Fhwa railroad-highway grade crossing handbook

Available sight distances help determine the safe speed at which a vehicle can approach and clear a crossing. The formula for computing safe stopping distance for vehicles approaching a crossing is set forth in the following formula refer to Figure C-4 :. The minimum safe sight distances, dH, along the highway for selected vehicle speeds are shown in the bottom line of Table C As noted, these distances were calculated for level approaches to degree crossings and should be increased for less favorable conditions.

The second sight distance utilizes a so-called "sight triangle" in the quadrants on the vehicle approach side of the track. This triangle is formed by:. This sight triangle is depicted in Figure C The distance along the along the railroad dT is determined by the vehicle speed and maximum timetable train speed and is set forth in the following formula:.

In the case of a vehicle stopped at a crossing, the driver needs to see both ways along the track to determine whether a train is approaching and to estimate its speed. The driver needs to have a sight distance along the tracks that will permit sufficient time to accelerate and clear the crossing prior to the arrival of a train, even though the train might come into view as the vehicle is beginning its departure process.

Figure C-5 illustrates the maneuver. These sight distances, for a range of train speeds, are given in the column for a vehicle speed of zero in Table C These values are obtained from the following formula:. Adjustments for longer vehicle lengths, slower acceleration capabilities, multiple tracks, skewed crossings, and other than flat highway grades are necessary. The formulas in this section may be used with proper adjustments to the appropriate dimensional values. It would be desirable that sight distances permit operation at the legal approach speed for highways, however, this is often impractical.

Table C-2 provides computed values for both pedestrians as well as typical highway vehicles. The pedestrian sight distance, which is shown in the right-hand column, is based upon the following quantities: walking speed of 3.

In this example, the pedestrian will traverse the foot distance in 12 seconds. The required sight distance is then computed by considering the distance the train will traverse in 12 seconds based upon the approach speed. At crossings where this distance is not available, active control devices should be considered. It should be noted that crossing users cannot be expected to reliably judge the precise approach speed of a train, so practitioners should consider that the required distances represent an absolute minimum.

Two tracks may be more common in commuter station areas where pedestrians are found. The procedures for evaluating highway-rail grade crossings are generally based upon the physical and operational characteristics of individual crossings. A typical crossing safety program consists of several individual crossing projects.

Funding for crossing safety is approved based on the requirements of these individual projects. Therefore, crossing evaluation, programming, and construction follow traditional highway project implementation procedures.

The corridor approach may be applied to an urban area, city, or community. In this case, all public crossings within the jurisdiction of a public agency are evaluated and programmed for improvements. The desired outcome is a combination of engineering improvements and closures such that both safety and operations are highly improved. A corridor approach developed for crossings in a specified community or political subdivision provides for a comprehensive analysis of highway traffic operations.

Thus, unnecessary crossings can be closed, and improvements can be made at other crossings. This approach enhances the acceptability of crossing closures by local officials and citizens.

Initially, all crossings in the system, both public and private, should be identified and classified by jurisdictional responsibility for example, city, county, and State for public crossings; parties to the agreement for private crossings. This also includes crossings with train speeds from mph.

Information should be gathered on highway traffic patterns, train operations, emergency access needs, land uses, and growth trends. Inventory records for the crossings should be updated to reflect current operational and physical characteristics. A Diagnostic Team consisting of representatives from all public agencies having jurisdiction over the identified crossings and the railroads operating over the crossings should make an on-site assessment of each crossing as described in the previous section.

The Diagnostic Team's recommendations should consider, among other things, crossing closure, installation of traffic control devices, upgrading existing traffic control devices, crossing elimination by grade separation, surface improvements, and improvements in train detection circuits.

For railroad crossing locations interconnected to the traffic signaling system, appropriate timing should be re-evaluated to determine whether simultaneous or advanced preemption is suitable. The use of pre-signals and queue-cutter signals should also be explored, where warranted, to assist the preemption phasing to safely clear vehicles off the track prior to the activation of the railroad flasher lights and gates.

Federal, State, and local crossing funding programs should be reviewed to identify the eligibility of each crossing improvement for public funding. Other funding sources including railroads, urban renewal funds, land development funds, and other public or private funding sources should also be explored.

There are several advantages of the corridor approach. A group of crossings may be improved more efficiently through the procurement of materials and equipment in quantity, thus reducing product procurement and transportation costs. Usually, only one agreement between the State, local jurisdiction, and railroad is necessary for all the improvements. Train detection circuits may be designed as a part of the total railroad signal system rather than custom designed for each individual crossing.

Electronic components, relay houses, and signal transmission equipment may be more efficiently utilized. Labor costs may be significantly reduced and travel time of construction crews may be reduced when projects are near each other. If a crossing consolidation is contemplated, the effects on traffic circulation and the impact on the operation of adjacent intersections should be considered.

Frequently, the consolidation of crossings also leads to the consolidation of traffic on other facilities and may permit the construction of a traffic signal at a nearby intersection or other improvements that could not be justified otherwise.

In light of these and other potential impacts, communication with first responders on any changes with crossings should be considered a priority. Railroads benefit from the application of the systems approach in several ways. Train speeds may be increased due to safety improvements at crossings. Maintenance costs may be reduced if enough crossings are closed. Morton dot. The Highway-Rail Crossing Handbook, 3rd Edition Handbook has been prepared to disseminate current practices and requirements for developing engineering treatments for highway-rail grade crossings referred to herein as "crossings".

The Handbook is intended to provide practitioners of all levels of knowledge and experience with critical background information and "noteworthy practices" consistent with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways MUTCD and more recent guidance developed by recognized subject matter experts.

This edition constitutes a substantial update to and revision of the Handbook and efforts have been made to reorganize the contents. This edition includes "hotlinks" to facilitate navigation and access external information available on the web.

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document. This document does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation and the contents of this document do not necessarily reflect official policy of the U.

In addition, DOT does not attest to the accuracy, relevance, timeliness or completeness of information provided by linked sites. Linking to a Web site does not constitute an endorsement by DOT of the sponsors of the site or the products presented on the site.

For more information, please view DOT's Web site linking policy. Subscribe to email updates. Note: Javascript is disabled or is not supported by your browser. For this reason, some items on this page will be unavailable. Advanced Search. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Toggle navigation. ROSA P. Railroad-highway grade crossing handbook.

About Contact Us Help. Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions. If the above analysis indicates a change or improvement in the crossing or type of traffic control devices, but there are other compelling reasons or circumstances for not implementing them, document the reasons and circumstances for your decision.

If the above analysis indicates no change or improvement in the crossing or type of traffic control devices, document the fact that the crossing was evaluated and determined to be adequate.

It is recommended that YIELD signs be considered the default choice for traffic control at a passive crossing unless an engineering study or judgment determines that a STOP sign is appropriate. A STOP sign establishes a legal requirement for each and every vehicle to come to a full stop. Indiscriminate use of the STOP sign at all or many passive grade crossings can cause poor compliance, increasing the risk of collisions associated with a high non-compliance rate. Therefore, the use of STOP signs at passive crossings should be limited to unusual conditions, where requiring all vehicles to make a full stop is deemed essential by engineering study or judgment.

The engineering study or engineering judgment should consider:. It should be noted that certain commercial motor vehicles and school buses are required to stop at all highway-rail grade crossings, in accordance with 49 CFR Canadian Research on Cost Effectiveness.

Canadian research includes evaluation of the tradeoffs between benefits and costs and takes into consideration the human factors in relation to effectiveness, as shown in Table Economic Analysis Procedures. An economic analysis may be performed to determine the possible alternative improvements that could be made at a highway-rail grade crossing. These procedures involve estimates of expected project costs and safety and operational benefits for each alternative. Initially, information on the following elements must be established, using the best available facts and estimates:.

Other considerations include the effectiveness of the improvement in reducing collisions and the effects on travel, such as reducing delays. Cost information is not always readily available. Therefore, some states are reluctant to impute a dollar cost to human life or personal injury. Considerable care must be used in establishing values for these costs. The selection of collision cost values is of major importance in economic analyses.

The two most common sources of collision costs are:. NSC costs include wage losses, medical expenses, insurance administrative costs, and property damage. NHTSA includes the calculable costs associated with each fatality and injury plus the cost to society, such as consumption losses of individuals and society at large caused by losses in production and the inability to produce.

Many states have developed their own values, which reflect their situation and philosophy. Whichever is selected, the values ought to be consistent with those used for other safety improvement programs. Countermeasure Type, Effectiveness, and Cost. Note: The effectiveness of a countermeasure is expressed as a function of the percentage reduction in collisions and other violations over some previous treatment.

Costs are expressed in U. An appropriate interest rate is needed for most of the procedures considered. The selection of an inappropriate interest rate could result in unsuitable project costs and benefits and, thus, selection of an ineffective solution. Periods of rapid inflation and fluctuation of interest rates make the identification of an appropriate rate somewhat difficult.

The standard rates used by the highway department should be selected. Both costs and benefits should be calculated for this time period. Hence, the service life is not necessarily the physical life of the improvement. For highway-rail grade crossings, however, it is a reasonable assumption that the improvement would be equally effective over its entire physical life.

Thus, selecting the service life equal to the physical life would be appropriate. In particular, service life of signal equipment is fairly long because signals are visited by a maintainer at least once per month. The selected service life can have a profound effect on the economic evaluation of improvement alternatives; therefore, it should be selected using the best available information. Project costs should include initial capital costs and maintenance costs and should be considered life-cycle costs; in other words, all costs are distributed over the service life of the improvement.

The installation cost elements include the following:. The maintenance costs are all costs associated with keeping the system and components in operating condition. Maintenance costs are discussed in Chapter VII. The salvage value may be an issue when a highway is upgraded or relocated, a railroad line is abandoned, etc.

Salvage value is defined as the dollar value of a project at the end of its service life and, therefore, is dependent on the service life of the project. For crossing signal improvement projects, salvage values are generally very small. There are several accepted economic analysis methods, all of which require different inputs, assumptions, calculations, and methods and may yield different results. Several appropriate methods are described here. The cost-effectiveness analysis method is an adaptation of a traditional safety analysis procedure based on the calculation of the cost to achieve a given unit of effect reduction in collisions.

The significant aspects of this procedure are that it need not require the assignment of a dollar value to human injuries or fatalities and requires minimal manpower to apply. The following steps should be performed for the cost-effectiveness technique:. Determine the initial capital cost of equipment, such as flashing lights or gates, and other costs associated with project implementation.

Determine the annual operating and maintenance costs for the project. Select units of effectiveness to be used in the analysis. The desired units of effectiveness may be:.

Determine the annual benefit for the project in the selected units of effectiveness, such as total number of collisions prevented. Calculate the average annual benefit, B, in the desired units of effectiveness.

This is an iterative process for each alternative improvement. The results for all projects then can be arrayed and compared for selection. A computer program can be used for the analysis and ranking of projects.

Using this method, costs and benefits may be expressed as either an equivalent annual or present worth value of the project. This method requires an estimate of collision severity in dollar terms, which can greatly affect the outcome. It is relatively easy to apply and is generally accepted in engineering and financial studies. This method is based on the premise that the relative merit of an improvement is measured by its net annual benefit. This method is used to select improvements that will ensure maximum total benefits at each location.

The net annual benefit of an improvement is defined as follows:. A positive value for net annual benefit indicates a feasible improvement, and the improvement or set of improvements with the largest positive net annual benefit is considered the best alternative.

The following steps should be used to compute the net annual benefit:. Although any of the three methods is an acceptable procedure to follow for economic analyses, they might produce different results depending on the values. Table 45 illustrates this point. The values shown for the second alternative are from the example provided above.

The first alternative would be selected if the net benefit method was followed for this example. Figure Sample Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Worksheet. Download a PDF file of Figure sec05form1.