Hubbry Logo
Grade separationGrade separationMain
Open search
Grade separation
Community hub
Grade separation
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Grade separation
Grade separation
Grade separation
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
An example of the potential complexity of grade separation, seen in the Jane Byrne Interchange in Chicago
Seven various overpasses for grade separation in Spain near Barcelona
Rail-rail grade separation in Xiaoshan, China
The concept of grade separation includes all transport modes, such as a simple pedestrian bridge over rail tracks.

In civil engineering (and more specifically, highway or railway engineering), grade separation is a method of aligning a junction of two or more surface transport axes at different heights (grades) so that they will not disrupt the traffic flow on other transit routes when they cross each other. The composition of such transport axes does not have to be uniform; it can consist of a mixture of roads, footpaths, railways, canals, or airport runways. Bridges (or overpasses, also called flyovers), tunnels (or underpasses), or a combination of both can be built at a junction to achieve the needed grade separation.

In North America, a grade-separated junction may be referred to as a grade separation[1][2] or as an interchange – in contrast with an intersection, at-grade, a diamond crossing or a level crossing, which are not grade-separated.

Effects

[edit]

Advantages

[edit]

Roads with grade separation generally allow traffic to move freely, with fewer interruptions, and at higher overall speeds; this is why speed limits are typically higher for grade-separated roads and grade separation is typically a prerequisite for the implementation of meaningfully high-speed rail.

In addition, reducing the complexity of traffic movements can reduce the risk of accidents and further, reduce or preclude entirely the threat of vehicular homicide and fatal cyclist-vehicle collisions that becomes statistically inevitable with a large enough population of pedestrians or cyclists crossing even a modestly trafficked thoroughfare with reasonable posted speed limits.[3] In the literal sense, only grade separation and the restriction of vehicle access to pedestrian spaces can actually and effectively reduce the probability of these deaths occurring regularly in any particular area to zero.[4]

While much less common and generally easier to prevent than automotive and truck collisions with cyclists and pedestrians, vehicle-train, cyclist-train and pedestrian-train collisions are almost exclusively fatal, particularly when involving heavy or freight rail, and avoidable only on the end of the collision's victim in the absence of grade separation in most cases. Regardless of the competency and alertness of a train driver, there is nothing that the operator of a locomotive traveling at-speed can do to stop a train completely before reaching the most distant point on the tracks ahead of the driver that they were able to see at the point they first knew to apply the brake.

This is considerably less true in relation to light rail and trams, which frequently operate in mixed traffic and as such are comparably lightweight and responsive to braking, able to come to a halt at roughly the same rates as would a bus or lorry (truck), and usually stop in less time than a loaded semi-truck.

While trains overall are relatively predictable and pass far less frequently than automotive traffic, these collisions still occur with some regularity, particularly at grade crossings. As such, grade-separated crossings for railroads are both less challenging and expensive to implement, and similarly result in improved safety for all parties, at least when the comparably low rate of train collisions compared to road deaths is not taken into account.

Disadvantages

[edit]

With roadway junctions in particular, grade-separated interchanges are typically space-intensive, complicated, and costly, due to the need for large physical structures such as tunnels, ramps, and bridges. Their height can be obtrusive, and this, combined with the large traffic volumes that grade-separated roads attract, tend to make them unpopular to nearby landowners and residents. For these reasons, proposals for new grade-separated roads can receive significant public opposition.

Rail-over-rail grade separations, though, take up much less space than standard road or highway grade separations. In part, this is because shoulders are not required for railroad operations, even at high speeds, and there are generally far fewer branches and side road connections to accommodate because a partial grade separation will yield more improvement than it would for a similar road project, on which the overall traffic flow is determined by its most congested sections, as a result of well documented phenomenon such as traffic waves.

However, highway, mixed and even railroad-only grade separation projects, especially when 'retrofitting' an active transit corridor built without traffic conflict mitigations to save on construction costs, nonetheless usually necessitates considerable engineering expertise and effort, and can be very expensive and time-consuming to construct, especially when multiple environmental and existing-traffic related impacts must be studied, determined and adequately mitigated, as is required by law for projects of this nature in most jurisdictions.

Grade-separated pedestrian and cycling routes often have a comparably modest footprint since they do not typically intersect with high intensity transit corridors (highways especially) that they would cross, without the safety provided by a grade-separated crossing. However, grade-separated pedestrian crossings with steps introduce accessibility problems and can potentially conflict with the Americans with Disabilities Act in the United States. Some crossings have lifts, but these measures can be time-consuming and inconvenient to use, and many of these footbridges and pedestrian underpasses lie unused, abandoned and fenced off.[5][6]

Grade-separated roads that permit for higher speed limits can actually reduce safety due to 'weaving' (see below), the increased probability of collisions corresponding with induced demand as well as the demonstrably false sense of safety caused by the monotony of driving long distances at high speeds with little or none of the stimulation and activity provided at-grade by stop lights, pedestrian crossings, more frequent turns and intersections.[7]

Roads

[edit]

Overview

[edit]

The term is most widely applied to describe a road junction in which the direct flow of traffic on one or more of the roads is not disrupted. Instead of a direct connection, traffic must use on and off ramps (United States, Australia, New Zealand) or slip roads (United Kingdom, Ireland) to access the other roads at the junction. The road which carries on through the junction can also be referred to as grade separated.

Typically, large freeways, highways, motorways, or dual carriageways are chosen to be grade separated, through their entire length or for part of it. Grade separation drastically increases the capacity of a road compared to an identical road with at-grade junctions. For instance, it is extremely uncommon to find an at-grade junction on a British motorway; it is all but impossible on a U.S. Interstate Highway, though a few do exist.

If traffic can traverse the junction from any direction without being forced to come to a halt, then the junction is described as fully grade separated or free-flowing.

A plane on a taxiway over the Autobahn at Leipzig-Halle Airport - a type of grade separation.

Types

[edit]

Fully separated

[edit]

These junctions connect two freeways:

4 level stack interchange between the M25 (below) and M23 (above) in the UK.

Partially separated

[edit]

These junctions connect two roads, but only one is fully grade-separated, i.e. traffic on one road does not have to stop at yield lines or signals on one road, but may have to do so when switching to the other:

Weaving

[edit]
An example of weaving, where traffic drives on the left. The blue car entering the grade-separated road, and both the red and blue car exiting must both change lanes in the short distance provided.

On roadways with grade-separated interchanges, weaving is a result of placing an exit ramp a short distance after an entry ramp, causing conflicts between traffic attempting to leave the roadway at the next junction and traffic attempting to enter from the previous junction. This situation is most prevalent either where the junction designer has placed the on-slip to the road before the off-slip at a junction (for example, the cloverleaf interchange), or in urban areas with many close-spaced junctions. The ring road of Coventry, England, is a notorious example, as are parts of the southern M25, the London orbital motorway, the M6/M5 junction north-west of Birmingham, and the A4/M5 junction west of Bristol. Weaving can often cause side-on collisions on very fast roads with top speeds of up to 200 km/h (120 mph), as well as the problem of blind spots.

Where junctions have unusual designs weaving can be a problem other than on the main road. An example of this can be found at Junction 7 of the M6, where traffic joining the roundabout from the M6 Eastbound off-slip must weave with the traffic already on the roundabout wishing to use the M6 Westbound on-slip. This is as a result of the slip roads on the west side of the junction connecting to the roundabout on the inside of the eastern arc rather than the outside of the western arc as is normal. The two slip-roads are connected by a single lane on the inside of the roundabout, which traffic wishing to use the Westbound on-slip must join, and traffic from the Eastbound off-slip must leave.

Weaving can be alleviated by using collector/distributor roads or braided ramps[8] to separate entering and exiting traffic.

Types

[edit]

The weaving area can be categorized in to three categories based on number of lane changes required for each traffic flow:[9][10]

  • Type A configuration: any weaving traffic must change lane at least once.
  • Type B configuration: one of the two weaving movement can be completed without a lane change; the other movement requires at most one lane change.
  • Type C configuration: one weaving movement has a "through" line without lane change necessary; the other flow must make at least two lane changes.

Length

[edit]

In the United States, the length of a weaving area is measured as 2 ft (0.61 m) away from the left edge of the ramp lane edge to a point at the diverge gore area where these two points are separated by 12 ft (3.7 m). Roess et al. speculates that this measuring practices dates back to a 1963 database assembled by Bureau of Public Roads, when the weaving ramps involved cloverleaf interchanges. In their early designs, the departure angle of the off-ramps is greater than the merge angle of on-ramps.[10]

Railways

[edit]

With roads and footpaths

[edit]
See also: level crossing

In railway construction, grade separation also means the avoidance of level crossings by making any roads or footpaths crossing the line either pass under or over the railway on bridges. This greatly improves safety and is crucial to the safe operation of high-speed lines. The construction of new level crossings is generally not permitted, especially for high speed railway lines and level crossings are increasingly less common due to the increase of both road and rail traffic.[11] Efforts to remove level crossings are done in the UK by Network Rail and in Melbourne as part of the Level Crossing Removal Project.

The London Extension of the Great Central Railway, built between 1896 and 1899, was the first fully grade-separated railway of this type in the UK. This also applies to light rail and even to street cars.

Flying junction

[edit]
Main article: Flying junction

Attempts have been made to increase the capacity of railways by making tracks cross in a grade-separated manner, as opposed to the traditional use of flat crossings to change tracks. A grade-separated rail interchange is known as a flying junction and one which is not a level junction.

In 1897, the London and South Western Railway (LSWR) made use of a flying junction at Worting Junction south of Basingstoke to allow traffic on the Salisbury and Southampton routes to converge without conflicting movements; this became known as "Battledown Flyover". Also in Britain, the Southern Railway later made extensive use of flying junctions on other parts of its busy former LSWR main line.

Today in Britain, the tightly grouped nest of flying junctions[12] to the north of Clapham Junction railway station—although technically a combination of many junctions—handle more than 4,000 trains per day (about one train every 15 seconds).

Virtually all major railway lines no longer cross (forming an 'X' shape) at flat level (although many diverge - i.e. 'Y' shape).

High-speed railways (200 km/h or 120 mph+)

[edit]

On almost all high-speed railway lines, the faster speed requires grade separation. Therefore, many high speed lines are elevated, especially in Taiwan and Japan, where population density alongside high speed lines is higher than in France, Italy or Germany.

In the United States, a flying junction on the Nickel Plate Road through Cleveland, Ohio, United States was completed in 1913.[citation needed] The most frequent use was later found on the former Pennsylvania Railroad main lines. The lines are included as part of the Northeast Corridor and Keystone Corridor now owned by Amtrak. The most complex of these junctions, near Philadelphia Zoo, handles railway traffic for Amtrak, SEPTA, New Jersey Transit, Norfolk Southern, CSX Transportation, and Conrail.

In what is known as "area 1520", which includes the former Soviet Union and other regions using the same gauge, the most complicated grade-separation railpoint is found at Liubotyn in Ukraine.

Footbridges and subways

[edit]

Footbridges and subways (called underpasses in North America as well as in the United Kingdom when referring to roads) may be employed to allow pedestrians and cyclists to cross busy or fast streets. They are often used over and under motorways since at grade pedestrian crossings are generally not permitted. Same can be said for railways. Though introduced to Central Park in New York City in the 1860s, subways are far more common today in Europe, especially in countries such as the Netherlands and Denmark where cycling is strongly encouraged. Long underpasses may be called tunnels.

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Grade separation

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Grade separation is a method that aligns intersecting transportation routes—such as highways, railways, or paths—at different elevations to prevent them from crossing at the same level, typically via overpasses, underpasses, or ramps. This approach eliminates at-grade conflicts, reducing collision risks between vehicles, trains, or pedestrians that arise from shared surfaces. By enabling continuous flow without signals or stops, grade separations boost capacity and , particularly in high-volume corridors, though they entail substantial upfront costs for earthwork, structures, and land acquisition. Overpasses, preferred for minimal disruption to primary traffic like rail operations, and underpasses represent the primary structural types, with interchanges extending the concept to facilitate traffic exchanges at multiple levels. Deployed since the early in urban rail-highway contexts, such as Chicago's mandated separations from 1909 onward, these features underpin modern resilience against escalating mobility demands.

Definition and Fundamentals

Definition and Core Concepts

Grade separation refers to the method in whereby two or more roadways, railways, or pathways intersect without sharing the same vertical plane, utilizing structures such as overpasses, underpasses, or embankments to maintain independent traffic flows. This configuration ensures that vehicles, trains, or pedestrians on one route do not conflict with those on the crossing route at ground level. At its core, grade separation addresses the inherent risks and inefficiencies of at-grade intersections, where converging paths necessitate stops, signals, or yielding, leading to potential collisions and delays. By elevating or depressing one pathway relative to another, conflict points are eliminated, allowing continuous movement and reducing the probability of accidents involving vehicles, pedestrians, or rail traffic. Transportation engineering analyses emphasize that this separation mitigates vehicle-vehicle and vehicle-pedestrian interactions at crossings, thereby enhancing overall system safety. Fundamental principles involve optimizing traffic capacity through non-intersecting alignments, which minimize speed reductions and operational disruptions. Grade separations facilitate higher throughput in dense corridors by removing bottlenecks associated with merging and diverging maneuvers at shared elevations. Empirical assessments from state departments of transportation confirm benefits including reduced travel delays and improved reliability, particularly in contexts involving rail-highway interfaces or urban arterials.

Engineering Principles and Design Considerations

Grade separation relies on elevating or depressing one roadway or rail alignment relative to another to eliminate direct path conflicts, allowing continuous without stops or yields at crossings. This principle addresses the inherent inefficiencies of at-grade junctions, where vehicles or trains must decelerate, merge, or halt, leading to capacity constraints and heightened collision probabilities from lateral or opposing movements. Empirical analyses indicate that grade separations can reduce intersection-related crashes by up to 90% compared to signalized at-grade setups, as crossing maneuvers are removed entirely. Key design considerations encompass geometric compatibility with approach roadways to preserve design speeds and operational consistency. Ramps and loops in interchanges must incorporate minimum radii—typically 500 to 1,000 feet (152 to 305 meters) for high-speed facilities—superelevated at rates of 4-8% to counteract centrifugal forces, ensuring comfort and stability. Vertical profiles require balanced cut-and-fill to minimize earthwork volumes, with grade differentials often limited to 10-20 feet (3-6 meters) where feasible to control costs and visual impacts; steeper separations demand longer transition ramps to avoid excessive grades exceeding 3-6%. Sight criteria, per AASHTO standards, mandate clear lines of vision for deceleration and zones, preventing blind merges. Structural integrity forms a core focus, with bridges and underpasses engineered for live loads including AASHTO HS-20 truck configurations or equivalent rail Cooperrider loads, distributed across spans of 40-150 feet (12-46 meters) using , post-tensioned segments, or plate girders. Foundations account for bearing capacities and seismic zones, often employing deep piles in soft terrains to resist differential settlement. Vertical clearances are standardized at 16-23 feet (4.9-7 meters) for overpasses to accommodate overheight vehicles or trains, while horizontal clearances extend beyond traveled ways by 10-20 feet (3-6 meters) for shoulders and barriers. Drainage systems integrate scuppers and culverts to avert hydrostatic pressures and icing, critical in regions with heavy . Interchange configurations prioritize spacing to mitigate weaving sections, with urban minimums of 1 mile (1.6 km) between ramps to allow full-speed recovery and reduce rear-end risks. For rail-highway separations, dynamic train forces necessitate wider spans and flexible joints to handle lateral impacts from curves with radii under 2,000 feet (610 meters). Environmental integrations, such as attenuation via parapets or earth berms, and passages in undercrossings, balance functionality with ecological demands without compromising load-bearing capacities.

Historical Development

Early Implementations in Rail and Road Infrastructure

The earliest documented implementation of a grade-separated railway junction was a flyover constructed in 1843 by the London and Croydon Railway at Norwood Junction in , enabling its atmospheric-powered line to pass over the adjacent tracks of the London and Brighton Railway and thereby avoid conflicting movements at the same level. This structure marked a pioneering solution to rail-rail interference during the rapid expansion of Britain's railway network in the 1830s and 1840s, where initial alignments often prioritized cost over separation, leading to frequent at-grade crossings prone to delays and hazards. In the United States, early 19th-century railroads, beginning with lines like the Baltimore and Ohio (opened ), incorporated grade separations primarily through bridges over roads, rivers, and topography where feasible, though urban at-grade crossings remained common due to construction economics and land constraints. Timber and stone bridges for rail over road emerged mid-century, as seen in structures supporting lines built prior to 1850, such as the Grand Trunk Railway entering , where initial separations addressed crossings via elevated rail spans to reduce collision risks from growing wagon and pedestrian traffic. By the late 1800s, increasing accident data—exemplified by over 10,000 annual rail-related incidents reported in the 1890s—spurred more deliberate eliminations, with cities mandating separations; Chicago's 1909 ordinance, for instance, required elevation or depression of tracks at Grand Crossing to separate 12 rail lines from roadways. For road , early grade separations focused on accommodating rail expansion, with roads often rerouted under or over new tracks via simple underpasses or overbridges constructed from the onward in rail-heavy regions. In Britain, the (1825) featured early road underpasses to maintain local access without halting coal wagons, setting a for integrating roadways beneath rail alignments. Road-road separations were rarer before the 20th century, limited to terrain-driven viaducts like those on turnpikes, but gained prominence with the advent of motorized traffic; the Bronx River Parkway (construction began 1916) introduced systematic road grade separations independent of rail, using overpasses to eliminate intersections along parkway corridors. These implementations reflected causal priorities of safety and flow, substantiated by contemporaneous reports documenting reduced crossing fatalities post-separation.

Expansion and Modernization from the 20th Century Onward

In the early , urban rail networks prompted widespread grade separation initiatives to mitigate frequent at-grade collisions between trains and vehicles or pedestrians. Cities like enacted ordinances as early as 1909 mandating separations at key rail crossings, such as Grand Crossing, to enhance safety amid growing rail traffic. By the 1930s and 1940s, projects like the Winnetka Grade Separation in (1938–1943) eliminated multiple hazardous crossings over nearly four miles of trackage, depressing rail lines and elevating roads to prevent disruptions. These efforts reflected causal links between dense at-grade intersections and accident rates, with empirical data from the era showing reductions in fatalities post-separation. The mid-20th century saw explosive expansion driven by automobile proliferation and national infrastructure programs. Germany's Autobahn system, initiated in 1933 with the Frankfurt-Darmstadt expressway, pioneered grade-separated designs for high-speed travel, influencing global standards. Post-World War II, the U.S. Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 authorized the Interstate System, prohibiting at-grade rail-highway crossings and mandating separations at all interchanges, resulting in over 4,361 railroad grade separations by the late 1960s alongside thousands of road overpasses. Internationally, similar modernizations occurred, with European motorways expanding rapidly from the 1950s to accommodate postwar economic booms and vehicle ownership surges. Rail modernization accelerated with high-speed systems requiring full grade separation for reliability and speed. Japan's , operational from 1964, featured dedicated, grade-separated tracks isolating bullet trains from conventional rail and roads, enabling average speeds exceeding 200 km/h with zero passenger fatalities from derailments or collisions over decades. This design principle extended to subsequent lines, emphasizing viaducts, tunnels, and embankments to eliminate level crossings. Into the late 20th and early 21st centuries, urban projects continued, such as pedestrian grade-separated systems emerging in the in North American cities like and , linking buildings via skyways to reduce street-level conflicts.

Types and Configurations

Roadway Interchanges and Separations

Roadway grade separations enable two or more highways to cross without intersecting at the same level, typically via overpasses or underpasses, thereby eliminating direct conflict points between crossing traffic streams. This configuration is distinct from at-grade intersections, as it prevents vehicles from needing to stop or yield at the crossing point. Simple grade separations without ramps are used where no interchange access is required, such as rural highways bridging local roads, reducing interference while minimizing construction complexity. Interchanges extend grade separations by incorporating ramps to facilitate entry and exit movements between the separated roadways, classified broadly as service interchanges (connecting freeways to arterials) or interchanges (freeway-to-freeway). Common four-leg configurations include the , featuring two single-lane ramps from the crossroad to the mainline connected by a signalized at the lower level, which is cost-effective for moderate traffic volumes but susceptible to congestion during peak left-turn demands. The employs loop ramps for all turning movements, avoiding signalization at the mainline but requiring more land and prone to sections where merging and diverging flows cross. For higher capacities, directional interchanges use high-speed ramps and flyovers to minimize curvature and elevation changes, as seen in stack or designs that fully separate all movements across multiple levels. These reduce travel distance and increase ramp speeds compared to looped designs, though they demand greater vertical clearance and construction costs. Three-leg interchanges, such as types, adapt these principles for T-junctions, providing partial movements with grade-separated merges. Empirical analyses indicate that properly designed grade-separated interchanges lower overall crash frequencies by removing crossing conflicts, with safety performance functions showing reductions in severe incidents relative to at-grade alternatives.

Railway Junctions and Crossings

In , junctions refer to intersections between multiple rail lines, while crossings denote points where rail lines intersect roads, pathways, or other modes. Grade separation at these locations elevates or depresses one element to eliminate at-grade conflicts, thereby permitting continuous traffic flow and minimizing delays from signaling or blocking. For rail-to-rail junctions, configurations primarily consist of flying junctions, in which diverging or converging tracks are constructed on embankments or bridges to pass over the primary lines, and burrowing junctions, where one track is excavated to beneath the other. Flying junctions facilitate higher throughput in dense networks by avoiding route interlocks that would otherwise require trains to halt. Burrowing junctions, though space-efficient in constrained urban areas, demand substantial earthworks and drainage measures to prevent flooding. An example of a burrowing junction is the Bleachgreen in , , constructed in 1933 as the sole such installation in Ireland to streamline Belfast-Belfast International Airport services. Rail-to-road crossings employ designs, with roadways bridged above tracks, or underpass variants roads beneath; rail viaducts over roads occur infrequently due to higher structural demands on the rail . Overhead structures predominate, providing vertical clearance of at least 14 feet for roadways and 23 feet for rail overpasses per American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) standards referenced in industry guidelines. The endorses such separations to enable unimpeded passage across active tracks, reducing trespass and vehicle intrusion risks. In multi-track corridors, paired overpasses or extended underpasses accommodate parallel lines, with approach alignments optimized for sight lines and superelevation to sustain speeds exceeding 50 mph. California's High-Speed Rail Authority integrates over 100 grade-separated crossings in its network, prioritizing road overpasses to isolate the 220-mph alignment from surface traffic.

Pedestrian and Non-Vehicular Facilities

grade separations encompass overpasses, underpasses, footbridges, and tunnels designed to enable foot traffic to traverse roadways, railways, or other corridors without conflicting with vehicular or rail movements at ground level. These structures prioritize by physically isolating slower-moving pedestrians from high-speed , thereby minimizing collision risks. Early examples emerged in urban park designs during the mid-19th century, such as the transverse road underpasses in , New York, constructed starting in the 1860s under the direction of and . These brick and stone arches, including the Inscope Arch completed in 1875 with a 13-foot-7-inch span, allowed pedestrians uninterrupted passage beneath carriage drives while maintaining scenic separation. By 1872, featured over 30 such spans, demonstrating grade separation's application to non-vehicular paths amid emerging motorized precursors like horse-drawn vehicles. In modern contexts, facilities like the in , opened in 2004, illustrate advanced engineering for connectivity. This 935-foot-long, stainless-steel-clad structure, designed by , crosses Columbus Drive to link and Maggie Daley Park with a maximum 5% ensuring barrier-free access compliant with accessibility standards. Spanning 90 to 105 feet per segment and weighing 260 tons, it supports flows while eliminating at-grade crossings over a busy urban artery. Non-vehicular facilities extend to cyclists and trail users, incorporating shared-use paths in grade-separated configurations such as overpasses or underpasses adjacent to rail lines or highways. These reduce exposure to or speeds, with guidelines emphasizing clear sightlines, , and minimal gradients to encourage usage. Empirical evaluations show grade-separated crossings can lower rates where adoption is high; for instance, one highway overpass study reported reduced injuries post-construction, though 32.8% of users cited non-safety reasons for bypassing it, highlighting usage barriers like added distance. Underpasses, while effective for separation, require maintenance to mitigate isolation-related risks such as or poor visibility. Overall, these facilities integrate with broader to support multimodal separation, though effectiveness hinges on context-specific factors including proximity to origins and destinations.

Operational Effects

Safety Enhancements and Empirical Data

Grade-separated interchanges for roadways eliminate direct path conflicts between crossing traffic streams, substantially reducing the incidence of angle and turning crashes that predominate at at-grade intersections. Empirical analyses indicate that converting signalized at-grade intersections to grade-separated configurations, such as interchanges, yields crash modification factors demonstrating reductions in total crashes by up to 68 percent for injury-involved incidents. Similarly, transformations from stop-controlled at-grade setups to grade separations achieve approximately 57 percent fewer injury crashes, based on safety performance evaluations derived from before-and-after studies. These improvements stem from the physical isolation of traffic flows, which mitigates human error factors like failure to yield or signal non-compliance, as documented in predictive models from the (FHWA). For railway-highway interfaces, grade separations fully eradicate vehicle-train collision risks at the separated location, contrasting sharply with at-grade crossings where such incidents persist despite warnings and barriers. (FRA) data reveal that highway-rail grade crossings accounted for over 2,000 collisions and approximately 200 fatalities annually in the United States as of recent years, representing about 30 percent of all rail-related deaths despite comprising a small fraction of total rail miles. Grade separation projects, such as overpasses or underpasses, reduce this hazard to zero at the treated site, with cost-benefit assessments confirming safety benefits that often outweigh construction expenses through avoided fatalities and injuries. Long-term national trends show a 77.8 percent decline in crossing crashes from 1981 to 2013, attributable in part to increased grade separations alongside technological upgrades, underscoring their causal role in risk elimination. Pedestrian facilities incorporating grade separations, including underpasses and overpasses, similarly enhance by segregating non-motorized users from vehicular paths, reducing exposure to high-speed conflicts. Studies on grade-separated pedestrian crossings report diminished wait times and interaction risks, with from urban implementations showing lower collision rates compared to at-grade crosswalks, though comprehensive longitudinal data remains limited to specific locales. Overall, these enhancements are corroborated by peer-reviewed functions and FHWA predictive tools, which quantify lower crash frequencies and severities for grade-separated designs versus equivalent at-grade volumes.

Traffic Flow and Efficiency Improvements

Grade separations enhance by eliminating at-grade conflicts, permitting continuous movement across roadways, railways, and pedestrian paths without interruptions from signals, stops, or blockages. In roadway contexts, this design removes the delays inherent in signalized or stop-controlled intersections, where vehicles must yield or cycle through phases, thereby increasing average speeds and overall . For high-volume arterials, grade-separated interchanges can accommodate entering flow rates exceeding 5,000 vehicles per hour with substantial delay reductions, as the absence of queuing at crossings allows unimpeded progression. Empirical evaluations confirm that such separations boost capacity by prioritizing free-flow conditions over , particularly when average daily traffic volumes surpass 15,000 vehicles, enabling handling of up to 100,000 vehicles per day in some configurations without congestion buildup. For railway integrations, grade separations prevent road traffic halts during train transits, which can otherwise impose minutes-long blockages multiple times daily. In locations with 30–40 daily trains and (AADT) of 14,000–16,000 vehicles, separations yield measurable efficiency gains, such as $11.92 million in present-value travel time savings over 20 years for a , underpass project serving 14,260 AADT. Similarly, a , overpass for 16,430 AADT and 28 trains per day projects $1.08 million in travel time benefits, reflecting reduced queuing and improved reliability for both commuter and freight movements. These outcomes stem from decoupling rail schedules from road operations, minimizing spillover delays in adjacent corridors and enhancing emergency response times by eliminating crossing-related barriers. Pedestrian facilities benefit analogously through underpasses or overpasses that bypass vehicle-rail conflicts, curtailing wait times at crossings and facilitating steady flows in urban settings. Broader network effects include mitigated congestion propagation; for instance, rail-induced delays in equated to 235,000 hours annually across crossings, underscoring the scalable efficiency from separations in multi-modal environments. Overall, these improvements prioritize causal flow dynamics—uninterrupted progression over intersection arbitration—yielding higher effective capacities and lower variance in travel times, as validated in site-specific benefit-cost assessments.

Economic and Practical Drawbacks

Construction and Lifecycle Costs

Construction costs for grade separations significantly exceed those of at-grade intersections or crossings, primarily due to the need for elevated or depressed structures, extensive earthwork, retaining walls, and associated roadway realignments. Typical expenses for a single highway-rail grade separation structure range from $1.9 million for a highway over railroad configuration to $2.5 million for a railroad over highway setup, though these figures represent baseline estimates excluding site-specific escalations. Larger projects, such as the Pennsylvania Avenue Grade Separation in Beaumont, California, total $78 million, encompassing planning, specifications, and full construction phases as of 2025 updates. The Fyffe Avenue Grade Separation at the Port of Stockton, California, is budgeted at $7.2 million for federal funding eligibility in fiscal years 2017-2018. Underpasses generally prove more costly than overpasses owing to excavation requirements, potential , and structural reinforcement against soil pressures, whereas overpasses demand materials for spans and piers but allow phased with less subsurface disruption. Factors inflating costs include urban density-driven right-of-way acquisitions, relocations, and environmental mitigations; for example, the Etiwanda Avenue Grade Separation in highlighted elevated bridge and expenses due to extended spans. A two-lane major road incorporating one overpass bridge averages $6.46 million per mile in the , reflecting integrated grading and structural elements. Lifecycle costs encompass initial capital outlay plus ongoing maintenance, inspections, and user delay savings, often favoring grade separations over at-grade options despite the upfront premium. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) evaluations indicate that grade separations yield positive benefit-cost ratios exceeding 1.0 for high-exposure crossings when factoring reduced collision risks and travel delays against alternatives like gated signals. At-grade facilities incur recurrent expenses from signal upkeep, frequent repairs post-incidents, and congestion-induced fuel and time losses, whereas grade-separated designs minimize these through uninterrupted flows, though bridges necessitate periodic structural assessments and corrosion prevention. Analyses from the Texas A&M Transportation Institute compare grade-separated interchanges to at-grade intersections, showing lower long-term user travel-time and vehicle operating costs for the former, albeit with higher agency maintenance for elevated components. In cases where emergency access or high train frequencies amplify at-grade hazards, FHWA life-cycle assessments prioritize separations when total societal costs—including crash valuations—outweigh construction burdens.

Implementation Barriers and Weaving Issues

High construction costs represent a primary barrier to implementing grade separations, often exceeding hundreds of millions of dollars for urban projects due to extensive earthwork, structural engineering, and materials required. For example, the Broadway Grade Separation in Burlingame, California, escalated to an estimated $600 million by 2025, driven by design complexities and inflation. Similarly, rail-highway separations average around $36 million per crossing in California from the mid-1990s onward, factoring in site-specific elevations and utilities relocation. These expenditures limit adoption to high-traffic corridors where benefits like reduced delays justify the investment, as lower-volume sites rarely meet cost-benefit thresholds established by agencies like the Texas A&M Transportation Institute. Right-of-way acquisition poses additional challenges, particularly in densely developed areas where proceedings, property valuations, and community opposition delay projects and inflate budgets. Grade separations demand expanded footprints for ramps, embankments, and clearances, often requiring acquisition of private land or relocation of existing , complicating alignment and increasing legal hurdles under varying state laws. In rail contexts, coordination between highway authorities and private railroads further exacerbates issues, as federal splits exclude railroad-exclusive benefits, and site constraints like plains or utilities limit feasible designs. Construction disruptions and regulatory requirements compound these barriers, including temporary traffic rerouting that can span years, environmental assessments for impacts, and compliance with seismic or drainage standards in vulnerable regions. For rail grade separations, physical feasibility obstacles such as vertical or load limits on existing structures often necessitate full replacements rather than modifications. Weaving issues arise in certain grade-separated interchange configurations, where successive entry and exit ramps force vehicles to cross paths laterally over short distances, leading to frequent lane changes and turbulence. These sections, common in partial cloverleaf or interchanges with close ramp spacing, reduce capacity and elevate crash risks, with empirical studies showing weaving areas prone to rear-end collisions and sideswipes due to merging/diverging conflicts. Crash rates on interchange segments can increase by up to 200% compared to non-interchange freeway sections, particularly as spacing decreases below recommended minima of 1,000-2,000 feet. Mitigation requires longer weave lengths or alternative designs like collector-distributor roads, but retrofitting existing interchanges remains costly and disruptive.

Recent Applications and Case Studies

Urban and Regional Projects in

![Chicago Circle Interchange 2018.jpg][float-right] In urban areas of the , recent grade separation projects have primarily targeted the elimination of at-grade rail crossings and the reconstruction of complex interchanges to mitigate congestion and enhance . These initiatives, often funded through federal and state programs like the Railroad Crossing Elimination Program, address longstanding bottlenecks in densely populated regions. For instance, California's High-Speed Rail Authority completed the Belmont Avenue and Central Avenue grade separations in Fresno in May 2025, separating rail lines from roadways to support future high-speed operations while reducing local traffic disruptions. These structures feature elevated rail corridors over depressed streets, minimizing collision risks at former crossings. A prominent highway-focused example is the reconstruction of the Jane Byrne Interchange in , , where Interstates I-90/I-94 and I-290 converge. Initiated in 2013 and substantially completed by December 2022 at a cost of $804 million, the project rebuilt 19 bridges, including curved ramps and tri-level flyovers, to handle up to 400,000 vehicles daily. The redesign eliminated outdated configurations prone to and delays, achieving a projected 50% reduction in vehicle delays and saving motorists approximately 5 million hours annually in idling time. This urban renewal integrated stormwater management and pedestrian improvements, demonstrating how grade-separated designs can revitalize in high-volume corridors. Further west, the Barker Road grade separation in , separated BNSF Railway tracks from arterial traffic, with construction from March 2021 to spring 2023. This overpass structure eliminated two at-grade crossings, improving emergency response times and freight reliability in a growing suburban area. In California, the Palomar Street project in Carlsbad features a lowered street under a double-tracked rail bridge, enhancing connectivity for industrial zones while accommodating future transit expansions. These cases illustrate a regional trend toward proactive separations, driven by empirical data on crash reductions—such as a 90% drop in incidents at similar rail sites—and economic benefits from reduced maintenance of level crossings.

Integration with High-Speed Rail Systems

High-speed rail (HSR) systems incorporate grade separations as a core design principle to achieve uninterrupted operations at speeds typically exceeding ( km/h), by elevating or depressing rail alignments above or below intersecting roadways, utilities, and legacy rail lines. This integration minimizes deceleration for crossings, reduces aerodynamic and noise impacts on adjacent infrastructure, and accommodates the precise geometric tolerances required for HSR stability, such as superelevation on curves and minimal gradients. In practice, HSR corridors often employ continuous viaducts or tunnels spanning urban and rural obstacles, with discrete overpasses or underpasses at key junctions to maintain fluid traffic flow for both trains and surface vehicles. The California High-Speed Rail Authority's ongoing network illustrates this integration, where grade separations enable compatibility with existing freight and commuter lines while prioritizing HSR performance. Construction Package 1, spanning 32 miles from Madera to Fresno Counties, includes 12 grade separations alongside two viaducts and one tunnel, realigning State Route 99 and crossing the to isolate HSR from at-grade conflicts. Recent completions, such as the Avenue 56 overpass in Tulare County—designated as the first HSR structure there and the 55th overall in the system—feature precast concrete segments for rapid assembly, allowing two-lane roadway passage over future tracks. Similarly, the South Avenue Grade Separation, finished in February 2022 between Cedar and Avenues, bridges existing BNSF freight lines and planned HSR alignments, supporting multimodal connectivity without halting rail movements. In denser contexts, these separations facilitate "blended" systems where HSR shares trackage with regional services, as in the Peninsula Corridor with Caltrain, requiring elevated or trenched segments to enforce Federal Railroad Administration speed limits above 125 mph only on fully separated rights-of-way. The Central Avenue Grade Separation in Fresno, opened in May 2025, exemplifies urban adaptation: at 432 feet long and over 42 feet wide, it provides two-lane vehicular access plus pedestrian facilities, reducing prior collision hazards at the former at-grade crossing while preserving local circulation. Such structures, often funded jointly with local agencies, underscore how grade separations not only safeguard HSR's causal chain—from acceleration to braking—but also mitigate spillover effects like emergency response delays in high-density corridors.

Debates and Criticisms

Cost-Benefit Analyses and Funding Disputes

Cost-benefit analyses of grade separations typically quantify user benefits such as reduced vehicle operating costs, travel time savings from eliminated delays, and accident cost reductions, offsetting high upfront construction expenses estimated at tens to hundreds of millions per project depending on scale and location. protocols emphasize safety gains from removing at-grade conflicts—potentially averting fatalities and injuries valued at millions per incident—and mobility improvements, though lifecycle maintenance and land acquisition add ongoing fiscal burdens. For instance, a East Coast Railroad calculated a benefit-cost of 2.1 for a proposed separation, driven by projected delay reductions and safety enhancements in a congested corridor. evaluations similarly prioritize projects via initial benefit-cost assessments, favoring high-traffic sites where empirical delay and crash data justify investments exceeding $100 million. Critics argue that such analyses often undervalue alternatives like advanced signaling or partial closures, which yield positive net benefits at lower costs for low-volume crossings, as evidenced by comparative studies showing at-grade options with superior short-term despite elevated long-term risks. Economic viability debates intensify when traffic forecasts prove optimistic, leading to benefit-cost ratios below 1.0 in retrospective audits of underutilized separations built decades ago under altered freight and patterns. Multi-criteria models, incorporating non-monetary factors like regional equity and development potential, address these gaps but introduce subjectivity, with state agencies like Nebraska's ranking crossings based on combined delay, safety, and economic metrics to ration limited funds. Funding disputes frequently center on cost-sharing among federal, state, local, and private rail entities, exacerbated by overruns averaging 20-50% from unforeseen geotechnical issues, regulatory delays, and scope expansions. California's Statewide Grade Separation Program, audited in 2007, revealed overruns in sampled projects due to inadequate contingency planning and design changes, forcing local agencies to seek supplemental bonds or defer on existing . Recent examples include San Mateo County rail projects where estimates escalated from $316 million to $889 million between 2022 and 2025, straining state allocations and prompting debates over federal matching requirements under programs like the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Proponents advocate rail user fees, as in the model, to internalize freight benefits and reduce taxpayer burdens, yet implementation faces resistance from operators citing competitive disadvantages. These tensions often delay projects, with National Cooperative Highway Research Program findings highlighting mismatched funding mechanisms between highway and rail silos as a persistent barrier to timely execution.

Urban Landscape and Equity Concerns

Grade separations, especially elevated highways and interchanges, often reshape urban landscapes by imposing large-scale vertical infrastructure that disrupts visual continuity and ground-level spatial flow. These structures can fragment streetscapes, overshadow adjacent buildings, and prioritize vehicular dominance over pedestrian-scale environments, leading to perceptions of sterility or intimidation in public spaces. In Hamedan, , a 2022 study using public surveys and found that new grade separations negatively influenced urban landscape perception through reduced unity, increased complexity, diminished order, and lowered aesthetics, as respondents reported heightened visual clutter and disconnection from traditional city fabric. Equity concerns arise from the disproportionate placement of grade separations in lower-income and minority neighborhoods, where elevated roadways have historically severed ties, amplified noise and , and restricted access to jobs, schools, and amenities. Mid-20th-century expansions in U.S. cities frequently targeted such areas for demolition and routing, resulting in long-term socioeconomic isolation; for instance, in , displaced thousands of residents and contributed to economic decline, business failures, and health disparities from elevated contaminants. Empirical analysis of 1960s-1970s interstate construction shows proximity to s correlated with a decline in white population shares and an increase in residents in the most affected quintiles, exacerbating residential segregation patterns. Pedestrian-focused grade separations, such as overpasses and underpasses, further compound equity issues by hindering and non-motorized mobility, which burdens carless households—often in economically disadvantaged groups—with longer, less intuitive routes and risks. A across global cities highlighted that such structures fail to foster inclusive , as they elevate over at-grade crossings that better integrate diverse users, thereby perpetuating mobility inequities. Spaces beneath overpasses frequently become underutilized voids prone to , deterring equitable use and reinforcing divides rather than bridging them.

References

  1. https://dot.nebraska.gov/media/cq1j324n/terms-dictionary.pdf
  2. https://trespasstoolkit.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L00062
  3. https://toolkit.irap.org/safer-road-treatments/intersection-grade-separation/
  4. https://www.codot.gov/business/designsupport/bulletins_manuals/2023-cdot-roadway-design-guide/chapter_10_grade_separations_and_interchanges.pdf
  5. https://www.txdot.gov/manuals/rrd/rho/exhibit_a_and_pse_design/common_rail_highway_design_issues-i1004729/grade_separations-i1004774.html
  6. https://nmcdn.io/e186d21f8c7946a19faed23c3da2f0da/8bfec28a290449a7b10eb1fee3a0e264/files/programs-studies/bicycle-and-pedestrian/NCDOT_on_Grade_Separated_Crossings.pdf
  7. https://www.facebook.com/groups/chicagonowandthen/posts/1616603345730447/
  8. https://www.txdot.gov/manuals/des/rdw/chapter-15-grade-separations-and-interchanges-.html
  9. https://www.txdot.gov/manuals/des/rdw/chapter-15-grade-separations-and-interchanges-/15-5-safety.html
  10. https://mobility.tamu.edu/mip/strategies-pdfs/added-capacity/technical-summary/grade-separation-4-pg.pdf
  11. https://hsr.ca.gov/about/safety/grade-separation/
  12. https://policy.tti.tamu.edu/strategy/grade-separation/
  13. https://library.ctr.utexas.edu/digitized/swutc/60019-3.pdf
  14. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/design/documents/chp0500-092923-a11y.pdf
  15. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/pubs/hif22034.pdf
  16. https://up.codes/s/bridges-grade-separation-structures-and-structure-approach-embankment
  17. https://www.bnsf.com/bnsf-resources/pdf/in-the-community/uprr-bnsf-joint-guidelines-railroad-grade-separation-projects.pdf
  18. https://highways.dot.gov/field-offices/missouri/interchange-design-promptlist
  19. https://static.tti.tamu.edu/tti.tamu.edu/documents/164-1.pdf
  20. https://southwesternindustrial.com/a-brief-insight-of-highway-overpasses/
  21. https://www.columbia.edu/~brennan/atmo/24_EXP.html
  22. https://www.american-rails.com/bridges.html
  23. https://www.michiganrailroads.com/stories/7958-history-of-grade-separation-in-detroit-1920
  24. https://www.keymodelworld.com/article/railway-iron-bridges-railway-history
  25. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/freeway.cfm
  26. https://toolkits.ite.org/gradecrossing/sec01.htm
  27. https://thetrolleydodger.com/2022/03/23/the-winnetka-grade-separation-project/
  28. https://highways.dot.gov/highway-history/interstate-system/reichsautobahnen
  29. https://highways.dot.gov/highway-history/interstate-system/50th-anniversary/greatest-decade-1956-1966-part-1-essential
  30. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/50interstate2.cfm
  31. https://www.hsrail.org/blog/the-shinkansens-legendary-operation-and-safety-record-2/
  32. https://www.nippon.com/en/in-depth/d01045/
  33. https://www.urbanequityinstitute.org/private-paths-and-public-space-a-comparative-history-of-grade-separated-pedestrian-systems-in-minneapolis-and-montreal/
  34. https://www.cedengineering.com/userfiles/C03-074%2520-%2520Types%2520of%2520Interchanges%2520and%2520At-Grade%2520Intersections.pdf
  35. https://www.txdot.gov/manuals/des/rdw/chapter-15-grade-separations-and-interchanges-/15-3-types-of-interchanges.html
  36. https://schoolofpe.com/blogs/news/cloverleaf-and-diamond-interchanges-advantages-and-disadvantages-html
  37. https://epg.modot.org/index.php/234.3_Directional_Interchanges
  38. https://www.sehinc.com/insights/amazing-world-interchange-designs
  39. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245563259_Safety_Analysis_of_Interchanges
  40. https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-bleachgreen-railway-viaduct-newtownabbey-built-in-1933-this-is-the-83945166.html
  41. https://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_288.pdf
  42. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/03042/part3.cfm
  43. https://www.roadsafetyngos.org/toolkit/priority-interventions/pedestrian-facilities/
  44. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1962&context=jtrp
  45. https://www.civilengineering-digital.com/civilengineering/201302/MobilePagedArticle.action?articleId=257832
  46. https://www.aisc.org/nsba/prize-bridge-awards/prize-bridge-winners/bp-pedestrian-bridge-at-millennium-park/
  47. https://www.dot.ga.gov/DriveSmart/Travel/BikePed/PSG.pdf
  48. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2141581/
  49. https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/1321/dot_1321_DS1.pdf
  50. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/03042/
  51. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/09060/
  52. https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/E475D567-4922-4C1C-806A-77BBCF8592FC
  53. https://cpcs.ca/grade-crossings-rail-planning/
  54. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457515300610
  55. https://rip.trb.org/View/2419636
  56. https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/FHWA-HRT-23-049.pdf
  57. https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/82274/dot_82274_DS1.pdf
  58. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01441647.2022.2038716
  59. https://www.mdt.mt.gov/publications/docs/brochures/MDT-RGSS-Final-Report-2016.pdf
  60. https://www.cityofws.org/DocumentCenter/View/3043/Appendix-D---Cost-Estimates-PDF
  61. https://www.beaumontca.gov/1438/Pennsylvania-Avenue-Grade-Separation
  62. https://www.transportation.gov/buildamerica/sites/buildamerica.dot.gov/files/2019-08/infra-2017-2018-applicationlist.pdf
  63. https://www.quora.com/When-two-major-roads-cross-is-it-better-cheaper-to-use-an-overpass-bridge-or-an-underpass-digging-what-factors-are-considered
  64. https://catc.ca.gov/-/media/ctc-media/documents/programs/baseline-agreements/2018-08/signed-baseline-agreement-tcep-etiwanda-avenue-grade-separation-v2-dor.pdf
  65. https://highways.dot.gov/safety/hsip/xings/highway-rail-crossing-handbook-third-edition/chapter-3-treatment-selection
  66. https://toolkits.ite.org/gradecrossing/sec05.htm
  67. https://static.tti.tamu.edu/swutc.tamu.edu/publications/technicalreports/60019-3.pdf
  68. https://www.theownteam.com/blog/burlingame-rail-project-costs-soar-whats-next-for-the-broadway-grade-separation/
  69. https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2021/05/the-exploding-cost-of-grade-separations.html
  70. https://www.lrrb.org/pdf/201628.pdf
  71. https://mobility.tamu.edu/mip/strategies-pdfs/added-capacity/executive-summary/grade-separation-1-pg.pdf
  72. https://highways.dot.gov/safety/hsip/spm/highway-rail-crossing-handbook-third-edition/chapter-4-project-implementation
  73. https://www.txdot.gov/content/dam/docs/division/gov/rider-49-study.pdf
  74. https://www.txdot.gov/manuals/des/rdw/chapter-15-grade-separations-and-interchanges-/15-6-general-design-considerations/15-6-4-weaving-sections.html
  75. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6539961/
  76. https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/56296/research.pdf
  77. https://trid.trb.org/View/378485
  78. https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2023-06/FY22-RCE-Selections_PDFa.pdf
  79. https://www.masstransitmag.com/rail/infrastructure/article/55293011/chsra-completes-two-high-speed-rail-separation-projects
  80. https://idot.illinois.gov/news/jayne-bryne.html
  81. https://www.terracon.com/2024/04/12/bringing-new-life-to-americas-busiest-interchange/
  82. https://circleinterchange.org/
  83. https://www.spokanevalleywa.gov/318/BarkerBNSF-Grade-Separation
  84. https://www.sandag.org/projects-and-programs/transit/transit-projects/palomar-street-grade-separation
  85. https://www.theaceproject.org/baldwin-avenue-grade-separation-el
  86. https://www.hsrail.org/blog/how-build-high-speed-rail-start-thinking-inside-box/
  87. https://hsr.ca.gov/high-speed-rail-in-california/construction-activities-interactive-map/
  88. https://www.jmacivil.com/project/ca-high-speed-rail-construction-package-1/
  89. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzCBZ-ZyC1k
  90. https://www.buildhsr.com/project/south-avenue-grade-separation/
  91. https://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2012/12/grade-separation-decadal-view.html
  92. https://www.hsr.ca.gov/2025/05/23/photo-release-high-speed-rail-completes-central-avenue-grade-separation-project-in-fresno-county/
  93. https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/grade-crossing-protection-high-speed-high-density-passenger-service-rail-corridors
  94. https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2022-05/FRA%2520Grants%2520Preparing%2520a%2520Benefit-Cost%2520Analysis_PDFa.pdf
  95. https://martinmpo.com/wp-content/uploads/FEC-Railroad-Grade-Separation-Feasibility-Study-Executive-Summary.pdf
  96. https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/statewide/grade-separation-candidates.html
  97. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2096&context=ktc_researchreports
  98. https://dot.nebraska.gov/media/ymihcj4p/appendix-j_delay-cost-calculations-and-grade-separation-priority-ranking-of-crossings.pdf
  99. https://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2007-106.pdf
  100. https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/steep-funding-gap-ahead-for-train-safety-projects-in-san-mateo-county/article_fe354adc-fe23-11ef-a78b-df54bb047d1f.html
  101. https://www.rctc.org/wp-content/uploads/media_items/grade-separation-funding-strategy.original.pdf
  102. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358209035_GRADE_SEPARATION_ITS_EFFECT_ON_THE_PUBLIC_PERCEPTION_OF_THE_URBAN_LANDSCAPE_CASE_STUDY_HAMEDAN_IRAN
  103. https://www.aclu.org/news/racial-justice/racism-by-design-the-building-of-interstate-81
  104. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094119023000438
  105. https://itdp.org/2024/02/29/pedestrian-bridges-make-cities-less-walkable-why-do-cities-keep-building-them/
  106. https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstreams/2fd0d0b7-af90-40d2-8b9f-3c71a250cef0/download
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.