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 information 

contained in this document. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

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 this document.

The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and 

accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the 

U.S. Department of Transportation.

Quality Assurance Statement

The Federal Highway Administration provides high-quality information to serve Government, 

industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are 

used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA 

periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality 

improvement.
 

Technical Report Documentation Page 

1. Report No. 

FHWA-SA-07-010 

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

5. Report Date 

August 2007 

4. Title and Subtitle 

Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook - Revised Second 

Edition 2007 

6. Performing Organization Code 

7. Author(s)* 

Brent D. Ogden, Korve Engineering, a Division of DMJM+Harris 

8. Performing Organization Report No. 

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 

Institute of Transportation Engineers 

1099 14th Street, NW, Suite 300 West 

Washington, DC 20005

11. Contract or Grant No. 

DTFH61-00-C-0003

13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

September 2004 to July 2007 

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 

Office of Safety Design 

Federal Highway Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

FHWA/HSSD

15. Supplementary Notes: 

FHWA Contracting Officer’s Task Order Manager: Guan Xu; ITE Project Manager: Lisa M. Fontana 

Tierney; FHWA Editor: Bonny Falk; Technical Editor: Clare L. James 

Notable contributions were made by: Kurt Anderson, Anita Boucher, Peggy Baer, George W. Black, Jr., 

Bill Browder, Rick Campbell, Anya A. Carroll, Debra Chappell, James Cheeks, Fred Coleman III, 

Andy Davis, R.W. Eck, Deborah Freund, Jim Gibson, Brian F. Gilleran, Joseph Glinsky Jr., Gerri Hall, 

Darin Kosmak, Tom R. Lancaster, Charles R. (Ray) Lewis II, Phillip R. Poichuk, Ron Ries, Amir 

Rizavi, Peter Rusch, Eugene R. Russell, Robert K. Seyfried, John T. Sharkey, Travis Tinken, Thomas 

P. Woll, and Tom R. Zeinz. 

16. Abstract 

The purpose of the Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook – Revised Second Edition is to 

provide a single reference document on prevalent and best practices as well as adopted standards 

relative to highway-rail grade crossings. The handbook provides general information on highway-rail 

crossings; characteristics of the crossing environment and users; and the physical and operational 

improvements that can be made at highway-rail grade crossings to enhance the safety and operation of 

both highway and rail traffic over crossing intersections. The guidelines and alternative improvements 

presented in this handbook are primarily those that have proved effective and are accepted nationwide. 

This handbook supersedes the Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, published in September 

1986. This update includes a compendium of materials that were included in the previous version of the 

handbook, supplemented with new information and regulations that were available at the time of the 

update. Updates were drawn from the current versions of relevant legislation, policy memoranda, 

Federal Register notices, and regulatory actions.

17. Key Words 

Grade Crossing, Railroad, Traffic Control, 

Crossing Surfaces, Crossing Safety 

18. Distribution Statement 

No restrictions. This document is available to the 

public through the National Technical Information 

Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161. 

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 

 Unclassified 

20. Security Classif. (of this page) 

Unclassified 

21. No. of Pages 

324 

22. Price 

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

ii

SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS 

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol 

LENGTH

in inches 25.4 millimeters mm 

ft feet 0.305 meters m 

yd yards 0.914 meters m 

mi miles 1.61 kilometers km 

AREA 

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 Celsius oC

or (F-32)/1.8

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) o

C Celsius 1.8C+32 Fahrenheit oF

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 is the symbol for th International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380. e

(Revised March 2003)

.
iii

Table of Contents

6. Enforcement Study..................................................71

D. Systems Approach ...........................................................72

E. References ........................................................................74

IV Identification of Alternatives....................... 75

A. Existing Laws, Rules, Regulations, and Policies ..............75

B. Elimination ......................................................................76

C. Grade Separation ............................................................77

D. Highway and Railroad Relocation ................................77

E. Closure..............................................................................78

1. Closure Programs ..................................................80

2. Crossing Consolidation and Safety Programs.....81

F. Abandoned Crossings ......................................................82

G. New Crossings..................................................................83

H. Passive Traffic Control Devices ....................................83

1. Signs.........................................................................84

2. Pavement Markings................................................95

I. Active Traffic Control Devices ........................................97

1. Flashing Light Signals ...........................................99

2. Cantilevered Flashing Light Signals ..................100

3. Supplemental Flashing Light Signals ................102

4. Light-Emitting Diode Flashing Light

Signals....................................................................102

5. Automatic Gates ...................................................103

6. Four-Quadrant Gates ...........................................105

7. Use of Channelization with Gates ......................106

8. Barrier Gate ..........................................................110

9. Warning Bell..........................................................110

10. Wayside Horn System ........................................110

11. Active Advance Warning Sign ...........................112

12. “Second Train Coming” Active Warning 

Sign .......................................................................113

13. Active Turn Restriction Signs...........................113

14. New Traffic Signals ............................................113

15. Preemption of Traffic Signals ...........................114

16. Train Detection...................................................114

PREEMPTION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS NEAR 

RAILROAD CROSSINGS .........................................115

17. Pre-Signals ..........................................................129

18. Queue Prevention Strategies.............................134

J. Pedestrian and Bicycle Considerations ......................136

K. Roundabouts .................................................................136

L. Site and Operational Improvements ...........................136

1. Removing Obstructions........................................136

2. Crossing Geometry ..............................................137

3. Illumination ...........................................................141

4. Shielding Supports for Traffic Control Devices 141

M. Crossing Surfaces ........................................................141

N. Removal of Grade Separation Structures...................142

O. References .....................................................................143

V Selection of Alternatives ............................. 145

A. Technical Working Group Guidance on Traffic Control 

Devices—Selection Criteria and Procedure .............145

Technical Working Group Guidance..........146

1. Minimum Devices ..............................................146

2. Minimum Widths ................................................146

3. Passive—Minimum Traffic Control 

 Applications ........................................................146

I Overview ............................................................. 1

A. Background ...........................................................................1

1. Introduction to Highway-Rail Grade Crossings ......1

2. Safety and Operations at Highway-Rail Grade 

Crossings ......................................................................2

B. Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Programs ...........................6

C. Responsibilities at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings..............11

1. Fundamental Issues .................................................11

2. Government Agency Responsibility and

Involvement................................................................13

3. Railroads ....................................................................17

D. Legal Considerations Regarding Highway-Rail Grade 

Crossings .............................................................................18

1. Background ................................................................18

2. Tort Liability and Standards....................................21

E. References ...........................................................................22

II Components of a Highway-Rail Grade

Crossing.......................................................... 25

A. The Highway Component..................................................25

1. Driver ........................................................................25

2. Vehicle .......................................................................27

3. Pedestrians ...............................................................31

4. Roadway ...................................................................32

5. Traffic Control Devices ............................................33

B. Railroad Components .......................................................34

1. Train ........................................................................34

QUIET ZONE RULE SUMMARY ..........................37

Overview ..................................................................37

Requirement to Sound the Locomotive Horn ......38

Creation of Quiet Zones.........................................38

Maintenance of Pre-Rule Quiet Zones .................39

Creation of New Quiet Zones ................................39

Length of Quiet Zones............................................40

Supplementary and Alternative Safety 

Measures .................................................................40

Recognition of the Automated Wayside Horn......40

Special Circumstances...........................................41

Other Provisions .....................................................41

2. Track .......................................................................43

3. Signaling..................................................................45

C. References ........................................................................45

III Assessment of Crossing Safety and Operation..47

A. Collection and Maintenance of Data .............................47

1. U.S. Department of Transportation Grade

Crossing Inventory..................................................47

2. Grade Crossing Collision Data...............................51

B. Hazard Indices and Accident Prediction 

Formulae............................................................................54

1. Hazard Index ...........................................................54

2. U.S. Department of Transportation Accident 

Prediction Model .....................................................55

C. Engineering Study............................................................62

1. Diagnostic Team Study Method .............................62

2. Traffic Conflict Technique......................................70

3. Collision Study.........................................................71

4. Traffic Study ............................................................71

5. Near-Hit Reports .....................................................71

Table of Contents
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

iv

4. Active ..................................................................148

5. Closure ................................................................150

6. Grade Separation ..............................................151

7. New Crossings ...................................................152

8. Traffic Control Device Selection Procedure.........153

B. Guidance on STOP and YIELD Signs ..........................155

C. Canadian Research on Cost Effectiveness .................155

D. Economic Analysis Procedures ...................................155

1. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis ...............................157

2. Benefit-Cost Ratio ...............................................158

3. Net Annual Benefit ...............................................158

E. Resource Allocation Procedure ..................................161

F. Federal Railroad Administration GradeDec 

Software ..........................................................................163

G. References .....................................................................165

VI Implementation of Projects ....................... 167

A. Funding...........................................................................167

1. Federal Sources ....................................................167

2. State Funding .......................................................169

3. Local Agency Funding .........................................169

4. Railroad Funding .................................................170

B. Agreements ....................................................................170

C. Accounting......................................................................171

D. Design and Construction .............................................172

E. Traffic Control During Construction ..........................173

1. Traffic Control Zones ..........................................175

2. Traffic Control Devices .......................................177

3. Typical Applications ............................................180

F. Program Development ..................................................184

G. References .....................................................................184

VII Maintenance Program .............................. 185

A. Railroad Responsibility ...............................................185

B. Highway Authority Responsibility...............................185

1. Traffic Control Devices ........................................185

2. Roadside Clear Zone............................................186

3. Roadside Approaches ..........................................186

4. Reassessment and Periodic Review ...................186

C. References .....................................................................186

VIII Evaluation of Projects and Programs.... 187

A. Project Evaluation ........................................................187

B. Program Evaluation .....................................................189

C. Administrative Evaluation ...........................................189

D. References .....................................................................189

IX Special Issues.............................................. 191

A. Private Crossings ..........................................................191

B. Short-Line Railroads.....................................................193

C. Light-Rail Lines and Issues..........................................194

1. Motor Vehicle Turning Treatments ....................194

2. Use of Crossbuck Sign with LRT ........................195

3. Pedestrian Crossing Treatments ........................195

4. Solutions to Observed Problems.........................201

D. High-Speed Rail Corridors ..........................................205

E. Special Vehicles, Pedestrians, Motorcycles, and 

Bicycles ...........................................................................205

1. Trucks with Hazardous Material Cargo ............205

2. Long and Heavily Laden Trucks.........................206

3. Buses......................................................................206

4. Motorcycles and Bicycles.....................................206

F. Low-Cost Active Devices................................................208

G. ITS Applications ............................................................209

1. ITS National Architecture and User 

Service 30 ..............................................................209

2. Standard 1570 .......................................................210

3. Survey of Recent ITS Initiatives .........................210

4. Proposed Demonstration Scenarios...................213

H. References .....................................................................214

X Supporting Programs................................... 215

A. Driver Education and Enforcement ............................215

B. Video Surveillance and Enforcement..........................217

C. Research and Development .........................................218

D. References .....................................................................219

Appendix A: Glossary ...................................... 221

Appendix B: Index............................................ 229

Appendix C: Example Crash Reporting Form, 

State of Oklahoma............................................ 233

Appendix D: Example Hazardous Materials 

Crash Reporting Form, U.S. Department of 

Transportation Materials Transportation 

Bureau ............................................................... 241

Appendix E: List of Selected Accident 

Investigations, National Transportation Safety 

Board.................................................................. 247

Appendix F: New Hampshire Hazard Index, 

Nchrp Report 50 Accident Prediction 

Formula, Peabody-Dimmick Accident 

Prediction Formula........................................... 249

Appendix G: Diagnostic Team Crossing 

Evaluation Reports, Examples from States... 253

Appendix H: State Crossing Consolidations 

and Closures ..................................................... 263

Appendix I: Preemption Calculation 

Procedures, Example From State Of Texas... 277

Appendix J: Policy On Private Crossings, West 

Virginia Example.............................................. 297

Appendix K: List of Highway-Rail Grade 

Crossing Studies .............................................. 301
List of Figures

1. Reflectorization Example—Standards Applicable to Boxcars ................................................................................ 42

2. Number of Collisions by Number of Trains per Day per Crossing, 2004................................................................. 43

3. U.S. DOT Crossing Inventory Form ............................................................................................................................. 48

4. Crossing Identification Number Tag............................................................................................................................ 50

5. Accident Report Form for Federal Railroad Administration.................................................................................... 52

6. Sample Questionnaire for Diagnostic Team Evaluation ........................................................................................... 64

7. Study Positions for Diagnostic Team........................................................................................................................... 65

8. Crossing Sight Distances .............................................................................................................................................. 67

9. Sight Distance for a Vehicle Stopped at Crossing...................................................................................................... 68

10. Type III Barricade ......................................................................................................................................................... 80

11. Typical Crossing Signs.................................................................................................................................................. 84

12. Crossing Sign (Crossbuck)........................................................................................................................................... 87

13. Supplemental Advance Warning Signs........................................................................................................................ 91

14. Substandard Clear Storage Distance.......................................................................................................................... 91

15. Possible Sign System Where Sight Distance Is Limited On Approach to the Crossing......................................... 92

16. Typical Sign System Where STOP or YIELD at Crossing Is Required.................................................................... 92

17. Highway-Rail Grade Crossing (Crossbuck) Sign and STOP and YIELD Sign on Same Post................................ 93

18. Highway-Rail Grade Crossing (Crossbuck) Sign and STOP and YIELD Sign on Separate Posts........................ 94

19. Example of Placement of Warning Signs and Pavement Markings at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings............... 96

20. Alternate Pavement Markings at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings........................................................................... 97

21. Typical Supplemental Signing and Pavement Marking Treatment forRailroad Crossings.................................. 98

22. Typical Alignment Pattern for Flashing Light Signals with 30-15 Degree Roundel, Two-Lane, Two-Way Roadway ...99

23. Typical Alignment Pattern for Flashing Light Signals with 20-32 Degree Roundel, Multilane Roadway......... 100

24. Typical Clearances for Flashing Light Signals with Automatic Gates.................................................................. 101

25. Typical Flashing Light Signal—Post Mounted......................................................................................................... 102

26. Typical Flashing Light Signal—Cantilevered .......................................................................................................... 102

27. Use of Multiple Flashing Light Signals for Adequate Visibility Horizontal Curve to the Left............................ 103

28. Use of Multiple Flashing Light Signals for Adequate Visibility Horizontal Curve to the Right ......................... 103

29. Typical Location of Signal Devices............................................................................................................................ 105

30. Typical Location Plan, Right Angle Crossing, One-Way, Two Lanes..................................................................... 105

31. Typical Location Plan, Right Angle Crossing, One-Way, Three Lanes .................................................................. 106

32. Typical Location Plan, Divided Highway with Signals in Median, Two Lanes Each Way .................................. 106

33. Typical Location Plan, Divided Highway with Signals in Median, Three Lanes Each Way................................ 107

34. Typical Location Plan, Divided Highway with Insufficient Median for Signals, Two Lanes Each Way ............ 107

35. Typical Location Plan, Acute Angle Crossing for Divided Highway with Signals in Median, Two or 

 Three Lanes Each Way ............................................................................................................................................... 108

36. Typical Location Plan, Obtuse Angle Crossing for Divided Highway with Signals in Median, Two or Three 

Lanes Each Way........................................................................................................................................................... 108

37. Example of Combination of Mountable and Non-Mountable Curbs from Illinois Department of Transportation.......109

38. Example of Location Plan for Flashing Light Signals and Four-Quadrant Gates................................................ 111

39. Examples of Active Advance Warning Signs and Cantilevered Active Advance Warning Sign.......................... 112

40. Stand-By Power Arrangement.................................................................................................................................... 125

41. DC Track Circuit.......................................................................................................................................................... 125

42. Three-Track Circuit System ....................................................................................................................................... 126

43. Track Circuits with Timing Sections ........................................................................................................................ 126

44. AC-DC Track Circuit.................................................................................................................................................... 126

45. Audio Frequency Overlay Track Circuit................................................................................................................... 127

46. Motion-Sensitive Track Circuit, Bi-Directional Application................................................................................... 127

47. Motion-Sensitive Track Circuit, Uni-Directional Application ................................................................................ 127

48. Constant Warning Time Track Circuit, Uni-Directional Application .................................................................... 128

49. Constant Warning Time Track Circuit, Bi-Directional Application....................................................................... 128

50. Pre-Signal Mounted on Railroad Cantilever, Rollins Road and State Route 83 at Wisconsin Central, Round 

Lake, Illinois................................................................................................................................................................. 131
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

vi

51. Pre-Signal Located Ahead of Grade Crossing with Displaced Stop Bar, S. Mary and W. Evelyn at Caltrain 

Commuter Line, Sunnyvale, California ..................................................................................................................... 131

52. Pre-Signal with Louvered Downstream Intersection Signal, Sierra and Orange at Metrolink Commuter Line, 

Fontana, California...................................................................................................................................................... 132

53. Queue Cutter, Magnolia Street at Union Pacific Railroad, Riverside,California.................................................. 133

54. Advance Head, Broadway and Arguello at Caltrain Commuter Line, Redwood City, California ....................... 134

55. Queue Prevention Strategies...................................................................................................................................... 135

56. Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Cross Section ........................................................................................................... 140

57. Sample Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Worksheet...................................................................................................... 159

58. Sample Benefit-to-Cost Analysis Worksheet............................................................................................................ 160

59. Crossing Resource Allocation Procedure ................................................................................................................. 162

60. Resource Allocation Procedure Field Verification Worksheet ............................................................................... 164

61. Areas in a Traffic Control Zone................................................................................................................................. 176

62. Typical Signs for Traffic Control in Work Zones..................................................................................................... 178

63. Use of Hand Signaling Devices by Flagger ............................................................................................................... 181

64. Crossing Work Activities, Two-Lane Highway, One Lane Closed .......................................................................... 182

65. Crossing Work Activities, Multi-Lane Urban Divided Highway, One Roadway Closed, Two-Way Traffic......... 182

66. Crossing Work Activities, Closure of Side Road Crossing ...................................................................................... 183

67. Crossing Work Activities, One Lane of Side Road Crossing Closed ...................................................................... 183

68. Typical Private Crossing Sign.................................................................................................................................... 193

69. No Turns Internally Illuminated Signs...................................................................................................................... 195

70. Placement of Flashing Light Signal Assemblies ...................................................................................................... 196

71. Example Active Matrix Train Approaching Sign..................................................................................................... 196

72. Example Second Train Internally Illuminated Signs .............................................................................................. 197

73. ADA Dynamic Envelope Delineation in Sacramento, California............................................................................ 198

74. San Diego, California Curbside Pedestrian Barriers............................................................................................... 198

75. Placement of Pedestrian Automatic Gates................................................................................................................ 199

76. Pedestrian Automatic Gate Examples....................................................................................................................... 200

77. Pedestrian Swing Gate Examples.............................................................................................................................. 201

78. Bedstead Barrier Application .................................................................................................................................... 201

79. San Diego, California Pedestrian Z-Crossing........................................................................................................... 201

80. Illustrative Pedestrian Treatment ............................................................................................................................. 202

81. Recommended Sign and Marking Treatment for Bicycle Crossing....................................................................... 207

82. Highway-Rail Intersection Interface Overview ........................................................................................................ 211

83. In-Vehicle Display......................................................................................................................................................... 211
 vii

List of Tables

1. Railroad Line Miles and Track Miles .......................................................................................................................... 2

2. Public At-Grade Crossings by Functional Classification, 2005 ................................................................................ 3

3. Public At-Grade Crossings by Highway System, 2005............................................................................................... 3

4. Fatalities at Public Crossings, 1920–2004................................................................................................................... 4

5. Collisions, Fatalities, and Injuries at Public Crossings, 1975–2004......................................................................... 5 

6. State and Local Government Jurisdictional Authorities Concerned with Crossings ............................................ 16

7. Public Crossings by Warning Device, 2004 ................................................................................................................. 26

8. Motor Vehicle Collisions and Casualties at Public Crossings by Vehicle Type, 2004............................................. 28

9. U.S. Customary Lengths for Design Vehicles ............................................................................................................. 29

10. Metric Lengths for Design Vehicles ............................................................................................................................. 30

11. Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Collision Fatalities versus Trespasser Fatalities, 1995–2004 .............................. 31

12. Collisions at Public Crossings Involving Motor Vehicles by Type of Train, 2004................................................... 43

13. Maximum Train Speeds by Class of Track................................................................................................................. 44

14. Public At-Grade Crossings by Type of Track, 2005 ................................................................................................... 45

15. Track Class and Permissible Speeds........................................................................................................................... 46

16. U.S. DOT Collision Prediction Equations for Crossing Characteristic Factors...................................................... 56

17. U.S. DOT Accident Prediction Factor Values for Crossings with Passive Warning Devices ................................. 57

18. U.S. DOT Accident Prediction Factor Values for Crossings with Flashing Light Warning Devices ..................... 57

19. U.S. DOT Accident Prediction Factor Values for Crossings with Gate Warning Devices ...................................... 58

20. U.S. DOT Final Accident Prediction from Initial Prediction and Accident 

History (1 year of accident data (T=1)) ..................................................................................................................... 58

21. U.S. DOT Final Accident Prediction from Initial Prediction and Accident 

History (2 years of accident data (T=2)).................................................................................................................... 59

22. U.S. DOT Final Accident Prediction from Initial Prediction and Accident 

History (3 years of accident data (T=3)).................................................................................................................... 59

23. U.S. DOT Final Accident Prediction from Initial Prediction and Accident 

History (4 years of accident data (T=4)).................................................................................................................... 60

24. U.S. DOT Final Accident Prediction from Initial Prediction and Accident 

History (5 years of accident data (T=5)).................................................................................................................... 60

25. Equations for Crossing Characteristic Factors for U.S. DOT Fatal Accident Probability Formula ..................... 61

26. Equations for Crossing Characteristic Factors for U.S. DOT Injury Accident Probability Formula ................... 61

27. Factor Values for U.S. DOT Fatal Accident Probability Formula ............................................................................. 61

28. Factor Values for U.S. DOT Injury Accident Probability Formula............................................................................ 62

29. Distances in Meters to Establish Study Positions for Diagnostic Team Evaluation.............................................. 63

30. Distances in Feet to Establish Study Positions for Diagnostic Team Evaluation................................................... 65

31. Sight Distances for Combinations of Highway Vehicle and Train Speeds, Metric................................................. 69

32. Sight Distances for Combinations of Highway Vehicle and Train Speeds, U.S. Customary................................. 69

33. Federal Laws, Rules, Regulations, and Policies......................................................................................................... 75

34. Responsibility for Closing Public Crossings............................................................................................................... 79

35. Current MUTCD Devices............................................................................................................................................... 85

36. Placement Distances for Advance Warning Signs (English Units).......................................................................... 89

37. Placement Distances for Advance Warning Signs (Metric Units)............................................................................ 90

38. Minimum Sight Distance Table (English Units)......................................................................................................... 95

39. Minimum Sight Distance Table (Metric Units)........................................................................................................... 95

40. Effectiveness of Active Crossing Warning Devices .................................................................................................... 99

41. Clearing Sight Distance (in feet)................................................................................................................................ 138

42. Guidelines for Active Devices..................................................................................................................................... 148

43. LRT Grade Separation ................................................................................................................................................ 152

44. Countermeasure Type, Effectiveness, and Cost ...................................................................................................... 156

45. Comparison of Cost-Effectiveness, Benefit-Cost, and Net Benefit Methods ......................................................... 162

46. Effectiveness/Cost Symbol Matrix............................................................................................................................. 162

47. Collision Prediction and Resource Allocation Procedure Normalizing Constants .............................................. 163

48. Channelizing Devices for Tapers ............................................................................................................................... 177

49. Sign Spacing for Urban Areas.................................................................................................................................... 180
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

viii

50. Collisions at Private Crossings, 2000–2004 .............................................................................................................. 192

51. Collisions at Private Crossings by Roadway User, 2004 ......................................................................................... 192

52. Motor Vehicle Collisions at Private Crossings by Traffic Control Device, 2004 ................................................... 192

53. Use of Active Internally Illuminated Signs for Parallel Traffic Turning Across LRT Tracks............................. 195

54. Possible Solutions to Observed Problems................................................................................................................. 203
 

The purpose of the Railroad-Highway Grade 

Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition is to 

provide a single reference document on prevalent and 

best practices as well as adopted standards relative to 

highway-rail grade crossings. The handbook provides 

general information on highway-rail crossings; 

characteristics of the crossing environment and 

users; and the physical and operational improvements 

that can be made at highway-rail grade crossings to 

enhance the safety and operation of both highway and 

rail traffic over grade crossings. The guidelines and 

alternative improvements presented in this handbook 

are primarily those that have proven effective and are 

accepted nationwide.

The revised second edition of the handbook supersedes 

the Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—

Second Edition published in September 1986. This 

update includes materials that were included in the 

previous version of the handbook, supplemented 

with new information that was available at the time 

of the update. Decisions regarding the selection, 

configuration, modification, and construction of 

improvements at highway-rail grade crossings should 

reflect the policies and standards of the affected 

railroad(s) and involved jurisdictions, including statelevel agencies, and should address these specific 

requirements in applying the general principles and 

practices provided in this manual. 

A. Background

1. Introduction to Highway-Rail Grade 

Crossings 

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 lines all may 

operate through grade crossings.

As additional railroad lines were built and extended, 

they facilitated the establishment and growth of towns 

in the midwest and west by providing a relatively 

rapid means of transporting goods and people. Towns 

depended on the railroads and, therefore, were 

developed along railroad lines. The federal government 

and certain states encouraged westward expansion of 

the railroads and supported them financially by land 

grants and loans. The federal government enjoyed 

reduced freight rates on its cargoes for many years as 

a result of these land grants. 

In the east, railroads were built to serve existing towns 

and cities. Many communities wanted a railroad, 

and certain concessions were made to obtain one. 

Railroads were allowed to build their tracks across 

existing streets and roads at grade, primarily to avoid 

the high capital costs of grade separations. As people 

followed the railroads west, there was a need for new 

Overview I
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition



highways and streets, most of which, primarily for 

economic reasons, crossed the railroads at grade. 

The number of railroad line miles grew until a peak 

was reached in 1920, when 252,845 miles of railroad 

line were in service. Track miles are defined as the 

total centerline length of mainline trackage in a 

corridor. The number of railroad line miles and track 

miles has been decreasing since the 1930s, as shown in 

Table 1.

Initially, safety at highway-rail grade crossings was 

not considered a problem. Trains were few in number 

and slow, as were highway travelers who were usually 

on foot, horseback, horse-drawn vehicles, or cycles. 

By the end of the century, crossing collisions were 

increasing and communities became concerned about 

safety and delays at crossings. Many states, cities, and 

towns adopted laws, ordinances, and regulations that 

required the railroads to eliminate some crossings and 

provide safety improvements at others.

Highway-rail grade crossings became more of a 

concern with the advent of the automobile in the early 

1900s. By 1920, vehicles traveled approximately 45 

billion miles annually. Vehicle miles of travel increased 

more than 66-fold during the intervening 85 years to 

approximately 3 trillion vehicle miles in 2004.1

 More 

recently, vehicle miles of travel have been increasing 

at a rate of approximately 3.1 percent per year. 

Road mileage also grew during those 85 years to 

approximately 3.99 million miles in 2004.2

The number of highway-rail grade crossings grew 

with the growth in highway miles. In 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. In 2005, there 

were 248,273 total intersections of vehicular and 

pedestrian traveled ways with railroads. This equates 

to approximately 2.4 crossings per railroad line mile. 

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 2005, there were 181,886 public 

crossings, of which 147,805 were at grade and 34,081 

were grade separated. Private crossings are those 

on roadways privately owned and utilized only by 

the landowner or licensee. There were 97,306 private 

crossings in 2005. Pedestrian crossings are those used 

solely by pedestrians. There were 3,162 pedestrian 

crossings in 2005. 

Sixty-one percent, or 90,274 of public at-grade 

crossings were located in rural areas, compared to 

57,531 in urban areas. For both urban and rural areas, 

the majority of crossings are located on local roads, as 

depicted in Table 2. Twenty-one percent of public atgrade crossings are located on federal-aid highways, as 

shown in Table 3. 

2. Safety and Operations at Highway-Rail 

Grade Crossings

National statistics on crossing collisions have 

been kept since the early 1900s as a result of 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. Not all 

1 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Website 

(www.fhwa.dot.gov).

2 Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) Website 

(www.bts.gov). 

Table 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

1991 116,626 196,081

1992 113,056 190,591

1993 110,425 186,288

1994 109,332 183,685

1995 108,264 180,419

1996 105,779 176,978

1997 102,128 172,564

1998 100,570 171,098

1999 99,430 168,879

2000 99,250 168,535

2001 97,817 167,275

2002 100,125 170,048

2003 99,126 169,069

Source: “Railroad Facts.” Washington, DC: Association of 

American Railroads, 2004.
 

crossing collisions were reported because the railroads 

were required to report only those collisions that 

resulted in: 

• A fatality; 

• An injury to a person sufficient to incapacitate 

him or her for a period of 24 hours in the 

aggregate during the 10 days immediately 

following; or

• More than $750 in damage to railroad 

equipment, track, or roadbed. 

These reporting requirements remained essentially 

the same until 1975, when the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) redefined a reportable highwayrail 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 railhighway crossing” must be reported.3

Table 4 gives the number of fatalities occurring at 

public highway-rail grade crossings from 1920 to 2004. 

Also shown separately are fatalities resulting from 

collisions involving motor vehicles. Table 5 provides 

data on the number of collisions, injuries, and fatalities 

at public highway-rail grade crossings for the period 

from 1975 to 2004. 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 war period of the 1940s, crossing improvement 

work was greatly reduced, and the number of motor 

vehicle fatalities remained fairly constant. Since 1946, 

federal aid has increased, and the number of motor 

vehicle fatalities at crossings has been decreasing 

correspondingly. 

During the period between 1960 and 1967, the number 

of fatalities increased in spite of continual federal 

3 Highway Crossing Accident/Incident and Inventory Bulletin 

(No.6 Calendar Year 1983). Washington, DC: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), 1984.

Table 2. Public At-Grade Crossings by 

Functional Classification, 2005

Functional classification Number

Rural

Interstate* 40

Other principal arterial 1,176

Minor arterial 3,515

Major collector 11,159

Minor collector 8,865

Local 65,515

Not reported 4

Total – Rural 90,274

Urban

Interstate* and other limited 

access

381

Other principal arterial 5,500

Minor arterial 10,227

Collector 10,384

Local 31,039

Total – Urban 57,531

Grand total 147,805

* Note: Crossings classified as “Interstate” are typically 

located on ramps.

Source: Unpublished data from Federal Railroad 

Administration.

Table 3. Public At-Grade Crossings by 

Highway System, 2005

Highway System Number

Interstate* 246

Federal-aid 31,057

Non-federal-aid 109,624

National Highway System 6,868

Not reported 10

Total 147,805

*Note: Crossings classified as “Interstate” are typically 

located on ramps.

Source: Unpublished data from Federal Railroad 

Administration.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition



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 Tables 4 and 5, which show 

the dramatic reduction in the number of fatalities 

involving motor vehicles.

Approximately 6.3 million motor vehicle traffic 

collisions occurred in 2002. Crossing collisions 

accounted for 0.05 percent of all motor vehicle 

Table 4. Fatalities at Public Crossings, 1920–2004

Year

All

fatalities

Motor

vehicle

fatalities Year

All

fatalities

Motor

vehicle

fatalities Year

All

fatalities

Motor

vehicle

fatalities

1920 1,791 1,273 1950 1,576 1,410 1980 788 708

1921 1,705 1,262 1951 1,578 1,407 1981 697 623

1922 1,810 1,359 1952 1,407 1,257 1982 580 526

1923 2,268 1,759 1953 1,494 1,328 1983 542 483

1924 2,149 1,688 1954 1,303 1,161 1984 610 543

1925 2,206 1,784 1955 1,446 1,322 1985 537 480

1926 2,491 2,062 1956 1,338 1,210 1986 578 507

1927 2,371 1,974 1957 1,371 1,222 1987 598 533

1928 2,568 2,165 1958 1,271 1,141 1988 652 594

1929 2,485 2,085 1959 1,203 1,073 1989 757 682

1930 2,020 1,695 1960 1,364 1,261 1990 648 568

1931 1,811 1,580 1961 1,291 1,173 1991 565 497

1932 1,525 1,310 1962 1,241 1,132 1992 536 466

1933 1,511 1,305 1963 1,302 1,217 1993 584 517

1934 1,554 1,320 1964 1,543 1,432 1994 572 501

1935 1,680 1,445 1965 1,534 1,434 1995 524 455

1936 1,786 1,526 1966 1,780 1,657 1996 449 377

1937 1,875 1,613 1967 1,632 1,520 1997 419 378

1938 1,517 1,311 1968 1,546 1,448 1998 385 325

1939 1,398 1,197 1969 1,490 1,381 1999 363 309

1940 1,808 1,588 1970 1,440 1,362 2000 369 306

1941 1,931 1,691 1971 1,356 1,267 2001 386 315

1942 1,970 1,635 1972 1,260 1,190 2002 316 271

1943 1,732 1,396 1973 1,185 1,077 2003 300 249

1944 1,840 1,520 1974 1,220 1,128 2004 330 252

1945 1,903 1,591 1975 978 788

1946 1,851 1,575 1976 1,114 978

1947 1,790 1,536 1977 944 846

1948 1,612 1,379 1978 1,021 929

1949 1,507 1,323 1979 834 727

Source: Federal Railroad Administration Safety Data Website (safetydata.fra.dot.gov/officeofsafety).

collisions on public roads. However, the severity of 

crossing collisions demands special attention. In 2002, 

there were 318 motor vehicle fatalities at crossings and 

a total of 42,452 motor vehicle fatalities. Therefore, 

crossing fatalities accounted for 0.8 percent of all 

motor vehicle fatalities. One out of every 149 vehicle 

collisions resulted in a fatality, but one out of every 10 

crossing collisions resulted in a fatality.4

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 rear-end 

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 

4 BTS Website (www.bts.gov).
 

Table 5. Collisions, Fatalities, and Injuries at 

Public Crossings, 1975–2004

Year Collisions Fatalities Injuries

1975 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

1980 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

1985 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

1990 5,235 648 2,254

1991 4,863 565 1,923

1992 4,465 536 1,830

1993 4,437 584 1,744

1994 4,503 572 1,829

1995 4,153 524 1,754

1996 3,788 449 1,486

1997 3,414 419 1,370

1998 3,086 385 1,179

1999 3,090 363 1,262

2000 3,032 369 1,079

2001 2,843 386 1,038

2002 2,709 316 866

2003 2,597 299 918

2004 2,623 331 931

Source: Federal Railroad Administration Safety Data Website 

(safetydata.fra.dot.gov/officeofsafety). 

accidents in which a driver loses control of the vehicle. 

These non-train collisions are a particular concern with 

regard to the transportation of hazardous materials by 

truck and the transportation of passengers, especially 

on school buses. Drivers of these “special vehicles” are, 

under federal regulation and many state laws, required 

to stop at all crossings and look and listen for a train 

before proceeding to cross the tracks. The driver of a 

vehicle following a special vehicle may not expect to 

stop and may rear-end the vehicle, perhaps resulting in 

a catastrophic collision. 

The current practices of existing railroads in general 

are to consolidate and close grade crossings where 

feasible. The creation of new at-grade crossings is not 

a preferred approach to addressing highway mobility. 

Grade crossing closure initiatives have contributed to 

improved safety and are discussed in Chapter IV.

Although safety is a primary concern, highway-rail 

grade crossings affect the public and railroads in other 

ways. In the 19th century, most communities and cities 

welcomed and actively encouraged the construction 

of railroad lines to and within the community. As 

the benefits of this transportation service were 

realized, the communities and the railroad system 

within communities grew. Today, highway-oriented 

transportation provides much of the service needed for 

commercial and other land uses in and near central 

cities. Newer industrial developments that need rail 

transportation are frequently located in outlying areas. 

Historically, railroads came into the centers of 

communities because the railroads were first or 

because communities wanted the railroads to provide 

transportation to the rest of the country. In today’s 

environment, especially with high vehicular traffic, 

conflicts have arisen over railroads’ location in central 

cities. 

From the community viewpoint, railroads are now 

a dividing force providing delays, congestion, and 

concerns over emergency vehicle response while trains 

are moving through, blocking many street crossings. 

Some communities impose speed restrictions on trains, 

exacerbating the delays because trains take longer to 

clear crossings. 

From the railroad viewpoint, speed restrictions are 

undesirable because of the delays incurred by trains 

slowing down to pass through the community. However, 

the central city location has an advantage. Its right of 

way may be attractive to power companies who wish to 

reach electric customers in the city. Hence, railroads 

may lease space for electric power transmission lines. 

Also, with the new development of fiber optic 

cables for high-capacity communications services, 

communications carriers are also finding railroad 

rights of way into center cities very attractive. Finally, 

rail alignments through urban centers provide station 

locations with convenient access to central-city 

destinations. Thus, on the positive side, communities 

and railroads both are finding advantages in 

communicating and cooperating with each other on this 

mutual situation.

Construction activities on public roadways, nominally 

within 25 feet of an active rail track, and proposed 

roadway modifications, nominally within 10 feet of an 

active rail track, should include consideration for the 

procedures applicable to design and construction of 

improvements within railroad rights of way as well as 

any provisions solely applicable to construction within 

the roadway right of way.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition



B. Highway-Rail Grade 

Programs*

The first authorization of federal funds for highway 

construction in modern times 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.

The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1921 provided funds 

with similar provisions, except that the expenditure 

of federal funds was limited to a connected system 

of principal roads, which was the predecessor of the 

former Federal-Aid Primary Highway System and of the 

current National Highway System.

The Depression era of the 1930s brought about a 

change in railroad and highway traffic volumes and 

created a need for federal assistance to improve safety 

as well as to provide employment throughout the 

United States. Congress passed the National Industrial 

Recovery Act in 1933, which, among other things, 

authorized the president to provide grants totaling 

$300 million to the states to be used in paying any or 

all of the costs of eliminating the hazards of highwayrail grade crossings. The states did not have to provide 

matching funds, and the improvements did not have 

to be made at crossings on the Federal-Aid Highway 

System. 

The Hayden-Cartwright Act of 1934 authorized 

additional funds for the construction of highwayrail grade separations and traffic control devices at 

crossings. Federal funds were available for initial 

construction costs but not for right-of-way costs or 

maintenance. Other federal-aid highway funds were 

provided in the Emergency Relief Act of 1935, the 

Authorization and Amendment Act of 1936, the FederalAid Highway Act of 1938, and the Federal Highway Act 

of 1940. In spite of these efforts to eliminate crossings, 

the number of crossings steadily increased due to the 

number of highway construction projects being carried 

out during the same period.

The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1944 authorized the 

expenditure of federal funds for federal-aid highways 

in urban areas, provided for the designation of a 

Federal-Aid Secondary System, and made the first 

provisions for a national system of interstate highways. 

Although states had to provide 50-percent matching 

funds for expenditures on primary, secondary, and 

urban systems, the entire cost for the elimination of 

highway-rail grade crossing hazards on federal-aid 

systems could be paid from federal funds. However, no 

more than 50 percent of the right-of-way and propertydamage costs could be paid with federal funds. In 

addition, no more than 10 percent of the total funds 

apportioned to each state in any given year could be 

used for crossing projects on a reimbursable basis of 

up to 100 percent.

In 1956, Congress established the National System 

of Interstate and Defense Highways. This same act 

ushered in the modern era of highway funding by 

establishing the Highway Trust Fund. The design 

criteria for interstate highways, approved July 17, 

1956 by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of 

Public Roads, stated that railroad crossings were to be 

eliminated for all through traffic lanes.

In 1962, the Interstate Commerce Commission 

conducted an investigation of highway-rail grade 

crossing safety. It concluded that the public was now 

responsible for crossing safety and recommended that 

Congress take appropriate action by stating:

Since the Congress has the authority 

to promulgate any necessary 

legislation along this line it is 

recommended that it give serious 

study and consideration to 

enactment of legislation with a view 

to having the public including the 

principal users, assume the entire 

cost of rail-highway grade crossing 

improvements or allocating the costs 

equitably between those benefited by 

the improvements.5

In 1970, Congress passed two acts, the Highway 

Safety Act and the Federal Railroad Safety Act, which 

contained specific provisions concerning highwayrail grade crossings. The Highway Safety Act of 1970 

authorized two demonstration projects, one for the 

elimination of at-grade crossings along the highspeed rail passenger Northeast Corridor between 

Washington, DC, and Boston, Massachusetts, and the 

other for the elimination of crossings or the installation 

of traffic control devices at public crossings in 

5 Prevention of Rail-Highway Grade Crossing Accidents 

Involving Railway Trains and Motor Vehicles. Washington, DC: 

Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), November 1962.

* “Geometric Design Standards for the National System of Interstate 

and Defense Highways.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Bureau of Public Roads, approved July 17, 1956.
 

and near Greenwood, South Carolina.6 The act 

provided $31 million for these demonstration projects.

The Railroad Safety Act of 1970 required the secretary 

of transportation to undertake “ . . . a comprehensive 

study of the problem of eliminating and protecting 

grade crossings” and to provide “recommendations 

for appropriate action, including, if relevant, a 

recommendation for equitable allocation of the 

economic costs of any such program proposed as a 

result of such study.”7 Similarly, the Highway Safety Act 

of 1970 called for “ . . . a full and complete investigation 

and study of the problem of providing increased 

highway safety at public and private ground-level railhighway crossings . . . including the estimate of the cost 

of such a program.”

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

and FRA prepared a two-part report to satisfy the 

requirements of the legislation. Part I discussed the 

crossing safety problem; Part II provided crossing 

improvement recommendations, one of which was a 

federal funding program exclusively for crossings. The 

secretary also recommended that the U.S. Department 

of Transportation (U.S. DOT), in cooperation with 

the railroad industry and appropriate state agencies, 

develop a national inventory of and uniform national 

numbering system for crossings. In addition, the 

secretary recommended emphasizing highway-rail 

grade crossing safety research and furthering efforts 

to educate drivers regarding the potential hazards 

of crossings. The report was presented in November 

1971.8

Over the next two years, there were three significant 

regulatory actions by FHWA in the area of highway-rail 

crossings: 

• May 3, 1972: FHWA reissued Policy and 

Procedure Memorandum 21-16, Highway Safety 

Improvement Program (HSIP). States were 

required for the first time to include highwayrail grade crossing projects as an integral part 

of their safety programs.9

• October 27, 1972: FHWA issued Instructional 

Memorandum 21-5-72, which dealt with 

railroad cost liability on projects and stated 

that the installation or improvement of grade 

6 Highway Safety Act of 1970, §§ 201-205, Public Law No. 91-605, 84 

Stat. 1742.

7 Railroad Safety Act of 1970, Public Law No. 91-458, 84 Stat. 971.

8 Railroad-Highway Safety, Part I: A Comprehensive Statement 

of the Problem, A Report to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT), November 1971. 

9 FHWA. Policy and Procedure Memorandum 21-16, “Highway Safety 

Improvement Program,” May 3, 1972.

crossing protective devices was found to be of 

no net ascertainable benefit to the railroad. 

Therefore, the railroad was to be assigned no 

liability in the costs of such work.10

• March 14, 1973: FHWA issued a notice defining 

the improvement of grade crossing surfaces as 

having safety benefits.11

Based on the recommendations of the 1971 study, 

Congress, in the Highway Safety Act of 1973, 

established a categorical safety program for the 

elimination or alleviation of hazards at rail-highway 

grade crossings.12 Section 203 of the act authorized 

$175 million from the Highway Trust Fund for crossing 

improvements on the Federal-Aid Highway System. 

The federal share of improvement costs was set at 90 

percent. 

This act also established funds for other categorical 

safety programs that could be used for crossing 

improvements at the states’ discretion. Section 230 

established the Safer Roads Demonstration Program, 

which provided funds for safety improvements off the 

Federal-Aid Highway System. Funds for this program 

were available for three types of safety projects: to 

eliminate or alleviate hazards at rail-highway grade 

crossings; to improve high-hazard locations; and to 

eliminate roadside obstacles. The Pavement Marking 

Demonstration Program, Section 205, provided funds 

for pavement markings on any public road. The 

Federal-Aid Highway Amendments of 1974 added 

Section 219, which provided funds for the construction, 

reconstruction, and improvement of highways off the 

Federal-Aid Highway System.

The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973, Section 163, 

established a demonstration program to eliminate 

highway-rail conflicts in specified urban areas.13

Additional funds were provided in the Federal-Aid 

Highway Amendments of 1974, the National Mass 

Transportation Assistance Act of 1974, the Federal-Aid 

Highway Act of 1976, and the Surface Transportation 

Assistance Acts of 1976 and 1978.

These demonstration projects were intended to 

determine the feasibility of increasing highway safety 

by the relocation, consolidation, or separation of rail 

lines in center-city areas. The funds were available on 

a 95-percent to 5-percent matching ratio, with state or 

local governments providing the matching share.

10 FHWA. Instructional Memorandum 21-5-72, “Elimination of 

Hazards of Railway-Highway Crossings—Railroad Liability,” October 

27, 1972.

11 FHWA Notice. “Elimination of Hazards, Railroad-Highway Grade 

Crossings—Improvement of Crossing Surface,” March 14, 1973.

12 Highway Safety Act of 1973, Public Law 93-87, 87 Stat. 250.

13 Ibid.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition



By 1975, all public and private crossings had been 

surveyed in the U.S. DOT National Highway-Rail 

Crossing Inventory Program. This inventory showed 

that the majority of crossings, 77 percent, were 

located off the Federal-Aid Highway System and, 

therefore, were not eligible for improvement with 

federal funds from the Section 203 program. In 

1976, Congress extended the Section 203 program 

to all public crossings. The legislation authorized an 

additional $250 million from the Highway Trust Fund 

for crossings on the Federal-Aid Highway System and 

$168.75 million from the general fund for crossings off 

the Federal-Aid Highway System. 

The Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978 

continued the Section 203 categorical program by 

providing $760 million for safety improvements at any 

public crossing—eliminating the distinction between 

crossings on and off the Federal-Aid Highway System.

In 1982, Congress again continued the highwayrail grade crossing safety program in the Surface 

Transportation Assistance Act of 1982. This act 

provided $760 million over the four fiscal years from 

1983 through 1986.

The Surface Transportation Assistance Act 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.14

Section 130 funds were apportioned to the states in 

the following manner: 50 percent was apportioned 

to each of the states according to the ratio of the 

number of public crossings in the state to the number 

of public crossings in the country. The remainder 

was apportioned to the states on the basis of area, 

population, and road mileage. The apportionment of 

federal funds for crossing safety was divided in half: 

half was required to be used for traffic control devices 

at crossings (139, or RRP Funds); the other half was 

available for any type of crossing safety improvements 

(138, or RRS Funds). 

In 1991, Congress passed the Intermodal Surface 

Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). This act 

established the National Highway System and 

Surface Transportation Program (STP). The National 

Highway System consists of the interstate system and 

other highways of national significance, plus certain 

intermodal connections; the STP covers all other public 

roads and streets.

14 Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1987, Public Law 100-

17, 101 Stat. 171.

Section 1007(d)(1) of ISTEA requires 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 requires that the 

state shall 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 is more than 

the 1991 total for these programs, the surplus must 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 are to be used proportionately 

for each program. ISTEA therefore provided for the 

continuation of categorical safety programs.15

ISTEA removed the potential to fund railroad grade 

separations as 100 percent, or G-funded projects. 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.

ISTEA also authorized the expenditure of $16.1 billion 

for the continuation of the on- and off-system Bridge 

Replacement and Rehabilitation Program. All bridges 

carrying highway traffic on public roads, regardless of 

ownership or maintenance responsibility, are eligible 

for improvement or replacement under this program. 

This includes bridges owned by railroads.16

The matching ratio for federal funds set aside under 

Section 1007(d)(1) is the same as that previously 

available for the categorical safety programs: 90 

percent federal and 10 percent state or local. Section 

203(f) of the Highway Safety Act of 1973 provided a 

mechanism for increasing the federal share where both 

local and state funds were incorporated into a railroad 

project; however, this was impractical in practice due 

to the highway authorization or enabling legislation in 

effect in most states. 

Section 1021(c) of ISTEA permits 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 

has determined that railroad grade crossing signals 

are included in traffic control signalization.

In 1995, Congress passed the National Highway System 

Designation Act, which included a provision that made 

any activities associated with the closure of a highway15 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, Public 

Law 102-240.

16 Ibid.
 

railroad grade crossing eligible for 100-percent federal 

funding.

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 

National Highway System Designation Act. 

In the summer of 2005, Congress passed the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity 

Act—A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), which was 

signed into law by the President on August 10, 2005.

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 is to 

be considered part of the SHSP.

SAFETEA-LU created the new HSIP, elevating it to a 

new core federal-aid funding program beginning in 

fiscal year 2006 to achieve a significant reduction in 

traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. 

This new program replaces the 10-percent safety setaside program element of the STP established under 

ISTEA. It also restored categorical funding for each of 

the highway safety construction programs. SAFETEALU continues the Section 130 program and continues 

the option under Section 120 of funding highway-rail 

crossing safety measures, other than the construction 

of highway-rail grade separations, utilizing 100-percent 

federal funding. A total of $220 million in highwayrailroad crossing safety funds is to be apportioned 

among the states for fiscal years 2006 through 2009. 

Half of these funds will be apportioned among the 

states according to the formula for apportionment 

of STP funding; the other half will be apportioned 

according to the number of public highway-rail 

crossings in each state. FHWA has published fact 

sheets on the new HSIPand the Rail-Highway Crossing 

provisions. 17,18

SAFETEA-LU continues the requirement that a state 

spend a minimum of 50 percent of its apportionment 

for the installation of protective devices at railwayhighway crossings. The remaining funds may be spent 

for other types of improvements as defined in Section 

130. SAFETEA-LU also contains a provision to use 

up to 2 percent of the funds apportioned to a state 

17 FHWA Fact Sheets on Highway Provisions 

(www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/factsheets/hsip.htm).

18 FHWA Fact Sheets on Highway Provisions 

(www.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/factsheets/railcrossings.htm).

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. The HSIP also contains a provision that, to 

further the implementation of a state SHSP, a state 

may use up to 10 percent of the amount of funds 

apportioned to the state under Section 104(b)(5) for 

a fiscal year to carry out safety projects under any 

other section as provided in the state SHSP, if the state 

certifies to the secretary that: 

• The state has met needs in the state relating to 

railway-highway crossings; and

• The state has met the state’s infrastructure 

safety needs relating to highway safety 

improvement projects.

In summary, there are currently three sources of 

federal funding for construction of highway-rail grade 

crossing safety improvements:

• The state’s normal federal-aid highway 

funding can be used. This may include Bridge 

Replacement, National Highway System, or 

STP funding. Up to 10 percent of the state’s 

apportionment can be designated as G funds, 

or 100-percent funding, for purposes including 

some railroad safety projects. See ISTEA 

1021(c) and Section 120 of Chapter 23, United 

States Code.

• Categorical Section 130 funds may be used.

• Funding from other categorical safety 

programs, such as the Safe Routes to School 

Program, may be used if such use is consistent 

with the state’s SHSP.

Activities eligible for the use of Section 130 safety funds 

are as follows:

• Crossing consolidations (including the funding 

of incentive payments up to $15,000 on a 50-

percent matching basis to local jurisdictions for 

crossing closures).

• Installation of grade separations at crossings 

or repair of existing grade separations.

• Signing.

• Pavement marking.

• Illumination.

• New highway-railroad grade crossing signals.

• Upgraded highway-railroad grade crossing 

signals or circuits.

• Improved crossing surfaces.

• Traffic signal interconnection/preemption.

• Sight distance or geometric improvements.

• Data improvements (up to 2 percent of 

apportionment).
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

10

Regular federal-aid highway funds may be used 

for safety improvements such as the installation 

of standard signs and pavement markings; the 

installation or upgrading of active traffic control 

devices; crossing illumination; crossing approach and 

surface improvements; new grade separations and the 

reconstruction of existing grade separations; crossing 

closures or the removal of existing crossings; and 

crossing closures by the relocation of highways and/or 

the relocation of railroads.

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 general, most states 

once required the railroad or the local government 

to provide the funds needed to match the federal 

contribution. However, during the 1930s, some states 

began to apportion financial responsibility for crossing 

improvements based on the benefits received by the 

public (through the highway agency) and the railroad 

through the project.

California was the first state to establish a state 

crossing protection fund. In 1953, the Public Utilities 

Commission was authorized by the legislature to 

expend or allocate funds from the State Highway 

User Fund, or any other fund, to assist the cities and 

counties in paying their allocated portion of the costs 

for the installation of active traffic control devices at 

crossings on non-federal-aid highways and streets. In 

1957, California established a grade separation fund 

with an initial apportionment of $5 million per year. 

The purpose of the fund was to eliminate existing atgrade crossings by constructing new grade separations 

or by improving existing grade separations. At least 

18 additional states have established separate funding 

programs for crossing improvements.

States may also utilize other state funds for crossing 

improvements and to provide the 10-percent match, 

which is required on some projects funded under 

the STP safety set-aside program in ISTEA. 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. 

Presently, about 20 states contribute financially toward 

the maintenance of flashing lights, gates, track circuits, 

crossing surfaces, and crossbucks. Additional states 

have utilized Section 130 or ISTEA funds to pay for 

projects for the installation of crossbucks at public 

crossings. More information on state maintenance 

programs is included in Chapter VII.

Local governments have contributed to highway-rail 

grade crossing safety improvements by providing the 

matching funds for improvement projects constructed 

under Section 130 programs. The passage of ISTEA 

and the availability of 100-percent federal funding 

for crossing signalization projects have relieved local 

jurisdictions of much of the funding burden and have 

made it possible to construct more improvement projects 

in smaller jurisdictions. 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.

The railroad industry historically has contributed 

greatly to the improvement of highway-rail grade 

crossings. Until the advent of the automobile in the 

early 1900s, the railroads were considered primarily 

responsible for safety at crossings. After that, the 

concept of joint responsibility between the public and 

the private entity (the railroad) began to emerge. As 

discussed previously, the federal government and the 

states began to contribute financially toward crossing 

improvement projects, thus accepting part of the 

responsibility that had originally been placed solely on 

the railroads. The question of who is responsible for 

what aspect of the crossing program continues to be 

discussed and refined.

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 “in-kind” 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 clearance programs to improve sight 

distances at crossings. Some railroads make direct 

cash contributions to local jurisdictions for crossing 

consolidations or closures.

At present, costs for maintenance of crossbucks, 

active traffic control devices, and crossing surfaces 

are primarily borne by the railroads. Except highway 

traffic signal gear maintained by local traffic 

authorities, traffic control devices integrated into 
11

the track structure or the wayside signal system 

that regulates trains must be maintained by railroad 

personnel because highly specialized skills are 

required. Also, rail labor agreements generally specify 

that union members are to perform this type of work. 

An industry publication estimated that 1993 costs 

to the railroads were $152,566,000 for this type of 

maintenance work at public crossings.19 Based on the 

U.S. Department of Labor Consumer Price Index, this 

equates to approximately $206 million in 2005. 

C. Responsibilities at HighwayRail Grade Crossings*

1. Fundamental Issues 

An issue as old as the grade crossing safety problem 

itself is that of responsibility. 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 the collision of 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 

19 Safetrans System Corporation. “Rail-Highway Grade Crossing 

Safety: A Continuing Need for Federal Funding,” February 1995.

* Includes previously unpublished materials provided by Ray Lewis, 

WVDOT, 2006.

train is approaching.” This Supreme Court decision 

clearly 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.20

During the late 1890s, the number of crossings and 

collisions increased. Many states, cities, and towns 

demanded that the railroads take immediate action 

to eliminate the hazardous crossings and to provide 

better traffic control devices. Numerous laws, 

ordinances, and regulations were enacted or adopted 

to enforce these demands. There was little uniformity 

among these laws, ordinances, and regulations; neither 

was the division of responsibility nor the allocation of 

costs specified.

In 1893, the Supreme Court, in New York and N. E. Ry. 

v. Town of Bristol, upheld a Connecticut statute that 

required the railroads to pay three-fourths the costs 

to improve or eliminate crossings where the highway 

was in existence before the railroad. If the highway 

was constructed after the railroad, the state required 

the railroad to pay one-half such costs. This so-called 

“Senior-Junior” principle was followed by public 

utilities commissions and the courts in several states 

to determine the railroads’ division of responsibility 

or liability for the construction, improvement, or 

elimination of crossings. From 1896 to 1935, the 

Supreme Court adhered to the position that a state 

could allocate to the railroads all or a portion of the 

expense or cost for the construction, maintenance, 

improvement, or elimination of public highway-rail 

grade crossings.

The crossing safety problem changed greatly with 

the appearance of motor vehicles on U.S. streets and 

highways in 1893. As the number of motor vehicles, 

highway mileage, and railroad trackage increased, so 

did the number of crossings and crossing collisions. 

Demands for the elimination of crossings grew stronger 

nationwide. Because of the dominance and financial 

status of the railroad industry during this period, the 

public, state legislative and regulatory bodies, and 

most of the courts did not hesitate to place the major 

or entire responsibility for crossing separations and 

improvements on the railroads. By 1915, the railroads 

were beginning to feel the impacts of the crossing 

safety problem and established a national committee to 

study the problem. During the period from 1915 to 1924, 

this committee, the National Safety Council, and the 

American Railway Association engaged in extensive 

20 Railroad-Highway Safety, Part I: A Comprehensive Statement 

of the Problem, A Report to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. DOT, 

November 1971. 
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

12

public education programs to reduce the number of 

collisions at crossings.

The Depression era of the 1930s brought about 

abrupt and varying changes in the volumes of rail and 

highway traffic, which contributed to changes in the 

responsibility for crossing improvements. A new idea 

of public responsibility for crossings was enhanced 

by Congress in its passage of the National Recovery 

Act of 1933 and the Hayden-Cartwright Act of 1934, 

which provided funds for the construction of highwayrail grade separations and the installation of crossing 

traffic control devices.

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 collisions. It is 

the railroad which now requires 

protection from dangers incident to 

motor transportation.21

In light of that decision, some state legislatures, 

commissions, and courts revised their division of 

responsibility criteria and the resulting allocation of 

costs relating to crossing safety projects.

The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1944 provided that 

any railroad involved in any crossing improvement, 

paid for entirely or in part with federal funds, would be 

liable to the United States for “a sum bearing the same 

ratio to the net benefits received by such railway from 

such project that the Federal funds expended on such 

project would bear to the total cost of such project.” 

The subsection also provided that the net benefits 

received by a railway should not “be deemed to have a 

reasonable value in excess of ten percent of the cost of 

any such project.” The commissioner of public roads 

was authorized to determine the railroad benefits 

on the basis of recommendations made by the state 

highway departments and other information.

During the period from 1944 to 1946, many crossing 

safety projects were delayed or never started because 

of prolonged negotiations, arguments, and litigation 

on the subject of railroad benefits. A compromise 

was eventually reached whereby each of the crossing 

improvement projects would be classified in one of 

five general classes. Depending upon the classification 

assigned to an individual project, the railroads would 

21 Ibid.

be liable for up to 10 percent of the cost of crossing 

improvements financed with federal-aid highway funds. 

FHWA later modified this policy and, presently, the 

railroads are required to share only up to 5 percent of 

the costs of certain types of crossing work on federalaid highway projects.

In the early 1960s, the Interstate Commerce 

Commission completed an investigation to determine 

what action should be taken to prevent crossing 

collisions. In its report and accompanying order, the 

commission said that:

For practical reasons costs 

associated with crossing safety 

improvements should be borne 

by public funds as users of the 

crossing plus the fact that it is 

increasing highway traffic that is 

the controlling element in accident 

exposure at these crossings.

The Commission also said that:

In the past it was the railroad’s 

responsibility for the protection of 

the public at grade crossings. This 

responsibility has now shifted. 

Now it is the highway, not the 

railroad, and the motor vehicle, not 

the train which creates the hazard 

and must be primarily responsible 

for its removal. Railroads were 

in operation before the problem 

presented itself and if the increasing 

seriousness is a result of the 

increasing development of highways 

for public use, why should not the 

cost of grade crossing protection be 

assessed to the public?

The Commission found that:

Highway users are the principal 

recipients of the benefits following 

from rail-highway grade 

separations and from special 

protection at highway-rail grade 

crossings. For this reason, the cost 

of installing and maintaining such 

separations and protective devices 

is a public responsibility and should 

be financed with public funds the 

same as highway traffic devices.22

22 Prevention of Rail-Highway Grade Crossing Accidents 

Involving Railway Trains and Motor Vehicles. Washington, DC: 

ICC, November 1962.
13

During the 1970s, the public assumed more responsibility 

for financing crossing safety improvements. FHWA 

legislation in 1973 provided categorical safety funds for 

the elimination or alleviation of hazards at highwayrail grade crossings.23 These funds were continued 

in subsequent acts in 1976, 1978, 1980, and 1982. The 

Surface Transportation Act of 1987 continued the 

categorical funding and established Section 130 of Title 

23 of the United States Code, giving the Federal-Aid RailHighway Grade Crossing Safety Program permanent 

status under the law for the first time.24

ISTEA required that 10 percent of a state’s funding 

under its STP apportionment be set aside for safety 

improvements and that a proportionate amount 

of these funds be used for safety improvements at 

highway-rail grade crossings. ISTEA also made certain 

types of improvements at railroad grade crossings, 

including signs, crossing signals, highway lighting 

(illumination), and pavement markings, eligible for 100-

percent federal funding.25

2. Government Agency Responsibility and 

Involvement

Today, an understanding exists that because a 

highway-rail crossing involves the intersection of 

two transportation modes, one public and the other 

private, its safe and efficient operation requires strict 

cooperation and coordination of the involved agencies 

and organizations. Public agencies having oversight 

and/or program responsibility at the intersection 

include the following:

At the federal level, six agencies within U.S. DOT and 

two agencies outside U.S. DOT have specific safetyrelated 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).

23 Highway Safety Act of 1973, Public Law 93-87, 87 Stat. 250.

24 Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1987, Public Law 100-

17, 101 Stat. 171.

25 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, Public 

Law 102-240.

Also at the federal level, NTSB investigates significant 

transportation collisions and issues findings and 

recommendations on safety. Finally, although it does 

not have a direct role in safety, STB has general 

oversight of the railroads.

At the state level:

• 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:

• 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.

U.S. DOT seeks to ensure that a viable and safe 

national transportation system is maintained to 

transport people and goods while making efficient use 

of national resources. Six agencies within U.S. DOT—

FHWA, FRA, NHTSA, FTA, FMCSA, and PHMSA—

actively participate in crossing safety programs.

FHWA. FHWA administers federally-funded 

programs, several of which are available for crossing 

improvements. In addition to the funds specifically 

set aside by ISTEA for categorical crossing programs, 

funds from the National Highway System program 

and the Bridge Replacement program may be utilized 

at highway-rail crossings. FHWA apportions funds to 

the states according to legislated formulae 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.

FHWA establishes standards for traffic control 

devices and systems at crossings and publishes them 

in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

14

(MUTCD).26 FHWA has also adopted various design 

criteria and guidelines developed by the American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials and other organizations for use on federalaid construction and reconstruction projects. It 

approves state-developed design directives and design 

criteria for resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation 

projects and other activities. FHWA provides technical 

assistance to states and local agencies through the 

distribution of state-of-the-art publications, training 

classes, and the activities of state Local Technical 

Assistance Program centers.

FHWA conducts research to support the above 

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. 

All of FHWA’s crossing research is coordinated with 

FRA and, in many cases, FRA contributes financially 

to the projects. FHWA promotes the maintenance of 

individual state grade crossing inventories and the 

updating of the national inventory database.

FRA. FRA maintains the national Railroad Accident/

Incident Reporting System that contains information 

reported by the railroads on all crossing collisions. 

FRA also serves as custodian of the National HighwayRail Crossing Inventory that contains the physical 

and operating characteristics of each crossing. The 

information is submitted and updated voluntarily 

by the railroads and the states. FRA works with 

other agencies and organizations in overseeing the 

submission of the inventory data to assure accurate and 

timely information. FRA also prepares, publishes, and 

distributes reports summarizing collision and inventory 

data and makes the data available on the Internet.

FRA conducts field investigations of selected 

railroad collisions including crossing collisions. FRA 

investigates complaints by the public pertaining to 

crossings and makes recommendations to the industry 

as appropriate.

FRA conducts research to identify solutions to crossing 

problems, primarily from a railroad perspective. 

Typical research involves program management 

tools, train-borne warning devices, car and locomotive 

reflectorization, and track circuitry improvements. 

Research is coordinated with FHWA and, in some 

cases, FHWA contributes financially.

Both FHWA and FRA have field offices located 

26 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition. 

Washington, DC: FHWA, 2003.

throughout the United States that collaborate 

with state agencies and the individual railroads, 

respectively, on a day-to-day basis. They ensure that 

policies and regulations are effectively implemented 

and provide feedback to headquarters regarding needs 

realized at the field level. FHWA has a division office in 

each state.

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, administered by the Transportation 

Research Board.

NHTSA. NHTSA is involved in the crossing program 

on a limited basis. It maintains the Fatal Accident 

Reporting System (FARS), a database containing 

information on all fatal highway collisions. NHTSA 

coordinates with FRA and FHWA in providing 

information in FARS that is pertinent to crossings. 

NHTSA will also fund educational programs and 

selective law enforcement programs at crossings 

through state highway safety offices.

FMCSA. FMCSA was established as a separate 

administration within U.S. DOT 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. 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. FMCSA 

will try to encourage states to use their Motor Carrier 

Safety Assistance Program contacts to distribute grade 

crossing safety materials focused on motor carrier 

needs and issues at crossings. U.S. DOT also will work 

with FMCSA to develop informational packages for 

firms just starting out in the motor carrier industry.

FTA. FTA is one of 10 modal administrations within 

U.S. DOT. It provides financial assistance to develop 

new transit systems and improve, maintain, and 

operate existing systems. Public transit systems 

include buses, subways, light rail, commuter rail, 

monorail, passenger ferry boats, trolleys, inclined 

railways, and people movers. FTA publishes an annual 

Safety Management Information System report that 

compiles and analyzes transit safety and security 

statistics reported through FTA’s National Transit 

Database. Safety data include highway-rail grade 

crossing collisions.
15

PHMSA. PHMSA was created under the Norman Y. 

Mineta Research and Special Programs Improvement 

Act (P.L. 108-426) of 2004. President George W. Bush 

signed the legislation into law on November 30, 2004. 

The purpose of the act was to provide U.S. DOT a more 

focused research organization and establish a separate 

operating administration for pipeline safety and 

hazardous materials transportation safety operations. 

In addition, the act presented U.S. DOT an opportunity 

to establish model practices in the area of government 

budget and information practices in support of the 

President’s Management Agenda initiatives. 

PHMSA is the federal agency charged with the safe and 

secure movement of almost 1 million daily shipments 

of hazardous materials by all modes of transportation. 

The agency also oversees the U.S. pipeline 

infrastructure, which accounts for 64 percent of the 

energy commodities consumed in the United States.

NTSB. 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. A set of NTSB recommendations 

led to the development of overweight/oversize vehicle 

movement guidelines and pilot car training materials 

by the Specialized Carriers and Rigging Association, 

FHWA, and the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance.

STB. STB was created in the Interstate Commerce 

Commission Termination Act of 1995 and is the 

successor agency to the Interstate Commerce 

Commission. Congress charged the economic 

regulatory agency with the fundamental missions 

of resolving railroad rate and service disputes 

and reviewing proposed railroad mergers. 

STB is decisionally independent, although it is 

administratively affiliated with U.S. DOT. 

STB serves as both an adjudicatory and a regulatory 

body. The agency has jurisdiction over railroad rate 

and service issues and rail restructuring transactions 

(mergers, line sales, line construction, and line 

abandonments); certain trucking company, moving 

van, and non-contiguous ocean shipping company rate 

matters; certain inter-city passenger bus company 

structure, financial, and operational matters; and rates 

and services of certain pipelines not regulated by the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 

STB staff is divided into the following offices: 

• The Office of Compliance and Enforcement 

monitors rail operations throughout the United 

States and enforces regulations over rail and 

certain non-rail common carriers in the United 

States. This office also collects and makes 

available tariffs from non-contiguous domestic 

water carriers. 

• The Office of Congressional and Public 

Services provides the outreach arm. It 

works with members of Congress, the public, 

and the media to answer questions and 

provide information about STB’s procedures 

and actions and, more generally, about 

transportation regulation.

• The Office of Economics, Environmental 

Analysis and Administration houses 

several functions. In addition to handling 

administrative matters such as personnel and 

budget, this office also houses two sections: 

the Section of Environmental Analysis, which 

is responsible for undertaking environmental 

reviews of proposed STB actions in accordance 

with the National Environmental Policy Act 

and other environmental laws and making 

environmental recommendations to the STB, 

and the Section of Economics, which analyzes 

rate cases, conducts economic and financial 

analyses of the railroad industry, and audits 

Class I railroads. 

• The Office of Proceedings researches and 

prepares draft decisions.

• The Office of General Counsel provides legal 

advice to STB and defends agency actions that 

are challenged in court.

State and local level. Jurisdiction over highwayrail grade crossings resides primarily with the states. 

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. 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. Table 

6 indicates the state agencies responsible for public 

and private crossings and whether their jurisdiction is 

regulatory or administrative.

States are involved in other areas of crossing safety 

besides jurisdictional responsibility for administering 

crossings and programs for improvement projects 

and maintenance. States, along with railroads, are 

participating in Operation Lifesaver programs, 

designed to improve safety at crossings and on 

and around railroad tracks and facilities through 
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

16

Table 6. State and Local Government Jurisdictional Authorities Concerned with Crossings

Has Authority Relating to

Agency Public Crossings Private Crossings

State Regulatory Administrative Improvement Cost Allocation Closing Improvement Closing

Alabama – S-C-C Yes Yes No No No

Alaska – Hwy.C Yes Yes Yes No No

Arizona Corp.C – Yes Yes Yes No No

Arkansas – S-C-C Yes No Yes No No

California PUG – Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Colorado PUC S-C-C Yes Yes Yes No No

Connecticut DOT – Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Delaware DOT DOT Yes Yes Yes No No

Florida DOT DOT Yes Yes Yes No No

Georgia – S-C-C Yes Yes Yes No No

Hawaii – – – – – – –

Idaho PUC S-C-C Yes Yes Yes No No

Illinois Com.C – Yes Yes Yes No No

Indiana PSC S-C-C Yes Yes Yes No No

Iowa DOT DOT Yes Yes Yes No No

Kansas Corp.C – Yes Yes No No No

Kentucky – S-C-C Yes Yes Yes No No

Louisiana – S-C-C Yes No Yes No Yes

Maine DOT – Yes Yes Yes No No

Maryland DOT S-C-C Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Massachusetts PUC – Yes Yes Yes No No

Michigan DOT – Yes Yes Yes – No

Minnesota DOT DOT Yes Yes Yes No No

Mississippi PSC S-C-C Yes Yes Yes No No

Missouri PSC S-C-C Yes Yes Yes No No

Montana PSC Hwy.C Yes Yes Yes No No

Nebraska – S-C-C Yes Yes Yes No No

Nevada PSC DOT Yes Yes Yes No No

New Hampshire PUC Hwy.C Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

New Jersey DOT DOT Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

New Mexico Corp.C – Yes Yes Yes No No

New York DOT DOT Yes Yes Yes No No

North Carolina – Hwy-Cty Yes Yes Yes No No

North Dakota PSC – Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Ohio PUG S-C-C Yes Yes Yes No No

Oklahoma Corp.C – Yes Yes Yes No No

Oregon PUC – Yes Yes Yes No No

Pennsylvania PUC – Yes Yes Yes No No

Rhode Island PUC DOT Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

South Carolina – S-C-C Yes Yes Yes No No

South Dakota DOT DOT Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Tennessee PSC S-C-C Yes Yes Yes No No

Texas – S-C-C Yes Yes Yes No No

Utah PSC DOT Yes Yes Yes No No

Vermont PSC – Yes Yes Yes No No

Virginia Corp.C Hwy.C Yes Yes Yes No No

Washington U&TC – Yes Yes Yes No No

West Virginia PSC Hwy-Cty Yes Yes Yes No No

Wisconsin TO – Yes Yes Yes No No

Wyoming PSC – Yes Yes Yes No No

Legend

Com.C Commerce Commission PUC Public Utilities Commission, Division of

Corp.C Corporation Commission Public Utilities, Public Utility Commissioner

DOT Department of Transportation S-C-C State, County, City, divided authority

Hwy.C Highway Commission, Department of Highways TO Transportation Commission

Hwy-Cty Highway Commission and City, divided authority U&TC Utilities and Transportation Commission

PSC Public Service Commission, Public Service Board 

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal 

Highway Administration, 1986.
17

public education regarding the hazards of crossings, 

the promotion of engineering improvements, and 

encouraging the enforcement of traffic laws at 

crossings. Individual state and railroad programs 

are coordinated at the national level by Operation 

Lifesaver, Inc., a non-profit corporation. More 

information on Operation Lifesaver is included in 

Chapter X, Supporting Programs.

Some states also conduct highway-rail grade crossing 

research utilizing Highway Planning and Research 

funds made available through the Highway Trust 

Fund and the Highway Safety Act of 1973, Public Law 

93-87, 87 Stat. 250 of FHWA. Other studies may be 

performed in house, on a contractual basis, or through 

universities and are financed through regular state 

highway funding.

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.

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 

and more obligations 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.27 Part 

VIII consolidated certain information that had been 

scattered throughout MUTCD and also superseded the 

Association of American Railroads (AAR) bulletins 

covering crossing signalization that had been issued by 

AAR Committee D. 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 the crossing 

is the only entity that can legally control traffic. 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 approaches to the 

crossing; for the design, construction, operation, and 

maintenance of highway traffic signals that may be 

27 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and 

Highways, 1978 Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. DOT, FHWA, 1978.

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.

FRA has proposed a rule to prohibit railroads from 

unilaterally selecting the type of grade crossing traffic 

control systems to be installed at public crossings. The 

railroads would be required to provide information to 

the states and to cooperate with them in the selection 

and design of these systems, but the final responsibility 

for selection of active devices would be shifted to the 

public agency.28 At the time of this writing, a final 

determination regarding the proposed rule had not 

been made. 

Although the railroads retain responsibility for the 

construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of the 

track structure and the riding surface at the highwayrail 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 right of way.29

3. Railroads

Railroads also work with local governments to alleviate 

operational and safety concerns at highway-rail 

grade crossings. For example, switching operations or 

locations for train crew changes can often be adjusted 

to avoid blocking crossings or unnecessarily actuating 

crossing signals. Railroads conduct some research for 

the purpose of identifying and applying new technology 

and furthering new concepts regarding crossing safety 

and operations.

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 U.S. 

DOT 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 appointed a 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.

28 “Selection and Installation of Railroad Grade Crossing Warning 

Systems.” FRA Docket No. RSGC-6; Notice No. 1, Federal Register, 

March 2, 1995, pp. 11647–11654.

29 Highway-Rail Crossing Surfaces. Washington, DC: National 

Cooperative Highway Research Program Synthesis of Practice 250, 1997.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

18

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. 

D. Legal Considerations 

Regarding Highway-Rail 

Grade Crossings* 

1. Background

Highway and railroad engineers and employees are 

becoming increasingly involved in matters that were 

previously of interest only to attorneys. Today, it is 

incumbent upon staffs of state highway departments, 

local transportation agencies, railroads, and transit 

operators to become aware and keep abreast of legal 

issues in general and the legal elements surrounding 

their design, maintenance, and operational practices in 

particular. 

This discussion of legal considerations in the 

administration and management of highway-rail grade 

crossings is a very basic discussion of an increasingly 

complex subject. It is not meant to interpret the 

law or to establish guidelines. It is intended only 

to alert transportation agencies and rail operators 

to the possible consequences of failure to maintain 

and safeguard the highway-rail grade crossing. The 

particular legal aspects of a specific action or legal 

problem should be discussed with an attorney.

Until recently, government entities were generally 

immune from lawsuits on the theory of 

“sovereign immunity” derived from English common 

law. Under the sovereign immunity doctrine, a 

government entity can be sued only if it consents 

to the suit in advance. Over the past 25 to 35 years, 

this situation has changed dramatically. Sovereign 

immunity has been eroded through the actions of the 

courts and legislatures and now survives in some form 

in less than one-third of the states. Consequently, many 

state highway agencies have become more vulnerable 

to lawsuits for damages resulting from collisions, 

including highway-rail crossing collisions.

Even though many states had some form of sovereign 

immunity, this protection frequently did not extend to 

local government entities and agencies.

Because many states may now be sued for negligence 

on the part of officers and employees, new emphasis 

has been placed on the legal responsibility of parties 

involved in the design of grade crossings and the 

selection and implementation of crossing safety 

improvements. This is especially true as state agencies 

become more responsible for determining which 

crossings are to be upgraded and determining the type 

of traffic control devices to be installed.

The state has a duty to correct a dangerous condition 

when the agency has actual or “constructive” notice 

of the hazard. The notice requirement does not apply 

when the condition is the result of the state or agency’s 

own negligence. For example, a state is not required to 

have actual notice of faulty construction, maintenance, 

or repair of its highways because the state is expected 

to know of its own action, in other words, constructive 

notice. Constructive notice is knowledge imputed by 

law, usually after an injury has occurred. However, if 

the danger did not arise as a consequence of active 

negligence (such as faulty construction), the agency 

has a duty to make repairs once it has actual notice of 

the defect. 

Most courts hold that the state or other agency must 

have had notice of the defect or hazard for a sufficient 

time “to afford them a reasonable opportunity to repair 

the condition or take precautions against the danger.” 

Statutes may require that the agency have notice of 

the defect for a specified period of time. If, for example, 

the notice period is five days and the collision was 

caused by a defect that originated early on the day 

of the collision, the statutory notice period would not 

be satisfied and the agency would not have had an 

opportunity to effect repairs. 

On the other hand, the notice may be satisfied where 

the condition has existed for such a time and is of such 

a nature that the agency should have discovered the 

condition by reasonable diligence, particularly where 

there is no statutorily specified time. In such instance, 

the notice is said to be constructive, and the agency’s 

knowledge of the condition is said to be implied. 

In deciding whether the agency had notice, the court 

may consider whether the defect was latent and, thus, 

difficult to discover. That is, the court will consider 

the nature of the defect, its location and duration, the 

extent and use of the highway, and whether the defect 

could be readily and instantly perceived. Routine 

inspection and correction procedures are important in 

light of the trend by courts to allow less and less time 

before finding constructive notice.

* Includes previously unpublished materials provided by Ray 

Lewis, WVDOT, 2006.
19

To understand the legal responsibilities of highway 

agencies and railroads, it is necessary to understand 

the basic principles and terminology of tort law.

A tort, in legal terminology, is a civil wrong other than 

a breach of contract for which a court will provide a 

remedy in the form of monetary damages. Three basic 

elements are involved in any tort action:

• A legal duty exists between the parties.

• One of the parties violated or breached that 

duty.

• Damage occurred to the other party as a result 

of the breach of duty.

Torts can be either intentional (such as assault and 

battery, false imprisonment, trespass, or theft) or 

unintentional (negligence). The primary concern at 

grade crossings is allegations of negligence.

Liability for a tort means the legal obligation to pay 

monetary damages to the person who was injured 

or damaged. More than one person may be liable for 

damages arising from the same incident. In the case of 

negligent conduct by an employee, both the employee 

and the employer may be liable.

Negligence can be defined as the failure to do 

something that a “reasonable and prudent” person 

would ordinarily do or the doing of something that 

a “reasonable and prudent” person would not do. 

Negligent conduct creates a risk for others to whom are 

owed a duty of exercising care.

The reasonable person is a criterion used to set the 

standard of care in judging conduct. In effect, this test 

of negligence represents the “failure to use ordinary 

care” and most often is used in determining liability. 

In the context of this handbook, engineers, railroads, 

or public agencies may be found negligent if their 

conduct does not measure up to that of a hypothetical 

reasonable, prudent, and careful engineer, railroad, or 

agency under similar circumstances.

Contributory negligence refers to conduct that falls 

below the standard of care that a person, such as a 

driver, is legally required to exercise for his own safety, 

and this failure is a contributing cause to the injury 

or damage he or she has suffered. Until recently, in 

most states, a finding of contributory negligence by 

the court would bar a plaintiff from recovering any 

damages even if the defendant’s negligence had been 

established and was the primary cause of the accident. 

Contributory negligence as a bar to recovery is being 

gradually eroded in the United States by the doctrine of 

“comparative negligence.”

Comparative negligence is a rule of law adopted by 

many states whereby the negligence of all parties 

is compared, and recovery is permitted despite the 

contributory negligence of the plaintiff. However, the 

plaintiff’s damages are usually decreased in proportion 

to his or her own negligence.

Duty in tort law is an obligation requiring persons 

to conform to a certain standard of conduct for the 

protection of others against unreasonable risks. 

Negligence is a breach of duty to exercise reasonable 

care owed to those persons to whom the duty applies. 

In this context, a highway agency owes a duty to all 

travelers on the highway to avoid creating unnecessary 

risks for those travelers and to meet the standard of 

care imposed upon that agency.

The standard of care may be established by a multitude 

of factors. As a minimum, all persons are required to 

avoid the creation of unnecessary risks, where feasible. 

In addition, statutes and regulations governing conduct 

are also components of the standard of care against 

which conduct is judged.

Finally and, perhaps most important, the accepted 

standards and practices of a profession, trade, or 

industry define the standard of care by which conduct 

is judged. Included in the definition of “accepted 

standards and practices” are MUTCD and similar 

standards.30 The American Railway Engineering 

and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) also 

promulgates recommended practices pertaining to 

railroads in its Manual of Railway Engineering and 

the Communication and Signals Manual. These 

manuals are not a standard but a compendium of 

recommended practices to provide railway engineers 

with guidelines for the construction of railroads.

To place the above concepts in perspective, it is 

necessary to recognize the following concepts of tort 

liability:

• Negligence is the failure to exercise reasonable 

care.

• Court decisions in tort cases are based on 

the concept of the existence of a “reasonable 

and prudent” person exercising “ordinary 

care;” that is, “reasonable care” that would be 

exercised by a prudent person under the same 

or similar circumstances.

• The three elements necessary in every tort 

claim are: (1) existence of a legal duty owed by 

the defendant to the plaintiff; (2) a breach of 

that duty; and (3) the occurrence of damage or 

30 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition. 

Washington, DC: FHWA, 2003.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

20

injury that is the reasonably foreseeable result 

of that breach of duty.

In effect, this means that the plaintiff (the one bringing 

the suit) must prove the following if he or she is to win 

a judgment:

• The defendant (agency or railroad) had a legal 

duty to use reasonable care toward the plaintiff 

(the injured party).

• The defendant breached that duty (fell below 

the standard of care required, thus committing 

an act of negligence).

• The damages (injuries, property damage, 

pain and suffering, loss of income, etc.) 

suffered by the plaintiff were caused by the 

breach (defendant’s negligence) and were the 

foreseeable result of that breach. That is, but 

for the negligence of the defendant, the plaintiff 

would not have suffered damages.

• Finally, depending on whether the particular 

state follows the contributory or comparative 

negligence doctrine, the plaintiff, to recover 

all of the damages suffered, must not have 

contributed to that negligence (contributory) or 

must have been less at fault than the agency or 

railroad (comparative).

To understand the concept of “legal duty,” it is 

necessary to recognize the distinction between 

discretionary and ministerial (nondiscretionary) acts. 

Many states that no longer retain their sovereign 

immunity have enacted Tort Claims Acts, which 

prescribe the conditions under which the state, its 

agencies, and its employees may be held accountable. 

Most of these include a limited exemption from 

liability for negligence in the performance (or in the 

nonperformance) of so-called discretionary activities.

The term “discretionary” refers to the power and duty 

to make an informed choice among alternatives. It 

requires the consideration of these alternatives and the 

exercise of independent and professional judgment in 

arriving at a decision or choosing a course of action. 

On the other hand, ministerial duties involve clearly 

defined tasks performed with minimum leeway as to 

personal judgment and not requiring any evaluation 

or weighing of alternatives. Consequently, they are 

nondiscretionary.

In modern law, the distinctions between discretionary 

and ministerial functions are of great importance in 

judging tort claims against governmental entities. 

In general, a public organization or its employees 

are not liable for negligence in the performance of 

discretionary activities. However, the courts are 

constantly revising the law in these areas, and the 

classification of a particular governmental activity as 

either discretionary or ministerial is subject to shifting 

legal interpretations.

It should be recognized that the limited exemption 

from liability that has been afforded to discretionary 

activities in no way provides absolute protection from 

legal liability. If discretion is abused or exercised 

recklessly or unjustly, courts may move in and 

substitute their own discretion for that of the agency.

The courts are fairly uniform in holding that the 

design of highways is a discretionary function because 

it involves high-level planning activities and the 

evaluation of policies, alternatives, and other factors. 

This is supported by court decisions that hold that 

design functions are quasi-legislative in character 

and must be protected from second-guessing by the 

courts, which are inexpert at making such decisions. 

Design immunity statutes represent a further effort by 

legislatures to immunize public employees and bodies 

from liability arising out of negligence or errors in a 

plan or design that was duly approved under current 

standards of reasonable safety.

The courts consider two factors in determining whether 

a state has taken reasonable care in giving the public 

adequate warning at a highway-rail grade crossing, 

summarized as follows:

• In light of the history of accidents and/or level 

of traffic at the particular crossing, was a 

collision reasonably foreseeable? If so,

• Was the state reasonable in its choice of 

traffic control devices to alert the public of the 

foreseeable risk?

Liability for collisions occurring at grade crossings is 

governed by the law of negligence. The law imposes 

the duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid injury to 

persons using the highway upon public agencies and 

railroads. Agencies and railroads are under no duty to 

provide absolute safety.

Potential liability in crossing collisions may create 

reluctance on the part of states, local agencies, 

railroads, and suppliers to initiate new technology or 

procedures that may lead to charges of negligence. 

Experimentation and in-service trials of new devices 

are restricted both by potential litigation and by 

the contractual and insurance requirements and 

negotiations involved.

The scheduling of improvement projects has become 

a significant issue in recent court cases involving 

crossing collisions. The application of administrative 

rules and procedures to ensure the expeditious 
21

installation of safety improvements based upon the 

principle of the alleviation of the highest potential 

hazard is a major factor in these cases.

It should be obvious that it is more logical to expend 

public funds for sound management practices and 

proper highway maintenance than for the settlement 

of claims or the payment of adverse judgments. 

Consequently, it would seem appropriate to review 

maintenance activities and reporting procedures 

to limit exposure to tort liability. It would also seem 

helpful to assure that all employees involved in such 

activities are well informed of the legal implications of 

their functions.

2. Tort Liability and Standards

It has been suggested that railroads and public 

agencies could significantly reduce tort liability suits 

involving traffic control devices by implementing four 

basic steps:

• Know the laws relating to traffic control 

devices.

• Conduct and maintain an inventory of traffic 

control devices.

• Replace devices at the end of their effective 

lives.

• Apply approved traffic control devices 

according to specifications and standards. 

The area of tort law changes rapidly with court 

decisions (“case law”) and the enactment and 

amendment of statutes. It is not the purpose of this 

handbook to serve as a legal reference or to substitute 

for the knowledge, skills, experience, and judgment 

of attorneys. Several recent legal issues should be of 

interest to railroaders and public employees and are 

expected to have major impacts on tort liability.

Easterwood. The case of CSX Transportation v. 

Easterwood raised the issue of federal preemption. 

In Easterwood, the Supreme Court ruled that train 

speeds could not be litigated if the speed of the train 

was within the regulations for the class of track as 

promulgated by FRA under the Railroad Safety Act 

of 1970 and that the type of traffic control devices at 

the crossing could not be litigated if they had been 

approved by the secretary (of transportation). This 

generally means that active and/or passive traffic 

control devices at the crossing should have been 

selected by a diagnostic team or in accordance with 

similar procedures, and that federal funds were used to 

install or upgrade them.31

Shanklin. The case of Norfolk Southern Railway 

v. Shanklin involved an action for damages against a 

railroad due to its alleged failure to maintain adequate 

warning devices at a grade crossing in western 

Tennessee. After her husband was killed in a crossing 

collision, the respondent brought suit against the 

petitioner, the operator of the train involved in the 

collision. The respondent claimed that the warning 

signs posted at the crossing, which had been installed 

using federal funds, were insufficient to warn motorists 

of the danger posed by passing trains. Justice 

O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court 

in that the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970, 84 Stat. 

971, as amended, 49 USC §20101 et seq., in conjunction 

with FHWA’s regulation addressing the adequacy of 

warning devices installed with federal funds, preempts 

state tort actions such as respondent’s.

23 USC §409. The development, operation, and 

administration of any safety program depends on 

collection and analysis of data and on the free and 

unfettered interchange of information between 

parties. 23 USC §409 was first included in the Surface 

Transportation Assistance Act of 1987, strengthened 

by ISTEA, and strengthened again by the National 

Highway System Designation Act of 1995.32 This section 

currently reads:

Notwithstanding any other 

provisions of law, reports, surveys, 

schedules, lists or data compiled 

or collected for the purpose of 

identifying, evaluating or planning 

the safety enhancement of potential 

accident sites, hazardous roadway 

conditions, or railway-highway 

crossings, pursuant to sections 130, 

144 or 152 of this title or for the 

purpose of developing any highway 

safety construction improvement 

project which may be implemented 

utilizing Federal-aid highway funds 

shall not be subject to discovery 

or admitted into evidence in a 

Federal or State court proceeding 

or considered for other purposes 

in any action for damages arising 

from any occurrence at a location 

mentioned or addressed in such 

31 CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Easterwood (1993, US) 123 L. Ed. 

2d 387, 113 S Ct 1732, 93 CDOS 2889, 93 Daily Journal DAR 4989, 7 

FLW Fed S 172.

32 National Highway System Designation Act of 1995, Public Law 

104-59, 109 Stat. 588.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

22

reports, surveys, schedules, lists or 

data.

Currently, a considerable amount of case law still 

is being written by the appellate courts concerning 

the breadth of this restriction. At the time of this 

writing, the exact scope of the materials that can be 

excluded is not well defined. It should be noted that 

this statute may affect the duty of public agencies to 

release studies and other materials under Freedom of 

Information Acts.

Design exceptions. All new construction or 

reconstruction projects should be designed in 

accordance with accepted standards and criteria, 

including MUTCD,33 the latest edition of A Policy for 

Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (the 

“Green Book”),34 AREMA recommended practices, and 

state standards and design policies. All efforts should 

be made to adhere to the specified criteria. However, 

under unusual conditions, it may be necessary to use 

values different from or less than the values that have 

been established. These departures and the reasons 

for them should be carefully documented, and the 

documentation should be retained in the permanent 

project file by both the public entity and the railroad.35

Architects and builders’ statutes. Most state 

codes include “architect and builders’ statutes,” which 

bar recovery for deficiencies in planning, design, or 

construction supervision of improvements to real 

property after a certain time period has elapsed. These 

ordinarily are in the form of “statutes of repose” rather 

than “statutes of limitation.” A statute of limitation 

ordinarily begins running on the date of an injury; a 

statute of repose forecloses a cause of action after 

a stated time period regardless of when an injury 

occurs. Generally, the statute of repose begins running 

for design on the date the plans are completed and 

signed by the engineer or architect; it begins running 

for construction and construction supervision on the 

date the work is completed and accepted by the owner. 

The courts have generally been willing to extend the 

protections extended by these statutes of repose to 

construction performed by public agencies and their 

contractors, including highway improvements.36

33 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition. 

Washington, DC: FHWA, 2003.

34 A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 2004 

Edition. Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials, 2004.

35 WVDOT, Roadway Design Division, Design Directive 605, “NHS 

Design Exception Policy,” April 3, 1995.

36 Gibson v. W. Va. Department of Highways; 406 S. E. 2nd 440 (W. 

VA. 1991).

E. References

Accident/Incident Bulletin. Washington, DC: 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), published 

annually.

Alternative Solutions to Railroad Impacts 

on Communities, Final Report. Minnesota 

Department of Transportation and North Dakota 

State Highway Department, December 1981.

Amos, Charles L. “Railroad Crossings.” Better 

Roads, Vol. 49, No. 9 (September 1979) and Vol. 49, 

No. 10 (October 1979).

Annual Report on Highway Safety Improvement 

Programs. Washington, DC: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), published annually.

Federal-Aid Policy Guide. Washington, DC: 

FHWA, updated periodically.

Federal Highway Administration Survey of Region 

and Division Offices, unpublished, 1984.

Gertler, Judith B. A Study of State Programs for 

Rail-Highway Grade Crossing Improvements.

Washington, DC: FRA, Report FRA-OPPD-78-7, 

June 1978. 

Highway Statistics. Washington, DC: FHWA, 

published annually.

Maintenance Cost Study of Railroad-Highway 

Grade Crossing Warning Systems. Washington, 

DC: Association of American Railroads (AAR), 

October 1982.

Prevention of Rail-Highway Grade Crossing 

Accidents Involving Railway Trains and Motor 

Vehicles. Washington, DC: Interstate Commerce 

Commission, November 1962.

Rail-Highway Crossing Accident Incident 

and Inventory Bulletin. Washington, DC: FRA, 

published annually.

Railroad Facts. Washington, DC: AAR, September 

1983 and October 1984. 

Railroad-Highway Safety, Part I: A 

Comprehensive Statement of the Problem, 

A Report to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT), 

November 1971.
23

Railroad-Highway Safety, Part II: 

Recommendations for Resolving the Problem, 

A Report to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. DOT, 

August 1972. 

Report on the Unit Coal Train Community 

Impact Conference. Washington, DC: U.S. DOT, 

August 1979. 

Schercinger, John M. 1984 Grade Crossing 

Statistics Show Continued Safety Improvement.

Washington, DC: AAR, September 1984. 

Schoppert, David W. and Dan W. Hoyt. Factors 

Influencing Safety at Highway-Rail Grade 

Crossings. Washington, DC: Highway Research 

Board, National Cooperative Highway Research 

Program Report 50, 1968. 

Traffic Control Devices Handbook. Washington, 

DC: Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2001.

25

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 right of way to opposing 

traffic; unlike a highway-highway intersection, the 

opposing traffic—the train—must only rarely yield the 

right of way 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 Manual 

on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) as 

a regulatory sign.37 In effect, it is a YIELD sign, and 

motorists have the obligation to so interpret it. (Refer 

to the discussion on the use of STOP and YIELD signs 

in Chapter IV.) 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 must be designed to incorporate the basic needs 

of both highway vehicles and trains.

37 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition. 

Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 2003.

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 by the use of 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 whether 

or not 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 U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) 

National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory provides 

information on the number of crossings having each 

type of traffic control device, as shown in Table 7.

A. The Highway Component*

1. 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, assist drivers in meeting their 

responsibilities.

Components of a HighwayRail Grade Crossing II

* Includes previously unpublished materials provided by Ray Lewis, 

West Virginia Department of Transportation (WVDOT), 2006.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

26

Table 7. Public Crossings by Warning Device, 2004

Warning device Number Percent

Active devices

Gates 36,760 24.87

Flashing lights 25,081 16.97

Highway signals, 

wigwags, or bells 1,217 0.82

Special* 2,912 1.97

Total active 65,970 44.63

Passive devices

Crossbucks 66,463 44.97

STOP signs 10,189 6.89

Other signs 687 0.47

Total passive 77,339 52.33

No signs or signals 4,496 3.04

Total 147,805 100.00

* 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: Unpublished data from Federal Railroad 

Administration.

Much of the information regarding driver 

characteristics and capabilities is covered in Chapter 

III and need not be stated here. This section deals with 

the duties of the motor vehicle driver.

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.38 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: 

38 Uniform Vehicle Code and Model Traffic Ordinance. National 

Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances, Evanston, 

Illinois, revised 2005 (www.ncutlo.org/modellaws.htm).

• 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 ...

... When approaching within 100 feet of or 

traversing any intersection or railroad 

grade crossings unless otherwise indicated 

by official traffic control devices . . .

• Vehicles Approaching a Highway-Rail Grade 

Crossing (Sec. 11-702)

(a) Whenever a road user approaches a 

highway-rail grade crossing under any of 

the five circumstances enumerated in this 

subsection, the driver shall stop before the 

stop line (if present) and not less than 15 

feet from the nearest rail of the track, and 

while so stopped shall listen and look in 

both directions along such track for signals 

indicating the approach of a train or other 

vehicle, and shall not proceed until it is safe 

to do so. The foregoing requirements shall 

apply when any of the following occur: 

o	 An approaching train is visible and in 

hazardous proximity to such crossing.

o	 A clearly visible electric or mechanical 

signal device gives warning of the 

immediate approach of a railroad 

train; 

o	 A stop sign or other traffic control 

device requiring a stop is posted at the 

crossing; 

o	 A crossing gate is lowered or is being 

lowered or raised, or a human flagger 

gives or continues to give a signal of 

the approach or passage of a railroad 

train; or 

o	 An approaching train horn is being 

sounded. 
27

(b) Except for the five instances requiring 

a stop listed in subsection (a) or unless 

otherwise specified by law, regulation or 

the directions of a police officer, flagger or 

a traffic control device, a person driving a 

vehicle approaching a highway-rail grade 

crossing shall yield the right of way to any 

train within the crossing or approaching so 

closely as to constitute an immediate hazard 

during the time such driver is moving across 

or within the crossing. After stopping or 

yielding as required herein and 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. 

• Designated Vehicles Must Stop at HighwayRail Grade Crossings (11-703)

(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 any 

highway-rail grade crossing: 

1. Controlled by a police officer or flagger; 

2. At which an official traffic control 

device provides notice that the stopping 

requirement imposed by this section 

shall not apply; 

3. A streetcar crossing, or railroad 

tracks used exclusively for industrial 

switching purposes, within a business 

district; 

4. An abandoned railroad grade crossing 

which is marked with a sign indicating 

that the rail line is abandoned;

5. An industrial or spur line railroad 

grade crossing marked with a sign 

reading “Exempt.” Such “Exempt” signs 

shall be erected only by or with the 

consent of the appropriate State or local 

authority. 

(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 official or agency) shall consider the 

operating characteristics of the vehicle, 

the number of passengers carried, and the 

hazardous nature of any substance carried 

in determining whether such vehicle shall be 

required to stop. 

The UVC also prohibits any vehicle from driving 

around or under any gate or barrier while it is closed 

or being opened or closed.

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.

2. Vehicle 

The design and operation of a railroad grade crossing 

must take into account the numbers 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 8 summarizes collisions at crossings by vehicle 

type. Rates are defined as collisions per billion miles of 

travel. The data provide some indication of the relative 

hazards for each of the vehicles. Trucks have the 

highest collision rates of all vehicle types. Motorcycles 
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

28

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 American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials (AASHTO) and shown in Tables 9 and 10. 

AASHTO now recognizes a total of 20 design vehicle 

classes. This reflects the increase in the size of tractorsemitrailers, 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.39

Unless trucks are prohibited at the crossing, it is 

desirable that the design vehicle be at least a tractorsemitrailer truck (WB-15 SI Metric, or WB-50). 

Typically, the design vehicle should be a “doublebottom” 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 applicable. On major arterials with 

significant truck traffic, the design vehicle should be an 

“interstate” semitrailer truck (WB-62 or WB-65).

39 A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 2004 

Edition. Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2004.

Table 8. Motor Vehicle Collisions and Casualties at Public Crossings by Vehicle Type, 2004

Automobiles1 Buses Trucks2 Motorcycles Total

Total collisions

 Number 1,828 7 587 9 2,431

 Rate3 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

 Rate3 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

 Rate3 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

1

 “Automobiles” includes passenger cars, pick-up trucks, vans, and sport utility vehicles.

2

 “Trucks” includes both single-unit trucks and combination trucks. 

3

 “Rate” is the number of collisions, fatalities, or injuries divided by billions of vehicle miles traveled.

Source: Railroad Safety Statistics Annual Report 2004. Bureau of Transportation Statistics Website (www.bts.gov). 
29

The width of the vehicle may be an issue when 

selecting the crossing surface. Since the passage of the 

1982 Surface Transportation Assistance Act, trucks 

and intercity buses are permitted to have widths of 2.6 

meters (102 inches).

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 relatively 

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. Three vehicle types are of 

particular concern for crossing safety: trucks carrying 

hazardous materials; any commercial motor vehicle 

transporting passengers; and school buses. Collisions 

Table 9. 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

Farm tractor*** TR 16

* 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.

*** 150–200 horsepower tractor excluding any wagon length.

Source: From A Policy on Geometric Design of Highway and Streets, 2004, by the American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials, Washington, DC. Used by permission. 
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

30

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 National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), it was 

determined that an average of 62 collisions involving 

train collisions with trucks transporting hazardous 

materials occur annually. NTSB’s examination of the 

collision data revealed that these collisions tend to 

occur near truck terminals.40

Requirements for commercial vehicles to stop or slow 

at highway-rail grade crossings are contained in 49 

CFR Part 392.10, which requires that the driver of a 

specified commercial motor vehicle: 

40 Railroad/Highway Grade Crossing Accidents Involving 

Trucks Transporting Bulk Hazardous Materials, A Special Study. 

Washington, DC: National Transportation Safety Board, Report 

NTSB-HZM-81-2, September 1981. 

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 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:

• Every bus transporting passengers and 

vehicles transporting migrant workers. (“Bus” 

Table 10. Metric Lengths for Design Vehicles

Design vehicle type Designation Length 

(meters)

Passenger car P 5.8

Single-unit truck SU 9.2

Buses

Intercity bus (motor coaches) BUS-12 12.2

BUS-14 13.7

City transit bus CITY-BUS 12.2

Conventional school bus (65 passengers) S-BUS 11 10.9

Large school bus (84 passengers) S-BUS 12 12.2

Articulated bus A-BUS 18.3

Trucks

Intermediate semitrailer WB-12 13.9

Intermediate semitrailer WB-15 16.8

Interstate semitrailer WB-19* 20.9

Interstate semitrailer WB-20** 22.4

“Double-bottom” semitrailer/trailer WB-20D 22.4

Triple-semitrailer/trailers WB-30T 32.0

Turnpike double-semitrailer/trailer WB-33D 34.8

Recreational vehicles

Motor home MH 9.2

Car and camper trailer P/T 14.8

Car and boat trailer P/B 12.8

Motor home and boat trailer MH/B 16.2

Farm tractor*** TR 4.9

* Design vehicle with 14.63-meter trailer as adopted in the 1982 Surface Transportation Assistance Act.

** Design vehicle with 16.16-meter trailer as adopted grandfathered in with the 1982 Surface Transportation Assistance Act.

*** 150–200 horsepower tractor excluding any wagon length.

Source: From A Policy on Geometric Design of Highway and Streets, 2004, by the American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials, Washington, DC. Used by permission. 
31

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 U.S. DOT, 

is required to be marked or placarded with 

hazardous materials including:

O	 Poison Gas.

O	 Flammables.

O	 Chlorine.

O	 Poison.

O	 Oxygen.

O	 Combustible liquids.

Exceptions provided in the rule indicate a stop need 

not be made at:

• A streetcar crossing, or railroad tracks used 

exclusively for industrial switching purposes, 

within a business district;

• A railroad grade crossing when a police officer 

or crossing flagman directs traffic to proceed;

• A railroad grade crossing controlled by a 

functioning highway traffic signal transmitting 

a green indication which, under local law, 

permits the commercial motor vehicle to 

proceed across the railroad tracks without 

slowing or stopping;

• An abandoned railroad grade crossing marked 

with a sign indicating that the rail line is 

abandoned; or

• An industrial or spur line railroad grade 

crossing marked with a sign reading “Exempt.” 

Such signs shall be erected only by or with 

the consent of the appropriate state or local 

authority.

As required by §398.4, all such motor vehicles shall 

display a sign on the rear reading, “This Vehicle Stops 

at Railroad Crossings.”

Finally, Part 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 IX, Special Issues. 

3. Pedestrians 

In 2004, collisions involving pedestrians at crossings 

accounted for only 3.6 percent, or 111, of all crossing 

collisions. As can be expected, these collisions almost 

always result in an injury or fatality. In 2004, there 

were 73 pedestrian fatalities, comprising 6.8 percent of 

all crossing fatalities. These statistics do not include 

pedestrian collisions occurring elsewhere along 

railroad tracks. Excluding collisions and incidents 

at crossings, 482 trespasser fatalities occurred on 

railroad property during 2004. This represents 54 

percent of all railroad-related fatalities.

Table 11 shows the number of highway-rail grade 

crossing collision fatalities and trespasser fatalities 

from 1995 to 2004. During this 10-year period, crossing 

collision fatalities steadily decreased while trespasser 

fatalities remained generally constant. Each year since 

1997, the number of trespasser fatalities has been 

greater than the number of highway-rail grade crossing 

collision fatalities.

Table 11. Highway-Rail Grade Crossing 

Collision Fatalities versus Trespasser 

Fatalities, 1995–2004

Year

Highway-rail grade 

crossing collision 

fatalities

Trespasser 

fatalities

1995 579 494

1996 488 471

1997 461 533

1998 431 536

1999 402 479

2000 425 463

2001 421 511

2002 357 540

2003 334 500

2004 368 482

Source: Federal Railroad Administration Safety Data Website 

(safetydata.fra.dot.gov/officeofsafety).

One difference between the driver and a pedestrian 

at a grade crossing is the relative ease with which a 

pedestrian can enter the trackway even if pedestrian 

gates are provided.

It is important to understand four contributing factors 

that may motivate pedestrians to enter railroad right 

of way to establish effective preventive measures. 

First, as a consequence of urban development, 

railroads often act as physical dividers between 

important, interrelated elements of communities. 
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

32

Second, railroads have always attracted juveniles as 

“play areas.” Third, at or near commuter stations, 

passengers frequently use short cuts before or after 

boarding a train. Fourth, some people are prone to 

vandalism.41

Several types of preventive measures might be employed, 

including:

• Fencing or other devices for enclosing rights of 

way.

• Grade separation.

• Additional signing.

• Safety education. 

• Surveillance and enforcement.

These measures are discussed in more detail in Chapter 

IX, Special Issues.

There is renewed interest in pedestrian treatments. 

Light-rail operators have been deploying various 

devices to address pedestrian concerns (refer to 

Chapter IX.) The National Committee on Uniform 

Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD), at its January 2006 

meeting, established a Pedestrian Task Force on the 

Railroad Technical Committee, which is charged with 

developing language that will provide guidance and 

options for a wider array of pedestrian treatments at 

grade crossings. 

4. Roadway 

A major component of the crossing consists of the 

physical aspects 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 

41 Texas Transportation Institute. “Participant Notebook for a 

Training Course in Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Improvement 

Programs.” Prepared for FHWA, College Station, Texas, revised 

November 1979.

as controlled intersections, driveways, business 

establishments and distracting signs, significant lane 

interaction, and on-street parking.

All other factors being the same, especially train 

volumes, collision frequency increases with increasing 

traffic volume. However, traffic volume alone is not a 

sufficient forecaster of collisions at crossings. This 

will be shown when collision prediction models are 

discussed in Chapter III, Assessment of Safety and 

Operations.

The geometric features that can affect traffic 

operations at highway-rail grade crossings include:

• 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. Only 7 percent of all public 

crossings are on highways with more than two lanes.42

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 vehiclevehicle 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.

Vertical and 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.

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. 

42 Highway Rail Crossing Accident/Incident and Inventory 

Bulletin (No. 18 Calendar Year 1995). Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT), Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), September 1996.
33

Crossing elevation or profile. Another aspect of 

the crossing is its elevation. Vehicles that must 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. 

Intersecting highways. Approximately one-third 

of all public highway-rail crossings have a highway 

intersection within 23 meters (75 feet) of the tracks. 

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 must 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. 

Illumination. Illumination of the crossing can 

definitely aid the motorist. In 2004, 1,214 of 3,063 total 

collisions at crossings occurred during darkness.43

Illumination may be effective in reducing collisions at 

night; it will also assist road users, including bicyclists 

and pedestrians, in traversing the crossing at night. 

U.S. DOT inventory reports that commercial power is 

available at more than 90 percent of public crossings. 

Therefore, lighting is feasible at most crossings; 

43 Railroad Safety Statistics 2004 Annual Report. Washington, 

DC: U.S. DOT, FRA, November 2005.

depending, of course, on the reliability of the power 

source. Design details of illumination are discussed in 

Chapter IV, Identification of Alternatives.

5. Traffic Control Devices

Traffic control systems for highway-rail grade 

crossings include all signs, signals, markings, and 

illumination devices and their supports along highways 

approaching and at railroad crossings at grade. The 

function of these devices is to permit safe and efficient 

operation of highway and rail traffic over crossings. 

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, 

operation, 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 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.44 

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 must 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 located in a separate right 

of way with designated crossings of highways and 

pedestrian pathways, traffic is typically controlled with 

one of three types of devices, each requiring a distinct 

44 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition. 

Washington, DC: FHWA, 2003.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

34

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 

4.5 meters (15 feet) before the near rail if 

necessary, 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 4.5 meters (15 feet) 

short of the near rail. Then, even though the 

flashing lights may still be operating, the driver 

is allowed to 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 that should facilitate 

education and enforcement.45

B. Railroad Components 

A railroad’s class is determined by its inflationadjusted operating revenues for three consecutive 

years, using the following scale (2004 amounts):

• Class I: $250 million or more.

• Class II: less than $250 million but more than 

$20 million.

• Class III: $20 million or less.

Using the inflation-adjusted index, the year 2005 

threshold for a Class I railroad is $289.4 million. In 

2005, there were seven U.S. Class I railroads:

• BNSF Railway.

• CSX Transportation.

• Grand Trunk Corporation.

• Kansas City Southern Railway.

• Norfolk Southern Combined Railroad 

Subsidiaries.

45 Guidance on Traffic Control Devices at Highway-Rail Grade 

Crossings. Washington, DC: FHWA, Highway/Rail Grade Crossing 

Technical Working Group, November 2002.

• Soo Line Railroad.

• Union Pacific Railroad.

Two Canadian railroads, Canadian National Railway 

and Canadian Pacific Railway, have enough revenue 

that they would be U.S. Class I railroads if they were 

U.S. companies. Both companies also own railroads 

in the Unites States that, by themselves, qualify to be 

Class I railroads. 

In 2004, there were some 21 Class II railroads. 

In 2004, there were about 525 Class III line-haul 

railroads and switching and terminal companies, also 

Class III. Many of these Class III railroads provide 

switching and terminal services for the larger Class 

I and II railroad companies. Some Class III railroads 

take over the operation of a single line that a larger 

railroad abandoned for economic reasons. Class III 

railroads often require assistance with regard to 

highway-rail grade crossings because of their limited 

manpower and financial resources. These small 

railroads are often unable to seek out federal and 

state funds for improving crossings, but safety at their 

crossings is just as important as at any other crossing. 

For the purposes of this handbook, the railroad 

components of highway-rail grade crossings have been 

divided into two categories: train and track. 

1. Train 

During every business day, approximately 112,000 

freight cars are loaded in the United States, Canada, 

and Mexico.46 Statistics as to the average length, net 

lading, and overall speed of freight trains in a typical 

year do not begin to describe the variety of operations 

involved in railroad freight movements. Unit trains 

may cover more than 1,500 miles without a change of 

consist and gross from 6,500 to 13,500 tons; a car in 

a local freight may move only a couple of miles and 

represent the entire train consist. Dedicated piggyback 

trains may be limited to 25 to 50 cars and may run over 

several railroads with few, if any, intermediate stops to 

set out and pick up blocks of cars at major terminals. 

This variation in rail movements also occurs on the 

micro scale, such as at individual highway-rail grade 

crossings. Thus, the design of traffic control systems 

at crossings must allow for a wide variation in train 

length, train speed, and train occurrence. 

Long trains, such as unit trains, directly affect the 

operation of highway traffic over crossings and 

indirectly affect safety as well. Unit trains consist of 

46 Bureau of Transportation Statistics Website (www.bts.gov).
35

as many as 100 freight cars with the same lading. Coal 

and grain are two major commodities transported in 

unit trains. Because of their lengths, unit trains will 

take longer to pass over a crossing and, in effect, close 

the crossing to highway traffic for a longer period of 

time. 

In addition, some communities have passed ordinances 

restricting train speed for the purpose of improving 

safety. However, this practice directly reduces the level 

of service for highway traffic and may also affect safety. 

Because of the longer period of time during which the 

crossing is closed to highway traffic, a motorist may 

take risks by passing over the crossing just ahead of 

a train. In many cases, risks such as these are not 

successful, and collisions result. 

Trains other than unit trains typically consist of a 

variety of cars and ladings. A few cars may be picked 

up along the way and may be dropped off from the 

same train or may be taken to a railroad yard where a 

new train is made up of cars with similar destinations. 

It is obvious that trains must stop to pick up cars, but 

it is unfortunate that some of these pick-up points are 

located in the central portion of communities. This 

results in trains moving slowly over the crossing or 

even standing on the crossing as the pick-up is made. 

With the lengths of freight trains today, an entire 

community can be physically divided by a freight train 

stopped on all of its crossings. 

Railroads have operating procedures designed to 

prevent extensive blockage of crossings, and many 

states have passed regulations prohibiting the blockage 

of crossings for various lengths of time. Twenty-eight 

states expressly prohibit trains from blocking crossings 

for a period that varies from 5 to 20 minutes. Of these, 

10 states exempt moving trains.47 A freight train can 

be divided to allow highway traffic to pass through, but 

this practice requires the braking system to be filled 

with air, which can take considerable time. Changes in 

operating practices that may assist in the alleviation 

of these types of problems are discussed further in 

Chapter IV, Identification of Alternatives. 

Railroads carry passengers in addition to freight, 

although this mode of transportation has declined 

during recent decades due to the construction of the 

interstate highway system, the convenience of the 

automobile, and the speed of the airplane. Amtrak, the 

National Railroad Passenger Corporation, provides 

passenger service nationwide. Created by Congress 

in 1971, Amtrak operates over track owned by itself 

47 “Compilation of State Laws and Regulations on Matters Affecting 

Highway-Rail Crossings” (www.fra.dot.gov).

(primarily in the northeast) and by other railroad 

companies. In accordance with labor agreements, 

employees of privately-owned railroad companies 

operate Amtrak passenger trains over that railroad’s 

trackage. 

Some private railroad companies continue to operate 

passenger trains, particularly for commuter service 

in urban areas. Some municipal, regional, and state 

authorities have taken over railroad commuter 

services. Many light-rail transit companies are in 

operation and are being constructed in the United 

States with numerous crossings and longitudinal street 

use. (These are not normally considered railroads 

in tabulating crossing collisions.) On the heavy-rail 

rapid transit systems, there are few crossings of public 

highways at grade. 

Locomotives and cars obviously form a train, but for 

crossing purposes, any rail operation over a highway 

is of concern, whether it is one or more engines or a 

group of cars pushed over a crossing. Most locomotives 

today are diesel-electric or straight electric, although 

some railroads operate steam locomotives as special 

passenger trains for historical purposes. In 1983, 

25,838 locomotive units were in service on Class I 

railroads; all but 63 of these units were diesel-electric. 

Headlights. All locomotives are equipped with 

headlights that are illuminated whenever the 

locomotive is in motion. One type of light is a 30-volt, 

200-watt PAR-56 sealed beam lamp with an output 

of 200,000 to 300,000 candlepower. The lamp is 

usually used in pairs. Some railroads use oscillating 

headlights, comprising one or more standard 

locomotive headlight lamps on a mounting plate moved 

by a small motor in a figure eight, circular, or oval 

pattern. The light beam thus “sweeps” across the 

tracks.

Several types of roof lights are sometimes used on 

locomotives to serve as markers in yards so that the 

locomotive can be easily located among numerous 

freight cars. These types of roof lights include beacon 

lights, strobe lights, and sequentially flashing lights. In 

an effort to make the locomotive as visible as possible, 

some railroads utilize these types of lights at highwayrail grade crossings, either illuminating them whenever 

the locomotive is in motion or illuminating them in 

advance of crossings. 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) considered 

a regulation that would require the mandatory use of 

strobe lights or, in a later proposed rulemaking, the 

use of any of the four types of roof lights at crossings. 

However, based on information received in response 

to the proposed rulemakings and on an in-depth 
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

36

analysis of costs and benefits, FRA concluded that 

the information in the docket does not support the 

proposition that alerting lights are effective in reducing 

the incidence of grade crossing collisions. Without 

that support, a federal regulatory requirement that 

railroads equip their locomotives with an alerting light 

is not justified.48 

FRA issued a Final Rule on locomotive headlights, 

49 CFR 229, effective March 16, 2004, which clarified 

FRA requirements for locomotive lighting, including 

the requirement for auxiliary lighting. The revised 

regulations are in Section 229.125, and the auxiliary 

lights are to be placed at the front of the locomotive to 

form a triangle with the headlight.49

Train horns and quiet zones. 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. Under current rules, 

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.

On April 27, 2005, FRA published in the Federal 

Register provisions of 49 CFR 222, “Use of Locomotive 

Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings,” which 

determines when the horn is sounded at public 

crossings (and at private crossings within “quiet 

zones”). The Final Rule, which took effect on June 24, 

2005, preempts various existing state laws and railroad 

operating rules and allows for the establishment of 

quiet zones. A summary of this rule follows on the next 

page.50

On August 17, 2006, FRA published amendments to the 

Final Rule in the Federal Register. Effective September 

18, 2006, the amendments extended the compliance 

date of time-based locomotive horn sounding until 

December 15, 2006. Among the other rule changes were 

provisions that expanded the time-based requirements 

to include all locomotive audible devices; provided 

an exception to the 15-second minimum locomotive 

horn sounding requirement for trains that re-initiate 

movement after having stopped in close proximity to a 

48 “Display of Altering Lights by Locomotives at Public Rail-Highway 

Crossings: Termination of Rule Making.” Docket No. RSGC-2, Notice 

4, Federal Register, Vol. 48, No. 88, Washington, DC, May 5, 1983.

49 U.S. DOT, FRA. 49 CFR Part 229, Railroad Locomotive Safety 

Standards: Clarifying Amendments; Headlights and Auxiliary Lights; 

Final Rule.

50 Developed from “The ‘Train Horn’ Final Rule Summary.” 

Washington, DC: FRA, 2005.

public highway-rail grade crossing; indicated that the 

time-based criteria for sounding the horn pertains to 

pedestrian and private crossings in states that require 

horn sounding at such locations; and clarified that 

locomotives used in rapid transit are exempt from the 

locomotive horn sound level requirements.

Additional information, including the full text of the 

Final Rule, the Final Environmental Impact Statement, 

and background documents, are available at the FRA 

Website.51

At the June 2006 meeting of NCUTCD, the council 

approved for adoption into the next edition of MUTCD 

language for Part 8, which incorporates those portions 

of the train horn rule that pertain to traffic control 

devices consistent with the Final Rule.

Reflectorization. Nearly one-quarter of all highwayrail grade crossing collisions involve motor vehicles 

running into trains occupying grade crossings. 

The large size and dark colorization of trains in 

combination with poor lighting or limited visibility may 

contribute to motorists having difficulty detecting the 

train in their path. Reflective material will help reduce 

the numbers and severity of this type of collision by 

giving motorists an additional visual warning of the 

presence of a train.

Reflectorization has become an indispensable tool for 

enhancing visibility and safety in virtually all modes 

of transportation. Extending the benefits of reflective 

materials to railroads will improve highway-rail grade 

crossing safety and prevent many avoidable collisions.

On January 3, 2005, FRA published a Final Rule on 

reflectorization of freight rolling stock, which took 

effect on March 4, 2005. Figure 1 shows an example of 

the reflectorization standards as applied to a boxcar.

FRA issued the Final Rule under 49 CFR 224 to 

mandate the reflectorization of freight rolling stock, 

including freight cars and locomotives, to enhance 

the visibility of trains to reduce the numbers and 

severity of collisions at highway-rail grade crossings 

in which train visibility is a contributing factor. The 

rule establishes a schedule for the application of 

retroreflective material and prescribes standards for 

the construction, performance, application, inspection, 

and maintenance of the material.

The Final Rule on Reflectorization of Rail Freight 

51 U.S. DOT, FRA. 49 CFR Parts 222 and 29 [Docket No. FRA–1999–

6439, Notice No. 16] RIN 2130–AA71, Use of Locomotive Horns at 

Highway-Rail Grade Crossings. 
37

QUIET ZONE RULE SUMMARY 

Overview

The Final Rule on “quiet zones” is intended to:

• Maintain a high level of public safety. 

• Respond to the varied concerns of many communities that have sought relief from 

unwanted horn noise.

• Take into consideration the interests of localities with existing whistle bans. 

The public authority responsible for traffic control or law enforcement at the highway-rail grade 

crossing is the only entity that can designate or apply for quiet zone status.

Mandated by law, the Final Rule:1

• Defines engineering solutions known as “supplementary safety measures” (SSMs) for use 

without FRA approval.

• Provides explicit flexibility for the modification of SSMs to receive credit as “alternative 

safety measures” (ASMs) (for instance, shorter traffic channelization arrangements can 

be used with reasonable effectiveness estimates).

• Includes a provision that provides risk reduction credit for pre-existing SSMs and preexisting modified SSMs that were implemented prior to December 18, 2003. 

• Allows use of education and enforcement options, including photo enforcement, subject to 

verification of effectiveness.

Local public authorities may designate or request approval of quiet zones in which train horns 

may not be routinely sounded. 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 

implemented (if required). 

Once a quiet zone is established (including the continuation of pre-rule quiet zones pending any 

required improvements), the railroad is barred from routine sounding of the horn at the affected 

highway-rail grade crossings.

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. The tool may be found on the 

FRA Website. 

To ensure proper application of the risk index, the National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory 

must be accurate and complete. In the absence of timely filings to the inventory by the states or 

railroads, local authorities may file updated inventory information, and railroads must cooperate 

in providing railroad-specific data. 

FRA regional personnel are available to participate in diagnostic teams evaluating options for 

quiet zones.

1 49 U.S.C. 20153. 
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

38

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 

the highway-rail grade crossing but not more than one-quarter-mile in advance of the crossing. 

Note: Most existing state laws and railroad rules required that the horn be sounded beginning at 

a point one-quarter-mile in advance of the highway-rail grade crossing and continued until the 

crossing is occupied by the locomotive. Under the quiet zone rule, for trains running at less than 

45 miles per hour, this reduces the time and distance over which the horn is sounded, thereby 

reducing noise impacts on local communities. 

The pattern for sounding the horn will remain as it currently exists today (two long, one short, one 

long repeated or prolonged until the locomotive occupies the highway-rail grade crossing). 

Train operators may vary this pattern as necessary where highway-rail grade crossings are 

closely spaced; they will also be empowered (but not required) to sound the horn in the case of an 

emergency, even in a quiet zone. 

The rule addresses use of the horn only with respect to highway-rail grade crossings. Railroads 

remain free to use the horn for other purposes as prescribed in railroad operating rules on file 

with FRA, and railroads must use the horn as specified in other FRA regulations (in support 

of roadway worker safety and in the case of malfunctions of highway-rail grade crossing active 

warning devices).

The rule prescribes both a minimum and a maximum volume level for the train horn. The minimum 

level is retained at 96 dB(A), and the new maximum will be 110 dB(A). This range is intended to 

permit railroads to address safety needs in their operating territory (this issue is addressed in the 

preamble text of the Final Rule).

The protocol for testing the locomotive horn is altered to place the sound-level meter at a height 

of 15 feet above the top of the rail rather than the previous 4 feet above the top of the rail. (Cabmounted and low-mounted horns continue to have the sound-level meter placed 4 feet above the 

top of the rail.) 

Note: The effect of this change is to permit center-mounted horns to be “turned down” in some 

cases. The previous test method was influenced by the “shadow effect” created by the body of the 

locomotive to indicate a lower sound level than would otherwise be expected several hundred feet 

in front of the locomotive (where the crossing and approaching motorists are located). 

The effect of these changes is expected to reduce noise impacts for 3.4 million of the 9.3 million 

people currently affected by train horn noise. 

Creation of Quiet Zones

The rule provides significant flexibility to communities to create quiet zones, both where there are 

existing whistle bans and in other communities that heretofore have had no opportunity to do so. 

The Final Rule permits implementation of quiet zones in low-risk locales without requiring the 

addition of safety improvements. 
39

• 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). 

• Risk may be averaged over crossings in a proposed quiet zone. 

• Average risk within the proposed quiet zone is then compared with the average nationwide 

risk at gated crossings where the horn is sounded (the “National Significant Risk 

Threshold” (NSRT)). FRA will compute the NSRT annually.

The effect of this approach is that horns can remain silenced in more than half of pre-rule quiet 

zones without significant expense; many new quiet zones can be created without significant 

expense where flashing lights and gates are already in place at the highway-rail grade crossings. 

If the risk index for a proposed new quiet zone exceeds the NSRT, supplementary or alternative 

safety measures must be used to reduce that risk (to fully compensate for the absence of the train 

horn or to reduce risk below the NSRT). 

Maintenance of Pre-Rule Quiet Zones

Train horns will not sound in existing whistle ban areas if authorities state their intention to 

maintain pre-rule quiet zones and do whatever is required (see above) within five years of the 

effective date (June 24, 2005; eight years if the state agency provides at least some assistance to 

communities in that state). 

To secure pre-rule quiet zone status, communities must provide proper notification to FRA and 

other affected parties by June 3, 2005 and file a plan with FRA by June 24, 2008 (if improvements 

are required).

Horns may continue to be silenced at pre-rule quiet zones if: 

• The average risk at the crossings is less than the NSRT; or 

• The average risk is less than twice the NSRT and no relevant collisions have occurred 

within the past five years; or 

• The community undertakes actions to compensate for lack of the train horn as a warning 

device (or at least to reduce average risk to below the NSRT). 

Creation of New Quiet Zones

New quiet zones may be created if all public highway-rail grade crossings are equipped with 

flashing lights and gates; and either: 

• After adjusting for excess risk created by silencing the train horn, the average risk at the 

crossings is less than the NSRT; or 

• SSMs are present at each public crossing; or 

• Safety improvements are made that compensate for loss of the train horn as a warning 

device (or at least to reduce average risk to below the NSRT). 

Detailed instructions for establishing or requesting recognition of a quiet zone are provided in the 

regulation.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

40

Length of Quiet Zones

Generally, a quiet zone must be at least one-half-mile in length and may include one or more 

highway-rail grade crossings. 

Pre-rule quiet zones may be retained at the length that existed as of October 9, 1996, even if 

less than one-half-mile. A pre-rule quiet zone that is greater than one-half-mile may be reduced 

in length to no less than one-half-mile and retain its pre-rule status. However, if its length is 

increased from pre-rule length by the addition of highway-rail grade crossings that are not prerule quiet zone crossings, pre-rule status will not be retained. 

Supplementary and Alternative Safety Measures

SSMs are engineering improvements that clearly compensate for the absence of the train horn. If 

employed at every highway-rail grade crossing in the quiet zone, they automatically qualify the 

quiet zone (subject to reporting requirements). They also may be used to reduce the average risk 

in the corridor to fully compensate for the lack of a train or to below the NSRT. 

• Temporary closure used with a partial zone.

• Permanent closure of a highway-rail grade 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 the crossing (60 

feet where there is an intersecting roadway) and no commercial driveways included.

• One-way street with gate across the roadway.

ASMs may be applied such that the combination of measures at one or more highway-rail grade 

crossings reduces the average risk by the required amount across the quiet zone (so-called 

“corridor approach”). 

• Any modified SSM (such as barrier gate and median; shorter channelization; raised 

median islands; longitudinal median separators); or 

• Education and/or enforcement programs (including photo enforcement) with verification of 

effectiveness; or 

• Engineering improvements, other than modified SSMs; or 

• Combination of the above. 

The rule provides that pre-existing SSMs and pre-existing modified SSMs will be counted toward 

risk reduction. 

Recognition of the Automated Wayside Horn

The rule authorizes use of the automated wayside horn at any highway-rail grade crossing with 

flashing lights and gates (inside or outside a quiet zone) as a one-to-one substitute for the train 

horn. 

Certain technical requirements apply, consistent with the successful demonstrations of this 

technology. 
41

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has issued an interim approval for the use of 

wayside horns as traffic control devices. Communities interested in employing this option should 

contact FHWA to ensure that they comply with the provisions of the interim approval. 

Special Circumstances

A community or railroad that views the provisions of the rule inapplicable to local circumstances 

may request a waiver from the rule from FRA. 

A railroad or community seeking a waiver must first consult with the other party and seek 

agreement on the form of relief. If agreement cannot be achieved, the party may still request 

the relief by a waiver, provided the FRA associate administrator determines that a joint waiver 

petition would not be likely to contribute significantly to public safety. 

FRA grants waivers if in the public interest and consistent with the safety of highway and railroad 

users of the highway-rail grade crossings. 

Other Provisions

The Final Rule addresses quiet zones that prohibit sounding of horns during the evening and/or 

nighttime hours. These are referred to as partial quiet zones. 

The Final Rule requires diagnostic team reviews of pedestrian crossings located within proposed 

new quiet zones and new partial quiet zones. 

The Final Rule requires quiet zone communities to retain automatic bells at public highway-rail 

grade crossings that are subject to pedestrian traffic. 

The Final Rule extends “recognized state agency” status to state agencies that wish to participate 

in the quiet zone development process. 

The Final Rule contains a 60-day comment period on quiet zone applications. 

The Final Rule requires 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. 

The Final Rule provides quiet zone risk reduction credit for certain pre-existing SSMs. 

The Final Rule provides quiet zone risk reduction credit for pre-existing modified SSMs. 

The Final Rule contains a new category of ASMs that addresses engineering improvements other 

than modified SSMs. 
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

42

Rolling Stock requires railroads to install yellow or 

white reflective materials on locomotives over a fiveyear timeframe and on freight rail cars over a 10-year 

period. The reflective materials will be installed on all 

newly constructed locomotives and freight rail cars 

and on existing ones during periodic maintenance or 

repair, unless alternate implementation plans have 

been developed that meet the requisite timetables. The 

effective date of the rule is March 4, 2005.

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 may accelerate at 0.3 mph per second. 

As speed increases, the acceleration rate decreases. A 

freight 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 

Figure 1. Reflectorization Example—Standards Applicable to Boxcars

Source: 49 CFR Part 224, Final Rule, Reflectorization of Rail Freight Rolling Stock, Federal Railroad Administration, Docket Number FRA1999-6899, Notice No. 6, Washington, DC, October 2005.
43

Figure 2. Number of Collisions by Number of Trains per Day per Crossing, 2004

Source: Unpublished data from Federal Railroad Administration.

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 1 mile to stop in emergency braking. 

The majority of crossing collisions involve freight 

trains, as shown in Table 12.

Generally, crossings with higher numbers of trains per 

day would be expected to have more crossing collisions 

because the “exposure” (the number of trains per day 

multiplied by the number of cars per day) is higher 

for any given highway traffic level. Figure 2 shows the 

number of collisions in 2004 by the number of trains 

per day per crossing. Although Figure 2 indicates a 

dip in the number of collisions for crossings with 21 to 

30 trains per day, due to the fact that there are fewer 

crossings with these activity levels, crossings with 

higher activity levels have higher collision rates as well.

Table 12. Collisions at Public Crossings 

Involving Motor Vehicles by Type of Train, 2004

Type of train Collisions

Freight 1,997

Passenger/commuter 227

Yard switching 167

Other* 232

Total 2,623

* Note: “Other” includes work trains, light locomotives, single 

car, cut of cars, maintenance/inspection car, and special 

maintenance-of-way equipment.

Source: Unpublished data from Federal Railroad 

Administration.

2. Track 

In the United States, railroad trackage is classified 

into six categories based upon maximum permissible 

operating speed. FRA’s track safety standards set 

maximum train speeds for each class of track, as 

shown in Table 13.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

N

U

MB

E

R OF A

CCID

E

NTS

< 1 1-2 3-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 >30

N U M B ER O F TR AIN S

N u m b er o f A ccid en ts/ N u m b er o f T rain s

NUMBER OF TRAINS

NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

44

Table 13. Maximum Train Speeds by Class of 

Track*

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 9 200 mph 200 mph

* Note: If train operations exceed 177 kilometers per hour 

(110 mph) for a track segment that will include highway-rail 

grade crossings, FRA’s approval of a complete description of 

the proposed warning/barrier system to address the protection 

of highway traffic and high-speed trains must be obtained in 

advance. All elements of the warning/barrier system must be 

functioning.

Source: Track Safety Standards Compliance Manual. Washington, 

DC: Federal Railroad Administration, January 2002.

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 steel-wheel-to-steel-rail 

contact involves pressures of more than 50,000 pounds 

per square inch, which are then reduced to pressures 

acceptable to the underlying soil by a series of steps, 

going from the rail to a steel plate under the rail (tie 

plate), which spreads the load over a wooden tie, 

which spreads the load over rock or slag ballast, 

which spreads the load to a sub-ballast (usually 

gravel, cinders, or sand), which spreads the load to the 

subgrade consisting of either the native soil below or 

some superior material obtained off site.

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. For the last 50 years, the standard 

rail length has been 39 feet for transportation in 40-

foot cars. 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 rail, distribute 

the load to the ballast, and provide flexibility to cushion 

impacts of the wheels on the rail. Prestressed concrete 

ties have come into greater use on U.S. railroads in 

recent years but still represent less than 1 percent of 

the ties in use in the United States 

Spikes or other rail fasteners are used to connect the 

rail to the ties for the primary purpose of preventing 

the rail from shifting sideways. Because rail has a 

tendency to move lengthwise, rail anchors are 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 that 

averages about 100 pound-force per square inch just 

underneath the tie. Ballast must be able to resist 

degradation from the effects of tie motion that generate 

“fines” that may “cement” into an impervious mass. 

Ballast must also provide good drainage, which is 

especially important for the strength of the subgrade 

and also prevents mud from working its way up to 

contaminate the ballast. 

Railway track is normally maintained by sophisticated, 

high production, mechanized equipment. 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. 

Track components are generally replaced as needed. 

A typical heavy-duty freight line on tangent may be 

surfaced every two years, have about 25 percent of 

its ties renewed every eight years, and have its rail 

changed every 12 years. 

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 line trackage typically carries freight 

from its origin to the mainline on which it moves to its 

destination or to another branch line to its destination. 

Passing tracks, sometimes called sidings, are used for 

meeting and passing trains. Side tracks and industrial 

tracks are used to store cars and to load or unload them. 
45

FRA reports that, as of 2005, 92,421 public at-grade 

crossings consist of one main track only. “Main” track 

is one that carries through movement as opposed 

to switching movements or terminal movements. 

Therefore, branch lines have a main track, as do 

mainlines. Table 14 shows public at-grade crossings by 

number of main and other tracks. 

Collision statistics show that the majority of collisions 

occur on main tracks. This is, of course, due to the fact 

that there are more crossings with main tracks and, 

generally, more train traffic moves over main tracks. 

Various collision databases (such as FRA, railroads, 

and local jurisdictions) have varying reporting 

thresholds and methodologies. Consequently, the 

specific number of collisions may vary between these 

databases. Table 15 shows track class and permissible 

speeds.

3. Signaling

During the early years of railroading, methods had to 

be devised to ensure that two trains did not meet at 

the same time on the same section of track. This was 

initially accomplished through the use of timetables 

and train orders. Block signal systems were developed, 

which indicated to the locomotive engineer whether 

or not a train was ahead in the next block of track. 

These signals were set manually until the track circuit 

was developed, which sensed the presence of a train 

in the block and set the signals automatically. The 

track circuit was designed to be fail-safe, so that if 

the battery or any wire connections were to fail or if a 

rail was broken, a clear signal would not be displayed. 

Insulated joints were used to define the limits of the 

block. Various types of track circuits are utilized 

in automatic traffic control device installations at 

Table 14. Public At-Grade Crossings by Type of Track, 2005

Other tracks

Main tracks

Total

0 1 2 3 4 5 > 5

0 9 92,421 8,642 298 53 3 1 101,427

1 13,271 17,901 1,913 60 11 - 1 33,157

2 2,756 4,997 633 41 12 - 1 8,440

3 761 1,325 183 13 13 - - 2,295

4 230 425 79 6 6 3 1 750

5 98 161 48 4 - 1 1 313

> 5 78 150 44 1 3 - - 276

Total 17,203 117,380 11,542 423 98 7 5 146,658

Source: Unpublished data from Federal Railroad Administration.

highway-rail grade crossings. (Refer to discussion in 

Chapter IV for specifics on train detection.)

C. References

Accident/Incident Bulletin. Washington, DC: 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), published 

annually. 

Armstrong, John H. The Railroad: What It Is, 

What It Does. Omaha, Nebraska: SimmonsBoardman Publishing Corp., 1982. 

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 23, Washington, 

DC: General Services Administration, published 

annually.

“Display of Alerting Lights by Locomotives at 

Public Rail-Highway Crossings.” Termination 

of Rulemaking, Docket No. RSGC-2, Notice 4. 

Washington, DC: Federal Register, Vol. 48, No. 88, 

May 5, 1983. 

Poage, J.L., J.C. Pomfret, and J.B. Hopkins. Freight 

Car Reflectorization. Washington, DC: FRA, 

Report FRA-RRS83-1, December 1982. 

A Policy on Geometric Design of Highway and 

Streets. Washington, DC: American Association of 

State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2001. 

Post, T.J., G.J. Alexander, and H. Lunenfeld. A 

User’s Guide to Positive Guidance, Second 

Edition. Washington, DC: Federal Highway 

Administration, Report FHWA-TO-81-1, December 

1981. 

Rail-Highway Crossing Accident/Incident 

and Inventory Bulletin. Washington, DC: FRA, 

published annually. 
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

46

Railroad Facts. Washington, DC: Association of 

American Railroads, October 1984.

Railroad/Highway Grade Crossing Accidents 

Involving Trucks Transporting Bulk Hazardous 

Materials, A Special Study. Washington, DC: 

National Transportation Safety Board, Report 

NTSB-HZM-81-2, September 1981. 

Bussell, Eugene, R., Beverly Narum, Charles L. 

Amos, and John M. Schercinger. Compilation 

of State Laws and Regulations on Matters 

Affecting Rail-Highway Crossings. Washington, 

DC: FRA, Report FHWA-TS-83-203, April 1983. 

Traffic Control Devices Handbook. Washington, 

DC: Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2001. 

Uniform Vehicle Code and Model Traffic 

Ordinance. National Committee on Uniform Traffic 

Laws and Ordinances, Evanston, Illinois, 1961 and 

Supplement, 1984.

Table 15. Track Class and Permissible Speeds

Track class Maximum permissible speed

Freight Passenger

Excepted 10 mph (16 km/hr.)* Not permitted

Class 1 10 mph (16 km/hr.) 15 mph (24 km/hr.)

Class 2 25 mph (40 km/hr.) 30 mph (48 km/hr.)

Class 3 40 mph (64 km/hr.) 60 mph (96 km/hr.)

Class 4 60 mph (96 km/hr.) 80 mph (128 km/hr.)**

Class 5 80 mph (128 km/hr.) 90 mph (144 km/hr.)

Class 6 110 mph (176 km/hr.) 110 mph (176 km/hr.)

Class 7 125 mph (200 km/hr.) 125 mph (200 km/hr.)

Class 8 160 mph (256 km/hr.) 160 mph (256 km/hr.)

Class 9 200 mph (320 km/hr.) 200 mph (320 km/hr.)

* No more than five cars loaded with hazardous material are permitted within any single 

train.

** Amtrak trains are limited to 79 mph (126 km/hr.) unless cab signaling or automatic 

train stop is provided.

Source: Federal Railroad Administration.
47

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) requires 

each state to develop and implement a highway safety 

improvement program (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). The objective of an HSIP is to reduce 

“the number and severity of accidents” and decrease 

“the potential for accidents on all highways.” FAPG 924 

requires the planning component to consist of: 

• A process for collecting and maintaining a 

record of collision, traffic, and highway data, 

including, for highway-rail grade crossings, 

the characteristics of both highway and train 

traffic. 

• A process for analyzing available data to 

identify highway locations, sections, and 

elements determined to be hazardous on 

the basis of collision experience or collision 

potential. 

• A process for conducting engineering studies of 

hazardous locations, sections, and elements to 

develop highway safety improvement projects. 

• A process for establishing priorities for 

implementing highway safety improvement 

projects. 

The implementation component consists of a 

process for programming and implementing safety 

improvements. The evaluation component consists 

of a process for determining the effect that safety 

improvements have in reducing the number and 

severity of collisions and potential collisions. 

This section of the Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing 

Handbook—Revised Second Edition provides 

guidance for the planning component, consisting of 

the collection and maintenance of data, the analysis of 

data, and engineering studies. In addition, the “systems 

approach,” a method by which several crossings are 

studied collectively, is discussed. Chapter IV identifies 

the various crossing improvements available. Chapter 

V presents guidelines for selecting improvements based 

on safety and operational effectiveness and costs. 

Chapter VI provides guidelines for the implementation 

component of the safety program, Chapter VII discusses 

maintenance programs, and Chapter VIII addresses the 

evaluation component. 

A. Collection and Maintenance 

of Data 

A systematic method for identifying problem locations 

is most important. For highway-railroad grade 

crossings, two types of information are needed: 

inventory and collision data. Inventory data include 

the location of the crossing, volumes of highway and 

train traffic over the crossing, and physical elements of 

the crossing. Collision data for each crossing are also 

needed. 

1. U.S. Department of Transportation Grade 

Crossing Inventory

FAPG 924.9(a)(1) specifies that each state maintain 

“a process for collecting and maintaining a record 

of accident, traffic, and highway data, including, for 

railroad-highway grade crossings, the characteristics 

of both highway and train traffic.” State maintenance 

of the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) 

National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory will satisfy 

this survey requirement. State inventories containing 

data similar to that provided in the national inventory 

will also suffice. 

Assessment of Crossing 

Safety and Operation III
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

48

Figure 3. U.S. DOT Crossing Inventory Form

U.S. DOT CROSSING INVENTORY FORM

OMB Control No. 2130-0017

Form FRA F 6180.71 (11/99) PAGE 1 OF 2

A. 

Railroad State Changes in 

Existing Data

New Crossing Closed Crossing 

or Abandoned

Initiating Agency B. Crossing Number C. Reason for Update

Part I: Location and Classification Information

1. Railroad Oper. Co. 2.

Railroad Division or Region

3.

4. Railroad Subdivision or District

State

5.

County

6.

County Map Ref. No.

7.

City

8. 9.

Highway Type & No.

10.

Street or Road Name

RR I.D. No. 11.

21.

Nearest RR Timetable Station

12.

Branch or Line Name

13.

RR Milepost

18. Crossing Position

At Grade

RR Under

RR Over

20. Average Passenger Train 

Count Per Day

27.C. Signs/Signals

Signs

Signals

17. Crossing Type

Public

Private

Pedestrian

14.

Latitude

22.

Longitude

15.

HSR Corridor ID

23.

Parent RR

24.

Crossing Owner

27.B. Public Access

Yes

No

Unknown

28.A.

D. Effective Date

(MM/DD/YYYY)

(code (max. 4 char.) or name)

(max. 7 char.)

(max. 14 char.) (max. 14 char.)

(2 char.) (max. 20 char.)

(max. 10 char.)

(max. 16 char.)

(max. 7 char.)

(max. 17 char.)

(max. 10 char.) (max. 15 char.)

(max. 15 char.) (max. 7 char)

(max. 10 char., nn.nnnnnnn)

(max. 11 char., nnn.nnnnnnn)

(2 char.)

(max. 4 char.) (RR or Company name)

27. PRIVATE CROSSING INFORMATION

Farm

Residential

Recreational

Industrial

Commercial

(max. 15 char.)

Railroad Use (max. 20 char.)

28.B.

28.C.

28.D.

29.A. State Use (max. 20 char.)

29.B.

29.C.

29.D.

30. Narrative (max. 100 char.)

31. Emergency Contact (Telephone No.) 32. Railroad Contact (Telephone No.) 33. State Contact (Telephone No.)

MUST COMPLETE REMAINDER OF FORM FOR PUBLIC VEHICLE CROSSINGS AT GRADE

Part II: Railroad Information

1. Number of Daily Train Movements

Total Trains Total Switching Trains Total Daylight Thru Trains (6 AM to 6 PM) 1.D. Check if Less Than One Movement Per Day

Railroad Use (max. 20 char.)

Railroad Use (max. 20 char.)

Railroad Use (max. 20 char.)

State Use (max. 20 char.)

State Use (max. 20 char.)

State Use (max. 20 char.)

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION (FRA)

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

2. Speed of Train at Crossing 2.A. Maximum Time Table Speed

2.B. Typical Speed Range Over Crossing from to

Main Other If Other, Specify 3. Type and Number of Tracks (max. 10 char.)

4. Does Another RR Operate a Separate Track at Crossing?

Yes

No

If Yes, Specify RR (max. 16 char.)

5. Does Another RR Operate Over Your Track at Crossing?

Yes

No

If Yes, Specify RR (max. 16 char.)

(mph)

Specify

19. Type of Passenger Service

AMTRAK

AMTRAK & Other

Other

None

ENS Sign Installed (1-800)

Yes No

____________, ____________, ____________, ____________ ____________, ____________, ____________, ____________

(choose one only)

In

Near

(check 

one)

27.A. Category

(check one)

Specify (max. 15 char.)

1.A. 1.B. 1.C.

(mph)

25. Lat/Long Source

Actual Estimated

(nnnnn.nn)

(optional) (if applicable) (if applicable)

16. Quiet Zone

No Partial

24 hr Unknown

STATE SUPPLIED INFORMATION

26. Is There an Adjacent Crossing With a Separate Number?

Yes No If Yes, Provide Number (7 characters)

None

Expires: 7/31/2006
49

Source: U.S. Department on Transportation Website (www.dot.gov).

Part III: Traffic Control Device Information

Train Detection 7. Signalling for Train Operation:

Is Track Equipped with Train Signals?

Yes

No

8. Traffic Light Interconnection/Preemption

Not Interconnected

Simultaneous Preemption

Advance Preemption

N/A

Part IV: Physical Characteristics

1. Type of Development

Open Space Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional

2. Smallest Crossing Angle

 0 - 29 30 - 59 60 - 90 o o o o o o

3. Number of Traffic Lanes 

Crossing Railroad

4. Are Truck Pullout Lanes Present?

Yes No

5. Is Highway Paved?

Yes No

2.E. Pavement Markings

Stoplines RR Xing Symbols None

6. Crossing Surface (on main line)

1. Timber 2. Asphalt 3. Asphalt and Flange 4. Concrete 5. Concrete and Rubber

6. Rubber 7. Metal 8. Unconsolidated 9. Other (Specify)

7. Does Track Run Down a Street?

Yes No Less than 75 feet 75 to 200 feet

8. Nearby Intersecting Highway?

9. Is Crossing Illuminated? (street lights 

within approx. 50 feet from nearest rail)

10. 11.

Part V: Highway Information

1. Highway System

Yes No

2. Is Crossing on State Highway System? 3. Functional Classification 

of Road at Crossing

5. Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) 6. Estimate Percent Trucks

6.

Year AADT

2. Type of Warning Device at Crossing -

Crossbucks: Highway Stop Signs (R1-1) RR Advance Warning 

Signs (W10-1)

Hump Crossing Sign (W10-5)

Other Signs: (specify MUTCD type)

Yes No Unknown

Number Specify Type (max. 10 char.)

3.

Gates Cantilevered (or Bridged) Flashing Lights: Mast Mounted 

Flashing Lights

Other Flashing Lights:

Over Traffic Lane

Not Over Traffic Lane

Highway Traffic Signals Wigwags Bells

3.K. Other Train Activated Warning Devices: (specify)

1. No Signs or Signals

(number)

(number)

(number)

(number)

( number) (number)

200 to 500 feet N/A

Constant Warning Time DC/AFO

None

Is Commercial Power Available? Space Reserved For Future Use

Average Number of School Buses 

Over Crossing per School Day

7.

B. Crossing Number D. Effective Date

(MM/DD/YYYY)

(max. 7 char.)

U.S. DOT CROSSING INVENTORY FORM

PAGE 2

Check if Correct

Paperwork Reduction Act: Public reporting for this information collection is estimated to average 15 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, 

searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. According to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The valid OMB Control 

Number for this collection is 2130-0017.

Signs(specify number of each)

2.A. 2.B. 2.C. 2.D.

3.A.

Type of Warning Device at Crossing - Train Activated Devices (specify number of each)

3.C. 3.D.

3.F. 3.G. 3.H. 3.J.

Number Specify Type (max. 9 char.)

Yes No

4. Posted Highway Speed

Interstate Federal Aid, Not NHS

Nat. Hwy System (NHS) Non Federal Aid

Motion Detectors

Other

Number Specify Type (max. 10 char.)

Yes No

2.F.

Four-quadrant (or 

full barrier) Gates

3.B.

Yes No

Number of Flashing 

Light Pairs

3.E.

4. Specify Special Warning Device NOT Train Activated (max. 20 char.)

(max. 9 char.)

5. Channelization Devices With Gates

All Approaches One Approach None

Is it Signalized? Yes

No

Yes No

9. Reserved For Future Use 10. Reserved For Future Use 11. Reserved For Future Use 12. Reserved For Future Use
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

50

The U.S. DOT National Highway-Rail Crossing 

Inventory was developed in the early 1970s through 

the cooperative efforts of FHWA, the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), the Association of American 

Railroads (AAR), individual states, and individual 

railroads. Each crossing was surveyed—both public 

and private, grade separated and at grade—and data 

were recorded on the inventory form, as shown in 

Figure 3. The inventory contains data on the location 

of the crossing, the amount and type of highway and 

train traffic, traffic control devices, and other physical 

elements of the crossing. 

Each crossing was assigned a unique identification 

number consisting of six numeric characters and 

an alphabetic character. The alphabetic character 

provides an algorithmic check of the six numeric 

characters. To determine the correct alphabetic 

character, sum the products of each of the first six 

digits times the digit’s position (position one is the 

left-most digit). Divide this total sum by 22 and then 

interpolate the remainder according to the following: 

0 - A 6 - G 12 - N 17 - U

1 - B 7 - H 13 - P 18 - V

2 - C 8 - J 14 - R 19 - W

3 D 9 K 15 S 20 X

4 - E 10 - L 16 - T 21 - Y

5 - F 11 - M

The crossing identification number, shown in Figure 

4, was installed at each crossing by attaching a tag to 

a crossbuck post or flashing light post. The two most 

common methods used to install permanent tags at a 

crossing are a metal tag on which the crossing number 

is embossed by raised imprinting and stenciling the 

number on the post. 

Figure 4. Crossing Identification Number Tag

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second 

Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Federal Highway Administration, 198

FRA serves as custodian of the national inventory file. 

Data in the inventory are kept current through the 

voluntary submission of information by the states and 

railroads. Because the national inventory is updated by 

numerous states and railroads, systematic and uniform 

procedures are required to assist FRA in processing 

the data. Two basic procedures have been developed. 

Individual update forms. This is the procedure 

originally developed for updating the national 

inventory. Whenever a change occurs at a crossing, 

such as the installation of traffic control devices, the 

railroad or state initiates an update form. This involves 

completing the following identification data elements 

on the form: crossing identification number; effective 

date of the change; state; county; railroad; and type of 

update, such as a change at an existing crossing, a new 

crossing, or a closed crossing. Other data elements are 

completed only if they have changed or if they were not 

previously reported, such as for a new crossing. 

To ensure that the state and railroad are in agreement 

on the elements contained in the inventory, a process 

was developed by which each would have the 

opportunity to review an update initiated by the other. 

If the railroad initiates the update, it retains a copy 

of the form and sends the original to the state agency. 

The state reviews the information and makes any 

appropriate changes. It then sends a copy back to the 

railroad for its files and sends the original to FRA for 

processing. 

If a state initiates the update, it retains a copy and 

sends the original to the railroad for its review. The 

railroad retains a copy for its files and returns the 

original to the state. The state retains a copy and 

submits the original to FRA for processing. 

This procedure allows both the state and the railroad 

to concur on the crossing information prior to submittal 

to FRA, and establishes the state as the agency that 

submits all data to FRA. Another advantage of this 

procedure is that both the state and the railroad have 

a hardcopy record of the update that can be placed in a 

file along with the original inventory record.

The primary disadvantage of the individual form 

method is that the form must be completed for every 

change. This may result in a time-consuming effort, 

particularly for changes that affect a number of 

crossings. For example, if a railroad changes its 

operation over a route that results in an increase in the 

number of trains per day, an individual form would be 

completed for each crossing. To assist in these types of 

changes, FRA has established procedures for the mass 

updating of one or two data elements. 
 51

Electronic updates.52 Another updating procedure 

involves the submission of data via computer electronic 

file. This method is advantageous for states and railroads 

that maintain the inventory on a computer. A state or 

railroad may enter changes onto its own computer file 

and then periodically send FRA a file of the changes 

in a prescribed format. This method, once established, 

provides for the updating of the national file with relative 

ease. However, three cautions should be noted:

• The information contained in electronic files 

must be in the prescribed format. Because 

FRA receives information from 50 states and 

numerous railroads, it must be able to process 

the files without having to make any changes to 

format. Details on the re­quired format can be 

obtained from FRA’s Website.

• The electronic files should contain only 

changed information, not the entire crossing 

record. FRA’s procedures create a new 

crossing record whenever any data element is 

changed. The national inventory consists of 2 

million original crossing records. 

• The other party must be provided with a copy 

of the changed information for its records.

FRA can provide information from the national inventory 

in three primary ways.

• One page per crossing printout: This is simply 

a computer-generated printout that contains all 

the information for a crossing on a single 8.5-

inch by 11-inch sheet of paper. The information 

has been decoded and is easy to read. It is 

obtained from the FRA Website. 

• Continuous feed form: This is identical to the 

individual form update that can be generated 

by computer. 

• Lists: FRA will also generate, upon request, 

a list of specified information for specified 

crossings. This might be useful for obtaining 

current data on the elements contained in a 

priority index formula. 

Data contained in the national inventory or a state 

inventory must be used with care. The data should 

be verified in the field, as discussed in a later section 

on engineering studies. The national inventory is 

used not only by states and railroads in conducting 

their crossing improvement programs but also by 

national and federal agencies in assessing crossing 

improvement needs and conducting research. Both 

states and railroads are urged to keep the information 

in this valuable database up to date.

52 Unpublished material provided by Tom Woll, Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Washington, DC, 2006.

2. 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 are available from several sources, 

including state and local police and FRA. In addition, 

the National Highway Transportation Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) and FHWA maintain some 

information on crossing collisions. 

Most state and local police maintain a record of all 

highway traffic collisions, including those occurring 

at or near crossings. It is essential that the police 

record the crossing identification number on the police 

accident report form. If the collision did not involve a 

train but occurred at or near a crossing, the crossing 

identification number should also be recorded on 

the police report form. Thus, collisions in which the 

presence of the crossing (regardless of the presence of 

a train) was a contributing factor to the collision can be 

identified. It is recommended that the police accident 

report form give the crossing identification number for 

collisions that occur within 200 feet of a crossing. 

FRA requires each railroad to report any “impact 

between railroad on-track equipment and an 

automobile, bus, truck, motorcycle, bicycle, farm 

vehicle, or pedestrian at a rail-highway grade 

crossing.”53 The form used for the railroad to report 

highway-rail crossing collisions is shown in Figure 5. 

FRA prepares an annual summary of the collision data 

(and the national inventory data) entitled “Railroad 

Safety Statistics Annual Report.” This document and 

other data contained in the collision data file can be 

obtained from FRA’s Website. 

NHTSA maintains a database on all fatal highway 

traffic collisions, including those occurring at highwayrail grade crossings. The Fatal Accident Reporting 

System (FARS) database can be accessed at www-fars.

nhtsa.dot.gov. 

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

(FMCSA) maintains data on highway collisions 

53 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Washington, DC: 

Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, published 

annually.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

52

Figure 5. Accident Report Form for Federal Railroad Administration

53a. Special Study Block 53b. Special Study Block

3. Unknown

2. No

1. Yes

Code 34. Whistle Ban

Code

3. Unknown

2. No

3. Unknown

2. No

if available)

(Recorded speed,

54. Narrative Description (Be specific, and continue on separate sheet if necessary)

Code

Incident Report Being Filed?

50. 51.

48.

44. Code 45. Code Casualties to: Killed Injured

43.

2. No 3. Unknown

42.

39. 40. 41.

35. 36. 37.

Code(s)

33.

Warning

Crossing

32.

Code

4. West

3. East

2. South

1. North

31. Time Table Direction

MPH

Code

E - Estimated

R - Recorded

30. Consist Speed

Abbr.

of Cars

29.

Locomotive Units

27. 28.

25.

Code

6. Cut of cars 9. Maint./inspect. car

5. Single car

(single entry)

Consist

24.

21. 22. 23.

Code 20b.

in the impact transporting hazardous materials?

Was the highway user and/or rail equipment involved

19.

18.

17.

16.

14. 15.

13.

11. 12.

Division8. 9. 10.

4. 6.

3. 3a. 3b.

2. 2a. 2b.

Code

2. Rail equipment 3. Both 4. Neither

Equipment Involved

Class (1-9, X)

FRA Track Number of Number

Code Track Number or Name

1. Main 2. Yard 3. Siding 4. Industry

Track Type Used by Rail 26.

8. Light loco(s).

4. Work train 7. Yard/switching

3. Commuter train

2. Passenger train

Type of Equipment 1. Freight train

Code

1. Clear 2. Cloudy 3. Rain 4. Fog 5. Sleet 6. Snow

(single entry)

Code

Code

1. Dawn 2. Day 3. Dusk 4. Dark

Visibility (single entry)

F o

Temperature (specify if minus)

20c.

1. Highway user 2. Rail equipment 3. Both 4. Neither

State here the name and quantity of the hazardous material released, if any.

Was there a hazardous materials release by Code

1. Highway user

20a.

Weather

Code

1. Rail equipment struck highway user 2. Rail equipment struck by highway user

Circumstance

1. Stalled on crossing 2. Stopped on crossing 3. Moving over crossing 4. Trapped

Position

Code Position of Car Unit in Train

Public Private

City (if in a city) Highway Name or Number

Nearest Railroad Station County State Code

 (single entry)

AM PM

Time of Accident/Incident

month day year

U. S. DOT Grade Crossing Identification Number Date of Accident/Incident

Railroad Accident/Incident No.

1b.

Name of Railroad Responsible for Track Maintenance Alphabetic Code

Railroad Accident/Incident No.

1a.

Name of Other Railroad Involved in Train Accident/Incident Alphabetic Code

ACCIDENT/INCIDENT REPORT

1. North 2. South 3. East 4. West

Direction (geographical)

(est. mph at impact)

Vehicle Speed

Code 8. Other (specify) Code

7. Light loco(s) (standing)

6. Light loco(s)(moving)

5. Car(s) (standing)

4. Car(s) (moving)

3. Train (standing)

2. Train (units pushing)

1. Train (units pulling)

Equipment

M. Other (specify)

K. Pedestrian

J. Other motor vehicle

H. Motorcycle

G. School bus

F. Bus

E. Van

D. Pick-up truck

C. Truck-trailer

B. Truck

A. Auto

Type

Highway User Involved Rail Equipment Involved

7.

1. Name of Reporting Railroad Alphabetic Code

OMB Approval No.: 2130-0500

Railroad Accident/Incident No.

HIGHWAY-RAIL GRADE CROSSING

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION (FRA)

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

* NOTE THAT ALL CASUALTIES MUST BE REPORTED ON FORM FRA F 6180.55A

1. Yes 2. No

Is a Rail Equipment Accident/

52. Passengers on Train

 (include passengers and train crew)

49. Railroad Employees Total Number of People on Train

 (include driver)

46. Highway-Rail Crossing Users Total Number of Highway-Rail Crossing Users

1. Yes 2. No

Was Driver in the Vehicle?

47.

1. Killed 2. Injured 3. Uninjured

Driver was

(est. dollar damage)

Highway Vehicle Property Damage

38.

8. Not obstructed

7. Other (specify)

6. Highway vehicles

5. Vegetation

4. Topography

3. Passing train

2. Standing railroad equipment

1. Permanent structure

Code View of Track Obscured by (primary obstruction) Code

1. Yes

 Highway Vehicle

Driver Passed Standing

5. Other (specify)

4. Stopped on crossing

3. Did not stop

2. Stopped and then proceeded

1. Drove around or thru the gate

Driver

1. Yes 2. No 3. Unknown

Code

and Struck or was Struck by Second Train

Driver Drove Behind or in Front of Train

Signaled Crossing Warning

12. None

11. Other (specify)

10. Flagged by crew

9. Watchman

8. Stop signs

7. Crossbucks

6. Audible

5. Hwy. traffic signals

4. Wig wags

3. Standard FLS

2. Cantilever FLS

Type of 1. Gates

55. Typed Name and Title 56. Signature 57. Date

Code

2. Female

1. Male

Driver's Gender

Age

Driver's

1. Yes

Code

Lights or Special Lights

Code Crossing Illuminated by Street

1. Yes

with Highway Signals

Code Crossing Warning Interconnected

FORM FRA F 6180.57 (Revised March 2003)

3. Opposite side of vehicle approach

2. Side of vehicle approach

1. Both sides

Location of Warning

(See reverse side for 

instructions and codes)

5.

A. Train pulling- RCL

B. Train pushing- RCL

C. Train standing- RCL

A. Spec. MoW Equip.

See 49 C.F.R. 225.7 (b).

or used for any purpose in any suit or action for damages growing out of any matter mentioned in said report . . . ." 49 U.S.C. 20903.

NOTE: This report is part of the reporting railroad's accident report pursuant to the accident reports statute and, as such shall not " be admitted as evidence
 53

INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING BLOCK 33

Only if Types 1 - 6, Item 32 are indicated, mark in Block 33 the status of the warning devices at the crossing at the time of the accident, using the 

following codes:

1. Provided minimum 20-second warning.

2. Alleged warning time greater than 60 seconds.

3. Alleged warning time less than 20 seconds.

4. Alleged no warning.

5. Confirmed warning time greater than 60 seconds.

6. Confirmed warning time less than 20 seconds.

7. Confirmed no warning.

If status code 5, 6, or 7 was entered, also enter a letter code explanation from the list below:

A. Insulated rail vehicle.

B. Storm/lightning damage.

C. Vandalism.

D. No power/batteries dead.

E. Devices down for repair.

F. Devices out of service

G. Warning time greater than 60 seconds attributed to accident-involved train stopping short of the crossing, but within track circuit limits,

 while warning devices remain continuously active with no other in-motion train present. 

H. Warning time greater than 60 seconds attributed to track circuit failure (e.g., insulated rail joint or rail bonding failure, track or ballast 

fouled, etc.). 

J. Warning time greater than 60 seconds attributed to other train/equipment within track circuit limits. 

K. Warning time less than 20 seconds attributed to signals timing out before train's arrival at the crossing/island circuit. 

L. Warning time less than 20 seconds attributed to train operating counter to track circuit design direction. 

M. Warning time less than 20 seconds attributed to train speed in excess of track circuit's design speed.

N. Warning time less than 20 seconds attributed to signal system's failure to detect train approach.

P. Warning time less than 20 seconds attributed to violation of special train operating instructions.

R. No warning attributed to signal system's failure to detect the train.

S. Other cause(s). Explain in Narrative Description.

Source: Federal Railroad Administration.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

54

involving motor carriers. A recordable collision is 

“an occurrence involving a commercial motor vehicle 

operating on a highway in 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.”54

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 maintain accident 

registers for three years after the date of each accident 

occurring on or after April 29, 2003 (49 CFR 390.15). 

(Previously, the register had to be maintained for one 

year.) An example of a comprehensive state crash 

reporting form is included in Appendix C.

Collisions involving the transport of hazardous 

materials are reported to the Materials Transportation 

Bureau (MTB) of the Research and Special Programs 

Administration. An immediate telephone notice is 

required under certain conditions, and a detailed 

written report is required whenever there is any 

unintentional release of a hazardous material during 

transportation or temporary storage related to 

transportation. Collisions are to be reported when, as a 

direct result of hazardous materials: a person is killed; 

a person receives injuries requiring hospitalization; 

estimated carrier or other property damage exceeds 

$50,000; or a situation exists such that a continuing 

danger to life exists at the scene of the incident. The 

form used for reporting these collisions to MTB is 

shown in Appendix D.

Significant transportation accidents are investigated 

by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). 

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. Appendix E provides summaries 

of a number of selected key grade crossing collision 

investigations provided by NTSB.

54 Ibid.

B. 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 comply with requirements 

of the FAPG, which specifies that each state should 

maintain a priority schedule of crossing improvements. 

The priority schedule is to be based on: 

• 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.

• 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 vehicle carrying hazardous materials. 

• Other criteria as appropriate in each state.

Various hazard indices and collision prediction 

formulae have been developed for ranking highway-rail 

grade crossings. These are commonly used to identify 

crossings to be investigated in the field. Procedures for 

conducting the on-site inspection are discussed in the 

next section. Some hazard indices incorporate collision 

history as a factor in the ranking formula; if not, this 

factor should be subjectively considered.

1. Hazard Index

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. A commonly used index is 

the New Hampshire Hazard Index ranking methodology 

(presented in Appendix F).

There are several advantages of using a hazard index 

to rank crossings. A mathematical hazard index 

enhances objectivity. It can be calculated by computer, 

facilitating the ranking process. As crossing conditions 

change, a computerized database can be updated and 

the hazard index recalculated. 

In general, crossings that rank highest on the hazard 

index are selected to be investigated in the field by a 

diagnostic team, as discussed in the next section. Other 
 55

crossings may be selected for a field investigation 

because they are utilized by buses, passenger trains, 

and vehicles transporting hazardous materials. 

FAPG requires that the potential danger to large 

numbers of people at 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 be one of the 

considerations in establishing a priority schedule. 

Some states incorporate these considerations into a 

hazard index, thus providing an objective means of 

assessing the potential danger to large numbers of 

people.

Some states, however, consider these factors 

subjectively when selecting the improvement projects 

among the crossings ranked highest by the hazard 

index. Other states utilize a point system so that 

crossings high on the hazard index receive a specified 

number of points, as do crossings with a specified 

number of buses, passenger trains, and vehicles 

transporting hazardous materials. 

Other states utilize the systems approach, considering 

all crossings within a specified system, such as all 

crossings along a passenger train corridor.

Crossings may also be selected for field investigation 

as a result 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 substantially increase 

the volume of highway traffic over a crossing such that 

its hazard index would greatly increase.

2. U.S. Department of Transportation Accident 

Prediction Model

A prediction model is intended to predict, in absolute 

terms, the likelihood of a collision occurring over a 

given period of time given conditions at the crossing. 

The following discussion presents the accident 

prediction model developed by U.S. DOT. (Other 

formulae are presented in Appendix F.) Thus, an 

accident prediction model can also be used to either 

rank crossings or identify potential high-accident 

locations for further review. 

The U.S. DOT collision prediction formula combines 

three independent calculations to produce a collision 

prediction value. The basic formula provides an initial 

hazard ranking based on a crossing’s characteristics, 

similar to 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.

FRA has provided a Website where highway-rail 

intersection safety specialists may calculate the 

predicted collisions for any public highway-rail 

intersection in the national inventory.55

The basic collision prediction formula can be expressed 

as a series of factors that, when multiplied together, 

yield an initial predicted number of collisions per year 

at a crossing. Each factor in the formula represents a 

characteristic of the crossing described in the national 

inventory. The general expression of the basic formula 

is shown below: 

a=K × EI × MT × DT × HP × MS × HT × HL (1)

where: 

a = initial collision prediction, collisions per year 

at the crossing 

K = formula constant 

EI = factor for exposure index based on product of 

highway and train traffic 

MT = factor for number of main tracks 

DT = factor for number of through trains per day 

during daylight 

HP = factor for highway paved (yes or no) 

MS = factor for maximum timetable speed 

HT = factor for highway type 

HL = factor for number of highway lanes 

Different sets of equations are used for each of the three 

categories of traffic control devices: passive, flashing 

lights, and automatic gates, as shown in Table 16.

The structure of the basic collision prediction formula 

makes it possible to construct tables of numerical 

values for each factor. To predict the collisions at a 

particular crossing whose characteristics are known, 

the values of the factors are found in the table and 

multiplied together. The factor values for the three 

55 FRA Office of Safety Website (safetydata.fra.dot.gov/

officeofsafety).
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

56

traffic control device categories are found in Tables 17, 

18, and 19, respectively. 

The final collision prediction formula can be expressed 

as follows: 

(2)

where: 

B = second collision prediction, collisions per year 

at the crossing 

a = initial collision prediction from basic formula, 

collisions per year at the crossing 

 = collision history prediction, collisions per year, 

where N is the number of observed collisions in 

T years at the crossing

Values for the second collision prediction, B; for 

different values of the initial prediction, a; and different 

prior collision rates, , are tabularized in Table 20, 

N

T

N

T

21, 22, 23, and 24. Each table represents results for 

a specific number of years for which collision history 

data are available. If the number of years of collision 

data, T, is a fraction, the second collision prediction, 

B, can be interpolated from the tables or determined 

directly from the formula. 

The formula provides the most accurate results if all 

the collision history available is used; however, the 

extent of improvement is minimal if data for more than 

five years are used. Collision history information older 

than five years may be misleading because of changes 

that occur to crossing characteristics over time. If a 

significant change has occurred to a crossing during 

the most recent five years, such as the installation of 

signals, only the collision data since that change should 

be used. 

The final collision prediction, A, is developed by 

applying a normalizing constant to keep the procedure 

matched with current collision trends. The final 

formula, using constants established for 2003, is 

shown on page 60. (As of November 2003, these new 

Table 16. U.S. DOT Collision Prediction Equations for Crossing Characteristic Factors

General Form of Basic Accident Prediction Formula: e = K x El x MT x DT x HP x MS x HT x HL

Crossing Characteristic Factors

Crossing

Category

Formula

Constant

K

Exposure

Index

Factor

EI

Main

Tracks

Factor

MT

Day Thru

Trains

Factor

DT

Highway

Paved

Factor

HP

Maximum

Speed

Factor

MS

Highway

Type

Factor

HT

Highway

Lanes

Factor

HL

Passive 0.002268 c x t + 0.2 0.3334

0.2 e0.2094mt d + 0.2 0.1336 0.2 e-0.6160(hp-1) e0.0077ms e-0.1000(ht-1) 1.0

Flashing

Lights 0.003646 c x t + 0.2 0.2953

0.2 e0.1088mt d + 0.2 0.0470

 0.2

1.0 1.0 1.0 e0.1380(hl-1)

Gates 0.001088 c x t + 0.2 0.3116

0.2 e0.2912mt 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 e0.1036(hl-1)

c = annual average number of highway vehicles per day 

(total both directions)

t = average total train movements per day

mt = number of main tracks

d = average number of thru trains per day during daylight

hp = highway paved, yes = 1.0, no = 2.0

ms = maximum timetable speed, mph

ht = highway type factor value

h l = number of highway lanes

Highway Type

Rural 

Interstate

Other principal arterial

Minor arterial

Major collector

Minor collector

Local

Inventory

Code 

01

02

06

07

08

09

ht

Value

I

2

3

4

5

6

Urban

Interstate

Other freeway and expressway

Other principal arterial

Minor arterial

Collector

Local

11

12

14

16

17

19

1

2

3

4

5

6

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal 

Highway Administration, 1986.

B

T

T T

a

T

T T

N

T = +

+

+





 



 0

0

0

0

( )
 57

Table 17. U.S. DOT Accident Prediction Factor Values for Crossings with Passive Warning Devices

K “c” x “t” EI

Main 

 MT

Day 

Thru DT

Highway 

Paved HP

Maximum 

Timetable MS

Highway 

Type HT

Highway 

Lanes HL

0* 1.00 0 1.00 0 1.00 1 (yes) 1.00 0 1.00 01&11 1.00 1 1.00

1 - 5 2.22 1 1.23 1 1.27 2 (no) 0.54 5 1.04 02&12 0.90 2 1.00

6 - 10 3.30 2 1.52 2 1.38 10 1.08 06&14 0.82 3 1.00

11 - 20 4.24 3 1.87 3 1.45 15 1.12 07&16 0.74 4 1.00

21 - 30 5.01 4 2.31 4 1.50 20 1.17 08&17 0.67 5 1.00

31 - 50 5.86 5 2.85 5 1.55 25 1.21 09&19 0.61 6 1.00

51 - 80 6.89 6 3.51 6 1.58 30 1.26 7 1.00

81 - 120 7.95 7 1.61 35 1.31 8 1.00

121 - 200 9.29 8 1.64 40 1.36 9 1.00

201 - 300 10.78 9 1.67 45 1.41

301 - 400 12.06 10 1.69 50 1.47

401 - 500 13.11 11-20 1.78 55 1.53

501 - 600 14.02 21-30 1.91 60 1.59

601 - 700 14.82 31-40 2.00 65 1.65

701 - 1000 16.21 41-60 2.09 70 1.71

1001 - 1300 17.93 75 1.78

1301 - 1600 19.37 80 1.85

1601 - 2000 20.81 85 1.92

2001 - 2500 22.42 90 2.00

2501 - 3000 23.97

3001 - 4000 25.98

4001 - 6000 29.26

6001 - 8000 32.73

8001 - 10000 35.59

10001 - 15000 39.71

15001 - 20000 44.43

20001 - 25000 48.31

25001 - 30000 51.65

30001 - 40000 55.98

40001 - 50000 60.87

50001 - 60000 65.08

60001 - 70000 68.81

70001 - 90000 73.74

90001 - 79.44

110001 - 84.42

130001 - 91.94

180001 - 100.92

230001 - 109.94

300001 - 118.87

General Form of Basic Accident Prediction Formula: a = K x El x MT x DT x HP x HT x HL 

“c” x “t” = Number of highway vehicles per day, “c”, multiplied by total train movements 

per day, “t” 

El = Exposure index factor

MT = Main tracks factor 

DT = Day thru trains factor 

HP = Highway paved factor

MS =Maximum timetable speed factor 

HT = Highway type factor

HL = Highway lanes factor

* Less than one train per day

** See Table 16 for definition of highway type codes

Table 18. U.S. DOT Accident Prediction Factor Values for Crossings with Flashing Light Warning Devices

K “c” x “t” EI

Main 

 MT

Day 

Thru DT

Highway 

Paved HP

Maximum 

Timetable MS

Highway 

Type HT

Highway 

Lanes HL

0* 1.00 0 1.00 0 1.00 1 (yes) 1.00 0 1.00 01&11 1.00 1 1.00

1 - 5 2.27 1 1.11 1 1.09 2 (no) 1.00 5 1.00 02&12 1.00 2 1.15

6 - 10 2.99 2 1.24 2 1.12 10 1.00 06&14 1.00 3 1.32

11 - 20 3.59 3 1.39 3 1.14 15 1.00 07&16 1.00 4 1.51

21 - 30 4.17 4 1.55 4 1.15 20 1.00 08&17 1.00 5 1.74

31 - 50 4.79 5 1.72 5 1.17 25 1.00 09&19 1.00 6 1.99

51 - 80 5.52 6 1.92 6 1.18 30 1.00 7 2.29

81 - 120 6.27 7 1.18 35 1.00 8 2.63

121 - 200 7.20 8 1.19 40 1.00 9 3.02

201 - 300 8.22 9 1.20 45 1.00

301 - 400 9.07 10 1.20 50 1.00

401 - 500 9.77 11-20 1.23 55 1.00

501 - 600 10.37 21-30 1.26 60 1.00

601 - 700 10.89 31-40 1.28 65 1.00

701 - 1000 11.79 41-60 1.30 70 1.00

1001 - 1300 12.89 75 1.00

1301 - 1600 13.80 80 1.00

1601 - 2000 14.71 85 1.00

2001 - 2500 15.72 90 1.00

2501 - 3000 16.67

3001 - 4000 17.91

4001 - 6000 19.89

6001 - 8000 21.97

8001 - 10000 23.66

10001 - 15000 26.08

15001 - 20000 28.80

20001 - 25000 31.02

25001 - 30000 32.91

30001 - 40000 35.34

40001 - 50000 38.06

50001 - 60000 40.39

60001 - 70000 42.43

70001 - 90000 45.11

90001 - 48.18

110001 - 50.85

130001 - 54.84

180001 - 59.56

230001 - 64.25

300001 - 68.86

General Form of Basic Accident Prediction Formula: a = K x El x MT x DT x HP x HT x HL 

“c” x “t” = Number of highway vehicles per day, “c”, multiplied by total train movements per day, 

“t” 

El = Exposure index factor

MT = Main tracks factor 

DT = Day thru trains factor 

HP = Highway paved factor

MS =Maximum timetable speed factor 

HT = Highway type factor

HL = Highway lanes factor

* Less than one train per day

** See Table 16 for definition of highway type codes

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 1986.

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 1986.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

58

constants will be in the Personal Computer Accident 

Prediction System software and an Internet version of 

the Highway-Rail Crossing Web Accident Prediction 

System located on the FRA Website.56)

.6500 passive devices

A = .5001 flashing lights

 .5725 gates

Accident severity. Additional equations within the 

U.S. DOT model are used to predict the likelihood 

of fatalities and injuries. The probability of a fatal 

accident given an accident, P(FA|A), is expressed as: 

(3)

where: 

= formula constant = 695 

= factor for maximum timetable train speed

= factor for through trains per day 

= factor for switch trains per day 

= factor for urban or rural crossing

56 Ibid.

Table 19. U.S. DOT Accident Prediction Factor Values for Crossings with Gate Warning Devices

K “c” x “t” EI

Main 

Tracks MT

Day 

Thru 

Trains DT

Highway 

Paved HP

Maximum 

Timetable 

Speed MS

Highway 

Type 

Code** HT

Highway 

Lanes HL

0* 1.00 0 1.00 0 1.00 1 (yes) 1.00 0 1.00 01&11 1.00 1 1.00

1 - 5 2.37 1 1.34 1 1.00 2 (no) 1.00 5 1.00 02&12 1.00 2 1.11

6 - 10 3.18 2 1.79 2 1.00 10 1.00 06&14 1.00 3 1.23

11 - 20 3.86 3 2.40 3 1.00 15 1.00 07&16 1.00 4 1.36

21 - 30 4.51 4 3.21 4 1.00 20 1.00 08&17 1.00 5 1.51

31 - 50 5.22 5 4.29 5 1.00 25 1.00 09&19 1.00 6 1.68

51 - 80 6.07 6 5.74 6 1.00 30 1.00 7 1.86

81 - 120 6.94 7 1.00 35 1.00 8 2.07

121 - 200 8.03 8 1.00 40 1.00 9 2.29

201 - 300 9.23 9 1.00 45 1.00

301 - 400 10.25 10 1.00 50 1.00

401 - 500 11.08 11-20 1.00 55 1.00

501 - 600 11.80 21-30 1.00 60 1.00

601 - 700 12.43 31-40 1.00 65 1.00

701 - 1000 13.51 41-60 1.00 70 1.00

1001 - 1300 14.84 75 1.00

1301 - 1600 15.96 80 1.00

1601 - 2000 17.07 85 1.00

2001 - 2500 18.30 90 1.00

2501 - 3000 19.48

3001 - 4000 21.00

4001 - 6000 23.46

6001 - 8000 26.06

8001 - 10000 28.18

10001 - 15000 31.22

15001 - 20000 34.67

20001 - 25000 37.49

25001 - 30000 39.91

30001 - 40000 43.03

40001 - 50000 46.53

50001 - 60000 49.53

60001 - 70000 52.18

70001 - 90000 55.67

90001 - 59.68

110001 - 63.16

130001 - 68.41

180001 - 74.63

230001 - 80.85

300001 - 86.98

General Form of Basic Accident Prediction Formula: a = K x El x MT x DT x HP x HT x HL 

“c” x “t” = Number of highway vehicles per day, “c”, multiplied by total train movements 

per day, “t” 

El = Exposure index factor

MT = Main tracks factor 

DT = Day thru trains factor 

HP = Highway paved factor

MS =Maximum timetable speed factor 

HT = Highway type factor

HL = Highway lanes factor

* Less than one train per day

** See Table 16 for definition of highway type codes

Table 20. U.S. DOT Final Accident Prediction 

from Initial Prediction and Accident History 

(1 year of accident data (T = 1))

Initial Prediction 

from Basic Model, a

Number of Accidents, N, in T Years

0 1 2 3 4 5

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

1.10

1.20

1.30

1.40

1.50

1.60

1.70

1.80

1.90

2.00

2.10

2.20

2.30

2.40

2.50

0.000

0.009

0.019

0.028

0.037

0.045

0.054

0.063

0.071

0.079

0.087

0.160

0.222

0.276

0.323

0.364

0.400

0.432

0.462

0.488

0.512

0.533

0.553

0.571

0.588

0.604

0.618

0.632

0.644

0.656

0.667

0.677

0.687

0.696

0.704

0.048

0.066

0.084

0.102

0.119

0.136

0.153

0.170

0.186

0.202

0.217

0.360

0.481

0.586

0.677

0.758

0.829

0.892

0.949

1.000

1.047

1.089

1.128

1.163

1.196

1.226

1.255

1.281

1.305

1.328

1.349

1.369

1.388

1.406

1.423

0.095

0.123

0.150

0.176

0.202

0.227

0.252

0.277

0.301

0.325

0.348

0.560

0.741

0.897

1.032

1.152

1.257

1.351

1.436

1.512

1.581

1.644

1.702

1.755

1.804

1.849

1.891

1.930

1.966

2.000

2.032

2.062

2.090

2.116

2.141

0.143

0.179

0.215

0.250

0.284

0.318

0.351

0.384

0.416

0.447

0.478

0.760

1.000

1.207

1.387

1.545

1.686

1.811

1.923

2.024

2.116

2.200

2.277

2.347

2.412

2.472

2.527

2.579

2.627

2.672

2.714

2.754

2.791

2.826

2.659

0.190

0.236

0.280

0.324

0.367

0.409

0.450

0.491

0.531

0.570

0.609

0.960

1.259

1.517

1.742

1.939

2.114

2.270

2.410

2.537

2.651

2.756

2.851

2.939

3.020

3.094

3.164

3.228

3.288

3.344

3.397

3.446

3.493

3.536

3.577

0.238

0.292

0.346

0.398

0.450

0.500

0.550

0.598

0.646

0.693

0.739

1.160

1.519

1.828

2.097

2.333

2.543

2.730

2.897

3.049

3.186

3.311

3.426

3.531

3.627

3.717

3.800

3.877

3.949

4.016

4.079

4.138

4.194

4.246

4.296

P(FA A)= 1

1+CF TT xxxx UR

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 1986.

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second 

Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Federal Highway Administration, 1986.

CF 

MS 

TT 

TS 

UR 
 59

Initial Prediction 

from Basic Model, 

a

Number of Accidents, N, in T Years

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

1.10

1.20

1.30

1.40

1.50

1.60

1.70

1.80

1.90

2.00

2.10

2.20

2.30

2.40

2.50

0.000

0.009

0.018

0.026

0.034

0.042

0.049

0.056

0.063

0.070

0.077

0.133

0.176

0.211

0.238

0.261

0.280

0.296

0.310

0.323

0.333

0.343

0.351

0.359

0.366

0.372

0.378

0.383

0.388

0.392

0.396

0.400

0.404

0.407

0.410

0.045

0.063

0.079

0.095

0.110

0.125

0.139

0.153

0.167

0.180

0.192

0.300

0.382

0.447

0.500

0.543

0.580

0.611

0.638

0.661

0.682

0.700

0.716

0.731

0.744

0.756

0.767

0.777

0.786

0.794

0.802

0.809

0.816

0.822

0.828

0.091

0.116

0.140

0.164

0.186

0.208

0.230

0.250

0.270

0.289

0.308

0.467

0.588

0.684

0.762

0.826

0.880

0.926

0.966

1.000

1.030

1.057

1.081

1.103

1.122

1.140

1.156

1.170

1.184

1.196

1.208

1.218

1.228

1.237

1.246

0.136 

0.170 

0.202 

0.233 

0.263 

0.292 

0.320 

0.347 

0.373 

0.398 

0.423 

0.633 

0.794 

0.921 

1.024 

1.109 

1.180 

1.241 

1.293 

1.339 

1.379 

1.414 

1.446 

1.474 

1.500 

1.523 

1.544 

1.564 

1.582 

1.598 

1.613 

1.627 

1.640 

1.653 

1.664

0.182 

0.223 

0.263 

0.302 

0.339 

0.375 

0.410 

0.444 

0.476 

0.508 

0.538 

0.800 

1.000 

1.158 

1.286 

1.391 

1.480 

1.556 

1.621 

1.677 

1.727 

1.771 

1.811 

1.846 

1.878 

1.907 

1.933 

1.957 

1.980 

2.000 

2.019 

2.036 

2.053 

2.068 

2.082

0.227 

0.277 

0.325 

0.371 

0.415 

0.458 

0.500 

0.540 

0.579 

0.617 

0.654 

0.967 

1.206 

1.395 

1.548 

1.674 

1.780 

1.870 

1.948 

2.016 

2.076 

2.129 

2.176 

2.218 

2.256 

2.291 

2.322 

2.351 

2.378 

2.402 

2.425 

2.445 

2.465 

2.483 

2.500

0.273 

0.330 

0.386 

0.440 

0.492 

0.542 

0.590 

0.637 

0.683 

0.727 

0.769 

1.133 

1.412 

1.632 

1.810 

1.957 

2.080 

2.185 

2.276 

2.355 

2.424 

2.486 

2.541 

2.590 

2.634 

2.674 

2.711 

2.745 

2.776 

2.804 

2.830 

2.855 

2.877 

2.898 

2.918

0.318

0.384

0.447

0.509

0.568

0.625

0.680

0.734

0.786

0.836

0.885

1.300

1.618

1.868

2.071

2.239

2.380

2.500

2.603

2.694

2.773

2.843

2.905

2.962

3.012

3.058

3.100

3.138

3.173

3.206

3.236

3.264

3.289

3.314

3.336

0.364

0.438

0.509

0.578

0.644

0.708

0.770

0.831

0.889

0.945

1.000

1.467

1.824

2.105

2.333

2.522

2.680

2.815

2.931

3.032

3.121

3.200

3.270

3.333

3.390

3.442

3.489

3.532

3.571

3.608

3.642

3.673

3.702

3.729

3.754

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 1986.

Table 21. U.S. DOT Final Accident Prediction from Initial Prediction and Accident History 

 (2 years of accident data (T = 2))

Initial Prediction 

from Basic Model, 

a

Number of Accidents, N, in T Years

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

1.10

1.20

1.30

1.40

1.50

1.60

1.70

1.80

1.90

2.00

2.10

2.20

2.30

2.40

2.50

0.000 

0.008 

0.017 

0.024 

0.031 

0.038 

0.045 

0.051 

0.058 

0.063 

0.069 

0.114 

0.146 

0.170 

0.189 

0.203 

0.215 

0.225 

0.234 

0.241 

0.247 

0.253 

0.257 

0.262 

0.265 

0.269 

0.272 

0.275 

0.271 

0.280 

0.282 

0.284 

0.286 

0.287 

0.289

0.043 

0.059 

0.074 

0.089 

0.102 

0.115 

0.128 

0.140 

0.151 

0.162 

0.172 

0.257 

0.317 

0.362 

0.396 

0.424 

0.446 

0.465 

0.481 

0.494 

0.506 

0.516 

0.525 

0.533 

0.540 

0.546 

0.552 

0.557 

0.562 

0.566 

0.570 

0.574 

0.578 

0.581 

0.584

0.087 

0.110 

0.132 

0.153 

0.173 

0.192 

0.211 

0.228 

0.245 

0.261 

0.276 

0.400 

0.488 

0.553 

0.604 

0.644 

0.677 

0.701 

0.727 

0.747 

0.764 

0.779 

0.792 

0.804 

0.814 

0.824 

0.832 

0.840 

0.847 

0.853 

0.859 

0.865 

0.870 

0.874 

0.879

0.130 

0.161 

0.190 

0.218 

0.244 

0.269 

0.293 

0.316 

0.338 

0.359 

0.379 

0.543 

0.659 

0.745 

0.811 

0.864 

0.908 

0.944 

0.974 

1.000 

1.022 

1.042 

1.059 

1.075 

1.088 

1.101 

1.112 

1.122 

1.131 

1.140 

1.148 

1.555 

1.161

1.168 

1.173

0.174 

0.212 

0.248 

0.282 

0.315 

0.346 

0.376 

0.404 

0.432 

0.458 

0.483 

0.686 

0.829 

0.936 

1.019 

1.085 

1.138 

1.183 

1.221 

1.253 

1.281 

1.305 

1.327 

1.346 

1.363 

1.378 

1.392 

1.405 

1.416 

1.427 

1.436 

1.445 

1.453 

1.461 

1.468

0.217 

0.263 

0.306 

0.347 

0.386 

0.423 

0.459 

0.493 

0.525 

0.556 

0.586 

0.829 

1.000 

1.128 

1.226 

1.305 

1.369 

1.423 

1.468 

1.506 

1.539 

1.568 

1.594 

1.617 

1.637 

1.655 

1.672 

1.687 

1.701 

1.713 

1.725 

1.735 

1.745 

1.754 

1.763

0.261 

0.314 

0.364 

0.411 

0.457 

0.500 

0.541 

0.581 

0.619 

0.655 

0.690 

0.971 

1.171 

1.319 

1.434 

1.525 

1.600 

1.662 

1.714 

1.759 

1.798 

1.832 

1.861 

1.888 

1.912 

1.933 

1.952 

1.969 

1.985 

2.000 

2.013 

2.026 

2.037 

2.048 

2.058

0.304 

0.364 

0.421 

0.476 

0.528 

0.577 

0.624 

0.669 

0.712 

0.754 

0.793 

1.114 

1.341 

1.511 

1.642 

1.746 

1.831 

1.901 

1.961 

2.012 

2.056 

2.095 

2.129 

2.159 

2.186 

2.210 

2.232 

2.252 

2.270 

2.287 

2.302 

2.316 

2.329 

2.341 

2.353

0.348 

0.415 

0.479 

0.540 

0.598 

0.654 

0.707 

0.757 

0.806 

0.852 

0.897 

1.257 

1.512 

1.702 

1.849 

1.966 

2.062 

2.141 

2.208 

2.265 

2.315 

2.358 

2.396 

2.430 

2.460 

2.487 

2.512 

2.534 

2.555 

2.573 

2.591 

2.606 

2.621 

2.635 

2.647

0.391 

0.466 

0.537 

0.605 

0.669 

0.731 

0.789 

0.846 

0.899 

0.951 

1.000 

1.400 

1.683 

1.894 

2.057 

2.186 

2.292 

2.380 

2.455 

2.518 

2.573 

2.621 

2.663 

2.701 

2.735 

2.765 

2.792 

2.817 

2.839 

2.860 

2.879 

2.897 

2.913 

2.928 

2.942

0.435 

0.517 

0.595 

0.669 

0.740 

0.808 

0.872 

0.934 

0.993 

1.049 

1.103 

1.543 

1.854 

2.085 

2.264 

2.407 

2.523 

2.620 

2.701 

2.771 

2.831 

2.884 

2.931 

2.972 

3.009 

3.042 

3.072 

3.099 

3.124 

3.147 

3.168 

3.187 

3.205 

3.222 

3.237

0.478 

0.568 

0.653 

0.734 

0.811 

0.885 

0.955 

1.022 

1.086 

1.148 

1.207 

1.686 

2.024 

2.277 

2.472 

2.627 

2.754 

2.859 

2.948 

3.024 

3.090 

3.147 

3.198 

3.243 

3.283 

3.319 

3.352 

3.382 

3.409 

3.434 

3.456 

3.477 

3.497 

3.515 

3.532

0.522 

0.619 

0.711 

0.798 

0.882 

0.962 

1.038 

1.110 

1.180 

1.246 

1.310 

1.829 

2.195 

2.468 

2.679 

2.847 

2.985 

3.099 

3.195 

3.277 

3.348 

3.411 

3.465 

3.514 

3.558 

3.597 

3.632 

3.664 

3.693 

3.720 

3.745 

3.768 

3.789 

3.808 

3.827

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal 

Highway Administration, 1986.

Table 22. U.S. DOT Final Accident Prediction from Initial Prediction and Accident History 

(3 years of accident data (T = 3))
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

60

Initial Prediction 

from Basic 

Model, a

Number of Accidents, N, in T Years

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

1.10

1.20

1.30

1.40

1.50

1.60

1.70

1.80

1.90

2.00

2.10

2.20

2.30

2.40

2.50

0.000 

0.008 

0.016 

0.023 

0.029 

0.036 

0.042 

0.047 

0.053 

0.058 

0.062 

0.100 

0.125 

0.143 

0.156 

0.167 

0.175 

0.182 

0.188 

0.192 

0.196 

0.200 

0.203 

0.206 

0.208 

0.211 

0.213 

0.214 

0.216 

0.217 

0.219 

0.220 

0.221 

0.222 

0.223

0.042 

0.056 

0.070 

0.083 

0.096 

0.107 

0.118 

0.128 

0.138 

0.147 

0.156 

0.225 

0.271 

0.304 

0.328 

0.347 

0.363 

0.375 

0.385 

0.394 

0.402 

0.408 

0.414 

0.419 

0.424 

0.428 

0.431 

0.433 

0.437 

0.440 

0.443 

0.445 

0.447 

0.449 

0.451

0.083 

0.105 

0.125 

0.144 

0.162 

0.179 

0.194 

0.209 

0.224 

0.237 

0.250 

0.350 

0.417 

0.464 

0.500 

0.528 

0.550 

0.568 

0.583 

0.596 

0.607 

0.617 

0.625 

0.632 

0.639 

0.645 

0.650 

0.655 

0.659 

0.663 

0.667 

0.670 

0.673 

0.676 

0.679

0.125 

0.135 

0.180 

0.205 

0.228 

0.250 

0.271 

0.291 

0.309 

0.327 

0.344 

0.475 

0.563 

0.625 

0.672 

0.708 

0.738 

0.761 

0.781 

0.798 

0.813 

0.825 

0.836 

0.846 

0.854 

0.862 

0.869 

0.875 

0.881 

0.886 

0.891 

0.895 

0.899 

0.903 

0.906

0.167 

0.202 

0.234 

0.265 

0.294 

0.321 

0.347 

0.372 

0.395 

0.417 

0.438 

0.600 

0.708 

0.786 

0.844 

0.889 

0.925 

0.955 

0.979 

1.000 

1.018 

1.033 

1.047 

1.059 

1.069 

1.079 

1.088 

1.095 

1.102 

1.109 

1.115 

1.120 

1.125 

1.130 

1.134

0.208 

0.250 

0.289 

0.326 

0.360 

0.393 

0.424 

0.453 

0.480 

0.506 

0.531 

0.726 

0.854 

0.946 

1.016 

1.069 

1.113 

1.148 

1.177 

1.202 

1.223 

1.242 

1.258 

1.272 

1.285 

1.296 

1.306 

1.315 

1.324 

1.332 

1.339 

1.345 

1.351 

1.356 

1.362

0.250 

0.298 

0.344 

0.386 

0.426 

0.464 

0.500 

0.534 

0.566 

0.596 

0.625 

0.850 

1.000 

1.107 

1.188 

1.250 

1.300 

1.341 

1.375 

1.404 

1.429 

1.450 

1.469 

1.485 

1.500 

1.513 

1.525

1.536 

1.545 

1.554 

1.562 

1.570 

1.577 

1.583 

1.589

0.292 

0.347 

0.398 

0.447 

0.493 

0.536 

0.576 

0.615 

0.651 

0.686 

0.719 

0.975 

1.146 

1.268 

1.359 

1.431 

1.488 

1.534 

1.573 

1.606 

1.634 

1.658 

1.680 

1.699 

1.715 

1.730 

1.744 

1.756 

1.767 

1.777 

1.786 

1.795 

1.803 

1.810 

1.817

0.333 

0.395 

0.453 

0.500 

0.559 

0.607 

0.653 

0.696 

0.737 

0.776 

0.812 

1.100 

1.292 

1.429 

1.531 

1.611 

1.675 

1.727 

1.771 

1.808 

1.839 

1.867 

1.891 

1.912 

1.931 

1.947 

1.962 

1.976 

1.989 

2.000 

2.010 

2.020 

2.029 

2.037 

2.045

0.375 

0.444 

0.508 

0.568 

0.625 

0.679 

0.729 

0.777 

0.822 

0.865 

0.906 

1.225 

1.437 

1.589 

1.703 

1.792 

1.863 

1.920 

1.969 

2.010 

2.045 

2.075 

2.102 

2.125 

2.146 

2.164 

2.181 

2.196 

2.210 

2.223 

2.234 

2.245 

2.255 

2.264

2.272

0.417 

0.492 

0.563 

0.629 

0.691 

0.750 

0.806 

0.858 

0.908 

0.955 

1.000 

1.350 

1.583 

1.750 

1.875 

1.972 

2.050 

2.114 

2.167 

2.212 

2.250 

2.283 

2.313 

2.338 

2.361 

2.382 

2.400 

2.417 

2.432 

2.446 

2.458 

2.470 

2.481 

2.491 

2.500

0.458 

0.540 

0.617 

0.689 

0.757 

0.821 

0.882 

0.939 

0.993 

1.045 

1.094 

1.475 

1.729 

1.911 

2.047 

2.153 

2.238 

2.307 

2.365 

2.413 

2.455 

2.492 

2.523 

2.551 

2.576 

2.599 

2.619 

2.637 

2.653 

2.668 

2.682 

2.695 

2.707 

2.718 

2.728

0.500 

0.589 

0.672 

0.750 

0.824 

0.893 

0.958 

1.020 

1.079 

1.135 

1.188 

1.600 

1.875 

2.071 

2.219 

2.333 

2.425 

2.500 

2.563 

2.615 

2.661 

2.700 

2.734 

2.765 

2.792 

2.816 

2.837 

2.857 

2.875 

2.891 

2.906 

2.920 

2.933 

2.944 

2.955

0.542 

0.637 

0.727 

0.811 

0.890 

0.964 

1.035 

1.101 

1.164 

1.224 

1.281 

1.725 

2.021 

2.232 

2.391 

2.514 

2.613 

2.693 

2.760 

2.817 

2.866 

2.908 

2.945 

2.978 

3.007 

3.033 

3.056 

3.077 

3.097 

3114 

3.130 

3.145 

3.159 

3.171 

3.183

0.583 

0.685 

0.781 

0.871 

0.956 

1.036 

1.111 

1.182 

1.250 

1.314 

1.375 

1.850 

2.167 

2.393 

2.563 

2.694 

2.800 

2.886 

2.958 

3.019 

3.071 

3.117 

3.156 

3.191 

3.222 

3.250 

3.275 

3.293 

3.318 

3.337 

3.354 

3.370 

3.385 

3.398 

3.411

Table 23. U.S. DOT Final Accident Prediction from Initial Prediction and Accident History 

(4 years of accident data (T = 4))

Table 24. U.S. DOT Final Accident Prediction from Initial Prediction and Accident History 

(5 years of accident data (T = 5))

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway 

Administration, 1986.

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway 

Administration, 1986.

Initial Prediction 

from Basic 

Model, a

Number of Accidents, N, in T Years

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

1.10

1.20

1.30

1.40

1.50

1.60

1.70

1.80

1.90

2.00

2.10

2.20

2.30

2.40

2.50

0.000 

0.008 

0.015 

0.021 

0.028 

0.033 

0.039 

0.044 

0.048 

0.053 

0.057 

0.089 

0.109 

0.123 

0.133 

0.141 

0.147 

0.152 

0.157 

0.160 

0.163 

0.166 

0.168 

0.170 

0.171 

0.173 

0.174 

0.176 

0.177 

0.178 

0.179 

0.180 

0.180

0.181 

0.182

0.040 

0.054 

0.067 

0.079 

0.090 

0.100 

0.110 

0.119 

0.127 

0.135 

0.143 

0.200 

0.236 

0.262 

0.280 

0.294 

0.305 

0.314 

0.322 

0.328 

0.333 

0.338 

0.342 

0.345 

0.349 

0.351 

0.354 

0.356 

0.358 

0.360 

0.362 

0.363 

0.365 

0.366 

0.367

0.080 

0.100 

0.119 

0.136 

0.152 

0.167 

0.181 

0.194 

0.206 

0.218 

0.229 

0.311 

0.364 

0.400 

0.427 

0.447 

0.463 

0.476 

0.487 

0.496 

0.504 

0.510 

0.516 

0.521 

0. 526 

0.530 

0.533 

0.537 

0.540 

0.542 

0.545 

0.547 

0.549 

0.551 

0.553

0.120 

0.146 

0.170 

0.193 

0.214 

0.233 

0.252 

0.269 

0.285 

0.300 

0.314 

0.422 

0.491 

0.538 

0.573 

0.600 

0.621 

0.638 

0.652 

0.664 

0.674 

0.683 

0.690 

0.697 

0.703 

0.708 

0.713 

0.717 

0.721 

0.724 

0.728 

0.731 

0.733 

0.736 

0.738

0.160 

0.192 

0.222 

0.250 

0.276 

0.300 

0.323 

0.344 

0.364 

0.382 

0.400 

0.533 

0.618 

0.677 

0.720 

0.753 

0.779 

0.800 

0.817 

0.832 

0.844 

0.855 

0.865 

0.873 

0.880 

0.886 

0.892 

0.898 

0.902 

0.907 

0.911 

0.914 

0.918 

0.921 

0.924

0.200 

0.238 

0.274 

0.307 

0.338 

0.367 

0.394 

0.419 

0.442 

0.465 

0.486 

0.644 

0.745 

0.815 

0.867 

0.906 

0.937 

0.962 

0.983 

1.000 

1.015 

1.028 

1.039 

1.048 

1.057 

1.065 

1.072 

1.078 

1.084 

1.089 

1.094 

1.098 

1.102 

1.106 

1.109

0.240 

0.285 

0.326 

0.364 

0.400 

0.433 

0.465 

0.494 

0.321 

0.517 

0.571 

0.756 

0.873 

0.954 

1.013 

1.059 

1.095 

1.124 

1.148 

1.168 

1.185 

1.200 

1.213 

1.224 

1.234 

1.243 

1. 251 

1.259 

1.265 

1.271 

1.277 

1.282 

1.286 

1.291 

1.295

0.280 

0.331 

0.378 

0.421 

0.462 

0.500 

0.535 

0.569 

0.600 

0.629 

0.657 

0.867 

1.000 

1.092 

1.160 

1.212 

1.253 

1.286 

1.313 

1.336 

1.356 

1.372 

1.387 

1.400 

1.411 

1.422 

1.431 

1.439 

1.447 

1.453 

1.460 

1.465 

1.471 

1.475 

1.480

0.320 

0.377 

0.430 

0.479 

0.524 

0.567 

0.606 

0.644 

0.679 

0.712 

0.743 

0.978 

1.127 

1.231 

1.307 

1.365 

1.411 

1.448 

1.478 

1.504 

1.526 

1.545 

1.561 

1.576 

1.589 

1.600 

1.610 

1.620 

1.628 

1.636 

1.643 

1.649 

1.655 

1.660 

1.665

0.360 

0.423 

0.481 

0.536 

0.586 

0.633 

0.677 

0.719 

0.758 

0.794 

0.829 

1.089 

1.255 

1.369 

1.453 

1.518 

1.568 

1.610 

1.643 

1.672 

1.696 

1.717 

1.735 

1.752 

1.766 

1.779 

1.790 

1.800 

1.809 

1.818 

1.826 

1.833 

1.839 

1.845 

1.851

0.400 

0.469 

0.533 

0.593 

0.648 

0.700 

0.748 

0.794 

0.836 

0.876 

0.914 

1.200 

1.382 

1.508 

1.600 

1.671 

1.726 

1.771 

1.809 

1.840 

1.867 

1.890 

1.910 

1.927 

1.943 

1.957 

1.969 

1.980 

1.991 

2.000 

2.009 

2.016 

2.024 

2.030 

2.036

0.440 

0.515 

0.585 

0.650 

0.710 

0.767 

0.819 

0.869 

0.915 

0.959 

1.000 

1.311 

1.509 

1.646 

1.747 

1.824 

1.884 

1.933 

1.974 

2.008 

2.037 

2.062 

2.084 

2.103 

2.120 

2.135 

2.149 

2.161 

2.172 

2.182 

2.191 

2.200

2.208 

2.215 

2.222

0.480 

0.562 

0.637 

0.707 

0.772 

0.833 

0.890 

0.944 

0.994 

1.041 

1.086 

1.422 

1.636 

1.785 

1.893 

1.976 

2.042 

2.095 

2.139 

2.176 

2.207 

2.234

2.258

2.279 

2.297 

2.314 

2.328

2.341 

2.353 

2.364 

2.374 

2.384 

2.392 

2.400 

2.407

0.560 

0.654 

0.741 

0.821 

0.897 

0.967 

1.032 

1.094 

1.152 

1.206 

1.257 

1.644 

1.891 

2.062 

2.187

2.282 

2.358 

2.419 

2.470 

2.512 

2.548 

2.579 

2.606 

2.630 

2.651 

2.670 

2.687 

2.702 

2.716 

2.729 

2.740 

2.751 

2.761 

2.770 

2.778
 61

The probability of an injury accident given an accident 

is:

(4)

where:

P(FA|A) = probability of a fatal accident, given an 

accident

CI = formula constant = 4.280

MS = factor for maximum timetable train speed

TK = factor for number of tracks

UR = factor for urban or rural crossing

The equations for calculating values of the factors 

are listed in Table 25 for the fatal accident probability 

formula and Table 26 for the injury accident probability 

formula. To simplify use of the formulae, the values of 

the factors have been tabulated for typical values of 

crossing characteristics and are given in Tables 27 and 

28 for the fatal accident and injury accident probability 

formulae, respectively. 

Table 25. Equations for Crossing 

Characteristic Factors for U.S. DOT Fatal 

Accident Probability Formula

Fatal Accident Probability Formula:

Crossing Characteristic

Factor

Equation for Crossing

Characteristic Factor

Formula constant CF = 695

Maximum timetable train 

speed factor MS = ms-1.074

Thru trains per day TT = (tt + 1)-0.1025

Switch train per day 

factor TS = (tt + 1)0.1025

Urban-Rural crossing 

factor UR = e0.1880ur

where: ms = maximum timetable train speed, mph

tt = number of thru trains per day

ts = number of switch trains per day

ur = 1, urban crossing

 = 0, rural crossing

Table 26. Equations for Crossing 

Characteristic Factors for U.S. DOT Injury 

Accident Probability Formula

Injury Accident Probability Formula:

Crossing Characteristic Factor Equation for Crossing

Characteristic Factor

Fatal accident probability P(FA|A) - See Table 25

Formula constant CI = 4.280

Maximum timetable train 

speed factor MS = ma-0.2334

Number of tracks factor TK = e0.1176tk

Urban-Rural crossing factor UR = e0.1844ur

where: ms = maximum timetable train speed, mph 

tk = total number of tracks at crossing 

ur = 1, urban crossing

 0, rural crossing

Table 27. Factor Values for U.S. DOT Fatal 

Accident Probability Formula

Fatal Accident Probability Formula:

where: CF = 695.0, formula constant

UR = 1.207, urban crossing 

= 1.000, rural crossing, and 

Maximum 

Timetable 

Train Speed

MS

Thru

Trains

Per Day

TT

Switch

Trains

Per Day

TS

1 1.000 0 1.000 0 1.000

5 0.178 1 0.931 1 1.074

10 0.084 2 0.894 2 1.119

15 0.055 3 0.868 3 1.152

20 0.040 4 0.848 4 1.179

25 0.032 5 0.832 5 1.202

30 0.026 6 0.819 6 2.221

40 0.019 7 0.808 7 1.238

50 0.015 9 0.790 9 1.266

60 0.012 10 0.782 10 1.279

70 0.010 20 0.732 20 1.366

80 0.009 30 0.703 30 1.422

90 0.008 40 0.683 40 1.464

100 0.007 50 0.668 50 1.497

P(IA A) x x x = 1+

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second Edition. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal 

Highway Administration, 1986. Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second Edition. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal 

Highway Administration, 1986.

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second Edition. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal 

Highway Administration, 1986.

1

P(FA | A) = (1+ CF× MS× TT× TS× UR)

1

P(FA | A) = (1+ CF× MS× TT× TS× UR)

1- P(FA | A) P(IA | A) = (1+ CI× MS× TK × UR)
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

62

C. Engineering Study*

Federal requirements dictate that each state shall 

establish priorities for its crossing program based on:

• 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 on-site inspection of each candidate 

crossing.

• The potential danger to large numbers of 

people at crossings used on a regular basis by 

passenger trains or buses or by trains or motor 

vehicles carrying hazardous materials.

• Other criteria as deemed appropriate by each 

state.57

57 “Railroad Crossing Corridor Improvements.” Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT), Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), Demonstration Projects Division, June 1986.

Engineering studies should be conducted of highwayrail crossings that have been selected from the priority 

list. The purpose of these studies is to:

• Review the crossing and its environment.

• Identify the nature of any problems. 

• Recommend alternative improvements.

An engineering study consists of a review of site 

characteristics, the existing traffic control system, 

and highway and railroad operational characteristics. 

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.

1. Diagnostic Team Study Method

The procedure recommended in earlier editions of 

this handbook, adopted in FHWA’s Highway Safety 

Engineering Study Procedural Guide,

58 and adopted 

in concept by several states is the diagnostic team 

study approach. This term is used to describe a simple 

survey procedure utilizing experienced individuals 

from several sources. The procedure involves the 

diagnostic team’s evaluation of the crossing as to 

its deficiencies and judgmental consensus as to the 

recommended improvements. 

The primary factors to be considered when assigning 

people to the diagnostic team are that the team is 

interdisciplinary and representative of all groups 

having responsibility for the safe operation of crossings 

so that each of the vital factors relating to the 

operational and physical characteristics of the crossing 

may be properly identified. Individual team members 

are selected on the basis of their specific expertise and 

experience. The overall structure of the team is built 

upon three desired areas of responsibility:

• Local responsibility.

• Administrative responsibility.

• Advisory capability.

For the purpose of the diagnostic team, the operational 

and physical characteristics of crossings can be 

classified into 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 

58 Highway Safety Engineering Studies Procedural Guide. 

Washington, DC: U.S. DOT, FHWA, November 1991.

Table 28. Factor Values for U.S. DOT Injury 

Accident Probability Formula

Injury Accident Probability Formula:

where: P(FA|A) = Fatal accident probability, See Tables 25 and 27

CI = 4.280, formula constant 

UR = 1.202, urban crossing

= 1.000, rural crossing, and

Maximum

Timetable

Train Speed MS

Total

Number

Of Tracks TK

1 1.000 0 1.000

5 0.687 1 1.125

10 0.584 2 1.265

15 0.531 3 1.423

20 0.497 5 1.800

25 0.472 6 2.025

30 0.452 7 2.278

40 0.423 8 2.562

50 0.401 9 2.882

60 0.385 10 3.241

70 0.371 15 5.836

80 0.360 20 10.507

90 0.350

100 0.341

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second Edition. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal 

Highway Administration, 1986.

1- P(FA | A) P(IA | A) = (1+ CI× MS× TK × UR)

* Includes previously unpublished materials provided by Ray Lewis, 

West Virginia Department of Transportation, 2006.
 63

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. It is necessary to realize that 

many of the problems relating to crossing safety 

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 comprise at least a 

traffic engineer with safety experience and 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.

The diagnostic team should study all available data 

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. Example forms 

developed and used by various states are reproduced 

in Appendix G. Figure 6 shows a sample questionnaire, 

which can be altered to fit individual agency needs. The 

questionnaire shown in Figure 6 is divided into four 

sections:

• Distant approach and advance warning.

• Immediate highway approach.

• Crossing proper.

• Summary and analysis.

To conduct the diagnostic team field study, traffic cones 

are placed on the approaches, as shown in Figure 7. 

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, which is the distance required for a driver to 

detect a crossing and to formulate actions needed to 

avoid colliding with trains. 

Tables 29 and 30 provide a range of distances from 

point A to the crossing stop line, dependent upon 

design vehicle speeds. The maximum distances are 

applicable to crossings with a high level of complexity 

and will generally be applicable on urban roads and 

streets. These distances correspond to the decision 

sight distances for stops on rural roads and for stops 

on urban roads in the American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 

“Green Book.” In calculating sight distances, the height 

of the driver’s eye is considered 1.080 meter (3.5 feet) 

above the roadway surface for passenger vehicles; the 

target height is considered 0.6 meter (2.0 feet) above 

the roadway surface.59

Table 29. Distances in Meters to Establish Study 

Positions for Diagnostic Team Evaluation

Design 

vehicle speed 

(kilometers per 

hour)

Distance from 

stop line* 

to cone A 

(meters)

Distance from 

stop line* 

to cone B 

(meters)

50 155 70

60 195 95

70 235 115

80 280 140

90 325 170

100 370 200

110 420 235

120 470 265

* Note: The distance from the stop line is assumed to be 4.5 

meters from nearest rail, or 2.4 meters from the gate if one is 

present.

Source: From A Policy on Geometric Design of Highway and 

Streets, 2004, by the American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials, Washington, DC. Used by permission. 

59 A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 2004 

Edition. Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials, 2004.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

64

Figure 6. Sample Questionnaire for Diagnostic Team Evaluation

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? __________________________________________________________________________________

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: __________________________________________________________

4. Overall evaluation of crossing: _________________________________________________________________________________

5. Other comments: _______________________________________________________________________________________________

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway 

Administration, 1986.
 65

Table 30. Distances in Feet to Establish Study 

Positions for Diagnostic Team Evaluation

Design 

vehicle speed 

(miles per 

hour)

Distance from 

stop line* to 

cone A 

(feet)

Distance from 

stop line* to 

cone B 

(feet)

30 490 220

40 690 330

50 910 465

55 1030 535

60 1150 610

70 1410 780

* Note: The distance from the stop line is assumed to be 15 feet 

from nearest rail, or 8 feet from the gate if one is present.

Source: From A Policy on Geometric Design of Highway and 

Streets, 2004, by the American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials, Washington, DC. Used by permission. 

Safe stopping point. Cone B is placed at the point 

where the approaching driver must be able 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 end of the non-recovery zone. 

Distances to point B are based on the design vehicle 

speed and are also shown in Tables 29 and 30. These 

distances are stopping sight distances to the stop 

line and are in accordance with the upper end of the 

range of stopping sight distances in the AASHTO 

“Green Book.”60 In calculating these distances, a 

level approach is assumed. If this is not the case, an 

allowance must be made for the effects of positive or 

negative approach grades. 

60 Ibid.

Figure 7. Study Positions for Diagnostic Team

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal 

Highway Administration, 1986.

A train at this point allows vehicles 

at “B” to safely proceed across grade 

crossing.

Traffic Cone C

Non Recovery 

Zone

Traffic Cone B

Approach Zone

Traffic Cone

Visibility Triangle

See Table 30. See Table 30.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

66

Stop line. Cone C is placed at the stop line, which is 

assumed to be 4.6 meters (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 6) 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.

The questions in Section II (refer to Figure 6) 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 (refer to Figure 6) apply 

to observations adjacent to the crossing, at cone C. 

Of particular 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.

Corner sight distance.61 Available sight distances 

help determine the safe speed at which a vehicle 

can approach a crossing. The following three sight 

distances should be considered:

• Distance ahead to the crossing.

• Distance to and along the tracks on which a 

train might be approaching the crossing from 

either direction.

• Sight distance along the tracks in either 

direction from a vehicle stopped at the crossing.

These sight distances are illustrated in Figure 8. 

In the first case, the distance ahead to the crossing, the 

driver must determine whether a train is occupying the 

crossing or whether there is an active traffic control device 

indicating the approach or presence of a train. In such an 

event, the vehicle must be stopped short of the crossing, 

and the available sight distance may be a determining 

factor limiting the speed of an approaching vehicle. 

The relationship between vehicle speed and this sight 

distance is set forth in the following formula:

(5)

where:

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

A = constant = 1.47

B = constant = 1.075

Vv = velocity of the vehicle, miles per hour (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

61 Ibid.

d AV t BV

a

H v D d v = + + + e

2
 67

This formula is also expressed in SI Metric terms, as 

follows:

(6)

where:

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

A = constant = 0.278

B = constant = 0.039

Vv = velocity of the vehicle, kilometers per hour (km/

hr.)

t = perception-reaction time, seconds, assumed to 

be 2.5 seconds

a = driver deceleration, assumed to be 3.4 meters 

per second2

D = distance from the stop line or front of vehicle to 

the near rail, assumed to be 4.5 meters

de = distance from the driver to the front of the 

vehicle, assumed to be 2.4 meters

The minimum safe sight distances, dH, along the highway 

for selected vehicle speeds are shown in the bottom 

line of Tables 31 and 32. As noted, these distances were 

calculated for certain assumed conditions 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.

• The unobstructed sight line from the driver to 

the front of the train.

This sight triangle is depicted in Figure 8. The 

relationships between vehicle speed, maximum 

timetable train speed, distance along the highway (dH), 

and distance along the railroad are set forth in the 

following formula:

(7)

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

A = constant = 1.47

B = constant = 1.075

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

L = length of vehicle, assumed to be 65 feet

W = distance between outer rails (for a single track, 

this value is 5 feet)

d AV t BV

a

H v D d v = + + + e

2

d V

V

A V t BV

a

T

T D L W

v v v = + + + + ( )

2

2

Figure 8. Crossing Sight Distances

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second Edition. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal 

Highway Administration, 1986.

[ ]
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

68

(10)

dT, VT, L, D, and W are defined as above.

Expressing the formula again in SI Metric terms:

(11)

where:

VG = maximum speed of vehicle in selected starting 

gear, assumed to be 2.7 meters per second

a1 = acceleration of vehicle in starting gear, assumed 

to be 0.45 meter per second per second

J = sum of the perception time and the time 

required to activate the clutch or an automatic 

shift, assumed to be 2 seconds

da = distance the vehicle travels while accelerating 

to maximum speed in first gear, or

dT, VT, L, D, and W are defined as above.62

Figure 9. Sight Distance for a Vehicle 

Stopped at Crossing

62 Ibid.

In SI Metric values, this formula becomes:

(8)

 

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

A = constant = 0.278

B = constant = 0.039

Vv = velocity of the vehicle, km/hr.

t = perception-reaction time, seconds, assumed to 

be 2.5 seconds

a = driver deceleration, assumed to be 3.4 meters 

per second2

D = distance from the stop line or front of vehicle to 

the near rail, assumed to be 4.5 meters

L = length of vehicle, assumed to be 20 meters

W = distance between outer rails (for a single track, 

this value is 1.5 meters)

Distances dh and dT are shown in Tables 31 and 32 for 

several selected highway speeds and train speeds.

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 9 illustrates the maneuver. These sight 

distances, for a range of train speeds, are given in the 

column for a vehicle speed of zero in Tables 31 and 32. 

These values are obtained from the following formula:

(9)

where:

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 second per 

second

J = sum of the perception time and the time 

required to activate the clutch or an 

automatic shift, assumed to be 2 seconds

da = distance the vehicle travels while accelerating 

to maximum speed in first gear, or

d V

V

A V t BV

a

T

T D L W

v

v

v = + + + + ( )

2

2

d V V

a

L D W d

V

J T T

G

G

= +

+ + − 1 47 +2

1

. ( )

d V

a a G = =

2

1

2

2

8 8

2 1 47

 or 26 4 feet .

( )( . ) .

d V V

a

L D W d

V

J T T

G a

G

= +

+ + − 0 28 +2

1

. ( )

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second Edition. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal 

Highway Administration, 1986.

da

VG

a =

2

2 1

2 72

2 0 45

8 1 .

( )( . ) = . meters

[ ]
 69

Table 31. Sight Distances for Combinations of Highway Vehicle and Train Speeds, Metric

Case B: 

Departure from 

stop

Case A: Moving vehicle

Vehicle speed (km/hr.)

Train speed 

(km/hr.) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130

Distance along railroad from crossing, dT (feet)

10 45 39 24 21 19 19 19 19 20 21 21 22 23 24

20 91 77 49 41 38 38 38 39 40 41 43 45 47 48

30 136 116 73 62 57 56 57 58 60 62 64 67 70 73

40 181 154 98 82 77 75 76 77 80 83 86 89 93 97

50 227 193 122 103 96 94 95 97 100 103 107 112 116 121

60 272 232 147 123 115 113 113 116 120 124 129 134 140 145

70 317 270 171 144 134 131 132 135 140 145 150 156 163 169

80 362 309 196 164 153 150 151 155 160 165 172 179 186 194

90 408 347 220 185 172 169 170 174 179 186 193 201 209 218

100 453 386 245 206 192 188 189 193 199 207 215 223 233 242

110 498 425 269 226 211 207 208 213 219 227 236 246 256 266

120 544 463 294 247 230 225 227 232 239 248 258 268 279 290

130 589 502 318 267 249 244 246 251 259 269 279 290 302 315

140 634 540 343 288 268 263 265 271 279 289 301 313 326 339

Distance along highway from crossing, dH (feet)

15 25 38 53 70 90 112 136 162 191 222 255 291

Source: From A Policy on Geometric Design of Highway and Streets, 2004, by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials, Washington, DC. Used by permission. 

Table 32. Sight Distances for Combinations of Highway Vehicle and Train Speeds, U.S. Customary

Case B: 

Departure from 

stop

Case A: Moving vehicle

Vehicle speed (mph)

Train speed 

(mph) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Distance along railroad from crossing, dT (feet)

10 240 146 106 99 100 105 111 118 126

20 480 293 212 198 200 209 222 236 252

30 721 439 318 297 300 314 333 355 378

40 961 585 424 396 401 419 444 473 504

50 1201 732 530 494 501 524 555 591 630

60 1441 878 636 593 601 628 666 709 756

70 1681 1024 742 692 701 733 777 828 882

80 1921 1171 848 791 801 833 888 946 1008

90 2162 1317 954 890 901 943 999 1064 1134

Distance along highway from crossing, dH (feet)

69 135 220 324 447 589 751 931

Source: From A Policy on Geometric Design of Highway and Streets, 2004, by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials, Washington, DC. Used by permission. 
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

70

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. This is often impractical.

In Section IV of the questionnaire, 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.

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 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

(MUTCD) should be a principal reference for this 

evaluation.63 Also, A User’s Guide to Positive 

Guidance provides information for conducting 

evaluations of traffic control devices.64

63 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition. 

Washington, DC: FHWA, 2003.

64 A User’s Guide to Positive Guidance. Washington, DC, U.S. DOT, 

FHWA, Office of Operations, June 1977.

After the questionnaire has been completed, the team 

is reassembled for a short critique and discussion 

period. 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.

Both government and railroad resources are becoming 

more limited. The Highway Safety Engineering 

Studies Procedural Guide suggests crossing 

evaluation by an individual, in lieu of the diagnostic 

team.65 The guide suggests that this individual be 

a traffic engineer with experience in highway-rail 

crossing and traffic safety. A background in signal 

control and safety program administration would also 

be advantageous.

2. Traffic Conflict Technique

Highway traffic collisions are a statistically rare 

event. Typically, an engineer or analyst must assemble 

several years of collision data to have a large enough 

sample to identify a pattern of collisions and suggest 

countermeasures. The traffic conflict technique 

was developed during the early 1970s by Research 

Laboratories, General Motors Corporation, to be a 

measure of traffic collision potential. 

A traffic conflict occurs when a driver takes evasive 

action, brakes, or weaves to avoid a collision. The 

conflict is evidenced by a brake-light indication or a 

lane change by the offended driver. Procedures have 

65 Highway Safety Engineering Studies Procedural Guide. 

Washington, DC: U.S. DOT, FHWA, November 1991.
 71

been developed to define and record traffic conflicts to 

permit the performance of formal surveys.66

Originally, traffic conflict surveys had to be carried 

out by a team of observers in the field. The availability 

of inexpensive and reliable video equipment permits 

photographic data collection in the field, followed by 

more accurate and complete data analysis in the office.

3. Collision Study

Vehicle-train collisions are very infrequent at most 

crossings. Based on 1995 data, the average public 

crossing would experience a train-involved collision 

every 56.3 years.67 As a result, traditional collision 

analyses techniques are usually of limited utility. 

Collision studies may be needed under the following 

circumstances:

• Some high-exposure crossings may experience 

sufficient collisions that a pattern can be 

established.

• It may be necessary to do an in-depth 

investigation of an individual collision, either 

as part of a safety evaluation or in preparation 

for litigation. See Chapter XIII for more 

information.

• NTSB frequently carries out in-depth studies 

of certain collisions or of a number of collisions 

that fit a certain category. NTSB’s findings 

and recommendations may be useful at the 

individual crossing level or as input to a grade 

crossing improvement program.

• Traditional collision study methods may be 

applicable to vehicle-vehicle collisions that are 

associated with the physical characteristics or 

the operation of a highway-rail grade crossing.

4. Traffic Study

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.

66 Perkins, Stuart R. GMR Traffic Conflicts Technique Procedures 

Manual. Research Laboratories, General Motors Corporation, 

Warren, Michigan, August 11, 1969.

67 Railroad Safety Statistics 2004 Annual Report. Washington, 

DC: U.S. DOT, FRA, November 2005.

Particular 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.

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.

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.68, 69

5. Near-Hit Reports

Some railroads operate a program under which train 

crews report “near hits” with or violations by highway 

vehicles at crossings. These reports can be a valuable 

source of information regarding problem crossings and 

will also contain data regarding vehicle ownerships 

and types, time of day, and other contributing factors.

Where the vehicle can be positively identified, the 

reports are frequently turned over to the property 

protection department of the railroad (railroad police) 

for follow-up. This is particularly true in the case 

of documented violations by drivers for commercial 

carriers or for transit and school bus operators.

6. Enforcement Study

An enforcement study is directed at providing an 

objective measurement of the frequency of violations 

of traffic control devices and traffic laws. Hidden 

observers or cameras are used to observe the location 

or condition under study. Data collected will include 

total traffic volume, total vehicles encountering the 

situation under study, and total observed violations.

68 Highway Safety Engineering Studies Procedural Guide.

Washington, DC: U.S. DOT, FHWA, November 1991.

69 Manual of Transportation Engineering Studies. Washington, 

DC: Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1994.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

72

The enforcement study must be carried out so that 

traffic operations and driver behavior are not affected. 

If an actual law enforcement officer or police car 

appears on the scene, the study should be interrupted 

or terminated. The measurements obtained may be 

used as a basis for later enforcement campaigns and 

may also be used to justify improvements in traffic 

control devices, such as the installation of constant 

warning time devices to improve the credibility of 

crossing signals.

Various types of specialized photographic equipment 

are available for conducting enforcement studies or 

for actual photographic enforcement of traffic laws. 

Photographic enforcement has been used successfully 

at grade crossings and along at least one light-rail 

transit corridor.70

D. Systems 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 a 

number of individual crossing projects. Funding 

for crossing safety is approved on the basis of the 

requirements of these individual projects. Therefore, 

crossing evaluation, programming, and construction 

follow traditional highway project implementation 

procedures.

The concept of using the systems approach to 

highway-rail grade crossing improvements was 

enhanced when crossings off the federal-aid system 

were made eligible for federally funded programs. 

Because all public crossings are now eligible for 

improvement with federal funds, the systems approach 

provides a comprehensive method for addressing 

safety and operations at crossings. 

The systems approach considers the highwayrail grade crossing a part or a component of a 

larger transportation system. For this purpose, the 

transportation system is defined as a land surface 

system consisting of both highway and railroad 

facilities. The intersection of these two transportation 

modes affects both safety and operations of the entire 

system. The objective of the systems approach for 

crossings is to improve both safety and operations of 

the total system or segments of the system. 

70 Photographic Enforcement of Traffic Laws. Washington, DC: 

National Cooperative Highway Research Program Synthesis of 

Practice 219, 1995.

The systems approach may be applied to a segment 

of the rail component of the system. For example, 

to improve operating efficiency and safety over a 

specified segment of a rail line, all crossings would 

be considered in the evaluation. Thus, the systems 

approach is often called the corridor approach. 

The systems 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.

Assume that a segment of rail line is to be upgraded for 

unit train operations or high-speed passenger service. 

This type of change in rail operations would provide 

an ideal opportunity for the application of the systems 

approach. The rail line may be upgraded by track and 

signal improvements for train operations that might 

cause a need for adjustments in train detection circuits 

of active traffic control devices. Also, modifications 

of train operations and speeds may require the 

installation of active traffic control devices at selected 

crossings. 

A systems approach developed for crossings in a 

specified community or political subdivision allows 

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. 

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). 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 active traffic control 

devices, upgrading existing active devices, elimination 

by grade separation, surface improvements, and 

improvements in train detection circuits. In addition, 

modification of train operations near and at each 
 73

crossing, removal of sight obstructions, rerouting of 

special vehicles and emergency vehicles, and railroad 

relocation should be considered. 

Federal, state, and local crossing funding programs 

should be reviewed to identify the eligibility of each 

crossing improvement for public funding. Other funding 

sources include railroads, urban renewal funds, land 

development funds, and other public or private funding 

sources. 

There are several advantages of the systems 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 of 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. Travel time of construction 

crews may be reduced when projects are in close 

proximity to each other. 

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 a sufficient 

number of 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. 

One impediment to the systems approach is that 

most federal and state crossing safety improvement 

programs provide funding for safety improvements 

only. Also, safety improvement projects may be limited 

to crossings that rank high on a priority schedule. 

Another impediment is the involvement of multiple 

jurisdictions. 

FHWA has endorsed the systems approach and its 

resultant identification of low-cost improvements to 

crossing safety and operations. FHWA sponsored 

a demonstration project that utilized the systems 

approach to improve crossings along a rail corridor in 

Illinois. To eliminate the need for project agreements 

with each local agency, the Illinois Commerce 

Commission issued a single order covering the work 

to be performed at nine locations. This accelerated the 

project and reduced labor-intensive work. FHWA and 

the Illinois Department of Transportation agreed that 

minimal plan submittals would be required of local 

agencies, and local agencies agreed to perform the 

necessary work at mutually agreed-upon lump sum 

prices under the supervision of Illinois Department of 

Transportation district representatives. 

Improvements made as part of the demonstration 

project in Illinois included the following:

• Removal of vegetation. 

• Pavement widening. 

• Reconstruction of approaches. 

• Installation of 12-inch lenses in crossing 

signals. 

• Relocation of train loading areas. 

• Closure of crossings. 

• Removal of switch track. 

• Installation of traffic control signs pertinent to 

crossing geometries. 

The Florida Department of Transportation and other 

states have adopted policies incorporating the systems 

approach as part of their crossing safety improvement 

programs. The Florida Department of Transportation 

selects track segments on the basis of the following 

conditions: 

• Abnormally high percentage of crossings with 

passive traffic control devices only. 

• Freight trains carrying hazardous material in 

an environment that presents an unacceptable 

risk of a catastrophic event. 

• Passenger train routes. 

• Plans for increased rail traffic, especially 

commuter trains. 

The North Carolina Department of Transportation 

(NCDOT) has used the systems approach often in 

recent years. Examples of these projects are the 

Sealed Corridor Program and traffic separation 

studies. 

In the Sealed Corridor Program, NCDOT installed 

devices such as four-quadrant gates, longer gate arms, 

median separators, and new signs and pavement 

markings at every public crossing along the entire 

railway line between Charlotte and Greensboro, North 

Carolina. The program is planned to eventually cover 

the entire corridor between Charlotte and Raleigh, 

North Carolina. The entire corridor contains 172 public 

and 43 private railroad crossings.

In traffic separation studies, the NCDOT Rail Division 

works with communities to study how best to separate 

railroad and highway traffic. Engineers develop a 
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

74

comprehensive traffic separation study to determine 

which public crossings need improvements and 

which need to be closed. During the study phase, the 

engineering consultant collects traffic data for the 

public rail crossings in the study area. The consultants 

also take into account the economic impact of the 

potential closings. 

A draft of the consultants’ recommendations is 

submitted to the Rail Division and the public for review 

and comment. The recommendations are prioritized 

to include near-term, mid-term, and long-term 

improvements. Public hearings are scheduled in each 

community to give residents a chance to voice opinions 

about the proposed recommendations. The forums 

also allow NCDOT to discuss the benefits of enhanced 

crossing safety.

In the implementation phase, NCDOT officials identify 

funding for the proposed enhancements (typically, 90 

percent is federal funds with a 10-percent local match). 

The freight railroads sometimes provide additional 

resources.

Additional information on these and other NCDOT 

programs can be found on the NCDOT Safety 

Initiatives Website.71

E. References 

 Box, Paul C. and J.C. Oppenlander. Manual of 

Traffic Engineering Studies. Washington, DC: 

Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1976. 

 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Washington, 

DC: Government Printing Of­fice, published 

annually. 

 Farr, E.H. and J.S. Ritz. Accident Severity 

Prediction Formula for Rail-Highway 

Crossings. Washington, DC: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Report FHWA-RD-83/092, 

July 1983. 

Federal-Aid Policy Guide. Washington, DC: 

FHWA, updated periodically.

Federal Highway Administration Survey of Region 

and Division Offices, unpublished, 1984. 

71 North Carolina Department of Transportation Safety Initiatives 

Website (www.bytrain.org/Safety/default.html).

Goodell-Grivas, Inc. Highway Safety 

Engineering Studies: Procedural Guide. 

Washington, DC: FHWA, FHWA-TS-81­220, June 

1981. 

Hitz, John and Mary Cross. Rail-Highway 

Crossing Resource Allocation Procedure User’s 

Guide. Washington, DC: FHWA and FRA, Report 

FHWA-IP-82-7, December 1982. 

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 

2003 Edition. Washington, DC: FHWA, 2003. 

A Policy on Geometric Design of Highway and 

Streets. Washington, DC: American Association of 

State Highway and Transportation Officials, 1984. 

Post, T.J., G.J. Alexander, and H. Lunenfeld. A 

User’s Guide to Positive Guidance, Second 

Edition. Washington, DC: FHWA, Report FHWATO-81-1, December 1981. 

Railroad/Highway Grade Crossing Accidents 

Involving Trucks Transporting Bulk 

Hazardous Materials, A Special Study.

Washington, DC: National Transportation Safety 

Board, Report NTSB-RZM-81-2, September 1981. 

Schoppert, David W. and Dan W. Hoyt. Factors 

Influencing Safety at Highway-Rail Grade 

Crossings. Washington, DC: Highway Research 

Board, National Cooperative Highway Research 

Program Report 50, 1968. 

Traffic Control Devices Handbook. Washington, 

DC: FHWA, 1983. 

Update Manual: National Railroad Highway 

Crossing Inventory. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Transportation, 1976.
 75

Previous chapters presented methodologies for 

selecting and analyzing potentially hazardous highwayrail grade crossings. In this chapter, existing laws, 

rules, regulations, and policies are presented and 

alternative safety and operational improvements 

are discussed. These alternatives are presented by 

type: crossing elimination; installation of passive 

traffic control devices; installation of active traffic 

control devices; site improvements; crossing surface 

improvements; and removal of grade separations. From 

information contained in this chapter, the highway 

engineer should select several alternative improvement 

proposals for any particular crossing being studied. 

The “do-nothing” alternative should also be considered 

a proposal. Procedures for selecting among the various 

alternatives are presented in Chapter V, Selection of 

Alternatives.

A. Existing Laws, Rules, 

Regulations, and Policies 

Current Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

regulations specifically prohibit at-grade intersections 

on highways with full access control (23 CFR Section 

625 (4)). Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) rail 

safety regulations require that crossings be separated 

or closed where trains operate at speeds above 125 

miles per hour (mph) (49 CFR 213.347(a)). Additionally, 

if train operation is projected at FRA track class 7 

(111–125 mph), an application must be made to FRA 

for approval of the type of warning/barrier system. 

The regulation does not specify the type of system but 

allows the petitioner to propose a suitable system for 

FRA review. 

In 1998, FRA issued an Order of Particular 

Applicability for high-speed rail service on the 

Northeast Corridor. 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. Grade 

crossings are prohibited on the Northeast Corridor if 

maximum operating speeds exceed 95 mph. Current 

statutory, regulatory, and federal policy requirements 

are summarized in Table 33.

Table 33. Federal Laws, Rules, Regulations, 

and Policies

Active

Warning/

barrier 

with FRA 

approval

Grade 

separate or 

close

Controlled 

access 

highways

Not allowed Not allowed Required

High-speed 

rail > 79 mph 111–125 mph > 125 mph

* Note: 1 mph = 1.61 kilometers per hour

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.

Not unlike the system specification that all highwayrail crossings on full control access highways be grade 

separated, it is only logical that certain rail systems 

should have similar status. In 1994, FRA defined a core 

railroad system of approximately 128,800 kilometers 

(80,000 miles) known as Principal Railroad Lines 

(PRLs). These lines have one or more of the following 

attributes: Amtrak service, defense essential, or annual 

freight volume exceeding 20 million gross tons. This 

core network was described in the U.S. Department 

of Transportation’s (U.S. DOT) 1994 Action Plan to 

improve highway-rail grade crossing safety. The plan set 

forth a long-term goal of eliminating (grade separating 

Identification of 

Alternatives IV
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

76

or realigning) intersections of PRLs and highway 

routes on the National Highway System—defined 

as “an interconnected system of principal arterial 

routes to serve major population centers, intermodal 

transportation facilities and other major travel 

destinations; meet national defense requirements; and 

serve interstate and interregional travel.”72

B. Elimination 

The first alternative that should always be considered 

for a highway-rail at-grade crossing is elimination. 

Elimination can be accomplished by grade separating 

the crossing, closing the crossing to highway traffic, 

or closing the crossing to railroad traffic through the 

abandonment or relocation of the rail line. Elimination 

of a crossing provides the highest level of crossing safety 

because the point of intersection between highway and 

railroad is removed. However, the effects of elimination 

on highway and railroad operations may be beneficial or 

adverse. The benefits of the elimination alternative are 

primarily safety and, perhaps, operational—offset by 

construction and operational costs. 

Decisions regarding whether the crossing should 

be eliminated or otherwise improved through the 

installation of traffic control devices or site or surface 

improvements depend upon safety, operational, and 

cost considerations. However, the Federal-Aid Policy 

Guide (FAPG) does specify 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.”73

The major benefits of crossing elimination include 

reductions in collisions, highway vehicle delay, rail 

traffic delay, and maintenance costs of crossing 

surfaces and traffic control devices.

Safety considerations include both train-involved 

collisions and non-train-involved collisions. Under 

the Federal Motor Carrier Safety regulations, all 

vehicles transporting passengers and trucks carrying 

many types of hazardous materials must stop prior 

to crossing tracks at a highway-rail grade crossing 

(49 CFR 392.10). In the event that following vehicles 

do not anticipate such stops and/or fail to maintain 

safe stopping distance, collisions may result. These 

conditions may be alleviated to some extent where the 

72 Guidance on Traffic Control Devices at Highway-Rail Grade 

Crossings. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA), Highway/Rail Grade Crossing Technical Working Group, 

November 2002.

73 Federal-Aid Policy Guide. 646.214(c), Washington, DC: FHWA. 

vehicles required to stop have a special lane at the 

crossing for such purpose. In addition, the presence of 

the crossing itself may cause non-train collisions. For 

example, when stopping suddenly to avoid a collision 

with an oncoming train, a driver may lose control of 

the vehicle and collide with a roadside object. Thus, 

these types of collisions would be avoided if an at-grade 

crossing were eliminated. 

Four types of delay are imposed on highway traffic by 

crossings:

• Trains occupying crossings—Highway 

traffic should slow down to look for trains, 

particularly at crossings with passive traffic 

control devices. Vehicles must stop and wait for 

a train to clear a crossing. Furthermore, there 

may be some delay to vehicles that arrive at a 

crossing before vehicles that were delayed by a 

train have cleared the crossing. 

• Special vehicles—Certain vehicles may 

be required to stop at all crossings. These 

include other commercial buses, passengercarrying vehicles, and vehicles carrying 

hazardous materials. In addition to the 

delay incurred by these special vehicles, 

their stopping may also impose delay on 

following vehicles. 

• Crossing surface—In other words, if the 

surface can be traversed at only 15 mph, the 

time needed for a vehicle to slow down and 

cross should be taken into account.

• Presence of crossing—This delay 

occurs regardless of whether a train is 

approaching or occupying the crossing. 

Motorists usually slow down 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.”74 Therefore, the existence of 

a crossing may cause some delays to 

motorists who slow to look for a train. 

Another benefit of crossing elimination is the 

alleviation of maintenance costs of surfaces and traffic 

control devices. As discussed in a later chapter on 

maintenance, these costs can be quite substantial for 

both highway agencies and railroads. 

74 Uniform Vehicle Code and Model Traffic Ordinance. National 

Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances, Evanston, 

Illinois, 1961, and Supplement, 1984.
 77

Costs of eliminating crossings depend on whether the 

crossing is merely closed to highway traffic, a grade 

separation is constructed, or the highway or railroad is 

relocated. These costs are discussed along with other 

considerations for each type of elimination alternative. 

C. Grade Separation 

The decision to grade separate a highway-rail crossing is 

primarily a matter of economics. Investment in a gradeseparation structure is long-term and impacts many 

users. Such decisions should be based on long-term, fully 

allocated life-cycle costs, including both highway and 

railroad user costs, rather than on initial construction 

costs. Such analysis should consider the following: 

• Eliminating train/vehicle collisions (including 

the resultant property damage and medical 

costs and liability).

• Savings in highway-rail grade crossing 

surface and crossing signal installation and 

maintenance costs.

• Driver delay cost savings.

• Costs associated with providing increased 

highway storage capacity (to accommodate 

traffic backed up by a train).

• Fuel and pollution mitigation cost savings 

(from idling queued vehicles).

• Effects of any “spillover” congestion on the rest 

of the roadway system.

• Benefits of improved emergency access.

• Potential for closing one or more additional 

adjacent crossings. 

• Possible train derailment costs.

Specific recommendations for grade separation are 

contained in the FHWA Technical Working Group 

report in Chapter V.

A recently released report entitled Grade 

Separations—When Do We Separate provides a 

stepwise procedure for evaluating the grade-separation 

decision.75 The report also contains a rough screening 

method based on train and roadway vehicular volumes. 

However, as pointed out in the report, the screening 

method should be used with caution and should be 

calibrated for values appropriate for the particular 

jurisdiction.

75 Nichelson, Jr. , G. Rex and George L. Reed. Grade Separations—

When Do We Separate. 1999 Highway-Rail Grade Crossing 

Conference. Texas Transportation Institute (TTI), College Station, 

Texas, October 17–19, 1999 (www.tti.edu or www.tamu.edu).

Recent publications include a methodology reflecting 

safety and economic factors applied in Israel;76 a 

grade-separation policy for light-rail train crossings 

with specific highway operational, safety, and rail 

transit operational criteria adopted by the Los 

Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority;77

a methodology applied in central Arkansas that 

considered use of seven quantitative factors: noise, 

community cohesion, delay, accessibility, connectivity, 

geographic distribution, and safety;78 and a 

methodology by Nichelson and Reed presented at the 

2001 National Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety 

Conference.79

D. Highway and Railroad 

Relocation 

Other alternatives to highway-rail grade crossing 

problems are relocation of the highway or railroad 

or railroad consolidation. These alternatives provide 

a solution to other railroad impacts on communities; 

however, the costs associated with relocation or 

consolidation can be quite high. 

Railroads provide advantages and disadvantages to 

communities. They generate employment opportunities 

for local citizens, provide transportation services to 

local industries and businesses, and are a source of 

tax revenue to government agencies. The presence 

of railroads in communities can impose some 

disadvantages, such as vehicular delay and safety 

concerns at highway-rail grade crossings. In addition, 

the presence of railroads may impose noise and other 

environmental concerns upon the community. Railroad 

relocation to the outer limits of the community may 

be a viable alternative for alleviating these concerns 

while retaining the advantages of having railroad 

service. Relocation generally involves the complete 

rebuilding of railroad facilities. This not only requires 

track construction but also acquisition of right of 

76 Gitelman, Victoria, A. Shalom Hakkert, Etti Doveh, and Ayala 

Cohen. “Screening Tools for Considering Grade Separation at RailHighway Crossings.” Journal of Transportation Engineering

(January 2006).

77 Ogden, Brent D. “Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation 

Authority Grade Crossing Policy: Reducing Uncertainty And Defining 

Scope And Cost For Light Rail Transit/Roadway Crossings.” 

Proceedings, American Public Transportation Association Light Rail 

Conference, Miami, Florida, 2004.

78 Schrader, M.H. and J.R. Hoffpauer. “Methodology For Evaluating 

Highway-Railway Grade Separations.” Transportation Research 

Record, No. 1754, Traffic Control Devices, Visibility, and RailHighway Grade Crossings, 2001.

79 TransTech Group, Inc., G. Rex Nichelson, and George Reed. 

“A Procedure for the Provision of Highway-Railroad Grade 

Separations.” 2001 National Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety 

Conference sponsored by TTI, College Station, Texas, April 2001.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

78

way and construction of drainage structures, signals, 

communications, crossings and separations, station 

facilities, and utilities. 

In some cases, consolidation of railroad lines into 

common corridors or joint operations over the same 

trackage may allow for the removal of some trackage 

through a community. Railroad consolidation may 

provide benefits similar to those of railroad relocation 

and, possibly, at lower costs. 

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 provide for the elimination 

of obstructions to emergency vehicles and the 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 must be considered in planning for 

railroad relocation. The new location should provide 

good alignment, minimum grades, and adequate 

drainage. Sufficient right of way 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. 

To accomplish a rail relocation or consolidation 

project, a partnership is required among the federal 

government (if federal funds are involved), state and 

local government agencies, the railroad, and the 

community. Although the purpose of the project may be 

only to eliminate physical conflicts between the highway 

user and the railroad, the partnership developed for this 

project provides an atmosphere of cooperative working 

relationships that continues into the future. 

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 would 

eliminate at-grade crossings by avoiding the need for 

access over railroad trackage or by providing grade 

separations. 

E. Closure

Closure of a highway-rail grade crossing to highway 

traffic should always be considered as an alternative. 

Numerous crossings were built when railroads first 

began operating. Safety was not a serious concern 

because horse-drawn carriages could easily stop and 

train speeds were low. 

Closure of at-grade crossings is normally 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 highway traffic flow should 

be conducted to determine origin and destination 

points and needed highway capacity. Thus, optimum 

routes over railroads can be determined. Highway 

operation over several crossings may be consolidated 

to move over 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 alternate routes 

should have sufficient capacity to accommodate the 

diverted traffic safely and efficiently.

Eliminating redundant and unneeded crossings should 

be a high priority. Barring highway or railroad system 

requirements that require crossing elimination, the 

decision to close or consolidate crossings requires 

balancing public necessity, convenience, and safety. 

The crossing closure decision should be based on 

economics—comparing the cost of retaining the 

crossing (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. Because this can be 

a local political and emotional issue, the economics 

of the situation cannot be ignored. This subject is 

addressed in a 1994 joint FRA/FHWA publication 

entitled Highway-Railroad Grade Crossings: A 

Guide To Crossing Consolidation and Closure and 

a March 1995 publication of the American Association 

of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

(AASHTO), Highway-Rail Crossing Elimination 

and Consolidation.

Whenever a crossing is closed, 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 
 79

effective means of mitigating local political resistance 

to the closure.80

There are several stumbling blocks to successful 

closure, such as negative community attitudes, 

funding problems, and the lack of forceful state laws 

authorizing closure or the reluctant utilization of state 

laws that permit closure.

Legislation that authorizes a state agency to close 

crossings greatly facilitates the implementation of 

closures. These state agencies should utilize their 

authority to close crossings whenever possible. Often, 

a state agency can accomplish closure where local 

efforts fail due to citizen biases and fear of losing 

access across the railroad. Local opposition sometimes 

may be overcome through 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 because of 

safety concerns but also because maintenance costs 

associated with the crossing are eliminated. A list of 

who is responsible for closing public crossings in each 

state is shown in Table 34. Appendix H presents a more 

detailed state-by-state summary of the procedures for 

grade crossing elimination.

Achieving consensus among state transportation 

divisions, boards, review committees, railroads, 

municipalities, and the public is integral to the closure 

process. Closure criteria vary by locality but typically 

include train and roadway traffic volume, speed of trains, 

number of tracks, material being carried, crossing 

location, visibility, distance to traffic signals, and number 

of crashes. More than four crossings per mile with fewer 

than 2,000 vehicles per day and more than two trains per 

day are prime candidates for closure.81

To assist in the identification of crossings that may 

be closed, the systems approach might be utilized, as 

discussed in Chapter III. With this method, several 

crossings in a community or rail corridor are improved 

by the installation of traffic control devices; other 

crossings are closed. This is accomplished following a 

study of traffic flows in the area to assure continuing 

access across the railroad. Traffic flows are sometimes 

improved by the installation of more sophisticated 

traffic control systems at the remaining crossings and, 

perhaps, the construction of a grade separation at one 

of the remaining crossings. 

80 Guidance on Traffic Control Devices at Highway-Rail Grade 

Crossings. Washington, DC: FHWA, Highway/Rail Grade Crossing 

Technical Working Group, November 2002.

81 Carroll, Anya A. and Judith D. Warren.“Closure of U.S. Highway 

Grade Crossings: A Status Report.” Washington, DC: Transportation 

Research Board 82nd Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers CDROM, January 12-16, 2003. 

Another important matter to consider in connection 

with crossing closure is access over the railroad by 

emergency vehicles, ambulances, fire trucks, and 

police. Crossings frequently utilized by emergency 

vehicles should not be closed. On the contrary, 

these crossings 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. The Traffic Control Devices Handbook 

suggests criteria that may be used for crossing closure. 

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. 

Table 34. Responsibility for Closing 

Public Crossings

State agency Regulatory commission

Local 

jurisdiction

No code or 

authority 

specifically 

mentioned 

Alabama* Arizona Alabama* Alaska

Delaware Arkansas Illinois Hawaii

District of 

Columbia California Iowa* New Jersey

Florida Colorado Louisiana* New Mexico

Georgia Connecticut Nebraska

Idaho Kansas* Ohio

Indiana Minnesota Texas*

Iowa* Mississippi

Kansas* Montana

Kentucky Nevada

Louisiana* New 

Hampshire

Maine New York

Maryland North Dakota

Massachusetts Oklahoma

Michigan Pennsylvania

Missouri Rhode Island

Nebraska South 

Carolina

North 

Carolina Tennessee*

Oregon Texas*

South Dakota Vermont

Tennessee* Virginia

Utah Washington

Wisconsin West Virginia

Wyoming

* Shares responsibility with other state organization.

Source: From Transportation Research Board 82nd Annual 

Meeting Compendium of Papers CD-ROM, January 12–16, 2003, 

Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, 

Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

80

Criteria for crossings on branch lines include: 

• Less than 2,000 average daily traffic (ADT).

• More than two trains per day. 

• Alternate crossing within 0.25 mile that has 

less than 5,000 ADT if two lanes or less than 

15,000 ADT if four lanes.

Criteria for crossings on spur tracks include:

• Less than 2,000 ADT.

• More than 15 trains per day. 

• Alternate crossing within 0.25 mile that has 

less than 5,000 ADT if two lanes or less than 

15,000 ADT if four lanes.

Criteria for crossing on mainline:

• Any mainline section with more than five 

crossings within a 1-mile segment.

The guidance document developed by the U.S. DOT 

Technical Working Group provides specific criteria 

for screening of crossings for closure applicable to 

mainline trackage (see Chapter V). When a crossing 

is permanently closed to highway traffic, the existing 

crossing should be obliterated by removing the 

crossing surface pavement markings and all traffic 

control devices both at the crossing and approaching 

the crossing.

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 highway authority is responsible for removing 

traffic control devices in advance of and approaching 

the crossing, such as the advance warning signs and 

pavement markings. Nearby highway traffic signals 

that are interconnected with crossing signals located 

at the closed crossing should have their phasing and 

timing readjusted. 

The highway authority is also responsible to alert 

motorists that the crossing roadway is now closed. A 

Type III barricade, shown in Figure 10, may be erected. 

If used, this barricade shall meet the design criteria 

of Section 6F.63 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic 

Control Devices (MUTCD), except the colors of the 

stripes shall be reflectorized white and reflectorized 

red. Characteristics of a Type III barricade are 

provided in Figure 10. 

Figure 10. Type III Barricade*

If barricades are used to channelize pedestrians, there shall be continuous 

no gaps between individual barricades to be detectable to users of long ca

be no higher than 150 mm (6 in) above the ground surface. The top of the 

(36 in) above the ground surface.

Note:

900 mm

(36 in)

MIN.

TYPE I BARRICADE

600 mm

(24 in) MIN. 200 to

300 mm

(8 to 12 in)

900 mm

(36 in)

MIN.

TY

1.5 m

(5 ft)

MIN.

TYPE III BARRICADE

1.2 m (4 ft) MIN.

200 to

300 mm

(8 to 12 in)

900 mm

(36 in)

DIRECTIO

45o

4

* Warning lights (optional)

** Rail stripe widths shall be 150 mm (6 in), except that 100 m

may be used if rail lengths are less than 900 mm (36 in). Th

facing traffic shall have retroreflective rail faces.

Option:

Tubular markers may be used effectively to divide opposing lanes of r

when two or more lanes of moving motor vehicle traffic are kept open in t

edge of a pavement drop off where space limitations do not allow the use 

Standard:

When a noncylindrical tubular marker is used, it shall be attached 

that the width facing road users meets the minimum requirements.

A tubular marker shall be attached to the pavement to display the 

approaching road users.

Section 6F.61 Vertical Panels

Standard:

Vertical panels (see Figure 6F-7, Sheet 1 of 2) shall be 200 to 300 m

600 mm (24 in) in height. They shall have orange and white diagonal 

Vertical panels shall be mounted with the top a minimum of 900 m

Sect. 6F.60 to 6F.61

* Rail stripe widths shall be 150 millimeters (mm) (6 inches 

(in.)), except that 100-mm (4-in.) wide stripes may be

used if rail lengths are less than 900 mm (36 in.). The sides of 

barricades facing traffic shall have retroreflective rail faces.

Note: If barricades are used to channelize pedestrians, there shall 

be continuous detectable bottom and top rails with no gaps

between individual barricades to be detectable to users of long 

canes. The bottom of the bottom rail shall be no higher than 150

mm (6 in.) above the ground surface. The top of the top rail shall 

be no lower than 900 mm (36 in.) above the ground surface.

Source: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition.

Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration, 2003.

Warning and regulatory signing in accordance with 

MUTCD should be installed to alert motorists that the 

crossing roadway 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. 

Consideration should also be given to advising 

motorists of alternate routes across the railroad. If 

trucks use the crossing being closed, they should be 

given advance information about the closure at points 

where they can conveniently alter their route. 

1. Closure Programs 

One grade crossing closure initiative was established 

by the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway 

Company (BNSF) in 2000. This initiative is part of 

BNSF’s grade crossing safety program, which has the 

goal of reducing grade crossing collisions, injuries, 

and fatalities. The grade 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 grade crossing since 

the beginning of its grade crossing closure initiative. 

By eliminating unnecessary and redundant crossings, 
 81

BNSF has made an important contribution to 

community safety while also improving the efficiency 

and safety of its rail operation. There are three key 

elements of BNSF’s grade crossing closure initiative:

• A closure team was assembled, bringing 

together field safety and the public projects 

group in engineering.

• Closure candidates were identified by division 

engineering and transportation personnel.

• A closure database was developed to track 

progress.

Another example of a closure program is the 

effort begun by the North Carolina Department of 

Transportation (NCDOT) in 1993. North Carolina 

recorded its 100th crossing closure in 2004.82 NCDOT 

criteria consider:

• Crossings within one-quarter-mile of one 

another that are part of the same highway or 

street network.

• 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.

82 Consolidating Railroad Crossings: On Track for Safety in 

North Carolina. Rail Division, Engineering and Safety Branch, North 

Carolina Department of Transportation, 2000 (www.dot.state.nc.us/).

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 (thoroughfare, collector, 

local access, truck route, school bus route, or 

designated emergency route).

• Economic impact of closing the crossing.

• Alternative roadway access.

• Type of property being served (residential, 

commercial, or industrial).

• Potential for bridging by overpass or 

underpass.

• Need for enhanced warning devices (fourquadrant 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:

• 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.

2. Crossing Consolidation and Safety Programs

A highly effective approach to improving safety involves 

the development of a program of treatments, including 

safety improvements, grade separations, and crossing 

closures, to eliminate significant numbers of crossings 

within a specified section of rail line while improving 

those that remain at grade. Both FRA and AASHTO 

have provided 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. Examples include the previously noted NCDOT 

consolidation effort as well as the Alameda Corridor–

East project in southern California, which was developed 

as a result of a grade crossing corridor study.83

83 San Gabriel Valley Grade Crossings Study, San Gabriel Valley 

Council of Governments, Korve Engineering, Inc., January 1997.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

82

To improve crossing safety and provide a 

comprehensive approach to crossing consolidation, 

the traffic separation study approach is a worthwhile 

option. 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 

highway-rail grade 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 local road authority, railroad, state department 

of transportation, municipal staff, and local officials, 

these recommendations may be modified. Reaching 

a consensus is essential prior to scheduling 

presentations to governing bodies and citizens. 

Recommendations resulting from a traffic separation 

study may include installation of flashing lights and 

gates; enhanced devices such as four-quadrant gates 

and longer gate arms; installation of concrete or rubber 

crossings; median barrier installation; pavement 

markings; roadway approach modifications; crossing 

or roadway realignments; crossing closures and/or 

relocation of existing crossings to safer locations; 

connector roads; and feasibility studies to evaluate 

potential grade-separation locations.

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 consequences 

to neighborhoods of train derailments containing 

hazardous materials resulting from crossing collisions. 

Equating rail crossings to highway interchanges, 

something the average citizen can relate to, greatly 

assists in reinforcing the need for eliminating lowvolume and/or redundant crossings.84

84 Guidance on Traffic Control Devices at Highway-Rail Grade 

Crossings. Washington, DC: FHWA, Highway/Rail Grade Crossing 

Technical Working Group, November 2002.

F. Abandoned Crossings

Highway-rail grade crossings on abandoned railroad 

lines present a different kind of safety and operational 

problem. Motorists who consistently drive over 

crossings that are not maintained but have traffic 

control devices and at which they never see a train may 

develop a careless attitude and not take appropriate 

caution. Motorist may maintain this attitude and 

behavior at crossings that have not been abandoned, 

perhaps resulting in a collision with a train. Thus, 

credibility of crossing traffic control devices may be 

reduced, not only for the abandoned crossing but for 

other crossings as well. 

Operational problems exist for abandoned crossings 

where existing traffic control devices and/or tracks for 

the crossing have not been removed. A careful motorist 

will slow down in advance of every crossing, especially 

those with passive traffic control devices. If the track has 

been abandoned, unnecessary delays result, particularly 

for special vehicles required by federal and state laws to 

stop in advance of every crossing. These special vehicles 

include school buses, vehicles carrying passengers for 

hire, and vehicles transporting hazardous materials. 

In addition, these vehicles may be involved in vehiclevehicle collisions because other motorists might not 

expect drivers of these vehicles to stop. 

The desirable action for abandoned crossings is to 

remove all traffic control devices related to the crossing 

and remove or pave over the tracks. The difficulty is in 

identifying abandoned railroad lines. 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, obviously, removing or paving over the 

track will add substantial cost in 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. 

The first step in addressing the problem of crossings 

on abandoned rail lines is to obtain information 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. 

In addition, some state laws require railroads to also 

apply for permission or to notify a state agency of 

intentions to abandon the line. The state highway 

engineer responsible for crossing safety and operations 
 83

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. Additionally, the state 

highway agency should periodically call the state 

regulatory commission or STB to obtain the records 

on rail abandonments in the state. Railroad personnel 

responsible for crossing safety and operations should 

also seek the same information from their traffic and 

operating departments. 

Once a rail line has been identified as abandoned or 

abandonment is planned, 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 U.S. DOT 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 

and to verify the type of traffic control devices located 

at each crossing. 

This field inspection provides an excellent opportunity 

to assess the safety and operations of each crossing 

on that line, as discussed in Chapter III. 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 these actions 

are taken, the traffic control devices must be restored 

to their original condition prior to operating any 

trains over the crossing. For any subsequent use of 

the crossing by rail traffic pending final abandonment, 

the railroad shall provide flagging, law enforcement, 

or other case-by-case manual control of the crossing. 

The railroad might flag the train over the crossing until 

such action can be taken. 

If it appears that rail service has been permanently 

discontinued, and resolution of official abandonment 

appears certain, the track should be paved over and 

all traffic control devices removed. This action should 

be taken immediately 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. 

G. New Crossings

Similar to crossing closure/consolidation, opening 

a new public highway-rail crossing should likewise 

consider public necessity, convenience, safety, and 

economics. Generally, new grade crossings, particularly 

on mainline tracks, should not be permitted unless 

no other viable alternatives exist and, even in those 

instances, consideration should be given to closing one 

or more existing crossings. If a new grade crossing is to 

provide access to any land development, the selection 

of traffic control devices to be installed at the proposed 

crossing should be based on the projected needs of the 

fully completed development.

Communities, developers, and highway transportation 

planners need to be mindful that once a highway-rail 

grade crossing is established, drivers can develop a low 

tolerance for the crossing being blocked by a train for 

an extended period of time. If a new access is proposed 

to cross a railroad where railroad operation requires 

temporarily holding trains, only grade separation 

should be considered.85

H. Passive Traffic Control 

Devices

Passive traffic control 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 traffic control devices 

consist of regulatory signs, warning signs, guide signs, 

and supplemental pavement markings. They are basic 

devices and are incorporated into the design of active 

traffic control devices. 

Signs and pavement markings are to be in conformance 

with MUTCD, which is revised periodically as the need 

arises. If there are differences between this handbook 

and the current edition of MUTCD concerning both active 

and passive traffic control devices, MUTCD should be 

85 Ibid.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

84

followed. The diagrams shown in this handbook are 

taken from the current version of MUTCD (2003 Edition, 

Revision 1). Practitioners should confirm all signs, 

dimensions, and criteria with the latest edition of MUTCD.

Federal law requires that, as a minimum, each state 

shall provide signs at all crossings. 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 

Source: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition. Washington, DC: Federal 

Highway Administration, 2003.

Figure 11. Typical Crossing Signs 

maintenance of the roadway is normally responsible for 

advance warning signs and pavement markings. 

1. Signs

The typical signs used at highway-rail grade crossings 

are shown in Figure 11 and listed in Table 35. 

Individual characteristics and location requirements 

follow.

Search MUTCD: Go

Figure 8B-1. Highway-Rail Grade Crossing (Crossbuck) Regulatory Signs 

This figure shows two highway-rail grade crossing regulatory signs and an example of how these signs are mounted. 

R15-1 is shown as composed of two horizontal rectangular white signs placed one on top of the other to form an "x," denoting 

a crossbuck. In black letters, the word "RAILROAD" is shown on the piece running from northwest to southeast, and the word 

"CROSSING" is shown on the piece running from southwest to northeast. A note states that the sign is drilled for 90-degree 

mounting. 

R15-2 is shown as a horizontal rectangular white sign in an inverted T-shaped design, with the numeral "3" in black on the top 

section above the word "TRACKS" in black on the bottom section. 

The example of mounting the R15-1 and R15-2 signs shows them mounted together on a post with the crossbuck above the 

supplemental sign. 

The post is shown as a dimension of 225 mm (9 in) wide. A white retroreflective strip shown as a dimension of 50 mm (2 in) 

wide is shown attached to the front of the post a dimensioned distance of 0.6 m (2 ft) MAX from the roadway level. 

Each of the four arms of the crossbuck is shown as a dimension of 225 mm (9 in) wide and 1,200 mm (48 in) long and shown 

mounted at a 90-degree angle to each other. The center of the crossbuck is shown at a dimensioned distance of 2.8 m (9 ft) 

FHWA - MUTCD - 2003 Edition Revision 1 Fig. 8B-1 Long Description Page 1 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\cjames\Desktop\Figure 11 part a.htm 2/28/2007

Search MUTCD: Go

Figure 8B-2. Advance Warning Signs 

This figure shows four advance warning signs. 

W10-1 is shown as a round yellow sign with a black border and legend. A black "X" covers the sign, and two "R's" are shown in 

the left and right quadrants of the sign. 

W10-2 is shown as a diamond-shaped yellow sign with a black border and legend. The sign shows a cross intersection with an 

elongated right arm. A symbol of a vertical railroad track is shown across the right arm. 

W10-3 is shown as a diamond-shaped yellow sign with a black border and egend. The sign shows a right-facing T-shaped 

intersection with an elongated right arm. A symbol of a vertical railroad track is shown across the right arm. 

W10-4 is shown as a diamond-shaped yellow sign with a black border and legend. The sign shows a T-shaped intersection 

with an elongated right arm. A symbol of a vertical railroad track is shown across the right arm. 

Back to Chapter 8B

FHWA - MUTCD - 2003 Edition Revision 1 Fig. 8B-2 Long Description Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\cjames\Desktop\Figure 11 part b.htm 2/28/2007

Search MUTCD: Go

Figure 8B-3. Regulatory Signs 

This figure shows nine regulatory signs. They are shown as rectangular white signs with black borders and legends, except for 

R3-1a and R3-2a. 

R3-1a is shown as a vertical rectangular black sign with no border and the words "NO RIGHT TURN ACROSS TRACKS" in 

white on four lines. 

R3-2a is shown as a vertical rectangular black sign with no border and the words "NO LEFT TURN ACROSS TRACKS" in 

white on four lines. 

R8-8 is shown as a vertical rectangular sign with the words "DO NOT STOP ON TRACKS" on four lines. 

R8-9 is shown as a vertical rectangular sign with the words "TRACKS OUT OF SERVICE" on three lines. 

Back to Chapter 8B

FHWA - MUTCD - 2003 Edition Revision 1 Fig. 8B-3 Long Description Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\cjames\Desktop\Figure 11 part c.htm 2/28/2007

Search MUTCD: Go

Figure 8B-5. Warning Signs 

This figure shows 16 warning signs. They are shown as yellow signs with black borders and legends. 

W10-1a is shown as a horizontal rectangular plaque with the word "EXEMPT." 

FHWA - MUTCD - 2003 Edition Revision 1 Fig. 8B-5 Long Description Page 1 of 2
 85

Table 35. Current MUTCD Devices

MUTCD no. Section Traffic control device Application or indication of need

R3-1a 8B.06, 10C.09 No Right Turn Across Tracks Used to prohibit turning movements toward the highway-rail 

grade crossing during preemption.

R3-2a 8B.06, 10C.09 No Left Turn Across Tracks Used to prohibit turning movements toward the highway-rail 

grade crossing during preemption.

R8-8 8B.07, 10C.05 Do Not Stop on Tracks

Where queuing occurs or where storage space is limited 

between a nearby highway intersection and the tracks; may be 

supplemented with a flashing light activated by queuing traffic 

in the exit lane(s) from the crossing. (See discussion on queue 

cutter signals.)

R8-9 8B.09, 10C.06 Tracks Out of Service Applicable when there is some physical disconnection along 

the railroad tracks to prevent trains from using those tracks.

R8-10 8B.10, 10C.08 Stop Here When Flashing

May be used at a highway-rail grade crossing to inform drivers 

of the location of the stop line or the point at which to stop 

when the flashing light signals (Section 8D.02) are activated.

R10-6 8B.11, 10C.07 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 8D.07, 10C.09 No Turn on Red

If there is a nearby signalized intersection with insufficient 

clear storage distance for a design vehicle or the highway-rail 

grade crossing does not have gates.

R15-1 8B.03, 10C.02 Highway-Rail Grade 

Crossing (crossbuck) Required device.

R15-2 8B.03, 10C.02 Number of Tracks Standard required device, with two or more tracks and no gate; 

optional with gate.

R15-3 8B.05, 10C.10 Exempt

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 10C.13 Light Rail Only Right Lane For multilane operations where roadway users might need 

additional guidance on lane use and/or restrictions.

R15-4b 10C.13 Light Rail Only Left Lane For multilane operations where roadway users might need 

additional guidance on lane use and/or restrictions.

R15-4c 10C.13 Light Rail Only Center Lane For multilane operations where roadway users might need 

additional guidance on lane use and/or restrictions.

R15-5 10C.14 Light Rail Do Not Pass

Where vehicles are not allowed to pass LRT vehicles loading 

or unloading passengers where no raised platform physically 

separates the lanes.

R15-5a 10C.14 Do Not Pass Stopped Train

Where vehicles are not allowed to pass LRT vehicles loading 

or unloading passengers where no raised platform physically 

separates the lanes.

R15-6 10C.12 Do Not Drive On Tracks 

Light Rail Symbol

Used where there are adjacent vehicle lanes separated from 

the LRT lane by a curb or pavement markings.

R15-6a 10C.12 Do Not Drive On Tracks Used where there are adjacent vehicle lanes separated from 

the LRT lane by a curb or pavement markings.

R15-7 10C.11 Light Rail Divided Highway 

Symbol Use with appropriate geometric conditions.

R15-7a 10C.11 Light Rail Divided Highway 

Symbol (T-intersection) Use with appropriate geometric conditions.

R15-8 8B.16, 10C.03 Look

• Multiple tracks 

• Collision experience 

• Pedestrian presence 

W10-1 8B.04, 10C.15 Highway-Rail Grade 

Crossing Advance Warning

Required device, with MUTCD exceptions (Section 8B.04); 

school buses and commercial vehicles that are usually 

required to stop at crossings are not required to do so where 

authorized by ordinance.

W10-1a 8B.05, 10C.10 Exempt
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

86

MUTCD no. Section Traffic control device Application or indication of need

W10-2,3,4 8B.04, 10C.15 Highway-Rail Grade 

Crossing Advance Warning Based upon specific situations with a nearby parallel highway.

W10-5 8B.17, 10C.16

Low Ground Clearance 

Highway-Rail Grade 

Crossing

As indicated by MUTCD guidelines, incident history, or local 

knowledge.

W10-7 10C.17 Light Rail Activated BlankOut Symbol

Supplements the traffic control signal to warn road users 

turning across the tracks of an approaching parallel LRT 

vehicle.

W10-8 8B.13 Trains May Exceed 130 km/h 

(80 mph) Where train speed is 80 mph (130 km/hr.) or faster.

W10-9 8B.14 No Train Horn Shall be used only for crossings in FRA-authorized quiet zones.

W10-10 8B.15 No Signal May be used at passive controlled crossings.

W10-11 8B.18, 10C.18 Storage Space Symbol

Where the parallel highway is close to the crossing, 

particularly with limited storage space between the highway 

intersection and tracks.

W10-11a 8B.18, 10C.18

Storage Space XX Meters 

(Feet) Between Tracks & 

Highway

Where the parallel highway is close to the crossing, 

particularly with limited storage space between the highway 

intersection and tracks.

W10-11b 8B.18, 10C.18

Storage Space XX Meters 

(Feet) Between Highway & 

Tracks Behind You

Used where there is a highway intersection in close proximity 

to the highway-rail grade crossing and an engineering study 

determines that adequate space is not available to store a 

design vehicle(s) between the highway intersection and the 

train dynamic envelope.

W10-12 8B.19, 10C.19 Skewed Crossing

May be used at a skewed highway-rail grade crossing to warn 

drivers that the railroad tracks are not perpendicular to the 

highway.

W10-13 8B.15 No Gates or Lights May be installed at highway-rail grade crossings that are not 

equipped with automated signals.

W10-14 8B.17 Next Crossing

Placed below the W10-5 sign at the nearest intersecting 

highway where a vehicle can detour or at a point on the 

highway wide enough to permit a U-turn.

W10-14a 8B.17 Use Next Crossing

Placed below the W10-5 sign at the nearest intersecting 

highway where a vehicle can detour or at a point on the 

highway wide enough to permit a U-turn.

W10-15 8B.17 Rough Crossing If the highway-rail grade crossing is rough.

I-12 10C.20 Light Rail Station Symbol Used to direct road users to a light rail station or boarding 

location.

I-13 8B.12, 10C.21 Emergency Notification Post at all crossings to provide for emergency notification.

I-13a 8B.12, 10C.21 Emergency Notification Post at all crossings to provide for emergency notification.

Source: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration, 2003.

sign to the elevation of the near edge of the pavement. 

In business, commercial, and residential areas, where 

parking and/or pedestrian movements are likely to 

occur or where there are other sight obstructions, the 

clearance to the bottom of the sign should be at least 

7 feet. The height to the bottom of a secondary sign 

mounted below another sign may be 1 foot lower than 

the height specified above.

Signs should have the maximum practical lateral 

clearance from the edge of the traveled way for the 

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 located 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.

In rural areas, signs along the side of the road should 

be at least 5 feet high, measured from the bottom of the 

(continued)
 87

safety of motorists who may leave the highway and 

strike the sign supports (see MUTCD, 2003 Edition, 

Section 2A.19). Advantage should be taken of existing 

guardrails, overcrossing structures, and other 

conditions to minimize the exposure of sign supports to 

traffic. 

Normally, signs should not be closer than 6 feet from 

the edge of the shoulder or, if none, 12 feet from the 

edge of the traveled way. In urban areas, a lesser 

clearance may be used where necessary. Although 2 

feet is recommended as a working urban minimum, a 

clearance of 1 foot from the curb face is permissible if 

sidewalk width is limited or where existing poles are 

close to the curb. 

Signs should be mounted approximately at right 

angles to the direction of and facing the traffic they are 

intended to serve. Post-mounted signs located close to 

the highway should be turned slightly away from the 

highway to avoid the reflection of headlights off the 

sign directly back into drivers’ eyes.

Sign posts and their foundations and sign mountings 

should be constructed to hold signs in a proper and 

permanent position, to resist swaying in the wind 

or displacement by vandalism. If ground-mounted 

sign supports cannot be sufficiently offset from the 

pavement edge, sign supports should be of a suitable 

breakaway or yielding design. Concrete bases for sign 

supports should be flush with the ground level. 

Sign materials are usually aluminum, wood, or 

galvanized or nongalvanized steel. Signs are 

retroreflectorized or illuminated to provide visibility 

at night. The requirements of sign illumination are 

not considered to be satisfied by street or highway 

lighting or by strobe lighting. Information on reflective 

materials is contained in the Traffic Control Devices 

Handbook. A 2003 study presents updated minimum 

recommended retroreflectivity levels in recognition of 

available sheeting materials, the needs of older drivers, 

and the evolution of vehicles and headlamps.86 FHWA 

has been developing standards on the retroreflectivity 

of signs, which include minimum values to be 

provided and maintained. FHWA recently published 

a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Amendments to 

MUTCD. The provisions were out for comment at the 

time this handbook was prepared.87

86 Carlson, Paul J. and H. Gene Hawkins, Jr. Updated Minimum 

Retroreflectivity Levels for Traffic Signs. FHWA-RD-03-081, July 

2003.

87 23CFR Part 655, FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2003-15149. Federal 

Register, May 8, 2006.

“Railroad Crossing” (crossbuck) sign (R15-1) 

and “Number of Tracks” sign (R15-2). 

The “Railroad Crossing” sign, commonly identified as 

the crossbuck sign, consists of a white reflectorized 

background with the words RAILROAD CROSSING 

in black lettering, as shown in Figures 11 and 12. 

A minimum of one crossbuck shall be used on each 

highway approach to every crossing, alone or in 

combination with other traffic control devices. 

Note: Crossbuck signs are not usually used at light-rail 

grade crossings where the tracks run in the street and 

traffic is controlled by traffic signals. Refer to Chapter 

IX, Part C for a discussion of clarifying language 

approved by the National Committee on Uniform 

Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD) in June 2005. If 

there are two or more tracks at the crossing, the 

number of tracks is to be indicated on an auxiliary sign 

mounted below the crossbuck, as shown in Figure 12. 

The use of this auxiliary sign is optional at crossings 

with automatic gates. 

Figure 12. Crossing Sign (Crossbuck)

Search MUTCD: 

Figure 8B-1. Highway-Rail Grade Crossing (Crossbuck) Regulatory Signs 

This figure shows two highway-rail grade crossing regulatory signs and an example of how these signs are mounted. 

R15-1 is shown as composed of two horizontal rectangular white signs placed one on top of the other to form an "x," de

a crossbuck. In black letters, the word "RAILROAD" is shown on the piece running from northwest to southeast, and the 

"CROSSING" is shown on the piece running from southwest to northeast. A note states that the sign is drilled for 90-deg

mounting. 

R152 is shown as a horizontal rectangular white sign in an inverted Tshaped designwith the numeral "3" in black on t

FHWA - MUTCD - 2003 Edition Revision 1 Fig. 8B-1 Long Description Page 

Source: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition. 

Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration, 2003.

Where physically feasible and visible to approaching 

traffic, the crossbuck sign should be installed on the 

right-hand side of the highway on each approach to the 

crossing. Where an engineering study finds restricted 
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

88

sight distance or unfavorable road geometry, crossbuck 

signs shall be placed back to back or otherwise located 

so that two faces are displayed to that approach. Some 

states and railroads use back-to-back crossbucks 

at every crossing; other states and railroads place 

reflectorized white stripes on the back of every 

crossbuck.

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 possible combination of view and 

safety clearances as determined by engineering 

judgment. 

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 

crossing 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. 

The sign is required in advance of all crossings except: 

• On an approach to a highway-rail grade 

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 30 meters (100 feet) and W10-3 signs 

are used on both approaches of the parallel 

highway; or

• On low-volume, low-speed highways crossing 

minor spurs or other tracks that are 

infrequently used and are flagged by train 

crews; or

• In business districts where active highway-rail 

grade crossing traffic control devices are in 

use; or

• 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. The 

recommended distances are shown in Tables 36 and 

37. 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 (Wl0-1). 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. 

Figure 13 shows typical sign placements for crossings 

located near highway intersections; Figure 14 indicates 

a recommended treatment for crossings that lack 

adequate clear storage distance; and Figure 15 shows 

possible signage placement for locations with limited 

sight distance.

“No Signal” and “Signal Ahead” signs (W10-

10 and W10-16). A recent study of passive devices 

at highway-rail grade crossings recommended that 

a supplemental sign should be placed at the location 

of the advance warning sign to inform highway users 

as to whether passive or active devices are present 

at a downstream grade crossing.88 Subsequently, at 

the January 2006 meeting of NCUTCD, the council 

approved proposed changes to MUTCD that would 

allow use of “No Signal” and “Signal Ahead” signs 

(W10-10 and W10-16) for locations where the grade 

crossing advance warning sign is placed.

Advisory speed plate (W13-1). The advisory speed 

plate should be used when sight or geometric conditions 

require a speed lower than the posted speed limit. It 

should not be erected until the recommended speed 

has been determined by an engineering study of the 

specific crossing. If the plate is used, the recommended 

speed should be periodically reviewed and revised as 

necessary. Should it be determined that the advisory 

speed plate is not effective in reducing vehicular speeds, 

it may be appropriate to use a regulatory speed limit 

sign (R2-1). The advisory speed plate must be mounted 

on the same assembly and is normally below the 

advance warning sign (W-10 series). 

STOP and YIELD signs (R1-1 & R1-2). The 2003 

edition of MUTCD requires the crossbuck (R15-1) sign 

for all highway approaches to railroad grade crossings. 

It also allows the optional use of YIELD or STOP signs 

at passive crossings.

88 Lerner, Neil D. et al. Traffic-Control Devices for Passive 

Railroad-Highway Grade Crossings. Washington, DC: National 

Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 470, Transportation 

Research Board, 2002.
 89

Table 36. Placement Distances for Advance Warning Signs (English Units)

Posted or

85thPercentile

Speed

Advance Placement Distance 1

Condition A:

Speed

Reduction 

and

Lane 

Changing

in Heavy

Traffic2

Condition B: Deceleration to the listed advisory

speed (mph) for the condition4

03 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

20 mph 225 ft. N/A5 N/A5 — — — — — —

25 mph 325 ft. N/A5 N/A5 N/A5 — — — — —

30 mph 450 ft. N/A5 N/A5 N/A5 — — — — —

35 mph 550 ft. N/A5 N/A5 N/A5 N/A5 — — — —

40 mph 650 ft. 125 ft. N/A5 N/A5 N/A5 — — — —

45 mph 750 ft. 175 ft. 125 ft. N/A5 N/A5 N/A5 — — —

50 mph 850 ft. 250 ft. 200 ft. 150 ft. 100 ft. N/A5 — — —

55 mph 950 ft. 325 ft. 275 ft. 225 ft. 175 ft. 100 ft. N/A5 — —

60 mph 1100 ft. 400 ft. 350 ft. 300 ft. 250 ft. 175 ft. N/A5 — —

65 mph 1200 ft. 475 ft. 425 ft. 400 ft. 350 ft. 275 ft. 175 ft. N/A5 —

70 mph 1250 ft. 550 ft. 525 ft. 500 ft. 425 ft. 350 ft. 250 ft. 150 ft. —

75 mph 1350 ft. 650 ft. 625 ft. 600 ft. 525 ft. 450 ft. 350 ft. 250 ft. 100 ft.

Notes:

1 The distances are adjusted for a sign legibility distance of 175 ft. for Condition A. The distances 

for Condition B have been adjusted for a sign legibility distance of 250 ft., which is appropriate 

for an alignment warning symbol sign.

2

 Typical conditions are locations where the road user must use extra time to adjust speed and 

change lanes in heavy traffic because of a complex driving situation. Typical signs are Merge 

and Right Lane Ends. The distances are determined by providing the driver a PIEV time of 14.0 

to 14.5 seconds for vehicle maneuvers (2001 AASHTO Policy, Exhibit 3-3, Decision Sight Distance, 

Avoidance Maneuver E) minus the legibility distance of 175 ft. for the appropriate sign.

3 Typical condition is the warning of a potential stop situation. Typical signs are Stop Ahead, 

Yield Ahead, Signal Ahead, and Intersection Warning signs. The distances are based on the 2001 

AASHTO Policy, Stopping Sight Distance, Exhibit 3-1, providing a PIEV time of 2.5 seconds, a 

deceleration rate of 11.2 ft./second2, minus the sign legibility distance of 175 ft.

4 Typical conditions are locations where the road user must decrease speed to maneuver through 

the warned condition. Typical signs are Turn, Curve, Reverse Turn, or Reverse Curve. The 

distance is determined by providing a 2.5 second PIEV time, a vehicle deceleration rate of 10 ft./

second2

, minus the sign legibility distance of 250 ft.

5

 No suggested distances are provided for these speeds, as the placement location is dependent on 

site conditions and other signing to provide an adequate advance warning for the driver.

Source: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition. Washington, DC: Federal Highway 

Administration, 2003. 
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

90

Table 37. Placement Distances for Advance Warning Signs (Metric Units)

Posted or

85thPercentile

Speed

(km/hr.)

Advance Placement Distance 1

Condition A:

Speed

Reduction 

and

Lane 

Changing

in Heavy

Traffic2

Condition B: Deceleration to the listed advisory

speed (km/hr.) for the condition4

03 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

30 60 m N/A5 N/A5 — — — — — — — — — —

40 100 m N/A5 N/A5 N/A5 — — — — — — — — —

50 150 m N/A5 N/A5 N/A5 — N/A5 — — — — — — —

60 180 m 30 m N/A5 N/A5 N/A5 N/A5 N/A5 — — — — — —

70 220 m 50 m 40 m 30 m N/A5 N/A5 N/A5 N/A5 — — — — —

80 260 m 80 m 60 m 55 m 50 m 40 m 30 m N/A5 N/A5 — — — —

90 310 m 110 m 90 m 80 m 70 m 60 m 40 m N/A5 N/A5 N/A5 — — —

100 350 m 130 m 120 m 115 m 110 m 100 m 90 m 70 m 60 m 40 m N/A5 — —

110 380 m 170 m 160 m 150 m 140 m 130 m 120 m 110 m 90 m 70 m 50 m N/A5 —

120 420 m 200 m 190 m 185 m 180 m 170 m 160 m 140 m 130 m 110 m 90 m 60 m 40 m

130 460 m 230 m 230 m 230 m 220 m 210 m 200 m 180 m 170 m 150 m 120 m 100 m 70 m

Notes:

1

 The distances are adjusted for a sign legibility distance of 50 m for Condition A. The distances for Condition B have been adjusted for 

a sign legibility distance of 75 m, which is appropriate for an alignment warning symbol sign.

2

 Typical conditions are locations where the road user must use extra time to adjust speed and change lanes in heavy traffic because 

of a complex driving situation. Typical signs are Merge and Right Lane Ends. The distances are determined by providing the driver a 

PIEV time of 14.0 to 14.5 seconds for vehicle maneuvers (2001 AASHTO Policy, Exhibit 3-3, Decision Sight Distance, Avoidance Maneuver 

E) minus the legibility distance of 50 m for the appropriate sign.

3

 Typical condition is the warning of a potential stop situation. Typical signs are Stop Ahead, Yield Ahead, Signal Ahead, and 

Intersection Warning signs. The distances are based on the 2001 AASHTO Policy, Stopping Sight Distance, Exhibit 3-1, providing a PIEV 

time of 2.5 seconds, a deceleration rate of 3.4 m/second2, minus the sign legibility distance of 50 m.

4 Typical conditions are locations where the road user must decrease speed to maneuver through the warned condition. Typical 

signs are Turn, Curve, Reverse Turn, or Reverse Curve. The distance is determined by providing a 2.5 second PIEV time, a vehicle 

deceleration rate of 3 m/second2

, minus the sign legibility distance of 75 m.

5

 No suggested distances are provided for these speeds, as the placement location is dependent on site conditions and other signing to 

provide an adequate advance warning for the driver.

Source: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration, 2003. 
 91

Figure 13. Supplemental Advance Warning Signs

Figure 14. Substandard Clear Storage Distance

Source: Traffic Control Devices Handbook. Washington, DC: Institute of Transportation 

Engineers, 2001.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

92

Figure 15. Possible Sign System Where Sight 

Distance Is Limited On Approach to the 

Crossing

Source: Traffic Control Devices Handbook. Washington, DC: 

Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2001.

Although the crossbuck sign is a regulatory sign 

that requires vehicles to yield to trains and stop if 

necessary, recent research indicates insufficient 

road user understanding of and compliance with that 

regulatory requirement when just the crossbuck sign 

is present at passive crossings. FHWA encourages 

consideration of the use of the YIELD sign in 

conjunction with the crossbuck sign at all passive 

crossings, except where train crews always provide 

flagging to roadway users. The STOP sign should 

be used at locations where engineering judgment 

determines it is appropriate. Figure 16 shows the 

typical layout, where STOP or YIELD signs are 

provided. For determination of the need for STOP or 

YIELD signs, refer to criteria provided in Chapter V of 

this handbook.

Figure 16. Typical Sign System Where Stop

or Yield at Crossing Is Required

Source: Traffic Control Devices Handbook. Washington, DC: 

Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2001.

When used at a passive crossing, the YIELD or STOP 

sign shall be installed in conformance with the general 

principles and standards for sign installations in Part 

2 and Part 8 of MUTCD. In addition, the following 

guidance can be considered for the installation of 

YIELD or STOP signs at passive crossings:

• 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 (as per Section 2A.21) 

or white (as per Section 8B.03). The color of 

the retroreflective strip on the back of the 

support shall be white. The dimensions and 

placement of the retroreflective strips shall be 

in conformance with the standards in Section 

8B.03.

• 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 Section 

3B.16.

• When a YIELD sign is used in conjunction 

with the crossbuck sign, either a yield line 
 93

(per Section 3B.16) or a stop line (per Section 

8B.21 and Figure 8B-6) may be installed to 

supplement the YIELD sign. When used, the 

stop line or yield line (such as size, pattern, 

and location) must be in conformance with 

provisions in the current edition of MUTCD.

• The stop line or yield line should be located 

no less than 4.6 meters (15 feet) measured 

perpendicular from the nearest rail, as per 

Figure 8B-6.

Examples of design and placement of YIELD or STOP 

signs in conjunction with crossbuck signs are shown in 

Figures 17 and 18.

“Stop Ahead” and “Yield Ahead” signs (W3-1 

& W3-2). MUTCD also requires that “Stop Ahead” or 

“Yield Ahead” advance warning signs shall be installed 

if STOP or YIELD signs are used at the crossing and 

highway users do not have a continuous view of at 

least two sign faces for the distances specified in 

MUTCD Table 4D-1 (see Tables 38 and 39.) If used, the 

placement of “Stop Ahead” or “Yield Ahead” advance 

signs shall be in accordance with MUTCD Table 2C-4 

(refer to Tables 36 and 37.)

“Do Not Stop on Tracks” sign (R8-8). In 

accordance with MUTCD Section 8B.07, whenever 

engineering judgment determines that the potential 

for vehicles stopping on the tracks is high, a “Do Not 

Stop on Tracks” (R8-8) sign should be used. The sign, if 

used, should be located on the right side of the highway 

on either the near or far side of the highway-rail grade 

crossing, depending upon which side provides better 

visibility to approaching drivers. “Do Not Stop on 

Tracks” signs may be placed on both sides of the track. 

On divided highways and one-way streets, a second “Do 

Not Stop on Tracks” sign may be placed on the near 

or far left side of the highway-rail grade crossing to 

further improve visibility of the sign.

Figure 17. Highway-Rail Grade Crossing (Crossbuck) Sign and STOP or YIELD Sign on Same Post

* Note: 1.2-meter (4-foot) minimum for installations of STOP or YIELD sign on existing crossbuck sign support; 2.1-meter (7-foot) 

minimum in areas with pedestrian movements or parking.

Source: Guidance for Use of YIELD or STOP Signs with the Crossbuck Sign at Passive Highway-Rail Grade Crossings. Memo issued by Jeffrey 

P. Paniati, Associate Administrator for Operations, and John R. Baxter, Acting Associate Administrator for Safety, Federal Highway 

Administration, Washington, DC, March 2006.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

94

Figure 18. Highway-Rail Grade Crossing (Crossbuck) Sign and STOP or YIELD 

Sign on Separate Posts

* Note: Place face of signs in the same plane and the YIELD or STOP sign closest to the traveled way; 50-

millimeter (2-inch) minimum separation between the edge of the crossbuck sign and the edge of YIELD or 

STOP sign.

Source: Guidance for Use of YIELD or STOP Signs with the Crossbuck Sign at Passive Highway-Rail Grade Crossings. 

Memo issued by Jeffrey P. Paniati, Associate Administrator for Operations, and John R. Baxter, Acting Associate 

Administrator for Safety, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, March 2006.
 95

“Exempt” sign (R15-3, W-10-1a). When 

authorized by law or regulation, a supplemental 

“Exempt” (R15-3) sign with a white background 

bearing the word EXEMPT may be used below the 

crossbuck sign or “Number of Tracks” sign, if present, 

at the highway-rail grade crossing, and a supplemental 

“Exempt” (W10-1a) sign with a yellow background 

bearing the word EXEMPT may be used below the 

highway-rail advance warning (W10-1) sign. These 

supplemental signs inform drivers of vehicles carrying 

passengers for hire, school buses carrying students, 

or vehicles carrying hazardous materials that a stop 

is not required at certain designated highway-rail 

grade crossings, except when a train, locomotive, or 

other railroad equipment is approaching or occupying 

the highway-rail grade crossing or the driver’s view is 

blocked.

Turn prohibition signs (R3-1a and R3-2a). Per 

MUTCD Section 8B.06, at a signalized intersection 

located within 60 meters (200 feet) of a highway-rail 

grade crossing, measured from the edge of the track 

to the edge of the roadway, where the intersection 

traffic control signals are preempted by the approach 

of a train, all existing turning movements toward the 

highway-rail grade crossing should be prohibited 

during the signal preemption sequences. A blank-out or 

changeable message sign, and/or appropriate highway 

traffic signal indication or other similar type sign, 

may be used to prohibit turning movements toward 

the highway-rail grade crossing during preemption. 

The R3-1a and R3-2a signs shown in Figure 11 may be 

used for this purpose. Turn prohibition signs that are 

associated with preemption shall be visible only when 

the highway-rail grade crossing restriction is in effect.

“No Passing Zone” sign (W14-3). The “No Passing 

Zone” sign may be installed at crossings to supplement 

“No Passing” pavement markings. This sign consists of 

black letters and border on a yellow background and 

shall be a pennant-shaped isosceles triangle with its 

longer axis horizontal and pointing to the right with 

dimensions of 36 inches by 48 inches by 48 inches. The 

sign is to be placed on the left side of the highway at 

the beginning of the no passing zone. 

2. 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 clearly visible when wet, and may not be 

very durable when subjected to heavy traffic. 

Pavement markings in advance of highway-rail grade 

crossings shall consist of an X, the letters RR, a NO 

PASSING marking for two-lane roads, and certain 

transverse lines, as shown in Figure 19. These 

pavement markings shall be placed on 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 19 shows a placement 

example of warning signs and pavement markings at 

highway-rail grade crossings.

The most common pavement marking material is paint; 

however, a wide variety of other materials is available. 

Pavement markings are to be retroreflectorized by 

mixing glass beads in wet paint or thermoplastic 

material. Raised pavement markers can be used 

Table 38. Minimum Sight Distance Table 

(English Units)

85th-percentile speed 

(mph)

Minimum sight distance 

(feet)

20 175

25 215

30 270

35 325

40 390

45 460

50 540

55 625

60 715

Source: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition. 

Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration, 2003. 

Table 39. Minimum Sight Distance Table 

(Metric Units)

85th-percentile speed 

(km/hr.)

Minimum sight distance 

(meters)

30 50

40 65

50 85

60 110

70 140

80 165

90 195

100 220

Source: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition. 

Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration, 2003. 
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

96

Figure 19. Example of Placement of Warning Signs and Pavement Markings 

at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings

Figure 8B-6. Example of Placement of Warning Signs and Pavement Markings at Highway-Rail Grade 

Crossings

This figure illustrates the placement of warning signs and pavement markings at highway-rail grade 

crossings. 

FHWA - MUTCD - 2003 Edition Revision 1 Fig. 8B-6 Long Description Page 2 o

Source: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition. Washington, DC: Federal Highway 

Administration, 2003.
 97

to supplement pavement markings in advance of 

crossings. The “X” lane lines and the 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. 

All pavement markings are to be retroreflectorized 

white except for the NO PASSING markings that are 

to be retroreflectorized yellow. The stop line is to be 

2 feet in width and extend across the approach lanes. 

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. Figure 20 shows alternate pavement markings 

that place the paint out of the wheel path.

Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 69 

recommends that the “Keep Clear” zone be striped 

with 0.15-meter (6-inch) white striping at a 45-

degree angle to the roadway, with 1.5-meter (5-foot) 

separations between centerlines (see Figure 21, 

which was developed from the Illinois Department 

of Transportation policy on pre-signals). It also 

recommends that the striping not continue over the 

railroad crossing panels, but it shall be continued 

between panels of multiple tracks. The report also 

recommends that, at skewed crossings where the angle 

between the diagonal stripes and the rail would be less 

than about 20 degrees, the stripes should be sloped 

in the opposite direction. Pavement marking shall 

conform to MUTCD, Part 3.89

I. Active Traffic Control Devices 

Active traffic control devices are those that give 

advance notice of the approach of a train. They are 

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. 

Active traffic control devices are supplemented with the 

89 Korve, Hans W., Brent D. Ogden, Joaquin T. Siques, D. Mansel, 

et al. Light Rail Service: Pedestrian and Vehicular Safety.

Washington, DC: Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 69, 

National Academy Press, 2001, p. 85–86.

Figure 20. Alternate Pavement Markings at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings

Source: Texas Department of Transportation.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

98

same signs and pavement markings used for passive 

control, except that STOP or YIELD signs shall not be 

used where active traffic control devices are installed. 

Active traffic control devices include flashing light 

signals (both mast-mounted and cantilevered), bells, 

automatic gates, active advance warning devices, and 

highway traffic signals. Also included in this section is 

a description of the various methods of train detection.

Driving tasks at crossings with active traffic control 

devices differ somewhat from those at crossings 

with passive devices. Passive devices indicate that 

a crossing is present and that a highway user must 

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. The 

motorist must take appropriate action when the 

devices are activated. 

Crossing traffic control devices that are train activated 

normally incorporate some “fail-safe” design principles. 

The warning system is designed to give an indication of 

an approaching train whenever the system has failed.

Active traffic control devices have proven an effective 

method of improving safety and operations at highwayrailroad grade crossings. Effectiveness is the percentage 

reduction in collisions due to a crossing improvement. 

Utilizing data con­tained in the U.S. DOT National 

Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory and the Railroad 

Accident/Incident Reporting System databases, 

effectiveness factors have been developed for active 

devices. The effectiveness factors are shown in Table 

40 along with results obtained from a California study 

and a study by William J. Hedley covering 23 years of 

experience on the Wabash Railroad. 

The effectiveness factors presented in Table 40 were 

developed from before-and-after collision crash 

experience of groups of crossings actually improved. 

The same effectiveness would not necessarily be 

experienced at any other crossing where the same 

improvements (changes) were made. It should be 

remembered that, in those studies, the crossings were 

selected for improvement by competent authorities 

as a precondition to performance of the work. Similar 

effectiveness could be anticipated under similar 

conditions. 

Figure 21. Typical Supplemental Signing and Pavement Marking Treatment for Railroad Crossings

Source: Korve, Hans W., Brent D. Ogden, Joaquin T. Siques, D. Mansel, et al. Light Rail Service: Pedestrian and Vehicular Safety.

Washington, DC: Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 69, National Academy Press, 2001, p. 85–86.

Note: 1. Pavement markings to be installed only on approaches to intersections controlled 

by traffic signals which are interconnected with the railroad warning signals. 

2. Where the angle between the diagonal stripes and the track ( ) would be less than 

approximately 20°, the stripes should be sloped in the opposite direction from that shown. 
 99

Table 40. Effectiveness of Active Crossing 

Warning Devices

Effectiveness Factors 

(Percent)

Category 1980

U.S. DOT

1974

California

1952

Hedley

Passive to Flashing 

Lights 70 64 63

Passive to 

Automatic Gates 83 88 96

Flashing Lights to 

Automatic Gates 69 66 68

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second 

Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Federal Highway Administration, 1986. 

The U.S. DOT Technical Working Group guidance 

document provides guidelines for selecting active 

devices (see Chapter V).

1. Flashing Light Signals

Flashing light signals consist of two light units that 

flash alternately at a rate of 45 to 65 times per minute. 

Thus, like their predecessor, the wigwag, they simulate 

a watchman swinging a red lantern. Wigwags consist of 

a single red light unit that sways back and forth. 

The main components of a flashing light unit are the 

hood, background, roundel, lamp, lampholder,

 reflector, 

and housing. The background is 20 or 24 inches in 

diameter and is painted a nonreflecting black to 

provide a contrast for the red light. The hood is also 

painted black. 

Current standards call for the use of 12-inch diameter 

heads. 

The roundel is red and comes in a variety of designs 

that direct the light toward the motorist. The 

“spreadlight” roundel distributes light through the 

entire angle, one-half the angle on each side of the 

beam axis. A deflecting roundel directs a portion of 

the light from the beam to one side of the axis in the 

direction indicated on the lens. A roundel having both 

spreadlight and deflecting features is designed so 

that the deflection is at a right angle to the spread. An 

example is the 3-degree horizontal deflection and 15-

degree vertical spread. A roundel using a 20-degree 

spread and 32-degree downward deflection can be used 

on cantilevers. Back light units may use a 70-degree 

horizontal spread. 

The lamp consists of a low-wattage bulb used to 

ensure operation on stand-by battery power should 

commercial power fail. The wattage most commonly 

used is 18 or 25 watts; however, some railroads use 

quartz iodide bulbs of 16 or 36 watts. The reflector, 

or mirror, is mounted behind the lamp and directs the 

light back through the roundel. 

Figure 22. Typical Alignment Pattern for Flashing Light Signals with 30-15 Degree 

Roundel, Two-Lane, Two-Way Roadway

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 1986.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

100

Proper alignment of the light is essential. The lamp 

must be precisely aligned to direct the narrow intense 

beam toward the approaching motorist. 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. Figures 22 and 23 show typical alignment 

patterns for a two-lane, two-way highway and for a 

multilane highway.

Figure 23. Typical Alignment Pattern for 

Flashing Light Signals with 20-32 Degree 

Roundel, Multilane Roadway

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second 

Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Federal Highway Administration, 1986. 

MUTCD provides that when indicating the approach 

or presence of a train, the flashing light signal shall 

display toward approaching highway traffic two 

red lights mounted in a horizontal line and flashing 

alternately. Flashing light signals shall be placed to 

the right of approaching highway traffic on all highway 

approaches to a highway-rail grade crossing. They 

shall be located laterally with respect to the highway 

in conformance with Figure 24, except where such 

location would adversely affect signal visibility. At 

highway-rail grade crossings with highway traffic in 

both directions, back-to-back pairs of lights shall be 

placed on each side of the tracks. On multilane one-way 

streets and divided highways, flashing light signals 

shall be placed on the approach side of the highway-rail 

grade crossing on both sides of the roadway or shall 

be placed above the highway. A crossbuck is always 

used in conjunction with the flashing light signal and 

is usually mounted on the same post above the light 

units. Other supplementary signs may be mounted on 

the post, such as the “Do Not Stop on Tracks” sign (R8-

8) and the “Number of Tracks” sign (R15-2). Flashing 

light signals are shown in Figures 25 and 26.

National warrants for the installation of flashing 

light signals have not been developed. Some states 

have established criteria based on exposure factors 

or priority indices. Other considerations include the 

following: 

• Volume of vehicular traffic. 

• Volume of railroad traffic. 

• Speed of vehicular traffic. 

• Speed of railroad traffic. 

• Volume of pedestrian traffic. 

• Collision record. 

• Sight distance restrictions. 

Specific criteria for the use of active warning devices 

such as flashing light assemblies are provided in the 

guidance document prepared by the U.S.DOT Technical 

Working Group (see Chapter V.)

Post-mounted flashing light signals are normally 

located on the right side of the highway on all highway 

approaches to the crossing. Horizontal clearances for 

flashing light signals are discussed in the next section 

along with clearances for automatic gates. 

2. Cantilevered Flashing Light Signals

Flashing light signals are generally 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 postmounted 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.

A typical installation consists of one pair of 

cantilevered lights on each highway approach, 

supplemented with a pair of lights mounted on the 
 101

Figure 24. Typical Clearances for Flashing Light Signals with Automatic Gates 

For locating this reference line at other than curb section installation, see Section 8D.01.

200 mm

(8 in)

300 mm

(12 in)

5.2 m (17 ft)

MIN.

CLEARANCE

ABOVE

CROWN

OF

ROADWAY

100 mm

(4 in) MAX.

ABOVE

GROUND

LEVEL CROWN OF ROADWAY

1.1 m (3.5 ft) MIN.

1.4 m (4.5 ft) MAX.

Dimension A-B-C and length as

appropriate for approaching traffic

A B C

CL OF LIGHT

0.6 m (2 ft)

2.3 m (7.5 ft) MIN.

2.8 m (9.5 ft) MAX.

375 mm (15 in)

1.3 m (4.25 ft) MAX.

635 mm

(25.4 in) MAX.

750 mm

(30 in)

Edge of

background

or part

nearest

roadway

Where gates are located in the median,

additional median width may be required

to provide the minimum clearance for the

counterweight supports.

45o

Length as specified

Figure 8D-1. Composite Drawing of Active Traffic Control Devices for

Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Showing Clearances

* Note: At the January 2006 meeting of NCUTCD, the council approved a change that will require use of vertical red and 

white bands on crossing gate arms if incorporated into MUTCD.

Source: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration, 2003. 
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

102

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. 

Cantilevers are available with fixed, rotatable, or 

walkout supports. The primary disadvantage of the 

fixed support is that maintenance of the light unit 

is usually performed from equipment in the traffic 

lane, thereby blocking highway traffic. Rotatable 

cantilevers can be turned to the side of the highway for 

maintenance but not for aligning the flashing lights. 

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 in excess of 35 feet is required, a 

bridge structure is preferred. 

3. Supplemental Flashing Light Signals

Additional pairs of light units may also be installed 

for side roads intersecting the approach highway near 

the crossing or for horizontal curves. Figure 27 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 28.

4. Light-Emitting Diode Flashing Light Signals

Light-emitting diode (LED) flashing light signal units 

may offer the following advantages over conventional 

incandescent lamps: 

• 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.

Designers of LED systems should be aware of the 

voltage-current characteristics of the LED device they 

intend to use. The current versus voltage characteristic 

Figure 25. Typical Flashing Light Signal— 

Post Mounted

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second 

Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Federal Highway Administration, 1986.

Figure 26. Typical Flashing Light Signal—

Cantilevered 

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second 

Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Federal Highway Administration, 1986.
 103

of an incandescent lamp is relatively linear over the 

normal operating range. At 5 volts, a 10-volt, 25-watt 

incandescent lamp draws approximately 1.8 amps. 

At 12 volts, it may draw 2.8 amps. Users should be 

aware that the current consumption of LED signals is 

dependent on the design of the LED array. Some LED 

flashing light units are resistive and, at 12 volts, may 

draw three times the current drawn at 10 volts. Other 

brands of LED flashing light units have power supplies 

designed to compensate for lower voltages. These 

lamps may draw more current when the voltage is less 

than 10 volts, which is a realistic concern during power 

outages. To avoid damaging control circuits, which may 

result in dark signals, designers of LED flashing light 

signal circuits should consider the maximum current 

drawn by LED units over the expected voltage range.

5. 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 16-inch diagonal 

red and white stripes.90 To enhance visibility during 

darkness, three red lights are placed on the gate arm. 

The light nearest to the tip burns steadily; the other 

two flash alternately. The gate is combined with a 

standard flashing light signal (see Figure 29 for a typical 

installation) that provides 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. 

In a normal sequence of operation, the flashing light 

signals and the lights on the gate arm in its normal 

upright position are activated immediately upon the 

detection or approach of a train. Industry standards 

require that the gate arm shall start its downward motion 

90 At the January 2006 meeting of the National Committee on 

Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD), the council approved 

a change that will require use of vertical red and white bands on 

crossing gate arms if incorporated into the Manual on Uniform 

Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).

Figure 27. Use of Multiple Flashing Light 

Signals for Adequate Visibility Horizontal Curve 

to the Left

Figure 28. Use of Multiple Flashing 

Light Signals for Adequate Visibility 

Horizontal Curve to the Right

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal 

Highway Administration, 1986.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

104

not less than 3 seconds after the signal lights start to 

operate; shall reach its horizontal position before the 

arrival of the train; and shall remain in that position as 

long as the train occupies the crossing. When the train 

clears the crossing, and no other train is approaching, 

the gate arm shall ascend to its upright position 

normally in not more than 12 seconds, following which 

the flashing lights and the lights on the gate arm shall 

cease operation. In the design of individual installations, 

consideration should be given to timing the operation of 

the gate arm to accommodate slow-moving trucks. 

In determining the need for automatic gates, the 

following factors may be considered:

• Multiple mainline railroad tracks. 

• Multiple tracks where a train on or near the 

crossing can obscure the movement of another 

train approaching the crossing. 

• High-speed train operation combined with 

limited sight distance. 

• A combination of high-speed and moderately 

high-volume highway and railroad traffic. 

• Presence of school buses, transit buses, or 

farm vehicles in the traffic flow. 

• Presence of trucks carrying hazardous 

materials, particularly when the view down 

the track from a stopped vehicle is obstructed 

(curve in track, etc.). 

• Continuance of collisions after installation of 

flashing lights. 

• Presence of passenger trains. 

In addition to the above factors, some states utilize a 

specified level of exposure or the priority index as a 

guideline for the selection of automatic gates. 

The most recent criteria for the use of automatic gates 

are provided in the guidance document prepared by the 

U.S. DOT Technical Working Group (see Chapter V).

On two-way streets, the gates should cover enough of 

the approach highway to physically block the motorist 

from driving around the gate without going into the 

opposing traffic lane. On multilane divided highways, 

an opening of approximately 6 feet may be provided for 

emergency vehicles. 

Gates may be made of aluminum, fiberglass, or wood. 

Fiberglass or aluminum gates may be designed with a 

breakaway feature so that the gate is disengaged from 

the mechanism when struck. The American Railway 

Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association 

(AREMA) Communications and Signal Manual sets 

a limit of 38 feet for the gate length. 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 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. A 

typical clearance plan for a flashing light signal with 

automatic gate is shown in Figure 24. 

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 a distance of 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, 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. 

The lateral location of flashing light and gate 

assemblies must also provide adequate clearances 

from the track as well as space for construction of 

the foundations. Figure 29 shows typical locational 

requirements for the foundations for flashing lights 

and cantilevered flashing lights with gates. The area 

for the foundation and excavation must be analyzed 

to determine the effect on sidewalks, utility facilities, 

and drainage. Although these plans indicate a 12-foot 

minimum clearance between the center of the flashing 

light assembly and the center of the tracks, some 

railroads prefer a 15-foot minimum clearance.

Figures 30 through 36 show typical location plans for 

flashing light signals with and without gates. 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. 

It should be noted that gate arms have a maximum 

standard length of 11.6 meters (38 feet). Some 

railroads prefer to limit arm lengths to 9.75 meters 

(32 feet). In addition, FRA requires that the gate arm 

cover 90 percent of the approach lane; a 7.3-meter 

(24-foot) gate arm would be required to control two 

3-meter (10-foot) lanes if mounted with the center of 

the mast 1.5 meters (5 feet) back from the face of curb. 

Clearly, large multilane intersections and intersections 

with unusual configurations will require careful study 
 105

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.

6. Four-Quadrant Gates

Four-quadrant gate systems consist of a series of 

automatic flashing light signals and gates in which the 

gates extend across both the approach and the departure 

side of roadway lanes. Unlike two-quadrant gate systems, 

four-quadrant gates provide additional visual constraints 

and inhibit nearly all traffic movements over the crossing 

after the gates have been lowered. 

At this time, only a small number of four-quadrant 

gate systems have been installed in the United States, 

and they incorporate different types of designs to 

prevent vehicles from being trapped between the gates. 

In some installations, the exit gates are delayed to 

allow roadway vehicles to clear before the crossing 

is secured; other systems include vehicle presence 

detection to hold the exit gates up while vehicles are 

within the crossing zone. 

Four-quadrant gates are recognized as a supplemental 

safety measure under the Final Rule for quiet zones 

(refer to Chapter II, Section B.) It should be noted that 

FRA has assigned a lower effectiveness to installations 

that include vehicle presence detection because the 

act of raising the exit gates may allow vehicles to 

enter the crossing. On the other hand, the California 

Public Utilities Commission, which has modified its 

General Orders to address use of four-quadrant gates, 

requires installation of a vehicle presence system 

“subject to a Commission staff diagnostic field meeting 

recommendation and an engineering study performed 

by railroad or local road agencies.”91

Figure 30. Typical Location Plan, Right Angle 

Crossing, One-Way, Two Lanes

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second 

Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Federal Highway Administration, 1986.

91 “Regulations Governing the Protection Of Crossings At Grade 

Of Roads, Highways And Streets With Railroads In The State Of 

California.” Section 6.71 

(www.cpuc.ca.gov/word_pdf/GENERAL_ORDER/20555.doc).

Figure 29. Typical Location of Signal Devices

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second 

Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Federal Highway Administration, 1986.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

106

Figure 31. Typical Location Plan, Right Angle 

Crossing, One-Way, Three Lanes

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second 

Figure 32. Typical Location Plan, Divided 

Highway with Signals in Median, Two Lanes 

Each Way

Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Federal Highway Administration, 1986.

7. Use of Channelization with Gates

Despite the dangers of crossing in front of oncoming 

trains, drivers continue to risk lives and property by 

driving around crossing gates. At many crossings, drivers 

are able to 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.

Limitations are common to the use of any form of 

traffic separation at highway-rail grade crossings. 

These include restricting access to intersecting streets, 

alleys, and driveways within the limits of the median, 

and possible adverse safety effects. The median should 

be designed to allow vehicles to make left turns or Uturns through the median where appropriate, based on 

engineering judgment and evaluation.

It should be noted that median treatments meeting 

the requirements of 49 CFR 222 are considered 

supplemental safety measures by FRA for use in 

a quiet zone (refer to Chapter II, Components of a 

Highway-Rail Grade Crossing).

Various styles of median treatments include barrier 

wall systems, wide raised medians, and mountable 

raised curb systems. 

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second 

Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Federal Highway Administration, 1986.
 107

Figure 33. Typical Location Plan, Divided 

Highway with Signals in Median, Three Lanes 

Each Way

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second 

Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Federal Highway Administration, 1986.

Figure 34. Typical Location Plan, Divided 

Highway with Insufficient Median for Signals, 

Two Lanes Each Way

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second 

Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Federal Highway Administration, 1986.

Barrier wall systems. Concrete barrier walls and 

guardrails generally 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 must 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 the purpose of circumventing the 

traffic control devices at the crossing). Installation lengths 

can be more effective if they extend beyond a minimum 

length of 46 meters (150 feet).

Wide raised medians. Curbed medians generally 

range in width from 1.2 to more than 30 meters (4 to 100 

feet). 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. A 

wide median, if attractively landscaped, is often the most 

aesthetically pleasing separation method. 

Drawbacks to implementing wide raised medians 

include the availability of sufficient right of way and the 

maintenance of surface and/or landscape. Additions 

such as trees, flowers, and other vegetation higher 

than .9 meter (3 feet) above the roadway can restrict 

drivers’ view of approaching trains. Maintenance 
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

108

can be expensive, depending on the treatment of the 

median. Limitation of access can cause property owner 

complaints, particularly for businesses. Non-mountable 

curbs can increase the total crash rate and the severity 

of collisions when struck by higher-speed vehicles 

(greater than 64 km/hr. (40 mph)).

Non-mountable curb islands. Non-mountable 

curb islands are typically 6 to 9 inches in height and at 

least .6 meter (2 feet) wide and may have reboundable, 

reflectorized vertical markers. 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 64 km/hr. (40 mph)) 

Figure 35. Typical Location Plan, Acute Angle 

Crossing for Divided Highway with Signals in 

Median, Two or Three Lanes Each Way

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second 

Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Federal Highway Administration, 1986.

Figure 36. Typical Location Plan, Obtuse Angle 

Crossing for Divided Highway with Signals in 

Median, Two or Three Lanes Each Way

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second 

Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Federal Highway Administration, 1986.

environments. 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 vertical markers 

are installed. Access requirements should be fully 

evaluated, particularly allowing emergency vehicles 

to cross opposing lanes (but not for the purpose 

of circumventing the traffic control devices at the 

crossing). Paint and reflective beads should be applied 

to the curb for night visibility.

The state of Illinois has developed a standard that uses 

a combination of mountable and non-mountable curbs 

to provide a wide raised median with escape zones 

both in the median as well as to the shoulder (see 

Figure 37).

Mountable raised curb systems. Mountable 

raised curb systems with reboundable vertical markers 

present drivers with a visual impediment to crossing to 

the opposing traffic lane. The curbs are no more than 6 
 109

Figure 37. Example of Combination of Mountable and Non-Mountable Curbs from 

Illinois Department of Transportation 

Source: Illinois Department of Transportation.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

110

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 vertical delineators discourage passage. 

These systems are designed to allow emergency 

vehicles to cross opposing lanes (but not for the 

purpose of circumventing the traffic control devices at 

the crossing). Usually, such a system can be placed on 

existing roads without the need to widen them.

Because mountable curbs are made to allow emergency 

vehicles to cross and designed to deflect errant 

vehicles, they also are the easiest of all the barriers 

and separators to violate. Large, formidable vertical 

markers will inhibit most drivers. Care should be taken 

to assure that the system maintains its stability on 

the roadway with design traffic conditions and that 

retroreflective devices or glass beads on the top and 

sides of the curb are maintained for night visibility. 

Curb colors should be consistent with the location and 

direction of traffic adjacent to the device.92

These devices have proven a low-cost investment 

with a high rate of return in safety at crossings. 

The separators are installed along the centerline of 

roadways, in most cases extending approximately 20 

to 30 meters (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 flat delineator 

panels or tubes with reflectorized taping for better 

visibility at night. The delineator panels are flexible yet 

securely anchored to return to their original positions 

if struck by a vehicle. 

The use of median separators at the Sugar Creek 

Road crossing in the North Carolina Sealed Corridor 

Program has resulted in a 77-percent reduction in 

crossing violations. The use of median separators in 

conjunction with four-quadrant gates has produced 

a 98-percent reduction in crossing violations. Also 

being installed, especially in conjunction with roadway 

widening projects, are concrete median separators 

with tubular markers mounted on them.93

8. Barrier Gate

The barrier gate is a movable automatic gate designed 

to close an approaching roadway temporarily at a 

92 Guidance on Traffic Control Devices at Highway-Rail Grade 

Crossings. Washington, DC: FHWA, Highway/Rail Grade Crossing 

Technical Working Group, November 2002.

93 North Carolina Department of Transportation Sealed Corridor 

Program Website, “Median Separators” 

(www.bytrain.org/safety/sealed.html).

highway-rail crossing. 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 itself has been installed with a system 

consisting of three steel cables, the top and bottom of 

which are enclosed aluminum tubes. 

Barrier devices should at least meet the evaluation 

criteria for a National Cooperative Highway 

Research Program (NCHRP) Report 350 (Test Level 

2) attenuator; stopping an empty, 4,500-pound pickup truck traveling at 70 km/hr. (43 mph). Barrier 

gates have been tested to safely stop a pick-up truck 

traveling at 72 km/hr. (45 mph) and have been installed 

in Madison, Wisconsin and Santa Clara County, 

California.

Barrier gates could be applied to situations requiring 

a positive barrier, such as in a down position, closing 

off-road traffic, and opening only on demand. FRA 

rules require consideration of barrier and/or enhanced 

warning systems subject to FRA approval for operation 

over 110 mph. FRA has indicated that a barrier gate, if 

equipped with monitoring and confirmation as required 

by the Final Rule, may be applicable to enforce a 

nighttime closure for partial quiet zones.

9. Warning Bell

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. 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. 

10. Wayside Horn System

The wayside horn system consists of a horn or series 

of horns located at the highway-rail grade crossing and 

directed at oncoming motorists. The system is designed 

on fail-safe principles and provides a means to verify 

sound output. The wayside horn system:
 111

Figure 38. Example of Location Plan for Flashing Light Signals and Four-Quadrant Gates Center of pavement

RIGHT ANGLE

3.7 m (12 ft) MIN.

3.7 m (12 ft) MIN.

3.7 m (12 ft) MIN.

3.7 m (12 ft) MIN.

Lateral clearances shall be in 

accordance with Figure 8D-1

and Chapter 8D.

3.7 m (12 ft) MIN.

TRACK

TRACK

3.7 m (12 ft) MIN.

OBTUSE ANGLE

3.0 m (10 ft) MIN.

3.0 m (10 ft) MIN.

ACUTE ANGLE

TRACK

3.7 m (12 ft) MIN.

TRACK

3.7 m (12 ft) MIN.

3.0 m (10 ft) MIN.

3.0 m (10 ft) MIN.

Note: In an effort to simplify the figure

to show typical location plans for

flashing-light signals and fourquadrant gates, not all traffic 

control devices are shown on

this figure.

Median island

between gates (as determined

by an engineering study) Center of pavement

Center of

pavement

TRACK

Legend

Direction of travel

Figure 8D-2. Example of Location Plan for Flashing-Light Signals

and Four-Quadrant Gates

Source: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration, 

2003.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

112

• Simulates the sound and pattern of a train 

horn. 

• Provides similar (or safer) response from road 

users.

• Minimizes the audible impact on individuals 

located near the highway-rail grade crossing.

The purpose of the wayside horn system is to focus the 

horn sound level on the road user while minimizing the 

noise impact adjacent to the railroad from the point the 

train horn is required to be sounded.

The system is used as an adjunct to train-activated 

warning systems to provide audible warning of an 

approaching train for traffic on all approaches to the 

highway-rail grade crossing. It is not required to direct 

the wayside horn system toward approaching roadway 

users from roadways adjacent to the railroad if the 

roadway users’ movements toward the crossing are 

controlled by a STOP sign or traffic signal.

When a wayside horn system is used at highway-rail 

grade crossings where the locomotive-mounted horn is 

not sounded, the highway-rail grade crossings must be 

equipped with flashing lights and gates 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 grade crossing, 

or simultaneously with the activation of the flashing 

lights or descent of the gate, 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.

At its June 2006 meeting, the NCUTCD council 

approved a proposed new section to Part 8 of MUTCD 

to recognize use of the wayside horn either as a 

supplemental audible device or as an alternative to the 

sounding of a locomotive-mounted horn. The council 

also approved new language for Part 10, which allows 

use of the wayside horn for light rail. The text in Part 

10 would allow a wayside horn to be used to reproduce 

the tone and sound level of wayside equipment. 

This would allow use of directional horns in lieu of 

traditional crossing bells at locations with light rail not 

subject to FRA jurisdiction, such as urban light-rail 

crossings. 

11. Active Advance Warning Sign

The active advance warning sign (AAWS) consists of 

one or two 12-inch yellow hazard identification beacons 

mounted above the advance warning sign, as shown 

in Figure 39. An advisory speed plate sign indicating 

the safe approach speed also should be posted with 

the sign.94 The AAWS provides motorists with advance 

warning that a train is approaching the crossing. The 

beacons are connected to the railroad track circuitry 

and activated on the approach of a train. The AAWS 

should continue to be activated until the crossing 

signals have been deactivated.

Figure 39. Examples of Active Advance 

Warning Signs and Cantilevered 

Active Advance Warning Sign

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second 

Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Federal Highway Administration, 1986.

94 Guidance on Traffic Control Devices at Highway-Rail Grade 

Crossings. Washington, DC: FHWA, Highway/Rail Grade Crossing 

Technical Working Group, November 2002.
 113

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. 

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. 

To allow the traffic queue at the crossing time to 

dissipate safely, the advance flashers should continue 

to operate for a period of time after the active control 

devices at the crossing deactivate, as determined by an 

engineering study.

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 location of this supplemental 

advance warning sign is dependent on vehicle speed 

and the geometric conditions of the roadway.

AAWS should be placed at the location where the 

advance warning sign would normally be placed. 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. 

12. “Second Train Coming” Active 

Warning Sign

Train detection systems can also be used to activate a 

“Train Coming” supplemental warning sign. This sign 

is used on a limited basis, normally near commuter 

stations where multiple tracks and high volumes of 

pedestrian traffic are present. The sign will activate 

when a train is located within the crossing’s approach 

circuits and a second train approaches the crossing. It 

is also being evaluated at multiple-track highway-rail 

grade crossings as a supplement to automatic gates. 

Because this sign is not currently in MUTCD, any 

jurisdictions wishing to use symbols to convey any part 

of this message must request permission to experiment 

from FHWA.95 (Refer to Chapter X, Special Issues, for 

use of the “Second Train Coming” pedestrian device 

as well as the “Train Coming” icon active warning sign 

used at LRT crossings.)

13. Active Turn Restriction Signs

At a signalized intersection located within 60 meters 

(200 feet) of a highway-rail grade crossing, measured 

from the edge of the track to the edge of the roadway, 

where the intersection traffic control signals are 

preempted by the approach of a train, all existing 

turning movements toward the highway-rail grade 

crossing should be prohibited during the signal 

preemption sequences.

A blank-out or changeable message sign and/or 

appropriate highway traffic signal indication or other 

similar type sign may be used to prohibit turning 

movements toward the highway-rail grade crossing 

during preemption.96

14. New Traffic Signals

During the time this handbook was being updated, 

NCUTCD and FHWA were considering a proposal to 

amend MUTCD to include a new traffic signal warrant 

that would apply, under certain conditions, to highwayhighway intersections in close proximity to highwayrailroad grade crossings. 

The proposed warrant under consideration is 

specifically intended to apply to situations in which:

• 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 

currently approved traffic 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 or fouling the nearby highwayrailroad grade crossing.

• Other strategies to mitigate such queuing/

fouling are deemed impractical, inappropriate, 

or not feasible. 

When applied, any traffic signals installed pursuant to 

95 Ibid.

96 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition. 

Washington, DC: FHWA, 2003.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

114

this new warrant would also need to include provisions 

for railroad preemption (for example, if not already 

existing, some means of automatically detecting a 

train approaching the highway-railroad grade crossing 

would also need to be provided), to allow for clearing 

any queued vehicles off the grade crossing prior to the 

arrival of a train.

Draft language proposing the new warrant was 

approved by the National Council at the June 2006 

meeting of NCUTCD. This proposed warrant or some 

version thereof is likely to be included in a formal 

Notice of Proposed Amendment to MUTCD, which is 

currently expected to be issued by FHWA in late 2007 

or early 2008. A Final Rule formally including it in 

MUTCD is expected to be issued in 2009.

15. Preemption of Traffic Signals

Where a signalized highway intersection exists in close 

proximity to a railroad crossing, the railroad and traffic 

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 (see MUTCD 

Sections 8D.07 and 10D.05). 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 text beginning on the next page incorporates key 

provisions of a recommended practice prepared by the 

Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE).97

16. Train Detection

To serve their purpose of advising motorists and 

pedestrians of the approach or presence of trains, active 

traffic control devices are activated by some form of 

train detection. Generally, the method is automatic and 

requires no personnel to operate it, although a small 

number of such installations are operated under manual 

control. The automatic method uses the railroad circuit. 

This electrical circuit uses the rails as conductors in 

such a way that the presence of a solid electrical path, 

as provided by the wheels and axles of a locomotive 

or railroad car, shunts the circuit. The system is also 

designed to be fail-safe; that is, any shunt of the circuit, 

97 Preemption of Traffic Signals Near Railroad Crossings: 

An ITE Recommended Practice. Prepared by Traffic Engineering 

Council Committee TENC-99-06. Washington, DC: Institute of 

Transportation Engineers, 2006.

whether by railroad equipment, vandalism, or an “open 

circuit,” such as a broken rail or track connection, 

causes the crossing signals to be activated. 

Standard highway traffic signals display a green, 

yellow, or red light at all times except when power 

has failed and the signals are dark. Crossing signals 

are normally dark unless a train is approaching or 

occupying the crossing. There is no indication to 

the highway user when power has failed. Therefore, 

crossing control systems are designed to also operate 

on 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. 

Storage battery stand-by power is provided to span 

periods of commercial power failure. The stand-by 

assures normal operation of crossing signals during 

a commercial power outage. When this practice was 

initiated, the crossing signals were normally supplied 

with AC power through a step-down transformer. The 

same AC source provided charging current through 

a rectifier for the stand-by battery to maintain the 

battery in a charged condition. When commercial 

AC power failed, crossing signal power connections 

were transferred from the AC source to the battery, as 

shown in Figure 45. This arrangement was necessary 

because the “constant current” rectifiers used in this 

service were unable to respond to changes in battery 

voltage or load. 

Present day “constant voltage” rectifiers can respond 

to changes in battery voltage and load and can provide 

high DC current to the battery and load during periods 

when crossing signals are energized, tapering off 

quickly as soon as stand-by battery capacity has 

been replenished after the crossing signals are deenergized. This ability of modern rectifiers permits DC 

operation of the signals whether AC supply voltage is 

present or not. The signals are connected directly to 

battery terminals and the power transfer is eliminated, 

as shown in Figure 40.

On tracks where trains operate at speeds of 20 mph 

or higher, the circuits controlling automatic flashing 

light signals shall provide for a minimum operation 

of 20 seconds before the arrival of any train. This 

20-second warning time is a minimum. The warning 

time should be of sufficient length to ensure clearance 

of a vehicle that might have stopped at the crossing 

and then proceeded to cross just before the flashing 

lights began operation. Some railroads use a warning 

time of 25 seconds at crossings with automatic gates. 

Factors that can affect this time include the width of 

the crossing, the length and acceleration capabilities 
 115

PREEMPTION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS NEAR RAILROAD CROSSINGS

The traffic engineer designing the preemption system must understand how the traffic signal controller unit 

operates in response to a call for a preemption sequence. The engineer must consult with railroad personnel 

who are 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. Important 

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. In addition, state and local regulations 

should be consulted.

Preemption of traffic signals for railroad operations is very complex and must be designed and operated for 

a specific location, often with unique conditions. With the extremely large number of variables involved, it is 

difficult to simply quantify all the time and distance elements. The goal of this recommended practice is to 

identify as many elements as possible and provide references where feasible. Recommendations are therefore 

provided in the generic sense, with the expectation that applications will be designed for local conditions. The 

list of conditions requiring preemption is not intended to be complete but should provide an awareness of the 

factors necessitating preemption of normal traffic signal operation. 

When to preempt. If either of the two conditions listed below prevails, 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 nearby rail crossing; or

• Traffic backed up from a nearby downstream railroad crossing could interfere with signalized 

highway intersections. 

A crossing equipped with a passive control device may need to be upgraded to include active warning devices 

so that preemption of the traffic signal can be implemented effectively. Such improvements are particularly 

important when the tracks are close to the signalized intersection or when certain conditions exist, such 

as high-speed train or highway approaches; tracks in highway medians; geometry such as steep grades; or 

special vehicles using the crossing, such as trucks carrying hazardous material or school buses. 

Where a crossing with active control devices is in close proximity to a STOP-sign controlled intersection, 

it may be necessary to consider the installation of traffic signals to clear queues from the crossing if an 

engineering study indicates that other solutions or traffic control devices will not be effective. 

When designing a preemption system, many important items should be considered. These include distance 

between the tracks and signal; intersection and crossing geometry; approach speed of trains and vehicles; train 

frequency; vehicle flow rates; vehicle size and classification; and operation of the traffic signal controller unit. 

Traffic approaching the intersection from the tracks—long distance. The 1948 edition 

of MUTCD stipulated the interconnection of traffic signals to crossings with “flashers, wigwags or gates” 

within about 500 to 1,000 feet (150 to 300 meters). The 1961 edition of MUTCD shortened the recommended 

distance to about 200 feet (65 meters), except under unusual conditions, and added the term “preemption.” 

Although this value seems subjective, it has been retained in succeeding editions of MUTCD (including the 

Millennium Edition) and is referenced by several other publications. Research, however, has found this 

distance inadequate. The current edition of MUTCD also mentions that coordination with the flashing light 

system should be considered for traffic signals located farther than 200 feet (60 meters) from the crossing.1

Coordination could include, for example, queue detection that would omit some signal phases or activate 

variable message signs.

Where possible, field observations of traffic queue lengths during critical traffic periods can provide guidance 

on the need for signal preemption. Queue arrival and dissipation studies should be made during peak travel 

1 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition. Washington, DC: FHWA, 2003.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

116

demand times at the site. Where field observation is not possible because the crossing is not yet in full 

operation, some intersection capacity analysis computer programs that provide an estimate of queue lengths 

can be used to determine whether the 95th-percentile queue from the signalized intersection will extend as far 

as the railroad crossing. 

A simple but reasonably reliable estimate of 95th-percentile queue lengths (queues that will not be exceeded 

95 percent of the time) can be calculated as:

Equation 1

L = 2qr(1+p)25

where:

L = length of queue (feet) 

q = vehicle flow rate (vehicles per lane per second) 

r = effective red time (red + yellow) (seconds) 

p = proportion of heavy vehicles in traffic flow (as a decimal) 

The factor of 25 represents the effective length of a passenger car (vehicle length plus space between 

vehicles); the factor of 2 is a random arrival factor. 

Equation 1 provides a good estimate of queue lengths where the volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c) of the 

signalized intersection is less than 0.90. However, for v/c ratios greater than 0.90, some overflow queues 

could occur as a result of fluctuations in arrival rates. To compensate for this condition, it is suggested that 

one vehicle be added to the estimated queue length for each 1-percent increase in the v/c ratio over 0.90. 

Accordingly, in cases where the v/c ratio ranges between 0.90 and 1.0, the following equation applies: 

Equation 2

L = 2qr(1+Δx)(1+p)(25)

where: 

Δ = 100 (v/c ratio – 0.90) 

For a v/c ratio of 0.95, for example, Δ =5. Equation 2 cannot be used reliably if the v/c ratio is greater than 

1.0—for example, if the intersection is oversaturated. Under these conditions, a Highway Capacity Manual

analysis or traffic simulation model may be useful alternatives.2

It is not the intent of either MUTCD or the queue calculation equation to provide a specific distance as the 

sole criterion to interconnect 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. Vehicle classification studies should be performed, 

because trucks must be factored separately, and some trucks may have unusual size and operating 

characteristics.3,4 Similar locations may be evaluated for comparative vehicle queuing.

In some cases, observed and/or predicted queues may be so long that preemption, even if provided, may not 

be adequate for vehicles to clear the tracks. In these circumstances, additional anti-queuing measures are 

available. 

2 Highway Capacity Manual. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 2000.

3 Harwood, D.W. “Traffic and Vehicle Operating Characteristics.” In Traffic Engineering Handbook. Washington, DC: 

Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 1992.

4 Mandatory Stops at Railroad Grade Crossings, Appendix E. U.S. DOT, FHWA, Report FHWA/RD/86/014, 1986.
 117

Traffic approaching the intersection from the tracks—short distance. Where the clear 

storage distance between the crossing and the highway intersection stop line is not sufficient to safely 

store a design vehicle (typically the longest legal truck combination), or if vehicles regularly queue across 

the tracks, a pre-signal should be considered. An engineering study should be performed to support this 

recommendation. The concept is illustrated in Exhibit 1. A pre-signal should also be considered if gates are 

not present. See the following section for additional information regarding the application and design of 

pre-signals. 

Exhibit 1

O 7

O 1

O 5

O 3

O

DO NOT

STOP

ON TRACKS

LEGEND

Vehicle Signal Face

Vehicle Left-Turn Signal Face

Pedestrian Signal Face

Flashing Lights and Gate

Not all signs and markings shown. 

Refer to MUTCD for details on signs and markings. 

8P

No Right Turn Sign

(Changeable Message; Blank If No Train Present)

O 4P

O 6P

O 6

O 4

O 8

O 8 O 2 O 2

O 4P

O 6 O2P O 4

O

O

O6P

2P

8P

Traffic approaching the tracks from the signalized intersection. The placement of train 

detection equipment should be governed by the preemption time required to clear the queues. This time 

should take into account the critical or design vehicle and should be sufficient for this vehicle to clear the 

intersection safely before the arrival of the train.

A long, slow-moving truck turning toward the tracks could have a problem clearing the intersection if a 

simultaneous preemption call occurs at the beginning of its turn, especially where the distance between the 

intersection and the vehicle stop line for the crossing is very short. If the truck makes the turn, encounters a 

lowering gate, and stops in compliance with the gate, the exit path from the crossing for vehicles approaching 

the intersection may be blocked even though the traffic signal preemption is functioning and displaying track 

clearance green. This condition should be studied as part of the system design and, if warranted, advance 

preemption should be employed to allow adequate time for a truck to clear prior to activating the railroad 

warning devices. 

A long truck or a vehicle required to stop before crossing the tracks in low gear could have a problem clearing 

a lowering gate as well as clearing the intersection. Both of these scenarios should be considered in the 

design of the preemption operation if there is a significant volume of trucks. In this case, additional gate 

delay time may be necessary to allow these vehicles adequate time to restart and clear the crossing prior to 

lowering of the gates. 
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

118

Special studies may be needed to determine if traffic approaching the crossing could queue and eventually 

block the adjacent intersection traffic flow. If determined to be appropriate by an engineering study, blankout, internally illuminated, or variable message signs reading “No Left Turn” or “No Right Turn” should be 

used in those situations.5 Typical locations of such signs are illustrated in Exhibit 2. Note that if Phase 5 

allows permissive left turns, a blank-out “No Left Turn” sign should be used to restrict the left-turn movement 

during preemption. In addition, traffic signal phases conflicting with the crossing can be omitted from the 

preemption phasing sequence. 

Exhibit 2

O

Not all signs and markings shown. 

Refer to MUTCD for details on signs and markings.

8P

O 8 O6P

O 2

O

O

O 6P

O4P

O 6

O 4P

O2P O 4

O 4

O 8

O 6

O 2

DO NOT

STOP

ON Local conditions TRACKS

may require

mast arm

before tracks

STOP

HERE ON

RED

No Turn Sign

(Changeable Message; Blank If No Train Present)

Vehicle Signal Face

Pedestrian Signal Face

Flashing Lights and Gate

LEGEND

2P

8P

Equations 1 and 2 can also be used to estimate the queue length that is likely to develop for traffic 

approaching the railroad crossing. The factor q then represents the flow rate (per lane) approaching the 

crossing, including both traffic passing straight through the signalized intersection toward the crossing as 

well as traffic that turns left and right off the street that parallels the tracks. The factor r represents the 

effective time the crossing would be blocked by a train, and can be estimated as: 

Equation 3

where: 

L = train length (feet) 

S = train speed (mph) 

5 Bowman, B.L. Supplemental Advance Warning Devices. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Synthesis of 

Highway Practice 198. 1993:48.

35

1.47

L r S

  = +    
 119

The factor of 35 assumes that approximately 25 seconds before the train enters the crossing plus 10 seconds 

after it clears the crossing, the crossing would still be blocked by the gates. These times may be adjusted as 

necessary for individual crossings. 

Minimum warning time. MUTCD requires a 20-second minimum time for the railroad circuit to 

activate warning devices prior to arrival of a through train. Neither the basic 20 seconds nor an extended 

time computed by AREMA criteria (as prescribed by the AREMA Communications and Signal Manual, Part 

3.3.10), may be sufficient when highway traffic signals are interconnected to a railroad crossing with active 

warning devices. 

The following items should be considered when designing time elements for a preemption operation: 

• Approach speed of trains and vehicles on all approaches to the railroad crossing

• Intersection and crossing geometry (including crossing angle, number of tracks, minimum track 

clearance distance, intersection width, clear storage distance, approach grades, and parallel streets)

• Vehicle volumes

• Frequency of train movement (recognizing complicated, short headway commuter or LRT 

operations, or switch movements from nearby railroad yards)

• Train stops within the approach to the crossing, especially where stations are located in close 

proximity to the crossing

• Vehicle queue lengths and dissipation rates, which affect the duration of the clear track green 

interval6

• The design vehicle or special classes of vehicles (buses and large trucks or trucks carrying 

hazardous cargo). Because some of these vehicles are required to stop and proceed in low gear 

across the tracks, clearance time for both the tracks and the signalized intersection must be 

considered.

• Long right-of-way transfer times due to pedestrian intervals, minimum green times, high-speed 

highway approaches, or unusual intersection geometry

• Types of active warning (flashing light signals alone, flashing light signals with approach-side gates 

only, or with four-quadrant gates)

• Variability in the warning time provided by constant warning time train detection equipment; train 

acceleration and deceleration affect warning time; consultation with the railroad is essential for this 

item.

If one or a combination of the above items requires warning time in excess of the warning time recommended 

by AREMA criteria, the following techniques may be considered: 

• Uniformly extend railroad circuit warning time for both the railroad and the traffic signal controller 

units, providing simultaneous preemption. This is accomplished by requiring additional clearance 

time from the railroad for simultaneous preemption. Note, however, that excessive clearance time 

may result in increased violation of lowered gates by motorists. For this reason, excessive clearance 

time should be avoided.

• Use advance preemption to start highway traffic signal preemption sequences before railroad 

warning devices are activated at the railroad crossing.

Systems approach. MUTCD points out the need for a systems approach when designing, installing, 

and operating highway traffic signals interconnected to railroad crossings. The Traffic Control Devices 

Handbook describes a diagnostic team that may include persons representing highway, railroad, regulatory, 

and utility agencies as well as manufacturers of highway and railroad equipment. The importance of 

cooperation and interaction among all responsible parties cannot be emphasized enough. Such cooperation 

not only encourages the safest design available by combining the latest technology available (or under 

development) in highway and railroad equipment but also ensures proper operation. Examples include: 

• Fully programmable, multiple preemption sequences in highway traffic signal controller units, which 

allow more than one railroad preemption sequence on a priority basis. They also interact with lesser 

priority preemption programs from emergency and other special highway vehicles. 

6 Kinzel, C.D. “Traffic Studies.” In Traffic Engineering Handbook. Washington, DC: ITE, 1992.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

120

• Railroad constant warning time (CWT) devices, which provide relatively uniform advance warning 

time between the activation of warning devices and train arrival. CWT is particularly useful where 

trains travel at significantly different speeds or frequently stop within the control circuit limits 

(useful in commuter and switching operations). 

• Visibility-limited traffic signal faces

• Crossing area vehicle detection systems, using various pavement-based sensing elements such as 

inductive loops, or non-pavement-based sensing technology such as microwave and video imaging 

detection equipment

• In-vehicle alert systems for emergency vehicles, school buses, and trucks hauling hazardous 

material; the systems would advise drivers of approaching trains. 

• Supervised interconnect circuits, a circuit configuration that checks the integrity of the interconnect 

circuit between the railroad control cabinet and the traffic signal controller and minimizes the effect 

of a false preemption of the traffic signals while the railroad warning devices are not activated. The 

supervised circuitry can detect if the interconnect circuit is open or wires are crossed and set the 

traffic signals to flashing operation or send in an alarm.

• Remote monitoring of traffic signal controller assemblies and railroad signal control equipment

• Digital communication between the railroad control system and the traffic signal system; the 

proposed Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Standard for the Interface 

Between the Rail Subsystem and the Highway Subsystem at a Highway Rail Intersection (IEEE 

1570) defines the logical and physical interfaces and the performance attributes for communication 

between the two systems. Standardizing the interface will allow interoperability between wide 

varieties of equipment. 

• Stand-by power systems for highway traffic signals7

• Train-activated variable message signs

• Pedestrian and bicycle warning devices

Pedestrian clearance phase. MUTCD provides that the pedestrian clearance phase may be 

“abbreviated” during the railroad preemption of traffic signals. Some agencies have elected to utilize 

the abbreviated interval; some eliminate the pedestrian clearance phase entirely during the preemption 

sequencing; others provide full clearance intervals. Abbreviating the pedestrian “Don’t Walk” phase may 

expedite the intended vehicular cycle; however, it may not expedite pedestrian or driver behavior. Drivers 

may yield to pedestrians and, thereby, prevent vehicles behind them from clearing off the tracks. To minimize 

this potential, full pedestrian clearance may be provided but, consequently, additional minimum preemption 

warning time will be required. 

The preemption interconnect may consist of simultaneous preemption (traffic signals are preempted 

simultaneously with the activation of the railroad control devices), advance preemption (traffic signals are 

preempted prior to the activation of the railroad control devices), or, possibly, a special design that could 

consist of two separate closed-loop normally energized circuits. The first, a pedestrian clearance call, should 

occur at a predetermined length of time to be defined by a traffic engineering study and should continue until 

the train has departed the crossing. The purpose of the first call is to safely clear the pedestrian. The second, 

a vehicle clearance call, programmed with a higher priority in the traffic signal controller than the first call, 

should occur at a predetermined length of time to be determined in a traffic engineering study, but not less 

than 20 seconds prior to the arrival of a train, and should continue until the train departs the crossing. The 

purpose of the second call is to clear motor vehicle queues, which may extend into the limits of the crossing. 

One preemption interconnect circuit can be used to initially clear out the pedestrian traffic, then a time delay 

is used for the second vehicular clearance. A system with two separate circuits provides a more uniform 

timing if the train speed varies once preemption occurred. This is especially important if the train accelerates 

after the pedestrian clearance is initiated. A timing circuit may not provide adequate warning time.

If the pedestrian clearance phase is abbreviated (or eliminated), additional signing alerting pedestrians of a 

shortened pedestrian cycle should be considered.

7 At the January 2006 meeting of NCUTCD, the council approved a change to indicate back-up power should be provided 

for traffic signals at locations where preemption or coordination with the railroad warning devices is provided (excepting 

light-rail transit) for incorporation into the next edition of MUTCD.
 121

Traffic signal controller re-service considerations. Traffic signal controller re-service is the 

ability of the traffic signal controller to accept and respond to a second demand for preemption immediately 

after a first demand for preemption has been released, even if the programmed preemption routine/sequence 

is not complete. In other words, if a traffic signal controller receives an initial preempt activation and shortly 

thereafter is deactivated, most traffic signal controllers will continue to time out the preemption sequence; if 

a second demand for preemption is placed during this period, the traffic signal controller must return to the 

track clearance green. At any point in the preemption sequence, even during the track clear green interval, 

the controller must return to the start of a full track clearance green interval with a second preemption 

demand. 

Until recently, most traffic signal controllers were unable to recognize a second preempt until the entire 

preemption sequence of the first activation timed out. If the second demand occurred during the initial 

preemption sequence, the traffic signal controllers continued the same sequence as if that was still the initial 

demand for preemption. The traffic signal controller re-service capability must be able to accept and respond 

to any number of demands for preemption.

The point at which preemption is released from the railroad active control devices to the traffic signals is 

critical to the proper operation of re-service. For the traffic signal controller to recognize a second demand, 

the first demand must be released. Therefore, the railroad active control devices must release the preempt 

activation just as the crossing gates begin to rise, not when they reach a fully vertical position. Otherwise, 

especially at locations with short storage areas between the crossing and the highway intersection, traffic 

may creep under the rising gates and, with a second train, a second track clear green interval will not be 

provided if the gates never reach a fully vertical position.

Programming security. Security of programmed parameters is critical to the proper operation of the 

highway-rail preemption system. As an absolute minimum, control equipment cabinets should be locked 

and secure to prevent tampering, and controllers should be password protected. In addition to preventing 

malicious tampering with control devices, security should be considered to prevent accidental changes in 

timing parameters, especially in the traffic signal controller, where a programming mistake can easily be 

made due to the large quantity of parameters, even when just viewing the data. 

Some traffic signal controller manufacturers have designed systems in which the critical railroad preemption 

parameters can not be changed without both proper software and physically making a hardwire change in the 

traffic signal cabinet. Without proper data changes, the traffic signals will remain in a flashing red operation 

until the data are corrected. In addition, these systems prevent a different type of controller or controller 

software from operating the traffic signals. It is important to preserve the integrity of the system once it is 

tested and proven to operate properly. Another method of preserving the proper timing parameters is remote 

monitoring of the traffic signal controller. Routine uploads of traffic signal timings can be compared to a 

database to check for unapproved changes in any timing parameters.

Supervised interconnect circuitry. The interconnection circuit between the highway traffic signal 

control cabinet and the railroad signal cabinet should be designed as a system. Frequently, the interconnect 

cable circuit is designed so that the preemption relay can be falsely de-energized, thereby causing a preempt 

call without the railroad signals being activated. The traffic signals then will cycle through the clearance 

phase and remain at “stop” until the false preempt call is terminated. If a train approaches the crossing 

during the false preemption, the railroad signals will activate, but the traffic signals will not provide track 

clearance phases because they are still receiving the first false call. Even worse, a short between the wires 

in this type of circuit will virtually disable preemption and will only be recognizable once the railroad active 

control devices are activated with an approaching train. 

Supervised preemption circuits may be used to address this potential problem. In its simplest form, the 

supervised circuit has two control relays in the traffic control cabinet, each of which is energized by the 

railroad crossing relay (see Exhibit 3). 

One relay, the preemption relay, is energized only when the railroad active control devices are off. The second 

relay, the supervision relay, is energized only when the railroad active control devices are operating. When 
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

122

circuited in this manner, only one control relay is energized at a time. If both relays are simultaneously 

energized or de-energized, the supervision logic determines that there is a problem and can implement action. 

This action may include initiating a clearance cycle. Upon completion of the clear-out, the traffic signals can 

go into an all-way flashing red instead of stop. The all-way flashing red will allow traffic to advance off the 

tracks instead of being held by the red signal. An engineering study may determine that the all-way flashing 

red is undesirable due to high highway traffic volumes compared to rail traffic.

In all cases, remote monitoring devices that send alarm messages to the railroad and highway authority 

should be installed. Law enforcement traffic control should be used until repairs can be performed. More 

information on supervised circuits can be found in “Supervised Interconnection Circuits at Highway-Rail 

Grade Crossings.”8,9

Other Elements

Use of protected left turns is recommended. A protected left-turn signal indication (a green 

arrow) should be provided for the intersection approach that crosses the tracks. Depending on the normal 

signal phase sequence, the left-turn green arrow may or may not be displayed during normal signal operation. 

However, during the clear track green interval, the left-turn green arrow should be displayed. The intent is 

to minimize delays to traffic clearing the crossing by providing an indication to left-turning drivers that they 

have a protected left turn.

8 Guidance on Traffic Control Devices at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings. Washington, DC: FHWA, Highway/Rail 

Grade Crossing Technical Working Group, November 2002.

9 Mansel, D.M., V.H. Waight, and J.T. Sharkey. “Supervised Interconnection Circuits at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings.” ITE 

Journal, Vol. 9, No. 3 (March 1999) (www.ite.org).

Exhibit 3. Supervised Railroad Interconnect Circuit

 
 123

Maintain sight lines. Take care to ensure that placement of highway traffic signals does not block the 

view of railroad flashing light signals. Similarly, railroad crossing equipment should not block the view of 

highway traffic signals. 

Optional use of traffic signals where train movements are slow. Where train movements 

are very slow, as at industrial crossings or with switching operations, highway traffic control signals can be 

used in lieu of railroad active warning devices (MUTCD, Section 8D.07). MUTCD stipulates that traffic control 

signals shall not be used in lieu of flashing light signals at a mainline railroad crossing, and that traffic 

control signals may be used at LRT crossings under some circumstances. If traffic control signals are used, 

care must be taken to assure that the system is fail-safe. Back-up power should be supplied for the traffic 

signals unless there is a signal indication for the train operator, and testing should be conducted to determine 

that no conditions exist where a green indication can be displayed to road users when a train is approaching 

or occupying the crossing. 

Recommended treatment for crossing between two closely-spaced traffic signals.

Where a railroad crossing is located between two closely-spaced signalized intersections, the two highway 

traffic signals must be interconnected and their preemptions coordinated to permit the track to be cleared in 

both directions. If the two signals are operated by different public agencies, the agencies should participate in 

the design and operation of the signals and their preemption or assign responsibility to one agency. 

Considerations for second train at multi-track crossings. Where a railroad crossing has 

more than one through track, special consideration must be given to operation of the warning devices and 

traffic signal when a second train approaches following the passage of the first train. Provisions may include 

use of an “extended hold” to maintain the crossing gates down until the second train has arrived, as well as 

use of traffic signal control logic, which assures that a second track clearance can be provided in the event 

the gates have been raised prior to the arrival of a second train.

Considerations for closely-spaced multiple railroad crossings. Where multiple tracks or 

tracks of different railroads cross a highway within preemption distance of the signalized intersection, all 

the tracks should be considered a single crossing, and the clear track green interval should be of sufficient 

length to allow a queue across all the tracks to clear. If one or more tracks are widely separated from other 

tracks closer to the intersection, special track clearance sequencing is necessary, and pre-signals may be 

considered. When more than one railroad is involved, all the railroads should participate in the design and 

operation of the preemption. Separate traffic controller unit inputs should be provided for each railroad so 

that the active track can be distinguished. The AREMA Communications and Signal Manual, Part 3.1.11, 

addresses the design criteria to be addressed by the railroads in the design and operation of the warning 

devices based on specific distances. Adjacent track clearance time must be determined and implemented in 

the operation of the warning devices and must also be taken into consideration in designing and operating 

traffic signal preemption.

Considerations for diagonal crossings. Where the railroad runs diagonally to the direction of the 

highway, it is probable that the railroad may cross two highway approaches to an interconnected intersection. 

When this situation occurs, it is normally necessary to clear out traffic on both roadways prior to the arrival 

of the train, requiring approximately twice the preemption time computed for one approach. It is also 

normally required to have both railroad active traffic control device systems designed to operate concurrently. 

This is needed to prevent the interconnected traffic signals and railroad active control devices from falling 

out of coordination with each other, which otherwise can occur under certain types of train movements or 

when one of the two crossings experiences a false signal activation prior to an actual train movement. 

When the railroad control devices activate, traffic leaving the intersection and approaching either crossing 

may queue back into the intersection and block traffic if there is not adequate storage for those vehicles 

between the crossing and the intersection. Traffic turning at the intersection toward the other crossing 

may also be unable to proceed due to stopped traffic. When this occurs, utilization of advance preemption 

together with a hybrid design may help alleviate this problem. The hybrid design could consist of delaying the 

activation of the railroad devices facing vehicles leaving the intersection and approaching both crossings to 
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

124

help vehicles clear out of the intersection during the preemption sequence.10

Alternative treatments for long queues. In the event of very long queues, preemption may not be 

a practical method for clearing the tracks. An alternative treatment may be the use of an automated queuecutter flashing light beacon upstream of the highway-rail grade crossing. They may be utilized in conjunction 

with “Do Not Stop on Tracks” (R8-8) signs, as stated in MUTCD. Such beacons can be activated by an 

induction loop on the departure side of the highway-rail grade crossing that detects a growing queue between 

the crossing and the distant highway intersection. If the beacons are activated only when the traffic signals 

on that approach are not green, they can be more effective as opposed to flashing all the time. (Refer also to 

the discussion of queue cutters and queue management strategies provided in Section 17, Pre-Signals.) 

These are some of the many factors that should be considered when interconnecting an active traffic control 

device at a highway-rail grade crossing to a nearby highway traffic signal. However, it is not the intent of 

this document to serve as a primer for this very complicated topic. Practitioners should fully familiarize 

themselves with the ITE recommended practice as well as any more recent guidance and should be sure 

that expert knowledge and full cooperation between highway and railroad authorities are brought to bear on 

technical issues regarding the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of interconnected systems.

Appendix I includes forms for computing preemption timing. For additional information, see “Design 

Guidelines for Railroad Preemption at Signalized Intersections” and “Timing of Traffic Signal Preemption at 

Intersections Near Highway-Railroad Grade Crossings.11,12

10 Guidance on Traffic Control Devices at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings. Washington, DC: FHWA, Highway/Rail 

Grade Crossing Technical Working Group, November 2002.

11 Marshall, Peter S. and William D. Berg. “Design Guidelines for Railroad Preemption at Signalized Intersections.” ITE 

Journal, Vol. 67, No. 2 (February 1997).

12 Seyfried, Robert K. “Timing of Traffic Signal Preemption at Intersections Near Highway-Railroad Grade Crossings.” 

Compendium of Technical Papers, 2001 Annual Meeting, Institute of Transportation Engineers, August 2001.
 125

of vehicles using the crossing, highway grades, and the 

condition of the crossing surface.

Care should be taken to ensure that the warning 

time is not excessive. If the motorist cannot see the 

train approaching (due to sight obstructions or track 

curvature), excessive warning time may cause a 

motorist to attempt to cross the tracks despite the 

operation of the flashing light signals.

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. For example, 

the signals may have been activated by a high-speed 

passenger train just out of sight, not by the slower 

freight. However, 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. 

Equipment housing should be located where it is least 

likely to be struck by a vehicle leaving the roadway. 

It should not unduly obstruct motorists’ view of an 

approaching train. Factors that may be considered in 

the design and installation of a train detection system 

include: 

• 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.

The design and application of train detection circuits 

are accomplished by railroad signal engineers. Five 

basic types of train detection systems are in use today: 

• Direct current (DC) track circuit.

• AC-DC track circuit.

• Audio frequency overlay (AFO) track circuit.

• Motion-sensitive track circuit. 

• Constant warning time track circuit.

DC track circuit. The DC track circuit, as shown in 

Figure 41, was the first means used for automatic train 

detection. It is a relatively simple circuit and is still 

used in many crossing warning systems. The maximum 

length of these circuits is more than adequate to 

provide the necessary warning time for crossing 

warning systems with today’s train speeds.

Figure 41. DC Track Circuit

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second 

Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Federal Highway Administration, 1986. 

Figure 40. Stand-By Power Arrangement

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second 

Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Federal Highway Administration, 1986.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

126

The rails are used as conductors of energy supplied by 

a battery. This energy flows through a limiting resistor 

to one rail, then through another limiting resistor to the 

coil of a DC relay, back over the other rail to the battery, 

thereby completing a simple series circuit. The relay is 

energized as long as the rails are intact and no train is 

present on the circuit between the battery and the relay. 

The limits of the circuit are established by the use of 

insulated joints, devices placed between adjoining rail 

sections to electrically isolate the two sections.

To provide a means for stopping the operation of the 

crossing warning system as soon as the train clears the 

crossing, three-track circuits, as shown in Figure 42, 

and associated logic elements are required per track. 

The logic elements are arranged such that, as the 

train moves through the crossing, the crossing clears 

for highway traffic as soon as the rear end of the train 

leaves the island section. 

Figure 42. Three-Track Circuit System

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second 

Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Federal Highway Administration, 1986.

All trains activate the crossing warning system as 

soon as the first set of wheels of the train enters the 

approach track circuit. This track circuit must be long 

enough to provide the minimum warning time for the 

fastest train. A slow train will operate the crossing 

warning system for a longer period of time. If a train 

stops before it reaches the crossing, the crossing 

warning system continues to operate, which results in 

an additional delay to highway traffic.

To overcome this problem, approach sections may be 

divided into several short track circuits, as shown in 

Figure 43, and timers may be incorporated into the 

logic. This permits more consistent warning time. Also, 

if a train stops in the approach section, a “time-out” 

feature will deactivate the warning devices to allow 

highway traffic to move over the crossing. 

Figure 43. Track Circuits with Timing Sections

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second 

Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Federal Highway Administration, 1986.

AC-DC track circuit. The AC-DC track circuit, as 

shown in Figure 44 (sometimes referred to as Type C), 

is used extensively when approach distances are less 

than 3,000 feet and no other circuits are present on the 

rails. The AC-DC track circuit is a half-wave rectified 

AC circuit with all operating equipment located at 

the crossing. A rectifier is connected across the rails 

at the far end of the track circuit. As is the case with 

DC circuits, insulated joints define the limits. An 

advantage of this circuit is that all control equipment 

is located in a single housing at the crossing. Shunting 

is also improved due to the somewhat higher voltages 

used across the rails. 

Figure 44. AC-DC Track Circuit

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second 

Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Federal Highway Administration, 1986.

A simple explanation of the operation of the AC-DC 

(or Type C) track circuit is that the major portion 

of the transformer secondary current flows through 

the rectifier during one half-cycle and through the 

relay during the other half-cycle, providing a net DC 

component in the track relay. A shunt on the rails 

reduces the rail voltage, causing the track relay to 

release, thereby activating the system. As is the case 

with DC track circuits, three circuits are normally used 

to establish train direction. 

AFO track circuit. The AFO track circuit, as shown 

in Figure 45, is similar in application to the DC track 

circuit, except that it can be superimposed over other 
 127

circuits that may exist on the rails. Instead of the 

battery and relay used in the DC circuit, a transmitter 

and receiver of the same frequency are used for each 

AFO track circuit. No insulated joints are required with 

this type of circuit. 

The AFO track circuit uses an AC signal applied to the 

rails through a transmitter. This signal is transmitted 

via the rails to a receiver at the opposite end of the 

track circuit, which converts the AC signal to DC to 

operate a relay, which, in turn, performs the function 

of operating the warning devices via the control logic 

similar to the DC track circuit. Once again, three 

circuits are required to establish the direction in which 

the train is moving.

Motion-sensitive track circuit. This type of circuit 

employs audio frequencies similar to AFO equipment 

and is designed to detect the presence as well as the 

direction of motion of a train by continuously monitoring 

the track circuit impedance. As long as the track 

circuit is unoccupied or no train is moving within the 

approach, the impedance of the track circuit is relatively 

constant. Decreasing track circuit impedance indicates 

that a train is moving toward the crossing. If a train 

subsequently stops, the impedance will again remain 

at a constant value. If the train is moving away from a 

crossing, the impedance will increase. Thus, if the train 

stops on the approach or moves away from the crossing, 

the crossing warning system is deactivated and the 

crossing is cleared for highway traffic. 

This type of circuit is advantageous where trains 

stop or conduct switching operations within the 

normal approach limits of a particular crossing. All 

powered equipment is located at the crossing, with 

the additional advantage that insulated joints are not 

required when applied in a bi-directional manner, as 

shown in Figure 46. Adjacent crossing circuits can 

be overlaid and overlapped with other train detection 

circuits. Tuned electrical shunts are required to 

define the end limits of motion sensitive circuits, and 

coupling units are required to bridge any existing 

insulated joints used in conjunction with other types of 

track circuits, such as might be required for wayside 

signaling purposes.

Where longer approach zones are required or where 

ballast or track conditions dictate, a uni-directional 

application may be desirable. In this type of 

application, one device is required for each approach 

zone, with insulated rail joints used to separate the two 

approach zones, as shown in Figure 47.

Figure 47. Motion-Sensitive Track Circuit, 

Uni-Directional Application

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second 

Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Federal Highway Administration, 1986.

Constant warning time track circuit. Constant 

warning time 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 (213 meters) can 

Figure 45. Audio Frequency Overlay Track 

Circuit

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second 

Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Federal Highway Administration, 1986.

Figure 46. Motion-Sensitive Track Circuit, 

Bi-Directional Application

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second Edition. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal 

Highway Administration, 1986.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

128

move or switch on the approaches without reaching the 

crossing and, depending on their speed, never cause 

the crossing warning devices to be activated, thus 

eliminating unnecessary delays to highway traffic. 

The latest constant warning time devices, like motionsensitive devices, may be applied either in a unidirectional or bi-directional mode, as shown in Figures 

48 and 49, respectively. A uni-directional application 

requires two devices, one monitoring each approach 

zone, with the approach zones separated by insulated 

rail joints. A terminating shunt is placed at the 

outermost end of each approach zone. The location of 

the terminating shunt is determined by the fastest train 

using the crossing.

Figure 48. Constant Warning Time Track 

Circuit, Uni-Directional Application

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second 

Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Federal Highway Administration, 1986.

Figure 49. Constant Warning Time Track 

Circuit, Bi-Directional Application

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second 

Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Federal Highway Administration, 1986.

A uni-directional application is suggested in situations 

where there are closely following train moves or to break 

up frequency pollution. Uni-directional installations are 

suggested to avoid bypassing insulated joint locations 

when bypassing these joints is not desirable. 

A bi-directional application uses a single constant 

warning time device, which monitors both approach 

zones. Insulated rail joints are not required. Again, 

terminating shunts are placed at the outermost end 

of each approach zone. The bi-directional application 

is normally used where moderate train speeds are 

employed, thus requiring shorter approach zones, and 

where track and ballast conditions permit. 

Motion-sensing and constant warning time track 

circuits should be considered for crossings on railroad 

mainlines, particularly at crossings with variations 

in train speeds and with a number of switching 

movements on the approach sections. 

Warning time and system credibility.

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. 

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 generally 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. Remote monitoring devices are an 

important tool.

Joint study and evaluation are needed between the 

highway agency and the railroad to make a proper 

selection of the appropriate train detection system.

Train detection systems are designed to provide the 

minimum warning time for a crossing. In general, 
 129

MUTCD requires 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, the following factors should be considered:

• Track clearance distances due to multiple 

tracks and/or angled crossings (add 1 second 

for each 3 meters (10 feet) of added crossing 

length in excess of 10.7 meters (35 feet)).

• The crossing is located within close 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 tractortrailer 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.

• 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, per 49 CFR Part 234.

• The crossing is regularly used by pedestrians 

and non-motorized components. 

• Where the crossing and approaches are not 

level. 

• Where additional warning time is needed to 

accommodate a four-quadrant gate system.

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 train speed 

will change 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.

Design information about railroad interconnection 

circuits and approach length calculations can be found 

in the AREMA Communications and Signal 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 HighwayRail Grade Crossing Warning Systems.” 98

98 American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way 

Association. Communications and Signal Manual, Part 3.1.10 

(www.arema.org/pubs/pubs.htm).

17. Pre-Signals

A recent article in ITE Journal describes and 

summarizes the state of the practice regarding the use 

of pre-signals—highway signals installed to stop traffic 

before it crosses the railroad.99 The purpose of installing 

highway traffic signals in this manner at a crossing is to 

prevent vehicles from queuing across the grade crossing 

and finding themselves stopped on the tracks in the area 

now known as the minimum track clearance distance.

Differing names or descriptions were given to early 

pre-signal installations, such as double clearance 

signals, signals before the tracks, and overlap 

signals, among others. Previously, there were no 

broadly accepted guidelines for the use of these 

specialized signals. In June 1997, a U.S. DOT task force 

established industry-standard definitions relating to 

the interconnection of highway traffic signals with 

highway-rail grade crossing warning systems. In this 

report, pre-signals were defined as: “supplemental 

highway traffic signal faces [that are] operated as a 

part of the highway intersection traffic signals, [and 

are] located in a position that controls [highway] traffic 

approaching the railroad crossing and intersection.”100

The timing and display of these highway traffic signals 

are integrated with the railroad’s preemption program. 

FHWA’s “Guidance on Traffic Control Devices at 

Highway-Rail Grade Crossings” illustrates a typical 

installation of pre-signals at a gated crossing. The 

illustration depicts the elements common to the presignal installations normally encountered.101

MUTCD Section 8D.07 lays out a framework of standards, 

guidance, and options for the use of pre-signals:

If used, the pre-signals shall display a red 

signal indication during the track clearance 

portion of a signal preemption sequence to 

prohibit additional vehicles from crossing 

the railroad track... If a pre-signal is 

installed at an interconnected highwayrail grade crossing near a signalized 

intersection, a STOP HERE ON RED (R10-6) 

sign shall be installed near the pre-signal or 

at the stop line if used. If there is a nearby 

signalized intersection with insufficient 

99 Gilleran, Brian F. “Use of Pre-Signals in Advance of a HighwayRail Grade Crossing: A Specialized Tool with Specific Applications.” 

ITE Journal, Vol. 76, No. 5 (May 2006): 22–25.

100 Implementation Report of the U.S. DOT Grade Crossing 

Safety Task Force, Report to Secretary Rodney E. Slater. FHWASA-97-085, Grade Crossing Safety Task Force, 1997.

101 Guidance on Traffic Control Devices at Highway-Rail Grade 

Crossings. Washington, DC: FHWA, Highway/Rail Grade Crossing 

Technical Working Group, November 2002.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

130

clear storage distance for a design vehicle, 

or the highway-rail grade crossing does 

not have gates, a NO TURN ON RED (R10-11) 

sign shall be installed for the approach that 

crosses the railroad track.

The option is offered in MUTCD Section 8D.07 to time the 

pre-signals with an offset from the signalized intersection 

(by providing a “green extension” at the downstream 

intersection signal); this would keep vehicles from 

occupying either the roadway area between the gates or 

the area between the grade crossing and the downstream 

signalized intersection. This option should be explored 

during a field review by the diagnostic team prior to the 

design and installation of the pre-signals. 

Criteria for use. In 2004, ITE issued a recommended 

practice that provides the following guidance:102

Pre-signals can be located to stop vehicular 

traffic before the railroad crossing where 

the clear storage distance (measured 

between 6 ft. (2 m) from the rail nearest the 

intersection to the intersection stop line or 

the normal stopping point on the highway) 

is 50 ft. (15 m) or less. At approaches where 

high percentages of multi-unit vehicles are 

evident, the distance should be increased to 

75 ft. (23 m). A vehicle classification study 

should be conducted to determine the types 

of vehicles using the crossing. Where the 

clear storage distance is greater than 50 

ft. (15 m) or 75 ft. (23 m), depending on the 

roadway vehicle design length, but less than 

120 ft. (37 m), pre-signals can be used only 

after an engineering study determines that 

the queue extends into the track area.

If the clear storage distance is greater than 

120 ft. (37 m), any traffic signal heads 

located at a railroad crossing should be 

considered to be a separate mid-block 

crossing (a “queue-cutter” signal), and 

not a pre-signal. However, coordination 

with the intersection signals may still be 

appropriate. Pre-signals or queue-cutter 

signals should also be used wherever traffic 

could queue across the tracks and railroad 

warning devices consist only of flashing 

light signals. However, this can result in 

conflicting signal indications between the 

102 Preemption of Traffic Signals Near Railroad Crossings: 

An ITE Recommended Practice. Prepared by Traffic Engineering 

Council Committee TENC-99-06. Washington, DC: Institute of 

Transportation Engineers, July 2003.

flashing red lights at the crossing and a 

display of track clearance green beyond 

the crossing. The installation of gates will 

eliminate this conflict.

Pre-signal location. Pre-signal mast arm poles can 

be located upstream or downstream from the railroad 

crossing. In all cases, pre-signal poles must 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 must 

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 

8D 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.103 Figure 50 shows a pre-signal 

mounted on the railroad cantilever.

MUTCD Section 4D.15 (“Size, Number, and Location of 

Signal Faces by Approach”) establishes the standards 

for traffic signal faces that shall be satisfied by any 

installation of pre-signals. Specifically, Section 4D.15 

states as a standard that signal faces for the major 

movement on the approach shall be located not less 

than 12 meters (40 feet) beyond the stop line. MUTCD 

Table 4D-1 contains the required minimum sight 

distance for a range of 85th-percentage approach 

speeds. If these minimums cannot be met on an 

approach, a sign shall be installed to warn approaching 

traffic of the traffic control signal. In Figure 51, the presignal stop bar has been displaced ahead of the grade 

crossing to comply with this provision where the presignal is mounted ahead of the grade crossing.

Downstream signal. 

The downstream traffic signal faces at 

the roadway intersection that control the 

same approach as the pre-signal may be 

equipped with programmable-visibility 

heads or louvers as appropriate based on 

an engineering study. 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 vehicles stopped at 

the railroad crossing stop line from seeing 

the distant green signal indication during 

the clear track green. An engineering study 

103 Ibid.
 131

Figure 50. Pre-Signal Mounted on Railroad Cantilever, Rollins Road and 

State Route 83 at Wisconsin Central, Round Lake, Illinois

Source: Korve Engineering, Inc.

Figure 51. Pre-Signal Located Ahead of Grade Crossing with Displaced 

Stop Bar, S. Mary and W. Evelyn at Caltrain Commuter Line, Sunnyvale, 

California

Source: Korve Engineering, Inc. 
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

132

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.

104

Figure 52 shows a pre-signal with a louvered 

downstream intersection signal. The pre-signal has 

been installed beyond the grade crossing to address 

the previously mentioned MUTCD 40-foot set-back 

requirement for traffic signal heads.

Pre-signal and downstream signal operation. 

The pre-signal intervals should be 

progressively timed with the downstream 

signal intervals to provide adequate time 

to clear vehicles from the track area and the 

downstream intersection. Vehicles that are 

required to make a mandatory stop such as 

104 Ibid.

school buses, vehicles hauling hazardous 

materials, etc., should be considered when 

determining the progressive timing to 

ensure that they will not be stopped within 

the minimum track clearance distance. 

Where the clear storage distance is 

inadequate to store a design vehicle clear of 

the minimum track clearance distance and 

crossing gates are present, consideration 

should be given to installation of vehicle 

detection within the clear storage distance 

to prevent vehicles from being trapped 

within the minimum track clearance 

distance by extending the clear track green 

interval.

105

Queue cutters. It is valuable to remember that 

although a queue cutter signal may in many ways 

resemble a pre-signal, it differs in certain ways. A 

signal should be used as a queue cutter when the 

105 Ibid.

Figure 52. Pre-Signal with Louvered Downstream Intersection Signal,

Sierra and Orange at Metrolink Commuter Line, Fontana, California

Source: Korve Engineering, Inc.
 133

clear storage distance exceeds 120 feet and the 

traffic signal uses downstream vehicle detection to 

change the signals to red when the standing queue 

from the downstream signal is about to extend into 

the minimum track clearance distance. Such a queue 

cutter signal will be interconnected for simultaneous 

preemption and may or may not function as a part of 

the downstream intersection signal system. A field 

analysis and review should be conducted, sufficient to 

determine whether to pursue coordination of the queue 

cutter with the downstream intersection signals. Figure 

53 indicates a stand-alone queue cutter (no other 

intersection signals are present).

Advance heads. Advance heads are traffic signal 

heads that provide the same display indication 

upstream from the grade crossing as the primary traffic 

signal heads mounted at the downstream intersection 

(see Figure 54). A vehicle that encounters a yellow 

indication at the advance head may not be able to clear 

the downstream intersection and, therefore, may stop 

in the clear storage area between the intersection and 

the grade crossing. For this reason, advance heads 

are best used when there is little or no clear storage 

distance beyond the grade crossing. However, vehicles 

arriving after the onset of the red phase will be held 

upstream from the grade crossing. Therefore, use of 

an advance head can reduce the likelihood of queuing 

on the tracks during the red phase. Advance heads can 

also address issues in which the intersection heads 

are not readily visible to drivers approaching the grade 

crossing due to roadway geometrics.

Overcoming resistance to pre-signals. Some 

traffic engineers may be reluctant to use pre-signals 

because they believe that vehicles stopped upstream 

from the crossing at the pre-signal will be prevented 

from being able to advance to the highway intersection 

and turn right on red. The temporary loss of flow 

due to right turn on red being precluded during the 

presence of a train is outweighed by the reduction in 

the potential for a severe collision between a stopped 

vehicle and a train. Unfortunately, the opportunity 

for this type of collision is frequent when viewed on a 

national basis. In addition, the capacity lost from right 

turns on red often can be recaptured by more precise 

timing of the traffic signal preemption sequence based 

upon site conditions, especially when the railroad 

crossing is frequently used by train traffic.

Figure 53. Queue Cutter, Magnolia Street at Union Pacific Railroad, Riverside, 

California

Source: Korve Engineering, Inc.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

134

Avoiding common pitfalls of pre-signals. As 

stated in an ITE Journal article, pre-signals are a 

specialized tool with specific applications.106 Traffic 

engineers should bear in mind several important 

principles when considering the use of a pre-signal 

system at a highway-rail grade crossing:

• A pre-signal is not a substitute for a proper 

track clearance green interval.

• Employing pre-signals requires that engineers 

consider the use of “No Turn on Red” signage 

at the pre-signal to deter drivers wishing 

to turn right on red at the downstream 

intersection from passing the pre-signals and 

crossing the tracks.

• A pre-signal face located less than 40 feet from 

the stop line will not be effective for motorists 

at the stop line. In the case of a shorter 

separation distance between pre-signal and 

stop line, motorists may be tempted to pull out 

onto the track when the track clearance green 

interval is displayed.

• A pre-signal is not an alternative to the use 

of advance preemption. Advance preemption 

106 Gilleran, Brian F. “Use of Pre-Signals in Advance of a HighwayRail Grade Crossing: A Specialized Tool with Specific Applications.” 

ITE Journal, Vol. 76, No. 5 (May 2006): 22–25.

is necessary where the right-of-way transfer 

time, queue clearance time, and separation 

time exceed the railroad warning time, and the 

clear storage distance exceeds approximately 

80 feet (adequate storage distance for a 65-

foot tractor-trailer combination). Advance 

preemption also may be required where this 

distance is less than 80 feet to prevent vehiclegate interaction (striking the vehicle with the 

descending gate arm) or to prevent turning 

vehicles approaching the crossing from the 

intersection side from blocking the exit path 

of vehicles attempting to vacate the crossing 

during track clearance green.

• If a pre-signal is expected to keep vehicles 

off the tracks and function as a part of the 

preemption sequence, it must be provided with 

battery back-up equivalent to that provided for 

the railroad warning devices.

18. Queue Prevention Strategies

In the event that queuing extends across multiple 

intersections, use of preemption, pre-signals, and/or 

queue cutters may be ineffective, and a broader treatment 

may be required. The following guidance was adapted 

Figure 54. Advance Head, Broadway and Arguello at Caltrain Commuter 

Line, Redwood City, California

Source: Korve Engineering, Inc.
 135

from material presented in the context of managing crossstreet queuing at LRT grade crossings.107

At highway-rail grade crossings located near signalized 

intersections, where traffic congestion precludes 

using standard traffic signal preemption, traffic 

control strategies may be used to prevent queues 

from extending back over the tracks (see Figure 55). 

Standard traffic signal preemption operates under 

the assumption that motor vehicles queue back from 

the nearby signalized intersection (signal D in Figure 

55). The preemption sequence (occurring at the traffic 

signals downstream of the grade 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 

grade 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 

107 Korve, Hans W., Brent D. Ogden, Joaquin T. Siques, D. Mansel, 

et al. Light Rail Service: Pedestrian and Vehicular Safety.

Washington, DC: Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 69, 

National Academy Press, 2001, p. 85–86.

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.

The basic concept of queue prevention is as follows: If a 

queue is detected across a highway-rail grade crossing, 

traffic approaching the crossing will be stopped by a 

signal upstream of the grade crossing (signals B or C 

in Figure 55) 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 

signal system could:

• 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 LRT 

crossing (such as pre-signals, as previously 

described).

• Warn highway 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 

Figure 55. Queue Prevention Strategies

Source: Korve Engineering, Inc. 
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

136

traffic at location C (these signs would activate 

when queues are detected at location A). 

• Provide exclusion zone diagonal striping as 

described elsewhere in this handbook. (The 

use of diagonal striping to provide an area 

where motorists cannot stop is standard 

practice in Illinois at all grade crossings that 

are interconnected to an adjacent traffic signal. 

The NCUTCD grade crossing committee is 

considering provisions for future versions of 

the manual).

In the event that such a queue management strategy 

were provided, the grade crossing would in principle be 

clear of highway users at all times, whether or not 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. 

J. Pedestrian and Bicycle 

Considerations 

Non-motorist crossing safety should be considered at 

all highway-rail grade crossings, particularly at or near 

commuter stations and at non-motorist facilities, such 

as bicycle/walking trails, pedestrian-only facilities, and 

pedestrian malls.

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; pavement markings and 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 highwayrail grade crossing geometry with complex right-of-way 

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.

Guidelines for the use of active and passive devices 

for non-motorist signals and crossings are found in 

MUTCD Section 10D, Part 10.108

108 Guidance on Traffic Control Devices at Highway-Rail Grade 

Crossings. Washington, DC: FHWA, Highway/Rail Grade Crossing 

Technical Working Group, November 2002.

K. Roundabouts 

In the event that a grade crossing is included in 

a roundabout, design considerations include the 

provision of traffic control (such as crossing gates 

and flashing lights) at the grade crossing consistent 

with treatments at other highway-rail grade crossings. 

In addition, where queuing could occur (such as 

gridlocking within the roundabout), additional 

measures may be necessary up to and including the 

installation of supplementary devices such as traffic 

signals to preclude blockages of the track that cannot 

be cleared in advance of the arrival of a train. 

At the June 2006 meeting of NCUTCD, the council 

approved provisions that would require an engineering 

study of the potential for traffic to back up across 

a grade crossing due to a roundabout and the 

identification of appropriate countermeasures, 

including possible use of traffic signals.

L. Site and Operational 

Improvements 

In addition to the installation of traffic control systems, 

site and operational improvements can contribute 

greatly to the safety of highway-rail grade crossings. 

Site improvements are discussed in four categories: 

removing obstructions, crossing geometry, illumination, 

and safety barriers. 

1. Removing Obstructions

The following text identifies treatments to address 

various sight distance needs, previously discussed in 

Chapter III as part of the diagnostic study method.

Approach. To permit this, three areas of the crossing 

environment should be kept free from obstructions. 

The area on the approach from the driver ahead 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. 

Clutter is often a problem in this area, consisting of 

numerous and various traffic control devices, roadside 

commercial signing, utility and lighting poles, and 

vegetation. Horizontal and vertical alignment can 

also serve to obstruct motorists’ view of the crossing. 

Clutter can often be removed with minimal expense, 

improving the visibility of the crossing and associated 
 137

traffic control devices. Traffic control devices 

unnecessary for the safe movement of vehicles through 

the crossing area should be removed. Vegetation should 

be removed or cut back periodically. Billboards should 

be prohibited on the approaches. 

Corner. 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 

lesser sight distances exist, motorists should reduce 

speed and be prepared to stop not less than 4.5 

meters (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, cannot be corrected 

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, STOP or 

YIELD signs, or reduced speed limits (advisory or 

regulatory) should be evaluated. If it is desirable from 

traffic mobility criteria to allow vehicles to travel at 

the legal speed limit on the highway approach, active 

control devices should be considered.109

Changes to horizontal and vertical alignment are 

usually more expensive. However, when constructing 

new highways or reconstructing existing highways, 

care should be taken to minimize the effects of 

horizontal and vertical curves at a crossing. 

The approach sight triangle is the second area that 

should be kept free from obstructions. This area 

provides an approaching motorist with a view of an 

approaching train. It can encompass a large area that 

is usually privately owned. In rural areas, this sight 

triangle may contain crops or farm equipment that 

block the motorist’s view. For this reason, clearing the 

sight triangle may be difficult to achieve. However, 

obstructions should be removed, if possible, to allow 

vehicles to travel at the legal speed limit for the 

approach highway. Vegetation can be removed or cut 

back periodically, billboards and parking should be 

prohibited, and small hills may be regraded.

109 Ibid.

Clearing sight distance. The third area of concern 

is the clearing sight distance, which pertains to the 

visibility available to a highway user along the track 

when stopped ahead of the grade crossing. Usually, this 

area is located on railroad right of way. Vegetation is 

often desired along railroad right of way to serve as an 

environmental barrier to noise generated from train 

movements. However, the safety concern at crossings is 

of more importance and, if possible, vegetation should 

be removed or cut back periodically. Also, if practical, 

this sight distance area should be kept free of parked 

vehicles and standing railroad cars. Care should be 

taken to avoid the accumulation of snow in this area. 

Vehicle acceleration data have been interpreted from 

the Traffic Engineering Handbook. 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 41. Note that 

the table values are for a level, 90-degree crossing of a 

single track. If other circumstances are encountered, 

the values must be recomputed.

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. (Refer to the guidance developed by the U.S. 

DOT Technical Working Group presented in Chapter V.)

An engineering study, as described in Chapter III, 

should be conducted to determine if the three types of 

sight distance can be provided as desired. If not, other 

alternatives should be considered. The highway speed 

might be reduced, through the installation of either 

an advisory or regulatory speed sign, 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. 

2. Crossing Geometry 

The ideal crossing geometry is a 90-degree intersection 

of track and highway with slight-ascending 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 right of way 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. 
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

138

Horizontal alignment. Desirably, the highway should 

intersect the tracks at a right angle 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 extent practical, 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 a 

stopped position at the crossing and on the approach to the 

crossing. Crossings located on both highway and railroad 

curves present maintenance problems and poor rideability 

for highway traffic due to conflicting superelevations. 

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. One state limits the 

minimum skew to 70 degrees. At skewed crossings, 

motorists must look over their shoulder to view the 

tracks. Because of this more awkward movement, 

some motorists may only glance quickly and not take 

necessary precaution. 

Generally, improvements to horizontal alignment are 

expensive. 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. 

Vertical alignment. It is desirable that the 

intersection of highway and railroad be made as level 

as possible from the standpoint of sight distance, 

rideability, and braking and acceleration distances. 

Drainage would be improved if the crossing were 

located at the peak of a long vertical curve on the 

highway. Vertical curves should be of sufficient length 

to ensure an adequate view of the crossing and 

consistent with the highway design or operating speed.

Track maintenance can result in raising the track as 

new ballast is added to the track structure. Unless the 

highway profile is properly adjusted, this practice will 

result in a “humped” profile that may adversely affect 

the safety and operation of highway traffic over the 

railroad. 

Two constraints often apply to the maintenance of 

grade crossing profiles: drainage requirements and 

resource limitations. Coordination of maintenance 

activities between rail and highway authorities, 

especially at the city and county level, is frequently 

informal and unstructured. Even when the need to 

coordinate has been identified, there may be a lack of 

knowledge regarding whom to contact.

Table 41. Clearing Sight Distance (in feet)*

Train 

speed Car

Single-unit 

truck Bus

WB-50 

semitruck

65-foot 

double 

truck Pedestrian**

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 single track, 90-degree, level crossing.

** Walking 1.1 meters per second (3.5 feet per second) across two sets of tracks 15 feet apart, with a 2-second reaction 

time to reach a decision point 3 meters (10 feet) before the center of the first track, and clearing 3 meters (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.
 139

In some cases, highway authorities become aware of 

increases in track elevation (a by-product of track 

maintenance) only after the fact. 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 create a high-profile crossing. 

Low-clearance vehicles, such as those low to the 

ground relative to the distance between axles, 

pose the greatest risk of becoming immobilized at 

highway-rail grade crossings due to contact with 

the track or highway surface. With the exception of 

specialized vehicles such as tank trucks, there is little 

standardization within the vehicle manufacturing 

industry regarding minimum ground clearance. 

Instead, manufacturers are guided by the requirements 

of shippers and operators.110

A similar problem may arise where the crossing is in 

a sag vertical curve. In this instance, the front or rear 

overhangs on certain vehicles may strike or drag the 

pavement.111

Alternatives to this problem include a design standard 

that deals with maximum grades at the crossing; 

prohibiting truck trailers with a certain combination of 

underclearance 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; or reconstructing the 

crossing approaches.112

The AREMA Manual for Railway Engineering

recommends that the crossing surface be in the 

same plane as the top of rails for a distance of 600 

millimeters (2 feet) outside of the rails, and that the 

surface of the highway be not more than 75 millimeters 

(3 inches) higher or lower than the top of the nearest 

rail at a point 7.5 meters (30 feet) from the rail, 

unless track superelevation dictates otherwise. This 

standard has been adopted by AASHTO in A Policy 

on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (see 

Figure 56).113

110 “Accidents That Shouldn’t Happen.” A Report by the U.S. 

Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) Task Force on HighwayRail Crossing Safety to Transportation Secretary Federico Pena, 

March 1, 1996.

111 Eck, Ronald W. and S.K. Kang. “Low Clearance Vehicles at Grade 

Crossings.” West Virginia University, 1992.

112 “Accidents That Shouldn’t Happen.” A Report by the U.S. DOT 

Task Force on Highway-Rail Crossing Safety to Transportation 

Secretary Federico Pena, March 1, 1996.

113 A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 2004 

Edition. Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway 

Eck and Kang surveyed a large number of lowclearance vehicles on an interstate route in West 

Virginia and also obtained vehicle length and ground 

clearance data from Oregon and other sites. Based 

on field and engineering data, they proposed a lowclearance vehicle for design purposes that would have 

an 11-meter (36-foot) wheelbase and a 125-millimeter 

(5-inch) ground clearance.114

Eck and Kang also identified and summarized a 

number of state and railroad crossing profile standards 

in addition to the AREMA and AASHTO criteria 

described above. Among them were:

• The Illinois Commerce Commission specifies 

that from the outer rail of the outermost track, 

the road surface should be level for about 

600 millimeters (24 inches). From there, for a 

distance of 7.6 meters (25 feet), a maximum 

grade of 1 percent is specified. From there 

to the railroad right-of-way line, a maximum 

grade of 5 percent is specified.

• The Division of Highways in West Virginia 

recommends 3 meters (10 feet) of run-off length 

for every 25 millimeters (1 inch) of track raise.

• A standard developed by the Southern Pacific 

Railroad prior to its merger with Union Pacific 

recommends that for a distance of 6 meters (20 

feet) from a point 2 feet from the near rail, the 

maximum descent should be 150 millimeters 

(6 inches). From that point, for a distance of 

another 6 meters, the maximum descent should 

be 600 millimeters (2 feet).

• Tennessee state law requires that the road be 

graded level with the rails for a distance of 3 

meters (10 feet) on either side of the track and 

between the rails thereof. 

• A number of European countries have 

developed geometric design guidelines for 

highway-rail grade crossings. Great Britain 

provides a circular curve roadway profile. 

There are three categories of radii depending 

on traffic volume and traffic “moment” (the 

product of vehicular and rail traffic). 

Eck and Kang developed a software package for the 

analysis of crossing profiles. HANGUP was developed 

to simulate the movement of low-clearance vehicles 

on grade crossings. It is useful as an analysis tool for 

evaluating crossings where low-clearance vehicles or 

overhang dragging may be a problem.115 At the time of 

this writing, the program package was being updated.

and Transportation Officials, 2004.

114 Eck, Ronald W. and Kang, S. K. “Low Clearance Vehicles at 

Grade Crossings.” West Virginia University, 1992.

115 Ibid.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

140

Right of way and roadside (clear zone). The 

railroad and roadway rights of way at highway-rail 

grade crossings were usually purchased at the time 

the transportation facilities were built. Right-of-way 

restrictions frequently constrain the type and location 

of improvements that can be constructed. Within these 

rights of way, the area adjacent to the crossing should 

be kept as level and free from obstructions as possible, 

subject to the space required for traffic control devices.

Although every reasonable effort must be made to 

keep a vehicle on the roadway, railroad and highway 

engineers must acknowledge the fact that this goal 

will never be fully realized. Once a vehicle leaves 

the roadway, the probability of a collision occurring 

depends primarily on the speed and trajectory of the 

vehicle and what lies in its path. If a collision does 

occur, its severity is dependent upon several factors, 

including the use of restraint systems by vehicle 

occupants, the type of vehicle, and the nature of the 

roadside environment. Of these factors, the engineer 

generally has control over only one: the roadside 

environment.

Ideally, the roadside recovery area, or “clear zone,” 

should be free from obstacles such as unyielding sign 

and luminaire supports, non-traversable drainage 

structures, trees larger than 100 millimeters (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.

Highway and railroad officials must cooperatively 

decide on the type of traffic control devices needed 

at a particular crossing. As a minimum, crossbucks 

are required and should be installed on an acceptable 

support. Other traffic control device supports, such 

as for flashers or gates, can cause an increase in the 

severity of injuries to vehicle occupants if struck at 

high speeds. In these cases, consideration should be 

given to shielding the support with a crash cushion if 

the support is located in the clear zone. Longitudinal 

barriers are not often used because there is seldom 

room for a proper downstream end treatment, a longer 

hazard is created by installing a guardrail, and a 

vehicle striking a longitudinal barrier when a train 

is occupying the crossing may be redirected into the 

train.116 A longitudinal guardrail should not be used at 

a crossing unless it is otherwise warranted, such as by 

a steep embankment. 

A curb over 100 millimeters (4 inches) tall is not an 

acceptable treatment where speeds are high because 

it will cause vehicles to vault. Any curb (including 

one less than 4 inches tall) can cause vehicles to 

go 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 purpose of a traffic barrier such as a guardrail is to 

protect the errant motorist by containing or redirecting 

116 Roadside Design Guide, Washington, DC: AASHTO, 2002.

Figure 56. Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Cross Section

Source: From A Policy on Geometric Design of Highway and Streets, 2004, by the American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials, Washington, DC. Used by permission. 
 141

the vehicle. The purpose is not to protect traffic control 

devices against collision or possible damage. The ring 

type guardrail placed around a signal mast may create 

the same type of hazard as the mast itself; that is, the 

guardrail may be a roadside obstacle. These guardrails 

do, however, serve to protect the signal mast. Because 

functioning devices are vital to safety, the ring type 

guardrail may be used at locations with heavy traffic, 

such as an industrial area, and low traffic speeds.

More information can be obtained from the Roadside 

Design Guide, published by AASHTO.

3. Illumination

Illumination at a crossing may be effective in reducing 

nighttime collisions. Illuminating most crossings is 

technically feasible because more than 90 percent 

of 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.

• Long dark trains, such as unit coal trains.

• 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 provide a low-cost alternative to active 

traffic control devices on industrial or mine tracks 

where switching operations are carried out at night.

Luminaire supports should be placed in accordance 

with the principles in the Roadside Design Guide and 

NCHRP Report 350.117 If they are placed in the clear 

zone on a high-speed road, they should be breakaway.

4. Shielding Supports for Traffic Control 

Devices

The purpose of a traffic barrier, such as a guardrail or 

crash cushion, is to protect the motorist by redirecting 

117 Ibid.

or containing an errant vehicle. The purpose is not to 

protect a traffic control device against collision and 

possible 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, possibly, redirecting the vehicle 

into a train. 

A longitudinal guardrail should not be used for traffic 

control devices at crossings unless the guardrail is 

otherwise warranted, as for a steep embankment. The 

longitudinal guardrail might redirect a vehicle into a 

train. 

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. 

The ring type guardrail placed around a signal mast 

may create the same type of hazard as the signal mast 

itself (the guardrail may be a roadside obstacle). It 

does, however, serve to protect the signal mast. Because 

functioning devices are vital to safety, the ring type 

guardrail may be used at locations with heavy industrial 

traffic, such as trucks, and low highway speeds. 

When a barrier is used, it should be installed according 

to the requirements in the Guide for Selecting, 

Locating and Designing Traffic Barriers. 

M. Crossing Surfaces 

In negotiating a crossing, the degree of attention 

the driver can be expected to devote to the crossing 

surface is related to the condition of that surface. If 

the surface is uneven, the driver’s attention may be 

devoted primarily to choosing the smoothest path 

over the crossing rather than determining if a train is 

approaching the crossing. This type of behavior may be 

conditioned; that is, if a driver is consistently exposed 

to uneven crossing surfaces, he or she may assume 

that all crossing surfaces are uneven whether or not 

they actually are. Conversely, if a driver encounters 

an uneven surface unexpectedly, he or she may 

lose control of the vehicle, resulting in a collision. 

Therefore, providing reasonably smooth crossing 

surfaces is viewed as one of several elements toward 

improving crossing safety and operations. 

The AREMA Manual of Railway Engineering, 

Part 8, provides guidelines for the construction 

and reconstruction of highway-rail crossings. 

The first section of Part 8 provides information 
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

142

on crossing surface materials; crossing width; 

profile and alignment of crossings and approaches; 

drainage; ballast; ties; rail; flange widths; and new 

or reconstructed track through a crossing. Other 

sections in this chapter cover traffic control devices 

for highway-railway grade crossings; protecting 

highway-railway grade crossings and flangeways; 

types of barrier for dead-end streets; specifications 

for permanent number of boards for the U.S. DOT–

American Association of Railroads highway-railway 

crossings inventory system; location of highways 

parallel with railways; and problems related to location 

and construction of limited-access highways in the 

vicinity of or crossing railways.

Originally, crossing surfaces were made by filling the 

area between the rails with sand and gravel, probably 

from the railroad ballast. Later, crossing surfaces were 

made of planks or heavier timbers or of bituminous 

material, sometimes using planks to provide the 

flangeway openings. Treated timber panels and 

prefabricated metal sections followed and, in 1954, the 

first proprietary rubber panel crossing surface was 

put on the market. Presently available proprietary 

surfaces, usually patented, are fabricated from 

concrete, rubber, steel, synthetics, wood, and various 

combinations of these materials. 

Crossing surfaces available today can be divided into 

two general categories: monolithic and sectional. 

Monolithic crossings are formed at the crossing and 

cannot be removed without destroying them. Typical 

monolithic crossings are asphalt, poured-in-place 

concrete, and cast-in-place rubber (elastomeric) 

compounds. Sectional crossings are manufactured 

in sections (panels), are placed at the crossing, and 

can be removed and re-installed. These crossing 

surfaces facilitate the maintenance of track through 

the crossing. Typical sectional crossings consist of 

treated timbers, reinforced concrete, steel, high-density 

polyethylene, and rubber. 

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. 

N. Removal of Grade Separation 

Structures

There are approximately 34,000 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 damaged, or are no longer 

needed because of changes in highway or railroad 

alignment or use, alternative engineering decisions 

must be made. The alternatives to be considered are 

upgrading the existing structure to new construction 

standards; replacing the existing structure; removing 

the structure, leaving an at-grade crossing; and closing 

the crossing and removing the structure.

In general, crossing programs are based upon criteria 

established for the installation of traffic control 

devices or the elimination of a crossing. However, 

rehabilitation of structures is a significant part of the 

crossing improvement program at both the state and 

the national level. Currently, there are no nationally 

recognized guidelines for evaluating the alternatives 

available for the improvement or replacement of gradeseparation structures. 

Some states have developed evaluation methods for 

the selection of projects to remove grade-separation 

structures. Following is a summary of the state of 

Pennsylvania guidance.

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. 
 143

• Bridges whose piers and/or abutments are in 

close proximity to 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 those instances where a railroad continues 

to operate, other decisions must be made. Some 

considerations for removing a grade separation over 

or under a rail line that is still being operated are as 

follows:

• Can the structure be removed and replaced 

with an at-grade crossing? 

• Who is liable if an accident occurs at the new 

at-grade 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? 

• If the structure is replaced with an at-grade 

crossing, what delays to motorists and 

emergency service will result? Are alternate 

routes available? 

• What impact will an at-grade crossing have on 

railroad operations? 

• What will be the impact on safety of an atgrade 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 V.

O. References 

American National Standard Practices for 

Roadway Lighting. New York, New York: 

Illuminating Engineering Society of America, July 

1977. 

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 23, Washington, 

DC: General Services Administration, published 

annually. 

Collision of Amtrak Train No. 88 with Tractor 

Lowboy Semitrailer Combination Truck, 

Rowland, N.C., August 25, 1983. Washington, DC: 

National Transportation Safety Board, Report No. 

NTSB/RHR-84/01, 1984. 

The Effectiveness of Automatic Protection in 

Reducing Accident Frequency and Severity 

at Public Grade Crossings in California. San 

Francisco, California: California Public Utilities 

Commission, June 1974. 

Federal-Aid Policy Guide Program Manual. 

Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA), updated periodically. 

Federal Highway Administration Survey of Region 

and Division Offices, unpublished, 1984. 

Data from the U.S. DOT National RailHighway Crossing Inventory, Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), 1984. 

Field and Office Manual for Profile Surveys of 

Highway-Rail At-Grade Crossings on Existing 

Paved Roadways. Tallahassee, Florida: Florida 

Department of Transportation, September 1984. 

Fitzpatrick, Gary M. Standardization of Criteria 

for Rail/Highway Grade Crossing Construction.

Tallahassee, Florida: Florida Department of 

Transportation, Office of Value Engineering, 

August 1982. 

Guide for Selecting, Locating, and Designing 

Traffic Barriers. Washington, DC: American 

Association of State Highways and Transportation 

Officials, 1977. 

Heathington, K.W. and T. Urbanik. “Driver 

Information Systems for Highway-Railway Grade 

Crossings.” Highway Research Record, No. 414. 

Washington, DC: Highway Research Board, 1972. 

Hedley, William J. Proceedings, American Railway 

Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association, 

Vol. 53, Chicago, Illinois, 1952. 

Hedley, William J. Railroad-Highway Grade 

Crossing Surfaces. Washington, DC: FHWA, 

August 1979. 

Illinois Commerce Commission General Order 

No. 138, Revised. Springfield, Illinois: Illinois 

Commerce Commission, 1973. 
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

144

Knoblauch, Karl, Wayne Hucke, and William Berg. 

Rail Highway Crossing Accident Causation 

Study. Volume II, Technical Report. Washington, 

DC: FHWA, Report FHWA/RD-81/083, August 1982. 

Manual for Railway Engineering. Washington, 

DC: American Railway Engineering and 

Maintenance-of-Way Association, 1981. 

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 

2003 Edition. Washington, DC: FHWA, 2003. 

Mather, Richard A. Public Railroad-Highway 

Grade Crossing Illumination Project in Oregon.

Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, 

January 1983. 

Monroe, Richard L., Debra K. Munsell, and T. 

James Rudd. Constant Warning Time Concept 

Development for Motorist Warning at Grade 

Crossings. Washington, DC: FRA, Report FRA/

ORD-81/07, May 1981. 

Morrissey, J. The Effectiveness of Flashing Lights 

and Flashing Lights with Gates in Reducing 

Accident Frequency at Public Rail-Highway 

Crossings, 1975-1978. Washington, DC: FRA and 

FHWA, April 1980. 

A Policy on Geometric Design of Highway and 

Streets. Washington, DC: American Association of 

State Highway and Transportation Officials, 1984. 

Proceedings, National Conference on RailroadHighway Crossing Safety, Colorado Springs, 

Colorado, U.S. Air Force Academy Interim 

Education Center, August 1974. 

Proceedings, National Conference on RailroadHighway Crossing Safety, Salt Lake City, Utah, 

University of Utah, August 1977. 

Proceedings, National Rail-Highway Crossing 

Safety Conference, Knoxville, Tennessee, The 

University of Tennessee, June 1980.

Rail-Highway Grade Crossing Warning 

Systems and Surfaces. Alexandria, Virginia: The 

Railway Progress Institute, 1983. 

Roadway Lighting Handbook. Washington, DC: 

FHWA, Implementation Package 7815, December 

1978. 

Ruden, Robert J., Albert Burg, and John P. 

McGuire. Activated Advance Warning for 

Railroad Grade Crossings. Washington, DC: 

FHWA, Report FHWAI RD-80/003, July 1982. 

Standard Alphabet for Highway Signs and 

Markings. Washington, DC: FHWA.

Traffic Control Devices Handbook. Washington, 

DC: FHWA, 1983. 

Uniform Vehicle Code and Model Traffic 

Ordinance. National Committee of Uniform Traffic 

Laws and Ordinances, Charlottesville, Virginia: 

The Michie Company, 1961 and Supplement, 1979. 

“Use of Traffic Divisional Islands at Railroad 

Grade Crossings.” Technical Notes 84-1. Albany, 

New York: New York Department of Transportation, 

March 1984. 

West Virginia’s Highway-Railroad Manual. 

Charleston, West Virginia: West Virginia 

Department of Highways, Railroad Section, Right 

of Way Division, preliminary, 1984.
 145

This chapter discusses methods for selecting alternatives 

and the economic analysis techniques that may be 

utilized. 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. Benefit-cost analysis requirements are 

contained in 23 CFR 924. In addition, the Rail-Highway 

Crossing Resource Allocation Procedure is presented and 

other low-cost solutions are discussed. 

A. Technical Working Group 

Guidance on Traffic Control 

Devices—Selection Criteria 

and Procedure 

The Technical Working Group (TWG) established by 

the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) 

is led by representatives from the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), Federal Railroad Administration 

(FRA), Federal Transit Administration, and National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration. This cooperation 

among the various representatives of TWG represents 

a landmark effort to enhance communication among 

highway agencies, railroad companies and authorities, 

and governmental agencies involved in developing and 

implementing policies, rules, and regulations. 

The TWG document is intended to provide guidance to 

assist engineers in the selection of traffic control devices 

or other measures at highway-rail grade crossings.118

It is not to be interpreted as policy or standards and 

is not mandatory. Any requirements that may be 

118 Guidance on Traffic Control Devices at Highway-Rail 

Grade Crossings. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA), Highway/Rail Grade Crossing Technical Working Group, 

November 2002.

noted in the report are taken from the Manual on 

Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) or another 

document identified by footnotes. A number of measures 

are included that may not have been supported by 

quantitative research but are being used by states and 

local agencies. These are included to inform practitioners 

of the array of tools being used or explored.

The introductory materials developed by the U.S. 

DOT TWG present an excellent perspective on the 

functioning of a highway-rail grade crossing. TWG 

notes that a highway-rail grade crossing differs from 

a highway-highway intersection in that the train 

always has the right of way. From this perspective, 

TWG indicates that the process for deciding what 

type of highway traffic control device is to be installed 

or even allowing that a highway-rail grade crossing 

should exist is essentially a two-step process, requiring 

consideration of what information the vehicle driver 

needs to be able to cross safely and whether the 

resulting driver response to a traffic control device 

is “compatible” with the intended system operating 

characteristics of the highway and railroad facility.

The TWG guidance outlines the technical 

considerations for satisfying motorist needs, including 

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. This handbook describes tools 

and analytical methodologies as well as treatments 

and criteria from a variety of sources for selecting 

treatments; the TWG document and its introduction 

should be consulted by persons involved with studies of 

grade crossing safety issues and improvements.

These treatments are provided for consideration at every 

public highway-rail grade crossing. Specific MUTCD 

signs and treatments are included for easy reference.

Selection of Alternatives V
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

146

Technical Working Group Guidance

1. Minimum Devices 

All highway-rail grade crossings of railroads and public streets or highways should be equipped with 

approved passive devices. For street-running railroads/transit systems, refer to MUTCD Parts 8 and 10.

2. Minimum Widths

All highway-rail grade crossing surfaces should be a minimum of 1 foot beyond the edge of the roadway 

shoulder, measured perpendicular to the roadway centerline, and should provide for any existing pedestrian 

facilities.

3. Passive—Minimum Traffic Control Applications

a. A circular railroad advance warning (W10-1) sign shall be used on each roadway in advance of every 

highway-rail grade crossing except as described in MUTCD.

b. An emergency phone number should be posted at the crossing, including the U.S. DOT highway-rail 

grade crossing identification number, highway or street name or number, railroad milepost, and 

other pertinent information.

c. Where the roadway approaches to the crossing are paved, pavement markings are to be installed as 

described in MUTCD, subject to engineering evaluation.

d. Where applicable, the “Tracks Out Of Service” sign should be placed to notify drivers that track use 

has been discontinued.

e. One reflectorized crossbuck sign shall be used on each roadway approach to a highway-rail grade 

crossing.

i. If there are two or more tracks, the number of tracks shall be indicated on a supplemental sign 

(R15-2) of inverted T shape mounted below the crossbuck.

ii. Strips of retroreflective white material not less than 2 inches in width shall be used on the back 

of each blade of each crossbuck sign for the length of each blade, unless the crossbucks are 

mounted back to back.

iii. A strip of retroreflective white material not less than 2 inches in width shall be used on the full 

length of the front and back of each support from the crossbuck sign to near ground level or just 

above the top breakaway hole on the post.

f. Supplemental passive traffic control applications (subject to engineering evaluation): 

i. Inadequate stopping sight distance: 

a. Improve the roadway geometry. 

b. Install appropriate warning signs (including consideration of active types). 

c. Reduce the posted roadway speed in advance of the crossing: 

i. Advisory signing as a minimum. 

ii. Regulatory posted limit if it can be effectively enforced. 
 147

d. Close the crossing.

e. Reconfigure/relocate the crossing.

f. Grade separate the crossing.

ii. Inadequate approach (corner) sight distance (assuming adequate clearing sight distance): 

a. Remove the sight distance obstruction.

b. Install appropriate warning signs. 

c. Reduce the posted roadway speed in advance of the crossing: 

i. Advisory signing as a minimum. 

ii. Regulatory posted limit if it can be effectively enforced. 

d. Install a YIELD (R1-2) sign, with advance warning sign (W3-2a) where warranted by 

MUTCD (restricted visibility reduces safe approach speed to 16–24 kilometers per hour 

(10–15 miles per hour)).

e. Install a STOP (R1-1) sign, with advance warning sign (W3-1a) where warranted by 

MUTCD (restricted visibility requires drivers to stop at the crossing).

f. Install active devices.

g. Close the crossing.

h. Reconfigure/relocate the crossing. 

i. Grade separate the crossing.

iii. Deficient clearing sight distances (for one or more classes of vehicles): 

a. Remove the sight distance obstruction. 

b. Permanently restrict use of the roadway by the class of vehicle not having sufficient 

clearing sight distance.

c. Install active devices with gates.

d. Close the crossing.

e. Reconfigure/relocate the crossing. 

f. Grade separate the crossing. 

g. Multiple railroad tracks and/or two or more highway approach lanes in the same direction 

should be evaluated with regard to possible sight obstruction from other trains (moving or 

standing on another track or siding) or highway vehicles.

iv. Stopping and corner sight distance deficiencies may be treated immediately with warning 

or regulatory traffic control signs, such as a STOP sign, with appropriate advance warning 

signs. However, until such time as permanent corrective measures are implemented to correct 

deficient clearing sight distance, interim measures should be taken, which may include: 

a. Temporarily close the crossing. 

b. Temporarily restrict use of the roadway by the classes of vehicles.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

148

Table 42. Guidelines for Active Devices

Class of track

Maximum allowable operating speed 

for freight trains—minimum active 

devices

Maximum allowable operating speed 

for passenger trains—minimum active 

devices

Excepted track 10 mph Flashers N/A N/A

Class 1 track 10 mph Flashers 15 mph Gates*

Class 2 track 25 mph Flashers 30 mph Gates*

Class 3 track 40 mph Gates 60 mph** Gates**

Class 4 track 60 mph Gates 80 mph Gates

Class 5 track 80 mph Gates plus supplemental 

safety devices 90 mph Gates plus supplemental 

safety devices

Class 6 track

110 mph

with 

conditions

Gates plus supplemental

safety devices 110 mph Gates plus supplemental

safety devices

Class 7 track

125 mph

with 

conditions

Full barrier protection 125 mph Full barrier protection

Class 8 track

160 mph

with 

conditions

Grade separation 160 mph Grade separation

Class 9 track

200 mph

with 

conditions

Grade separation 200 mph Grade separation

Note: 1 mile per hour (mph) = 1.61 kilometers per hour (km/hr.)

* Refer to the 2003 edition of MUTCD, Part 10, transit and light-rail trains in medians of city streets. 

** Except 35 mph (56 km/hr.) for transit and light-rail trains. 

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.

4. Active 

If active devices are selected, the following devices should be considered:

a. Active devices with automatic gates should be considered at highway-rail grade crossings whenever 

an engineering study by a diagnostic team determines one or more of the following conditions exist: 

i. All crossings on the National Highway System, “U.S.” marked routes, or principal arterials not 

otherwise grade separated. 

ii. If inadequate clearing sight distance exists in one or more approach quadrants, AND it is 

determined ALL of the following apply: 

a. It is not physically or economically feasible to correct the sight distance deficiency. 

b. An acceptable alternate access does not exist. 

c. On a life-cycle cost basis, the cost of providing acceptable alternate access or grade separation 

would exceed the cost of installing active devices with gates.

iii. Regularly scheduled passenger trains operate in close proximity to industrial facilities, such as 

stone quarries, log mills, cement plants, steel mills, oil refineries, chemical plants, and land fills.
 149

iv. In close proximity to 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.

v. Based upon the number of passenger trains and/or the number and type of trucks, a 

diagnostic team determines a significantly higher than normal risk exists that a train-vehicle 

collision could result in death of or serious injury to rail passengers.

vi. Multiple main or running tracks through the crossing.

vii. The expected accident frequency for active devices without gates, as calculated by the U.S. 

DOT Accident Prediction Formula including five-year accident history, exceeds 0.1. 

viii. In close proximity to 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 consider traffic signal control, if none).

ix. As otherwise recommended by an engineering study or diagnostic team.

b. Active devices with automatic gates should be considered as an option at public highway-rail 

grade crossings whenever they can be economically justified based on fully allocated life-cycle 

costs and one or more of the following conditions exist: 

i. 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 clearing sight distance below the 

minimum relative to a 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). 

ii. An average of 20 or more trains per day.

iii. Posted highway speed exceeds 64 km/hr. (40 mph) in urban areas or exceeds 88 km/hr. (55 

mph) in rural areas.

iv. Annual average daily traffic (AADT) exceeds 2,000 in urban areas or 500 in rural areas. 

v. Multiple lanes of traffic in the same direction of travel (usually this will include cantilevered 

signals).

vi. 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. 

vii. The expected accident frequency as calculated by the U.S. DOT Accident Prediction formula, 

including five-year accident history, exceeds 0.075. 

viii. An engineering study indicates that the absence of active devices would result in the highway 

facility performing at a level of service below level C. 

ix. Any new project or installation of active devices to significantly replace or upgrade existing 

non-gated active devices. For purposes of this item, replacements or upgrades should be 

considered “significant” whenever the cost of the otherwise intended improvement (without 

gates) equals or exceeds one-half the cost of a comparable new installation, and should 

exclude maintenance replacement of individual system components and/or emergency 

replacement of damaged units. 

x. As otherwise recommended by an engineering study or diagnostic team.

c. Warning/barrier gate systems should be considered as supplemental safety devices at: 

i. Crossings with passenger trains;

ii. Crossings with high-speed trains; 

iii. Crossings in quiet zones; or 

iv. As otherwise recommended by an engineering study or diagnostic team.

d. Enhancements for pedestrian treatments:

i. Design to avoid stranding pedestrians between sets of tracks. 

ii. Add audible devices, based on an engineering study.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

150

iii. Consider swing gates carefully; the operation of the swing gate should be consistent with 

the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act; the gate should be checked for 

pedestrian safety within the limits of its operation. 

iv. Provide for crossing control at pedestrian crossings where a station is located within the 

proximity of a crossing or within the crossing approach track circuit for the highway-rail 

crossing.

v. Utilize a Train-to-Wayside Controller to reduce traffic delays in areas of stations. 

vi. Delay the activation of the gates, flashers, and bells for a period of time at the highway-rail 

grade crossing in station areas, based on an engineering study.

5. Closure

Highway-rail grade crossings should be considered for closure and vacated across the railroad right of 

way whenever one or more of the following apply: 

a. An engineering study determines a nearby crossing otherwise required to be improved or grade 

separated already has acceptable alternate vehicular access, and pedestrian access can continue 

at the subject crossing, if existing.

b. On a life-cycle cost basis, the cost of implementing the recommended improvement would exceed 

the cost of providing an acceptable alternate access.

c. If an engineering study determines any of the following apply: 

i. FRA Class 1, 2, or 3 track with daily train movements: 

a. AADT less than 500 in urban areas, acceptable alternate access across the rail line 

exists within .4 km (one-quarter-mile), and the median trip length normally made over 

the subject crossing would not increase by more than .8 km (one-half-mile). 

b. AADT less than 50 in rural areas, acceptable alternate access across the rail line exists 

within .8 km (one-half-mile), and the median trip length normally made over the subject 

crossing would not increase by more than 2.4 km (1.5 miles).

ii. FRA Class 4 or 5 track with active rail traffic: 

a. AADT less than 1,000 in urban areas, acceptable alternate access across the rail line 

exists within .4 km (one-quarter-mile), and the median trip length normally made over 

the subject crossing would not increase by more than 1.2 km (three-quarters-mile).

b. AADT less than 100 in rural areas, acceptable alternate access across the rail line 

exists within 1.61 km (1 mile), and the median trip length normally made over the 

subject crossing would not increase by more than 4.8 km (3 miles).

iii. FRA Class 6 or higher track with active rail traffic, AADT less than 250 in rural areas, an 

acceptable alternate access across the rail line exists within 2.4 km (1.5 miles), and the 

median trip length normally made over the subject crossing would not increase by more than 

6.4 km (4 miles).

d. An engineering study determines the crossing should be closed to vehicular and pedestrian 

traffic when 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. Such locations 

would typically include: 

i. Rail yards. 

ii. Passing tracks primarily used for holding trains while waiting to meet or be passed by other 

trains. 
 151

iii. locations where train crews are routinely required to stop their trains because of cross traffic 

on intersecting rail lines or to pick up or set out blocks of cars or switch local industries en 

route. 

iv. switching leads at the ends of classification yards. 

v. where trains are required to “double” in or out of yards and terminals. 

vi. in the proximity of stations where long distance passenger trains are required to make extended 

stops to transfer baggage, pick up, or set out equipment or be serviced en route. 

vii. locations where trains must stop or wait for crew changes.

6. Grade Separation 

a. Highway-rail grade crossings should be considered for grade separation or otherwise eliminated 

across the railroad right of way whenever one or more of the following conditions exist: 

i. The highway is a part of the designated Interstate Highway System. 

ii. The highway is otherwise designed to have full controlled access.

iii. The posted highway speed equals or exceeds 113 km/hr. (70 mph).

iv. AADT exceeds 100,000 in urban areas or 50,000 in rural areas.

v. Maximum authorized train speed exceeds 177 km/hr. (110 mph).

vi. An average of 150 or more trains per day or 300 million gross tons per year.

vii. An average of 75 or more passenger trains per day in urban areas or 30 or more passenger 

trains per day in rural areas.

viii. Crossing exposure (the product of the number of trains per day and AADT) exceeds 1 million in 

urban areas or 250,000 in rural areas; or 

ix. Passenger train crossing exposure (the product of the number of passenger trains per day and 

AADT) exceeds 800,000 in urban areas or 200,000 in rural areas. 

x. The expected accident frequency for active devices with gates, as calculated by the U.S. DOT 

Accident Prediction Formula including five-year accident history, exceeds 0.5.

xi. Vehicle delay exceeds 40 vehicle hours per day.1

b. Highway-rail grade crossings should be considered for grade separation across the railroad right 

of way whenever the cost of grade separation can be economically justified based on fully allocated 

life-cycle costs and one or more of the following conditions exist: 

i. The highway is a part of the designated National Highway System.

ii. The highway is otherwise designed to have partial controlled access. 

iii. The posted highway speed exceeds 88 km/hr. (55 mph).

iv. AADT exceeds 50,000 in urban areas or 25,000 in rural areas. 

v. Maximum authorized train speed exceeds 161 km/hr. (100 mph).

vi. An average of 75 or more trains per day or 150 million gross tons per year. 

vii. An average of 50 or more passenger trains per day in urban areas or 12 or more passenger 

trains per day in rural areas.

viii. Crossing exposure (the product of the number of trains per day and AADT) exceeds 500,000 in 

urban areas or 125,000 in rural areas; or 

ix. Passenger train crossing exposure (the product of the number of passenger trains per day and 

AADT) exceeds 400,000 in urban areas or 100,000 in rural areas. 

1 Guidance on Traffic Control Devices at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings. Washington, DC: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), Highway/Rail Grade Crossing Technical Working Group, November 2002.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

152

x. The expected accident frequency for active devices with gates, as calculated by the U.S. DOT 

Accident Prediction Formula including five-year accident history, exceeds 0.2. 

xi. Vehicle delay exceeds 30 vehicle hours per day.

xii. An engineering study indicates that the absence of a grade separation structure would result in 

the highway facility performing at a level of service below its intended minimum design level 10 

percent or more of the time.

c. Whenever a new grade separation is constructed, whether replacing an existing highway-rail 

grade crossing or otherwise, consideration should be given to the possibility of closing one or more 

adjacent grade crossings. 

d. Utilize Table 43 for LRT grade separation:

Table 43. LRT Grade Separation

Trains per hour Peak-hour volume 

(vehicles per lane)

40 900

30 1000

20 1100

10 1180

5 1200

Source: Light Rail Transit Grade Separation Guidelines, 

An Informational Report. Washington, DC: Institute of 

Transportation Engineers, Technical Committee 6A-42, 

March 1992.

7. New Crossings 

a. Should only be permitted to cross existing railroad tracks at grade when it can be demonstrated: 

i. For new public highways or streets where there is a clear and compelling public need (other 

than enhancing the value or development potential of the adjoining property);

ii. Grade separation cannot be economically justified, i.e. benefit-to-cost ratio on a fully allocated 

cost basis is less than 1.0 (generally, when the crossing exposure exceeds 50,000 in urban areas 

or exceeds 25,000 in rural areas); and 

iii. There are no other viable alternatives.

b. If a crossing is permitted, the following conditions should apply:

i. If it is a main track, the crossing will be equipped with active devices with gates.

ii. 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.

iii. 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. 

iv. Whenever new public highway-rail crossings are permitted, they should fully comply with all 

applicable provisions of this proposed recommended practice.

v. Whenever a new highway-rail crossing is constructed, consideration should be given to closing 

one or more adjacent crossings. 
 153

8. Traffic Control Device Selection Procedure

Step 1—Minimum highway-rail grade crossing criteria (see report for full description):

a. Gather preliminary crossing data: 

i. Highway: 

a. Geometric (number of approach lanes, alignment, median).

b. AADT.

c. Speed (posted limit or operating). 

d. Functional classification.

e. Desired level of service. 

f. Proximity of other intersections (note active device interconnection). 

g. Availability and proximity of alternate routes and/or crossings.

ii. Railroad: 

a. Number of tracks (type: FRA classification, mainline, siding, spur).

b. Number of trains (passenger, freight, other).

c. Maximum train speed and variability.

d. Proximity of rail yards, stations, and terminals. 

e. Crossing signal control circuitry.

iii. Traffic control device: 

a. Passive or active.

b. Advance.

c. At crossing.

d. Supplemental.

iv. Prior collision history

b. Based on one or more of the above, determine whether any of the recommended thresholds for 

closure, installing active devices (if passive), or separation have been met based on highway or rail 

system operational requirements.

c. Consider crossing closure or consolidation: 

i. If acceptable alternate route(s) is/are available; or 

ii. If an adjacent crossing is improved, can this crossing be closed? or 

iii. If this crossing is improved, can an adjacent crossing be closed?

d. For all crossings, evaluate stopping and clearing sight distances. If the conditions are inadequate for 

the existing control device, correct or compensate for the condition (see Step 3 below).

e. If a passive crossing, evaluate corner sight distance. If less than the required for the posted or legal 

approach speed, correct or compensate for the condition (see Step 3 below). 

Step 2—Evaluate highway traffic flow characteristics: 

a. 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.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

154

b. Determine whether the existing (or proposed) type of traffic control device and railroad operations 

will allow highway traffic to perform at an acceptable level of service for the functional classification 

of the highway.

Step 3—Possible revision to the highway-rail grade crossing:

a. If there is inadequate sight distance related to the type of control device, consider measures such as: 

i. Try to correct the sight distance limitation.

ii. If stopping sight distance is less than “ideal” for the posted or operating vehicle approach speed 

and cannot be corrected, determine the safe approach speed and consider either posting an 

advisory speed plate at the advance warning sign or reduce the regulatory speed limit on the 

approach.

iii. If corner sight distance is inadequate and cannot be corrected, determine the safe approach 

speed and consider posting an advisory speed plate at the advance warning sign, or reduce the 

regulatory speed limit on the approach, or install STOP or YIELD signs at the crossing.

iv. If clearing sight distance is inadequate, upgrade a passive or flashing light-only traffic control 

device to active with gates, or close (consolidate) the crossing, or grade separate.

b. If highway and/or train volumes and/or speeds will not allow the highway to perform at an 

acceptable level of service, consider traffic control device upgrade to active (possibly with additional 

devices such as gates and medians), or closure (consolidation), or separation.

c. 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 and cost of improving 

the existing crossing.

d. If grade separation is being considered: 

i. Economic analysis should consider fully allocated life-cycle costs.

ii. Consider highway classification and level of service.

iii. Consider the possibility of closing one or more adjacent grade crossings. 

Step 4—Interim measures and/or documentation:

a. If the above analysis indicates a change or improvement in the crossing or type of traffic control 

devices, determine what, if any, interim measures can or should be taken until such time as 

recommended improvement can be implemented.

b. If the above analysis indicates a change or improvement in the crossing or type of traffic control 

devices, but there are other compelling reasons or circumstances for not implementing them, 

document the reasons and circumstances for your decision.

c. If the above analysis indicates no change or improvement in the crossing or type of traffic control 

devices, document the fact that the crossing was evaluated and determined to be adequate.2

2 Ibid.
 155

B. Guidance on STOP and 

YIELD Signs

The National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control 

Devices (NCUTCD) has recommended revising MUTCD 

to mandate the use of YIELD signs at passive crossings 

except when STOP signs are determined appropriate 

by engineering study or engineering judgment. 

NCUTCD’s recommendation is based on National 

Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 

470, Traffic-Control Devices for Passive RailroadHighway Grade Crossings. FHWA will consider 

proposing changes regarding the use of YIELD or 

STOP signs at passive grade crossings in the next 

edition of MUTCD. FHWA issued a guidance memo on 

March 17, 2006, which provided installation details and 

further instructs FHWA field personnel to work with 

local authorities to implement the use of YIELD signs 

(or STOP signs, where appropriate) at passive grade 

crossings.

It is recommended that YIELD signs be considered 

the default choice for traffic control at a passive 

crossing unless an engineering study or judgment 

determines that a STOP sign is appropriate. A STOP 

sign establishes a legal requirement for each and every 

vehicle to come to a full stop. Indiscriminate use of the 

STOP sign at all or many passive grade crossings can 

cause poor compliance, increasing the risk of collisions 

associated with a high non-compliance rate.

Therefore, the use of STOP signs at passive crossings 

should be limited to unusual conditions, where 

requiring all vehicles to make a full stop is deemed 

essential by engineering study or judgment. The 

engineering study or engineering judgment should 

consider:

• The line of sight from an approaching highway 

vehicle to an approaching train.

• Characteristics of the highway, such as the 

functional classification, geometric conditions, 

and traffic volumes and speed.

• Characteristics of the railroad, including but 

not limited to frequency, type, speed of trains, 

and number of tracks.

• Crossing crash history. 

• Need for active control devices.

It should be noted that certain commercial motor 

vehicles and school buses are required to stop at all 

highway-rail grade crossings, in accordance with 49 

CFR 392.10, even if a YIELD sign or just a crossbuck 

sign is posted.

C. Canadian Research on Cost 

Effectiveness

Canadian research includes evaluation of the 

tradeoffs between benefits and costs and takes 

into consideration the human factors in relation to 

effectiveness, as shown in Table 44.

D. Economic Analysis 

Procedures

An economic analysis may be performed to determine 

the possible alternative improvements that could 

be made at a highway-rail grade crossing. These 

procedures involve estimates of expected project 

costs and safety and operational benefits for each 

alternative. Much of the following discussion is adapted 

from the methodology presented in the Highway 

Safety Improvement Program User’s Manual. 

Initially, information on the following elements must 

be established, using the best available facts and 

estimates: 

• Collision costs.

• Interest rates. 

• 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. 

Cost information is not always readily available. 

Therefore, some states are reluctant to impute a dollar 

cost to human life or personal injury. Considerable care 

must be used in establishing values for these costs. 

The selection of collision cost values is of major 

importance in economic analyses. The two most 

common sources of collision costs are: 

• National Safety Council (NSC).

• National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA).

NSC costs include wage losses, medical expenses, 

insurance administrative costs, and property damage. 

NHTSA includes the calculable costs associated with 

each fatality and injury plus the cost to society, such as 
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

156

Table 44. Countermeasure Type, Effectiveness, and Cost

Countermeasure Effectiveness Cost

STOP signs at passive 

crossings Unknown $1,200 to $2,000

Intersection lighting 52-percent reduction in nighttime 

collisions over no lighting Unknown

Flashing lights

64-percent reduction in collisions over 

crossbucks alone

84-percent reduction in injuries over 

crossbucks

83-percent reduction in deaths over 

crossbucks

$20,000 to $30,000 in 

1988

Lights and gates (two) 

with flashing lights

88-percent reduction in collisions over 

crossbucks alone

93-percent reduction in injuries over 

crossbucks

100-percent reduction in deaths over 

crossbucks

44-percent reduction in collisions over 

flashing lights alone

$150,000

Median barriers 80-percent reduction in violations over 

two-gate system $10,000

Long arm gates (threequarters of roadway 

covered)

67 to 84–percent reduction in violations 

over two-gate system Unknown

Four-quadrant gate 

system

82-percent reduction in violations over 

two-gate system

$125,000 from 

standard gates

$250,000 from passive 

crossing

Four-quadrant gate 

system with median 

barriers

92-percent reduction in violations over 

two-gate system $135,000

Crossing closure 100-percent reduction in violations, 

collisions, injuries, deaths $15,000

Photo/video 

enforcement 34 to 94–percent reduction in violations $40,000 to $70,000 per 

installation

In-vehicle crossing 

safety advisory 

warning systems

Unknown

$5,000 to $10,000 per 

crossing plus $50 to 

$250 for a receiver

Note: The effectiveness of a countermeasure is expressed as a function of the percentage reduction 

in collisions and other violations over some previous treatment. Costs are expressed in U.S. dollars 

(approximate year 2000 amounts).1

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.

1 “A Human Factors Analysis of Highway-Railway Grade Crossing Accidents In Canada.” 

Transportation Development Centre, Transport Canada, September 2002 

(www.tc.gc.ca/tdc/summary/14000/14003.htm).
 157

consumption losses of individuals and society at large 

caused by losses in production and the inability to 

produce. Many states have developed their own values, 

which reflect their situation and philosophy. Whichever 

is selected, the values ought to be consistent with those 

used for other safety improvement programs. 

An appropriate interest rate is needed for most 

of the procedures considered. The selection of an 

inappropriate interest rate could result in unsuitable 

project costs and benefits and, thus, selection of an 

ineffective solution. Periods of rapid inflation and 

fluctuation of interest rates make the identification of an 

appropriate rate somewhat difficult. The standard rates 

used by the highway department should be selected. 

The Highway Safety Improvement Program 

User’s Manual states that the service life of an 

improvement should be equal to the time period that 

the improvement can reasonably affect collision rates. 

Both costs and benefits should be calculated for this 

time period. Hence, the service life is not necessarily 

the physical life of the improvement. For highway-rail 

grade 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. In 

particular, service life of signal equipment is fairly long 

because signals are visited by a maintainer at least 

once per month.

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. Maintenance costs are discussed in Chapter 

VII. 

The salvage value may be an issue when a highway is 

upgraded or relocated, a railroad line is abandoned, 

etc. 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 “secondhand” signals, it is assumed that there is zero salvage 

value after 10 years.

There are several accepted economic analysis 

methods, all of which require different inputs, 

assumptions, calculations, and methods and may yield 

different results. Several appropriate methods are 

described here. 

1. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 

The cost-effectiveness analysis method is an 

adaptation of a traditional safety analysis procedure 

based on the calculation of the cost to achieve a given 

unit of effect (reduction in collisions). The significant 

aspects of this procedure are that it need not require 

the assignment of a dollar value to human injuries or 

fatalities and requires minimal manpower to apply.

The following steps should be performed for the costeffectiveness technique:

1. Determine the initial capital cost of equipment, 

such as flashing lights or gates, and other costs 

associated with project implementation. 

2. Determine the annual operating and 

maintenance costs for the project.

3. Select units of effectiveness to be used in the 

analysis. The desired units of effectiveness 

may be:

• Number of total collisions prevented.

• Number of collisions by type prevented.

• Number of fatalities or fatal collisions 

prevented.

• Number of personal injuries or personal 

injury collisions prevented.

• Number of equivalent property-damageonly collisions prevented. 

4. Determine the annual benefit for the project in 

the selected units of effectiveness, such as total 

number of collisions prevented.

5. Estimate the service life.

6. Estimate the net salvage value.

7. Assume an interest rate.

8. Calculate the equivalent uniform annual costs 

(EUAC) or present worth of costs (PWOC).

9. Calculate the average annual benefit, B, in the 

desired units of effectiveness.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

158

10. Calculate the cost-effectiveness (C/E) value 

using one of the following equations:

(12)

where: 

CRFn

i = capital recovery factor for n years at interest 

rate i

Figure 57 shows a sample worksheet with fictitious 

values. 

This is an iterative process for each alternative 

improvement. The results for all projects then can 

be arrayed and compared for selection. A computer 

program can be used for the analysis and ranking of 

projects. 

2. Benefit-Cost Ratio 

The benefit-cost ratio (B/C) is the collision savings in 

dollars divided by cost of the improvement. Using this 

method, costs and benefits may be expressed as either 

an equivalent annual or present worth value of the 

project. The B/C technique requires the following steps:

• Determine the initial cost of implementation of 

the crossing improvement being studied.

• Determine the net annual operating and 

maintenance costs.

• Determine the annual safety bene­fits derived 

from the project.

• Assign a dollar value to each safety benefit unit 

(NSC, NHTSA, or other).

• Estimate the service life of the project based 

on patterns of historic depreciation of similar 

types of projects.

• Estimate the salvage value of the project or 

improvement after its primary service life has 

ended.

• Determine the interest rate by taking into 

account the time value of money.

• Calculate the B/C ratio using EUAC and 

equivalent uniform annual benefits (EUAB).

• Calculate the B/C ratio using PWOC and 

present worth of benefits (PWOB).

A sample worksheet with fictitious values for the B/C 

analysis is shown in Figure 58.

This method requires an estimate of collision severity 

in dollar terms, which can greatly affect the outcome. 

It is relatively easy to apply and is generally accepted 

in engineering and financial studies. As with the C/E 

method, the process can be performed for alternative 

improvements at a single crossing and arrayed for all 

projects to determine priorities for funding. 

3. Net Annual Benefit

This method is based on the premise that the relative 

merit of an improvement is measured by its net annual 

benefit. This method is used to select improvements 

that will ensure maximum total benefits at each 

location. The net annual benefit of an improvement is 

defined as follows:

Net annual benefit = (EUAB) - (EUAC) (13)

where: 

EUAB = equivalent uniform annual benefit

EUAC = equivalent uniform annual cost

A positive value for net annual benefit indicates a 

feasible improvement, and the improvement or set 

of improvements with the largest positive net annual 

benefit is considered the best alternative. The following 

steps should be used to compute the net annual benefit:

• Estimate the initial cost, annual cost, terminal 

value, and service life of each improvement.

• Estimate the benefits (in dollars) for each 

improvement.

• Select an interest rate.

• Compute EUAB.

• Compute EUAC.

• Calculate the net annual benefit of each 

improvement.

For the data and calculations shown in Figure 58, the 

net annual benefit would be $91,438, determined from 

EUAB of $104,000 less EUAC of $12,562.

Although any of the three methods is an acceptable 

procedure to follow for economic analyses, they might 

produce different results depending on the values. 

Table 45 illustrates this point. The values shown 

for the second alternative are from the example 

provided above. Based on the C/E method, the analyst 

would select the third alternative. Based on the B/C 

ratio method, the analyst would select the second 

alternative. The first alternative would be selected if 

the net benefit method was followed for this example. 

C E EUAC B

C E PWOC CRF B n

i

/ / ,

/ /

=

= ( )

or
 159

Figure 57. Sample Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Worksheet

Evaluation No.: _________________ Project No.: _________________ Date: ________________________________

Evaluator: ____________________________________________________________________________________

1. Initial implementation cost, I: $ 100,000 

2. Annual operating and maintenance costs

before project implementation: $ 100 

3. Annual operating and maintenance costs

after project implementation: $ 1,000 

4. Net annual operating and maintenance

costs, K = #3–#2: $ 900 

5. Annual safety benefits in number of

injury accidents prevented, B, from below: 2 

Accident Type Actual - Expected = Annual 

Benefit

Injury 4 - 2 = 2

Total

6. Service life, n: 20 years 8. Interest rate: 10 % = 0.10 

7. Salvage value, T: $ 5,000 (Annual compounding interest)

9. EUAC Calculation:

Capital recovery factor, CR = 0.1175 

Sinking fund factor, SF = 0.0175

EUAC = I (CR) + K - T (SF)

= 100,000 (0.1175) + 900 - 5,000 (0.0175) = 12,562

10. Annual benefit: B (from #5) = 2 injury accidents 

11. C/E = EUAC/B = 12,562 / 2 = $6,281 / injury accidents prevented

12. PWOC Calcuation:

Present worth factor, PW = 8.5136 

Single payment present worth factor, SPW = 0.1486 

PWOC = I + K (PW) - T (SPW)

= 100,000 + 900 (8.5136) - 5,000 (0.1486) = 106,919 

13. Annual benefit

n (from #6) = 20 years

B (from #5) = 2 accidents prevented per year

14. C/E = PWOC (CR)/B 

=(106,919)(0.1175) / 2 = $ 6,281 / injury accidents prevented

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal 

Highway Administration, 1986.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

160

Figure 58. Sample Benefit-to-Cost Analysis Worksheet

Evaluation No.: _______________ Project No.: _______________ Date: _____________________________

Evaluator: ___________________________________________________________________________________

1. Initial implementation cost, I: $ 100,000 

2. Annual operating and maintenance costs

before project implementation: $ 100 

3. Annual operating and maintenance costs

after project implementation: $ 1,000 

4. Net annual operating and maintenance

costs, K (#3 - #2): $ 900 

5. Annual safety benefits in number of accidents prevented:

Severity Actual – Expected = Annual Benefit 

a)	Fatal accidents (fatalities) 0 – 0 = 0 

b)	Injury accidents (injuries) 4 – 2 = 2 

c)	PDO accidents (involvements) 5 – 3 = 2 

6. Accident cost values (Source Department )

Severity Cost

a)	Fatal accident (fatality) $ 500,000 

b)	Injury accident (injury) $ 50,000 

c)	PDO accident (involvement) $ 2,000 

7. Annual safety benefits in dollars saved, B:

(5a) x (6a) = 500,000 x 0 = 0 

(5b) x (6b) = 50,000 x 2 = 100,000 

(5c) x (6c) = 2,000 x 2 = 4,000 

Total = $104,000 

8. Service life, n: 20 yrs 10. Interest rate: 10% = .10 

9. Salvage value, T: $5,000 (Annual compounding interest)

11. EUAC Calculation:

Capital recovery factor, CR = 0.1175 

Sinking fund factor, SF = 0.0175 

EUAC = I (CR) + K - T (SF)

= 100,000 (0.1175) + 900 - 5,000 (0.0175) = 12,562 

12. EUAB Calculation: EUAB = B = 104,000 

13. B/C = EUAB/EUAC = 104,000 / 12,562 = 8.3 

14. PWOC Calcuation:

Present worth factor, PW = 8.5136 

Single payment present worth factor, SPW = 0.1486 

PWOC = I + K (SPW ) - T (PW )

= 100,000 + 900 (8.5136) - 5,000 (0.1486) = 106,919 

15. PWOB Calculation:

PWOB = B (SPW) = 104,000 (8.5136) = 885,414 

16. B/C = PWOB/PWOC = 885,414 / 106,919 = 8.3 

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal 

Highway Administration, 1986.
 161

Given that different results can occur, the agency 

should not follow just one procedure. At least two 

methods should be followed, with the decision based 

on these results and other factors, constraints, and 

policies of the agency. 

Table 45. Comparison of Cost-Effectiveness, 

Benefit-Cost, and Net Benefit Methods

Initial

Costs 

CostEffectiveness

($/acc.) 

B/C Net

Benefit 

A 1,000,000 106,000 2 200,000

B 100,000 6,281 8.3 91,438

C 20,000 5,100 5 70,000

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second 

Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Federal Highway Administration, 1986.

E. Resource Allocation 

Procedure 

In lieu of the economic analysis procedures 

described above, U.S. DOT has developed a resource 

allocation procedure for highway-rail grade crossing 

improvements. This procedure was developed to 

assist states and railroads in determining the effective 

allocation of federal funds for crossing traffic control 

improvements. 

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 

on the basis of 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 consist 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 U.S. DOT Accident Prediction Model 

or from any model that yields the number of annual 

collisions per crossing. (See discussion in Chapter III.) 

Safety effectiveness studies for the equipment used 

in the resource allocation procedure have been 

completed by U.S. DOT, the California Public Utilities 

Commission, and William J. Hedley. The resulting 

effectiveness factors of these studies were given 

in Table 40 for the types of signal improvements 

applicable for the procedure. 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 must 

be developed for each of the three alternatives:

• Passive devices to flashing lights.

• 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. 

The resource allocation procedure is shown in Figure 

59. It employs a step-by-step method, using the inputs 

described above.

For any proposed signal improvement, a pair of 

parameters, Ej

 and Cj, must be provided for the 

resource allocation algorithm. As shown in Table 46, j 

= 1 for flashing lights installed at a passive crossing; 

j = 2 for gates installed at a passive crossing; and j = 

3 for gates installed at a crossing with flashing lights. 

The first parameter, Ej

, is the effectiveness of installing 
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

162

a proposed warning device at a crossing with a lower 

class warning device. The second parameter, Cj, is the 

corresponding cost of the proposed warning device. 

Table 46. Effectiveness/Cost Symbol Matrix

Existing warning device

Proposed 

warning device Passive Flashing lights

Flashing lights

Effectiveness E1 —

Cost C1 —

Automatic gates

Effectiveness E2 E3

Cost C2 C3

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second 

Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Federal Highway Administration, 1986.

The resource allocation procedure considers all 

crossings with either passive or flashing light 

traffic control devices for signal improvements. If, 

for example, a single-track passive crossing, i, 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 crossing i is 

referred to as the incremental accident reduction/cost 

ratio and is equal to: 

Ai

 (E2 – E1) / (C2 – C1) (14)

If a passive multiple-track crossing, i, is considered, 

the only improvement option allowable would be 

installation of gates, with an effectiveness of E2, a cost 

of C2, and an accident reduction/cost ratio of AiE2/C2. 

If crossing i was originally a flashing light crossing, 

the only improvement option available would be 

installation of gates, 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 

Figure 59. Crossing Resource Allocation Procedure

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal 

Highway Administration, 1986. 

FRA Crossing 

A c c i d e n t 

Data File

Recommended 

Decisions for 

Installation of 

Warning Devices

Accident 

History by 

Crossing

Accident 

Predictions for 

Crossings

Accident 

Prediction 

Formula

U.S. DOT—AAR 

Crossing Inventory 

Data File

Physical & Operating 

Characteristics

of Each Crossing Warning 

Device 

Costs

Warning Device 

Effectiveness

Resource 

Allocation 

Model

Budget 

Level
 163

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 AiEj.

The resource allocation procedure is being updated to 

include the severity prediction equations discussed in 

Chapter III. 

The U.S. DOT Rail-Highway Crossing Resource 

Allocation Procedure, as described in the RailHighway Crossing Resource Allocation Procedure’s 

Guide, Third Edition (August 1987), uses three 

“normalizing constants” in the accident prediction 

formula, Formula A (Section 3.2.4, page 17). These 

constants need to be adjusted periodically to keep 

the procedure matched with current collision trends. 

The last recalculation and adjustment was made for 

calendar year 1998 and published in the Appendix 

for the Railroad Safety Statistics Annual Report 

starting for year 1999.

Using the collision data for calendar years 1997 to 2001 

(to predict 2002), the process of determining the three 

new normalizing constants for 2003 was performed 

such that the sum of the 2002 accident prediction 

values of all currently open public at-grade crossings 

is made to equal the sum of the observed number of 

collisions that occurred for those same crossings. 

This process is performed for each of the respective 

three formulae for the three types of warning device 

categories: passive, flashing lights, and gates. This 

process normalized the calculated prediction for the 

current trend in collision data (downward) for each 

category and relative to each of the three types of 

warning device categories (see Table 47).

As of November 2003, these new constants are in the 

2003 PC Accident Prediction System (PCAPS) computer 

program and the Internet version, Web Accident 

Prediction System (WBAPS), on the FRA Website.119 

Table 47 lists the new and prior constants.

If this 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 accomplishing this is 

included in Figure 60. This worksheet also includes a 

method for manually evaluating or revising the results 

of the computer model. 

F. Federal Railroad 

Administration GradeDec 

Software

FRA developed the GradeDec.NET (GradeDec) 

highway-rail grade crossing investment analysis tool 

to provide grade crossing investment decision support. 

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.

120

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. 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.

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. 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 

119 Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Website 

(safetydata.fra.dot.gov/officeofsafety).

120 FRA Website (gradedec.fra.dot.gov).

Table 47. Collision Prediction and Resource 

Allocation Procedure Normalizing Constants

Warning 

device 

groups

New Prior years

2003 1998 1992 1990 1988 1986

Passive .6500 .7159 .8239 .9417 .8778 .8644

Flashing 

lights .5001 .5292 .6935 .8345 .8013 .8887

Gates .5725 .4921 .6714 .8901 .8911 .8131

Source: Federal Railroad Administration Website 

(safetydata.ra.dot.gov/officeofsafety).
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

164

Figure 60. Resource Allocation Procedure Field Verification Worksheet

This worksheet provides a format and instructions for use in field evaluation of crossing to determine if initial 

recommendations for warning device installations from the Resource Allocation Procedure should be revised. Steps 1 through 5, described 

below, should be followed in making the determination. In Steps 1 and 3, the initial information (left column) is obtained from office 

inventory data prior to the field inspection. In Step 4, the decision criteria values are obtained from the Resource Allocation Model printout.

STEP I: Validate Data used in Calculating Predicted Accidents:

Crossing Characteristic Initial Information Revised Information 

Crossing Number

Location

Existing Warning Device

Total Trains per Day

Annual Average Daily Highway Traffic (c)

Day thru Trains (d)

Number of Main Tracks (mt)

Is Highway Paved? (hp)

Maximum Timetable Speed, mph (ms)

Highway Type (ht)

Number of Highway Lanes (hl)

Number of Years of Accident History (T)

Number of Accidents in T Years (N)

Predicted Accident Rate (A)

STEP 2: Calculate Revised Accident Prediction from DOT Formula if any Data in Step 1 has been Revised.

Revised Predicted Accidents (A) = _____________________________________________________________________________

STEP 3: Validate Cost and Effectiveness Data for Recommended Warning Device

Assumed Effectiveness of Recommended Warning Device (E) ___________________ Assumed 

Cost of Recommended Warning Device (C)

Recommended Warning Device Installation

STEP 4: Determine if Recommended Warning Device should be Revised if A, E, or C has Changed.

1. Obtain Decision Criteria Values from Resource Allocation Model. Output:

DC1= ____ DC2=____ DC3 =____ DC4 =____

2. Calculate: R = Revised A

Previous A ◊ Revised B

Previous B◊ Revised C

Previous C

3. Compare R with Appropriate Decision Criteria as shown Below:

Existing Passive Crossing Existing Passive Crossing Existing Flashing Light. Crossing

(Classes 1, 2, 3, 4) (Classes 1, 2, 3, 4 ) (Classes 5, 6, 7)

Single Track Multiple Tracks

Comparison Decision Comparison Decision Comparison Decision 

D C 2

 < R Gates D C 3 < R Gates DC4 < R Gates

D C 3

 < R < DC2 Flashing Lights R < DC3 No Installation R < DC4 No Installation

R < DCI No Installation

4. Revised Recommended Warning Device Installation* _______________________________________________________________

STEP 5: Determine other Characteristics that may Influence Warning Device Installation Decisions

Multiple tracks where one train/locomotive Either, or any combination of, high vehicular

may obscure vision of another train? traffic volumes, high numbers of train

Percent trucks movements, substantial numbers of school

Passenger train operations over crossing buses or trucks carrying hazardous

High speed trains with limited sight distance** materials, unusually restricted sight.

Combination of high speeds & moderately high distance or continuing accident occurrences** 

volumes of highway & railroad traffic **

*The cost and effectiveness values for the revised warning device are assumed to change by an amount proportional to the change in 

these values for the initial recommended warning device as determined in Step 3.

**Gates with flashing lights are the only recommended warning device per 23CFR 646.214(b)(3)(i).

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal 

Highway Administration, 1986.
 165

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. 

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.121

121 FRA GradeDec 2000 program for evaluating costs/benefits of 

railroad-highway grade crossing investments 

(www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/1195).

G. References 

The Effectiveness of Automatic Protection in 

Reducing Accident Frequency and Severity 

at Public Grade Crossings in California. San 

Francisco, California: California Public Utilities 

Commission, June 1974.

Guidance on Traffic Control Devices At 

Highway-Rail Grade Crossings. Washington, DC: 

FHWA, Highway/Rail Grade Crossing Technical 

Working Group, 2002.

Highway Safety Improvement Program User’s 

Manual. Washington, DC: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA).

Hitz, John and Mary Cross. Rail-Highway 

Crossing Resource Allocation Procedure User’s 

Guide. Washington, DC: FHWA and Federal 

Railroad Administration (FRA), Report FHWA-IP82-7, December 1982. 

Morrissey, J. The Effectiveness of Flashing Lights 

and Flashing Lights with Gates in Reducing 

Accident Frequency at Public Rail-Highway 

Crossings, 1975-1978. Washington, DC: FRA and 

FHWA, April 1980.

 167

An organized approach to the implementation of a 

highway-rail grade crossing improvement program 

is necessary so that its administrators will proceed 

effectively and expeditiously to obtain the benefits of 

the program. The implementation component consists 

of obtaining all necessary regulatory and funding 

approvals; preparing and executing agreements 

among participating parties (typically federal, state, 

railroad, and any local authorities); designing the 

selected alternative in detail; establishing appropriate 

accounting procedures (generally as set forth in the 

agreements); and constructing the project. 

A. Funding

Sources of funds for highway-rail grade crossing 

improvements include federal, state, and local 

government agencies, the railroad industry, and special 

funding.

1. Federal Sources

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 

(SAFETEA-LU), enacted in 2005, made a number 

of significant changes in the available matching 

ratios and the funding environment for highway-rail 

grade crossing projects. SAFETEA-LU continued the 

appropriation of federal-aid highway funds through 

fiscal year 2009. The designation of a safety set-aside 

in Surface Transportation Program (STP) funding for 

each state for categorical safety programs, including 

the highway-rail grade crossing program, which 

began in 1973, was shifted to the new Highway Safety 

Improvement Program (HSIP) starting in 2006. From 

2006 through 2009, $220 million has been authorized 

each year in SAFETEA-LU under HSIP as a set-aside 

for the Section 130 program to reduce the number 

of fatalities and injuries at public railway-highway 

crossings through the elimination of hazards and/or the 

installation/upgrade of protective devices at crossings 

(SAFETEA-LU Section 1401). 

SAFETEA-LU also continued the Federal-Aid Bridge 

Rehabilitation and Replacement Program, allocating 

$21.6 billion for bridges, including bridges carrying 

highways over railroads, over the life of the act. 

The major provisions of SAFETEA-LU are as follows:

• SAFETEA-LU continues the ability to provide 

funding for the elimination of hazards at 

railway-highway crossings on any public 

road. Section 1401 creates the new HSIP. This 

new core program redefines the federal-aid 

safety program by combining and expanding 

the definitions of safety projects previously 

contained in 23 USC 130 and 152. The 

new program is defined in 23 USC 148 and 

specifically defines eligible railway-highway 

crossing projects as:

o	 Construction of any project for the 

elimination of hazards at a railwayhighway crossing that is eligible for 

funding under Section 130, including 

the separation or protection of grades 

at railway-highway crossings [23 CFR 

148(a)(3)(b)(vi)].

o	 Construction of a railway-highway 

crossing safety feature, including 

installation of protective devices [23 CFR 

148(a)(3)(b)(vii)].

o	 The conduct of a model traffic enforcement 

activity at a railway-highway crossing [23 

CFR 148(a)(3)(b)(viii)].

• The set-aside Section 130 funds under HSIP 

may be used for but are not limited to the 

following types of railroad grade crossing 

safety improvement projects:

Implementation of 

Projects VI
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

168

o	 Crossing elimination by new grade 

separations, relocation of highways, 

relocation of roadways, relocation of 

railroads, and crossing closure without 

other construction.

o	 Reconstruction of existing grade 

separations.

o	 Crossing improvement by:

• Installation of standard signs and 

pavement markings.

• Installation of STOP signs.

• Installation or replacement of active 

traffic control devices, including 

track circuit improvements and 

interconnection with highway 

intersection traffic signals.

• Crossing illumination.

• Crossing surface improvements.

• General site improvements.

• Matching ratios: For projects completed with 

HSIP funds, the federal matching ratios will 

be 90 percent or 100 percent, depending 

on the type of work being accomplished. 

States, railroads, or localities fund or share 

the funding of the 10-percent match, where 

required. Section 130(f) of the Highway 

Safety Act of 1973 provided a mechanism 

for increasing the federal share where both 

local and state funds were incorporated 

into a railroad project; however, this was 

usually impractical in practice. SAFETEA-LU 

continues the provisions of Section 1021(c) 

of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 

Efficiency Act, which permits 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. 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

has determined that railroad grade crossing 

signals are included in traffic control 

signalization.122 SAFETEA-LU continues this 

eligibility for these projects. 

• SAFETEA-LU continues 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 

122 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, Public 

Law 102-240.

remaining funds may be spent for other types 

of improvements as defined in Section 130. 

SAFETEA-LU also contains a provision that 

up to 2 percent of the funds apportioned 

to a state may be used 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.

• Additional relevant provisions: SAFETEALU continues the ability to make incentive 

payments in exchange for railway-highway 

crossing closures. This provision was included 

in Section 353 of the fiscal year 1997 U.S. 

Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) 

Appropriations Bill. This payment cannot 

exceed $7,500 per crossing closure as an equal 

match to incentives offered by a railroad and 

does not require a match (i.e. 100-percent 

funding). A local government receiving an 

incentive payment from a state shall use 

the amount of the incentive payment for 

transportation safety improvements. These 

improvements are those defined by SAFETEALU Section 1401 [revised 23 USC 148(a)(3)] 

and 23 USC 402.

SAFETEA-LU continues the funding for the 23 USC 

Section 144 Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation 

Program. All bridges carrying highway traffic on 

public roads, regardless of ownership or maintenance 

responsibility, are eligible for improvement or 

replacement under this program. This includes bridges 

owned by railroads. The federal share in this program 

is 80 percent. To be eligible for these funds, the bridge 

over the railroad must be included in the state’s bridge 

inventory and must be placed on the state’s prioritized 

implementation schedule.

In addition to the specific programs described above, 

other regular federal-aid highway funds may be used 

for improvements at crossings. The federal share is 

the normal matching share for the federal-aid highway 

funds and the types of work involved.

Other requirements pertaining to the use of federal 

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 
 169

agency and FHWA that it has a definite 

demand and plans for the installation 

of the additional tracks within a 

reasonable time. 

• States cannot require railroads to participate 

in the cost of certain crossing improvement 

projects completed with federal funds. These 

projects are specified in the Federal-Aid 

Policy Guide (FAPG) and referenced to 23 CFR 

§646.210.123 Restrictions include:

o State laws that require railroads to share 

in the cost of work for the elimination of 

hazards at highway-rail grade crossings 

are not applicable on federal-aid projects.

o Projects for grade crossing improvements 

are deemed to be of no net benefit to the 

railroad, and there shall be no required 

railroad share of the costs.

o Projects for the reconstruction of existing 

grade separations are deemed to generally 

be of no ascertainable net benefit to the 

railroad, and there shall 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.

• The federal share of the cost of a grade 

separation shall 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 to FAPG 

or as required by a state regulatory agency. 124

• 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, right of way, and 

construction as specified below and in 23 CFR 

§646.210:

o	 Where a grade 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.

123 Federal-Aid Policy Guide. Washington, DC: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), updated periodically.

124 Ibid.

o	 Where another facility requiring a bridge 

structure, such as a highway or waterway, 

is located within the limits of a gradeseparation project, the estimated cost of 

a theoretical structure and approaches to 

eliminate the highway-rail grade crossing 

without considering the presence of the 

waterway or other highway.

o	 Where a grade 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 above, whichever 

is less.

o	 Railroads may voluntarily contribute 

a greater share of project costs. Also, 

other parties may voluntarily assume the 

railroad’s share.

There were a number of federally-funded 

demonstration projects. These projects were sitespecific and are dependent upon annual authorization 

and appropriations by Congress.

2. State Funding 

States also participate in the funding of highway-rail 

grade crossing improvement projects. States often 

contribute the matching share for projects financed 

under the federal-aid highway program. In addition, 

states sometimes finance entire crossing projects, 

particularly if the crossing is on a state highway. 

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 right of way. Typically, these include 

advance warning signs and pavement markings.

3. Local Agency Funding 

A number of cities and counties have established 

highway-rail grade crossing improvement funds. 

Some of these programs provide funding for partial 

reimbursement of railroad maintenance costs at 

crossings; some have been established to meet the 

matching requirements of state and federal programs. 

Local agencies are often sources of funding for lowcost 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 right of 

way on highways under their maintenance jurisdiction. 
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

170

4. Railroad Funding 

Except in certain instances, railroads cannot be 

required to contribute to the costs of most improvement 

projects financed with federal funds. However, 

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, right-of-way clearance, and others. The 

maintenance costs incurred by railroads are increased 

significantly with the installation of additional active 

traffic control devices. These costs are discussed in 

Chapter VII. 

B. Agreements*

A highway-rail grade 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 will 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 will 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 improvements; and 

should 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 management (C&M) agreements developed 

prior to initiation of final design and construction of 

improvements. C&M agreements can include provisions 

regarding right of entry and railroad flagging.

FAPG and 23 CFR §646.216(d) require that the written 

agreement between the state and the railroad shall 

include the following, as applicable:125

• The provisions of this subpart and of 23 CFR 

§140, Subpart I, incorporated by reference.

• A detailed statement of the work to be 

performed by each party.

125 Federal-Aid Policy Guide. Washington, DC: FHWA, updated 

periodically.

• Method of payment (either actual cost or lump sum).

• For projects that are not for the elimination of 

hazards of highway-rail crossings, the extent 

to which the railroad is required to move or 

adjust its facilities at its own expense.

• The railroad’s share of the project cost.

• An itemized estimate of the cost of the work to 

be performed by the railroad.

• Method to be used for performing the work, 

either by railroad forces or by contract.

• Maintenance responsibility.

• Form, duration, and amounts of any needed 

insurance.

• Appropriate reference to or identification of 

plans and specifications.

• Statements defining the conditions under 

which the railroad will provide or require 

protective services during performance of the 

work, the type of protective services, and the 

method of reimbursement to the railroad.

• Provisions regarding inspection of any 

recovered materials.

Much of the language that must be included in 

agreements between state highway agencies and 

railroads is identical from project to project and 

location to location. A “master agreement” can be 

used to facilitate the progress of projects. A true 

master agreement can save valuable programming, 

legal review, and negotiation time.126 With a master 

agreement, individual projects can be accomplished 

through the execution of a change order or 

supplemental letter agreement specific to the individual 

project or location. Depending on the individual state 

and railroad, master agreements may be executed to 

cover all projects or may be executed separately to 

cover only specific types of work, such as signals and 

surface improvements.

The master agreement sets forth the purpose of the 

agency to engage in the construction or reconstruction 

of some part or parts of its highway system, which 

calls for the installation or adjustment of traffic control 

systems or some other aspect of crossings. The master 

agreement requires the railroad to prepare detailed 

plans and specifications for the work to be performed 

and establishes responsibility for the procurement 

of materials for improvements. It contains the other 

provisions pertaining to the general requirements 

contained in contractual agreements. Change orders or 

letter agreements in a specified format are then issued 

for individual projects.

126 Hargrove, Lamar H.P. “New Approaches to System 

Management.” Proceedings of the 1974 National Conference on 

Railroad-Highway Crossing Safety, panel presentation, August 19–22, 

1974.

* Includes previously unpublished materials provided by Ray Lewis, 

West Virginia Department of Transportation (WVDOT), 2006.
 171

For federal-aid projects, a simplified procedure 

can be found in FAPG Section 646.218.127 This 

procedure defines eligible preliminary engineering 

costs as those incurred in selecting crossings to be 

improved, determining the type of improvement for 

each crossing, estimating costs, and preparing the 

required agreement. The agreement must contain the 

identification of each crossing location, a description 

of the improvements, an estimate of costs by crossing 

location, and an estimated schedule for the completion 

of work. Following programming, authorization, and 

approval of the agreement, FHWA may authorize 

construction, including the acquisition of materials, 

with the condition that work will not be undertaken 

until the agreement is found satisfactory by FHWA 

and the final plans, specifications, and estimates are 

approved. Only material actually incorporated into the 

project will be eligible for federal participation. 

C. Accounting*

To be eligible for reimbursement, the costs incurred 

in work performed on highway-rail grade crossing 

improvement projects must be tracked in accordance 

with strict accounting practices and procedures. In that 

federal-aid highway funds are the primary revenue source 

for crossing safety improvements, accounting principles 

adopted by FHWA have become the guide for most state 

and all federal crossing programs. There are several 

reasons for the similarities between state and federal 

accounting procedures. First, as mentioned previously, 

federal-aid highway funds represent a major part of 

total state expenditures for crossing improvements. 

Second, a large part of the state funds expended is in 

the form of matching funds. Third, because states reach 

agreement with railroads and local communities for the 

implementation of crossing projects under both federal 

and state-funded programs, the accounting procedure for 

the two programs requires compatibility.

The basic accounting principle to be followed is that all 

parties to a highway-rail grade crossing improvement 

must have established a cost accounting system that is 

capable of segregating all labor, materials, equipment 

rentals, and other costs associated with the engineering, 

right-of-way acquisition, utility relocations, or 

construction work being done under each project.

The policies and procedures of FHWA on 

reimbursement for railroad work can be found in FAPG 

127 Federal-Aid Policy Guide. Washington, DC: FHWA, updated 

periodically.

Subpart 140I.128 To be eligible for reimbursement, the 

costs must be:

• For work included in an approved 

program. 

• Incurred subsequent to the date of 

authorization by FHWA.

• Incurred in accordance with the 

provisions of 23 CFR, Part 646, Subpart 

B. 

• Properly attributable to the project.

Following is a brief description of highway-rail grade 

crossing improvement costs generally considered 

eligible for reimbursement:

• Labor costs: Salaries and wages, including 

fringe benefits and employee expenses. Labor 

costs include labor associated with preliminary 

engineering, construction engineering, right of 

way, and force account construction. Fees paid 

to engineers, architects, and others for services 

are also reimbursable.

• Material and supply costs: The actual costs 

of materials including inspection, testing, and 

handling.

• Equipment costs: The actual expenses incurred 

in the operation of equipment. Costs incurred 

in equipment leasing and accrued equipment 

rental charges at established rates are also 

eligible for reimbursement.

• Transportation costs: The costs of employee 

transportation and the transportation cost 

for the movement of material, supplies, and 

equipment.

• Protective service costs: Expenses incurred in 

the provision of safety to railroad and highway 

operations during the construction process.

An agreement providing for a lump sum payment 

in lieu of a later determination of actual costs (an 

audit of the project) may be used for the installation 

of crossing traffic control devices and/or crossing 

surfaces, regardless of costs. If the lump sum method of 

reimbursement is used, periodic reviews and analyses 

of the railroad’s methods and cost data used to develop 

lump sum estimates should be conducted.

Progress billings of incurred costs may be made 

according to the executed agreement between the state 

and the railroad. Costs for materials stockpiled at the 

project site or specifically purchased and delivered 

to the company for use on the project may also be 

reimbursed following approval of the agreement.

128 Federal-Aid Policy Guide. Washington, DC: FHWA, updated 

periodically.

* Includes previously unpublished materials provided by Ray 

Lewis, WVDOT, 2006.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

172

A major problem experienced in the accounting process 

is the timeliness of final billings. The railroad should 

provide one final and complete billing of all incurred 

costs, or of an agreed lump sum, at the earliest possible 

date. The final billing should include certification that 

the work is complete, acceptable, and in accordance 

with the terms of the agreement.

Salvage value of existing traffic control devices at 

crossings to be upgraded or closed is a concern. If the 

equipment is relatively new and in good condition, 

it may be desirable to reuse it at another crossing. 

However, if the equipment is older, the cost to remove 

and refurbish it may make reuse inefficient.

D. Design and Construction 

The design of highway-rail grade crossing improvement 

projects is usually completed by state or railroad 

engineering forces or by an engineering consultant 

selected by the state or railroad with the same agency 

administering the contract. The designation of the 

designer is to be mutually agreed to by both the state 

and the railroad. 

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. 

For federal-aid highway projects, it is expected that 

materials and supplies, if available, will be furnished 

from railroad company stock, except that they may 

be obtained from other sources near the project site 

when available at less cost. If the necessary materials 

and supplies are not available from company stock, 

they may be purchased either under competitive bids 

or existing continuing contracts, under which the 

lowest available prices are developed. Minor quantities 

and proprietary products are excluded from these 

requirements. The company should not be required 

to change its existing standards for materials used in 

permanent changes to its facilities. 

Some states allow railroads to stockpile crossing signal 

materials so that projects may be completed as rapidly 

as possible. Provided the design of the crossing signals 

is based on the most appropriate equipment for the 

individual project, this practice is acceptable. 

Scheduling of crossing projects should be accomplished 

to maximize the efficiency of railroad, state, local, and 

contractor work forces. This requires coordination 

and cooperation among all parties. In addition, 

construction at crossings should be scheduled to 

minimize the effects on the traveling public. Notice of 

planned construction activities should be sent to local 

newspapers and television and radio stations one 

to three months in advance. Final notices should be 

given one week and one day in advance of commencing 

construction work. Efforts should be made to avoid 

construction during peak hours of highway and train 

traffic. 

When scheduling construction activities, consideration 

should be given to accomplishing work at crossings in 

the same geographical area at the same time. In this 

manner, the travel time of construction crews and the 

transportation costs of materials are minimized. This 

is one advantage of the systems approach because all 

crossings in a specified rail corridor, community, or 

area are improved at the same time.

For federal-aid highway projects, construction may be 

accomplished by: 

• Railroad force account; 

• Contracting with the lowest qualified 

bidder based on appropriate solicitations; 

• Existing continuing contracts at 

reasonable costs; or

• Contract without competitive bidding, for 

minor work, at reasonable costs.

Reimbursement with federal-aid highway funds will 

not be made for any increased costs due to changes 

in plans for the convenience of the contractor nor for 

changes that have not been approved by the state and 

FHWA.

Contractors may be subject to liability with respect 

to bodily injury to or death of persons and injury to 

or destruction of property, which may be suffered by 

persons other than their own employees as a result of 

their operations in connection with the construction 

of highway projects located wholly or partly within 

railroad right of way and financed in whole or in part 

with federal funds. Under FAPG, protection to cover 

such liability of contractors is to be furnished under 

regular contractors’ public liability and property 

insurance policies, issued in the names of the 

contractors. Such policies should be written to furnish 

protection to contractors respecting their operations in 

performing work covered by their contract. 
 173

If a contractor sublets a part of the work on any 

project to a subcontractor, the contractor should 

require insurance protection on his or her own behalf 

under the contractor’s public liability and property 

damage insurance policies. This should cover any 

liability imposed on him or her by law for damages 

because of bodily injury to or death of persons and 

injury to or destruction of property as a result of work 

undertaken by such subcontractors. In addition, the 

contractor should provide for and on behalf of any 

such subcontractors protection to cover like liability 

imposed upon the latter as a result of their operations 

by means of separate and individual contractors’ public 

liability and property damage policies. Alternatively, 

each subcontractor may provide satisfactory insurance 

on his or her own behalf to cover his individual 

operations.

The contractor should furnish to the state highway 

department evidence that the required insurance 

coverages have been provided. The contractor should 

also furnish a copy of this evidence to the railroad 

company or companies. The insurance specified should 

be kept in force until all work required to be performed 

has been satisfactorily completed and accepted in 

accordance with the contract.

In connection with crossing projects, railroad 

protective liability insurance should be purchased 

on behalf of the railroad by the contractor. Railroad 

protective insurance should be in conformance with 

appropriate state laws. 

Railroad protective insurance coverage should be 

limited to liabilities and damages suffered by the 

railroad on account of occurrences arising out of the 

work of the contractor on or about the railroad right of 

way, regardless of the railroad’s general supervision or 

control. 

The maximum amount of coverage for which premiums 

are to be reimbursed from federal funds with respect 

to bodily injury, death, and property damage normally 

is limited to a combined amount of $2 million per 

occurrence with an aggregate of $6 million applying 

separately to each annual period. In cases involving 

real and demonstrable danger of appreciably higher 

risks, higher dollar amounts of coverage for which 

premiums will be reimbursable from federal funds 

will be allowed. These larger amounts will depend on 

circumstances and will be written for the individual 

project in accordance with standard underwriting 

practices upon approval of the FHWA division 

administrator. 

In determining whether a larger dollar amount 

of coverage is necessary for a particular project, 

consideration should be given to the size of the project, 

the amount and type of railroad traffic passing through 

the project area, the volume of highway traffic in 

the project area, and the collision experience of the 

contractor involved in the project. 

E. Traffic Control During 

Construction 

Traffic control for highway-rail grade crossing 

construction is very similar to traffic control for 

highway construction. The major difference is 

that the work area is in joint-use right of way, 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.

Both railroad and highway personnel are well trained 

in the safety and control of their respective traffic 

streams. However, construction practices, agency 

policy, labor work rules, and state and federal 

regulations all contribute to the complexity of crossing 

work-zone traffic control. When highway construction 

and maintenance activities at the intersection take 

place on the tracks or within 15 feet of an active 

running rail, railroad personnel should be present. 

Railroad maintenance and construction of crossing 

signals or surfaces will often require some measure of 

control of highway traffic. 

An open communication channel between railroad and 

highway personnel is essential to the coordination of 

crossing construction and maintenance. For example, 

the railroad engineering department should notify all 

highway agencies several weeks in advance of track 

resurfacing or crossing reconstruction operations that 

require crossings to be closed to highway traffic. The 

exact schedule of the track work activity should be 

confirmed by the railroad engineering department a 

few days before the actual work takes place. 

Proper coordination will ensure minimal crossing 

closure time and will reduce the cost of work-zone 

traffic control activities. Highway personnel should 

inform railroad engineering departments of any work 

scheduled within the railroad right of way weeks before 

the work begins. The schedule should be reconfirmed 

with the railroad a few days before the crews are to be 

on the site. 

If the construction or maintenance activity requires the 

entire crossing to be removed, the crossing should be 
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

174

closed and traffic should be detoured over an alternate 

route or temporary bypass. Crossings on high-volume 

rural and urban highways should not be closed during 

weekdays or peak hours. Traffic control for the 

construction or maintenance of crossings should be 

the same as that used for highway construction and 

maintenance and should comply with the applicable 

requirements of the Manual on Uniform Traffic 

Control Devices (MUTCD). 

Traffic safety in construction zones should be an 

integral and high-priority element of every project, 

from planning through design and construction. 

Similarly, maintenance work should be planned and 

conducted with the safety of motorists, pedestrians, 

workers, and train crews in mind at all times. 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 nearly 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. A traffic control plan is required to be 

included in the plans, specifications, and estimates for 

all federal-aid projects, as indicated in FAPG. Usually, 

the highway agency develops the traffic control plans. 

Any changes in the traffic control plan should be 

approved by an individual trained in safe traffic control 

practices. 

The method for accomplishing traffic control is to 

be worked out between the railroad and the state or 

local highway agency. There is wide latitude as to 

which party does the work. Many states require that 

the agency responsible for the highway on which 

the crossing is located also be responsible for the 

preparation and implementation of the traffic control 

plan. This may be the state agency or a local county, 

city, or town. Some states require the railroad or 

contractor to implement the traffic control plan. It 

is emphasized that the individuals who prepare or 

implement the traffic control in work areas be trained 

in the requirements of MUTCD. Reimbursement for 

traffic control costs for a federal-aid project includes 

payment for force account costs and reimbursement for 

contractor services. 

Traffic movement should be inhibited as little as 

practicable. Traffic control at work sites should be 

designed on the assumption that motorists will only 

reduce their speeds if they clearly perceive a need to do 

so. Reduced-speed zoning should be avoided as much 

as practicable. Guidelines for determining speed limits 

in detour, transitions, and median crossovers are as 

follows:

• Detours and crossovers should be designed for 

speeds equal to the existing speed limit, if at all 

possible. Speed reductions should not be more 

than 10 miles per hour (mph) below the speed 

of the entering highway. 

• Where a speed reduction greater than 10 mph 

is unavoidable, the transition to the lower limit 

should be made in steps of not more than 10 

mph. 

• Where severe speed reductions are necessary, 

police or flaggers may be used in addition to 

advance signing. The conditions requiring the 

reduced speed should be alleviated as soon as 

possible. 

Frequent and abrupt changes in geometries, such 

as lane narrowing, dropped lanes, or main highway 

transitions that require rapid maneuvers, should 

be avoided. Provisions should be made for the safe 

operation of work vehicles, particularly on high-speed, 

high-volume highways. Construction time should be 

minimized to reduce exposure to potential hazards. 

Motorists should be guided in a clear and positive manner 

while approaching and traversing construction and 

maintenance work areas. Adequate warning, delineation, 

and channelization by means of proper pavement 

marking, signing, and use of other devices that are 

effective under varying conditions of light and weather 

should be provided to assure motorists of positive 

guidance in advance of and through the work area. 

Inappropriate markings should be removed to eliminate 

any misleading cues to drivers under all conditions 

of light and weather. On short-term maintenance 

projects, it may be determined that such removal is 

more hazardous than leaving the existing markings in 

place. If so, special attention must be paid to provide 

additional guidance by other traffic control measures. 

Flagging procedures can provide positive guidance 

to motorists traversing the work area and should be 

employed when required to control traffic or when all 

other methods of traffic control are inadequate to warn 

and direct drivers. 

Each person whose actions affect maintenance and 

construction zone safety, from upper-level management 

personnel through construction and maintenance field 

personnel, should receive training appropriate to the 

job decisions each individual is required to make. Only 

individuals who are qualified by means of adequate 

training in safe traffic control practices and who have 

a basic understanding of the principles established 
 175

by applicable standards and regulations, including 

those of MUTCD, should supervise the selection, 

placement, and maintenance of traffic control devices 

in maintenance and construction areas. 

Routine inspection of traffic control elements should 

be performed to ensure acceptable levels of operations. 

This inspection should verify that all traffic control 

elements of the project are in conformity with the 

traffic control plan and are effective in providing safe 

conditions for motorists, pedestrians, and workers. 

The maintenance of roadside safety requires constant 

attention during the life of the construction zone 

because of the potential increase in hazards. To 

accommodate run-off-the-road incidents, disabled 

vehicles, or other emergency situations, it is desirable 

to provide an unencumbered roadside recovery area 

that is as wide as practical. Traffic channelization 

should be accomplished by the use of pavement 

markings and signing, flexible posts, barricades, and 

other lightweight devices that will yield when hit by 

an errant vehicle. Whenever practical, construction 

equipment, materials, and debris should be stored in 

such a manner as not to be vulnerable to run-off-theroad vehicle impact. 

As with highway traffic, control of train traffic through 

construction areas must provide for the safety of labor 

forces and safe train operations. Ideally, construction 

and maintenance at a highway-rail grade crossing 

would occur under conditions with no highway or train 

traffic. However, this is rarely practical. 

To minimize the impact on train operations, careful 

planning is required. The railroad should be 

notified well in advance of planned construction or 

maintenance activities. Thus, necessary work can be 

coordinated and proper plans can be made for the 

operation of train traffic. 

Rail traffic is not as easily detoured as highway traffic. 

Highway users may be directed over an adjacent 

crossing, which may not be more than one mile away, 

or a temporary crossing surface may be inexpensively 

constructed adjacent to the work site. 

Detours for rail traffic may greatly increase the 

costs of rail operations due to increased travel time 

and distance. Temporary trackage (shoo-fly) may be 

expensive to construct. At multiple-track crossings, 

work may sometimes be planned to close only one 

track to train traffic at a time and provide for the 

continuation of all train traffic over the remaining 

track. At other times, the heavy cost of temporary 

railroad signaling and interlocking may preclude this 

solution. 

Train crews are notified of construction or 

maintenance activities through train orders or railroad 

signal systems. Appropriate instructions for operating 

through the area are provided by the dispatcher. A 

railroad employee is established on the construction 

site as a flagman to advise of approaching trains so 

that labor forces may move off the track while the train 

passes through the area. 

When planning construction or maintenance work at 

highway-rail grade crossings, proper coordination with 

the railroad is essential. The safety of highway 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. 

1. Traffic Control Zones 

When traffic is affected by construction, maintenance, 

utility, or similar operations, traffic control is needed 

to safely guide and protect highway 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. 

Most traffic control zones can be divided into the 

following parts: advance warning area, transition area, 

buffer space, work area, and termination area. These 

are shown in Figure 61.

The advance warning area should be long enough to 

give motorists adequate time to respond to the changed 

conditions. This length is at least 1,500 feet in rural 

areas but may be a minimum of one block in urban 

areas. 

If a lane or shoulder is closed, a transition area is 

needed to channelize traffic from normal highway lanes 

to the path required to move traffic around the work 

area. The transition area contains the tapers used to 

close lanes. A taper is a series of channelizing devices 

and pavement markings placed on an angle to move 

traffic out of its normal path. The length of a taper is 

determined by the speed of traffic and the width of the 

lane to be closed. The formulae for determining the 

length of a taper are: 

Posted speed 40 mph or less: L = WS 
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

176

Figure 61. Areas in a Traffic Control Zone

Buffer Space

(longitudinal)

provides protection for

traffic and workers

Buffer Space

(lateral)

provides

protection

for traffic

and workers

Buffer Space (longitudinal)

Shoulder Taper

Legend

Direction of travel

Termination Area

lets traffic resume

normal operations

Activity Area

is where work

takes place

Transition Area

moves traffic out

of its normal path

Advance Warning Area

tells traffic what to

expect ahead

Work Space

is set aside for

workers, equipment,

and material storage

Downstream Taper

Traffic Space

allows traffic

to pass through

the activity area

Figure 6C-1. Component Parts of a Temporary Traffic Control Zone

Source: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration, 2003.
 177

Posted speed 45 mph or more: 

where:

L = taper length 

W = width of lane or offset 

S = posted speed or off-peak 85th-percentile speed 

The recommended number and spacing of channelizing 

devices for various speeds and widths of closing are 

given in Table 48.

A two-way traffic taper is used in advance of a work 

area that occupies part of a two-way road in such a 

way that the remainder of the road is used alternately 

by traffic in either direction. A short taper is used to 

cause traffic to slow down by giving the appearance of 

restricted alignment. One or more flaggers are usually 

employed to assign the right of way. Two-way traffic 

tapers should be 50 to 100 feet long, with channelizing 

devices spaced at a maximum of 10 to 20 feet. 

The buffer space is the open or unoccupied space 

between the transition and work areas and provides 

a margin of safety for both traffic and workers. 

Channelizing devices should be placed along the edge 

of the buffer space, spaced (in feet) two times the 

posted speed limit. 

The work area is the portion of the highway that 

contains the work activity, is closed to traffic, and is 

set aside for exclusive use by workers, equipment, 

and construction materials. The work area is usually 

delineated by channelizing devices or shielded by 

barriers to exclude traffic and pedestrians. 

The termination area provides a short distance for 

traffic to clear the work area and return to normal 

traffic lanes. A downstream taper may be placed in the 

termination area to shift traffic back to its normal path. 

2. 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. Typical warning 

signs used in construction work areas are shown in 

Figure 62.

The high conspicuity of fluorescent orange colors 

provides an additional margin of safety by producing 

a high visual impact in hazardous areas. Therefore, 

where the color orange is specified for use in traffic 

control for construction and maintenance operations, 

it is acceptable to utilize materials having fluorescent 

red-orange or yellow-orange colors. 

Signs may be attached to posts or portable supports 

that are lightweight, yielding, or breakaway. The 

minimum height requirements for signs attached 

to posts are shown in Figure 62. Signs on portable 

supports are required by MUTCD to be at least 1 foot 

above the highway.

Pavement markings. Pavement markings and 

delineators outline the vehicular path and, thus, 

guide the motorist through the construction area. 

Pavement markings include lane stripes, edge 

Table 48. Channelizing Devices for Tapers

Speed

Limit

Taper Length (L)

Lane Width (feet)

Number of

Channelizing

Devices for Taper

Spacing of

Devices Along

10 11 12 Taper (feet)

20 70 75 80 5 20

25 105 115 125 6 25

30 150 165 180 7 30

35 205 225 245 8 35

40 270 295 320 9 40

45 450 495 540 13 45

50 500 550 600 13 50

55 550 605 660 13 55

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 1986.

L= WS

60

2

(15)
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

178

stripes, centerline stripes, pavement arrows, and 

word messages. Markings are made of paint (with 

bead reflectorization); raised reflectorized markers; 

preformed adhesive-backed reflectorized tape; cold 

preformed reflectorized plastics; hot reflectorized 

plastics; epoxies; and other materials placed by heating 

and spraying.

The standard markings planned for the road should be 

in place before opening a new facility to traffic. Also, 

if revised lane patterns are planned for the work zone, 

temporary markings should be placed before the traffic 

is changed. Where this is not feasible, such as during 

the process of making a traffic shift or carrying traffic 

through surfacing operations, temporary delineation 

may be accomplished with lines of traffic cones, other 

channelizing devices, or strips of adhesive-backed 

reflectorized tape. 

When pavement placed during the day is to be opened 

to traffic at night, and permanent striping cannot be 

placed before the end of work, a temporary stripe 

should be applied to provide an indication to the driver 

Figure 62. Typical Signs for Traffic Control 

in Work Zones

URBAN DISTRICT

WALKWAY

URBAN DISTRICT

1.8 to

3.7 m

(6 to 12 ft)

Not less than

1.5 m (5 ft)

1.8 to

3.7 m

(6 to 12 ft)

Not less than

1.8 m

(6 ft) Not less than

1.2 m (4 ft)

OR

OR

Paved Shoulder

RURAL DISTRICT WITH

ADVISORY SPEED PLATE

RURAL DISTRICT

Not less than

0.6 m

(2 ft)

OR OR

Not less than

2.1 m (7 ft)

Not less than

0.6 m

(2 ft)

Not less than

2.1 m (7 ft)

Figure 6F-1. Height and Lateral Location of Signs—Typical Installations

Source: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition. Washington, DC: Federal Highway 

Administration, 2003.
 179

of the location of the lane or centerline. Standard 

marking patterns are most desirable for this use. On 

rock-screened seal coats, striping should be applied 

following removal of excess screenings. 

For relatively long-term use, or when the surface is 

to be covered later with another layer, reflectorized 

traffic paint or preformed adhesive-backed tape, 

with or without raised pavement markers, should 

be considered. For relatively short-term use and 

when frequent shifts are to be made, adhesivebacked reflectorized tape is useful. Raised pavement 

markers may be used to form the pavement markings 

to supplement marked stripes. High speeds and 

volumes of traffic may justify raised markers for even 

comparatively short periods. They are particularly 

valuable at points of curvature and transition. 

Pavement arrows are useful in guiding traffic when the 

traveled way does not coincide with the configuration 

of the exposed surface area, such as when the color of 

the transition pavement is different from the existing 

pavement. Pavement arrows are especially useful on 

a two-way, undivided roadway to remind the driver of 

opposing traffic. “Two-Way Traffic” signs should be 

used in conjunction with the arrows for the application. 

The arrows should be completely removed once the 

two-way traffic condition is no longer needed.

Whenever traffic is shifted from its normal path, 

whether a lane is closed, lanes are narrowed, or traffic 

is shifted onto another roadway or a detour, conflicting 

pavement markings should be removed. Exceptions 

to this may be made for short-term operations, such 

as a work zone under flagger control or moving or 

mobile operations. Use of raised pavement markings or 

removable markings may be economical because they 

are usually easier to remove when no longer needed.

Delineators. Delineators are reflective units with a 

minimum dimension of approximately 3 inches. The 

reflector units can be seen up to 1,000 feet under normal 

conditions when reflecting the high beams of motor 

vehicle headlights. Delineators should be installed about 

4 feet above the roadway on lightweight posts. 

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.

Channelizing devices. Channelizing devices 

consist of cones, tubular markers, vertical panels, 

drums, barricades, and barriers. Cones are lightweight 

devices that may be stacked for storage, are easy 

to place and remove, and are a minor impedance to 

traffic flow. They are at least 18 inches high. Cones 

that are 28 inches high should be used on high-speed 

roadways, on all facilities during hours of darkness, or 

whenever more conspicuous guidance is needed. Cones 

are reflectorized for use at night with a 6-inch-wide 

reflectorized band placed no more than 3 inches from 

the top or with a lighting device.

Tubular markers are also lightweight, easy to install, 

and are a minor impedance to traffic flow. They must 

be set in weighted bases or fastened to the pavement. 

They should be at least 18 inches high, with taller 

devices preferred for better visibility. Markers should 

be reflectorized for use at night with two reflectorized 

bands, 3 inches in width, placed no more than 2 inches 

from the top and with no more than 6 inches between 

the bands.

Vertical panels are 8 to 12 inches in width and a 

minimum of 24 inches in height. They are advantageous 

in narrow areas where barricades and drums would be 

too wide. They are mounted on lightweight posts driven 

into the ground or placed on lightweight portable 

supports. The orange and white stripes on vertical 

panels slope down toward the side on which traffic is 

to pass. They should be reflectorized as barricades and 

installed such that the top is a minimum of 36 inches 

above the highway.

Drums are highly visible and appear to be formidable 

objects, thus commanding the respect of motorists. 

They should be marked with horizontal orange and 

white stripes that are reflectorized and 4 to 8 inches 

wide. The drum must have at least two sets of orange 

and white stripes but can also have nonreflectorized 

spaces up to 2 inches wide between the stripes.

Barricades should be constructed of lightweight 

materials and are classified as Types I, II, and III. 

Types I and II are used for either channelizing or 

marking hazards. Type III barricades are used for road 

closures. The barricade rails have alternating orange 

and white reflectorized stripes that slope down toward 

the side on which traffic is to pass. 

Barriers provide a physical limitation through which 

a vehicle would not normally pass. They are used to 

keep traffic from entering a work area or hitting an 

exposed object or excavation. They provide protection 

for workers and construction and separate two-way 

traffic. They are usually made of concrete or metal and 

are designed to contain and redirect an errant vehicle. 
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

180

Exposed ends of barriers should have crash cushions 

to protect traffic or flared ends provided by extending 

the barrier beyond the clear roadside recovery area. 

Two types of crash cushions used in work zones are 

sand-filled plastic barriers and the portable guard rail 

energy absorbing terminal.

High-level warning devices are tall, portable stands 

with flags and/or flashing lights. Three flags, 16-inchsquare or larger, are mounted at least 8 feet above the 

highway. 

Lighting devices. Three types of warning lights 

may be used in construction areas. Flashing lights 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. 

Work vehicles in or near traffic areas are hazards and 

should be equipped with emergency flashers, flashing 

lights, strobes, or rotating beacons. High-intensity 

lights are effective during both day and night. The laws 

of the agency having jurisdiction over the street or 

highway should be checked concerning requirements 

for flashing vehicle lights. These lights should be used 

in addition to other channelizing and warning devices. 

However, in some emergency situations where the work 

will be in progress for a short time, these lights may be 

the only warning device.

Flashing arrow panels are signs with a matrix of lights 

capable of either flashing or sequential displays. They 

are effective during day and night for moving traffic 

out of a lane to the left or the right, and may be used 

for tapered lane closures. These arrow panels should 

not be used when no lanes are closed, when there is 

no interference in traffic flow, or when a flagger is 

controlling traffic on a normal two-lane two-way road. 

Flagging. Flagging 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 

Section 6E. The standard signals to be used by flaggers 

are illustrated in Figure 63. Flaggers should be in sight 

of each other or have direct communication at all times.

A number of hand signaling devices, such as STOP/

SLOW paddles, lights, and red flags are used to control 

traffic through work zones. The sign paddle bearing 

the clear messages “Stop” or “Slow” provides motorists 

with more positive guidance than flags and should be 

the primary hand-signaling device. The use of flags 

should be limited to emergency situations and at spot 

locations that can best be controlled by a single flagger.

When a highway-rail grade crossing exists either 

within or in the vicinity of a temporary traffic control 

zone, lane restrictions, flagging, or other operations 

shall not be performed in a manner that would cause 

vehicles to stop on the railroad tracks, unless a law 

enforcement officer or flagger is provided at the 

highway-rail grade crossing to minimize the possibility 

of vehicles stopping on the tracks, even if automatic 

warning devices are in place.129

3. Typical Applications

Typical applications of traffic control devices in 

crossing work zones are shown in Figures 64 through 

67. 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 49.

Table 49. Sign Spacing for Urban Areas

Speed Limit Sign Spacing

X Y

30 mph or less 300 feet 200 feet

35 mph or 40 mph 450 feet 300 feet

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second 

Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Federal Highway Administration, 1986.

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 and 

should be utilized where appropriate.

All applicable requirements for traffic control in work 

areas set forth in MUTCD shall apply to construction 

and maintenance of crossings. Additional traffic control 

devices other than those shown in the figures should be 

129 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition.

Washington, DC: FHWA, 2003.
 181

Figure 63. Use of Hand Signaling Devices by Flagger

900 mm

(36 in)

600 mm

(24 in)

600 mm

(24 in)

450 mm (18 in)

MIN.

TO STOP TRAFFIC

PREFERRED METHOD

STOP/SLOW Paddle

EMERGENCY SITUATIONS ONLY

Red Flag

TO LET

TRAFFIC PROCEED

TO ALERT AND

SLOW TRAFFIC

Figure 6E-1. Use of Hand-Signaling Devices by Flaggers

Source: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2003 Edition. Washington, DC: Federal 

Highway Administration, 2003.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

182

Figure 64. Crossing Work Activities, Two-Lane Highway, One Lane Closed

Figure 65. Crossing Work Activities, Multilane Urban Divided Highway, 

One Roadway Closed, Two-Way Traffic

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Federal Highway Administration, 1986.
 183

Figure 66. Crossing Work Activities, Closure of Side Road Crossing

Figure 67. Crossing Work Activities, One Lane of Side Road Crossing Closed

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, 
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

184

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 shall be covered, 

removed, or turned so as to not be visible to the motorist.

F. Program Development 

Program development is the portion of the total process 

concerned with selecting the specific improvement 

projects (including the type of improvement to be made 

along with the estimated cost of such improvements) 

to be included in a highway-railroad grade crossing 

improvement program.

Program implementation is the portion of the total 

process concerned with making specific improvements 

at specific highway-railroad grade crossings. 

Some method should be used to establish a priority 

ranking of crossings to be considered for improvement. 

The prioritizing of a crossing for improvement can 

be done individually, or the corridor approach can be 

used. The corridor approach considers a number of 

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.

To aid in the programming of projects, a resource 

allocation model has been developed to assist in 

making allocation decisions. The methodology, using a 

highway-railroad crossing accident prediction formula, 

traffic control device system effectiveness, and cost 

parameters, provides a funding priority ranking of 

projects. On the state and local level, it can be used 

to prioritize crossing projects and options by their 

benefit-cost ratio.

It should be emphasized that, in the use of ranking 

procedures (hazard indices, resource allocation), the 

algorithm 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 play a major role in this 

evaluation process.130

130 Traffic Control Devices Handbook. Washington, DC: Institute 

of Transportation Engineers, 2001.

G. References 

Federal-Aid Policy Guide. Washington, DC: 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), updated 

periodically. 

Federal Highway Administration Survey of Region 

and Division Offices, unpublished, 1984. 

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 

2003 Edition. Washington, DC: FHWA, 2003.

Traffic Control Devices Handbook. Washington, 

DC: FHWA, 1983. 
 185

A. Railroad Responsibility*

The highway-rail crossing is unique to other highway 

features in that railroads install, operate, and maintain 

the traffic control devices located at the crossing. 

Even though a large portion 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 right of way with the railroad. The 

public agency having jurisdiction terminates its 

responsibility for the roadway at the crossing surface. 

B. Highway Authority 

Responsibility

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 construction and 

management (C&M) agreements developed prior 

to initiation of final design and construction of 

improvements.

The highway agency is usually responsible for 

maintaining the highway approaches, all traffic control 

devices on the approaches (except the crossbuck sign), 

illumination, and special signing at the crossing, such 

as the “Exempt” sign, STOP sign, or “Do Not Stop on 

Tracks” sign.

1. 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 

renewed annually. Signs on the approaches will 

gradually lose their retroreflectivity and should be 

inspected at night or checked with a retroreflectometer 

on some regular basis, such as annually, to assure that 

they retain the proper brightness.

Interconnected traffic signals and active advance 

warning 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. 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.

Passive flashers and roadway luminaires should 

be observed on a regular basis and re-lamped as 

necessary. Road crews should be alert for missing 

or damaged devices and for results of acts of 

vandalism that deface the devices or interfere with 

their effectiveness. Road crews should also drive the 

approach roadway to assure 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 or thermoplastic pavement 

marking materials, can offer dual benefits by 

increasing the effectiveness of the devices while 

reducing the required number of maintenance cycles.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has 

been developing standards on retroreflectivity of signs, 

which include minimum values to be provided and 

maintained. FHWA recently published a Supplemental 

Notice of Proposed Amendments to the Manual on

Maintenance Program*

VII

* Includes previously unpublished materials provided by Ray Lewis, 

West Virginia Department of Transportation.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

186

Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The provisions 

were out for comment at the time this handbook was 

prepared.131

2. Roadside Clear Zone

The roadside clear zone serves the dual purpose of 

increasing the visibility of the crossing and traffic 

control devices and providing a safe recovery area for 

an errant motorist. The clear zone should be kept free 

of brush; trees that are more than 100 millimeters (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 right of way, presents a unique problem. 

Except for the portions on the rights of way, this 

involves private property. The removal of trees, brush, 

crops, buildings, signs, storage facilities, and other 

obstructions to the driver’s view requires access to the 

property and an agreement with the landholder for the 

removal of the obstruction.

3. Roadside Approaches

Most maintenance on roadway approaches will be 

similar to that carried out on any roadway. There are a 

few special considerations maintenance forces need to 

keep in mind:

• 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 the 

potential for train movements and should be 

alert for trains. It may be necessary to station 

an employee at the crossing to warn the crew 

of train movements or to coordinate activities 

with the railroad.

• Particular care needs to be taken not to block 

or interfere with proper drainage from the 

crossing or track structure when maintaining 

pipes and ditches.

• Snow removal and ice control should be done 

with care. Snow must not be “windrowed” 

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 

131 23CFR Part 655, FHWA Docket No, FHWA-2003-15149, Federal 

Register, May 8, 2006,

carried onto the crossing. It may be necessary 

for personnel with hand tools to remove ice or 

packed snow from the crossing flangeways.

• Where possible, resurfacing operations should 

be coordinated with the railroad. Resurfacing 

lifts should be “heeled in” 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.

4. Reassessment and Periodic Review

The highway-rail grade crossing represents a 

discontinuity in both the highway pavement and the 

railroad tracks structure. Highway maintenance 

personnel need to be aware of the design, operational, 

safety, and maintenance issues surrounding these 

sites. The roadway maintenance supervisor should pay 

particular attention to the grade crossings under his 

or her jurisdiction and coordinate with the railroad as 

necessary to resolve any problems. The maintenance 

supervisor should also contact the grade crossing 

program administrator as necessary should any 

improvements be desired.

C. References 

Federal Highway Administration Survey of Region 

and Division Offices, unpublished, 1984. 

Maintenance Cost Study of Railroad-Highway 

Grade Crossing Warning Systems. Washington, 

DC: Association of American Railroads, October 

1982.
 187

An integral part of any highway-rail grade crossing 

improvement program is the evaluation of individual 

projects and the overall program. The Federal-Aid 

Policy Guide (FAPG) specifies that each state’s 

highway safety improvement program should include 

an evaluation of the program. This evaluation 

component is to include a determination of the effects 

the improvements have in reducing collisions, collision 

potential, and collision severity. This process should 

include: 

• the cost of and the safety benefits derived 

from the various means and methods used to 

mitigate or eliminate hazards; 

• a record of collision experience before and 

after the implementation of a highway safety 

improvement project; and

• a comparison of collision numbers, rates, and 

severity observed after the implementation of 

a highway safety improvement project with the 

collision numbers, rates, and severity expected 

if the improvement had not been made. 

In addition, the evaluation program is to include an 

annual evaluation and report of the state’s overall 

safety improvement program and the state’s progress 

in implementing the individual federal programs, such 

as the Section 203 crossing program. 

Evaluation is an assessment of the value of an activity 

as measured by its success or failure in achieving a 

predetermined set of goals or objectives. The ultimate 

goal of evaluation is to improve the agency’s ability 

to make future decisions regarding the improvement 

program. These decisions can be aided by conducting 

formal effectiveness and administrative evaluations 

of ongoing and completed improvement projects and 

programs.

In the Highway Safety Evaluation: Procedural 

Guide, two types of evaluation are addressed: 

effectiveness evaluation and administrative evaluation. 

These two types will be discussed in this chapter only 

in sufficient detail for the user to be aware of the need 

and the procedures. However, the reader should refer 

to the procedural guide for more details. Also, the 

following references provide more useful information 

on safety evaluation procedures: 

• Lunenfeld, H. Evaluation of Traffic 

Operations, Safety and Positive Guidance 

Projects. Washington, DC: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), Report No. FHWA-l0-

80-1, October 1980. 

• Tarrants, W.E. and C.H. Veigel. The Evaluation 

of Highway Traffic Safety Programs. 

Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, Report DOT-HS-80­525, 

February 1978. 

• Council, F.M., et al. Accident Research 

Manual. Washington, DC: FHWA, Report 

FHWA/RD-80/016, February 1980. 

• Berg, W.D. Experimental Design for 

Evaluating the Safety Benefits of Railroad 

Advance Warning Signs. Washington, DC: 

FHWA, Report FHWA-RD-79­78, April 1979. 

A. Project Evaluation 

Highway-rail grade crossing improvements that have 

as their objective the enhancement of safety should be 

evaluated as to their effectiveness. This can be done for 

individual projects and should be done for the overall 

improvement program. An effectiveness evaluation 

for safety purposes is the statistical and economic 

assessment of the extent to which a project or program 

achieves its ultimate safety goal of reducing the 

number and/or severity of collisions. It also can be 

expanded to include an assessment of the intermediate 

effects related to safety enhancement. The latter 

Evaluation of Projects 

and Programs VIII
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

188

type of evaluation becomes particularly relevant 

for crossings because the low number of collisions 

occurring at a crossing may preclude any meaningful 

collision-based evaluation of individual crossings or a 

small number of them. 

The procedural guide lists seven functions that should 

be followed in conducting an effectiveness evaluation:

• Develop an evaluation plan.

• Collect and reduce data.

• Compare measures of effectiveness.

• Perform statistical tests.

• Perform economic analyses.

• Prepare evaluation documents.

• Develop and update a database.

The essential elements of the principal functions are 

described below. 

The evaluation plan addresses issues such as the 

selection of projects for evaluation, project purposes, 

evaluation objectives and measures of effectiveness 

(MOEs), experimental plans, and data requirements. 

Although it would be desirable to evaluate all 

improvement projects, manpower and fiscal 

capabilities do not always permit this. Consequently, 

when selecting projects for evaluation, the following 

factors should be considered:

• Improvement types that are questionable as to 

their effectiveness.

• Projects that have sufficient data necessary for 

statistical analysis.

• Projects that are directly related to collision 

reduction.

If the number of collisions occurring before the 

improvement is too few to allow a significant reduction 

of collisions to occur, the project may be evaluated 

along with other similar projects. This is frequently the 

situation with crossings because they experience very 

few collisions. If projects are aggregated for evaluation, 

it is essential that: 

• Countermeasures for each be identical. 

• Types of locations be similar.

• Project purposes be similar. 

The experimental plan selected should be consistent 

with the nature of the project and the completeness and 

availability of data. The most common experimental 

plans for evaluating safety improvement projects are a 

before-and-after study with control sites and a beforeand-after study.

The most desirable MOE for crossing safety 

improvements would be the reduction of collision 

frequency or severity. However, because a long period 

of time may be required to amass an adequate sample 

size, especially for individual projects, evaluations can 

be made based on other measures such as: 

• Traffic performance—speed, stopping behavior, 

and conflicts; or 

• Driver behavior—looking, compliance, and 

awareness.

The evaluation plan describes the types and amounts of 

data necessary for the evaluation. Data for the “before” 

situation could be obtained from the engineering 

study (see Chapter III) used to assist in determining 

the crossing problem and appropriate improvement. 

Additional data, if not available from historical records, 

will have to be collected before the improvement is 

made. If the MOE involves collision data, several years 

of data would be required. Traffic and driver behavior 

data can be collected four to six weeks after project 

implementation.

The effect of the project(s) on the selected MOE must 

be determined. Computations are made to determine 

the expected value of the MOE if the project(s) had 

not been implemented, and the difference between 

the expected MOE and the actual observed value of 

the MOE. This difference should then be tested to 

determine if it is statistically significant.

An important objective of an effectiveness evaluation is 

to obtain a complete picture of how well the completed 

project is performing from a safety standpoint. 

Economic analysis provides another perspective. From 

such analysis, an assessment of cost and collision 

reduction effects, in combination, may be made. This 

aspect of an evaluation is very important because 

it is possible to have a very effective project that is 

cost-prohibitive in terms of future use under similar 

circumstances. 

There are many economic analysis techniques. The two 

most commonly used for evaluating completed highway 

safety improvement projects are the benefit-cost and 

cost-effectiveness methods.

An effectiveness database is an accumulation of project 

results that are directly usable as input to future 

project selection. The database:

• Contains pertinent information on the collisionreducing capabilities of countermeasures and/

or projects.

• Must be continually updated with new 
 189

effectiveness evaluation information. 

• Should only contain evaluation results from 

reliable and properly conducted evaluations. 

With such a database, collision reduction factors can 

be established and refined over time. These factors in 

turn can be used in determining the most cost-effective 

improvements. 

B. Program Evaluation 

The preceding section outlined the process for 

conducting evaluations of one or more improvement 

projects. This evaluation process can and should be 

applied to the entire crossing improvement program 

or components of it. The entire program would consist 

of activities including physical improvements to 

the crossing, changes in railroad or highway traffic 

operations, and changes in law enforcement and driver 

education.

Throughout the program, it may be useful for the 

policy-maker to identify whether certain specific 

program subsets are effective. These program subsets 

could include types of improvements such as: 

• Installation of flashing lights. 

• Relocation of crossing. 

• Illumination. 

• Sight distance improvements.

• Combinations of two or more types. 

The steps and procedures in conducting the program 

(or subset of the program) effectiveness evaluation are 

essentially the same as for projects. FHWA’s Highway 

Safety Evaluation: Procedural Guide should be 

referred to for details. 

C. Administrative Evaluation 

This evaluation is the assessment of the scheduling, 

design, construction, and operational review activities 

undertaken during the implementation of the crossing 

improvement program. It evaluates these activities in 

terms of actual resource expenditures, planned versus 

actual resource expenditures, and productivity. 

In the FHWA procedural guide, eight steps are 

recommended for administrative evaluation:

• Select evaluation subjects.

• Review project (program) details.

• Identify administrative issues.

• Obtain available data sources.

• Prepare administrative data summary tables.

• Evaluate administrative issues.

• Prepare and distribute the evaluation report.

• Develop and update database.

D. References 

Berg, William D. Experimental Design for 

Evaluating the Safety Benefits of Railroad 

Advance Warning Signs. Washington, DC: Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA), Report FHWARD79-78, April 1979.

Council, F.M., et al. Accident Research Manual. 

Washington, DC: FHWA, Report FHWA/RD-80/016, 

February 1980. 

Federal-Aid Policy Guide. Washington, DC: 

FHWA, updated periodically. 

Goodell-Grivas, Inc. Highway Safety Evaluation: 

Procedural Guide. Washington, DC: FHWA, 

FHWA-TS-81-219, October 1980. 

Lunenfeld, H. Evaluation of Traffic Operations, 

Safety and Positive Guidance Projects.

Washington, DC: FHWA, Report No. FHWA-10-80-1, 

October 1980. 

Tarrants, W.E. and C.H. Veigel. The Evaluation of 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Report 

DOT-HS80-525, February 1978.

 191

Several issues are important to highway-rail grade 

crossing safety and operations that either were not 

specifically covered in previous chapters or warrant 

special consideration. These include private crossings; 

short-line railroads; high-speed rail corridors; 

pedestrians; bicycles and motorcycles; special vehicles; 

low-cost active devices; and intelligent transportation 

system (ITS) applications.

A. Private Crossings

Private highway-rail grade crossings are on roadways 

not open to use by the public nor maintained by a 

public authority. According to the U.S. Department 

of Transportation (U.S. DOT) National Highway-Rail 

Crossing Inventory, there were 97,306 private crossings 

in the United States in 2005. 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 right of way.

• Temporary crossings established for the 

duration of a private construction project or 

other seasonal activity.

In some instances, changes in land use have resulted 

in expansion of a crossing’s use to the extent that it 

has become a public crossing, as evidenced by frequent 

use by the general public. This may occur whether 

or not any public agency has accepted responsibility 

for maintenance or control of the use of the traveled 

way over the crossing. The railroad and highway 

agency should continually review the use of private 

crossings so that mutual agreement is obtained on 

the appropriate classification. If the general public is 

making use of a crossing, appropriate traffic control 

devices should be installed for warning and guidance. 

Usually, state and federal funds are not available for 

use at private crossings. 

The number of collisions at private crossings 

represents a small portion of all crossing collisions; 

however, safe design and operation at private crossings 

should not be overlooked. Very few private crossings 

have active traffic control devices and many do not 

have signs. Typically, they are on narrow gravel roads, 

often with poor roadway approaches.

At present, responsibilities for private highway-rail 

crossings are not clearly understood or consistently 

applied. This is an institutional problem that has 

impeded safety improvement programs at private 

crossings. Between 1982 and 1991, collisions at private 

highway-rail crossings ranged from a high of 648 (in 

1984) to a low of 480 (in 1990). During this period, 

safety improvement programs at public crossings 

effected a reduction in collisions of approximately 

26 percent. Private crossing collisions also declined 

during this period but only by 16 percent.

In 2004, there were 412 collisions, 33 fatalities, and 

136 injuries at private crossings. These represent 

reductions, since 2000, of 9.8 percent in collisions, 40.0 

percent in fatalities, and 2.9 percent in injuries, as 

shown in Table 50. 

As with collisions at public crossings, the majority of 

collisions at private crossings involved automobiles. 

Table 51 gives the number of collisions and casualties 

by roadway user for 2004. 

Special Issues IX
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

192

Historical data indicate that approximately 60 percent 

of motor vehicle collisions occurred during daylight, 

about one-third occurred during darkness, and the 

remaining share occurred during either dusk or dawn. 

Most of the collisions involving motor vehicles (137, 

or 38.3 percent) occurred at crossings with STOP 

signs, as shown in Table 52. Collision rates (number of 

collisions at crossings with each type of traffic control 

device divided by number of crossings with that type of 

traffic control device) cannot be determined for private 

crossings because no national statistics are kept on the 

type of traffic control devices at private crossings. 

Some states and railroads have established minimum 

signing requirements for private crossings. Typically, 

these signs consist of a crossbuck, STOP sign, and/or 

a warning against trespassing. California and Oregon 

public utility commissioners use a standard highway 

STOP sign together with a sign indicating that the 

crossing is a private crossing. A typical configuration is 

shown in Figure 68. 

As with public crossings, the first consideration for 

improving private crossings is closure. Adjacent 

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. 

An example of a private crossing program is the 

Private Crossing Safety Initiative developed by 

the North Carolina Department of Transportation 

(NCDOT). This initiative evaluates private crossings, 

although private grade crossings are typically under 

Table 50. Collisions at Private Crossings, 

2000–2004

Year Collisions Fatalities Injuries

2000 457 55 140

2001 369 30 115

2002 355 39 132

2003 367 32 112

2004 412 33 136

Source: Federal Railroad Administration Safety Data Website 

(safetydata.fra.dot.gov/officeofsafety).

Table 52. Motor Vehicle Collisions at Private 

Crossings by Traffic Control Device, 2004

Traffic control device Collisions Percent

Automatic gates 15 4.19

Flashing lights 16 4.47

Highway signals, wigwags, or 

bells 4 1.12

Watchman 6 1.67

Crossbucks 87 24.30

STOP signs 137 38.27

Other signs 5 1.40

No signs or signals 88 24.58

Total 358 100.00

Source: Federal Railroad Administration Safety Data Website 

(safetydata.fra.dot.gov/officeofsafety).

Table 51. Collisions at Private Crossings by Roadway User, 2004

Collisions Fatalities Injuries

Type of vehicle Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Automobile 102 29.57 12 34.28 28 23.33

Truck 128 37.10 15 42.86 62 51.67

Tractor-trailer 107 31.01 3 8.57 30 25.00

Bus 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

Pedestrian 6 1.74 4 11.43 0 0.00

Other* 2 0.58 1 2.86 0 0.00

Total 345 100.00 35 100.00 120 100.00

* “Other” usually refers to farm equipment.

Source: Federal Railroad Administration Safety Data Website (safetydata.fra.dot.gov/officeofsafety).
 193

the jurisdiction of railroad companies. NCDOT is 

proceeding with crossing safety improvements along 

the Charlotte, North Carolina to Raleigh, North 

Carolina “Sealed Corridor” by closing private crossings 

where feasible and protecting the private crossings 

that will remain open with crossbucks, automatic 

flashers and gates, signals, and locking gates. These 

improvements will be identified through a systematic 

analysis conducted on all 46 private crossings within 

the NC Railroad Company corridor operated by Norfolk 

Southern and CSX Transportation. There is no legal 

precedent for public agency involvement in crossing 

safety enhancements, consolidation, or closure of 

private crossings on a corridor basis. Therefore, this 

initiative will require cooperation among the state, 

railroads, and all property owners who utilize private 

crossings within the corridor.

Another example of a state policy regarding private 

crossings recently adopted by West Virginia is included 

in Appendix J.

If the private crossing is determined to be essential 

to the private landowner, the crossing should be 

marked with some type of sign. Controversy exists 

over whether the marking should be identical to 

public crossings, so that the motorist is presented 

with uniform traffic control devices, or whether the 

marking should be distinct to notify the motorist that 

the crossing is private and that use without permission 

is trespassing. No national guidelines exist; however, 

it seems reasonable that the crossing should be 

marked so that it is identified as a private crossing. 

Supplemental crossbucks or STOP signs might also be 

installed.

Some private crossings have sufficient train and 

roadway traffic volume that they require active traffic 

control devices. Considerations for the installation 

of these devices are the same as for public crossings, 

as discussed in Chapter IV. Federal funds and, often, 

state funds cannot be used for the installation of 

traffic control improvements at private crossings. 

The railroad and the landowner usually come to an 

agreement regarding the financing of the devices. In 

some cases, if the landowner is required to pay for 

the installation of the crossing and its traffic control 

devices, the landowner might reevaluate the need for 

the crossing. 

B. 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 Federal Railroad Administration 

(FRA). Class III railroads include all switching and 

terminal companies and all line-haul railroads that 

have annual gross revenue of less than $10 million, 

in 1978 constant dollars. Many of these short-line 

railroads provide switching and terminal services for 

the larger Class I and II railroad companies. Many 

short-line railroads belong to the American Short 

Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA). 

Headquartered in Washington, DC, ASLRRA provides 

liaison with governmental agencies, serves as a source 

for information and assistance, and provides other 

benefits to short-line railroads. 

Some short-line railroads took over the operation 

of a single line that a larger railroad abandoned for 

economic reasons. Short-line railroads often require 

assistance with regard to highway-rail grade crossings 

because of their limited manpower and financial 

resources. These small railroads are often unable 

to seek out federal and state funds for improving 

crossings, yet safety at their crossings is just as 

important as at any other crossing. 

Ownership of these smaller lines comes from a 

variety of investment sources, such as 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 

Figure 68. Typical Private Crossing Sign

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second 

Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Federal Highway Administration, 1986.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

194

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. 

The general condition of the abandoned plant, as 

acquired by the new owner, is usually far from best. 

The track condition may be adequate, requiring 

relatively 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 

maintenance-of-way budget over the next 10 years. 

This, of course, depends on factors such as the location 

of the line in relation to population centers and 

intensities of heavy truck traffic. 

On short-line railroads, there is often a lack of 

specialized personnel for handling the many crossing 

responsibilities, such as the continuing maintenance 

of highly complex electronic crossing traffic control 

equipment. 

Although rail traffic on the smaller lines generally 

tends to be sparse as well as slow, these crossings, in 

comparison to larger railroads, are not necessarily 

safer. National statistics indicate that the vast majority 

of crossing collisions occur at relatively low train 

speeds.

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. When dealing with short-line 

railroads, state agencies should be aware of their 

limited experience, skills, and knowledge. 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. 

C. Light-Rail Lines and Issues

1. Motor Vehicle Turning Treatments

Motor vehicles that make illegal turns in front of 

approaching light-rail vehicles (LRV) account for the 

greatest percentage of total collisions for most light-rail 

train (LRT) systems. 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.

Where turning traffic crosses a non-gated, semiexclusive 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 LRVactivated, flashing, internally illuminated warning 

sign displaying the front view LRV symbol (W10-7) 

when the LRV approaches.132 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. 

At the June 2005 meeting of the National Committee 

on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD), the 

council approved modifications to Part 10, which would 

allow use of the W10-7 active warning train icon sign 

as a supplemental device for any traffic crossing an 

LRT trackway, regardless of whether it is turning or 

continuing through.

Where turning traffic crosses a non-gated, semiexclusive 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 69). 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.

Table 53 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 is allowed to proceed during LRV movements. 

132 Korve, Hans W., Jose I. Farran, Douglas M. Mansel, et al. 

Integration of Light Rail Transit into City Streets. Washington, 

DC: Transit Cooperative Research (TCRP) Report 17, Transportation 

Research Board (TRB), 1996.
 195

Note that the action of the NCUTCD council at the 

June 2005 meeting would broaden the use of the train 

icon sign (W10-7) to include any location where traffic 

crosses an LRT trackway.

2. Use of Crossbuck Sign with LRT

When Part 10 was added to the Manual on Uniform 

Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), text was included 

that could be interpreted to mean that the crossbuck 

sign (R15-1) is required at every LRT crossing, 

regardless of the presence of any other traffic control 

devices. However, it is not customary practice to install 

the crossbuck sign at LRT grade crossings where the 

tracks are within a roadway and the primary traffic 

control device is a traffic signal. At the June 2005 

meeting of NCUTCD, the council approved clarifying 

language indicating that the use of a crossbuck sign is 

optional for semi-exclusive or mixed alignments where 

other traffic control devices are present. 

3. Pedestrian Crossing Treatments

Although collisions between LRVs and pedestrians 

occur less often than collisions between LRVs and 

motor vehicles, they are more severe. Furthermore, 

pedestrians are often not completely alert to their 

surroundings at all times, and LRVs, when operating 

in a street environment, are nearly silent. For these 

reasons, appropriate pedestrian crossing control 

systems are critical for LRT safety.

Flashing light signal. At non-gated, unsignalized, 

pedestrian-only crossings of semi-exclusive LRT rights 

Figure 69. No Turns Internally 

Illuminated Signs

Source: Korve, Hans W., Jose I. Farran, Douglas M. Mansel, et 

al. Integration of Light Rail Transit into City Streets. Washington, 

DC: Transit Cooperative Research Report 17, Transportation 

Research Board, 1996.

Table 53. Use of Active Internally Illuminated Signs for Parallel Traffic Turning Across LRT 

Tracks

Alignment type Intersection traffic control device “No Left/Right Turn” sign Train icon sign for left/

right turnsa

Semi-exclusive 

gated

Stopc Recommended May

Traffic signal without arrowd Recommended b May

Traffic signal with arrowe Not recommended May

Semi-exclusive 

non-gated

Stopc Recommended May

Traffic signal without arrowd Recommended b 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: Korve, Hans W., Jose I. Farran, Douglas M. Mansel, et al. Integration of Light Rail Transit into City Streets. Washington, DC: 

Transit Cooperative Research Report 17, Transportation Research Board, 1996.

24” or 36” DIAMETER CIRCLE

COLORS

CIRCLE & DIAGONAL – RED (INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED)

ARROW – WHITE (INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED)

BACKGROUND – BLACK (NON-REFLECTIVE)

24” x 30”

COLORS

LEGEND – RED (INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED)

BACKGROUND – BLACK (NON-REFLECTIVE)
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

196

of way, a flashing light signal assembly (see Figure 70, 

option A), where LRT operates two ways on one track 

or on a double track, serves as the primary warning 

device. That is, 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). 

Figure 70. Placement of Flashing Light Signal 

Assemblies

Source: Korve, Hans W., Jose I. Farran, Douglas M. Mansel, et 

al. Integration of Light Rail Transit into City Streets. Washington, 

DC: Transit Cooperative Research Report 17, Transportation 

Research Board, 1996.

At motor vehicle, gated LRT crossings without 

pedestrian gates, TCRP Report 17 recommends that 

the flashing light signal assembly (Figure 70, option B) 

be used in the two quadrants without vehicle automatic 

gates. According to this recommendation, these signal 

devices should be installed adjacent to the pedestrian 

crossing facing out from the tracks. The signal 

assembly includes a 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). 

“Second Train Coming” sign. An LRV-activated, 

internally illuminated matrix sign displaying the 

pedestrian crossing configuration with one or two 

(or three or four, etc.) LRVs passing may be used to 

alert pedestrians to the direction from which one or 

multiple LRVs are approaching the crossing, especially 

at locations where pedestrian traffic is heavy (such as 

LRT stations). An example of the active matrix sign is 

shown in Figure 71.

Figure 71. Example Active Matrix Train 

Approaching Sign

Source: Korve, Hans W., Jose I. Farran, Douglas M. Mansel, et al. 

Integration of Light Rail Transit into City Streets. Washington, DC: 

Transit Cooperative Research Report 17, Transportation 

Research Board, 1996.
 197

Alternatively, an LRV-activated, internally illuminated 

flashing sign with the legend SECOND TRAIN—LOOK 

LEFT/RIGHT may be used to alert the pedestrian 

that a second LRV is approaching the crossing from a 

direction that the pedestrian might not be expecting 

(see Figure 72). This sign warns pedestrians that 

although one LRV has passed through the crossing, a 

second LRV is approaching, and that other warning 

devices (such as flashing light signal assembly and 

bell) will remain active until the second LRV has 

cleared the crossing.

Figure 72. Example Second Train Internally 

Illuminated Signs

Source: Korve, Hans W., Jose I. Farran, Douglas M. Mansel, et 

al. Integration of Light Rail Transit into City Streets. Washington, 

DC: Transit Cooperative Research Report 17, Transportation 

Research Board, 1996.

TCRP Report 17 recommends that the “Second Train—

Look Left/Right” sign be placed on the far side of the 

crossing (and on the near side as well if necessary for 

pedestrian visibility), especially when the crossing is 

located near an LRT station, track junction, and/or 

multiple track alignment (more than two tracks). 

When this sign is activated, only one direction, left or 

right, is illuminated at any time. Furthermore, only 

one arrow (to the left of “Look” or the right of “Right”) 

is illuminated at any time—the one that points in the 

direction of the second approaching LRV. If two LRVs 

are very closely spaced so that they will pass through 

the pedestrian crossing almost simultaneously, TCRP 

Report 17 recommends that this sign not be activated 

because there would be no opportunity for pedestrians 

to cross between the successive LRVs, and pedestrians 

should look in both directions.

These warning signs should be mounted as close as 

possible to the minimum height above the ground set 

by MUTCD, Part II, Section 2A-23. If they are mounted 

higher than the minimum height specified (6 or 7 feet), 

pedestrians often will not see or will simply ignore 

the signs. They should be mounted lower than the 

minimum height only if pedestrians cannot injure 

themselves by colliding with the signs.

Dynamic envelope markings. TCRP Report 17 

recommends that the LRV’s dynamic envelope be 

delineated at pedestrian crossings in semi-exclusive 

rights of way and along entire semi-exclusive and nonexclusive corridors. According to this recommendation, 

contrasting pavement texture should be used to 

identify an LRV’s dynamic envelope through a 

pedestrian crossing. A solid 4-inch-wide line may be 

used as an alternative. Tactile warning strips approved 

by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) can be 

considered a contrasting pavement texture, and their 

requirement may supersede the use of painted striping 

or other contrasting pavement texture. TCRP Report 

17 recommends that in an LRT/pedestrian mall, the 

dynamic envelope be delineated in its entirety. As 

shown in Figure 73, the Sacramento, California LRT 

system uses ADA-approved tactile warning strips to 

delineate the dynamic envelope along the K Street LRT/

pedestrian mall.

In addition to pedestrian signals (including flashing 

light signals), warning signs, and dynamic envelope 

markings, several pedestrian barrier systems have 

proven effective in reducing collisions between LRVs 

and pedestrians. These barriers, and the transit 

systems or railroads where they have been successfully 

installed, include the following:

Curbside pedestrian barriers. Between 

intersections in shared rights of way, TCRP Report 

17 recommends that curbside barriers (landscaping, 
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

198

bedstead barriers, fences, and/or bollards and chains) 

be provided along side-aligned LRT operations where 

LRVs operate two ways on a one-way street (contraflow operations). They may also be provided for 

one-way side-aligned LRT operations for normal flow 

alignments. As shown in Figure 74, the San Diego, 

California LRT system uses bollards along C Street to 

warn pedestrians of the LRT tracks.

Pedestrian automatic gates. Pedestrian automatic 

gates are the same as standard automatic crossing gates 

except that the gate arms are shorter. When they are 

activated by an approaching LRV, the automatic gates 

are used to physically prevent pedestrians from crossing 

the LRT tracks. TCRP Report 17 recommends that this 

type of gate be used in areas where pedestrian risk of 

a collision with an LRV is medium to high (for example, 

whenever LRV stopping sight distance is inadequate).

The preferred method is to provide pedestrian automatic 

gates in all four quadrants, installed as follows: Where 

right-of-way conditions permit, TCRP Report 17 

recommends that the vehicle automatic gate be located 

behind the sidewalk (on the side that is away from the 

curb), so that the arm will extend across the sidewalk, 

blocking the pedestrian way (see Figure 75, option A). 

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 

shall be placed in the roadway median. (Note that the 

effective coverage is less than 38 feet due to set-back 

requirements and the size of the gate mechanism.) 

Figure 73. ADA Dynamic Envelope Delineation in 

Sacramento, California

Source: Korve, Hans W., Jose I. Farran, Douglas M. Mansel, et al. Integration 

of Light Rail Transit into City Streets. Washington, DC: Transit Cooperative 

Research Report 17, Transportation Research Board, 1996. 

Figure 74. San Diego, California Curbside 

Pedestrian Barriers

Source: Korve, Hans W., Jose I. Farran, Douglas M. Mansel, et 

al. Integration of Light Rail Transit into City Streets. Washington, 

DC: Transit Cooperative Research Report 17, Transportation 

Research Board, 1996. 

To provide four-quadrant protection, TCRP Report 17 

recommends that two single-unit pedestrian automatic 

gates also be installed behind the sidewalk, across 

the tracks, opposite the vehicle automatic gates. This 

vehicle and pedestrian automatic gate configuration is 

shown in Figure 76 and is preferred because it keeps 

the sidewalk clear for pedestrians and minimizes 

roadside hazards for motorists.
 199

are installed should be minimized. TCRP Report 17 

recommends establishing clearly marked pedestrian 

safety zones and escape paths within the crossing.

Swing gates. The swing gate (sometimes used 

in conjunction with flashing lights and bells) alerts 

pedestrians to the LRT tracks that are to be crossed 

and forces them to pause, thus deterring them from 

running freely across the tracks without unduly 

restricting their exit from the LRT right of way. 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. TCRP Report 17 recommends that the 

gates be designed to return to the closed position after 

the pedestrian has passed, as shown in Figure 77.

As an alternative, the pedestrian automatic gate may 

share the same assembly with a vehicle automatic gate 

(see Figure 75, option B). In this case, TCRP Report 

17 recommends that a separate driving mechanism be 

provided for the pedestrian automatic gate so that a 

failure of the pedestrian automatic gate will not affect 

vehicle automatic gate operations. According to this 

recommendation, to provide four-quadrant protection, 

a single-unit pedestrian automatic gate should also 

be installed on the curbside of the sidewalk, across 

the tracks, opposite the vehicle automatic gate and 

pedestrian automatic gate assembly. This vehicle and 

pedestrian automatic gate configuration is shown in 

Figure 76.

The possibility of trapping pedestrians in the LRT 

right of way when four-quadrant pedestrian gates 

Figure 75. Placement of Pedestrian Automatic Gates

Source: Korve, Hans W., Jose I. Farran, Douglas M. Mansel, et al. Integration of Light 

Rail Transit into City Streets. Washington, DC: Transit Cooperative Research Report 17, 

Transportation Research Board, 1996. 
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

200

Swing gates may be used at pedestrian-only crossings, 

on sidewalks, and near stations (especially if the 

station is a transfer point with moderate pedestrian 

volumes) where pedestrian risk of a collision with an 

LRV is medium to high (for example, where there is 

moderate stopping sight distance, moderate pedestrian 

volume, etc.). These gates may be used at pedestrian 

crossings of either single-track (one- or two-way LRT 

operations) or double-track alignments.

TCRP Report 17 recommends that the use of swing 

gates be supplemented with proper signing mounted 

on or near the gates. Such signing includes the “Light 

Rail Transit Crossing/Look Both Ways” (W10-5a) sign 

(where LRVs operate two ways) or LRV-activated, 

internally illuminated warning signs and/or flashing 

light signal assemblies. Where LRVs operate in 

a single-track, two-way alignment, TCRP Report 

17 recommends that an LRV-activated, internally 

illuminated matrix sign or active, internally illuminated 

sign with the legend TRAIN—LOOK LEFT/RIGHT be 

installed to supplement swing gates.

Bedstead barriers. The bedstead concept may be 

used in tight urban spaces where there is no fenced-in 

right of way, such as a pedestrian grade crossing at a 

street intersection (see Figure 78). The barricades are 

placed in an offset (maze-like) manner that requires 

pedestrians moving across the LRT tracks to navigate 

the passageway through the barriers. TCRP Report 17 

recommends that they be designed and installed to turn 

pedestrians toward the approaching LRV before they 

cross each track, forcing them to look in the direction 

of oncoming LRVs. According to this recommendation, 

the barriers should also be used to delineate the 

pedestrian queuing area on both sides of the track 

area. Bollards and chains accomplish the same effect 

as bedstead barriers.

Bedstead barriers may be used for crossings where 

pedestrians are likely to run unimpeded across the 

tracks, such as stations or transfer points, particularly 

where pedestrian risk of a collision with an LRV is low 

to medium (for example, where there is excellent to 

moderate stopping sight distance, double tracking, low 

pedestrian volume, etc.). TCRP Report 17 recommends 

that the barriers be used in conjunction with flashing 

lights, pedestrian signals, and appropriate signing. 

Bedstead barriers may also be used in conjunction with 

automatic gates in high-risk areas.

TCRP Report 17 recommends that bedstead barriers 

not be used when LRVs operate in both directions on 

a single track because pedestrians may be looking 

the wrong way in some instances. Pedestrians also 

look in the wrong direction during LRV reverserunning situations; however, because reverse running 

is performed at lower speeds, this should not be a 

deterrent to this channeling approach.

Z-crossing channelization. The Z-crossing controls 

movements of pedestrians approaching LRT tracks. 

Its design and installation turn pedestrians toward the 

approaching LRV before they cross each track, forcing 

them to look in the direction of oncoming LRVs (see 

Figure 79). 

Z-crossing channelization may be used at crossings 

where pedestrians are likely to run unimpeded across 

the tracks, such as isolated, midblock, pedestrianonly crossings, particularly where pedestrian risk of a 

collision with an LRV is low to medium (for example, 

where there is excellent stopping sight distance, double 

tracking, low pedestrian volume, etc.).

Figure 76. Pedestrian Automatic Gate Examples

Source: Korve, Hans W., Jose I. Farran, Douglas M. Mansel, et 

al. Integration of Light Rail Transit into City Streets. Washington, 

DC: Transit Cooperative Research Report 17, Transportation 

Research Board, 1996.
 201

Z-crossings used with pedestrian signals create a 

safer environment for pedestrians than Z-crossings 

used alone. This type of channelization device may 

also be used in conjunction with automatic gates in 

high-risk areas. TCRP Report 17 recommends that 

the Z-crossing not be used when LRVs operate in 

both directions on a single track because pedestrians 

may be looking the wrong way in some instances. 

Pedestrians also look in the wrong direction during 

LRV reverse-running situations; however, because 

reverse running is performed at lower speeds, this 

should not be a deterrent to this channeling approach.

Figure 79. San Diego, California Pedestrian 

Z-Crossing

Source: Korve, Hans W., Jose I. Farran, Douglas M. Mansel, et 

al. Integration of Light Rail Transit into City Streets. Washington, 

DC: Transit Cooperative Research Report 17, Transportation 

Research Board, 1996.

Figure 77. Pedestrian Swing Gate Examples

Source: Korve, Hans W., Jose I. Farran, Douglas M. Mansel, et al. Integration of Light Rail Transit into City Streets. 

Washington, DC: Transit Cooperative Research Report 17, Transportation Research Board, 1996.

Figure 78. Bedstead Barrier Application

Source: Korve, Hans W., Jose I. Farran, Douglas M. Mansel, et 

al. Integration of Light Rail Transit into City Streets. Washington, 

DC: Transit Cooperative Research Report 17, Transportation 

Research Board, 1996.

Combined pedestrian treatments. The pedestrian 

crossing/barrier systems described may be used 

in combination, as shown in Figure 80, depending 

on pedestrian risk of a collision with an LRV at the 

crossing. Moreover, pedestrian safety and queuing 

areas should always be provided and clearly marked.

4. Solutions to Observed Problems

Table 54 presents some possible solutions to common 

problems at LRV crossings. This material was presented 

in TCRP Report 69, which addresses LRT operation at 

speeds greater than 35 miles per hour (mph). 
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

202

Figure 80. Illustrative Pedestrian Treatment

Source: Korve, Hans W., Jose I. Farran, Douglas M. Mansel, et al. Integration of Light Rail Transit into City Streets.

Washington, DC: Transit Cooperative Research Report 17, Transportation Research Board, 1996.
 203

Table 54. Possible Solutions to Observed Problems

Issue Possible solution

1. System design

• Vehicles driving around closed automatic 

gates.

Install raised medians with barrier curbs.

Install channelization devices (traffic dots or flexible posts).

Install longer automatic gate arms.

Photo enforcement.

Four-quadrant gates.

For parallel traffic, install protected signal indications or 

LRV-activated “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.

• Motorist disregard for regulatory signs at 

LRT crossings and grade 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 grade crossing.

• Sight distance limitations at LRT crossings. Maximize sight distance by limiting potential obstructions 

to 1.1 meter (3.5 feet) in height within about 30 to 60 meters 

(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.

• Automatic gate and traffic signal 

interconnect malfunctions.

Install plaque at crossing with 1-800 phone number and 

crossing name and/or identification number.

2. System operations

• Freight line converted to or shared with lightrail 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 grade crossing warning 

devices.

Adequately maintain LRT crossing hardware (routinely 

align flashing light signals) and reduce device “clutter.”

• Emergency preparedness. Training of staff and emergency response teams (fire, 

police).

3. Traffic signal placement and operation

• Motorists confused about apparently 

conflicting flashing light signal and traffic 

signal indicators.

Use traffic signals on the near side of the LRT crossing (presignals) with programmable visibility or louvered traffic 

signal heads for far-side 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.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

204

Issue Possible solution

• 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.

• 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 first priority and emergency 

vehicles second priority.

• Turning motorists violate red protected leftturn 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 warning signs. Mount signs 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.

(continued)
 205

D. High-Speed Rail Corridors 

Special consideration must be given to highway-rail 

grade 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 speeds over 100 mph 

but also other passenger routes over which trains may 

operate at speeds higher than freight trains. 

Variations in warning time may occur with high-speed 

passenger trains at crossings equipped with active 

traffic control 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. 

High-speed passenger trains present additional 

problems at crossings with only passive traffic control 

devices. Safe sight distance along the track from a 

stopped position must be much greater for a faster 

train. The sight distance along the track from the 

highway approach must also be greater unless vehicle 

speed is reduced. In addition, it is difficult to judge the 

speed of an oncoming train. 

Private crossings are a major concern for high-speed 

passenger trains. These crossings usually have only 

passive traffic control devices and often consist of 

narrow, unimproved, or gravel roads with limited 

visibility along the railroad tracks. 

Special attention should be gi­ven to crossings on 

high-speed rail passenger routes. Some states utilize 

priority indices that include a factor for train speed or 

potential dangers to large numbers of people. In this 

manner, crossings with high-speed passenger trains 

are likely to rank higher than other crossings and, 

thus, be selected for crossing improvements. 

Another method for improving crossings on high-speed 

passenger routes is to utilize the systems approach. 

As discussed in Chapter III, the systems approach 

involves the inspection and evaluation of safety and 

operations at crossings within a specified system, such 

as along a high-speed rail corridor. 

It is desirable that all crossings located on high-speed 

rail corridors either be closed, grade separated, or 

equipped with automatic gates. 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. 

Education of the public is an important element for the 

improvement of safety and operations at crossings on 

high-speed rail corridors. This can be accomplished 

with publicity campaigns and public service 

announcements, as described in the next chapter. 

Public education might also alleviate some fears of 

high-speed trains and provide for better railroadcommunity relations. State agen­cies and railroads 

should coopera­tively undertake this. 

Special signing might also be employed at these 

crossings to remind the public that the crossings are 

used by high-speed trains. No national standard exists 

for such signing; however, the signing should be in 

conformance with the guidelines provided in MUTCD.

E. Special Vehicles, Pedestrians, 

Motorcycles, and Bicycles

Highway-rail grade crossings are designed and 

controlled to accommodate the vehicles that use 

them. The vast majority of these vehicles consist of 

automobiles, buses, and all types of trucks. Generally 

speaking, improvements to a crossing with these 

users in mind will be adequate for any other special 

users, such as trucks carrying hazardous materials, 

long-length trucks, school buses, motorcycles, 

bicycles, and pedestrians. However, these users have 

unique characteristics and special needs that should 

be considered. Chapter II discussed some of these 

characteristics. This chapter will present some design 

and control considerations.

1. Trucks with Hazardous Material Cargo

Collisions involving trucks with hazardous material 

cargo are potentially the most dangerous because 

they can have deleterious effects over a wide area. 

Consequently, all crossings used by these vehicles 

should be considered for improvements and, in turn, 

these improvements should consider the special needs 

of these vehicles.

Drawing on the National Transportation Safety Board’s 

study of train collisions involving these vehicles 

and their subsequent recommendations, several 

suggestions are provided to address this concern:
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

206

• 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 in 

close proximity to 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 right of 

way 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.

2. Long and Heavily Laden Trucks

As discussed in Chapter II, large trucks have particular 

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 WB-65), where such 

vehicles may be expected to utilize a highway-rail 

grade 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: 

• Longer sight distances.

• Placement of advance warning signs.

• Warning time for signals.

• Approach and departure grades. 

• Storage area between tracks and nearby 

highway intersection.

3. Buses

Because buses carry many passengers and have 

performance characteristics similar to large trucks, 

these vehicles also need special consideration. Many 

of the measures suggested for trucks with hazardous 

material apply to buses. Railroad-highway grade 

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 and railroad personnel to 

identify potentially dangerous crossings and the need 

for improvements. Drivers should be instructed on 

safe crossing procedures and should be made aware 

of expected railroad operations, such as the speed and 

frequency of train movements.

4. Motorcycles and Bicycles

Although motorcycles and bicycles typically travel 

at different speeds, these two-wheeled vehicles can 

experience the same problem at crossings. Depending 

on the angle and type of crossing, a cyclist may lose 

control of the vehicle if the wheel becomes trapped in 

the flangeway. The surface materials and the flangeway 

width and depth must 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. 

Other than smooth surface treatments, there are no 

special controls for these special vehicles. However, 

if a bicycle trail crosses tracks at grade, the bicyclist 

should be warned of this with suitable markings and 

signs, such as those shown in Figure 81. 

 
 207

Pedestrians. The safety of pedestrians crossing 

railroads is the most difficult to control because of the 

relative ease with which pedestrians can go under or 

around lowered gates. Pedestrians typically seek the 

shortest path and, therefore, may not always cross 

the tracks at the highway or designated pedestrian 

crossing. 

Because of the variety of factors that may contribute to 

pedestrian hazards, detailed studies are necessary to 

determine the most effective measures to provide for 

pedestrian safety at specific locations.

A variety of preventive measures can be employed. 

(Refer also to Chapter IX, Part C, “Light-Rail Transit” 

for safety measures identified in reports issued 

by TCRP.) As of the preparation of this handbook, 

the Railroad Technical Committee of NCUTCD has 

established a pedestrian task force charged with 

expanding the provisions for pedestrian traffic control 

devices.

Fencing. Fencing that encloses the right of way may 

be used to restrict access. A 6- to 8-foot-high chain 

link fencing, sometimes topped with barbed wire, is 

commonly used. Fencing is usually placed on both sides 

of the right of way, but it can be an effective deterrent 

to indiscriminate crossing if placed on only one side. 

The main objection to fencing is its cost, which may 

be in excess of $100,000 per mile for construction. 

Furthermore, it does not bar entrances at crossings. 

Alternatively, a single 4-foot fence, placed parallel to 

the track and across a pedestrian crossing route, might 

be a lower-priced and somewhat effective deterrent. 

Fencing is commonly used between multiple tracks at 

commuter stations. Maintenance is an additional cost. 

Separated crossings. To prevent vandalism of 

continuous fencing, pedestrian crossings might be 

provided over or under the track(s) at reasonable 

intervals. Pedestrian grade separations are expensive 

and should be designed to maximize pedestrian use. 

If a structure is built, it should be accessible, and 

pedestrians should be directed to it through the use of 

barriers, fencing, or signs. 

Improved signing. An example whereby pedestrian 

and trespasser safety near railroads can be enhanced 

through improved signing concerns electrified rail 

lines, in particular, their catenaries (the overhead 

wires used to carry energy to electric locomotives). The 

electrical current is so great that shocks can result 

without actual contact with the wire. Warning signs 

along electrified railroads can reduce collisions. These 

signs should provide both symbolic representation 

(such as a lightning bolt) and the warning legend. 

Safety education. The education of actual and 

potential trespassers can reduce the incidence of 

right-of-way collisions. Individual railroads as well as 

the Association of American Railroads and Operation 

Lifesaver have conducted active railroad safety 

programs for many years through schools. 

Surveillance and enforcement. No form of 

pedestrian safety program can be effective without 

some level of surveillance and enforcement. At present, 

trespassing is generally considered a misdemeanor, 

and law enforcement officials are often indisposed 

to prosecute. A more effective procedure for some 

forms of railroad trespassing would be to treat it 

like jaywalking and issue a citation with automatic 

imposition of a fine if a hearing were waived. Such 

a procedure would impose some burden on the 

trespasser who otherwise might only be reprimanded. 

Figure 81. Recommended Sign and Marking 

Treatment for Bicycle Crossing

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second 

Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Federal Highway Administration, 1986.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

208

ADA. ADA (1990) gives civil rights protections 

to individuals with disabilities similar to those 

provided to individuals on the basis of race, color, 

sex, national origin, age, and religion. It guarantees 

equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities in 

public accommodations, employment, transportation, 

state and local government services, and 

telecommunications. 

ADA standards for accessible design were published 

as Appendix A to the Title III regulations by the U.S. 

Department of Justice (28 CFR Part 36, revised July 

1, 1994). These standards address many geometric 

features pertaining to pedestrian facilities, including:

• Minimum widths and clearances.

• Accessible routes and pedestrian pathways.

• Curb ramps and ramps.

• Protruding objects.

These standards are available from the ADA home 

page on the Department of Justice Website.133

F. Low-Cost Active Devices

A recent study considered the applicability of lowercost alternative technologies to provide active warning 

at crossings that presently lack such devices.134

The research identifies the component costs for 

traditional active grade crossing systems and explains 

what influences these costs. Alternative practices 

and technologies are discussed from national and 

international perspectives to explain the limitations 

and possibilities of implementing lower-cost active 

grade crossing systems in the United States. An array 

of pertinent assessment criteria for low-cost active 

grade crossing systems was developed to assess the 

relative merits of each technology. The criteria were 

incorporated into a decision-making framework and 

evaluation tool that helped assess the appropriateness 

of these systems for further evaluation.

The report notes that technological advances over the 

past decade suggest that there has to be a low-cost way 

to signalize some of the thousands of passive grade 

crossings that exist in the United States and notes that 

redundancy and fail-safe elements may comprise 25 to 

35 percent of the total system cost. 

133 U.S. Department of Justice Americans with Disabilities Act 

Website (www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada).

134 Roop, Stephen S., Craig E. Roco, Leslie E. Olson, and Richard 

A. Zimmer. An Analysis of Low-Cost Active Warning Devices 

For Highway-Rail Grade Crossings. Washington, DC: Texas 

Transportation Institute, National Cooperative Highway Research 

Program, NAS 188 HR 3-76B, March 2005.

The study evaluated 12 technologies, including:

• Geophone.

• Fiber optic (rail).

• Fiber optic (buried).

• Video imagery.

• Radar (speed).

• Radar (speed and distance).

• Acoustic.

• Pressure sensor.

• Magnetic anomaly.

• Infrared.

• Laser.

These technologies were ranked by applying a set 

of evaluation criteria to a multi-criteria analysis 

process that assessed the relative merits of each lowcost warning device, including factors ranging from 

safety-related measures to measures of reliability, 

maintainability, and ease of installation. This analysis 

used a hierarchical formulation of broadly defined 

project goals tied to specific objectives, with each 

objective quantified by a performance measure, to add 

consistency and structure to the selection of favorable 

alternatives.

Evaluation criteria included:

• Enhanced safety.

• Reduced system cost.

• Reliability.

• Installability.

• Maintainability.

• Compatibility.

Identified cost groupings included:

• Ultra-low cost: less than $2,000.

• Low cost: $2,000–$8,000.

• Moderate cost: greater than $8,000.

To prevent the emphasis from being placed strictly on 

seeking the lowest-cost active warning systems, the 

analysis grouped similarly priced systems to evaluate 

their merits relative to other important features. 

Results from the analysis indicated that future research 

should focus on improving the safety of the acoustic 

and radar off-right-of-way systems. Specifically, it 

was recommended that they should be evaluated 

for consistency of performance and the potential to 

calibrate them to operate with minimal risk exposure. 

It was also concluded that the risks associated with 

implementing acoustic and radar systems should be 

quantified so that the net benefit of increasing the 

number of active warning systems through the use of 

these technologies can be determined.
 209

The final report for the analysis documents all aspects 

of the evaluation, including the use of a multi-criteria 

analysis framework, and also discusses trade-offs 

between reliability, cost, and safety reduction, which 

are inherent to deployment of low-cost technologies. 

At the time this handbook went to press, work was 

underway on the installation of prototype devices for 

the purpose of field evaluation.

G. ITS Applications

ITS has some applications at railroad crossings 

that affect traffic signal preemption. Under normal 

operating conditions, the train has the right of way at 

crossings, and the crossings are managed to maximize 

safety 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.

1. ITS National Architecture and User 

Service 30

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in 

conjunction with FRA, has developed “User Service 

30” to describe the ITS applications that relate to the 

highway-rail grade 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 

grade 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 grade crossing functions are 

identified with three interfaces:

• Roadway subsystem and the wayside 

equipment terminator.

• Traffic management subsystem (TMS) and the 

rail operations terminator.

• Highway-rail intersection data, traffic 

management to roadway.

Roadway subsystem and the wayside 

equipment terminator. The roadway subsystem 

represents ITS field equipment, including traffic 

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 grade 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 grade crossing 

is closed (gates are down) and that trains may 

proceed at full authorized speed.

• The roadway subsystem also sends a realtime 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 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 
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

210

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 right of way.

Roadway subsystem and TMS. The addition 

of highway-rail intersection (HRI) functions to 

the National ITS Architecture added several 

communications flows between the roadway subsystem 

and the TMS.

• The roadway subsystem determines the 

status of the crossing and transmits this 

to the TMS. This status includes several 

components: information about the crossing 

itself; information about the traffic in the 

neighborhood of the crossing; information 

about the expected closure time and duration 

(obtained from the wayside equipment); and 

information that should be displayed via 

variable message signing or beacons (for invehicle signing). In addition, an intersection 

blockage notification flow is included to provide 

an indication if a blockage at the crossing 

exists.

• The TMS will communicate with the roadway 

subsystem with two types of crossing-related 

messages: control messages (the HRI control 

data flow) sent directly to the crossing 

equipment (such as the intelligent intersection 

controller, variable message signing, etc.), and 

a status request flow (the HRI request flow). 

The HRI control data flow can also include rail 

advisory information obtained from the rail 

operations terminator and forwarded by the 

TMS.135

2. Standard 1570

The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers 

(IEEE) empanelled 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.” 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. A high-level diagram of 

this interface is shown in Figure 82.

135 Preemption of Traffic Signals Near Railroad Crossings, 

Appendix D (ITS Applications). Washington, DC: Institute of 

Transportation Engineers, January 2004; along with User Service 30 

information.

3. Survey of Recent ITS Initiatives

To increase awareness and research efforts in the area 

of highway-rail grade crossing safety, FRA tasked the 

John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center 

to review past projects with similar goals and conduct a 

demonstration program that will utilize aspects of both 

ITS and positive train control at an HRI to increase the 

safety of the crossing. 

The majority of the first part of the effort in the survey 

consisted of a literature search for relevant past 

projects that used portions of either ITS or positive 

train control capabilities. Several of these projects 

have continued operating and are providing beneficial 

safety aspects. Variable message signs are the primary 

enabling technology of many of the projects reviewed 

and continue to be used with great success. In-vehicle 

warning systems have played a much more limited 

role due to the use of technologies that have not been 

standardized and, for the most part, these systems 

have been dismantled.

Selected initiatives are described below.

Minnesota in-vehicle warning system. The 

Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota 

Mining and Manufacturing Company (3M), and 

Dynamic Vehicle Safety Systems (DVSS) developed 

and demonstrated an in-vehicle warning system. The 

system was designed to alert drivers of potentially 

dangerous highway-rail grade crossing situations. Due 

to the finite number of vehicles and drivers, school 

buses were chosen as the test vehicle group. 

Five highway-rail grade crossings were equipped 

with warning transmitters, and 29 school buses were 

equipped with receivers. The transmitters continuously 

broadcast a radio signal via antenna. The warning 

device broadcast the presence of the train when 

the train activated the conventional highway-rail 

grade crossing safety feature. Vehicles in the vicinity 

automatically were informed of their distance to the 

crossing and whether or not a train was present. Four 

of the five crossings were also capable of broadcasting 

the direction the train was traveling. 

The warning was displayed to the driver both audibly 

and visually. The audio signal output automatically 

adjusted in relation to the ambient noise in the vehicle 

to help guarantee the driver was alerted. The system 

was also designed only to activate and alert when 

the direction of the vehicle would take it through the 

crossing. 
 211

The system used a traditional two-quadrant gate 

system with track circuitry for train detection. Radio 

transmitters were fixed to the crossbucks to provide 

the warning to the in-vehicle system. Within the 

vehicle, a unique type of in-vehicle display (shown in 

Figure 83) was developed to provide the warning to 

the driver. The in-vehicle equipment also consisted of 

a device to receive the radio transmissions from the 

crossbuck-mounted transmitter.

Because the system was installed on a small sampling 

of crossings and buses and because the test period 

was short, no significant statistical difference could 

be calculated to indicate the impact of the in-vehicle 

warning system on driver behavior. The primary 

determination of the effectiveness of the system was the 

behavioral characteristics of the bus drivers and their 

own opinions culled from surveys. Locomotive engineers 

were also queried as to the effectiveness of the system. 

There was a general acceptance and perception of 

value by drivers and railroad personnel. The drivers 

also favored the crossings that were capable of 

broadcasting the train direction. The majority of 

drivers felt the system should be installed permanently. 

Upon completion of the evaluation, all components, 

including in-vehicle devices and trackside components, 

were removed from service. Currently, there is no plan 

to resume operation of this system.

Figure 82. Highway Rail Intersection Interface Overview

 

Source: “The National Architecture for ITS,” U.S. Department of Transportation.

Figure 83. In-Vehicle Display

Source: Minnesota Department of Transportation.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

212

Long Island Railroad second-train changeable 

message sign. In an effort to improve safety, the 

Long Island Railroad (LIRR) installed second-train 

changeable message signs (CMS) at the Stewart 

Avenue highway-rail grade crossing along the LIRR 

mainline in Bethpage, New York. The system became 

operational in November 2002 with the primary intent 

of improving pedestrian awareness and safety. The 

Stewart Avenue highway-rail grade crossing is listed as 

one of the 10 most dangerous crossings in the state of 

New York, having witnessed multiple fatalities, one as 

recent as 1999, and many pedestrian incidents. 

The system LIRR chose for this application 

incorporates text and graphic CMS with audible 

warnings and strobe lights. The audible warning 

consists of a voice broadcast via public announcement 

speakers mounted adjacent to the CMS, audibly 

repeating the message shown in text on the CMS. All of 

the warning devices are mounted on custom cantilever 

support arms that had to be designed and installed 

specifically for this application at all four quadrants of 

the highway-rail grade crossing. 

In addition to the warning devices, LIRR installed 

event recorders that connect to the central office at 

the Stewart Avenue highway-rail grade crossing as 

part of the new central monitoring system. Currently, 

the system is not designed for fail-safe operation. The 

system allows LIRR to determine if activation from the 

track circuitry was received; however, LIRR currently 

has no way of determining if the system is functioning 

correctly or functioning at all. LIRR is considering 

implementing video surveillance to enhance the system. 

Evaluation of the LIRR second-train warning system 

has not been conducted and no true data have been 

collected to determine the effect of the system on safety 

of the Stewart Avenue highway-rail grade crossing. One 

issue that has been discussed is pedestrian confusion 

as a result of the CMS not being activated. Currently, 

the system is activated only during a second-train 

event. Crossing users can misinterpret non-activation 

of the system during single-train arrival events to mean 

that it is safe to circumvent the deployed gates. This 

has not caused any collisions, but further assessment 

of the situation is required.

The only maintenance cost associated with the system is 

periodic testing, which is currently performed monthly 

in addition to the scheduled crossing maintenance.

Alameda Corridor-East integrated roadway/

rail interface system. As part of a larger grade 

crossing improvement program, the Alameda CorridorEast Jump Start Safety Improvements Program, the 

integrated roadway/rail interface system (IR/RIS) is 

being installed on several HRIs within this corridor. 

The corridor encompasses a distance of 35 miles 

through the San Gabriel Valley between East Los 

Angeles and Pomona, California. The Jump Start 

Program itself is targeting 34 crossings in this area 

for improvement in safety. These improvements will 

help eliminate gate drive-arounds, improve pedestrian 

crossings, and improve warning lights and traffic 

signals.

The IR/RIS system is focusing on reducing both traffic 

delays and large queues, which build up near the 

highway-rail grade crossings. It is also hoped that 

driver frustration due to delays will be reduced. The 

demonstration project is located in the Pomona area, 

which experiences traffic delays due to high rail traffic 

that sometimes consists of long through freight trains, 

some of which pause at times at the highway-rail 

grade crossings. There is also commuter rail traffic at 

peak times, which occurs simultaneously with peak 

automobile traffic, causing further congestion.

The demonstration project will detect trains 5 miles 

from the crossings and predict their arrival at the 

highway-rail grade crossings. This information will be 

used to determine if traffic signals in the area should 

be adjusted. There will also be CMS in the area that 

can inform motorists and pedestrians of the situation. 

Rerouting of traffic may also take place because three 

grade-separated crossings are located in the area and 

will allow for alternative routes.

Because the existing train detection subsystem is not 

adequate for the prediction of train arrival times, a new 

system will be installed independent of the existing 

system. The new system will use magnetometers.

Initial testing of the system has been successful and 

has proven the accuracy of train detection, speed, and 

length. Full demonstration testing will continue.

Minnesota low-cost active warning for lowvolume HRI warning project. The Minnesota 

Department of Transportation, Twin Cities and 

Western Railroad, C3 Trans Systems Limited Liability 

Company, and SRF Consulting Group Incorporated, 

along with FRA and FHWA, have teamed to develop 

and test a low-cost active warning system for lowvolume highway-rail grade crossings as an alternative 

to traditional and expensive active highway-rail grade 

crossing warning devices. The main objectives of the 
 213

project are to determine whether the low-cost active 

train warning system can improve safety and function 

as well as traditional railroad grade crossing signals. 

The project is also looking to determine whether 

the low-cost system’s addition of flashers or CMS 

on advance rail warning signs provides additional 

benefits. The project goal is to have a system cost 

that is approximately 10 percent of traditional grade 

crossing warning systems.

This ITS system consists of the addition of solar 

panel battery-powered light-emitting diode flashers 

to traditional highway-rail grade crossing crossbuck 

signs and solar panel battery-powered amber flashers 

to traditional advanced warning signs. Activation 

of the flashers is provided by low-power radio 

communications from approaching locomotives. Power 

is supplied via a battery bank that has integrated 

solar panels. An in-cab display notifies the locomotive 

engineer of the warning device status. 

There is built-in logic with a self-update capability and 

fault reporting. In the event that a failure does occur, 

within 5 minutes of that failure, the system notifies the 

central office of the event via cellular telephone. The 

low-cost warning device also sends a signal via lowpower radio communications link to the locomotive 

cab. Inside the cab, there is a display with a series of 

three lights: red, yellow, and green. This display will 

notify the locomotive crew of a failure in time to stop 

the train.

Active mode testing of the system using several 

locomotives and more than 30 equipped highwayrail grade crossings was completed in the summer of 

2004. A final report for the project is available on the 

Minnesota Department of Transportation Website.136

4. Proposed Demonstration Scenarios

Based on the survey of past projects and pending 

development of technology such as dedicated shortrange communication (DSRC), the Volpe Center has 

proposed to FRA several alternative demonstrations 

that could provide increased safety at highway-rail 

grade crossings.

One scenario involves the utilization of either a 

global positioning satellite (GPS)-based product or 

a wireless radio system to notify an approaching 

roadway vehicle operator that he or she is nearing a 

136 “Low-Cost Highway-Rail Intersection Active Warning System 

Field Operational Test Evaluation Report.” Minnesota Department 

of Transportation, Office of Traffic, Security and Operations. URS 

Corporation and TranSmart Technologies, Inc. December 2005 (www.

dot.state.mn.us/guidestar/projects/hris.html).

highway-rail grade crossing. The system would provide 

this advanced warning indication within the vehicle. 

Because most vehicles in the United States do not 

contain in-vehicle displays, such as those in Japan, the 

use of a personal digital assistant (PDA) device would 

seem more appropriate for the test. The option to use 

a vehicle with a built-in display could also be pursued 

because their availability is growing, although most are 

available in higher-cost vehicles.

Using wireless communications, a highway-rail grade 

crossing would be outfitted with a localized transmitter 

that broadcasts its presence to approaching vehicles. 

The vehicles will be outfitted with a PDA or other 

device that can receive the radio broadcast transmitted 

by the highway-rail grade crossing. Several options 

for communications are possible, with the latest DSRC 

5.9GHz band protocol being the most promising. A 

new standard is being formulated for this protocol and 

includes specific channels for ITS safety applications. 

Another option is the 802.11b protocol known as Wi-Fi, 

but because it was not developed for moving objects, it 

would most likely require modification.

With the GPS-based approach, navigation software 

could be updated with the locations of all documented 

highway-rail grade crossings in the United States. 

Currently, several navigation products for PDAs 

could be used. Modifications of these products would 

probably be required because they do not contain 

the location of all highway-rail grade crossings. 

When the navigation software determines the vehicle 

approaching the highway-rail grade crossing, a 

warning will be issued through a visual and/or an aural 

alert.

Another option is to investigate the use of the Data 

Radio System (DRS) protocol. Many off-the-shelf 

in-dash radios today are capable of receiving DRS 

transmissions. These systems interrupt the AM/FM 

radio broadcast or CD/tape-playing features of the 

in-dash unit and display a message to the vehicle 

occupants. The feasibility of using a localized 

transmitter at a highway-rail grade crossing would 

need to be investigated.

The second scenario will utilize one or more CMS 

interfaced to a train control and/or detection system 

to provide advanced warning of a train(s) approaching 

motorists and pedestrians. Ideally, the train control 

system will be enabled with positive train control to 

allow for warnings of trains at all speeds. Using such 

an advanced technology would allow for multiple 

types of warnings, such as train approaching crossing, 

second train approaching, estimated delay time, etc. 

The system could be demonstrated with audio and text 
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

214

messaging. The capabilities would be limited by the 

information supplied by the train control system and/or 

the track circuits. Because not all railroad lines will 

be equipped with positive train control, new methods 

of train detection could provide accurate and reliable 

signals to warn of approaching trains. Alternative train 

detection equipment is another enabling technology 

that will assist in implementing some of the advanced 

ITS concepts.

Other ideas with potential applications at highwayrail grade crossings revolve around the use of video 

monitoring of highway-rail grade crossings where large 

volumes of hazardous cargo are transported through 

the area. In-cab video monitoring could also be used 

to relay blocked highway-rail grade crossings. Also, 

weather monitoring could become part of a highway 

rail-grade crossing system by transmitting weather 

conditions to passing trains, warning of potential 

washouts or fog conditions ahead.

Human factors analysis will play a role in any 

demonstration. How individuals react to the various 

warnings and messages will need to be analyzed during 

the demonstration and will provide useful feedback on 

the effectiveness of the system.137

137 “Review of Intelligent Transportation Systems Applications at 

Highway-Rail Intersections In The United States.”

H. References 

Federal Highway Administration Survey of Region 

and Division Offices, unpublished, 1984.

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 

2003 Edition. Washington, DC: Federal Highway 

Administration, 2003. 

Rail-Highway Crossing Accident/Incident and 

Inventory Bulletin. Washington, DC: Federal 

Railroad Administration, published annually.

Railroad/Highway Grade Crossing Accidents 

Involving Trucks Transporting Bulk Hazardous 

Materials: A Special Study. Washington, DC: 

National Transportation Safety Board, Report 

NTSB-HZM-81-2, September 1981. 

Railroad-Highway Safety, Part II: 

Recommendations for Resolving the Problem, 

A Report to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department or Transportation, August 1972. 

Sonefeld, Otto F. “Crossing Costs Can Endanger 

New Short Line Viability.” Railway Track and 

Structures, May 1983.
 215

Programs other than engineering support and are 

essential to highway-rail grade crossing safety and 

operations. These programs include public education 

about crossing components and driver responsibilities, 

enforcement of the traffic laws governing movement 

over crossings, and research on the various 

components of crossings. 

A. Driver Education and 

Enforcement 

As discussed in Chapter II, motorists have major 

responsibilities for their safe movement over crossings. 

Because railroad trains cannot stop as quickly as 

motor vehicles, drivers must take precaution to avoid 

collisions with trains. However, many motorists are 

unaware of these responsibilities and do not know the 

meaning of crossing traffic control devices. Educating 

motorists on safe driving actions, train operations, and 

crossing traffic control devices can minimize crossing 

collisions. 

Since the early part of this century, railroads have 

endeavored to educate the public about crossings. 

On their own initiative, many railroads developed 

materials and distributed them to the news media, law 

enforcement agencies, schools, and civic clubs. They 

made presentations at schools, civic club meetings, and 

other gatherings. 

Today, these educational programs have evolved into 

a nationwide program called Operation Lifesaver, an 

international, non-profit education and awareness 

program dedicated to ending collisions, fatalities, 

and injuries at highway-rail grade crossings and on 

railroad rights of way. To accomplish its mission, 

Operation Lifesaver trains speakers to provide a safety 

message to their communities and promotes the 3 Es: 

education, enforcement, and engineering.

• Through education, Operation Lifesaver strives 

to increase public awareness about dangers 

around the rails. The program seeks to educate 

both drivers and pedestrians to make safe 

decisions at crossings and around railroad 

tracks.

• The organization works with enforcement 

agencies around the United States in support 

of traffic laws related to crossing signs and 

property laws related to trespassing.

• Operation Lifesaver encourages continued 

engineering research and innovation to 

improve the safety of railroad crossings.

Operation Lifesaver began in Idaho in 1972, when the 

national average of collisions at highway-rail grade 

crossings exceeded 12,000 annually. A six-week public 

awareness campaign called Operation Lifesaver was 

sponsored by the office of Governor Cecil Andrus, the 

Idaho Peace Officers, and Union Pacific Railroad as a 

one-time, one-state initiative.

During the campaign’s first year, Idaho’s crossingrelated fatalities dropped by 43 percent. The next year, 

the Operation Lifesaver campaign spread to Nebraska, 

where the collision rate was reduced by 26 percent. 

Kansas and Georgia experienced similar success the 

following year.

Between 1978 and 1986, while Operation Lifesaver 

operated under the auspices of the National Safety 

Council, all 49 continental states started independent 

Operation Lifesaver programs. In 1986, the national 

program was released from the National Safety Council 

and incorporated as a national, non-profit, 501(c)(3) 

educational organization. The founding sponsors of 

Operation Lifesaver, Inc. (OLI)—the Railway Progress 

Institute, Amtrak, and the Association of American 

Railroads—continue to serve on OLI’s 11-member 

board of directors.

Supporting Programs X
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

216

In 1987, the OLI board established a 33-member 

advisory council of volunteers drawn from a wide 

variety of partners nationwide. In 1989, OLI opened a 

national support center office in Alexandria, Virginia, 

serving the independent state programs and acting 

as a liaison to the federal government, other safety 

organizations, and the national media.

Funding for Operation Lifesaver was initially secured 

in 1987 from the Federal Railroad Administration 

(FRA), followed in 1988 by the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA). In 1992, Operation Lifesaver 

received a five-year authorization through the 

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 

1993, continued under the Transportation Equity Act 

for the 21st Century and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, 

Efficient Transportation Equity Act.

A state Operation Lifesaver program usually begins with 

the establishment of an advisory and a coordinating 

committee. The advisory committee is made up of highly 

visible individuals from government agencies, civic 

organizations, and the railroad industry who support 

the program by their endorsements and by seeking the 

support of other influential persons. The support of the 

governor of the state is important and usually achieved. 

It is important that the advisory committee have 

representation from both the railroad industry and the 

state highway agencies to demonstrate the cooperative 

aspects of the program. The coordinating committee is 

responsible for the development and implementation of 

the Operation Lifesaver program. 

Educational activities are varied. The goal is to reach 

as many people as possible through whatever medium 

is available and appropriate. There are 3,000 trained 

presenters throughout the states. Typically, they make 

presentations at schools, civic association meetings, and 

other gatherings. They distribute materials at fairs, in 

shopping centers, through the mail, and wherever people 

are gathered. They work with the media, television, 

radio, and newspapers to broadcast public service 

announcements, to appear on talk shows, and to print 

articles and editorials regarding crossings. They develop 

the materials, films, slide shows, and public service 

announcements that are distributed. 

Many Operation Lifesaver programs work with drivers 

of special vehicles, such as school bus drivers and 

truck drivers, to educate them on their responsibilities 

and the potential danger at crossings. Operation 

Lifesaver developed updated training videos and DVDs 

for school bus drivers in 2005 and is currently updating 

its materials for truck and commercial bus driver 

training. In some states, associations representing 

these groups are actively involved in the program. 

Many Operation Lifesaver programs work with driver 

training courses to ensure that safe driving practices at 

crossings are included in course material. Many state 

driving manuals have been revised to include or update 

the section on highway-rail grade crossings. 

Although education may be considered the primary 

effort of Operation Lifesaver programs, many address 

enforcement, engineering, and evaluation as well. 

Enforcement of traffic laws is important to remind 

motorists of safe driving practices at crossings as well 

as to “punish” the reckless driver. Many state laws 

require motorists to stop at crossings at which flashing 

light signals are activated and not to proceed until it 

is safe to do so. Many drivers, however, do not stop. 

Other state laws prohibit drivers from moving around 

lowered gates; however, many drivers do so. Through the 

enforcement of these traffic laws and others, drivers will 

understand that these laws exist for their own safety. 

In some states, local and/or state police have become 

active in Operation Lifesaver by making presentations 

and by writing citations when a motorist violates the 

law. This support is essential. It is also important to 

educate the police in the matter of traffic laws and 

safe driving practices at crossings. Many instances 

have occurred in which a police officer unknowingly 

violated the law or, when questioned, displayed lack of 

knowledge of crossing traffic laws. 

Railroad police are also involved in Operation 

Lifesaver programs. They assist primarily in making 

presentations. Although they do not have the authority 

to stop and arrest motorists at crossings, they can 

arrest or warn trespassers. They also can assist by 

notifying the state or local police of unsafe driving 

practices occurring at specific crossings. 

Railroads also assist by having locomotive crews 

report near misses. Train crews who observe drivers 

narrowly escaping a collision with a train can record 

the license plate number, or a commercial vehicle’s 

owning company or identifying number, and provide the 

Operation Lifesaver committee, the state or local police, 

or the railroad safety department with this information. 

Action can be taken to station police officers at crossings 

where near misses most often occur, to conduct an 

educational campaign in the community, or to visit the 

company owning the trucks whose drivers are observed 

to have unsafe driving practices. 

Operation Lifesaver programs sometimes assist in the 

engineering aspects of crossing safety and operations. A 

combined effort conducting educational campaigns in a 

community while making engineering improvements at 

crossings has proven most effective in improving safety. 
 217

The Operation Lifesaver committee can assist by making 

the appropriate state and railroad engineers aware of 

crossings that may need engineering improvements. 

Another area of concern for Operation Lifesaver 

programs is evaluation to ensure that the quality of the 

program is maintained and that it is reaching its stated 

goals. 

Although Operation Lifesaver is designed to improve 

safety at highway-rail grade crossings, the program 

has many positive side effects. First, the cooperative 

effort among the state, local communities, and 

railroads often enhances relationships. Many 

communities have been aggravated by rail operations 

they may perceive to be too slow, too fast, too noisy, or 

unattractive. Through Operation Lifesaver, railroads 

and states work with their communities through 

established communication channels. 

Another positive side effect is that, although the 

program’s message is primarily directed toward 

motorists, it also pertains to pedestrians and 

trespassers. School children are a major safety concern 

around railroad tracks. Many children are inquisitive 

about the railroad and daring enough to play on the 

tracks. Educating children as well as adults about 

crossing safety assists them in obtaining a respect for 

railroad operations in general. 

Although Operation Lifesaver programs are usually 

directed toward motorist behavior at public crossings, 

the same behavior is needed and desired at private 

crossings as well. People reached through Operation 

Lifesaver may be the same people who use private 

crossings. 

Today, Operation Lifesaver programs are active 

nationwide in 49 states and the District of Columbia. 

More information about the program is available at its 

official Website.138

B. Video Surveillance and 

Enforcement

In the 1990s, use of video surveillance became 

prevalent for a wide range of traffic monitoring and 

enforcement functions, including red-light running, 

speeding, and toll evasion. Use of video for traffic 

enforcement requires that the legal authority be 

granted by the state. California law requires “a clear 

photograph of a vehicle’s license plate and the driver 

138 Operation Lifesaver Website (www.oli.org).

of the vehicle,” and numerous states have adopted 

provisions enabling its use.139 Video surveillance in 

some instances is used for enforcement purposes; 

alternatively, a video record of events at a grade 

crossing, whether obtained by cameras mounted at 

the crossing or acquired from a cab-mounted recorder, 

can provide a recording of occurrences that may later 

be used either for safety improvement efforts or for 

providing evidence in conjunction with a court case.

In response to a March 15, 1999 collision at the 

McKnight Road grade crossing in Bourbonnais, Illinois, 

the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) went 

on record in support of the provision of grants to states 

to advance “innovative pilot programs” designed to 

increase enforcement of grade crossing traffic laws. 

In a follow-up recommendation, NTSB broadened 

support for video surveillance, noting that it believed 

such provisions could be effective not only at passive 

crossings but at active crossings as well. NTSB noted:

To increase the likelihood that grade 

crossing violations will not go undetected, 

some States, municipalities, and railroads 

have turned to the use of photo enforcement 

at grade crossings. In use throughout 

the world for more than 40 years, photo 

enforcement technology such as that used 

for identifying and citing those who run red 

lights has recently been adapted for use at 

grade crossings. In 1995, for example, the 

Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation 

Authority (MTA) began a photo enforcement 

program that has been credited with 

reducing by almost 50 percent the number 

of grade crossing violations detected at 17 

gated crossings along the Metro Blue Line 

route. Encouraged by the program’s success, 

the MTA is planning to expand its use of 

photo enforcement by installing six more 

crossing video systems during the first half 

of 2002.

140

Note: Reductions of up to 90 percent resulted at some 

locations.141

A grade crossing photo enforcement pilot 

program has also recently been established 

in Illinois. The Illinois General Assembly 

139 State of California 1998 Vehicle Code. State of California 

Department of Motor Vehicles, 1998, Section 210.

140 National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). Safety 

Recommendation, February 15, 2002 (H-02-01).

141 “Photo Enforcement at Long Beach Blue Line Grade Crossings: 

Final Report.” Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation 

Authority, December 31, 1997, pp. 1–11.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

218

in 1996 required the Illinois Commerce 

commission to conduct a study of the 

effectiveness of photo enforcement at grade 

crossings. According to the commission, 

it selected three grade crossings in 

DuPage County, Illinois, for the test... 

Fully functional in January 2000, photo 

enforcement at the grade crossing in the 

city of Wood Dale achieved a 47-percent 

decrease in the number of violations 

between January and September 2000. This 

crossing, which had formerly experienced 

three to four collisions per year, had only 

one collision in the pilot program’s first 13 

months of operation. Photo enforcement at 

the grade crossing in the city of Naperville 

was functional in July 2000, and the 

crossing has seen a 51-percent reduction in 

the number of violations.

In 2004, FRA partnered with the North Carolina 

Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and Norfolk 

Southern Railway in a $482,000, federally-funded 

research project using locomotive-mounted digital 

video cameras to capture real-time data of actual 

highway-rail grade crossing collisions and trespass 

incidents. The project will collect video of thousands of 

miles of railroad operations and analyze both collisions 

and near misses. These types of data have never 

before been available for research purposes. The grant 

funding announced will be used for examination and 

analysis of the data collected. 

NCDOT has installed video cameras on its Piedmont 

passenger train that operates daily between Raleigh 

and Charlotte, North Carolina. Norfolk Southern 

has video cameras on about 850 freight locomotives 

that operate in 22 states, the District of Columbia, 

and Ontario, Canada. The study will determine 

what human factors are involved in grade crossing 

collisions and trespass incidents. It also will evaluate 

the performance and effectiveness of current safety 

improvements made as part of North Carolina’s Sealed 

Corridor Initiative, an aggressive effort to eliminate 

grade crossing hazards along a proposed future highspeed passenger rail route.142

Norfolk Southern Railway on-board video uses a 

proprietary locomotive-mounted system that captures, 

at four frames per second, real-time digital video and 

audio of track conditions as well as unusual events, 

142 “FRA Announces First Ever Use of Locomotive Mounted 

Cameras to Study Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety and Trespass 

Prevention.” Federal Railway Administration (FRA), U.S. Department 

of Transportation (U.S DOT), Office of Public Affairs, October 19, 

2004.

such as incidents and trespasser activity, through 

the use of a camera and microphone installed on the 

locomotive. This system also superimposes the speed 

of the train at any given point, train direction (forward 

or reverse), as well as horn and brake activations. 

As part of the research effort, Norfolk Southern will 

be recording video and sound for at least two years. 

NCDOT will utilize the data collected to monitor and 

evaluate the performance of the enhanced warning 

devices previously installed on the Sealed Corridor and 

will make design revisions as deemed necessary.

In addition, NCDOT Rail Division and Norfolk Southern 

are currently in the process of initiating a joint 

research project with FRA to develop and validate a 

predictive trespasser model utilizing the data collected 

on both the Sealed Corridor and Norfolk Southern’s 

system as a whole. In addition to model calibration, 

the data will be used to determine the effectiveness of 

potential preventative measures designed to minimize 

pedestrian-train interactions.

C. Research and Development 

The U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) 

has been active in conducting crossing research. 

Specifically, FHWA and FRA are sponsors of crossing 

research and development efforts. Several studies can 

be found in the FHWA electronic reading room* and 

on the FRA Website.143 The FRA Website has a list of 

highway-rail crossing publications from 1969 to 2005, 

included in this handbook as Appendix K. 

Other sources of studies include the U.S. DOT online 

library, U.S. DOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 

National Technical Information Service, Transportation 

Research Information Service, Transit Cooperative 

Research Program, and Volpe National Transportation 

Systems Center. 144, 145,146 ,147,148,149 

In addition to conducting research, FRA annually 

publishes a document that contains statistical 

information on crossings and crossing collisions. 

These data are generated from the U.S. DOT National 

Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory, of which FRA serves

143 FRA Website (www.fra.dot.gov).

144 U.S. DOT Online Library (dotlibrary.dot.gov).

145 Bureau of Transportation Statistics Website 

(trisonline.bts.gov/search.cfm).

146 National Technical Information Service Website (www.ntis.gov).

147 Transportation Research Information Service Website 

(www4.trb.org/trb/tris.nsf).

148 Transit Cooperative Research Program Publications Website 

(www.tcrponline.org/publications_home.html).

149 Volpe National Transportation Systems Center Information 

Resources Website (www.volpe.dot.gov/infosrc/index.html).

* Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Electronic Reading 

Room (www.fhwa.dot.gov/pubstats.html).
 219

as custodian, and from the Railroad Accident/Incident 

Reporting System. 

The National Cooperative Highway Research Program 

is administered by the Transportation Research Board 

(TRB).

TRB also assists in disseminating research results 

through presentations made at its annual meeting each 

January. The TRB committee responsible for crossings, 

Committee A3A05, sponsors one or two sessions on 

crossings. The committee is also active in identifying 

areas of needed research and in encouraging an 

appropriate agency and/or organization to undertake 

the research. Two versions of a bibliography, 

Highway-Rail Grade Crossings, Bibliography 57 and 

58, are available from TRB. Other TRB studies are 

available on its Website.150

The Association of American Railroads (AAR) often 

conducts informal research and sometimes sponsors 

research by a contractor. For example, it participated 

in the funding of the compilation of state laws. AAR 

studies can be purchased from its Website.151

The American Railway Engineering and Maintenanceof-Way Association’s Committee 9 on crossings is often 

active in informal research by its members’ employers. 

This committee also identifies areas of needed 

research and encourages the most appropriate agency 

or organization to conduct the research.

NTSB conducts special studies on the safety aspects of 

a particular area pertaining to crossings. For example, 

it conducted a study on trucks carrying hazardous 

150 Transportation Research Board Publications Index Website 

(pubsindex.trb.org).

151 American Association of Railroads Publications Website 

(www.aar.org/pubstores).

materials at crossings. The report title is “Railroad/

Highway Grade Crossing Accidents Involving Trucks 

Transporting Bulk Hazardous Materials.” This and 

other NTSB studies can be found on its Website.152

Individual railroads and crossing equipment suppliers 

often conduct special studies or research and 

development activities. For example, railroads often 

monitor the performance of a particular crossing 

surface or test the use of special lighting devices. 

Suppliers often conduct in-house research to identify 

improvements of existing products and develop new 

products. 

D. References 

Operation Lifesaver Program Guide. Chicago, 

Illinois: National Safety Council. 

Rogers, William Charles. The Effectiveness of 

Operation Lifesaver in Reducing HighwayRail Grade Crossing Accidents. College Station, 

Texas: Texas A&M University, December 1980.

152 NTSB Website (www.ntsb.gov).

 221

Abandonment. The relinquishment of interest (public 

or private) in right of way or activity thereon with 

no intention to reclaim or use again for highway or 

railroad purposes.

Accident rate. 1) The number of accidents, fatalities, 

or injuries divided by a measure of vehicle activity to 

provide a means of comparing accident trends through 

time. 2) The number of accidents per crossing per year.

Advance preemption. The notification of an 

approaching train that is forwarded to the highway 

traffic signal controller unit or assembly by the railroad 

equipment in advance of the activation of railroad 

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.

Allotment. An action by administrative authority 

making funds available for obligations and 

expenditures for specified purposes and for certain 

periods. 

Anchors. Rail-fastening devices used to resist the 

longitudinal movement of rail under traffic and to 

maintain proper expansion allowance at joint gaps for 

temperature changes. 

Apportionment. An administrative assignment of 

funds based on a prescribed formula by a governmental 

unit to another governmental unit for specific purposes 

and for certain periods.

Appropriation. An act of a legislative body that 

makes funds available for expenditures with specific 

limitations as to amount, purpose, and period.

At-grade intersection (crossing). An intersection 

(crossing) where roadways (and railroads) join or 

cross at the same level. 

Ballast. Material placed on a track roadbed to hold the 

track in alignment and elevation; it consists of hard 

principles that are stable, easily tamped, permeable, 

and resistant to plant growth.

Barrier gate. (Barrier gate arm, warning/barrier 

gate, vehicle arresting system.) An automatic gate 

used as adjunct to flashing light signals to provide 

positive protection by blocking approaching traffic 

at a highway-rail crossing and preventing vehicle 

penetration according to the requirements of National 

Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 350.

Benefit-cost ratio. The economic value of the 

reduction in fatalities, injuries, and property damage 

divided by the cost of the collision-reducing measure.

Branch line. A secondary line of railroad usually 

handling light volumes of traffic. 

Cab. The space in a locomotive unit or “MU” car 

containing the operating controls and providing shelter 

and seats for the engine crew.

Cantilevered signal structure. A structure that is 

rigidly attached to a vertical pole and used to provide 

overhead support of signal units.

Catenary system. A system that consists of overhead 

supporting cables and a conductor (trolley wire) that 

supplies electricity to power rolling stock through 

contact with a pantograph or trolley current-collecting 

device (trolley pole). 

Centralized Traffic Control (CTC). A traffic control 

system whereby train movements are directed through 

the remote operation of switches and signals from a 

central control point. 

Glossary A

APPENDIX
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

222

Clear storage distance. The distance available 

for vehicle storage measured between 1.8 meters 

(6 feet) from the rail nearest the intersection to the 

intersection stop line or the normal stopping point on 

the highway. At skewed highway-rail grade crossings 

and intersections, the 1.8-meter (6-foot) distance shall 

be measured perpendicular to the nearest rail either 

along the centerline 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 centerline or edge line of the 

highway, as appropriate, to obtain the shorter distance.

Comparative negligence. A legal doctrine applicable 

in negligence suits, according to which the negligence 

of the plaintiff as well as that of the defendant is taken 

into account. Damages are based upon the outcome of 

a comparison of the two and are thus proportioned.

Consist. 1) The makeup or composition (number and 

specific identity) of a train of vehicles. 2) Contents.

Construction. The actual physical accomplishment of 

building, improving, or changing a highway-rail grade 

crossing or other finite facility.

Contract. The written agreement between the 

contracting agency and the contractor setting forth 

the obligations of the parties thereunder for the 

performance of the prescribed work. The contract 

includes the invitation for bids; proposal; contract 

form and contract bond; specifications; supplemental 

specifications; special provisions; general and detailed 

plans; and notice to proceed. The contract also includes 

any change orders and agreements required to 

complete the construction of the work in an acceptable 

manner, including authorized extensions thereof, all of 

which constitute one instrument.

Contractor. The individual, partnership, firm 

corporation, or any acceptable combination thereof, 

or joint venture, contracting with an agency for 

performance of prescribed work. 

Corridor. A strip of land between two termini within 

which traffic, topography, environment, and other 

characteristics are evaluated for transportation 

purposes.

Cross section. A vertical section of the ground and 

facilities thereon at right angles to the centerline.

Crossing angle. The angle of 90 degrees or less at 

which a railroad and a highway intersect.

Crosstie. The wooden or concrete support upon 

which track rails rest, which holds them to gauge and 

transfers their load through the ballast to the subgrade. 

Culvert. Any structure under the roadway with a clear 

opening of 20 feet or less measured along the center of 

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 in a highwayrail crossing or a group of crossings.

Do-nothing alternative. An alternative that refers to 

the existing state of the system.

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.

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. Determination of the costeffectiveness of a project by comparing the benefits 

derived and the costs incurred in a project.

1. Cost-benefit analysis. A form of economic 

evaluation in which input is measured in terms 

of dollar costs and output is measured in terms 

of economic benefit of a project as compared to 

the incurred cost of the project.

2. Cost-effectiveness analysis. A comparison 

study between the cost of an improvement 

(initial plus maintenance) and the benefits 
 223

it provides. The latter may be derived from 

collisions reduced, travel time reduced, or 

increased volume of usage and translated into 

equivalent dollars saved.

Encroachment. Unauthorized use of highway or 

railroad right of way or easements as for signs, fences, 

buildings, etc.

Equipment rental rate. Equipment usage charges 

usually established on a time or mileage use basis, 

including direct costs, indirect costs, and depreciation.

Exit gate clearance time. For four-quadrant gate 

systems, the exit gate clearance time is 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 operating mode. For four-quadrant gate 

systems, the mode of control used to govern the 

operation of the exit gate arms.

Expenditures. A term applicable to accrual 

accounting, meaning total charges incurred, including 

expenses, provision for retirement of debt, and capital 

outlays. The making of a payment is a disbursement.

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.

Force account work. Prescribed work paid for on the 

basis of actual costs and appropriate additives.

Functional classification. Division of a transportation 

network into classes or systems, according to the 

nature of the service they are to provide.

Grade. The rate of ascent or descent of a roadway, 

expressed as a percent; the change in roadway 

elevation per unit of horizontal length.

Grade separation. A crossing of two highways, or a 

highway and a railroad, at different levels.

Guardrails. Traffic barriers used to shield hazardous 

areas from errant vehicles.

Highway, street, or road. A general term denoting a 

public way for purposes of vehicular travel, including 

the entire area within the right of way.

Highway-rail grade crossing. The general area where 

a highway and a railroad cross at the same level, 

within which are included the railroad, roadway, and 

roadside facilities for traffic traversing that area. 

Pedestrian crossing. A highway-rail grade crossing 

used by pedestrians but not by vehicles. 

Private crossing. A highway-rail grade crossing that 

is not a public highway-rail grade crossing, such as 

grade crossings that are on privately-owned roadways 

utilized only by the owner’s licensees and invitees. 

Public crossing. A highway-rail grade crossing that 

is on a roadway or a pathway under the jurisdiction of 

and maintained by a public authority and open to the 

traveling public. 

Interconnection. The electrical connection between 

the railroad active warning system and the highway 

traffic signal controller assembly for the purpose of 

preemption.

Lading. Freight or cargo making up a shipment.

Lane. A strip of roadway used for a single line of 

vehicles.

1. Auxiliary lane. The portion of the roadway 

adjoining the through traveled way for parking, 

speed change, turning, storage for turning, 

weaving, truck climbing, or other purposes 

supplementary to through traffic movement.

2. Pullout lane. An auxiliary lane provided for 

removal from the through traffic lane those 

vehicles required to stop at all highway-rail 

grade crossings. 

3. Speed-change lane. An auxiliary lane, 

including tapered areas, primarily for the 

acceleration or deceleration of vehicles 

entering or leaving the through traveled way.

4. Traffic lane. The portion of the traveled way 

for the movement of a single line of vehicles.

Line haul. The movement of freight over the tracks of a 

railroad from one town or city to another town or city. 

Local freight train. A train with an assigned crew 

that works between predesignated points. These trains 

handle the switching outside the jurisdiction of a yard 

switcher.

Locomotive. A self-propelled unit of on-track equipment 

designed for moving other rail freight and passenger 

equipment on rail tracks. 

Main line. The principal line or lines of a railway. 
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

224

Main track. A track extending through yards and 

between stations, upon which trains are operated by 

timetable or train order or both, or the use of which 

is governed by block signals or by centralized traffic 

control. 

Materials. Any substances specified for use in the 

construction of a project and its appurtenances. 

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 timing of the right-of-way 

transfer time, queue clearance time, and separation 

time.

Measure of effectiveness (MOE). A measurable unit 

or set of units assigned to each evaluation objective. 

The data collected in the units of the MOE will allow for 

a determination of the degree of achievement for that 

objective. 

Minimum track clearance distance. For standard 

two-quadrant railroad warning devices, the minimum 

track clearance distance is the length along a highway 

at one or more railroad tracks, measured either from 

the highway stop line, warning device, or 3.7 meters 

(12 feet) perpendicular to the track centerline, to 

1.8 meters (6 feet) beyond the track(s) measured 

perpendicular to the far rail, along the centerline 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 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 

centerline or edge of the highway, as appropriate, to 

obtain the longer distance.

Minimum warning time—through train movements.

The least amount of time active warning devices shall 

operate prior to the arrival of a train at a highway-rail 

grade crossing.

Pavement markings. Markings set into the surface 

of, applied upon, or attached to the pavement for the 

purpose of regulating, warning, or guiding traffic. 

Pavement structure. The combination of subbase, 

base course, and surface course placed on a subgrade 

to support the traffic load and distribute it to the 

roadbed. 

1. Base course. The layer or layers of specified or 

selected material of designed thickness placed 

on a subbase or subgrade to support a surface 

course. 

2. Surface course. One or more layers of a 

pavement structure designed to accommodate 

the traffic load, the top layer of which 

resists skidding, traffic abrasion, and the 

disintegrating effects of climate. The top layer 

is sometimes called “wearing course.” 

3. Subbase. The layer or layers of specified or 

selected material of designed thickness placed 

on a subgrade to support a base course. 

4. Subgrade. The top surface of a roadbed upon 

which the pavement structure and shoulders, 

including curbs, are constructed. 

Plaintiff. The person who begins an action at law; the 

complaining party in an action. 

Plans. Contract drawings that show the location, 

character, and dimensions of the prescribed work, 

including layouts, profiles, cross sections, and other 

details. 

Precedent. An adjudged case or judicial decision that 

furnishes a rule or model for deciding a subsequent 

case that presents the same or similar legal problems. 

Preemption. The transfer of normal operation of 

highway traffic signals to a special control mode.

Preliminary engineering. The work necessary 

to produce construction plans, specifications, and 

estimates to the degree of completeness required 

for undertaking construction thereunder, including 

locating, surveying, designing, and related work. 

Pre-signal. Supplemental highway traffic signal faces 

operated as part of highway intersection traffic signals, 

located in a position that controls traffic approaching 

the highway-rail grade crossing in advance of the 

intersection.

Queue clearance time. The time required for the 

design vehicle of maximum length stopped just 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 shall 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 shall be long enough to permit the exit 

gate arm to lower after the design vehicle is clear of the 

minimum track clearance distance.
 225

Rail joint. A fastening designed to unite abutting ends 

of rail. 

Railroad line miles. The aggregate length of road of 

line-haul railroads. It excludes yard tracks, sidings, 

and parallel lines. Jointly used track is counted only 

once. 

Railroad track miles. Total miles of railroad track 

including multiple main tracks, yard tracks, and 

sidings, owned by both line-haul and switching and 

terminal companies. 

Right of way. A general term denoting land, property, 

or interest therein, usually in a strip, acquired for or 

devoted to transportation purposes. 

Right-of-way transfer time. The maximum amount 

of time needed for the worst-case condition, prior to 

display of the track clearance green interval. This 

includes any railroad or highway traffic signal control 

equipment time to react to a preemption call and 

any traffic control signal green, pedestrian walk and 

clearance, yellow change, and red clearance intervals 

for conflicting traffic.

Roadway. The portion of a highway, including 

shoulders, for vehicular use. A divided highway has two 

or more roadways. 

Salvage value. Estimated residual worth of program 

or project components at the end of their expected 

service lives. 

Separation time. The component of maximum 

highway traffic signal preemption time during which 

the minimum track clearance distance is clear of 

vehicular traffic prior to the arrival of the train.

Service life. The period of time, in years, in which the 

components of a program or project can be expected to 

actively affect collision experience. 

Shoulder. The portion of the roadway contiguous 

with the traveled way primarily for accommodation 

of stopped vehicles for emergency use and for lateral 

support of base and surface courses. 

Sidewalk. That portion of the roadway primarily 

constructed for the use of pedestrians. 

Simultaneous preemption. Notification of an 

approaching train is forwarded to the highway traffic 

signal controller unit or assembly and railroad active 

warning devices at the same time.

Sovereign immunity. The immunity of a government 

from being sued in its own courts except with its consent, 

or other exception. 

Statute of limitations. A statute that imposes time 

limits upon the right to sue in certain cases.

Stopping sight distance. The length of highway 

required to safely stop a vehicle traveling at a given 

speed.

Superelevation rate. The rate of rise in cross section 

of the finished surface of a roadway on a curve, 

measured from the lowest or inside edge to the highest 

or outside edge.

Tie plate. A flanged plate between a rail and a crosstie 

that distributes the rail load over a larger area and 

helps hold track gauge. 

Timed exit gate operating mode. A mode of 

operation where the exit gate descent is based on a 

predetermined time interval.

Timetable. 1) The authority for the movement of 

regular trains subject to the rules; it contains classified 

schedules with special instructions relating to the 

movement of trains and engines. 2) A listing of the 

times at which vehicles are due at specified time points 

(colloquial). 

Tort. Any private or civil wrong by act or omission but 

not including breach of contract. Some torts may also 

be crimes.

Track. 1) An assembly of rails, ties, and fastenings 

over which cars, locomotives, and trains are moved. 2) 

The width of a wheeled vehicle from wheel to wheel and 

usually from the outside of the rims. 

1. Double or multiple. Two or more main tracks 

over which trains may travel in both directions. 

2. Single. 1) The main track on a roadbed having 

one main track upon which trains are operated 

in both directions. 2) In multiple-track territory, 

the process of running all trains, regardless of 

direction on one track while the other track(s) 

is (are) temporarily out of service. 

Track gauge. The distance between the inside face 

of the heads of the two rails of a track, measured 

perpendicular to the center line. (Standard gauge in 

the United States is 4 to 8.5 inches.) 

Traffic control device. A sign, signal, marking, or 

other device placed on or adjacent to a street or 

highway by authority of a public body or official having 
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

226

jurisdiction to regulate, warn, or guide traffic. 

1. Active traffic control device. Traffic control 

devices activated by the approach or presence 

of a train, such as flashing light signals, 

automatic gates, and similar devices, as well 

as manually-operated devices and crossing 

watchmen, all of which display to motorists 

positive warning of the approach or presence 

of a train. 

2. Passive traffic control device. Types of traffic 

control devices, including signs, markings, 

and other devices, located at or in advance of 

grade crossings to indicate the presence of a 

crossing but that do not change aspect upon 

the approach or presence of a train.

3. Traffic control signal. Any device, whether 

manually, electrically, or mechanically 

operated, by which traffic is alternately 

directed to stop or permitted to proceed. 

4. Traffic markings. All lines, patterns, words, 

colors, or other devices, except signs, set into 

the surface of, applied upon, or attached to the 

pavement or curbing or to the objects within 

or adjacent to the roadway, officially placed for 

the purpose of regulating, warning, or guiding 

traffic. 

Track miles. The total centerline length of mainline 

trackage in a corridor; for example, a two-track 

mainline typically has twice the track miles as route 

miles.

Traffic operation plan. A program of action designed 

to improve the utilization of a highway, a street, or 

highway and street network, through the application of 

the principles of traffic engineering. 

Traffic sign. A device mounted on a fixed or portable 

support whereby a specific message is conveyed by 

means of words or symbols, officially erected for the 

purpose of regulating, warning, or guiding traffic. 

Traffic signal. A power-operated traffic control device 

by which traffic is regulated, warned, or alternately 

directed to take specific actions. 

1. Cycle time. The time required for one complete 

sequence of signal indications. 

2. Detectors. Mechanical or electronic devices 

that sense and signal the presence or passage 

of vehicular or railroad traffic at one or more 

points in the roadway or track.

3. Phase. Those right-of-way and clearance 

intervals in a cycle assigned to any 

independent movement(s) of vehicular traffic. 

Train. 1) One or more locomotive units with or without 

connected cars. 2) Two or more vehicles physically 

connected and operated as a unit. 

1. Through. A freight train operating between 

major classification yards and serving nonlocal traffic. 

2. Unit. A freight train moving great tonnage 

of single bulk products between two points 

coupled with a system of efficient, rapid 

loading and unloading facilities. 

Train orders. Authorization to move a train as given 

by a train dispatcher either in writing or verbally. 

Traveled way. The portion of the roadway for the 

movement of vehicles, exclusive of shoulders. 

Vehicle. A means of carrying or transporting 

something. 

1. Bicycle. A vehicle having two tandem wheels, 

propelled solely by human power, upon which 

any person or persons may ride. 

2. Bus. A self-propelled rubber-tired vehicle 

designed to accommodate 15 or more 

passengers and to operate on streets 

and roads. Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration regulations define a “bus” for 

the purposes of highway-rail grade crossing 

safety as “any motor vehicle designed, 

constructed, and or used for the transportation 

of passengers, including taxicabs.” (49 CFR 

390.5)

3. Design vehicle. A selected motor vehicle, 

the weight, dimensions, and operating 

characteristics of which are used in highway 

design. 

4. Motorcycle. A two-wheeled motorized vehicle 

having one or two saddles and, sometimes, a 

sidecar with a third supporting wheel. 

5. Passenger car. A motor vehicle, except 

motorcycles, designed for carrying 10 

passengers or less and used for the 

transportation of persons. 

6. Semitrailer. Any motor vehicle, other than a 

pole trailer, designed to be drawn by another 

motor vehicle and constructed so that some 

part of its weight rests upon the self-propelled 

towing motor vehicle. (49 CFR 390.5)

7. Special vehicle. A vehicle whose driver is 

required by law to stop in advance of all 

highway-rail grade crossings. Typically, 

special vehicles include commercial vehicles 

transporting passengers, trucks carrying 

hazardous materials, and school buses. 
 227

8. Truck tractor. A self-propelled commercial 

motor vehicle designed and/or used primarily 

for drawing other vehicles. (49 CFR 390.5) 

Vehicle intrusion detection devices. A detector or 

detectors used as a part of a system incorporating 

processing logic to detect the presence of vehicles 

within the minimum track clearance distance and to 

control the operation of the exit gates.

Volume. The number of vehicles passing a given point 

during a specified period of time. 

1. Average daily traffic (ADT). The average 24-

hour volume, being the total volume during a 

stated period divided by the number of days 

in that period. Unless otherwise stated, the 

period is a year. 

2. Design volume. A volume determined for use 

in design, representing traffic expected to use 

the highway. Unless otherwise stated, it is an 

hourly volume. 

Warrants. The minimum conditions that would 

justify the establishment of a particular traffic control 

regulation or device, usually including items such as 

traffic volumes, geometries, traffic characteristics, 

collision experience, etc. 

Wayside equipment. The signals, switches, and/or 

control devices for railroad operations housed within 

one or more enclosures located along the railroad right 

of way and/or on railroad property.

Yard. A system of tracks within defined limits provided 

for making up trains, storing cars, and other purposes.

 229

Index B

APPENDIX

A

Abandonment 76, 83

Accident Prediction Formulae 54

collision costs 155

collisions 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 20, 21, 25, 

27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 39, 43, 45, 47, 51, 

54, 55, 56, 62, 70, 71, 76, 77, 78, 80, 82, 98, 

104, 108, 125, 141, 155, 156, 157, 161, 162, 

163, 187, 188, 191, 192, 194, 195, 197, 205, 

206, 207, 212, 215, 218, 219, 223

Active traffic control devices 97, 98

Advance warning signs 88

Agreements 170

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 28, 63, 65, 78, 81, 89, 

90, 108, 139, 140, 141

 American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-ofWay Association (AREMA) 19, 22, 104, 115, 119, 

123, 129, 130, 139, 141

American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA) 193

Annual average daily traffic 149, 247

Annual average daily traffic 149, 247

Association of American Railroads (AAR) 17, 22, 50, 

219

Automatic gates 162, 192, 249

B

Ballast 44, 222

Barricades 179

Benefit-cost analysis 145

Bicycles 205, 206

Buses 28, 29, 30, 206

C

Cantilevered flashing lights 100

Channelizing devices 177, 179

Closure 73, 78, 79, 80, 81, 150, 183, 308, 315, vi

Cost-effectiveness analysis 223

Crossbucks 26, 192, 250

D

“Do Not Stop on Tracks” signs 17, 93

Delineators 179

Drainage 138, 142, 186, 223

E

Economic analysis 154, 188, 223

Elimination 7, 8, 76, 78

Engineering studies 62

Evaluation 63, 64, 65, 82, 159, 160, 187, 189, 208, 212, 

213, 249, 253, 302, 304, 307, 309, 311, 314

Exposure index 57, 58

F

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 2, 7, 9, 12, 

13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 21, 22, 25, 32, 33, 34, 41, 45, 46, 

47, 50, 51, 62, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 82, 

87, 92, 110, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 122, 124, 129, 
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

230

136, 143, 144, 145, 151, 155, 165, 168, 169, 170, 

171, 172, 173, 180, 184, 185, 186, 187, 189, 209, 

212, 216, 218, 302, 305, 306, 307, 308, 310, 311, 

312, 313, 314, 315, 316

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 3, 7, 13, 14, 17, 

21, 22, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 

50, 51, 55, 58, 71, 74, 75, 78, 81, 83, 86, 104, 105, 

106, 110, 112, 143, 144, 145, 150, 153, 162, 163, 

165, 193, 209, 210, 212, 213, 216, 218, 219, 301, 

302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 

312, 313, 314, 315, 316

Flagging 174, 180

Funding 9, 11, 72, 167, 169, 170, 216, 9, 11, 72, 167, 169, 

170, 216

G

Gate 58, 83, 110, 200, 201, 303

H

Horizontal alignment 137, 247

I

Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) 114, 116

Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) 6

L

Liability 7, 19, 20, 21, 212, 304

Locomotives 35, 36, 45, 304

M

Maintenance 17, 19, 22, 39, 47, 73, 104, 107, 129, 143, 

144, 155, 157, 170, 185, 186, 207, 219, 315

Materials Transportation Bureau 54, 241

Motorcycles 28, 205, 206

N

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA) 13, 155

National Safety Council (NSC) 155

National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 13, 30, 

54, 217, 233

Net annual benefit 158

O

Operation Lifesaver 17, 194, 206, 207, 215, 216, 217, 

219, 272, 305

P

Passive traffic control devices 83

Pavement markings 66, 95, 178, 185, 225

Pedestrians 31, 200, 201, 204, 205, 207

Private crossings 2, 205

Public crossings 2

R

Railroad line miles 225

Railroad relocation 77, 78

Railroad track miles 225

Railway Progress Institute 144, 215

Research 14, 15, 17, 23, 54, 70, 71, 72, 74, 77, 79, 88, 97, 

98, 110, 115, 116, 118, 128, 134, 143, 144, 155, 187, 

189, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 

204, 208, 218, 219, 222, 249, 301, 302, 304, 308, 

309, 310, 311, 312, 314

S

School buses 85

Short-line railroads 193, 194

Sight distance 10, 32, 66, 100, 203, 205, 247, 270

Solar energy 114

Special vehicles 30, 76

STOP signs 17, 26, 34, 88, 92, 93, 128, 155, 156, 168, 

192, 193, 203

Surfaces 17, 141, 143, 144

T

Traffic control devices 25, 63, 70, 136, 185, 194, 226

Train detection circuits 73

Transportation Research Board (TRB) 194, 219

Trucks 28, 29, 30, 46, 74, 205, 206, 214, 219

Turn prohibition signs 95
 231

U

U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) 7, 8, 11, 

13, 15, 17, 22, 23, 25, 31, 32, 33, 36, 47, 48, 50, 55, 

56, 57, 14, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 70, 71, 75, 80, 83, 98, 

99, 104, 116, 129, 137, 139, 142, 143, 145, 146, 149, 

151, 152, 161, 162, 163, 168, 191, 218, 219, 315, 

316

U.S. DOT National Rail-Highway Crossing Inventory 

143

Uniform Vehicle Code 26, 46, 76, 144, 196

V

Vehicle miles 2, 28

Vertical alignment 138, 247

W

Warning time 128

Wigwags 99, 250

Work zones 229
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

232
 233

Example Crash Reporting 

Form, State of Oklahoma C

APPENDIX
234

Ft.

 At

Y N

Incident Report

Fatality

Investigation Completed Revised

Investigation Made at Scene

Photographs Hit and Run

(1) Reporting Agency

(2) Date of Collision (mm/dd/yyyy) Time County Number and Name Nearest City or Town Number and Name

(3) Distance from Nearest City or Town Limits

(23) Investigating Officer Badge Number Troop/Div. Reviewed by (Init.) Reviewer Badge Number Date of Report (mm/dd/yyyy)

(5) Unit Occupants Type

State Zip

Last Name First Middle

(6) Address City

Date of Birth (mm/dd/yyyy) Sex

(7) Driver License Number State Class Endorsement(s) Restriction(s) Inj. Sev. Drv./Ped. Cond.

Ejected (% BAC)

(9) VIN Vehicle Year Color Make Model Veh. Conf.

License Plate Number State Year

(13) Citation Statute/Ordinance

Case Number (Agency Use)

Month

0.

Load

Oversized

N

S

E

W

Location East Grid Administrative

Telephone (Use Area Code)

OP Use

Rolled

Burned

Number Number

Citation Statute/Ordinance

Number Number

Y N [ DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE ]

+

Control #

+

WARNING - STATE LAW Use of contents for commercial solicitation is unlawful

Number

Injured

Number

Killed

Motor Vehicles 

Involved

Int ID

(4) Street, Road or Highway Distance from (Nearest) Intersecting Street, Road or Highway

N E 

S W of

Pg of

OFFICIAL OKLAHOMA TRAFFIC COLLISION REPORT

Hit &

Run

Phone in use

Phone present

North Grid

CMV

Type of Injury

Extricated Test

(12) Owner's Address City State Zip Towed Veh. Type

Ft. .

Mi.

Mi.

Ft.

Mi.

Near

In

Transported by To Medical Facility

Air

Bag

(8)

Injury Severity Type of Injury Driver/Pedestrian Condition

Trunk - 

Internal

Arms

Legs

Unknown

0

1

2

N/A

No Injury 

Possible

Non - 

incapacitating

0

1

2

3

Not Applicable 

Apparently Normal 

Drinking - Ability Impaired 

Odor of Alcohol Beverage 

Illegal Drugs

00

01

02

03

04

Ill (Sick) 

Dizzy/Faint

Emotional

Other

Unknown

08

09

10

11

99

N/A

Head

Trunk - 

External

3

4

5

6

Incapacitating

Fatal

Unknown

4

5

6

Under the 

Influence of 

Medications

Very Tired 

Sleepy

05

06

07

4

5

9

D

P

X

B

Unit Type

Air Bag Deployed Ejected Extricated Chemical Test Extent of Damage Oversized Load

Driver

Pedestrian

Pedestrian

Conveyance

Bicyclist

Other Cyclist 

Parked Car 

Animal

Train

Z

C

A

T

N/A

None

Minor

0

1

2

Not Applicable 

Not Deployed 

Deployed - Front 

Deployed - Side

0

1

2

3

Deployed - Other (knee, 

air belt, etc.) 

Deployed - Combination 

Deployment Unknown

0

1

2

Not Applicable 

Not Ejected 

Ejected,

Partially

N/A

No

Yes

0

1

2

Test Refused 

None Given 

Other

4

5

6

Functional

Disabling

Unknown

3

4

9

N/A

Not Permitted 

Permitted

0

N

P

Occupant Protection (OP) In Use

Not Applicable 

None Used 

Lap Belt Only

Shoulder Belt Only 

Shoulder and Lap Belt 

00

01

02

03

04

Child Restraint Type Unknown 

Restraint Type Unknown

Helmet

Child Restraint - Forward Facing 

Child Restraint - Rear Facing

Booster Seat 

Other

Unknown

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

99

Ejected,

Totally

Unknown

3

9

N/A

Blood

Breath

Blood/Breath

0

1

2

3

N/A

No

Owner

0

1

2

Insurance Verification

Operator

Exempt

3

4

(14) Unit Occupants Type

State Zip

Last Name First Middle

(15) Address City

Date of Birth (mm/dd/yyyy) Sex

(16) Driver License Number State Class Endorsement(s) Restriction(s) Inj. Sev. Drv./Ped. Cond.

Ejected (% BAC) License Plate Number State Year

(22) Citation Statute/Ordinance

Month

0.

Telephone (Use Area Code)

OP Use

Number Number

Citation Statute/Ordinance

Number Number

Hit &

Run

CMV

Type of Injury

Extricated Test Transported by To Medical Facility

Air

Bag

(17)

Insurance Company Name Policy Number

(11) Vehicle Removed by

Driver

Owner's Last Name First Middle Initial

Insurance Telephone (Use Area Code)

Same as Driver

Insurance

Verification

(10)

2nd Color

(18) VIN Vehicle Year Color Make Model Veh. Conf.

Load

Oversized Rolled

Burned Phone in use

Phone present

(21) Owner's Address City State Zip Towed Veh. Type

Insurance Company Name Policy Number

(20) Vehicle Removed by

Driver

Owner's Last Name First Middle Initial

Insurance Telephone (Use Area Code)

Same as Driver

Insurance

Verification

(19)

2nd Color

Extent of

Damage

Damage

Extent of

Towed Vehicle Type

00

01

02

03

04

Another Vehicle 

Utility Vehicle 

Homemade

Trailer

Box Trailer

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

99

Cattle Trailer 

No Trailer in Tow 

Other

Unknown

N/A

Boat Trailer 

House Trailer 

Farm Trailer 

Horse Trailer
 235

Transported by To Medical Facility

Last Name First Middle Initial

(25) Address

Date of Birth (mm/dd/yyyy)

Air Bag Ejected

Telephone (Use Area Code)

OP Use

(24) Unit Pos in Veh. Sex

Complete information below if this vehicle is being used for COMMERCE/BUSINESS and has a GVWR/GCWR IN EXCESS 

OF 10,000 LBS., or has a HAZMAT PLACARD, or is a BUS WITH SEATING FOR NINE OR MORE INCLUDING THE DRIVER

Property Type

Witness

Injured

Pg of

Same as Driver

GVWR

GCWR

(38) U.S. DOT Number

Carrier Name Address

(37) City 0 - 10K lbs.

10,001 - 26K lbs.

26K+ lbs.

Axle Qty.

Placard Number

Yes

No

Haz. Mat. Class Haz. Mat. Release

State Zip

Vehicle Inspection Number

OK

Prop. Owner

Passenger

City State Zip

Yes

No

(36) Unit

Extricated

Position in Vehicle Vehicle Configuration Cargo Body Type

04. Pickup

01. Passenger 

 Veh.-2 Dr 

02. Passenger 

 Veh.-4 Dr 

03. Passenger 

 Veh. Conv.

05. Single Unit 

 Truck, 2 axles

06. Single Unit 

 Truck, 3+ axles

07. School Bus

08. Truck/Trailer

09. Truck-Tractor 

 (Bobtail)

11. Truck-Tractor/ Double

10. Truck-Tractor/ Semi-Trailer

12. Truck-Tractor/

Triple

22. Truck more 

than 10,000 

lbs., Cannot 

Classify

23. Van 10,000 

lbs. or Less 

24. Other 

99. Unknown

13. Bus/Large Van 

9-15 occupants 

including driver

14. Bus 16+ 

occupants

including driver

15. Motorcycle

16. Motor Scooter/

Moped

18. Farm 

Machinery

17. Motor Home

19. ATV

20. SUV

21. Passenger Van

01. Bus 9-15 seats

02. Bus 16+ seats

03. Van/Enclosed 

Box

05. Flatbed

04. Cargo Tank

06. Intermodal

07. Dump Truck/

Trailer

08. Concrete Mixer

09. Auto Transporter

10. Garbage/Refuse

11. Hopper (grain/

chips/gravel)

12. Pole Trailer

13. Log Trailer

Haz. Mat. Involved

14. Vehicle Towing 

Vehicle

15. Other 

99. Unknown

Cargo Body

00. N/A 00. N/A

00. Not Applicable 

18. Front Row - Other 

28. Second Row - Other 

38. Thrid Row - Other 

48. Fourth Row - Other

Interstate Commerce

Intrastate Commerce

Government

Other Non-Commercial

Vehicle Use

GVWR

GCWR

(41) U.S. DOT Number

Carrier Name Address

(40) City 0 - 10K lbs.

10,001 - 26K lbs.

26K+ lbs.

Axle Qty.

Placard Number

Yes

No

Haz. Mat. Class Haz. Mat. Release

State Zip

Vehicle Inspection Number

OK Yes

No

(39) Unit

Haz. Mat. Involved

Cargo Body

Interstate Commerce

Intrastate Commerce

Government

Other Non-Commercial

Vehicle Use

(26) Injury Severity / Type

Last Name First Middle Initial

(28) Address

Date of Birth (mm/dd/yyyy)

Air Bag Ejected

Telephone (Use Area Code)

OP Use

(27) Unit Pos in Veh. Sex

Witness

Injured

Same as Driver

Prop. Owner

Passenger

City State Zip

(29) Injury Severity / Type Extricated

Last Name First Middle Initial

(31) Address

Date of Birth (mm/dd/yyyy)

Air Bag Ejected

Telephone (Use Area Code)

OP Use

(30) Unit Pos in Veh. Sex

Witness

Injured

Same as Driver

Prop. Owner

Passenger

City State Zip

(32) Injury Severity / Type Extricated

Last Name First Middle Initial

(34) Address

Date of Birth (mm/dd/yyyy)

Air Bag Ejected

Telephone (Use Area Code)

OP Use

(33) Unit Pos in Veh. Sex

Witness

Injured

Same as Driver

Prop. Owner

Passenger

City State Zip

(35) Injury Severity / Type Extricated

Case Number

Transported by To Medical Facility Property Type

Transported by To Medical Facility Property Type

Transported by To Medical Facility Property Type
236

OFFICIAL OKLAHOMA TRAFFIC COLLISION REPORT Pg of

No

Yes

Yes No Unknown

Was the collision in or near a construction, maintenance or utility 

work zone? (If yes, complete this section)

Workers Present

Lane Closure 

Lane Shift/Crossover 

Work on Shoulder or Median 

Intermittent or Moving Work 

Unknown

1

2

3

4

9

Type of Work Zone

Before the First Work

Zone Warning Sign 

Advance Warning Area 

Transition Area 

Activity Area 

Termination Area 

Unknown

1

2

3

4

5

9

Location of the Work Zone 

Collision

Incident Type

Light

Locality

Type of 

Intersection

Daylight

Dark-Not Lighted 

Dark-Lighted

Dawn

Dusk

Dark-Unknown

Lighting

Other

Unknown

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

Clear

Fog/Smog/Smoke

Cloudy

Rain

Snow

Sleet/Hail (Freezing 

Rain/Drizzle)

Severe Crosswind 

Blowing Snow 

Blowing Sand, Soil, 

Dirt

Other

Unknown

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

99

Residential

Business

Industrial

School

Not Built-up 

Mixed Use 

Other

Unknown

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

Weather

Not an Intersection 

Y-Intersection

T-Intersection

Four-Way

Intersection

Five-Point, or More 

Intersection as Part 

of Interchange 

Traffic Circle 

Roundabout

Unknown

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

Not an Incident 

Private Property 

Deliberate Intent 

Medical Condition 

Legal Intervention 

Suicide

Drowning

Other

00

51

52

53

54

55

57

58

Location of 

First Harmful 

Event

What

Vehicle

Was Going 

to Do

What

Vehicle

Did

Visibility

Obscured

by

On Roadway 

Shoulder

Median

Roadside

Gore

Separator

Parking Lane/Zone 

Off Roadway, 

Location Unknown 

Outside Right-of 

Way

Other

Unknown

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

99

Not Applicable 

Go Ahead 

Turn Left 

Turn Right 

Make “U” Turn 

Stop

Slow for Cause 

Start from Park/Stop 

Change Lanes 

Overtake

Pass

Back

Remain Stopped 

Remain Parked 

Enter/Merge in Traffic 

Negotiate a Curve 

Park

Other

Unknown

00

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

99

Not Applicable 

Went Ahead 

Turned Left 

Turned Right 

Entered “U” Turn 

Stopped

Slowed

Started From Park/Stop 

Entered Other Lane 

Overtaking

Passing

Backed

Remained Stopped 

Remained Parked 

Entered/Merged

Departed Rdwy-Right 

Departed Rdwy-Left 

Swerved Right 

Swerved Left 

Parked

Other

Unknown

00

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

99

Not Applicable 

Trees

Embankment

Building

Signs

Parked Vehicles 

High Weeds 

Fences

Shrubbery

Ice, Snow or Frost on 

Windows

Smoke

Fog

Dust

Rain

Sun

Other

Unknown

00

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

99

Underride/

Override

Traffic

Control

Road

Surface

Conditions

Trafficway

Vehicle

Removal

Vehicle

Condition

Not Applicable 

No Underride or Override 

Underride, Compartment

Intrusion

Underride, No

Compartment Intrusion 

Underride, Compartment 

Intrusion Unknown 

Override, Motor Vehicle in 

Transport

Override, Other Motor

Vehicle

Unknown

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

9

No Control 

Stop Sign 

Traffic Signal 

Flashing Traffic Signal

School Zone Signs 

Yield Sign 

Warning Sign 

Railroad Advance 

Warning Sign 

Railroad Cross Bucks 

Railroad Gates 

Railroad Signal 

No Passing Zone 

Person (including flagger, 

law enforcement, crossing 

guard, etc.) 

Abnormal Control 

Posted Speed 

Other

Unknown

00

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

99

Dry

Wet

Ice/Frost

Snow

Mud, Dirt, Gravel 

Slush

Water (standing, moving) 

Sand

Oil

Other

Unknown

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

99

Not Applicable 

Two-Way, Not Divided 

Two-Way, Not Divided

with a Continuous Left 

Turn Lane 

Two-Way, Divided, 

Unprotected (painted > 4 

feet) Median 

Two-Way, Divided, 

Positive Median Barrier 

Two-Way, Divided, Cable 

Barrier

One-Way 9 Unknown

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Not Applicable 

Towed Due to

Vehicle Damage 

Towed For Reasons

Other Than Damage 

Remained at Scene 

Driven from Scene 

Unknown

0

1

2

3

4

9

Driver

Distracted

by

Not Applicable/None 

Electronic Communication 

Devices

Other Electronic Device 

Other Inside Vehicle 

Other Outside Vehicle 

Unknown

0

1

2

3

4

9

Grade

Level

Hillcrest

Uphill

Downhill

Sag (bottom) 

Horizontal

Alignment

1

2

3

4

5

Road Character

Concrete

Asphalt

Gravel

Dirt

Brick

Other

Unknown

1

2

3

4

5

6

9

Road

Surface

Type

Special

Function

of Vehicle

Not Applicable 

School Bus 

Transit Bus 

Intercity Bus 

Charter Bus 

Other Bus 

Military

OHP

Other Police 

Other Law Enforcement 

Ambulance

Fire Truck 

Public Owned Vehicle 

Highway Equipment 

Special Mobilized Machine 

Other 99 Unknown

00

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

N/A 2 No 

Yes 9 Unknown

0

1

Emergency

Vehicle

Responding to 

an Emergency

Unit 1 Unsafe / Unlawful 

Contributing Factors

Unit 2

Unit 1 Unit 2

Unit 1 Unit 2

Unit 1 Unit 2

Unit 1 Unit 2

Unit 1 Unit 2

Unit 1 Unit 2

Unit 1 Unit 2

Unit 1 Unit 2

Unit 1 Unit 2

Unit 1 Unit 2

Unit 1 Unit 2

Unit 1 Unit 2

Unit 1 Unit 2

Top

Undercarriage

Point of First 

Contact on 

Vehicle

Unit 1 Unit 2

Most Damaged 

Area

13

14

Non-Collision

Unknown

15

99

Unit 1 Unit 2

Straight

Curve - Left 

Curve - Right

1

2

3

Unit

This unit will 

correspond

to 'Unit 1'

Total Lanes 

in Roadway

Pedestrian / Pedalcyclist Only

Actions Prior 

to Collision Location at Time 

of Collision

Safety

Equip.

Unit Number of 

Vehicle Striking

This unit will 

correspond

to 'Unit 2'

Legal

Speed

Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 1 Unit 2

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

From Stop Sign 

From Yield Sign 

Private Drive 

County Road at 

Through Highway 

From Signal Light 

From Alley 

To Pedestrian 

To Vehicle on Right 

To Vehicle in 

Intersection

To Emergency 

Vehicles

Other

Human Element 

Traffic Condition 

Weather Condition

Driver's Ability (Age) 

Inexperienced Driver - 

Young

Exceeding Legal Limit 

For Traffic Conditions 

For Type of Roadway 

(Gravel, Dirt, etc.) 

For Ice or Snow on 

Roadway

Rain or Wet Roadway 

Wind

Other Weather 

Conditions

Vehicle Condition 

View Obstruction 

On Curve/Turn 

Impeding Traffic 

Other

From Wrong Lane 

From Direct Course 

Right

Left

Turn About/U-Turn 

To Enter Private Drive 

In Front of Oncoming 

Traffic

Other

CHANGED LANES 

UNSAFELY

STOPPED IN 

TRAFFIC LANE 

For Stop Sign 

For Traffic Signal 

For School Bus 

For Railroad Gates/

Signal

For Officer/Flagman 

At Sidewalk/Stopline 

Other

Brakes

Steering

FAILED TO YIELD

FOLLOWED TOO 

CLOSELY

UNSAFE SPEED

IMPROPER TURN 

FAILED TO STOP

UNSAFE VEHICLE

LEFT OF CENTER 

IMPROPER OVERTAKING 

IMPROPER PARKING

INATTENTION

WRONG WAY 

IMPROPER START FROM 

OTHER IMPROPER ACT/

MOVEMENT

UNKN./NO IMPROPER ACT

Tires

Suspension

Headlights

Tail Lights 

Stop Lights 

Wheel

Exhaust System 

Windshield Wipers 

Other Mechanical Defects 

In Meeting 

No Passing Zone (Unmarked) 

Marked Zone 

Other

In Marked Zone 

On Hill/Curve 

At Intersection 

Without Sufficient Clearance 

Other

On Roadway 

Where Prohibited 

Other

Distracted by Passenger in 

Vehicle

Other Distraction Inside 

Vehicle

Distraction From Outside 

Vehicle

Other

On One Way 

On Exit Ramp 

On Entrance Ramp 

Other

Parked Position 

Other

ALCOHOL-DUI/DWI

DRUG-DUI

Failed to Signal 

Disregarded Warning Signal 

Improper Use of Lane 

Improper Backing 

Apparently Sleepy 

Failed to Secure Load 

Other

Deer in Roadway 

Animal in Roadway 

Domestic Animal in Rdwy 

Avoiding Other Vehicle 

Avoiding Pedestrian 

Object/Debris in Roadway 

Defect in Roadway 

Abnormal Traffic Control 

Improper Bicyclist Action 

NO IMPROPER ACTION BY 

DRIVER

PEDESTRIAN ACTION

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

00

01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

Not Applicable 

Apparently Normal 

Brakes

Headlights

Steering

Tail Lights 

Brake Lights 

Tires/Wheels

Suspension

Signal lights 

Windows

Truck Coupling/Trailer 

Hitch/Safety Chains 

Mirrors 15 Other 

Wipers 99 Unknown 

Power Train

Case Number
 237

Pg of

Indicate North 

by Arrow

Remarks

N W

Latitude Longitude

.

Railroad Crossing Number Direction of Travel Before Collision

Unit

Number

N E 

S W

Unit

Number

N E 

. S W

Pavement Drop-Off 

Ditch

Embankment

Tree (Standing) 

Dividing Strip 

Retaining Wall 

Bridge Abutment

Bridge Pier or Support 

Bridge Rail 

Bridge Post 

Bridge Curb 

Bridge Super Structure (Beams) 

Bridge Overhead Structure 

Delineator

Mailbox

Other Fixed Object 

Other Highway Structure 

Ground

Unknown

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

99

Fell/Jumped From Motor Vehicle 

Thrown Or Falling Object 

Other Non-Collision 

Pedestrian

Pedal Cycle 

Railway Vehicle (train, engine) 

Animal

Motor Vehicle in Transport 

Parked Motor Vehicle 

Struck by Falling, Shifting Cargo or 

Anything Set in Motion by Motor Vehicle

21

22

23

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

First Event Second Event Third Event Fourth Event

COLLISION EVENTS

Overturn/Rollover

Fire/Explosion

Immersion

Jackknife

Cargo/Equipment Loss or Shift 

Equipment Failure (Blown Tire, Brake 

Failure, etc.) 

Separation of Units 

Departed Road Right 

Departed Road Left 

Cross Median/Centerline 

Downhill Runaway

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Work Zone/Maintenance 

Equipment

Other Non-Fixed Object 

Barrier (Cable) 

Barrier (Concrete) 

Barrier (Other) 

Fence Pole 

Fence

Traffic Signal Support 

Traffic Sign Support 

Utility Pole/Light Support 

Other Post/Pole/Support 

Guardrail/Guardrail Face 

Guardrail End 

Culvert

Curb

Island

Sand Barrels

Impact Attenuator/ Crash 

Cushion

37

38

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

Unit First Harmful Event

Unit

First Harmful 

Event for the 

Entire

Collision

First Event Second Event Third Event Fourth Event First Harmful Event

PERSON, MOTOR VEHICLE, OR NONFIXED OBJECT:

FIXED OBJECT:

Case Number
238

OFFICIAL OKLAHOMA TRAFFIC COLLISION REPORT Pg of

Case Number PERSONS SUPPLEMENTAL

Transported by To Medical Facility

Last Name First Middle Initial

(43) Address

Date of Birth (mm/dd/yyyy)

Air Bag Ejected

Telephone (Use Area Code)

OP Use

(42) Unit Pos in Veh. Sex

Property Type

Witness

Injured

Same as Driver

Prop. Owner

Passenger

City State Zip

(44) Injury Severity / Type Extricated

Transported by To Medical Facility

Last Name First Middle Initial

(46) Address

Date of Birth (mm/dd/yyyy)

Air Bag Ejected

Telephone (Use Area Code)

OP Use

(45) Unit Pos in Veh. Sex

Property Type

Witness

Injured

Same as Driver

Prop. Owner

Passenger

City State Zip

(47) Injury Severity / Type Extricated

Transported by To Medical Facility

Last Name First Middle Initial

(49) Address

Date of Birth (mm/dd/yyyy)

Air Bag Ejected

Telephone (Use Area Code)

OP Use

(48) Unit Pos in Veh. Sex

Property Type

Witness

Injured

Same as Driver

Prop. Owner

Passenger

City State Zip

(50) Injury Severity / Type Extricated

Transported by To Medical Facility

Last Name First Middle Initial

(52) Address

Date of Birth (mm/dd/yyyy)

Air Bag Ejected

Telephone (Use Area Code)

OP Use

(51) Unit Pos in Veh. Sex

Property Type

Witness

Injured

Same as Driver

Prop. Owner

Passenger

City State Zip

(53) Injury Severity / Type Extricated

Transported by To Medical Facility

Last Name First Middle Initial

(55) Address

Date of Birth (mm/dd/yyyy)

Air Bag Ejected

Telephone (Use Area Code)

OP Use

(54) Unit Pos in Veh. Sex

Property Type

Witness

Injured

Same as Driver

Prop. Owner

Passenger

City State Zip

(56) Injury Severity / Type Extricated

Transported by To Medical Facility

Last Name First Middle Initial

(58) Address

Date of Birth (mm/dd/yyyy)

Air Bag Ejected

Telephone (Use Area Code)

OP Use

(57) Unit Pos in Veh. Sex

Property Type

Witness

Injured

Same as Driver

Prop. Owner

Passenger

City State Zip

(59) Injury Severity / Type Extricated

Transported by To Medical Facility

Last Name First Middle Initial

(61) Address

Date of Birth (mm/dd/yyyy)

Air Bag Ejected

Telephone (Use Area Code)

OP Use

(60) Unit Pos in Veh. Sex

Property Type

Witness

Injured

Same as Driver

Prop. Owner

Passenger

City State Zip

(62) Injury Severity / Type Extricated

Transported by To Medical Facility

Last Name First Middle Initial

(64) Address

Date of Birth (mm/dd/yyyy)

Air Bag Ejected

Telephone (Use Area Code)

OP Use

(63) Unit Pos in Veh. Sex

Property Type

Witness

Injured

Same as Driver

Prop. Owner

Passenger

City State Zip

(65) Injury Severity / Type Extricated

Transported by To Medical Facility

Last Name First Middle Initial

(67) Address

Date of Birth (mm/dd/yyyy)

Air Bag Ejected

Telephone (Use Area Code)

OP Use

(66) Unit Pos in Veh. Sex

Property Type

Witness

Injured

Same as Driver

Prop. Owner

Passenger

City State Zip

(68) Injury Severity / Type Extricated
 239

Indicate North 

by Arrow

Case Number

OFFICIAL OKLAHOMA TRAFFIC COLLISION REPORT 

DIAGRAM SUPPLEMENTAL

Pg of
240

OFFICIAL OKLAHOMA TRAFFIC COLLISION REPORT Pg of

Case Number ADDITIONAL NARRATIVE
 241

Example Hazardous Materials 

Crash Reporting Form, 

U.S. Department of Transportation Materials 

Transportation Bureau D

APPENDIX
242

ÀÊ"/ÊÊxnää°£Ê­ä£Óää{®Ê ,i«À`ÕVÌÊvÊÌÃÊvÀÊÃÊ«iÀÌÌi`Ê

(AZARDOUS-ATERIALS

)NCIDENT2EPORT

53$EPARTMENTOF4RANSPORTATION

0IPELINEAND(AZARDOUS-ATERIALS

3AFETY!DMINISTRATION

!CCORDINGTOTHE0APERWORK2EDUCTION!CTOFNOPERSONSAREREQUIREDTORESPONDTOACOLLECTIONOFINFORMATIONUNLESSITDISPLAYSA

VALID/-"CONTROLNUMBER4HEVALID/-"CONTROLNUMBERFORTHISINFORMATIONCOLLECTIONIS
4HEFILLINGOUTOFTHISINFORMATIONIS

MANDATORYANDWILLTAKEMINUTESTOCOMPLETE

).3425#4)/.3 3UBMITTHISREPORTTOTHE)NFORMATION3YSTEMS-ANAGER53$EPARTMENTOF4RANSPORTATION0IPELINEAND(AZARDOUS-ATERIALS

3AFETY!DMINISTRATION/FlCEOF(AZARDOUS-ATERIALS3AFETY$(-
7ASHINGTON$#
)FSPACEPROVIDEDFORANYITEMISINADEQUATE

USEASEPERATESHEETOFPAPERIDENTIFYINGTHEENTRYNUMBERBEINGCOMPLETED#OPIESOFTHISFORMANDINSTRUCTIONSCANBEOBTAINEDFROMTHE

/FlCEOF(AZARDOUS-ATERIALS7EBSITEATHTTPHAZMATDOTGOV)FYOUHAVEANYQUESTIONSYOUCANCONTACTTHE(AZARDOUS-ATERIALS)NFORMATION

#ENTERAT

(-2



	ORONLINEATHTTPHAZMATDOTGOV

ÀÊ««ÀÛ>Ê"	Ê °ÊÓ£ÎÇääÎÊ

0!24)
2%0/24490%

/ÃÊÃÊÌÊÀi«ÀÌ\Ê !	Ê>â>À`ÕÃÊ>ÌiÀ>ÊV`iÌÊ "	ÊÕ`iV>Ài`ÊÃ«iÌÊÜÌÊÊÀii>ÃiÊ

#	ÊÊÃ«iVwÊV>ÌÊV>À}ÊÌ>Ê£]äääÊ}>ÃÊÀÊ}Ài>ÌiÀÊVÌ>}Ê>ÞÊ>â>À`ÕÃÊ>ÌiÀ>ÃÊÌ>ÌÊ

ÊÊÊÊ­£®ÊÀiViÛi`ÊÃÌÀÕVÌÕÀ>Ê`>>}iÊÌÊÌiÊ>`}ÊÀiÌiÌÊÃÞÃÌiÊÀÊ`>>}iÊÌ>ÌÊÀiμÕÀiÃÊÀi«>ÀÊÌÊ>ÊÃÞÃÌiÊÊÊ

ÊÊÊÊÌi`i`ÊÌÊ«ÀÌiVÌÊÌiÊ>`}ÊÀiÌiÌÊÃÞÃÌiÊ>`Ê­Ó®Ê``ÊÌÊ>ÛiÊ>ÊÀii>Ãi°Ê

`V>ÌiÊÜiÌiÀÊÌÃÊÃ\Ê ÊÌ>ÊÀi«ÀÌÊ ÊÃÕ««iiÌ>Ê­vÜÕ«®ÊÀi«ÀÌÊ ``Ì>Ê*>}iÃ

0!24))
'%.%2!,).#)$%.4).&/2-!4)/.

>ÌiÊvÊV`iÌ\Ê /iÊvÊV`iÌÊ­ÕÃiÊÓ{ÕÀÊÌi®\Ê


ÌiÀÊ >Ì>Ê,iÃ«ÃiÊ
iÌiÀÊ,i«ÀÌÊ ÕLiÀÊ­vÊ>««V>Li®\

vÊÞÕÊÃÕLÌÌi`Ê>ÊÀi«ÀÌÊÌÊ>ÌiÀÊi`iÀ>Ê"/Ê>}iVÞ]ÊiÌiÀÊÌiÊ>}iVÞÊ>`ÊÀi«ÀÌÊÕLiÀ\Ê

V>ÌÊvÊV`iÌ\Ê 
ÌÞ\ 
ÕÌÞ\ -Ì>Ìi\ <*Ê
`iÊ­vÊÜ®\

-ÌÀiiÌÊ``ÀiÃÃÉiÊ>ÀiÀÉ9>À`>iÉÀ«ÀÌÉ	`ÞÊvÊ7>ÌiÀÉ,ÛiÀÊi

`iÊvÊ/À>Ã«ÀÌ>Ì ÀÊ

Ê/À>ÃÌ

}Ü>Þ

>`}

,>

1>`}

7>ÌiÀ

/À>Ã«ÀÌ>ÌÊ*>Ãi Ê/À>ÃÌÊ-ÌÀ>}i


>ÀÀiÀÉ,i«ÀÌiÀÊ >iÊ

-ÌÀiiÌ


ÌÞÊ

i`iÀ>Ê"/ÊÊ ÕLiÀÊ >â>ÌÊ,i}ÃÌÀ>ÌÊ ÕLiÀÊ

-Ì>ÌiÊ <*Ê
`iÊ

-««iÀÉ"vviÀÀ >iÊ

-ÌÀiiÌ


ÌÞÊ

7>ÞLÉ-««}Ê*>«iÀ >â>ÌÊ,i}ÃÌÀ>ÌÊ ÕLiÀÊ

-Ì>ÌiÊ <*Ê
`iÊ

"À}

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ­vÊ`vviÀiÌÊvÀ

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÃ««iÀÊ>``ÀiÃÃ®

-ÌÀiiÌ


ÌÞÊ -Ì>ÌiÊ <*Ê
`iÊ

iÃÌ>Ì -ÌÀiiÌ


ÌÞÊ -Ì>ÌiÊ <*Ê
`iÊ

*À«iÀÊ-««}Ê >iÊvÊ>â>À`ÕÃÊ>ÌiÀ>\Ê

/iVV>É/À>`iÊ >i\Ê

>â>À`ÕÃÊ
>ÃÃÉÊ

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÛÃ\

`iÌwÊV>ÌÊ

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ ÕLiÀ\Ê

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ­
°}°Ê1 ÓÇÈ{]Ê ÊÓäÓä®Ê

*>V}Ê

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÀÕ«\Ê

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ­vÊ>««V>Li®Ê

+Õ>ÌÌÞÊ

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ,ii>Ãi`\Ê

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ­VÕ`iÊi>ÃÕÀiiÌÊ1ÌÃ®Ê

Ê7>ÃÊÌiÊ>ÌiÀ>ÊÃ««i`Ê>ÃÊ>Ê>â>À`ÕÃÊÜ>ÃÌi¶ 

 

9iÃ

9iÃ

vÊÞiÃ]Ê«ÀÛ`iÊÌiÊ
*Ê>viÃÌÊ ÕLiÀ\Ê

ÃÊÌÃÊ>Ê/ÝVÊLÞÊ>>ÌÊ­/®Ê>ÌiÀ>¶Ê vÊÞiÃ]Ê«ÀÛ`iÊÌiÊ>â>À`Ê<i\Ê

7>ÃÊÌiÊ>ÌiÀ>ÊÃ««i`ÊÕ`iÀÊ>Ê
Ýi«Ì]Ê««ÀÛ>]ÊÀÊ
«iÌiÌÊÕÌÀÌÞÊ
iÀÌwÊV>Ìi¶Ê 9iÃ 

7>ÃÊÌÃÊ>ÊÕ`iV>Ài`Ê>â>À`ÕÃÊ>ÌiÀ>ÃÊÃ«iÌ¶Ê 9iÃ 

vÊÞiÃ]Ê«ÀÛ`iÊÌiÊ
Ýi«Ì]Ê««ÀÛ>]ÊÀÊ
ÊÕLiÀ\Ê

*>}iÊ
 243

ÀÊ"/ÊÊxnää°£Ê­ä£Óää{®Ê ,i«À`ÕVÌÊvÊÌÃÊvÀÊÃÊ«iÀÌÌi`Ê

0!24)))
0!#+!').').&/2-!4)/.


iVÊ*>V>}}Ê/Þ«iÊ­ViVÊÞÊiÊÊvÊÀiÊÌ>Êi]ÊÃÌÊÌÞ«iÊvÊ«>V>}}]ÊV«ÞÊ*>ÀÌÊ]Ê>`ÊV«iÌiÊvÀÊi>VÊÌÞ«i\Ê


Þ`iÀÊ

 LÕÊ

,Ê

	
Ê

*ÀÌ>LiÊ/>Ê


>À}ÊÌ>ÊÌÀÊ6iViÊ­
/6®Ê

"ÌiÀÊ

/>Ê
>ÀÊ

-iiÊÃÌÀÕVÌÃÊ>`ÊiÌiÀÊÌiÊ>««À«À>ÌiÊv>ÕÀiÊV`iÃÊvÕ`Ê>ÌÊÌiÊi`ÊvÊÌiÊÃÌÀÕVÌÃ°Ê	iÊÃÕÀiÊÌÊiÌiÀÊÌiÊV`iÃÊvÀÊÌiÊÃÌÊ

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÌ>ÌÊVÀÀiÃ«`ÃÊÌÊÌiÊ«>ÀÌVÕ>ÀÊ«>V>}}ÊÌÞ«iÊViVi`Ê>LÛi°Ê
ÌiÀÊÌiÊÕLiÀÊvÊV`iÃÊ>ÃÊ>««À«À>ÌiÊÌÊ`iÃVÀLiÊÌiÊV`iÌ°Ê

ÊÊÊÊÊÊ
ÌiÀÊÌiÊÃÌÊ«ÀÌ>ÌÊv>ÕÀiÊ«ÌÊÊiÊ£°ÊvÊÌiÀiÊ>ÀiÊÀiÊÌ>ÊÌÜÊv>ÕÀiÊ«ÌÃ]Ê«ÀÛ`iÊÊÌÃÊvÀ>ÌÊÊ«>ÀÌÊ6°Ê

£°Ê7>ÌÊ>i`\Ê

Ó°Ê7>ÌÊ>i`\Ê

ÜÊ>i`\Ê

ÜÊ>i`\Ê


>ÕÃiÃÊvÊ>ÕÀi\Ê


>ÕÃiÃÊvÊ>ÕÀi\Ê

A*ÀÛ`iÊÌiÊ«>V>}}Ê`iÌwÊV>ÌÊ>À}Ã]ÊvÊ>Û>>Li°Ê

`iÌwÊV>ÌÊ>À}Ã\Ê

­
Ý>«iÃ\Ê££É9£°{É£xäÉÓÉ1-É,	ÉÎÉ,]Ê1 Î££É9ä{ÎÉ1-ÉÎÎÉ£änääÉ£Óää]Ê"/ÊÊ£äxÊÊ£ää7Ê­,®]Ê"/Ê{äÈÊ­79®]Ê"/Êx£]Ê"/ÊÎ®Ê

BÀÊ LÕ]Ê	
]ÊÀÊÃ«iVwÊV>ÌÊ«>V>}}]ÊvÊ`iÌwÊV>ÌÊ>À}ÃÊ>ÀiÊV«iÌiÊÀÊÕ>Û>>Li]ÊÃiiÊÃÌÀÕVÌÃÊ>`Ê

ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊV«iÌiÊÌiÊvÜ}\Ê

3INGLE0ACKAGEOR/UTER0ACKAGING 3INGLE0ACKAGEOR)NNER0ACKAGINGIFANY	

*>V>}}Ê/Þ«i\Ê

>ÌiÀ>ÊvÊ
ÃÌÀÕVÌ\Ê

i>`Ê/Þ«iÊ­ÀÕÃÊÞ®\Ê ,iÛ>LiÊ ÊÊ,iÛ>LiÊ

*>V>}}Ê/Þ«i\Ê

>ÌiÀ>ÊvÊ
ÃÌÀÕVÌ\Ê

iÃVÀLiÊÌiÊ«>V>}iÊV>«>VÌÞÊ>`ÊÌiÊμÕ>ÌÌÞ\Ê

3INGLE0ACKAGEOR/UTER0ACKAGING

*>V>}iÊ
>«>VÌÞ\Ê

ÕÌÊÊ*>V>}i\Ê

 ÕLiÀÊÊ-«iÌ\Ê

 ÕLiÀÊ>i`\Ê

3INGLE0ACKAGEOR)NNER0ACKAGINGIFANY	

*>V>}iÊ
>«>VÌÞ\Ê

ÕÌÊÊ*>V>}i\Ê

 ÕLiÀÊÊ-«iÌ\Ê

 ÕLiÀÊ>i`\Ê

*ÀÛ`iÊ«>V>}}ÊVÃÌÀÕVÌÊ>`ÊÌiÃÌÊvÀ>Ì]Ê>ÃÊ>««À«À>Ìi\Ê

>Õv>VÌÕÀiÀ\Ê

-iÀ>Ê ÕLiÀ\Ê

>ÌiÀ>ÊvÊ
ÃÌÀÕVÌ\Ê

iÃ}Ê*ÀiÃÃÕÀi\Ê

>Õv>VÌÕÀiÊ>Ìi\Ê

>ÃÌÊ/iÃÌÊ>Ìi\Ê

-iÊ/ViÃÃ\Ê

i>`Ê/ViÃÃ\Ê

-iÀÛViÊ*ÀiÃÃÕÀi\Ê

vÊÛ>ÛiÊÀÊ`iÛViÊv>i`\Ê

/Þ«i\Ê >Õv>VÌÕÀiÀ\ `i\

­vÊ/>Ê
>À]Ê
/6]Ê*ÀÌ>LiÊ/>]ÊÀÊ
Þ`iÀ®Ê

­vÊ/>Ê
>À]Ê
/6]Ê*ÀÌ>LiÊ/>®Ê

­vÊ/>Ê
>À]Ê
/6]Ê*ÀÌ>LiÊ/>®Ê

­vÊ/>Ê
>À]Ê
/6®Ê

­vÊ
Þ`iÀ®Ê

vÊÌiÊ«>V>}}ÊÃÊvÀÊ,>`>VÌÛiÊ>ÌiÀ>Ã]ÊV«iÌiÊÌiÊvÜ}\Ê

*>V>}}Ê
>Ìi}ÀÞ\Ê

*>V>}}Ê
iÀÌwÊV>Ì\Ê

 ÕV`i­Ã®Ê*ÀiÃiÌ\Ê

VÌÛÌÞ\Ê

/À>Ã«ÀÌÊ`iÝ\Ê


ÀÌV>Ê->viÌÞÊ`iÝ\Ê

-ivÊ
iÀÌwÊi`Ê

/Þ«iÊÊ

1°-°Ê
iÀÌwÊV>ÌÊ

/Þ«iÊ	Ê /Þ«iÊ
Ê


iÀÌwÊV>ÌÊ ÕLiÀÊ


ÝVi«Ìi`Ê `ÕÃÌÀ>Ê

*>}iÊ

­vÊ«ÀiÃiÌÊ>`Êi}Li®Ê ­vÊ«ÀiÃiÌÊ>`Êi}Li®Ê
244

ÀÊ"/ÊÊxnää°£Ê­ä£Óää{®Ê ,i«À`ÕVÌÊvÊÌÃÊvÀÊÃÊ«iÀÌÌi`Ê

0!24)6
#/.3%15%.#%3

,iÃÕÌÊvÊV`iÌÊ­ViVÊ>ÊÌ>ÌÊ>««Þ®\Ê

6>«ÀÊ­>Ã®ÊÃ«iÀÃÊ

-«>}iÊ


ÛÀiÌ>Ê>>}iÊ

ÀiÊ

 Ê,ii>ÃiÊ


Ý«ÃÊ >ÌiÀ>Ê
ÌiÀi`Ê7>ÌiÀÜ>ÞÉ-ÌÀÊ-iÜiÀÊ


iÀ}iVÞÊ,iÃ«ÃiÊ\ÊÊÊÊÊ/iÊvÜ}ÊiÌÌiÃÊÀiÃ«`i`ÊÌÊÌiÊV`iÌ\ÊÊÊÊÊ­
iVÊ>ÊÌ>ÌÊ>««Þ®Ê

ÀiÉ
-Ê,i«ÀÌÊÊ *ViÊ,i«ÀÌÊÊ ÕÃiÊVi>Õ«Ê "ÌiÀÊ
i>Õ«Ê

>>}iÃ\ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ7>ÃÊÌiÊÌÌ>Ê`>>}iÊVÃÌÊÀiÊÌ>Êfxää¶Ê

vÊÞiÃ]ÊiÌiÀÊÌiÊvÜ}ÊvÀ>Ì\ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊvÊ]Ê}ÊÌÊμÕiÃÌÊÎÎ°Ê

9iÃ 

>ÌiÀ>ÊÃÃ\Ê




>ÀÀiÀÊ>>}i\Ê



*À«iÀÌÞÊ>>}i\Ê



,iÃ«ÃiÊ
ÃÌ\Ê



,ii`>ÌÉ
i>Õ«Ê
ÃÌ\Ê



­-iiÊ`>>}iÊ`iwÊÌÃÊÊÌiÊÃÌÀÕVÌÃ®Ê

A`ÊÌiÊ>â>À`ÕÃÊ>ÌiÀ>ÊV>ÕÃiÊÀÊVÌÀLÕÌiÊÌÊ>ÊÕ>Êv>Ì>ÌÞ¶Ê 9iÃ 

vÊÞiÃ]ÊiÌiÀÊÌiÊÕLiÀÊvÊv>Ì>ÌiÃÊÀiÃÕÌ}ÊvÀÊÌiÊ>â>À`ÕÃÊ>ÌiÀ>\Ê

>Ì>ÌiÃ\Ê 
«ÞiiÃÊ ,iÃ«`iÀÃÊ iiÀ>Ê*ÕLVÊ

B7iÀiÊÌiÀiÊÕ>Êv>Ì>ÌiÃÊÌ>ÌÊ``ÊÌÊÀiÃÕÌÊvÀÊÌiÊ>â>À`ÕÃÊ>ÌiÀ>¶Ê 9iÃ  vÊÞiÃ]ÊÜÊ>Þ¶Ê

`ÊÌiÊ>â>À`ÕÃÊ>ÌiÀ>ÊV>ÕÃiÊÀÊVÌÀLÕÌiÊÌÊ«iÀÃ>ÊÕÀÞ¶Ê 9iÃ 

vÊÞiÃ]ÊiÌiÀÊÌiÊÕLiÀÊvÊÕÀiÃÊÀiÃÕÌ}ÊvÀÊÌiÊ>â>À`ÕÃÊ>ÌiÀ>\Ê

Ã«Ì>âi`Ê­`ÌÌi`Ê"Þ®\Ê 
«ÞiiÃÊ ,iÃ«`iÀÃÊ iiÀ>Ê*ÕLVÊ

 Ã«Ì>âi`\Ê 
«ÞiiÃÊ ,iÃ«`iÀÃÊ iiÀ>Ê*ÕLVÊ

­i°}°\Ê"ÊÃÌiÊwÊÀÃÌÊ>`ÊÀÊ
iÀ}iVÞÊ,ÊLÃiÀÛ>ÌÊ>`ÊÀii>Ãi®Ê

`ÊÌiÊ>â>À`ÕÃÊ>ÌiÀ>ÊV>ÕÃiÊÀÊVÌÀLÕÌiÊÌÊ>ÊiÛ>VÕ>Ì¶ 9iÃ 

vÊÞiÃ]Ê«ÀÛ`iÊÌiÊvÜ}ÊvÀ>Ì\Ê

/Ì>ÊÕLiÀÊvÊ}iiÀ>Ê«ÕLVÊiÛ>VÕ>Ìi`Ê /Ì>ÊÕLiÀÊvÊi«ÞiiÃÊiÛ>VÕ>Ìi`Ê /Ì>Ê
Û>VÕ>Ìi`Ê

ÕÀ>ÌÊvÊÌiÊiÛ>VÕ>ÌÊ ­ÕÀÃ®

7>ÃÊ>Ê>ÀÊÌÀ>Ã«ÀÌ>ÌÊ>ÀÌiÀÞÊÀÊv>VÌÞÊVÃi`¶Ê 9iÃ  vÊÞiÃ]ÊÜÊ>Þ¶Ê ­ÕÀÃ®

7>ÃÊÌiÊ>ÌiÀ>ÊÛÛi`ÊÊ>ÊVÀ>ÃÊÀÊ`iÀ>iÌ¶Ê 9iÃ 

vÊÞiÃ]Ê«ÀÛ`iÊÌiÊvÜ}ÊvÀ>Ì\Ê 
ÃÌ>Ìi`ÊÃ«ii`Ê­«®\Ê 7i>ÌiÀÊV`ÌÃ\Ê

9iÃ 

9iÃ 

6iViÊÛiÀÌÕÀ¶Ê

6iViÊivÌÊÀ>`Ü>ÞÉÌÀ>V¶Ê

0!246
!)2).#)$%.4).&/2-!4)/.­«i>ÃiÊÀiviÀÊÌÊÅÊ£Çx°Î£ÊÌÊÀi«ÀÌÊ>Ê`ÃVÀi«>VÞÊvÀÊ>ÀÊÃ«iÌÃ®

7>ÃÊÌiÊÃ«iÌÊÊ>Ê«>ÃÃi}iÀÊ>ÀVÀ>vÌ¶Ê 9iÃ 

vÊÞiÃ]ÊÜ>ÃÊÌÊÌi`iÀi`Ê>ÃÊV>À}]ÊÀÊ>ÃÊ«>ÃÃi}iÀÊL>}}>}i¶Ê


>À}Ê *>ÃÃi}iÀÊL>}}>}iÊ

7iÀiÊ``ÊÌiÊV`iÌÊVVÕÀÊ­vÊÕÜ]ÊViVÊÌiÊ>««À«À>ÌiÊLÝÊvÀÊÌiÊV>ÌÊÜiÀiÊÌiÊV`iÌÊÜ>ÃÊ`ÃVÛiÀi`®¶Ê

ÀÊV>ÀÀiÀÊV>À}Êv>VÌÞÊ -ÀÌÊViÌiÀÊ 	>}}>}iÊ>Ài>Ê

	ÞÊÃÕÀv>ViÊÌÉvÀÊ>À«ÀÌÊ ÕÀ}ÊyÊ}ÌÊ ÕÀ}Ê>`}ÉÕ>`}ÊvÊ>ÀVÀ>vÌÊ

7>ÌÊ«>Ãi­Ã®Ê>`ÊÌiÊÃ«iÌÊ>Ài>`ÞÊÕ`iÀ}iÊ«ÀÀÊÌÊÌiÊV`iÌ¶Ê­
iVÊ>ÊÌ>ÌÊ>««Þ®

-«iÌÊ>`ÊÌÊLiiÊÌÀ>Ã«ÀÌi`Ê /À>Ã«ÀÌi`ÊLÞÊ>ÀÊ­wÊÀÃÌÊyÊ}Ì®Ê /À>Ã«ÀÌÊLÞÊ>ÀÊ­ÃÕLÃiμÕiÌÊyÊ}ÌÃ®Ê

Ì>ÊÌÀ>Ã«ÀÌÊLÞÊ}Ü>ÞÊÌÊV>À}Êv>VÌÞÊ /À>ÃviÀÊ>ÌÊÃÀÌÊViÌiÀÉV>À}Êv>VÌÞÊ

*>}iÊ
 245

ÀÊ"/ÊÊxnää°£Ê­ä£Óää{®Ê *>}iÊ ,i«À`ÕVÌÊvÊÌÃÊvÀÊÃÊ«iÀÌÌi`Ê

0!246)
$%3#2)04)/./&%6%.430!#+!'%&!),52%

iÃVÀLiÊÌiÊÃiμÕiViÊvÊiÛiÌÃÊÌ>ÌÊi`ÊÌÊÌiÊV`iÌÊ>`ÊÌiÊ>VÌÃÊÌ>iÊ>ÌÊÌiÊÌiÊÌÊÜ>ÃÊ`ÃVÛiÀi`°ÊiÃVÀLiÊÌiÊ«>V>}iÊv>ÕÀi]Ê

VÕ`}ÊÌiÊÃâiÊ>`ÊV>ÌÊvÊiÃ]ÊVÀ>VÃ]ÊiÌV°Ê*Ì}À>«ÃÊ>`Ê`>}À>ÃÊÃÕ`ÊLiÊÃÕLÌÌi`ÊvÊii`i`ÊvÀÊV>ÀwÊV>Ì°Ê
ÃÌ>ÌiÊ

ÌiÊ`ÕÀ>ÌÊvÊÌiÊÀii>Ãi]ÊvÊ«ÃÃLi°ÊiÃVÀLiÊÜ>ÌÊÜ>ÃÊ`iÊÌÊÌ}>ÌiÊÌiÊivviVÌÃÊvÊÌiÊÀii>Ãi°Ê
ÌÕiÊÊ>``Ì>ÊÃiiÌÃÊvÊ

iViÃÃ>ÀÞ°Ê

0!246))
2%#/--%.$!4)/.3!#4)/.34!+%.4/02%6%.42%#522%.#%

7iÀiÊÞÕÊ>ÀiÊ>LiÊÌÊ`ÊÃ]ÊÃÕ}}iÃÌÊÀÊ`iÃVÀLiÊV>}iÃÊ­ÃÕVÊ>ÃÊ>``Ì>ÊÌÀ>}]ÊÕÃiÊvÊLiÌÌiÀÊ«>V>}}]ÊÀÊ«ÀÛi`Ê«iÀ>Ì}Ê

«ÀVi`ÕÀiÃ®ÊÌÊi«Ê«ÀiÛiÌÊÀiVÕÀÀiVi°Ê*ÀÛ`iÊÀiVi`>ÌÃÊvÀÊ«ÀÛiiÌÊÌÊ>â>À`ÕÃÊ>ÌiÀ>ÃÊÌÀ>Ã«ÀÌ>ÌÊLiÞ`ÊÌiÊ

VÌÀÊvÊÞÕÀÊ`Û`Õ>ÊV«>Þ°Ê
ÌÕiÊÊ>``Ì>ÊÃiiÌÃÊvÊiViÃÃ>ÀÞ°Ê

0!246)))
#/.4!#4).&/2-!4)/.


Ì>VÌ1⁄2ÃÊ >iÊ­/Þ«iÊÀÊ*ÀÌ®\Ê


Ì>VÌ1⁄2ÃÊ/Ìi\Ê

	ÕÃiÃÃÊ >iÊ>`Ê``ÀiÃÃ\Ê


>Ê``ÀiÃÃ\Ê

/ii«iÊ ÕLiÀ\ÊÊ­ÊÊÊÊÊÊ®Ê

>ÝÊ ÕLiÀ\Ê­ÊÊÊÊÊÊ®Ê

>â>ÌÊ,i}ÃÌÀ>ÌÊ ÕLiÀÊ­vÊÌÊ>Ài>`ÞÊ«ÀÛ`i`®\Ê

>Ìi\

*Ài«>ÀiÀÊÃ\ 
>ÀÀiÀ -««iÀ >VÌÞ "ÌiÀ

 247

List of Selected 

Accident Investigations, 

National Transportation Safety Board153

153 Provided by George A. Black, National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).

1. Collision Between Metrolink Train 210 and 

Ford Crew Cab, Stake Bed Truck at HighwayRail Grade Crossing, Burbank, California, 

January 6, 2003. NTSB Number HAR-03/04, NTIS 

Number PB2003-916204.

2. Collision Between Amtrak Train 97 and Molnar 

Worldwide Heavy Haul Company TractorTrailer Combination Vehicle at Highway-Rail 

Grade Crossing in Intercession City, Florida, 

November 17, 2000. NTSB Number HAR-02/02, 

NTIS Number PB2002-916202.

3. Collision of National Railroad Passenger 

Corporation (Amtrak) Train 59 With a Loaded 

Truck-Semitrailer Combination at a Highway/

Rail Grade Crossing, Bourbonnais, Illinois, 

March 15, 1999. NTSB Number RAR-02/01, NTIS 

Number PB2002-916301.

4. Collision of CSXT Freight Train and Murray 

County School District School Bus at Railroad/

Highway Grade Crossing, Conasauga, 

Tennessee, March 28, 2000. NTSB Number 

HAR-01/03, NTIS Number PB2001-916203.

5. Collision Between Metrolink Train 901 and 

Mercury Transportation, Inc., TractorCombination Vehicle at Highway-Railroad 

Grade Crossing, Glendale, California, 

January 28, 2000. NTSB Number HAR-01/02, 

NTIS Number PB2001-916202.

6. Collision of Northeast Illinois Regional 

Commuter Railroad Corporation (METRA) 

Train and Transportation Joint Agreement 

School District 47/155 School Bus at Railroad/

Highway Grade Crossing, Fox River Grove, 

Illinois, October 25, 1995. NTSB Number 

HAR-96/02, NTIS Number PB96-916202.

E

7. Highway/Rail Grade Crossing Collision Near 

Sycamore, South Carolina, May 2, 1995. NTSB 

Number HAR-96/01, NTIS Number PB96-916201.

8. Collision of Amtrak Train No. 88 with 

Rountree Transport and Rigging Vehicle on 

CSX Transportation, Inc., Railroad Near 

Intercession City, Florida, November 30, 1993.

NTSB Number HAR-95/01, NTIS Number 

PB95-916201.

9. Gasoline Tank Truck/Amtrak Train Collision 

and Fire, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, March 17, 

1993. NTSB Number HAR-94/01, NTIS Number 

PB94-916201.

10. Collision Of Amtrak Passenger Train No. 708 on 

Atchison, Topeka And Santa Fe Railway with 

Tab Warehouse And Distribution Co. TractorSemitrailer, Stockton, California, December 

19, 1989. NTSB Number RHR-90/01, NTIS Number 

PB89-917007.

11. Collision Of Isle Of Wight County, Virginia, 

School Bus with Chesapeake And Ohio Railway 

Company Freight Train, State Route 615, near 

Carrsville, Virginia, April 12, 1984. NTSB 

Number HAR-85/02, NTIS Number PB85-916202.

12. Collision Of Amtrak Train No. 88 with Tractor 

Lowboy Semitrailer Combination Truck, 

Rowland, North Carolina, August 25, 1983.

NTSB Number RHR-84/01, NTIS Number 

PB84-917005.

13. Collision Of Florida East Coast Freight Train 

with Indian River Academy School Bus, Port 

St. Lucie, Florida, September 27, 1984. NTSB 

Number RHR-85/01, NTIS Number PB85-17007.

* Note: Refer to the NTSB Website for reports 

(www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/R_Acc.htm).

 249

The New Hampshire Index is as follows: 

HI = (V) (T) (Pf

) (1)

where: 

HI = hazard index 

V = annual average daily traffic 

T = average daily train traffic 

Pf = protection factor 

= 0.1 for automatic gates 

= 0.6 for flashing lights 

= 1.0 for signs only 

Several modifications of the New Hampshire Index are in 

use. Some states use various other values for Pf as follows:

• 0.13 or 0.10 for automatic gates.

• 0.33, 0.20, or 0.60 for flashing lights.

• 0.67 for wigwags.

• 0.50 for traffic signal preemption.

• 1.00 for crossbucks.

One state adds 1 to average daily train traffic (T). 

Several states use a hazard index that basically 

incorporates the New Hampshire Index but also 

includes other factors:

• Train speed. 

• Highway speed. 

• Sight distance. 

• Crossing angle. 

• Crossing width. 

• Type of tracks. 

• Surface type. 

• Population. 

• Number of buses. 

• Number of school buses. 

• Number of tracks. 

• Surface condition. 

• Nearby intersection. 

• Functional class of highway. 

• Vertical alignment. 

• Horizontal alignment. 

• Number of hazardous material trucks. 

• Number of passengers. 

• Number of accidents.

Some of these hazard indices are shown in the 

following table:

where:

New Hampshire Hazard Index,

Nchrp Report 50 Accident Prediction Formula, 

Peabody-Dimmick Accident Prediction Formula F

APPENDIX

SBP = Number of school bus passengers

P = Factor for population

Pf = Protection factor

SD = Factor for sight distance

T = Average number of trains per day

RF = Factor for rideability

Tf = Number of fast trains

Ts = Number of slow trains

T1 = Train factor

TN = Factor for number of night trains

TR = Factor for number and type of tracks

TS = Factor for train speeds

TT = Factor for type of train movements

TTR = Factor for type of tracks

V = Annual average daily traffic 

Vf = Factor for annual average daily traffic

VSD = Factor for vertical sight distance

W = Factor for crossing width

A5 = Number of accidents in five years

Aa = Number of accidents per year

Af = Accident factor

AL = Factor for highway alignment

AN = Factor for approach angle

FC = Factor for functional class

G = Factor for approach grades

HI = Hazard Index

HM = Factor for hazardous materials 

vehicles

HS = Factor for highway speed

L = Factor for number of lanes

LI = Factor for local interference

LP = Factor for local priority

S = Factor for surface type

SB = Number of school buses

NTR = Factor for number of tracks

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second 

Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Federal Highway Administration, 1986.





f s

5

f

f f 2 a a

(SD + AN + NTR) 1 : HI = (V) (2T ) (T ) 4

(V) (T)(A ) 2 : HI =

P

(TT + TTR + SD + AN + AL + L + G + VSD + W + LI) 3 : HI = (V) (T) 100

(P )(V ) (T) (TS) (NTR) SBP 4 : HI = + (70A ) + 1.2 (SD); A = V + 160 1.2

HI = (.01) (V) (T) + (.1) (HS) (TS) + (SD) (AN) (TR) (N

  

  ×     f f 1

f f

f

(HM)

V x T 5 : HI = .1(P ) (A ) (T ) + (AN)(NTR) (S) (.5L) + TS((FC P) + + SB) 10,000

(V ) (P ) (T) 6 : HI =

TR + TN + T + HS + G + SD + AN

7 :

2

a f

f

TR) (AL) + 

 (A + 1) (RF) (LP)(P ) + (SB) (SBP) + (10) (HM) 

(V) (T) HI = 

P

8 :
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

250

National Cooperative Highway Research Program 

Report 50 Accident Prediction Formula

The hazard index presented in National Cooperative 

Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 50 can be 

expressed as a complex formula or reduced to a more 

simple equation of coefficients that are taken from a few 

tables and graphs. The simple formula for calculating 

the expected number of accidents per year is:

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second 

Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Federal Highway Administration, 1986.

NCHRP 50 also provides formulae for estimating the 

number of non-train-involved accidents per year as 

follows:

Automatic gates:

(2)

All other traffic control devices: 

x = 0.00499 + 0.00036 (ADT), or

(3)

where: 

X = probability of coincidental vehicle and train 

arrival scaled by 10-3

ADT = average daily traffic

EA = expected number of accidents per year

Modifications of the hazard index exist. State’s formula 

is:

(4)

The Site Evaluation factor is based on the following: 

• Most restrictive sight distance of all quadrants.

• Distance from crossing to business or 

crossroad.

• Crossing angle.

• Distraction from traffic control devices.

• People factor.

Each factor is rated from 1 (best) through 5 (worst), and 

the average of the 5 factors is used in the formula.

Peabody-Dimmick Accident Prediction Formula

The Peabody-Dimmick Formula, published in 1941, was 

based on five years of accident data from 3,563 rural 

crossings in 29 states. It is sometimes referred to as 

the Bureau of Public Roads formula. The formula used 

to determine the expected number of accidents in five 

years is:

(5)

where: 

A5 = expected number of accidents in five years 

V = annual average daily traffic 

T = average daily train traffic 

P = protection coefficient 

K = additional parameter

Several states, such as Florida, have developed their 

own formulae.

Expected Accident Frequency = 

A x B x Current Trains per Day

Vehicles

Per Day

(10 yr. ADT) ‘A’ Factor

250 ---------------------- .000347

500 ---------------------- .000694

1000 ---------------------- .001377

2000 ---------------------- .002627

3000 ---------------------- .003981

4000 ---------------------- .005208

5000 ---------------------- .006516

6000 ---------------------- .007720

7000 ---------------------- .009005

8000 ---------------------- .010278

9000 ---------------------- .011435

10000 ---------------------- .012674

12000 ---------------------- .015012

14000 ---------------------- .017315

16000 ---------------------- .019549

18000 ---------------------- .021736

20000 ---------------------- .023877

25000 ---------------------- .029051

30000 ---------------------- .034757

EXAMPLE 

ASSUME 

Urban area 

Crossbucks

5000 vehicles per day

5 trains per day

EXPECTED ACCIDENT FREQUENCY 

EAF = .006516 x 3.06 x 5

EAF = 0.10

EAF = 1 accident every ten years

Accident frequency is greater than 0.02. 

This would indicate need for higher 

type device

Try flashing lights B = .23

EAF = .006516 x .23 x 5 

EAF = 0.01

THEREFORE FLASHING 

LIGHTS ARE WARRANTED 

‘B’ FACTOR COMPONENTS

(‘B’ FACTOR BASIC VALUE ADJUSTMENTS) 

BASIC VALUES FOR EXISTING DEVICES

A Crossbucks, highway volume less than 500 per day 3.89

B Crossbucks, urban 3.06

C Crossbucks, rural 3.08

D Stop signs, highways volume less than 500 per day 4.51

E Stop signs 1.15

F Wigwags 0.61

G Flashing lights, urban 0.23

H Flashing lights, rural 0.93

I Gates, urban 0.08

J Gates, rural 0.19

x =0.00866+0.00036 ADT), or

EA = ADT

100 [0.00866+0.00036 (ADT)]

EA = ADT

100 [0.00499+0.0036 (ADT)]

NCHRP 50 Hazard Index

Site Evaluation + ACC/Yr

A5 =1.28

V0.170 T0.151

P0.171 +K ( )( )
 251

A5 can be determined from a set of curves as shown 

below:

Source: Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, Second Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal 

Highway Administration, 1986.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook 2007 Update

252

The predicted number of accidents per year, y, is 

adjusted for accident history as follows: 

(7)

where:

Y = accident prediction adjusted for accident 

history

y = accident prediction based on the regression 

model

H = number of accidents for six-year history or 

since year of last improvement

P = number of years of the accident history period

A simple method of rating each crossing from zero to 

90 was derived based mathematically on the accident 

prediction. This method, entitled Safety (Hazard) 

Index, is used to rank each crossing. A Safety Index 

of 70 is considered safe (no further improvement 

necessary). A Safety Index of 60, or one accident every 

nine years, would be considered marginal. The Safety 

Index is calculated as follows:

(8)

where:

R = safety index

Y = adjusted accident prediction value

X = 90 when less than 10 school buses per day 

traverse the crossing

= 85 when 10 or more school buses per day and 

active traffic control devices exist without 

gates

= 80 when 10 or more school buses per day and 

passive traffic control devices exist

Florida Department of Transportation Accident 

Prediction Model 

The Florida State University developed an accident 

prediction model for the Florida Department of 

Transportation. The model was developed using 

stepwise regression analysis, transformation of data, 

dummy variables, and transformation of the accident 

prediction model to its original scale. The resulting 

model is:

(6)

 where: 

A = vehicles per day or annual average daily 

traffic

L = number of lanes 

l

n

 = logarithm to the base e

MASD = actual minimum stopping sight distance 

along highway 

MCSD = clear sight distance (ability to see 

approaching train along the highway, 

recorded for the four quadrants 

established by the intersection of the 

railroad tracks and road) 

RSSD = required stopping sight distance on wet 

pavement

St

 = maximum speed of train 

T = yearly average of the number of trains per day 

ta = ln of predicted number of accidents in fouryear period at crossings with active traffic 

control devices 

tp= ln of predicted number of accidents in fouryear period at crossing with passive traffic 

control devices

VV = posted vehicle speed limit unless geometrics 

dictate a lower speed

y = predicted number of accidents per year at 

crossing

* This variable is omitted if crossing is flagged or the circulation 

is less than zero.

** This variable is omitted if sight restriction is due to parallel road.

*** This variable is omitted when gates are present.

1. tp = - 8.075 + .318 lnSt + .484 lnT + .437 lnA +

 .387 lnVv + (.28 - .28 MASD

RSSD )** +

 (.33 - 1.23 MCSD

RSSD )

* + .15 (no crossbucks) 

1a. y = exp (.968tp + 1.109) / 4

2. ta = - 8.075 + .318 lnSt + .166 lnT + .293 lnA +

 .387 lnVv + (.28 - .28 MASD

RSSD ) +

 .225 (L - 2)** - .233 (gates)

2a. y = exp (.938ta + 1.109) / 4

Y y H y P = /( )( )

R X Y = − ( )1
 253

Diagnostic Team Crossing 

Evaluation Reports, 

Examples from States G

APPENDIX
254

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 

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

 

 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) 

 Special Vehicle moves 

 MPH 

 through trains at mph per day 

 switch moves at mph per day 

COUNTY: 

DOT No.: 

CONTROL: 

PROJECT: 

LOCATION: 

RAILROAD: 

MILEPOST: 

Date of Inspection: 

Date Layout Due: 
 255

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 

expense. 

4. The Railroad Company or its Contractor will remove the existing cross bucks mast flashers cantilevers

and dispose of the foundations. 

5. The State or its Contractor will furnish and install or replace the appropriate pavement markings as outlined on the 

attached layout and standard sheet and in accordance with the guidelines in the Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic 

Control Devices. 

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 

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 

roadway in 2” black lettering. 

10. The State County City agrees to trim and maintain trees and vegetation for adequate visibility of the 

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. 

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. 

REPORT PROBLEMS 

TO 1-800 -772 - 7677 

CROSSING # 123456A 

 W10-1 

 W10-2 

W10-3

W10-4

R15-4

 R15-2 

 R8-8 

Source: Texas Department of Transportation.
256
 257
258
 259
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

260
 261
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

262

Source: Nevada Department of Transportation.
 263

Overview

In the majority of states, the overall authority for 

highway-rail crossing safety and the authority to order 

the elimination of at-grade crossings lie with the state 

agency that regulates and oversees transportation.

In a small number of states, the responsibility 

for crossing elimination is vested in regulatory 

bodies. These are referred to by different names, 

including the public utility commission and the state 

corporation commission. A couple of states provide 

for shared responsibility between a state agency 

and a unit of local government. A few more provide 

for shared responsibility between the department of 

transportation and another state agency, such as the 

highway department.

The agency charged with the responsibility for 

elimination, or abolishment, as the process is often 

called, has not changed a great deal since the original 

publication of this handbook. In the few instances 

in which the responsible agency is different, it was 

the result of the powers and functions of the agency 

being assumed by another agency. For example, 

in Missouri, the agency originally responsible for 

grade crossing regulation was the Public Service 

Commission (PSC). The powers, functions, and duties 

of the PSC with respect to grade crossing safety 

were transferred to the Division of Motor Carriers 

and Railroad Safety in the Department of Economic 

Development. Massachusetts has renamed its agency 

responsible for grade crossings the Department of 

Telecommunications and Energy.

This appendix is intended to present a brief overview 

of the procedures for grade crossing elimination on 

a state-by-state basis. The state or county agency 

with statutory authority to order the elimination of a 

grade crossing is identified, along with an indication 

of whether the authority is exclusive or shared. Each 

state’s entry concerning the subject is followed by the 

appropriate citation(s). The information contained 

in this appendix comes from the third edition of 

“Compilation of State Laws and Regulations on 

Matters Affecting Highway- Rail Crossings,” published 

by the Federal Railroad Administration in 1999 (www.

fra.dot.gov).

State Laws and Regulations

Alabama

The Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT) 

has statutory authority to abandon and discontinue 

any portion of a state highway or street on a state 

highway route crossing the tracks or right of way of 

any railroad or street railway within the state, and to 

close the grade crossings, with the approval of the city 

council or governing body of any municipality, when, 

in its judgment, the grade crossing has ceased to be 

necessary for the public as part of any state highway 

because of relocation of the highway, the construction 

of an underpass or overpass, or other provision made 

for the elimination of the grade crossing.

With respect to at-grade crossings on a municipal or 

county highway, street, or right of way of any railroad 

within the state, whenever, if in the judgment of ALDOT, 

the grade crossing is dangerous, redundant, or the 

enhancement of public safety resulting from the closing 

outweighs any inconvenience caused by rerouting 

the vehicular traffic. Any such action to be taken by 

ALDOT concerning an at-grade crossing on a municipal 

or county highway must have the approval of the city 

or governing body. In the event any such closing is 

deemed by ALDOT to cause substantial inconvenience 

to vehicular traffic or to materially impair the provision 

of police, fire, or ambulance service, ALDOT may also 

State Crossing 

Consolidations and Closures H

APPENDIX
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

264

power, upon its own motion or upon complaint of an 

interested party, to order the abolishment of a highwayrail grade crossing. The process requires a hearing 

before which all interested parties, including the 

owners of any adjacent property, must be given due 

notice. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 40-4-106(2)(3) (1999).

Connecticut

The commissioner of transportation is granted 

statutory authority to relocate or close highway-rail 

grade crossings.

The process may be initiated upon written petition to 

the commissioner by the selectmen of any town; the 

mayor and common council of any city; or the warden 

and burgesses of any borough within which a highway 

crosses a railroad. The commissioner appoints a time 

and place for hearing the petition and gives notice to 

the petitioners. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 13B-270 (West 1998).

A similar procedure applies to the directors of 

any railroad company whose track is crossed by a 

highway. Any railroad company may bring its petition 

in writing to the commissioner, alleging that public 

safety necessitates the elimination of a crossing. 

The commissioner shall appoint a time and place for 

hearing the petition after reasonable notice to all 

affected parties. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 13B-273 (West 

1998).

The commissioner may also, in the absence of any 

application, upon his or her own motion, when in his or 

her opinion public safety requires it, and after notice 

and proper hearing, order alterations—including 

removal—of a highway crossed at grade by a railroad 

or railroads. In the process, he or she shall determine 

and direct by whom such alterations shall be made, at 

whose expense and within what time frame; but in any 

case, no more than one-fourth of the expenses is to be 

borne by the state, and the remainder is to be assessed 

upon the railroad. Conn. Gen. Stat. §13B.274 (West 

1998).

The commissioner of transportation, on written 

application of the selectmen of any town; the mayor 

and common council of any city; or the warden and 

burgesses of any borough; or on his or her own motion, 

may make orders and direct the relocation of an 

existing grade crossing where it can be shown that the 

crossing at the alternative location is in the interest of 

public safety, providing the state, town, city, or borough 

making the request shall bear the cost of the relocation 

and the maintenance thereafter shall be borne in the 

same manner as prior to the relocation. Conn. Gen. 

Stat. § 13-b-272 (West 1998).

order a relocation of the crossing or the building of 

another crossing at another location. 

Whenever ALDOT orders the closing of a grade 

crossing, it must enter its order in the department 

minutes. Notice in writing is given by ALDOT by 

posting a notice on each side of the railroad or street 

railway at the grade crossing for a period of 30 days. 

If the closing is a crossing on a county or municipal 

road, prior to issuing the order to close the crossing, 

ALDOT must also give notice of its intention to close to 

the affected municipality or county. In addition, ALDOT 

must publish legal notice of intention to close the 

crossing in a newspaper of general circulation in the 

county once per week for three consecutive weeks prior 

to the closure. The notice must outline the procedure 

to request a hearing. If there is such a request for 

a hearing, ALDOT must give 10 days’ notice to the 

requester and the municipality or county. Ala. Code § 

37-2-84 (a)-(b)-(c) (1999).

Alaska

Alaska has no code section relating to this topic.

Arizona

The Arizona Corporation Commission has the exclusive 

authority to alter or abolish highway-rail grade 

crossings within the state. This authority extends to 

crossings where railroad tracks cross public roads or 

streets of a town or city. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 40-337 

(1999). 

Arkansas

The Arkansas State Highway Commission has 

exclusive authority over grade crossings, including 

the power to determine and prescribe the manner; 

location; terms of installation; operation; maintenance; 

alteration and abolishment; separation of grades; and 

protection and apportionment of expenses. Ark. Code 

Ann. §§ 23- 12-301-1001-1002 (1999).

California

The California Public Utilities Commission has 

exclusive authority to abolish any crossing of a public 

or publicly used road or highway by a railroad or street 

railroad and of a street by railroad. Cal. [Pub. Util.] 

Code §§ 1202 (a)-(b) 1201 (West 1999).

Colorado

The Colorado Public Utilities Commission has the 
 265

Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook 2007 Update

If the commissioner of transportation finds that a 

dangerous condition exists at such crossing, except 

a dangerous condition arising out of improper or 

inadequate maintenance, he or she shall issue such 

an order to such municipality or to any public service 

company directing the removal, change, or relocation 

of the crossing, highway, tracks, pipes, wires, poles, or 

other fixtures or tree or building or other structure; 

and shall apportion the cost among the public service 

company or companies, the municipality, and the state 

and shall determine the conditions and the time and 

manner of the payment, provided that the portion of 

the cost to be paid by the public service company shall 

not exceed 10 percent. Conn. Gen. Stat. 13b-276 (West 

1998).

Delaware

The Delaware Department of Transportation has the 

authority to order the closing of highway-rail crossings. 

Del. Code Ann. tit. 2 § 1804 (1999).

District of Columbia

The mayor of the District of Columbia has statutory 

authority to order a grade crossing elimination. D.C. 

Code Ann. § 7-137 (1999).

Florida

The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) 

has regulatory authority over all public highway-rail 

grade crossings in the state. A public highway-rail 

grade crossing is defined in the Florida statute as any 

location at which a railroad track is crossed at grade 

by a public road.

FDOT is mandated to work with the various railroad 

companies to develop and initiate a program for the 

expenditure of funds for the performance of projects 

aimed at reducing grade crossing hazards. Fla. Stat. 

Ann. § 335.141 (West 1999 Supplement).

FDOT, in conjunction with other governmental units 

and the private sector, is tasked with the responsibility 

of developing and implementing a statewide rail 

program designed to ensure the proper maintenance, 

safety, revitalization, and expansion of the rail system. 

Among the myriad duties under the statute, FDOT is 

required to administer rail operating and construction, 

including the regulation of maximum train operating 

speeds; the opening and closing of public grade 

crossings; the construction and rehabilitation of public 

grade crossings; and the installation of traffic control 

devices at public grade crossings. The administration 

of the program by FDOT includes participation 

in funding. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 341.302 (West 1999 

Supplement).

Georgia

The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) 

has authority for final approval of grade crossing 

eliminations. The statute indicates that, when 

necessary in the interest of public safety, the unit of 

local government with jurisdiction may authorize 

and direct the elimination of a grade crossing by 

construction of an overpass or underpass, provided 

that no grade crossing shall be eliminated without prior 

approval from GDOT.

Once a decision is made by either entity, prompt notice 

must be given to the affected railroads. All parties 

must meet within 30 days and must further agree on 

a method of closure and separation within 90 days. 

If there is no agreement within the specified time, 

the department, county, or municipality may proceed 

with construction or may, by written order, direct the 

interested railroads to proceed with construction. Ga. 

Code Ann. §§ 32-6-193-194 (1998).

Hawaii

Hawaii has no code section relating to this topic.

Idaho

The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) has 

statutory authority to negotiate and enter into an 

agreement with the railroad companies to provide for 

grade crossing elimination on state highways.

For crossings not on state highways, the local 

authorities and railroad companies have the same 

authority and duties with respect to the elimination 

or alteration of such crossings as are granted to and 

required of ITD and the various railroad companies. 

Idaho Code §§ 62-301-303 (1999).

Illinois

The Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) has statutory 

authority to order the elimination of a highway-rail 

grade crossing. After a hearing, ICC has the power to 

require major alteration of or to abolish any crossing 

heretofore or hereafter established when, in its 

opinion, public safety demands it. This authority does 

not extend to grade crossings in cities, villages, and 

incorporated towns of 1 million or more inhabitants.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

266

ICC, after a hearing of all the parties, can prescribe the 

terms upon which any separation is to be made and 

the proportion in which the expense of any alteration 

or abolition of such crossings or the separation of 

such grades is to be divided between the affected rail 

carrier(s) or between the carrier(s) and the state, 

county, municipality, or other public authority in 

interest.

ICC also has the power to order the reconstruction, 

minor alteration, minor relocation, or improvement 

of any crossing (including all necessary highway 

approaches thereto) of any railroad across any 

highway or public road, regardless of whether the 

crossing is at grade or by overhead structure or 

by subway, whenever ICC finds after a hearing or 

without a hearing as otherwise provided that any such 

reconstruction, alteration, relocation, or improvement 

is necessary to preserve or promote the safety or 

convenience of the public or of the employees or 

passengers of such rail carrier or carriers.

The statute also provides that no highway-rail at-grade 

crossing is to be permanently closed without first 

convening a public hearing with notice of such hearing 

being published in an area newspaper of local general 

circulation.

The following factors are to be considered by ICC 

in developing the specific criteria for opening and 

abolishing grade crossings:

1. Timetable speed of passenger trains.

2. Distance to an alternate crossing.

3. Collision history for the last five years.

4. Number of vehicular traffic and posted speed 

limits.

5. Number of freight trains and their timetable 

speeds.

6. Type of warning device present at the grade 

crossing.

7. Alignments of the roadway and railroad, and 

the angle of intersection of those alignments.

8. Use of the grade crossings by trucks carrying 

hazardous material, vehicles carrying 

passengers for hire, and school buses.

9. Use of the grade crossing by emergency 

vehicles. 625 ILCS 5/18c-7401 (1999).

Indiana

Indiana statute gives the Indiana Department of 

Transportation (INDOT) the authority to order closed 

and abolished as a public way within the limits of 

a railroad right of way any grade crossing then in 

existence at the time INDOT assumes jurisdiction of the 

matter. INDOT’s order must be based on a determination 

that the enhancement of public safety resulting from 

the closing will outweigh any inconvenience caused 

by rerouting traffic. The authority of INDOT to legally 

close and abolish grade crossings is in addition to any 

authority by law granted to other state agencies or units 

of local government. Units of local government have the 

authority to abolish a public railroad crossing but not 

the authority to open one.

Upon the issuance of any such order by INDOT, 

the railroad(s) involved is to physically remove 

the crossing from the tracks. The government unit 

responsible for maintaining the highway is to remove 

approaches to the crossing or barricade them. Ind. 

Code Ann. § 8-6-7.7-3 (Burns 1998 Supplement).

INDOT is required to develop criteria for use in 

determining whether to open a new public railroad 

grade, and to develop criteria that INDOT and the unit 

of local government can use in determining whether to 

abolish a public railroad grade crossing.

In the application of the criteria, INDOT or the unit of 

local government will consider the following:

1. Timetable speed of passenger trains operated 

through the crossing.

2. Distance to an alternate crossing.

3. Collision history of the crossing for the 

five years preceding INDOT’s or the unit’s 

consideration.

4. Amount of vehicular traffic and posted speed 

limits for the crossing.

5. Amount of freight trains and their timetable 

speeds operated through the crossing.

6. Type of warning device present at the crossing, 

if any.

7. Alignment of the roadway and the railroad, and 

the angle of the intersection of an alignment at 

the crossing.

8. Use of the crossing by:

a. Trucks carrying hazardous materials;

b. Vehicles carrying passengers for hire;

c. School buses; and

d. Emergency vehicles.

9. Other appropriate criteria as determined by 

INDOT. Ind. Code Ann. §8-6-7.7-3.1(Burns 1998 

Supplement).

A person may petition a unit (local government) under 

whose jurisdiction a public railroad crossing lies for 

closure of the crossing. The unit is then required to 

conduct a public hearing. The unit has three options: 1) 
 267

If it determines that the crossing in question meets the 

criteria adopted by INDOT under the previous section 

for closure of the crossing, the unit may approve the 

petition and issue an order to close the crossing. The 

unit’s findings must be made available to INDOT; 2) 

if the unit determines that the crossing meets the 

criteria, but a compelling reason has been shown to 

exist for the crossing to remain open, it may then deny 

the petition to close with a copy of findings to INDOT; 

and 3) the unit may determine that the crossing in 

question does not meet the criteria established by 

INDOT and deny the petition for closure.

Nothing in this chapter, however, is intended to 

preclude a unit and a railroad from agreeing on 

their own to close a crossing within the jurisdiction 

of the unit. Ind. Code Ann. § 8-6-7.7-3.2 (Burns 1998 

Supplement).

A decision to deny a petition to close a crossing may be 

reviewed by INDOT and a determination made whether 

to schedule an appeal. The decision to schedule or 

not schedule an appeal is: 1) In the sole discretion of 

INDOT; 2) final and conclusive; and 3) not subject to 

review. Upon review of the findings of the unit, INDOT 

may determine that the crossing meets the criteria 

for closure, opening, or denial of a closure and that a 

compelling reason has been shown for the crossing to 

remain open, in which case INDOT shall issue written 

findings that the crossing may remain open. If, on the 

other hand, INDOT determines that the crossing meets 

the criteria for closure and that a compelling reason 

has not been shown for the crossing to remain open, 

INDOT may issue an order abolishing the crossing. Ind. 

Code Ann. § 8-6-7.7-3.3 (Burns 1998 Supplement).

INDOT also has the authority to approve a petition 

to open a crossing. If it finds that the proposed 

crossing meets the criteria required to open a new 

grade crossing and that a compelling reason has been 

shown for the crossing to exist, it may issue an order 

approving the petition. Ind. Code Ann. § 8-6-7.7-4 

(Burns 1998 Supplement).

Iowa

Whenever a railway track crosses or is planned to 

cross a highway, street, or alley, the affected railroad 

and the Iowa Transportation Department (Iowa 

DOT), in the case of a primary highway; the board of 

supervisors of the county in which the crossing at issue 

is located, in the case of secondary roads; or the city 

council, in the case of streets and alleys located within 

a city, may agree upon the location, manner, vacation, 

physical structure, characteristics, and maintenance of 

the crossing. Iowa Code § 327G.15 (1998).

If any of the parties cannot agree upon the location, 

manner, vacation, physical structure, characteristics, 

and maintenance of the crossing, either party may 

make written application to Iowa DOT requesting 

a solution. Iowa DOT is required to request the 

Department of Inspections and Appeals to set a date 

for hearing and give 10 days’ written notice of the date. 

Iowa Code § 327G.16 (1998).

Kansas

The statutes of Kansas provide for a shared 

responsibility for both closures and consolidations, 

depending on which type of highway the railroad 

crosses at grade. The secretary of transportation’s 

authority covers state roads; the State Corporation 

Commission’s authority extends to crossings on city, 

county, or township roads. Likewise, the governing 

bodies of first- and second-class cities have similar 

authority to require railroad companies owning or 

operating any railroad or street-railway to erect, 

construct, reconstruct, complete, and keep in repair 

any viaduct or viaducts upon or over or tunnels under 

such street or streets and over or under any such 

track or tracks, including the approaches of such 

viaduct, viaducts, or tunnels as may be deemed and 

declared by the governing body to be necessary for the 

convenience, safety, or protection of the public.

Still another section of the statute confers the same 

authority on the governing bodies of first- and secondclass cities in counties of 90,000 population or more.

The secretary of transportation, in the construction, 

improvement, reconstruction, or maintenance of 

the state highway system, shall have the power and 

authority to compel all railroad companies operating 

steam or electric railroad in the state to construct, 

improve, reconstruct, or maintain in a manner to 

be approved by the secretary, viaducts, tunnels, 

underpasses, bridges, or grade crossings where 

the lines of said railroad companies intersect state 

highways, in the judgment of the secretary such 

viaducts, tunnels, underpasses, bridges, or grade 

crossings are necessary for the proper construction 

of the state highway system, for the safety of the 

general public, or for the elimination of a dangerous 

grade crossing. The expense of such construction, 

improvement, reconstruction, or maintenance may 

be divided between the railroad company and the 

secretary of transportation in a fair and equitable 

proportion to be determined by the secretary. However, 

the secretary shall not pay more than 50 percent of 

the cost, but such 50-percent limitation shall not apply 

to express highway for freeways. Otherwise, grade 
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

268

crossings shall be constructed and maintained at the 

expense of the railroad company.

If, after due notice to the railroad company that 

in the judgment of the secretary, the construction, 

improvement, reconstruction, or maintenance of a 

viaduct, tunnel, underpass, bridge, or grade crossing 

is necessary, and the affected railroad company fails 

to comply with the secretary’s order, the secretary is 

then empowered and authorized to immediately begin 

to construct, improve, reconstruct, or maintain such 

viaduct, tunnel, underpass, bridge, or grade crossing 

and submit a bill for the work to the railroad company. 

If the railroad refuses to submit payment, the secretary 

shall forward the information to the attorney general of 

the state, who may immediately institute a suit in the 

name of the secretary for recovery.

Under this same section, the secretary, when he or she 

deems it advisable, may require the railroad company 

to install and maintain suitable safety devices or 

warning signals at dangerous or obscure crossings to 

indicate the approach of trains. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 68-

414 (1998).

The governing body of all cities of the first and second 

class also has the power to regulate the crossings 

of railway and street-railway tracks and provide 

precautions and adopt ordinances regulating the 

same. This includes the power to require all railway 

companies to erect viaducts over or tunnels under 

their tracks at the crossing of streets. The governing 

body shall have power to require any railroad company 

or companies owning or operating any railroad or 

street-railway tracks or tracks upon or across any 

public street or streets of the city to erect, construct, 

reconstruct, complete, and keep in repair any viaduct 

or viaducts upon or over or tunnels under such street 

or streets and over or under any such track or tracks, 

including the approaches of such viaduct, viaducts, 

or tunnels as may be deemed and declared by the 

governing body to be necessary for the convenience, 

safety, or protection of the public. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 12-

1633 (1998).

At the request of the governing body of any city, county, 

or township, and after proper investigations made in 

cooperation with the secretary of transportation, the 

State Corporation Commission may designate those 

railroad grade crossings on city, county, or township 

roads which are dangerous. At all crossings so 

designated, the commission may order the installation 

of appropriate safety devices to be installed and 

maintained by the railroad. The State Corporation 

Commission is empowered to determine the number, 

type, and location of such safety devices that must 

conform with generally recognized standards. The 

commission has additional authority to close and 

abolish grade crossings on city, county, or township 

roads that are in proximity to crossings on which 

safety devices have been ordered, subject to the 

approval of the governing body of such city, county, or 

township, and to require the payment of a portion of 

the cost of the installation of the safety devices by the 

affected railroad or railroads, provided that the cost to 

the railroad shall be not less than 20 percent nor more 

than 50 percent of the total installation costs. Kan. 

Stat. Ann. § 66-321a (1998).

The governing body of all cities of the first and second 

class in a county having a population of over 90,000 

has the power to require any railroad company 

or companies owning or operating any railroad 

or street-railway track or tracks upon or across 

any public streets of the city to erect, construct, 

reconstruct, complete, and keep in repair any viaduct 

or viaducts upon or over or tunnels under such street 

or streets and over or under such tracks, including 

the approaches of such viaducts, viaducts, or tunnels 

as may be deemed and declared by ordinance to be 

necessary for the convenience, safety, or protection of 

the public. Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 12-1634-68-509 (1998).

Kentucky

The Department of Highways has the authority to order 

any railroad company owning or operating a railroad in 

the state to eliminate any grade crossing or change any 

existing overhead or underpass structure where any 

public road crosses the railroad tracks of the railroad 

company when it considers it necessary for public 

safety. In the process, the Department of Highways 

may determine whether a substitute crossing should be 

established and, if so, the location and whether it shall 

pass over or under the railroad tracks or intersect 

them at grade.

The department is responsible for the promulgation 

of administrative regulations containing standards 

that govern the closure of public grade crossings. 

The standards reflect the intent of the legislation, 

that public safety will be enhanced by reducing the 

number of redundant and inherently dangerous grade 

crossings.

On or before July 1, 1993, on or before July 1 of each 

of the next four years, and as necessary thereafter, 

the department is required to compose a list of grade 

crossings to be closed. The department must notify 

the public officials having the necessary authority 

and the railway companies operating the railroads 

of the proposed closures. Either affected party may 
 269

request a public hearing, and, if it is requested, the 

department is required to hold the hearing and apply in 

its determination the information gained at the public 

hearing. If after the hearing the department determines 

that closure is warranted, it may order the crossing 

closed. If a request for a hearing is not received by the 

department within 30 days of notice of the opportunity, 

the department shall order the crossing closed. Ky. Rev. 

Stat. Ann. § 177.120 (1)(2)(3) (1999 Supplement).

Any railroad company dissatisfied with a final order of 

the department directing the elimination of any grade 

crossing or change of existing overhead or underpass 

structure, or any order modifying or amending the final 

order, may appeal by filing in circuit court. The court 

has the authority to affirm or to overrule the order of 

the department. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 177.190 (1999 

Supplement).

There is a different procedure for ordering elimination 

of a grade crossing or modifications to grade crossings 

when the crossing is on a county road in counties 

containing a city of the first class.

The Fiscal Court, when it considers it reasonably 

necessary for the public safety, may order any railroad 

company, either steam or electric, owning or operating 

a railroad in its county to eliminate any existing grade 

crossing or change any existing overhead or underpass 

structure where any county road crossed the railroad 

tracks of such company. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 178.355(1) 

(Baldwin 1998).

Note: The Fiscal Court is a county government 

agency in Kentucky. It is empowered to exercise all 

the corporate powers of the county unless otherwise 

provided by law. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann.§§ 67.080- 67.040 

(Baldwin 1998).

The Fiscal Court is required to give at least 10 days’ 

notice by certified mail of a hearing. At any such 

hearing it shall consider whether or not the proposed 

grade separation or change is reasonably necessary 

and the most advantageous method of effecting the 

grade separation or change. In determining whether 

the proposed grade separation or change is reasonably 

necessary, the Fiscal Court shall receive evidence of 

and consider all relevant facts, including the present 

and prospective density of highway traffic and the 

present and prospective frequency and speed of 

train movements over the crossing; the adequacy of 

existing or proposed signals or warning devices for 

the protection of highway traffic at the grade crossing; 

the possibility and probability of personal injury to 

the public using the highway and to employee and 

passengers of the railroad company and damage 

to property; and the cost of the grade separation 

or change in relation to benefits resulting from the 

proposed construction. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann § 178.355 (2) 

(Baldwin 1998).

Louisiana

In 1998, the Louisiana legislature enacted legislation 

that authorized the Department of Transportation and 

Development (LADOTD) to require closure of statemaintained railroad grade crossings. The legislation 

requires a prioritization of proposed crossing closures, 

along with notification of affected parties prior to 

closure. It provides for public hearings and alternative 

actions to closing by a local government authority; 

spells out the responsibility for funding by the local 

governing authority; directs promulgation of rules and 

regulations by the department; and requires certain 

factors for consideration in development of criteria for 

crossing closure; and other related matters.

The secretary of LADOTD can require the closure 

of crossings. The statute provides for LADOTD to 

complete a study no later than March 1, 1999 to 

establish priorities for railroad grade crossing closures 

and to develop a prioritized plan for implementing 

railroad grade crossing closures.

The department may change the location of or abolish 

any existing public grade crossing on any statemaintained highway in the state when it determines 

that it is necessary for the safety of the public. The 

process must comply with the following procedures:

1. Within not less than 180 days prior to the 

closure of any public crossing, LADOTD shall 

notify the municipal governing authority of 

the area in which the crossing is located; the 

governing authority of the parish in which 

the crossings located; the railroad company 

whose railroad tracks are crossed at grade 

by the highway; emergency services providers 

providing services within the affected area; 

and any other party deemed by the secretary 

to be interested in the closing procedure. Such 

notification of closures shall offer opportunity 

for rebuttals and alternative actions to such 

closures.

2. Not less than 90 days prior to the possible 

closure of any public grade crossing, LADOTD 

shall hold a public hearing in the parish or 

municipality of the affected grade crossing.

3. After the hearing, LADOTD shall attempt to 

address any concerns raised at the hearings 

relative to the proposed closing. However, if 

the secretary determines that the closure is 

Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook 2007 Update
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

270

consistent with the standards established by 

LADOTD and in the public interest, LADOTD 

shall issue an order to close the existing grade 

crossing. Any such closure order shall also 

determine the manner in which such closure 

shall be made including a determination as 

to any alteration to be made to the crossing 

and the method of diversion of traffic to an 

alternate road or crossing. No provisions of 

this act shall impose any liabilities of any 

nature upon the state of Louisiana or any 

agency of the state.

Any local governing authority that opposes the 

closure of a grade crossing within its territorial 

jurisdiction may agree to undertake the upgrading of 

warning devices and additional safety alternatives in 

compliance with requirements determined by LADOTD 

as an alternative to the proposed closing. The expense 

of the alternative upgrade of the crossing must be 

borne by the local government.

At the written request of any local governing authority, 

LADOTD shall investigate the need to change the 

location of or abolish a railroad grade crossing within 

the jurisdiction of such governing authority and that is 

not on a state-maintained roadway. After compliance 

with the provisions of this section, LADOTD may, 

upon determination of the need for closure of the 

crossing, proceed with the relocation or abolishment 

of the crossing. The application by the local governing 

authority shall constitute the consent of the authority 

for such closing.

LADOTD, subject to the provisions of the 

Administrative Procedure Act, shall promulgate 

rules and regulations to implement the provisions of 

this section—relocation or abolishment. The rules 

and regulations shall include specific criteria for the 

closure of grade crossings. The following factors are to 

be considered in developing closure criteria:

1. Total number of daily vehicular use at 

crossing.

2. Total number of trains passing the crossing 

daily.

3. Alternative routes and distance to such routes.

4. Timetable speeds of trains passing the 

crossing.

5. Collision history of the crossing.

6. Type of warning device presently at the 

crossing.

7. Degree of difficulty involved in improvement 

of roadway approach to the crossing or in 

providing adequate warning devices.

8. Use of the crossing by vehicles carrying 

hazardous materials, vehicles carrying 

passengers for hire, and school buses.

9. Use of grade crossing by emergency vehicles.

10. Sight distance and reduced visibility at the 

crossings.

11. Angle of intersection of alignments of the 

roadway and the railroad.

12. Redundancy of crossings in the area.

13. Proximity to a new crossing or a recently 

upgraded crossing.

14. Availability and responsibility of user of 

private crossing.

15. Other factors LADOTD determines necessary 

in the development of this criteria. La. Rev. 

Stat. Ann. § 48:390 (West 1999).

Maine

The Maine Department of Transportation (MaineDOT) 

has the authority to close or discontinue a crossing. 

The municipal officers, in instances of town ways 

crossing or crossed by a railroad, whether the crossing 

is at grade or otherwise, or any railroad corporation 

may petition MaineDOT alleging that public safety 

or public convenience either to the traveling public 

or in the operation of railroad services requires 

abolishment of or reconstruction of or alteration of 

crossings or its approaches; or change in the method 

of crossing a public way; or the closing of a crossing 

and the substitution of another; or the removal of 

obstructions to the sight at the crossing and requesting 

the situation be remedied. After proper notice and 

hearing, MaineDOT shall make its determination to 

insure safety or public convenience and by whom the 

abolishment, reconstruction, alteration, change, or 

removal shall be made. MaineDOT can issue an order 

after notice of not less than 10 days to the railroad and 

municipality or after a hearing if requested within the 

10 days either by the railroad or the municipality. Me. 

Rev. Stat. ANN. tit. 23 § 7207 (West 1999).

Maryland

The Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) 

has general authority to abandon, relocate, construct, 

or reconstruct any railroad grade crossing or railroad 

grade separation that is dangerous or inconvenient 

for public travel. If the railroad-grade crossing is 

dangerous or inconvenient for public travel, SHA may 

construct a railroad grade separation. Md. Ann. Code 

art. 8 § 640(b)(2) (Michie 1998).

The Maryland secretary of transportation has general 

authority to approve the construction or modification 

of a railroad grade crossing or a change of crossing 

protection equipment and to impose conditions 
 271

Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook 2007 Update

necessary to insure public safety at the crossing. No 

other approval, safety condition, or protective measure 

may be required by any public authority.

Except for an industrial track spur or siding, a railroad 

may not construct, reconstruct, improve, widen, 

relocate, or otherwise alter a railroad grade crossing 

over a state, county, or municipal highway, except in 

Baltimore City or over a private road, or change the 

crossing protection at such a crossing unless approved 

by the secretary.

This same section provides that a person may not 

construct, reconstruct, improve, widen, relocate, or 

otherwise alter either a railroad grade crossing over 

a public highway or a private road over a railroad 

or change the crossing protection at such a crossing 

unless approved by the secretary. Md. Ann. Code art. 8 

§ 639 (Michie 1998).

Massachusetts

The Department of Telecommunications and Energy 

(DTE) has the authority to order grade crossing 

closure.

The Department of Highways plays a supporting role 

by investigating crossings where a public or private 

way and a railroad cross each other at grade. The 

department receives petitions for the abolition of grade 

crossings from the aldermen of a city; the selectmen 

of a town; the commissioners of the county where 

such a crossing exists; or the board of directors of the 

railroad corporation operating the railroad crossed. 

After a hearing, due notice of which is given to the 

railroad corporation, city or town, and county, the 

department may, in its discretion, place a crossing on 

a list of crossings, the abolition of which be given early 

consideration. The department is required to file the 

list annually on or before October 1 with DTE.

After giving due notice to the Department of Highways, 

the counties and municipalities in which the identified 

crossings are located, and the affected railroad 

corporations, DTE proceeds to hold public hearings on 

the list. When the hearings are completed, DTE may 

order a program of grade crossings. The program can 

be amended or revised from time to time by DTE on 

requests from the Department of Highways. Mass. Ann. 

Laws ch. 159, §§ 65-70 (1998).

Michigan

The Michigan Department of Transportation has 

exclusive authority to order the elimination of highwayrail crossings. The department, when it determines 

that it is necessary for public safety, may change the 

location of or abolish any existing public at-grade 

crossing after not less than 30 days’ notice in the 

affected areas. If an affected party requests a hearing, 

the department must hold one, and within 30 days 

after the date of the hearing, can issue an order to 

close the existing grade crossing. Mich. Comp. Laws 

Ann. § 462.307 (1999). Also see Mich. Stat. Ann. § 

22.1263(307)(2) (1999).

Minnesota

The authority to order closure, vacation, relocation, 

consolidation, or separation lies with the commissioner 

of transportation. The commissioner has the further 

responsibility for the adoption of rules containing 

standards governing the vacation and separation of 

public at-grade crossings. In the adoption of those 

standards, the commissioner must consider that the 

number of grade crossings in this state should be 

reduced, and that public safety will be enhanced by 

reducing the number of grade crossings. Minn. Stat. § 

219.073 (1998).

Public officials with the necessary authority and a 

railway company may come to an agreement to the 

vacation, relocation, consolidation, or separation 

of grades at grade crossings. If they are unable to 

reach agreement, either party may file a petition 

with the commissioner who then schedules a hearing. 

If the commissioner determines that the vacation, 

relocation, consolidation, or separation is consistent 

with the standards adopted under Section 210.073, 

he or she may order the crossing vacated, relocated, 

consolidated, or separated. Minn. Stat. § 219.074 

(1998).

Mississippi

The Mississippi Transportation Commission has 

statutory authority to regulate and abandon grade 

crossings on any fixed route as part of the state 

highway system. Miss. Code Ann. § 65-1-8 (1999).

Whenever any railroad and state highway or part of 

a state highway shall cross each other at grade, and 

in the opinion of the commission, such crossing is 

dangerous to public safety or traffic is unreasonably 

impeded thereby, and the crossing should be removed, 

the commission may order the crossing in question 

eliminated by having the State Highway Department 

carry the highway either under or over the tracks of 

the railroad.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

272

The plans covering the proposed changes can be made 

either by the director of the State Highway Department, 

subject to the approval of the commission or the 

affected railroad; but must in either event be approved 

by both the commission and the railroad company 

before the contract is awarded. The commission and 

the railroad are required to pay equal parts of the cost 

of any underpass or overpass across the right of way of 

the railroad company. Miss. Code Ann. § 65-1-69 (1999).

Missouri

The Division of Motor Carrier and Railroad Safety 

of the Department of Economic Development has 

exclusive power to alter or abolish a crossing, at grade 

or otherwise, of a railroad by a public road whenever 

the division finds that public convenience and necessity 

will not be adversely affected and public safety will be 

promoted by altering or eliminating the crossing, or to 

require, where, in its judgment it would be practicable, 

as separation of grades at any crossing heretofore or 

hereafter established. The division has the right to 

refuse its permission or to grant it upon such terms 

and conditions as it may prescribe.

This authority extends to private crossings in specific 

instances in which it is determined that the private 

crossing is being used by the public to the extent that it 

is necessary to protect and promote public safety. Mo. 

Rev. Stat. § 389.610 (1998). See also under Missouri in 

Chapter 11, Private Crossings and Chapter 3, Crossing 

Treatment Procedures.

Montana

Montana law does not specifically mention closure 

of highway-rail grade crossings within the code, but 

general authority over highway-rail crossings is 

vested in the Montana Public Service Commission. 

Local authority in unincorporated villages or towns to 

construct new highway-rail crossings is provided for 

in the code. Local authority means the board of county 

commissioners. No railroad crossing, other than a 

grade crossing, shall be ordered by any board of county 

commissioners. The Public Service Commission may, 

however, upon petition or request in writing of any 

board of county commissioners, order an overhead or 

underground crossing at any place where a railroad 

crossing has not been constructed and is required, 

provided, in its judgment, the safety, necessity, and 

convenience of the traveling public require such 

a crossing. Mont. Code Ann. §§ 69-14-606- 69-14-

607(2)(a)(b) (1998).

Nebraska

In 1997, the Nebraska legislature passed the Nebraska 

Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety and Consolidation 

Act. The legislation placed ultimate jurisdiction over 

all crossings outside of incorporated villages, towns, 

and cities, both public and private, across, over, or 

under all railroads in the state with the Nebraska 

Department of Roads (NDOR). It was the intent of the 

legislature that any state role regarding highway-rail 

grade crossings, including public safety, Operation 

Lifesaver, maintenance, design, consolidation, 

separation, signalization, improvement, or relocation, 

be consolidated under one agency. Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 

74-1329-1330-1332 (Michie 1998).

NDOR becomes the final arbitrator whenever a 

complaint is filed in writing with NDOR by the duly 

authorized officers of any incorporated village or city, 

concerning any crossing within such village or city, 

praying for relief from the matters complained of. 

NDOR is required to hold a hearing and shall make 

such order as the facts warrant. The findings of NDOR, 

subject to the right of appeal, are binding on the parties 

to the suit. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 1335 (Michie 1998).

The same is true whenever railroad tracks cross a 

public highway at grade outside of incorporated cities 

and villages. The owner of the railroad tracks and 

the county board of the county in which the subject 

crossing is located may agree upon any change, 

alteration, or construction of any crossing as will 

promote the public convenience or safety, and they may 

agree upon relocation of any highway so as to eliminate 

such crossings entirely or so as to carry them over or 

under such railroad and upon the apportionment of 

the expenses incident to any such change, alteration, 

relocation, or construction between the owner of the 

railroad tracks and the county or other public authority 

in interest. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 74-1337 (Michie 1998).

If the owner of the railroad track and the county board 

or other public authority in interest fail to agree, either 

the owner or the county board or other public authority 

in interest, in the name of the county or other public 

authority in interest, may file an application with NDOR, 

setting forth such fact together with a statement of the 

change, alteration, relocation, or construction it wants, 

the estimated cost, and such other facts as may be 

relevant and asking NDOR to enter an order directing 

the change, alteration, relocation, or construction be 

made. NDOR shall proceed to hear the application in 

the manner provided by law, and if it finds that the 

application should be granted, it shall enter an order 

accordingly, designating in the order what portion of the 

expense of complying with the order shall be paid by the 
 273

railroad carrier and what portion shall be paid by the 

county or other public authority in interest, if any. Neb. 

Rev. Stat. § 74-1338 (Michie 1998).

When the owner of railroad tracks fails, neglects, or 

refuses promptly to comply with any order of NDOR 

issued under Sections 74-1332 to 74-1339 or fails or 

refuses, or neglects to comply with such after NDOR 

has issued an order, the owner shall be guilty of a Class 

V misdemeanor and shall be fined in any sum not more 

than $100 for each such offense. Each week of such 

neglect, refusal, or failure shall constitute a separate 

offense. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 74-1340 (Michie 1998).

Nevada

The Nevada Public Utilities Commission has statutory 

authority for closure of existing highway-rail crossings.

After an investigation and hearing, which may be 

initiated either upon the commission’s own motion 

or as the result of the filing of a formal application 

or complaint by the Department of Transportation, 

the board of county commissioners of any county, the 

town board or council of any town or municipality, 

or any railroad company, the commission may order 

the elimination, alteration, addition, or change of 

a highway crossing or crossings over any railroad 

at grade, or above or below grade, including its 

approaches and surface. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 704.300(2) 

(Michie 1998).

New Hampshire

The Department of Transportation has statutory 

authority to order closure in New Hampshire. 

Whenever, after hearing upon petition or upon its own 

motion, the department concludes that public safety 

requires the closing of any public or private crossing, 

at grade or above or below the railroad, it may order 

closure. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 373:22 (1999).

Railroads in New Hampshire are prohibited from 

constructing a crossing over another railroad, a 

highway, or other way, at grade, unless they first 

obtain the consent in writing of the Department of 

Transportation. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 373:4 (1999).

New Jersey

The commissioner and the New Jersey Department of 

Transportation (NJDOT) have statutory authority to 

order the construction of new crossings and alterations 

to existing ones. The statute does not specifically 

mention authority for closure of existing crossings.

When, in the judgment of the commissioner and NJDOT, 

crossings are dangerous to public safety or impede 

public travel, NJDOT may order the railroad(s) to alter 

such crossings within such time as NJDOT specifies 

by grade separating the crossing. If in the judgment of 

NJDOT, the owners of the public or private property 

will be unduly injured by the elimination of the 

crossing, NJDOT can order the railroad(s) to relocate 

the tracks. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 27:1A-62 (West 1998). (Also 

see Sections 48:2-28 and 48:2-29.)

New Mexico

State statutes do not specifically mention any authority 

for closure. There is codified, however, a gradeseparation procedure.

Whenever a state, county, municipal, or other street 

or highway, including a highway that is or may be 

designated as a part of the Federal-Aid Highway 

System, is constructed or reconstructed so as to cross 

or intersect a railroad, the State Highway Commission 

or other governing body may separate the grades at the 

highway-rail crossing if, in its opinion, it is practicable 

and reasonably necessary for the protection of the 

traveling public.

Whenever the public authority is unable to agree 

with the railroad as to the grade separation and the 

methodology for carrying it out, the public authority 

may petition the district court of the county in which 

the intended separation is located. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 

63-3-37 (Michie 1998).

New York

The power to order elimination of a highway-rail 

crossing lies with the commissioner of transportation.

Any railroad company or governing body of a 

municipality that contains a highway-rail crossing can 

petition the commissioner to institute grade crossing 

elimination procedures.

The commissioner may hold public hearings on any 

elimination requested by petition after giving due 

notice to the parties in interest. At the conclusion of the 

hearing, the commissioner shall, by order, determine 

whether it is in the public interest to require the 

elimination of the highway-rail grade crossing. In any 

elimination order, the procedures for elimination are to 

be specified. N.Y. [Transp.] Law § 222 (McKinney 1999).
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

274

North Carolina

The North Carolina Department of Transportation 

(NCDOT) has statutory authority to regulate, 

abandon, and close to use grade crossings on any road 

designated as part of the state highway system, and 

whenever a public highway has been designated as 

part of the state highway system and NCDOT, in order 

to avoid a grade crossing or crossings with a railroad 

or railroads, continues or constructs the said road 

on one side of the railroad or railroads, NCDOT shall 

have power to abandon and close to use such grade 

crossings; and whenever an underpass or overhead 

bridge is substituted for a grade crossing, NCDOT shall 

have power to close to use and abandon any such grade 

crossing and any other crossing adjacent to it. N.C. 

Gen. Stat. § 136-18(11) (1998).

NCDOT also has authority to abolish grade crossings 

in a road or street not forming a link in part of the 

state highway system. The statute allows NCDOT 

to designate who pays in what proportion for the 

elimination and separation of the crossing. The 

amounts are based on the same formula provided 

for grade crossing elimination on the state highway 

system. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 136.19 (1998).

Further, NCDOT has statutory authority to order 

crossing closure on roads or streets forming a link in 

part of the state highway system. If, in the opinion of 

the secretary, the crossing is dangerous to the traveling 

public or unreasonably interferes with or impedes 

traffic on the state highway, NCDOT is required to issue 

notice requiring the person or company operating the 

affected railroad to appear before the secretary at an 

appointed time not less than 10 days or more than 20 

days from the date of the notice and show cause, if 

any, why the railroad should not be required to make 

adjustment to the crossing or close it. After hearing 

the matter, the secretary will determine whether a 

crossing is dangerous to public safety or unreasonably 

interferes with traffic. If a conclusion is reached that a 

crossing is dangerous, the secretary can order either 

closure or separation. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 136-20 (1998).

North Dakota

Declaring that it is in the interest of public safety 

to eliminate unnecessary railroad grade crossings 

whenever reasonable access can be safely provided 

at another crossing, the North Dakota Code places 

authority with the Public Service Commission to 

vacate, establish, or relocate crossings, or to separate 

the grades, if no agreement can be reached by the 

public officials having the necessary authority and the 

railroad. Either party to the dispute can file a petition 

with the commission, thereby submitting the matter for 

determination.

The commission, after receiving the petition, is 

required to give reasonable notice, conduct a hearing, 

and then issue its order. N.D. Cent. Code § 24-09-10 

(Michie 1998).

Ohio

Statutory authority for the alteration or elimination of 

highway-rail crossings lies with local governments.

Both the legislative authorities of municipal 

corporations and the boards of county commissioners 

are vested with the authority to institute proceedings 

necessary for the abolition of grade crossings.

Both entities are given authority to meet with the 

affected railroad corporation to devise a plan for 

altering, abolishing, and changing the approaches to or 

the location of the railroad, public way, or the grades so 

as to avoid an at-grade crossing.

The board of county commissioners is granted 

the same powers as are conferred upon municipal 

corporations to alter or require to be altered any 

railroad crossing for that part of a state, county, 

or township road which lies within the limits of a 

municipal corporation.

When a grade crossing exists on a county line road, the 

respective boards of county commissioners are allowed 

to join in all the proceedings necessary for grade 

crossing elimination.

When it does become necessary, on the part of a 

municipal corporation or county, to join with a railroad 

company, the legislative authority of the municipal 

corporation by a two-thirds vote of all the members, 

or the board of county commissioners by a unanimous 

vote, can declare a necessity and intent to abolish a 

grade crossing. The resolutions of both entities may 

contain the manner in which the eliminations are to be 

made, the method of constructing any new crossings, 

by whom the construction is to be done, and how the 

costs are to be apportioned.

Any time a resolution is passed by either entity, it must 

be published. Notice of its passage must be given to 

the affected parties and the owners of the property 

adjacent to the proposed improvement. Ohio Rev. Code 

Ann. §§ 4957.01-4957.02-4957.09 (Baldwin 1999).
 275

Oklahoma

The Oklahoma Corporation Commission has statutory 

authority over all public highway-rail crossings. This 

authority is inclusive of the right to order elimination 

and, where practicable, a separation of grade. Okla. 

Stat. tit. 17, § 84 (1998).

Oregon

The Oregon Department of Transportation has 

statutory authority to eliminate highway-rail grade 

crossings.

The department, either upon its own motion or upon 

an application by a railroad, or the public authority 

in interest, may find, subsequent to a hearing, that 

elimination is required in the interest of public safety, 

necessity, convenience, and general welfare. Or. Rev. 

Stat. § 824.206 (1998).

Pennsylvania

The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission has 

exclusive authority to eliminate highway-rail grade 

crossings. After due notice and proper hearing to all 

parties in interest, the commission may order any 

crossing relocated, altered, suspended, protected, or 

abolished.

Upon a finding of immediate danger to the safety and 

welfare of the public, the commission may order an 

immediate alteration, improvement, or suspension. Any 

order for suspension must include the following for 

protection of the motoring public:

1. Removal or covering of crossing warning 

devices.

2. a) Paving over the tracks.

b) Removing the tracks and paving over the 

area formerly occupied by the tracks.

c) Barricading the crossing.

Within a township, borough, or city, the Court of 

Quarter Sessions of the county may close a crossing 

upon petition of the railroad company and declare 

as a public highway any over grade or under grade 

substitution that is to then be maintained by the proper 

authorities. Pa. CONS. STAT. § 2702 (1999). Also see 32 

Pa. Code § 33.31.

Rhode Island

In the exercise of the police power of the state for the 

safety of its inhabitants, the state legislature vests 

in the Public Utilities Commission the authority to 

eliminate highway-rail grade crossings. The statute 

further states that the commission shall have this 

authority even if, by its order, it effectively deprives a 

municipality of control of its streets. R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 

39-8-1.1 -8-3 (1999).

South Carolina

The Public Service Commission of South Carolina has 

general authority over highway-rail crossings. The 

statute provides that the Public Service Commission 

shall regulate and control by special order in each case 

the manner in which any street, street railway, or other 

railroad track may cross any railroad track and the 

manner of constructing culverts under any railroad so 

as to effect proper drainage of adjacent territory. S.C. 

Code Ann. § 58-17-1450 (1998).

South Dakota

The South Dakota Department of Transportation 

(SDDOT) has the statutory authority for determining 

the necessity of eliminating grade crossings.

SDDOT can order that any existing or planned crossing 

be relocated, altered, or abolished upon its own motion 

or upon complaint, and after a hearing and notice to 

all interested parties, including the owners of adjacent 

property and the affected railroad company. S.D. 

Codified Laws Ann. §§ 31-27-1,27-2 (1999).

Where a new right of way is necessary for the building 

of a subway or overhead crossing on a state or county 

highway, the governing body having jurisdiction over 

the highway may determine when it is necessary to 

eliminate the dangerous crossing. S.D. Codified Laws 

Ann. §§ 31-27-12-17 (1999).

Tennessee

The Department of Transportation, through the 

discretion of the commissioner or the commissioner’s 

designee, has the authority to eliminate grade 

crossings whenever the crossing elimination is 

necessary for the protection of persons traveling on the 

highway or railroad.

The affected railroad company has the right to appeal 

to the Public Service Commission but only with regard 

to the period of time required to comply. The Public 

Service Commission has the authority to stay the order 

of the commissioner for the actual construction for any 

length of time not exceeding two years. Tenn. Code 

Ann. §§ 65-11-107-108-109 (1999).
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

276

Texas

The Railroad Commission of Texas has statutory 

authority for closure of existing grade crossings. Tex. 

Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 6502 (West 1999).

There also exists within the Texas Revised Civil 

Statutes a provision for grade-crossing elimination 

within every incorporated city or town (including home 

rule cities) having a population of more than 100,000 

inhabitants. Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 1105c (West 

1999).

Utah

The Utah Department of Transportation has exclusive 

authority to order the closure of highway-rail grade 

crossings. Utah Code Ann. § 54-4-15 (1999).

Vermont

The Vermont Transportation Board has statutory 

authority to determine what alterations, changes, or 

removals, if any, shall be made and by whom. Vt. Stat. 

Ann. title 5 §§ 3783-84-85-88 (1999).

Virginia

The Commonwealth Transportation Board has 

statutory authority to order the elimination of a 

grade crossing or the consolidation of multiple grade 

crossings. Va. Code Ann. § 56-365.1 (Michie 1999).

Washington

The Washington State Utilities and Transportation 

Commission has authority to order closure of existing 

crossings. Wash. Rev. Code §§ 81.53.030-060 (1999).

West Virginia

The road commissioner may require any railroad 

company owning, controlling, or operating a railroad 

in the state to eliminate at-grade highway-rail 

crossings on existing highways, relocated highways, 

and extensions of existing highways by separating 

the grades or by relocating an existing highway. The 

commissioner may determine the location, design, and 

grade for any project or structure for the elimination 

or avoidance of at-grade highway-rail crossings and 

may determine whether a new, relocated, or extended 

highway shall pass over or under the railroad right of 

way or tracks. W.Va. Code § 17-4-10 (1998).

Wisconsin

The Office of the Commissioner of Railroads within 

the Wisconsin Department of Highways has the 

authority to abolish highway-rail crossings. Wis. Stat. § 

195.29(1)(4)(5) (1999).

Wyoming

The Transportation Commission of Wyoming has 

the authority to close or establish at-grade crossings 

on public highways as specified and those over the 

track(s) of any railroad corporation or street railway 

corporation in the state.

Upon application to the commission from the 

authorized agents of the city, counties, or other 

government entities or the affected railroads, or upon 

its own motion when public interest indicates action 

should be taken, the commission must consider the 

need for closure based on evidence presented, availed, 

or adduced. The commission must establish a priority 

rating from the applications or evidence, assigning 

priority first to the most hazardous railroad crossing 

location, giving proper weight to increased rail traffic 

and to the volume of traffic over the crossing with 

due consideration being given for school buses and 

dangerous commodities. If the commission determines 

a need for grade crossing warning devices, it will 

determine the type of crossing warning devices 

required, including whether the crossing is to be made 

at grade or with a grade-separation structure. Wyo. 

Stat. § 37-10-102 (a)-(b) (1999).
 277

Preemption Calculation 

Procedures, Example 

From State Of Texas I

APPENDIX
278

Version 6-10-04

Page 1

INSTRUCTIONS

 for the

Texas Department of Transportation

GUIDE FOR DETERMINING TIME REQUIREMENTS FOR

TRAFFIC SIGNAL PREEMPTION AT HIGHWAY-RAIL GRADE CROSSINGS

USING THESE INSTRUCTIONS

The purpose of these instructions is to assist TxDOT personnel in completing the 2003 Guide For 

Determining Time Requirements For Traffic Signal Preemption At Highway-Rail Grade Crossings, also 

known as the Preemption Worksheet. The main purpose of the Preemption Worksheet is to determine if 

additional time (advance preemption) is required for the traffic signal to move stationary vehicles out of 

the crossing before the arrival of the train.

If you have any questions about completing the Preemption Worksheet, please contact the Mr. David 

Valdez in the Traffic Operations Division at telephone 512-416-2642 or email DVALDEZ@dot.state.tx.us.

For any feedback on the Draft version of the Worksheet or Instructions, please contact Mr. Roelof 

Engelbrecht from the Texas Transportation Institute at 979-862-3559 or roelof@tamu.edu.

SITE DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION:

Enter the location for the highway-rail grade crossing including the (nearest) City, the County in which 

the crossing is located, and the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) District name. When 

entering the District name, do not use the dated district numbering schema; use the actual district name.

Next, enter the Date the analysis was performed, your (the analyst’s) name next to “Completed by,” and 

the status of the District Approval for this crossing.

To complete the reference schematic for this site, place a North Arrow in the provided circle to correctly 

orient the crossing and roadway. Record the name of the Parallel Street and the Crossing Street in the 

spaces provided, and remember to include any “street sign”/local name for the streets as well as any 

state/US/Interstate designation (i.e., “FM 1826,” “SH 71,” “US 290,” “Interstate 35 [frontage]”). You may 

wish to note other details on the intersection/crossing diagram as well, including the number of lanes 

and/or turn bays on the intersection approach crossing the tracks and any adjacent land use.

Enter the Railroad name, Railroad Contact person’s name, and Phone number for the responsible 

railroad company and its equipment maintenance and operations contractor (if any). Finally, record the 

unique 7-character Crossing DOT# (6 numeric plus one alphanumeric characters) for the crossing.

Note that this guide for determining (warning) time requirements for traffic signal preemption requires you 

to input many controller unit timing/phasing values. To preserve the accuracy of these values, record all 

values to the next highest tenth of a second (i.e., record 5.42 seconds as 5.5 seconds).

SECTION 1: RIGHT-OF-WAY TRANSFER TIME CALCULATION

Preempt Verification and Response Time

Line 1. The preempt delay time is the amount of time, in seconds, that the traffic signal controller is 

programmed to wait from the initial receipt of a preempt call until the call is “verified” and considered a 

viable request for transfer into preemption mode. Preempt delay time is a value entered into the 

controller unit for purposes of preempt call validation, and may not be available on all manufacturer’s 

controllers.
 279

Version 6-10-04

Page 2

Line 2. Unlike preempt delay time (Line 1), which is a value entered into the controller, controller

response time to preempt is the time that elapses while the controller unit electronically registers the 

preempt call (i.e., it is the controller’s equipment response time for the preempt call). The controller 

manufacturer should be consulted to find the correct value (in seconds) for use here. For future 

reference, you may wish to record the controller type in the Remarks section to the right of the controller 

response time to preempt value. However, note that the manufacturer’s given response time may be

unique for a controller unit’s model and software generation; other models and/or software generations 

may have different response times.

Line 3. The sum of Line 1 and Line 2 is the preempt verification and response time, in seconds. It 

represents the number of seconds between the receipt at the controller unit of a preempt call issued by 

the railroad’s grade crossing warning equipment and the time the controller software actually begins to 

respond to the preempt call (i.e., by transitioning into preemption mode).

Worst-Case Conflicting Vehicle Time

Line 4. Worst-case conflicting vehicle phase number is the number of the controller unit phase which 

conflicts with the phase(s) used to clear the tracks—the track clearance phase(s)—that has the longest 

sum of minimum green (if provided), other (additional) green time (if provided), yellow change interval, 

and red clearance interval durations that may need to be serviced during the transition into preemption.

Note that all of these time elements are for vehicular phases only; pedestrian phase times will be 

assessed in the next part of the analysis. The worst-case vehicle phase can be any phase that conflicts 

with the track clearance phase(s); it is not restricted to only the phases serving traffic parallel to the 

tracks.

Line 5. Minimum green time during right-of-way transfer is the number of seconds that the worstcase vehicle phase (see Line 4 discussion) must display a green indication before the controller unit will 

terminate the phase through its yellow change and red clearance intervals and transition to the track

clearance green interval. The minimum green time during right-of-way transfer may be set to zero to allow 

as rapid a transition as possible to the track clearance green interval. However, local policies will govern 

the amount of minimum green time provided during the transition into preemption.

Line 6. If any additional green time is preserved beyond the preempt minimum green time for the worstcase vehicle phase (line 4), it should be entered here as Other green time during right-of-way transfer.

Given the time-critical nature of the transition to the track clearance green interval during preempted 

operation, this value is usually zero except in unusual circumstances. One situation where other green 

time may be present is when a trailing green overlap is used on the worst-case vehicle phase, and the 

controller unit is set up to time out the trailing green overlap on entry into preemption. 

Line 7. Yellow change time is the required yellow change interval time for the worst-case vehicle phase 

(line 4) given prevailing operating conditions. Yellow change time for the phase under preemption is 

usually the same value, in seconds, programmed for the phase under normal operating circumstances. 

Section 4D.13 of the Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) states that the normal 

yellow change interval shall not be shortened or omitted during the transition into preemption control.

Guidance on setting the yellow change interval can be found in the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s 

Determining Vehicle Signal Change and Clearance Intervals.

Line 8. Red clearance time is the required red clearance interval for the worst-case vehicle phase (line

4) given prevailing operating conditions. Red clearance time for the phase under preemption is usually 

the same value, in seconds, programmed for the phase under normal operating circumstances. Section

4D.13 of the Texas MUTCD states that the normal red clearance interval shall not be shortened or 

omitted during the transition into preemption control. Guidance on setting the red clearance interval can 

be found in the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s Determining Vehicle Signal Change and Clearance 

Intervals.
280

Version 6-10-04

Page 3

Line 9. Worst-case conflicting vehicle time is the sum of lines 5 through 8. It will be compared with 

the worst-case conflicting pedestrian time to determine whether vehicle or pedestrian phase times are the 

most critical in their impact on warning time requirements during the transition to the track clearance

green interval.

Worst-case Conflicting Pedestrian Time

Line 10. Worst-case pedestrian phase number is the pedestrian phase number (referenced as the 

vehicle phase number that the pedestrian phase is associated with) that has the longest sum of walk

time, pedestrian clearance (i.e., flashing don’t walk) times, and associated vehicle clearance times that

have to be provided during the transition into preemption. The worst-case pedestrian phase is not 

restricted to pedestrian phases running concurrently with vehicle phases that serve traffic parallel to the 

tracks. The vehicle phase associated with the worst-case pedestrian phase may even be one of the track 

clearance phases if the pedestrian phase is not serviced concurrently with the associated track clearance 

phase.

Line 11. Minimum walk time during right-of-way transfer (seconds) is the minimum pedestrian walk 

time for the worst-case pedestrian phase (line 10). The Texas MUTCD permits the shortening (i.e.

truncation) or complete omission of the pedestrian walk interval. A zero value allows for the most rapid 

transition to the track clearance green interval. However, the minimum pedestrian walk time is typically 

set based on local policies, which may or may not allow truncation and/or omission. 

Line 12. Pedestrian clearance time during right-of-way transfer (seconds) is the clearance (i.e., 

flashing don’t walk) time for the worst-case pedestrian phase. The Texas MUTCD permits the shortening

(i.e. truncation) or complete omission of the pedestrian clearance interval. A zero value allows for the 

most rapid transition to the track clearance green interval. However, the pedestrian clearance time is

typically set based on local policies, which may or may not allow truncation and/or omission. 

Line 13. Enter a Yellow change time if the pedestrian clearance interval does not time simultaneously 

with the yellow change interval of the vehicular phase associated with your worst-case pedestrian phase;

enter zero if does. Local policies will determine if this is allowed. Simultaneous timing of the pedestrian 

clearance interval and the yellow change interval (i.e. a zero value on line 13) allows for the most rapid 

transition to the track clearance green interval. If a non-zero value is entered, make sure to enter the 

yellow change time of the vehicular phase associated with your worst-case pedestrian phase. This value 

may not be the same value you enter on Line 7, since the worst-case pedestrian phase may not be the

same as the worst-case vehicular phase.

Line 14. Enter a Red clearance time if the pedestrian clearance interval does not time simultaneously 

with the red clearance interval of the vehicular phase associated with your worst-case pedestrian phase; 

enter zero if does. Local policies will determine if this is allowed. Also, note than not all traffic signal 

controllers allow simultaneous timing of the pedestrian clearance interval and the red clearance interval.

Simultaneous timing of the pedestrian clearance interval and the red clearance interval (i.e. a zero value 

on line 14) allows for the most rapid transition to the track clearance green interval. If a non-zero value is 

entered, make sure to enter the red clearance time of the vehicular phase associated with your worstcase pedestrian phase. This value may not be the same value you enter on Line 8, since the worst-case

pedestrian phase may not be the same as the worst-case vehicular phase.

Line 15. Add lines 11 through 14 to calculate your Worst -case conflicting pedestrian time. This value 

will be compared to the worst-case conflicting vehicle time to determine whether vehicle or pedestrian 

phase times are the most critical in their impact on warning time requirements during the transition to the 

track clearance green interval.

Worst-case Conflicting Vehicle or Pedestrian Time

Line 16. Record the Worst-case conflicting vehicle or pedestrian time (in seconds) by comparing 

lines 9 and 15 and writing the larger of the two as the entry for line 16.
 281

Version 6-10-04

Page 4

Line 17. Calculate the Right-of-way transfer time by adding lines 3 and 16. The right-of-way transfer 

time is the maximum amount of time needed for the worst case condition, prior to display of the track 

clearance green interval. 

CSD DVL

CSD = Clear storage distance

MTCD = Minimum track clearance distance

DVL = Design vehicle length

L = Queue start-up distance, also stop-line distance

DVCD = Design vehicle clearance distance

DVCD

 Design vehicle

MTCD

Edge of parallel road or shoulder

L

Track

Figure 1 Queue clearance distances.

SECTION 2: QUEUE CLEARANCE TIME CALCULATION

Line 18. Record the Clear storage distance (CSD in Figure 1), in feet, as the shortest distance along 

the crossing street between the edge of the grade crossing nearest the signalized intersection—identified

by a line parallel to the rail 6 feet (2 m) from the rail nearest to the intersection—and the edge of the street 

or shoulder of street that parallels the tracks. If the normal stopping point on the crossing street is 

significant different from the edge or shoulder of parallel street, measure the distance to the normal

stopping point. For angled (i.e., non-perpendicular) railroad crossings, always measure the distance along 

the inside (centerline) edge of the leftmost lane or the distance along the outside (shoulder) edge of the 

rightmost lane, as appropriate, to determine the shortest clear storage distance and record that value.

Line 19. Minimum track clearance distance (MTCD in Figure 1), in feet, is the length along the 

highway at one or more railroad tracks, measured from the railroad crossing stop line, warning device, or 

12 feet (4 m) perpendicular to the track centerline—whichever is further away from the tracks, to 6 feet (2 

m) beyond the tracks measured perpendicular to the far rail. For angled (i.e., non-perpendicular) railroad 

crossings, always measure the distance along the inside (centerline) edge of the leftmost lane or the 

distance along the outside (shoulder) edge of the rightmost lane, as appropriate, to determine the longest

minimum track clearance distance and record that value.

Line 20. Design vehicle length (DVL in Figure 1), in feet, is the length of the design vehicle, the longest 

vehicle permitted by road authority statute on the subject roadway. In the Remarks section to the right of 

the data entry box for Line 20, note the design vehicle type for ease of reference. Some design vehicles 

from the AASHTO Green Book (A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets) are given in 

Table 1. Note that Texas legal size and weight limits for non-permit vehicles allow a maximum semitrailer 

length of 59 feet, resulting in a design vehicle length of 79.5 feet when combined with a conventional 

long-haul tractor. 

Table 1. AASHTO Design vehicle lengths and heights.

Design Vehicle Type Symbol Length (ft)

Passenger Car

Single Unit Truck 

Large School Bus

Intermediate Semi-Trailer

P

SU

S-BUS 40

WB-50

19

30

40

55
282

Version 6-10-04

Page 5

Line 21. Queue start-up distance (L in Figure 1), in feet, is the maximum length over which a queue of 

vehicles stopped for a red signal indication at an intersection downstream of the crossing must get in 

motion so that the design vehicle can move out of the railroad crossing prior to the train’s arrival. Queue 

start-up distance is the sum of the clear storage distance (Line 18) and minimum track clearance distance 

(Line 19).

Line 22. Time required for the design vehicle to start moving (seconds) is the time elapsed between 

the start of the track clearance green interval and the time the design vehicle, which is located at the edge 

of the railroad crossing on the opposite side from the signalized intersection, begins to move. This 

elapsed time is based on a “shock wave” speed of 20 feet per second and a 2 second start-up time (the 

additional time for the first driver to recognize the signal is green and move his/her foot from the brake to 

the accelerator). The time required for the design vehicle to start moving is calculated, in seconds, as 2

plus the queue start-up distance, L (Line 21) divided by the wave speed of 20 feet per second. The time 

required for the design vehicle to start moving is a conservative value taking into account the worst-case

vehicle mix in the queue in front of the design vehicle as well as a limited level of drive inattentiveness.

This value may be overridden by local observation, but care must be taken to identify the worst-case

(longest) time required for the design vehicle to start moving.

Line 23. Design vehicle clearance distance (DVCD in Figure 1) is the length, in feet, which the design 

vehicle must travel in order to enter and completely pass through the railroad crossing’s minimum track 

clearance distance (MTCD). It is the sum of the minimum track clearance distance (Line 19) and the 

design vehicle’s length (Line 20).

Line 24. The Time for design vehicle to accelerate through the design vehicle clearance distance

(DVCD) is the amount of time required for the design vehicle to accelerate from a stop and travel the 

complete design vehicle clearance distance. This time value, in seconds, can be found through local 

observation or by using by Figure 2. If local observation is used, take care to identify the worst-case

(longest) time required for the design vehicle to accelerate through the DVCD. If Figure 2 is used to 

estimate the time for the design vehicle to accelerate through the DVCD, locate the DVCD from Line 23 

on the horizontal axis of Figure 2 and then draw a line straight up until that line intersects the acceleration 

time performance curve for your design vehicle. Then, draw a horizontal line from this point to the left until 

it intersects the vertical axis, and record the appropriate acceleration time. Round up to the next higher 

tenth of a second. For example, with a DVCD of 80 feet and a WB-50 semi-trailer design vehicle on a 

level surface, the time required for the design vehicle to accelerate through the DVCD will be 12.2

seconds.

If your design vehicle is a WB-50 semi-trailer, large school bus (S-BUS 40), or single unit (SU) 

vehicle, you may need to apply a correction factor to estimate the effect of grade on the acceleration of 

the vehicle. Determine the average grade over a distance equal to the design vehicle clearance distance 

(DVCD), centered around the minimum track clearance distance (MTCD). If the grade is 1% uphill (+1%) 

or greater, multiply the acceleration time obtained from Figure 2 with the factor obtained from Table 2 and 

round up to the next higher tenth of a second to get an estimate of the acceleration time on the grade. For

example, with a DVCD of 80 feet and a WB-50 semi-trailer design vehicle on a 4% uphill, the 

(interpolated) factor from Table 2 is 1.30. Therefore, the estimated time required for the design vehicle to 

accelerate through the DVCD will be 12.2 x 1.30 = 15.86 seconds, or 15.9 seconds rounded up to the 

next higher tenth of a second.

If you selected a design vehicle different from those listed in Figure 2 and Table 2, you may still

be able to use Figure 2 and Table 2 if you can match your design vehicle to the weight, weight-to-power

ratio, and power application characteristics of the design vehicles in Figure 2 and Table 2. The WB-50

curve and grade factors are based on an 80,000 lb vehicle with a weight-to-power ratio of 400 lb/hp 

accelerating at 85% of its maximum power on level grades and at 100% of its maximum power on uphill 

grades, and may therefore be representative of any heavy tractor-trailer combination with the same 

characteristics. The school bus curve and grade factors are based on a 27,000 lb vehicle with a weightto-power ratio of 180 lb/hp accelerating at 70% of its maximum power on level grades and at 85% of its 

maximum power on uphill grades. The SU curve and grade factors are based on a 34,000 lb vehicle with 

a weight-to-power ratio of 200 lb/hp accelerating at 75% of its maximum power on level grades and at

90% of its maximum power on uphill grades.
 283

Version 6-10-04

Page 6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400

Distance Traveled During Acceleration (feet)

Acceleration Time (seconds)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Legend

SU = Single Unit Truck

S-BUS 40 = Large school bus

WB-50 = Intermediate Semitrailer

Note

Multiply acceleration time for SU, S-BUS 40, 

and WB-50 vehicles with factor from Table 2 

to account for acceleration taking place on 

an uphill grade. 

Figure 2 Acceleration time over a fixed distance on a level surface.
284

Version 6-10-04

Page 7

Table 2. Factors to account for slower acceleration on uphill grades. Multiply the appropriate

factor (depending on the design vehicle, grade, and acceleration distance) with the 

acceleration time in Figure 2 to obtain the estimated acceleration time on the grade.

Design Vehicle and Percentage Uphill Grade

Single Unit Truck

(SU)

Large School Bus

(S-BUS 40)

Intermediate Tractor-Trailer

(WB-50)

Acceleration

Distance

(ft) 0-2% 4% 6% 8% 0-1% 2% 4% 6% 8% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8%

 25 1.00 1.06 1.13 1.19 1.00 1.01 1.10 1.19 1.28 1.00 1.09 1.27 1.42 1.55

 50 1.00 1.09 1.17 1.25 1.00 1.01 1.12 1.21 1.30 1.00 1.10 1.28 1.44 1.58

 75 1.00 1.10 1.19 1.29 1.00 1.02 1.13 1.23 1.33 1.00 1.11 1.30 1.47 1.61

100 1.00 1.11 1.21 1.32 1.00 1.02 1.14 1.25 1.35 1.00 1.11 1.31 1.48 1.64

125 1.00 1.12 1.23 1.34 1.00 1.03 1.15 1.26 1.37 1.00 1.12 1.32 1.50 1.66

150 1.00 1.12 1.24 1.37 1.00 1.03 1.16 1.28 1.40 1.00 1.12 1.33 1.52 1.68

175 1.00 1.13 1.25 1.38 1.00 1.03 1.17 1.29 1.42 1.00 1.12 1.34 1.53 1.70

200 1.00 1.13 1.26 1.40 1.00 1.04 1.17 1.30 1.43 1.00 1.13 1.35 1.54 1.72

225 1.00 1.14 1.27 1.42 1.00 1.04 1.18 1.32 1.45 1.00 1.13 1.35 1.56 1.74

250 1.00 1.14 1.28 1.43 1.00 1.04 1.19 1.33 1.47 1.00 1.13 1.36 1.57 1.76

275 1.00 1.14 1.29 1.44 1.00 1.05 1.20 1.34 1.49 1.00 1.14 1.37 1.58 1.77

300 1.00 1.14 1.30 1.46 1.00 1.05 1.20 1.35 1.50 1.00 1.14 1.37 1.59 1.79

325 1.00 1.15 1.30 1.47 1.00 1.05 1.21 1.36 1.52 1.00 1.14 1.38 1.60 1.81

350 1.00 1.15 1.31 1.48 1.00 1.05 1.22 1.37 1.54 1.00 1.15 1.39 1.61 1.82

375 1.00 1.15 1.31 1.49 1.00 1.06 1.22 1.38 1.55 1.00 1.15 1.39 1.62 1.84

400 1.00 1.15 1.32 1.50 1.00 1.06 1.23 1.40 1.57 1.00 1.15 1.40 1.63 1.85

For design vehicle clearance distances greater than 400 feet, use Equation 1 to estimate the time for the

design vehicle to accelerate through the design vehicle clearance distance or any other distance:















 



 



 +−

= X

d

b

cba

eT

ln 2

(1)

where

T = time to accelerate through distance X, in seconds;

X = distance over which acceleration takes place, in feet;

ln = natural logarithm function;

e = 2.17828, the base of natural logarithms; and

a, b, c, and d = calibration parameters from Table 3.

Note: To interpolate between grades, do not interpolate the parameters in Table 3. The correct way to 

interpolate is to calculate the acceleration time T using Equation 1 for the two nearest grades and then 

interpolate between the two acceleration times.

Line 25. Queue clearance time is the total amount of time required (after the signal has turned green for 

the approach crossing the tracks) to begin moving a queue of vehicles through the queue start-up

distance (L, Line 21) and then move the design vehicle from a stopped position at the far side of the 

crossing completely through the minimum track clearance distance (MTCD, Line 19). This value is the 

sum of the time required for design vehicle to start moving (Line 22) and the time for design vehicle to 

accelerate through the design vehicle clearance distance (Line 24).
 285

Version 6-10-04

Page 8

Table 3. Parameters to estimate vehicle acceleration times over distances greater 

than 400 feet usi ng Equation 1.

Design Vehicle Grade a b c d

Through Passenger Car

Left Turning Passenger Car

Level

Level

7.75

10.29

3.252

5.832

5.679

3.114

2.153

5.090

Single Unit Truck

(SU)

Level to 2%

4%

6%

8%

8.16

10.39

9.52

9.38

3.624

4.865

4.542

4.597

5.070

4.560

4.393

4.165

2.018

1.739

1.700

1.668

Large School Bus

(S-BUS 40)

Level to 1%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10.02

11.51

10.79

10.61

11.84

4.108

5.254

5.042

5.101

6.198

5.95

4.801

4.577

4.329

3.652

0.885

1.300

1.266

1.253

1.554

Intermediate Semi-Trailer

(WB-50)

Level

2%

4%

6%

8%

17.75

10.26

9.39

9.38

10.31

7.984

4.026

3.635

3.732

4.515

4.940

6.500

6.670

6.310

5.219

0.481

0.249

0.193

0.188

0.265

SECTION 3: MAXIMUM PREEMPTION TIME CALCULATION

Line 26. Right-of-way transfer time, in seconds, recorded on Line 17. The right-of-way transfer time is 

the maximum amount of time needed for the worst case condition, prior to display of the track clearance 

green interval.

Line 27. Queue clearance time, in seconds, recorded on Line 25. Queue clearance time starts 

simultaneously with the track clearance green interval (i.e. after right-of-way transfer), and is the time 

required for the design vehicle stopped just inside the minimum track clearance distance to start up and 

move completely out of the minimum track clearance distance.

Line 28. Desired minimum separation time is a time “buffer” between the departure of the last vehicle 

(the design vehicle) from the railroad crossing (as defined by the minimum track clearance distance) and 

the arrival of the train. Separation time is added for safety reasons and to avoid driver discomfort. If no 

separation time is provided, a vehicle could potentially leave the crossing at exactly the same time the 

train arrives, which would certainly lead to severe driver discomfort and potential unsafe behavior. The 

recommended value of four (4) seconds is a based on the minimum recommended value found in the 

Institute of Transportation Engineer’s ITE Journal (in an article by Marshall and Berg in February 1997).

Line 29. Maximum preemption time is the total amount of time required after the preempt is initiated by 

the railroad warning equipment to complete right-of-way transfer to the track clearance green interval,

initiate the track clearance phase(s), move the design vehicle out of the crossing’s minimum track 

clearance distance, and provide a separation time “buffer” before the train arrives at the crossing. It is the 

sum of the right-of-way transfer time (Line 26), the queue clearance time (Line 27), and the desired 

minimum separation time (Line 28).

SECTION 4: SUFFICIENT WARNING TIME CHECK

Line 30. Minimum time (seconds) is the least amount of time active warning devices shall operate prior 

to the arrival of a train at a highway-rail grade crossing. Section 8D.06 of the Texas MUTCD requires that 

flashing-light signals shall operate for at least 20 seconds before the arrival of any train, except on tracks 

where all trains operate at less than 32 km/h (20 mph) and where flagging is performed by an employee 

on the ground.
286

Version 6-10-04

Page 9

Line 31. Clearance time (seconds), typically known as CT, is the additional time that may be provided

by the railroad to account for longer crossing time at wide (i.e., multi-track crossings) or skewed-angle

crossings. You must obtain the clearance time from the railroad responsible for the railroad crossing. In 

cases where the minimum track clearance distance (Line 19) exceeds 35 feet, the railroads’ AREMA

Manual requires clearance time of one second be provided for each additional 10 feet, or portions thereof, 

over 35 feet. Additional clearance time may also be provided to account for site-specific needs.

Examples of extra clearance time include cases where additional time is provided for simultaneous

preemption (where the preemption notification is sent to the signal controller unit simultaneously with the 

activation of the railroad crossing’s active warning devices), instead of providing advance preemption 

time.

Line 32. Minimum warning time (seconds) is the sum of the minimum time (Line 30) and the clearance

time (Line 31). This value is the actual minimum time that active warning devices can be expected to 

operate at the crossing prior to the arrival of the train under normal, through-train conditions. The term 

“through-train” refers to the case where trains do not stop or start moving while near or at the crossing. 

Note that the minimum warning time, does not include buffer time (BT). Buffer time is added by the 

railroad to ensure that the minimum warning time is always provided despite inherent variations in 

warning times; however, it is not consistently provided and cannot be relied upon by the traffic engineer 

for signal preemption and/or warning time calculations.

Line 33. Advance preemption time (seconds), if provided, is the period of time that the notification of an 

approaching train is forwarded to the highway traffic signal controller unit or assembly prior to activating 

the railroad active warning devices. Only enter advance preemption time if you can verify from the 

railroad that advance preemption time is already being provided for your site. If you are determining 

whether or not you need advance preemption time, enter zero for the advance preemption time in Line

33.

Line 34. Warning time provided by the railroad is the sum of the minimum warning time (Line 32) and 

the advance preemption time (Line 33), in seconds. This value should be verified with the railroad, and 

should not include buffer time (BT).

Line 35. Additional warning time required from railroad is the additional time needed (if any), in 

seconds, that is required to provide safe preemption in the worst case (the maximum preemption time on

Line 29), given the warning time provided by the railroad (Line 34). The additional warning time required 

is calculated by subtracting the warning time provided by the railroad (Line 34) from the maximum 

preemption time (Line 29). If the result of the subtraction is equal to or less than zero, it means that 

sufficient warning time is available, and you should enter zero (0) on Line 35. However, keep in mind that 

highly negative (-10 or less) subtraction results may indicate the potential for operational problems due to 

insufficient track clearance green time. Section 5 of the worksheet contains a methodology for calculating 

sufficient track clearance green time. 

If the additional warning time is greater than zero (0), it means that the warning time provided by 

the railroad is insufficient, and additional warning time has to be requested from the railroad to ensure 

safe operation. The railroad can provide additional warning time either by providing additional clearance 

time (CT) (Line 30), or by providing or increasing advance preemption time (Line 33).

As an alternative, it may be possible to reduce the maximum preemption time (Line 29). To 

reduce the maximum preemption time, you can reduce either the preempt delay time (Line 1), if this is 

possible; reduce preempt minimum green time (Line 5) or other green time (Line 6), as long as you do not 

violate local policies for signal timing; or, reduce yellow change time (Line 7) or red clearance time (Line 

8) as long as adequate and appropriate yellow change and red clearance intervals are provided as per 

the Texas MUTCD Section 4D.10 and applicable guidelines such as the Institute of Transportation 

Engineers’ Determining Vehicle Signal Change and Clearance Intervals.

If pedestrian rather than vehicular phasing controls warning time requirements for preemption, it

may be possible to reduce the minimum walk time (Line 11) and/or pedestrian clearance time (Line 12) as 

long as you do not violate local policies for signal timing. You can also let the pedestrian clearance time 

(flashing don’t walk) time simultaneous with vehicular yellow change and red clearance and so reduce the 

values on Line 13 (yellow change time) and Line 14 (red clearance time) to zero (0). If local policies do
 287

Version 6-10-04

Page 10

not currently allow simultaneous clearance for pedestrian and vehicular phasing, you may want to 

consider allowing this type of operation to reduce your worst-case conflicting pedestrian time.

Once you have made all of the possible adjustments to the warning time, recompute the totals in 

Lines 3, 9, 15, 16, 17, 26, 29, and 35. If Line 35 remains greater than zero, then you will have to request 

additional warning time from the railroad, as described above, to ensure safe preemption of the adjacent 

signalized intersection.

SECTION 5: TRACK CLEARANCE GREEN TIME CALCULATION (OPTIONAL)

Note: This section is optional and is used to calculate the duration of the track clearance green interval. If 

this worksheet is only used to determine if additional warning time has to be requested from the railroad, 

this section need not be completed. 

The objective of the section is to calculate the duration of the track clearance green interval to ensure 

safe and efficient operations at the crossing and adjacent traffic signal.

The Preempt Trap Check section (lines 36 to 44) focuses on safety by calculating the minimum 

duration of the track clearance green interval to ensure that the track clearance green does not terminate

before the gates block access to the crossing. If the gates do not block access to the crossing before the 

expiration of the track clearance green, it is possible that vehicles can continue to cross the tracks and 

possibly stop on the tracks. However, the track clearance green interval has already expired and there 

will be no further opportunity to clear. This potentially hazardous condition is called the “preempt trap” and

is described in more detail in TxDOT Project Bulletin 1752-9: The Preempt Trap: How to Make Sure You 

Do Not Have One.

The Clearing of Clear Storage Distance section (lines 45 to 50) focuses on efficiency by 

calculating duration of the track clearance green interval that is needed to clear the clear storage distance

(CSD in Figure 1), or a specific portion thereof.

Preempt Trap Check

Line 36. Advance preemption time provided is the duration (in seconds) the preempt sequence is

active in the highway traffic signal controller before the activation of the railroad active warning devices. If 

Line 35 is zero (i.e. no additional warning time is required from the railroad), the value on Line 33 can be 

used. In other cases, use the actual value of the advance preemption time (APT) provided by the railroad.

If no APT is provided, enter zero on Line 36.

Line 37. Multiplier for maximum APT due to train handling is a value that relates the maximum 

duration of the advance preemption time (APT) to the minimum value guaranteed by the railroad.

Although the railroad guarantees a minimum duration for the APT, it is probable that in most cases the

actual duration of the APT will be longer than the guaranteed duration. This variability in APT occurs due 

to “train handling”, which a term that describes the acceleration and deceleration of trains on their 

approach to the crossing. If a train accelerates or decelerates while approaching to the crossing, the 

railroad warning system cannot estimate the arrival time of the train at the crossing accurately, resulting in 

variation in the actual duration of APT provided. This variation needs to be taken into account to ensure 

safe operation. 

To make sure that the preempt trap does not occur we need to determine the maximum value of 

the APT so that a sufficiently long track clearance green interval can be provided to ensure that the gates 

block access to the crossing before the track clearance green ends. The maximum APT can be estimated 

by multiplying the advance preemption time provided (and guaranteed) by the railroad (Line 36) with the

multiplier for maximum APT due to train handling. This value is only significant if the value for APT on 

Line 36 is non-zero. If APT is zero, continue to line 38.
288

Version 6-10-04

Page 11

In the case where APT is provided, the difference between the minimum and maximum values of 

APT is termed excess APT. Excess APT usually occurs when the train decelerates on the approach to 

the crossing, or where train handling affects the accuracy of the estimated time of train arrival at the 

crossing so that the preempt sequence is activated earlier than expected. The amount of excess APT is

increased by the following conditions:

• Increased variation in train speeds, since more trains will be speeding up and slowing down;

• Lower train speeds, since a fixed deceleration rate has a greater effect on travel time at low 

speeds than at higher speeds; and 

• Longer warning times, because more time is available for the train to decelerate on the 

approach to the crossing.

The multiplier for maximum APT can be determined from field measurements as the largest

advance preemption time observed (or the 95th percentile, if enough observations are available) divided

by the value on Line 36. If no field observations are available, the multiplier for maximum APT can be 

estimated as 1.60 if warning time variability is high or 1.25 if warning time variability is low. High warning 

time variability can typically be expected in the vicinity of switching yards, branch lines, or anywhere lowspeed switching maneuvers takes place. According to Section 16.30.10 of the AREMA Signal Manual the 

railroad can provide a “timer for constant time between APT and CWT.” The effect of such a “not to 

exceed” timer is to eliminate excess APT, and if provided, the multiplier on Line 37 can be set to 1.0.

Line 38. Maximum APT is largest value (in seconds) of the advance preemption time that can typically 

be expected, which corresponds to the earliest possible time the preemption sequence in the traffic signal 

controller will be activated before the activation of the railroad grade crossing warning system (flashing 

lights and gates). It is the calculated by multiplying the APT provided by the railroad (Line 36) with the

multiplier for maximum APT due to train handling (Line 37).

Line 39. Minimum duration for the track clearance green is the minimum duration (in seconds) of the 

track clearance green interval to ensure that the gates block access to the crossing before the track 

clearance green expires in the case where no advance preemption time is provided. It is necessary to 

block access to the crossing before the track clearance green expires to ensure that vehicles do not enter 

the crossing after the expiration of the track clearance green and so be subject to the preempt trap

(described in the introduction to Section 5).

The 15 seconds minimum duration for the track clearance green interval is calculated from 

Federal regulations and requirements of the Texas MUTCD. Section 8D.06 of the Texas MUTCD requires 

that flashing-light signals shall operate for at least 20 seconds before the arrival of any train (with certain 

exceptions), while Section 8D.04 requires that the gate arm shall reach its horizontal position at least 5 

seconds before the arrival of the train. For simultaneous (non-advance) preemption, the preemption 

sequence starts at the same time as the flashing-light signals, so to ensure that the preempt trap does not 

occur, a track clearance green interval of at least 15 seconds is required.

Line 40. Gates down after start of preemption is the maximum duration (in seconds) from when the

preempt is activated in the highway traffic signal controller until the gates reach a horizontal position.

Calculate this value by adding the maximum advance preemption time on Line 38 to the minimum

duration for the track clearance green interval on Line 39.

Line 41. Preempt verification and response time, recorded on Line 3, is the number of seconds 

between the receipt at the controller unit of a preempt call issued by the railroad’s grade crossing warning 

equipment and the time the controller software actually begins to respond to the preempt call.

Line 42. Best-case conflicting vehicle or pedestrian time (in seconds) is the minimum time from when 

the preempt starts to time in the controller (i.e. after verification and response) until the track clearance 

green interval can start timing. In most cases, this value is zero, since the controller may already be in the 

track clearance phase(s) when the preempt starts timing, and therefore the track clearance green interval 

can start timing immediately. The best-case conflicting vehicle or pedestrian time may be greater than 

zero if the track clearance green interval contains phases that are not in normal operation (and conflicts 

with the normal phases), or where another phase or interval always has to terminate before the track 

clearance green interval can start timing.
 289

Version 6-10-04

Page 12

Line 43. Minimum right-of-way transfer time is the minimum amount of time needed for the best case 

condition, prior to display of the track clearance green interval. Calculate the minimum right -of-way

transfer time by adding lines 41 and 42.

Line 44. Calculate the Minimum track clearance green time by subtracting Line 43 from Line 40. This 

yields the minimum time that the track clearance green interval has to be active to avoid the preempt trap.

Clearing of Clear Storage Distance

Figure 3 Relocation distances during the track clearance green interval.

Line 45. Time required for design vehicle to start moving, recorded on Line 22, is the number of 

seconds that elapses between the start of the track clearance green interval and the time the design 

vehicle, which is located at the edge of the railroad crossing on the opposite side from the signalized 

intersection, begins to move.

Line 46. Design vehicle clearance distance (DVCD in Figure 3) is the length, in feet, which the design 

vehicle must travel in order to enter and completely pass through the railroad crossing’s minimum track 

clearance distance (MTCD). This is the same value as recorded on Line 23.

Line 47. Portion of CSD to clear during track clearance, (CSD* in Figure 3) is the portion of the clear 

storage distance (CSD), in feet, that must be cleared of vehicles before the track clearance green interval

ends. For intersections with a CSD greater than approximately 150 feet it is desirable—but not 

necessary—to clear the full CSD during the track clearance green interval. In other words, it is desirable 

to set Line 47 to the full value of CSD (Line 18). If the full CSD is not cleared, however, vehicles will be 

stopped in the CSD during the preempt dwell period, and if not serviced during the preempt dwell period, 

will be subject to unnecessary delays which may result in unsafe behavior. For CSD values less than 150 

feet the full CSD is typically cleared to avoid the driver task of crossing the tracks followed immediately by 

the decision to stop or go when presented by a yellow signal as the track clearance green interval 

terminates.

Line 48. Design vehicle relocation distance (DVRD in Figure 3) is the distance, in feet, that the design 

vehicle must accelerate through during the track clearance green interval. It is the sum of the design

vehicle clearance distance (Line 46) and the portion of CSD to clear during the track clearance green

interval (Line 47).

CSD DVL

CSD* = Portion of CSD to clear during track clearance phase

DVRD = Design vehicle relocation distance

DVRD

 Design vehicle

MTCD

Edge of parallel road or shoulder

Track

CSD*

DVCD

L

CSD = Clear storage distance

MTCD = Minimum track clearance distance

DVL = Design vehicle length

L = Queue start-up distance, also stop-line distance

DVCD = Design vehicle clearance distance

Relocated
290

Version 6-10-04

Page 13

Line 49. The Time required for design vehicle to accelerate through DVRD is the amount of time 

required for the design vehicle to accelerate from a stop and travel the complete design vehicle relocation 

distance (DVRD). This time value, in seconds, can be found by locating your design vehicle relocation 

distance from Line 48 on the horizontal axis of Figure 2 and then drawing a line straight up until that line 

intersects the acceleration time performance curve for your design vehicle. For a WB-50 semi-trailer,

large school bus (S -BUS 40), or single unit (SU) vehicle, multiply the acceleration time with a correction 

factor obtained from Table 2 to estimate the effect of grade on the acceleration of the vehicle. Use the 

average grade over the design vehicle relocation distance. For design vehicle relocation distances

greater than 400 feet, use Equation 1 with the appropriate parameters listed in Table 3.

Line 50. Time to clear portion of clear storage distance, in seconds, is the total amount of time 

required (after the signal has turned green for the approach crossing the tracks) to begin moving a queue 

of vehicles through the queue start-up distance (L in Figure 3) and then move the design vehicle from a 

stopped position at the far side of the crossing completely through the portion of clear storage distance 

that must be cleared (CSD* in Figure 3). This value is the sum of the time required for design vehicle to 

start moving (Line 45) and the time for the design vehicle to accelerate through the design vehicle 

relocation distance, DVRD (Line 49).

Line 51. The Track clearance green interval is the time required, in seconds, for the track clearance 

green interval to avoid the occurrence of the preempt trap and to provide enough time for the design 

vehicle to clear the portion of the clear storage distance specified on Line 47. The track clearance green 

interval time is the maximum of the minimum track clearance green time (Line 44) and the time required

to clear a portion of clear storage distance (Line 50).

SECTION 6: VEHICLE-GATE INTERACTION CHECK (OPTIONAL)

Note: This section is optional and is used to calculate the required advance preemption time to avoid the 

automatic gates descending on a stationary or slow moving design vehicle as it moves through the 

minimum track clearance distance (MT CD). If this worksheet is only used to determine if additional 

warning time has to be requested from the railroad to ensure that vehicles have enough time to clear the 

crossing before the arrival of the train, this section need not be completed. 

Line 52. Right-of-way transfer time, in seconds, recorded on Line 17, is the maximum amount of time 

needed for the worst case condition, prior to display of the track clearance green interval.

Line 53. Time required for design vehicle to start moving, recorded on Line 22, is the time (in 

seconds) elapsed between the start of the track clearance green interval and the time the design vehicle, 

which is located at the edge of the railroad crossing on the opposite side from the signalized intersection, 

begins to move.

Line 54. Time required for design vehicle to accelerate through the design vehicle length, DVL, is

the time required for the design vehicle to accelerate through its own length. The design vehicle length is 

recorded on Line 20. This time value, in seconds, can be read from Figure 2 and Table 2 or looked up in 

Table 4 for standard design vehicles. For a WB-50 semi-trailer, large school bus, or single unit (SU) truck 

use the average grade over the design vehicle length at the far side of the crossing.

Line 55. Time required for design vehicle to clear the descending gates, in seconds, is the sum of 

the right-of-way transfer time on Line 52, the time required for design vehicle to start moving on Line 53, 

and the time required for design vehicle to accelerate through the design vehicle length on Line 54.

Line 56. Duration of flashing lights before gate descent start, in seconds, is the time the railroad 

warning lights flash before the gates start to descend. This value typically ranges from 3 to 5 seconds and 

must be obtained from the railroad. The value obtained from the railroad may be verified using field 

observation.
 291

Version 6-10-04

Page 14

Table 4. Time required for the design vehicle to accelerate through the design 

vehicle length.

Design Vehicle

Design

Vehicle

Length (feet)

Grade

Acceleration

Time

(seconds)

Through Passenger Car

Left Turning Passenger Car

19

19

Level

Level

 2.6

 2.7

Single Unit Truck

(SU) 30

Level to 2%

4%

6%

8%

 3.8

 4.0

 4.3

 4.6

Large School Bus

(S-BUS 40) 40

Level to 1%

2%

4%

6%

8%

 5.5

 5.5

6.1

6.6

7.0

Intermediate Semi-Trailer

(WB-50) 55

Level

2%

4%

6%

8%

10.0

11.0

12.8

14.4

15.8

Line 55. Time required for design vehicle to clear the descending gates, in seconds, is the sum of 

the right-of-way transfer time on Line 52, the time required for design vehicle to start moving on Line 53, 

and the time required for design vehicle to accelerate through the design vehicle length on Line 54.

Line 56. Duration of flashing lights before gate descent start, in seconds, is the time the railroad 

warning lights flash before the gates start to descend. This value typically ranges from 3 to 5 seconds and 

must be obtained from the railroad. The value obtained from the railroad may be verified using field 

observation.

Line 57. Full gate descent time, in seconds, is the time it takes for the gates to descend to a horizontal 

position after they start their descent. This value must be obtained from the railroad and may be verified 

using field observation. In the case where multiple gates descend at different speeds, use the descent 

time of the gate that reaches the horizontal position first.

Line 58. The Proportion of non-interaction gate descent time is the decimal proportion of the full gate 

descent time on Line 57 during which the gate will not interact with (i.e. not hit) the design vehicle if it is 

located under the gate. This value depends on the design vehicle height, h, and the distance from the 

center of the gate mechanism to the nearest side of the design vehicle, d, as shown in Figure 4. Figure 5

can be used to determine the proportion of non-interaction gate descent time. Select the distance from 

the center of the gate mechanism to the nearest side of the design vehicle, d, on the vertical axis of 

Figure 5, draw a horizontal line until you reach the curve that represents the design vehicle, and then 

draw a vertical line down to the horizontal axis and read off the value of the proportion of non-interaction

gate descent time.

Line 59. Non-interaction gate descent time is time (in seconds) during gate descent that the gate will 

not interact with (i.e. not hit) the design vehicle if it is located under the gate. In other words, it is the time 

that expires after the gate starts to descend until it hits the design vehicle if it is located under the gate. 

This value is calculated by multiplying the full gate descent time on Line 57 with the proportion of noninteraction gate descent time on Line 58.
292

Version 6-10-04

Page 15

d

h Figure 4 Gate interaction with the design vehicle.

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Proportion of Gate Descend Time Available

Distance d from center of gate support post 

to nearest side of design vehicle (feet)

Passenger

Car

(h = 41⁄4 ft) 

Single Unit or 

Semi-Trailer Truck

(h = 131⁄2 ft)

Sport Utility 

Vehicle

(h = 61⁄2 ft)

School Bus

(h = 101⁄2 ft)

Figure 5 Proportion of gate descent time available as a function of the design vehicle height and 

the distance from the center of the gate mechanism to the nearest side of the design vehicle.

.
 293

Version 6-10-04

Page 16

Line 60. Time available for design vehicle to clear descending gate, in seconds, is the time, after the 

railroad warning lights start to flash, that is available for the design vehicle to clear the descending gate 

before the gate hits the vehicle. It is the sum of the duration of the flashing lights before gate descent start

(Line 56) and the non-interaction gate descent time (Line 59).

Line 61. Advance preemption time required to avoid design vehicle-gate interaction, in seconds, is 

calculated by subtracting the time available for the design vehicle to clear descending gate (Line 60) from 

the time required for the design vehicle to clear descending gate (Line 55). The result is the amount of 

advance preemption time that is required to avoid the gates descending on a stationary or slow-moving

design vehicle. If the result of the subtraction is equal to or less than zero, it means that sufficient time is 

available, and you should enter zero (0) on Line 61. If the result is greater than the amount of advance 

preemption time provided by the railroad, as given on Line 36, there is a possibility that the gates could 

descend on a stationary or slow-moving design vehicle. To avoid this situation, additional advance

preemption time should be requested from the railroad. 

It should be kept in mind that on its own, gates descending on a vehicle is not a critical safety 

failure, because enough time still exists to clear the crossing before the arrival of the train, if the advance 

preemption time on Line 36 is provided. Therefore, local policies may vary on whether additional advance 

preemption time (over and above that on Line 36) should be requested solely for the purpose of 

prohibiting gates descending on vehicles.

If additional advance preemption time is provided to avoid design vehicle-gate interaction, Line 33 

of this Worksheet has to updated, and Lines 34 and 35 recomputed. Section 5 also needs to be 

recomputed to calculate the track clearance green time.

REFERENCES

The following references were used in the development of the 2003 Guide For Determining Time 

Requirements For Traffic Signal Preemption At Highway-Rail Grade Crossings and these accompanying

Instructions.

Texas Department of Transportation. Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). 2003.

On the Internet at http://www.dot.state.tx.us/TRF/mutcd.htm. Link valid May 2003.

Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Determining Vehicle Signal Change and Clearance Intervals.

An Informational Report prepared by ITE Technical Council Task Force 4TF -1, August 1994.

American Association of State Highway & Transportation Officials (AASHTO). A Policy on Geometric 

Design of Highways and Streets. (Green Book). 2001.

Marshall, P.S. and W.D. Berg. Design Guidelines for Railroad Preemption at Signalized Intersections. In 

ITE Journal Volume 67, Number 2, February 1997, pp. 20-25.

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA). Manual of 

Recommended Practices-Signals. 2000.

Engelbrecht, R.J., S. Sunkari, T. Urbanik, and K. Balke. The Preempt Trap: How to Make Sure You do 

Not Have One. Texas Department of Transportation Project Bulletin 1752-9, October, 2000. On the 

Internet at http://tti.tamu.edu/product/catalog/ reports/1752-9.pdf. Link valid May 2003.
294

Parallel Street Name

Crossing Street Name

SECTION 1: RIGHT-OF-WAY TRANSFER TIME CALCULATION

Preempt verification and response time Remarks

1. Preempt delay time (seconds) ................................................................................ 1.

2. Controller response time to preempt (seconds) ........................................................................ 2. Controller type:

3. Preempt verification and response time (seconds): add lines 1 and 2 ................................................................ 3.

Worst-case conflicting vehicle time

4. Worst-case conflicting vehicle phase number ..................................... 4. Remarks

5. Minimum green time during right-of-way transfer (seconds) ...................................................... 5.

6. Other green time during right-of-way transfer (seconds) ............................................................... 6.

7. Yellow change time (seconds) ................................................................ 7.

8. Red clearance time (seconds) ................................................................. 8.

9. Worst-case conflicting vehicle time (seconds): add lines 5 through 8 ................................................................ 9.

Worst-case conflicting pedestrian time

10. Worst-case conflicting pedestrian phase number ........................................................... 10. Remarks

11. Minimum walk time during right-of-way transfer (seconds) ...................................................................................................... 11.

12. Pedestrian clearance time during right-of-way transfer (seconds) ............................................................................................... 12.

13. Vehicle yellow change time, if not included on line 12 (seconds) .................................................................................................... 13.

14. Vehicle red clearance time, if not included on line 12 (seconds) .................................................................................................... 14.

15. Worst-case conflicting pedestrian time (seconds): add lines 11 through 14 ................................................................ 15.

Worst-case conflicting vehicle or pedestrian time

16. Worst-case conflicting vehicle or pedestrian time (seconds): maximum of lines 9 and 15 ............................................................................ 16.

17. Right-of-way transfer time (seconds): add lines 3 and 16 ................................................................................... 17.

Crossing Street

 Traffic Signal

Railroad

Texas Department of Transportation

GUIDE FOR DETERMINING TIME REQUIREMENTS FOR

 TRAFFIC SIGNAL PREEMPTION AT HIGHWAY-RAIL GRADE CROSSINGS

District

City

County

Date

Completed by 

District Approval 

Railroad Contact 

 Warning Device

Parallel Street

Phone

Show North Arrow

Railroad

Crossing DOT# 

Track

Phase

Page 1

 

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0
 295

SECTION 2: QUEUE CLEARANCE TIME CALCULATION

CSD MTCD DVL

CSD = Clear storage distance

MTCD = Minimum track clearance distance

DVL = Design vehicle length

L = Queue start-up distance, also stop-line distance

Design vehicle clearance distance

Remarks

18. Clear storage distance (CSD, feet) ................................ 18.

19. Minimum track clearance distance (MTCD, feet) ............... 19.

20. Design vehicle length (DVL, feet) .................................. 20. Design vehicle type:

21. Queue start-up distance, L (feet): add lines 18 and 19 ....................................... 21.

Remarks

22. Time required for design vehicle to start moving (seconds): calculate as 2+(L÷20) ....................... 22.

23. Design vehicle clearance distance, DVCD (feet): add lines 19 and 20 ....................................... 23.

24. Time for design vehicle to accelerate through the DVCD (seconds) ....................... 24. Read from Figure 2 in Instructions.

25. Queue clearance time (seconds): add lines 22 and 24 ........................................................................ 25.

SECTION 3: MAXIMUM PREEMPTION TIME CALCULATION Remarks

26. Right-of-way transfer time (seconds): line 17 ................................................................................... 26.

27. Queue clearance time (seconds): line 25 ........................................................................ 27.

28. Desired minimum separation time (seconds) ............................................................ 28.

29. Maximum preemption time (seconds): add lines 26 through 28 ................................................................ 29.

SECTION 4: SUFFICIENT WARNING TIME CHECK Remarks

30. Required minimum time, MT (seconds): per regulations .......................................... 30.

31. Clearance time, CT (seconds): get from railroad .......................................... 31.

32. Minimum warning time, MWT (seconds): add lines 30 and 31 .......................................................................... 32. Excludes buffer time (BT)

33. Advance preemption time, APT, if provided (seconds): get from railroad ................................. 33.

34. Warning time provided by the railroad (seconds): add lines 32 and 33 .......................................................................... 34.

round up to nearest full second, enter 0 if less than 0 .........................................................................................................

Remarks:

35.

If the additional warning time required (line 35) is greater than zero, additional warning time has to be requested from the railroad. 

Alternatively, the maximum preemption time (line 29) may be decreased after performing an engineering study to investigate the 

possibility of reducing the values on lines 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13 and 14.

Additional warning time required from railroad (seconds): subtract line 34 from line 29,

35.

Edge of parallel road or shoulder

L

 Design vehicle

DVCD

DVCD =

Track

Page 2

0

0.0

0

0.0

0.0

0.0

4.0

4.0

20.0

20.0

20.0

0
296

SECTION 5: TRACK CLEARANCE GREEN TIME CALCULATION (OPTIONAL)

Preempt Trap Check

36. Advance preemption time (APT) provided (seconds): ................................................................ 36. Line 33 only valid if line 35 is zero.

37. Multiplier for maximum APT due to train handling ........................... 37. See Instructions for details.

38. Maximum APT (seconds): multiply line 36 and 37 ............................... 38. Remarks

39. Minimum duration for the track clearance green interval (seconds) ............................................. 39. For zero advance preemption time

40. Gates down after start of preemption (seconds): add lines 38 and 39 ..........................40.

41. Preempt verification and response time (seconds): line 3 ................................................................ 41. Remarks

42. Best-case conflicting vehicle or pedestrian time (seconds): usually 0...................................................... 42.

43. Minimum right-of-way transfer time (seconds): add lines 41 and 42 .......................................... 43.

44. Minimum track clearance green time (seconds): subtract line 43 from line 40 .................................44.

Clearing of Clear Storage Distance

45. Time required for design vehicle to start moving (seconds), line 22 ............................................ 45.

46. Design vehicle clearance distance (DVCD, feet), line 23 ......................... 46. Remarks

47. Portion of CSD to clear during track clearance phase (feet) ............47. CSD* in Figure 3 in Instructions.

48. Design vehicle relocation distance (DVRD, feet): add lines 46 and 47 .......................................... 48.

49. Time required for design vehicle to accelerate through DVRD (seconds) ..................................................... 49. Read from Figure 2 in Instructions.

50. Time to clear portion of clear storage distance (seconds): add lines 45 and 49 ....................................................................... 50.

51. Track clearance green interval (seconds): maximum of lines 44 and 50, round up to nearest full second .............................................

51.

SECTION 6: VEHICLE-GATE INTERACTION CHECK (OPTIONAL)

52. Right-of-way transfer time (seconds): line 17 ................................................................................... 52.

53. Time required for design vehicle to start moving (seconds), line 22 ....................... 53.

54. Time required for design vehicle to accelerate through DVL (on line 20, seconds) ..................................................... 54. Read from Table 3 in Instructions.

55. Time required for design vehicle to clear descending gate (seconds): add lines 52 though 54 .....................................................................55.

Remarks

56. Duration of flashing lights before gate descent start (seconds): get from railroad .................................................... 56.

Remarks

57. Full gate descent time (seconds): get from railroad ............................................... 57.

58. Proportion of non-interaction gate descent time ............................................... 58. Read from Figure 5 in Instructions.

59. Non-interaction gate descent time (seconds): multiply lines 57 and 58 ............................................... 59.

60. Time available for design vehicle to clear descending gate (seconds): add lines 56 and 59 ........................................................................ 60.

subtract line 60 from line 55, round up to nearest full second, enter 0 if less than 0 ..........................................................................

61.

61. Advance preemption time (APT) required to avoid design vehicle-gate interaction (seconds):

Page 3

0.0

15.0

15.0

0.0

0.0

15.0

0.0

0

0.0

15

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0

0
 297

May 2006

TO: Division Directors

 District Engineers

FROM: Marvin Murphy

SUBJECT: Adding or Improving Highway Rail-Grade 

Crossings 

The Division of Highways is frequently faced with 

situations where it is necessary or desirable to add one 

or more highway-rail at-grade crossings to the State 

Highway System. The addition of these crossings can 

take several forms. It is the intent of this memorandum 

to distinguish between the situations which may arise 

and to prescribe appropriate actions to be taken in 

each.

The decision to construct a new highway-rail crossing, 

or to redesignate an existing private crossing as 

public, must not be taken lightly. Careful consideration 

must be given to balancing public convenience; public 

necessity; potential adverse effects on both highway 

and railroad operations; and safety.

Adoption or redesignation of a crossing may have 

significant consequences. There are differences between 

the responsibilities of the Division of Highways and of 

the railroad depending on whether a highway-railroad 

crossing is public or private, and on the crossing’s 

antecedents. For instance, a private crossing agreement 

ordinarily requires an annual fee for maintenance and 

insurance; has a cancellation clause; and specifies that 

the other party to the agreement will be financially 

responsible for any physical improvements or additional 

traffic control devices which the railroad may determine 

to be necessary.

A private crossing:

• Represents a relationship between the railroad 

company and the party or parties served by the 

crossing.

• May exist due to various circumstances, such 

as a deed, agreement, or a prescriptive right.

• Carries no responsibility for the railroad or for 

the division of highways to install any traffic 

control devices.

• Does not require the engineer to sound a 

whistle or bell.

• May be blocked for any period of time 

necessary to allow trains to be held, to switch, 

or to pass.

• Needs to be maintained only to the standard 

required for the user or users to be able to 

cross.

A public crossing, on the other hand, imposes certain 

duties on the division of highways and on the railroad:

• The division of highways must install advance 

warning signs, pavement markings (if 

appropriate), and any other traffic control 

devices which may be recommended after an 

engineering study.

• The division of highways is responsible for 

the routine maintenance of the crossing 

approaches beyond the outer ends of the 

Policy On Private Crossings, 

West Virginia Example J

APPENDIX
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

298

crossties, even though the highway is within 

the railroad right of way (If the track elevation 

or the roadway at the crossing is changed, 

the party making the change is responsible 

for providing runoffs or other corrective 

measures).

• The division of highways is responsible for 100 

percent of the engineering and construction 

costs of active traffic control devices (flashing 

lights, or flashing lights and gates) if they are 

needed at the crossing.

• Once active traffic control devices have been 

installed, the railroad assumes ownership 

of them and is responsible for all continuing 

power and maintenance costs in perpetuity.

• If active traffic control devices are not present, 

the railroad must install “. . . Signboards or 

notices . . . Of the design and construction and . 

. . Located in the manner required or approved 

by the state road commission” (West Virginia 

code, §31-2-9).

• The railroad engineer must sound the whistle 

when approaching the crossing (West Virginia 

code, §31-2-8 and 49 cfr §222.21).

• The crossing may not be blocked by a standing 

train, or by a train engaged in switching, 

loading, or unloading operations for a period of 

more than 10 minutes (West Virginia code, §31-

2a-2).

• The railroad has an absolute and nondelegable duty to keep and maintain the 

crossing surface in a reasonably safe condition 

(West Virginia code, §17-4-8 and §17-16-8).

• Additional liability may accrue to the railroad 

in case of an accident.

The responsible Division of Highways organization 

should ascertain the speed, frequency, and nature 

of train operations at and near the site at which a 

crossing is proposed for construction or redesignation. 

Crossings should not be added or redesignated where 

highway traffic would be impeded by frequent train 

movements or by stopped or slow-moving trains. 

Particular locations to be avoided include areas within 

or in the vicinity of rail yards and terminals; industrial 

trackage or switching yards; tracks used for meeting 

or passing trains; areas where “helper” locomotives 

are used or are added to or removed from trains; and 

areas where trains are held short of yards, terminals, 

railroad junctions, or to avoid blocking other public 

crossings.

Before any highway-railroad crossing is added to the 

State Highway System, the responsible organization 

must contact the Railroad and Utilities Section of 

Engineering Division to confirm the public or private 

status of the crossing and to permit the initiation of an 

appropriate railroad agreement, if required.

The following paragraphs discuss the most common 

situations:

1. A public highway-railroad crossing is 

being added as a result of a construction 

or reconstruction project by the Division 

of Highways: The decision to cross any rail 

line with a new or improved public crossing 

at grade should not be taken lightly. The 

immediate and long-term costs of such a 

decision can be very high. There will be 

immediate dollar costs for right of way and 

construction and for the railroad’s prospective 

costs for the operation and maintenance 

costs of the new or upgraded traffic control 

devices and of the crossing itself. There will 

be daily road user costs for train delays, and 

as vehicles slow and speed up in traversing 

the crossing. There will be larger, periodic 

road user costs as the crossing must be closed 

or restricted for railroad track and crossing 

surface maintenance. 

As a condition of approving the installation of 

a new public crossing, the affected railroad 

may request that two or more public crossings 

be closed. The roadway system throughout 

the immediate area should be reviewed during 

project development. Quite often, traffic on 

some number of roadways in relative close 

proximity to the new crossing can be diverted 

to it or to other points of access without 

sacrificing convenience. These common points 

of access can then be upgraded to improve 

traffic operations and to reduce the number of 

major intersections or other potential points of 

conflict. 

2. A public highway-railroad crossing is 

being added under or in cooperation with a 

project for an industrial access road, school 

access road, or similar improvement: Unlike 

the case described above, such a crossing 

will not ordinarily carry through traffic. An 

at-grade highway-rail crossing may be the 

only feasible method of access to a site due 

to topography or other constraints; or, in the 

case of an industrial park, rail service may be 

necessary to the viability of the park or to one 

or more tenants. 

Many of the circumstances cited above will 

apply. There will be immediate dollar costs 
 299

for right of way and construction and for the 

railroad’s prospective costs for the operation 

and maintenance costs of the traffic control 

devices and of the crossing itself. There will 

be daily road user costs for train delays, and 

as vehicles slow and speed up in traversing 

the crossing. There will be larger, periodic 

road user costs as the crossing must be closed 

or restricted for railroad track and crossing 

surface maintenance. As a condition of 

approving a new public crossing, the affected 

railroad may request that two or more public 

crossings be closed as a condition of approving 

the installation of the new crossing.

3. A road that crosses a railroad via an 

existing public highway-railroad crossing 

is adopted into the State Highway System:

This situation most commonly occurs when an 

existing public road that has not previously 

been adopted by the Division of Highways 

is added to the State Highway System. The 

addition may be for purposes of maintenance, 

or may be necessary to permit the upgrading 

of the crossing and approaches as part of a 

project or to facilitate a safety improvement. In 

this instance, many of the responsibilities and 

burdens listed above have already fallen upon 

the railroad. 

4. A road that crosses a railroad via an 

existing private highway-railroad grade 

crossing is adopted into the State Highway 

System: As noted earlier, a private highwayrailroad grade crossing represents a 

relationship between the railroad company 

and the party or parties served by the crossing. 

Before the road and crossing are adopted, it is 

essential that the type of right of way occupied 

by the railroad (title in fee, title in fee for rail 

purposes, or easement) and the antecedents 

of the crossing (deed, agreement, prescriptive 

right, etc.) be known. This will permit a more 

complete assessment of the legal status of the 

crossing and will assist in negotiating and 

preparing an appropriate agreement.

When adopting a road into the State Highway 

System, the railroad company must be 

accorded the same status as the other property 

owners. Also, the adoption of the crossing may 

result in significant financial, operational, 

and liability burdens on the railroad and 

on the Division of Highways. The company 

may resist the adoption of the crossing; may 

request that they be compensated for the right 

of way, plus damages and prospective costs; 

or, in rare cases, may request that the Division 

of Highways assume the responsibilities 

and costs included under an existing private 

crossing agreement.

Railroads have not always been considered in past 

road redesignations or adoptions. This omission 

can make our day-to-day dealings with the railroads 

regarding other mutual concerns more difficult, and 

may expose the railroad and the Division of Highways 

to increased liability in case of an accident.

In summary, it is necessary to exercise a high standard 

of care when considering a railroad crossing for 

adoption into the State Highway System. 

 301

Reports with an NTIS order number may be ordered 

from National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port 

Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161. Telephone: 

(703) 605-6000 or 1-800-553-6847. Prices on the last 

page are effective as of August 2004 and are subject 

to change thereafter. There is a $5 handling charge 

per order or a $25 charge per document for rush 

orders. Document prices may change depending on the 

document. For other reports, a more comprehensive 

listing may be found in Bibliographies 57 and 58, 

available from the Transportation Research Board, 

Washington, DC 20418.

Reports that indicate they are available from the 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Safety Website 

can be found at safetydata.fra.dot.gov/officeofsafety/. 

Click on the “Forms and Publications” tab. 

Additional crossing safety issues, information, 

rulemaking, references, and reports can be found on 

FRA’s Website at www.fra.dot.gov. Click on “Safety” 

and “Publications” or “Safety” and then “Highway-Rail 

Grade Crossing and Trespassing Prevention Division.”

List of Highway-Rail 

Grade Crossing Studies, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Federal Railroad Administration 

July 2005 K

APPENDIX
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

302

Published FRA Reports NTIS order no.

(See last page for prices.)

1. A Program Definition Study for Rail-Highway PB 190401 A08

Grade Crossing Improvement

Prepared by Alan M. Voorhees and Associates, Inc.

Report FRA-RP-70-2, October 1969

2. The Visibility and Audibility of Trains Approaching 	 PB 202668 A08

Rail-Highway Grade Crossings

Prepared by Systems Consultants, Inc.

Report FRA-RP-71-1, May 1971

3. Technological Innovation in Grade Crossing 	 	 PB 201624 A05

Protective Systems

Prepared by TSC for FRA

Report DOT-TSC-71-3, June 1971

4. Report to Congress: Railroad-Highway Safety

Part I: A Comprehensive Statement of the Problem 	 PB 206792 A07

Part II: Recommendations for Resolving the Problem 	 PB 213115 A06

Prepared jointly by the staffs of FRA and FHWA

November 1971 and August 1972

5. Human Factors Countermeasures to 	 	 	 PB 223416 A11

Improve Highway-Railway Intersection Safety

Prepared by Bio Technology, Inc. for FRA and NHTSA

Report DOT-HS-800888, July 1973, 235 pp.

6. Enhancement of Train Visibility	 	 	 	 PB 223899 A05

Prepared by TSC for FRA

Report FRA-ORD&D-74-15, September 1973

7. Grade Crossing Protection in High-Speed, 	 	 PB 223738 A03

High-Density, Passenger-Service Rail Corridors

Prepared by TSC for FRA

Report FRA-ORD&D-74-14, September 1973

8. Proceedings, 1974 National Conference 		 	 PB 245231 A06

on Railroad-Highway Crossing Safety

Sponsored by U.S. Department of Transportation,

U.S. Air Force Academy, August 19–22, 1974

9. State Grade Crossing Programs: A Case Study PB 244175 A04

Prepared for FRA/TSC by CONSAD Research Corp.

Report FRA-ORD&D-75-8, September 1974

10. Feasibility Study of In-Vehicle Warning Systems 	 PB 242462 A07

Prepared by Tracor-Jitco for NHTSA/FRA

Report DOT-HS-256-3-752, May 1975

11. Field Evaluation of Locomotive Conspicuity Lights	 PB 244532 A04

Prepared by TSC for FRA

Report FRA-ORD&D-75-54, May 1975

Price code
 303

12. Guidelines for Enhancement of Visual Conspicuity 	 PB 244551 A04

of Trains at Grade Crossings

Prepared by TSC for FRA

Report FRA-ORD&D-75-71, May 1975

13. A Communication-Link Approach to Actuation of 	 PB 244584 A06

Grade Crossing Motorist Warning Systems

Prepared by TSC for FRA

Report FRA-ORD&D-75-80, July 1975

14. A Methodology for Determination of Grade Crossing 	 PB 259005 A04

Resource Allocation Guidelines

Prepared by TSC for FRA

Report FRA-ORD&D-76-04, August 1975

15. Locomotive to Automobile Baseline Crash Tests	 PB 250564 A07

Prepared by Ultra Systems for FRA

Report FRA-ORD&D-76-03, August 1975

16. Lightning and Its Effects on Railroad Signal Circuits 	 PB 250621 A06

Prepared by University of Lowell for FRA/TSC

Report FRA-ORD&D-76-129, December 1975

17. Standby Power for Railroad-Highway Grade 	 PB 263592	 A03

Crossing Warning Systems

Prepared by University of Lowell for FRA/TSC

Report FRA-ORD&D 76-286, September 1976

18. Improvement of the Effectiveness of Motorist PB 266784 A05

Warnings at Railroad-Highway Grade Crossings

Prepared by TSC for FRA

Report FRA/ORD-77-07, February 1977

19. Potential Means at Cost Reduction in 	 	 	 PB 265724 A05

Grade Crossing Automatic Gate Systems	 	 	 PB 265725 A04

Prepared by MB Associates et. al for TSC/FRA

Reports FRA/ORD-77-06.I and 77/06.II, February 1977

20. Summary Statistics of the National Railroad-Highway 	 PB 271334 A08

Crossing Inventory for Public At-Grade Crossings

Prepared by TSC for FRA

Report OOPD-77-8, June 1977

21. Proceedings, 1977 National Conference 	 	 PB 293071 A07

on Railroad-Highway Crossing Safety

Sponsored by U.S. Department of Transportation,

University of Utah, August 23–25, 1977

22. Innovative Concepts and Technology for 	 	 PB 273354 A10

Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Motorist- 	 	 PB 273355 A05

Warning Systems

Prepared by Cincinnati Electronics et. al for TSC/FRA	

Report FRA/ORD-77/37.I and 77/37.II, September 1977
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

304

23. Potential Means of Cost Reduction in Grade 		 PB 277946 A09

Crossing Motorist-Warning Control Equipment 	 	 PB 277947 A03

Prepared by Storch Engineers et. al for TSC/FRA

Reports FRA/ORD-77/45.I and 77/45.II, December 1977

24. Analysis of NPRM Strobe Lights on Locomotives 	 PB 293483 A04

Prepared by IOCS, Inc. for FRA

Report FRA/OPPD-79-4, May 1978

25. A Study of State Programs for Rail-Highway PB 279774 A08

Grade Crossing Improvements

Prepared by TSC for FRA

Report FRA-OPPD-78-7, June 1978

26. Summary Statistics of the National Crossing PB 293070 A08

Inventory for Public At-Grade Crossings, Second Edition

Prepared by TSC for FRA

Report FRA-OPPD-78-20, September 1978

27. Legal Effects of Use of Innovative Equipment at 	 PB 80-137888 	 A04

Railroad-Highway Grade Crossings on Railroad’s

Accident Liability

Prepared by TSC for FRA

Report FRA-RRS-80-01, October 1979

28. Rail-Highway Crossing Accident/Incident 	 	 Available from FRA

and Inventory Bulletin (No. 1 Calendar Year 1978)

Prepared by Office of Safety, FRA, October 1979

29. Rail-Highway Crossing Hazard Prediction 	 	 PB 80-170749 	 A11

Research Results	

Prepared by TSC for FRA

Report FRA-RRS-80-02, March 1980

30. Identification and Evaluation of Off- 	 	 	 PB 80-186430	 A06

Track Detection Systems for Grade

Crossing Applications	

Prepared by GARD, Inc.

Report FRA/ORD-80-32, April 1980

31. Operational Testing of Locomotive-Mounted 		 PB 80-224348 	 A03

Strobe Lights

Prepared by TSC for FRA

Report DOT-TSC-FRA/ORD 80-48, June 1980

32. The Effectiveness of Flashing Lights and	 	 PB 81-133886 	 A03

Flashing Lights with Gates in Reducing

Accident Frequency at Public Rail-Highway

Crossings, 1975-1978

Prepared by Input Output Computer Services, Inc.

for TSC/FRA/FHWA

Report FRA-RRS-80-005, April 1980
 305

33. Rail-Highway Crossing Warning Device Life	 	 PB 81-133894 	 A05

Cycle Cost Analysis

Prepared by Input Output Computer Services, Inc.

for TSC/FRA/FHWA

Report FRA-RRS-80-003, September 1980

34. Rail-Highway Crossing Accident/Incident	 	 Available from FRA

Bulletin (No. 2 Calendar Year 1979)

Prepared by Office of Safety, FRA, September 1980

35. Grade Crossing Accident Injury Minimization	 PB 81-155236 	 A09

Study

Prepared by Aerospace Design Company, Inc.

Report FRA/ORD-80-87, December 1980

36. Proceedings, 1980 National Rail-Highway 	 	 PB 81-196982	 A06

Crossing Safety Conference

Sponsored by U.S. Department of Transportation,

University of Tennessee, June 17–19, 1980

37. Investigation of Anomalous Rail-Highway	 	 Available from FRA

Crossings

Paper Presentation, 60th Annual Meeting of TRB

Prepared by Office of Safety, FRA, January 1981

38. Rail-Highway Crossing Resource Allocation Model 	 PB 81-212540 	 A05

Prepared by TSC for FRA/FHWA

Report FRA-RRS-81-001, April 1981

39. Constant Warning Time Concept Development 	 PB 81-205684 	 A09

for Motorist Warning at Grade Crossings

Prepared by Systems Technology Laboratory, Inc.

Report FRA/ORD-81/07, May 1981

40. Rail-Highway Crossing Accident/Incident	 	 Available from FRA

and Inventory Bulletin (No. 3 Calendar Year 1980)

Prepared by Office of Safety, FRA, June 1981

41. Operation Lifesaver National Symposium, 	 	 PB 83-117234 	 A03

August 27–29, 1981, Chicago, Illinois

Prepared by Office of Safety, FRA, and

National Safety Council, August 1981

42. Rail-Highway Crossing Accident/Incident	 	 Available from FRA

and Inventory Bulletin (No. 4 Calendar Year 1981)	 See Item 56

Prepared by Office of Safety, FRA, June 1982

43. Summary of the Department of Transportation 	 PB 83-119057 	 A03

Rail-Highway Crossing Accident Prediction Formulas

and Resource Allocation Model

Prepared by Office of Safety, FRA, June 1982

44. Freight Car Reflectorization	 	 	 	 PB 84-131283 	 A06

Prepared by TSC for FRA

Report FRA-RRS-83-1, December 1982
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

306

Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook 2007 Update

45. Rail-Highway Crossing Resource 		 	 	 No longer available

Allocation Procedure, User’s Guide	 	 	 	 See FRA Item 57

Prepared by TSC for FHWA and FRA

Report FHWA-IP-82-7, December 1982

46. Compilation of State Laws and 	 	 	 	 No longer available

Regulations On Matters Affecting 	 	 	 	 See Item 108

Rail-Highway Crossings

Prepared by KSU for AAR, FRA and FHWA

Report FHWA-TS-83-203, April 1983

47. Rail-Highway Crossing Accident/Incident	 	 Available from FRA

and Inventory Bulletin (No. 5 Calendar Year 1982)

Prepared by Office of Safety, FRA, June 1983

48. Rail-Highway Crossing Accident/Incident	 	 Available from FRA

and Inventory Bulletin (No. 6 Calendar Year 1983)

Prepared by Office of Safety, FRA, June 1984

49. Accident Severity Prediction Formula 	 	 	 PB 85-107167 	 A03

for Rail-Highway Crossings

Prepared by TSC for FRA and FHWA

Report FHWA-RD-83/092, July 1984

50. Rail-Highway Crossing Safety Report	 	 	 Available from FRA

Prepared by FRA, July 1985

51. Rail-Highway Crossing Accident/Incident 	 	 Available from FRA

and Inventory Bulletin (No. 7 Calendar Year 1984)

Prepared by Office of Safety, FRA, June 1985

52. Effectiveness of Motorist Warning 	 	 	 PB 882259901 	 A05

Devices at Rail-Highway Crossings

Prepared by FHWA and FRA

Report DOT-TSC-FHWA-85-1, April 1985

Final Report

53. Rail-Highway Crossing Accident/Incident	 	 Available from FRA

and Inventory Bulletin (No. 8 Calendar Year 1985)

Prepared by Office of Safety, FRA, June 1986

54. Rail-Highway Crossing Resource 		 	 	 No longer available

Allocation Procedure, User’s Guide, 	 	 	 	 See FRA Item 57

Second Edition

Prepared by TSC for FRA and FHWA

Report FHWA-IP-86-11, July 1986

55. Rail-Highway Crossing Accident/Incident	 Available from FRA

and Inventory Bulletin (No. 9 Calendar Year 1986)

Prepared by Office of Safety, FRA, June 1987

56. Summary of the DOT Rail-Highway 	 	 	 PB 88-226287 	 A03

Crossing Resource Allocation Procedure,	 	 	 FRA Safety Website

Revised

Prepared by TSC for FRA

Report DOT-TSC-FRA-86-2, June 1987
 307

57. Rail-Highway Crossing Resource 		 	 	 PB 88-225206/AS 	 A06

Allocation Procedure, User’s Guide, 	 	 	 	 FRA Safety Website	

Third Edition

Prepared by TSC for FRA

Report DOT-TSC-FRA-87-1, August 1987

58. Rail-Highway Crossing Accident/Incident	 	 Available from FRA

and Inventory Bulletin (No. 10 Calendar Year 1987)

Prepared by Office of Safety, FRA, August 1988

59. Updated Compilation of States’ Laws and 	 	 No longer available

Regulations Affecting Driver Behavior 	 	 	 See FRA Item 108

At Rail-Highway Crossings

Prepared by COMSIS Corp., for FRA, FHWA

Project DTFH61-88-Z-00145, February 1989

60. Rail-Highway Crossing Accident/Incident	 	 Available from FRA

and Inventory Bulletin (No. 11 Calendar Year 1988)

Prepared by Office of Safety, FRA, June 1989

61. An Evaluation of the TEXAS 1-800 	 	 	 Available from FRA

Program

Prepared by TTI and Richards and Associates for FRA,

June 1989

62. Florida’s Train Whistle Ban	 	 	 	 Available from FRA

Prepared by Office of Safety, FRA, July 1990

63. Rail-Highway Crossing Accident/Incident	 	 Available from FRA

and Inventory Bulletin (No. 12 Calendar Year 1989)

Prepared by Office of Safety, FRA, June 1990

64. Rail-Highway Crossing Accident/Incident	 	 Available from FRA

and Inventory Bulletin (No. 13 Calendar Year 1990)

Prepared by Office of Safety, FRA, July 1991

65. Rail-Highway Crossing Accident/Incident	 	 Available from FRA

and Inventory Bulletin (No. 14 Calendar Year 1991)

Prepared by Office of Safety, FRA, July 1992

66. Florida’s Train Whistle Ban, Second Edition Available from FRA

Prepared by Office of Safety, FRA, September 1992

67. Trespasser Bulletin Volume I, Calendar 	 	 Available from FRA

Year 1991

Prepared by Office of Safety, FRA

RRS-23, March 1993

68. Highway-Rail Crossing Accident/Incident	 	 Available from FRA

and Inventory Bulletin (No. 15 Calendar Year 1992)

Prepared by Office of Safety, FRA, August 1993

69. Trespasser Bulletin, Volume II, Calendar	 	 Available from FRA

Year 1992

Prepared by Office of Safety, FRA

RRS-23, November 1993
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

308

70. The Safety of Highway-Railroad Grade Crossings: 	 Not available

Study of Acoustic Characteristics of Railroad Horn

Systems

Prepared by the FRA Office of Research and Development

DOT/FRA/ORD - 93/25 and

DOT-VNTSC-FRA-93-1, July 1993

71. Highway-Rail Crossing Safety Demonstrations – 	 Available from FRA

Final Report (9/30/92)

Prepared by the FRA Office of Safety

RRS-23, September 1993

72. Rail-Highway Crossing Safety Action Plan 	 	 Available from FRA

Support Proposals

Prepared by FRA, June 1994

73. Rail-Highway Crossing Safety Action Plan 	 	 Available from FRA

Summary

Prepared by FRA, June 1994

74. Highway-Rail Crossing Accident/Incident	 	 Available from FRA

and Inventory Bulletin (No. 16 Calendar Year 1993)

Prepared by Office of Safety, FRA, July 1994

75. Highway-Railroad Grade Crossings: 	 	 	 FRA Safety Website

A Guide To Crossing Consolidation and Closure

Prepared by FRA and FHWA, July 1994

76. Railroad Communications and Train Control: Available from FRA

Report to Congress

Prepared by Office of Safety, FRA, July 1994

77. Trespasser Bulletin Volume III, Calendar	 	 Available from FRA

Year 1993	

Prepared by FRA Office of Safety

RRS-23, September 1994

78. The Use of Illumination at RR Grade 	 	 	 Available from FRA

Crossings to Reduce Collision Risks

(Guidelines for Crossing Illumination)

Prepared by FRA, Research and Special

Programs Administration

Report DOT-VNTSC-FRA-294-50, October 14, 1994

79. Focus Group Study of Consumer Attitudes 	 	 Available from FRA

Toward Highway-Rail Grade Crossings

Prepared for FHWA, FRA, FTA, and NHTSA

by Global Exchange, Inc., November 1994

80. Nationwide Study of Train Whistle Bans 	 	 Available from FRA

Prepared by Office of Safety, FRA, April 1995

81. Highway-Rail Crossing Accident/Incident	 	 FRA Safety Website

and Inventory Bulletin (No. 17 Calendar Year 1994)

Prepared by Office of Safety, FRA, July 1995
 309

82. Safety of Highway-Railroad Grade Crossings Available from FRA Office of

Use of Auxiliary External Alerting Devices to Improve 	 Research and Development	

Locomotive Conspicuity

Prepared by DOT Special Programs Administration for

FRA, Office of Research and Development

Report DOT-VNTSC-FRA-95-10, July 1995

83. Highway-Railroad Grade Crossing Safety 	 	 Available from FRA

Research Needs Workshop (Summary of Results)

Prepared by FRA, July 1995

84. Compilation of State Laws and Regulations 		 Not Available

Affecting Highway-Rail Grade Crossings 	 	 	 See FRA Item 108

Prepared by Office of Safety, FRA, August 1995

85. Florida’s Train Whistle Ban	 	 	 	 Available from FRA

Prepared by Office of Safety, FRA, October 1995

86. Safety of Highway-Railroad Grade Crossings Available from FRA Office of

(Research Needs Workshop – Volume I) 	 	 	 Research and Development	

Prepared by DOT, Research and Special Programs

Administration for FRA, Office of Research and Development

Report DOT-VNTSC-FRA-95-12.1, January 1996

87. Safety of Highway-Railroad Grade Crossings PB 96183256 A20

(Research Needs Workshop –Volume II – Appendices)

Prepared by DOT, Research and Special Programs

Administration for FRA, Office of Research and Development

Report DOT-VNTSC-FRA-95-12.2, January 1996

88. Highway-Rail Crossing Accident/Incident	 	 FRA Safety Website

and Inventory Bulletin (No. 18 Calendar Year 1995)

Prepared by FRA Office of Safety

RRS-23, September 1996

89. Enhancing Rail Safety Now and Into the 21st Available from FRA

Century: The Federal Railroad Administration’s

Safety Program and Initiatives – A Report to Congress

Prepared by FRA, October 1996

90. Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory 	 	 	 FRA Safety Website

Instructions and Procedure Manual

Prepared by FRA, December 1996

91. Highway-Rail Crossing Accident/Incident	 	 FRA Safety Website

and Inventory Bulletin (No. 19 Calendar Year 1996)

Prepared by Office of Safety, FRA, August 1997

92. Model Legislation for Railroad Trespass and FRA Safety Website

Railroad Vandalism

Prepared by FRA, April 1998

93. Field Evaluation of a Wayside Horn 	 	 	 Available from FRA

at a Highway-Railroad Grade Crossing

Prepared by Volpe Center for FRA, June 1998
310

94. Railroad Safety Statistics/Annual Report 1997	 FRA Safety Website

Prepared by FRA, September 1998

95. Railroad Horn Systems Research Final Report 	 Available from FRA

Prepared by FRA, January 1999

96. Freight Car Reflectorization Final Report 	 	 Available from FRA

Prepared by FRA, January 1999

97. Railroad Safety Statistics Annual Report 1998 	 FRA Safety Website

Prepared by FRA, August 1999

98. Improving Railroad Safety and Rail Passenger 	 Available from FRA

Technology through Targeted Research

and Demonstrations

Prepared by FRA, 1992–1997, December 1999

99. Compilation Of State Laws and Regulations	 	 Not available

Affecting Highway-Rail Crossings, Third Edition See Item 108

by L. Stephen Jennings and Applied System

Technologies, January 6, 2000

100. Railroad Safety Statistics Annual Report 1999 	 PB 2002104298

Prepared by FRA Office of Safety, August 2000 	 	 FRA Safety Website

101. Report On High Risk Crossing and 	 	 	 FRA Safety Website

Mitigation Efforts by State

Office of Safety, FRA and FHWA

Report H.R.2084, September 2000

102. Project Plan 1-800 Toll-Free Emergency 	 	 FRA Safety Website

Notification System for Shortline Railroad

Highway-Rail Crossings in the Commonwealth

of Pennsylvania, A Joint Partnership; September 20, 2000

103. Railroad Safety Statistics Annual Report 2000 	 FRA Safety Website

Prepared by Office of Safety, FRA, July 2001

104. Recommended Traffic Control Devices 	 	 Available from TRB

for Railroad-Highway Grade Crossings, TRB Report

Prepared by Lerner & Lianeras, Westat

and McGee & Stephens, BMI, November 2001

105. Intelligent Transportation Systems at Highway-Rail 	 FHWA-OP-01-149

Intersections, A Cross-Cutting Study EDL# 13587

Prepared by DOT, December 2001

106. Five-Year Strategic Plan for Railroad 		 	 PB 2002108029

Research, Development, and Demonstrations

Prepared by FRA	

Report FRA/RDV-02/02, March 2002

107. Railroad Safety Statistics Annual Report 2001 	 FRA Safety Website

Prepared by Office of Safety, FRA, July 2002
 311

108. Compilation Of State Laws and Regulations	 FRA Safety Website

Affecting Highway-Rail Crossings, Fourth Edition

by L. Stephen Jennings and Applied System

Technologies, December 2002

109. Safety of Highway-Railroad Grade Crossings 	 Available from FRA

by FRA Office of Research and Development,

Office of Safety, February 2003

110. Railroad Safety Statistics Annual Report 2002 	 FRA Safety Website

by FRA Office of Safety, July 2003

111. Final Environmental Impact Statement 	 	 Available from FRA Office of Safety

“Interim Final Rule for the Use of Locomotive

Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings”

FRA, December 5, 2003

112. FRA Guide for Preparing Accident/ 	 	 	 FRA Safety Website	

Incident Reports 2003

FRA, Effective May 1, 2003

113. Guidelines for Submitting Accident/ 	 	 FRA Safety Website

Incident Reports by Alternative Methods

FRA

114. Railroad Safety Statistics Annual 	 	 	 FRA Safety Website	

Report 2003 (Prelim)

by FRA Office of Safety, July 2004

115. Secretary’s Action Plan for 	 	 	 	 FRA Safety Website

Highway-Rail Crossing Safety and Trespass Prevention,

Office of Safety, FRA, June 7, 2004

116. Evaluation of Alternative Detection Technologies	 Available from FRA Office of

for Trains and Highway Vehicles at Highway Rail 	 Research and Development

Intersection

DOT/FRA/ORD-03/04

117. North Carolina DOT Traffic Separation Studies, 	 Available from NTIS and FRA

Volume I – Assessment 	 	 	 	 	 Office of Research and Development

by Volpe

DOT/FRA/ORD-04/15.I, September 2004, 52 pp.

118. North Carolina DOT Traffic Separation Studies, 	 Available from NTIS and FRA

Volume II – Findings by Community	 	 	 	 Office of Research and Development	

by Volpe

DOT/FRA/ORD-04/15.II, September 2004, 44 pp.

119. Rails-with-Trails: Lessons Learned 	 	 	 Available from FRA,

FRA/FHWA/NHTSA/FTA	 	 	 	 FTA, NTIS and the

by Volpe	 	 	 	 	 FRA Website

FTA-MA-26-0052-04-1, August 2002, 190 pp.
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

312

120. Preemption of Traffic Signals Near Railroad Available from ITE

Crossings

ITE Committee TENC-99-06, August 1, 2004

Final Draft

Published FHWA Reports

(Federal Highway Administration, Office of Research and Development, Turner-Fairbank Highway Research

Center, 6300 Georgetown Pike, McLean, Virginia 22101)

1. Motorists’ Requirements for Active 	 	 	 PB 296183 A12

Grade Crossing Warning Devices	

FHWA-RD-77-167

2. Railroad Grade Crossing Passive Signing

Study—Final Report	 	 	 	 	 PB 286528 A04

FHWA-RD-78-34

3. Safety Features of Stop Signs at Rail-Highway

Grade Crossings

Vol. 1 Executive Summary	 	 	 	 	 PB 295422 A02

FHWA-RD -78-40	

Vol. 2 Technical Report	 	 	 	 	 PB 295423 A08

FHWA-RD-78-41	

4. Experimental Design for Active Grade 	 	 	 PB 80-145089 	 A04

Crossing Warning Devices	

FHWA-RD-77-167

5. Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing		 	 	 PB 86-127644 	 A12

Handbook	

FHWA-TS-78-214 (See Item 19)

6. Rail-Highway Crossing Accident Causation Study	 PB 83-158725 	 A03

Vol. I Executive Summary	

FHWA/RD-81-082

7. Rail-Highway Crossing Accident Causation Study	 PB 83-158733 	 A07

Vol. II Technical Report	

FHWA/RD-81-083

8. Activated Advance Warning for Railroad Crossings 	 PB 83-161869 	 A09

FHWA/RD-80-003

9. Report to Congress. Railroad-Highway Safety

Part I: A Comprehensive Statement of the Problem	 PB 206792 A07

Part II: Recommendations for Resolving the Problem	 PB 213115 A06

Prepared jointly by the staffs of FRA and FHWA

November 1971 and August 1972
 313

10. The Effectiveness of Automatic Protection 	 	 Available from FHWA

in Reducing Accident Frequency and Severity

at Public Grade Crossings in California

Prepared by the California Public Utilities Commission

Transportation Division, June 1974

Reprinted for FHWA, August 1975

11. The Effectiveness of Flashing Lights and 	 	 PB 81-133886 	 A03

Flashing Lights with Gates in Reducing Accident

Frequency at Public Rail-Highway Crossings, 1975–1978

Prepared by Input Output Computer Services,

Inc. for TSC/FRA/FHWA

Report FRA-RRS-80-005, April 1980

12. Rail-Highway Crossing Warning Device Life Cycle 	 PB 81-133894 	 A05

Cost Analysis

Prepared by Input Output Computer Services,

Inc. for TSC/FRA/FHWA

Report FRA-RRS-80-003, September 1980

13. Rail-Highway Crossing Resource Allocation Model 	 PB 81-212540 	 A05

Prepared by TSC for FRA/FHWA

Report FRA-RRS-81-001, April 1981

14. Proceedings, 1982 Railroad-Highway Safety	 	 PB 83-163501 	 A10

National Conference, Kansas City, Missouri,

August 31–September 2, 1982

15. Rail-Highway Crossing Resource Allocation	 	 Not available

Procedure User’s Guide 	 	 	 	 	 See FRA Item 57

Prepared by TSC for FHWA and FRA

Report FHWA-IP-82-7, December 1982

16. Compilation of State Laws and Regulations 		 Not available

On Matters Affecting Rail-Highway Crossings 	 	 See FRA Item 108

Prepared by KSU for AAR, FRA and FHWA

Report FHWA-TS-83-203, April 1983

17. Accident Severity Prediction Formula 	 	 	 PB 85-107167 	 A03

for Rail-Highway Crossings

Prepared by TSC for FRA and FHWA

Report FHWA-RD-83/092, July 1984

18. Proceedings, 1985 National Conference	 	 PB 86-148731 	 A10

on Highway-Rail Safety, Kansas City,

Missouri, July 16-18, 1985

19. Constant Warning Time Devices for 	 	 	 PB 86-209715 	 A06

Railroad-Highway Crossings

Prepared by Goodell-Grivas, Inc.

Report FHWA/RD-86/156, December 1985

20. Consequences of Mandatory Stops at 	 	 	 PB 86-179579 	 A09

Railroad-Highway Crossings

Prepared by Goodell-Grivas, Inc.

Report FHWA/RD-86/014, December 1985
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

314

21. Effectiveness of Motorist Warning Devices 	 	 PB 88-225990/AS 	 A05

at Rail-Highway Crossings

Prepared by TSC for FRA and FHWA

Report FHWA/RD-85/015, April 1985

22. Rail-Highway Crossing Resource Allocation 		 No longer available

Procedure – User’s Guide – Second Edition 	 	 See FRA Item 57

Prepared by TSC for FRA and FHWA

Report FHWA-IP-86-11, July 1986

23. Railroad Crossing Corridor Improvements, 	 	 PB 87-119673/AS 	 A05

A Model Program Based on Field Reviews in Six States

Report FHWA-DP-70-1, June 1986

24. Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, 	 PB 87-137527 	 A10

Second Edition FHWA Safety Website

Report FHWA-TS-86-215, September 1986	

25. Evaluation of Methods for Predicting 	 	 	 PB 86-213808 	 A03

Rail-Highway Crossing Hazards

Prepared by Virginia Highway and Transportation

Research Council

Report FHWA/VA-86/32, March 1986

26. Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Signal

Visibility Improvement Program

Vol. 1 - Final Report	 	 	 	 	 PB 88-130216/AS 	 A05

FHWA-RD-86-186, July 1987	

Vol. 2 - Hardware User’s Guide	 	 	 	 PB 88-130224/AS 	 A05	

FHWA-RD-86-188, July 1987

Vol. 3 - Data and Hardware Details 	 	 	 	 PB 88-130232/AS 	 A05	

FHWA-RD-86-187

27. Field Evaluation of Innovative Active 	 	 	 PB 89-163141 	 A13

Warning Devices for Use at Railroad-Highway

Grade Crossings	

Prepared by University of Tennessee for FHWA,

Publication FHWA-RD-88-135, August 1988

28. Updated Compilation of States’ Laws 	 	 	 Not available

and Regulations Affecting Driver Behavior at 	 	 See FRA Item 108

Rail-Highway Crossings

Prepared by COMSIS Corp., for FRA, FHWA

Project DTFH61-88-Z-00145, February 1989

29. Rail-Highway Crossing Study	 	 	 	 PB 90-125212/AS 	 A08

Report of the Secretary of Transportation to the

U.S. Congress

Publication FHWA-SA-89-001, April 1989

30. Driver Behavior at Rail-Highway Crossings	 	 PB 90-241118/ABS

Prepared by Comsis Corp.

Report FHWA-82-90-008, June 1990
 315

31. Warning Time Requirements At Railroad-Highway 	 PB 91-218289/AS 	 A06*

Grade Crossings With Active Traffic Control 	 	 	 	 A01**

Prepared by University of Tennessee for FHWA

Report FHWA-SA-91-007, February 1991

*on paper

**on microfiche

32. Part VI: Standards and Guides for Traffic Controls 	 Available from FHWA

for Street and Highway Construction, Maintenance,

Utility, and Incident Management Operations

Part VI of the Manual on Uniform Traffic

Control Devices (MUTCD), 2003

33. A Preliminary Laboratory Investigation of Passive 	 PB 94-184215

Railroad Crossing Signs

Prepared by Office of Safety and Traffic Operations	

R&D for FHWA

Report No. FHWA-RD-93-153, December 1993

34. Highway-Railroad Grade Crossing:	 	 	 FRA Safety Website

A Guide To Crossing Consolidation and Closure

Prepared by FRA and FHWA

FHWA-TS-86-2, July 1994

35. Guidance On Traffic Control Devices 	 	 	 FHWA Website

at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings	 	 	 	 FRA Safety Website

Technical Working Group,

U.S. DOT, FHWA, November 2002

safety.fhwa.dot.gov/media/twgreport.htm

Published NHTSA Reports

1. Human Factors Countermeasures to Improve 	 PB 223416 A11

Highway-Railway Intersection Safety

Prepared by Bio Technology Inc. for FRA and NHTSA

Report DOT-HS-800888, July 1973, 235 pp.

2. Feasibility Study of In-Vehicle Warning Systems	 	 PB 242462 A07

Prepared by Tracor-Jitco for NHTSA/FRA

Report DOT-HS-256-3-752, May 1975

3. Rail-Highway Crossing Safety: Fatal Crash and	 	 PB 95-188884 	 A04

Demographic Descriptors

Report DOT HS 808-196, November 1994

Published OST Reports

1. Accidents That Shouldn’t Happen. 	Available from FRA

A Report of the Grade Crossing Safety Task Force

to Secretary Federico Pena

Prepared by DOT Task Force, March 1996
Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook—Revised Second Edition

316

2. Implementation Report of the U.S. DOT 	Available from FRA

Grade Crossing Safety Task Force

Prepared by DOT Task Force

Publication FHWA-SA-97-085,

HAS-20/7-97-97(1M)E, June 1997

Price code for documents in print:

(For full list and price coding, please refer to www.ntis.gov/pdf/pricode.pdf)

NTIS price schedules for documents in print:

Standard prices Archival prices 	 Exception prices

A01* ............	 $ 9.50 	 	 $ 12.00 	 E01.........$ 18.50

A02* ........... 	$ 14.00 	 	 $ 17.50 	 E02 ........$ 23.00

A03 ............. 	$ 26.50 	 	 $ 33.50 	 E03 ........$ 25.50

A04 .............	 $ 29.50 	 	 $ 37.00 	 E04 ........$ 30.00

A05 ............. 	$ 31.50 	 	 $ 39.50 	 E05 ........$ 33.50

A06 ............. 	$ 34.00	 	 $ 42.50	 E06 ........$ 37.00

A06 ............. 	$ 34.00	 	 $ 42.50 	 E06 ........$ 37.00

A07 ............. 	$ 38.00 	 	 $ 47.50	 E07 ........$ 41.50

A08 ............. 	$ 41.50	 	 $ 52.00 	 E08 ........$ 46.00

A09 ............. 	$ 47.50	 	 $ 59.50 	 E09 ........$ 51.00

A10 ............. 	$ 51.00 	 	 $ 64.00 	 E10 ........$ 55.50

A11 ............. 	$ 54.50	 	 $ 68.50 	 E11 ........$ 60.00

A12 ............. 	$ 59.00	 	 $ 74.00 	 E12 ........$ 66.00

A13 ............. 	$ 62.50 	 	 $ 78.50 	 E13 ........$ 70.50

* A01 for standard microfiche is $14.00; $17.50 for out-of-print microfiche.

* A02 for standard microfiche is $20.00; $25.00 for out-of-print microfiche.
PUBLICATION NO. FHWA-SA-07-010

Oce of Safety Design

Federal Highway Administration

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590