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.

29   C H A P T E R   5 This chapter discusses strategies designed to deter trespassing on rail transit and commuter rail rights-of-way. Classified into three categories, the 14 trespass mitigation countermeasures that have been identified and documented in this guidebook are as follows: • Engineering and Physical Measures – Fencing, channelization, and barriers – Landscaping – Anti-trespass guard panels – PSDs – Surveillance and detection – Lighting – Approaching train alerts – Track retrieval device • Education and Engagement – Signage – Community-based collaboration – Public and industry events and campaigns – Employee intervention training – Hope Poles • Enforcement – Law enforcement and patrol The discussion of each trespass mitigation countermeasure includes the following sections: • Description provides a brief overview of the countermeasure. • Applications discusses the purpose of the countermeasure, target system types and loca- tions, target root cause, and current uses at rail transit and commuter rail agencies. • Implementation discusses companion countermeasures and potential limitations and challenges during the implementation phase. • Benefits and Costs discusses identified effectiveness, costs, and benefit-cost tradeoffs of using the countermeasures. • Best Practices and Lessons Learned provides new findings and lessons learned during case studies that were not found during the literature review. • Ease of Implementation discusses the ease of implementation considering costs, mainte- nance, and administrative activities. Appendix A contains a matrix summary of the countermeasure strategies. Applying Countermeasures to Reduce Trespassing Risks

30 Strategies for Deterring Trespassing on Rail Transit and Commuter Rail Rights-of-Way Engineering and Physical Measures Engineering and Physical Measures—Fencing, Channelization, and Barriers Description Fencing, channelization treatments, and physical barriers guide pedestrians to designated locations and away from unauthorized areas. Applications Purpose Fencing is one of the most widely used countermeasures to prevent access to railway tracks by unauthorized people. There are various types of fencing systems based on materials and con- figurations, including standard chain-link, intertrack, welded wire, expanded metal, and steel tubular fencing (36). High-security fencing, which is increasingly being used, is a reinforced fencing system to prevent incursions or breaches from trespassers. High-security fencing is more formidable than standard chain-link fencing and can be installed in security-sensitive areas (36). Platform end barriers could prevent pedestrian access to the tracks at the end of stations. Brief descriptions of different fencing systems are as follows: • Standard chain-link indicates a galvanized standard steel chain-link, mesh, or woven metal fencing system, which is easy to configure and not expensive. In addition, it can be cut and scaled easily. Intertrack fencing shares similar characteristics with standard chain-link fencing. • Welded wire has wires welded at every joint or wire crossing. Mesh openings can be made smaller to prevent scaling. • Expanded metal consists of open diamond-shaped mesh manufactured from 6- to 9-gauge metals. It is difficult to cut and scale and can be used in high-threat areas. The system requires higher installation costs but low maintenance and repair costs. Target System Types and Locations Fencing, channelization, and barriers could be applied across all operation types at most locations along the right-of-way. Target Root Causes Fencing is targeted at guiding pedestrian movements to designated crossings and deterring pedestrians from crossing at inappropriate locations. For example, there are instances where people cut through the fencing instead of using pedestrian crossings, or they walk between the tracks. Additionally, passengers open shorter platform gates at the end of platforms to gain entry to rail right-of-way, forcing the agency to install taller gates to mitigate the issue. Current Uses The type of fencing varies by area type, agency, and community preferences. For example, chain-link fencing could be used along a stretch of semi-exclusive right-of-way. In a downtown area near stations, delineators with wires could be suitable to guide people to proper crossing locations, as demonstrated in Figure 15 and Figure 16. MTA uses intertrack fencing on its light rail system, which can deter passengers from walk- ing between the trains, which often places them in the train operators’ blind spots. Fencing was widely discussed during the case study meetings with MNCR. MNCR has installed miles of fencing over the past 5 years, focusing on replacing dilapidated fences and adding fences in areas

Applying Countermeasures to Reduce Trespassing Risks 31   where trespassing is a known issue. UTA has been actively installing fencing along the right-of- way, including non-climbing fences. It also installed fencing between the UTA right-of-way and Union Pacic Railroad right-of-way. UTA is adding more fencing to its system and is currently investigating areas where short fencing should be replaced with taller fences. DART uses a Texas Department of Transportation standard 8-foot fence at minimal locations on its commuter rail system. On the other hand, the DART light rail system reported using fencing installed and maintained at varying heights. e United Kingdom has a legal requirement but no standard to Source: Utah Transit Authority (37 ). Figure 15. UTA pole and cable delineation at a station. Source: Jeffery Warner, TTI. Figure 16. Houston METRORail pole and cable delineation at a station.

32 Strategies for Deterring Trespassing on Rail Transit and Commuter Rail Rights-of-Way fence the entire railroad. Fencing was reported to be used on all aboveground rail lines; however, fencing is not used largely on the underground system. The London Underground installed end- of-platform gates with standard warning signage, as shown in Figure 17. Implementation Companion Countermeasures A perimeter fencing detection system could be used along the subway system and at the yard and portal to alert the control center if the fence is being tampered with. Fencing installation and maintenance often rely on collaboration with partner agencies. It was recommended during the case studies that transit agencies should partner with other agencies to discuss fencing installa- tion and develop maintenance plans to address damage to fences. The agency could collaborate with law enforcement to patrol the areas with fencing issues. Fencing could be combined with engineering countermeasures and signage for better efficiency. For example, fencing combined with anti-trespassing mats at the end of stations could prevent potential hiding spots and access to the right-of-way. In addition, fencing with signaling equip- ment increases the fence height and adds an obstacle on top, reducing the likelihood of people accessing the tracks. Challenges and Limitations If fencing is used, small gaps have to be eliminated. For example, a small gap between the end of the fence and the handrails of an overpass could allow school children to fit through. Reported limitations to intertrack fencing include the following: • Some stations are not designed for intertrack fencing. • Fencing is expensive. • Careful investigation and well-documented studies are required to determine locations where fencing is needed, especially due to the liability issue. DART provided images of fencing that was vandalized, which is a limitation of the chain-link fencing commonly used (see Figure 18). Another limitation found during case studies is that there are instances of people tunneling under the fence. A potential challenge could be a fence Figure 17. London Underground platform end barrier with standard warning signage. Source: London Underground (38).

Applying Countermeasures to Reduce Trespassing Risks 33   accidentally diverting a trespasser from one location to another undesirable location to cross. Fencing needs to be installed long enough to block access; however, covering the entire property could trap people in the right-of-way. High-security fencing installations have been found to decrease the level of trespassing. How- ever, a limitation to implementing high-security fencing is that all stakeholders have to agree to it, which can be difficult because high-security fencing is not aesthetically appealing. Another issue to consider is ensuring that the fencing does not disrupt wildlife. MNCR works with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation to provide wildlife access. ProRail reported using fencing that is limited to a height of 2 meters (6.5 feet) because of local wildlife crossings. The metal fences are green, unclimbable, and mostly uncuttable. Benefits and Costs Identified Effectiveness A case study in Finland found that fencing shows the most substantial reduction in the fre- quency of daily trespasses (95%) (39). Fences and barriers can be effective when installed at suitable locations, including known shortcuts, pathways across the tracks, and popular recre- ation areas (40). Suicide rates decrease along tracks with barriers (41, 42). Many agencies said in online surveys and case studies that the number of trespassing events reduced considerably after the installation of fencing. Costs UTA provided estimated costs for various fences, including the following: • Sleeve over existing posts to raise the height of a fence from 40 inches to 8 feet: $18.56 per linear foot • 6-foot chain-link fence, including new footings: $28.50 per linear foot • Pole and cable delineation: $29.75 per linear foot (see Figure 15) • 4-foot gate in 6-foot chain-link fence: $1,350 • 42-inch black vinyl chain-link fence: $31.50 per linear foot (37) Source: Dallas Area Rapid Transit (24). Figure 18. Vandalized DART fence.

34 Strategies for Deterring Trespassing on Rail Transit and Commuter Rail Rights-of-Way Benefit-Cost Tradeoffs Benefits of a general fencing system could include the following: (a) there may not be issues with cutting or scaling if the fences are heavy metal with smaller mesh size, and (b) fences can be installed at most rights-of-way in open areas. However, some areas are not designed for fencing, and fencing is, in general, an expensive countermeasure due to the expanded area to cover. In addition, regular inspection and maintenance of damaged fences are needed, especially for regular fencing systems. Best Practices and Lessons Learned Fencing could shift crossing locations to designated public access, such as grade crossings and pedestrian platforms. Additionally, it may reduce the idea of using railroads for a suicide attempt by increasing the difficulty or delaying a person long enough to allow the moment of crisis to pass. High-security fencing is a very expensive strategy. Therefore, analyzing high-security fencing costs, applying a trespass hazard analysis framework, and conducting fencing effectiveness studies before and after the implementation of fencing are needed to justify and measure the effectiveness of the use of high-security fencing (36). Stakeholder and community support and regular maintenance are critical to the successful implementation of fencing (2, 39). Ease of Implementation Fencing requires a longer lead time and typically involves high capital costs since it needs to be installed at a more extended segment of railroad rights-of-way. Implementing a high-security fencing system requires higher capital costs but involves less maintenance and repair costs. Engineering and Physical Measures—Landscaping Description Landscaping is a natural physical barrier to prevent unauthorized access and includes remov- ing vegetation to improve visibility. Applications Purpose Landscaping includes removing vegetation and the existing path across the railway line; steep- ening the sides of the railway line; planting trees, bushes, or ground cover to form a natural bar- rier; and decorating the side slopes with a few large stones (6, 39, 43, 44, 45, 46). Landscaping, like other physical barriers, such as fencing, aims to deter access to the railroad rights-of-way and to encourage crossing at designated locations. Removing vegetation can increase visibility for train operators, law enforcement, and surveillance systems by removing sources of concealment (46). Target System Types and Locations Landscaping could be applied across all operation types along the rights-of-way, most appli- cable to an open system. Target Root Causes Landscaping is targeted at guiding pedestrian movements to designated crossings and deter- ring pedestrians from crossing at inappropriate locations.

Applying Countermeasures to Reduce Trespassing Risks 35   Current Uses The DART system directs pedestrian flow with barriers designed as planter boxes in stations, as shown in Figure 19. In the design of new rail lines, ProRail integrated ponds along rail rights- of-way to restrict access. In Finland, landscaping included removing the existing path across the railway line, steepening the sides of the railway line, planting trees and bushes to form a natural fence, planting grass, and decorating the sides with a few large stones. The landscaping was installed approximately 1.5 meters (4.9 feet) high and 200 meters (656.2 feet) long. Implementation Companion Countermeasures Landscaping is often combined with fencing and other channelization treatments to guide pedestrians to cross rail tracks at designated locations, as shown in Figure 20. Source: Jeffery Warner, TTI. Figure 19. Planter box integrated into station design to direct pedestrian flows. Source: Jeffery Warner, TTI. Figure 20. Hedges used in combination with poles with wire delineators to deter unauthorized crossing.

36 Strategies for Deterring Trespassing on Rail Transit and Commuter Rail Rights-of-Way Challenges and Limitations The use of landscaping, however, requires regular maintenance to be effective consistently and to prevent sight distance issues for train operators (40). Agencies need to consider the seasonality of vegetation options and other factors, such as the likelihood of attracting bees. In addition, vegetation may reduce access to the right-of-way for agency personnel and emer- gency crews. Benefits and Costs Identified Effectiveness According to the literature review, a study from Finland discovered that landscaping reduced the number of trespasses by over 91% (39). RESTRAIL states that vegetation removal was suc- cessfully employed in Belgium and Norway to improve the railway track visibility for pedestri- ans and train operators. Removing vegetation was proven to be an effective countermeasure in reducing casualties in Norway (46). Costs No cost information was collected during the literature review and case studies. Benefit-Cost Tradeoffs Visibility could be improved for train operators and surveillance equipment with vegetation management or removal. Agencies could use landscaping as a barrier instead of more expensive fencing and other barrier treatments. Conversely, removing vegetation used as a barrier could increase the need to install fencing or other barriers. Best Practices and Lessons Learned Developing and implementing landscaping plans requires coordination with local entities since they will possibly be responsible for installation and maintenance. Internal agency coordination is additionally required since competing activities may be occurring. For example, one department may be discussing the removal or clearing of vegetation for operational improvements, which could open access to the rail right-of-way to trespassers. Additionally, environmental laws and nature should be respected and considered (46). Ease of Implementation Landscaping requires a longer lead time and typically involves high capital costs because it needs coordination with local entities or within transit agencies. Regular maintenance activities are expected due to sight distance issues. Engineering and Physical Measures—Anti-trespass Guard Panels Description Anti-trespass guard panels are ground-level physical barriers to deter unauthorized access to rail rights-of-way.

Applying Countermeasures to Reduce Trespassing Risks 37   Applications Purpose Anti-trespass guard panels are designed to prevent trespassers from accessing the track as well as inform people not to enter unauthorized places (47, 48, 49, 50). The panels can be constructed of composite material, wood, and other materials with different surface patterns. Figure 21 dis- plays an anti-trespass guard panel application at a highway-rail grade crossing. Target System Types and Locations The panels can be installed at platform ends, on- or off-track locations, and rail yard entrances, facilitating use on heavy rail, light rail, and commuter rail (48, 51). Target Root Causes Anti-trespass guard panels are targeted at deterring pedestrians from entering the rail rights-of-way. Current Uses ProRail uses the anti-trespass guard panels that are designed as angled ridges. CTA uses anti-trespass foot barriers with angled bucks to deter pedestrians and motorists from entering the track at highway-rail grade crossings. Currently, CTA is attempting to update the anti- trespass barriers from angled wood slats to modern composite grids (25). The RESTRAIL Toolbox recommends installing the panels at least 3 meters wide (approximately 9 feet 10 inches) to prevent jumping over onto the railroad tracks (48). Implementation Companion Countermeasures Anti-trespass guard panels could be used in combination with fencing or barriers, warning or prohibitive signs, and camera and surveillance systems. Visibility at night could require adequate lighting. Source: Carolyn Cook, FRA. Permission provided by the owner. Figure 21. Example anti-trespass guard panel application at a grade crossing.

38 Strategies for Deterring Trespassing on Rail Transit and Commuter Rail Rights-of-Way Challenges and Limitations A concern with the panels is trapping trespassers on the right-of-way if they entered at another point. Additionally, it could be challenging for railroad employees to access the right-of-way due to the panels or to evacuate train occupants during an emergency (48). Benefits and Costs Identified Effectiveness Several studies show a wide range of effectiveness for the use of anti-trespass guard panels. For example, two studies from the United States and Sweden indicate the anti-trespass guard panels were 38% effective in reducing the number of trespassers (47, 48). A Belgium study indicated the number of trespassers decreased by 78% between the 3 months before and the 3 months after implementing the panels. According to the online surveys, four out of five respondents classified the panels as effective (48). Costs No cost information was collected during the literature review and case studies. Benefit-Cost Tradeoffs Anti-trespass guard panels provide a ground-level physical barrier that could deter trespass- ing. However, the panels could prevent railroad employees from accessing the rights-of-way or trap trespassers on the right-of-way if they entered from another point of access. Best Practices and Lessons Learned The panels should be cleared of debris to maintain effectiveness. Right-of-way maintenance may require temporary removal of the panels, so agencies should consider the ability to remove the panels, the weight of the panels, and the construction of the panels to accommodate this action. For example, ProRail changed to lighter anti-trespass guard panels to better accommo- date the right-of-way maintenance, as shown in Figure 22. Source: ProRail (52). Figure 22. ProRail anti-trespass guard panel installation at a grade crossing.

Applying Countermeasures to Reduce Trespassing Risks 39   Ease of Implementation Anti-trespass guard panels require a longer lead time and typically involve high capital costs since panels are versatile, allowing for different applications at different types of locations. Engineering and Physical Measures—PSDs Description PSDs stretch the entire length of the platform’s edge to create a physical barrier preventing access to the right-of-way. Applications Purpose One of the only countermeasures designed to prevent access to rail rights-of-way, PSDs have sliding doors or retractable barriers that open upon the arrival of trains. PSD systems are either full height or half height. Located on the platform, they also prevent objects from falling onto the railway track and are used for ventilation, air quality, and temperature control in stations (53, 54, 55). Other names include platform edge doors, platform gate doors, and platform edge fences (2, 54). Target System Types and Locations PSDs are limited to use on heavy rail systems on the platform. Target Root Causes PSDs are targeted at preventing people from accessing the rail rights-of-way and preventing objects from falling onto railway tracks. Current Uses Hong Kong and Japan have programs to greatly increase the application of PSDs on their systems (53, 56, 57). London, as part of the Jubilee line extension and redesign of stations, installed PSDs for use with new automated train operations, as seen in Figure 23. Implementation Companion Countermeasures No companion countermeasures were identified during the literature review and case studies. Challenges and Limitations The application requires uniform train types that can consistently stop to align the railcar doors with the PSD doors. Installation of PSDs is typically part of a major reconstruction/renovation project for heavy rail tunnel stations. Also, some platforms are not designed to accommodate heavy PSD loads. Benefits and Costs Identified Effectiveness Full-height PSDs are known to be very effective in deterring both suicide and trespassing (2). In Hong Kong, the installation of PSDs reduced railway injuries by approximately 69% (53, 58, 59).

40 Strategies for Deterring Trespassing on Rail Transit and Commuter Rail Rights-of-Way Source: London Underground (38). Figure 23. London Underground platform screen door at Waterloo station on the Jubilee line. Costs PSDs are very expensive, with a Hong Kong report estimating the cost of installing PSDs at 30 stations over 4 years at $237 million (53). Benet-Cost Tradeoffs Reconstructing station platforms to accommodate the increased weight of PSDs would greatly increase the costs associated with implementation. is increased cost possibly reduces the desire to consider current PSD technology in major improvement projects or as part of implementing automated train operations. Best Practices and Lessons Learned PSDs are one of the known eective countermeasures in deterring both suicide and trespass- ing. However, implementing PSDs is expensive, and the implementation is typically part of a major construction/renovation project for heavy rail tunnel stations. Implementation could be part of a larger project to improve air quality and temperatures within stations and ventilation mitigations for air from passing trains. Ease of Implementation PSDs require complex implementation, the highest cost, and complex maintenance activities. Engineering and Physical Measures—Surveillance and Detection Description e main objective of surveillance and detection systems for trespassing is to monitor and detect unauthorized access onto railroad rights-of-way and other unauthorized locations.

Applying Countermeasures to Reduce Trespassing Risks 41   Applications Purpose After a camera or sensor detects a trespass event, the system sends audible and visual signals to the monitoring workstation or automatically sounds a warning (57, 60, 61). The monitoring workstation could alert security personnel and law enforcement to patrol the areas. In other instances, audible and visual warnings can be used at or near passenger stations to guide pedes- trians to proper crossing points (62). The following describes different types of surveillance and detection systems. • Video Monitoring. There are multiple video monitoring technologies for trespassing detec- tion, including closed-circuit television (CCTV) with advanced analytics, thermal imaging, and laser detection (54). The enhanced digital technology applications, including pan-tilt- zoom (PTZ) cameras, high-resolution cameras, and mobile CCTV systems, could improve the ability to detect unauthorized access to the railroad right-of-way. Mobile CCTV systems can be mounted on trains for surveillance. With tablets or smartphones, security personnel and law enforcement can use handheld CCTV monitors to observe areas remotely (63). • Video Analytics. An AI algorithm automatically detects trespassing real-time events and sends an alert text message with a video clip of the trespassing event (64). A computer vision (CV) algorithm was developed to automatically detect trespassing near misses based on sur- veillance video footage of level crossings (65). • Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. A drone equipped with video monitoring systems can detect trespassing events and send an alert message to a central monitoring location or nearby law enforcement (40, 57, 66). • Electronic Detection Systems and Sensors. Pressure plate systems detect objects when they put pressure on the plate, sending an alert to a central control center. Central control vali- dates the events via CCTV or other video imaging systems (54, 67). Infrared radiation beam systems detect objects moving too close to the platform edge and issue a sound warning. The systems can detect objects that have fallen on the track and delay trains from entering the station until the objects are cleared (54). Fiber Bragg grating sensors are bonded under a ribbed rubber mat to detect an intruder break-in via the pressure induced on the mat (68). Infrastructure/locomotive cooperation systems, such as wireless sensor networks and opti- cal detection of obstacles, detect objects off the line of sight (e.g., curves and hills) (69). A tripwire system could be used at emergency exits or terminal locations to detect suspicious movements. A limitation to the tripwire is that this technology cannot be used at busy stations because it would sound an alarm continuously. • Protran System. The Protran system, depicted in Figure 24, detects people who might enter the track areas from the platform. Once detected, the system notifies train operators and the operations control center (21). In most cases, cameras are monitored in the control center and available to the police, who can pull video immediately. Target System Types and Locations Surveillance and detection systems could be applied to all operation types at most locations, including rail rights-of-way, rail yards, and maintenance facilities. Target Root Causes Surveillance and detection systems are targeted at monitoring and detecting trespassers accessing unauthorized rail rights-of-way. Current Uses The MTA case study showed that camera detection and surveillance systems are being widely used. The MTA light rail system reported that its camera detection system is one of the agency’s

42 Strategies for Deterring Trespassing on Rail Transit and Commuter Rail Rights-of-Way strong suits. The MTA Metro system reported the use of a thermal camera in the yard that pro- cesses in real time using a machine-learning algorithm that builds a database for better detection over time. The safety group and police department use infrared perimeter cameras and drones. The MTA Metro system tested the Metro Station Track Intrusion Detection and Alert System, a Protran light detection and ranging system (LiDAR), in one of its stations. Cameras are widely used throughout the MNCR system and are considered a useful tool for detecting trespassers (over 1,400 cameras in the system). As of the case study, 37% of stations have camera coverage, and there is an ongoing program to install cameras at all stations. UTA widely uses cameras and considers them a successful mitigation strategy. The agency uses both stationary and PTZ cameras. PTZ cameras allow for changing views and zooming to the right-of-way. UTA plans to use more PTZ cameras in the future. At this time, the agency does not have enough staff to monitor all cameras. UTA is collaborating on a thermal imaging radar (TIR) for stationary applications. UTA has three different video security systems within the agency: Milestone XProtect, Safety Vision’s Wi-Fi-enabled cameras, and SmartDrive sys- tems. TRAX light rail and FrontRunner trains are equipped with Safety Vision’s Wi-Fi-enabled cameras, and SmartDrive systems have been deployed on buses and paratransit vehicles. The agency also reported having cameras at grade crossings; UTA is scheduled to install cameras at seven crossings every year until all are covered. Cameras were frequently mentioned during case study meetings with DART. The DART light rail uses cameras near streetcar operations that are reviewed by operation, safety, and mainte- nance staff. The commuter rail agency noted that Trinity Railway Express (TRE) has reported having limited cameras at the Fort Worth Central and T&P stations for the TEXRail project, Source: Maryland Transit Administration (21). Figure 24. MTA Protran Metro Station Track Intrusion Detection and Alert System.

Applying Countermeasures to Reduce Trespassing Risks 43   which will be expanded to the entire TRE system. In addition, TRE is looking to install cameras at stations. The light rail has also reported having an information technology department that views cameras on trains and around yards with advanced analytics. While planning for its new line, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) plans to install two CCTV cameras at every grade crossing because these crossings are the easiest place to access the right-of-way. CCTV with analytics could detect individuals walking down the track. Light rail tunnel portals have laser intrusion detection systems that can differentiate between a person and an object. Once an intrusion is detected, the system alerts train operators through a strobe or stop hand at the tunnel entrance. Heavy rail also uses a laser system at tunnel portals as an intrusion system. Heavy rail also reported previously using pressure mats for a platform detection system, but the system had to be removed because the performance was not promising. Specifically, the mats had limited coverage areas. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) is using cameras at stations that are monitored. Additionally, the police department has access to every camera to respond to a report of an incident or activity. The camera system ProRail uses is very basic and is largely installed near mental health facili- ties adjacent to rails. In addition, ProRail reported using a radio frequency interference system modeled from Small Business Innovative Research in the United States with an integrated detec- tion system and LiDAR, which promotes faster intervention. Transport for London reported currently researching video analytics, including a digital box system that notifies authorities when people cross into a specific area. Transport for London uses CCTV cameras that are moni- tored by dedicated staff, and everything is recorded in all stations 24/7. All London Underground stations must have a minimum of 95% of public floor space monitored by CCTV. Figure 25 dis- plays the CCTV monitors in a London Underground operations room. The cameras monitor four types of stations, including the following: • Gateways and destination stations, which are big and have a dedicated staff control room • Metro stations, which are the main commuter stations with a supervisor control room • Local stations for far-out small towns, which have one staff member in a control room Source: London Underground (38). Figure 25. Example of CCTV monitors in a London Underground station’s operations room.

44 Strategies for Deterring Trespassing on Rail Transit and Commuter Rail Rights-of-Way Implementation Companion Countermeasures In most cases, camera detection systems are combined with a sound warning system or enforce- ment (60, 61). Different types of cameras can be used together for other purposes (e.g., a ther- mal imaging camera can be used during nighttime or in a low-light environment) (54, 61). The nighttime capabilities can be improved with camera systems and drones mounted with infrared equipment (63). A combination of multiple countermeasures with different technologies could improve the discrimination ability, enhance efficiency, and minimize false alarms (68). MTA police use drones to assist with areas of concern, surveillance, and crime scene inves- tigations. The police department also uses Genetec, an advanced security system that provides more capability with video. Challenges and Limitations The surveillance system may not be a cost-effective measure if trespassing is scattered along the railway corridor rather than concentrated in a limited number of sites (60, 61). Privacy and legal protection issues for those who reside near the tracks being surveilled by drones and data storage issues may need to be addressed in advance (57). Track surveillance could require sev- eral employees and be expensive. Therefore, remote detection and implementation in known hotspots or at certain high-risk times are recommended (2). Researchers indicated that the false alarm rate and component reliability were two primary concerns with the automated detection system (57, 60). The pressure plates tend to create false alarms based on the level of sensitivity (54, 67). In addition, the current AI algorithm cannot differentiate between authorized personnel and trespassers. These concerns were reiterated by agencies who largely remain skeptical that smart surveillance and detection systems are advanced enough to be used in the rail environment accurately and without false positives. A limitation of the Protran system is that it does not deter trespassers physically. Instead, it only provides visual and audible warnings, which people could ignore, especially in high tres- passer traffic areas. Benefits and Costs Identified Effectiveness Researchers proved that video-based trespass monitoring and deterrent systems combined with an audible warning are effective in deterring trespassing and saving lives (40, 60, 61). A camera-included system tested in Belgium showed an 80% trespassing reduction after the system installation (61). When combined with an automatic sound warning system, a study from Finland showed a 44% and an 18% reduction in trespassing from two test sites, respectively (71). In one of Sweden’s case study areas, the number of fatalities dropped from 19 to 5 after the installation of CCTV cameras combined with fencing (56). Cameras with motion detectors were found to be an efficient strategy for collecting informa- tion regarding trespassing (61, 70). According to the literature, the AI framework detected all trespassing events at three U.S. case study locations and achieved an accuracy of 100% during the study period (64). Another study showed that the CV algorithm could support data-driven, near-miss risk analysis and contribute to proactive safety improvements at level crossings (65). Costs No cost information was collected during the literature review and case studies.

Applying Countermeasures to Reduce Trespassing Risks 45   Benefit-Cost Tradeoffs Camera systems and track surveillance could help detect pre-suicidal behavior (e.g., walking or loitering close to or on tracks) at an early stage, and timely intervention could be activated, such as early braking of a train or intervention by station staff (58). Data generated by the AI algorithms will help researchers identify precursors, understand human factors, and prioritize risk mitigation strategies in railroad safety research (61, 65). Camera detection systems with an automatic sound warning could be efficient and cost-effective at locations where fencing or other barrier countermeasures are not viable options (71). Best Practices and Lessons Learned UTA has been collaborating with TIR for stationary applications. While the system is station- ary, it could be installed on a trailer or a movable pole. The radar system is connected to the Milestone XProtect system and installed adjacent to or on top of existing cameras. The TIR detects objects through the thermal profile and programs profiles of interest. If suspicious behavior is detected, the system waits until it is spotted on two or more consecutive rotations and alerts rail dispatch with video footage. The radar spins 360 degrees and can detect up to 1,600 feet. Representative images are provided in Figure 26. The Protran system covers the entire platform and covers from 5 to 20 feet into the tunnels. It can be programmed to detect false positives, such as very small objects and the train. In addition, the system has an integrated AI camera for video recording and intrusion detection. MTA Metro reported that the Protran system is an effective, low-cost countermeasure. Future research on applying transfer learning techniques to enhance the recognition of autho- rized personnel is expected (64). Using AI algorithms to detect trespassing from front-facing cameras on locomotives and understanding the behavior of individuals through AI to prevent suicide on railroad property are recommended (64). Ease of Implementation Implementing surveillance and detection systems requires a longer lead time and typically involves high capital costs since the systems need to be installed at a more extended segment of Source: Utah Transit Authority, Rail Trespass and Suicide Prevention: Safety, Research and Demonstration Grant (72). Figure 26. UTA example images of the TIR.

46 Strategies for Deterring Trespassing on Rail Transit and Commuter Rail Rights-of-Way the railroad rights-of-way. Additionally, this countermeasure may require a human workforce for monitoring without adopting advanced video analytics. Engineering and Physical Measures—Lighting Description Lighting is intended to improve visibility and influence behavior. Applications Purpose Lighting improves the visibility of patrons, train operators, and surveillance systems. A transit agency can install three basic types of security lighting: continuous, standby, and mobile. According to the APTA guideline, continuous lighting is the most common type of security lighting and consists of a series of fixed lights arranged to continuously light interior or exterior areas during hours of darkness (73). Luminaires of standby lighting are not con- tinuously lit but are turned on automatically when activity is detected or manually as neces- sary. Mobile lighting may supplement continuous or standby lighting. Mobile lighting can be used at special events and in emergencies during hours of darkness. Continuous lighting is most widely used, but standby lighting could be more efficient at critical and restricted access points (25). Target System Types and Locations Lighting can be applied across all operation types at most locations, including rail rights-of- way, rail yards, and maintenance facilities. Target Root Causes Increasing overall lighting at hotspots and pedestrian stations could reduce trespass occurrences (40). Blue light-emitting-diode (LED) lamps are expected to calm people who are agitated (74). Current Uses CTA has been replacing fluorescent lamps with LED lamps in subways. Most rail yards have already been upgraded to LED lighting, and aboveground rail stations will also be updated over the next 3 years (25). A Japanese railway company installed blue LED lamps at the ends of sta- tion platforms to prevent suicides and on railway platforms to prevent people from intruding on tracks intentionally (74, 75). Implementation Companion Countermeasures Implementing lighting systems with the assistance of video surveillance could be highly effec- tive in reducing trespassers. Challenges and Limitations Agencies have to consider local light pollution ordinances before implementation. Mid- directed or overly bright lights can negatively impact video feeds when video surveillance systems are installed in addition to lighting.

Applying Countermeasures to Reduce Trespassing Risks 47   Benefits and Costs Identified Effectiveness According to the online surveys, 84% of the U.S. rail transit and commuter rail agency respon- dents are currently using lighting as a trespass mitigation countermeasure, with 88% classifying lighting as an effective measure. In studies associated with the use of blue lights, an initial study found blue lights decreased the number of suicides by 74% (74). However, a follow-up study showed that the installation of blue lights on platforms has some effect on preventing nighttime suicides but would have a small impact on the overall prevention of railway suicides (59, 75). Costs No cost information was collected during the literature review and case studies. Benefit-Cost Tradeoffs Lighting systems could be useful because they provide a personal feeling of security and sug- gest that the area is under surveillance by the railroad agency (76). Best Practices and Lessons Learned Smart lighting networks with advanced technology that can be programmed to control light- ing levels and detect maintenance issues could improve the function, efficiency, and mainte- nance of lighting systems (63). Ease of Implementation Lighting requires a longer lead time and typically involves higher operating and capital costs because it needs to be installed at a more extended segment of the rail rights-of-way. Engineering and Physical Measures—Approaching Train Alerts Description Approaching train alerts provide visual and audible alerts to patrons of an approaching train. Applications Purpose Train-activated alert systems provide visual and acoustical warnings to people in or around train stations. These alerts could be effective at enhancing alertness and promoting compliance as trains approach. Target System Types and Locations Approaching train alerts could be applied at light rail, heavy rail, or commuter rail systems, either on a systemwide approach or at specific locations to address a particular trespassing concern. For example, visual approaching train alerts could be in-pavement lights along station platforms or at pedestrian crossings, and acoustical warning alerts could be located on station platforms through the station public address system or at pedestrian crossings. Target Root Causes Train-activated alert systems are targeted at preventing people from accessing rail rights-of-way.

48 Strategies for Deterring Trespassing on Rail Transit and Commuter Rail Rights-of-Way Current Uses The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) uses platform edge lights on its heavy rail station platforms (see Figure 27). The lights burn steady at 50% power and flash at 100% power when a train approaches or is at the station (54). DART is piloting a program to install thin red LED light strips on at-grade pedestrian crossings in the Dallas Union Sta- tion to alert pedestrians of approaching trains. The Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI) piloted a system for METRORail in Houston to alert pedestrians in and around stations of an approaching train using Bluetooth technology, which included equipping trains with Bluetooth low-energy beacons. Figure 28 shows the Bluetooth Proximity Alert System (BPAS) device. Implementation Companion Countermeasures Approaching train alert systems may need to be used at locations with fencing, barriers, or other channelization treatments to ensure people are not using the alert for the wrong reasons. Challenges and Limitations In-pavement lighting systems should be bright enough to see in sunlight and be kept clear of dirt, snow, and debris. Agencies should monitor train approach alert systems to ensure people are not using the alert as a means to unsafely cross tracks or perform other unsafe trespassing behaviors. Benefits and Costs Identified Effectiveness The RESTRAIL Toolbox indicates that the verbal acoustical message could interrupt the impulsiveness of some suicidal people (77). Source: Jeff Warner, TTI. Figure 27. WMATA platform edge warning lights.

Applying Countermeasures to Reduce Trespassing Risks 49   Costs No cost information was collected during the literature review and case studies. Benefit-Cost Tradeoffs Approaching train alerts increase safety by providing audible and visual alerts of approaching trains. The costs for these systems will vary greatly depending on the type of detection, infra- structure alterations, and maintenance costs. For instance, in-pavement lighting systems could require extensive infrastructure improvements. Best Practices and Lessons Learned Alerting patrons of an approaching train through acoustical alerts over the public address system is a common practice. Many traffic control devices utilize flashing lights and acoustical warnings to increase awareness or direct proper behavior, so using the rail environment could be translatable. Ease of Implementation Approaching train alerts, in general, would require complex implementation, higher operat- ing and capital costs, and complex maintenance activities. However, the costs and complexity of implementation could vary depending on the type of alert systems and required infrastructure improvements. Engineering and Physical Measures—Track Retrieval Device Description A track retrieval device is a large composite grabbing tool that allows authorized personnel to retrieve items dropped on the rail track without accessing the right-of-way. Source: Mike Vickich, TTI. Figure 28. TTI BPAS device.

50 Strategies for Deterring Trespassing on Rail Transit and Commuter Rail Rights-of-Way Applications Purpose A track retrieval device is beneficial for reducing safety risks to employees and patrons by offering a tool to retrieve items without accessing the track bed. Target System Types and Locations This tool is particularly applicable to heavy rail and commuter rail lines with electrified third- rail segments and other systems with high-platform station designs. The track retrieval tool can be placed in station kiosks or designated areas for easy access by authorized personnel. The Lon- don Underground packages its track retrieval tools in a bright orange bag for easy identification. Target Root Causes A track retrieval device could prevent people from accessing rail rights-of-way to retrieve dropped items. Current Uses According to the literature, the London Underground, New York Metropolitan Transporta- tion Authority, and Toronto Transit Commission all use track retrieval tools at their stations (25). Figure 29 shows examples of track retrieval tools. Implementation Companion Countermeasures This countermeasure requires signs and station alerts directing patrons to seek the assistance of an authorized person if an item has been dropped from the platform. Education programs could include station attendants and agency surveillance activities for the detection of items dropped from the platform. Then, authorized personnel can be notified to assist in retrieving the articles. Sources: IDOT, Special Study of Trespassing on the Chicago Transit Authority (25); Transport for London, London Underground (38). Figure 29. Examples of use and storage of track retrieval tools.

Applying Countermeasures to Reduce Trespassing Risks 51   Challenges and Limitations No challenges or limitations were reported during the literature review and case studies. Benefits and Costs Identified Effectiveness The effectiveness of this countermeasure relies heavily on patrons seeking authorized person- nel to assist in retrieving items dropped from the platform. Costs No cost information was collected during the literature review and case studies. Benefit-Cost Tradeoffs Using the track retrieval tool can reduce railroad service delays by reducing the need to power down third-rail track segments and increase the safety of railroad employees who would other- wise be required to access the rail right-of-way. Best Practices and Lessons Learned Placing track retrieval tools at rail stations could reduce safety risks to rail employees and patrons and reduce railroad service delays at a low cost. However, the track retrieval tool requires station employees to work closely with dispatch to hold trains outside stations during active retrievals. In addition, the track retrieval tool needs to be placed in a known location with access by authorized personnel only. Ease of Implementation A track retrieval device would be the easiest and fastest countermeasure to implement at low operating and capital costs. Education and Engagement Education and Engagement—Signage Description Signage is installed at trespassing hotspots, crossings, and passenger stations to deliver a mes- sage to pedestrians that unauthorized access to railroad rights-of-way is dangerous and illegal. Additionally, suicide prevention signage is installed with a message and crisis hotline contact information. Applications Purpose Signage campaigns aim to educate the public, which can be performed through digital billboards in stations and metal signage at crossings and passenger stations (2, 25, 56). Target System Types and Locations Signage can be applied across all operation types at most locations, including crossings, passenger stations, and rights-of-way.

52 Strategies for Deterring Trespassing on Rail Transit and Commuter Rail Rights-of-Way Target Root Causes Signage is targeted at warning those who are willing to access rail rights-of-way without permission. Current Uses MTA is addressing trespassing issues using external measures, such as signs. MNCR installed “No Trespassing” signs every 100 to 200 feet along the right-of-way, depending on accessi- bility. Signs are written in English and Spanish with pictograms (Figure 30 shows an English message and pictogram). e agency also discussed suicide prevention signs with hotline numbers provided at all railroad crossings as a potential mitigation strategy during the case study. ere are signs installed at every UTA station to provide safety messages before a train comes into the station. e police department states that the system does not have enough signage, and there is ongoing work to add more signage within the system and install dierent signage at grade crossings and along the right-of-way. To respond to suicides, UTA uses Hope Poles, which have a suicide prevention sign with a message and phone number. A detailed description of Hope Poles is presented later in this guidebook. Signage along the TRE system includes signs every 250 feet on both sides of the tracks. DART has used a federal grant to install “Do Not Trespass” and “Look Both Ways” signs. DART is also planning to add signs at stations displaying phone numbers for people to call. Figure 31 displays signs DART has installed regarding no pedestrians and no clearance. LACMTA is using suicide prevention signs and has installed pedestrian-prohibited and No Trespassing signs throughout the system (see Figure 32). A partnership between the Montgomery County Emergency Services and SEPTA resulted in suicide prevention signs being installed in every rail station. At least two signs are placed at the end of every station, each with a national lifeline phone number to call. Source: Metropolitan Transportation Authority Metro-North Railroad (78 ). Figure 30. Example “No Trespassing” sign in English with a pictogram.

Applying Countermeasures to Reduce Trespassing Risks 53   Source: Dallas Area Rapid Transit (24). Figure 31. Example DART signs. Implementation Companion Countermeasures Combining trespassing prevention countermeasures, such as fencing and partnering with law enforcement, community organizations, and school districts, with signage can significantly reduce trespassing (25, 39, 56). Challenges and Limitations Signage is not an effective measure to deter trespassing at night if it is not enforced by proper authorities (25, 39). Another limitation of signage is that it tends to be ignored. Benefits and Costs Identified Effectiveness A case study performed in Finland showed that prohibitive signs reduced the frequency of daily trespassing by almost 31% (39). A RESTRAIL study discovered that the installation of large posters reduced trespassing events by 52% (76). Warning signs and posters reduced tres- passing at a railway station in New Zealand (in combination with fencing and education) (76). According to a 3-year average, strikes on Amtrak system lines in California have been reduced by an average of 52%, and the Northeast experienced an average reduction rate of 67% after the application of No Trespassing signs (26). Costs No cost information was collected during the literature review and case studies. Benefit-Cost Tradeoffs Signage is relatively low cost and can be implemented in a short time (2, 76).

54 Strategies for Deterring Trespassing on Rail Transit and Commuter Rail Rights-of-Way Best Practices and Lessons Learned The RESTRAIL study recommended that both warning signs and prohibitive signs need to be installed at hotspots (76). Prohibitive signs are recommended if a high benefit-cost ratio or lower cost needs to be emphasized (39). Amtrak is using intelligence to determine the best places to locate suicide prevention signs throughout its system. It was determined that placing suicide prevention signs would be a good mitigating strategy, and the agency found very good results after placing signs in identified hotspots. Ease of Implementation Signage is one of the easiest and fastest countermeasures to implement at low operating and capital costs. Source: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (79). Figure 32. Example of LACMTA pedestrian-prohibited and “No Trespassing” signs.

Applying Countermeasures to Reduce Trespassing Risks 55   Education and Engagement—Community-Based Collaboration Description Community-based collaboration brings many different partners together to address railroad trespassing by allowing each agency/group to leverage its resources. Applications Purpose Community-based collaboration can be vastly different depending on the partnering agencies and their goals. Two frameworks are available to guide these partnerships. First, FRA established the CARE framework that guides stakeholders on how to use data to develop and implement solu- tions (80). This guidance is publicly available at https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/community- trespassing-prevention-guide. Second, the Together Railroads and Communities Keeping Safe (TRACKS) program is a rail safety education and community outreach program focused on promoting safe behaviors near grade crossings and tracks (80). Target System Types and Locations Community-based collaboration can be implemented across all operation types with various types of entities. Target Root Causes The countermeasure is targeted at not only mitigating trespassing but also preventing suicide. Current Uses The TRACKS program is currently used by MNCR and LIRR. As part of the program, MNCR has partnered with the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline and local chapters of the Ameri- can Foundation for Suicide Prevention, whereas LIRR has partnered with the New York State Office of Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Coalition of Long Island (80). Other agencies are also working with community groups on suicide prevention. For example, Transport for London works with Comet and Nova to provide suicide prevention training for staff. Agencies are additionally working with local organizations to develop suicide-specific signs and messages. For instance, Figure 33 shows a suicide prevention sign with important contact information that resulted from a collaboration effort between the Didi Hirsch Suicide Prevention Center and LACMTA. In addition, SEPTA partnered with Montgomery County Emergency Services to install suicide prevention signs and joined the Regional Suicide Prevention Task Force of Southeast Pennsylvania to develop a suicide prevention day. Partnerships with Operation Lifesaver are widely used. For example, SEPTA collaborated with Pennsylvania Operation Lifesaver to distribute rail safety messages. UTA partnered with apartment management officers to distribute safety messages to residents, which was found to be effective 18 months after initial contact. Implementation Companion Countermeasures Partnerships with many different community organizations and groups that are committed to reducing trespassing are required. Both the CARE framework and TRACKS program provide information for implementing a community-based approach.

56 Strategies for Deterring Trespassing on Rail Transit and Commuter Rail Rights-of-Way Challenges and Limitations No challenges or limitations were reported on this countermeasure during the literature review and case studies. Benefits and Costs Identified Effectiveness The TRACKS program has been effective at reducing fatalities, with a 33% reduction in fatali- ties since implementing the program on the MNCR and LIRR systems (81). A Finland study showed that railway safety education for children between ages 8 and 11 had a positive effect on behavior (82). Costs No cost information was collected during the literature review and case studies. Benefit-Cost Tradeoffs Community-based collaborations allow for agencies to leverage their existing resources as well as expand reach. Best Practices and Lessons Learned One of the online survey respondents said the agency invites local police and fire depart- ments to visit rail yards and view equipment every year and participate in biannual territory- wide training sessions. The agency offers classroom and hands-on training, which helps the agency maintain good working relationships with its local emergency responders. The surveys showed that both online and in-person conferences and training classes that involve Operation Lifesaver, FRA, and transportation safety institutes are a great way to share industry-wide best practices with railroad peers. Source: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (79). Figure 33. LACMTA example of a suicide prevention sign.

Applying Countermeasures to Reduce Trespassing Risks 57   Ease of Implementation Community-based collaborations could be easy to implement compared with engineering and physical measures; however, because the countermeasure requires coordination with out- side entities, there could be potential administrative complexity. Education and Engagement—Public and Industry Events and Campaigns Description Public and industry events and campaigns include informational material campaigns (e.g., distribution of pamphlets), social media campaigns, outreach programs, and educational events. Applications Purpose Public and industry events and campaigns are widely used by agencies. These can range from social media campaigns and public information campaigns (e.g., signs in stations, factsheets) to events (e.g., rail safety week, community events). Information covered could include policies and rules, problem awareness, and safe behaviors (19). Target System Types and Locations Public and industry events and campaigns can be implemented across all operation types in collaboration with various entities. Target Root Causes These events and campaigns can target general trespassing and safe rail behaviors or can target high-risk behaviors. In addition, they can be generalized to the rail or target high-risk locations. Current Uses The MTA marketing group conducts campaigns and designs messaging for stations. During rail safety week, the agency distributes goods to promote safety messages rather than use paper- based products, which tend to be thrown away. A unique approach used by MNCR for rail safety week was a safety contest with pre-K to 12th-grade students. In addition to rail safety week, MNCR has a customer safety day that includes using a highly visible safety ambassador (Metro Man) who distributes goodies and has starred in safety videos throughout the years. UTA and LACMTA used a similar approach to Metro Man, having safety ambassadors visit high-incident intersections to distribute educa- tional materials. In addition, SEPTA wrapped an old bus that it takes to safety events as part of an educational campaign, as shown in Figure 34. Implementation Companion Countermeasures RESTRAIL recommends that campaigns be targeted by incident type and audience (e.g., dif- ferent languages, demographics) as well as different media channels. Additionally, it is highly recommended that a collaboration-based approach be used for the success of a campaign (19).

58 Strategies for Deterring Trespassing on Rail Transit and Commuter Rail Rights-of-Way RESTRAIL also recommends that this strategy be used in combination with other engineering, education, or enforcement mitigation strategies for maximum success. Challenges and Limitations No challenges or limitations were reported during the literature review and case studies. Benets and Costs Identied Effectiveness Operation Lifesaver’s Best Practices for Rail Transit Safety Education reports that agencies had success with social media campaigns, vehicle ads, radio ads, and campaigns in stations (84). However, RESTRAIL found media campaigns had almost no eect if not used in combination with other mitigation strategies. Costs No cost information was collected during the literature review and case studies. Benet-Cost Tradeoffs Public events can provide an opportunity for the public to engage with the agency and become aware of important safety information by reaching out to a larger number of indi- viduals with general messaging. e costs of events and campaigns vary depending on (1) if materials are developed internally or with a marketing rm, (2) the material being developed, and (3) the sta resources needed. e costs can be shared if a community-based approach is used. Best Practices and Lessons Learned e U.S. DOT suggested using basic safety messages that are similar to large campaigns to reinforce messages. In addition, APTA recommended adapting Operation Lifesaver’s materi- als and targeting local communities and the demographics of those using the system (25, 84, 85). There are two guides available to assist in implementing public and industry events and campaigns. Source: Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, System Safety, Twitter Page (83). Figure 34. SEPTA safety education bus.

Applying Countermeasures to Reduce Trespassing Risks 59   • Rail Transit Grade Crossing Public Education uses Operation Lifesaver as a model for other rail grade crossing public education programs (86). This includes assessing the demographics of the target audience and tailoring to them and the location of concern (e.g., site-specific information—station name). Additionally, the document recommends that these events be conducted through partnerships with local municipalities, police, and Operation Lifesaver. • Operation Lifesaver’s Best Practices for Rail Transit Safety Education presents a review and survey of Rail Transit Safety Education Grant recipients between 2013 and 2017 (84). The report offers best practices, including designing for a target audience, balancing goals with resources, making the campaign engaging, working with partners, and using multiple approaches. The need to develop targeted messaging was discussed during the case studies. For example, LACMTA mentioned that it is vital to understand the difference between crossings and walking/ biking environments to customize approaches to address the trespassing problem. Ease of Implementation Public and industry events and campaigns could be easy to implement compared with engi- neering and physical measures; however, because the countermeasure requires coordination with outside entities, there could be potential administrative complexity. Education and Engagement—Employee Intervention Training Description Employee intervention training can be conducted with all staff or targeted staff (e.g., station staff, conductors, engineers) to help identify trespassers. At this time, suicide intervention train- ing is being widely used across multiple agencies to teach staff to identify people at high risk of suicide. This training is often called “gatekeeper training.” Applications Purpose Employee intervention training is used to train employees to identify trespassers. Suicide intervention training is conducted to demonstrate how to identify individuals exhibiting suicidal behaviors and intervene successfully. Target System Types and Locations Employee intervention training can be implemented across all operation types in collaboration with various types of entities. Target Root Causes The countermeasure is targeted at training railroad employees to identify and approach indi- viduals exhibiting suspicious behaviors. Current Uses MNCR offers a suicide awareness training program, called Question, Persuade, Refer (QPR), to all employees. The training is targeted toward customer service department employees or other employees who interact face-to-face with passengers in stations. Two training sessions

60 Strategies for Deterring Trespassing on Rail Transit and Commuter Rail Rights-of-Way are offered each month, and during COVID-19, MNCR offered the training virtually. UTA also offers QPR training, which is sponsored by the state health department. The training is required for all operational positions. DART conducts employee training that urges operators to be more vigilant while driving to avoid trespassers. DART also offers operator training and PTSD programs to mitigate incidents before and after. ProRail conducts a day-long staff training program to identify and communicate potential suicide risks. Training focuses on how to identify a potential suicide risk, how to talk suicidal individuals down, and how to transfer care to emergency services. The course is then followed up by a one-hour virtual refresher course. Transport for London works with Comet and Nova to provide suicide prevention training. It offers a 2-hour training course to train staff on how to change suicidal passengers’ minds. LACMTA uses safety ambassadors sent to trouble-prone and densely populated areas to assist patrons and encourage proper actions. The ambassadors are retired rail operators who receive special training. Implementation Companion Countermeasures Employee intervention will be the most successful in locations where individuals can be actively monitored (57, 87). It is important to work with a partner familiar with suicidal behaviors or trespassing behaviors to develop and implement the training successfully (57). Challenges and Limitations No challenges or limitations were reported during the literature review and case studies. Benefits and Costs Identified Effectiveness No empirical studies show the impact these training programs have on the number of suicide detections or interventions on the railroad rights-of-way. However, several studies have shown that such training has a positive effect on trainees by providing them with better knowledge about the subject, better attitudes, and additional skills regarding suicidal warning signs and intervention (87). An FRA report that reviewed the impacts of suicide intervention programs found approximately 11% of the staff intervened within the first 6 months after the training on the United Kingdom’s Network Rail (88). In addition, Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation (Metra) employees made 51 interventions in 2017 and 40 interventions by July 2018 (88). However, the record of interventions made shows the effectiveness of the train- ing program for trainees, not necessarily the program’s effectiveness in reducing the number of rail suicide incidents. Costs Transport for London reported that training is cost-effective, at £35 ($49) per person. Benefit-Cost Tradeoffs During the case studies, Transport for London mentioned its suicide training was responsible for reducing suicides after 90% of its staff had received training, while the cost of training is £35 ($49) per person.

Applying Countermeasures to Reduce Trespassing Risks 61   Best Practices and Lessons Learned The U.S. DOT suggested using basic safety messages that are similar to large campaigns to reinforce messages. In addition, APTA recommended adapting Operation Lifesaver’s materi- als by targeting them for local communities as well as for the demographics of those using the system (25, 84, 85). Two documents are available that could guide the development of employee training: 1. APTA’s Security Awareness Training for Transit Employees provides guidelines for security awareness training (89). 2. APTA’s Identifying Suspicious Behavior in Mass Transit provides a recommended practice aimed at providing transit employees with minimum guidelines for identifying suspicious behavior in mass transit, which applies to all transit agencies regardless of size or mode (90). While both documents largely target terrorism or criminal activity, many of the recommen- dations are applicable for trespassing and suicidal events. RESTRAIL recommends that gatekeeper training be a continuous and sustained effort that covers identifying risk factors, sensitively intervening with a suicidal individual, and assisting with referring an individual to proper care. The agency additionally recommends that training be conducted in collaboration with existing partners (19). Ease of Implementation Employee intervention training could be easy to implement compared with engineering and physical measures; however, because the countermeasure requires continuous efforts of training employees, there could be potential administrative complexity. Education and Engagement—Hope Poles Description Hope Poles are located along rail rights-of-way near at-grade crossings to provide suicide prevention support contact information. Applications Purpose At-grade crossings are the main access point to rail rights-of-way. Hope Poles are placed along the rail rights-of-way near at-grade crossings to provide suicide prevention support information to those persons who accessed the rail rights-of-way with intentions of self-harm (see Figure 35). Target System Types and Locations This setup is geared more toward light rail and commuter rail systems near at-grade crossings. Placement corresponds to locations of higher-risk levels for trespassing and suicides, according to agency risk assessments. Target Root Causes Hope Poles are targeted at providing suicide prevention support information to those who access the rail rights-of-way with intentions of suicide.

62 Strategies for Deterring Trespassing on Rail Transit and Commuter Rail Rights-of-Way Current Uses UTA developed the Hope Poles for use at six initial locations along its light rail and commuter rail rights-of-way with plans to expand the countermeasure installation. Implementation Companion Countermeasures A partnership is needed with an entity that offers the suicide hotline service. Lighting and motion sensors are required to ensure nighttime visibility. Challenges and Limitations The placement of the pole should be far enough away from the crossing that it does not attract curious people onto the right-of-way. Light motion sensors and batteries require regular main- tenance to ensure proper nighttime illumination. Benefits and Costs Identified Effectiveness No empirical studies have reported on the impact of Hope Poles. Costs UTA estimates the cost of a Hope Pole, not including labor for installation, to be about $400, including the sign, solar light, mounting hardware, and concrete (72). Benefit-Cost Tradeoffs The Hope Pole concept offers a means to provide critical crisis information at a common access point to rail rights-of-way. Source: Utah Transit Authority, Rail Trespass and Suicide Prevention: Safety, Research and Demonstration Grant (72). Figure 35. Hope Pole placement along rail right-of-way and sign content.

Applying Countermeasures to Reduce Trespassing Risks 63   Best Practices and Lessons Learned Hope Poles have a mounted solar-powered, motion-activated light at the top to increase the visibility of the sign and surroundings. Agencies should consider impacts on maintenance-of- way and right-of-way maintenance operations when placing the poles and choosing locations. The sign messaging and contact information could correspond to additional suicide prevention signs placed at other locations on the system. Ease of Implementation Hope Poles are one of the easiest and fastest countermeasures to implement, providing low operating and capital costs. Enforcement Enforcement—Law Enforcement and Patrol Description Enforcement is used to address trespassing by making consequences well known. Applications Purpose Enforcement activities can include directly monitoring, detecting, and responding to unusual or illegal behaviors as well as citing individuals for trespassing. Target System Types and Locations Enforcement is widely used among agencies, with regular patrol, targeted patrol and enforce- ment, and outreach events. Target Root Causes Law enforcement officers can identify trespassing hotspots for targeted efforts based on their experiences and available data from responding to incidents. Current Uses The MTA police department patrols stations actively, and officers embed themselves in the community through outreach efforts. The agency additionally conducts vulnerability risk assessments to identify areas of vulnerability. It uses the Crime Prevention through Environ- mental Design approach to identify other areas of concern. Outreach efforts include officers directly engaging with area residents and rail users as well as partnering with schools to edu- cate students. UTA has conducted targeted enforcement at the top 10 locations for safety breaches in addition to its routine patrolling. If someone is identified as a suicide risk, the police will monitor and transport him or her to a local hospital. UTA reported that police educate trespassers first and then give citations if necessary. ProRail uses the opposite approach, tracking down anyone who trespasses for pictures or film productions and issuing cita- tions. Transport for London has a system for passengers to directly text police to investi- gate issues.

64 Strategies for Deterring Trespassing on Rail Transit and Commuter Rail Rights-of-Way Implementation Companion Countermeasures Many agencies use educational and outreach approaches in addition to regular patrolling. For example, DART light rail posts on social media. LACMTA Metro Police collaborate with community relations and education for educational efforts. Challenges and Limitations An implementation challenge found by DART and MNCR was that the trespasser might be gone before the officer can respond to the location due to people moving faster than the officer’s response time and MNCR’s policy of requiring two reports of a trespasser. Benefits and Costs Identified Effectiveness There is a lack of empirical data showing the benefits of law enforcement. Costs No cost information was collected during the literature review and case studies. Benefit-Cost Tradeoffs Anecdotal evidence from the case studies shows that all agencies felt enforcement was an important mitigation strategy when responding to trespassing concerns. Best Practices and Lessons Learned Law enforcement officers’ incident experiences and observations can be used to identify tres- passing hotspots for targeted efforts. However, it was reported multiple times from different agencies during case studies that the trespasser may be gone before the officer can respond to the location, which is challenging. Ease of Implementation Law enforcement and patrol could be easy to implement compared with engineering and physical measures; however, because the countermeasure requires coordination with outside entities, there could be potential administrative complexity.