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.
72 C h a p t e r 9 Key findings and suggestions have been derived from the literature review, interviews with stakeholders, incident data analysis, and site visits. It was determined early in the project that factors and treatments for platform/guideway and platform/vehicle interface safety are dependent on platform height, mode of rail transit, the age of the rail transit system, and passenger behavior. Key Findings The treatments for improving safety at platform/guideway and platform/vehicle interfaces vary by rail transit mode. Heavy rail transit has more platform/guideway and platform/vehicle interface incidents than light rail or streetcar transit have. Some of the common reasons for this increase include high rider- ship, older or historic stations, high platforms, diversity of vehicles operating on the system, and maintenance issues. The platform/guideway and platform/vehicle interface factors that a specific transit system encounters can vary throughout the system or even on the same rail line. The most common treatments developed for heavy rail include public outreach programs, platform edge extensions, extended door thresholds, and platform fences or screen doors. Platform screen doors are more common in some European and Asian transit systems. Public outreach programs cost less than physical changes to the platform or vehicles. Commuter rail platform/guideway and platform/vehicle interface factors pertain to opera- tions that occur on shared use track. Federal and state standards regulate freight car clearances on shared use track corridors. Commuter rail operators have developed treatments to reduce the size of the gap that include platform edge extenders, manually operated bridges, hydraulically operated gangways, moving platforms, separate sidings, and gauntlet tracks. There are distinct advantages and disadvantages associated with each method. Platform edge extenders cost less than movable bridges, gangways, or platforms. Light rail and streetcar transit generally operate with low height platforms and report very few incidents or issues with the physical gap between the vehicle and the platform. However, light rail and streetcar operators report passenger intrusions into the guideway and between cars. Some of the treatments for between-car intrusions include warning placards; platform-based bollards; and between-car flexible paddles, belts, and chains. Analysis of Relevant Safety Data Five heavy rail transit systems throughout the United States provided platform/guideway and platform/vehicle interface incident data for analysis. The amount and structures of the data lim- ited the analysis. Based on the data, platform/guideway and platform/vehicle interface incidents Key Findings and Suggestions
Key Findings and Suggestions 73 are not the most common incident occurring on U.S. heavy rail transit platforms. Platform/ guideway and platform/vehicle interface incidents make up less than 10% of the total number of incidents based on the data that was analyzed. Incidents that are more common include general slips and falls on the platform and falls on stairs and escalators. Aggregated data provided from three commuter rail agencies showed a significant reduction in platform/guideway and platform/vehicle interface incidents after gap treatment programs were implemented. Light rail and streetcar transit systems were also contacted for incident data; however, the com- mon response was that there were no reported platform/guideway and platform/vehicle inter- face incidents. Follow-up interviews with these transit operators revealed that the incidents of most concern were between-car intrusions, guideway intrusion at stations, and nearby pedestrian crossings. These transit agencies reported that the key concerns were people riding on the coupler or falling between the cars. Findings from the Site Visits Project site visits were conducted at selected rail transit agencies located in Southern Cali- fornia and the New York City region. The objective of these site visits was to meet with agency personnel from safety, operations, maintenance, liability, and engineering departments. The site visits allowed the research team to visit rail transit stations and to see the treatments that indi- vidual transit agencies had undertaken to improve safety at platform/guideway and platform/ vehicle interfaces. Southern California Site Visits Los Angeles has an extensive rail transit system that operates both heavy rail and light rail. LA Metro has invested in the following public relations campaigns that are yielding positive results: ⢠Having Safety Ambassadors at select stations. Safety officers were very pleased with this program. ⢠Providing outreach materials and marketing safety messages in a variety of print and digital media. These are available on the LA Metro safety website as well as on vehicles and in stations. LA Metro has employed the following safety treatments: ⢠A system of platform-based bollards to draw attention to the between-vehicle gap at all heavy rail and light rail stations ⢠Extruded aluminum platform edge gap filler that extends the platform when the gap does not comply with ADA regulations ⢠Horizontal tactile bars on the platforms at a minimum of one location per platform signifying boarding locations for those with low vision San Diego MTS operates and maintains the San Diego Trolley system in the metro area. The staff at MTS stressed the importance of a safety culture within a rail transit agency and how they have been successful borrowing many safety policies from the freight railroad industry. The safety treatments that San Diego MTS has developed include the following: ⢠Horizontal tactile bars on the platform that identify boarding locations. ⢠Modification of the tactile warning strip to provide a flat surface on which to set the vehicle deployed ramp. (This solution did require an FTA waiver. It has been used by other systems in
74 Manual to Improve rail transit Safety at platform/Vehicle and platform/Guideway Interfaces the United States to ensure that the vehicle-based ramps can be placed safely on the detectable warning edge.) NCTD operates both commuter and light rail systems. It is based in Oceanside, California. NCTD operates on a rail line that is shared with a local short line freight railroad. The platforms are set back to provide clearance for the freight cars, resulting in a large horizontal gap. In addi- tion, a key station is located on curved track. To bridge the gap, NCTD installed hydraulically operating metal gangways and fencing along the entire length of the platform, except at the door locations. The fencing along the platform edge reduces falls into the guideway. At night, when the freight service operates, the gangway rotates into the stored position to provide the necessary freight car clearances. New York City Site Visits The site visit to the New York City region included visits to the MTA, which operates NYCT, LIRR, and Metro-North Railroad. Visits were also made to New Jersey Transit and PATH. All these transit agencies operate legacy systems, with NYCT being the largest and oldest heavy rail rapid transit system in the United States. These transit agencies have developed a number of safety treatments and outreach and education programs for improving safety at platform/guideway and platform/vehicle interfaces. Aggregated incident data provided by three transit agencies show a reduction in gap incidents after safety treatment programs were undertaken. The most common treatment is the use of static gap fillers. In addition, both LIRR and NYCT use additional platform controllers and safety staff to improve safety and security. MTA has embarked on an education outreach campaign, the success of which will be mea- sured through pre- and post-campaign customer surveys. Conclusions In conclusion, the factors that impact safety at platform/guideway and platform/vehicle inter- faces are often complex and vary from rail transit system to rail transit system. The platform/ guideway and platform/vehicle interface incidents may not be the most common; however, many of the incidents result in serious or fatal injuries. The primary factors are platform height, system age, and rail transit mode. Many of the safety treatments benefit any rail transit agency regardless of mode. The literature review, stakeholder telephone interviews, and site visits all showed that public outreach and education campaigns are often the most economical solution for improving safety at platform/ guideway and platform/vehicle interfaces. Suggestions for Possible Improvements and Further Research The following suggestions for possible improvements and further research emerged as a result of this research project: ⢠New stations should be constructed on tangent track as much as possible to minimize gaps at platform/vehicle interface that occur when track is curved. ⢠Between-car barrier systems for light rail and streetcar transit are required for trains that oper- ate with more than one car, but more research is needed to find solutions for the rail transit agencies that cannot use any of the existing treatments.
Key Findings and Suggestions 75 ⢠Transit agencies have made significant progress in instituting policies that improve overall system safety. It has been suggested that transit agencies should lead with safety and create a safety culture that puts the priority for system safety at platform/guideway and platform/ vehicle interfaces and throughout the transit system. ⢠Safety departments at rail transit agencies suggested that there needs to be more harmoniza- tion of FTA and FRA safety incident reporting requirements. In particular, research on the importance of consistency in reporting intentional trespasses and suicides on all rail transit modes would be beneficial.
