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.

27 C H A P T E R 4 In the United States, any rail transit project that receives capital funding assistance from FTA or FRA is subject to an environmental review process as required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, subsequent amendments, and Executive Orders. Collectively, the environ- mental review process is known as the NEPA process, reflecting the original law requiring transit agencies to conduct these activities. This chapter provides an overview of the NEPA process and a specific discussion of several aspects of the NEPA process that pertain to the planning, design, and operation of safe and effective pedestrian crossings of public rail transit services. Overview of the NEPA Process Regulations pertaining to the environmental review process for rail transit are published by FTA (50) and FRA (51) for projects within the scope of the respective agencies. These regulations provide details on the purpose of the NEPA process, the classes of actions to be taken by FTA or FRA resulting from an environmental review, and the types of impacts that are evaluated as part of the environmental review process. The environmental review process is not a fixed set of activities required by transit agencies pursuing compliance with NEPA regulations; rather, environmental review guidelines provide transit agencies (applicants) and the FTA or FRA (lead federal review agency) with sufficient flexibility to allow for project-specific impacts to be identified and resolved in a manner consistent with the collaborative spirit of NEPA and related requirements. Purpose of the NEPA Process In general, the purpose of the NEPA process is to identify and evaluate the environmental impacts of a proposed action (i.e., a rail transit project) against a spectrum of feasible alternative actions (i.e., alternative investment) as well as a no-build or no-action alternative. Identification of environmental impacts and potential measures necessary to mitigate any adverse impacts is also required. The NEPA process also allows for public agencies and other affected entities to provide comments on proposed action(s). Finally, public involvement in the NEPA process, pro- viding input on proposed alternatives and ensuring all affected populations have an opportunity to participate, is an essential element of every stage of the process. Classes of NEPA Actions Environmental review regulations outline three types of actions that could result from the NEPA process: Categorical Exclusion, Environmental Assessment, or Environmental Impact Statement. These types of actions are generally associated with the types of documentation that are required to be prepared by the transit agency and the type of approval provided by FTA or NEPA-Related Issues

28 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services FRA. FTA and FRA environmental review regulations differ slightly in formal structure for the types of actions, but the general process is similar for the two agencies. The first type of action, known as a Categorical Exclusion (CE), is a specific type of action that does not involve significant environmental impacts. FTA and FRA regulations provide a list of actions that qualify as CEs. These lists are based on past agency experience with similar actions or are activities associated with the routine operations of a rail transit service such as schedule adjustments, maintenance activities, or technology improvements. For actions classified as CEs, no Environmental Assessment documentation is required. For a project not classified as a CE, the applicant (i.e., a transit agency) is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA). An EA is a preliminary evaluation of the environmental impacts of a proposed project and identification of any adverse effects. Upon preparation, the EA is submitted to the appropriate agency (FTA or FRA) for review. If the agency determines that a proposed project has no significant environmental impacts or if appropriate mitigation measures are incorporated into the project to adequately deal with any adverse impacts, the EA will serve as the basis for a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to be issued by the agency, allowing for the project to be executed. If an EA shows that a proposed project will result in significant or adverse environmental impacts, the transit agency will be required to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed project. An EIS is a comprehensive document that identifies all foreseeable environ- mental impacts and proposed mitigation strategies for adverse impacts and documents all public involvement activities. The FTA regulations note that the new construction or extension of fixed- rail transit facilities (e.g., light rail, commuter rail, or streetcar) normally requires preparation of an EIS. The FRA regulations note that any construction of new major railroad lines or new major facilities or any change that will result in a significant increase in traffic normally requires prepa- ration of an EIS. Upon completion of an EIS, FTA or FRA will issue a Record of Decision (ROD) approving the content of the EIS and the proposed plan to mitigate the adverse effects. Similar to a FONSI, the ROD provides the authority for a transit agency to execute a proposed project. To initiate the NEPA process, FTA encourages transit agencies intending to apply for FTA funds to notify the FTA at the time the project concept is identified. If requested, the FTA will attempt to determine the probable class of action (CE, EA, or EIS) and related environmental laws and requirements that would be applicable to the proposed project. This process, known as early coordination, allows the FTA to communicate proposed projects to other affected public agen- cies and allows for involvement with affected agencies as early as possible in the NEPA process. The FTA Environmental Impact and Related Procedures (23 CFR 771.111(j)) provides details on how transit agencies can obtain more information on the FTA environmental process. Impacts Evaluated The types of environmental impacts evaluated in the NEPA process are aligned with the goals of NEPA and related statutes as outlined in the agency-level regulations. The FTA guidance on environmental impacts and related procedures states that the “social, economic, and environ- mental impacts of the proposed transportation improvement” should be evaluated as part of the NEPA process. The FRA guidance provides a more exhaustive list of potential environmental impacts to be evaluated. These impacts include the following: • Air quality. • Water quality. • Noise and vibration. • Solid waste disposal.

NEPA-Related Issues 29 • Ecological systems. • Impacts on wetland areas. • Impacts on endangered species. • Flood hazards and floodplain management. • Coastal zone management. • Use of energy resources. • Use of other natural resources, such as water, minerals, or timber. • Aesthetic and design quality impacts. • Impacts on transportation. • Possible barriers to the elderly and handicapped. • Land use, existing and planned. • Impacts on the socioeconomic environment. • Environmental justice. • Public health. • Public safety, including any impacts due to hazardous materials. • Recreational opportunities. • Locations of historic, archeological, architectural, or cultural significance. • Use of 4(f)-protected properties. • Construction period impacts. A review of several EISs for rail transit projects under the purview of FTA indicates that the impacts listed above are also examined for FTA-related projects. Analysis of environmental impacts typically includes an identification of the affected environment (i.e., the location of the impacts), the environmental consequences (i.e., the impacts), and proposed mitigation. Pedestrian Crossing Issues With respect to the planning, design, and operation of pedestrian crossings for public transit rail services, a potential safety implication related to the requirements of the NEPA process for rail transit services is the result of the NEPA requirements related to the noise and vibration impacts of proposed rail transit projects. Transit Noise Sources Noise and vibration assessments are important elements of the environmental impact assess- ment process for public transit rail services projects. Noise generated by public transit rail services can result in significant adverse impacts on residences, businesses, and other adjacent properties. FTA (52) and FRA (53) have each issued handbooks providing guidance on how to conduct noise impact assessments for rail transit projects. These handbooks provide insight into the noises generated by public transit rail services and potential mitigation for these noises. The material provided in the following sections is drawn from the guidance supplied in these handbooks. The types of noises generated by public transit rail services include noise generated by vehicle propulsion units, noise from the interaction of wheels on rails, and noise from warning devices. Vehicle propulsion units generate the following noises: • Whine from electric control systems and traction motors that propel rapid transit vehicles. • Diesel-engine exhaust noise, from diesel-electric locomotives. • Air-turbulence noise generated by cooling fans. • Gear noise.

30 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services The interaction of steel wheels on steel rails generates three types of noise: • Rolling noise due to continuous rolling contact. • Impact noise when a wheel encounters discontinuity in the running surface, such as a rail joint, turnout, or crossover. • Squeal generated by friction on tight curves. Finally, transit vehicles are equipped with horns and bells for use in emergency situations and as a general audible warning to track workers and trespassers within the ROW as well as pedestri- ans and motor vehicles at grade crossings. Several different types of grade crossing warning treat- ments emit audible warning signals, including bell-like sounds or audible statement warnings. Collectively, these three sources of rail transit noise can have significant adverse impacts on the environment surrounding a rail transit project. Mitigation of Noise Impacts NEPA requirements necessitate that transit agencies mitigate any significant adverse impacts associated with a rail transit project, including noise impacts. Several options are available to transit agencies for mitigating rail transit noise impacts. Noise mitigation can be achieved by reduc- ing noise: • At the source (i.e., the transit vehicle). Noise impact mitigation treatments at the source include stringent vehicle noise specifications, operational restrictions, rail grinding, rail lubrication, and other treatments. • Along the source-to-receiver propagation path. One of the most effective noise mitigation options is the construction of a sound barrier. A sound barrier can consist of a sound wall or artificial earthen berm or can be the result of locating a transit alignment in a cut section. Sound barrier walls located very close to the rail line may only need to be as tall as 3 to 4 ft above the top of the rail to be effective (52). If barriers are placed further away from the tracks, such as near the edge of the ROW, the walls should be higher to maintain effectiveness. Sound walls can also effectively function as a means of reducing the visual impacts of a rail transit project. • At the receiver. Mitigation options for the receiver include building insulation and the acqui- sition of property rights to be used for the construction of sound barriers. Sound Barriers With respect to safety issues at pedestrian-rail crossings of public rail transit services, the use of a sound barrier wall to mitigate adverse impacts from rail transit noise (as required by NEPA) may be in direct conflict with the need to provide adequate sight distance at pedestrian crossings. Specifically, the height of sound barrier walls near pedestrian crossings may not provide sufficiently clear sight lines to allow a pedestrian to determine whether it is safe to cross the tracks and to safely complete the crossing. The pedestrian sight triangle concept (54), shown in Figure 13, illustrates the line-of-sight conflict with an example from Tri-Met, the Portland, Oregon, area transit agency. The example shown in Figure 13 indicates that, for an LRV traveling at 35 mph, the line-of-sight requirement under an emergency or unanticipated stop situation is 101 ft. Therefore, any fencing, sound wall, building, or other obstruction must be more than 101 ft away from the crossing or sufficiently low enough to allow a pedestrian to look over the obstruction. The conflict between NEPA-required sound barrier walls for noise mitigation and the require- ment to provide adequate sight distance has profound implications for the planning, design, and operation of pedestrian crossings at public transit rail services. In the planning process, if sound barrier walls are expected to be part of the NEPA-required noise mitigation plan, the placement

NEPA-Related Issues 31 of pedestrian crossings in locations where the sound walls can be reduced in height or eliminated should be considered. Horns and/or Bells Another type of rail transit noise impact that affects the design of pedestrian crossings, as well as motor vehicle crossings, is the noise generated by horns and/or bells that are sounded as warnings to motorists and pedestrians when a transit vehicle approaches and passes a grade crossing. Transit vehicles are equipped with these devices for use in emergency situations as well as to provide a general audible warning in the grade crossing environment. Horns and bells on the moving transit vehicle, combined with stationary bells at grade crossings, can generate noise levels considered to be extremely annoying to nearby residents and, as a result, can be a signifi- cant contributor to adverse noise impacts from a rail transit project (52). The requirement for transit agencies to mitigate adverse noise impacts, including impacts caused by the use of transit vehicle horns or bells, is in conflict with the requirement for rail transit Figure 13. Example pedestrian sight triangle. Figure NOT TO SCALE Case: LRV Approaching Crossing at 35 mph Figure illustrates sight distance required for pedestrian to safely cross two tracks, covering a distance of 34.5 ft. Assumptions: Two-track configuration. LRV approaching from left to right on first track. Time required by pedestrian to travel 34.5 ft, based on 3.5 ft/second walking speed = 9.86 seconds. Fence 10 ft from centerline of near track. Minimum Crossing Distance, 34.5 ft, where: 7.0 ft is the distance traveled at 3.5 ft/second during decision/reaction period of 2 seconds. 5.5 ft is the distance from the centerline of the near track to the outer edge of the dynamic envelope of the near track. 14.0 ft is the distance between the centerlines of the two tracks. 5.5 ft is the distance from the centerline of the far track to the outer edge of the dynamic envelope of the far track. 2.5 ft is the width of the buffer/clearance zone beyond the track and dynamic envelope. LRV Speed (mph) LRV Traveled Distance (ft) in 9.86 Seconds Full Service Braking Distance (ft) Emergency Braking Distance (ft) Distance of Low or Open Fence (ft) 15 25 35 45 55 217 352 506 651 795 110 244 428 660 942 81 175 302 462 654 43 72 101 130 159 Fence Height Based on distance of 506 ft covered in 9.86 seconds and 7-second reaction time, fence height should not obstruct view 101 ft from crossing Source: Adapted from “Safety Criteria for Light Rail Pedestrian Crossings,” Transportation Research Circular E-C058, Figure 12, p. 287 (54)

32 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services vehicles to sound their horns or bells at a grade crossing. By their very nature, the horns and bells found on transit vehicles and grade crossings are designed to be loud enough to command the attention of motorists and pedestrians. Because sound barrier walls are not feasible at grade crossings, other mitigation techniques are required if adverse effects are identified. TCRP Research Results Digest 84 (3) outlines several techniques for reducing the community impacts of audible crossing devices such as horns or bells. Table 10 describes these techniques. In addition to the options reported in Table 10, the establishment of a quiet zone where no horns or bells are sounded is also an option for some rail transit services. Quiet zones require FRA approval if FRA has regulatory authority, and crossings located in a quiet zone are subject to supplemental safety measures designed to provide an equivalent level of safety at a crossing. Sup- plemental safety measures include four-quadrant gates, medians or other channelization devices, one-way streets, or crossing closure. Nothing regulates onboard audible devices where FRA has no authority; therefore, industry conventions are utilized when considering quiet zones. Cross- ings in quiet zones—specifically when the rail vehicles are especially quiet due to the nature of propulsion, the nature of the vehicle, or the nature and condition of the rails—place pedestrians who are visually impaired at considerable risk. Crossing Treatments Sound walls and the techniques discussed above can reduce the community impacts of audible crossing devices, but if inadequate sight lines remain at a crossing, enhanced pedestrian crossing treatments are required. Three different publications (2, 13, 47) provide decision trees to assist in determining the necessity of treatment, all of which use sight obstructions as decision points for warrants. At those locations where sight distance is an issue, the most robust safety treatments should be used. These generally include active warning, channelization, and positive control (swing gates or automatic pedestrian gate arms). Technique Operational Context Recommended Action Reduce Sound Level of Device All crossings except those in a high-noise environment Adjust sound level of bell, replace non- adjustable bell with adjustable bell, and replace electromechanical bell with electronic device Vary Sound Level of Device Crossings where background sound level fluctuates Set warning level 10 dB above ambient noise level, either by measuring ambient levels or with a time clock Improve Directionality of Device Crossings where noise- sensitive receptors are not in line with pedestrian approaches Install shrouds on existing bells or replace bells with wayside horns Lower Mounting Height of Device Crossings where nearby walls or structures would block sound from a lowered device Move crossing bell from top of post to location within pedestrians’ field of perception Reduce Number of Devices Crossings with multiple gates and flashing-light devices Remove one or more crossing bells while maintaining sufficient coverage for pedestrians on all approaches Reduce Time Device Is Activated Crossings with gates on all pedestrian approaches Adjust bells to sound only until gates reach horizontal (closed) position Source: TCRP Research Results Digest 84 (3) Table 10. Techniques for reducing community impacts of audible crossing devices.