WOODHARBOR ASSOCIATES Transportation Consultants www.wood-harbor.com .-' .-􀁾􀀠" 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀺􀀠Richard J. Schiefelbein President p.o. Box 137311 Fort Worth, Texas 76136 817 236-6841 Fax
817 236-6842 schief@wood-harbor.com .􀁾􀀠.. , .. 
􀀢􀀵􀀰􀀰􀁾􀁾􀀧􀀺􀀠. . fortWorth. '!e.m! 'I&l1J4.3504 Mobile a1i:007.saas 􀀺􀀮􀀸􀀱􀁖􀁾􀁾􀀠.. .•....􀁾􀁾􀀻􀀺-81712(Hl340 -fAX ;"-< .... .\... ",' -,-; 
DiCk Schiefelbein and Wood harbor Associates have a of accomplishments covering a wide range of negotiation, polky, and planning sltuation.s. Negotiation + Negotiated an agreement .between
the Port of HO(I,ton Authority and 'Union: Pacific .Railroad to allow the Port 'Authority to construct' a 12-mile mainline track on Union Pacific's 􀁲􀁩􀁧􀁨􀁴􀂷􀁯􀁦􀁾􀁷􀁡􀁹􀀠to introduce
direct rail . 􀁣􀁯􀁭􀁰􀁥􀁾􀁩􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀀠into the. Port Negotiation.Authonty's container terminal. , • Negotiated an agreement between the state-owned North Carolina Railroad and Norfolk
Southern Railway establishing' the compensation and conditions under which Norfolk Negotiation Strategy· . . Policy. Planning Economic Analysis Labor Relations Expert Witness Southern
operates over North Carolina Railroad's right,of-way. • Negotiated a .series· of agreements between the Fort Worth Transportation . Authority· .and Burlington. Northern San.!a Fe Railway,
including 􀁡􀁧􀁲􀁥􀁥􀁭􀁾􀁮􀁴􀀵􀀠to cOnstruct a bridge 'under active BNSF tracks and to. modify the trackage rights 􀁡􀁧􀁾􀁥􀁥􀁭􀁥􀁮􀁴􀀠that permits BNS F to operate oVer the 􀀮􀁣􀁩􀁴􀁹􀁾􀁯􀁷􀁮􀁥􀁤􀀠r
ailroad line. • Negotiated an agreement . reestablishing after .25 years the p"rt of Houston AuthOFity's voting status on the Board of the Port Terminal RR Association. Strategic Policy
Development • Directed the federal· government's emergency operation of the bankrupt Rock Island Railroad, while developing financially sound, long-term, private sector solutions. ..
Developed and '·implemented th'" Port of Houston Authority's first 􀁣􀁯􀁭􀁰􀁲􀁾􀁨􀁥􀁮􀁳􀁩􀁶􀁥􀀠intermodal railroad service improvement action 'plan. t Directed federal policY development
on railwad safetYf the privatization of·Conrail, the reduction in Amtrak subsidies, the $2.5 billion reconstruction of the high-speed rail corridor betWeen Washington and New Yori<,
.and state grant and loan programs. • Testified before Congressional committees on transportation policy issues, including Amtrak route restructuring, Conrail, and the northeast high-speed
ra 11 corri dor. . .. Developed the first federal regulations Beach, which was permitting contract railroad rates. ... transportation strategy . .. ' sued by a railroad • Developed Burlington
Northern's strategic plans following deregulationj strengthening marketing . and creating a customer service orientati9n. planning and Economic Analysis • Conducted merger analyses and
negotiations for Burlington Northern Railroad. • 􀁾􀁲􀁥􀁰􀁡􀁲􀁥􀁤􀀠a commuter RaUroad. • DeVeloped commuter .. intermQdal • "Negotiated a 􀁳􀁥􀁲􀁩􀁾􀁳􀀠of agreements between transportation
solutions . .. public and private pro-forma financial analysis of potential rail operations on the N9rth Carolina cost reimbursement· formulas for services and branch I ine operations,
eliminating $75 million in annual cross subsidies between . Fort Worth Transportation Authority and 'Union Pacific Railroad' involving construction projects and permanent 􀁴􀁾􀁡􀁦􀁦􀁩􀁣􀂷􀀠routing
changes related fo the initiation of commuter service and the construe.tion of a pedestrian tunnel under Union Pacific main lines. services. • Created a train dispatching computer simulation
model to labor Relations • Negotipted with a major railroad labor union on economic and work rule issl;Ies. developing a unique economic package including employee stock . ownership
and a supplemental pension pfan. • Re.versed Burlington Northern's negotiating strategy on train crew size by analyzing comparative financial outcomes of alternative strategies, resulting
in an agroement that reduced costs by $250 million per year. • Prepared testimony and supporting material presented to presidential emergency boards. Expert Witness • Testified in Federal
District Court on behalf of the City of West Palm claiming that federal preemption prevented the City from enforcing zoning restrictions on land the railroad leased to one of. its customers.
The City won the 'case and the judge quoted Dick Schiefelbein', testimony extensively in his reasoning. (110 F.Supp.2d 1367) • Testified in Federal District Courl in the Milwaukee Road
bankruptcy proceedings, presenting the federal government's plan to have other railroads operate portions' of the Milwaukee Road if il ceased operation. )Policy Advice Dick Schiefelbein's
appointments have included: • Univer;ity of Dallas MBA Program AdviSOry Board • Chair, Rail Committee, Greater Houston Partnership • Policy Advisory Board for the Texas Transportation
determine railroad line capacity. public/private sector solutions. ... cooperative Plan .. Federal Advisory Task Force for Rural Transportation • Head of US delegation to the Pan American
Railway Congress in Mexico 
WOODHARQOR .ASSOCIATES Transportation Consultants "j.lded in 1995 by Richard J. Schiefelbein, a former Deputy Federal Railroad . Administrator, . Woodharbor Associates has assisted clients
in a broad. range of railroad 􀁴􀁲􀁡􀁮􀁳􀁰􀁯􀁲􀁩􀁡􀁴􀁪􀁾􀁨􀀠􀁩􀁳􀁳􀁵􀁥􀁳􀁾􀁮􀁤􀀠. . in negotiations with railroad· companies. With executive experience in both federal government and
private corporations, Dick Schiefelbein and Wood harbor Associates bring a broad perspective to . strategic issues. \):" ,dharbor Ass.ociate.s l.s uniquely . 􀁰􀀧􀁢􀀭􀀬􀀻􀁾􀁩􀁯􀁮􀁥􀁤􀁴􀁯􀀠create
aJ;1d .-negotiate mutually-beneficial solutions. totoday's strategic transportation issue-s, particu.la-rly . issues requiring cooper_ationand agreement be_tween the· public and private
sector '. organ Izatlons. WOODHARBOR ASSOCIATES Specialists in: Negotiation Strategy Policy Planning EconomicAnalysis Labor Relations EXpert Witness If you would like more information
about how Woodharbor Associates can help solve your transportation problems, contact us at: 817236-3500 Fax: 817236-6842 cIientservice@woodharbor .biz WOODHAR80R ASSOCIATES Transportation
Consultants P.O. Box 137311 Fort Worth, Texas 76136 817236-3500 Fax: 817236-6842 www.woodharbor.biz 
RAILROAD CROSSING QUIET ZONE CONSULTING New federal ru"les permit communities 􀁮􀁡􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁾􀁷􀁩􀁤􀁥􀀠to reduce ,the noise level' at railroad crossings when they become effective December
18; 2004, /5 your community ready? ' Maintain Safety While Reducing Noise local communities can 􀁾􀁳􀁴􀁡􀁢􀁬􀁩􀁳􀁮􀀠"quiet zones""in 􀁡􀁲􀁥􀁾􀀠where train noise is a nuisance t.o residents.
T.o maintain safety, each crossing in the quiet zone must be equipp€:d with one of three safety devices; a C;rossing gates that 􀁢􀁬􀁾􀁾􀀠traffic in both directions iI An approved median
divider to· prevent 􀁭􀁯􀁦􀁯􀁾􀁩􀁳􀁴􀁓􀀠iroqi crossing lanes • An automated hom system installed at the crossing as a · train horn 'substitute . The Process In a9dition to selecting
the appropriate safety equipment, determining the budget and scheduting the public works components, .establishing a quiet zone and installing the safety equipment con:ectly.involves
several steps. • Signal work or automated horn installation must be scheduled with the railroads involved • Notifications must be filed with the government and the railroads involved
" • The public must be notified acc'ording to government standards ." -, 'i from the time 􀁴􀁨􀁾􀀠decision is made to establish a quiet zone and install a specific safety option, the
process takes an average of nfne months and in.volves, several channels of communication to complete:. Put Our expertise To Work You understand the needs of your community and how be"51
to respond to tht:m. evaluating quiet zone safety opHons and managing the complexities of railroad and government bureaucracies can take valuable time away from your (!ommunity focus.
With Woodharbor Associates as your partner, you can._ • Count on expert advice regarding the best safety option' for your location and budget • Rest assured that your needs are being
coordinated with the railroad(s) in the most efficient manner possible III Beneftt from years of expertiSe interacting wiff! raiIroads and appropriate government agencies • 􀁁􀁣􀁣􀁾􀁳􀁳􀀠an
on-call network of railroad signal and crossing expertise ' • Streamline the project's timeline ... bringing your r'esiden'ts' quieter crossings as quickly as possible " ' 
I Typical Quiet Zone Activities • Identify target crossing(s) -Evaluate safety "ptions . • . Finalize budget needed for project . • Meet with 􀁲􀁡􀁩􀁬􀁲􀁯􀁾􀁤􀀠• Update/ederal railroad
crossing inventory 11/􀁾􀁾􀁵􀁴􀁾􀀮􀁡􀁧􀁲􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁮􀁴􀀧􀁾􀁴􀁨􀀠railroad .' 'Order non'railroad equipment for selected safety option. • Schedule instillation with railroad I!I File requir,e(fnotkes
with -railroad, Federal Railroad 􀁁􀁾􀁭􀁩􀁮􀁩􀀿􀁴􀁲􀁡􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀀠and local agencies -Begin railroad signal and installation work Ii Advise residen,tS"of new quiet zone " g Initiate quiet
-Z9'.1e operation WOODHARBOR ASSOCIATES. .(B17i 236-3500 .,,'WW.woodharbor.biz 
RAILROAD CROSSING QUIET ZONE ' ..... ····IN:TER:I·M FIN,ALRlJLE ..• :aule 􀁲􀁥􀁱􀁕􀁉􀀮􀁲􀀧􀀤􀀮􀁴􀁢􀁡􀁴􀀮􀁴􀀺􀁨􀁥􀁉􀁏􀁃􀁾􀁮􀁬􀁯􀁴􀁬􀁶􀁥􀁨􀁊􀁴􀁨􀂷􀀧􀀮􀁢􀁾􀁳􀁯􀁵􀁮􀁤􀁥􀁤􀁡􀁴􀀠public .􀁨􀁩􀁧􀁨􀁷􀁡􀁹􀁾􀁲�
�􀁕􀁯􀁲􀁯􀀤􀀺􀁓􀀮􀁴􀁬􀁬􀀮􀁧􀁳􀀬􀀠but providesex.ceptions to that requirement. . ' " . LOCaIPu.blic·a .. thorilies may 􀁥􀁳􀁾􀁡􀁢􀁈􀁳􀁬􀀱􀀬􀁯􀁲􀀠request 'he approval of, i quiet zonesh"r"",hichtrains
􀁨􀁑􀁾􀁮􀀬􀁳􀁭􀁡􀁹'natbe routinely sounded. , .' , . , , . ' .", . ',' 􀁏􀁥􀁴􀁡􀁮􀁳􀀧􀁦􀁯􀁲􀁴􀁾􀁾􀀺􀁥􀁳􀁾􀁾􀀱􀀡􀀱􀀱􀀤􀁨􀁭􀁾􀁮􀁴􀁯􀁦􀁴􀁨􀁥􀁱􀁵􀁩􀁾􀁴􀀠zone differ depending on . the 􀁴􀁹􀁰􀁥􀁯􀁦􀁑􀀻􀁾�
�􀁾􀁦􀁾􀁾􀀬􀀧􀀬􀀧􀁢􀁥􀁩􀁁􀁧􀀮􀁣􀁲􀁥􀁡􀁴􀁥􀁤􀀮􀀨􀁰􀁲􀁾􀀢􀁒􀁵􀁬􀁥􀀠or New) and the type ., .of 􀁳􀁡􀁦􀁥􀁴􀁹􀁩􀁭􀁰􀀻􀁲􀁯􀁶􀁾􀀺􀁭􀁥􀁮􀀧􀁴􀁳􀀠Implemented (ifrequired). ',,' , ' ' ,"..: .
'.: ,', 'I" , , .By law the rl,Jle.may not go into effect until December 18, 2004. . . .􀀯􀀺􀀻􀀮􀀺􀁾􀀻􀁦􀀠) '" ./;_.<.\/,'-t:; . Fede:ral'Railroa('JAdministration (FRA) will take comments
until 􀀧􀀻􀁦􀁝􀀻􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠'.' February 17,2.004. 􀀮􀁾􀁾􀀮􀁩􀁏􀁦􀀠IT 􀀧􀁾􀁪􀀧􀁩􀁯􀀭􀁉􀀠"Ts"n I'T ....,3,. 􀁾􀀠"'!1j.::r: IT ;.", Ol :2 " ::I ('. For more information, see ·http://www.fra.dot.gov
or call Rachel .-a.1'T!" g.Harshman 8t(817) 608-2395. N .... c IT g :: ..• '*' 
ProgressiveRailroading.com Page I of2 To request information On advertising your products & services on ProgressiveRailroading,com, March 21, 2003 BNSF, FRA begin quiet-zone pilot project
in Southern California (3/19/03) Burlington Northern Santa Fe, Federal Railroad Administration, California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and the city of Placentia, Calif., have
begun a three-phase quiet-zone pilot project involving II of the city's grade crossings. During each four-month phase, video cameras will record pedestrian and vehicle traffic and behavior,
including any warning-gate violations. Under phase one -which will serve as a baseline BNSF will sound train whistles at the crossings, and cameras will record driver and pedestrian
behavior, Once BNSF, FRA, CPUC and the city determine which supplemental safety measures (SSM) to install at the crossings, they'll will begin to analyze driver and pedestrian behavior
with SSMs in place and whistle warrungs. Ifthe parties agree that SSMs met or exceeded the success of whistle-only warnings under phase one, they'll study driver and pedestrian behavior
with SSMs only. After completing the pilot project, FRA -which is in the final stages ofa quiet-zone rulemaking process -plans to evaluate all data to determine if SSMs provide equal
or added safety compared with whistles. IfSSMs are deemed safer, BNSF would stop sounding whistles in the pilot quiet-zone area. Currently, BNSF and FRA are studying other quiet-zone
pilot projects in Spokane County and Yakima, Wash., and Coon Rapids, Minn. Return to Home Page http://www.progressiverailroading.comJdyn-content.html?itemjd=19405&ticket=00007 454131048286754
3/21/2003 
Guidance on Traffic Control at Jiighway-Rail Grade Crossings Page 1 0[40 􀁾..... v $ [).JpartmOl'1 {! lfQrlsOc....ahon FHWA Home I Feedbackl.., Federal Highway Admlnisll[JlIon Euntable
(MS Word) 􀁖􀀼􀀻􀁬􀁲􀁾􀁌􀁏􀁬􀁬􀀠is available (1.1 Mb) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION HIGHWAY/RAIL GRADE CROSSING TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP (TWG) NOVEMBER
2002 GUIDANCE ON TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES AT HIGHWAY-RAIL GRADE CROSSINGS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Technical Working Group (TWG) established by the U.S. Department of Transportation, is
led by representatives from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA). The cooperation among the various representatives of the TWG represents a landmark effort to enhance communication between highway agencies, railroad companies
and authorities, and governmental agencies involved with developing and implementing policies, rules and regulations. The report is intended to provide guidance to assist engineers in
selection of traffic control devices or other measures at highway-rail grade crossings. It is not to be interpreted as policy or standards. Any requirements that may be noted In this
guidance are taken from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) or other document identified by footnotes. These authorities should be followed. This guide merely tries
to incorporate some of the requirements found in those documents. A number of measures are included which may not have been supported by quantitative research, but are being used by
States and local agencies. These are included to inform practitioners of an array of tools used or being explored. The goal is to provide a guidance document for users who understand
general engineering and operational concepts of highway-rail grade crossings. The Guide serves as a reference to aid in decisions to install traffic control devices or otherwise improve
such crossings. Additional references are provided as resource for further information. The Guide discusses a number of existing laws, regulations and policies of the FHWA and FRA concerning
highwayrail grade crossings and railroad operations, driver needs concerning various sight distance, and highway and rail system operational requirements and functional classification.
There is an extensive description of passive and active traffic control devices, including supplemental devices used in conjunction with active controls. Traffic control devices in the
2000 edition of the MUTCD are listed, together with a few experimental devices. An appendix provides limited discussion on the complex topic of interconnection and preemption of traffic
signals near highway-rail grade crossings. There is also discussion concerning closure, grade separation and consideration for installing new grade crossings. A glossary defines a few
less familiar and technicallerms. (Please note thai the term grade crossings is synonymous with both the terms ""highway-rail grade crossings" and "highway-rail intersections" in this
document.) A traffic control device selection procedure and extensive list of quantitative guidance are the specific products of this document. However, due to the unique characteristics
of each individual crossing, these procedures and practices should not be considered as warrants or standards. Therefore, selection decisions must be made based on engineering studies.
TABLE OF CONTENTS http://safety.ihwa.dot.gov/media/twgreport.htm 12/1312002 
Page 2 of 40Guidance on Traffic Control at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings , EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS [JIITRODUCTION 􀁅􀁘􀁉􀁓􀁔􀁊􀁎􀁾􀁌􀀸􀁗􀁓􀀬􀁂􀁕􀁾􀁅􀁓􀀬.REGULA TIONS AND POLICIES
Motor Vehici,;,Qriver Needs on the AP>1roach o Mvance,tj\I.Q!i!:e-Stopping Sight Distal)c,;, o Traffic Control Device Comprehension o Deciding to Proceed • Approach (Co[Q"IL§]ght Dist<lnce
• Clearing Sigh! 􀁄􀁪􀁾􀀡􀁡􀁮􀁾􀀠fu'stems Operating Requirements and Objectives Highwaysyslems Obj"cIiYe.s Levels of SeD/ice. Safe 6QRrQ<!cO._SQ"ecl Railrogd Systems -FUI1Q!lQDal Classification
Function, 􀁇􀁥􀁯􀁬􀀩􀀱􀁥􀀮􀁴􀁲􀀺􀁩􀁾􀀮􀀮􀀡􀁬􀁾􀁮􀀠and U:<lffic.Contr()1 General Discussion Passive Devices stQQ.andYield signs Active Devices Standard Active Devices 􀁆􀁬􀁡􀁳􀁨􀁩􀁮􀁧􀀭􀁌􀁩􀀹􀁨􀁴􀁾􀁧�
�􀁬􀁡􀁬􀀠Cantilever Flashing-Light Signal Automatic Gate Adcjiti()nal 􀁦􀁬􀀼􀀡􀁳􀁨􀁩􀁮􀁧􀀺􀁌􀁩􀁧􀁨􀁴􀁾􀁧􀁮􀀮􀀵􀀡􀀡􀀮􀁳􀀠 SupplementalActive Devices A.;;tive Advance Warning Signs with
Flashers Active Turn Restriction Signs Median Segaratiol1 Barrier Wall Systems Wide Raised Medians NorH\llgufllllble Curb Islands Mountable Raised Curb 􀁓􀁹􀁾􀁴􀁥􀁭􀁳􀀠Other Barrier
Devices fOl!LQ\J<!>lJallt TrafficGate Systems Vehicle Arresting Barrier System -Barrier G.ate TJain Detection Systems Warning 111)1.,",and System Credibility InteITerenceLI.[IlegrilY9tMtiv"
Traffic Control Device S'Ist"ms Types of Detection • DC, AC-DC or AFO Grade Crossing Island and Approach Circuits • Motion Sensing Devices (MS). 12113/2002htip:!Isafety Jhwa.dot.gov
Imedialtwgreport.htm 
Guidance on Traffic Control at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Page 3 of40 • Constant Warning Time (CWT) Systems 􀁒􀁡􀁩􀁬􀁲􀁯􀀬􀀬􀁾􀁴􀁔􀁲􀁡􀁩􀁮􀀠Detection Time and Agfmlllch LeD9lh.klillcu!'llions
􀁐􀁲􀁥􀁥􀁭􀁰􀁴􀁩􀀨􀀩􀁮􀀡􀁬􀁡􀀡􀀡􀀡􀁌􀁑􀁯􀁬􀀱􀁊􀀱􀁾􀀡􀁩􀁯􀁮􀀠Wl1!!"L!Qjnlerconnect. Factors to Consider Joint Agency Coordination !;xtendedj',gyance 􀁗􀁡􀁾􀁮􀁛􀁬􀁽􀁧􀀠Ti.rnes !iEl"'Q.QgTrain
Circuitry at MulliRle..Track Crossjn9s Diagonal Railroad Crossinc Both HighWllY Apgroaches to the IntersectiQn pre,Signals L':mg Distance. 􀁢􀁥􀁴􀁷􀀮􀁊􀀡􀁥􀁮􀁊􀁴􀁬􀀡􀀡􀁪􀀺􀀺􀁬􀁪􀁧􀁨􀁷􀁩􀀡􀁹􀀬􀁾􀁪􀁊􀁣
􀁲􀁑􀁳􀀮􀁳􀁩􀁮􀁧􀁊􀁭􀁤􀀠the Highway Intersecti.on Queue Cl,ltter Flashing-light Beacon. Qther. Special Condllioos potential QUeujo9 across 􀀱􀁭􀁣􀁾􀁳􀀮􀀠Train and lET Activated HIghW,W
Traffic Signills" 2!l<!IlSlinComing A<;livsWam!ng_Sjgn P!!destrian amj.l'lI9ycliltls.Considerations Crossing Closure Grad.s..Separation. Traffic SeRaratj9!l Study 􀁁􀁰􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁾􀁑􀁨􀁴􀁯􀀠􀁃􀁾􀁯􀁳􀀮􀁳􀁩
􀁮􀁧􀁊􀀺􀁯􀁮􀀮􀂧􀀹􀁊􀁛􀁤􀁡􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀀠NEW CRQSSINGS Mi nlm um.r:J!!yi<;lls Minim.aJWidths Passlve..:.Minimum Traffic control Applications AQ!i"'l! closure Grad§ Separation [ljew Crossing;;
Step J..::.1'AJI][mum HJ9hway-Rail.§r.ade Crossing Criterill Step 2 -Evaluate Highway Tr!i.ffic Flow Characteristics Step :3,. Possible Revision to th.e 􀁈􀁩􀁧􀁨􀁜􀁬􀁬􀁡􀁹􀀧􀁒􀁡􀁪􀁬􀀮􀁇􀁲􀁾􀁣􀁴􀁥..cr
.<:,-s§ing Step.4 -Interim Measuresjlndlor Docllrnentation GLOSSI'..RY APP];.NJ'lJX PreemptioOllOtelCQI1!lection Pedestrian Clearance Phase 12113/2002http://safety.lliwa.dot.gov/mediaitwgreport.htrn

Guidance on Traffic Control at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Page 40f40 Traffi"Sjgnal Controller Re-Service 􀁃􀁯􀁮􀁾􀁩􀁤􀁥􀁲􀁡􀁕􀁯􀁮􀁳􀀠Programming Security 􀁓􀁵􀁰􀁥􀁲􀁶􀁩􀁳􀁥􀁤􀁬􀁮􀁴􀁾􀁲􀀼􀀺􀀺􀁯􀁉􀁬�
�􀁬􀁥􀁣􀁴Qrc!,!i![y, 8Q"ance 􀁐􀁲􀁥􀁥􀁭􀁰􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀁾􀁡􀁮􀁤􀁬􀀡􀁳􀀢􀁕􀀱􀁌􀁔􀁩􀁊􀁮􀀢􀀧􀁛􀁳􀀬􀀠StandbyPgwer Sources List of Tables Table 1 Fede_ral Laws, Rules, Regulations & Policies 􀁉􀁡􀁰􀀩􀀢􀀬􀀺􀀻􀁇�
�􀁥􀁡􀁲􀁩􀁮􀁧􀁾􀁧􀁨􀁴􀀠Distance Tabl"_:LG_ujde for Selection Clf 􀁄􀁾􀁊􀁧􀁮􀁊􀀬􀀬􀀭􀁥􀁹􀀧􀁥􀁊􀁳􀁯􀁦.service, 􀁉􀁾􀁢􀁬􀁥􀀠4 Maximum TI"inSpee<:ll;PY Class ofTrack, Table 5A Current MUTCD
Devices, I1l.ble 58 Not Cgre,ell!!Y.l'roQosed in the MUTCD 􀁾􀀠Experinnel1l1l.LPevicejl, 􀁉􀁾􀁡􀁐􀀩􀀧􀀢􀀠6 Guidelinel; for Active Devices, Table 7 LRT 􀁇􀁊􀁩􀁬􀁧􀁟􀁥􀁟􀁓􀁥􀁾􀁡􀁲􀁡􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀀠
List of Figures Figure 1 Clearing Sight Dista'lce.!:!Lal!i!l91",_Tr1!"I$.J::lign\l!1!Y:.l3.ail 􀁇􀁲􀁡􀁟􀁤􀀦􀁾Crgssing, EJguJ",;1 Pedestrian_􀁓􀁩􀀹􀁨􀁕􀁊􀁩􀁡􀁮􀁧􀁾􀀠 f'jg_IJIe_;LD_elii(9
Lines of Travel, Road Network Provideg Eig"re 4 PIE't.SiJl!1al 1al Location at AutQ.l]J.!!tl!;,(l<l.te"CIQ§si!lg, U.S. Department of Transportation Highway-Railroad Grade CrOSsing Technical
Working Group Guidance on Traffic Control at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings INTRODUCTION The Technical Working Group (TWG) established by the U,S, Department of Transportation, is led
by representatives from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and the National Highway Traffic Safely
Administration (NHTSA), The cooperation among the various representatives of the TWG represents a landmark effort to enhance communication between highway agencies, railroad companies
and authorities, and governmental agencies involved with developing and implementing policies, rules and regulations, The report is intended to provide guidance to assist engineers in
selection of traffic control devices or other measures at highway-rail grade crossings, It is not to be interpreted as policy or standards and is not mandatory, Any requirements that
may be noted in the report are taken from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) [1J or other document identified by footnotes, A number of measures are included which
may not have been supported by quantitative research, but are being used by States and local agencies, These are included to inform practitioners of an array of tools used or being explored,
The goal is to provide a guidance document for users who understand general engineering and operational concepts of public highway-rail grade crOssings. The document will serve as a
reference to aid in decisions to install traffic control devices or otherwise improve such crossings, and also provide information on additional references, The report includes discussion
of a number of existing laws, regulations and policies of the FHWA and FRA concerning highway-rail grade crossings and railroad operations, driver needs concerning various sight distance,
and highway and rail system operational requirements and functional classification, There is extensive description of http://safety.fhwa.dot.goY/medialtwgreport,htm 12113/2002 
Guidance on Traffic Control at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Page 5 of40 passive and active traffic control devices, including supplemental devices used in conjunction with active controls.
Traffic control devices in the 2000 edition of the MUTCD are listed, together with a few experimental devices. An appendix provides limited discussion on the complex topic of interconnection
and preemption of traffic signals near highway-rail grade crossings, There is also discussion conceming closure, grade separation and consideration for installing new grade crossings,
Finally, an extensive list of quantitative recommend guidance is provided. (Please note that the term grade crossings is synonymous with highway-rail grade crossings in this document.)
EXISTING LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND POLICIES Several documents provided by the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Railroad Administration, and other organizations, provide
some guidelines for selecting traffic control devices, For example, the MUTCD, published by the Federal Highway Administration, contains detailed guidance on the design and placement
of traffic control devices, The MUTCD is a Federal standard under title 23, United States Code 109(d) and is incorporated by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). If
a particular device is selected for use, the MUTCD will indicate what the size, color, and placement of that device should be, Considered by the FHWA as a national standard, the MUTCD
has the force of law, Another document frequently used to assist in determining the need for certain traffic control devices is the Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook -Second Edition,
(RHGCH)[2] , also published by the FHWA. The handbook draws on a number of different sources (including the MUTCD and the AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design ofHighways and SlreetsC'l
[Greenbook]) to provide an overview of highwayrail grade crossing legal and jurisdictional considerations, Included is a brief discussion of grade crossing design issues involving the
physical and geometric characteristics of the crossing, and risk assessment formulas. The RHGCH provides guidelines for the identification and selection of active control devices. Also
included are discussions of issues surrounding shortline railroads, high-speed rail corridors, and special vehicles such as trucks carrying hazardous materials and trucks having low-ground
clearance. These source documents provide limited guidance, mostly in the form of lists of factors "to be considered" for installing either flashing-lights or flashing-lights and gates;
however, they lack specific guidance on how to determine the most appropriate type of highway traffic control at a given highway-rail crossing, For example, the RHGCH cites "high speed
trains" as a factor, but does not define the conditions under which a train is considered "high speed. " In another instance, the presence of school buses or vehicles carrying hazardous
materials is cited as a factor, but every public crossing has the potential to carry both of these these types of traffic. "Past collision history" is also frequently cited as a rationale
for upgrading passive grade crossings to active control, or adding gates to "flasher only" grade crossings, but no specific guidance is provided. Several previous attempts have been
made to quantify the relative emphasis these factors should have in evaluating the need to improve a crossing. The RHGCH contains several examples of formulae that have been developed
to help determine the likelihood of a collision occurring at a particular crossing. Use of these formulae, however, is far from universal. Some States use either exposure factors or
a minimum expected accident frequency (EAF) to determine whether a given crossing "qualifies" for public funding for improved traffic control devices. Illinois, for example, uses a modified
New Hampshire formula to "qualify" crossings for improvement or upgrade whenever the EAF exceeds 0.02; Iowa gives "priority" to thOse crossings having a US DOT Accident Predictor Model
EAF of 0.075 or higher. A number of States have established their own criteria for determining when or where active devices are deployed, but their rationale for establishing such criteria
is not commonly known nor is there much consistency from State to State. Current FHWA regulations specifically prohibit at-grade intersections on highways with full access control. The
FRA's rail safety regulations require that crossings be separated or closed where trains operate at speeds above 125 mph (49 CFR 213.347(a)). Additionally, if train operation is projected
at FRA track class 7 (111 -125mph) an application must be made to the FRA for approval of the type of warning/barrier system. The regulation does not specify the type of system, but
allows the petitioner to propose a suitable system for FRA review. In 1998, the FRA issued an Order of Particular Applicability for high-speed rail service on the Northeast Corridor.
In the Order, the FRA set a maximum operating speed of 80 mph over any highway-rail crossing where only conventional warning systems are in place and a maximum operating speed of 95
mph where 4-quadrant gates and presence detection are provided and tied into the signal system. Grade crossings are prohibited on the Northeast Corridor if maximum operating speeds exceed
95 mph. Current statutory. regulatory and Federal policy requirements are summarized in Table 1, http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/medialtwgreport.htm 1211312002 
Guidance on Traffic Control at Bighway-Rail Grade Crossings ) TABLE 1 FEDERAL LAWS, RULES, REGULATION & POLICIES Page 60f40 Active WarninglBarrier W/FRA Approval Grade Separate or Close
Controlled Access Highways Not allowed Not allowed Required High Speed Rail > 79 MPH 111-125 MPH > 125 MPH Note: 1 mph = 1.61 kmlh HIGHWAY-RAIL GRADE CROSSING PERSPECTIVE A highway-rail
grade crossing differs from a highwaylhighway intersection in that the train always has the right of way. From this perspective, the process for deciding what type of highway traffic
control device is to be installed, or to even allow that a highway-rail grade crossing should exist is essentially a two-step process: 1) What information does the vehicle driver need
to be able to cross safely? and, 2) Is the resulting driver response to a traffic control device "compatible" with the intended system operating characteristics of the highway and railroad
facility? MOTOR VEHICLE DRIVER NEEDS ON THE APPROACH The first step involves three essential elements required for "safe" passage through the crossing, which are the same elements a
driver needs for crossing a highway-highway intersection: ADVANCE NOTICE -STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE The first element pertains to "stopping"or "braking" sight distance, which is the ability to see a train andlor the traffic control device at the crossing ahead sufficiently in advance so that a driver can bring the vehicle
to a safe, controlled stop at least 4.5 m (15 It) short of the near rail, if necessary. This applies to either a passive or active controlled crossing. Stopping sight distance is measured
along the roadway and is a function of the distance required for the "design" vehicle, traveling at the posted speed limit to safely stop[<!]. Insufficient stopping sight distance is
olten due to poor roadway geometry andlor surrounding topography. TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICE COMPREHENSION The second element is a function of the type of traffic control device at the highway-rail
crossing. There are typically three types of control devices, each requiring a distinct compliance response per the Uniform Vehicle Code[5], various Model Traffic Ordinances and State
regulations. 1. A crossbuck is a type of YIELD sign: the driver should be prepared to stop at least 4.5 m (15 It) before the near rail if necessary, unless and until the driver can make
a reasonable decision that there are no trains in hazardous proximity to the crossing, and it is safe to cross. 2. Operating flashing lights have the same function as a STOP sign: a
vehicle is required to stop completely at least 4.5 m (15 It) short of the near rail. Then, even though the flashing lights may still be operating, the driver is allowed to proceed alter
stopping (subject to State or local laws), when safe to do so. 3. Flashing lights with lowered gates are equivalent to a red vehicular traffic signal indication: a vehicle is required
to stop short of the gate and remain stopped until the gates go up. Motorist comprehension and compliance with each of these devices is mainly a function of education and enforcement.
The traffic engineer should make full use of the various traffic control devices as prescribed in the MUTCD to convey a clear, concise and easily understood message to the driver, which
should facilitate education and enforcement. DECIDING TO PROCEED http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/medialtwgreport.htm 12/13/2002 
Guidance on Traffic Control atHighway-Rail Grade Crossings Page 7 of40 The third element concerns the driver's decision to safely proceed through the grade crossing. It involves sight
distance available both on the approach and at the crossing itself. Approach (Comer) Sight Distance On the approach to the crossing with no train activated traffic control devices (or
STOP sign) present, in order to proceed at the posted speed limit, a driver would need to be able to see an approaching train, from either the left or right, in sufficient time to stop
safely 4.5 m (15 ft) before the near rail. This would require an unobstructed field of vision along the approach sight triangle, the extent of which is dependent upon train and vehicle
speed. These sight distances are available in the RHGCH. However, view obstructions often exist within the sight triangle, typically caused by structures, topography, crops or other
vegetation (continually or seasonal), movable objects or weather (fog, snow, etc.). Where lesser sight sight distances exist, the motorist should reduce speed and be prepared to stop
not less than 4.5 m (15 ft) before the near rail unless and until they are able to determine, based upon the available sight distance, that there is no train approaching and it is safe
to proceed. Wherever possible, sight line deficiencies should be improved by removing structures or vegetation within the affected area, regrading an embankment, or realigning the highway
approach. Many conditions however cannot be corrected because the obstruction is on private property, or it is economically infeasible to correct the sight line deficiency. If available
corner sight distance is less than what is required for the legal speed limit on the highway approach, supplemental traffic control devices such as enhanced advance warning signs, STOP
or YIELD signs, or reduced speed limits (advisory or regulatory) should be evaluated. If it is desirable from traffic mobility criteria to allow vehicles to travel at the legal speed
limit on the highway approach, active control devices should be considered. Clearing Sight Distance At all crossings, except those with gates, a driver stopped 4.5 m (15 II) short of
the near rail must be able to see far enough down the track, in both directions, to determine if sufficient time exists for moving their vehicle safely across the tracks to a point 4.5
m (15 f\) past the far rail, prior to the arrival of a train. Required clearing sight distance along both directions of the track, from the stopped position of the vehicle, is dependent
upon the maximum train speed and the acceleration characteristics ofthe "design" vehicle. At multiple track highway-rail grade crossings of two or more in-service railroad tracks through
the roadway, and where two or more trains can operate simultaneously over or in close proximity to the crossing, the presence of a train on one track can restrict or obscure a driver's
view of a second train approaching on an adjacent track. Such crossings must be treated the same as any other crossing having insufficient clearing sight distance. Even where there is
only one track through the crossing, but additional tracks (such as a siding) are located adjacent to, but terminate before reaching the crossing, the sight distance to the limit of
where railroad cars or equipment could be stored should be evaluated. Figure 1 is a diagram designed to illustrate some unusual conditions that would merit special consideration at a
single-track highwey-rail grade crossing. Figure 1 http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/medialtwgreport.htm 12/13/2002 
Guidance on Traffic Control at.l;lighway-RaiJ Grade Crossings Page 8 of40 FIasIIing EQht signal or Cfossbucli FIGURE 1 D' is the minimum unobstructed 􀁶􀁩􀁾􀁷􀁪􀁮􀁧􀀠dIStance to determine
if tlie crossing.Should be considered for ujlgrade to automatic !late eantrol. This figure shows an aerial view of a highway-rail grade crossing. A single-rail track stretches across
the width of the figure. A locomotive is located on both the right and left-ends of the track. There is a second track on right side of the crossing with a locomotive on it This track
ends before the roadway. An automobile is stopped behind a "stop line" in the middle of the figure. On both sides of the intersection there is a symbol for a flashing light signal. In
the lower left quadrant, a building is shown that restricts sight the sight of a locomotive approaching from the left. There is a 45degree line between the automobile and the locomotive
on the left end of the track that demonstrates the obstructed clearing sight distance caused by the building. Another 45-degree line stretches from the automobile to the locomotive on
the right end of the track that demonstrates the obstructed clearing sight distance caused by the locomotive on the second track. There is a box between the automobile and locomotive
that says, "D is the minimum unobstructed viewing distance to determine if the crossing should be considered for upgrade to automatic gate control." Table 2, prepared by members of the
TWG, relates the typical minimal clearing sight distances for various train speeds and vehicle types. (It should be noted the column for 65 foot double trucks generally corresponds to
the distances listed in table 36 on page 133 of the RHGCH, under the column for vehicle speed of "0 MPH." Vehicle acceleration data has been interpreted from the Traffic Engineering
HandbookJf;iJ) The person or agency evaluating the crossing should determine the specific design vehicle, pedestrian, bicyclist, or other non-motorized conveyance and compute clearing
sight distance if it is not represented in the table. Also note the table values are for a level, 90degree crossing of a single track. If other circumstances are encountered, the values
must be re-computed. TABLE 2 CLEARING SIGHT DISTANCE (in feet) * Train Speed Car Single Unit-Truck Sus WS-50 Semi-Truck 65-ft Double Truck Pedestrian •• 10 105 185 200 225 240 180 20
205 365 400 450 485 355 25 255 455 500 560 605 440 30 310 550 600 675 725 530 40 410 730 795 895 965 705 50 515 910 995 1,120 1,205 880 60 615 1,095 1,195 1,345 1,445 1,060 70 715 1,275
1,395 1,570 1,680 1,235 80 820 1,460 1,590 1,790 1,925 1,410 90 920 1,640 1,790 2,015 2,165 1,565 http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/medialtwgreport.htm 12113/2002 
Guidance on Traffic Control at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Page 9 of40 ) • A single track, gO-degree, level crossing. *" walking 1.1 mps (3.5 fps) across 2 sets of tracks feet apart,
with a two second reaction time to reach a decision point 3 m (10ft) before the center of the first track, and clearing 3 m (10ft) beyond the center line of the second track. Two tracks
may be more common in commuter station areas where pedestrians are found. (See Figure 2). Note: 1 meter =0.3048 feet. 42' ,, I fMOI( TRACK •• ·1• • .. •1-'􀀺􀁯􀀡􀁾•• " -'-: 􀁉􀁾􀀡li
...;.. ; .i lie ."'j':e --. · = J: 1 C1.:􀁾􀀮􀀠I • 􀀮􀀭􀁴􀁾!B · I -f·'• 10' ...... 15',, -I,' I• -"C􀁾􀁌􀀠L 4 I ' ,I r I I • II Ii , I I I o <:$ Figure 2: Pedestrian Sight Triangle A
highway-rail grade crossing is displayed depicting a pattern for the pedestrian sight triangle. The distance the pedestrian travels from one side of the crossing to the other is 42 feet.
There are two tracks in the crossing. The distance is broken up into the following respective categories: -7 ft. Decision/Reaction Distance of 2 seconds @3.5 feet per second; -10 ft.
Clearance Area just before a rail track; -15 ft. between two rail tracks; -10 fl. from last rail track to clearance area. A locomotive is approaching from the south in the diagram. The
pedestrian is on the immediate right of the crossing starting at the Decision/Reaction Distance category-spece. The figure of the pedestrian is shown several times to represent the movement
over the crossing. There is a "STOP HERE" label : on both sides ofthe crossing immediately prior to the beginning of the I clearance area. There is a dotted line reaching from the pedestrian's
figure to the first track that demonstrates the sight distance to an approaching locomotive. The area inside the triangle is shaded. The sight triangle demonstrates that the pedestrian
is 17 ft. from the center of the first track. If there is insuffiCient clearing sight distance, and the driver is unable to make a safe determination to proceed, the clearing sight distance
needs to be improved to safe conditions, or flashing light signals with gates, or closure, or grade separation should be considered. (See Recommendation, "3.F.3".) The second step involves
a traffic control device selection process considering respective highway and rail system operational requirements. From a highway perspective, concerns for roadway capacity and drivers'
expectations may mandate the type of traffic control present. There are circumstances when train interference can be SO disruptive to highway operations that a highway-rail grade crossing
is incompatible with system objectives. From the rail perspective, there can also be circumstances when the potential for highway traffic interference can be sufficiently disruptive,
or potentially so catastrophic, that closure, grade separation, or activated control would be considered. It is within these contexts where operation and safety variables should be considered,
such as: a. Highway -MDT (Annual Average Daily Traffic), legal andlor operating speed; b. Railroad -train frequency, speed and type (passenger, freight, other); c. Highway -Functional
classification and/or design level of service; d. Railroad -FRA Class of Track and/or High Speed Rail corridors; e. Proximity to other intersections; f. Proximity to schools, industrial
plants and commercial areas; g. Proximity to rail yards, terminals, passing tracks and switching operations; h. Available clearing and comer sight distance; i. Prior accident history
and predicted accident frequency; i-Proximity and availability of alternate routes andlor crossings; and http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/medialtwgreport.htm 12/13/2002 
Guidance on Traffic Control at'1:!ighway-Rail Grade Crossings Page 10 of 40 k. Other geometric conditions. Special consideration should also be given to situations where highway-rail
crossings are sufficiently close to other highway intersections that traffic waiting to clear the adjacent highway intersection can queue on or across the tracks. Additionally, special
consideration is required when there are two or more sets of tracks sufficiently close to each other that traffic stopped on one set could result in a queue of traffic across the other.
HIGHWAY SYSTEM OBJECTIVES Roads and streets which are planned, designed, constructed, maintained and operated by public agencies serve two important but conflicting functions: land access
and mobility. Overriding these interests should be a concern for safety. An example of a facility constructed primarily for mobility is the Interstate highway. Access is only by interchanges,
with ramps and acceleration/deceleration lanes. These allow vehicles to enter and leave the highway with minimal effect on the through traffic stream. Interstate highways do not have
direct driveway access to adjacent properties, grade level intersections, transit stops, pedestrian and bicycle facilities or highway-rail grade crossings, all of which interfere with
the free flow of traffic. A local street is at the other end of the spectrum. It provides direct access to adjacent land, with driveways to parking facilities and provision of services
such as on-street deliveries and trash pickup. The low-type design of local streets, including presence of parked vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles, makes travel at any significant
speed undesirable. Many roads and highways fall in the spectrum between Interstate highways and local roads, and fulfill their purpose with varying degrees of success. Mobility is affected
by providing adequate access to adjacent development in an environment complicated by driveways and street intersections, and other modes of transportation such as transit, bicycles,
pedestrians and railroads. The concept is illustrated in Figure 3.[7] Figure 3: tA) OEsatE UNES OF TR&va. A. 􀁄􀁥􀁳􀁩􀁲􀁥􀁣􀁌􀁾􀁩􀁮􀁥􀁳􀀠of Travel The figure depicts the desired lines
of travel between several points and is depicted in the form of an irregular pentagon. A circle, representing "City ", "Town ", and "City ", respectively is shown on each of the three
southern points of the figure. On the left and right points of the irregular pentagon, there is a label that reads "City. "The far-south point of the pentagon reads "Town. " In the center
of the pentagon there is a circle with an arrow pointing to it labeled "Village. " Above "Village" are two smaller circles that are labeled "Individual Farms ". Twelve lines connect
the various circles of the pentagon indicating the desired lines of travel between the various points. There are thick black lines leading from each "City" to the "Town ". http://safety.fbwa.dot.gov/
medialtwgreport.htm 12/13/2002 
Guidance on Traffic Control at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Page 11 of40 i The figure shows the same pattern of circles as Figure A that are labeled the same as in A), There are five
lines connecting the points indicating the roadway network, "Arterial Highway" is written for the segments connecting both "Cuy" circles to the "Town ", To the left of the "Town" is
a vertical line labeled "Collector Roads" which runs to the "Village" circle and extends slightly beyond the village, Horizontally placed atop the "Collector Roads" is a small "local
roads" line with the two "Individual Farms" circles on each endpoint. Each line represents travel between the various points, A highway-rail grade crossing can impede highway traffic
flow based on several factors, The most obvious is, of course, blockages by trains, The geometry of the crossing and approaches, and the condition of the surface can present additional
impediments, LEVELS OF SERVICE The performance of a road or street is normally described in terms of "Level of Service, [8J " The Level of Service is a concept that describes the operational
characteristics of the traffic stream and how they are perceived by drivers and passengers, Speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and comfort and convenience
are factors that characterize levels of service, Traffic flow characteristics are described by letter designations; "A "the best, corresponding to a free flow conduion, and "F "the worst,
corresponding to a breakdown of flow or "stop and go " condition, Table 3 provides guidance for selecting Level of Service for particular locations, TABLE 3 GUIDE FOR SELECTION OF DESIGN
LEVELS OF SERVICE Type of Area and Appropriate Level of Service Highway Type Rural Level Rural Roiling Rural Mountainous Urban and Suburban Freeway B B C C Arterial B B C C Collector
C C D D Local D D D D Note: General operating conditions for levels of service: A -free flow, with low volumes and high speeds, B -reasonably free flow, but speeds beginning to be restricted
by by traffic conditions, C -in a stable flow zone, but most drivers restricted in freedom to select their own speed, D -approaching unstable flow, drivers have little freedom to maneuver.
E -unstable flow, may be short stoppages. F -forced flow, congested stop-and-go operation. (Source: A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, AASHTO. 2001, Page 90) The nominal
level of service normally considered acceptable during the planning and design of a new or reconstructed roadway is "C " which is within the range of stable flow, The presence of a highway-rail
grade crossing can drop the level of service below "C ", SAFE APPROACH SPEED Passive crossings with a restricted sight distance require an engineering study to determine the safe approach
speed based upon available stopping andlor comer sight distance, As a minimum, an advisory speed posting may be appropriate, or a reduced regulatory speed limit might be warranted (if
it can be effectively enforced), (See Guidance Section of this Report, "3,F,2c, ") Active devices improve highway capacity and level of service in the vicinity of a crossing, particularly
where comer sight distances are restricted, When flashing lights are active however, a driver is required to stop and look for a train, http://safety.fhwa,dot.gov/medialtwgreport,htrn
12/13/2002 
Guidance on Traffic Control at 􀁾􀁩􀁧􀁨􀁷􀁡􀁹􀀭􀁒􀁡􀁩􀁬􀀠Grade Crossings Page 12 of40 The effects of such delay increases as volume increase. Queues become longer and vehicle delay increases
proportionally. These delays are observed by the driver as a reduction in the facility's level of service. The type of control installed at highway-rail crossings needs to be evaluated
in the context of the highway system classification and level of service. RAILROAD SYSTEMS -FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICA TION A commonly used means of classifying freight and "heavy rail" passenger
rail routes is by their respective FRA deSignations for class of track. This Federal designation establishes the maximum authorized speed for freight and passenger trains, and places
requirements on the track maintenance criteria, vehicle standards, and train control signal systems. In some respects, the FRA Class of Track may be viewed as a surrogate for rail traffic
volume. In general, railroads are not likely to make the additional investment required to maintain tracks to a higher standard absent sufficient traffic volume to justify the added
expense. Table 4 indicates maximum permissible train speeds for various classes of track. TABLE 4 MAXIMUM TRAIN SPEEDS BY CLASS OF TRACK* Class of Track Freight Passenger Class 1 10MPH
15 MPH Class 2 25MPH 30 MPH Class 3 40 MPH 60MPH Class 4 60MPH 80 MPH Class 5 80MPH 90 MPH Class 6 110 MPH 110 MPH Class 7 125 MPH 125 MPH Class 8 160 MPH 160 MPH Class 9 200 MPH 200
MPH • If train operations exceed 177 km/h (110 mph) for a track segment that will include highway-rail grade crOSSings, FRA's approval of a complete description of the proposed warning/barrier
system to address the protection of highway traffic and high speed trains must be obtained in advance. All elements of the warninglbarrier system must be functioning. Source: 49 CFR213
Note: 1 mph = 1.61 km/h Not unlike the system speCification that all highway-rail crossings on full control access highways be grade separated, it is only logical that certain rail systems
should have similar status. In 1994, the FAA defined a core railroad system of approximately 128,800 km (80,000 mil known as the Principal Railroad Lines (PRLs). These lines have one
or more of the following attributes: Amtrak service; defense essential; or, annual freight volume exceeding 20 million gross tons. This core network was described in the Department of
Transportation's 1994 Action Plan to improve highway-rail grade crossing safety. The Action Plan set forth a long-term goal of eliminating (grade separating or realigning) intersections
of PRLs and highway routes on the National Highway System (NHS -defined as "an interconnected system of principal arterial routes to serve major population centers, intermodal transportation
facilities and other major travel destinations; meet national defense requirements; and serve interstate and interregional travel "). FUNCTION, GEOMETRIC DESIGN AND TRAFFfC CONTROL Functional
classification is important to both the highway agency and railroad operator. operator. Even though geometriC criteria can be determined without reference to the functional classification,
the designer should consider the function that the highway is expected to serve. The functional classification of the highway defines the geometric criteria to be used in jts planning,
design and construction. Where the highway intersects a railroad, the crossing, whether grade http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/medialtwgreport.htm 1211312002 
Guidance on Traffic Control at I-lighway-Rail Grade Crossings Page 13 of40 , separated or at-grade, should be designed consistently with the functional classification of the highway
or street. These design considerations can also extend to traffic control. Drivers form expectancies based on their training and experience; that is, situations which occur in similar
environments and in similar ways are incorpcrated into the driver's knowledge base, along with successful responses to the situations. Drivers on a US or state-numbered route, or on
a facility having a higher functional claSSification, have higher expectancies for operating characteristics, level of service and traffic control than do those same drivers on local
roads and streets. These higher Classed roads and streets also tend to serve a more diverse cross-section of vehicles and lading, including transit buses, interCity buses and haz-mat
carriers. For these reasons, functional classification of the road or street should be considered in the decision-making process concerning geometric design and traffic control devices.
TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES GENERAL DISCUSSION The purpose of traffic control at highway-rail grade crossings is to pennit safe and efficient operation of rail and highway traffic over such
crOSSings. Highway vehicles approaching a highway-rail grade crOSSing should be prepared /0 yield and stop ifnecessary if a train is at or approaching the crossing. A passive highway-rail
grede crossing is described as follows: All highway-rail grade crossings having signs and pavement markings (if appropriate to the roadway surface) as traffic control devices that are
not activated by trains. The following tables describe a variety of devices that can be used at a passive controlled highway-rail grade crossing, or supplement active devices. Table
5A are devices currently referenced in the 2000 MUTCD edition. Table 58 lists devices that are not currently proposed in the MUTCD, and any jurisdiction wishing to use these devices
to experiment must request permiSSion from the FHWA. TABLE 5A -CURRENT MUTCD DEVICES MUTCD No. Traffic Control Device Application or Indication of Need R15-1 CROSS8UCK sign Required
device R15-2 "MuHiple Tracks" sign Standard device, with 2 or more tracks; optional with gate. W10-1 Advance warning sign Required device, with MUTCD exceptions RR Pavement Markings
All paved roads, with MUTCD exceptions R1-1 STOP sign As indicated in MUTCD reference 1993 memorandum. W3-1, 􀀱􀁡􀁾􀁄sign Where STOP sign is present at crossing. R1-2 YIELD sign As indicated
in MUTCD reference 1993 memorandum. W3-2,2a YIELD AHEAD sign Where YIELD sign is present at crOSSing. R3-1,-2 Turn Restriction sign' (An "active" sign) Use with interconnected, preempted
traffic Signals. Install on the nearby parallel highway to control turns toward the tracks. R3-4 U-Turn Prohibition sign Use in median of divided highways at highway-rail grade crossings
to inhibit turning vehicles from using the track zone for illegal movement as necessary. R4-1, DO NOT PASS sign Where Where passing near the tracks is observed. http://safety.fhwa,dot.gov/mcdiaitwgre
port.h1m 12113/2002 
Guidance on Traffic Control at Wghway-Rail Grade Crossings Page 14 of 40 \ W14-3 R8-8 DO NOT STOP ON TRACKS sign Where queuing occurs, or where storage space is limited between a nearby
highway intersection and the tracks. May be supplemented with a fiashing light activated by queuing traffic in the exit lane(s) from the crossing. (See discussion on Queue Cutters Signals.)
R8-9 TRACKS OUT OF SERVICE sign Applicable when there is some physical disconnection along the railroad tracks to prevent train using those tracks. R10-5 STOP HERE ON RED sign Use with
pre-signal and/or Stop Line pavement markings to discourage vehicle queues onto the track. RIO-II NO TURN ON RED sign Use with pre-signal and/or where storage space is limited between
a nearby-interconnected traffic signal controlled intersection. R15-3, W10-1 EXEMPT sign School buses and those commercial vehicles that are usually required to stop at crossings are
not required to do so where authorized by ordinance. R15-4 Light Rail Transit Only Lane sign series For multilane operations where roadway users might need additional guidance on lane
use and/or restrictions. R15-5, 5a DO NOT PASS Ught Rail Transit signs Where vehicles are not allowed to pass LRT vehicles loading or unloading passengers where no raised platform physically
separates the lanes. R15-6, 6a No Vehicles on Tracks signs Used where there are adjacent vehicle lanes separated from the LRT lane by a curb or pavement markings. R15 -7, 78 DIVIDED
HIGHWAY sign Use wilh appropriate geometric conditions. R15-8 LOOK, Supplementary sign • Multiple tracks • Collision experience • Pedestrian presence W1D-2, 3,4 Advance Warning Signs
Series Based upon specifiC situations with a nearby parallel highway. W10-5 LOW GROUND CLEARANCE CROSSING sign As indicated by MUTCD guidelines, incident history or local knowledge.
W1D-8, 8a TRAINS MAY EXCEED 80 MPH (13D KM/H) sign Where train speed is 80 mph (130 km/h) or faster W1D-9 NO TRAIN HORN sign Shall be used only for crossings in FRA-authorized quiet
zones. Wl0-10 10 NO SIGNAL sign May be used at passive controlled crossings. WID-II, 11 a Storage Space signs Where the parallel highway is close to crOSSing, particularly with limited
storage space between the highway intersection and tracks. W13-1 "Advisory Speed" plate • May be used with any edvance warning Sign where appropriate, e.g. advance warning, humped crossing,
rough crOSSing, super-elevated track or other condition where a speed lower than the posted speed limit is advised. 1-12 Light Rail Station sign Used to direct road users 10 a light
rail station or boarding location. 1-13,13a Emergency Notification sign Post at all crossings to provide for emergency notification. Dynamic Envelope Delineation, pavement markings Where
there is queuing or limited storage space for highway vehicles at a nearby highway intersection. Signs on both sides of • For extra emphasis http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/medialtwgreport.htm
12113/2002 
Guidance on Traffic Control at 􀁾􀁩􀁧􀁨􀁷􀁡􀁹􀀭􀁒􀁡􀁩􀁬􀀠Grade Crossings Page 15 of40 I highway • Multi lane • One-way roads • Curved approaches Increased o Nighttime train operations.
retroreflectivity on highway signs Roadway delineators, • Frequent inclement weather post-mounted on • Crossing narrower than approach pavement shoulders • Isolated crossings • May be
used as an alternative to illumination Flashing lights on o Presence of competing stimuli, "visual clutter"signs and lighted o Restricted sight distance to the crossing signs 0 High speed highway traffic approach o Isolated crossing • Heavy volume or queued traffic in advance olthe crossing
Overhead signs 0 Multi-lane approach • High speed highway approach • If a sign cannot be placed on the roadside • May be used as an alternative to the double signs Crossing illumination:
• Nighttime train operations o Crossings are blocked for long periods • Train speeds are low • Nighttime collision experience • Curved approach (vertical and horizontal curves) • Frequent
occurrence offog or smoke. Stop and flag • Railroad option, but may be considered by traffic engineer. • Combination of low train frequency, short trains, high-volume highway traffiC,
multilane highway TABLE 5B -NOT CURRENTLY PROPOSED IN THE MUTCD -EXPERIMENTAL DEVICES SECOND TRAIN and other supplemental signs • Multiple tracks • Collision experience • Pedestrian
presence Buckeye CROSSBUCK sign Among a number of special signs under current research. HIGHWA Y-RAIL GRADE CROSSING (CROSSBUCK) SIGNS The MUTCD states, "The Highway-Rail Grade Crossing
(R15-1) sign, commonly identified as the Crossbuck Sign, shall be retrorefieciorized white with the words RAILROAD CROSSING in black lettering. As a minimum, one Crossbuck sign shall
be used on each highway approach to every highway-rail grade crossing, alone or in combination with other traffic control devices. If automatic gates are not present and if there are
two or more tracks at the highway-rail grade crossing. the number of tracks shall be indicated on a supplemental Number of Tracks (R15-2) sign of inverted T shape mounted below the Crossbuck
sign in the manner and at the height indicated in the MUTCD. " STOP and YIELD SIGNS The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (lSTEA) (Public Law 102-240; 105 Stat
1914; December 18, 1991) required that the FHWA revise the MUTCD to enable State or local governments to install STOP or YIELD signs at any passive highway-rail grade crossing where
two or more trains operated daily. In response, the FHWA published a final rule in the Federal Register (57 FR 53029). which incorporated the new standards into the http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/media/t
wgreport.htm 12113/2002 
Guidance on Traffic Control at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Page 16 of 40 MUTeD. This final rule, published in March 1992, was effective immediately. The FHWA and the FRA published a
memorandum containing guidelines for when the use of STOP or YIELD signs is appropriate. According to the jointly-developed document, "it is recommended that the following considerations
be met in every case where a STOP sign is installed: [$]0, 1. Local andlor State police and judicial officials commit to a program of enforcement no less vigorous than would apply at
a highway intersection equipped with STOP signs. 2. Installation of a STOP sign would not occasion a more dangerous situation (taking into consideration both the likelihood and severity
of highway-rail collisions and other highway traffic risks) than would exist with a YIELD sign. According to this memorandum, any of the following conditions indicate that the use of
a STOP sign might reduce risk at a crossing: 1. Maximum train speeds equal, or exceed, 48 kmlh (30 mph). 2. Highway traffic mix includes buses, hazardous materials carriers and/or large
(trash or earth moving) equipment. 3. Train movements are 10 or more per day, five or more days per week. 4. The rail line is used by passenger trains. 5. The rail line is regularly
used to transport a Significant quantity of hazardous materials. 6. The highway crosses two or more tracks, particularly where both tracks are main tracks or one track is a passing siding
that is frequently used. 7. The angle of approach to the crossing is skewed. 8. The line of sight from an approaching highway vehicle to an approaching train is restricted such that
approaching traffic is required to substantially reduce speed, The memorandum also states, however, that the above conditions should be weighed against the possible existence of the
following /actors: 1. The highway is other than secondary in character. Recommended maximum of 400 ADT in rural areas, and 1,500 ADT in urban areas. 2. The roadway is a steep ascending
grade to or through the crossing, sight distance in both directions is unrestricted in relation to maximum closing speed, and heavy vehicles use the crossing. A footnote in this joint
document also states that "a crossing where there is insufficient time for any vehicle, proceeding from a complete stop, to safely traverse the crossing within the time allowed by maximum
train speed, is an inherently unsafe crossing that should be closed. " ACTIVE 􀁄􀁅􀁖􀀯􀁾􀁧􀀡􀀬􀀿􀀠An active highway-rail grade crossing is described as follows: All highway-rail grade
crossings equipped with warning andlor traffic control devices that gives warning of the approach or presence of a train. Due to the variables which should be considered, an engineering
and traffic investigation is required to determine the specific application of active devices at any given highway-rail grade crossing. Guidance is provided in the following sections
for the application of the many active traffic control system devices available for grade crossing design, in addition to various median treatments that can supplement these devices.
The following is a list of active devices that can be considered for use at a highway-rail grade crossing. The first four commonly found at many grade crossings are deSignated as "standard
devices." STANDARD ACTIVE DEVICES Flashing-Light Signal A standard flashing-light signal consists oftwo red lights in a horizontal line flashing alternately at approaching http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/
mediaitwgreport.htm 12/1312002 
Guidance on Traffic Control at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Page 17 0[40 i highway traffic. At a crossing with highway traffic approaching in both directions, flashing-lights are installed
facing oncoming traffic in a back-to·back configuration in accordance with the MUTCD. The support used for the lights should also include a standard crossbuck sign and, where there is
more that one track, an auxiliary "muttiple tracks" R15·2. sign. Back lights may be eliminated with one-way highway traffic, based on engineering judgment. An audible control device
may be included. Cantilever Flashing-Light Signal This device supplements the standard flashing-light signal. Cantilever flashing-lights consist of an additional one or two sets of lights
mounted over the roadway on a cantilever arm and directed at approaching highway traffrc. Cantilevered lights provide better visibility to approaching highway traffic, particularly on
muHi·lane approaches. This device is also useful on high-speed two-lane highways, where there is a high percentage of trucks, or where obstacles by the side of the highway could obstruct
visibility of standard mast mounted flashing-lights. An example is where the terrain or topography of the approaching highway is such that the sight of a roadside mounted signal light
could not be readily seen by an approaching driver due to vertical or horizontal curves. Cantilever flashing-light signals may be mounted back-to-back and should also have an additional
crossbuck added to the overhead structure, based on site conditions and engineering judgment. Automatic Gate The automatic gate provides supplemental visual display when used with both
road side mounted flashing-lights and cantilever flashing-light signals. The device consists of a drive unit and a gate ann. The drive mechanism can be mounted on flashing-light posts
or cantilever pole supports, or on a stand· alone support. The gate arm is fully reflectorized on both sides with 45 degree diagonal red and white stripes and has at least three lights;
the tip light is continuously lit and the others altemately flash when the gate is activated and lowered. When lowered, the gate should extend across approaching highway traffic lanes.
Special consideration should be given to clearances for movement of the counter weight ann portion of the gate drive unit in a median and adjacent to sidewalk locations with pedestrians,
particularly with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. Additional Flashing-Light Signals Additional approaches to active highway-rail grade crossings
require additional flashing-light signals be directed at the approaching traffic. These lights can be mounted On eXisting flashing-light masts, extension arms, additional traffic signal
masts, cantilever supports, in medians or other locations on the left side of the roadway. SUPPLEMENTAL ACTIVE DEVICES Active Advance Warning Signs with Flashers A train activated advance
warning sign (utilizing the W-10 sign) should be considered at locations where sight distance is restricted on the approach to a crossing, and the flashing-light signals cannot be seen
until an approaching driver has passed the decision point (the distance to the track from which a safe stop can be made)[101. Two yellow lights can be placed on the sign to warn drivers
in advance of a crossing where the control devices are activated. The continuously flashing yellow "caution" lights can influence driver speed and/or provide waming for stopped vehicles
ahead. An Advisory Speed Plate sign indicating the safe approach speed also should be posted with the sign. If the advance flashers are connected to the railroad control circuitry, and
only flash upon the approach of a train, they should be activated prior to the control devices at the crossing so that a driver would not pass a dark flasher and then encounter an activated
flashing-light at the crossing. (Track circuits may need to be revised to handle this.) A few States use a supplementary message such as TRAIN WHEN FLASHING. In order to allow the traffic
queue at the crossing time to dissipate safely, the advance flashers should continue to operate for a period of time after the active control devices at the crossing deactivate, as determined
by an engineering study. If such an advance device fails, the driver would not be alerted to the activated crossing controls. If there is concem for such failure, some agencies use a
passive, RAILROAD SIGNAL AHEAD sign to provide a full time warning message. The location of this supplemental advance warning sign is dependant on vehicle speed and geometric http://safety.fhwa.dot.g
ov/medialtwgreport.htrn 12113/2002 
Guidance on Traffic Control at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Page 18 of40 conditions of the roadway. Active Turn Restriction Signs An active tum restriction sign (blank-out sign with
internal illumination) displaying "No Right Turn" or "No Left Turn " (or appropriate international symbol) should be used in the following instances; on a parallel street within 15 m
(50 ft) of the tracks where a turning vehicle from that parallel street could proceed around lowered gates; at a signalized highway intersection, where traffic signals at a nearby highway
intersection are interconnected and preempted by the approach of the train, and all existing turn movements toward the grade crossing should be prohibited. These signs shall be visible
only when the restriction is in effect. f,AEDIAN.SEE/lfUJ.IJQI:! Despite the dangers of crossing in front of oncoming trains, drivers continue to risk lives and property by driving around
crossing gates. At many crossings a driver is able to cross the center line pavement marking and and drive around a gate with little difficulty. The numbers of crossing gate violations
can be reduced by restricting driver access to the opposing lanes. Highway authorities have implemented various median separation devices, which have shown a significant reduction in
the number of vehicle violations at crossing gates. There are limitations common to the use of any form of traffic separation at highway-rail grade crossings. These include restricting
access to intersecting streets, alleys and driveways within the limits ofthe median and possible adverse safety effects. The median should be designed to allow vehicles to make left
turns or U-turns through the median where appropriate, based on engineering judgment and evaluation. BARRIER WALLS SYSTEMS Concrete barrier walls and guardrails generally prevent drivers
from crossing into opposing lanes throughout the length of the installation. In this sense they are the most effective deterrent to crossing gate violations. But, the road must be wide
enough to accept the width of the barrier and the appropriate end treatment.IUJ. Sight restrictions for vehicles with low driver eye heights and any special need for emergency vehicles
to make a U-turn maneuver should be considered (but not for the purpose 01 circumventing the traffic control devices at the crossing). Installation lengths can be more effective if they
extend beyond a minimum length of 46 m (150 ft). WIDE RAISED MEDIANS Curbed medians generally range in width from 1.2 to more than 30 m (4 -100 ft). While not presenting a true barrier,
wide medians can be nearly as effective since a driver would have significant difficulty attempting to drive across to the opposing lanes. The impediment becomes more formidable as the
width of the median increases. A wide median, if attractively landscaped, is often the most aesthetically pleasing separation method. Drawbacks to implementing wide raised medians include
availability of suffiCient right-ol-way, and maintenance of surface andlor landscape. Additions such as trees. flowers and other vegetation higher than .9 m (3 ft) above the roadway
can restrict the drivers' view of approaching trains. Maintenance can be expensive depending on the treatment of the median. Limitation of access can cause property owner complaints,
particularly for businesses. Nonmountable curbs can increase total crash rate and severity of accidents when struck by higher speed vehicles (>64 kmlh [40 􀁭􀁰􀁨􀀩􀀩􀀮􀁲􀁾􀀠NON-MOUNTABLE
CURB ISLANDS Non-mountable curb islands are typically six to nine inches in height and at least .6m (2 II) wide, and may have reboundable, reflectorized vertical markers. Drivers have
significant difficulty attempting to violate these types of islands because the six to nine inch heights cannot be easily mounted and crossed. There are some disadvantages to be considered.
The road must be wide enough to accommodate a two foot median. The increased crash potential should be evaluated. AASHTO recommends special attention be given to high visibility if such
a narrow device is used in higher speed (>64 kmlh [40 mph)) environments1t31.Care should be taken to assure that an errant vehicle cannot bottom-out and protrude into the oncoming traffic
lane. Sight restrictions for low driver eye heights should be considered if vertical markers are installed. Access requirements should be fully http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/medialtwgreport.htrn
12113/2002 
Guidance on Traffic Control at l:iighway-Rail Grade Crossings Page 19 of40 evaluated, particularly allowing emergency vehicles to cross opposing lanes (but not for the purpose of circumventing
the traffic control devices at the crossing). Paint and reflective beads should be applied to the curb for night visibility. MOUNTABLE RAISED CURB SYSTEMS Mountable raised curb systems
with reboundable vertical markers present drivers with a visual impediment to crossing to the opposing traffic lane, The curbs are no more than six inches in height, less than twelve
inches in width, and built with a rounded design to create minimal deflection upon impact. When used together, the mountable raised median and vertical delineators discourage passage.
These systems are designed to allow emergency vehicles to cross-opposing lanes (but not for the purpose of circumventing the traffic control devices at the crossing). Usually such a
system can be placed on existing roads without the need to widen them. Because mountable curbs are made to allow emergency vehicles to cross, and are designed to deflect errant vehicles,
they also are the easiest of all the barriers and separators to violate. Large, formidable vertical markers will inhibit most drivers. Care should be taken to assure that the system
maintains its stability on the roadway with design traffic conditions, and that retro-reflective devices or glass beads on the top and sides of the curb are maintained for night viSibility.
Curb colors should be consistent with location and direction of traffic adjacent to the device. OTHER BARRIER Di:YICES FOUR-QUADRANT TRAFFIC GATE SYSTEMS Four-quadrant gate systems consist
of a series of automatic flashing-light signals and gates where the gates extend across both the approach and departure Side of roadway lanes. Unlike two-quadrant gate systems, four-quadrant
gates provide additional visual constraint and inhibit nearly all traffic movements over the crOSSing after the gates have been lowered. At this time, only a small number of four-quadrant
gate systems have been installed in the U.S., and incorporate different types of designs to prevent vehicles from being trapped between the gates. VEHICLE ARRESTING BARRIER SYSTEM -BARRIER
GATE A moveable barrier system is designed to prevent the intrusion of vehicles onto the railroad tracks at highway-rail grade crossings. The barrier devices should at least meet the
evaluation criteria for a NCHRP Report 350 (Test Level 2) attenuator;[HI stopping an empty: 4500-pound pickup truck traveling at 70 km/h (43 mph). However, it could injure occupants
of small vehicles during higher speed impacts, and may not be effective for heavy vehicles at lower speeds. Two types of barrier devices have been tested and used in the U.S.; vehicle
arresting barriers and safety barrier gates. The vehicle arresting barrier (VAB) is raised and lowered by a tower lifting mechanism. The VAB in the down position consists of a flexible
netting across the highway approaches that is attached to an energy absorption system. When When the netting is strUCk, the energy absorption system dissipates the vehicle's kinetic
energy and allows it to come to a gradual stop. This device was tested at three locations in the high-speed rail corridor between Chicago, IL and st. Louis, MO. The safety barrier gate
is a movable gate designed to close a roadway temporarily at a highway-rail crossing. A housing contains electro-mechanical components that lower and raise the gate arm. The gate arm
consists of three steel cables, the lop and bottom of which are enclosed aluminum tubes. When the gate is in the down position the end of the gate fils into a locking assembly that is
bolted to a concrele foundation. This device has been tested to safely stop a pickup Iruck traveling at 72 km/h (45 mph) and has been installed in Madison, WI and Santa Clara County,
CA A barrier gate could also be applied in Ihose situations requiring a positive barrier e.g., in a down position, closing off road traffic and opening only on demand. TRAIN DE.II!;.C.TlON
SYSTEMS WARNING TIME AND SYSTEM CREDIBILITY http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/medialtwgreport.htm 1211312002 
Guidance on Traffic Control at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Page 20 of40 Reasonable and consistent warning limes re-enforce system credibility. Unreasonable or inconsistent warning times
may encourage undesirable driver behavior. Research has shown when warning times exceed 40-50 seconds. drivers will accept shorter clearance times at flashing lights. and a significant
number will attempt to drive around gates.uru Although mandated maximum warning times do not yet exist, efforts should be made to ensure traffic interruptions are reasonable and consistent
without compromising the intended safety function of an active control device system's design. Excessive warning times are generally associated with a permanent reduction in the class
of track and/or train speeds without a concomitant change in the track Circuitry and without constant warning time equipment. When not using constant warning train detection systems.
track approach circuits should be adjusted accordingly when train speeds are permanently reduced. Another frequent cause of excessive warning times at crOSSings without constant warning
time equipment is variable speed trains, e.g., inter-city passenger trains or fast commuter trains interspersed with slower freight trains. A major factor affecting system credibility
is an unusual number of false activations at active crossings. Every effort should be made to minimize false activations through improvements in track circuitry. train detection equipment,
and maintenance practices. A timely response to a system malfunction coupled with repairs made without undue delay can reduce credibility issues. Remote monitoring devices are an important
tooi. Joint study and evaluation is needed between the highway agency and railroad to make a proper selection of the appropriate train detection system. Train detection systems are designed
to provide the minimum warning time for a crossing. In general. the MUTCD states that the system should provide for a minimum of 20 seconds warning time. When detennining if the minimum
20 seconds warning time should be increased, the following factors should be considered: • track clearance distances due to muttiple tracks and/or angled crossings; (add one second for
each 3 m [10 ttJ of added croSSing length in excess of 10.7 m [35 ttl); • the crossing is located within close proximity of a highway intersection controlled by STOP signs where vehicles
have a tendency of stopping on the crossing; • the crOSSing is regularly used by long tractor-trailer vehicles; • the crossing is regularly used by vehicles required to make mandatory
stops before proceeding over the crOSSing (e.g. school buses and hazardous materials vehicles); • the crossing's active traffic control devices are interconnected with other highway
traffic signal systems; • provide at least 5 seconds between the time the approach lane gates to the crossing are fully lowered and when the train reaches the crossing, per 49 CFR Part
234; • the crossing is regularly used by pedestrians and non-motorized components; • where the crossing and approaches are not level and; • where additional warning time is needed to
accommodate a four-quadrant gate system. INTERFERENCE/INTEGRITY OF ACTIVE TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICE SYSTEMS Interference with normal functioning of an active control device system diminishes
the driver's perception of the integrity of the system. Interference can result from, but is not limited to, trains, locomotives or other railroad equipment standing within the system's
approach circuit, and testing or performing work on the control device systems or on track and other railroad systems or structures. The integrity of the control device system may be
adversely affected if proper measures are not taken to provide for safety of highway traffic when such work is underway. It is important that Railroad employees are familiar with Federal
regulations and railroad procedures which detail measures to be taken prior to commencing activities, which might interfere with track circuitry. TYPE OF DETECTION SYSTEM DC, AC-DC or
AFO Grade Crossing Island and Approach Circuits: These basic train detection circuits use a battery or transmitter at one end of a section of track and a relay, receiver or diode at
the other end. A train on the section of the affected track will shunt the circuit and de-energize the relay. This type of system will continue to operate until the train leaves the
circuit. Motion Sensitive Devices (MS) http://safety.ibwa.dot.gov/media/twgreport.htm 12/1312002 
Guidance on Traffic Control at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Page 21 of40 A type of train detection (control) system for automatic traffic control devices that has the capability of detecting
the presence and movement of a train within the approach circuit of a crossing. MS devices will activate the traffic control devices at the crossing for all trains located within the
approach circuit that are moving toward the crossing, regardless of train speed. If a train stops within the approach circuit before reaching the crossing, the traffic control devices
will deactivate until the train resumes motion toward the crossing, but will remain deactivated if the train retreats beyond the detection circuil. Constant Warning Time (CWT) Systems
A constant waming time system has the capability of sensing a train as it approaches a crossing, measuring its speed and distance from the crossing, and activating the traffic control
devices to provide the desired waming time. Traffic control systems equipped with CM provide relatively uniform warning times where train speeds vary and trains do not accelerate or
decelerate within the approach circuits once the devices have activated. Trains may perform low speed switching operations beyond 213 m (700 fI) from a crossing without causing the crossing
devices to unnecessarily activate. This reduces or eliminates excess gate operation that in tum, causes unnecessary delays to highway traffic. Like motion sensitive systems, if a train
stops within the approach circuit before reaching the crossing the traffic control devices will deactivate. RAILROAD TRAIN DETECTION TIME AND APPROACH LENGTH CALCULATIONS It should be
noted that even when "constant waming devices" are used, the calculated arrival time of the train at the crossing is based on the instantaneous speed ofthe train as it enters the crossing
circuil. Once the calculation is made, changes in train speed will change train arrival time at the crossing and correspondingly reduce (or increase) the elapsed warning time at the
crossing. This factor must be considered at a crossing interconnected to a nearby highway traffic signal utilizing either a simultaneous or advance preemption sequence. Design information
about railroad Interconnection circuits and approach length calculations can be found In the American Railway Engineering and Malntenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) Signal Manual[16J
Manual Part 3.1.10, Recommended Functional/Operating Guidelines for Interconnection Between Highway Traffic Signals and HighwayRail Grade Crossing Warning Systems; and Manual Part 3.3.10,
Recommended Instructions for Determining Warning Time and Calculating Minimum Approach Distance for Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Waming Systems. I!f/EEMPTION/INI.E.RG.ONNECTION: WHEN
TO INTERCONNECT The guidance In the MUTCD states: "When a highway-rail grade is equipped with a flashing-light Signal system and Is located within 60 m (200 fI) of an intersection or
mid-block location controlled by a traffic control Signal, the traffic control signal should be provided with preemption In accordance with Section 4D.13. "Recent studies indicate that
when deSigning for the Installation of a new traffic control signal substantially beyond 60 m (200 fI) (pOSSibly 152305m [500-1000 fill of a highway-rail grede crossing, an estimate
of the expected queue length should be performed. For estimation purposes, a 95% probability level should be used. If the resulting expected queue length is equal to or greater than
the available storage distance, consideration should be given to interconnecting the traffic control signal with the active control system of the railroad crossing and providing a preemption
sequence. Guidance on estimating queue length is available in the article, "Design Guidelines for Railroad Preemption at Signalized Intersections," ITE Joumal, February 1997. Guidance
on the design of preemption operation is available in Preemption of Traffic Signals At or Near Railroad Grade Crossings with Active Warning Devices, #RP-025A, Institute of Transportation
Engineers, 1997 www.www.lte .. org or 202-289-0222; and the Implementation Report of the USDOT Grade Crossing Satety Task Force, June 1, 1997, U.S. Department of Transportation, www.fhwa.dol.gov.
The Implementation Report Is an excellent source of definitions. FACTORS TO CONSIDER Joint Agency Coordination Close coordination between the highway agency and the railroad company
is required when interconnecting a traffic signal with active railroad traffic control devices. In order to properly design the highway-rail preemption system, both the railroad company
and the highway agency should understand how each system operates. An engineering study should be conducted at each interconnected location to ht1p:lIsafety.fhwa.dot.gov/medialtwgreport,htrn
12/13/2002 
Guidance on Traffic Control at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Page 22 of40 ) determine the minimum preemption warning time necessary to adequately clear traffic from the crossing in the
eventof an approaching train. Factors that need to be considered when calculating this time are equipment response and programmed delay times, minimum traffic signal green times, traffic
signal vehicular and pedestrian clearances, queue clearance times and trainlvehicle separation time. Extended Advance Warning Times Whenever it becomes necessary at gated crossings to
provide design advance warning times in excess of 45 seconds, whether for traffic Signal preemption or other purposes, consideration should be given to including supplemental median
treatments to discourage drivers from attempting to circumvent the gates. Second Train Circuitry at Multiple Track Crossings At multiple track crossings, "second train" circuitry can
be considered as part of the control network. This circuitry is intended to detect a second train approaching the crossing, but outside the normal warning time approach circuit. For
instance, the normal approach circuit may provide 25 seconds warning but the second-train circuit may look an additional 10 seconds. If a train activates a train activates the traffic
control devices AND a second train is detected within the 35-second circuit, the gates will be held down for the second train and the traffic signals remain preempted. (Also see Traffic
Signal Controller Re-Service Considerations in the Preemption/Interconnection Appendix.) Diagonal Railroad Crossing Both Highway Approaches to the Intersection Where the railroads run
diagonally to the direction of the highway, it is probable that the railroad may cross two highway approaches to an interconnected intersection. When this situation occurs, it is normally
necessary to clear out traffic on both roadways prior to the arrival of the train, requiring approximately twice the preemption time computed for one approach. It is also normally required
to have both railroad active traffic control device systems designed to operate concurrently. This is needed to prevent the interconnected traffic signals and railroad active control
devices from falling out of coordination with each other which otherwise can occur under certain types of train movements or when one of the two crossings experiences a false signal
activation prior to an actual train movement. When the railroad control devices activate, traffic leaving the intersection and approaching either crossing may queue back into the intersection
and block traffic if there is not adequate storage for those vehicles between the crossing and the intersection. Traffic turning at the intersection toward the other crossing may also
be unable to proceed due to stopped traffic. When this occurs, utilization of advance preemption together with a hybrid design may help alleviate this problem. The hybrid design could
consist of delaying the activation of the railroad devices facing vehicles leaving the intersection and approaching both crossings to help vehicles clear out of the intersection during
the preemption sequence. Pre-Signals Pre-signals control traffic approaching the highway-rail grade crossing toward the nearby highway intersection, and are operated as part of the highway
intersection traffic signal system. Their displays are integrated into the railroad preemption program. A diagram of a pre-signal Is shown as Figure 4. Figure 4 http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/mediaftwgre
port.htm 12113/2002 
Guidance on Traffic Control at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Page 23 of40 I FIGURE 4 This figure depicts the location of a pre-signal at an automatic gate crossing. In the foreground
of the figure is the away-going side of a divided highway. The road crosses a railroad track and a little further, intersects another road. At the intersection of the two roads, there
is a traffic-control signal. The crossing is equipped with lights and an automated crossarm. Prior to the railroad crossing is another traffic-control signal and a double white line
where vehicles are to stop. The signal and lines are designed to prevent a line of vehicles forming at the highway-highway intersection that would back up onto the railroad tracks. Between
the double white line of the forward traffic-control signal and the white line of the intersection signal, diagonal white stripes are painted along the road to indicate the danger zone
around the crossing. On either side of the road at the double white line is a sign that reads "STOP HERE ON RED, "with and arrow pointing to the double white line. An engineering study
should be made to evaluate the various elements involved in a pre-signal. These are summarized as follows. Where the highway intersection is less than 15m (50 ft) from the highway-rail
crossing (23m [75 ftJ for a roadway regularly used bY multi-unit vehicles), pre-signals should be considered. Where the clear storage distance is greater than 23 m (75 ft), pre-signals
could be used, subject to an engineering study determining that the queue extends into the track area. Without pre-signals at highway-rail grade crossings, drivers may focus on the downstream
highway traffic signal indications rather than the flashing-light signals located at the grade crossing. This type of driver behavior is especially undesirable during the beginning of
the preemption sequence when the downstream traffic signals are typically green (in order to clear queued vehicles off the tracks) and the flashing-light signals are activated. Driver
behavior behavior at crossings equipped with pre-signals is modified because the driver stops at the railroad stop line even when a train is not approaching. By providing a consistent
stopping location, with or without the presence of a train, the driver will not become confused as to a safe location to stop when a train is approaching. Where geometric considerations
in advance of the crossing complicate the installation of a pre-signal on a separate support in front olthe railroad signal, the placement of railroad flashing-light signals and traffic
signals on the same support should be considered to reduce visual clutter and to increase driver visibility of the pre-signals. A written agreement between the highway agency and railroad
may be required. The pre-signal phase sequencing should be progressively timed with an offset adequate to clear vehicles from the track area and downstream intersection. Vehicles that
are required to make a mandatory stop (e.g., school buses, vehicles hauling hazardous materials, etc.) should be considered when determining the amount of time for the offset to ensure
that they will not be forced to stop in the clear storage area. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/medialtwgreport.htrn 1211312002 
Guidance on Traffic Control at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Page 24 of40 I For highway-rail grade crossings equipped with a pre-signal and clear storage distance less than 15 m (50 It),
(23 m [75 It] for a roadway regularly used by multi-unit vehicles), a clear zone between the crossing and the downstream intersection may be diagonally striped to delineate the clear
storage area. The downstream traffic Signal at the highway intersection controlling the same approach as the pre-signal should be equipped with programmable visibility indications or
louvers. The downstream heads should only be visible from within the down stream intersection to the driver eye location of the first vehicle behind the pre-signal stop bar. Design of
the visibility limited indications is quite complex and should consider a range of driver eye heights for the various vehicles expected on the roadway. Long Distance between the Highway·Rail
Crossing and the Highway Intersection In cases where the crossing is located far from the highway intersection --up to 305 m (1000 II). the necessary minimum preemption warning lime
may be very high and in tum may require very long approach circuits along the tracks in order to provide such a time. Long track circuits can become extremely complex and expensive to
implement, especially if located in an area where there are several adjacent crossings with overlapping track circuits, switching spurs, railroad junctions or commuter rail stations
which could affect train operating speeds within the detection circuit. In addition, excessive preemption times may have detrimental effects on traffic flows within the vicinity of the
crossing and may cause other problems such as traffic backing up along a route parallel to the crossing and backing up through another adjacent interconnected intersection. These are
just a few factors to consider with a long distance interconnection. Queue CutterFlashing-light Beacon An alternative to interconnecting the two traffic control devices may be the use
of an automated Queue Cutter Flashing-light Beacon upstream of the highway-rail grade crossing. They may be utilized in conjunction with DO NOT STOP ON TRACKS (R8-8) as stated in the
M UTC D signs. Such beacons can be activated by an induction loop on the departure side of the highway-rail grade crossing that detects a growing queue between the crossing and the distant
highway intersection. If the beacons are activated only when the traffic Signals on that approach are not green, they can be more effective as opposed to flashing all the time. These
are some of the many factors that should be considered when interconnecting an active traffic control device at a highway-rail grade crossing to a nearby highway traffic signal. A separate
Preemptionllnterconnection appendix is included with this report to provide further explanation of this very complex subject. However. it is not the intent of this document to serve
as a primer for this very complicated topic. It cannot be emphasized enough that design, construction, operation and maintenance of this type of system requires expert knowledge and
full cooperation between highway and railroad authorities. Other special conditions are discussed in the following section. Also See Appendix for additional information PTHER SPE.C!!,!...
CONDITIONS POTENTIAL QUEUING ACROSS TRACKS Where queuing across a highway-rail grade crossing is occasioned by a nearby highway intersection that is not equipped with a traffic signal,
the traffic engineer has a number of options including: 1. Install a DO NOT STOP ON TRACKS sign; 2. Install an automated Queue Cutter Flashing-light Beacon (see prior discussion in "Factors
to Consider "); and/or; 3. Install a traffic signal with railroad preemption at the highway/highway intersection. Queues extending over the highway-rail grade crossing could be considered
a possible need for the installation of a traffic signal at the nearby highway intersection. However, the third option needs to be considered very carefully considering the harmful effects
of an otherwise unwarranted traffic signal. TRAIN AND UGHT RAIL TRANSIT (LRT) ACTIVATED HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SIGNALS http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/medialtwgreport.htm 12113/2002 
Guidance on Traffic Control at lfighway-Rail Grade Crossings Page 25 of40 Urban city streets often pose a special case for the application of active grade crossing traffic control devices.
Slow speed switching moves and mixed-use light rail transit (LRT) operations are often controlled by traffic signals. In such cases, traffic signal heads must be clearly visible to the
train operator. Trains must stop short before entering these intersections. Train detection can be accomplished by the use of island track circuits, key selector switches, inductive
loops, train to way-side communications and other technologies. Where LRT vehicles move witihin the street median or through the intersection of two or more city streets, and where train
operating speeds and sight distances are consistent with safe stopping distances, the train may operate through these intersections controlled by traffic signal indications witihout
stopping. In such cases, special transit signal aspects, which clearly indicate traffic signal controlled right-of-way, must govern train moves. Special transit indications may also
provide information concerning track alignment to the transit operator. Automatic train stops and other train control devices may be used to enforce a train's compliance with the signal
indication. Where special train aspects are present and safe stopping distance is assured, transit vehicles may utilize train to way-side communications, inductive loops, cantenary detector
switches or other forms of detection to activate the traffic signals. Great care should be exercised in the location of special train indicators to avoid confusion to drivers approaching
the intersection. Programmed heads and special aspects are helpful in this regard. (SECOND) TRAIN COMING ACTIVE WARNING SIGN Train detection systems can also be used to activate a "2nd
Train Coming" supplemental warning sign. This sign is used on a limited basis, normally near commuter stations where multiple tracks and high volumes of pedestrian traffic are present.
The sign will activate when a train is located within the crossing's approach circuits and a 2nd train approaches the crossing. It is also being evaluated at multiple track highway-rail
grade crossings as a supplement to automatic gates. (Since this sign is not currently in the MUTCD, any jurisdictions wishing to use symbols to convey any part of tihls message, must
request permission to experiment from the FHWA.) PEDES TRIAN ANDa.ICYCI",ISTCQJIlS.lILEBAJ'.lfll'fS Non-motorist-crossing safety should be considered at all highway-rail grade crossings,
particularly at or near commuter stations and at non-motorist facilities, such as bicycle/walking trailS, pedestrian only facilities, and pedestrian malls'!1ZJ Passive and active devices
may be used to supplement highway related active control devices to improve nonmotorist safety at highway-rail crossings. Passive devices include fencing, swing gates, pedestrian barriers,
pavement markings and texturing, refuge areas and fixed message signs. Active devices Include flashers, audible active control devices, automated pedestrian gates, pedestrian signals,
variable message signs and blank out signs. These devices should be considered at crOSSings with high pedestrian traffic volumes, high train speeds or frequency, extremely wide crossings,
complex highway-rail grade crossing geometry with complex right-of-way assignment, school zones, inadequate sight distance, and/or multiple tracks. All pedestrian facilities should be
designed to minimize pedestrian crossing time and devices should be designed to avoid trapping pedestrians between sets of tracks. Guidelines for the use of active and passive devices
for Non-motorist Signals and Crossings are found in section 10D of Part 10 of the MUTCD. ALTERNATIVES TO MAINTAINING THE CROSSING !;ROSSING CLOSURE Eliminating redundant and unneeded
crOSSings should be a high priority. Barring highway or railroad system requirements that require crossing elimination, the decision to close or consolidate crossings requires balancing
public necessity, convenience and safety, The crossing closure decision should be based on economics: comparing the cost of retaining the crossing (maintenance, accidents, and cost to
improve the crossing to an acceptable level if it would remain, etc.) against the cost (if any) of providing alternate access and any adverse travel costs incurred by users having to
cross at some other location. Because this can be a local political and emotional issue, the economics of the situation cannot be ignored. This subject is addressed in a 1994 joint FRAlFHWA
publication entitled Highway-Rai/road Grade Crossings: A Guide To Crossing Consolidation and Closure, and a March 1995 hltp:/lsafety.fhwa.dot.gov/mediaitwgreport.htm 
Guidance on Traffic Control at Bighway-Rail Grade Crossings Page 26 of40 \ AASHTO publication, Highway-Rail Crossing Elimination and ConsolidationPSj Whenever a crossing is closed, it
is important to consider whether the diversion of highway traffic may be sufficient to change the type or level of traffic control needed at other crossings, The surrounding street system
should be examined to assess the effects of diverted traffic, Often, coupling a closure with the installation of improved or upgraded traffic control devices at one or more adjacent
crossings can be an effective means of mitigating local political resistance to the closure, GRADE SEPARATION The decision to grade separate a highway-rail crOSSing is primarily a matter
of economics, Investment in a grade separation structure is long-term and impacts many users, Such decisions should be based on long term, fully allocated life cycle costs, including
both highway and railroad user costs, rather than on initial construction costs, Such analysis should consider the following: • eliminating train/vehicle collisions (including the resultant
property damage and medical costs, and liability); • savings in highway-rail grade crossing surface and crossing signal installation and maintenance costs; • driver delay cost savings;
• costs associated with providing increased highway storage capacity (to accommodate traffic backed up by a train); • fuel and pollution mitigation cost savings (from idling queued vehicles):
• effects of any "spillover" congestion on the rest of the roadway system; • the benefits of improved emergency access; • the potential for closing one or more additional adjacent crossings;
and • possible train derailment costs, A recently released report, entitled "Grade Separations-When Do We Separate,EJ9]" provides a stepwise procedure for evaluating the grade separation
decision, The report also contains a rough screening method based on train and roadway vehicular volumes, However, as pOinted out in the report, the screening method should be used with
caution and should be calibrated for values appropriate for the particular jurisdiction. TRAFFIC SEPARATION STUDY APPROACH TO CROSSING CONSOLIDATION Both the FRA [:19) and the AASHTO
[Z1] have provided guidelines for crossing consolidation, State DOTs, road authorities and local governments may choose to develop their own criteria for closures based on local conditions,
Whatever the case, a specific criteria or approach should be used, so as to avoid arbitrarily selecting crossings for closure. An example is provided by the North Carolina DOT.l22] To
improve crossing safety and provide a comprehensive approach to crossing consolidation, the traffic separation study approach is a worthwhile option, As part of a comprehensive evaluation
of traffic patterns and road usage for an entire municipality or region, traffic separation stUdies determine the need for improvements andlor elimination of public highway-rail grade
crossings based on specific criteria, Traffic separation studies progress in three phases: preliminary planning, study and implementation, Crossing information is collected at all public
crossings in the municipality, Evaluation criteria include: collision history, current and projected vehicular and train traffic, crossing condition, school bus and emergency routes,
types of traffic control devices, feasibility for improvements and economic impact of crossing closures, After discussions with the local road authority, railroad, State DOT, municipal
staff and local officials these recommendations may be modified. Reaching a "consensus" is essential prior to scheduling presentations to governing bodies and citizens, Recommendations
may include: installation of flashing-lights and gates, enhanced devices such as four-quadrant gates and longer gate arms, installation of concrete or rubber crossings, median barrier
installation, pavement markings, roadway approach modifications, crossing or roadway realignments, crossing closures andlor relocation of existing crossings to safer locations, connector
roads, and feasibility studies to evaluate potential grade separation locations, http://safety.fhwa.dot,gov/mediaitwgreport.htm 12113/2002 
Guidance on Traffic Control at Bighway-Rail Grade Crossings Page 27 of40 The most dynamic aspect of the public involvement process occurs at crossing safety workshops and public hearings.
A goal of these forums is to exchange information and convey the community benefits of enhanced crossing safety, including the potential consequences to neighborhoods of train derailments
containing hazardous materials resulting rrom crossing accidents. Equating rail crossings to highway interchanges, something the average citizen can relate to, greatly assist in reinforcing
the need for eliminating low-volume andlor redundant crossings. NEW CROSSINGS Similar to crossing closure/consolidation, consideration of opening a new public highway-rail crossing should
likewise consider public necessity, convenience, safety and economics. Generally, new grade crossings, particularly on mainline tracks, should not be permitted unless no other viable
aHernatives exist and, even in those instances, consideration should be given to closing one or more existing crossings. If a new grade crossing is to provide access to any land development,
the selection of traffic control devices to be installed at the proposed crossing should be based on the projected needs of the fully completed development. Communities, developers and
highway transportation planners need to be mindful that once a highway-rail grade crossing is established, drivers can develop a low tolerance for the crossing being blocked by a train
for an extended period of time. If a new access is proposed to cross a railroad where railroad operation requires temporarily holding trains, only grade separation should be considered.
GUIDANCE These treatments are provided for consideration at every public highway-rail grade crossing. Specific MUTCD Signs and treatments are included for easy reference. 1. MINIMUM
DEVICES -all highway-rail grade crossings of railroads and public streets or highways should be equipped with approved passive devices. For street running railroadsltransit systems,
refer to MUTCD Parts 8 and 10. 2. MINIMUM WIDTHS -All highway-rail grade crossing surfaces should be a minimum of one foot beyond the edge of the roadway shoulder measured perpendicular
to the roadway center line, and should provide for any existing pedestrian facilities. 3. PASSNE -Minimum Traffic Control Applications: A. A circular Railroad Advance Warning (Wi 0-1)
sign shall be used on each roadway in advance of every highway-rail grade crossing except as described in the MUTCD; B. An emergency phone number should be posted at the crossing. This
posting should include the USDOT highway-rail grade crossing identification number, highway or street name or number, railroad milepost and other pertinent information; C. Where the
roadway approaches to the crossing are paved, pavement markings are to be installed as described in the MUTCD, subject to engineering evaluation; D. Where applicable, the TRACKS OUT
OF SERVICE sign should be placed to notify drivers that track use has been discontinued; E, One reflectorized crossbuck sign shall be used on each roadway approach to a highway-rail
grade crossing; 1. If there are two or more tracks, the number of tracks shall be indicated on a supplemental sign (R15-2) of inverted T shape mounted below the crossbuck. 2. Strips
of retroreflective white material not less than two inches in width shall be used on the back of each blade of each crossbuck sign for the length of each blade, unless the crossbucks
are mounted back-to-back. 3. A strip of retroreftective white material, not less than two inches in width, shall be used on the full length of the rront and back of each support rrom
the crossbuck sign to near ground Jevel or just http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/media/twgreport,htm 12113/2002 
•• Guidance on Traffic Control pt Bighway-Rail Grade Crossings Page 28 of40 above the top breakaway hole on the post. F. Supplemental Passive Traffic Control Applications (subject to
engineering evaluation); 1. Inadequate Stopping Sight Distance: a. Improve the roadway geometry; b. Install appropriate warning signs (including consideration of active types); c. Reduce
the posted roadway speed in advance of the crossing: i. Advisory signing as a minimum; ii. Regulatory posted limit if it can be effectively enforced; d. Close the crossing; e. Reconfigure/relocate
the crossing; f. Grade separate the crossing. 2. Inadequate Approach (Comer) Sight Distance (Assuming Adequate Clearing Sight Distance): a. Remove the sight distance obstruction; b.
Install appropriate warning signs; c. Reduce the posted roadway speed in advance of the crossing: i. Advisory signing as a minimum; ii. Regulatory posted limit if it can be effectively
enforced; d. Install a YIELD (Rl-2) sign, with advance warning sign (W3-2a) where warranted by the MUTCD (restricted visibility reduces safe approach speed to 16-24 kmfh [10-15 mph]);
e. Install a STOP (Rl-l) sign, with advance warning sign (W3-la) where warranted by the MUTCD (restricted visibility requires drivers to stop at the crossing); f. Install active devices;
g. Close the crossing; h. Reconfigure/relocate the crossing; i. Grade separate the crossing. 3. Deficient Clearing Sight Distances (For One or More Classes of Vehicles): a. Remove the
sight distance obstruction; b. Permanently restrict use of the roadway by the class of vehicle not having sufficient clearing sight distance; c. Install active devices with gates; d.
Close the crossing; e. Reconfigure/relocate the crossing; f. Grade separate the crossing; and g. Multiple railroad tracks and/or two or more highway approach lanes in the same direction
should be evaluated with regard to possible sight obstruction from other trains (moving or standing on another track or siding) or highway vehicles. 4. Stopping and corner sight distance
deficiencies may be treated immediately with warning or regulatory traffic control signs, such as a STOP sign, with appropriate advance warning signs. However, until such time as permanent
corrective measures are implemented to correct deficient clearing sight distance, interim measures should be taken which may include: a. Temporarily close the crossing; and b. Temporarily
restrict use of the roadway by the classes of vehicles. 4. ACTIVE -If active devices are selected, the following devices should be considered: TABLE 6 GUIDELINES FOR ACTIVE DEVICES Class
of Maximum Allowable Operating Speed Maximum Allowable Operating Speed Track For Freight Trains· Minimum Active Devices For PassengerTrains • Minimum Active Devices Excepted 10 mph Flashers
N/A N/A track Class 1 track 10 mph Flashers 15 mph Gates' Class 2 track 25 mph Flashers 30 mph Gates' Class 3 track 40 mph Gates 60 mph Gates •• http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/media/twgreport.htrn
l2/1312002 
Guidance on Traffic Control [\t 􀁾􀁩􀁧􀁨􀁷􀁡􀁹􀀭􀁒􀁡􀁩􀁬􀀠Gradc Crossings Page 29 of40 Class 4 track 60 mph Gates 80 mph Gates Class 5 track 80 mph Gates plus Supplemental Safety 90
mph Gates plus Supplemental Safety Devices Devices Class 6 track 110 mph Gates plus Supplemental 110 Gates plus Supplemental mph with Safety Devices Safety Devices conditions Class 7
track 125 mph Full Barrier Protection 125 Full Barrier Protection mph with conditions Class 8 track 160 mph Grade Separation 160 Grade Separation mph with conditions Class 9 track 200
mph Grade Sepa ration 200 Grade Separation mph with conditions • Refer to MUTCD 2000 Edition, Part 10, transit and LRT in medians of city streets . •• Except 35 mph (56 kmlh) for transit
and LRT. Note: 1 mph = 1.61 km/h A. Active devices with automatic gates should be considered at highway-rail grade crossings whenever an engineering study by a diagnostic team determines
one or more of the following conditions exist: 1. All crossings on the National Highway System, "U.S. "marked routes or principal arterials not otherwise grade separated; 2. If inadequate
clearing sight distance exists in one or more approach quadrants, AND it is determined ALL of the following apply: a. It is not physically or economically feasible to correct the sight
distance deficiency; b. An acceptable alternate access does not exist; and c. On a life cycle cost basis, the cost of providing acceptable alternate access or grade separation would
exceed the cost of installing active devices with gates; 3. Regularly scheduled passenger trains operate in close proximity to industrial facilities, ego stone quarries, log mills, cement
plants, steel mills, oil refineries, chemical plants and land fills; 4. In close proximity to schools, industrial plants or commercial areas where there is substantially higher than
normal usage by school buses, heavy trucks or trucks carrying dangerous or hazardous materials; 5. Based upon the number of passenger trains and/or the number and typeof trucks, a diagnostic team determines a significantly higher then normal risk exists that a train-vehicle collision could result in death of or serious injury to rail passengers; 6.
Multiple main or running tracks through the crossing; 7. The expected accident frequency (EAF) for active devices without gates, as calculated by the USDOT Accident Prediction Formula
including 5-year accident history, exceeds 0.1; 8. In close proximity to a highway intersection or other highway-rail crossings and the traffic control devices at the nearby intersection
cause traffic to queue On or across the tracks. (In such instances, if a nearby intersection has traffic signal control, it should be interconnected to provide preempted operation, and
consider traffiC signal control, if none); or 9. As otherwise recommended by an engineering study or diagnostic team. B. Active devices, with automatic gates should be considered as
an option at public highway-rail grade crossings whenever they can be economically justified based on fully allocated life cycle costs and one or more of the following conditions exist:
1. Multiple tracks exist at or in the immediate crossing vicinity where the presence of a moving or standing train on one track effectively reduces the clearing sight distance below
the minimum relative to a train approaching the crossing on an adjacent track (absent some other acceptable http://safe1y.tbwa.dot.gov/medialtwgrcport.htrn 12113/2002 
Guidance on Traffic Control at Bighway-Rail Grade Crossings Page 30 of40 means of warning drivers to be alert for the possibility of a 2nd train); [See Figure 1.] 2. An average of 20
or more trains per day; 3. Posted highway speed exceeds 64 kmlh (40mph) in urban areas, or exceeds 88 km/h (55 mph) in rural areas; 4. Annual Average Daily Traffic (MDT) exceeds 2000
in urban areas, or 500 in rural areas; 5. Multiple lanes of traffic in the same direction of travel (usually this will include cantilevered signals); 6. The crossing exposure (the product
of the number of trains per day and MDT) exceeds 5,000 in urban areas, or 4,000 in rural areas; 7. The expected accident frequency (EAF) as calculated by the USDOT Accident Prediction
formula, including 5-year accident history, exceeds 0.075; 8. An engineering study indicates that the absence of active devices would result in the highway facility performing at a level
of service below level C; 9. Any new project or installation of active devices to significantly replace or upgrade eXisting nongated active devices. For purposes of this item, replacements
or upgrades should be considered "significant" whenever the cost of the otherwise intended improvement (without gates) equals or exceeds one-half the cost of a comparable new installation,
and should exclude maintenance replacement of individual system components and/or emergency replacement of damaged units; or 1O. As otherwise recommended by an engineering study or diagnostic
team. C. Warning/Barrier Gate Systems should be considered as supplemental safety devices at: 1. CrOssings with passenger trains; 2. Crossings with high-speed trains; 3. CrOSsings in
quiet zones; or 4. As otherwise recommended by an engineering study or diagnostic team. D. Enhancements for Pedestrian Treatments 1. Design to avoid stranding pedestrians between sets
of tracks; 2. Add audible devices, based on an engineering study; 3. Consider swing gates carefully; the operation of the swing gate should be consistent with the reqUirements of Americans
with Disability Act. The gate should be checked for pedestrian safety within the limits of its operation; 4. Provide for crossing control at pedestrian crossings where a station is located
within the proximity of a crossing or within crossing approach track circuit for the highway-rail crossing; 5. Utilize a Train to Wayside Controller to reduce traffic delays in areas
of stations; and 6. Delay the activation of the gates, flashers and bells for a period of time at the highway-rail grade crossing in station areas, based on an engineering study. 5.
CLOSURE -Highway-rail grade crossings should be considered for closure and vacated across the railroad right-of-way whenever one or more of the following apply: A. An engineering study
determines a nearby crossing otherwise required to be improved or grade separated already has acceptable alternate vehicular access, and pedestrian access can continue at the subject
crossing, if existing; B. On a life cycle cost basis, the cost of implementing the recommended improvement would exceed the cost of providing an acceptable aHernate access; C. If an
engineering study determines any of the following apply: 1. FRA Class 1,2 or 3 track with daily train movements: a. MDT less than 500 in urban areas, acceptable alternate access across
the rail line exists within .4 km (1/4 mil and the median trip length normally made over the subject crossing would not increase by more than .8 km (1/2 mil; b. MDT less than 50 in rural
areas, acceptable alternate access across the rail line exists within .8 km (1/2 mil and the median trip length normally made over the subject crossing would not increase by more than
2.4 km (1-112 mil. 2. FRA Class 4 or 5 track with active rail traffic: http://safety.ihwa.dot.gov/mediaitwgreport.htm 12/1312002 
Guidance on Traffic Control at Bighway-Rail Grade Crossings Page 31 of40 a. AADT less than 1000 in urban areas, acceptable alternate access across the rail line exists within .4 km (1/4
mil and the median trip length normally made over the subject crossing would not increase by more than 1.2 km (3/4 mil; b. AADT less than 100 in rural areas, acceptable alternate access
across the rail line exists within 1.61 km (1 mil and the median trip length normally made over the subject crossing would not increase by more than 4.8 km (3 mil. 3. FRA Class 6 or
higher track with active rail traffic, AADT less than 250 in rural areas, an acceptable alternate access across the rail line exists within 2.4 km (1-112 mil and the median trip length
normally made over the subject crossing would not increase by more than 6.4 km (4 mil; and D. An engineering study determines the crossing should be closed to vehicular and pedestrian
traffic when railroad operations will occupy or block the crossing for extended periods of time on a routine basis and it is determined that it is not physically or economically feasible
to either construct a grade separation or shift the train operation to another location. Such locations would typically include: 1. Rail yards; 2. Passing tracks primarily used for holding
trains while waiting to meet or be passed by other trains; 3. Locations where train crews are routinely required to stop their trains because of cross-traffic on intersecting rail lines
or to pick up or set out blocks of cars or switch local industries en route; 4. Switching leads at the ends of classification yards; 5. Where trains are required to "double" in or out
of yards and terminals; 6. In the proximity of stations where long distance passenger trains are required to make extended stops to transfer baggage, pick up or set out equipment or
be serviced en route; and 7. Locations where trains must stop or wait for crew changes. 6. GRADE SEPARA nON A. Highway-rail grade crossings should be considered for grade separation
or otherwise otherwise eliminated across the railroad right-of-way whenever one or more of the following conditions exist: 1. The highway is a part of the designated Interstate Highway
System; 2. The highway is otherwise designed to have full controlled access; 3. The posted highway speed equals or exceeds 113 km/h (70 mph); 4. AADT exceeds 100,000 in urban areas or
50,000 in rural areas; 5. Maximum authorized train speed exceeds177 km/h (110 mph); 6. An average of 150 or more trains per day or 300 Million Gross Tons (MGT) per year; 7. An average
of 75 or more passenger trains per day in urban areas or 30 or more passenger trains per day in rural areas; 8. Crossing exposure (the product of the number of trains per day and AADT)
exceeds 1,000,000 in urban areas or 250,000 in rural areas; or 9. Passenger train crossing exposure (the product of the number of passenger trains per day and AADT) exceeds 800,000 in
urban areas or 200,000 in rural areas. 10. The expected accident frequency (EAF) for active devices with gates, as calculated by the USDOT Accident Prediction Formula including 5-year
accident history, exceeds 0.5; 11. Vehicle delay exceeds 40 vehicle hours per 􀁤􀁡􀁹􀀮􀁾􀀠B. Highway-rail grade crossings should be considered for grade separation across the railroad
right-ofway whenever the cost of grade separation can be economically justified based on fully allocated life cycle costs and one or more of the following conditions exist: 1. The highway
is a part of the designated National Highway System; 2. The highway is otherwise designed to have partial controlled access; 3. The posted highway speed exceeds 88 km/h (55 mph); 4.
AADT exceeds 50,000 in urban areas or 25,000 in rural areas; 5. Maximum authorized train speed exceeds 161 km/h (100 mph); 6. An average of 75 or more trains per day or 150 MGT per year;
7. An average of 50 or more passenger trains per day in urban areas or 12 or more passenger trains per day in rural areas; http://safety.fhwa.dot.goY/mediaitwgreport.htm 12/13/2002 
Guidance on Traffic Control at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Page 32 of40 ) 8. Crossing exposure (the product of the number of trains per day and AADT) exceeds 500,000 in urban areas
or 125,000 in rural areas; or 9. Passenger train crossing exposure (the product of the number of passenger trains per day and AADT) exceeds 400,000 in urban areas or 100,000 in rural
areas; 10. The expected accident frequency (EAF) for active devices with gates, as calculated by the USDOT Accident Prediction Formula including 5-year accident history, exceeds 0.2;
11. Vehicle delay exceeding 30 vehicle hours per day;[2Al 12. An engineering study indicates that the absence of a grade separation structure would result in the highway facility performing
at a level of service below its intended minimum design level 10% or more of the time. C. Whenever a new grade separation is constructed, whether replacing an existing highway-rail grade
crOSSing or otherwise, consideration should be given to the possibility of closing one or more adjacent grade crossings. D. Utilize Table 7 for LRT grade separation: TABLE 7 Trains Per
Hour Peak Hour Volume (vehicles per Jane) 40 900 30 1000 20 1100 10 1180 5 1200 Source: Light Rail Transit Grade Separation Guidelines. An Informational Report. Institute of Transportation
Engineers. Technical Committee 6A-42. March 1992 7. NEW CROSSINGS A. Should only be permitted to cross existing railroad tracks at-grade when it can be demonstrated: 1. For new publlc
highways or streets where there is a clear and compelling public need (other than enhancing the value or development potential of the adjoining property); 2. Grade separation cannot
be economically justified, i.e. benefit to cost ratio on a fully allocated cost basis is less than 1.0 (generally, when the crossing exposure exceeds 50,000 in urban areas or exceeds
25,000 in rural areas); and 3. There are no other viable alternatives. B. If a crossing is permitted, the following conditions should apply: 1. If it is a main track, the crossing will
be equipped with active devices with gates; 2. The plans and specifications should be subject to the approval of the highway agency having jurisdiction over the roadway (if other than
a State agency), the State DOT or other State agency vested with the authority to approve neW crossings, and the operating railroad; 3. All costs associated with the construction of
the new crossing should be borne by the party or parties requesting the new crossing. including providing financially for the ongoing maintenance of the crOSSing surface and traffic
control devices where no crossing closures are included in the project; 4. Whenever new public highway-rail crossings are permitted. they should fully comply with all applicable provisions
of this proposed recommended practice; and 5. Whenever a new highway-rail crossing is constructed, consideration should be given to closing one or more adjacent crossings. TRAFFIC CONTROL
DEVICE SELECTION PROCEDURE Step 1 -Minimum Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Criteria: (see report for full description) http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/medialtwgreport.htm 12113/2002 
Guidance on Traffic Control atl-lighway-Rail Grade Crossings Page 33 of40 A. Gather preliminary crossing data: 1. Highway: a. Geometric (number of approach lanes, alignment, median);
b. AADT; c. Speed (posted limit or operating); d. Functional classification; e. Desired level of service; f. Proximity of other intersections (note active device interconnection); and
g. Availability and proximity of alternate routes and/or crossings. 2. Railroad: a. Number of tracks (type: FRA classification, mainline, siding, spur); b. Number of trains (passenger,
freight, other); c. Maximum train speed and variability; d. Proximity of rail yards, stations and terminals; and e. Crossing signal control circuitry. 3. Traffic Control Device: a. Passive
or active; b. Advance; c. At crossing; or d. Supplemental. 4. Prior collision history B. Based on one or more of the above, determine whether any of the recornmended thresholds for closure,
installing active devices (if passive), or separation have been met based on highway or rail system operational requirements; C. Consider crossing closure or consolidation: 1. If acceptable
alternate route(s) is/are available; or 2. If an adjacent crossing is improved, can this crossing be closed? or 3. If this crossing is improved, can an adjacent crossing be closed? D.
For all crossings, evaluate stopping and clearing sight distances. If the conditions are inadequate for the existing control device, correct or compensate for the condition (see Step
3 below). E. If a passive crossing, evaluate corner sight distance. If less than the required for the posted or legal approach speed, correct or compensate for the condition (see Step
3 below). Step 2 -Evaluate Highway Traffic Flow Characteristics: A. Consider the required motorist response to the existing (or proposed) type of traffic control device. At passive crossings,
determine the degree to which traffic may need to slow or stop based on evaluation of available corner sight distances. B. Determine whether the existing (or proposed) type of traffic
control device and railroad operations will allow highway traffic to perform at an acceptable level of service for the functional classification of the highway. Step 3 -Possible Revision
to the Highway-Rail Grade Crossing: A. If there is inadequate sight distance related to the type of control device, consider measures such as: 1. Try to correct the sight distance limitation;
2. If stopping sight distance is less than "ideal" for the posted or operating vehicle approach speed and cannot be corrected, determine the safe approach speed and consider either posting
an advisory speed plate at the advance warning sign or reduce the regulatory speed limit on the approach; 3. If corner sight distance is inadequate and cannot be corrected, determine
the safe approach speed and consider posting an advisory speed plate at the advance warning sign, or reduce the regulatory speed limit on the approach, or install STOP or YIELD signs
at the crossing; 4. If clearing sight distance is inadequate, upgrade a passive or flashing-light only traffic control device to active with gates, or close (consolidate) the crossing,
or grade separate; B. If highway and/or train volumes and/or speeds will not allow the highway to perform at an acceptable level of http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/mediaitwgreport.htm 12113/2002

Guidance on Traffic Control p' Bighway-Rail Grade Crossings Page 34 of40 service, consider traffic control device upgrade to active (possibly with additional devices such as gates and
medians), or closure (consolidation) or separation; C. If crossing closure or consolidation is being considered, determine the feasibility and cost of providing of an acceptable aHernate
route and compare this to the feasibility and cost of improving the existing crossing; D. If grade separation is being considered: 1. Economic analysis should consider fully allocated
life-cycle costs; 2. Consider highway classification and level of service; 3. Consider the possibility of closing one or more adjacent grade crossings. Step 4 -Interim Measures Andlor
Documentation: A. If the above analysis indicates a change or improvement in the crossing or type of traffic control devices is indicated, determine what if any interim measures can
or should be taken until such time as recommended improvement can be implemented; B. If the above analysis indicates a change or improvement in the crossing or type of traffic control
devices is indicated, but there are other compelling reasons or circumstances for not implementing them, document the reasons and circumstances for your decision; C. If the above analysis
indicates no change or improvement in the crossing or type of traffic control devices is indicated, document the fact that the crossing was evaluated and determined to be adequate. REFERENCES
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices For Streets and Highways. Federal Highway Administration. Washington, D.C., 2000 Edition. Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook -Second Edition.
Report No. FHWA TS-86-215, Federal Highway Administration. Washington, D.C., September 1986. Highway-Railroad Grade Crossings, a Guide to Crossing Conso/idation Closure. Federal Railroad
AdministrationlFederal Highway Administration. Washington, D.C., July 1994. Highway-Rail Crossing Elimination and Consolidation, A Public Safety Initiative. National Conference of State
Railway Officials (Standing Committee of the AASHTO)/Railroad Industry Ad Hoc Committee on Crossing Elimination and Consolidation. Washington, D.C., 1994. Rail-Highway Crossing Safety
Action Plan. U.S. Department ofTransportation. Washington. D.C., 13 June 1994 Traffic Control Devices Handbook. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Washington, D.C., 2001 DRAFT -Road/Railway
Grade Crossings Technical Standard and Inspection, Testing and Maintenance Requirements. Transport Canada. 6 July 1999. A Policy on Geometric Design ofHighways and Streets. American
Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Washington, D.C., 2001 Edition Highway Gapacity Manual, Special Report No. 209. Transportation Research Board. Washington,
D.C., 1985 (Revised 1994). Integration ofLight Rail into City Straets. Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 17. Transportation Research Board. National Research Council.
Washington, D.C., 1996. Light Rail Service: Vehicular and Pedestrian Safety. Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Project A 13. Research ResuHs Digest, Number 34. Transportation
Research Board. National Research Council. Washington. D.C.• July 1999. 12/1312002http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/medialtwgreport.htm 
Guidance on Traffic Control ?>l£ghway-Rail Grade Crossings Page 35 of40 , Ught Rail Transit Grade Separation Guidelines -An Infonnational Report, Technical Committee 68-42. Institute
of Transportation Engineers, Washington, D,C" March 1992, Preemption of Traffic Signals At or Near Railroad Grade Crossings with Active Waming Devices, Institute of Transportation Engineers
RP-025A. Washington, D,C" 1997 Recommended Functional/Operating Guidelines for Interconnection Between Highway TraffIC Signals and HighwayRail Grade Crossing Warning Systems, American
Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-way Association (AREMA) Signal Manual, Part 3,1,10, Landover, MD., 2000 Recommended Instructions for Detennining Warning Time and Calculating Minimum
Approach Distance for HighwayRail Grade Crossing Warning Systems. American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-way Association (AREMA) Signal Manual, Part 3,3.10, Landover, MD" 2000
Accessible Rights-of-Way; A Design Guide. U,S, Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, Section 3,2.4.2 Gaps. Washington, D.C., November 1999. GUidelines for Use of
Stop Signs at Rail-Highway Grade Crossings. WVDOT. November 1998 Brian L Bowman, Ph.D., P.E. Compendium of Warrants, Guidelines, and Standards Pertaining to Highway-Rail Intersections
-Vols. I & II. DTFR53-99-P-00359. Highway Research Center, Department of Civil Engineering, Auburn University. August 1999 Track Safety Standards. Federal Register, 49 CFR Part 213,
Revised. Federal Railroad Administration, Washington D.C.: 17 January 1984, effective 22 June 1998, revised 1 October 1999. Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings. Federal
Register, 49 CFR Parts 222 and 229, Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM). 13 January 2000. Accessible Pedestrian Signals. Federal Register, Vol. 67, No. 32, FR 7073. Revision of Manual
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Interim Final Rule. 15 February 2002, effective 18 March 2002 Traffic Controls for Highway -Light Rail Transit Grade Crossings. Manual on Uniform
Traffic Traffic Control Devices, Part 10 Consolidating Railroad Crossings: on Track for Safety in North Carolina. Rail Division, Engineering & Safety Branch. North Carolina Department
Of Transportation. 2000 GLOSSARY Acceptable Alternate Access -For purposes of this guidance document, a roadway of at least comparable design, construction and utility as the roadway
being closed, giving appropriate consideration to the additional traffic that would be diverted over H. Active Crossing -All highway-rail grade crossings equipped with warning and/or
traffic control devices that are activated by train detection. CFR • Code of Federal Regulations Clearance Time -The difference between vehicle crossing time and train atrival time.
Diagnostic Team -A group of knowledgeable representatives of the parties of interest in a highway-rail grade crOSSing or group of crossings. Doubling Trains -When individual tracks in
rail-yards are insufficient to hold an entire inbound or outbound train, it is necessary to "double" a train. For outbound trains, where the CFR requires an initial terminal brake test
of the entire train, this requires assembling the entire train on one outbound track, usually the mainline, from several yard tracks. For Inbound trains, when yarding the entire train
on more than one yard track, this means leaving part of the http://safety.fhwa,dotgov/medialtwgreport.htm 1211312002 
Guidance on Traffic Control 1'+ l-lighway-Rail Grade Crossings Page 36 of40 r train on the main line by either pulling through, then breaking the train, or initially pushing part of
the train into a yard track, while holding the excess rail cars on a main track or lead, which are subsequently "yarded" on another track or tracks. Passive Crossing -All highway-rail
grade crossings having signs and pavement markings as traffic control devices that are not activated by trains, that identify and direct attention toward the location of a highway-rail
grade crossing, and advise motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians to take appropriate action. Separation Time -The component of maximum preemption time during which the minimum track
clearance distance is clear of vehicular traffic prior to the arrival of the train. Train to Wayside Controller -Equipment sometimes employed by light rail transit systems to verify
the identity of a light rail vehicle and perform numerous communication and signal functions. This is particularly effective on railroads with both heavy (freight) and LRT operation.
As related to a passenger station near a highway-rail grade crossing, if the light rail vehicle is approaching the station to stop, such equipment reduces gate downtime by delaying activation
of the gates at the crossing until the light rail vehicle is to depart the station rather than activating the gates as the light rail vehicle first approaches the station. (A through
train would cause the gates to activate at the normal time). Urban and Rural-"Urban and rural areas have fundamentally different characteristics with regard to density and types of land-use,
density of street highway networks, nature of travel patterns, and the way in which these elements are related. Consequently, urban and rural functional systems are classified separately.
Urban areas are considered those places within boundaries set by the responsible Stale and local officials having a population of 5,000 or more. Rural areas are those areas outside the
boundaries of urban areas ... (Source AASHTO Green Book) In addition, urban areas are generally characterized by having higher density of access to adjacent land use, lower vehicle operating
speeds and lower levels of service of traffic flow. Warning Time -The amount of time provided between activation of a active traffic control device by a train and passage of the train
to the crossing. APPENDIX PREEMPTION I INTERCONNECTION The topic of highway traffic Signal preemption and interconnection to active highway-rail grade crossings is very complex. It requires
special traffic engineering evaluation, and close coordination between highway and railroad design and operation personnel. This appendix has been included to provide some guidance information
on the subject, and provides detailed discussion on several elements. (Please refer to the main document for discussion on when to interconnect, agency coordination, accommodation of
second train situations and references.) PEDESTRIAN CLEARANCE PHASE The MUTeD provides that the pedestrian clearance phase may be "abbreviated" during the railroad preemption of the
traffic signals. Some agencies have elected to utilize the abbreviated interval, some eliminate entirely the pedestrian clearance phase during the preemption sequencing, while others
provide full clearance intervals. Abbreviating the pedestrian "don't walk" phase may expedite the intended vehicular cycle, however, it may not expedite pedestrian or driver behavior.
Drivers may yield to pedestrians and thereby prevent vehicles behind them from clearing off the tracks. To minimize this potential, full pedestrian clearance may be provided, but consequently,
additional minimum preemption warning time will be required. The preemption interconnect may consist of simultaneous preemption (traffic signals are preempted simultaneously with the
activation of the railroad control devices), or advance preemption (traffic signals are preempted prior to the activation of the railroad control devices), or possibly a special design
which could consist of two separate closed loop normally energized circuits. The first, pedestrian clearance call should occur a predetermined length of time to be defined by a traffic
engineering study and continue until the train has departed the crossing. The purpose of the first call is to safely clear the pedestrian. The second, vehicle clearance call, programmed
with a higher priority in the traffic signal controller than the first call, should occur a predetermined length of time to be determined in a traffic engineering study, but not less
than 20 seconds prior to the arrival of a train, and continue until the train departs the crossing. The purpose of the second call is to clear motor vehicle queues, which may extend
into the limits of the crossing. While one preemption interconnect http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/media/twgreport.htrn 12113/2002 
Guidance on Traffic Control ?t T;Iighway-Rail Grade Crossings Page 37 of40 I circuit can be used to initially clear-out the pedestrian traffic and then a time delay used for the second
vehicular clearance, a system with two separate circuits provides a more uniform timing if the train speed varies once preemption occurred. This is especially important if the train
accelerates after the pedestrian clearance is initiated. A timing circuit may not provide adequate warning time. If the pedestrian clearance phase is abbreviated (or eliminated), additional
signing alerting pedestrians of a shortened pedestrian cycle should be considered. TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONTROLLER RE-8ERVICE CONSIDERA nONS Traffic signal controller re-service is the ability
ofthe traffic signal controller to be able to accept and respond to a second demand for preemption immediately after a first demand for preemption has been released, even if the programmed
preemption routine/sequence is not complete. In other words, if a traffic signal controller receives an initial preempt activation and shortly thereafter it is deactivated, most traffic
signal controllers will continue to time out the preemption sequence; if a second demandfor preemption is placed during this period, the traffic signal controller must return to the track clearance green. At any point in the preemption sequence, even during the track clear
green interval, the controller must return to the start of a full track clearance green interval with a second preemption demand. Until recently, most traffic signal controllers were
unable to recognize a second preempt until the entire preemption sequence of the first activation timed out. If the second demand occurred during the initial preemption sequence, the
traffiC signal controllers continued the same sequence as if that was still the initial demand for preemption. The traffic signal controller re-service capability must be able to accept
and respond to any number of demands for preemption. The point in which preemption is released from from the railroad active control devices to the traffic signals is critical to the
proper operation of re-service. In order for the traffic signal controller to recognize a second demand, the first demand must be released, therefore the railroad active control devices
must release the preempt activation just as the crossing gates begin to rise, not when they reach a fully vertical position. Otherwise, especially at locations with short storage areas
between the crossing and the highway intersection, traffic may creep under the rising gates and with a second train, a second track clear green interval will not be provided if the gates
never reach a fully vertical position. PROGRAMMING SECURITY Security of programmed parameters is critical to the proper operation of the highway-rail preemption system. As an absolute
minimum, control equipment cabinets should be locked and secure to prevent tampering and controllers should be password protected. In addition to preventing malicious tampering of control
devices, security should be considered to prevent accidental changes in timing parameters, especially in the traffic signal controller where a programming mistake can easily be made
due to the large quantity of parameters even when just viewing the data. Some traffic signal controller manufacturers have designed systems where the critical railroad preemption parameters
can not be changed without both proper software and physically making a hardwire change the traffic signal cabinet. Without proper data changes, the traffic signals will remain in a
flashing red operation until the data is corrected. In addition, these systems prevent a different type of controller or even controller software from operating the traffic signals.
It is important to preserve the integrity of the system once it is tested and proven to operate properly. Another method of preserving the proper timing parameters is remote monitoring
of the traffic signal controller. Routine uploads of traffic signal timings can be compared to a database to check for unapproved changes in any timing parameters. SUPERVISED INTERCONNECT
CIRCUITRY The interconnection circuit between the highway traffic signal control cabinet and the railroad signal cabinet should be designed as a system. Frequently, the interconnect
cable circutt is designed so that the preemption relay can be falsely de-energized, thereby causing a preempt call. without the railroad signals being activated. The traffic signals
will then cycle through their clearance phase and remain at "stop" until the false preempt call is terminated. If a train approaches the crossing during the false preemption, the railroad
signals,will activate, but the traffic signals will not provide track clearance phases because they are still receiving the first false call. Even worse. a short between the wires in
this type of circuit will Virtually disable preemption and will only be recognizable once the railroad active control devices are activated 􀁷􀁾􀁨􀀠an approaching train. To address this
potential problem supervised preemption circuits may be used. In its simplest form, the supervised circuit is formed by having two control relays in the traffic control cabinet each
of which is energized by the railroad crossing relay. One relay, the Preemption Relay, is energized only when the railroad active control devices are off. The second relay, the Supervision
Relay, is energized only when the railroad active control devices are operating. When circuited in this manner. only one control relay is http://safety .fhwa.dot.gov!medialtwgreport.htrn
12/13/2002 
Guidance on Traffic Control ?+ Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Page 38 of 40 ! energized at a time. If both relays are simultaneously energized or de-energized, the supervision logic determines
that there is a problem and can implement action. This action may include initiating a clearance cycle and upon completion of the clearout, the traffic signals can go into an all-way
flashing red instead of stop. The all-way flashing red will allow traffic to advance off the tracks instead of being held by the red signal. An engineering study may determine that the
all-way flashing red is undesirable due to high highway traffic volumes compared to rail traffic. In all cases remote-monitoring devices that send alarm messages to the railroad and
highway authority should be installed. Law enforcement traffic control should be used until repairs can be performed. More information on supervised circuits can be found in an article,
Supervised Interconnection Circuits at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings, by Mansel, Waight, and Sharkey, ITE Journal, March 1999, Institute of Transportation Engineers available at www.ite.org
ADVANCE PREEMPTION AND USE OF TIMERS When advance preemption is used the traffic signal preemption occurs prior to the active control devices being activated. This allows preemption
to begin behind the scene and the active control time of the railroad signals is not necessarily increased. Railroads frequently use two detection times in their system. The first detection
time is designed to initiate traffic signal preemption. The second detection time is used to activate the active control devices. If the train is decelerating as it approaches the crossing,
the time difference between initiation of preemption and activation of the active control devices will increase. It is imperative that the time difference does not increase to the point
where the traffic Signal clear out cycle ends (i.e. traffic signal turns red) before the active control devices turn on. To prevent re-queuing traffic on the tracks, a "not-to-exceed
" timer should be installed to force the activation of the active control devices prior to the appropriate time in the clear out cycle. If the train accelerates toward the crossing the
second detection time will activate the active control devices prior to expiration of the timing cycle. Another issue when designing advance preemption circuitry is multiple consecutive
train movements can cause the traffic signals to remain in preemption due to a second approaching train, but the railroad active control devices deactivate after the first train just
clears the crossing. In this case, the traffic signals will not provide a second track clearance indication since the first call is still present, therefore the railroad circuitry should
be designed to prevent this from occurring. Also, when the traffic signals experience a loss of power or a malfunction which causes an all way red flash, the advance preemption time
becomes ineffective in helping clear vehicles from the crossing and effectively, vehicles will have less time to clear the crossing. An additional interconnection circuit should be utilized
between the railroad and the traffic signal controls, so that the railroad active control devices would activate at the same time as the advance preempt circuit would normally activate
the traffic signals in the event of all-way-red flash or loss of power to the traffic signals. If railroad gates are used, another method of minimizing the potential of the clearout
cycle from ending while traffic is on the tracks is to continue the clearout cycle until the gates are in the lowered position. This requires an additional circuit between the railroad
cabinet and the highway traffic control cabinet and special logic in the traffic signal control cabinet. The above mentioned techniques for the supervised circuit may be employed. STANDBY
POWER SOURCES Railroad active control devices are normally off when no train is approaching; therefore, railroads install backup power systems to provide power to the signals during
commercial power failures. This is different from traffic signals that generally are dark if the commercial power is off. When traffic signals are dark, motorists in most jurisdictions
are expected to know that traffic signals are ahead, stop their vehicle at the stop bar, and proceed through the intersection as if the dark signal was a stop sign. Since dark traffic
signals cannot display a clear out aspect to a motorist, backup power systems should be considered at interconnected locations. When considering power back up systems for traffic signals,
it should be considered on a system wide basis rather than just at individual interconnected locations since other adjacent signalized intersections may just as well also stall traffic.
The fail-safe mode of operation in the event of a traffic signal malfunction is an all way red flash, in which case power back up systems will have no effect. The use of remote monitoring
and law enforcement traffic control can be used to minimize the requirements and cost of the backup power system. mMUTCD is available at the following URL: tl.!!R:llmutcd.fhwa.dot.gov
l2]Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook -Second Edition is available at the following URL: httR:llwww.fhwa·JiQt.9pyl@rc/safety/Qubs/86215/intro"hlm http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/media/twgreport.htm
12/13/2002 
Guidance on Traffic Control?' Yighway-Rail Grade Crossings I [3] A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets is available at the following URL: 􀁴􀁝􀀡􀀡􀁊􀀺􀀱􀀺􀀯􀁬􀁷􀁷􀁷􀀮􀁩􀁴􀁥􀀮􀁯􀁲􀁧􀁬􀁢
􀁯􀁯􀁾􀀻􀀻􀁪􀁑􀁲􀁬􀀮􀀯􀁬􀁰􀀳􀀲􀁟􀀳􀁢􀀮􀁬􀀺􀀱􀀮􀁴􀁭􀁬􀀠Page 39 of40 [4] A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. American Association of State Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
2001 Edition. P. 449, available at www.ite,Qrg, or 202-289-0222 and l:1!!p:llwww.aaslJto.org ffiI Uniform Vehicle Code is available at the following URL: htlR:llmYlcdJhwa.dotgov (6J
Traffic Engineering Handbook -Fourth Edition. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Washington D.C.: 1990. available at www.lte.org, or 202-289-0222 mA Policy on Geometric Design of
Highways and Streets. American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2001 Edition. pages 4 and 5, available at 'IoiWW.ite.org, or 202-289-0222 and 􀁨􀁴􀁴􀁰􀀺􀀯􀁴􀁷􀁷􀁷􀀬􀀮􀁡
􀁡􀁳􀁨􀁴􀁯􀁾􀁯􀀮􀁲􀁧􀀠raj Highway Capacity Manual, SpeCial Report 209, 3'" Edition. Transportation Research Board. Washington, D.C.: 1994, available at www.ite.919 or 202-289-0222 or
W)f.!W.trb.org. [9J U.S. Department of Transportation; Federal Highway Administration; Federal Railroad Administratfon. 1993. Recommended Guidance for Stop and Yield Sign at Highway-rail
Grade Crossings. Washington, DC. 3 p. [Attachment 2 to a July 8, 1993 memorandum from the Associate Administrator for Safety and Systems Applications, FHWA, and the Associate Administrator
for Safety, FRA, to the FHWA Regional Administrators and the FRA Regional Directors of Railroad Safety.] llilJ Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices For Streets and Highways -2000
Edition. FHWA. Sections 2C.26 and 4K.Q1. Official website is IJttp:llmutcd.ihwa.dotgov or 202-289-0222 (11J Roadside Design Guide. American ASSOCiation of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO). Washington D.C.; 1996, htlp)l\W.iw,aashto.org, 202-624-5801 [12J Ibid. (13J A Policy on Geometric Design ofHighways and Streets. American Association of State Highway
Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2001 Edition., available at www,ile,org, or 202-289-0222 or http://wwwc9ashlo.org, 202-624-5801 [HI National Cooperative Highway Research Program NCHRP
Report 350. Recommended Procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation ofHighway Features. Transportation Research Board. National Research Council. Washington, DC: 1993, contact TRB
at wwwJrb.org. illiJ Warning Time Requirements at Railroad-Highway Grade Crossings with Active Traffic Control. Report No. FHWA SA-91-007, Federal Highway Administration. Washington,
DC: February 1991, www.!I:1I!\.a.dotgov. (16J American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) Signal Manual, Manual Part 3.1.10 is available at the following
URL: http://\IJWW.$lrema.org/pubslRJ,lbsJltm L11lTraffic Control Devices Handbook. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Washington, D.C.: 2001. Section 13.2.12, Railroad and Ught Rail
Transit Grad Crossings, W\'!W,ite..o.rg or 202-289-0222. [18J See foofnotes 20 and 21. [19J G. Rex Nichelson, Jr. & George L. Reed. Grade Separations -When Do We Separate. 1999 Highway-rail
Grade Crossing Conference. Texas Transportation Institute. College Station Texas. 17-19 October 1999. www.ttl.edJJ.or www.tam!l.edu. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/media/twgreport.htm 12/13/2002

Guidance on Traffic Control p'l;Iighway-Rail Grade Crossings Page 40 of40 [20] Highway-Railroad Grade Crossings. a Guide 10 Crossing Consolidation and Closure. Federal Railroad Administration/Federal
Highway Administration. July 1994. WW'N.fhwa.do\.gQY orwwwJO;'.•.<:lolgov. 0.J Highway-Rail Crossing Elimination and Consolidation. A Public Safely Initiative. National Conference of
State Railway Officials. March 1995, www.fhwa.dot.gov or www.fra.dot.gov. l<ZI Consolidating Railroad Crossings: on Track for Safely in North Carolina. Rail Division, Engineering 8.
Safety Branch. North Carolina Department OfTransportation. 2000. North Carolina DOT. available at: http://WW.!/.dQI..§!ate.nc.us/. 123J San Gabriel Valley Grade Crossings Study, Final
Report. Prepared for San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments. Korve Engineering. January 1997, 􀁝􀀻􀀾􀁑􀁧􀁣􀀡􀁥􀁮􀁀􀁫􀁯􀁮􀁴􀁥􀁾􀁣􀁯􀀮􀀡􀁬􀀱􀁪􀀱􀀠[24J Ibid. sack to tOR ,his page last
modified on December 12, 2002 E.!.iWA Safety Home I FHWA Home I FHWA Safety Feedba.<:* OFHWA United States Department of Transportation -Federal Highway Administration http://safcty.fhwa.dot.gov/medi
a/twgreport.htrn 12113/2002 
Jim Pierce From: Jerry Holder [JHolder@HNTB.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 16,200112:03 PM To: Steve Z. Chutchian (E-mail); Jim Pierce (E-mail); Mike E. Murphy (E-mail) Subject: ITE -Quiet
Zones at Railroad Crossings FYI ... I thought you might be interested in the ITE meeting being held in Ft. Worth this Thursday. I know that the Town of Addison is wanting to put some
of these in on future projects and I thought you might like to know about this meeting. I am going to attend for two reasons. First, to hear the presentation, and second, Joe T. Garcia's
is my favorite restaurant. to see you there. Hope 􀁻􀀩􀁾􀁾􀀯􀁖􀁾􀁾􀀠Jerry Holder 􀁾􀀴􀁾􀁾􀀮􀁳􀁴􀁌􀁾􀀧􀀠. 􀂻􀂻􀂻􀂻􀂻􀂻􀂻􀂻􀂻􀂻􀂻􀂻􀂻􀂻􀂻􀂻􀂻􀂻􀂻􀂻􀂻􀂻􀂻􀂻􀂻􀂻􀂻􀂻􀂻􀂻􀂻􀂻􀂻􀂻􀀾􀁾􀁾􀀠>
r-t-􀁗􀁾􀀠􀁧􀀱􀀨􀁾􀀿􀀧􀁬􀁏􀁢􀀠We would like to remind you of this upcoming event. H>'I1-'(!.e#7 Monthly Meeting Date: Thursday, October 18, 2001 􀁤􀁾Time: 12:00PM -1:00PM CDT (GMT-05:00)
Place: Joe T. Garcia's Mexican Restaurant, 817-626-4356 2201 N. Commerce St. 􀁾􀁾I-Jrt1f)􀁾􀁾􀀠Ft. Worth 􀁾􀁾􀁊􀁦􀁾􀀠r,-At(4[$10 Cash/Check to TexITE] Please RSVP: to E. Pilgrim by NOON
Wednesday before the meeting: PHONE: S17-277-5503 E-MAIL: e-pilgrim@ttimail.tamu.edu FAX: S17-461-1239 Program: Russ Wiles, City of Fort Worth "Quiet Zones at Railroad Crossings" "A
presentation on techniques known as Quiet Zones used to supplement train horns at railroad grade crossings. Includes what Quiet Zone devices are, federal guideline status, and local
experience. 1f This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are NOT
the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination,
forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is 
􀁾􀁃􀀨􀁶􀁾􀀠􀁪􀀯􀀻􀁾/lCX/4; tn--cdc c,,-o¢-</r ;/J; A , 􀀮􀁾􀀮􀀠,;j )JLa.4'L-"C""f.12/j􀀱􀁾􀀬􀀱􀁖􀀼􀀭􀀨􀀠Cl'"􀁉􀁾-f-;7-􀁁􀁾􀁌􀁪􀀭c?/Lj-L 􀁆􀁉􀀩􀁶􀀧􀁾􀀨􀀯􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁃􀁊􀁾􀁾􀀠
May 14, 2001 MEMORANDUM To: Ron Whitehead, City Manager From: Jim Pierce, P.E., Assistant Public Works Director Subject: Railroad Noise Issues As a result of our investigations, we have
found two ways that can be used to eliminate or lessen the noise problem that results from trains blowing their hom at the railroad crossings as they pass through Addison. One way is
to establish quiet zones at each crossing. A quiet zone is established by using a combination of crossing gates, and, medians or barriers that prevent a vehicle from crossing the tracks
when the gates come down. With this type of system the train engineer drives the train through the crossing without blowing his hom. This concept has been proposed in Federal Regulations
but has not yet been approved. The other way is to use the "Wayside Hom" system. In this system, horns are placed at the railroad crossings that direct sound blasts directly at the oncoming
street traffic at the same time the warning lights are flashing, and the crossing gates are coming down. The wayside hom sounds like a train hom so the motorist identifies the sound
with an oncoming train. When the train engineer approaches a wayside hom crossing, he receives a signal that the system is working and does not have to sound his hom. If he does not
receive a "working" signal, he blows his hom as he passes through the crossing. The wayside hom system reduces the area affected by an 80dba sound level by 97%. Railroad Controls Limited
(RCL), Fort Worth, is a company that constructs railroad crossing warning signals and gates and has also developed the wayside hom system. RCL has looked at all of the railroad crossings
in Town to determine which type of equipment would be required to create a quiet zone at the crossings. Their findings follow: Crossing 4 Quadrant Gates Wayside Horns Estimated Cost
Tollway (SB) Qualifies Recommended Supplement $35,000 (Horns) Tollway (NB) Qualifies Recommended Supplement $35,000 (Horns) Quorum Drive Qualifies Recommended Supplement $35,000 (Horns)
Addison Addison Road Gates +Detection $380,000 Addison Road Horns + Circuitry $95,000 
Midway Road Qualifies Recommended Supplement $55,000 (Horns) Surveyor Blvd. Gates $280,000 Surveyor Blvd. Horns + Circuitry $55,000 Marsh Lane Qualifies Recommended Supplement $35,000
(Horns) Spectrum(proposed) Gates $280,000 Spectrum(proposed) Horns + Circuitry $185,000 To summarize, all crossings except Addison Road, Surveyor, and future Spectrum Road would qualifY
as a quiet zone in their present state. To construct Addison, Surveyor and Spectrum as quiet zones would cost approximately $940,000. As an alternative, to install the wayside horn system
at all the crossings, including future Spectrum, would cost approximately $530,000. The wayside horn option while being less expensive, would also provide a present a unifonn system
ofsignals to the train engineer as he passes through Addison. 
j D CONTINUED ON W2 4 D K -""" :;? ::' 􀁾􀀠C Mflp$CO, lno:::. 􀁾􀀠1 i5 @.: 􀁾􀀠8 CONTINUED ON WI 2.t Ii BOOK PAGE 1023 DETAIL MAP SECTION STARTS ON tNDEX PAGE 170 CCPr8,lGHT 1958, 1998
by MAPSCO, INC, • ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 
􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠z 0 51 ::> z !i 0 V Town CONTINUED ON MAP 656 S􀁏􀁍􀁡􀁰􀁴􀁥􀁏􀀮􀁬􀁾􀀠CONTINUED ON MAP 15 1 1 i SCALE IN FEET 1000 2000 3000 BOOK PAG! 1007 z 0 0 '"z !i 0 V I DETAIl. MAP SECTION
STARTS ON INDEX pAGE 170 􀁛􀀽􀀽􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀢􀁾􀁈􀁔􀀠1958, 1998 by MAPSCO, INC. -ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 
,I E""':iI CONTINUED ON M,AP13 􀁾􀀠-..􀀧􀀢􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠[ . DETAIL 􀁾SECTION STAATS ON 􀁉􀁾􀁏􀁾PAGE 170 1 􀁾􀀬􀁾__􀁾􀁾􀁟􀀠.__􀁾􀁟􀁾􀁾􀁟􀁾􀁟􀀠􀁾􀁟􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁬􀀠:Ii .'I (,IIt E 
•CONTINUED ON MAP 14 DETAfLMAP SECflON STAATS ON INDEX pAGE 170 COPYRIGHT 1958, 1998 by MAPSCO, INC.• ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ----.... BOOK PAGE 1006 􀀭􀁾􀀭􀀭...---
CONTINUED ON MAP 656 ...L ___C=ONTINUfD ON WJ> 651 g CONTINUEO ON MAP 15 􀁾􀁋􀁐􀁁􀁇􀂣􀀱􀀰􀁾􀁋􀁐􀁁􀁇􀁅􀀱􀀰􀀰􀁡􀀠THIS PAGE AlSO APPEARS IN THE MAPSCO COWN· PAGE ALSO APPEARS IN THE MAPSCO
COLLINCOPYRIGHT 1958,2001 by MAPSCO, INC. -ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDCOPYRIGHT 1958, 2001 by MArSCO, INC. 􀁾􀀠AU. RIGHTS RfS£RVECYSON STRfET GUIDE AS PAGE COWN 128.GRAYSON mEET GUIDE AS PAGE
COWN 121. 
.;-+ EDITORIAL: Public-private effort still makes adifferencel14A .+-------EAuMONT THURSDAY: AUGUST 3,2000 ,: . .''." VOL.CX1Xi NO.272 hIlP:lIwww.SOutheastTeXaeUve.com ...---.-----::----------:--....
􀁔􀁈􀁾􀀠ADIJOCPJE fOR SOUTHEAST TExAs SINCE 1880 •• -.---------:-----------:------t.50 􀁃􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁳􀁾􀀠WEATHER Today: Par1Iy cloudy. Scattered 􀁳􀁉􀁭􀁗􀁂􀁾􀀠High:9OS.1.Ilw: 70s, . WoolIier"pdat'.,
pag. 2A ' PRISE City wants quieter trains' ,50s Qrdinance banning train whistles atnight will be ' enforced starting Monday By JEORGE ZARAZUA THE ENTERPRISE BEAUM:ONT -CitY officials,
responding to resident complaints, will begin to penalize trains for blowing .their whistles at night under a little-used ordinance that has been on the books 'since 1958. City Manager
Stephen Bonczek has notified the three railroad companies op·erating in the city that, beginning on Monday, police officers will· begin ticketing trains that sound their horns between
9 p.m. and 6 a,m. ' The three train companies affected are Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway, Kansas City Southern Railway and Union Pacific Railroad Company. At least one railroad
company is con·cerned that the crackdown could increase the number of accidents at railroad crossings. . Bonczek said trains would only be allowed to use their horns during the reStricted
time period if there is imJn:inent danger of an accident. "If there is an intersection where there are no vehicles, then you let the gates do their job," he said. The city manager also
said trains blocking an intersection for mOre than 30 minutes will be ticketed under another 1958 ordinance. ViolatoIS of either of the two ordinances can be charged with a Class C misdemeanor,
punishable by up to a $500 fine, said City Attorney Lane Nichols. The new enforcement effort was prompted by numerous complaints about the excessive noise that train hQrns make, Bonczek
told the trainmasters in a letter dated July 28, TRAINS. page SA ( j. I ! FRO.M PAGE ONE TRAINS: Ban is from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. Continued from page 1 A "While the city recognizes the importance
of ,adequate warning 􀁳􀁹􀁳􀁴􀁾to 􀁡􀁬􀁾􀁲􀁴􀀠drlyers of an impending tram arnval, there needs to be sensitivity to the llegative consoo..uences of noise particularly m the 􀁬􀁡􀁾􀁥􀀠evening
hours:' Bonczek says m his letter. Pat Hyatt, a spokesman for Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway, said his 􀁾􀁾􀁭􀁰􀁡􀁮􀁹􀀠regretted the city's deCISion and was unsure if the railway
would change its operations in Beaumont. . . "We are generally opposed to so-called whistle bans for safety reasOns:'Hyatt said. , He cited studies by the U.S. Department of 􀁔􀁲􀁡􀁮􀁳􀁰􀁾􀁡􀁾􀁩􀁯􀁮�
�􀁳􀀠Federal Railroad Administrathe risk is)" he said. 41 V{e'r.e ask'ing them to use their judgement, not to compromise safety standards." The Federal Railroad Administration hali been
􀁳􀁴􀁵􀁤􀁾􀁧􀀠safety at' railroad crossings m . an effort to create unfversal guideJ.i:r;es regnlating:tram horn, noise. Texas 'does require trains.to sound their horns v:hile approaching
railroad 􀁾􀀬􀀢􀀡􀀬􀁳􀁳􀁭􀁾􀀬􀀠but state law anows cities Wlth populations of more than 5,000 to establish their own regnlations regarding train horn noise. Once the Federal Railroad
Administration finalizes tJ.le universal rules, they will supercede any state or local ordinances, according to attorneys for the federal agency. . tion showing it 62 percent. Officials
have been working increase in accidents at inter-'on those rules 􀁾􀁩􀁮􀁣􀁥􀀠+994; pub. sectiol}li ,where whistle bans lie.hearings "on th\l proposed were in place. rules were concluded
earliel Officials at the other" two this year. No release date for thE railroad companies couldn t be final rules has been scheduled. reached for comment.· . But Bonczek said, the Since
1938" train engmeer> enforcement of the ordinance have adopted a standard 0: Isn't intended to lower safety squhding their horns two lon, standards for railroad cross-bl!lSts, then one
short an? OnE long as they approach railroa( ings. ' . crossings. ."The engineers know where i 
-------40 st19'31'52"l: -203.44' FND oX" CUT IN CONe.N89'31'52"W -2OJ.38' 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀺􀀽􀁾􀁾􀁚􀀱􀂷􀁺􀁲N89'1S'26"W -"582;;;;-.':;77';:---'"---1---,,--..._--KELLER SPRINGS ROAD Qt-! LEGEND
t& FIP FOUNO IRON PIPe ! !> e FIR FOUND IRON ROO o SET 1/2 INCH IRON ROO 17311 DAl.l.AS PKWY.. SUllE 200"'»I Pf..AST1C CAP 􀁄􀁁􀁾􀀠TEXAS 75248 STAMPED DTE PHONE: (972)250-27276L-__________􀁾_________
_________________________FAX: (972) 250-4774 ,. '""._-1__.., FlP //RlCHIIONT PROPER"£$, LID. I'iiL 94155. PC. :1422 D.R.D.C.1. 0.820 AC. PARC£L 1 I 2,512 S.F. (0.0577 AC) I PERPHUAL
EASEMENT OF INGRGSS( EGRGSS \rtX. .5340, PC. 571 D.R.D.e. 1. PARCEL 2 1,358 S,F. (0.0312 AC) " 40 r-----,o PIIRC£L 1 Scale 1" = 40 ft GROSS 16.7752 AC LESS 0.0312 AC NET 16.7440 Ae l,£!ARC£L
2 UNITEf) FlOEUTY DFFICf: PARK \rtX. 80T 40, PG. 1720 III.R.D. e. 1. UNE DATA UNE NO. L1 L2 L3 BEARING NO'29'14"W S()'10'''''"E NO'lO'44"W DlST. 12.35' 12.35' . 12.35' i EXHIBIT A PARCEL
2 PLAT KELLER SPRINGS AT 􀁾􀁾􀁾________________________ OAT!: SEP. 7. 1998 JOe NO. 9822 QUORUM DRIVE i 
7-/7-(J(;:J 􀀡􀁦􀁴􀂫􀁌􀁦􀁾􀀭􀀼􀀭􀀬􀁥􀁾􀁴􀁍􀀭􀀯􀁳􀀠Q 􀁾􀀠􀁲􀁾􀀮􀀭􀁾􀁬􀀮􀁻􀁊􀀩􀁌􀁾6J:e., 􀁾􀁾􀁐􀀧􀀮F<.tl'{ 􀀮􀁴􀁬􀁯􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀺􀀭IVo 􀁯􀀯􀁨􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠􀁉􀁾􀀠lJ,jtJurJ I( fix pes r11.tAum.s vrv:t
lu..-􀁾tts I(􀁊􀀭􀀮􀀮􀀮􀀮􀁨􀁉􀀱􀁴􀁬􀁬􀁾􀀠t/􀁤􀀭􀁴􀁶􀁛􀁾􀀠Va-􀁾􀁾Iv-t.rI 􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀷􀁾􀁾􀁦􀁉􀁾􀁺􀀭􀀻􀀮􀁾􀁫􀁾􀁴􀀮􀁶􀁤􀀯􀁾􀀠,.", . "1 I(vto{ 􀁬􀀢􀀵􀁌􀁥􀀮􀁾􀀠'.' I X 'l-ou k -::-9f,
i) 􀀼􀀭􀀡􀀭􀁾􀁏I e em 
· C -eGCIA..-7-17-&0 -􀁦􀁾6Je " 􀁦􀁾WvvIs J..izI (J/fl-Ue -t..osis 0!dt/.. 􀀡􀀢􀁵􀀯􀁾􀀮􀀬􀁻C/I'V/.oIs􀁾􀀠c.,Orry 􀁾􀀸􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁩􀁗􀀢􀁌􀀠." OJZ0 Ik -rP 􀁮􀀡􀀯􀁲􀀯􀁾;. , 􀁾... 􀀻􀀨􀁻􀁾􀁾;t::
􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀠, " 􀁬􀀭􀁾􀁴􀁬􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀭􀀰􀁾􀀶􀀰􀀠'Dou-J ).t-enr:y DIY', P+---􀁾􀀠... ," 
Jim Pierce From: Chris Terry Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 9:08 AM To: Michael Murphy Cc: Jim Pierce Subject: FW: Call from Ron Whitehead FYI-Chris ····-Ori9inal Message----From: Lea
Dunn Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 8:09 AM To: Chris Terry Subject: FW: Call from Ron Whitehead Chris, FYI -I 􀁤􀁯􀁮􀁾􀀠know if you were copied on this, but thought you should be kept
in the loop. Lea -----Ooginol Message----From: Don Franklin Sent: Wednesday, June 07,20009:16 AM To: Ron Whitehead Cc: Lea Dunn Subject: FW: call from Ron Whitehead Ron: In reference
to your inquiry, we issued two (2) citations to DGN&O Railroad Company, both of which occurred on June 3rd. 1 st: 0037 hours 15200 Surveyor, Obstructing RR Crossing; 13 minutes 2nd:
1625 hours 15200 Addison Road, Obstructing RR CrOssing; 12 minutes Texas law permits obstructing a crossing for up to 5 minutes. Also, the law recently changed requiring that we now
cite the company not the Conductor. Both violations were observed by officers who were also timekeepers. The The Conductor operating the train at the Surveyor site was very uncooperative
and belligerent with officers almost to the point of being arrested. We have had few problems with the RR since our earlier discussions with them. Don -----OrI9iool Message-From: Amy
Ferguson Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 4:45 PM To: Don Franklin Subject: call from Ron Whiteheed Ron called at 4:40 pm today. Said he had received a call from the railroad about some
tickets being written for blocking the roadways. He wanted some background on this if it was happening in Addison. Said you could get back to him tomorrow ... not something you had to
handle tonight. Amy Ferguson Addison Police Department 972/450-7117 1 
-i
4-p\"I \ l2. I 200Q NOt n1 C. o I'{) 0 ",r ,,,-1,0-'> 􀁾􀀠h Q Nc.. /. /JJ /A t1n',f"J C-#f'1'It!;,. JjY L'cS&v fl,lrrIIV1c:.... .1D'vL\. 􀁜􀁾􀁵􀀮􀀡􀀧􀁦􀀧􀁴􀀧􀀼􀀺􀀠It '-; J I Vi{ -rtenL
Mlll:f: 􀁍􀁖􀁾􀁈􀀭􀁌􀀠N CJ InA BuLlS:> /. J::) A-I Ii> £'1bJt..rv\i"-.>..:)",j 0ftrJ 2>e:mrJEJt Ko,..j w h \.{. -e l -ec.c\ MARC GuY C#£'iXA-rt?,v !he(lCf.,iTtn! 1£11111$. /1 T/)"t/YLr(
/lJoil 􀁳􀁾􀀠 (owN Cf 􀁫􀀱􀀩􀁾􀀠2)T9-:e::-T J::::,6h.JO 􀁾􀁜􀁾􀁊􀀻􀀻􀀬􀀠􀁾􀀠f.\dd\ 􀁳􀁾N cARRoLLTDW 91:<. 2<.j;(-S 3/􀁾􀀠172 . Yt{;. 50rc. II q72-tfrlo -;)2 -.:: ((72..-450-22-: ;2.ltj
􀀭􀀷􀁾􀀧􀀱􀀢272.,g7,;z .. '1 p 7 -2-! r( d.J4 . 7J'q· ';;;'91-; q 17 '-\5D -70::' Q72" 41010-3C:: 
4 Use ofLocomotive Hom Meeting April 12, 2000 1. Discuss the proposed FRA rule on locomotive hom. 2. Discuss the concept ofquiet zone 3. Discuss grade crossing at Marsh Lane about 350
feet north ofRealty. What improvements can be made at this location to ensure motorists safety in the event ofa whistle ban? Will DONE RR be willing to assist City in establishing a
quiet zone at this location? Will Addison be willing to pass any necessary ordinances to create a quiet zone? Will DART be willing to cooperate with City on this matter? Other issues
related to this crossing? Since rule has not been passed, need FRA approval. More than likely, will have to follow all ofthe notification requirements listed in the proposed rule. Will
need to identify funding for proposed improvements. 
DATE: April 10, 2000 TO: Marc Guy, Assistant City Manager FROM: Cesar J. Molina, Jr., Director ofTransportation . SUBJECT: Proposed Rule on Locomotive Horn Use BACKGROUND: On January
13,2000, the U.S. Department ofTransportation's Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) published proposed rules in the Federal Register on the use oflocomotive horns at public highway-rail
grade crossings. This action was prompted by the aftermath ofthe State of Florida's whistle ban. Effective July 1, 1984, the Florida legislature authorized local . goveJ:lll!lents to
ban the nighttime use ofwhistles by interstate trains approaching highway-rail grade crossings equipped with flashing lights, bells, crossing gates, and highway signs thai warn . motorists
that train whistles would not be sounded at night. In August 1990, the FRA initiated a study on the effect ofthe Florida whistle ban law. FRA's study concluded that there were 195 percent
more collisions after the whistle ban went Into effect. A study ofthe daytime collision rates found that they remained virtually unchanged. FRA then compared collision data from two
railroads operating on the same rail line. The study determined that Florida East Coast Railway Company (FEC) which is considered an "interstate" carrier and subject to the whistle ban
law, had a nighttime collision rate increase of 195 percent. In contrast, CSX Transportation Company, a local carrier and not subject to the whistle ban, had . a nighttime collision
rate increase of67 percent. On July 26, 1991, FRA issued an emergency . order ending the Florida whistle ban. Inthe two years after the emergency order was issueC!i rughttime 􀁣􀁾􀁬􀁬􀁩􀁳􀁩􀁯􀁮􀀠rate
S returned 􀁢􀁾􀁫to the pre-ban leveis. In the two years prior to the end ofthe ban (1989 to 1991), there were 51 nighttime collisions. In the two years after the ban ended (1991 to
1993), there were only 16 nighttime collisions. As a result ofthe Florida study, Congress passed the Swift Rail Development Act on November 2, 1994. This Act requires the use oflocomotive
horns at grade crossings, but gives FRA the authority to make reasonable exceptions. Any regulations adopted as a result ofthis act are not effective until one year after the date ofthe
publication ofthe final rule. This proposed rule is the FRA's first attempt to codify the requirements in the Swift Rail Development Act. TRANSPORTATION • 1945 E. Jackson Road' P.O.
Box 11(1535 • Carrollton, Texas 75011-0535 • 972/466-3050 • Fax: 972/466-3193 
Marc Guy Page 2 April 10, 2000 SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS Section 229.129 Audible Warning Device FRA currently bas a rule that requires each lea4locomotive to have an aud!.ole warning
device. The wainingdevicemust produce a minimum sound level of 96 decibels, dB(A) at. 1 00 feet forward of the locomotive in its direction oftravel. However, the existing rule does not
set a maximum limit on the sound produced by the locomotive hom. Some co=uter carriers have set the maximum sound level oftheir homs to the minimum set by FRA. In contrasts, many freight
locomotives have homs that deliver as much as 114 dB(A) at 100 feet in front ofthe locomotive. It is important to note that decibels are measured in a logarithmic scale. Therefore, 114
dB which is 18 dB higher than the FRA minimum is not 19 percent louder than the 96 dB level but actually 63 times louder or 6,209 percent louder. The proposed rule describes three possible
options for the sound level of locomotive homs. The first option is to set the maximum permissible train hom sound level at 104 dB(A). This is believed to be sufficient in most circumstances
where a vehicle is at a crossing with automated warning devices. The second option is to set the maximum permissible train hom level at III dB(A). Based on the results from the Volpe
National Transportation Systems Center, homs producing sounds at this level should be adequate for passive crossings (i.e., crossings with no automated warning devices). The third option
is a variable sound level setting. Under this " option, the locomotive engineers would set the hom at a low setting (maximum of 104 dB(A» for crossing with active warning devices and
at a high setting (maximum of III dB(A» for crossing that have passive wamiUg devices. However,the FRA is concerned that this option would put too much burden on the locomotive engineers.
An additional concern is the directionality ofthe train hom. Current practice is to place the hom near the center ofthe locomotive. This was to reduce the noise level for the train crews.
However, the FRA does not believe that this is necessary for the prutection ofthe train crews. Furthermore, placing the hom in the center of the train leads to higher sound levels at
right angles from the locomotive. The FRA is requesting co=ents on both the proposed sound level and the directionality ofthe homs. Section 222.3 Application . The Proposed rule will
apply toeverirailroad with public highway-rail grade crossings Oil its line ofrailroad, except:.. ' .. (a) A railroad that exclusively operates freight trains exclusively on track not
part ofthe general railroad system oftransportation; and (b) Rapid transit operations within an urban area that are not connected to the general railroad system oftransportation. Section
222.5 Preemptive Effect All existing local ordinances and state statutes related to whistle bans at public crossings will be preempted by this regulation unless such ordinances or laws
fall within the 49 United States 
Marc Guy Page 3 AplillO, 2000 Codes (USC) Section 20106. Moreover, this rule does not confer authority on localities to establish quiet zones ifstate law does not otherwise permit such
actions. Section 222.21 When to Use Locomotive Homs . this section requires, except as Wlvided elsewhere in this rule, that it locomotive mnstsound its hom when it approaches and passes
a public highway-rail crossing. Additionally, ifusing whistle boards, the railroad must place them at a distance from the crossing equal to the distance traveled bY the train in 20 seconds
while operating at the maximum speed ofthe track. However, research suggested that the maximum distance from a crossing should be 􀁾mile regardless of the track speed. Additionally,
recent research indicates that 15 seconds ofadvanced warning may be sufficient FRA is requesting comments on this section. Section 222.23 Emergency and Other Uses ofLocomotive Homs The
establishment ofa quiet zone does not prevent an engineer from sounding the hom in such situations, nor does it impose a legal duty to do so. The regulations in this rule are not meant
to restrict the use ofthe locomotive hom when active crossings warning devices have malfunctioned. Section 222.31 Train Operations Which Do Not Require Sounding ofHoms at Individual
Crossings. tocomotivehorns need not be sounded at individuai highway-rail grade crossings at which the maximum authorized operating speed (as established be the railroad) for that segment
oftrack is 15 miles per hour or less and properly equipped flaggers providing warning to motorists. Section 222.33 Establishment ofQuiet Zones The concept ofquiet zones was established
to ensure that a whistle ban would have the greatest impact in terms ofnoise reduction; ease the added burden on locomotive crews ofthe necessity ofdetermining on a crossing-by-crossing
basis whether or not to sound the horns; and enable grade crossing safety initiatives to be focused on specific areas within the quiet zone. The FRA is proposing two different methods
of establishing quiet zones, depending on local .. circumstances. In the first method, every public grade crossing within the proposed quiet zone would have a supplernentarysat'ety measur"
applied to the crossing;. The supplementary safety measures are listed in Appendix A ofthis rule. On the second method, every public grade crossing within the proposed quiet zone would
have either supplementary safety measures or alternative safety measures. The alternative safety measures are listed in Appendix B. The second method gives the local governmental entities
considerably more flexibility than the first method. Under this proposed rule, either the state or a local jurisdiction can establish a quiet zone. The FRA is considering three separate
approaches. The first approach is for all designations and applications to come from the state agency. A second approach allows the political subdivision with direct responsibility over
traffic safety at a crossing to establish quiet zones. The third 
MllrcGuy Page 4 April 10, 2000 approach is for political subdivision in which the proposed quiet zone is located to be the applicant. To explain the difference between approaches two
and three, consider the KCS grade crossing at Preston Road (SH 289) about 1000 feet south ofPlano Parkway in Plano. Under approach two, TxDOT would be responsible for establishing a
quiet zone but under approach . three, Plano would have to request the quiet zone. FRA is requesting comments on this section • with regards to the methods forestablishirig quiet zones
and the political entity that can apply for a quiet zone. The length ofthe quiet zone is set at a minimum ofY.i mile or 2,640 feet. The community that establishes the quiet zone has
the discretion to establish its length subjeCt to the Y.i mile minimum. The basis for establishing a minimum length is to not have zones so short that they put an undue burden on the
locomotive engineers. . Each highway approaching a quiet zone grade crossing must have advanced warning signs. The signs are to be designed by each state but they must be in conformance
with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Also, private crossings are not subject to this requirement but FRA is seeking comments on this issue as well. Section 222.35
Notice and Information Requirements This section requires the requesting agency to provide written notice .of the quiet zone designation to all railroads operating over public highway-rail
grade crossings within the quiet zone, the highway or traffic control authority and law enforcement authority having jurisdiction at the affected grade crossings, the state agency responsible
for highway and road safety, and the FRA Associate Administrator for Safety. All ofthe notices must be sent by certified mail with retorn receipt requested. Additionally, the FRA is
requesting certain minimum information as specified in this section. Section 222.37 Quiet Zone Implementation Before a quiet zone can be implemented, all ofthe notification requirements
of Section 222.35 must be met and at least 14 days have elapsed since the other parties received the required notification. Section 222.3f) Quiet Zone Duration . A quiet zone may remain
in effect'indefinitely provided that it remains in compliance with all of the applicable rules. Furthermore, within 6 months ofthe five-year anniversary ofthe original application, the
designated political entity sends a certified letter to all ofthe original parties stating that it is still in compliance with requirements ofSection 222.35. This process is repeated
every five years. Ifthe zone that is established uses primarily alternative safety devices as described in Appendix B, the reaffirmation period is reduced to 3 years, everything else
remains the same. Additionally, the FRA may at any time evaluate the safety record of any quiet zone. If the FRA determines that the safety devices implemented in the quiet zone are
insufficient, they can request that the locally responsible agency take additional measures to improve the safety safety of 
Mare Guy PageS ApriJ 10,2000 the zone. Ifnecessaxy, the FRA can eUrninate a quiet zone. The FRA is soliciting comments on this section. Section 222..41 Supplementary andAlternative Sqfoty
Measures . Appendix A ofthe proposed regulation contains a list ofapproved supplementaxy safety measures. These are devices that the FRA has determined to be an effective substitute
for the locomotive horns in the prevention ofhighway-rail crashes. Appendix B list additional alternative safety measures that may be included in a request for FRA acceptance ofa quiet
zone. Appendix C lists certain situations where the establishment ofa quiet zone would not pose a significant risk. Additionally, this section includes how new devices are added to Appendix
A and B. Also, this section clearly states that the use oftraditional highway-rail grade crossing measures do not constitute supplementaxy safety measures for the establishment ofquiet
zones. . AppendixA Supplementary Safety Measures A quiet zone establish using devices from Appendix A do not require specific FRA approval. These devices fully compensate for the lack
ofa locomotive hom. 1. Temporaxy Closure ofa Public Highway-Rail Grade CrosSing . 2. Four':Quadrant Gate System 3. Gates with Medians or Channelization Devices 4. One Way Streets with
Gates 5. Photo Enforcement" " Currently this option is not available in Texas. Appendix B Alternative Safety Measures Quiet zones may be established using alternative safety measures.
Based on the requirements of Section 222.33(b), a local municipality or state can apply for a quiet zone to the FRA. This . section lists all ofthe additional requirements and information
that needs to be sent to the FRA . before they make a determination on the request. Currently; two liltemative safety measures are listed. They are 1. Programmed Enforcement 2. Public
Education and Awareness Additionally, the FRA has heard testimony on the use ofWayside Horns as an alternative safety measure. They are considering adding this device to the list ofalternative
safety measures in the final version ofthis rule. 
Railway"erossU;.g horns may be 􀁭􀁕􀁓􀁬􀁾􀀠 to,􀁾􀁯􀁦􀀬􀁧􀁯􀁬􀁦􀁥􀁲􀁳􀀬􀀠Qthersin Richardson By 􀁔􀁯􀁮􀁾􀀧􀁈􀁾􀁬􀀺􀀧􀀢-: " ',,' the shortest route between lI:ansas CitY 􀁾􀀭􀁏􀀯􀁮􀀢􀁄􀀮􀁉􀁉􀁉􀁳􀁉􀁬􀁯
􀁬􀀱􀁬􀁬􀁊􀁊􀀦􀁟􀀠and the Gulf of Mex1co. RICHARDSON .L The par 3,' 171.yard Sometime next month, the citY will In· 14th hole at c8nyon Creek Country Club stall what are called 􀁷􀁾􀁥horns
at the hasatonghhezard,courtesyofthell:ansas CUster Parkway 􀁾􀁣􀁲􀁏􀁏􀁩􀁩􀁩􀁧􀀮􀀠The' Cit)' Southern' RaUwlI)'. , street·facl.ng, car·level hOrDS will sense ''It can be disturbing to
some of our when trains are comlI!g, eliminating the golfers when they're on their backswingneed for engineers to sound their whistles III1d that tra1ri hom blows,» said Canyon 'adjacent
to the No. 14 tee box. ' Creek offlce manager Ronnie Morris, "It ''It's a quaUty-of·II1'e lssne," said RIch· would be nice If at some time In the fu. ardson traffic engineer􀁾􀁲􀀠lUre,
we didn't have to hear It during our "It could be an over:sll benefit big tournament" the train notifying motorists from a quar· • Duffers will soon have to blame thelr ter·Dille away,
It's right there at them." hookS and slices ou something else;' Richardson will pay S30,OOO for 􀁾􀁡􀀮􀀠t1um:ks to a pilot project by the city of tion and connection to the 􀀬􀁲􀁾s sysRlcherdson
and the rl!llway, which has P1eaae see RICHARDSON on Pa&e lISA. J. Q1i ; iI '6 :'. ' ,Pm tJ '3-"5/-<SO ..' ".-", ::Continued from Page TlA. :: tem, The hOrDS will :: operate for a 9O-day
test period, Mr. :' Ragsdale aaId. The Custer Parkway • crossing, In a heavily residential : area, will continue to use flashing • red lights and automatic gates, : ' Federal Rallroad
Administration : officials have approved the test pro.-ject and they will review Its effec· , tlveness for potential future use, :' Train whistles have become an : Increaslug concern
nationwlda as , residelltial areas sprout and take : root around rallllnes. Commuuities ., have passed whistle bans, but a lack : of federal 􀁧􀁵􀁬􀁾􀁥􀁳􀀠has prompted prompted , engineers
to continue the'audible 'alerts. : .-The RIchardson project would , eliminate the need for hOrDS to be ; sounded near a hosPital on Camp, : beU Road, Mr.Ragsdaleaald. "We're willing
to explore options , that would allow us to exist togeth· : er," said KathY SImpson of the rall· Way, "Our primary concern Is the : safety of our employees and the : public. At the same
time, we under· ' : ,stand concerns about the hOrDS." Engineers 011 the Richardson route will look for a white strobe : light telIlng them the wayside hom , Is working, Ms. Simpson said,
The engineer will sound the horn as a , precaution Ifthe light doesn't flash, ' '('! " "'" 􀀮􀀭􀀮􀁾􀀢.... ""'. 􀁾􀀠. 􀁾􀀠.. 􀁾􀀢􀀧... 􀁾􀀠􀀮􀀢􀀭􀀢􀁾􀀠. ' Nationwide; federal officials
: have distributed proposed 'rules ; that would ellmlnate the need for , train harDS Ifrallroad crossings are : made safer. In one example, recom· : mendations would require a cit)'
to , spend about $100,000 per crossing to Install more gates and create 1m• : paasable medians and shoulders. : "Wayslda hOrDS are'not part of : our proposed rilles, but they could :
be Included In the final recommen· , dations If they are proven to be safe : and effective," said Pamela Barry, : director of the rallroad adlulnlstra· : tion's ofllce of public affairs,
"We : feel thIS still needs some steely." , Final federal rules could be : passed by the end of the year and : would take effect a year later. : Although Dallas Area 'Rapid : Transit
has a growing rall presence, , each commnnlty will have to decide : whether to pay for whatever,cross: Ing'lmprovements the federal gov· : emment eventually allows, said : L9nn1e BlII)'des.
vice president for , commuter rall. : '. "This Isn't a potential for DART. : Iiecessarny, but more for cities that i : want qulet ItOnes," he said. : " . Canyon Creek will host Its big
: Southwestern Bell Futures Golf : Classic April 7JJ. probably too soon : for the wll)'Slde horns, Mr. Morris : said. ' , "A lot of cltlzens and golfers. : would appreciate It It Ifthey
would do i : thlS,» Mr. Morris said. 'I 
Railway"crossihg horns may be mUSIC. to,ears'of,golfers, others,in Richardson By Tony'Har-tJi:,,' ' 􀁾Wrileroj 'Il!ODllUasIlomlllgNew:9 RICHARDSON .:... The par 3. 171-yard 14th hole
at canyon Creek Country Club has a tough hazard, courtesy of the K8IlSIIS City Southern RaIlway. ' '1t can be disturbing to some of our golfers when they're on their backswlng !IIld
that tralri horn blows," said Canyon Creek office manager Ronnie Morrls. "It would be nice If at some time In the fn· ture, we didn't have to hear It during our , big t01ll'Illlll1ent.",
Duffers will soon have to blame their hookS and slices on somethIng else;, , thanks to a pUot project by the cItY of Richardson and the riillway, which has ,4 􀁉􀀺􀁢􀁥􀁳􀁨􀁾􀁲􀁴􀁥􀁳􀁴􀀠rontebetween
Kansas Cltj !IIld the Gulf of Mexico. ' Sometime next month. the city will Install what are called 􀁷􀁾􀁤􀁥horns at the CUster Parkway 􀁲􀁾􀁲􀁯􀀡􀁬􀀸􀁬􀁮􀁧􀀮􀀠The street-facing. CIIl'-leve1
horns will sense when trains are coID.tqg, eltm.!natlng the :need for engineers to to sound their whlstles ad,jacent to the No. 14 tee box. '1t's a qualitY-of-llfe Issue," said Rlchardson
traffic engineer Walter Ragsdale. "It could be an overall benefit. Instead of the tralri notlfylnll motorists from a quarter-mUe away. It's right there at them." RIchardson will pay
S30,OOO for lnstalI.tion and connection to the railroad's sYs􀁾see RICIIARlJ!iON on PIp aM. ,fb ,1>111 A) , 3-5/--ao :: Continued from Page 'l7A. :: tem. The horns will :: operate for
a 9IkIay test period, Mr. : Ragsdale said. The Custer Parkway : crossing, In a heavfiy resIdential • area, will continue to use flashing " red lights and antomatic gates. , Federal RaIlroad
Administration : officials have approved the test pro: ject, !IIld they will review Its effec· ; tiveness for potential future use. : Train whIStles have become an : increasing concern
nationwide as : residential areas sprout and take , root around raU llnes. Communities ': have passed whlstle bans, buta lack : of federal'guidellnes has prompted , engineers to continue
the 'audible , alerts. : " The Richardson project would : eltm.!nate the need for horns to be , sounde<l near a hosPltsi on Camp'befiRoad.Mr.Ragsdulesaid. ' , "We're wllllng to explore
options : that would aUow us to exist togeth. : er," said Kathy SImpson of the raU· way. "Our primary concern Is the · safetY of our employees and the : public. At the same time we under:
,stand concerns about the horns," : " Engineers on the Richardson , route will look for a white strobe , light telllng them the wayaide hom , Is working, Ms. Simpson said. The engineer
will sound the horn lIS a : precaution Ifthe light doesn't flash. ..􀁾􀀠.";'., NationwIde. federal officials : have distributed proposed 'rules ; that would eliminate the need for :
train hornsIf rallroed crossings are : made safer. In one example, recom, mendations would requIre a citY to spend about $100,000 per crossing to , lnstalI more gates and create Im·
: passable medians and shoulders. , "Wayaide horns are not part of , our proposed rules, but they could : be Included In the final recommen: dations Ifthey are proven to be safe : and
effective," said PaIilela Barry, · director of the raUroad admlnlstra: tion's office of public affairs. "We : feel this still needs some study," , Final federal rules could be : passed
by the end of the year and , would take effect a year later. · Although Dallas Area Rapid · Transit has a growing raU presence, : 􀁾􀁣􀁨communitY will have todecide : whether to pay
for whatever crass· lng Improvements the federal gOY' : ernment eventually allows, said : Lonnie Blaydes, vice president for : commuter ral1. : .' " "This Isn't a potential for DART,
· necessarny, but more for cities that , want quiet zones," he said. :' " Canyon Creek will host its big 'Southwestern Bell Futures Golf : CIsllsic April 7-9, probably too soon : for
the wayside horns, Mr. Morris : said. ' · "A lot of citizens and golfers : would appreciate ItIfthey would do : this," Mr. MorrIs said. . " aM 
"} -),. 1-(7b :': IJ􀁾􀀧􀀨􀀠􀁴􀀺􀁴􀁾􀁾􀀴􀀭􀁾􀀮􀀠Cj 7 A -􀁾􀁦􀀭Lf;J, 7"J . 􀀨􀁗􀁾1v-􀁾􀁦􀀯􀁲􀀭􀀭􀁾􀁵􀁦􀁴􀀠r11 f'U<:A./(o) ." W􀁾􀁾􀀠1.u.f S-d;:: 0 rc tit-;V. 1/􀁾􀀠W-ULA't " . 􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁾􀁐􀁲."
\\ \ II 􀁾􀀮􀁾􀀠􀁃􀁃􀁊􀁊􀀺􀀭􀁾􀀠.-' " 􀀻􀁕􀀭􀁾K-􀁾􀀠.. , 􀁮􀁷􀀮􀁊􀀭􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁦􀁊􀁴􀁊􀀱􀁖􀀭􀀿􀁾􀀠-:>If 􀁾Q 􀁾􀀱􀁾􀀮􀀮􀁶􀀮􀁾􀁩􀁩􀀠 􀁝􀁽􀁾􀁾􀀠􀁾􀁳􀀠951 f/; 􀀩􀁖􀁾􀀠
, : i I , ' " il·':, I : 
Jim Pierce From: Jim Pierce Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 11 :27 AM To: Cesar Molina (E-mail) Cc: Ron Whitehead; Michael Murphy Subject: Railroad Noise Issue Ron Whitehead and Mike Murphy
would like to be included in your meeting with DGNR to discuss noise issues. Thank you for thinking of us. Please advise when the meeting will be. Jim Pierce, P.E. Assistant City Engineer
PO Box 9010 Addison, TX 75001-9010 972-450-2879 1 
Jim Pierce From: Ron Whitehead Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 5:19 PM To: Jim Pierce Subject: RE: Railroad Noise Issues -----Original Message----From: Jim Pierce Sent: Monday, March 27,
2000 10:24 AM To: Ron Whitehead Ce: Michael Murphy Subject: Railroad Noise Issues Yes. I would like to be included if it is O.K. with Carrollton. Ron On 3/23, Mike and I Met with Cesar
Molina, Director of Transportation, Carrollton, and Cesar brought ·up the railroad noise issue. They are getting a lot of railroad horn blowing complaints. They (Cesar, the City Manager,
and possibly the Mayor) are planning a meeting with David Eyermann of DGNR to discuss the problem. Cesar asked if we would like to join the meeting since we are also having complaints.
What do you think? Please let me know so I can get back to Cesar. Crossing directional horns are being looked at as a possible solution. Richardson has, or is about to have a croSSing
rigged up this way for a trial. I have a call working to Walter Ragsdale to learn more about this. Cesar advised that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has published proposed
rules on use of locomotive horns at highway-rail grade crossings. The proposed rules, among other things, would allow "quiet zones" to be established where no horn blowing would be needed
as long as a certain level of safety devices were installed to protect the public at the crossings. This could be a good answer. I have a copy of the proposed rules. The are open to
comment until May 26,2000. Jim Pierce, P.E. Assistant City Engineer PO Box 9010 Addison, TX 75001-901 0 972-450-2879 1 
Jim Pierce From: Cesar Molina [CMolina@ci.carroliton.tx.usj Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 3:12 PM To: 'jpierce@ci.addison.tx.us' Subject: RR Noise issue Jim, The FRA website where you
can download the proposed FRA rule on the Use of Locomotive Horns is http://www.fra.dot.gov/horns/Once in the web site, click on IINotice of Proposed Rulemaking(NPRM)II Then click on
the download as a .pdf file. This will allow you to read it and print it from Adobe Acrobat. Also, I spoke with my ACM. He said that it was fine if Mike Murphy and your City Mgr want
to attend our meeting. He will ask Gary, if the mayor should be invited. I'll let you know what they tell me. Cesar Cesar 1 
-.:::.= !! CONllNU'D ON MAl' 3 . .􀁾􀀠 􀁾􀀠􀁾􀀠BOOK PAGE 1022 L-__􀁄􀁾􀁾􀁌􀁍􀁁􀁐SECTI_ __--'1-􀁅􀁒􀁉􀁇􀁈􀁔􀁍􀁾􀁟􀁾􀀵􀁡􀀬􀀠1998 by MAf'SCO. INC. * AU iUGHTS ReSERVED I __ ...._O_N_S_TAA_TS_O_N_IN_D_E_
X_P_AG_f_17_0 
Thursday January 13, 2000 Part II Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration 49 CFR Parts 222 and 229 Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings; Proposed
Rule 
2230 , Federal Register, "01. 65, No. 9/Thursday, January 13, 2uvJ/Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration 49 CFR Parts 222 and 229 [Docket No. FRA-1999-6439,
Nollce No.1] RIN 2130-AA71 Use of Locomotive Horns at HighwayRail Grade Crossings AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of
proposed rniemaking. SlJMMARY: FRA is proposing rules to require that a locomotive hom be sounded while a train is approaching and entering a public highway-rail crossing. The proposed
rules also provide for an exception to the above requirement in circumstances in which there is not a significant risk of loss of life or serious personal injury, use of the locomotive
horn is impractical. or supplementary safety measures fully compensate for the absence of the warning provided by the hom. This rule is reqnired by law. OATES: Written Comments: Comments
must be received by May 26, 2000. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent possible without incurring additional expense or delay. Public Hearings: FRA will
hold public hearings to receive oral comments from interested parties. The dates and specific location of hearings will be announced in a subsequent Fede:ra1 Register document and on
FRA's web site at http://fro.dot.gov. Citias in which heariogs will be held are listed io ADDRESSES section below. ADDRESSES: Written Comments: Anyone wishing to file a comment should
identify the FRA docket and notice numbers (Docket No. 􀁆􀁒􀁁􀀭􀀱􀀹􀀹􀀹􀁾􀀴􀀳􀀹􀀬􀀠Notice No.1). Comments should be sent to the Docket Management System, U.S. Department ofTransportation,
room PI.401,400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590-0001. Written comments will be available for public review during regular business hours at the above address and tbrough
the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov. Public Hearings: Public hearings will be held in the following cities: Los Angeles, California; Washington, D.G.; Ft. Lauderdale, Florida; Chicago,
illinoisj South Bend, Indiana; Berea, Ohio; Pendleton, Oregon; and Boston, Massachusetts. The specific location and date ofeach bearing will be announced in a subsequent Federal Register
document and on FRA's web site at http://fra.dot.gov. FOR RJRTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron Ries, Office ofSafety, FRA, 1120 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 (telephone: 202-493-6299);
or Mark Tessler, Office of Chief Counsel, FRA, 1120 Vermont Avenue. N.W., Washington. D.C. 20590 (telephone:202-493-6038). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Approximately 4,000 times per year, a train and highway vehicle collide at one of this country's 262,000 public and private highway·rail
grade crossings. Of those crossings, more than 158j OOO are public at-grade crossings-those crossings in which a public road crosses rrulroad tracks at grade. During the years 1994 through
1998, there were 21,242 grade crossing collisions in the United States. These collisions one ofthe greatest cause of death associated with rrulroading, resulting in more than 400 deaths
each year. For example, io the 1994-1998 period, 2,574 people died in these collisions. Another 8,308 people were injured. ApproxiIlll!tely 50 percent of collisions at highway-rail intersections
occur at those intersections equipped with active warning devices such as bells, flashing lights, Or gates (approximately 62,000 crossings), Comparad to a collision between two highway
vehicles, a collision with a train is eleven times more likely to result in a fatality, and five and a half times more likely to result in a disabling injury. The average freight locomotive
weighs between 140 and 200 tons, compared to the average car weight of one to two tons. Many freight trains weigh in excess of ten thousand tons. Any highway vehicle, even a large truck,
would be crtlSbed when struck by a moving trrun. The laws of physics componnd the likelihood that a motor vehicle will be crushed in a collision with a moving train. Tbe train's weight,
when combined with the likelihood that the train w:ill not be able to stop to avoid a collision, results in severe injury or death in virtually every collision (it takes a one-hundred
car train traveling 30 miles per hour approximately half a mile to stop-at 50 miles an hour that traint s stopping distance increases to one and a third miles). FRA is responsible for
ensuring that America's railroads are safe for both railroad employees and the public. FRA sbares with the public the responsibility to confront the compelling facts surroundlng grade
crossing collisions. In 1990, as part ofFRA's crossing safety program, the agency studied the impact of train whistle bans (i.e., state or local laws prohibiting the use of train horns
or whistles at crossings) on safety in Florida. (In this document the terms "whistle" and uhorn" are used interchangeably to refer to the air powered locomotive audible warning device
reqnired to be installed on locomotives by 49 CPR 229.129, and to steam whistles reqnired to be installed on steam locomotives by 49 GFR 230.121. These terms do not refer to a locomotive
bell, which has value as a warning to pedestrians but which is not designed to provide a warning over long distances.) FRA bed previously recognized the locomotive horn's contribution
to rail safety by requiring that lead locomotives be equipped with an audlble warning device, 49 CFR 229.129, and exempting the use of whistles from federal noise emission standards
"when operated for the purpose of safety." 49 GFR 210.3(b)(3). The Florida study, which is dlscussed below (and which has been filed in the docket), documented how failing to use locomotive
horns can significantly increase the number of collisions. A. Who Is at Risk in a Grode Grossing Collision? Many people have argued that highway drivers who dlsobey the law and try to
beat a trrun through a crossing should not be protected at the expense of the peace and quiet of communities that parallel railroad tracks. FRA strongly agrees that drivers who unlawfully
enter grade crossings should be fined by local police, but death or serious injury is simply not a just penalty, Overlooked in this emotional debate are the many innocent victims of
crossing collisions, including blameless automobile and railroad passengers and rrulroad crews who, despite perforraing their duties corrcctly, are usually nnable to avoid the collisions.
Nationally, from 1994 to 1998, eight railroad crewmembers died in collisions at highway-rail crossings, and 570 crewmembers were injured. Two hundred railroad passengers were also injured
and two dled. In Bourbormais, nlinois, earHer this year, eleven innocent passengers died in their sleeper car following a collision with a truck at a Illghway-rail crossing. In addition,
since approximately one-half of all collisions occur at grade crossings that are not fully equipped with warrnng deviCes. some of the drivers involved in these collisions may have been
unaware ofthe approaching train, Property owners living near railroad rights-of-way can also be at risk. For example. on December 1, 1992, in Hiebert, Alabama, a freigbt train collided
with a lumber truck. Tbree 
2231 " Federal Register/vol. 65, No. 9/Thursday, January 13, 2uv()/Proposed Rules locomotives and nine rail cars were deraned, releasing 10,000 gallons of sulfuric acid into a nearby
water supply. Residents livmg near the derailment site had to be evacuated because of the chemical spill. Even where the locomotive consist is not derailed in the initial collision with
the highway vehicle, application of the train's emergency brake can result m derailment and harm to persons and property along the right-of-way. Law-abiding motorists can also be endangered
in crossing collisions. On March 17,1993, an Amtrak train collided with a tanker truck in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Five people died when 8,500 gallons of burning fuel from the tanker
truck engulfed cars waiting behmd the crossmg gates. Highway passengers can also he innocent victims. On December 14. 1995. in Ponchatoulat Louisiana, five people were killed when their
truck was hit by an Amtrak train. Among the dead were three children who were passengers in the truck. In making a decision on the use of locomotive borns, all of the competing interests
must be reasonably considered. Those whose interests will he affected hy this rule mclude those who may h. disturbed by the sounding oflocomotive borns and all of those who may suffer
in the event of a col1imon; pedestrians usmg the crossing: the motor vehicle driver and 􀁰􀁡􀁳􀁳􀁥􀁮􀁧􀁥􀁲􀁳􀁾􀀠those in adjacent vehicles, train crews. and those living or working nearby,
B. FRA's Study ofthe Florida Train Whistle Ban Effective July 1, 1984, Florida authorized local governments to ban the nighttime use of whistles by intrastate trains approaching bighway-rail
grade crossings eqnipped with flashing lights, bells, crossing gates, and highway signs that warned motorists that train whistles would not be sounded at night. Fla. Stat. § 351.03(4)(a)
(1984). After enactment of this Florida law, many local jurisdictions passed whistle ban ordinances. In August 1990, FRA issued a study of the effect of the Florida train whistle whistle
ban up to the end of 1989. The study compared the number of collisions at crossings subject to bans with four control groups. FRA was trying to determine the impact of the whistle bans
and to eliminate other possible causes for any increase or decrease in collisions. Using the first control group, FRA compared collision records for time periods before and during the
bans. FRA found there were almost three times more collisions after the whistle bans were established, a 195 percent increase. If collisions continued to occur at the same rate as before
the bans began taking effect, it was estimated that 49 post-ban collisions would bave been expected. However, 115 post-ban collisions occurred, leaving 66 crossing collisions statistically
unexplained. Nineteen people died and 59 people were injured in the 115 crossing collisions, Proportionally, 11 of the fatalities and 34 of the injuries could be attributed to the 66
unexplained collisions. In the second control group, FRA found that the daytime collision rates remained virtnally uncbanged for the same higbway-rail crossings where the whistle bans
were in effect during nighttime hours. The third control group showed that nighttime collisions increased only 23 percent along the same rail line at crossings with no whistle ban. Finally,
FRA compared the 1984 through 1989 accident record of tho Florida East Coast Railway Company (FEC), which, because it was considered an "intrastate" carrier under Florida law, was required
to comply with local whistle bans, with that of the parallel rail line of interstate carrier, CSX Transportation Company (GSX), which was not subject to the wbistle ban law. By December
31,1989,511 oftha FEe's 600 gate-equipped crossings were affected by whistle bans. Collision data from the same period was available for 224 similarly equipped CSX crossmgs in tho six
counties in which both railroads operate, As noted above, FRA found that FEC's nigbttime collision rate increased 195 percent after whistle bans were imposed. At similarly equipped CSX
crossings, the number of collisions inc:reased 67 percent. On July 26, 1991, FRA issued an emergency order to end whistle bans in Florida. Notice of thet emergency order (Emergency Order
No. 15) was published in the Federal Register at 56 FR 36190. FRA is authorized to issue emergency orders where an unsafe condition or practice creates "an emergency situation mvolving
a hazard of death or injury." 49 U.S.C. 20104. FRA acted after updatmg its study with 1990 and initial 1991 collision records and finding tbat another twelve people had died and thirteen
were injured in nighttime collisions at whistle ban crossings. Durmg this time, a smaller study, conducted by the Public Utility Commission of Oregon, corroborated FRA's redings and
led to the cessation of state afforts to initiate a whistle ban m Oregon. FRA's emergency order required that trams operated by the FEC sound their whistles when approaching public highway-rail
grade crossings. This order preempted state and local laws that permitted the nighttime ban on the use of locomotive horns. Twenty communities in Florida petitioned for a review of the
emergency order. During this review, FRA studied other potential causes for the collision increase. FRA's closer look at the issue strengthened the conclusion that whistle bans were
the likely cause of the jncrease. For example, FRA subtracted collisions that whistles probably would not have prevented from the collision totals. Thirty-five collisions where the motor
vehicle was stopped or stalled on the crossing were remol/ed from the totals. Eighteen of these collisions occurred before and 17 were recorded during the bans, Whan these figures were
excluded, the number ofcollisions m the pre-ban period changed from 39 to 21, and the number of collisions in the post-ban period decreased from 115 to 98. Collisions which whistles
could have prevented, therefore, totaled 98 collisions as compared to 21 collisions in the pre-ban periodj this represents a 367 percent increase, compared to the 195 percent increase
initially calculated. Similarly, ifcollisions where the motor vehicle hit the side of the train were also excluded (ume in the pre·ban period aod 26 in the post-ban period) as being
unlikely to have been prevented hy train whistles, the pre·ban collision count became 12 versus 72 in the whistle ban period. The increase in collisions caused by the lack of whistles
then became 500 percent. FRA's data, however, showed that, before the ban, highway vehicles on average, struck the sides of trains at the 37th train car behmd the locomotive. After the
ban took effect, 26 vehicles struck trains, and on average. struck the twelfth train car behind the locomotive. This indicated that motor vehicles are more cautious at crossings ifa
locomotive hom is sounding nearhy. Before the whistle bans, highway vehicles tended to hit the side of the train after the whistling locomotive had long passed through the crossmg. After
the ban took effect, highway traffic hit the train much closer to the: now silent locomotive-at the 12th car, The number of motor vehicles hitting the sides of trains also increased
nearly threefold after the ban was established. FAA also considered collisions involving douhle tracked grade crossings where two trains might approach at the same time. Since a driver's
view of the second train might be blocked, hearing the second train's whistle could be the ouly warumg 
2232 , , , Federal Register, 101. 65, No. 9/Thursday, January 13. 2vv<lfProposed Rules available to an impatient driver. FRA's Florida study found the number of second trajn collisions
for the pIEr-ban period was zero, while four were reported for the period the bans were in effect. Several Florida communities asked whether train speed increased collisions. FRA research
has well established. as discussed below, that train speed is not a factor in detennining the likelihood of a traffic collision at highway-nul crossings equipped with active warning
devices that include gates and flashing lights. Speed, however) is n factor in detennining the severity of a collision. FRA also considered population growth in Florida, but found it
was not a factor, Day time collision rates were not increasing at the very same crossings that had whistle bans at night. If population was a factor, then the day time numbers should
have increased dramatically as well. FRA also reviewed the number of fatal hlghway collisions, and registered drivers and motor vehicles and found no increases that either paralleled
or explained the rise in night time crossing collisions. In the first two years after July 1991. when FRA issued its emergency order prohibiting whistle bans in FlOrida, collision rates
dropped dramatically to pre-ban levels. In the two years before the emergency order, there were 51 nighttime collisions. In the two years after. there were only 16. Daytime collisions
dropped slightly from 34 collisions in the two years before the emergency order, to 31 in the following two years. c. FRA's Nationwide Study ofTrain Whistle Bans FRA's Florida study
raised the concern that whistle bans could be increasing collisions in other locations. Given the wide difference between grade crossing conditions from one community to another, FRA
did not assume that the Florida results would be true at every whistle ban crossing. FRA began a nationwide effort to locate grade crossings subject to whistle bans and study collision
information for those those crossings. The Association of American Railroads (AAR) joined the FRA in that effort. The AAR surveyed the rail industry and found 2,122 public grada crossings
subject to whistle bans for some period of time between January 1988 and June 30,1994. This total did not include the 511 public crossings that were subject to whistle bans in Florida
that FRA had already studied. The study also did not include crossings on small, short line railroads, which did not report in the AAR. The nationwide survey found whistle bans in 27
states that affected 17 railroads. FRA studied collisions occurring between January 1988, and June 30, 1994. Two thousand and four of the crossings were subject to 24-hour whistle bans.
Another 118 grade crossings were subject to nighttime-only bans. The states with the largest number ofwhistle ban crossings were Illinois, Wisconsin, Kentucky, New York, and Minnesota.
More than half of the crossings were on three railroads: CSX) Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail), and Soo Line. A A report covering the TABLE 2.-TYPE OF COlliSION nationwide study
was issued in April 1995. FRA found that whistle ban crossings averaged 84 percent more collisions than similar crossings with no bans. There wele 948 collisions at whistle ban crossings
during the period studied. Sixty-two people died in those collisions and 308 were injured. Collisions occurred on every railroad with crossings subject to whistle bans, and in 25 of
the 27 states where bans were in effect. Since the 1995 study, FRA has continued to analyze relevant data. Over the period of 1992-1996, there were 793 collisions at 2,366 crossings
subject to whistle bans. These collisions resulted in the fatalities and injuries displayed in Table 1, as well as more than $2 million in motor vehicle damages. TABLE 1.-COllISION INJURIES
AND FATALITIES BY TYPE OF PERSON INVOLVED Type of person IOJ'urias FatalitiesInvolved M010rist ................. 258 56 Pedestrian ............. i 17 41 Railroad employee 56 0 The types
of collisions which took place at whistle ban crossings are shown in Table 2. It is interesting to note that the mean train speed (train spead is positively correlated with fatalities)
varies by type of collision. Please note that the number of fatalities shown for category "hit by second train" are included in the other categories (97 fatalities). Type of collision
Motor vehicle struck train ................... , ............. " .... , .... ,.,.......................... ,',., ............................. . Train struck motor vehicle ...........................
..................",...> ••••••••••••••••••••••• ,' .... ', ........................ HH by second train ......................................................................... , ...................
......................... . Mean 1rainInjuries Fatalities speed 51 . 8 15.5 224 i 89 25.4 11 5 28.5 The driver was kHled io the collision in 42 instances (5.3% ofcollisioos), the remaining
55 fatallties were either passengers or pedestrians. The driver passed standing vehicles to go over the crossing in 37 of the collisions (4.70/0). The driver was more likely to be killed
when moving over the crossing at the time of the collision (35 ofthe driver fatalities), rather than when the vehicle was stopped or stalled at the crossing, and in most of the collisions
(69.9%) at whistle-ban crossings the driver was moving over the crossing. Additionally, in almost every collision (97%), a warning device (either active or passive) was located on the
vehicle's side of the crossing. This supports the theory thet the warning given by the train horn could deter the motorist from enteriog the crossing. Collisions which took piece when
the motorist was moving over the crossing were more likely to be fatal (72% of the fatalities). This type of collision was also more likely to result in injury with 209 of the 258 motorist
injuries occurring under these circumstances. These are the types ofcollisions the proposed rule is designed to prevent. Motorists that fail to notice or beed the warning devices in
place place nt a crossing may he deterred by the sound of a train horn. The motorist is also given information by the horn about the proxinnty, speed, and direction of the train. Collisions
occurred on every railroad with crossings subject to whistle bans, and in 25 of the 27 states where bans were in effect. FRA's study indicated that the installation of automatic traffic
gates at crossings with whistle bans was more than twice the national average. Forty percent of the whistle ban crossings had gates compared to 17 percent nationally. 
2233 Federal Register, .01. 65, No. 9/Thursday, January 13, 2uvJ/Proposed Rules FRA found 831 crossings where whistle sounding had at one time been in effect, but where the practice
had changed during the January 1988 through June 1994 study period. In 87 percent of the cases, bans were no longer in effect A "before-and-after" analysis comparing collision rates
showed an average of 38 percent fewer collisions when whistles were sounded indicating that whistles had a .38 effectiveness rate in reducing col1isions. This finding paralleled the
Florida experience. FRA also rated whistle ban grade crossings according to an "Accident Prediction Formula." The formula predicts the statistical likelihood of having a collision at
a given highwayrail grade crossing. The physical characteristics of each crossing were considered in the formula, including the number of tracks and highway lanes, types of warning devices,
urban or rural location, and whether the roadway was paved. Also considered were operational aspects, such as, the number of highway vehicles, and the number, type, time of day, and
maxjmum speed of trains using the crossing. The formula was developed using data from thousands of co11isions spanning many years. FRA then ranked the 167,000 public crOSSings in the
national inventory at that time in an identical manner. Both the whistle ban crossings and the national inventory crossings were then placed into one of ten groups ranging from low-risk
to high-risk. FRA compared the number of collisions occurring within each of the ten groups of crossings, over a five year period from 1989 through 1993, and found that for nine out
of the ten risk groups, the whistle ban crossings had Significantly higher collision rates than the crossings with no whistle bans. On average, the risk of a collision was found to be
84 percent greater at crossings where train horns were silenced. Another way to interpret this difference would be to say that locomotive horns had a .46 effectiveness rate in reducing
the rate of collisions. FRA was concerned about the higher risk disclosed by the nationwide study. From its vantage point, FRA was able to see the elevated risk associated with whistle
hans, which might not be apparent to local communities. While crossing collisions are infrequent events at individual crossings, the nationwide study, and the experience in Florida,
showed they were much less infrequent when train horns were not sounded. FRA conducted an outreach program in order to promptly share this information with all communities where bans
were in effect. In addition to issuing press releases and sending informationalletlers to various parties, FRA met with community officials and participated in town meetings. Along with
the studyfs findings, information about the upcoming rule requiring the sounding of train horns was presented, including provisiOns for supplementary safety measures that could be implemented
by communities to compensate for silenced train horns and allow bans to remain in effect. From the outreach effort, FRA FRA gained a clearer understanding of local concerns and issues.
Many of those concerns were expressed in person and others were submitted in writing to FRA's whistle ban docket. Another result of the outreach effort was the identification of 664
additional crossings that were subject to whistle bans, but not included in the nationwide study. About 95 percent of these were located in the city and suburbs of Chicago, illinois.
Many carry a high volume of commuter rail traffic. Recently, FRA updated ita analysis of the safety at whistle ban crossings, expanding it to include data for all the Chicago area crossings
as well as for a few other newly identified locations. BILLING CODE 4910-0s-¥ 
2234 ) ) Federal Register, .r01. 65, No. 9/Thursday, January 13, 2vvJ/Proposed Rules 46 LOCATIONS OF CROSSINGS WITH WHISTLE BANS BIWNG CODE 4910-06-C FRA also refined its procedure by
conducting separate analyses for three different categories of warning devices in place at the crossings {e.g" automatic gate. with flashing lights, flashing ligbts or other active devices
without gates, and passive devices, such as "crossbucks" or other signs). In addition, FRA excluded from the analysis certain collisions where the sounding of the train horn would not
have been a deterrent to the collisions. These included cases where there was no driver in the vehlcle and collisions where the vehlcle struck the side of the train beyond the fourth
locomotive unit (or railcar). FRA also excluded events where pedestrians were struck. Pedestrians, compared to vehlele operators, have a greater opportuni ty to see and recognize an
approachlng train because they can look both ways from the edge ofthe crossing. They can also stop or reverse their direction more quickly than a motorist if they have second thoughts
about crossing safely. Data for the five-year time period from 1992 througb 1996 was used for the updated analysis in place of the older data of the 1995 Nationwide Study. For the updated
aoalysis, the collision rate for whlstle ban crossings in each device category was compared to similar crossings in the national inventory using the ten range risk level method used
in the original study. The analysis showed that an average of 62 percent more collisions occurred at whistle ban crossings equipped with automatic gates and flashing lights than at similarly
equipped crossings across the nation without bans. FRA will use this value as the increased risk associated with whistle bans instead of the 84 percent cited in the Nationwide Study
of Train Whlstle Bans released in April 1995. FRA believes that 62 percent is appropriate because it represents the elevated risk associated with crossings with automatic gates and flashing
lights, which are the only category of crossings that will b. eligihle for "quiet 􀁺􀁯􀁮􀁥􀁳􀀧􀁾􀀠(except for certain crossings where train speeds do not exceed 15 miles per hour).The
updated analysis also indicated that whistle ban crossings without gates1 but equipped with flashlng light signals andlor other types of active warning deviCes, on average. experienced
119 percent more collisions than similarly equipped crossings without whistle bans. This finding made it clear that the lIain horn was hlghly effective in deterring collisions at 􀁮􀁯􀁮􀁾􀁧􀁡􀁴􀁥􀁤􀀠
crossings equipped only with flashing lights. The only exception to this finding was in the Chicago area where collisions were 16 percent less frequent. Thls is a puzzling anomaly. One
possible explanation for this result is that more than 200 crossings (approximately one third of the crossings in Chicago) still included in the DOT/AAR National Inventory bave in all
likelihood been closed. They would continue to be included in the Inventory until reported closed by state or railroad officials. (At this time submission ofgrade crossing inventory
date to FRA is voluntary on tbe part of states and railroads.) FRA believes this eouid contrthute to the low collision CDunt for Chicago area crossings without gates. Collisions cannot
occur at crossings that have been closed. The retention of closed crossings in the inventory would, therefore, have the effect of incorrectly reducing the calculated collision rata for
the Chicago area crossings. In comparing the collision differences at crossings with gates and those without gates, FRA found that about 55 percent of the collisions at crossings with
gates occurred when motorists deliberately drove around lowered gates. Tbese collisions occurred 128 percent more often at crossings with 
2235 IFederal Register, vol. 65, No. 9/Thursday, January 13, 2vv()/Proposed Rules whistle bans than at other crossings. Another 18 percent of the collisions occurred while motorists
were stopped on the crossings, probably waiting for vehicles ahead to move forward. There were smaller percentages of collisions involving stalled and abandoned vehicles. Suicides are
not included in the collision counts. At crossings equipped with flashing signal lights and/or other active warning devices, but not gates, collisions occurred 119 percent more often
at crossings subject to hans. A distinction should be made between the two circumstances. In the case oflowered gates, itis the motorist's decision to circumvent a physical barrier to
take a clearly unsafe and unlawful action that can result in a collision. However, in the case of crossings with flashing light signals andfor other active devices. collisions may be
more the result of a motorist's error in judgement rather than a deliherate violation of the state's motor motor vehicle laws. The ambiguity of flashing lights at crossings, which in
other traffic control situations indicate that the motorist may proceed after stopping, when safe to do so, coupled with the difficulty of correctly judging the rate of approach ofa
large object such as a locomotive, may contribute to this phenomenon. FRA's collision data show thet the added warning provided by the train horn is most critical at crossings without
gates but which are equipped with other types of active warning devices. By separating crossings according to the different categories of waruing devices installed, FRA has been better
able to identify the level at which locomotive horns increase safety at gated crossings and thus the level at which substitutes for the hom must be effective in order to fully compensate
for the lack ofa horn at those crossings. For crossings with passive signs as the only type of warnlng device, the updated study indicated an average of 27 percent morc collisions for
crossings subject to whistle bans. This is the smallest difference identified between crossings with and without whistle hans. These crossings account for about one fourth of the crossings
with whistle bans.Typically, they are the crossings with the lowest aggregate risk of collision because the installation of active warning devices usually follows a sequence where the highest risk crossings
are eqnlpped first. Two determinants of crossing risk are the amount of toain traffic and highway traffic at a crossing. Often, crossings with only passive warning devkes are located
on seldom used sidings and industrial track.'l andlor on highways with relatively low traffic levels. FRA believes this may be the reason that the difference in the numbers of co]]isions
at whistle ban and non-ban crossings is so mucb less than for the other crossing categories. For crossings with passive warnings where trains do not exceed 15 miles per hour and where
railroad personnel use flags to warn motorists of the approach ofa train, whistle bans would entail a small risk ofa collision resulting in an injury. HoweverJ at crossings with passive
warnings and with higber train speeds, motorists would have no warning of the approach of a train ifthe train horn were banned. At such crossings, in order to ensure their safety, motorists
must search for and recoguize an approaching train, and then visually judge whether it is moving, and if so. estimate its arriva1 time at the crossing, all based ouly on visua1 information
which may be impaired by hills, structores, vegetation, track curvature, road curvature as well as hy sun angle, weather conditions, or darkness. The driver's decision to stop must b.
made at a point sufficiently in advance of reaching the crossing to accommodate the vehicle's stopping distance. If other vehicles are following, a sudden decision to stop could result
10 a rear-end collision with the vehicle being pushed into the path of the traio. While FRA's data indicates that the smal1est increase in collision frequency is associated with whistle
whistle bans at passive crossiogs,logic suggests that the banning of train horns at passive crossings could entail a much more significant safety risk per unit of exposure (vehicle crossings
per train movement). Without the audible train hom warning, motorists would have no iodication ofthe imminent arrival ofa train beyond what they could determine visually. For motorists
unfamlliar with whistle bans who encounter passive crossings where horns are not sounded, there would be an even greater risk. The conclusions drawn from the 1995 Nationwide Study and
its recent update have helped determine the requirements of this rule. FRA appreciates the assistance and cooperation of the many organlzations aod individuals who contributed to this
effort hy reporting whistle ban locations, compiling data, researching ordinances, and sbaring their concerns, ideas. and opinions. D. Congressional Action After reviewing FRA's Florida
study, Congress addressed the issue. On November 2,1994, Congress passed the Swift Rail Development Act, Puhlic Law 103-440 ("Act") which added section 20153 to title 49 of the United
States Code. The Act requires the use of locomotive horns at grade crossings. but gives FRA the authority to make reasonable exceptions. Section 20153 of title 49 of the United States
Code states as follows: "§20153. Audible warning at hi§hway-rail grade crossings. '(a) DEFINlTIONS.-As used in this section"(1) The term "highway-raJ] grade crossing" includes any street
or highway crossing over a line of railroad at!gade;, (2) The term "locomotive horn" refers to a train-borne audible warning device meeting standards specified by the Secretary of Transportation;
and "(3) The term "supplementary safety measure" refers to a safety system or procedure, provided by the appropriate traffic control authQrity or law enforcement authority responsible
for safety at the highway-rail grade crossing, that is determined by the Secretary to be an effective substitute for the locomotive hom in the prevention of highway-rail casualties.
A traffic control arrangement that prevents careless movement over the crossing (e.g., as where adequate median barriers prevent movement around crossing gates extending over the full
width of the lanes 10 the particular direction of travel), and that conforms to standards prescribed by the Secretary under this subsection, shall be deemed to constitute a supplementary
safety measure. The following do not, individually or in comhinationl constitute supplementary safety measures within the meaning of this subsection: standard traffic control devices
or arrangements such as renectorized crossbuck.'l, stop signs, flashing lights, nashing lights with gates thet do not completely block travel over the line of railroad, or traffic signals.
"(b) REQillREMENT.-Tbe Secretary of Transportation shall prescribe regulations requiting that a locomotive hom shail be sounded while each train is approaching and entering upon each
public highway-rail grade crossing. "(c) EXCEPTION.-(l) In issuiog such regulations, the Secretary may except from the requirement to sound the locomotive hom any categories of rail
operations or categories of highway-rail grade crossings (by train speed or other factors specified by regulationl"(A) That the Secretary determioes not to present a significant risk
with respect to loss of life or serious personal iojury'"(BjFor which use of the locomotive hom as a warning measure is imp,ractical; or , (C) For which, in the judgment oftha Secretary,
supplementary safety 􀁬􀁬􀁊􀀮􀁴􀀱􀁾􀁵􀁲􀁴􀀮􀀻􀁬􀁓􀀠fu1]y compensate for the 
2236 Federal Register, .rol. 65, No. 9/Thursday, January 13, Zvvu/Proposed Rules absence ofthe waro:ing provided by the locomotive hom. "(2) In order to provide for safety and the quiet
of communities affected by train operations, the Secretary may specify in sucb regulations that any supplementary safety measures must be applied to all bigbway-rail grade crossings
wilbin a specified dlstance along the railroad in order to be excepted from the requirement ofIbis section. "(d) APPLICATION FOR WAIVER OR EXEMPTJON.-Notwithstanding any other provision
oftbis subebapter, the Secretary may not entertain an application for waiver or exemption of the regulations issued under this section unless sneb application shall have been submitted
jointly by the rallroad carrier owning, or controlling operations over. the crossing and by the appropriate traffic control authority or law enforcement authority. The Secretary shall
not grant any such application unless, in the judgment of the Seerotary, the application demonstrates that the safety of bigbway users will notbe diminished. "(e) DEVELOPMENT OF SUPPLEMENTARY
SAFETY MEASURES.-(1) In order to promote the quiet of communities affected by rail operations and the development of innovative safety measures at higbwayrail grade crossings, the Secretary
may, in connection with demonstration of proposed new supplementary safety measures, order railroad carriers operating over one or more crossings to cease temporarily the sounding of
locomotive boms at such crossings. Any sueb measures shall have been subject to testing and evaluation and deemed necessary by the Secretary prior to actual use in lieu of the locomotive
hom. "(2) The Secretary may include in regulations issued under Ibis subsection special procedures for approval of new supplementary safety measures meeting the requirements ohubsection
(c)(l) of tbis section following successful demonstration of those measures. "(I) SPECIFIC RDLES.-The Secretary may, by regulation, provide that the following crossings over railroad
lines shall be subject, in whole or in part, to the regulations required under this section: "(1) Private higbway-rail grade crossings. "(2) Pedestrian crossings. "(3) Crossings utilized
primarily by nonmotorized vebicles and other special vehicles. "(g) ISSUANCE.-The Secretary shall issue regulations required by this section pertaining to categories of highway-rail
grade crOSsings that in the judgment of the Secretary pose the greatest safety hazard to rall and higbway users not later than 24 months following the date of enactment ofIbis section.
The Secretary shall issue regulations pertaining to any other categories of crossings not later than 48 months follOWing the date of enactment of this section. "(hJ IMPACT OF REGULATIONS.The
Secretary shall include in regulations prescribed under Ibis section a concise statement of the impact of such regulations with respect to the operation ofsection 20106 of this title
(national uniformity of regulation). "(i) REGULATIONS.-In issuing regulations under this section, the Secretary-.. "(1) Shall take into account the interest of communities that(A) Have
in effect restrictions on the sounding ofa locomotive horn at bighway-rail grade crossings; or (B) Have not been subject to the routine (as defined by the Secretary) sounding of a locomotive
horn at 􀁨􀁩􀁗􀀻􀀬􀁷􀁡􀁹􀁾􀁲􀁡􀁩􀁬􀀠grade crossings; '(2) Shall work in partnership with affected communities to provide techuical assistance and shall provide a reasonable amount of
time for local communities to install supplementary safety measuresl taking into account local safety initiatives (such as public awareness initiatives and bigbway-rail grade crossing
traffic Jaw enforcement programs) subject to sueb terms and conditions as the Secretary deems necessary, to protect public safety; and "(3) May waive (in whole or in part) any requirement
of Ibis section (other than a requirement ofthis subsection or subsection OJ) that the Seeretary determines is not likely to contribute Significantly to public safely. "(j) EFFECT1VE
DATE OF REGULAT10NS.-Any regulations under this section shall not take effect before the 365th dey following the dete of publication of the final rule." The last two subsections of section
20153 were added on October 9, 1996 when section 20153 was amended by Public Law 104264. E. Rulemaking Wben conducting a rulemaking, FRA must follow the Administrative Procedure Act
(5 U.S.C. 553 et seq.) (APA). The APA generally requires that FRA allow all interested parties to review and comment on any proposed rule. Thus, by this notice, FRA is providing the
public an opportunity to study the proposed rule and comment on it. Based on comments and testimony provided in response to this notice, FRA will, after the close of the comment period,
determine what action to take. There are two ways for you to share with FRA your opinions, experience or information about locomotive horns. First, the FRA can recejve letters and other
written remarks or reports. FRA places all of these comments in one place, the rulemaking docket. Please include the docket number on all comments submitted in response to this notice.
The docket number for this rulemaking is "Docket Number FRA1999-6439." All written comments are placed in the docket, including scientific and technical reports on which FRA substantially
relied when preparing the proposed rule. For example, the docket for tbis rulemaklng inc1udes, among many documents, copies of FRA's Florida and nationwide wbistle ban studies. The public
is free to inspect the rulemaking docket during regular business hours at the address listed above. Additionally, all documents in the docket are now available ouline at http://dms.dot.gov.
The second way to make a comment on this rulemaking is to attend one of the sebeduled public hearings. The hearings will provide interested parties an opportunity for an oral presentation.
FRA will have a court reporter record eaeb public hearing and will place a copy of the transcript of each hearing into the docket. FRA will review all written comments and testimony
provided in the public heartngs. F. Comments Received by FHA Because ofthe great interest in this subject throughout various areas of the country, FRA has been involved in an extensive
outreach program to inform those communities which presently have wbistle bans of one type or another in effect. FRA staff has attended a large number of meetings with local officials
and citizens. FRA has also held a number of public meetings to discuss the issues and to receive information from the public. FRA broke from tradition and establisbed a public docket
before formal initiation of rulemaking proceedings in order to enable citizens and local officials to comment on how FRA migbt implement the Act and to provide insigbt to FRA. Establishment
ofthe docket also enabled members of the public to learn what other interested parties thougbt about Ibis subject. The vast majnrity of commenters were in favor of quiet zones in their
communities, A number were in favor ofthe use of four-quadrent gates at affected crossings, while one person favored the less expensive articulated gates rather than four-quadrant gates.
Some commenters indicated how they 
2237 \ I Federal Registel" voL 65, No. 9/Thursday, January 13, ;0",,0I Proposed Rules think the Act should be amended. Of COUISe, new legislative enactments are beyond the scope of this
rulemaking, and FRA must implement the law as it now reads. Some commenters expressed the belief that state and localities were best suited to make the decisions regarding exemptions
from the requlrement that trains sound horns at crossings. A representative of the City ofPortland, Maine wants the Acl amended 10 empower the appropriate transportation agency for each
state to grant local municipalities 􀁥􀁸􀁥􀁭􀁰􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀁳􀁾􀀠sIDce these officials "are better able to properly assess the merits of any local community request for such a waiver. n Examples
of such exemptions that would be appropriate, according to this offiCial, would be cases wbere the crossings ara adequately protected, train speeds are no more than 30 miles per hour
and vehicle speed is 35 miles per hour or less. This commenter also stated that all crossings which are flagged by the train crews or where the train crew activates the crossing signal
should be exempt from locomotive horns. Similarly, the Maine Department of Transportation believes that "the State's regulatory process should be retained under any rules proposed *
* *.U The state requests that an exception under the Act be granted to those states which, either by an adjudicatory process or by rulemaking, permit train whistling to be discontinued.
The Cbairman of the Board of Selectmen of the town of Acton, Massachusetts expressed strong opposition to the return of locomotive horns, and urged that FRA issue regulations "so that
each state could make its own determination as to the appropriate level of safety devices needed at each grade crossing," Similarly, a Wisconsin state representative requests that FRA
"empower states with the available expertise, such as Wisconsin's Office of the Commissioner ofRailroads, to make their own rules. The 􀁳􀁴􀁡􀁴􀁥􀁳􀁾􀀠better than the federal government,
know the local conditions and have contact with the citizens who are represented directly in the State Legislature." This same legislator closed his comment by stating that "I hope this
letter reaches a human being wbo will read it and 1 hope it will go to a deliberative body who truly cares about the true needs ofour citizens." FRA wishes to assure the writer, and
the public generally, that indeed we do care abont the needs of Our citizens. In addition to the citizens who may be disturbed by locomotive horns, we are concerned about the safety
of the driver of a car at a grade crossing, the driver's innocent passengers, members of train crews, as weH as nearby residents who may be injured by collisions at crossings. The intent
of this rule is to help provide for safe grade crossings without unduly burdening nearby residents. A number of commenters felt that costs associated with alternative safety measures
should be borne hy parties other than the local or stata government. A Massachusetts state senator stated that FRA should requlre the railroad to assume the costs associated with two
crossings in his town. An organization of bed and breakfast owners in Vicksburg, MiSSissippi objected to wbat they described as "intense noise" from local trains. The group urged that
FRA "adopt a liberal policy permitting alternative grade crossing safety devices that would eliminate the need for the train horns." The group added, "Of course, a financial assistance
program to accomplish these alternatives is also essential." The Town of Asbland, Massachusetts argues that the railroad's cost of doing business should not be transferred to the town
and taxpayers. "Responsibility for this [measures to minimiae disruption caused by these crossingsl must be put squarely on the operators of the railroad." * *.. Two commenters have
raised the issue as to whether rural and urban areas should be treated in the same manner. One commenter stated that "the Act no doubt should apply in full force to rural sections of
America, but such provisions arc quite out onine with the logical treatroent of those areas of the land where the population is far beavier." Another commente! urged FRA to establish
maximum decibel levels for locomotive horns which "should be considerably lower in urban areas than in sparsely populated rural areas," Various commenters have proposed thaI specific
provisions b. contained in FRA's regulations. One commenter proposes that the regulation be waived for any croSSing within 300 yards of a residence. Many commenters expressed the view
that many communities with present whistle bans have excellent safety records and therefore sounding of locomotive horns will only disrupt residents' lives with no real impact on safety.
The city attorney for Bellevue, Iowa indicated that the railroad tracks run down the center ofa main street in the city. He points out that slow train speed, locomotives equlpped with
ditclI lights, stop signs at crossings, and the sounding ofthe locomotive bell all have contributed to only 5 collisions, oue injury, and no fatalities in almost 7 years of train traffic
averaging 8 trains a day. He claims that locomotive horns along the 15 crossings in town will bave a minimal affect on safety, but wlll bave a maxim urn effect on the quality of life
of most of Bellevue's residents. Similarly, the mayor ofBatavia, minois indicated that because the city bas a good rail safety record, the "whistle blowing standards that bave been set
forth in this Act are not necessitated and would cause unnecessary discomfort to our constituency," These commenters. along with others, recommend that a community's safety record be
a factor in determining whether locomotive horns need to be sounded. FRA has received many comments from Chicago area municipal groups representing suhurban areas in which, for the most
part, locomotive horns are not routinely sounded. The Chicago Area Transportation Study conducted by the Council of Mayors states that it represents over 200 cities and villages with
over 4 million residents outside of Chicago. The study authors recommended that FRA's regulations include provisions fur: (1) Accident reduction programs tailored to the magnitude and
type of accident experience at individual crossings; (2) recognition of the effectiveness of enhanced enforcement of existing rail safety laws and public education programs; (3) use
ofless costly physical barriers sucb as flexible median delineator tubes and articulated railroad crossing gales; (4) use of strobe lights and more visible paint schemes on locomotives
and cab car fronts and reflective delineators on the sides of railroad cars: and (5) exemptions from locomotive horns if a community or suhregionts accident experience is under a specified
threshold. Tbese proposals were echoed by the West Central Municipal Conference and the West Suburban Mass Transit District, both of suburban Chicago. Another association of suburban
Chicago local governments, the DuPage [County] Mayors and Managers Conference, emphasized the large number of rail lines, large number of daily train movements and high volume of pedestrian
and motor vehicle movements over area grade crossings, The Conierence pointed out that the citizens have grown to rely on locomotive horns in cases of impending danger, not for warning
of the routine approach ofa train. The Conference indicates a downward trend in grade crossing collisions over the past ten years, and attrihutes a significant portion of that decline
to stepped-up law eniorcement efforts by municipalities and more focusad public 
2238 iFederal Register, ioJ. 65, No. 9/Thursday, January 13, 2.c._J/Proposed Rules awareness programs. Rather than providing for engineering improvements to decrease collisions at crossings.
the Conference recommends that a community or subregion be exempt from both locomotive hom soundings and the reqUirement to install supplementary safety measures ifthe area's collision
experience is under a specified threshold. The Conference states support for aggressive enforcement and education programs as well as less costly physical barriers such as flexible median
delineator tube. The Conference is also in favor of a 􀁳􀁴􀁡􀁴􀁥􀁾􀀠level oversight mechanism, rather than federal oversight, "given the already close working relationship that must
exist hetween state highway and railrelated agencies." FRA particularly appreciates the efforts ofMembers of Congress who have invited FRA to their districts and have provided citizens
and local officials with the opportunity to express their views on this rulemaking process. process. These exchanges, and others conducted directly through FRA's regional crossing managers,
have been very valuable in identifying the need for flexibility in preparing the proposed rule. In the Chicago region, Rep. Henry Hyde of Ulinois chaired a public meeting attended by
the FRA Administrator, with participation by other Members ofCongress and a number of public witnesses. Rep. William Lipinski also convened a district meeting with the Administrator
in attendance that permitted a full airing ofcommunity concerns. These 􀁃􀁨􀁬􀁣􀁡􀁧􀁯􀁾􀀠area forums called attention to the large numher of commuter and freight trains that would be
required to sound horns along rail lines where many of the engineering concepts embodied in E.O. 15 would be difficult or impossible to implement, without substantial revision. Representatives
from DuPage County proposed the concept of aggregating and abating risk by corridor rather than by crossingt a concept embodied in this proposal. Concerns were raised by an association
oflocal governments regarding the identification ofcrossings currently impacted by informal bans on train horns. and those concerns led to an extensive data collection effort to complete
the identification of impacted communities and Ie-analyze the accident data in light of this new information. Although most witnesses opposed any rulemaking in this area, a DuPage County
citizen group formed to promote highway-rail crossing safety supported the use of train horns. Senior FRA staff members also joined Rep. Tim Roemer and officials from the State Department
of Transportation in meetings with city officials and citizens from South Bend and Mishawaka, Indiana, to consider the implications of the forthcoming rulemaking on those communities.
where whistle bans are in place over most crossings. Concern was expressed that residents along the railroad would have to "pay the price" for violation of warning systems by individual
motorists. Serious crashes bad occurred along the Conrail line that bisects these cities, cities, and options were reviewed for making improvements that might offset the train horn.
Cost was identified as a critical issue for the local governments. The office of SenatorEdward Kennedy convened a meeting involving FRA senior staff early in the agency's outreach effort
that was attended by several elected officials, who expressed concern over the prospective rulemaking. Senior FRA staff members attended separa1ll district meetings in Massachusetts
convened by Rep. Marlin Meehan and Rep. John Tierney. These congressional districts are significantly impacted by scheduled commuter service. Residents and officials called attention
to the generally good safety record at local crossings and the incompatibility of train horns with the quiet of their communities. Concern was also expressed regarding the public health
effects ofloud train horns and the cost ofsupplementary safety measures. Citizens and officials involved in several of these contacts expressed concern that the proposed rule would impose
"unfunded mandates" on local communities. Without exception, the offices of Members of Congress and Senators contacting FRA in this proceeding have expressed that FRA seek flexible solutions
and allow ample time for communities with existing whistle bans to adjust to any new requirements. Additional issues raised in the course of these contacts, briefings for congressional
staff, and other communications are set forth elsewhere in this preamble, including the sectionby-section analysis. In-Vehicle Warning Systems FRA periodically receives suggestions from
the public that electronic devices should be installed on motOr vehicles to warn of approaching trains, thereby eliminating the need for locomotive horns. Over the long term, systems
may he deployed that permit broadcast notifications to motorists warning of the passage of trains over highway-rall crossings. Ifthese systems are sufficiently reliable and use is widespread,
sounding of the !rein hom may he discontinued. This type of warning may be achieved through integration ofIntelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) deployed for highway useJ together
with elements of Positive Train Control (PTC) systems that will govern train movements and provide accurate data concerning location, direction of movement and velocity (or that may
function on the train to notify information systems through locationspecific interfaces). Such systems will not be widely deployed for some time, hut a clearly delineated "user service"
(Number 30) has been established within the architecture ofthe Intelligent Transportation Systems program as a venue for research and planning. FRA's PTC Working Group (a part of the
Railroad Safety Advisory Connnittee) has also identified this as a possible auxiliary function for PTC. In the interim, FRA expects progress toward inNvehicle warning for priority vehicles
such as school busesj emergency vehicles and the like. Concepts for Hproximity wa:rning" have been evaluated with Department of Transportation funding at the Transportation Technology
Center, Center, and field operational tests were conducted in 1998. The State of Dlinois is demonstrating a priority vehicle system in the Chicago metropolitan area. A commercial vendor
is offering a radar system for private motor vehicles that is designed to detect a train's approach, assuming the lead locomotive to he equipped with a radar unit. FRA will continue
to work with the Federal Highway Administration and other transportation bodies to identify promising strategies for priority vehicle warning system. Consideration has also heen given
to transmitting train proximity warnings through new generations of car radios equipped to receive such transmiSSions, sound audible warnings, and display text messages. This Emergency
Radio Data System (ERDS) is used in several European countries and is proposed for demonstration in the U.S. as part of ITS development. This approach would use consumer electronics
as the 􀁩􀁮􀁾􀁶􀁥􀁨􀁩􀁣􀁬􀁥􀀠platform. Successful in-vehicle systems will need to meet severa] criteria in order to be candidates for wide-scale application to all passenger motor vehicles:
1. Systems must be fail-safe; or they must be shown to be so highly reliable that their utility as a warning system exceeds the loss of safety associated with inappropriate reliance
on the system when in the failure mode. 2. Systems must be affordable for the vehicle owner, as well as the railroad charged 
2239 )1Federal Registel' -vol. 65, No. 9/Thursday, January 13, :<,.."O/Proposed Rules with equipping locomotives. 3. False alarms must be infrequent, or the system will lack credibility
and may be subject to being defeated (if false alarms produce annoyance). Clearly, before train horns could b. silenced, essentially all trains and motor vehicles would need to be equipped
with the in-vehicle waruing system. With respect to private motor vehicles, such a feature is most likely to be implemented as part of a multi-function ITS package. Although Intelligent
Transportation Systems offer significant promise for enhancing rail safety and perhaps entirely replacing the function currently served by the train horn, this alternative is not available
as a realistic option on a community--by-community basisat the present time. G. Proposed Rule FRA has reviewed information obtained through our "outreach" efforts, comments submitted to the public docket and other unsolicited comments sent
to the agency by concerned citizens, communitiesJ and ]egislators. FRA has considered that information and has attempted, within the statutory framework established by Congress, to accommodate
many of the legitimate concerns expressed. We anticipate that many constructive comments will result from public analysis of this proposal and that the proposed rule may be changed as
a result of the public input. In drafting this proposed ruie, FRA has attempted to reconcile Congress' two, somewhat conflicting, directives. The first directive, which is unambiguous.
is that "The Secretary of Transportation shall prescribe regulations requiring that a locomotive horn shall be sounded while each train is approach:ing and entering upon each public
highway-rail grade crossing." This directive does not allow any discretion as to issuance of the regulation requiring the sounding of horns. The Secretary, and by delegation, the Federal
Railroad Administrator, must require that horns are sounded at evary public grade crossing. The second directive) however, is entirely discretionary. The Secretary u may" exempt from
the requiremeot to sound the Jocomotive horn certain categories of rail operations or categories of crossings. While exceptions may be crafted, they are not required. This proposed rule,
which does contain provisions for such exceptions, is essentially a rule which reduces the impact of the Congressional locomotive horn mandate. It provides communities with the ability
to reduce the impact of locomotive horns within their jurisdictions. The basis of this proposed rule is the determination by Congress that locomotive horns provide a measure of safety
at highway-rail grade crossings beyond that provided by the conventional stationary grade crossing warning systems of crossing gates and flashing lights. Because of the added safety
benefits afforded by locomotive horns, they must be sounded uuless an effective substitute is provided. The proposed rule is crafted to detail wben and how locomotive horns must be sounded.
For the first time. FRA proposes limits to the sound level of locomotive horns to provide some relief to the surrounding population while still ensuring that the sound level is high
enough to provide the required warning to the motorist. The rule requires that horns be sounded at every public highway-rail crossing. FRA has provided an exception to this requiremeot
for crossings within a deSignated "quiet zone." Ifall crossings within that zone are equipped with approved supplementary safety measures in addition to conventional gates aud flashing
lights, locomotive horns will not need to be sounded (subject to the rule requirements). The rule further provides that if a community wishes to establish a quiet zone, but it can not,
for some reason, fully comply with the rule's requirements for supplemeotary safety measures at every crossing within the zone, it may apply to the FRA with its proposed program of safety
measures. FRA will evaluate the community proposal to determine if the safety measures will compensate for the lack of a locomotive horn. Finally, the rule provides a very limited exception
to the requirement that supplementary or alternative safety measures must be in place iflocomotive horns are to be silenced. As required in section "j" of the Act, any regulations issued
pursuaut to the Act shall not take effect for one year following the date of publication of the final rule. As a resuJt) the regulation's reqillrements to sound the locomotive horn (absent
establishment of a quiet zone) will not be effective until one year after publication of the final rule. The one year period, in addition to the period between publication of this proposed
rule and the final rule, wHl enable communities to assess options and plan for those actions deemed best for that particular community. FRA . anticipates that during the One year between
final rule publication and its effective datet communities will wish to initiate the administrative process involved in establishing quiet zones so that, ifdeSired, they cau have quiet
zones in place on the anniversary of the rule publication. Therefore, FRA anticipates that for administrative purposes only, the final rule will have an effective date 60 days after
publication. The final rule, of course, would not impose any requirement for. the sounding of locomotive horns before one year after final rule pubHcation. FRA requests comments on this
proposal. Section-By-Section Analysis Section 229.129 Audible Warning Device As noted earlier, FRA has a rule at, 49 CFR 229.129, whicb requires that each lead locomotive be provided
with an audible warning device. That provision currently requires that the warning device produce a miuimum sound level of 96 dE(Al at 100 feet forward of the locomotive in its direction
of travel. Over the past few years FRA has received many complaints regarding the loudness of various locomotive horns. While the regulation appropriately required a minimum sound level
in order to assure the hom's effectiveness) it did not restrict the maximum sound level of a locomotive horn. This section would would correct that situation and would establish a maximum
sound level that an audible warning device may produce. (Proposed language for this section can be found at the end of this document following proposed regulatory language for new Part
222.) This section would also revise the directionality requirements of the regulation. It would establish a maximum sound level to the side of the locomotive in order to reduce the
horn's effect on the surrounding community. FRA is faced with the task ofbalancing the need for an effective warning to the motorist while minimizing the hom's intrusion into the surrounding
community. There are a number of factors which influence the ability of a motorist to hear a train horn. These include: The sound spectrum level (intensity at each frequeocy) of the
horn, distance from the horn, ambient noise spectrum level in the motor vehicle, the acoustic insertion loss of the vehicle (sound reflected and absorbed by the vehicle which does not
enter the vehicle interior), and the characteristics of the grade crossing. The human ear is only sensitive to sounds between 20 and 20,000 hertz (Hz), and is most sensitive in the range
between 500 and 5,000 Hz. Hearing sensitivity declines sharply for higher and lower frequencies. As distance from a sound source increases, the effective intensity of the sound 
2240 , 1 Federal Register, '/01. 65, No. 9/Thursday, January 13, 2 ....Al/Proposed Rules decreases by approximately 7.5 dB for every doubling of the distance. For instance, ifthe calibrated
intensity of the train hom at 100 feet is 100 dB(A), then at 200 feet it is 92.5 dB(A). Ambient noise in the vehicle can reduce the motorist's ability to hear the train hom through masking.
Masking would be strongest when the frequency of the noise is at the same frequency of the train horn. In general, this means that the spectrum level of the horn inside the vehicle must
exceed that of ambient noise for the horn to be heard. Determining the required minimum level and the reqrrired maximum level for the train horn requires a balance between effectiveness
as: a safety warning and mitigation of undesirable community noise impacts. In the past, some mitigation of noise impacts has occurred through exercise of discretion by locomotive engineers
who have sought to limit community impacts by "going easy" on the air horn control A Federal mandate to use this warning device will inevitably change accepted practice. Although engineers
have undoubtedly sought to exercise good judgment in this regard, whether this exercise ofdiscretion has been uniformly benign is not known and not determinable using existing data.
Recent installation on some newer locomotives of electronic controls for operation of horns may have resulted in the maximum intended sound levels routinely Wlder all circumstances.
Again, whether this automation of the hom function has improved safely cannot be determined from available dala. Although highway-rail crossing safety has continued to improve during
tlris period despite increased expos1.U'Ct many other variables [such as improved education and awareness programs, strengthened law enforcement, equipping of locomotives with alerting
lights, installation of warning devices at high-risk crossings, and crossing closures) are likely responsible for most of this improvement. Even the maximum sound level available from
the hom has varied widely among segments of the locomotive and cab car fleets. FRA is aware that a major commuter authority sets the output of the horns on alleast a portion of its commuter
eqnipment at the minimum allowed (96 dB[A) at 100 feet, "plus or minus" 4 dB(A) for actual field testing). By contrast, many freight locomotives have horns that deliver as much as 114
dB(A) at 100 feet in front of the locomotive. Locomotive horns that proved highly effective in the warm climate through which the Florida East Coast Railway operates (where many motorists
may have driven with open vehicle windows in mild nighttime hours) have apparently been set at about 104 dB(A), but it may not be reasonable to expect similar effectiveness at this level
under other conditions. FRA is particularly concerned that railroads not be required to reduce horn levels across the board to accommodate local community sensitivities, ifthat will
result in reduced horn effectiveness at the majority of crossings that are not located in tightly-developed noisesensitive areas. The Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe
Center) has been studying train horn issues for FRA in support of this rulemaking. Based upon field data collection and analysis the Volpe Center has suggested that, for peak safety
effectiveness, train horns should be set at approximately 111-114 dB(A). This range takes into consideration the need to provide adequate advance warning to as many motorists as practical.
This would include a high percentage ofmotorists stopped, or approaching al low speed, crossings with automated warning devices. Behavioral science suggests that these motorists may
have an expectation that a train is nearing the crossing. Under these circumstances, the train hom can be very effective because the motorist is listening for an auditory cue. Even if
the "insertion " loss" associated with closed vebicle windows and sound insulation is in the range of 18 to 45 dB (A), and despite some degree of background noise associated with the
vehicle's engine and other interfering noise, the train horn should add significant value in these cases. Preliminary analysis by the Volpe Center appears to indicate that under most
circumstances of crossing configuration and train speed, a train hom set in the range ofl04-105 dB(A) at 100 feet in front of the locomotive may provide a sufficient auditory cue to
alert the motorist who pauses at a crossing with active warning systems that the arrival of the train is imminent. The greater challenge is presented by passively signed crossings. Although
FRA does not propose to allow banning oftrain hom use at passively signed crossings and crossings with only flashing lights, the train horn will nevertheless remain an important warning
system at those crOSSings. Reducing the allowed sound level by setting a maximum in this proceeding could thus lead to a net reduction in safety. At passively signed crOSSings, overall
risk to the public is generally less because offewer conflicting movements of trains and vehicles. However! the risk to any given motorist seeking to use the crossing during the period
a train is approaching is much higher. Motorists seeking to act wisely by yielding to the train are entitled to fair warning of the train's approach. Even with all lights (headlight
and "ditch" lights) functioning, a train is sometimes difficult to pick out against the visual background. Further, due to such factors as bnildings, mature stands of trees, track curvature,
and the angle of motorists' approach, sight distances at many crossings do not permit a long preview of the train's approach. A sufficiently loud auditory warning will tell the motorist
that a train is approaching and from what direction (within about 10 degrees for a person of good hearing in both ears under optimum circumstances). This will give the motorist more
opportunity to sight the oncoming train at the first opportunity, evaiuate its rate of approach, and make a safe decision. The challenge at passively signed crossings is to provide warning
. suffiCiently early to affect motorist behavior. This is more difficult, because the motorist approaching the crossing in most cases (except where an enforced STOP sign is present)
will not stop and may not slow down except as reqrrired by unevenness of the road surface. The motorist's decision point is thus farther away from the crossing and (in the typical casel
from the train horn. According to the Volpe Center, a vehicle traveling at 30 miles per hour may bave interior noise level in the range of 21 to 63 dB(A) from its engine and typical
road noise. A loud sound system playing music or other programming will add to this background noise. Depending upon the train hom harmonics; the Volpe Cenier estimates that a horn sound
level in the range of 111-114 dB(A) may be sufficient to warn most motorist" at paSSive crossings for all conventional train speeds, despite the fact that the horn sound as inserted
into the vehicle must exceed the background noise by a larger margin than at crossings with automated warning devices in order to seize the motorists" attention. However, reducin8 the
train hom level from that range is expected to result in a rather rapid falloff of effectiveness at passively signed crossings. The result will be that the horn will be effective only
at lower combined closing speeds for the vehicle and train approaching the crossing, leaving motorists without effective warning under a larger number of reallife scenarios. Community
impacts are also highly sensitive to train hom levels-but in the opposite direction" Volpe Center calculations suggest, for instance, that just redUCing train horn levels from 114 
2241 Federal Register I Jo1. 65, No. 9/Thursday, January 13, z""JI Proposed Rules dE(A) to 111 dB(A) would almost double the number of train movements pennitted berore a c.ommon 24-hour
measure of acceptable community noise levels (Ldn=65 dE(All is exceeded at any given distance from the railroad right-of-way. This measure of acceptable community noise levels was developed
to evaluate noise from frequent transportation movements (aircraft overflights, transit vehicle passes), in connection with public investments in new transportation facilities and equipment.
FRA has grave reservations concerning whether such a standard could be appropriately applied to evaluate the acceptability of shortduration warning sounds necessary for safety in an
existing transportation system. Train horn noise has been excepted from Environmental Protection Administration limits on railroad noise emissions because ofthese kinds of differences.
Nevertheless, FRA recognizes the imporlance of imposing no greater noise impacts on local communities than may be necessary for safety. Accordingly, as discussed below FRA will be conducting
an environmental assessment in parallel with this rulernaking and utilizing the results of that effort in preparing a final rule. FRA does not propose to conclude this rulemaking without
setting a maximum level for the train horn. Although FRA is skeptical, based on noise readings taken in locomotive cabs, that train horns have been set at levels exceeding approximately
114 dB (A)-a level that does not appear excessive given the safety needs involved-FRA does recognize that the mandate to use the horn implicates a responsibility to set a maximum level.
For purposes of this proposed rule, therefore, FRA is proposing two specific options, with a third concept suggested for comment. Under both options the minimum level would remain at
96 dE(Al. However, in order to avoid siguificant loss of warning effectiveness, field tests would not include the current uplus or minus" allowance for error. Tests in the field would
be required to demonstrate a sound level of at least 96 dB(A) at 100 feet in front of the locomotive and to comply with a specified maximum level. To avoid non-representative results
caused by environmental extremes, testing would be required to be conducted within a range of temperature of 36 and 95 degrees Fahrenheit with relative humidity between 20 and 90 percent.
Both temperature and humidity affect the propa&ation of sound waves. . UptlOn. far maximum level. \;Jnder the first option, the maximum . permissible train horn sound level would not
exceed 104 dB(Aj, which is believed to be sufficient in most circwnstances to provide adequate warning at crossings using automated waruing devices (where the motorist makes a decision
while at rest near the crossing, expecting the train to arrive). Under the second option, the train horn could be set at up to 111 dE(Al, which is in the range where the horn is believed
to be effective under many circumstances at passively signed crossings (where the motor vehicle is in motion at the decision point and the motorist have been provided no contemporaneous
reason to expect to see a train). As soon as they are completed, FRA will place in the docket Volpe Center studies providing infonnation pertinent to this analysis. Variable level option.
FRA notes that one possible approach to addressing this issue is a variable hom level. Under this approach, train horns would be required to be capable of sounding within a low range
(e.g., 96-104 dB(A)) approaching any crossing with active warning devices and within a higher range (e.g., 104-111 dB(A)) at any crossing not equipped with automated waruing systems.
FRA notes concern that this could place an additional burden on the locomotive engineer and that sounding the horn in this pattern would not be feasible where crossings are closely spaced
and are not uniformly treated with automated warning devices. Accordingly, at a miuimum simplified procedures requiring the engineer to take the safe course would be required in these
circumstances, Commenters are asked to evaluate this approach as a third option. mreclionality. Under current regulations, some locomotive horns have been placed near the center ofthe
locomotive in order to :reduce crew noise exposure. Although providing at least 96 dB(A) at 100 feet in front of the locomotive, these arrangements have sometimes led to higher sound
levels at right angles to the locomotive than to the front or rear. This has resulted from obstructions such as diesel exhaust stacks and air conditioning units causing the horn noise
to disperse. FRA believes that this approach is not necessary for crew safety and is inconsistent with the responsibility of the trensportation company to limit Community noise impacts.
Accordingly, the proposed rule would require that the sound levels at 90 degrees and 100 feet from the center of the locomotive not exceed the value 100 feet in front of the locomotive.
FRA also requests comment whether this community exposure should be measured at 90 degrees from the horn placement location, rather than the center of the locomotive. Crew safety concerns.
FRA does not expect locomotive crew exposure to be a limiting factor in this rulemaking. In a 1996 Report to Congress entitled Locomotive Crashworthiness and Cab Working Conditions,
FRA described the results of a survey of cab noise levels and the literature dealing with occupational hearing loss. The report found noise exposure for most locomotive assignments to
fall within acceptable levels aod noted that cabs of new locomotives are exceptionally quiet because they provide an environment that is isolated from the locomotive structure and temperature
controlled (permitting windows to remain closed). However, the report identified the need to improve FRA"s noise exposure standard for locomotive cabs and to adopt a hearing conservation
approach to this area of occupationnl safety and health. A working group of the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee is currently pursuing these improvements, and comments from within
that working group have prompted the suggestion noted above for a variable sound level for the horn. Depending upon the circumstances under which the low sound level might be selected
by the locomotive engineer, having this option available could reduce the overall noise dose to which crew members are subjected during any duty tour. In any event, FRA expects that
continued improvements in locomotive design, use of personal hearing protection, and other initiatives now under study should pennit further reduction in occupational noise exposure
over the coming years. Costs. FRA recognizes that varying the loudness of the locomotive horn by adapting to a new maximum level, providing for a variable level, or relocating a hom
to avoid excessive levels to the "field" could result in costs to the railroads. FRA requests comment on the extent of the costs involved and the optimum means ofachieving any necessary
retrofit of locomotivoot including the period that should be allowed to accomplish this work. Section 222.3 Application The requirements contained in this part apply to all railroads,
both passenger and freight, which operate on the general railroad system of transportation, i.e., the network of standard gage railroads over which the interchange ofgoods and passengers
throughout the nation is possible. This part does not apply to exclusively freigbt railroads that operate ouly on track which is not part of the general 
2242 􀁾􀀠I FederaJ Regi.steL ';01. 65. No. 9/Thursday, January 13, 􀀻􀀧􀀻􀁾􀁊􀁴􀁽􀀠I Proposed Rules system of transportation. This part also does not apply to rapid transit operations
within an urban area that are not connected to the general railroad system of transportation. In other recent rulemakings. FRA has discussed the basis for its exercise of jurisdiction
over "scenic" or Ulourisl" railroads. FRA has declined to exercise jurisdiction over insular scenic or tourist railroad", i.e., passenger rallroads operating inside an installation so
that the operations are limited to a separate enclave in such a way that there is no reasonable expectation that the safely of the public-except a business guest. licensee of the railroad
or an affiliated entity! or a trespasser-would be affected the operation. FRA has detennined that the presence of certain characteristics will prevent the railroad from being considered
insular and thus will result in FRA's exercise of jurisdiction over that railroad. The presence of one ofthe following characteristics will trigger the assertion of FRA regulatory jurisdiction:
(1) A public highway-rail crossing that is in use; (2) an at-grade rail crossing that is in use; (3) a bridge over a public road or waters used for commercial navigationj or (4} a common
corridor with a railroadl i.e., its operations are within 30 feet of those of any railroad. Inasmuch as this proposed rule is directed at locomotive horn use at public highway-rail grade
crossings, the rule will thus apply to every tourist or scenic railroad crossing a public highway rail grade 􀁣􀁲􀁯􀁳􀁳􀁩􀁮􀁧􀁾􀀠whether or not the railroad is part of the general railroad
system oftransportation, The language of this proposed section reflects that result. FRA recognizes that additional public grade crossings may be found on plant railroads and freight
railroads which are not part of the general railroad system of transportation. Operations on these railroads are typically low speed with small numbers ofrail cars permitting relatively
short stopping distances. Additionally, these operations typically also involve roadway crossings with relatively low speed vehicular traffic. These reasons. together with the historical
basis for not asserting jurisdiction in these cases, leads FRA to propose not to exercise jurisdiction over public and private crossings at such plant and private railroads. FRA does.
of course, retain the statutory right to assert jurisdiction in this area and will do so if circumstances so warrant. As in all aspects of this proposed rule, FRA invites comments on
the jurisdictional determinations proposed in this notice. Section (f) of the Act explicitly gives discretion to the Secretary on the question of whether to subject private highway-rail
crossings. pedestrian crossings, and crossings utilized primarily by nonmotorized vehicles and other special vehicles to this regulation. At this time. FRA is proposing to exercise its
jurisdiction in a limited manner regarding these crossings. Although some private crossings crossings experience heavy rail and motor vehicle use. we do not have sufficient information
as to present practices, the number and type of such diverse crossings, and the impacts of locomotive horns at such crossings. Thus. FRA will not at this time require that the locomotive
horn be sounded at private highway-rail crOSSings. Whether horns must be sounded at such crossings will remain subject to state law (if any) and agreements between the railroad and the
holder of crossing rights. FRA will. however. permit the establishment of quiet zones on rail line segments which include private crossings. To do otherwise would undermine a major purpose
of the Act. While we believe that. absent compensating warning or protective devices, sounding of locomotive horns provides a safer highway-rail crossing, it may be sufficient that the
locomotive bell. rather than horn. be rung prior to entering a pedestrian or other nODhighway crossing. At such croSSings. pedestrians, horse-drawn vehicles. bicycles. and equestrians
equestrians enter the crossing at a significantly slower speed than motor vehicles, are not enclosed as in an automobile or truck. and do not face the same distractions as those confronting
motorists. FRA therefore proposes to decline to exercise jurisdiction over the use of locomotive horns at such crossings. Section 222.5 Preemptive Effect This section provides notice
that pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 20106, issuance of these regulations preempts any State law, rule, regu1ation. or order covering the same subject matter, except a provision necessary to eliminate
or reduce an essentially local safely hazard. that is not incompatible with Federal law or regulation and does not unreasonably burden interstate commerce. Accordingly. all existing
local ordinances and state statutes relating to whistle bans Or to the sounding of locomotive horns at public highway-rail crOSSings will be preempted by this regulation unless such
ordinances or laws fan within the exception contained within 49 U.S.C. § 20106. This rule. however. does not confer authority on localities to establisb quiet zones ifstate law does
not otherwise permit such actions. Section 222.7 Definitions Thls prop osed rule uses various terms which are not Widely understood or which. for purposes of this rulemaking, have very
specific definitions. This section defines the following teIIl1S: "Barrier curb" means a highway curb designed to discourage a motor vehicle from leaving the roadway. FRA proposes to
define such curb as a curb more than six inches, measured from the surface of the roadway. As with mountable curbs and channelization deviCes, additional design requirements are left
to the standard specifications used by the governmental entity constructing the engineering improvements. "Channelization devicel1 means one of a continuous series ofhighly visible obstacles
placed between opposing highway lanes designed to alert Or guide traffic around an obstacle or to direct traffic in a particular direction. Channelization devices must be at least 2.5
feet high high and placed a maximum of seven feet apart. "Effectiveness rate" means the effectiveness of a supplementary safety measure in reducing the probabilily of a collision at
a highway-rail grade crossing. [Effectiveness is indicated by a number between zero and one which represents the reduction of the probability of a collision as a result of the installation
of a supplementary safety measure when compared to the same crossing equipped with conventional automated warning systems of flashing lights, gates and bells. Zero effectiveness means
that the supplementary safely measure providesno reduction in the probability of a collision (there is no effectiveness) while an effectiveness rating of one means that the supplementary safety measure is totally effective in reducing
collisions. Measurements between zero and one reflect the percentage by which the supplementary safely measure reduces the probability of a collision. Thus, a supplementary safety measure
with an effectiveness of .37 reduces the probability of a collision by 37 percent). "Locomotive homO means a locomotive air horn, steam whistle, or simiJar audible warning device mounted
on a locomotive or control cab car. The terms "locomotive hom", "train whistle", "locomotive whistle", and "train horn" are used interchangeably in the railroad industry. Specifications
concerning audible warning devices on locomotives other than steam locomotives are contained in 49 CFR 229.129. ·"Med1'rm·'!.means an "islandl' or the portion of a divided highway separating

2243 ) 1 Federal Register, ,ro!. 65, No. 9/Thursday, January 13, 􀀲􀁾􀁵􀁑􀁉􀁐􀁲􀁯􀁰􀁯􀁳􀁥􀁤􀀠Rules the travel ways for traffic in opposite directions. A median is bOlUlded by mountable
or harrier curos. "Mountable curb" means a highway curb designed to permit a motor vehicle to leave a roadway when required. It is a curb not more than six inches high measured from
the roadway surfacc, with a well rounded top edge. Additional design specifications are determined by the standard traffic design specifications used by the governmental entity constructing
the mountable curb. "Positive train control territory" means, for purposes of tills part, a line of railroad on which railroad operations are governed by a train control system which
is capable of determining the position of the train in relation to a highway-rail grade crossing and capable of computing the time of arrival of the train at the crossing which results
in the automatic operation of the locomotive horn or the automatic prompting of the locomotive engineer such that the horn is sounded at a predetermined time prior to the locomotive's
arrival at the crossing. "Public highway-rail grade crossing" means a location where a public highway, road, or street, including associated sidewalks or pathwaYSt crosses one or more
active railroad tracks at grade. Public highway-rail grade crossing, also referred to in this part as "highway-rail crossings", "public grade crossing", and "grade crossing", includes
pedestrian walkways or other pathways when associated or part of a larger public highway, road or street crossing. '''Quiet zoUt;/'means a segment of a rail line within which is situated
one or a number of consecutive highway-rail crossings at which locomotive horns are not routinely sounded. "Railroad" means any form of nonhighway ground transportation that rnns on
rails or electromagnetic gUideways and any entity providing such transportation, including (i) Commuter or other short-haul railroad passenger service in a metropolitan or suburban area
aod commuter railroad service that was operated by the Consolidated Rail Corporation on January 1,1979; and (ii) high speed ground transportation systems that connect metropolitan areas,
without regard to whether those systems use new technologies not associated with traditional railroads; but does not include rapid transit operations in an urban area that are not connected
to the general railroad system of transportation. "Supplementary safety measure" means a safety system. or procedure established in accordance with this part which is provided by the
appropriate traffic control authority or law enforcement authority and that is determined by the Administrator to be an effective substitute for the locomotive horn in the prevention
of highway-rail casualties. . "Whistle board" means a post or sign directed toward oncoming trains and bearing the letter "W" or equivalent symbol, erected at a distance from a grade
crossing, which indicates to the locomotive engineer that the locomotive horn should be sounded beginning at that point. Section 22.9 Penalties. This prOvision provides civil penalties
for violations ofrequirements of this regulation. Any person or railroed who violates or causes a violation is subject to a civil penalty of up to $11,000. Penalties may be assessed
against individuals only for willful violations. Penalties of up to $22,000 can be assessed for violations caused by gross negligence, or where a pattern of violations has created a
risk or was the cause of death or injury to any person. Maximum penalties of $11,000 and $22,000 are required by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (Pub.L.l01410)
(28 U.S.C. 2461 note), as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (Pub.L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321-373) which requires each agoncy to regularly adjust certain civil monetary
penalties in an effort to maintain their remedial impact and promote compliance with the law. Section 222.11 Petitions for Waivers This section explains the process for requesting a
waiver from a provision of this regulation. FRA has historically entertained waiver petitions from parties affected by an FRA regulation. In many instances, a regulation, or specific
section of a regulation, while appropriate for the general regulated community, may be inappropriate when applied to a specific entity. Circumstances may make application of the regulation
to the entity counterproductive; an extension of time to comply with a regulatory provision may he needed; or technological advancements may result in a portion of a regulation being
inappropriate in a certain situation. In such instances, FRA may grant a waiver from its regulations. The rules governing FRA's waiver process are found in 49 CFR part 211. In summary.
after a petition for a waiver is received by FRA, a notice of the waiver request is published in the Federal Register, an opportunHy for public comment is provided, and an opportunity
for a bearing is afforded the petitiOlring or other interested party. FRA. after reviewing information from tho petitioning party and others, will grant or deny the petition. In certain
circumstances, conditions may he imposed on the grant of a waiver if FRA concludes that the conditions are necessary to assure safety or ifthey are in the public interest. Because this
regulation's affected constituency is broader than most of FRA's rail safety regulations. the waiver process is proposed to be somewhat different. Paragraphs (a) and (b) address the
aspects which are different than FRA's customary waiver process. However. as paragraph (e) makes clear, once an application is made pursuant to either paragraph (a) or (b), FRA's normal
waiver process, as specified in 49 CFR part 211, applies. Paragraph (a) of this section addresses jointly submitted waiver petitions as speCified by 49 U.S.C. 20153(d). Such a petition
must be submitted by both the railroad whose tracks cross the highway and by the appropriate traffic control authority or law enforcement authority which has jurisdiction over the roadway
crossing the railroad tracks. Although § 20153(d) requires that a joint application be made before a waiver of a provision ofthis regulation is granted. FRA, in paragraph (b), addresses
the situation that may occur if the two parties can not reach agreement to file a joint petition. Section 20153(1)(31 gives the Secretary (and the Federal Railroad Administrator) the
authority to waive in wbole or part any requirement of § 20153 (with certain limited exceptions) ifit is determined not to contribute significantly to public safety. FRA thus proposes
to accept individually filed waiver applications (under certain conditions) as well as jointly filed applications. In an effort to encourage the traffic control authority and the railroad
to agree on the substance of the waiver request, FRA proposes to requlre that the filing party specify the steps it has taken in an attempt to reach agreement with the other party. Additionally,
the filing party must also provide the other party with a copy of the petition filed with the FRA. It is clear that FRA prefers that petitions for waiver reflect the agreement of both
entities controlling the two transportation modes at the erossing.1f agreement is not possible, however, FRA will entertain a petition for waiver, but only after the two parties have
attempted to reach all agreement on the petition. 
2244 ,-, Federal Register, /01. 65, No. 9/Thursday, January 13, 􀀲􀁾􀀧􀀺􀁊􀀯􀁐􀁲􀁯􀁰􀁯􀁳􀁥􀁤􀀠Rules Paragraph (c) provides that each petition for a waiver must be filed in the manner
required by 49 CFR part 211_ Paragraph (dl provides that the Administrator may grant the wmver if the Administrator finds that itis in the public interest and that safety of highway
and rmlroad uses weill not be dllninished. The Administrator may grant the waiver subject to any necessary conditions required to maintain public safety. Subpar! B-Use ofLocomotive Horns
Section 222.21 When To Use Locomotive Horns Paragraph (al of this section would require that, except as provided elsewhere in this part, a locomotive horn on the lead locomotive ofa
train, or the lead locomotive of a consist of locomotives, or on an individual locomotive must be sounded when the locomotive or lead Car is approaching and passes through each public
highway-rail crossing. The locomotive hom must be sounded weith a series of two long, one short, and one one long horn blasts to signify the locomotive's approach to a crossing. FRA
is adopting the industry standard as the required indicator of the approarl> of a locomotive to a crossing. This paragraph also requires that the horn be blown at the location required
in paragraph (h) and that the hom warning be repeated or prolonged until the locomotive or train occupies the crossing. The remmuing paragraphs of this section address the specific location
at which the sounding of the locomotive hom should be initiated. Establishment of this point is important both to provide adequate warning to the motorist and also to not unnecessarily
impose the loud locomotive hom noise upon the surrounding community. In drafting paragraph (b), FRA has attempted to address the fact that various states have long established requirements
governing the location at which the hom must be sounded. Although those reqUirements would be preempted by this rule, rather than require immediate wholesale changes of whistle boards
and timetable instructionst FRA is not proposing to immediately change the practical effects of present state requirements, ifany. However, if a railroad changes the maximum authorized
track speed on a line ofrailroad approaching a grade crossing, the location where the locomotive engineer is required to sound the hom (as indicated by whistle board or other method)
must then be adjusted to reflect the change. The adjustment at that time would be made irrespective of conflicting state law. Tills paragraph further establishes (within the 114 mile
limitation contained in paragraph (e)) the location at which the locomotive horn should be sounded. IT using whistle boards, the railroad must place them at a distance from the crossing
equal to the distance traveled by a train in 20 seconds while operating at the maximum speed allowed for any train operating on the track in that direction ofmovement. Because a fixed
location for sounding of a hom results in differing periods of warning depending on the speed of the train or locomotive, the location ofa whistle board must therefore be dependent on
the fastest train operating over that track. Ifa railroad decreases the maximum authorized speed of trains operanng over a crossing, the whistle board must be moved closer to the crossing
in order to provide 20 seconds ofwarning. Conversely, ifthe maximum authorized speed is increased, then the whistle board must be placed farther from the crossing In maintain the 20
second warning time. Paragraph (h) further provides that if the railroad uses methods or systems other than whistle boards to indicate when the horn should be sounded (such as positive
train control systems), that system should ensure that the horn is sounded not less than 20. nor more than 24 seconds before the locomotive enters the grade crossing. Paragraph (c) addresses
the situation in which a state does not beve on the effective date of this rule, a specific requirement for placement ofwhistle boards or specific distance requirements for the sounding
ofa hom. In that case, a railroad must take the same actions as are required when it adjusts maximum authorized speed in paragraph (bJ above; ifusing whistle boards I the railrnad must
(within the 'I. mile limitation contained in paragraph (en place them at a distance from the crossing equal to the distance traveled by a train in 20 seconds while operating at the maximum
speed allowed for any train operating on the track in that direction ofmovement. Ifthe railroad uses methods Or systems other than whistle boards to indicate when the hom should be sounded
(such as positive train control systems), that system should ensure that the horn is sounded not less than 20 seconds, nor more than 24 seconds before the ]ocomotive enters the grade
crossing. These provisions, together with the definition of "positive train controlH are based on the long held assumption that sounding the locomotive hom for 20 seconds before entering
the grade crossing provides the optimum length of warning. Recent research, however. tends to indicate that 15 seconds of advance warning may be sufficient, especially where active warning
systems are in place at the crossing. FRA requests comments on the proper length of time and under what circumstances locomotive horns should be sounded. Paragraph (d) provides that
each rmlroad, irrespective of state law to the contrary, must promptly adjust the location of each whistle board to reflect changes in maximum authorized track speeds, except where all
trains operating over that crossing are equipped to be responsive to a positive train control system. This paragraph mandates that ifa railroad decreases the maximum authorized speed
oftrains operating over a crossing, the whlstle board must be moved closer to the crossing. Conversely, if the maximum authorized speed is increased, then the whistle board must be placed
farther from the crossing. Railroads must ensure that whistle boards are placed at a distance from each crossing equal to the distance traveled by a train in 20 seconds while operating
at the maximum speed allowed for any train operating in that direction ofmovement. Paragraph (e) establishes a maximum distance of V4 mile before a crossing. over which a train horn
may be sounded, regardless oftrain speed. Sound diminishes at a rate of approximately 7_5dB(A) for each doubling of distance. Thus, a locomotive hom registering 100dB(A) at 100 feet
in front of the locomotive will have diminished to roughly 75 dB(A) at V. mile (1,320 feet) in front of the locomotive. That distance is likely near the outer margin of utility in termS
of alerting the motorist to oncoming trains at that particular crossing. Section 222.23 Emergency and Other Uses ofLocomotive Horns Paragraph (al ofthis section is meant to make clear
that even at grade crossings subject to quiet zone conmtions, locomotive engineers may sound the locomotive hom in emergency situations. Nothing in this part is intended to prevent an
engineer from sounding the locomotive horn to provide a warning to vehicle operators, pedestrians, trespassers or crews on other trains in an emergency situation if. in the engineer's
sole judgment, such action is appropriate in order to prevent imminent injury, death or property damage. Establishment of a quiet zone does not prevent an engineer from sounding the
horn in such situations, nor does itimpose a legal duty to do so. Additionally, paragraph (h) provides 
2245 ') I Federal Registel. "01. 65, No, 9/Thursday, January 13, <>v.lo/Proposed Rules that nothing in this part restricts the us. of the horn to announce the approach of the train to
roadway workers in accordance with a program adopted under 49 CFR part 214, This regulation is not meant to restrict the use of the locomotive horn when active crossing warning devices
have malfunctioned and use of the horn is required by either 49 CFR 234,lQ5 (activation failure). 234,106 (partial activation). or 234,107 (false activation), Subparl G-Exceptions To
Use orlb. Locomotive HoT'll Section 222.31 Train Operations Which Do Not Require Sounding ofHorns at Individual Crossings This section addresses the situation in which locomotive horns
need not be sounded even Ibough the crossing is not part of a quiet zone. Locomotive horns need not be sounded at individnal highway-rail grade crossings at which the maximum authorized
operating speed (as established by Ibe railroad) for that segment oftrack is 15 miles per hour or less and properly eqalpped flaggers (as defined by 49 CFR 234.5) provide warning to
motorists. These limited types ofrai! operations do not present a significant risk ofloss oflife or serious personal injury and thus, under Ibe Act. may be exempted from the requirement
to sound Ibe locomotive hom. Locomotive horns will still be required to be sounded if automatic warning systems have malfunctioned and the crossing is being flagged pursuant to 49 CFR
234.105, 234.106. or 234.107. Horns wll1 still be required in these limited circumstances in order to offset the temporary loss of the active warning which motorists have presumah1y
come to rely on. This section is an exception to the requirement that silencing of1ocomotive horns must include all crossings within a designated qniet zone. This section permits a railroad,
on its own initiative, to silence its horns at individual crossings under certain circumstances in which the safety risk i.1ow. The primary purpose of this section is not the same as
that of § 222.35 ("Establishment ofquiet zones"). Rather than silencing horns for the benefit of the surrounding community, this section will he used primarily at crossings located in
industrial areas where substantial switching occurs. and would avoid unnecessary noise impacts on Ibose raHroad personnel working on the ground in very close proximity to the locomotive
horn. This section recognizes that under the noted conditions. public and railroad safety do not require the sounding oflocomotive horns-a railroad is thus free to eliminate them. Since
the primary beneficiary of this section is not nearby residences, the reasoning for the establishment ofquiet zones rather than individual quiet crossings would not be applicable here.
There is no additional burden placed on an engineer in this situation since the flagger will generally be a member of Ibe train crew itself, and the engineer will not be placed in the
position of having to determine when horns must be silenced or sounded as woald be the case ifhorns could be silenced on an individual crossing basis. Additionally, prevention ofnoise
spillover from a crossing would not be a. consideration in these situations. FRA has considered whether railroad operations involving less frequent service and slow speeds, such as railroad
operations typically llBsociated with short lines and secondary lines. shoald also be categorically excluded from the reqUirement to sound locomotive horns based on the premise that
they do not present a significant risk of loss oflife or serious personal injury. Another factor which could be considered in addition to the above factors is the level of highway traffic
over Ibe crossing. While FRA is not proposing at this time to categorically exclude crossings based on these factors, FRA solicits comments, and specific suggestions as to the desirability
of categorically excluding certain crossings based on a combination of the above factors or other characteristics of crossings that significantly affect risk. Inclusion of supporting
data and analysis is encouraged. Section 222.33 Establishment of Quiet Zones Methods of Estahlishing a Quiet Zone This section addresses the manner in which quiet zones are established.
A quiet zone is defined as a segment ofrail line within which is situated one or a <" number ofconsecutive highway-rail .' crossings at which locomotive horns 􀁡􀁲􀁾􀀠not routinely sounded.
The concept of quiet zones is crucial to understanding the intent and thrust of this proposed raJe. While it wonid be possible to approve a ban on locomotive whistles on a 􀁣􀁡􀁳􀁥􀁾􀁢􀁹􀁾􀁣􀁡􀁳􀁥􀀮�
�or a crossing-bycrossing basis, the desired result of less disruption to Ibe surrounding community by locomotive hom noise would be minimal. Because a locomotive horn must be sounded
well in advance ofa grade crossing, the noise spill-over from a crossing not suhject to a ban could still dlsrupt Ibe community near a crossing where horns are banned. As a result. the
concept ofa quiet zone was developed. whicb would essentially fulfill the following purposes: ensure that a whistle ban would have the greatest impact in terms of noise reduction; ease
the added burden on locomotive crews of the necesSity of detennining on a crossing-by-crossing basis whether or not to sound the horn; and enable grade crossing safety initiatives to
be focused on specific areas wilbin the quiet zone. FRA propose. two different methods of establishing qniet zones, depending On local circumstances, In one melbod (provided for in §
222.33(al). every public grade crossing within the proposed qniet zone would have a supplementary safety measure applied to the crossing. These measures, which are listed in Appendix
A. have been determined by FRA to he an effective substitute for the locomotive hom in the prevention of highway-rail grade crossing casualties. In other wordsl these measures each have
an effectiveness rate which is at least equivalent to that of a locomotive horn. Because each highway-rail grade crossing would be upgraded from the standard flashing lights and automatic
gates to a crossing with a supplementary safety measure. FRA's role would be minimal, The governmental entity establishing the quiet zone woald oaly need to designate the extent ofthe
quiet zone, install the supplementary safety measures, and comply with various notice and information requirements of § 222.35(a). Another method (provided for in § 222,33(b)) of establishing
a quiet zone pannits a governmental entity greater flexibility in using supplementary safety measures or other types of safety measures (alternative safety measures) to deal with problem
crossings. While Appendix A lists those measures which FRA believes fully compensate for the lack of a locomotive horn. Appendix B includes all Appendix A nieasures and adds other safuty
measures whose suCCess in compensating for the locomotive horn is dependent on the level of time and effort expended by Ibe community. Such measures include public safety education and
increased law enforcement programs. Using a combination ofsupplemental safuty measures from Appendix A. alternative safety measures listed in Appendix B, and tailoring supplemental safety
measures to unique circumstances at specific crossings, the governmental entity is provided with a greater level of flexibility than is avai1ahle using oaly supplementary safety measures
from Appendix A. Another major difference in this approach from the earlier melbod 
2246 Federal Regime>, )01. 85, No. 9/Thursday, January 13, 􀁾􀁟􀁊􀁢􀁉􀁐􀁲􀁯􀁰􀁯􀁳􀁥􀁤􀀠Rules is the manner in which risk is viewed. In this more flexible approacb, risk will be viewed
in terms of the quiet zone as a whole, rather thao at each individual grade crossing. Thus, FRA would consider a quiet zane under this approach thai does not have a supplemental safety
measure at every crossing as long as implementation of the proposed supplementary and alternative safety measures on the quiet zone as a whole will cause a reduction in risk to compensate
for the lack of a locomotive hom. Ifthe aggregate reduction in predicted collision risk for the qulet zone as a wbole is snfficient to compensate for the lack of a horn, a qulet zone
may be established. Because of the greater flexibility and the greater variation in possible risk reduction, FRA would take a much more active role in reviewing the approach ofthe governmental
entity. Paragrapb (b) of this section provides that a state or local govemment may apply to the FRA Associate Admiulstrator for Safety for acceptance of a quiet zone, within which one
or morc safety measmcs identified in Appendix B (alone or together with supplementary measures identified in Appendix A), will be implemented. The application for acceptance must contain
a commitment to implement the proposed safety measures within the proposed qulet zone. The applying entity must demonstrate througb dat.a and analysis that implementation of the proposed
measures will effect a reduction in risk at public highway-rail crossings within the quiet zone sufficient to equal the reduction in risk that would have been acbieved through the use
the locomotive horn. It is important to note that, as requlred in paragraph (d) of this section, all public highway-rail crossings in a quiet zone. except for those exceptions contained
in § 222.31 and Appendix C, must be equlpped with automatic gates and lights that conform to the standards contained in the Manual on Unifonn Traffic Control Devices. Under paragraph
(b)(2), the FRA Associate Administrator for Safety may take one ofthree actions in response to a state or local government application: (1) The qulet zone may be accepted as proposed;
(2) the Associate Administrator may accept the proposed quiet zone under additional conditions designed to ensure that the safety measures fully compensate for the absence of the warning
provided by the locomotive hom; or (3) the proposed quiet zone may be rejected if, in the Associate Administrator's judgment) the proposed safety measures do not fully compensate for
the absence ofthe warning provided by tbe locomotive hom. Paragraph (c) addresses the categories of crossings which the Administrator has determined do not present a sigulficant risk
with respect to loss of life or serious personal injury if the locomotive horn is not sounded. In the very limited situations listed, neither supplementary safety measures, nor lights,
gates and bell are requlred at the crossing. Appendix C contairu a list of those criteria which must be met for a quiet zone to be established under this provision. The criteria include:
Maxim urn authorized train speed as established by the railroad does not exceed 15 miles per boUl'; the train travels between traffic lanes of a public street or on an essentially parallel
course within 30 feet of the street; unless the railroad is actually situated on the surface of the public street, traffic on all crossing streets is controlled by STOP signs or traffic
Iigbts which are interconnected with automatic crossing warning devices; and the locomotive ben is rung when approaching and traveling througb the crossing. FRA'S Approach and Request
for Comments. FRA has specified in Appendix B the manner in which the community must show the reduction in risk resulting from its proposed alternative safety measures. In proposing
the very specific procedures cited in Appendix B (and in lts introduction), FRA has been guided by the need to establish a predictable environment within which affected communities can
plan and take action. FRA believes that such objective measures will help communities in their decision-making process, as well as assist FRA in detenniulng which proposals will in fact
provide for the safety of the motoring and rail public. One alternative to FRA's proposal would allow communities to perform their own effectiveness analyses based on methodology of
their own choosing with subsequent reporting of the methodology and data results to FRA. That alternative would result in FRA review ofboth the methodology and the data involved in each
submission from each locality wishing to establish a quiet zone. That approach might provide greater flexibility to commurutias to design countermeasures meeting their needs and circumstances.
􀁈􀁯􀁷􀁥􀁶􀁥􀁲􀁾􀀠FRA is concerned that this approach might overwhelm FRA1s resources and delay approvals beyond reasonable limits. This could backlog review of proposed new qulet zone
proposals emanating from communities impacted hy industry restructuring (such as the proposed acqulsition of Conrail by Norfolk Southern and CSX Transportation). Further, ascertaining
appropriate decisional criteria fur evaluating community submissions migbt present a major cballenge. The proposed alternative measureslaid out in this notice already com prebend the broad range of safety measures within the tmditional crossing safety categories of "engineering, education. and enforcement" Commenters
are asked to note specific examples of opportunities that might be presented by less definite enumeration of alternative measures. FRA encourages comments on the proposed regulatory
approach, as well as alternative suggestions as to the best way to assure that alternative safety measures will in lact compensate for the lack of a locomotive horn. Who May EstabHsh
a Quiet Zone Under this proposed rule, a local political jurisdiction, in addition to a state, can establish a qulet zone. FRA does not intend that the proposed rule confer authority
on localities to establish qulet zones ifstate law does not otherwise permit such actions. Local political jurisdictions are creations of their respective states and their powers are
thus limited by their individual state law or constitution. Under the Act and the proposed regulations, establishment of qulet zones requires specific action by a state or local governmental
body. Therefore, if the appropriate political entity detennines that sounding oflocomotive horns at grade crossings is the proper course ofaction for their community, no specific action
need.<; to be taken to ensure that locomotive horns are sounded at every public highway-rail grade crossing. This is. of course, a legitimate public policy result. However, ifquiet zones
are desired) there are a number ofapproaches that could be considered in tenns of . application and implementation. .. First, one approach could be that all designations and applications
under this section must come from a state agency. Under this approach, FRA would deal with oniy one entity from each state. How the state detennines which quleUones are designated and
which should be the subject of an application for acceptance would be up to each individual state. The processes may be as varied as: the state agency acting oniy as a conduit for designations
and applications; the agency acting as a filter to weed out "inappropriate" applications; Of, the state agency acting solely On its own to determine the extent of designations and applications.
A second approach would limit authority for designations and 
2247 Federal Registel' Jot 65, No. 9/Thursday, January 13, 􀀺􀀮􀀮􀁾􀁊􀀩􀀯􀁐􀁲􀁯􀁰􀁯􀁳􀁥􀁤􀀠Rules applications to the political subdivision with direct responsibility over traffic safety
at a crossing. This approach would present problems inasmuch as a line of railroad typically crosses state higbways, and city, county, and village roads. A third approach would require
the political subdivision in whicb the proposed quiet zone is located to he the applicant. FRA at this time contemplates that both states and local jurisdictions (if they have the legal
authority to do so) will establish quiet zones under both paragraphs (aJ and (bJ of this section. FAA encourages comments on this regulatory approach. Length of Quiet Zone Paragraph
(d) addr..ses the minimum length of a quiet zone. FRA believes that iflocomotive horns are to be prohibited along a segment of track, the underlying purpose of the prohibition will not
be served unless the prohibition is effective on a corridor-like basis. Without a quiet zone requirement, the sOWlding ofhorns may be prohibited at one crossing, required at the next
crossing two blocks away, and then prohibited at the next crossing one-quarter mile along the line. Because horns must be sounded in advance of a publie highway-rail crossing, the horn
being sounded at the one crossing in the example will effectively negate a large measure of the benefit of the prohibition elsewhere along the corridor. In addition to ensuring the benefits
of the probibition within the zone, imposition ofa horn prohibition on a zone basis will eliminate excessive, and unnecessary workload demands on the engineer} permitting greater attention
to other locomotive operating requirements. Without a ZOna prohibition, the engineer will be faced with the need to constantly be aware of which crossings are subject to a prohibition
and which are not. Such a situation provides a greater chance of human error than if the engineer need only concentrate on groups of crossings. Paragraph (d) establishes the minimum
length of a quiet zOne as 2,640 feet (one· halfmile). The community which establishes a quiet zone has the discretion to detennine the length (subject to the one-half mile minimum);
however, certain factors should betaken into consideration in establishing such a quiet zone. While locomotive horns can not be routinely sounded at all crossings within the quiet zone,
it is entirely possible that sound from a locomotive horn for a crossing just outside the quiet zone will begin in the quiet zone or will intrude into the area of the quiet zone. It
is up to the community to devise the placement of a quiet zone to minimize that effect. The following is an example of two different acceptable quiet zones in terms of placement; Example
No.1; A single grade crossing at milepost 4.5 is subject to a quiet zone. In this situation, the quiet zone would extend at least one-quarter-mile in each direction along the 􀁲􀁩􀁧􀁨􀁴􀀭􀁯􀁦􀁾􀁷􀁡􀁹
􀀮􀁬􀁦􀀠there are public highway-rail grade crossings at milepost 4.2 or 4.8, (both of which are outside ofthe quiet zone),locomotive horns would need to be sounded for those crOSSings,
despite beginningwithin the quiet zone or despite intruding into the quiet zone. In this example. a community could extend the quiet zone to include either, or both additional crossings.
Those crossings must then either comply with the requirements contained in AppendixA. or the quiet zone as a whole must compensate for the lack of a horn through a combination of measures
from Appendix A and Appendix B. Example No.2: Four public: 􀁨􀁩􀁧􀁨􀁷􀁡􀁹􀁾􀁲􀁡􀁩􀁬􀀠grade crossings at every block for a distance of .4 mile. (Crossings at mileposts 4,5. 4.6. 4.7I
4.8 are subject to a quiet zone.) Additional crossings at mileposts 4.3 and 4.4 do not have to he included in a quiet zone ifthe quiet zone is extended in the other direction along the
track-to milepost 5.0. That would be acceptable even if there were no crossings from milepost 4.8 to 5.0. The crossings within the quiet zone in this example. like the crossings in Example
No. 1. must then either comply with the requirements contained in Appendix A. or the quiet zone as a whole must compensate for the lack ofa hom through a combination ofmeasures from
Appendix A and Appendix B. It is clear that under this approach, locomotive hom noise for crossings at mileposts 4.3 and 4.4 willlntrnd. or begin within the quiet zone. However. the
approach set out here provides a community with the greatest flexibility in determining how to, and where to establish quiet zones. BlUING CODe 􀀴􀀹􀀱􀁾􀀠
------2248 1 ') Federal Registel, ;01. 65, No. 9/Thursday, January 13, 􀀲􀁶􀁾􀁏􀀯􀁐􀁲􀁯􀁰􀁯􀁳􀁥􀁤􀀠Rules Example 1 􀁾􀀠mile quiet zone 􀁾􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀧􀀢􀀠,., •••••••••••• ,., •••• ,.,
•• , ••• , ••• ,. t" •••••••••••••• , •••••••w --. 􀀧􀀺􀀻􀀺􀀺􀀻􀀻􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀧􀁾􀀢􀀢􀀻􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀧􀁉􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀧􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀢􀀬􀀻􀀢􀀢􀀠􀁉􀁉􀁉􀁉􀁉􀁾􀀻􀀺􀀠MP4.2 MP4,5 MP4,1l
Example 2 Y.r mile quiet zone ......,." .. ".,., ...,.,.....,...................,....,.,.,., ..,.,.,., .. ,.,.,., 1111111111:;;;;;:::11 􀀱􀀱􀀱􀀱􀀱􀀱􀀱􀀱􀁾􀁉􀁉􀁉􀁉􀁉􀁉􀁉􀁉􀁉􀁉􀁉􀁉􀁉􀁊􀁬􀁉􀁉􀁉􀁉􀁉􀀠I11
1111111111111r railroad MP43 MJl4A MP4.5 MP4.6 MP4.7 MP4,$ BILLING coDe 4910-<lB-C Requirement for Active Warning Devices Paragraph (e) provldes that, except for slow speed train movements
over public highway-rail grade crossings as addressed in § 222_31, and quiet zones established in accordance with paragraph [c) of this section, each croSSing in a quiet zone must be
equipped with automatic gates and flasbing lights that conform to the standards contained in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. This section makes it clear that installation
or upgrading of these devices is not regarded as implementation of supplementary safety measures under this part, nor will the risk reduction resulting from the installation or upgrading
be credited toward the compensating reduction in risk referenced in paragraph (b). Ifthe new warning system exceeds the standards of the MUTCD and conforms to the requirements for supplementary
safety measures contained in Appendix AJ that risk reduction attributable to the supplementary safety measure in accordance with Appendix A may be credited toward the risk reduction
referenced in paragraph (b). Reqnirement for Advance Warning Signs Paragraph (I) ensures that motorists are notified wherever harns are not reqnired to be sounded. The paragraph reqnires
that each highway approach to each public highway-rail crossing at which locomotive horns are not routinely sounded purswmt to this part shalJ be equipped with an advance warning sign
advising the motorist that train horns are not sounded at the crossing. FRA will leave to individual states the decision as to specific size and design of the required signs, however,
they must be in coniormance with the MUTCD. FRA Is not at this time proposing that approaches to each private highway-rail crossing be equipped with such advance warning signs. FRA solicits
comments as to whether such signs should be required, and ifso, who should be responsible for installation and maintenance. A factor to consider is that by definition, the approacbes
to these crossings are on private, rather than public property. Section 222.35 Notifications, Affirmations, and Required Information Paragrapb (0) requires a state or local government
designating a quiet zone under § 222.33(a) to provide written notice of the designation to all railroads operating over public highway-rail grade crossings within the quiet zone, the
highway or traffic control authority and law enforcement authority having control over over vehicular traffic at the crossings within the quiet zone, the state agency responsible for
highway and road safety, aod the FRA Associate Administrator for Safety. In order to ensure that all parties have notice and sufficient time to prepare for the change at the crossings,
all notices required under this section must be provlded by certified mail, return receipt requested .. Paragraph (b) contains the notice requirements which apply to the 
2249 I \ Federal Registeb vol. 65, No. 9/Thursday, January 13, 􀁾􀁾􀁤􀁢􀀯􀁐􀁲􀁯􀁰􀁯􀁳􀁥􀁤􀀠Rules situaHon in which a state or local government has proposed a quiet zone for acceptance
by FRA under § 222.33(b). Upon acceptance of a quiet zone by FRA, the state or local government must provide written notice by certified lllliil, return receipt requestedl of the acceptance
to all railroads operating over the public highway-rail grade crossings withio the quiet zone, the highway or traffic control authority or law enforcement authority having control over
vehicular traffic at the crossings withio the quiet zone, and the state agency responsible for highway and road safety. Paragraph (e) ellsures that certaln needed information is provided
to FRA. This section requires that certain information be provided to the FRA Associate Administrator for Safety. Paragraph (1) requires an accurate and complete U.S. DOT-AARNational
Ifighway-Rail Grade Crossing Inventory Form (inventory Form) for each crossing dated within six months prior to the designation of FRA acceptance of the quiet zone. The information from
this form will establish a base-line from which FRA can detennine the measures taken by the state or locality to compensate for the lack of a locomotive horn. Paragraph (2) requires
submission of a current Inventory Form which reflects the supplementary and alternative safety measures which have been put in place upon establishment of the quiet zone. Paragraph (3)
requires the name and title of the state or local official responsible for monitoring compliance with this regulation and the manner in which the person can be contacted. Sec/ion 222.37
Quiet Zone Implementation Paragraph (a) provides that a quiet zone can not be implemented until all requirements of § 222.35 are complied with and at least 14 days have elapsed since
the required parties have received the notifications required by that section. The notification provision and two-week delay will ensure that the various interested parties have time
to inform employees and others regarding the changes at the crossings, Paragraph (b) provides that all railroads operating over public highway-rail grade crossings within a quiet zane
established in accordance with this regulation shall cease routine use ofthe locomotive hom as of the date establlsbed by the state or local government, which of course can be later
than the 14 day minimum period. This paragraph prohibits the routine use of the locomotive horn within the quiet zone. However, the rule is not meant to prohibit the occasional use of
the horn for railroad operating PUJ.'Poses such as for crew and flagger communications when radios fail. The rule does not prohibit use of the born in emergency situations Or as a method
of warning railroad workers of the approach ofthe train. (See § 222,23.) Section 222.39 Quiet Zone Duration Paragraph (aJ governs the duration of quiet zones designated by state or local
governments under § 222.33(a) I.e., zones in which supplementary safety measures are in place at each crossing. A quiet zone may remain in effect indefinitely ifall the reqUirements
of this rule are complied with, and if, within six months before the expiration of fiw years from the original designation made to FRA, the designating entity (the state or local government)
affirms in writing, by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the same parties receiving th. original notification of implementation of the quiet zones under § 222.35(a), that
the supplementary safety measures implemented within the quiet zone continue to conforro to the requirements of Appendix A nf the regulation. The designating entity must thereafter affirro
within six months before the fifth anniversary of the prior affirmation that the supplementary safety measures implemented withio the quiet zone continue to conform to the requirements
of Appendix A of the regulation. This paragraph, as well as paragraph (b), also requires that along with its affirmation, the governmental entity must send to the FRA Associate Administrater
for Safety an an accurate and complete U.S. DOT -AAR National Ifighway-Rail Grade Crossing form (FRA F6180.71) (available through the FRA Office of Safety Analysis, 202-4936299) for
each public highway-rail grade crossing. This requjrement will ensure that the National Inventory is kept current regarding all crossings within quiet zones. Paragraph (b) governs the
duration of quiet zones accepted by FRA under § 222.33(b), i.e., zones that, as a wbole, comply with Appendix B. This provision is similar to paragrapb (a), with the exception that the
period between affirmations is 3, rather than 5 years and that the state or local government must affirm that the supplementary and alternative safety measures in place continue to be
effective and continue to fully compensate for the absence of the warning provided by the locomotive horn. FRA is proposing a shorter period between affirmations because of the greater
possibility that changed circumstances will affect the effectiveness of the safety measures put in place in the quiet zone. Because every public highway-rail crossing subject to the
five year affirmation period has in place a supplementary safety measure prOviding sufficient compensation for lack of a locomotive horn, as long as such measures remain in place, FRA
can be assured that safety is being maintained along the entire quiet zone. However, because the safety measures instituted at crossings subject to the three year affirmation period
are dependent on local circumstances and local effort, review on a more frequent basis is appropriate, FRA solicits comment on this proposal. Paragrapb (d) provides that the FRA Associate
Admiuistrator for Safety may, at any time, review the status of any quiet zone and determine whether the safety measures in place fully compensate for the absence ofthe waruing provided
by the locomotive horn under the conditions then presenl at the public higbway-rail grade crossings within the quiet zone. This oversight will enable FRA to take action in the event
that conditions at the crossings have changed sufficiently so that safety measures originally installed and jmplemented are insuificient to compensate for the lack of a horn. Under this
provision, if the Associate Administrator makes a preliminary determination that the saIety measures in place do not fully compensate for the absence of the locomotive horn, notice of
the determination will be published in the Federal Register and an opportuuity for comment and informal hearing will be provided. The Associate Administrator may thereafter require that
additional safety measures be taken to ensure that there is full compensation for the absence of the locomotive horn. This paragraph also provides for termination of the quiet zone if
conditions so warrant. Section 222.41 Supplementary and Alternative Safety Measures Paragraph (a) states that a list of approved supplementary safety measures are listed in Appendix
A to this regulation. These measures, based on the best available data, have been determined by FRA to be an effective substitute for the locomotive horn in the prevention of highway-rail
casualties. Paragrapb (b) states that additional, alternative safety measures that may be included in a request for FRA acceptance of a quiet zone under §222,33(b) are listed in Appendix
B, Paragrapb (0) states that Appendix C contains a list of those situations which the Administrator has determined do 
'j 2250 Federal RegisleL )01. 65, No. 9/Thursday, January 13, "" J I Proposed Rules not present a significant risk with respect to loss of Hfe or serious personal injury from establishment
of a quiet zone. In the very limited situations listed, supplementary safety measures are not required because the requisite level of safety has already been achieved. Paragraph (d)
provides that the Administrator will add new listings to Appendices A or B when the Administrator detennines that such measures or standards are effective substitutes for the locomotive
horn in the prevention of highway'rail grade crossing casualties. The Administrator will add new listings to Appendix C when it is determined that no negative safety consequences result
from the establishment ofa quiet zone under the listed conditions. Paragraph (e) is based on language contained in the Act) and makes clear that the following traditional highway· rall
grade crossing safety measures do not individually, or in combination, constitute supplementary safety measures: standard traffic control devices or arrangements such as reflectorized
crossbucks, stop signs, flashing lights, or flashing lights with gates that do not completely block travel over the line ofrailroad, or traffic signals. Section 222.43 Development and
ApprCNol ofNew Supplementary Safety Measures This section discusses the manner in which new supplementary safety measures may be demonstrated and approved for use. Paragraph (a) provides
that interested parties may demonstrate proposed new supplernentery safety measures to determine ifthey am an effective substitute for the locomotive horn in the prevention of highway.rail
grade crossing casualties. Paragraph (b) provides that the Administrator may order rai1road carriers operating over a crossing or crossings to temporarHy cease the sounding oflocomotive
horns at such crossings to demonstrate proposed new supplementary safety measures. This paragraph reflects statutory language and requires that sucb proposed new supplementary safety
measures have been subject to prior testing and evaluation before such an order is issued. The Administrator's order to the railroads to temporarily cease sounding of horns may contain
any conditions or limitations deemed necessary in order to provide the highest level of safety. These provisions provide III opportunity for the testing Illd introduction of new grade
crossing safety technology which would provide a sufficient level ofsafety to enable locomotive horns to be silenced. FRA has, in one case to date, ordered a railroad to cease sounding
horns for the purposes of testing. In Spokane, Washington, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF), Spokane County, Washington State Public Utilities Commission and the FRA worked
together to test the effectiveness of median barriers as .. substitute for the locomotive horn. See 62 FR 54681, August 21, 1997. To accomplish this test, BNSF was ordered to cease sounding
ofthe horn after installation of engineering improvements at the two subject crossings. This test is continuing. Paragraph (c) provides that upon the successful completion ofa demonstration
of proposed supplementary safety measures, interested parties may apply for their approval. This section requires certain information to be included in every application for approval.
Paragraphs (d) and (e) provide that if the FRA Associate Admiuistrator for Safety is satisfied that the proposed supplementary safety measure fully compensates for the absence of the
locomotive horn. its use as a supplementary safety measure (with any conditions or limitations dCf'med necessary) will be approved and it will be added to Appendix A. Paragraph (f) provides
an opportunity to appeal a decision of the FRA Associate Admiuistrator for Safety. The party applying for approval of a supplementary safety measure may appeal to the Administrator a
decision by the FRA Associate Admiuistrator for Safety rejecting a proposed supplementary safety measure or the conditions or limitations imposed on use. Section 222.45 Communities With
Preexisting Restrictions on Use of Looomotive Horns Section (i)(l) of section 20153 requires that in issuing these regulations, FRA take into account the interests of communities that
"have in effect restrictions on the sounding ofa locomotive horn at highway·rail grade crossings, or have not been subject to the routine II * * sounding ofa locomotive horn at highway·rail
grade crossings. This section is meant to address that statutory requirement. FRA requests public commentIegarding the provisions ofthis section. Paragraph (a) provides that communities
which as of the date of issuance of this NPRM have enacted ordinances restricting the sounding of locomotive horns, or communities which as of the same date have not been subject to
the sounding of locomotive horns at public highway·rail crossings due to formal or informal agreements with the railroad may continue those restrictions for a period of up to three years
from the date the final rule is issued. This period will enable the community to plan for, and implement additional safety measures at the affected crossings without the sounding of
horns in the intervening period. This three·year period is dependent on compliance with paragraph (b). Paragraph (b) states that ifa community with pre.existing restrictions on locomotive
horns has not designated a quiet zone (under § 233.33(a)) or had a quiet zone accepted by FRA (under § 233.33(b)) within two years after the date ofissuance of the final rule, the community
must, within two-years of issuance of the final rule, initiate Or increase highway·rail grade crossing safety public a\-vareness initiatives and grade crossing traffic law enlorcement
programs in an effort to offset the lack of supplementary safety measures at the affected crossings. li, however. the community does not take actions to initiate or increase public awareness
initiatives and traffic law enforcement programs, locomotive horns must be sounded in accordance with § 222.21. Thus, the effect of paragraphs (a) and (b) provides communities with prcM
8xisting whistle bans a three·year grace period to comply with §§233.33(a) or (b). If those communities do not initiate or increase public awareness initiatives and traffic law enforcement
programs by the end of the second year after issuance of the final rule, then the three year grace period is reduced to two years. A number of communities wishing to implement quiet
zones have worked with FRA in developing programs of supplementary safety measures. These programs reflect the early commitraent oflocal officials to both improve railroad safety and
to minimize the disruption caused by train horns. These communities were concerned that if they invested funds in engineering improvements prior to issuance of this rule, those improvements
might not be among those approved in the final rule, and thus they wouid be forced to spend more tax dollars installing other safety improvements after the final rule was issued. Given
the absence of a regulation jn force, the communities were free to ban sounding of the locomotive horn without implementing any grade crossing safety improvements at all. Neither these
communities, nOr FRA, wanted a whistle ban without supplementary safety measures in place. Therefore, FRA partaered with these 
2251 , \ Federal RegisieL jol. 65, No. 9/Thursday, January 13, 􀀻􀀻􀀺􀁾􀁹􀁊􀀯􀁐􀁲􀁯􀁰􀁯􀁳􀁥􀁤􀀠Rules communities to develop workable, sound safety plans. As • result of these efforts,
communities were able to reduce noise intrusion while FRA reaped the benefits of "real worldU experience in the implementation of supplementary safety measures. The quiet zones established,
or planned to be established, by the following communities have been evaluated by FRA as being in compliance with the requlrements of proposed § 222.33(b): crossings in Burlington, Vermont
suburbs on the Vermont RaHway; crossinss in Louisville, Kentucky on CSX Transportation Company; single crossing at McNabb Road on Southeast Florida Rail Corridor; single crossing in
Richardson, Texas; five crossing in Yakima, Washington, on the BNSF Railway; single crossing in Spokane. Washington on BNSF Railway; eleven crosBings in Covina, Califomin on MetroLink;
and a single crossing in Westfield, New Jersey on the Lehigh Valley Railroad. Accordingly, FRA proposes to exempt those communities from the initial acceptance requirements of that paragraph.
Provisions of § 222.39(b) (Quiet Zone Duration) which contains periodlc reaffirmation and notification requirements would apply to those qniet zonas. FRA solicits comments regarding
this, or any other suggested regulatory approach to those communities which have 􀁰􀁲􀁥􀁾􀁥􀁸􀁩􀁳􀁴􀁩􀁮􀁧􀀠restrictions on the use oflocomotive horns. Appendices A and B Appendix A lists
those supplementary safety measures which FRA has determined effectively compensate for the lack of a locomotive horn. Because each supplementary safety measure in this appendix fully
compensates for the lack ofa locomotive hom, a quiet zone may be established without specific FRA approval. Appendix B lists those alternative safety measures which may compensate for
the lack of a locomotive horn depending on the extent of implementation of the safety measure. Because ofthe many possible variations, FRA acceptance of the proposed implementation plan
is requirad. Community Guide The introduction to Appendix A discusses the issues and actions that state and local governments should be aware of in determining how to proceed in implementing
quiet zones. The guide is meant to assist in the community·s decision-making process 3n detennining whether to designate a quiet zone under § 222.33[a) or to apply for acceptance of
a quiet zone under §222.33(b). The guide also contains details regarding the methods to be used in performing analyses which must accompany applications for acceptance ofa quiet zone
under § 222.33(b). Ifa crossing within a proposed quiet zone can nol be addressed with a supplementary safety measure from Appendix A, the applicant community (or state) will need to
show that once a quiet zone is implemented under the alternative safety measures listed in Appendix B, the number of accidents thai can be expected on that quiet zone corridor will not
increase. As a basis for that series of calculations. which are described in detail in the Introduction, FRA proposes to require that communities use the DOT Highway-Rail Crossing Accident
Prediction Formula. The Accident Prediction Formula provides a means ofcalculating the expected annual number of accidents and casualties at a crossing on the basis of the crossing's
characteristics and the crossing's historical accident experience. FRA's RegionalManagers for Highway·Rail Crossing Safety who are located throughout the United Stales will he available to assist the communities in performing that analysis. Thus, all calculations
inv01ving a specific corridor proposed for a quiet zone will be based on the accident history at those crossjngs together with the characteristics of the crossing. Appendix A This Appendix
lists those supplementary safety measures which FRA has determined effectively compensate for the lack ofa locomotive horn. Included in the discussion of each supplementary safely measure
is an "effectiveness" figure for that measure. That figure indicates the effectiveness of the supplementary safety measure in reducing the probability of a collision at a highway-rail
grade crossing. The effectiveness (see definition of effectiveness rate in § 222.7) figures discussed for each supplementary safety measure are based on availab1e empirical data and
experience with similar approaches, The effectiveness figures used in Append.ix A are subject to adjustment as research and demonstration projects are completed and data is gathered
and refined. FRA proposes to use these estimates as benchmark values to determine the effectiveness of an individual supplementary safety measure and the combined effectiveness ofall
supplementary safety measures along a proposed quiet zone. FRA seeks comments, including any data or analysis. concerning the appropriateness of the individual estimates. FRA also encourages
public comments on the appropriateness of this approach in general. FRA's national study of train horn effectiveness indicated that coUision probabilities increase an average of62 percenl
when horns are silenced. As such, the supplementary safety measure should have an effectiveness of at least .38 (reducing the probability of a collision by at least 38 percent) in order
to compensate for this 62 percent increase. For examplef if a select group of 1,000 crossings are expected to have 100 collisions per year with train horns being sOlUlded, this same
group of crossings would be expected to have 162 collisions per year once the train horn is banned if no other safety measures are implemented and other factors remain unchanged. Conversely,
ifthese same crossings were experiencing 162 collisions per year while the horn was banned, it would be expected that this number would reduce to 100 once use of the horn is reinstituted.
This would equate to an effectiveness of62/162, Or .38. FRA is aware this figure is an average, bul ithas the benefit of reflecting the broadest range of exposure available 10 the agency.
FRA is willing to consider well founded arguments that train hom effectiveness is heightened or reduced under under specific circumstances. Howeverl any such argument would need to be
grounded in sound data and analysis. This could potentially create sigulficant difficulty in administration of the final ruJet since historic collision patterns over a sma]1 number of
crossings are nol, by themselves, meaningful predictors of future exposure. FRA requests comment as to whether it is practical to use any value other than a national average with respect
to train horn effectiveness. There is one case for which FRA has sufficienl data to estimate train horn effectiveness on a particular corridor. That is the Florida EaSI Coast Railroad
and the territory subject to Emergency Order 15. In that case, FRA can point to exposure for over 500 crossings over a period ofeighl years with experience both before and after the
whistle ban period indicating consistent results. For that territory, FRA proposes to apply an effectiveness rate of 68% (.68) for the train horn. It should be noted that the extraordinary
impacts shown in Florida have been segregated from the Hnational't datal and the national average of effectiveness of .38 (38 percentreduction) for train horns does 001 include the Florida
experience. FRA requests commenl as to what extent the 
2252 1Federal Registe,. Jol. 65, No. 9/Thursday, January 13, 􀁾....-,O/Proposed Rules Florid. experience may be relevant to other areas. Much ofthe data available today to evaluate the
effectiveness of supplementary safety measures rellects the reduction in violation rates, not collision rates. (Collisions are rare, and deta:r:mination of a collision rate reduction
for anyone supplementary safety measure requlres long term data collection.) Only one study (in Los Angeles) has contrasted collision rates with violation rales, and out of necessity
(until additional data is availablel. this finding is used in these analyses. In the Los Angeles demonstration it was noted that a carefully administered and well pubJjcized program
of pboto enforcement reduced violation rates by 92 percent, while collisions were reduced by only 72 percent. This ratio. 72:92 or .78, is proposed to be used to adjust violation rate
reductions in order to estimate resultant reductions in collision rates for law enforcement and edur.ation/awareness options described in Appendix B. Violations that result in collisions
constitute a small subset of all violations. Itis reasonable to infer that education and legal sanctions may lack effectiveness for several segments of the population, including those
who do not become aware of the countenneasures (e.g" because they are not residents of the area, do not follow public affairs in the media, or are difficult to reach because they are
notlluent in English or other principal languages in wbich jnformation is disseminated) and those who are particularly inclined 10 violation of traffic laws. As such, for law enforcement
and education/awareness options the rate ofviolations must be reduced at least 49 percent (measure must have an effectiveness value of at least.49) in order 10 realize the required 38
percentreduction in the risk of collision. In contrast, engineering improvements such as those described in Appendix A appear to work in synergy with existing warning systems 10 condition
and modify motorist behavior, reducing both the number of violations and the number ohery close calls (violations within a rew seconds of the train's arrival). Four-quadrant gates installed
to date, for instance, appear to have been completely successful in preventing collisions. Although we would not expect this extraordinarily bigh level of success to be sustained over
a broader range of exposure, excellent results would be expected. Accordingly, for engineering improvemenls contained in Appendix A this notice adopts estimates of success drawn from
carefully monitored studies of individual crossings. FRA is aware that tha number and duration ofobservations in 􀁳􀁩􀁴􀁥􀁾􀁳􀁰􀁥􀁣􀁩􀁦􀁩􀁣􀀠studies is small. However, FRA is working
with a variety of parties to gather additional information that may be helpful in achieving forther refinement of effectiveness rares and greater confidence that they predict future
outcomes in circumstances not identical to those specifically studied. FRA has sought partuersbips with communities to implement or preserve quiet zoneS through use of supplementary
safety measures. Unfortunately, many communities have taken the view that they will wait to see how the rulemaking might proceed before acting. Accordingly, FRA will proceed with the
information available and will continue to gather effectiveness data as this rulemaking proceeds. 1. Temporary Closure ofa Public Highway-Rail Grade Crossing This supplementary safety
measure has the advantage of obvious safety and thus will more than compensate for the lack of a locomotive hom during the periods of crossing closure. The required conditions for closure
are intended to ensure that vehicles are not able to enter the crossing. In order 10 avoid driver confusion and uncertainty, the crossing must be closed during the same hours every day
and may only be closed during one period eaon 24 hours. FRA beJjeves that such consistency will avoid unnecessary automobile to automobile collisions in addition to avoiding collisions
with trains. Activation and deactivation of the system is the responsibility of the local traffic control authority or the entity responsible for maintenance of the street or bighway
crOSSing the rallroad. Responsibility for activation and deactivation of the system may be contracted to another party. however the appropriate governmental entity shan remain fully
responsible for compliance with the requlrements of this section. In addition, the system must be tamper and vandal resistant to the same extent as other traffic control devices. Effectiveness:
Because an effective closure system prevents vebicle entrance onto the CIossingt the probability ofa collision with a train at the crossing is zero dudng the period the crossing is closed.
Effectiveness would equal 1. However, traffic would need to be redistributed among adjacent crossings or grade separations for the purpose of estimating risk following imposition of
a wbistle ban, unless the particular <jclosure" was accomplished by a grade separation. 2. Four-Quadrant Gate System A four·quadrant gate system involves the installation ofgates at
a public higbway-rail grade crossing to folly block higbway traffic from entering the crossing when the gates are lowered. Tbis system includes at least one gate for each direction of
traffic on each approacb. A four quadrant gate system is meant to prevent a motorist from entering the oncoming lane of traffic 10 avoid a folly lowered gate in the motorist's lane of
traffic. Because an additional gate would also be fully lowered in the other lane of the road. the motorist would be fully blocked from entering the crossing. In defining "supplementary
safety measures" Congress approved use of four quadrant gates as supplementary safety measures. The definition states in part: "A traffic control arrangement that prevents careless movement
over the crossing (e.g., as where adequate median barriers prevent movement around crossing gates extending over the full width of the lanes in the particular direction of travel), and
that conforms to the standards prescribed by the Secretary"" ,. ,. shall be deemed to constitute a supplementary safety measure." The Association of American Railroads (AARl has sbared
with FRA its views on four-quadrant gates, The AAR states, "Since the operation of 4quadrant gatos has not yet been fully tried and proven. a false perception has been conveyed to [municipalities
and slate transportation agenciesl. Continual advocacy of 4-quadrant gates" * • has put undue burdens on the railroads and ils supply industry. The railroads are committed to grade crossing
safety but are not exactly sure how 4-quadrant gates shall operate or ifthey will provide any additional benefits. * ,. *" The AAR requested that FRA "abstain from advocating the application
of4quadrant gates until the operational and Jjability issues have been resolved." The AAR also submitted for FRA consideration a study entitled "Design of Gate Delay and Gate Interval
Time for Four-Quadrant Gate System at RailroadHighway Grade Crossings" byDr. Fred Coleman of the University of IlJ;IlJ;nois. Dr. Coleman studied safe operating time parameters offour
quadrant gates. FRA has participated with the AAR, the Federal Highway Administration, the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen and railroad suppliers in discussions regarding four-quadrant
gate systems. Those discussions resulted in some broad areas of agreement which have been incorporated into this proposed rule. Among areas of agreement are: (1) The need to do a location-specific

2253 , \ Federal Registe•. }ol. 65, No. 9/Thursday, January 13, <-_Jb/Proposed Rules engineering study of the exit gate delay time; (2) that failure of the system would place the exit
gates in the up position; and (3) highway presence detectors would be installed and majntained at the election of, and by, the local highway authorities. If detectors are provided, exit
gates would remain up during the period the crossing is determined to be occupied by hlghway traffic. Four-quadrant gate systems have been in existence for many years, and FRA believes
that they have been fully tried and proven. There have been installations in several states: Wyoming; Tennessee; New Jersey; North Carolina; and Ohio, as wen as in Canada, which involve
various railroads. including the Burlington Northern Santa Fe. Norfolk Southern. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, and Calgary Transit. Further. FRA understands that the Metropolitan
Transportation Authority of Los Angeles is implementing fourquadrant gates on one of its transit transit lines. FRA welcomes a discussion of the efficacy of four-quadrant gates, timing
and other safety considerations and any proposed alternatives to these gates. FRA proposes that the followlng be required for all four-quadrant gate systems: When a train is approaching
the crossing, all highway approach and exit lanes on both sides ofthe grade crossing must be spanned by gates to deny to the highway user the option of circumventing the conventional
approach lane gates by switchlng into the opposing (oncoming) traffic lane in order to enter the crossing and cross the tracks. When the gates are fully lowered the gap between the ends
of the gates must be less than two feet if no median between lanes is present. Ifthere is a median or ifchannelization devices are installed. the gap between the gate end and the median
or channelization device must be within one foot. If 􀀨􀀧􀁢􀁲􀁥􀁡􀁫􀁾􀁡􀁷􀁡􀁹􀀧􀁾􀀠channelization devices are used they must be frequently monitored and broken elements replaced. FRA
also proposes to require that constant warning time devices activate the gates. TIlls requirement will ensure that the gates are activated at the same amount of time prior to the arrival
of a tmin irrespective of its speed. This will avoid long unnecessary waits at crossings being approached by very slow moving trains. FRA would also require that signs be posted alerting
motorists that the train horn does not sound. FRA also strongly recommends that the followlng conditions be applied when new four-quadrant gates are installed: Gate timing should be
established hy qualified traffic engineers. Because each crossing presents urrique topograplric and traffic conditions, such timing should be established based on site specific determinations.
Consideration should be given to the need for a delay in the descent of the exit gates followlng the descent of the entrance gates (equivalent 10 conventional gates) to prevent a motorist
from being H)ocked in" between the gates. Factors that should be considered include available storage space between the gates that is outside the fouling limits ofthe tracks (beyond
the width of trains) and the possibility that traffic flows may be interrupted as a result of nearby intersections. Fail-sefe mode of the gate system should include exit gates failing
in the rajsed, or up position. Further, a determination should be made as to whether to provide velricle presence detectors (VPDs) to open or keep open the exit gates until all vehicles
are clear of the crossing. Among the factors to consider are the presence of the intersecting roadways near the crossing. the priority that the traffic crossing the railroad is given
at such intersections, the types of traffic control devices at those intersections) and the presence and timing of traffic signal preemption. FRA further recommends that hlghway approaches
on one or both sides of the highway-rail crossing be provided wlth medians or channelization devices between the opposing lanes, Effectiveness: FRA is confident that four-quadrant gates
will provide a safe alternative to the locomotive horn. No highway-rail crossing collisions have been documented at any ofthe five fourquadrant gate installations in the United States
nor at a demonstration site in Knoxville. Tennessee during 19851986. The oldest of the permanent installations dates from 1952. Recognizing the limited number of installations, however,
FRA proposes very conservative estimates for effectiveness of this countermeasure. FRA estimates effectiveness as follows: Four-quadrant gates only, no presence detection: .82. Four-quadrant
gates only. with presence detection: .77. Four-quadrant gates with medians of at least 60 feet (with or wlthout presence detection): .92. The estimate of .82 for free-standing four-quadrant
gates (no medians and no presence detection) is a hlghly conservative figure involving a discount from documented experience. As noted above, four-quadrant gates installed in the United
States thus far have been hlghly successful; and. in fact, these installations have been of this basic configuration. More formal investigation attempted thus far includes a recent four-quadrant
gate installation in North Carolina, without medians, which reduced violations 86 percent compared to previous experience at the same crossing, which was previously equipped with standard
gates. Thls North Carolina test ran for a period of 5 months. including base and test periods. However, it should be noted that the North Carolina observations involved simultaneous
use of the train hom (both during the base period and the evaluation period). It is not known whether there is a significant synergistic effect between the train hom and the engineering
improvements, but the short duration of the study and possibility of such effects suggest the need for the modest discount to the effectiveness rate. Four-quadrant gate installations
undertaken thus far in the United States have generally not employed vehlcle presence detection (VPD). However, some future installations will incorporate this feature to ensure coordination
with other traffic signals and for other purposes. For instance, tight geometry may not allow for any storage space within the gates should queuing of traffic at a STOP sign on one side
of the crossjng prevent prompt clearance by a motor vehicle. In such cases, leaving the exit gates in the raised position may be elected. Installing VPD win cause exit gates to remain
up indefinitely as one or more vehicles pass over the crossing. Although providing vPD avoids the scenario of Uentrapment" Oong feared by some in the railroad community as a liability
risk), it also allows the possibility that some motorists wlll follow violators through the crossing in a steady stream. defeating the intended warning. Accordingly. where medians are
not provided to prevent this pattern, we assume a lower effectiveness rate. FRJ\. estimates that four-quadrant gates with presence 􀁤􀁥􀁴􀁥􀁣􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀁾􀀠but without median barriers.
would have an effectiveness rate ofapproximately .77. By contrast, where four-quadrant gates are are supplemented by lengthy median barriers to discourage the violation minded driver,
the use of presence detection should make little or no difference in the safety effectiveness of the arrangement. The North Carolina demonstration showed that, when the four-quadrant
gate installation was supplemented by medians (channelization devices) ofat least 50 feet on each highway approach, the crossing experienced a 97 percent drop in violations. Agajn applying
a discount 
2254 \ . Federal Registel', JoJ. 65, No. 9/Thursday, January 13, 4"j/Proposed Rules to this illustration, FRA estimates an effectiveness rate of .92 for fourquadrant gates with median
barriers of reasonable length. It is important to re-emphasize that use ofdata regarding violations to estimate collision dsk itself involves some hazard that effectiveness will be over-or
􀁴􀁬􀁬􀀱􀁤􀁥􀁲􀁾􀁥􀁳􀁴􀁩􀁭􀁡􀁴􀁥􀁤􀀮􀀠FRA believes that the likelihood is that these estimates for fOlil"-quadrant gates are conservative, not only because of the excellent effectiveness
of in-service four-quadrant installations, but also because of the North Carolina findings. In the North Carolina observations, as the number of violations decreased, the average number
of seconds prior to arrival of the treio also significantly increased (predicting that collisions might falloff at a faster rate than violations). The effectiveness offourquadrant gates
may thus be higher than the range stated above, both with and without medians and with presence detsction. It is also true that a variety of applications for these systems may result
in a variety of effectiveness rates. FRA solicits comments, including any available data and aoalysis, regarding the effectiveness estimates on fourquadrant gates, as well as other supplementary
safety measures described in this notice. 3. Gates With Meditms or Channelization Devices Keeping highway traffic on both highway approaches to a public highway-rail grade crossing in
the proper laoe denies the highway user the option of circumventing gates in the approach lanes by switching into the opposing (oncoming) traffic laoe in order to drive around a lowered
gate to cross the tracks. FRA therefore proposes to require that gates with medians or chaonelization devices be considered supplementary safety measures if the following conditions
are met. Opposing traffic lanes on both highway approaches to the crossing must be separated by either: (1) Medians bounded by barrier curbs, or (2) medians bounded by mountable curbs
curbs ifequipped with channelization devices. Such medians must extend at least 100 feet from the gate, unless there is an intersection within that distance. Ifso, the median or chaonelization
device must extent at least 60 feet from the gate. Intersections within 60 feet of the gate must be closed or moved. The crossing warning system must be equipped with constant warning
time system. Additionally, the horizontal gap between the lowered gate aod the median or channelization device 111USt be one foot or less. As in other installations, 􀀢􀁢􀁲􀁥􀁡􀁫􀁾􀁡􀁷􀁡􀁹􀁈􀀠chanoel
ization devices must be monitored frequently, aod broken elements replaced. Also, as at all crossings within a q wet 􀁺􀁯􀁮􀁥􀁾􀀠signs must be posted alerting motonsts to the fact that
the train horns are not sounded. FRA estimates that mountable curbs with channelization devices have an effectiveness of .75 and barrier curbs with or without channelization devices
have an effectiveness of .80. FRA has found that a gate installation in North Carolina with channelization devices 60 feet long and longer reduced violations by 77 percent. The period
of data collection was 22 months. FRA requests that commenters edelress whether the estimate of .75 should be further reduced to reflect the novelty effect of the improvements at this
crossing'?A gab; installation in the State of Washington equipped with barrier curbs (with chaonelization devices), 99 feet long on one approach and 30 feet long on the other, experienced
reductions in violations of 97.5 and 95.6 percent respectively during a 4-month test period while train horns continued to sound. Given the short period of observation, the novelty effect
of the installation would be expected to result in somewhat superior perfonnance to that which wonid be expected over the long term, particularly on the approach with the 30-foot median.
Further, the particular application involved allowed for a clearly channelized two-lane, tangent roadway on level ground with median separation between two main tracks. In In this setting,
expectations concerning motorist behavior were exceptionally clear. As noted, the train horn continued to blow, reinforcing the engineering improvements. Accordingly, these data are
not taken as indicative of the average or typical installation in a whistle ban environment. It may be possible to describe combined effectiveness rates for barrier medians and mountable
medians of varying lengths. Comments are requested on how this can best be accomplished. 4. One Way Street With. Gates This installation consists of one way streets with gates installed
so that all approaching highway lanes are completely blocked. FRA would require that the gate arms on the approach side of the highway-rail grade crossing extend across the road to within
one foot of the far edge of the pavement. If two gates are used. with one on each side of the road, the gap between the ends of the gates when they ere in the down position should be
no more than two feet if no median is prescnt. Ifthe highway approach is equipped with a median, the lowered gates should reach to within one foot of the median. In this and other similar
measurements, the measurement should be horizontal across the road from the end of the lowered gate to the median or to a pOint over the median edge. The gate and the median top do not
have to be at the same elevation. In situations in which only one gate is used, the edge of the road opposite the gate mechanism must have a barrier curb extending to and arotu1d the
nearest intersection for at least 100 feet, so that the motorist cannot veer onto the shoulder of the road and drive around the gate tip. FRA also proposes that the wareiog system be
equipped with constant warning time systems as well as equipped with signs alerting motorists that the train horn does not sound. Effectiveness: Lacking real world data from one way
streets with gates. we are applying the effectiveness rate of .82 to this type supplementary safety measure which is the effectiveness rate for fourquadrant gates without medians. Howeverj
a case can be made that this arrangement should be as secure as fourquadrant gates with medians. Comment is requested on this issue. To what extent does current collision experience
at existing gated one-way streets (with or without train horns sounding) impact the appropriate effectiveness rat.? 5. Photo Enforcement An automated meaos of gathering valid photographic
or video evidence of violations of traffic laws relating to highway-rail grade crossings can be an effective supplementary safety measure if there is sufficient support and follow through
by the law enforcement and judiCial community. FRA would require that state law authorize use of photographiC evidence both to bring charges against the vehicle owner aod sustain the
burden ofproof that a traffic law violation has occurred. This would need to be accompanied by the commitment of the law eoforcement and judicial communities to vigorously enforce the
traffic laws in this area. Evidence of sufficient commitment would be traffic law violation penalties (and collection) sufficiently large to deter violations. Although we do not intend
to mandate aoy specillc penalty, wa suggest that a fine ofat least SlOO be assessed against the violator. We note that some states have substaotially higher penalties, such as Dlinois
and Florida with $500 fines. Other possible measures ofsufficient deterrence could 
2255 '\ '; Federal R.egistel. 􀁾􀀧􀁯􀁬􀀮􀀠65, No. 9/Thursday, January 13, 􀀲􀀮􀁾􀀠.J/Proposed Rules include one or more points posted against a violators driving license. We specifically
invite comment as to whether FRA should requh-e specific minimum penalties before acceptance as a supplementary safety measure, and if so, what the miuimum level of penalty should be.
The proposed rule would also requlro that the photo enforcement system have a means to reliably detect violations (such as loop detectors and video imaging technology) and photo or video
equipment deployed to capture images sufficient to convict violators under state law. FRA does not propose to require that evary public highway-rail grade crossing be equipped with cameras
for continua1 monitoring. FRA believes the goal of deterrence may be accomplished by moving the surveillance equipment among several crossing locations, as long as the motorist perceives
the strong possibility that a violation of the law will lead to sanctions. Therefore, each location should appear identical to the motorist, whether or not the camera or video equipment
is actually within the housing or equivalent equipment We invite comment as to whether FRA sbould specify a minimum ratio of operating equipment to empty bousmgs (such as 25 percent),
or a minimum number of monitoring hours per housing, and if so, what the mmimum levels should be. FRA also proposes to require appropriate integration, testing and maintenance of the
system to provide evidence supporting enforcement. Periodic data analysis would be performed to verify that violation rates remain below a baseline level (level with train horns sounding).
Also required would be signs alerting motorists that train horns are not sounded and that the crossmgs are mouitor-ed for compliance with the law. Public awareness efforts are critical
to the success of this program. The public must be informed that the horns are not being sounded and that violation of crossing laws wi]] resul t in finesand penalties. Effectiveness: Effectiveness: FRA's estimate of the effectiveness of photo enforcement programs is discussed below. As discussed earlier, the Los Angeles photo enforcement
demonstration project showed that a carefully administered and well publicized program of photo enforcement reduced violation rates by 92 percent, wIllie collisions were reduced only
72 percent. This ratio, 72:92 or .78, is proposed to be used to adjust reduced violation rates to estimate projected reductions m collision rates (effectiveness) for law enforcement
and education/awareness options described in Appendix B. As discussed above, it is reasonable to infer that education and Jegal sanctions may lack effectiveness for several segments
of the population. Tbese persons, while • small portion of the overall population, may be over represented in the population of those involved in violations and thus in collisions. As
such, for law enforcement and education/awareness options violations must be reduced at least 49 percent (the measure must reduce violations by at least 49 percent) in order to realize
a 38 percent reduction in the risk of collision. Where train horns routinely sound prior to the eva/uation. Effectiveness would be determined by comparison of a violation/train count
ratio based on the number of violations divided by the number of train movements in any calendar quarter to the violation/train count ratio during a baseline monitoring period (minimum
of four weeks if conducted without public notice or media coverage, 16 weeks if conducted with public notice or media coverage). The reduction in violations sbould be at le05t49 percent
prior to implementation of the quiet zone. Effectiveness would be considered unacceptable if, following establishment of the quiet zone, violations are greater than the original baseline
level. The discussion below addresses actions when effectiveness becomes unacceptable. Where a whistle ban is to be continued within a quiet zone, Effectiveness would be detennmed by
comparison of a violation/train count ratio based on the number of violations divided by the number of train movements in any calendar quarter to the violation/train count ratio durmg
a baseline monitoring period (minimum of four weeks ifconducted without public notice or media coverage, 16 weeks if conducted with public notice or media coverage). The violation rate
should be at least 49 percent lower than the baseline rate. Effectiveness would be considered unacceptable if, at any time following establishment of the quiet zone, the rate of violations
is greater than a value loss than 49 percent below the haseline level. Tbe following discussion addresses actions when effectiveness becomes unacceptable. Unacceptable effectiveness
after establishment ofquiet zone. mitial effectiveness of the photo enforcement program would be determined by calculating violation rates for at least two consecutive ca1endar quarters
following establishment of the quiet zone. The railroad would he notified to resume sounding of the train horn if results are not acceptable. FRA FRA and all parties required to be informed
in § 222.35(b) would be informed of sucb notification. If, in a subsequent calendar quarter the violation rate rises above the acceptable level, the quiet zone may be continued temporarily
provided the state or municipality takes reasonable steps to increase the effectiveness of the supplementary safety measure. If, in the second calendar quarter followmg the quarter for
which results were not acceptable, the rate is still unacceptable, the quiet zone would be terminated until requalified. Appendix B-Alternative Safety Measures A state or local government
seeking acceptance of a quiet zone under § 222.33(bJ of this part may mclude in its proposal alternative safety measures listed in Appendix B. Credit may be proposed for closing ofpublic
highweyrail grade crossings provided the baseline risk at other crossings is appropriately adjusted by increasing traffic counts at neighboring crossings as input data to the prediction
formula (except to the extent nearby grade separations are expected to carry that traffic). FRA Regional Managers for Grade Crossing Safety can assist in performing the required analysis.
As stated above, the mtroduction to Appendices A and B contams details regarding the 􀁤􀁥􀁣􀁩􀁳􀁩􀁯􀁮􀁾􀁭􀁡􀁫􀁩􀁮􀁧􀀠process in determining whether to designate a qulet zone under §222.33(a)
or to apply for an acceptance of a quiet zone under §222.33(b). The introduction also contains details regarding the methods to be used in performing required analyses. FRA requests
comments on both the proposod process and the calculations reqcired m that process. The first five alternative safety measures listed are the same as those listed in Appendix A. A community
may of course include one or more of these supplementary measures in its proposed program. However, ifthere are unique circumstances pertaining to a specific crossing or number of crosslngsl
the specific requirements associated with a particular safety measure may be adjusted or revised in the community's proposal. As provided for in section 222.33(b), using Appendix B alternative
safety measures will enable a locality to tailor the use and application of various supplementary safety measures to a specific set of circumstances. Thus, a locality may institute alternative
or supplementary measures on a number of crossings within a quiet zone, but due to specific circumstances a crossing or a number of erossmgs may be omltted 
2256 \ -: Federal Register. /01. 65, No. 9/Thursday, January 13, 2, J/Proposed Rules from the list of crossings to receive those safety measures. FRA will review the proposed plan, and
will approve the proposal if the community has established that the predicted accident rate applied to the quiet zone as a whole (rather than on a crossing-by-crossing basis), is reduced
to a level which would be at least equivalent to that occurring with the sounding of the locomotive hom. The following alternative safety measures may be included in a proposal for acceptance
by FRA for creation of a quiet zooe. Approved supplementary safety measures which are listed in Appendix A may be used for purposes of alternative safety measures. Ifone or more of the
requirements associated with that supplementary safety measure as listed in Appendix A is revised or deleted, data Or analysis supporting the revision or deletion must be provided to
FRA for review. A discussion of the following alternative safety measures may be found above in the discUBsion of Appendix A: 1. Temporary closure ofthe highwayrail crossing; 2. Four
quadrant gate system; 3. Gates with medians or channelization devices; 4. One way street with gates; and 5. Photo enforcement. 6. Programmed Enforcement An additional alternative safety
measure which may be proposed for usa within a specific quiet zone proposal is programmed enforcement. This safety measure involves community and law enforcement officirus committed
to a systematic and measurable crossing mouitoring and traffic law enforcement program at the subject public highwayrail grade crossings. This may be accomplished alone, or in conjunction
with the public education and awareness program. Programmed enforcement entails a sustainable Jaw: enforcement effort combined with . continued crossing monitoring. Effectiveness: In
order to determine the program effectivenesst a valid base1:ine violation rate must first be determined through automated or systematic manual monitoring or sampling at the subject crossing
or crossings. FRA believes that the effectiveness rates would be siruilar to those of the photo enforcement measures discussed in Appendix A, above. Procedures siruilar to those outlined
in Appendix A for photo enforcement sbould be appJied to assess the effectiveness ofprogrammed law enforcement efforts. FRA would impose conditions upon acceptance of a programmed enforcement
saIety measure. Included in those conditions wou1d be monitoring and sampling to determine that the enforcement effort results in continuation aftha reduction in violation rate. FRA
would reserve the right to terminate the quiet zone if, after a reasonable period of time as established at the commencement of the program, improvement is not shown. 7. Public Education
and A wureness This alternative safety measure. alone, or in conjunction with Programmed Law Enforcement is a program of public education and awareness directed at motor vehicle drivers,
pedestrians and re,r5idents near the railroad to emphasize the risks associated wilh highway-rail crossings and applicable requirements of state and local traffic laws at those crossings.
This program would reqUire establishment of a valid baseline violation rate which has been determined through automated or systematic manual monitoring or sampling at the subject crossing.
Effectiveness: Procedures similar to those outlined in Appendix A for photo enforcement should be applied to assess effectiveness of public education and awareness programs. Like Programmed
Law Enforcement, a public education and awareness program must be defined, established and continued along with continued monitoring. FRA would impose conditions upon acceptance of a
public education and awareness safety measure. Included in those conditions would be monitoring and sampling to detenuine that the education effort results in continuation ofthe reduction
in violation rate. FRA would reserve the right to terminate the quiet zone HJ after a reasonable period of time as established at the commencement of the program, improvement improvement
is not shown. FRA recognizes the importance of public education and awareness efforts to safety at highway-rail crossings. FRA and other modal admiuistrations and offices within the
U.S. Department of Transportation have promoted the U Always EXpect a Train" campaign, Operation Lifesaver, Inc., and other public outreach efforts. However, FRA is concerned that the
desire of communities to implement quiet zones could lead to redirection of scarce safety resources from safe community initiatives and could seriously tax the capacity of crossing safety
programs provided by railroads and supported by the Federal government, leading to a net reduction in crossing safety. Accordingly, itis criticallhat programs proposed under this appendix
represent valid new increments of effort generated from the local level where quiet zone benefits will accrue. FRA is prepared to provide technical assistance to communities seeking
to implement quiet zones, including information regarding public education and awareness resources. However FRA does not wish, nor is it able. to step into the shoes oflocal authorities
responsible for public safety. A second concern related to the public education and awareness option is sustaiuing Ihe required level of effort. Public safety campaigns generally have
temporary value when conducted over a short period or during widely separated periods of emphasis. Campaigns such as those promoting seat belt use or child safety seat use have long-term
and sustained impact only to the extent the message is delivered repeatedly and with varied or innovative techniques. FRA is concerned that government entities wishing to utilize the
public education and awareness option will need to find effective means of targeting the relevant audience (concentrating the impact where it will have utility) and ensuring that the
message is reinforced over time. FRA seeks comments regarding communities Ihat have had notable success in addressing particularly serious highway-rail crossing problems in their areas.
To what extent did Ihose successes derive from methods that might be transferred elsewhere? To what extent were prior very well publicized collisions the immediate impetUB for those
campaigns? To what extent is the public receptive to well-stmctured messages prior to the occurrence ofone or more serious and well-publicized events? Other Alternatives fDr Consideration
Wayside horns. During FRA's outreach process several commenters asked whether placement of a horn at the crossing and directed at oncoruing motorists ruight be entertained as a supplementary
safety measure. Such a device would typically be activated by the same track circuits used to detect the train's approach for purposes of other automated warning devices at the crossing.
At FRA's direction, the Volpe Center bas conducted an initial evaluation of two wayside boru installations at Gering, Nebraska. (The report of Ihat evaluation will be placed in the docket
of this proceeding when finalized.) This evaluation noted that use of the wayside hom in lieu of the train horn reduced net community noise impacts. However, the report also contains
analysis Ihat snggests questions (related to the loudness of the subject wayside "horn") regarding the 
2257 Federal Registel. Jol. 65, No. 9/Thursday, January 13, :'c _J/Proposed Rules effectiveness of that particular installation in alerting motorists. Further. this evaluation did not
contain adequate data or analysis to pennit a determination ofwhether a wayside horn could fully substitute for a trainborne audible warnings. At least three questions must be answered
in this regard, 1. Does the particular system provide the same quality of warning, determined by loudness at appropriate frequencies. within the motor vehicle while it is approaching
the motorist's decision point. 2. As currently conceivedl a single stationary hom cannot give the motorist a cue as to the direction of approach of the train or trains. To what extent
does this lack of directionality detract from the effectiveness of the warning? Can wayside installation design be alternd to compensate? 3. To what extent will the stationary hom suffer
from the lack of credibility sometimes associated with automated warning devices. due to the fact that it is activated by the same IUeans? Over what period of time may this problem erise,
if at all? FRA will continue to identify opportunities for developing data and anruysis that may be responsive to these questions. However, for the present it is not possible to have
confidence that the wayside horn can fully compensate for the absence of the train horn at any individual crossing. Articulated gates. Concepts have been presented for articulated gates
that would descend from a single apparatus to block the approach to the crossing in the normal direction of travel and continue down to block the exit lanes from the crossing (on one
or both sid.s). The State of North Carolina. as part of an FRA-funded "sealed corridor initiative." will be evaluating articulated gat.s as a low-cost safety measure in the context of
the Nextw Generation High Speed Ground Transportation Program. Articulated gates appear to be particularly attractive for two-lane roads where the highwayrail crossing is at a sufficient
distance from other intersections or obstructions that could cause traffic to back up on the crossing. In principle, such gat.s should have the same effectiveness as other four-quadrant
gate arrangement. •. FRA reserves the right to expressly approve use of articulated gates as fourquadrant gate arrangements in the final rule. FRA seeks comment on the extent to which
articulated gates present special issues (such as maintainability. performance in high winds, etc.) that should be addressed specifically in the final rule. Different treatment during
daylight and night-time hours. It has boen suggested that variable level horns could be used at higher range during daylight hours with lower range used at night when vehicle traffic
is lower and train traffic is oilen higher. Also, it is has been argued, lower level barns are more appropriate at night when the ambient noise level is lower than during daylight hours.
It has also been suggested that perhaps in some circumstances it might be appropriate to allow locomotive horns to be sounded during the day while banning them only at night when people
are typically sleeping. This, it is argued. bas the benefit of attacking the problem when it is most serious (locomotive horns disturbing the sleep of nearby residents) and when the
risk is ostensibly lower (during periods in which train traffic may b. higher. and motor vehicle traffic is ganerally less). Wllile the NPRM addresses temporary closure of the roadway
as a means of accomplishing a night-time ouly ban, it has been suggested that non-engineering safety measures such as increased law enforcement during the ban hours and increased public
educatiou addressing the night-thna motorist population may also ba appropriate. FRA is concerned that locomotive horns being sounded during daylight hours and remaining silent at other
times cculd very well lead to fatal confusion on the part of the motorist. We note that the Florida whistle ban was a night-tima only ban whicb resulted in substantially higher collision
and injury rates !han ifa ban had not been in effect. FRA requests comments on the issues surrounding different treatment during different periods of the day and night. Regulatory Impact
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regofatory Policies and Procedures This proposed rule has been eval ualed in accordance with existing policies and procedures and is considered UsignlficantH
under Executive Order 12866. It is also considered to be significant under DOT policies and procedures. See 44 FR 11034. FRA has prepared a Regulatory Evaluation addressing the economic
impact of the proposed rule. This regulatory evaluation has been placed ill the public docket and is available for public inspection and copying. Copies may also be obtained by submitting
a written request to the FRA Docket Clerk at Mail Stop 10. 1120 Vermont Avenue. N.W., Washington. D.C. 20950. The problems considered by this rule are collisions and their associated
casualties and property damage involving vehicles on public highways and the front ends of trains at whistleban grade crossings. Although accident severity and the probability ofa fatal
accident is most strongly related to train speed, every grade crossing where locomotive horns are not sounded is a potential accident site. In 1996 there were 79 collisions at whistle-ban
crossings which resulted in 2 fatalities. 39 injuries to non-railroad employees, and 2 injuries to railroad employees. The estimated safety benefits of this proposed rule are derived
from the prevention ofcollisions and the resulting fatalities and injuries. Benefits also exist for raHroads in terms of reduced train delay, debris removal and repairs. The costs of
this rulemaking will be incurred predominantly by communities, however there are also costs to rallroads and to the federal government. The benefits in terms of lives saved and injuries
prevented ,viII exceed the costs imposed on society for, this proposed rule. Even under the best case scenario (falling accident rates over time) the safety benefits alone, excluding
any benefit to railroads. exceed the most costly realistic scenario for community safety enhancements. FRA has a prnliminary assessment of the effects to homeowners or businesses adjacent
to railroads tracks, whern an existing whistle-ban exists. should the community elect not to pursue a qualifying quiet zone. The results of this study are summarized in Section VII of
this raport, and conclude that there is not a significant long-run impact on residential housing markets. For purposes of this analysis FRA assumes that such communities will choose
to take actions !hat have the least cost (i.e. a cost that will not exceed the costs nf supplementary or alternative safety measures). The estimated benefits of this proposed rule exceed
the estimated costs Over a 20 year period at a 7% discount rate. Various benefit and cost scenarios are established in the following sections. The costs are summarized in Table 1. the
benefits resulting from casualties prevented are shown in Table 2. These findings ara somewhat preliminary as FRA does not have detailed data for the effectiveness Or costs for some
of the Supplementary Safety Measures. FRA does not have adequate information on what choices a given community will make regarding either blowing the train whistle or installing or implementing
alternatives 
2258 , Federal RegisteL ,to!. 65, No. 9/Thursday, January 13, 􀀬􀀬􀁾􀀮􀁪􀀯􀁐􀁲􀁯􀁰􀁯􀁳􀁥􀁤􀀠Rules to the train whistle. FRA seeks comment and additional information from communities
regarding choices they will make so that a mOre complete estimate of the costs and benefits of this rule may be made prior to the issuance of the final rule. TABLE 1.-EsTIMATED COSTS'
Whistle Boards ...................... . Directionality Provision .... " .... . Installation of Gates & Lights (878 crossings) 2 ................. Increased Maintenance Gates! Lights
(878) ........................ . Signs ...................................... . Community Planning ........ ,", .• Govemment Costs ....... , ...... , .. . Medians (mountable at 878 crossings)
........................... . Medians (mountable at all crossings) .......................... .. Police Enforcement ............. , .• $20,250 10,882,000 67,109,706 11,201,974 375.500
134.000 134,000 11,060.183 26,453,740 24,805,600 TABLE l.-ESTIMATED COSTS'Continued Photo Enforcement ................. 1 124.955,453 , This table cannot be summed for a 10tal cost of
1he rule, much of 1he cost depends on community choice. Numbers for Police and Photo Enforcement are shown, however they are also contained in 1he benefits section. 2The number of passive
crossings in the data set that are assumed 10 require upgrades. The estimated safety benefits of this proposed rule are derived from the prevention of accidents and the resulting fatalities
and injuries. Benefits also exist for railroads in terms of reduced train delay, debris removal and repairs. Two benefit scenarios were estimated, one where the accident rate remains
constant over time and one where the accident rate decline. by about 4% per year. TABLE 2.-ESTIMATED BENEFITS : Effectiveness ' EffectivenessCategory == .381 = .75 2 Collision Rate Cons1ant
.+ .. $268,641,800 $510,477.200 Collision Rate Decline ..... , 188.273,400 371.592,200 1 Equivalent to effectiveness of train whistle at crossings wi1h gates and lights. 2 Equivalent
to effectiveness of median barrier With frangible delineators at crossings with gates and lights. A scenario where median barriers are installed at each crossing, signs are installed
at each crossing and crossing upgrades to a minimum of gate. and lights for all passive crossings wonld be justified on the basis of casualties prevented alone (At 2,100 c.rossings,
total costs fur all required improvements, including changes in direction of hom sound, and maintenance equal $116,395,343). The follOWing table identifies costs and benefits of alternative
implementation scenarios: TABLE 3.-COSTS AND BENEFITS OF ALTERNATIVE IMPLEMENTATION SCENARIOS FOR PROPOSED RULE, NET PRESENT VALUE 1999-2019' Implementation scenario Train whistles at
crossing with gates and lights, collision rate constant2. Train whistles at crossing wi1h gales and ligh1s, collision rale decline a. Costs monetized! non-monetized $89.313,931 Indeterminate
level of nolse costs $89,313,931 Benefits Injury/fatatity reduellon (68 Fatalities) ........"".... (342 Injuries) ................. (47 Fatalities) ................ , (235 Injuries)
................. I I Net monetized Monetized injury/benefits 􀁦􀁡􀁴􀁡􀁬􀁾􀁹􀀠. $268,641,800 $169,327,869 ! 188,273,400 ' 98,959,469 Inde1erminate level of noise costs Median barrier
wilh frangible delineators at $116,395,348 crossings with lights and gates, collision rate constant 4. Median barrier with frangible delineators al $116.835,343 crossings with lights
and gates. collision rata . declineS, ' 1 All figures assume 7% discount rate, The baseline 10 which these scenarios are compared is the continuation of the whistle--bans In 1he oommuni1ies
that now have them. See table below for categories of costs and benefits Included in these monetized estimates, 2Assumes a 38% reduction in fatalities: and injuries and an accident rate
that is constant over 1ime. Reduction in fatalities and injuries is the same 38%, the equivalent effectiveness of a train hom whether the hom is sounded or not. Costs include ins1aUation
and maintenance of gates and lights al878 passive crossings. 3 Assumes a 38% reduction in fatalities and injuries and an acciden1 rate that declines by about 4% per year. Reduction in
fatalities and injuries is 1he same 38%, 'the equivalent effectiveness of a train hom whether the hom is sounded or not. Costs include installa1ion and maintenance of gates and IIghls
at 878 passive crossings. 4 Assumes a 75% reduction (effectiveness rate of median barrier) in fata!i1ies and injUries and an accident rate 1ha1 is constan1 over fime. S Assumes a 75%
reduction (effectiveness rate of median barrier) in fatalities and injuries and an accidem rate that declines by about 4% per year, TABLE 4.-CATEGORIES OF MONETIZED AND NON-MONETIZED
COSTS AND BENEATS INCLUDED IN ABOVE ANALYSIS Non-rnonelizedCalegory Monetized -1ndeterminate level of noise costs. and lights. Costs ...."".... TraIn whistles at crossings with gates
􀁾􀁗􀁨􀁬􀁳􀁴􀁬􀁥􀀠boards (see § 222.21) ....."".... 􀁾􀁄􀁩􀁲􀁥􀁣􀁴􀁩􀁯􀁮􀁡􀁬􀁩􀁴􀁹􀀠provision (see § 229.129) 􀁾􀁕􀁰􀁧􀁲􀁡􀁤􀀮􀁳􀀠to gates and lights al pas· sive crossings (135 Fatalities)
.............. 510,477,200 394,081,867 (75 Injuries) ................... (97 Fatalllles) ................ 268,196,867371.592.200 (463 Injuries) ................. 
2259 Federal Registe •. qol. 65, No. 9/Thursday, January 13, "-.,b/Proposed Rules TABLE 4.-CATEGORIES OF MONETIZED AND NON-MONETIZED CoSTS AND BENEFITS INCLUDED IN ABOVE ANALYSISContinued
Category 􀁎􀁯􀁮􀁾􀁭􀁯􀁮􀁥􀁴􀁩􀁺􀁥􀁤Monetized -Upgrades to gat•• and lights at pas-NOne. sive crossings. ---Community costs Supplementary safety measures ......... "" -Govemment costs
-Whistle boards -Directionality -Supplementary Safety Measures and Allerna1ive Safety Measures (see §222.33) -Reduction in injuries and fatarities ....... and lighls. Benefits ""....
TraIn whistles at crossings with gates Supplementary safety measures ............ , -Reductlon in injuries and faialffies (greater reduction than train hom is likely a. all SSM's have
higher elieotiveness rate than ttain hom). -Community noise reduction through whistle boards and the directionalHy provlslon. -Reduced train delay, debris removal and repail'S. ---CoilisionsJiociden1
s involving 􀁰􀁥􀁤􀁥􀁳􀁾􀀠trians and bicyclisls. -Incidents where car struck train at at behind the first five cars, --Community noise reduction through quie1 zones in communUfes where
state law currently requires the use of the train horn, FRA recognizes that it is possible to imagine a situation under which the msbenefits of the proposed rule might exceed the benefits
as applied to an indiv;dual community. FRA does not believe that this conmtion would occur through excessive expenditures on supplementary of alternative safely measures, since those
measures can be scaled ID the safety need within the quiet zone (taken as a whole) and since most such measures will yield benefits well in excess of the value of the train hom if applied
to all crossings. However, should a community elect NOT to implement the proffered alternatives, and should the negative societal impact of train horns be valued in excess of the safety
benefits of the horn. a net mshenefit would, by definition. occur. This situation might arise where the persons adversely affected by the train noise constituted a minority in the community,
and the community as a whole did not wish to invest in the alternatives. Thus far, vocal minorities in affected communities have succeeded in having the tra:in horn silenced despite
negative safety impacts for motor vehic1e users in the community at large. Thus, it does not seem likely that they will be wholly without influence in the future. Howeverj given the
competing demands on local elected 􀁤􀁥􀁣􀁩􀁳􀁩􀁯􀁮􀁾􀁭􀁡􀁫􀁥􀁲􀁳􀀬􀀠underinveSlment in alternatives could occur. FRA requests comment on any options that may exist, consistent with
the statutory mandate we are implementing, to address this concern. in this regard, FRA notes the availability of the Federal funmng, through the Surface Transportation Program, which
State departments of transportation might elect to commit on behalf of the affected minority should county or municipal institutions not be responsive. Regulatory Flexibility Act The
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires a reviewof final rules to assess their impact on small entities unless the Secretary certifies that a final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. FRA is not able to certify that this proposed rule would not have a sjgnificant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. FRA has performed an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Assessment (IRFA) on small entities that potentially can be affected by this proposed rule. The lRF A is summarized in this preamble as required by the Regulatory Flexihllity
Act. Copies of the fulllRFA are available as an appendix to the Regulatory Impact Analysis, and is available in the public docket of this proceeding. Written public comments that will
clarify what the impacts will be for the affected small entities are requested. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA, and must be filed by the deadlines for comments
on the NPRM provided above. This is a proposed rule which essentially is a safety rule that implements as we11 as minimizes the potential negative impacts of a Congressional mandate
to blow tra:in whistles and horns. It provides provisions for exceptions, and it prOVides communities with the ability ID reduce the impact of the locomotive horns within their jurisdictions.
However, this proposed rule will be responsible for an amount ofimpact on small entities, no matter how the outcome for each whistle ban is determined. This basically means that if a
community elects to simply follow the mandate, and become subject to whistle blowing at crossings where a whistle ban had been prior, then there will be a noise impact to any potential
small business that exists along that route. If a community elects to implement supplementary safety measures that are necessary to establish a Hquiet zone/' then the governmental jurlsmction
will be impacted by the cost of such program or system. Some communities believe that the sounding of tra:in whistles at every crossing is excessive and an infringement on community
quality of life, and therefore have enactad "whistle bans" that prevent the trains from sounding their whistles entirely. or during particular times (usually at night). FRA is concerned
that with the increased risk at grade crossings where train whistles are not sounded) or another means ofwarning utilized, collisions and casualties may increase significantly. In 1996
at least 52 percent of the 79 grade crossing collisions that occurred at crossings with wlllstle bans in place, occurred in a small community 
2260 Federal Regis ..n. Jot 65, No. 9/Thursday, January 13, :i.u...O/Proposed Rules where the governmental jurisdiction is considered to be a small entity. FRA is concerned that there
are potential small entities that might be affected by this proposal Hence, FRA encourages small businesses, small railroads, and governmental jurisdictions that are considered to be
small entities to participate in the comment process if they feel they will be adversely impacted by this proposed rule. The Agency encourages such small entities to submit written comment
to the docket andlor participate in one of the public heanngs. FRA's Regulatory Impact Analysis notes that the costs of this proposed rulemaking will predominately be on the governmental
jurisdictions of communities. Thus, PRA is concerned about potential adverse economic impact on small entities which are "small governmental jurisdictions." As defined by the Small Business
Administration (SBA) tms term means governments ofcities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts with a population of less than fifty thousand.
Currently, FRA has knowledge of Whistle Bans in 265 communities. FRA has recently published an interim policy which establishes "small entity" as being railroads which meet the Hne haulage
revenue requirements of a Class III railroad. As defined by 49 CFR 1201.1-1, Class III railroads are those railroads who have annual operating revenues of $20 million per year or less.
Hazardous material shippers or contractors that meet this income level will also be considered as small entities. FRA is proposing to use this definition of sman entity for this rulemaking.
Since this is still considered to be an alternative definition, FRA is using this definition in consultation with the Office of Advocacy, SBA, and therefore requests public comments
to the docket for its use. The IRFA concludes that only a few small railroads might be minimally impacted by this proposed rule. In addition, some small businesses thet operate along
or nearby rail lines that currently have whistle bans in place that potentially may not after the implementation of this proposed rule, could be moderately impacted. The most significant
impacts from this proposed rule will be On 265 governmental jurisdictions whose communities currently have either formal or informal whlstle bans in place. FRA estimates that approximately
70 percent (i.e. 186 communities) of these governmental jurisdictions are considered to be small entities. Alternative options for complying with lhis proposed rule include allowing
the train whistle to be blown. This alternative has no direct costs associated with it for the governmental jurisdiction. Other alternatives include Hgates with median barriers" which
are estimated to cost $11,070 for the median barrier. Four-quadrant gate system is estimated to cost $244,000, and have an annual maintenance ofS2,500-$5,000. HPhoto enforcement is estimated
to cost $55,000-$75,000, and bave an annual costs of$20,000-$30,000. A "law enforcement" program is estimated to cost $3,000 annually, and it has an expected annual benefit $10,600.
An alternative that does not impact the governmental jurisdiction with any costs is running trains at speeds of 15 miles per hour or less with flagging being performed at the crossing.
Finally, FRA has not limited compliance to the lists provided in Appendix A or Appendix B of the proposed rule. The NPRM provides for supplementary safety measures that might be unique
or different. For such an alternative an analysis would have to accompany the option that would demonstrate that the number of motorists that violate the crossing is equivalent ofless
than that of blowing the whistle. FRA intends to rely on the creativity of communities to formulate solutions wmch will work for that community. FRA is aware that there axe a few Class
III railroads that are subject to local wmsl:le bans. This number is estimated to be less than ten. FRA does not know how many small businesses are located within a distance of the affected
highway-rail crossings where the noise from the wmstle blowing could be considered to be nuisance and bad for business. Concerns have been advanced by owners and operators of hote1s,
motels and some other establishments as a result of numerous town meetings and other outreach sessions in which FRA has participated during development of this proposed rule. Ifsupplementary
safety measures are implemented to create a qniet zone then such small entities should not be impacted. Hence FRA requests comments to the docket from small businesses that feel they
will be adversely impacted by this proposed rule. In the IRFA FRA discusses the ways in which each type of small entity could be affected. However} since FRA does not know the manner
which each affected community will elect to proceed, itis not possible to quantify or estimate the total or avemge cost for each type ofsmall entity. Comments and input from potentially
affected small entities will assist us in being able to determine the real impact of this proposed rule. Paperwork Reduction Act The information collectlon requirements in this proposed
rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The sections that contain the new
information collection requirements and the estimated time to fulfill each requirement are as fonows: CFA section Respondent ! Total annual Average 11me per Total annual Total annual
response burden hours burden cost universe responses 222.11-Pe1itions for Waivers ............ 270 communi1ies .. 92 pelmans ........... 1 hour '.., ...... ,"".... 92 hours ...............
$2,208 222,33-Establishment of quiet zones (see §222.35) ...... (see §222.35) ...... (see § 222.35) ...... (see § 222.35) ...... (see § 222.35) -Community Designation . .,.,.,., .. 270
communilies .• 97 applications ..... 40 hours ............... 3,880 hours .......... 116,400 -FRA accep1ance .............. """,,. 270 communities" 1.600 signs ........... 1 hour .,.........
" .... .... ,. 1 ,600 hours .......... 38,400 -Requirement for advance warning signs 222.35-N01ioe and infonnation requirements: -NoGflClltions .........................,.,•• 280 communities
., 383 nolffica1ions ,., 20 minutes .........., 128 hours ............. 3,840 -U.S. DOT-AAA National High280 communities .. 800 forms ............. 1 hour .... , .... , ....... " 821
hours " ........... 24,630 way-Rail Grade Crossing In8SIet1ers .............. 15 minutes ........... venlary Form (FAA F 6180.71). 222.39--Quiet zone duration: -222.39(aj-NaGfica1ion
............. N/A (requirement will not lake effect until 5 years afier lhe rule's publica1ion). -222.39(b)-Nolifica1ion ............. NJA (requirement wilt n01take effect until 6 years
after the rule's publication). 
2261 \ Federal Registe.. gol. 65, No. 9/Thursday, January 13, 􀁌􀀮􀁾􀁊􀁏􀀯􀁐􀁲􀁯􀁰􀁯􀁳􀁥􀁤􀀠Rules 􀁒􀁥􀁳􀁾􀁯􀁮􀁤􀁥􀁮􀀱􀀠Total annual Average time per T01al annual Total annual CFR section
universe responses response burden hours burden cost -222.39(c)-Notification ............ . 222.43-Development and approval of new supplementary safety measures: -Applications .............
""""".....,, -Appeal letter .." ........ ""............. 222,45-Communities wi1h pre-existing restrictions on use of locomotive horns. Appendix A: -Temporary closure of a public highway-rail
grade crossing, -Photo Enforcemerrt ..,,,........,,,.. Appendix B: -Alternative Safety Measures ".. N/A (requirement win not 1ake effec1 until 6 years after 1he rule's publication).
I 270 communities .. 54 communities .... 270 communities •• 270 commun!1ies .. 270 communities .. 270 communitfes .. 54 applications ..". 40 hours ............... 2,160 hours ..........
64,800 1 hour .•......... ,., ..... 30 73 documents ...,,' 8 hours ... ""......." . 1 1 letter ...... " .......... 1 hour ...... , ............ 584 hours ......." .... 17,520 60 hours
............... 60 signs ............... 1 hour ................... 1.440 20 signs daily 10 reports .... ""..... 40 hours ......""..." 400 hours ............. 12,000 5 reports ••••.•,",.....
40 hours ....... " ...... !200 hours ............. 6,000 All estimates include the time for reviewing instructions; searching existing data sources; gathering or maintaining the needed
data; and reviewing the information. Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(Z)(B), FRA solicits comments concerning: whether these information collection requirements are necessary for the proper
performance of the function of FRA, including whether the information has practical utility; the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of the information collection requirements;
the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and whether the billden of collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use ofautomated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology, may be minimized. FRA believes that soliciting public comment will promote its efforts to reduce the administrative and
paperwork billdens associated with the collection of information mandated by Federal regulations. In summary, FRA reasons that comments received will advance three objectives: (i) reduce
reporting burdens; (Ii) ensure that it organizes infonnation collection requirements in a Huser friendly' format to improve the use ofsuch information; and (iii) accurately assess the
resources expended to retrieve and produce information requested. Soe 44 U.S.C. 3501. Comments must be received no later than March 13, 2000. Organizations and individuals desiring to
submit comments on the collection of infonnation requirements should direct them to the Office ofManagement and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Railroad Administration,
Office ofInformation and Ragulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, and should also send send a copy of their comments to Robert Brogan, Federal Railroad Administration, RRS-211, Mail
Stop 25, 400 7th Street, SW, Washington. DC 20590. OMB i. required to make a decision concerning the collection ofinformation requirements contained in this proposed rule between 30
and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assilled ofhaving its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.
The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in this proposal. FRA cannot impose a penalty on persons for violating
information collection requirements which do not display a current OMB control number, iI required. FRA intends to obtain current OMB control numbers for any new information collection
reqUirements resuiting from this rulemalting action prior to the effective date of a final rule. The OMB control number, whan assigned, will b. announced by separate notice in the Federal
Register. For Information or a copy of the paperwork package submitted to OMB please contact Robert Brogan at 202632-3318. Environmental Impact FRA Is evaluating these proposals in accordance
with its procedures for ensilling full consideration of the environmental impact of FRA actions, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), other
environmental statutes, Executive Orders, and DOT Order 5610.1C. The principal environmental effect and potentially significant impact of these proposals is additional horn noise where
there whistle bans currently exist FRA has studied the potential costs of noise from locomotive horns by examining residential property values. Other studies have also been conducted
on the value of noise impacts captured in residential prices, including studies by the FAA. FAA conducted studies that concluded that residential property values were diminished from
exposure to substantial quantities of aircraft noise. FAA studied significant changes in aircraft generated noise levels in consideration ofactions that would change the total noise
emitted by each aircraft. The DEIS discusses the substantial estimated costs associated with given increments ofnoise over a 24-hour period in the FAA studies. FRA may be faced with
a Significantly different question, because this regulation has the potential to add incremental noise at certain locations to the considerable noise, vibration and other impacts generated
by train locomotives and train movements. In studying residential property value. where the horn noise was added as an increment to noise from train operations, FRA found that it did
not produce a significant lasting effect on residential prices. The DEIS seeks to elicit comment as to the potential relevance of the FAA studies to the CUITent issue and the relative
weight they should be accorded given the findings of the train horn property value research. These proposals also contaln various provisions that have the potential to reduce existing
train horn noise expOSUl'e over time. The provision limiting the distance over which horn sounding would occur could reduce the total amoWlt of horn noise generated. Because this provision
is proposed to be Implemented slowly, the potential benefits are indeterminate. The provision for a maximum horn sound level to the front and to the side of locomotives has the potential
to greatly reduce horn noise generated depending upon the limits selected. Unlike the sounding distance provision, this is proposed to occur a three-year period 
2262 Federal Registel. <'01. 65, No. 9/Thursday, January 13, 􀀲􀁾􀀢􀁊􀀡􀁐􀁲􀁯􀁰􀁯􀁳􀁥􀁤􀀠Rules and the value of any potential benefit is indeterminate, however it is expected to be significant
(2 to 4 million people). Finally, these proposals contain provisions that would make it possible for many communities, currently exposed to train horn noise, to establish quiet zone.
and thus relieve themselves of noise exposure. Any potential benefit from these new quiet zones is indeterminate, as it is impossible to estimate how many would be implemented and when;
however, FRA has noted the interest of many commuuities impacted by recent mergers in abating the train horn impacts of recent changes in traffic flows. FRA has prepared a draft environmentai
impact statement (DElS) analyzing the environmental impacts associated with these proposals. Tb. DElS is being issued concurrently with this NPRM. Copies ofthe DEIS are being distributed
to organizations and inmviduals wbo participated in the environmental scoping process and those who filed comments in the pre· rulemaking stage of this proceemng. The DElS is also available
on FRA's lnternet Site www.fra.dot.gov. Or from the FRA at the following address: David Valenstein, Office of Railroad Development, FRA, 400 Seventh Street, SW. (Mail Stop 20), Washington,
DC 20590. The public comment period on the DEIS and this NPRM will run concurrently. Interested parties may comment on the DEIS, tbe NPRM, or both documents. Because FRA is soliciting
comments on both the DEIS and this NPRM, separate public dockets bave been established for each. Interested parties wishing to comment on the DElS should include the docket number for
the environmental 􀁤􀁯􀁣􀁫􀀮􀁥􀁴􀁾􀀠"Docket Number FRA-1999-6440" on the first page of their comments. Those persons wishing to comment on this NPRM sbould include the docket number
ior this rulemaking proceemng, "Docket Number FRA-1999--6439" on the first page of their comments. Fedemlism Implications Executive Order 13132, entitled, "Federalism," issued issued
on August 4,1999, requires that each agency Hin a separately identified portion of the preamble to the regulation as it is to be issued in the Federal Register, provides to the Director
of the Office of Menagement and Budget a federalism summary impact statement, wbicb consists ofa description ofthe extent of the agency's prior consultation with State and local officials,
a summary of the nature ofthoir concerns and the agency's position supporting the need to issue the regulation, and a statement of the extent to whicb the concerns of State and local
officials bave been met; * * *." FRA will adbere to Executive Order 13132 when issuing a final rule in this proceeding. FRA has already taken the opportunity to consult extensively with
state and local officials prior to issuance of this NPRM, and we will, of course, take very seriously the concerns and views expressed by State and local officials as the public comment
stage of this rulemaking proceeds. FRA staff will be provimng briefings to many State State and local officials and organizations during the comment period to encourage full public participation
in this rulemaking. As discussed earlier in this preamble, because of the great interest in this subject throughout various areas of the country, FRA has been involved in an extensive
outreach program to inform communities whicb presently have wbistle bans of the effect of the Act and the regulatory process. Since tbe passage of the Act, FRA beadquarters and regional
staff bas met with a large number of local officials. FRA has also held a number of public meetings to discuss the issues and to receive information from the public. In addition to local
citizens, both local and state officials attended and participated in the public meetings. Additionally, FRA took the unusual step of establishing a public docket before formal initiation
of rulemaking proceedings in order to enable citizens and local officials to comment on bow FRA might implement the Act and to provide insight to FRA. FRA recejved comments from representatives
of Portland, Maine; Ma:ine Department of Transportation; Acton, Massachusetts; Wisconsin's Office of the Commissioner of Railroads; a Wisconsin state representativei a Massachusetts
state senalorj the Town of Ashland, Massachusetts; Bellevue, Iowa; and the mayor of Batavia, Illinois. Since passage of the Act in 1994, FRA bas consulted and briefed representatives
of the American Association of State Higbway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the National League ofCities, National Association of Ragulatory Utility Commissioners, National Conference
of State Legislatures, and others. Admtionally we have provided extensive written information to all United States Senators and a large number of Representatives with the expectation
that the information would be shared \vith interested local officials and consitituents. FRA has been in close contact with, and has received many comments from Chicago area municipal
groups representing suburban areas in which. for the most part, locomotive horns are not routinely sounded. Tbe Chicago area Council of Mayors, which represents over 200 cities and villages
with over 4 million residents outside of Chicago, provided valuable information to FRA as md the West Central Municipal Conference and the West Suburban Mass Transit District, both ofsuburban
Chicago. Another association of suburban Chicago local governments, the DuPage [County] Mayors and Managers Conference, provided comments and information. Additionally, FRA officials
have met with Members of Congress, inclumng Senator Kennedy, and Representatives Rick Boucber, Henry Hyde, William Lipinsky, Martin Meeban, Tim Roamer and John Tierney, wbo bave invited
FRA to their mstricts and have provided citizens and local officials with the opportunity to express their views on this rulemaking process. Tbe.. exchanges, and others conducted directly
through FRA's regional crossing managers, have been very valuable in identifying the need for flexibility in preparing the proposed rule. For further discussion regarding the nature
ofstate and local concerns please see paIllgreph F. "Comments received by FRA." above. Under 49 U.S.c. 20106, issuance of this regulation preempts any State law, rule, regulation, order,
or standard covering the same subject malter, except a provision necessary to eJiminate or reduce an essentially local safety hazard, that is not incompatible with Federal law or regulation
and does not unreasonably burden interstate commerCe. Compliance With the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of1995 Pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4)
each federal agency "shall. unles. otherwise prohibited by law, assess the effects of Federal Regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and the private sector [other
than to the extent that such regulations incorporate reqmrements specifically set forth in law)." Section 201. Section 202 ofthe Act further requires that "before promulgating any general
notice of proposed rulemaking that is likely to result in promulgation of any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenruture by State, local, and tribal 􀁧􀁯􀁶􀁥􀁲􀁮􀁭􀁥􀁮�
�􀁳􀁾􀀠in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of$100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) In any 1 year, and before promulgating any final rule forwhicb a general notice
of proposed rulemaklng was published, the agency shall prepare a written statement * * *" detailing the effect on 
2263 Federal Registel. ,'01. 65, No. 9/Thursday, January 13, 􀀲􀁣􀀮􀁾􀁤􀀯􀁐􀁲􀁯􀁰􀁯􀁳􀁥􀁤􀀠Rules State, local and tribal governments and the private sector. The proposed rilles issued
today will not resillt in the expenditure, in the aggregate, of $100,000,000 or more in anyone year, and thus preparation of a statement is not required. Ust ofSubjects 49 CPR Part 222
Administrative practice and procedure, Penalties, Railroad safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 49 CPR Pari 229 Locomotives, Penalties. Railroad safety. The Proposed Rille
In consideration of the foregoing, FRA proposes to amend chapter II oftille 49, Code of Federal Regulations as follows: 1. Part 222 is added to read as follows: PART 222-USE OF LOCOMOTIVE
HORNS AT PUBLIC HIGHWAY-RAIL GRADE CROSSINGS Subpart A-General Sec. 222.1 Purpose and scope. ZZZ,3 Application. 222.5 Preemptive effect. 222,7 Definitions. 222.9 Penalties. 2.22.11 Petitions
for waivers. 222.13 Responsibility for compliance. Subpart B-Use ot Locomotive Horns 222.21 When to use loeomotive horns. 222.23 Emergency and other uses of locomotive horns. Subpart
C-Exceptlons 10 Use otthe Locomotive Hom 222.31 Train operations which do not require sounding oflocomotive hams at individual public highway-rail grade crossings. 222.33 Establishment
of quiet zones. 222.35 Notice and information requirements. 222.37 Quiet zone implementation. 222.39 Quiet zone dura.tion. 222.41 Supplementary and alternative saIety measures. ':l22.43
Development and a.pproval ofnew supplementary saIety measures. 222.45 Communities with pre-existing restriction on use oflocomotive horns. Appendix A to Part ZZZ-Approved Supplemental
Safety Me.sures Appendix B to Part 22Z-Allernalive Safety Measures Appendix C to Part Z22-Conditions Not .Requiring Additional Safety Measures Authority: 49 U,S.C, Z0103, Z0107 and 20153:
as U,S,c, 2461 note; and 49 CFR 1.49, Subpart A-General § 222.1 Purpose and scope. (a) The purpose ofthis part is to increase safety at public highway-rail grade crossings by ensuring
that locomotive horns are sounded when trains approach and pass through public highway-rail grade crossings. (h) This part prescribes standards for sounding locomotive horns when locomotives
approach and pass through public highway-rail grade crossings. This part further provides standards for exempting hom the requirement to sound the locomotive hom certain categories of
rail operations and categories of public highway·rall grade crossings. § 222.3 Application. This part applies to evsry railroad with public highway-rail grade crossings on its line ofrailroad,
except: (a) A railroad that exclusively operates freight trains exclusively on track which is not part of the general railroad system of transportation; and (h) Rapid transit operations
within an urban area that are not connected to the general railroad system of transportation. § 222.5 Preempllve effect. Under 49 U.S,C. 20106, issuance of this part preempts any State
law, rule, regulation, or order covering the same subject matter, except an additional additional or more stringent law, regulation, or order that is necessary to eliminate or reduce
an essentially local safety hazard; is not incompatib1e with a law. regulation, or order of the United States Government; and does not unreasonably burden interstate commerce. § 222.7
DellnHlona. As used in this partAdministratormeans the Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration or the Administrator's delegate. Barrier curb means a highway curb designed
to discourage a motor vehicle from leaving the roadway. Such curb is more than six inches but not more than nine Inches high with a rounded top edge and Is used where higbway speeds
do not exceed 40 miles per hour. The barrier curb is highly visible and provided with sloped end treatments. Additional design specifications are determined by the standard traffic design
epecifications used by the governmental entity constructing the barrier curb, Channelization device means one of a continuous series of higbly visible obstacles placed between opposing
highway lanes designed to alert or guide traffic around an obstacle or to direct traffic in a particu1ar direction. Channelization devices must be at least 2.5 feet high and placed at
least every seven feel. End treatments, in the case ofrigid channelization devices. shoilld be determined by reference to the governmental 􀁥􀁮􀁴􀁩􀁴􀁹􀁾􀁳􀀠own standard traffic design
specifications. Effectiveness rate means the effectiveness of a supplementary safety measure In reducing the probability of a collision at a public highway-rail grade crossing. {Effectiveness
is Indicated by a number between zero and one which represents the reduction of the probability of a collision as a resillt of the installation of a supplementary safety measure when
compared to the sarne crossing equipped with conventional automated warning systems of flashing lights, gates and bells. Zero effectiveness means that the supplementary safety measure
provides no reductionin the probabllity of a collision (there is no effectivensss) while an effectiveness rating of one means that the supplementary safety measure is totally .ffective in redUCing collisions.
Measurements between zero and one reflect the percentage by which the supplementary safety measure reduces the probability of a collision. Thus, a supplementary safety measure with an
effectiveness of .38 reduces the probability of a collision by 38 percent,) FRA has determined that collision probabilities increase an average of 62 percent when locomotive horns are
silenced. Thus, genera]]y, a supplementary safety measure should have an effectiveness of at least .38 (reducing the probability of a collision by at least 38 percent) in order to compensate
for this 62 percent increase. FHA means the Federal Railroad Administration, Locomotive horn means a locomotive air hom, steam whistle, or similar audible warning device mounted on a
locomotive or control cab car, The terms "locomotive hom", "train whistle". ulocomotive whistle", and "train horn" are used interchangeably in the rnilroad industry, Median means the
portion of a divided highway separating the travel ways for traffic In opposite directions. A median is bounded by mountable or barrier curbs. Mountable curb means a highway curb designed
to permit a motor vehicle to leave a roadway when required. It is a curb not more than six inches bigh, with a well rounded top edge. Additional design specifications are determined
by the standard traffic design specifications used by the 
2264 Federal Registel .. foi. 65, No. 9/Thursday, January 13, <-_Ju/Proposed Rules governmental entity constructing the mountable curb. Positive train control territory means a line
of railroad on which railroad operations are governed by a train control system capable of determining the position of the train in relation to a public highway-rail grade crossing and
capable of computing the time of arrival of the train at the crossing, resulting in the automatic operation of the locomotive hom (or automatic prompting of the locomotive engineer)
such that the hom is sounded at a predetermined time prior to tho 􀁬􀁯􀁣􀁯􀁭􀁯􀁴􀁩􀁶􀁥􀁾􀁳􀀠arrival at the crossing. Public highway-rail grade crossing means a location where a public
highway, road, or street, including associated sidewalks or pathways crosses one or more active l'aHroad tracks at grade. Quiet zone means a segment of a rail line within which is situated
one) or a number of consecutive public highwayrail crossings at which locomotive horns may not be routinely sounded. Railroad means any form of nonhighway ground transportation that
runs on rails or electromagnetic guideways and any entity providing such transportation, including: (1) Commuter Or other short-haul railroad passenger service in a metropolitan or suburban
area and commuter railroad service that was operated by the Consolidated Rail Corporation on January 1, 1979; and (2) High speed ground transportation systems that connect metropolitan
areas. without regard to whether those systems use new technologies not associated with trad;tional railroads; but does not include rapid transit operations in an urban area that are
not connected to the general railroad system of transportation. Supplementmy safety menJIDre means a safety system or procedure established in accordance with this part which is provided
by the appropriate traffic control authority or law enforcement authority and that is determined by the Administrator to be an effective substitute for the locomotive hom in the prevention
ofhighway-rail casualties. Appendix A to this part lists such measures. Whistle board means a post or sign directed toward oncoming trains and bearing the letter "W" or equivalent symbol,
erected at a distance from the next public highway-rail grade crossing which indicates to the locomotive engineer that the locomotive horn should be sounded beginning at that pOint.
§ 222.9 PenaltIes. Any person who violates any requirement of this part or causes the violation of any such requirement is subject to a civil penalty of least $500 and not more than
$11,000 per violation, except that: Penalties may be assessed against individuals only for willful violations. andJ where a grossly negligent violation or a pattern of repeated violations
has created an imminent hazard of death or injury to persons, or has caused death or injury, a penalty not to exceed $22,000 per violation may be assessed. Each day a violation continues
shall constitute a separate offense. Any person who knowingly and willfully falsifies a record or report required by this part may be subject to criminal penalties under 49 U.S.C. 21311
(formerly codified in 45 U.S.C. 438(e)). §222.11 Petitions lor waivers. (a) Except for petitions filed pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, all petitions for a waiver of any provision
of this part must be submitted jointly by the railroad owning, or controlling operations of the railroad tracks crossing the public highway-rail grade crossing and by the appropriate
traffic control authority or law enforcement authority (public authority) having jurisdiction over the public highway, street, road, pedestrian sidewalk or pathway crossing the railroad
tracks. (b)lf the railroad and the appropriate public authority can not reach agreement to file a joint petition, either party may file a petition for a walver, however the filing party
shall, in its petition, specify the steps it has taken in an attempt to reach agreement with the other party and shall provide the other party with a copy of the petition filed with
the FRA. (c) Each petition for a waiver of this part must be filed in the manner required by 49 CFR Part 211. (d) Ifthe Administrator finds that a waiver of compliance with a provision
of this part is in the public interest and that safety of highway and railroad users will not be dim.inished if the petition is granted, the Administrator may grant the waiver subject
to any conditions the Administrator deems necessary. §222.13 ResponslbIiHylor.ompllan.... Although duties imposed by this part are generally stated in terms of the duty of a railroad,
any person, including a contractor for a railroad, or a local or state governmental entity that performs any function covered by this partt must perform that function in accordance with
this part. Subpart B-Use of locomotive Horns § 222.21 When to use lo.omotlve horns. (a) Except as provided in this part, the locomotive hom on the lead locomotive of a 􀁴􀁲􀁡􀁩􀁮􀁾􀀠lite
locomotive consist, individual locomotive or lead cab car shall be sounded when such locomotive or lead car is is approaching and passes through each public highway-rail grade crossing.
Sounding of the locomotive horn with two long, one short, and one long blast shall be initiated at the location reqnired in paragraph (b) of this section and shall be repeated or prolonged
until the locomotive or train occupies the crossing. (b) Although preempted by this part, state reqnirements in effect on [the effective date of the final rule] which govern the location
where, or time in which, locomotive horns must be sounded in advaoce of a public highway-rail grade crossing, shall be used as guidelines under this rule until such time as the railroad
chaoges the maximum authorized speed for that portion of track at the grade crOSSing. At that time the railroad shall, subject to the one-quarter raile limitation contained in paragraph
(el of this section. either: (1) Place whistle boards at a distance from the next crossing equal to the distance traveled by a train in 20 seconds while operating at the maximum speed
allowed for any any train operating on the track in that direction of movement; or (2) Ensure by other methods that the locomotive horn is sounded no less than 20, nor more than 24 seconds
before the locomotive enters the crossing. (c) If, as of [the effective date of the final rule], there are no state requirements that locomotive horns be sounded at a specific distance
in advance of the public highway-rail grade crossing, railroads shall, subject to the 1/4 mi]e limitation contained in paragraph (e) of this section, either: (1) Place whistle boards
at a distance from the next crossing equal to the distance traveled by a train in 20 seconds while operating at the maximum speed allowed for any train operating on the track in that
direction of movement; or (2) Ensure by other methods that the locomotive horn is sounded no less than 201 nor more than 24 seconds before the locomotive enters the crossin8. (d) Each
railroad shall, in the manner provided in paragraph (c) of this section, promptly adjust the location of each whistle board to reflect changes in maximwn authorized track speeds, except
where all trains operating over that public highway-rail grade crossing 
2265 Federal Regist"L. 101. 65, No. 9/Thursday, January 13. L,_.,iJ/Proposed Rules are equipped to be responsive to a positive train control system. (e) In no event shall a locomotive
horn sounded in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section be sounded mare than one-quarter mile (1,320 feet Or 403 meters) in advance of a public highway-rail grade crossing. §222.23
Emergency and other lISes of locomotive horns. (a)(l) Nothing in this part is intended to prevent an engineer from sounding the locomotive horn to provide a warning to vehicle operators.
pedestrians, trespassers or crews on other trains in an emergency situation if, in the engineer's sole judgment, such action is appropriate in order to prevent imminent injury. death
or property damage. (2) Establishment of a quiet zone does not preclude the sounding of locomotive horns in emergency situations, nor does it impose a legal duty to sound the locomotive
horn in such situations. (b) Nothing is this part restricts the use of the locomotive horn to announce the approach of the train to roadway workers in accordance with a program adopted
under part 214 of this Chapter. or where active warning devices have malfunctioned and use ofthe horn is reqillred by one of the following sections of this Chapter: §§ 234.105; 234.106;
or 234.107. Subpart C-Exceptlons to Use of the Locomotive Horn §222.31 Train operations which do not require sounding of horns at Individual public highway-rail grade crossings. (a)
Locomotive horns need not be sounded at individual public higbwayrail grade crOSSings ifthe maximum authorized operating speed (as establisbed by the railroad) for that segment of track
is 15 miles per hour or less and properly equipped flaggers (as defined in 49 CPR 234.5) provide warillng ofapproaching trains to motorists. (b] This paragraph does not apply where active
warning devices have malfunctioned and use of the horn is required by 49 CFR 234.105, 234.106, or 234.107. § 222.33 Establishment of quiet zones. (a) Community designation. A state or
local government may designate a quiet zone by implementing one or more supplementary safety measures identified in Appendix A of this part at each public highway-rail grade crossing
within the qillet zone and by providing the information and notifications described under § 222.35. (b) FHA acceptance. (1) A state Or local government may apply to FRA's Associate Adrillillstrator
for Safety for acceptance of a quiet 􀁺􀁯􀁮􀁥􀁾􀀠within which one or more safety measures identified in Appendix A or Appendix B of this part will be implemented. The state or local
government's application to FRA's Associate Administrator for Safety must contain sufficient detail concerning the present engineering improvements at the public highwayrail grade crossings
proposed to be included in the quiet zone. together with detailed information pertaiillng to the proposed supplementary and alternative safety measures to be implemented at each crossing.
The application must conform with the reqillrements contained in Appendix B of this part, part, and must be based on the calculations discussed in the Introduction to Appendices A and
B of this part. The application must also contain a commitment to implement the proposed safety measures within the proposed qillet zone. The state or local government must demonstrate
through data and analysis that implementation of these measures will effect a reduction in risk at public highway-rail grade crossings within the quiet zone (viewing risk in the aggregate
rather than on a crossing-by-crossing basis) sufficient to fully compensate for the absence of the warning provided by the locomotive horn. For purposes of this paragraph. risk will
be viewed in terms of the qillet zone as a whole. rather than at each individual grade crossing. The aggregate reduction in predicted collision risk for the qillet zone as a whole must
be shown to compensate for the Jack of a locomotive horn. (2) The FRA Associate Admiillstrator for Safety may accept the proposed quiet zone, may accept the proposed quiet zone under
additional conditions designed to ensure that the safety measures fully compensate for the absence ofthe warillng provided by the locomotive horn, or may reject the proposed quiet zone
if, in the Associate Adrillillstrator's judgment. the proposed safety measures do not fully compensate for the absence of the warning provided by the locomotive horn. (c) Quiet zone
in whicJ, supplementary or alternative safety measures are not necessary. A state or local government may create a quiet zone under this paragraph if the crossings within the quiet zone
conform to the requirements contained in Appendix C of this part. Appendix C of this part describes those categories of crossings which the Adrillnistrator bas determined do not present
a significant riskwith respect to loss of life or scrious personal injury if the locomotive horn is not sounded. (d] Minimum length. The miillmum length ofa quiet zone established under
this part shall be one-half mile (2.640 feet or 805 meters) along the length of railroad right-of-way. ((e) Requirement for active grade crossing warning devices. Except as provided
in § 222.31. and paragraph (c) of this section. each public highway-rail grade crossing in a quiet zone establisbed or accepted under this section must be equipped with active grade
crossing warillng devices comprising both flashing lights and gates which control traffic over the crossing and that conform to the standards contained in the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices issued by the Federal Highway Administration. Installation or upgrading of such devices is not regarded as implementation ofsupplementary safety measures under this part
and 1s not credited toward the compensating reduction in risk referenced in paragraph (b) of this section, except to the extent the new warning systems exceed the standards of the MUTCD
and conform to reqUirements for supplementary safety measures contained in Appendix A of this part. (I) Requirementfor advance warning signs. Each bighway approach to each public highway-rail
grode crossing at which locomotive homs are not routinely sounded pursuant to this part shall be equipped with an advance warning sign advising the motorist that train horns are not
sounded at the crossing. § 222.35 Notice and Information requIrements.. (a) A state or local government designating a quiet zone under § 222.33(a) shall provide written notice. by certified
mail. return receipt requested. of such designation to: all railroads operating over the public highway-rail grade crossings within the qillet zone; the highway or traffic control authority
or law enforcement authority having control over vehicular traffic at the crossings within the quiet zone; the state agency responsible for highway and road safety; and the FRA Associate
Adrillillstrator for Safety. (b) Upon acceptance by the FRA Associale Adrillnistrator for Safety of a quiet zone proposed by a state or local government under §222.33(b). such state
or local government shall provide written notice, by certified mail. return receipt requested. of such acceptance to: all railroads operating over the public highway-rail grade crossings
within the qillet zone; the highway or traffic 
'I 2266 Federal Registe•.. JoJ. 65, No. 9/Thursday, January 13, 􀀴􀁾􀁾􀁏􀀯􀁐􀁲􀁯􀁰􀁯􀁳􀁥􀁤􀀠Rules control authority or law enforcement authority having control over vehicular traffic
at the crossings witlrin the quiet zone; and the state agency responsible for hlghway and road safety. (c) A state or local government creating a quiet zone under § 222.33(c), shall
provide written notice, by certified mail. return receipt requested. of such designation to: all railroads operating over the public highway-rail grade crossings within the quiet zonej
the highway or traffic control authority or law enforcement authority having control over vehicular traffic at the crossings within the quiet zone; the state agency responsible for hlghway
and road safety; and the FRA Associate Administrator for Safety. (d) The following information pertaining to every quiet zone must be submitted to the FRA Associate Admhristrator for
Safety: (1) An accurate and complete U.S. DOT-AAR National Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Inventory Form, FRA F6180.71, (Inventory Form) (avaHable through the FRA Office of Safety Analysis,
Mail Stop 17, 1120 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20590) for each public highway-rail grade crossing within the quiet zone dated wi thin six months prior to designation or FRA acceptance
of the quiet zone; (2) An accurate. complete and current Inventory Form reflecting supplementary and alternative safety measures in place upon establishment of the quiet zone; and (3)
The name and title of the state or local officer responsible for monitoring compliance with the requirements of this part and the manner in which that person can be contacted. § 222.37
Quiet zone Implementation. (a) A quiet zone established under this part shall not be implemented until: (1) All requirements of§ 222.35 are complied with; and (2) At least 14 days have
elapsed since receipt of all of the notifications required by § 222.35. (b) All raHroads operating over public highway-rail grade crossings within a quiet zone established in accordance
with with this part shall cease routine use of the locomotive horn at public highwayrail crossings upon the date set by the state 'or local government which has established such quiet
zone. § 222.39 Quiet zone duration. (a) Subject to paragraph (d) of this section. a quiet zone designated by a state or local government under § 222.33(a) may remain in effect indefinitely,
provided that all requirements of this part continue to he met and that within six months before the expiration of five years from the original designation made to FRA, or within six
months of the expiration of five years from the last affirmation, the designating entity affirms in writing to the FRA Associate Administrator for Safety that the supplementary safety
measures implemented within the quiet zone continue to conform with the requirements of Appendix A of this part. Copies of such notification must be provided to the parties identified
in § 222.35(a) by certified mail, return receipt requested. In addition to its affirmation, the designating entity must send to the FRA Associate Administrator for Safety an accurate
and complete U.S. DOT -AAR National Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Inventory Form, FRA F6180.71, for each public highway-rail grade crossing within the quiet zone. (b) Subject to paragraph
(d) of this section, a quiet zone accepted by FRA under § 221.33(b) shall remain in effect indefinitely, provided that all requirements of this part continue to be met and that within
six months before the expiration of three years from the original designation made to FRA, or within six months of the expiration of three years from the last affirmation, the state
or local government affirms in writing (with notification by certified mail, return receipt requested, of such affirmation provided to the parties identified in §222.35(b)) that the
supplementary safety measures installed and implemented in the quiet zone continue to be effective and continue to fully compensate for the absence of the warning provided by the locomotive
horn. In addition to its affirmation, the governmental entity must send to the FRA Associate Administrator for Safety an accurate and complete U.S. DOTAAR National Highway-Rail Grade
Crossing Inventory FOIID. FRA F6180.71, for each puhlic highway-rail grade crossing within the quiet zone. (c) Subject to paragraph (d) of this section, a quiet zone created hy a state
or local government under § 222.33(c) may remain in effect indefinitely, provided that all requirements of this part continue to he met and that within six months before the expiration
of five years from the original designation made to FRA. or within six months of the expiration of five years from the last affirmation, the state or local government affirms in writing
to the FRA Associate Admhristrator for Safety that the conditions contained in Appendix C of this part continue to be met. Copies of such notification must be provided to the parties
identified in § 222.35(a) by certified mail, return receipt requested. In addition to its affirmation. the designating entity must send to the FRA Associate Administrator for Safety
an accurate and complete U.S. DOT -AAR National Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Inventory Form, FRA F6180.71, for each public highway-rail grade crossing within the quiet zone. (d) The FRA
Associate Administrator for Safety may, at any time. review the status of any quiet zone and determine whether, under the conditions then present, supplementary and alternative safety
measures in place fully compensate for the absence of the warning provided by the locomotive horn, or in the case of quiet zones created under § 222.33(c), whether there is a significant
risk with respect to loss of life or serious personal injury. If the FRA Associate Admhristrator for Safety makes a preliminary determination that such safety measures do not fully compensate
for the absence of the locomotive horn. or that there is a significant risk with respect to loss of life or serious personal injury, he or she will publish notice of the determination
in the Federal Register and provide an opportunity for comment and informal hearing. The FRA Associate Administrator for Safety may require that additional safety measures be taken or
that the quiet zone be terminated. § 222.41 Supplementary and alternative safety measures. (a) Approved supplementary safety measures determined to be at least as effective as the locomotive
horn when each public hlghway-rail grade crossing is equipped, and standards for their implementation, are listed in Appendix A of this part. (b) Additional, alternative safety measures
that may be included in a request for FRA acceptance of a quiet zone under § 222.33(b) are listed in Appendix B of this part. (c) Appendix C of this part describes those situations in
which the Administrator has determined do not present a significant risk with respect to loss of life or serious personal injury from establishment of a quiet zone. In the situations
listed, supplementary safety measures are not required. (d) The Admhristrator will add new supplementary safety measures and standards to Appendix A or B of this part when the Administrator
determines that such measures or standards are an effective substitute for the locomotive horn in the prevention of collisions and casualties at public hlghway-rail grade crossings.
The Administrator will add new listings to Appendix C of this part when the Administrator determines that 
2267 Federal Regislel . /01. 65, No. 9/Thursday, January 13, <._ ,v/Proposed Rules no negative safety consequences result from establishment of a quiet zone under the listed conditions.
(el The following do not, individually or in combination, constitute supplementary or alternative safety measures, standard traffic control devices arrangements sucb as reflectorized
crossbucks, STOP signs, flashing ligbts, or flashing ligbts with gal.s that do not complelely block travel over the line of railroad. or traffic signals. § 222.43 Development and approval
or new supplementary safety measures. (a) Interested parties may demonstrate proposed new supplementary safety systems or procedures to determine if they are an effective substitute
for the locomotive hom in the prevention of collisions and casualties at public higbway-rail grade crossings. (b) Tbe Administrator may order railroad carriers operating over a public
highway-rail grade crossing or crossings to temporarily cease the sounding of locomotive horns at such crossings to demonstrale proposed new supplementary safety measures, provided that
sucb proposed new supplementary safety systems or procedures have been subject to prior testing and evaluation. In issuing sueb order, the Administrator may impose any conditions or
limitations on such use of the proposed new supplementary safety measures whieb he or she deems necessary in order provide the highest level of safety. (c) Upon successful completion
of a demonstration of proposed new supplementary safety measures, interested parties may apply to the FRA Associate Administrator for Safety for approval of the new supplementary safety
measures. Applications for approval shalI be in writing and shalI include the following: (1) The name and address of the applicant; (2) A description and design of the proposed now supplementary
safety measurej (3) A description and results of the demonstration project in which the proposed supplementary safety measures were tested; (4) Estimated costs of the proposed new supplementary
safety measure; and (5) Any other information deemed necessary. (d) !flbe FRA Associate Administrator for Safety is satisfied that the proposed supplementary safety measure fully compensates
for the absence of the waming provided by the locomotive hom, he or she ,vill approve its use as a supplementary safety measure to be used in the same manner as the measures listed in
Appendix A of this part. Tbe Associate Admiuistrator may impose any conditions or limitations on use of the supplementary safety measures which he or she deems necessary in order to
provide the highest level ofsafety. (e) If the FRA Associate Administrator for Safety approves a new supplementary safety measure be or sbe will notify the applicant and shall add the
measure to the list of approved supplementary safety measures contained in Appendix A of this part. (0 The party applying for approval of a supplementary safety measure may appeal to
the Admiuistrator from a decision hy the FRA Associate Admiuistrator for Safety rejecting a proposed supplementary safety measure or the conditions or limitations imposed on use. §222.45
Communities wHh pre-exlstlng restrictions on use of locomotive horns. (a) Subject to paragraph (b) of this sectioD, communities which, as of October 9, 1996) have enacted ordinances
restricting the sounding of a locomotive horn, or communities whieb, as of October 9, 1996, have not been subject to sounding oflocomotive horns at highway-rail crossings due to formal
Or informal agreements between the community and the railroad or railroads may continue those restrictions for a period of up to three years from [the date of publication of the final
rulel in order to provide time for the community to plan for, and implement supplementary safety measures at the affected crossings. (bJ Ifa quiet zone has not been created pursuant
to § 222.33 by [two years after date of publication of the final rulel, a community with a pre-existing restriction on locomotive horns as of October 9,1996, must initiate or increase
both grade crossing safety public awareness initiatives and public highway-rail grade crossing traffic law enforcement programs in an effort to offset the lack of supplementary safety
measures at affected crossings. The community must document in writing the steps taken to comply with this provision. The FRA Associate Administrator for Safety reserves the right to
determine whether the steps taken are sufficient to temporarily offset the lack of supplementary safety measures. If such public awareness initiatives and traffic law enforcement programs
are not iuitiated or increased, or if the FRA Associate Admiuistrator for Safety determines that the steps taken are not sufficient to temporarily offset the lack of supplementary safety
measures, locomotive horns must be sounded in accordance with § 222.21. (c) Quiet zones whicb have been established by communities prior to issuance of this NPRM and whieb bave been
determined by the FRA Associate Administrator for Safety to be suhstantially in accord withthis part shall be deemed to comply with the requirements of Appendix B of this part. Appendix A to Part 222-Approved Supplementary Safety Measures Community Guide The following diSCUSSion
is intended to help guide state and local governments through the decision making process in determining whether to designate a quiet zone under § 222.33(a) Ot to apply for acceptance
ofa quiet zone under § 222.33(b). The suggested steps and "checkli.st" items are not meant to supersede or amend the regulatory requirements, They are included to provide a general guide.
However. use of FRA's DOT Highway-Rail Crossing Accident Prediction Formula to determine the "mitigation goal" together with tbe figures to be used in performing local calculations is
required, The suggested steps ate as follows: a. Define the subject corridor and the involved crossings. Obtain the U.S. DOTI AAR Crossing Inventory Number ofeach crossing within the
proposed quiet zone. The corridor must be at least one-half mile in length (805 meters) measured along the rail right-of-way, and an highway-rail crossings within the entire length of
the quiet zone corridor must be included. b. Ensure that current data, especially public or private status, highway and rail traffic counts and at least five years of collision history,
is available. Current highway and rail traffic counts must he submitted to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for inclusion in the U.S. DOTIAAR National Highway-Rail Crossing
Inventory. A record of collisions can be obtained from the FRA (Offioe of Safety Analysis (RRS-22) Mail Stop 17, 1120 Vermont Avenue. NW., Washington, DC 20590 or on the internet at
http://saietydata.fra.dot.gov/officeofsafety, c. Determine tbe presence of minimum requirements. The minimum traffic control requirement for each public highway-rail grade crossing within
a quiet zOne is flashing lights. automatic gates. and bell and a special advance warning sign (in accordance with standards contained in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices)
on each highway approach which advises approaching highway users that the train horn will not be sounded. d, Account for private and pedestrian crossings. Private highway-rail crossings
do not need to be addressed by supplementary or alternative safety measures to be included within a quiet zone. Calculations ofviolation rates and collision rates should not include
such crossings. Tbe minimum traffic control requirement for each private highway-rail grade crossing and pedestrian 􀁡􀁴􀁾􀁧􀁲􀁡􀁤􀁥􀀠crossing within a quiet zone is a special warning
sign on each approach which 
2268 , Federal Registei_ /01. 65, No. 9/Thursday, January 13, 􀁾􀁊􀀯􀁐􀁲􀁯􀁰􀁯􀁳􀁥􀁤􀀠Rules advises users ofthe crossing that the train horn will not be sounded. e. In order to establish
a quiet zone that includes private crossings, the jurisdiction establishing the quiet zone must notify all land owners using the crossing that train horns will not be routinely sounded
at crossings within the quiet zone. f. Determine which crossings can he addressed by the engineering-based supplementary safety measures of this Appendix A. Ifall crossings can be so
addressed without changing any requirements ofthe supplementary safety measures, the road authorities and the railro.d(s) should proceed to implement the appropriate measures and make
the applicable notifications, g. If any of the crossings will be addressed with a non.engineering-based supplementary safety measure from this Appendix A (cUlTently> only Photo Enforcement
is included), a baseline violation rate for each crossing to be so addressed must be detennined for subsequent assessment purposes: 1. In the case where train horns are routinely being
sounded within the proposed quiet zone: once baseline violation rates have been determined. and before the quiet zone has been implemented, Photo Enforcement should be initiated. In
the calendar quarter following initiation. a new violation rate should he determined and compared to the baseline violation rate, Ifand when the new violation rates at all crossings
in the quiet zone at which Photo Enforcement is to be used axe at least 49 percent below the baseline violation rates, and all the other crossings in the quiet zone have heen addressed
with Appendix A options, the community and the railroad may proceed with notifications and implementation ofthe quiet zone. Violation rates must be monitored for the next two calendar
quaxters and every other quarter thereafter. If the violation rate is ever greater than the baseline violation rate, the procedures for dealing with unacceptable effectiveness after
establishment of a quiet zone should he followed. 2. In the case where the routine use oftrain horns within the proposed quiet zone is already prohibited: Once baseline violation rates
have been determined and all the other crossings in the quiet zone have been addressed with other Appendix A options. the community and the railroad may proceed with initiation of Photo
Enforcement and notification and implementation of the quiet zone, Violation rates must be monitored for the next two calendar quarters and every other quarter thereafter. Ifthe violation
rate is ever greater than a value less than 49 percent below the baseline violation rate. the procedures for dealing with unacceptable effectiveness after establishment ofa quiet zone
should be followed. h. Where one or more crossings in the proposed quiet zone corridor can not be addressed with a supplementary safety measure from this Appendix A, the applicant must
use the DOT Highway-Rail Crossing Accident Prediction Formula to determine the total of predicted accidents at all of the public crossings within the quiet zone assuming that each crossing
is equipped with lights, automatic gates, and a bell. If a ban is not in effect. this total becomes the "mitigation goal" for the conidor, i.e., the predicted accident total which the
community's proposal must show will not be exceeded once the quiet zone is implemented. The mitigation goal must be multiplied by 1.62 (communities subject to FRA's Emergency Order No.
#15 (E01S) should multiply by 3.125) to establish the 'expected accident total without horns.' i.e.• the expected accident total once horns ate banned ifno supplementary safety measures
are applied. Ifa han is in effect, this total is the expected accident total without horns. The mitigation goal is realized by multiplying this total by .62 (communities subject to E01S
should multiply by .32). i. The accident prediction for any crossingls) to be closed prior to implementation of the quiet zone should be subtracted from the "expected accident total
without horns!' The highway traffic counts for crossings to be closed must be added to the traffic counts of the crossings which will he used by the displaced vehicles and the accident
prediction for these impacted crossings must be recalculated and multiplied by 1.62 (3.125 for communities subject to EOt5) to establish a new "expected accident total without horns."
j. For each crossing to be addressed. the effectiveness of the supplementary safety measure to be appHed. as set forth above. should be multiplied times that crossingJs accident prediction
and the product should be subtracted from the "expected accident total without horns," For the 􀁮􀁯􀁮􀁾􀀠engineering-based measures, an effectiveness of ,38 may be assumed until analysis
of the specific crossing and applied mitigation measure has been assessed. k. Once it can be shown that the "expected accident total without horns" will he reduced to or below the mitigation
goal, the quiet .zone proposal may be submitted for approval to FRA's Associate Administrator for Safety. Approved Supplementary Safety Measures 1. Temporary Closure ofa Public Highway.
Rail Grade Crossing Close the crossing to highway and pedestrian traffic during 􀁷􀁨􀁬􀁳􀁴􀁬􀁥􀁾􀁨􀁡􀁮􀀠periods. Required a. The closure system must completely block highway and pedestrian
traffic from entering the croSSing, b. The crossing must be closed during the same hours every day. c. The crossing may only be closed during one period each 24-houts, d. Daily activation
and deactivation of the system is the responsibility ofthe traffic control authority or governmental authority responSible for maintenance of the street or highway crossing the railroad.
The entity may provide for third party activation and deactivation; however, the governmental entity shall remain fully responsible for compliance with the requirements of this part.
e. The system must be tamper and vandal resistant to the same extent as other traffic control devices. Recommended Manual on Uniform Traffic ContX'ol Devices (MUTCD] standards should
b. met for any barricades and signs used in the closure of tho facility. Signs for alternate highway traffic routes should be erected in accordance with MUTCD and state and local standards
and should inform pedestrians and motorists that the streets are closed. the period for which they are closed, and that alternate routes must be used. 2. Four-Quadrant Gate System Install
gates at a crossing sufficient to fully block highway traffic from entering the crossing when the gates ate lowered. including at least one gate for each direction of tX'affic on each
approach. R"'1uired a. When a train is approaching. all highway approach and exit lanes on both sides ofthe highway-rail crossing must be spanned by gates. thus denying to the bighway
user the option ofcircumventing the conventional approach lane gates by switching into the opposing (oncoming) traffic lane in order to enter the crossing and cross the tracks. b. Gates
must be activated by use of constant warning time devices. c. The gap between the ends or the entrance and exit gates (on the same side of the railroo.d tracks) whon both are in the
fully lowered. or down. position must be less than two feet ifno median is present. Ifthe highway approach is equipped with a median or a channelization device between the approach and
exit lanes, the lowered gates must reach to within one foot of the median or channelization device. measured horizontally across the road from the end of the lowered gate to the median
or channelization device Or to a point over the edge of the median or channelization device. The gate and the median top or channelization device do not have to be at the same elevation.
d. 􀀢􀁂􀁲􀁥􀁡􀁫􀁾􀁡􀁷􀁡􀁹􀀧􀀢􀀠channelization devices must be frequently monitored to replace broken elements. e. Signs must be posted alerting motorists to the fact that the train horn
does not sound. Recommcndations for newinstallations only f. Gate timing should be established by a qualified traffic engineer based on sIte specific determinations. Such determination
should consider the need for and timing of a delay in the descent ofthe exit gates (following descent of the conventional entrance gates). Factors to be considered may include available
storage space between the gates that is outside the fouling limits of the track{s) and the possibility that traffic flows may be interrupted as a result of nearby intersections. g. When
operating in the failure 􀀨􀁦􀁡􀁬􀁬􀁾􀁳􀁡􀁬􀁥􀀩􀀠mode, exit gates should remain in the raised. or up, position. h. A determination should be made as to whether it is necessary to provide
vehicle presence detectors (VPDs) to open or keep open the exit gates until all vehicles are clear oftbe crossing. VPD should be installed on one or botb sides of the crossing and/or
in the surface between the rails closest to the 
2269 Federal Registel .'01. 65, No. 9/ThUTsday, January 13, <. . J/Proposed Rules field. Among the factor. that should be considered are the presence of jntersecting roadways near the
crossing, the priority that the traffic crossing the railroad is given at such intersections, the types of traffic control devices at those intersections, and the presence and timing
of traffic signal preemption. i. Highway 􀁡􀁾􀁰􀁲􀁯􀁡􀁣􀁨􀁥􀁳􀀠on one or both sides of the 􀁨􀁩􀁧􀁨􀁷􀁡􀁹􀁾􀁲􀁡􀁩􀁬􀀠crossing may be provided with medians or channelization devices between
the opposing lanes. Medians sbould be defined by a banier curb or mountable curb. or by reflectorized channelization devices, or by both. j. Remote monitoring ofthe status of these crossing
systems is preferable. This is especially important in those areas in which qualified railroad signal department personnel are not readily available. 3. Gates With Medians Of Channelization
Devices Install medians or channelization devices on both highway approaches to a public highway-rail grade crossing denying to the highway user the option ofcircumventing the approach
lane gates by switching into the opposing (oncoming) traffic Jane in order to drive around lowered gates to cross the track •. Required a. Opposing traffic lanes on both highway approaches
to the crossing must be separated by either: (1) Medians bounded by barrier curbs, 01' (2} medians bounded by mountable curbs ifequipped with channelization devices, b. Medians must
extend at least 100 reet. or if there is an intersection within 100 feet of the gate, the median must extent at least 60 feet from the gate. c. Intersections within 60 feet of the crossing
must be closed or moved. d. Crossing warning system must be equipped with constant warning time devices. e. The gap between the lowered gate and the barrier curb 01' channelization device
must be one foot or less, measured horizontally across the road from the end of the lowered gate to the barrier curb or channelization device or to a point over the curb edge or channelization
device. The gate and the curb top or channelization device do not have to be at the same elevation. f. "Break..awayH channelization devices must be frequently monitored to replace broken
elements. g. Signs must be posted alerting motorists to the fact that the train horn does not sound. 4. One Way Street With Gate(s) Gate(s) must be installed such that all approaching
highway lanes to the public highway-rail grade crossing are completely blocked. Required a, Gate arms on the approach side ofthe crossing should extend across the road to within one
foot of the far edge of the pavement. Ifa gate is used on each side of the road, the gap between the ends of the gates when both are in the lowered, or down. position should be no more
than two feet. b, If only one gate is used, the edge of the road opposite the gate mechanism must be configured with a barrier curb extending at least 100 feet. c. Crossing warning system
must be equipped with constant warning time devices, d, Signs must be posted alerting motorists to the fact that the train horn does not sound. S. Photo Enforcement The alternative entails
automated means of gathering valid photographic or video evidence of traffic law violations together with follow-through bylaw enforcement and the judiciary, Required a. State law authOrizing
use of pbotographic or video evidence both to bring charges and sustain the burden of proof that a violation oftmffic laws concerning puhlic highway-rail grade crossings bas occurred,
accompanied hy commitment of administrative, law enforcement and judicial officers to enforce the law. b. Sanction includes sufficient minimum fin. (e.g., $100 for a first offense) to
deter violations. c. Means to reliably detect violations (e.g .• loop detectors. video imaging technology). d. Photographic or video equipment deployed to r.apl1lre images sufficient
to document the violation (including the face of the driver. ifrequired to charge or convict under state law). Noteto s,d.: This does not require that eacb crossing be continually monitored.
The objective of this option is deterrence, which may be accomplished by moving photo/video equipment among several crossing locations, as long as the motorist perceives the strong possibility
that a violation will lead to sanctions. Each location must appear identical to the motorist. whether or not surveillance equipment is actually placed there at the particular time. Surveillance
equipment should be in place and operating at each crossing at least 25 percent of each calendar-quarter. e. Appropriate integration. testing and maintenance of the system to provide
evidence supporting enforcement. f. 􀁓􀁥􀁭􀁩􀁾􀁡􀁮􀁮􀁵􀁡􀁬􀀠analysis verifying that the last quarter's violation rates remain at or below the ""copt.bl.levels established prior to initiation
of photo enforcement. g. Signs must be posted alerting motorists to the fact that the train horn does not sound. h. Public awareness efforts designed to reinforce photo enforcement and
alert motorists to the absence oftrain horns. Appendix B 10 Part Z2Z-Alternalive Safety Measure!l a. Please refer to the section entitled "Community guide" at the beginning of AppenruxA
of this part for a discussion intended to help guide state and local governments through the decision making process in determining whether to designate a quiet zone under § 222.33(a)
(implementing supplementary safety measures) or to apply for acceptance of a quiet zone under § 222.33(b) (implementing alternative safety measures or a combination ofaJtemative and
supplementary safety measures). b. A state or local government seeking acceptance of a quiet zone under §22Z.33[b) may include in its proposal alternative safety measures listed in this
appendix. Credit may be proposed for closing ofpublic highwayrail grade crossings provided the baseline risk at other crossings is appropriately adjusted by increasing traffic counts
at neighhoring crossings as input data to the prediction formula (except to the extent that nearby grade separations are expected to carry that traffic). c. The following alternative
safety measures may be proposed to be employed in the same manner as stated in Appendix A of this part. Unlike application of the supplementary saIety measures in Appendix A ofthis part.
ifthere ate unique circumstances pertaining to a specific crossing or number ofcrossings. the specific requi.rements associated with a particular supplementary safety measure may be
adjusted or revised. In addition. as provided for in § 222.33[b), using the alternative safety measures contained in this Appendix B will enable a locality to tailor the use and application
of various supplementary safety measures to a specific set of circumstances. Thus. a locality may institute alternative or supplementary measures on a number of crossings within a quiet
zone but due to specific circumstances a crossing or a number ofcrossings may be omitted from the list ofcrossings to receive those safety meaSUl'es. FRA will review the proposed plan,
and will approve the proposal if it finds that the predicted collision rate applied to the quiet zone as a whole. is reduced to the required level. d. The follOwing alternative safety
measures may be included in a proposal for acceptance by FRA for creation of a quiet zone. Approved supplementary safety measures which are listed in Appendix A of this part may be used
for purposes of alternative supplementary safety measures. The re!l.uirements for the frrst five measures listed below are found in Appendix A of this part Ifone or more of the requirements
associated with that supplementary safety measure as listed in Appendix A of this part is revised or deleted. data or analysis supporting the revision or deletion must be provided to
FRA for review. 1. Temporary Closure ofa Public Highway. Rail Grode Crossing Close the crossing to highway and pedestrian traffic during whistle-ban periods. 2. 􀁆􀁯􀁵􀁲􀁾􀁑􀁵􀁡􀁤􀁲􀁡􀁮􀁴Gate
System Install sufficient gates at a public highwayrail grade crossing to fully block highway traffic from entering the crossing when the gates are lowered, including at least one gate
per each direction of traffic on each approach. 3. Gates With Medians or Channelization Devices Install medians or channelization devices on both highway approaches to a public highway.rall
grade crossing which prevent highway traffic from driving around lowered gates. 
",2270 Federal Regisun .'01. 65, No. 9/Thursday, January 13, .. j /Proposed Rules 4. One.Way SIreet With Gare(s} GaleCs) are instaned such that all approaching highway lanes to a public
highway-rail grade crossing are completely blocked. 5. Photo Enforcement Automated means of gathering valid photographic evidence oftraffic law violations at a public 􀁨􀁩􀁧􀁨􀁷􀁡􀁹􀁾􀁲􀁡􀁩􀁬􀀠grade
crossing together with 􀁦􀁯􀁬􀁬􀁯􀁷􀁾􀁴􀁨􀁲􀁯􀁵􀁧􀁨􀀠by law enforcement and Ju.dicial personnel. The following alternatives may be proposed for inclusion in a proposed program of alternative
safety measures within specific quiet zone proposals; 16. Progrommed Enforcement Community and law enforcement nfficials commit to a systematic and measurable crossing monitoring and
traffic law enforcement program at the public 􀁢􀁩􀁧􀁨􀁷􀁡􀁹􀁾􀀠rail grade crossing, alone or in combination with the Public Education and Awareness option. Required 3. Subject to audit,
a statistically valid baseline violation rate must be established through automated or systematic manual monitoring or sampling at the subject crossing(s). See Appendix A of this part
{Photo Enforcement) for treatment of effectiveness with or without prior whistle ban. b. A law enforcement effort must be defined. established and continued along with continual or regular
monitoring. c. Following implementation of the quiet zone, results of monitoring for not less than two full calendar quarters must show that the violation rate has been reduced sufficiently
to compensate for the lack of train horns, (Le.• a reduction of at least 49 percent), and the railroad shall be notified (to resume sounding of the train horn ifresults are not acceptable.
d, Subsequent semi-annual satnpling must indicate that this reduction is being sustained, Ifthe reduction is not sustained. the stale or muniCipality may continue the quiet zone for
a maximum of one calenrlat quarter and shall increase the frequency of satnpling to verify improved effectiveness. If. in the second calendar quarter following the quarter for which
results were not acceptable. the rate is not acceptable, the quiet zone shall be tenninated until requalified and accepted byFRA. e. Signs alerting motorists to the fact that the train
horn does not sound. 7. Public Education andAwareness Conduct. alone or in combination with programmed law enforcement. a program of public education and awareness directed at motor
vehicle drivers. pedestrians and residents near the railroad to emphasize the risks associated with public highway-rail grade crossings and applicable requirements of state and local
traffic laws: at those crossings. Requirements a. Subject to audit. a statistically valid baseline violation rate must be established through automated or systematic manual monitoring
or sampling at the subject crossing(s). See Appendix A ofthis part (photo Enforcement) for treatment of effectiveness with or without prior whistle ban. b. A sustainable public edu.cation
and awareness program must be defined, established and continued concurrent with continued monitoring. This program shall be provided and supported primarily through local resources.
c, FollOwing implementation of the quiet zone. results of monitoring for not less than two full calendar quarters must show that the violation rate has been red\lced sufficiently to
compensate for the lack of train horns (i.e., a reduction ofat least 49 percent with statistical confidence of .95). The railroad (with a copy of such notification sent to FRA's Associate
Administrator for Safety) shall be notified to resume sounding of the train horn if results are not acceptable, d. Subsequent 􀁳􀁥􀁭􀁩􀁾􀁡􀁮􀁮􀁵􀁡􀁬􀀠sampling must indicate that this
reduction is being sustained. Ifthe reduction is not sustained. the state or municipality may continue the quiet zone for a maximum of one calendar quarter and shall increase the frequency
of sampling to verify improved effectiveness. If. in the second calendar quarter following the quarter for which results were not acceptable. the rate is not acceptable, the quiet zone
shaH be terminated until requalified and accepted byFRA. e. Signs alerting motorists to the fact that the train horn does not sound. Appendix C to Part ZZZ-Conditions Not Requiring Additional
Safely Measures No negative ,safety consequences result from establishment ofa quiet zone under the follOwing conditions: 1. Train speed does not exceed 15 miles perham; 2. Train travels
between traffic lanes ofa public street or on an essentiaHy parallel course within 30 feet of the street; 3. Signs are posted at every grade crossing indicating that locomotive horns
do not sound; 4. Unless the railroad is actually situated on the surface of the public street. traffic on all crossing streets is controlled by STOP signs or traffic lights which are
interconnected with automatic crossing warning devices: and 5. The locomotive bell will ring when approaching and traveling through the crossing, PART 229--{AMENDEO) 2. The authority
citation for part 229 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 20103, 20107, 2070120703, and 49 CFR 1.49. 3. Section 229.129 is revised to read as follows: § 229.129 Audible
warning device. (a) Each lead locomotive shall be prov;ded with an audible warrung device that produces a minimum sound level of 96dB(A) and a maximum sound level of [Option 1-104 dE(A);
Option 2-111 dB(All all00 feet forward of the locomotive in its direction of travel. The sound level of the dev;ce as measured 100 feel from the locomotive to the right and left of the
center of the locomotive shall not exceed the permissible value measured all00 feet forward of the locomotive. The dev;ce shall be arranged so that it can be conveniently operated from
the engineer's normal position in the cab. (1)) Measurement of the sound level shall be made using a sound level meter conforming, at a minimum, to the requirements of ANSI S1.4-1971,
Type 2, and set to an A-weighted slow response. While the locomotive is on level tangent track. the microphone shall be positioned 4 feet above the ground at the center Hne of the track.
and and shall be oriented with respect to the sound source in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. Measurements verifying compliance shall he taken only while the ambient
temperature is in the range between 36 and 95 degrees Fahrenheit and the relative humidity is in the range between 20 and 90 percent. The test site shall be free of reflective structures
(including buildings, natural harriers, and other rolling stock) within a 200 foot radius of the horn system. Issued in Washington, D.C. on December 16,1999. Jolene M. Molitoris, Federal
RailroadAdministrator. (FR Doc, 00-4 Filed 1-12-{l0; 8,45 amI BILLING! CODE 4911l-06-P' 
RESOLUTION NO. R97-047 A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ADDISON, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF ADDISON
AND DART FOR THE SPECTRUM RAILROAD CROSSING. WHEREAS, in a continued effort by the Town of Addison to improve traffic congestion throughout the Town, the town desires to extend Spectrum
Drive north across DART's railroad tracks and DART's right-of-way at Mile Post 598.09; and WHEREAS, the at-grade crossing of Spectrum Road across DART's railroad tracks will require
$300,000 worth of safety improvements to the crossing to be paid by the Town of Addison; and WHEREAS, the granting of this license shall not be construed in any way to constitute a dedication
of the property to the public; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ADDISON, TEXAS: THAT, the City Council does hereby authorize the City Manager to enter
into an interlocal agreement between the Town of Addison and DART for the Spectrum Railroad Crossing. DULY PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF ADDISON, TEXAS, this the 24th day
of June, 1997. ATTEST: 􀁾􀀯􀀧􀀱􀁾City Secretary OFFICE OF THE CITY SECRETARY RESOLUTION NO. R97-047 
001105 Areo Ropid Tronsit P.O. Box 660163 Dallas. Texas 75266-0163 DART 214/749-3278 September 5, 1997 Mr. John R. Baumgartner, P.E. Director ofPublic Works Town of Addison P. O. Box
144 . Addison, Texas 75001 Re: License Agreement No. 970904 covering the proposed Spectrum Drive crossing Dear Mr. Baumgartner: Enclosed is a fully-executed agreement as referenced above.
Should you need to contact us in the future regarding this document, please reference the agreement number above. Please contact me at (214) 749-2917 if I can be of assistance with any
future crossings of DART-owned railroad properties. Sincerely, 􀁾􀁾􀀠({an Seidner Manager, Railroad Facilities Commuter Rail & Railroad ManagementJMS: Enclosure .._-.. _----------------􀀭􀀭􀁾/
AGREEMENT 􀀣􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀧􀀭􀁱􀀭􀀧􀀷􀀭􀀭􀀽􀁯􀀽􀀭􀁱􀀭􀀧􀀭􀀽􀁯􀁾􀀴􀀧􀁟􀁟􀁟􀀠 LICENSE AGREEMENT nus AGREEMENT, by and between DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT, ("DART"), a regional transportation
authority, created, organized and existing pursuant to Chapter 452, Texas Transportation Code, as amended (the "Act"), and the TOWN OF ADDISON, a home rule city ("Licensee"), acting
herein by and through its duly authorized city manager, whose mailing address is P. O. Box 144, Addison, Texas 75001, WITNESSETH: I. Purpose. DART hereby grants a license to Licensee
for the purpose ofconstmcting, installing, and maintaining a paved four-lane Public Road Crossing (the "Permitted Improvements"), forty-eight (48) feet in width, extending Spectrum Drive
across DARTs tracks on the DART right-of-way at Mile Post 598.09 in Addison, Dallas County, Texas, more particularly described and shown on the plat marked Exhibit "A" attached hereto
and incorporated herein for all pertinent purposes, (the "Property"). The term Permitted Improvements shaIl include the concrete pre-east crossing material, pavement, grading, barricades,
street lighting, drainage fi1.cilities, signs, warning protection devices and approacbes as designated by DART. The Property shaU be used by Licensee solely for construction of the Permitted
Improvements and use by the public, EXCEPT, HOWEVER, AND IT IS UNDERSTOOD BY BOTH DART AND 􀁌􀁬􀁃􀁅􀁎􀁓􀁅􀁅􀁾􀁔􀁈􀁁􀁬􀁔􀁈􀁅􀀠GRANTING-OF 􀁔􀁈􀁉􀁳􀀭􀁌􀁊􀀮􀁃􀁅􀁎􀁓􀁅􀁾􀀮􀁈􀁍􀀻􀁌􀁎􀁏􀁔BECONSTRT:JED-lN-.
ANY WAY TO CONSTITUTE A DEDICATION OF THE PROPERTY TO THE PUBLIC. Licensee's right to enter upon and use the Property shall be entirely subject to the terms and provisions of this License
Agreement. 2. Consideration. The consideration for the granting ofthis License shall be the foUowing: 2.01. The performance by Licensee of each of the obligations undertaken by Licensee
in this License. 2.02. As further consideration for the granting of this License, and in lieu of closure of two (2) public or private at-grade I:tighway/rail crossings within within
the town limits of Addison, Licensee shall place the sum of$300,OOO.00 into a special fund (the "Crossing Fund") to be used for providing additional warning/median protection devices
at certain high traffic count highway-rail crossings within the Town of Addison as mutually determined and agreed upon between DART and Licensee. Licensee shall monitor all expenditures
from the Crossing Fund until money is depleted, subject to audit by DART. 3. Term. The term of tl:tis license shaIl be perpetual subject, however, to termination by either party as provided
herein. 4. Non bxcluslve License. Ihis hcense IS non-excluslve and IS subject tolllJ any eXlstliig utilitY, drainage or communication facility located in, on, under, or upon the Property
owned by DART, any railroad, utility, or communication company, public or private; (b) to all vested rights presently owned by any railroad., utility or communication company, public
or private, for the use of the Property for fi1.cilities Spectrum Drive 10f6 
presently located within the boundaries of the Property; and (c) to any existing lease, license or other interest in the Property granted by DART to any individual, corporation or other
entity, public or private. 5. Design. Construction, Operation and Maintenance. DART's use of the Property and adjoining property may include the use of electrically powered equipment
Notwithstanding DART's inclusion within its system of measures designed to reduce stray current which may cause corrosion, Licensee 'is hereby warned that such measures may not prevent
electrical current being present in pro::rimity to the Permitted Improvements and that such presence could produce corrosive effects to the Permitted Improvements. 5.01. All design,
construction, recoostruction, replacement, removal, operation and maintenance of the Permitted Improvements on the Property shall be done in such a manner so as not to interfere in any
way with the operations of DART or other railroad operations, (the "Railroad", whether one or more), In particular, cathodic protection or other stray current corrosion control measures
of the Permitted Improvements as required shall be made a part ofthe design and construction of the Permitted Improvements. 5.02. During the design phase and prior to commencing any
construction or installation on the Property, a copy of the construction plans showing the exact location, type and depth of the construction, any cathodic protection measures and any
working area" shall be submitted for written approval to DART and the Railroad when the construction is going to be within the area of Railroad operations. Such approval shall not be
unreasonably withheld. No work shall commence until said plans have been approved by DART and Railroad. 􀁾􀀺􀀰􀀳􀀭􀀮􀀭By-acoeptance-ofthis-license,-L-icensee 􀁾􀁥􀁥􀁳􀀭to-design, -construct,
-instalL and maintain the Permitted Improvements in such a manner so as not to create a hazard to the use of the Property, and further agrees to pay any damages which may arise by reason
of Licensee's use of the Property under this Agreement. 5.04. By acceptance of this license, Licensee covenants and agrees to institute and maintain a reasonable testing program to determine
whether or not additional cathodic protection of its Permitted Improvements is necessary and if it is or should become necessary, such protection shall be immediately instituted by Licensee
at its sole cost and expense. 5.05. Absence of markers does not constitute a warranty by DART that there are no subsurface installations on the Property. 5.06. If at any time, traffic
volume or other circumstances should warrant a grade separation for the crossing licensed hereWlder, Licensee shall be responsible for the installation of such grade separation to DART's
standards, at no cost to DART. 6. Governmental Approvals. Licensee, at its sole cost and expense, shall be responsible ror and shall obtain, any and all licenses, permits, or other approvals
from any and all governmental agencies, fuderal, state or local, required to carry on any activity permitted herein. 7. DART's Standard Contract and Insurance. No work on the Property
shall be commenced by Licensee or any contractor for Licensee Wltil such Licensee or contractor shall have executed DART's Standard Contractors Agreement covering such work, and has
furnished insurance coverage in such amounts and types as shall be satisfactory to DART. Spectrum Drive 20f6 
8. Duty of Care in Construction. Operation and Maintenance. Licensee or its contractor shall use reasonable care during the construction, operation and maintenance period and thereafter,
to avoid damaging any existing buildings, equipment and vegetation on or about the Property and any adjacent property owned by or under the control of DART. If the failure to use reasonable
care by the Licensee or its contractor causes damage to the Property or such adjacent property, the Licensee and/or its contractor shall immediately replace or repair the damage at no
cost or expense to DART. If Licensee or its contractor fails or refuses to make such replacement, DART shall have the right, but not the obligation, to make or effect any such repair
or replacement at the sole cost and expense of Licensee, which cost and expense Licensee agrees to pay to DART upon demand. 9. Environmental Protection. 9.01 Licensee shall not use or
permit the use ofthe Property for any purpose that may be in violation of any laws pertaining to health or the environment, including without limitation, the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 ("CERCLA"), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 ("RCRA"), the Texas Water Code and the Texas Solid Waste Disposal Act.
9.02. Licensee warrents that the Permitted Use of the Property will not result in the disposal or other release of any hazardous substance or solid waste on or to the Property, and that
it will take all steps necessary to insure that no such hazardous substance or solid waste will ever be discharged onto the Property by Licensee or its Contractors. 9.03. The terms "hazardous
substance" and "release" shall have the meanings specified in "CEReliA-and the-termsc􀀢􀁳􀁯􀁬􀁩􀁤􀀭􀁷􀁡􀁳􀁴􀁥􀀢􀁾􀁡􀁮􀁤􀀭􀀢􀁤􀁩􀁳􀁰􀁯􀁳􀁡􀁬􀀢􀁾􀀨or-"disposed") $haiL have_the.meanings-specified
in the RCRA; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that in the event either CERCLA or RCRA is amended so as to broaden the meaning of any term defined thereby, such broader meaning shall apply subsequent
to the effective date of such amendment; and PROVIDED FURTHER, that to the extent that the laws of the State of Texas establish a meaning for "hazardous substance", "release", "solid
waste", or "disposal", which is broader than that specified in either CERCLA or RCRA, such broader meaning shall apply. 9.04. Licensee shall indemnify and hold DART harmless against
all cost of environmental clean up to the Property resulting from Licensee's use ofthe Property under this Agrcement. 10. Mechanic's Liens Not Permitted. Licensee shall fully pay for
all labor and materials used in, on, or about the Property and will not permit or suffer any mechanic's or materialmen's liens of any nature to be affixed against the Property by reason
of any worle done or materials furnished to the Property at Licensee's instanoe or request. II. MaintllD.nce of Completed Improvements. After the Permitted Improvements have been constructed,
they shall be maintained by the Licensee in such a manner as to keep the Property in a good and safe condition with respect to Licensee's use; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, with respect to the
warning protection devices installed as Permitted Improvements, such devices shall be maintained by the Railroad, upon acceptance of installation in accordance with approved plans, subject
to reimbursement therefor by Licensee. In the eVent the licenSee fails to maintain the Property as required;-upon disOOWlj', D.\RCJ;.shall notify Licensee of such occurrence in writing.
In the event Licensee shall not have remedied the failure within ten (10) days from the date of such notice, DART shall have the right, but not the obligation to remedy such failure
at the sole cost and expense of Licensee. In the event DART exercises its right to Spectrum Drive 3 "f6 
remedy Licensee's failure, Licensee agrees to immediately pay to DART aU costs incurred by DART upon demand. . 12, Future Use by DART. 12.01. This license is made expressly subject and
subordinate to the right of DART to use the Property for any purpose whatsoever. 12.02. In the event that DART shall, at any time subsequent to the date ofthis Agreement, at its sole
discretion, determine that the relocation of the Permitted hnprovements shall be necessary or convenient for DARTs use ofthe Property, or that the crossing must be modified, including
but not limited to the installation of grade crossing signals, Licensee sball, at its sole cost and expense make such modifications or relocate said Permitted hnprovements so as not
to interfere with DARTs or DARTs assigns use ofthe Property. In this regard, DART may, but is not obligated to, designate other property for the relocation of the Permitted hnprovements.
A minimum of thirty (30) days written notice for the exercise of one or more of the above actions shall be given by DART, and Licensee shall promptly conunence to make the required changes
and complete them as quickly as possible. 13. Duration of Liceuse. This license shall terminate and be of no further force and effect (a) in the event Licensee shall discontinue or abandon
the use of the Permitted hnprovements; (b) in the event Licensee shall relocate the Permitted hnprovements from the Property; (c) upon termination in accordance with paragraph 18 of
this Agreement, whichever event first occurs. 14. Compliance With Laws and Regulations. Licensee agrees to abide by and be governed by all 􀁬􀁡􀁷􀁳􀀬􀁾ordinances'and-regulations"Of any
ana. all:goveromentalentities bavingjurisdictioo",over theJicensee ' , and by railroad regulations, policies and operating proeedures established by the Railroad, or other applicable
railroad regulating bodies, and Licensee agrees to indetnnilY and hold DART harmless from any failure to so abide and all actions resulting therefrom. Licensee acknowledges the current
applicability oC federal and state railroad regulatory agency requirements Cor tbe blowing of whistles when approaching at-grade public and private road crossings. 15. Indemnification.
15.0I. Licensee shall defend, protect and keep DART and Railroad forever harmless and indemnified against and from any penalty, or damage, or charge, imposed for any violation of any
law, ordinance, rule or regulation arising out of the use of the Property by Licensee, whether occasioned by the neglect of Licensee, its employees, officers, agents, contractors or
assigns, or those bolding under Licensee; 15.02. Licensee shall at all times protect, indetnnilY and it is the intention ofthe parties hereto that Licensee hold DART and Railroad hannless
against and from any and all loss, cost, damage or expense, including attorney's fees, arising out of, or from any accident or other occurrence on or about the Property causing personal
injury, death, or property damage, except when caused by the willful misccoduct or negligence of DART or Railroad, their officers, employees or agents, and then only to the extent of
the proportion of any fault determined against DART for its willful misconduct or negligence; 􀁾􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀭...􀁾􀀭... --------'''---,15.03. Licensee shall at all times protect, indemnify
and hold DART and Railroad harmless against and from any and aU loss, cost, damage or expense, including attorney's fees, arising out of or from any and aU claims or causes of action
resulting from any failure of Licensee, its officers, Spectrum Drive 4of6 
employees, agents, contractors or assigns in any respect to comply with and petfonn all the requirements and provisions hereof. 16. Action Upon Termination of License. At such time as
this license may be terminated or cancelled for any reason whatever, Licensee, upon request by DART, sball remove all improvements and appurtenances owned by it, situated in, under or
attached to the Property and shall restore the Property to the condition existing at the date ofexecution ofthis License, at Licensee's sole expense. 17. Assignment. Licensee shall not
assign or transfer its rights under this Agreement in whole or in part, or permit any other person or entity to use the License hereby granted without the prior written consent of DART
which DART is under no obligation to grant. 18. Methods ofTermination. This Agreement may be terminated in any ofthe following ways: 18.01. Written Agreement ofboth parties; 18.02. By
either party giving the other party thirty (30) days written notice. 18.03. By either party, upon failure ofthe other party to petfonn its obligations as set forth in this Agreement.
19. Miscellaneous. 19.01. Notice. When notice is permitted or required by this Agreement, it shall be in writing and shall be deemed delivered when delivered in person or when placed,
postage prepaid, in the U.s. Mail, Certified, Return Receipt Requested, and addressed to the parties at the following addresses: LICENSOR: Dallas Area Rapid Transit P. O. Box 660163
Dallas, Texas 75266·7210 Attn: Railroad Management LICENSEE: Town ofAddison P. O. Box 144 Addison, Texas 75001 Attn: Director ofPublic Works Either party may from time to time designate
another and different address fur receipt of notice by giving notice ofsuch change ofaddress. . 19.02. Attorney Fees. Any signatory to this Agreement who is the prevailing party in any
legal proceeding against any other signatory brought under or with relation to this Agreement shall be entitled to recover court costs and reasonable attorney fees from the non-prevailing
party. 19.03 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed under and in accordance with the laws of the State ofTexas. 19.04 Entirely and Amendments. This Agreement embodies the entire
agreement bntween the parties and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings, ifany, relating to the Property and the matters addressed herein, and may be amended or supplemented
only by a written instrument executed by the party against whom enforcement is sought. Spectrum Drive S of6 
· , 19.0.5. Parties Bound. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the executing parties and their respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and
assigns. 19.06. Number and Gender. Words of any gender used in this Agreement shall be held and construed to include any other gender; and words in the singular shall include the plural
and vice versa, unless the text clearly requires otherwise. ,; IN 􀁾􀁓􀁓WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement in mUltiple originals this 􀀷􀀢􀀮􀁴􀁌􀁤􀁡􀁹􀁯􀁦􀁾􀁌􀁮􀁴􀀱􀁌􀁁􀀮􀀭􀁕􀀠,
19tJ::l. UCENSOR: DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT 􀁂􀁙􀀺􀁾􀀠.&--Roge Ie jVII PresidentlExecutive Director UCENSEE: TOWN OF ADDISON -;y: R.. 􀁗􀁜􀀻􀁾􀁾􀀠Printed Name: 􀁬􀁜􀁃􀁉􀁾􀀠􀁗􀁉􀀼􀁜􀀧􀁉􀁾􀀠Title:
elr'< 􀁴􀀮􀁜􀁾􀁩􀀾􀁣􀀮􀀠APPROVED AS TO FORM: 􀀭􀀭􀁾􀀠office ofDART General Counsel Spectrum Drive 60f6 
____ .. EXHIBIT A FUTURE HIGHWAY-RAIL CROSSING (Not to Scale) VERDE􀁪􀁬􀁾􀁴􀁭􀀠ADDISON CIRCLE VALLEY • ADDISON AIRPORT '_._ FUTURE ROADWAY ALIGNMENTS FUTURED.A.R.T. EXHIBIT 1 -STUDY
AREA: FUTURE SPECTRUM DRIVE EXTENSION 
960138 RESOLUTION RESOLUTION Dallas Area Rapid Transit of the DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT (Executive Committee) Grant of a License for, an At-Grade Public Road Crossing in Addison WHEREAS,
the Town of Addison has requested an at-grade public road crossing on Spectrum Drive to cross the Cotton Belt railroad right-of-way; and WHEREAS, by Board Resolution No. 960033, DART
adopted a policy to reduce the number of public and private at-grade crossings; and WHEREAS, the Federal Railroad Administration and the Texas Department of Transportation have similar
policies to eliminate or consolidate public and private at-grade, highway-rail crossings; and WHEREAS, because no realistic closure possibilities exist, and the proposed at-grade road
crossing-is -a-criticat element-in -Addison's proposed -Addison Circle -development, additional warning protection devices wiIJ be added at existing crossings in lieu ofclosure. NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Dallas Area Rapid Transit Board of Directors that the PresidentlExecutive Director or his designee is authorized to execute a license for an at-grade
public road crossing in Addison, as shown in Attachment 1, subject to the Town of Addison providing additional warning protection devices at existing at-grade public road crossings in
Addison, Texas at a cost to the Town of$300,000. 􀀨􀁓􀁡􀀮􀀮􀁵􀀮􀁤􀀮􀁾􀀠􀁇􀁾􀀬􀀭􀀱􀁦􀁦􀀡􀁩􀁉􀀭􀁾􀀭Sandy GrJon t) Bmy:tCli Secretary Ch lrman APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: 􀀭􀀭􀀭􀀢􀀭􀀧􀀭􀀭􀀢􀀢􀀻􀁄􀁾􀁾􀁾
􀁔􀀻􀀺􀀻􀁣􀁾􀀰􀀽􀀽􀁵􀁮􀀻􀀻􀀻􀀧􀁳􀀵􀁲􀁆􀀽􀀽􀁾􀁾􀁾􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀁾􀀭􀀭􀁪􀁒􀀢􀀢􀀰􀀽􀁧􀀽􀀻􀀻􀂣􀁉􀁦􀁾􀁆􀁾􀁮􀁾􀁯􀁢􀁾􀁬􀁥􀀻􀀺􀀺􀀽􀁃􀁦􀀹􀁾􀀭􀀻􀀺􀀺􀀺􀀭􀁾􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀽􀀠 PresidentlExecutive Director August
13, 1996 Date 516,SAMlskh 08/13/96-3:18 PM 
. , tl60138 ( FIITITRESPECfRIJM DRrvE EXTENSION (Not 10 Scale) • ADDISON" AIRPORT '_._ FUTURE ROADWAY AUGNMENTS ra 􀁾􀁦􀁣􀁾􀀺􀀭􀁬􀁩􀁒􀀠EXHIBIT 1 • STUDY AREA: @FUTURE BIGHVVAY-RAIL CROSSING

_, 􀁾􀁾􀀻􀁙􀁊􀁱􀁁􀁁􀀻􀀱􀀠, ' -"", \ 
􀁾􀀺􀀠" ,'" >' I ::z --·-·f. 0:"_ -_. __ 􀀧􀁾􀀺􀀠, ,.