U.S. Department of 

Transportation

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Effect of Gate Skirts on Pedestrian Behavior at 

Highway-Rail Grade Crossings

Office of Research

and Development

Washington, DC 20590

DOT/FRA/ORD-13/51 Final Report

December 2013
NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the 

Department of Transportation in the interest of information 

exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for 

its contents or use thereof. Any opinions, findings and 

conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material do not 

necessarily reflect the views or policies of the United States 

Government, nor does mention of trade names, commercial 

products, or organizations imply endorsement by the United States 

Government. The United States Government assumes no liability 

for the content or use of the material contained in this document.

NOTICE

The United States Government does not endorse products or 

manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein 

solely because they are considered essential to the objective of this 

report.
iii

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE

December 2013

3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

Technical Report

April 2012–January 2013

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Effect of Gate Skirts on Pedestrian Behavior at a Highway-Rail Grade Crossing

5. FUNDING NUMBERS

RR97A6/KT925

RR97A6/LT925 6. AUTHOR(S)

Stephanie Chase Ph.D., Scott H Gabree, Ph.D., and Marco daSilva

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

U.S. Department of Transportation

Research and Innovative Technology Administration

John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

55 Broadway

Cambridge, MA 02142

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

REPORT NUMBER

DOT-VNTSC-FRA-13-01

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Railroad Administration

Office of Research and Development

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

DOT/FRA/ORD-13/51

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Safety of Highway-Rail Grade Crossing series

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

This document is available to the public through the FRA Web site at http://www.fra.dot.gov.

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

13. The Federal Railroad Administration was interested in evaluating one type of pedestrian safety device, commonly known as 

gate skirts, that consists of a secondary horizontal hanging gate under the existing pedestrian gate to better block access to the 

crossing by pedestrians who gain unauthorized entry by going under the down gates. The Volpe Center participated in a New 

Jersey Transit rail pilot project to evaluate a prototype design installed at a grade crossing in Matawan, NJ, on May 30, 2012. The 

purpose of this evaluation was to determine if the addition of gate skirting would result in fewer pedestrians attempting to violate 

the crossing on the sidewalk after the gates began to descend. Data were collected over a 2-week period before and a 2-week 

period after the installation of the gate skirts. Pedestrian actions were coded during all train activations that occurred during this 4-

week period. The research team found that the total number of pedestrian violations decreased while the gates were descending 

(78 percent reduction) and horizontal (55 percent reduction), but increased while the gates were ascending (12 percent increase). 

Additionally, after the installation of the gate skirts, more pedestrians who violated while the gates were descending or horizontal 

chose to do so in the adjacent street where there were no gate skirts, as opposed to on the sidewalk where the safety enhancement 

had been added.

14. SUBJECT TERMS: 

Gate skirts, highway-rail, grade crossing, pedestrian behavior, pedestrian gates, violations, enhancement, safety, Train Activations

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

43

16. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF REPORT

Unclassified

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF THIS PAGE

Unclassified

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified

20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18

298-102
iv

METRIC/ENGLISH CONVERSION FACTORS

ENGLISH TO METRIC METRIC TO ENGLISH

LENGTH (APPROXIMATE) LENGTH (APPROXIMATE)

1 inch (in) = 2.5 centimeters (cm) 1 millimeter (mm) = 0.04 inch (in)

1 foot (ft) = 30 centimeters (cm) 1 centimeter (cm) = 0.4 inch (in)

1 yard (yd) = 0.9 meter (m) 1 meter (m) = 3.3 feet (ft)

1 mile (mi) = 1.6 kilometers (km) 1 meter (m) = 1.1 yards (yd)

1 kilometer (km) = 0.6 mile (mi)

AREA (APPROXIMATE) AREA (APPROXIMATE)

1 square inch (sq in, in2) = 6.5 square centimeters (cm2) 1 square centimeter (cm2) = 0.16 square inch (sq in, in2)

1 square foot (sq ft, ft2) = 0.09 square meter (m2) 1 square meter (m2) = 1.2 square yards (sq yd, yd2)

1 square yard (sq yd, yd2) = 0.8 square meter (m2) 1 square kilometer (km2) = 0.4 square mile (sq mi, mi2)

1 square mile (sq mi, mi2) = 2.6 square kilometers (km2) 10,000 square meters (m2) = 1 hectare (ha) = 2.5 acres

1 acre = 0.4 hectare (he) = 4,000 square meters (m2)

MASS - WEIGHT (APPROXIMATE) MASS - WEIGHT (APPROXIMATE)

1 ounce (oz) = 28 grams (gm) 1 gram (gm) = 0.036 ounce (oz)

1 pound (lb) = 0.45 kilogram (kg) 1 kilogram (kg) = 2.2 pounds (lb)

1 short ton = 2,000 pounds 

(lb)

= 0.9 tonne (t) 1 tonne (t) =

=

1,000 kilograms (kg)

1.1 short tons

VOLUME (APPROXIMATE) VOLUME (APPROXIMATE)

1 teaspoon (tsp) = 5 milliliters (ml) 1 milliliter (ml) = 0.03 fluid ounce (fl oz)

1 tablespoon (tbsp) = 15 milliliters (ml) 1 liter (l) = 2.1 pints (pt)

1 fluid ounce (fl oz) = 30 milliliters (ml) 1 liter (l) = 1.06 quarts (qt)

1 cup (c) = 0.24 liter (l) 1 liter (l) = 0.26 gallon (gal)

1 pint (pt) = 0.47 liter (l)

1 quart (qt) = 0.96 liter (l)

1 gallon (gal) = 3.8 liters (l)

1 cubic foot (cu ft, ft3) = 0.03 cubic meter (m3) 1 cubic meter (m3) = 36 cubic feet (cu ft, ft3)

1 cubic yard (cu yd, yd3) = 0.76 cubic meter (m3) 1 cubic meter (m3) = 1.3 cubic yards (cu yd, yd3)

TEMPERATURE (EXACT) TEMPERATURE (EXACT)

[(x-32)(5/9)] °F = y °C [(9/5) y + 32] °C = x °F

QUICK INCH - CENTIMETER LENGTH CONVERSION

0 1 2 3 4 5

Inches

Centimeters 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

QUICK FAHRENHEIT - CELSIUS TEMPERATURE CONVERSIO

 -40° -22° -4° 14° 32° 50° 68° 86° 104° 122° 140° 158° 176° 194° 212°

 

°F

 °C -40° -30° -20° -10° 0° 10° 20° 30° 40° 50° 60° 70° 80° 90° 100°

For more exact and or other conversion factors, see NIST Miscellaneous Publication 286, Units of Weights and 

Measures. Price $2.50 SD Catalog No. C13 10286 Updated 6/17/98
v

Contents

Executive Summary........................................................................................................................ 1

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 3

1.1 Background ................................................................................................................. 4

1.1.1 Test Site Location........................................................................................................ 4

1.2 Gate Skirts................................................................................................................... 6

1.2.1 New Jersey Transit Prototype...................................................................................... 9

1.3 Data Collection Equipment ....................................................................................... 11

2. Results....................................................................................................................... 14

2.1 Data Characteristics................................................................................................... 14

2.1.1 Violations .................................................................................................................. 16

2.1.2 Entering the Crossing ................................................................................................ 20

2.1.3 Exits........................................................................................................................... 22

2.1.4 Pedestrian Movement through the Crossings............................................................ 23

2.1.5 Pedestrian Path through Crossing.............................................................................. 25

2.2 Summary of Findings................................................................................................ 28

3. Conclusion................................................................................................................. 30

4. References ................................................................................................................. 32

Appendix A. Additional Data ....................................................................................................... 33

Abbreviations and Acronyms ....................................................................................................... 34
vi

Illustrations

Figure 1. Pedestrians Violating Grade Crossing at Atlantic Ave., Matawan, NJ........................... 3

Figure 2. All Four Pedestrian Gates at the Atlantic Ave. Crossing before Installation of Gate 

Skirts....................................................................................................................................... 5

Figure 3. Atlantic Ave. Grade Crossing Site Characteristics and Zones........................................ 6

Figure 4. Example of Pedestrian Gate with Horizontal Hanging Bar at a Pathway or Sidewalk 

Grade Crossing........................................................................................................................ 7

Figure 5. Prototype Gate Arm and Skirt Assembly at Cherry St. Crossing, Knoxville, TN ......... 8

Figure 6. Gate Skirt Installation at Waco Ave., Dallas, TX ........................................................... 8

Figure 7. Prototype Pedestrian Gate Enhancement at Atlantic Ave. – Zone 1............................... 9

Figure 8. Prototype Pedestrian Gate Enhancement at Atlantic Ave. – Zone 2............................. 10

Figure 9. Prototype Pedestrian Gate Enhancement at Atlantic Ave. – Zone 3............................. 10

Figure 10. Prototype Pedestrian Gate Enhancement at Atlantic Ave. – Zone 4........................... 11

Figure 11. Video Camera Placement ............................................................................................ 12

Figure 12. Digital Video Recorder................................................................................................ 12

Figure 13. View of Zones from First Camera............................................................................... 13

Figure 14. View of Zones from Second Camera .......................................................................... 13

Figure 15. Number of Trains per Activation Pre- and Post-Installation....................................... 15

Figure 16. Number of Pedestrians per Arrival Zone Pre- and Post-Installation........................... 16

Figure 17. Examples of Descending Violations Pre- and Post-Installation.................................. 17

Figure 18. Examples of Horizontal Violations on the Sidewalk Pre- and Post-Installation......... 18

Figure 19. Examples of Horizontal Violations in the Street......................................................... 18

Figure 20. Examples of Ascending Violations Pre- and Post-Installation.................................... 19

Figure 21. Example of Second Train Activation .......................................................................... 19

Figure 22. Frequency of Violations per Activation Phase Pre- and Post-Installation .................. 20

Figure 23. How the Pedestrian Violated for Descending Violations............................................ 22

Figure 24. How the Pedestrian Violated for Horizontal Violations.............................................. 22

Figure 25. Zone 1 Pedestrian Violation Behavior ........................................................................ 24

Figure 26. Zone 1 Pedestrian Violation Exit Behavior................................................................. 25

Figure 27. Most Frequent Paths through Crossing during Descending Violation........................ 26

Figure 28. Most Frequent Paths through Crossing during Horizontal Violation.......................... 27

Figure 29. Pedestrians Violating Alone vs. with another Pedestrian............................................ 28
vii

Figure 30. Pedestrian Violation Rate per Grade Crossing Activation.......................................... 29

Figure 31. Descending and Horizontal Gate Violation Rate per Grade Crossing Activation ...... 30
viii

Tables

Table 1. Street and Sidewalk Entrance Zones .............................................................................. 21

Table 2. Street and Sidewalk Exit Zones...................................................................................... 23
ix

Acknowledgements

The U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

Office of Research and Development sponsored the work leading to this report. The authors 

would like to thank Sam Alibrahim, Chief of the Office of Research and Development's Signals,

Train Control and Communications Division, FRA, and Tarek Omar, D.Sc., Program Manager, 

Signals, Train Control and Communications Division, FRA, for their guidance during the project 

and in developing this report.

The authors would like to thank Jaclyn Buonopane, Systems Safety and Engineering Division, 

U.S. DOT Research and Innovative Technology Administration’s John A. Volpe National 

Transportation Systems (Volpe Center) for her support in data collection and analysis. 

Additional thanks to William Baron, Security and Emergency Management Division, and Alan 

Kauffman of Computer Science Corporation, Volpe Center onsite contractor, for their technical 

support in data collection system development, installation, and maintenance.

The authors would also like to thank Jeff Kovacs, Deputy General Manager, NJ Transit Rail

Safety & Training Department and Geoff Hubbs, Chief Engineer, NJ Transit Rail Signals 

Department, as well as acknowledge the contributions of all NJ Transit Rail field personnel for 

their part in supporting this evaluation effort. Additionally, the authors wish to acknowledge 

Todd Hirt, Project Engineer, NJ Department of Transportation, and Lou Frangella, FRA Office 

of Railroad Safety Region I Grade Crossing Manager, for their contributions.
1

Executive Summary

The John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center) was tasked by the 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) with evaluating one type of highway-rail grade crossing 

pedestrian safety device, commonly known as gate skirts, designed to prevent pedestrians from 

violating the grade crossing while the grade crossing warning protection systems are activated. 

This treatment consists of a secondary horizontal hanging gate arm under the existing pedestrian 

gate to better block access to the crossing by pedestrians who gain unauthorized entry by going 

under the down gates, in the presence of a stationary or moving train.

At the request of FRA, Volpe Center participated in a New Jersey Transit rail safety pilot project 

to evaluate a prototype design installed at a grade crossing in Matawan, NJ, on May 30, 2012. 

The purpose of this research effort was to determine if the addition of gate skirting would result

in fewer pedestrians violating the crossing on the sidewalk after the gates began to descend.

Data were collected over a 2-week period before the installation of the gate skirts and over 

another 2-week period after the installation. Pedestrian actions were coded for all train 

activations (i.e., automatic warning devices activated by the approach of a train) that occurred 

during this 4-week period. The following are some of the main findings from this data collection:

• A total of 890 pre-installation and 884 post-installation train activations were analyzed.

• A total of 2,461 pre-installation and 2,312 post-installation pedestrian behavior 

observations were made.

• There was a statistically significant decrease in the number of descending and horizontal 

violations by pedestrians after the installation of the gate skirts. Descending violations 

decreased significantly from 80 violations to 19 (a 78 percent reduction). Horizontal 

violations also decreased significantly from 177 violations to 83 violations (a 55 percent

reduction). In contrast, ascending violations rose significantly after the installation of 

gate skirts from 1,658 violations to 1,887 violations (a 12 percent increase). See Figure 

E-1 below for the violation rate per train activation pre- and post-installation.
2

Figure E-1. Violations per Train Activation

• The number of horizontal violations that were initiated on the sidewalk dropped from 80

percent of violations pre-installation to 45 percent post-installation.

• Horizontal violations that began on the street increased from 20 percent of the violations 

pre-installation to 55 percent post-installation. Descending violations that were initiated 

on the street increased from 8 percent pre-installation to 21 percent post-installation.

• Horizontal violations that ended on the street increased a significant amount from 23

percent of the violations pre-installation to 51 percent post-installation.

The addition of gate skirts has been shown in this case to reduce the number of pedestrian 

violations while the gates are descending or in the horizontal position. Ascending violations 

increased during the study timeframe, though the reason for this increase is not clear. The 

findings seem to indicate that pedestrians may be more likely to enter and exit the crossing from 

the street when committing a descending or horizontal violation. This may be because only two 

of the four street quadrants at the crossing had a vehicle gate and neither of those gates was 

equipped with a gate skirt; thus, it was easier for pedestrians to violate the crossing on the street.

The next steps would be to better understand why pedestrians, especially those committing 

violations while the gates are horizontal, prefer to enter from the street and then to investigate 

potential solutions to this workaround. Applying this evaluation plan to different grade crossing 

sites may also assist in determining if the reduction in descending and horizontal violations is a 

result of the gate skirts alone or a combination of the gate skirts and the characteristics of the 

particular crossing.
3

1. Introduction

The John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center) provides technical 

support to Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) Office of Research and Development in the 

area of railroad infrastructure research. This support includes key research associated with all 

aspects of the railroad right-of-way (ROW), including the highway-rail intersection (HRI) and 

trespass issues. One major effort is to develop a more precise understanding of the risks 

presented by the railroad ROW and then determine how best to mitigate (i.e., decrease or 

eliminate) the risks. 

Within this research area, Volpe Center was tasked with evaluating pedestrian gate 

enhancements designed to prevent pedestrians from violating the grade crossing while the grade 

crossing protection systems are activated. One such enhancement is the addition of a secondary 

gate under the existing pedestrian gate to better block access to the crossing by pedestrians who 

gain entry by going under the down gates. Figure 1 provides an example of two pedestrians

violating a crossing while the gates are down (The two violating pedestrians are circled in 

yellow.). This gate enhancement, described in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) as a horizontal hanging bar, is referred 

to throughout this document as a “gate skirt.”

In response to a series of trespass fatalities in late 2011, the New Jersey Department of 

Transportation (NJDOT) Leadership Oversight Committee set up an engineering subcommittee 

to address safety concerns at the State’s rail crossings. The goal was to draw on expertise and 

look at best practices to develop effective and measurable strategies for improving safety along 

Figure 1. Pedestrians Violating Grade Crossing at Atlantic Ave., Matawan, NJ
4

the State’s rail lines. Volpe Center participated at the request of FRA and was tasked with 

providing support to the NJDOT engineering implementation effort [1]. The effort included a 

pilot program of enhanced engineering safety treatments through which the concept of gate skirts 

would be trialed. Volpe Center was specifically tasked to determine the effectiveness of the 

addition of gate skirts to the pedestrian gates at a New Jersey Transit Rail (NJ Transit Rail) grade 

crossing. The purpose of this research effort was to determine if the addition of gate skirting 

would cause fewer pedestrians to violate the crossing on the sidewalk after the gates began to 

descend. The study measured quadrant-based pedestrian movements, means and rate of violation 

before and after installation.

1.1 Background 

1.1.1 Test Site Location

NJ Transit Rail selected a high-risk grade crossing (grade crossing ID# 856876H) on Atlantic 

Avenue in Matawan, NJ, along the systems’ North Jersey Coast Line, to pilot this pedestrian gate 

safety enhancement. The crossing, shown in Figure 1, is adjacent to the NJ Transit Rail

Aberdeen Matawan train station. 

When the project at the Atlantic Avenue grade crossing was proposed, the crossing already had

train activated pedestrian gates, which descend to block the sidewalk when a train is 

approaching, along with channelization separating the sidewalks from the street. When the 

pedestrian gate is in the horizontal position (fully descended), it borders a fence that blocks 

pedestrians from walking around the gate and outer boundary of the sidewalk. This setup, which 

can be seen in Figure 2, was used as the baseline condition for the current investigation.

However, despite these efforts to prohibit pedestrians from violating the crossing when the gates 

were down, pedestrians were still able to violate the crossing by going under the gates. With the 

Matawan Train Station platform just west of the crossing, the amount of foot traffic was

presumed to be high, with pedestrians rushing to catch their trains on the other side of the 

crossing. Since pedestrians tend to take the shortest route, the research team concluded that the 

sidewalk would be the most effective location to create additional barriers. In addition to the 

proximity of the train platform, there are also large parking lots at three of four sides of the grade 

crossing itself, which may also contribute to the amount of foot traffic that occurs.

The grade crossing has two vehicle gates, one of which also serves as a pedestrian gate (Zone 3), 

and three additional pedestrian gates. The pedestrian gates are located next to the vehicle gates 

(or if there are no vehicle gates, each pedestrian gate is in line with the pedestrian gate on the 

other side of the street) so that when an activation occurs, the gate will descend into a position 

that blocks pedestrian traffic from crossing the tracks from all sidewalks. In one quadrant, 

composed of Zone 1 (sidewalk) and Zone 5 (street), the pedestrian gate and vehicle gate are 

actually mounted on the same structure. In the diagonal quadrant, composed of Zone 3 

(sidewalk) and Zone 7 (street), a vehicle gate is used to block access across both the sidewalk 

and street. See Figure 3 for an illustration of the Atlantic Avenue grade crossing site

characteristics and zones.
5

On either side of the sidewalks, across from each of the pedestrian gates, is fencing which 

prohibits pedestrians from easily going around the gates once they have descended. To better 

understand the layout of the area, Figure 3 provides an aerial view of the Atlantic Avenue grade 

crossing. For the purposes of our analysis, the grade crossing is labeled with eight different 

zones depending on the access and direction a pedestrian will travel through the crossing. There 

are eight zones in total, labeled from 1 through 8: four zones which cover sidewalk access 

(Zones 1 through 4) and 4 which cover road access (Zones 5 through 8). Note that the directions 

provided in Figure 3 are relative to the NJ Transit Rail system and not geographic north. The 

train that travels eastbound to New York City passes through this crossing from the right to the 

left. (See the key in the lower left of Figure 3.)

Figure 2. All Four Pedestrian Gates at the Atlantic Ave. Crossing before Installation of

Gate Skirts
6

Figure 3. Atlantic Ave. Grade Crossing Site Characteristics and Zones

The Atlantic Avenue grade crossing has experienced two accidents: one in February 1988 and a 

second in January 2013. The fatality which occurred on January 2013 occurred after the 

installation of the gate skirts, although the trespasser was struck while trespassing along the 

street and not on the sidewalk. The site’s characteristics and large volume of foot traffic for timesensitive events (such as a train approaching) lead to an increased safety risk for noncompliant 

pedestrians. 

1.2 Gate Skirts

In the effort to prevent unsafe pedestrian activity, the safety measure chosen for evaluation is a 

pedestrian gate enhancement, commonly referred to as a gate skirt, consisting of a horizontal bar 

hanging underneath the existing gate. A gate skirt is a secondary bar (gate) marked with 

identical striping as the primary gate arm. The skirt hangs down from the pedestrian gate to 

block more area under the gate arm. This type of safety enhancement, illustrated in Figure 4 [2],

is currently under consideration as an additional safety treatment recommended by the FHWA

MUTCD.
7

Figure 4. Example of Pedestrian Gate with Horizontal Hanging Bar at a Pathway or 

Sidewalk Grade Crossing

Gate skirts are thought be a beneficial addition to crossings, especially at locations where there is 

evidence of pedestrians going under the existing pedestrian gates, or at crossings that many 

children use. The addition of a gate skirt theoretically makes it more difficult for pedestrians to 

violate the crossing after the gates have fully descended, especially at crossings where some 

barrier channelization (e.g., fencing and vehicle gate) exists. While this enhancement does have 

certain limitations, previous research on its effectiveness in Europe, although limited to one 

grade crossing, has indicated that it has the potential to reduce risky pedestrian behavior by 

approximately 70 percent [3].

This type of safety treatment is used widely in Europe as an additional safety measure for both 

pedestrian as well as vehicle gates. In the United Kingdom, the Rail Safety and Standards Board 

provides guidance on the installation of gate skirts for all locations where “there is a significant 

risk of pedestrians deliberately passing under the lowered barriers” [4]. In the United States, 

research was done in the 1980s on the use of gate skirts as part of a four-quadrant gate system. 

A prototype, as shown in Figure 5, was field tested at the Cherry Street crossing in Knoxville, 

TN [5]. Currently, use of gate skirts in the United States thought to be limited to two grade 

crossings in Dallas, TX, along the Dallas Area Rapid Transit’s Blue Line. Figure 6 shows the 

installation at Waco Avenue, one of the two locations. 
8

Figure 5. Prototype Gate Arm and Skirt Assembly at Cherry St. Crossing, Knoxville, TN

Figure 6. Gate Skirt Installation at Waco Ave., Dallas, TX
9

1.2.1 New Jersey Transit Prototype

The system evaluated in this study consisted of a prototype developed internally by NJ Transit 

Rail and installed at all four pedestrian quadrants of a grade crossing on May 30, 2012. The 

system was adapted to fit the existing infrastructure at the crossing. It consisted of a grade 

crossing gate section secured by two rods placed approximately 10–12 inches (there was an 

approximately 2-inch installation variation across the four gates) below the existing gate. The 

gap between the lower gate and the ground ranged from 26 to 29 inches. Additionally, 

channelization via a pedestrian fencing system was already in place at all four sidewalks leading 

up to the crossing.

Figure 7 through Figure 10 show the installation on all four pedestrian zones. As shown in

Figure 7, gate maintenance and pedestrian access issues forced the secondary gate in Zone 1 to 

be substantially shorter than the existing gate, thereby leaving an approximately 2-foot gap 

uncovered by the gate skirt. A bollard was installed to block this area but a significant gap still 

remained. It should also be noted that the secondary gate in Zone 3, as shown in Figure 9, was 

installed under the long gate used to block access from both the sidewalk and street.

Figure 7. Prototype Pedestrian Gate Enhancement at Atlantic Ave. – Zone 1.
10

Figure 8. Prototype Pedestrian Gate Enhancement at Atlantic Ave. – Zone 2

Figure 9. Prototype Pedestrian Gate Enhancement at Atlantic Ave. – Zone 3
11

Figure 10. Prototype Pedestrian Gate Enhancement at Atlantic Ave. – Zone 4

1.3 Data Collection Equipment

The data collection equipment consisted of two small video cameras magnetically mounted on 

the roof of the signal bungalow to the northwest (relative to the train movement) of the crossing 

and closest to Zone 1, as shown in Figure 11, and connected to a digital video recorder installed 

within the structure, as shown in Figure 12. This vantage point allowed for surveillance of the 

entire grade crossing and provided a constant power source as well as physical protection for the 

equipment. Additionally, the visible parts of the surveillance system had a very low profile and

were therefore believed not to have any impact on pedestrian behavior.

The system was configured for continuous video data recording, 24 hours per day, although data 

was only analyzed when a grade crossing activation occurred. It was installed on April 12, 2012,

and remained operational through August 8, 2012. The 2-week pre-installation test period ran 

April 15–21 and May 6–12, 2012, and the 2-week post-installation test period ran July 8–21, 

2012. The post-installation data collection was conducted 5 weeks after the installation of the 

gate skirts to allow for the novelty of the new gate enhancement to dissipate. 
12

Figure 11. Video Camera Placement

Figure 12. Digital Video Recorder

The view from the two cameras can be seen in Figure 13 and Figure 14, below. Figure 13 shows 

the view from the first camera with each of the visible zones labeled (Zone 4 and Zone 8 are out 

of the camera’s view.). The view from the second camera, as seen in Figure 14, shows the two 

zones not seen from the first camera (Zone 4 and Zone 8) and a better angle of Zone 3.
13

Figure 13. View of Zones from First Camera

Figure 14. View of Zones from Second Camera
14

2. Results

To assess pedestrian behavior at the Atlantic Avenue grade crossing before and after the gate 

skirt pedestrian gate enhancements were installed, data was collected both pre- and postinstallation for a 2-week period and analyzed to answer three main research questions:

• Do the gate skirt enhancements significantly reduce the number of pedestrians who 

violate at the crossing? 

• Do the gate skirt enhancements systematically lower all types of violations (ascending, 

descending, horizontal)?

• Does pedestrian movement though the crossing change with the installation of gate skirt 

enhancements? Specifically, do the pedestrians access the crossing differently and do the

paths through the crossing differ pre- and post-installation?

To answer these three questions, the findings from the video analysis before and after installation

of gate skirting will be discussed in the following three sections. The first section will cover all 

of the high level characteristics of the data collected to better understand the environment in 

which the pedestrians were moving. The second section will focus on the violations that occur at 

the grade crossing. The third and final section will focus on the quadrant-based pedestrian 

movements and if these movements differed before and after installation.

2.1 Data Characteristics

The final dataset consists of 336 total hours of video recordings—168 pre-installation and 168

post-installation hours. The number of activations that occurred before and after installation of 

the gate skirts is listed in Figure 15. Gate activations occurred because of a single train

approaching, two trains approaching, or a false activation during which no train approached or

passed through the crossing. False activations were moderately common at this crossing (n =

651 or 27 percent of all activations) since a train arriving at the nearby station before traversing 

the crossing would trigger a gate activation; however, this activation would “time out” after 60 

seconds if the train did not move. The number of total activations before and after installation of 

the gate skirts was similar (1,196 versus 1,229, respectively). The only exception was found for 

second train activations which were more than twice as likely post- installation (18 versus 41, 

respectively). 

The majority of activations occurred during a weekday, as opposed to the weekend, for both preand post-installation conditions (85 percent pre-installation and 90 percent post-installation). All 

pre-installation second train events occurred during a weekday and all but one post-installation 

second train events occurred during a weekday. False activations were not included in the 

following analyses because false activations possibly elicited a higher number of violations in 

cases where a train was presently unloading at the station and those passengers did not wait for 

the crossing arms to ascend.

Two types of train activations were identified for this crossing: (1) single train activations where 

one train traverses the crossing during the gate activation and (2) second train activations where 

two trains traverse the crossing during a single activation. Single train activations were more 

common before installation, with approximately 872 single train activations and 18 second train 
15

activations, as shown in Figure 15. The direction of the trains was divided almost equally 

between eastbound and westbound, with no difference by type of activation. Type of train was 

predominantly commuter, with only 1 percent (n = 10) involving freight train single activations 

and 11 percent (n = 9) involving freight for second train activations. Overall, there was 

approximately the same number of activations, with 890 pre-installation and 884 post-installation 

used in this analysis.

Figure 15. Number of Trains per Activation Pre- and Post-Installation

Since commuter trains passing through the Atlantic Avenue crossing were on a fixed schedule, 

the times when the single activations occurred were fairly consistent. However, second train 

activations, although less frequent, were far less consistent. Since the second train activations 

were less frequent, they did not change the total number of activations. 

To record the pedestrian movements through the crossing, the crossing was divided into eight 

zones. Zones 1 through 4 included the sidewalk and Zones 5 through 8 included the area on the 

street (see Figure 3).

As seen in Figure 3 and discussed earlier in the report, the zones are highlighted in yellow if they 

include the sidewalk and green if they include the road. All zone boundaries back up to each 

other to cover all of the area of the crossing. This configuration allows us not only to track the 

areas through which pedestrians enter the crossing, but also the paths they take to traverse and 

eventually to exit the crossing. 

First, we will examine which zones the pedestrian first encounters the crossing; we refer to this 

as the “arrival zone.” The most common arrival zone for pedestrians was Zone 1 (58 percent

both pre- and post-installation), followed by Zone 2 (17 percent pre- and 18 percent postinstallation), and then Zone 4 (15 percent pre- and 13 percent post-installation). See Figure 16

for a breakdown by zone of pedestrian arrivals at the crossing. As shown in Figure 16, 

pedestrians were far more likely to arrive at a crossing on the sidewalk than on the street. 

However, Zone 5, a street zone, was found to have more pedestrian arrivals than Zone 3, a 

sidewalk zone. This was true in both the pre-installation period (86 sidewalk Zone 3 arrivals
16

versus 106 street Zone 5 arrivals) and the post-installation period (64 sidewalk Zone 3 arrivals

and 111 street Zone 5 arrivals). A chi-square statistical test showed a significant difference in 

the number of pedestrians at the arrival zone after the installation of the gate skirt (χ

2 (7, N = 

4,773) = 24.11, P < .01). This change may be attributed in large part to the increase in pedestrian 

arrivals at Zones 6 and 8, both street zones1. Since the overall number of pedestrians is lower 

after installation of the gate skirt, this finding lends credibility to the conclusion that more 

pedestrians arrived at the crossing in the street after gate skirts were installed. Based on the data

thus far, we know that pedestrian arrival is affected by the installation of gate skirts, but we do 

not know if the pedestrians still went on to violate the crossing. The next section will address the 

effect that gate skirts had on pedestrians violating the crossing. 

Figure 16. Number of Pedestrians per Arrival Zone Pre- and Post-Installation

2.1.1 Violations

The goal of the sidewalk gate skirts is to lower the number of violations that occur by pedestrians 

when in proximity of a train approaching the crossing. To evaluate the effectiveness of the gate 

skirts, we need to look at violations in two ways: overall change in rate of violations and how 

the violations occurred. If the rate of violations dropped, then gate skirts would be considered 

effective. However, if rates went down but only in situation-specific conditions (e.g., violations 

that occurred only when the gates were horizontal, or only at a specific zone) this would 

necessitate a reexamination of the effectiveness of gate skirts during train activation events.

Findings show that there was some consistency in the occurrence of activations with at least one 

violation: 448 (51 percent) pre-installation activations with a violation and 463 (55 percent) 

post-installation activations with a violation. Violations were split into three categories based on 

when the pedestrians went through the crossing:

• Descending violation: a pedestrian goes under or around the gates as they are descending 

prior to the arrival of the train.

• Horizontal violation: a pedestrian goes under or around the gates after the gates have 

fully descended and are in a horizontal position.

 

1 Although not found to be statistically significant.
17

• Ascending violation: a pedestrian goes under or around the gates as they are ascending 

after the train has already passed through the crossing.

Example images of each of these types of violations, both with and without gate skirts, can be 

seen in the examples provided below. Examples of descending violations can be seen in Figure 

17. In the pre-installation example (left panel), a total of five pedestrians went under the gate 

after descent had initiated. The woman on the left arrived at the crossing at the same time as the 

violating pedestrians, but chose to wait until after the activation had completed. In the postinstallation example (right panel), the man in the blue shirt is running underneath the gate as they 

descend and continues through the crossing, exiting in the street in Zone 6.

Figure 17. Examples of Descending Violations Pre- and Post-Installation

Examples of horizontal violations can be seen in Figure 18. In the pre-installation condition (left 

panel) a pedestrian is going under the horizontal gate in Zone 2. This pedestrian crossed the 

tracks and exited the crossing by going under the gate in Zone 1. In the post-installation example 

(right panel), the pedestrian is ducking underneath the original gate in the space where the gate 

skirt does not extend. This pedestrian, like the man in the post-installation example described 

above for the descending violation, exited the crossing by walking to the street and exiting in 

Zone 6.
18

Figure 18. Examples of Horizontal Violations on the Sidewalk Pre- and Post-Installation

During both horizontal and descending violations, it was possible for pedestrians to violate the 

crossing from the street. During horizontal violations, pedestrians could go around or under the 

vehicle gate (as seen in the left panel of Figure 19), or they could avoid the gates entirely in Zone 

6 or Zone 8, as seen in the right panel of Figure 19 with a cyclist riding from Zone 8 to Zone 6.

Lastly, examples of ascending violations can be seen in Figure 20. In both pre- (left panel) and 

post- (right panel) installation examples, a large group of pedestrians is going underneath the 

gates as they ascend after a train passes through the crossing. The gates are all fully raised by the 

time these pedestrians reach the other side of the crossing, so they were not restricted in any way 

in terms of how they exited the crossing.

Figure 19. Examples of Horizontal Violations in the Street
19

Figure 20. Examples of Ascending Violations Pre- and Post-Installation

Of the three types of violations, the ascending violation is least likely to result in a dangerous 

situation since the train has in most cases left the crossing area. However, in second train 

situations where the gates start ascending but reverse direction before fully vertical, the 

pedestrian may get caught inside of the gates, creating a highly dangerous situation. One such 

case occurred on April 17, 2012, during the pre-installation phase of observation. In that event, 

as shown in Figure 21, three pedestrians started to cross after the gates started ascending. 

However, the gates reversed direction approximately 3 seconds later (at about 45 degrees), and 

one pedestrian was forced to remain within the crossing past Zone 1 while the train passed.

Figure 21. Example of Second Train Activation
20

Given the total number of pedestrians who approached the crossing during an activation (2,461 

before installation and 2,312 after installation) there was a significant difference in the number of 

violations that occurred before installation (1918 violations) and after installation (1,988

violations), (χ

2 (2, N = 3904) = 19.23, P < .001). Although the overall number of violations was

higher post-installation, there was a statistically significant decrease in the number of descending 

and horizontal violations after the installation of gate skirts, as shown in Figure 22. Descending 

violations decreased significantly from 80 (4 percent) violations to 19 (<1 percent) violations (χ

2

(1, N = 96) = 49.27, P < .001). Horizontal violations also decreased significantly from 177 (10

percent) violations to 83 (4 percent) violations (χ

2 (1, N = 268) = 55.01, P < .001). In contrast,

ascending violations rose significantly after the installation of gate skirts from 1658 (86 percent) 

violations to 1887 (95 percent) violations (χ

2 (1, N = 3,904) = 16.52, P <.001).

Figure 22. Frequency of Violations per Activation Phase Pre- and Post-Installation

To examine pedestrian movements as they violated the grade crossing, the research team

implemented the same zone assignments from Figure 3 (where Zones 1–4 include sidewalks and 

Zones 5–8 include the street). For pedestrians to cross the tracks, they must depart from a zone 

on one side of the railroad tracks and ultimately arrive in a zone on the opposite side of the track,

although the route they take will vary.

2.1.2 Entering the Crossing

Focusing only on descending and horizontal gate violations, Table 1 breaks down the number of 

pedestrians who initiated violating the crossing from sidewalk or street by type of violation 

(descending or horizontal). Pedestrians that violated the crossing while the gates were 

descending were found to enter the crossing more often from the sidewalk than the street. This 

was true both before and after installation of the gate skirts. For descending violations, the 

pedestrians generally entered from the sidewalk, accounting for 74 of 80 violations before 

installation and 15 of 19 violations after installation. The most significant difference, however,

was found to be for descending street violations; there were only two less violations initiated in 

the street after installation, even though the total number of post-installation violations increased 
21

by approximately 92 percent (χ

2 (1, N = 96) = 4.65, P < .05). The majority of horizontal 

violations also began on the sidewalk with 141 of 176 pre-installation violations and 36 of 80

post-installation violations. This difference was found to be significant both before and after 

installation with a drop from 80 percent of the pre-installation violations starting on the sidewalk 

to 45 percent post-installation (χ

2 (1, N = 190) = 12.31, P < .001). Additionally, violations that 

began on the street jumped from 20 percent of pre-installation violations to 55 percent postinstallation (χ

2 (1, N = 76) = 49.60, P < .001). Both of these findings illustrate that violating

pedestrians overall enter more frequently from a sidewalk although the rate at which pedestrians 

enter from the street increased significantly after installation of the gate skirts. This is found for 

both descending and horizontal violations with a larger increase in violations while gates are in 

the horizontal position.

Table 1. Street and Sidewalk Entrance Zones

Pre-Installation

Descending 

Violations

Post-Installation 

Descending 

Violations

Pre-Installation

Horizontal 

Violations

Post-Installation 

Horizontal 

Violations

Sidewalk

Entrance Zone

74 (93%) 15 (79%) 141 (80%) 36 (45%)

Street Entrance

Zone

6 (8%) 4 (21%) 35 (20%) 44 (55%)

Additionally, the research team was able to look not only at where the pedestrians violated, but 

how the pedestrians violated (e.g., under or around the gates). The overall number of descending 

violations was seen to drop after the installation of gate skirts when the pedestrian went under a 

pedestrian gate or at the zone where no gates were installed (e.g., Zone 6 and Zone 8). Figure 23

illustrates the different ways a pedestrian could violate the crossing while the gates were 

descending. There are no instances of pedestrians going around either the pedestrian or street 

gates for descending violations because the gates have yet to fully descend; therefore, pedestrians 

cannot go around them. The largest reduction in descending violations occurred for going under 

pedestrian gates: from 76 (95 percent) of all pre-installation violations to 16 (84 percent) of 

post-installation violations. A slight increase was seen for post-installation violations when 

pedestrians went under vehicle gates: from one pre-installation violation to two post-installation. 

Horizontal violations (depicted in Figure 24) when the pedestrian went under a pedestrian gate 

also dropped in number after the installation of gate skirts: from 147 (84 percent) of all preinstallation violations to 38 (46 percent) of post-installation violations. A large increase (12 or 7

percent pre-installation to 30 or 37 percent post-installation) was seen in the percentage of 

pedestrians who violated in Zone 6 or Zone 8, which both have no gates installed. A smaller 

increase was seen in horizontal violations after installation when pedestrians went under vehicle 

gates: from 6 (3 percent) violations before installation to 9 (11 percent) after installation. 
22

Figure 23. How the Pedestrian Violated for Descending Violations

Figure 24. How the Pedestrian Violated for Horizontal Violations

2.1.3 Exits

Pedestrians that violated the crossing, either while the gates were descending or horizontal were

found to exit the crossing more often from the sidewalk than the street. This was true both 

before and after installation of the gate skirts. Descending violations largely ended on the 

sidewalk, with 58 out of 80 violators exiting on the sidewalk during the pre-installation period 

and 9 of 19 exiting on the sidewalk post-installation. This difference between pre- and postinstallation sidewalk exit was not found to be significant (χ

2 (1, N = 99) = 1.65, P = 0.20);

however, the increase in street exits was found to be significant (χ

2 (1, N = 99) = 4.36, P <0.05).

The majority of horizontal gate violators also exited on the sidewalk: 136 of the 176 preinstallation violations and 39 of 80 post-installation violations. This difference was found to be 

significant both before and after installation, with a drop from 77 percent of the violations exiting

on the sidewalk before installation to 49 percent after installation (χ2 (1, N = 268) = 8.4, 

P<0.01). Additionally, horizontal violations that ended on the street jumped a significant amount 
23

from 23 percent of the violations before installation to 51 percent after installation (χ2 (1, N = 

268) = 28.64, P<0.001). This increase in pedestrians exiting in the street after violating the 

crossing could indicate that pedestrians took the shortest route without an obstruction through the 

crossing when violations occurred while the gate was horizontal. See Table 2 for the number of 

pedestrians exiting the crossing from sidewalk or street based on type of violation (descending or

horizontal).

Table 2. Street and Sidewalk Exit Zones

Pre-Installation 

Descending 

Violations

Post-Installation 

Descending 

Violations

Pre-Installation 

Horizontal 

Violations

Post-Installation 

Horizontal 

Violations

Sidewalk Exit

Zone

58 (73%) 9 (47%) 136 (77%) 39 (49%)

Street Exit

Zone

22 (28%) 10 (53%) 40 (23%) 41 (51%)

2.1.4 Pedestrian Movement through the Crossings

There are many different paths that pedestrians may take while violating the crossing. To better 

understand if there is a difference for pedestrians violating before and after installation of gate 

skirts, the paths of each pedestrian committing a violation while entering or exiting the crossing 

were collected. It is possible that a horizontal gate seems more formidable, so pedestrians take 

the shortest path across the railroad tracks, rather than a longer path that takes them closer to 

their final destination (e.g., train platform).

The three most frequently used zones for initiating a pre-installation violation were sidewalk

Zones 1, 2, and 4, which account for 91 percent of all descending violations and 77 percent of 

horizontal violations. After gate skirt installation, pedestrians who violated while the gates were 

descending initiated their violation from Zones 1, 2, and 4 79 percent of the time and for 

horizontal violations 45 percent of the time. However only 1 out of the 19 descending violations

(5 percent) that occurred after installation was found to have departed from Zone 4 in contrast to 

12 out of 80 (15 percent) total violations before installation. For horizontal violations, an 

additional change occurred after installation: Zone 6, which includes the street, was frequently 

used to initiate a violation following the gate skirt installation, accounting for 25 percent of all 

violations, whereas this zone was not frequently used before the gate skirt installation and

accounted for only 5 percent of all horizontal violations. Zone 8 also experienced a large 

increase in horizontal violations, with only 4 (2 percent) of violations being initiated from Zone 8 

before installation and 9 (11 percent) being initiated after.

Before installation of gate skirts, Zones 1, 2, and 4 (sidewalk zones), were used 68 percent of the 

time to exit the crossing after descending violations, whereas after installation, the zones’ usage 

dropped to 47 percent. For horizontal violations, Zones 1, 2, and 4 were used to exit the crossing 

for 76 percent of violations before installation and for only 48 percent after installation of the 

gate skirt. Again, Zone 6 showed a large increase for both descending and horizontal violations

after installation. For descending violations, 18 (23 percent) of pre-installation violations and 7 
24

(37 percent) of post-installation violations used Zone 6 to exit the crossing. Despite an overall 

decrease in the number of violations using Zone 6 to exit, the proportion of violation from Zone 

6 to the total number of post-installation violation exits increased by 14%. For horizontal 

violations, 28 (16 percent) pre-installation violations used Zone 6 to exit the crossing and 33 (41

percent) exited from Zone 6 after installation. This 25 percent pre- to post-installation increase

indicates that a larger percentage of pedestrians were using Zone 6 to exit the crossing after 

installation of the gate skirt. This increase may also in part be explained by a decrease in the 

adjacent Zone 2: from 35 to 6 percent of pedestrians exiting. Of the 80 post-installation

horizontal violations, 38 pedestrians went under the gates to violate and 17 of those violations 

originated from Zone 1. Of those 17 violations, only 1 pedestrian violated by going under the 

gate skirt (upper left of Figure 25); the remaining 16 went through the unobstructed area between 

the gate skirt and the post holding the gate to the left of the cone (upper right of Figure 25). One 

pedestrian who jumped the fence next to the gate to avoid going under or around (bottom of 

Figure 25) is not included in the totals above.

Figure 25. Zone 1 Pedestrian Violation Behavior
25

Additionally, there were 10 violations for which the pedestrian exited the crossing in Zone 1 

while the gates were horizontal. Of those 10 violations, the pedestrians went around the gate skirt 

(to the left of the cone) in 7, under the gate skirt in 1 (see left panel of Figure 26), and 2

pedestrians waited until the gates began to ascend to exit. In three additional cases, the pedestrian

went under the vehicle gate to exit (Zone 5) and then squeezed between the gate pole and the 

fencing to get to Zone 1 (see right panel of Figure 26). However, the movement from Zone 5 to 

Zone 1 occurred on the same side of the crossing.

Figure 26. Zone 1 Pedestrian Violation Exit Behavior

2.1.5 Pedestrian Path through Crossing

The entrance and exit zones are important for understanding how pedestrians violate the crossing

and the path they take to traverse the crossing.

Pedestrian movements (or paths) through the crossing differed by type of violation committed. 

Figure 27 provides an illustration of the five most frequently used paths during a descending 

violation before and after installation. Prior to installation of the gate skirts (top half of Figure 

27), the most frequented paths were between Zones 1 and 2, in both directions, followed by Zone 

1 to Zone 6, Zone 1 to Zone 4, and Zone 4 to Zone 2. After the installation of the gate skirts

(bottom half of Figure 27), pedestrians violated between Zone 1 and Zone 6 most frequently,

followed by Zone 1 to Zone 2 in both directions, but the other paths were less often used. (Note: 

only three paths were included in post-installation analysis due to the low overall rate of

pedestrians who violated while the gates were descending; all additional paths had an N = 1 or 

less).
26

Figure 27. Most Frequent Paths through Crossing during Descending Violation

Horizontal violations were found to be similar to descending violations before installation of the 

gate skirts, with movement from Zones 1 and 2, in both directions, followed by Zone 1 to Zone 4

being the most frequently travelled (see Figure 28). However, after installation of the gate skirts,

pedestrian movements (or paths) changed quite dramatically during horizontal violations. The 

two most frequent paths after installation were Zone 6 to Zone 1 in both directions, with Zone 6 

being a street zone. Neither the path from Zone 1 to Zone 6 nor the path from Zone 6 to Zone 1 

was among the top five paths before installation of the gate skirts. This indicates a rise in the 

number of paths that start or end on the street after the installation of the gate skirts. The next 

most common post-installation paths were from Zone 5 to Zone 6 and from Zone 8 to Zone 6,

both of which are paths that exclusively use the street to traverse the crossing. The path from

Zone 2 to Zone 1, which was one of the top two paths before the installation of gate skirts, was 

tied for the fifth most frequented path after installation, which illustrates a reduction in the 

number of pedestrians traveling from sidewalk to sidewalk and between those zones. (Note: 

seven paths were included in the post-installation analysis because three paths tied for the 

position of fifth most popular).
27

Figure 28. Most Frequent Paths through Crossing during Horizontal Violation

Although the paths taken is known for the pedestrians who violate, the findings above do not 

take into account if there are differences when the pedestrians are violating alone or with another 

person. Findings showed a significant increase in the percentage of pedestrians who violated 

alone while the gates were descending (χ2 (1, N = 64) = 3.959, P <0.05), as well as a significant 

decrease in the number of pedestrians who violated the crossing with at least one other person, 

from 32 (41 percent) before installation of gate skirts to zero after installation (χ2 (1, N = 32) = 

6.886, P <0.01). In horizontal violations, the change between pre- and post-installation was not 

as dramatic for either a pedestrian violating alone or with another violator. The difference was

137 (74 percent) pre-installation violations involving a lone pedestrian violator to 62 (75 percent) 

post-install violations involving a lone violator. However, the difference in number of violations 

with another stays relatively the same with 47 (26 percent) violations before installation to 21

(25 percent) violations after installation of the gate skirts. These results are presented in Figure 

29 below. The findings seem to indicate that the gate skirts have a more pronounced effect on 

pedestrian decision-making when the pedestrians are part of a group approaching a crossing

while the gates are actively descending. One possible reason for this may be that the gate skirts 

make it more difficult for multiple people to go under while the gates are descending. A gate 

skirt fills the space where trespassers would normally bow down to go under the gates as they

descend. Potential trespassers may consider it too difficult to get underneath the descending bar 

in time, especially if they are travelling with other individuals who would also have to bow down 

under the gate after them (and would thus have less space and time in which to do so).
28

Figure 29. Pedestrians Violating Alone vs. with another Pedestrian

2.2 Summary of Findings

To evaluate the effectiveness of the addition of gate skirts to the pedestrian gates at the Atlantic 

Avenue grade crossing, a number of questions were sought:

• Do the gate skirt enhancements significantly reduce the number of pedestrians who 

violate while crossing? 

• Do the gate skirt enhancements systematically lower all types of violation (ascending, 

descending, horizontal)?

• Does pedestrian movement though the crossing change with the installation of gate skirt 

enhancements? Specifically, do the arrival points and paths differ before and after installation?

Results showed there was a significant increase in total number of violations after installation of 

the gate skirts. However, this finding is predominately due to an increase in ascending 

violations. Ascending violations increased significantly after installation of the gate skirts 

although both descending and horizontal violations significantly decreased, as shown in Figure 

30. Figure 30 depicts the number of descending, horizontal, and ascending violations per train 

activation, which allows for comparison of the increase or decrease in the rate of each type of 

violation. The increase in ascending violations may be due to the fact that the gate skirt blocks

access to the sidewalk, so pedestrians are more anxious to get across the crossing once the gates 

start to ascend because they know it will be harder to do so once the gate comes down.

Alternatively, this increase could be due to the increased number of pedestrians waiting to cross 

because fewer pedestrians were violating while the gates were descending or horizontal.
29

Pedestrian movements were also found to shift after the installation of gate skirts. Before and 

after the installation of gate skirts, most violating pedestrians entered and exited the crossing 

using the sidewalk. While the majority of violating pedestrians still tended to enter and exit the 

crossing on the sidewalks, there was a significant increase in pedestrians’ use of the street after 

the installation of the gate skirts. This finding was strongest when the pedestrians were 

committing violations while the gates were in the horizontal position, the most difficult to get 

around. The paths through the crossing also changed after installation of the gate skirts for both 

descending and horizontal violations. However, the change was much greater for horizontal 

violations, with many more people entering and exiting the crossing from the street than before 

installation.

Figure 30. Pedestrian Violation Rate per Grade Crossing Activation
30

3. Conclusion

A total of 2,461 pre- and 2,312 post-installation pedestrian observations were made with a total 

of 890 pre- and 884 post-installation train activations analyzed. There was a statistically 

significant decrease in the number of descending and horizontal violations after the installation. 

Descending violations dropped significantly from 79 violations to 17. Horizontal violations also 

decreased significantly from 185 to 83 violations. In contrast, ascending violations rose 

significantly after the installation of gate skirts from 1,653 violations to 1,887 violations, though 

the reason is uncertain. The findings illustrate that the addition of gate skirts in this particular 

case has reduced the number of violations committed while the gates are descending (78 percent

reduction in violation rate) or in the horizontal position (55 percent reduction in violation rate), 

as shown below in Figure 31. The addition of gate skirts may also have changed pedestrian 

behavior in that pedestrians may now be more likely to enter and exit the crossing from the street 

when committing a descending or horizontal violation. Horizontal violations (entering the 

crossing) on the sidewalk dropped from 82 percent of the violations before installation to 47

percent after installation, while violations that began on the street jumped from 18 percent of the 

violations before installation to 53 percent after installation. Horizontal violations that exited on 

the street jumped a significant amount: from 19 percent of the violations before installation to 35

percent after installation, though again the reason for this jump is uncertain.

Figure 31. Descending and Horizontal Gate Violation Rate per Grade Crossing Activation
31

The next step of this research effort is to better understand why pedestrians, especially those 

committing violations while the gates are horizontal, prefer to enter from the street. In fact, the 

accident that occurred in January 2013 after the gate skirts had been installed involved a 

trespasser who violated the crossing in the street and unsuccessfully attempted to cross the street 

in front of the train. Additional variables in the current dataset, such as pedestrian actions 

during false activations and the behavior of the pedestrian as they violate the crossing (in terms 

of running or walking), may provide a more comprehensive picture of pedestrian behavior both 

before and after installation. Applying this evaluation plan to different grade crossing sites may 

also assist in determining if the reduction in descending and horizontal violations was caused by 

the gate skirts alone or was a combination of the gate skirts and the characteristics of the crossing 

itself. In testing this prototype at other grade crossing sites, it is recommended that careful 

consideration be given to the design to ensure reduction or elimination in gaps or areas where 

pedestrians may sneak around the gates. Zone 1 in its current location gave pedestrians a 

workaround that allowed them to violate around the lower gate, thus reducing its effectiveness. 

To reduce gaps, use of channelization by installing fencing may be appropriate. Additionally,

lowering the gate skirt so it hangs closer to the ground may be critical in stopping individuals

who continue to violate under the gate skirt itself.
32

4. References

[1] New Jersey Safety along Railroads: Sort-Term Action Plan. February 2012. 

http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/pedsafety/pdf/NJSafetyalongRailroads_000.pdf, 

last accessed January 22, 2013.

[2] 

http://www.ncutcd.org/doc/RRLRT%20No2b%20Pathway%20Sidewalks%20Figures%20Only.p

df, last accessed January 22, 2013.

[3] Horst. A.R.A. van der. Beproeving hangwerk voetpadbomen middels video 

gedragsobservaties. (TNO-rapport TNO-DV 2009 C286). July 2009.

[4] Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB, UK)—Requirements for Level Crossings, Railway 

Group Standards GI/RT7012.

[5] Heathington, K.W., et al, Field Evaluation of a Four-Quadrant Gate System for Use at 

Railroad-Highway Grade Crossings. Transportation Research Record 1244, TRB, National 

Research Council, Washington, DC, 1989, pp. 39–51.
33

Appendix A. Additional Data

Table A-1 below shows the number of pedestrians who entered the crossing from each zone, preand post-gate skirt installation.

Zone

Pre-Installation Pedestrians 

Arrival Zone

Post-Installation Pedestrians 

Arrival Zone

Zone 1 (sidewalk) 1,442 (58%) 1,343 (58%)

Zone 2 (sidewalk) 424 (17%) 428 (18%)

Zone 3 (sidewalk) 86 (4%) 64 (3%)

Zone 4 (sidewalk) 358 (15%) 308 (13%)

All Sidewalk Zones(1-4) 2,310 (94%) 2,143 (93%)

Zone 5 (street) 106 (4%) 111 (5%)

Zone 6 (street) 16 (1%) 26 (1%)

Zone 7 (street) 19 (1%) 15 (1%)

Zone 8 (street) 10 (1%) 17 (1%)

All Street Zones (5-8) 151 (6%) 169 (7%)

Total Pedestrians 2,461 2,312

Table A-1. Number of Pedestrians Arriving at Each Zone
Abbreviations and Acronyms

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

HRI Highway-Rail Intersection

MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

NJDOT New Jersey Department of Transportation

NJ Transit 

Rail

New Jersey Transit Rail

ROW Right-Of-Way

U.S. DOT U.S. Department of Transportation

Volpe Center John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems

Z Zone