National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Chapter 6 - Conclusions and Recommendations
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Prioritization Procedure for Proposed Road–Rail Grade Separation Projects Along Specific Rail Corridors. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25460.
×
Page 44
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Prioritization Procedure for Proposed Road–Rail Grade Separation Projects Along Specific Rail Corridors. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25460.
×
Page 45

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.

44 References AARP. 2005. Beyond 50.05: A Report to the Nation on Livable Communi- ties: Creating Environments for Successful Aging. Washington, D.C. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2010a. Highway Safety Manual. Washington, D.C. AASHTO. 2010b. The Road to Livability: How State Departments of Transportation Are Using Road Investments to Improve Community Livability. http://www.infrastructureusa.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2010/04/aashto-road-to-livability.pdf. American Institute of Architects. 2005. Livability 101: What Makes a Community Livable? Washington, D.C. Aoun, R. Ben, E. El Koursi, and E. Lemaire. 2010. The Cost–Benefit Analysis of Level Crossing Safety Measures. 12th International Conference on Computer System Design and Operation in Rail- ways and Other Transit Systems. doi: 10.2495/CR100. Chadwick, S. G., M. R. Saat, C. T. Dick, and C. P. L. Barkan. 2013. Decreasing Derailment Occurrence and Severity at Highway–Rail Grade Crossings. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. http://railtec.illinois.edu/articles/Files/Conference%20Proceedings/ 2013/Chadwick-et-al-2013-AREMA-final.pdf. Cronin, B., Mortensen, S., and Thompson, D. 2018. Integrated Corridor Management. U.S. Department of Transportation. Dodgson, J. S. 1984. Benefit–Cost Analysis and the Construction and Financing of Rail/Highway Grade Separations. Transpor- tation Research Part A: General 18 (5–6): 367–77. doi: 10.1016/ 0191-2607(84)90012-8. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of Trans- portation (USDOT). 2018. Safety web page. https://safety.fhwa.dot. gov/hsip/xings/. Accessed 2/22/2018. FHWA, USDOT. 2013. Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: 2013 Conditions and Performance. FHWA, USDOT. 2011a. The Role of FHWA Programs in Livability: State of the Practice Summary. March 21. FHWA, USDOT. 2011b. Highway Finance Data Collection: Our Nation’s Highways: 2011. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/ pubs/hf/pl11028/chapter1.cfm#fig15 . Accessed October 7, 2016. FHWA, USDOT. 2007. Railroad–Highway Grade Crossing Handbook. 2007. FHWA, USDOT. 2004. Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: 2004 Conditions and Performance. https://www.fhwa.dot. gov/policy/2004cpr/chap19.cfm. Accessed April 4, 2017. Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). 2018. Highway–Rail Grade Crossings Overview. https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0156. Accessed February 23, 2018. FRA. 2016. Office of Safety Analysis. http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/ OfficeofSafety/Default.aspx. June 16, 2016. Updated January 11, 2019. FRA. 2009. Research Results. RR 09-12. July. FRA. 2006. Impact of Blocked Highway/Rail Grade Crossings on Emer- gency Response Services. August. p. 15. Hakkert, A. S., and V. Gitelman. Development of Evaluation Tools for Road-Rail Crossing Consideration for Grade Separation. Transpor- tation Research Record, No. 1605, 1998, pp. 96–105. Harwood, D. W., E. R. Rabbani, K. R. Richard, H. McGee, and G. Gittings. 2003. NCHRP Report 486: Systemwide Impact of Safety and Traffic Operations Design Decisions for 3R Projects. Transporta- tion Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_486_full.pdf. Illinois Commerce Commission, Research and Analysis Section, Trans- portation Division. 2002. Motorist Delay at Public Highway–Rail Grade Crossings in Northeastern Illinois. Working Paper 2002-03. July. https://www.cmap.illinois.gov/documents/10180/29236/ 021114rrdelay1.pdf. InfraConsult. 2012. Grade Separation Priority Update Study for Alameda Corridor East (Riverside County). Riverside County Transportation Commission, March. Liu, X., M. Saat, and C. Barkan. 2017. Freight-Train Derailment Rates for Railroad Safety and Risk Analysis. Revised 11 October. Accident Analysis and Prevention 98:1–9, January. 2017. Pg. 2. McGurty, J. and L. Adler. Mathew, J., R. F. Benekohal, and J. C. Medina. 2017. Nested Sorting and Clustering for Visualization of Accidents in Highway–Rail Grade Crossings. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transpor- tation Research Board, No. 2608, pp. 46–57. Mathew, J., J. C. Medina, and R.F. Benekohal. 2015. Accident Prediction Models Using Micro and Macro Scale Analysis, 9 Month Progress Report. University of Minnesota, Road Safety Institute. Minneapolis. Medina, J. C., and R. F. Benekohal. 2015. Macroscopic Models for Acci- dent Prediction at Railroad Grade Crossings: Comparisons with U.S. Department of Transportation Accident Prediction Formula. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2476, pp. 85–93. Medina, J. C., S. Shen, and R. F. Benekohal. 2016. Micro and Macro Level Safety Analysis at Railroad Grade Crossings. https://rosap. ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/30849. Minnesota Department of Transportation (DOT). 2014. Report on the Improvements to Highway-Rail Grade Crossings and Rail Safety, December 2014. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/govrel/reports/2014/

45 CBRCrossingStudy-December2014/ReportonHwy-RailXingsand RailSafety-2014.pdf. Minnesota DOT. 2012. Integrated Corridor Management: A Review on the Theory and Practice. Transportation Research Synthesis 1210, pp. 1–9. National Fire Protection Association. 2010. Standard for the Organi- zation and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emer- gency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments. Quincy, Mass. Nichelson, Jr., G. Rex, and G. L. Reed. 1999. Grade Separations: When Do We Separate? Texas Transportation Institute, College Station. https://static.tti.tamu.edu/tti.tamu.edu/documents/ TTI-1999-12.pdf. Notice of Funding Opportunity for the Department of Transportation’s Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects (INFRA Grants) for Fiscal Years 2017 and 2018. Docket DOT–OST–2017–0090. Federal Register, Vol. 82, No. 127, July 5, 2017a. pp. 31135–31151. Notice of Funding Opportunity for the Department of Transporta- tion’s National Infrastructure Investments Under the Consoli- dated Appropriations Act, 2017. Federal Register, Vol. 82, No. 172. September 7, 2017b. pp. 42426–42436. Peel Regional Council. 2014a. Improvements to At-Grade Rail Crossings: Prioritizing Crossings for Grade Separation. Recommendations report. Spring. https://www.peelregion.ca/pw/transportation/ goodsmovement/art/At-grade-Rail-Crossings.pdf. Peel Regional Council. 2014b. “Improvements to At Grade Rail Cross- ings: Prioritizing Crossings for Grade Separation.” November. doi:10.1002/ejoc.201200111. Roper, B. A., and D. M. Keltner. 1999. User Benefits of Railroad Grade Separation in A Small Community: Practical Techniques for Apply- ing MICROBENCOST. 6thNational Conference on Transportation Planning for Small and Medium Sized Communities. doi: 10.1017/ CBO9781107415324.004. RSSB. 2010. Research Brief: Documenting the All Level Crossing Risk Model. T737. October. https://www.rssb.co.uk/library/research- development-and-innovation/research-brief-T737.pdf. Saccomanno, F. F., L. Fu and Luis Miranda. 2004. Risk-Based Model for Identifying Highway–Rail Grade Crossing Blackspots. Transporta- tion Research Record, No. 1862, pp. 127–135. Saint Louis Regional Freightway. 2016. Freight Development Project List. Draft. http://www.thefreightway.com/wp-content/uploads/ 2016/04/Freightway_DevelopmentPlan.pdf. Screening Tools for Considering Grade Separation at Rail-Highway Crossings. 2006. Journal of Transportation Engineering. Vol. 132, No. 1.1. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245306867_ Screening_Tools_for_Considering_Grade_Separation_at_Rail- Highway_Crossings. Smith, S. A. 1999. NCHRP Report 435: Guidebook for Transportation Corridor Studies: A Process for Effective Decision-Making. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. Taggart, R. C., P. Lauria, G. Groat, C. Rees, and A. Brick-Turin. 1987. NCHRP Report 288: Evaluating Grade-Separated Rail and Highway Crossing Alternatives. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. Taylor, J., and R. Crawford. 2009. Prioritising Road–Rail Level Cross- ings for Grade Separation Using a Multicriteria Approach. http:// atrf.info/papers/2009/2009_Taylor_Crawford.pdf. U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). Infrastructure For Rebuilding America. USDOT Build America Bureau, Washing- ton D.C. 2018. https://www.transportation.gov/buildamerica/ infragrants. USDOT. 2017a. Freight Facts and Figures, 2017. USDOT, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Washington D.C. https://www.bts.gov/ bts-publications/freight-facts-and-figures/freight-facts-figures- 2017 Accessed February 21, 2018. USDOT. 2017b.Website–2017 TIGER Grant Applications FAQs: https://www.transportation.gov/tiger/2017-tiger-application-faqs. USDOT, Office of the Secretary. 2017 Benefit–Cost Analysis Guidance for Discretionary Grant Programs. July. https://www.transportation. gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/mission/office-policy/transportation- policy/284031/benefit-cost-analysis-guidance-2017_2.p.df USDOT, Research and Innovative Technology Administration. 2012. Integrated Corridor Management Analysis, Modeling, and Simula- tion Fact Sheet. May. https://www.its.dot.gov/factsheets/pdf/icm.pdf. USDOT, Federal Highway Administration, California Division, and California Department of Transportation. 2009. Systems Engineer- ing Guidebook for Intelligent Transportation Systems, Version 3.0. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/cadiv/segb/files/segbversion3.pdf. Washington, Joint Transportation Committee. 2016. Request for Propos- als. Prioritization of Prominent Road-Rail Conflicts in Washington State. Olympia. Wilbur Smith Associates. 2011. Kern County Grade Separation Prioriti- zation Report. Kern Council of Governments. March. http://www. kerncog.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Grade_Sep_Priority_ Report.pdf.

Next: Appendix A - Literature Review by Category »
Prioritization Procedure for Proposed Road–Rail Grade Separation Projects Along Specific Rail Corridors Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Research Report 901: Prioritization Procedure for Proposed Road–Rail Grade Separation Projects Along Specific Rail Corridors is designed to assist state and local planners in making prioritization and investment decisions for road–rail at-grade crossing separations.

The report provides a comprehensive means of comparing similar project alternatives within a specific rail corridor. Planning factors include economic, environmental, and community livability factors to support a robust decision process for making grade separation decisions.

NCHRP Report 901 also includes railroad crossing assessment tool (RCAT), a multicriteria evaluation tool that considers safety, economic, environmental, and community livability factors in a set of linked Microsoft Excel spreadsheets.

The report also includes a communications toolkit to help inform and convey to stakeholders and decision makers the relative objective merits of individual road–rail separation projects within corridors.

The assessment tool, communications toolkit, and user guide are published in electric only format as Appendix C - The RCAT User Guide, and Appendix D - The RCAT Toolkit and Templates.

During the past decade, railroad traffic has fluctuated in a number of key markets; coal traffic has declined, while other markets such as petroleum and intermodal have grown. Changing markets can impact the amount of rail traffic on rail mainlines, presenting challenges to state and local planners faced with making investment decisions about at-grade rail crossing improvements. This situation is particularly acute along urban rail corridors experiencing significant increases in train traffic or where the operating speed or train length has increased.

The traditional approach for making grade-crossing investment decisions has been guided primarily by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Railroad–Highway Grade Crossing Handbook, which focuses heavily on traffic and safety factors. While safety continues to be a high priority in the development of road–rail grade separation projects, state and local decision makers need more robust criteria when competing against other projects for funding and construction.

  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!