CIVIL ENGINEERING STUDIES Illinois Center for Transportation Series No. 13-013 UILU-ENG-2013-2008 ISSN: 0197-9191 PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLIST WARNING DEVICES AND SIGNS AT HIGHWAY- RAIL AND PATHWAY-RAIL GRADE CROSSINGS Prepared By Paul Metaxatos P.S. Sriraj University of Illinois at Chicago Research Report FHWA-ICT-13-013 A report of the findings of ICT-R27-96 Pedestrian/Bicyclist Warning Devices and Signs at Highway-Rail and Pathway-Rail Grade Crossings Illinois Center for Transportation April 2013 Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA-ICT-13-013 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date April 2013 Pedestrian/Bicyclist Warning Devices and Signs at Highway-Rail and Pathway-Rail Grade Crossings 6. Performing Organization Code 8. Performing Organization Report N o. 7. Author(s) ICT-13-013 Paul Metaxatos and P.S. Sriraj UILU-ENG-2013-2008 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit ( TRAIS) Urban Transportation Center 11. Contract or Grant No. R27-96 University of Illinois at Chicago 412 South Peoria Street, Suite 340 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Chicago, Illinois 60607 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Illinois Department of Transportation Bureau of Materials and Physical Research 126 E. Ash Street Springfield, IL 62704 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract Federal reporting shows a relatively constant number of pedestrian and bicycle fatalities at highway-rail and pathway-rail grade crossings over the past 10 years. This is in contrast to a marked decrease in train–vehicle collisions at highway-rail crossings. Although engineering solutions and education and enforcements initiatives have been proposed and implemented, little is known about their effectiveness to mitigate such incidents. This study reports on findings from the literature, discussions with professionals in the public and private sectors involved in safety at rail grade crossings, and pedestrian/non-motorized user behavior and attitudes toward safety at such crossings. The study highlights the multitude of factors related to pedestrian safety in this context and provides an informed discussion for stakeholders to advance safety initiatives. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Pedestrian and bicyclist safety, pedestrian warning No restrictions. This document is available to the public devices and signs at rail grade crossings through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161. 19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 77 plus appendices Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized ACKNOWLEDGMENT, DISCLAIMER, MANUFACTURERS’ NAMES This publication is based on the results of ICT-R27-96, Pedestrian/Bicyclist Warning Devices and Signs at Highway-Rail and Pathway-Rail Grade Crossings. ICT-R27-96 was conducted in cooperation with the Illinois Center for Transportation; the Illinois Department of Transportation, Division of Highways; and the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Members of the Technical Review Panel are the following: Kyle Armstrong, IDOT Bureau of Operations (Chair) Steve Lynch, CH2Mhill, representing IDOT Bureau of Safety Engineering Paul Lorton, IDOT Bureau of Safety Engineering Jason Johnson, IDOT Bureau of Local Roads and Streets Jeff Harpring, IDOT Bureau of Local Roads and Streets Marshall Metcalf, IDOT District 6 Operations Mike Garcia, IDOT Bureau of Railroads Steve Laffey, Illinois Commerce Commission Stan Milewski, Illinois Commerce Commission Brian Vercruysse, Illinois Commerce Commission Alan Ho, Federal Highway Administration Greg Piland, Federal Highway Administration The contents of this report reflect the view of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Illinois Center for Transportation, the Illinois Department of Transportation, or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Trademark or manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the object of this document and do not constitute an endorsement of product by the Federal Highway Administration, the Illinois Department of Transportation, or the Illinois Center for Transportation. Trademark or manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the object of this document and do not constitute an endorsement of product by the Federal Highway Administration, the Illinois Department of Transportation, or the Illinois Center for Transportation. i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Federal reporting shows a relatively constant number of pedestrian and bicycle fatalities at highway-rail and pathway-rail grade crossings over the past 10 years. This is in contrast to a marked decrease in train–vehicle collisions at highway-rail crossings. There is limited research on the subject of how to reduce the number of collisions between trains and pedestrians and bicyclists at highway-rail and pathway-rail grade crossings. The objective of this research is to determine best practices for providing effective warnings to non-motorized users of highway-rail and pathway-rail grade crossings that (1) inform the user of the presence of a crossing, and (2) inform the user to take appropriate action to prevent a collision. The study was divided into five components: 1. Literature review 2. Survey of state agencies and industry professionals 3. Identification of ten hot spots to be used for survey locations 4. Survey of non-motorized users—analysis of stated pedestrian behavior 5. Video surveillance of non-motorized users—analysis of observed pedestrian behavior The study highlights the multitude of factors related to pedestrian safety and provides an informed discussion for stakeholders to advance safety initiatives. The focus of this research is on individuals who use legally authorized highway-rail crossings with pedestrian access, or legally authorized pathway-rail crossings. Such highway-rail and pathway-rail crossings can be identified because they have a U.S. DOT inventory number assigned to the location (e.g., 372133T). Individuals crossing railroad tracks at locations other than legally designated locations are trespassing on private property. While trespassing is a major public safety issue, it is not the focus of this research. An extensive review of the pertinent published literature concerning pedestrian safety related to highway-rail and pathway-rail grade crossings found a distinct lack of any standards to analyze/quantify pedestrian risk and design effective treatments to reduce the risk to pedestrians from being struck by a train. The word “pedestrian” as used in this report refers to all types of non-motorized users. The primary findings from the literature review include the following: 1. A wide variety of MUTCD-compliant signs and devices are used to warn pedestrians of the presence of a crossing, as well as the approach of a train. However, a large number of non-compliant MUTCD signs and devices are also used. 2. The warning signs and devices include pavement markings, detectable warnings (e.g., audible tones, verbal messages, and/or vibrating surfaces), channelization devices (e.g., different types of fencing, swing gates, zigzag/Z-gates, corrals), audible/visual warnings (e.g., low-rise flashing pedestrian signals, multi-use path flashing light signals), automatic pedestrian gates (e.g., short gate arms), and “second train coming” electronic warning signs. 3. The effectiveness of any particular sign or device in reducing the risk of a collision between a pedestrian and a train is unknown. 4. A number of criteria are used to select warning devices for deployment at pedestrian–rail grade crossings, including pedestrian collision experience at the crossing, frequency of inclement weather, pedestrian volumes and peak flows, train speeds, number of trains, railroad traffic patterns, surrounding land uses, sight distance for pedestrians approaching the crossing, skew angle of the crossing relative to the railroad tracks, ii existence of multiple tracks, vicinity to a commuter station, and installation/maintenance costs. 5. Few existing methodologies allow for assessing trade-offs among those factors during the selection process, and the potential of newer approaches is not well understood. 6. In particular, there is no commonly accepted method to quantify the risk to pedestrians of being struck by a train at either a highway-rail crossing with pedestrian access or at a dedicated stand-alone pathway-rail crossing. The second phase of the study consisted of telephone interviews with representatives of 25 state agencies with jurisdiction over grade crossing safety. Additional interviews were conducted with representatives of national or federal agencies with responsibility for grade crossing safety, as well as individuals with extensive experience in the consulting engineering community. From these interviews, a few general themes emerged to increase the awareness of stakeholders and help advance pedestrian safety at rail grade crossings: 1. Safety upgrades at dedicated pedestrian crossings are not prioritized as highly as those at highway-rail grade crossings unless the two types of crossings are adjacent to each other (e.g., adjacent sidewalks on one or