01672066

Component

http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/175112.aspx

The COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) Action TU1103, “Operation and Safety of Tramways in Interaction with Public Space,” deals with the improvement of streetcar and light rail transit (LRT) safety through a better management and design of their insertion into urban spaces. In Europe there are different approaches to the insertion of LRT systems. Some countries pay special attention to protection, with an approach closer to that of the heavy rail. Other countries try to get a more integrated system, with an easier coexistence with pedestrians and cyclists in the city center (an approach closer to that of streetcars) but still guaranteeing the capacity and adequate speed of the LRT when running through the metropolitan area. In any case, even with the particularities of each country and/or network, LRT systems across the whole world deal with safety issues that are similar, and the solutions applied in some places can be extrapolated to other networks. This paper presents some measures used by different LRT authorities in order to avoid crashes, and/or to improve the safety of their networks in some previous problematic points. The effectiveness of these measures is endorsed, when possible, by the figures about number of crashes in these locations by year before and after their implementation. These measures can be adopted by other authorities to solve similar problems, always considering the specific background of each network. The origin of the main data presented in this paper is the hotspots’ questionnaire made during the Action, which was filled in by 24 LRT agencies from all over Europe and Israel. The examples presented correspond to former hotspots, that is, locations that used to have the higher crash figures in the network but that are now safer places. Additionally to this source, another questionnaire about good and bad practices for interaction points design was made during the Action, gathering more than 130 examples. A very short summary of some of the conclusions obtained from this questionnaire is also included in this paper. The COST Action TU1103, “Operation and Safety of Tramways in Interaction with Public Space,” deals with the improvement of streetcar and LRT safety through a better management and design of their insertion into urban spaces. Thirty-four entities of 14 different European countries (plus Israel) have participated in the Action. Participants include LRT agencies, safety management entities and research bodies, and the UITP (International Association of Public Transport). There are mainly two different parts of the LRT system that influence safety: the infrastructure and the management of its operation. The infrastructure is the more expensive part, and it is very hard to change once the system has been built. On the other hand, the operation management can solve some problems generated by poor infrastructure design, but this ability is limited and not applicable to every infrastructure problem. The main safety issues that LRT systems face are related, in general, to the interaction with other street-users. This interaction is usually concentrated around the intersections with road vehicles (roundabouts and other at-grade intersections) and around pedestrian crossings or other points where pedestrians cross the LRT tracks. In this paper, several solutions to problematic points will be shown, some of them related to infrastructure improvements and others to operation management.

01613496

English

pp 107-126

2016-9

Transportation Research Circular

13th National Light Rail and Streetcar Conference

9780309450591

Digital/other

Figures; Photos; References

High risk locations; Light rail transit; Light rail transit grade crossings; Operations; Railroad safety; Urban areas

Europe

Operations and Traffic Management; Public Transportation; Railroads; Safety and Human Factors

TRIS, TRB, ATRI

Oct 24 2016 1:33PM

• A Workable Solution to Conflicting Crashworthiness Requirements
• Achieving Optimal Results from New Light Rail Lines: Lessons from Three Decades of Experience
• Advancing Safety Rules Compliance: Proactive Management Through Simplified Data Analysis
• Block Rail: Current Best Practices and Experience on Recent Projects
• Compromise: A Necessary Element of Sacramento’s LRT Starter Line
• Denver Regional Transportation District’s Central Rail Corridor Capacity Improvements
• Double-Tracking Baltimore’s Light Rail Transit System
• Downtown Distribution for Light Rail Transit: Past, Present, and Future
• Ergonomics and Visibility in the Tramway Driver’s Cab
• Expanding Metrolink Through Town Centers and Residential and Urban Environments Across Greater Manchester
• Importance of Bus Connections to Light Rail Accessibility Gains
• Inserting Streetcars into Pedestrian Areas: French Examples
• Insertion of the Purple Line
• Integration of METRO Blue and Green Lines with Buses: Restructuring Bus Service Around New High-Frequency LRT Lines
• Key Directions of the Modernization of Tram Systems in Central and Eastern European Countries
• Key Role of Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan in the Development of Light Rail Train Networks in Central and Eastern European Countries: Case Study of LRT Networks in Romania
• Light Rail Hubs in a Multimodal Transport Environment
• LRT Safety in France: How Are Pedestrians Involved?
• METRO Green Line Transit Signal Priority: Implementation and Lessons Learned
• Mitigation of Hazards for Street Running and Semiexclusive Light Rail Rights-of-Way
• Onboard Energy Storage System Applications on Streetcar Projects
• P3 Experiences and Lessons Learned from the Maryland Purple Line Project
• RandstadRail: From a Traditional Tram System to an Integrated Tram and Light Rail System in the Metropolitan Region Rotterdam–The Hague
• Safety Management in European LRT Systems: Some Tools for Collecting and Using Accident Data
• San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency’s Twin Peaks Tunnel Trackway Improvement Project
• State of the Art in Light Rail Alternative Power Supplies
• Streetcar Institutional Models: Comparison of Experience with Transit Coordination
• Transit Signal Priority Implementation in Phoenix