Railway-Highway Crossings Program

Stakeholder Input Summary

September 2020
i 

Table of Contents

Executive Summary...................................................................................................................................... iv 

1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1 

1.1 Background and Study Purpose .......................................................................................................... 1 

1.2 Section 130 Program Overview........................................................................................................... 1 

1.3 Report Structure ................................................................................................................................. 2 

2. Study Design.............................................................................................................................................. 3 

2.1 Study Methodology............................................................................................................................. 3 

2.1.1 Crash Trend Data Analysis............................................................................................................ 3 

2.1.2 Literature and Document Review................................................................................................ 3 

2.1.3 Stakeholder Input ........................................................................................................................ 4 

2.1.4 Qualitative Analysis of Stakeholder Input and Document Review .............................................. 6 

3. Crash Trend Data Analysis......................................................................................................................... 7 

3.1 Types of Public At-Grade Crossings..................................................................................................... 7 

3.2 At-Grade Crossing Incidents................................................................................................................ 8 

3.2.1 Incidents by Crossing Type......................................................................................................... 11

3.2.2 Incidents by Road User Type...................................................................................................... 12

3.2.3 Incidents by Motorist Action...................................................................................................... 14

3.2.4 Incidents by Nearby Intersection............................................................................................... 16

3.2.5 Incidents by Demographic ......................................................................................................... 16

4. Summary of Stakeholder Input............................................................................................................... 17

4.1 Topic Area 1: Stakeholder experience with Section 130 Program requirements on State railwayhighway crossing programs and policies ................................................................................................ 17

4.2 Topic Area 2: Feedback from stakeholders on flexibility to address current and emerging railwayhighway crossing safety issues................................................................................................................ 21

5. Conclusion............................................................................................................................................... 27

5.1 Crash Trends and Effective Practices................................................................................................ 27

5.2 Stakeholder Feedback....................................................................................................................... 31

Appendix A: Stakeholder Input Approach.................................................................................................. 33

Stakeholder Interviews............................................................................................................................... 33

Focus Groups............................................................................................................................................... 34

Interactive Conference Sessions................................................................................................................. 35

Interview Guide........................................................................................................................................... 35
ii 

List of Figures

Figure 1: Public At-Grade Crossing Incident and Casualty Statistics from 1989-2019................................ vi

Figure 2: Interview Sample Selection........................................................................................................... 5 

Figure 3: Inventory of Public, At-Grade Railway-Highway Crossings, Active vs. Passive, 2010-2019.......... 8 

Figure 4: Inventory of Public, At-Grade Railway-Highway Crossings by Warning Devices, 2010-2019....... 8 

Figure 5: Public At-Grade Crossing Incident and Casualty Statistics from 1989-2019................................. 9 

Figure 6: Public At-Grade Crossing Incidents and Casualties per Million Train Miles Traveled, 2010-2019

....................................................................................................................................................... 10

Figure 7: Public At-Grade Crossing Incidents and Casualties per Billion Vehicle Miles Traveled, 2010-

2019 ............................................................................................................................................... 10

Figure 8: Public At-Grade Crossing Incidents by Warning Devices, 2010-2019.........................................11

Figure 9: Incidents by Crossing Type per Crossing per Train per Vehicle, 2010-2019...............................12

Figure 10: Public At-Grade Crossing Incident Rate by Highway User Type per Billion VMT, 2010-2019 ..13

Figure 11: Proportion of Total Public At-Grade Crossing Incidents, Injuries, and Fatalities for Pedestrians, 

2010-2019...................................................................................................................................... 14

Figure 12: Average Number and Cost of Projects per Year ....................................................................... 19

Figure 13: Total Number of Projects by Project Type, 2013-2018............................................................. 20

List of Tables

Table 1: Public At-Grade Crossing Incidents by Highway User, 2010-2019...............................................12

Table 2: Distribution of Public At-Grade Crossing Incidents by Motorist Action, 2010-2019 ...................15

Table 3: Distribution of Public At-Grade Crossing Fatalities by Motorist Action, 2010-2019....................15

Table 4: Effect of Nearby Intersection on Public At-Grade Crossing Incident Rate, 2010-2019................16

Table 6: Summary of Stakeholder Input .................................................................................................... 17

Table 7: List of Interviewees ...................................................................................................................... 33

Table 8: Focus Group Participants ............................................................................................................. 34
iii 

List of Abbreviations

Abbreviation Term 

AADT Annual average daily traffic

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

AAR Association of American Railroads

ASLRRA American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CY Calendar Year 

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

FY Fiscal Year 

GAO Government Accountability Office

GCIS Grade Crossing Inventory System

LED Light-emitting diode

RAIRS Railroad Accident Incident Reporting System

TMT Train miles traveled

U.S.C. United States Code

VMT Vehicle miles traveled
iv 

Executive Summary

Introduction

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) are 

responsible for improving and overseeing safety at public railway-highway crossings. A public railwayhighway crossing is an intersection where a roadway that is under the jurisdiction of, and maintained by, 

a public authority crosses railroad tracks. Railway-highway crossings can be at-grade (i.e., the roadway 

and railroad intersect at the same level) or grade separated (i.e., there is physical separation between 

the roadway and railroad tracks). 

The FHWA’s Railway-Highway Crossings Program (23 United States Code (U.S.C.) 130), which is known as 

the Section 130 Program, provides funds to States for the elimination of hazards at railway-highway

crossings, including crossings at roadways, bike trails, and pedestrian paths. The Section 130 Program 

funds are a set-aside portion of the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), which is a core 

Federal-aid program with the purpose to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious 

injuries on all public roads. Through the HSIP, States are provided with over 2 billion dollars each year 

for the implementation of highway safety improvement projects. In fiscal year (FY) 2020, the annual 

set-aside for the Section 130 Program was $245 million.

Senate Report 116-109, accompanying the Department of Transportation Appropriations Act, 2020 

(Public Law 116-94), directed FHWA to conduct an evaluation of the Section 130 Program in order to 

identify challenges that could allow States to more strategically address problem areas, as follows:

“Grade Crossing Safety.-- In 2017, there were more than 2,100 crashes, resulting in 273 

fatalities, at highway-rail grade crossings. While Federal investment in grade crossing 

safety improvement has noticeably reduced the historical number of deaths and injuries 

at these crossings, the number of accidents has remained relatively static since 2009. 

FHWA's Railway-Highway Crossings Program is the primary Federal funding source for 

states to address safety issues at these crossings. In a recent report, the Government 

Accountability Office found that it was unclear whether that program remains effective 

in continuing to reduce the risk of crashes or fatalities at grade crossings. The 

Committee directs FHWA to conduct an evaluation of this program in order to identify 

challenges that could allow States to more strategically address problem areas. This 

evaluation should include: a comprehensive assessment of nationwide crash trends over 

multiple years in order to determine why crashes are continuing and what types of 

projects would be effective in eliminating those crashes; a re-examination of eligibility 

requirements that limit the flexibility of States to consider other types of projects, 

including research into and demonstrations of new types of pavement markings at 

grade crossings to improve driver behavior, as well as technology that would enable 

crossing infrastructure to communicate wirelessly with vehicles or mobile devices; and 

recommendations of any needed statutory changes to improve the program's 

effectiveness in reducing crashes and fatalities. The Committee directs the Department 

to produce a report summarizing the results of this evaluation within 1 year of 

enactment of this act.” 

In response to this requirement, FHWA engaged the John A. Volpe Center (Volpe Center) to conduct a 

study of the Section 130 Program. This report summarizes the results of the study. 
v 

Study Methodology

This FHWA study focused on two aspects: 

1. Assessing nationwide crash trends over a 10-year period to identify factors that are associated 

with crashes and the types of projects that would potentially be effective in eliminating those 

crashes, and

2. Gathering input from a sample of Section 130 stakeholders regarding:

a. Experience with the Section 130 Program requirements on State railway-highway

crossing programs and policies, and

b. Flexibility to address current and emerging railway-highway crossing safety issues. 

The study team conducted a 10-year nationwide crash trend analysis of incidents that occurred at public 

railway-highway at-grade crossings from 2010 to 2019 to identify factors that are associated with 

crashes and identify the types of projects that would potentially be effective in eliminating those 

crashes. The team also conducted a review of available literature to gain an understanding of the 

Section 130 Program structure and requirements. Finally, the team conducted in-depth, semistructured interviews with representatives from nine States. Staff from FHWA Division Offices 

responsible for administering the Section 130 Program and FRA regional staff were also interviewed. 

Additional input was received from a Class I railroad and surface transportation association industry

groups. To supplement the stakeholder interviews, the project team organized two focus groups and 

participated in workshops and conferences to collect additional input from stakeholders. 

Crash Trend Data Analysis 

From 1989 to 2019, there was overwhelming improvement in crossing safety, with the number of 

incidents reduced by 68 percent. However, from 2010 to 2019, there was an increase/stagnation in the 

number of incidents, fatalities, and injuries (see Figure 1). Over this 10-year period the overall number 

of incidents and fatalities increased by 6.3 percent and 10.1 percent respectively, while the overall 

number of injuries declined by 10.5 percent. 
vi

Figure 1: Public At-Grade Crossing Incident and Casualty Statistics from 1989-2019

Data notes: Data for all highway users includes pedestrians at public at-grade crossings. The data does not include reported cases of 

suicide/attempted suicide.

Data trends and effective practices to address factors associated with crashes at at-grade railwayhighway crossings include, but are not limited to, the following: 

• Incidents by crossing type: The majority of incidents at public at-grade crossings occurred at 

crossings equipped with gates. However, when compared evenly in terms of vehicle and train 

exposure, data shows that passive crossings have the highest risk, followed by crossings 

equipped with bells/flashing-light signals, and crossing equipped with gates have the lowest risk. 

Low-cost devices, such as LED-enhanced signage, maintenance of pavement markings and 

cleared vegetation for increased sight distance are effective practices to increase safety at 

passive crossings. 

• Incidents by road user type: Over the 10-year period, personal vehicles (i.e., auto, pick-up 

truck, van, motorcycle, and other motor vehicles) accounted for approximately 70 percent of 

total incidents at public at-grade crossings, but 65 percent of total injuries and 52 percent of 

total fatalities. During this same period, commercial vehicles (i.e., truck, truck-trailer, bus, and 

school bus) accounted for about 20 percent of total incidents, 27 percent of total injuries, and 9 

percent of total fatalities. Pedestrian incidents at public at-grade crossings account for 7 

percent of all incidents, but about 33 percent of all fatalities. 

Appropriate signage can be an effective practice to address commercial vehicle safety. Effective 

treatments to address pedestrian safety include, but are not limited to, pedestrian 

channelization improvements, gate skirts, low-rise signals, pavement markings, innovative 

signage, swing gates, and second train warning signs.

• Incidents by motorist action: Motorists who failed to stop at the crossing accounted for the 

highest number of incidents (33.3 percent), followed by motorists who stopped on the crossing 

5,980

1,771 1,883

748

228 251

2,424

782 700

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019

Number of Incidents and Casualties

Incidents Fatalities Injuries
vii 

(24.9 percent). Engineering treatments designed to prevent motorists from driving around 

lowered gates at at-grade railway-highway crossings include the use of median separation, such 

as delineators, barriers, raised curbs, or four-quadrant gates. In addition, law enforcement 

strategies focused on the enforcement of traffic safety laws at railway-highway grade crossings 

have also been effective at mitigating crossing risk. 

• Incidents by nearby intersection: From 2010 to 2019, crossings nearest to a roadway

intersection had the highest incident rates. One of the reasons traffic queues at a crossing is 

due to impacts from the operation of traffic signals at nearby roadway intersections. When the 

traffic signal turns red downstream from a crossing, vehicles may queue up past the railroad 

tracks if traffic signal preemption is not used. Traffic signal preemption allows the traffic signal 

downstream from the crossing to cycle to a green phase when a train is detected by the crossing 

train detection circuitry, thus allowing vehicular traffic to clear before the train arrival. Other 

strategies include, but are not limited to, the use of LED-enhanced grade crossing signs and 

dynamic envelope pavement markings to delineate the area around at-grade railroad crossings 

where motorists should not stop.

• Incidents by demographic: When normalized by vehicle miles (VMT), male drivers were almost 

two times more likely to be involved in at-grade crossing incidents than female drivers. When 

normalized by VMT, young drivers between the age of 16 and 19 had the highest rate of 

incidents overall. 

Summary of Stakeholder Feedback

The following is a summary of the stakeholder feedback on the study’s two topic areas.

Topic Area 1: Experience with the Section 130 Program requirements on railway-highway crossing 

programs and policies. 

The structure of the Section 130 Program enables States to design a Railway-Highway Crossing Safety 

Program to meet its unique safety needs. Discussions with stakeholders indicate there is no standard 

process or criteria that States use to assess the safety or risk of a railway-highway crossing, or to 

prioritize projects for funding. Stakeholders reported that some of the Section 130 Program 

requirements may limit a State’s ability to fund certain types of projects to address emerging crossing 

safety issues. Specifically, some stakeholders reported the requirement that 50 percent of funds be 

used for the installation of protective devices may impact a State’s ability to address evolving railwayhighway crossing safety needs. In order to continue achieving safety goals, some stakeholders indicated 

a greater proportion of Section 130 funding may assist in funding projects that go beyond protective 

devices, such as projects to make site improvements, construct grade separations, eliminate crossings, 

or install corridor traffic signal preemption systems. In addition, States’ interpretation of Section 130 

eligibility requirements may be limiting the types of railway-highway crossing safety projects that are 

funded. Several States have interpreted Federal-aid requirements regarding maintenance to preclude 

the replacement of functionally obsolete warning devices as well as the use of Section 130 funds on 

crossings that have been improved previously using Section 130 funds. 

Topic Area 2: Flexibility to adequately address current and emerging railway-highway crossing safety 

issues. 

Stakeholders identified several factors they feel affect their State’s ability to implement effective 

practices to improve railway-highway crossing safety. First, the majority of stakeholders feel the 

requirement in 23 U.S.C. 130(f)(3) for a 10 percent non-Federal match limits their States’ ability to fund 
viii 

projects on local roads in certain localities, particularly those that are smaller and more rural. 

Stakeholders reported that this requirement reduces the effectiveness of the data-driven safety 

program by causing project selection decisions to be driven, in part, by a locality’s ability to contribute 

the 10 percent match and not by crash risk. Second, stakeholders consider the $7,500 limit on the 

incentive payment, as per 23 U.S.C. 130(i)(3)(B), to a local government to close at-grade highway 

crossings to be insufficient to encourage municipalities to take this action. Third, stakeholders believe 

that restrictions on using Section 130 funds for education, enforcement, and trespass prevention may 

limit a State’s ability to address the cause of some railway-highway crossing incidents related to 

driver/pedestrian behavior. Fourth, while States identify the important role that quality data plays in 

designing an effective Section 130 Program, few of them stated they use Section 130 funds to support 

data collection due to the associated administrative costs and confusion on what activities are eligible. 

Fifth, some stakeholders noted that limited funding restricts their States’ ability to implement grade 

separation projects, which they report is one of the most effective strategies to improve safety. Sixth, 

several stakeholders noted that project and contract management challenges contribute to delays in 

Section 130 funded projects and some States’ low obligation rates of Section 130 funding. Finally, input 

from the State departments of transportation (State DOT) staff highlighted the challenges they 

experience with measuring the effectiveness of individual railway-highway crossing safety projects.

Conclusion

Stakeholder input on the Section 130 Program highlights areas that may impact the effectiveness of the 

program. Stakeholders reported several factors that may limit States’ ability to implement safety 

projects beyond protective devices, such as projects to construct grade separations, install traffic signal 

preemption systems along a corridor, or implement safety education and enforcement projects aimed at 

addressing driver behavior. Stakeholders also identified challenges regarding funding projects in certain 

localities, particularly those that are smaller and more rural.

On an ongoing basis, FHWA will assess whether any policy or regulatory changes would improve the 

program’s effectiveness. The FHWA also will consider addressing some issues through continued and 

expanded outreach and education, including: 

• Continue to compile and promote noteworthy practices and facilitate opportunities for peer-topeer information sharing to enable practitioners to develop the knowledge, skills, and ability 

to implement effective railway-highway crossing safety programs; 

• Clarify Section 130 Program eligibility requirements such as explaining the use of Section 130 

funds for compilation and analysis of data, including examples of eligible activities;

• Encourage the improvement of data quality and sharing of data between railroads and local, 

State, and Federal Agencies;

• Increase awareness and education on the use of alternative contracting methods; and

• Encourage use of additional data to evaluate project effectiveness and share research on the 

types of projects that are most effective at addressing the causes of railway-highway

casualties.
1 

1. Introduction 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Safety initiated an effort to document stakeholder 

input regarding the effectiveness of the Railway-Highway Crossings Program. The FHWA engaged the 

Volpe Center to conduct the study. The following section provides an overview of the purpose of the 

study and an overview of the Railway-Highway Crossings Program. 

1.1 Background and Study Purpose

The FHWA and FRA oversee programs that help improve safety at public railway-highway crossings. A 

public railway-highway crossing is an intersection where a roadway that is under the jurisdiction of, and 

maintained by, a public authority crosses railroad tracks. Railway-highway crossings can be at-grade 

(i.e., the roadway and railroad intersect at the same level) or grade separated (i.e., there is physical 

separation between the roadway and railroad tracks). The FHWA’s Railway-Highway Crossings Program 

(23 U.S.C. 130), which is known as the Section 130 Program, provides funds to States for the elimination 

of hazards at railway-highway crossings, including crossings at roadways, bike trails, and pedestrian 

paths. 

The Section 130 Program funds are a set-aside portion of the Highway Safety Improvement Program 

(HSIP), which is a core Federal-aid program with the purpose to achieve a reduction in traffic fatalities 

and serious injuries on all public roads. Through the HSIP, States are provided with over two billion 

dollars each year for the implementation of highway safety improvement projects. In FY 2020, the 

annual set-aside for the Section 130 Program was $245 million. 

In 2017, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reviewed Federal efforts to improve railwayhighway crossing safety. As part of its review, GAO examined several aspects of the Federal 

Government’s approach and recommended that FHWA evaluate the Section 130 Program’s

requirements to determine whether they allow States sufficient flexibility to adequately address current 

and emerging railway-highway crossing safety issues, and to determine whether statutory changes to 

the program are necessary to improve its effectiveness.1

 Similarly, in 2019, the Senate Committee on 

Appropriations directed FHWA to conduct an evaluation of the Section 130 Program in order to identify 

challenges that could allow States to more strategically address problem areas. 

The FHWA engaged the Volpe Center to conduct a study of the Section 130 Program. This report 

summarizes the results of the study. 

1.2 Section 130 Program Overview

The Section 130 Program provides funds for the elimination of hazards at public railway-highway 

crossings. These funds are apportioned to States by formula, which is based, in part, on the number of 

public railway-highway crossings in each State (23 U.S.C. 130(f)). As mentioned, in FY 2020, the annual 

set-aside for the Section 130 Program was $245 million. State’s apportionment of Section 130 funding 

ranged from $1,225,000 to $20,481,394.2

 

 

1 GAO. November 2019. GAO-19-80. Grade-Crossing Safety. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-80 

2 FHWA. October 1, 2019. Notice 4510.837, Apportionment of Federal-Aid Highway Program Funds for FY 2020. 

Available at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/notices/n4510837/n4510837_t1.cfm. 
2 

Section 130 Program funds are eligible for projects at public railway-highway crossings including 

roadways, bike trails, and pedestrian paths. Fifty percent of a State's apportionment is dedicated for the 

installation of protective devices at crossings (23 U.S.C. 130(e)). The remainder of the funds 

apportioned can be used for any hazard elimination project, including protective devices. In accordance 

with 23 U.S.C. 130(i), the funds can be used as incentive payments for local agencies to close public 

crossings provided there are matching funds from the railroad. Also, in accordance with 23 U.S.C.

130(h), the funds can be used for local agencies to provide matching funds for State-funded projects.

Section 130 projects are funded at a 90 percent Federal share (23 U.S.C. 130(f)(3)).

Each State is required to conduct and maintain a survey of all highways to identify railroad crossings that 

may require separation, relocation, or protective devices and establish and implement a schedule of 

projects (23 U.S.C. 130(d)). At a minimum, this schedule is to provide signs for all railway-highway 

crossings. States are also required to submit annual reports on the progress of implementing their 

Railway-Highway Crossings Program (23 U.S.C. 130(g)). The FHWA Division Office staff oversee States’ 

use of Section 130 Program funds, including ensuring that projects meet program eligibility 

requirements. 

The FHWA’s Office of Safety provides stakeholders a number of resources to support implementation of 

the Section 130 Program. In 2019, FHWA and FRA released an updated Highway-Railway Crossing 

Handbook, Third Edition3

, which provides information on prevalent and noteworthy practices as well as 

State-adopted standards relative to the design and operation of railway-highway crossings. The FHWA 

and FRA host an on-going joint Webinar series on a variety of railway-highway crossing safety topics.4

 

The FHWA also documented noteworthy practices and organized several peer exchanges to provide 

opportunities for State DOTs to discuss and share effective practices on Section 130 Program

administration and implementation. 

1.3 Report Structure

The remainder of this report is organized as follows:

Section 2 describes the study methodology, including the data sources and data analysis methods. 

Section 3 presents the nationwide crash trend data analysis.

Section 4 summarizes the stakeholder input gathered as part of the study. 

Section 5 identifies factors that are associated with crashes and the types of projects that would 

potentially be effective in eliminating those crashes. It also outlines areas that may improve the 

effectiveness of the Section 130 Program, based on stakeholder input. 

Appendix A provides information on the stakeholder input approach, including a list of interviewees and 

focus group participants, as well as the interview and discussion guide.

 

3 FHWA. July 2019. Highway-Rail Crossing Handbook, 3rd Edition. 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/xings/com_roaduser/fhwasa18040/fhwasa18040v2.pdf

4 Recordings of the FHWA-FRA Joint Webinar Series webinars are available on FHWA’s Section 130 Program 

website at https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/xings/. 
3 

2. Study Design

This FHWA study focused on two aspects: 

1. A comprehensive assessment of nationwide crash trends over a 10-year period to identify

factors that are associated with crashes and the types of projects that would potentially be 

effective in eliminating those crashes, and

2. Gathering input from a sample of Section 130 stakeholders regarding:

a. Experience with the Section 130 Program requirements on State Railway-Highway

Crossing programs and policies;

b. Flexibility to address current and emerging railway-highway crossing safety issues; 

2.1 Study Methodology

The project team used three primary data collection methodologies to inform this study:

• Crash trend data analysis;

• Literature and document review;

• Stakeholder input via interviews, focus groups, and an interactive conference session.

2.1.1 Crash Trend Data Analysis

The study team conducted a 10-year nationwide crash trends analysis of incidents that occurred at 

public railway-highway at-grade crossings from 2010 to 2019 to identify factors that are associated with 

crashes and identify the types of projects that would potentially be effective in eliminating those 

crashes.

The primary source of data for the crash trend analysis is FRA Office of Railroad Safety Data Analysis 

website.5

 Crossing incident data was downloaded from the Railroad Accident Incident Reporting System 

(RAIRS) database6 and crossing inventory data was downloaded from the Grade Crossing Inventory 

System (GCIS) database.

7

 The FRA GCIS database contains all U.S. public and private railway-highway

grade crossings, with detailed current and historical information on individual crossings. Only active

public at-grade crossings were considered for this analysis. 

2.1.2 Literature and Document Review

The project team conducted a literature review to gain an initial understanding of the Section 130 

Program structure and requirements. The team reviewed program requirements, FHWA Section 130 

Program website,

8 the 2016 and 2018 FHWA Railway-Highway Crossing Program Biennial Reports to 

 

5 FRA Office of Safety Analysis website. Available at https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/default.aspx

6 FRA Office of Safety Analysis website. Accident Data as reported by Railroads. Available at 

https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/publicsite/on_the_fly_download.aspx

7 FRA Office of Safety Analysis website. Highway-Rail Crossing Database Files and Reports. Available at 

https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/publicsite/DownloadCrossingInventoryData.aspx

8 FHWA. Railway-Highway Crossings (Section 130) Program. Available at https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/xings/#
4 

Congress, and the GAO Grade-Crossing Safety Report. Findings from the initial literature review were 

used to develop the study approach and interview guides. 

The team also reviewed Section 130 Program documentation for each of the nine States in the interview 

sample (described below). The team reviewed the Railway-Highway Crossings (Section 130) Program 

annual reports for FY 2013 through FY 2018. These annual reports provided information on the State’s 

Section 130 Program structure, project selection methods, methods used to measure effectiveness, and 

project metrics data. The team also reviewed the State railway-highway crossing action plans (when 

available). 

2.1.3 Stakeholder Input

The project team conducted stakeholder interviews and focus groups, and participated in workshops 

and conferences to collect feedback from a broad group of stakeholders. 

Stakeholder Interviews

The project team used a stratified purposeful sampling approach to select a non-generalizable sample of 

nine States to interview. The sample was selected to explore how States administer the Section 130 

Program under a variety of conditions. The project team used two primary criteria to select the 

interview sample: the six-year cumulative obligation rate of Section 130 funds (FY 2013 to FY 2018)9 and 

the number of public at-grade railway-highway crossings (calendar year 2016)10. The team organized 

the States into four subgroups – high obligation rate/low number of crossings; high obligation rate/high 

number of crossings; low obligation rate/low number of crossings; and low obligation rate/high number 

of crossings (see Figure 2). The team selected two States from each subgroup to provide a diverse crosssection, plus one additional State. The project team considered geographical diversity and 

recommendations from the FHWA Office of Safety when selecting the States to include in the sample. 

The nine States in the sample were: California, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Montana, 

Vermont, and Wisconsin. 

 

9

 FHWA. Obligation Rates for the HSIP. Table 3: Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act and Fixing 

America's Surface Transportation Act Cumulative RCHP Cumulative Obligation Rates by State. Available at 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/gen_info/slorhsip/ 

10 FHWA. 2018 Railway-Highway Crossing Program Biennial Report to Congress. 
5 

Figure 2: Interview Sample Selection

Between May 2019 and December 2019, the project team conducted in-depth, semi-structured 

telephone interviews with staff from the nine States, FHWA Division Offices, and FRA regional offices. 

The team also spoke with one Class I railroad11, and three surface transportation association industry 

groups – the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the 

Association of American Railroads (AAR), and the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association 

(ASLRRA). See Appendix A for a complete list of participants. 

The interviews were designed to address each topic area. Interviewees were provided a list of questions 

in advance (see Appendix A for the interview guide). The team assured all interviewees that their 

identities would remain confidential in order to achieve unbiased answers to interview questions. 

Focus Groups and Conference Sessions

To supplement the stakeholder interviews, the project team organized two focus groups and 

participated in workshops and conferences to collect additional input from stakeholders. The project 

team conducted the two focus groups in July 2019 and September 2019 as part of FHWA-sponsored 

peer exchanges focused on the administration and implementation of the Section 130 Program. Forty 

participants representing 24 States participated in the focus groups. The participants included 

representatives from FHWA Division Offices, State DOTs, and rail commissions (see Appendix A for a 

complete list of focus group participants). The focus group participants discussed a similar set of topics 

as discussed in the stakeholder interviews. Each focus group discussion lasted 90 minutes. 

The team also collected feedback from additional stakeholders through participation at several 

workshops, including the FRA Listening Session on Railway-highway Grade Crossing Safety (April 2019) 

 

11 The study team requested an interview with a second Class I railroad but did not receive a response. 
6 

and the FRA Grade Crossing Technology Symposium (November 2019). In addition, the team hosted a 

booth at the jointly sponsored FHWA and AASHTO National Safety Engineer Peer Exchange (July 2019) 

to collect input from participants. The team also led an interactive session at the National Railwayhighway Grade Crossing Safety Conference (August 2019) to collect input from conference participants. 

The interactive session lasted approximately 60 minutes; the topics discussed aligned with those 

discussed in the interviews and focus groups. The team also hosted a booth at the conference to collect 

additional stakeholder input. 

2.1.4 Qualitative Analysis of Stakeholder Input and Document Review 

To identify prevalent themes across interviewees, the project team coded the interview notes, grouping 

common responses and marking unusual responses. The team compared the feedback gathered across 

the stakeholder interviews to the input collected in the focus groups and at the various conferences to 

identify converging, complementary, or contradictory information and to assess the validity of the 

documented input. Where applicable, the analysis indicates the representativeness of a reported 

response provided by the interview sample (e.g., five out of eight States reported). Due to the nature 

and structure of the focus groups, interactive conference session, and input collected via the conference 

booths, the frequency of the feedback collected through these methods is not quantified. Instead, the 

documented input indicates whether the input provided by the focus group and conference participants 

aligns with or differs from that of the interviewees. 
7 

3. Crash Trend Data Analysis

This section presents the results of the 10-year nationwide crash trends analysis from 2010 to 2019, 

including the factors that are associated with crashes and what types of projects would potentially be 

effective in eliminating those crashes.

3.1 Types of Public At-Grade Crossings

Public at-grade crossings are classified as either active or passive based on the type of warning devices 

present at each crossing. Active crossings are those equipped with flashing-light signals with or without 

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

approach or presence of rail traffic at grade crossings. A passive crossing is a crossing where there are 

no automatic traffic control devices associated with an active crossing warning system and the traffic 

control devices consist entirely of signs and/or markings. 

Warning devices associated with active versus passive crossings include: 

• Active crossings:

o Gates: 

 Two quadrant gate systems 

 Four quadrant gate systems 

 Pedestrian gates

o Bells/Flashing-Light Signals 

 Highway traffic signals, or other activated traffic control device Flashing-Light Signals 

 Bells or wayside horn systems

• Passive crossings:

o Stop or Yield signs

o Crossbuck Assemblies 

o Other signs

o Pavement markings

Figure 3 shows the breakdown of public at-grade crossings by active versus passive. The number of 

public at-grade passive crossings decreased by 12.8 percent from 146,986 in 2010 to 128,153 in 2019. 

This decrease is mostly due to an increase in the number of passive crossings that were closed or 

upgraded to active crossings over that time (see Figure 4). The overall number of passive crossings 

decreased by 19.8 percent from 2010 to 2019, followed by the number of crossings with bells/flashinglight signals at 13.8 percent. The number of crossings with gates experienced the smallest relative 

decline at 3.2 percent.
8 

Figure 3: Inventory of Public, At-Grade Railway-Highway Crossings, Active vs. Passive, 

2010-2019

Data source: FRA GCIS

Figure 4: Inventory of Public, At-Grade Railway-Highway Crossings by Warning Devices, 

2010-2019

Data source: FRA GCIS

3.2 At-Grade Crossing Incidents

From 1989 to 2019, there was overwhelming improvement in railway-highway at-grade crossing safety, 

with the number of incidents reduced by 68.5 percent. However, from 2010 to 2019, there was an

increase/stagnation in the number of incidents, fatalities, and injuries (see Figure 5). Over this 10-year 

51.1% 55.1%

48.9%

44.9%

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Number of Crossings

Active Passive

71,940

57,727

54,226 52,486

20,820 17,940

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Number of Crossings

Passive Gates Bells/Flashing-Light Signals
9 

period the overall number of incidents and fatalities increased by 6.3 percent and 10.1 percent 

respectively, while the overall number of injuries declined by 10.5 percent. 

Figure 5: Public At-Grade Crossing Incident and Casualty Statistics from 1989-2019

Data source: FRA RAIRS database. Data for all highway users includes pedestrians at public at-grade crossings. The data 

does not include reported cases of suicide/attempted suicide.

When normalized with respect to million train miles traveled (TMT)12, the trends for public at-grade 

crossings incidents, injuries and fatalities are similar to the raw incident data shown above (see Figure 

6). Incidents and fatalities per million TMT increased by 10.7 percent and 14.6 percent respectively, 

while the rate of injuries per million TMT decreased by 6.8 percent. When normalized with respect to 

billion vehicle miles traveled (VMT)13 there was a decrease in incidents, injuries, and fatalities rates (3.5

percent, 18.8 percent, and 0.1 percent respectively) from 2010 to 2019 (see Figure 7). 

 

12 Data for train miles traveled was obtained from the FRA Office of Safety Analysis website. Available at 

https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/publicsite/Query/rrstab.aspx (Accessed in March 2020)

13 Data for vehicle miles traveled was obtained from the FHWA Office of Highway Policy Information website. 

Available at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/travel_monitoring/19dectvt/19dectvt.pdf (Accessed in 

March 2020)

5,980

1,771 1,883

748

228 251

2,424

782 700

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019

Number of Incidents and Casualties

Incidents Fatalities Injuries
10

Figure 6: Public At-Grade Crossing Incidents and Casualties per Million Train Miles Traveled, 

2010-2019

Data sources: Crossing incident data from FRA RAIRS database and TMT data from FRA Office of Safety Analysis website. 

Figure 7: Public At-Grade Crossing Incidents and Casualties per Billion Vehicle Miles 

Traveled, 2010-2019

Data sources: Crossing incident data from FRA RAIRS database and VMT from FHWA Office of Highway Policy Information 

website. 

2.51

2.78

0.32 0.37

1.11 1.03

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Rate per Million TMT

Incidents Fatalities Injuries

0.60

0.58

0.08 0.08

0.26

0.21

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Rate per Billion VMT

Incidents Fatalities Injuries
11

3.2.1 Incidents by Crossing Type

The majority of incidents at public at-grade crossings occurred at crossings equipped with gates (see 

Figure 8). The proportion of incidents at crossings equipped with gates increased from 48.7 percent in 

2010 to 55.5 percent in 2019. This may be expected, as the proportion of crossings equipped with gates 

also increased over this period. When normalized by the total number of crossings by type per year, 

crossings equipped with gates had the highest rate of incidents per crossing, followed by crossings 

equipped with bells/flashing-light signals and passive crossings. However, when each crossing type is 

compared evenly in terms of vehicle and train exposure, data shows that passive crossings have the 

highest risk and crossings equipped with gates have the lowest risk (see Figure 9).

Figure 8: Public At-Grade Crossing Incidents by Warning Devices, 2010-2019

Data source: FRA GCIS database

863

1,046

300

222

608 615

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Number of Incidents

Gates Bells/Flashing-Light Signals Passive
12

Figure 9: Incidents by Crossing Type per Crossing per Train per Vehicle, 2010-2019

Data sources: Crossing incident data from FRA RAIRS database and crossing inventory data from FRA GCIS database. 

Number of crossings, trains, and vehicles is based on 2019 crossing inventory data. 

3.2.2 Incidents by Road User Type

Table 1 shows the breakdown of the at-grade crossing incidents at public crossings by highway user.

Table 1: Public At-Grade Crossing Incidents by Highway User, 2010-2019

Vehicle Type 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total Percent 

Personal 

Vehicles 1,258 1,225 1,151 1,205 1,334 1,230 1,192 1,279 1,276 1,317 12,467 70.2%

Auto 852 882 796 858 939 833 817 881 892 943 8693 48.9%

Pick-up truck 260 221 216 219 243 226 212 214 244 209 2264 12.7%

Van 52 47 56 48 54 61 40 49 35 38 480 2.7%

Motorcycle 3 5 6 6 9 7 7 8 6 4 61 0.3%

Other motor 

vehicles 91 70 77 74 89 103 116 127 99 123 969 5.5%

Commercial 

Vehicle 341 384 364 372 414 332 316 333 348 349 3553 20.0%

Truck 103 112 118 131 132 103 82 74 98 94 1047 5.9%

Truck-trailer 234 270 243 239 281 226 231 254 246 249 2473 13.9%

Bus 4 2 3 2 1 3 3 5 4 6 33 0.2%

School bus 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 7 0.0%

Pedestrian 139 112 96 103 124 117 126 137 158 151 1263 7.1%

Other 33 40 39 40 55 55 54 45 49 63 473 2.7%

Total 1,771 1,761 1,651 1,720 1,927 1,735 1,688 1,796 1,831 1,883 17,763 

Data source: FRA RAIRS database.

0.0000000

0.0000050

0.0000100

0.0000150

0.0000200

0.0000250

Gates Bells/Flashing-Light Signals Passive

Incident Rate
13

Personal Vehicles

Over the 10-year period, personal vehicles (i.e. auto, pick-up truck, van, motorcycle, and other motor 

vehicles) accounted for approximately 70 percent of total incidents at public at-grade railway-highway

crossings, but accounted for 65 percent of total injuries and 52 percent of total fatalities. Although 

there was no change in the proportion of incidents involving personal vehicles over this period, a linear 

trend shows an increase in the proportion of injuries involving personal vehicles and a decrease in the 

proportion of fatalities involving personal vehicles.

Commercial Vehicles

Over the 10-year period, commercial vehicles (i.e. truck, truck-trailer, bus, and school bus) accounted for 

about 20 percent of total incidents at railway-highway crossings, but accounted for about 27 percent of 

total injuries and about 9 percent of total fatalities. A linear trend shows a decrease in the proportion of 

both incidents and casualties involving commercial vehicles. Although personal vehicles accounted for a 

higher proportion of incidents than commercial vehicles, commercial vehicles had a higher incident rate 

than personal vehicles when normalized by VMT (see Figure 10).

Figure 10: Public At-Grade Crossing Incident Rate by Highway User Type per Billion VMT, 

2010-2019

Data sources: Crossing incident data from FRA RAIRS database and VMT from FHWA Office of Highway Policy 

Information website. 

Pedestrians

Over the 10-year study period, pedestrian incidents accounted for about 7 percent of all incidents and 

pedestrian injuries accounted for about 6 percent of all injuries. However, despite only accounting for 7 

percent of all incidents, pedestrian fatalities accounted for about 33 percent of all fatalities and have 

increased by almost 20 percent from about 35 percent in 2010 to about 42 percent in 2019 (see Figure 

11). 

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Incident Rate

Personal Vehicles Commercial Vehicles
14

There was a total of 740 pedestrian fatalities over the 10-year study period. Of the total, almost 92 

percent occurred at crossings equipped with gates and almost half of fatalities that occurred at gated 

crossings resulted from pedestrians walking around the gates.

Figure 11: Proportion of Total Public At-Grade Crossing Incidents, Injuries, and Fatalities for 

Pedestrians, 2010-2019

Data source: FRA RAIRS database

3.2.3 Incidents by Motorist Action

Table 2 shows the distribution of incidents at public at-grade railway-highway crossings by motorist 

action immediately prior to an incident, as coded in the RAIRS database. Table 3 shows the distribution 

of fatalities at public at-grade railway-highway crossings by motorist action immediately prior to an 

incident. Motorists who failed to stop at the crossing accounted for the highest number of incidents 

(33.3 percent), followed by motorists who stopped on the crossing (24.9 percent). The number of 

incidents involving motorists who failed to stop at the crossing decreased by 6.4 percent, but incidents 

involving motorists who stopped on the crossing increased by 44.1 percent from 2010 to 2019.

Although incidents involving highway users going around the gates accounted for 16.4 percent of all 

incidents, they accounted for a disproportionately large number of fatalities (35.2 percent). The number 

of fatalities in this group increased by 118 percent from 2010 to 2019. Pedestrian fatalities accounted 

for 41.6 percent of all fatalities involving highway users going around the gates. 

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Percent of Total

Incidents Injuries Fatalities
15

Table 2: Distribution of Public At-Grade Crossing Incidents by Motorist Action, 2010-2019

Motorist Action 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total Percent 

of Total

Did not stop 625 667 603 588 635 562 517 563 575 585 5,920 33%

Stopped on 

crossing 363 426 449 481 548 439 371 371 454 523 4,425 25%

Went around the 

gates* 264 257 238 260 316 255 310 312 334 368 2,914 16%

Other 274 238 211 263 266 293 277 363 264 215 2,664 15%

Stopped and then 

proceeded 107 92 91 71 93 85 114 93 89 81 916 5%

Went thru the 

gate** 0 29 54 50 67 96 95 90 102 98 681 4%

Went around/ 

thru temporary 

barricade**

0 0 1 0 0 4 4 2 9 8 28 0%

Blank 138 52 3 7 2 1 0 2 3 5 215 1%

Total 1,771 1,761 1,651 1,720 1,927 1,735 1,688 1,796 1,831 1,883 17,763

Data source: FRA RAIRS database

* Category name change as of June 1, 2011

** New Motorist Action category; action was not available in RAIRS prior to June 1, 2011

Table 3: Distribution of Public At-Grade Crossing Fatalities by Motorist Action, 2010-2019

Motorist Action 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total

Percent 

of Total

Went around the 

gates* 50 60 61 68 87 81 87 89 96 109 788 35%

Did not stop 65 66 67 66 69 50 55 64 52 51 605 27%

Other 13 23 33 19 25 26 42 47 28 26 282 13%

Stopped on 

crossing 15 18 22 32 35 35 22 17 22 38 256 11%

Stopped and then 

proceeded 6 1 6 5 5 4 14 6 14 10 71 3%

Blank 79 29 2 4 1 1 0 0 4 4 124 6%

Went thru the 

gate** 0 14 8 13 12 12 9 18 16 13 115 5%

Went around/thru 

temporary 

barricade**

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%

Total 228 211 199 207 234 209 229 241 232 251 2,241

Data source: FRA RAIRS database

* Category name change as of June 1, 2011

** New Motorist Action category; action was not available in RAIRS prior to June 1, 2011
16

3.2.4 Incidents by Nearby Intersection

One of the reasons traffic queues at a crossing is due to impacts from the operation of traffic signals at a 

nearby roadway intersection. When the traffic signal turns red downstream from a crossing, vehicles 

may queue past the railroad tracks if traffic signal preemption is not used. Traffic signal preemption 

allows the traffic signal downstream from the crossing to cycle to a green phase when a train is detected

by the crossing train detection circuitry, thus allowing vehicular traffic to clear before the train arrival. 

Table 4 provides the distribution of public at-grade crossings and incidents by proximity to a nearby 

roadway/highway intersection. From 2010 to 2019, crossings nearest to a roadway/highway

intersection had the highest incident rates. 

Table 4: Effect of Nearby Intersection on Public At-Grade Crossing Incident Rate, 2010-2019

Distance to nearby 

Intersecting Highway

Number of Grade 

Crossings

2010-2019 

Incidents

Incidents per 

Crossing

Less than 75 feet 46,412 8,417 0.1814

75 to 200 feet 14,894 2,085 0.1400

200 to 500 feet 9,240 1,361 0.1473

N/A 57,421 5,900 0.1027

Total 127,967 17,763 0.1388

Data source: The FRA GCIS database contains information about distance to the nearest intersection. The 

incident rate was calculated for each group by dividing the number of incidents in that group (from FRA 

RAIRS database) by the number of public at-grade crossing in that group (from the FRA GCIS database).

3.2.5 Incidents by Demographic

Over the 10-year period from 2010 to 2019, approximately 69 percent of the incidents involved male 

drivers and approximately 26 percent involved female drivers. When normalized by VMT, male drivers 

were still almost two times more likely to be involved in at-grade crossing incidents than female drivers.

The majority of the incidents at public at-grade crossings involved individuals between the age of 30 and 

59. When normalized by VMT, young drivers between the age of 16 and 19 had the highest rate of 

incidents, at a rate of 1.49 incidents per billion VMT. 
17

4. Summary of Stakeholder Input

This section summarizes the stakeholder input received from the study sample. The feedback, 

summarized in Table 6, cannot be generalized to the broader population of Section 130 stakeholders.

Table 5: Summary of Stakeholder Input

Topic Area Stakeholder Feedback

1. Experience with the Section 

130 Program requirements 

on railway-highway crossing 

programs and policies

1A. States reported they have the flexibility to develop and design their

Section 130 Programs to address the States’ specific safety context.

1B. Stakeholders reported that the requirement in 23 U.S.C. 130 (e)(1) 

that 50 percent of funds be used for the installation of protective devices 

largely aligns with States’ current crossing safety needs, but may not do so 

in the future as State’s railway-highway crossing safety programs continue 

to mature.

1C. Stakeholders offered that States’ varying interpretation of eligibility 

may limit projects.

2. Flexibility to address current

and emerging railwayhighway crossing safety 

issues 

2A. Stakeholder feedback is that the non-Federal match requirement in 23 

U.S.C. 130(f)(3) may limit project selection.

2B. Stakeholder feedback is that the incentive payment in 23 U.S.C. 

130(i)(3)(B) is too low to encourage communities to close at-grade

railway-highway crossings.

2C. Stakeholders believe that expanding eligibility to education and 

enforcement projects may improve safety outcomes.

2D. States reported data needs, but few use Section 130 funds to support 

data collection.

2E. Stakeholder feedback is that limited funding may restrict States’ ability 

to implement railway-highway grade separation projects. 

2F. States offered that, in their experience, project and contract 

management challenges can contribute to project delays and low 

obligation rates.

2G. Stakeholders reported it can be difficult to measure the effectiveness 

of individual projects.

4.1 Topic Area 1: Stakeholder experience with Section 130 Program 

requirements on State railway-highway crossing programs and policies

1A: States reported they have the flexibility to develop and design their Section 130 

Programs to address the States’ safety context.

States use a variety of methods to measure the relative safety risk of public railway-highway crossings in 

their States – including both quantitative and qualitative assessments. The majority of States 

interviewed use either a hazard index formula or a crash prediction algorithm to prioritize individual 

crossings based on safety or risk of a crossing. They then conduct on-site diagnostic inspections with 
18

safety experts, including representatives from the FHWA Division Office, FRA regional office, public 

utility commission, local public agency, and railroad to evaluate the site’s deficiencies and provide 

recommendations for site safety improvements. Multiple States described the importance of using a 

site diagnostic visit to validate information in their models and to confirm both project ranking and local 

public agency/railroad commitment to the project.

While there is no standard set of criteria that States use to assess the safety or risk of a crossing, 

commonly used criteria include:

• Vehicle and train annual average daily traffic

• Pedestrian activity

• Number and type of railroad tracks existing at the crossing

• Train speed at the crossing

• School bus and/or hazmat vehicle traffic at crossing

• Vehicle's stopping sight distance

• Existing traffic protection devices

• Roadway width

• Horizontal and vertical alignment

• Previous crash rates at the crossing

• Near miss data

Several States noted they engage railroads and/or local public agencies in the project selection process. 

One of the States interviewed described their application-based program where railroads and local 

public agencies apply for Section 130 funding. Based on the applications received, the State DOT 

conducts a benefit-cost analysis to select projects based on the relative impact of improving the railwayhighway crossing in terms of reducing crashes, injuries, and property damage. Alternatively, another 

State DOT first conducts an internal assessment of the State’s public railway-highway crossings by 

applying its hazard index formula. The agency then shares the results with each operating railroad 

company in the State, who in turn nominate projects for funding. 

A review of State Railway-Highway Crossings Program Annual Reports and input provided by the Section 

130 stakeholders revealed that State DOTs vary in how they allocate their Section 130 Program funding. 

Some State DOTs distribute Section 130 Program funds proportionally across the State or among 

railways, while others distribute funds based solely on where the safety need is the greatest. Similarly, 

some States implement fewer, more expensive projects each year, while other States prioritize a larger 

number of low-cost railway-highway crossing safety projects (see Figure 12). 
19

Data source: State Railway-Highway Crossings Program Annual Reports, 2013-2018

While the structure of the Section 130 Program enables States to design a Railway-Highway Crossing 

Safety Program to meet their individual State needs, and it is noted States may choose a more 

conservative approach than Federal minimum requirements, several representatives from Class I

railroads cited inconsistency across States’ programs as a challenge. Some States reported only allowing 

funds to be used for converting passive crossings to active crossings or for crossings that had not 

previously been treated with a Section 130 funded project. In contrast, other States reported they allow 

a holistic evaluation of active crossings to identify ongoing problems. 

1B: Stakeholders reported the requirement that 50 percent of funds be used for the 

installation of protective devices largely aligns with States’ current crossing safety 

needs, but this may not be the case in the future as State’s railway-highway crossing 

safety programs continue to mature. 

Per 23 U.S.C. 130(e)(1), at least half of the Section 130 funding a State receives shall be available for the 

installation of protective devices at railway-highway crossings. Each of the nine States interviewed 

reported they historically spend the majority of their Section 130 funds on the installation of protective 

devices (see Figure 13). However, two States reported that, as their Railway-Highway Crossing programs 

mature, the requirement to use 50 percent of funds on the installation of protective devices limits the 

flexibility of the types of projects the State can implement. 

Figure 12: Average Number and Cost of Projects per Year
20

Figure 13: Total Number of Projects by Project Type, 2013-2018

Data source: State Railway-Highway Crossings Program Annual Reports, 2013-2018

One State noted that its Railway-Highway Crossing Program has had success with installing signals at 

many of its high priority locations. That State noted it has started, in more recent years, to consider 

larger, holistic projects, such as preemption projects and/or improvement to roadway geometry, to 

improve the safety of railway-highway crossings and reduce fatalities. Similarly, a second State reported 

that the State’s remaining passive crossings may not benefit from active warning systems. That State 

reported it has shifted its focus from installing protective devices to updating obsolete equipment that 

cause safety issues. That State also noted they had not been able to pursue geometric improvement 

projects due to the requirement that 50 percent of funds be used for the installation of protective 

devices. 

Focus group participants and conference participants provided similar feedback. Stakeholders noted 

that crossings with active warning devices often continue to have high numbers of incidents, but 

program requirements and selection metrics tend to drive projects to passive sites. Stakeholders 

offered that, in order for States to continue achieving safety goals, a greater proportion of Section 130 

funding may be needed for projects that go beyond protective devices. Focus group participants noted 

the 50 percent requirement may limit States’ ability to pursue certain types of high-cost, yet high-impact 

projects, such as projects to make site improvements, construct grade separations, or install traffic 

signal preemption systems along a corridor. In one State, for example, a single project to improve the 

vertical alignment of a crossing profile could cost several million dollars, which, in many cases, is more 

than a State’s entire Section 130 Program annual allocation. However, focus group participants 

cautioned that without the 50 percent requirement, Section 130 funding could be aimed at operational 

improvements, such as surface improvement projects targeted more on ride quality rather than safety 

improvements; therefore, focus group participants suggested eligible activities should also be clarified. 

3

6

7

10

11

11

12

19

37

41

1,074 

0 400 800 1200

Not recorded

Roadway geometry improvement

Active equipment & roadway geometry improvement

Crossing approach improvement

Crossing inventory update

Grade crossing elimination

Visibility/lighting improvement

Crossing closure incentive payment

Crossing warning sign & pavement marking improvement

Crossing surface improvement

Install/upgrade active grade crossing equipment

Number of projects
21

1C: Stakeholders offered that States’ varying interpretation of eligibility may limit

projects. 

Railroad representatives perceived that States’ prioritization of projects to install active railway-highway

crossing equipment was due in part to the State DOT’s interpretation of the statute. Title 23 U.S.C. 

130(e)(1)(B) states, “At least 1⁄2 of the funds set aside each fiscal year under subparagraph (A) shall be 

available for the installation of protective devices at railway-highway crossings”. 

As noted previously, crossings with active warning devices often continue to have a higher number of 

incidents. Stakeholders reported that crossings with active warning devices may eventually need 

additional safety measures, such as site modifications to further improve safety. However, railroad 

representatives noted, in their experience, some States do not allow Section 130 funds to be used on 

crossings that have been improved previously using Section 130 funds. Stakeholders also reported that 

States may vary in allowing Section 130 funds to be used to replace functionally obsolete warning 

devices. They conveyed that while some States have purposely chosen to prioritize their program in this 

way, in other instances States may have misinterpreted Federal-aid requirements regarding 

maintenance to preclude use of funding on railway-highway crossings that have been improved 

previously using Section 130 funds or on replacement of functionally obsolete equipment for safety 

reasons.

4.2 Topic Area 2: Feedback from stakeholders on flexibility to address 

current and emerging railway-highway crossing safety issues

2A: Stakeholder feedback is that the non-federal match requirement may limit 

project selection. 

In accordance with 23 U.S.C. 130(f)(3), Section 130 projects are funded at a 90 percent Federal share. 

Seven of the nine States interviewed reported that the requirement of a 10 percent non-Federal match 

impacts the projects selected for funding. These States remarked that the 90 percent share for railwayhighway crossing safety projects makes it challenging to target safety investments by the locations most 

in need and not be affected by a locality’s ability to contribute funding or feel obliged to focus on the 

lowest cost projects.

Four of the States interviewed reported the requirement for the 10 percent match limits their ability to 

fund projects on local roads, particularly those that are smaller and more rural. Representatives from 

these four States noted that as their programs have matured, more of the State highways have active 

warning systems, and therefore, many of their remaining crossing safety needs are located in smaller 

and more rural municipalities and counties. Representatives from these four States surmised that these 

local agencies often do not have the financial resources to contribute the required 10 percent match. 

Based on a review of State data, the average cost for a project to install active railway-highway crossing

equipment is approximately $300,000;

14 the local agency contribution required could be as much as 

$30,000. One State reported that because many local public agencies in their State do not have the 

funding to provide the 10 percent match, the number of railway-highway crossing safety projects 

implemented has fallen. A review of State Railway-Highway Crossings Program Annual Reports also 

showed this trend across several other States; in one case, the number of projects have fallen from 20-

30 projects to 5 projects per year.

 

14 Based on the analysis of the State Railway-Highway Crossings Program annual reports the average cost for a 

project to install active grade crossing equipment across the nine sample states was $323,000.
22

Three of the States interviewed expressed concern that the 10 percent match requirement reduces the 

effectiveness of the State’s data driven safety program, as project selection decisions are driven, in part, 

by a locality’s ability to contribute the 10 percent match and not purely on crash risk. One State 

reported instances where the local officials did not concur that a specific crossing needed to be 

upgraded, and requested that another crossing with much less crash risk be improved instead. 

Focus group and conference participants provided similar feedback, noting some States have a State 

legislative requirement that State funds can only be used as a match for projects on State routes, 

whereas stakeholders report the majority of project needs in a State may be on locally owned county 

roads. Another State reported that its Section 130 Program largely funds the installation of signs and 

pavement markings because local agencies are more likely to be able to afford the 10 percent match 

contribution for these types of low-cost projects. 

Two of the States interviewed stated they did not find that the 10 percent match requirement limits 

project selection; these States have small programs and they reported they have the ability to use State 

funds to provide the non-Federal match on both State and local roads. Similarly, focus group 

participants that did not view the 10 percent match requirement as impacting project selection reported 

they used State funding or railroad funds to cover the required match. 

While many stakeholders noted the challenges created by the 10 percent match requirement, some 

stakeholders noted benefits to the match requirement. In their experience, when local public agencies 

and/or railroads provide funding, it may demonstrate their commitment to the project and to keeping it 

on schedule. 

2B: Stakeholder feedback is that the incentive payment is too low to encourage 

communities to close at-grade railway-highway crossings. 

The amount of the incentive payment for at-grade crossing closures is limited to $7,500 per 23 U.S.C. 

(i)(3)(B). Six of the nine States interviewed reported they have made an incentive payment to a local 

government to close an at-grade railway-highway crossing. However, the States noted that in their 

experience, the Section 130 incentive rarely influences the local agency’s decision to close the crossing. 

States noted that because at-grade railway-highway crossing closures typically require roadway 

improvements and the rerouting of traffic, closure projects can be expensive. Seven of the nine States 

interviewed reported the $7,500 limit, per 23 U.S.C. 130(i)(3)(B), is insufficient to encourage 

municipalities to close at-grade railway-highway crossings. In their experience, the railroads often 

contribute a larger incentive payment, which for some Class I railroads is a minimum of $20,000, and 

may be a stronger factor in influencing a municipality’s decision to close an at-grade railway-highway

crossing. 

Several States noted that being able to offer a larger incentive payment, particularly in rural areas, may 

make a difference in encouraging more at-grade railway-highway crossing closures in their State. 

However, States also acknowledged that more funding for incentive payments may not necessarily lead 

to more at-grade railway-highway crossing closures, particularly in cases where they have experienced a 

lack of political support or in cases where there may be community opposition to closing a crossing.

Focus group and conference participants provided similar feedback. 

2C: Stakeholders find it challenging to provide education and enforcement with 

limited funding.

Seven of the nine States interviewed reported that the limitations on the use of Section 130 funds 

prevents funds being expended on education and enforcement strategies, such as concentrated 
23

enforcement events at priority at-grade railway-highway crossings (traffic enforcement activities at a 

railway-highway crossing are currently eligible for HSIP funding per 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(4)(B)(vii)). Nearly all 

States interviewed confirmed they are active in Operation Lifesaver, Inc., a non-profit organization 

focused on rail safety education. They report State participation in their State’s Operation Lifesaver 

Program is typically supported through State funds.15 Several States also noted that having additional 

funding to support safety education campaigns would be beneficial to their railway-highway crossing

safety programs. 

Eight of the nine States interviewed agreed that Section 130 funding challenges included not being able 

to fund activities to reduce illegal trespassing, including education and engineering treatments, such as 

scale-proof fencing within a defined distance of a crossing. The stakeholders also noted there could be 

liability concerns associated with trespassing, including questions of who is responsible for maintaining 

trespass prevention treatments. 

Focus group and conference participants also noted that Section 130 funds did not provide flexibility to 

address driver/pedestrian behavior, which they report is often the root cause of railway-highway

crossing incidents, including implementing education strategies, installing traveler information systems 

up/downstream of railway-highway crossings, or implementing trespassing prevention strategies, such 

as installing fencing within a specified distance from a public crossing.

Focus group participants suggested that any activities that Section 130 Program funds could be used 

on should be balanced with oversight measures to ensure that use of the funding remains focused on 

improving safety at railway-highway crossings. 

2D: States reported data needs, but few use Section 130 funds to support data 

collection.

States depend on accurate data to effectively evaluate rail crossings and prioritize railway-highway

crossing safety projects. States reported that they primarily use funding sources other than the Section 

130 Program, such as general administrative funds, State funds, or multimodal funds, to cover data 

collection efforts. States reported two primary reasons for doing so:

• The 2 percent of Section 130 funds per 23 U.S.C. 130(k)16 that can be used for data collection

may equate in some States to a very small amount of funding (in some cases, less than 

$30,000); therefore, States feel it may not be worth the staff time and effort to pursue a 

Federal-aid project for data collection. 

• States said they were either unaware of or unclear on what types of data collection activities 

may be eligible for Section 130 funding under 23 U.S.C. 130(k), which has resulted in 

inconsistencies across States regarding what activities they may have considered eligible.

Two of the States that reported using Section 130 funds to support data collection noted the amount of 

Section 130 funding available was insufficient to meet their needs. Both States noted the importance of 

having current and accurate data to effectively assess hazards and risks as part of their State programs. 

One State reported they have a high number of crossings and are only able to inventory a small 

percentage of crossings each year due to a lack of other funding; inventorying all crossings at its current 

 

15 FHWA contributes approximately $510,000 each year to the national Operation Lifesaver Program through a 5-

year cooperative agreement. 

16 23 U.S.C. 130(k) states, “Not more than 2 percent of funds apportioned to a State to carry out this section may 

be used by the State for compilation and analysis of data in support of activities carried out under subsection (g).”
24

rate could take that State over 5 years utilizing the allowed 2 percent Section 130 funding for data 

collection. The second State shared they have a smaller number of crossings, but receive less overall 

Section 130 funding as a result. That State noted it has been working on developing a mobile 

application to streamline and improve data collection in the field. That State noted that the smaller 

amount of funding for data collection presents challenges to completing the mobile application 

development as quickly as they would like and to creating data collection enhancements to support local 

agencies with submitting railway-highway crossing data to the FRA National Crossing Inventory.

Per 23 U.S.C 130(l), States are required to report current information on railway-highway crossings to 

FRA for the FRA National Crossing Inventory. States confirmed they use the data in the FRA National 

Crossing Inventory to inform funding decisions as part of their State programs. Several of the States 

interviewed, as well as focus group participants, cited the quality of data in the FRA National Crossing 

Inventory may be a challenge, noting that in their experience, some of the data is outdated or missing. 

Focus group participants cited several issues that they feel may impact the accuracy of the data, 

including difficulty with inputting data via the FRA GCIS. 

Stakeholders routinely identified one piece of data – close call/near miss reporting – as a key input that 

they feel could help in assessing crossing hazards and risks. Stakeholders shared that some Class I

railroads provide this data to the State DOTs, but in their experience, it may not be not consistent across 

all railroads or all States. One State DOT also cited the age of warning device circuitry as a data need. A 

representative from the railroad industry cited experience with inaccurate traffic counts as an issue, 

noting it may not be possible to effectively evaluate crossing conditions without accurate, up-to-date 

traffic volume numbers.

2E: Stakeholder feedback is that limited funding may restrict States’ ability to 

implement grade separation projects.

Several stakeholders noted that having a dedicated funding source is critical to their ability to 

implement railway-highway crossing safety projects; without the dedicated funding, they feel such 

projects may likely not be possible. 

Four of the nine States interviewed noted that their railway-highway crossing safety needs outpace 

available funding. One State noted that the amount of funding the State receives has not kept pace with 

the increasing costs they have experienced of certain railway-highway crossing improvement projects, 

such as preemption projects and projects to improve a roadway’s geometry. Another State noted it 

needs five times the amount of funding it currently receives in order to address its volume of railwayhighway crossings on medium density rail lines. While States reported they would like to have more 

funding to improve railway-highway crossings, States were clear that they did not want this funding to 

decrease the amount of HSIP funding each State receives. 

The majority of States interviewed also noted a lack of funding as an impediment to grade separation 

projects. States repeatedly indicated that one of the most effective strategies to improve safety is to 

reduce the number of at-grade railway-highway crossings, either through crossing closures or grade 

separation projects. However, because grade separation projects are generally more expensive, only 

three of the nine States interviewed have used Section 130 funding to construct grade separation 

projects over the past 5 years. Several States noted that one grade separation project would cost more 

than their annual Section 130 funding allocation, while other States estimate they would have to pool 

funding over several years in order to have enough funding for one grade separation project. To ensure 

funds do not lapse, States are encouraged to maximize their annual obligation rates. However, in doing 

so, States may have difficulty pooling funds over several years to fund grade separation projects. 
25

2F: Stakeholders offered that, in their experience, project and contract management 

challenges may contribute to project delays and low obligation rates.

Interviewees identified potential project and contract management issues that contribute to project 

delays. Challenges raised include: 

• Coordination with railroads: Numerous State DOT staff identified coordination challenges with 

the railroads as a common reason for delays in Section 130 funding authorizations. 

Interviewees noted that in recent years, they feel railroads have been slower to respond to 

State DOT initiated projects. The State DOT staff also reported delays in receiving the railroads’ 

final billing, which in turn delays their State from closing out the project. 

Railroad representatives also cited coordination challenges with the transportation agencies. 

These railroad representatives feel State DOTs may lack a clear understanding of railroad 

procedures and may not engage railroad companies early enough in the project development 

process. In their experience, these issues make it challenging for the railroad to develop realistic 

project cost estimates.

One State DOT noted that language in 23 CFR 646 impacts the States’ ability to work with some 

railroads on cost share. Language in 23 CFR 646.210(b)(1) regarding the classification of projects 

and railroad share of the cost, states: 

Projects for grade crossing improvements are deemed to be of no ascertainable net 

benefit to the railroads and there shall be no required railroad share of the costs. 

The State DOT indicated that they have experience with some railroads who cite this language 

when being asked to partner with the State DOT to fund railway-highway crossing safety 

projects. The State DOT responded that they feel railway-highway crossing improvement 

projects benefit the railroad by increasing safety on both the railway and highway, and by 

reducing risks of delays and other monetary impacts associated with railway-highway crossing

incidents. 

• Contract management challenges: Numerous stakeholders cite contracting requirements as a 

possible impediment to efficiently delivering low-cost railway-highway crossing projects, such as 

projects to install warning signs and pavement markings. The State DOTs conveyed it can be 

difficult in their experience to get contractors to respond to a competitive bid for low-cost 

projects. Several States reported that because of the competitive bid process, it can take up to 

24 months to deliver straightforward projects to install active traffic control devices. The State 

DOTs also noted that in their experience, local public agencies may be unfamiliar with 

contracting requirements, which can contribute to project delays. 

2G: Stakeholders reported it can be difficult to measure the effectiveness of individual 

railway-highway crossing projects.

Per 23 U.S.C. 130(g), States are required to submit annual reports on the progress of implementing their 

railway-highway crossings program and the effectiveness of such improvements. Universally, 

stakeholders highlighted their challenges with measuring the effectiveness of individual railway-highway

crossing safety projects. Most States reported that they usually evaluate the effectiveness of completed 

projects by comparing before and after crash rates. States also commonly reported using trend analysis 

of fatalities and serious injuries related to public railway-highway crossings statewide or along rail lines 

to evaluate the effectiveness of the Section 130 Program as a whole. States acknowledged that these 
26

evaluation methods may have limited utility, since collisions at railway-highway crossings may be 

infrequent events. 

In addition to the individual State evaluation efforts, FHWA analyzes and reports national crash trends, 

including rates of crashes per train miles and vehicle miles traveled, as part of its biennial report to 

Congress. 
27

5. Conclusion 

While crashes at railway-highway crossings represent a small percentage of highway traffic fatalities on 

the public roadway transportation system, they account for one of the leading causes of railroad-related 

deaths. The Section 130 Program provides States with a dedicated funding source to support railwayhighway crossing improvements. Without this dedicated funding source, stakeholders note railwayhighway safety projects may have to compete for funding against other safety needs, and as a result, 

fewer such projects may be implemented. 

5.1 Crash Trends and Effective Practices 

The nationwide incident data trend analysis reveals several issues that have contributed to the 

continuing crossing safety problem. The following section identifies factors that are associated with 

crashes and the types of projects that would potentially be effective in eliminating those crashes.

Crossing closure and grade separation

Eliminating an at-grade railway-highway crossing, by either closing the crossing so that no highway user 

is allowed to cross the tracks or replacing the at-grade crossing with a grade separated facility, provides 

the highest level of crossing safety. Guidelines and industry best practices for railway-highway crossing 

consolidation are documented in several publications, including:

• FRA’s Railway-highway Grade Crossings – A Guide to Crossing Consolidation and Closure.

17

• AASHTO’s Highway Rail Crossing Elimination and Consolidation.

18

• FRA’s Crossing Consolidation Guidelines. 19

• FRA’s Effect of Grade Separation on Pedestrian Railroad Trespass Activity at Shuttlesworth Drive 

in Collegeville, AL. 20

While closing or grade separating railway-highway crossings provide the greatest safety benefits to road 

users, such projects may not always be possible due to local opposition or funding limitations. The 

following provides information on other treatments and effective practices to reduce incidents at

railway-highway crossings. 

Passive crossings

Passive public at-grade railway-highway crossings have the highest incident rate when normalized by the 

number of trains and vehicles that traverse those crossings. Passive crossings may not be equipped with 

active devices if low levels of rail and roadway traffic do not justify their installation or due to other 

factors considered in a State’s Railway-Highway Crossing Improvement Program. A recent FRAsponsored research effort investigated the suitability of non-track-circuit-based technologies as a cost-

 

17 FRA. July 1994. Highway-Rail Grade Crossings – A Guide to Crossing Consolidation and Closure. Available at 

https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/highway-railroad-grade-crossings-guide-crossing-consolidation-and-closure

18 AASHTO. March 1995. Highway Rail Crossing Elimination and Consolidation. Available at 

https://trid.trb.org/view/573825

19 FRA. July 2009. Crossing Consolidation Guidelines. Available at https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/40241

20 FRA. May 2019. Effect of Grade Separation on Pedestrian Railroad Trespass Activity at Shuttlesworth Drive in 

Collegeville, AL. Available at https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/40278
28

effective means to deploy active warning devices at passive railway-highway grade crossings.

21 One of 

the major findings of that study was that there was a subset of existing passive crossings that contain 

the largest proportion of risk for these types of crossings, and that upgrading those to active warning 

devices could potentially decrease the overall risk. A result from that study indicated a decrease in 198 

total yearly incidents if 957 passive crossings were upgraded to gates with flashing lights.

Low-cost treatments can also be used to increase safety at passive railway-highway crossings. One such 

example is the use of LED-enhanced signage at passive crossings, which is already permitted in FHWA’s 

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)22 and has been studied in the field.

23 Maintenance 

of pavement markings, signage, and cleared vegetation for increased sight distance are other effective 

practices to enhance conspicuity of passive crossings and improve sight lines. 

Commercial vehicles

Over the 10-year period, commercial vehicles accounted for about 20 percent of total incidents at 

railway-highway crossings, but accounted for about 27 percent of total injuries and about 9 percent of 

total fatalities. In addition, commercial vehicles had a higher incident rate than personal vehicles when 

normalized by VMT. 

Appropriate signage can be an effective practice to address commercial vehicle safety at railwayhighway crossings. The FHWA’s MUTCD establishes standards for the use of signage as traffic control for 

railroad and light rail transit grade crossings. In accordance with Section 8B.24 of the MUTCD,

23 a 

Storage Space (W10-11) sign supplemented by a word message storage distance (W10-11a) sign should 

be used where there is a highway intersection in close proximity to the at-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. 

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has a nationwide educational campaign targeting 

drivers, motor carriers and users of commercial motor vehicles. 24 

Pedestrians

While pedestrians were involved in only 7 percent of all public at-grade railway-highway crossing 

incidents, pedestrian fatalities accounted for about 33 percent of all fatalities and have been steadily 

increasing over the 10-year period. Pedestrians comprised about 42 percent of the total public at-grade 

crossing fatalities in 201925 (see Figure 11). In addition, almost 92 percent occurred at railway-highway

crossings equipped with gates and almost half of fatalities that occurred at gated crossings resulted from 

pedestrians walking around the gates.

Attention to pedestrian issues at railway-highway crossings has been increasing, and novel solutions are 

being sought. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has published numerous reports that 

 

21 FRA. December 2019. Analysis of Non-Track-Circuit Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Train Detection Technologies. 

Available at https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/42916

22 FHWA. May 2012. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Available at 

https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/pdf_index.htm

23 FRA. February 2016. Evaluation of LED Sign Technology at a Passive Highway-Rail Grade Crossing. Available at 

https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/12279

24 FMSCA. Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety. Available at https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety/railcrossing/highway-rail-grade-crossing-safety

25 FRA RAIRS database.
29

document different pedestrian warning devices and treatments installed at railway-highway crossings 

across the country:

• FRA’s Compilation of Pedestrian Safety Devices in Use at Grade Crossings26

• FRA’s Engineering Design for Pedestrian Safety at Railway-highway Grade Crossings27

• FRA’s Effect of Gate Skirts on Pedestrian Behavior at Railway-highway Grade Crossings28

• FHWA’s Pedestrian Safety Guide for Transit Agencies29

Effective treatments include, but are not limited to: pedestrian channelization improvements, gate 

skirts, low-rise signals, pavement markings, innovative signage, swing gates, and second train warning 

signs. In addition to information on specific engineering treatments aimed at improving pedestrian 

safety at at-grade railway-highway crossings, FRA also has published guidance on the use of a risk-based 

hazard analysis methodology to evaluate pedestrian crossing safety at or near passenger stations.

30

Highway users stopping on the crossing

Over the 10-year period, the number of incidents involving highway users who stopped on the crossing 

increased by 44.1 percent from 2010 to 2019. The analysis revealed that the presence of 

roadway/highway intersections in close proximity to crossings are a significant factor increasing the risk 

of vehicles stopping on the tracks.

Effective practices to address highway-users stopped on the crossing include, but are not limited to: 

• Use of LED-enhanced versions of grade crossing R8-8 signs that read “DO NOT STOP ON 

TRACKS.”31 

• Use of dynamic envelope pavement markings to delineate the area around at-grade railroad 

crossings where vehicles should not stop. Florida has launched a 2-year, $60 million program to 

install dynamic envelope pavement marking at more than 4,000 grade crossings.32 

• Use of traffic signal preemption at active crossings in close proximity to nearby intersections. 

Traffic signal preemption allows the traffic signal downstream from the crossing to cycle to 

green when a train is detected by the crossing train detection circuitry, thus allowing potential 

 

26 FRA. January 2008. Compilation of Pedestrian Devices in use at Grade Crossings. Available at 

https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/compilation-pedestrian-safety-devices-use-grade-crossings

27FRA. June 2016. Engineering Design for Pedestrian Safety at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings. Available at 

https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/12306

28 FRA. December 2013. Effect of Gate Skirts on Pedestrian Behavior at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings. Available at 

https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/11997

29 FHWA. February 2008. Pedestrian Safety Guide for Transit Agencies. Available at 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/ped_transit/ped_transguide/transit_guide.pdf

30 FRA. April 2012. Guidance on Pedestrian Crossing Safety at or Near Passenger Stations. Available at 

https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/guidance-pedestrian-crossing-safety-or-near-passenger-stations

31 FRA. June 2019. Effectiveness of LED-Enhanced Signs in Reducing Incidents of Vehicles Stopping on Tracks. 

Available at https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/41694

32 Florida DOT. December 5, 2019. FDOT Secretary Directs Unprecedented Rail Safety Measures, Launches 

Statewide Education Initiative. https://fdotwww.blob.core.windows.net/sitefinity/docs/defaultsource/info/co/news/newsreleases/12052019-rail-safety.pdf?sfvrsn=f58dd329_2
30

vehicular traffic to clear before the train arrival. As noted in the MUTCD,

33 current guidance is 

to consider installing pre-signals to control traffic approaching the crossing if the crossing is 

within 50 feet of the intersection, provide preemption where a traffic signal is within 200 feet of 

a crossing, and to consider other alternatives including queue detection at locations where the 

intersection is located over 200 feet from the crossing. 

Railroads have been collaborating with route planning companies to include railway-highway crossing 

information in mapping applications in order to provide real-time safety information to drivers. In 2018, 

the Long Island Railroad initiated a pilot project with Waze to alert motorists using the app that they are 

approaching an at-grade railway-highway crossing.34 In 2019, Norfolk Southern partnered with Waze to 

increase driver safety around crossing in parts of Georgia.35 

Highway users going around gates

Although incidents involving highway users (both pedestrians and motorists) going around lowered 

gates accounted for 16.4 percent of all railway-highway crossing incidents, they accounted for a 

disproportionately large number of fatalities (35.2 percent). The number of fatalities in this group 

increased by 118 percent from 50 in 2010 to 109 in 2019.

Engineering treatments designed to prevent motorists from driving around lowered gates at at-grade 

railway-highway crossings include the use of median separation, such as delineators, barriers, raised 

curbs, or four-quadrant gate systems. Information about the use of traffic channelizing devices at 

railway-highway grade crossings has been documented in several publications, including:

• The Railway-highway Crossing Handbook - Third Edition36

• FRA’s Use of Traffic Channelization Devices at Railway-highway Grade Crossings37

• FRA’s Driver Behavior at Highway-Railroad Grade Crossings: A Literature Review from 1990–

200638

Numerous law enforcement strategies focused on the enforcement of traffic safety laws at railwayhighway grade crossings have shown to be effective at mitigating crossing risk39,40. Such strategies 

 

33 See footnote 23.

34 Metropolitan Transportation Authority. June 6, 2018. LIRR Partners with Waze for Railroad Crossing Safety 

Initiative. Available at http://www.mta.info/news/2018/06/06/lirr-partners-waze-railroad-crossing-safetyinitiative

35 Norfolk Southern. Norfolk Southern Harness Mobile App to Save Lives at Rail Crossings. Available at 

http://pulling-together.com/georgia/

36 FHWA. July 2019. Highway-Rail Crossing Handbook, 3rd Edition. Available at 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/xings/com_roaduser/fhwasa18040/

37 FRA. August 2012. Use of Traffic Channelization Devices at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings. Available at 

https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/9656

38 FRA. October 2008. Driver Behavior at Highway-Railroad Grade Crossings: A Literature Review from 1990-2006. 

Available at https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/8929

39 FRA. June 2019. Law Enforcement Strategies for Mitigation Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Risk Factors. Available 

at https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/41816

40 FRA. June 2019. Long-Term Effect of Photo Enforcement-Based Education on Vehicle Driver Behavior at a 

Highway-Rail Grade Crossing. Available at https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/40785
31

include the use of photo enforcement technologies (where allowed), concentrated rail safety 

enforcement during major events, and officer education. 

5.2 Stakeholder Feedback

Stakeholder input on the Section 130 Program highlights areas that may impact the effectiveness of the 

program. Stakeholders reported several factors that may limit States’ ability to implement safety 

projects beyond protective devices, such as projects to construct grade separations, install traffic signal 

preemption systems along a corridor, or implement safety education and enforcement projects aimed at 

addressing driver behavior. Stakeholders also identified challenges regarding funding projects in certain 

localities, particularly those that are smaller and more rural.

The following outlines areas that may be addressed through continued and expanded outreach and 

education. 

Continue to share noteworthy practices among practitioners. Stakeholder input reveals the 

structure of the Section 130 Program provides States with flexibility to develop and design a RailwayHighway Crossing Safety Program to address their State’s own safety needs. The FHWA Office of Safety 

routinely develops resources and provides opportunities for railway-highway crossing practitioners to 

share notable practices associated with designing and administering the Section 130 Program. 

Stakeholders suggested FHWA continue to compile and promote noteworthy practices and facilitate 

opportunities for peer-to-peer information sharing to enable practitioners to develop the knowledge, 

skills, and abilities to implement effective grade crossing safety programs. Stakeholders identified topics 

of interest including: 

• Project prioritization formula/project selection process. 

• Coordination between State DOT and railroads. 

• Conducting diagnostic reviews. 

• Grade crossing inventory development and data management. 

• Safety benefits of new and innovative improvements.

Clarify Section 130 Program requirements through enhanced education. Railway-highway

crossing stakeholders highlighted several areas that they feel could benefit from being clarified, 

including: 

• Eligibility of using Section 130 funds on railway-highway crossing locations that were previously 

improved with Section 130 funds. 

• Eligibility of Federal-aid requirements for upgrading/replacing obsolete railway-highway crossing 

equipment. 

• Pedestrian crossing treatments. 

• Alternative contracting methods to streamline the delivery of Section 130 projects. 

• Use of Section 130 funds for compilation and analysis of data, including examples of eligible 

activities.

Encourage use of additional data to measure project effectiveness and share information 

on project effectiveness results. Stakeholders report the low crash rates in individual States makes 

it difficult for States’ to evaluate the effectiveness of railway-highway crossing safety projects. 
32

Stakeholders suggested DOT encourage data sharing between railroads and State DOTs and encourage 

the improvement of the quality of data to inform a State’s evaluation of project effectiveness. 

Stakeholders also cited a need for sharing research on the types of projects that are most effective at 

addressing the causes of railway-highway casualties and the continued sharing of noteworthy practices 

nationwide. 
33

Appendix A: Stakeholder Input Approach

Stakeholder Interviews

Between May 2019 and December 2019, the project team conducted in-depth, semi-structured 

telephone interviews with staff from nine States. See Table 7 for a complete list of agencies 

interviewed. 

Table 6: List of Interviewees

Agency Date of Interview

Federal Agencies

FHWA Montana Division May 20, 2019

FHWA Colorado Division May 29, 2019

FHWA Wisconsin Division May 30, 2019

FHWA Indiana Division June 3, 2019

FHWA Vermont Division August 1, 2019

FHWA California Division August 2, 2019

FHWA Iowa Division September 13, 2019

FHWA Maine Division September 27, 2019

FHWA Florida Division October 3, 2019

FRA Region 1 November 8, 2019

FRA Region 3, 4, 5, and 7 December 11, 2019

State Agencies

Indiana Department of Transportation June 4, 2019

Colorado Department of Transportation June 10, 2019

Montana Department of Transportation June 13, 209

Colorado Public Utility Commission July 3, 2019

Wisconsin Department of Transportation July 23, 2019

California Public Utility Commission August 14, 2019

California Department of Transportation August 22, 2019

Vermont Agency of Transportation September 4, 2019

Iowa Department of Transportation September 18, 2019

Maine Department of Transportation October 9, 2019

Florida Department of Transportation November 7, 2019
34

Private/Industry Groups41

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) October 2, 2019

BNSF Railway October 4, 2019

Association of American Railroads (AAR) October 9, 2019

American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA) October 18, 2019

Focus Groups

The project team conducted two focus groups. The focus groups were held in conjunction with the 

FHWA Section 130 Program Peer Exchanges sponsored by the FHWA Office of Safety’s Roadway Safety 

Professional Capacity Building Program. The first focus group, which was held on July 30, 2019, in 

Baltimore, Maryland, involved representatives from 10 State DOTs and 5 FHWA Division Offices. The 

second focus group, which was held on September 10, 2019, in Nashville, Tennessee, involved 

representatives from 12 State DOTs, 1 State rail commission, and 4 FHWA Division Offices. See Table 8 

for a complete list of focus group participants. 

Table 7: Focus Group Participants

Focus Group 1 Participants Focus Group 2 Participants

Connecticut Department of Transportation Alabama Department of Transportation

Idaho Transportation Department Arkansas Department of Transportation

Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Georgia Department of Transportation

Maryland State Highway Administration Illinois Department of Transportation

Mississippi Department of Transportation Kansas Department of Transportation

Montana Department of Transportation Louisiana Department of Transportation and 

Development 

Nevada Department of Transportation Nebraska Department of Transportation

New Hampshire Department of Transportation North Carolina Department of Transportation

New Jersey Department of Transportation Ohio Rail Development Commission

Utah Department of Transportation Oklahoma Department of Transportation

FHWA Idaho Division Office Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

 

41 The project team requested an interview with a second Class I railroad but did not receive a response.
35

FHWA Maryland Division Office Tennessee Department of Transportation

FHWA Massachusetts Division Office Texas Department of Transportation

FHWA Mississippi Division Office FHWA Arkansas Division Office 

FHWA New Hampshire Division Office FHWA Illinois Division Office 

FHWA Louisiana Division Office 

FHWA Tennessee Division Office

Interactive Conference Sessions

In July 2019, the project team had a booth during the National Safety Engineer Peer Exchange 

Collaboration Corner held in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Nearly 200 people attended the event; 

participants included transportation safety staff from 48 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto 

Rico, and staff from FHWA and AASHTO. 

On August 20, 2019, the project team led an interactive session and had a booth at the National 

Railway-highway Grade Crossing Safety Conference to collect input from conference participants. There 

were over 250 conference participants representing a wide variety of DOT modal agencies, State DOTs, 

State public utility commissions, transit agencies, Class I railroads, short line railroads, universities, 

consulting firms, and rail safety non-profit organizations. 

Interview Guide

The interview guide was designed to address each topic area. The project team tailored the specific 

questions to the relevant stakeholder group. A subset of the questions (those marked with *) were used 

to facilitate discussions at the focus groups and the interactive conference session. 

Project Selection 

1. Please describe the process you use to identify, evaluate, and select projects to fund using 

Section 130 funds. 

a. What factors do you consider when selecting projects?

2. Do your coordinate with the HSIP manager to identify/select projects? 

3. How do you coordinate with stakeholders – including local agencies and rail companies – to 

identify and select projects? 

Impact of Program Requirements

In the next series of questions, we want to discuss the Section 130 Program requirements and how each 

helps or hinders your State’s ability to address its railway-highway crossing safety issues. 

4. How does the 10 percent match requirement influence project selection?*

a. What funds do you use to provide the 10 percent for Section 130 projects? 

b. Are there State-dedicated funding programs that supplement 130 funding? 
36

5. How does the program requirement that 50 percent of funds be used for the installation of 

protective devices impact project selection?* 

6. How does the program’s limitation on the amount of funding that can be used to incentivize 

at-grade railway-highway crossing closures impact project selection?* 

7. Do you use any of the Section 130 funds to support inventory improvements or to develop a 

State Action Plan?

a. Is the 2 percent ceiling on use of Section 130 funds to compile and analyze data to 

support the reporting requirements sufficient to meet State’s needs or would you like 

the ability to invest more?* 

8. What specific aspects of the Section 130 Program are most helpful to your States’ ability to 

address current and emerging railway-highway crossing safety issues?

9. What challenges does your agency experience with pursuing certain types of innovative 

and/or expensive projects?

10. Were there any crossing safety projects that you wanted to implement but could not because 

of limitations in the Section 130 Program? If yes, describe.*

11. Are there other types of projects beyond engineering (i.e. enforcement, education, trespass 

mitigation) that your agency has identified to improve the safety of railway-highway 

crossings? 

a. For States with a State Action Plan, are there any strategies in the plan that are not 

covered by Section 130 funds?

12. If the only limitation in the Section 130 Program were that the funds had to be used to 

improve crossing safety, would your program be any different? If yes, in what way?* 

13. Has your State used HSIP funds to implement railway-highway crossing projects? 

Project/Program Implementation 

14. Please describe how you coordinate with stakeholders – including local agencies and rail 

companies – to implement projects. 

15. What challenges do you face with fully allocating and expending your State’s Section 130 

funds?*

Project/Program Effectiveness

16. How do you determine the effectiveness of your Section 130 fund investments? 

17. What challenges do you face in measuring the effectiveness of Section 130 projects? 

18. Do you have any recommendations on how FHWA could better support States with evaluating 

the effectiveness of Section 130 projects?*

19. What additional data does your State need to inform decisions on how best to use Section 130 

funds?* 

Recommendations

20. What changes are needed to the Section 130 Program to allow your State to more 

strategically address problem areas?* 
37

21. Do you have any other feedback on the Section 130 Program or recommendations for 

program changes?