Strategies for Deterring Trespassing on Rail Transit and Commuter Rail Rights-of-Way, Volume 2: Research Overview (2022)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

19   The objective of the survey was to catalog practices to mitigate trespassing incidents and understand trespassing concerns and issues. This chapter documents the activities and findings of the survey of domestic and non-North American rail transit and commuter rail agencies. This chapter also uses the survey responses to evaluate and compare rail agency approaches, includ- ing broad comparisons of similarities and differences throughout the industry and a detailed comparison of strategy utilization and application between agencies. Survey Methodology Survey Development The survey was developed based on areas of interest from the project’s request for proposals as well as the project’s Annotated Work Plan and literature review. The research team finalized the survey after receiving project panel review comments and several rounds of internal review input. Qualtrics was used to distribute the survey via an anonymous link. Federal law requires protection for human subjects during research investigations. The Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI) followed the necessary protocols. The Texas A&M Institutional Review Board determined the survey was not human subjects research (IRB2019-1145). Survey Distribution The Amplified Work Plan directed the survey distribution to include transit agencies under the FTA State Safety Oversight program, FRA-regulated commuter rail agencies, and at least five non-North American rail transit and commuter rail agencies. Domestic agencies were contacted through a post by APTA to its safety committees. The research team also directly reached out to contacts from FTA, contacts identified at the TRB’s 99th Annual Meeting in January 2020, and contacts identified through online searches. International agencies were contacted by the research team at the TRB Annual Meeting; by the International Union of Railways, on behalf of the research team, to RESTRAIL team members; and by the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, on behalf of the research team, to select Global Railway Alliance for Suicide Prevention team members. The Amplified Work Plan also directed surveys to be distributed to additional stakeholders, such as frontline employees and labor unions. The APTA safety committee membership includes these additional stakeholders. In addition, the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) distributed the survey to several train operators asking them to participate. The survey was active from December 12, 2019, to February 3, 2020. C H A P T E R 3 Online Survey of Practitioners

20 Strategies for Deterring Trespassing on Rail Transit and Commuter Rail Rights-of-Way Survey Analysis The survey responses were pulled on February 3, 2020, for analysis. Duplicate entries were removed for individuals who completed the survey more than once. For these individuals, the most recent response was recorded. In addition, a participant contacted the research team to say that they had provided an incomplete and complete response. Based on the recorded latitude and longitude, the research team removed the incomplete response from the data. In addition, all blank or largely blank responses (defined as not going past the second question) were removed. Next, respondents who reported an “other” affiliation were manually classified based on reported affiliation. These six responses were categorized as five research agencies and one rail transit and commuter rail agency. The analysis included 48 responses. Descriptive statistics were gathered by classification (e.g., rail and commuter rail agency and other affiliations). Survey Findings Table 6 lists the number of respondents by agency and location. Ten submissions did not report their agency but provided a location. Of the 48 completed surveys, 38 were from rail tran- sit and commuter rail agencies, five were from universities or research organizations, three were from rail safety consultants, and two were from the labor community. There were 41 unique agencies or locations from the survey responses, meaning that several agencies had more than one person complete the survey. Two-thirds of the respondent agencies were U.S. rail transit and commuter rail agencies, as displayed in Figure 7. Table 7 lists the U.S. rail transit and commuter rail agencies that participated in the survey. For the unidentified survey response located in Charlotte, North Carolina, it was assumed that the participant was part of the Charlotte Area Transit System. Twenty-seven of the 50 agencies responded to the survey for a capture rate of 54%. The table also shows that of the 22 agencies with light rail services, 13 submitted surveys (59%); of the 14 agencies with heavy rail services, nine submitted surveys (64%); and of the 29 agencies with commuter rail services, 17 submitted surveys (59%). Evaluation of Rail Transit and Commuter Rail Agencies This section focuses on the survey responses provided by the U.S. and non-U.S. rail transit and commuter rail agencies. Initially, the research team reviewed the survey responses by rail operation type to compare rail transit agencies’ approaches to addressing trespassing issues in broader aspects. There were 38 responses from the U.S. and non-U.S. rail transit and commuter rail agencies. Because of multiple responses from several agencies, 31 responses from the 27 U.S. rail transit and commuter rail agencies are represented in the reported findings. In retrieving survey responses by different operation types, the research team had to duplicate the count of some responses, which is a limitation of the survey analysis. As per the limitation of the survey, several agencies have multiple rail operation types, and the survey respondents’ background in a certain operation type was unable to be identified through the survey. First, agency respondents were asked what or who is most impacted by trespass violation inci- dents. Seventeen reported that train crews are the most impacted by trespass violation incidents. Other responses included the following: • Passengers (12 respondents) • Delays (6 respondents) • Other reason—all are equally impacted (1 respondent) • Media/public information/public impression of agency (1 respondent) • Missing response (1 respondent)

Agency Location Number of Respondents Bay Area Rapid Transit San Francisco, CA 1 Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority Austin, TX 1 Chicago Transit Authority Chicago, IL 1 Dallas Area Rapid Transit Trinity Railway Express Dallas–Fort Worth, TX 1 Denton County Transportation Authority Lewisville, TX 1 Finnish Transport Infrastructure Agency Helsinki, Finland 1 Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority Cleveland, OH 1 High Speed 1 London, United Kingdom 1 Houston METRO Houston, TX 1 Los Angeles County Metro Transportation Authority Los Angeles, CA 1 Maryland Area Regional Commuter Rail Baltimore, MD 1 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Boston, MA 1 Metra Commuter Railroad Chicago, IL 1 Metrolink Los Angeles, CA 1 Metro-North Commuter Railroad New York, NY 1 Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority Atlanta, GA 1 Metropolitan Transportation Authority Long Island Rail Road Long Island, NY 2 North County Transit District San Diego, CA 1 Not provided Charlotte, NC 1 Not provided Finland 1 Not provided Quebec, Canada 1 Not provided Zagreb, Croatia 1 Not provided Brussels, Belgium 1 Not provided Brno, Czech Republic 1 Not provided The Netherlands 1 Not provided Paris, France 1 Not provided Chicago, IL 1 Not provided Oslo, Norway 1 Port Authority Transit Corporation Philadelphia, PA 2 ProRail Utrecht, Netherlands 1 Rio Metro Regional Transit District New Mexico Rail Runner Express Albuquerque, NM 1 Sacramento Regional Transit District Sacramento, CA 1 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority San Jose, CA 4 Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer Français Saint-Denis, France 1 Sound Transit Seattle, WA 1 Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority Philadelphia, PA 1 TEXRail Dallas–Fort Worth, TX 1 Transport for London, London Underground London, United Kingdom 1 TriMet Portland, OR 1 Utah Transit Authority Salt Lake City, UT 2 Valley Metro Phoenix, AZ 1 VIA Rail Canada Place Ville Marie, Montréal, Canada 1 Table 6. Survey respondents by agency and location. Figure 7. Overview of the survey respondents.

22 Strategies for Deterring Trespassing on Rail Transit and Commuter Rail Rights-of-Way Transit Agency Location Rail System Type Light Rail Heavy Rail Commuter Rail Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority (CapMetro) Austin, TX X Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (ST) Seattle, WA X X Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS)* Charlotte, NC X Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) Chicago, IL X Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) Dallas, TX X X Denton County Transportation Authority (DCTA) Lewisville, TX X Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA) Cleveland, OH X X Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) Los Angeles, CA X X Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) Baltimore, MD X X X Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) Boston, MA X X X Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County Texas (METRO) Houston, TX X Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) Atlanta, GA X Metropolitan Transportation Authority Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) New York, NY X Metropolitan Transportation Authority Metro-North Commuter Railroad (MNCR) New York, NY X North County Transit District (NCTD) Oceanside, CA X Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation (Metra) Chicago, IL X Port Authority Transit Corporation (PATCO) Philadelphia, PA X Rio Metro Regional Transit District (RMRTD) Albuquerque, NM X Sacramento Regional Transit District (SacRT) Sacramento, CA X San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) San Francisco, CA X X Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) San Jose, CA X Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) Philadelphia, PA X X Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink) Los Angeles, CA X Tarrant Express Railway (TEXRail) Dallas–Fort Worth, TX X Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (TriMet) Portland, OR X X Utah Transit Authority (UTA) Salt Lake City, UT X X Valley Metro Rail, Inc. Phoenix Mesa, AZ X Totals 50 22 14 29 Number Completed Survey 27 13 9 17 Percent Completed Survey 54% 59% 64% 59% *Entry location was provided, and Charlotte was assumed to be in the Charlotte Area Transit System. Table 7. U.S. rail transit and commuter rail agencies—survey participants. Heavy rail agencies considered passengers to be as impacted by trespass violation incidents as train crews. Table 8 lists the percentage of responses by impacted factors and operation type. Next, agency respondents were asked if they had performed studies or collected data showing the characteristics of trespassers. Fifteen reported characteristics of trespassers, including the following: • Mental health issues • Those experiencing homelessness • Distracted • Impaired Factor Commuter Rail Light Rail Heavy Rail Train crews (PTSD, retention, etc.) 53% 50% 40% Maintenance/cleaning crews (right-of-way/vehicle) — — — Maintenance/cleaning crews (right-of-way/station/vehicle) — — — Law enforcement/first responders — — — Delays 11% 7% 10% Passengers 32% 29% 50% Media/public information/public impression of agency 5% 7% — Other(s) (please specify) — 7% — Sum 100% 100% 100% Table 8. Most impacted factors by trespass violation incidents.

Online Survey of Practitioners 23   • White, middle-aged males • Individuals taking shortcuts • Individuals walking recreationally The majority of rail transit and commuter rail agencies in the United States reported that they had not performed studies or collected data or information regarding the characteristics of trespassers, as shown in Table 9. Those who provided details on the characteristics of trespassers conveyed the two mainstream approaches for addressing trespassing incidents: identification of hotspot locations and identification of a trespasser demographic. Several commuter rail agencies indicated that the information to determine target locations for implementing trespassing countermeasures is collected via observations by train engineers, supervisors, and maintenance personnel. Multiple agencies identified the characteristics of trespassers as being under the influ- ence of drugs or alcohol, trespassing intentionally, and being part of homeless encampments. Agency respondents then reported the types of individuals they believe trespassed. There were 18 respondents. Their responses included homeless/transient, individuals with mental health issues, day laborers, working class, college students, school-aged children, individuals walk- ing or riding bicycles, impaired individuals, those committing crimes (e.g., vandalism/graffiti), those taking shortcuts to get to or from the train, and individuals taking pictures or videos. The responses were divided into 11 categories, as shown in Table 10. People who use rail- road right-of-way as a shortcut to their desired destinations were ranked on the top of the list, followed by those experiencing homelessness and those who intend to cause themselves harm. The overall ranking by category is consistent with the ranking of each operation type. Agency respondents then reported what they saw as the major causes of trespass violations. Intentional trespassing (e.g., self-harm or suicide) had the highest number of respondents rank it as the top cause of trespassing violations (n = 11), followed by homeless encampments (n = 8) and persons under the influence of drugs or alcohol (n = 7). Other top reported causes included logical crossing path (n = 6), logical longitudinal path (n = 5), and overt criminal behavior (n = 1). Table 11 shows the weighted average of trespass violation causes for both overall responses and operation type. Overall, the rail agencies reported homeless encampments, logical crossing points Answer Commuter Rail Light Rail Heavy Rail Yes 37% 27% 40% No 63% 73% 60% Sum 100% 100% 100% Table 9. Existing studies or data collection to identify the characteristics of trespassers. Category Commuter Rail Light Rail Heavy Rail Overall Shortcut 6 7 2 15 Those experiencing homelessness 6 4 3 13 Intentional self-harm 3 2 1 6 Criminal behaviors 1 1 2 4 Under influence 1 1 2 4 Misbehaviors 2 1 — 3 Children 1 1 — 2 Convenience/proximity 1 1 — 2 Recreation 2 — — 2 Various 2 — — 2 Mental health issue 1 — 1 2 Total 26 18 11 55 Table 10. Types of individuals considered to be trespassers.

24 Strategies for Deterring Trespassing on Rail Transit and Commuter Rail Rights-of-Way along the right-of-way, and intentional trespass as the three top causes of trespass violations. Those top three causes were consistent with the responses from the commuter and light rail services’ respondents. Respondents from heavy rail services found persons under the influence of drugs or alcohol as the most significant cause of trespass violations, followed by intentional trespass. Next, agency respondents were asked to rank locations they felt were the greatest concern for trespassing. The top-ranked locations overall were passenger stations (n = 12) followed by grade crossings (n = 9). Table 12 shows the weighted average of rail agencies’ locations of concern for trespassing. Overall, agency respondents reported that passenger stations, grade crossings, and locations adjacent to schools/educational institutions were the three main locations of greatest concern for trespassing, which was consistent with responses from light rail agencies. Although respon- dents from three different operation types all agreed that the location adjacent to schools/ educational institutions was one of the top three locations of concern, commuter rail agencies were more concerned about locations adjacent to parks or other recreational areas than loca- tions adjacent to schools/educational institutions. Heavy rail agencies reported that they were most concerned about passenger stations for trespassing, followed by locations adjacent to residential areas and locations adjacent to schools/educational institutions. The research team asked about the extent of usage and the level of effectiveness of each mitigation strategy. To aid visual interpretation of the charts presented in the next section, the research team regrouped the survey responses as shown in Table 13. The following summarizes the findings by mitigation strategy and operation type. Cause of Trespass Violation Operation Type Overall Commuter Rail Heavy Rail Light Rail Homeless encampments 5.9 5.1 5.6 5.8 Logical crossing points along the right-of-way (origin- destination pairing separated by rail right-of-way with a circuitous lawful path to connect) 6.3 5.2 5.9 5.8 Logical longitudinal path (the rail right-of-way is a logical route with limited lawful alternatives) 5.1 4.2 5.4 5.0 Intentional trespass (e.g., self-harm or suicide) 6.0 6.3 5.8 5.7 Persons under the influence of drugs or alcohol 5.2 6.4 5.5 5.6 School-aged child misbehavior 3.3 3.2 3.5 3.0 Overt criminal behavior (vandalism, drug sales, theft, etc.) 2.9 4.2 2.7 3.2 Other(s) (please specify) 1.4 1.4 1.7 1.5 Table 11. Weighted average of the major causes of trespass violations. Location of Concern Operation Type Overall Commuter Rail Heavy Rail Light Rail Passenger stations 4.4 5.9 5.5 5.1 Grade crossings 4.8 2.9 5.6 4.8 Adjacent to schools/educational institutions 4.8 4.4 3.9 4.2 Adjacent to parks or other recreational areas 4.9 3.9 3.7 4.1 Adjacent to retail districts 3.2 3.4 3.2 3.4 Adjacent to residential areas 4.3 4.6 3.7 4.1 Other(s) (please specify) 1.6 2.9 2.3 2.2 Table 12. Weighted average of the locations of greatest concern for trespassing.

Online Survey of Practitioners 25   Fencing Thirty-five agency respondents reported currently using fencing, and two reported never using fencing. Table 14 shows fencing use by effectiveness for agencies who reported currently or previously using fencing. Of those that are currently using fencing, 16 considered it very effective, 15 considered it somewhat effective, two were neutral, and two considered it somewhat ineffective. These agencies also reported using fencing to varying degrees: 15 reported using fencing extensively, seven reported use in most locations, five reported use in half of the loca- tions, and eight reported use in some locations. Twenty-nine U.S. rail transit and commuter rail agency respondents reported currently using fencing; Figure 8 shows levels of effectiveness by extent of usage, and Figure 9 shows levels of effectiveness by extent of usage for different operation types. Among the respondents that are currently using fencing at their agencies, 17 respondents reported using fencing in most loca- tions, and 16 of them considered fencing an effective measure. Twelve respondents reported using fencing in some locations, and nine of them considered fencing effective. Fencing is cur- rently being used by the U.S. rail transit and commuter rail agencies at some or most locations and was considered effective. Landscaping Nineteen agency respondents reported currently using landscaping, and three reported previ- ously using landscaping. Table 15 shows levels of use by effectiveness for those who are currently using or previously used landscaping. Six agencies never used landscaping, five had unknown use of landscaping, and five had missing answers. Of those that are currently using or previously used landscaping, a majority (14 respondents) considered it effective (three very effective and 11 somewhat effective). Three agencies reported neutral effectiveness, three considered land- scaping somewhat ineffective, one considered it very ineffective, and one had a missing answer. These agencies also reported using landscaping to varying degrees: a majority reported using it in some locations (eight respondents). Three agencies reported using landscaping extensively, four reported use in most locations, three reported use in half of the locations, three reported use in few/no locations, and one had a missing answer. Extent of Usage Effectiveness In Survey For Analysis In Survey For Analysis Extensively Most locations Very effective Effective Most locations Somewhat effective Half of the locations Some locations Neutral Neutral Some locations Somewhat ineffective Ineffective Few/no locations Few/no locations Very ineffective Table 13. Survey responses regrouped for analysis. Effectiveness Use Extensively Most Locations Half of the Locations Some Locations Few/No Locations Very effective 11 3 1 1 0 Somewhat effective 3 4 4 4 0 Neutral 1 0 0 1 0 Somewhat ineffective 0 0 0 2 0 Very ineffective 0 0 0 0 0 Table 14. Fencing use and effectiveness rating for agencies who reported use.

26 Strategies for Deterring Trespassing on Rail Transit and Commuter Rail Rights-of-Way Effectiveness Use Extensively Most Locations Half of the Locations Some Locations Few/No Locations Missing Very effective 2 0 0 1 0 0 Somewhat effective 1 4 0 5 1 0 Neutral 0 0 1 1 1 0 Somewhat ineffective 0 0 1 1 1 0 Very ineffective 0 0 1 0 0 0 Missing 0 0 0 0 0 1 Table 15. Landscaping use by effectiveness for those who reported use. Figure 8. Fencing effectiveness by extent of usage. Figure 9. Fencing effectiveness by extent of usage for different operation types.

Online Survey of Practitioners 27   Sixteen U.S. rail transit and commuter rail agency respondents reported currently using land- scaping; Figure 10 shows levels of effectiveness by extent of usage, and Figure 11 shows levels of effectiveness by extent of usage for different operation types. Among the respondents cur- rently using landscaping at their agencies, six respondents reported using landscaping in most locations and considered landscaping an effective measure. Nine respondents reported using landscaping in some locations, and four of them considered landscaping effective. One respon- dent reported using landscaping in few/no locations and considered landscaping ineffective. Figure 10. Landscaping effectiveness by extent of usage. Figure 11. Landscaping effectiveness by extent of usage for different operation types.

28 Strategies for Deterring Trespassing on Rail Transit and Commuter Rail Rights-of-Way According to the survey respondents, landscaping tends to be more extensively used in the com- muter and light rail system, and 60% of the respondents from each operation type considered landscaping effective. Anti-trespass Guard Panels Use of guard panels was split: 11 agencies currently use panels, one previously used them, 15 never used them, seven were unknown, and four had missing answers. Table 16 shows levels of use by effectiveness for those who reported currently or previously using anti-trespass guard panels. Of those that have used anti-trespass guard panels, three considered them very effective, seven considered them somewhat effective, one was neutral, and one considered them some- what ineffective. These agencies also reported using panels to varying degrees: one reported using panels extensively, two reported use in most locations, eight reported use in some loca- tions, and two reported use in few/no locations. Eight U.S. rail transit and commuter rail agency respondents reported currently using anti- trespass guard panels; Figure 12 shows levels of effectiveness by extent of usage, and Figure 13 shows levels of effectiveness by extent of usage for different operation types. Among the respon- dents that are currently using anti-trespass guard panels at their agencies, three respondents reported using panels in most locations, two considered the panels effective, and one considered the panels ineffective. Five respondents reported using anti-trespass guard panels in some loca- tions, and four of them classified panels as effective. Anti-trespass guard panels are currently being used in a small number of rail transit and commuter rail agencies at some locations and are largely considered effective. Effectiveness Use Extensively Most Locations Half of the Locations Some Locations Few/No Locations Missing Very effective 1 1 0 0 1 0 Somewhat effective 0 0 0 7 0 0 Neutral 0 0 0 1 0 0 Somewhat ineffective 0 1 0 0 0 0 Very ineffective 0 0 0 0 0 0 Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table 16. Anti-trespass guard panel use by effectiveness for those who reported use. Figure 12. Anti-trespass guard panel effectiveness by extent of usage.

Online Survey of Practitioners 29   Video Analytics Fourteen agency respondents reported currently using video analytics, with 13 currently using it and one previously using it. Table 17 shows levels of use by effectiveness for those who reported currently or previously using video analytics. Others reported never using it (12 respondents), were unknown (seven respondents), or had missing answers (five respondents). Those reporting the use of video analytics found them to be largely effective, with two reporting very effective and eight reporting somewhat effective. Others were neutral (three respondents) or had a missing answer (one respondent). These agencies also reported using video analytics to varying degrees: two reported using video analytics extensively, six reported use in some locations, two reported use in half of the locations, one reported use in few/no locations, and one had a missing answer. Nine U.S. rail transit and commuter rail agency respondents reported currently using video analytics; Figure 14 shows levels of effectiveness by extent of usage, and Figure 15 shows levels of effectiveness by extent of usage for different operation types. Among the respondents that are currently using video analytics at their agencies, two respondents reported using video analytics in most locations and considered video analytics an effective measure. Six respondents reported Figure 13. Anti-trespass guard panel effectiveness by extent of usage for different operation types. Effectiveness Use Extensively Most Locations Half of the Locations Some Locations Few/No Locations Missing Very effective 2 0 0 0 0 0 Somewhat effective 0 0 2 4 2 0 Neutral 0 0 0 2 1 0 Somewhat ineffective 0 0 0 0 0 0 Very ineffective 0 0 0 0 0 0 Missing 0 0 0 0 0 1 Table 17. Video analytics use by effectiveness for those who reported use.

30 Strategies for Deterring Trespassing on Rail Transit and Commuter Rail Rights-of-Way Figure 14. Video analytics effectiveness by extent of usage. Figure 15. Video analytics effectiveness by extent of usage for different operation types. using video analytics in some locations, and four of them considered video analytics effective. One respondent reported using video analytics in few/no locations and had a neutral view on the efficacy of the strategy. Video analytics is currently being used in a small number of light rail and commuter rail agencies at some locations and is considered effective. Camera Detection Eighteen agency respondents reported currently using camera detection, 11 reported never using it, four were unknown, and five had missing answers. Table 18 shows levels of use by

Online Survey of Practitioners 31   effectiveness for those who reported currently or previously using camera detection. Of those that are currently using camera detection, three considered it very effective, eight considered it somewhat effective, five were neutral, one considered it somewhat ineffective, and one consid- ered it very ineffective. These agencies also reported using camera detection to varying degrees: one reported using camera detection extensively, nine reported use in some locations, four reported use in most locations, two reported use in half of the locations, one reported use in few/no locations, and one had a missing answer. Fourteen U.S. rail transit and commuter rail agency respondents reported currently using camera detection; Figure 16 shows the levels of effectiveness by extent of usage, and Figure 17 shows levels of effectiveness by extent of usage for different operation types. Among the respon- dents that are currently using camera detection at their agencies, four respondents reported using camera detection in most locations and considered camera detection an effective measure. Nine respondents reported using camera detection in some locations, and three of them con- sidered camera detection effective, while two considered it ineffective. One respondent reported using camera detection in few/no locations and had a neutral view on the efficacy of the measure. Camera detection is currently being used by rail transit and commuter rail agencies at some or most locations, and the respondents’ perspective on the efficacy of the camera detection is diverse, as Figure 17 shows. Electronic Detection Thirteen agency respondents reported currently using electronic detection; however, 14 reported never using it, five were unknown, and six had missing answers. Table 19 shows Effectiveness Use Extensively Most Locations Half of the Locations Some Locations Few/No Locations Missing Very effective 1 1 0 0 0 1 Somewhat effective 0 3 1 4 0 0 Neutral 0 0 1 3 1 0 Somewhat ineffective 0 0 0 1 0 0 Very ineffective 0 0 0 1 0 0 Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table 18. Camera detection use by effectiveness for those who reported use. Figure 16. Camera detection effectiveness by extent of usage.

32 Strategies for Deterring Trespassing on Rail Transit and Commuter Rail Rights-of-Way Figure 17. Camera detection effectiveness by extent of usage for different operation types. the levels of use by effectiveness for those who reported currently or previously using electronic detection. Of those that are currently using electronic detection, one considered it very effective, five considered it somewhat effective, three were neutral, one considered it very ineffective, and one had a missing answer. These agencies also reported using electronic detection to varying degrees: two reported using electronic detection extensively, seven reported use in some loca- tions, one reported use in half of the locations, and three reported use in few/no locations. Ten U.S. rail transit and commuter rail agency respondents reported currently using elec- tronic detection; Figure 18 shows levels of effectiveness by extent of usage, and Figure 19 shows levels of effectiveness by extent of usage for different operation types. Among the respondents that are currently using electronic detection at their agencies, one respondent reported using electronic detection in most locations and considered electronic detection effective. Six respon- dents reported using electronic detection in some locations, and three of them considered electronic detection effective, while one found it ineffective. Three respondents reported using Table 19. Electronic detection use by effectiveness for those who reported use. Effectiveness Use Extensively Most Locations Half of the Locations Some Locations Few/No Locations Missing Very effective 1 0 0 0 0 0 Somewhat effective 1 0 1 3 0 0 Neutral 0 0 0 2 1 0 Somewhat ineffective 0 0 0 1 1 0 Very ineffective 0 0 0 1 0 0 Missing 0 0 0 1 0 0

Online Survey of Practitioners 33   electronic detection in few/no locations, and two considered electronic detection ineffective. Electronic detection is currently being used by rail transit and commuter rail agencies, and the respondents’ perspective on the efficacy of electronic detection is diverse, as Figure 19 shows. Platform Screen Doors A majority of agency respondents (n = 28) reported never using platform screen doors (PSDs), one was unknown on use, and six had missing answers. Two reported current use, and one Figure 18. Electronic detection effectiveness by extent of usage. Figure 19. Electronic detection effectiveness by extent of usage for different operation types.

34 Strategies for Deterring Trespassing on Rail Transit and Commuter Rail Rights-of-Way reported previous use. Table 20 shows levels of use by effectiveness for those who reported currently or previously using PSDs. Of those that have used PSDs, two considered them very effective, and one considered them somewhat effective. Use was limited to some locations (n = 1) and few/no locations (n = 2). One heavy rail agency responded that PSDs are currently being used at few/no locations and considered the measure effective. Lighting Twenty-nine agency respondents reported currently using lighting, and three reported prior use. Table 21 shows levels of use by effectiveness for those who reported currently or previously using lighting. Three reported never using lighting, and three had missing answers. Of those that are currently using lighting, six considered it very effective, 15 considered it somewhat effective, five were neutral, four considered it somewhat ineffective, one considered it very ineffective, and one had a missing answer. These agencies also reported using lighting to varying degrees: three reported using lighting extensively, 15 reported use in most locations, six reported use in some locations, three reported use in half of the locations, and five reported use in few/no locations. Twenty-six U.S. rail transit and commuter rail agency respondents reported currently using lighting; Figure 20 shows levels of effectiveness by extent of usage, and Figure 21 shows levels of effectiveness by extent of usage for different operation types. Among the respondents that are currently using lighting at their agencies, 17 reported using lighting in most locations, and 15 of them considered lighting an effective measure. Eight reported using lighting in some locations, and four of them considered lighting an effective measure, while three found it ineffective. One respondent reported using lighting in few/no locations and had a neutral view of the efficacy of lighting. Lighting is currently being used by rail transit and commuter rail agencies at some or most locations. While the majority of the respondents considered lighting effective, three respondents that use lighting in most locations considered the measure ineffective. Effectiveness Use Extensively Most Locations Half of the Locations Some Locations Few/No Locations Missing Very effective 0 0 0 1 1 0 Somewhat effective 0 0 0 0 1 0 Neutral 0 0 0 0 0 0 Somewhat ineffective 0 0 0 0 0 0 Very ineffective 0 0 0 0 0 0 Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table 20. PSD use by effectiveness for those who reported use. Effectiveness Use Extensively Most Locations Half of the Locations Some Locations Few/No Locations Missing Very effective 2 4 0 0 0 0 Somewhat effective 0 10 2 2 1 0 Neutral 0 0 0 2 3 0 Somewhat ineffective 0 1 1 2 0 0 Very ineffective 1 0 0 0 0 0 Missing 0 0 0 0 1 0 Table 21. Lighting use by effectiveness for those who reported use.

Online Survey of Practitioners 35   Figure 20. Lighting effectiveness by extent of usage. Figure 21. Lighting effectiveness by extent of usage for different operation types.

36 Strategies for Deterring Trespassing on Rail Transit and Commuter Rail Rights-of-Way Enforcement Almost all agency respondents reported using enforcement (n = 35), with two agencies never using it and one having a missing answer. Table 22 shows levels of use by effectiveness for those who reported currently or previously using enforcement. Of those that are currently using enforcement, nine considered it very effective, 13 considered it somewhat effective, four were neutral, five considered it somewhat ineffective, one considered it very ineffective, and three had missing answers. These agencies also reported using enforcement to varying degrees: seven reported using enforcement extensively, 12 reported use in most locations, 11 reported use in some locations, two reported use in half of the locations, two reported use in few/no locations, and one had a missing answer. Twenty-eight U.S. respondents reported currently using enforcement; Figure 22 shows levels of effectiveness by extent of usage, and Figure 23 shows levels of effectiveness by extent of usage for different operation types. Among the respondents that are currently using enforcement at their agencies, 17 reported using enforcement in most locations, and 14 of them considered enforcement effective, while three considered it ineffective. Nine respondents reported using enforcement in some locations, and four of them considered it effective, while one considered it ineffective. Two respondents reported using enforcement in few/no locations and considered it ineffective. Enforcement is currently being used by rail transit and commuter rail agencies at some or most locations. While the majority of the respondents considered enforcement effective, three respondents that use enforcement in most locations considered the measure ineffective. Effectiveness Use Extensively Most Locations Some Locations Half of the Locations Few/No Locations Missing Very effective 2 5 2 0 0 0 Somewhat effective 4 4 0 5 0 0 Neutral 0 0 0 4 0 0 Somewhat ineffective 0 3 0 1 1 0 Very ineffective 0 0 0 0 1 0 Missing 1 0 0 1 0 1 Table 22. Enforcement use by effectiveness for those who reported use. Figure 22. Enforcement effectiveness by extent of usage.

Online Survey of Practitioners 37   Education Twenty-seven agency respondents reported currently using education, and three reported prior use of education. Table 23 shows levels of use by effectiveness for those who reported cur- rently or previously using education. Two reported never using education, three were unknown, and three had missing answers. Of those that are currently using education, three considered it very effective, 17 considered it somewhat effective, six were neutral, three considered it some- what ineffective, and one had a missing answer. These agencies also reported using education to varying degrees: 11 reported using education extensively, six reported use in most locations, seven reported use in some locations, three reported use in half of the locations, two reported use in few/no locations, and one had a missing answer. Twenty-three U.S. rail transit and commuter rail agency respondents reported currently using education; Figure 24 shows levels of effectiveness by extent of usage, and Figure 25 shows levels of effectiveness by extent of usage for different operation types. Among the respondents that are Figure 23. Enforcement effectiveness by extent of usage for different operation types. Effectiveness Use Extensively Most Locations Half of the Locations Some Locations Few/No Locations Missing Very effective 3 0 0 0 0 0 Somewhat effective 7 5 3 2 0 0 Neutral 0 0 0 4 2 0 Somewhat ineffective 0 1 0 1 0 1 Very ineffective 0 0 0 0 0 0 Missing 1 0 0 0 0 0 Table 23. Education use by effectiveness for those who reported use.

38 Strategies for Deterring Trespassing on Rail Transit and Commuter Rail Rights-of-Way currently using education at their agencies, 15 reported using education in most locations, and 14 of them considered education an effective measure, while one considered it ineffective. Seven reported using education in some locations, and three of them considered education effective, while one considered it ineffective. One respondent reported using education in few/no loca- tions and had a neutral view. The majority of the respondents considered education use by rail transit and commuter rail agencies effective. Figure 24. Education effectiveness by extent of usage. Figure 25. Education effectiveness by extent of usage for different operation types.

Online Survey of Practitioners 39   Other Mitigation Strategies Three other mitigation strategies were reported: No Trespassing signs (n = 2); use of big data to target enforcement (n = 1); and suicide awareness training for engineers, crews, and ticket agents (n = 1). All of these mitigation strategies are currently being used by those who reported them. Regarding effectiveness, suicide awareness training was considered very effective, whereas the other strategies were considered somewhat effective. Both suicide awareness training and use of big data were used extensively, whereas the use of No Trespassing signs varied from half of the locations to most locations. Next, agency respondents were asked what criteria they use to determine whether a mitiga- tion strategy is effective. They could select multiple answers. Thirty-seven responses were the number of trespassing incidents, 12 responses were the number of injuries due to trespassing, 15 responses were the number of fatalities due to trespassing, and nine responses were the cost. Other options were delay minutes per incident (n = 1) and various risk factors (n = 1). Table 24 shows the results by operation type of U.S. rail transit and commuter rail agencies. Almost half of the respondents said they would use the number of trespassing incidents as the sole criterion to determine the effectiveness of a mitigation strategy. Of the overall respon- dents, 16% reported they would use the combination of the number of trespassing incidents, the number of injuries due to trespassing, and the number of fatalities due to trespassing as criteria. One of the final questions asked which mitigation strategy participants would choose if they could only select one strategy and why. A majority said they would select fencing (n = 20). Figure 26 shows the frequency of the one mitigation strategy selected. The one other response was grade separation. Each mitigation strategy, except landscaping and PSDs, was selected by at least one participant. Figure 27 depicts the frequency of the one mitigation strategy selected by the U.S. rail transit and commuter rail agency operation types. A majority reported they would select their one mitigation strategy due to its effectiveness (n = 35). Others reported they would select the mitigation strategy for these reasons: easy to implement (n = 13), cost (n = 9), easy to maintain (n = 9), or other (one best deterrent and one real-time capability of video analytics). Table 25 shows the mitigation strategy by reason selected. Criteria Operation Type Overall Commuter Rail Heavy Rail Light Rail Number of trespassing incidents 12 5 6 16 Number of trespassing incidents, number of injuries, number of fatalities 2 3 3 5 Number of trespassing incidents, number of injuries, number of fatalities, cost 3 — 1 3 Number of trespassing incidents, cost 2 1 3 Number of trespassing incidents, number of fatalities 1 — 1 1 Number of injuries, number of fatalities, cost 1 — 1 1 Number of injuries, number of fatalities — — 1 1 Number of trespassing incidents, number of injuries, number of fatalities, cost, other (please specify) — — 1 1 Total 19 10 15 31 Table 24. Criteria for determining the effectiveness of a trespassing mitigation strategy.

40 Strategies for Deterring Trespassing on Rail Transit and Commuter Rail Rights-of-Way 0 5 10 15 20 25 N um be r o f R es po ns es Figure 26. One mitigation strategy selected. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N um be r o f R es po ns es Commuter Rail Light Rail Heavy Rail Figure 27. One mitigation strategy selected by operation type. Strategy Effectiveness Easy to Implement Cost Easy to Maintain Other Anti-trespass guard panels 1 0 0 0 0 Camera detection 2 0 0 0 0 Education 1 1 1 1 0 Electronic detection 6 2 1 0 0 Enforcement 3 1 0 0 0 Fencing 17 8 6 8 1 Lighting 1 1 1 0 0 Other 1 0 0 0 0 PSDs 1 0 0 0 0 Video analytics 2 0 0 0 1 Table 25. Single mitigation strategy by reason selected.

Online Survey of Practitioners 41   Table 26 provides a breakdown of the reasons for selecting the one mitigation strategy the participant would choose by operation type from the U.S. rail transit and commuter rail agency respondents. Overall, effectiveness and ease of implementation were the two highest selected reasons. For this question, the “others” write-in was grade separation for effectiveness reasons. Participants were then asked which trespasser mitigation strategy they would be least likely to select. A majority said they would be least likely to select PSDs (n = 12) followed by landscaping (n = 9). Figure 28 shows the frequencies of mitigation strategies least likely to be selected. The one other response stated the response would depend on the physical location/environment. Figure 29 provides the count of the least likely selected mitigation strategies by operation type for U.S. rail transit and commuter rail agencies. Fencing and lighting were the only two strategies not selected. The reasons for selecting the least likely mitigation strategy ranged among all the options. A majority reported they would not select their one mitigation strategy because it is difficult to implement (n = 18). Others reported they would not select their one mitigation strategy based on difficulty to maintain (n = 13), cost (n = 12), effectiveness (n = 10), and other (n = 6). Comments provided in the “other” option included the fact that commuter railroads are an open system, so PSDs are not applicable. Also, there was concern that landscaping could create line- of-sight issues for train operators. The time between notification and law enforcement response makes enforcement and electronic detection ineffective. There was also concern regarding the ability to educate the trespasser population because they are not typical users of the system and Reason Commuter Rail Light Rail Heavy Rail Overall Effectiveness 18 13 8 28 Cost 5 3 2 8 Easy to maintain 6 4 2 7 Easy to implement 8 5 4 11 Other (please specify) 2 2 1 3 Table 26. Single mitigation strategy by reason selected and operation type. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 N um be r o f R es po ns es Figure 28. Mitigation strategy least likely to be selected.

42 Strategies for Deterring Trespassing on Rail Transit and Commuter Rail Rights-of-Way would need to be part of a public outreach campaign. Table 27 shows the mitigation strategy by reason selected. Table 28 provides a breakdown of the reasons for selecting the least likely mitigation strategy by operation type in the United States. Survey respondents were able to provide other examples of effective and innovative tech- niques to prevent trespass violations. Twelve respondents provided examples, which included the following: • Signage – Suicide prevention signs (n = 2) – Prohibitive signs (n = 1) • Technology – Droids/drones (n = 2) – Big data analytics to identify high-risk locations for trespassing (n = 1) – Fiber-optic devices to monitor activity – Pedestrian gates/connected fences with sensors (n = 1) • Enforcement – Citations/fines (n = 1) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N um be r o f R es po ns es Commuter Rail Light Rail Heavy Rail Figure 29. Mitigation strategy least likely to be selected by operation type. Strategy Effectiveness Difficulty to Implement Cost Easy to Maintain Other Anti-trespass guard panels 0 1 1 0 0 Camera detection 0 2 2 3 0 Education 0 1 0 0 1 Electronic detection 0 2 1 0 2 Enforcement 0 2 1 1 0 Fencing 0 0 0 0 0 Landscaping 5 0 1 3 1 Lighting 2 0 0 0 1 Other 0 1 1 1 1 PSDs 3 8 4 4 1 Video analytics 0 1 1 1 0 Table 27. Least likely mitigation strategy by reason selected.

Online Survey of Practitioners 43   • Engineering – Use of exclusive right-of-way with no grade crossings (n = 1) – Tar or something else on tracks to deter trespassers (n = 1) – Platform raising (n = 1) • Other – Suicide prevention training (n = 1) – Collaboration with other stakeholders on rail safety and trespassing (n = 1) Next, the survey asked if the respondents had lessons learned, best practices, or recommenda- tions for the team. The 16 recommendations included the following: • Mitigation Strategies – Educating and engaging the community (n = 4), including Operation Lifesaver – Increased signage (n = 1) – Fencing (n = 1) – Fines/citations (n = 1) – Partnerships with multiple local agencies to address trespassing (n = 2) – Suicide prevention program (n = 1) – Developing critical incident protocols to help crews handle impacts of trespassing (n = 1) – Increased staff (n = 1) – Hazard analysis to identify locations (n = 1) • Resources – RESTRAIL Toolbox (n = 1) – United Kingdom trespass bowtie and prioritization process facilitated by the Rail Safety and Standards Board (n = 1) Respondents had the opportunity to provide open-ended responses regarding things they would like to add. There were five comments: • There is a need for shared data from other agencies. • There is a need for a uniform definition of a trespasser. • Mitigation strategies should not generate delays or traffic. • Funding is essential because changing behaviors is a long-term solution. • One respondent believed the survey did not gather adequate data on trespassing. Last, survey respondents were asked if they would be willing to assist with the research efforts in the future. Twenty-nine responded with yes, and six responded with maybe. Those that said they would be willing or potentially willing to participate in the future provided 21 phone numbers and 27 email addresses. This information was used for identifying potential case study locations. Evaluation of Non-rail Transit or Commuter Rail Agencies Ten individuals who participated did not report affiliation with a rail transit or commuter rail agency. Five were with universities or research organizations, and three were rail safety consultants. Also, two respondents were affiliated with the labor community, both of whom are Reason Commuter Rail Light Rail Heavy Rail Overall Effectiveness 11 8 6 18 Cost 7 5 3 11 Difficult to maintain 8 6 2 12 Difficult to implement 8 8 5 15 Other (please specify) 4 3 2 6 Table 28. Least likely mitigation strategy by reason selected and operation type.

44 Strategies for Deterring Trespassing on Rail Transit and Commuter Rail Rights-of-Way employed at a U.S. light rail service. Based on their provided titles, one respondent is associated with rail system equipment, and the other is associated with maintenance-of-way. Participants were asked what or who is the most impacted by trespass violation incidents. A majority of par- ticipants reported that train crews were the most impacted (n = 6). Other responses included delays (n = 1) and other reasons (n = 3). The other reasons reported included trespassers/victims (n = 3). Table 29 shows the responses about who or what is most impacted by trespass violations by participant affiliation. Participants then reported what they saw as the major causes of trespass violations. The high- est number of participants ranked logical crossing point as the top cause of trespassing viola- tions. Table 30 displays the number of participants who ranked each cause of trespassing as the number-one cause of violations by affiliation. Next, participants were asked what locations they believed were the greatest concern for tres- passing. The top locations overall were passenger stations (n = 4), followed by locations adjacent to residential areas (n = 2) and other (n = 2). The other option included locations adjacent to mental health institutions. Table 31 displays the first-ranked locations of concern by affiliation. Participants were then asked about what they view as the biggest challenge to reporting tres- pass violations. Overall lack of understanding of the trespassing issue by local officials was iden- tified as the biggest challenge to reporting trespass violations (n = 3). The two other reported reasons included active resistance to railroads and a low understanding of risks and consequences among trespassers. Table 32 shows the biggest challenge to reporting trespass violations by affiliation. Most Impacted by Trespass Violations Affiliation Rail Safety Consultant Labor Community Research Total Delays 1 0 0 1 Media/public information/public impression of agency 0 0 0 0 Other(s) (please specify) 2 0 1 3 Passengers 0 0 0 0 Train crews (PTSD, retention, etc.) 0 2 4 6 Missing 0 0 0 0 Table 29. Opinion on most impact by trespass violations by affiliation according to non-rail stakeholders. Cause of Trespassing Affiliation Rail Safety Consultant Labor Community Research Total Homeless encampments 0 2 0 2 Logical crossing point along the right-of- way (origin-destination pairing separated by rail right-of-way with a circuitous lawful path to connect) 2 0 3 5 Logical longitudinal path (the rail right- of-way is a logical route with limited lawful alternatives) 0 0 2 2 Intentional trespass (e.g., self-harm or suicide) 1 0 0 1 Persons under the influence of drugs or alcohol 0 0 0 0 School-aged child misbehavior 0 0 0 0 Overt criminal behavior (vandalism, drug sales, theft, etc.) 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 Table 30. Opinion on the leading cause of trespass violations by affiliation according to non-rail stakeholders.

Online Survey of Practitioners 45   The next question asked participants to rank methods for identifying problem trespasser locations. Participants ranked the following options as first for identifying problem trespasser locations: data analysis (e.g., hotspot analysis) (n = 5), remote surveillance (n = 1), eye- witness (n = 1), and other (trespasser interviews) (n = 1). Participants were then asked which trespasser mitigation strategy they would select if they could select only one. A majority said they would select fencing (n = 4). Figure 30 shows the frequency of the one mitigation strategy selected. A majority reported they would select their one mitigation strategy due to its effectiveness (n = 9). One participant would use education due to cost, and one would use enforcement due to its ease of implementation. Participants were then asked which trespasser mitigation strategy they would be least likely to select. A majority said they would be least likely to select PSDs (n = 3). Figure 31 shows the frequencies of mitigation strategies least likely to be selected. The top reasons for being least likely to select the mitigation strategy included being difficult to implement (n = 3), cost (n = 3), and other (n = 3). Other reasons included sightline issues with landscaping, PSDs being difficult to apply on all main lines, and camera detection’s need for staff to interact when someone is detected. Survey respondents were able to provide other examples of effective and innovative tech- niques to prevent trespass violations. Three respondents provided examples, which included the following: • Detection of trespassers combined with audio alarms • Active participation from railroads • Regulators focused on the problems • Drones Locations of Concern Affiliation Rail Safety Consultant Labor Community Research Total Passenger stations 0 1 3 4 Grade crossings 1 0 0 1 Adjacent to schools/educational institutions 0 0 0 0 Adjacent to parks or recreational areas 0 0 0 0 Adjacent to retail districts 0 0 0 0 Adjacent to residential areas 1 0 1 2 Other 1 0 1 2 Missing 0 1 0 0 Table 31. Opinion on top locations of greatest concern for trespassing by affiliation according to non-rail stakeholders. Biggest Challenge to Reporting Trespass Violations Affiliation Rail Safety Consultant Labor Community Research Total Lack of collaboration between public agencies 0 0 2 2 Lack of funding 0 0 1 2 Lack of understanding of the trespassing issue by local officials 1 0 2 4 Low penalties/fines/enforcement 0 0 0 1 Other 2 0 0 2 Table 32. Opinion on biggest challenge to reporting trespass violations by affiliation according to non-rail stakeholders.

46 Strategies for Deterring Trespassing on Rail Transit and Commuter Rail Rights-of-Way 0 1 2 3 4 5 N um be r o f R es po ns es Figure 30. One mitigation strategy selected according to non-rail stakeholders. 0 1 2 3 4 N um be r o f R es po ns es Figure 31. Mitigation strategy least likely to be selected according to non-rail stakeholders.

Online Survey of Practitioners 47   Next, the survey asked if the respondents had lessons learned, best practices, or recommenda- tions for the team. The recommendations included the following: • Partnerships with multiple local agencies to address trespassing (n = 2) – Urban planning • Training and coordination with mental health professionals (n = 2) • Use of strategies adapted to local circumstances (n = 1) • Fencing combined with enforcement (n = 1) • The RESTRAIL project (n = 1) Last, respondents had the opportunity to provide open-ended responses regarding things they would like to add. The three comments included the following: • Separate non-intentional and intentional when addressing the problem. • Use social interventions to address demographics of concern. • Use a combination of mitigation strategies. Evaluation of Non-U.S. Stakeholders This section focuses on the survey responses provided by the non-U.S. stakeholders and the U.S. labor community. There were 14 non-U.S. stakeholders, including 12 non-North American stakeholders and two Canadian stakeholders. Participants included six transit agencies, one railway infrastructure manager, two rail safety consultants, and five researchers. For the question related to what or who is impacted the most by trespass violation inci- dents, six of the 14 non-U.S. stakeholder survey participants considered trains crews as being impacted the most (see Table 33). The non-U.S. stakeholders also selected delays (n = 4), passengers (n = 2), and others. The two “other” responses were the trespassers. The research team asked respondents to rank the major causes of trespass violations in order. A weighted average was calculated from the responses. As Table 34 shows, the non-U.S. stake- holder responses were distributed among the options, with logical crossing points along the rights-of-way, intentional trespass, and persons under the influence of drugs or alcohol receiv- ing the highest values. Regarding the locations of greatest concern, the non-U.S. stakeholders rated passenger sta- tions and grade crossings as the top two locations, followed by locations adjacent to residential areas and locations adjacent to schools/educational institutions (see Table 35). The survey allowed those respondents identified as affiliated with rail agencies or rail service contract operators to specify the extent of use and level of effectiveness of the mitigation strate- gies. Six non-U.S. stakeholders were able to address this question, and Table 36 provides the Factor Non-U.S. Stakeholders Train crews (PTSD, retention, etc.) 6 Maintenance/cleaning crews (right-of-way/vehicle) — Maintenance/cleaning crews (right-of-way/station/vehicle) — Law enforcement/first responders — Delays 4 Passengers 2 Media/public information/public impression of agency — Other(s) (please specify) 2 Number of responses 14 Table 33. Most impacted factors by trespass violation incidents according to non-U.S. stakeholders.

48 Strategies for Deterring Trespassing on Rail Transit and Commuter Rail Rights-of-Way Cause of Trespass Violation Non-U.S. Stakeholders Homeless encampments 3.9 Logical crossing points along the right-of-way (origin-destination pairing separated by rail right-of-way with a circuitous lawful path to connect) 6.3 Intentional trespass (e.g., self-harm or suicide) 6.2 Persons under the influence of drugs or alcohol 5.9 Logical longitudinal path (the rail right-of-way is a logical route with limited lawful alternatives) 4.6 Overt criminal behavior (vandalism, drug sales, theft, etc.) 4.6 School-aged children misbehavior 2.9 Other(s) (please specify) 1.6 Table 34. Weighted average of the major causes of trespass violations according to non-U.S. stakeholders. Location of Concern Non-U.S. Stakeholders Passenger stations 5.9 Grade crossings 5.6 Adjacent to schools/educational institutions 4.3 Adjacent to parks and/or other recreational areas 3.4 Adjacent to retail districts 2.4 Adjacent to residential areas 4.6 Other(s) (please specify) 1.9 Table 35. Weighted average of the locations of greatest concern for trespassing according to non-U.S. stakeholders. Strategy Very Effective Somewhat Effective Neutral Somewhat Ineffective Very Ineffective Anti-trespass guard panels 2 3 1 — — Camera detection 1 2 — — — Education — 4 1 — — Electronic detection 2 1 — — — Enforcement 2 2 2 — — Fencing 5 1 — — — Landscaping 2 3 1 — — Lighting 1 1 3 — — PSDs 1 2 — — — Video analytics 1 4 — — — Other: big data to target enforcement — 1 — — — Table 36. Mitigation strategy level of effectiveness according to non-U.S. stakeholders. counts associated with the level of effectiveness for these respondents. All the responses rated the mitigation strategies as neutral, somewhat effective, or very effective. Of the six respondents, five considered fencing very effective, and one considered it somewhat effective. Electronic detection was the only other strategy receiving more very effective ratings (n = 2) than some- what effective (n = 1). The participants were able to identify which mitigation strategy they would choose and why if they could only select one strategy and which strategy would be the least likely one chosen and why. For the non-U.S. stakeholders, fencing was the most selected strategy, with eight out of 14 responses, as shown in Table 37. The participants were able to select multiple reasons for choosing their mitigation strategy, and they listed effectiveness and cost as reasons for selecting fencing. Two participants chose enforcement for effectiveness and ease of implementation. Other mitigation strategies selected included landscaping, anti-trespass guards, PSDs, and education.

Online Survey of Practitioners 49   Table 38 contains the mitigation strategies identified as the least likely to be selected by the non-U.S. stakeholders. PSDs and lighting were the most identified strategies for several reasons. Two stakeholders identified camera detection as the least likely to be selected, also for several reasons. Others selected by one respondent each included fencing, electronic detection, enforce- ment, and education. Summary of Key Survey Findings Twenty-seven U.S. rail transit and commuter rail agencies responded to the survey. A few instances of multiple agency representatives submitting independent responses resulted in 31 total U.S. rail transit and commuter rail survey submissions. A limitation to the survey is that with some responding agencies having multiple operation types, all answers were counted for each operation type. Rail Transit and Commuter Rail Agencies Train crews and passengers were perceived to be the most impacted by trespassing inci- dents. The trespassers were believed to be impaired, distracted, or taking a shortcut. In addition, respondents identified people suffering from mental health issues and those who were homeless/ transient. The causes of trespassing included intentional trespassing (suicide), homeless encamp- ments in or near the right-of-way, and people under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Specific areas of concern included passenger stations and grade crossings. Other strategies suggested included signage, new technology (e.g., drones or big data), enforce- ment (e.g., citations/fines), exclusive rights-of-way, and suicide prevention programs. Overall, Strategy Count Reason(s) Anti-trespass guard panels 1 Effectiveness Camera detection — — Education 1 Effectiveness, cost Electronic detection — — Enforcement 2 Effectiveness, easy to implement Fencing 8 Effectiveness, cost Landscaping 1 Effectiveness Lighting — — PSDs 1 Effectiveness Video analytics — — Table 37. Single mitigation strategy most likely to be selected according to non-U.S. stakeholders. Strategy Count Reason(s) Anti-trespass guard panels — — Camera detection 2 Cost, difficulty to maintain, difficulty to implement, other (does not prevent trespassing, requires a person to act when detected) Education 1 Difficulty to implement Electronic detection 1 Effectiveness, cost, difficult to maintain, difficult to implement Enforcement 1 Difficult to implement Fencing 1 Effectiveness Landscaping — — Lighting 4 Effectiveness, other (unproven) PSDs 4 Effectiveness, cost, difficult to implement, other (difficult to apply to main rail lines) Video analytics — — Table 38. Single mitigation strategy least likely to be selected according to non-U.S. stakeholders.

50 Strategies for Deterring Trespassing on Rail Transit and Commuter Rail Rights-of-Way respondents said the keys to helping with the issue were the sharing of data, definition of what a trespasser is, and additional funding to look at the problem and implement strategies. Non-rail Transit and Commuter Rail Agencies The areas of greatest concern for those not aligned with a rail transit or commuter rail agency were passenger stations and locations adjacent to residential areas. Participants indicated that a lack of understanding by local officials is the biggest challenge to reporting trespass violations. The most common response to the method of identifying trespassing areas was data analysis. When asked to select one mitigation strategy, participants selected fencing. The least likely strategy selected was PSDs. Other suggested mitigation strategies included detection and audio alarms, regulator focus, and drones. Level of Effectiveness The survey respondents measured effectiveness by looking at the number of trespassing inci- dents, injuries, and/or fatalities as well as cost (which could include implementation, mainte- nance, and other costs). Table 39 shows the effectiveness of the different strategies, as rated by the surveyed agencies. PSDs were found most effective but were only used by three surveyed agencies. Other effective strategies identified were fencing, anti-trespass guard panels, landscap- ing, and video analytics. Expanding the analysis to examine effectiveness by extent of use, fencing was rated as effective in almost all submissions from all operation types for those agencies that indicated the use at most locations. However, for responses indicating use at only some locations, several responses, including from agencies with each type of operation, responded that fencing was ineffective as a mitigation strategy. Of the survey respondents, 29 out of 31 U.S. rail transit or commuter rail agencies noted using fencing. The perceived level of effectiveness for landscaping declined with its lower use as a mitigation strategy. Landscaping was rated as effective by all respondents who use it in most locations. The responses for anti-trespass guard panels were positive for the limited use, except for an ineffec- tive rating by an agency with heavy rail. Video analytics is used at agencies with all operation types and was rated effective or neutral in all nine responses. The effectiveness of camera detection is unclear because there were ratings of effective, neutral, and ineffective for all operation types. However, for those agencies that indicated they use video detection at most locations, the ratings were all designated as effective. Electronic detection was generally rated neutral or ineffective where it was used the least. Strategy Percent Anti-trespass guard panels 83% Camera detection 61% Education 67% Electronic detection 46% Enforcement 63% Fencing 89% Landscaping 64% Lighting 66% PSDs* 100% Video analytics 71% * Only three agencies reported using this strategy. Table 39. Percent of agencies surveyed that have used the strategy and rated it at least somewhat effective.

Online Survey of Practitioners 51   As a mitigation strategy, lighting was perceived as mostly effective but did receive several ineffective ratings. Lighting is used by 26 of the survey participants, and almost all the agencies that use it in most locations indicated lighting was effective. All of the agencies with heavy rail indicated lighting was effective. For enforcement and education, the general trend was that the perception of effectiveness increased with increased utilization. When asked to select one mitigation strategy, participants ranked fencing as the top strategy. The least likely strategy was PSDs due to difficulties in implementation and/or maintenance as well as cost and overall effectiveness. Heavy rail selections included fencing, followed closely by electronic detection and one selection for enforcement. In response to selecting one mitigation strategy, commuter rail and light rail agencies selected mitigation strategies across the list of strategies. For the non-U.S. stakeholders, all of the mitigation strategies were rated as neutral or effec- tive, with fencing receiving the highest number of very effective or somewhat effective ratings.