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.
52 C H A P T E R 7 A number of pedestrian treatments were identified during this research effort and are described in Chapter 8. However, the installation of a specific pedestrian crossing treatment alone does not necessarily result in conflicts being reduced or pedestrians being more alert. A location may need several treatments to create an environment that communicates the conditions sufficiently to all users at the site. For example, in addition to traffic control devices (e.g., signs or markings), geo- metric improvements (e.g., a refuge island) may be needed. This chapter introduces the reader to considerations that should be a part of deciding whether to install one or more of the treatments described in Chapter 8 of the Guidebook. Matrix Summarizing Treatment Characteristics Table 17 provides a summary of the treatment characteristics discussed in the Guidebook. Table 18 provides explanations of the column headings and codes used in Table 17. Section Headings Used in the Chapter 8 Pedestrian Treatments Within each pedestrian treatment discussion in Chapter 8, the following sections are used: ⢠Description. Provides a short overview of the treatment. ⢠Applications. Discusses why this particular treatment would be installed (e.g., higher speed train operation or a large number of pedestrians on an intermittent basis). Discusses where it would be appropriate or not appropriate to use this treatment. Also discusses limitations of the treatment. ⢠Implementation. Discusses how the treatment functions and if there are any installation concerns. Provides examples of where the treatment has been installed and if there are any known lessons learned regarding the treatment. ⢠Benefits. Documents benefits (or disbenefits) of the treatment. Also includes any known effectiveness (safety, operations, motorist, or pedestrian behavior) of the treatment. ⢠Cost. Provides the typical cost for the treatment. Costs can vary widely depending upon whether additional infrastructure is needed in support of the treatment. For example, adding a median may mean modifying the drainage for an area to accommodate the changes in water flow caused by the raised median. Overview of Case Studies Four case studies were developed to illustrate specific treatments or situations. These case studies are presented in Chapter 9 and include Treatment Considerations
Treatment Considerations 53 ⢠Case Study A: Review of Sound Wall ⢠Case Study B: Location of Station Entrance ⢠Case Study C: Consideration of Visually Impaired Pedestrians when Designing a Station Entrance to a Platform Located Between Tracks ⢠Case Study D: Control of Pedestrian Path Traffic Control Device Experimental Process Traffic control devices are one low-cost safety solution that can be used to better inform, warn, and regulate all road users. The FHWA, through the MUTCD (8), requires evaluations of the effectiveness of new traffic control devices. When determining whether these countermeasures are effective, most engineers and planners rely on anecdotal observations or their professional Table 17. Summary matrix for treatments used at pedestrian-rail crossings.a Category Treatment Loc Rail NEPA MUTCD P / A Cost Channelizationb A A Yes Pas Low B ar rie rs General A A Yes Pas Low Offset pedestrian crossing A L, C Yes Pas Med Maze fencing A L, C Yes Pas Low Pedestrian fencing A L, C Pas Low Between-car barriers 2, 3 L, C Pas Low Temporary A A Yes Pas Low D es ig n Clearly defined pedestrian crossing A A Pas Med Smooth and level surface A A Pas Low Sight distance improvements A A Yes Pas Varies Stops and terminal design A A Pas Varies Illumination A A Pas Med Flangeway filler A A Pas Low Pedestrian refuge A L, C Pas Varies Sidewalk relocation A L, C Pas Varies On-road bollards 1, 2 A Pas Low Si gn s Passive A A Yes Pas Low Unique warning messages A A Yes / NS Pas Low Enforcement A A NS Pas Low Blank-out warning A A Yes / NS Act Low Si gn al s Timing considerations near railroad crossings 1, 2 A Yes Act Med Flashing-light signal assembly A L, C Yes Act Med In-pavement flashing lights A L, C Yes Act Med Pa ve m en t M ar ki ng s Pedestrian stop lines A L, C Yes Pas Low Detectable warning A A Yes Pas Low Word or symbol A A Yes / NS Pas Low Dynamic envelope marking A A Yes Pas Low In fra str uc tu re Audible crossing warning devices A A Yes Yes Act Low Pedestrian automatic gates 1, 2, 4 L, C Yes Act Med Pedestrian automatic gates w/ horizontal hanging bar 1, 2, 4 L, C Yes / NS Act Med Pedestrian swing gates A L, C Yes Act Med O pe ra - tio ns Required stop A L, C Act Low Reduced train speed A A Act Low Rail safety ambassador 2, 3 A Act Med a See Table 18 for explanation of column headings and table cell content. b Channelization is both a category and a treatment.
54 Guidebook on Pedestrian Crossings of Public Transit Rail Services judgment. In some cases, a limited quantitative safety evaluation is conducted; however, these evaluations typically are limited in terms of scope, experimental design, and statistical rigor. This is often because many state and local agencies lack research funds or sufficient knowledge of experimental design and statistics to conduct reliable evaluations of new traffic control devices or other traffic features. The MUTCD Section 1A.10: Interpretations, Experimentations, Changes, and Interim Approvals requires the design, application, or placement of any traffic control device that is not contained in the MUTCD to undergo evaluation, with permission from FHWA. A measure of engineering judgment is permitted in the MUTCD that allows some flexibility for traffic engineers (see MUTCD Section 1A.09). However, an agency that seeks to use a nonstandard traffic control device or make use of a nonstandard traffic control device application or place- ment must first seek permission to evaluate that device and then conduct a formal evaluation under permission granted by FHWA. At times, it may be difficult to assess whether a variation of a traffic control device is incon- sistent with the MUTCD, such as a nonstandard warning sign design for a unique situation not explicitly included in the MUTCD. Minor sign design variants, applications, or placement variations that are not contained in the MUTCD should not need to be tested as long as they do not conflict with a âStandardâ provision in the MUTCD. Any variation of a âStandardâ will normally require permission from FHWA for testing, along with an evaluation plan. If an agency is uncertain whether testing is needed, the agency should contact FHWA for an interpretation of the MUTCD or to determine whether an evaluation is needed, using the following e-mail address: MUTCDofficialrequest@dot.gov. Communications will be processed more quickly if they are submitted electronically. Column Heading o Codes Loc = Location where appropriate. o 1 = Pedestrian-rail grade crossings adjacent to a motor vehicle crossing. o 2 = Pedestrian-rail grade crossings at stations adjacent to motor vehicle crossings. o 3 = Pedestrian-rail grade crossings at stations. o 4 = Pedestrian-rail only crossings. o A = all pedestrian-rail grade crossing types. Rail = Type of rail transit service appropriate for treatment. o L = LRT system. o C = Commuter-rail-transit system. o S = Streetcar system. o A = All rail transit system types. NEPA. o Yes = Treatment could be associated with a NEPA issue. MUTCD. o Yes = Treatment is discussed in the MUTCD. o NS = Could be a nonstandard traffic control device. P / A = Passive or active. o Pas = Passive: treatment is fixed and does not change regardless of presence or absence of train or pedestrian. o Act = Active: treatment is activated when train is approaching or is an activity undertaken by rail transit personnel. Cost = Measure of cost, see treatment description for cost estimates. o Low = Generally less than $10,000; however, highly variable as it depends on the number of treatments needed at a site (e.g., fencing may only be for a few linear feet or could be for more than a mile). o Med = Medium costs, generally estimated as being between $10,000 and $100,000. o High = For treatments anticipated to have cost of more than $100,000. o Varies = The cost for the treatment is highly variable, as it depends on a number of site factors, such as the need for additional ROW or changes in drainage. Table 18. Explanation of column headings and codes used in Table 17.
Treatment Considerations 55 If the agency has a question about a new application of a standard device, the official meaning of a standard device, or allowed variations of a standard device, a request for an Official Inter- pretation can be made from FHWA. FHWA keeps a public database of all requests for Official Interpretations. Section 1A.10 of the MUTCD discusses the information that should be contained in a request for interpretation of the MUTCD. If an agency seeks to use a nonstandard traffic control device or make use of a nonstandard traffic control device application or placement that goes beyond a simple interpretation, it must first submit a ârequest for experimentationâ for that device and then conduct a formal evaluation under permission granted by FHWA. Only a public agency (or private toll authority responsible for the operation of a road) can submit a request for permission to experiment with a new traffic control device or application. The public agency can partner with a manufacturer/vendor, con- sultant, or research agency to test a device and conduct the evaluation. The process and needed information for requesting and conducting experimentation for new traffic control devices or new applications of traffic control devices are provided in the MUTCD Section 1A.10. FRA and FTA The FRA addresses the use of non-MUTCD devices by encouraging agencies to participate in the MUTCD experimental process described above (5, 6). Under federal railroad safety laws, FRA has jurisdiction over all railroads except ârapid transit operations in an urban area that are not connected to the general railroad system of transpor- tation (49 CFR 209, Appendix A)â (63). A majority of commuter-rail transit services in the United States operate on the general railroad system; therefore, commuter-rail transit services fall under the regulatory jurisdiction of the FRA and are required to comply with FRA regu- lations for safety and warning devices. The FRA does not have jurisdiction over other types of rapid transit operations in urban areas, such as LRT or streetcar transit lines. However, because some rapid transit operations (including LRT or streetcar transit) do have connections to the general railroad system, the FRA will exercise its regulatory jurisdiction on the portion of such operations that are connected to the general railroad system. For example, a rapid transit line operating within the same ROW as a railroad that is part of the general railroad system would be required to comply with FRA safety regulations at highway-railroad grade crossings to ensure that motorists would have consistent warnings for both transit and railroad crossing events. By statute, the FRA may grant a waiver of any rule or order if the waiver âis in the public interest and consistent with railroad safetyâ (49 U.S.C. 20103(d)) (63). Appendix A of 49 CFR Part 211 describes the types of FRA regulations that may be specifically applicable to light-rail or streetcar operations, the process by which transit agencies may seek a determination of regu- latory jurisdiction from the FRA, and the process by which transit agencies may seek a waiver of such requirements should it be determined that the FRA does retain jurisdiction for safety regulations of a rail transit system (64). Making changes or upgrading treatments at crossings may require coordination with appropri- ate regulatory agencies. Rail transit systems under the purview of the FRA or FTA should involve regional agency representation from the regional offices of each administration. Listings of the regional offices for each agency are found at the following websites: ⢠FRAâhttps://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0244 ⢠FTAâhttp://www.fta.dot.gov/12926.html Additionally, state and local regulatory and/or transportation agencies should be contacted. In general, involving the appropriate agencies early in the process reduces the likelihood of inappropriate actions and allows for the process to proceed more quickly.