Appendix B to Part 222 - Alternative Safety Measures
49:4.1.1.1.17.5.15.1.26 : Appendix B
Appendix B to Part 222 - Alternative Safety Measures Introduction
A public authority seeking approval of a quiet zone under public
authority application to FRA (§ 222.39(b)) may include ASMs listed
in this appendix in its proposal. This appendix addresses three
types of ASMs: Modified SSMs, Non-Engineering ASMs, and Engineering
ASMs. Modified SSMs are SSMs that do not fully comply with the
provisions listed in appendix A. As provided in section I.B. of
this appendix, public authorities can obtain risk reduction credit
for pre-existing modified SSMs under the final rule.
Non-engineering ASMs consist of programmed enforcement, public
education and awareness, and photo enforcement programs that may be
used to reduce risk within a quiet zone. Engineering ASMs consist
of engineering improvements that address underlying geometric
conditions, including sight distance, that are the source of
increased risk at crossings.
I. Modified SSMs A. Requirements and Effectiveness Rates for
Modified SSMs
1. If there are unique circumstances pertaining to a specific
crossing or number of crossings which prevent SSMs from being fully
compliant with all of the SSM requirements listed in appendix A,
those SSM requirements may be adjusted or revised. In that case,
the SSM, as modified by the public authority, will be treated as an
ASM under this appendix B, and not as a SSM under appendix A. After
reviewing the estimated safety effect of the modified SSM and the
proposed quiet zone, FRA will approve the proposed quiet zone if
FRA finds that the Quiet Zone Risk Index will be reduced to a level
at or below either the Risk Index With Horns or the Nationwide
Significant Risk Threshold.
2. The public authority must provide estimates of effectiveness.
These estimates may be based upon adjustments from the
effectiveness levels provided in appendix A or from actual field
data derived from the crossing sites. The specific crossing and
applied mitigation measure will be assessed to determine the
effectiveness of the modified SSM. FRA will continue to develop and
make available effectiveness estimates and data from experience
under the final rule.
3. If one or more of the requirements associated with an SSM as
listed in appendix A is revised or deleted, data or analysis
supporting the revision or deletion must be provided to FRA for
review. The following engineering types of ASMs may be included in
a proposal for approval by FRA for creation of a quiet zone: (1)
Temporary Closure of a Public Highway-Rail Grade Crossing, (2)
Four-Quadrant Gate System, (3) Gates With Medians or Channelization
Devices, and (4) One-Way Street With Gate(s).
B. Credit for Pre-Existing Modified SSMs in New Quiet Zones and New
Partial Quiet Zones
A community that has implemented a pre-existing modified SSM at
a public grade crossing can receive risk reduction credit by
inflating the Risk Index With Horns as follows:
1. Calculate the current risk index for the grade crossing that
is equipped with a pre-existing modified SSM. (See appendix D.
FRA's web-based Quiet Zone Calculator may be used to complete this
calculation.)
2. Obtain FRA approval of the estimated effectiveness rate for
the pre-existing modified SSM. Estimated effectiveness rates may be
based upon adjustments from the SSM effectiveness rates provided in
appendix A or actual field data derived from crossing sites.
3. Adjust the risk index by accounting for the increased risk
that was avoided by implementing the pre-existing modified SSM at
the public grade crossing. This adjustment can be made by dividing
the risk index by one minus the FRA-approved modified SSM
effectiveness rate.
4. Add the current risk indices for the other public grade
crossings located within the proposed quiet zone and divide by the
number of crossings. The resulting risk index will be the new Risk
Index With Horns for the proposed quiet zone.
C. Credit for Pre-Existing Modified SSMs in Pre-Rule Quiet Zones
and Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zones
A community that has implemented a pre-existing modified SSM at
a public grade crossing can receive risk reduction credit by
inflating the Risk Index With Horns as follows:
1. Calculate the current risk index for the grade crossing that
is equipped with a pre-existing modified SSM. (See appendix D.
FRA's web-based Quiet Zone Calculator may be used to complete this
calculation.)
2. Reduce the current risk index for the grade crossing to
reflect the risk reduction that would have been achieved if the
locomotive horn was routinely sounded at the crossing. The
following list sets forth the estimated risk reduction for certain
types of crossings:
a. Risk indices for passive crossings shall be reduced by
43%;
b. Risk indices for grade crossings equipped with automatic
flashing lights shall be reduced by 27%; and
c. Risk indices for gated crossings shall be reduced by 40%.
3. Obtain FRA approval of the estimated effectiveness rate for
the pre-existing modified SSM. Estimated effectiveness rates may be
based upon adjustments from the SSM effectiveness rates provided in
appendix A or actual field data derived from crossing sites.
4. Adjust the risk index by accounting for the increased risk
that was avoided by implementing the pre-existing modified SSM at
the public grade crossing. This adjustment can be made by dividing
the risk index by one minus the FRA-approved modified SSM
effectiveness rate.
5. Adjust the risk indices for the other crossings that are
included in the Pre-Rule Quiet Zone or Pre-Rule Partial Quiet Zone
by reducing the current risk index to reflect the risk reduction
that would have been achieved if the locomotive horn was routinely
sounded at each crossing. Please refer to step two for the list of
approved risk reduction percentages by crossing type.
6. Add the new risk indices for each crossing located within the
proposed quiet zone and divide by the number of crossings. The
resulting risk index will be the new Risk Index With Horns for the
quiet zone.
II. Non-Engineering ASMs
A. The following non-engineering ASMs may be used in the
creation of a Quiet Zone: (The method for determining the
effectiveness of the non-engineering ASMs, the implementation of
the quiet zone, subsequent monitoring requirements, and dealing
with an unacceptable effectiveness rate is provided in paragraph
B.)
1. Programmed Enforcement: Community and law enforcement
officials commit to a systematic and measurable crossing monitoring
and traffic law enforcement program at the public highway-rail
grade crossing, alone or in combination with the Public Education
and Awareness ASM.
Required:
a. Subject to audit, a statistically valid baseline violation
rate must be established through automated or systematic manual
monitoring or sampling at the subject crossing(s); and
b. A law enforcement effort must be defined, established and
continued along with continual or regular monitoring that provides
a statistically valid violation rate that indicates the
effectiveness of the law enforcement effort.
c. The public authority shall retain records pertaining to
monitoring and sampling efforts at the grade crossing for a period
of not less than five years. These records shall be made available,
upon request, to FRA as provided by 49 U.S.C. 20107.
2. Public Education and Awareness: Conduct, alone or in
combination with programmed law enforcement, a program of public
education and awareness directed at motor vehicle drivers,
pedestrians and residents near the railroad to emphasize the risks
associated with public highway-rail grade crossings and applicable
requirements of state and local traffic laws at those
crossings.
Requirements:
a. Subject to audit, a statistically valid baseline violation
rate must be established through automated or systematic manual
monitoring or sampling at the subject crossing(s); and
b. A sustainable public education and awareness program must be
defined, established and continued along with continual or regular
monitoring that provides a statistically valid violation rate that
indicates the effectiveness of the public education and awareness
effort. This program shall be provided and supported primarily
through local resources.
c. The public authority shall retain records pertaining to
monitoring and sampling efforts at the grade crossing for a period
of not less than five years. These records shall be made available,
upon request, to FRA as provided by 49 U.S.C. 20107.
3. Photo Enforcement: This ASM entails automated means of
gathering valid photographic or video evidence of traffic law
violations at a public highway-rail grade crossing together with
follow-through by law enforcement and the judiciary.
Requirements:
a. State law authorizing use of photographic or video evidence
both to bring charges and sustain the burden of proof that a
violation of traffic laws concerning public highway-rail grade
crossings has occurred, accompanied by commitment of
administrative, law enforcement and judicial officers to enforce
the law;
b. Sanction includes sufficient minimum fine (e.g., $100 for a
first offense, “points” toward license suspension or revocation) to
deter violations;
c. Means to reliably detect violations (e.g., loop detectors,
video imaging technology);
d. Photographic or video equipment deployed to capture images
sufficient to document the violation (including the face of the
driver, if required to charge or convict under state law).
Note:
This does not require that each crossing be continually
monitored. The objective of this option is deterrence, which may be
accomplished by moving photo/video equipment among several crossing
locations, as long as the motorist perceives the strong possibility
that a violation will lead to sanctions. Each location must appear
identical to the motorist, whether or not surveillance equipment is
actually placed there at the particular time. Surveillance
equipment should be in place and operating at each crossing at
least 25 percent of each calendar quarter.
e. Appropriate integration, testing and maintenance of the
system to provide evidence supporting enforcement;
f. Public awareness efforts designed to reinforce photo
enforcement and alert motorists to the absence of train horns;
g. Subject to audit, a statistically valid baseline violation
rate must be established through automated or systematic manual
monitoring or sampling at the subject crossing(s); and
h. A law enforcement effort must be defined, established and
continued along with continual or regular monitoring.
i. The public authority shall retain records pertaining to
monitoring and sampling efforts at the grade crossing for a period
of not less than five years. These records shall be made available,
upon request, to FRA as provided by 49 U.S.C. 20107.
B. The effectiveness of an ASM will be determined as
follows:
1. Establish the quarterly (three months) baseline violation
rates for each crossing in the proposed quiet zone.
a. A violation in this context refers to a motorist not
complying with the automatic warning devices at the crossing (not
stopping for the flashing lights and driving over the crossing
after the gate arms have started to descend, or driving around the
lowered gate arms). A violation does not have to result in a
traffic citation for the violation to be considered.
b. Violation data may be obtained by any method that can be
shown to provide a statistically valid sample. This may include the
use of video cameras, other technologies (e.g., inductive loops),
or manual observations that capture driver behavior when the
automatic warning devices are operating.
c. If data is not collected continuously during the quarter,
sufficient detail must be provided in the application in order to
validate that the methodology used results in a statistically valid
sample. FRA recommends that at least a minimum of 600 samples (one
sample equals one gate activation) be collected during the baseline
and subsequent quarterly sample periods.
d. The sampling methodology must take measures to avoid biases
in their sampling technique. Potential sampling biases could
include: Sampling on certain days of the week but not others;
sampling during certain times of the day but not others; sampling
immediately after implementation of an ASM while the public is
still going through an adjustment period; or applying one sample
method for the baseline rate and another for the new rate.
e. The baseline violation rate should be expressed as the number
of violations per gate activations in order to normalize for
unequal gate activations during subsequent data collection
periods.
f. All subsequent quarterly violation rate calculations must use
the same methodology as stated in this paragraph unless FRA
authorizes another methodology.
2. The ASM should then be initiated for each crossing. Train
horns are still being sounded during this time period.
3. In the calendar quarter following initiation of the ASM,
determine a new quarterly violation rate using the same methodology
as in paragraph (1) above.
4. Determine the violation rate reduction for each crossing by
the following formula:
Violation rate reduction = (new rate − baseline rate)/baseline rate
5. Determine the effectiveness rate of the ASM for each crossing
by multiplying the violation rate reduction by .78.
6. Using the effectiveness rates for each grade crossing treated
by an ASM, determine the Quiet Zone Risk Index. If and when the
Quiet Zone Risk Index for the proposed quiet zone has been reduced
to a level at, or below, the Risk Index With Horns or the
Nationwide Significant Risk Threshold, the public authority may
apply to FRA for approval of the proposed quiet zone. Upon
receiving written approval of the quiet zone application from FRA,
the public authority may then proceed with notifications and
implementation of the quiet zone.
7. Violation rates must be monitored for the next two calendar
quarters and every second quarter thereafter. If, after five years
from the implementation of the quiet zone, the violation rate for
any quarter has never exceeded the violation rate that was used to
determine the effectiveness rate that was approved by FRA,
violation rates may be monitored for one quarter per year.
8. In the event that the violation rate is ever greater than the
violation rate used to determine the effectiveness rate that was
approved by FRA, the public authority may continue the quiet zone
for another quarter. If, in the second quarter the violation rate
is still greater than the rate used to determine the effectiveness
rate that was approved by FRA, a new effectiveness rate must be
calculated and the Quiet Zone Risk Index re-calculated using the
new effectiveness rate. If the new Quiet Zone Risk Index indicates
that the ASM no longer fully compensates for the lack of a train
horn, or that the risk level is equal to, or exceeds the National
Significant Risk Threshold, the procedures for dealing with
unacceptable effectiveness after establishment of a quiet zone
should be followed.
III. Engineering ASMs
A. Engineering improvements, other than modified SSMs, may be
used in the creation of a Quiet Zone. These engineering
improvements, which will be treated as ASMs under this appendix,
may include improvements that address underlying geometric
conditions, including sight distance, that are the source of
increased risk at the crossing.
B. The effectiveness of an Engineering ASM will be determined as
follows:
1. Establish the quarterly (three months) baseline violation
rate for the crossing at which the Engineering ASM will be
applied.
a. A violation in this context refers to a motorist not
complying with the automatic warning devices at the crossing (not
stopping for the flashing lights and driving over the crossing
after the gate arms have started to descend, or driving around the
lowered gate arms). A violation does not have to result in a
traffic citation for the violation to be considered.
b. Violation data may be obtained by any method that can be
shown to provide a statistically valid sample. This may include the
use of video cameras, other technologies (e.g. inductive loops), or
manual observations that capture driver behavior when the automatic
warning devices are operating.
c. If data is not collected continuously during the quarter,
sufficient detail must be provided in the application in order to
validate that the methodology used results in a statistically valid
sample. FRA recommends that at least a minimum of 600 samples (one
sample equals one gate activation) be collected during the baseline
and subsequent quarterly sample periods.
d. The sampling methodology must take measures to avoid biases
in their sampling technique. Potential sampling biases could
include: Sampling on certain days of the week but not others;
sampling during certain times of the day but not others; sampling
immediately after implementation of an ASM while the public is
still going through an adjustment period; or applying one sample
method for the baseline rate and another for the new rate.
e. The baseline violation rate should be expressed as the number
of violations per gate activations in order to normalize for
unequal gate activations during subsequent data collection
periods.
f. All subsequent quarterly violation rate calculations must use
the same methodology as stated in this paragraph unless FRA
authorizes another methodology.
2. The Engineering ASM should be initiated at the crossing.
Train horns are still being sounded during this time period.
3. In the calendar quarter following initiation of the
Engineering ASM, determine a new quarterly violation rate using the
same methodology as in paragraph (1) above.
4. Determine the violation rate reduction for the crossing by
the following formula:
Violation rate reduction = (new rate − baseline rate)/baseline rate
5. Using the Engineering ASM effectiveness rate, determine the
Quiet Zone Risk Index. If and when the Quiet Zone Risk Index for
the proposed quiet zone has been reduced to a risk level at or
below the Risk Index With Horns or the Nationwide Significant Risk
Threshold, the public authority may apply to FRA for approval of
the quiet zone. Upon receiving written approval of the quiet zone
application from FRA, the public authority may then proceed with
notifications and implementation of the quiet zone.
6. Violation rates must be monitored for the next two calendar
quarters. Unless otherwise provided in FRA's notification of quiet
zone approval, if the violation rate for these two calendar
quarters does not exceed the violation rate that was used to
determine the effectiveness rate that was approved by FRA, the
public authority can cease violation rate monitoring.
7. In the event that the violation rate over either of the next
two calendar quarters are greater than the violation rate used to
determine the effectiveness rate that was approved by FRA, the
public authority may continue the quiet zone for a third calendar
quarter. However, if the third calendar quarter violation rate is
also greater than the rate used to determine the effectiveness rate
that was approved by FRA, a new effectiveness rate must be
calculated and the Quiet Zone Risk Index re-calculated using the
new effectiveness rate. If the new Quiet Zone Risk Index exceeds
the Risk Index With Horns and the Nationwide Significant Risk
Threshold, the procedures for dealing with unacceptable
effectiveness after establishment of a quiet zone should be
followed.