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 4: ONLINE SURVEY OF PRACTITIONERS INTRODUCTION This chapter provides a summary of the findings from a web-based survey of practitioners at transit agencies in the United States. The survey, conducted through the internet, asks practitioners for information on current and previous treatments used to reduce conflicts between pedestrians and rail vehicles, as well as other approaches they have used with respect to pedestrian safety at transit rail crossings. The survey also asks respondents what types of transit services their transit agency provides, and it asks respondents to provide contact information for possible follow-up questions by telephone and/or email. SURVEY ADMINISTRATION Based on information obtained through Task 1 activities, researchers developed a list of questions to ask transit agency practitioners about their experiences with various treatments related to pedestrian safety at transit rail crossings. Details from references used in Task 1, along with the research team’s professional contacts and information from the project’s panel members, led researchers to compile a list of practitioners who would be potential respondents to an invitation to complete the survey. Researchers invited those practitioners to participate in the survey via an email, which is reproduced in Figure 2. The email was sent to over 80 individuals representing 46 transit agencies and the project panel members and liaisons. More than one practitioner within an agency may have received the request. Practitioners who agreed to participate in the survey clicked on the link provided in the email and were taken to a website containing the survey form that they could complete and submit to the research team. The survey was formatted such that survey respondents were presented with 26 questions, though most of the responses requested were merely multiple choices within seven primary questions: 1. What type(s) of transit rail service(s) does your transit agency operate? 2. Which of the following treatments does your transit agency currently use to reduce conflicts between pedestrians and rail vehicles? 3. Has your transit agency tried any treatments listed in the previous questions that you later removed? If yes, which treatments? 4. Which of the following approaches has your transit agency used to identify, evaluate, and/or improve pedestrian safety at transit rail crossings? 5. Please provide any comments/observations regarding treatments, devices, or strategies for improving conditions for pedestrians crossing transit rail tracks. 6. Would you be willing to be contacted by a member of the research team to discuss pedestrian crossing treatments or issues? 7. Please provide your name, agency, email address, and phone number. The entirety of the survey in the format that respondents viewed, including introductory and concluding remarks, is reproduced in Figure 3 through Figure 10. 29

The Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI) is conducting a research project sponsored by the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) to develop a Guidebook for Pedestrian Crossings for Public Transit Rail Services. As part of this project, we are investigating the types of treatments that transit agencies use to improve pedestrian crossing safety at public transit rail services crossings (i.e., light rail, commuter rail, and streetcar). Your transit agency was identified as one that may offer insights on current pedestrian safety treatments for public transit rail services. We are conducting an online survey to obtain this information. If you are willing to participate, please complete the 6-question, mostly multiple-choice, survey available at the following link: (link provided) If another person in your transit agency is more suitable for this effort, we would ask your help in contacting that individual. We designed the survey so your response time is minimal and would like your response by May 22, 2013. If you have any questions about the survey, please contact me through one of the points of contact noted below. If you have general questions about the research project, you can contact me as TTI’s Principal Investigator, or you can contact Dianne Schwager, TCRP Senior Program Officer. Additional information about TCRP A-38 project is available at: (link provided) Figure 2. Survey invitation email sent to practitioners. Dear Practitioner, Thank you for agreeing to participate in this survey. The primary goal of this project is to develop a guidebook for safe and effective treatments for pedestrian crossings for public transit rail services, including light rail, commuter rail, and streetcar services. The guidebook will, at a minimum: • Present effective options considering rail vehicle speed and frequency, geometry of the crossing, sight lines for pedestrians and rail vehicle operators, and operating environment. • Include drawings, illustrations, or photos of treatments and ranges of costs. • Provide guidance for planning and implementation. As part of that project, we are seeking to understand the current state of the practice in transit agencies across the country. We ask for your assistance in completing the survey on the following pages and we thank you for contributing your time and expertise to this research. If you have questions about the project in general, you can contact Kay Fitzpatrick, TTI Principal Investigator or Dianne Schwager, TCRP Senior Program Officer. Additional information about the TCRP A-38 project is available at: (link provided) Please click the “Next” button below to start the survey. There are 26 questions in this survey. Figure 3. Introduction to online survey. 30

Type of Transit rail Service Operated 1. What type(s) of transit rail service(s) does your transit agency operate? Please choose all that apply:  Light Transit rail  Commuter Transit rail  Streetcar Transit Figure 4. First question of online survey. Pedestrian Crossing Treatments Currently in Use Which of the following treatments does your transit agency currently use to reduce conflicts between pedestrians and rail vehicles? (Please check all that apply) 2. Barriers Please choose all that apply:  Channelization/fencing at approach to grade crossing  Channelization/fencing at other locations  Pedestrian automatic gate  Pedestrian automatic gate with horizontal hanging bar (also known as gate skirts)  Pedestrian swing gates 3. Design Please choose all that apply:  Changes to stop/terminal design  Flangeway gap treatment  Illumination/lighting  Mirrors  Offset pedestrian crossing (also known as Z- pedestrian crossing)  Pedestrian refuge areas  Removable barriers  Sidewalk or pathway changes to improve accessibility  Sidewalk relocation (move sidewalk away from gate arm counterweight)  Sight distance improvements – relocate or eliminate restrictions 4. Education & Enforcement Please choose all that apply:  Education campaigns  Enforcement officers 5. Markings Please choose all that apply:  Detectable warnings (truncated domes) on sidewalk or pathway surface  Dynamic envelope markings (longitudinal lines)  Pavement markings (words on pavement)  Stop lines on sidewalk or pathway surface 6. Operations Please choose all that apply:  Required stop for all outbound trains  Reduced speed limit for entering crossing 7. Signals Please choose all that apply:  Audible crossing warning devices  Flashing light signals  In-pavement flashing lights  Low-rise flashing lights  Pedestrian signals  Accessible pedestrian signals 8. Signing Please choose all that apply:  Second train warning signs (static or active)  Signs with beacons that are continuously active  Signs with beacons that become active when train is approaching  Static signs at crossing  Static signs on roadway/pathway approaches  Warning signs for enforcement at crossing 9. What other types of treatments does your agency currently use? Please write your answer here: Figure 5. Questions 2–9 of online survey. 31

Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Removal 10. Has your transit agency installed any pedestrian crossing treatments listed in the previous question (also listed below) that were later removed? Please choose only one of the following: Yes No (NOTE: Questions 11–19 [that repeated questions 2 to 9] appeared on the respondent’s screen only if the answer to Question 10 was “Yes.” Otherwise, the respondent was directed to Question 20.) Figure 6. Questions 10–19 of online survey. Pedestrian Safety Approaches 20. Which of the following approaches has your transit agency used to identify, evaluate, and/or improve pedestrian safety at transit rail crossings? Please choose all that apply: a. Consultation with organizations of or for people with disabilities. b. Enforcement efforts at specific location(s). c. General survey of transit passengers on pedestrian safety issues. d. General survey of non-passengers on pedestrian safety issues. e. “Close Call” reporting/documentation system. f. Pedestrian safety study at specific location(s). g. Safety audit/diagnostic team review of pedestrian crossings. h. Safety educational/outreach to passengers. i. Safety educational/outreach to non-passengers. j. System-wide enforcement efforts. k. System-wide pedestrian safety study. l. Systematic review of pedestrian-rail crossing devices/treatments. m. Other: Figure 7. Question 20 of online survey. Additional Comments/Observations 21. Please provide any comments/observations regarding devices, treatments, or strategies to improve pedestrian safety at transit rail crossings. Please write your answer here: Figure 8. Question 21 of online survey. Contact Information 22. Would you be willing to be contacted by a member of the research team to discuss pedestrian crossing treatments or issues? Please choose only one of the following: Yes No 23. Your Name: Please write your answer here: 24. Transit Agency: Please write your answer here: 25. EMail Address: Please write your answer here: 26. Phone: Please write your answer here: Figure 9. Questions 22–26 of online survey. 32

Thank you for participating in this survey. Your responses will be helpful in generating the guidebook for safe and effective treatments for pedestrian crossings for public transit rail services. For more information about the TCRP A-38 project, please click on the link below or close this window to end your session. (link provided) Thank you for completing this survey. Figure 10. Conclusion to online survey. SURVEY RESPONSES The website for the online survey was active from May 1 to May 24, 2013. During that time, the survey was accessed 30 times from 26 unique IP addresses, suggesting that four respondents began the survey and then returned to it again at a later time. Of the 30 times the survey was accessed, it was completed 13 times. The remainder of this section will summarize the results from the 13 completed surveys. Question 1: Type of Transit Rail Service Respondents were presented with three types of transit rail service and asked which of those three types were provided by their transit agency. Results from the 13 respondents are summarized in Table 3. Both of the agencies in this survey that do not offer light transit rail offer commuter transit rail, and the two agencies offering streetcar transit indicated that they provide all three types of service described in the survey. Table 3. Type of transit rail service offered by respondents’ transit agencies. Type Light Transit rail Commuter Transit rail Streetcar Transit Affirmative Responses 11 8 2 Question 2: Treatments Currently in Use The survey asked respondents to indicate which of 35 different pedestrian safety treatments their transit agencies currently used; it also asked them to describe any other treatments they use that were not specifically listed. Responses to this question are summarized in Table 4, with treatments listed in the order they were presented in the survey. Every treatment had at least one response, and each of the treatment categories except for Operations had at least one treatment with eight or more responses, suggesting that transit agencies are utilizing a variety of approaches in addressing pedestrian safety. The most commonly cited treatments were detectable warnings on sidewalks and static signs at crossings, both of which were used by 11 agencies. Sight distance improvements and education campaigns were acknowledged by 10 respondents. The four other treatments mentioned by respondents are listed below: • “LOOK signs on pavement in addition to STOP - if STOP is farther than 16 ft from centerline, or if LOOK provides improved site distance. STOP HERE WHEN RED LIGHTS ARE FLASHING sign on fence identifying where to stop, and reinforcing rules. Have Distracted Pedestrian UTA Ordinance as additional reinforcement effort. 33

Table 4. Pedestrian treatments currently in use. Treatment Responses Barriers [Channelization/fencing at approach to grade crossing] 8 Barriers [Channelization/fencing at other locations] 9 Barriers [Pedestrian automatic gate] 5 Barriers [Pedestrian automatic gate with horizontal hanging bar (also known as gate skirts)] 1 Barriers [Pedestrian swing gates] 6 Design [Changes to stop/terminal design] 4 Design [Flangeway gap treatment] 5 Design [Illumination/lighting] 9 Design [Mirrors] 6 Design [Offset pedestrian crossing (also known as Z-pedestrian crossing)] 9 Design [Pedestrian refuge areas] 8 Design [Removable barriers] 3 Design [Sidewalk or pathway changes to improve accessibility] 7 Design [Sidewalk relocation (move sidewalk away from gate arm counterweight)] 4 Design [Sight distance improvements – relocate or eliminate restrictions] 10 Education & Enforcement [Education campaigns] 10 Education & Enforcement [Enforcement officers] 8 Markings [Detectable warnings (truncated domes) on sidewalk or pathway surface] 11 Markings [Dynamic envelope markings (longitudinal lines)] 3 Markings [Pavement markings (words on pavement)] 9 Markings [Stop lines on sidewalk or pathway surface] 9 Operations [Required stop for all outbound trains] 4 Operations [Reduced speed limit for entering crossing] 5 Signals [Audible crossing warning devices] 8 Signals [Flashing light signals] 8 Signals [In-pavement flashing lights] 1 Signals [Low-rise flashing lights] 2 Signals [Pedestrian signals] 9 Signals [Accessible pedestrian signals] 2 Signing [Second train warning signs (static or active)] 8 Signing [Signs with beacons that are continuously active] 2 Signing [Signs with beacons that become active when train is approaching] 3 Signing [Static signs at crossing] 11 Signing [Static signs on roadway/pathway approaches] 8 Signing [Warning signs for enforcement at crossing] 6 What other types of treatments does your agency currently use? 4 34

Table 5. Pedestrian safety treatments in use by type of rail service offered. Treatment Number of Agencies Indicating Treatment Use* L (n=5) C (n=2) L/C (n=4) L/C/S (n=2) Barriers [Channelization/fencing at approach] 3 0 3 2 Barriers [Channelization/fencing at other] 4 0 3 2 Barriers [Pedestrian automatic gate] 2 1 1 1 Barriers [Gate Skirts] 0 0 1 0 Barriers [Pedestrian swing gates] 3 0 2 1 Design [Changes to stop/terminal design] 2 1 1 0 Design [Flangeway gap treatment] 1 0 2 2 Design [Illumination/lighting] 4 0 3 2 Design [Mirrors] 2 1 2 1 Design [Offset pedestrian crossing] 3 1 3 2 Design [Pedestrian refuge areas] 4 0 3 1 Design [Removable barriers] 1 0 1 1 Design [Sidewalk or pathway changes] 2 0 4 1 Design [Sidewalk relocation] 0 0 2 2 Design [Sight distance improvements] 3 1 4 2 Education & Enforcement [Education campaigns] 3 1 4 2 Education & Enforcement [Enforcement officers] 2 1 3 2 Markings [Detectable warnings] 4 2 3 2 Markings [Dynamic envelope markings] 1 0 1 1 Markings [Pavement markings] 5 0 2 2 Markings [Stop lines on sidewalk or pathway] 4 0 3 2 Operations [Required stop for outbound trains] 1 0 2 1 Operations [Reduced speed limit] 2 0 2 1 Signals [Audible crossing warning devices] 3 0 4 1 Signals [Flashing light signals] 2 1 3 2 Signals [In-pavement flashing lights] 1 0 0 0 Signals [Low-rise flashing lights] 0 0 1 1 Signals [Pedestrian signals] 4 0 4 1 Signals [Accessible pedestrian signals] 0 0 1 1 Signing [Second train warning signs] 3 0 4 1 Signing [Signs with continuous beacons] 0 0 1 1 Signing [Signs with train-activated beacons] 1 0 2 0 Signing [Static signs at crossing] 4 1 4 2 Signing [Static signs on approaches] 4 1 2 1 Signing [Warning signs for enforcement] 1 0 3 2 Other Types of Treatments 2 0 1 1 *Type of Rail Service Offered by Agency: (L = Light Rail, C = Commuter Rail, S = Streetcar Rail) • We use pedestrian poles (with wires in between) at most of our stations to separate the trackway from the street. This prevents pedestrians from jaywalking between the 35

platform and sidewalk across the tracks and street and channels them to the crosswalk at either end of the platform. • Audible Pedestrian Units in certain low noise areas. • Active warning devices such as W10 with Flashers and EMS [Extinguishable Message Sign] signs. And active train approach signs at some crossings.” The two transit agencies that provided only commuter rail each used only six of the 35 suggested treatments, the five agencies offering only light rail service varied between 12 and 24 treatments, and the two agencies offering all three services listed 24 and 22 of the treatments. The distribution of treatments by the type of rail services offered is shown in Table 5. Transit agencies offering light rail services used a wide variety of treatments listed in the survey. Those five agencies used 31 of the 35 treatment options suggested, along with two other treatments not specifically mentioned. The only treatments they did not use were gate skirts, sidewalk relocation, low-rise flashing lights, and second train warning signs. All five light-rail agencies used word markings on the pavement, and eight other treatments were used by four of the five agencies. Transit agencies offering only commuter rail had the least variety of treatments, using only 11 of the 35 suggested options. The only treatment used by both commuter rail agencies was detectable warnings on sidewalk or pathway surfaces. The four transit agencies that offered both light rail and commuter rail had the widest variety of treatments, using all but one of the 35 suggested options and one other treatment. The only treatment not used by these agencies was in-pavement flashing lights. The following treatments were used by all four agencies: • Sidewalk or pathway changes to improve accessibility. • Sight distance improvements – relocate or eliminate restrictions. • Education campaigns. • Audible crossing warning devices. • Pedestrian signals. • Second train warning signs (static or active). • Static signs at crossing. Though there were only two agencies that offered all three types of transit rail being considered in the survey, they used all but four of the 35 treatment options and one other treatment. This is not surprising considering the variety of terminals and transit stops, as well as the potential number of other pedestrian crossings that can be associated with three transit rail systems. The only treatments they did not use were: • Pedestrian automatic gate with horizontal hanging bar (gate skirts). • Changes to stop/terminal design. • In-pavement flashing lights. • Sign with beacons that become active when train is approaching. Even with the fewer responses by commuter rail agencies, there did not appear to be any category of treatment that was especially emphasized or avoided by any agency. Barriers, design 36

treatments, education/enforcement, markings, operational treatments, signals, and signing all had representation on a relatively widespread basis. Question 3: Treatments Removed from Use The survey asked respondents to indicate if they had removed any pedestrian crossing treatments that were previously installed. Only one respondent indicated that the agency had done so. The response revealed that three treatments (pedestrian swing gates, sidewalk relocation, and low-rise flashing lights) had all been previously installed and then later removed. The transit agency represented by this response offers both light rail and commuter rail services. Question 4: Approaches to Identify, Evaluate, and Improve Pedestrian Safety The survey asked respondents to indicate if they had used any of the 12 particular methods or approaches to identify potential pedestrian safety issues or otherwise evaluate and/or improve pedestrian safety at transit rail crossings. Responses to this question are summarized in Table 6, listed in descending order of number of responses. Every suggested approach had at least four responses, and six had at least eight responses, again suggesting that transit agencies are considering a variety of methods to improve pedestrian safety. The most commonly cited approaches were safety/education outreach programs to passengers and to non-passengers, both of which were used by 11 agencies. A close call reporting system was used by 10 respondents. The three other approaches with at least eight responses included enforcement efforts at specific location(s), safety audit/diagnostic team review of pedestrian crossings, and systematic review of pedestrian-rail crossing devices/treatments. Table 6. Approaches to identify, evaluate, and improve pedestrian safety. Treatment Responses Safety educational/outreach to passengers. 11 Safety educational/outreach to non-passengers. 11 Close Call reporting/documentation system. 10 Enforcement efforts at specific location(s). 9 Safety audit/diagnostic team review of pedestrian crossings. 9 Systematic review of pedestrian-rail crossing devices/treatments. 8 Pedestrian safety study at specific location(s). 7 Consultation with organizations of or for people with disabilities. 5 System-wide enforcement efforts. 5 System-wide pedestrian safety study. 4 General survey of transit passengers on pedestrian safety issues. 3 General survey of non-passengers on pedestrian safety issues. 3 Other 0 The distribution of treatments by the type of rail services offered is shown in Table 7. Among the five transit agencies offering only light rail service, all of them used a Close Call system, while four other treatments (safety audit/diagnostic team review of pedestrian crossings, safety educational/outreach to passengers, safety educational/outreach to non-passengers, and systematic review of pedestrian-rail crossing devices/treatments) were each listed by four 37

agencies. The same four agencies did not use all four of those methods, but three agencies had all of those approaches in common. Overall, each of the five light transit rail agencies reported using five to seven of the approaches listed. Table 7. Pedestrian safety approaches in use by type of rail service offered. Approach Number of Agencies Indicating Treatment Use* L (n=5) C (n=2) L/C (n=4) L/C/S (n=2) Consultation with orgs of/for people with disabilities. 1 1 1 2 Enforcement efforts at specific location(s). 2 1 4 2 Survey of passengers on pedestrian safety issues. 0 0 2 1 Survey of non-passengers on safety issues. 0 0 2 1 Close Call reporting/documentation system. 5 1 3 1 Pedestrian safety study at specific location(s). 2 0 3 2 Safety audit/diagnostic team review of crossings. 4 1 2 2 Safety educational/outreach to passengers. 4 1 4 2 Safety educational/outreach to non-passengers. 4 1 4 2 System-wide enforcement efforts. 1 0 2 2 System-wide pedestrian safety study. 1 0 1 2 Systematic review of crossing devices/treatments. 4 0 2 2 Other 0 0 0 0 *Type of Rail Service Offered by Agency: (L = Light Rail, C = Commuter Rail, S = Streetcar Rail) The two transit agencies that provided only commuter rail used six of the 12 suggested approaches, though five of them were used by one agency and the other agency used only the Close Call system. Among the four agencies offering both light rail and commuter rail, every approach was used at least once; these four agencies were fairly active, each responding affirmatively to between five and 10 approaches. All of them used enforcement efforts at specific locations, safety educational/outreach to passengers, and safety educational/outreach to non- passengers. As in Question 2, the two agencies offering all three types of rail services were the most active, listing 9 and 12 of the approaches as being currently used. Question 5: Other Comments and Observations The survey asked respondents to provide any comments/observations regarding devices, treatments, or strategies to improve pedestrian safety at transit rail crossings. The intent of this question was to determine if there was a topic not previously addressed in the survey that a respondent deemed important and relevant to the study. Five respondents provided comments to this question; two of them were from transit agencies that offered only light rail services, two agencies offered both light rail and commuter rail, and one offered all three types considered in the survey. The five responses, verbatim from survey responses, were as follows: • “Each crossing is unique - so rigid standards are difficult. General guidelines, distances, devices to be implemented should be provided with ‘adjust as needed at each crossing’ Provide general guidelines to initiate the design efforts. Design systems to fail safe. Maximize visibility at crossings and along the corridors. Minimize trespassing and hiding 38

opportunities. Provide appropriate lighting, and required emergency backup power. Minimize pedestrian crossings at approach ends of platforms. No straight approaches to or across stations. Implement appropriate safety treatments, such as: (remainder of answer truncated by survey software for exceeding maximum allowed length). • Enforcement, while not always easy or politically attractive, is by far the best means of demonstrating that an agency is serious about compliance. • Keeping things consistent throughout a system is important so people in the region know what to expect when encountering a crossings. Also, going back and retrofitting older crossings with newer technologies to enhance crossings is important. • Regardless of the amount or type of devices used, responsibility for pedestrian safety also needs to be shared by the pedestrian. In many cases, we have found that despite the several devices installed, pedestrians continue to ignore or disregard them and take unnecessary risks. • Devices and treatments meet MUTCD but no formal program or strategies for pedestrian safety improvements.” Questions 6 and 7: Potential Follow-Up and Respondent Contact Information The survey asked respondents if they would be willing to be contacted by a member of the research team to further discuss pedestrian crossing safety. Eleven of the 13 respondents gave a positive response in Question 6, and in Question 7 all of those 11 provided their name, transit agency, email address, and/or telephone number. FINDINGS Several findings can be made from the results to the online survey of transit agency practitioners. Those findings, based on the 13 completed responses to the survey, are as follows: • Among the 35 treatments suggested, static signs at crossings, detectable warnings on sidewalk and pathway surfaces, sight distance improvements, and education campaigns were nearly universal in their current use by respondents, used by either 10 or 11 of the 13 practitioners who completed the survey. • In addition to the four treatments listed above, 13 of the 35 treatments were used by at least eight respondents: o Channelization/fencing at approach to grade crossing. o Channelization/fencing at other locations. o Illumination/lighting. o Offset pedestrian crossing (also known as Z-pedestrian crossing). o Pedestrian refuge areas. o Enforcement officers. o Pavement markings (words on pavement). o Stop lines on sidewalk or pathway surface. o Audible crossing warning devices. o Flashing light signals. o Pedestrian signals. o Second train warning signs (static or active). o Static signs on roadway/ pathway approaches. 39

• Every treatment had at least one response, and each of the treatment categories except for Operations had at least one treatment with eight or more responses, suggesting that transit agencies are utilizing a variety of approaches in addressing pedestrian safety. Gate skirts, in-pavement flashing lights, and low-rise flashing lights were rarely used by respondents. • Transit agencies providing only light rail services tended to implement more treatments (12 to 24 per agency) than those offering only commuter rail services (six per agency). • For agencies offering more than one type of rail service, the variety and frequency of the treatments they used was typically greater than agencies with only one type of service. This is not surprising considering the variety of terminals and transit stops, as well as the potential number of other pedestrian crossings, which can be associated with three transit rail systems. • Only one respondent indicated that the agency had removed any pedestrian crossing treatments that were previously installed. The response revealed that three treatments (pedestrian swing gates, sidewalk relocation, and low-rise flashing lights) had all been previously installed and then later removed. The transit agency represented by this response offers both light rail and commuter rail services. • Of the 12 approaches to identify, evaluate, and improve pedestrian safety concerns, all of them had at least four agencies that indicated they currently used them, and half of the 12 approaches had at least eight responses, again suggesting that transit agencies are considering a variety of methods to improve pedestrian safety. Surveys, of either passengers or non-passengers, were rarely used. • The most commonly cited approaches were safety/education outreach programs to passengers and to non-passengers, both of which were used by 11 agencies. A Close Call reporting system was used by 10 respondents. • As with crossing treatments, light transit rail agencies used more evaluation approaches than commuter transit rail agencies. The more types of rail service offered by an agency, the more approaches that agency used, in general. A common theme raised by survey respondents was that there was not a predominant set of standards or guidelines for applying specific treatments to specific situations. Consequently, one important aim of this research was to provide consistent guidelines based on good engineering judgment and consideration of site conditions as a useful tool for practitioners to use. In addition, even though transit agencies may use treatments and strategies based on prevailing conditions and existing guidance, their use does not negate the need for pedestrians to exercise personal responsibility or the need for some level of enforcement. 40