Traffic Signal Preemption at Intersections Near Highway–Rail Grade Crossings (2017)

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.

25 chapter six INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS This chapter presents common regulatory and organizational issues related to preemption and informa- tion on traffic signal management. For more information, refer to the Railroad-Highway Grade Cross- ing Handbook (Ogden 2007), which contains extensive information about the institutional aspects of highway–rail grade crossings, including history, safety, funding, responsibilities, and legal consider- ations; and Traffic Signal Management Plans, An Objectives- and Performance-Based Approach for Improving the Design, Operations, and Maintenance of Traffic Signal Systems (Fehon and O’Brien 2015). For guidance on prioritizing interconnection at signalized intersections near highway–rail grade crossings, refer to “A Decision Tree Model to Prioritize Signalized Intersections near Highway- Railroad Crossings for Railroad Interconnect” (Brennan et al. 2010). REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS As part of “Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Overview,” FRA identified that in 2015, there were 129,582 public crossings and 80,073 private crossings in the United States. Most jurisdictional aspects related to highway–rail grade crossings reside with the states. However, how responsibility is assigned varies widely from state to state. Within some states, the responsibility is divided between several pub- lic agencies. In others, jurisdiction over highway–rail grade crossings is assigned to a regulatory agency such as the public utility commission, public service commission, or state corporation commission. Still other states divide the authority among public administrative agencies of the state, county, city, or town, assigning jurisdiction based on the agency responsible for the highway. State and local law enforcement agencies are responsible for the enforcement of traffic laws at highway–rail grade cross- ings. In a number of cases, local governments are responsible for certain operational matters related to crossings, which is accomplished through various ordinances. U.S.DOT has published Compilation of State Laws and Regulations Affecting Highway-Rail Grade Crossings, 6th Edition (Office of Railroad Safety 2013). This sixth edition is a reference for researchers, engineers, students, and legal practitioners in the field of highway–rail grade crossings safety who are seeking state-specific laws and regulations affecting highway–rail grade crossings. The publication provides an overview of new and existing state laws and regulations as of February 2013. Each chapter presents a different highway–rail grade crossing subject area and contains an introduc- tory overview of the subject; chapter six covers active warning device crossings. State regulations vary widely from no specific requirements to extensive requirements. Federal requirements are contained in 49 CFR 234. These regulations largely apply to the rail- way, although they do affect the highway authority in preemption-related applications. The regula- tions largely cover maintenance, inspection, and testing. Section 234.261: Highway Traffic Signal Pre-emption states: “Highway traffic signal pre-emption interconnections, for which a railroad has maintenance responsibility, shall be tested at least once each month.” Section 234.259: Warning Time requires that each highway–rail grade crossing warning time system be tested for the prescribed MWT at least once every 12 months and whenever the warning time system is modified because of a change in speeds. Prescribed warning time is the railway’s design warning time less any buffer time and equip- ment response time. Prescribed warning time is never less than 20 seconds for normal operations. In October 2010, FRA’s Safety Advisory 2010-02 stated that “Railroads should not rely solely on the operation of a relay or the opening of a control circuit to the traffic signal control housing.

26 In fact, the preferred method of testing highway traffic signal pre-emption is by observation of a train movement and the actual pre-emption function. Therefore, FRA recommends that railroads conduct comprehensive joint inspections of the highway traffic signal pre-emption interconnection with state and local highway authorities.” FRA also suggests inspections be done whenever conditions change, but at least once per year. FRA 2010-02 also recommends the use of event recording devices at all new and improved crossings with preemption. In a February 2016 press release (FRA 04-16), the FRA called on state DOTs to verify that railway crossing warning systems interconnected to traffic signals function properly. The agency also urged states to add event recorders to traffic signals connected to railway crossing systems so information obtained during inspections can be used to improve safety. “Simply put: We strongly recommend that state and local transportation officials, together with railroad officials, visit crossings in their region and monitor and test crossing signals and adjacent traffic signals to ensure that the signals are synced and operating properly.” In October 2012, FHWA published Recording Devices for Interconnected Grade Crossing and Intersection Signal Systems: An Informational Report (Moriarty et al. 2012). It contains technical information to assist highway and railway agencies with integrating effective event-recording devices within interconnected/preempted highway–rail grade crossing signal systems. The report covers both railway and highway recording applications. SURVEY RESULTS OVERVIEW The synthesis survey, focusing on the breadth and depth of current practice, was emailed to agencies in 49 U.S. states, one United States territory, and three Canadian provinces. Between December 2015 and February 2016, responses were collected from 40 states and one of the three provinces, as well as four Canadian provinces not included in the original survey distribution, who later forwarded the survey from other respondents (reference Figure 1). (Hawaii was not included in the survey because the state has no operating freight or passenger railroads system). Forty-one (41) of the initial agencies queried provided feedback based on their operation of highway–rail grade crossings, which is summarized throughout the following sections. (Percentages for individual questions are based on the number of agencies responding, as not all agencies responded to all questions.) Topics included general practice, preemption timing practice, grade crossing opera- tions, design practice, maintenance practice, and monitoring activities. Appendix A contains a copy of the online survey, and Appendix B summarizes the responses that were received. Overall results from the survey indicate that there is a wide variation in practice. Three case examples at the end of this chapter focus largely on agencies with advanced or upgraded practices. GENERAL PRACTICE Fifty-one percent (51%) of agencies, 21 of 41 respondents, have their own written policy or guidelines on preemption. Several agencies without their own documentation use MUTCD (seven responses) or Transport Canada Standards (two responses). Other national guides used as policy proxies include the following: • Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook from FHWA (Ogden 2007) (two responses) • Guide for Determining Time Requirements for Traffic Signal Preemption at Highway Rail Grade Crossings (Texas Department of Transportation, TxDOT 2003) (two responses) • Preemption of Traffic Signals Near Railroad Crossings, A Recommended Practice of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (Institute of Transportation Engineers, ITE 2006) (one response). Thirty-eight percent (38%) of agencies, 15 of 39 respondents, have state highway–rail grade cross- ing action plans. Three agencies commented that their lack of an action plan is related to low crash rates. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of agencies (22 of 38 responses) have written procedures for contacting the railway agency regarding activities near grade crossings. Fifty percent (50%, 19 of 38 responses)

27 use contract maintenance, and 37% of those (seven of 19 responses) have specific procedures regard- ing coordination with the railway agency for contract maintenance staff. Thirty-nine percent (39%) of responding agencies, 15 of 39, have training for maintenance staff. Five respondents noted that training is the responsibility of the local agencies. UDOT has provided comprehensive guidance on railway preemption practices in Preempting Traffic Signals near Rail- road Crossings in Utah, A UDOT Manual. RAIL SYSTEMS PRACTICE Forty-seven percent (47%) of responding agencies (19 of 40) indicated a majority of existing cross- ings use constant warning time (CWT) systems or grade crossing predictors, with 33% unsure (13 of 40 responses). Sixty-four percent (64%, 25 of 39 responses) indicated that CWT systems or grade crossing predictors are used at new or upgraded locations. Two agencies noted that the rail agency makes the determination whether to use such systems based on technical issues. Fifteen percent (15%) of agencies, six of 40, use simultaneous preemption exclusively, with 77% (31 of 40 responses) using other types of preemption as well. Two agencies noted that only their older installations use simultaneous preemption, while new installations utilize advance preemption (two responses). For those agencies using simultaneous preemption exclusively, the maximum warning time that is requested varies between zero and 108 seconds. Although the warning time of 108 seconds is used on a high-speed rail system; for non-high-speed-rail crossings that agency uses a warning time of 66 seconds. Sixty-seven percent (67%) of respondents, 27 of 40, have advance preemption at existing locations. Comments from four agencies indicate that the use of advance preemption can range from nearly every crossing to only a few (four responses). Seventy-five percent (75%) of agencies (30 of 40 responses) are likely to use advance preemption at new locations. For those agencies using advance preemption, 71% (24 of 34 responses) have a standard proce- dure for calculating the advance preemption time. Ten (10) agencies stated that the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) procedure (currently being updated) is their standard (10 responses); in addition one agency noted procedures by AREMA, one agency referred to ITE, one to LADOT, and one to Transport Canada. Two agencies also noted general procedures that are based on field mea- surements and one the time needed to serve the critical movement at the intersection. Thirty-eight percent (38%) of agencies (15 of 40 responses) request additional rail outputs. Gate- down is requested most frequently (17 of 18 responses), with requests for supervised outputs (six of 18 responses). TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEMS PRACTICE Seventy-two percent (72%) of respondents, 29 of 40, preempt signals that are more than 200 feet from the crossing. Twelve (12) reported that they apply preemptive based on queuing characteristics at an intersection; for example, some of the agencies reported that if queues routinely exceed 200 feet, they will use preemption. Seventy percent (70%) of agencies (28 of 40 responses) have a standard practice for determining TCGI. Nine (9) agencies use the TxDOT procedure, one agency uses Greenshield’s formula, and one other reported using a procedure developed by LADOT. Three agencies reported the use of a general procedure based on field measurements (three responses) or time to serve the critical movement at the intersection (one response). Fifty-five percent (55%) of agencies (22 of 40 responses) time a minimum green interval before terminating a phase that is transitioning to the track clearance interval. According to seven respondents, minimum green values vary from one to seven seconds.

28 Seventy-five percent (75%) of agencies (24 of 32 responses) routinely truncate the pedestrian interval. Four agencies responded that they prefer to serve the entire pedestrian clearance interval, but will allow truncation on a case-by-case basis. Considerations include the number of pedestrians, walking speeds, effect on countdown displays, frequency of trains, and funding available to make changes (four responses). Sixty-seven percent (67%) of agencies (26 of 39 responses) cycle through non-conflicting move- ments during the preempt hold (“dwell”) intervals. Six agencies noted that they use multiple strate- gies (e.g., dwell on parallel arterial, flashing yellow on parallel arterial, flashing all-red, dwell in all-red), with operations depending on location characteristics such as geometry, train speed, and crash history. Of the surveyed agencies, 87% (34 of 39 responses) restrict conflicting turns across the track(s) during preemption through blank-out signs or exclusive phases. However, seven agencies noted that the application is location-specific, with storage distance for vehicles being a major factor. In one case, both exclusive phases and blank-out signs are used. Ninety percent (90%) of agencies (36 of 40 responses) either do not use smart recovery strategies or do not know if they do. Three noted that they were unsure of the meaning of “smart” recovery strategies versus being unsure if their agency uses any. Twenty percent (20%) of agencies (eight of 40 responses) use second-train-coming logic on new or upgraded systems. One type of second-train-coming event occurs when the time between two pre- empts is short; short times between events can cause problems if the traffic signal has inadequate time to respond to the second event. A second type of second-train-coming event occurs when the first pre- empt event is ending and the gates are rising, and a second preempt event starts the gates back down before the first preempt is complete; gates going up (incompletely) and down is difficult for drivers. Although 45% of agencies (18 of 40 responses) have situations with train stations near highway– rail grade crossings, 32% of agencies (seven of 22 responses) make special provisions for trains stopping at stations. One uses preemption time-out and preemption restart procedures, while two others keep the gates down. One agency reported having specific operating rules to address this issue. Twenty-seven percent (27%) of agencies (10 of 37 responses) report having light-rail-transit (LRT) preemption, and 31% of agencies (four of 13 responses) have written practices for LRT preemption. One agency responded it defers to the LRT agency or uses design plans in place of written policy. Sixty-seven percent (67%) of responding agencies (27 of 40) allow fire preemption at rail preemp- tion intersections. Seventy-one percent (71%, or 29 of 41) prioritize preempts, with 12% not priori- tizing (five of 41 responses) and 17% unsure if they prioritize (seven of 41 responses). Although 93% of agencies (27 of 29 responses) made the highest preempt for rail, two of the 29 had special cases of higher priority (e.g., bridge lift). INTERCONNECTION PRACTICE Fifty-five percent (55%) of agencies (22 of 40 responses) report using a simple two-wire preempt. Of those agencies, 18 of 31 (58%) reported using a normally closed circuit; three of 31 (10%) use a nor- mally open circuit, and 10 of the 31 (32%) reported being unsure. Those agencies using other types of circuits (i.e., beyond two-wire circuits) reported a variety of options including: • Three-wire (with braiding/shield on each conductor) (one response) • Four-wire (four responses) • Eight-wire (one response) • Ten-wire (one response) • 14-wire (one response) • Serial (one response).

29 Five of 39 respondents (13%) indicated that they use advanced train detection or railway inter- connection technology. Agencies that referenced to advanced technologies mentioned an incremental train control system (ITCS) (one response); DAX outputs from a CWT system (one response); rail- road preemption interface system (one response); monitor stations at select crossings (one response); and hardwired and radio connections (one response). DESIGN PRACTICE Seventy-five percent (75%) of respondents (30 of 40 responses) use battery back-up at new installations. Ninety-eight percent (98%), 40 of 41, use LED signal indications at new installations. Twenty-two (22) of 41 agencies (52%) use vehicle gates at all new or upgraded crossings. Issues considered when installing gates include train volumes (two responses), train speeds (two responses), sight distance and vehicle AADT (one response), funding (one response), intersection geometry (one response), and railway agency preference (two responses). Thirty-seven percent (37%), 15 of 41, have used pedestrian gates, but 11 reported that they use them at limited locations. Considerations for installation include the crossing’s proximity to schools (one response) and quiet zones (one response), as well as railway agency preference (two responses). Fifty percent (50%) of respondents (20 of 40) use pre-signals: Five agencies described their use as limited. Considerations for installation include crossing geometry (one response), storage distance (one response), and interaction with near-side signals at the intersection (one response). Thirty-four percent (34%) of agencies (14 of 41 responses) indicated they have used queue cut- ters, generally at a few locations (five responses). Considerations for installation include crossing geometry (one response), specifically if there is a long distance between the intersection and track (one response). Four-quadrant gates are used by 41% of responding agencies (17 of 41). Ten (10) agencies noted that they install them in quiet zones (10 responses). Other locations where agencies have installed four-quadrant gates include locations with safety issues (four responses), high-speed corridors (two responses), locations where traffic can easily go around two-quadrant gates (one response), and multi-lane roadways (one response). MAINTENANCE PRACTICE Seventy-four percent (74%) of agencies (28 of 38 responses) shop test cabinets and controllers before installing them in the field. Two agencies noted that preemption is tested under both normal circumstances and failure (two responses). Eighty-seven percent (87%, or 33 of 38 responses) restrict timing changes at interconnected traffic signals to pre-approved staff. Some agencies restrict changes for certain timing parameters. Restricted parameters may include preempt parameters (two responses), minimum green (one response), yellow clearance (two responses), red clearance (two responses), or pedestrian clearance (one response). Sixty-one percent (61%, 24 of 39 responses) perform routine inspections and/or maintenance of the preemption system. Two agencies indicated that maintenance is not their responsibility, either because it is the role of local agencies or because they are not the maintaining agency. Those that perform inspections and/or maintenance reported that the frequency varies between once per month to every five years. The most common frequency for inspections and maintenance is yearly (18 of 27 responses), with six agencies performing those tasks as part of other routine maintenance or on an as-needed basis. Eight percent (8%) of responding agencies, three of 38, coordinate with the railway agency’s monthly testing of preemption. For those agencies that do coordinate, three schedule their annual

30 inspection to coordinate with the railway agency’s monthly inspection (three responses). Two agen- cies indicated that testing is the responsibility of the local agencies (two responses). Thirty-seven percent (37%) of agencies (14 of 38 responses) periodically review crossings to determine the need for upgrading the railway warning time system or traffic signal system. Two agencies reported that considerations for upgrades include findings from inspections, complaints, crashes, and development reviews. Three agencies indicated that upgrade reviews are the responsi- bility of the maintaining agencies, but for those that complete reviews, the frequency varies between once per year and once every five years. Sixty percent (60%) of respondents, nine of 15 complete reviews on an as-needed/requested basis (i.e., no set schedule). MONITORING ACTIVITIES Six of 38 respondents (16%) record detailed railway warning type system events beyond a traffic signal controller preempt log. Types of monitoring include railway-interconnection or traffic sig- nal malfunctions (one response), remotely accessible video (one response), and voltage monitors (one response). Sixty-two percent (62%, 23 of 37 responses) compare design assumptions to actual operations in the field. Four of 37 agencies (11%) have research or demonstration projects. Two agencies commented that their projects are related to available circuit outputs (e.g., island circuit). TxDOT is also in the process of updating its highly used preemption form, in order to simplify and clarify some of the more challenging aspects (one response).