Evaluation of Effectiveness of Stop Sign Treatments at Highway–Railroad Grade Crossings

Abstract

The safety benefit of stop sign treatments at passive highway–rail crossings has been a subject of research for many years. The objective of this study is to assess the effectiveness of the stop sign treatment on crossing safety. Using the FRA database, the research focused on 26 years of vehicle–train accident history in the United States from 1980 through 2005. A before-and-after and cross-sectional statistical analysis was conducted for 7,394 public highway–railroad grade crossings that were upgraded from being controlled only by crossbucks to stop signs, without other traffic control devices or automatic countermeasures. The study found that accident rates based on annual accident frequency per 1,000 crossings were significantly higher during the period when crossings were controlled only by crossbucks than when they were controlled by stop signs. Further, this study developed negative binomial accident prediction models for paved and unpaved highway–rail grade crossings that included the effect of stop sign treatment. Taking account of specific attributes of crossings controlled only by crossbucks, decision makers and traffic engineers can use the models to examine the accident risks at crossings and assess the potential effectiveness of stop sign treatment.

Benefits of IdaShield Signs at Highway–Rail Crossings in Idaho

“…There is very little previous literature on SPF development for highway-rail crossings in particular. Millegan et al developed negative binomial (NB) models to predict highway-rail crossing crashes and evaluate the effectiveness of stop signs (3). However, that model was not used in the HSM EB method, a warning device evaluation method originally explored by Hauer and Persaud in 1987 (4).…”

To stop or not to stop: Contrasting compliant and non-compliant driver behaviour at rural rail level crossings

“…Stopping completely may be problematic for some vehicles, such as heavy vehicles, which lose momentum and require considerable time to regain speed and clear the RLX. Moreover, as noted in the introduction, crash analyses have yielded conflicting results regarding the safety performance of stop-controlled RLXs (Austin and Carson, 2002;McCollister and Pflaum, 2007;Millegan et al, 2009;Raub, 2009;Saccomanno et al, 2007;Yan et al, 2010aYan et al, , 2010b. Furthermore, previous researchers have argued against using stop signs at RLXs due to the high rates of non-compliance observed, due to concerns this may generalise this behaviour and become non-compliant at stop-controlled highway and road intersections (Austin and Carson, Lerner et al, 2002;Raub, 2009).…”

“…Most published comparisons of crash risk between crossbuck-only and stop-controlled RLXs have utilised US data. Some analyses conclude that, compared with crossbuck-only or yield signs, stop controls are associated with reduced injury risk (Eluru et al, 2012) and lower crash rates (Millegan et al, 2009;Saccomanno et al, 2007;Yan et al, 2010aYan et al, , 2010b. Other studies find that crash rates are equivalent (McCollister and Pflaum, 2007) or even increased at stop crossings (Austin and Carson, 2002;Raub, 2009).…”