Grade-Crossing Safety: DOT Should Evaluate Whether Program Provides States Flexibility to Address Ongoing Challenges

Crashes at highway-rail grade crossings are one of the leading causes of railroad-related deaths. According to FRA data, in 2017, there were more than 2,100 crashes resulting in 273 fatalities. Since 2009 crashes have occurred at a fairly constant rate. The federal government provides states funding to improve grade-crossing safety through FHWA's Section 130 Program. The persistence of crashes and deaths raises questions about the effectiveness of the federal grade-crossing-safety program.

GAO was asked to review federal efforts to improve grade-crossing safety. This report examines: (1) the focus of FRA's grade-crossing-safety research, (2) how states select and implement grade-crossing projects and what data are available from FRA to inform their decisions, and (3) the challenges states reported in implementing and assessing projects and the extent to which FHWA assesses the program's effectiveness. GAO analyzed FRA data; reviewed FRA's, FHWA's, and states' documents; reviewed a study of states' selection of projects; and interviewed FRA and FHWA headquarters and field staff, and officials from a non-generalizable sample of eight states, selected to include a mix in the number of grade crossings and crashes, and geographic diversity.

Research sponsored by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has identified driver behavior as the main cause of highway-rail grade crossing crashes and that factors such as train and traffic volume can contribute to the risk of a crash. (See figure.) Over 70 percent of fatal crashes in 2017 occurred at grade crossings with gates.

To meet the requirements of the federal grade-crossing program, states are responsible for selecting and ensuring the implementation of grade-crossing improvement projects. Most state DOT officials and other relevant transportation officials use local knowledge of grade crossings to supplement the results of models that rank grade crossings based on the risk of an accident. These states generally consider the same primary risk factors, such as vehicle and train traffic. FRA is taking steps to improve the data used in its model to help states assess risk factors at grade crossings. For example, FRA's grade-crossing inspectors will review and identify issues with railroad- and state-reported inventory data. FRA is currently developing guidelines, which it plans to finalize by the end of 2018, to implement these inspections as it has for other types of FRA inspections.

Officials we spoke with in eight states reported challenges in pursuing certain types of projects that could further enhance safety, in part because of federal requirements. While safety has improved, many crashes occur at grade crossings with gates, and officials said there could be additional ways to focus program requirements to continue improving safety. States' and the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) reporting focuses on the program's funding and activity, such as the number and types of projects, yet the low number of crashes makes it difficult to assess the effectiveness of projects in reducing crashes and fatalities. FHWA reports the program has been effective in reducing fatalities by about 74 percent since 1975. However, since 2009, annually there have been about 250 fatalities—almost one percent of total highway fatalities. FRA expects future crashes to grow, in part, due to the anticipated increase in rail and highway traffic. An evaluation of the program should consider whether its funding and other requirements allow states to adequately address ongoing safety issues. FHWA officials said they are not required to perform such evaluations. GAO has previously reported on the importance of program evaluations to determine the extent to which a program is meeting its objectives. An evaluation of the program could lead FHWA to identify changes that could allow states to more strategically address problem areas.

GAO recommends that FHWA evaluate the program's requirements to determine if they allow states the flexibility to address ongoing safety issues. The Department of Transportation concurred with GAO's recommendation.

The U.S. railroad system consists of a vast network of operations. More  than 780 railroads operate on 220,000 miles of track—including about  210,000 highway-rail at-grade crossings (hereafter “grade crossings”)  meaning where public or private roads intersect with the tracks at the  same level as the roadway. Crashes at grade crossings are one of the  leading causes of railroad-related deaths and injuries, accounting for  about 30 percent of railroad-related fatalities. One recent crash—still  under investigation—occurred on January 31, 2018, when a chartered  Amtrak train carrying members of Congress hit a refuse truck at a grade  crossing near Crozet, Virginia. According to the National Transportation  Safety Board’s (NTSB) preliminary report, the crossing was equipped with  lights and gates to warn of a train’s presence, but witnesses reported the  truck drove around the gates prior to the accident.

Federal investments in grade-crossing safety improvement have  noticeably reduced the number of deaths and injuries at public grade  crossings. According to the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA)  data, since FRA began measuring in 1975, crashes at grade crossings  have declined by over 80 percent and fatalities have dropped 70 percent.  Crashes have leveled off in recent years, and since 2009, the number of  grade-crossing crashes and fatalities has hovered at around 2,100  crashes and 250 fatalities per year. However, FRA expects future crashes  to grow, in part, because of the anticipated increase in rail and highway  traffic. The persistence of crashes and deaths raises questions as to  whether improvements could be made to increase the effectiveness of  FRA’s rail-safety oversight activities and states’ use of federal grade- crossing safety improvement funds.

Within the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), the Federal  Highway Administration (FHWA) and FRA are the two federal agencies  primarily responsible for improving and overseeing safety at public grade  crossings. FHWA’s Railway-Highway Crossings Program (commonly  referred to as the Section 130 Program) is the primary federal program for  providing states, through a statutory formula, funding to address safety at  grade crossings. FRA oversees railroad safety, including the safety of  rail operations at grade crossings. FRA also awards safety discretionary  grants to states, local governments, and other public entities to address  rail planning, infrastructure, and safety issues. While these grants are not  specifically targeted for grade-crossing safety, they may include  improvements to rail-highway crossing safety.

You requested that we review federal efforts to improve grade-crossing  safety. This report examines:  1.  What has been the focus of FRA’s grade-crossing-safety research.  2.  How states select and implement grade-crossing projects, and what  railroad- and state-reported data are available from FRA to inform  states’ decisions.  3.  The challenges states reported in implementing and assessing  projects, and the extent to which FHWA assesses the program’s  effectiveness.

The scope of this work focused on the nation’s more than 128,000 grade  crossings where public roads cross rail tracks. We focused our work on  the Section 130 Program. For each of our objectives, we reviewed  pertinent statutes and FHWA and FRA regulations and documents, and  interviewed FHWA and FRA program officials in headquarters as well as  a non-generalizable sample of 10 stakeholders from railroads, industry  and transportation associations, and academia, in addition to a rail safety  organization and a rail safety consultant. We also interviewed federal  officials from the National Transportation Safety Board and the Volpe  Center. We selected these organizations based on our initial background  research, prior work, and input from other stakeholders, among other  things. We also selected eight states for case studies to include a mix of  state experiences based on several factors. We selected half of our  states from those ranked in the top 25 percent of all states for the number  of grade crossings and the amount of Section 130 Program funds  received. We selected the other half to include a range of these factors.  We also considered geographical diversity in our selections. For these  eight states, we conducted in-depth interviews with the FHWA division  staff assigned to those states and the FRA regional staff assigned to the  regions that included those states, as well as officials from states’  departments of transportation (state DOT), public utility commissions, and  other state officials involved with state use of Section 130 Program funds  (referred to collectively as “state officials” in our report). We used a similar  set of questions to collect information from the eight selected states on  each of our objectives. Information from these state discussions cannot  be generalized to other states; instead, we used the information for  illustrative purposes, including when we describe the challenges  interviewees reported facing. When appropriate, we indicate whether the  challenges we summarize are shared by:  “some” (two or three);  “many” (four or five); or  “most” (six or seven)  of the state officials, but frequency is not necessarily indicative of the  relative importance of a challenge or consensus, or lack thereof.

We also conducted additional work related to each of the objectives.

To describe the focus of FRA’s grade-crossing-safety research, we  examined FRA research aimed at understanding the causes of grade- crossing crashes and identifying potential safety improvements and  described FRA efforts to test new approaches that could improve  safety.

To describe how states select and implement grade-crossing projects,  and what FRA data are available to inform their decisions, we  reviewed an academic study that included a literature review and  interviews with state officials to describe how states select Section  130 Program projects. We also assessed the reliability of FRA’s  National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory data, which are the only  source for national statistics on grade-crossing characteristics. We  tested whether the data were within reasonable ranges, were  internally consistent, and appeared complete. We identified data  reliability issues in FRA’s crossing inventory that we will discuss more  fully later in this report.

To determine the challenges states reported in implementing and  assessing projects and the extent to which FHWA assesses the  program’s effectiveness, we reviewed program requirements and  state project information and other components from FHWA’s 2016  and 2018 Biennial Section 130 Program progress reports to  Congress. We also reviewed federal laws and guidance related to  implementing projects and measuring performance. We interviewed  state DOT officials from the eight selected states and other  stakeholders on the challenges states face implementing projects and  FHWA and FRA officials for their perspectives on managing the  program, including how FHWA measures performance and assesses  program effectiveness. We compared information collected from  FHWA to federal internal control standards and criteria on program  evaluation identified in our previous work. Appendix I describes our  objectives, scope, and methodology in greater detail.

We conducted this performance audit from October 2017 to November  2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Grade-crossing safety has improved significantly since 1975, but since  2009, the number of crashes and fatalities at grade crossings has  plateaued (see fig. 1). The yearly number of grade-crossing crashes  declined from 12,126 in 1975 to 2,117 in 2017. In that time frame,  fatalities dropped from 917 to 273. The most significant reductions in  grade-crossing crashes and fatalities were achieved from 1975 to 1985,  when states closed or improved the most dangerous crossings. Grade- crossing safety continued to improve until the mid-2000s, though at a  slower rate. Since 2009, the number of grade-crossing crashes and  fatalities remains at around 2,100 crashes and 250 fatalities a year.  These fatalities typically make up less than one percent of all highway- related fatalities. The decrease in crashes and fatalities occurred as the  volume of train and highway traffic generally increased over the years.  FRA expects the traffic volumes to continue to increase and has  expressed concern that grade-crossing crashes and fatalities may also  increase.

As a set-aside portion of FHWA’s much larger Highway Safety  Improvement Program (HSIP), the Section 130 Program provides funds  to state DOTs for the elimination of hazards at highway-rail grade  crossings. States determine what improvements need to be made at  grade crossings. FHWA has oversight responsibilities regarding the use  of federal funds as part of its administration of federal-aid highway  programs and funding, including HSIP funds. FHWA uses a statutory  formula to distribute to states Section 130 Program funds, which  averaged $235 million per year during the last 10 years (fiscal years 2009  through 2018). Section 130 Program projects are funded at a 90 percent  federal share, with the state or the roadway authority funding the  remaining 10 percent. States have 4 years to obligate their program  funds before they expire, meaning that in any given fiscal year, states can  obligate funds appropriated in that year as well as any unobligated funds  from the previous 3 fiscal years. In addition, states may choose to  combine funds from multiple years to fund relatively expensive projects.

The Section 130 Program’s requirements direct states to establish an  implementation schedule for grade-crossing-safety improvement projects  that, at a minimum, include warning signs for all public grade crossings.  Grade crossings are generally categorized as “active” or “passive”  depending on the type of traffic control devices that are present. As of  July 2018, according to FRA’s National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory,  there were approximately 68,000 public grade crossings with electronic,  or active, traffic control devices in the United States. Another  approximately 58,000 public grade crossings have passive traffic-control  devices, which include signs and supplementary pavement markings.  The requirements also specify that at least 50 percent of Section 130  Program funding must be dedicated to the installation of protective  devices at grade crossings, including traffic control devices. States can  use remaining program funds for any hazard elimination project. States  may also use program funds to improve warning signs and pavement  markings or to improve the way the roadway aligns with the tracks (e.g.,  to ensure low-clearance vehicles do not get stuck on the tracks). In addition, states can use up to 2 percent of the funds to improve their  grade-crossing inventories and to collect and analyze data. See figure 2  for examples of the types of projects eligible for Section 130 Program  funds and graphical depictions of grade crossings before and after safety  improvements have been made.

The Federal Role in Grade-Crossing Safety

FHWA and FRA are the primary agencies responsible for safety at grade  crossings, and they both play key—yet distinct—roles. FHWA oversees   the Section 130 Program and monitors states’ uses of program funds  through 52 division offices located in each state, the District of Columbia,  and Puerto Rico and through headquarters staff in Washington, D.C. In  addition, FHWA’s division staff reviews states’ processes for prioritizing  and selecting grade-crossing-safety improvement projects. FHWA does  not evaluate the appropriateness of individual grade-crossing projects,  but instead helps states determine that projects meet program eligibility  requirements. Division staff assists in the implementation of Section 130  Program state-administered projects, and they may participate in state- DOT-led, on-site reviews of grade crossings under consideration for  Section 130 Program projects. FHWA headquarters staff is responsible  for FHWA-wide initiatives, such as working with stakeholders to establish  standards for traffic control devices and systems at grade crossings and  for engineering oversight of state-administered safety improvement  projects.

FRA provides safety oversight of both freight and passenger railroads by: collecting and analyzing data;   issuing and enforcing numerous safety regulations, including on  grade-crossings’ warning systems; conducting focused inspections, audits, and accident providing technical assistance to railroads and other stakeholders.

Specifically, FRA oversees rail safety through eight regional offices and  through headquarters staff in Washington, D.C. Regional staff monitor  railroads’ compliance with federal safety regulations through inspections  and provide technical assistance and guidance to states. In 2017, FRA  created a new discipline for grade-crossing safety and is hiring new  grade-crossing inspectors. These inspectors conduct field  investigations, identify regulatory defects and violations, recommend civil  penalty assessments when appropriate, and may participate in state- DOT-led teams that conduct on-site reviews of grade crossings to  evaluate potential safety improvements. According to FRA  documentation, FRA’s new inspectors will also work with a variety of  stakeholders to institute new types of training, explore new safety  concepts and technologies, and assist in the development of new or  modified highway-rail grade-crossing-safety regulations, initiatives, and  programs. The inspectors will also work with FHWA and other DOT  operating administrations in a cooperative effort to improve grade- crossing safety. FRA regional staff also investigates select railroad  crashes, including those at grade crossings, to determine root causation  and any contributing factors, so that railroads can implement corrective  actions. FRA headquarters staff develops analytical tools for states to  use to prioritize grade-crossing projects. In addition, headquarters staff  manages research and development to support improved railroad safety,  including at grade crossings.

FRA’s Office of Railroad Safety maintains the National Highway-Rail  Crossing Inventory database and the Railroad Accident/Incident  Reporting System on grade-crossing crashes. Both states and railroads  submit information to FRA’s crossing inventory, which is designed to  contain information on every grade crossing in the nation. Railroads  submit information such as train speed and volume; states submit  information such as highway speed limits and average annual daily traffic.  The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 added requirements for both  railroads and states to periodically update the inventory; however, the  Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) repealed a  provision providing DOT authority to issue implementing regulations that  would govern states’ reporting to the inventory. According to FRA  officials, while FRA’s regulations do not require states to report the  information, FRA encourages them to do so. FRA regulations require  railroads to report and update their information in the inventory every 3  years or sooner in some instances, such as if new warning devices are  installed or the grade crossing is closed. FRA’s accident system contains  details about each grade-crossing accident that has occurred. In addition  to submitting immediate reports of fatal grade-crossing crashes, railroads  are required to submit accident reports within 30 days after the end of the  month in which the accident occurred and describe conditions at the time  of the accident (e.g., visibility and weather); information on the grade  crossing (e.g., type of warning device); and information on the driver (e.g.,  gender and age).

FRA Has Focused Research on Understanding and Addressing Risky Behavior by Drivers at Grade Crossings

Research Sought to Identify Risk Factors at Grade Crossings and Understand Driver Behavior

In its role overseeing grade-crossing safety, FRA has sponsored a  number of research efforts to better understand the causes of grade- crossing crashes and identify potential ways to improve engineering,  education, and enforcement efforts. For example, FRA sponsored an in- depth data analysis of grade-crossing crashes to better identify which  crossing characteristics increase the risk of an accident. The report,  issued in 2017, found that the volumes of train and vehicle traffic at a  crossing are the biggest predictors of grade-crossing crashes. Changes  in vehicle and train traffic therefore affect the annual number of grade- crossing crashes. For example, as highway traffic decreased in 2008,  possibly due to the economic recession and higher gas prices, so too did  the number of grade-crossing crashes. As previously noted, FRA expects  that the number of grade-crossing crashes will likely grow with anticipated  increases in future train and highway traffic. As discussed below, vehicle  and train volume are included in the U.S. DOT Accident Prediction Model,  which some states use to select grade-crossing improvement projects.  According to FRA officials, FRA is using the results of this recent in-depth  data analysis to, in part, evaluate whether additional risk factors, such as  the number of male drivers or trains carrying toxic materials, should be  added to the model.

FRA has targeted other research into understanding driver behavior at  grade crossings, which is the leading cause of crashes. According to  FRA’s accident data, in 2017, 71 percent of fatal crashes at public grade  crossings occurred at those with gates. In 2004, the DOT Inspector  General (IG) reported that 94 percent of grade-crossing crashes from  1994 to 2003 could be attributed to risky driver behavior or poor  judgement. State officials we spoke with explained that drivers may  become impatient waiting at a grade crossing and decide to go around  the gates. Drivers may also line up over the grade crossing in heavy  vehicular traffic, and be unable to exit before the gates come down. See  figure 3 for examples of risky driver behavior at grade crossings.

To better understand driver behavior, FRA sponsored a John A. Volpe  National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center) study that  recorded and analyzed drivers’ actions as they approached grade  crossings. The researchers found that almost half of drivers were doing  another task, such as eating, and over a third did not look in either  direction while approaching passive grade crossings. We have previously  reported, and many stakeholders we interviewed agreed, that in light of  inappropriate driver behavior, technological solutions alone may not fully  resolve safety issues at grade crossings. In addition, public-education  and law-enforcement efforts can augment the effectiveness of  technological solutions. According to FRA officials, they shared  information on driver education with DOT’s National Highway Traffic  Safety Administration (NHTSA) as NHTSA works more closely with states  on driver education manuals. According to DOT officials, NHTSA updates  its driver education materials every 2–3 years and plans to consider  including grade-crossing-safety materials in the next versions.

FRA Works with States to Research New Safety Measures to Address Risky Behavior at Grade Crossings

FRA is also working with states and localities to research and develop  new protective devices and other safety measures targeted at improving  driver behavior at grade crossings. As most fatal crashes happen at  grade crossings already equipped with gates, FRA and state and local  agencies are exploring whether additional safety measures can improve  safety at those locations. For example, in 2016 and 2017, FRA’s Grade  Crossing Task Force worked with the Volpe Center and the City of  Orlando to test whether photo enforcement at grade crossings could  reduce risky driver behavior. The City of Orlando installed automated  photo-enforcement devices at a grade crossing, and instead of issuing  fines to drivers who had violated its warning devices, sent drivers a  warning notice and educational safety materials. Eight months after the  photo-enforcement system was installed, grade crossing violations  decreased by 15 percent. While FRA judged these enforcement efforts  successful at changing driver behavior, a 2015 FRA whitepaper noted  that photo enforcement equipment is costly—on average costing over  $300,000 per crossing to install and operate for 2 years—and may not be  cost-effective for most grade crossings. FRA found that due to costs  and state laws prohibiting photo-enforcement, only two photo- enforcement cameras were currently in operation at grade crossings  across the country.

States, localities, and FHWA are also exploring whether new types of  pavement markings at grade crossings can improve driver behavior.   According to DOT officials, FHWA is working with two states to develop  new cross-hatch pavement markings for grade crossings that would  comply with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, similar to the  “don’t block the box” type pavement markings used in intersections.  FHWA also worked with a city to test the use of in-roadway lights to  delineate the crossing. (See fig. 4).

FRA and state DOTs are also trying to improve pedestrian safety at grade  crossings by developing new safety measures. Grade-crossing accidents  involving pedestrians are less frequent than those involving automobiles  at grade crossings but have a higher fatality rate. While pedestrians were  involved in only 9 percent of accidents at public crossings in 2017, almost  40 percent of fatal grade-crossing accidents involved pedestrians. To try  to improve pedestrian safety, in 2012 the Volpe Center worked with New  Jersey Transit to study whether adding additional pedestrian gate skirts— hanging gates that further block a crossing (see fig. 5)—would prevent  people from ducking under the gates. The Volpe Center reported that  these new gates had mixed success. While incidents of people going  under and around the gates decreased, more people chose to cross the  tracks in the street rather than at the sidewalk.

Finally, FRA is exploring new automated and connected vehicle  technologies that could reduce risky driver behavior at grade crossings.  FRA, FHWA, and officials from one state we interviewed said they  anticipate that such technology will be critical to further improving safety.  Specifically, FRA and FHWA are coordinating with DOT’s Intelligent  Transportation Systems Joint Program Office to develop pilot technology  that would enable crossing infrastructure or trains to communicate  wirelessly with vehicles. Vehicles can use this information to warn the  driver that a crash or violation is imminent, or integrate with onboard  active safety systems. According to FRA officials, they completed a proof  of concept in 2013 and completed and tested a prototype of the  technology in 2017. DOT officials said that DOT does not have a time  frame for when automakers might begin incorporating such connected  vehicle technologies and noted that retrofitting older cars with new  equipment will likely make this a long-term effort.

FRA shares information on its research in various ways with state DOTs,  because states are responsible for deciding which safety measures to  install at grade crossings. Specifically, FRA and FHWA jointly hold  quarterly webinars with stakeholders, including state DOT officials, and  conduct presentations at highway-rail safety workshops. Information on  safety measures such as grade-crossing devices, signs, and markings  are also included in the Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook.  According to DOT officials, the handbook was developed jointly by FHWA  and FRA. The last version of the handbook was updated in 2007 and  includes some out of date information. FRA and FHWA officials said they  began working on an update in 2017, but missed the July 2018 target  completion date. According to FHWA officials, updating the handbook is a  complex undertaking that has taken more time than they anticipated due  to the extensive collaboration required among stakeholders. FHWA  officials said they anticipate completing the update during the spring of  2019.

States Use a Risk- Based Approach for Project Selection and May Use FRA Data

States Consider Risk when Identifying Grade- Crossing Improvement Projects

The risk of crashes at public grade crossings within a state factors into  states’ selection of over 1,000 new Section 130 Program projects  nationally each fiscal year. FHWA requires states to develop a grade  crossing program that considers relative risk. FHWA officials said they  review the methods that states use to select projects to ensure that risk is  considered. According to a 2016 academic study of 50 states, most states  use mathematical formulas, or “accident prediction models,” to help  assess risk and identify grade crossings for potential projects. More  specifically, these accident prediction models use factors such as grade  crossing characteristics and accident history to rank grade crossings by  risk. DOT provides one such model—the Accident Prediction Model—and  some states have developed their own models. The study reported that  19 states used DOT’s model and 20 states used a different model. It  also found that the DOT and commonly used state models include some  similar grade-crossing characteristics to predict accident risk. For  example, the selected models reviewed all considered vehicle- and train- traffic volume, which FRA has found to be the strongest predictors of  grade-crossing crashes.

FRA makes its Accident Prediction Model available to states online  through its Web Accident Prediction System. This system is an online tool  that uses FRA’s crossing inventory, crossing collision history, and the  DOT Accident Prediction Model to predict accident risk for grade  crossings in each state. Only one of the eight states in our review used  the system as its primary source for ranking grade-crossing risk. Most of  the other states perform their own calculations to rank grade crossings.  Officials from two states said that they believe their state-maintained data  are more reliable than FRA’s crossing inventory and explained that they  go directly to their contacts at railroads to get updated information on  factors such as train volume.

Accident prediction models are only one source of information states use  when selecting Section 130 Program projects. According to the state  officials we spoke with, a variety of other considerations can also  influence their decisions, including the following:

Proximity of projects together along a railroad “corridor” in order to  gain efficiencies and reduce construction costs.

Requests from local jurisdictions or railroads. These stakeholders may  have information on upcoming changes at a grade crossing, such as  higher train volume or new housing developments nearby, which  would increase risk but would not be reflected yet in the accident  prediction model.

Availability of local funding to provide the required 10 percent match  for Section 130 Program projects, while trying to spread the funds  fairly across the state.

States may also consider grade crossings that have had close calls in the  past, such as where a car narrowly avoided being hit by a train. FRA does  not require railroads to report on these close calls, or “near misses;”  however, according to state officials, railroads sometimes provide this  information to states on an ad-hoc basis. State officials from four of the  eight states we spoke with said they considered near misses when  selecting Section 130 Program projects. A 2004 Volpe Center report  noted that studying close calls was a proactive way to improve safety.  According to the report, FRA sponsored a workshop to learn about the  benefits of collecting and analyzing close calls. However, stakeholders we  interviewed noted challenges formalizing near-miss reporting. For  example, Volpe Center officials said these reports are subjective in  nature—what one engineer considers a close call, others may not.

FRA developed another online tool—GradeDec—to allow states to  compare the costs and benefits for various grade-crossing improvement  projects. GradeDec uses models to analyze a project’s risk and calculate  cost-benefit ratios and net present value for potential projects. FRA  provides state DOTs with on-site GradeDec workshops upon request.  While FRA officials noted that many state and local governments have  registered to use the program, none of the state officials we spoke with  identified GradeDec as a tool that they use to conduct cost-benefit  analysis. Officials from two state DOTs we spoke with said that cost- benefit analyses could help them better identify and select the most cost- effective crossing safety projects in the future. According to the  academic study of 50 states noted above, because of limited funding for  grade-crossing improvements, states should consider the life-cycle costs  of the projects as well as net present value to help select projects. As  discussed later in this report, the small number of crashes at grade  crossings can make it challenging to distinguish between different  projects in terms of their effectiveness in reducing accidents.

Finally, after they have considered risk factors and created a list of  potential grade crossings for improvement, state officials, along with  relevant stakeholders from railroads and local governments, conduct field  reviews of the potential projects. According to state officials, these  reviews help identify grade-crossing characteristics that may not be  included in the accident prediction models, such as vegetation that would  obstruct drivers’ views.

FRA Has Taken Steps to Improve Inventory Data and Is Formalizing How Inspectors Will Validate the Data’s Accuracy

In 2008, legislation was enacted mandating reporting by states and  railroads to the National Highway-Rail Crossing Inventory. However, the  fact that reporting to the inventory remained voluntary until 2015 has had  lingering effects on the completeness of the data in the inventory. In  2015, as mandated by statute, FRA issued regulations requiring railroads  to update certain data elements for all grade crossings every 3 years.  However, our analysis of FRA’s crossing inventory found that 4 percent of  grade crossings were last updated in 2009 or earlier. In addition, because  MAP-21 repealed DOT’s authority to issue regulations that would govern  state reporting to the inventory, state reporting of grade-crossing data  remains voluntary, according to FRA officials, and all state-reported  information is not complete. Our analysis of state-reported data in FRA’s  crossing inventory found varying levels of completeness. For example,  while some state-reported data fields were almost entirely complete, 33  percent of public grade crossings were missing data on posted highway  speed. We also found that of the crossings for which states reported the  year when the highway-traffic count was conducted, 64 percent of the  highway-traffic counts for public grade crossings, another important risk  factor, had not been updated since 2009, or earlier. According to the 2015  final rule, FRA will continue to evaluate whether additional regulations to  address state reporting are needed to maintain the crossing inventory’s  accuracy.

FRA officials told us that improving inventory data will help them better  deploy their limited resources, particularly their grade-crossing inspectors,  and said that they have taken steps to help improve the data. In 2017,  FRA regional officials conducted field reviews to verify the latitude and  longitude data for grade crossings in the inventory, data that states are  responsible for updating. In addition, FRA expects its grade-crossing  inspectors as part of their inspections to review and identify issues with  the railroad- and state-reported inventory data. According to FRA officials,  FRA has begun to both transition its 19 grade-crossing managers into  grade-crossing inspectors and also hire new inspectors, for an eventual  total of 24 inspectors and eight regional specialists to supervise their  activities.

To help ensure railroads’ compliance with crossing inventory regulations,  officials said that the inspectors will use spot checks to validate the  inventory data by comparing grade-crossing characteristics in the field  with the information railroads submitted to the inventory. In addition, FRA  has incorporated information on inventory-reporting requirements into the  grade-crossing inspectors’ training. Finally, FRA is currently developing  guidelines for the grade-crossing inspections similar to those for other  FRA safety disciplines. FRA headquarters officials acknowledged that  they are still clarifying the details for the inspections that will be included  in the compliance manuals that inspectors will use. Specifically, they  said they are still determining appropriate inspector workloads and  drafting specific guidelines that will need to be integrated into FRA’s  regional inspection plans.

FRA officials said they are working to develop and make available  inventory inspection guidance to the grade-crossing managers and  inspectors by December 31, 2018. In the meantime, FRA held training  that included information on inventory-reporting requirements. In August  2018, FRA developed guidance for grade-crossing inspections specific to  quiet zones in response to a recommendation we made in 2017. It is  important that FRA meets its goal to issue similar guidance specific to  reviewing the accuracy of the inventory data, as FRA cannot have  reasonable assurance that inspections that are already under way are  being conducted in such a manner that would allow them to consistently  identify data reliability issues at each crossing.

States Reported Challenges Implementing Certain Project Types and Measuring Projects’ Effectiveness, and FHWA’s Efforts to Assess the Program’s Effectiveness Have Limitations

The Program’s Requirements and Other Challenges Cited by States Contribute to the Selection of Active- Warning Equipment Projects over Other Projects

About 75 percent of all Section 130 Program projects states implemented  in fiscal year 2016 involved installing or updating active grade-crossing  equipment, including warning lights and protective gates (see fig. 6).  The prevalence of this type of project is in part due to the Section 130  Program requirement that states spend at least 50 percent of funds on  protective devices. Other than eliminating a grade crossing, adding  protective devices has long been considered the most effective way of  reducing the risk of a crash.

Officials from six of eight state DOTs we interviewed told us that the  numbers and types of grade-crossing projects they implement are  dependent on the amount of Section 130 Program funding they receive  and the cost of the projects. As previously described, funds are set aside  from the Highway Safety Improvement Program and distributed to states  by a statutory formula that includes factors such as the number of grade  crossings in each state. Officials from six of the eight state DOTs we  spoke to agreed that the set-aside nature of the program was crucial in  allowing them to implement projects, many of which they said would not  have been possible without Section 130 Program funds. For example,  many said the formula funding ensures that grade-crossing projects are  completed along with highway safety projects, particularly given the fact  that fatalities resulting from grade-crossing crashes account for so few  when compared to highway deaths. Overall, fatalities resulting from  grade-crossing crashes account for less than 1 percent of all highway- related fatalities.

In fiscal year 2018, the funds distributed ranged from a low of  approximately $1.2 million for eight states and Washington, D.C., to over  $16 million for California and over $19 million for Texas. The number of  grade crossings in the eight states and Washington, D.C. ranged from 5  to 380, while California had almost 6,000 and Texas had over 9,000.  Project implementation costs varied by project type and ranged widely  depending on project scope. Based on 2016 DOT data, some typical  project costs ranged as follows: adding signs to passive grade crossings—$500 to $1,500; adding flashing lights and two gates to passive grade crossings— $150,000 to $300,000; adding four gates to grade crossings with flashing lights—$250,000 -  closing a grade crossing—$25,000 to $100,000; and  separating a grade crossing from traffic (Grade Separation)—$5  million to $40 million.

State officials we spoke with cited several challenges in pursuing certain  types of controversial, innovative, and expensive projects that could help  them address the evolving nature of risk at grade crossings and difficulty  in measuring the effectiveness of their projects. First, most state DOT  officials said that the cost of grade-separation projects and, at times, the  controversy of eliminating grade crossings through closure reduces the  number of these projects, while acknowledging that they are the most  effective ways to improve safety. These types of projects made up only 3  percent of Section 130 Program projects in fiscal year 2016 (see fig. 6).  Grade-separation projects are often more expensive than the annual  Section 130 Program funding available to states. In 2018, only eight  states received annual Section 130 Program funding sufficient to fund a  $7-million grade-separation project. As discussed previously, to fund  relatively expensive projects, states may choose to combine funds from  multiple years. Also, states and railroads may make incentive payments  to localities for the permanent closure of a grade crossing. In addition to  the cost, most state DOT officials reported challenges obtaining local  support for closing grade crossings. They said closures may  inconvenience residents who use the road and force emergency  responders to take longer routes, potentially slowing response times.  Grade-separation projects address these safety concerns and may be  more agreeable to residents, but they are substantially more expensive.  While up to $7,500 in Section 130 Program funding can be used to help  incentivize communities to close grade crossings, officials from some of  our selected state DOTs said this amount is generally not enough to  persuade local officials to support the closing.

Second, officials from many state DOTs we interviewed also reported that  the requirements of the Section 130 Program create challenges for them  in implementing what they considered to be innovative projects. For  example, the program requirement that 50 percent of funds be used on  protective devices, combined with what one researcher described to us  as the tendency by states to implement “known” projects—i.e., protective  devices—may impede states’ selection of new, more innovative safety  projects. Officials we interviewed from many state DOTs described  challenges related to the program’s requirements. They noted that they  are prevented from using Section 130 Program funds for new types of  safety technologies not yet incorporated into FHWA’s Manual on Uniform  Traffic Control Devices. As noted previously in this report, outside the  Section 130 Program FHWA is working with states and localities to  explore whether new types of pavement markings at grade crossings, not  in the manual, can improve driver behavior. One state DOT official we  interviewed suggested changes to allow states to fund one grade- crossing pilot project per year or to use a set percentage of program  funds to finance a pilot project that could help them explore promising but  as yet unproven technologies.

Third, state DOT officials from four of the eight selected states also said it  can be difficult to find funding for the required 10 percent state match. As  previously mentioned, while certain rail-safety projects are eligible for up  to 100 percent federal funding, Section 130 Program projects are funded  at a 90 percent federal share. According to DOT documentation we  reviewed, only some states have a dedicated source for such a match,  and state DOT officials from one of our selected states said their state  cannot use state funds for the 10 percent match. Some state DOT  officials said this situation can drive project selection. For example, they  sometimes chose projects based on which localities or railroads were  willing to provide matching funds or offer cost savings.

Finally, many state officials cited challenges in measuring the  effectiveness of grade crossing projects in reducing crashes or the risk of  crashes. In particular, state officials we spoke to said it can be difficult to  use before-and-after crash statistics as a measure of effectiveness  because of the low number and random nature of crashes. Also, as FRA  research has shown and as FHWA and FRA have noted, reporting on  before-and-after grade-crossing accident statistics can be misleading,  given the infrequency of crashes and crashes that are not the result of  grade crossing conditions. States’ required Section 130 Program annual  progress reports to the Secretary of DOT call for states to report on the  effectiveness of the improvements they made. FHWA reporting  guidance suggests they define effectiveness as the reduction in the  number of fatalities and serious injuries after grade-crossing projects  were implemented, consistent with statutory requirements. In addition,  FHWA guidance states that consideration should be given to quantifying  effectiveness in the context of fatalities and serious injuries. However,  states often report no differences in crashes after specific projects were  implemented, and there have been instances where states reported a slight increase in crashes. Such an increase does not necessarily mean  that the project was not effective in reducing the overall risk of a crash.  Also, not all projects are implemented at grade crossings where there has  been a crash.

Among other information, states also typically report information on  funding and data on the numbers and types of projects implemented. In  addition, the extent to which states report projects’ effectiveness varies  greatly. Given states’ responsibility for implementing the Section 130  Program and the differences in the amounts of funding they receive,  FHWA officials said states should determine and report on the  appropriate effectiveness metrics for their programs. According to FHWA  officials, during the 2017 reporting year, a few states requested examples  of what to include when reporting effectiveness, and FHWA responded  with examples of various methods they could use, such as a benefit-cost  ratio or the percentage decrease in fatalities, serious injuries, and  crashes. Regardless of the difficulty in measuring the effectiveness of  specific projects, most state DOT officials we interviewed stressed the  importance of the Section 130 Program in funding grade-crossing  projects.

FHWA Reports Provide Limited Insight into the Program’s Effectiveness, and FHWA Has Not Evaluated Program Requirements in Light of Changing Risk Conditions

FHWA’s biennial report to Congress is intended to provide information to  Congress on the progress being made by the states in implementing  projects to improve safety and, in addition, make recommendations for  future implementation of the program. FHWA reviews states’ annual  Section 130 Program reports and uses them to formulate the report to  Congress every 2 years. FHWA’s 2018 report highlights that the Section  130 Program has seen great success since 1975, with a decrease of  approximately 74 percent in fatalities at the same time that there was an  increase in vehicle and train traffic. The report described the latest  available 10-year trend, from 2007 to 2016, as showing a 31 percent  decrease in fatalities. Fatalities have also decreased when adjusted for  train traffic. However, FHWA officials acknowledged in interviews with us  that crashes and fatalities have remained constant since about 2009, with  more recent data showing a slight increase in fatalities over the last 2 to 3  years, data that are consistent with the increases in overall roadway  fatalities. The officials said increased train- and vehicle-traffic volumes  could be contributing to that increase, in addition to other factors, such as  more bicycle riders and pedestrians using grade crossings. As described  earlier, states have generally already used Section 130 Program funding  to address safety at the riskiest grade crossings by adding protective  measures, typically lights and gates. Yet crashes continue to occur at  these improved grade crossings. Given these trends and the challenges  discussed earlier related to the requirements of the Section 130 Program,  it is not clear whether the program remains effective in continuing to  reduce the risk of crashes and fatalities at grade crossings.

As required, FHWA’s biennial report includes a section on  “recommendations for future implementation” of the Section 130 Program.  As part of this, FHWA reports on challenges and actions being taken to  address them. FHWA’s 2018 report identified one of the same challenges  we heard about from state DOT officials related to the inability or  unwillingness of local agencies to provide matching funds and the  relatively low amount of funding designed to incentivize localities to close  crossings. FHWA reported on its efforts to address these challenges,  including by providing guidance, resources, and supportive training to  states and local agencies and serving as a clearinghouse for innovative  methods of supporting projects. However, with the exception of the  funding challenge, FHWA’s most recent report does not include the other  challenges state officials identified to us related to the requirements of the  Section 130 Program discussed above. These include program funding  requirements that may impede innovative approaches and the difficulties  of using before-and-after crash statistics to measure effectiveness.

Many state DOT officials we spoke with said there may be an opportunity  to more broadly assess the Section 130 Program at the national level. It  could be more informative to comprehensively assess more detailed  crash trends, such as those that look forward over multiple years across  the more than 1,700 crashes nationwide, rather than on the  approximately 35 that occur on average within a state, and identify  strategies to address those trends. Doing so could help FHWA learn more  about why crashes are continuing and what types of projects may be  effective. There could be ways to evaluate the program in a more  comprehensive way; many state DOT officials we interviewed told us  such a comprehensive evaluation could help improve program  effectiveness in a number of ways, including by enabling the program to  better keep up with the rapid pace of technological change and re- examining eligibility requirements that limit the flexibility of states to  consider other types of projects beyond engineering. Also, most state  DOT officials we interviewed agreed that education and enforcement  efforts are crucial to further improving safety, as did 8 out of 10 other  stakeholders we spoke to, as well as officials from Volpe Center and  NTSB. However, according to FHWA officials, those project types are not  allowed under the Section 130 Program’s requirements. The officials said  FHWA has partnered with FRA and NHTSA on research efforts, such as  driver-behavior studies, to inform grade-crossing safety issues. However,  the officials said that FHWA has not conducted a program evaluation of  the Section 130 Program to consider whether the program’s funding and  other requirements allow states to adequately address ongoing safety  issues such as driver behavior. FHWA officials said that there is no  federal requirement for them to conduct such a program evaluation.

We have previously reported that an important component of effective  program management is through program performance assessment,  which helps establish a program’s effectiveness—the extent to which a  program is operating as it was intended and the extent to which a  program achieves what the agency proposes to accomplish. This type  of evaluative information helps the executive branch and congressional  committees make decisions about the programs they oversee. Assessing  program performance includes conducting program evaluations, which  are individual systematic studies that answer specific questions about  how well a program is meeting its objectives. In addition, federal  internal-control standards state that management should identify,  analyze, and respond to significant changes in a program’s environment  that could pose new risks.

FHWA officials said the fact that crashes and fatalities have held steady  while the volume of train and vehicle traffic has increased is an indication  that grade-crossing safety has continued to improve. However, specific to  fatalities per million train-miles, FHWA’s 2018 biennial report shows this  rate to be fairly constant since 2009. As noted previously, FRA expects  train and traffic volumes to continue to increase and has expressed  concern that grade-crossing crashes and fatalities may also increase.   Without conducting a program evaluation, FHWA cannot ensure that the  Section 130 Program is achieving one of the national goals of the federal- aid highway program, to reduce fatalities and injuries. In addition, It is  difficult to see how FHWA, in its biennial reports to Congress, could make  informed recommendations for future program implementation without  conducting a program evaluation to assess, among other things, whether  program requirements first established some four decades ago continue  to reduce fatalities and injuries. We note that as part of a program  evaluation, some changes that FHWA, working with FRA, identifies as  potentially having merit to improve the program’s effectiveness could  require a statutory change.

The continued number of crashes and fatalities at grade crossings with  devices intended to warn of a train’s presence calls into question whether  the Section 130 Program is structured to help states continue making  progress toward the national goal to reduce fatalities and injuries. An  evaluation of the program’s requirements could help determine whether  Congress should consider better ways to focus federal funds to address  the key factor in crashes—risky driver behavior. An FHWA program  evaluation could also help determine whether, for example, states could  more strategically target emerging safety problems if changes were made  to the types of projects eligible for funding under the Section 130  Program. FRA’s new grade-crossing inspectors are meant to increase the  effectiveness of FRA’s rail-safety oversight activities, and accordingly,  these FRA inspectors, along with FRA researchers, may be well  positioned to help FHWA evaluate potential changes to improve the  effectiveness of the Section 130 Program.

The Administrator of FHWA, working with FRA, should evaluate the  Section 130 Program’s requirements to determine whether they allow  states sufficient flexibility to adequately address current and emerging  grade-crossing safety issues. As part of this evaluation, FHWA should  determine whether statutory changes to the program are necessary to  improve its effectiveness. (Recommendation 1)

We provided a draft of this report to DOT for review and comment. In  written comments, reproduced in appendix II, DOT concurred with our  recommendation. DOT also provided technical comments, which we  incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Secretary of Transportation, the Administrator of the  Federal Highway Administration, and the Administrator of the Federal  Railroad Administration. In addition, the report will be available at no  charge on GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-2834 or flemings@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this  report are listed in appendix III.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report examines (1) what has been the focus of Federal Railroad  Administration’s (FRA) grade-crossing-safety research, (2) how states  select and implement grade-crossing projects and what railroad- and  state-reported data are available from FRA to inform states’ decisions,  and (3) the challenges states reported in implementing and assessing  projects and the extent to which the Federal Highway Administration  (FHWA) assesses the program’s effectiveness. The scope of this work  focused on the nation’s more than 128,000 public grade crossings. We  did not include private grade crossings, as states can only use Railway- Highway Crossings Program (commonly referred to as the Section 130  Program) funds to improve safety at public grade crossings. While FRA  provides safety grants to address rail issues, including for grade-crossing  projects, we focused our work on the Section 130 Program because it is  the primary source of federal funding directed at grade-crossing-safety  improvement.

For each objective we reviewed: pertinent statutes and FHWA and FRA  regulations and documents; interviewed FHWA and FRA program officials  in headquarters; and conducted in-depth interviews with a non- generalizable sample of organizations that included officials from 4 freight  and passenger railroads, 12 state agencies from 8 states, 6 FRA regional  offices, and 8 FHWA state division offices. We also spoke with  representatives from relevant associations and officials from NTSB and  Volpe Center. We selected these organizations based on our initial  background research, prior work, and input from other stakeholders,  among other things. See the paragraph below for additional selection  details and table 5 for a complete list of organizations we spoke with.

We selected eight states as part of our non-generalizable sample for  interviews. These states included Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois,  Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. The states were  selected to include a mix of state experiences based on a variety of  factors, including the number of grade crossings and crashes at those  crossings, and the amount of Section 130 Program funding they received.  Specifically, we selected four states from those in the top 25 percent of all  states in terms of their number of grade crossings and the amount of  Section 130 Program funds they received. We selected the other four  states to include a mix of these factors. We also considered geographical  diversity and recommendations from FRA and FHWA officials. Within  these eight states, we conducted in-depth interviews with FHWA division  staff, FRA regional staff, and state officials. A variety of state agencies  administer the Section 130 Program within their state; the state officials  we spoke with from our eight selected states worked for agencies such as  state departments of transportation, corporation commissions, and public  utility commissions. We also spoke with a non-generalizable sample of  four railroads: Amtrak, CSX, Norfolk Southern, and Sierra Northern. We  selected railroads based on a variety of factors including geographic  location and stakeholder recommendations.

We also conducted additional work related to each of the objectives. To  describe the focus of FRA’s grade-crossing-safety research, we  examined FRA research aimed at understanding the causes of grade- crossing crashes and identifying potential improvements and described  FRA efforts to test new approaches that could improve safety. We did not  assess the quality of FRA’s research, as that was beyond the scope of  this engagement. Instead, we described the nature of the research. We  also spoke with FRA research and development staff, Volpe researchers,  and state partners about this work.

To describe how states select and implement grade-crossing projects,  and what FRA data are available to inform their decisions, we reviewed  an academic study that included a literature review and interviews with  state officials to describe how states select Section 130 Program  projects. We spoke with the researcher and determined the study to be  reliable for the purposes of our reporting objectives. We also spoke with  officials from our eight selected states, FHWA division staff, and FRA  regional staff, and reviewed the states’ 2017 Section 130 Program  reports. As part of this objective, we also assessed the reliability of data  reported for all railroads in FRA’s National Highway-Rail Crossing  Inventory data as of August 31, 2018. For public grade crossings that  were not closed, we examined a selection of fields within the database to  identify the frequency of missing data (see table 1), data anomalies (see  table 2), relational errors, where two related data fields had values that  were incompatible (see table 3), and when the data was last updated (see  table 4). Specifically, we conducted the following electronic tests on the  crossing inventory data to determine if they were within reasonable  ranges, were internally consistent, and appeared complete:  Before conducting our analysis, we filtered the inventory data to only  include open, public, at-grade crossings. To understand FRA’s efforts to  improve its crossing inventory data, we interviewed FRA regional and  headquarters staff and reviewed job descriptions for FRA’s new grade-  crossing inspectors.

Finally, to determine the challenges states reported in implementing and  assessing grade-crossing safety projects and the extent to which FHWA  assesses the program’s effectiveness, we reviewed program  requirements and state project data and other components from FHWA’s  2016 and 2018 Section 130 Program biennial reports to Congress. We  also reviewed FHWA’s summary of fiscal year 2018 program funds  provided to states and federal laws and guidance related to implementing  projects and measuring performance. We interviewed state DOT officials  from the eight selected states and other stakeholders on the challenges  states reported in implementing and assessing projects, and FHWA and  FRA officials for their perspectives on managing the program, including  how FHWA measures performance and assesses program effectiveness.  We compared information collected from FHWA and FRA to federal  internal-control standards and criteria on program evaluation identified in  our previous work. In addition, we reviewed FHWA and FRA documents  designed to guide states, such as the Grade Crossing Handbook, the  Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, the Action Plan and Project  Prioritization Noteworthy Practices Guide, and other related documents.

We conducted this performance audit from November 2017 to November  2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Transportation

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

Susan A. Fleming, (202) 512-2834, Flemings@gao.gov.

In addition to the individual named above, Maria Edelstein (Assistant  Director); Gary Guggolz (Analyst in Charge); Steven Campbell; Tim  Guinane; Ben Licht; Catrin Jones; Delwen Jones; SaraAnn Moessbauer;  Malika Rice; Larry Thomas; and Crystal Wesco made key contributions to  this report.

Where roads and train tracks meet, accidents can be deadly. A federal program helps states fund projects to make these crossings safer.

State officials told us that the program's requirements favor certain projects, such as gates—but most of the crashes since 2009 have happened at crossings with gates, largely because of impatient drivers who drive through or go around. Officials said that the requirements may be preventing them from using more innovative approaches.

As greater rail and road use is expected in the future, we recommended that the Department of Transportation evaluate whether the program's requirements need to be more flexible.