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 6: SITE VISITS Members of the research team visited several public transit rail services crossings within select regions as part of this research. These visits provided the opportunity to observe the challenges faced by pedestrians at public transit rail services crossings. The observations were not intended to be a judgment on the condition of the rail systems. Rather, the observations helped with the development of the Guidebook. Therefore, post-site visit, the observations were grouped within broad categories that were used with the presentation of treatments within the Guidebook. The observations were also envisioned to affect the discussions included within the Guidebook, so to emphasize how to analyze conditions at a crossing with respect to the needs of pedestrians. OVERVIEW OF SITE VISIT METHODOLOGY Region Selection Regions considered for the site visits were shortlisted based on the nature of their pedestrian treatment crossing design (either geometric or traffic control device), crossing policies, and the extent to which a site represents a distinct category of treatment practice, service area type, or regional category. Another consideration was to have the sites represent different areas of the United States. The sites selected, and the reason for the selection, are listed in Table 8. The initial site visit was to Boston. It occurred between August 4 and 9, 2013, within Phase I of the project. After meeting with the panel, the remaining two site visit locations were identified. The second site visit was to Portland (January 23 and 25, 2014) and the third visit was to the Los Angeles area (January 26 and 29, 2014), and these visits occurred within Phase II of the project. Table 8. Reasons for selecting locations for site visits. Region Reasons for Selection Boston • Operates light rail and commuter rail and has Amtrak operating in some stations. • Most used light rail system in the United States. • Wide variety of pedestrian treatments and approaches to improve safety. • Location also provides the opportunity to attend one day of a national meeting where pedestrian/rail issues were discussed. Portland • Operates streetcar, light rail, and commuter rail. • Uniform application. • Updating devices throughout to current standards. • Mature network with new/recent/upcoming lines. • Removed devices. • Variety of treatments used. Los Angeles • Operates light rail but has connections with commuter rail. • Extensive network with high ridership. • Wide variety of pedestrian treatments, both MUTCD and non-MUTCD- compliant, and approaches to improve safety. • Willing to test new treatments. 51

Research Staff for Visits Three key personnel, representing rail (Jeff Warner), pedestrians with disabilities (Billie Louise Bentzen), and roadway design/traffic control devices (Kay Fitzpatrick), participated on each trip with a focus on his or her particular areas of expertise. The team approach was critical for the site visits. Pedestrian-rail crossings involve many disciplines; however, unification of these perspectives into a single coherent vision of pedestrian crossings of public transit rail services was critical for the practical application of this research. Consequently, the site visit team integrated their respective observations and insights on a real-time basis during the site visit and immediately following the conclusion of each regional trip. Pre-Visit Plans The mechanics of the site inspection process included extensive pre-visit planning to identify crossing locations with certain specified features and to schedule interviews with key transit and roadway agency staff and local disability specialists, as appropriate. Desired was agency staff with planning, operations, design, and/or traffic control device responsibility, including selecting treatments for pedestrian-rail crossings, to participate in the meetings with the site visit team. Prior to the visit, the research team requested that agency staff suggest between 12 and 20 pedestrian-rail crossings that the research team should visit. A mix of locations with good pedestrian accommodations and locations where the pedestrian accommodations could be improved was sought. A reasonable route to visit as many of these pedestrian-rail crossings as feasible was developed prior to travel. Examples of site characteristics of interest included the following: • High pedestrian activity. • Recently installed pedestrian treatments (and the reason the treatments were installed). • Pedestrian-rail crossing with typical pedestrian treatments for the system. • Pedestrian-rail crossings with unique pedestrian treatments due to characteristics of the crossing. • Pedestrian-rail crossings at stations with connections with other rail systems and/or part of an intermodal transfer center. • Pedestrian-rail crossing modified with input from disability specialist or advocacy group. Site Visit – Review of Pedestrian-Rail Crossings The research team visited several pedestrian-rail crossing sites prior to interviews with agency representatives. Completion of the inspection before the interviews enabled the researchers to prepare for discussion of details during the scheduled meetings. The inspection of the pedestrian- rail crossings used passive observation of the actual use of physical facilities, including the individuals using those facilities and the artifacts of their use. This tactic is appropriate for pedestrian-rail crossings because the level and nature of the use of a facility is a critical indicator of the success of the design and placement of that feature. During each visit to a crossing, the research team: • Documented site characteristics. • Photographed the crossing, nearby area, and installed treatments. 52

• Used the crossing(s) in multiple directions, noting any features or issues from a pedestrian’s perspective. • Discussed the treatments with station personnel, transit riders, non-riding pedestrians, and others as available and appropriate. • Recorded comments and observations. Site Visit – Meetings The meetings were guided by a list of questions to ensure coverage of predetermined critical issues and questions. In addition, the research team asked questions based on notes prepared upon completion of the crossing investigations. The meetings were not, however, limited to those questions, allowing for probing and follow-up on unanticipated elements in the discussion. Post-Site Visit In addition to the largely spontaneous real-time comparisons of observations and impressions between project team members, a more formal de-briefing was performed at the end of each regional visit. These sessions consolidated and documented the observations from the site visit, thus minimizing the loss of data due to the inherently coarse nature of field notes, as well as avoiding confusing the sites and regions. Following the trip, the research team members: • Transcribed key written notes into typed documents. • Stored, labeled, and shared site photos. • Conferred with other members of the travel team to assemble and synthesize notes and observations from the site and from the agency discussions. Institute of Transportation Engineers Annual Meeting The timing of the site visit to Boston also permitted the research team to attend one of the sessions held at the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) annual meeting. The session was on pedestrian issues and safety initiatives in railroad corridors. As noted during the ITE Session, Utah has a new ordinance that prohibits crossing a railroad grade crossing while distracted (41). The examples of distraction listed in the ordinance include talking on a cell phone, texting, having earphones or ear buds in both ears, attending to personal hygiene or grooming, or reading. The penalty for this offense is a $50 civil fine; repeat offenses carry a $100 fine. The new ordinance is Chapter 5.14, Section 1M. BOSTON SITE VISIT Meetings in Boston During the trip, the research team met with the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), Massachusetts Bay Commuter Railroad Company (MBCR), pedestrian advocates, and orientation and mobility specialists. 53

Site Visit in Boston The Boston MBTA light rail system had several different alignments: • Semi-exclusive alignment category b.1 separate right-of-way; see example in Figure 12 (Green Line: D-branch). Semi-exclusive alignments have in-station crossings. • Semi-exclusive alignment category b.3 shared right-of-way, protected by barrier curb – Median-running and side running; see example in Figure 13 (Green Line: B-branch). Pedestrians cross within crosswalks, mostly at roadway intersections, with a few pedestrian-only crossings. The pedestrian-only crossings had traffic signals for the motor vehicles to stop for pedestrians crossing on a designated roadway crosswalk. • Non-exclusive alignment category c.1 mixed traffic operation – street running; see example in Figure 14 (Green Line: E-branch). Pedestrians cross the outside roadway lane to enter/exit the light rail vehicle that is being operated within the inside roadway lane. • The Boston MBTA commuter rail system had semi-exclusive alignment category b.1 separate right-of-way; see example in Figure 15. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 12. Example of an in-station pedestrian crossing. 54

source: Fitzpatrick Figure 13. Example of a median-running train approaching a pedestrian and roadway crossing. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 14. Example of a street running train approaching a pedestrian crossing. 55

source: Warner Figure 15. Example of commuter rail. The research team visited more than 25 pedestrian-rail crossings within the light rail and the commuter rail systems. For the light rail system, the team rode the light rail and alighted at stations of interest or walked between stations to review examples of pedestrian-rail crossings that occurred away from a station. For the reviews of the pedestrian-rail crossings of the commuter rails, MBTA generously provided a staff member to drive the research team to the suggested locations. During the visits to the pedestrian-rail crossings, the research team used a checklist to assist in gathering information. Not all items on the checklist were relevant at all pedestrian-rail crossings, and in many cases the research team could not definitively state whether an item was present, for example, sufficient street lighting, due to the limited time the team was present. The initial checklist was developed from roadway safety audit guidelines, which is a more exhaustive review of a location than the method being used in this study. The checklists were modified for the regions visited in Phase II to better align with the study methodology being used for these site visits. While the checklists were more extensive than needed, they did assist the research team in considering several components of the rail crossing design. Observation Development for Boston During the week in Boston, each team member independently developed a list of key observations based on the site visits and the meetings. These lists were exchanged and then the team members conducted a conference call to review and expand upon the observations. The following sections summarize the observations grouped within broad categories that were envisioned to be used with the presentation of treatments within the Guidebook. 56

General Observations for Boston The following are general observations for Boston: • Because of the number of segments traveled, and the fact that these segments often involve different transit agencies, the entire door-to-door trip for a pedestrian using transit can vary greatly along the way with regard to usability and safety features. One of the pedestrian advocates indicated that better consistency is needed in signing, markings, and other treatments between the rail segment and the road segment of a multimodal trip. • Pedestrians take the shortest path regardless of where the markings are or how the station is designed, unless there is a barrier directing them to a preferred crossing location. An example of the shortest path observation is when the train stopped near but not at an intersection. When the doors opened, the travelers exited the train and then continued in a straight path across the road. In some cases, this was several hundred feet from the signalized intersection or in a median where the patron had to step off a curb. Another example is that although there were signs forbidding travelers to cross light rail tracks in a station, many alighting passengers took the shortest route to the exit, preferring to negotiate the elevation changes and roughness of crossing the track bed closer to the train instead of traveling down the platform to the marked (and smoother) crossing. • A shift in color and/or texture at a rail crossing could be a better approach at communicating the crossing location than signs, especially considering where a pedestrian is looking when walking. A concern in the northern areas is that snow may cover the color change. Observations Related to Traffic Control Devices – Markings and Detectable Warnings for Boston The following are observations related to markings and detectable warnings: • Use of pavement markings at the pedestrian-rail crossings of the light rail system largely consisted of solid yellow painted crosswalks (see Figure 16 and Figure 17). White pavement markings were used on the roadway approaches to the rail crossings (see Figure 18 and Figure 19). In a few cases the solid yellow was supplemented with white lines (see Figure 20). The research team observed different signing and markings when the train stopped within the middle of a street without a station (i.e., trolley service). Figure 21 shows that the roadway white continental pavement markings are also used across the rail crossing. In some cases no pavement markings were present at the pedestrian-rail crossing (see Figure 22 and Figure 23). • Several light rail crossings were marked with yellow paint for the entire crossing surface (see Figure 16 and Figure 17). Crossings that are solidly painted in a color contrasting with the pavement are more conspicuous and more likely to be visually identifiable to pedestrians with low vision than crossings that are discontinuous, such as transverse or diagonal markings. However, solidly painted areas may become slippery when wet and they require considerable maintenance; although when asked about this potential condition the transit agency noted that multiple complaints about a slick surface have not been received. 57

• Yellow paint may also be used to indicate the dynamic envelope of trains (see Figure 24 and Figure 25). The message to passengers is not to travel beyond the yellow stripe because they will be in danger of being struck by the side of a train. • Yellow detectable warnings, whether used at a platform edge (see Figure 26), used to indicate the dynamic envelope of trains, or used to mark the bottom of curb ramps, indicate to all travelers, including those with visual impairments, where they should stop because there is vehicular danger immediately beyond the tactile surface. • Using yellow paint for the dynamic envelope and solid yellow paint for the pedestrian crossing of the tracks can result in mixed messages. For example, the yellow is being used to communicate two messages: yellow for the dynamic envelop means “do not stand here” or “there is a hazard beyond this line” while the solid yellow on the crossing of the track means “cross here.” Figure 24 shows an aerial view of a crossing in Boston that illustrates how the yellow is being used both for the crossing and as a warning for the edge of the train. Another interpretation of the meaning of the yellow in both places is that it presents a message that pedestrians should not stand or stay for long while on the marked section. • A challenge with narrow medians is the minimal space available for storing waiting pedestrians or bicyclists. As illustrated in Figure 25, the bicyclist is waiting on the solid yellow markings for the WALK indication. • Platforms were frequently marked with wide yellow paint (example shown in Figure 25) or with tactile strips (example shown in Figure 26). • Detectable warnings were used at many platform edges and curb ramps. • Where pedestrians should stop and wait in the median area near a crossing when a train is approaching was not always clear. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 16. Example of solid yellow markings used at pedestrian-rail crossing near a pedestrian-roadway crossing. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 17. Example of solid yellow markings used at pedestrian-rail crossing within a station. 58

source: Fitzpatrick Figure 18. Example of crosswalk markings for roadway and rail; note the lack of curb ramp between the roadway and the median. source: Warner Figure 19. Another example of crosswalk markings for roadway and rail. In addition, note the lack of curb ramp between the roadway and the median. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 20. Example of combining both yellow and white markings at a pedestrian-rail crossing. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 21. Example of pavement crosswalk markings used with mixed traffic. 59

source: Fitzpatrick Figure 22. Example of no pavement markings or detectable warnings for pedestrian-rail crossing and solid red bricks within white transverse lines for the nearby pedestrian-roadway crossing. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 23. Another example of no pavement markings or detectable warnings for pedestrian-rail crossing and solid red bricks within white transverse lines for the nearby pedestrian-roadway crossing. source: Google Earth Figure 24. Pedestrian crossing of roadway and tracks for light-rail being operated in the median; note differences in how the pedestrian crossing is marked for the roadway (white continental markings) and the rail (solid yellow markings). 60

source: Fitzpatrick Figure 25. Example of challenges in waiting area within narrow median – bicyclist is waiting in area painted yellow. Also example of yellow paint used as warning for edge of train. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 26. Example of detectable warning strip used at edge of platform. Observations Related to Traffic Control Devices – Signs for Boston The following are observations related to signs: • At several locations a non-MUTCD sign with the words LOOK BEFORE ENTERING TRACK AREA was installed (see Figure 27). These signs are orange in color. The location and height varied between installations, perhaps reflecting limitations at a crossing. Some were posted on the fence between the tracks, which could be several feet away from the pedestrian-rail crossing, while others were posted on existing street light or power poles. • An example of the sign used when the train stops within the middle of a street without a station is shown in Figure 28. • Signing needs to be reviewed for both directions for the pedestrian. While signing for a one-way street may only need the Crossbuck Assembly on the one approach for vehicles, the Crossbuck Assemblies are needed for both directions for pedestrians. Figure 29 shows an example where the face of the Crossbuck Assemblies is only visible from the roadway approach. • A number of pedestrians were observed walking and texting. These pedestrians may never see signs because they are not looking up and forward. Signs on the pavement or close to the pavement such as on a fence or barrier, are likely to be seen by pedestrians even while texting. Signs on pavement (also known as horizontal signing) may need to be supplemented in regions with snow. • Traffic control devices were also used along the tracks, for example, a Stop sign was used within a station to indicate that train operators should stop prior to reaching the pedestrian-rail crossing (see Figure 30). Another example of a sign assumed to be for the train operators is a sign warning of a downstream pedestrian-rail crossing (see Figure 31). 61

source: Fitzpatrick Figure 27. Sign used at several pedestrian- rail crossings. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 28. Example of sign used with mixed traffic operations. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 29. Example where the back, but not the front, of the crossbuck assemblies are present for the pedestrian approach. 62

source: Fitzpatrick Figure 30. Example of a stop sign used between tracks to indicate train operators should stop train prior to the pedestrian-rail crossing. source: Warner Figure 31. Example of a warning sign used to inform train operators that a pedestrian-rail crossing is ahead. 63

Observations Related to Active Traffic Control Devices – Signals or Audible Warning Devices for Boston The following are observations related to signals or audible warning devices: • Exclusive style of pedestrian phasing (i.e., the WALK signal is on for all approaches at the same time) can result in long waits for pedestrians, especially at complex intersections with many turning vehicles. At these intersections, pedestrians were frequently crossing within the DON’T WALK phase. • The audible warning and red flashing message on the Amtrak station platform warned of an approaching train. • One site was at an intersection where the major roadway had multiple lanes along with a parallel collector-distributor road. This configuration resulted in several turning vehicles moving between not only the major and minor approaches, but also the collector- distributor road. In addition, exclusive pedestrian phasing was used so there were long waits for the pedestrian WALK signal. Several pedestrians were observed crossing against the DON’T WALK signal at this site. These pedestrians would travel to intermediate islands and then judge the traffic flow on the next section to make their decision on whether to cross. • At some locations with rail operations in the median, pedestrian signals seemed designed to permit the pedestrian to reach the center median where the pedestrian could either enter the station platform or wait for the next pedestrian signal to proceed across the remaining lanes of vehicle traffic. Pushbuttons were provided at the median. Observations Related to Active Traffic Control Devices – Automatic Gates for Boston The following are observations related to automatic gates: • Automatic pedestrian gates across sidewalks on both sides of the track were used along the commuter rail system. Figure 32 shows a photo of an automatic gate being used for both roadway and sidewalk. Figure 33 shows a shorter automatic gate used for the sidewalk while the longer automatic gate is used on the vehicle approach. • One possible contribution to the frequent use of automatic pedestrian gates is that many of the commuter lines are in quiet zones where the train horn is not utilized at pedestrian- rail crossings during normal operations. The federal train horn rule allows for using the horn if a safety concern is present, such as observing a pedestrian walking along the tracks or a car stopped on the tracks. Another possible contribution to the use of automatic pedestrian gates is where sight distance issues created by vegetation or other obstructions were present. 64

source: Warner Figure 32. Example of single automatic gate for both sidewalk and roadway. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 33. Example of automatic pedestrian gates. Observations Related to Design of the Crossing for Boston The following are observations related to design: • For median-running and side-running light rail operations, the pedestrian storage and platform waiting areas were often very tight. In some cases, these tight storage areas did not specifically provide dynamic envelope markings or any other indication where not to stand when a light rail vehicle is approaching. • When the train is in the middle of the road on a raised median, the waiting area for the pedestrian between the road and the train can be very narrow, perhaps uncomfortably narrow, especially if there are several patrons waiting to board the train. A misstep could place the pedestrian onto the active roadway or onto the train tracks. A barrier between waiting area and the road can help with keeping pedestrians off the roadway. • The combination of small refuge area, wide crossing, and unfavorable signal timing for pedestrians creates an uncomfortable waiting experience. At one location pedestrians had a long wait in a small refuge area while several cars moved past them at a high speed. • It is more difficult for a wheelchair to maneuver across the tracks when the pedestrian crossing is at an angle to the train tracks. The front casters of a wheelchair may become trapped in the flangeway preventing forward movement, and sometimes backward movement, of the wheelchair. If the person is traveling at speed, entrapment can result in propelling the person forward onto the tracks. • Grade separation of the pedestrian crossing and the rail provides a situation where the potential conflicts between pedestrians and trains are minimized. Unfortunately, the resulting structure can require an extensive, and expensive, structure that may not be overly pedestrian friendly (see Figure 34 and Figure 35). The conditions at the site shown in Figure 34 and Figure 35 have significant pedestrian and train volumes along with 65

higher speed operations to justify having a grade separation of the crossing. The novel design of this structure permits pedestrians who can manage stairs to travel a shorter route. While the structure may seem to provide an accessible route for people who cannot manage stairs, perhaps a majority of people who use manual wheelchairs would find it too long and exhausting to negotiate. Furthermore, landings are not at adequate intervals. The ADA Standards for Transportation Facilities (16) require level landings every 30 feet. At less demanding sites, having a well-marked at-grade crossing could be better than a grade separation, because the at-grade crossing would require less walking and no grade change for the pedestrian along with fewer structures for the transit agency to construct and maintain. source: Google Earth Figure 34. Example of grade separated pedestrian crossing, aerial view. source: Warner Figure 35. Example of grade separated pedestrian crossing, side view. 66

Observations Related to Orientation and Mobility for Boston The following are observations related to orientation and mobility: • Consistent wayfinding cues help blind pedestrians. Natural cues like grass lines or curbs can provide good wayfinding information for travelers with visual impairments who are familiar with a station, but may not help those who are unfamiliar with a station. • Pedestrians with visual impairments have difficulty negotiating across uneven walking surfaces. This is primarily because of concomitant conditions such as loss of sensitivity and control of ambulation as a result of diabetes or stroke, and other conditions associated with aging such as difficulty with balance, difficulty in adjusting gait to accommodate for different distances between preferred smoother areas, and decreasing contrast sensitivity and need for high levels of illumination. • In addition to illustrating the pavement markings at a crossing, the photographs in Figure 18 and Figure 19 also provide examples of missing curb ramps at the median for pedestrians. Because of the grade changes shown in Figure 18, a pedestrian in a wheelchair would have to move to the left of the crosswalk markings, into the parallel vehicular way, to cross the tracks. The pedestrian-rail crossing shown in Figure 19 has no ramps between the roadway and the median and is thus inaccessible to pedestrians who are unable to step up and down on curbs. • High ambient sound makes it difficult to hear light rail vehicles and to determine when it is safe to cross tracks. • Pedestrians who travel with the aid of a long white cane often follow the detectable warning surface at a platform edge to find the crossing. When there is not a drop-off at the platform edge, which can form the borders of the crossing, it can be difficult to determine where the crossing begins. Pedestrians who are visually impaired may travel past the crossing without recognizing it. Observations Related to Crossing Surface for Boston The following are observations related to crossing surface: • Material is added between the tracks and on either side of the track to facilitate pedestrian and vehicle crossing of the rails. The material needed is a function of the type and speed of the train. Rubber panels are appropriate for light rail but will buckle with heavy rail. Asphalt is a common treatment while some locations use concrete. • When the supplemental crossing material is broken along a track, or heaved up, it can result in a very uneven crossing that becomes a tripping hazard as well as being difficult for people using wheeled mobility aids to negotiate (see Figure 36 as an example). • How that material is marked with crosswalk pavement markings appeared to vary by location. Having these crossings marked with pavement markings would assist those with low vision to make the crossing. Visually impaired pedestrians who travel with the aid of a long white cane may find the edge of the crossing surface and use that as a guide. In some cases, this edge could be several feet away from where it would be preferred for the pedestrian to be crossing. Figure 37 shows an example of the uneven ends of a crossing. Using rubber panels on an angle crossing creates a crossing path with uneven ends that could present a confusing path for a pedestrian (see Figure 38 for an example). Figure 39 shows an example where the edge of the pedestrian-rail crossing is straight. 67

• When the tracks cross at an angle to the roadway, additional challenges are presented with communicating the desired path and with respect to wheelchairs or bicyclists being able to cross the rail at right angles (to minimize the chance of a wheel being caught in the flangeway gap). A crossing was redesigned to relocate the bicycle path so that the cyclists would cross the tracks at a near-right angle. Figure 40 shows an aerial view of the layout with Figure 41 showing a ground level view of the approach. Figure 42 shows a sign used near the crossing. • Maintaining a good surface between the tracks and a minimal gap at the track appeared to be challenging at some of the pedestrian-rail crossings. Vertical differences between the rail and the adjacent surface need to be kept to a minimum so that the uneven surface does not cause the swivel casters of a wheelchair to turn sideways and drop into the flangeway gap. • Several locations had flangeway fillers as shown in Figure 43 and Figure 44. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 36. Example of uneven surface. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 37. Example of uneven edges between the rubber panel used within the tracks and the asphalt used outside the tracks that make it difficult for pedestrians who are blind to follow the edge all the way across the crossing. 68

source: Fitzpatrick Figure 38. Example of rubber panels providing a distinctive edge of crossing, however, an uneven edge because of the nature of the panels and the angle crossing at this location. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 39. Example of straight edge for crossing. source: Google Earth Figure 40. Aerial view of bike path crossing of a rail. 69

source: Fitzpatrick Figure 41. Approach to bike crossing of railroad tracks. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 42. Signs used at bike crossing. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 43. Example of flangeway filler used in a crossing. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 44. Another example of flangeway filler. Observations Related to Fences and Barriers for Boston The following are observations related to fences and barriers: • Both the light rail and commuter rail systems utilized fencing to direct pedestrians to designated crossing locations and along desired pathways (path lines). • Figure 45 shows an example of a fence between a sidewalk and the tracks. The light rail system also maintained fencing between two tracks to direct pedestrians to designated pedestrian-rail crossings along some routes as shown in Figure 46 and Figure 13. • Figure 47 shows the decrease in height of the fence located between two tracks near a pedestrian-rail crossing to improve sight distance to crossing pedestrians for the train operator, and to the train for pedestrians. 70

• In some cases, the fence or a barrier was used between two tracks to completely restrict pedestrian-rail crossings. Examples are shown in Figure 48. • Fences or railings along or across a possible path of travel should have cane-detectable lower crossbars. The lower crossbar enables a person who is traveling with the aid of a long white cane to detect the fence or railing with the cane before contacting it bodily. A good height is 15 inches as required by PROWAG (17). • Signs or station information displays mounted between posts should also have a lower edge at 15 inches. While these signs or displays may not be in the typical path of travel, the addition of cane-detectable features should be considered if the item is located in a possible path of travel. Pedestrians who do not have vision are more likely than others to travel on paved areas along or near tracks, but not in the direct path of travel used by most travelers, because they do not have perceptible information about the direct path of travel. • The commuter rail roadway crossings with sidewalks had chain-link fencing outside the roadway right-of-way to prevent pedestrians from leaving the sidewalk to walk around the arm and mechanism of a lowered gate. • For a pedestrian-only crossing, there was an orange sign for train operators indicating they are approaching a pedestrian-only crossing (see Figure 31). At that crossing the fencing between the tracks was reduced in height on both approaches to the pedestrian crossing. When observing an approaching train, the body of the train was visible above the fencing a good distance away. Pictures taken from the light rail vehicle approaching a pedestrian-only crossing show that the height reduction assists in seeing a person walking across the crossing. source: Warner Figure 45. Example of fence between sidewalk and tracks prior to a crossing. 71

source: Fitzpatrick Figure 46. Example of fence used between two tracks within a station that ends prior to a marked pedestrian crossing. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 47. Example of change in fence height prior to pedestrian crossing to improve sight distance. 72

source: Fitzpatrick Figure 48. Example of fence used to restrict pedestrians walking across the rails and a pedestrian grade separate structure to accommodate the need to move from one station platform to the other. Observations Related to Train Operations for Boston The following are observations related to train operations: • Commuter rail operates in both a pull (locomotive in front) and push (locomotive in rear) configuration, so the locomotive may not be at front of an approaching train. In the push configuration, the front cab car does have the federally required light configuration and horn, like the front of a locomotive. • MBCR, the operator of commuter rail in Boston under the MBTA, has an operating rule that a commuter train is not allowed to enter select stations when there is a train sitting in the station. This hold out rule applies to stations with pedestrian-rail crossings and is a way of mitigating the second-train problem. • Mirrors were present at one of the stations to assist the train operator to detect pedestrians moving toward the train within the station (see Figure 49). • One of the commuter rail grade crossing locations with two tracks had an island detection system that would alert an approaching train of a vehicle present within the crossing. 73

source: Fitzpatrick Figure 49. Example of mirror in a station. Observations Related to Other Features for Boston The following are observations related to other features: • Each of the light rail vehicles was equipped with a bell used when coming into and exiting a train station, or when a conflict situation presented itself. They also were equipped with a loud train horn observed to be used when vehicles were inappropriately turning into the path of the train or attempting to pass the train while stopped in the street running portion of the system. • For the street running operations, the door of the light rail train was painted red with the word STOP stenciled on it to emphasize that vehicle drivers should stop for exiting/entering patrons (see Figure 50). Stenciling also included the words “state law.” • The lights on the front of the light rail vehicles were solid red while at stations, changing to white when moving. Some of the newer light rail vehicles had green lights while moving. This provided a visual cue to pedestrians and motor vehicles as to whether the train was stopped or moving. • In the conversation with MBTA personnel, they mentioned pedestrians getting “clipped” by the train. They noted that most pedestrian conflicts were a result of a pedestrian trying to beat the train into (or out of) the station and trying to stop the doors from closing resulting in hand fractures. • The MBTA is updating and standardizing their training so that it is more consistent and efficient along with being able to track which of their staff have completed the training. • The research team was told that several of the universities and colleges in the Boston area have “safety pairs” where a current student works with new students to educate them regarding the rail system. 74

source: Fitzpatrick Figure 50. Example of train doors showing stop, state law message. PORTLAND SITE VISIT Meetings in Portland During the trip, the research team met with the Tri-Met, Portland Bureau of Transportation, and mobility advocates/specialists. Site Visits in Portland The Portland-area rail system consists of streetcar, light rail, and commuter rail systems operating within a variety of alignments, from non-exclusive alignments within the downtown area to semi-exclusive alignments for both the light rail and commuter rail. Intercity passenger rail operated by Amtrak also serves Portland through Union Station in downtown Portland. The research team visited more than 20 pedestrian-rail crossings within the transit rail systems. Tri-Met generously drove the research team the first day, in which 12 crossing locations were reviewed. The research team walked within downtown and took the light rail and streetcar systems to investigate other locations. 75

Observation Development for Portland During the site visit in Portland, each team member independently developed a list of key observations based on the site visits and the meetings. While on the site visit, several brainstorming sessions occurred in which general observations were noted. The following sections summarize the observations grouped within broad categories. General Observations for Portland The following are general observations for Portland: • The agency has a focus on providing consistency throughout the system, with plans to update older crossings. It was stated that there is more demand for improvements because of expectations; however, it is a challenge to install safety improvements on existing alignments. Redoing the safety design at an existing crossing is a bigger challenge than new construction for several reasons including the need to adjust existing behaviors. • The agency uses significant levels of channelization at crossings in order to redirect pedestrians. The redirection of pedestrians provides the opportunity to generate more awareness of the surrounding conditions that is not present when pedestrians cross completely unimpeded. • There is active involvement with Committee on Accessible Transportation (CAT), and there seems to be an agency-wide ADA awareness. The CAT has been in place for more than 30 years. With the agency-wide ADA awareness, they can spend a greater proportion of their time on being more customer-focused. • The agency is willing to test and try new ideas and have a procedure in place to assess the potential treatment. Pilot projects go through their Safety Committee as part of a design, review, and approval process before a treatment is placed in the field. • People with disabilities are concerned with trains and may alter their movements to avoid interaction with the tracks. A CAT member, and wheelchair-user, indicated that when she needs to go to the doctor adjacent to the Gateway Transit Center, she prefers to pass the Gateway Transit Center station in one direction, exit at the next station and then return to the Gateway Transit Center from the other station. This allows her to only cross one set of tracks instead of the full three sets of tracks. • With the upgrade of crossings along existing lines, the management of pedestrians during construction was a significant issue, especially for people with disabilities. Additionally, the management of pedestrians around other construction activities is an issue, as observed with the construction of a new building in the downtown area. Figure 51 shows the sign placed to manage pedestrian flows for the construction site. Figure 52 shows pedestrians improperly walking along the track to pass by the construction site. It was perceived that train operators may have a difficult time seeing pedestrians that might be improperly passing around the construction site. 76

source: Fitzpatrick Figure 51. Sign informing pedestrians of construction- related disruptions. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 52. Pedestrians walking near construction site. • Several of the areas that the Tri-Met light rail system serves are experiencing significant growth and development. This development or impending development necessitates improvements to the existing safety system at the crossing. The Tri-Met Real Property Department is notified of possible development, which then alerts other areas of Tri-Met that improvements may be needed to accommodate changing conditions. • In addition to growth along existing alignments, there is current construction on extensions to both the streetcar and light rail systems. • Tri-Met always reviews behavior to see if adjustments worked as planned or if additional improvements are needed. They feel that there is a constant need to improve. For example, while viewing crossings during the site visit an inappropriate gap between fencing and guardrail was observed at a recently updated crossing (see Figure 53). The Tri-Met representative reported to the appropriate department that additional fencing was required to close the gap. • Treatments need to be built with durability in mind, so people cannot bypass the treatment by altering or destroying it. During the meeting discussion, it was highlighted that at one location they had installed incrementally more significant barriers only to have people destroy them; finally they installed large pipes filled with concrete. 77

source: Fitzpatrick Figure 53. Example of gap between guardrail and barrier fencing where pedestrians could bypass safety treatments. Situation was immediately reported when observed by a Tri-Met representative. • Transit centers appear complex and present the challenge of a rush of people transferring to make connections with other transit options. o Gateway Center Transit Center has many bus connections, three rail lines at three platforms, a medical establishment next door, and an adjacent bike path. Recent upgrades include the installation of extra safety treatments, such as bedstead barriers, signs, and markings, along with extensive fencing to direct people to the appropriate crossing locations. o The Rose Quarter Transit Center has many buses at several different locations, two separate train stations located several hundred feet apart, the professional basketball arena, and a bike path. o Bus stops are also usually present adjacent to other train stations, creating a similar issue at a smaller scale. • Several station locations involved bike or multi-use paths through the area, which can bring additional complexity to crossing designs and pedestrian movements. Locations observed or mentioned include the Gateway Center Transit Center (see Figure 54), Rose Quarter Transit Center, and Gresham Central Transit Center. 78

source: Fitzpatrick Figure 54. Multi-use path crossing at the Gateway Center Transit Center. Observations Related to Traffic Control Devices – Markings and Detectable Warnings for Portland The following are observations related to markings and detectable warnings: • Pavement markings and detectable warnings were observed throughout the system. The concept for detectable warnings discussed was that the truncated domes strips would be provided to indicate pedestrians are entering or leaving a hazard area (i.e., entering or leaving the roadway crosswalk or prior to or clearing the rail track). For example, detectable warning at the sidewalk ramp indicates entry into the crosswalk across lanes of vehicle traffic. Figure 55 demonstrates the detectable warning for a pedestrian crossing of a rail. • The Portland system used STOP HERE pavement stop bars (white lettering on solid red bar) behind detectable warning strips (see Figure 55) and also behind swing gates (see Figure 56). In some locations, the STOP HERE pavement marking was present without the detectable warning, as demonstrated in Figure 57. 79

source: Warner Figure 55. Example of detectable warning at station pedestrian crossing. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 56. Example of STOP HERE pavement marking in conjunction with a swing gate. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 57. Example of STOP HERE pavement marking without detectable warning. 80

• At locations where it may appear that there is sufficient space between tracks for people to wait, DON’T WAIT HERE pavement markings were placed between the tracks (example shown in Figure 58). • Figure 59 shows wide transverse pavement lines indicating the limits of the crossing. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 58. Pavement markings in Portland informing pedestrians to DON’T STAND HERE. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 59. Crossing containing DON’T STAND HERE marking and transverse crosswalk lines. 81

Observations Related to Traffic Control Devices – Signs for Portland The following are observations related to signs: • There is extensive use of signs with black LOOK BOTH WAYS letters throughout the system. There were three different designs noticed: oncoming trolley with the Tri-Met logo (see Figure 60), side profile of a trolley (see Figure 61), and oncoming commuter rail train (see Figure 62). In addition, the white with black lettering LOOK sign included within the MUTCD was also noted (see Figure 63). • The agency is working with the Oregon DOT to include their black on yellow diamond sign in the Oregon MUTCD. Tri-Met believes their design is more effective than the general LOOK sign currently within the Oregon MUTCD. • In some cases, larger signs (from 18 to 24 inches) with larger lettering are being used to be more visible for wider crossings. • The placement location of these signs varied, most likely a result of considerations at each crossing. • The signs were used both parallel and perpendicular to the tracks. • At one location two signs were stacked on top of each other, with the lower sign presenting the LOOK BOTH WAYS message in Spanish (see Figure 60). • STOP signs were also used in conjunction with LOOK BOTH WAYS signs. One example was a multi-use path crossing (see Figure 64). Another station had STOP signs at the pull gates (see Figure 65). • An example of the use of the MUTCD-compliant LOOK sign, in conjunction with the crossbuck assembly is shown in Figure 63). source: Fitzpatrick Figure 60. Example of oncoming trolley sign with Tri- Met logo. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 61. Example of oncoming trolley sign with side view of trolley. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 62. Example of oncoming commuter rail train. 82

source: Fitzpatrick Figure 63. Example of MUTCD LOOK sign (left side) and Tri-Met LOOK BOTH WAYS sign (right side) used at a Portland crossing. source: Fitzpatrick, Figure 64. Example of STOP sign on multi-use path. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 65. Example of STOP sign with swing gates. 83

Observations Related to Active Traffic Control Devices – Signals or Audible Warning Devices for Portland The following are observations related to signals or audible warning devices: • The active blank out signal directing pedestrians to look both ways was used at several locations. It provides a white silhouette of a trolley car with red arrows alternating in opposite directions. While it has been compared to a second train coming signal, it does not direct the pedestrian that a second train is approaching but is designed to encourage people to always look in both directions upon traversing tracks. Figure 66 shows an observed active blank out signal with audible warning speaker on top. • Discussed at the meeting that included the Portland Bureau of Transportation members was changing the signal timing at the Rose Quarter Transit Center from accommodating the pedestrian crossing of the street/rail from one stage to two stages. The City standard is to provide one stage crossings, but in this case a longer clearance interval resulted in fewer opportunities to cross (more delay) for pedestrians. Also revealed was a high number of pedestrian crossing when the signal showed the raised hand (i.e., do not walk) probably due to the long cycle length present as a result of the long crossing times. Implementation of a two stage crossing is beneficial for most of the people at this particular location because the majority of users are traveling to the median. Rather than having a phase with a long crossing time that would permit the crossing of the entire street/rail, they timed the signal so pedestrians could cross to the median. The pedestrian would then need to push the pedestrian button in the median to obtain the walk signal for the second stage crossing. The two-staged pedestrian signal timing has a shorter pedestrian flashing DON’T WALK interval resulting in a shorter cycle. A shorter cycle allows the pedestrian walk signal to occur more times within a given time period. • Noted during the meeting was that pedestrian push buttons should be present when the train station is located in the median, otherwise a pedestrian could be stranded in the median. • The agency maintained two designs for active pedestrian flashing light assemblies (see examples in Figure 67 and Figure 68). With a beacon height of approximately 5 ft, these lower height flashing light assemblies are perceived to draw the pedestrian’s attention better than the beacon mounting heights used for roadside assemblies (7.5 ft to 9.5 ft). The design at the recently upgraded Orenco/231st Station includes the new pedestrian crossbuck with flashing light assembly. This assembly has the crossbuck, LOOK sign, flashing red lights, and an audible speaker on top (see Figure 67). The use of the pedestrian LOOK BOTH WAYS sign along with red flashing lights was observed at several locations. These assemblies also have an audible warning speaker on the top (see example in Figure 68). 84

source: Fitzpatrick Figure 66. Example of active blank out signal with audible warning. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 67. Example of the pedestrian flasher with crossbuck sign. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 68. Example of the pedestrian active signal system with LOOK BOTH WAYS sign. 85

Observations Related to Active Traffic Control Devices – Automatic Gates for Portland The following are observations related to automatic gates: • No automatic pedestrian gates were observed during the site visit. It was indicated that they maintain these at one location but prefer the use of the swing gates over the pedestrian gate arms. Figure 69 provides an example of the use of channelization and swing gates at a location with active vehicle warning devices. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 69. Example of the use of swing gates at location with active vehicle warning devices. Observations Related to Design of the Crossing for Portland The following are observations related to design: • The crossings for streetcar and downtown in-street running light rail operations generally involve traffic control signals with pedestrian signal heads and detectable warnings. Median-running and higher speed operations generally involve a design to impede movement through the crossing by utilizing a Z-crossing, bedstead barriers, or pedestrian swing gates. • Streetcars had curbside platforms, similar to light rail platforms but generally shorter. • The observed pedestrian-only crossings were a Z-crossing configuration. These locations provide crossing locations beyond the major roadway intersections. Two slight differences in the Z-crossing configuration were observed, one with the perpendicular path across the tracks and one with a skewed path across the tracks. An example showing how pedestrians are not allowed to travel straight through the crosswalk and across the track is demonstrated in Figure 70. Figure 71 and Figure 72 provide examples of straight and diagonal crossing designs. 86

source: Fitzpatrick Figure 70. Example of a pedestrian-only crossing configuration for a median-running train. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 71. Example of a straight pedestrian-only crossing. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 72. Example of a diagonal pedestrian-only crossing. • Portland utilized a split station design at a few locations. It was explained that limited right-of-way availability may require split stations since this configuration requires less 87

right-of-way width compared to a station with both platforms together. One advantage is if a train overruns the station it will not slide into an intersection. Several disadvantages seem to exist for pedestrians, however, for a split station configuration. The most notable is the potential for patrons to exit the train and cross behind the train they just exited toward the second track. A train traveling in the other direction heading for the platform on the other side of the intersection could be traveling through on the second track creating the second-train hazard. • Midblock street crossings to a median-running rail line provide either access to a station entrance or the opportunity to cross to the other side of the roadway without walking a significant distance to cross at an intersection. For visually impaired individuals, midblock street crossings could be more difficult to find, may not have pedestrian signals, and may not have other pedestrians to guide their actions. The pedestrian-only crossings outside a major intersection typically utilized the Z-crossing configuration. • Both the streetcar and light rail trains had low entry vehicles, which utilize low platforms that are generally open from both directions. Observations Related to Orientation and Mobility for Portland The following are observations related to orientation and mobility: • Consistency benefits the blind and physically disabled communities and is one of the major themes for Portland; however, unique site conditions affect the design implemented at a station. • Some of the median station locations could be difficult for a blind person to find where to enter a station. A blind pedestrian may not be able to locate the station entry after crossing the street because the blind pedestrian may not know when to turn to enter the station. • The bedstead channelization system used throughout the Tri-Met system could present an issue for a blind person using long white canes because they could hit several different barriers and may not become properly aligned to cross the track. The use of a guide dog may not present a similar problem, as indicated by a CAT member who utilizes a guide dog. • An issue identified by the Orientation and Mobility Specialist was that a visually impaired person not already familiar with stations may be confused by the different configurations, including split platforms, center platforms, and triple platforms. • The Orientation and Mobility Specialist highlighted Tri-Met’s helpline as being a very good resource for individuals, specifically complimenting the patience displayed by Tri- Met personnel when dealing with those that call. • Loud ambient noise near crossing locations, such as those from a freeway, can make crossings and stations more challenging for vision impaired individuals because of the interference with their normal audible cues or the audible systems at the crossing, such as warning systems or those that are part of the pedestrian signal systems. • The agency currently has a few locations in which they provide channels (also called tracks) to direct blind pedestrians. The pedestrian-only crossing at Interstate and Wygant on the Yellow Line has remnants of previous efforts (see Figure 72) to provide guidance, such as yellow raised bars; however, the raised bars are no longer being distributed. Portland is investigating a metal product; however, the metal nature of the product causes 88

challenges with installation and presents a concern for stray current, which could shock a guide dog. They are exploring an epoxy to break the seal with the ground to minimize the shock potential. They also are looking at other products. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 73. Example of an apex ramp in downtown Portland. • Consistency in placement of fare machines is currently under review. • There were several observed issues related to the large counterweight on the vehicle active warning system protruding into the pedestrian way. Specific efforts were undertaken at other locations to protect against the counterweight (see Figure 74). source: Fitzpatrick Figure 74. Example of protection from the counterweight. 89

• When the flashing red lights within a pedestrian flashing light assembly are mounted lower than 7 ft (as they are in Portland) the lights should be 2 ft from sidewalk. • Tri-Met does provide audible signal at bus and rail stations. Observations Related to Crossing Surface for Portland The following are observations related to crossing surface: • Crossing surfaces were generally smooth and in good condition. • Several downtown locations presented challenges due to the number of tracks and the angles of the track to the pedestrian crossing. The multiple tracks and angles caused difficulties for wheelchair users. Example photos are presented in Figure 75 and Figure 76. • Several crossing surfaces are used; for example, Figure 71 shows an example of a red rubber slab surface being used between the tracks at a pedestrian-only crossing. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 75. Example of multiple tracks arraigned at different angles. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 76. Example of pedestrian crossing tracks while train is present. Observations Related to Fences and Barriers for Portland The following are observations related to fences and barriers: • The agency extensively uses fencing and barriers to direct people to the proper crossing location (i.e., bollards with chains between the tracks, along the outside of a track alignment, and channeling to pull gates) and to positively direct pedestrian movement across the tracks (i.e., bedstead, Z-crossing configurations, and pedestrian swing gates). • Shrubs are used in lieu of fencing at some locations. • Handles were utilized to prevent people from walking between the track and channelization (see Figure 77) and to prevent people from stepping around channelization to enter a street (see Figure 78). Handles were also used between light/catenary poles and fencing (see Figure 79) for similar reasons. • The agency looks for worn trails to determine where people are walking along and over the tracks in order to determine proper fencing or barriers. One discussion highlighted a time they went out after it had snowed to look for tracks in the snow that indicate 90

locations where people were bypassing existing fencing. They identified several locations for corrective measures with this technique. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 77. Example of handle barriers between track and channelization. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 78. Example of handle barriers between channelization and street. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 79. Examples of handle barriers between pole and fencing. • Fence and barrier design is often dictated by the jurisdiction in which the system is running. For example, one jurisdiction may require a more architectural looking barrier. Observed barrier designs include chain-link fencing, bedstead or tubular fencing (see Figure 80), bollards with chains (see Figure 79), and others considered more architectural in nature. 91

• The pedestrian swing gate design stops momentum, requiring the pedestrian to stop and look before entering the track space. They are used throughout the Tri-Met system but were characterized as one of the tools in the toolbox and are an item of last resort due to maintenance issues and reliability concerns. Specifically mentioned is the difficulty in keeping the spring tensions optimized (see Figure 81). The agency indicates they are removing some of the existing gates in favor of one of the channelization designs. Several bicycle users were observed passing through swing gates, which required them to walk their bikes through the crossing. • An idea discussed and observed is to provide channelization farther upstream of the crossing to have the pedestrians within the barrier before they can easily step into the roadway to bypass the crossing safety treatments. • Along the streetcar alignment, the research team observed barriers being used at several stations to direct pedestrians to the platform or the appropriate street crossing at the end of the platform (see Figure 82). For example, at a location where the streetcar made a right turn while traveling adjacent to the sidewalk, fencing exists between the sidewalk and street/rail line to keep people from entering the street except at the designated crosswalk (see Figure 83). • The agency also utilizes temporary fencing or barriers, with one example being at the Rose Quarter Transit Center (see Figure 84), where the adjacent arena periodically generates high transit usage. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 80. Example of tubular fencing. 92

source: Fitzpatrick Figure 81. Swing gate being pushed open by wind. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 82. Example of barrier guiding pedestrians to crossing. 93

source: Fitzpatrick Figure 83. Example of barrier preventing crossing other than at designated spot. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 84. Temporary barriers at the Rose Quarter Transit Center. 94

Observations Related to Train Operations for Portland The following are observations related to train operations: • Trains reduce their operating speeds down to 20 mph at several locations near school zones (see Figure 85). • The train system will override the train operator if the train is going too fast on an approach to an intersection when the train signal system requires the train to stop prior to the intersection. • The trains were equipped with several different audible warning devices including bell and whistle sounds. • Training and involvement of train and bus operators for pedestrian safety appeared to be significant within Tri-Met as part of an effort to heighten awareness throughout the agency. Train operators are taught to use their eyes to spot hazards by turning their heads to keep peripheral vision wide open. • The individual who is in charge of train and bus operator training also has ADA compliance responsibilities. • The agency has been using video cameras suction-cupped to lead train vehicles to record all alignments. These videos are used in training sessions. • Tri-Met has an online page that staff can use to note safety issues or other needs such as tree trimming. In addition, train operators, if requested, can go into the field and provide input into safety concerns and possible solutions. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 85. Example of trains entering/exiting a marked school zone. 95

Observations Related to Other Features for Portland The following are observations related to other features: • It was noted at one station that classical music was played over speakers at the station, with the theory to calm people at the station and/or drive people away who are loitering. • Some of the in-street operations in the downtown Portland area had a different surface than the neighboring vehicle lanes to show visually and tactually where the train operates. Figure 86 shows the brick-pattern surface for vehicles with the smooth concrete surface for the train in downtown Portland. Figure 87 also shows a different color line between train and vehicle lanes to indicate the dynamic envelope for the train. None of these differences in color or texture would be highly detectable to people with visual impairments, however. • Portions of the Yellow/Green light rail line in downtown operated within the middle of the street, with a bus lane on one side and vehicle lane on the other. On approach to station platforms, the track switched to curbside. These alignments always maintained separation from vehicular traffic (see Figure 88 for a photo of this alignment with associated traffic sign shown in Figure 89). Other areas operated adjacent to the sidewalk area but remained separated from vehicular traffic. Portions of the Red/Blue line examined through downtown that operated adjacent to the sidewalk had the brick pavement within the path of the train (see Figure 87). • The observed streetcar alignments generally had parking between the sidewalk and the streetcar lane, which is shared with vehicular traffic. An example is presented in Figure 90. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 86. Example of using smooth concrete for train as compared to the brick pattern in neighboring lanes. 96

source: Fitzpatrick Figure 87. Example of surface treatments and a dynamic envelope surface treatment involving brick. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 88. Example of rails separate from vehicle traffic at the boarding location. 97

source: Fitzpatrick Figure 89. Sign indicating lane only for light rails. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 90. Example of streetcar operations along with vehicles in downtown Portland. 98

LOS ANGELES SITE VISIT Meetings in Los Angeles The research team visited with several individuals during meetings held at the LA Metro office and at orientation and mobility specialists’ offices. Site Visits in Los Angeles The team visited 15 light rail grade crossings in the LA Metro system, some at stations adjacent to a motor vehicle crossing, some adjacent to a motor vehicle crossing (no station), some within stations, and some pedestrian-only crossings. Crossings were visited on the Gold, Blue, and Expo lines. These lines have a mix of semi-exclusive alignment with both separate and shared right-of-way. A LA Metro employee graciously drove the research team to each of these crossings and provided very helpful background information on each line, station, and crossing. Team members alighted at each crossing to make personal observations, notes, and photographs. The team visited four commuter rail grade crossings on the Metrolink system, one on the Green Line, and three on the Orange Line. The Metrolink system has semi-exclusive alignment, protected for much of its length by barrier fences. It is side running. The team visited Metrolink crossings either on foot from their hotel or by rental car. Observation Development for Los Angeles During the three and one-half days in Los Angeles, team members took time periodically to collaboratively list key observations based on the site visits and meetings. The following sections summarize the observations grouped within broad categories that may be used with the presentation of treatments within the Guidebook. General Observations for Los Angeles The following are general observations for Los Angeles: • LA Metro, Metrolink, and the City of Los Angeles DOT work collaboratively to address problems at shared or adjoining properties, recognizing that many rail grade crossings are accessed via public rights-of-way and that treatments need to be well-coordinated. • LA Metro, Metrolink, and the City of Los Angeles DOT are very conscious of both pedestrian safety and the need to make rail grade crossings accessible to people with disabilities. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (4), the Americans with Disabilities Act Standards for Transportation Facilities (16), and California Title 24 (42) are all used in making engineering decisions. • LA Metro has an Access Advisory Committee and also consults with the Braille Institute regarding accessibility issues and treatments. • LA Metro is willing to experiment with novel devices, for example the 2nd train sign shown in Figure 91 and Figure 92. • Throughout the LA Metro system, extensive use is made of fencing between roadways and tracks (Figure 93). In some locations curbs are used (see Figure 94). Fencing is also 99

commonly used to prevent pedestrians from crossing rails where no crossing is intended (see Figure 95). • Most of the LA Metro light rail system operates under 35 mph, with the Blue Line mid- corridor section operating above 35 mph. • LA Metro has “between-car barriers,” on the platforms consisting of safety-yellow break- away flexible delineators, closely spaced, approximately 24 inch high, and approximately 2 inch diameter, that are intended to span the full opening between rail cars, including any tapering at the ends of vehicles when trains are stopped at indicated locations (see Figure 96). These between-car barriers are intended to prevent passengers with visual impairments from mistaking the gap between cars for the entrance to a rail car and potentially falling between cars. • The high platforms of the LA Metro light rail system stations allow for the stations to have limited entrance and exit points. Low-platform stations viewed in Portland and Boston tend to allow pedestrians to more freely cross the track or access the platforms. • In almost all locations, both LA Metro and Metrolink utilize pre-existing railroad rights- of-way. Integrating light rail and commuter rail into existing rights-of-way means that space for providing optimal and accessible access to rail crossings and to the platform is quite limited, resulting in compromises. In some locations, rails carrying freight are still in use parallel to light rail. • Perhaps because of the use of pre-existing railroad rights-of-way; treatments are more standardized across individual lines than was seen in Boston or Portland. Nonetheless, crossings vary by number of pedestrians, geometry, signalization, and movement patterns of vehicles at adjacent intersections. Therefore, while there are design standards and preferred treatments, no one set of treatments is appropriate for all crossings, even along a single line. • In general, crossing surfaces, markings, signs and other treatments were in good condition. All LA Metro and Metrolink lines are relatively recent, and the climate is not characterized by freezing and thawing. • Along some LA Metro lines there is multiple line ownership, including freight, resulting in some conflicting policies about design features such as the use of automatic pedestrian gates with or without swing gates. • Plans are currently being undertaken to update the LA Metro Blue Line to the current standards. 100

source: Fitzpatrick Figure 91. The pictogram within this blank out sign shows a side view of a train approaching from the left. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 92. The pictogram within this blank out sign shows a side view of a train approaching from the right. 101

source: Fitzpatrick Figure 93. Fencing between roadway and tracks. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 94. Curbing between roadway and tracks. 102

source: Fitzpatrick Figure 95. Fencing prevents pedestrians from crossing at the corner and leads to the swing gates at crossing location. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 96. Flexible delineators between ends of rail cars prevent visually impaired travelers from falling between cars. 103

Observations Related to Traffic Control Devices – Markings and Detectable Warnings for Los Angeles The following are observations related to markings and detectable warnings: • When detectable warnings are used consistently, their presence on a curb ramp or blended curb indicates the location of a pedestrian crossing, their presence on islands and medians indicates the location of a refuge (between a set of detectable warnings), and their presence on transit platforms indicates a safe distance to wait for a train. California Title 24 (42) requires detectable warnings that are 24 inch deep along transit platform edges and 36 inch deep in the direction of travel in all other locations. Detectable warnings were widely used at both LA Metro and Metrolink crossings where there were pedestrian refuges, but were not used on pedestrian grade crossings where there was no refuge. Detectable warnings are not intended to serve as direction indicators because it is not possible for most pedestrians who are visually impaired to establish a good direction based on the domes. They are for safety not wayfinding. • Twenty-four inch deep truncated dome detectable warnings complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act Standards for Transportation Facilities (16) were observed along the full length of platforms and boarding areas (see Figure 97). Most platform edge detectable warnings were yellow, complying with California Title 24 (42), but a few were white or black. • Detectable warnings were common on curb ramps from sidewalks to crosswalks that crossed rails. These were typically 36 inch deep in the direction of travel and yellow, as required by California Title 24 (42), which is more stringent than the Americans with Disabilities Act Standards for Transportation Facilities (16). However, in some older neighborhoods there has been no recent work on curb ramps and there were no detectable warnings on those ramps. • When a refuge or platform within a street crossing is not present, detectable warnings are not required at the rails within the street. However, if there is platform access to a center- running rail line, a pedestrian who is blind or visually impaired may not be able to locate the median and platform area if detectable warnings are not provided on the edges of the median island. • At crossings within stations, detectable warnings were usually on each side of the rails to identify the rail crossings as seen in Figure 98, or to identify a refuge between rails as seen in Figure 99. • Figure 100 is an example of detectable warning with a pedestrian gate arm. The yellow truncated dome surfaces, varying from 24 inch deep to 36 inch deep, were placed across the full width of the pedestrian way and typically extended away from the gate arm on the side opposite the rail. A pedestrian who is visually impaired who detects the truncated domes in the vicinity of a rail crossing is expected to understand that if a train is approaching, they should stand behind the truncated domes to avoid both being too close to the track when a train crosses and being struck by a descending or ascending gate arm. • Detectable warnings were also sometimes observed where there were swing gates, where they were typically placed immediately preceding the swing gates on the side away from the tracks as in Figure 101 but might also be placed on the rail side as in Figure 99 or extending on both sides of swing gates as in Figure 102. Detectable warnings, when used, should be on the side of the gate away from the tracks. In general, detectable warnings 104

are placed on a pedestrian way to indicate that immediately beyond them, there is a hazard. Pedestrians who are visually impaired usually wait behind detectable warnings. Figure 101 is a good example of the preferred use of detectable warnings preceding a swing gate and also at the beginning of the median where there is a small refuge between the roadway and the gate. • In some locations, detectable warnings appeared to have been installed to indicate to pedestrians who are visually impaired that they could be walking into an area where they could be struck by the counterweight of either a pedestrian or vehicular gate arm (see Figure 104). However, at other locations where pedestrians with visual impairments were clearly at risk from counterweights, there was no indication (see Figure 105). A better solution to protecting pedestrians from counter weights is to provide a barrier, as is done in Portland. • At several LA Metro crossings, diagonal black and yellow striping was used in the vicinity of rail crossings to indicate the dynamic envelopes of rail cars, as seen in Figure 106. This treatment was not observed at Metrolink rail crossings. • Of particular interest was solid red paving observed at two stations on the Gold Line (see Figure 107). Both of these stations adjoined intersections where other crosswalks were similarly marked. Most of the width of the crossing was stamped in a grid pattern; however, an area approximately 6 feet wide and the full length of the crossing had no stamped pattern. This would enable pedestrians who had difficulty traversing bumpy surfaces to travel on a smooth surface with the exception of crossing the rails themselves. • Also observed at two stations on the LA Metro Gold Line were approximately 3 inch diameter raised white dome markers along the edges of the crossing. These are understood to have been installed as a deterrent to traveling outside the crossing, especially for persons on bicycles. However, they would also be a good indication to pedestrians who are visually impaired who were familiar with those locations that they were at the edge of the crossing (see Figure 107). • Pavement markings along observed street-running sections of Metrolink were transverse crosswalk lines. In-station rail crossings were unmarked but edges of crossing itself, as seen in Figure 98, may provide good guidance to pedestrians who are visually impaired. • WAIT HERE pavement word markings (see Figure 108) were commonly used on LA Metro rail crossings to indicate where pedestrians should wait when trains are approaching. • Figure 109 is a photo of a station in Los Angeles where the no pedestrian symbol was added to the pavement to inform pedestrians that they should not be in that area. The pavement marking supplements the sign located on the nearby fence. In addition to the symbol, the words NOT A WALK was provided on the yellow crossing edgeline. Raised white buttons were also installed in the area. They provide a tactile warning that the pedestrian or bicyclist has strayed from the appropriate path. 105

source: Fitzpatrick Figure 97. Detectable warning along full length of platform edge with an adjacent yellow line that has STAY BEHIND YELLOW LINE word marking. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 98. In-station pedestrian crossing. 106

source: Fitzpatrick Figure 99. Detectable warning installed inside swing gates. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 100. The detectable warning is placed on the side of the gate arm opposite the rail. 107

source: Fitzpatrick Figure 101. Detectable warning at swing gate on side opposite rails. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 102. Detectable warning extending on both sides of swing gate. 108

source: Fitzpatrick Figure 103. Preferred use of detectable warnings on curb ramp along with swing gate. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 104. Detectable warning surface installed to inform pedestrians who are visually impaired of overhead gate arm hazard. 109

source: Fitzpatrick Figure 105. Visually impaired pedestrian has no warning of hazardous counterweight ahead. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 106. Diagonal black and yellow striping used in the vicinity of rail crossings to indicate the dynamic envelopes of rail cars. 110

source: Fitzpatrick Figure 107. Smooth area within stamped crosswalk provides ADA compliant surface for pedestrians in wheelchairs. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 108. Diagonal striping indicates dynamic envelope of train cars; photo shows location of detectable warning and stop line also. 111

Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 109. Symbol and word pavement markings supplementing signs to indicate where pedestrians should not be walking. Observations Related to Traffic Control Devices – Signs for Los Angeles The following are observations related to signs: • Pavement markings and vertical signs (words and pictograms) were used to indicate that pedestrians should not walk outside the designated crossing (see Figure 110). These signs were mounted on poles or fences, or sometimes painted on the pavement. • Swing gates typically had signs about pushing the gate to exit and LOOK BOTH WAYS signs; see examples in Figure 111 and Figure 112. They also sometimes had the international wheelchair symbol. Many signs were in Spanish and English; in Tokyo station, some signs were in Japanese and English. • At some Metrolink crossings, swing gates were intended to be used only for emergency exiting. They were labeled EXIT ONLY, as approached from the side away from the rails; however they were capable of being pulled open using the top of the gate, as seen in Figure 113. The PUSH GATE TO OPEN sign on the side of the gate facing the tracks is shown in Figure 114. • In some stations a non-MUTCD rectangular sign with the words RAMP UP, a pictogram of a train, the international wheelchair symbol, and an arrow direct pedestrians to ramps up to platforms (see Figure 115). • LA Metro platform edges were marked with a 6 inch wide yellow stripe on the side away from the platform edge, with the message STAY BEHIND YELLOW LINE (see Figure 97). A sign used to reinforce this message is shown in Figure 116. • Suicide crisis signs providing a number to call were installed at crossings on LA Metro (see Figure 118). 112

• On grade crossings not associated with stations, the only sign was typically a yellow diamond sign with the message LOOK BOTH WAYS, (see Figure 117 for roadway application and Figure 111 for swing gate example). • Several white rectangular signs were observed. These signs said: o “Railroad crossing Pedestrians and bicycles only.” o “No pedestrian crossing when lights flash.” o “Stop here when flashing.” • At some locations, blank-out signs showing a front view of a train when a train was approaching or present were placed next to the pedestrian signal heads so that pedestrians would see them before entering a crossing (see Figure 119, Figure 121, Figure 120, and Figure 122). • Only installed at a few locations, additional blank-out signs have a pictogram of a train moving with a pedestrian looking both ways (see Figure 91 and Figure 92). Originally conceived to alert users of the direction of an approaching train, recent changes to the operation of this device have it pointing in both directions alternately in order to encourage users to look both ways before crossing the tracks. • Crossbuck signs accompanied by alternately flashing red lights were used in many locations. • In quiet zones along Metrolink lines, a rectangular yellow sign with a NO TRAIN HORN message was mounted so that it faced approaching pedestrians. Below this sign was a rectangular white sign with a double-ended arrow saying LOOK, as shown in Figure 123. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 110. Pedestrian prohibition signing and pavement marking. 113

source: Fitzpatrick Figure 111. Example of swing gate. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 112. Another example of swing gate next to automatic pedestrian gate arm. 114

source: Fitzpatrick Figure 113. Example of swing gate for emergency exit. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 114. Example of swing gate for emergency exit from rail side. 115

source: Fitzpatrick Figure 115. Sign directing pedestrians to the ramp to the boarding platform. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 116. Example of sign used at a Metrolink station to reinforce the pavement marking message of staying behind yellow line. 116

source: Fitzpatrick Figure 117. LOOK BOTH WAYS sign. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 118. Suicide crisis sign. 117

source: Fitzpatrick Figure 119. Example of pedestrian signal head used at a pedestrian crossing near a station in Los Angeles; note the addition of the blank-out sign showing the train (close-up shown in Figure 121) placed next to the solid upraised hand symbol (see close-up shown in Figure 120) indicating that pedestrian should not start a crossing. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 120. Close-up of countdown indication used in conjunction blank- out sign. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 121. Close-up of blank-out sign used in conjunction with pedestrian signal head. 118

source: Fitzpatrick Figure 122. Another example of train blank-out signs mounted next to pedestrian signal head since that is the area where pedestrians should be looking. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 123. Signs used at quiet zones. Observations Related to Active Traffic Control Devices – Signals or Audible Warning Devices for Los Angeles The following are observations related to signals or audible warning devices: • All grade crossings observed at signalized intersections had concurrent pedestrian phasing, in which pedestrians cross at the same time that vehicular traffic is moving 119

parallel to the crosswalk. The LA Metro preference is to allow clearance time for pedestrians to cross the full width of the roadway, including the rail right-of-way. • All pedestrian signals at grade crossings or boarding platforms were pushbutton-actuated. There was widespread use of pushbutton-integrated accessible pedestrian signal (APS) at these crossings, with audible and vibrotactile indications and pushbutton locator tones, as specified in the MUTCD 2009 (see Figure 124). All APS were well located, on separate stub-poles if need be, so they were in reach for a pedestrian who was waiting to cross within the width of the crosswalk, and reachable from a level surface for easy actuation by persons using wheelchairs (see Figure 125). • At grade crossings leading to a boarding platform, where there was always at least a small refuge. Additional pushbuttons were provided at the refuge to enable pedestrians who had alighted from trains to request a pedestrian signal to cross the roadway (see Figure 126). • Standard grade crossing flashing light signal assemblies exist throughout both the LA Metro and Metrolink system, both with and without gate arms. The flashing light signal assemblies without gate arms were often seen at pedestrian-only station crossings. • Bells were sounded when trains were arriving and departing, but not when trains were stopped and pedestrian arms were down. Orientation and Mobility Specialists would prefer that bells sound throughout the time the train is in the station so approaching pedestrians who are visually impaired would anticipate encountering a pedestrian arm. • At one LA Metro station visited, there was an audible announcement before the arrival of a train: “Northbound [or Southbound] train is arriving. Please stand clear of the track.” source: Fitzpatrick Figure 124. Pushbutton-integrated accessible pedestrian signal with sign emphasizing where to wait. 120

source: Fitzpatrick Figure 125. Fencing channelizes pedestrians to crossing location; figure shows well-located APS. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 126. APS at bottom of ramp from platform. 121

Observations Related to Active Traffic Control Devices – Automatic Gates for Los Angeles The following are observations related to automatic gates: • The design now preferred by LA Metro includes both four-quadrant automatic pedestrian gates and swing gates opening away from the track, where there is sufficient right-of-way as shown in Figure 127. Where there is insufficient room, swing gates alone may be used. Where both automatic pedestrian gates and swing gates are used, the swing gates are intended to be used for emergency egress. However, where swing gates are used without automatic pedestrian gates, they are intended to provide access to the crossing and emergency egress. • Where they are used in combination, the swing gates, which always open away from the tracks, allow pedestrians who are crossing rails, as automatic gates descend and block their passage, to escape using a gate so that they are not trapped on the rail side of a gate as a train passes by. A challenge in this design, however, is that pedestrians who are visually impaired may encounter the automatic gate arm and not know that an escape route exists or in which direction to look for it. • At one Metrolink grade crossing that was not at a station, the escape gate was located in a pocket angling away from the automatic gate (see Figure 128 and Figure 129). This design might be especially confusing to pedestrians who are visually impaired. • The design to update the Blue Line mid-corridor segment where trains operate over 35 mph dictates the use of automatic pedestrian gates with emergency exit gates. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 127. Four-quadrant automatic pedestrian gates and swing gates. 122

source: Fitzpatrick Figure 128. Crossing with automatic pedestrian gate arm with LED flashers at pedestrian- only crossing. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 129. Closer view of crossing with automatic pedestrian gate and swing gate for emergency egress; swing gate labeled for exit only. It has no kick plate for wheelchair users. 123

Observations Related to Design of the Crossing for Los Angeles The following are observations related to design: • Design of crossings and platforms is constrained by the fact that in most cases, LA Metro and Metrolink use old rail rights-of-way that are median- or side-running and that in many places are characterized by narrow sidewalks and relatively narrow streets. The available width of center platforms on center-running lines is 16 feet. With 4 feet of the width of the platform marked with detectable warnings, where passengers should not be standing, this leaves only 12 feet of available platform for waiting passengers. With platform furnishings, which are minimal, and relatively narrow, there is little room for maneuvering a wheelchair or for pedestrians with dog guides on platforms, as can be seen in Figure 130. With the increasing use of scooters as mobility aids, there will be increasing need for passengers to jostle around each other on narrow platforms to enable people using wheeled mobility aids or dog guides to use transit. • Where narrow platforms intersect a grade crossing perpendicular to the tracks, there is little room for a refuge, as shown in Figure 131. Maximizing the refuge is needed to accommodate passengers exiting trains during rush hour who must wait within the refuge for a pedestrian phase before they can cross to a sidewalk. • Where trains are center-running, the side of the pedestrian crossing closest to a motor vehicle crossing is often marked with flexible delineators that serve to indicate to pedestrians, including pedestrians who are visually impaired, the edge of the crossing closest to the intersection (see Figure 132 and Figure 133). For blind pedestrians, these also clearly indicate the need to turn to cross the street when exiting from the station. Another benefit of the flexible delineators is to reduce the likelihood of left-turning vehicles striking pedestrians in the crossing. • The high-platform design of the LA Metro light rail system stations allows for the stations to have limited entrance and exit points. This compares to some other cities where low-platform stations can, in some cases, allow pedestrians to more freely cross the track or access the platforms. As a result of the high platforms, a great difference in elevation between the boarding platforms and the sidewalk used in association with stations, users have to use a lengthy set of ramps, stairs, or elevators. • Some station entrances were located between the two rails at one end of the station, while other station entrances required users to enter from one side. In this side scenario a user coming from the other side of the street along the crosswalk may have to cross both sets of tracks, walk to the station entrance, and then cross the track again. • In one unusual location shown in Figure 134, a pedestrian-rail-only crossing occurs where the roads meet and create an X-shaped crossing, The bicycle crossing was separated from the pedestrian crossing. Pedestrians were well-channelized by curbing in a Z-crossing (see Figure 135) having swing gates on either side of the tracks. • Orientation and Mobility Specialists observed that there were accessible crossings and continuous accessible routes to boarding platforms from one end of some platforms, typically the end closest to a motor vehicle crossing but not at the opposite end, which might be the desired route for some travelers using wheelchairs who would then have to go far out of their way to reach the platform. At one such station where there is limited right-of-way to construct a ramp at the end of the platform farthest from the vehicle 124

crossing, but close to the entrance to a large housing complex, installation of a platform lift is planned to provide access instead of a ramp. • A pedestrian planner also observed that where two boarding platforms for the same station are on opposite sides of a motor vehicle crossing, passengers who need to reverse direction have to travel a long way, which may be difficult for elderly or disabled passengers. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 130. Narrow center platforms allow little room for wheelchairs or pedestrians using guide dogs. 125

source: Fitzpatrick Figure 131. Pedestrian refuge too small to hold many pedestrians. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 132. Flexible delineators on end of median refuge. 126

source: Fitzpatrick Figure 133. Another example of the flexible delineators. Source: Google Earth Figure 134. X-shaped crossing at Expo and Grammercy. 127

source: Fitzpatrick Figure 135. Z-crossing with bollards but not a detectable warning at the edge of the median refuge. Observations Related to Orientation and Mobility for Los Angeles The following are observations related to orientation and mobility: • LA Metro boarding platforms are 3.25 feet above the rail and are primarily accessed by ramps or sloped walkways. Walkways having a slope of 5 percent or less are not considered ramps (16). Walkways greater than 5 percent are considered ramps and must comply with requirements for handrails and landings every 30 feet. Ramps greater than 8.33 percent are not permitted (16). All ramps or sloped walkways had fencing, which would prohibit any pedestrian from falling off the edge. Many had attached handrails at an accessible height. In general, observed ramps and sloped walkways were continuous, with no level landing, for at least 50 feet (see Figure 136 and Figure 137). Long ramps and sloped surfaces require a great deal of upper body strength to be negotiated by people who use wheelchairs and are taxing for pedestrians who are elderly or who have other mobility challenges. Therefore frequent landings benefit many travelers, and slope should be as little as possible. • However, decreasing slope and including level landings increases the right-of-way needed, and right-of-way is often limited. Because of limited right-of-way, a platform lift is planned to provide access from new, high-density, housing to the closest end of the boarding platform at one Blue Line station. • Ramps or sloped walkways are also used to provide accessible routes between platform level and street level or an elevated roadway (see Figure 138 and Figure 139). 128

• Channelizing fencing can help guide travelers who are visually impaired to appropriate crossing locations; however, the quantity of fencing could also be confusing. Figure 140 shows an example of pedestrian fencing used to guide pedestrians along a long ramp needed to achieve needed elevation change. • Visually impaired pedestrians needing to cross to the platform on the opposite side of the rails, even if they were relatively familiar with the station, might become confused by the plethora of railings when the same type is used as barriers, handrails at stairs and ramps, and channelizing devices (see Figure 141). • Where a crossing in a station is paved and the trackbed beside the crossing is crushed stone at a slightly lower elevation, the edge of the crossing serves as an excellent guide to pedestrians who are visually impaired (as seen in Figure 98). • Wayfinding cues are needed for pedestrians with visual impairments in locations where the angle of grade crossings is different than the direction of approach. For example, as can be seen in Figure 142, pedestrians who are unable to see the marked crosswalk lines at this grade crossing, which bend sharply to the right to cross the tracks at 90 degrees, are likely to travel straight ahead on the same trajectory as that on which they approached the crossing resulting in their traveling far outside the crosswalk. • Figure 143 shows a crossing at an offset intersection at which pedestrians who are visually impaired who are not very familiar with this crossing would have no indication that the crossing was diagonal to the right and would go straight, ending up in the center of the intersection. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 136. Ramp without attached ADA compliant handrails. 129

source: Fitzpatrick Figure 137. Ramp with attached ADA compliant handrails. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 138. The long and winding walkway in this photo connected the platform with the street approximately 40 feet below. 130

source: Fitzpatrick Figure 139. Ramp from station level to street above. source: Bentzen Figure 140. Fencing to guide pedestrian to crossing. 131

source: Fitzpatrick Figure 141. Abundance of identical handrails at this station would be confusing to pedestrians who are visually impaired who are trying to find the crossing, which is out of view to the left. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 142. Inadequate cues for direction of crosswalk, which angles to the right away from previous direction of travel. 132

source: Fitzpatrick Figure 143. Diagonal crossing at an offset intersection. Observations Related to Crossing Surface for Los Angeles The following are observations related to crossing surface: • Crossing surfaces varied in material; in both LA Metro and Metrolink crossings, cement was quite common, but asphalt and rubber composite panels were also observed. Cement could be either poured or modular precast panels. See Figure 144 for an example of the use of precast concrete panels. • Most crossing surfaces were well-maintained having openings for railcar wheel flanges that did not exceed 2 ½ inches, the maximum permitted by the Americans with Disabilities Act Standards for Transportation Facilities (16) and California Title 24 (42). There were a few exceptions. 133

source: Fitzpatrick Figure 144. Precast concrete panels. Observations Related to Fences and Barriers for Los Angeles The following are observations related to fences and barriers: • Fencing was commonly used to channelize pedestrians to grade crossings at both LA Metro and Metrolink stations, as well as to limit their access to non-pedestrian areas. • Figure 145 shows fencing across a sidewalk to prevent pedestrians from crossing rails where there was no crosswalk on one side of an intersecting street. • Figure 146 shows fencing to prohibit crossing tracks where crossing is not intended. • Figure 147 shows fencing that is both a barrier between rails and the roadway, and a barrier against pedestrians crossing the trackbed. • Figure 148 shows fencing that is a barrier between rails and the roadway, a barrier between a parking lot adjoining a station and the rails where no crossing is permitted, and a channelizing device to guide pedestrians to the ramp up to a boarding platform. • Fencing along both sides of ramps between the crossing level and the platform level was routinely used to guide pedestrians along ramps. On most of these ramps, there was an ADA compliant handrail attached to the fencing on both sides of the ramp as seen in Figure 137. An ADA compliant handrail is between 34 inch and 38 inch in height above the walking surface, and is continuous and unobstructed along the top and sides. All handrails observed were circular in cross section and had an outside diameter between 1 ¼ inches and 2 inches. • Figure 149 shows barriers that nicely channelize pedestrians to the center of a crossing. 134

source: Fitzpatrick Figure 145. Fencing along with the signs clearly indicates there is no pedestrian crossing at this location. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 146. Fencing to prevent pedestrians from crossing trackbed. 135

source: Fitzpatrick Figure 147. Fencing between rails and street. source: Fitzpatrick Figure 148. Extensive fencing channelizes pedestrians. 136

source: Fitzpatrick Figure 149. Channelization that guides pedestrian to appropriate crossing location. Observations Related to Train Operations for Los Angeles The following are observations related to train operations: • Along the Blue Line mid-corridor segment where trains operate at speeds greater than 35 mph, train operators have reduced their station approach speed to 25mph. The transit agency has noticed an improved level of safety as a result of this adjustment. • Operators are required to sound the train horn and come to a stop if a person is observed standing on the detectable warning surface or standing within the dynamic envelope of the train. • Operators are required to stop in precise locations at boarding platforms so that between- car barriers (see Figure 96) will effectively block a person with a visual impairment from mistakenly attempting to board a train between the cars. Observations Related to Other Features for Los Angeles The following are observations related to other features: • Originally conceived as a short-term educational tool for the opening of new light rail alignment, the Rail Safety Ambassador Program now is regularly utilized throughout the light rail system. The Ambassadors act as the eyes and ears on how users are responding to the crossings. For the opening of a new line, the assistance to the public and interpretation of any safety concerns provides valuable input into any possible safety enhancements at the crossing. Use of Ambassadors on an existing line reinforces proper behavior and provides a continual review of perceived safety concerns that could be 137

addressed by the agency. Ambassadors are trained to blow a whistle, explain the improper behavior, and instruct travelers in the appropriate behavior required to safely traverse the system. Figure 150 and Figure 151 contain examples of Ambassadors (in reflectorized vests) positioned to assist transit users. LA Metro originally utilized the Ambassadors 6 months before and 6 months after the opening of a new line but now maintain 44 working Ambassadors that can work up to 30 hours per week. They are safety trained every 2 years and are equipped with radios for immediate response. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 150. Example of Ambassador positioned in the median at a station entrance. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 151. Example of Ambassador stationed at a crossing. 138