Railroad Safety: Status of Efforts to Improve Railroad Crossing Safety
(Chapter Report, 08/03/95, GAO/RCED-95-191).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO examined federal efforts to
improve railroad crossing safety, focusing on: (1) the progress made in
reducing railroad crossing accidents and fatalities; (2) federal and
state strategies that have the potential for reducing railroad crossing
accidents and fatalities; and (3) the Department of Transportation's
(DOT) progress in implementing its action plan for improving railroad
crossing safety.

GAO found that: (1) the annual number of accidents and fatalities at
public railroad crossings has declined by 61 and 34 percent,
respectively, since the Rail-Highway Crossing Program began in 1974; (2)
progress in increasing railroad crossing safety has been limited, since
states improved the most dangerous crossings during the first 10 years
of the program; (3) DOT is developing new ways to distribute funds to
those states with the most dangerous crossings and encourage
improvements along specific rail corridors; (4) the states are working
to close more crossings and strengthen public education and law
enforcement efforts to change motorists' dangerous behavior; (5) DOT has
set a national goal of reducing railroad crossing accidents and
fatalities by 50 percent from 1994 to 2004; and (6) the success of the
DOT action plan depends on states' and railroads' cooperation in
implementing 55 separate proposals, adequate financing, and the
development of an evaluation component to assess the effect of the
actions taken.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-95-191
     TITLE:  Railroad Safety: Status of Efforts to Improve Railroad 
             Crossing Safety
      DATE:  08/03/95
   SUBJECT:  Railroad accidents
             Railroad safety
             Railroad transportation operations
             Railroad regulation
             Safety regulation
             Transportation safety
             Funds management
             Appropriated funds
             Federal/state relations
             Federal aid to railroads
IDENTIFIER:  Highway Traffic Safety Grant
             DOT Surface Transportation Program
             California
             Illinois
             Indiana
             Ohio
             Texas
             National Highway System
             DOT Rail-Highway Crossing Program
             
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO        *
* report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,       *
* headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are           *
* identified by double and single lines.  The numbers on the right end   *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the page       *
* numbers of the printed product.                                        *
*                                                                        *
* No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although figure    *
* captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but may not resemble     *
* those in the printed version.                                          *
*                                                                        *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document    *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your        *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015,             *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time.                                    *
**************************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to Congressional Requesters

August 1995

RAILROAD SAFETY - STATUS OF
EFFORTS TO IMPROVE RAILROAD
CROSSING SAFETY

GAO/RCED-95-191

Railroad Safety


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  AAMVA - American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators
  AAR - Association of American Railroads
  AASHTO - American Association of State Highway and Transportation
     Officials
  DOT - Department of Transportation
  FHWA - Federal Highway Administration
  FRA - Federal Railroad Administration
  FTA - Federal Transit Administration
  FY - fiscal year
  GAO - General Accounting Office
  ISTEA - Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
  MUTCD - Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
  NHS - National Highway System
  NHTSA - National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
  PRL - Principal Railroad Line
  SMS - Safety Management Systems
  STP - Surface Transportation Program

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-261352

August 3, 1995

The Honorable Richard G.  Lugar
United States Senate

The Honorable Dan Coats
United States Senate

As requested, we are reporting on federal efforts to improve safety
at the nation's railroad crossings.  Within the Department of
Transportation, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA), and the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) have programs and activities that affect
railroad crossing safety.  This report notes recent efforts by these
agencies and contains recommendations to further reduce accidents at
railroad crossings. 

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its
contents earlier, we will make no further distribution of this report
until 7 days after the date of this letter.  At that time, we will
send copies to the appropriate congressional committees; the
Secretary of Transportation; and the Administrators of FRA, FHWA,
FTA, and NHTSA.  We will make copies available to other interested
parties upon request. 

If you or your staff have any questions, please call me on (202)
512-2834.  Other major contributors to this report are listed in
appendix II. 

Kenneth M.  Mead
Director, Transportation Issues


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
============================================================ Chapter 0


   PURPOSE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1

Accidents at railroad crossings are the leading cause of deaths
associated with the railroad industry; almost half of all
rail-related deaths in the United States are the result of collisions
of trains and vehicles at public railroad crossings.  In 1993, these
collisions killed 517 people and injured 1,677 people. 

Concerned about an increase in railroad crossing accidents in
Indiana, Senators Richard G.  Lugar and Dan Coats requested that GAO
examine the status of railroad crossing safety nationally. 
Specifically, this report (1) analyzes the progress made in reducing
accidents and fatalities at crossings; (2) discusses federal and
state strategies--for distributing funds, developing technologies,
and educating the public--that have the potential for reducing
railroad crossing accidents and fatalities; and (3) assesses the
Department of Transportation's (DOT) progress in implementing its
action plan for improving railroad crossing safety. 


   BACKGROUND
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2

The Congress enacted the Highway Safety Act of 1973, which led to the
establishment of the Rail-Highway Crossing Program, also known as the
section 130 program.  The program's goal is to provide federal funds
for the states' efforts to reduce the incidence of accidents,
injuries and fatalities at public railroad crossings.  The program
provides the states with railroad crossing funds as part of a
10-percent set-aside of the states' Surface Transportation Program
funds.  In fiscal year 1994, the Congress appropriated $149 million
for the section 130 program.  The states use the funds to build
underpasses and overpasses, install passive or active warning
devices, and improve pavement surfaces and markings.  Between 1974
and 1994, the states completed over 28,000 projects under the
program. 

DOT oversees rail safety, administers the section 130 program, and
funds highway education programs.  State and local governments plan,
select, and design crossing projects, while the railroads perform
much of the actual construction.  The railroads also operate and
maintain existing warning devices.  Operation Lifesaver, a nonprofit,
nationwide public information and education organization, also is
prominent in rail crossing safety efforts. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3

Since 1974, when the Rail-Highway Crossing Program began, the yearly
number of accidents and fatalities at public railroad crossings has
declined by about 61 percent and 34 percent, respectively.  The more
significant reductions in railroad crossing accidents and fatalities
were achieved during the first 10 years of the program, when the
states improved the most dangerous crossings.  Since 1985, progress
has been limited. 

DOT and the states are using a variety of strategies to improve
safety at railroad crossings.  DOT is developing alternatives to the
formula used to distribute section 130 funds that would target funds
to those states with the most crossings, fatalities, and accidents. 
It is also funding the development of advanced technologies that can
be used at the most dangerous crossings and encouraging improvements
to crossings along specific rail corridors.  The states are working
to close more crossings and strengthen public education and law
enforcement efforts to change motorists' dangerous behavior. 

DOT has developed a Rail-Highway Crossing Safety Action Plan that
sets a national goal of reducing railroad crossing accidents and
fatalities by 50 percent from 1994 to 2004.  Whether DOT attains the
plan's overall goal will depend, in large part, on how well it
coordinates the efforts of the states and railroads, whose
contributions to implementing the 55 separate proposals are critical. 
The success of the plan will also depend on DOT's efforts to
determine the plan's costs, arrange for financing, and develop an
evaluation component to assess the effect of the actions taken. 


   PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4


      SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN
      ACCIDENTS AND DEATHS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.1

Since the Rail-Highway Crossing Program began in 1974, the federal
government has appropriated nearly $5 billion (in constant 1994
dollars) to improve safety at railroad crossings.  In 1994, DOT
estimated that since its inception, the program had saved more than
7,600 lives and prevented about 33,500 nonfatal injuries.  The number
of accidents and fatalities at public railroad crossings has declined
dramatically since 1975 (the year the Federal Railroad Administration
began using its current methodology for calculating these
statistics).  A significant part of this decline occurred between
1975 and 1984, when accidents declined by 42 percent--from 10,925 to
6,370 per year--and fatalities declined by 31 percent--from 788 to
543 per year.  DOT officials attributed this decline to improvements
at many of the most dangerous crossings early in the program.  Since
the beginning of 1985, the program's progress has been less
pronounced.  Deaths at railroad crossings fluctuated between 466 and
682 per year--with little real decline--while accidents declined by
30 percent--from 6,093 to 4,240 per year.  The limited progress in
reducing fatalities between 1985 and 1993 was concurrent with two
other events:  (1) a 16-percent decline in the total number of
crossings and (2) an increase in the level of exposure to accidents
at the remaining crossings, primarily the result of increased highway
traffic. 


      STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING
      RAILROAD CROSSING SAFETY
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.2

Maximizing the return from federal funds requires targeting them to
the greatest need.  GAO's analysis of the 1995 section 130
apportionments found anomalies among the states in terms of the funds
they received in proportion to three key factors:  accidents,
fatalities, and total crossings.  For example, while California
received 6.9 percent of the section 130 funds, it had only 4.8
percent of the nation's railroad crossings, 5.3 percent of the
fatalities, and 3.9 percent of the accidents.  DOT is aware of these
anomalies, and as part of its action plan, it is assessing
alternative formulas that would better target state funds on the
basis of these three factors. 

The most effective way to improve railroad crossing safety is to
close the crossing.  In 1992, the Federal Railroad Administrator
recommended the closure of 25 percent of the nation's railroad
crossings because these crossings were considered to be redundant or
unnecessary.  However, local opposition and the unwillingness of
localities to make a required 10-percent match in funds has made it
difficult for the states to close as many crossings as they would
like.  Where closure is not possible, the states are using a variety
of technologies to warn motorists of oncoming trains.  Traditional
technologies, such as lights and gates, improve safety but are not
foolproof, since almost half of all fatalities occur at crossings
that use these devices.  New technologies that prevent vehicles from
entering the crossing when trains approach may be more effective, but
they are also more costly and thus are reserved for particularly
dangerous crossings.  The states are also using the corridor
approach, through which they improve a series of crossings along a
segment or stretch of a rail corridor.  This approach has enabled the
states to improve safety while reducing the costs of equipment,
procurement, labor, and administration. 

Drivers' inappropriate behavior, such as ignoring active warning
devices, is a major cause of railroad crossing accidents and
fatalities.  Consequently, technological solutions alone will not
resolve the safety problems at railroad crossings.  To augment the
effectiveness of technological solutions, some states use public
education and law enforcement efforts.  For example, by establishing
active law enforcement and educational programs, Ohio has been able
to reduce accidents at crossings with active warning devices from 377
in 1978 to 93 in 1993--a 75-percent decline.  Despite the benefits of
education and enforcement, federal and state funding and program
emphasis in these areas have been limited.  For example, in fiscal
year 1993, DOT's State and Community Highway Safety Grant Program,
also known as the section 402 program, provided about $190,000--about
two-tenths of 1 percent of the $106 million program--for railroad
crossing education programs through Operation Lifesaver.  Program
officials recognized the benefits of education and enforcement but
stated that railroad crossing safety has not received more emphasis
because other priority areas, such as compliance with seat belt laws
and drunk driving educational campaigns, provided greater benefits. 


      ACTION PLAN SIGNIFICANT BUT
      NEEDS COST INFORMATION AND
      EVALUATION COMPONENT
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.3

In response to railroad crossing accidents, DOT has developed an
action plan that specifies 55 actions that federal, state, and local
governments and railroads can take to improve crossing safety and
sets a goal of reducing yearly accidents and fatalities by 50
percent--to fewer than 2,500 and 300, respectively, by the year 2004. 
The plan, a significant DOT initiative, elaborates the need for
cooperation among government, industry, and private organizations on
railroad crossing safety.  However the plan does not identify the
costs of implementation.  For example, the proposal to eliminate
railroad crossings on the National Highway System could cost federal
and state governments between $4 billion and $11 billion to
implement--an enormous commitment compared with the current level of
federal and industry funds available each year.  Also, DOT has not
developed an approach to evaluate the safety impact of the plan's
initiatives.  Without such information, DOT cannot assess the plan's
cost and effectiveness. 


   RECOMMENDATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:5

To strengthen the DOT action plan and improve railroad crossing
safety, GAO recommends that the Secretary of Transportation, in
cooperation with the states,

  develop cost estimates and identify funding sources for action plan
     proposals and

  evaluate the cost and effectiveness of the action plan as it is
     implemented. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:6

GAO provided copies of a draft of this report to the Department of
Transportation for its comments.  DOT officials--including the
Associate Administrator for Safety of the Federal Railroad
Administration, the Acting Division Chief of Safety and Management
Programs in the Federal Highway Administration's Office of Highway
Safety, the Branch Chief for Federal Aid Programs in the Federal
Highway Administration's Office of Engineering, and officials from
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of State
and Community Services and the Secretary's Office of Programs and
Evaluation--provided oral comments on the draft.  These officials
generally concurred with the report's findings. 

The agency did not comment on GAO's recommendations but provided the
following information.  The Federal Highway Administration stated
that GAO's draft report was an accurate statement of the conduct of
the section 130 program.  The Federal Highway Administration and
Federal Railroad Administration believed that the report should (1)
more clearly emphasize the success of the section 130 program, (2)
emphasize that the large amount of funds spent in the early years of
the program influenced the program's success, and (3) take into
account accident exposure trends in assessing the current level of
safety.  The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration stated
that the draft should emphasize the importance of the states' role in
selecting priorities under the section 402 program.  The Federal
Railroad Administration also believed the report should clearly
indicate the significant accomplishment that DOT has made in
developing and implementing the action plan. 

Where appropriate, GAO modified the final report's discussion of the
success and funding of the section 130 program, added information on
accident trends, and clarified the role of the states under the
section 402 program.  While GAO agrees that the action plan is a
major intermodal departmental initiative, the Department is still in
the process of implementing and seeking congressional approval for
some initiatives.  The value of the plan ultimately lies in its
impact on safety, and it is too early to assess the effect of the
initiatives in reducing accidents. 


INTRODUCTION
============================================================ Chapter 1

Almost half of all rail-related deaths in the United States are the
result of collisions of trains and vehicles at railroad crossings. 
In 1993, these collisions killed 517 people and injured 1,677 at
public railroad crossings.  Many of the deaths should have been
avoided, since nearly one-half of all railroad crossing deaths
occurred at crossings where flashing lights or flashing lights and
descending gates warned motorists of the approaching train. 


   THE RAIL-HIGHWAY CROSSING
   PROGRAM FOCUSED ATTENTION ON
   THE PROBLEM
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:1

The Highway Safety Act of 1973 proved to be pivotal in rail-highway
crossing safety because it led to establishment of the Rail-Highway
Crossing Program (also known as the section 130 program).  The goal
of this program is to provide federal support for the states' efforts
to reduce the incidence of accidents, injuries, and fatalities at
public railroad crossings. 

The potential for railroad crossing problems is significant--the
United States has over 168,000 public highway-rail intersections on
approximately 160,000 miles of rail rights-of-way.\1 The level of
warning provided motorists at these crossings differs widely--from no
visible warning devices to active devices such as lights and gates. 
According to the Department of Transportation (DOT), the very
existence of these crossings poses a major challenge to growing rail
traffic and higher speeds for both passenger and freight rail
operations. 

To deal with these problems, the states can use funds they receive
under the section 130 program to improve railroad crossings using a
variety of methods.  They can separate railroad crossings by building
overpasses and underpasses, install passive (crossbucks or surface
markings) or active (flashing lights and gates) warning devices, or
improve the pavement surface.  Since the Rail-Highway Crossing
Program began, states have undertaken more than 28,600 improvement
projects--primarily by installing signs and markings, flashing light
signals, and automatic gates and improving crossing surfaces.  In
addition, there are about 35,000 grade separations--bridges with the
roadway above or below the railroad--located on public crossings. 

According to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the basic
levels of safety devices in the order of their increasing
effectiveness are passive warning devices, automatic flashing lights,
automatic flashing lights with gates, and grade separations
(underpass/overpass).  As shown in figure 1.1, about 60 percent of
all public crossings in the United States have only passive warning
signs--typically highway signs known as "crossbucks." Other passive
warnings include familiar traffic signs, such as the stop sign.  In
contrast, about 35 percent of all crossings have active warning
signals--flashing lights and gates activated by the approach of a
train.  National statistics do not fully reflect the variations found
across the nation because states can differ widely in the type of
warning typically found at crossings.  For example, as of October
1994, 63 percent of the crossings in New York had active signals
while 79 percent of the crossings in Kansas had passive signs. 

   Figure 1.1:  Railroad Crossings
   Categorized by Highest Level of
   Warning Device, October 1994
   (Total Devices)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  Percentages may not add due to rounding. 

Source:  GAO's Analysis of Federal Railroad Administration's (FRA)
data. 


--------------------
\1 In addition, there are approximately 108,000 private railroad
crossings in the nation.  These crossings do not involve a public
road; access is generally determined by the railroad and the private
landowner.  Section 130 funds are not used at these locations. 
Private crossings are predominantly at farm and industrial
locations--about 66,000 private crossings are on farms and 25,000 are
on industrial property.  Relatively fewer accidents and fatalities
occur at private crossings than public crossings.  In 1993, there
were 455 accidents at private crossings, which resulted in 42
fatalities. 


   PUBLIC-PRIVATE INVOLVEMENT IN
   RAILROAD CROSSING SAFETY
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:2

Railroad crossing safety demands considerable cooperation among
federal, state and local agencies; railroads; and private
organizations.  At the federal level, three DOT agencies are
responsible for railroad crossing safety:  the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) administers the section 130 program; FRA is
responsible for overseeing railroad safety; and the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) funds highway education
programs designed to influence driving behavior.  State and local
governments have significant roles in planning, selecting, and
engineering safety projects, while the railroads perform much of the
actual construction.  In addition, Operation Lifesaver, a private
organization made up of 49 state chapters, is a leader in safety
education efforts. 

Public and private funds support railroad crossing improvements.  In
1994, the federal government obligated about $311 million to
construct improvements to railroad crossings.  The railroad industry
contributed an additional $146 million for railroad crossing
improvements and maintenance. 


      THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FUNDS
      SAFETY AND EDUCATION
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:2.1

DOT's four surface transportation agencies--FHWA, FRA, NHTSA, and the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)--all have roles in improving
railroad crossing safety.  FHWA administers the section 130
program--the federal government's primary source of funding for
railroad crossing safety.  The program provides all states with
railroad crossing funds as part of a 10-percent set-aside of their
Surface Transportation Program (STP)\2 funds.  FHWA also administers
funds that the Congress appropriates for specific railroad crossing
elimination projects.  In 1994, the states obligated a total of about
$311 million from section 130 and other federal aid programs for
railroad crossing safety projects. 

FRA is not directly involved in funding railroad crossing improvement
projects, but it has an important role in maintaining the only
nationwide inventory of railroad crossings--an inventory that the
states use to plan their section 130 programs.  FRA also collects
accident data that railroads submit to serve as the basis for
assessing the overall level of rail crossing safety nationwide. 
During 1994, FRA hired a railroad crossing manager in each of its
eight regional offices to promote railroad crossings safety,
coordinate with federal, state, and local officials; and educate the
public on safety issues.  These managers expand FRA's traditional
role as an agency responsible for regulating the safe operation of
the railroads. 

NHTSA is involved in rail crossing safety through its State and
Community Highway Safety Grant Program (also known as the section 402
program).  Begun pursuant to the Highway Safety Act of 1966, the
program provides funds to states for innovative programs aimed at
reducing highway crashes, injuries, and fatalities.  The states apply
to NHTSA for grants through their Highway Safety Plans, which
identify the states' key highway safety problems and specific
approaches to address these problems.  The section 402 program also
promotes safety through nine national priority program
areas--Occupant Protection, Alcohol and Other Drug Countermeasures,
Police Traffic Services, Emergency Medical Services, Traffic Records,
Motorcycle Safety, Speed Control, Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety, and
Roadway Safety.  NHTSA is responsible for six of these priority
programs, while FHWA oversees the Roadway Safety program.  FHWA and
NHTSA jointly oversee the Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety program and
the Speed Control program. 

FTA, which carries out the federal mandate to improve public mass
transportation, is the principal source of federal financial
assistance to communities for planning, developing, and improving
public transportation systems.  FTA's safety program is designed to
support state and local agencies in fulfilling their responsibility
for the safety and security of urban mass transportation facilities
and services.  FTA's role in DOT's action plan is to review light
rail safety statistics and conduct investigations of warning systems
at light rail crossings. 


--------------------
\2 STP (part of the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act) provides federal funds that can be used by states and localities
on any federal aid road. 


      STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
      PLAY CRITICAL ROLES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:2.2

The states are key players in making decisions about which railroad
crossings to improve and what level of protection is needed.  Under
the section 130 program, the states are responsible for planning and
setting priorities for railroad crossing projects.  They also enforce
state highway safety laws.  FHWA's regulations also require each
state to develop a system that ranks each of its public railroad
crossings by its potential accident risk.  The priorities in the
railroad crossing list enable the states to decide how best to spend
available railroad crossing improvement dollars. 

The states and localities are also important financial contributors
to railroad crossing safety.  For example, states such as California
and Illinois fund crossing improvement projects with state funds
alone.  While FHWA does not collect annual national statistics on the
states' expenditures for railroad crossings improvements, a 1989 FHWA
report estimated that the states and localities spend about $184
million each year for crossing safety.  The section 130 program also
requires 10 percent in local matching funds when improvements are
made at the crossing.  However, projects to install active and
passive warning devices are eligible for 100 percent federal funding. 


      RAILROADS AND PRIVATE GROUPS
      PROMOTE RAILROAD CROSSING
      SAFETY
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:2.3

Railroads and private organizations play an important role in
improving railroad crossing safety.  The states generally contract
with railroads to construct crossing improvements, particularly if
the improvement requires the installation of gates and signals.  The
lights and gates found at crossings are typically on railroad
property, and the maintenance of these highway traffic warning
devices is the railroads' responsibility.  Based on an estimate from
the Association of American Railroads (AAR) and 1993 data from the
Interstate Commerce Commission, the major railroads spend about $146
million annually on railroad crossings--about $89 million for
improvements and $57 million for operation and maintenance. 

Railroad crossing safety is a particular concern of the railroads
because highway-rail collisions and trespassing on rail properties
are the first and second leading causes of death in the entire
railroad industry--surpassing employee or passenger fatalities.  In
addition, recent court decisions raised the railroads' concerns about
their legal liability when people are killed or injured at crossings. 

Private efforts raise public awareness of railroad crossing safety
through education and safety campaigns.  Prominent among these
efforts is Operation Lifesaver, Incorporated, a private,
not-for-profit organization supported by federal and railroad funds
and dedicated to improving safety through education and improved law
enforcement.  Operation Lifesaver programs are currently operating in
49 states.  The organization's Alexandria, Virginia, headquarters
functions as a support and referral center and an information
clearinghouse for the independent state programs.  The Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 authorized
$300,000 for Operation Lifesaver's headquarters for each fiscal year
from 1992 to 1997.  For fiscal year 1995, the Congress appropriated
$300,000 for Operation Lifesaver.  In addition, according to DOT
officials, FHWA and FRA provided the organization an additional
$100,000 and $150,000, respectively.  The states' Operation Lifesaver
programs are funded separately, either by states or railroads. 

In response to continuing problems at railroad crossings, DOT issued
a Rail-Highway Crossing Action Plan in June 1994.  The plan
established a national goal of reducing crossing accidents and
fatalities by 50 percent from 1994 to 2004.  The plan illustrates
that responsibility for railroad crossing safety requires a
partnership among federal, state, and local governments as well as
with the railroads and private, nonprofit organizations. 


   OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND
   METHODOLOGY
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:3

Concerned about the increase in railroad crossing accidents in
Indiana, Senators Richard G.  Lugar and Dan Coats asked us to examine
the status of railroad crossing safety nationwide.  This report (1)
analyzes the progress made at reducing accidents and fatalities at
crossings; (2) discusses federal and state strategies--funds
distribution, technologies, and education--that have the potential
for reducing railroad crossing accidents and fatalities; and (3)
assesses DOT's progress in implementing its action plan for improving
railroad crossing safety. 

We conducted our review at FHWA, FRA, and NHTSA headquarters and
field offices.  We reviewed railroad crossing programs in five
states--California, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Texas--and met with
responsible state transportation and regulatory authorities in these
states.  The selected states had the highest number of rail crossing
fatalities in the United States during 1991 through 1993 and were
among the top seven states in the number of accidents during the same
period.  Together, they accounted for 27 percent of the nation's
railroad crossings in 1994.  We also interviewed representatives of
AAR, who provided us with information on railroad expenditures, and
Operation Lifesaver, who provided information on their education and
law enforcement expenditures. 

To determine federal funding and railroad trends that have affected
railroad crossing safety, we analyzed crossing accident and fatality
trends, as well as federal funds apportioned to the section 130
program.  The FRA accident and fatality statistics used in this
report refer only to public railroad crossings because section 130
funds may be used only at public crossings.  Furthermore, accident
and fatality statistics in this report refer only to motor vehicle
accidents at public railroad crossings.  FHWA and FRA provided us
with data on the section 130 funds apportioned, as well as accident
and fatality statistics.  We used the Gross Domestic Product Price
Deflator to calculate inflation adjustments over time.  The results
of our analyses are discussed in chapter 2. 

To determine what strategies--funds distribution, technologies, and
education--DOT and the states are currently using that may contribute
to reducing railroad crossing accidents and fatalities, we compared
the federal funds apportioned to the states under the Rail-Highway
Crossing Program to the total crossings, accidents, and fatalities in
each state.  Furthermore, to examine engineering strategies, we
obtained information from FHWA on the states' obligations of federal
funds for various types of improvements.  To analyze the closing of
railroad crossings, we reviewed information from FRA and the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 
We also obtained data from FRA on the costs associated with four
innovative technologies:  four quadrant gates, friendly mobile
barriers, dragnet arrestor nets, and low-cost grade separations.  We
also collected information from DOT agencies and state officials on
the corridor approach--an innovative approach to targeting railroad
crossing improvements that is currently used by the railroads and in
some states.  The results of our analyses are discussed in chapter 3. 
We also met with FHWA officials responsible for administering the
Rail-Highway Crossing Program as well as officials in the selected
states who were responsible for rail crossing improvements. 

To determine the extent to which educational and law enforcement
strategies have improved safety at crossings, we met with NHTSA
officials and state officials responsible for the section 402
program.  We reviewed the safety plans to determine the extent to
which the grant money was funding the states' efforts to educate the
public on the dangers at railroad crossings.  We met with Operation
Lifesaver officials to document the types of educational programs
they supported nationally and in the five states we visited.  In
assessing the benefits of education and enforcement programs, we
reviewed Ohio, a state with active railroad crossing education and
enforcement programs and a full-time Operation Lifesaver Coordinator
since 1978.  The results of this review are presented in chapter 3. 

To determine what actions DOT can take to improve its rail crossing
safety program, we determined the roles of federal agencies, state
agencies, and railroads in improving rail crossings.  In addition, we
monitored DOT's progress in implementing the six initiatives and 55
proposals included in the Rail-Highway Crossing Safety Action Plan. 
Our assessment of the DOT action plan is found in chapter 4. 

We conducted our review from April 1994 through May 1995 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  We
obtained comments on a draft of the report from DOT officials from
the Office of the Secretary, FRA, FHWA, and NHTSA.  Where
appropriate, we incorporated their comments into the report. 


RAILROAD CROSSING ACCIDENTS AND
FATALITIES HAVE DECLINED
SIGNIFICANTLY, BUT PROBLEMS STILL
PERSIST
============================================================ Chapter 2

Since 1974, when the Rail-Highway Crossing Program began, the number
of accidents and fatalities at public railroad crossings has declined
by 61 and 34 percent, respectively.\3 However, a significant portion
of the progress made in reducing crossing accidents and fatalities
was realized during the first 10 years of the program.  Since the
beginning of 1985, progress in reducing fatalities has been limited,
and little real decline has occurred.  Although the number of
accidents has continued to decline, the decline has been at a slower
rate.  The limited progress in reducing fatalities between 1985 and
1993 occurred at the same time as two other factors:  (1) a
16-percent decline in the total number of public railroad crossings
and (2) increased exposure to accidents at the remaining crossings. 
Furthermore, crossing safety problems are more prevalent in some
states than others. 


--------------------
\3 After 1974, FRA changed the method by which it calculated the
number of accidents and fatalities at railroad crossings.  Therefore,
our analysis of accident and fatality trends uses 1975 as a base year
so as to accurately determine the effects of the Rail-Highway
Crossing Program over time. 


   EARLY YEARS OF PROGRAM YIELDED
   SIGNIFICANT REDUCTIONS IN
   DEATHS AND ACCIDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:1

In May 1994, FHWA issued a report to the Congress on the
effectiveness of the Rail-Highway Crossing Program.  According to
FHWA, the program had prevented more than 7,600 fatalities and 33,500
nonfatal injuries and had completed over 28,000 railroad crossing
projects since its inception in 1974.  FHWA estimated that it costs
about $112,000 to prevent a railroad crossing accident and about
$542,000 to prevent a fatal accident under the program.  When warning
devices (lights and gates) are installed at a crossing, FHWA
estimated that society has received benefits about three times the
costs of the Rail-Highway Crossing Program.  FHWA reached this
conclusion by comparing the benefits of the estimated deaths and
injuries prevented to the total funds spent on rail highway
improvements under the section 130 program. 

Although significant accomplishments have been achieved during the
life of this program, much of the progress made in reducing accidents
and deaths occurred in the early years.  As figure 2.1 shows, in 1975
there were 10,925 motor vehicle accidents and 788 deaths involving
motor vehicles at railroad crossings.  The high number of accidents
and fatalities continued through 1979, averaging 11,516 accidents and
864 deaths each year.  However, beginning in 1979, the number of
crossing accidents and fatalities began to decline sharply.  A
43-percent decline in accidents occurred between 1979 and 1984, while
railroad crossing fatalities declined by 25 percent. 

   Figure 2.1:  Accidents and
   Fatalities at Public Railroad
   Crossings, 1975-93

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  GAO's analysis of FRA's data. 

This period of decline in accidents and deaths began when the
Congress authorized the Rail-Highway Crossing Program in 1974 and
appropriated about $4.9 billion (constant 1994 dollars) over the next
20 years.  In fiscal year 1994, Congress appropriated $149.3 million
for the section 130 program.  As shown in figure 2.2, congressional
appropriations for the rail crossing program were highest in the late
1970s and early 1980s in both nominal and constant dollars.  Funding
in nominal dollars did not greatly decline over this period. 
However, in real terms (1994 constant dollars), funding was highest
in the early years of the program and peaked at about $447 million in
1977.  According to DOT officials, the higher federal funding in the
early years of the program allowed the states to first improve their
most dangerous crossings, thereby contributing to the significant
reductions in accidents and fatalities. 

   Figure 2.2:  Rail-Highway
   Crossing Program Funds
   Apportioned/Allocated, Fiscal
   Year 1974-94

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

In constant fiscal year 1994 dollars. 

Source:  GAO's analysis of FHWA's data. 


   THE DECLINE IN ACCIDENTS AND
   FATALITIES HAS SLOWED IN RECENT
   YEARS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2

As figure 2.1 shows, since 1985 the number of railroad crossing
fatalities has fluctuated between 466 and 682 and little real decline
has occurred, while the decline in crossing accidents has slowed. 
For example, deaths at crossings decreased 31 percent (from 788 to
543) in the first 10 years of the program compared to a 5-percent
decline (from 543 to 517) in 1985 through 1993.  For accidents, the
42-percent decline (from 10,925 to 6,370) that occurred in 1975
through 1984 compares to a 30-percent decline (from 6,093 to 4,240)
in 1985 through 1993. 

The limited recent progress in reducing railroad crossing deaths has
occurred despite recent declines in the total number of crossings. 
As shown in figure 2.3, the number of public crossings dropped from
219,000 crossings in 1975 to 168,000 crossings in 1993--a 23-percent
decline.  The decline occurred primarily as a result of the
industry's consolidations and line abandonments.\4

The decline in railroad crossings was most pronounced in 1984 through
1993--a 16-percent reduction.  With fewer railroad crossings, the
chances for crossing fatalities would be expected to decline as well. 

However, counterbalancing the decline in the number of crossings is a
likely increase in the exposure to accidents at the remaining
crossings.  Accurate data on traffic across railroad crossings do not
exist for the entire nation.  However, the total amount of road
traffic, as measured by vehicle miles travelled, rose from about 1.8
trillion to 2.3 trillion from 1985 through 1993.  During the same
period, railroad traffic, as measured by train miles travelled,
fluctuated between about 571 million and 621 million.  FRA's accident
exposure index, a product of train miles traveled times vehicle miles
travelled, rose about 39 percent between 1985 and 1993.  DOT
officials commented that it is likely that increased exposure to
accidents at crossings has negatively affected safety and is a
partial explanation of the current trend. 

   Figure 2.3:  Public Railroad
   Crossings (1975-93)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  GAO's analysis of FRA's data. 


--------------------
\4 In 1975 through 1993, the number of Class I railroads declined
from 73 to 12, while the total miles of track declined from 311,000
miles to 186,000 miles. 


   RAILROAD CROSSING SAFETY
   PROBLEMS CONCENTRATED IN
   CERTAIN STATES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:3

Although the national railroad crossing safety picture has shown
overall improvement, certain states have the highest incidence of
problems.  As figure 2.4 shows, one-half of the nation's 168,000
public railroad crossings are located in 12 states.  In addition,
these states accounted for half of all accidents and fatalities at
railroad crossings in 1993.  Texas, with 12,950, and Illinois, with
10,343, have the most crossings.  Together with California, Ohio, and
Indiana, these five states account for over one-fourth of the total
number of crossings in the United States.  Similarly, these five
states accounted for 38 percent of the deaths and 32 percent of the
accidents at public crossings in 1991 through 1993.\5 Figure 2.4 also
shows that railroad crossing safety is a particular concern for
states located in the Midwest and Great Lakes regions. 

   Figure 2.4:  12 States With the
   Largest Concentration of Public
   Highway Railroad Crossings
   (Oct.  1994)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Source:  GAO's analysis of
   FRA's data.

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


--------------------
\5 Kansas has more railroad crossings than Indiana and Ohio but
relatively fewer accidents and fatalities. 


   CONCLUSIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:4

The states have received, in constant 1994 dollars, about $4.9
billion in section 130 funds to improve thousands of railroad
crossings since the Rail-Highway Crossing Program was established in
1974.  Combined with a decline in the total number of crossings, the
two-decade investment in railroad crossing safety has resulted in
significant reductions in accident and fatality rates since attention
was first drawn to the problem in 1974.  However, since 1985,
progress in reducing crossing deaths has been limited.  Federal
dollars available for railroad crossing improvements have declined in
real terms since 1977, and in all likelihood, this trend could
continue.  Consequently, the question for railroad crossing safety in
the future may focus on how best to target available dollars.  The
following chapter discusses strategies and options for maximizing the
return from railroad crossing expenditures. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:5

FHWA commented that the report was an accurate statement of the
conduct of the section 130 program over the past 20 years.  However,
FHWA and FRA commented that the report did not sufficiently convey
the success of the section 130 program in reducing accidents and the
report should more clearly emphasize that the large amounts spent in
the early years influenced the program's success.  Both agencies
agreed that accident exposure needed to be considered more directly
in our analysis of accident trends.  We modified the report to
highlight the positive effect of the section 130 program since its
inception.  We have also added information on accident exposure to
the report to emphasize this factor and enhanced our discussion of
safety trends. 


STRATEGIES TO IMPROVE RAILROAD
CROSSING SAFETY
============================================================ Chapter 3

Trends in public railroad crossing safety suggest that certain
approaches have more positive effects on reducing accidents and
fatalities than others.  For example, closing a crossing is more
effective than installing active warning devices, such as lights and
gates.  However, trends also suggest that no single strategy by
itself will reduce fatalities below the level maintained since 1985
and that a combination of strategies and approaches is needed to
achieve further improvements to railroad crossing safety.  Strategies
DOT and the states are using that have the potential to improve
safety include targeting federal funds to states with the highest
incidence of accidents and fatalities; closing more railroad
crossings; installing advanced technologies at the most dangerous
intersections; concentrating crossing improvements and closings on
specific rail corridors; and improving public education and law
enforcement to change motorists' dangerous behavior. 


   FUNDS NOT TARGETED TO ADDRESS
   RISK FACTORS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:1

Maximizing the return from federal funds requires that they be
targeted to areas with the greatest risk.  Currently federal funds
for state railroad crossing improvements are included in a 10-percent
set-aside of the state's STP apportionment.  The apportionment does
not include factors related to railroad crossing safety such as
accidents and fatalities.  Our analysis of 1995 section 130
apportionments found anomalies among the states in terms of the funds
they received in proportion to three key risk factors:  accidents,
fatalities, and the total number of crossings.  FHWA has recognized
this problem and is working to develop alternative apportionment
formulas that would include these risk factors. 


      CURRENT FUNDING IS NOT
      RELATED TO RISK FACTORS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:1.1

Table 3.1 compares the 1995 apportionments for the five states that
had the highest number of fatalities in 1993 to the number of
crossings in 1994 and accidents and fatalities in these states
between 1991 and 1993.  The table shows differences among the five
states in the distribution of funds relative to crossings,
fatalities, and accidents.  For example, while California received
6.9 percent of the section 130 funds in 1995, it had only 4.8 percent
of the nation's railroad crossings, 5.3 percent of the fatalities,
and 3.9 percent of the accidents.  Illinois, on the other hand,
received 5.4 percent of the funds but had 6.2 percent of the nation's
crossings, 8.4 percent of the fatalities, and 6.3 percent of the
accidents. 



                          Table 3.1
           
                  Comparison of Five States'
              Apportionments, Public Crossings,
                  Fatalities, and Accidents


                                Crossing  Fataliti  Accident
State                  Funding         s        es         s
--------------------  --------  --------  --------  --------
Texas                      7.4       7.7      10.7      10.2
California                 6.9       4.8       5.3       3.9
Illinois                   5.4       6.2       8.4       6.3
Ohio                       4.3       4.1       8.5       6.1
Indiana                    3.4       4.0       5.9       6.1
------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Data in table include states' FY 1995 allocation for the
section 130 program, railroad crossings in 1994, and accidents and
fatalities from 1991 to 1993. 

Source:  GAO's analysis of FHWA's and FRA's data. 

Similar anomalies appeared for the five states--Alaska, Delaware,
Hawaii, Nevada, and Rhode Island--that had the fewest number of
crossings.  In total, these states received 3.1 percent of the
section 130 funds in 1995.  However, they accounted for only about
one-half of 1 percent of the total number of crossings, accidents,
and fatalities in the nation in 1991 through 1993.  Alaska, for
example, received 1.7 percent of program funds in 1995 but had only
0.1 percent of the crossings, 0.2 percent of the fatalities, and 0.2
percent of the accidents.  Hawaii, with only six crossings and no
accidents or fatalities, received about $400,000 for railroad
crossing safety. 

These anomalies occur because the states' apportionments are derived
from the STP formula, which does not include factors related to
crossing safety, such as accidents and fatalities.  Instead, the
formula is based on a percentage share of the funds the states had
previously received in fiscal years 1987 through 1991 for their
federal-aid highway program.  For this reason, every state received
section 130 funding. 


      FHWA IS DEVELOPING
      ALTERNATIVE APPORTIONMENT
      FORMULAS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:1.2

FHWA officials stated that they had observed anomalies similar to
those we observed in section 130 apportionments.  FHWA and FRA are
reviewing the current apportionment process to define a "more
appropriate method of distributing section 130 funds, possibly on the
basis of the number of crossings and accidents in each state." In May
1995, FHWA officials stated that DOT had developed a funding formula
that proposed to distribute railroad crossing improvement funds to
the states on the basis of four risk factors, including each state's
proportion of accidents, fatalities, total public crossings, and
total public crossings with passive warnings. 

DOT has assessed changes in the states' annual apportionments using
different formulas that would vary the weights assigned to each risk
factor.  In one alternative formula, FHWA would weight risk factors
equally so that each factor would contribute to 25 percent of the
state's total apportionment.  On the basis of our analysis of DOT's
preliminary results in applying this alternative, we found that 28
states would have received less section 130 funds in fiscal year
1995, while the remaining states would have received more funds.  As
indicated in table 3.2, there are notable differences for the five
states with the highest number of crossings under existing and
alternative funding formulas. 



                          Table 3.2
           
             Comparison of Fiscal Year 1995 State
               Apportionments Under Current and
               Proposed Apportionment Formulas

                                           FY 1995
                               FY 1995  comparativ
                                actual           e
                            apportionm  apportionm  Differen
State                              ent         ent        ce
--------------------------  ----------  ----------  --------
Texas                       $10,906,28  $12,099,11  $1,192,8
                                     0           4        34
California                  10,182,716   5,925,646  (4,257,0
                                                         70)
Illinois                     7,926,261   8,703,731   777,470
Ohio                         6,301,744   7,540,429  1,238,68
                                                           5
Indiana                      4,962,375   6,635,387  1,673,01
                                                           2
------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Data in the table are based on a formula FHWA proposed to
distribute section 130 funds. 

Source:  FHWA data. 

The alternative formula would address some of the anomalies that we
found with funds apportioned to the five states we reviewed.  For
example, California, which received a higher proportion of section
130 funds in comparison to its proportion of crossings, accidents,
and fatalities, would receive less funds under a proposed formula. 
Similarly, Illinois and Indiana, which received a lower proportion of
section 130 funds in comparison to their proportion of crossings,
accidents, and fatalities, would receive more section 130 funds. 
Pennsylvania, Mississippi, and Arkansas would have received the
greatest percentage increases (between 52 and 79 percent), while
Alaska, New York, and Maryland would have received the greatest
percentage of decreases (between 48 and 76 percent) in their section
130 funds.  Changing the weights would, of course, change the
allocations. 


   ENGINEERING STRATEGIES: 
   TRADITIONAL AND INNOVATIVE
   APPROACHES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2

States can consider a range of engineering strategies--traditional
technologies, crossing closures, and innovative technologies--in
investing funds to improve railroad crossing safety.  Making
effective investments requires ensuring that the most appropriate
engineering strategy is chosen for the specific problem. 


      TRADITIONAL APPROACHES PROVE
      EFFECTIVE IN MANY
      APPLICATIONS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.1

Lights and gates remain the practical engineering solution to
railroad crossing dangers, although states can use their railroad
crossing program funds to purchase a range of engineering solutions. 
These engineering solutions include grade separations, active and
passive warning devices, and improvements to the crossing surface. 
FHWA's regulations require the states to make available at least 50
percent of their section 130 funds for the installation of active and
passive protective devices (23 C.F.R.  sec.  924.11(c)), such as
crossbucks, flashing lights, or flashing lights and gates.\6 As shown
in figure 3.1, the states obligated 69 percent of federal railroad
crossing funds to install warning devices in fiscal year 1991.\7

   Figure 3.1:  Federal-Aid
   Highway Funds Obligated for
   Rail-Highway Crossing
   Improvements, Fiscal Year 1991
   (Dollars in Millions)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  GAO's analysis of FHWA's data. 

Funds for active warning devices, such as flashing lights and gates,
accounted for 71 percent of the funds obligated for these devices. 
FHWA's and the industry's analyses have shown that active warning
devices are more effective than passive warning devices, such as
crossbucks.  For example, FHWA reported in 1989 that active warning
devices reduced accident rates by at least 64 percent, and in some
cases by as much as 97 percent.  In addition, FHWA's 1994 Annual
Report on Highway Safety Improvement Programs found that since 1974,
installing active warning devices had reduced rates for railroad
crossing accidents that result in injuries or fatalities by 69
percent and fatal railroad crossing accident rates by 89 percent. 

Grade separations accounted for nearly one-fifth of state obligations
in fiscal year 1991.  The construction of these overpasses and
underpasses effectively eliminates the risk of accidents.  However,
grade separations are more expensive than active warning devices, and
accordingly their use is often limited.  For example, in 1991 the
states obligated $108 million in federal funds to install active
warning devices, such as flashing lights or lights and gates, at
2,400 crossings.  In that same year, the states obligated $42 million
in federal funds to partially pay for grade separations at 75
crossings.  Because grade separations are costly, states often pay
for them through federal-aid highway programs other than the section
130 program. 


--------------------
\6 According to FHWA's Federal-Aid Policy Guide, protective devices
include railroad crossing projects to install standard signs and
pavement markings, active warning devices, and crossing illumination,
as well as crossing surface improvements, and general site
improvements. 

\7 Since 1991, FHWA no longer collects national data on specific
railroad crossing projects.  As a result, more recent information
that details the types of improvement is not available.  FHWA
officials stated that the trend detailed in figure 3.1 would not have
changed substantially for fiscal years 1992 and 1993. 


      CROSSING CLOSURES ARE
      EFFECTIVE BUT CONTROVERSIAL
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.2

The states' actions to close crossings reduce railroad crossing
fatalities and accidents.  Although crossing closures eliminate the
safety problem, this approach has raised intensive opposition at the
local level. 

In 1992, the Federal Railroad Administrator recommended the closure
of 25 percent of the nation's railroad crossings because the
crossings were either redundant or unnecessary.  Reducing the number
of railroad crossings is a goal also endorsed by DOT, AAR, AASHTO,
the National Association of Regulatory and Utility Commissioners, and
Operation Lifesaver.  In 1994, AASHTO found that the nation had two
railroad crossings for every mile of track and that in heavily
congested areas, the average approached 10 crossings every mile.\8
AASHTO noted that many of these crossings were unnecessary and could
be consolidated with little or no adverse impact on the traveling
public.  A closed crossing effectively eliminates the risk of motor
vehicle accidents and fatalities.  It also eliminates the future
costs of maintaining the crossing or upgrading the crossing's
protection when increased traffic volume necessitates greater
protection. 

However, closing crossings often becomes a matter of considerable
local debate.  For example, in 1994 FRA found that in 11 states,
local opposition was the greatest impediment to closing crossings. 
This problem was consistently cited among state transportation
officials in the five states we reviewed.  In general, local
opposition centers on several issues.  Businesses near the crossing
fear financial losses, particularly if public access would be cut off
in one direction.  Citizens raise concerns about fire, police, and
ambulance response time, and farmers oppose closures that alter
access to their fields.  Finally, state officials cite financial
disincentives to closing crossings.  While railroad crossing
improvements such as lights and signals are eligible for 100-percent
federal funding, the costs associated with closures require a
10-percent local match--a match that some localities have been
unwilling to make. 

In response to the financial disincentives to closing crossings, DOT
proposed in 1994 to eliminate the local match and give local
communities up to a $15,000 award for closing public railroad
crossings.  The section 130 program would provide one-half of the up
to $15,000 award, and the railroads would provide the other half. 
However, state officials we interviewed stated that the $15,000
incentive was too low to be effective.  FHWA officials responded that
states have used both section 130 and other federal-aid funds to help
pay for closures and noted that if the incentive is coupled with the
elimination of the local match required for closure projects, more
local communities may be induced to close crossings. 

Although DOT's proposal may provide greater financial incentives to
close crossings, the authority to open and close crossings remains a
state and local responsibility.  The federal government exercises no
regulatory authority in this area.  Currently, there are no federal
standards or guidelines that describe under what circumstances a
crossing should be closed.  Therefore, a state body with the
authority and willingness to close crossings often becomes the key
factor to successful closings.  The Illinois Commerce Commission
provides a good example of what can be accomplished over time by
aggressive state action.  The Commission has had the authority to
order crossings closed for safety reasons alone, following a public
hearing.  In 1955 through 1993, the Commission closed 678 public
railroad crossings--about 17.4 closed crossings each year.  This
number compares to the national average of about five crossings
closed per state each year, which is based on a 1994 Alabama Highway
Department survey of states with active closure initiatives.  Greater
state action to close crossings is therefore an important element in
the overall approach to reducing railroad crossing fatalities and
accidents. 


--------------------
\8 Highway-Rail Crossing Elimination and Consolidation, 1994
AASHTO-National Conference of State Railway Officials. 


      DOT IS FUNDING INNOVATIVE
      TECHNOLOGIES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.3

Innovative technologies offer useful options to improve railroad
crossing safety, particularly in rail corridors (along a specific
train route, highway, or geographic boundary) and at the most
dangerous rail-highway crossings.  DOT is supporting the development
of several innovative technologies for railroad crossings through
FRA's High-Speed Rail program.  These technologies represent the next
step in improving safety at crossings.  Some of these systems are
designed to positively prevent a motor vehicle from entering the
crossing; therefore, they provide a higher level of safety than
warning lights and gates.  However, innovative technologies are
likely to cost more than active warning devices, the most common
engineering solution to crossing problems.  Although their costs
limit widespread application under the Rail-Highway Crossing Program,
these technologies are generally less expensive than grade
separations. 

Table 3.3 compares the costs of two standard methods the states use
to improve crossings--grade separations and flashing lights and
gates--to the four innovative technologies sponsored by DOT.  The
four innovative technologies--Four Quadrant Gates, Friendly Mobile
Barriers System, Low-Cost Grade Separation, and Dragnet Vehicle
Arresting Barrier--are at different stages of development or
deployment and have projected costs of between $500,000 and $1
million per crossing. 



                          Table 3.3
           
             Cost Comparison of Railroad Crossing
                     Safety Technologies

Type of improvement             Estimated costs per crossing
------------------------------  ----------------------------
Standard Grade-Separation                         $3,000,000
Flashing Lights and Gates                          $ 150,000
Improved Four Quadrant Gates                      $1,000,000
Friendly Mobile Barrier                           $1,000,000
Low-Cost Grade Separation                          $ 950,000
Vehicle Arrestor Net                               $ 500,000
------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  FRA's, FHWA's, states', and GAO's analyses

The Four Quadrant Gates technology is an ongoing project in
Connecticut.  The approach installs four gates, rather than the
traditional two gates, at a crossing.  In addition, advanced
circuitry in the gates and along the rail lines provide an early
warning system for the engineer of any oncoming trains.  If the gates
are malfunctioning or a vehicle is stuck between the four gates, the
system warns the engineer in time to stop the train before it reaches
the crossing.  FRA currently estimates this system will cost $1
million per crossing. 

The Friendly Mobile Barriers system, being developed in Virginia,
consists of a barrier wall that rises up from the roadway after
standard gates have come down.  The barrier effectively prevents a
vehicle from entering the crossing by blocking the road.  The system
is designed to absorb the energy of a vehicle which strikes it, thus
averting fatal injury to the occupants.  FRA currently estimates the
cost to install this system at one crossing at $1 million. 

The Low-Cost Grade Separation Project in Florida is an attempt to
develop a grade separation that can be constructed at less cost and
in half the time of conventional grade separations.  The new design
will use soil rather than concrete to shore up the walls supporting
the bridge portion of the separation.  FRA estimates that a Low-Cost
Grade Separation will cost $950,000 per crossing; however, costs may
vary at different locations. 

The Illinois Dragnet Vehicle Arresting System augments existing
crossing gates with a net restraining barrier lowered from roadside
towers.  The net, designed to stop a moving vehicle, uses technology
currently in place in Chicago to prevent vehicles from improperly
entering reversible highway lanes.  The Dragnet Vehicle Arresting
Barrier test cost $950,000, but Illinois DOT officials estimate that
the system will cost $500,000 per crossing when it is commercially
deployed. 

The innovative technologies are unproven and will cost more than
existing flashing lights and gates, which cost about $150,000 for
each crossing.  Furthermore, the states' section 130 apportionments
are too small for widespread application of these technologies.  For
example, the $1 million needed to deploy four quadrant gates at a
single crossing would deplete the annual section 130 apportionments
of nine states.  On the other hand, as an alternative to the
estimated $3 million cost of a grade separation, innovative
technologies may prove useful to improve safety at dangerous
crossings that continue to have accidents despite the presence of
traditional lights and gates. 

Grade separations are generally more expensive than many of these
innovative technologies, but the costs differ throughout the nation. 
A 1993 state engineering study of 60 grade separations along a rail
corridor between Chicago and St.  Louis found an average cost of $3
million per separation; the costs ranged between $2 million and $5.4
million.  The range resulted from differences in the number of
highway lanes, railroad tracks, and bridge length.  According to FHWA
officials, the high costs explain why few grade separations are
funded with section 130 funds; 31 states receive annual program
allotments of less than $3 million--the average cost of one
separation.  As a result, grade separations often must be
cost-justified on a basis other than the safety impact on accidents,
fatalities, and injuries.  Although the states are developing
engineering techniques to reduce the costs of grade separations,
active warning devices will remain the engineering solution of
practical choice for most states to resolve railroad crossing safety
problems. 


   ENGINEERING STRATEGIES ARE
   BEING APPLIED USING A CORRIDOR
   APPROACH
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:3

The corridor approach can allow states to more efficiently improve
crossings along a specific train route, highway, or geographic
boundary, rather than improving individual crossings scattered
throughout a state.  The best mix of closings and engineering
solutions can be applied to an entire corridor.  With the
identification of Principal Rail Lines by FRA and the National
Highway System (NHS) by the Congress, natural candidates for corridor
reviews may soon exist. 

Analyzing railroad crossing corridors offers the states and railroads
many advantages in assessing railroad crossing safety.  For the
states, the corridor approach allows diagnostic teams to perform more
on-site reviews of crossings and to identify and improve potentially
hazardous crossings before they become high-risk situations. 
Corridor reviews can identify redundant crossings as candidates for
closure in conjunction with safety upgrades of the remaining
crossings.  In addition, both the states and the railroads benefit
from reduced paperwork since they can develop a single master
agreement to cover improvements at several crossings.  For the
railroads, the advantages include (1) designing and installing signal
circuits in a common and comprehensive way, rather than customizing
each signal circuit; (2) reducing labor costs through the more
efficient scheduling of work crews and reduced travel time; and (3)
reducing procurement and shipping costs by ordering equipment and
materials in larger quantities.  These advantages can reduce project
costs for the states. 

A drawback to the states' use of the corridor approach is that a
state could spend a large portion of its railroad crossing dollars in
a specific geographic area.  This could be at the expense of other
parts of the state that also have relatively hazardous crossings but
do not have defined corridors.  The problem is complex because the
section 130 program requires the states to develop and use a priority
ranking system that numerically orders each crossing on the basis of
the potential risk of an accident.  Under the corridor approach,
teams review all the crossings for improvement or closure, even those
which are not high on the priority ranking.  As a result, by applying
a corridor approach, a state can achieve wider coverage of
improvements and discover candidates for closing, but it will not
always improve those crossings with the highest rankings. 

While FHWA has encouraged the use of the corridor approach by the
states, we found that the states used different methods in selecting
corridors for crossing improvements.  For example, Indiana solicited
requests from local governments for corridor improvement projects,
while Ohio selected corridors that included crossings near the top of
the state's priority ranking list.  While FHWA officials believed
some variation of a corridor approach was common among the states,
they did not know how many states actually used the corridor approach
nor in what form. 

The corridor approach may become more important because of DOT's
actions defining rail corridors and expected congressional action
defining the NHS.  FRA has defined a national network of existing
Principal Rail Lines.  Principal Rail Lines carry passenger traffic
and the heaviest rail traffic and will correspondingly have higher
potential for crossing accidents.  In addition, the Congress will
designate the NHS in 1995.  The NHS, composed of the nation's
interstate system and other high-volume highways, will carry over 40
percent of all vehicle miles travelled and 70 percent of commercial
truck traffic.  The confluence of these systems will define
geographic areas in the states that combine heavy vehicle and rail
traffic and thereby produce greater potential for crossing accidents
and fatalities.  These areas may offer the starting point for
applying the corridor approach to improving railroad crossing safety. 
In addition, DOT has proposed eliminating all railroad crossings on
the NHS and establishing a $15 million incentive program to encourage
the states to use the corridor approach more extensively.  The $15
million would be funded from the STP and would be in addition to the
section 130 funds.  This would eliminate the competition between
higher-hazard individual crossings and corridors. 


   EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT CAN
   CHANGE MOTORISTS' DANGEROUS
   BEHAVIOR
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:4

Motorists' behavior is an important factor in railroad crossing
accidents and fatalities.  For example, nearly 50 percent of all
crossing fatalities in 1993 occurred at crossings where active
warning devices had been installed to warn motorists about the
approaching dangers.  To address motorists' behavior, the states have
successfully used greater education and law enforcement programs. 


      EDUCATION/ENFORCEMENT
      PROGRAMS REDUCE FATALITIES
      AT RAILROAD CROSSINGS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:4.1

Although current and proposed technologies may reduce the number of
accidents and fatalities, engineering solutions alone will not change
human behavior that leads a motorist to ignore flashing lights and
drive around descended gates.  Federal and state transportation
officials have found that education and enforcement efforts can aid
states' efforts to further reduce accidents and fatalities by
alerting motorists to the dangers at railroad crossings. 

Many states, particularly those with many railroad crossings, face a
dilemma.  In October 1994, 35 percent of railroad crossings in the
United States had active warning devices, but in 1993--the most
current data available from FRA--50 percent of all crossing
fatalities occurred at these locations.  For example, Texas and
Illinois have installed active warning devices at 34 and 47 percent,
respectively, of their railroad crossings.  However, over one-half
(54 percent) of the fatalities in Texas and two-thirds (68 percent)
of the fatalities in Illinois occurred at crossings with flashing
lights or lights and gates.  Officials in these states, as well as
federal officials, stated that greater public education on railroad
crossing dangers is needed to help change motorists' reckless
behavior. 

Our review of a state with an active education and enforcement
program--Ohio--found that the state had reduced accidents at
crossings with active warning devices from 377 in 1978 to 93 in
1993--a 75-percent decline.  During the same period in Ohio, the
proportion of accidents at crossings with active warning devices
declined by 8 percent, from 45 to 37 percent of total accidents, as
figure 3.2 indicates. 

Ohio demonstrates how states with a relatively high number of
accidents can successfully use education and enforcement programs to
improve railroad crossing safety.  Ohio's Operation Lifesaver was
established in 1978 in an attempt to employ educational events and
enhanced law enforcement as a means to reduce railroad crossing
accidents and fatalities.  The program has a full-time coordinator
and 280 volunteers.  Its education and enforcement efforts have
helped Ohio reduce accidents at railroad crossings, especially those
with active warning devices. 

Ohio focuses on educating certain segments of the populace on the
consequences of violating railroad crossings warnings.  To change
potentially dangerous behavior, Ohio has used three
approaches--Officer-on-the-Train, Trucker-on-the-Train, and mock
train crashes--as education and enforcement tools.  During
Officer-on-the-Train events, law enforcement officials and the media
ride in the train's cab to observe numerous motorists who try to
cross despite an approaching train.  When motor vehicle violations
occur, such as cars going around a descended gate, participating law
enforcement officials radio vehicle descriptions to local and state
police situated near the crossings.  The police officers, in turn,
cite the motorist for the violation--a maximum of a $100 fine and 2
points on the motorist's drivers license for a first offense.  A
second offense within 1 year will result in a maximum $250 fine, 2
points on the motorist's drivers license, and 30 days in jail. 

   Figure 3.2:  Proportion of
   Motor Vehicle Accidents in Ohio
   That Occurred at Crossings With
   Active Warning Devices, 1978-93

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  GAO's analysis of FRA's data. 

Trucker-on-the-Train uses the same approach to demonstrate railroad
crossing safety problems but invites commercial vehicle operators in
the train's cab to observe railroad crossing activity.  In addition,
Operation Lifesaver uses mock train crashes to visibly demonstrate
the severity of train and motor vehicle collisions to school age
children.  State transportation and Operation Lifesaver officials in
Ohio said that these events have contributed directly to reducing
railroad crossing accidents and fatalities in the state. 


      RAILROAD CROSSING SAFETY IS
      NOT A PRIORITY EDUCATION
      PROGRAM
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:4.2

Although federal and state highway officials agree that programs to
educate motorists about the hazards at railroad crossings reduce
accidents, this area has not received the same emphasis as other
highway safety education programs.  There are several reasons for
this lack of emphasis.  First, the Congress did not identify railroad
crossing safety as a priority under NHTSA's section 402 program, and
NHTSA officials stated that the states we visited have generally not
added optional program proposals in this area.  Second, NHTSA
officials do not believe that states would receive the same benefits
from railroad crossing safety efforts as they would with other safety
programs, such as increasing seat belt usage.  As a result, other
safety programs have higher priority than railroad crossing programs. 

NHTSA's highway safety programs focus on improved vehicle safety and
behavioral changes to improve the safety of drivers, passengers, and
pedestrians.  NHTSA's section 402 program is the federal government's
basic formula grant program to support and improve state highway
safety activities related to drivers' behavior.  In fiscal year 1995,
the Congress appropriated $123 million for NHTSA's section 402
program.\9

Under the section 402 program, the states may flexibly allocate their
grants among nine national priority areas.  The states may also use
section 402 funds for projects in other areas, such as railroad
crossing safety, if they provide documented evidence for the problem
to NHTSA.  The priority areas are intended to (1) enhance the safety
of vehicle occupants; (2) reduce driving impaired by alcohol and drug
usage; (3) reduce the hazards involved in operating motorcycles; (4)
improve highway safety and the driving environment through highway
design; (5) improve police traffic services; (6) improve emergency
medical services and trauma care systems; (7) increase the safety of
pedestrians and bicyclists; (8) improve traffic record systems; and
(9) reduce speed-related crashes.  Reducing speed-related crashes is
a new priority that and was added in December 1994. 

NHTSA officials stated that the benefits associated with programs to
reduce accidents and fatalities at railroad crossings are relatively
small compared to the benefits associated with driver education
programs that focus on areas such as complying with seat belt laws
and avoiding drunk driving (both priority programs).  As a result,
railroad crossing safety is not a section 402 priority program. 
NHTSA does not maintain information on whether the states had used
section 402 funds for railroad crossing safety initiatives.  However,
we did obtain limited information from Operation Lifesaver,
Incorporated.  In 1993, Operation Lifesaver reported that 13 states
had used about $189,500 of their section 402 funds to support their
Operation Lifesaver programs.  This total represents less than
two-tenths of 1 percent of the $106 million allocated to the states
under section 402 programs in 1993.  The grants for Operation
Lifesaver ranged from $2,500 to $50,000 in each state.  Of the five
states with high accident rates that we reviewed, in 1993 only
Indiana spent any NHTSA section 402 funds for additional railroad
crossing education and enforcement, a total of about $2,200. 

According to a NHTSA regional official, the modest expenditures on
railroad crossing safety programs may reflect the states' inability
to decide which actions would best address their railroad crossing
safety problems or the fact that railroad crossing accident
casualties are relatively few, compared to other highway accidents. 
In addition, the low expenditures may also be attributed to the fact
that NHTSA had not in the past emphasized railroad crossing safety. 
In November 1994, as part of the Department's action plan, NHTSA
instructed its field staff to advise the states that section 402
funds could be used to address "significant rail crossing problems."
However, the NHTSA memorandum does not define what would constitute a
significant rail crossing problem that would allow the states to use
section 402 funds. 


--------------------
\9 FHWA also is responsible for administering an engineering-related
roadway safety program under section 402.  FHWA funds are spent in
four areas:  the identification and surveillance of accident
locations; highway design, construction, and maintenance; traffic
engineering; and roadway aspects of pedestrian and bicycle safety. 
In 1995, the Congress appropriated a separate $10 million for the
FHWA portion of section 402. 


   CONCLUSIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:5

Given the limited resources available for railroad crossing safety,
it is crucial that available funds be targeted to the most
cost-effective approaches.  The first means to target limited
resources is to review the current method DOT uses to apportion
section 130 dollars to the states.  DOT is currently exploring
different funding formulas that would allocate money based on risk. 
The second means to target railroad crossing resources is to focus
available dollars on strategies that offer the greatest benefits for
reducing railroad crossing accidents.  Traditional lights and gates
have been shown to be cost-effective when installed, yet they provide
only a warning, not positive protection at the crossing.  For this
reason, new technologies, although more expensive, may be justified
where accidents persist at signalled crossings or where danger to
rail passengers becomes an issue.  In addition, the states can do
more than rank individual crossings, as FHWA requires.  They can
close more crossings and, where appropriate, apply the corridor
approach. 

Although engineering solutions are part of the overall strategy to
reduce accidents and fatalities, there will always remain the problem
of motorists disregarding warning signals.  Therefore, affecting
drivers' behavior through greater education and enforcement is a
critical strategy.  Emphasizing railroad crossing safety under
section 402 is one means by which railroad crossing education becomes
an institutional part of a state's highway safety program. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:6

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration commented that the
role of the states in defining section 402 programs needed to be
emphasized in the report.  We have modified the report where
appropriate and have clarified the importance of the states. 


DOT'S ACTION PLAN
============================================================ Chapter 4

DOT sets an ambitious agenda for improving the safety of the nation's
railroad crossings in its Rail-Highway Crossing Safety Action Plan. 
Its goal is to reduce the number of railroad crossing accidents and
fatalities by 50 percent between 1994 and 2004 by coordinating the
resources of the federal government, states, and private sector.  DOT
is making progress in carrying out many of these proposals.  However,
a number of the proposals are dependent on the actions of states or
the Congress to ensure full implementation.  In addition, DOT does
not have an estimate of how much the plan's proposals will cost. 
Without this information, it will be difficult to determine and
arrange for financing to implement the proposals and to assess the
cost-effectiveness of the implemented actions.  In addition, DOT has
not developed an evaluation approach to assess the impact of the plan
in contributing to railroad crossing safety. 


   ACTION PLAN REQUIRES
   COORDINATION AMONG MANY
   STAKEHOLDERS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:1

Many groups play essential roles in railroad crossing safety.  In
recognition of the seriousness of the problem, the Secretary of
Transportation directed the four surface transportation
administrations (FHWA, FRA, FTA, and NHTSA) to collaborate in the
development of a plan to address the problem.  DOT's Rail-Highway
Crossing Safety Action Plan, issued in June 1994, proposes to
coordinate efforts to achieve the goal of reducing yearly accident
and fatality totals to less than 2,500 and 300, respectively, between
1994 and 2004.  The action plan contains 55 action proposals for
improving railroad crossing safety.  These proposals can be organized
into three broad lines of effort that exemplify the need for
cooperation among the major stakeholders in railroad crossing
safety\10 : 

Engineering:  Thirty-two proposals concentrate on improving railroad
crossing safety through applying various engineering solutions.  DOT
proposes that the Congress allow financial incentives to close
crossings and establish separate funding to improve rail corridors. 
FHWA and FRA will provide guidance to states on how to conduct
corridor reviews and close crossings.  DOT also proposes working with
the states to upgrade existing signs and markings and in the long
term eliminate 2,250 high-volume crossings.  FRA will work with the
railroads and the states to more systematically and accurately update
the U.S.  DOT/AAR National Highway Rail Crossing Inventory.  The plan
also explores a number of new engineering technologies for improving
railroad crossing safety under development by FRA and FHWA. 

Education:  Sixteen proposals relate to educating motorists, truck
drivers, and others about the dangers present at railroad crossings. 
For example, NHTSA, FHWA, FTA, FRA, and Operation Lifesaver will meet
and develop materials to promote the public's and youth's awareness
of hazards at railroad crossings.  NHTSA will work with the American
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) to review driver
training materials, and a DOT interagency group will develop new and
updated materials.  FRA, Amtrak, the American Trucking Association,
and Operation Lifesaver will work together to develop a "Trucker on
the Train" program to educate commercial drivers on hazards at
railroad crossings.  Finally DOT proposes that the Congress increase
Operation Lifesaver funding by up to $200,000 per year. 

Law Enforcement:  Thirteen of the proposals enhance federal, state,
and local law enforcement efforts.  For example, FHWA and NHTSA will
work with the National Traffic Law Center to provide materials and
technical assistance to prosecutors and judges on railroad crossing
issues.  The Transportation Research Board, under the direction of
FRA, will develop an information package that will provide model
rules for the states to follow in allowing photo enforcement at
railroad crossings.  FHWA will also work with AAMVA to propose making
railroad crossing offenses a serious traffic violation. 

FRA has taken the lead in coordinating the action plan and has
responsibility for reporting progress to the Office of the Secretary. 
FRA and FHWA are the key agencies for implementing the plan; they are
responsible for 40 of the proposals.  As of May 1995, DOT agencies
were making progress in implementing 39 of the 50 proposals.  Seven
of the 39 proposals are complete, although some of the remaining 32
were intended to be continuing efforts.  However, in order to fully
complete the plan, DOT must rely not only on cooperation among its
own modal agencies, but on the cooperation of state and local
governments, Operation Lifesaver, and the railroads. 


--------------------
\10 Only 50 proposals target improving motor vehicle safety, while
five proposals focus on trespasser problems.  In addition, some
action plan proposals are counted twice since they address more than
one line of effort, such as law enforcement and education. 


   DOT CANNOT INDEPENDENTLY
   IMPLEMENT SEVERAL PROPOSALS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:2

The success of some proposals in the plan depends on how well DOT can
encourage states, either with or without incentives, to complete or
take advantage of them.  The success of others depends on whether DOT
can obtain the required congressional approval to use existing funds
in new ways. 


      SUCCESS OF DOT'S ACTION PLAN
      RELIES ON STATES' DECISIONS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:2.1

DOT's ability to secure the benefits of its action plan will depend,
in large part, on the Department's ability to encourage the states to
implement the plan's actions.  DOT does not have the authority to
direct states to implement many of the plan's proposals, regardless
of how important they are to achieving DOT's goal.  Therefore, to
give these actions the best chance of success, DOT must rely on
either providing incentives to states to complete them or presenting
strong cases for why each is in the states' best interest. 

For example, DOT plans to encourage the states to use NHTSA section
402 funds on activities directed at improving railroad crossing
safety.  In November 1994, NHTSA advised the states that they could
use section 402 funds to target public education, engineering, and
law enforcement strategies to address significant local railroad
crossing problems.  However, it is still the states' decision to
designate section 402 funds for railroad crossing safety programs. 
If railroad crossing safety remains a relatively low priority at the
state level, allowing the states more flexible use of section 402
funds could have little impact on helping DOT meet its goal. 

The success of federal efforts to ensure the accuracy of the DOT/AAR
National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory also depends on the states'
cooperation.  This inventory of all the crossings in the United
States contains information describing the physical characteristics
of the crossings and the volume and frequency of train and motor
vehicle traffic occurring at the crossings.  As required by FHWA, the
states must maintain an inventory of all the crossings located within
their boundaries.  However, the states that maintain their own
inventories are not required to update the national inventory. 
Consequently, although the inventory is the only national resource of
its kind, portions of it are out of date, as DOT noted in its action
plan.  While FRA has begun a rulemaking to require the railroads to
update rail operations data and provide the information to the
states, there is no requirement that the states update the highway
traffic data needed to complete the inventory.  DOT's success in
fully carrying out this proposal depends on how effectively it can
convince the states to keep FRA's inventory up to date. 

Finally, DOT will encourage the states to upgrade signing and
markings at crossings, consider installing STOP signs where
warranted, and clear vegetation obstructing motorists' view of
approaching trains.  All of these actions hold the potential for
improving safety by making drivers more aware of the potential
dangers at crossings.  However, these actions will compete for
financial resources against all other state highway priorities. 


      DOT NEEDS CONGRESSIONAL
      APPROVAL FOR KEY PROPOSALS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:2.2

DOT is seeking the congressional authority to implement five key
proposals because DOT seeks to allocate and use STP funds in a manner
not currently allowable under ISTEA.  The five proposals would (1)
change the method used to apportion section 130 funds to the states,
(2) use STP funds to pay local governments a bonus to close railroad
crossings, (3) eliminate the local match for the costs associated
with closing crossings, (4) establish a $15 million program to
encourage states to improve rail corridors, and (5) use STP funds to
increase federal funding of Operation Lifesaver. 

DOT's action plan proposes that FRA and FHWA initiate a study of the
effectiveness of the method used to apportion section 130 funds to
the states.  DOT is evaluating alternative criteria that would change
the apportionment formula.  Although the action plan called only for
DOT to issue its recommendations for changing the apportionment
method, DOT cannot implement these recommendations unless the
Congress passes legislation changing ISTEA. 

Congressional action would also be needed to implement two crossing
closure proposals.  In June 1994, the administration submitted
legislation to the Congress that would (1) allow Rail-Highway
Crossing Program set-aside funds to be used as bonuses to local
governments when they closed crossings and (2) made closure costs
eligible for 100 percent federal funding.  The bonus initiative would
provide local governments $7,500 in federal funds and an additional
$7,500 from the railroad for each crossing closed.  The local
government would then use the federal bonus portion for other
transportation safety improvements.  The second feature of the
legislation called for modifying ISTEA to include crossing closure
projects among those STP projects eligible for 100 percent federal
funding.  According to DOT's action plan, a state or local matching
requirement for a closure project amounts to a disincentive to close
the crossing, because no matching requirement exists for installing
lights and gates under section 130.  Currently, DOT cannot allow STP
funds to be used as bonuses or incentives. 

The fourth proposal requiring legislative action would establish an
incentive program to encourage the states to use the corridor
approach.  The proposed incentive program would set aside $15 million
from STP funds each year and be distributed to states with aggressive
corridor programs.  For the same reasons that DOT has concluded it
cannot use STP funds as incentives to close crossings, DOT also is
seeking the authority to create this incentive program set-aside. 

For the fifth proposal, DOT has not increased Operation Lifesaver
funds from the current ISTEA authorized level of $300,000 to the
action plan proposal of $500,000.  Although the action plan proposes
a number of actions to educate truck and bus drivers about the
dangers present at crossings, it relies heavily on Operation
Lifesaver to educate the general public.  Currently, FHWA funds
Operation Lifesaver through its Administration and Research budget. 
Although the action plan proposed to use STP funds to pay for this
increase, DOT does not have the authority to use STP dollars to fund
Operation Lifesaver.  The Congress approved a $100,000 increase for
Operation Lifesaver in FHWA's fiscal year 1995 budget.  However,
additional funds to reach the goal of $500,000 would need further
congressional approval. 


   ACTION PLAN NEEDS COST DATA AND
   EVALUATION COMPONENT
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:3

DOT has not specified the full costs and financing associated with
the proposals contained in its action plan.  Of particular concern is
that DOT has not determined the cost of the proposal to eliminate
crossings where the proposed NHS intersects Principal Rail Lines
(PRL).  In addition, DOT has not developed a way to systematically
evaluate various proposals to determine their effectiveness. 


      COST DATA WOULD CLARIFY
      IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:3.1

While progress has been made toward implementing many of the action
plan's proposals, the plan requires additional information to
determine the effectiveness of many of the proposals.  DOT has not
developed an overall cost estimate for completing the plan or
determined how the plan would be financed.  Specifying this
information is critical to determine whether adequate funding exists
to carry them out.  Although most proposals rely on reallocating
existing staff and funding, others will require additional resources
and are potentially costly. 

For example, one of the key action proposals in the plan includes a
long-term goal of eliminating the estimated 2,250 crossings where the
proposed NHS intersects with PRLs.  The NHS and PRLs are high-volume
roadways and rail corridors, respectively.  Because the NHS and PRLs
are vital to the nation's interstate commerce, closing these
crossings is generally not feasible.  The alternative is to construct
a grade separation--an overpass or underpass.  While the action plan
cites eliminating crossings as a goal, it does not estimate the cost
to separate the grades at NHS/PRL intersections.  In chapter 3, we
found that grade separation costs could vary between $2 million to $5
million at individual crossings.  Therefore, the cost of
grade-separating all NHS/PRL crossings would be between $4.5 billion
and $11.3 billion.  While eliminating these crossings is a long-term
goal, grade separations will constitute a major infrastructure
investment commitment. 


      EVALUATION COMPONENT WOULD
      HELP ASSESS EFFECTIVENESS OF
      INITIATIVES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:3.2

The action plan also lacks a process for assessing the effectiveness
of ongoing or completed proposals in reducing accidents.  Lacking
such a process, DOT risks (1) spending its resources on proposals of
questionable value at the expense of potentially more useful actions
and (2) missing opportunities for improving ongoing proposals. 
Follow-up studies, qualitative or quantitative, could help DOT
evaluate whether

  the $15,000 incentive is high enough to entice localities to agree
     to close crossings, how many crossings the incentives helped
     close, and the cost savings and risk reductions these closures
     achieved;

  efforts to promote corridor reviews were leading to increases in
     the number of crossings being improved or closed;

  educational proposals were improving motorists' behavior at
     railroad crossings;

  motorists were obeying railroad crossing traffic laws as a result
     of enhanced law enforcement efforts; and

  research efforts were developing and implementing cost- effective
     proposals for improving railroad crossing safety. 

Evaluation can identify mid-course corrections needed to make
initiatives more effective.  For example, as discussed in chapter 3,
DOT's plan proposed providing local governments a $15,000 cash
incentive to close crossings.  However, state officials indicated
that the incentive may be too low to prompt local jurisdictions to
close crossings.  If this proposal is instituted, the DOT plan
includes no means to identify how many crossing closures result or
whether the amount of the incentive should be changed. 

DOT also proposes a number of efforts directed at educating truck and
bus drivers about the dangers present at railroad crossings. 
However, at present, the action plan includes no way of determining
the results of these efforts.  Although evaluating each of these
proposals individually may be difficult, groups of proposals could be
analyzed by DOT to determine whether motorists' awareness or behavior
changed as a result of implementing these actions.  DOT could then
use this information to decide whether more educational efforts are
needed or certain efforts should be dropped.  DOT officials stated
during our exit conference on this report that they were beginning
discussions among the modes responsible for the action plan as to how
an evaluation component could be incorporated into the action plan
proposals. 


   CONCLUSIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:4

DOT's Rail Crossing Safety Action Plan, has laid out a series of
federal/state/private sector partnerships across a spectrum of issues
critical to rail crossing safety.  DOT has made progress in
implementing many of the proposals cited in its plan.  However, to
complete the plan, DOT depends not only on the active support of its
modal agencies but on the support of the states and the Congress as
well.  The success of key proposals in the plan, such as better
targeting of funds to the states, increased use of the corridor
approach, and closing unneeded and redundant crossings, hinges, in
large part, on how well DOT can work with the states and the Congress
to help it implement the proposals.  Only through a genuine
partnership can federal and state governments and the rail industry
achieve a significant improvement over current levels of safety. 

To clarify the nature of this partnership and the level of commitment
needed to achieve the plan's goal of reducing accidents and
fatalities by 50 percent before 2004, it is critical for DOT to
develop cost estimates and to arrange for funding sources for its
proposals.  Before undertaking goals requiring long-term financial
support and policy changes, DOT should establish the level of
resources required from the Congress to meet the objectives. 
Similarly, follow-up information is needed to assess the proposals'
effectiveness in meeting the goal.  Until DOT has (1) identified
clearly the costs associated with the plan, (2) developed a strategy
to assess the impact and effectiveness of the initiatives in
improving railroad crossing safety, and (3) arranged for financial
resources and policy changes needed to implement the initiatives,
DOT's success in achieving the goals set forth in its action plan
will remain uncertain. 


   RECOMMENDATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:5

To strengthen the DOT action plan and improve railroad crossing
safety, we recommend that the Secretary of Transportation, in
cooperation with the states,

  develop cost estimates and identify funding sources for action plan
     proposals and

  evaluate the cost and effectiveness of the action plan as it is
     implemented. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:6

FRA believed the tone and content of the report did not give adequate
credit to DOT for developing and implementing the action plan.  We
have modified the report where appropriate.  While we recognize that
the plan is an important DOT initiative, the value of the plan
ultimately lies in its success in reducing accidents.  Because DOT is
still in the process of gaining congressional approval and
implementing the plan, we could not yet assess the impact of all the
initiatives on safety.  Implementing our recommendations should
enhance the plan by providing important information on funding
sources and the plan's effectiveness in achieving its goals. 


DESCRIPTIONS OF ACTION PLAN
PROPOSALS DIRECTED AT RAILROAD
CROSSING SAFETY BY LEAD AGENCY,
AND STATUS AS OF MAY 23, 1995
=========================================================== Appendix I


      SEVENTEEN PROPOSALS LED BY
      THE FEDERAL RAILROAD
      ADMINISTRATION
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.1

Rules of Evidence:  The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) will
monitor the Transportation Research Board's efforts to help the
states redefine their rules of evidence for traffic cases by
developing model rules that would allow traffic citations to be
issued and enforced on the basis of photographs or video images
obtained from unmanned cameras.  Effort:  Law enforcement; Status: 
Ongoing. 

Compilation of State Laws and Regulations on Matters Affecting
Highway-Rail Crossings:  FRA, with the cooperation of the Federal
Transit Administration (FTA), National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),
will begin updating the Compilation of State Laws and Regulations on
Matters Affecting Rail-Highway Crossings, last published by FHWA in
1983.  Effort:  Law enforcement; Status:  Ongoing. 

Safety Inquiry (Enforcing Railroad Operating Rules):  FRA will hold a
meeting to discuss ways to enforce railroad operating rules for
trains, locomotives, or cars standing:  (1) within a specified
distance of a multitrack passive crossing or (2) on warning device
track circuits not equipped with time-out equipment.  Effort:  Law
enforcement; Status:  Not started. 

Principal Railroad Lines (PRL):  FRA will nominate PRL corridors for
review by considering current and projected highway and rail traffic
densities and accident experience.  Effort:  Engineering; Status: 
Ongoing. 

Responsibilities for Selection and Installation:  FRA will review the
present system of allocating responsibility for selecting and
installing signal devices at public railroad crossings.  The
Department of Transportation will review the need for nationally
uniform standards for establishing the need for, and appropriate type
of, warning devices at all public crossings.  Effort:  Engineering;
Status:  Ongoing. 

Crossing Consolidation and Closure Case Studies:  FRA will prepare
three studies on closing crossings.  The first report will be a
"how-to" guide on closing crossings.  This guide, geared toward state
and railroad officials, will be a compilation of the successful
strategies for closing crossings derived from a number of case
studies.  The second report will illustrate the consolidation process
through describing a limited number of case studies.  The third
report will recommend options to increase the rate of crossing
consolidation.  This study will be based on an analysis of case
studies and suggestions of railroad and state officials who have been
actively involved in crossing consolidation projects.  Effort: 
Engineering; Status:  Ongoing. 

National and Community Service:  Pursuant to the National and
Community Service Trust Act of 1993, FRA will explore the possibility
of assigning national service participants to support Operation
Lifesaver State Coordinators.  Effort:  Education and law
enforcement; Status:  Not started. 

Define Categories:  FRA will define four categories of private
crossings:  farm, residential, recreational, and industrial. 
Subcategories may also be defined, and a general approach and
schedule will be developed for addressing each.  As appropriate, FRA
will define minimum safety requirements, warning device standards,
and responsibilities beginning with the category with the most severe
problems.  Effort:  Engineering; Status:  Ongoing. 

Safety Inquiry (Defining Minimum Safety Standards at Private
Crossings):  FRA will hold a meeting to consider defining minimum
safety standards for private crossings or certain categories of
private crossings, up to and including standards for closure and
consolidation under certain conditions.  The meeting will address
allocating responsibilities and costs among the parties associated
with private crossings and resolving potential ensuing disputes. 
Effort:  Engineering; Status:  Not started. 

Locked Gate at Private Crossings:  FRA will contract to investigate
and possibly demonstrate the feasibility of placing gates with
remotely activated cipher locks at private crossings.  Effort: 
Engineering; Status:  Ongoing. 

Research Workshop:  FRA will plan a workshop to bring together
highway safety, law enforcement, and rail and transit industry
officials; governors' highway safety representatives, academia;
consultants; and federal researchers to discuss current and projected
research and needs.  Effort:  Education, law enforcement, and
engineering; Status:  Completed. 

Defense Conversion Fair:  FRA will plan an exchange program to
introduce defense-oriented research firms to highway-rail crossing
technology and research needs.  Effort:  Engineering; Status: 
Ongoing. 

Train Horns:  FRA, with the Association of American Railroads' (AAR)
assistance, will study the safety impact of whistle bans nationwide
to consider whether federal action is required.  FRA will sponsor
research at the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center to
develop a locomotive warning signal that minimizes noise for
communities.  The Volpe Center also will investigate alternative
systems, such as audible warning devices installed directly at
crossings.  In addition, FRA and the Volpe Center will continue to
monitor other public and private efforts and explore the possibility
of providing test and evaluation support for these efforts.  Effort: 
Engineering; Status:  Ongoing. 

Locomotive Conspicuity:  FRA will issue final regulations specifying
locomotive lighting standards to enhance the visibility of trains. 
Effort:  Engineering; Status:  Ongoing. 

Automated Video Image Analysis:  FRA will explore the potential for
using live, computer-monitored video images to detect intrusions onto
rail rights-of-way at railroad crossings and ensure warning devices
are functioning properly.  Effort:  Law enforcement and engineering;
Status:  Ongoing. 

1-800 Computer Answering System:  FRA will develop an automated,
pc-based telephone answering and message forwarding system to field
calls concerning crossing signal malfunctions or other problems at
crossings.  The system will use the U.S.  DOT/AAR National
Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory numbering system for locating
crossings.  FRA will hold a meeting to consider requiring the display
of the U.S.  DOT/AAR inventory number and a toll-free 1-800 telephone
number at all crossings to facilitate notification.  Effort: 
Engineering; Status:  Ongoing. 

Resource Allocation Procedure:  FRA will update the accident
prediction, severity prediction, and resource allocation formulas it
provides to states and railroads to account for more recent data,
such as costs and accident experience.  Effort:  Engineering; Status: 
Ongoing. 


      TWENTY-ONE PROPOSALS LED BY
      FHWA
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.2

Commercial Driver's License:  FHWA will work with the American
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators to survey how states
currently treat violations of railroad crossing traffic laws and
examine the need for rulemaking to make such violations "serious
traffic violations" on a Commercial Driver's License.  Effort:  Law
enforcement; Status:  Ongoing. 

The National Highway System (NHS):  FHWA will encourage that
Statewide Transportation Improvement Programs and Safety Management
Systems (SMS) fully address the upgrading or elimination of railroad
crossings on the NHS and give priority to the long-term goal of
eliminating NHS/PRL crossings.  Effort:  Engineering; Status: 
Ongoing. 

Upgrade Signing and Marking:  FHWA will work with FRA and the states
to increase the visibility of signs and markings at railroad
crossings by encouraging the widespread use of high-grade,
long-lasting reflective materials.  Effort:  Engineering; Status: 
Ongoing. 

STOP Signs:  FHWA, with the aid of FRA, will encourage state and
local governments to consider installing STOP signs at railroad
crossings where warranted and provide them listings of candidate
crossings.  FHWA will clarify current federal regulations to indicate
that federal funds are eligible to install STOP signs at multitrack
crossings.  Effort:  Engineering; Status:  Ongoing. 

Payments from Section 130 to Locals for Closures:  DOT will propose
legislation to allow states to use Surface Transportation Program
funds set aside for the Rail-Highway Crossings Program to pay
localities to close crossings.  States could spend up to $7,500 per
crossing, but the amount paid would have to be matched by the
railroad(s) involved.  Also, the federal funds could be used only for
other transportation safety improvements.  Such a program could be
implemented only after a state has established a state-wide procedure
for reviewing the need for any new public railroad crossings. 
Effort:  Engineering; Status:  Legislation needed. 

Make Closures Eligible for 100 Percent Federal Funding:  DOT will
propose legislation to modify Title 23 U.S.C.  120(c) to include
crossing closure projects among those STP projects that are eligible
for 100 percent federal funding.  Effort:  Engineering; Status: 
Legislation needed. 

Checklist:  FHWA, with FRA's assistance, will develop a "checklist"
of items to be considered in a corridor analysis.  This checklist
will include warning device and crossing improvement options, as well
as a discussion of crossing consolidation.  Effort:  Engineering;
Status:  Ongoing. 

Highway-Rail Crossing Handbook:  FHWA, with the cooperation of FTA,
NHTSA, and FRA, will start updating the Railroad-Highway Crossing
Handbook, last published by FHWA in 1986.  Effort:  Engineering;
Status:  Not started. 

Corridor Review Participation:  DOT will propose legislation to
establish an incentive program for state and local governments to
participate in reviews and safety improvements on a corridor basis. 
One possible scenario would set aside $15 million of STP funds each
year, in addition to the existing Rail-Highway Crossings Program
funds, as an incentive fund pool.  This pool fund would be
distributed to states with aggressive corridor programs to off-set
corridor improvement costs--either on a first come/first served basis
or in amounts proportional to total corridor improvement costs
incurred by the participating states.  Effort:  Engineering; Status: 
Legislation needed. 

Distribution of Funds:  FHWA, in cooperation with FRA, will begin
studying the formulas for distributing Rail-Highway Crossings Program
set-aside funds to states to define a more appropriate method,
possibly based on the number of crossings and accidents in each
state.  Effort:  Engineering; Status:  Legislation needed. 

On-Guard Notice:  FHWA will publish and distribute to all 270,000
interstate motor carriers an On-Guard notice to alert the truck and
bus industry of the dangers present at crossings.  Effort: 
Education; Status:  Completed. 

Advisory Bulletin:  FHWA will send an advisory to the trade press
about the danger of accidents at crossings.  Effort:  Education;
Status:  Completed. 

Public Service Print Advertisements:  FHWA will prepare public
service print advertisements on truck and bus accidents at railroad
crossings for the trade journals.  Attention will be given to
ensuring that the articles reach state and local trucking association
newsletters.  The public service messages will be published and
distributed to 4,500 potential carriers.  Effort:  Education; Status: 
Completed. 

"Trucker on the Train" Program:  FHWA will work with Amtrak, the
American Trucking Association, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers,
Operation Lifesaver, and FRA to create a "Trucker on the Train"
program where motor carrier executives and drivers accompany train
engineers on the engine of a train to view first-hand dangerous
railroad crossings.  Effort:  Education; Status:  Ongoing. 

Operation Lifesaver:  FHWA will encourage Operation Lifesaver staff
to meet with trucking companies and associations to discuss the
dangers present at railroad crossings.  Effort:  Education; Status: 
Ongoing. 

National Safety Organizations:  FHWA will address railroad crossing
safety at meetings of national safety organizations, such as the
International Association of Chiefs of Police.  The agency will also
discuss the issue with industry executives at the next National Motor
Carrier Advisory Committee meeting.  Effort:  Education; Status: 
Ongoing. 

On-Site Compliance Reviews:  FHWA's Office of Motor Carriers field
staff and state personnel will inform motor carriers of the risks at
railroad crossings during on-site compliance reviews.  Effort: 
Education; Status:  Ongoing. 

Operation Lifesaver Matching Funds:  DOT will propose legislation to
increase FHWA's grant to Operation Lifesaver to an amount not to
exceed $500,000 annually.  Any portion of the funding in excess of
the current grant of $300,000 would be available to Operation
Lifesaver only if it matches the increased amount through its own
fund-raising mechanisms outside of the public sector.  The entire
amount of the FHWA funding would come from STP funds set aside for
the Rail-Highway Crossings Program.  Effort:  Education, law
enforcement; Status:  Legislation needed. 

Signs and Signals:  FHWA, in coordination with FRA, will start to
conceptualize a number of new railroad crossing warning devices, such
as devices informing motorists in advance of whether an active or
passive warning system is located at the crossing ahead, and devices
informing motorists of the direction from which a train is
approaching the crossing.  Effort:  Engineering; Status:  Not
started. 

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD):  FHWA, FRA, and
FTA will begin work to propose changes and additions to the MUTCD
dealing with each of the following: 

  Warrants for warning devices to be used at crossings hosting
     high-speed rail operations;

  A new passive sign for high-speed rail crossings;

  Standards for temporarily closing a road (e.g., signing needed to
     accommodate the placing of a barrier in the road);

  A supplementary multitrack plate for STOP and YIELD signs;

  Work zone and traffic control standards for highway projects that
     include railroad crossings;

  A four-quadrant gate standard;

  Warning device standards unique to light rail operations; and

  A design standard for displaying the U.S.  DOT/AAR Inventory number
     at each crossing. 

Effort:  Engineering; Status:  Ongoing. 

The Inventory:  FHWA will begin exploring ways to encourage the
states to update the U.S.  DOT/AAR National Highway-Rail Crossing
Inventory on a more systematic or cyclic schedule.  The states will
be encouraged to use the SMS as a means of ensuring that inventory
data are updated.  Additional methods of transmitting updates to FRA
electronically will be explored.  Effort:  Engineering; Status: 
Ongoing. 


      FIVE PROPOSALS LED BY NHTSA
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.3

Section 402 Funds:  NHTSA and FHWA will allow the states to spend
section 402 funds on education, engineering, and law enforcement
approaches to resolve significant local railroad crossing problems. 
Effort:  Education, law enforcement, and engineering; Status: 
Ongoing. 

Marketing Materials Plan:  NHTSA, FHWA, FTA, FRA, and possibly
Operation Lifesaver will meet periodically to develop programs and
material promoting public and youth awareness of hazards present at
crossings.  When products are available, NHTSA regional staff will
promote this material through Governors' Representatives to the
appropriate organizations and officials.  The states may use section
402 program funds to purchase or reproduce materials as well as to
implement programs.  Effort:  Education; Status:  Ongoing. 

Driver Training Materials:  NHTSA and the American Association of
Motor Vehicle Administrators will review current driver training
material relevant to crossing safety.  NHTSA, FHWA, FTA, FRA, and
possibly Operation Lifesaver will work together to select the best of
this material, develop new and updated material, if necessary, and
disseminate this material to the states.  Effort:  Education and law
enforcement; Status:  Ongoing. 

Demographics:  NHTSA will develop demographic data on those who die
in highway-rail crossing accidents and help arrange and conduct
"focus group" sessions in locales with high incident rates.  Effort: 
Education; Status:  Completed. 

Accident Severity:  NHTSA will investigate the cause of the trend
toward increasingly severe crossing accidents, as well as
countermeasures that might reverse the trend.  NHTSA will use both
their Fatal Accident Reporting System and FRA's Accident and
Inventory data bases.  Effort:  Engineering; Status:  Completed. 


      THREE PROPOSALS LED BY FTA
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.4

Light Rail Crossing Gates for Left Turn Lanes:  FTA will investigate
applying railroad crossing gates and "pop up" barriers at crossings
where motorists make left turns from streets running parallel to the
tracks.  Effort:  Engineering; Status:  Not started. 

Radar Actuation System for Light Rail Crossing Warning Devices:  FTA
will investigate the limitations of existing speed detection
equipment used for activating warning devices and evaluate the
feasibility of and possibly demonstrate a radar-based system. 
Effort:  Engineering; Status:  Not started. 

Light Rail Accident Statistics:  FTA will modify current safety data
reporting requirements to document light rail crossing accidents. 
Effort:  Education, law enforcement, and engineering; Status: 
Ongoing. 


      TWO JOINT FRA/FHWA-LED
      PROPOSALS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.5

Integrated Intermodal Transportation Planning:  FRA and FHWA will
sponsor a series of seven meetings to be attended by state DOT,
metropolitan planning organization, and railroad industry officials
to encourage cooperation.  These meetings will address issues of
mutual interest, including railroad crossings.  Effort:  Engineering;
Status:  Completed. 

Vegetation Clearance:  FRA will include a provision addressing the
need to maintain rail rights-of-way adjacent to crossings free of
sight-obstructing vegetation in its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on
track standards.  FHWA will explore ways through the SMSs to
encourage the states to clear vegetation on highway rights-of-way. 
Effort:  Engineering; Status:  Ongoing. 


      TWO JOINT FRA/NHTSA-LED
      PROPOSALS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:0.6

Police Officer Detail:  NHTSA will help identify a police officer for
a 1-year detail with FRA and Operation Lifesaver to reach out to the
law enforcement community.  Effort:  Law enforcement; Status: 
Ongoing. 

Outreach to Judiciary:  NHTSA will publish an article in the National
Traffic Law Center newsletter.  FRA will prepare crossing safety
material for the newsletter.  Traffic Law Center staff will use DOT
materials to answer questions from prosecutors and judges and provide
these officials with technical assistance as needed.  Effort:  Law
enforcement; Status:  Ongoing. 


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================== Appendix II

CHICAGO FIELD OFFICE

Joseph A.  Christoff
Robert M.  Ciszewski
Cynthia Hooten
Bonnie Pignatiello Leer
John Zarem
Francis M.  Zbylski

RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, WASHINGTON,
D.C. 

Stephen M.  Cleary
Barry T.  Hill

