .. .. ... . .. ... . .. . . ............. 49. 0 

If the required advance preemption time (fine 48) Is greater than the amount of advance preemption time currently provided by 

the railroad (fine 49), additional warning time must be requested from the railroad. Alternatively, the maximum preemption time 

(fine 48) may be decreased after performing an englneertng study to Investigate the possibility of reducing the values on lines 13, 

16, 17, 21, 22 and 43. 

~ 

SECTION 6: TRACK CLEARANCE GREEN TIME CALCULATION (If NO GATE DOWN CIRCUIT PROVIDED) 

Preompl Trap Chack 

50. Warning Time Variability (Select One) 

D Consistent Warning Times fZI Low Warning Time Variability O High Warning Time Variability 

51. 

52. 

APT 

Multipl

required 

ier !or max

or p

imum 

r(llllded 

APT 

(seconds

due 10 

)

train 

: maximum 

handling 

of 

.. 

Line 48 

. . . . 

or Line 49....... 51. 

52. 

~ 

1 25 

53. Maximum APT (seconds): multiply line 51 and 52 .. 53 5 O 

54. Minimum duration for lhe track clearance green inte.:,;;;i"(~~~~~~·) .... ····:· 54. 15 

soo 1nsuuct1ons ror d<.iails. 

55. Track Clearance Green Time to avoid Preempt Trep (seconds): add lines 53 and 54 .... 55. I 20.0 

Cl earing of Clear Storage Distance 

56. Time waiting on left-tum truck (seconds): line 33 ......... ............ .•....... ............ ... ...... . 56. 1-- 0_._0_ -t 

57. Time required for design vehicle to start moving (seconds): line 35 ... ... ............. ,.... _ _ .. _ .. ._ . _. 5 __ 7_.+-__ 2__ .4 _ _, 

58. Design vehicle clearance distance (DVCD, feel): line 36 ... ... ......... ....... ... 58. 83 

If CSD ~ DVL, you must cle:,r the design vehicle through the entire CSD during the tr:,ffic c/e:,r:,nce ph:,se; however, if CSD > 

DVL, you should consider providing enough time to clear the design vehicle from the crossing. 

Is the clear storage distance (CSD) less than or equal lo the design vehicle length (DVL)? 

!ZI YES. The design vehicle MUST clea r through the entire CSD. (CSD will be entered in Line 59). 

D NO. The design vehicle may clear th rough a portion of the CSD. 

Do you want to clear the design vehicle through the entire CSD? 

!ZIYES. Clear the entire CSD. (CSD will be entered in line 59). 

D NO. Clear the crossing ONLY. (DVL will be entered in Line 59). 

59. Portion of CSD to clear during track clearance phase (feel) 59. 1,_ __ o_--< 

60. Design vehicle relocation distance (DVRD, feet): add lines 58 and 59 ...... .. 60. 1~_8_3_--t----, 

61. Time required to accelerate design vehicle through DVRD (seconds), level terrain: ........ 61. 1--'1"'2"-.1'--t 

62. Factor to account tor slower acceleration on uphill grade 62. 1--'1-'-.0"0'--t 

63. Time required to accelerate design vehicle through DVRD (seconds), adjusted for 63. 12

_

1 grade: multiply lines 61 and 62 ...... ...... .. .. ................. . 

64. Time to clear portion of clear storage distance (seconds): add lines 56. 57 and 63 .......... 64. 14.5 I 

65. Track clearance green interval (seconds): maximum of lines 55 or 64, round up to nearest full second......... 65 . ._I __ 2_0 _ _. 

Maximum Duration of Track Clearance Green after gates are dow1 (In absence of a gate down circuit) 

66. Total time to complete track clearance green (seconds): line 27 + line 65 ................. .... 66. ~ 

67_ ~p~~~~eM~::~:::~.~'.~.d~ ~ .. (.~~~~~.d~): .. ~ .b".'.'.~.~-~~~~~~~.'.'.'.'.".'..~~~.~4......... ..... ......... ... 67

68. Maximum Duration of Track Clearance Green after gates are down (seconds): Line 66 • Line 67 

_ 

...

~ 

............... 68. I ~__ 7_~ 

Page 3 

240 
SECTION 7: SUMMARY OF CONTROLLER PREEMPTION SETTINGS Remarks 

~~: ~~:::; ~;:/;~;~n(~~c~;d~)· ···"··"·"····_'_'''_'''_'_·_·_· ·_·_··· __ ·_·_··_': ,·:.'.'_''_'_'_''_'_'_'_''_'_·_' ~~: ffi Default Va1ue 

fromUne-13 

Riaht of wav Transfer Phase 71. Minimum Green lnlerval (seconds) 

72. Pedestrian Walk Interval (seconds) ...... 

73. Pedestria n Clearance Interval (Flashing "DON'T WALK", seconds) . 

74. Yellow Change Interval (seconds) .................................................... .. 

75. All Red venIc1e Clearance (seconds) . . .............. ............. .. 

7721.. 1 0 

73. 0 

74, 0.0 

75. 0.0 

Remarks 

r,om Ll'l• 15 

Frorn l11a 21 

1-romL•io 21 

rrorn une 18 

Fromlll'lf!i 19 

Track Cleenmce Phase Remarks 76. Green Interval (seconds) (in the absence ol gate down circuit) ............... .. 

77. Green Interval (seconds) with gale dawn circuit ................................... . 

78. Yelow Change Interval (seconds) 

79. All Red Vehicle Clearance (seconds) . 

76.mO 77. 15 

78. 0.0 

79. 0 .0 

From Lino 65 

From line 0 

Fromltn.:t 18 

Fmnllno 19 

Exit Phes~ Remarks 

80. Dwell/Cycle Minimum Green Time (seconds) ...... ............ ... ................ .. 

81. Yellow Change Interval (seconds) .......................... ...... ................... .. 

82. All Red Vehicle Clearance (seconds) . ........................ . 

80.§§ 81. 0.0 

82. 0.0 

D81oun. Veluo 

rom Lino 18 

F,omL1ne, 19 

Figure E-1. Texas DOT—Guide for Determining Time Requirements for Traffic Signal 

Preemption at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings 

Please visit this website for the original forms:

http://www.txdot.gov/txdoteforms/GetForm?formName=/2304.pdf&appID=/TRF&status=/

reportError.jsp&configFile=WFServletConfig.xml

Download a PDF file of Texas Department of Transportation— 

Guide for determining time requirements for traffic signal 

preemption at highway-rail grade crossings: appeniform.pdf

To view PDF files, you can use the Adobe® Reader®. 

241 

REFERENCES 

1. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. (2009). Washington, DC: FHWA. https://mutcd.

fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/mutcd2009r1r2edition.pdf, last accessed August 20, 2018.

2. Seyfried, R. K., P.E., PTOE (2013). Traffic Control Devices Handbook (2nd Edition).

Washington, DC: ITE.

3. Proposed Recommended Practice for Preemption of Traffic Signals Near Railroad Crossings.

(2006, updated 2019). Washington, DC: ITE.

4. Benefit‐Cost Analysis Guidance for Discretionary Grant Programs, Office of the Secretary,

US DOT, Washington, DC 2018.

5. 49 CFR Part 222—Use of Locomotive Horns at Public Highway-Rail Grade Crossings.

6. 23 CFR 625.4—Design Standards for Highways. (Washington, DC, October 2018).

7. Automatic Train Control and Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement System; Northeast

Corridor Railroads. (July 22, 1998). Washington, DC: Government Publishing Office

(GPO). Retrieved from: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR‐1998‐07‐22/html/98‐19431.htm,

last accessed August 18, 2018.

8. Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Guidelines for High-Speed Passenger Rail (Version 1.0).

(November 2009). Washington, DC, FRA, Office of Railroad Safety and Office of Railroad

Development. Retrieved from: https://www.fra.dot.gov/Elib/Document/15140), Page 12–13,

last accessed August 17, 2018.

9. Uniform Vehicle Code, Millennium Edition, National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws

and Ordinances (Washington, DC 2000). Retrieved from: http://iamtraffic.org/wp‐content/

uploads/2013/01/UVC2000.pdf, last accessed October 16, 2018.

10. Research Results: Crossing Consolidation Guidelines, RR 09-12. (July 2009). Washington,

DC: FRA. Retrieved from: https://www.fra.dot.gov/Elib/Document/2002, last accessed

August 20, 2018.

11. 2013 Compilation of State Laws and Regulations Affecting Highway-Rail Grade Crossings,

Sixth Edition. USDOT, FRA (Washington, DC, February 2013). Retrieved from: http://www.

fra.dot.gov/Elib/Document/3622, last accessed, October 16, 2018.

12. Highway Rail Crossing Elimination and Consolidation, American Association of State

Highway and Transportation Officials, Standing Committee on Rail Transportation,

(Washington, DC, March 1995). Retrieved from: https://trid.trb.org/view/573825, last

accessed October 16, 2018.

13. Consolidating Railroad Crossings: On Track for Safety in North Carolina. (2000). North

Carolina: NCDOT, Rail Division, Engineering and Safety Branch. Retrieved from: https://

www.ncdot.gov/divisions/rail/Pages/safety-education.aspx, last accessed August 20, 2018.

243 
14. Korve Engineering, Inc. San Gabriel Valley Grade Crossings Study, San Gabriel Valley

Council of Governments. (Pasadena, CA, January 1997).

15. Alameda-Corridor East Project website Alameda Corridor-East Construction Authority

(n.d.). Last accessed August 24, 2018, from http://www.theaceproject.org/

16. BNSF’s Campaign to Improve Safety at Grade Crossings. Progressive Railroading (New

York, NY, January 2006). Retrieved from: https://www.progressiverailroading.com/bnsf_

railway/article/BNSFs-campaign-to-improve-safety-at-grade-crossings--31830, last accessed

October 6, 2018.

17. Accidents that Shouldn’t Happen, A Report of the Grade Crossing Safety Task Force to

Secretary Federico Pena, March 1, 1996. USDOT, Executive Summary.

18. Sobanjo, John O. (May 2006). Design Guidelines for Highway Roadway Grade Crossing

Profiles in Florida, Florida State University, FL.

19. Part III, Box 2E of the USDOT Crossing Inventory Form. USDOT/FRA, Office of Railroad

Safety. (Washington, DC, July 2016). Retrieved from https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/

L16201, last accessed August 20, 2018.

20. Federal Highway Administration, Safety website, Roadway Departure, Clear Zones. USDOT/

FHWA (Washington, DC n.d.) Retrieved from: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/

countermeasures/safe_recovery/clear_zones, last accessed October 7, 2018.

21. Illinois Administrative Code Title 92, Section 1535.205—right-of-way to be kept clear.

(December 2005). Des Plaines, IL: ICC. Retrieved from: ftp://www.ilga.gov/jcar/

admincode/092/092015350C02050R.html, last accessed August 20, 2018.

22. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 7th Edition. American Association of

State Highway Transportation Officials. (Washington, DC, 2018).

23. Roadside Design Guide, 4th Edition, American Association of State and Highway

Transportation Officials (Washington, DC, 2011).

24. Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware, 2nd Edition, American Association of State and

Highway Transportation Officials (Washington, DC, 2016).

25. Roadway Lighting, American National Standards Institute/Illumination Engineering Society

RP-8-14 (New York, NY, 2014).

26. Manual for Railway Engineering. (Current Edition 2018). Lanham, MD: AREMA. Retrieved

from: http://www.arema.org/AREMA_MBRR/Store/MRE_TOC.aspx., last accessed August

20, 2018.

27. Train and Truck Crash on Railroad Right-of-Way and Subsequent Fire, National

Transportation Safety Board Highway Accident Brief, Accident Number HWY15MH006

(Washington, DC, December 2016).

244 
28. Richards, Stephen H., Heathington, K.W. (1990). Assessment of Warning Time Needs at

Railroad‐Highway Grade Crossings with Active Traffic Control, Washington, DC, TRB 1254.

29. Communications & Signals Manual, American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-ofWay Association (Lanham, MD, 2018.)

30. Use of Traffic Channelizing Devices at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings. Research Results

RR 10-03, USDOT, FRA (Washington, DC, June 2010). Retrieved from https://www.fra.dot.

gov/Elib/Document/137, last accessed October 17, 2018.

31. Korve, Hans W., Brent D. Ogden, Joaquin T. Siques, D. Mansel, et al. (2001). Light Rail

Service: Pedestrian and Vehicular Safety, Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 69,

National Academy Press. Washington, DC.

32. Appendix A to 49 CFR Part 211—Statement of Agency Policy Concerning Waivers Related

to Shared Use of Trackage or Rights-of-Way by Light Rail and Conventional Operations.

33. Light Rail Vehicle Collisions with Vehicles at Signalized Intersections, Kelley Klaver

Pecheux and Harry Saporta, Transit Cooperative Research Program Synthesis 79,

(Washington, DC, 2009), Pg. 33.

34. Korve, Hans W., Jose I. Farran, Douglas M. Mansel, et al. (1996). Integration of Light Rail

Transit into City Streets. Washington, DC: TRB Cooperative Research Program, Report 17

Retrieved from: http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/153829.aspx, last accessed August

21, 2018.

35. Americans with Disabilities Act website, (n.d.). Retrieved August 21, 2018 from:

https://www.ada.gov/

36. Korve Engineering et al. Audible Signals for Pedestrian Safety in LRT Environments,

Research Results Digest 84, Transportation Research Board (2007).

37. Guidelines and Standards. United States Access Board. (Washington, DC July 2011).

Retrieved from https://www.access‐board.gov/guidelines‐and‐standards/, last accessed

October 18, 2018.

38. Detectable Warnings Update, United States Access Board. (Washington, DC) https://www.

access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/streets-sidewalks/public-rights-of-way/guidanceand-research/detectable-warnings-update, last accessed October 17, 2018.

39. Compilation of Pedestrian Safety Devices in Use at Grade Crossings. USDOT/

FRA (Washington, DC, January 2008). Retrieved from https://www.fra.dot.gov/Elib/

Document/1370, last accessed October 17, 2018.

40. Guidance on Pedestrian Safety at or Near Passenger Stations. USDOT/FRA.

(Washington, DC, April 2012).

41. Gabree, S & Chase, Stephanie & daSilva, Marco. (2013). Effect of Gate Skirts on Pedestrian

Behavior at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings. Washington, DC: FRA.

245 
42. Engineering Design for Pedestrian Safety at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Report. (2016).

Cambridge, MA: Volpe National Transportation Systems Center.

43. Highway Safety Benefit-Cost Analysis Guide, FHWA-SA-18-001. USDOT/FHWA

(February 2018).

44. Highway Safety Benefit Cost Analysis Tool, USDOT/FHWA (Washington, DC, n.d.).

Retrieved from: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/docs/bcatool030118_finalv2.0.xlsm, last

accessed October 17, 2018.

45. Farr, E. H. (1987). Rail-Highway Crossing Resource Allocation Procedure, User’s Guide,

Third Edition. Washington, DC: FRA, Office of Safety Analysis.

46. FRA Web Accident Prediction System. USDOT/FRA, Office of Safety Analysis.

(Washington, DC, n.d.). Retrieved from https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/webaps/, last accessed:

October 17, 2018.

47. GradeDec.Net—System for Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Investment Analysis. USDOT/

FRA (Washington, DC, n.d.). Retrieved from https://gradedec.fra.dot.gov, last accessed

October 17, 2018.

48. GradeDec Crossing Evaluation Tool Reference Manual (FRA, 2014). Retrieved from:

https://www/fra.dot.gov.eLib/details/L03769

49. Highway Safety Improvement Program Manual. (January 2010). Washington, DC: USDOT/

FHWA. Retrieved from: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/resources/fhwasa09029/, last

accessed August 20, 2018.

50. Data is available through 2017. Retrieved from: https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/695372.pdf

51. Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act “Fast Act” website USDOT/FHWA.

(n.d.). Retrieved August 21, 2018, from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/factsheets/

railwayhwycrossingsfst.cfm

52. 23 CFR 646.210—Classification of Projects and Railroad Share of the Cost. (2004).

Washington, DC: FHWA. Retrieved from: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/CFR‐2004‐

title23-vol1/CFR-2004-title23-vol1-sec646-210, last accessed August 21, 2018.

53. 23 CFR 646.212 Federal Share. (2004). Washington, DC: FHWA. Retrieved from: https://

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/CFR-2004-title23-vol1/CFR-2004-title23-vol1-sec646-210

54. Strategies for Improving the Project Agreement Process Between Highway Agencies and

Railroads, (n.d.). Washington, DC: USDOT/FHWA. Retrieved from: https://www.fhwa.dot.

gov/goshrp2/Solutions/Renewal/R16/RailroadDOT_Mitigation_Strategies, last accessed

August 21, 2018. A download link to the full document is available at http://www.trb.org/

Publications/Blurbs/164283.aspx

246 
55. Technical Bulletin S-12-0 1, Guidance Regarding the Appropriate Process for the Inspection

of Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Warning System Pre-emption Interconnections Highway

Traffic Signals. (July 2012). Washington, DC: USDOT/FRA. Retrieved from: http://ctcinc.

com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/FRA-TB-S-12-01-Pre-emption-Inspections.pdf, last

accessed August 21, 2018.

56. Notice of Safety Advisory; Signal Recording Devices for Highway-Rail Grade Crossing

Active Warning Systems that are Interconnected with Highway Traffic Signal Systems, Safety

Advisory 2010-02, USDOT, FRA, published in Federal Register Vol. 75, No. 190

(Washington, DC, October 1, 2010).

57. Moriarty, Kevin, Bendyk, Joshua, McGee, Hugh, Herr, Joseph, Byrne, Terry, and Dixon,

Matthew. (October, 2012). Recording Devices for Interconnected Grade Crossing and

Intersection Signal Systems: An Informational Report. Washington, DC: USDOT/FHWA.

Retrieved from: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/xings/recording_device/, last accessed

August 21, 2018.

58. Rutter, Allan, Morgan, Curtis, Warner Jeff, Graves, Brett. (November 2016). Highway-Railway

Grade Crossing Action Plan and Project Prioritization Noteworthy Practices Guide. Washington,

DC: FHWA. Retrieved from file://ldtfp01/Data/Project/LDT_TPTO/097199005%20‐

%20US%20DOT%20GC%20Handbook/Technical/Background%20Information/16‐0040L‐

HighwayRailCrossingPlan_22nov16_10.pdf, last accessed August 23, 2018.

59. 49 CFR 234.209—Interference with Normal Functioning of System.

60. Frequently Asked Questions, Surface Transportation Board website. Retrieved from: https://

www.stb.gov/stb/faqs.html, last accessed October 17, 2018.

61. Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Guidelines for High-Speed Passenger Rail (Version 1.0).

(November 2009). Washington, DC: FRA, Office of Railroad Safety and Office of Railroad

Development. Retrieved from: https://www.fra.dot.gov/Elib/Document/15140), Page 12–13,

last accessed August 17, 2018.

62. Intelligent Transportation System Architecture and Standards. (n.d.). Washington, DC:

USDOT/FHWA. Retrieved from: https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/its_arch_imp/policy_1.htm, last

accessed August 22, 2018.

63. 1570–2002—Standard for the Interface Between the Rail Subsystem and the Highway

Subsystem at a Highway Rail Intersection. (2003, Reaffirmed 2008). New York, NY: IEEE.

Retrieved from: https://www.standards.its.dot.gov/Factsheets/Factsheet/79, last accessed

August 22, 2018.

64. Quiet Zone Calculator, FRA website. Retrieved from https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/quiet/

login.aspx, last accessed October 17, 2018.

65. Guide to the Quiet Zone Establishment Process. (September 2013), Washington, DC: FRA.

Retrieved from: https://www.fra.dot.gov/Elib/Document/3403, last accessed August 22, 2018.

247 
66. Safety & Security, Chicago Transit Authority website. Retrieved from https://www.

transitchicago.com/safety/#Campaigns, last accessed October 17, 2018.

67. Riding Safety, New York MTA website, retrieved from http://web.mta.info/safety/, last

accessed October 17, 2018.

68. “Safetyville” Video Playlist, Los Angeles County Metro Metropolitan Transportation

Authority, https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLli3M8RkN4llxqA4WptrGLP4m7CX_

r5Lc, last accessed October 18, 2018.

69. Police Coordinate Special Railroad Crossing Enforcement Operations. (n.d.). Stevens Point, WI:

WSAW TV. Retrieved from: http://www.wsaw.com/content/news/Police‐coordinate‐special‐

railroad-crossing-enforcement-operation--481523871.html, last accessed August 22, 2018.

70. Sposato, S., Bien-Aime, P., & Chaudhary, M. Safety of highway-rail grade crossings: Public

education and enforcement Research study, Final Report (Report No. DOT/FRA/

ORD-06/27, DOT‐VNTSC‐FRA‐06‐03), (Cambridge, MA December 2006). Retrieved from:

https://www.fra.dot.gov/Elib/Document/121, last accessed October 17, 2018.

71. Railroad Facts, 2017 Edition, page 47. Washington, DC: Association of American Railroads.

72. U.S. Highway Statistics, Travel Lane Miles. (June 29, 2018). Washington, DC: FHWA,

Office of Highway Policy.

73. Railroad Safety Statistics Preliminary Annual Report, Table 9-2. (July 2015). Washington,

DC: USDOT, FRA. Retrieved from: https://www.bts.gov/content/highway‐rail‐grade‐

crossings-type, last accessed August 22, 2018.

74. Safety Data Statistic of Railroad Crossing Deaths, Injuries, & Incidents from 2008–2017.

(n.d.). Washington, DC: USDOT, FRA.

75. Highway Crossing Accident/Incident and Inventory Bulletin (No.18 Calendar Year 1995).

(1996). Washington, DC: FRA.

76. Traffic Safety Facts 2015: A Compilation of Motor Vehicle Crash Data from the Fatality

Analysis Reporting System and the General Estimates System. (2015). Washington,

DC: USDOT/NHTSA. Retrieved from: https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/

ViewPublication/812384, last accessed August 22, 2018.

77. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. website—(nd), Washington, DC. Retrieved

August 22, 2018, from https://www.nhtsa.gov/

78. Accident/Incident Data Query. FRA.—(n.d.). Retrieved August 22, 2018, from

https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/officeofsafety/publicsite/Query/CasualitiesReport.aspx

79. Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1987, Public Law 100-17, 101 Stat. 171.

80. Fact Sheets on Highway Provisions, Highway Safety Improvement Program. (n.d.).

Washington, DC: FHWA. Retrieved from: www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/factsheets/hsip.htm,

last accessed August 22, 2018.

248 
81. 23 U.S. Code § 130—Railway-highway crossings. (January 2012). Retrieved from: http://

uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC‐prelim‐title23‐section130&num=0&editi

on=prelim, last accessed October 12, 2018.

82. Chapter I—Highway Safety Part 924—Highway Safety Improvement Program, Section §

924.9—Planning. (April 2016), Washington, DC: FHWA. Retrieved from: https://www.gpo.gov/

fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?sr=952&originalSearch=&st=fur&ps=10&na=&se=&sb=

re&timeFrame=&dateBrowse=&govAuthBrowse=&collection=&historical=false&packageId=

CFR-2016-title23-vol1&fromState=&bread=true&granuleId=CFR-2016-title23-vol1-

sec924‐9&collectionCode=CFR&browsePath=Title+23%2FChapter+I%2FSubchapter+ J%

2FPart+924%2FSection+%26sect%3B+924.9&collapse=true&fromBrowse=true, last

accessed August 22, 2018.

83. Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act “Fast Act” website USDOT/FHWA.

(n.d.). Retrieved August 21, 2018, from: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/factsheets/

railwayhwycrossingsfst.cfm

84. National Transportation Safety Board. NTSB Recommends Training, Operating Guidelines

following Glendale, California Grade Crossing Accident. November 27, 2001. Accessed

online: https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press‐releases/Pages/NTSB_Recommends_Training_

Operating_Guidelines_following_Glendale_California_Grade_Crossing_Accident.aspx

85. Highway-Rail Crossing Surfaces. Washington, DC: National Cooperative Highway

Research Program Synthesis of Practice 250. (1997). Washington, DC: NCHRP.

86. Uniform Vehicle Code and Model Traffic Ordinance. (2005). Evanston, IL: National

Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances, Evanston, IL. http://iamtraffic.org/wp‐

content/uploads/2013/01/UVC2000.pdf

87. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 7th Edition. American Association

of State Highway Transportation Officials. (Washington, DC, 2018).

88. United States, National Transportation Safety Board. Railroad/Highway Grade Crossing

Accidents Involving Trucks Transporting Bulk Hazardous Materials, A Special Study, Report

NTSB-HZM-81-2. (September 1981). Washington, DC: NTSB.

89. 49 CFR 229.125. Headlights and Auxiliary Lights.

90. Research Results: Alerting Lights on Locomotives. (July 2007). Washington, DC: USDOT/

FRA. Retrieved from: https://www.fra.dot.gov/Elib/Document/2098, last accessed August

23, 2018.

91. 49 CFR Part 222.21—Subpart B—Use of Locomotive Horns. 49 CFR 229.129—

Locomotive Horn.

92. 49 CFR 224. Reflectorization of Rail Freight Rolling Stock.

249 
93. Federal-Aid Policy Guide (FAPG) 23 CFR 924.3—Code of Federal Regulations (and NonRegulatory Supplements). (2016). Washington, DC: FHWA. Retrieved from: https://www.

fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/fapgtoc.htm, last accessed August 23, 2018.

94. 49 CFR Part 234, Subpart F—Highway-Rail and Pathway Crossing Inventory Reporting.

(January 2015). Retrieved from: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/CFR‐2017‐title49‐

vol4/CFR-2017-title49-vol4-part234-appB, last accessed October 12, 2018.

95. Section § 390.5: Definitions (2017). Washington, DC: FMSCA. Retrieved from:

https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi‐bin/retrieveECFR?gp=1&ty=HTML&h=L&mc=true&=

PART&n=pt49.5.390, last accessed August 23, 2018.

96. Sperry, B.R., B. Naik, and J.E. Warner. (2017). Current Issues in Highway-Railroad Grade

Crossing Hazard Ranking and Project Development. Transportation Research Record:

Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2608, pp. 19–26, Washington, DC.

97. Sperry, B.R., B. Naik, and J.E. Warner. (May 2016). Evaluation of Grade Crossing Hazard

Ranking Models. Report No. FHWA/OH-2016/10, Ohio University, Athens, OH.

98. Farr, E. H. (1987). Rail-Highway Crossing Resource Allocation Procedure—User’s Guide,

Third Edition. Federal Railroad Administration, Report No. DOT/FRA/OS-87/10,

Washington, DC.

99. GradeDec.Net Crossing Evaluation Tool Reference Manual. (2014). Washington, DC: FRA.

Retrieved from: https://www.fra.dot.gov/Elib/Document/14852, last accessed August 23, 2018.

100.Highway Safety Engineering Studies Procedural Guide. (November 1991). Washington,

DC: FHWA.

101.A User’s Guide to Positive Guidance. (June 1977). Washington, DC: FHWA, Office of Operations.

102.Manual of Transportation Engineering Studies. (1994). Washington, DC: Institute of

Transportation Engineers (ITE).

250 

FHWA-SA-18-040 

FRA-RRS-18-001