Download - 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
Maged Elmadhoon, M.Eng., P.Eng. Manager, Transportation Planning
Transportation Planning & Design Division City of London
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]
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
● Low in maintenance & operation cost.
● Medium in susceptibility to environmental factors and adverse weather impacts
● Moderate potential on reduction in the frequency of vulnerable road user
● Moderate potential to reduce collisions
● Applicable as a visual aid only
● Could be covered with snow
Surface Treatment
● Moderate in capital cost
● Medium in maintenance & operation cost.
● Medium in susceptibility to environmental factors and adverse weather impacts
● Moderate potential on reduction in the frequency of vulnerable road user
● Moderate potential to reduce collisions
● 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
Group Advantage Disadvantage
Physical Barriers
● Medium in capital cost
● Medium in maintenance & operation cost.
● Medium in susceptibility to environmental factors and adverse weather impacts
● 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
Group Advantage Disadvantage
Visual warning
● Medium to high in capital cost
● Medium to high in maintenance & operation cost.
● Medium in susceptibility to environmental factors and adverse weather impacts
● Medium potential on reduction in the frequency of vulnerable road user
● Medium potential to reduce collisions
● Applicable as a visual aid only
Audible warning
● Low in capital cost
● Low in maintenance & operation 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
● Medium in susceptibility to environmental factors and adverse weather impacts
● 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?
● Railway crossing sign/No. of tracks sign
● Advance warning signs.
● Pavement marking as per CRRGCS.
● Active system (auditory / visual).
● Adequate illumination at the crossing.
● Automatic Gates covering sidewalks.
Is the train
frequency more
than 32
trains/day?
● Railway crossing sign/No. of tracks sign
● Advance warning signs.
● Pavement marking as per CRRGCS.
● 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)
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)