1C_03_IzadpanahPedram

1

Improving Pedestrian Safety at Grade Railway Crossings

Pedram Izadpanah, Ph.D., P.Eng. Associate Partner

Senior Project Manager CIMA

3027 Harvester Road, Suite 400 Burlington, ON L7N 3G7

[email protected]

Maged Elmadhoon, M.Eng., P.Eng. Manager, Transportation Planning

Transportation Planning & Design Division City of London

[email protected]

Khaled Hawash Transportation Technologist

CIMA 3027 Harvester Road, Suite 400

Burlington, ON L7N 3G7 [email protected]

Behzad Rouhieh, M.A.Sc

Transportation Engineer (EIT) CIMA

3027 Harvester Road, Suite 400 Burlington, ON L7N 3G7 [email protected]

Alireza Hadayeghi, Ph.D., P.Eng.

Partner Director, Transportation Engineering

CIMA 3027 Harvester Road, Suite 400

Burlington, ON L7N 3G7 [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]





Abstract

Pedestrian collisions at at-grade railway crossings, while less common than other forms of

pedestrian collisions, are more likely to result in death or irreparable injury. These tragic rare events

have significant adverse effects on communities with at-grade crossings. To improve pedestrian

safety at at-grade crossings, the City of London, Ontario, initiated a study to develop guidelines for

the safety assessment of railway crossings for pedestrians. These guidelines considered items

supplemental to the mandatory requirements of Transport Canada. In these guidelines, risk factors

for pedestrians at at-grade crossings are first identified. Risk factors are categorized into four groups,

including level of pedestrian activities, train operations characteristics, at-grade crossing site

characteristics, and pedestrian demographic characteristics. Various treatments are proposed for

each identified risk factor. Treatments are prioritized for each risk factor in terms of their

effectiveness and implementation costs. A computerized application was developed based on these

guidelines. The application consists of five modules: data collection, conformity check, identification

of risk factors, potential countermeasures, and network screening. The data collection module allows

the user to collect all of the required data for each at-grade crossing in the field. The conformity

check module is able to compare each crossing with Transport Canada standards. If a crossing is

found deficient, corrective actions are suggested by the conformity check module. The risk factor

module utilizes the data collected by the data collection module to identify risk factors at each

crossing. Based on the risk factors identified, the potential countermeasure module suggests

countermeasures to mitigate the risk factors. This module is able to rank countermeasures based on

their costs and their effectiveness to mitigate the risk factors. The network screening module is able

to rank railway crossings in a jurisdiction based on their expected number of collisions. This module

uses Transport Canada’s collision prediction models for at-grade crossings. This paper describes the

details of the guidelines for improving pedestrian safety at at-grade railways crossings. As a case

study, data from the City of London, Ontario, is used to show how these guidelines and the

accompanying application can be utilized to prioritize at-grade crossings, identify countermeasures,

and prioritize countermeasures at at-grade crossings.

3

1. Introduction

Canada has 48,000 kilometres of track that provides a reliable and affordable way for movement of

people and goods across Canada and from/to the United States of America (Transport Canada

2014). There are Approximately 37,000 public, private, and pedestrian highway-railways crossings in

Canada (Operation Lifesaver, 2014). According to Transport Safety Board between 2003 and 2012

there was 2165 crossing collisions in Canada resulted in 267 crossing fatalities (Transportation

Safety Board of Canada, 2014). Six percent of the total collisions involved pedestrians, resulted in 59

percentage fatality. Vulnerable road user collisions at grade crossings, while less common than other

forms of vulnerable road user collisions, are more likely to result in death or irreparable injury. These

tragic rare events have significant adverse effects on communities with grade crossings.

Transport Canada guidelines and procedures focuses less on vulnerable road users. Transport

Canada’s Pedestrian Safety at Grade Crossing Guide (Transport Canada 2007) is primarily a

reference for improvement pedestrian safety at railway at-grade crossing. In addition to the

mandatory requirements of Transport Canada, supplementary guidelines and tools for vulnerable

road users could be adopted by different agencies to improve vulnerable road users’ safety at at-

grade railway crossings. The City of London, Ontario initiated a study to develop supplemental

guidelines for safety assessment of railway crossings for vulnerable road users. The guidelines were

developed based on the state-of-the-art and practice in a computerized application. The guidelines

will assist the City staff to collect required information at crossings, identify risk factors, and

recommend countermeasures and treatments to mitigate potential risks. The main objectives of this

study were:

Identification of common risk factors at grade crossings;

Identification of current practices, regulations, and standards to mitigate risks at grade

crossings;

Identification of appropriate treatments for specific risk factors; and

Development of a computerized tool to assist the City staff in identification of risk factors, to

recommend countermeasures; and to evaluate compliance of grade crossings with the

existing Canadian regulations and standards.

In this paper, first the identified risk factors in the literature are discussed and a set of criteria to

evaluate different countermeasures is provided. A risk assessment matrix is developed and used to

identify required treatments to improve safety at at-grade crossings. Furthermore, a case study of

applying the Rail Crossing Safety Assessment Tool to assess one crossing in the City of London is

presented.

2. Risk Factors

Risk factors associated with at-grade crossing are potentially a function of the followings:

Level of activities of vulnerable road users;

Train operations specifications;

At-grade crossing characteristics; and

Vulnerable road users’ actions and conditions.

The risk factors identified in the literature for vulnerable road user collisions are presented here after.

2.1 Presence of Vulnerable Road Users

Research identifies the following risk factors related to the presence of vulnerable road users:

Close proximity to vulnerable road user attractors including commuter train stations, bus

stops, schools, retail/commercial centers, and residential communities;

The presence of any vulnerable road user facility (TCRP 2000);

The presence of a school zone or ‘high pedestrian activity levels’ as warranting a higher level

of passive or active warning (TCRP 2000);

Planned development and zoning as an indicator of future vulnerable road user activity

(CPUC 2008);

Pedestrian volume (WDTDM 2011); and

Proportion of children and physically or intellectually impaired vulnerable road users (AUTC

2010).

2.2 Train Operations Specifications

The operational elements noted in the review of the literature are summarized here below:

Higher Train Speeds: vulnerable road users have difficulty discerning the actual speed of

an approaching train. At higher operating speeds, this may lead to the vulnerable road users

making an incorrect decision on whether it is safe to cross the tracks.

Train Frequency: frequent train traffic at grade crossings increases the opportunity for a

vulnerable road user-train incident. A crossing with light rail transit passing every few

minutes will experience very frequent but short periods of crossing occupancy.

Length of Train: A low speed freight train with multiple daily switching movements may

experience infrequent but lengthy periods of crossing occupancy leading to an increase in

the likelihood of vulnerable road users violating any passive or active warning device

5

Nearby Train Stations: In situations where some trains may not stop at a station (e.g.

express trains), but where vulnerable road users at a nearby crossing may expect all trains

to stop, treatments specific to this particular situation should be considered.

Multiple Tracks: At crossings on multiple tracks, vulnerable road user may not expect or

see a train approaching on the second track. TCRP Report 69 (TCRP 2000) identified this as

a significant risk factor warranting the use of an active warning device rather than a passive

warning device at crossings where a sidewalk exists.

Whistle Cessation: Lack of a train whistle to provide an auditory warning to vulnerable road

users is another risk factor. Transport Canada guidelines require automated warning

systems including bells at crossings where routine train whistling is not required. These bells

provide an auditory warning of all approaching trains.

2.3 Crossing Site Characteristics

Several risk factors relating to site geometrics were noted in the review of the literature and are

discussed here after:

Clearing sight distance: It is the minimum unobstructed viewing distance that a

vulnerable road user must be able to see far enough down the track in both directions to

determine if sufficient time exists to safely cross. Several factors may affect the clearing

sight distance including: train speed, clearance distance, perception-reaction time of

vulnerable road users, vulnerable road user speed, and crossing geometry.

According to CPUC 2008 if the vulnerable road user clearing sight distance is

insufficient, additional passive and active devices should be considered for the design of

the grade crossing. TCRP 2000 also considers restricted sight distance as a warranting

condition for the consideration of an active or passive warning device. The Australian

Manual for Traffic Control Devices (AUMUTCD 2013) also has a minimum standard for

sight distance at all passive control crossings. The British Columbia Railway Safety

Code (BCRSC, 1996) requires pedestrian only crossings to have a minimum of 7

seconds clear sight line.

Track angle: The angle between the pathway and the track is another critical element in

the design of grade crossings. Poor geometry increases the risk of the vulnerable road

user misjudging when it is safe to cross the railway track and increases the crossing

distance (thereby increasing the exposure of the vulnerable road user to the

approaching train). A 90 degree configuration decreases the opportunity for wheels (in

the case of cyclists, wheelchair users, or strollers) getting caught between the track rails

and the crossing surface. It also increases the chance that vulnerable road users will

see an approaching train (without turning their heads). The Australian MUTCD has a

minimum standard of 70 degrees for a crossing (90 degrees preferred).

Grade of approaches to the railway: The grade of the approach may affect persons

with mobility impairments or cyclist. The Australian MUTCD cites a maximum approach

grade of 1:40. Grade crossings in Canada are required to have approach grades of 5%

or less.

Crossing width: Insufficient crossing width or clearance between a fixed object and a

path has also been identified as a potential risk factor. CPUC (2008) recommends a

minimum width of 48 inches (1.2 meters) for a railway crossing. Sufficient vertical and

lateral clearance is required between the path and any fixed object (e.g. light standard or

warning device).

Absence of Placement and Visibility of Warning System: The absence of poor

placement or visibility of the existing warning system will affect the pedestrian’s

comprehension and interpretation of the level of risk.

Ambient noise Level: The ambient noise level can mask the approach of a train. This

can be a problem when other trains or heavy vehicle traffic are in the vicinity.

2.4 Vulnerable Road Users’ Action and Condition

The vast majority of traffic collisions have human error as a contributing factor. This would apply

to vulnerable road user collisions, including those at railway crossings, as well. A common

human error is misjudgement of the speed and/or distance of trains (Leibowitz, 1985). Another

perceptual phenomenon leading to errors in judgement in this situation is that humans have

difficulty judging the approach speed of a train when it is seen nearly head on (Mortimer, 1988).

Elderly vulnerable road users (65+ years) have more difficulty than others in judging the speed of

oncoming trains and show less sensitivity to changes in velocity than do younger users. The

visual abilities known to deteriorate with age as they relate to traffic safety are (Kline and

Schieber, 1985).

Vulnerable road users may become impatient while waiting for a train to reach the crossing and

will cross the tracks when it is unsafe to do so, in spite of warnings. They generally expect a train

to arrive within 20 seconds of the activation of a signal, and they begin to lose confidence in the

warning message if warning times exceed 40 seconds for flashing lights and 60 seconds for

gates (Lerner, et al., 1990).

An additional human factor contributing to some vulnerable road user collisions at crossings is

the sudden appearance of a second train, where there are two or more tracks, just after the first

train has passed. Since the appearance of a second train seldom occurs in the experience of

most people, they may not be expecting this. Therefore warning of this possibility is essential at

crossings with more than one track. Unexpected hazards require a longer than average

response time to detect and respond (Olson and Farber, 2003).

In summary, vulnerable road users’ behaviour and limitations can play a significant role in

vulnerable road user collisions at grade crossings. Hence, it is important to provide adequate

warning of approaching trains for vulnerable road users and to reduce risky behaviours at

crossings.

7

3. Current Practice, Regulations and Identified Treatments

This section describes treatments that have been used to enhance vulnerable road user safety at

grade crossings. These treatments were identified during the review of guidelines, manuals and

published and academic reports from selected jurisdictions and agencies in Canada, the US,

Australia, and Europe. The identified treatments can be categorized into two groups: Passive and

Active and are discussed here after. A summary of advantages and disadvantages of each group is

presented at the end of this section.

3.1 Passive Treatments

Passive treatments include traffic control devices that provide a static message of warning and

guidance at grade crossings. They are intended to work as a system to permit safe and efficient

operations at grade crossings. Passive treatments do not change their appearance or position.

Canadian regulatory requirements for passive treatments directed at vulnerable road users are

minimal and are covered in Transport Canada, Railway-Highway Crossing at Grade Regulations and

the Canadian Railway-Roadway Grade Crossing Standards (CRRGCS).

Passive treatments include the following groups:

Signs: The function of the signs is to discourage vulnerable road users from trespassing on

the railway right-of-way, encourage them to utilize designated crossing points, and warn them

of approaching trains.

Pavement markings include: Longitudinal (edge line) markings, Transverse markings and

Symbols.

Surface treatments including: Rubber inserts in railway flangeway gaps, Visually contrasting

materials, Raised truncated domes/raised areas/tactile strips and Directional surfaces

Barriers: Physical barriers include fences, ‘Z’ barriers and entry/exit swing gates. ‘Z’ barriers

are sometimes called as maze barriers or bicycle baffles in Canada.

Other passive treatments, e.g. convex mirrors and illumination, may also be used at grade

crossings.

3.2 Active Treatments

Active treatments are treatments that are only in operation when a train is approaching. These

treatments either provide a visual or auditory warning (or both) or they discourage a vulnerable road

user from crossing at a location (either by a gate closing or an arm lowering). The following section

provides a brief description of different types of active treatments.

Visual Warning Treatments: use flashing lights or countdown timers to warn vulnerable

road users of approaching trains or specifically warn of a second train.

Audible Warning Treatments: to be used in conjunction with mechanized swing gate

assemblies and fitted inside the gate mechanism or mounted near the gate mechanism. The

audible warning may either produce a different tone in this situation, or stop when the first

train passes and resume when the second train approaches.

Automated Gates: Automated gates are devices that allow vulnerable road users to cross

during normal conditions but physically discourage a vulnerable road user from crossing

when they are activated. Automated gates may be mounted on vehicular automatic gate

assemblies or stand-alone assemblies.

Adult Crossing Guard: Transport Canada (Transport Canada 2007) recommends the use

of adult crossing guards at grade crossings in the immediate vicinity of schools or along

designated routes to school, at high risk locations with multiple tracks or high operating train

speeds or in the vicinity of large-crowd facilities.

Table 1 and Table 2 summarize the strength and the weakness for each group pf treatments

identified in the literature review.

Table 1: Advantage and disadvantage of passive treatments

Group Advantage Disadvantage

Signs ● Low in capital cost

● Low in maintenance & operation cost.

● Low in susceptibility to environmental factors and adverse weather impacts

● Moderate potential on reduction in the frequency of vulnerable road user(S sign only)

● Moderate potential to reduce collisions

● Applicable as a visual aid only

Pavement markings

● Low in capital cost


● Medium in susceptibility to environmental factors and adverse weather impacts

● Moderate potential on reduction in the frequency of vulnerable road user



● Could be covered with snow

Surface Treatment

● Moderate in capital cost

● Medium in maintenance & operation cost.


● Moderate potential on reduction in the frequency of vulnerable road user


● Rubber inserts in railway flangeway gaps reduces tripping hazards and prevents wheelchair users from getting caught

● Visually contrasting materials and raised truncated domes provide guidance to visually impaired individuals.

● Snow may interfere with use

● Rubber inserts in railway flangeway gaps is not suitable for use in locations where train speed is more than 15 – 25 km/h , also restrict the flangeway width and depth to 65 mm and 75 mm respectively

9


Physical Barriers

● Medium in capital cost

● Medium in maintenance & operation cost.


● Applicability to all potential users

● Medium potential on reduction in the frequency of vulnerable road user

● Medium potential to reduce collisions

Convex mirrors

● Provide greater visibility of a second train or a train approaching from behind them

● Have to be at the appropriate angle to have effective viewing

● The first train may be obstructing the view

● May be affected by environmental conditions

Table 2: Advantage and disadvantage of active treatments


Visual warning

● Medium to high in capital cost

● Medium to high in maintenance & operation cost.


● Medium potential on reduction in the frequency of vulnerable road user

● Medium potential to reduce collisions


Audible warning

● Low in capital cost


● Low in susceptibility to environmental factors and adverse weather impacts

● Medium to high potential on reduction in the frequency of vulnerable road user

● Medium to high potential to reduce collisions

● Used in conjunction with mechanized swing gate

● Applicable as an auditory aid only

Active pedestrian gates


● Applicability to all potential users

● High potential on reduction in the frequency of vulnerable road user

● High potential to reduce collisions

● High in capital cost

● High in maintenance & operation cost.

4. Risk Assessment and Identification of Applicable Countermeasures

As suggested by the Canadian Road/Railway Grade Crossing Detailed Safety Assessment Field

Guide, a safety assessment of vulnerable road user safety at grade crossings should be a

systematic process to evaluate the vulnerable road user safety at a grade crossing. The safety

assessment should aim to reduce the vulnerable road user collision risks by identifying risk factors

and selecting treatments to mitigate the potential risks at grade crossings.

In the previous sections a summary of risk factors and treatments were described. A risk assessment

matrix was developed in which potential countermeasures are suggested to mitigate risk factors at

grade crossings. The risk assessment matrix includes risk factors, related rational for the risk factors,

and diagnostic questions identify risks and recommended countermeasures to mitigate the risks.

Table 3 shows a sample assessment matrix table.

Table 3: Sample risk assessment matrix

Group Item Rational Diagnostic Questions

Recommended Countermeasures

Train

Operations

Train

Frequency

Daily train frequency has been

identified as a risk factor.

Crossings with a higher daily

frequency of trains combined with

medium or high volumes of

vulnerable road users are potential

candidates for an active warning

treatment.

Is the train

frequency less

than 3

trains/day?

● Railway crossing sign/No. of tracks sign

● Advance warning signs.

● Pavement marking as per CRRGCS.

Is the train

frequency

between 3 and

32 trains/day?




● Active system (auditory / visual).

● Adequate illumination at the crossing.

● Automatic Gates covering sidewalks.

Is the train

frequency more

than 32

trains/day?




● Active system (auditory / visual).

● Adequate illumination at the crossing.

● Automatic Gates covering sidewalks.

● Barriers and guide fencing.

11

5. Criteria for Evaluating Countermeasures

In this section the criteria to evaluate different countermeasures is presented. The following criteria

should be considered when selecting a countermeasure.

Accessibility: the anticipated effect of the treatment on accessibility for vulnerable road users

including individuals using assistive devices and individuals with visual impairments;

Comprehension: the anticipated effect of the treatment on the vulnerable road user’s

comprehension of the risks present at the site;

Compliance: the anticipated effect of the treatment on the vulnerable road user’s compliance

(i.e. will it increase/decrease their likelihood of crossing when it is not safe to do so);

Maintenance costs: the anticipated yearly maintenance costs associated with this treatment;

Operating costs: the anticipated yearly operating costs associated with this treatment; and

Capital costs: the anticipated capital cost associated with this treatment.

Each of the treatments has been qualitatively assessed in terms of the above criteria. The

assessments shown for each treatment could vary depending on the conditions present at each site

and the particular treatment being assessed. Table 4 shows the matrix used as a decision tool in the

selection of site specific countermeasures.

Table 4: Decision matrix for the selection of treatments

Countermeasures Accessibility Comprehension Compliance Maintenance Cost

Operating Cost

Capital Cost

Signs

$ $

Pavement markings

$ $

Barriers $ $$

Surface treatments $ $$

Active system (Auditory)

$$ $$ $$$

Active system (Visual)

$$ $$ $$$

Active system (gates) $$ $$ $$$

Negative impact No impact Minor positive impact Major positive

impact

No cost $ Low cost $$ Moderate cost $$$ Substantial cost

6. Risks and Treatments Assessment Tool

The Railway Crossing Safety Assessment Tool (RCSAT) was developed to allow users to assess

existing treatments at at-crossings against Canadian Standards and Regulations and evaluate

required countermeasures to address the safety problems based on common risk factors at grade

crossings. The logic for evaluation of compliance with Canadian standards is based on Section 3 of

this paper. The logic for identification of risks and recommendation of countermeasures is based on

Sections 4 and 5 of this report.

The required steps and sample data related to a case study in London, ON is presented below.

6.1 Required Data

The first step is to collect necessary data for assessing the subject grade crossing. Three types of

data are required as input to the RCSAT:

Data which need to be collected from the field including: Site location and characteristics,

Pedestrian approach/crossing characteristics, Warning systems and Pedestrian activities.

Data which need to be collected from railway companies: Train operations, Whistle

cessation, and Rail infrastructures.

Number of vulnerable road users using the crossing per day

A Field Checklist and Train Operation Checklist were developed to be used by the City to collect the

required input data for the RCSAT from the field. A sample crossing in the City of London was

selected and necessary information was collected.

6.2 Conduct Assessment in RCSAT

Data Input

After collecting data, they should be entered into RCSAT database. The developed tool provides a

user friendly interface to enter collected data for each site. Figure 1 and Figure 2 show sample forms

provided for user input. Field checklists related to the subject crossing were used to populate data

into RCSAT database.

13

Figure 1: Data Input - Pedestrian approach characteristics

Figure 2: Data Input - Train details/Warning systems

Risk Assessment Results

When data is added to the database, user can perform risk assessment. A list of noncompliance

treatments with regards to CRRGCS standard will be presented. In addition, the recommended

configuration of the crossing will be displayed and can be customized to show existing and

recommended treatments to be added. Figure 3 and Figure 4 present the recommended treatments

by the tool, in both graphical and list view, for the subject crossing.

Figure 3: Risk Assessment - Recommended countermeasures to be added

Figure 4: Risk Assessment - List of recommended countermeasures

15

7. Summary and Recommendations

This paper presents an overview of common risk factors identified in the literature for vulnerable road

users at grade crossings. Also, a review of best practices in passive and active treatments and

countermeasures is provided.

A set of detailed prompts and an accompanying rationale developed to conduct a safety assessment

of an at-grade crossing, considering level of activity, train operations, site characteristics, vulnerable

road users and existing treatments. Applicable standards and regulations were included in the

discussion. The end result of the risk assessment is a list of treatments that could potentially reduce

the observed or perceived risks at a particular crossing.

A decision matrix developed to select site specific treatments. The treatments were evaluated

according to their accessibility, comprehension, compliance, maintenance costs, operating costs and

capital costs. This allows the City of London to make a qualitative judgment in terms of which

treatment or set of treatment is best suited to reduce risk at the location.

A tool was developed in MS-Excel using Visual Basic for Application (VBA) language. The decision

matrix for identification of potential risks for vulnerable road users and recommended treatments to

mitigate the risk were incorporated into the tool.

The mandatory Transport Canada regulations for at grade crossings related to vulnerable road users

were coded in the tool. The tool is capable of checking compliance of the existing conditions of a

crossing with the mandatory standards set forth by Transport Canada and identifies deficiencies.

The tool is able to identify potential risks at a grade crossing and recommend potential treatments.

The tool also ranks treatments based on the number of times they were recommended based on

different risk factors or their implementation costs. The tool also estimates a probability of collision at

each crossing which exists in its database and ranks the crossings based on the probability of

collision. This ranking can assist the City to prioritize addressing the issues identified at each

crossing based on their probability of collision.

A field checklist and a train operation check list were developed in this project which can be used to

facilitate the data acquisition from a crossing. The field check list will assist the City to collect the

required information from the crossing during a field visit. The train operation check list will facilitate

the processes of obtaining the required data from railway companies.

8. References

AUMUTCD 2013. Australian Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. September 2013. http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/business-industry/Technical-standards-publications/Manual-of-uniform-traffic-control-devices.asp. (Last Accessed: February 2014)

AUTC 2010. Australian Transport Council (2010). The Australian Level Crossing Assessment Model.

http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/b2b/levelcrossings/ALCAM_In_Detail-NSW.pdf.

(Last Accessed: February 2014)

BCRA 1996. British Columbia Railway Act (1996). Railway Safety Code Part 3 - Construction and Maintenance

CRRGCS 2014. Canadian Railway-Roadway Grade Crossing Standards 2014.

https://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/railsafety/grade-crossing-standards.pdf. (Last Accessed:

February 2014)

CPUC 2008. California Public Utilities Commission (2008). Pedestrian-Rail Crossings in California.

http://openarchitecturenetwork.org/system/files/CA_PUC_RailCrossing_Peds.pdf . (Last Accessed:

February 2014)

Kline, D. W., & Schieber, F. (1985). Vision and aging.

Leibowitz, H. W. (1985). Grade Crossing Accidents and Human Factors Engineering. American Scientist, 73, 558-562.

Lerner, N., Ratte, D. and Walker, J. (1990). Driver Behavior at Rail-highway Crossings. Final Report

# FHWA-SA-90-008.

Mortimer, R. G. (1988). Human factors in highway-railroad grade crossing accidents

Olson, P.L., Farber, E. (2003). Forensic Aspects of Driver Perception and Response (Second

Edition). Lawyers & Judges Publishing Company, Inc.

Operations Lifesaver (2014). http://www.operationlifesaver.ca/facts-and-stats/train-safety-faq/.

TCRP 2000. Transit Cooperative Research Program (2000). Report Number 69.

www.tcrponline.org/PDFDocuments/tcrp_rpt_69.pdf. (Last Accessed: February 2014)

TCRP 2009. Transit Cooperative Research Program (2009). Report Number 137.

http://www.tcrponline.org/PDFDocuments/TCRP_RPT_137.pdf. (Last Accessed: February 2014)

Transport Canada (2007), Pedestrian Safety at Grade Crossing Guide (Final Draft), September 2007 http://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/railsafety/pedestriansafety-publications.pdf. (Last Accessed: February 2014)

Transport Canada (2014). http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/rail-menu.htm. (Last Accessed: February 2014) Operation Lifesaver (2014). Train Safety FAQ. (Last Accessed: February 2014)

Transportation Safety Board of Canada (2014). Railway Investigation Report. Transportation Safety Board of Canada. Report No. R12T0217. http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/rail/2012/R12T0217/R12T0217.asp. (Last Accessed: February 2014)

http://www.operationlifesaver.ca/facts-and-stats/train-safety-faq/

http://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/railsafety/pedestriansafety-publications.pdf

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/rail/2012/R12T0217/R12T0217.asp

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/rail/2012/R12T0217/R12T0217.asp

17

WDTDM 2011. Washington State Department of Transportation Design Manual (2011). Pedestrian

Facilities. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/fulltext/M22-01/1510.pdf. (Last Accessed:

February 2014)