H.F. Review of Fallowfield at-Grade Rail Crossing - City of Ottawa (Fina...

HUMAN FACTORS NORTH INC. Human Factors Review of the Fallowfield At-Grade Rail Crossing City of Ottawa

FINAL REPORT

HUMAN FACTORS REVIEW OF THE FALLOWFIELD AT-GRADE RAIL CROSSING

Submitted to:

Ms. Krista Tanaka City of Ottawa

Ottawa, Ontario K1P 0B9

Email: [email protected]

Prepared by:

Alison Smiley, Ph.D., CCPE Thomas Smahel, M.Arch., CCPE

Human Factors North Inc.

174 Spadina Avenue, Suite 202 Toronto, Ontario M5T 2C2

Phone: (416) 596-1252 Fax: (416) 596-6946

E-mail: [email protected]

March 31, 2015


TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1

2 REVIEW OF CIMA MEMORANDUM RE STOP LINE PLACEMENT .......................................................... 1

3 REVIEW OF STOP LINE LITERATURE .................................................................................................... 1

4 OTTAWA FALLOWFIELD SITE VISIT................................................................................................... 2

4.1 SITE VISIT OBSERVATIONS ................................................................................................................. 2 4.2 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................ 3

4.2.1 EB1.......................................................................................................................................... 3 4.2.2 WB1 ........................................................................................................................................ 4 4.2.3 EB2.......................................................................................................................................... 5 4.2.4 Compliance ............................................................................................................................. 5 4.2.5 Speed Observations ................................................................................................................. 5 4.2.6 Crossing Conspicuity ................................................................................................................ 6 4.2.7 Miscellaneous Observations .................................................................................................... 7

5 MONTRAL SITE VISIT ........................................................................................................................ 7

5.1 SITE VISIT OBSERVATIONS ................................................................................................................. 9 5.2 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................ 9

5.2.1 Boulevard Segneurial ............................................................................................................... 9 5.2.2 Boulevard du Millenaire..........................................................................................................10 5.2.3 Crossing Conspicuity ...............................................................................................................10 5.2.4 Compliance ............................................................................................................................10

6 DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................................................11

6.1 COMPLIANCE .................................................................................................................................11 6.2 SPEED ..........................................................................................................................................12 6.3 GATE CONSPICUITY .........................................................................................................................13

7 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................13

8 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................13


Page 1

1 INTRODUCTION The City of Ottawa requested the assistance of Human Factors North Inc. (HFN) in undertaking a human factors assessment of the Fallowfield at-grade rail crossing which is coincident with a signalized intersection with a bus transitway. There have been a number of incidents, mostly on the eastbound approach (referred to as EB1), where vehicles are stopping beyond the stop bar and either reversing to avoid the gate coming down on the vehicle or getting caught under the gate. To complete this assessment we have carried out the following work:

1. Reviewed and commented on a 2014 Technical Memorandum as it relates to the location of the stop bars and to guidance in the event that the stop bars should be relocated further back from the crossing signal gates.

2. Reviewed the scientific literature on the impact of stop bars on driver stop position. 3. Conducted a human factors review of the Fallowfield crossing, including a site visit with

observations of signs, signals and markings, speed and stop location relative to stop lines. 4. Conducted similar reviews of two combination rail crossing/signalized intersections in

Montreal to determine how they operate with regard to vehicle stopping locations as compared to the Fallowfield crossing, and how this might be influenced by various design and signing features including stop line placement.

5. Based on the CIMA technical memorandum, review of the literature on stop lines, and

human factors assessments of the Fallowfield crossing and a similar crossing in Montral, recommended countermeasures to improve stopping behaviour.

2 REVIEW OF CIMA MEMORANDUM RE STOP LINE PLACEMENT

The CIMA Technical Memorandum of June 2014 concludes that:

1. The only clear and unambiguous standards that precisely detail the location of the stop line are provided in the MUTCDC.

2. There is no guideline provided for the distance between the stop line to the railway warning device (in this case, the gates).

3. The location of the current stop lines is in accordance with the MUTCDC in that they exceed the minimum perpendicular distance of 5.0 m from the closest rail.

3 REVIEW OF STOP LINE LITERATURE

We did not find any studies specifically dealing with driver response to stop lines at a combined traffic signal and railway crossing. However, there are studies that suggest stop lines, when added to crosswalks (Mortimer & Nagamachi, 1969), stop lines alone (Mortimer, Nagamachi, & Carlson, 1969) stop lines with signs and pavement markings (Van Houten, 1988) and stop lines when moved (Retting & Van Houten, 2000) change driver behaviour in that they reduce encroachment into pedestrian crosswalks. Based on their study, Mortimer and Nagamachi 1969 state that This indicates that drivers use the stop line as a cue for determining the stopping position, but because it is some distance from the crosswalk they allow themselves a fair amount of latitude around the stop line itself. For this reason, the variances in stopping position were fairly large, but the stop line was evidently quite effective in reducing crosswalk encroachment.


Page 2

In the second study Mortimer et al. (1969) found that the inclusion of a stop line, or a stop line and a painted crosswalk, resulted in stopping distances that were further from the intersection than when there was a crosswalk with no stop line, or no stop line or crosswalk. In the third study, the simple use of advance stop lines and sign prompts was found to reduce pedestrian-vehicle conflicts by almost 80 percent at a crosswalk on a six-lane urban street (Van Houten 1988). On a street with a 30 mph (50 km/h) speed limit conflicts were observed before and after stop lines were painted on the pavement and signs with the message STOP HERE FOR PEDESTRIANS, accompanied by an arrow pointing down at 45 degrees to the road, were installed 50 ft. (15 m) before the crosswalk. The proportion of motorists who stopped at least 10 ft. (3 m) from the crosswalk increased from 50% to over 95%. Driver stop position was examined at four signalized intersections in St. Petersburg, Florida. In the baseline period the stop line was positioned 4 ft. (1.2 m) back from the crosswalks at all four intersections. The stop lines were then removed and installed 20 ft. (6.0 m) back from the crosswalks. Over 2,000 drivers were observed during the baseline period and over 3,000 drivers were observed when the stop lines were moved further away from the crosswalk. Driver compliance was defined as either the leading edge of the vehicle at or behind the stop line with the leading edge of the vehicle ahead of the stop line, but with the front tires behind her in contact with the stop line. The percentage of drivers who stopped at least 4 ft. (1.2 m) from the crosswalk increased from 74% to 92% while drivers who stopped inside the crosswalk decreased from 25% to 7% (Retting and Van Houten 2000). Thus, the four studies were unanimous in finding that the position of the stop line has a strong influence on stopping position, and can be used effectively to reduce encroachment into pedestrian crosswalks.

4 OTTAWA FALLOWFIELD SITE VISIT 4.1 Site Visit Observations Our site visit was made on January 16, 2015 between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. The day was sunny and very cold. There was residual snow on the roads after plowing but stop lines could still be seen. The intersection of concern is the crossing of the combined bus transitway and rail crossing at Fallowfield Road. This is a skewed crossing; however, the stop lines for the intersection are perpendicular to the roadway as are the railway gates. It was our understanding from the City of Ottawa that the eastbound approach to the crossing is the most problematic, with instances of vehicles stopping beyond the stop line and being caught under the gates. Damage to gates is a concern, but drivers continuing through when a train is approaching is an even greater concern. In order to understand driver behaviour at the crossing and to understand what features of the intersection might affect stopping behaviour, we made observations of the stopping location of vehicles at the crossing of concern and two comparison locations along Fallowfield Road. The three sites were as follows:

1. EB1: the crossing of concern, that is, the eastbound approach to the intersection with the bus transitway and rail crossing

2. WB1: the westbound approach to the intersection with the bus transitway and rail crossing


Page 3

3. EB2: the eastbound approach to the intersection (Barrhaven Crossing plaza) 250 m. upstream of the intersection referred to as EB1 above

Both through lane and curb lane passenger vehicles were observed. Large vehicles were a small percentage of the overall traffic and so were not included in the sample. We observed stopping location in terms of the front bumper of the vehicle relative to the stop line. Vehicle positions were classified as bumper:

Behind the first (wide) stop line

On the first (wide)stop line

Between the first and second stop line

On the second line

Beyond the second line

In the case of the WB1 crossing east of the railway crossing, there was no second line, and vehicles were indicated to be so many quarter metres beyond the first line (e.g., 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0 m). 4.2 Results 4.2.1 EB1

At EB1 there was a wide stop line, the far side of which, according to the CIMA Technical Memorandum dated June 2014, was 2.4 m from the gates. There was a second narrower stop line 1.2 m from the gates. This line is significantly faded. It is our understanding from the City of Ottawa that it will not be repainted. There was no pedestrian crossing. On the approach there were ground mounted STOP LINE signs on either side of the roadway. We observed the stopping location for 77 vehicles to be as follows:

79% stopped with their bumpers behind the line 8% stopped on the first line 6% stopped between the first and second lines 8% stopped beyond the second line, including the 5% (4 vehicles) with bumpers beyond

the gates, one by a full car length (see Photo 1)


Page 4

Photo 1. Fallowfield Crossing (EB1) Two of the four drivers who stopped beyond the gates backed up to avoid being caught by the gates, should they have come down. In one of these cases there was a train visible in the station. With respect to relative compliance of drivers in the curb lane versus the passing lane, the following results were found:

85% in curb lane were at or behind stop line; 3% (1/39) were past the gates 89% in passing lane were at or behind stop line; 8% (3/38) were past the gates

4.2.2 WB1

At WB1 there was a single wide stop line at the transitway intersection. Beyond the signalized intersection, 66 m from this stop line, were the gates and additional stop lines adjacent to the tracks. There was no pedestrian crossing. On the approach there were no STOP LINE signs. We observed the stopping location for 41 vehicles to be as follows:

41% stopped with their bumpers behind the transitway intersection stop line 17% stopped on the stop line 42% stopped beyond the stop line The 42% included 20% (8) who stopped more than 1 metre beyond the stop line, and 10%

(4) who stopped a full car length or more beyond the stop line With respect to relative compliance of drivers in the curb lane versus the passing lane, the following results were found:

79% in the curb lane were at or behind the stop line; 16% (3/19) were at least 1 m past the stop line

41% in the passing lane were at or behind the stop line; 41% (9/22) were at least 1 m past the stop line


Page 5

4.2.3 EB2

At EB2 there was a wide stop line followed by two crosswalk lines. We observed the stopping location for 36 vehicles to be as follows:

61% stopped with their bumpers behind the stop line 19% stopped on the stop line 8% stopped between the stop line and the first crosswalk line 3% stopped on the first crosswalk line 8% stopped beyond the first crosswalk line within the pedestrian crosswalk

With respect to relative compliance of drivers in the curb lane versus the passing lane, the following results were found:

87% in the curb lane were at or behind the stop line; 76% in the passing lane were at or behind the stop line

4.2.4 Compliance

Based on a comparison of the results from EB 1, EB 2 and WB 1, compliance at EB 1 was best (87% with bumpers before or at the stop line), followed by EB2 (80%) and WB1 (58%). The best performance at EB1 may be in part because of the use of STOP LINE signs. The worst performance at WB1 may be because neither a close-by railway gate nor a pedestrian crossing was present nor were there any STOP LINE signs, and so there was little consequence of stopping beyond the stop line. Even though there was better compliance at EB1 than at WB1, there was more inference with the gates at EB1. This is because the margin of error was considerably less at EB1, where the gates are 2.4 m from the stop line, as compared to that at WB1, where the gates are 66 m from the stop line. The result was 5% of vehicles potentially interfering with descending gates at EB1 but no interference observed at WB1. At EB2, 3 out of 36 vehicles or 8.3% stopped within the pedestrian crosswalk. The same percentage of vehicles stopped beyond the second line at EB1 with the hazard of gates, as stopped there at EB2 with the hazard of a pedestrian crosswalk. Thus, non-compliance was similar at EB1 and EB2. At EB1 compliance of vehicles in the curb and passing lanes was similar (85% and 89% respectively), whereas at WB1 and EB2 compliance of vehicles in the curb lane was better than that of vehicles in the passing lane (79% vs. 41%, and 87% vs. 76% respectively.) Lower speeds in the curb lane may make compliance easier for vehicles caught in the dilemma zone. 4.2.5 Speed Observations

The speed limit on Fallowfield Road is 80 km/h. We made observations of 25 free flow speeds on the eastbound approach while the two upstream signals were green. The roads had some residual snow after plowing which may have contributed to slightly slower speeds than we would have observed on dry pavement. Free flow traffic speeds ranged from 59 to 83 km/h with a mean of 73.4 km/h and an 85th percentile of 80.2 km/h.


Page 6

4.2.6 Crossing Conspicuity

With respect to the conspicuity of the rail crossing, there are advance crossing signs, advance crossing pavement markings, and crossbucks in both directions (EB1, WB1) and at EB1, ground-mounted STOP LINE signs. The approach in both directions is on a tangent and all signs are visible at a considerable distance, as are the flashers. On the westbound approach the stop line at the transitway intersection can be seen 5.8 seconds away at 60 km/h and the tracks cannot be seen until 3 seconds away, well after passing the transitway stop line. On the eastbound approach, the stop lines at EB2 and EB1 can be seen at 5.2 seconds and 6.3 seconds away at 60 km/h, respectively, and the tracks at EB1 at 3.5 seconds. Thus, at the mean recorded speed of 73.4 km/h, these distances are equivalent to travel times of 4.7 seconds for the stop line and 2.7 seconds for the tracks. However, there are signs on both sides of the eastbound lanes pointing to the stop line. On the westbound approach (WB1) there are no STOP LINE signs. Perhaps this contributes to the lower rate of compliance. The gate hinges are gun metal gray and blend with the background.. The traffic signals at EB1 are positioned in an unusual way (see Photo 2). There are three signals. Signal 1 on the left side is closer to the eastbound driver than Signal 2 on the right side. Signal 2 in the standard position on the far side of the intersection on the right side. Signal 3 is unusual and is on the nearside of the intersection on the right. If anything one would expect the addition of a signal on the nearside on the right to cause people to stop further back from the stop line. This may also have contributed to better compliance at EB1 than at EB2.

Photo 2. Positioning of Traffic Signals at EB1


Page 7

4.2.7 Miscellaneous Observations

Twice we saw queues of buses on the transitway outbound from Fallowfield Station (one queue of 3 and one queue of 4 buses) while trains crossed, raising the question of why they cannot cross simultaneously. On one occasion we noted that buses were not given priority after the train crossed. However, we understand from the City of Ottawa that the Peer Review/Safety Audit found that the safest operation of the traffic signal was to hold the intersection in an all-red state to prevent any vehicle movement during the passing of trains at the crossing. The Peer Review/Safety Audit also stipulated that following the passing of a train at the crossing, the traffic signal would exit the all-red state to service east-west traffic on Fallowfield Road before servicing Southwest transitway buses. As such, the signal operation/phasing here will not be revised. We observed that when snowplows approached the crossing they slowed considerably and raised their plows to go over the tracks. Within a two minute period, we saw two snowplows, an ambulance with siren sounding, two buses waiting for the crossing and a train in the crossing. We observed that buses with many passengers have to wait more time to activate the lights to cross Fallowfield Road than does a single driver exiting from Barrhaven Crossing plaza have to wait for a signal change on Fallowfield Road. We understand from the City of Ottawa that at all times of day, bus traffic on the Southwest transitway receives transit priority through advanced detection on the northbound and southbound approaches to Fallowfield Road. The Fallowfield Road and Southwest transitway traffic signal is coordinated for Fallowfield Road traffic for six hours (25%) of each weekday during which time, traffic on the Southwest transitway may experience slightly more delay. For the remaining 18 hours (75%) of each weekday and all day Saturday and Sunday, the Fallowfield Road and Southwest transitway traffic signal operates uncoordinated so that delay to bus traffic on the Southwest transitway is minimized. The coordinated operation of the traffic signal here will not be revised at this time.

5 MONTRAL SITE VISIT Crossings similar to the Fallowfield rail crossing can be found in the South Shore area of Montral, where in St-Bruno-de-Montarville trains are travelling at 100 mph going over 4 crossings (Segneurial 62.18, de Boucherville 60.87, du Millenaire 60.04, des Trinitaires 59.36), all with two mainline tracks that intersect Boulevard Sir Wilfrid Laurier. All have traffic lights adjoining the rail crossing with pre-emption. Two of these crossings were selected as being most similar to the Fallowfield rail crossing and observations of stop line compliance were made. Boulevard Segneurial (Crossing 1) is a four-lane divided arterial with two lanes in each direction and a posted limit of 50 km/h. The subject southbound approach widens to three lanes with one left turn lane, one right turn lane, and the middle lane has the option of continuing straight or turning right. There is a sidewalk and a bus stop adjacent to the stop line. The pavement surface between the stop line and the gates is hatched but the paint was partially worn. There is no pedestrian crosswalk (Photo 3). Boulevard du Millenaire (Crossing 2) is a four-lane divided arterial with two lanes in each direction and a posted limit of 50 km/h. The subject northbound approach widens to three lanes with one left turn lane, one right turn lane, and the middle lane has the option of continuing straight or turning right. There is a sidewalk and a bus stop adjacent to the stop line. The area between the stop line and the gates is not hatched. There is a pedestrian crosswalk between the stop line and the gates (Photo 4).


Page 8

Photo 3. Crossing 1 (Boulevard Segneurial)

Photo 4. Crossing 2 (Boulevard du Millenaire)


Page 9

5.1 Site Visit Observations The site visit was made on a sunny day, on January 27, 2015 between 11:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. The roads were dry. Observations were made of vehicles in all three lanes. Large vehicles were a small percentage of the overall traffic and so were not included in the sample. The stopping location was observed in terms of the front bumper of the vehicle relative to the stop line. Vehicle positions were classified as bumper:

Behind the stop line On the stop line Or so many quarter metres beyond the first line (e.g., 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0 m).

At both crossings there was a second stop line beyond the rail crossing and adjacent to the intersecting roadway. Observations were also made of the number of vehicles that stopped at the second stop line. 5.2 Results 5.2.1 Boulevard Segneurial

At Boulevard Segneurial the 18 metre distance between the stop line and the gates was hatched for all three lanes. There was a second narrower stop line beyond the rail crossing that was 43 m from the first stop line. There was no pedestrian crossing. There were traffic signals adjacent to the rail crossing warning lights, about 15 metres beyond the stop line. Adjacent to the stop line there were ground mounted STOP LINE signs on either side of the roadway. The stopping locations for the 77 vehicles observed were as follows:

86% stopped with their bumpers behind the first stop line 5% stopped on the first stop line 4% stopped up to 1.0 m beyond the first stop line 4% stopped 1.0 to 2.0 m beyond the first stop line 0% stopped at the second stop line

The three drivers who stopped more than 1.0 m beyond the first stop line positioned their vehicles about 1/3 of a car length beyond the stop line (the position of the driver was in the vicinity of the stop line). With respect to relative compliance of drivers in the curb lane vs. the passing lane, the following results were found:

92% in the curb lane were at or behind the stop line; 3% (1/37) were more than 1.0 m beyond the stop line

86% in the middle lane were at or behind the stop line; 5% (1/22) were more than 1.0 m beyond the stop line

72% in the left lane were at or behind the stop line; 6% (1/13) were more than 1.0 m beyond the stop line


Page 10

5.2.2 Boulevard du Millenaire

At Boulevard du Millenaire the distance from the stop line to the two crosswalk lines was 15 metres and 18 metres, respectively, and the distance between the stop line to the gates was 24 metres. There was a second narrower stop line beyond the rail crossing that was 55 m from the first stop line. There was no pedestrian crossing. There were traffic signals adjacent to the rail crossing warning lights, about 20 metres beyond the stop line. Adjacent to the stop line there were ground mounted STOP LINE signs on either side of the roadway. The stopping locations for the 61 vehicles observed were as follows:

69% stopped with their bumpers behind the first stop line 20% stopped on the first stop line 10% stopped up to 1.0 m beyond the first stop line 2% stopped 1.0 to 2.0 m beyond the first stop line 0% stopped at the second stop line

The one driver who stopped more than 1.0 m beyond the first stop line positioned the vehicle about one car length beyond the stop line. With respect to relative compliance of drivers in the curb lane vs. the passing lane, the following results were found:

76% in the curb lane were at or behind the stop line; 5% (1/21) were more than 1.0 m beyond the stop line

64% in the middle lane were at or behind the stop line; none (0/22) were more than 1.0 m beyond the stop line

67% in the left lane were at or behind the stop line; none (0/18) were more than 1.0 m beyond the stop line

5.2.3 Crossing Conspicuity

With respect to the conspicuity of both rail crossings, there were two sets of flashers on the gantry as well as a crossbucks, two sets of flashers on both sides of the road, crossbucks on both sides of the road, and ground-mounted STOP LINE signs. There were no advance pavement markings at either crossing. Only Crossing 2 had an advance rail crossing sign. The approach to both crossings was on a tangent and the gantry in advance of the crossing was visible at a considerable distance, as were the flashers. Both roads were four-lane divided arterials with sidewalks on both sides and were posted at 50 km/h. The hatched area between the stop line and the gates at Crossing 1 showed signs of wear in all three lanes with the most degradation in the curb lane. 5.2.4 Compliance

Compliance was best at Crossing 1, where the pavement surface was hatched between the stop line and the gates. At this intersection 86% stopped with their bumpers behind the first stop line and 91% stopped with their bumpers on or behind the stop line. In contrast, at Crossing 2, where there was a pedestrian crosswalk and no hatched area between the stop line and the gates, 69% stopped with their bumpers behind the stop line and 89% stopped with the bumpers on or behind the stop line. There were no issues at either crossing with vehicles interfering with the gates as the stop line was so far back from them.


Page 11

6 DISCUSSION 6.1 Compliance Comparing crossings in Montral and Ottawa, drivers were more compliant at the two Montral crossings than at the three Ottawa crossings, including the rail crossing at Fallowfield (EB1) that we studied (see Table 1). The Montral crossings were in 50 km/h speed limit zones (as compared to 80 km/h speed limit in Ottawa) which may account in part for the better compliance, given that it is easier to stop more accurately from a lower speed. Table 1: Rail Crossing Comparisons

Inter-section

Posted Speed

N %

Stopped behind

line

% Stopped behind line or on line

% Stopped

over line

Distance stop line to gates

% Beyond gates

Stop line

signs Ped.

crossing Hatching

EB1 80 km/h 77 79 87 13 2.4 m 5%

EB2 80 km/h 36 41 58 42 -- N/A N/A

WB1 80 km/h 41 61 80 20 66 m 0

Segneurial 50 km/h 77 86 91 9 18 m 0

du Millenaire

50 km/h 61 69 89 11 24 m 0

An increased distance between the traffic signal stop line and the rail crossing gates appeared to eliminate the problem of vehicles stopping under or beyond the gates. This problem was nonexistent at WB1 in Ottawa and at the two Montral crossings where the distance between the stop line and the gates was 18 m or greater as compared to only 2.4 m at the EB1 (Fallowfield) crossing. At this latter crossing one of the four vehicles with bumpers beyond the gates was a full car length beyond the stop line. As discussed in the review of stop line literature, at four signalized intersections in St. Petersburg, Florida, the stop line, originally 1.2 m back from the crosswalk, was moved an additional 4.8 m back from the crosswalk, resulting in the 92% of drivers stopping before the crosswalk, an improvement from the previous 74%. Based on this study, and based on the three other studies showing the impact of stop line placement on compliance, improved compliance would be expected were the stop line to be moved further back from the railway gates. During observations of 77 vehicles over the course of 3.5 hours, we observed 5% (4 vehicles) with bumpers beyond the gates at EB1. In contrast, at WB1 and at both crossings in Montral, where stop lines were 18 to 66 m from the gates, drivers were very compliant with the stop line and no drivers were observed to stop anywhere near the gates. Consideration should be given to moving the EB1 stop line 5 to 18 m further back from the gates (See Photo 5). Currently the driver has to exceed the stop line by as little as half a car length before coming into potential conflict with the gates. As can be seen from Photo 5, there are no entrances or other features which might interfere with this change in location.


Page 12

Photo 5. Google Streetview image about 50 m. back from the current stop line at the

Fallowfield crossing (EB1) The likely effectiveness of moving the stop line is supported by several findings. First, it is supported by studies of stop line impact on stopping location, which showed less encroachment with pedestrian crossings when the stop line was moved further from the crossing. One study in particular showed greatly improved compliance when the stop line was moved an additional 4.8 m, for a total of 6 m, from the crossing. Second, observations in Ottawa showed high compliance with the stop line at EB1, the approach of interest, but interference with the railway gate by 5% of vehicles when the gate was only 2.4 m from the stop line. Third, observations in Montral showed that long (18 to 24 m) distances between railway crossings and stop lines led to high compliance and no issues of stopping near the gates. 6.2 Speed As noted earlier, we made observations of 25 free flow speeds on the eastbound approach while the two upstream signals were green. The roads had some residual snow after plowing which may have contributed to slightly slower speeds than we would have observed on dry pavements. Free flow traffic speeds ranged from 59 to 83 km/h with a mean of 73.4 km/h and an 85th percentile of 80.2 km/h. This is an arterial with a number of signalized intersections which are closely spaced. Based on our speed results and the roadway environment, a 70 km/h speed limit might be considered. However, it is our understanding from the City of Ottawa that their speed survey data of free flowing traffic on Fallowfield Road in the vicinity of the crossing indicates higher speeds than we measured in non-optimum road conditions. They found an average vehicle speed of


Page 13

78 km/h and an 85th percentile speed of 85 km/h. Their Speed Zoning Policy supports the existing 80 km/h posted speed limit. In their opinion, a reduction of the speed limit here will likely only result in lower driver compliance of the speed limit and enforcement issues over the long term. In absence of any other changes to the road design and environment, we agree with this assessment. 6.3 Gate Conspicuity The gate hinges are gunmetal gray they would stand out more and would not cause any more of a visual blockage if they were painted a fluorescent colour. We understand from the City of Ottawa that this matter is under the jurisdiction of VIA Rail.

7 RECOMMENDATIONS We strongly recommend that the stop line at the Fallowfield signalized intersection/railway crossing of interest be moved upstream by 5 m (a car-length) to 18 m. As noted above, the likely effectiveness of moving the stop line is supported by several findings, including 1) scientific studies showing stop lines influence stopping location, 2) observations in Ottawa showing high compliance with the stop line at EB1, the approach of interest, but interference with the railway gate by 5% of vehicles when the gate was only 2.4 m from the stop line and 3) observations in Montral showing that long (18 to 24 m) distances between railway crossings and stop lines led to high compliance and no issues of stopping near the gates. Based on the CIMA Technical Memorandum, the location of the current stop lines is in accordance with the MUTCDC in that they exceed the minimum perpendicular distance of 5.0 m from the closest rail. There is no guideline provided for the distance between the stop line to the railway warning device (in this case, the gates). Thus, if the stop lines were moved further from the crossing, they would still be in accordance with the MUTCDC.

8 REFERENCES Mortimer, R.G. and Nagamachi, M. Effects of roadway markings on vehicles stopping in pedestrian crosswalks. Highway Safety Research Institute, The University of Michigan. 1969.

Mortimer, R.G., Nagamachi, M., and Carlson, W.L. Experimental investigation of the effects of roadway markings on vehicles stopping in pedestrian crossings. Report HuF-4. Highway Safety Research Institute, The University of Michigan. 1969.

Retting, A. and Van Houten, R. Safety benefits of advance stop lines at signalized intersections: Results of a field evaluation. ITE Journal, Sept. 2000, 47-54. 2000.

Van Houten, R. The effectiveness of advance stop lines and sign prompts on pedestrian safety in a crosswalk on a multilane highway. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 245-251. 1988.

Alison Smiley, Ph.D., CCPE Thomas Smahel, M.Arch., CCPE

H.F. Review of Fallowfield at-Grade Rail Crossing - City of Ottawa (Fina...

Documents

Transcript of H.F. Review of Fallowfield at-Grade Rail Crossing - City of Ottawa (Fina...