I ." fIlZaI1roadColllro\s Limited (FLL) 􀁰􀁾􀁳fue.. Automated \'\om 􀁾􀁴􀁥􀁭􀀠• , . lO . 􀁾􀀠I 
I Table oft:ontents 􀁾􀁌􀀠􀀧􀀵􀁵􀁭􀁭􀁡􀁲􀁾􀀠of AH'5 4. '5amp\e. InstaUation "Plan for Ames, tA 7. '5ample Agreement 􀁢􀁥􀁴􀁾􀁵􀁮􀀠l:.it1 of Ame.s and Union "Pac.ific. iZailroad 
I I,. 􀁉􀁾􀀺_S_P_E_C_lF__ 0_'1_''4_S_H_E_E_T----Lr.=.:-􀁾􀀺􀀮􀀺􀀢'::::...'""􀀽􀁾􀀺􀀺􀀮􀀽􀀺􀀺􀀺􀁲􀁾􀀽􀁾􀀬;:""=:=':::":;''':'':::'""::.=;lj C_>A""'7"-_l_, 􀁾􀀽􀀭-=1""j" 1f,1... 􀁾􀁾􀀮􀀡􀁲􀁶􀀮􀀠I
..... 􀁾􀀠 Di:'} CO NO' ,,""""" ....;'1....,.. I\t.r'.: .!_." 􀁾􀀠,. PO'L" "<:<=v WAYSiDE ",eRN c:., '-􀀢􀀭􀁾􀀡􀀬􀀧􀀠RR-0806 I : " 􀀭􀁾--.,.. .. VQJtj._-10', (3-n" 00. POLE) I 􀀧􀀭􀀭􀀱􀀵􀀻􀀧􀁾􀀠Pl
i' I i, • r" 10 I I t " 2.-/3 Fl 􀁾􀁮􀀠J.. I 50 , //􀁾􀀠,....iO!," ,; , I 1It I I EXTEND-A-:-F'Ol£ I 48" I I 0 j Q] I I I , ji, 1' .. 􀁾􀀬􀀭I I 􀁾􀀠7. 􀁾􀁾􀀠f' 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁜':::: , " I ,
, " 􀀮􀁾􀀠5-"b" , I, , i I I I 􀁾􀀬􀀠 I 
,r' SPECiFICATiON SHEET ' " '. nt"1Ce I -􀁉􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀢􀁵􀁣􀀮􀀠J 1 ...........􀁾􀀺􀁳􀀠􀀨􀁾􀁾􀀺􀁊􀀬􀁃􀀬􀀩􀀴􀀠fM (..,;,) 􀁊􀀮􀁬􀁃􀀭􀁾􀀠􀁾 􀁦􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀡􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀺􀀺􀀽�
�􀀮􀀺􀁾􀀺􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀺􀁾􀀺􀀮􀀮􀀺􀀢􀀺􀀺􀀮􀀢􀀧􀀭􀀢.. "....,=....-=" !AGENCY: jREF ' rPELCO NO.: . I ! .HORN ENCLOSURE ASSEMBLY j _",,0·' . I I [ r \ \ 7 •A. -,,:;,0 paco I DESCRIPTIONPART NO.
RR-8005 i I I I I I I Ul.lIJIW.. CDA.nN; 1..El;:£ND : _... conE,"""-MF --BOX.as --....""'-..-.... .. Coafl.. PH:: 21" _To!'-IJa. ........ ---.... """ "'" QTY':COAT RR-8005 1 RR-8012
2 RR-8013 3 RR-'-8014 4'::-S-3900-S5. '::J J' '::-5-41 03-5S' 6 FS-1203-SS, /7 _-' HORN ENCLOSURE ASSEMBLY 'BODY" HORN ENCLOSURE W /STA81UZING INSER'[ & HARDWARE.............................
REMOTE CONE, HORN ENDLOSURE... .. ............,........... .COVER. HORN ENCLOSURE............................:... ....... SCREW, PHIL PAN HD. #10-32 X 5/S", STAINLESS......:.. FLATWASHER,
#10 STAINLESS.................... ................ LOCKNUT. NYLON. HEX.. #1 0-0-32. STAINLESS. ................. SCREEN, FIBERGLASS, 14" CiA.................................. 1 PNC PNC
PNC SS SS 5S PNC l' 1 1 44 41 
I Evaluation of an Automated Horn 1fVarning System at Three Highway-Railroad Grade. Crossings in Ames, Iowa by Steve J. Gent, P.E. Research Coordinator Iowa Department of Transportation
800 Lincoln Way Ames, Iowa 50010 phone: (515) 239-1129 email: sgent@max.state.iaus Scott Logan, P .E. City Traffic Engineer City of Ames Iowa 515 ClarK Ave. Ames, Iowa 50010 Phone: (515)
239-5275 .: and . David Evan;;· Civil Ef.1gineenng COOP Student Iowa State University 800 Uncoln Way Ames, Iowa 50010 
Evaluation of an Automated Horn Warning System at ".'.'i-Three Highway-Railroad Grade Crossings in Ames, Iowa By Steve J. Gent, Scott Logan and David Evans ." .. : -':-::-'Executive
Summary In September of 1998, the city of Ames,lowa (populaTIon 48,000) began operation of three automated hom warning systems. these systems were installed after' , I nearby residents
repeatedly expressed their concerns over the-disturbance created by the loud train horns. j Traditionally, locomotive engineers begin sounding the train horn approximately 1/4 mile from
the crossing to warn motorists and pedestrians approaching the intersection. To be heard over this' distance, the train hom must be very loud. This , I combination of loud horns, and
the length along the tracks that the hom is sounded, creates a large area adversely impacted by the hom noise. Unfortunately, in urban areas, this area likely includes many nearby residents.
The automated hom system provides a similar audible warning to motorists and pedestrians by using two stationary horns mounted at the crossing. Each horn directs its sound toward the
approaching roadway. The horn system is activated using the same track signal circuitry as the gate arms and bells located at the crossing. Once the hom is activated, a strobe light
begins flashing to inform the locomotive eng.ineer that the horn is working. If the strobe light is not flashing; or the locomotive engineer has a reason for concern regarding safety
at the crossing, the engineer simply 􀁳􀁯􀁵􀁮􀁾􀁳􀀠the train hom. The purpose ofthis research was twofold: 1.) determine the effectiveness ofthe automated hom system in -reducing tile
annoyance level for nearby residents; and 2.) determine the overall safety at the crossings with the new automated hom warning system. The research included collecting hom volume data
to develop noise level contour maps;:\;lsing before-and-after survey:,; to document opinions of. , nearby residents and motorists, and a survey of locomotive engineers to document their
perception of the new systems. The following paragraphs summarize the information collected during the study. Hom volume readings were collected on a grid pattem and noise level contour
maps were developed for the train horns and automated hom system. Use ofthe automated hom system reduCed the area with noise leve!s greater than 80 dBA by 97 percent, from 171 acres
using the train horns to less than six acres using the automated hom-system. (For reference, a person shouting from a distance of ' three feet would produce a decibel reading of approximately
78 dBA.) Tne contour maps (shown on page 6) give a visual representation of the land areas impacted 2 
l by the two warning systems. \/Vhen reviewing the contour maps, note that a typical person would perceive a 10 dBA increase as a doubling of "loudness." Tne residents overwhelmingly
accepted the automated hbmsystem and appreciated tlie city staff for attendfng to their needs. In the before condition, 77 perCent of the residents indicated the train horns had either
a "negative" or "Veri negative" impact on their quality of life, compared to only 3 percent in the after 􀁾􀁮􀁤􀁩􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀀮􀀠Regarding hom volume; 76 percent felt,!he train hom volume
was "too loudn as compared to the after condition. where 82 percent indicated that the automated hom volume was uno problem". 􀀮􀁾􀀠_ When the motorists were asked which system they
preferred, 78 percent preferred the automated hom system, 8 percent preferred the train horns and 14 percent had no opinion. Their responses also indicated that each of the warning devices
(gates, flashing lights and train/automated horns) located at the crossings provide a valueadded safety benefit. Ninety-two percent ofthe train engineers rated the.overall safety at
the crossings r with the aUtomated warning system to be "about the same" or "safer,· .compared to the before (train hom) condition. Seventy three percent of the engineers admitted to
blowing the train hom at least once at the subject crossings after the automated horns had been installed. The two primary reasons stated for blowing the train homs were: 􀀱􀁾􀀩􀀠concern
related to motorist or pedestrian behavior at the crossing; and 2.) old habits are hard to break. In summary: 1.) for nearby residents, the automated hom system greatly reduces the negative
impacts resulting from the loud train homs; 2.) the automated horns are wei! accepted by both motorists and locomotive engineers; and 3,) the automated system appears to provide an equivalent
level of safety at the crossings. ... ........... 
., introduction In September of 1998, the city ofAmes, Iowa (population 48,000) began operation of three al.!tomated hom warning systems located at the North Dakota Avenue, . Scholl
Road and Hazel Avenue crossings. The systems were installed at three 􀀭􀀺􀀮􀀮􀁾􀁣􀁲􀁯􀁳􀁳􀁩􀁮􀁧􀁳􀀠in the western and central 􀁰􀁡􀁾􀁳􀁯􀁦􀁴􀁨􀁥􀀠citY. Each ofthese crossings was already
equipped with automatic flashing light signals with gate arms and constant warning time circuitry. By installing the new warning 􀁾􀁳􀁴􀁥􀁭􀁳􀀠the city was hoping to improve the quality
of lire for the resident'? living near the crossings by reducing the volume of the train waming.. Many residents had complained about the loud I .)' rrain horns and how adversely they
had affected their lives. Currently about 60 trains per day pass through Ames, and this number is expected to increase to around 100 trains per day within five years. I The purpose of
this research was twofokl: 1 .) determine Ihe effectiveness of the automated hom system in reducing reducing the annoyance level for nearby residents; and I 2.) determine the overall
safety at the crossings with the newalltomated hom warning system. The research inc:;luded the following four initiatives. Horn Volume Data -Noise level readings were collected before
and after the automated hom systems were installed. This data was used to develop noiSe conto\lr maps showing the maximum noise levels at various locations near is crossing. Resident
Survey -A written pubiic opinion survey was developed and distributed to approximately 1000 residents living near the crossings. The residents were given the surveys before and after
the automated hom system were installed. Motorist Survey -Motorists waiting for stopped trains were asked several questions to determine their opinions 􀁲􀁥􀁧􀁾􀁲􀁤􀁩􀁮􀁧􀀠the train
hom and 􀁴􀁾􀁥􀀠automate.d hom system. Locomotive Engineer· Survey -􀁔􀁷􀁥􀀡􀀩􀁾􀁲􀀭􀁳􀁩􀁸􀀠locomotive engineers completed a written questionnaire regar:ding the aUtomated horn system
. ....'-" The ciiy of Ames was only the third community to install an automated hom warning system, with the other locations being· Gering, Netiraskia and Parsons,· Kansas. All of the
systems were designed I;ly, and purchased from, Merrill Anderson of Railroad Const,llting Services Inc. The city is currently I"legotiating with the Union Pacific Railroad on outfitting
other Crossings with the new l!utomated hom systems. In its current agreement with the Union Pacific, the city is responsible for the pUrchase, installation, maintenance, and eiectricel
power. needed for the automated hom system. The agreement also states that the city is liable if an accident can be traced to· one of the horns. Each system costs approximately $20,00G
per crossing, not inciuding installation. 
I ;. Horn Voiume Data Collection As illustrated by. the noise decibel contour maps (Figures'1 &. 2) on the next page, the land area affected by the two types of audible warning systems
at the same crossing is vastly different The automated hom sys1em not only reduces the land __ area adversely affected by the louder train horns, it also reduces the maximum . ··'::Odecibel
reading (hom volume) at alilocatio(,!s incltiaing properties in-line with, or in the path of the automated hom system. Table 1 shows quantitatively the land areas affected by the two
types ·of audible w.aming systems. I Sound Level I Train Hom ! AHS Hom· Retluclion ( dBA) I Area (acres) I Area (acres) , :> 70. 265 37 86% :> 80 171 I 5 97% i :>90 I 31 ! <1 98% Table
1 The contour maps represent the maximum volume obtained by the audible systems during the warning period. Figure 1 shows the noise contours for a train using the traditional train hom
system and travelling. in the westbound (light to left) direction. Figure 2 shows the maximum automated hom system volumes are being detected off the roadway, which would indicate that
the automated horns need to be realigned. After conducting this part of the. study, it became apparent that two additional issues related to hom volume should be addressed thiuuah a
future research project. Tne issues are: 1.) what hom decibel volume is required to adequately warn an approaching motorist; and2.) at what distance from the crossing does that volume
need to be provided? To give a reference to the first question, some typical decibel readings are listed below. ... Food blender at 3 feet 87dBA Person shouting at 3 feet 78dBA Gas lawn
Mower at 100 feet 70dBA Norma! -speech at 3 feet 65dBA When assessing the relative loudness of a given decibel level, it is helpful to ". understand the relationship between these tWo
terms. The above typical deciDel :j levels, and the following excerpt, were taken from the 1987 AASHTO Guide on Evaluation and Attenuation ofTraffic Noise publication. It states, "An
increase of 10 dBA in sound level will nearly double the loudness as .rated subjectively by typical observers .. A decrease of 10 dBA will appear to an observer to be a halving ofthe
apparent loudness. For example, a noise of 70 dBA will sound only half as loud as 80 dBA, assuming the same frequency composition apd other things being 􀁥􀁱􀁵􀁡􀁌􀁾􀀠. . 5 
1 Train Hom . .􀁾iSilCai=iIo!> I '.., I t I, I I I Unitm P:;jciiic RR , I \ ; \ 80 70 ., " \ Figure 1 Automated Train Horn ,, I I I I I, I , r I I I ! I I I , //---.... _􀁾􀁾􀀢􀀬􀀬􀀭---',
........:. .... , , ", \ ,, Il' I 2511' • 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁦􀀠􀁾􀀢􀁾􀀠􀀨􀁾tt. h 􀁾􀁦􀀠·f '$ ,I FIgure 2 
I The issue related to distancs may be approached by iooldng at Table /1-1, A Guide for Advance Warning Sign Placement Distances found in the Manual on Uniform Traffic 'Control Devices.
This table gives a minimum sign 'placement distance of 450 feet for a ·STOP AHE.:t..O" sign on a 55 mph roadway. The distance is 300 feet for 45 mph roadways and 150 feet for 35 mph
roadways. These distances provide adequate time for the driver to perceive; identify, decide and perform the necsssary maneuver. For highway-railroad intersections, these minimum '.
distances present a reasonable starting point for. the establishment of a requirement for an audibl!?waming distance: j The noise Jevel readings were taken using a 8ruel &Kjaer, Model
2231, Type 1Sound level Meter. All readings were taken in the northeast quadrant of-the North Dakota Avenue crossing and transferred to other quadrants to develop the contour maps. This
quadrant provided a reasonably flat and open terrain with the approaching tracks being perpendicular to 􀁎􀁯􀁲􀁴􀁾􀀠Dakota Avenue. Two noise decibel readings were taken at the data collection
stations in the before (train horns) and after (automated hom system) conditions. For the train horns, one reading was taken for an eastbound train and one reading was taken for a ---westbound
train. To look at the variability in train hom volumes, from one train to another, 12 readings were collected on North Dakota Avenue 250 feet from the tracks. The twelve readings averaged
95.5 dBA, with a low of 90.6 dBA, a high of 102.8 dBA and a standard deviation of 3.63. 
Resident Survey Survey questionnaires were distributed to all residents living within an. area located 1;000 feet perpendicularto the tracks and 1500 feet icngitudinal (each way) from
. 􀀬􀁾􀁴􀁨􀁥􀀠crossings. Surveys were distributed approximately two months before and two . :::;1-nonths after the automated hom systems ""ere inStalled. The responses were overwhelmingly
posruve regarding the automated hom system. G;aph 1 shows the :iJeforecandition where 77 percent of the residents indisated the !;ain homs had either a "negative" or "very negative"
impact.on their quality of life, compared to only 3 percent in the after condruon. I· Question: As a resident, bow would you rate the impact of the train hom (or automated hom) sounds
on your quality of life? 􀀸􀀰􀀥􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭________________________________-. 70%+____________________________________________􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀀶􀀰􀀥􀀫􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭�
�􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠m ." 􀁾􀀵􀀰􀀥􀀫􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠"􀁾􀀠! 40%
" " .; 30% '" " 􀁾􀀠20% "'22% 1% 2% Very Negative Negative No Effect Positive Impact of Horn on Residents' Quality of life ' li.Train Homs oAutomated 􀁾􀀻􀁭System. . . .. . II Graph
1 At the end of each survey, the residents were solicited to write additional comments on the back Qf the form. Over half of the 550 retumed surveys (approximately 1000 total surveys
distributed) provided comments. The following examples provide a good cross-section of the issues and observations listed by the residents.. 8 
Before condition (train horns): I understand the need for trains to make noise at interSections -to make thei, presence knoWn to avoid accidents -but I don't appreaiate the engineers
who feel the need to blow the hom for the entire length oftheir trip. I feel that is unneeded, especially at 3 a.m. when tfJere is nobody out on the mads anyWay! 􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀺􀁾􀀮􀀺􀀮􀀠The
train whistles are way too loud and iong in my estimation. IfI'm on the phone or listening to the TV, 'the loud whistles are especially annoying. Also mrsleep is often intelTUpted many
times:ouring the night because ofthe loud' I' whistles. It would be very much appreCiated if the noise couid be greatly i I softened and still keep the crossing safe. It is essential
to have adequate waming of approaching trains, however, the existing train whistles seem unnecessarily long and lOUd. I think a town the size ofAmes with so many railroad crossings should
be looking at bUildiJ7g more overpasses, which would provide for more safety, convenience, and would allow the trains to be more quiet. After condition (automated hom system): Installation
ofthe automated hom system was a velY positive slep., There is an occasional train operator that still uses the train-mounted hom to make a statem.ent as he/she passes through our neighbomood.
This just reminds us of , how much better the noise level is a majority ofthe time. Thank you for continuing to support our neighborhood in its efforts to improve the quality oflife
ofthe residents. I have lived in this neighborhood nearly my entire life. I thought I was used to the train noise. However, with the many trains that go through now, and with the noisy
horns, it was. affecting my jifestyle. These new aUiomatedhoms are great and I reallv appreciate their. installation. I used to worry when I had ovemight 􀁣􀁯􀁭􀁰􀁾􀁮􀁹thf;ll they,Would
be kept awake by the noise, and often they ware. Now they aren't;thank you. Thank you very much for your work on this. It has been a great improvement.:] am reluctant to say it is 100%
solved since it is winter and ourhouse windows are all closed. I don't know how it will feel in the summer. I live about 150 yards from the crossing at an angle, and can just hearthe
horns inside the house with the winc!ows closed. BUt I can now choose to ignore them and continue myphone conversations. this is a majorimprovement. 9 
The comments received leave little question as to how appreciative t'le .residents were of the automated hom system. To determine if the perpendicular distanca from the tracks affected
the survey responses, the distributed surveys were differentiated between the residents living within 500 feet of the tracks, and the residents living between 500 and 1,000 feet of the
tracks. The residents living 􀁾􀀢􀁣􀁬􀁯􀁳􀁥􀁲􀀠to the tracks were slightly more "extreme" inJheir survey responses. However, the residents living further from the trac!cS"shared the·
same concems regarding the train homs and shared the same posjiive responses regarding the automated homs. Residents living further than 1,000 Teet were not included in the survey. Graph
2 "shows the resident's rating of the before and after hom volume. In {Jeneral, they felt the train homs were too loud, and the-automated hams were not a problem. . m 80% 􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭
􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀴􀀭􀀭􀁲􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠J:: J:: " -􀁾􀀠70% +--------------------------4 l5 60% 􀁾􀀠+-------------------------4 􀁾􀀠50% T-----------------------
---4 'C 40% +-________________________--1 .. E 30% +--------------------------1 c E20% 􀀫􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀳􀁟􀀥􀀱􀀠 Il." 10% +----t__􀁾􀀮􀁟􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁟􀁟􀁲􀀢􀁉􀀺􀁟􀀢􀀮__--,-0%
􀀫􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀽􀀽􀁾􀁟􀁲􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠Too Soft Soft. . No Problem " Loud Too L.oud Question: As a nearby reSIdent, now would you rate the train horn noise at the crossing? 90% 􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭___________
___________􀁾􀁾________________􀁾____, 􀁒􀁥􀀮􀁾􀁩􀁤􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁓􀁩􀀠Rating of Horn Volume I:. I rain Horns oAutomated Hqm System I· . Graph 2 The survey also showed. that residents were more
disturbed by the train horns at night, compared to the daytime condition. Graph 3 shows the daytime vs. nighttime impact during the before condition. Graph 4 shows the daytime vs. nighttime
irDpactduring the after. condition. Tnese graphs also reconfirm the acceptance of the new system by the residents. 10 
-;.:" 􀀮􀀻􀀺􀁾􀀠􀀮􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀬􀀠I'"'i I , 􀁾􀀠;1 I • J_ I -i I, QueS'Jon: How do you rate the impact of the train horn sounds at the crossing during the day {night)"? ' I I I I 70% I .!!!
I, c 60%..I I "0 ii 50% I Co :: 40%IJ!'-.. '30%" =0' 1 " 20% ..l'! 10% 0.. 0% Very Disturbing fairly Slightly No impact Disturbln'g Disturbing Disturbing Train Horn Disturbance of Residents
i/1 .Daytime o Nighttime Graph 3 Question: How do you rate the impact of the automated hom sounds at the cI"Qssing during the day (night)? 70% .-----______________________________________􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭
􀁟􀀬􀀠.. 􀁾􀀠60% 􀀫􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀢􀀧􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁟􀁬􀀠o 50% +-------_____􀁾__________________________________ " 140% +------------------------
----------------------􀁾􀀠30% +-________________􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀢􀀧􀁾􀀬􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭=0 􀁾􀀠20% +-------__􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁟􀀬􀀠􀁾􀀠.. 10% 􀀷􀀭􀀭􀀮􀁾􀁾􀁲􀁟􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀁾�
�􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀠fl-Very Disturbing faii'ly Slightly No Impact Disturbing Disturbing Disturbing Automated Horn Disturbance of Residents 1rl-'.-CO::-a-yti7.·-m-e--o-=N:7.j-gh:-:tti-:C'm-e-' I
Graph 4 11 
Motorist Survey Tile motorists surveyed at the crossings generally liked the automated hom system . and preferred this new system over the train horns. However, they did not feel as
..:;;strona as the residents about the need to reduce the volume of the train horns. 􀀭􀀢􀀢􀁾􀀠. ... "" Graph 5 shows the results of tne question, "\,Nhat device first aierted you of
the on coming train?' The mix of responses .indicates that eaCh of the various warning devices (gates, flashing lights, hom, etc.) located atthe crossings provides a value-added safety
benefit. 􀁾􀁲􀀭􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀬􀀠a Fl2$hing Horn . _orof Combination' Other NlA I..i!Jh!S ather """" Warning Device
Noticed First by Motorists Graph 5 Graph 6 shows the motorist opinion of the hom volume in the before (train hom) and after (automated hom warning system) situations. In both cases the
majority of motorist felt the volume should be left as is. It should be noted that some of the surveyed motorists were also residents living near the' crossing. The number of residents
was not determined during the survey. 12 
, 1 II 􀁾􀀠Question: TIle waming S)"Stem volume shoUlti be? 1 􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀬􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀠1 ' eQ% ____________􀁾__________􀁾􀀭􀀸􀀭􀀰􀀥􀁟�
�􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠"I] 70% 'I' , , i , , 11I i , '" 􀁾􀀠'" 0% Raised Left As Is !..Dwered Motorists' Opinion of Hom Volume 60% +-------------.----'=c-1 ' 50% +_________􀁾􀁾______
40% +-_______________----, 􀁾􀀠30% +___________,__ ',j 􀀲􀁾􀁾􀀠tl------;=::::;--'--c------;,1-------l,1 10% +---'-"'--1 ' 􀁾􀀠, -Glsph 6 One hundred and five motorists were surveyed
in the before condition and fifty-one motorists were surveyed in the after condition. The after survey was condl1cted approximately one month after the automated warning system was installed.
Seventy five percent of the respondents indicated that they were aware that the, automated hom system had been installed. Graph 7 shows that 78 percent of the motorists preferred the
automated hom system over the train horns. Do you pmie.-tile statioruu)' atst:ormtt:ed horn CIt the train born? 40+'__ .! 25 +-___ 􀁾􀀠3D<; +---... 25 +____ :: 􀁾􀀠20 +-___ " g 15 +-___
􀁾􀀠10:ot +---5+-__ o+-__ " . 'NIS Tlilin , No Opinion Motorists' Horn Preference Graph 7 13, 1 
-, ji . , LocomotivE Engineer Survey In general, the locomotive engineer survey provided positive responses regarding .::.;;.th<;l automated hom warning system. Tne engineers completed
the surveys in April . -'of 1999, which was seven months after the instaliatTon of the automated horns. A total of 26 surveys were completed. Some highlights from the surveys include:
• Ninety-two percent ofthe locomotive engineers rated the overaJl safety at the crossings with the automated waming system to be "about the same" or "safer" as compared to the before
(train hom) condition • Only one locomotive engineer noted an increase in unsafe motorist behavior. The other 25 (96 percent) did not observe an increase. • Seventy-three percent of
the engineers admitted to blowing the train hom at least once at the subject crossings. There were two primary reasons stated for blowing the train horns: i.} concern related to motorist
or pedestrian behavior at the crossing; and 2.) old habits are hard to break. Several engineers also noted, "another train passing through the intersection" (double tracks) as a reason
for sounding the train hom. This latter reason occurs because the automated hom warning system is activated using the same circuitry as the flashing light signals and gate arms. Therefore
it does not reactivate the hom (or strobe light) when the ot'ler warning systems are active. The engineers are responsible for ensuring that an audible warning occurs (either with 􀁴􀁴􀁩􀁾􀀠autot;nat
ed hom system or with the train hom) every time they approach a crossing. Because of this responsibility. they are forced to sound the train hom in this situation. Consideretion should
be given to redesigning the aLotomaied hom system so it can independentiydetect approaching trains on each set of tracks. ... . FoJlowing are Graphs 8, 9, 10 and 11. showing the responses
to the locomotive engineer survey qUE;Stions. . 14 
􀀺􀁾􀀠. Question:: Haw would you rate the rei'3:m!e 􀁳􀁡􀁲􀁥􀁾􀀠of tt--e 􀁾􀁩􀁮􀁧wi;:h the automated hom,system as C!Jmp:anad tc the same crossing prier to the installaticn of tim 􀁮􀁥􀁷􀀮􀁾􀀿􀀠􀁾􀁾�
�􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀬􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠18+-______________􀁾..._____ 16+-________________________ .JlJ iii 14 +--------------."[
12+-__________􀁾.. 􀁾______ -------.,1 ;.w 10 +-_______..________...􀁾􀁟􀀠'0 -􀀶􀁔􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀂭" DE 6 +-__ __ z " 4 +-__ __ 2+-__ o-i----..Crossing 1s Safer Crossing
is about the Same CrosSing Is Less Safe Relative Safety of Crossing from Engineers' Perspective Graph 8 Qtteation; Have you observea an increase in un$a'fe motorist behavior at the crossing
with the automated horn systems? 30 25 􀁾􀀠;;; 􀁾􀀠20 rr: ;;-• 15 0 -1 Ii.., 10􀁾􀀠􀀡􀁾, g. Z 5 􀁾􀀠____􀁾􀁩􀀠1,".:';: 0 􀁏􀁢􀁳􀀻􀁾􀁥􀁤􀀠Increase in Unsafe 􀀻􀁥􀁨􀁡􀁶􀁩􀁯􀁾􀀠.1􀁾􀀠:{J
L ___􀁾􀁟􀀧_-=fr:o:m:::·:::E::::n=g::i:n::e:e:f:S:':p:e:r::::s::p:e::c::ti::v=e__..􀁾􀀠25 􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀱􀀮􀁊􀀠􀁾􀀻􀀮, 􀁾􀀠Graph 9 1.5 
.i ;,' Ques'Jon: Have you ever blown th$ 􀁴􀁲􀁡􀁩􀁮􀁾􀀠llem as ,.OI,J ap·proacned ,a cmssing .with the automated hom systems:? 􀀲􀀰􀀮􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀬􀀮􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭
􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭______c 18 +-______ 􀁾􀀠􀀱􀁾􀀫􀁟􀀭􀀭􀀭-g 14 +-_____ '" g, 12 +-.--____.. 􀁾􀀠10+-______ '0 B+-____ .ll-5 +---'--§ 4+------__ :z 2 +-_____ 0+--___ y.... No Engineers
who Sounded Train Horn at Automated Crossings Graph 10 􀀴􀁏􀀥􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀬􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀬"" :;SOAr
+--------1 :: 30% +_______ 􀁾􀀠g. 2&'1a +-________ I-l; 20% 􀀫􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭j 15% +________ !10% +---:-c_---5% Do/. Dml\k:l!Sm.Strabe 􀁑􀁡􀁾􀁯􀁬􀁬􀁬􀁬􀁲􀀠􀁾􀀢􀀭􀁄􀁦􀁃􀁢􀁡􀁮􀁧􀁾􀀧􀀠􀁾􀁴􀀠AilotmrTrai
n;at Syswu Nat MotarlSt or Pwd .in Horrt P:lftcy ClU$SiIIg Oplmlting 􀁾􀁐􀁾.Engineers' Reason for Blowing the Train Horn Graph 11 11< 
Summary This research project was initiated for the purpose of evaloating the effectiveness ofthe automated hom warning systems. This purpose was twofold: i.} to determine the effectiveness
of the new system in reducing the annoyance leve! for 􀁾􀁮􀁥􀁡􀁲􀁢􀁹􀀠residents; and 2.) to detennine the overall safety at the crossings wtth the automated systems. The effectiveness
of the automated hom in reducing the annoyance level for nearby residents was addressed through thedield collection of hom noise levels and through the surveys of residents. The hom
volume data that was collected near the crossings clearly demonstrates the significant reduction of land area negatively impacted by using the automated horns. In fact, the automated
hom system reduced the area withnoise levels greater than 80 dBA by 97_percent, from 171 acres using the train horns to less than six acres using the automated hom system. (For reference,
a person shouting from a distance of three feet would produce a decibel reading of approximately 78 dBA) Theresidents overwhelminglY accepted the automated hom system and appreciated the city staff for attending to their needs. In the beforE!. condition, 77 percent ofthe residents indicated
the train-horns had either a "negative" or "very negative" impact on their quality of life as compared to only 3 percent in the after condition. Regarding hom volume, 76 percent felt
the train hom volume was "too loud" as compared to the after condition where 82 percent indicated that the automated hom volume was "no problem", Because the city ofAmes is only the
third commun1!:y to instal! automated horns, it is impossible to accurately determine the overall safety of the crossings. Only after more systems are installed can a stu,dy be conducted
comparing the collision rates of crossings with similar exposures, Nonetheless, the motorist ani:! locomotive engineer surveys provided valuable-input into this issue. When the motorists
were -asked which system they preferred, 78 percent preferred the automaL=-d hom system, 8 percent preferred the train horns, and 14 percent had no opinion. Their responses also indicated}bat
each brthewaming devices (gates, flashing lights and train/automated homspocated at the crossings provides a value-added safety beneftt. Twenty-three percent of the .Iocomotive .engineers
rated the crossings 'safer,' 69 percent rated them "about the sa'me," and only 8 percent rated the _ crossings with the automated warning systems to be "less safe" as compared to the
before (train hom) condition. In summary, the project found no evidence tosuggest that the ,automated horns, are less safe than the current practice of using train-mounted horns, The
automated hom system provides the locomotive engineer with the option of sounding the train's hom if unsafe behavior at the crossing is observed, This option may,_ enhance the safety
at the crossing because:it provides an additional 17 
leve! oiwaming. For pedestrians and bicyclists, the automated horns appearto provide a better audible warning because of the intense nature of the hom volume durino the early stages
of the 'Warning time. However. the 'auiomated horns de not provide an indication as to the direction of the approaching trai,n, which is one of the reasons why these systems should only
be considered at locations already equipped wifuautomatic flashing light signals with gate arms and constant warning . '::'ilime circuitry. Other jurisdictions considerillg these,,systems
may also want to use . other supplementary safety measures, such as median barriers . .' . ! , :<g J 􀁾􀁾􀁬, 18 
·'t Field Evaluation of a Wayside Hom at a Highway-Railroad Grade Crossing 􀀮􀁾􀀠, j -. 
Noise frOm the train hom is pe=ived by many resid= Living near 'grnde crossings as highly annoying. Railroad operating rules :require lo=oti:ve engin= to sound the train hom as they
approach a highway-1"ll.ihOari grade=ssing. Locom:otive engin= begin sounding the hom approximately 1/4 mile from the highWay-:railroad grade 􀀽􀁓􀁓􀁩􀁄􀁾􀀠This warning exposes a .segment
ofthe local community near the trad:s to the sOlmd of the tram hom as well as motorists ._'" KIld pedestrians who may be approaching the grade crossing:' However, residents living near
the grade crossing are not the intended target ofthis aUditory warning. One ali:emative that has been proposed by some to address the acrverse ei'fucts oftrain hom noise is a stationary
hom moumed iIt.the grade crossing. 'The stationary hom, referred to h= as a wayside hom, is sounded in place ofthe train horn as the tmi:n approaches the grade crossing. Previous research
addressing wayside horns has examined whether the wayside hom is detectable by motorists. Wayside horns evaluated in the past w= less deu:ctable than commonly used train horns (Kener
and Rickley, 1993). Previous research on wayside horns c::mered on their acoustic characteristics. Safety and community noise impact was not addressed, leaving important questions unanswered.
One critical question that needs to be answ=d iswhether the wayside hom reduces annoyance to the local community compared to a train-mounted horn or whether it simply moves the area
of impact to a different part ofthe community? Another question that needs to be answered is whether sarety is maintained when a wayside hom serves as the auditory warning in place ofthe
train hom? The purpose ofour research is to answer both these questions. The curient study evaluates the viability ofthe wayside hom as a warning concept Although the study evaluated
one particular device in terms of iTS effectiveness in warning motorists and minimizing community noise impact, the study is int..""llded as a test of a ciass ofaudi:tory warnings located
at the grade crossing. To the extent other auditory warnings are designed similarly, comparable performance would be expe..'1:ed. The study compared the perf=ance oftrain homs on Union
Pacific locomotives (Leslie 3 chime) to a prototype wayside hom. For the = evaluation, two wayside horns were moumed on a utility pole with each hom directed toward oncoming rraffic,
at each ofthree grade crOssings in Gering, Nebraska. .Community Noise Impact To evaluate the community noise impact ofthe wayside horn, two surveys were administered by telephone. The
iirst survey ll1((aSUI'ed the impact ofthe train ham on co=uniry noise. The second survey measured the impact of the wayside hom on cmmrnmity noise. Dam from the two surveys were compared
to eva1ua!e.the difference betwe...""ll the two warning devices on . community noise impact. The wayside horn tested was conside::ablv less annoying to survey resoondents than the train
hom. The wayside hom reduced noise to levels 1h1II were more ac:::..-ptabre to the CQTDIDJrnity. The wayside hom was less likely to interfere with activities inside or ou:tside the home
and genernted fewer actions to minimize the noise. The variabre that best predicted ifsomeone was highly annoyed was the frequen.-'J'with which the hom was heard. The greater the hom
coUD!, the more ,.!. ix 
,', .􀁾􀀬􀁜􀀠􀀮􀀧􀀮􀁾􀀠􀁾. ., 􀁾􀀠, EXECUTIVE SlJMMARY likziy a :resident was to be highly annoyed. 􀁅􀁩􀁾􀁨􀀠=oyance level was also re1ated to the a.."i±viti.es . Which were inil::J:fer:.:d
with. Tne :relationship C::twl::::l activity :ime;:fererl with and high annoyance varied by time of day. During the day, iTIterference with converna!ion contribt.'1:ed to high . annoyance.
During me evening, 􀁩􀁮􀁦􀁌􀁩􀁾􀁮􀁣􀁥􀀠with both converna:tion and reading contrlbuted 10 high annoyance. FinaLly, during the night, only interf=ce wi:1h sle:p cautributed to high annoyance
. AcollS1:k Analysis 􀀮􀀺􀀺􀁾􀀠 T.ne acOllStic analysis was performed to dccmnent the sound levd and :frequency content offue inservice locomotive hom and the WlI)'Sidl< hom being eVal.ua!ed
:for their effucts on driver safety and coIllIIIllIriry noise impact in Gering, Neqraska. In addition, the aco!§!ic data collected was compared to 1he community noise impact data coliecred:fi:tJID
the $"urve'j ofthe local residents to =iDe fue relationship between noise level and annoyance. The obji::ctives were met by condUcting sound level measurements ofbofu fue locomotive
hom and the wayside hom .at fourteen sites s=unding the tlm:e grade crossings in Gering, NE. ' At peak sound levels,the wayside hom was approxirniD:ely 13 dB quieter than the train horn.
The lower sound level ofthe wayside honi compared to the train hom was a significant fuetor in explaiiring why the wayside hom was p=ived as lees annoying than the train hom. Unlike
the rrain horn, the wayside horn did not meet the minimmn sound level required oftrain homs. The frequency distribution ofthe wayside horn was sirnilarto me train horns measured in this
study. Forthe 14 sites where sound measurements were collected, the wayside hom had a negative community impact oo1y during nighttime hours using guidelines developed by the Federal
Transit Administration (FTA). Only the sites defined as severe impaet resulted in community annoyance high enough to require action to mitigate the noise. For the wayside hom, the location
ofme sights defined as severe were all within 100 feet offue track By contrast, locations defined as severe impact for the train hom were iocated up to 1000 feet from the track. Clearly,
the wayside hom impacted residents over a smaller geographical area., Evaluation of Driver Behavior The use of an alternative warning device to the train horn must also provide an eifuctive
warning to the motorist, ifaccidents are to be prevented. The primary objective of the driver behavior evaluation was to assess the safety of the wayside hom To meet this 􀁯􀁢􀁪􀁾􀀧􀁩􀁩􀁶􀁥􀀬􀀠we
observed driver behavior at the grade crossing for both the train horn and the wayside hom. Using video caIIl.-"IaS, we observed when motorists drove thiough the grade crossing following
activation of the warning systems. We measured both fue :frequency ofthe violations and the time to collision. The safety evalUlrtion sug,.,uests that the wa:Y;;ide hom Will not resclt
in behavior that uuts the driver at increased risk comoared to the use ofthe train hom. The frequency of violations was lower for the wayside horn than the train hom, while the time
ro collision and violation time was not statistically or practically di:iIerentfor either warning system...In both the train horn and wayside hom condirions, driver belk-vior was determined
in part by the presence ofthe gares_ To the extent that gare behavior controls'motorist behavior, di:ff=nces betw= the two warning-devices may have been masked. Da!a from Richanls et
ai's (1991) study on optimal warning times indicate that as the time d!:lay 􀁩􀁮􀁣􀁲􀀭􀀧􀁾􀁳􀀠􀁢􀁥􀁲􀁷􀁾􀀧􀀢􀁉􀁬􀀠when the warning is initiated and the gilIes completeiy descend, motorists
are more likely to continue through the grade crossing without stopping. The gate descent time in this study was re1ariveiy short (lOs), x i 
.' This short 􀁾time may have reduced the ovetal1 violation mre compared to g;:ade crossi:ogs with lou,,"1ll" descent times. Implementation .Issues The mn:rent study did not set our
t6 evalua:te how the wayside hom snoulil be imple:ine1rted to maximize safety while mfuimizing c:ommuni.ty noise impact. Nevertheless., a variety of implemenmtion issues will impact
safety at the grade crossing as wen as commu.uity noise. S= 􀁾􀀠 ofthese issues were identified, along with issues they raise and pOTential soluticms. Tllese issues included method ofactivation,
hatrlware design md standard.izm:ion. Two methods of activnion were identi:fied: trackcircuitry and.engineer at-'tivated. Tllere are trndeom.thiJt must be considered in seIecting either.method.
The engineer activated method has not been sobjected to evaluation in revenue service. but remains a promising approach. Activarion by trnck circuitry, with cODStant warning times. is
a viable armroach ifthe track cin:uitry is reliable. :">.ssuming the trnclc cirmu'tty cirmu'tty is reliable, the oppOl1llll.ity to use this method will depend upon the availability of
grade crossings with constant warning trnck circuitry. Currently, constant waming time track: circuits are available at only a lllI!al1 percentage (13%) of the grade crossings protecied
by active waming systems. Although the audItory waming could also be activamd by fixed block: trnck circuits, this approach is problematic. As the time between activation of the warning
device md the actual presence ofthe train increases, motorists are less likely to heed the warning. The mn:rent evaluation also identified sovera1 design and maintenmcc isSlles reiated
to the wayside hom evaluated for this test Exposure ofthe elements impaired the perfonnance ofsevenil ha:Idwllre components. The components of the wayside hom must be designed to withstand
the extremes ofweather found in the United States. The system also needs to be designed to facilil:ate ease ofmaintenance. Importa:nt design features 1hat contribute to ease ofmain:tenance
include: minm,izjng the mnnber of components, using modula! components that are easy to replac:":, and designing the housing to facill"llIlE ease-of·access. As demoIl&1l:ated by the
annoyance measures in the two surveys and the driver behavior dare, the waYSIde hom shows promISe as a wamlnll: device that can reduce community noise imoact wi:thout adverselv affectin!l:
s.afetv. However, 􀁴􀁨􀁾􀁲􀁥􀀠are still impOrtanl: £!UeStions that need to be ' answered hefore implemen:ting this cL"'Vice as a substi:ture for the wain hom The·irrmlementatilID illS11es
indicate the need fur clarifyine: how the activation method will imoact saier" Itt the grade crossing. The wayside hom also needs to be evalu:tL"'d at other locatiOUE to confiIm the
benefit!: of reduced community noise irrmlWt and TO insure that driver saferv is not cgmoromise4, Finan". an answer is also neecL"'d to the question of what an appropriate sound level
is to maintain safety while minirnizine: community noISe imoact. Until these questions are answered, fue wayside hom is not recommended as a sobstitute for the train :hom at hlghway·railroad
grade crossings, 
-1-' -􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠i􀁬􀁾􀁵􀁴􀁯􀁭􀀨􀁊􀀭􀀻ed i I (] I n HOr-n ..-... 1· 1::1 ! '''''-''''''n! isv Ue-ro j. ShoTt of 4' by 4 "1\oarbon steel structural tubing I TYPICAL HANDHOLE ST ANDARD GRADE
LENEL BURIED CABLE ENCLOSURE OF THE TYPE SlMILAA TO P£N:::ELL PlJ'STJ:::S 􀀮􀁰􀁥􀀺􀁾2{}-BHDX MADE OF' HrGH DENSiTYPEDESTAL MOUNTED POLE POLYE:THEl.ywe: ltV: STAaILl'ZED. ,.",....,. rH'Jrrtn
, I 􀁲􀁾􀀠• , " j S'lIIln UNDERGROUND WIRELINE CROSSING 
" ' Agreement Number ___ THIS AGREEMENT, is made and entered into 􀁾􀁩􀁳􀀠5f)-lday 􀁏􀁦􀀢􀀭􀁾􀀠,-=rsR by and between UNION PACIFIC RAlLROADCOMPANY, a Delaware c oration ('fierelnafter
the wRaiiroad") and the CITY OFAJVfES, Ii municipal oorporation of the State of Iowa (hereinafter the ·Cit-j"), WITNESSETrl:/' RECITALS: The CUy has requested the Railroad to participate
in the cost of installation of an Automated Hom System (hereinafter -AHSW) at the locations described in Exhibit A, hereto attached and hereby made a part hereof, as such locations are
located on the Railroad's Boone Subdivision in Ames, iowa, to which the Railroad is agreeable, but solely upon the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. AGREEMENT: NOW, THEREFORE,
in consideration of the premises and of the promises and conditions hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. The City agrees to provide and install, at its sale
cost and expense, the utillty poles, the AHS and power supply for each installation. 2. The Railroad, at its expense, shall provide the electrical connection from the cfossjng signal
control syste!T',s to activate the Ai-lS at each imitaUation and cooperate with the City in the testing of these systems. 3, The City, at its expense, will own and maintain the AHS at
each location and will be solely responsible for ensuring the reliable operation of each system and preventing any malfunctions. ' ......... 4. The City has,reauestedtha:t the .Railroad
not sound its locomotive horns when its engineers ,observe the' activated strobe'light, and the Railroad agrees to cOmply, with such request, provided that City indemnifies and insures
Railroad with respect thereto ' as provided in this Agreement; and provided further that Railroad shall have the free and unrestrained right to resume sounding its locomotive horns under
either of two conditions; 1) when vehicles, pedestrians, or animals are visibly present and in immediate perjl;or 2} if the Railroad and City rniltually agree to resume sounding the
train horns to enhance and protect the public's safety, If the consent of any other governmental entity is required for Railroad's compflance with this Agreement, the City agrees to
obtain such consent at its saie cost and expense. 
,'.. 5. The City shall indemnify, defend and noid thet Railroad naimlass from and against all claims, actions, fines, costs, liability and expense whatsoever Oncluding, withcut limitation,
attomeys' fees, court costs and exper.lses) arising out of {a) the existence of the AHS, (b) the RaIlrbad's compliance with the tams of this Agreement, (e) the Cilis noncompliance with
the terms of this Agreement, or (d) any act or omission of the City, its ciJntractOrs, agents and/or employees, that causes orcontributes to (1) any damage to or destruction of any property
Oncluding, without limitation, property of the Railroad), (2) any injury to or death of any person {inciuding, without fimitaliQf1, employees of the Railroad}, or (3) any claim or cause
of action for alleged io,ss of profits or revenue, or loss of service, including the negligence of the Railroad, its officers, agents and employees, whether sale or partial, passive
or active, director imputed. 6. As provided in this Agreement, the City shall not be liable to the Railroad or. account of any failure of the AHS to operate properly nor shall the Railroad
have or be entitled to maintain any action against the City arising from any failure from the AHS to operate properly. The Railroad shall not be liable to the City on account of any
failure of the AHS to operate properly nor shall the City have or be entitled to maintain any action agaJnst the Railroad arising from any failure of the AHS to operate properly_ The
City expressly waives its sovereign and governmental immunity, and any statutory limitation on its liability, to the extent necessary for the enforcement of this Agreement, and agrees
that it will not assert any defense of sovereign or governmental immunity orlimitatior} of liability in response to a claim by Railroad under this Agreement; provided, however, that
nothing contained in this Paragraph shall inure to the benefit of, or be enforceable by, any third party. 7. If at any time any work needs to be performed on Railroad's property by the
City's contractor(s) or their subcontractor(s); the City shall require its contractor, or a subcontractor, to execute the Railroad's form Contractor's Right of Entry Agreement whicn
is attached hereto as Exhibit B. The City acknowledges receipt of a copy of the Contractor's Right of Entry Agreement and understanding of its terms, provisions, and requirements, and
will inform its· contractor(s) of the need for them and their subcontractor's to execute the 􀁁􀁾􀁥􀁥􀁭􀁥􀁮􀁴􀀠Under no circumstances will City's contractor(s) or their subcontractors
be allowed onto the Railroad's property without first executing the Contractor's Right of Entry Agreement. . ., . 8. Before any work begins, each of City's contractors/subcontractors
wiU.pro\nde . the Railroad with a certificate issued by their respective insurance carrier providing the . insurance.coverage required pursuant to Exhibit A-1 of the Contractor's Right
of Entry Agreement, in a policy containing the following endorsement: , ·Union Paclfic Railroad Company is named as additional insured with . respect to all liabiiities arising out of
Insured's performance of work related to the installation Qf the automated hom systems in Ames, Iowa. 2 
1 The City WAFIRANTS that this agreelT.ent has been thoroughiy ri:'liewed by its insura"'lcs agent(s}/broker(s) and that said agent(s)/broker(s) has been instructed to procura insurance
coverage and an endorsement as required herein. 􀁾􀀠9. All insurance correspondencs shall be alrected to Union Fadiic Raiirnad􀁾􀁦􀁾􀀠. 􀁾􀁭􀁰􀁡􀁮􀁹􀀬􀀠Attn: Murray Nelson, 903 Story
Street, Boone, Iowa 50036. , t 10. The City, for itself and for iissucesssors '§,.!2d assigns, hereby waives any right of assessment against the Raiiroad,·as ao.adjacent property owner,
for any and all improvements made under this Agreement 11. Covenants herein shall intlre to or bind each party's successors and assigns; provided, no right of the City shall be transferred
or assigned, either voluntarily or invoiuntarily, except by express written agreement acceptable to the Railroad. 12.. The City shall, when returning this agreement to the Railroad (signed),
cause same to be accompanied by such Order, Resolution ,or Ordinance of the governing body of the City, passed and approved as by law prescribed, and duly certified, evidencing the authority
of the person executing this agreement on behalf of the City with the power so to do, and which also will certify that funds have been appropriated and are available for the payment
of any sums herein agreed to be paid by the City. IN WiTNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Agreement as of the date and year first hereinabove written. UNION PACIFIC
RAILROAD COMPANY, ---i() . J 􀀸􀁙􀁟􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁆􀁻lltle: CHII=F ¢J ci,-. 􀁾􀀧􀀭􀀱􀁜􀀠CITY OF AMES, . 􀁾􀀧􀀩􀀠.4_____j . 􀁂􀁙􀀮􀁾􀁾􀀠Its: 􀁾􀀠Pursuant to ResolutionlOrder dated __􀁾􀁊􀁵􀀮􀁊􀁊􀁵􀀬􀁬􀁖􀀡􀀡􀀭
􀀬􀀳􀀢􀀮􀁑􀁾_____􀁾􀀮􀀠19.9.8-..., hereto attached. 3 
':"XHIB!T A LIST OF AHS LOCATiONS IN 􀀮􀁁􀀮􀁍􀁅􀁾􀀬􀀠IOWA Hazel Avenue DOT No. 190706U MP 189.41, Boone Sub Scholl Road DOT No. 190711 R MP 181.60, Boone Sub North Dakota Avenue DOT
No. 190712X MP 192.23, Boone Sub -, 4 
CDSTRACTOR'S ROE 9Xn2'Jo: FtmT! 􀁁􀁾A'I."P-L:w EXHIBITS , CONTRACTOR'S 1 ! IDGHTOFENTRYAGREEMENT THIS A{;REE.:vtE.'!T is made: and en"'red into as oithe d>y of " , 199__ by and beIWoen
L1'I10N PACIFIC RAlLRO AD C01>1l'A..'<'Y, a Delaware "orpor:aoon (hereinafter referred to as the "R.aii-"".d,,); and 􀁟􀀭􀀭􀀺􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀺􀀭􀀺􀀭􀀭􀀺􀀺􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀺􀁟􀀭􀀻􀀭􀀭􀁟􀀠􀁟􀁾___--'_________,
A """poranon (heicinafter referred 10 as the "Contractor"). RECITALS: Contractor has been hired by ______________ \n=imi\er "__________") to perform work re!atinglO ______________􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭
(the 'Work"), partially located on property of Railroad in the vicinity 0[____________-:-__ _ _________-J.>L wlrich Work is the subject of. Contract dated berw= Railroad and 􀁾􀀮􀀠Contractor
has requc:sted Railroad to pennil it to perfonn the work 011 Rai!road property, and Railroad is agreeable" thereto, subjecr to the following terms and conditions. AGREEMENT: NOW, TBEREFORE.
it is ml!tmdly a",,=d by and between the Rallroad and ConIl"llCIOr, as fonows: ARTICLE 1 -DEFINITION OF' CONTRACTOR For purposes ofthis lLar=enl, aU r-..f= in this agr=CI1! to the Contractor
sball include the ConIDlctar' 5 contractors, 􀁳􀁵􀁢􀁣􀁯􀁮􀁴􀁲􀁡􀁣􀁾􀀬􀀠officers. agents"znd emploY=", ""d om= acting under its or Iheir aUthority. ARTICLE :2 -RIGHT GRANTED: PURPOSE
The R.ail.road bc:n:by gtanlS to the Conttactoi the right; during the lerm bereinaftrt stated and opan and subject to each and all of the tl:I:mS, provisiom .lid conditionshaem contained,
to c:m.:r upon and bave ingress!O and egress from the prupc::rty dCS<:Iibed in the Rl::c;t;;i;; for the purpose ofperfouning any work dc:s.:n1>=d in the Recitals above. Tne right bt::rc:in
gtanted to Contractor is limited to 􀁴􀁩􀁉􀁾portialis ofRailroad's property sp-..cifically ci::seribed haem.. 􀀢􀁾􀀠as designated by the Railroad Rep=tative muned in Article 4. " ARTICLE
3 -ILlWS AND CONDIT1OJllS CONTAINED IN EXHIBITS-A AND A-I The tc= and conditions contained in Exhibits A and A -1, attached h=tn. are her:;by made .. pm:t ofthis 2gn:c:menL ARTICLE 4
-ALL EXPE;XSES TO BE BQRNE BY CONTRACTOR: RAILRQAD REPRESENTATIVE Tile 􀁃􀁯􀁾shall b<:ar any and all cnslli and c:xpc:m"" associated with any wod: performed by the Canllllctcr, or any-casts
or exp::nses incurred by the Railroad relating to this ag=:mctlt. All wark perfotmed by Cantxactar on Railroad's property shan be pcrfatmed in a = satisfa::toty to the RailroiuI's :-:----:-::-:-c-:,.
.------.,.--Of !Us authorized representative rni:reixm,.'U:r the "Railroad Rcprescntlltive") jdrnrified below: