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 7: SUMMARY This chapter provides a summary of the work for the TCRP project. The objective of the research was to develop a Guidebook for treatments for pedestrian crossings of public transit rail services, including light rail, commuter rail, and streetcar services. The Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services is available from TCRP (1). The following section summarizes the contents of the Guidebook. The other section summarizes key findings from the research. SUMMARY OF GUIDEBOOK ON PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS OF PUBLIC TRANSIT RAIL SERVICES The Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services is organized into the following chapters: • Chapter 1: Introduction. Provides an overview and the scope of the document. • Chapter 2: Transit Rail Services. Presents an overview of the types of transit rail services. • Chapter 3: Pedestrian Safety. Provides an overview of key pedestrian safety issues associated with public transit rail services along with providing an introduction into pedestrian characteristics. • Chapter 4: NEPA-Related Issues. Discusses pedestrian crossing issues associated with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) after presenting an overview of NEPA. • Chapter 5: Accessibility/ADA Considerations. Presents an overview of the key documents regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). • Chapter 6: Treatment Selection. Summarizes readily available decision flowcharts used to make decisions regarding pedestrian treatments at rail crossings. • Chapter 7: Treatment Overview. Introduces the sections used within Chapter 8. • Chapter 8: Pedestrian Treatments. Presents information for 34 pedestrian treatments used at rail crossings. • Chapter 9: Case Studies. Includes four case studies that examine specific decisions with respect to pedestrian-rail crossings. • References. Lists the references included in the Guidebook. Within each pedestrian treatment discussion the following sections are used: • Description. Provides a short overview of the treatment. • Applications. Discusses why this particular treatment would be installed (e.g., higher speed train operation, large number of pedestrians on an intermit basis). Discusses where it would be appropriate or not appropriate to use this treatment. Limitations with the treatment are also discussed in this section. • Implementation. Discusses how the treatment function and if there are any installation concerns. Provides examples of where the treatment has been installed and if there are any known lessons learned regarding the treatment. 139

• Benefits. Documents benefits (or disbenefits) of the treatment. Also includes any known effectiveness (safety, operations, motorist, or pedestrian behavior) of the treatment. • Cost. Provides a typical cost for the treatment. The Guidebook discusses the following pedestrian treatments: 1. Channelization. 2. Barriers – general. 3. Barriers – offset pedestrian crossing. 4. Barriers – pedestrian fencing. 5. Barriers – between cars at transit platform edges. 6. Barriers – temporary. 7. Design – clearly defined pedestrian crossing. 8. Design – smooth and level surface. 9. Design – stops and terminals. 10. Design – sight distance improvements. 11. Design – stops and terminals. 12. Design – illumination. 13. Design – flangeway filler. 14. Design – pedestrian refuge. 15. Design – on-road bollards. 16. Design – sidewalk relocation. 17. Signs – passive. 18. Signs – warning messages. 19. Signs – warning signs for enforcement. 20. Signs – blank-out warning. 21. Signals – timing considerations near railroad crossings. 22. Signals – flashing light signal assembly. 23. Signals – in-pavement flashing lights. 24. Pavement markings – stop lines. 25. Pavement markings – detectable warnings. 26. Pavement markings – word or symbol. 27. Pavement markings – dynamic envelope markings. 28. Infrastructure – audible crossing warning devices. 29. Infrastructure – pedestrian automatic gates. 30. Infrastructure – pedestrian automatic gate with horizontal hanging bar. 31. Infrastructure – pedestrian swing gates. 32. Operations – required stop. 33. Operations – reduced speed. 34. Operations – rail safety ambassador program. SUMMARY OF RESEARCH FINDINGS Rail Characteristics The systems considered in this research—light rail, commuter rail, and streetcar transit systems—represent 58 unique transit rail systems that operated a total of 4,475 route-miles of 140

service in 41 different urban areas of the United States. In 2011, more than 950.9 million unlinked passenger trips were made on these 58 systems, with trips covering more than 13.6 billion miles. The magnitude of these figures suggests that the transit rail systems within the scope of this research are important parts of the multimodal transportation system of the communities in which they operate. Pedestrian Characteristics Pedestrians, as a vehicle type, possess certain unique characteristics and behaviors that must be considered in the planning, design, and operation of pedestrian crossings for public transit rail services. Some of these characteristics include the following: • Pedestrians are slow. • Pedestrians are flexible. • Pedestrians are fragile. • Pedestrians are sensitive to their surroundings. • Pedestrians may be inattentive. Pedestrian Crossing Treatments The purpose of pedestrian crossing devices is to make pedestrians aware of the presence of the train and/or to prevent pedestrians from crossing at inappropriate times. Several types of crossing treatments or devices are used at rail crossings. Some of the crossing treatments fit within a traffic control device category while others, such as fencing, are part of the infrastructure provided at the crossing. A single crossing treatment or device will not be sufficient; rather, a combination of devices is needed to communicate appropriate crossing locations and crossing times. Information about specific pedestrian crossing treatment obtained from the literature is available in Chapter 3 while a general overview of the characteristics and effectiveness of the relevant treatments is included in the Guidebook. Several documents provide suggestions on items to be considered during treatment selection including: • Federal Railroad Administration in Compilation of Pedestrian Safety Devices in Use at Grade Crossings (5). • TCRP Report 69 (22). • SCRRA Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Recommended Design Practices and Standards Manual (24). • Pedestrian-Rail Crossing in California (33). Crashes Collisions between streetcar, light rail, or commuter rail trains and pedestrians are not common, but when they do occur the consequences are often very severe. This is demonstrated by the analysis of light rail vehicle collisions that found that while only 4 percent of all injuries as a result of light rail vehicle collisions were pedestrians, approximately 41 percent of fatalities were pedestrians. 141

Crashes happened throughout the rail system, including where pedestrians should not be walking, such as along the rail track. However, crashes between pedestrians and transit trains also occur at designated crossing locations. The ability to determine where crashes may happen and under which circumstances is not fully identified by analyzing the available data sources alone, but these data sources do provide some general trends that can act as a component of a more in-depth safety evaluation. Surveys The results of the online survey and the phone survey indicated that a variety of treatments are currently in use. The results also indicated that there are some treatments used in more locations and other treatments that are rarely used, although each treatment was selected at least once by the respondents to the online survey. A common theme raised by survey respondents was that there was not a predominant set of standards or guidelines for applying specific treatments to specific situations. Consequently, one important aim of this research was to provide consistent guidelines based on good engineering judgment and consideration of site conditions as a useful tool for practitioners to use. In addition, even though transit agencies may use treatments and strategies based on prevailing conditions and existing guidance, their use does not negate the need for pedestrians to exercise personal responsibility or the need for some level of enforcement. Most of the phone interview participants acknowledged the difficulty in measuring the effectiveness of treatments. In large part, this difficulty is due to each crossing being unique and the fact that most do not identify with just a single treatment but with a system of treatments. In discussing particular issues, line of sight was the most significant issue identified, with several transit agencies actively working to identify and improve sight distance issues at grade crossings along their rail lines. In general, the transit agencies appear to be active in their interaction with people with disabilities and concerned with the mobility and safety of all potential system users or those that interact with it. 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 also influenced the discussions included within the Guidebook, so to emphasize how to analyze conditions at a crossing with respect to the needs of pedestrians. The research team visited several crossings within the following three regions: • Boston, MA. • Portland, OR. • Los Angeles, CA. 142

The site visits generated several key observations and findings for specific treatments that affected the presentation within the Guidebook. Rather than repeating those key treatment observations here, the reader should review the appropriate section of the Guidebook. Following is a brief, broad (i.e., non-treatment specific) overview of key findings from this research: • A task force within the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices has developed figures for potential inclusion in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Several figures show potential sidewalk placements. Debates were held within the National Committee regarding whether these figures on the sidewalk geometrics should be included in a manual focused on traffic control devices. One of the comments made was the need for this type of information to be located in a national reference document, and currently there is no such national document. This story illustrates the need for the type of Guidebook being developed within this TCRP study. Relevant figures were incorporated into the Guidebook. • The types of treatments used are related to the type of service (e.g., light rail or commuter) along with the roadside development (e.g., retail, residential) and the age of the rail lines. Train services integrated into an established, developed area or train lines that have been in service for many years typically have less space and more restrictions in the crossing and station designs. Retrofitting these lines to current accessibility requirements or to provide more pedestrian amenities is complicated and expensive. • Those interviewed or met during the site visits seem to understand that the old standards may not be adequate given current conditions and are periodically updating system design standards. In addition to constructing new transit rail lines that utilize current standards, they are actively working to bring older transit rail system lines up to current safety design standards. • Other variables that can affect decisions regarding pedestrian-related treatments at a crossing include frequency of the trains, vehicles, or pedestrians along with the speed of the trains and the available sight distance. Because of the number of variables to consider at a crossing, the treatments or set of treatments to use cannot be standardized. Guiding principles can be used to aid in the selection process; however, the analysis is unique for each crossing and engineering judgment is needed to make the decisions on what should be installed. • 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. For example, although signs are present 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. • General approaches to pedestrian safety at crossings include restricting the pedestrians to cross at designated locations and having the pedestrians look both ways before crossing rail tracks. • Treatments need to be built with durability in mind, so people cannot bypass the treatment by altering or destroying it. • Providing consistency within a region is challenging, especially when there are multiple systems or multiple line ownerships, including freight. Having a formal mechanism for communication between departments can address some of the challenges. 143

• Regular involvement of an advisory committee of transit users with disabilities in planning grade crossings and other pedestrian facilities can help to assure that facilities not only comply with the ADA but that they are user-friendly. 144