Rails-Next-to-Trails: A Methodology for Selecting ...depts.washington.edu/sctlctr/sites/default/files/... · tion and traffic engineers and planners usually refer to for guidance

Article

Transportation Research Record2018, Vol. 2672(10) 12–27� National Academy of Sciences:Transportation Research Board 2018Article reuse guidelines:sagepub.com/journals-permissionsDOI: 10.1177/0361198118792763journals.sagepub.com/home/trr

Rails-Next-to-Trails: A Methodology forSelecting Appropriate Safety Treatmentsat Complex Multimodal Intersections

Anna Bovbjerg Alligood1, Manali Sheth1, Anne Goodchild1,Edward McCormack1, and Polina Butrina1

AbstractThere are more than 212,000 at-grade railroad crossings in the United States. Several feature paths running adjacent to therailroad tracks, and crossing a highway; they serve urban areas, recreational activities, light rail station access, and a variety ofother purposes. Some of these crossings see a disproportionate number of violations and conflicts between rail, vehicles, andpedestrians and bikes. This research focuses on developing a methodology for appropriately addressing the question of treat-ments in these complex, multimodal intersections. The methodology is designed to be able to balance a predetermined, pre-scriptive approach with the professional judgment of the agency carrying out the investigation. Using knowledge and datafrom the literature, field studies, and video observations, a framework for selecting treatments based on primary issues at agiven location is developed. Using such a framework allows the agency to streamline their crossing improvement efforts; toeasily communicate and inform the public of the decisions made and their reasons for doing so; to secure stakeholder buy-inprior to starting a project or investigation; to make sure that approach and selected treatments are more standardized; andto ensure transparency in the organization to make at-grade crossings safer for pedestrians and bicyclists, without negativelyimpacting trains or vehicles.

There are approximately 212,000 at-grade railroad cross-ings in the United States (1). Most of these crossings con-sist of one or more sets of railroad tracks being crossedby a public highway. As the presence of transit rail, espe-cially light rail, increases in our cities, and the nationwideefforts to install multi-use paths next to railroad tracksare successful—The Rails-to-Trails Conservancy—a newlevel of complexity to at-grade railroad crossings isadded. These paths or trails will often run adjacent to therailroad tracks, to serve urban areas, recreational activi-ties, light rail station access, and a variety of other pur-poses. In most cases they will also be crossing the publicroadway close to the railroad tracks, establishing a sec-ond point of intersection with the highway and potentialpoint of conflict, as seen in Figure 1. Red Xs mark thetwo primary points of conflict—the conflict between thepedestrian (yellow) and the vehicle (blue), which in turnleads to the second conflict between the vehicle (blue)and the train (black) in situations where the vehicle isstopping to avoid the pedestrian. Even in cases where atrain is not present, having vehicles stopping on tracks isundesirable.

In the state of Oregon, as well as in many other U.S.states, it is illegal for a vehicle to stop on railroad

tracks—‘‘Obstructing the intersection’’ (3); but at thesame time, it is also illegal to not stop for pedestrians,cyclists, and other users (non-vehicular users) who arecrossing in front of the vehicle on a path, sidewalk, orrailroad crossing (4). When a non-vehicular user is pres-ent in, for example, a crosswalk and approached by a cartraversing the railroad tracks, the driver of the vehicle isforced to break one of the two laws or put themselves orother road users in danger. To avoid striking the pedes-trian who is crossing in the intersection, this will mostfrequently result in the vehicle dwelling on the tracks towait for the pedestrian to pass. Aside from being illegal,this poses a threat to the driver, who is in a train’s pathand may not be able to move out of the way in the eventthat a train, which would be unable to stop, approaches.As intersections become more complex in urban areas,with higher volumes and an increased level of informa-tion that needs to be processed by traffic participants,

1University of Washington, Seattle, WA

Corresponding Author:

Address correspondence to Anna Bovbjerg Alligood:

[email protected]

us.sagepub.com/en-us/journals-permissions

https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198118792763

https://journals.sagepub.com/home/trr

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F0361198118792763&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2018-09-09

there is an increased probability of unintentional non-compliance, leading to conflicts between all types ofusers.

To adequately address safety concerns at this type ofcrossing, it is useful to regard these locations as single,complex multimodal intersections. Much literature isavailable to guide decision-making when it comes toapplying treatments to highway–railroad crossings, andalso for highway–sidewalk/path crossings, but limitedguidance is available for these complex intersectionswhere at least three different types of users are present.There is no standard or accepted methodology for apply-ing treatments that improve safety and passability for allusers, while addressing the legal issues previouslydescribed. Furthermore, these different types of usersand infrastructure are represented by a variety of differ-ent stakeholders, both public and private, whoseinterests—which are potentially conflicting—should allbe considered when attempting to mitigate issues orinstall new treatments at a railroad crossing. These caninclude railroad organizations, pedestrian/bike advocacygroups, cities and counties, and federal and state agen-cies, such as the FRA and state Departments ofTransport (DOTs).

This paper addresses this gap by presenting a metho-dology for selecting the most appropriate treatment at acomplex multimodal crossing. This is useful as it ensures

more transparency in the process, which becomes morestreamlined and predictable, to support collaborationwith stakeholders. The following section describes exist-ing practice and reviews the available literature.Following that the primary issues and ways of addres-sing them are presented, followed by conclusions andsuggestions for areas of future research.

Existing Practice and Literature Review

There is no standard on how to address or treat at-gradehighway–railroad crossings with a path running adjacentto the railroad tracks. The publications that transporta-tion and traffic engineers and planners usually refer tofor guidance do not explicitly cover this issue, thoughmost of them mention the specific concerns for pedes-trians and bicycles at these locations (5, 6). This meansthat states, counties, and cities are often left to their owndevices when it comes to selecting appropriate treat-ments. In the best cases, it means that the responsibleagency will develop their own specific methodology foraddressing this type of intersection and publish these ashandbooks. In some cases, this means that the responsi-ble agency will just treat the location as two separateentities, possibly leading to an increase in the confusionfor users and in unintentional non-compliance, as theirunique influence on each other is not considered. In

Figure 1. Conflicts at shared-use paths adjacent to the railroad tracks and perpendicular to the highway (2).

Alligood et al 13

other cases, as observed in various locations in Oregon,it may be decided to eliminate the pedestrian crossing,resulting in two unconnected trailheads on either side ofa highway and, with that, an increase in the occurrenceof illegal pedestrian and bicycle behavior. An example ofsuch a crossing can be seen in Figure 2.

The first example of guidance handbooks on multimo-dal intersections was published by the Florida Departmentof Transportation (FDOT) in 1996 and contains experi-ence and knowledge from an extensive field survey ofmore than 60 locations (7). More recently, a structured,flowchart-based methodology was developed by theMinnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT),who published an extensive research project in 2013, whichprovides guidance on applicable treatments for complexrailroad intersections (8). While both publications areinformative, neither provide specific recommendations forthe best possible solution addressing concerns such as effi-cacy, capital investment, and maintenance, as well asappearance and acceptance by its various users. TheMnDOT lists a wide range of solutions or treatments anddoes not distinguish between different issues at a crossing,other than by the proxy of its characteristics, and thereforedoes not specifically address the condition at a specificcrossing. This paper presents an approach that narrowsdown the number of recommendations that are made foran individual crossing, based on its identified primaryissues, to be able to make the best possible infrastructureinvestment within the allocated budget.

This research project was conducted for the OregonDepartment of Transportation Rail and Public

Transport Division, and reflects this with respect to pre-ferences and approved devices. To be applied in otherdistricts, regional approvals and preferences should beconsidered. This paper does not examine all possibledevices and treatments available nationally.

Primary Issues at Complex Intersections

In the pursuit of a methodology that can be used toselect appropriate treatments, the first step was to iden-tify and describe these railroad crossings and the primarycategories of issues at them. As previously mentioned,both AASHTO and the Manual on Uniform TrafficControl Devices (MUTCD) suggest that this type of com-plex intersection is handled on a case-by-case basis (5, 6).Treating crossings on a case-by-case basis, without anyframework or guidance to inform decision-making andprocess, is time-consuming and can be perceived asunfair or inappropriate by stakeholders or the public.This paper suggests a methodology for ameliorating thissituation.

The methodology presented in this paper seeks toidentify some of the primary issues to streamline the pro-cess. These include issues with the built environment orinfrastructure, lack of information for path users, andlack of information for drivers. These issues were identi-fied using two different methodologies: first, a thoroughliterature review into available railroad treatments wasconducted, followed by in-person observations andcounts, which were further corroborated by video sur-veillance. Finally, issues were categorized and

Figure 2. Two connecting trailheads on both sides of a highway are separated by a sign prohibiting pedestrian crossings.

14 Transportation Research Record 2672(10)

appropriate treatments were identified, which aredescribed later in this paper.

Literature Review

In one of the earlier publications on having trails next torailroad tracks, the danger of the crossings was not spe-cifically discussed, even though it was pointed out thatmost crossings in the U.S. have some form of warningdevice, other than the required crossbucks. Passive warn-ing signs are not always enough for drivers to be awareof the upcoming railroad and path crossing (9). The fol-lowing research pertains to pedestrians crossing thetracks perpendicularly. As there is limited research, onemust look to existing knowledge about behavior andcompliance at railroad crossings, though it is not directlyapplicable. In one study two active devices were com-pared, and it was found that the addition of automatedgates to blinking flashers had the potential to reduce thepercentage of drivers violating the warning signs from67% to 38% (10). A paper published in 2013 investigatedwarning devices and signs for pedestrians and cyclists.They compared stated and actual behavior by pedes-trians and cyclists and found that many participants wereengaged in other activities while crossing, which inter-fered with their awareness of the tracks. Active signswere noticed more than passive signs, and the use ofgates lowered rates of violation. People who crossedtracks more often generally displayed safer behavior than

people who seldom crossed tracks. Pedestrian violate rel-atively more in urban areas than in rural areas. Largergroups were more likely to violate than were one or twopeople (11). This was confirmed by another study, whichfound that children under the age of eight expressedmore risky behavior and induced risky behavior amongothers (12).

Field Studies

The second part of the research leading to identifying theprimary issues was conducted as a field study of sevendifferent railroad locations in the state of Oregon withthe goal of collecting data and gaining more perspectiveabout the issues at these crossings and their roots. Withrecommendations from the Rail Public Transit Division,seven study sites with different characteristics were cho-sen. The locations were visited and observed for severalhours during summer months and counts were completedfor all approaches and movements. Video was also col-lected for at least 24 h at each crossing.

Detailed counts were extracted from the video forboth morning and afternoon peaks at all locations, forall approaches and movements. These were separatedinto pedestrian/cyclist and vehicle/train movements.Sketches were constructed showing the movements asso-ciated with the counts. An example of pedestrian andbike movements at a light rail crossing can be seen inFigure 3. This figure shows a location and the observed

Figure 3. Example sketch of pedestrian and bike movements at a light rail crossing.

Alligood et al 15

movements at this location. The letters correspond to thecounts in Table 1. This enables the user to quickly iden-tify the most common movements, which here is move-ment K from the multi-use path to the sidewalk andstation area.

Description of Primary Issues

Using the knowledge gained from the field visits, review-ing the recorded video, and the available literature, theresearch group identified and described three overarch-ing causes of problems: the built environment, lack ofpath user information, and lack of driver information.The two latter categories are concerned primarily withhuman behavior—our actions, skills, and knowledge—whereas the first category is purely concerned with the

physical infrastructure and road design, and best practicewithin these two areas. The built environment categorycan be directly impacted by engineering and planning,design, and decisions. In the following, the three differ-ent categories are described, along with examples ofproblems that can be identified under each category.This list is not intended to cover all possible issues at at-grade railroad crossings, but encompasses the primaryconcerns that were observed through field studies and inthe literature, and which were found to be the most use-ful for practitioners.

The Built Environment

The purpose of our transportation infrastructure is tofacilitate movements that are safe and efficient. It doesso through structure—such as road design, medians, andsidewalks—and through information, such as signageand pavement markings. When the built environment islacking content, such as visibility or adequate travelpaths, the infrastructure is not fulfilling its purpose ofsafely and effectively accommodating its users. This leadsto undesirable situations for everyone, including thoseparticipating in the traffic, but also the responsible engi-neers and planners. The primary issues from the builtenvironment are as follows:

� Speed: The posted speed limits are too high for theintended road utilization and type.

� Crossing design: The railroad tracks are elevatedsuch that it makes drivers focus more on traver-sing the tracks and potentially decreases visibilityof other road users and traffic control devices.

� Railroad crossing and path distance: The path andthe railroad tracks are located either too close toeach other or too far apart, making the crossingharder to negotiate.

� Stop line: The distance between the stop line andthe tracks, and/or the stop line and the stop line ofthe opposite direction, and/or the stop line and thepath is inappropriate.

� Insufficient crossing infrastructure: Pedestriansare not accommodated through shortest pathrouting, and therefore choose shortcuts todecrease their travel distance. This includes cut-ting across areas that are not intended for pedes-trians, crossing diagonally, crossing on a trackplatform, walking on property, and generally bolt-ing across to minimize their travel path, even ifreasonable accommodation is available.

� Transit stop: Transit stops are located too close tothe railroad crossing.

� Road/street infrastructure: Lack of grade separa-tion or other form of structure between, for

Table 1. Example of Video Counts Related to Figure 3

Video counts

MovementsJuly 6, 20168 am–9 am

July 5, 20165 pm–6 pm Average/hour

Pedestrians 68 51 59.5

Movement A 0 0 0Movement B 0 0 0Movement C 12 2 7Movement D 11 0 5.5Movement E 2 0 1Movement F 1 0 0.5Movement G 2 5 3.5Movement H 0 0 0Movement I 0 4 2Movement J 0 0 0Movement K 19 9 14Movement L 12 18 15Movement M 1 4 2.5Movement N 6 5 5.5Movement O 1 2 1.5Movement P 1 2 1.5

Bikes 20 27 23.5

Movement A 2 10 6Movement B 11 5 8Movement C 1 0 0.5Movement D 0 0 0Movement E 0 1 0.5Movement F 0 1 0.5Movement G 0 2 1Movement H 0 1 0.5Movement I 0 0 0Movement J 0 1 0.5Movement K 2 4 3Movement L 4 1 2.5Movement M 0 1 0.5Movement N 0 0 0Movement O 0 0 0Movement P 0 0 0


example, the road and the sidewalk can lead tocars unintentionally driving on the sidewalk area,which can lead to conflicts with non-vehicularusers.

� Visibility: Inadequate visibility caused by vegeta-tion, buildings, or lack of street light (13).

Lack of Path User Information

This category is concerned with the actions and behaviorexhibited by the users of the path running adjacent tothe tracks, including pedestrians, cyclists, skateboarders,and a variety of other users. The type of path that runsadjacent to railroad tracks is typically a higher-speedpath where the users are undisturbed by the surroundingtraffic. When they do reach an intersection that means achange in their environment, they need to safely navigateit. When users are unprepared for an upcoming crossing,they can potentially end up in dangerous situations. It isimportant to ensure that path users are adequatelyinformed of the upcoming crossing or break in their pathand can be prepared to proceed safely. The identified pri-mary issues from lack of path user information includethe following:

� Speed: The layout and general use of a multi-usepath leads to high bike speeds. Bikes may espe-cially be likely to proceed through a crossing whenalready traveling at a high speed, even more so ifon a primarily commuter-oriented path or high-speed trail.

� Signage: There is a lack of signage for bikes andpedestrians surrounding the crossing, leaving themunaware of upcoming crossings or rules of theroad. This can also refer to pavement markings insubstandard condition.

� Non-compliance: There is a high non-compliancerate of existing treatments and a lack of conse-quences for non-compliance (13).

Lack of Driver Information

This category concerns the users of the highway who arecrossing both the railroad tracks and the path crossing.While pedestrians, cyclists, and others using facilities run-ning perpendicular to the tracks and path also technicallybelong to this category, they are not explicitly handled inthis research and do not seem to pose a significant prob-lem. As with the previous category, it is vital that driversapproaching a crossing have adequate information,knowledge, and prior notification to be able to safely tra-verse the intersection. The primary issues from lack ofdriver information are as follows:

� Negotiation: If a railroad crossing is inappropri-ately spaced from a path, the driver will often

treat both locations as two separate crossings,and this separation affects how they negotiateeach crossing as two different obstacles ratherthan as one complex crossing. It is for this reasonthat crossings are generally not placed at curves,as this distracts the driver from paying adequateattention to both the railroad crossing and thecurve.

� Vehicle speed: The actual speeds are too high com-pared to posted speed limits and for the intendedroad utilization and type.

� Signage: There is a lack of adequate signage toinform drivers of upcoming path or rail crossings,and of rules of the road about stopping for pedes-trians or the speed limit, for example. This per-tains to the railroad crossing itself, but also andespecially to the path layout and the possibility ofencountering pedestrians/cyclists. This alsoincludes pavement markings being in substandardconditions (13).

The three categories with their 14 subcategoriestogether describe the primary issues and an overall pic-ture of potential conflicts at a complex intersection.These mechanisms should all be considered whenattempting to prevent undesirable situations or behaviorat an at-grade multimodal crossing. The following sec-tion will describe the developed methodology.

Addressing Primary Issues

The developed methodology is directed toward agenciesattempting to select cost-effective treatments, whichaddresses primary issues at complex intersections. Itassumes that it has already been established that thecrossing in question is of concern to public safety. Forthis purpose, it also assumes that the responsible agencyhas information about the crossing and/or a methodol-ogy for collecting such. The primary issues are thendecided based on existing knowledge and categorizedaccording to the three primary categories and their sub-categories presented in the previous section.

Outlining the Process

By combining the identified issues described in theprevious section with the developed catalog of availabletreatments, it was possible to develop potential solutionsfor different situations at a variety of crossings. Theprocess for selecting the treatment is as follows:

1. Type of rail: refers to whether the location carriesheavy rail or light rail.

2. Identified issues: These are identified at theagency’s discretion from existing or newly

Alligood et al 17

collected data, such as number of trains per day,nearby activities, recent incidents or annual aver-age daily traffic (AADT), field visits, videorecordings, or other sources. It is generally rec-ommended that for each crossing no more thanfive primary issues are selected. For most cross-ings it seems that between two and four focusareas are the most appropriate to sufficientlycover the issues at the crossing without ‘‘over-treating.’’

3. School locations: Typically, traffic engineers andplanners are especially concerned when a locationhas young children. Khattak and Luo found thatchildren under the age of eight were involved in‘‘excessive gate-related violations in the absence ofolder crossing users’’ (12). For this reason, recom-mendations are different and the treatments gen-erally more severe when the crossing is locatedwithin 0.5 miles of an elementary or middle school(K–8), or at the responsible agency’s discretion.

4. Recommendations for locations: Generally, oneprimary recommendation is made for each loca-tion as identified in the previous three points,with one or more supplemental or secondary rec-ommendations. These supplemental recommen-dations are marked with either ‘‘OR,’’ meaningthe two recommendations can be combined butshould not necessarily be; or with ‘‘AND,’’ mean-ing that the recommendations should be com-bined for best results.

Applying the Methodology

Using the process outlined enables the user to identifythe primary issues and a selection of appropriate solu-tions, using the individual prescriptive tables. As theissues and/or parameters of a crossing increases and/orchanges, so does the suggested solutions at the agency’sdiscretion. The issues are selected based on a combina-tion of field observations, video surveillance, public com-ments, previous history of incidents, and engineeringjudgment. Once the primary issues are identified andthe characteristics of the crossings described, the appro-priate solutions are selected and sketched. An example ofthe selection of treatments is given in the following sec-tions. The prescriptive table for heavy rail is shown inTable 2.

Case Study: SE Spokane St, Portland

The crossing at SE Spokane St is a heavy rail crossinglocated in a mostly residential area in Portland, OR.

The path, Springwater on the Willamette, running adja-cent to the tracks has high volumes of pedestrians andbicycles throughout the day, as seen in Table 3. TheAADT in 1993 was 3,644. The 2016 estimate is 6,000–8,000. On average, this crossing has two train eventsper day. The highway/railroad crossing is equippedwith MUTCD R1-1, R15-1, W10-1, 8B-7, and has astop line at all approaches. The path/highway crossingis equipped with MUTCD R1-1 and a stop line. A sche-matic of the crossing at SE Spokane St can be seen inFigure 4.

Based on field observations and video surveillance,the primary issues were identified and described usingthe proposed methodology as outlined above.

� Stop line: The stop line for westbound vehicles isplaced 20 ft from the nearest track and .40 ftfrom the multi-use path. As the sight distanceis categorized as semi-blind because of interior,vegetation, and topography, this results indrivers not being able to fully see the path andthe tracks and their respective activity withoutcrossing the stop line. Because of the downhillslope, the angle of the track, and the way thepath is designed, this can be difficult to mitigate.It does lead to cars slowly entering onto thetracks and dwelling, and these issues should beameliorated.

� Speed: This path is heavily commuter-orientedand from observations approximately half of itsusers are very familiar with the path and the cross-ing. It is a wide, well-maintained path, furtherincreasing the speeds at which cyclists travel. Thestraightness of the path also leads to higher speedsand less awareness of the crossing.

� Non-compliance: Both trailheads are equippedwith a smaller, lower-positioned version of a stopsign, asking especially cyclists to stop before enter-ing the intersection.

� Negotiation: This intersection seems to be negoti-ated by the drivers as two separate intersectionsrather than a single complex intersection: Thepath, roads, and tracks are spaced far apart andthere is limited visibility. Adding the slopes andangles to the mix leads to a situation that is highlycomplex, as there are many different approachesby different types of users. The unpredictability ofthe path users also seems to lead to further confu-sion for the drivers.

Based on the identified and described primary issues,the treatments were selected as shown in Table 4. This


Table 2. Table of Treatments for Heavy Rail

Category Treatment Description

The built environment:design speed

Primary Reassess speed limits Reassessing the posted speed limits willencourage more drivers to keep to anappropriate speed.

Secondary Ensure that speed limitsare posted and visible

Visibly showing and reminding drivers of thespeed limits will potentially further enhance theeffect of lowering speed limits.

Primary, nearbyschool

Include crossing area inschool zone

Compliance with speed limits are very good inschool zones, which can be utilized in thissituation.

Secondary,nearby school

Reassess posted speedlimits

or

Reassessing the posted speed limits willencourage more drivers to keep to anappropriate speed.

Ensure that speed limitsare posted and visible

See above

The built environment:vertical crossing design

Primary Add signage When drivers are not automatically aware of theroad or of obstructions, signage can help drawtheir attention toward certain things.

Secondary Install rapid rectangularflashing beacons(RRFBs)

RRFBs are generally a good way of allowingpedestrians to make others aware of theirpresence, without continuously disturbingtraffic when no pedestrians are present. Thisenforces the driver’s attention toward pathusers and enables them to stop or slow downearlier.


Raised crosswalks Raised crosswalks provide structure to thecrossing, which ensures a focus on both therailroad–highway crossing and the pathcrossing. Furthermore, it supports users incrossing legally, as it nudges them towardwalking on the raised crosswalk as opposed tonext to it or diagonally. Raised crosswalks canpresent problems for certain classes ofvehicles.


Automatic RRFBs See above

The built environment:horizontal crossingdesign

Primary Move path closer torailroad tracks

Moving the path closer to the tracks makesdrivers more likely to negotiate the crossing asone complex crossing as opposed to twoseparate crossings, which in turns make themmore aware of activity on both segments ofthe complex crossing.

Secondary Signageor

See above

Variable message signs Good compliance rates have been seen withvariable signs that are appropriately designed.


Move path closer torailroad tracks

or

See above

Install RRFBs See aboveSecondary,

nearby schoolInstall automatic RRFBsor

See above

Traffic signal Conventional traffic signals are expensive and alast resort option for controlling traffic. Whenused in combination with automatic gates,traffic lights can in some instances lead toissues with negotiation, as users forget tocheck both the automatic gates and trafficsignal at a location.

(continued)

Alligood et al 19

Table 2. (continued)


The built environment:stop line

Primary Move stop line closer torailroad tracks

Moving the stop line closer to the railroad tracksprovides better visibility and ability to accessthe crossing for the driver. There can be someissues with right-of-way with moving the stopline closer.

Secondary Raised crosswalks See abovePrimary, nearby

schoolMove stop line closer to

railroad tracksor

See above

Raised crosswalks See aboveSecondary,

nearby schoolRaised crosswalksand

See above

Dynamic envelopingand

Dynamic enveloping makes users more aware ofthe crossing as a point of conflict, slows downusers, and enforces the location as one singlecomplex crossing and not two separatecrossings. It is especially a good choice incrossings with high train volumes or in widecrossings.

Conflict zone traffic paint(‘‘conflict paint’’)

Conflict paint is used for marking smaller areasof conflict than dynamic enveloping would. Thetwo can also be used together to improveattention to the crossing overall and to someareas specifically. Note: interim approval

The built environment:insufficient crossinginfrastructure

Primary Supply crossing optionsor

If there is a path present on both sides of ahighway, there should be a legal way for a userto cross this highway, within a reasonabledistance from the path itself.

Relocate crossingand

If there is a path present on both sides of ahighway, there should be a legal way for a userto cross this highway, within a reasonabledistance from the path itself.

Add pavement markingsor

Pavement markings provide structure andinformation to users about appropriatenegotiation.

Zebra stripes Pavement markings provide structure andinformation to users about appropriatenegotiation.

Secondary Dynamic enveloping See abovePrimary, nearby

schoolInstall pedestrian refugeor

A pedestrian refuge allows the user to cross theroad in two or more segments. This givesstructure to the crossing and is especiallyrecommended in very wide crossings whereRRFBs or similar are too costly for thepurposes.

Install RRFBs See aboveSecondary,

nearby schoolRaised crosswalksand

See above


See above

Conflict paintor

See above

Overcrossingor

Overcrossings and undercrossings are expensiveoptions that are especially recommended closeto schools, where children and teenagers oftenmust navigate the crossing. They are generallya nuisance to cyclists and most other users,especially under ADA, but can be a last resort.

See above

Undercrossing

(continued)




The built environment:transit stop

Primary Move transit stopor

Moving a transit stop further away from thecrossing will have fewer people suddenly startrunning as they see their bus or train arrive orleave.

Eliminate stop Eliminating the transit stop does the same asmoving the stop and may be a better option ifthe location is already adequately served bytransit or a nearby stop for the same route.

Secondary Refer to insufficient crossinginfrastructure

N/A


Move transit stopor

See above

Eliminate stop See aboveSecondary,

nearby schoolRefer to insufficient crossing

infrastructureN/A

The built environment:road/streetinfrastructure

Primary Implement physicalseparation

or

Physical separation keeps users in the desiredareas of travel and therefore decreases thepotential for conflicts and incidents.

Pre-made concreteseparation blocks

Using pre-made, ready-to-use sections is a fasterand more economical way of providing physicalseparation as described above.

Secondary Pavement markingsor

See above

Zebra stripes See abovePrimary, nearby

schoolImplement physical

separationor

See above

Quick curb See aboveSecondary,

nearby schoolRaised crosswalksor

See above

Bollardsor

Obstructions work well to provide structure,and slow down and guide users toward theareas where they are preferred to walk orbike. Bollards are good because they allow forbike users and ADA users to continue to usethe facility, compared to using fencing. Somefind that bollards can present a fixed objecthazard to cyclists.

Fencing Fencing should only be used in cases where it isparamount that users do not attempt to crossundesirably.

The built environment:visibility

Primary Add signage See aboveSecondary Refer to horizontal

crossing designor

N/A

Maintenance of vegetationor

Unmaintained vegetation can potentiallydecrease visibility.

Add street lights Street lights are especially important in denserurban areas with transit running outside ofdaylight hours available nearby.


Add signageand

See above

Refer to horizontalcrossing design

N/A


Maintenance of vegetationor

Unmaintained vegetation can potentiallydecrease visibility.

Add street lights See above

(continued)

Alligood et al 21



Lack of path userinformation: trail speed

Primary Speed treatment Many different types of speed treatments areavailable. They are especially useful on high-volume routes used primarily for commuting.Even if the treatment chosen is ADA-compliant, it should not be implemented onroutes with frequent ADA-use.

Secondary Add signage See abovePrimary, nearby

schoolSpeed treatment See above


Obstructions Obstructions work well to provide structure,slow down users, and push them toward theareas where they are preferred to walk orbike. A variety of different options are availabledepending on the location.

Lack of path userinformation: signage

Primary Add signage See aboveSecondary Tactile warning surfaces This solution can provide critical information,

especially to ADA users, and enable accessPrimary, nearby

schoolAdd signageor

See above

Variable message signs See aboveSecondary,

nearby schoolIn-pavement markeror

This solution is especially useful in urban areas,areas without street lights, and areas with highvehicle speeds.

Automatic RRFBs See aboveLack of path user

information: non-compliance

Primary Obstructions See aboveSecondary Variable message signs See abovePrimary, nearby

schoolObstructions See above


Educational initiativesand

Especially near schools it can be important tostrengthen the understanding of the dangers oftrains to children.

Variable message signs See aboveLack of driver

information:negotiation

Primary Dynamic envelopingand

See above

Conflict paint See aboveSecondary Signage

orSee above

Traffic lights See abovePrimary, nearby

schoolRaised crosswalksand

See above


See above

Conflict paint See aboveSecondary,

nearby schoolRRFBsor

See above

Automatic RRFBsor

See above

Traffic lights See aboveLack of driver

information: vehiclespeed

Primary Speed treatmentor

Many different types of speed treatments areavailable. They are especially useful on high-volume routes with low truck rates.

Pedestrian hybrid beacon(PHB)

or

PHBs are generally a good way of allowingpedestrians to make others aware of theirpresence, without continuously disturbingtraffic when no pedestrians are present. Thisenforces the driver’s attention toward pathusers and enables them to stop or slow downearlier.

RRFB See above

(continued)


table is based on Table 2 but is operationalized to makeit easier for the agency using it to mark and reviewselected treatments. Table 4 is a condensed version of theoriginal table and the full version can be found in thesupporting publication (13).

The existing stop line is located 20 ft away from thecrossing but should be moved slightly further away fromthe tracks to increase sight distance. The trail carries highvolumes of pedestrians and bikes throughout the day,

and on average more pedestrians and bikes than motorvehicles enter the crossing. It is in the city’s interest tocontinue to prioritize and support the high volumes ofpedestrians and bikes. A raised crosswalk addresses inad-equate vertical design issues by increasing the driver’sfocus on the highway–path crossing, as opposed to solelyon the highway–railroad crossing.

The combination of a raised crosswalk, conflictpaint, and dynamic envelope further strengthens the



Secondary Conflict paintand

See above

Dynamic enveloping See abovePrimary, nearby

schoolSpeed treatmentsand

See above

In-pavement markeror


HAWKor

See above

RRFB See aboveSecondary,

nearby schoolInstall active speed sign This reminds motorists of their speed as it

compares with the posted speed limit.Lack of driver

information: signagePrimary Add signage

orSee above

Add pavement markings Pavement markings provide structure andinformation to users about appropriatenegotiation.

Secondary Refer to insufficientcrossing infrastructure

N/A


Add signageor

See above

Add pavement markingsand

See above

Refer to insufficientcrossing infrastructure

N/A


Speed treatmentsor

See above

In-pavement markingsor


RRFBs See above

Note: This table does not include all possible types of treatments and they may be excluded for several reasons, such as that the treatment is not

commonly used, is not permitted in Oregon, or is experimental. Several treatments can be interchanged at the responsible agency’s discretion.

Table 3. Counts from the Observations and Video Surveillance

Mode of transport July 7, 2016, 8 am–9 am July 6, 2016, 5:15 pm–6:15 pm July 6, 2016, 3:23 pm–4:38 pm

Cars 136 281 439Pedestrians 55 68 54Bikes 154 305 250Trains 0 0 0

Alligood et al 23

perception of the crossing as a single, complex crossing.This enables motor vehicles to better assess the crossingbefore entering and therefore negotiate it more safely.This can potentially lead to a decrease in conflictsbetween users and in the observance of illegal behavior.Further suggestions include adding a slight uphill slopeon both sides of the raised crosswalk to nudge bicy-clists to decrease their speed as they are approaching.This enables other users to access the raised crosswalkmore easily. The changes should be made to ensurecompliance with Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA) and Proposed Rights-of-Way Guidelines(PROWAG) requirements. Figures 5 and 6 show theproposed changes.

Conclusions

This research investigated and utilized several differentmethods and approaches to develop a methodology thatcan serve to support decision-making when selectingappropriate treatments in multimodal, complex intersec-tions. The proposed methodology is designed to be ableto balance a predetermined, prescriptive approach withthe professional judgment of the agency carrying out theinvestigation. It allows the practitioner to utilize collectedinformation about a complex multimodal intersection,

apply it to a predetermined set of specifications usingengineering judgment, and by that come up with a set oftreatments that has previously been found to address theissues identified.

Currently there is not a standardized methodologyfor selecting appropriate treatments at complex railroadcrossings, and they are either treated as two separatecrossings or by following guidelines specific to theresponsible DOT. Because complex intersections aregenerally different from each other, having a standar-dized method that does not allow for engineering judg-ment is not a preferred option. However, having astandardized set of guidelines that can support the workdone by rail divisions and local governments across thecountry can improve outcomes when selecting treat-ments. A previously agreed-on methodology allows therelevant agency to streamline their crossing improve-ment efforts; to easily communicate and inform thepublic of the decisions made and their reasons for doingso; to secure stakeholder buy-in before starting a proj-ect or investigation, which will in turn lead to betteroutcomes; to make sure that approach and selectedtreatments are more standardized; and to ensure trans-parency in the organization to make at-grade crossingssafer for pedestrians and cyclists, without negativelyimpacting trains or vehicles.

Figure 4. Schematic of the SE Spokane St crossing.


Table 4. Selected Treatments for This Location

Crossings not near schools Crossings near schools

The builtenvironment Primary recommendation

Secondaryrecommendation(s) Primary recommendation

Secondaryrecommendation(s)

h Speed h Lower posted speedlimits

h Ensure that speedlimits are posted andvisible

h Include crossing area inschool zone

h Lower posted speedlimits

orh Ensure that speed

limits are posted andvisible

h Vertical crossingdesign

h Add signage h Install RRFBs h Raised crosswalks h Install automatic RRFBs

h Horizontalcrossing design

h Move path closer to orfurther away fromrailroad tracks

h Signageorh Variable message signs

h Move path closer to orfurther away fromrailroad tracks

orh Install RRFBs

h Install automatic RRFBsorh Install traffic lights

x Stop line x Move stop line closerto railroad tracks

x Raised crosswalks h Move stop line closerto railroad tracks

orh Raised crosswalks

h Raised crosswalksandh Dynamic envelopingandh Conflict paint

h Insufficientcrossinginfrastructure

h Add signageandh Supply crossing optionsandh Add pavement

markingsorh Relocate crossingandh Add pavement

markings

h Dynamic enveloping h Pedestrian refugeorh Install RRFBs

h Raised crosswalksandh Dynamic envelopingandh Conflict paintorh Overcrossingorh Undercrossing

h Transit stop h Move stoporh Eliminate stop

Refer to insufficientcrossinginfrastructure

h Move stoporh Eliminate stop

Refer to insufficientcrossinginfrastructure

h Road/streetinfrastructure

h Implement physicalseparation

orh Quick curb

h Pavement markingsorh Marked crosswalk

h Implement physicalseparation

orh Quick curb

h Raised crosswalksorh Bollardsorh Fencing

h Visibility h Add signage Refer to horizontalcrossing design

orh Maintenance of

vegetationorh Add street lights

h Add signageandRefer to horizontalcrossing design

h Maintenance ofvegetation

orh Add street lights

Lack of path userinformation

Primary recommendation Secondaryrecommendation(s)

Primary recommendation Secondaryrecommendation(s)

x Speed x Speed treatment h Add signage h Speed treatment h Obstructions

h Signage h Add signage h Tactile warningsurfaces

h Add signageorh Variable message signs

h In-pavement markerorh Automatic RRFBs

x Non-compliance

x Obstructionsorh Variable signs


h Obstructionsorh Educational initiativesandh Variable signs


(continued)

Alligood et al 25

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the Oregon Department ofTransportation’s Research Section. The authors would like tothank the ODOT Rail Public Transit Division for their supportand expertise throughout the project. The project was further-

more supported by the FHWA and by the Valle Scholarshipand Scandinavian Exchange Program.

Author Contributions

The authors confirm contribution to the paper as follows:study conception and design: AG, EM, ABA; data collection:ABA, PB, MS; analysis and interpretation of results: ABA,AG, EM; draft manuscript preparation: ABA. All authors

reviewed the results and approved the final version of themanuscript.


Crossings not near schools Crossings near schools

Lack of driverinformation Primary recommendation

Secondaryrecommendation(s) Primary recommendation

Secondaryrecommendation(s)

x Negotiation x Dynamic envelopingandx Conflict paint

h Signageorh Traffic lights

h Raised crosswalksandh Dynamic envelopingandh Conflict paint

h RRFBsorh Automatic RRFBsorh Traffic lights

h Vehicle speed h Speed treatmentorh PHBsorh RRFBs

h Conflict paintandh Dynamic enveloping

h Speed treatmentandh In-pavement markerorh PHBsorh RRFBs

h Active speed sign

h Signage h Add signageorh Add pavement

markings


h Add signageorh Add pavement

markingsandRefer to insufficient

crossinginfrastructure

h Speed treatmentsorh In-pavement markingsorh RRFBs

Figure 5. Proposed changes to SE Spokane St.


References

1. US FRA. Highway-Rail Crossing & Trespassing Fact

Sheet. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington,D.C., 2016.

2. Birk, M. L., A. Ferster, M. G. Jones, P. K. Miller, G. M.Hudson, J. Abrams, and D. Lerch. Rails-with-Trails: Les-sons Learned. U.S. Department of Transportation,Washington, D.C., 2002.

3. Oregon Department of Transportation. Rules of the Road

for Drivers. In Vehicle Code Book. Oregon Department ofTransportation, Salem, OR, 2015.

4. Oregon Department of Transportation. Oregon Pedestrian,

Bicycle and Driver Rules: Selected Statutes. OregonDepartment of Transportation, Salem, OR, 2016.

5. FHWA. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Fed-eral Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 2009.

6. AASHTO. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and

Streets, 6th ed. American Association of State Highwayand Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., 2011.

7. FDOT. Trail Intersection Design Handbook. FloridaDepartment of Transportation, Tallahassee, FL, 1996.

8. Noyce, D. A., Z. Li, J. Ash, and G. Khan. Best PracticesSynthesis and Guidance in At-Grade Trail Crossing Treat-

ments. Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul,MN, 2013.

9. Birk, M. L., A. Ferster, M. G. Jones, P. K. Miller, G. M.

Hudson, J. Abrams, and D. Lerch. Rails-with-Trails: Les-

sons Learned—Literature Review, Current Practices, Con-

clusions. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington,

D.C., 2002.10. Meeker, F., D. Fox, and C. Weber. A Comparison of

Driver Behavior at Railroad Grade Crossings with Two

Different Protection Systems. Accident Analysis & Preven-

tion, Vol. 29, No. 1, 1997, pp. 11–16.11. Metaxatos, P., and P. S. Sriraj. Pedestrian/Bicyclist Warn-

ing Devices and Signs at Highway–Rail and Pathway–Rail

Grade Crossings. Illinois Center for Transportation, Ran-

toul, IL, 2013.12. Khattak, A., and Z. Luo. Pedestrian and Bicyclist Viola-

tions at Highway–Rail Grade Crossings. Transportation

Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research

Board, 2011. 2250: 76–82.13. Bovbjerg, A., M. Sheth, A. Goodchild, and E. McCor-

mack. Multi-Modal Intersections: Resolving Conflicts

Between Trains, Motor Vehicles, Bicyclists and Pedestrians.

Report No. FHWA-OR-18-04. Oregon Department of

Transportation, Salem, OR, 2017.

The Standing Committee on Highway/Rail Grade Crossings

(AHB60) peer-reviewed this paper (18-04794).

Figure 6. Proposed changes to SE Spokane St.

Alligood et al 27

Documents

Rails-Next-to-Trails: A Methodology for Selecting ...depts.washington.edu/sctlctr/sites/default/files/... · tion and traffic engineers and planners usually refer to for guidance