Prioritization Procedure for Proposed Road–Rail Grade Separation Projects Along Specific Rail Corridors (2019)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

46 Literature Review by Category A P P E N D I X A

1 Railroad–Highway Grade Crossing Handbook (FHWA, 2007) X 3 Development of Evaluation Tools for Road–Rail Grade Separation (Hakkert and Gitelman, 1998) (not used in the equation) (not used in the equation) 5 Prioritizing Level Crossings in Melbourne for Grade Separation (Crawford, 2010) x x 7 Grade Separation Program (California Public Utilities Commission, 2013) x 9 A Methodology for Evaluating Highway–Rail Grade Separations (Schrader and Hoffpauer, 2001) X x 11 Highway–Rail Crossing Project Selection (Qureshi, et al., 2003) X (output of the model) 13 Criteria for Grade Separation for RR Crossing (Right of Way) – Minnesota (AASHTO, 2008) X 15 Criteria for Grade Separation for RR Crossing (Right of Way) – New Hampshire(AASHTO, 2008) x 17 Benefit–Cost Analysis and the Construction and Financing of Rail/Highway Grade Separations (Dodgson, 1984) X x Literature Accident Prediction Value FRA Safety Record (Accident History) Near Misses 2 Grade Separation Prioritization Report(Kern Council of Governments, 2011) X 4 Grade Separation Priority Update Study for Alameda Corridor East (Riverside County Transportation Commission, 2012) X 6 Improvement to Highway–Rail Grade Crossing and Rail Safety (Minnesota DOT, 2014) X x x 8 Grade Separations: When Do We Separate? (Nichelson and Reed, 1999) X x 10 Integrated Prioritization Method for Active and Passive Highway–Rail Crossings (Weissmann, et al., 2013) x 12 Criteria for Grade Separation for RR Crossing (Right of Way) – Arizona (AASHTO, 2008) X 14 Criteria for Grade Separation for RR Crossing (Right of Way) – Arkansas (AASHTO, 2008) x 16 User Benefits of Railroad Grade Separation in a Small Community (Roper and Keltner, 1999) X 18 Quantifying the Public Impact of Highway Rail Grade Crossing on Surface Mobility (Protopapas, et. al., 2010) x Safety-Related Literature

Literature Current Road Delay Future Road Delay Rail Delay Posted H ighway Speed Speed Reduction AADT AATT Train Distrib Passenger Train Count Train Speed Train Length Exposure Traffic Growth Duration of Crossing C losure LOS Queue Length Binary Var: Through Train 1 x x x x X x x x x 2 Grade Separation Prioritization Report (Kern Council of Governments, 2011) x x x x X x x x 3 x x x x x (not used in the equation) x 4 Grade Separation Priority Update Study for Alameda Corridor East (Riverside County Transportation Commission, 2012) x x x x x x x x x 5 X X HCADT X X x x 6 Prioritizing Level Crossings in Melbourne for Grade Separation (Crawford, 2010) x X x x 7 x X HCADT X 8 Grade Separation Program (California Public Utilities Commission, 2013) X x x 9 x X x x x 10 Criteria for Grade Separation for RR Crossing (Right of Way) – Arkansas (AASHTO, 2008) X x 11 X x x 12 Grade Separations: When Do We Separate? (Nichelson and Reed, 1999) x X x x x 13 x x x HCADT x x x x x 14 Motorist Delay at Public Highway Rail Grade Crossings in Northeastern Illinois (Illinois Commerce Commission, 2002) x x x x x 15 Benefit – Cost Analysis and the Construction and Financing of Rail/Highway Grade Separations (Dodgson, 1984) x x 16 Quantifying the Public Impact of Highway–Rail Grade Crossings on Surface Mobility (Protopapas, et. al., 2010) x x x x x x x x 17 Methodology for Evaluating Highway–Rail Grade Separations (Schrader and Hoffpauer, 2001) x x x X (peak trains per day) x x Note: Distrib = distribution; LOS = level of service; HCADT = heavy commercial average daily traffic. Railroad–Highway Grade Crossing Handbook (FHWA, 2007) Development of Evaluation Tools for Road–Rail Grade Separation (Hakkert and Gitelman, 1998) Improvements to At-Grade Rail Crossings: Prioritizing Crossings for Grade Separation (Peel Regional Council, 2014) Improvement to Highway–Rail Grade Crossing and Rail Safety (Minnesota DOT, 2014) Highway – Rail Crossing Project Selection (Qureshi, et al., 2003) Criteria for Grade Separation for RR Crossing (Right of Way) – Michigan (AASHTO, 2008) User Benefits of Railroad Grade Separation in a Small Community (Roper and Keltner, 1999) Literature on Traffic- and Delay-Related Factors

Literature Land Use Spread of Region Geometry of Crossing/sight distance/clearance time for road vehicles Number of Highway Lanes/Highway Paved Number of Rail Tracks Adjacent Grade Separation Warning Device Construct -ability 1 Grade Separation Prioritization Report (Kern Council of Governments, 2011) x x 2 Grade Separation Priority Update Study for Alameda Corridor East (Riverside County Transportation Commission, 2012) x x x 3 Grade Separation Program (California Public Utilities Commission, 2013) X (under special conditions factors) 4 Improvements to At-Grade Rail Crossings: Prioritizing Crossings for Grade Separation (Peel Regional Council, 2014) x x x x 5 Integrated Prioritization Method for Active and Passive Highway–Rail Crossings (Weissmann, et al., 2013) x x 6 Highway–Rail Crossing Project Selection (Qureshi, et al., 2003) x 7 Criteria for Grade Separation for RR Crossing (Right of Way)–Michigan (AASHTO, 2008) x 8 User Benefits of Railroad Grade Separation in a Small Community (Roper and Keltner, 1999) x 9 Motorist Delay at Public Highway–Rail Grade Crossings in Northeastern Illinois (Illinois Commerce Commission, 2002) x x 10 A Methodology for Evaluating Highway–Rail Grade Separations (Schrader and Hoffpauer, 2001) x x x x 11 Grade Separations: When Do We Separate? (Nichelson and Reed, 1999) x Crossings in Literature on Location and Crossing Geometry

Literature Noise Air Quality/Emissions and Fuel Savings Sites of Environmental Significance 1 Grade Separation Prioritization Report (Kern Council of Governments, 2011) x 2 Grade Separation Priority Update Study for Alameda Corridor East (Riverside County Transportation Commission, 2012) x x 3 Prioritizing Level Crossings in Melbourne for Grade Separation (Crawford, 2010) x x x 4 A Methodology for Evaluating Highway– Rail Grade Separations (Schrader and Hoffpauer, 2001) x 5 Criteria for Grade Separation for RR Crossing (Right of Way) – New Hampshire (AASHTO, 2008) 6 Benefit–Cost Analysis and the Construction and Financing of Rail/Highway Grade Separations (Dodgson, 1984) x Literature on Environmental Factors Related to Grade Crossings

Literature Population Vulnerable Population Transit/Emergency /School Bus Vehicle Routes Social Significance (local development) Community Cohesion/ Accessibility/ Connectivity Quiet Zone Strategic Fit Local Agent Priority/ Isolated Location Visual Amenity 1 Grade Separation Prioritization Report (Kern Council of Governments, 2011) X x 2 Improvements to At-Grade Rail Crossings: Prioritizing Crossings for Grade Separation (Peel Regional Council, 2014) x x 3 Grade Separation Priority Update Study for Alameda Corridor East (Riverside County Transportation Commission, 2012) X x x X 4 Prioritizing Level Crossings in Melbourne for Grade Separation (Crawford, 2010) X x x x x x x 5 Improvement to Highway– Rail Grade Crossing and Rail Safety (Minnesota DOT, 2014) X x x X (nearby traffic generator) 6 A Methodology for Evaluating Highway Rail– Grade Separations (Schrader and Hoffpauer, 2001) X x 7 Criteria for Grade Separation for RR Crossing (Right of Way)— Michigan (AASHTO, 2008) x 8 Grade Separations: When Do We Separate? (Nichelson and Reed, 1999) x x Literature on Community Livability Factors Related to Grade Crossings

52 Literature Vehicle Operating Cost/Delay and Accident Cost Crossing Operating Cost/Life- Cycle Cost Construction Cost Economic Losses 1 Development of Evaluation Tools for Road–Rail Grade Separation (Hakkert and Gitelman, 1998) X 2 Grade Separation Prioritization Report (Kern Council of Governments, 2011) x 3 Prioritizing Level Crossings in Melbourne for Grade Separation (Crawford, 2010) x 4 Grade Separations: When Do We Separate? (Nichelson and Reed, 1999) x x x 5 User Benefits of Railroad Grade Separation in a Small Community (Roper and Keltner, 1999) x 6 Motorist Delay at Public Highway–Rail Grade Crossings in Northeastern Illinois (Illinois Commerce Commission, 2002) x 7 Benefit–Cost Analysis and the Construction and Financing of Rail/Highway Grade Separations (Dodgson, 1984) X Literature on Economic Considerations Related to Grade Crossings