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.

39 C H A P T E R 6 Given the number of possible treatments that could be implemented, it is important to have a method by which practitioners can determine what treatment(s) may be most appropriate for a given crossing or set of conditions. A variety of methods can be used to guide a practitioner in selecting treatments; examples of methods and considerations are provided in this chapter. Compilation of Pedestrian Safety Devices in Use at Grade Crossings FRA, in Compilation of Pedestrian Safety Devices in Use at Grade Crossings (5), included the fol- lowing general points to consider during device selection. The selection of a traffic control device for use where pedestrians are intended to cross railroad tracks at grade should be the result of an engineering study; the study’s simplicity or complexity should be determined by conditions at the crossing in question. In general, the factors to be examined during device selection should include the following: • Crash experience, if any, at the crossing, as it involves pedestrians. • Pedestrian volumes and peak flows, if any. • Train speeds, number of trains, and railroad traffic patterns, if any. • Sight distance that is available to pedestrians approaching the crossing. • Skew angle, if any, of the crossing relative to the railroad tracks (5). TCRP Report 69 TCRP Report 69 (2) provides a pedestrian-controls decision tree (see Figure 16) for LRT align- ments with LRVs traveling at speeds greater than 35 mph with at-grade crossings. The decision tree defines the type of pedestrian devices and controls using six decision points relative to the pedestrian crossing environment. Table 11 discusses Decision Points 1 through 3, and Table 12 discusses Decision Points 4 through 6. The authors of TCRP Report 69 emphasize, as indicated in Figure 16, that there are numerous possible outcomes based on responses to the six decision points. In the least restrictive condition with at least some minimal level of pedestrian activity—a crossing with relatively low activity levels, not located in a school zone, where LRT speed does not exceed 55 km/h (35 mph), where sight distance is good, and where no other factors warrant special consideration—the recom- mended practice is to provide a pedestrian route and passive warning devices at the crossing. In the most restrictive conditions—a crossing where LRT speeds exceed 55 km/h (35 mph), sight distance is inadequate, the crossing is located in a school zone, and pedestrian surges or high Treatment Selection

40 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services Figure 16. TCRP Report 69 pedestrian-controls decision tree (see Tables 11 and 12 for considerations for each decision point). Source: TCRP Report 69, Figure 3-38 (2)

Treatment Selection 41 pedestrian inattention occurs—active warning devices, barrier channelization, and pedestrian automatic gates (positive control) are recommended. SCRRA Highway-Rail Grade Crossings: Recommended Design Practices and Standards Manual SCRRA Highway-Rail Grade Crossings: Recommended Design Practices and Standards Manual (13) provides information on highway-rail crossings. The publication states that in order to determine if a crossing has, or has the potential for, pedestrian activity, pedestrian-rail cross- ings shall be evaluated using the 10-minute walk rule. This rule is based upon research conclusions that pedestrians will walk 10 minutes to reach their destination. This equates to a one-third to one-half mile walk. Therefore, if the crossing is located within this radius of schools, hospitals, substantial pedestrian generators, or other facilities, then the lead Engineer should consider pedestrian traffic features over the crossing. SCRRA Highway-Rail Grade Crossings: Recommended Design Practices and Standards Manual (13) has a design process and consideration table that are similar to those in TCRP Report 69, Table 11. Criteria 1 to 3 of the decision tree from TCRP Report 69 (see Figure 16 for illustration of the decision tree). Decision Point Condition Considerations 1 Pedestrian facilities and/or minimum pedestrian activity present or anticipated • This decision point describes locations where sidewalks or crosswalks exist on both approaches to the LRT crossing, and/or minimum pedestrian activity exists or is anticipated. • Passive pedestrian control (i.e., a LOOK BOTH WAYS sign) is necessary where pedestrian facilities have been installed. Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian-only or bicycle-only paths/trails, and station access routes. Where these facilities have been provided, it is assumed that some minimal level of pedestrian activity is present, and thus passive pedestrian control is required. 2 LRT speed exceeds 35 mph • Active warning devices should be provided at all pedestrian crossing locations where the maximum operating speed for the LRV exceeds 55 km/h (35 mph). 3 Sight distance restricted on approach • Pedestrian automatic gates should be installed at pedestrian crossings where an engineering study has determined that the sight distance at the crossing is not sufficient for pedestrians to see the LRV far enough down the tracks to complete the crossing before the train arrives at the crossing. • Positive control is required if sight distance is inadequate. Under ideal circumstances, there is adequate sight distance for both the LRT operator and the pedestrian. For the purpose of this assessment, adequate sight distance for the LRT operator means there is enough advance visibility of the crossing area so that pedestrian presence can be identified and, before the LRV enters the crossing, the operator can estimate the need to slow the LRV or bring it to a halt. Similarly, adequate sight distance for the pedestrian means the pedestrian can see an approaching LRV and estimate the closing speed and time available before the LRV arrives at the crossing to determine whether it is safe to cross the trackway. • For the purpose of Decision Point 3, positive control is logically required if, through analysis of sight distance, it can be determined that neither party has adequate sight distance and therefore that pedestrian access to the crossing should be blocked or impeded. For the more frequent condition in which the pedestrian has sight distance but the LRV operator does not, a positive control device should be considered. • In either case, there may be feasible actions that would increase sight distance, either widening the clear area on either side of the track or moving objects such as signal cabinets, communication rooms, and passenger ticket vending machines, which diminish visibility of portions of the crossing. Such actions should be considered in conjunction with the decision to provide positive control. • Barrier channelization is also required at locations where the sight distance is not adequate. The intent of barrier channelization is to direct a pedestrian to a location where sight distance is not restricted or to a crossing that is controlled by pedestrian automatic gates. Source: TCRP Report 69, Figure 3-38 (2)

42 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services but which include changes to several of the decision points. Figure 17 shows the flowchart, and Table 13 provides additional discussion of the decision points. United Kingdom Pedestrian-Rail Crossings in California (49) includes in an appendix an assessment sheet (shown in Table 14) for evaluating crossings located at stations in the United Kingdom, based on a report from the Department for Transport’s Rail Accident Investigation Branch (62). The assessment includes 14 factors, and each factor is assigned a numerical score; the factor scores are summed Decision Point Condition Considerations 4 Crossing located in a school zone • For the basis of this decision point, a school zone is defined as the area within 182.8 m (600 ft) of a school boundary, and school routes with high levels of school pedestrian activity as defined in Decision Point 5. • Barrier channelization is required within a school zone. The intent of barrier channelization is to direct a pedestrian to a location protected by active warning devices and swing gates or pedestrian automatic gates. • At pedestrian crossings of LRT tracks within a school zone where LRT does exceed 55 km/h (35 mph), pedestrian automatic gates should be used. • At pedestrian crossings of LRT tracks within a school zone where LRT does not exceed 55 km/h (35 mph), active warning devices and swing gates may be used instead of automatic gates. 5 High pedestrian activity levels occur • Pedestrian crossings of LRT tracks with high pedestrian activity levels are defined as locations where at least 60 pedestrians use the crossings during each of any two hours (not necessarily consecutive) of a normal day or locations where at least 40 school pedestrians use the crossing during each of any two hours (not necessarily consecutive) of a normal school day. • Active warning devices should be used at all pedestrian crossings of LRT tracks where high levels of pedestrian activity occur. • At pedestrian crossings where LRT maximum operating speed exceeds 55 km/h (35 mph) and high levels of pedestrian activity occur, pedestrian automatic gates should be installed on the two quadrants that are occupied by motorist gates by either moving the motorist gate behind the sidewalk or adding an additional pedestrian gate. • At pedestrian crossings where LRT maximum operating speed does not exceed 55 km/h (35 mph) and high levels of pedestrian activity occur, striped channelization should be used. Barrier channelization should be used if there are pedestrian surges or if locations with high pedestrian inattention are present (see Decision Point 6). • High activity levels in the vicinity of the crossing or dispersed pedestrian activity may require barrier channelization to reinforce crossing safety, to focus pedestrian movement at locations where warning and protection devices are installed, and to enhance compliance with installed devices. 6 Pedestrian surge or high pedestrian inattention occurs • This decision point describes locations where pedestrian volume is extremely high during peak periods, such as at transfer station locations or near places of public assembly where pedestrian inattention is high, such as special event locations where pedestrian judgment is potentially compromised. • At pedestrian crossings where LRT maximum operating speed does not exceed 55 km/h (35 mph) and pedestrian surges or high pedestrian inattention may occur, barrier channelization should be installed to direct pedestrians to a crossing with active warning devices. • At pedestrian crossings where LRT maximum operating speed exceeds 55 km/h (35 mph) and pedestrian surges or high pedestrian inattention occurs, pedestrian automatic gates should be installed in addition to the barrier channelization. For example, crossings near special generators such as sports facilities, where crowds may encourage incursion onto the crossing, may warrant positive control regardless of sight distance. • For the purpose of Decision Points 5 and 6, existing or future (i.e., predicted for the design year) high levels of pedestrian activity can be identified by assessing the level of service of the crossing as defined in the Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual (28). Source: TCRP Report 69, Figure 3-38 (2) Table 12. Criteria 4 to 6 of the decision tree from TCRP Report 69 (see Figure 16 for illustration of the decision tree).

Treatment Selection 43 Source: SCRRA Highway-Rail Grade Crossings: Recommended Design Practices and Standards Manual, Figure 4-2 (13) Figure 17. Design process and consideration flowchart from SCRRA Highway-Rail Grade Crossings: Recommended Design Practices and Standards Manual (see Table 13 for considerations for each decision point).

44 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services to produce a crossing score, between zero and 86. The assessor is instructed that “the risk must be reduced” when the crossing score is more than 55. A crossing score between 35 and 55 indicates that “measures to reduce the risk must be considered.” Suggested countermeasures to use when a crossing score is high were not provided with the assessment sheet. Details of each factor are described in Tables 15 and 16. UDOT Pedestrian Grade Crossing Manual A standard evaluation and implementation procedure helps build a consistent use of safety treatments, thus protecting the safety of pedestrians at grade crossings throughout a jurisdic- tion. A chapter in the UDOT Pedestrian Grade Crossing Manual (47) defines the evaluation and Decision Point Description 1 The existence of pedestrian activity shall be determined. This includes sidewalks leading up to the ROW or evidence of pedestrians crossing at that location. The lead engineer shall determine from the highway agency the existing and desired future status of any pedestrian-related facilities in the highway and railroad ROWs, including easements, licenses, and construction and maintenance agreements. SCRRA-recommended design practices and standards call for the addition of pedestrian treatments if the highway agency and SCRRA are in agreement and the highway agency legally allows pedestrians to use the highway ROW for crossing the track(s). The lead engineer shall take the following actions when evidence of activity exists without pedestrian facilities: Determine the level of pedestrian activity and whether the pedestrian activity is legal and supported by the local highway agency. Work with the local highway agency to modify sidewalks and bring them into compliance with ADA requirements. If warranted, provide sidewalks over the railroad ROW and tracks. If warranted, take steps to prevent possible trespassing. 2 If the pedestrian-rail grade crossing is to be included in a quiet zone, then full pedestrian treatments for safety enhancements and quiet zone signage shall be applied. 3 The type of pedestrian-rail grade crossing is analyzed at this step. A station pedestrian-rail grade crossing or a pedestrian-rail grade crossing combined with a highway-rail grade crossing adjacent to the station (including any light-rail stations located within a common rail corridor) requires full pedestrian treatments. 4 Is the pedestrian-rail grade crossing located within a 10-minute walking distance of a school, hospital, or other facility that can be expected to support disabled people? If the answer is yes to any of the listed facilities, then full pedestrian treatment shall be applied. If the answer is no, then is there significant pedestrian activity? In order to answer no to whether there is significant pedestrian activity, the lead engineer shall conduct a study to determine the volume of pedestrian use during both on-peak and off-peak hours, the types of pedestrians (i.e., school children, elderly, disabled, bike riders, etc.), and pedestrians behavior patterns (i.e., are pedestrians behaving in a safe manner when using the crossing, and are they cognizant of potential train activity?). The lead engineer will then discuss the results of this study with SCRRA and CPUC for clear consensus with the safety review team as to the presence or absence of significant pedestrian activity. Full pedestrian treatments shall be applied for a yes answer to any of these questions. 5 Does the crossing have three or more main tracks? If the answer is yes, the pedestrian-rail grade crossing shall be grade separated. The grade separation can be an overpass or an underpass. 6 Does the crossing have two main tracks? This decision point is arranged so that a yes answer for this question accounts for two tracks in rural areas that see few pedestrians. In this case, it may not be appropriate to install full pedestrian treatments, but a request for a deviation not to do so must be submitted to SCRRA. In an urban/metropolitan environment, full pedestrian treatments shall be applied when multiple tracks are in a location with limited visibility. 7 Does the crossing location have restricted visibility? Full pedestrian treatments shall be applied where there is limited visibility at crossings. 8 Is the ROW necessary to comply with the manual unobtainable? If not, then full pedestrian treatments are required. SCRRA standard drawings include variations to the standard configuration, depending on the available ROW. In cases where the ROW required for the use of one of these standard applications cannot be acquired due to existing property uses, or because of other conditions, the lead engineer shall request a deviation from the standard and design a nonstandard application. Source: SCRRA Highway-Rail Grade Crossings: Recommended Design Practices and Standards Manual, Figure 4-2 (13) Table 13. Decision points for the design process and consideration flowchart from SCRRA (see Figure 17 for illustration of the decision process).

Treatment Selection 45 Question Responses & Scores Assessor’s Notes Score 1. Is there unauthorized use at the crossing? None Irregular Regular (daily) Constant 0 4 8 12 2. How many people use the crossing in the busiest hour? (See the guidance for the equivalent daily figures.) < 5 5–15 16–50 > 50 0 4 8 12 3. How many trains pass over the crossing in the busiest hour? (See the guidance for the equivalent daily figures.) < 3 3–5 6–9 10–13 > 13 0 4 8 12 16 4. Do any trains pass non-stop through the station? None < 10% 10–50% > 50% 0 1 3 6 5. What is the maximum likely speed of non-stop trains? N/A Up to 30 mph 31–75 mph > 75 mph 0 1 2 4 6. How many lines are crossed (without refuge)? 1 line 2 lines > 2 lines 0 1 3 7. What is the warning time? (Timings are for crossings over one or two tracks. For more tracks see the guidance.) > 30 s 20–30 s < 20 s 0 6 12 8. What is the probability that customers could step out from behind a train and be hit by one traveling in the opposite direction? (See the guidance for details on this.) Not possible Unlikely Possible Likely 0 1 4 6 9. Is there any environmental reason why passengers might not be able to hear trains approaching this location? No Yes 0 2 10. Is there disproportionate use of the crossing by vulnerable, distracted, or encumbered users? (See guidance for details on this.) No Yes (by/with staff) Yes (customers) 0 2 5 11. Is the location susceptible to higher than average rain, snow, ice, or frost? No Yes 0 1 12. Is the location susceptible to any factors that might temporarily affect customers’ ability to see trains (e.g., fog/smoke)? No Yes 0 2 13. Is the crossing on canted track? No Yes 0 1 14. Are there other local factors that could affect the risk? None Small Significant 0 1 4 CROSSING NAME: TOTAL Standard of crossing lighting, signage, and maintenance Note here if any are inadequate Sources: Pedestrian-Rail Crossings in California (49) and Rail Accident Report: Investigation into station pedestrian crossings (including pedestrian gates at highway level crossings); with reference to the fatal accident at Elsenham station on 3 December 2005 (62). Permission to reproduce this table granted through Crown copyright. Table 14. Assessment sheet for crossings located at stations in the United Kingdom.

46 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services Table 15. Details considered for assessment of station crossings in the United Kingdom (Factors 1–7). Factor No. Factor Description 1 Crossing abuse If there is misuse of the crossing, then the risk of someone crossing being struck by a train is increased. Staffed crossings are likely to score lower than unstaffed ones for this factor. 2 Number of people using the crossing The use of peak hour is intended to allow for those stations where the flow of people over a crossing (or the number of trains) changes during the day (e.g., due to passengers commuting). Where the level of use of the crossing does not change much during the day, and daily figures are available, use the following scores: Score 0 for fewer than 25 people in a day. Score 4 for at least 25 and not more than 100 people in a day. Score 8 for more than 100 and not more than 250 people in a day. Score 12 for more than 250 people in a day. 3 Number of trains passing over the crossing Use the numbers in both directions for a peak hour (for the circumstances of Factor 1 where a station crossing is sometimes staffed and sometimes not). Where the number of trains passing over the crossing does not change significantly during the day and the number of trains per day is known, use the following scores: Score 0 for up to 20 trains in a day. Score 4 for between 21 and 60 trains inclusive in a day. Score 8 for between 61 and 120 trains inclusive in a day. Score 12 for between 121 and 180 trains inclusive in a day. Score 16 for more than 180 trains in a day. 4 Percentage of non-stop trains over the crossing The count includes all types of trains in the busiest hour. 5 Maximum speed of non- stop trains This factor is concerned with sighting and hearing distance and chance to evade an approaching train. 6 Lines crossed without a pedestrian refuge This is the number of tracks a pedestrian must cross between refuge areas at the crossing. 7 Warning time at the crossing This is based on the warning time provided by warning systems or, if there are no warning systems, the sighting time. Where there are no warning systems, score for the sighting time. Score 0 for warning time greater than 15 times crossing time. Score 6 for warning time between crossing time and 15 times crossing time. Score 12 for warning time less than crossing time. Source: Pedestrian-Rail Crossings in California (49) and Rail Accident Report: Investigation into station pedestrian crossings (including pedestrian gates at highway level crossings); with reference to the fatal accident at Elsenham station on 3 December 2005 (62). Permission to reproduce this table granted through Crown copyright.

Treatment Selection 47 implementation procedure to be used throughout Utah as new grade crossings are created and existing grade crossings are reviewed and improved. Each grade crossing is unique and therefore is evaluated on a case-by-case basis by a diagnostic team as defined in the current UDOT Railroad Coordination Manual of Instruction (48). The UDOT Pedestrian Grade Crossing Manual (47) includes tools to aid diagnostic teams in the evaluation process. The checklist shown in Figures 18 and 19 is one of these tools. The checklist is divided into three parts: general information, potential hazards, and proposed mitigations (included as part of the flowcharts shown in Figures 20 and 21). When used for the design of a proposed crossing or the redesign of an existing one, the general information and potential hazards sections of the checklist should be completed in the early stages of the evaluation. Additional hazards may be defined and added to the checklist as deemed appropriate by the diagnostic team. The proposed mitigations section may be completed concurrently with the pre- liminary design. The preliminary design and checklist with proposed mitigations are presented to the diagnostic team during the initial review of existing or proposed crossings. The checklist with the mitigations may be updated during diagnostic team field reviews of the crossing. The flowcharts shown in Figures 20 and 21 are another tool UDOT developed to guide designers and diagnostic teams through a consistent process of determining potential mitigations for the hazards identified in the potential hazards section of the checklist. The first flowchart shown in Figure 20 addresses issues related to pedestrian safety at grade crossings in an urban environ- ment; the flowchart shown in Figure 21 addresses similar issues relevant to grade crossings in a rural environment. Table 16. Details considered for assessment of station crossings in the United Kingdom (Factors 8–14). Factor No. Factor Description 8 Chance of stepping out behind another train or obstruction and being hit by a train The response for Factor 4 (proportion of non-stopping trains) needs to be considered when determining the score for this factor, as does the position of trains on the platform (i.e., are they near to the crossing or is there some visibility?). Warning systems such as white lights will minimize the risk of this happening and hence should score 0 unless there is a significant risk of user abuse, when the appropriate score in Table 14 should be used. 9 Loud external noise source Is there a busy station, major road, or other loud noise source nearby? 10 Use by significant numbers of vulnerable, distracted, or encumbered users This includes staff with catering trolleys, water bowsers, mail trolleys, etc., and public who are disabled or with cycles, pushchairs, etc. If there are such users from both staff and public users, score as for public. 11 Potential for slippery conditions Is the crossing likely to be slippery due to high rain levels, snow, ice, or frost? 12 Potential for fog/smoke Is the crossing susceptible to factors that might temporarily affect visibility? 13 Is the crossing on canted tracks? Yes/no 14 Other local factors Are there any other factors that may affect risk at the crossing? This may include: Variable warning times (e.g., due to both stopping and non-stopping trains, especially where warning lights are provided). Other train routes nearby that may cause confusion when heard. Uneven passenger use (e.g., significant use at certain times of day or significant seasonal use). Source: Pedestrian-Rail Crossings in California (49) and Rail Accident Report: Investigation into station pedestrian crossings (including pedestrian gates at highway level crossings); with reference to the fatal accident at Elsenham station on 3 December 2005 (62). Permission to reproduce this table granted through Crown copyright.

48 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services Source: UDOT, 2013 (47) Figure 18. UDOT diagnostic team checklist, Part 1 of 2.

Treatment Selection 49 Source: UDOT, 2013 (47) Figure 19. UDOT diagnostic team checklist, Part 2 of 2.

50 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services Source: UDOT, 2013 (47) Figure 20. UDOT urban pedestrian grade crossing flowchart.

Treatment Selection 51 Source: UDOT, 2013 (47) Figure 21. UDOT rural pedestrian grade crossing flowchart.