Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Consolidation Guidelines Suzanne M. Horton US Department of Transportation Research and Innovative Technology Administration John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center 55 Broadway RTV-3D, Rail and Transit Systems Division Cambridge, MA 02142 Tele: 617-494-3678 Fax: 617-494-2381 Word Count: 2,693
ABSTRACT The only highway-rail grade crossing that is free from the risk of a collision is one that does not exist. Closing or consolidating unneeded crossings ensures that there is no longer the risk for an incident or casualty at those crossings. The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) 2004 Secretary s Action Plan on Highway-Rail Crossing Safety and Trespass Prevention [1] identified, Closing Unneeded Crossings, as one of its nine key initiatives. The USDOT is confident that many highway-rail grade crossings can be consolidated without adversely impacting local mobility. Crossing consolidation is crucial to public safety and affects local, regional and national economic development. Consolidating crossings ensures the ability of the railroads to play a constructive role in the national transportation system and to reduce congestion. State and local governments are encouraged to formulate their own annual goals for consolidation. This guidance in the forthcoming report offers federal endorsement for crossing consolidation programs. The best practices, examples of funding sources with local benefits, success stories, and tools offered in the report and highlighted in this paper are a means to provide support and technical assistance in developing a successful program. The guidelines create awareness of crossing consolidation options and offer suggestions to state and local agencies on best approaches for successful consolidation projects. Highlighted issues within the report and discussed in this paper include jurisdictional authority, crossing selection, the corridor approach, funding, public involvement,
physical removal, and dealing with private highway-rail grade crossings. The guidance report will offer tools to facilitate crossing consolidation projects. Both the railroad and the highway users benefit from a safer crossing environment when a crossing consolidation is successful. It is generally a low cost safety measure that is guaranteed to reduce risk and should be considered as the first option for grade crossing safety improvements.
INTRODUCTION The only highway-rail grade crossing that is free from the risk of a collision is one that does not exist. Closing or consolidating unneeded highway-rail grade crossings ensures that there is no longer the risk for an incident or casualty at those crossings. It is generally a low cost safety measure that is guaranteed to reduce risk and should be considered as the first option for grade crossing safety improvements. In the 2004 Secretary s Action Plan on Highway-Rail Crossing Safety and Trespass Prevention (1), the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) identified, Closing Unneeded Crossings, as one of its nine key initiatives. In 1991, Administrator, Gil Carmichael, Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) set a goal to close 25 percent of all crossings nationwide within a ten year period. Although this goal was not reached, the USDOT is confident that many highway-rail grade crossings can be consolidated without adversely impacting local mobility. Crossing consolidation is crucial to public safety and affects local, regional and national economic development. State and local governments are encouraged to formulate their own annual goals for consolidation. FRA is currently revising its highway-rail grade crossing consolidation guidelines. The purpose of the guidelines document is to offer federal endorsement for crossing consolidation programs. The guidelines intend to serve as a basis for transportation professionals who want to begin a crossing consolidation project. The intent of this paper is to inform provide stakeholders with the most current information on best practices and success stories to provide support and assistance in developing a successful crossing program.
JURSIDICTIONAL AUTHORITY The first step in a crossing consolidation project is determining what governing body has the authority over highway-rail grade crossings. The authority for consolidating highway-rail grade crossings varies among states. It can belong to a state agency or to the local government. There are benefits in each of these situations. A state where the authority falls with the department of transportation (DOT) or a regulatory agency has the benefit of a uniform process for crossing selection. The crossing consolidation projects will be distributed to the areas of greatest need and not localized where the issue has gained momentum. The state can also override opposition and negotiate cooperation between the railroads and local communities. State agencies also often have more funding and resources available. An example of a state where the DOT has the exclusive authority to consolidate crossings is Oregon. They do not have to obtain local government approval, which eliminates the need for gaining community consensus (a potential project delay). In Florida, the DOT proposes the project to local officials. But, ultimately, the final decision rests with the DOT. A state where the authority lies with the local government also has advantages. In this situation, the crossing selection process is conducted by those who have first hand experience with the crossing and its surroundings. The community may also trust the recommendations because they feel the local government is representing the
community s best interests. In Michigan, input from the community is highly valued because the final decision belongs to the local authorities. CROSSING SELECTION The selection process for a crossing consolidation project usually begins with a suggestion or nomination. The state agency may develop a list of potential projects, as they do in Minnesota. In Kentucky, nominations are accepted from local agencies, railroads, private companies, emergency responders, and individuals. Petitions for crossing consolidation should be accepted from credible sources and evaluated. An important factor in selecting a crossing for consolidation is whether it is a public or a private crossing. Private crossings are commonly unregulated by state and local governments. A private crossing consolidation involves the railroad and an individual land owner, rather than a government agency. The lack of authority and responsibility for safety at private crossings can impede progress for consolidation projects. If a private highway-rail grade crossing is selected for consolidation, railroads often have more flexibility than a state or local authority to negotiate with a land owner. When considering highway-rail grade crossing consolidation, a more comprehensive approach is to use a corridor approach. This approach evaluates multiple crossings along a rail line. Grade crossing safety improvement projects are considered for the maximum benefit along the right-of-way. This approach works to optimize both safety and mobility. The corridor approach involves the community and is advantageous for
negotiating crossing consolidation projects at some locations. It also reduces the administrative burden on the state or local agency and the railroads. One agreement can cover improvements at multiple crossings and signal circuits can be installed uniformly rather than customized. The corridor approach can reduce overall project costs. The corridor approach was very successfully applied in North Carolina. The North Carolina Sealed Corridor project closed or upgraded crossings along a section of the Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor. During the first phase of the project (from March 1995 through December 2000), safety improvements were implemented using a corridor approach. An evaluation of the first phase of the project estimated that five lives had been saved during this time period. Although there are many benefits to the corridor approach, it is not applicable for every location. Some crossings may be consolidated because of a specific risk, such as a series of collisions. Others may be a component of a roadway project. Crossings specifically nominated for consolidation should be evaluated regardless of their placement on a corridor. Once highway-rail grade crossings have been selected as candidates for consolidation, a diagnostic review team should be organized to evaluate the characteristics of the crossing. The team is ideally comprised of all stakeholders in the crossing consolidation program. At the very least, representatives from the railroad, road authority, state and local community should be present. The diagnostic evaluation should review the potential impact of consolidation on safety and mobility. The consolidation should not increase congestion in the local area nor increase the incidents of trespassing along the right-of-way. Many states, such as Utah and Oregon, mandate a diagnostic review of all
proposed crossing consolidation projects. Below is a list of information that should be collected during the diagnostic review: Number of road lanes Number of tracks Road speed limits Railway speeds Crossing angle Approach grade Approach curve Sight distance Nearby roadway intersection Average daily traffic Train traffic Accident history Near hits Use of crossing (hazardous materials, school bus, emergency, etc.) Capacity of nearby crossings Proximity and access to other crossings After all the pertinent information is gathered from the diagnostic reviews, the potential consolidation projects should be prioritized. Prioritization of projects is essential to optimize the use of limited funding. A good way to evaluate potential consolidation projects is to determine whether a strong justification can be made on the basis of safety, redundancy, and cost. In the state of Washington, projects are selected based on the perceived safety benefits, the costs for implementation, and geographic diversities. The state of California utilizes a formula that weighs various factors including: average annual daily traffic, train traffic, project costs, and accident history. PROJECT FUNDING
Funding issues continue to be a barrier to successful crossing consolidation projects. There are funds that are available for consolidation from the federal government, but many states have begun to seek alternative and additional options. The federal government offers two main sources of funding for crossing consolidations. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Railway-Highway Crossing Program (Section 130) began in 1974 to provide federal funds to states for grade crossing safety improvements. The federal government allocates $220 million annually. At least 50 percent of the funds must be spent on the installation of warning devices, and the remainder may be spent on other crossing safety improvements including crossing consolidation. The Section 130 funds may also be used as an incentive for local communities to permanently surrender a crossing. The state can make cash incentive payments to the local government so long as an equal amount is provided by the railroad. The amount may not exceed the lesser of either $7,500 or the amount offered by the railroad. Often, the railroad will contribute more than $7,500 to the crossing consolidation project. The incentive payments must be used for transportation safety improvements and may help entice communities to receive a crossing consolidation project favorably. The other option to use federal monies for crossing consolidation is the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), Section 1103(f). SAFETEA-LU was signed into law in August of 2005. It amended the 1998 Transportation Equity Act for the Twenty-first Century. The program is managed by FRA and the Federal Highway Administration and provides funding for hazard elimination at crossings along designated high-speed rail corridors.
There are currently 11 designated high-speed rail corridors in the United States. Under this program, for the fiscal year 2005, 10 States were awarded a total of $5.25 million to improve grade crossing safety along 5 of the designated high-speed rail corridors. This funding was authorized to increase to $7.25 million in 2006, $10 million in 2007, $12.5 million in 2008, and $15 million in 2009. The 11 designated corridors are: Pacific Northwest Corridor Chicago Hub Corridor Gulf Coast Corridor Southeast Corridor Empire Corridor Northeast Corridor Northern New England Corridor Keystone Corridor Florida Corridor South Central Corridor California Corridor Because there is often competition for resources and funding, some states have utilized different funding strategies to finance their crossing safety programs. In Mississippi, the Mississippi Grade Crossing Closure Account is derived from 35 percent of the locomotive fuel tax collected during the previous year. The account was established with the purpose of achieving a reduction in the number of public at-grade crossings within the state. Illinois finances the Illinois Grade Crossing Protection Fund with $2.25 million per month from the state treasury s motor fuel tax. The intent is the funding shall be used for improvements at crossings on the county, township, district or municipal street systems. California legislature established the Grade Separation Program. The state s annual budget sets aside $15 million to fund projects of grade separation or elimination of highway-rail grade crossings.
Yet another avenue for funding crossing consolidation projects is the railroads. Railroads invest more than $200 million annually to maintain and improve safety at highway-rail grade crossings. The railroads are an integral part of the incentive program for local communities. The incentive option, within the Section 130 program, requires that the railroads match the funds provided to the community as an incentive for consolidating crossings. Railroads also have dedicated teams that are responsible for crossing consolidation projects; and in cases where federal or state funding is unavailable, they have initiated the process and provided the majority of the funding. ENSURING SUCCESS The strongest impediment to crossing consolidation is local opposition. Public grade crossings have value to the community and they are rarely forfeited without resistance. The key to overcoming this resistance is to involve the public early in the process. If the effect of the consolidation is viewed as a positive for the community, it is more likely to be favorably received. Prior to a formal proposal or presentation, planning sessions should be held with local emergency responders, public works officials, local businesses and adjacent land owners. This profile of the community will be useful in determining critical factors and greatly enhances the likelihood of success. During the development of a consolidation proposal, it is important to invest time to learn about the community and impacted residents. The impact a crossing consolidation can have on neighborhoods, businesses or schools can stall the process. Understanding local concerns, addressing the
community s needs and formulating a plan of action can eliminate significant delays, as well as build public support. An option for involving the local community in the crossing consolidation process is to hold public meetings. A public meeting allows a forum in which the community can express their support and/or concern regarding a proposed crossing consolidation. These meetings open a dialogue between the state agency, the railroad and the local community. The North Carolina Department of Transportation has implemented the very successful Traffic Separation Studies (TSS). The key elements of the TSS process are the Three C s: coordination, communication, and consistency. The coordination is achieved by drafting written crossing consolidation agreements. These documents hold the stakeholders responsible for their part in the consolidation project. The communication element is essential in keeping the community informed. The community should receive facts and updates to prevent misinformation. To achieve consistency, criteria are established for evaluating safety and providing incentives. By utilizing the TSS process, North Carolina Department of Transportation was able increase their success rate for consolidation projects. The final step in a successful crossing consolidation project is the physical removal of the crossing as a means of access across the railroad right-of-way. The removal of the crossing surface from the tracks is the responsibility of the railroad, as it is their property. The roadway approach to the crossing, however, is the responsibility of the governing
roadway authority. In most cases, the local government bears the expense to remove the approaches. Roadway barricades are often necessary after the crossing access has been removed. The barricades should prevent any motorists from circumventing them. The loss of access that occurs after a crossing consolidation must be communicated to the travelling public. Signage should be posted prior to the removal of the approach and implementation of the barricade to alert the public of upcoming changes in traffic patterns. After the crossing has been removed, the signs should denote the permanent nature of the closure and indicate an alternate route. Finally, to complete the crossing consolidation project, it is necessary to make the former crossing site aesthetically pleasing. The area should be renovated to remove all evidence of the pre-existing grade crossing. The renovation can include landscaping, lighting, and other improvements in the vicinity. This effort will be appreciated by the community, who, in turn, will think favorably of crossing consolidation. This may lead to less opposition in future attempts to consolidate crossings. Consolidating highway-rail grade crossings is a challenging but rewarding process. An improvement in safety along the right-of-way benefits all stakeholders. By conducting a thoughtful and inclusive process, much of the opposition can be overcome and strong arguments can be made in favor of consolidation.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author s involvement in the update to highway-rail grade crossing consolidation guidelines was sponsored by the Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Research and Development and was conducted under the guidance of the Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Safety. This project was managed under the Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety Research Program at the John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. REFERENCES 1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Secretary of Transportation, Secretary s Action Plan for Highway-Rail Crossing Safety and Trespass Prevention, Washington, DC: U.S. DOT, June 2004.