National Academies Press: OpenBook

Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments (2009)

Chapter: Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments

« Previous: References
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 75
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 76
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 77
Page 78
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 78
Page 79
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 79
Page 80
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 80
Page 81
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 81
Page 82
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 82
Page 83
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 83
Page 84
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 84
Page 85
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 85
Page 86
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 86
Page 87
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 87
Page 88
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 88
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 89
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 90
Page 91
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 91
Page 92
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 92
Page 93
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 93
Page 94
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 94
Page 95
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 95
Page 96
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 96
Page 97
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 97
Page 98
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 98
Page 99
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 99
Page 100
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 100
Page 101
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 101
Page 102
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 102
Page 103
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 103
Page 104
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 104
Page 105
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 105
Page 106
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 106
Page 107
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 107
Page 108
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 108
Page 109
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 109
Page 110
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 110
Page 111
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 111
Page 112
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 112
Page 113
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 113
Page 114
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 114
Page 115
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 115
Page 116
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 116
Page 117
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 117
Page 118
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 118
Page 119
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 119
Page 120
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 120
Page 121
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 121
Page 122
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 122
Page 123
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 123
Page 124
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 124
Page 125
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 125
Page 126
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 126
Page 127
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 127
Page 128
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 128
Page 129
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 129
Page 130
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 130
Page 131
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 131
Page 132
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 132
Page 133
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 133
Page 134
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 134
Page 135
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 135
Page 136
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 136
Page 137
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 137
Page 138
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 138
Page 139
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 139
Page 140
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 140
Page 141
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 141
Page 142
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 142
Page 143
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 143
Page 144
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 144
Page 145
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 145
Page 146
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14327.
×
Page 146

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

75 List of Treatments The treatments included in the catalog are organized into seven categories. The categories are intended for reference purposes only, and some treatments may fall into more than one category; every treatment has been listed only once. The categories and treatments are listed below: 1. Signals and active warnings a) Signal priority b) Transit signal pre-emption c) Audible crossing warning devices d) Constant warning time systems e) Pre-signals f) Flashing light signals g) Limits on downtime of gates h) On-vehicle audible warning devices—automatic and LRV–operator-activated i) Illuminated, active, in-pavement marking systems j) Blank out signs k) Pedestrian signals 2. Signs a) Stop and yield signs b) Retroreflective advance warning signs c) Flashing train-approaching warning signs d) Gate crossing status indication signals 3. Second train approaching treatments a) Second train approaching signals and active signs b) Second train warning signs 4. Gates a) Pedestrian automatic gates b) Four-quadrant gates 5. Pedestrians a) Pedestrian fencing/landscaping b) Offset (or Z) pedestrian crossings c) Pedestrian swing gates 6. Channelization/markings a) Pavement marking, texturing, and striping b) Quick curbs c) Rumble strips d) Channelizations e) Illumination of crossings 7. Education and enforcement a) Photo enforcement b) Enforcement c) Education outreach programs d) CCTV/video recording How to Read the Catalog Pages The following fields are used in the catalog. Field descrip- tions are provided next to each field: General Definition of the treatment, including Description alternative names, basic operation, and function. Purpose of Safety and operational issues the Treatment treatment is intended to address. Alignment Type The classifications of alignment where the treatment is applicable, according to the detailed defini- tion provided in TCRP Report 69 and described in Section 2. Intersection Whether the treatment is specific to Treatment intersections (yes) or is generally applied throughout a section of the alignment (no). Implementation Examples of the impact of the treat- Effects ment, both statistical (if available) and anecdotal; quantitative infor- mation is rarely available, so the catalog depends largely on anecdotal and unquantified information. Implementation Anecdotal and literature information Notes about how the treatment has been implemented, and special consid- erations for implementation; A P P E N D I X A LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments

76 again, little quantitative informa- tion is available and the catalog depends largely on anecdotal and unquantified information. Contraindications Situations in which the treatment to Treatment should not be installed. Any situa- tions or factors that increase risk when the treatment is installed. Relative Cost Relative cost: “low,” “medium,” or “high.” Included in Whether the treatment is included in MUTCD Chapter 10 of the MUTCD. If the Chapter 10? treatment is included, the MUTCD section number in which the treat- ment is addressed is provided. See Also List of related treatments. Agencies Reporting Agencies that reported using this Using this treatment at one or more locations. Treatment The information for this field was obtained from the project’s survey of agencies. The information has not been edited and is reported exactly as received. Because some of the treatments are relatively new, and because naming conven- tions change from location to location, the lists may not reflect exact applications on site. Resources References to articles, reports, websites, or other sources with additional information about the treatment. Contact information for agencies or individuals who have agreed to list their informa- tion and act as a resource to other professionals about the treatment. Agencies Reporting Using Treatments The catalog includes a category that lists which agencies reported using each treatment in the survey of agencies. Agency acronyms are used for succinctness. Agency names, locations, and acronyms are listed in Table A-1. The locations Map No. Locations System 2. Baltimore, MD MTA-MD (Maryland Transit Administration) 5. Ca md en, NJ NJT (New Jersey Transit – River LINE) 8. Denver, CO RTD (Regional Transit District) 10. Houston, TX Metro (Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County) 1 11. Jersey City, NJ NJT-HBLR (New Jersey Transit–Hudson-Bergen Light Rail) 12. Kenosha, WI KT (Kenosha Transit) 13. Los Angeles, CA LACMTA (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority) 14. Memphis, TN MATA (Memphis Area Transit Authority) 15. Minneapolis, MN MT (Metro Transit)* 19. Philadelphia, PA SEPTA (Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority) 20. Pittsburgh, PA PAAC (Port Authority of Allegheny County) 21. Portland, OR TriMet (Portland TriMet) 22. Sacram ento, CA SRTD (Sacramento Regional Transit District) 23. Saint Louis, MO/IL BSDA (Bi-State Development Agency) 24. Salt Lake City, UT UTA (Utah Transit Authority) 25. 26. San Diego, CA San Diego, CA SDTI (San Diego Trolley Inc.) NCTD (North County Transit District) 27. San Francisco, CA SF Muni (San Francisco Municipal Railway) 28. San Jose, CA SCVTA (Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority) 29. Seattle, WA WFSC (King County Metro) 30. Tacoma, WA ST (Sound Transit, Link) 32. Calgary, Alberta C-Train 33. Edm onton, Alberta Edm onton Transit System 35. Toronto, Ontario TTC (Toronto Transit Commission) Streetcars 1Note: Houston and Minneapolis both use the name “Metro”. In the catalog, “Metro Transit” always refers to Minneapolis, while “Metro” refers to Houston. Table A-1. List of LRT agencies responding to the online survey.

77 of the agencies are shown on the map in Figure A-1; all loca- tions that received the survey are shown on the map, only agencies that responded to the survey are included in the table. A summary of the agencies that reported using each treatment is provided in Table A-2. Note that through the study process the names and final list of treatments was altered and the agencies using each treatment were updated as more information was made available. Figure A-1. Location of LRT systems in the United States and Canada included in the survey.

Table A-2. Treatments in use by agency. Signals and Active Warnings Signs Second Tr ain A pproaching Tr eat men ts Gates Pedestrians Channelization/Markings Education and Enforcem ent Locations Syst em S i g n a l p r i o r i t y T r a n s i t s i g n a l p r e - e m p t i o n A u d i b l e c r o s s i n g w a r n i n g d e v i c e s C o n s t a n t w a r n i n g t i m e s y s t e m s P r e - s i g n a l s F l a s h i n g l i g h t s i g n a l s L i m i t s o n d o w n t i m e o f g a t e s O n - v e h i c l e a u d i b l e w a r n i n g d e v i c e s I l l u m i n a t e d , a c t i v e , i n - p a v e m e n t m a r k i n g s y s t e m s B l a n k o u t s i g n s P e d e s t r i a n s i g n a l s S t o p a n d y i e l d s i g n s R e t r o r e f l e c t i v e a d v a n c e w a r n i n g s i g n s F l a s h i n g t r a i n - w a r n i n g s i g n s G a t e c r o s s i n g s t a t u s i n d i c a t i o n s i g n a l s S e c o n d a p p r o a c h i n g s i g n a l s a n d a c t i v e s i g n s S e c o n d t r a i n w a r n i n g s i g n s P e d e s t r i a n a u t o m a t i c g a t e s F o u r - q u a d r a n t g a t e s P e d e s t r i a n f e n c i n g / l a n d s c a p i n g O f f s e t p e d e s t r i a n c r o s s i n g s P e d e s t r i a n s w i n g g a t e s P a v e m e n t m a r k i n g , t e x t u r i n g , a n d s t r i p i n g Q u i c k c u r b s R u m b l e s t r i p s C h a n n e l i z a t i o n s I l l u m i n a t i o n o f c r o s s i n g s P h o t o e n f o r c e m e n t E n f o r c e m e n t E d u c a t i o n o u t r e a c h p r o g r a m s C C T V / v i d e o r e c o r d i n g Baltimore, MD MTA-MD (Ma ry l and Transit Administration) Camden, NJ NJ T (New Je rse y Tr ansit – River LI NE) Denver, CO RTD (Regional Transit District) Houston, TX Metro (Metropolitan Transit Authori ty of Harris Coun ty ) Jersey City, NJ Jersey City, NJ NJ T-HB LR (New Je rse y Transit Hudson-Bergen Li ght Rail) NJ T-NCS Kenosha, WI KT (Kenosha Transit) Los Angeles, CA LA CMTA (L os Angeles Count y Me tropolitan Transportation Authori ty ) Memphis, TN MATA (Memphis Area Transit Authorit y ) Minneapolis, MN MT (Metro Transit) Philadelphia, PA SEPTA (Southeastern Penns yl vania Transportat ion Authori ty ) Pittsburg h, PA PAAC (Port Authorit y of Alleg he ny Count y) Portland, OR TriMet (Portland TriMet) Sacramento, CA SRTD (Sacramento Regi onal Transit District) Saint L ouis, MO/ IL BSDA (B i-State Development Agenc y) Salt La ke Cit y, UT UTA (Utah Transit Authorit y) San Diego, CA San Diego, CA SDT I (San Diego Trolle y In c.) NCTD (North Count y Transit District) San Fran cisco, CA SF Muni (San Francisco Municipal Railway ) San Jose, CA SCVTA (Santa Clara Valle y Transportation Authori ty ) Seattle, WA WF SC (King Count y Metro) Tacoma, WA ST (Sound Transit, Li nk) Calg ar y, AB C-Train Edmonton, AB Edmonton Transit Sy st em Toronto, ON TTC Streetcars

79 TR AN SIT SIGN AL PRIORITY Photo (courtesy José Farrán) shows the triangular aspect used in several sy stems (this is from San Jose) that tells the LRV operator that the train is now being detected by the signal priority computer. General Description: Transit signal priority modifies the normal signal operation process to better accommodate transit vehicles. The objective is to provide more opportunities for transit within the coordinated system operation of the traffic signal without significantly impacting other traffic. Since LRT service is typically more frequent than heavy rail or emergency vehicle service, the use of priority rather than pre-emption allows the street system to maintain a higher level of overall performance. Signal priority works within the existing signal cycle and coordination strategy to provide additional green time to the LRV where possible. While signal priority may be implemented through a variety of different strategies, the two most popular types are: Early Green . When the priority vehicle is detected, the green time of the opposing direction is shortened to expedite the return to green for the priority vehicle. Green Extension . For a priority vehicle which is approaching the intersection, the green time is extended to allow the vehicle time to pass. Early green and green extension may be applied together to maximize the preferential treatment for the light rail vehicle (but they are not applied in the same cycle). Purpose of Treatment: The objectives of transit signal priority include improved schedule adherence, reduced transit travel time, improved transit efficiency, a contribution to enhanced transit information, and increased road network efficiency. No safety impact has been identified. $$ Medium Cost Catalog of Treatments Signals and Active Warnings

80 Alignment Type: b.1, b.2, b.3, b.4, b.5, c.1 Intersection Treatment: Yes Implementation Effects: Implementation effects include reduced priority signal delay, reduced travel time, and increased schedule reliability. Non-priority vehicles experience increased delay on cross streets. Implementation Notes: TCRP Report 17 made a recommendation to “coordinate traffic signal phasing and timing near LRT crossings to preclude cars stopping on and blocking the tracks.” As it is important that appropriate clearance intervals are maintained for other movements even when LRV priority is used, sufficient lead time for clearance of vehicle traffic must be available from the initial detection of the priority request signal to the time the LRV arrives at the intersection. Signal priority does not guarantee that an LRV will receive green time when it arrives at an intersection (see Exhibits 4-39 and 4040 in TCRP Report 118). An LRV may still be required to stop at a priority signal location if the vehicle has missed the green phase. This is different from signal pre-emption, in which the green phase is held until the receiver is no longer receiving the pre-emptive indication. TCRP Report 118 provides information about transit signal priority for bus rapid transit (BRT). Much of the information provided in that report also applies to LRT. The report recommends that transit stops be placed on the far side of the intersection to maximize the benefit of priority from an operational standpoint. For BRT with signal priority, typical travel time savings between 8% and 12% were reported. Contraindications to Treatment: The main constraints are the possibly increased delays to cross street traffic. Relative Cost: Medium Included in MUTCD Chapter 10: No See Also: Transit Signal Pre-emption Active Treatment Agencies Reporting Using This Treatment: SCVTA, LACMTA, RTD, NJT – River LINE, ST, SDTI, UTA, Metro, Metro Transit, SF Muni, NJT-NCS, NJT-HBLR, SEPTA, TTC

81 Resources: Ogden, B. D. Salt Lake City Integrated Traffic-Control System for Street-Running Light Rail: Impact of Roadway-Trackway Geometry on Traffic Priority-Control Design Options. In Light Rail: Investment for the Future, 8th Joint Conference on Light Rail Transit (CD-ROM), Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2000, pp. F-16/1–F-16/11. Sm ith, H. R., Hemily, B., and Ivanovic, M. Transit Signal Priority (TSP): A Planning and Implementation Handbook . ITS America; U.S. Department of Transportation, 2005. Kittelson & Associates, Inc., Levinson, H., and DMJM Harris, TCRP Report 118: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide . Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007 .

82 TRANSIT SIGNAL PRE-EMPTION General Description: Transit signal pre- emption uses coordinated traffic signal controllers that interrupt the normal signal timing plan to provide a pre-empted phase for light rail as soon as possible. Pre- emption is often used for emergency vehicles, but can also be applied to LRVs. During pre-emption, the transit vehicle sends a message to the signal controller. This message interrupts the normal signal cycle, provides sufficient time to clear the intersection, and immediately switches the signal to a protective phase for the LRV movement through the intersection. Purpose of Treatment: The main purpose of signal pre-emption is to maximize efficiency for the transit vehicle. No safety impact has been identified. Alignment Type: b.1, b.2, b.3, b.4 Intersection Treatment: Yes Implementation Effects: Reduced signal delay to LRT, reduced travel time, and increased schedule reliability. Since normal timing plans are interrupted, coordination will be lost in the traffic signal network, potentially increasing delay to road traffic for a period of time. Implementation Notes: Signal pre-emption can be applied at isolated locations where LRTs run across high speed roadways or make complicated or conflicting movements. The intention is to improve safety by separating conflicts in time. Contraindications to Treatment: In cities where emergency vehicles have priority, all operators (LRV and emergency vehicles) must understand which vehicle has priority at an LRV crossing. Because an LRV is more difficult to stop, it is normal to give priority to the LRV. This must be communicated to emergency vehicle operators to avoid a collision. (Metro Transit reported a collision in Minneapolis where the driver of an ambulance believed he had priority over an LRV.) In some cases, pre-emption may disrupt the progressive movement of street traffic. Relative Cost: Medium $$ Medium Cost Active Treatment

83 Included in MUTCD Chapter 10: No. Signal pre- emption for heavy rail is discussed in Chapter 8: Section 8D.7 See Also: Transit Signal Priority Agencies Reporting Using This Treatment: TTC, SCVTA, LACMTA, SRTD, CTrain, PAAC, NJT – River Line, SDTI, Metro, MetroTransit, SEPTA, TriMet Resources: No information available

84 AUDIBLE CROSSING WARNING DEVICES Photo (courtesy José Farrán) shows an example of the most common type, a synthesizer bell from San Jose. General Description: Audible warning devices such as bells, horns, and synthesized tones installed either onboard the LRV or wayside along the tracks are used in conjunction with flashing light signals at grade crossings. The key design issues to consider are appropriate placement of the device, and tuning the sound produced so that the warning sound can easily be distinguished from the environmental noise in the area. Improving placement and the type of tone are believed to be more effective than simply increasing the device volume. Purpose of Treatment: The main purpose of audible crossing warning devices is to provide supplemental warning for motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists. Alignment Type: All b Intersection Treatment: Yes Implementation Effects: No quantitative data that directly evaluate the effectiveness of audible warnings have been found. Contraindications to Treatment: In some communities, the audible warnings are considered a nuisance by nearby businesses and/or residents. As a result, some audible warnings have been eliminated or had their duration shortened. For example, at a few locations on the Minneapolis Hiawatha line, there are gates with flashers and bells, but the bells stop ringing once the gates are down. Irwin noted that “a pedestrian LED flashing sign and audible warning device is not required in the traffic signal controlled environment.” Relative Cost: Medium, unless the crossing already has flashers or another LRV detection device, in which case audible warnings are a relatively low-cost upgrade $$ Medium Cost Active Treatment Pedestrian Safety Motorist Safety

85 Included in MUTCD Chapter 10: Yes See Also: On-Vehicle Audible Warning Devices— Automatic and LRV–Operator-Activated Agencies Reporting Using this Treatment: SCVTA, LACMTA, RTD, SRTD, Ctrain, NJT – River LINE, SDTI, Metro, Edmonton Transit, Metro Transit, NJT-HBLR, TriMet Resources: Korve Engineering, ATS Consulting, LLC, Fidell Associates, Center for Education and Research in Safety, and Bear Consulting. TCRP Research Results Digest 84: Audible Signals for Pedestrian Safety in LRT Environments. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., May 2007. Korve Engineering. Appendixes to TCRP Research Results Digest 84: Audible Signals for Pedestrian Safety in LRT Environments. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_webdoc_35.pdf. Irwin, D. Transportation Research Circular E-C058: Safety Criteria for Light Rail Pedestrian Crossings. In 9th National Light Rail Transit Conference, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2003. AUDIBLE CROSSING WARNING DEVICES – EXAMPLES Description: Audible crossing warning device at a pedestrian crossing. Installed with pedestrian signal and LOOK/ SECOND TRAIN COMING sign. Location: Hiawatha line, Minneapolis Additional Notes: None

86 CONSTANT WARNING TIME SYSTEMS General Description: Constant warning time systems, also known as grade crossing predictors, provide a uniform advance warning time between the activation of warning devices and the light rail vehicle arrival. A uniform or constant warning provides motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists with the same duration of warning in every cycle. The warning must be sensitive to both the speed and position of the LRV and not just the position, as in other detection systems. Constant warning time systems are particularly useful where light rail vehicles travel at significantly different speeds or stop frequently. A constant warning time is most useful at crossings that are shared with railroads and where the difference in speed between the two types of rail is greater than 15 km/h (10 mph). Purpose of Treatment: A warning device that gives a consistent indication of when the light rail vehicle is expected to pass is desirable. It is believed that road users are less likely to grow impatient and exhibit risky behavior if they receive accurate information about an approaching transit vehicle. Alignment Type: All b Intersection Treatment: Yes Implementation Effects: Constant warning time systems are effective in providing both a uniform amount of time for the advance warning and in reducing motorist violation of the warning system. Systems with constant warning time systems generally have lower collision rates than systems without. Implementation Notes: No information available. Contraindications to Treatment: No information available Relative Cost: Medium Included in MUTCD Chapter 10: No See Also: Second Train Approaching Treatments, Limits on Downtime of Gates $$ Medium Cost Active Treatment Pedestrian Safety Motorist Safety Agencies Reporting Using This Treatment: SCVTA, RTD, Ctrain, PAAC, Metro, NCTD,

87 Metro Transit, TriMet Resources: Bowman, B. L. The Effectiveness of Railroad Constant Warning Time Systems. In Transportation Research Record No. 1114, Traffic Control Devices and Rail-Highway Grade Crossings, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1987. pp. 111– 122, Korve Engineering, Inc., Richards & Associates, Interactive Elements, Inc., and University of North Carolina, Highway Safety Research Center. TCRP Report 69: Light Rail Service: Pedestrian and Vehicular Safety. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001.

88 PRE - SIGN AL S General Description: Pre-signals, also known as advanced signals, are defined as traffic signals located upstream of a highway–rail grade crossing that is adjacent to a roadway–roadway intersection. The pre- signals are connected to the downstream traffic signal and to the rail signal controller. Pre-signals allow for an adequate lag time between the pre-signal and the downstream signal so that vehicles past the pre-signal can clear the tracks and approaching vehicles are stopped outside of the clear storage distance and outside of the intersection when the LRV arrives . Purpose of Treatment: The purpose of pre-signals is to reduce, and ideally, to eliminate the likelihood of vehicles stopping in the track area during the red phase of the traffic signal cycle. Alignment Type: All b, c.1 Intersection Treatment: Yes Implementation Effects: TCRP field tests reported in Report 69 found that after the implementation of pre-signals: The number of vehicles in the clear storage distance at two study sites declined by an average of 80% and 93%, respectively. The number of vehicles that made a prohibited right turn on red decreased by an average of 82%. Fewer than 3% of the vehicles stopped by a red signal at the pre-signal proceeded through the signal into the clear storage distance or conducted a right turn on red. Implementation Notes: The main intersection vehicle signals should use louvered or programmable visibility signal heads so that the downstream green indication does not confuse drivers stopped at the pre-signal. Contraindications to Treatment: No information available. Relative Cost: High Included in MUTCD Chapter 10: No. Pre signals for heavy rail are discussed in Chapter 8: Section 8D.7. $$$ High Cost Active Treatment Motorist Safety

89 Agencies Reporting Using This Treatment: SCVTA, LACMTA, RTD, SRTD, PAAC, ST, UTA, Metro, NCTD, Metro Transit, SF Muni, NJT-NCS, TTC Resources: Korve Engineering, Inc., Richards & Associates, Interactive Elements, Inc., and University of North Carolina, Highway Safety Research Center. TCRP Report 69: Light Rail Service: Pedestrian and Vehicular Safety. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001.

90 FLASHING LIGHT SIGNALS General Description: Various types of flashing light signals are used by transit agencies. The most common are the standard railroad crossing lights. Purpose of Treatment: The purpose of flashing light signals is to warn motorists that an LRV is present or about to enter the crossing area, and to prevent motorists entering the trackway of the LRV. Alignment Type: All b, all c Intersection Treatment: Yes Implementation Effects: No information available. Implementation Notes: No information available. Contraindications to Treatment: Research suggests that motorists using crossings located in an area characterized by signalized intersections respond well to traffic signals. As most LRT systems are constructed in urban areas, traffic signals are familiar and generally more credible than flashing light signals. Relative Cost: Medium Included in MUTCD Chapter 10: Yes See Also: Constant Warning Time Systems; Audible Crossing Warning Devices; Illuminated, Active, In-Pavement Marking Systems $$ Medium Cost Active Treatment Motorist Safety Agencies Reporting Using This Treatment: MATA, SCVTA, LACMTA, RTD, SRTD, PAAC, MTA-MD, NJT - River LINE, ST, UTA, SDTI, Metro, Edmonton Transit, TriMet

91 Korve Engineering, Inc., Richards & Associates, Interactive Elements, Inc., and University of North Carolina, Highway Safety Research Center. TCRP Report 69: Light Rail Service: Pedestrian and Vehicular Safety. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001. Federal Highway Administration. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, 2003 Edition. FLASHING LIGHT SIGNALS – EXAMPLES Description: Standard railroad crossing flashing lights with gate arm Location: Salt Lake City, Utah Additional Notes: None Resources:

92 LIMITS ON DOWNTIME OF GATES General Description: Limits on gate downtime are designed to ensure that gates are not in the down position for a period that appears excessive to the public, for example when an LRV is stopped at a station sufficiently close to the crossing to trigger the gates, but is not in motion. Some mechanism is required to activate the gates when the LRV does start moving towards the crossing. Purpose of Treatment: When gates are down for an extended period of time, motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists may become frustrated and may engage in risky behavior. Motorists and pedestrians may also believe that the gates have malfunctioned. Limiting the downtime of gates is intended to reduce doubts, frustration, and risky behavior. Alignment Type: All b (with gates) Intersection Treatment: Yes Implementation Effects: TCRP Report 69 reported positive feedback regarding wayside detectors and delayed gate activation. Implementation Notes: TCRP Report 69 notes that a number of agencies have installed wayside detectors that delay gate activation while an LRT is dwelling at a station. This approach limits the total downtime of the gates and prevents the gates from being down when no train is actually about to cross. Contraindications to Treatment: No information available Relative Cost: Medium Included in MUTCD Chapter 10: Gates in 10D.03 and 10D.04. Timing information not provided. $$ Medium Cost Active Treatment Motorist Safety Agencies Reporting Using This Treatment: TTC, SCVTA, LACMTA, RTD, NJT – River LINE, UTA, SDTI, NCTD, TriMet

93 University of North Carolina, Highway Safety Research Center. TCRP Report 69: Light Rail Service: Pedestrian and Vehicular Safety. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001. Resources: Korve Engineering, Inc., Richards & Associates, Interactive Elements, Inc., and

94 ON-VEHICLE AUDIBLE WARNING DEVICES— AUTOMATIC AND LRV–OPERATOR-ACTIVATED General Description: According to TCRP Research Results Digest 84, on-vehicle audible warning devices may be referred to as bells, gongs, whistles, quackers, clackers, low horns, high horns, or horns. They are used intermittently, and produce sound levels from 60 dBA to more than 100 dBA at 100 feet. The devices warn motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists that an LRV is approaching the crossing. Automatic devices can be triggered by the position and sometimes the speed of the train (see Constant Warning Time Systems), while LRV–operator-activated are triggered by the operator at their discretion. No information concerning automatic on-vehicle audible warning devices was available to the project team. Purpose of Treatment: On-vehicle audible warning devices are intended to reduce risky or inattentive behavior by motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists. Alignment Type: All Intersection Treatment: Yes Implementation Effects: The effects of on-vehicle audible warning devices have not been quantified. Implementation Notes: Rules regarding the sounding of on-vehicle warning devices are usually outlined at the agency level, and vary greatly depending on the agency. Many LRVs are equipped with multiple sound types, and operators may use different levels of sound in different situations. Because audible warnings may disturb residents, the warning may be limited where there is residential development near the LRT line. TCRP Research Results Digest 84 acknowledges that different agencies have different philosophies about sounding audible warnings and outlines a general overall practice for evaluating rules for sounding onboard audible warning devices at crossings. The evaluation system is based on three characteristics: emergencies, sight distance, and surrounding conditions. More details can be found in the report. $$ Medium Cost Active Treatment Motorist Safety Pedestrian Safety

95 UTA, Metro Transit, NJT, SF Muni, and SCVTA have regulations outlining where operators should use different types of audible warnings. In some locations, audible warnings are prohibited except in emergency situations. At others, bells or horns are required before crossing. Metro Transit, NJT, and SCVTA indicated that horns are effective, but not completely effective at combating motorist, pedestrian, and cyclist inattention. The agencies noted that personal music devices and headphones were thought to be linked to pedestrian and cyclist inattention and collisions. Contraindications to Treatment: Noise Relative Cost: Medium Included in MUTCD Chapter 10: No Agencies Reporting Using This Treatment: SCVTA, SRTD, NJT – River LINE, UTA, SDTI, NJT-HBLR, TriMet Resources: Korve Engineering, ATS Consulting, LLC, Fidell Associates, Center for Education and Research in Safety, and Bear Consulting. TCRP Research Results Digest 84: Audible Signals for Pedestrian Safety in LRT Environments. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., May 2007.

96 ILLUMINATED, ACTIVE, IN-PAVEMENT MARKING SYSTEMS Source: NCHRP Synthesis 380 General Description: Illuminated active in-pavement marking (IPM) systems provide a series of markers that are embedded in the pavement surface and light up in the presence of certain conditions. They can be installed parallel to the LRT alignment or at a stop bar. Illuminated IPM can also be installed in combination with other active treatments. Houston has installed parallel IPM with blank out “X” signs to indicate when a lane should not be used by vehicles. Houston has also installed blank out train signs along with IPM. Purpose of Treatment: IPM systems are used to reduce the violations and crashes that occur when vehicles drive on the tracks as an LRV approaches. When installed at a stop bar, IPM systems are intended to reduce red-light running and right-turn- on-red violations. Alignment Type: Type b.4, c.1 Intersection Treatment: In some applications. Implementation Effects: According to NCHRP Synthesis 380, Houston Metro had positive results for both stop bar installation and installation parallel to tracks, but success depended on motorists understanding the device’s message. Implementation Notes: Houston Metro installed illuminated IPMs in two different configurations along the light rail alignment. Both installations light up red when an LRT approaches the location of the markers. Lack of marker adhesion to the surface can be a problem for IPM systems. Contraindications to Treatment: No information available Relative Cost: High Included in MUTCD Chapter 10: No $$$ High Cost Active Treatment Motorist Safety

97 Agencies Reporting Using This Treatment: Houston Metro Resources: Carson, J. L, Tydlacka, J., Gray, L. S., Voigt, A. P. NCHRP Synthesis 380: Applications of Illuminated, Active, In-Pavement Marker Systems. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008. Korve Engineering, ATS Consulting, LLC, Fidell Associates, Center for Education and Research in Safety, and Bear Consulting. TCRP Research Results Digest 84: Audible Signals for Pedestrian Safety in LRT Environments. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., May 2007. ILLUMINATED, ACTIVE, IN-PAVEMENT MARKING SYSTEMS – EXAMPLES Source: NCHRP Synthesis 380 Description: Houston Metro installed a single row of red illuminated IPM system markers to separate the vehicle lane from the shared left turn/LRT lane. The markers are activated along with an overhead red “X” to indicate that traffic should not use the left turn lane when trains are approaching. Left turns are prohibited in this case. When the markers are not activated, the blank out sign shows a “green arrow” indicating that the lane can be used and left-turn movements are permitted. The signs and markers are activated when an LRV approaches from either direction. Location: Houston, TX Additional Notes: A review of IPM was included in NCHRP Synthesis 380. Comprehension studies conducted before installation of IPM systems found that: For the IPM and blank out “x”: 82% of respondents understood the meaning to be “do not enter the left lane.” 50% of respondents believed that the IPM and blank out “x” sign indicated that a train was coming. For IPM and blank out “train” sign 18% of respondents did NOT include “a train is coming” or “do not turn left” in their response.

98 An analysis of the following types of violations of left turn restrictions indicated that the total number of violations was either unchanged or slightly higher: Turning left against “red x” Turning left against “red x” from another lane Turning left from another lane during “green arrow” Entering left turn lane during “red x” and not completing the left turn Entering left turn lane during “green arrow” and not completing the left turn The total number of violations involving vehicles entering the left-turn lane against the “red x” and completing a left turn decreased. Source: NCHRP Sy nthesis 380 Description: Houston Metro also installed illuminated IPM at stop bars at a signal on the approach to LRT tracks. The installation was intended to reduce red- light running. Location: Houston, TX Additional Notes: A review of IPM was included in NCHRP Synthesis 380 . Comprehension studies conducted before the first installation showed that over 80% believed that the IPM indicated where to stop at the signal lights. The first installation showed a minor reduction in red-light running and a major reduction in right-turn-on-red maneuvers.

99 BLANK OUT SIGNS General Description: Blank out signs can be illuminated to display a message to motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists. They are an active treatment, and may indicate the presence of a train or a second train (second train approaching signs). The signs may also be used to notify motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists of a left or right turn prohibition due to a train coming. Purpose of Treatment: Blank out signs are used to advise motorists and pedestrians of increased risk due to the presence of an LRV at a crossing location. According to TCRP Report 17, blank out LRV signs warn motorists of the increased risk associated with violations of the signal indications in the presence of an LRV. Alignment Type: All b, all c Intersection Treatment: Yes Implementation Effects: Agencies reported that blank out signs are more effective than static signs, but no quantifiable effect information was available. Implementation Notes: All agencies visited by the project team had installed some type of blank out sign. The agencies also reported increased effectiveness when blank out signs provided more specific useful and timely information to motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists. For example, in most cases the project team heard more positive feedback about turn restriction blank out signs than about blank out signs with the “train” symbol. Blank out signs should be illuminated long enough to allow motorists and pedestrians to respond and to clear the tracks, but not so long that the sign becomes ineffective (perceived as incorrect) or easy to ignore. Contraindications to Treatment: No information available. $$ Medium Cost Active Treatment

100 Relative Cost: Medium Included in MUTCD Chapter 10: Yes See Also: Second Train Warning Signs, Pedestrian Signals Agencies Reporting Using This Treatment: SCVTA, RTD, SRTD, PAAC, NJT – River LINE, UTA, SDTI, NJT-HBLR, TriMet Resources: Korve, H. W., Farran, J. I., Mansel, D. M., Levinson, H. S., Chira-Chavala, T., and Ragland, D. R. TCRP Report 17: Integration of Light Rail Transit into City Streets. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1996. BLANK OUT SIGNS – EXAMPLES Description: Blank out no left turn signs for LRT crossing intersection. The photo shows that the LRT has a straight bar to indicate that it can proceed, through traffic is also permitted (green ball), and left turns are restricted. Location: Santa Clara Valley, California Additional Notes: None Description: Blank out no right turn signs for at-grade crossing with LRT turning right across intersection Location: San Jose, California Additional Notes: None

101 BL AN K OUT SIGNS – EX AM PLES CONT’D. Description: Blank out train sign at an intersection Location: San Francisco, California Additional Notes: This sign is activated when a train is approaching. Description: Blank out no right turn signs for at-grade crossing with traffic lanes turning right across LRT line Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota Additional Notes: This sign shows the no left turn arrow over an illustration of LRT tracks.

102 PEDESTRI AN SIGN AL S General Description: Pedestrian signals are active signal devices that tell pedestrians when it is safe to cross the roadway or right-of-way. The simplest approach is to use standard MUTCD pedestrian crossing signal heads. The signs are composed of a walk symbol that indicates when it is safe to walk, a flashing hand that indicates that a crossing should not be started, and a solid hand that indicates when it is not safe to cross. Countdown signals may also be incorporated. Countdown signals may be activated by train detection systems or GPS. Purpose of Treatment : The purpose of pedestrian signals is to control pedestrians’ crossing movements by indicating when a safe right-of-way is available for pedestrians to cross the LRV track. Alignment Type: All b, c.1, c.2 Intersection Treatment: Yes Implementation Effects: No information available Implementation Notes: According to MUTCD Chapter 10, pedestrian signals for LRT crossings should be designed in accordance with MUTCD Section 4E.04. Chapter 10 also recommends that “where light rail transit tracks are immediately adjacent to other tracks or a road, pedestrian signalization should be designed to avoid having pedestrians wait between sets of tracks or between the tracks and a road. If adequate space exists for a pedestrian refuge and is justified based on engineering judgment, additional pedestrian signal indicators, signing, and detectors should be installed.” All site visit locations had some pedestrian signals. Minneapolis’ Metro Transit had pedestrian signals at every crossing. A number of other treatments are commonly installed along with pedestrian signals. The supporting treatments include pedestrian count-down signals, flashing light signals with $$ Medium Cost Active Treatment Pedestrian Safety

103 crossbucks, and second train warning signals. Contraindications to Treatment: As the standard MUTCD mounting heights for pedestrian signals may be too high for the short distance across just one or two tracks, a lower placement more central to a pedestrian’s field of vision may be better, but the signal head location needs to be carefully selected to avoid the signal head becoming a pedestrian hazard in itself. Relative Cost: Medium Included in MUTCD Chapter 10: Yes See Also: Second Train Approaching Signals and Active Signs Agencies Reporting Using This Treatment: MATA, SCVTA, LACMTA, SRTD, MTA-MD, NJT – River LINE, UTA, SDTI, Edmonton Transit, NCTD, SF Muni, NJT-HBLR, TriMet Resources: Korve Engineering, Inc., Richards & Associates, Interactive Elements, Inc., and University of North Carolina, Highway Safety Research Center. TCRP Report 69: Light Rail Service: Pedestrian and Vehicular Safety. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001. Federal Highway Administration. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, 2003 Edition. Federal Highway Administration. Traffic Controls for Highway-Light Rail Transit Grade Crossings, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, 2003 Edition, Part 10, pp. 10A-1–10D-11. Clark, R. Pedestrian-Rail Crossings in California. California Public Utilities Commission, 2008.

104 PEDESTRIAN SIGNALS – EXAMPLES Description: The signals indicate to pedestrians when it is safe to cross. They are equipped with an audible warning device. Variations on this type of pedestrian signal, paired with the LOOK sign, are provided on all crossings on Metro Transit’s Hiawatha line in Minneapolis. Location: Hiawatha line, Minneapolis Additional Notes: Pedestrians, especially regular system users, often violate the signals. Metro Transit also noted that although the signals were installed at standard MUTCD height, they are out of the pedestrian site line because LRT track crossings are not as wide as standard intersection crossings. Pedestrian signals may need to be installed at a lower height to be within the sight line of pedestrians. Description: Pedestrian signals can be installed along with other measures. This picture shows pedestrian signals with the LOOK sign installed with standard flashing light display. The location also has an audible warning device. Location: Hiawatha line, Minneapolis Additional Notes: None

105 PEDESTRIAN SIGNALS – EXAMPLES CONT’D. Description: Pedestrian signals with countdown timers Location: Salt Lake City, Utah Additional Notes: None Description: Double pedestrian signal heads Location: San Francisco, California Additional Notes: The double pedestrian heads installed along a streetcar alignment in San Francisco are presumably intended to increase visibility on this wide crossing in bright light conditions. Two signal heads are installed on the same pole, as shown in the figure on the left.

106 STOP AN D YIELD SIGNS Photo (courtesy José Farrán) shows an example of a stop sign at an LRT crossing in San Jose. General Description: Stop and yield signs are fixed standard signs that tell motorists to stop or yield to an approaching LRV. These signs may also be placed at intersections close to LRT crossings. Stop signs close to the LRT alignment should not cause vehicles to stop in the path of the LRV. The MUTCD recommends using LRT-activated blank out turn-prohibition signs where an intersection adjacent to a highway–LRT crossing is controlled by stop signs. An LRT–approaching-activated blank out warning sign may also be used at stop or yield controlled locations. It was noted that most stop signs encountered in the site visits included crossbucks on the same pole. Purpose of Treatment: Stop and yield signs tell motorists to obey traffic right-of-way laws (stop and yield) designed to prevent potential conflict between LRVs and vehicles. Alignment Type: All b, all c Intersection Treatment: Yes Implementation Effects: No specific inform ation about the effect of stop and yield signs along an LRT alignment was available. Implementation Notes: This is a regulated sign. Contraindications to Treatment: Stop and yield signs should not be used where the sign would cause vehicles to stop on the LRT tracks. Stop and yield signs result in lower vehicle speeds over the tracks. This means that the tracks are occupied for an increased period of time. Relative Cost: Low Included in MUTCD Chapter 10: Yes See Also : Blank Out Signs $ Low Cost Passive Treatment Motorist Safety Agencies Reporting Using This Treatment: MATA, SCVTA, RTD, SRTD, PAAC, MTA-MD, KT, NJT – River LINE, UTA, SDTI, Metro, NCTD, SF Muni, NJT-HBLR, SEPTA, TriMet, TTC Signs

107 Resources: Federal Highway Administration. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, 2003 Edition. STOP AND YIELD SIGNS – EXAMPLES Photo courtesy José Farrán Description: Stop sign on same pole with railroad crossbucks Location: Sacramento, CA Additional Notes: None

108 RETROREFLECTIVE ADVANCE WARNING SIGNS Photo (courtesy José Farrán) shows a typical retroreflective advance warning sign from San Jose. General Description: MUTCD Chapter 10 stipulates that "all signs used in highway- light rail transit grade crossing traffic control systems shall be retroreflectorized or illuminated as described in Section 2A.08 to show the same shape and similar color to an approaching road user during both day and night." Purpose of Treatment: The purpose of retroreflective advance warning signs is to present the same information to motorists during both the day and the night so that limited illumination of the crossing area does not limit visibility of the signs. Motorists’ vehicles need to have working headlights for the signs to be effective. Alignment Type: All Intersection Treatment: Yes Implementation Effects: Unquantified Implementation Notes: No information available Contraindications to Treatment: No information available Relative Cost: Low Included in MUTCD Chapter 10: Yes See Also: None. $ Low Cost Passive Treatment Motorist Safety Agencies Reporting Using This Treatment: SCVTA, LACMTA, RTD, SRTD, PAAC, KT, NJT – River LINE, UTA, Metro, NCTD, Metro Transit, NJT-NCS, NJT-HBLR, SEPTA, TriMet Resources: Federal Highway Administration. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, 2003 Edition.

109 FL AS HING TR AI N- AP PR OA CHING WA RNING SIGN S General Description: Flashing train- approaching warning signs are LED turn- prohibition signs that are only lit as the train approaches. The signs can reinforce other measures such as gates, other static signage, signal priority, turn prohibition (as in the Salt Lake example on the left), pre- emption, etc. Purpose of Treatment: Flashing train- approaching warning signs are intended to attract the attention of motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists and to encourage them to prepare for the potential risks involved in entering the LRV crossing area. Alignment Type: All Intersection Treatment: Yes Implementation Effects: The TriMet light rail operation has found that flashing train signs are an effective warning device for motorists, pedestrians, and cy clists. UTA, Minneapolis Metro Transit, and NJ Transit all gave positive feedback on flashing signs and use these signs at problem locations, typically in response to one or more serious collisions. Flashing train signs have been employed for right and left turn situations. Implementation Notes : No information available Contraindications to Treatment: Irwin noted that “a pedestrian LED flashing sign and audible warning device is not required in the traffic signal controlled environment.” Relative Cost: Medium Included in MUTCD Chapter 10: Figure 10C-3, sign W10-7 See Also : None $$ Medium Cost Active Treatment Pedestrian Safety Motorist Safety Agencies Reporting Using This Treatment: MATA, SCVTA, LACMTA, RTD, SRTD, Ctrain, MTA-MD, NJT – River LINE, UTA, SF Muni, NJT-HBLR, TriMet, PAAC, SDTI

110 Resources: Irwin, D. Transportation Research Circular E-C058: Safety Criteria for Light Rail Pedestrian Crossings. In 9th National Light Rail Transit Conference, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2003. FLASHING TRAIN-APPROACHING WARNING SIGNS – EXAMPLES Description: Flashing/blank out train warning sign used on the T-line in San Francisco. The blank out sign warns that there is a train approaching, and operates in conjunction with regular traffic signals. Location: San Francisco, California Additional Notes: None

111 GATE CROSSING STATUS INDICATION SIGNALS General Description: Gate crossing status indication signals provide LRT operators with information about upcoming gate arms and signals. The crossing indication signals are positioned to provide the LRT operator with information on whether automatic gates are functioning correctly or not. Systems may use white “lunar” lights or some other type of indication, including in-cab systems for LRV operators. The indication is coupled with a detection system, which may be laser detection or other detection methods. Purpose of Treatment: Gate crossing status indication signals inform the LRT operator whether or not a gate is operating correctly. The signals can also inform the operator about the presence of vehicles or other objects that interfere with the operation of the gate. The systems are designed to give the operator sufficient time to slow down and/or stop if necessary. Alignment Type: All b (where there are gates) Intersection Treatment: Yes Implementation Effects: Metro Transit reported being pleased with the operation of the signals. No quantifiable data is available. Implementation Notes: Metro Transit and UTA use “lunar” (white circle) lights to inform the LRT operator about a gate that has not been completely deployed or about a vehicle or object that is interfering with the operation of the gate. Agencies report that crossing gate indication signals are especially useful at locations where LRVs approach a crossing from around a blind bend that prevents the LRV operator from seeing the automatic gates until the LRV is at the crossing. The signal must be located so that the operator can stop the LRV short of the grade crossing under normal service braking. Contraindications to Treatment: No information available Relative Cost: Medium $$ Medium Cost Active Treatment Motorist Safety Pedestrian Safety

112 Included in MUTCD Chapter 10: No See Also : None Agencies Reporting Using This Treatment: SCVTA, RTD, SRTD, Ctrain, NJT – River LINE, SDTI, Metro, Edmonton Transit, NJT-HBLR, TriMet, UTA Resources: Korve Engineering, Inc., Richards & Associates, Interactive Elements, Inc., and University of North Carolina, Highway Safety Research Center. TCRP Report 69: Light Rail Service: Pedestrian and Vehicular Safety . TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001 . GA TE CROSSING ST AT US INDIC A TION SIGN AL S – EX AM PLES Description: Lunar gate crossing indication signal Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota Additional Notes: A flashing “lunar” light informs the LRV operator that the gate is down properly and in position to block road traffic. A solid light indicates that the gate is still in motion and suggests to the operator that additional caution is needed in approaching the crossing as the gate may be blocked by a vehicle or other object on the tracks. Minneapolis staff indicated that the convention in other systems is to have the light solid when the gate has gone down. When the Minneapolis system was designed, a signal engineer recommended that the gate crossing indicators be designed to be failsafe. Flashing lights require two wires to work and solid lights require only one; the system is programmed to be flashing if everything is okay (most complicated) and solid (or nothing) if something is wrong.

113 GATE CROSSING STATUS INDICATION SIGNALS – EXAMPLES Description: Lunar gate crossing indication signal Location: Salt Lake City, Utah Additional Notes: Lunar gate crossing status indication signals used in Utah flash when the gates are activated and still in motion. This indicates to the operator that they should approach the crossing with caution. The lights go solid when the gates are fully down and in position to block traffic. This is the opposite of the configuration in Minneapolis, which could be very confusing for an experienced operator who moves from one city to another.

114 SECOND TR AI N A PPR OA CH ING SIGN AL S AN D AC TIVE SIGNS General Description: Second train signals are active signs illuminated to indicate that a second train is approaching. The sign may be a blank-out LED sign or it may use flashing lights or another type of indication (such as backlit illumination) to an otherwise static sign. Purpose of Treatment: The main purpose of second train approaching signals and active signs is to provide motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists with a specific warning that a second train is coming so that they do not start to cross the tracks after the first train has passed. Alignment Type: All b, all c Intersection Treatment: Yes Implementation Effects: Second train approaching signals and active signs must be designed and placed where they can be clearly seen. The signals are more effective when the warning is within a short time of the second train approaching. Signs that are on for too long may be ignored. The effectiveness of the signs is increased if they deliver specific and valuable information to motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists, e.g., the direction from which the second train is approaching. No quantified information on the safety impacts of these engineering treatments has been found. Implementation Notes : Second train approaching signs can give two messages: They can indicate only that a second train is approaching, or they can indicate the direction that the second train is approaching from. The second message would be more useful to pedestrians and motorists, but the project team $$$ High Cost Active Treatment Pedestrian Safety Motorist Safety Second Train Approaching Treatments

115 did not see this method applied. In some cases, the sign appeared to be able to provide this information but was not wired to do so. In some cases, signs intended to be second train warning signs malfunctioned and acted as flashing train approaching signs. Contraindications to Treatment: No information available Relative Cost: High Included in MUTCD Chapter 10: Figure 10C-3 sign W10-7 is an activated blank out sign that could be used as a flashing train approaching sign or a second train approaching active sign. See Also: Constant Warning Time Systems, Blank Out Signs, Second Train Warning Signs Agencies Reporting Using This Treatment: BSDA, MATA, SRTD, ST, SCVTA, LACMTA, RTD, NJT-HBLR, NJT – River LINE, MetroTransit, SF Muni, NJT-NCS, NCTD, SEPTA, TriMet, UTA, SDTI, Metro, Edmonton Transit Resources: Sabra, Wang, & Associates, Inc. and PB Farradyne. TCRP Research Results Digest 51: Second Train Coming Warning Sign Demonstration Projects. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2002. SECOND TRAIN APPROACHING SIGNALS AND ACTIVE SIGNS – EXAMPLES Description: "LOOK" signs with internally lit "SECOND TRAIN COMING" were installed at all pedestrian intersections along the Hiawatha line in the original design. Location: Pedestrian at-grade crossing on exclusive alignment, Hiawatha Line, Minneapolis, MN. Additional Notes: These signs are installed consistently on the Hiawatha alignment giving a consistent message that there is an increased risk associated with crossing the LRT tracks, but the illumination in the signs is very difficult to see during the day, and pedestrians do not pay attention to the signs.

116 SECOND TRAIN APPROACHING SIGNALS AND ACTIVE SIGNS – EXAMPLES Description: Blank-out second train coming sign. The arrows flash back and forth regardless of train direction. They do not indicate the direction of the second train. Location: Pedestrian access to LRT and shopping mall along Hudson–Berger line in New Jersey. Additional Notes: The blank out sign was installed in anticipation of an express route that would skip this station. The agency noted that if the blank out sign is lit too long before a train arrives, pedestrians will ignore the sign.

117 SECOND TR AI N WA RNING SIGN S General Description: Second train warning signs are static signs that remind pedestrians and motorists to look both ways and to be aware of trains on all tracks. A wide variety of “Look” and “Look both ways” signs are in use. They are considered “second” train signs because they are often installed where pedestrians and motorists may not look for a second train approaching in addition to one that is im mediat ely visible. This is especially important where pedestrians are looking at a train stopped at a station (i.e., a train they wish to board) and rush across the tracks without looking for a second train. Purpose of Treatment: The main purpose of train warning signs is to increase motorist, pedestrian, and cyclist awareness of the possibility of a train approaching from either direction, even when a visible train is already present on the track. The signs are intended to remind pedestrians to look both ways and to prevent collisions with a second train. Alignment Type: All b, all c Intersection Treatment: Yes Implementation Effects: The presence of too many signs can lead to confusion. Like all static signs, second train warnings are often ignored by motorists, pe destrians, and cyclists. Implementation Notes : No information available Contraindications to Treatment: No information available Relative Cost: Low Included in MUTCD Chapter 10: The standard “LOOK” sign is included in Section 10C.03 Figure 10C-2. Other second train warning signs, as seen on site visits, are not included. See Also : Second Train Approaching Signals and Active Signs $ Low Cost Passive Treatment Pedestrian Safety Motorist Safety Agencies Reporting Using This Treatment: LACMTA, RTD, Ctrain, PAAC, ST, Metro Transit, NJT-NCS, NJT-HBLR, TriMet Resources: No information available

118 SECOND TRAIN WARNING SIGNS – EXAMPLES Description: Non-MUTCD "LOOK BOTH WAYS” sign with trolley symbol Location: Pedestrian crossing in Salt Lake City, Utah Additional Notes: The trolley symbol used on this sign is not in the MUTCD, but is used in a number of cities. Description: Non-MUTCD "LOOK BOTH WAYS” with trolley symbol painted on approach to crossing Location: Pedestrian crossing in Salt Lake City, Utah Additional Notes: The trolley symbol used on this sign is not in the MUTCD, but is used in a number of cities. Description: MUTCD "LOOK” sign with arrow Location: Pedestrian crossing in Santa Clara, CA Additional Notes: None.

119 PEDESTRI AN AU TOM AT IC GA TES General Description: Pedestrian automatic gates are arms that block the pedestrian/cyclist path across the tracks. The principle is similar to the use of gates on roadways to stop motorists and cyclists when a train is approaching. Pedestrian automatic gates may be provided in addition to roadway gate(s). On narrow streets, the pedestrian gate may be a part of the vehicle gate, with both pedestrians and vehicles blocked by a single gate that is placed behind the sidewalk. A second gate is required on the downstream side of the rail crossing for pedestrians approaching the crossing from the opposite direction. Pedestrian swing gates can be provided together with pedestrian automatic gates to allow pedestrians and cyclists to exit the right-of-way if they began crossing before the gates went down and also in the case of an emergency. Purpose of Treatment: Pedestrian automatic gates are provided to discourage pedestrians and cyclists from making dangerous crossing movements and to provide pedestrians and cyclists with additional time to check whether an LRV is entering the pedestrian crossing. Alignment Type: b.1, b.2, b.3 Intersection Treatment: Yes Implementation Effects: Not available Implementation Notes : No information available Contraindications to Treatment: It is possible for pedestrians and cyclists to walk around the gate in mu ch the same way that motorists violate vehicular gates . Relative Cost: High Included in MUTCD Chapter 10: Section 10D.08 and Figure10D-4 See Also : Four-Quadrant Gates, Pedestrian Swing Gates $$$ High Cost Active Treatment Pedestrian Safety Gates

120 Agencies Reporting Using This Treatment: TTC, SCVTA, LACMTA, Ctrain, NJT – River LINE, UTA, Edmonton Transit, NJT-HBLR, TriMet Resources: Korve Engineering, Inc., Richards & Associates, Interactive Elements, Inc., and University of North Carolina, Highway Safety Research Center. TCRP Report 69: Light Rail Service: Pedestrian and Vehicular Safety. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001. Irwin, D. Transportation Research Circular E-C058: Safety Criteria for Light Rail Pedestrian Crossings. In 9th National Light Rail Transit Conference, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2003. Federal Highway Administration. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, 2003 Edition. PEDESTRIAN AUTOMATIC GATES – EXAMPLES Description: Pedestrian automatic gates used in combination with pedestrian swing gates Location: Mountain View, California. Transfer between SCVTA Light rail and CalTrain commuter rail Additional Notes: Pedestrian automatic gates restrict movement onto the track. Pedestrian swing gates used in combination with pedestrian automatic gates allow pedestrians and cyclists to exit the right-of-way if they began crossing before the gates went down and also in the case of an emergency. Description: Pedestrian and vehicle automatic gates Location: San Jose, California Additional Notes: Vehicle traffic is one way at this grade crossing. Automatic gates on one side of the intersection block motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists. Pedestrian automatic gates on the other side are designed to block pedestrians and cyclists only.

121 FOUR-QUA DRA NT GA TES General Description: Four-quadrant gates are a system of gate-type barriers and lights that are activated when an LRV approaches. They are an alternative to the more co mmon two quadrant gates. The gates are installed on all four quadrants of the crossing to prevent vehicles from swerving around a lowered gate and entering the right-of-way. The system may include warning bells or whistles. The effectiveness of the approach may be enhanced by the addition of a median treatment where appropriate. In some cases, a median island may make four- quadrant gates unnecessary. Without a median, the gates become more important. Purpose of Treatment: Four-quadrant gates are installed to prevent vehicles from crossing the track when the train is approaching and to prevent vehicles from driving around closed gates. Alignment Type : b.1, b.2, b.3, b.4 Intersection Treatment: Yes Implementation Effects: LCMTA found a 94% reduction in violations through the use of four- quadrant gates. Implementation Notes : Gates must be timed carefully to allow vehicles to clear the second gate and not be trapped on the tracks as a train approaches. Many agencies expressed concern about the impacts of gate timing. Gates may prevent vehicles from crossing onto the track, but when LRVs arrive frequently, the gates are employed many more times per hour than traditional heavy rail gates. This may cause motorist frust ration, encourage motorists to violate the gates, interrupt traffic flow, and/or disturb local residents and businesses. Contraindications to Treatment: Possibility of trapping vehicle on tracks Relative Cost: High Included in MUTCD Chapter 10: Yes $$$ High Cost Active Treatment Motorist Safety Agencies Reporting Using This Treatment: LACMTA, BSDA, SCVTA

122 Resources: Korve Engineering, Inc., Richards & Associates, Interactive Elements, Inc., and University of North Carolina, Highway Safety Research Center. TCRP Report 69: Light Rail Service: Pedestrian and Vehicular Safety. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001. Federal Highway Administration. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, 2003 Edition.

123 PEDESTRI AN FENCING/LA NDSC AP ING General Description: Pedestrian fencing/landscaping is designed to channel pedestrian movements to designated crossing areas. The treatment provides a way to control pedestrian movements and limit the number of potential pedestrian– LRV conflict points. Fencing and landscaping also indicate to pedestrians that the LRT alignment is a special area with a different level of risk. Purpose of Treatment: The major purpose of pedestrian fencing and landscaping is to indicate the LRT right-of-way and to deter pedestrians from crossing at inappropriate locations. The treatment defines the LRT alignment as a special space that is different from the road right-of-way, and may also serve as a barrier to vehicles . Alignment Type: a, b.1, b.2, b.3, b.4, b.5, c.2, c.3 Intersection Treatment: Yes Implementation Effects: TCRP Report 17 recommends “channel[ing] pedestrian flows on sidewalks, at intersections and at stations to minimize errant or random pedestrian crossings of the LRT track environment.” One channelization option is fencing or landscaping. UTA, Metro Transit, and NJT all reported fewer concerns at locations where pedestrian activity was restricted by landscaping or fencing. In a report for the CPUC, Clark comments that “pedestrian-rail at- grade crossing design is only effective if pedestrians actually cross at the designated point and take a path that allows them clear observation of the warning devices.” Fencing and landscaping, along with signage and markings, encourage pedestrians to cross at designated crossings. Physical channelization is also necessary for the effective installation of all types of automatic or manual pedestrian gates. Pedestrians $$ Medium Cost Passive Treatment Pedestrian Safety Motorist Safety Pedestrians

124 will violate pedestrian gates at sites with inadequate channelization. Various types of pedestrian landscaping and fencing were observed in Salt Lake City, Minneapolis, New Jersey, San Francisco, and Santa Clara. Implementation Notes: No information available Contraindications to Treatment: Pedestrians must not be trapped within the dynamic envelope of the LRV: it is important to leave room for a pedestrian between the fencing and the dynamic envelope. According to Clark, when pedestrian channelization using fencing and landscaping is combined with automatic gates, an exit device must be provided. Clark also recommends that the height of fences and barriers near crossings be limited to ensure the visibility of approaching trains. The California MUTCD recommends a maximum height of 3 feet 7 inches. Relative Cost: Medium, varies with extent and aesthetic concerns Included in MUTCD Chapter 10: No See Also: Channelizations, Pedestrian Automatic Gates Agencies Reporting Using This Treatment: UTA, Metro, NJT-HBLR, SF Muni Resources: Korve, H. W., Farran, J. I., Mansel, D. M., Levinson, H. S., Chira-Chavala, T., and Ragland, D. R. TCRP Report 17: Integration of Light Rail Transit into City Streets. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1996. Clark, R. Pedestrian-Rail Crossings in California. California Public Utilities Commission, 2008.

125 PEDESTRIAN FENCING/LANDSCAPING – EXAMPLES Description: Pedestrian fencing and landscaping in a busy pedestrian/vehicle corridor in a downtown area Location: Hudson–Bergen Light Rail Line, New Jersey Additional Notes: The LRT line separates two groups of buildings that have significant pedestrian traffic between them. The agency reported that the landscaping and fencing are successful in controlling pedestrian movement and channelizing movements to the appropriate crossing. Description: Pedestrian fencing in and near the 2nd and King (Stadium) stop of a semi-exclusive Type b.2 alignment. The fencing is designed to keep heavy crowds off of the track before and after games in the stadium. Location: SF Muni’s T and N lines, San Francisco, California Additional Notes: Before and after games, additional crowd control by SF Muni staff using portable barriers is also provided at and around crossings, but the permanent fencing was observed by the project team to help control general trespassing on the tracks.

126 OFFSET PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS General Description: An offset pedestrian crossing, commonly referred to as a Z pedestrian crossing, channelizes pedestrian movements. The treatment that may be implemented where there are pedestrian safety concerns near stations or where pedestrians must cross tracks. Offset pedestrian crossings include fencing or barriers designed to direct pedestrians to walk facing oncoming LRVs before crossing the tracks to increase pedestrian awareness of oncoming LRVs. Purpose of Treatment: The purpose of offset pedestrian crossings is to improve pedestrian safety by forcing pedestrians to look in the direction of oncoming LRVs so that pedestrians can be well prepared before crossing the LRV tracks. Alignment Type: b.1, b.2, b.3, b.4, b.5, c.1, c.2, c.3 Intersection Treatment: Yes Implementation Effects: Offset pedestrian crossings increase pedestrian safety and alertness by slowing and channeling pedestrian movements. The crossings are often installed as a reaction to a collision with a pedestrian. The treatment is not effective when trains are running reverse track or along a single track as the pedestrian would be oriented to face the wrong direction in those cases. In some configurations, however, pedestrians can be forced to turn 180 degrees thereby having a view of both directions as they approach the tracks. Contraindications to Treatment: Sufficient right- of-way width is needed to construct the fencing in compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) guidelines. Offset pedestrian crossings should not be used where LRVs operate in both directions on a single track because pedestrians may be looking the wrong way in some instances. Although pedestrians may also look in the wrong direction during LRV reverse running situations, reverse running should not negate the value of offset pedestrian crossings as reverse running is $$ Medium Cost Passive Treatment Pedestrian Safety

127 infrequently used (typically only during maintenance or emergencies), and is performed at lower speeds such that the LRV operator has more opportunity to sound a horn or apply an emergency stop if necessary to avoid an errant pedestrian. Relative Cost: Medium Included in MUTCD Chapter 10: Yes, Figure 10D-8. Agencies Reporting Using This Treatment: SCVTA, RTD, SRTD, Ctrain, SDTI, Metro, SF Muni, TriMet Resources: Korve Engineering, Inc., Richards & Associates, Interactive Elements, Inc., and University of North Carolina, Highway Safety Research Center. TCRP Report 69: Light Rail Service: Pedestrian and Vehicular Safety. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001. Federal Highway Administration. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, 2003 Edition. OFFSET PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS – EXAMPLES Description: Offset pedestrian crossing at a station on the Hudson–Bergen line in New Jersey. The fencing was installed after a non-fatal pedestrian incident. Location: Hudson–Bergen Light Rail Line, New Jersey Additional Notes: None

128 PEDESTRIAN SWING GATES General Description: Pedestrian swing gates, sometimes called pedestrian fence gates, are gates that pedestrians and cyclists must open manually to cross the tracks. Purpose of Treatment: Pedestrian swing gates, like other pedestrian barriers and gates, are installed to discourage pedestrians and cyclists from making dangerous crossing movements. The gates force crossing users to have additional time to check for an approaching LRV. Alignment Type: All b Intersection Treatment: No Implementation Effects: No information available Implementation Notes: No information available Contraindications to Treatment: Irwin suggested using pedestrian swing gates where: 1) “pedestrian to train sight lines are restricted, 2) a high likelihood exists that persons will hurriedly cross the trackway, 3) channeling or other barriers reasonably prevent persons from bypassing the gates, and 4) acceptable provisions for opening the gates by disabled persons can be provided.” Relative Cost: Medium Included in MUTCD Chapter 10: Section 10D.08 and Figure 10D-6. See Also: Pedestrian Automatic Gates $$ Medium Cost Passive Treatment Pedestrian Safety Agencies Reporting Using This Treatment: TTC, SCVTA, LACMTA, RTD, SRTD, PAAC, NJT – River LINE, NCTD, SF Muni, NJT-HBLR, TriMet

129 Irwin, D. Transportation Research Circular E-C058: Safety Criteria for Light Rail Pedestrian Crossings. In 9th National Light Rail Transit Conference, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2003. PEDESTRIAN SWING GATES – EXAMPLES Description: Pedestrian swing gate at combined LRT and heavy rail crossing Location: Salt Lake City, Utah Additional Notes: This gate was originally installed for the railroad crossing (before construction of the LRT line). Description: Decorative pedestrian swing gates Location: San Jose, California Additional Notes: Gate function is reduced because the springs are no longer effective. The gates do not automatically close. Resources:

130 PEDESTRIAN SWING GATES – EXAMPLES CONT’D. Description: Combination of pedestrian automatic gates and pedestrian swing gates Location: Mountain View, California Additional Notes: This gate combination is installed at the heavy rail crossing at the Mountain View VTA LRT and CalTrain station where commuter rail and LRT stations are located directly next to each other on parallel alignments.

131 PA VEMENT MA RKING, TEXTURING, AN D STRIPING General Description: Pavement marking, texturing, and striping are changes to the pavement appearance or texture to denote the LRT right-of-way or dynamic envelope. Purpose of Treatment: The main purpose of pavement marking, texturing, and striping is to indicate the right-of-way of the LRV and alert motorists, pe destrians, and cyclists to the possible presence of an LRV so that they can be prepared for its arrival or passing. Alignment Type: All b, all c Intersection Treatment: Yes Implementation Effects: Pavement marking, texturing, and striping are assumed to be effective in conveying information, but the effect of pavement marking, texturing, and striping on LRT crashes has not been quantified. Pavement markings and texturing require ongoing maintenance. They are effective in areas where snow and/or ice do not cover the markings. Rain can make markings difficult to see. Implementation Notes : No information available Contraindications to Treatment: No information available. Relative Cost: Low Included in MUTCD Chapter 10: Yes See Also : N/A $ Low Cost Passive Treatment Pedestrian Safety Motorist Safety Agencies Reporting Using This Treatment: MATA, SCVTA, LACMTA, RTD, SRTD, PAAC, Channelization/Markings

132 MTA-MD, KT, NJT – River LINE, ST, UTA, SDTI, Metro, Edmonton Transit, NCTD, Metro Transit, SF Muni, NJT-NCS, NJT-HBLR, SEPTA Resources: Korve, H. W., Farran, J. I., Mansel, D. M., Levinson, H. S., Chira-Chavala, T., and Ragland, D. R. TCRP Report 17: Integration of Light Rail Transit into City Streets. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1996. Federal Highway Administration. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, 2003 Edition. PAVEMENT MARKING, TEXTURING, AND STRIPING – EXAMPLES Description: Painted "CROSS ONLY AT CROSSWALK" facing the opposite platform on each side of the tracks. Also applied on street side of 6-inch curbs on other portions of the alignment. Location: Median-running and side- running alignments in Salt Lake City, Utah Additional Notes: Applied to deter pedestrians from illegally crossing tracks, or in other locations, from crossing the roadway and tracks mid-block to access the platform. Description: Paint and texture on the edges of the station platform. Left side of image shows finished treatment. Right side has textured surface, but has not yet been refinished with color and lettering. Location: Station platform edges, Hudson– Bergen line, New Jersey Additional Notes: Implemented to better denote the edge of the platform and the dynamic envelope of LRV

133 PA VEMENT MA RKING, TEXTURING, AN D STRIPING – EX AM PLES CONT’D . Description: Painted lines denoting the LRT alignment in a median-running section of the Hiawatha line in downtown Minneapolis Location: Downtown Minneapolis, Hiawatha Line Additional Notes: The area has unusual lane configurations that may contribute to motorist confusion. Pavement markings and a small curb are often not enough to prevent vehicles from entering the alignment, but they allow for emergency access and prevent motorists from getting stuck on the tracks. Description: Texturized concrete denoting the LRV-only track area in the financial district of New Jersey Location: Hudson–Bergen Line, New Jersey Additional Notes: NJT staff report that the tactile feel of the texturized concrete gives motorists and pedestrians a clear indication that they should not drive or walk on this portion of the roadway.

134 PAVEMENT MARKING, TEXTURING, AND STRIPING – EXAMPLES CONT’D. Description: Painted non-MUTCD “STOP FOR TRAINS” on concrete pedestrian path before crossing Location: Salt Lake City, Utah Additional Notes: None Description: Painted non-MUTCD “STOP FOR TRAINS” on concrete pedestrian path before crossing Location: Salt Lake City, Utah Additional Notes: None

135 PAVEMENT MARKING, TEXTURING, AND STRIPING – EXAMPLES CONT’D. Description: White bumpers on red pavement in median running Type b.3 LRT alignment Location: San Francisco, California Additional Notes: The white bumpers provide both a visual and tactile cue to motorists to stay out of the LRT alignment. SF Muni staff report positive results from the bumpers, but the bumpers can create a maintenance issue as they are easily destroyed by vehicles. Black scuff marks on the bumpers indicate that the bumpers are hit by tires on occasion. Description: Yellow bumpers alongside median station Location: San Francisco, California Additional Notes: The yellow bumpers provide a visual and tactile cue to motorists and pedestrians to stay off of the thin strip of pavement between the shared LRT/vehicle lane and the median station.

136 QUICK CURBS General Description: Quick curbs are removable barriers that act as a channelization countermeasure mainly for pedestrians and cyclists. The curbs can be installed temporarily to restrict pedestrian and cyclist movements for limited periods of time and/or for infrequent events. In the case of SF Muni, portable steel barriers are supplemented by yellow fabric caution tape and numerous transit staff and police who manage large crowds crossing the LRT alignment adjacent to the baseball stadium. Salt Lake’s UTA also reported using considerable numbers of staff to control crowds in the LRT stations adjacent to sports events. Purpose of Treatment: Quick curbs are used to restrict the crossing movements of pedestrians and cyclists and prevent them from randomly entering LRV trackways. Alignment Type: b.4, b.5, c.1 Intersection Treatment: No Implementation Effects: Light rail agencies such as UTA and Minneapolis have found quick curbs to be effective at locations with high volumes of pedestrian traffic. Examples of such locations are regularly scheduled events at sports centers. Contraindications to Treatment: No information available Relative Cost: Medium Included in MUTCD Chapter 10: No See Also: Pedestrian Fencing/Landscaping $$ Medium Passive Treatment Pedestrian Safety Agencies Reporting Using This Treatment: LACMTA, SRTD, PAAC, UTA, SDTI, SF Muni, NJT-HBLR, TriMet, TTC Resources: No information available

137 RUMBLE STRIP S General Description: Rumble strips are strips along the roadway that are engraved or raised to create a tactile and audible vibration when a vehicle drives over the strip. Rumble strips can run parallel to a traffic lane and alert drivers when they leave their lane, or they can be installed transverse to the lane to warn drivers of an approaching hazard. Purpose of Treatment: Transverse rumble strips produce noise and vibration that inform motorists that they are approaching an LRV trackway. When an LRT is operating on a street with mixed traffic, rumble strips can delineate the traffic area and provide a tactile and audible warning for motorists not to drive out of their own traffic area into the travel path of the LRT. Alignment Type: Non-exclusive Intersection Treatment: No Implementation Effects: Numerous research studies have shown significant transverse rumble strips safety benefits for road vehicles, but no research has addressed the safety benefits for LRV alignments. UTA reported that their track sections with curbs experience less vehicle, pedestrian, and cyclist trespassing than track sections with transverse rumble strips. Implementation Notes: Transverse rumble strips were used in downtown Salt Lake City to address emergency services concerns about accessing fire- prone downtown buildings. It was decided that blocking fire trucks from making emergency U- turns by installing curbs was not acceptable. Contraindications to Treatment: Transverse rumble strips are not generally used in urban environments because of the noise levels . Relative Cost: Low $ Low Cost Passive Treatment Motorist Safety

138 Included in MUTCD Chapter 10: Yes See Also: Pavement Marking, Texturing, and Striping Agencies Reporting Using This Treatment: SDTI, Metro Resources: Korve, H. W., Farran, J. I., Mansel, D. M., Levinson, H. S., Chira-Chavala, T., and Ragland, D. R. TCRP Report 17: Integration of Light Rail Transit into City Streets. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1996. Federal Highway Administration. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, 2003 Edition. RUMBLE STRIPS – EXAMPLES Description: Rumble strips used in combination with pavement markings to delineate the LRT dynamic envelope Location: Salt Lake City, Utah Additional Notes: UTA reported that their track sections with curbs experience less vehicle, pedestrian, and cyclist trespassing than alignments with rumble strips, but rumble strips were installed instead of curbs to provide emergency access across the alignment. However, during the project team’s site visit, general traffic was observed making the occasional illegal U- turn.

139 CHANNELIZATIONS General Description: Channelization devices are longitudinal barriers designed to control motorists’ movements in the vicinity of an LRT alignment. The channelization may involve parallel longitudinal barriers of various types used to separate the road lanes from the tracks. Channelization is also used to define and restrict motor vehicle movements at street junctions. The most restrictive channelization device is the median barrier. At a crossing, a median barrier prevents motorists who are approaching the LRT crossing from using the opposite lane to cross the tracks when the gates are down. The median barrier also prevents motorists from bypassing a queue of stopped vehicles at flashing lights or when the gates are down. Purpose of Treatment: Channelization devices are to restrict the path of motor vehicles and prevent vehicles from crossing the tracks when it is unsafe to do so. Alignment Type: Non-exclusive Intersection Treatment: No Implementation Effects: According to RTD in Denver, raised medians with barrier curbs at two LRT crossings have reduced the rate of violations to almost zero. Contraindications to Treatment: No information available Relative Cost: High Included in MUTCD Chapter 10: Yes $$$ High Cost Passive Treatment Motorist Safety Agencies Reporting Using this Treatment: MATA, SCVTA, LACMTA, RTD, SRTD, MTA- MD, ST, UTA, SDTI, Metro, Edmonton Transit, NCTD, Metro Transit, SF Muni, NJT-NCS, NJT-HBLR, SEPTA, TriMet, TTC Resources: Korve Engineering, Inc., Richards & Associates, Interactive Elements, Inc., and University of North Carolina, Highway Safety Research Center. TCRP Report 69: Light Rail Service: Pedestrian and Vehicular Safety. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001. Federal Highway Administration. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, 2003 Edition.

140 CHANNELIZATIONS – EXAMPLES Description: Barrier curbs and pole- mounted delineators used to separate LRT in median from vehicle lanes on a Type b.3 alignment Location: Salt Lake City, Utah Additional Notes: UTA reported that their track sections with curbs experience less vehicle, pedestrian, and cyclist trespassing than alignments with transverse rumble strips. Vehicle tire marks can be seen in this photo, indicating that vehicles would have entered the alignment if the curbs were not there. Description: Barrier curbs used in combination with a tactile treatment (paving bricks) to channelize vehicles and to indicate the edge of the dynamic envelope of the LRV Location: Hudson–Bergen Line, Jersey City, New Jersey Additional Notes: While the curb end at the intersection is tapered to avoid impacts, a 90 degree barrier is presented against the asphalt lane.

141 ILLUMINATION OF CROSSINGS General Description: Illumination of crossings refers to lighting systems installed to increase the visibility of crossing LRVs to motorists at night. Luminaires are directed to the sides of the rail vehicles to increase the conspicuity of the LRVs. MUTCD Chapter 10 suggests that “where light rail transit operations are conducted at night, illumination at and adjacent to the highway-light rail transit grade crossing should be considered.” Purpose of Treatment: The purpose of illuminating crossings is to improve the conspicuity of LRVs and reduce the likelihood that motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists will cross the tracks when an LRV is passing or about to arrive. Alignment Type: All b, all c Intersection Treatment: Yes Implementation Effects: No information available Contraindications to Treatment: No information available Relative Cost: Medium Included in MUTCD Chapter 10: Yes See Also: No information available $$ Medium Cost Passive Treatment Motorist Safety Pedestrian Safety Agencies Reporting Using This Treatment: MATA, SCVTA, RTD, Ctrain, MTA-MD, Edmonton Transit, NJT-HBLR, TriMet Resources: Federal Highway Administration. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, 2003 Edition.

142 PHOTO ENFORCEMENT General Description: An automatic photo enforcement system detects vehicles that deliberately violate closed gates at a crossing. The system is used to enforce traffic laws. Purpose of Treatment: The main purpose of automatic photo enforcement is to discourage vehicles from deliberately crossing the tracks after a gate closure by enforcing traffic laws. Alignment Type: Non-exclusive Intersection Treatment: All b, c.1 Implementation Effects: An FHWA study by McFadden and McGee estimates that automated enforcement can result in a 20 to 60% reduction in violations, but there has been no quantitative link to crash effects. Contraindications to Treatment: No information available Relative Cost: High Included in MUTCD Chapter 10: No See Also : Enforcement $$$ High Cost Active Treatment Motorist Safety Agencies Reporting Using This Treatment: LACMTA, SRTD, NJT – River LINE, SF Muni, TriMet Resources: McFadden, J., and McGee, H. W. Synthesis and Evaluation of Red Light Running Automated Enforcement Programs in the United States . FHWA-IF-00-004. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1999. Korve Engineering, Inc., Richards & Associates, Interactive Elements, Inc., and University of North Carolina, Highway Safety Research Center. TCRP Report 69: Light Rail Service: Pedestrian and Vehicular Safety . TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001. Illinois Commerce Commission. Photo Enforcement at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings : 2001 Status Report to the General Assembly . Research & Analysis Section, Education and Enforcement

143 Transportation Division Working Paper 2002-02, 2002. ENFORCEMENT General Description: Enforcement includes ticketing of pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists who are found in the right- of-way when it is unsafe. Enforcement campaigns include jaywalking enforcement, turn prohibition violation enforcement, and parking enforcement. Laws pertaining to grade crossing violations are likely to be ineffective if they are not enforced. A1996 task force report to the Secretary of Transportation recommended increased penalties for repeated offenses culminating in the forfeiture of the driver’s license for especially serious violations. The task force also proposed re-investing the fines collected by the courts into grade crossing education and enforcement. Purpose of Treatment: Enforcement is designed to prevent deliberate violations of the LRV right- of-way by enforcing the traffic law to motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists. Alignment Type: All Intersection Treatment: Yes Implementation Effects: No information available Contraindications to Treatment: Targeted enforcement events have been carried out (e.g., against jaywalking) several times by UTA police, but UTA staff have noted no ongoing benefits. It appears that when the enforcement ends, people continue to violate the law. Only the immediate threat of a penalty seems to be a deterrent. Relative Cost: High Included in MUTCD Chapter 10: No See Also: Photo Enforcement, Education Outreach Programs $$$ High Cost Motorist Safety Pedestrian Safety Agencies Reporting Using This Treatment: SCVTA, LACMTA, RTD, SRTD, PAAC, NJT – River LINE, Metro, NCTD, SF Muni, TriMet Resources: U. S. Department of Transportation. Accidents That Shouldn’t Happen: A Report of the Grade Crossings Safety Task Force to Secretary Federico Pena. 1996.

144 EDUCATION OUTREACH PROGRAMS General Description: Education outreach programs (safety education) include a number of different types and intensities of programs. Programs can range from general safety advertising to specific targeting of problem locations or anticipated problem locations such as schools or community centers that are close to LRT crossings. Communities can choose to run their own programs, run programs in coordination with other jurisdictions, or use resources provided by a national organization like Operation Lifesaver. Many communities have reported that motorist, pedestrian, and cyclist education is one of the most important and effective safety treatments. Safety education initiatives should be repeated on a regular basis. Annual renewal of presentations and initiatives is recommended. Purpose of Treatment: Education outreach programs are designed to reduce risky behavior by motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists. Suitable Locations: Education outreach programs may be system-wide or may address local problems. Initiatives include school and community center visits, poster campaigns on trains, poster campaigns in areas surrounding tracks, and motorist training through state driver training. Intersection Treatment: No Implementation Effects: Anecdotal reports of reductions in risky behavior by motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists are available for education outreach programs. The success of safety education is highly dependent on educating the appropriate socio-economic group (i.e., the group most likely to engage in the risky behavior). Contraindications to Treatment: No information available Relative Cost: Medium Included in MUTCD Chapter 10: No See Also: Enforcement $$ Medium Motorist Safety Pedestrian Safety

145 Agencies Reporting Using This Treatment: SCVTA, LACMTA, RTD, SRTD, NJT – River LINE, ST, UTA, SDTI, Metro, NCTD, Metro Transit, SF Muni, NJT-NCS, NJT-HBLR, SEPTA, TriMet, TTC Resources: Operation Lifesaver Light Rail Program, www.oli-lightrail.org EDUCATION OUTREACH PROGRAMS – EXAMPLES Description: The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority produces a pamphlet to educate motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists about crossing rail lines safely. Location: Cleveland, Ohio Additional Notes: None Description: Minneapolis Metro Transit has a web page dedicated to children’s safety along light rail corridors. The page can be found at: http://www.metrotransit.org/safetySecurity/safet yKids.asp. Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota Additional Notes: None

CCTV/VIDEO RECORDING General Description: Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) systems monitor activity at stations or intersections through a network of video cameras. Footage from these cameras can be displayed on screens at the location or at central control. Video footage can be recorded for later use. In some systems, cameras can be controlled from a central location. In other systems, the cameras provide a fixed view only. Purpose of Treatment: CCTV systems are normally installed for security purposes. When installed as a safety measure, the purpose of the system is to reduce risky behavior. Alignment Type: All Intersection Treatment: System-wide applications Implementation Effects: No information is currently available about the non-security safety impacts of CCTV or video recording. Contraindications to Treatment: No information available. Relative Cost: High, but a system could be implemented very gradually Included in MUTCD Chapter 10: No $$$ High Cost Passive Treatment Motorist Safety Pedestrian Safety Agencies Reporting Using This Treatment: SCVTA, LACMTA, RTD, SRTD, PAAC, NJT – River LINE, SDTI, Metro, Edmonton Transit, NCTD, SF Muni, TriMet Resources: No information available 146

Next: Appendix E - Review of the Accident Data Collection Process »
Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 137: Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments examines pedestrian and motorist behaviors contributing to light rail transit (LRT) safety and explores mitigating measures available designed to improve safety along LRT alignments. The report also includes suggestions to facilitate the compilation of accident data in a coordinated and homogeneous manner across LRT systems. Finally, the report provides a catalog of existing and innovative safety devices, safety treatments, and practices along LRT alignments. Appendices B through E of TCRP Report 137 were published as TCRP Web-Only Document 42.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!