Guidebook on 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.

56 This chapter discusses the following 34 pedestrian treatments: 1. Channelization 2. Barriers—General 3. Barriers—Offset Pedestrian Crossing 4. Barriers—Maze Fencing 5. Barriers—Pedestrian Fencing 6. Barriers—Between-Car Barriers at Transit Platform Edges 7. Barriers—Temporary 8. Design—Clearly Defined Pedestrian Crossing 9. Design—Smooth and Level Surface 10. Design—Sight Distance Improvements 11. Design—Stops and Terminals 12. Design—Illumination 13. Design—Flangeway Filler 14. Design—Pedestrian Refuge 15. Design—Sidewalk Relocation 16. Design—On-Road Bollards 17. Signs—Passive 18. Signs—Unique Warning Messages 19. Signs—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—Pedestrian 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 Gates with Horizontal Hanging Bar 31. Infrastructure—Pedestrian Swing Gates 32. Operations—Required Stop 33. Operations—Reduced Train Speed 34. Operations—Rail Safety Ambassador Program C H A P T E R 8 Pedestrian Treatments

Pedestrian Treatments 57 Treatment 1: Channelization Description Channelization treatments guide pedestrians to appropriate crossing locations, minimize the area in which crossings can be physically completed, and reduce conflict points. Applications Minimizing the number of conflict points for pedestrians is an approach used to improve safety. One of the techniques used to limit conflict points is channelizing pedestrians by means of barriers. A wide variety of barriers, such as fencing, railing, and chains with bollards or posts, can be used to provide positive control over most pedestrian movements; however, the barrier needs to be readily detectable by pedestrians who are visually impaired. Implementation TCRP Report 137 (4) notes that the most restrictive form of channelization is the barrier. Barrier channelization can control pedestrian access to the tracks, thereby focusing pedestrian movements at a designated crossing location. Fixed barriers restrict the movements of pedestrians approaching a rail crossing and lead pedestrians toward a designated crossing location. Figure 22 shows an example of fencing used to channelize pedestrians, and Figure 23 shows the use of curbs and fencing to channelize pedestrians (Figure 23 also shows a well-located APS). Benefits Minimizing the number of conflict points between pedestrians and rail vehicles should improve the safety of a crossing. Cost The typical cost of a pedestrian barricade is $683 each (65), and the typical cost of fencing is $334/linear ft (66). Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 22. Example of fencing used to channelize pedestrians to appropriate crossing location.

58 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services Treatment 2: Barriers—General Description Barriers physically restrict the movement of pedestrians. Barriers are similar to pedestrian fencing, and in some cases the terms pedestrian barriers and pedestrian fencing are used interchangeably. Barriers can also be used to achieve desired channelization; see the previous section for a discussion of channelization. Applications Barrier devices are designed to control or restrict movement. They may involve parallel longitudinal barriers of various types used to separate the pedestrians and/or motorists from the tracks. Barriers restrict the path of pedestrians or motor vehicles and prevent them from crossing the tracks. Examples of barriers are medians, fences, landscaping, curbs, bollards with chains between them, and supplemental railing or handles configured to fit unique spaces. The taller barriers, such as fences and some landscaping, prevent people from easily stepping over the restriction. Handles can be used to inhibit people from walking between the track and channelization, stepping around channelization to enter a street, or squeezing between light poles and fencing or bollards. In one example, a station was reviewed soon after a snowfall to identify pedestrian tracks indicating locations where people were bypassing existing fencing. This effort determined several locations for corrective measures, including finding that pedestrians were squeezing between channelization pillars and light posts. The handles shown in Figure 24 were added to the bollards to close the space between the bollards and the light post to minimize bypassing of the barrier. Implementation Barrier treatments must be installed in such a way that pedestrians (or vehicles) are not able to easily circumvent them. To have maximum effectiveness, they must not have gaps through which a pedestrian (or vehicle) may travel. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 23. Fencing and curbs used to channelize pedestrians to crossing location; the photo also shows a well-located APS.

Pedestrian Treatments 59 Several styles of barriers are used, depending upon the needs at a site. Examples of barriers include the following: • Fencing that blocks pedestrians from crossing the tracks outside of the pedestrian crossing area (see Figure 25). • Curbs or planters (see Figure 26). • Bollards with chains between the posts (see Figure 27). • Tubular barriers consisting of metal pipes that guide pedestrians to the correct crossing path (see Figure 28). • Supplemental railing or handles configured to fit unique spaces (see Figures 29 and 30). A consideration in choosing and installing barriers is ensuring that they are detectable by individuals who are blind or who have low vision and are not installed in a manner that results in a Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 24. Example of handle barriers observed in Portland. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 25. Example of fencing used to create a barrier to limit crossings to the paved pedestrian crossing; the fence restricts passage across the tracks within a station.

60 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 26. Example of a planter used to restrict movement. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 27. Example of bollards with chains used to restrict movement. protruding object (see Chapter 5). The bottom edge of supplemental handles should be 27 inches or less from the ground or floor. Where chains, fencing, or railings are used for edge treatment, they should have a bottom edge that is a maximum of 380 mm (15 inches) above the sidewalk, per the Proposed PROWAG (58). Two chains are preferred, as shown in Figure 27. Benefits As reported in TCRP Report 137 (4), Utah Transit Authority noted that its track sections with curbs experience less vehicle, pedestrian, and cyclist trespassing than alignments with transverse rumble strips.

Pedestrian Treatments 61 Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 28. Example of tubular barriers. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 29. Example of a handle used to restrict movement between the pedestrian walkway and tracks/train. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 30. Example of handles used to restrict movement between the pedestrian walkway and street.

62 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services Cost The typical cost of barriers varies depending upon the style of the barrier. California 2012 contract data show $334/linear ft for pedestrian rail and $108/linear ft for barriers (65). Treatment 3: Barriers—Offset Pedestrian Crossing Description Barriers are used to create offset pedestrian crossings, also known as Z-crossings, to reorient pedestrians to face oncoming train traffic as they cross the rail tracks. Applications At an offset crossing, barriers or landscaping are used to reorient the pedestrian to face the direction of the anticipated train (see Figure 31). Offset pedestrian crossings include fencing or barriers designed to direct pedestrians to walk facing oncoming rail vehicles before crossing the tracks to increase pedestrian awareness of the oncoming rail vehicles. Pedestrian travel may also be constrained by landscaping or pavement. Implementation The configuration of an offset crossing forces pedestrians to face the direction of a potentially approaching rail vehicle. Offset crossings should be used only at pedestrian crossings with adequate Figure 31. Example of a typical offset crossing (also known as a Z-crossing) where a pedestrian must turn to the left and then to the right to maneuver through the barriers. Source: Texas A&M Transportation Institute

Pedestrian Treatments 63 sight distance (if pedestrians are turned to face approaching rail vehicles but cannot see them because of obstructions, the offset crossing loses its effectiveness). An example of an offset pedestrian crossing that needed to accommodate a change in elevation is shown in Figure 32. A common type of fixed barriers is at Z-crossings (often tubular barriers). Z-crossings can be used in combination with other devices such as pedestrian signals or pedestrian automatic gates. Benefits Offset pedestrian crossings increase pedestrian safety and alertness by channeling pedestrian movements. Z-crossings and tubular barriers should not be used where rail vehicles operate in both directions on a single track because pedestrians may be looking the wrong way in some instances. Although pedestrians may also look in the wrong direction during rail vehicle reverse- running situations, reverse running should not negate the value of offset crossings and tubular barrier crossings because this type of operation is performed at lower speeds and is typically used only during maintenance or emergencies (2, 67). Cost The cost of an offset crossing is variable, depending upon whether a crossing already exists, whether additional ROW is needed to accomplish the preferred design, the necessary length of the channelizing material, and the type of material used to direct pedestrians. Other considerations include elevation changes (the need for a ramp) and how the design may affect drainage in the area. The average cost of a fence is $130/linear ft, and the average cost of a median island is $10/square ft (68). Sriraj and Metaxatos (69) provide the typical cost of $106,000 for a pedestrian crossing. Treatment 4: Barriers—Maze Fencing Description Fences are used to create a maze that slows pedestrians as they approach the crossing. Applications Proper channelization can be used to construct a crossing that pedestrians will use as intended. Channelization treatments must be installed in such a way that pedestrians (or bicyclists) are not Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 32. Example of an offset crossing.

64 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services able to easily circumvent them. The NCUTCD Railroad/Light Rail Transit Technical Committee developed recommended revisions to the MUTCD (8) for Section 8D on sidewalk and pathway rail grade crossings in June 2013 (59). Figure 33 shows the dimensions suggested for barriers used to slow and reorient pedestrians. Implementation Figures 34 and 35 show examples of pedestrian barriers installed in a maze or zigzag style pat- tern on sidewalks and at LRT stations. The configuration of the paths forces pedestrians to slow and face the direction of a potentially approaching rail vehicle. Maze fencing should be used only at pedestrian crossings with adequate sight distance. Benefits Pedestrian crossings with maze fencing should increase pedestrian safety and alertness by slowing and channeling pedestrian movements. In some configurations, pedestrians can be forced to turn 180 degrees, thereby having a view of both directions as they approach the tracks (see the example in Figure 36). Maze fencing on a crossing can caused pedestrian congestion because of limited crossing widths. A careful review of pedestrian movement and space available should be conducted when designing the maze fencing. Cost The average cost of a fence is $130/linear ft (68). Source: adapted from RRLRT No 2a (9-08-12) Pathway Sidewalks (with January 10, 2013, edits by the committee) Figure 8D-7, 2013 (59) Figure 33. Suggested dimensions for barriers used to reorient pedestrians.

Pedestrian Treatments 65 Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 34. Example of railing used between fences to slow and reorient pedestrians at a crossing. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 35. Example of tubular barriers used to slow pedestrians. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 36. Extensive fencing channelizing pedestrians to the appropriate crossing.

66 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services Treatment 5: Barriers—Pedestrian Fencing Description Fencing is a channelizing treatment to guide pedestrians at crossings. Fencing is similar to barriers, and in some cases the terms pedestrian barriers and pedestrian fencing are used interchangeably. Applications Pedestrian fencing is designed to channel pedestrian movements to designated crossing areas and limit the number of potential pedestrian-rail conflict points. TCRP Report 17 (1) recommends “channel[ing] pedestrian flows on sidewalks, at intersections and at stations to minimize errant or random pedestrian crossings of the LRT track environment.” Also reported in TCRP Report 137 (4) is that “pedestrian-rail at-grade crossing design is only effective if pedestrians actually cross at the designated point and take a path that allows them clear observation of the warning devices.” Fencing, along with signage and markings, encourages pedestrians to cross at designated crossings. Physical channelization is also necessary for the effective installation of all types of automatic or manual pedestrian gates. Pedestrians violate pedestrian gates at sites with inadequate channelization. Implementation Pedestrians must not be trapped within the dynamic envelope of the rail vehicle; it is important to leave room for a pedestrian between the fencing and the dynamic envelope (see the discussion in Treatment 14: Design–Pedestrian Refuge). A consequence of a fence is that it could affect available sight distance. Figure 37 shows the decrease in height of a fence located between two tracks near a pedestrian-rail crossing to improve sight distance for the train operator to crossing pedestrians and for pedestrians to the train. In Pedestrian-Rail Crossings in California (49), a maximum height of 3 ft 7 inches is recommended. Figure 22 provides an example of fencing channeling the pedestrian to the appropriate crossing location while also blocking the pedestrian from accessing the area near the gate arm. Figure 38 shows an example of fencing between tracks with a gap where a surface is provided for pedestrian crossing. Figure 39 shows another example of fencing at a station. For this station, the material selected was a reflection of the neighboring architecture. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 37. Example of a change in fence height prior to pedestrian crossing to improve sight distance.

Pedestrian Treatments 67 Benefits Specific research that documents the operational or safety benefits of this treatment was not identified. Cost The typical cost of fencing varies depending upon the style of the fence and materials used. The average cost of a fence is $130/linear ft (65). Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 38. In-station pedestrian crossing where fencing is used to restrict crossing to a designated location. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 39. Example of a fence designed to match the neighboring architecture.

68 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services Treatment 6: Barriers—Between-Car Barriers at Transit Platform Edges Description Between-car barriers are used at specific locations along transit platform edges or between rail cars to prevent passengers who are visually impaired from mistaking the space between the ends of rail cars for the doors into the cars. Applications Passengers who are visually impaired, especially passengers having little or no vision, and who travel with the aid of a long white cane, have fallen to the track bed between rail cars in a number of rail properties, sometimes resulting in injury, death, and/or expensive litigation. Flexible delineators, as seen in Figure 40, have been installed in Los Angeles and other cities to prevent visually impaired passengers from falling between rail cars because they mistake the gap between cars for the doorway into a car. Barriers attached to rail cars are also used in Los Angeles (see Figure 41). FTA requires some treatment to prevent passengers who are visually impaired from falling between cars. Acceptable solutions “include, but are not limited to, pantograph gates, chains, motion detectors or similar devices” (48CFR38, Sec. 38.63. Between-car barriers). Implementation FTA envisioned that devices would be attached to cars as seen in Figure 41, and rail properties are experimenting with various treatments. Challenges are increased labor costs for coupling and uncoupling various devices and the need for multiple treatments to fit various car designs. Between-car barriers mounted at the edge of the platform do not have these challenges. The between-car barriers seen in Figure 40 are a type of flexible delineator requiring minimal labor Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 40. Flexible delineators as between-car barriers to prevent passengers who are blind from falling between rail cars.

Pedestrian Treatments 69 and maintenance. Between-car barriers are installed along platform edges where they line up with gaps between cars. The success of this treatment is dependent on precise stopping of trains, either automatically or by well-trained employees. Benefits When between-car barriers are correctly installed to align with gaps between rail cars and stopping of trains is precise, the barriers are a clear indication to pedestrians who are visually impaired, especially pedestrians traveling with the aid of a long white cane, that the gap between cars is not a place to board. Visually impaired passengers report that the between-car barriers not only effectively indicate the location of the between-car gaps, but that when trains stop reliably in relation to the between-car barriers, the barriers serve as a wayfinding aid. Passengers with visual impairments learn just how far from the ends of the barriers they need to wait so that they will be well positioned to board vehicles. Barriers attached to cars provide protection irrespective of whether the train stops at precise locations. Cost The typical cost of barriers located along platform edges varies depending upon the style of the bollard and materials used. The typical cost of 12 yellow delineators and needed bases and end caps is approximately $2,000. Treatment 7: Barriers—Temporary Description Temporary barriers provide the same channelization benefits as permanent barriers, but they can be moved to meet specific needs during special events or peak periods and then removed when no longer needed. Source: Gilleran. Permission granted by the owner for a one-time use of this photograph in the Guidebook. No right to otherwise reproduce this photograph is granted, and no rights of ownership of these photographs are transferred to TCRP. Figure 41. Between-car barriers attached to rail cars to prevent passengers who are blind from falling between rail cars.

70 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services Applications Temporary barriers restrict the crossing movements of pedestrians and cyclists and prevent them from randomly walking onto the rail. The barriers can be installed temporarily to restrict pedestrian and cyclist movements for limited periods of time and/or for infrequent events, such as sporting events. Temporary barriers enhance the existing safety treatments at stations and crossings during infrequent high pedestrian volumes. A transit agency using these devices should investigate and compare the specifications of multiple models of barriers from multiple vendors to confirm that the barrier selected for use will meet the needs for which it is being used, is designed for ease of use by agency employees, and can be conveniently stored while not in use. Described in MUTCD (8) Chapter 6, temporary barriers should meet the needs of all users, including persons with disabilities. Implementation As reported in TCRP Report 137 (4), San Francisco Muni uses portable steel barriers and numerous transit staff and police to manage large crowds crossing the LRT alignment adjacent to the baseball stadium. Shown in Figure 42, the station adjacent to Portland’s sports arena has a gate in the permanent fencing that can be adjusted to temporarily close access to the platform. Also shown in Figure 42 are stored temporary barriers. Benefits Temporary barriers allow for the enhancement of safety without the installation of permanent barriers and are adjustable to specific conditions. Because device specifications and usage conditions vary widely, specific safety or operational benefits have not been documented. Cost The typical cost varies depending upon the style of the barrier. California 2012 contract data show $683 for a pedestrian barricade (65). Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 42. Temporary barriers at the transit center station adjacent to Portland’s sports arena.

Pedestrian Treatments 71 Treatment 8: Design—Clearly Defined Pedestrian Crossing Description Clear definition of crosswalks is essential for encouraging pedestrians to cross at intended locations. Applications The preferred location for a pedestrian crossing is where it is expected, where it is easy to locate, and where it is convenient to use. Pedestrian safety is enhanced when the crossing is designed such that it crosses the tracks at as close to a right angle as practical. It is desirable that the crossing be designed such that it maintains a relatively consistent horizontal alignment and profile for a distance of 12 ft from the nearest rail. Treatments to define the pedestrian crossing make wayfinding at grade crossings easy for all pedestrians, including those who are visually impaired. Wayfinding tasks at grade crossings include locating the crossing, determining the direction of the crossing, and following the intended direction of travel on the crossing. Treatments should also minimize the likelihood that pedestrians will cross rails at unintended locations. Implementation All pedestrians should be able to readily locate pedestrian crossings, determine their direction, and remain on the intended path of travel. Figure 43 shows an example of an easily recognizable pedestrian crossing within a station. This crossing presents easy wayfinding due to its straight alignment and the contrasting surface materials of concrete and gravel. When crossings are located at four-way vehicular intersections, begin and end on opposite corners, and continue straight across the tracks along the same trajectory as the approaching sidewalks, most pedestrians will find wayfinding easy. However, where crossings do not begin at a corner, treatments such as Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 43. Example of visually contrasting surface materials, including detectable warnings, used within a clearly defined crossing surface for a pedestrian crossing within a station.

72 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services fencing may help pedestrians locate the crossings. Where crossings at intersections, midblock, or in stations are diagonal, indicating the direction of travel on the crossing by some type of tactile markings, as seen in Figure 44, is helpful to visually impaired pedestrians. Three attempts to provide tactile markings can be seen in Figure 44. Outermost are strips of raised roadway markings that did not stay down well. Next is very worn thermoplastic paint. Originally, there were several layers of thermoplastic paint; the paint provided tactile guidance, but was not sufficiently durable. Innermost are raised “hotdogs,” which provided good guidance and were durable; however, the product is no longer available. When the full length of the crossing is not straight, as in offset or Z-crossings, channelizing fencing or landscaping can guide pedestrians to stay within the crossing. Figure 45 shows channel- izing fencing with the opening at the end of the crosswalk. Figure 46 shows landscaping used to Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 44. Three attempts to provide tactile guidance at a crossing. Source: Billie Louise Bentzen Figure 45. The channelizing fencing guides pedestrians who are visually impaired to the intended crossing location.

Pedestrian Treatments 73 channelize pedestrians at an offset crossing. Pedestrians who are visually impaired can find the opening to the channel easily if they cross straight within the crosswalk to the center-running tracks, as seen in Figure 45 and Figure 46. However, channelizing fencing can also be very confusing to both pedestrians who have unimpaired vision and pedestrians who are visually impaired if the opening in the channel is not located at the end of the crosswalk. Where there is shared alignment at a crossing with a boarding platform, whether center or side running, detectable warnings should define the refuge at the end of the platform and help pedes- trians with visual impairments to locate the platform (see Case Study C in Chapter 9). When detectable warnings are used at both edges of a refuge, pedestrians who are visually impaired are alerted to the presence of a refuge. Where crossings are midblock, and there is a curb ramp with a detectable warning at the bottom of the curb ramp as seen in Figure 46, visually impaired pedes- trians who are familiar with the crossing can find it by looking for the curb ramp and detectable warning. If they are unfamiliar with the crossing, they may not find it. Fencing is often used to prevent pedestrians from crossing tracks at an unintended location. When used for this purpose, fencing should be continuous and high enough to be an effec- tive barrier. Figure 37 shows continuous high fencing that effectively prevents pedestrians from crossing the tracks outside the level crossing. The extensive fencing shown in Figure 36 prevents pedestrians from crossing at unintended locations, and it also guides pedestrians from the track level to the platform level. Benefits Specific benefits of a clearly defined pedestrian crossing have not been documented; however, it seems likely that the treatment would attract pedestrians to cross at preferred locations and not at unintended locations. Cost The cost of a pedestrian crossing varies depending upon whether a crossing already exists, whether additional ROW is needed to accomplish the preferred design, and the type of material Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 46. Landscaping channelizes pedestrians to the appropriate crossing location while the detectable warning at the bottom of the curb ramp is a good cue for visually impaired pedestrians that they have reached the edge of the street and are at a crosswalk.

74 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services to be used around the tracks. Other considerations include elevation changes (e.g., the need for a ramp and how the design may affect drainage in the area). The average cost of a median island is $10/square ft (65). Sriraj and Metaxatos provide an estimated cost of $106,000 for a roadway/ crossing surface renewal (69). Treatment 9: Design—Smooth and Level Surface Description Smooth and level surfaces in pedestrian grade crossings enable safe and comfortable travel by all pedestrians, including those who are visually impaired and those who have mobility impairments. Applications Similar to minimizing the flangeway gap, there is a need to control the vertical difference between the rail and the adjacent surfaces. Vertical differences can be as critical as horizontal gaps because the vertical differences can cause the swivel casters of a wheelchair to turn sideways and drop into the flangeway gap. The Proposed PROWAG (58) states that vertical alignment shall be generally planar within pedestrian access routes (including curb ramp runs, blended transitions, turning spaces, and gutter areas within pedestrian access routes), on surfaces at other elements, and in spaces that connect to pedestrian access routes. Grade breaks shall be flush. Where pedestrian access routes cross rails at grade, the pedestrian access route surface shall be level and flush with the top of the rail at the outer edges of the rails, and the surface between the rails shall be aligned with the top of the rail. Pedestrian access route surfaces should be smooth. Surfaces should be chosen for easy rol- lability. Surfaces that are heavily textured, rough, or chamfered, and paving systems consisting of individual units that cannot be laid in plane, will greatly increase rolling resistance and subject pedestrians who use wheelchairs, scooters, and rolling walkers to the stressful and often painful effects of vibration. Such materials should be reserved for borders and decorative accents located outside of or only occasionally crossing the pedestrian access route. Surfaces should be designed, constructed, and maintained according to appropriate industry standards, specifications, and recommendations for best practice. Implementation The Proposed PROWAG (58) states that vertical surface discontinuities shall be a maximum of 0.5 inches. Vertical surface discontinuities between 0.25 inches and 0.5 inches shall be beveled with a slope not steeper than 50 percent. The bevel shall be applied across the entire vertical surface discontinuity. When rail crossings are not at 90 degrees, the difficulties caused by vertical discontinuities are exacerbated. Vertical discontinuities also increase the likelihood that bicyclists will lose control of their bicycles. Special attention should be paid to ensure that vertical discontinuity is minimized at diagonal crossings. The crossing at a station of the Los Angeles Gold Line uses solid red paving that matches the style of crosswalks for adjoining intersections. Most of the width of the rail crossing is stamped in a grid pattern; however, an area approximately 6 ft wide and the full length of the crossing has no stamped pattern (see Figure 47). The wheelchair symbol is placed on that part of the crossing.

Pedestrian Treatments 75 The smooth section enables pedestrians who have difficulty traversing bumpy surfaces to have that part of the path be a smooth surface. Benefits Smooth and level surfaces at grade crossings reduce the likelihood of trips and falls for all pedestrians and bicyclists. This is especially true for people who travel with the aid of wheelchairs or other wheeled aids and for pedestrians who have difficulty raising their feet or who have drop foot, in which the ability to lift the front part of the foot is impaired. Cost This treatment may have no additional cost depending upon decisions made regarding the type of crossing material selected for the site. Treatment 10: Design—Sight Distance Improvements Description Pedestrian-rail crossings need to provide adequate sight distance so that crossing pedestrians can see approaching trains from a sufficient distance to determine whether they can safely cross. Applications Adequate sight distance is critical regardless of the presence of active or passive warning devices. At crossings controlled by active devices, pedestrians may still enter the crossing if they do not see a train approaching. In addition, if one train has already passed, pedestrians may enter the crossing unaware of a second train approaching from the opposite direction. At crossings controlled by passive devices only, the need for adequate sight distance becomes even more important. A pedestrian needs to be aware of an approaching train to determine the Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 47. A smooth area within a stamped crosswalk provides an ADA-compliant surface for pedestrians in wheelchairs.

76 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services potential hazard at the crossing. For crossings controlled by either passive or active devices, if the sight distance is inadequate, then active positive control is essential. Sight distance for both pedestrians and train operators is one of the most critical compo- nents in creating a safe pedestrian environment. Removing or redesigning sight obstructions is therefore a critical consideration in pedestrian safety. Sight obstructions are usually sound obstructions as well, making it difficult for pedestrians with visual impairments to hear oncoming vehicles or warning sounds. Removing sight obstructions could involve cutting back vegetation and tree limbs, but could also involve addressing impediments such as fencing, sound walls, and structures. Case Study B in Chapter 9 provides a summary of a situation in which a sound wall was adjusted to improve sight distance. Portland replaced a brick shelter with a covered shelter to open up sightlines and surveillance by supervisors, transit police, and operators (70). Implementation Guidance is available from several sources including Irwin (54) and the CPUC’s Pedestrian- Rail Crossings in California (49). Examples of guidelines for pedestrian clearing sight distance by train speed are provided in Figure 13 and Figure 48. Adequate pedestrian sight distance is based on the time necessary for a pedestrian to see an approaching train, make a decision to cross the tracks, and completely cross the trackway. Additional sight distance might be necessary in loca- tions where pedestrians walk more slowly, such as near a retirement community or hospital. The values in Figure 48 assume a decision/reaction distance of 2 seconds at 3.5 ft/second (fps) and suggest that lower speeds, as low as 1.5 fps, should be used where slower moving pedestrians are expected. Train Speed (mph) Pedestrian Clearing Sight Distance* (ft) 10 180 20 355 25 440 30 530 40 705 50 880 60 1,060 70 1,235 80 1,410 90 1,585 *Walking 1.1 mph (3.5 fps) across two sets of tracks 15 ft apart, with a 2-second reaction time to reach a decision point 3 m (10 ft) before the center of the first track, and clearing 3 m (10 ft) beyond the center line of the second track. Two tracks may be more common in commuter station areas where pedestrians are found. Note: 1 ft = 0.3048 m Source: Pedestrian-Rail Crossings in California (49) Figure 48. Clearing sight distance and sight triangle.

Pedestrian Treatments 77 Benefits Because specific treatments to improve sight distance can vary widely from site to site, spe- cific safety or operational benefits have not been formally documented. Improvements in sight distance are likely to also result in improvements in the ability to hear oncoming vehicles, an important benefit for pedestrians with visual impairments. Cost The typical cost of a sight distance improvement is highly variable, depending upon the changes needed. Treatment 11: Design—Stops and Terminals Description A change in the design of a stop or station terminal can improve pedestrian safety. Applications Examples of applications include the following: • Crossing angle. Pedestrian safety is enhanced when the crossing is designed such that it crosses the tracks at as close to a right angle as practical. • Pedestrian flow. Altering pedestrian flow may involve increasing channelization, installing barriers, or adding passive and active signs. More significant changes could combine treatments along with redesigning crossings. St. Louis Metro reconfigured pedestrian crossings within some stations from the inbound to outbound side of the platform after analysis showed an elevated level of incidents occurring while trains were entering stations. Los Angeles Metro adjusted the station entrance of the Little Tokyo station on the Gold Line to more easily allow access from the end, which required only one track crossing, instead of access along one side, which required crossing three sets of tracks for one of the approaches (see Case Study B in Chapter 9). • Median stops. For some systems, passengers need to cross traffic lanes to reach the train operating between travel lanes. Currie and Smith (71) note that such stops are a well-known problem for LRT systems that operate in mixed traffic in Toronto (Ontario, Canada) and Melbourne (Victoria, Australia). Passengers sometimes wait on the street without protection from moving traffic. Similarly, when passengers alight, they often do so without protection from moving traffic. In addition to safety concerns, LRT systems of this type may not be accessible to persons with disabilities because level boarding may not be provided. Currie and Smith (71) offer several examples of alternative stop design solutions, including – Safety zone stops. A safety zone is a boarding area located in the center lanes of roads, where the zone has railings to protect waiting passengers from the traffic flow. – Super stops. Super stops are high-quality station-style designs located in the center lanes of roads that include platforms, shelters, and real-time passenger information. • Curbside stops. Depending on system design, light-rail and streetcar stops could be designed for curbside stops, where passengers wait at the curb. Several treatments can be provided to improve the safety, access, and accessibility present at a curbside stop. Level access decreases boarding time while also permitting direct access for those in wheelchairs. Another example of an alternative stop design is a stop with a curb extension. The road is narrowed, and the side- walk is widened to permit adding a platform on the edge of the extended curb to aid access. An additional approach to improving safety at curbside stops is requiring vehicular traffic to stop for boarding and alighting. Over the portions of Boston’s Green Line E Branch that

78 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services operate within traffic lanes, signs are posted at rail stops that instruct vehicle drivers to stop while passengers are loading and unloading from the inner lanes (see Figure 49). The LRVs also have red doors that when open present the words STOP and STATE LAW to instruct vehicle drivers to stop (see Figure 50). Another example of requiring vehicles to stop for curbside stop boarding and alighting is found along the McKinney Avenue Authority M-Line Trolley (Dallas, Texas), in which signs guide vehicles to stop at a specific location when the trolley is Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 49. Example of a vehicle sign at the approach to a curbside stop. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 50. Example of train doors showing STOP and STATE LAW messages.

Pedestrian Treatments 79 loading and unloading. These stops also have a visual designation within the inside lane of the trolley stop location, including a block section of hatched pavement markings or different colored brick pavement. An example of a curbside stop along the M-Line Trolley is shown in Figure 51. Similar to the trolleys in Boston, the M-Line Trolleys have a STOP sign that displays to vehicle drivers when the door is open. • Grade separation. Some situations call for the separation of train activity and pedestrian movements. The SCRRA decision tree recommends grade separation if three or more main or controlled siding tracks exist (13). Other considerations for grade separations include the number of trains, the presence of trains that do not stop at a particular station, and the speed of those non-stop trains. Grade separations are very expensive and may require additional land acquisition and evaluation of environmental impacts. Grade separations may be overcrossings or under- crossings. Figure 52 shows the pedestrian overcrossing at the Metrolink Santa Ana Station. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 51. Example of a McKinney M-line trolley stop. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 52. Metrolink Santa Ana Station pedestrian overcrossing.

80 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services • Improved lighting. Improved lighting increases safety at crossings in stations, along with improving security at the locations. In a project to improve safety at the Gresham Transit Center, Portland improved lighting throughout the station (70). Additional discussion regarding lighting is provided in the following section. • Relocation and/or removal of stations. Rail operational and pedestrian safety may be reasons for moving or removing stations. • Sight distance impediments. Discussion regarding sight distance is provided in the previous section. • Widened track centers. Widening track centers at stations allows for the installation of inter-track fencing while maintaining proper clearances. Inter-track fencing is used between tracks to direct pedestrians to proper crossing locations and prevent crossing at unintended locations. The Metrolink Burbank Downtown station is one location in which the track centers were widened to accommodate inter-track fencing (72). Figure 53 shows an example of fencing and a pedestrian crossing configuration for a Metrolink station in Burbank, CA. Implementation Station designs must incorporate not only national design standards but also any applicable local or regional standards or guidelines. Each design must also consider the specific characteristics (e.g., site constraints, train/pedestrian/vehicle traffic patterns, and traffic control) of the par- ticular location in which it would be installed and must accommodate all pedestrians, including pedestrians with disabilities. Benefits Through continual safety reviews, it may become apparent that changing the geometry of stops or station terminals is required to improve the safety of pedestrians, with the benefits varying by treatment type and application. Cost The costs associated with adjusting stop and station terminal designs vary by treatment type and application. A presentation by a Metrolink representative provides a range of costs for grade separations—between $2 and $8 million for overcrossings and between $1.5 and $3.5 million for undercrossings (72). Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 53. View of the inter-track fence at the Metrolink Burbank Downtown Station.

Pedestrian Treatments 81 Treatment 12: Design—Illumination Description Illumination at crossings is necessary to improve nighttime visibility. Applications Illumination of crossings refers to lighting systems installed to increase the visibility of the rail crossing at night. MUTCD Chapter 8 (8) suggests that illumination is sometimes installed at or adjacent to a grade crossing in order to provide better nighttime visibility of trains or LRT equipment and the grade crossing (for example, where a substantial amount of railroad or LRT operations are conducted at night, where grade crossings are blocked for extended periods of time, or where crash history indicates that road users experience difficulty in seeing trains or LRT equipment or traffic control devices during hours of darkness). Where there are pedestrian accommodations at grade crossings, the pedestrian path of travel should be well illuminated so transit vehicle operators can easily see pedestrians. Implementation The MUTCD (8) provides the following recommendation: “types and locations of luminaires for illuminating grade crossings are contained in the American National Standards Institute’s (ANSI) ‘Practice for Roadway Lighting RP-8,’ which is available from the Illuminating Engineering Society.” Figure 54 shows an example of street lighting between two sets of tracks in Portland. Benefits Specific safety or operational benefits of illumination at pedestrian-rail crossings were not identified. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 54. Example of street lighting between two sets of tracks in Portland.

82 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services Cost Per the 2012 California contract data, the average cost of lighting is $70,000 per project (65). Bushell et al. (68) note that lighting costs can vary depending on the fixture type and service agreement with the local utility, as well as whether other improvements are made to the street at the same time. Bushell et al. provide an average per-unit cost of $4,880. Treatment 13: Design—Flangeway Filler Description Flangeway fillers reduce the gap between the pedestrian surface and the rail, reducing the likelihood that a wheeled device such as a wheelchair, wheeled walker, or bicycle will become trapped in the gap and cause a fall. Applications Flangeway gaps are necessary to allow the passage of train wheel flanges, but flangeway gaps pose a potential hazard to pedestrians who use wheelchairs because the gaps can entrap the small front wheels or casters. Flangeway gaps can also entrap the small wheels on wheeled walkers, and they can trap bicycle tires. People using these devices can fall, sometimes resulting in serious injury, where flangeway gaps are not kept to a minimum. The Proposed PROWAG (58) from the United States Access Board limits the flangeway gap to 2.5 inches maximum on non-freight rail track and 3 inches maximum on freight rail track, as shown in Figure 55. The 2.5- and 3-inch dimensions are a reflection of the industry’s efforts to minimize gaps. These dimensions are still a potential trap for wheels. Rubber flangeway fillers at light-rail tracks are sometimes used to mitigate the gap problem, as shown in Figure 56. The FHWA publication Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access (73) notes that flangeway gaps can cause loss of control and entrapment for people who use wheelchairs or for bicycles. The problem is exacerbated if the crossing is not at 90 degrees. Wheels are much more likely to be entrapped when crossings are diagonal. Therefore, where tracks must be crossed on a diagonal, flangeway fillers are especially needed. When the crossing is not at 90 degrees, a wide crossing can enable wheelchair users to orient their chairs to approach the rails at 90 degrees. Source: adapted from the Proposed PROWAG, R302.7.4 Flangeway Gaps (58) Figure 55. Illustration of the maximum flangeway gap.

Pedestrian Treatments 83 Implementation As mentioned above, freight railroad requires a 3-inch flangeway gap at installation. This 3-inch gap is also applicable where commuter-rail transit systems operate on freight rail lines (13). Figure 55 illustrates the maximum flangeway gap of 2.5 inches (64 mm) for non-freight rail track and 3 inches (75 mm) for freight rail track. Numerous rubber and synthetic fillers have been developed (see the example in Figure 56), but research to identify more durable and versatile products is ongoing. Benefits Flangeway fillers assist in maintaining the required flangeway gap and benefit users by providing a relatively smooth and level surface for grade crossings. Cost Flangeway filler is usually installed as a component of a major new construction or reconstruc- tion project. General estimates provided by vendors range from $15/linear ft ($30/track ft) for a low-volume, low-speed application to $60/linear ft ($120/track ft) for a heavy-duty application. Treatment 14: Design—Pedestrian Refuge Description Pedestrian refuge areas provide places for pedestrians to safely wait between rails or automobile travel lanes. Applications Pedestrian refuge areas are to be considered at locations where pedestrians must cross multiple modes of traffic. For example, when light rail operates in the median, pedestrians are required Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 56. Rubber flangeway filler used to minimize the gaps at a rail.

84 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services to cross motorist traffic, the train tracks, and then another set of motorist traffic lanes to travel from one curb to the other. The design should be such that pedestrians are not standing too near the tracks, or in the roadway, when a train approaches. Implementation The pedestrian refuge area should be clearly defined with contrasting materials, and the area needs sufficient dimension to allow pedestrians to wait safely between approaching rail vehicles and/or automobiles. The Proposed PROWAG (58) states that the clear width of pedestrian access routes within medians and pedestrian refuge islands shall be a minimum of 5 ft. When designing a refuge area, consideration should also be given to providing appropriate length to store the number of pedestrians anticipated to wait in the refuge area during peak periods. One of the changes the Railroad/Light Rail Transit Technical Committee (59) has proposed for the MUTCD (8) is to include a figure that shows an example of a refuge area (see Figure 57). Source: adapted from RRLRT No 2a (9-08-12) Pathway Sidewalks (with January 10, 2013, edits by the committee), Figure 8D-9 (59) Figure 57. Example of a refuge area and the use of markings, including detectable warnings, on a sidewalk grade crossing.

Pedestrian Treatments 85 A pedestrian refuge area between tracks is required to be defined by detectable warnings, as shown in Figure 57. See also Treatment 25: Pavement Markings—Detectable Warnings in this chapter and Case Study C in Chapter 9. Benefits Studies on the operations or safety effectiveness of this treatment were not identified. Cost In addition to construction, this treatment could include additional ROW costs. California 2012 contract data show $422/cubic yard for minor concrete (sidewalk) (65). Treatment 15: Design—Sidewalk Relocation Description Installation of other crossing treatments may require relocating the sidewalk to accommodate the treatments. Applications Treatments to facilitate pedestrian (or vehicle) crossings are often added to existing crossings. In some cases, providing the necessary space to install these treatments may require relocating the adjacent sidewalk so that the gate arm counterweight or other treatments do not interfere with the pedestrian access route. Per FRA’s Compilation of Pedestrian Safety Devices in Use at Grade Crossings (5), Oregon routes any pedestrian facility 5 ft behind any crossing gate arm assembly to account for the position of the gate arm counterweight when the gate is horizontal. Implementation Relocating a sidewalk should follow the accessibility guidelines described by the Proposed PROWAG (58). Examples of reasons to relocate a sidewalk include providing a better angle of crossing when the rail tracks are at a skew to the sidewalk (see Figure 58) or avoiding the counter- weight of the gate arms (see Figure 59). Benefits The effectiveness of this treatment on operations or safety has not been formally documented. Cost In addition to construction, this treatment could include additional ROW costs. California 2012 contract data show $422/cubic yard for minor concrete (sidewalk) and $2.59/linear ft to remove concrete (sidewalk) (65). Treatment 16: Design—On-Road Bollards Description Bollards are installed at the end of an in-roadway station to prevent left-turning vehicles from entering the station area.

86 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services Applications Where trains are center running, the side of the pedestrian crossing closest to a motor vehicle crossing can be marked with small break-away bollards. These bollards were recently installed in Los Angeles to reduce the likelihood of left-turning vehicles striking pedestrians in the crossing. The bollards can also serve to indicate the edge of the crosswalk to pedestrians who are visually impaired. Implementation Figure 60 shows a pedestrian crossing in Los Angeles where flexible bollards are installed at the edge of the station. The bollards provide a vertical warning to left-turn motorists. Figure 61 shows a closeup of the bollards. Source: adapted from RRLRT No 2a (9-08-12) Pathway Sidewalks (with January 10, 2013, edits by the committee), Figure 8D-3, (59) Figure 58. Example of sidewalk placement outside of a grade crossing gate (skewed crossing).

Pedestrian Treatments 87 Source: adapted from RRLRT No 2a (9-08-12) Pathway Sidewalks (with January 10, 2013, edits by the committee), Figure 8D-2 (59) Figure 59. Example of sidewalk placement outside of a grade crossing gate (right angle). Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 60. Flexible bollards on the end of the median refuge.

88 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services Benefits While formal evaluations are not available, the anecdotal information is that the bollards are effective in separating left-turning vehicles and people either crossing the roadway or accessing the rail station. Cost The typical cost varies depending upon the style of bollard and materials used. The average cost of bollards is $730 (65). Treatment 17: Signs—Passive Description Passive signs provide a permanent and unchanging message to pedestrians about the presence of a crossing and the appropriate or required pedestrian actions. Applications Passive signs inform pedestrians about conditions that require their attention as they approach pedestrian pathway or sidewalk grade crossings. The signs in this treatment category are typically regulatory signs, which are required by law to be installed and/or tell approaching pedestrians the action they are required to take when they reach the crossing. Passive signs may also be warn- ing signs that are not legally binding but do provide important information to the pedestrian (see Treatment 18: Signs—Unique Warning Messages). Passive signs are applicable at pedestrian-rail crossings for all types of transit services, but different signs may be used at streetcar crossings than at light-rail or commuter-rail crossings. Signs may be found at virtually any type of pedestrian-rail crossing, whether at a station or not; crossings adjacent to motor vehicle crossings may have integrated treatments that apply to both pedestrians and vehicles. Examples of specific signs and associated treatments used at railroad and LRT grade crossings are found in Part 8 of the MUTCD (8). A variety of passive signs may be used at a pedestrian pathway or sidewalk grade crossing; examples include the advance Railroad Crossing sign (W10-1), the Crossbuck assembly (R15-1) with a YIELD sign (R1-2) or a STOP sign (R1-1), and the LOOK Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 61. Closeup of flexible bollards on the end of the station.

Pedestrian Treatments 89 sign (R15-8). The Number of Tracks plaque (R15-2P) is placed beneath the Crossbuck sign and helps to communicate the number of tracks. The light-rail DO NOT PASS sign (R15-5) is used to indicate that motor vehicles are not allowed to pass LRVs that are loading or unloading passengers when there is no raised platform or physical separation from the lanes upon which other motor vehicles are operating. Instead of the R15-5 symbol sign, a regulatory sign with the word message DO NOT PASS STOPPED TRAIN (R15-5a) may be used. The MUTCD (8) provides guidelines and standards on the proper installation of these and other signs. Implementation Figure 62 shows an example of signing and markings for a pathway grade crossing from the 2009 MUTCD (8). Examples of some of the other signs in the MUTCD that could be used to communicate the conditions at the crossing are shown in Figure 63. Figure 64 shows a combination of the NO TRAIN HORN warning plaque and the LOOK sign used on an approach to a pedestrian crossing in Los Angeles. CPUC General Order 75-D provides regulations for warning devices for at-grade highway-rail crossings in California (74). It has several graphics and regulations for pedestrian treatments includ- ing a sign that is to be posted at at-grade crossings exclusively used by pedestrians and/or bicyclists. The sign says: RAILROAD [R X R symbol] CROSSING PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLES ONLY. Source: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) (8) Figure 62. Example of signing and markings for a pathway grade crossing from MUTCD Figure 8D-1.

90 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services Number of Tracks (plaque) (R15-2P) Light Rail DO NOT PASS (R15-5) DO NOT PASS STOPPED TRAIN (R15-5a) Source: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) (8) Figure 63. Examples of MUTCD regulatory signs for rail crossing. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 64. Examples of signs used at a quiet zone near Los Angeles. Benefits Passive signs can provide standardized messages at approaches to pedestrian-rail crossings to inform pedestrians that trains are or may be approaching the crossing. As a result, pedestrians are advised to pay particular attention at the crossing and take specific actions to avoid crashes with trains in the crossing. Passive signs do not benefit pedestrians who are unable to see or read them. Cost Per the 2012 California contract data, the average cost of a sign is $18/square ft (65). Bushell et al. (68) provide an average of $300 for STOP/YIELD signs and a range of $530 to $2,150 for trail wayfinding/information signs.

Pedestrian Treatments 91 Treatment 18: Signs—Unique Warning Messages Description In addition to the MUTCD-compliant signs discussed in Treatment 17: Signs—Passive in this chapter, some transit agencies are using signs with messages unique to the area to communicate specific warnings to people who can see and understand the messages. Applications MUTCD (8) signs provide information through standardized text and symbols that are applicable nationwide. There are situations, however, when an MUTCD sign does not contain the message most applicable to a particular location or set of conditions. In these situations, transit agencies may develop their own sign that provides needed information to the pedestrian on conditions specific to that transit agency’s jurisdiction, or transit agencies may test a sign that they think has wider application and could, after successful experimentation, eventually be included in the MUTCD. Signs must be installed so that their presence improves the information provided to the pedestrian. Signs that have an unclear message (through unfamiliar symbols and/or vague text) may actually exacerbate the problem they are intended to address. Signs must also be installed in appropriate number to convey the necessary message where they are needed, but not installed where they are not needed; too many signs can be a distraction causing pedestrians to look at all the signs and fail to notice the oncoming train. Finally, because these signs are not found in the MUTCD (8), a transit agency may require permission from FHWA to experiment before installing a particular sign, depending on the nature and location of the sign. Implementation Common applications include warning signs advising pedestrians to look in both directions before crossing the tracks, particularly at crossings with multiple tracks, where a second train may arrive shortly after a train passes through the crossing area. A variety of LOOK BOTH WAYS signs are in use: • Figure 65 shows an example of using both the MUTCD LOOK sign and the Tri-Met LOOK BOTH WAYS sign at a crossing in Portland. • Figure 66 shows a closeup of the Tri-Met sign. • Figure 28 (see Treatment 2) shows a pedestrian crossing in Portland where a STOP sign was placed above the LOOK BOTH WAYS sign for the pedestrian approaching the crossing. • The Los Angeles version of the LOOK BOTH WAYS sign is shown on a swing gate in Figure 67 and on the road in Figure 68. • Like Los Angeles, Dallas also uses the side view of a train with the LOOK BOTH WAYS sign located at an in-station pedestrian crossing, as shown in Figure 69. • Figure 70 shows an example of the LOOK sign used in Boston. • Figure 71 shows the sign used in Austin. • Figure 72 shows a sign in which Baltimore uses white lettering on a red background. These signs are being installed where pedestrians and motorists may not look for a train, especially a second train, approaching. The main purpose of train warning signs is to increase motorist, pedestrian, and cyclist awareness of the possibility of a train approaching from either direction, even when a visible train is already present on the track. The signs are intended to remind pedestrians to look both ways and to prevent crashes with a train. Such signs could

92 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 65. Example of the MUTCD LOOK sign (left side) and Tri-Met LOOK BOTH WAYS sign (right side) at a Portland crossing. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 66. Portland Tri-Met LOOK BOTH WAYS sign on a tubular fence.

Pedestrian Treatments 93 Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 67. Example of a LOOK BOTH WAYS sign on a swing gate in Los Angeles. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 68. Example of a LOOK BOTH WAYS sign used on the roadway in Los Angeles.

94 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 69. Example of a LOOK BOTH WAYS sign used in a Dallas station. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 70. Sign used at several pedestrian-rail crossings in Boston.

Pedestrian Treatments 95 Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 71. Closeup of a LOOK FOR TRAINS sign used in Austin. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 72. LOOK BOTH WAYS BEFORE CROSSING warning sign in Baltimore. conceivably be used for any type of transit service and at any type of rail transit crossing with multiple trains in multiple directions. Warning signs are used on the roadway to warn drivers of the need to stop for streetcar users loading or alighting. An example of a sign used in Boston is shown in Figure 49 (see Treatment 11), and signs from Dallas are shown in Figure 73 and Figure 51 (see Treatment 11). Because of the number of suicides occurring in Los Angles, the city created a sign to provide the phone number for the suicide crisis line (see Figure 74). Benefits Warning signs draw pedestrians’ attention to potentially hazardous conditions and advise them of the appropriate behavior to take in response. The specific safety benefits can vary greatly depending on the sign and how it is used, but signs have the potential to reduce crashes and improve operations in and around crossings.

96 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services Source: Brewer Figure 73. Example of a LOADING AND UNLOADING AHEAD sign and plaque used on the roadway in Dallas. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 74. Suicide crisis sign used at stations in Los Angeles.

Pedestrian Treatments 97 Cost Per the 2012 California contract data, the average cost of a sign is $18/square ft (65). Bushell et al. (68) provide an average of $300 for STOP/YIELD signs and a range of $530 to $2,150 for trail wayfinding/information signs. Treatment 19: Signs—Signs for Enforcement Description As with warning message treatments, transit agencies are using unique signs that describe specific enforcement messages that are not found on a widespread basis. Applications MUTCD regulatory and warning signs provide information through standardized text and symbols that are applicable nationwide. There are situations, however, when an MUTCD sign does not contain the message most applicable to a particular location or set of conditions. In these situations, transit agencies may develop their own sign that provides needed information to the pedestrian on the consequences of improper crossing or other illegal or unsanctioned behavior. Common applications include signs that advise pedestrians of punishments for violating traffic control devices or entering restricted locations. The main purpose of these warning signs is to provide a conspicuous message to pedestrians about the ramifications of improper behavior at or near the crossing. Such signs could conceivably be used for any type of transit service and at any type of rail transit crossing with multiple trains in multiple directions. Implementation Signs must be installed so that their presence improves the information provided to the pedestrian. Signs must have a clear message and must be maintained so that they encourage pedestrians’ respect for the sign and the desired behavior. Signs with an unclear message will likely do little to encourage compliance. As with warning message signs, because these signs are not found in the MUTCD, a transit agency may require permission from FHWA to experiment before installing a particular sign, depending on the nature and location of the sign. Examples of observed signs include the following: • Figure 75 shows signs located along the pedestrian crossing informing pedestrians to not cross when the lights are active and where to wait when the lights are flashing. • At a station with a history of loitering, Portland installed a TRANSIT USE ONLY sign that noted “Subject to fine exclusion or arrest” (see Figure 76). • Los Angeles uses an in-station sign cautioning patrons to stay behind the yellow line on the platform and that trespassers are subject to arrest (see Figure 77). • Figure 78 shows the words DO NOT CROSS TRACKWAY in black on a white background used at a station in Portland. • Portland has a No Pedestrian Crossing sign that also includes a train track graphic (see Figure 79 and Figure 80). • Dallas pairs a sign with a No Pedestrian symbol (R9-3) with a yellow warning sign that says CAUTION STAND AWAY FROM PLATFORM EDGE (see Figure 81). • Figure 82 shows an example of a NO TRESPASSING sign in Austin.

98 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 75. Example of signs used at a Los Angeles station to communicate the need to not cross when the lights are flashing and that pedestrians should stop behind the yellow detectable warning stripe. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 76. TRANSIT USE ONLY sign used in Portland.

Pedestrian Treatments 99 Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 77. Example of the sign used at a Los Angeles Metrolink station to reinforce the pavement marking message of staying behind the yellow line. Source: Warner Figure 78. DO NOT CROSS TRACKWAY message used in Portland. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 79. Portland No Pedestrian Crossing sign that includes a train track symbol.

100 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 80. A NO TRESPASSING sign used in Portland also showing the No Pedestrian on Track symbol along with DO NOT ENTER on the pavement at the edge of a pedestrian crossing. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 81. Example of warning and regulatory signs used within a station in Dallas. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 82. NO TRESPASSING sign in Austin prohibiting pedestrians.

Pedestrian Treatments 101 • To increase the emphasis on the pedestrian restriction, Los Angeles adds a word message sign mounted on a fence that says PEDESTRIANS PROHIBITED to a sign with the No Pedestrian symbol (R9-3). Los Angeles also shows the No Pedestrian symbol on the pavement (see Figure 83). • Portland includes a NO TRESPASSING sign at one of its crossings (see Figure 84). • Examples of signs used in Baltimore show one including the No Pedestrian Crossing symbol on a sign that also says NOT A PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY (see Figure 85) and another using only words (see Figure 86) to prohibit pedestrians and to note that violators will be prosecuted. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 83. Pedestrian prohibition signing and pavement marking. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 84. NO TRESPASSING sign along with other signs at a Portland crossing.

102 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 85. Not a Pedestrian Walkway warning sign in Baltimore. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 86. Signs in Baltimore prohibiting pedestrians. Benefits Signs draw pedestrians’ attention to potentially hazardous conditions and inform them of the appropriate behavior that they should take in response. In addition to improving compliance, safety benefits are realized as well if pedestrians heed the signs and reduce risky crossing behav- iors. Benefits vary greatly depending on the sign and how it is used, but signs have the potential to reduce crashes and improve operations in and around crossings. Cost Per the 2012 California contract data, the average cost of a sign is $18/square ft (65). Treatment 20: Signs—Blank-Out Warning Description Blank-out warning sign treatments have a display that activates when a train is approaching. Applications MUTCD signs provide information through standardized text and symbols that are applicable nationwide. There are situations, however, when an MUTCD static sign does not sufficiently

Pedestrian Treatments 103 capture the attention of approaching pedestrians or contain the message most applicable to a particular location or set of conditions. In these situations, transit agencies may install signs with a display that changes depending on the conditions at a particular crossing. In contrast to passive signs that continually show symbols and/or text on a metal material, blank-out signs only provide a message when relevant. Common applications include warning signs that advise pedestrians of an approaching train. These signs are blank by default and only show a display as trains approach, or these applications may be composed of passive signs with beacons that flash as a train approaches. Other applications include advising pedestrians to look in both directions before crossing the tracks, particularly at crossings with multiple tracks, where a second train may arrive shortly after a train passes through the crossing area. Such signs could be used for any type of transit service and at any type of rail transit crossing with multiple trains in multiple directions. LRT approaching-activated blank-out warning signs (W10-7) (see Figure 87) are also known as train-activated signs or blank-out signs. They supplement the traffic control devices to warn road users crossing the tracks of approaching LRT equipment and may be used at signalized intersections near highway-LRT grade crossings or at crossings controlled by STOP signs or automatic gates. Implementation These signs must have access to electrical power in order for their active elements to function; signs must therefore be connected to wired power, have a solar power source, and/or have a battery power source. Signs must be installed so that their presence improves the information provided to the pedestrian. Signs that have an unclear message (through unfamiliar symbols and/or vague text) may actually exacerbate the problem they are intended to address. The message on the sign must be visible to its intended audience; for example, signs that are blank by default must be sufficiently bright when activated to attract the pedestrian’s attention. The signs are more effective when the warning is within a short time of the second train approaching. Signs that are on for too long may be ignored. Because some of the signs being used are not found in the MUTCD (8), a transit agency may need permission from FHWA to experiment before installing a particular sign, depending on the nature and location of the sign. A variety of blank-out signs and sign assembles with flashing beacons have been used to warn pedestrians of the presence of a second train, which has resulted in several different active signs being used, as documented by FRA (75). Figure 88 shows an example of a blank-out sign being used in Baltimore, and Figure 89 shows a blank-out sign in Dallas being used on a roadway. An innovative blank-out sign used to communicate the need to look in both directions because there are trains on multiple tracks is shown in Figures 90 and 91. Los Angeles is installing blank-out signs next to a pedestrian signal head since that is the location toward which pedestrians will look. Figure 92 shows an example of an installation. Benefits The specific safety benefits of blank-out signs can vary greatly depending on the signs and how they are used, but signs have the potential to reduce crashes and improve operations in and around crossings. A demonstration project in Los Angeles (76, 77) investigated whether risky pedestrian crossing behavior would change due to a train-activated warning sign. The project was conducted on the south sidewalk at the Vernon Avenue intersection with the Metro Blue Line and Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks. The sidewalk crosses two LRT tracks and two UPRR freight tracks. Through the analysis of before and after video data, the demonstration project showed that the warning sign was effective in reducing risky behavior by pedestrians. Overall, Source: FHWA, 2009 (8) Figure 87. LRT approaching-activated blank-out warning sign from the MUTCD.

104 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 88. Example of an active blank-out sign with audible warning on the side in Baltimore. Source: Brewer Figure 89. Example of a blank-out sign in Dallas on signal mast arm. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 90. The pictogram within this blank-out sign in Los Angeles shows a side view of trains approaching from the left.

Pedestrian Treatments 105 Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 91. The pictogram within this blank-out sign in Los Angeles shows a side view of trains approaching from the right. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 92. Example of train blank-out signs mounted above the pedestrian signal head. the number of pedestrians crossing the LRT tracks at less than 15 seconds before an LRT train entered the crossing was reduced by 14 percent after the warning sign was installed. The number of pedestrians crossing the tracks at 6 seconds or less before an LRT train entered the crossing was reduced by about 32 percent. The number of pedestrians crossing the tracks at 4 seconds or less before an LRT train entered the crossing was reduced by 73 percent. Blank-out signs are illuminated to display a message to motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists when an event has occurred such as the approach of a train. The signs may also be used to notify

106 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists of a left- or right-turn prohibition due to a train coming. According to TCRP Report 137 (4), transit agencies reported improved performance with blank-out signs because they provide more specific, useful, and timely information to motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists. In addition, the TCRP Report 137 project team heard more positive feedback about turn-restriction blank-out signs than about blank-out signs with the train symbol. Blank-out signs should be illuminated long enough to allow motorists and pedestrians to respond and to clear the tracks, but not so long that the sign becomes ineffective (perceived as incorrect) or easy to ignore. Cost Considering the wide variety of sizes and complexity of available blank-out signs, vendors indicate a cost range of between $1,800 and $5,500 per sign. Treatment 21: Signals—Timing Considerations near Railroad Crossings Description Signals provide an indication to tell pedestrians (or motorists) when they are allowed and not allowed to proceed. Applications When the train operates within the street alignment, traffic control signals may be present to control both vehicle and pedestrian movements. Several characteristics of the traffic control sig- nals can affect the safety and operations of pedestrians crossing both the roadway and the tracks. Information about traffic control signals is available in Chapter 4 of the MUTCD (8). MUTCD 4E (8) requires the use of countdown signal heads at crossings where the pedestrian change interval is longer than 7 seconds; the countdown signal informs pedestrians of the num- ber of seconds remaining in the pedestrian change interval. While some transit agencies are using pedestrian signals (as discussed in TCRP Report 137 [4]), the proposed revisions to the MUTCD developed by the Railroad/Light Rail Transit Technical Committee (59) include the following: Standard: Pedestrian signals as described in Chapter 4E utilizing Upraised Hand and Walking Person symbols shall not be used at a pathway or sidewalk grade crossing except as provided in the following option. Option: A pedestrian signal may be used at a pathway or sidewalk grade crossing where the movements of LRT vehicles are controlled by a traffic control signal. This proposed revision to the MUTCD (8) will eliminate the use of pedestrian signals at pathway or sidewalk grade crossings with the exception of locations where LRT vehicles are controlled by a traffic control signal (59). Implementation Examples of signal timing considerations include the following: • Pedestrian signal heads. Pedestrian signal heads are active signal devices that tell pedestrians when it is permissible to begin or to continue a crossing. The MUTCD pedestrian crossing signal heads are composed of a walk symbol (walking person) that indicates the interval during which crossings should be initiated, a flashing upraised hand that indicates that a crossing

Pedestrian Treatments 107 should not be started but may be completed, and a solid upraised hand that indicates when pedestrians should not enter the roadway. Los Angeles, in some locations, has added a blank-out sign next to the pedestrian signal head that illuminates a train symbol when a train is entering, exiting, or in the station. An example of this can be seen in Figure 93, where next to the solid upraised hand symbol (closeup shown in Figure 94) indicating that pedestrians should not start a crossing, is a blank-out sign showing the train (closeup shown in Figure 95). • Priority control of traffic signals near rail transit crossings. Priority control may be used at rail transit grade crossings to decrease delay for rail vehicles. This treatment is potentially Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 93. Example of the pedestrian signal head used at a pedestrian crossing near a station in Los Angeles with a blank-out sign showing the train. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 94. Closeup of a countdown indication used in conjunction with a blank-out sign.

108 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services applicable to any pedestrian-rail crossing at a signalized intersection and may be achieved by numerous signal timing strategies. MUTCD 4D.27 states that priority control is typically given to “LRT vehicles.” During transition into priority control, the omission of the entire pedestrian phase is permitted; however, shortening or omission of a pedestrian change inter- val during the transition is not permitted. Omission or shortening of the pedestrian change interval places all pedestrians at risk, but especially pedestrians with disabilities who may not be able to increase their rate of travel across the tracks or to quickly reverse direction. When temporary alterations to the normal timing sequence at an intersection are being considered for a rail crossing, special attention should be paid to ensuring that approaching trains are both visible and audible. • One- versus two-stage crossings. At complex intersections, such as those where major turning movements are present or the light rail operates within the street alignment, signal timing to accommodate all modes can result in a very long cycle. At intersections with long cycles and thus long wait times for the pedestrians, pedestrians may frequently initiate crossings during the flashing or steady Don’t Walk intervals. A potential approach for addressing the long wait times for pedestrians when the light rail is operating in the median is to accommodate the pedestrian crossing movement in two stages. For example, in Portland, the city standard is to provide one- stage crossings; however, Portland has a location where the longer clearance interval results in fewer opportunities to cross (more delay) for pedestrians. Implementation of a two-stage cross- ing was beneficial for most of the people at this particular location because the majority of users were traveling to the median. Rather than having a phase with a long crossing time that would permit the crossing of the entire street/rail, the city 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-stage pedestrian signal timing has a shorter pedestrian flashing upraised hand interval, resulting in a shorter cycle. A shorter cycle allows the pedestrian walk signal to occur more times within a given time period. • Pedestrian push button. When the train station is located in the median, pedestrian push buttons should be present; otherwise, pedestrians, especially blind pedestrians, could be stranded in the median. Figure 96 shows an example of a pedestrian push button at the end of a station located within the median of a street. At this station, the pole used to house the push button also includes a blank-out sign with a train symbol that is viewable for those pedestrians leaving the station. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 95. Closeup of a blank-out sign used in conjunction with a pedestrian signal head.

Pedestrian Treatments 109 Benefits The use of similar traffic control devices at rail crossings and roadway crossings provides uniformity in communicating the same message of when it is appropriate to walk or not walk through a crossing. Cost California 2012 contract data show an average cost of $33,467 for a traffic control signal (65). Treatment 22: Signals—Flashing-Light Signal Assembly Description Flashing lights provide additional notice to pedestrians that a train is approaching the crossing. Applications The typical railroad flashing-light assembly can warn motorists and pedestrians that a train is present or about to enter the crossing area. The flashing lights are intended to capture approach- ing pedestrians’ attention more readily than passive signs alone. This treatment could be used at any pedestrian-rail crossing where pedestrians would benefit from additional visual confirmation of approaching trains; specific locations could include those where trains do not stop and the pedestrian-rail crossing has limited sight distance such that an approaching train is not always visible to crossing pedestrians. Implementation The concept for the railroad flashing-light assembly has a long history of use on roadways. Portland is installing several of the devices. Figure 97 shows an installation located along a pedestrian-only crossing (i.e., a pedestrian-rail grade crossing not adjacent to motor vehicle crossing or in a station) and Figure 98 is a closeup of the treatment. A pedestrian-scale version has recently been explored and developed. The pedestrian-scale device is not currently in the Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 96. Example of a pedestrian push button located in a median between tracks.

110 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services MUTCD (8) but has been proposed for consideration (see Figure 99) by the NCUTCD Railroad/ Light Rail Transit Technical Committee (59). Benefits Specific benefits have not been documented because the treatment is new, but it is anticipated that the treatment will help inform pedestrians of the presence of the crossing and encourage pedestrians to not cross in front of approaching trains. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 97. Flashing-light signal assembly example installed in Portland. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 98. Closeup of a flashing- light signal assembly example installed in Portland.

Pedestrian Treatments 111 Cost Sriraj and Metaxatos (69) provide an estimated railroad cost of $65,169 for the installation of pedestrian flashing-light signals, crossing gates, and bells along with advance warning signs and pavement markings for a site in Illinois. Treatment 23: Signals—In-Pavement Flashing Lights Description In-pavement flashing lights are lights embedded into the pavement that flash when activated. Applications In-pavement flashing lights supplement traditional pavement markings. The MUTCD (8) pro- vides guidance regarding yellow in-pavement flashing lights in Chapter 4N, “In-Roadway Lights.” Source: adapted from RRLRT No 2a (9-08012) Pathway Sidewalks (with January 10, 2013, edits by the committee), Figure 8D-11 (59) Figure 99. Example of a flashing-light signal assembly for a pathway or sidewalk grade crossing.

112 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services Yellow flashing lights embedded in the walking surface illustrate the location of the cross- ing to motorists. Similar to crosswalk markings, these yellow flashing lights can also show the appropriate path for pedestrians to take through a crossing. This treatment has been used in various pedestrian crosswalks on streets across the United States, with the purpose being more to encourage driver compliance rather than provide pedestrian guidance. Several examples exist of the use of yellow in-pavement lights in roadway crosswalks. Currently, use of this treatment with respect to rail crossing is not identified; however, per the FRA’s Compilation of Pedestrian Safety Devices in Use at Grade Crossings (5), Oregon has expressed interest in the use of train-activated, in-pavement flashing lights at high-profile, high-traffic pedestrian locations. Red in-pavement flashing lights are not in the MUTCD (8); however, they have been used on an experimental basis to supplement the message of STOP. They were used at the Paramount Boulevard and Rosecrans Avenue highway-rail crossing in Paramount, California. As docu- mented in NCHRP Synthesis 380 (78), red in-pavement lights were installed because the rail- road crosses diagonally across the intersection, the intersection is too wide for regular railroad crossing gates, and there are sight distance challenges. When the train has a green indication, all vehicle traffic approaches receive a red indication, and the red in-pavement markers flash. Red in-pavement flashing lights have also been used by Houston Metro at intersections on the Main Street Line to supplement the stop message. As documented in NCHRP Synthesis 380 (78), stop-bar systems at 13 approaches were installed between 2006 and 2007. Four of the approaches also have red light-emitting diode (LED) back plates added to the signal head to help reinforce the stop message (see Figure 100). Houston Metro is also using the in-pavement flashing red lights to indicate left-turn restrictions. The red in-pavement flashing lights were installed on the northbound and southbound approaches of Fannin Street at Dryden to supplement a dynamic lane control assignment system (see Figure 101). A single row of red in-pavement flashing lights was placed along the lane line between the left-turn lane and the left through lane. Implementation While there are examples of red in-pavement flashing-light installations as an additional method of communicating the need to stop for trains; this treatment is experimental. Because of promising motorist-yielding results for roadside sign assemblies with yellow beacons (79), roadside and overhead sign assemblies with beacon installations are now viewed more favorably than crosswalk in-pavement flashing lights, especially due to in-pavement maintenance concerns (e.g., the effects of rain, snow, and road grime/debris on visibility). Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 100. Example of red back plates added to signal heads to help reinforce the stop message in Houston (the mast arm also includes a blank-out sign showing a train).

Pedestrian Treatments 113 Benefits Documented safety benefits for a pedestrian-rail-related installation were not identified. Cost The demonstration project at Paramount Boulevard and Rosecrans Avenue was reported in 2008 to have cost between $55,000 and $60,000 (78). Treatment 24: Pavement Markings—Pedestrian Stop Lines Description Pedestrian stop lines are pavement markings that show pedestrians where to stop before enter- ing the crossing. Applications Stop lines indicate where pedestrians should wait on the approach to a crossing in order to be a safe distance from the dynamic envelope of rail vehicles in the crossing and from gates, counter- weights, or flashing-light assemblies. Stop lines can be used at any pedestrian-rail crossing that would benefit from additional guidance to waiting pedestrians, particularly locations where a large number of pedestrians frequently gather while waiting to cross. Implementation The MUTCD (8) provides the following guidance regarding stop lines: [I]f used at pathway grade crossings, the pathway stop line should be a transverse line at the point where a pathway user is to stop. The pathway stop line should be placed at least 2 ft further from the nearest rail than the gate, counterweight, or flashing-light signals (if any of these are present) is placed, and at least 12 feet from the nearest rail. Source: NCHRP Synthesis 380 (78) Figure 101. Left-turn-restriction, in-pavement, flashing-light system application in Houston (IPM = in-pavement markings).

114 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services Graphics illustrating where stop line and detectable warnings are often located are shown in the following figures: • Figure 33 (see Treatment 4) in relation to barriers used to reorient pedestrians. • Figure 58 (see Treatment 15) for tracks at a skew to the sidewalk. • Figure 59 (see Treatment 15) for tracks at a right angle to the sidewalk. • Figure 62 (see Treatment 17) for a pathway grade crossing. Figure 102 shows an example of a stop line in conjunction with other signing and marking at a pathway grade crossing, including a detectable warning. Portland consistently maintains a STOP HERE pavement stop bar behind detectable warning strips (see Figure 102) and also behind swing gates (see Figure 103). Los Angeles uses the message WAIT HERE (see Figure 104) to indicate where pedestrians should stand while a train crosses. None of these photographs shows a stop line placed as far as 12 ft from the nearest rail, as recommended by MUTCD 8D.04 guidance (8). Where transit is in mixed-use or semi-exclusive alignment, it is rarely feasible to place stop lines as far as 12 ft from the nearest rail. Benefits Pedestrian stop lines provide positive guidance to keep pedestrians a safe distance from pass- ing trains. Cost Per the 2012 California contract data, the average cost of thermoplastic crosswalk and pavement marking is $2.00/square ft (65). Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 102. Example of STOP HERE pavement marking used with detectable warning at a Portland station pedestrian crossing.

Pedestrian Treatments 115 Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 103. Example of STOP HERE pavement marking in conjunction with a swing gate in Portland. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 104. WAIT HERE stripe along with detectable warning and diagonal striping to indicate the dynamic envelope of train cars in Los Angeles.

116 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services Treatment 25: Pavement Markings—Detectable Warnings Description Detectable warnings are a standardized walking surface, detectable by visually impaired pedestrians, that is installed at pedestrian-rail crossings to provide a boundary between a pedes- trian walkway, boarding platform, or refuge and a vehicular travel area. Applications The surface texture for detectable warnings is defined in ADA standards (57, 58,) and is sometimes referred to as truncated domes or truncated dome detectable warnings. The approach to a pedestrian-rail crossing may not be apparent to a pedestrian who is blind or who has low vision. Detectable warning surfaces are standardized surfaces comprised of small truncated domes that provide an underfoot warning of the edge of the street or rail crossing and that contrast visually with adjacent walking surfaces, either light on dark or dark on light. Detectable warnings are required to warn pedestrians of level crossing locations and are appropriate for all types of pedestrian-rail crossings for any type of transit service (see an example in Figure 105). Detectable warnings are also required on platform edges in rail stations, as shown in Figure 106, and on curb ramps and hazardous vehicular ways where there is no difference in elevation between the roadway and the pedestrian way. Implementation The MUTCD (8) references the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities (61) for “specifications for design and placement of detectable warning surfaces.” More recent publications, like ADA Standards for Transportation Facilities (57) and the Proposed PROWAG (58), provide additional information regarding the use of detectable warnings at rail crossings. The specifications for detectable warning surfaces, which are the same in all three documents referenced above, require a surface of truncated domes, with a center-to-center spacing of 41 mm (1.6 inches) minimum and 61 mm (2.4 inches) maximum, and a base-to-base spacing of 17 mm (0.65 inches) minimum, measured between the most adjacent domes. Source: Warner Figure 105. Example of white detectable warnings used at an in-station pedestrian-rail crossing.

Pedestrian Treatments 117 The Proposed PROWAG (58) provides the following specifications regarding detectable warning placement at pedestrian at-grade rail crossings: R305.2.5 Pedestrian At-Grade Rail Crossings. At pedestrian at-grade rail crossings not located within a street or highway, detectable warning surfaces shall be placed on each side of the rail crossing. The edge of the detectable warning surface nearest the rail crossing shall be 1.8 m (6.0 ft) minimum and 4.6 m (15.0 ft) maximum from the centerline of the nearest rail. Where pedestrian gates are provided, detectable warning surfaces shall be placed on the side of the gates opposite the rail. R305.2.6 Boarding Platforms. At boarding platforms for buses and rail vehicles, detectable warning surfaces shall be placed at the boarding edge of the platform. R305.2.7 Boarding and Alighting Areas. At boarding and alighting areas at sidewalk or street level transit stops for rail vehicles, detectable warning surfaces shall be placed at the side of the boarding and alighting area facing the rail vehicles. A graphic accompanies the text. The Proposed PROWAG (58) states that the edge of the detect- able warning shall be 6 to 15 ft from the centerline of the nearest rail. The NCUTCD Railroad/ Light Rail Transit Technical Committee developed recommended revisions to the MUTCD (8) for section 8D on sidewalk and pathway rail grade crossings in June 2013 (59). The committee recommended that the detectable warning be placed a minimum of 12 ft (rather than between 6 and 15 ft) from the nearest rail (see examples in Figure 59 for right-angle crossings [Treatment 15], Figure 58 for skewed crossings [Treatment 15], Figure 62 for pathway crossings [Treatment 17], and Figure 107 for location relative to a pedestrian gate). Detectable warning surfaces are properly installed in pairs to indicate the beginning and end of travel within a hazardous area. Visually impaired pedestrians who detect the truncated dome detectable warning surface in the vicinity of a rail crossing are 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 gate arm. The contrasting truncated dome surfaces should be placed across the full width of the pedestrian way and, if there is a gate arm, be installed on the side of the gate arm opposite the tracks, as shown in Figures 107 and 108. In Figure 108, the small fence to the right of the detectable warning is a more effective treatment for preventing pedestrians who are visually impaired from being struck by the counter- weight than extending the detectable warning farther to the right. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 106. Example of a yellow detectable warning strip used at the edge of a platform.

118 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services Source: adapted from RRLRT No 2a (9-08-12) Pathway Sidewalks (with January 10, 2013, edits by the committee), Figure 8D-5 (59) Figure 107. Example of detectable warning placement in association with a pedestrian gate. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 108. Detectable warnings installed across a sidewalk at an automatic gate arm on the side opposite the tracks.

Pedestrian Treatments 119 Detectable warnings are sometimes placed where there are swing gates; however, it is unclear whether detectable warnings are really needed at these locations because the presence of the swing gates communicates the warning message to the pedestrian. The Proposed PROWAG (58) does not distinguish between automatic gates and swing gates. When used, the detectable warnings should be on the side away from the tracks. Where there is shared alignment at a crossing with a boarding platform, whether center or side running, truncated dome detectable warnings should define the refuge at the end of the platform and help pedestrians with visual impairments to locate the platform. Case Study C in Chapter 9 discusses detectable warning considerations for this situation. In some locations, detectable warnings seem 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. However, this use may not be as effective or clear to pedestrians who are blind as other types of treatments such as providing a barrier or installing the counterweight outside the pedestrian circulation path, as shown in graphics developed by NCUTCD (see Figure 59 [Treament 15]). Benefits Detectable warnings provide information to pedestrians with visual disabilities and pedestrians who are distracted, improving their ability to recognize the existence of a crossing. This, in turn, is intended to improve safety by reducing the likelihood that pedestrians will unknowingly enter a crossing in front of an approaching train. Cost A representative cost of detectable warning material is $35/square ft (65). Treatment 26: Pavement Markings—Word or Symbol Description Symbol or word messages can be placed on the pavement in appropriate locations to com- municate a message. Applications Word or symbol markings on the pavement are used for the purpose of guiding, warning, or regulating traffic. These pavement markings can be helpful to pedestrians in some locations by providing additional emphasis on where they should or should not be walking or standing. Implementation The 2009 MUTCD (8) provides guidance regarding pavement word, symbol, and arrow mark- ings in Section 3B.20. 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 are provided on the yellow crossing edge line. 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. Portland has a DON’T STAND HERE message along with a line through a pair of footprints to indicate where pedestrians should not stand

120 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services (see Figure 110). Another example of the use of a word message is in Baltimore where LOOK with an arrow was installed (see Figure 111). Additional examples of messages used with stop lines are shown in Figures 103 and 104 [Treatment 24]. Benefits Symbol or word pavement messages provide supplemental information or warning at the location where the pedestrian is looking. Cost Bushell et al. (68) provide an average cost of $360 for a pedestrian crossing pavement marking symbol. They note that costs vary due to the type of paint used and the size of the symbol, as well as whether the symbol is added at the same time as other road treatments. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 109. Symbol and word pavement markings that supplement signs indicating where pedestrians should not be walking. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 110. Pavement markings in Portland informing pedestrians DON’T STAND HERE.

Pedestrian Treatments 121 Treatment 27: Pavement Markings— Dynamic Envelope Markings Description Dynamic envelope markings indicate the area that a train occupies and advise nearby pedes- trians to remain clear of that area. Applications Dynamic envelope markings indicate the clearance required for the train or LRT equipment overhang resulting from any combination of loading or lateral motion. Pavement marking, pavement striping, and pavement appearance or texture changes are used to denote the dynamic envelope of rail vehicles. These treatments indicate the extent of the area in which pedestrians or vehicles are in danger of being struck by a rail vehicle. Implementation If used for indicating the dynamic envelope, pavement markings shall comply with the provi- sions of MUTCD Part 3 (8) and shall be a 4-inch normal solid white line or contrasting pavement color and/or contrasting pavement texture. Pavement marking and texturing require ongoing maintenance. They are effective in areas where snow and/or ice do not cover the markings. Rain can make markings difficult to see. Some of the in-street operations in the downtown Portland area have a different surface to show visually and tactually where the train operates. Figure 112 shows the brick pattern surface for vehicles with a smooth concrete surface for the train in downtown Portland. Figure 113 shows a white lane line between the train and vehicle parking to indicate the dynamic envelope for the train. Figure 114 shows an example of raised curbs to delineate the dynamic envelope in Los Angeles. Figure 115 shows raised buttons on the pavement being used in Austin, and Figure 116 provides a closeup of the Austin buttons. Figure 117 shows the buttons in use in Dallas (and visual and textural differentiation between the dynamic envelope of the train and the adjoining surface). Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 111. LOOK pavement markings near detectable warning in Baltimore.

122 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 112. Example of using smooth concrete for the train as compared to the brick pattern in the neighboring lanes. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 113. Example of a dynamic envelope surface treatment along with a white line between the train and parking lane. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 114. Example of a raised curb used alongside tracks in Los Angeles.

Pedestrian Treatments 123 Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 115. Example of raised buttons used alongside tracks in Austin. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 116. Closeup of raised buttons used alongside tracks in Austin. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 117. Example of raised buttons in Dallas along with visual and texture differentiation between the dynamic envelope of the train and the adjoining surface.

124 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services None of the pavement markings here are reliably detectable underfoot or with a long white cane to pedestrians who are visually impaired or blind, with the exception of the raised curbs used in Los Angeles. The raised buttons used in Austin and Dallas are sufficiently far apart that a person who is visually impaired may not encounter them either underfoot or with a long white cane. Benefits Pavement marking, texturing, and striping are assumed to be effective in conveying information, but the effect of pavement marking, texturing, and striping on pedestrian and LRT crashes has not been quantified. Cost The typical linear-foot cost for installing pavement markings is low; however, this treatment could be applied to the entire length of the rail system. Per the 2012 California contract data, the average cost of 4-inch thermoplastic traffic stripe is $0.49/linear ft (65). Treatment 28: Infrastructure—Audible Crossing Warning Devices Description Audible crossing warning devices emit an audible warning that supplements other treatments at pedestrian-rail crossings. Applications Audible signals are another active measure for pedestrian safety. Audible signals can be attached to other warning devices at the crossing, or on-vehicle audible warnings can be used. TCRP Report 137 (4) provides the following summary about audible crossing warning devices: Audible crossing warning devices provide supplemental warning for pedestrians and cyclists. Audible warning devices such as bells, horns, and synthesized tones installed either onboard the LRV or wayside along the tracks or in association with automatic pedestrian or vehicular gates are used in conjunction with flashing light signals at grade crossings. The key design issues to consider are appropriate placement of the device, and tuning the sound produced so that the warning sound can easily be distinguished from the environmental noise in the area. Improving placement and the type of tone are believed to be more effective than simply increasing the device volume. Figure 118 provides an example of an audible warning device installed near a blank-out sign. Implementation Extensive recommendations about the design and installation of audible signals can be found in TCRP Research Results Digest 84 (3). Rules regarding the sounding of on-vehicle warning devices are usually outlined at the agency level and vary greatly depending on the agency. Many rail vehicles are equipped with multiple sound types, and operators may use different levels of sound in different situations. Because audible warnings may disturb residents, the warning may be limited or prohibited in quiet zones where there is residential development near the transit line. The report acknowledges that different transit agencies have different philosophies about sounding audible warnings and outlines a general overall practice for evaluating rules for sounding onboard audible warning devices at crossings. The evaluation system is based on three characteristics: emergencies, sight distance, and surrounding conditions.

Pedestrian Treatments 125 In Portland, Oregon, an orientation and mobility specialist (a person qualified to teach inde- pendent travel skills to people who are visually impaired) and a pedestrian advocate who is blind independently mentioned that warnings that sound when automatic pedestrian gates are going down or up should sound throughout the time that trains are at the crossing or station. When the warning stops, pedestrians who are visually impaired may assume that the train has left, and it is safe to cross. Benefits Audible warning treatments are extremely helpful to travelers who are visually impaired, who may not hear approaching transit vehicles. This is especially true where transit vehicles are par- ticularly quiet and the ambient noise level is high. TCRP Research Results Digest 84 (3) describes the development and testing of two alternative audible warnings. The first is a conventional bell sound, while the second is a “blended staircase” signal that combines the sounds of an approaching train and a conventional crossing bell. The sounds were processed so that the pedestrian approaching the intersection hears a bell sound that rises in pitch and an approaching train that increases in loudness. The study did not produce conclusive evidence of the effectiveness of the audible warnings. Cost The typical cost of this treatment is approximately $385 each (69). Treatment 29: Infrastructure—Pedestrian Automatic Gates Description Pedestrian automatic gates provide a physical block across the pedestrian path when a train approaches the crossing, is stopped within the crossing, and leaves the crossing. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 118. Example of an audible warning device (upper right corner) installed near a blank-out sign.

126 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services Applications Pedestrian automatic gates descend when activated by train activity, blocking the pedestrian path across the tracks throughout the train activity duration. Figure 119 shows an illustration of a pedestrian gate placement separate from the automatic gate for vehicles at a sidewalk grade crossing. Figure 120 provides suggested dimensions for the pedestrian automatic gate. The principle for the use of pedestrian automatic gates is similar to that for the use of gates on roadways—to stop motorists and cyclists when a train is approaching—except that a pedestrian automatic gate stops pedestrians. MUTCD Section 8C.13 (8) states that if an engineering study shows that flashing-light signals with a Crossbuck sign and an audible device would not provide sufficient notice of an approaching train, the LOOK sign and/or pedestrian gates should be considered. Based on the guidance for installing flashing-light signals when an engineering study determines that the sight distance is not sufficient for pedestrians and bicyclists to complete their crossing prior to the arrival of the train at the crossing, or where speeds exceed 35 mph, these are also the criteria for installing pedestrian gates. Figure 121 illustrates the installation of a pedestrian automatic gate at a crossing with pedestrian sight distance issues (the detectable warning is placed where it will be encountered by pedestrians who are traveling toward the rails, in advance of the gate). Pedestrian automatic gates may be provided in addition to roadway gates. On narrow streets, the pedestrian gate may be a part of the vehicle gate, with both pedestrians and vehicles blocked by a single gate for which the mechanism is placed outside the sidewalk, on the side farther from the roadway. A second gate is required on the downstream side of the rail crossing for pedestrians approaching the crossing from the opposite direction (see the example in Figure 122). Figure 123 shows another example of pedestrian automatic gates; in this example, the fence to the right of the gate arm prevents pedestrians from walking into the mechanism. Korve et al. (2) recommend that pedestrian automatic gates be installed at all pedestrian cross- ings (sidewalks or other designated pathways) where sight distance is limited and leads to situations in which pedestrians are unable to see an approaching LRV until it is very close to the crossing, and/or LRV operators are unable to see pedestrians in the vicinity of the crossing until the LRV is very close. The pedestrian-controls decision tree from TCRP Report 69 (see Figure 16 [Chapter 6]) Source: adapted from RRLRT No 2a (9-08-12) Pathway Sidewalks (with January 10, 2013, edits by the committee), Figure 8D-15, (59) Figure 119. Example of a separate automatic pedestrian gate for a sidewalk.

Pedestrian Treatments 127 Source: adapted from RRLRT No 2a (9-08-12) Pathway Sidewalks (with January 10, 2013, edits by the committee), Figure 8D-12 (59) Figure 120. Suggested dimensions for pedestrian gate placement for a sidewalk. also warrants pedestrian automatic gates at locations with high pedestrian surges/high pedestrian inattention and within school zones. Implementation In locations where pedestrian safety concerns cannot be mitigated by other available treatments or when train speeds exceed 35 mph, pedestrian automatic gates should be considered in addition to vehicle gates. In some instances, placing the vehicle gate mechanism beside the sidewalk, on the side further from the roadway, will block pedestrians on the sidewalk along with vehicle traffic. A barrier, however, should be placed around the gate mechanism to prevent pedestrian interaction with (and possible injury from or damage to) the gate mechanism (see Figure 124). A consideration with using such a rigid barrier is that the barrier should only be used if the item to be shielded is a greater hazard than the barrier itself.

128 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 121. Limited sight distance site with installation of pedestrian automatic gate and detectable warning (placed where it will be encountered by pedestrians who are traveling toward the rails, in advance of the automatic gate). Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 122. Example of a downstream pedestrian automatic gate. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 123. Example of a pedestrian automatic gate with an exit gate.

Pedestrian Treatments 129 A clear zone is needed to serve as a pedestrian refuge between the automatic gate and the train’s dynamic envelope so that pedestrians in the crossing are not trapped on the trackway when the gates are activated. The setback distance should be wide enough to accommodate a wheelchair. Additionally, pedestrian swing gates can be provided together with pedestrian automatic gates to allow pedestrians and cyclists to exit the ROW if they began crossing before the gates went down and also in the case of an emergency. An example of an exit swing gate is provided in Figure 123. Pedestrian automatic gate arms installed on the SCRRA Metrolink system include the word EXIT with an arrow pointing to the exit gate, as seen in Figure 122. Much like vehicles driving around lowered gates, pedestrians can walk around pedestrian automatic gates in the lowered position. Channelization can be installed along sidewalks, at the end of the gate arm, and behind the mechanism to keep people from walking around the gate arm or stepping into the parallel roadway. Examples of pedestrian automatic gates with and without channelization are shown in Figures 125 and 126, respectively. Flashing lights on the pedestrian gate arm provide a visual warning that the gates are descending and are in place. Uses of lights on the gate arm include a single red flashing light at the end of the arm or multiple flashing lights along the gate arm. The gate arm in Figure 125 contains multiple alternating flashing LEDs. Benefits Pedestrian automatic gates provide pedestrians with additional warning regarding the tracks. Pedestrian automatic gates are designed to limit access to the track until the train passes and are to be considered at locations with sight distance concerns, train speeds in excess of 35 mph, pedestrian surges or inattention, or school zones. Cost Sriraj and Metaxatos (69) provide an estimated railroad cost of $65,169 for the installation of pedestrian flashing-light signals, crossing gates, and bells along with advance warning signs and pavement markings for a site in Illinois. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 124. Barrier installed around a counterweight.

130 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 125. Example of pedestrian automatic gates with channelization and a swing gate for emergency exit. Source: Warner Figure 126. Example of pedestrian automatic gates without channelization.

Pedestrian Treatments 131 Treatment 30: Infrastructure—Pedestrian Automatic Gates with Horizontal Hanging Bar Description Pedestrian automatic gates with horizontal hanging bars, also known as gate skirts, consist of secondary horizontal hanging bars suspended from the existing pedestrian automatic gates to better block access to the crossing by pedestrians. Applications Horizontal hanging bars are added to pedestrian automatic gates to decrease the number of unauthorized entries under a deployed automatic gate. Figure 127 provides suggested dimen- sions for the pedestrian automatic gate with horizontal hanging bar. The addition of hanging bars is thought to be beneficial at locations where evidence exists of pedestrians going under existing pedestrian automatic gate arms or at crossings that many children use. An FRA report released in December 2013 (39) examined the effectiveness of a Source: adapted from RRLRT No 2a (9-08-12) Pathway Sidewalks (with January 10, 2013, edits by the committee), Figure 8D-13 (59) Figure 127. Suggested dimensions for a pedestrian gate with horizontal hanging bar placement for a sidewalk.

132 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services hanging bar at a location in New Jersey where there had been evidence of pedestrians going under the existing pedestrian automatic gate arm. Implementation Horizontal hanging bars can be added to existing pedestrian automatic gate mechanisms, as demonstrated in the FRA report (39), or incorporated within the design of a new pedestrian automatic gate system. Figure 128 shows a pedestrian automated gate with a horizontal hanging bar application at a crossing in close proximity to a school on the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) light-rail system. An FRA presentation indicates the treatment was installed in 1996 because of concerns about the presence of children walking to and from a nearby elementary school (75). A second cross- ing location, also near the school, uses the hanging bar on the vehicle gate arm (see Figure 129). Source: Warner Figure 128. Example of a horizontal hanging bar on a pedestrian automatic gate at a DART crossing adjacent to a school zone. Source: Warner Figure 129. Example of a horizontal hanging bar on a vehicle gate arm at a DART crossing.

Pedestrian Treatments 133 Horizontal hanging bars have the additional benefit of enabling pedestrians who are visually impaired to detect a lowered gate with a long cane, if used, and come to a stop prior to bodily encountering the gate. Benefits The FRA report (39) found that the addition of the horizontal hanging bar at the location in New Jersey reduced the total number of pedestrian violations while the gates were descending or horizontal by 78 percent and 55 percent, respectively. Cost For the installation of the experimental hanging bars in New Jersey, the addition of hanging bars to two existing pedestrian gate mechanisms cost $15,000 to $20,000 (80). Treatment 31: Infrastructure—Pedestrian Swing Gates Description Pedestrian swing gates are gates that pedestrians and cyclists must open before crossing the tracks or that enable escape from the tracks if a pedestrian arm descends when a pedestrian has not yet completed the crossing. Applications Pedestrian swing gates, sometimes called pedestrian fence gates, are gates that pedestrians and cyclists must open manually to cross the tracks (see Figure 130 and Figure 131 for examples). Pedestrian swing gates, like other pedestrian barriers and gates, are installed to discourage pedes- trians and cyclists from making inappropriate crossing movements. The gates force crossing users to have additional time to check for an approaching LRV. Pedestrian swing gates are also used for an emergency exit from a crossing with automatic pedestrian gate arms. Figure 132 shows an example of a swing gate located next to a deployed automatic pedestrian gate arm. Figure 133 shows a closeup of an emergency exit gate. Note that a kick plate should be present on the exit gate. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 130. Example of swing gates with a STOP sign.

134 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services Pedestrian swing gates should be considered in the following situations: • Pedestrian-to-train sight lines are restricted. • There is a high likelihood that pedestrians will quickly cross the tracks without looking. • The area has high levels of distracted pedestrians. • Channelization/barriers reasonably prevent pedestrians from bypassing the gates. • Acceptable provisions for opening the gates by disabled persons can be provided. Gates should open away from the tracks; this allows easier exit for pedestrians on the crossing, and it requires pedestrians to make additional effort before entering the crossing. Gates should be wide enough to accommodate wheelchairs and other assistive devices. Figure 134 shows the suggested dimensions for swing gates with automatic pedestrian gate arms on two approaches and vehicle automatic gate arms on two other approaches. Suggested dimensions for swing gates with automatic pedestrian gate arms on all approaches are shown in Figure 135. Implementation According to TCRP Report 137 (4), Calgary Transit installed various combinations of gates and barriers at a number of stations. The installations included active overhead railroad flashers. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 131. Examples of swing gates used at a pedestrian crossing near a station in Los Angeles. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 132. Example of a swing gate for emergency exit next to an automatic pedestrian gate arm.

Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 133. Example of a swing gate for emergency exit from the rail side (note that a kick plate should be present). Source: adapted from RRLRT No 2a (9-08-12) Pathway Sidewalks (with January 10, 2013, edits by the committee), Figure 8D-10 (59) Figure 134. Suggested dimensions for swing gates with automatic pedestrian gate arms on two approaches and vehicle automatic gate arms on two other approaches.

136 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services The swing gates are intended to prevent pedestrians from crossing into the track area without pausing and checking. Because pedestrians are required to actively open the gates, they are forced to be more alert to the risks associated with crossing the LRT tracks. The gates also provide a posi- tive barrier between where it is and is not appropriate to stand when an LRV is approaching (4). In some cases, the gate is held open (under power), exposing a walkway across the tracks. In these situations, the automatic swing gates do not require action on the part of the pedestrian to enter the crossing. When activated by an LRV approaching the grade crossing, the gate closes. As the gate closes, it exposes an emergency exit. After the LRV passes, the gate opens, and access to the walkway across the tracks is permitted. As the gate opens, the emergency exit is closed. If there is a power failure, the swing gate automatically closes under spring tension. Used widely in Australia, automatic swing gates have been successful in fatality prevention and operational reliability (4). Benefits Transit officials in Calgary have reported that pedestrian violations of the swing gates (opening the gates while the warning devices are flashing) have increased following the initial reductions in risky behavior that occurred immediately after the gates were installed (2). Cost Sriraj and Metaxatos (69) provide a 2013 cost estimate of $49,000 for pedestrian swing gates. Source: adapted from RRLRT No 2a (9-08-12) Pathway Sidewalks (with January 10, 2013, edits by the committee), Figure 8D-8 (59) Figure 135. Suggested dimensions for swing gates with automatic pedestrian gate arms on all approaches.

Pedestrian Treatments 137 Treatment 32: Operations—Required Stop Description As a policy, some stations or crossings may require the train operator to come to a complete stop. Applications Using required stops on the rail system may occur inside and outside stations. Documented instances of this crash-avoidance measure within a station include a second train scenario where the first train stops and blocks a pedestrian crossing while the second train enters the station. According to Korve et al. (2): Where possible, LRV operators should be trained to minimize the occurrence of accidents resulting from pedestrians crossing behind one LRV and into the path of a second, opposite direction LRV. Where LRVs routinely pass one another at or near a pedestrian crossing, one strategy to minimize the second LRV conflict is to have the first LRV operator slow or stop to physically block the pedestrian path until the second, opposite direction LRV enters the crossing. In this manner, pedestrians cannot enter the crossing before the second LRV arrives. For a station configuration where an inbound platform may have access from only one side, requiring pedestrians to cross the outbound rail tracks to access the platform, Compilation of Pedestrian Safety Devices in Use at Grade Crossings (5) states that a transit system may elect to have a safety stop prior to the pedestrian crossing for all outbound vehicles. Scenarios outside of stations include isolated stops for rail vehicles based on an isolated safety risk or holding trains prior to the station when another train is already in the station. This may occur at pedestrian-only crossings (i.e., pedestrian-rail grade crossings not adjacent to motor vehicle crossings or in a station) or at roadway intersections for a variety of reasons, such as sight distance restrictions or high levels of improper pedestrian and/or motor vehicle behavior. Figures 136 and 137 show examples in which trains have a required stop marked with a STOP sign. Additionally, transit agencies may incorporate a policy to restrict a train from entering a station while another train is within the station. The Boston-area commuter-rail agency maintains the “Hold Out” rule where the second approaching train must not enter the station while the station Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 136. Example in Boston of a required stop for LRV operators at a station pedestrian crossing.

138 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services is occupied. This may not always require a full stop in advance but could also be accomplished by slowing, depending on the timing and spacing between the trains. Implementation Transit system policy may dictate required stops for dedicated purposes. However, continual safety reviews may identify locations where a required stop may improve pedestrian safety. Figures 136 and 137 show the use of STOP signs at a station pedestrian crossing to instruct the operators to stop. Benefits Specific safety or operational benefits have not been documented for this treatment. Cost Specific costs associated with this crash-avoidance measure are not documented. However, Korve et al. (2) say that the implementation of the blocking of a pedestrian crossing by the first train while the second train enters the station only affects operating schedules slightly, especially since it would only be used when the two opposing trains are in close proximity and in the necessary locations. Treatment 33: Operations—Reduced Train Speed Description As a policy in some locations, the train operator may be required to reduce speed. Applications Adjusting train speeds when entering or exiting stations could improve pedestrian safety. Source: Gilleran. Permission granted by the owner for a one-time use of this photograph in the Guidebook. No right to otherwise reproduce this photograph is granted, and no rights of ownership of these photographs are transferred to TCRP. Figure 137. Example of a required stop for LRV operators in a station.

Pedestrian Treatments 139 Implementation Transit system policy may dictate reduced speeds for dedicated purposes, such as school zones. Figure 138 shows an end school zone sign installed for the train operators in Portland where the train’s operating speed is to be reduced to 20 mph within the school zone. Los Angeles Metro has improved safety levels by reducing the approach speed to 25 mph along the Blue Line mid- corridor stations. Benefits Specific safety or operational benefits have not been documented for this treatment. Cost Specific costs associated with this treatment are not documented. Treatment 34: Operations—Rail Safety Ambassador Program Description The Rail Safety Ambassador Program administered by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority positions an ambassador at light-rail crossings to highlight improper behavior and educate the public on proper behavior, to provide assistance to users, and to identify and report any perceived safety concerns/hazards at stations and crossings. Applications Originally conceived as a short-term educational tool for the opening of a new light-rail align- ment, the Rail Safety Ambassador Program is now regularly used throughout the Los Angeles Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 138. Example of trains entering/exiting a marked school zone.

140 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services light-rail system. Ambassadors are former light-rail operators who are hired to be at key stations during times of significant use. The ambassadors act as eyes and ears about how users are responding to the crossings. For the opening of a new line, assistance to the public and inter- pretation of any safety concerns provide 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 addressed by the agency. Ambassadors are trained to blow a whistle, explain the improper behavior, and provide instructions on the appropriate behavior required to safely traverse the system. Figures 139 and 140 contain examples of ambassadors (in reflectorized vests) positioned to assist transit users. Los Angeles Metro originally used the ambassadors 6 months before and 6 months after the opening of a new line, but now maintains 44 ambassadors that can work up to 30 hours/week. They are safety trained every 2 years and are equipped with radios for immediate response. Implementation This program uses retired bus and rail operators, a valuable resource that most transit agencies also have available. The use of retired operators reduces the amount of training required for Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 139. Example of an ambassador stationed in the median (near the center of the photograph). Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 140. Example of an ambassador stationed at a crossing (near the left edge of the photograph).

Pedestrian Treatments 141 this specific activity since each ambassador already has over 20 years of training as an operator. The Rail Safety Ambassador Program provides continued education every 2 years. It currently maintains 44 ambassadors who are able to work up to 30 hours/week on two shifts—6:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. and 11:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Wages are set according to a negotiated rate with the local operator union. Benefits This program provides direct personal interaction between trained individuals and system users to convey safety messages, encourage proper behaviors, and assist users as needed. Ambassadors also identify and report any safety concerns or hazards associated with stations and crossings. Additionally, each ambassador is suicide-prevention trained, and there have been documented incidents where ambassadors were able to prevent suicides on the transit rail system. Cost The Los Angeles Metro ambassadors are paid a union-cleared wage of $18/hour with no benefits, with each ambassador eligible to work up to 30 hours/week.