Highway Grade Crossings

The starting point for the analysis is the determination of the socially optimal levels of due care for the railroad (RR) and the highway user (HU). For expositional simplicity the shorthand term railroad will be used to represent the whole cast of characters involved in the decision to provide warning devices. Of necessity the analysis will be very simple, and make some very broad and sweeping assumptions about collision probabilities, prevention costs, and the harm caused by collisions. 

Level of Care Cost of Care (C) Collision Probability Expected Collision Cost (C) Total Cost 

T = annual average daily highway traffic, P = proportion of traffic required to slow down 

Society s ultimate goal is to encourage that combination of care that minimizes total social cost in the final column of table 8.1. The lowest-cost combination will depend on the values taken by P and T. Table 8.2 shows the levels of due care that should be taken by the railroad and the highway user for different values of the levels of daily traffic, and the proportion of times that the highway user would have to slow down to exercise a higher level of care. 

The current level of care taken by road users can only be condoned at crossings which are used by less than 550 vehicles a day and which require more than two-thirds of the traffic to slow down to properly observe for a train. If the careful highway user had to slow every time they used these crossing, it would actually be in society s interest to encourage the motorist to speed across the railroad without checking because the time delays are more costly than the resultant reductions in 

---

In violation of a federal, state, or local law or regulation pertaining to railroad-highway grade crossings. 

The regulations contain the following penalty structure for drivers convicted of a railroad-highway grade crossing violation ... 

No convictions for a railroad-highway grade crossing offense while operating a CMV ( 383.51(d)) ... 

Is violating a railroad-highway grade crossing rule. 

Ford, G. and Matthews, A. (2002), Analysis of Australian Grade Crossing Accident Statistics, Paper Presented at the 7th International Symposium on Rail-Road Highway Grade Crossing Research and Safety, Melboirme Monash University. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2005), Railroad Safety U.S. Department of Transportation. 

Wigglesworth, E. C. A Human Factors Commentary on Innovations at Railroad-Highway Grade Crossings in Australia. Journal of Safety Research 32, no. 3 (2001) 309-321. 

Highway grade-crossing user casualty rates since the mass introduction of the motor vehicle in 1920 are shown in table 2.2. Relative to the number of train miles, casualty rates peaked in 1970, and have subsequently fallen substantially and are now under half of what they were in 1970. Given the massive expansion in automobile ownership, perhaps a more relevant measure of the changes in risk over time is the rate of casualties per million highway vehicles. The improvement in... 

Highway grade crossings were one of the hazards studied in Lichtenstein et al. s work. At that time these accidents claimed about 1,500 fatalities a year. The study s respondents judged that these accidents caused between 600-800 fatalities per year, or about half of the real death toll. Not only did the primary bias lead to an underestimation of risk, but downward secondary bias was present as well because most grade crossing fatalities occur in events where a single life is lost and do not receive extensive media attention. 

Table 8.1 Economic Model of a Highway Grade Crossing... 

Federal Highway Administration. (19%6). Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook. Second Edition. Report FHWA-TS-86-215. Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office. 

---