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 76
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 77
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 78
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 79
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 José Farrán) 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 80
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 81
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 82
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 83
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 84
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 José Farrán) 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 85
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 136
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 137
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 138
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 139
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 140
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 141
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 142
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 143
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 144
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 145
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 146
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
