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 5: TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS INTRODUCTION The online survey of practitioners asked responding participants if they would be willing to be contacted by a member of the research team to discuss pedestrian crossing treatments or issues. The purpose of these supplemental telephone interviews was to ask for further details on specific treatments, perceived effectiveness at reducing conflicts, experiences with education or enforcement programs, concerns with—in addition to treatments implemented because of— NEPA requirements, and results of any studies or surveys that the transit agency may have conducted. TELEPHONE INTERVIEW ADMINISTRATION The goal of the telephone survey was to speak with up to 10 survey respondents from those that indicated they were willing to be contacted. Of the completed online surveys, 11 respondents answered they were willing to be contacted and provided contact information. The research team selected 10 of these participants for the phone survey. The online survey closed on Thursday, May 24, 2013. The schedule for the phone interviews was to be completed, if possible, by the early part of the following week. The researcher performing the telephone interviews began sending emails Tuesday, May 22, 2013, to those transit agencies that completed the online survey. The email language sent to the target transit agency persons was: “Thank you for participating in our online survey for our project to develop a Guidebook for Pedestrian Crossings for Public Transit Rail Services. You indicated that you are willing to be contacted for additional discussion on the pedestrian crossing treatments and issues associated with your agency. Please let me know a time this week or early next week that best accommodates your schedule for such a discussion.” The researcher received prompt replies from seven of the target persons. The remaining three were sent a follow-up email on Tuesday, May 28, 2013, with the following language: “I wanted to follow-up in hopes that you are able to accommodate this week a discussion on the pedestrian grade crossing treatments. Please let me know if there is a time that best suits your schedule.” Two of the remaining three agencies were scheduled following a reply from participants. A third brief follow-up email was sent to the remaining target person. This person had responded to the original email request indicating that they were very busy during the requested time period, so the two additional email requests were personalized to include possible time windows in an effort to identify workable interview time slots. The phone survey consisted of 15 questions (shown in Figure 11) that are generally divided into six areas of interest: • Treatment effectiveness (Questions 1 through 4). • Removal of treatments (Question 5). • Audit/diagnostic review (Questions 6 and 7). • Education and enforcement (Questions 7 through 11). 41

• NEPA accommodation (Questions 12 and 13). • Guidance documents (Questions 14 and 15). Questions 1 through 3 target each treatment identified by the responder within the online survey, so the phone interview could cover as many as 35 treatments, plus any others posted in the comment box. Question 4 prompts the interviewer to repeat the first three questions for each treatment. Question 5 asks about identified treatments that the transit agency used and later removed. This question also would be asked for each treatment identified in the online survey. Follow-up Telephone Interview Questions for up to 10 Survey Respondents 1. In your Web Survey you indicated that your transit agency uses __________________ (treatment/device/strategy) to improve pedestrian safety at public transit rail services crossings, including light rail, commuter rail, and streetcar services. What effect did (this treatment/device/strategy) have on reducing incidents for pedestrians? 2. How did you determine/document the effectiveness of this treatment/device/strategy? (Suggest the choices below if needed to assist the respondent in providing an answer.) □ Crash (accident) data analysis/safety study. □ Incident data analysis. □ Survey of pedestrians and transit riders. □ Observations or reports of risky behavior or near-misses. □ Anecdotal evidence. □ Other (please explain) 3. (If a formal study or other written report is available, ask if we can obtain a copy.) 4. (Repeat Questions 1–3 for each treatment of interest that was reported by the respondent in the web survey.) 5. (If the transit agency tried and removed a treatment, ask…) In your Web Survey you indicated that your transit agency used and later removed __________________ (treatment/device/strategy). Why? 6. (If the transit agency uses an audit/diagnostic team review of pedestrian crossings, ask…) In utilizing a safety audit/diagnostic team review of pedestrian crossings do you use any guidance document or checklist? If so, can we obtain a copy? 7. What personnel is typically part of the audit/diagnostic team? 8. To what extent have you used education/outreach strategies to improve pedestrian safety at public transit rail services crossings? 9. What was the result or effect of the educational strategies you used (and how did you determine that)? 10. To what extent have you used enforcement strategies to improve pedestrian safety at public transit rail services crossings? 11. What was the result or effect of the enforcement strategies you used (and how did you determine that)? 12. Has accommodation of NEPA requirements led your transit agency to consider or implement particular treatments to maintain or to improve pedestrian safety at public transit rail services crossings? If so, what treatments, and why were they considered or implemented? Were there treatments you considered, but rejected because of NEPA? 13. What was the result or effect of the NEPA-related strategies you used (and how did you determine that)? 14. What manuals or guidance documents does your transit agency typically use (or are required to use) when planning for, designing, and installing pedestrian treatments at rail crossings? (Suggest the choices below if needed to assist the respondent in providing an answer.) □ Federal MUTCD. □ State MUTCD. □ ADA regulations. □ Transit agency manual(s) (please specify). □ State agency manual(s) (please specify). □ Other manual(s) from a state regulating agency (please specify). □ Other (please explain). 15. Thinking of the documents you just mentioned, what guidance on pedestrian treatments at rail crossings would you like to see added or improved in those documents? Figure 11. Telephone interview questions. 42

TELEPHONE INTERVIEW RESPONSES This section summarizes the findings from telephone interviews undertaken by nine transit agency persons who identified their interest in being contacted for further discussion within the online survey. It begins with a section of general findings gleaned from the conversations, with following sections related to the six areas of interest defined above. Treatment Effectiveness The initial interview questions were intended to discuss the treatments selected by the transit agencies in the online survey. Most responses did not include a measure of effectiveness. On some occasions, the participant would say that a particular device seemed to be effective in maintaining pedestrian safety at a crossing. Most of the discussion involved how the particular devices were used on their system. Responses related to the particular treatments are discussed in the following subsections. Barriers Treatments categorized as barriers either provide channelization to direct pedestrian movements or a physical barrier to stop pedestrian movements: • Channelization. Channelization proactively creates a situation where the pedestrians cross the tracks in the designed location. o Channelization can be designed at crossings in a way that forces the users to point in the direction of a potential oncoming train. The Z-pedestrian or maze crossing design forces the user to face one direction and then the other before approaching the crossing. o Respondents largely identified channelization use around station locations, with other uses at locations with limited sight distances. Channelization not at crossings was designed to force pedestrians toward designated crossings, including between tracks at stations. o In designing channelization, one transit agency highlighted the need to place channelization back away from the crossing enough to capture users. If too short or placed too close to the crossings, users could choose to bypass the channelization and use the street. If they find themselves already in the channelization they will continue through as designed. o In general, channelization is less likely to be utilized in a downtown setting. o As far as effectiveness, one transit agency classified channelization at the approach to a crossing as very effective. Another transit agency indicated that they have a new standard to not allow straight approaches to platforms or straight paths across platforms, which entails utilizing channelization. • Pedestrian automatic gate or pedestrian swing gates. Gates block passage of pedestrians by either actively shielding the path for a train movement, such as with automatic gates, or by causing a user to stop and open a gate before proceeding. o The use of pedestrian swing gates is usually coupled with channelization. However, one transit agency mentioned using a pedestrian swing gate at one location where space did not allow for a maze. 43

o Active warning systems (lights/gates/bells) were stated to be placed on the outside of the sidewalk on some occasions, which allows the gates to cover both the sidewalk and roadway when activated. However, this approach was not necessarily a standard approach but one that was necessitated by the individual crossing design requirements. Design Design treatments selected during the online survey covered a wide-array of treatments: • Changes to stop/terminal design. One transit agency performed a couple of terminal design changes by moving two inbound crossings to outbound. Their evaluation found several incidents that occurred while trains were traveling into the station. • Flangeway gap treatment. Three transit agencies described flangeway gap treatments. One survey respondent indicated making a commitment to the ADA community that involves regularly measuring and monitoring the flangeway gaps. They use both wood and plastic, with plastic stated as performing the best. Another respondent uses an extremely firm rubbery material that last a long time. The third transit agency has installed metal bars to close the gap that was originally designed to freight rail standards. • Illumination/lighting. Whether it is from existing street lighting or lighting as part of their system, all the respondents that selected lighting indicated the desire to provide well-lit pedestrian crossings. One transit agency highlighted that good lighting is important for both the pedestrians and the train operators. • Mirrors. Two transit agencies mentioned utilizing mirrors for pedestrian crossing safety. Both agencies did not think they are effective for grade crossing line of sight issues. • Offset pedestrian crossing. The offset pedestrian crossing (Z-pedestrian crossing) was discussed by respondents in conjunction with channelization. • Pedestrian refuge area. The creation of refuge areas is dependent on the spacing between the two track centers and the overall crossing width. Where the light rail runs in the middle of a street and there are multiple roadway lanes in each direction, a refuge area is created in the middle to accommodate crossing the street over two cycles. • Removable barriers. One transit agency installed removable bollards and chains in the downtown near a Saturday market area to provide a barrier between the market area and train tracks. • Sidewalk. Sidewalk changes described by respondents involved redesigning crossings so people are crossing the tracks at a 90-degree angle. • Sidewalk relocation. The active crossing system gate counterweights protruding into the sidewalk path is typically the reason for sidewalk relocation. One option identified is cutting back the counterweights in addition to adjusting the sidewalks. • Sight distance improvements. Sight distance improvements included the removal of some sound walls away from crossings, trimming trees, and other vegetation removal. More sight distance improvement discussion is included within the NEPA discussion later in this section. 44

Markings Several respondents feel that markings provide clear delineation for pedestrians, with one observation being that users do not like standing on markings and will stop behind a marking to wait for a train to pass. Another observation is that markings benefit train operators in seeing people intruding into the right-of-way by providing a delineation line. One respondent indicated that their train operators will sound the horn if someone is standing on or beyond the yellow stop line. Treatments discussed during the interviews include: • Detectable warnings on sidewalk. Detectable warning surfaces provide a physical warning on sidewalks and pathways, which are especially effective for people with disabilities. Five of the agencies described using detectable warnings at the approach of grade crossings. • Pavement markings. Pavement markings are often used in conjunction with other treatments, including the detectable warning strips. Three respondents indicated pavement markings with words or STOP sign symbols. One respondent indicated this clearly tells people what to do. Three specific activities identified include: o Placing either a red 4-inch band with the message WATCH FOR TRAINS or a 3-foot wide tactile strip. o Utilizing pavement markings as stop lines that say STOP HERE that contain a STOP sign between the words. The STOP HERE pavement marking is coupled with the tactile warning strip, placed just prior to the strip. They also have DO NOT STAND HERE pavement markings between tracks, depending on the distance between tracks. o Using a thermoplastic STOP sign on the pavement at every crossing and a LOOK marking after the tactile strip, if the distance between the tactile and track is beyond a certain distance. • Stop lines on sidewalk. Two transit agencies indicated using stop lines that do not contain wording. One transit agency has stop lines on all light rail pedestrian crossings and the two commuter rail pedestrian crossings. Operations Two of the transit agencies indicate the light rail vehicles are required to stop at every station. However, one transit agency indicated that trains that are out-of-service pass through the stations at 5 mph. One respondent highlighted that although light rail vehicles stop at every station that is not the case for commuter and Amtrak trains that can pass through shared stations at elevated speeds. Signals Signals can provide visual and audible warning to pedestrians, such as: • Audible crossing warning devices. Audible warning devices are largely represented as bells on active warning systems. Those bells are either mechanical bells or electronic devices that mimic the sound of a mechanical bell. To focus the noise, the bell housing can be shrouded to direct the sound toward approaching pedestrian and roadway users. In an effort to reduce the impact of the audible warning to surrounding areas, one transit 45

agency is using a device that adjusts the volume output to be 10 decibels over the ambient decibel level. Another option to reduce the noise impact on the surrounding area is to only have the bell sounding while the gate arms are lowering and rising, instead of constantly chiming. Another transit agency specified using crosswalk bells at station crossings. An additional transit agency indicated there was a project in the past that included a special audible warning that stated a message of DO NOT STOP. A final transit agency mentioned installing audible train warnings with flashing lights on a new system alignment and having the bell sound on blank out signs. • Flashing light signals. One respondent indicated that on a new line they have pedestrian flashing light signals with white LOOK signs and blank out active second train coming signs. Another respondent indicated flashing light signals are effective, with theirs being used in conjunction with signage on ground and target signs. • In-pavement flashing lights. One transit agency indicated they are experimenting with utilizing embedded lights that are triggered by approaching trains. They currently have a vehicle application. • Low-rise flashing lights. One respondent discussed the use of low-rise flashing lights. They are currently changing these applications to a 5-foot high lighting system, along with some new pedestrian flashing light assemblies as found in the MUTCD. • Pedestrian signals. Pedestrian signals were discussed as being used in downtown areas, with in-street running, and at platforms. One transit agency has been adding countdown timers on the pedestrian signals, which appear to be more effective. Signing Sign usage involved both static and active signs, such as: • Second train warning signs. Second train warning signs, both active and static, were discussed by seven agencies. Not all were described as specifically second train warnings but as just a warning of any train approaching. Below is a listing of how transit agencies are using these signs: o Placing a big yellow static LOOK FOR TRAINS sign at crossings. o Using two blank out signs for pedestrians. For this transit agency on the new line, they are adapting the blank out sign for pedestrians prior to the active warning device at crossings adjacent to the stations only. The second active blank out sign by stations is on the active warning device and consists of a yellow diamond sign with red SECOND TRAIN that lights up. o Utilizing active blank out signs on new corridors. This transit agency is looking to retrofit on older corridors and make standard at crossings on future corridors. o Classified as an EMS that lights up when a train is coming, it is active when the standard flashers are activated and is used at locations if a pedestrian cannot typically cross the tracks into a zone of safety within 20 seconds. This transit agency only has a few applications on their system where the crossing characteristics required additional safety treatments. o Utilizing black signs with white cutouts that say SECOND TRAIN COMING. This transit agency characterized these as expensive and complicated since the system monitors both tracks and both directions. 46

o Utilizing an active sign that consists of an arrow at the top that points one way and a second arrow on the bottom that points the other way. The goal is to get users to look both ways before crossing the tracks. o Using a LOOK sign at each crossing with the goal to get people to look both ways at every crossing, every time. In addition, this transit agency utilizes an active blank out sign at high pedestrian count crossings or at school zone areas with LOOK BOTH WAYS with red arrows above a train. The system also emits an audible bell sound. • Static Signs. Other static signs utilized include standard highway-rail grade crossing signs, LOOK signs, LOOK BOTH WAYS signs, LOOK BOTH WAYS BEFORE CROSSING TRACKS signs, DANGER MOVING TRAIN signs, NO TRESPASSING signs, DANGER HIGH VOLTAGE signs, and STOP HERE WHEN FLASHING. o One transit agency indicated that the big yellow static LOOK FOR TRAINS sign has regularly increased in size to its current large size. o Another transit agency uses the STOP HERE WHEN FLASHING signs to point to the tactile strip and stop line on the ground. The sign provides the proper message when there is snow on the ground covering the pavement markings. o Two transit agencies mentioned placing static signs on the vehicular active grade crossing system gate arm counterweights. When the gates are activated and the counterweight raises, one transit agency has decals on the counterweight with STOP on them along with the statue and fine. Another transit agency has LOOK FOR TRAINS on their counterweights. • Warning signs for enforcement. The use of warning messages for enforcement on signs involves including the local civil code and code number. They may also list the specific fine amount. One respondent feels that these signs provide a short term effect when used on new projects, with the impact lessening over time. Removal of Treatments Only one respondent indicated that they used and later removed particular treatments. The three treatments indicated were removed as part of retrofitting older crossings with newer technologies or design standards. One crossing that formerly used an old-style pedestrian gate, which was difficult to use and was often not properly functioning, was redesigned to their new channelization design and treatments. Audit/Diagnostic Review Seven of the nine agencies indicated performing audit/diagnostic team reviews of pedestrian crossings. The California agencies that participated in the telephone interview indicated state mandates through the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) require a diagnostic review when changes are made to crossings. These agencies also indicate they may prompt a diagnostic review based on internal guidelines. One of the California transit agencies submits a hazard analysis report for each new crossing to the CPUC. This process includes a diagnostic team review that brings out all interested parties (local city engineer, CPUC, transit agency staff, freight railroad if parallel) to examine design plans and validate or identify missing items. The other way to get approval for a new crossing through the CPUC is with an application process. 47

In terms of using a checklist, one transit agency indicated they use a formal checklist, while another transit agency indicated they use an informal checklist for internal use only. Others indicated that the MUTCD or other guidance documents were the references used. Education and Enforcement All the agencies interviewed indicated that some level of education and enforcement activities were taking place on their systems. Those activities varied greatly among the participants. One respondent was not entirely aware of what their agencies were doing for education and enforcement because those activities are outside their department but stated that some activities were happening. In addition to regularly distributing material, all the responders that mentioned recently opened or soon-to-open lines indicated significant educational activities related to the opening. Most mentioned providing targeted mailings to people near the new corridor, pamphlets and other handouts; radio and television spots; presentations at school, churches, and other civic locations; and discussions and presentation to city councils and other local agencies where the line traverses. One transit agency, through their Community Relocations Department, educates children on how to safely ride trains and interact with trains at crossings and stations by first showing the unsafe behaviors and then showing the proper behavior. One highlighted that the targeted campaigns for new lines also translates into education for the entire system. One respondent mentioned that it used to be difficult to get into schools to share safety messages, but now they are invited into the schools. Two innovative education activities are discussed below: • Los Angeles County MTA. They have a Rail Safety Ambassador Program where retired train operators are positioned at new rail crossing locations for 12 months (6 months before and 6 months after opening) to observe behaviors and educate the public out in the field. These Rail Safety Ambassadors also provide input into any perceived safety concerns at the crossing. This program received an APTA Innovator Award in June 2013. • Denver RTD. They developed a mock-up of a crossing on a flatbed trailer and went to different schools to demonstrate how to safely cross at crossings. It has an active warning system (lights/bells/gate arms) that activates to demonstrate the safety devices at grade crossings. Enforcement activities also varied widely between the transit agencies. Some of the activities are performed by in-house police or security departments, while others are done along with local agencies. Three transit agencies indicated the use of targeted enforcement. One of these transit agencies targets a different grade crossing each week. They also have a distracted pedestrian ordinance that allows for citations for those persons who cross the tracks without looking because their attention is focused on their phones, music device, or other distracting item. In addition to Engineering, Education, and Enforcement, this transit agency also adds Encouragement. So in addition to handing out citations and warnings for improper behaviors they hand out rewards for good behavior. In discussing enforcement, two transit agencies pointed out that enforcement activities are enhanced by the publicity and attention drawn to them. Basically, people talk about it, so the 48

message spreads. In determining effectiveness, one respondent felt that enforcement helps greatly in the short term but was not certain that behaviors are permanently adjusted as a result of enforcement activities. NEPA Accommodations Discussions on the impact of NEPA on crossing treatments largely revolved around sound issues. A couple of the respondents did not know what the acronym NEPA stood for, which prompted a question as to whether they had to make adjustments or implement treatments based on noise or other environmental concerns. Common treatments to reduce the noise impacts include placing shrouds on the bells on active warning devices to focus the sound, activating the bells only while the gate arms are descending, and adjusting the volume levels. As stated previously, one transit agency is using a device, which adjusts the volume output to be 10 decibels over the ambient decibel level. Several transit agencies mentioned having sound walls along portions of their system. One respondent specifically discussed recently improving sight distance for pedestrians at crossings by redesigning sound walls placed along the corridor. This included purchasing homes at the corners in order to open up visibility, largely to pull sound walls back and angle the wall. In one location where sight distance is an issue, not as a result of a NEPA action, they added a second train coming blank out sign as an extra treatment. Guidance Documents The major guidance documents included the MUTCD (federal and/or state), ADA regulations, state regulations, and transit agency specific design documents. One respondent also mentioned reviewing crash write-ups from National Transportation Safety Board and FRA, while one mentioned reviewing standards from around the world. There were not many guidance items mentioned for the final question. One transit agency mentioned wanting a summary of what treatments each agency uses, so they would know who to call. Another one mentioned a scenario often asked by community members along new routes, which involves how to determine effective treatments if only five pedestrians an hour cross compared to 40 pedestrians an hour. Basically, they want to know why lower counts would get less safety treatments than crossings with higher counts. FINDINGS Most of the respondents acknowledged the difficulty in measuring the effectiveness of treatments. One was adamant that it was impossible to tell effectiveness, stating that the same treatments at two different crossings will result in different behavior and ultimately different safety results. They also stated that effectiveness of any device is only as good as people choose to obey it. The major theme in discussions seemed to be that the difficulty is largely due to each crossing being unique and the fact that most do not identify with just a single treatment but with a system of treatments. 49

Another general finding is that they all seem to know what each other is doing and will copy each other if they think it is a good idea. One person indicated that they now flash the lights on their device because someone else started flashing the lights. One respondent provided good insight into this idea by stating it assists them in justifying their proposed actions (installing new device, etc.) by noting how another agency addressed a similar issue with an installation. Two respondents indicated that this is a good reason for this project and the potential for a standardized approach around the country. Line of sight was the most significant issue discussed by participants. Two respondents highlighted the importance of maintaining good line of sight for the transit vehicle operator, in addition to vehicle and pedestrian line of sight. One transit agency has actively addressed sight distance issues at crossings and began installing treatments, such as the Z-design, that force pedestrians to look in the direction of a potential oncoming train. The design, along with pavement markings and signs, also encourages every pedestrian to look both ways every time they approach a grade crossing. Budget constraints were discussed by several respondents. One respondent highlighted that it is cheaper to properly install treatments from the beginning than to add or alter the treatments later. Another suggested that they attempt to maintain their standard design at all crossings, with a few exceptions that necessitate increased protection devices, in order to not create a precedent that will cost more money than they can support. One transit agency, however, is actively going back and retrofitting older crossings with newer technologies to enhance crossing safety, which indicates that as systems mature changes will likely be required to maintain safety to new standards. Two transit agencies mentioned they are very active in their interaction with people with disabilities. One participant mentioned a Mobility Advisory Committee that reviews and provides comments on any additions or modifications at crossings and also provides input based on daily interaction with the system. The other agency has a School for the Blind near a station and welcomes the school to use the station platform for training and experience gaining. This same agency includes persons with disabilities as participants in all exercises to provide real- world responses. In relation to approaching pedestrian safety, general approaches include: • Directing the pedestrians to cross where you want them to cross the tracks. • Encouraging the pedestrians to look both ways before crossing. • Providing consistency in safety treatments throughout the system by providing the basics and enhancing when required. 50