Pedestrian Deaths on Railroad Tracks: The Failure of Design Part 2

[B’ Spokes: The following letter (written to a Baltimore Sun reporter) is interesting as it makes a case that fencing to keep trespasser at bay is not the answer but accommodations for pedestrians is the answer.]
**************************************************************************
By Greg Hinchliffe
I had occasion to think of you as I enjoyed a vacation bicycling in Europe this summer, but it was not because the superb bicycle accommodations and cooperative drivers we encountered were relevant to the supportive writing you have done in your column. No, it was because our travel included a Eurailpass, and we traveled extensively on the Deutsche-Bahn, the amazing German state rail system. Our trips on the high-speed ICE trains reminded me of your passionate writing in support of fences and education after the unfortunate death of the teen-aged girl struck by an Acela train while walking on the Amtrak tracks near Essex.
The thing that struck me about this extensive rail network built amidst a densely populated country, was the almost total lack of fences! Two hundred mile-per-hour trains whoosh by trails, yards, and country lanes, separated from them only by a couple of meters of grass. Unaccompanied children ride their bikes on paths alongside trains far faster and quieter than anything in the US. There were fences alongside pastures to keep livestock off the tracks, and there were noise-barriers in some of the towns, but for the most part, the fences along the tracks were short and/or ornamental, or not there at all. There was even an unfenced spread of grass separating the high-speed tracks from a skateboard park. A skateboard park! Can you think of a location more likely to foster mischief and foolishness?
No doubt this is possible because of extensive education of adults and children alike regarding the dangers of getting too close to the tracks, something for which you have rightly advocated, but I think there is more to it. The reason none of the German citizenry strays off the path onto the tracks is because the path is there in the first place. It isn’t necessary to walk or bike on or near the tracks to get from one place to another, because there is an extensive trail network connecting everything to everything else. They don’t have to walk on the Amtrak tracks to get from Middle River to the school, or along the Light Rail tracks to get from Riderwood to Lutherville. Wouldn’t it be better if we had trails in those two locations, complete with over- and/or under-passes where necessary and, yes, some fences as well? I think this would keep people out of danger more effectively than just bigger fences and more emphatic signs.
This one of the reasons I am such an advocate for “Rails with Trails”. An extensive trail system, including trails along the corridors of active rail and transit lines not only reduces the demand for walking or biking on or near the tracks to get somewhere, but replaces the “attractive nuisance” of the train tracks with the “more attractive benefit” of a trail right next to them. The Rails-to-Trails Conservancy has published several studies regarding Rail-with Trail. I think it’s something MTA and other agencies should explore
Continue reading “Pedestrian Deaths on Railroad Tracks: The Failure of Design Part 2”

Death of Jane Holtz Kay, author of Asphalt Nation

Rebuilding Place in the Urban Space quoting New York Times Book Review of Asphalt Nation
In her book’s first section, ”Car Glut: A Nation in Lifelock,” Kay, the architecture critic for The Nation, reports that more driving does not mean more mobility because the number and length of trips needed for everyday life are increasing; that the elderly and the young, who are unable to drive, have been transformed into virtual prisoners; that the United States gives automobiles at least seven times the subsidies it earmarks for public transportation; that improvements in emission controls have been canceled out by an increase in miles driven; that salt used on ice and snow causes trees and vegetation to wither; and that Americans are fat because they drive rather than walk.

To her credit, Kay recognizes that the automobile is not the only culprit. She points out, for example, that Europeans have avoided many American problems not just because of high gasoline taxes and excellent public transportation systems but also because they regard land as a scarce resource to be controlled in the public interest rather than exploited by whoever happens to own it at a particular moment. Thus, European governments have traditionally exercised stringent controls over land development, and they have operated on the theory that the preservation of farms and open space is an appropriate national goal. In Dusseldorf, Germany, possibly the richest city in the world, truck farmers tend their crops within a couple of miles of the city’s skyscrapers, not because alternative land uses would not yield a higher return, but because the law prohibits the very possibility of development.

Given that the review is by Kenneth Jackson, one of the leading urban historians of our time, he is critical, writing:
One wishes, however, that Kay had more effectively anticipated and countered the likely questions of the 40-million-member American Automobile Association and the other powerful elements of the highway lobby. What do current gasoline taxes, meager as they are, pay for? Who should pay for the construction and repair of local roads that serve residential areas? If cars are becoming cleaner and more efficient over time, why will pollution not take care of itself? Who gets the bill for the uninsured motorists who cause the innocent to live out their days in wheelchairs?

https://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2012/12/death-of-jane-holtz-kay-author-of.html

Pedestrian Deaths on Railroad Tracks: The Failure of Design

[B’ Spokes: I’m going to repeat what I have said before about Baltimore Metro area train/pedestrian fatalities “Why would anyone walk on train tracks when there is a perfectly good high speed road with no shoulders or sidewalks to walk on? Oh wait.. never mind. I guess as long as the victims are at fault nobody has to do anything to correct this, right?”
Streets Blog goes into some more detail, and I would like to point out if responsibility is shared it makes it that much harder to hold those who are responsible accountable.]


by Tanya Snyder, Streets blog

The Federal Railroad Administration estimates that 500 people die every year walking on railroad tracks [PDF]. But who bears the responsibility of preventing these deaths? Was it Kristen’s responsibility to avoid trespassing where freight trains roar past? Her town’s responsibility to erect a fence before being spurred on by her death? Should planners have recognized that it’s human nature for people to take a calculated risk to reach the amenities they used? Or was it the railroads’ responsibility to identify where these deaths happen and try to mitigate the risk?

A recent series by reporter Todd Frankel at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch makes clear that the responsibility is shared. But he also points a finger at the railroads, which have been obstructionist as others try to address the issue:

A few years ago, when the [Federal Railroad Administration] tried to get a better sense of who was walking on the tracks — by looking at trespassing cases that didn’t end in a casualty — regulators asked the railroads for help. They wanted the railroads’ internal trespassing reports. The railroads refused.

The agency recently was forced to concede defeat, noting that it “failed to garner the necessary support from the rail industry to conduct the study.”

Then there was the issue of where the casualties occurred.

For years, the agency required railroads to report only the county of a trespassing death or injury. Not the city. Not the closest milepost on the railroad system. Having so few details made it hard to identify hot spots for trespassing, said Ron Ries, director of the agency’s Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Safety and Trespass Prevention Division.

We reported in the spring that FRA guidance on pedestrian safety at railroad tracks focused only on approved crossings, ignoring the risks of so-called “trespassing” that occurs outside of those areas.

Only in the last year did federal law require railroads to provide GPS coordinates of the crashes. Before that, their crash reports only listed the county where the crash happened, making it impossible to identify where these crashes are clustered. Now, with better information, some danger “hotspots” became apparent.

In an interview with Streetsblog, Frankel of the Post-Dispatch said Hyattsville perfectly fits the profile of a likely hotspot for pedestrian deaths on railroad tracks: “It’s a residential neighborhood, high density, the speed limit on [the train tracks] is 70 miles per hour, you have both freight and commuter rail,” Frankel said. “And you have residential on one side, commercial on the other, so people have reasons to be going back and forth.” [Just like in the Baltimore Metro area.

He said that when he visited the site, there were obvious paths of well-worn gravel across the track, but the railroads still claim it’s impossible to know what spots are popular pedestrian crossings. Frankel said that tracks that carry fast trains have to be inspected twice a week by a slow-moving truck. Those trucks clearly see the “deer trails” worn by many feet.

In Villa Park, he said, where Kristen Bowen died, it felt like a train went by every ten minutes. The frequency of train traffic is another risk factor. And he says passenger trains are more dangerous than freight, “because the trains tend to be smaller, lighter, and faster. Quieter.” Many of these cases involved commuter rail and inter-city Amtrak trains.

https://dc.streetsblog.org/2012/12/13/pedestrian-deaths-on-railroad-tracks-the-failure-of-design/

Bicycle route planning, break it down to systems

[B’ Spokes: I like this idea of having bike routes with different purposes, though I might add to these concepts with recreational routes (loops.) Baltimore has Lake Montebello and Druid Lake, NYC has Central Park and Prospect Park.]
*************************************************************************************
Excerpt from Chicago Streets for Cycling Plan 2020
This proposed 645-mile bicycle system will run throughout Chicago’s neighborhoods. The overall system consists of three smaller systems: Neighborhood Bike Routes that utilize residential streets, Crosstown Bike Routes that use collector and arterial roadways, and Spoke Routes that connect all corners of the City to Downtown. Once the network is complete, all Chicagoans will be within 1⁄2 mile of a bicycle facility.
Continue reading “Bicycle route planning, break it down to systems”

Is biking safe?

image

Is Biking Safe Compared to Other Activities?

Fear of traffic is one of the top reasons people don’t bike, but statistically, biking is safer than other modes of travel, says a recent article in Sunset magazine. This infographic shows a comparison…

Of course, some communities are safer for bicyclists than others, and this infographic only looks at a nationwide aggregate.

Blog post here: https://bit.ly/KyeBfd
Continue reading “Is biking safe?”

Cyclists and Pedestrians Can End Up Spending More Each Month Than Drivers

By EMILY BADGER, the Atlantic Cities

Until now there hasn’t been much empirical evidence to allay such concerns. Clifton and several colleagues have attempted to fill that research gap in a project for the Oregon Transportation Research and Education Consortium (read a PDF of the draft [link in referenced article]). They surveyed 1,884 people walking out of area convenience stores, restaurants and bars, and another 19,653 who’d just done their supermarket shopping. Some of the results are unsurprising: Drivers still make up a plurality of customers to all of these businesses. And, with greater trunk capacity, they far outspend people who travel to the grocery store by foot, bike or transit.
But for all of the other business types examined, bikers actually out-consumed drivers over the course of a month. True, they often spent less per visit. But cyclists and pedestrians in particular made more frequent trips (by their own estimation) to these restaurants, bars and convenience stores, and those receipts added up. This finding is logical: It’s a lot easier to make an impulse pizza stop if you’re passing by an aromatic restaurant on foot or bike instead of in a passing car at 35 miles an hour. Such frequent visits are part of the walkable culture. Compare European communities – where it’s common to hit the bakery, butcher and fish market on the way home from work – to U.S. communities where the weekly drive to Walmart’s supermarket requires an hour of dedicated planning.

https://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/12/cyclists-and-pedestrians-can-end-spending-more-each-month-drivers/4066/

Mode switching studies

 
 
“Bikeshare members substantially reduced their use of car – Four in ten (41%) survey respondents drove a car less often; no respondents increased use of car. More than nine in ten respondents who reduced driving indicated that Capital Bikeshare had been a factor contributing to the reduction.”
 
 
2.       Modeshift is often part of the criteria for Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) projects.
 
A.      FHWA reviewed and published the results of four bicycling and walking projects.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/cmaq/research/safetea-lu_phase_1/appendix_c/bicycle_pedestrian.cfm
 
I find their assumptions (and resulting emission-reduction findings) to be conservative. For example, in the first example, they only count VMT change for the part of the trip that takes place on the facility and they assume that the bike rider uses just half of the 8.3 mile facility. The actual total bike trip converts more miles than get counted in their formula (you have to bike to the trail, right?) and they don’t take into account the new bike commuters attracted to a more complete network (network effects). But I suppose it
being conservative lends credibility among more skeptical audiences.
 
B.      The California Air Resources Board (CARB) methodology for calculating cost effectiveness of air quality projects, which usually includes a mode shift
component, seems to be respected (it’s old and doesn’t calculate PM2.5 emissions): https://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/tsaq/eval/mv_fees_cost-effectiveness_methods_may05.doc (starting on page 29).
 
3.       A few studies:
a.       Promoting walking and cycling as an alternative to using cars: systematic review: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC520994/
b.      The relative
influence of urban form on a child’s travel mode to school: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856406000620
 
Best,
 
Darren Flusche
Policy Director
League of American Bicyclists

On the Alliance for Biking & Walking: People Discussion Group
Continue reading “Mode switching studies”

Cycling safer than driving for young people

Researchers from UCL have found that cycling is safer than driving for young males, with 17 to 20 year old drivers facing almost five times greater risk per hour than cyclists of the same age.

"What we found is that risks were similar for men aged between 21 and 49 for all three modes of transport and for female pedestrians and drivers aged 21 and 69 years," said lead author Dr Jennifer Mindell (UCL Epidemiology & Public Health). "However, we found that for young male cyclists between 17 and 20 years of age, cycling was markedly safer than travelling by car.

"An individual who cycles one hour a day for 40 years would cover about 180,000km, whilst accumulating only a one in 150 chance of fatal injury. This is lower than for pedestrians who face a higher fatality rate per kilometre travelled," she added. "The health benefits of cycling are much greater than the fatality risk."

https://www.sciencecodex.com/cycling_safer_than_driving_for_young_people-103342