1 / 60

Highway-Rail Grade Crossings

Highway-Rail Grade Crossings. May 21, 2008 MTC Seminar on Rail Crossings Kevin Schumacher Rail Crossings Engineering Section California Public Utilities Commission. The Conflict. CA Railroad Crossing Incidents. 2003 through 2007 Averages: 155 incidents/year 33 fatalities/year

kamea
Download Presentation

Highway-Rail Grade Crossings

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Highway-Rail Grade Crossings May 21, 2008 MTC Seminar on Rail Crossings Kevin Schumacher Rail Crossings Engineering Section California Public Utilities Commission

  2. The Conflict

  3. CA Railroad Crossing Incidents 2003 through 2007 Averages: 155 incidents/year 33 fatalities/year 57 injuries/year Approx. 1 fatality and 2 injuries for every 5 incidents Potential for catastrophic consequences

  4. How to Address • Closure or grade separation eliminates the hazard • Public Education and Law Enforcement • Particularly effective to address pedestrian safety • Engineering: Roadway geometry, traffic control devices, etc.

  5. CPUC Role: Overview • Railroad Operations Safety • Railroad track, signaling, Haz. Mat., etc. • Works closely with Federal Railroad Administration • Rail Transit Safety • Includes BART, SF MUNI, Santa Clara VTA, etc. • Rail Crossings • Crossing project review and authorization • CEQA project review

  6. CPUC Role: Rail Crossings • CPUC authorization required for: • Change in type of warning devices at public crossings • Road Modifications (widening, striping, sidewalks) • New crossings (at-grade and grade-separations) • Change in number of tracks • Authorization process • GO 88-B: Staff authorization of modifications • Formal Commission authorization

  7. CPUC General Orders • CPUC establishes General Orders specifying rules and regulations: • GO 26-D: Minimum Clearances • GO 72-B: Crossing Surface Maintenance • GO 75-D: Standard Warning Devices • GO 88-B: Modification of Rail Crossings • GO 135: Blocked Crossings • GO 145: Crossings Exempt from Stop Req’s

  8. Grade Crossing Safety Improvement Program (Section 130) • Funds safety improvements to identified hazardous public at-grade railroad crossings • Funds all construction related costs • In some cases may fund preliminary engineering • Statewide priority list

  9. Quiet Zones CPUC Role in establishing a train horn ban: • Approval required for modifications of crossings (“Supplementary” or “Alternative” Safety Measures) • Diagnostic Review at all crossings in corridor • Pedestrian-only and private crossings must be treated in accordance with the diagnostic team findings.

  10. Diagnostic Review • Field review of crossing and proposed modifications • Knowledgeable representatives of parties of interest • Roadway Agency, Railroad, and CPUC • Evaluates conditions at crossing to make determinations or recommendations concerning safety needs

  11. Design Elements

  12. Signs and Markings • Railroad or transit agency physically maintains the CPUC Standard warning devices (e.g. Crossbuck, Flashers, Gates) • Maintenance costs often shared by public agency • Local agency / Roadway Authority: All other signs, markings and traffic signals are placed and maintained by the roadway authority

  13. Crossbuck

  14. Placement of Crossbuck • Minimum standard warning device on each crossing approach • “Passive” device (not train activated) • Motorists must “Yield” to trains • Sight lines to approaching trains must be considered carefully

  15. Retro-reflective Standard 1 (old) Standard 1-R (retroreflective)

  16. FHWA Proposed Change: STOP or YIELD signs

  17. Private Crossing Sign

  18. Flashers (Standard 8 / 8-A)

  19. Flashers (Standard 8)

  20. Placement of Flashers • Equivalent to STOP sign when activated – driver may proceed if safe • Sufficient sight distances necessary • Might consider where trailer trucks present gate maintenance problems • Can provide additional pedestrian warning

  21. Gates (Standard 9)

  22. Gates (Standard 9-A)

  23. Placement of Gates • Generally placed where trains travel at greater speeds and/or frequency • May increase visibility of the warning devices • Legally prohibits motorists from proceeding

  24. Standard Warning Devices • Equivalent interpretation • Crossbuck = YIELD sign • Activated Flashers = STOP sign • Activated Gates = Solid Red Traffic Signal • If sight lines to an approaching train are insufficient, automatic gates are needed

  25. Urban Concerns • Queuing • Gate Drive Around • Pedestrians

  26. Queuing

  27. Field vs. Office • Railroad crossing queues are best observed in the field • Traffic simulation and modeling can be misleading in the vicinity of crossings • Queues that build up during the passage of one train may not dissipate prior to arrival of a second train

  28. Clear Storage Distance

  29. Addressing Queuing • Traffic signals • Pre-signals / Queue Cutter • DO NOT STOP ON TRACKS sign • Hatch / KEEP CLEAR markings • Temporary Traffic Control Zones • Relocate the sources of queuing (driveway, bus stop, etc.)

  30. Signalization of Intersections Near Crossings • Roadway intersections near crossings present special condition where traffic signals should be considered • Particular concern where STOP sign requires vehicles to queue or stop on track • Installation of traffic signal may be the best solution to clear motorists from the rail crossing • FHWA has proposed Warrant 9

  31. Traffic Signals Near Crossing • Railroad preemption generally provided if queuing extends to the rail crossing • May be necessary even if > 200 feet away • “Track clearance green” moves vehicles off tracks. Appropriate duration must be determined by the local agency. • Consider pedestrian clearance • Should prohibit movements toward track during railroad preemption • Avoid all-red-flash

  32. DO NOT STOP ON TRACKS Signs • Should be placed when engineering judgment determines that potential for vehicle stopping on the tracks is high • Can be placed on curb and median (or both), near or far side of track (or both)

  33. KEEP CLEAR / Cross-Hatch

  34. Pre-Signal and Hatch Markings

  35. Other Queuing Concerns • Driveways • Parallel Parking • Loading • Pedestrian traffic • Another railroad crossing • Construction Zone • Bus Stop

  36. Temporary Traffic Control • Construction zones near crossing must avoid queuing on the track • Flagger may be required • MUTCD Figure 6H-46 • GO 72-B

  37. Bus Stops

  38. Urban Concerns • Queuing • Gate Drive Around • Pedestrians

  39. Gate Drive-around

  40. Medians • Often placed with gates to provide “gated & channelized” design • Discourages gate drive-around violations • Inexpensive compared to additional warning devices (such as exit gates) • Recommended min. 100-foot length • May allow median warning devices

  41. Raised Median

  42. Median Delineators

  43. Left-turn past gate arm

  44. Exit Gates (Standard 9-E)

  45. Exit Gates

  46. Turn Restrictions During Preemption

  47. Urban Concerns • Queuing • Gate Drive Around • Pedestrians

  48. Pedestrians

  49. Pedestrian Crossings • Pedestrians will take most direct route • Need to channelize (fencing, barriers) • Consider additional warning devices in “off-quadrant” • Audible warning is essential • ADA requirements • Pedestrian crossing incidents often involve a second train

  50. Gated & Channelized • Pedestrian gates across pathway • Swing gates for emergency exit • Fencing for channelizing pedestrians to safe crossing location • Alternative: Combination of swing gates and flashers

More Related