National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Summary
Page 3
Suggested Citation:"Chapter One - Introduction ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Traffic Signal Preemption at Intersections Near Highway–Rail Grade Crossings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24769.
×
Page 3
Page 4
Suggested Citation:"Chapter One - Introduction ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Traffic Signal Preemption at Intersections Near Highway–Rail Grade Crossings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24769.
×
Page 4
Page 5
Suggested Citation:"Chapter One - Introduction ." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Traffic Signal Preemption at Intersections Near Highway–Rail Grade Crossings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24769.
×
Page 5

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

3 BACKGROUND Highway–rail grade crossings near signalized intersections came to the public’s attention on Octo- ber 25, 1995, when a school bus transporting high school students was hit by a METRA commuter train traveling inbound to Chicago. The 1995 Fox River Grove crash, in which seven students were killed, continues to be cited by the NTSB when investigating subsequent crashes. In its investigation, the NTSB identified the following safety issues related to preemption of traffic signals: “the railroad/ highway signal interaction; the coordination and communication between the Illinois Department of Transportation and the Union Pacific Railroad Company, and their oversight of the signal system inte- gration” (Report PB96-916202 NTSB/HAR-96/02 1996). In 1995, U.S.DOT formed the Grade Crossing Safety Task Force, which focused on (among other issues) traffic signal operations near highway–rail grade crossings located adjacent to signalized inter- sections. The task force identified five safety-related problem areas (Korve 1999): interconnected traffic signals; vehicle storage space; high-profile crossings; light rail crossings; and special vehicle crossings. A major finding concerned ineffective communication between multiple parties that use and are responsible for highway–rail grade crossings. After investigating the 1995 crash, NTSB recommended that the U.S. Secretary of Transportation develop a comprehensive and periodic highway–rail grade crossing safety inspection program to be conducted jointly by railway agencies and public entities; the program would require that railway agencies and public entities coordinate changes to highway–rail grade crossings before implementation. FRA later released statements addressing NTSB recommendations for railway and highway inter- actions at grade crossings. On October 1, 2010, FRA issued Safety Advisory 2010-02 to address recommendations I-96-10 and I-96-11. The FRA safety advisory recommends that states, local highway authorities, and rail- way agencies install, maintain, and upgrade railway and highway traffic signal recording devices at highway–rail grade crossings equipped with active warning systems that are interconnected with highway traffic signal systems. The safety advisory also recommends that agencies perform compre- hensive, periodic, joint inspections of highway traffic signal preemption interconnections, including a review of information obtained from any signal recording devices. On February 17, 2016, FRA Press Release 04-16 called on state departments of transportation (DOTs) to verify that railway crossing warning systems interconnected to traffic signals function properly. The FRA once again urged states to add event recorders to traffic signals connected to railway crossing warning systems so information could be used during inspections to improve safety. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Although a list of references is provided later in this report, the following is a summary of literature relevant to traffic signal preemption at intersections near highway–rail grade crossings. NCHRP Synthesis 271: Traffic Signal Operations Near Highway-Rail Grade Crossings (Korve 1999) summarizes the literature before 1999; the synthesis largely focuses on the interconnection chapter one INTRODUCTION

4 between the railway and highway systems, and the design, operation, and maintenance of the traffic sig- nal system. Ogden (2007) provided an overview of all aspects of grade crossing practice in the revised second edition of the Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook. Current recommended practice is provided by ITE in Preemption of Traffic Signals Near Railroad Crossings, which is in the pro- cess of being updated. The American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) annually publishes an updated Communications & Signals Manual, which describes current railway practice regarding preemption. Several documents contain guidance specific to the design aspects of preemption. Alroth et al. (1999) set forth some design criteria for the use of pre-signals. Venglar et al. (2000) developed a com- prehensive guide for railway preemption issues. Mansel et al. (1999) discussed various approaches to supervised circuits to improve the safety of highway–rail interconnection. Campbell et al. (2015) discussed how supervision improves interconnect circuits. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) developed a data standard, IEEE 1570-2002, for the interconnection of the railway and highway control systems. IEEE 1570-2002 does not define what should be exchanged or how the data should be used, only the data standard in anticipation of further improvements to the interface. A number of documents address operational aspects of preemption. The “preempt trap” (discussed in chapter two: Advance Preemption) was an issue identified in Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) Report 1752-9 (Englebrecht et al. 2002), which demonstrated the benefits of two-preempt strategies using advance preemption with gate-down confirmation (discussed in chapter four, Addressing the Preempt Trap). Additional research on the topic was conducted by Yohe and Urbanik (2007) and Sun et al. (2008). Seyfried (2001) provided advice on timing parameters for preemption. In 2003, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) developed a comprehensive Guide for Determining Time Requirements for Traffic Signal Preemption at Highway Rail Grade Crossings, which is widely used. Moriarty et al. (2012) provided information on recording devices for monitoring the inter- connection between the railway and highway control systems. Moore et al. (2015) demonstrated the benefit of monitoring multiple railway outputs, including the island circuit, to understand actual train operations when preemption is activated by the railway warning system (see the Portland, Oregon, case example in chapter seven). Brennan et al. (2010) studied actual preemption performance and the benefits of recording actual operations. Yeh and Multer (2008) provided updated information on driver behavior at grade crossings that affects operations. Recovery strategies from preemption are discussed by Bullock et al. (1998). Schulz and Smadi (1998) and Lin et al. (2014) used simulation to conceptually demonstrate applications of better data and communication to improve grade crossing operation. Fehon and O’Brien (2015) provide guidance on an objectives-and-performance-based approach to traffic signals in Traffic Signal Management Plans, An Objectives- and Performance-Based Approach for Improving the Design, Operations, and Maintenance of Traffic Signal Systems. NCHRP Report 812: Signal Timing Manual, Second Edition also uses an outcome-based approach in its description of preemp- tion (Urbanik et al. 2015); some of the concepts presented in the manual are included in this synthesis. A number of states have developed manuals of various levels of detail. States with comprehensive guidance include Texas (Rail-Highway Operations Manual 2015) and Utah (Preempting Traffic Sig- nals near Railroad Crossings in Utah, A UDOT Manual 2015). Ohio has guidance included in several related manuals, including the Traffic Engineering Manual (TEM) (2016) and the Ohio Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2012 Edition. REPORT ORGANIZATION The synthesis begins with several chapters that provide background information on each piece of the highway–rail grade crossing system. Current practice is discussed in the following chapter, includ- ing information from the agency surveys and case examples. The synthesis ends with a description of lessons learned and conclusions about operating highway–rail grade crossings. References and appendices with more detailed information from the agency surveys are provided after the conclusion.

5 The synthesis is organized into the following chapters: Chapter one: Introduction provides some historical context for the synthesis and an overview of the literature review performed. Chapter two: Overview of the Highway–Rail Grade Crossing System describes current practices and types of railway-grade crossing management, including the concept of preemption; and explains the ways different railway-grade crossing systems can operate. Chapter three: Rail Systems describes how the railway warning time system can provide preempt outputs to the traffic signal. Chapter four: Traffic Signal Systems focuses on how traffic signals near highway–rail grade crossings use railway outputs to clear vehicles from the track(s). Chapter five: Interconnection describes how the railway system communicates with the highway traffic system. Chapter six: Institutional Aspects identifies common regulatory and institutional issues related to preemption practices. Chapter seven: Case Examples summarize in-depth studies of current practice in Portland, Oregon, and the states of Ohio and California. Chapter eight: Conclusions and Suggestions for Further Research summarizes gaps in practice identified through this synthesis report and recommends areas of future research.

Next: Chapter Two - Overview of the Highway Rail Grade Crossing System »
Traffic Signal Preemption at Intersections Near Highway–Rail Grade Crossings Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB's National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Synthesis 507: Traffic Signal Preemption at Intersections Near Highway–Rail Grade Crossings documents the current practices of traffic signal preemption deployed at intersections adjacent to railway grade crossing in both the United States and Canada. The study provides information on practices dealing with traffic signal preemption, maintenance, funding, and operations.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!