123
APPENDIX R
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
[Emergency Order No. 15, Notice No. 4]
Amendment of Emergency Order No. 15
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) issues this notice to amend
Emergency Order No. 15 (Order) in response to comments received from
petitioners who have requested an administrative review of the Order
and FRA's further study of alternative remedial measures.
The Emergency Order was issued July 26, 1991, published in the
Federal Register on July 31, and required that trains operated by the
Florida East Coast Railway Company sound train-borne audible warning
devices when approaching public highway-rail grade crossings.
On August 6, FRA received the first petition requesting review of
the Order and began an informal conference process with effected
parties. That process permitted petitioners to submit arguments for
modification or withdrawal of the order. See 49 CFR 211.47. As part
of that process, FRA provided petitioners a set of proposed remedial
options, which, if implemented, would result in exemption from the
requirements of the Order. The comment period on those options ended
on January 15, 1993. Issuance of this notice concludes the conference
process.
After review of the comments, FRA has decided to amend the
performance specifications for various of the proposed remedial
options in certain respects. This notice explains how FRA is
responding to the comments offered by petitioners and amends the
"Relief" section of the Order accordingly.
I. DISCUSSION OF COMMENTS
In September of 1992, FRA issued draft performance specifications
for full highway-rail grade crossing barriers, traffic divisional
islands, and temporary crossing closures. FRA announced its intention
that, once the specifications were finalized, compliance with these
standards would exempt a grade crossing from the requirements of the
Order.
By the end of the comment period on January 15, 1993, FRA had
received responses from eight petitioners: the cities of Hollywood,
Jupiter, North Miami Beach and West Palm Beach; Martin County; Project
124
Whistle Stop (PWS); John A. Cavalier, Jr.; and the Florida East Coast
Railway (FEC).
Funding
The most common concern among the petitioners was funding the
remedial measures. Four groups raised this issue. Martin County
estimated that the cost per crossing would be approximately $85,000.
As a result of this expense, they argued the "...proposed restrictions
are too severe and do not represent the stated intent of providing an
avenue for relief...." FRA consulted with Federal and State highway
officials when it prepared the specifications. Retaining the level of
safety afforded by the use of train horns was the central issue
discussed. Protecting lives was given more consideration than cost.
FRA hoped that less expensive alternatives would be available, and is
still hopeful that less costly means of implementing these measures
will develop as experience is gained.
Other petitioners addressed the question of who should pay.
Hollywood rejected the remedial measures "until such time as the FRA
identifies a proper and acceptable funding source other than the City
of Hollywood and other affected cities...."
West Palm Beach mistakenly interpreted Federal and State statutes
as requiring that such improvements "... be paid from federal and
state funds." Federal statutes do not require that highway-rail
crossing safety improvements be paid with Federal or State funds.
Whether Federal highway safety or other State funds are used is a
decision to be made by the Florida Department of Transportation. The
use of Federal highway safety funds would require the concurrence of
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
Similarly, the Town of Jupiter argued that Federal law requires
that the Federal government "significantly participate with the costs
for upgrading crossings." FRA is not familiar with such a
requirement. FRA has no funds which could be used for such purposes.
Jupiter suggested that FEC participate in the funding of
necessary remedial measures other than closings. This is a decision
which can only be made by FEC.
Quiet Zones
The issue of "quiet zones" was addressed by two petitioners, FEC
and PWS. FEC opposes quiet zones, asserting it would be too
complicated for locomotive engineers to keep track of zone limits.
However, one reason FRA proposed quiet zones was a concern for the
difficulty engineers would have if exemptions to the Emergency Order
125
were granted by individual crossing. As explained in Conference
Notice No. Seven, a zone of sufficient length would assure that the
locality would in fact realize an absence of train horns. Conversely,
to establish quiet zones only at political boundaries, as FEC
proposed, would unnecessarily impact crossings where train horns are
not a problem, for example, in rural locations. We believe the half
mile minimum to be a compromise between what is reasonable and what is
practical. It is not reasonable to require more, nor is it practical
to settle for less.
PWS stated that quiet zones were not needed, but provided no
rationale. PWS went on to state that some jurisdictions are so small
they would not have control over a track segment long enough to
establish a zone. FRA recognizes that jurisdictions may need to
coordinate to create zones, but sees no other option.
Finally, PWS argued that if quiet zones are established the use
of train horns should be banned for the full day, and not just 10 P.M.
to 6 A.M. The concept of a 24-hour ban in designated zones is
reasonable. If the remedial measures are properly implemented for
four quadrant gates, median barriers or one-way streets fully gated,
FRA believes that a 24-hour ban could be consistent with the intent of
the Emergency Order. FRA notes, however, that there may need to be a
change in Florida law before local jurisdictions have the authority to
establish 24-hour bans.
Four Quadrant Gates
PWS and FEC also opposed four quadrant gates. The addition of
exit gates is designed to prevent circumvention of the entrance gates
by impatient or misinformed motorists.
PWS questioned the need for a median barrier if four quadrant
gates are to be used. Medians are specified to deter attempts to
circumvent the entrance gates before the descent of the exit gates.
The exit gates are delayed to allow motorists on the crossing to move
clear before all the gates descend. FRA agrees that four quadrant
gates are unnecessary if the standard gates with medians, as detailed
in the attachment containing performance specifications FRA is
adopting, are installed.
PWS has suggested leaving unpaved the space between opposing
highway lanes over the tracks to prevent motorists from driving around
downed gates. FRA is not convinced it would be any less costly to
remove the pavement between lanes than to erect median barriers. In
addition, this space is often too narrow to serve as a barrier to
deter motorists from driving around the gate. Since an unpaved gap
would also not be as easy to see as a median barrier, it could trap
126
motorists if the gap was inadvertently entered.
The FEC opposed four quadrant gates as an alternative to train
horns, because they believed that "without the intimidation factor
provided by an audible warning device, they [intoxicated or speeding
motorists] are much more likely to crash through them [lowered gates]
and into the path of an oncoming train." Available data do not
support the FEC's statement. FRA reviewed 82 reports prepared by
Florida law enforcement officers regarding FEC nighttime crossing
accidents, including 63 cases where the driver either drove around or
through the gates. Five of the 50 accidents (10 percent) occurred
when the motorist drove through a gate while bans were in effect. In
the remaining 45 cases the driver drove around the gates. Of the 13
no-ban incidents, three (23 percent) resulted from the driver going
through a gate. The percentage of drivers involved in accidents going
through gates, versus around them, did not increase during the ban
period. Most drivers who have had accidents at crossings have slowed
sufficiently to negotiate the crossing without going through the
gates. The percentage of drivers failing to stop, or oblivious to the
gates, did not increase. FRA therefore believes that additional gates
with a median barrier would prevent the vast majority of motorists
from attempting to beat the train.
In a related communication, the Florida Department of
Transportation has suggested that "loop detectors" be used to preclude
the closure of exit gates if a highway vehicle is present in the exit
lanes. The FRA concurs in this suggestion and the specification for
Alternative Remedial Measure #3 was therefore rewritten.
Longer Gate Arms
One petitioner proposed "that where there is a two lane road ...
that the two gates be extended, no more than forty feet, which would
have the effect of completely blocking traffic from entering the
crossing." The petitioner suggested that, "[t]his would have the same
effect as a four quadrant crossing ... and would be far less
expensive." Engineering personnel worry that that approach could trap
motorists on the tracks when gates close. Four quadrant gates are
designed to close the entrance lane(s), and then, after a delay
allowing motorists on the crossing to exit, to close the exit lane(s).
In a related suggestion, PWS proposes that "the street should be
made one way and the arm long enough to prevent vehicles from going
around from the incoming side." This is a valid suggestion. The FRA
and the Florida Department of Transportation have prepared a set of
specifications, similar to those already presented in Conference
Notice #7, addressing this additional option. See the Performance
Specification.
127
Terminating Rail Service
PWS suggested another remedial measure, i.e., shutting down rail
operations on tracks where less than seven trains per week operate.
However, no alternatives for moving freight were offered. Under most
circumstances, rail transport is safer and more economical than moving
freight over our nation's highways. Increased highway congestion
would also put added wear on public roads. Further, by definition,
this measure would eliminate train horns at a particular crossing less
than once per day, obviously not the problem which these proceedings
are attempting to address. Lastly, 80 percent of the FEC highway-rail
crossings which were impacted by whistle bans in 1989 were on the FEC
mainline with considerably more than one train per day. Substantially
more than half of the remaining 20 percent, though not mainline, have
more than one train per day. The impact of this alternative on the
"whistle problem" would be minimal. The legal, logistical and
transportation problems it would create would be out of proportion.
Pedestrian Traffic
FEC recommends that "any signs indicating ... closure should
clearly indicate that the crossing is closed to both vehicular and
pedestrian traffic." FRA agrees and will accordingly modify Note #2
the Implementation Notes. See Performance Specifications.
FEC also recommends that "the specifications should ensure
adequate safeguards to prevent pedestrians ... from entering the
railroad's right of way." FEC offers no suggestion as to what would
be "adequate." FRA would have no objection to the establishment of
further safeguards for pedestrians. However, it appears that current
arrangements are adequate. All potential whistle ban crossings on the
FEC are equipped with gates, lights and a bell. The bell is intended
to warn pedestrians of the impending presence of a train. From 1980
through 1992, the FEC reported 19 pedestrian incidents at highway-rail
crossings. Of these, six occurred while bans were effective. (Three
of the six resulted in a death.) The following table shows the number
of such incidents, by year.
'80 '81 '82 '83 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88 '89 '90 '91 '92
1 4 1 0 1 1* 1 2* 1/1* 1/1* 1* 1 2
* ban in effect (1/1* indicates one with ban in effect, one
without)
These data neither support nor refute the effectiveness of train
horns as a pedestrian warning device. Pedestrian incidents have
occurred before, during and after the whistle bans. The use of a
128
second audible warning device (a train's horn), has not made an
appreciable difference for pedestrians. The bell, flashing lights and
gates, provide adequate warning for pedestrians.
Signs
One individual recommends that signs be placed at each crossing
notifying motorists of the $1,500 fine for violating a state statute
by going around lowered gates. The FRA supports this concept, though
we will not require such a sign in the revised specifications. This
should remain a local option. We would caution that any traffic
control sign is of little value unless the statute is enforced. If it
is enforced, experience shows word will spread quickly.
Whistle Boards
PWS recommends that the FEC "install ground markers for the
engineer to know when to blow the train horn." Such markers are
commonly referred to as "whistle boards," and in Florida, because of
State statutes, would be installed 1,500 feet from each crossing on
each approach to the crossing. It has not been alleged that FEC
locomotive engineers are forgetting to sound their trains' horns.
Should this become a problem, this option would remain open to the
FEC.
Excess Use of Train Horn
PWS has implied that locomotive engineers continue to sound the
horn even after the locomotive has entered upon the highway-rail
crossing, and that this practice should be curtailed, unless "the
engineer thinks it will do some good." Most railroad operating rules,
and FRA's Order, require that the last sounding of the train's horn
for each crossing be "prolonged until the lead locomotive has passed
through the crossing." This practice was established, and is
continued, in an effort to reduce the number of incidents in which a
highway motor vehicle runs into the side of the train. (More than a
quarter of all crossing collisions occur when the highway user strikes
the train.) In most of these, 67 percent, the lead unit (usually the
locomotive) is struck. Overlooked in PWS's assertion is that many FEC
crossings are closer together than 1,500 feet. As an engineer crosses
over one crossing, he frequently is already sounding the horn for the
next. Closing crossings is the best solution to this problem.
129
Highway Intersection, defined
PWS has suggested that the definition of an intersection, whether
major or minor, be predicated on the number of traffic lanes. The
proposed specifications distinguished intersections based on the
presence or absence of turn lanes. PWS provided no rationale for its
recommended change. FRA defers to the State and Federal engineering
personnel with whom we consulted in preparing those specifications and
retains the original definitions.
The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)
PWS recommends that the MUTCD "develop plans for placement of
gates at all types of crossings." The MUTCD, in accordance with Part
1A-2 of the MUTCD:
• sets forth the basic principles that govern the design
and usage of traffic control devices.
 The Manual presents traffic control device standards for all
streets and highways open to public travel regardless of
type or class or the governmental agency having
jurisdiction.
However, the Manual specifically leaves design and placement to
local engineering personnel:
The responsibility for the design, placement, operation and
maintenance of traffic control devices rests with the
governmental body or official having jurisdiction. 1A-3
Traffic control devices shall be placed only by the
authority of a public body or official having jurisdiction,
for the purpose of regulating, warning, or guiding traffic.
1A-3.1
The decision to use a particular device at a particular
location should be made on the basis of an engineering study
of the location. Thus, while this Manual provides standards
for design and application of traffic control devices, the
Manual is not a substitute for engineering judgement. 1A-4
The MUTCD is not a design manual. The PWS recommendation that
the MUTCD predefine all possible scenarios and site plans is not
within the scope of the MUTCD, nor is it realistic.
130
Implementation Not Always Possible
PWS accurately observes that some highway-rail grade crossings
are configured in ways that make it impossible to implement the
provisions of the proposed specifications, short of crossing closure.
This is especially true when the road and track closely parallel,
resulting in a short entrance road into the crossing. Certainly,
prohibiting use of a train's horn would only exacerbate an already
dangerous situation.
Exceptions
One individual requested that exception criteria be defined which
would allow "local authorities to resolve problems with certain
crossings that require special measures." This is too vague and open-ended
to include in the specifications or remedial options. However,
FRA will remain open to requests for exceptions which are forwarded
with the positive endorsement of the Florida Department of
Transportation.
Low Highway Traffic
Another commenter requested that exceptions be granted for
crossings with low highway traffic. In most cases, such a crossing
should be closed. However, the FRA will remain open to requests for
exceptions which are forwarded with the positive endorsement of the
Florida Department of Transportation.
Automated Horn System (AHS)
Two cities have expressed an interest in installing automated
horns at grade crossings. A mid-west firm known as Railroad
Consulting Services, Inc. is experimenting with a prototype Automated
Horn System. It is presently working with the Union Pacific Railroad
and the city of Gering, Nebraska. The AHS consists of horns
permanently mounted at the crossing facing each direction of highway
approach. The horns are activated by trains as they enter upon track
circuits, as are flashing lights and gates, and continue to sound a
set pattern until the train reaches the highway.
The effort underway in Nebraska is innovative and experimental.
FRA has encouraged this initiative and is formally monitoring
progress, though no FRA sanction is needed. There are some technical
difficulties with the devices and some questions still remain
unanswered, in the opinion of the FRA, but none so far appear
insurmountable.
FRA is not yet prepared to endorse the use of the AHS along the
131
FEC right-of-way until further results have been received from the
Nebraska experiment.
Availability of Data
One commenter stated that they have not been able to obtain the
data used in FRA's analysis. All the data used in the original
analysis and in subsequent reviews are available to the public on
request. We are aware of no unfilled requests for data. Summary data
were made available during and immediately following the opening
meeting of the conference process, September 13, 1991. Subsequent
publications, e.g., Conference Notice #3, Florida's Train Whistle Ban,
2nd Edition, September 1992, included a variety of summary and detail
data. Other requesters, including some of those responding to
Conference Notice #7, have received massive listings of data from
FRA's accident files. Requests for specific data should be addressed
to the Federal Railroad Administration, RRS-23, 400 7th Street S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20590. There may be a nominal fee. It is
recommended that a requester call, (202) 366-0533, to discuss a
request prior to writing.
Indemnification
FEC has stated their opposition "to the substitution of audible
warning devices with unproven alternatives. ... FRA should not permit
the substitution of any alternative unless it is shown through
adequate study to be equally effective." FEC's comments are without
force; the proffered alternatives are adaptations of measures whose
effectiveness is well known. Indeed, most of the alternatives will
improve crossing safety during daytime and evening operations, as well
as during the night.
Regarding the proposed alternative of nighttime closure of a
crossing, the community would assume the responsibility for closing
each crossing so configured each evening. FEC locomotive engineers
would have to assume from 10 P.M. to 6 A.M. that each crossing was
closed. FEC has requested that communities "be required to indemnify
FEC for any liability resulting from accidents at such crossings
during the hours in question." Such an action by FRA would be well
beyond the safety mission of this agency and the scope of this
proceeding.
Unrelated Issues
PWS raised a myriad of rail related issues, that are not affected
by, nor do they impact on, whistle bans. These included the adequacy
of current crossing installations, speed of trains, blockage of
crossings by trains, rail car covers and hazardous materials
132
shipments. We have not responded to these concerns. PWS may address
them separately to the FRA outside the confines of this proceeding.
Also, a few groups, including PWS, have again challenged original
data and arguments, which were addressed in the FRA's original report,
the Order, Conference Notices #3 and #7, and the 2nd Edition. The FRA
is not willing to reargue these points.
Two commenters cited a newspaper story which purports a rise in
crossing-related accident statistics of 28 percent since the bans were
lifted. The FRA is not aware of the basis for this number. This
number does not reconcile with information available to the FRA. In
fact, in the year prior to the Order, the FEC reported 23 nighttime
accidents at "impacted" crossings. In the year following, through
July 25, 1992, FEC experienced only 10 nighttime accidents at the same
crossings. This is a reduction of 57 percent.
Preliminary data for the State of Florida indicates that the
state enjoyed a reduction of 16.4 percent in accidents and 74 percent
in fatalities in 1992 versus 1991. This reduction is largely
attributable to the gains achieved along the FEC right-of-way.
A Technical Meeting
Two commenters, have requested that a technical representative of
the FRA attend an "informational hearing." The purpose would be to
have "an open discussion of the alternative remedial measures" so that
"residents" will develop a better understanding of "the technicalities
involved in order to stop whistle blowing...."
The FRA believes that the remedial measures are sufficiently
detailed. The sort of discussion proposed would more appropriately
involve State, County and City transportation planners and engineering
personnel.
II. AMENDMENT TO EMERGENCY ORDER NO. 15
The "Relief" section of Emergency Order No. 15 is amended as follows:
Relief
The FEC has indicated that it does not intend to seek relief from
this Order. However, the local jurisdictions impacted by the Order
have indicated that they desire a mechanism whereby they can take
action that would ensure that the Order's effectiveness would be
lifted with regard to particular crossing where certain alternate
133
measures are adopted. Some of those jurisdictions petitioned for
review of the Order, which triggered a conference process under 49 CFR
211.47. As a result of that conference process, FRA has decided that
a local jurisdiction may obtain relief from the impact of this Order
by properly adopting one or more remedial measures (as set forth in
the specifications below) at a highway-rail crossing or, where
required, at a number of highway-rail crossings in a "quiet zone," and
so notifying the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)
1
and the
FEC in writing. FDOT must then certify whether the requirements of
the relevant performance specifications have been met. Fourteen days
after written notification has been sent from FDOT to the Docket
Clerk, FRA, and to FEC, the impacted crossings may be considered
exempt from the requirements of this Order
PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS FOR ALTERNATIVE REMEDIAL MEASURES
DEFINITIONS
The following definitions pertain to these specifications:
Low Traffic Volume Streets: Any street carrying less than
2,000 vehicles per day.
Major intersection: Any intersection where traffic volume
justifies the use of separate turn lanes.
Median barrier: Any device designed to prevent the
intentional or accidental incursion of a vehicle into
opposing lanes, e.g., a Jersey Barrier.
Median curb: A curb, either mountable or non-mountable,
which defines a median.
Minor intersection: An intersection where traffic volumes
do not require the use of separate turn lanes.
MUTCD: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (1988 Edition),
Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of
1
Notification to FDOT should be sent to: Manager, Rail Office,
Florida Department of Transportation, 605 Suwannee St., Tallahassee,
Fl., 32399-0450. Notification to the FEC should be sent to: Vice
President-Transportation, Florida East Coast Railway Co., P.O. Drawer
1048, St. Augustine, Fl., 32084. Notification to FRA's docket clerk
should be sent to: Docket Clerk, Federal Railroad Administration, 400
Seventh St., S.W., Room 8201, Washington, D.C., 20590.
134
Transportation.
Non-mountable (barrier) curb: A steep-faced curb 9-12
inches high intended to prevent intentional incursion by a
vehicle into a defined area.
Quiet zone: A segment of railroad of not less than one-half
mile (2,640 feet) in length on which all at-grade crossings
are, in keeping with these specifications, closed during
nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.), equipped with
four quadrant gates, or equipped with gates with median
barriers.
Traffic separator: A traffic island or median designed to
guide traffic around an obstacle or to direct traffic in a
particular direction.
SPECIFICATIONS
1. PERMANENT CLOSURE OF THE HIGHWAY-RAIL CROSSING: Eliminate the
at-grade crossing through permanent closure of the street or
highway or through grade separation (overpass or underpass).
2. NIGHTTIME CLOSURE OF THE HIGHWAY-RAIL CROSSING: Close the
crossing to highway traffic during nighttime hours subject to the
following conditions:
a. The closure system must completely block highway traffic
from entering the crossing.
b. Activation and deactivation of the system will be the
responsibility of the county or municipality responsible for
the street or highway, which must undertake to reliably
discharge this duty such that the crossing is closed
continuously during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
c. The crossing must be part of a quiet zone, as defined in
these specifications.
d. The system must be reasonably tamper and vandal proof.
e. MUTCD standards must be met for any barricades and signing
used in the nighttime closure of the facility. Signing for
alternate routes must also be included.
3. FOUR QUADRANT GATE SYSTEM: Install sufficient gates at a
crossing to fully block highway traffic from entering a crossing
when the gates are lowered, subject to the following conditions:
135
a. Approaches on both sides of the highway-rail crossing will
be separated with medians with non-mountable curbs or
traffic separators. Such median construction will include
energy dissipaters and median striping as required by MUTCD.
b. Any median construction will extend at least 200 feet or to
a major intersection, which ever is less. All major
intersections must be a minimum of 100 feet from the
highway-rail crossing. Any minor intersections within 200
feet of the crossing will be closed to crossing traffic.
c. At low traffic volume streets, median curbs with vertical
delineators (rubber pipes and low curbing) between opposing
lanes may be used in place of non-mountable curbs or traffic
separator.
d. The maximum length of a gate arm will not exceed 40 feet.
e. Gate timing for full closure systems should be based on
these suggested times:
step Inc. Time
Lights start flashing 0 sec.
Entrance gates start down 3-5 "
Entrance gates fully lowered 9-15 "
Exit gates start down 4-6 "
Exit gates fully lowered 9-15 "
Exit gates will be equipped with a presence detection loop
located between the outside track and the exit gate arm.
This loop will raise or prevent the lowering of the exit
gate arm if an automobile is detected within the loop. The
loop or loops will be of sufficient size and number to
detect an automobile in all exit lanes.
f. The gap between the end of a lowered gate and the median
will be less than one foot.
g. Four quadrant gates will not be an option where traffic
signal pre-emption exists.
h. The crossing must be part of a quiet zone, as defined in
these specifications.
i. The system must be reasonably tamper and vandal proof.
j. General principles of the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide
136
regarding median barrier construction will be adopted where
applicable.
4. GATES WITH MEDIAN BARRIERS: Install median barriers at a
crossing which prevent highway traffic from driving around
lowered gates subject to the following conditions:
a. Approaches on both sides of the highway-rail crossing will
be separated with median barriers. Any barrier so
constructed will include markers as required by the MUTCD,
and also energy dissipaters.
b. Median barriers will extend at least 200 feet or to a major
intersection, whichever is less. All major intersections
must be a minimum of 100 feet from the highway-rail
crossing. Any minor intersections within 200 feet of the
crossing will be closed to crossing traffic.
c. The maximum length of a gate arm will not exceed 40 feet.
d. The gap between the end of a lowered gate and the median
barrier will be less than one foot.
e. The crossing must be part of a quiet zone, as defined in
these specifications.
f. The system must be reasonably tamper and vandal proof.
g. General principles of the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide
regarding median barrier construction will be adopted where
applicable.
5. ONE WAY PAIRING OF ADJACENT STREETS: Adjacent streets would be
made into one-way pairs and gates modified or relocated to
completely block the approaching lanes of traffic, subject to the
following conditions:
a. Streets to be made into one-way pairs should ideally be no
more than one city block (300'-500') apart. Cross streets
connecting the one-way pairs should be no more than one city
block from each side of the crossings in Central Business
Districts, nor more than one-quarter mile from each side of
the crossings in suburban areas.
b. Lane capacities of both streets should be approximately the
same.
c. Preferably, the gate arms on the approach side of the
137
crossings should be extended to within one foot of the left
edge of pavement. The left edge of the pavement on the
approach side in this configuration will include a non-mountable
curb extending at least 200 feet or to a major
intersection, which ever is less. Alternatively, the gate
mechanisms on the far side of the crossings may be relocated
to the left side of the approach lanes, and the gate arms
sized to provide a maximum of one foot between the tips of
the gate arms when in the lowered position.
d. The maximum length of a gate arm will not exceed 40 feet.
e. Two two-lane roadways one-way in the same direction may be
paired with a single intervening multi-lane undivided
roadway in the opposite direction provided all other
conditions are met.
f. Both crossings of a one-way pair must be part of a quiet
zone, as defined in these specifications.
g. Signing for one-way streets shall be in conformance with the
MUTCD.
Implementation Notes:
The following statements reflect the desire and intent of parties
to the conference with respect to application of the above
specifications:
1. In regard to the full closure of highway-rail crossings, the FDOT
and the FEC have expressed a willingness to discuss financial
assistance for closing any highway-rail crossing impacted by this
Emergency Order.
2. If a crossing is selected for nighttime closing, alternate
highway traffic routes should be identified, and signs erected in
accordance with the MUTCD and applicable FDOT and local standards
informing pedestrians and the motoring public that the streets
will be closed from 10:00 pm until 6:00 am and that alternate
routes must be used.
3. Any crossing equipped with a four quadrant gate system or with
gates and median barriers should also be equipped with constant
warning time devices.
4. All gate arms should be equipped with strobe lights located on
the centerline of each driving lane when the gates are lowered.
The strobe lights will be activated when the gates begin to
138
lower. Florida DOT and the local jurisdictions should carefully
monitor the effect of these strobe lights on vehicle drivers
after the gates have been lowered.
5. Illumination (street lighting) of these highway-rail crossings is
encouraged.
This amendment is effective from the date of issue of this notice.
Issued in Washington, D.C., on August 31, 1993.
[SIGNED]
Jolene M. Molitoris
Administrator