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.

65   Making the Case for Implementation Agency personnel and leadership would be well served with guidance on making the case for the investment in safety solutions to prevent trespassing to their governing authority for budget/policy approval. The reality for rail transit and commuter rail agencies is that a detailed, fact-based benefit-cost analysis is not feasible given the available data for many of the counter- measure strategies. Therefore, leadership needs to be equipped with information on what the available countermeasures are and how they can be implemented while also balancing the other competing needs of the agency. Agencies have unique policies, programs, characteristics, needs, and sensitivities. The tres - passing problems and concerns faced by these agencies are also unique, and they often occur outside the agency’s rights-of-way. Making the case for choosing a mitigation strategy requires rail transit and commuter rail agencies to address the competing demands on limited funds. Agencies need the ability to present decision-makers with critical information about possible mitigating strategies and the expected effectiveness of these strategies for the target problem. This guidebook presents available decision-making guidance and a set of mitigation strategies that practitioners can use to address trespassing issues. The information described in this chapter will assist agencies in identifying trespass mitigation countermeasures. Ease of Implementation When selecting countermeasures, an agency could consider as an initial step the ease of imple- menting the mitigation strategies. TCRP Research Report 215: Minutes Matter: A Bus Transit Service Reliability Guidebook describes how some treatments to improve bus transit service reliability are lower in cost and easier to implement than others (91). This is also true for countermeasures to mitigate trespassing, as identified by agencies in the literature review, online surveys, and case studies for this project. As with the treatments in TCRP Research Report 215, some easy-to- implement, low-cost approaches can be employed to address the identified problem. In addi- tion, there are more complex strategies to trespassing problems that should not be overlooked despite potentially requiring more partner cooperation, longer lead times, and higher costs than other strategies. Table 4 shows the strategies grouped into four tiers by ease of implementation. The first tier includes trespassing mitigation strategies that are the easiest and fastest to implement and involve the lowest operating and capital costs. They are also generally under agency control. Tier 2 strategies are the easiest to implement but typically add some operating costs or coordination with outside entities. Tier 3 strategies require longer lead times and typi- cally involve higher operating and capital costs for implementation. They also often involve C H A P T E R   6

66 Strategies for Deterring Trespassing on Rail Transit and Commuter Rail Rights-of-Way increased coordination with outside partners. Tier 4 strategies are generally the hardest to implement due to the complex involvement of partners, higher costs, and complex mainte- nance activities. The ease-of-implementation table could act as a standalone decision-support tool or as part of a more comprehensive evaluation tool that would also consider the problem location, trespass- ing type, and root cause of the trespassing problem. Matrix and Spreadsheet Selection Tools This guidebook includes two tools—a matrix and a spreadsheet—to assist practitioners in selecting from a range of trespass mitigation strategies for an identified trespassing problem or concern. The matrix, included as Appendix A, summarizes all the countermeasures into a single table for quick review. It contains fields with categorized evaluation criteria, along with several descriptive fields, including a summary of the benefit-cost tradeoffs. It allows for the identification of countermeasures pertinent to current trespassing mitigation needs. The spreadsheet tool is a standalone Microsoft Excel® spreadsheet that contains the same criteria as the matrix but allows for active narrowing of the menu of countermeasure strategies through the selection of categories based on the identified trespassing problem or concern. The following section describes the selection criteria within the matrix and spreadsheet tool. Selection Criteria To narrow the menu of countermeasure strategies, the evaluation criteria offer categories to select based on the identified trespassing problem or concern. • Rail System Type. This criterion identifies the rail transit systems likely impacted by the identified trespassing activity. These include the three rail transit system types covered in this study: commuter rail, light rail, and heavy rail. Tier 1—Strategies that are easiest and fastest to implement at low operating and capital costs • Track retrieval device • Signage • Hope Poles Tier 2—Strategies that are easiest to implement but typically involve some operating costs or coordination with outside entities (often administrative) • Community-based collaboration • Public and industry events and campaigns • Employee intervention training • Law enforcement and patrol Tier 3—Strategies that require a longer lead time and typically involve higher operating costs and capital costs • Fencing, channelization, and barriers • Landscaping • Anti-trespass guard panels • Lighting Tier 4—Strategies that require complex implementation, and have the highest costs and complex maintenance activities • PSDs (typically considered for heavy rail only) • Surveillance and detection • Approaching train alerts Table 4. Summary mitigation strategies by ease of implementation.

Making the Case for Implementation 67   • Problem Locations. This criterion classifies the locations of the trespassing issue into four categories: – Rights-of-way. Trespassing along or across rail rights-of-way, including at-grade crossings and bridges – Equipment and maintenance yards. Trespassing into or along restricted yard areas – Stations and platforms. Trespassing in and around stations and platforms – Non-specific locations. Trespassing at non-specific or various locations • Types of Trespassing Addressed. This criterion identifies, where possible, whether the problems are trespassing or suicide-related. • Target Root Cause. This criterion identifies the root causes of the trespassing issues. Root causes are divided into five categories, plus an Other category. – Living/loitering in the right-of-way. Increasing risk of trespass by presence in or near the rail right-of-way for any number of reasons, which exclude self-harm and criminal behavior but may be made worse by inattention, substance abuse, mental health, and living in the area – Self-harm intent. Accessing the rail system with the intent of doing self-harm – Shortcut/route convenience. Accessing the rail system for convenience, lack of awareness, risk-taking, or poor community planning – Criminal behavior. Accessing the rail system with the intent of committing criminal behavior, such as vandalism, theft, and risk-seeking – Lost/dropped items. Accessing the rail system to retrieve lost or dropped items – Other. Accessing the rail system due to recreational or seasonal activities, such as hiking; unintended trespassing, such as falls; or other causes • Ease of Implementation. Some strategies are easier to implement than others. Following is a description of the Table 4 strategies to consider depending on whether or not the situation requires a countermeasure that is relatively easy to implement or if the situation warrants a complex solution. – Tier 1. These strategies are the easiest and fastest to implement at low operating and capital costs. These strategies offer effective solutions for trespassing issues at specific locations. – Tier 2. These strategies are easiest to implement but typically involve some operating costs or coordination with outside entities (often administrative). They offer both short-term and long-term benefits. – Tier 3. These strategies require a longer lead time and typically involve higher operating costs and capital costs. – Tier 4. These strategies require complex implementation, and they have the highest costs and complex maintenance activities. These are the most complex strategies in terms of both implementation and costs. Mitigation Strategy Selection Both the matrix and spreadsheet tools assist with narrowing the available trespass mitigation strategies. The matrix, in Appendix A, contains the evaluation criteria and categories associated with each countermeasure. Practitioners can browse the matrix to identify the countermeasures that relate to a specific trespassing problem or concern. For example, a light rail agency faced with a trespassing issue in the right-of-way caused by shortcuts could identify seven mitigation strategies in the matrix table that match that criterion. Likewise, practitioners can utilize the spreadsheet tool to narrow the available countermeasure strategies. Instructions on how to use the interactive spreadsheet are included in Appendix B. The following discussion demonstrates the spreadsheet tool using scenarios that show real-world

68 Strategies for Deterring Trespassing on Rail Transit and Commuter Rail Rights-of-Way examples faced by rail transit and commuter rail agencies daily. Each scenario is described, followed by the selection of the evaluation criteria categories that match the scenario trespass- ing problem. This process output identifies a menu of strategies that the agency could further investigate as possible options to reduce the trespassing risk. Example Scenario A. Agency A is a commuter rail agency that just began operations on what was a rarely used freight alignment. The local population rarely had to worry about a train, and many well-established paths cross the rail corridor between a neighborhood, several retail sites, and a middle school. After a student crossing the tracks was killed, the governing board sought a recommendation for action in light of the tragedy and the community pressure. Staff are examining what might work and what would work quickly. Table 5 identifies the evaluation criteria categories most closely associated with the scenario trespassing problem and the menu of countermeasure options selected by the spreadsheet tool assembled according to the ease of implementation. Example Scenario B. Agency B is a well-established heavy rail agency that has had several near misses reported through the C3RS system from riders jumping off the station platform to recover phones/devices. What are some options? Table 6 identifies the evaluation criteria categories most closely associated with the scenario trespassing problem and the menu of countermeasure options selected by the spreadsheet tool assembled according to the ease of implementation. Example Scenario C. Agency C operates a commuter rail line that traverses a very scenic area and blocks the easiest route to a popular hiking area. COVID-19 restrictions and improving weather have greatly increased the number of trespassers at the shortcuts and other trespassing locations. The train and the hiking area are not going away. What is a logical course for planning capital expenditures over the next few years to bring a permanent solution to the system? Table 7 identifies the evaluation criteria categories most closely associated with the scenario trespassing problem and the menu of countermeasure options selected by the spreadsheet tool assembled according to the ease of implementation. Evaluation Criteria Rail System Type Problem Locations Types of Trespassing Target Root Cause Light rail Heavy rail Commuter rail Rights-of-way Equipment and maintenance yards Stations and platforms Non-specific locations Trespassing Suicide Living/loitering in ROW Self-harm intent Shortcut/route convenience Criminal behavior Lost/dropped items Other Mitigation Strategies Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Signage Community-based collaboration Public and industry events and campaigns Law enforcement and patrol Fencing, channelization, and barriers Landscaping Anti-trespass guard panels Lighting Surveillance and detection Approaching train alerts Bold = Engineering and Physical Measures Italics = Education and Engagement Normal = Enforcement Table 5. Scenario A spreadsheet tool outcome.

Making the Case for Implementation 69   Evaluation Criteria Rail System Type Problem Locations Types of Trespassing Target Root Cause Light rail Heavy rail Commuter rail Rights-of-way Equipment and maintenance yards Stations and platforms Non-specific locations Trespassing Suicide Living/loitering in ROW Self-harm intent Shortcut/route convenience Criminal behavior Lost/dropped items Other Mitigation Strategies Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Signage Community-based collaboration Public and industry events and campaigns Employee intervention training Law enforcement and patrol Fencing, channelization, and barriers Landscaping Anti-trespass guard panels Lighting Surveillance and detection Approaching train alerts Bold = Engineering and Physical Measures Italics = Education and Engagement Normal = Enforcement Table 7. Scenario C spreadsheet tool outcome. Evaluation Criteria Rail System Type Problem Locations Types of Trespassing Target Root Cause Light rail Heavy rail Commuter rail Rights-of-way Equipment and maintenance yards Stations and platforms Non-specific locations Trespassing Suicide Living/loitering in ROW Self-harm intent Shortcut/route convenience Criminal behavior Lost/dropped items Other Mitigation Strategies Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Track retrieval device Signage Community-based collaboration Public and industry events and campaigns Law enforcement and patrol Fencing, channelization, and barriers Landscaping Anti-trespass guard panels Lighting PSDs Surveillance and detection Approaching train alerts Bold = Engineering and Physical Measures Italics = Education and Engagement Normal = Enforcement Table 6. Scenario B spreadsheet tool outcome.