Rail-Highway Crossing Safety Action Plan Support Proposals
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Railroad Administration
Rail-Highway Crossing Safety
Action Plan Support Proposals
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Federal Transit Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Click HERE for graphic.
June 13, 1994
ACTION PLAN
Highway-Rail Crossing Safety
Contents Page
Executive Summary v
Objectives 1
Current Statistics 2
Initiatives 4
I. Increased Enforcement of Traffic
Laws at Crossings 4
A. Section 402 Funds 5
B. Police Officer Detail 5
C. Outreach to Judiciary 5
D. Rules of Evidence 5
E. Commercial Driver's License 5
F. Compilation of State Laws and Regulations on
Matters Affecting Highway-Rail Crossings 5
G. Safety Inquiry 5
II. Rail Corridor Crossing Safety
Improvement Reviews 6
A. Principal Railroad Lines 7
B. The National Highway System 7
C. Upgrade Signing and Marking 7
D. Responsibility for Selection
and Installation 7
E. STOP Signs 9
F. Incentives for Crossing
Consolidation 9
G. Crossing Consolidation and
Closure Case Studies 9
H. Integrated Intermodal
Transportation Planning 10
I. Check List 10
J. Highway-Rail Crossing Handbook 10
K. Vegetation Clearance 10
L. Corridor Review Participation 10
M. Distribution of Funds 10
III. Increased Public Education and
Operation Lifesaver 10
A. Marketing Materials Plan 11
B. Driver Training Materials 11
C. National and Community Service 11
D. Truck and Bus Involved
Accidents 11
E. Operation Lifesaver Matching
Funds 12
IV. Safety at Private Crossings 12
A. Define Categories 13
B. Safety Inquiry 14
C. Locked Gate at Private Crossings 14
V. Data and Research 14
A. Host Research Roundtables/
Workshops 14
B. Demographics 15
C. Accident Severity 15
D. Signs, Signals, Lights and
Markings 15
E. Innovative Technology 16
F. 1-800 Computer Answering System 17
G. Light Rail Accident Statistics 17
H. Resource Allocation Procedure 17
I. The Inventory 18
VI. Trespass Prevention 18
A. Demographic Survey 18
B. Trespasser Casualty Reporting 19
C. Workshop on Trespass Prevention 19
D. Regional Campaigns 19
E. Model Trespass Prevention Code 19
Recommendations/Goal 20
A. Recommendations 20
B. Goal 21
Appendices
I. Historical Background 22
II. Status of Current Programs 25
A. ISTEA 25
B. High Speed Rail 28
C. Light Rail 30
D. Crossing Consolidation and Closure 33
E. Corridor Reviews 35
F. Operation Lifesaver 36
G. Research 38
H. Truck and Bus Involved Accidents 41
I. Regulation 41
J. Horns and Bans 43
K. MUTCD 44
L. Training 44
M. Failure/Emergency Notification 45
N. Private Crossings 46
O. FRA's Regional Program
Managers 46
P. Integrated Intermodal
Transportation Planning 47
Q. Data 47
R. Trespass Prevention 50
Figure 1 - Pie Chart, 1993 Fatalities in Rail Operations 3
Figure 2 - Graph 1975-93 Highway-Rail Crossing
Accidents and Fatalities 3
Figure 3 - Map Principal Railroad Lines 8
Figure 4 - Graph 1975-93 Trespasser Fatalities 19
Table - At-Grade Crossings 2
Table - 1993 Accidents 2
Table - 1993 Fatalities 2
Table - 1993 Accident Rates at Private Crossings 13
iii
Executive Summary
This Action Plan presents a multi-faceted, multi-modal approach
for improving safety at our Nation's highway-rail crossings and for
the prevention of trespassing on the rights-of-way of our Nation's
railroads. It is multi-faceted in that it presents enforcement,
engineering, education, research, promotional and legislative
initiatives addressing crossings of both light and conventional
rail rights-of-way by public and private streets and highways.
It is multi-modal in that contributions to its preparation have
been made by four U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
administrations, i.e., the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA),
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA), working together with the same interest,
safety at crossings. We have also received, considered and often
incorporated or adapted, in whole or in part, ideas from many
outside sources, individuals, railroads and States.
The Action Plan identifies six major initiatives encompassing
55 individual proposals. The major initiatives are:
I. Increased Enforcement of Traffic Laws at Crossings
II. Rail Corridor Crossing Safety Improvement Reviews
III. Increased Public Education and Operation Lifesaver
IV. Safety at Private Crossings
V. Data and Research
VI. Trespass Prevention
These are followed by Recommendations and a Goal and two
Appendixes.
The essence of the Action Plan lies in fifty-five proposals.
They can generally be divided into two groups: 1) Those which
describe programs targeting individual needs; and 2) Those which
will enable or provide incentives for a program's advancement.
Of those in the first category, highlights would include
initiatives to:
o Establish the goal of eventual crossing elimination or
warning device upgrades at all National Highway System
crossings.
o Increase truck and bus driver awareness of crossing safety
through education and consideration of revocation of the
Commercial Driver's License for crossing violations.
o Emphasize state traffic law enforcement programs through
NHTSA Section 402 funds, as well as police and judicial
education and outreach on crossing safety.
o Consolidate state crossing safety assessments to emphasize
corridor review, and integrate intermodal planning to bring
together railroads, MPOs and state DOTs to insure emphasis on
crossing issues.
o Expand Operation Lifesaver (OL) through new community
assistants sponsored by the Corporation for National Service,
upgrade OL advertising and public awareness efforts and
implement new regional trespass prevention programs.
o Enhance research and data collection in such areas as
accident severity, prediction formulas, crossing inventories,
reporting requirements, and safety and demographic data.
o Demonstrate and encourage new technologies, such as vehicle
detection and four quadrant gates, automated malfunction
report handling, and new lighting and marking systems.
o Work with States to develop model codes for state laws for
crossing and trespass prevention, along with information
package on rules of evidence.
v
Taken together, these initiatives represent a comprehensive
Departmental effort, elevating highway-rail crossing safety, and
adopting a uniform strategy across the modal administrations to
deal with this important issue.
The Action Plan proposes some major legislative initiatives.
These proposals include:
o Establishing fiscal incentives to states for crossing
consolidations.
o Establishing fiscal incentives to states for participating
in corridor reviews and projects.
o Increasing Operation Lifesaver funding from the Department
to $600,000 per year.
o Including trespass prevention programs within the scope of
Operation Lifesaver funding.
In 1972, then Secretary of Transportation John A. Volpe declared
a goal of reducing the number of highway-rail crossing accidents
and fatalities by one third within ten years. The meeting of
that goal was clearly attributable to Congress' endorsement and
support in the establishment in 1973 of the Highway-Rail Crossing
Safety Improvement program, a program which has been continuously
funded and supported (by Congress, States and industry) to this
day. Concurrently, Operation Lifesaver made its debut in Idaho.
With funding support from Congress, Operation Lifesaver programs
have become very effective.
The continuation and renewal of this partnership, between
Congress, the Department of Transportation and the modal
administrations, the States, the industry and Operation
Lifesaver, as proposed in this Action Plan, will produce similar
results, i.e., a further reduction in accidents and fatalities at
highway-rail crossings of at least fifty percent over the next ten
years. Before the year 2004, accidents per year should be less than
2,500 and fatalities less than 300.
vi
Objectives
Develop an action plan to reduce the number of highway-rail
crossing accidents and casualties while not impeding, but
facilitating the contribution potential of the highway and rail
infrastructure on the Nation's economy.
The plan must consider the need for, and the crossing safety
implications of, high speed inter-city, intermodal freight and
passenger service as well as single-city commuter and intra-urban
service.
1
Current Statistics
Crossing statistics include all conventional rail and "some"
light rail. Accident and fatality data is for conventional rail
only. See Figures 1 and 2.
At-Grade Crossings
Active Passive Total
Public(1) 59,182 111,440 170,622
Private 923 108,958 109,881
Total 60,105 220,398 280,503
1993 Accidents
Active Passive Total
Public 2,207 2,230 4,437
Private 32 423 455
Total 2,239 2,653 4,892
1993 Fatalities
Active Passive Total
Public 320 264 584
Private 2 40 42
Total 322 304 626
---------------
(1) Active crossings are those equipped with motorist warning
devices automatically activated by approaching trains, i.e.,
flashing lights or flashing lights with gates. Passive crossings
are provided with signs only and occasionally with continuously
flashing lights.
Public crossings are generally defined as those for which the
roadway approaches are open to public travel and are maintained
by a public highway authority. Many exceptions exist.
2
Click HERE for graphic.
Click HERE for graphic.
3
Initiatives
Six major initiatives are detailed on this and the following
pages. These proposals constitute the Department's Action Plan
for addressing highway-rail crossing safety and trespass prevention
for the remainder of the decade. The Department and four modal
administrations within the Department - the Federal Highway
Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, the Federal
Railroad Administration and the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration - will target these initiatives as resources
permit. A joint task force will promote and coordinate these
initiatives and will oversee the progress of individual projects.
To be successfully implemented, the Action Plan initiatives
will require the active involvement, oversight, support and
endorsement of the United States Congress, state and local
governments and the railroad and transit industries.
I. Increased Enforcement of Traffic Laws at Crossings
Experience has shown that visible, high profile, law
enforcement programs reduce the numbers of highway traffic
violations. Programs targeting traffic violators at highway-rail
crossings are also effective. The media has shown a willingness
in the past to report on such programs.
The need is to develop small and large package programs (to
include such milestones as officer-on-the-train, roll-call videos,
railroad training, dispatcher coordination, etc.) and then to
convince and encourage police and civic officials to adopt the
programs. They must be convinced of the programs' relevance in
their communities and of the potential effectiveness of the
recommended programs. They need to be encouraged to program
resources for the effort. Such an effort will be more easily
promoted if police and local officials (and the public) are
already familiar with the problem and with available programs.
In addition to a national program for the general public, an
effort must be made to reach local civic and police officials
where they work and meet, and in what they read, view and hear.
Print materials for their "trade" periodicals, direct mailings,
presentations and displays where they meet, nationally,
regionally and locally, all would make some contribution.
In order to be successful, judicial officials must not be
overlooked. They too must be convinced of the programs' relevance
and seriousness. An enforcement program will end quickly if
judges do not understand and support it.
A serious impediment exists to expanding programs such as the
photo-enforcement program currently being demonstrated in
Los Angeles and previously demonstrated in Jonesboro, Arkansas by
the Burlington Northern Railroad (and in common use in Europe).
Rules of evidence in most states disallow the introduction of
photo-evidence not corroborated by a police officer eye witness.
(This also impedes the expansion of unmanned photo-radar
enforcement.) In this era of limited law enforcement resources
such a restriction on the application of proven technology appears
unreasonably narrow. State legislatures need to be encouraged to
review the rules of evidence for traffic law enforcement.
By increasing enforcement and judicial support, the number of
traffic law and warning device violations at highway-rail
crossings will decrease. The Department proposes to establish an
expanded and pro-active outreach program to our Nation's traffic
law enforcement community, from the patrol
4
officer to the judges who enforce our traffic laws. The following
actions will be initiated:
A. Section 402 Funds
NHTSA/FHWA will advise states that where problem identification
data indicate that highway-rail crossings are a significant local
problem, Section 402 funds could be requested to promote targeted
public education, engineering and law enforcement strategies
within a comprehensive program approach to the problem. By August
1994, the NHTSA and FHWA will meet to develop a joint directive for
their grant approving officials (NHTSA Regional Administrators,
FHWA Division and Regional Administrators) to support this
approach. Before December 1994, NHTSA and FHWA field offices will
contact the states and will support this approach in discussions on
development of Highway Safety Plans (HSP) for FY 1996.
B. Police Officer Detail
NHTSA will assist FRA in identifying and detailing a police
officer with training background interested in working on a year
detail with FRA and OLI in developing an outreach to the
enforcement community.
A search will be initiated this Summer with procurement action to
begin in the Fall. The assignment should begin in April 1995.
C. Outreach to Judiciary
As part of an outreach to judicial officials NHTSA and FHWA will
prepare and publish an article in the National Traffic Law Center
(NTLC) newsletter by August 1994. NTLC staff will assemble
materials obtained from DOT to answer questions from prosecutors
and judges. NTLC staff will provide technical assistance as requested
from judicial officials beginning no later than August.
D. Rules of Evidence
An information package will be developed to assist states in
redefining their rules of evidence for traffic cases. The
package will provide model rules, with annotations, that would
allow traffic citations to be issued and enforced based on
photographs or video images obtained from unmanned cameras.
Research will be conducted, and a first draft of model rules of
evidence should be available in 1995.
E. Commercial Driver's License
FHWA will: Meet with the American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators (AAMVA) to discuss making grade crossing violations
a serious traffic violation on a driver's Commercial Driver's
License (CDL); Conduct a survey of state traffic laws to document
how states treat this offense now; Propose, through the AAMVA
committee structure, making grade crossing offenses a serious
traffic violation; Evaluate the need for rulemaking on CDL
serious traffic violations.
The FHWA met with the AAMVA Executive Board in January 1994.
The AAMVA in cooperation with FHWA will complete a survey of
state practices in Summer 1994. A decision from the AAMVA
committee on CDL serious violations will be reached at the AAMVA
International meeting August 1994. The FHWA will evaluate the need
for rulemaking in the Fall of 1994.
F. Compilation of State Laws and Regulations on Matters Affecting
Highway-Rail Crossings
FRA, with the cooperation of FTA, NHTSA and FHWA, will initiate
an effort in 1995 to update the Compilation of State Laws and
Regulations On Matters Affecting Rail-Highway Crossings, last
published by FHWA in 1983.
G. Safety Inquiry
The FRA will hold an informal safety inquiry (meeting) to discuss
ways and means to enforce railroad operating rules regarding
trains, locomotives or cars standing: (1) within a specified
distance of a multi-track passive crossing or (2) on warning device
track circuits not equipped with time-out equipment. (The
5
latter situation, i.e., spotting cars on active warning device
track circuits, is addressed in the just published Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking regarding warning device Inspection, Testing,
Maintenance and Timely Response. See Section 234.209 of the
NPRM.) (Also, see Safety Inquiry in sections on Private Crossings
and Data and Research (the Inventory).)
II. Rail Corridor Crossing Safety Improvement Reviews
The most efficient way to accomplish a comprehensive engineering
review of highway-rail crossings is to examine all crossings,
public and private, in a corridor or jurisdiction with a
multi-disciplinary team, i.e., a diagnostic team. This has been
called the "systems approach." This process is currently underway
where the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA)
Section 1010 corridors are concerned, but in these efforts the goal
is far more than crossing safety improvements, but rather the
realization of high speed rail operations (necessitating
significant safety improvements at crossings, often elimination).
These Section 1010 corridors address only a very small part of the
problem, i.e., not quite 2,800 crossings on only 4,200 km (2,600 mi)
of track right-of-way. The total rail system in this country is
comprised of over 273,000 km (160,000 mi) of right-of-way which is
crossed at-grade nearly 283,000 times by public and private roads
and designated pedestrian pathways.
Obviously, addressing just the 1010 corridors (less than two
percent of the total right-of-way or crossings) is not adequate.
Attempting to target the whole system is too ambitious. However,
a core exists, defined by reviewing current Amtrak, intermodal
(trailer or container on flat car) freight and coal and grain flow
maps. These are the more heavily used freight and passenger
routes. These are the routes where a thorough analysis of crossings
along designated segments (corridors) has the potential of rendering
maximum safety return (i.e., frequent fast trains, high passenger
exposure). These are the routes where a corridor analysis will
allow a credible review of crossing consolidation or elimination
possibilities, of track circuit improvement needs (to include
constant warning time equipment (in order to accommodate variable
speed trains) and signal event recorders (to facilitate rapid
response to and diagnosis of signal malfunctions), as well as
signs, signals, surfaces, sight distance improvements and
illumination possibilities, etc.
In the absence of a corridor or systems approach, highway-rail
crossings are selected by highway authorities for safety
improvements one at a time based on the crossing's accident
experience and highway and rail traffic counts. This fosters a
bias toward urban areas and main roads where traffic densities
are high. This process currently excludes all private crossings,
most low density crossings and often those already equipped with
automatic devices. In many cases, the excluded crossings are
those that would benefit from low cost improvement or could be
consolidated.
Crossing consolidation is the surest way to reduce the potential
for highway-rail crossing collisions. Although crossing
consolidation is an effective and low cost method to improve
crossing safety, this option has not been widely utilized.
Closing a crossing generally requires affirmation from the local
political subdivision (if public) or concurrence of the easement
holder (if private). The difficulty of securing approval to
consolidate crossings has discouraged pursuit of this option for
improving crossing safety.
Railroad and state officials, who are responsible for crossing
projects and who recently participated in an FRA case study
project, repeatedly emphasized the need for Federal guidelines
for closing crossings. In order to be an effective adjunct to
the closing process, the Federal guidelines would have to
6
be visible and definitive. That is, guidelines should
unequivocally represent Federal policy and provide an objective
standard for judging the need for a specific crossing.
Interest in high-speed trains, increased emphasis on crossing
safety, the limits of available resources and the signalization of
many high volume crossings have led many state transportation
agencies and railroads to assign crossing consolidation and closure
a higher priority than it has received in the past. However, the
number of crossings closed, public or private, on active rail lines
remains relatively small and well below the number of unnecessary
crossings that are candidates for closure. Federal and state
leadership is required to give consolidation the priority it
warrants. Otherwise, consolidation will remain a minor factor in
crossing safety improvements.
In this context (i.e., the need for a Federal initiative), the
concluding observation of the Missouri Executive Summary(2) is
particularly pertinent: "If in fact this is a national
initiative, then there must be participation on the part of the
'national government.'"
A nationwide effort to review crossings in corridor groups is
needed. The Department will promote comprehensive and systematic
corridor reviews of highway-rail crossings, especially those over
our nation's Principal Railroad Lines(3) (PRLs), and will encourage
the elimination of little used and redundant crossings within
corridors where alternatives exist, especially those on the
National Highway System(4) (NHS). It is estimated there will be
approximately 4,500 at-grade crossings on the NHS, about half of
which will be at intersections with the PRLs. State and local
highway authorities will be encouraged to upgrade signs and signals
at all crossings, taking full advantage of available
state-of-the-art technology. The following initiatives will be
established:
A. Principal Railroad Lines
Principal Railroad Line corridors will be nominated for review by
considering current and projected highway and rail traffic
densities and accident experience. Facilitated by FRA's new
Regional Program Managers, these corridor reviews should begin
no later than the last quarter of 1994.
B. The National Highway System (NHS)
The FHWA will encourage that Statewide Transportation Improvement
Programs and Safety Management Systems fully address the
upgrading or elimination of at-grade crossings on the NHS, and give
priority to the long-term goal of eliminating NHS intersections
with the PRLs.
C. Upgrade Signing and Marking
The FHWA will work with FRA and the states to increase the
conspicuity of signs and markings at highway-rail crossings by
encouraging the widespread use of high-grade, long-lasting
reflective materials. This promotion will be initiated
immediately.
D. Responsibilities for Selection and Installation
The Department will review the present system of allocating
responsibility for selection and installation of signal devices
at public
---------------
(2) Executive Summary of the Missouri Grade Crossing Closure
Study, Missouri Division of Transportation Staff, January 1994,
page 5.
(3) The FRA has defined a core railroad system of approximately
80,000 miles known as the Principal Railroad Lines. These lines
have one or more of the following attributes: Amtrak service;
defense essential; or, annual freight volume exceeding 20 million
gross tons.
(4) The National Highway System will consist of an
interconnected system of principal arterial routes to serve
major population centers, intermodal transportation
facilities and other major travel destinations; meet national
defense requirements; and serve interstate and interregional
travel.
7
Click HERE for graphic.
8
highway-rail grade crossings. The Department will review the
need for nationally uniform standards for establishing the need
for, and appropriate type of, warning devices at all public
highway-rail grade crossings.
E. STOP Signs
In response to Section 1077 of ISTEA, the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) was revised to grant states and
local governments discretionary authority to install STOP or YIELD
signs at highway-rail crossings that do not have active warning
devices and where two or more trains operate daily. On July 8,
1993, the FHWA and FRA issued a joint memorandum to their respective
field offices offering guidance for installing STOP signs and
encouraging cooperation among states, communities and the railroads
for the development of programs to install these signs. FHWA and FRA
will work together to insure that state and local governments
consider the installation of STOP signs at highway-rail crossings
where warranted.
Listings produced from the Inventory which select and categorize
crossings most likely to fit established criteria and to benefit
from STOP sign installation will be provided to states and
railroads. FHWA will issue a clarification to current Federal
regulations indicating that Federal funds are eligible to install
traffic control devices, including STOP signs, at multi-track
crossings.
F. Incentives for Crossing Consolidation
1. Legislation will be proposed to allow, under certain
conditions and at a state's discretion, cash payments from the
Surface Transportation Program (STP) set-aside funds reserved for
carrying out Title 23-United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 130 (the
crossing safety improvement program) to local jurisdictions for the
permanent surrendering of a crossing easement, i.e., the state
could use Federal funds to pay for a crossing closure. The amounts
paid would be limited to $7,500 and the amount paid would have to
be matched by the railroads) involved. The Federal funds could
only be used for other transportation safety improvements. Such a
program could be implemented only after a state has established a
state-wide procedure for reviewing the need for any new public
at-grade crossings. This would be in accord with a recently adopted
resolution of the National Conference of State Rail Officials
(NCSRO) and the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
2. Legislation will be proposed to modify 23 U.S.C. 120(c) to
include crossing closure projects among those STP projects
which are eligible for 100 percent Federal funding, i.e., along
with signs, signals and pavement markings. (The current situation,
where a state or local match is required for a closure project,
but not for warning devices, amounts to a disincentive to close.)
G. Crossing Consolidation and Closure Case Studies
Based on the case studies conducted by FRA, FRA is now preparing
three reports on crossing consolidation and closure. The first
report, to be available this Spring, will be a "how-to" guide on
closing crossings for state and railroad officials. The guide
will be a composite of the successful strategies for closing
crossings and rules of thumb derived from the case studies. The
second report, also available this Spring, will consist of a
limited number of case studies that would demonstrate the
consolidation process through the example of actual projects. A
third report will recommend options to increase the rate of
crossing consolidation, based on analysis of the case studies and
suggestions of railroad and state officials who have been actively
involved in crossing consolidation projects. The recommendations
will be completed by early Summer.
9
H. Integrated Intermodal Transportation Planning
The Department of Transportation is sponsoring a number of
outreach efforts to assist those implementing ISTEA. Of particular
interest to those concerned with highway-rail crossing safety is
the series of meetings FRA and FHWA are sponsoring between State
Departments of Transportation, Metropolitan Planning Organizations
(MPOs) and the railroad industry. This series of seven meetings,
begun in Arlington, Texas (March 30 - April 1), encourages
cooperation between the transportation planning community and the
railroads by addressing issues of mutual interest, including grade
crossings.
I. Check List
FRA and FHWA will develop a "check list" of items to be considered
in a corridor analysis. This will include warning device and
site improvement options (e.g., adequacy of warning devices
and circuits, horizontal and vertical approach angles, surfaces,
volume, type and flow of rail and highway traffic, etc.) as well
as the consolidation of crossings. The check list should be
developed and distributed during the last quarter of 1994.
J. Highway-Rail Crossing Handbook
FHWA, with the cooperation of FTA, NHTSA and FRA, will initiate an
effort in 1995 to update the Railroad-Highway Crossing Handbook,
last published by FHWA in 1986.
K. Vegetation Clearance
FRA's NPRM on track standards will contain a provision addressing
the need to maintain rail rights-of-way adjacent to highway-rail
crossings free of sight-obstructing vegetation. The FHWA will
explore ways and means through the Safety Management Systems (SMS)
to encourage that vegetation on highway rights-of-way be kept cleared.
L. Corridor Review Participation
Legislation will be proposed to established 10 a jointly
administered incentive program for state and local governments to
participate in reviews and safety improvements on a corridor basis.
One possible scenario would set aside $15,000,000 of STP funds each
year (from an STP program of $23.9 billion), in addition to the
existing Section 130 program funds, as an incentive fund pool. This
pool fund would be distributed to states with aggressive corridor
programs to off-set corridor improvement costs either on a first
come/first serve basis or in amounts proportional to total corridor
improvement costs incurred by the participating governmental
entities.
M. Distribution of Funds
FHWA and FRA will initiate a study of the formulas used to
distribute to states the crossing safety improvement funds
authorized in Section 1007 of ISTEA. An assessment will be made to
define a more appropriate method of distributing improvement funds,
possibly on the basis of the number of crossings and accidents in
each state.
III. Increased Public Education and Operation Lifesaver
Since 1973, more than $2.8 billion of Federal-aid funds has
been spent by states for safety improvements at highway-rail
crossings. Over half of this was for automated warning devices.
However, half of all collisions occur at crossings so equipped.
To realize full benefit from the public investment in these
devices, motorists must be educated in their responsibilities at
all types of crossings.
Operation Lifesaver (OL) is an active, continuing public
information and education program to help prevent and reduce
crashes, injuries and fatalities and improve driver performance
at our Nation's 280,000 public and private highway-rail crossings.
Operation Lifesaver, Inc.(OLI) is a tax exempt, non-profit
corporation which coordinates and facilitates state and local OL
programs nationwide.
10
OLI needs to supplement its Federal funds with funds from other
sources. This would serve the dual purpose of providing
additional funds in the near term for the promotion of the OL
message and would establish a cushion should Federal funding be
reduced or eliminated in the future. The success and effectiveness
of OL state programs at getting the OL message out is directly
dependent on the capabilities of the OL State Coordinator. In some
cases this individual is a state employee, sometimes a railroad,
railroad association or railroad supply industry employee
(ranging from executive to locomotive engineer), sometimes a local
or state police officer or official and sometimes an employee of a
safety or highway oriented group (e.g., American Automobile
Association, a state safety council, a school bus driver, etc.).
Many carry out the function of State Coordinator as an "additional
duty." Many are volunteers, receiving no remuneration for their
effort, and little support. Many of the State Coordinators need
assistance, i.e., considerable additional man-hours. The
credibility of the program suffers when the public reaches only a
message machine at the State Coordinator's office. Scheduling,
coordination, support and material functions must often wait until
the weekend or until the State Coordinator returns. If an
assistant were available, their involvement would expand the
presence, visibility and outreach of the program in communities
throughout the U.S.
The Department proposes to work with Operation Lifesaver, states
and industry advocates to facilitate delivery of the OL message
at the state and local levels and thus to increase public awareness
of hazards at crossings and of motorist responsibilities.
A. Marketing Materials Plan
NHTSA, FHWA, FTA, FRA and possibly OLI will work together in
periodic meetings to develop programs and material to promote
public and youth awareness. A marketing materials plan will be
developed. When products are available, NHTSA Regional staff will
promote this material through Governors' Representatives to
appropriate organizations and officials. States may use Section
402 funds to purchase or reproduce materials as well as to
implement programs.
B. Driver Training Materials NHTSA, working with the AAMVA, will
review current driver training material relevant to highway-rail
crossing safety and will determine what materials) may need
updating and where gaps exist. NHTSA, FHWA, FTA, FRA and possibly
OLI will work together to select the best of these materials,
develop new and updated materials, if necessary, and disseminate
this information to the states. An interagency working group will
be established. Draft materials will be completed by Winter, and
final products will be available by Summer 1995.
C. National and Community Service For FY 96, pursuant to the
National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993, FRA will explore
the possibility of assigning national service participants to
support OL State Coordinators.
D. Truck and Bus Involved Accidents In the near-term the FHWA
will take the following actions to improve highway-rail crossing
programs with respect to commercial motor vehicles.
1. On-Guard Notice
Publish an On-Guard notice to alert the truck and bus industry of
the dangers at crossings. This was mailed to all 270,000
interstate motor carriers on our records. The notice was
written, printed and distributed in February 1994.
2. Advisory Bulletin
Send an advisory bulletin to the trade press about the danger of
accidents at
11
crossings. The bulletin was released to all motor carriers in
February.
3. Public Service Print Advertisements
Prepare public service print advertisements for the trade
journals on truck and bus accidents at highway-rail crossings.
Attention will be given to ensuring the articles reach state and
local trucking association newsletters. The public service messages
will be published and distributed to 4,500 potential carriers in
June.
4. Trucker on the Train" Program
Work with Amtrak, the American Trucking Associations (ATA),
OLI and FRA to create a "Trucker on the Train" program where
motor carrier executives and drivers accompany train engineers on
the engine of a train to view firsthand dangerous highway-rail
crossings. FHWA and FRA representatives have recently begun meeting
with the ATA and Amtrak officials on this program.
5. Operation Lifesaver
Encourage OLI staff to meet with trucking companies and
associations regarding this problem. An OL spokesperson addressed
the ATA Safety Management Council in February. The ATA Safety
Management Council reminded their members and drivers in a January
letter of crossing dangers.
6. National Safety Organizations
Address the issue at meetings of national safety organizations
such as the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP).
Discuss the issue with industry executives at the next National
Motor Carrier Advisory Committee meeting.
7. On-Site Compliance Reviews
Ensure that at each on-site compliance review conducted by the
Office of Motor Carriers field staff and state personnel, the motor
carrier is informed of the risks at highway-rail crossings.
E. Operation Lifesaver Matching Funds
Legislation will be proposed to increase the FHWA grant to OLI to
an amount not to exceed $500,000 annually, but any portion of the
funding in excess of the current grant of $300,000 (and $100,000
from FRA) would be available to OL only if OLI matches the
increased amount through its own fund raising mechanisms outside of
the public sector. The entire amount of the FHWA funding would
come from a draw-down of the STP funds set aside for highway-rail
crossing safety.
Failure to secure additional funding for OL will hamper the
organization's ability to expand its activities to adequately
support the Federal effort in this area.
IV. Safety at Private Crossings
There are 110,000 private highway-rail crossings in the United
States. More than 400 accidents and 40 deaths occur at these
crossings every year. In most years, the number of deaths which
occur at private crossings exceeds the number of on-duty deaths
among railroad employees in all rail operations.
Private crossings are categorized as either farm, residential,
recreational or industrial. Nearly two-thirds are farm
crossings. However, most accidents occur at industrial crossings.
FRA has traditionally taken the position that private crossing
matters should be settled by the private parties involved.
However, from a safety perspective, this approach has proven
inadequate. A few states, including Alaska and California, have
also reached this conclusion and have acted to standardize
responsibilities and treatments for private crossings. Despite
this, the overall national result is that responsibilities are
most often undefined or are inconsistently acknowledged and
applied.
12
Type Private 1993 Accident
Crossing Crossings Accidents Rate Killed Injured
Farm 66,725 142 .002128 23 32
Residential 12,876 74 .005747 13 21
Recreational 1,649 11 .006671 0 3
Industrial 25,703 157 .006108 10 23
Unknown 2,928 19 n.a. 1 6
Similarly, traffic control or traffic warning standards have
been defined in only a few instances and are not consistently
applied. The FHWA lacks jurisdiction, as do most state and local
highway departments. FHWA has endorsed the concept of applying
MUTCD warning device standards to private highway-rail crossings,
but lacks the jurisdiction to follow through.
Responsibilities and standards need to be developed and defined.
Private crossings on high speed rail lines present a special
problem. And yet, most private crossings on high speed rail lines
will require either safety enhancements or elimination before high
speed service can be initiated. Traditional sources of public
funding for safety improvements are limited to public crossings.
However, attention is beginning to be directed to private crossings
on designated high speed corridors. Section 1010 of ISTEA
authorizes $30 million for the elimination of grade crossing
hazards at public and private crossings on the five Section 1010
corridors. Oregon has recently enacted legislation to give the
state jurisdiction over private crossings on high speed rail lines.
Eligible improvements under the proposed high speed rail
legislation include private crossings (including payments to
property owners to close such crossings where appropriate).
Private crossings will be considered in the incentive/award program
for state participation in corridor review programs proposed above.
There is a need to either identify a different or new source of
funding, or to make private crossings (at least those on DOT
designated high speed rail corridors) eligible for funding
from the traditional sources. Further, there is a need to
establish '' condemnation" and "buy out" authority, of private
crossings, at least those on DOT designated high speed rail
lines. The proposed high speed rail legislation, when enacted, will
address both of these needs.
The Department proposes to develop and provide national, minimum
safety standards for private crossings and to eliminate the
potential impediment to high speed rail operations posed by private
crossings. The following actions are proposed:
A. Define Categories
Operational definitions will be developed for each of the four
categories. Subcategories may also be defined (e.g., industrial/
commercial crossings open to public use; farm crossings on high
speed corridors; recreational crossings in public parks; etc.),
and a general approach and schedule will be developed for
addressing each. As appropriate, minimum safety requirements,
warning device standards and responsibilities will be defined
beginning with the category(ies) with the most severe problems,
i.e., probably with Private Industrial Crossings.
13
B. Safety Inquiry
FRA will hold an informal safety inquiry to further review
the concept of defining minimum safety standards for private
crossings, or for certain categories of private crossings, up
to and including standards for closure and consolidation under
certain conditions. The inquiry will address the allocation of
responsibilities and costs associated with private crossings and
the need for dispute resolution mechanisms regarding that
allocation. (See also Safety Inquiry in Sections on Data and
Research (the Inventory) and Enforcement.)
C. Locked Gate at Private Crossings
The feasibility of placing gates with remotely activated cipher
locks at private crossings will be investigated and possibly
demonstrated. In this scenario, the gate would normally be closed
and locked. A potential user would call the railroad dispatcher,
possibly from a special call box at the crossing. When a window of
opportunity occurs, the dispatcher would enable the requestor to
unlock and open the gate. The gate would be interlocked with the
railroad's signal system.
V. Data and Research
Progress towards maximizing the effectiveness of our resources is
most often achieved through research and innovation. However,
for highway-rail crossing issues, institutional concerns
regarding costs (research and potential implementation),
liability and current convention often impede progress. The
Department's involvement and leadership have the potential of
promoting research and championing plausible innovation while
overcoming these obstacles.
Research regarding alerting lights, retro-reflective
materials, illumination and horns is currently being conducted by
the John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (VNTSC)
in Cambridge, MA, with FRA 14 sponsorship, to enhance conspicuity
of trains at or approaching crossings for highway users,
especially during hours of darkness. FHWA and some state efforts
are also investigating the efficacy of innovations in highway
traffic signs.
Similarly, good data is also an essential ingredient to good
decision making. Research and data processing and analysis must
ensure that timely and accurate information needed by decision
makers is available.
To address these needs the Department proposes to:
A. Host Research Roundtables/ Workshops
1. Research Workshop
The goals, procedures and findings of Federal crossing
related research are always of interest to the industry, state
officials and academia. Government sponsored research, and the
researchers involved, can also benefit from an exchange of ideas,
i.e., topical workshops (not just a series of briefings), with
the affected industry and interest groups. A workshop will be
planned to bring together highway safety, law enforcement, rail
and transit industry officials, governors' highway safety
representatives, academia and consultants with Federal
researchers to discuss current and projected research and needs.
2. Defense Conversion Fair
Numerous contacts have been made on behalf of defense
oriented research firms seeking to bring their talents and
capabilities to bear on transportation related issues. A
tremendous talent pool exists. However, these firms are not
familiar with transportation industry needs. A fair, complete
with DOT displays and seminars, could be used to focus this
potential resource on transportation, on safety and on
14
highway-rail crossing problems. Fresh thinking and new
(defense developed) technology may generate some innovative
solutions to old problems. An exchange program will be planned
to introduce Defense oriented research firms to railroad
technology and research needs.
B. Demographics
NHTSA will develop demographic data on those who die in
highway-rail crossing accidents and will assist in arranging and
conducting "focus group" sessions in locates with high incident
rates.
C. Accident Severity
NHTSA will investigate the increasing severity of crossing
accidents and attempt to determine why the trend is increasing
and what countermeasures might reverse it. NHTSA will use both
their Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS) and FRA's Accident
and Inventory data bases.
D. Signs, Signals, Lights and Markings
The FHWA, FTA and FRA will work together to examine the potential
of providing additional information to the motorist through
innovative signs, signals, lights and markings.
1. Signs and Signals
The FHWA, in coordination with FRA, will initiate conceptual
studies of a number of new highway-rail crossing warning devices,
such as devices to inform motorists in advance whether there is
an active or passive warning system at the crossing and devices
that would provide positive information about the direction from
which a train is approaching the crossing.
2. Train Horns
The FRA is working with the Association of American Railroads (AAR)
to study the safety impact of whistle bans nationwide. This will
aid FRA in determining if nationwide Federal action is required.
The FRA is also sponsoring research by the VNTSC to develop an
optimal warning signal for locomotive whistles, which minimizes
noise for communities while not compromising safety. VNTSC also
is investigating potential alternative systems, such as audible
warning devices installed directly at crossings. (A cooperative
effort involving the state of Nebraska, the City of Gering, the
Union Pacific Railroad and a private firm has produced some field
testing of an Automated Horn System (AHS) mounted at the crossing.
The Los Angeles County Transportation Commission is also
considering a similar device offered by another firm.) Some Los
Angeles County commuter trains have been equipped with an
innovative train whistle device, somewhat toned down and mounted
lower on the locomotive in order to minimize impacts on neighboring
communities, but still meeting minimum FRA standards.
FRA (and VNTSC) will continue to monitor these efforts.
FRA is also exploring the potential for what amounts to a
noncontractual cooperative effort among interested parties. If
the Union Pacific Railroad, City of Gering, the Nebraska
Department of Transportation and others with a particular
interest in testing a second-generation AHS can install the
device(s) at highway-rail crossings selected as test sites, and
conduct neighborhood surveys, FRA, through VNTSC, will make the
necessary acoustical measurements and analyses, record and
analyze before and after behavior of motorists, design needed
surveys, train local personnel to
15
conduct the surveys, and analyze survey results. Work may
begin this Summer.
3. Light Rail Crossing Gates for Left Turn Lanes
A large number of train/vehicle collisions take place at
grade crossings where there are streets running parallel to light
rail transit or railroad tracks, and motorists are permitted to
make left turns across the tracks. Standard railroad crossing
gates are not fully effective at crossings of this type. Where
the crossings are controlled by traffic signals only, some light
rail transit systems have experienced numerous train-vehicle
collisions.
Calgary Transit (Canada) has installed railroad crossing
gates on the left turn lanes at two grade crossings where there
are heavy left turn traffic volumes. The FTA proposes to
investigate the application of railroad gates and other types of
"pop up" barriers (for U.S. locations where there is not adequate
space to install railroad crossing gates) for left turns made
from streets running parallel to the tracks at grade crossings.
4. Locomotive Conspicuity:
On February 3, 1993, FRA issued interim standards regarding
locomotive lighting to enhance conspicuity of trains. A second
interim rule was published May 13, 1994. The Congressionally
mandated schedule requires the FRA to initiate rule making for
final regulations no later than June 30, 1994. Final regulations
will be issued by June 30, 1995.
5. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD) FHWA, FTA and FRA will begin work immediately to
develop proposed changes and additions to the MUTCD
dealing with each of the following. Proposals should be available
in the third quarter of 1994, and changes to the MUTCD should be
proposed during the fourth quarter.
a. Warrants for warning devices to be used at crossings hosting
high speed rail operations;
b. New passive sign for high speed rail crossings;
c. Standards for temporary closure of road, i.e., the signing
needed to accommodate the placing of a barrier in the road;
d. Supplementary multi-track plate for STOP and YIELD signs;
e. Work Zone Traffic Control standards for highway projects which
include highway-rail crossings;
f. Four-quadrant gate standard;
g. Warning device standards unique to light rail operations (The
National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices is currently
drafting proposals regarding traffic control and light rail.); and
h. A design standard for display of the Inventory number at each
crossing.
E. Innovative Technology FRA and FTA will cooperate to review
available automated presence and intrusion detection
hardware and the potential effectiveness of existing and proposed
technology for conveying emergency messages.
1. Automated Video Image Analysis Available technology will be
explored regarding the potential use of live
16
video images monitored by computers to detect intrusion onto
the rail right-of-way at highway-rail crossings (or anywhere
else) and to ensure that warning devices are functioning
properly. In theory, when intrusion or a warning device failure
is detected, an alert, maybe an image, could be provided to the
dispatcher and possibly to the locomotive.
2. Radar Actuation System for Light Rail Crossing Warning
Devices
Warning equipment at grade crossings is typically activated
by track circuits. For certain applications, these circuits need
to be designed to detect train speed. These applications include
innovative active warning signs or devices (such as horns mounted
at the crossing or warning messages) that will be effective only if
activated for a limited number of seconds in advance of when trains
actually arrive at the crossing.
Where the rails are part of the traction power system (as is
typical for light rail systems), speed detection equipment based
on track circuit technology (referred to as crossing predictors
or motion sensor) does not work in a reliable manner. A low cost
alternative to determine the speed of trains is needed for light
rail transit operations.
This project would investigate the limitations of existing
speed detection equipment and evaluate the feasibility of a
radar-based system. If the approach were determined to be
feasible, a demonstration of the radar actuation system would
also be undertaken as part of this project.
F. 1-800 Computer Answering System In 1983, the Texas Legislature
initiated (and pioneered) a statewide alert or early warning system
designed to inform railroads of warning device/signal problems at
crossings. Signs have been placed at each crossing equipped with
an automated device instructing the reader:
TO REPORT MALFUNCTION OF THIS RAILROAD SIGNAL CALL TOLL FREE
1-800-772-7677 GIVE THIS LOCATION # - - - - - - -
An impediment to more widespread adoption of this "early warning"
system is the perceived resource impact, i.e., Who will answer
and forward telephone calls? An automated, pc-based computer
system could receive, catalogue and forward telephone calls from
the concerned "public" regarding problems with specific
highway-rail crossing signals.
This concept is well within currently available "off the shelf"
hardware capabilities. Preliminary discussions with individuals
familiar with current procedures in Texas indicate this would be
a welcome capability.
An automated telephone answering and message forwarding system
will be developed for handling calls concerning malfunctions or
problems at highway-rail crossings. The system will be founded
on the U.S. DOT/AAR Inventory numbering system.
G. Light Rail Accident Statistics
FTA's Safety Management Information Statistics (SAMIS) was devised
to reflect an accurate picture of transit safety. Casualty figures
include pedestrians, people in other vehicles, employees, etc., as
well as patrons. Incidents are collected during revenue and
nonrevenue periods, so an all-inclusive view is provided. The FTA
will investigate broadening current data reporting to include
specific data on shared rights-of-way accidents involving light
rail vehicles.
H. Resource Allocation Procedure
The computer model currently made available by FRA to states and
railroads needs to be rebuilt in order to account for more
17
recent realities, i.e., accident experience, available data
and costs. The imbedded accident prediction formulas also need
to be recalculated. Procurement action for this work has begun.
I. The Inventory
The U.S. DOT/AAR National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory was
developed to serve as a data base of all highway-rail crossings
in the United States. The FRA is the custodian of this computer-
based file. The FRA processes more than 80,000 changes and updates
voluntarily submitted by the states and railroads, each
year. Though the Inventory is the only national resource of its
kind and is widely used, portions of it are not being updated.
FHWA will immediately initiate efforts to explore possibilities
for encouraging updating of the Inventory on a more systematic or
cyclic schedule. States will be encouraged to use the Safety
Management System as a means of ensuring that Inventory data is
updated. Additional methods of transmitting updates to FRA
electronically will be explored.
FRA will hold an informal safety inquiry to consider requiring
the display of the U.S. DOT/AAR Inventory number and a toll free
phone number at all crossings to facilitate Emergency
Notification. (See also Safety Inquiry under Private Crossings
and Enforcement preceding.)
VI. Trespass
Prevention Trespasser defined: A person who is on that part of
railroad property used in railroad operations and whose presence is
prohibited, forbidden or unlawful. For purposes of this plan, and
to avoid double counting, persons at highway-rail crossings are
excluded from trespasser counts, regardless of the types of warning
devices at the crossing. The focus of the Federal effort regarding
trespassing on railroad rights-of-way is to prevent trespassing
from occurring in the first place, not to make trespassing safe.
Trespassing on rail rights-of-way is illegal and dangerous and
should not be condoned or facilitated.
Trespassing on rail rights-of-way results in more than 1,000
deaths and injuries each year. In 1990, (and in each year since
then), the number of trespassers who died on rail rights-of-way
exceeded 500 for the first time. To the industry, this presents
a true Gordian knot. Trespassers are not a single, cohesive
group. Their one common attribute is the illegality of their act
(trespassing). Because of this diversity, it is not likely that
trespassers will respond to a single national initiative.
Regional programs have more promise. The Department of
Transportation will target this problem. Our goal is to raise
public and police awareness of the illegality of, dangers
inherent in, and the extent of, trespassing on railroad
right-of-way. A related issue is vandalism. Railroads are
reporting nearly 200 incidents per month of vandalism to
automated warning devices at highway-rail crossings. This figure
does not include vandal-caused damage to other railroad
facilities, equipment and lading. Various provisions of Federal
law address crimes directed at railroad equipment, passengers and
employees. See 18 U.S.C. 1991 (entering a train to commit a
crime), 18 U.S.C. 1992 (wrecking trains), and 15 U.S.C. 1281
(destruction of property moving in interstate commerce). While
in many instances, vandalism to warning devices at highway-rail
crossings may be considered to be within the scope of one of the
above statutes, there is no Federal statute dealing directly with
vandalism of these devices. Many states have similar statutes to
the ones listed above. The following actions are proposed:
A. Demographic Survey
FRA has requested FY 95 funds to initiate study of trespasser
problems and potential
18
Click HERE for graphic.
solutions. This effort will start with a survey and determination
of the types of individuals and activities which are involved or
result in trespasser casualties.
B. Trespasser Casualty Reporting
FRA is in the process of developing an NPRM addressing railroad
accident reporting. FRA will propose gathering information from
the railroads regarding the circumstances of the incident. This
proposal will be published this year.
C. Workshop on Trespass Prevention
FRA will work with the railroad industry, railroad police and
Operation Lifesaver to plan and host a second Workshop on Trespass
Prevention. (The first was held in 1992.) The workshop will be
held this year.
D. Regional Campaigns
Working with OL of Southern California, the FRA will develop a
low-cost public service announcement (PSA) for television which
addresses, in thirty seconds, the stark reality of trespasser
casualties. FRA will work with the Congress, the Federal Highway
Administration, the Association of American Railroads and OLI to
clarify OLI's role in trespass prevention.
E. Model Trespass
Prevention Code FRA will work with rail industry police and legal
staff to synthesize existing state and Federal code regarding
trespass and vandalism prevention and to develop proposed code
(model legislation) for consideration by state legislatures.
19
Recommendations/Goals
In summary, current safety programs have resulted in a significant
reduction in highway-rail crossing accidents and fatalities. In
1993, 626 people died as a result of accidents at highway-rail
crossings; this is half the number of annual fatalities 20 years
ago. This has occurred despite increases in rail traffic over the
same period.
The development and expansion of high speed rail service on
existing railroad rights-of-way will further increase the potential
for, and severity of, collisions at highway- rail crossings unless
mitigating steps are taken. The Department is committed to
continuing the trend of reducing these collisions. Improvement
funding is available under ISTEA and additional funding will be
available under our high speed rail legislative proposal. We are
also undertaking a program of research, development and
demonstration of next generation grade crossing safety systems
designed to ensure absolute protection at high speed crossings
which are not closed. This Action Plan identifies a wide variety of
initiatives, beginning with efforts to reach and involve the law
enforcement community. Further research is called for. Incentive
programs are suggested. Special provisions are urged for the
National Highway System and for the Principal Railroad Lines.
Finally, a revenue neutral funding plan is proposed which could
make these initiatives possible. Only through partnership can we
hope to progress these initiatives. The Department, along with the
FHWA, FTA, NHTSA and FRA, the United States Congress, the railroad
and transit industries, states and associations, and Operation
Lifesaver, working together, can advance these recommendations
and can achieve the goal.
A. Recommendations
To assure that the downward trend in crossing accidents and
fatalities continues, we must work together to:
1. Establish an expanded and pro-active outreach program to our
Nation's traffic law enforcement community ranging from patrol
officers to judges.
2. Reduce the number of traffic law and warning device violations
at highway-rail crossings by increasing enforcement and judicial
support.
3. Promote comprehensive and systematic corridor reviews of
highway-rail crossings, especially those over our nation's
Principal Railroad Lines (PRLs).
4. Eliminate little used and redundant crossings within corridors
where alternatives exist, especially those on the National Highway
System (NHS).
5. Upgrade signs and signals at all crossings, taking full
advantage of available state-of-the-art technologies.
6. Increase public awareness of 1) hazards at crossings and, 2)
motorist responsibilities at crossings.
7. Develop and provide national, minimum safety standards for
private crossings.
8. Eliminate the impediment to high speed rail operations posed by
private crossings.
9. Enhance the effectiveness of our resources through research and
data analysis.
10. Promote research and champion plausible innovation.
20
11. Ensure that timely and accurate information needed by decision
makers is available.
12. Raise public and police awareness of the unlawfulness of, and
dangers inherent in trespassing on railroad rights-of-way.
13. Develop and make available sufficiently detailed information to
prepare and focus trespass prevention campaigns
Only if we all move forward together with these Initiatives can the
Nation enjoy a balanced transportation system. Only if we move
forward can we end the loss of life, health and property at
highway-rail crossings.
B. Goal
We must continue the downward trend in accident and casualty
trends. If current programs are continued and these
recommendations are implemented, a reduction by at least 50 percent
or more is possible in the decade ahead, i.e., by 2004.
21
Appendix I
Historical Background
In 1877, the U.S. Supreme Court discussed the duties, rights and
obligations of railroad companies vis-a-vis those of the highway
user at highway-rail crossings and found that they were "mutual and
reciprocal." The Court went on to say that a train has preference
and the right-of-way over crossings because of its "character,"
"momentum" and "the requirements of public travel by means
thereof," but that the railroad is bound to give due, reasonable
and timely warning of the train's approach. The Court stated that
"those who are crossing a railroad track are bound to exercise
ordinary care and diligence to ascertain whether a train is
approaching." (Continental Improvement Company v. Stead, 95 U.S.
161(1877))
The Accident Reports Act of 1910 requires rail carriers to submit
accident reports. Included in this requirement are those accidents
which occur at grade crossings.
The Federal-Aid Road Act of 1916 made Federal funds available for
"rural post roads." Crossing safety improvement projects were
eligible on a 50-50 cost sharing basis.
In 1928, reported fatalities at grade crossings reached a peak of
2,568 individuals. An additional 6,666 were reportedly injured.
In 1934, Federal funds were authorized for crossing safety
improvements from the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933. No
match was required, and all public crossings were eligible.
In 1935, the U.S. Supreme Court commented on changes in
responsibilities regarding the funding of a grade separation (a
bridge) at a crossing in order to eliminate 22 the hazards and
delay inherent at an at-grade (level) crossing:
"The railroad has ceased to be the prime instrument of danger and
the main cause of accidents. It is the railroad which now
requires protection from dangers incident to motor
transportation. Prior to the establishment of the Federal-aid
[highway] system ... highways . . . served in the main, local
traffic. The long distance traffic was served almost wholly by
the railroads and the water lines. Under those conditions the
occasion for separation of grades was mainly the danger incident
to rail operations; and the promotion of safety was then the main
purpose of grade separations. Then, it was reasonable to impose
upon the railroad a large part of the cost of eliminating grade
crossings; and the imposition was rarely a hardship.... the
separation of grade crossings was a normal incident of the growth
of rail operations; and as the highways were then feeders of rail
traffic; ... every improvement of highway facilities benefitted
the railroad. The effect upon the railroad of constructing
Federal-aid highways ... is entirely different. They are not
feeders of rail traffic. They deplete the existing rail traffic
and the revenues of the railroads. Separations of grade serves
to intensify the motor competition and to further deplete rail
traffic. The avoidance thereby made possible of traffic
interruptions incident to crossing at grade is now of far greater
importance to the highway users than it is to the railroad
crossed. (Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. v. Walters, 294 U.S. 405,
422-423)
In 1964, a "finding" of the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC)
extended the Court's 1935 rationale to warning devices: "That
highway users are the principal recipients of the benefits flowing
from rail-highway grade separations and from special protection at
rail-highway grade crossings. For this reason the cost of
installing and maintaining such separations and protective devices
is a public responsibility and should be financed with public funds
the same as
22
highway traffic devices." (ICC Report No. 33440, January 22, 1964)
In 1970, Congress, counting on the cooperation of industry, Federal
and state officials, included in both the Highway and Rail Safety
Acts of 1970 a provision that the Secretary study the problems of
highway-rail crossings and report back to the Congress with
recommended solutions. A two volume Report to Congress was
prepared. The first recounted the extent of the problem. The
second, submitted to Congress in 1972, included recommendations
which called for the Federal funding of safety improvements at
highway-rail crossings, improvements in accident reporting and
the establishment of a national data base of crossing
information.
Also in 1972, Idaho State and Union Pacific Railroad officials
cooperated in the promotion of a public education and enforcement
program to reduce the number of crossing accidents in Idaho. The
program was called, "Operation Lifesaver" (OL). Others states and
railroads quickly followed.
Finally, in 1972, Secretary of Transportation John A. Volpe
declared a goal, the reduction of 500 fatalities a year and the
elimination of 4,000 accidents a year within ten years. About
12,000 accidents and 1,500 fatalities per year were then
occurring.
The Highway Safety Act of 1973 funded (from the Highway Trust Fund)
a $175 million dollar program over three years ($25M/$75M/$75M) for
safety improvements at highway-rail crossings on the Federal-aid
highway system. The Federal money was distributed to states in a
fashion similar to other Federal-aid highway funds and required a
10% match. At least half the funds had to be used for the
installation of warning devices at crossings. The Act also
required that each state establish and maintain a survey of
crossings.
A joint industry/state/Federal effort, in response to the
Congressional mandate that each state establish a survey of
crossings, promoted a national Inventory pointing out that the
state "surveys" should be uniform. The Inventory was begun.
The Highway Safety Act of 1976 continued the Federal funding
begun in 1973 by providing $250 million over 27 months for
on-system crossings and $168.75 million for crossings not on the
Federal-aid system, a first.
In 1977, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
recommended that the National Safety Council establish a national
OL program.
The Highway Safety Acts of 1978 and 1982 established and continued
four-year, $190 million per year programs, dropped all distinction
between crossings on and off the Federal-aid system and changed the
distribution of funds to include a 50 percent consideration based
on the number of crossings in each state.
In 1986, OL came out from under the auspices of the National Safety
Council (NSC initiated the separation) and was incorporated as an
independent entity.
The Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of
1987 continued the crossing safety improvement program at $160
million per year for five years, through FY 1991. The Act also
charged the Secretary with conducting a study of national highway
railroad crossing improvement and maintenance needs. The report
was due in two years, a follow-up to the 1971-72 Reports to
Congress. The Act also set aside $250,000 per year for driver
education (a euphemism for OL), a first.
23
In April 1989, the Secretary of Transportation forwarded a report
to the Congress, titled: Rail-Highway Crossing Study. This study
summarized crossing needs to the year 2005.
The intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of
1991 continued the crossing safety program at the same funding
level nationwide as the 1987 Act, but with the potential for
increased funds at a state's discretion. Also, the 1991 Act
significantly broadened the allowance for 100 percent financing of
certain improvements under Section 130 Program.
24
Appendix II
Status of Current Programs
A. IntermodalSurface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA)
Most of the funds for crossing improvements come through the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). In 1973, Congress
established and funded a categorical Highway Trust Fund program for
improving highway-rail crossing safety. The crossing safety
program has been funded continuously since then. Most recently,
through passage of the ISTEA, the Congress authorized to states
over $3.4 billion in Fiscal Year (FY) 1992 and nearly $4.1 billion
per year for surface transportation programs in FYs 1993 through
1997. Of this amount, ten percent is set aside for safety
programs, including crossing safety.
1. ISTEA, Section 1007
Of the ten percent set-aside for safety programs, states must
spend $149 million on highway-rail crossing improvements. At
least 50 percent of these funds must be spent on the installation
or upgrading of warning devices, and the remainder may be spent on
additional warning devices or on other means of eliminating
crossing hazards. The specific amounts received by each state are
determined by a Congressionally mandated formula which considers
the number of crossings, highway route miles, geographical area and
population. (Significantly, the numbers of crossing accidents and
casualties do not enter into this formula.) States also receive
over $116 million in the set-aside amount which can be spent on
hazard elimination at crossings or on highways. Optional amounts
for each state range from $0 to $10.6 million. All public
highway-rail crossings are eligible. Projects may include the
installation of train-activated warning devices (traditional lights
and/or gates), signs and pavement markings, crossing closures,
signal circuit upgrades, illumination (street lights), crossing
surfaces, the building of grade separations (bridges),
sight-distance improvements and other highway approach
modifications.
2. ISTEA, Section 1010
This section authorized $30 million over six years for the
elimination of hazards at both public and private highway crossings
in up to five high speed corridors. The five corridors include:
The Northwest (Vancouver, British Columbia to Eugene, Oregon via
Seattle and Portland); California (San Diego to the Bay Area via
Los Angeles and the San Joaquin Valley with a connection to
Sacramento); Chicago (with spokes to Milwaukee, St. Louis and
Detroit); Florida (Tampa to Miami via Orlando); and the
Mid-Atlantic (Washington to Charlotte, North Carolina via
Richmond).
Length in Estimated
Kilometers Number of
Corridor (miles) Crossings
California 1,054(655) 600
Chicago Hub 1,041(647) 815
Mid Atlantic 769(478) 585
Northwest 747(464) 475
Florida 576(358) 315
25
The initial $5 million has been obligated and the second year
funding requests are under review by FRA and FHWA. States are
developing long range plans for treatment of corridor crossings and
initiating projects to specific crossings. Projects being
undertaken involve both existing and advanced technologies. For
example, four quadrant gates will be installed and evaluated, as
will an arrestor net system designed to safely restrain vehicles
from entering the crossing when a train is approaching. Two other
high speed rail corridors exist or are being developed under other
authorities. These include completion of the Northeast Corridor
from New York City to Boston, MA and the Empire Corridor from New
York City to Schenectady, NY via Albany, NY.
3. ISTEA, Section 1036
Section 1036(c) calls for a technology demonstration program which
will facilitate the establishment of high-speed rail service. Of
four projects selected for demonstration to-date, three address
highway-rail crossings. These are:
(A.) Installation of an obstacle detection system with
four-quadrant gates at a highway-rail crossing. The Connecticut
Department of Transportation will demonstrate an advanced
crossing protection system using four-quadrant gates with a
transponder-based system which will detect an obstacle between the
gates and will notify the locomotive engineer should the warning
devices not work or if the crossing is blocked, enabling the train
to stop in time to avoid an accident. Two or three Amtrak
locomotives will be retrofitted with the necessary cab signals to
receive signals from the new vehicle detection system. The new
system will overlay the existing warning system and will relay
information to the engineer via cab signals.
(B.) A consortium of four firms, a university and Virginia's Center
for Innovative Technology will demonstrate a "friendly mobile
barrier" (FMB). The FMB is a crash attenuation device that rises
from a vault in the roadway behind crossing gates after the gates
have come down. The FMB will block access to the tracks for
approaching highway vehicles and will stop a passenger car or light
truck while averting both fatal injury to occupants and damage to
the barrier. The FMB will also prevent a large truck from gaining
access to the tracks at truck speeds up to 80 kph (50 mph), though
damage to both the truck and barrier could be severe.
(C.) The Florida Department of Transportation (FL DOT) will
demonstrate a low cost grade separation structure and process.
Total cost and time of construction is expected to be approximately
fifty percent less than the time and cost of a traditional pile
supported, concrete wall and beamed structure. The proposed
structure will use either a culvert style approach or "two vertical
walls of reinforced concrete covered by a deck (to be designed by
the FL DOT)." The FL DOT will "compete" the options.
4. ISTEA, Section 1072 Section 1072 requires the Department to
coordinate field testing of a Vehicle Proximity Alert System (VPAS)
to determine feasibility for use by priority vehicles (emergency,
police, school buses, hazmat) as an effective highway-rail grade
crossing safety device. A special public announcement on 26 July
1993 solicited information for any existing designs for possible
test
26
and evaluation (T&E). Eleven formal responses involving different
technologies were received and evaluated. Four systems,
representing three basic design concepts, were tentatively
selected.
The current program effort is to provide a test site(s) (currently
the Pueblo Transportation Test Center), test plan, data collection
and evaluation for the selected systems that have operational
prototypes. The test and evaluation will include a representative
design from each of the three design concepts. Those systems that
successfully pass initial testing and have promise will receive a
thorough field operational evaluation to verify the reliability and
overall performance in real-life conditions.
The cost for testing and evaluation should be under $1,000,000, and
FHWA has identified approximately $1,000,000 of IVHS (Intelligent
Vehicle Highway System) funds which have been transferred to VPAS
for the T&E effort. The FRA Office of Railroad Development (High
Speed Rail Corridor Project) will have funds available in FY 1995
to help support the T&E effort.
5. ISTEA, Section 1077
Section 1077 required revision of the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (MUTCD) to grant states and local governments the
discretionary authority to install STOP or YIELD signs at any
highway-rail grade crossing without automatic traffic control
devices with two or more trains operating across the highway-rail
grade crossing per day. To implement Section 1077 the FHWA
published on November 6, 1992 a Final Rule 92-11 in the Federal
Register (57 FR 53029). This Final Rule incorporated standards
into Section 8B9 of the MUTCD.
The rule was effective upon issuance. In addition, on December 30,
1992, the FHWA issued an interpretation which defined "two or more
trains a day" to mean: an average of two or more trains operating
over the crossing each day for a period of one year prior to the
installation of the STOP or YIELD control sign.
FRA and FHWA have developed a list of considerations to assist in
the selection of crossings where it would be most appropriate to
install such signs first. We have encouraged states, communities
and railroads to develop a rational program for the installation
of STOP or YIELD signs.
The following factors are suggested for consideration when
reviewing a crossing for possible STOP or YIELD sign installation:
a. Will local law enforcement officials enforce the traffic control
message?;
b. Volume, type and speed of highway traffic;
c. Frequency, type and speed of trains;
d. Number of tracks and the intersection angles;
e. Adequacy of stopping sight distances;
f. Need for more active control devices; and
g. Crossing accident history.
Crossings which should be considered first for STOP sign
installations should
27
be those where most of the following factors are met:
a. Local and/or state police and judicial officials will commit to
a continuing program of enforcement.
b. The highway is secondary in character with low traffic counts.
Recommended maximum of 400 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) in
rural areas, and 1,500 AADT in urban areas.
c. Highway traffic mix includes buses, hazardous materials carriers
and/or large (trash or earth moving) equipment.
d. Train speeds exceed 30 mph and/or train movements are 10 or more
per day, 5 or more days per week.
e. Rail line is used by passenger trains and/or a significant
incidence of hazardous material lading.
f. Crossing is multiple track and/or approach is at a skewed (other
than 90 degree) angle.
g. The line of sight from an approaching highway vehicle
to an approaching train is restricted.
h. Installation of a STOP sign would not occasion a more dangerous
situation than would exist with a YIELD sign.
STOP or YIELD signs shall not be used at crossings with active
traffic control devices. STOP AHEAD or YIELD AHEAD Advance Warning
Signs should also be installed. The placement of a STOP or YIELD
Sign at a crossing shall conform to the requirements of 28
MUTCD Section 213-9 Location of STOP Sign and YIELD Sign.
The FRA has developed software and made available lists which
group "passive" crossings, i.e., those without active warning
devices, into categories based on information taken from the U.S.
DOT/AAR (Department of Transportation/Association of American
Railroads) National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory and the
objective criteria from the foregoing factors. The top
categories include those crossings which should be reviewed and
considered first for STOP signs (i.e., those most likely to
realize a safety benefit). Several states and railroads have
acquired these listings.
B. High Speed Rail
The FRA's Office of Safety has established guidelines for
crossings on high speed rail corridors.
If rail speeds are to exceed 200 kph (125 mph), no at-grade (level)
crossings, public or private, will be permitted across the rail
right-of-way. All crossings in such high speed rail corridors
must be closed or grade separated (a bridge built).
1. Public Crossings:
Where trains will be operating at speeds between 176 and 200 kph
highway-rail crossings must be equipped with impenetrable barriers
capable of precluding intrusion onto an operating track, i.e.,
stopping highway vehicles short of fouling the operating track(s).
Such a barrier must be operated in conjunction with intrusion
detection and train stop technology. This implies track circuits
of sufficient length that logic circuitry can verify and
communicate to the locomotive that: 1) the barriers are closed;
and, 2) the crossing is clear of vehicles, while the
28
train is still a sufficient distance from the crossing that a full
service brake application (non emergency) would bring the train to
a stop before reaching the crossing if either indicator was not
favorable. (See requirement for "grade crossing protection" in
the context of operating speeds above 110 mph (49 CFR 213.9(c)).)
In this context, the term "grade crossing protection" is separate
and distinct from conventional "warning devices." Warning
devices, which are defined by the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (MUTCD), are intended to warn motorists of the
presence of a crossing and of impending rail activities for the
purpose of highway traffic control at and over the crossing.
Concerns for the safety of the motorist and the efficiency of
highway traffic flow are the motivating factors, and the FHWA has
taken the lead in establishing requisite standards. However, these
concerns pale in comparison to concern for the safety of the rail
operation (for passengers, crews and trains) where rail speeds
exceed 176 kph. Conventional warning devices do not protect the
integrity or safety of the rail movement at any speed, and this
failure would be catastrophic at speeds above 176 kph. Thus,
"protection" is defined to mean an effective barrier, i.e., one
which precludes intrusion onto the rail right-of-way. The closest
parallel to this situation currently addressed within the MUTCD is
the reference to "resistance gates" for closing roads on approaches
to movable bridges. See MUTCD Section 4E-13. The role of "highway
traffic control" in such a setting is to alert the highway vehicle
driver that an obstruction or barricade lies ahead, i.e., that the
road is temporarily closed. The MUTCD currently defines the
necessary elements for properly closing and/or barricading a road.
For new service on designated corridors at or above 128 kph (80
mph) to 176 kph, FRA's guidelines call for the completion of a
corridor analysis leading to elimination of not less than 25% (50%
as the target) of crossings, with separation or active warning
devices, to include gates, at the remainder. Constant warning time
upgrades would be required, where not present. As warranted at
selected crossings, encourage use of median barriers, special
signing (e.g., active advance) and/or four quadrant gates.
If lightweight train sets are introduced, additional protection
might be required for rail movements.
2. Private Crossings: We recommend that private crossings be
individually analyzed, and closed as warranted. In addition,
private crossings should be subject to safety measures comparable
to public crossings and equipped with manual gates (normal position
being closed and locked).
For train speeds from 176 to 200 kph, accidental
intrusion on the rail right-of-way must be absolutely precluded.
This means that private crossings must be equipped with locked
gates linked to the train signal and control system, along with
telephones and a fail safe vehicle (obstruction) detection at the
crossing. Gates should be substantially constructed, i.e., able
to absorb a moderate speed collision from vehicles likely to be
using the crossings without fracturing. If the gate/barrier is
opened (e.g., to accommodate an emergency) it can not be done
until track clearance has been received from the railroad and
trains in the territory have been advised.
29
Where passenger trains are scheduled to operate at speeds from 128
to 176 kph, private crossings should either be closed, grade
separated, provided with a secured barrier, or equipped with
automatic visual and audible traffic control devices which provide
a minimum of 20 seconds warning of the impending presence of a
train to users of the crossing. The traffic control device
should include a full barrier gate system (covering all lanes,
approach and exit) on each side of the rail right-of-way. The
barrier (gate) will normally be closed (down) and will open on
request (manually or automatically), if no train is
approaching, for a period of time sufficient for the crossing user
to negotiate the crossing.
C. Light Rail
Many metropolitan areas are addressing transportation needs by
establishing light rail transit systems or reestablishing street
cars or trolleys. Light rail transit systems currently exist in
eighteen cities in the United States and Canada. New operations
often share existing streets with highway traffic. Sometimes they
use medians or closely parallel existing streets; operate in
exclusive rights-of-way; or share a right-of-way, and sometimes
track, with
Click HERE for graphic.
30
conventional rail operations. In some instances, light rail
transit systems may employ a combination of these scenarios.
Most systems have some grade crossings. Not surprisingly these
corridors generate relatively large numbers of crossing and
pedestrian incidents and casualties. New operations have quickly
discovered that the most prevalent safety problem,
and the one that draws the most public concern, is light rail
versus motor vehicle collisions.
Some communities have operated light rail and commuter rail systems
for many years, e.g., New Jersey Transit and San Francisco MUNI.
Newer systems are experiencing grade crossing accidents and
increasing public concern as a result of these incidents. Most of
these accidents are not the result of unsafe operation of the rail
vehicle, but rather a lack of education about the dangers of
attempting to cross the tracks while a rail vehicle is approaching.
The cultural diversity of the surrounding community, language
barriers and the unfamiliarity with living in an environment with
light rail vehicles at grade crossings also have an impact on the
number of grade crossing accidents.
1. Metro Blue Line Grade Crossing Safety Program
In the three years since the opening of the Los Angeles Metro Blue
Line (MBL), a 22 mile light rail system, there have been 182
train-vehicle and 24 train pedestrian collisions resulting in 16
fatalities and numerous injuries (as reported through June 1993).
There are 100 grade crossings on the MBL.
Officials from the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority (MTA) are taking an aggressive and innovative approach to
finding solutions.
The MBL Grade Crossing Safety Program was initiated in March 1993
to evaluate various means to discourage or prevent illegal
movements being made by motor vehicles at grade
crossings that are causing train-vehicle accidents. While the
program is focused primarily on evaluating measures to decrease
train- vehicle accidents, the safety program is also concerned
with improvements that will reduce train pedestrian accidents.
The MTA is seeking to apply innovative equipment and safety
methods developed for street and highway traffic applications.
These engineering improvements will address the unique
characteristics of grade crossings and improve public safety.
The program includes four elements:
Enforcement using sheriff's deputies and photo enforcement systems.
Engineering improvements including use of Intelligent Vehicle
Highway Systems (IVHS) technology, warning devices, and street
and traffic signal improvements.
Legislation to establish higher fines and statewide rail safety
educational programs.
Bilingual public information and safety education.
The photo enforcement program has been extremely successful in
terms of reducing the numbers of motorists who are violating grade
crossings. Over a four month period, a photo enforcement
demonstration project resulted in an 84 percent reduction in the
number of violations occurring at two targeted crossings.
31
Their efforts are worthy of emulation, as they have had success
in reducing accidents. The FTA, in collaboration with the FHWA
and FRA, provided funding to the MTA to test and evaluate
technologies that will support the enforcement of traffic laws
and decrease the frequency of grade crossing violations and
accidents.
2. Integration of Light Rail into City Streets
Through the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP), the FTA
funded a research project to improve the safety of light rail
operations in shared rights-of-way and to provide guidelines that
may be used in updating the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MUTCD). Korve Engineering, Inc. of Oakland, California is
the recipient of a $250,000 TCRP contract to (1) identify problems
and potential solutions, and 2)conduct in-depth behavioral analysis
of the most significant issues that impact integration of light
rail transit into city streets. The anticipated products from this
project are (1) identification of methods now in use to mitigate
hazards of light rail transit operations, (2) calculation of
measures of effectiveness, (3) recommendations for additions to the
MUTCD, (4) demonstration of at least one proposed technique to
improve safety, and (5) recommendations for future research.
Using a hazard analysis approach, the project will identify the
most effective control devices, public education techniques and
enforcement techniques to improve safety for rail passengers,
motorists and pedestrians. The project will identify the most
promising techniques to address problems such as:
Lack of pedestrian awareness of approaching light rail vehicles.
Unsafe pedestrian activity in close proximity to tracks, stations
and intersections.
Motor vehicles operating parallel to light rail tracks turning into
the path of light rail vehicles.
Failure of motor vehicles to yield right-of-way to light rail
vehicles at street crossings.
Motor vehicles obstructing tracks.
Motor vehicles driving around closed railroad gates.
Nonstandard crossing configurations (e.g., light
rail vehicles that turn in intersections, skewed intersections).
Techniques to be analyzed will include passive and active signs;
traffic signalization (including light rail indications);
pavement marking, texturing and striping; geometric improvements;
channelization; audible warning devices (bells, whistles, horns,
etc.); intersection illumination; illumination and marking of
light rail vehicles for better nighttime visibility; moveable
traffic barriers; application of advanced technology;
enforcement; and education.
An additional objective is to provide material for possible use in
the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The MUTCD
addresses traffic control for highway-rail crossings, but light
rail vehicles interact
32
with motor vehicles and pedestrian traffic in more complex ways
than do traditional railroads.
3. State Safety Oversight
Section 28 of the Federal Transit Act, as amended (FT Act) directs
the FTA to issue a rule requiring states to oversee the safety of
rail fixed guideway systems not regulated by the FRA. A Notice of
Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) was published in the Federal Register
on December 9, 1993. The NPRM proposes the FTA's State Safety
Oversight Program, which should improve the safety of light rail
fixed guideway systems.
Section 28 requires each state to designate a state oversight
agency to be responsible for overseeing the rail fixed guideway
system's safety practices. FTA may withhold Federal funds if a
state fails to implement the oversight program.
More specifically, the statute describes the responsibilities of
the state, the agency the state designates to provide oversight,
and the type of activities the agency is expected to carry out. In
most instances, this entity will be an agency of the state because
most rail fixed guideway systems operate only in one state. Where
a rail fixed guideway system operates in more than one state,
however, the statute permits the affected states to designate any
entity, other than the transit agency itself, to oversee that rail
fixed guideway system.
D. Crossing Consolidation and Closure
A March 4, 1993 memorandum from FHWA's Associate Administrator
for Safety and System Applications to the FHWA Regional
Administrators provided direction: "When considering
[highway-rail crossing] improvement options, the ultimate
solution to train-vehicle collisions is to eliminate the
crossing by constructing a grade separation or closing the
crossing.... In addition to considering the closure of unnecessary
grade crossings, states and local communities should make every
effort to minimize the number of new crossings." Implementation is
left to the FHWA Region and Division offices working with FRA
Region offices.
FRA has an ongoing project designed to encourage railroads and
state transportation agencies to consolidate and close unnecessary
crossings. Case studies of two dozen crossing consolidation and
closure projects were prepared. The case studies highlight
effective strategies that have been used to consolidate crossings,
and the lessons that can be learned from unsuccessful closure
projects. Case studies were selected to reflect the diversity of
state law on the subject of crossing closure and the range of
crossing consolidation experience on freight and commuter railroads
in rural and urban areas.
In February 1993, Operation Lifesaver, Inc. (OLI) subscribed to the
general notion of closing crossings for safety: "To enhance
highway-rail grade crossing safety, Operation Lifesaver, Inc.
endorses the concept of reducing the number of crossings through
consolidation, elimination, grade separation and restricting the
number of new crossings. Several state level OL programs are
promoting crossing closure.
The Association of American Railroads (AAR) and the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO),
working through the National Conference of State Rail Officials
(NCSRO), have established an ad hoc committee to address the
promotion of crossing closure programs. Both the FHWA and FRA are
supporting this effort co-chaired by individuals from the Iowa
Department of Transportation and the Union Pacific Railroad. The
goal is to publish a report outlining the rationale for crossing
closure, a compendium of state laws
33
regarding crossing closures and openings, a series of "provisions"
that might be incorporated in new state legislation to promote
closures and limit openings (selection of provisions would depend
on the structure of state government) and to provide some tools to
promote progress (e.g., procedures, pamphlets, possibly a video).
The committee is promoting a study by the National Cooperative
Highway Research Program (NCHRP) to develop an analytical
procedure for assessing a group of crossings (a corridor) and
developing criteria for weighing the pros and cons of closing
specific crossings within the group.
In August 1993, at the annual NCSRO meeting, the Safety Committee
proposed a resolution which was positively received, to wit, that
cash incentives to local governments for crossing closure should be
permitted (at state discretion) from the Federally funded (Highway
Trust Fund) crossing safety improvement program. Such a provision
would have to be sanctioned by Congress. As proposed by NCSRO, the
local jurisdiction receiving these funds would have complete
latitude in their use. However, they could be used for some items
or indirect costs which cannot be paid with Federal funds.
Examples from FRA's case studies include landscaping and the
extension of a water line to a new fire hydrant necessitated by the
closure.
This resolution has been approved by both NCSRO and AASHTO
state officers and was formally forwarded to the Department by
AASHTO on May 12, 1994.
The FHWA will currently allow Federal funds to be used for
purchasing a property "right" from a private entity for public
purposes, but has not extended that allowance to a public entity.
Such a program will be needed, if not for all railroads'
right-of-way, at least for high speed corridors.
Several railroads have established their own programs to promote
crossing closure. Burlington Northern Railroad (BN), Conrail (CR),
CSX Transportation (CSX), Norfolk Southern Corporation (NS) and
Union Pacific Railroad (UP) are examples. They use different
approaches, each with varying success, but learning as they go.
For example, in Florida, CSX, "which represents 60 percent of the
rail mileage in Florida, has agreed to be the applicant on
crossing closures on their system, pay 100 percent of the cost of
closure and share the costs associated with roadway improvements
required as a result of the crossing closure."(5) UP is working
through their OL presenters and is willing to match the Nebraska
cash incentive for local communities. (UP and BN have both agreed
to match state incentive payments in Missouri as well, if the
state approves a program.)
The legislatures of Kentucky, Missouri and Illinois have each
recently enacted crossing closure initiatives. Missouri and
Illinois have tasked rail offices in their respective states with
studying the closure alternative. In the case of Missouri, the
Missouri Division of Transportation has reported back and
recommended a crossing closure plan describing both procedures and
funding.(6) In Illinois, they are to publish specific criteria which
will be considered when weighing the retention of an existing
crossing or the opening of a new crossing. Authority to close
crossings is (and was) vested in the Illinois Commerce Commission.
In Kentucky, the Transportation Cabinet has been given the
authority to close crossings used by less than
---------------
(5) Report to the Governor and the 1994 Florida Legislature on
the Safety and Security of Railroad-Highway Grade Crossings,
January 21, 1994,
(6) Executive Summary of the Missouri Grade Crossing Closure
Study, Missouri Division of Transportation Staff, 34 January, 1994.
34
4,000 vehicles per day. The existence of this authority has led
to many cooperative (between local communities, the Commonwealth
and the railroads) ventures resulting in the closing of several
crossings. The Cabinet has not yet had to exercise the
"authority" in order to consummate a project. Florida DOT
"discourages the opening of new public grade crossings." In fact,
Florida's Secretary of Transportation has placed a moratorium on
new at-grade crossings on Florida's Section 1010 corridor.(7)
Currently, there are no Federal restrictions or standards on how
many or what types of crossings should be consolidated within a
given area. However, some jurisdictions have found the following
criteria useful for selecting crossings for consolidation:
1. Consolidate crossings where there are more than four
per mile in urban areas, and one per mile in rural areas and an
alternate route is available;
2. Consolidate crossings which have fewer than 2,000 vehicles per
day and more than two trains per day and an alternate route is
available;
3. Eliminate crossings where the road crosses the tracks
at a skewed angle or where the track is curved;
4. Link construction work with eliminations. This linkage will
be especially important when upgrading rail corridors for high
speed trains;
5. When improving one crossing (by grade separation or installation
of automated warning devices), consider eliminating adjacent
crossings and rerouting traffic from these crossings to the
improved crossing;
6. For every new crossing built, consolidate traffic from two or
three other crossings; and
7. Eliminate complex crossings where it is difficult to provide
adequate warning devices or which have severe operating problems
(e.g., multiple tracks, extensive switching operations, long
periods blocked, etc.).
Before consolidation, identify alternate routes for ambulances,
fire, and other emergency vehicles. Past experience shows that
even when communities support crossing consolidation, they may
oppose proposed changes in traffic patterns. In these cases,
"trade-offs," such as upgrading other crossings in the area of the
targeted closure, have been successful.
When set against the backdrop of current high speed rail
proposals, all this is particularly timely. Crossings are the
major impediment to the realization of true wide spread high speed
rail operations, both passenger and intermodal, in this country.
The crossing problem must be solved, or we will not realize full
potential. Consolidating crossings is the safest and only long
term solution. The momentum which now exists must be nurtured.
E. Corridor Reviews
For the last 20 years, states have been able to identify and
improve many hazardous highway-rail crossings, most often by
installing train-activated warning devices with Federal-aid highway
safety funds. Today, many of the most hazardous crossings have
been improved. There is some concern, however, that too little
attention has been paid to the less expensive safety improvements
that are needed at a far greater number of crossings, including
private crossings.
---------------
(7) Florida Report, page 11.
35
Under the current program, low-volume crossings are seldom
reviewed by diagnostic teams and any work done at these crossings
is usually limited to the installation of passive warning
devices. Statistics show that more than half of the fatalities
resulting from highway-rail crossing accidents occur at low
volume crossings where active warning devices may never be
installed.
Actions have been taken over the years to encourage states to
expand their programs to encompass significantly more crossings
each year and emphasize low-cost improvements at crossings not
often addressed by diagnostic teams. In a June 1983 memo, the
FHWA's Office of Highway Safety urged its field offices to
encourage states to consider a number of low-cost projects that had
the potential to improve safety at crossings without active warning
devices. Such projects included: (1) vegetation clearing and other
means of improving sight distance; (2) installing standard signs
and pavement markings; (3) improving roadway approach grades and
alignment; (4) improving crossing surfaces, and (5) closing
unnecessary crossings.
It was pointed out that these low-cost improvements could
frequently best be carried out if all the crossings along a
railroad corridor or in a given area, such as an urban area or a
highway district, were analyzed at the same time for possible
improvement. This method of analyzing crossings is especially
important in determining which crossings can be closed. The memo
further pointed out that Federal-aid highway funds are eligible for
making improvements in these corridors even if every crossing in
the corridor does not appear on the state's high priority list of
crossings.
In 1986, the FHWA published a report titled Demonstration Project
No. 70, Railroad Crossing Corridor Improvements, which presented a
model program combining the benefits of individual high-risk
crossing programs with those of a corridor approach. The
report also spelled out specific aspects of a corridor approach
that should be emphasized to maximize a state's crossing safety
effort.
In March 1993, FHWA's Associate Administrator for Safety and System
Applications issued a memo reminding FHWA field offices that the
ultimate solution to train vehicle collisions is to eliminate
crossings by constructing grade separations or closing the
crossings. Again, these are the types of actions that can best be
analyzed by looking at numerous adjacent crossings in a corridor or
systems approach to crossing improvements.
F. Operation Lifesaver. TM (OL) and OL, Inc. (OLI)
Operation Lifesaver(TM) is an active, continuing public education
program designed to reduce the number of crashes, deaths and
injuries at highway-rail intersections. It is sponsored
cooperatively by Federal, state and local government agencies,
highway safety organizations and the nation's railroads.
1. Education
Operation Lifesaver's success lies in educating people of all ages
as to just how potentially hazardous grade crossings can be.
Methods used to reach the public include civic presentations, early
elementary and driver education curriculum activities, school bus
driver programs, industrial safety, law enforcement programs and
media coverage. Both OLI and FRA have produced Public Service
Announcements (PSAs) for television and radio. Some state
programs have also produced PSAs, including some in Spanish.
2. Enforcement
Nearly 50 percent of all highway-rail crossing accidents occur at
crossings equipped with automated warning devices, indicating that
some members of the public ignore the devices. This
36
statistic underscores the need for increased enforcement.
The DOT does not enforce traffic laws at crossings, which is why
the support of state, local, and railroad enforcement officers is so
critical. The DOT and OLI work with state and local police,
highway, and judicial authorities to promote broader enforcement
programs and imposition of stiff fines for disregarding warning
devices and STOP signs at highway-rail crossings. State and local
law enforcement agencies are urged to "crack down" on motorists and
pedestrians who disregard these laws and jeopardize their own as
well as the lives of others. FRA/OLI are making available the
Law Enforcement Television Network series, "On-Track," for
training of police officers regarding enforcement of crossing
safety laws. FRA, sometimes jointly with OLI, has set up
crossing safety and trespass prevention displays at national
meetings of the International Association of Chiefs of Police,
the National Fraternal Order of Police and the National Sheriffs'
Association.
Vandalism of active warning devices at highway-rail crossings is
also a problem which can be aided by police involvement.
Approximately one in twenty warning device failures is reportedly
attributable to vandalism, and vandalism is suspect in many more.
3. Engineering
The public is made aware of Federal, state and railroad programs
that plan, install and maintain grade crossings. FRA/FHWA/OLI
offer technical training to employees of railroads and state and
local governments in crossing improvement and safety programs.
4. Funding
Operation Lifesaver, Inc. receives nearly 60 percent of its funding
on a national level from FHWA ($300,000) and FRA ($100,000) grants.
Private corporate sources providing funding include the Association
of American Railroads (AAR), the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation (Amtrak) and the Railway Progress Institute (RPI), with
individuals providing small levels of support through individual
and small corporate donations. As a 501(c)3 organization, OLI is
federally tax-exempt, and all donations to it are tax-deductible,
based on current IRS regulations for charitable deductions.
State and local programs are funded from myriad sources including
state and corporate contributions. Some assistance, mostly
non-financial, is provided by OLI. Many state programs are
incorporated in a fashion similar to OLI.
5. Staffing
Located in Alexandria, Virginia, just outside of Washington, D.C.,
the National Support Center (NSC) serves first and foremost as a
central coordinating point for all OL activities nationwide
(national headquarters office). The headquarters employs three
full-time staff members: Executive Director, Communications
Director and Executive Assistant. The NSC functions on a full-time
basis five days per week. OLI also employs a full-time individual
designated as the National Field Coordinator (NFC), whose primary
role is to offer direct technical assistance to the state OL
programs. Working from a field office in Phoenix, Arizona, the NFC
assists state programs, reorganizes dormant programs, helps
maintain
37
current programs and establishes new programs. The NFC provides
the training necessary to have individuals certified as Operation
Lifesaver Presenters.
There is an OL State Coordinator for each state (except Hawaii).
This individual promotes and coordinates crossing safety and
enforcement programs within the state, coordinates speakers for
events, prepares and displays exhibits at state and county fairs
and special events, responds to and initiates media coverage,
attends public hearings/meetings and, develops and/or distributes
promotional materials, etc.
G. Research
1. Locomotive Conspicuity
Many railroads have equipped locomotives with alerting lights (such
as ditch lights, strobe lights, oscillating lights, low-level-
additional-headlights, and flood lights) to make them more visible
at night. In 1983, the FRA conducted a benefit-cost analysis of
alerting lights and concluded that a Federal requirement that all
railroads use such lights on every leading railroad car could not
be justified. After comparing the safety records of railroads that
equipped locomotives with alerting lights to those of railroads
that did not equip their locomotives with such lights, the FRA
found no evidence that alerting lights reduced highway-rail
crossing accidents. The FRA determined, in light of this
information and the maintenance and reliability problems found,
that the costs of requiring alerting lights would far exceed the
benefits. The 1983 report stated if the FRA issued such a
regulation under these circumstances, railroads would be compelled
to reallocate resources from programs already proven successful in
reducing rates for crossing accidents to a less effective approach.
However, two years ago, in light of improved device reliability
and in frustration with the continuing toll of crossing
accidents, the FRA asked VNTSC to again research this option. In
recent legislation, specifically the Amtrak Authorization and
Development Act passed in 1992, the Congress directed the
Secretary of Transportation to complete research by the end of
1993 and to issue final rules before July 1995 requiring
"enhanced locomotive conspicuity measures." The legislation
defines this as any "enhancement of day and night visibility of
the front-end unit of a train, by means of lighting, reflective
materials, or other perspective of drivers of motor vehicles at
grade crossings."
2. Reflectorization of Rail Cars
In 1982, the FRA studied the safety potential of requiring some
reflective patches on the sides of rail cars. Principally because
of the rapid degradation of available materials at that time, the
FRA concluded that such a requirement was not cost-effective.
However, in recognition of recent improvements in retro-reflective
materials (more reflective ability and surface coatings that resist
dirt accumulation and afford some ultra violet protection), the FRA
is reconsidering this option.
Tests have been conducted at the Transportation Test Center in
Pueblo, Colorado, to measure performance and to establish the
optimal size and position of the materials on freight cars. Full
scale testing (in revenue service), with the cooperation of three
major railroads, is now underway in Alabama, Alaska,
38
Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Minnesota, Ohio, Tennessee,
and Virginia. As part of the overall effort, accident experience
and data will be reviewed. Human factors, specifically motor
vehicle operator recognition, comprehension and response, will be
assessed. Upon completion of these tests in FY 1994, the FRA
will reexamine its policy on this matter.
3. Illumination
VNTSC is developing illumination standards for street lights at
highway-rail crossings. The purpose of such lighting is twofold:
to provide advance notice to the approaching motorist of the
existence of a crossing, and to illuminate a train when one is in
the crossing. FRA is sponsoring this effort. VNTSC will consider
in its evaluation a cost comparison of solar-powered and
commercially-powered illumination systems and applicability of
standard highway illumination. A draft report and illumination
guidelines have been circulated for peer review and is projected to
be available to FRA by Summer 1994.
While illumination has failed to gain widespread recognition as
a safety improvement option, it has several benefits.
Illumination is a low-cost improvement, especially if commercial
power is already available. In addition, placement, operation,
and maintenance can be effected with only minimal railroad
involvement. States may use Federal funding for such
projects 5. through ISTEA.
4. Train Horns
The FRA is working with the Association of American Railroads (AAR)
to study the safety impact of whistle bans nationwide, to
determine if nationwide Federal action is required. Federal noise
standards for railroads are established by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and enforced by the FRA. However, because
of their primary use as safety devices, locomotive horns and
whistles are exempt from the EPA noise emission standards. The FRA
is sponsoring research by the VNTSC to develop an optimal warning
signal for locomotive whistles, which minimizes noise for
communities while not compromising safety. VNTSC also is
investigating potential alternative systems, such as audible
warning devices installed directly at crossings. (A cooperative
effort involving the State of Nebraska, the City of Gering, the
Union Pacific Railroad and a private firm has produced some field
testing of an Automated Horn System (AHS) mounted at the crossing.
The Los Angeles County Transportation Commission is also
considering a similar device offered by another firm.) Some Los
Angeles County commuter trains have been equipped with an
innovative train whistle device, somewhat toned down and mounted
lower on the locomotive in order to minimize impacts on neighboring
communities, but still meeting minimum FRA standards. (VNTSC and
FRA are monitoring these efforts.) A final report with research
project results is anticipated to be available in 1994.
5. Signing Innovation
The FHWA, the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) and Texas
A&M University (on behalf of the State of Texas) have been pursuing
research regarding innovative signing for use at highway-rail
crossings.
39
a. The FHWA has recently concluded an effort to contrast the
recognition and interpretation of various proposed passive signing
configurations. Signs considered included the Canadian and
Buckeye Crossbucks as well as traditional and modified YIELD
signs. A report of this study was published in December 1993.
b. ODOT has in progress a massive field experiment and
comparison of a new crossbuck and YIELD sign configuration,
called the Buckeye Crossbuck. Half of the crossings in Ohio
which are not equipped with automated devices are now being
equipped with the new sign, while the other half are being
provided new, but conventional, crossbuck signs. Subsequent
statistical assessments, two to five years after installation is
complete, will provide conclusions regarding the efficacy of the
proposed sign. Crash testing is also being planned, i.e., staged
and monitored vehicle collisions with the new Buckeye Crossbuck.
c. The Texas Transportation Institute (TTI), part of
Texas A&M University, has developed and has recently been
experimenting with an innovative advanced warning sign for use at
highway-rail crossings. Field and driver recognition and
response experimentation has recently been completed. A report
is being prepared.
6. Loss of Shunt
The FRA is conducting a joint research project with the Association
of American Railroads to study the reliability of train detection
track circuits and to document potential or probable conditions
contributing to "loss of shunt". The safety and reliability
of highway-rail crossing warning devices are a major concern of
both the railroad industry and the FRA. The primary activation
of a crossing warning device is through vehicle wheel sets which
apply a shunt between the two rails along a designated section of
track. This shunting action causes track circuit voltage to
short-circuit and prevent electrical energy from reaching the
control relays. This activates the relays which control the
proper functioning of signals and highway-rail crossing gates and
flashers.
It has been suggested that a loss of shunt may be occurring at
certain locations, causing premature release of crossing warning
systems. The inability to properly shunt the track circuit could
be due to a number of individual parameters, or a combination of
factors. Some suggested conditions leading to improper shunting
include films or contamination at the wheel/rail interface; light
axle loads; changes in the wheel/rail contact patch due to rail
grinding practices or different wheel profiles; and truck hunting
or irregular wheel rail surface. The exact combination of the
above conditions that could lead to loss of shunt is not fully
known, nor is it certain that these are the only items that
adversely influence shunting.
This research program is intended to collect sufficient field data
to document the occurrence of inadequate shunting and to document
as fully as possible the conditions of both track and equipment
that existed at the time the loss of shunt was experienced.
40
7. Photo-Enforcement
FHWA, FTA and FRA are jointly funding an evaluation of a photo
enforcement demonstration being conducted by the Los Angeles County
Transportation Commission. Early results at two crossings equipped
with active photo-enforcement equipment indicate an 84 percent
reduction in motorists driving around down gates. Crossing
accidents along that portion of the light rail line where the
devices have been installed are down percent.
8. High Speed Rail Surveys
FRA has initiated investigation of hazard elimination alternatives
at highway-rail crossings. FRA has also contracted for an
investigation of current and new technologies for use at high
speed rail crossings. Two contractors are involved:
Applied Systems Technologies, Inc. (ASTI) is investigating hazard
elimination needs and options on the ISTEA Section 1010 corridors
as well as the Northeast Corridor north end and the Empire
Corridor. The research includes review of existing conditions on
proposed high speed rail corridors and defines the problems with
respect to the magnitude of the crossings affected, risk analysis
of crossing warning devices proposed, overall view of current and
innovative warning devices, prominent jurisdictional issues and
any recommendations to resolve the identified problems. The
contract was recently modified to identify and determine the
degree to which liability issues may or have impeded progress in
the crossing hazard elimination area.
Battelle Laboratories of Ohio is investigating the world-wide
status of current and innovative technologies for use at high speed
rail crossings. The research includes determining the feasibility
and cost of each technology. Areas of concern include signal and
train control, obstruction detection devices and active and passive
warning devices. Another area of research involves development of
a methodology to assess alternative grade crossing technology for
use on the proposed U.S. high speed rail grade crossings.
H. Truck and Bus Involved Accidents
A review of the data available on truck accidents at highway-rail
crossings indicates a general decline in these accidents. In 1982
there were 555 truck-trailer and bus accidents representing less
than eight percent of total highway-rail crossing accidents. These
accidents resulted in 26 fatalities, four percent of total
fatalities at public highway-rail crossings. In 1992, 385
truck-trailer and bus accidents occurred at public highway-rail
crossings accounting for less than nine percent of the accidents at
these crossings. Thirteen fatalities resulted, two percent of
total crossing fatalities. These figures do not diminish the
seriousness of these accidents. Truck collisions with trains often
derail the trains and have catastrophic potential.
It is unknown at this time how many states consider driving around
gates which are down a serious driving offense, especially by a
driver operating with a Commercial Driver's License.
I. Regulation
1. Inspection, Testing, Maintenance and Timely Response:
On January 20, 1994, FRA published a Notice of Proposed Rule Making
(NPRM) (59 FR 3051) in which FRA proposed specific maintenance,
inspection and testing requirements for
41
active highway-rail crossing warning systems. FRA also proposed to
require that railroads take specific and timely actions to protect
the travelling public and railroad employees from the hazards posed
by malfunctioning highway-rail crossing warning systems. This
action was taken in response to a statutory requirement that FRA
"issue rules, regulations, orders, and standards to insure the safe
maintenance, inspection, and testing of signal systems and systems
at railroad highway grade crossings." FRA also solicited comments
on whether the parking of idle rail equipment or switching
operations on track circuits which activate highway-rail crossing
warning devices should be addressed, and how.
2. Locomotive Conspicuity
In October 1992, the Amtrak Authorization and Development Act was
signed into law. This legislation required the Secretary to
complete locomotive conspicuity research no later than December
31, 1993. It also provided that interim regulations be issued
identifying ditch lights, crossing lights, strobe lights and
oscillating lights as interim locomotive conspicuity measures, and
authorizing and encouraging installation and use of such devices.
Any locomotive equipped with such interim conspicuity devices on
the date of issuance of final regulations will be considered in
full compliance until four years after issuance of the final
regulations.
As required by the statute, FRA issued, on February 3, 1993,
interim standards regarding locomotive lighting to enhance
conspicuity of trains. (58 FIR 6899, to be codified at 49 C.F.R.
229.133) This interim rule identifies several auxiliary external
lighting 42 arrangements as acceptable interim locomotive
conspicuity measures. This rule encourages the installation on
locomotives of such lighting arrangements as are now widely used
and available. This action is intended to increase the visibility
of locomotives to motorists and thereby reduce the incidence of
accidental collisions between motor vehicles and locomotives at
highway-rail crossings. Lighting devices installed in conformance
to acceptable current practice will not be immediately rendered
obsolete when FRA issues final standards in this area.
A second interim rule was published May 13, 1994. This second
interim regulation relaxes the dimensional standards for placement
of the various auxiliary external lights on locomotives.
The statute also requires the FRA to initiate rule making for the
final regulations no later than June 30, 1994. The final
regulations are to be issued by June 30, 1995. Compliance is to be
industry wide no later than December 31, 1997. This effort is on
schedule.
3. Vegetation Clearance
Visibility up and down the track is critical for motorists
approaching highway-rail crossings, especially at those crossings
without automated warning devices. (Warning devices are often
installed to compensate for sight obstructions, particularly for
those which are seasonal and/or outside the control of railroad
and highway authorities.) Maintaining clear sight distance on
both highway and rail rights-of- way, i.e., clearing vegetation,
is often a seasonal necessity. The FRA is considering the
addition of a provision within revised track standards (currently
being developed) requiring that the rail right-of-way on either
side of highway-rail crossings be kept clear of vegetation.
42
4. Standing Trains, Locomotives or Cars
Most railroads have operating rules which address the standing,
spotting or parking of trains, locomotives and rail cars near
public highway-rail crossings. These rules often stipulate that
parked rail cars should be a minimum distance (e.g., 300 feet)
from a highway crossing, and that if a train, locomotive or car
is stopped where it may obscure the view of train movements on
adjacent tracks, provision must be made to protect, highway
traffic. These rules also stipulate that equipment should not
stand "longer than necessary," or switches be left open, where
automatic warning devices will continue to operate because of
such a presence.
In its recently issued grade crossing NPRM, FRA has requested
public comment on the need to address situations where standing
railroad equipment results in the continuous activation of warning
devices.
5. Violation of Down Gates
The FHWA recently met with the American Association of Motor
Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) to discuss making grade crossing
violations a serious traffic violation on a driver's Commercial
Drivers License. A survey of state traffic laws will be conducted
to document how states treat this offense now. A proposal to make
grade crossing offenses a serious traffic violation will be
addressed through the AAMVA committee structure. We expect a
decision from the committee in August 1994.
J. Horns and Bans
Federal regulations currently require that each lead locomotive be
equipped with an audible device that meets specific performance
standards. However, Federal regulations neither prohibit nor
mandate the sounding of train whistles. All the major
railroads have an operating rule that requires their engineers to
blow the horn at highway-rail grade crossings as a warning to
drivers and pedestrians.
As documented by the FRA study entitled "Florida's Train Whistle
Ban," train horns are an effective safety device. The study
indicates that after Florida communities implemented nighttime
whistle bans, accident rates nearly tripled at the impacted
crossings. When state and local governments failed to repeal the
bans, the FRA issued an emergency order requiring the use of train
horns along the impacted rail corridor in Florida.
As a result of petitions received following our Emergency Order a
series of remedial measures were defined with the involvement of
state, Federal and city highway authorities. An amendment was
issued in August 1993. Should these measures be implemented, the
use of train horns may be suspended.
The measures include the "treatment" of all crossings in a "quiet
zone" at least one-half mile in length with one of the following
alternatives:
1. Permanently close the highway-rail crossing.
2. Close the crossing to highway and pedestrian traffic during
ban (nighttime) hours.
3. Install sufficient gates at a crossing to fully block highway
traffic from entering a crossing when the gates are lowered.
4. Install median barriers at a crossing which prevent highway
traffic from driving around lowered gates.
5. Make adjacent street into one-way pairs and modify and/or
relocate existing gates to completely block approaching lanes of
traffic.
43
For safety reasons, the FRA will not endorse any proscription
which encumbers the industry's practice of using train whistles
or horns at highway-rail crossings unless remedial actions have
been accomplished. The FRA is conducting a nationwide study,
similar to the Florida Whistle Ban Study, to determine if Federal
regulations addressing whistle bans should be initiated.
Accident figures recently compiled from data submitted by the
Florida East Coast Railway (the railroad affected by Florida's
whistle ban) for the 24 months before and after the FRA issued
its emergency order indicates that night-time (10 p.m. to 6 a.m.)
accidents at impacted crossings decreased 68.6 percent, from 51
to 16. By comparison, day time (16 hours) accidents at the same
crossings (horns were never banned during the day) decreased in
the same period by only 8.8 percent, from 34 to 31.
K. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)
The MUTCD, published by the FHWA," presents traffic
control device standards for all streets and highways open to
public travel. . . ." Part VIII of the MUTCD addresses "Traffic
Control Systems for Railroad-Highway Grade Crossings."
A number of actions and developments have occurred or evolved over
the last several years which are not addressed within the MUTCD.
Among these are the advent of high speed rail and the overall
resurgence of higher speed trains, passenger and intermodal
freight, the reemergence of intra-city light rail operations and
recognition of the specialized needs of traffic control in
highway work zones which include a highway-rail crossing.
L. Training
1. National Highway Institute Program
In 1986, a Rail- Highway Grade Crossing Improvement Course was
developed by the FHWA and made available through FHWA's National
Highway Institute (NHI). It was designed to be introductory
in nature. Between 1988 and 1991 more than 25 highway-rail
courses were presented to approximately 1,000 employees of state
agencies, railroad companies, local governments, Federal agencies
and the railroad supply industry. Evaluations revealed that
future training courses should be made available to short line
and regional railroad operators.
The FRA and FHWA jointly sponsored the updating of the course to be
more technical and include "good" and "bad" practices in the
installation and maintenance of grade crossing warning systems; to
address crossing design, warrants for warning system types,
selection of crossing surfaces and geometric design and priority
index calculations. NHI is offering the revised training course to
interested parties.
2. LETN Series
FRA promotes training of police officers regarding enforcement of
crossing safety laws and crossing accident investigations. By
Fall 1994, FRA and Operation Lifesaver, Inc. will be making
available a condensed version of the Law Enforcement Television
Network (LETN) series, "On-Track," originally sponsored and aired
by the FHWA, FTA and FRA in 1991 for training police officers.
The new version will include four segments covering enforcement
and accident investigation techniques, trespassing, vandalism and
other railroad related crimes, safety and outreach programs, and
issues concerning electric trains and mass transit.
3. Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Handbook
The Handbook, a joint effort of FHWA and FRA, is a general
reference guide
44
on highway-rail crossings, including characteristics of the
crossing environment and users, and the physical and operational
improvements for safe and efficient use by both highway and rail
traffic. The second edition was published in 1986. Information
on state programs in the Handbook was taken from a 1984 survey of
states. Since the last edition was published, two major
transportation bills have been enacted that impact the
highway-rail crossing safety program. Also, there have been
changes to the MUTCD, major research projects have been carried
out relevant to highway-rail crossings, there has been a landmark
decision by the Supreme Court that affects grade crossing
responsibilities, and there have been a number of technological
advances in traffic control devices and crossing surface
products. Much of the information in the Handbook is in need of
updating.
4. Compilation of State Laws and Regulations On Matters Affecting
Highway-Rail Crossings
The current Compilation, a joint effort of FHWA and FRA, is a
general reference guide and cross reference to state laws and
regulations affecting highway-rail crossings. It was published in
1983 and is outdated.
M. Failure/Emergency Notification
In 1983, the Texas Legislature initiated (and pioneered) a
statewide alert or early warning system designed to inform
railroads of warning device/signal problems at crossings. Signs
have been placed at each crossing equipped with an automated
device instructing the reader:
TO REPORT MALFUNCTION OF THIS RAILROAD SIGNAL CALL TOLL FREE
1-800-772-7677 GIVE THIS LOCATION # - - - - - - -
The telephone is answered by the Texas Department of Public
Safety (DPS) (state police). The crossing location number is the
U.S. DOT/AAR National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory number.
The location number is then checked against a master list and the
maintaining railroad is notified of the malfunction. In 1989, on
average more than 14 calls per day were recorded by the DPS.
Every motorist, law enforcement officer and highway maintenance
worker is a potential participant.
The FRA has favorably evaluated this system and has recommended its
adoption by other jurisdictions. Railroads operating in Texas have
stated that at least half of the calls received from the DPS are
for problems of which they (the railroads) were not already aware.
Both Connecticut and Delaware have established variations. In
Connecticut, signs instruct observers to call " 9 1 1. " In
Delaware, only automated Conrail crossings (81 percent of
Delaware's automated crossings are Conrail's.) are equipped with
signs, and the telephone number is a Conrail 1-800 number.
Several railroads have also adopted versions: some with and some
without signs, some available to the public, and some promoted
only to state, county and city officials.
The basic element of any system to notify public and railroad
officials of a potentially dangerous situation at a highway-rail
crossings is the identity of the crossing itself. As part of the
U.S. DOT/AAR National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory program, most
every crossing in the Nation was assigned a unique number. In most
cases, these numbers were placed at the crossings; however, this
was originally done in the mid 1970's. Many, but not all, states
and railroads have retained this system and have kept the number
posted at the crossing. Others have continued alternative,
usually state, systems which predated the National Inventory. A
few have allowed at least the on-site numbering to deteriorate.
The result is that the Inventory
45
numbering system is in jeopardy as a national system and resource.
See also Section Q.4 regarding malfunction reporting to FRA by
railroads.
N. Private Crossings
There are nearly 110,000 private highway-rail crossings on the U.S.
rail system. Casualties and property losses resulting from
accidents, and the ever present potential of a major railroad
catastrophe, at these crossings is a continual concern. At
present, responsibilities for private crossings are neither clearly
understood nor consistently applied. This is an institutional
problem which has impeded safety improvement programs at private
crossings. Over the last decade, 1983 through 1992, accidents at
private highway-rail crossings have vacillated between a high of
648 (in 1984) and a low of 445 (in 1992). Though the overall trend
regarding accidents at private crossings has been favorable, it
has not been as dramatic as improvements at public crossings. In
most years, deaths at private crossings exceed the combined total
of railroad related deaths from all causes except for trespassers
and deaths at public highway-rail crossings.
The U.S.DOT/AAR National Highway-rail Crossing Inventory recognizes
four categories of private crossings, i.e., farm, industrial,
recreational and residential. Nearly two-thirds of the 109,881
private crossings catalogued in the Inventory are in the first
group, farm crossings. Nearly a quarter are industrial.
Industrial crossings generate the most accidents with farm
crossings a close second. But, on a per crossing basis,
industrial crossings have the highest accident frequency, with
recreational and residential crossings following a close second
and third. Farm crossings are last by this measure.
1. Guidelines
Early in 1993, the FRA circulated a draft set of preliminary
guidelines addressing the safety of private highway- rail
crossings. This draft set forth definitions and
general responsibilities. It suggested criteria for closure,
basic signage and engineering, the use of train horns and
treatments for private crossings in high speed rail corridors.
A public meeting was held in July, 1993, to discuss both the
general issue of FRA involvement and the specifics raised by the
guidelines. Participants differed regarding their views as to
Federal involvement in this area. Some parties emphasized their
view that if guidelines or rules are issued, rule making
procedures should be followed.
FRA is currently reviewing the comments and materials received
during and subsequent to this July meeting.
2. Snowmobile Crossings:
A recently enacted law of the Wisconsin legislature allows the
creation of new crossings of railroad tracks for snowmobiles
without the permission (or involvement) of the host railroad.
Authority for issuing regulations pertaining to these crossings
has been vested in the State's Department of Natural Resources
(DNR). The law would allow "volunteers" to build and maintain
snowmobile crossings.
The FRA is monitoring developments.
O. FRA's Regional Program Managers
FRA's regional and headquarter's efforts regarding highway-rail
crossing (and trespasser) programs have been hampered by under-
staffing. Prior to FY 1994, the headquarters division promoting
crossing programs had a staff of five, all taken from related
functions within the Office of Safety when the Division was created
in 1991. Regional office efforts have fallen in the category of
"additional duties."
46
The FY 1994 budget will augment this staffing by the addition of
eight regional program managers, one for each region, and two
additional personnel for the headquarters Division.
Once these individuals are on board, projected for August, they
will provide program support, coordination and promotion to states,
local governments and railroads with emphasis on:
Corridor Improvement Programs;
Operation Lifesaver;
Accident investigation; and
Trespass prevention.
FRA was also given authority to hire eight additional signal
inspectors to help enforce the proposed inspection, testing and
maintenance regulations as well as existing signal standards.
P. Integrated Intermodal Transportation Planning
ISTEA requires States and Metropolitan Planning Organizations
(MPOs) to develop intermodal transportation plans, with new
emphasis on considering freight and railroad issues. ISTEA further
requires states to develop six management systems, including the
highway Safety Management System (SMS), to facilitate more
effective intermodal planning. The SMS, as defined in the
implementing regulation, 23 CFR 500.103, is "a systematic process
that has the goal of reducing the number and severity of traffic
crashes by ensuring that all opportunities to improve highway
safety are identified, considered, implemented as appropriate, and
evaluated in all phases of highway planning, design, construction,
maintenance and operation and by providing information for
selecting and implementing effective highway safety strategies and
projects." The regulation specifically addresses consideration of
highway-rail crossings in the system, including developing data
relating to highway-rail crossings, identifying hazardous
highway-rail crossings and maintaining and upgrading safety
hardware at highway-rail crossings.
The highway SMS, by fully considering all elements of highway
safety, will provide a mechanism for evaluating the effectiveness
of different safety strategies and guide the selection of safety
measures. This provides an opportunity to consider highway-rail
crossings in a broader context than crossing improvements alone.
The cost and safety impact of consolidating grade crossings should
now be considered in developing overall plans to improve highway
safety.
Those implementing ISTEA in the State Departments of
Transportation, MPOs and railroads, especially where planners are
required to cross modal lines, are looking to the U.S. Department
of Transportation for assistance and guidance.
Q. Data
1. Accident Reporting
Railroads are required (by the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970
and the Accident Reports Act) to report all accidents and incidents
arising from the operation of a railroad that results in an impact
occurring between on-track railroad equipment and an automobile,
bus, truck, motorcycle, bicycle, farm vehicle, pedestrian or other
highway user at a highway-rail crossing.
Railroads report this data monthly. Uses include safety and
economic analyses to develop and target counter measures to include
personnel resources and regulatory and research initiatives. FRA
compiles and issues an annual bulletin tabulating and summarizing
accident reports.
2. The Inventory
In response to the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970, a joint
government/industry effort to compile a national inventory of
highway-rail
47
crossings was initiated in 1972 and completed in 1976. The
Inventory contains data regarding more than 70 physical and
operational characteristics of all highway-rail crossings in the
United States (more than 402,000 in 1976), including public and
private, at grade and grade separated, even pedestrian crossings.
Each crossing was assigned a unique number which was displayed at
the crossing. Although this was (and continues to be) a
volunteer effort, every state, the District of Columbia and
Puerto Rico participated, as did all railroads.
The FRA is custodian of this computer based file. In this role,
the FRA processes changes and updates, more than 80,000 per year,
which originate from railroads and states. As a volunteer program,
continuing participation by states and railroads has not been
universal. There have been periods of high activity and periods of
slack participation. Some railroads and some states participate
more than others, and often, as management and priorities have
changed, railroads and states have changed from non-participatory
to active participant and vice-versa.
Railroads and states may obtain from the FRA a personal computer
based software package known as the GX System which facilitates the
update process and eliminates the bureaucratic exchange of paper.
There is no cost to the railroad or state. The GX System is a self
contained package allowing the user to retrieve records, update
them, sort and print records and summary reports, and produce a
magnetic disc with current update information for submittal to the
National Inventory File. Each GX System request is answered with a
custom database containing the requestor's crossings and necessary
cross-reference and decode files. A second version of this
package, now available, has the ability to accept and apply mass
updates, e.g., train counts for all crossings on a given rail
line.
The Inventory, as a national resource, is available to all, and the
FRA actively promotes its continued application and maintenance.
It is widely used by FRA and FHWA, Federal research programs,
safety and economic analyses, program management and assessment, by
states and railroads, by universities and consultants and by
litigants. Though the lack of universal and consistent updating is
a drawback, the Inventory remains a unique and useful resource.
3. Resource Allocation Procedure (RAP)
A software package has been developed and is available to railroads
and states which combines accident histories (derived from accident
reports) and Inventory data to make accident predictions. The
predictions are then combined with cost and effectiveness
information and available budget thresholds to develop warning
device improvement programs which maximize the safety benefit
realized per budget dollar expended. "Safety benefit" may be
defined in terms of accident or fatality or casualty (fatality and
injury) reduction.
This software was last revised in 198687. A User's Guide (Third
Edition) was published in August 1987. Every second year, through
a rather cumbersome process, constants within the accident
prediction programs are adjusted to reflect accident experience of
the most recent five years. Every three months new master files
are created using current Inventory data. These files are used to
respond to state and railroad
48
requests for RAP data. Cost and effectiveness default constants
have not been adjusted since the 1986-87 revision. (The defaults
are only used if the requestor does not specify alternative
values.)
This DOT program is not the only one available. Though widely
used, many states and railroads have developed their own. Some use
the DOT program as a "second opinion." Some have modified or
adapted the DOT procedures for their own applications.
4. Malfunction Reporting
In 1992, the FRA initiated rules requiring railroads to report
warning device malfunctions, both failures to activate (report
within 15 days) and false activations (report in the month
following occurrence), to the FRA. If an accident occurs
coincident with a failure, a report must be submitted by telephone
within 24 hours. The requirement to report false activations (but
not failures to activate nor failures concurrent with an accident)
will "sunset" in 1994.
Reporting has exceeded expectations, reaching nearly 4,000 per
month. Though more than expected, this figure must be considered
within the context of the nation's more than 60,000 crossings
equipped with automated warning devices which activate well in
excess of 650,000 times per day, more than 19 million times per
month.
These reports have assisted the FRA in developing proposed
inspection, testing, maintenance and timely response regulations.
5. SAMIS
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is a grant-making
organization. From 1978 to 1989, safety statistics were collected
from only 13 heavy rail transit agencies nationwide and only on a
voluntary basis. The Safety Information Reporting and Analysis
System (SIRAS) published these statistics annually. Mass transit
safety statistics are collected through the authority of Section 15
of the Federal Transit Act, and in 1990, the first Safety
Management Information Statistics (SAMIS) Annual Report was
published. SAMIS statistics are solicited from nearly 600 transit
agencies. Safety information is collected on a wide variety of mass
transit modes: automated guideway, commuter rail, demand
responsive, light rail, motor bus, rapid rail and vanpool. For an
incident to be reportable, it must involve a transit vehicle or
occur on transit property, and result in death, injury or property
damage in excess of $1,000. Section 15 reporting requirements do
not currently distinguish among light rail, rapid rail or commuter
rail accidents and do not identify location, e.g., at grade
crossings.
Safety statistics are collected on Form 405 of the
Section 15 reporting system, and the data is entered into the
system for analysis and production of the SAMIS report. SAMIS
statistics measure how many incidents, injuries and fatalities a
transit agency experiences vis-a-vis collisions, derailments/left
roadway, personal casualties and fires. These statistics are
measured separately for every transit mode an agency operates.
Now that the FTA has collected three years of safety data, trend
analysis will also be published in the next SAMIS Annual Report.
Modifications to the Section 15 reporting requirements, e.g.,
security data, are being reviewed for inclusion in the Section 15
report.
49
6. The Railroad Network GIS
The FRA has developed a Geographic Information System (GIS) that
replicates the United States Railroad, Highway and Waterway
Networks on a personal computer. It will be used to analyze
railroad issues as they relate to the entire transportation
system, such as the traffic flow simulation of different
commodities and intermodal movements. The highway and waterway
networks were provided by FHWA and the U.S. Coast Guard
respectively.
The Railroad Network, created by FRA, represents all routes in the
United States (160,000 miles) owned by over 500 railroads. It
includes line specific information such as ownership, trackage
rights, traffic volume and passenger service. It is maintained by
FRA and is available to the public (except proprietary
information). Among FRA's applications for this network is the
flowing of hazardous material shipments and the subsequent study of
the routes currently being used.
All highway-rail crossings in the U.S. DOT/AAR National
Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory System are not yet located
in the GIS. However, that effort 2. is currently in progress.
Its completion will allow a broad systems approach to future
national grade crossing analysis.
R. Trespass Prevention
The trespass problem has grown worse in recent years. Trespasser
fatalities have exceeded 500 deaths per year each year since 1990.
The Department of Transportation and the industry have recognize
the need for a focused effort.
1. The Workshop
In March 1992 the FRA hosted the first Workshop on Trespasser
Prevention, a one day meeting in Washington, D.C. The meeting was
well attended. Fifteen railroads, three Federal agencies and two
associations met. Topics addressed included definitions and
available data, the homeless as trespassers, illegal immigrants
as trespassers, hobos as trespassers and the potential of
involving Operation Lifesaver, Inc. (OLI). Other presentations
dealt with measures which have worked in reducing trespassing
(e.g., involving the local community), and those which have not
(e.g., signs along the right-of-way).
The Workshop concluded with a consensus that: 1) better data is
needed; 2) because of the diversity of regional trespass problems,
programs should be developed on a regional basis; 3) programs
should promote community involvement, targeted media campaigns,
legislation authorizing enforcement and civil fines, and peer
counseling (re the psychological handling of traumatic events) for
those who must deal with trespass casualties; and, 4) OLI should
receive guidance on how best to utilize their resources.
Minutes of the Workshop are available.
2. Data
From monthly Injury and Illness Summary Reports currently submitted
by railroads, the FRA is able to cull the following data regarding
trespasser casualties:
Month of Occurrence (based on month for which report is
submitted);
Railroad reporting;
Age of casualty; and,
State in which casualty occurred.
Noticeably absent is information related to the setting in which
the casualty occurred, the date, day and time of
50
occurrence and the person involved and their activities at the time
of the incident.
FRA has begun to segregate, tabulate, analyze and publish the
available data. FRA covered 1991 calendar year statistics in the
first annual Trespasser Bulletin.
The 1992 Bulletin indicates that, over a ten year period, based on
fatalities per 100 right-of-way miles, fifteen states and the
District of Columbia have above average rates. Seven of these and
the District of Columbia exceed the average by a factor of at least
two. The seven include California, Connecticut, Florida, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Jersey (highest) and New York. This same
bulletin also indicated that for the last ten years, more deaths
occurred to individuals aged 21 to 25 than in any other 5-year
age group.
The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) in Atlanta,
Georgia collects data from Death Certificates. Attempts have been
made by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control to reconcile the FRA
and NCHS data bases, but these were hampered by varied definitions,
e.g., what is "railroad related," and by resource limitations of
both agencies.
3. OLI Grant
In FY 93, OLI accepted a $50,000 grant from the FRA to
develop a campaign to discourage trespassers and vandalism on
railroad property. A campaign plan has been developed which will
target the sixteen states with the highest incidence of
trespasser and vandalism problems. This campaign will include
radio public service announcements, brochures and palm cards,
posters and letters to selected organizations. Activity should
initiate in June 1994.
OLI currently limits their trespass oriented activities to the
fulfillment of his grant obligation.
4. Related FRA Activities
FRA has prepared and continues to distribute a pamphlet targeting
law enforcement officials, titled, "The Safety Enforcement
Initiative." The pamphlet stresses that "FRA is working to
improve crossing safety and prevent trespassing." It goes on to
develop the point that the "FRA does not have jurisdiction over
traffic and 'no trespassing' laws. That's why we need the
support of state, local, and railroad enforcement officers." It
then addresses the question of "What can you do to prevent
trespassing?" This pamphlet has been well received and widely
distributed.
FRA has become a regular displayer at national police meetings,
specifically the International Association of Chiefs of Police
(IACP), the National Sheriffs' Association (NSA) and the National
Fraternal Order of Police (NFOP). In this way we are reaching
state and city police chiefs (IACP), county sheriffs (NSA) and the
officer on the street (NFOP). The first two of these are annual
meetings. The NFOP meets every two years. OLI often participates
with FRA, sharing space and jointly manning our displays.
FRA has requested $82,000 for FY95 with which to conduct a study of
the demographics of trespasser fatalities and potential counter
measures. This research will start with a survey and determination
of the types of individuals and activities which are involved or
result in trespasser casualties.
51
5. Vandalism
Railroads are reporting nearly 200 incidents per month of vandalism
to automated warning devices at highway-rail crossings. This figure
does not include vandalism caused damage to other railroad
facilities, equipment and lading. Various provisions of Federal
law address crimes directed at railroad equipment, passengers and
employees. See 18 U.S.C. 1991 (entering a train to commit a
crime), 18 U.S.C. 1992 (wrecking trains), and 15 U.S.C. 1281
(destruction of property moving in interstate commerce). While
in many instances, vandalism to warning devices at highway-rail
crossings may be considered to be within the scope of one of
the above statutes, there is no Federal statute dealing directly
with vandalism of these devices. Many states have similar
statutes.
6. Railroads and others
Several railroads have initiated, or are in the process of
establishing, activities of their own. In 1992, the Long Island
Railroad successfully involved communities in an aggressive
campaign to reach potential trespassers and law enforcement
officials with effective warning messages. In 1991, twelve
railroads in the U.S. southwest teamed together with the U.S.
Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Drug Enforcement
Agency, the U.S. Border Patrol, the U.S. Customs, and the U.S. Army
in a successful interdiction effort, apprehending over 12,000
illegal immigrants and seizing 1,200 pounds of marijuana and
cocaine. Norfolk Southern Corporation is currently preparing a
video on trespassers and vandalism which will be compatible with
the planned OLI campaign.
A 1990 Florida statute limits liability of railroads and landowners
concerning trespasser deaths and injuries. The statute grants
immunity in those situations where the trespasser was impaired by
alcohol (.10 bac or higher) or illegal chemical substances at the
time of the accident.
52
