Crash Prevention & Safety
In Los Angeles, California, the installation of a "second train coming" warning system at a light rail transit grade crossing reduced risky behavior of pedestrians and surveyed pedestrians felt that safety was improved.(November 2002)
In Baltimore, a "second train coming" warning system decreased the frequency of the most common risky behavior at crossings (i.e., drivers that crossed the tracks after the protection gates began to ascend from the first train before the protection gates could be redeployed for the second train) by 26 percent.(November 2002)
In San Antonio, a modeling study found that if traffic congestion were to increase by 25 percent, posting nearby railroad crossing closing delays on freeway dynamic message signs would reduce total network delay by up to 6.7 percent.(October 2000)
In San Antonio, a modeling study found that if traffic congestion were to increase by 25 percent, posting nearby railroad crossing closing delays on freeway dynamic message signs would reduce crashes by 8.7 percent.(October 2000)
In Ames, Iowa, a survey of area residents indicated that 78 percent preferred an automated horn warning system that reduce the area impacted by excessive noise from 171 acres to less than 6 acres.
(2000)
In Ames, Iowa, an automated horn warning system that alerted motorists and pedestrians of oncoming trains reduced the area impacted by noise levels greater than 80 dBA from 171 acres to less than 6 acres.(2000)
An automated enforcement systems in California decreased highway-rail grade crossing violations by up to 92 percent.(December 1999)
Automated enforcement systems have reduced highway-rail crossing violations by 78 to 92 percent along two corridors in Los Angeles, California.(17 March 1995)
Available Benefit Data: