TR N

EWS

286

MAY

–JUN

E 20

13

38

The authors are with theResearch and InnovativeTechnology Adminis -tration, Volpe NationalTransportation SystemsCenter, Cambridge,Massachusetts. Horton isOperations ResearchAnalyst, and daSilva isEngineer, Systems Safetyand EngineeringDivision.

In the past 20 years, safety at public highway–railgrade crossings has improved significantly.Despite increases in motor vehicle and train traf-

fic, collisions at grade crossings have declined byapproximately 65 percent, fatalities by approximately63 percent, and injuries by approximately 65 percent(1).

The collaboration of many agencies and organi-zations that share the goal of reducing grade cross-ing incidents, fatalities, and injuries has driven thesetrends. In addition, major research initiatives by theFederal Railroad Administration (FRA) have pro-vided the information to support implementation ofindustry guidance, policies, and rules, which haveprovided a significant safety benefit.

The improvements in grade crossing safety wereevident, but the factors and initiatives that con-tributed to the successes had not been identified.FRA therefore funded a two-phase study to deter-mine the safety factors that had an impact on thereduction of highway–rail grade crossing incidentsfrom 1994 to 2007 (2, 3). The study identified pos-sible factors in grade crossing incident reduction andapplied data from the FRA Railroad Accident–Inci-dent Reporting System (RAIRS) to estimate theimpact of each factor. A similar study by Mok andSavage focused on the reduction in grade crossingincidents and fatalities from 1975 to 2001 and cred-ited highway safety improvements as the greatestinfluence on safety (4).

Success Factors in the Reduction ofHighway–Rail Grade Crossing IncidentsS U Z A N N E M . H O R T O N A N D M A R C O P. d a S I L V A

Railroads andResearch Sharing Track

PH

OTO: TR

B S

TAFF

An FRA study examinedthe causes behind an

approximately 65 percentdrop in injuries, fatalities,

and collisions athighway–rail grade

crossings.

00_TRN_286_TRN_286 7/11/13 5:05 PM Page 38

TR NEW

S 286 MAY–JUN

E 2013

39

Identifying Success FactorsExtensive reviews of the literature and discussionswith subject matter experts identified 11 factors aslikely contributors to the improvement in gradecrossing safety. The factors included rulemakings,changes or advances in the grade crossing and trans-portation environment, and political, societal, andeconomic changes. Most of the 11 factors were asso-ciated with a significant FRA research effort.

Commercial Driver SafetyDuring the period of study, national legislationplaced a greater emphasis on commercial driversafety. The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of1999 established the Federal Motor Carrier SafetyAdministration, with the primary mission of reduc-ing crashes, injuries, and fatalities involving largetrucks and buses. In October 1999, the law on Com-mercial Driver Disqualification stated that thelicenses of commercial drivers convicted of violatingwarning devices at a highway–rail grade crossingwould be suspended.1

Locomotive ConspicuityMaking locomotives more conspicuous aids driversnot only in seeing an oncoming train, but in judgingits distance and speed. The Locomotive Safety Stan-dards, effective December 1997, stated that all loco-motives that exceed 20 mph at a crossing must haveauxiliary alerting lights in addition to the headlights.2

Before the rulemaking, FRA undertook research toevaluate the effects of various locomotive headlightconfigurations on motorists’ decision making andpublished the results (5).

More Reliable Motor VehiclesAutomobiles manufactured during the period ofstudy increased in safety and reliability. A more reli-able vehicle reduces the possibility of breaking downor stalling while crossing railroad tracks and beingstruck by an oncoming train.

Sight Lines ClearanceThe clearing of vegetation and the removal of obstruc-tions at grade crossings enables highway users toobserve the tracks and any oncoming trains at fartherdistances from the crossing. Adequate sight distanceallows highway users to stop safely, reducing the riskof collision with an unexpected or undetected train.The U.S. Department of Transportation established atechnical working group in 2002 to determine calcu-lations for adequate sight distance (6).

Grade Crossing Maintenance RuleThe final rule on Grade Crossing Signal SystemSafety, issued in 1995, stated that railroads mustimplement specific maintenance, inspection, andtesting requirements for active crossing warning sys-tems.3 Regular maintenance and inspection wereintended to reduce the risk of warning device mal-function.

1 69 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 48104.2 49 CFR 229. 3 49 CFR 234.

FRA requires alllocomotives exceeding 20mph at a crossing to haveauxiliary alerting lights—which increaseperceptibility fordrivers—as well asheadlights.

PHO

TO: T

RB

STA

FF

00_TRN_286_TRN_286 7/11/13 5:05 PM Page 39

TR N

EWS

286

MAY

–JUN

E 20

13

40

Freight Car ReflectorizationThe final rule on Reflectorization of Rail FreightRolling Stock, effective March 2005, mandated theapplication of retroreflective sheeting to the sides offreight cars and locomotives in a specified color andpattern. FRA conducted extensive research to deter-mine the value of adhering reflectors to freight railcars and the optimal size and pattern for the appli-cation.4 The full research report was published in1999 (7).

Pedestrian SafetyNew devices and technologies installed at grade cross-ings protect pedestrian traffic. The FRA Office of Safetyhas worked with states, railroads, and other stake-

holders to identify and catalogue pedestrian-specifictreatments at highway–rail grade crossings (8).

Crossing Closure and Grade SeparationIn 1991, the FRA Administrator recommended theclosing of 25 percent of all crossings. Of the 292,839public and private at-grade crossings at the end of1990, 70,004 had been closed as of 2008. Closuresand grade separations reduce the risk of a collisionto nearly zero.

Warning Device UpgradesUpgrading to crossing warning devices that have ahigher effectiveness value reduces the risk of a colli-sion. States and communities routinely evaluatewarning devices at crossings for upgrades and safetyimprovements.

Education andEnforcementCommunities are taking aproactive approach by ed-ucating the public on thedangers of highway–railgrade crossings and bydiscouraging risky behav-ior at crossings with activeenforcement. OperationLifesaver is an interna-tional organization thatprovides education andawareness programs toprevent tragic collisions,fatalities, and injuries athighway–rail grade cross-ings and on railroad rights-of-way. The FRA-sponsoredPublic Education and Enforcement Research Studytraced the effects of the initiatives on reducing riskybehavior at highway–rail grade crossings (9).

Crossing Improvement ProgramsCongress appropriates highway funds for safetyimprovements to highway–rail grade crossings underSection 130, Title 23, of the U.S. Code. States applythe funds, and each state implements its own cross-ing improvement plan. The Section 130 programoverlaps other success factors, since the funds areused also to close, separate, and upgrade crossings.

Research MethodologyThe first phase of the research on success factorsanalyzed the reduction in highway–rail grade cross-ing incidents from 1994 to 2003. The second phaseanalyzed the continued decline in incidents from2003 to 2007.

4 49 CFR 224.

Street markings andflashing lights at aWashington State railcrossing protectpedestrian traffic.

Construction crews builda bridge to grade-separate a CSX crossingin Bladensburg,Maryland. U.S. Congressappropriated funds toimprove highway–railgrade crossings underSection 130, Title 23, ofthe U.S. Code.

PH

OTO: B

RETT

VA

PH

OTO: A

ND

REW

BO

SSI

Operation Lifesaverposters and other safetyresources bring publicawareness to safety at railcrossings and railroadrights-of-way.

IMA

GE: O

PERA

TION

LIFESA

VER

00_TRN_286_TRN_286 7/11/13 5:05 PM Page 40

TR NEW

S 286 MAY–JUN

E 2013

41

Seven of the 11 factors considered in the studywere estimated with data from the RAIRS: commer-cial driver safety, locomotive conspicuity, grade cross-ing maintenance, more reliable motor vehicles, sightlines clearance, freight car reflectorization, andpedestrian safety. The remaining four were analyzedqualitatively and with data from outside RAIRS:warning device upgrades, education and enforce-ment, crossing improvement programs, and crossingconsolidation–grade separation.

The RAIRS data fields indicated that the incidentcharacteristics implied the influence of one or moreof the factors. For example, an incident with a com-mercial vehicle would be influenced by the com-mercial driver safety factor. Assigning incidents tothe success factors made it possible to analyze thefactors’ impacts.

The impact of the factors analyzed with gradecrossing data from RAIRS was estimated with twometrics—percent impact and percent reduction. Thepercent impact is the percentage of incidents attrib-utable to behaviors that the factor was attempting tochange. The percent reduction is the percentage ofincidents reduced that can be attributed to the safetycountermeasures. Together, these two metrics pro-vided a complete estimate of the factors’ impact onthe reduction of incidents.

To estimate each factor’s contribution to improv-ing highway–rail grade crossing safety, each inci-dent during the study period was assigned to anindividual factor, to a combination of factors, or tono identified factor. The assignment was madebased on the RAIRS data fields for each incident. Ifthe characteristics of the incident indicated multi-ple factors, it was assigned to a combination of fac-tors; if none of the factor characteristics was presentin the incident, it was assigned to no identified fac-tor. This ensured that the incidents were notcounted multiple times for different factors, inflat-ing the factors’ impacts.

The contributions of the factors that were notanalyzed with RAIRS data were investigated throughother relevant studies and with data available fromother sources, such as the National Highway–RailGrade Crossing Inventory.

Results and AnalysesThe percent impact and percent reduction were cal-culated for the factors in each phase of the study. Theresults are shown in Table 1 (below).

During the first phase, from 1994 to 2003,improvements in commercial driver safety and loco-motive conspicuity made the largest contributions tothe reduction in incidents. The analysis during thesecond phase revealed that the safety benefits fromregulations and measures introduced during the1990s had been fully realized by 2007.

The study from 2003 to 2007 was a shorterperiod, with fewer incidents included in the analy-sis, which magnified any variability in the annualdata. Negative values in the results table do not implythat the factor caused an increase in incidents, butthat no further benefits were derived from those fac-tors after the first phase.

Two additional factors were included in the sec-ond phase of the study: pedestrian safety and freightcar reflectorization. Neither the RAIRS Grade Cross-ing database nor the Crossing Inventory indicatesthe type of pedestrian warning device or treatment ata crossing. Therefore, evaluating the effects of pedes-trian warning devices was not possible; the data showthe trend of pedestrian incidents as a whole.

The increase in pedestrian incidents from 2003 to2007 did not reflect the effectiveness of any particu-lar warning device or safety program. This could bea result of variability and fluctuations from year toyear because of fewer incidents during the secondphase of the study. The finding also could indicatethat the installation of new pedestrian devices shouldbe more widespread.

Warning device upgradeswere among the successfactors considered in theFRA study.

PH

OTO: M

ICH

AEL

HIC

KS

Percent Impact Percent Reduction

1994–2003 2003–2007 1994–2003 2003–2007

Commercial driver safety 21.8 18.7 34.6 1.02

Locomotive conspicuity 15.0 15.5 15.6 –5.1

Grade crossing maintenance 1.2 1.4 3.1 4.6

More reliable motor vehicles 1.9 1.6 3.1 3.1

Sight lines clearance 2.6 1.8 3.7 4.6

Freight car reflectorization - 1.0 - 5.1

Pedestrian safety - 1.8 - –8.7

TABLE 1 Percent Impact and Percent Reduction for Identified Success Factors

00_TRN_286_TRN_286 7/11/13 5:05 PM Page 41

TR N

EWS

286

MAY

–JUN

E 20

13

42

Although the time period for the second phasewas shorter and the data set therefore less extensive,the improvements from making freight cars morevisible with reflectorization were evident after thepassage of the 2005 rule. Figure 1 (above) presentsthe impact of the improvements.

Although analyzed with a different methodologyand additional data sources, warning device upgradesand crossing closures were effective strategies inimproving safety at grade crossings. Crossing clo-sures eliminate nearly all risk of incidents, injuries,and fatalities at that location; crossing closuresshowed one of the strongest impacts on the reduc-tion in incidents. The effects of education andenforcement and of crossing improvements were dif-ficult to analyze quantitatively, but other studies andreports have indicated the effectiveness of these fac-tors in improving highway–rail grade crossing safety.

Value of Research InvestmentsThese findings highlight the value of several majorresearch initiatives undertaken by the federal govern-ment and industry to improve highway–rail gradecrossing safety. During the study of success factors for1994 to 2003, commercial driver safety and locomotiveconspicuity were the two greatest successes in reducingincidents. Although the number of incidents related tofreight car reflectorization was relatively small duringthe 2003 to 2007 study period, the data showed a dis-cernible downturn after the final rule went into effectin 2005. Crossing closures also showed a significantimpact on the reduction of incidents.

Many of the factors identified were the result ofmajor research initiatives by the federal government,industry, or other stakeholders. The research invest-ment in highway–rail grade crossing safety has pro-vided significant safety improvement. Theimplementation of the research investments, partic-ularly for locomotive conspicuity and freight carreflectorization, has yielded real-world safety bene-fits. The study results also revealed factors that didnot have an impact on the reduction in incidents orthat have not fully realized the benefits. These resultshighlight areas for new safety research efforts.

Investing in highway–rail grade crossing safetyresearch has reduced the number of incidentsbetween highway users and trains. FRA continues toimprove highway–rail grade crossing safety withresearch and development.

This study underscores the value of investing insafety-related research and using the results in regu-latory, policy, or technological changes and advances.The differing results from the two phases of the studyalso show the need for research to evolve and toidentify and explore new means to improve safety athighway–rail grade crossings.

References1. Railroad Accident–Incident Reporting System. Office of

Safety Analysis, Federal Railroad Administration, Wash-ington, D.C. http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov. Accessed Novem-ber 2012.

2. Horton, S., A. A. Carroll, M. Chaudhary, J. Mozenter, T.Ngamdung, and D. Skinner. Success Factors in the Reduc-tion of Highway–Rail Grade Crossing Incidents, 1994 to 2003.Report DOT/FRA/ORD-09/05. Federal Railroad Adminis-tration, Washington, D.C., April 2009.

3. Horton, S. Success Factors in the Reduction of High-way–Rail Grade Crossing Incidents. Presented at 89thAnnual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board,Washington, D.C., January 2010.

4. Mok, S., and I. Savage. Why Has Safety Improved atRail–Highway Grade Crossings? Risk Analysis, Vol. 25, No.4, November 2005, pp. 867–881.

5. Carroll, A. A., J. Multer, and S. H. Markos. Use of AuxiliaryExternal Alerting Devices to Improve Locomotive Conspicu-ity. Report DOT/FRA/ORD-95/13. Federal RailroadAdministration, Washington, D.C., July 1995.

6. Highway–Rail Grade Crossing Technical Working Group.Guidance on Traffic Control Devices at Highway–Rail GradeCrossings. Federal Highway Administration, Washington,D.C., November 2002.

7. Carroll, A. A., J. Multer, D. Williams, and M. Yaffee. Safetyof Highway–Rail Grade Crossings: Freight Car Reflectoriza-tion. Report DOT/FRA/ORD-98/11. Federal RailroadAdministration, Washington, D.C., January 1999.

8. Compilation of Pedestrian Safety Devices in Use at GradeCrossings. Office of Safety, Federal Railroad Administra-tion, Washington, D.C., January 2008.

9. Sposato, S., P. Bien-Aime, and M. Chaudhary. Public Edu-cation and Enforcement Research Study. ReportDOT/FRA/ORD-06/27. Federal Railroad Administration,Washington, D.C., June 2006.

FIGURE 1Reflectorization incidentsand overall incidents,2003–2007.

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

02003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Ove

rall

Inci

den

ts

Reflecto

rization

Incid

ents

��

�

�

�

●● ●

●

●

● Overall incidents

� Final Rule on Reflectorization

� Reflectorization incidents

00_TRN_286_TRN_286 7/11/13 5:05 PM Page 42