HD12 - Railroad Grade Crossings

  • Published: 1991
  • Author: Department of Transportation
  • Enabling Authority: House Joint Resolution 39 (Regular Session, 1990)

Executive Summary:
House Joint Resolution No. 39 requested that the Virginia Department of Transportation (Department) study the replacement of at-grade highway/railroad crossings in Virginia with grade-separated crossings, such study to include the identification of appropriate funding mechanisms. This report describes the analysis and findings thereof that were undertaken by Department staff to address this resolution.

There are 2,497 public, at-grade railroad crossings in Virginia and, as with any intersection, these crossings are locations where planning needs to be undertaken to reduce conflicts where possible. Due to the size and speed differential, collisions between a train and vehicle or pedestrian have the potential of resulting in fatalities and severe injuries. Further, there is a potential danger to others, if either the train or vehicle struck is carrying a hazardous material, and the material is released into the elements. Also, the wreckage at the crossing may block a needed evacuation route for persons in the affected neighborhood. Finally, emergency vehicles, such as fire trucks and ambulances, may be delayed at a crossing while waiting for the passage of the train.

Fortunately, however, the accident experience in Virginia has not borne out the potential danger of such accidents. While serious accidents have occurred, generally train collisions are relatively minimal in both number and severity especially when compared to other transportation statistics.

At-grade crossings are also an inconvenience to motorists. When particularly long, slow-moving, or stationary trains block the crossing, significant numbers of motorists can be delayed, especially in suburban or urban areas where traffic volumes are heavy. Not only is valuable time lost, but also additional fuel is consumed by idling vehicles.

All these potential dangers and inconveniences can be eliminated by grade-separating the crossing. However, grade-separated crossings are very costly, and it is not financially feasible to construct such a crossing at every one of the 2,497 public crossings in Virginia.

Since funds are not available to construct grade separations at all locations in Virginia, a method of prioritizing and selecting crossings on which to spend scarce resources was developed. Cost-effectiveness analysis was used as the basis for the methodology. The basic assumption is that a grade-separated crossing becomes economically justified when the cost to construct the grade separation is equal to or less than the costs associated with doing nothing, (i.e., retaining the at-grade crossing).

The major costs associated with an at-grade crossing include costs incurred by those involved in crossing accidents and those delayed by waiting for the passage of a train. The delay costs consist of two components--the cost of a person's time and the cost of excess fuel being burned by idling vehicles. Costs of the grade separation include that of the bridge or overpass structure, the roadway approaches to the structure, and the right-of-way. A grade separation is justified if the cost to construct is equal to or less than the costs of accidents and delay at the existing at-grade crossing.

General assumptions were made for some of the variables for an urban crossing and for a rural crossing. By substituting the assumed values and known values (expected accident rate, number of trains, traffic volume) into the formulas which were developed for this study, all crossings were evaluated to determine those that potentially satisfy the above fundamental relationship. A total of 56 crossings were identified.

Planning cost estimates of grade separating 52 (15 rural, 37 urban) of the 56 selected crossings were then developed. Subsequent to the initial selection, it was found that grade separations were already being constructed at three of the sites, and that the number of trains at one of the sites had been reduced. The cost estimate included the structure, roadway approaches, and right-of-way, and was based on similar structures and in-house cost data available to the Department. To assist in preparing the cost estimates, a conceptual layout for each location was prepared. A field review was made at most of the sites prior to the development of the layouts to determine possible concept designs.

Many of the locations involve complex engineering, geographic, and right-of-way problems because of their close proximity to major transportation facilities, waterways, and heavily developed areas. Also, some grade separations can only be accomplished by rebuilding bridges over rivers. Accordingly, grade separations at 19 of the crossings (4 rural, 15 urban) were not considered feasible. The total estimated cost to provide grade separation at the remaining 33 potentially feasible sites is $174,145,000.

It is important to emphasize that this cost estimate is for planning purposes only; it is an order of magnitude estimate at best. The crossings evaluated were selected based on sound economic theory; however, many assumptions were incorporated into the methodology. In many cases, average values of input variables were used rather than site-specific values. This was necessary because of the large number of crossings in Virginia and the significant amount of data needed for each one and time constraints. Accordingly, if each of the 2,497 public at-grade crossings were evaluated using site-specific data, a slightly different list of crossings at which grade separation is justified would likely be developed. This would result in a revised cost estimate. Finally, it is noted that detailed engineering cost estimates at each selected crossing would also likely change the total estimate. The estimated cost of $174,145,000 does provide the Department with a number on which to base financial discussions.

Funding for railway/highway grade separations has traditionally been provided from regular highway construction allocations. Separations within a town or city are funded from the urban" system allocations, those on secondary routes are funded from the specific county's secondary construction allocation, and those on the primary system are funded from allocations to the appropriate district.

Individual projects typically follow two patterns. In the first case, a grade separation is identified as part of a larger improvement involving reconstructing or widening the existing roadway. In the second case, the specific intent is to provide the grade separation, with any roadway improvement incidental to the separation.

Regardless of the type of project initiated, funding is provided from transportation trust fund sources according to law. Funds entering the transportation trust fund may derive from state or federal sources, but are not distinguished as such in the allocation process. By law, allocations are based upon the total amount available, with the Department assigned the responsibility of ensuring that particular federal categorical requirements are met through the project programming process.

As the Department establishes a project for reconstruction or major widening, it may be identified for federal participation through the federal aid programming process. In instances where the proposed project involves a grade separation 100 percent federal funding may be provided for the separation itself, however this is a programming function and does not mean additional funding is made available to the locality.

This is also true in the second case, where a grade separation project is proposed. The federal law provides Virginia approximately $2.8 million per year of which up to $1.4 million may be used for grade separation projects. This amount is included in the total available to the transportation trust fund and is aggregated with state and other federal categorical funds within the allocation process. Through the programming process, the Department ensures that sufficient projects are included to fully utilize this categorical amount.

There is no difficulty in programming the individual federal categorical amounts within the constraints of existing allocation. This is exhibited by the fact that none of the federal dollars available to Virginia have been allowed to lapse, and that Virginia continues to obligate all of the federal authority made available.

It is true that a very wide gap exists between identified improvement needs and available revenue. In the case of grade separation projects $1.4 million is available to address $174 million of" needed improvements. A similar situation exists on the interstate system where approximately $7 billion of needs are being addressed with $70 million of annual revenues. In either case, a full century would be required to relieve the identified needs unless alternative funding methods can be identified.

Accordingly, there are no existing additional funds available to finance the estimated $174 million needed for grade separations. All current funds are being utilized to the maximum.

There are several additional funding alternatives that the General Assembly may wish to consider. Each has its own set of issues that must be addressed and resolved. They would, however, be effective at the specific locations of greatest need. These alternatives are described in the following.

The General Assembly may wish to amend the existing law to set aside a certain amount for grade separations prior to application of the distribution formulas. Without the provision of additional funding this would, however, diminish the amount allocated to the Districts, municipalities, and counties. In effect, places with no grade separation needs would be contributing a portion of their allocation to relieve the needs in another jurisdiction.

A special case exists where a grade crossing with protective devices in place is replaced with a structure. In these cases, the railroad is required to contribute a minimum of five percent of the cost of the construction of the structure and approaches. Since a grade separation reduces the liability exposure of the railroad company and certain benefits accrue to them, the General Assembly may wish to require a higher percentage contribution from the railroad. The contribution could depend on the party responsible for the maintenance after construction. Where the location is already grade separated and the bridge is owned by the railroad, the railroad should provide a commensurate contribution if it is to be replaced.

Under current law, municipalities must pay two percent of the cost of any urban system project. This requirement is not placed upon secondary system or primary projects. The General Assembly may wish to consider requiring the locality involved to provide a higher percentage of the project cost for any grade separation project on the secondary or urban systems.

Based on the findings of the study, it is recommended that:

1. the cost-effectiveness methodology developed in this report be included in the planning process, utilizing site-specific parameters, to evaluate the need for grade separations,

2. the results of applying the methodology be used in the selection and programming of all projects, and

3. the Department continue to use the present method of allocating funds for grade separation projects, and incorporate, as necessary, any additional funding that may be established by the General Assembly in response to this report. The alternatives listed would or could be directed to the areas of greatest need.