Driver Behavior at Simulated Railroad Crossings

  • Steven LandryEmail author
  • Yuguang Wang
  • Pasi Lautala
  • David Nelson
  • Myounghoon Jeon
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10917)


Highway-rail grade crossing collisions and fatalities have been in decline for several decades, but a recent ‘plateau’ has spurred additional interest in novel safety research methods. With the support of Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Michigan Tech researchers have performed a large-scale study that utilizes the SHRP2 Naturalistic Driving Study (NDS) data to analyze how various crossing warning devices affect driver behavior and to validate the driving simulation data. To this end, representative crossings from the NDS dataset were recreated in a driving simulator. This paper describes driver behavior at simulated rail crossings modeled after real world crossings included in the NDS dataset. Results suggest that drivers may not react properly to crossbucks and active warnings in the off position. Participants performed the safest behaviors in reaction to STOP signs. The majority of participants also reported an increase in vigilance and compliant behaviors after repeated exposure to RR crossings, which was supported by the results of a linear regression analysis. Participants used the presence of active RR warnings (in the off position) as a cue that there is no oncoming train and it is safe to cross without preparing to yield (operationalized as visually scanning for a train and active speed reduction). Drivers react the most appropriately to STOP signs, but it is unclear whether or not these behaviors would lead to a decrease in train-vehicle collisions.


Driving simulation Rail crossings Driver behavior 



This project is partly supported by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the National University Rail (NURail) Center, a US DOT-OST Tier 1 University Transportation Center.


  1. 1.
    Operation Lifesaver: Federal Railroad Administration Safety Statistics. Accessed 21 Nov 2016
  2. 2.
    Dean, A., Lautala, P., Nelson, D.: Effectiveness of using SHRP2 naturalistic driving study data to analyze driver behavior at highway rail grade crossings. In: IEEE/ASME Joint Rail Conference, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (2017)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abraham, J., Datta, T., Datta, S.: Driver behavior at rail-highway crossings. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 1648, 28–34 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yeh, M., Multer, J.: Driver behavior at highway-railroad grade crossings: a literature review from 1990–2006. DOT/FRA/ORD-08/03 (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Raub, R.: Examination of highway-rail grade crossing collisions nationally from 1998 to 2007. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2122, 63–71 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Landry, S.: Getting Active with passive crossings: investigating the efficacy of in-vehicle auditory alerts for rail road crossings. Master’s thesis, Michigan Technological University (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven Landry
    • 1
    Email author
  • Yuguang Wang
    • 1
  • Pasi Lautala
    • 1
  • David Nelson
    • 1
  • Myounghoon Jeon
    • 1
  1. 1.Michigan Technological UniversityHoughtonUSA

Personalised recommendations