Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 76


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

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

OCR for page 75
76 again, little quantitative informa- exactly as received. Because some tion is available and the catalog of the treatments are relatively depends largely on anecdotal and new, and because naming conven- unquantified information. tions change from location to Contraindications Situations in which the treatment location, the lists may not reflect to Treatment should not be installed. Any situa- exact applications on site. tions or factors that increase risk Resources References to articles, reports, when the treatment is installed. websites, or other sources with Relative Cost Relative cost: "low," "medium," or additional information about the "high." treatment. Contact information Included in Whether the treatment is included in for agencies or individuals who MUTCD Chapter 10 of the MUTCD. If the have agreed to list their informa- Chapter 10? treatment is included, the MUTCD tion and act as a resource to other section number in which the treat- professionals about the treatment. ment is addressed is provided. See Also List of related treatments. Agencies Reporting Agencies Reporting Agencies that reported using this Using Treatments Using this treatment at one or more locations. Treatment The information for this field was The catalog includes a category that lists which agencies obtained from the project's survey reported using each treatment in the survey of agencies. of agencies. The information has Agency acronyms are used for succinctness. Agency names, not been edited and is reported locations, and acronyms are listed in Table A-1. The locations Table A-1. List of LRT agencies responding to the online survey. Map No. Locations System 2. Baltimore, MD MTA-MD (Maryland Transit Administration) 5. Camden, 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 TransitHudson-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. Sacramento, 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. San Diego, CA SDTI (San Diego Trolley Inc.) 26. San Diego, CA 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. Edmonton, Alberta Edmonton Transit System 35. Toronto, Ontario TTC (Toronto Transit Commission) Streetcars 1 Note: Houston and Minneapolis both use the name "Metro". In the catalog, "Metro Transit" always refers to Minneapolis, while "Metro" refers to Houston.

OCR for page 75
77 of the agencies are shown on the map in Figure A-1; all loca- treatment is provided in Table A-2. Note that through the tions that received the survey are shown on the map, only study process the names and final list of treatments was agencies that responded to the survey are included in the altered and the agencies using each treatment were updated table. A summary of the agencies that reported using each as more information was made available. Figure A-1. Location of LRT systems in the United States and Canada included in the survey.

OCR for page 75
Table A-2. Treatments in use by agency. Second Train Education and Signals and Active Warnings Signs Approaching Gates Pedestrians Channelization/Markings Treatments Enforcement Audible crossing warning Illumination of crossings Retroreflective advance signals and active signs CCTV/video recording Limits on downtime of Flashing train-warning Illuminated, active, in- Constant warning time Pedestrian swing gates texturing, and striping Pedestrian automatic Flashing light signals Second train warning Second approaching Stop and yield signs fencing/landscaping Four-quadrant gates Gate crossing status Pavement marking, Education outreach pavement marking On-vehicle audible Photo enforcement Transit signal pre- Locations System Pedestrian signals indication signals Offset pedestrian warning devices Channelizations Blank out signs Signal priority Rumble strips warning signs Enforcement Quick curbs Pre-signals Pedestrian programs crossings emption systems systems devices signs signs gates gates Baltimore, MTA-MD (Maryland Transit MD Administration) Camden, NJ NJT (New Jersey Transit River LINE) Denver, CO RTD (Regional Transit District) Houston, TX Metro (Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County) Jersey City, NJT-HBLR (New Jersey NJ Transit Hudson-Bergen Light Rail) Jersey City, NJ NJT-NCS Kenosha, WI KT (Kenosha Transit) Los Angeles, LACMTA (Los Angeles CA County Metropolitan Transportation Authority) Memphis, TN MATA (Memphis Area Transit Authority ) Minneapolis, MT (Metro Transit) MN Philadelphia, SEPTA (Southeastern PA Pennsylvania Transportation Authority) Pittsburgh, PAAC (Port Authority of PA Allegheny County) Portland, OR TriMet (Portland TriMet) Sacramento, SRTD (Sacramento Regional CA Transit District) Saint Louis, BSDA (Bi-State Development MO/IL Agency) Salt Lake UTA (Utah Transit Authority) City, UT San Diego, SDTI (San Diego Trolley Inc.) CA San Diego, NCTD (North County Transit CA District) San SF Muni (San Francisco Francisco, Municipal Railway) CA San Jose, CA SCVTA (Santa Clara Valle y Transportation Authority) Seattle, WA WFSC (King County Metro) Tacoma, WA ST (Sound Transit, Link) Calgary, AB C-Train Edmonton, Edmonton Transit System AB Toronto, ON TTC Streetcars

OCR for page 75
79 Catalog of Treatments Signals and Active Warnings TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITY 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 Photo (courtesy Jos Farrn) shows the triangular aspect used provide additional green time to the LRV in several sy stems (this is from San Jose) that tells the LRV where possible. While signal priority may operator that the train is now being detected by the signal be implemented through a variety of priority computer. 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 $$ Medium Cost information, and increased road network efficiency. No safety impact has been identified.

OCR for page 75
80 Alignment Type: b.1, b.2, b.3, b.4, b.5, c.1 Active Treatment 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 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

OCR for page 75
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-16/1F-16/11. Smith, 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.

OCR for page 75
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. $$ Medium Cost Alignment Type: b.1, b.2, b.3, b.4 Intersection Treatment: Yes Implementation Effects: Reduced signal delay to Active Treatment 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

OCR for page 75
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

OCR for page 75
84 AUDIBLE CROSSING WARNING DEVICES 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. Photo (courtesy Jos Farrn) shows an example of the most common type, a synthesizer bell from San Jose. Purpose of Treatment: The main purpose of audible crossing warning devices is to provide supplemental warning for motorists, pedestrians, $$ Medium Cost and cyclists. Alignment Type: All b Intersection Treatment: Yes Active Treatment Implementation Effects: No quantitative data that directly evaluate the effectiveness of audible warnings have been found. Pedestrian Safety 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 Motorist Safety 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

OCR for page 75
85 Included in MUTCD Chapter 10: Yes See Also: On-Vehicle Audible Warning Devices-- Automatic and LRVOperator-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

OCR for page 75
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 $$ Medium LRV trackways. Alignment Type: b.4, b.5, c.1 Passive Treatment 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 Safety 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 Agencies Reporting Using This Treatment: LACMTA, SRTD, PAAC, UTA, SDTI, SF Muni, NJT-HBLR, TriMet, TTC Resources: No information available

OCR for page 75
137 RUMBLE STRIPS 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 $ Low Cost 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 Passive Treatment travel path of the LRT. Alignment Type: Non-exclusive Motorist Safety 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

OCR for page 75
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.

OCR for page 75
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. $$$ High Cost Alignment Type: Non-exclusive Intersection Treatment: No Passive Treatment 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. Motorist Safety Contraindications to Treatment: No information available Relative Cost: High Included in MUTCD Chapter 10: Yes 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.

OCR for page 75
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: HudsonBergen 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.

OCR for page 75
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 $$ Medium Cost motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists will cross the tracks when an LRV is passing or about to arrive. Passive Treatment Alignment Type: All b, all c Intersection Treatment: Yes Implementation Effects: No information available Motorist Safety Contraindications to Treatment: No information available Pedestrian Safety Relative Cost: Medium Included in MUTCD Chapter 10: Yes See Also: No information available 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.

OCR for page 75
142 Education and Enforcement 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. $$$ High Cost Alignment Type: Non-exclusive Intersection Treatment: All b, c.1 Active Treatment 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 Motorist Safety to crash effects. Contraindications to Treatment: No information available Relative Cost: High Included in MUTCD Chapter 10: No See Also: Enforcement 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,

OCR for page 75
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. $$$ High Cost Alignment Type: All Intersection Treatment: Yes Motorist Safety Implementation Effects: No information available Contraindications to Treatment: Targeted enforcement events have been carried out (e.g., against jaywalking) several times by UTA police, Pedestrian Safety 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 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.

OCR for page 75
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. $$ Medium Suitable Locations: Education outreach programs may be system-wide or may address local problems. Initiatives include school and Motorist Safety community center visits, poster campaigns on trains, poster campaigns in areas surrounding tracks, and motorist training through state driver training. Pedestrian Safety 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

OCR for page 75
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

OCR for page 75
146 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 $$$ High Cost installed as a safety measure, the purpose of the system is to reduce risky behavior. Alignment Type: All Passive Treatment Intersection Treatment: System-wide applications Motorist Safety Implementation Effects: No information is currently available about the non-security safety impacts of CCTV or video recording. Pedestrian Safety Contraindications to Treatment: No information available. Relative Cost: High, but a system could be implemented very gradually Included in MUTCD Chapter 10: No 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