Treatments Used at Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services (2015)

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

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEWS INTRODUCTION Several literature reviews were conducted as part of this research with a focus on rail characteristics, pedestrian (including pedestrians with disabilities) characteristics, rail crossing treatments, crossing treatment selection techniques, and crash reduction factors. This chapter provides a summary of how the literature reviews were done along with a synopsis of the findings. The key findings of merit for the developed Guidebook (1) are contained in that document. RAIL CHARACTERISTICS This research focused on three types of transit rail services: light rail, commuter rail, and streetcar. Information on each type of transit rail service and identification of the different types of grade crossings, right-of-way alignments, and station contexts for each type of transit rail service was identified. In addition, material was identified on how the unique characteristics of these three types of transit rail services impact the design and implementation of treatments at pedestrian crossings. This information was incorporated in the Guidebook. PEDESTRIAN CHARACTERISTICS In order to effectively plan and design pedestrian crossings for public transit rail services, an understanding of the characteristics of pedestrians can be beneficial. Information was identified on the general characteristics of pedestrians, considerations for special pedestrian groups, and impacts of mobile device use on pedestrian risk. The information was updated with the research team’s knowledge and experience along with comments from those the research team met during the course of the project and incorporated into the Guidebook. CROSSING TREATMENTS The purpose of pedestrian crossing devices is to make pedestrians aware of the presence of the train and/or to prevent pedestrians from crossing at inappropriate times. Several types of crossing treatments or devices are used at rail crossings. Some of the crossing treatments fit within a traffic control device category while others, such as fencing, are part of the infrastructure provided at the crossing. A single crossing treatment or device will not be sufficient; rather a combination of devices is needed to communicate appropriate crossing locations and crossing times. Minimizing the number of conflict points for pedestrian is another approach used to improve safety. Techniques suggested by Korve (2) to channelize pedestrian traffic are: • Paving: A feature such as a sidewalk or path provides an area for pedestrians to use and can be expected to attract pedestrians and bikes. 3

• Delineation: Through the use of changes in pavement texture, materials, landscaping, or painted lines on a paved surface, the limits of the pedestrian pathway can be indicated so that pedestrians will stay within the allocated walking zone. • Barriers: A wide variety of barriers, such as fencing, railing, chains with bollards, or wire strung between posts, can be used to provide positive control over most pedestrian movements. Siques (3) notes that safe trackway crossing by pedestrian depends on four factors: • Awareness of a crossing. • Pedestrian path across a trackway. • Awareness of and ability to see an approaching light-rail vehicle (LRV). • Understanding of potential hazards at grade crossings. At a given location, a pedestrian-rail crossing can incorporate several crossing treatment components or devices. For example, the crossing could include signs and pavement markings along with a barrier and an audible warning device. Following are discussions on the pedestrian crossing treatment components or devices identified during the literature review. Traffic Control Devices The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) (4) discusses traffic control devices used at highway-rail grade crossings within Part 8. The Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA’s) Compilation of Pedestrian Safety Devices in Use at Grade Crossings (5) notes that the MUTCD “has the status of law as it pertains to signs, signals, and pavement markings, and non- compliance with the Manual can ultimately result in the loss of federal-aid funding, as well as in a significant increase in tort liability incurred by the use of non-standard traffic control devices.” The MUTCD presents information on the process for the incorporation of new devices in the Manual. The process enables transit agencies desiring the experimental use of traffic control devices that show promise in the enhancement of safety and mobility to evaluate these devices. The Railroad/Light Transit Rail (RRLRT) Technical Committee of the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NCUTCD) is providing recommended changes (6) to the MUTCD to support pedestrians and pedestrian accessibilities needs. With the publication of and changes proposed in several American with Disability Act (ADA) related documents, the MUTCD is in need of modification to support accessibility at grade crossings. Further, with increasing ridership on light rail, commuter rail, and passenger rail facilities, pedestrian interaction with trains has led to an increasing trend in pedestrian/rail incidents. The purpose of the RRLRT efforts “is to provide information regarding the use of traffic control devices on pathway and sidewalk grade crossings to increase safety, provide for the uniform application of traffic control devices, and facilitate accessibility for all pedestrians which are inter-twined with various traffic control devices and design features.” The proposed revisions include the addition of 20 new figures that provide examples of pedestrian gate placement or flashing light signal assemblies. 4

Passive Signs The key resource for information about signs is the MUTCD (4). Passive signs used at a pedestrian pathway or sidewalk grade crossing can include the advance Railroad Crossing sign (known as W10-1 in the MUTCD), the Crossbuck assembly (R15-1) with a Yield sign (R1-2) or a Stop sign (R1-1), and the Look sign (R15-8). These signs are currently in the MUTCD, and the sign codes are provided in the previous sentence within the parentheses. The Number of Tracks plaque is placed beneath the Crossbuck sign and helps to communicate the number of tracks. The Light Rail Do Not Pass sign (R15-5) is used to indicate that motor vehicles are not allowed to pass light rail vehicles that are loading or unloading passengers when there is no raised platform or physical separation from the lanes upon which other motor vehicles are operating. Instead of the R15-5 symbol sign, a regulatory sign with the word message DO NOT PASS STOPPED TRAIN (R15-5a) may be used. Warning Messages In addition to the MUTCD-compliant signs, several transit agencies are using signs with messages unique to the area to communicate the warning. FRA in Compilation of Pedestrian Safety Devices in Use at Grade Crossings (7) included a warning sign that the Illinois Commerce Commission, in cooperation with the Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Rail Corporation (Metra), is currently field testing at four locations on Metra’s Milwaukee West commuter line. Per TCRP Report 137 (8), some transit agencies are also using signs to indicate the presence of a train or streetcar or that a second train may be possible. The second train warning signs are designed to remind pedestrians and motorists to look both ways and be aware of trains on all tracks. Varieties of Look Both Ways signs are in use; however, a second train warning sign is not in the MUTCD. These signs are being installed where pedestrians and motorists may not look for a second train approaching beyond the view of the train that is readily visible. The main purpose of train warning signs is to increase motorist, pedestrian, and cyclist awareness of the possibility of a train approaching from either direction, even when a visible train is already present on the track. Salt Lake City, Utah, used a sign that is shown in the TCRP 137 report where they note that the trolley symbol used is not in the MUTCD, but is used in a number of cities. In 2001, Bentzen and Barlow observed an audible information device resembling an accessible pedestrian signal that used a speech message to announce the approach of a light-rail vehicle at a pedestrian crossing in Gothenberg, Sweden. Warning Signs for Enforcement FRA in Compilation of Pedestrian Safety Devices in Use at Grade Crossings (5) included a warning sign related to enforcement. Glenview, Illinois, on Metra’s Milwaukee District North Line, has established a $250 fine for any pedestrian who violates railroad warning devices. Warning devices include both a bell and flashing light signals. 5

Blank-Out Signs Addressing the condition of warning pedestrians of the presence of a second train has resulted in several different active signs being used (9) (such as the Light Transit rail Approaching-Activated Blank-Out Warning Sign [W10-7]), which are also known as train activated signs or blank-out signs. They supplement the traffic control devices to warn road users crossing the tracks of approaching light rail transit (LRT) and may be used at signalized intersections near highway-LRT grade crossings or at crossing controlled by STOP signs or automatic gates. They are illuminated to display a message to motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists when an event has occurred such as the approach of a train. The signs may also be used to notify motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists of a left or right turn prohibition due to a train coming. According to TCRP Report 137 (8), transit agencies reported that blank-out provides more specific useful and timely information to motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists. In addition, the TCRP Report 137 project team reported more positive feedback about turn restriction blank-out signs than about blank-out signs with the train symbol. Blank-out signs should be illuminated long enough to allow motorists and pedestrians to respond and to clear the tracks, but not so long that the sign becomes ineffective (perceived as incorrect) or easy to ignore. Experiences with Signs for Second Train Condition An important contributing factor for many train/vehicle and train/pedestrian collisions is the presence of a second train, either a slower-moving freight train or a second LRV. Second train signals are active signs illuminated to indicate that a second train is approaching. The sign may be a blank-out sign or it may use flashing lights or another type of indication (such as backlit illumination) to an otherwise passive sign. The signals are more effective when the warning is within a short time of the second train approaching. Signs that are on for too long may be ignored. The effectiveness of the signs is assumed to be greater if they deliver specific and valuable information to motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists, e.g., the direction from which the second train is approaching. No quantified information on the safety impacts of these engineering crossing treatments has been found. A demonstration project in Los Angeles (10, 11) investigated whether risky pedestrian crossing behavior would change due to train activated warning signs. The demonstration project was conducted on the south sidewalk at the Vernon Avenue intersection with the Metro Blue Line and Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks. The sidewalk crosses two LRT tracks and two UPRR freight tracks. The data were collected and analyzed by viewing video tapes recorded at the crossing. The video camera was activated only when there were two trains at or near the crossing. The before video data (before warning sign installation and operation) were recorded from March 24 to June 9, 2000. The after video data (recorded when warning sign was in operation) were recorded at various times from June 10, 2000, to June 18, 2001. Difficulties arose with interruptions caused by a strike and equipment failure. The after periods analyzed were July 30 to September 5, 2000, and May 20 to June 18, 2001. On an average weekday, approximately 1,600 pedestrians traversed that crossing site, approximately 1,200 passengers boarded and alighted from the LRVs, and approximately 220 LRT trains and 16 freight trains 6

used the rail right-of-way. From the analysis of before and after video data, the demonstration project found that the warning sign was effective in reducing risky behavior by pedestrians. Overall, the number of pedestrians crossing the LRT tracks at fewer than 15 seconds in front of an approaching LRT train was reduced by 14 percent after the warning sign was installed. The number of pedestrians crossing the tracks at six seconds or fewer before an LRT train entered the crossing was reduced by about 32 percent. The number of pedestrians crossing the tracks at four seconds or fewer in front of an approaching LRT train was reduced by 73 percent. Pavement Markings The key resource for information about pavement markings is the MUTCD (4). Section 8B.27 of the 2009 MUTCD provides information regarding pavement markings for railroad and light transit rail grade crossings. The section notes that all grade crossing pavement markings shall be retroreflectorized white. TCRP Web-Only Document 42 (12) reported on a study by Cairney and Diamantopoulou (13) on the use of pavement marking crossing treatment of “a painted strip that consisted of continuous lines defining the outside of the area, and broad diagonal stripes running across the area at regular intervals.” The painted strip was tested at two separate locations and was “intended to induce more orderly traffic flow and thus simplify the crossing task for the pedestrian, while also providing a refuge in the middle of the road.” Video recordings were used to collect the data. The before measures were obtained some months before the devices were installed. The during observations at the painted strip were obtained approximately one week after and then three weeks after the installation. The after measurements were collected for a period of 6 months after the crossing treatments had been installed. The authors’ analysis of the before, during, and after periods led them to report that after the pavement markings were introduced at the two tram sites: • There were significantly fewer pedestrians running across the road at both tram sites. • Slightly more time was spent in the area between the tram tracks in the middle of the road. • There were significantly fewer close conflicts in 1998 (after) than in 1997 (before). • Although no formal measurements were taken, the lateral position of the traffic was more uniform than it had been before the installation of the painted strip (e.g., straying outside of the designated lane was reduced). Cairney and Diamantopoulou (13) observed that traffic behavior had been more influenced by the painted strip than has pedestrian behavior. Farran (14) examined a system of pedestrian crossing warning devices in Barcelona. The system included a combination of delineation, LRT warning signs, pedestrian signals, and audio devices to alert pedestrian about LRVs approaching the crossings from both sides. The delineation used arrow striping, which incorporates the LRV symbol. The arrow striping and the signs are used to help pedestrians to look in the most appropriate direction before they walk onto the track area. The arrow is striped between the two rails for a given LRV direction and is located immediately upstream of the pedestrian pathway. A single arrow is used where LRVs typically operate in a single direction. Two arrows are used where LRVs typically operate two-way on a single track. 7

Per TCRP Report 137 (8), these pavement markings are similar to ones used in Dusseldorf, Germany. Dynamic Envelope Markings The dynamic envelope markings indicate the clearance required for the train or LRT equipment overhang resulting from any combination of loading, lateral motion, or suspension failure. If used, pavement markings for indicating the dynamic envelope shall comply with the provisions of MUTCD Part 3 and shall be a 4-inch normal solid white line or contrasting pavement color and/or contrasting pavement texture. Pavement marking, texturing, and striping are changes to the pavement appearance or texture to denote the LRT right-of-way or dynamic envelope. These crossing treatments indicate the right- of-way of the LRV and alert motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists to the possible presence of an LRV so that they can be prepared for its arrival or passing. Pavement marking, texturing, and striping are assumed to be effective in conveying information, but the effect of pavement marking, texturing, and striping on LRT crashes has not been quantified. Pavement markings and texturing require ongoing maintenance. They are effective in areas where snow and/or ice do not cover the markings. Rain can make markings difficult to see. Examples of pavement markings and texturing are seen in the TCRP 137 report. Detectable Warnings Truncated dome detectable warning surfaces that contrast visually with adjacent walking surfaces, either light-on-dark or dark-on-light, can be used to warn pedestrians about the locations of the tracks at a grade crossing. The MUTCD references the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities (ADAAG) for “specifications for design and placement of detectable warning surfaces” (15). More recent publications, ADA Standards for Transportation Facilities (16) and Proposed Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way (Proposed PROWAG) (17), provide additional information regarding the use of detectable warnings at rail crossings. Proposed PROWAG provides the following general information regarding detectable warning placement with respect to pedestrian at-grade rail crossings: • Pedestrian At-Grade Rail Crossings. At pedestrian at-grade rail crossings not located within a street or highway, detectable warning surfaces shall be placed on each side of the rail crossing. The edge of the detectable warning surface nearest the rail crossing shall be 1.8 m (6.0 ft) minimum and 4.6 m (15.0 ft) maximum from the centerline of the nearest rail. Where pedestrian gates are provided, detectable warning surfaces shall be placed on the side of the gates opposite the rail. • Boarding Platforms. At boarding platforms for buses and rail vehicles, detectable warning surfaces shall be placed at the boarding edge of the platform. • Boarding and Alighting Areas. At boarding and alighting areas at sidewalk or street level transit stops for rail vehicles, detectable warning surfaces shall be placed at the side of the boarding and alighting area facing the rail vehicles. 8

Pathway Stop Lines The MUTCD (4) provides the following guidance regarding pathway stop lines: “if used at pathway grade crossings, the pathway stop line should be a transverse line at the point where a pathway user is to stop. The pathway stop line should be placed at least 2 feet farther from the nearest rail than the gate, counterweight, or flashing light signals (if any of these are present) is placed, and at least 12 feet from the nearest rail.” Flashing Light Signals The typical railroad flashing light assembly can warn motorists and pedestrians that a train is present or about to enter the crossing area. An example is the assembly developed by members of NCUTCD, Railroad/Light Transit Rail Technical Committee (RRLRT TC) (6) for consideration for inclusion in the next edition of the MUTCD. In-Pavement Flashing Lights Per the FRA Compilation of Pedestrian Safety Devices in Use at Grade Crossings (5) report, Oregon has expressed interest in the use of train-activated, in-pavement flashing lights at high- profile, high-traffic pedestrian locations. Pedestrian Signals Pedestrian signals are active signal devices that tell pedestrians when it is permissible to begin or to continue a crossing. The MUTCD pedestrian crossing signal heads are composed of a walk symbol (walking person) that indicates the interval during which crossings should be initiated, a flashing hand that indicates that a crossing should not be started but may be completed, and a solid hand that indicates when pedestrians should not enter the roadway. MUTCD 4E.07 requires the use of countdown signal heads at crossings where the pedestrian change interval is longer than seven seconds. The countdown signal informs pedestrians of the number of seconds remaining in the pedestrian change interval. While some transit agencies are using pedestrian signals (as discussed in TCRP Report 137), the proposed revisions to the MUTCD developed by the RRLRT TC (6) include the following: Standard: Pedestrian signals as described in Chapter 4E utilizing Upraised Hand and Walking Person symbols shall not be used at a pathway or sidewalk grade crossing except as provided in the following option. Option: A pedestrian signal may be used at a pathway or sidewalk grade crossing where the movements of LRT vehicles are controlled by a traffic control signal. Preemption of Traffic Signals near Railroad Crossings Signal preemption may be used at railroad grade crossings to allow rail vehicles to have unimpeded access through intersections to ensure they remain on schedule and improve 9

commute times. MUTCD (4D.27 paragraph 08 B) permits the shortening or omission of a pedestrian change interval during the transition into preemption control. Omission or shortening of the pedestrian change interval places all pedestrians at risk, but especially pedestrians with disabilities who may not be able to increase their rate of travel across the tracks or to quickly reverse direction. When preemption is being considered for a rail crossing, the approaching trains should be both visible and audible. A sign assembly from the LaGrange Road Metra Station in Illinois notifies pedestrians who are able to see and read it that the walk time is shortened when a train is approaching (5). Whether the passive sign is accompanied by a device that would communicate similar information to a blind pedestrian was not mentioned in the report. Audible Crossing Warning Devices Audible warning devices are another active measure for pedestrian safety. Audible devices can be attached to other warning devices at the crossing or on-vehicle audible warnings can be used. TCRP Research Results Digest 84 (18) describes the development and testing of two alternative audible warnings. The first was a conventional bell sound while the second was a blended staircase signal that combined the sounds of an approaching train and a conventional crossing bell. The sounds were processed so that the pedestrian approaching the intersection hears a bell sound that rises in pitch and an approaching train that increases in loudness. The study did not produce conclusive evidence on the effectiveness of the signals. Extensive recommendations about the design and installation of audible signals can be found in TCRP Research Results Digest 84 (18). TCRP Report 137 provides the following summary about audible crossing warning devices: “Audible crossing warning devices provide supplemental warning for pedestrians and cyclists. 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.” Rules regarding the sounding of on-vehicle warning devices are usually outlined at the transit agency level and vary greatly depending on the agency. Many LRVs are equipped with multiple sound types, and operators may use different levels of sound in different situations. Because audible warnings may disturb residents, the warning may be limited where there is residential development near the LRT line. TCRP Research Results Digest 84 acknowledges that different transit agencies have different philosophies about sounding audible warnings and outlines a general overall practice for evaluating rules for sounding onboard audible warning devices at crossings. The evaluation system is based on three characteristics: emergencies, sight distance, and surrounding conditions. More details can be found in the report (18). 10

Pedestrian Automatic Gates Pedestrian automatic gates are arms that block the pedestrian/cyclist path across the tracks. The principle is similar to the use of gates on roadways to stop motorists and cyclists when a train is approaching. Pedestrian automatic gates may be provided in addition to roadway gate(s). On narrow streets, the pedestrian gate may be a part of the vehicle gate, with both pedestrians and vehicles blocked by a single gate that is placed behind the sidewalk. A second gate is required on the downstream side of the rail crossing for pedestrians approaching the crossing from the opposite direction. Korve et al. (2) recommend that pedestrian automatic gates be installed at all pedestrian crossings (sidewalks or other designated pathways) where sight distance is limited and leads to situations where pedestrians are unable to see an approaching LRV until it is very close to the crossing, and/or LRV operators are unable to see pedestrians in the vicinity of the crossing until the LRV is very close. At crossings where such conditions exist, pedestrian automatic gates function to take away a pedestrian’s decision about whether to cross the tracks or wait until the LRV passes. Per TCRP Web-Only Report 42 (12), to avoid compromising the safety of a pedestrian trapped between the tracks and the automatic gate as it lowers, some transit agencies (such as the LACMTA in Los Angeles) have installed pedestrian automatic gates set back from the track so that pedestrians have a refuge area between the track and gate where they can wait safely. The setback distance is wide enough to accommodate a wheelchair. An alternative solution, used by CalTrain, a commuter railroad in northern California, is a swing gate installed next to the pedestrian automatic gate. Pedestrian swing gates can be provided together with pedestrian automatic gates to allow pedestrians and cyclists to exit the right-of-way if they began crossing before the gates went down and also in the case of an emergency (see following discussion). Pedestrian Automatic Gate with Horizontal Hanging Bar (Also Known as Gate Skirts) Horizontal hanging bars (commonly called gate “skirts”) are being added to automatic gates to decrease the number of pedestrians crossing under a deployed automatic gate. Per a presentation by FRA (9), the Dallas Area Rapid Transit installed horizontal hanging bars (gate skirts) on the Blue Line in 1996 because of concerns with the presence of children walking to and from a nearby elementary school (9). The FRA presentation reported on a study that found risky pedestrian behavior reduced by about 70 percent with the use of the horizontal hanging bar. The presentation also quoted the Rail Safety and Standards Board of the UK (Requirements for Level Crossings, Railway Group Standards G1/RT7012), “at any level crossing equipped with full barriers, skirts shall be fitted where either there is a significant risk of pedestrians deliberately passing under the lowered barriers or where herded animals are regularly taken over the crossing on the hoof. Where provided, skirts shall be of light colour, light construction and shall fence in the space between the lowered barriers and the road surface” (9). Horizontal hanging bars have the additional benefit of enabling pedestrians who are visually impaired to detect a lowered gate with a long cane, if used, and come to a stop prior to bodily encountering the gate. 11

Pedestrian Swing Gates Pedestrian swing gates, sometimes called pedestrian fence gates, are gates that pedestrians and cyclists must open manually to cross the tracks). Pedestrian swing gates, like other pedestrian barriers and gates, are installed to discourage pedestrians and cyclists from making inappropriate crossing movements. The gates force crossing users to have additional time to check for an approaching LRV. Irwin (19) suggested using pedestrian swing gates where: a) pedestrian to train sight lines are restricted, b) a high likelihood exists that persons will hurriedly cross the trackway, c) channeling or other barriers reasonably prevent persons from bypassing the gates, and d) acceptable provisions for opening the gates by disabled persons can be provided. Per TCRP Report 137 (8), Calgary Transit installed various combinations of gates and barriers at a number of stations. The installations included active overhead railroad flashers. The swing gates are intended to prevent pedestrians from crossing into the track area without pausing and checking. As pedestrians are required to actively open the gates, they are forced to be more alert to the risks associated with crossing the LRT tracks. The gates also provide a positive barrier between where it is safe and not safe to stand when an LRV is approaching (2). Transit officials in Calgary have reported; however, that pedestrian violations of the swing gates (opening the gates while the warning devices are flashing) have increased following the initial reductions in risky behavior that occurred immediately after the gates were installed (2). Automatic swing gates do not require action on the part of the pedestrian to enter the crossing. The gate is normally held open (under power) exposing a walkway across the tracks. When activated by a LRV approaching the grade crossing, the gate closes. As the gate closes, it exposes an emergency exit. After the LRV passes, the gate opens and access to the walkway across the tracks is permitted. As the gate opens, the emergency exit is closed. If there is a power failure, the swing gate will automatically close under spring tension. Used widely in Australia, automatic swing gates have been successful in fatality prevention and operational reliability (3). Channelization Channelization is a technique to control pedestrian (or vehicle) movements. It may involve parallel longitudinal barriers of various types used to separate the pedestrians and/or motorists from the tracks. Channelization devices are to restrict the path of pedestrians or motor vehicles and prevent them from crossing the tracks or direct them to an appropriate crossing location. Examples of channelization devices can include barriers, medians, fences, landscaping, and curbs. 12

Barriers Minimizing the number of conflict points for a pedestrian is an approach used to improve safety. One of the techniques used to channelize pedestrian traffic is barriers. A wide variety of barriers, such as fencing, railing, chains with bollards, or wire strung between posts, can be used to provide positive control over most pedestrian movements, but not all will be sufficiently detectable to pedestrians who are visually impaired. TCRP Report 137 (8) noted that the most restrictive form of channelization is the barrier. Barrier channelization can control pedestrian access to the tracks, thereby focusing pedestrian movements at a designated crossing location. Fixed barriers restrict the movements of pedestrians approaching a rail crossing and lead pedestrians toward a designated crossing location. The barriers include various forms of fencing and railing. As reported in TCRP Web-Only Report 42 (12), Huddart and Thompson investigated design and safety issues on the Tuen Mun –Yuen Long LRT line in Hong Kong (20). In the central area of Yuen Long, a barrier was implemented alongside tracks running down the center of the right-of- way to channel and feed pedestrians toward a platform in the center alignment. Due to high pedestrian volumes to and from the platform, the barrier caused considerable pedestrian congestion. Huddart and Thompson acknowledged that this type of barrier alignment will likely limit platform widths and that a careful review of pedestrian movement and space available should be conducted. Where LRT operates in areas with high pedestrian usage, Huddart and Thompson suggest that special treatments should be planned and operated. The standard practice is to fence the tracks so that pedestrians can cross only at defined crossing points, but this approach can conflict with unobstructed pedestrian movement. The authors suggest that a solution can be to limit LRT speeds to 15 km/h. In high pedestrian environments, the authors also recommend that the track layout should be more generous so that pedestrians can avoid LRVs, particularly when two vehicles traveling in opposite directions are present simultaneously. As reported in TCRP Web-Only Report 42 (12), the most common types of fixed barrier are Z-crossings and bedstead barrier crossings. Z-crossings and bedstead barrier crossings are typically used in combination with other devices such as pedestrian signals or pedestrian automatic gates. Calgary Transit has used both Z-crossings and bedstead barrier crossings. These pedestrian barriers are installed in a zigzag style pattern on sidewalks and at LRT stations. The configuration of the paths forces pedestrians to face the direction of a potentially approaching LRV. Z-crossings should be used only at pedestrian crossings with adequate sight distance (if pedestrians are turned to face approaching LRVs but cannot see them because of obstructions, the Z-crossing is useless). Z-crossings and bedstead 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 Z-crossings and bedstead barrier crossings as this type of operation is performed at lower speeds and is typically used only during maintenance or emergencies (2, 21). 13

Pedestrian Fencing Pedestrian fencing is designed to channel pedestrian movements to designated crossing areas and limit the number of potential pedestrian-rail conflict points. Landscaping can be used in some situations to obtain a similar restriction. TCRP Report 17 (22) recommends “channel[ing] pedestrian flows on sidewalks, at intersections and at stations to minimize errant or random pedestrian crossings of the LRT track environment.” One channelization option is fencing or landscaping. Also reported in TCRP Report 137 (8) is that “pedestrian-rail at grade crossing design is only effective if pedestrians actually cross at the designated point and take a path that allows them clear observation of the warning devices.” Fencing and landscaping, along with signage and markings, encourage pedestrians to cross at designated crossings. Physical channelization is also necessary for the effective installation of all types of automatic or manual pedestrian gates. Pedestrians will violate pedestrian gates at sites with inadequate channelization. Pedestrians must not be trapped within the dynamic envelope of the LRV; it is important to leave room for a pedestrian between the fencing and the dynamic envelope (see discussion on pedestrian refuge). The height of fences and barriers near crossings needs to be limited to ensure the visibility of approaching trains. In Pedestrian-Rail Crossing in California (23) a maximum height of 3 feet 7 inches is recommended. Clearly Define Pedestrian Crossing The preferred location for a pedestrian crossing of a track should be clear and easy for the pedestrian to detect. When the path is along an existing sidewalk, the continuation of the sidewalk can provide that message. When the path is within a station, the preferred crossing location may not be as easy to define. If a crossable surface was applied to the length of the station and beyond, this could encourage pedestrians to cross at several different locations. If the crossing location is restricted by fencing, pedestrians can only exit to the roadway in select locations. A reasonable length of crossable surface depends on the number of pedestrians expected at the station. Channelization devices can assist with delineating the location along with the use of pavement markings or paving materials. Pedestrian crossings should consider pedestrian flow patterns. Attempting to prohibit pedestrians from crossing at a location where they typically cross LRT tracks may encourage risky pedestrian behavior, such as crossing tracks at an unprotected location. Pre-existing pedestrian travel patterns should be maintained if possible, considering any sight distance limitations. Flangeway Filler The maximum flangeway gap is 2.5 inches. The FHWA publication Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access (23) notes that the flangeway gaps can cause the loss of control and entrapment for people who use wheelchairs or for bicycles. The problem is exacerbated if the crossing is not 14

at 90 degrees. When the crossing is not at 90 degrees, a wider crossing can enable wheelchair users to orient their chairs to approach the rails at 90 degrees. The use of rubber flangeway fillers at light rail tracks mitigates the gap problem. Freight railroad require a 3-inch flangeway gap at installation, which would also occur where commuter transit rail systems operate on freight rail lines (24). Smooth and Level Surface In addition to minimizing the flangeway gap, a need exists to control the vertical difference between the rail and the adjacent surfaces. This can be as critical as the horizontal gap because the vertical differences can cause the swivel casters of a wheelchair to turn sideways and drop into the flangeway gap. Pedestrian Crossing Designs that Consider Accessibility Research has been done in the United Kingdom and Australia to identify problems of pedestrians with disabilities at rail crossings and to develop and evaluate treatments. In the UK, research (25) was undertaken on behalf of the Road-Rail Interface Safety Group with the involvement of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (Rail), the Joint Committee on Mobility of Blind and Partially Sighted People, and representatives from the rail industry. Advocacy groups submitted an initial list of rail crossing problems experienced by disabled pedestrians, and this was refined by a task force of people with disabilities and representatives from the rail industry through discussions and site visits. Existing level crossings were found to be moderately accessible, and implementation of guidance provided in the Railway Safety Principles and Guidance (RSPG2E) (26) was recommended to substantially improve accessibility. Nonetheless, three categories of access problems were identified: • Identification of the crossing. • Deciding when to cross. • Navigation and physical access. The research also identified 30 viable engineering solutions to the problems and refined the list into 12 recommendations. The recommendations are generic and intended to help stakeholders understand the issues and approaches to solutions to enhance accessibility. In Australia, research carried out by Sinclair Knight Merz and the Victoria Department of Infrastructure identified seven key issues for people with disabilities at rail crossings. Based on these seven areas, a toolkit of crossing treatments was developed to address the needs of pedestrians with hearing, visual, or mobility impairments (27,28,29). In the Australian research, the highest priority for improving pedestrian-rail crossings was given to crossing treatments intended to decrease the likelihood of pedestrians being trapped on crossings. These were identified as a) improved surface quality through better maintenance, b) grade separation, and c) realigning crossings so that the openings are aligned with one another. 15

The Australian standard for railway crossings was updated in 2007 and now includes a number of recommendations from the research (Australian Standard. Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2007, Part 7: Railway Crossings, Section 6: Pedestrian and Bicycle treatments) (30). Particular attention is given to: the geometry of mazes (pedestrian fencing) to accommodate larger wheelchairs and gophers (scooters); providing more visual and audible cues to provide greater accessibility for people with visual and hearing disabilities; provision of a red man (pedestrian signal) at active rail crossings; consideration of displays to alert pedestrians of an approaching second train; provision of more visual cues on the crossing; minimizing the flange gap; standardizing warning signs; and consideration of latches on escape gates to prevent wrong way movement through pedestrian bypasses. Recently published in the UK, Level Crossings: A Guide for Managers, Designers, and Operators (31) recommends treatment decisions based on the volume of pedestrian traffic and the anticipated frequency of crossings by people with disabilities. Level and well-maintained paths of travel, audible warnings, and high contrast markings are recommended at all pedestrian crossings. Tactile thresholds (tactile paving surfaces) are recommended at pedestrian-rail crossings where there is high pedestrian volume, and pedestrian signals are recommended only on rail crossings having exceptionally high pedestrian volume. Offset Pedestrian Crossing An offset pedestrian crossing, commonly referred to as a Z pedestrian crossing, channelizes pedestrian movements. Offset pedestrian crossings include fencing or barriers designed to direct pedestrians to walk facing oncoming LRVs before crossing the tracks to increase pedestrian awareness of oncoming LRVs. Offset pedestrian crossings increase pedestrian safety and alertness by slowing and channeling pedestrian movements. The crossing treatment is not effective when trains are running reverse track or along a single track as the pedestrian would be oriented to face the wrong direction in those cases. In some configurations, however, pedestrians can be forced to turn 180 degrees thereby having a view of both directions as they approach the tracks. Pedestrian Refuge Siques (3) describes a pedestrian refuge area and encourages its use at locations where pedestrians must cross multiple modes of traffic. For example, along median-running alignments, where pedestrians are required to cross motorist traffic, LRT tracks, and another set of motorist traffic to go from one curb to the other. As such, each crossing is separated into a distinct movement, and pedestrians are not left standing on the tracks, or in the roadway, when a train approaches. The pedestrian refuge area should be clearly defined with contrasting materials. One of the changes the RRLRT (6) is proposing for the MUTCD is to include a figure that shows an example of a refuge area. 16

Sidewalk Relocation Per the FRA Compilation of Pedestrian Safety Devices in Use at Grade Crossings (5) report, Oregon routes any pedestrian facility 5 ft behind any crossing gate arm assembly to account for the position of the gate arm counterweight when the gate is horizontal. Stop/Terminal Design In TCRP Web-Only Report 42 (12), Currie and Smith (32) noted that curbside stops are a well- known problem for LRT systems that operate in mixed traffic in Toronto, Canada, and Melbourne, Australia. At curbside stops, passengers wait at the curb, but need to cross traffic lanes without signal protection to reach the LRVs running on tracks in the center lanes. They sometimes wait on-street without protection from moving traffic. Similarly, when passengers alight, they often do so without protection from moving traffic. In addition to safety concerns, LRT systems of this type are not accessible to persons with disabilities because no platforms are provided. Curbside stops are thought to lead to 25 pedestrian road traffic accidents and a far higher number of near-misses each year in Melbourne, Australia (32). Examples of alternative designs being used in Melbourne for curbside stops include the following: • Safety Zone Stops - Safety Zone Stops are the most common adopted solution for tram stops in mixed traffic in Melbourne. A safety zone is a boarding area located in the center lanes of roads. The zone has railings to protect waiting passengers from the traffic flow. Traffic is not permitted on tracks at these stops. No platforms are provided. Signalized pedestrian access is usually provided (12). • Super Stops - Super Stops are high quality station style designs located in the center lanes of roads. The design includes platforms, shelters, and real-time passenger information. The road is narrowed to a single lane in each direction. Traffic is not permitted in the track area of the road and is required to pass the stop in the curbside lane. Pedestrian access is limited to few protected crossing points (12). • Curb Access Stops - Curb Access Stops are sidewalk “flareouts” or curb extensions where the road is narrowed to a single lane in each direction. A platform is constructed on the edge of the extended curb to aid tram access. Traffic can use the track area next to the stop, but must wait behind the tram as passengers board/alight. Curb Access Stops are cheaper than Super Stops, but limited in number because they have a significant impact on road space and capacity (12). Removable Barriers Removable barriers restrict the crossing movements of pedestrians and cyclists and prevent them from randomly entering LRV trackways. The barriers can be installed temporarily to restrict pedestrian and cyclist movements for limited periods and/or for infrequent events, such as sporting events. As reported in TCRP Report 137 (8), SF Muni uses portable steel barriers supplemented by yellow fabric caution tape and numerous transit staff and police to manage large crowds crossing the LRT alignment adjacent to the baseball stadium. Light rail agencies 17

such as Utah Transit Agency and Minneapolis have found removable barriers to be effective at locations with high volumes of pedestrian traffic. Sight Distance Adequate sight distance is critical regardless of the presence of active or passive warning devices. In some cases, the railroad wayside signal cabinets adjacent to the sidewalk approaching the light rail station, the controllers for the grade crossing system, and the nearby development limit the sight distance available to a pedestrian to see along the tracks. At crossings controlled by active devices, pedestrians may still enter the crossing if they do not see a train approaching. In addition, if one train has already passed, pedestrians may enter the crossing unaware of a second train approaching from the opposite direction. Adequate pedestrian sight distance is based on the time for a pedestrian to see an approaching train, make a decision to cross the tracks, and completely cross the trackway. Note that additional sight distance might be necessary in locations where pedestrians walk more slowly, such as near a retirement community or hospital. At crossings controlled by only passive devices, the need for adequate sight distance becomes even more important. A pedestrian needs to be aware of an approaching train to determine the potential hazard at the crossing. For crossings controlled by either passive or active devices, if the sight distance is inadequate, active, positive control is essential. Illumination Illumination of crossings refers to lighting systems installed to increase the visibility of the rail crossing at night. MUTCD Chapter 8 (4) suggests “illumination is sometimes installed at or adjacent to a grade crossing in order to provide better nighttime visibility of trains or LRT equipment and the grade crossing (for example, where a substantial amount of railroad or LRT operations are conducted at night, where grade crossings are blocked for extended periods of time, or where crash history indicates that road users experience difficulty in seeing trains or LRT equipment or traffic control devices during hours of darkness).” The MUTCD provides the following recommendation: “types and locations of luminaires for illuminating grade crossings are contained in the American National Standards Institute’s (ANSI) “Practice for Roadway Lighting RP-8,” which is available from the Illuminating Engineering Society.” Mirrors Convex mirrors have been used to provide pedestrians greater visibility of a second train or a train approaching from behind them. Required Stop FRA in Compilation of Pedestrian Safety Devices in Use at Grade Crossings (5) states that “in rare circumstances within a station, a transit system may elect to have a safety stop for all 18

outbound vehicles.” The required stop is used to allow passengers to cross over to the inbound platform, which only has access from one side. Overview of Crossing Conditions FRA in Compilation of Pedestrian Safety Devices in Use at Grade Crossings (5) provided a review of pedestrian devices. They stated that based upon the information received, “it can be seen that effective devices are a necessary complement to law enforcement initiatives and public outreach and education efforts in the enhancement of pedestrian safety at grade crossings.” Their observations of pedestrian behavior led them to the conclusions that pedestrians “do not think of themselves as part of the overall traffic stream, and therefore not really subject to traffic control devices” and that “their crossing behaviors often indicate an ‘I’ll go when I want to; after all, I’m just walking’ attitude that can prove very difficult to overcome.” The authors recommended effective use of channelizing devices that force pedestrians to look and move in certain directions and to cross tracks at certain places so to enhance safety at grade crossings by accumulating pedestrian traffic to flow through a single, well-designed crossing point. The authors’ also noted that transit and local agencies have been developing their own signs, signals, and pavement markings, which are frequently not in compliance with the MUTCD (4), the established national standard. Such non-standard devices are often not without merit and may incorporate innovative features. Non-standard devices that have been shown to be effective in more than one geographic area through scientific evaluation studies should be proposed for inclusion in the MUTCD, as outlined in Section 1A.10 of the Manual. Inclusion in the Manual makes effective and innovative devices available for use by the wider community of transportation and engineering professionals, and can enhance safety for more of the population. CROSSING TREATMENT SELECTION FRA in Compilation of Pedestrian Safety Devices in Use at Grade Crossings (5) included the following general points to consider during device selection. The selection of a traffic control device for use where pedestrians are intended to cross railroad tracks at grade should be the result of an engineering study whose simplicity or complexity will be determined by conditions at the crossing in question. In general, the factors to be examined during device selection should include the following: • Collision experience, if any, at the crossing, as it involves pedestrians. • Pedestrian volumes and peak flows, if any. • Train speeds, numbers of trains, and railroad traffic patterns, if any. • Sight distance that is available to pedestrians approaching the crossing. • Skew angle, if any, of the crossing relative to the railroad tracks (5). TCRP Report 69 (2) provided a pedestrian controls decision tree for LRT alignments with LRV traveling at speeds greater than 35 mph with at-grade crossings. The decision tree defines the type of pedestrian devices and controls using six criteria (decision points) relative to the pedestrian crossing environment. The authors of TCRP Report 69 emphasized there are numerous possible outcomes based on the answers to the six criteria. In the least restrictive 19

condition with at least some minimal level of pedestrian activity—a crossing with relatively low activity levels, where LRT speed does not exceed 55 km/h (35 mph), where sight distance is good, that is not located in a school zone, and where no other factors warrant special consideration—the recommended practice is to provide access and passive warning devices at the crossing. For the most restrictive conditions—a crossing where LRT speeds exceed 55 km/h (35 mph), where sight distance is inadequate, the crossing is located in a school zone, or pedestrian surges or high pedestrian inattention occurs—active warning devices, barrier channelization, and pedestrian automatic gates (positive control) are recommended. The Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) has a publication, the SCRRA Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Recommended Design Practices and Standards Manual (24), which provides information on highway-rail crossings. The publication states that “in order to determine if a crossing has, or has the potential for, pedestrian activity, pedestrian-rail crossings shall be evaluated using the 10-minute walk rule. This rule is based upon research conclusions that pedestrians will walk 10 minutes to reach their destination. This equates to a one-third to one-half mile walk. Therefore, if the crossing is located within this radius of schools, hospitals, substantial pedestrian generators or other facilities, then the lead Engineer should consider pedestrian traffic features over the crossing.” The SCRRA Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Recommended Design Practices and Standards Manual (25) also has a similar design process and consideration table as TCRP Report 69, but with changes to several of the decision points. The Pedestrian-Rail Crossing in California (33) includes in an appendix a copy of a UK assessment sheet for evaluating crossings located at stations. When the crossing score is more than 55, “then the risk must be reduced.” A crossing score between 35 and 55 is when “measures to reduce the risk must be considered.” Factors being considered include crossing abuse; number of people using the crossing; number of trains passing over the crossing; percent of non-stop trains over the crossing; maximum speed of non-stop trains; tracks crossed without a pedestrian refuge; warning time at the crossing; chance of stepping out behind another train or obstruction and being hit by a train; loud external noise source; use of significant numbers of vulnerable, distracted, or encumbered users; potential for slippery conditions; potential for fog/smoke; is the crossing on canted tracks; and other local factors. Suggested countermeasures to use when a crossing score is high was not provided with the assessment sheet. CRASH REDUCTION FOR PEDESTRIAN-ROADWAY CROSSING TREATMENTS A 2013 Issue Brief (34) provided estimates of the crash reduction that might be expected if specific countermeasures or a group of countermeasures are implemented with respect to pedestrian crashes. Note that the Issue Brief is for pedestrian crashes on roadways rather than pedestrian crashes at rail crossings. Similar type of information is not available for rail crossings. 20