Improving Pedestrian and Motorist Safety Along Light Rail Alignments (2009) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments
Appendix A - LRT Catalog of Safety Treatments
Pages 75-146
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 75... ...
Flashing train-approaching warning signs d) Gate crossing status indication signals 3.
|
From page 76... ...
Contact information for agencies or individuals who have agreed to list their information 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.
|
From page 77... ...
77 of the agencies are shown on the map in Figure A-1; all locations 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.
|
From page 78... ...
Minneapolis, MN MT (Metro Transit) Philadelphia, PA SEPTA (Southeastern Penns yl vania Transportat ion Authori ty )
|
From page 79... ...
. 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.
|
From page 80... ...
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
|
From page 81... ...
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.
|
From page 82... ...
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.
|
From page 83... ...
83 Included in MUTCD Chapter 10: No. Signal preemption 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
|
From page 84... ...
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 $$ Medium Cost Active Treatment Pedestrian Safety Motorist Safety
|
From page 85... ...
Transportation Research Circular E-C058: Safety Criteria for Light Rail Pedestrian Crossings. In 9th National Light Rail Transit Conference, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2003.
|
From page 86... ...
Contraindications to Treatment: No information available Relative Cost: Medium Included in MUTCD Chapter 10: No See Also: Second Train Approaching Treatments, Limits on Downtime of Gates $$ Medium Cost Active Treatment Pedestrian Safety Motorist Safety Agencies Reporting Using This Treatment: SCVTA, RTD, Ctrain, PAAC, Metro, NCTD,
|
From page 87... ...
TCRP Report 69: Light Rail Service: Pedestrian and Vehicular Safety. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001.
|
From page 88... ...
Pre signals for heavy rail are discussed in Chapter 8: Section 8D.7. $$$ High Cost Active Treatment Motorist Safety
|
From page 89... ...
89 Agencies Reporting Using This Treatment: SCVTA, LACMTA, RTD, SRTD, PAAC, ST, UTA, Metro, NCTD, Metro Transit, SF Muni, NJT-NCS, TTC Resources: Korve Engineering, Inc., Richards & Associates, Interactive Elements, Inc., and University of North Carolina, Highway Safety Research Center. TCRP Report 69: Light Rail Service: Pedestrian and Vehicular Safety.
|
From page 90... ...
As most LRT systems are constructed in urban areas, traffic signals are familiar and generally more credible than flashing light signals. Relative Cost: Medium Included in MUTCD Chapter 10: Yes See Also: Constant Warning Time Systems; Audible Crossing Warning Devices; Illuminated, Active, In-Pavement Marking Systems $$ 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
|
From page 91... ...
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:
|
From page 92... ...
Timing information not provided. $$ Medium Cost Active Treatment Motorist Safety Agencies Reporting Using This Treatment: TTC, SCVTA, LACMTA, RTD, NJT – River LINE, UTA, SDTI, NCTD, TriMet
|
From page 93... ...
TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001. Resources: Korve Engineering, Inc., Richards & Associates, Interactive Elements, Inc., and
|
From page 94... ...
Because audible warnings may disturb residents, the warning may be limited where there is residential development near the LRT line. TCRP Research Results Digest 84 acknowledges that different agencies have different philosophies about sounding audible warnings and outlines a general overall practice for evaluating rules for sounding onboard audible warning devices at crossings.
|
From page 95... ...
The agencies noted that personal music devices and headphones were thought to be linked to pedestrian and cyclist inattention and collisions. Contraindications to Treatment: Noise Relative Cost: Medium Included in MUTCD Chapter 10: No Agencies Reporting Using This Treatment: SCVTA, SRTD, NJT – River LINE, UTA, SDTI, NJT-HBLR, TriMet Resources: Korve Engineering, ATS Consulting, LLC, Fidell Associates, Center for Education and Research in Safety, and Bear Consulting.
|
From page 96... ...
Lack of marker adhesion to the surface can be a problem for IPM systems. Contraindications to Treatment: No information available Relative Cost: High Included in MUTCD Chapter 10: No $$$ High Cost Active Treatment Motorist Safety
|
From page 97... ...
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.
|
From page 98... ...
The installation was intended to reduce red- light running. Location: Houston, TX Additional Notes: A review of IPM was included in NCHRP Synthesis 380 .
|
From page 99... ...
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.
|
From page 100... ...
R TCRP Report 17: Integration of Light Rail Transit into City Streets.
|
From page 101... ...
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.
|
From page 102... ...
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.
|
From page 103... ...
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.
|
From page 104... ...
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.
|
From page 105... ...
Two signal heads are installed on the same pole, as shown in the figure on the left.
|
From page 106... ...
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
|
From page 107... ...
STOP AND YIELD SIGNS – EXAMPLES Photo courtesy José Farrán Description: Stop sign on same pole with railroad crossbucks Location: Sacramento, CA Additional Notes: None
|
From page 108... ...
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.
|
From page 109... ...
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 $$ Medium Cost Active Treatment Pedestrian Safety Motorist Safety Agencies Reporting Using This Treatment: MATA, SCVTA, LACMTA, RTD, SRTD, Ctrain, MTA-MD, NJT – River LINE, UTA, SF Muni, NJT-HBLR, TriMet, PAAC, SDTI
|
From page 110... ...
In 9th National Light Rail Transit Conference, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2003. FLASHING TRAIN-APPROACHING WARNING SIGNS – EXAMPLES Description: Flashing/blank out train warning sign used on the T-line in San Francisco.
|
From page 111... ...
Contraindications to Treatment: No information available Relative Cost: Medium $$ Medium Cost Active Treatment Motorist Safety Pedestrian Safety
|
From page 112... ...
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)
|
From page 113... ...
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.
|
From page 114... ...
The second message would be more useful to pedestrians and motorists, but the project team $$$ High Cost Active Treatment Pedestrian Safety Motorist Safety Second Train Approaching Treatments
|
From page 115... ...
See Also: Constant Warning Time Systems, Blank Out Signs, Second Train Warning Signs Agencies Reporting Using This Treatment: BSDA, MATA, SRTD, ST, SCVTA, LACMTA, RTD, NJT-HBLR, NJT – River LINE, MetroTransit, SF Muni, NJT-NCS, NCTD, SEPTA, TriMet, UTA, SDTI, Metro, Edmonton Transit Resources: Sabra, Wang, & Associates, Inc. and PB Farradyne.
|
From page 116... ...
116 SECOND TRAIN APPROACHING SIGNALS AND ACTIVE SIGNS – EXAMPLES Description: Blank-out second train coming sign. The arrows flash back and forth regardless of train direction.
|
From page 117... ...
Other second train warning signs, as seen on site visits, are not included. See Also : Second Train Approaching Signals and Active Signs $ Low Cost Passive Treatment Pedestrian Safety Motorist Safety Agencies Reporting Using This Treatment: LACMTA, RTD, Ctrain, PAAC, ST, Metro Transit, NJT-NCS, NJT-HBLR, TriMet Resources: No information available
|
From page 118... ...
Description: MUTCD "LOOK" sign with arrow Location: Pedestrian crossing in Santa Clara, CA Additional Notes: None.
|
From page 119... ...
Relative Cost: High Included in MUTCD Chapter 10: Section 10D.08 and Figure10D-4 See Also : Four-Quadrant Gates, Pedestrian Swing Gates $$$ High Cost Active Treatment Pedestrian Safety Gates
|
From page 120... ...
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.
|
From page 121... ...
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 $$$ High Cost Active Treatment Motorist Safety Agencies Reporting Using This Treatment: LACMTA, BSDA, SCVTA
|
From page 122... ...
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, 2003 Edition.
|
From page 123... ...
Pedestrians $$ Medium Cost Passive Treatment Pedestrian Safety Motorist Safety Pedestrians
|
From page 124... ...
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
|
From page 125... ...
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.
|
From page 126... ...
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 $$ Medium Cost Passive Treatment Pedestrian Safety
|
From page 127... ...
Relative Cost: Medium Included in MUTCD Chapter 10: Yes, Figure 10D-8. Agencies Reporting Using This Treatment: SCVTA, RTD, SRTD, Ctrain, SDTI, Metro, SF Muni, TriMet Resources: Korve Engineering, Inc., Richards & Associates, Interactive Elements, Inc., and University of North Carolina, Highway Safety Research Center.
|
From page 128... ...
See Also: Pedestrian Automatic Gates $$ 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
|
From page 129... ...
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)
|
From page 130... ...
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.
|
From page 131... ...
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
|
From page 132... ...
R TCRP Report 17: Integration of Light Rail Transit into City Streets.
|
From page 133... ...
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.
|
From page 134... ...
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
|
From page 135... ...
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.
|
From page 136... ...
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 $$ Medium Passive Treatment Pedestrian Safety Agencies Reporting Using This Treatment: LACMTA, SRTD, PAAC, UTA, SDTI, SF Muni, NJT-HBLR, TriMet, TTC Resources: No information available
|
From page 137... ...
Contraindications to Treatment: Transverse rumble strips are not generally used in urban environments because of the noise levels . Relative Cost: Low $ Low Cost Passive Treatment Motorist Safety
|
From page 138... ...
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, 2003 Edition. RUMBLE STRIPS – EXAMPLES Description: Rumble strips used in combination with pavement markings to delineate the LRT dynamic envelope Location: Salt Lake City, Utah Additional Notes: UTA reported that their track sections with curbs experience less vehicle, pedestrian, and cyclist trespassing than alignments with rumble strips, but rumble strips were installed instead of curbs to provide emergency access across the alignment.
|
From page 139... ...
Contraindications to Treatment: No information available Relative Cost: High Included in MUTCD Chapter 10: Yes $$$ High Cost Passive Treatment Motorist Safety Agencies Reporting Using this Treatment: MATA, SCVTA, LACMTA, RTD, SRTD, MTAMD, 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.
|
From page 140... ...
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.
|
From page 141... ...
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 $$ Medium Cost Passive Treatment Motorist Safety Pedestrian Safety Agencies Reporting Using This Treatment: MATA, SCVTA, RTD, Ctrain, MTA-MD, Edmonton Transit, NJT-HBLR, TriMet Resources: Federal Highway Administration.
|
From page 142... ...
Contraindications to Treatment: No information available Relative Cost: High Included in MUTCD Chapter 10: No See Also : Enforcement $$$ 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
|
From page 143... ...
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 $$$ High Cost Motorist Safety Pedestrian Safety Agencies Reporting Using This Treatment: SCVTA, LACMTA, RTD, SRTD, PAAC, NJT – River LINE, Metro, NCTD, SF Muni, TriMet Resources: U
|
From page 144... ...
. Contraindications to Treatment: No information available Relative Cost: Medium Included in MUTCD Chapter 10: No See Also: Enforcement $$ Medium Motorist Safety Pedestrian Safety
|
From 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.
|
From page 146... ...
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
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.