CHAPTER 5

State of the Practice

This chapter presents the state of the practice regarding electronic surveillance of rail crossings, with an emphasis on rail transit and commuter rail crossings. The state of the practice was established through takeaways from the literature review, analyses of survey responses, and interviews for selected case examples. This also includes analyses of documentation received from the commuter rail and transit agencies.

Actions Moving Forward

There has been considerable success in reducing fatalities at rail crossings since consistent and regular efforts were made through legislation, regulation, data gathering, improved safety treatments, and monitoring efforts.

It is necessary to build on success from existing efforts and enhance safety. The need for safety data and the decisions to be made based on those data is felt within rail transit and commuter rail agencies, FTA, FRA, and freight railroads.

In addition, many communities are facing problems because of blockages of crossings for extended periods. There is a need to tie in the data collected about train events at crossings with broader traffic management systems within a community or city to improve the safety and efficiency of traffic flow in the vicinity of rail crossings.

The need for electronic surveillance of rail crossings arises from

• Safety monitoring,
• Increasing vehicular compliance or reducing violations,
• Avoiding train collisions with vehicles and pedestrians,
• Traffic management,
• Security,
• Incident investigation,
• Remote monitoring and control,
• Safety data collection and analysis, and
• Assessment of the effectiveness of traffic control and warning devices.

Systems and Technologies

There are various systems and technologies in use, including

• Basic camera set up for photo enforcement (for example, as used at rail crossings in corridors Metra and LACMTA operate);

• Video analytics tools integrated with CCTV/PTZ cameras to enhance risk rating and improve safety treatments and performance (for example, as used by TriMet);
• The establishment of the Video System Control Center to integrate cameras (PTZ and CCTV) and Intelligent, AI-based Video System (for example, as used by the UTA system for TRAX and FrontRunner);
• AI-based Video Analytics System to detect and profile characteristics of trespassers (for example, as used by Rutgers Team on FTA-sponsored pilot studies);
• Elaborate CCTV as well as LIDAR-/RADAR-based systems (for example, as used by Network Rail); and
• Acoustic sensor-based rail crossing monitoring and its integration tied up with traffic management and emergency services systems (for example, as used in TRAINFO implementations).

Decision Factors for Electronic Surveillance at Rail Crossings

Decision factors when setting up electronic surveillance include the following:

• Will it help understand and prevent drivers’ unsafe behaviors?
• Will it help understand and prevent pedestrians’ unsafe behaviors?
• Will it help reduce/prevent trespassing, suicides, crashes, and injuries?
• Will it improve operational efficiency and delay reductions on surface streets?
• Will it improve rail operations and safety?
• Will it help develop better safety metrics?
• Will it reduce emissions from idling vehicles at blocked crossings?
• Are champions/trained staff available?
• How much will it cost to set up and maintain?
• Is it easy to implement?
• How effective is it?
• Are there existing laws and policies that may constrain the use?
• What is public perception and reaction?
• Will it reduce manual operating costs?
• Will it provide accurate and reliable information?
• Is it resilient to broad weather and climate conditions?
• Will it protect personal privacy and avoid personal identification?
• Will it be interoperable with other systems/technologies?

Motivation for Electronic Surveillance

The motivations for electronic surveillance varied from agency to agency. They include

• Monitoring crashes and pedestrians’ behavior;
• Monitoring trespassing and/or developing good video analytics for the same;
• Monitoring the effectiveness of treatments through before-and-after videos;
• Monitoring the vital health status of the traffic signal, gates, island relay, and others, thus reducing inspection time by conductors and maintenance staff;
• Conducting photo enforcement;
• Using the system for research, real-time hazard detection, and maintenance support;
• Monitoring and identifying types of violations to formulate better engineering and enforcement solutions;
• Monitoring to improve traveler information systems, traffic management, emergency services, and related analytics; and

• Using monitoring data to produce risk models for first responders to identify which crossings impact emergency calls the most and the magnitude of this impact.

Implementations

Various factors that present barriers, challenges, and constraints for implementations include

• Complexity,
• Costs,
• Legal factors,
• Funding,
• Institutional factors,
• Technological factors,
• Maintenance,
• Multi-jurisdictions involved with rail crossing, and
• A high number of false positives.

Measures of effectiveness considered relevant and important for evaluating electronic surveillance at rail crossings include

• Rate of compliance/violation,
• Number of collisions avoided,
• Number of trespassers avoided,
• Number of instances crossing is blocked,
• Duration of blockage on surface streets,
• Crash frequencies,
• Rate of violations per gate activation,
• System accuracy,
• False positives,
• Missed detections,
• Reduction in first-responder delays,
• Reduction in traffic delays at blocked crossings, and
• Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles idling at blocked crossings.

Success factors include

• Having a champion,
• Adequately trained staff,
• Multiple and diverse applications,
• Availability of funding,
• Relevant institutional support,
• Video analytics providing safety performance measures,
• Ongoing maintenance and updating,
• Data and analysis helpful in decision-making,
• Increased safety equipment compliance, and
• Quantifying benefits and costs of blocked crossings.

Causes of failure include

• Lack of institutional support,
• Lack of or turnover of trained staff,
• Lack of technical resources,
• Being used for a single instance/purpose,
• Technology becoming obsolete,

• Not being maintained or updated,
• Legal hurdles,
• Lack of funding to install and maintain,
• Costs for both installation and regular operation and maintenance, and
• False positives.

Lessons Learned from Practices

• Applications: There is a need to have diverse applications to increase the value of the system.
• Technologies: There is a need to embrace advancement in AI and monitoring technologies.
• Systems: There is a need to be integrated and updated.
• Institutional Support: There is a need to have institutional administration and financial support.
• Performance Measurement: The system would provide more value if the data obtained from the monitoring system is used for performance measurement.
• Enhance Safety and Security by Complementing the “three E’s”: The safety data obtained at a greater granular level can complement and enhance all three “E’s.”