SnapJolt

A Summary of U.S. Activities

ITS Applications to Railroad Crossing Safety: A Summary of U.S. Activities

ITS Applications to Railroad Crossing Safety:

A Summary of U.S. Activities

by

Amy Polk Gribbon

Systems Engineer, Jet Propulsion Laboratory

525 School St., S.W., Suite 203, Washington, D.C. 20024

Tel: (202) 426-9250 | Fax: (202) 426-9355

e-mail: AGribbon@jpl.nasa.gov

Abstract

Introduction

Summary of US Activities

Conclusion

References

Contacts

ABSTRACT

Accidents at rail-highway grade crossings are an extremely serious problem throughout the United States. The most notorious railroad crossing accident in recent years occurred on October 25, 1995 when a Chicago & North Western commuter train crashed into a school bus in Fox River Grove, Illinois, killing seven high school students. ITS technology has the potential to improve safety at railroad crossings and help prevent accidents like the Fox River Grove crash in the future.

The federal government responded to the Fox River Grove incident in several ways. U.S. Transportation Secretary Federico Pena included railroad crossings as one of the eight components of an Intelligent Transportation Infrastructure which should be incorporated into the transportation systems of the 21st century. In the National Highway System bill of 1995 Congress required the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to conduct two demonstrations of ITS-railroad crossings technology. Congress earmarked $1.25 million to an ITS-railroad crossing project in the FY96 Transportation Appropriations bill. In May 1996, the ITS Joint Program Office of the U.S. Department of Transportation designated "Highway Rail Intersections" as the 30th ITS user service within the National ITS Program Plan.

Yet even before the Fox River Grove crash, the FRA, academia and several state departments of transportation were exploring the application of ITS to railroad crossing safety. This paper presents a summary of ITS-railroad crossing applications in the United States. Projects in California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, Texas, New York and Washington state are among those profiled. The paper concludes with recommendations on how these disparate activities can coordinate their efforts and take advantage of the lessons learned in each particular test.

INTRODUCTION

Prior to the Fox River Grove incident, the most prominent federal effort toward improving railroad-crossing safety was the publication of the Rail-Highway Crossing Safety Action Plan (1). The Federal Railroad Administration, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration co-authored the plan. The action plan contained 13 broad categories of recommendations to improve crossing safety. Technological innovation was one of those categories, showing that the U.S. Department of Transportation recognizes advanced technologies as one solution to the rail-highway grade crossing safety problem.

In response to the Fox River Grove crash in October 1995, U.S. Secretary of Transportation formed the Task Force of Highway-Rail Crossing Safety to examine factors which may have contributed to that crash and other factors which may have been overlooked while drafting the Action Plan. The Task Force heard testimony on the following issues: interconnected signals and storage space, high-profile (i.e. bumpy) crossings, light rail transit crossings, and special vehicle operations such as gasoline tankers. Inadequate coordination between the train detection sensor and the cross street's traffic signal ("interconnect" in railroad terminology), and irregular road geometry gave the 38-foot school bus little space or time to clear crossing, federal investigator John Goglia told a Chicago newspaper the day after the crash (2). The Task Force concluded that there is a lack of standards, coordination and communication on all these issues. The Task Force recommended that state DOT's provide needed coordination and communication and charged national transportation engineering organizations to set needed standards quickly (3). The National Transportation Safety Board's report on the crash (4), published in the spring of 1997, reached similar conclusions.

SUMMARY OF U.S. ACTIVITIES

Los Angeles Metro Blue Line

The Los Angeles Metro Blue Line began testing automatic enforcement of lowered gates running in 1993, making this agency the first in the country to implement this particular technology at railroad crossings. Metro has since expanded the Blue Line program to a number of separate projects designed to enhance public safety at the more than 100 crossings along this commuter rail line. The automatic enforcement equipment, which takes pictures of license plates of vehicles which drive around lowered gates, was provided by U.S. Public Technologies, Inc. The 1993 tests show that violations decreased 92% at monitored crossings (5). Metro is also engaged in the testing and development of four quadrant gates which help prevent motorists from getting stuck between two lowered gates, new methods of train detection such as Global Position Systems (GPS) and side-mounted radar, the RAILSENTRY system which uses radar to notify locomotive conductors that a vehicle is stuck on the tracks, and "second train" warning signs for pedestrians and motorists. Most accidents at Blue Line crossings are with second trains.

Vehicle Proximity Alert System (VPAS)

In 1994, the FRA tested three independently developed systems which detect the presence of an on-coming train and broadcast that information to a display inside specially-equipped vehicles. Testing took place at the American Association of Railroads test track in Pueblo, Colorado (6). Equipment provided by Smart Stops Unlimited, Inc. (formerly Engineered Safety Products) and Dynamic Vehicle Safety Systems (DVSS) were identified as the most promising technologies and were selected for a second phase of testing on a live track. FRA has located potential test sites in Oregon and North Carolina. Phase II testing is scheduled to begin in early 1998.

Long Island, New York

General Railway Signal (GRS), in a partnership with the New York State Department of Transportation, is developing several technologies which will provide better warnings of the presence of an on-coming train at and around railroad crossings. GRS is engaged in the testing and development of a system which will prevent gates from being lowered if the train has tripped a sensor but is stopped at a station upstream, variable message signs which will inform drivers that trains are approaching on which - of multiple - tracks, and systems which will inform locomotive conductors if a vehicle is stalled on the tracks (6). This $8 million project is being funded equally by public and private funds, including $1.25 million in Congressional ITS earmarking in the FY96 Transportation Appropriations bill. Once developed, the new crossing safety technologies will be tested on the Long Island Railroad.

Minnesota Guidestar

The Minnesota Department of Transportation, in partnership with 3M Corporation and Dynamic Vehicle Safety Systems (DVSS), are developing a system which will warn specially equipped vehicles of an on-coming train via an in-vehicle display. The system uses 3M's wireless vehicle and roadside communication antennas which can be built into the familiar crossbuck, "RXR" sign and front vehicle license plate. The trackside unit picks up a signal from the railroad's train detection electronics and transmits that signal to 3M's antenna-signs. The in-vehicle display, provided by DVSS, will alert drivers using both visual and audible signals (8). The system will be tested on school buses at five Twin Cities and Western Railroad crossings in Glencoe, Minnesota during the 1997/1998 school year. Minnesota Guidestar - Minnesota's statewide ITS program - is providing $150,000 in public sector funding. The private sector firms are funding the development of the equipment and donating use of the system components during the one-year test.

Positive Train Separation (PTS)

This project builds upon the Positive Train Separation test initiated by Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific railroads following a head-on collision between two trains belonging to each of the railroads. GPS receivers are installed on locomotives; their movements are tracked to keep the trains from running into each other (9). The Texas Transportation Institute is currently developing algorithms to integrate information about train locations and speeds into metropolitan area traffic management systems, thereby reducing delays for drivers - especially those of emergency vehicles - at railroad crossings. The PTS project runs throughout Washington state. The metro area test of traffic management algorithms will be conducted in Seattle.

Gary-Chicago-Milwaukee ITS Priority Corridor

On August 1996, the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) issued a Request for Proposals to provide in-vehicle warning system, similar to what is being developed by the FRA and Minnesota Guidestar. The in-vehicle warning displays will be installed in over 300 emergency vehicles, school buses and some passenger cars. The trackside equipment will be installed at six crossings along the Metra commuter rail line near Chicago. In May 1997, IDOT selected a team lead by Raytheon E-Systems and consisting of Cobra Electronics and Calspan SRL to supply both in-vehicle and trackside equipment. The system will be tested during the 1997/1998 school year (10). The one-year test is being funded as part of the Gary-Chicago-Milwaukee ITS Priority Corridor project.

Model Deployment Initiatives

A few months after the Fox River Grove crash, Secretary Pena announced the Model Deployment program - funding for a few metro areas to implement several integrated ITS elements quickly and become showcases for other cities to follow. The application of ITS technologies to railroad crossing safety was among nine core ITS elements to be integrated. In August 1996, the San Antonio, New York City, Phoenix and Seattle metropolitan areas were selected among 23 applicants. The railroad crossing component of each proposal is different for each city. In San Antonio, four trains will be equipped with monitors and an unspecified number of crossings will be equipped with infrared cameras. Wireless communications will enable the train operator to see obstacles - such as stopped vehicles - in the crossing well in advance and bring the train to a stop accordingly. The total cost for this component of the San Antonio proposal is $600,000, with $290,000 provided by the Texas Department of Transportation, $290,000 by the USDOT and $20,000 by Union Pacific Railroad (11). The New York proposal does not request funding for new ITS-railroad crossing projects, but states that the Model Deployment initiative will coordinate with two existing projects: the Long Island Railroad project (described above) and a crossing video surveillance project similar to San Antonio's (12). Like New York, Phoenix will coordinate their Model Deployment efforts with two existing projects: a test of video surveillance at crossings and including data from railroad interconnects between crossings and traffic signals in information distributed to motorists (13). The Seattle initiative will use some form of detection, still to be selected, to determine when a train is blocking the crossing. The status of the blocked crossing will be included in the information given out through a motorist information telephone (14).

Other Initiatives

Research into how information about train locations and speed can be integrated into metropolitan traffic management systems is also being conducted in Houston, as part of the Houston ITS Priority Corridor project. Like the Metro Blue Line in Los Angeles and General Railway Signal in New York, Oregon State University (OSU) is currently investigating technologies which will provide better warning of the presence of an on-coming train at and around railroad crossings along the Oregon High Speed Rail Corridor. OSU is examining automatic enforcement of lowered-gate running, four quadrant gates which help prevent motorists from getting stuck between two lowered gates, and variable message warning signs.

In June 1995, as part of its Innovations Deserving Exploratory Analysis (IDEA) program, the Transportation Research Board solicited proposals for the development of new technologies which will detect the presence and speed of on-coming trains, warn locomotive conductors that a vehicle is stopped on the tracks, warn drivers of the presence of an on-coming train via an in-vehicle display and "out-vehicle warning systems". These technologies will provide better warning of the presence of an on-coming train at and around railroad crossings. Seven proposals were selected from twelve submitted. Responses to a new round of solicitations are due at the end of March 1997 (15).

CONCLUSION

Railroad crossing safety is a young and relatively disorganized application area of ITS. The people involved in similar projects are just beginning to learn of each other so that they can take advantage of one another's mistakes and successes. In June this past year, the Federal Railroad Administration and ITS America jointly sponsored a technical symposium on ITS and their applications for railroad operations. Organized by the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, the symposium was attended by railroads, state DOT's, universities, other divisions of the federal government, and national not-profit organizations such as the American Association of Railroads and Operation Lifesaver. The meeting took a large step in making the ITS industry aware of railroads' needs and the railroad industry aware of the capabilities of ITS technologies. Subsequent meetings and similar endeavors will fulfill the needed role of national coordination of ITS-railroad crossing activities.

REFERENCES

1. Rail-Highway Crossing Safety Action Plan Support Proposals, (U.S. Department of Transportation: Washington, D.C., June 13, 1995), p. 20.

2. Washburn, Gary, et. al, "U.S. 14 Widening Created A Squeeze Too Tight For Bus", Chicago Tribune, October 27, 1995, pp. A1-A8.

3. Accidents that Shouldn't Happen: A Report by the U.S.DOT Task Force on Highway-Rail Crossing Safety to U.S. Transportation Secretary Federico Pena, (U.S. Department of Transportation: Washington, D.C., March 1996), pp. 17-31.

4. Highway/Railroad Accident Report: Collision of Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation (METRA) Train and Transportation Joint Agreement School District 47/155 School Bus at Railroad/Highway Grade Crossing in Fox River Grove, Illinois, on October 25, 1995, (National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, D.C., 1997), p 56.

5. "Photo Enforcement Proves Very Effective", Urban Transportation Monitor, March 9, No. 5, March 17, 1995, pp. 1-7.

6. Report on the Evaluation of Engineered Safety Products' VPAS System, (Volpe National Transportation Systems Center: Cambridge, MA, November 16, 1995).

7. Research and Development Project for the Application of An Advanced Communications-Based Control System at Highway-Rail Interfaces, (New York State Department of Transportation: Albany, NY, 1995).

8. "Mn/DOT, Private Firms Seek to Test HRI Warning System", Inside ITS, July 15, 1996.

9. Fact Sheet 17 Advanced Highway-Rail Crossing Warning Systems, (ITS America: Washington, D.C., 1995)

10. "Raytheon will test Cobra Warning System on Illinois Railroad", Inside ITS, June 2, 1997, pp. 2-6.

11. TransGuide Technology in Motion: ITS Model Deployment Initiative Proposal, (Texas Department of Transportation: San Antonio, TX, April 1996), pp. 47-49.

12. The New York, New Jersey, Connecticut Region's Model Deployment of Intelligent Transportation Infrastructure, (New York State Department of Transportation: Albany, NY, April 20, 1996).

13. AZTech Model Deployment Initiative for the Phoenix Metropolitan Area, (Arizona Department of Transportation: Phoenix, AZ, April 30, 1996), p. 28.

14. Application for Participation in the Intelligent Transportation Systems Model Deployment Initiative, (Washington State Department of Transportation: Seattle, WA, April 25, 1997), p. 21.

15. Request for Proposals on Advanced Rail Technologies, (Transportation Research Board: Washington, D.C., June 1995).

CONTACTS

Los Angeles Metro Blue Line

Jim Curry PB Farradyne 707 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2900 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Tel: (213) 362-8377 Fax: (213) 362-3106
Linda Meadow Los Angeles County MTA One Gateway Plaza P.O. Box 194 Los Angeles, CA 90053 Tel: (213) 922-7276
Dana King U.S. Public Technologies 10455 Sorrento Valley Rd Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92121 Tel: (619) 558-8778 ext. 145 Fax: (619) 558-8817

Gary-Chicago-Milwaukee ITS Priority Corridor

Chuck Sikeras Illinois DOT 120 W. Center Ct. Shaumburg, IL 60195 Tel: (847) 705-4800 Fax: (847) 705) 4803

Vehicle Proximity Alert System (VPAS)

Jim Smailes Federal Railroad Administration 400 Seventh St., N.W. Room 5106 RDV-11 Washington, DC 20590 Tel: (202) 366-0464 Fax: (202) 366-7150
John Hitz Volpe National Transportation Systems Center 55 Broadway Cambridge, MA 02142 Tel: (617) 494-2400 Fax: (617) 494-3066
John Ferrari Smart Stops Unlimited Corp. 8448 W. Union Ave. Suite 24 Littleton, CO 80123 Tel: (303) 973-9828
Jack Erick Dynamic Vehicle Safety Systems 205 S. Parker Amarillo, TX 79106 Tel: (806) 371-8264

Oregon State University

Chris Bell Transportation Institute Oregon State University 100 Merryfield Hall Corvallis, OR 97331-4304 Tel: (503) 737-4273 Fax: (503) 737-3462

Long Island, New York

Jeffrey English New York State DOT 1220 Washington Ave. Albany, NY 12232 Tel: (518) 457-5521 Fax: (518) 457-3183
Randy Hubler General Railway Signal 150 Sawgrass Drive P.O. Box 20600 Rochester, NY 14602-0600 Tel: (716) 783-2177 Fax: (716) 783-2070

Minnesota Guidestar

Lynn Ihlenfeldt 3M Corporation 3M Center Bldg. 235-2N-12 St. Paul, MN 55144-1000 Tel: (612) 736-0366 Fax: (612) 736-8258
Jack Erick Dynamic Vehicle Safety Systems 205 S. Parker Amarillo, TX 79106 Tel: (806) 371-8264

Positive Train Separation (PTS)

Steve Roop/ Rick Bartowskewitz Texas Transportation Institute Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843 Tel: (409) 862-2854 Fax: (409) 862-2708

Model Deployment Initiative

Pat Irwin Texas DOT P.O. Box 29928 San Antonio, TX 78284 Tel: (210) 731-5249
Thomas Werner New York State DOT 1220 Washington Ave. Albany, NY 12232 Tel: (518) 457-0271
Dan Powell Arizona DOT 2140 West Hilton Phoenix, AZ 85009 Tel: (602) 255-7109
Pete Briglia Washington State DOT 1107 N.E. 45th Street Suite 535, MS JD-10 Seattle, WA 98105-4631 Tel: (206) 543-3331 Fax: (206) 685-0767

Transportation Research Board

Keith Gates Transportation Research Board 2101 Constitution Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20418 Tel: (202) 334-3568 Fax: (202) 334-3471

ITS America

Rob Puentes ITS America 400 Virginia Ave., S.W. Suite 800 Washington, DC 20024-2730 Tel: (202) 484-4663 Fax: (202) 484-3483

ncG1vNJzZmimpKG%2FprzOrKCtp6Kue6O4zptlnKeimnu4tc2dprCrXqOytXvLoplooqCksbCv0mipnqikqKy1sY5qb29uXp3Brg%3D%3D

Delta Gatti

Update: 2024-05-06