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.

18 C H A P T E R 3 This chapter provides an overview of key pedestrian safety issues associated with public transit rail services. Pedestrian Characteristics In order to effectively plan and design pedestrian crossings for public rail transit services, an understanding of the characteristics of pedestrians can be beneficial. This section discusses the general characteristics of pedestrians, considerations for special pedestrian groups, and impacts of mobile device use on pedestrian risk. General Characteristics Pedestrians possess certain unique characteristics and behaviors that must be considered in the planning, design, and operation of pedestrian crossings for public rail transit services. Some of these characteristics include the following: • Pedestrians are slow. Typical design speeds for pedestrians range from 3.0 to 5.0 ft/second (approximately 2.0 to 3.4 mph) (28). At such speeds, it is difficult for pedestrians to travel long distances in a short time period and move relatively quickly in response to emergency or urgent situations. • Pedestrians are flexible. For what they lack in speed, pedestrians compensate by being the most flexible (i.e., maneuverable) of all transport modes. Pedestrians typically seek the shortest route between an origin and a destination and are not physically limited to designated rails, travel lanes, or pathways (7). Only larger objects such as buildings or natural features (i.e., water bodies or topography) or physical barriers prevent pedestrians from taking direct routes. The high maneuverability of pedestrians also means that they are able to jump out of the way or otherwise narrowly avoid crashes with transit vehicles or motor vehicles. • Pedestrians are fragile. Unlike transit passengers inside transit vehicles or in motor vehicles, pedestrians have very little or no protection against injury from a crash with a transit vehicle, motor vehicle, bicycle, or even another pedestrian. The extent to which pedestrians are injured in such crashes is dependent on the speed and forces involved with the crash, as well as the strength and fragility of the pedestrian(s) involved (3). • Pedestrians are sensitive to their surroundings. Pedestrians are exposed to a variety of natural and artificial sources of discomfort, such as weather (i.e., temperature, sunlight, and precipita- tion), noises, smells, and visual distractions. Pedestrians also have greater exposure to safety and security issues. Exposure to these elements among passengers in transit vehicles or motor vehicles is not as great. Because of the exposure to environmental conditions (e.g., rain, fog, and snow), pedestrians may be more willing to accept personal risk to shorten the travel distance (3). Pedestrian Safety

Pedestrian Safety 19 • Pedestrians may be inattentive. Pedestrian inattentiveness to the surrounding environment has increased with the rapid emergence of mobile device use. In the United States, mobile device use has increased steadily over the past two decades, with a doubling in the number of wireless subscriber connections between 2002 and 2012 (29). The use of mobile devices among pedestrians introduces the possibility of multitasking by the pedestrian, specifically walking and using the mobile device. Doing one or more activities simultaneously causes attention to and performance of one or both tasks to decrease. There exists a small but growing body of literature (30, 31 32, 33, 34, 35, 36) suggesting that the risk of distraction (i.e., compromising attention to and/or performance of the walking task) among pedestrians is higher when using a mobile device. For example, one study found that pedestrians using a mobile device tended to pay less attention to traffic before and during crossing and that mobile device use also resulted in slower crossing speeds (30). Pedestrians who were text-messaging displayed the highest risk of all distracted walkers, with slower crossing times and failure to display cautionary crossing behaviors (34). • Pedestrians prefer direct paths. Due to their flexibility, pedestrians can take the most direct path to reach their destination. They will follow other pedestrians who have discovered a quicker route between two points. • Pedestrians may ignore warning signs. In considering common safety problems experienced by transit operators, one cited concern is pedestrians ignoring warning signs (2). This could be due to inattentiveness, lack of situational awareness, or direct disobedience, maybe in order to reduce delay or catch a train. Special Pedestrian Groups In addition to the general pedestrian characteristics discussed above, there are special pedes- trian groups that possess unique characteristics that should be considered in the planning, design, and operation of pedestrian crossings for public rail transit services. The special pedes- trian groups include child pedestrians, older pedestrians, recent immigrants, and people with disabilities. The FHWA publication Pedestrian Safety Guide for Transit Agencies outlines the char- acteristics and behaviors of these pedestrian groups (7). Table 6 describes these characteristics and behaviors. The pedestrian groups listed in Table 6 may also be among the greatest beneficiaries of improved rail transit services because they may be limited in their ability to use or access other travel options (such as a personal vehicle). Consequently, the characteristics and behaviors outlined in Table 6 should be carefully considered in the planning and design process, particularly if higher volumes of pedestrians from any of the four groups are expected to use a particular pedestrian crossing— for example, crossings located near schools, senior centers, or medical facilities. Pedestrian Crash Characteristics Previous Research A series of previous TCRP reports addressed the safety concerns between light-rail operations and roadway users, including vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. TCRP Report 137 (4) summarizes the findings of TCRP Report 17 (1) and TCRP Report 69 (2), including major lists of common safety problems. Focusing on pedestrian-focused issues, the combined major pedestrian safety issues include the following: • Trespassing on the tracks. • Jaywalking. • Station and/or cross-street access.

20 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services Pedestrian Group Characteristics and Behaviors Child Pedestrians May have difficulty choosing where and deciding when it is safe to cross the street. May have difficulty seeing (and being seen by) drivers of all types of vehicles, including buses, because of less peripheral vision and shorter stature than adults. May have difficulty judging the speed of approaching vehicles. May need more time to cross a street than adults. May be less likely to look both ways before crossing. May be less likely to understand signs, including second train warnings. May be drawn toward rail out of curiosity. Older Pedestrians May have reduced motor skills that limit their ability to walk at certain speeds, turn their heads, or compensate for uneven crossing surfaces as compared to younger adults. May need more time to cross a street or the rail than younger adults. May have difficulty with orientation and understanding traffic signs, so they may need more information about how to access transit. May need information provided in a larger font. May have difficulty judging the speed of approaching vehicles. May have trouble hearing rail vehicles, especially in quiet zones. Recent Immigrants May have limited understanding of English, traffic laws, and typical roadway behaviors. May not understand traffic signals that indicate when to walk. May not have the experience to know how to interact safely with drivers. People with Disabilities (e.g., people with impaired vision, hearing, cognition, or walking, including those using wheelchairs, scooters, walkers, crutches, or canes) May be more affected by surface irregularities in the pavement and changes in slope or grade. May need more time to cross a street than people without disabilities. May benefit from pedestrian signal information provided in multiple formats (i.e., audible, tactile, and visual). May have trouble seeing (and being seen) by drivers of all types of vehicles due to seated position (people using wheelchairs). Pedestrians who are blind or who have low vision may have trouble detecting yielding vehicles or communicating visually with drivers in crossing at unsignalized crosswalks. Pedestrians who are blind or who have low vision may be unable to see or understand visual signs and signals. Pedestrians who have impaired hearing may not hear oncoming trains or other vehicles, and may not hear audible warning devices. May have wheels or the tips of mobility aids trapped by the flangeway gap. Pedestrians with cognitive disabilities may have difficulty simultaneously using multiple sources of information for good decision-making. Note: Efforts from this research project expanded on and/or modified material from an FHWA report, Pedestrian Safety Guide for Transit Agencies (7) to create the lists in this table. Table 6. Characteristics and behaviors of special pedestrian groups. • Limited sight distance at pedestrian crossings. • Pedestrians darting across LRT tracks without looking. Additionally, as part of the project, the TCRP Report 137 project team consulted five transit agencies that noted these major pedestrian safety issues, among a longer overall list (4): • Pedestrians jaywalking between marked crossing locations (e.g., midblock or at stations). • Pedestrians trespassing at stadium stations after events. • Pedestrians crossing against signals and/or against warning devices. • Pedestrian crashes due to a “second train.” • Pedestrian inattention and/or distraction. • Increased severity of pedestrian crashes. Using all the safety issues, TCRP Report 137 developed the following five areas of safety concern that must be addressed along LRT alignments (4): • Inattention by motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians. • Confusion of motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians.

Pedestrian Safety 21 • Lack of appropriate physical separation between motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, and the LRV. • Risky behavior by motorists and pedestrians. • Operator error or lack of information. As stated above, a major concern is the severity of a crash between a train and a pedestrian. TCRP Report 17 includes a statistical analysis that found pedestrian crashes account for approxi- mately 10 percent of the crashes but approximately 50 percent of the fatalities (1). An additional statistical analysis, performed by the TCRP Report 137 team, calculated that although crashes between pedestrians and LRVs in the systems they reviewed represented 22 percent of the total crashes, these crashes represented 80 percent of all fatalities (4). These combined safety issues and concern for the severity of pedestrian crashes highlight the characteristics of pedestrians. Ogden (37) notes that pedestrians tend to look down, not up; may lack awareness or be distracted; create their own pathways; tend to take the shortest route; may be children; or may be persons with disabilities. The FRA report Compilation of Pedestrian Safety Devices in Use at Grade Crossings (5) cautions that pedestrians do not always think of themselves as part of the overall traffic stream, and therefore they think they are not subject to traffic control devices. Metaxatos and Sriraj (38) found through literature review and field observations that larger platoons of pedestrians are more likely to commit a violation, pedestrians near passenger rail facilities may interpret auditory warnings as an indication that the train is approaching and that they should hurry to get in boarding position, and pedestrian warning devices are commonly ignored and easy to circumvent. A December 2013 FRA report (39) highlights the latter point by finding that with the addition of gate skirts to already existing pedestrian gate arms, more pedestrians bypassed the pedestrian automatic gate assembly by using the adjacent roadway. The FTA 2009 Rail Safety Statistics Report (40) found that pedestrian actions caused 61 percent of light-rail crash fatalities. Safety Database Analysis There are two primary sources of data related to crashes between rail transit vehicles and pedestrians. Light-rail and streetcar safety data are available through the FTA NTD (12), and commuter-rail safety data are available through FRA (41, 42). This section highlights the major online crash databases available from both entities and presents summary analyses of these databases. Light Rail and Streetcar The FTA NTD reports pedestrian safety data for light-rail and streetcar systems. Pedestrian- specific data were not collected prior to 2008; however, beginning in 2008, fatality and injury numbers are presented for the following pedestrian categories (12): • Pedestrian in Crossing. The number of pedestrians in crosswalks killed/injured. • Pedestrian Not in Crossing. The number of pedestrians not in crosswalks killed/injured. • Pedestrian Crossing Tracks. The number of pedestrians crossing tracks killed/injured. • Pedestrian Walking Along Tracks. The number of pedestrians walking along tracks killed/ injured. Non-pedestrian categories include passengers, revenue facility occupants, employees, bicyclists, other vehicle occupants, trespassers, and suicides. At the time of this research, pedestrian safety data in the FTA NTD was current through December 2012. Therefore, Table 7 presents the pedestrian-specific safety data included in the NTD for 2008 to 2012. Beginning in 2012, the data provide segregation of the light-rail

22 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services designations into light rail and streetcar. Table 7 contains the total combined light-rail and street- car fatalities and injuries for 2008 to 2011 and the separate light-rail and streetcar fatalities and injuries for 2012. The table only contains the pedestrian categories and excludes other categories, such as bicyclists, trespassers, or suicides. Approximately 41 percent (64 out of 156) of the total fatalities involving light-rail or streetcar rail transit vehicles between 2008 and 2012 were pedestrians, according to Table 7. However, pedestrian injuries for that time period only accounted for about 4 percent (179 out of 4,880) of all injuries. Commuter Rail The FRA 2012 Operational Data Tables database (43) contains 810 different railroad report- ing marks, with 185 railroad reporting marks containing passenger movements. These include the 24 U.S. commuter-rail systems, Amtrak, Alaska Railroad, and some light-rail systems. The remaining entities, not included in this analysis, are tourism trains or railroads that move some sort of passenger excursion train during the year. The FRA uses a classification system for affected persons, with two of the classifications related to pedestrian activity on railroad property. These two classifications are defined below, along with a listing of the remaining categories grouped as “Other Categories” for this analysis: • Non-trespassers on railroad property. Persons lawfully on that part of railroad property that is used in railroad operation (other than those defined as workers, passengers, or trespassers) and persons adjacent to railroad premises when they are injured as the result of the operation of a railroad. This class also includes other persons on vessels or buses, whose use arises from the operation of a railroad. • Trespassers. Persons who are on the part of railroad property used in railroad operation and whose presence is prohibited, forbidden, or unlawful. A person on a highway-rail grade crossing should not be classified as a trespasser unless one of the following occurs: – The crossing is protected by gates or other similar barriers, which were closed when the person went on the crossing. Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total Mode Light Rail (LR) and Streetcar (SR) Combined LR SR Fatalities Pedestrian in Crossing 3 5 2 6 3 0 19 Pedestrian Not in Crossing 2 4 1 1 1 0 9 Pedestrian Crossing Tracks 1 4 4 4 7 0 20 Pedestrian Walking Along Tracks 1 5 2 2 6 0 16 Total Pedestrian Fatalities 7 18 9 13 17 0 64 Total Non-Pedestrian Fatalities 10 16 15 23 28 0 92 Total All Fatalities 17 34 24 36 45 0 156 Injuries Pedestrian in Crossing 15 9 12 12 10 0 58 Pedestrian Not in Crossing 3 6 6 8 5 0 28 Pedestrian Crossing Tracks 12 9 10 15 15 2 63 Pedestrian Walking Along Tracks 6 8 7 4 6 0 31 Total Pedestrian Injuries 36 32 35 39 36 2 180 Total Non-Pedestrian Injuries 980 1,046 890 929 808 48 4,701 Total All Injuries 1,016 1,078 925 968 844 50 4,881 Source: FTA NTD (12) Table 7. Pedestrian fatalities and injuries reported by agencies operating light-rail and streetcar transit systems, 2008–2012.

Pedestrian Safety 23 – The person attempted to pass over, under, or between cars or locomotives occupying the crossing. • Other Categories. The classifications combined in this category include Worker on Duty– Employee; Employee Not on Duty; Worker on Duty–Contractor; Contractor–Other; Passengers on Trains; and Non-Trespassers–Off Railroad Property. A person or vehicle that enters the crossing without a physical barrier (e.g., gates in a lowered position) is not classified as a trespasser, even when the highway-rail grade crossing lights are activated or other warning systems are functioning. The person is classified as a non-trespasser. Table 8 contains commuter-rail fatality- and injury-related data analyses for the latest 5-year period. The table shows a total of 414 fatalities and 10,233 injuries occurring between 2008 and 2012. Trespassers represented 86 percent of the fatalities but only 3 percent of the total injuries when compared to the other types of people involved. Identifying Pedestrian Safety Issues Several methods are used to identify and evaluate pedestrian safety issues at public transit rail services, including the following: • Risk-based analysis • Safety audit • Diagnostic safety teams Risk-Based Analysis Risk-based analysis methods evaluate the risk of crashes between pedestrians and rail transit vehicles. The concept of safety assessments is familiar for roadways, with publications such as the FHWA Road Safety Audit Guidelines (44) and the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual (45) providing tools to evaluate roadway safety. The FRA publication Guidance on Pedestrian Crossing Safety at or near Passenger Stations (6) recommends that passenger rail operators use risk-based, pro active, hazard analysis methods to evaluate the risk associated with the movement of pedestrians at or near passenger stations. Type of Person 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total Percent of Total Fatalities Non-Trespasser on Railroad Property 4 0 3 5 7 19 5% Trespasser 75 63 70 64 84 356 86% Other Categories 29 3 2 3 2 39 9% Total 108 66 75 72 93 414 100% Injuries Non-Trespasser on Railroad Property 466 476 515 506 404 2,367 23% Trespasser 48 51 67 50 67 283 3% Other Categories 1,583 1,514 1,531 1,546 1,409 7,583 74% Total 2,097 2,041 2,113 2,102 1,880 10,233 100% Source: FRA, Office of Safety Analysis (42) Table 8. Commuter-rail fatalities and injuries by type of person, 2008–2012.

24 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services Safety Audit TCRP Report 137 presents a light-rail risk analysis methodology and defines a safety audit as using “a multi-disciplinary approach to identify potential crash risks through a detailed examination of all relevant design and environmental factors” (4). This risk analysis methodology is based on many of the existing roadway safety audit standards and includes the following steps (4): 1. Select the safety audit team. 2. Provide background information to the safety audit team. 3. Conduct a pre-audit meeting to review project information. 4. Assess/analyze background information. 5. Perform site inspections under various conditions. 6. Prepare and submit a safety audit report. 7. Conduct a safety audit completion meeting. 8. Prepare a formal response. 9. Incorporate safety audit findings into the project (where appropriate). The TCRP Report 137 research team discusses using safety audits for the different stages (4): • Preliminary design stage. Safety audits during this stage should be conducted once critical decisions regarding route choice and project design/layout have been determined. The audit should use preliminary design drawings and site visits. • Detailed design stage. Safety audits during this stage should be conducted when detailed design drawings and sufficiently detailed base maps are available and should include field investigations in order to gain enhanced understanding of the project layout. By this stage, significant changes to the design require greater expenditure to implement. • In-use stage. After operations begin, the safety audit seeks to identify where crashes will occur and their potential severity. For an established system, it is important to examine the potential changes to the conditions since construction, including increased operational levels, adjoining land use, and magnitude of pedestrian volumes. TCRP Report 137 emphasizes that elements of the facility that were reasonable and effective in design may no longer serve their purpose if significant changes have occurred in the surrounding area. The TCRP Report 137 research team states that in general the earlier in the project the safety audit is conducted, the greater the potential to improve safety while minimizing costs. Therefore, safety audits performed during the design stage have the greatest opportunity to improve safety with minimal costs (4). The framework contained in TCRP Report 137 in which to perform a risk-based analysis for safety measures along light-rail alignments is a checklist. In developing the checklist, the team determined that a rigid framework was not the best tool since it would not be adaptable to the wide range of situations found in practice. Therefore, the checklist is not intended to cover an exhaustive list of all possible issues to be addressed but is intended to serve as a guide to help identify safety issues. The LRT alignment risk assessment checklist is provided in Table 9. Diagnostic Safety Teams APTA also provides risk-based analysis guidance with APTA standard RT-RGC-RP-003-03, Recommended Practice for Rail Transit System Highway Rail Grade Crossing Safety Assessment, which applies to new start and existing rail transit, light rail, and rapid rail lines on an exclusive ROW. The safety assessment process (46) involves 1. Diagnostic review team 2. Site visit and data collection 3. Evaluation/engineering analysis

Pedestrian Safety 25 4. Development of recommendations 5. Implementation of recommendations 6. Grade crossing inventory 7. Follow-up 8. Periodic review APTA states that the diagnostic review team should be interdisciplinary in nature and represent all groups that share responsibility for safety at grade crossings such as rail and highway systems, law enforcement agencies, and local municipalities. The document includes a lengthy list of factors that should be considered during the evaluation of each crossing including the following (46): • Maximum speed of rail vehicles. • Number of tracks, mainline or other. LRT Alignment Risk Assessment Checklist This checklist is intended to provide a framework for a comprehensive risk assessment of a location along an LRT alignment. The risk assessment report would be prepared as a separate document or as an attachment to this form, using the form as a table of contents. Completed Reason for assessment: Note the reason for assessment. Possible reasons include crash(es), crash precursors (near misses or violations), operator or public complaints, and routine assessment of sites on a rotational basis. Area type: Describe the surrounding area (industrial, school, urban core, suburban, proximity to parks and senior homes/centers, etc.) Crash history: List past crashes (LRT, vehicle, pedestrian, or bicycle) and possible causes. If available, list crash precursors. Exposure: If available, record the a.m. peak, p.m. peak, and daily volumes for the location for all traffic types involved: Pedestrian volume Road volume LRV frequency Roadway design elements: Describe the roadway (if applicable). Include sketches or photos as necessary. Speed and classification Cross-section type (lanes, channelization, islands, barriers, etc.) Sight distance Warning devices Traffic control and barrier devices Pedestrian environment design: Describe the pedestrian environment (if applicable). Include sketches or photos as necessary. Surface type, grade cross slope, accessibility Horizontal and vertical clearance Obstacles to movement (e.g., crossing padding) Positive guidance and handrails Warning devices Barrier devices Conflict definition: Define the nature of the conflict (e.g., grade crossing or parallel alignment at grade), with a sketch as necessary to show possible impact types. Lighting: Investigate the impacts of lighting at different times of day. Describe from the pedestrian, vehicle, and LRV operator perspectives. Driver sight lines: Determine if conflict points and the approaches to conflict points are visible to the LRV operator and other users for the expected speed(s). Obstructions (trees, poles, etc.) Horizontal and vertical alignment Potential problems with glare, haze, fog, foliage, snow storage, etc., for different times of day and seasons of the year Clearance time: If applicable, determine whether the clearance time provided by vehicle, pedestrian, and train signals is sufficient to safely clear the intersection. Design consistency: Are any aspects of the site features sufficiently unusual to be surprising or contrary to the reasonable expectations of the users? (describe) Operator/public complaints: Comment on any complaints that may have been received in the context of the site review—are they reasonable and/or explainable? Propose possible solutions/mitigations to address reason(s) for assessment. Source: TCRP Report 137 (4) Table 9. LRT alignment risk assessment checklist.

26 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services • Number and types of rail vehicles daily during peak periods. • Multiple trains approaching a crossing simultaneously. • Types of existing warning and traffic control devices if any. • Sight distances, motor vehicle to rail. • Number of traffic lanes. • Condition of highway-rail grade crossing surface. • Speed of motor vehicles over tracks. • Queuing potential across tracks. • Accident information/history. • Multiple adjacent or parallel grade crossings in close proximity. • Nearby vehicle and pedestrian traffic generators. • Geometry of the highway-rail grade crossing, both horizontal and vertical. • Impact on adjacent highway/street operations. • Rail operating characteristics (e.g., braking distances). • Rail operating rules (e.g., horn blowing and near-side station stops). • Signal interconnection with highway traffic devices including preemption and priority. • Visibility of warning devices. • Switching operations in the area that may trigger nuisance operation of the grade crossing. Additional risk-assessment tools in the form of checklists are provided by Utah and California. The UDOT Pedestrian Grade Crossing Manual (47) from the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) emphasizes that each grade crossing is unique and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by a diagnostic team. The manual includes a checklist from the UDOT Railroad Coordination Manual of Instruction (48) for evaluating pedestrian grade crossing hazard analysis, which is divided into three parts: general information, potential hazards, and proposed mitigations. The California Public Utilities Commission’s (CPUC’s) Pedestrian-Rail Crossings in California (49) includes in an appendix a copy of a UK assessment sheet for evaluating crossings located at stations. When the crossing score is more than 55, “then the risk must be reduced.” A crossing score between 35 and 55 is when “measures to reduce the risk must be considered.” Factors being considered include crossing abuse; the number of people using the crossing; the number of trains passing over the crossing; the percent of non-stop trains over the crossing; the maximum speed of non-stop trains; lines crossed without a pedestrian refuge; warning time at the crossing; the chance of stepping out behind another train or obstruction and being hit by a train; loud external noise sources; use by significant numbers of vulnerable, distracted, or encumbered users; potential for slippery conditions; potential for fog/smoke; whether the crossing is on canted tracks; and other local factors. Suggested countermeasures to use when a crossing score is high were not provided with the assessment sheet.