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.
142 Case Study A: Review of Sound Wall Context In accordance with NEPA, the West Rail Line in Denver, Colorado, received an ROD in April 2004 and a Revised EA/FONSI in November 2007. Due to noise impacts along the alignment and at at-grade crossings, mitigation commitments by the Regional Transportation District (RTD) for Denver included constructing sound walls along sections adjacent to residential properties and not including warning bells or sounding of horns at the at-grade crossing. Figure 141 shows one such crossing of a two-lane road (Independence Street) within a residential subdivision. Figure 142 shows the sound wall along the southwest corner. Design Considerations In 2011, the West Rail Grade Crossing Task Force was convened with members from all depart- ments at RTD to review each at-grade crossing for possible changes for safety enhancements. Recommendations included the following (81): ⢠Fencing extension between the sound wall and signal mast. ⢠Bollards between the wall and signal mast. ⢠A swing gate between the signal mast and sound wall. ⢠Removal of track panels where they were not needed for walking. ⢠Removal of 100 ft of sound wall on the southwest corner at Independence as well as a 24/7 speed restriction of 20 mph. ⢠NO TRESPASSING signs at each corner. As part of the recommendations, RTD proposed to remove 100 ft of sound wall on the south- west corner of the Independence Street intersection. Due to an adjacent elementary school, RTD also committed to slow the train speed to 20 mph approaching and through the intersection. RTD completed an additional noise analysis to assess the impacts associated with these changes. Due to the slower speed, there was no longer any noise impact on the property adjacent to the sound wall in question. RTD then submitted a reevaluation memo to FTA for review and approval documenting the changes and noise impacts associated with removal of the sound walls. FTA approved the changes in October 2012. Typically, the specific design elements of at-grade crossing equipment are not included in a NEPA document; however, the overall reason for the equipment or mitigation commitment made during the NEPA process drove the need to re-analyze any changes. C H A P T E R 9 Case Studies
Case Studies 143 Source: Google Earth Figure 141. Plan view of the crossing. Source: Google Earth Figure 142. View of the southwest corner sound wall prior to removal. Results For this crossing, treatments in addition to removal of part of the sound wall and slowing the train included quad gates, flashing lights, swing gates, audible signals, signs, and pavement mark- ings (LOOK BOTH WAYS text on the pavement near the detectable warning), as can be seen in Figure 143 and Figure 144. As part of a Safe Routes to School grant, RTD West Rail, the City of Lakewood, Operation Lifesaver, Bicycle Colorado, and the West Metro Fire District held safety roadshows at elementary schools four blocks within the West Rail Line alignment. RTD created an interactive mock-up display to demonstrate how to properly navigate a light-rail crossing (see Figure 145). The display includes all items that could be at a real light-rail crossing: swing gates, rail signals, appropriate signage, and the crossing sound. The safety roadshows educated students on safety when walking or biking in these areas before RTD started testing and operating rail cars.
144 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services Source: Pitts Figure 143. A swing gate, along with quad gate improvements, at the crossing of Independence Street. Source: Pitts Figure 144. A swing gate and sign at the Independence Street crossing. Source: Pitts Figure 145. An interactive mock-up display to demonstrate how to properly navigate a light-rail crossing.
Case Studies 145 Case Study B: Location of Station Entrance Context For the Los Angeles Little Tokyo community, the location of the light-rail station is between the tracks on one side of the street and on one side of the intersection (in other words, the platform is not a split or staggered platform). For those patrons who start their trip via automobile, they can park in the neighboring lot and not cross a street to access the platform regardless of the direction they are traveling on the light rail. Figure 146 shows the plan view of the station. Design Considerations Prior to modification, users of the station originating from the southwest commented that they did not want to cross the tracks three times to be able to access the station. In the original design, these patrons crossed the street, crossed both tracks, walked parallel to the tracks for a short distance, and then entered the platform after re-crossing the easternmost set of tracks (illustrated in Figure 147). Los Angeles Metro decided to redesign the entrance to the southern part of the station to eliminate the multiple crossings of the tracks. Figure 148 shows the revised Source: Texas A&M Transportation Institute Figure 146. Plan view of the crossing. Source: Texas A&M Transportation Institute Figure 147. Illustration of the original patron path to access the station.
146 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services Source: Texas A&M Transportation Institute Figure 148. Illustration of the revised patron path to access the station. patron path for accessing the station from the south. With the modification, patrons only cross one set of tracks whether they are approaching from the southwest or from the southeast. Results The modifications to the station were ongoing in February 2014. Figure 149 shows the previous entrance to the station where fencing has been installed to redirect the patrons to the new entrance, which is illustrated in Figures 150 and 151. Figure 152 shows the new entrance from the perspective of a patron exiting the train station. The new entrance allows a patron from the southwest to cross only the western tracks before entering the station. The path for pedestrians not accessing the station remains unchanged; they still cross two sets of tracks in addition to crossing the road. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 149. Previous crossing now fenced to prevent use.
Case Studies 147 Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 150. New southern entrance to the platform (highlighted on photo with a circle). Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 151. Closer view of the southern entrance. Source: Zohbi Figure 152. View of the new southern entrance from the train station.
148 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services An example of the sign used at the station entrance is shown in Figure 153, and Figure 154 shows the signs presented to patrons exiting the station at the southern end. These signs are on a post embedded in a raised median. The raised median helps to restrict vehicles from inappropriately entering the station, along with providing a clear edge for the pedestrian crossing (see additional discussion of this concept in Case Study C). Treatments used to communicate that pedestrians should not be on the tracks are shown in Figure 155 and include raised buttons, pavement mark- ings that include the words NO WALK WAY, horizontal signing on the pavement, and passive signs on the fence. Case Study C: Consideration of Visually Impaired Pedestrians When Designing a Station Entrance to a Platform Located Between Tracks Context Passengers exiting a train platform that is located within an intersection (as shown in Figure 156) need to be directed to turn right or left to cross the roadway. When passengers are trying to find and use the station, visually impaired or blind passengers need an indication of the location of the platform entry. For example, a passenger walking north from the southwest corner of the Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 153. Sign used at the southern entrance. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 154. View of the treatment along the street edge upon exiting from the southern portion of the platform.
Case Studies 149 intersection shown in Figure 156 needs an indication of when to turn left (as opposed to right or forward) to enter the station. Very little guidance exists on this issue. Solutions are needed because blind and visually impaired users state that the lack of information prevents their using some stations. None of the treat- ments currently installed satisfy all the wayfinding needs; however, several treatments do provide sufficient cues so that a blind or visually impaired user who is familiar with the station can locate the entrance. In addition, consistent treatment will likely result in more predictable pedestrian behavior and provide adequate cues to blind or visually impaired pedestrians of the location of the station and of the track or roadway area. Design Considerations Various methods can be used to block pedestrians from walking straight forward into the street as they exit the station. A clear barrier helps all pedestrians, but it is particularly important Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 155. Examples of treatments used at the southern entrance to indicate pedestrians should not be on the tracks. Source: Texas A&M Transportation Institute Figure 156. Overhead view of a train station for median- or side-running tracks.
150 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services to pedestrians who are blind. Pedestrians who are blind do not receive orientation to every station that they might use, and they may not realize that they are at a center platform station and must turn and cross the street or rail lines upon exiting the station. Defining the edge of the crossing with respect to the roadway provides several benefits, including the following: ⢠Physically preventing a pedestrian from walking into the intersection. ⢠Clearly delineating the space reserved for pedestrians from the space for vehicles and the space to be shared by pedestrians and vehicles. ⢠Enabling visually impaired pedestrians to find the edge using a long cane. ⢠Providing a visual cue to train operators that pedestrians are not walking within designated areas. Several examples of methods to delineate the edge of the crossing were observed, including the following: ⢠Yellow fence (see Figure 157). ⢠Flexible bollards (see Figure 158). ⢠Raised curb (see Figure 159). ⢠Raised curb with a higher profile that is also used for a power pole, as shown in Figure 160. Signs are attached to the pole, providing warning to look both ways and to watch for trains. ⢠Figure 161 shows another raised island example. This location has a pole for the signal head in the raised island. The figure also shows a trash can that was placed within the crossing. While the trash can may provide a needed amenity for the location, it may hinder pedestrian movement. ⢠Figure 162 illustrates several treatments including the raised island, sign, and bollards. In addition to clearly defining the edge of the crossing, detectable warnings are needed for median stations. Detectable warnings indicate the junction between pedestrian and vehicular Source: Warner Figure 157. Metal fence used to mark the edge of the crossing. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 158. Bollards used to mark the edge of the crossing.
Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 159. Raised island used to mark the edge of the crossing. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 160. Raised island with a higher profile used to mark the edge of the crossing and for the power pole. Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 161. Raised island with a signal used to mark the edge of the crossing (trash can placed within the crossing). Source: Fitzpatrick Figure 162. Several treatments used to mark the edge of the crossing, including a raised island, a sign, and bollards.
152 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services ways. They are properly installed in pairs to indicate the beginning and end of travel within a hazardous area. Pedestrians who are visually impaired who detect the truncated dome detect- able 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 either being too close to the track when a train crosses or being struck by a descending gate arm. 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 area. Figure 163 illustrates the locations where detectable warnings should be installed when there is a refuge area at the end of a median- or side-running station. When detectable warnings are used at both edges of the refuge, pedestrians who are visually impaired are alerted to the presence of a refuge and platform and can recognize when they are stepping into the street or rail area as they leave the platform. The detectable warning surface that is installed at the bottom of a ramp from a platform is not needed, as illustrated in Figure 164. Detectable warnings indicate the junction between pedestrian and vehicular ways. Pedestrians coming down the ramp and exiting the station do not enter directly onto a vehicular way; they enter a refuge. Placing a detectable warning at the bottom of this ramp could therefore be confusing to blind pedestrians who contact it as they enter or exit the station. Another example of detectable warning installation that could be confusing to blind or visually impaired pedestrians is a U-shaped installation as illustrated in Figure 165. The location of the detectable warning material closest to the pole could be understood by blind pedestrians as indicating where they should wait to cross the street in front of them, rather than turning to cross the tracks and then the street, as intended. Some type of barrier is needed at the edge of Source: Texas A&M Transportation Institute Figure 163. Overhead view of locations for detectable warnings when there is a refuge area at the end of a median- or side-running station.
Case Studies 153 Source: Texas A&M Transportation Institute Figure 164. Illustration showing where a detectable warning should not be located (at the bottom of a ramp leading from a raised median platform) and where detectable warnings should be located (at the sides of the pedestrian refuge). Source: Texas A&M Transportation Institute Figure 165. Illustration showing a U-shaped detectable warning installation for a median platform that could be confusing to a pedestrian. the refuge closest to the side of the crossing, as shown in Figures 157 through 162, not a detect- able warning. Another example of an incorrect detectable warning is when the entire refuge area is covered. The message of where it is appropriate to stand or when a pedestrian is entering or leaving a protected area is lost when a large area is covered with detectable warning material. The refuge should be treated in the same way as a pedestrian refuge island, as described in Proposed PROWAG R305.2.4 (58). There should be a detectable warning at each edge of the refuge, indicating the limit of the area where pedestrians can safely wait outside the dynamic envelope of trains, as illustrated in Figure 163.
154 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services If there is no platform or station entry within the crossing, there is no need to indicate the track crossing separately from the roadway, as noted in the Proposed PROWAG (58). A portion of R208.1 states: âWhere pedestrian at-grade rail crossings are located within a street or highway, detectable warning surfaces at the curb ramps or blended transitions make a second set of detect- able warning surfaces at the rail crossing unnecessary.â Locations with station platform entrances and associated pedestrian refuges in the middle of a roadway or between the tracks, however, need correct detectable warning placement. 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 (Treatment 21 in Chapter 8) 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 blank-out sign with a train symbol is viewable for those pedestrians leaving the station. Results Both the barrier to walking into the roadway and the detectable warnings to mark the edges of the pedestrian refuge where it is level with the trackway or street are needed, as shown in Figures 157 and 162. Barriers to continuing into the roadway can be provided by a curb, flexible delineators, fencing, or other methods. Where pedestrian passage is intended at the crossing, detectable warnings installed for the full width of the crosswalk area that is level with the street or trackway give notice to pedestrians who are blind of the beginning and ending of a roadway or railway crossing. Case Study D: Control of Pedestrian Path Context Many identified safety concerns exist with unimpeded passage of pedestrian movements through crossings. Controlling pedestrian paths through the use of channelization and barriers, or maze fencing, slows movement through crossings and forces pedestrians to face the oncoming train prior to entering the trackway. In Portland, Tri-Metâs Renew the Blue campaign began in 2011 to upgrade the 30-year old Blue Line to new design standards and ADA requirements in order to improve safety and security. The Gateway Transit Center is Tri-Metâs busiest transit station, with pedestrians transferring between trains and buses. Three train platforms serve the three light-rail lines that use the station. In addition, multiple buses transfer at the station, the I-205 multi-use path accesses the station, and a medical complex is adjacent to the station. Design Considerations With the update of the light-rail design criteria in 2010 based on lessons learned and operating experience, Tri-Met completed a review of all pedestrian crossings in order to plan to meet upgraded criteria in the existing parts of the system (70). The Gateway Transit Center was the first location along the Blue Line to see pedestrian safety improvements based on the new criteria. Design change elements for the new criteria included better guiding and channeling of pedestrians and bicyclists into âcontrolled and predictable crossing pathsâ (82). Additionally, the changes were designed to improve ADA accessibility and help train operators better identify pedestrian intent at crossings. Elements within the new design standards implemented as part of the Gateway Transit Center project include channelization that directs users to the designated crossing locations and barriers
Case Studies 155 to force users to slow and face oncoming trains before entering tracks. In order to ensure designed elements would work as planned, Tri-Met instituted a pedestrian channeling test project, in which temporary barriers simulated the designed barriers. This allowed testing of the channeling to ensure positive impacts on pedestrian movements as designed without unforeseen negative impacts. A concern with the changed pedestrian flows was the ability to maintain ADA ramp grades. Figures 166 and 167 show images of the temporary barriers used during the channel test. Field test video footage proved the channelization performed appropriately and that installation could move forward as designed. The primary focus at the crossings is to force users to slow and traverse the crossing in a controlled and predictable manner. This is largely done with barriers that control the pedestrian flow and, if possible, direct users to face the oncoming train direction. Figures 168 and 169 Source: Saporta, 2012 (70) Figure 166. Gateway pedestrian channeling test using temporary barriers. Source: Saporta, 2012 (70) Figure 167. Gateway pedestrian channeling test using temporary barriers (alternate view).
156 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services Source: Texas A&M Transportation Institute Figure 168. Illustration of pedestrian flows before installation of barriers. Source: Texas A&M Transportation Institute Figure 169. Illustration of pedestrian flows after installation of barriers.
Case Studies 157 show how pedestrian flows changed with the addition of barriers at the crossing approach. As illustrated in Figure 168, the pedestrian may be looking away from the oncoming train. With the installation of the barriers (as shown in Figure 169), the pedestrian is initially reoriented toward the anticipated direction of the near train. Results The field test demonstrated that the designed treatments would positively direct pedestrians. Permanent changes at the Gateway Transit Center occurred in 2013, including at the platform crossings, at multi-use crossings, and along the approach paths. Figure 170 shows one of the platform rail crossings before the treatments, and Figure 171 shows the crossing after the treat- ments. Figure 172 shows the south multi-use path before the treatments, and Figure 173 shows the path after the treatments. Figure 174 demonstrates how pedestrians are no long able to dart directly across the track and must now follow the channeling, which ensures that they cross in a better position to see an oncoming train. Source: Wilkinson Figure 170. Before platform crossing improvements. Source: Wilkinson Figure 171. After platform crossing improvements.
Source: Wilkinson Figure 172. Before south multi-use path crossing improvements. Source: Wilkinson Figure 173. After south multi-use path crossing improvements. Source: Warner Figure 174. Pedestrian channelization at a MAX platform crossing.
