Strategies for Deterring Trespassing on Rail Transit and Commuter Rail Rights-of-Way, Volume 1: Guidebook (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.

17   Causes, Consequences, and Risks of Trespassing This chapter discusses the identified root causes of trespassing, locations of trespassing, and significant consequences of trespassing. This chapter also addresses measures that rail transit and commuter rail agencies can use to identify risks associated with trespassing, including iden- tifying problem areas and monitoring and evaluating risks. Each section identifies findings from trespass-related literature and case study discussions conducted as part of this research project. Identifying Problem Areas Reports from locomotive engineers and train operators were commonly mentioned during case studies as sources for identifying problem areas because some agencies guide engineers to report any observed suspicious behavior. For example, the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) operates a 24-hour Safety Reporting Hotline where employees can report issues. Addi- tionally, the agency operates the safety management system (SMS) online reporting system for customers and employees to report problem areas. Figure 8 displays an image of the SMS card that is provided to employees. Case studies revealed other sources for identifying locations of concern, such as conducting regular meetings with stakeholders, including rail transit and commuter rail agency staff, train operators, frontline employees, and law enforcement, to discuss potential problem areas. The case studies showed that field observations also provide useful feedback. According to MTA, riding in a cab and listening to the operators is considered one of the best ways to obtain feedback. In addition, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority Metro-North Commuter Railroad (MNCR) and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) have a right-of-way task force that actively conducts field inquiries to identify issues on a regular basis. The MNCR right-of-way task force uses this field experience to identify trails and path- ways that people use for trespassing, examine the infrastructure for defects or vandalism, and evaluate the right-of-way for possible safety enhancements. The task force additionally obtains information on issues through reported crew sightings and data obtained from camera views at different locations. In addition to the task force, the fire department performs periodic right-of- way reviews to identify issues. The police department operates an internal dashboard that tracks indicators, such as the duration of tickets of items to be addressed being open, the number of tickets closed, the total linear length of fencing, and the number of trespassing incidents. Monitoring and Evaluating Risks The Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority (CapMetro) in Austin is using an inci- dent management system (IMS) to input trespasser incidents and monitor for counter- measure opportunities (22). Figure 9 displays two components of CapMetro’s IMS. A map C H A P T E R   4

18 Strategies for Deterring Trespassing on Rail Transit and Commuter Rail Rights-of-Way Source: Maryland Transit Administration (21). Figure 8. MTA SMS employee card. Source: Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, IMS (22). Figure 9. CapMetro IMS dashboard.

Causes, Consequences, and Risks of Trespassing 19   displays all incidents by incident type, and a dashboard displays the level of incident activi- ties over time. The FRA Trespass Prevention Research Study performed a trespass location severity analysis on the case study location, West Palm Beach, Florida (16). For this study, researchers devel- oped a risk-based prioritization algorithm that considers various assessment factors, includ- ing prior incidents, near-miss history, track curvature, sight obstructions, number of tracks, train speed, prevalent trespass type, nearby traffic generators, and number of daily trains. The trespass location severity analysis provided a risk-based priority score for each study segment within the corridor (see Figure 10). By using the identified higher-risk segments, the researchers could develop a set of location-specific trespassing mitigation strategies (16). MNCR reported reviewing significant levels of analytical data regarding trespassing hotspot locations and is currently collaborating with the Volpe Center to prevent trespasser incidents. Reported trespasser characteristics include the following: • Individuals who want to self-harm, called willful decision • Homeless encampments • Seasonal access for recreation purposes, including summer fishing, hiking, and similar activities • People using the railroad right-of-way as a pedestrian shortcut • Impaired or intoxicated individuals taking shortcuts (this is identified as a unique problem because these individuals may not take the same level of caution as non-impaired individuals) Source: Federal Railroad Administration, Trespass Prevention Research Study—West Palm Beach, FL (16). Figure 10. West Palm Beach, Florida, corridor map risk areas.

20 Strategies for Deterring Trespassing on Rail Transit and Commuter Rail Rights-of-Way Source: Dallas Area Rapid Transit (24). Figure 11. Example trespassing incident report. Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) collects incident details for all trespassing events, which allows it to obtain data on locations and who is trespassing (see Figure 11). In addition, DART received the FTA Real-Time Asset Management Program grant for $184,000 in November 2020 to use high-resolution cameras once a month to sweep the rail corridors to monitor rail stations, tracks, bridges, tunnels, and highway-rail grade crossings. Using automated evaluation with artificial intelligence (AI) assistance is expected to assist in identifying breaks in fences, trails, and other issues that might reflect a trespassing issue (23). To identify locations of concern, LIRR uses a hazard mitigation strategy, which is a 4-year rolling database using a geographic information system (GIS) application that allows for visu- alization of the improvement in trespass activity after the installation of high-security fencing. LIRR is enhancing its GIS capabilities to better capture and analyze the data, with the hope of one day using the platform to predict trespass behavior given certain conditions. The algorithm also allows capturing additional information, including debris strike locations, which indicates people are getting on the tracks. The algorithm factors in the locations of schools and parks. The Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) develops key performance indicators based on logged trespasser events, which are then used to evaluate trespassing risk on the Chicago Transit Authority’s (CTA’s) rail system. Using these indicators, CTA ranked each rail station in the system based on the number of trespassing events occurring at each station. Figure 12 shows an example of the trespassing risk assessment at each CTA rail station. Figure 13 displays the heat map of trespassing risks based on this analysis. The detailed information about the

Causes, Consequences, and Risks of Trespassing 21   Source: Illinois Department of Transportation, Special Study of Trespassing on the Chicago Transit Authority (25 ). Figure 12. Example screen capture of the trespassing event score at each CTA station. CTA trespassing risk rating can be found in Appendix F of Special Study of Trespassing on the Chicago Transit Authority (25). Amtrak is using AI to determine the best places to locate suicide prevention signs throughout its system. The agency has used GIS to map crimes and trespassing, with trespassing and suicides increasing in importance over time. Amtrak maintains a top locations list that it investigates, where trends show strikes around homeless encampments, mental health facilities, recreation access points, and school locations. Figure 14 shows Amtrak’s strike analytics dashboard created based on the GIS analyses. Amtrak is currently evaluating the Northeast Corridor for possible fencing locations. Amtrak is developing an online mapping application that can turn on and off different layers. Focused on the Acela service, the methodology examines several criteria for each speed limit section in which the Acela service operates, including strikes, near misses, and right-of-way crimes. Additionally, Amtrak is identifying stations, substations, nearby parks, and schools within a certain distance from the track while also evaluating the population down to the tract level. Transport for London has an internal, confidential mapping of suicides. These are not hotspot locations because the incidents are spread out across the system. Transport for London collects data and reviews video surveillance recordings on successful suicides to identify patterns, which have found the following: • Half of the suicides are people walking into a station, and half come from people getting off trains. • Average time spent at a station before a suicide attempt is 4 minutes. Root Causes of Trespassing Demographics of Trespassers FRA studied the characteristics of trespassing incidents in the United States between 2012 and 2014. The age group of 15 to 24 years sustained the highest number of fatal trespassing incidents during the study period, followed by the 45 to 54 age group and the 25 to 34 age group (27).

22 Strategies for Deterring Trespassing on Rail Transit and Commuter Rail Rights-of-Way Source: Illinois Department of Transportation, Special Study of Trespassing on the Chicago Transit Authority (25). Figure 13. Example IDOT heat map of trespassing risks.

Source: Amtrak (26). Figure 14. Slide showing Amtrak’s train strike analytics dashboard.

24 Strategies for Deterring Trespassing on Rail Transit and Commuter Rail Rights-of-Way A 2013 FRA rail trespasser fatalities study also reported that approximately 60% of railroad trespassing fatalities are people between 20 and 49 years old (28). The FRA rail trespasser fatalities study indicated that males represented 82% of the trespassing fatalities (28). The gender ratios of trespassing accidents are more skewed to males, according to several European studies identified in a RESTRAIL report (29). Reasons for Trespassing The objective of FRA’s Consistent Trespasser Intent Determination Criteria Pilot Project is to develop standardized criteria to determine the probable intent (i.e., suicide or accident) of indi- viduals involved in trespasser strikes on railroad rights-of-way (30). Understanding the intent can support the selection and evaluation of mitigation strategies. The methodology, called the Trespasser Intent Determination and Evaluation, includes three types of determinations: probably suicide, probably accident, or inconclusive. Individuals trespassing on rail rights-of-way are usually using the right-of-way as a shortcut, for recreational or criminal purposes, or as a means to end their life (27). Poor community plan- ning could also be a contributing factor to trespassing. For example, putting bus stops too far from safe crossing paths could contribute to an increased number of trespassers (4). This could also include housing existing on one side of the tracks while services such as grocery stores or schools exist on the other side. A 2018 FRA report attributes trespassing to individual factors and factors related to communities (4). The identified contributing factors include the following: • Individual Contributing Factors – Personal convenience – Lack of knowledge of or appreciation for the dangers of trespassing • Community Contributing Factors – No (or insufficient) dedicated resources (personnel or funding) – Lack of physical deterrents, such as fences, natural or engineered barriers, or obstacles – Failure to prosecute trespassers by the local judicial process – Public perception of the dangers of trespassing on railroad property – Poor community planning The 2014 FRA report Trespass Event Risk Factors describes the most notable potential risk factors associated with trespassing incidents and accidents, divided into risk factors associated with the individual trespasser and those that apply to the location of the trespassing accident (31). The risk factors discussed in the report include the following: • Individual Risk Factors – Disregard for highway-railroad grade crossing warnings. Despite being at a designated crossing, trespassers disregarded warnings. – Intoxication. Many trespassing victims were intoxicated at the time of their accidents. – Use of electronic devices. In several instances, trespassers were distracted by the use of headphones or cellular phones at the time of the accident. • Location Risk Factors – Time of day and year. Trespassing is more common in the evening hours during the summer months. – Grade crossings. Grade crossings draw pedestrians toward the right-of-way. Many trespassers violated crossing warnings. – Stations. Stations draw pedestrians near the right-of-way, with several violations occurring as a result of trespassers not using designated crossings. – Schools. Over half of all trespassing accidents with child victims occurred within 0.5 miles of a school.

Causes, Consequences, and Risks of Trespassing 25   – Yards. Rail yards appear to be particularly attractive to railroad trespassers. – Bridges. Bridges are a common attraction used as the shortest path between two points and for thrill-seeking. – Population density. Data analysis showed that most trespassing accidents occur in relatively less-populated areas. – Lack of correlation with economic indicators. Data analysis did not show any significant correlation between any of the explored economic indicators. CTA identifies and logs trespassing as either unintentional or intentional events, where unintentional and intentional are characterized as the following (25): • Unintentional trespassing occurs when a person has no desire to be on the right-of-way, but an involuntary action or outside force causes the person to enter the right-of-way. This is most frequently associated with slips, trips, or falls but also when a pedestrian is occupy- ing space within an activated rail grade crossing. Most often, unintentional trespassing is a result of intoxication or a lack of situational awareness due to the use of personal electronic devices. • Intentional trespassing occurs when a person chooses to enter a restricted area in disregard of posted signage and barriers, including the following: – Walking or running along the alignment – Accessing restricted areas such as footpaths, walkways, ventilation shafts, and equipment rooms – Walking along continuous platforms between subway stations – Accessing rail yards, maintenance facilities, or other non-revenue tracks Most often, intentional trespassing is a result of fare evasion, law enforcement evasion, dropped item retrieval, vagrancy, general mischief, and graffiti. CTA’s analysis estimates that 88% of trespassing is an intentional event (25). Learned from Case Studies Trespassing is a challenging issue across rail transit and commuter rail agencies. Different causes of trespassing include (a) trying to retrieve belongings on the track (e.g., cell phone); (b) accidentally jumping on the track; (c) intoxication; (d) pedestrians and bicyclists taking shortcuts; (e) intentional trespassing (e.g., suicide); (f) homeless encampments; and (g) jogging or walking along the rail lines. Among those, homeless encampments were reported as one of the major causes of trespass violations. DART reported that clearing some landscaping around the problem area may be effective at reducing the problem. DART also reported that responding to homeless encampments involves collaboration with DART police, Herzog (the contracted operator for the commuter rail service), city police, and homeless advocacy shelters. Locations of Trespassing Highway-rail grade crossings, bridges, stations, and other locations along the rail network could act as contributing factors for rail trespassing. A paper by Skladana et al. focused on rail- way trespassing in the Czech Republic, categorizes trespassing sites with “regard to their func- tion, location, layout, users and frequency of trespassing” (32). Their list of trespassing localities consists of six basic categories, with most providing subtypes: 1. Trespassing in stops and stations – Illegal path along the tracks; legal access to platforms is longer or less comfortable – One or more illegal paths over tracks due to longer or uncomfortable legal access – Illegal paths over tracks due to the inconvenient location of the legal access

26 Strategies for Deterring Trespassing on Rail Transit and Commuter Rail Rights-of-Way 2. Shortcuts of everyday use apart from stations – Illegal but justifiable shortcuts, located on the intensely employed route, with legal crossing too far – Shortcuts located at the place of a closed level crossing, footbridge, or former street – Series of paths among two legal crossings – Illegal paths close to a legal crossing (underpass or footbridge) that has a layout that does not suit users 3. Touristic paths and recreation localities (e.g., hiking paths) – Illegal paths over tracks that are part of intensely used touristic trails – Smaller paths connected to wood footpaths – Railway infrastructure substituting missing or insufficient pedestrian infrastructure – Railway situated in an area used for recreation 4. Places of interest, specifically located on the railway (e.g., persons interested in historical railway tunnels or bridges, or graffiti artists) 5. Places of meeting or lodging (e.g., homeless camps) 6. Level crossings – At-level crossing with warning lights in the initial phase (before the train) and after the train has passed and the red light is still on – At-level crossing with lights and barriers in the initial phase (before barriers go down), during the period of closed barriers, and in the final phase when barriers go up but the red light is still on – Illegal path over tracks just alongside a level crossing, often a result of insufficient pedes- trian infrastructure Examining specific locations, FRA reported in one analysis that 74% of all trespasser deaths and injuries and 73% of suicides in a 4-year period occurred within 1,000 feet (less than 0.25 miles) of a grade crossing (4). An IDOT analysis examining trespassing by track type demonstrated that a ballasted track receives almost double the amount of trespassing as that of elevated and subway tracks (25). In a study characterizing trespassing incidents, FRA determined that the majority of both suicide and trespass incidents occurred on the right-of-way, compared with grade crossings (27). Learned from Case Studies Maryland Transit Administration’s Metro SubwayLink highlighted many ways for trespassers to access the system, including people accessing the station at the end of the platform by unlocking the gate, which although would trigger an alarm, would still allow people to access the railroad right-of-way. Another area of concern discussed by the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) is locations near homeless shelters, schools, and residential areas with a high senior population. UTA has been involved in many transit-oriented developments because of the high population density and residential areas near the railroad rights-of-way. UTA tries to respond vigilantly to the continually changing needs of access points. DART has significant trespassing issues along a single-track bridge structure located near homeless camps. DART reported that grade crossings are a concern due to geometry design and lack of signage around the locations. ProRail, in the Netherlands, mentioned that mental health facilities near tracks are a signifi- cant concern and are actively addressed through communication and collaboration with the Dutch mental health agency. The agency is attempting to map where it has the most problems com- pared with locations of mental health facilities. One example of the collaboration is the mental health facility alerting ProRail of a missing patient and asking if the rail surveillance cameras have spotted the person of interest.

Causes, Consequences, and Risks of Trespassing 27   Consequences of Trespassing Several documents discuss the impacts of train-pedestrian collisions on family members and close associates, train drivers and other witnesses, railway companies, emergency services, recovery staff, and passengers (27, 33, 34). According to one report, the psychological impacts on those involved in an event, including those who witness or bereave a violent death such as an individual struck by a train, may include experiencing “higher levels of sleep disturbances, depression, and physical health issues” (27). The report notes that train drivers may become impacted by post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). An Australian report highlights that such events “almost always necessitate sick leave and risk of acute and chronic health and wellness issues for train drivers and affect their return to work” (34). Safe Work Australia has now grouped rail drivers with first responders, police services, paramedics, and firefighters as one of the most at-risk occupations for work-related mental disorders, in part due to the pedestrian collision risk. FRA issued a final rule in 2014 that requires certain major railroads, including commuter railroads, to develop and submit Critical Incident Stress Plans that “provide appro- priate support services to be offered to their employees who are affected by a ‘critical incident’” (35). The Critical Incident Stress Plans set minimum standards for leave, counseling, and other support services to help employees with the following: • Recognize and cope with symptoms of normal stress reactions that commonly occur as a result of a critical incident. • Reduce their chance of developing a disorder such as depression, PTSD, or acute stress dis- order as a result of a critical incident. • Recognize symptoms of psychological disorders that sometimes occur as a result of a critical incident and know how to obtain prompt evaluation and treatment of any such disorder, if necessary (35). Rail transit and commuter rail services are impacted financially by trespassing incidents as a result of delays and resource depletion, both directly through sustained damage and indirectly through opportunity costs of foregoing other investments to combat trespassing events (25). CTA expanded the discussion related to agency impacts by stating the following: As a result of trespassing, the CTA incurs damage to trains, facilities, and other property. Addition- ally, increased service, maintenance, inspections, repairs, and replacement of rail system assets contribute to the costs of such events. Increased liability insurance, costs for claims, and the opportunity costs of deploying agency resources to trespasser response also add to the financial impact and redirect resources that could otherwise be used to enhance rail service. CTA interviewees noted that employees involved in trespasser fatality events experience stress and trauma that can result in long-term medical leave and require recruitment and training of replacement staff. One of the hardest consequences to quantify is the psychological effects such events have on the public, which include negative perceptions of safety, security, and system reliability (25). Havârneanu et al. discovered in their investigation that average delays range from 45 minutes to 3 hours for a train-pedestrian accident (33). FRA reported that for the 9,363 trespassing acci- dents during a 5-year period, the cost to society exceeded $43.2 billion in fatalities and injuries and more than $56.0 million in travel time delays (4). FRA noted that these calculations do not include unquantified costs to the economy (i.e., lost productivity) and society (i.e., emotional distress). Learned from Case Studies MNCR believes it is important to tell its employees what to expect—both emotionally and physically—after a trespassing incident. For example, people may get dehydrated because of an adrenaline rush, so they need to know that it is crucial to drink lots of water. In addition, the

28 Strategies for Deterring Trespassing on Rail Transit and Commuter Rail Rights-of-Way agency believes that it is vital to thank and recognize employees for doing their job during diffi- cult circumstances. MNCR offers an employee assistance program (EAP) that assists employees directly involved in a trespassing incident. Under FRA’s requirement, “directly involved employees” refers to crew members of the train. The EAP provides 3 days off following an incident, which can be extended by an outside healthcare provider. The protocol is followed by the Code of Federal Regulations Critical Incident Stress Plans. The EAP also trains people in the field to control trespassing-related situations and directly informs individuals involved in an incident of available EAP services. In addition to the EAP, train crews have access to a chaplain service that provides the opportunity to talk and receive comfort. According to ProRail, when near misses or trespassers are reported, the control center releases a slow order of 40 km/h (25 mph), which is not lifted until after two trains pass the area and report that the trespasser is no longer witnessed. ProRail estimates that slow orders result in an average delay of 4.5 hours per day.