U.S. Department of 

Transportation

Federal Railroad 

Administration

2012 Right-of-Way Fatality and Trespass 

Prevention Workshop

Office of Research

and Development

Washington, DC 20590

DOT/FRA/ORD-13/18 Final Report

April 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.
i

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

April 2013

3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

Final Report

August 14–16, 2012

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

2012 Right-of-Way Fatality and Trespass Prevention Workshop

5. FUNDING NUMBERS

RR97A5-KLA51

RR98A1-KT799

TF03A1-KJ139

6. AUTHOR(S)

James Harrison 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-12-06

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

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Railroad Administration

Office of Research and Development

Washington, DC 20590

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

DOT/FRA/ORD-13/18

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

This document is available to the public through the FRA Web site at www.fra.dot.gov or by

calling (202) 493-1300.

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

Based on the success of the 2008 Trespasser Workshop, FRA and FTA sponsored this follow-on workshop. The keynote speech 

by FRA Administrator, Mr. Joseph C. Szabo, was followed by 23 technical presentations in the areas of Pedestrian Safety, Hazard 

Management, Design Technology and Infrastructure, Community Outreach, Enforcement, and Intentional Deaths/Acts.

Workshop attendees broke into working groups charged with developing prioritized recommended actions for their respective 

topics; they developed more than 90 ideas which covered new or expanded initiatives, strategies, and research projects. Each 

group then defined three to five top recommended actions for its respective topic area. This resulted in the identification of 23 

high-priority recommended actions.

14. SUBJECT TERMS

FRA, FTA, railroads, light rail, transit, trespass, right-of-way

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

69

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
ii

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
iii

Contents

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

1. Introduction............................................................................................................................... 6

1.1 Project Objectives............................................................................................................... 8

1.2 Workshop Planning and Preparation .................................................................................. 8

1.3 Organization and Conduct of Workshop .......................................................................... 14

1.4 Opening Addresses ........................................................................................................... 17

2. Identification of Top Research Needs..................................................................................... 20

2.1 Working Group Top Research Needs............................................................................... 20

2.2 Other Recommendations Discussed and Recorded at Breakout Sessions........................ 23

2.3 Presentation of Final Results ............................................................................................ 25

3. Top Research Needs, Thursday Wrap-up Discussion............................................................. 46

4. Final Thoughts and Workshop Closeout................................................................................. 48

Appendix A. Workshop Materials................................................................................................ 49

Appendix B. Post-Workshop Electronic Survey Results.............................................................. 50

Appendix C. Workshop Agenda................................................................................................... 57

Abbreviations and Acronyms ....................................................................................................... 60
iv

Illustrations

Figure 1. Workshop in Action .......................................................................................................... 6

Figure 2. Working Group in Action.................................................................................................. 7

Figure 3. Remarks by FRA Administrator Szabo........................................................................... 17

Figure 4. 2012 ROW Fatality and Trespass Prevention Workshop Home Page ............................ 49
v

Tables

Table 1. Top 23 Research Needs Developed ................................................................................... 4

Table 2. Steering Committee Members........................................................................................... 8

Table 3. Workshop Research Needs Areas.................................................................................... 11

Table 4. Workshop Speakers ......................................................................................................... 11

Table 5. Distribution of Participants by Organizational Type....................................................... 13

Table 6. Distribution of Participants by Topic Area...................................................................... 14

Table 7. Distribution of the Top 23 Research Needs by Topic Area............................................. 20

Table 8. Other Ideas/Recommendations Not Selected for the Top 23........................................... 23

Table 9. Pedestrian Safety Issues Breakout Group........................................................................ 26

Table 10. Hazard Management Breakout Group ............................................................................. 30

Table 11. Design, Technology, and Infrastructure Breakout Group................................................ 33

Table 12. Community Outreach Breakout Group............................................................................ 36

Table 13. Enforcement Breakout Group.......................................................................................... 39

Table 14. Intentional Deaths/Acts Breakout Group......................................................................... 43
vi

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Dr. Tarek Omar, Program Manager, Train Control and 

Communications Division, U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA); Mr. Ronald Ries, Staff Director, Highway-Rail Grade Crossing and 

Trespasser Prevention Program, FRA; and Mr. Levern McElveen, Program Manager, State 

Safety Oversight, U.S. DOT Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for their insight, guidance,

and direction in developing this report.

The authors also wish to extend special thanks to the Steering Committee members for their

partnering contributions to the successful planning and conduct of this research-needs 

workshop. The Steering Committee members are as follows:

Dale Bray Union Pacific Railroad (UP)

Debra Chappell FRA

Michael Coplen FRA

Marco daSilva John A. Volpe National Transportation 

Systems Center (Volpe Center)

Tim Davis Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

Rick Deichmann Norfolk Southern Railway Police, St. Louis

Frank Frey FRA

Lou Frangella FRA

Daren Gilbert California Public Utilities Commission

Brian Gilleran FRA

Ryan Gustin CSX Transportation 

Bill Grizard American Public Transportation Association

Michail Grizkewitsch FRA

Charles Hagood FRA

Steve Laffey Illinois Commerce Commission 

Craig S. Macdonald Metro Transit, St. Louis

Mike Martino Association of American Railroads

Levern McElveen FTA

Tarek Omar FRA

Jewel Pickett Amtrak

Jerry Powers FTA

Brian A. Schaffer BNSF Railway

Shel Senek Ohio Operation Lifesaver 

John Simpson UP

Monica Shaw FRA

Helen Sramek Operation Lifesaver

Richard Washington FRA

Mr. Leonard Allen, Chief, Systems Safety and Engineering Division, U.S. DOT Research and 

Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems 

Center (Volpe Center), provided managerial direction and support for the workshop. Mr. Marco 
vii

daSilva, Highway-Rail Grade Crossing and Trespass Research Program Manager, Systems 

Safety and Engineering Division, Volpe Center, provided overall direction for the workshop. 

Mr. James Harrison, Volpe Center, provided project management and implementation oversight. 

Thanks to the team facilitators from the Volpe Center’s onsite contractor: Ms. Ingrid Bartinique, 

Mr. Josh Hassol, Mr. Andy Lehrer, Mr. Larry Raskin, Mr. Dicky Waldron, and Ms. Carol 

Yelverton. 

The authors also wish to thank and acknowledge the contributions of all participants for their part 

in the successful development of new or expanded initiatives, strategies, programs, and new 

research projects. 
1

Executive Summary

From August 14 to August 16, 2012, the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT)

Research and Innovative Technology Administration’s (RITA) John A. Volpe National 

Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center) hosted the jointly sponsored U.S. DOT Federal 

Railroad Administration (FRA)/Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 2012 Right-of-Way 

(ROW) Fatality and Trespass Prevention Workshop.

FRA and FTA sponsored the first ROW Fatality and Trespass Prevention Workshop in 2008 in 

San Carlos, CA. This workshop brought together multiple rail constituents, including transit, 

freight, and commuter rail, to evaluate common problems and solutions surrounding ROW 

fatality and trespass prevention, which has become a major risk mitigation area facing the rail 

community. 

The August 2012 FRA/FTA ROW Fatality and Trespass Prevention Workshop built on the 

success of the 2008 workshop.

The purpose of the workshop was twofold: 

1. Provide FRA, FTA, and key stakeholders with an update of current and future activities 

in the areas of ROW fatality and trespass prevention.

2. Solicit new ideas from the workshop attendees on prospective new or expanded 

initiatives, strategies, programs, and research projects. 

These goals were achieved by bringing together subject matter experts (SME) to share 

information, collaborate, identify, and prioritize specific recommended actions related to 

education, engineering, and enforcement (Three Es) to facilitate the reduction of railroad and 

transit ROW trespass incidents and fatalities. 

To assist with the structure and direction of the workshop, a Steering Committee made up of 

leaders of various U.S. DOT agencies and their key partnering organizations (both public and 

private) was nominated by FRA/FTA to address different perspectives of highway-rail grade

crossing safety and trespass prevention.

The Steering Committee developed the technical agenda, including the identification of six 

topic areas, identified appropriate speakers, and actively participated in the execution of the 

workshop. The topic areas were as follows:

• Pedestrian Safety Issues

• Hazard Management

• Design, Technology, and Infrastructure

• Community Outreach

• Enforcement

• Intentional Deaths/Acts
2

A total of 174 representatives participated as delegates at the 21⁄2-day workshop. They included 

Federal, State, and local governments, as well as railroads, transit agencies, enforcement 

(railroad and nonrailroad), academia, nongovernmental organizations, and consultants. 

Additionally, there were international participants from Canada.

The workshop commenced with a keynote address delivered by Mr. Joseph C. Szabo, FRA 

Administrator. On behalf of President Barack Obama and U.S. DOT Secretary Ray LaHood, he 

thanked participants for their dedication to saving lives and making communities safer. For the 

full keynote address, see link below: 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/conference/trespass2012/pdf/Presentations/Opening%20Session/FRA%2

0Administrator%20Joesph%20Szabo%20Keynote%20Address.pdf

On the first day, speakers made presentations on the first three of the six research areas 

identified by the Steering Committee: Session 1, Pedestrian Safety Issues; Session 2, Hazard 

Management; and Session 3, Design, Technology, and Infrastructure. Eleven presentations 

covering these three topic areas were delivered.

During the second day of the workshop, the remaining three topic areas—Community 

Outreach, Enforcement, and Intentional Deaths/Acts—were covered in 12 presentations.

The second day also concluded with six working group breakout sessions. The working groups 

were asked to come up with ideas that could include new or expanded initiatives, and strategies 

and programs, in addition to new research projects.

The working groups were asked by the workshop steering committee to “think out of the box” 

and aim for outcomes based on:

• Consideration of alternatives on the basis of public interest;

• Focusing on ideas that are not necessarily based on current conventions or standards; 

needs, perceptions, and potential is more important than existing conventions;

• Consideration of possible research projects with different procedures, innovative 

technologies, new participants, and changed responsibilities.

One hundred seventy-four delegates developed more than 90 research ideas during the 6

breakout sessions. Each group then identified the top potential project ideas for its researchneeds area. Each proposal was discussed and placed on flip charts. Each group was then tasked

with identifying its top three to five project proposals. This vetting process resulted in the

identification of the top 23 research needs out of more than 90 suggestions that were presented 

to the entire group in the “Working Group Summaries of Top Research Needs” on August 16. 
3

Table 1 lists the 23 research needs identified. More detailed information on each research need 

is contained in Section 2 of this report.
4

Table 1. Top 23 Research Needs Developed

TOPIC AREA ACTION TITLE

1. Pedestrian Safety 

Issues—Green Team 

1 Data collection and analysis

2 Engineering design

3 Distracted behavior—pedestrians and cyclists

4 Lack of standard signage and evaluation of effectiveness of 

each type

2. Hazard 

Management—Red 

Team 

1 Safety culture

2 Data collection 

3 Define hazard management 

3. Design, Technology,

and Infrastructure—

Yellow Team 

1 Fencing design and utilization 

2 Barriers designed to mitigate pedestrian distraction 

3 Exploratory technology research and education 

4 Train-activated in-pavement lights

4. Community 

Outreach—Orange 

Team 

1 Public awareness campaign

2 Community outreach partnerships

3 National Community Awareness Day

4 Outreach and awareness toolkit

5. Enforcement—Blue 

Team 

1 Seek full police authority, across all 50 States, for railroad

police officers

2 Develop specific railroad/transit trespass law that can be 

applied broadly across the United States (consistent 

language)

3 (a) Focus on “high value” targets, i.e., trespassers with 

malicious intent, homeless, drug/alcohol, other; (b) 

Strategies for different types of trespassers—casual, 

impaired, malicious 

4 Strive to have “crucial conversations” with local courts and 

prosecutors to prioritize trespass

5 Seek opportunities to apply for and/or develop law 

enforcement grants that can target trespass cases

6. Intentional 

Deaths/Acts—Purple 

Team

1 Education 

2 Eliminating trigger terminology from public communication

3 Exploration of trespass prevention messaging
5

Additional potential actions were brainstormed and discussed, but did not meet the criteria for 

inclusion in the top three to five recommendations. Although those potential actions did not 

make the short list, they provided some indication of the full spectrum of issues being

considered. 

FRA and FTA are hopeful that the results of this workshop will be used by U.S. DOT modal 

administrations and their stakeholders to enhance safety on the Nation’s rail transportation 

network.

Based on evaluations and comments made during the sessions, the overwhelming consensus was 

that the workshop was a success. A total of 59 out of the 174 total attendees (34 percent) 

responded to the electronic survey (included in Appendix B) which was issued after the 

workshop. The results were as follows:

• More than 90 percent very or extremely satisfied with registration process, presentations, 

and session structure.

• 58 percent very or extremely satisfied with breakout session/discussion; most feedback 

noted insufficient time for that activity.

• 100 percent very or extremely satisfied with workshop staff.

• 90 percent very or extremely satisfied with conference location and facilities.

• 95 percent very or extremely satisfied with overall quality of the workshop.

• 95 percent responded yes to “workshop met your expectations.”

• 83 percent recommended that these types of workshops be held at least every 2 years 

(30.5 percent every year, 52.5 percent every 2 years).

In order to keep the momentum going and continue the exchanging of ideas until the next 

workshop, a Web site and social media pages were set up to facilitate ongoing conversations: 

Participants were able to join in conversation before, during, and after the 

event on Twitter by using hashtag #ROW2012—FRA uses hashtag 

#ROW2012 for posts related to the conference. Those following FRA on 

Twitter, at twitter.com/USDOTFRA, can view these posts, retweet, and 

communicate directly with FRA on Twitter regarding any questions or 

comments. Pictures from the workshop are posted on FRA’s Facebook 

page, facebook.com/USDOTFRA.

Presentations and ancillary documents from the workshop are posted at

http://www.fra.dot.gov/conference/trespass2012/summary.shtml.
6

1. Introduction

Trespassing along railroad and transit rights-of-way (ROW) is the leading cause of rail-related 

deaths in America. Nationally, more than 400 trespass fatalities and nearly as many injuries 

occur each year. The vast majority of these events are preventable. In general, most trespassers 

are pedestrians who use railroad tracks as a shortcut. 

This problem is by no means new. In 2008, FRA and FTA sponsored the first ROW Fatality and 

Trespass Prevention Workshop. This workshop was the first to bring together multiple rail 

constituents from transit, freight, and commuter rail to focus on common problems and solutions 

surrounding ROW fatality and trespass prevention. It was attended by 121 delegates from 

various organizations and government agencies. To view the presentations of the 2008 

conference, go to http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L04235.

Based on the success of the 2008 ROW Fatality and Trespass Prevention Workshop, the U.S. 

DOT FRA and FTA sponsored a second national workshop August 14–16, 2012, in St. Louis, 

MO.

Figure 1. Workshop in Action
7

As with the 2008 conference, this workshop consisted of a varied program presented by rail and 

transit experts and other safety professionals who shared their ideas on key issues, best practices, 

technical developments, human behavior, law enforcement, and public education and awareness 

outreach methods and techniques related to trespass prevention. The workshop allowed the 174 

attendees (representing Federal, State, and local governments, freight and passenger railroads, 

transit agencies, labor unions, academia, nonprofit organizations, and consultants) to learn about 

and discuss advances, accomplishments, challenges, and approaches related to ROW fatality and 

trespass prevention. The result was an open exchange of ideas, an opportunity to network with 

peers, a showcase of the newest and best safety-related applications, and discussion of future 

recommended actions. The workshop concluded with the development of a list by the 

participants of 23 high-priority recommended actions across six topic areas: Pedestrian Safety 

Issues; Hazard Management; Design, Technology, and Infrastructure; Community Outreach, 

Enforcement; and Intentional Deaths/Acts. 

The first 2 days of the workshop included presentations by representatives of various 

organizations on railroad and transit ROW trespass issues corresponding to the six topic areas 

identified above. Participants were asked to save their questions and comments for the question 

and answer (Q&A) opportunity on Thursday after all of the working group recommendations 

were presented.

Near the end of day two, six working group breakout sessions were held. The breakout sessions 

identified potential new or expanded initiatives, strategies, and programs across the range of topic 

areas to facilitate the reduction of ROW trespass incidents and fatalities. An example of participant 

deliberations on recommended actions is shown in Figure 2. 

 

Figure 2. Working Group in Action
8

Day three consisted of a working group session report based on the research needs topics 

developed, a summary presentation, and a Q&A period.

This report documents the purpose, process, analyses, and results of the workshop. Additional, 

supporting information on the workshop agenda, discussions, presentations, correspondence, 

and forms can be found at http://www.fra.dot.gov/conference/trespass2012/index.shtml.

1.1 Project Objectives

The purpose of the workshop was twofold: 

1. Provide FRA, FTA, and key stakeholders with a status update on current and future 

activities in the areas of ROW fatality and trespass prevention.

2. Solicit the workshop attendees’ ideas on prospective future action and research priorities.

These goals were achieved by bringing together SMEs to share information, collaborate, 

identify, and prioritize specific recommended actions related to education, engineering, and 

enforcement of policies to reduce ROW trespass incidents and fatalities.

1.2 Workshop Planning and Preparation

To assist with the structure and direction of the workshop, a Steering Committee made up of a 

diverse group of experts was nominated by FRA/FTA to address different perspectives of 

highway-rail grade crossing safety and trespass prevention. Members of the Steering

Committee included leaders of various U.S. DOT agencies and their key partnering

organizations (both public and private), as indicated in Table 2.

Table 2. Steering Committee Members

Name Agency/Organization

Dale Bray Union Pacific Railroad (UP)

Debra Chappell FRA

Michael Coplen FRA

Marco daSilva Volpe Center

Tim Davis Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)

Rick Deichmann Norfolk Southern Railway (NS) Police, 

St. Louis

Frank Frey FRA

Lou Frangella FRA

Daren Gilbert California Public Utilities Commission

(CPUC)

Brian Gilleran FRA

Ryan Gustin CSX Transportation (CSX)
9

Bill Grizard American Public Transportation Association

(APTA)

Michail Grizkewitsch FRA

Charles Hagood FRA

Steve Laffey Illinois Commerce Commission 

Craig S. Macdonald Metro Transit, St. Louis

Mike Martino Association of American Railroads (AAR)

Levern McElveen FTA

Tarek Omar FRA

Jewel Pickett Amtrak

Jerry Powers FTA

Brian A. Schaffer BNSF

Shel Senek Ohio Operation Lifesaver 

John Simpson UP

Monica Shaw FRA

Helen Sramek Operation Lifesaver

Richard Washington FRA

The Steering Committee’s goal for this workshop was to bring together a wide range of views

from a diverse pool of experts that included Federal researchers, representatives of highway

safety, law enforcement, rail and transit industry, management and labor, academia, and 

consultants. They were asked to aim for outcomes based on:

• Consideration of alternatives on the basis of public interest;

• Focusing on ideas that are not necessarily based on current conventions or standards; 

needs, perceptions, and potential is more important than existing conventions.

• Consideration of possible research projects with different procedures, innovative 

technologies, new participants, and changed responsibilities.

The committee identified the following six topical or research needs areas:

Pedestrian Safety Issues (Green Team) 

 

This research-need area required a review and analysis of current intersection planning and 

design parameters, active and passive warning signage treatment, intuitive pathway channeling,

and cognitive danger recognition. It also involved identifying specific treatments at highdensity pedestrian crossings (e.g., near station platforms) with second-train potential and 

evaluating methods to counteract inappropriate pedestrian behaviors. The research in this area 

will facilitate standardization of pedestrian at-grade crossing efforts nationwide, with the goal of 

reversing the upward trend in pedestrian fatalities.
10

Hazard Management (Red Team) 

 

This panel session was designed to examine hazards along the railroad ROW and evaluate the 

hazard management process. The hazard management process defines the physical and 

functional characteristics of the system and evaluates the key components, which include the 

following: people, rules, and procedures; facilities and equipment; and the operating 

environment. It is from this process that the appropriate mitigation measures are developed and 

implemented.

Design, Technology, and Infrastructure (Yellow Team) 

 

This session presented topics specifically related to engineering activities, successes, and 

challenges with respect to fatalities and trespassing along railroad ROWs.

Community Outreach (Orange Team) 

This session presented some community outreach initiatives and programs currently practiced 

nationwide, as well as current best practices. The session also provided a blueprint for 

organizing a successful community coalition.

Enforcement (Blue Team) 

This session presented a number of safety and security initiatives that are currently in place and 

being effectively implemented to identify, apprehend, prosecute, and track trespassers along 

railroad ROW. This session sought to provide participants with information that could be 

“taken home” and put into practice, potentially resulting in a reduction of trespasser incidents 

nationwide. 

Intentional Deaths/Acts (Purple Team)

 

This session looked at current practices and research studies intended to mitigate or eliminate 

intentional death acts on the Nation’s railroad ROWs. Through shared risk identification, 

statistical analysis, mapping high-risk areas, and development of future prevention strategies 

and methods to gauge their success, the session provided attendees the opportunity to discuss 

current industry and public practices aimed at the prevention of intentional deaths.

To facilitate the various session goals, each workshop attendee was assigned to one of the six

working groups. At conference registration, each attendee was asked to select up to three

preferred working groups. Even though some adjustments were made to keep the groups 

balanced, all attendees were assigned to one of the three groups they had selected. Each group 

was staffed with the working group moderator and a seasoned facilitator provided by the Volpe 

Center.
11

The Steering Committee next designated six topic area leaders (one to each research-needs 

area) to moderate the technical sessions and direct delegates in the analysis and discussion of

the research needs provided for each of the six working groups. These leaders are listed in 

Table 3. The Steering Committee nominated 23 speakers and presenters to provide up-to-date

research information and research progress on the six topic areas detailed in Table 4. 

The breakout groups were assembled with the following in mind: attendee preference, size, and 

a representative mix of participants from different modes, roles, and responsibilities. This 

formula was designed to stimulate as much discussion as possible, as well as facilitate crossdisciplinary and cross-modal sharing of ideas. 

Table 3. Workshop Research Needs Areas

Topic Areas Team Leader Organization 

Pedestrian Safey Issues—Green 

Team

William P. Grizard APTA

Hazard Management—Red Team Levern McElveen, Frank Frey FTA, FRA respectively

Design, Technology, and 

Infrastructure—Yellow Team Debra Chappell, Frank Frey FRA

Community Outreach—Orange Team Kevin Dawson UP

Enforcement—Blue Team Ryan Gustin CSX

Intentional Deaths/Acts—Purple Team Charles Hagood FRA

Table 4. Workshop Speakers

TOPIC AREA SPEAKER TITLE ORGANIZATION

1. Pedestrian 

Safety Issues—

Green Team

Ron Nickle Chief Safety Officer MBTA

Sheree Davis Manager Bureau of Commuter and 

Mobility Strategies NJ DOT

Carolyn Cook Senior Crossing and Trespass 

Prevention Regional Manager FRA

2. Hazard 

Management—

Red Team

Daren Gilbert Program Manager, Rail Transit and 

Crossings Branch CPUC

Marco daSilva General Engineer/Program Manager Volpe Center

James Fox Director, System Safety and Risk 

Management SEPTA

Richard Ferlauto ROW Taskforce Manager LIRR
12

TOPIC AREA SPEAKER TITLE ORGANIZATION

3. Design, 

Technology and 

Infrastructure—

Yellow Team

Brent Ogden

Don Sepulveda

Vice President

CEO, Regional Rail for Los Angeles 

County Metropolitan Transportation 

Authority (LACMTA)

AECOM

LACMTA

Kurt Wilkinson Manager, Safety Risk Assessment, 

Construction Safety TriMet

Peggy Lyda Manager, Public Safety UP

4. Community 

Outreach—

Orange Team

Jay Holman

John Simpson

Police Public Safety Officer 

Senior Manager, Grade Crossing 

Compliance

UP

Lou Frangella Grade Crossing/Trespasser Regional 

Manager FRA

Bill Barringer Director, Grade Crossing Safety NS

Richard 

Washington Region 5 Grade Crossing Manager FRA

5.

Enforcement—

Blue Team

Shel Senek Lieutenant Colonel Ohio State Patrol 

(retired)

Captain Gary Jones Commander Amtrak Police

Bryan Madden

Rick Deichmann

Deputy Chief/Homeland Security

Special Agent BNSF

6. Intentional 

Deaths/Acts—

Purple Team

Dr. Linda Langford Evaluation Scientist Suicide Prevention 

Resource Center

Mike Martino Senior Director of Operations AAR

Louis Brown Assistant Chief Safety Officer WMATA

To ensure positive participation and feedback, the Steering Committee capped workshop 

registration at 200 participants, out of which 174 attended. 

Table 5 illustrates the range of participants from Federal, State, and local governments, as well 

as railroads, transit agencies, labor unions, academia, nonprofit organizations, consultants, and 

international ministries. 

The topic area presentations were made to the entire group on days one and two. Near the end of 

day two, the breakout groups assembled to come up with three to five recommendations 

concerning new or expanded initiatives and strategies. The idea was to get any and all thoughts 

up on flipcharts. Then, voting took place as the attendees went up to the flipcharts and placed one 

of the five adhesive dots provided to them next to the potential recommendations of their choice.
13

To retain ideas that did not make the vote but still provided some insight into the topic in question, 

the group was asked to assemble a list of all recommendations. These were recorded in a list of 

actions that were discussed but not selected.

The discussion and comment period from the final session on Thursday, August 16 is documented

in “Working Group Summaries of Top Research Needs” (link provided in Section 1.3).

Table 6 shows the number of participants assigned to each of the workshop working groups. The

working groups developed a total of 90 research problems. Each group was then tasked with

identifying the top five projects for their respective research needs area. This vetting process 

resulted in the identification of 23 top needs.

Table 5. Distribution of Participants by Organizational Type

Organization Type Number of Delegates

Federal Government 23

Highway Agencies 19

Railroads 44

Transit Agencies 27

Industry 7

Consultants 12

Enforcement—Railroads 12

Enforcement—General 8

University/Academia 2

Legal 1

Non-Government Organizations 8

Volpe Center Onsite Contractor Staff 6

Private Citizens 1

International 4

Total 174
14

Table 6. Distribution of Participants by Topic Area

Topic Area Number of Participants

Pedestrian Safety Issues—Green Team 33

Hazard Management—Red Team 34

Design, Technology, and Infrastructure— Yellow Team38

Community Outreach—Orange Team 28

Enforcement—Blue Team 22

Intentional Deaths/Acts—Purple Team 29

1.3 Organization and Conduct of Workshop

The agenda is outlined below. Presentations are not published in this report but are hyperlinked 

below for convenience. Here is the home page for all materials posted: 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/conference/trespass2012/index.shtml.

Day One

Welcome Addresses

• John M. Nations, CEO, Metro St. Louis

• Mahktee Ahmad, FTA Region VII Administrator, FRA

Keynote Address: Joseph Szabo, FRA Administrator 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/conference/trespass2012/pdf/Presentations/Opening%20Sessi

on/FRA%20Administrator%20Joesph%20Szabo%20Keynote%20Address.pdf

General Addresses 

• Ronald Ries, FRA

http://www.fra.dot.gov/conference/trespass2012/pdf/Presentations/Opening%20Session/Ron%20Ries%20-

%20Trespassing%20Issues%20that%20Face%20The%20Nation%20-%20FRA.pdf

• Levern McElveen, FTA, Trespassing Issues that Face the Nation

http://www.fra.dot.gov/conference/trespass2012/pdf/Presentations/Opening%20Session/Levern%20McElve

en%20-%20Trespassing%20Issues%20%20that%20Face%20the%20Nation%20-%20FTA.pdf

SESSION 1: Pedestrian Issues, Green Team

Moderator: William P. Grizard, APTA

• Ron Nickle, MBTA—A System Safety Approach to Grade Crossing Management 

 Planning for Pedestrians

http://www.fra.dot.gov/conference/trespass2012/pdf/Presentations/Session%201%20Pedestrain%20Safety

%20Issues/Ron%20Nickle%20-

%20A%20System%20Safety%20Approach%20to%20Grade%20Crossing%20Pedestrian%20Treatments.p

df
15

• Sheree Davis, NJDOT—New Jersey Safety along Railroads, Actions

http://www.fra.dot.gov/conference/trespass2012/pdf/Presentations/Session%201%20Pedestrain%20Safety

%20Issues/Sheree%20Davis%20-

%20New%20Jersey%20Safety%20Along%20Railroads%20Action%20Plan.pdf

• Carolyn Cook, FRA—Pedestrian Safety at Passenger Stations

http://www.fra.dot.gov/conference/trespass2012/pdf/Presentations/Session%201%20Pedestrain%20Safety

%20Issues/Carolyn%20Cook%20-%20Pedestrain%20Safety%20at%20Passengers%20Stations.pdf

SESSION 2: Hazard Management, Red Team

Moderator: Levern McElveen, FTA; Frank Frey, FRA

• Daren Gilbert, CPUC—Regulator Approach: 49 CFR 659

http://www.fra.dot.gov/conference/trespass2012/pdf/Presentations/Session%202%20Hazard%20Manage

ment/Daren%20Gilbert%20-%20Regulator%20Approach%2049%20CFR%20659.pdf

• Marco daSilva, Volpe—FRA Funded Research: FL DOT and Tri-Rail Study

http://www.fra.dot.gov/conference/trespass2012/pdf/Presentations/Session%202%20Hazard%20Manage

ment/Daren%20Gilbert%20-%20Regulator%20Approach%2049%20CFR%20659.pdf

• James Fox, SEPTA—Hazard Management Experiences: SEPTA

http://www.fra.dot.gov/conference/trespass2012/pdf/Presentations/Session%202%20Hazard%20Manage

ment/James%20Fox%20-%20SEPTA%20Hazard%20Managment%20Experiences.pdf

• Richard A. Ferlauto, Long Island Rail Road (LIRR)—High Fences Risk Analysis and 

Methodology 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/conference/trespass2012/pdf/Presentations/Session%202%20Hazard%20Manage

ment/Richard%20Ferlauto%20-%20High%20Fences%20Risk%20Analysis%20and%20Methodollgy.pdf

SESSION 3: Design, Technology, and Infrastructure, Yellow Team

Moderators: Debra Chappell, FRA; Frank Frey, FRA

• Brent Ogden, AECOM—Engineering Trespassers Out of Rail Corridors

http://www.fra.dot.gov/conference/trespass2012/pdf/Presentations/Session%203%20Design,%20Technolog

y,%20and%20Infrastructure/Brent%20Ogden%20-

%20Engineering%20Trespassers%20out%20of%20Rail%20Corridors.pdf

• Don Sepulveda, LACMTA—Design for Safety

http://www.fra.dot.gov/conference/trespass2012/pdf/Presentations/Session%203

%20Design,%20Technology,%20and%20Infrastructure/Don%20Sepulveda%20-

%20Design%20for%20Safety.pdf

• Kurt Wilkinson, TriMet—Design Features to Mitigate Trespassing

http://www.fra.dot.gov/conference/trespass2012/pdf/Presentations/Session%203%20Design,%20Technolog

y,%20and%20Infrastructure/Don%20Sepulveda%20-%20Design%20for%20Safety.pdf

• Peggy Lyda, UP—Fresno Trespass Campaign

http://www.fra.dot.gov/conference/trespass2012/pdf/Presentations/Session%203%20Design,%20Technolog

y,%20and%20Infrastructure/Peggy%20Lyda%20-%20Fresno%20Trespass%20Campaign.pdf

Day Two

SESSION 4: Community Outreach, Orange Team

Moderator: Kevin Dawson, UP

• Jay Holman and John Simpson, UP—Community Coalition Focus Plans

http://www.fra.dot.gov/conference/trespass2012/pdf/Presentations/Session%204%20Community%20Outre

ach/Jay%20Holman-John%20Simpson%20-%20Community%20Coalotion%20Focus%20Plans.pdf
16

• Lou Frangella, FRA—Successful Community Outreach Programs

http://www.fra.dot.gov/conference/trespass2012/pdf/Presentations/Session%204%20Community%20Outre

ach/Lou%20Frangella%20-%20Successful%20Community%20Outreach%20Programs.pdf

• Bill Barringer, NS—Train Your Brain NS Safety Campaign

http://www.fra.dot.gov/conference/trespass2012/pdf/Presentations/Session%204%20Community%20Outre

ach/Bill%20Barringer%20-%20Train%20your%20Brain.pdf

• Richard Washington, FRA—National Trespass Programs

http://www.fra.dot.gov/conference/trespass2012/pdf/Presentations/Session%204%20Community%20Outre

ach/Richard%20Washington%20-%20National%20Trespass%20Program.pdf

SESSION 5: Enforcement, Blue Team

Moderator: Ryan Gustin, CSX

• Shel Senek, Ohio State Patrol (retired)—Trespass Enforcement and Incident Program

http://www.fra.dot.gov/conference/trespass2012/pdf/Presentations/Session%205%20Enforcement/Shel%2

0Senek%20-%20Trespass%20Enforcement%20and%20Incident%20Program.pdf

• Gary Jones, Amtrak Police—Passenger Rail Trespassing Concerns: Insights from 

 Amtrak Police

http://www.fra.dot.gov/conference/trespass2012/pdf/Presentations/Session%205%20Enforcement/Gary%2

0Jones%20-%20Insights%20from%20Amtrak%20Police.pdf

• Bryan Madden, BNSF—Citizens for Rail Security

http://www.fra.dot.gov/conference/trespass2012/pdf/Presentations/Session%205%20Enforcement/Bryan%

20Madden%20-%20Citzens%20for%20Rail%20Security.pdf

• Rick Deichmann, NS Police —Protect the Line

http://www.fra.dot.gov/conference/trespass2012/pdf/Presentations/Session%205%20Enforcement/Rick%2

0Deichmann%20-%20Protect%20the%20Line.pdf

SESSION 6: Intentional Deaths/Acts

Moderator: Charlie Hagood, FRA

• Dr. Linda Langford, Suicide Prevention Resource Center, EDS, Inc.

http://www.fra.dot.gov/conference/trespass2012/pdf/Presentations/Session%206%20Intentional%20Death

s-Acts/Linda%20Langford%20-%20Resources%20for%20Suicide%20Prevention.pdf

• Scott Gabree, Volpe—Nationwide Database to Track Trespass and Suicides

http://www.fra.dot.gov/conference/trespass2012/pdf/Presentations/Session%206%20Intentional%20Death

s-Acts/Scott%20Gabree%20-%20Current%20and%20Future%20Directions.pdf

• Mike Martino, AAR—Countermeasures to Reduce Suicides on Railroad Rights of

Way

http://www.fra.dot.gov/conference/trespass2012/pdf/Presentations/Session%206%20Intentional%20Death

s-Acts/Mike%20Martino%20-%20Countermeasures%20to%20Reduce%20Suicdes%20on%20ROWs.pdf

• Louis Brown, WMATA—Suicide Prevention Program

http://www.fra.dot.gov/conference/trespass2012/pdf/Presentations/Session%206%20Intentional%20Death

s-Acts/Louis%20Brown%20WMATA%20Suicide%20Prevention%20Program.pdf

Organization of Working Groups/Introduction of Teams

http://www.fra.dot.gov/conference/trespass2012/pdf/Presentations/Break%20Out%20Groups/Breakout%2

0Group%20Briefing.pdf

Working Group Breakout Sessions 
17

Day Three

Working Group Summaries of Top Research Needs

http://www.fra.dot.gov/conference/trespass2012/pdf/Presentations/Break%20Out%20Groups/Top%205%

20Project%20Summary%20Presentation.pdf

Final Thoughts and Workshop Closeout

1.4 Opening Addresses

The keynote speech was delivered by FRA Administrator Joseph C. Szabo, as shown in

Figure 3. Mr. Szabo provided words of both encouragement and urgency by emphasizing the 

fact that ROW trespassers account for the largest number of rail-related casualties—

approximately 500 incidents per year. He applauded the key people gathered in the conference 

room who combat ROW trespassing, commending them for their willingness to devote 3 days to 

learning, sharing, and making their voices heard. 

Administrator Szabo described several FRA-sponsored trespass prevention research activities 

currently underway. Highlights of his speech included:

• Evaluating a trespass program on Tri-Rail/Florida East Coast Railway (FEC) ROWs for 

developing a set of national recommendations for trespass prevention. This program—

based on work previously performed by Transport Canada—is called the Community, 

Analysis, Response, and Evaluation (CARE) Guide. The approach embodied in CARE 

Figure 3. Remarks by FRA Administrator Szabo.

“At the FRA, safety is more than our highest priority—we live and breathe 

it.”
18

facilitates the identification of stakeholders in one’s locality and allows for analysis that 

can aid in enhancing response, planning, and evaluation. 

• Much clearer data based on geographic information is helping identify high-risk zones, 

and enabling communities to implement better mitigation strategies, engineering 

reviews, educational outreach, and targeted enforcement. Demographic data is allowing 

for the formulation of better-targeted outreach campaigns. 

• FRA will continue working with freight and passenger railroads, labor organizations, 

OL, and other stakeholders to deliver the safety message to diverse audiences as well. 

The importance of these efforts is underscored by the projected population increases that

will entail four billion more annual tons of freight over the next several decades. A key 

goal of this workshop was to make trespassing socially unacceptable and to press the 

point that any time people trespass, they are risking their lives. 

For the full keynote address, go to: 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/conference/trespass2012/pdf/Presentations/Opening%20Session/FRA%20Administrator%20

Joesph%20Szabo%20Keynote%20Address.pdf

Highlights of Welcome Addresses 

• John Nations—CEO, Metro St. Louis. “We consider our success to be not just when a 

passenger is delivered to a destination, but when one is transported safely. For that 

reason, we require an 8-hour training session for ROW workers, annual refresher training 

for our employees, and procedures are in place for vehicle operators to report trespasses. 

We have a State Safety Oversight (SSO) program to help identify and mitigate problems 

where trespassing occurs. We are working on pedestrian crossing as well and cooperate 

closely with Operation Lifesaver. Metro St. Louis welcomes you!

• Moktee Ahmad—FTA Region VII Administrator. “Trespassing is one of FTA’s greatest 

concerns, as it results in the largest numbers of fatalities. The ‘Three Es’—Education, 

Engineering, and Enforcement—all come into play to mitigate this. FTA is looking 

forward to implementing provisions of MAP-21, commencing in October 2012. This 

will allow FTA to set minimum safety standards as well as conduct investigations and 

provide guidance for new starts and modifications to existing systems. 

Highlights of General Addresses

Key points included the following: 

• FTA

o Trespassing is the largest cause of fatalities by far (excluding suicides), and it is 

increasing. Other causes such as pedestrians, motorists, slip and falls, and 
19

operating rules/environments account for a much lesser percentage than the 

42 percent attributed to trespassing.

o Mitigation strategies must include the Three Es (Engineering, Education, and 

Enforcement).

o Each of the Three Es requires internal and external actions and outreach. 

o Safety culture in organizations must be from the top down and bottom up.

• FRA

o Trespassing is done by folks of all ages.

o It is a 24/7 problem throughout the year.

o Trespassing happens at various locations including bridges, universities, and 

youth recreation centers.

o Most trespassing occurs directly on the tracks, not alongside, beside, or between 

tracks.

o We are here to H.E.L.P.—Hear with an open mind, Evaluate what you hear,

Learn from others, and Participate fully.
20

2. Identification of Top Research Needs

On the second day of the workshop, attendees broke out into working groups.

The purpose of the working groups was to:

• Provide FRA, FTA, and all workshop stakeholders with a current status of activities and 

research in the area of railroad ROW trespasser incidents and fatalities.

• Formulate, by intermodal and stakeholder consensus, an updated set of initiatives, 

strategies, programs, and research.

• Prepare these needs in a prioritized action item format, including appropriate modal 

administration roles, where applicable.

2.1 Working Group Top Research Needs

The general format for the working groups consisted of a 2-hour block of time, directed by the 

team leader or moderator, with discussion facilitated by support staff. The groups were asked to 

brainstorm initiatives, strategies, programs, and research projects. The group was then charged 

with prioritizing the recommendations the moderator could report back to the general session on 

the last day.

The brainstorming process produced many great ideas that were then discussed, vetted, and 

consolidated into a formal list of ideas. One group reported that they had as many as 70 original 

brainstorming ideas that were eventually consolidated into 24 research categories. The groups 

then conducted a vote to yield three to five research needs. This vetting process resulted in the

identification of the top 23 research needs out of more than 90 suggestions across the six topic 

areas. Table 7 shows the resultant distribution of the 23 research needs categorized by topic

area. In the closing session, the moderator for each group presented these top needs to all 

workshop delegates.

Table 7. Distribution of the Top 23 Research Needs by Topic Area

Topic Area Number of Top Research Needs

Pedestrian Safety Issues—Green Team 4

Hazard Management—Red Team 3

Design, Technology, and Infrastructure—Yellow Team 4

Community Outreach—Orange Team 4

Enforcement—Blue Team 5

Intentional Deaths/Acts—Purple Team 3
21

Below are the top observations and recommendations developed by each working group:

Pedestrian Safety Issues

1. Data Collection and Analysis: Lack of centralized data collection; limited access to data from 

partners and stakeholders; different interpretation of data; inconsistent definition of incident 

types/data submission; different reporting criteria for different agencies; innovations not being 

systematically analyzed to determine effectiveness. 

2. Engineering Design for Pedestrian Safety: Providing an engineering design manual that 

offers practical cost effective engineering design solutions that will enable railroads to mitigate 

pedestrian crossing hazards during preliminary design, but more importantly, before revenue 

service commences.

3. Distracted Behavior–Pedestrians and Cyclists: Distractions, such as electronic devices, 

clothing, reading material, and consumption of alcohol, drugs, or food and beverage that cause 

crossing users to be oblivious to the railroad environment, creating a hazard. The distracted 

behavior results in near misses, walking into trains, injuries, and fatalities. 

4. Standardize Active/Passive Signage and Evaluate Effectiveness: A standard list of effective 

active and passive signage for transit, heavy rail, passenger service, and freight would be of 

benefit. In our mobile society, the traveling public will receive the same message regardless of 

location. 

Hazard Management

1. Safety Culture: Elevate safety within organizational culture (incorporate safety into roles and 

responsibilities). Develop a model training program for implementing new safety protocols. 

2. Data Collection: Develop best practices (data quality, aggregate versus disaggregate data, 

near-miss reporting, what technology is effective). 

3. Hazard Management: Develop common definition, interpretation, and application. Develop a 

formal committee (Transit Rail Advisory Committee for Safety or Railroad Safety Advisory 

Committee). 

Design, Technology and Infrastructure

1. Fencing Design: Establish robust, standardized fencing design and engineering criteria to 

inform local decisionmaking. 

2. Barriers Designed to Mitigate Pedestrian Distraction: Allow railroad preemption to lock the 

mechanism against entry upon train detection. 

3. Exploratory Technology Research and Education: Apply existing technologies from other 

industries to rail ROW. 

4. Train-Activated In-Pavement Warning Lights: Lights would activate as train approaches to 

provide additional warning to pedestrians. 
22

Community Outreach

1. Public Awareness Campaign: Make deliberate, sustained connections within communities. 

Take an overarching approach to preventing injury and death that can be customized for specific 

demographic, cultural, and regional audiences. Create a brand or slogan that is distinctive and 

memorable. Encourage collaborative, proactive teaming of Federal and local government and 

industry, bringing stakeholders into the process. 

2. Community Outreach Partnerships: Develop a national initiative that invites community 

stakeholders to be a part of developing and implementing a trespassing reduction program. 

3. National Community Awareness Day: Implement a railroad trespasser prevention awareness 

day. 

4. Outreach and Awareness Toolkit: Offer communications resources providing local relevance 

addressing ongoing issues and providing a means to problem solve. 

Enforcement

1. Railroad Police Authority: Seek full police authority across all 50 States for railroad police 

officers. 

2. Broad-Based Trespass Law: Develop a railroad-specific trespass law that can be applied 

broadly across the United States (consistent language). 

3. Strategic Approach to Different Types of Trespassers: Focus on ‘high value’ targets (i.e.,

approach for trespassers with malicious intent, homeless, drug or alcohol (impaired) should be 

different from approach for the casual trespasser). 

4. Crucial Conversations with the Judicial System: Have “crucial conversations” with your local 

courts and prosecutors to encourage consistent enforcement of trespass laws for violators. 

5. Law Enforcement Grants for Trespass Enforcement/Abatement: Seek opportunities to apply 

for and/or develop law enforcement grants that target rail ROW trespass behavior. 

Intentional Deaths/Acts

1. Education: How can the message change behavior? How do you create a deterrent effect? 

How do you alter the societal mindset regarding illegal trespassing? 

2. Eliminating Trigger Terminology from Public Communication: What terminology can or 

should be used in media, presentations, Web sites, and technical reports? Develop guidelines for 

terms to use that do not provide unintended triggers. 

3. Exploration of Trespass Prevention Messaging: Develop campaign and marketing materials 

stating that not all strikes result in fatalities—mainly to discourage those thinking of using trains 

as their suicidal tools. Also, stop running campaigns stating that trespass will kill you. 
23

2.2 Other Recommendations Discussed and Recorded at Breakout Sessions

The 23 recommendations were the top vote-getters, but other good ideas were also proposed for 

discussion. Those other ideas are presented in Table 8.

Table 8. Other Ideas/Recommendations Not Selected for the Top 23

TOPIC AREA TITLE

1. Pedestrian 

Safety Issues—

Green Team

Use of professionals for understanding of human behavior

Behavior analysis: ask pedestrians

Lack of public knowledge: more and better outreach to general public

Practical standardized materials for public and passengers (beyond OLI 

handouts)

Tweaking FRA requirements for pedestrian criteria in quiet zones

Behavior-Based Action Plan: What makes it socially acceptable? 

Best practices for transit versus freight on planned development

Development of funding sources to implement pedestrian mitigations (as done 

for grade crossings)

Standardization of effective fencing practices and materials

2. Hazard 

Management—

Red Team 

Balance of Regulations (have FTA = FRA at Federal level)

Communications/information sharing of lessons learned/best practices—need 

same/common definitions

Resources allocation to assist with decisionmaking 

Engineer cab reporting clipboard by mileposts, use handheld devices, do more 

with technology such as “apps” 

Data: sensitivity, probability; no Federal pressure to assess or measure risk 

probability

Ideal impossible? Value/cost of safety

Documentation: What is the model? What is safety? Requirements for 

process: easy to report, collects, analyzes, management reporting, action 

Information sharing; more workshops, survey for best practices, modes, 

agencies, differences between types of carriers

Funding for safety

Politics for safety: need support/advocacy

Resource allocation: new versus old funding sources

Peer reviews/evaluations
24

TOPIC AREA TITLE

System improvement in planning 

Case studies: normalized for comparison, need data, near misses, using new 

technologies such as Facebook

Use FTA Hazard Matrix, like in Seattle, which embodies priorities and formal 

processes 

3. Design, 

Technology and 

Infrastructure—

Yellow Team 

Toolkit of standards for pedestrian crossings including guidance, 

recommended practices, design principles, diagnostic review, dynamic 

warning signs

Drones for ROW monitoring 

Design—comprehensive access to ROW approach

New gate technologies for trespass prevention including unique gate designs, 

pop-up wedges

Web site for trespass prevention idea sharing

Operator sleep detection

Buy-in and programming technology by agencies

Cell phone/ear bud override

Enforce third-party property owner access restriction

On-train airbags/auto deploy crash barriers

Electromechanical gate locks

Course modules: ROW protection

TRB publications and sessions

Operator cell phone/text detection

Cost-sharing with rail companies

Radar technologies

4. Community 

Outreach—

Orange Team

Making trespassing socially unacceptable

5. Enforcment—

Blue Team

Uniform crime reporting

Physical and time accessibility

National Trespass Database; include identification of jurisdictions 

Enforcement of agreements

Trespass “blitzes” 
25

TOPIC AREA TITLE

Community policing agreements/Memoranda of Understanding (MOU)

Partnerships

Technology innovation

Accountability (leading to impairment)

Nudge Theory (understanding of penalties)

Adopt a crossing

Permitting for special events

Tracking debris hits

Signage

Making trespassing socially unacceptable

Knowledge alone does not alter behavior 

Railroad alone cannot be held solely accountable

6. Intentional 

Deaths/Acts—

Purple Team 

Incentives to get local enforcement to enforce ROW trespasses

Stimulate research—what dates

Policy is justification for railroad call boxes general suicide actions; who pays

and maintains, liabilities

Encourage coordination

Separation of passengers for rail (e.g., Dulles)

Determining if people are on the track

Majority of suicides on neighborhood rural railroad ROWs

Community “see something, say something” 

Transit, adaptable to railroads

Deterrence; Japanese model of changing behavior

2.3 Presentation of Final Results

On day three, the workshop moderators presented their findings from the previous day to the 

entire workshop during the Working Groups Summary of Top Research Needs session.

It needs to be noted that there were slight variations in the voting procedures, level of detail, and 

reports to the group. The moderator/facilitator team for each working group defined his or her

individualized approach and strategies for garnering the requested information. 
26

For each of the working groups, results were presented in the following sequence:

 

1. Team members with facilitators and moderators identified

2. Recommended actions table

3. Prioritized list of recommendations considered, but not selected

4. A list of the top five recommendations

5. For each recommendation (which is the working groups’ deliverable to the workshop):

a. Project identification

b. Description

c. Rationale

d. Perceived benefits

e. Key implementation issues

6. Working group presentation to the entire group during the Working Group Summary of 

Top Research Needs session 

7. Highlights of open discussion when time permitted

It should be noted that the language presented in this subsection is as agreed upon by the 

workshop groups. Questions, comments, and responses are presented in this document in the 

subsection for each topic area titled “Discussion.”

2.3.1 Pedestrian Safety Issues

This research-needs area required a review and analysis of current intersection planning and 

design parameters, active and passive warning signage treatment, and intuitive pathway 

channeling and cognitive danger recognition; identified specific treatments at high-density 

pedestrian crossings (e.g., near station platforms) with second train potential; and considered 

methods to counteract inappropriate pedestrian behaviors. Ideally, the research in this area 

would facilitate a common industry approach to standardization of pedestrian at-grade crossing 

efforts nationwide, with the goal of reversing the upward trend in pedestrian fatalities.

Table 9 identifies the participants in the Pedestrian Safety breakout group.

Table 9. Pedestrian Safety Issues Breakout Group

Name Agency/Organization

Jean Claude Aurel Denver Transit Partners

William Barringer Norfolk Southern Railroad

Rahim Benekohal University of Illinois 

André Boyda Boyda Law

Norman Carlson Carlson Consulting International

Carolyn Cook FRA

Francois Cournoyer Transport Canada
27

Name Agency/Organization

Sheree Davis NJ DOT

Timothy Davis MBTA

Dan Di Tota Transport Canada

Dave Goeres Utah Transit Authority

William Grizard APTA, Moderator

Scott Grott Metro Transit, St. Louis

John Hauer UP Police Department

Joel Kirchner UP

Hilary Konczal Metra 

John Leed AAJ

Craig Macdonald Metro Transit, St. Louis

Bryan Madden BNSF Police

Derrick Mason NS

Ronald Nickle MBTA

David Peterson UP

Jewel Pickett Amtrak

Larry Raskin Volpe Center, Facilitator 

Mark Rowley UP Police Department

Michael Stead Illinois Commerce Commission

Phillip Thomas Maryland Transit Administration 

Jack Webb J Webb & Associates, LLC

Suzanne Whitehead Metro St. Louis 

James Young Transportation Resource Associates

Top Four Recommended Actions for Topic Area 1: Pedestrian Safety Issues

• Project 1. Data Collection and Analysis

• Project 2. Engineering Design

• Project 3. Distracted Behavior—Pedestrians and Cyclists

• Project 4. Lack of Standard Signage (Active and Passive) and Evaluation of 

Effectiveness of Each Type

Of the recommendations discussed and considered, four recommendations clearly stood out from 

the other ideas put forth during the breakout session. Three of the recommendations scored 11 

votes and one scored 10. All the other ideas scored significantly less votes. All four 

recommendations are of equal importance, notwithstanding the order of presentation.

The discussion of the ideas that were not included in the formal set of recommendations points to 

an overarching need to do more. The group felt empowered, noted the commonality of the goals 

that exist between all stakeholders, and are inspired to work together. 
28

Project 1: Data Collection and Analysis

• Description—Lack of centralized data collection; limited access to data from partners and 

stakeholders; different interpretation of data; inconsistent definition of incident types and 

data submission; different reporting criteria for different agencies; innovation not being 

analyzed for effectiveness. 

• Rationale—Cannot manage what is not measured.

• Benefits—Need a basis for decisionmaking.

• Key Implementation Issues—Working group should be convened with all affected 

partners and stakeholders; maintain single depository for safety data collection and 

analysis; create MOUs and other indemnification to allow stakeholder access to database.

There is a need for uniform and consistent data to be available on an industry-wide basis that 

incorporates both transit and railroad stakeholder communities.

Project 2: Engineering Design for Pedestrian Safety

• Description—An engineering design manual that provides practical cost-effective 

engineering design solutions that will enable railroads to mitigate pedestrian crossing 

hazards during preliminary design, before revenue service commences.

• Rationale—Pedestrian safety needs to be given higher level of consideration in design

discussions.

• Benefits—Reduction in claims against the agency, reduction in deaths and severe 

injuries, and standardization of mitigations.

• Key Implementation Issues—Consult existing APTA, AREMA, MUCTD, DOT, railroad, 

and Regional Transportation Authority engineering manuals and guidelines to extract 

pedestrian design criteria.

Pedestrian safety measures need to be factored into the design phase of new and upgraded 

facilities. The development of tools is recommended to support a diverse set of circumstances 

including urban and rural operations, as well as rail and freight.

Project 3: Distracted Behavior—Pedestrians and Cyclists

• Description—Distractions such as electronic devices, clothing, reading material, alcohol

and drug, and food and beverage cause crossing users to be oblivious to the railroad 

environment, creating a hazard. The distracted behavior results in near misses, walking 

into trains, injuries and fatalities.

• Rationale—Develop nationwide campaign to describe the results of socially unacceptable 

behavior in a rail environment. Lobby for distracted pedestrian/biker regulations.

• Benefits—Short-term <5 years: lives saved and behavior is socially unacceptable; longterm >5 years: regulations nationwide.

• Key Implementation Issues—Urgent need for regulation and information to the public to 

reissue engineering manuals and guidelines to extract pedestrian design criteria to reduce 

the hazards they are causing with their behavior.

The importance of this issue is underscored by the ubiquity of mobile electronic devices such 

as cell phones. Who would have thought 20 years ago that a pedestrian would be 
29

concentrating on writing a message on a mobile device while walking? Also, certain types of 

clothing such as sweatshirts with hoods may impede the ability to hear or see. Distractions 

also include reading, eating, or drinking beverages. There needs to be a nationwide 

campaign in the shorter term and the promulgation of regulations in the longer term.

Project 4: Standardize Active/Passive Signage and Evaluate Effectiveness

• Description—A standard list of effective active and passive signage for transit, heavy 

rail, passenger service, and freight rail would be of benefit so that in our mobile society 

the traveling public will receive the same message regardless of location.

• Rationale—Most signage standards are geared toward vehicles, with standard pedestrian 

signage lacking.

• Benefits—Standard signage that is consistent throughout the United States, so as to

eliminate confusion and language barriers to understanding the messages.

• Key Implementation Issues—Acceptance by all entities; cost to replace existing signage; 

“grandfathering” of existing signs; most agencies are willing to implement, but standards 

are not in place; some signage is proprietary to entities, so will all accept?

Consistent standards and pedestrian-oriented signage (rather than the diverse designs and 

messages that we currently have) are needed. The group thought that industry would accept 

such a recommendation with cost factors in mind and grandfathering for older installations. 

They would very likely be willing to implement recommendations, but cannot because there are 

no comprehensive nationwide standards at this time. 

Discussion: Pedestrian Safety Issues 

The brief Q&A period following the Pedestrian Safety Issues topic area presentations 

incorporated some key themes. Some discussion revolved around responding to NTSB 

recommendations and other issues requiring corrective actions. The objective is to mitigate at 

the lowest level possible; therefore, the balance between the constraints and resources is of key 

importance. Another theme revolved around the need to disaggregate trespass fatalities from 

suicides. FRA now has a reporting requirement that addresses this. Precise data identifying hot 

spots, rather than generalized data, is important for promoting a safety culture. It was also 

recommended that the chief safety officer of an organization be a direct reporter to the general 

manager to ensure that mitigation strategies are followed through. A guidelines document, 

which was developed in response to the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008, was cited and 

offers strategies and methods to reduce station incidents including the use of audible signs, 

signals, and other infrastructure. The document, dated January 7, 2011, can be found at

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/49C201.txt

2.3.2 Hazard Management

The Hazard Management panel session was designed to examine hazards along the railroad ROW,

and review the hazard management process. The hazard management process defines the physical 

and functional characteristics of the system and evaluates the key components of that system (i.e., 

people, rules and procedures, facilities and equipment, and the operating environment). It is from 

this process that the appropriate mitigation measures are developed and implemented. 
30

Table 10 lists the delegates responsible for identifying the research needs in the Hazard 

Management topic area during the breakout working group session.

Table 10. Hazard Management Breakout Group

Name Agency/Organization

Herman Bernal AZ DOT

Richard Clarke UT DOT

James Cox MO DOT

Marco daSilva Volpe Center

Lois Earle AECOM

Gary Ferguson TN DOT

Richard Ferlauto ROWTF/System Safety Department

James Fox SEPTA

Daren Gilbert California PUC

Georgetta Gregory MARTA

William Grogan St. Clair County Transit District

William Hughes Hughes Consulting

Erika Hyatt Railserve

Emma Inwich Fulerau Corp/FRA

John Jones Capitol MTA

Bernard Kennedy IV Volpe Center

Jon Kerruish SMART

Gary Lair MO DOT

Duana Love U.S. DOT

Levern McElveen FTA, Moderator

David McKernan UP

Hamid Qaasim Sound Transit

Robert Rescot Purdue University, Calumet

Cory Reynolds MO DOT 

Ella Rogers Capital Metro

James Sibert MARTA

George Swimmer DuPage Railroad Safety Council

Christopher Williams Amtrak

John Zanzi Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit District

Dicky Waldron Volpe Center, Facilitator
31

Top Three Recommended Actions for Topic Area 2: Hazard Management

• Project 1. Safety Culture 

• Project 2. Data Collection 

• Project 3. Define Hazard Management 

Effective hazard management poses some serious challenges. Leadership is needed, as well as

effective communications, hazard analysis, mitigation, followup, and continuous improvement.

Project 1: Safety Culture

• Description—Elevate safety within organizational culture (incorporate safety into 

roles/responsibilities). Develop model training program for implementing safety 

protocols.

• Rationale—Safety is not well ingrained in the organization.

• Benefits—Enhanced employee performance; lower organization cost.

• Key Implementation Issues—None identified.

Hazard Management should be considered a key component of an organization’s safety culture. 

This concept goes beyond the mere creation of a safety climate. “Culture” is the point where 

hazard management is ingrained into the organization, resulting in the identification and 

mitigation of hazards before critical issues flare up. To effect a change from “climate” to 

“culture,” the group reported that additional research efforts are needed to identify the 

individuals involved, determine their roles and responsibilities, and begin developing training 

modules.

Project 2: Data Collection

• Description—Develop best practices (data quality, aggregate versus disaggregate data, 

near miss reporting, what technology is effective)

• Rationale—Inconsistency of current data and collection methods

• Benefits—Improve data quality 

• Key Implementation Issues—Reach consensus across stakeholders

On the transit side, there is much deliberation occurring in response to Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) recommendations regarding the linkage between the National 

Transit Database and the State Safety Oversight program. A transit agency representative noted 

that the industry currently provides data for inclusion in these data repositories, but there does 

not appear to be analysis, results, and trends that can aid decisionmaking. In addition, the 

repositories are inconsistent. To ensure improved decisionmaking across the industry, there is a 

need to focus on the “what,” “how,” “who,” and outcomes and results. Additionally, there are

a lot of disaggregated data that reside in the transit agencies. An example is sick leave. While a 

transit system is justifiably reluctant to share sensitive data such as this, there is still a need to 

look into indicators in the work environment itself. The benefits to this are improvement in the 

quality of data and the story it tells (i.e., better strategies for measuring the improvement of 
32

product quality and more effective metrics that reveal outcomes for what we are doing and how 

well we are doing it.

Project 3: Define Hazard Management

• Description—Develop common definition, interpretation, and application. Develop a 

formal committee (FTA’s Transit Rail Advisory Committee for Safety (TRACS)/FRA’s 

Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC)).

• Rationale—No consistent definition/process is used throughout the United States.

• Benefits—There is a need for consistency across agencies on how hazard management

strategies are applied. This consistency will eventually lead to better data, safety 

decisions, and funding justification.

• Key Implementation Issues—None identified.

Hazard management and the other elements of a safety program are not mutually exclusive. It 

relates to new starts as well as modifications and certifications to older systems, regardless of 

project size. There needs to be consistency within and between modes such as FRA and FTA, as 

well as a drawing from FRA’s RSAC and TRACS initiatives. This consistency would be more 

readily obtainable through the use of templates that portray how we are doing and what we are 

doing. 

Hazard Management Discussion 

Discussion included the issue of poor urban planning. Older, established railroads are often 

blamed for creating the hazardous ROW risks when, in fact, risk hot spots emerged after the rail 

lines were built. With new railroad projects, the urban fabric can be accounted for and mitigated 

in the design and build phase. For example, new urban development projects adjacent to ROWs

often entail environmental studies that allow the railroad to weigh in to mitigate potential 

hazards. There are standards that exist for these processes—for example, the Texas 

Transportation Code 85, Title 5–Railroads, Subtitle 1, Special districts—but they lack design 

criteria. As was the case with the other topic areas, the issue of metrics came up. Although the 

application of MIL-STD 882-D and other risk assessment models provides matrices and 

rankings, there is often no quantification of these risks. There is a need for quantification that 

will help prioritize mitigation strategies and ensure cost effectiveness. 

2.3.3 Design, Technology, and Infrastructure

The panel session was designed to examine hazards along the railroad ROW and evaluate the 

hazard management process. The hazard management process defines the physical and functional 

characteristics of the system and evaluates the key components (i.e., people, rules and procedures, 

facilities and equipment, and the operating environment) of that system. It is from this process 

that the appropriate mitigation measures are developed and implemented. 

Table 11 lists the delegates responsible for identifying the research needs in the Hazard 

Management topic area.
33

Table 11. Design, Technology, and Infrastructure Breakout Group

Name Agency/Organization

Kurt Anderson Campbell Technology Corporation

Peter Bartek Protran Technology

Herman Benal AZ DOT

Ray Benekohal University of IL, Urbana-Champaign

James Benton MD DOT

Craig Bolden Clary Corporation

Debra Chappell FRA, Moderator

Chuck Clemins Metro St. Louis

Dylan Counts Washington State DOT

Oscar Figueroa Metro

Frank Frey FRA, Moderator

Andrew Ghiassi Metro St. Louis

Radhameris Gomez Volpe Center 

Martin Gulley Metro

James Harrison Volpe Center

Josh Hassol Volpe Center, Facilitator

Vijay Kohnli Fulcrum Corporation

Darin Kosmak TX DOT

Daniel Lafontaine Transport Canada

Frank Lalonde Transport Canada

Alfred Longhi Tymetal Corporation

Peggy Lyda UP

Brent Ogden AECOM 

Tarek Omar FRA

Paul Rathgeber UP

Brian Reeves FL DOT/Bergmann and Associates

Stephen Reuschle Moffatt and Nichol

Ronald Ries FRA

Robert Rohauer CSX Transportation

Don Sepulveda LACMTA

David Stewart CA PUC

Matthew Talken MO DOT

Kurt Topel Private Citizen

Mary Toutounchi Hatch Mott Macdonald

Todd Walters UP

Kurt Wilkinson TriMet

Robert Wilson Metro St. Louis
34

Top Four Recommended Actions for Topic Area 3: Design, Technology, and 

Infrastructure

• Project 1. Fencing Design and Utilization 

• Project 2. Barriers Designed to Mitigate Pedestrian Distraction 

• Project 3. Exploratory Technology Research and Education 

• Project 4. Train-Activated In-Pavement Lights 

Of the 20 recommendations discussed and considered, four made the final cut. The group would 

have liked to address the other ideas in more detail, but time constraints did not allow for this. 

The selections were based on the criteria of urgency and ability to implement within a 

reasonable timeframe—as opposed to something that would require 5 or 10 years. The group

agreed that the recommendations were to be practical and common-sense driven, and decided to 

focus mostly on the “infrastructure” aspect of “Design, Technology, and Infrastructure.” 

Project 1: Fencing Design

• Description—Establish robust standardized fencing.

• Rationale—Mitigate vandalism. 

• Benefits— Keeps fencing intact; prevents trespassing.

• Key Implementation Issues—Learn from LIRR and TriMet; costs can be reduced when 

purchased in bulk.

The presentations made by TriMet1 and LIRR2 weighed heavily in ranking this recommendation. 

There is a real need to seal our corridors, and we need a more robust style of fencing. The 

industry should consider a bulk buy. There is a need to conduct some research on costs and 

benefits to be able to obtain bulk pricing to mitigate intrusions, as stated in Lou Frangella’s 

presentation.3

 As a corollary, we must have a way to keep up with chain-link fence repairs in 

our efforts to combat vandalism. 

Project 2: Barriers Designed to Mitigate Pedestrian Distraction

• Description—Allow railroad preemption to lock the mechanism against entry upon train 

detection.

• Rationale—Requires physical interaction to open the gate; avoids distraction. 

• Benefits—Prevents pedestrians from making contact with trains; maintains headways and 

service. 

• Key Implementation Issues—Connecting to railroad signal systems.

 

1 Design Features to Mitigate Trespassing, delivered by Curt Wilkenson. 2 Hazardous Assessment Approach to Trespass Management—High Security Fence, delivered by Richard Ferlauto 

in Topic Two, Hazard Management.

3 Successful Community Outreach, presented by Lou Frangella in Topic 4, Community Outreach.
35

There is a need to develop, via railroad circuitry or railroad preemption, a way to electronically 

control the passenger gate when a train is coming. Such gates should require a physical or 

human action to manually go through them. The risk of trapping people behind the gate points 

to the need for emergency push bars. We don’t want to over-engineer this. Research is needed 

to flesh this out.

Project 3: Exploratory Technology Research and Education

• Description—Incorporate existing technologies from other industries to apply to the 

railroad ROW. 

• Rationale—No need to reinvent the wheel.

• Benefits—Proven and cost effective.

• Key Implementation Issues—May be challenging due to railroads’ reluctance to 

experiment with new technologies.

It is recommended that we look outside the railroad industry to see if there are technologies and 

applications that may be available to “cross-pollinate” with the railroad industry. This 

approach would use solutions that may already exist. There are hurdles to this option; first and 

foremost, railroads tend not to like experimentation, especially when there are unknowns such as 

liabilities and risks that are not fully understood.

Project 4: Train-Activated In-Pavement Lights

• Description—Lights would activate as train approaches, providing additional warning to 

pedestrians.

• Rationale—Technology is being used at highway-rail grade crossings.

• Benefits—Greater visibility and warning for pedestrians. Reduces train strikes.

• Key Implementation Issues—Who will maintain? Systems will be outside of railroad

maintenance zone, but tied into railroad track circuitry.

There is a need to migrate rail grade crossing mitigation techniques to the realm of pedestrians. 

The pedestrian lights would be activated by railroad circuitry in much the same way as other 

grade crossing applications. Handrails and other augmentations would also be considered for 

further investigation.

Design, Technology, and Infrastructure Discussion

Design, technology, and infrastructure planning need to incorporate factors, such as traffic, that 

exist in the communities surrounding the ROW. Pedestrians need audible signals, signal timing, 

sight lines, fencing, and other cues. These have to be tied together to ensure incentives, 

deterrence, and enforcement. We need to dig deep beyond the Three Es to include coalitions and 

communities. Analytical tools that go deeper into this are out there. Communication is key and 

must include such things as focus groups, social media, community involvement, and data. 

Again, the idea is to deploy a hazard management approach in the early phases of development 
36

so that mitigation can be deployed up front. The following two documents were referenced in 

the conversation:

• TCRP Research Results Digest 84, Audible Signals for Pedestrian Safety in LRT 

environments, http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rrd_84.pdf

• New Jersey Safety Along Railroads—Short Term Action Plan, 

http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/pedsafety/pdf/NJSafetyalongRailroads_0

00.pdf

2.3.4 Community Outreach

This session presented some community outreach initiatives and programs currently practiced 

nationwide, presented best practices, and provided a blueprint for creating a successful 

community coalition.

Table 12 identifies the delegates responsible for identifying the research needs in the Community 

Outreach topic area.

Table 12. Community Outreach Breakout Group

Name Agency/Organization

Jennifer Attack Transport Canada, Rail Safety 

Gordon Bowe UP

Joshua Closson UP

Kevin Dawson UP, Moderator

Mark Dixon Georgetown Railroad

Gary Drouin GD Solutions

Jessica Feder Indiana Operation Lifesaver

Lou Frengella FRA

Mirna Gustave Volpe Center/MacroSys

William Heileman BNSF

Nelson High NC DOT Rail Division

Steve Huckabay Metro Light Rail 

James Hughes FTA, Region 1 

Martha Jimenez SCRRA/Metroline

Dennis Kearns BNSF

David Kibitlewski Wauconda Police

Steve Lazzari UP

Darlene Osterhaus KDOT/KS OL

Allen Pepper KCS

Jeffrey Pitcher Maine DOT

Ron Robusto Veolia Transportation 

Buck Russel UP

John Simpson UP

Roy Simpson BNSF

Cliff Stayton CSX 

Richard Washington FRA

David Wright System Safety 

Jack Wright MO DOT 

Carol Yelverton Volpe Center/MacroSys, Facilitator
37

Top Four Recommended Actions for Topic Area 5: Community Outreach

• Project 1. Public Awareness Campaign 

• Project 2. Community Outreach Partnerships 

• Project 3. National Community Awareness Day 

• Project 4. Outreach and Awareness Toolkit 

Our group had very substantive and well-informed conversations. The difficulties of 

communications were addressed as we evaluated the recommendations. This reminded us of 

how important these initiatives are. We also reaffirmed that effective communications is the 

cornerstone of any program, anywhere. The moderator emphasized that stakeholders in both 

government and industry are the “tip of the sword” for getting the message across. Group 

enthusiasm was so high that the group could easily have gone beyond the 2 hours allotted. 

Project 1: Public Awareness Campaign

• Description—Deliberate, sustained connections within communities. An overarching 

approach to preventing injury and death that can be customized for specific demographic, 

cultural, and regional goals. A brand/slogan that is distinctive and memorable. 

Collaborative, proactive teaming of Federal government, local government, and industry 

stakeholders. 

• Rationale—This will create a unified means to maintain visibility and alter perception of 

the problem, thus leading to change.

• Benefits—An ongoing, sustainable initiative reflected in strategies that include an ad 

campaign, media relations, photography, videos, and social media.

• Key Implementation Issues—None identified.

While it is true that the industry has implemented some public awareness campaigns, the group 

noted that there needs to be a national public awareness campaign designed for and focused on 

preventing trespassing. Targeted public awareness campaigns might be employed by other 

industries; if that is the case, applicability to the railroad industry should be considered.

Project 2: Community Outreach Partnerships

• Description—A national initiative that invites stakeholders in communities to develop 

and implement a trespassing reduction program.

• Rationale—A need to work proactively within communities.

• Benefits—Improved community relations; community goal of preventing trespassing.

• Key Implementation Issues—May be difficult due to nationwide implementation and 

associated costs.

There are partnerships established in various pockets around North America. A need exists for 

organized processes that make this happen more systematically and comprehensively across the 

industry. 
38

Project 3: National Community Awareness Day

• Description—Implement a railroad trespasser prevention awareness day.

• Rationale—Industry, communities, and Federal government to get together to address the 

problem; day of dedication.

• Benefits—Nationwide exposure.

• Key Implementation Issues—Very achievable.

This has to be very deliberate, sustained, and tied together in an overarching way. There is no 

one-size-fits-all. The messages need to be customized to various demographics and cultural and 

regional contexts. There needs to be involvement by all levels of government and stakeholders. 

A major challenge has to do with perception. We need to address the perception that ROW 

safety is “their”(the railroad’s) problem; rather, it is “our” problem. We need to use media 

relations, YouTube, and other social media to get the public involved. National and State level 

involvement is needed to obtain optimal visibility—all stakeholders will be encouraged to

participate in the nationwide day of dedication. This participation will lead to reenergized 

communications and networking activity centered on awareness initiatives.

Project 4: Outreach and Awareness Toolkit

• Description—Communications resources that provide local relevance, address ongoing 

issues, and provide a means to solve problems.

• Rationale—Need an effective way to communicate locally to prevent railroad 

trespassing.

• Benefits—Effective way to communicate locally to prevent railroad trespassing.

• Key Implementation Issues—Moderately difficult due to stakeholder buy-in.

We have tools; now, let’s share them. Communication is important. We need a toolkit for use in 

developing sustainable and comprehensive programs that optimally meet 

local community needs while also addressing broader nationwide efforts. To facilitate local 

awareness, buy-in is needed from the community. We need to make it interesting for them to do 

so.

Community Outreach Discussion

There was a robust discussion after these presentations. It was agreed that community 

outreach—using social media and other forms of communication—would play a key role. Key 

strategies included focusing plans with data and field intelligence; letting communities know that 

people are getting hurt; and finding, fixing, and following up. Group members concluded that 

there is a need to make messaging easier; one such way is by incorporating safety material into 

student curricula without putting any additional burden on teachers.

A powerful moment was when a private citizen explained how his daughter was killed on the 

tracks. The kids don’t see the danger on the track. There is a need, as with drunk-driving 

campaigns, to make trespasser dangers personal; the kids still drink, but because of increased 
39

knowledge about the ramifications of such behavior, they have more fear of driving across the 

tracks. 

A suggestion was made for measures other than “incidents” to include near misses, which could 

increase the predictive value of the data. Currently, for example, train engineers at UP report 

safety and trespass observations up the line of command. 

Railroad safety-themed visits to schools, even where there have been no incidents, can help 

prevent incidents from ever occurring.

One interesting discussion concerned an urban myth that there were ghosts near the ROW. The 

ghost story was passed down from one class year to the next. This has served to deter 

trespassing and should be encouraged.

2.3.5 Enforcement

This session presented a number of safety and security initiatives that are currently in place and 

are being effectively implemented to identify, apprehend, prosecute, and track trespassers along 

railroad ROWs. This session sought to provide participants with information that can be 

“taken home” and put into practice, potentially resulting in a reduction of trespasser incidents 

nationwide. 

Table 13 identifies the delegates responsible for identifying the research needs in the

Enforcement topic area.

Table 13. Enforcement Breakout Group

Name Agency/Organization

Chris Adams FRA

Shanna Bahr St. Louis County Police Dept.

Joseph Cantu UP Police

Ronald Danback St. Louis County Police Dept.

Jason Davis Metro St. Louis

Rick Deichmann NS

Thomas Dynes UP Police

Denise Gauthier BNSF 

Michail Grizkewitsch FRA

Ryan Gustin CSX, Moderator

Jay Holman UP

Gary Jones Amtrak Police Department

Jerald Lamkin Terminal Railroad Assoc., St. Louis

Randy Lane UPRR Police

Andy Lehrer Volpe Center, Facilitator

Gary Lottmann Alton and Southern Railway

Ivan McClelland CP Police Service

Michael Meyer UP

Rick Mooney MO OL
40

Name Agency/Organization

Thomas Morrison UP Police

George Muraski Terminal Railroad

James Parker UP Police

Al Rawls Kansas City Southern Railway

John Schumacher UP

Shel Senek Ohio State Highway Patrol

George Slaats UP Police

Emile Smith DDOT 

Rick Thornton UP Police

Richard Towle FRA

Todd Walters UP

Michael Wilson UP

Richard Zotl Metro St. Louis

Top Five Recommended Actions for Topic Area 5: Enforcement

• Project 1. Seek Full Police Authority across All 50 States for Railroad Police 

Officers 

• Project 2. Develop Specific Railroad/Transit Trespass Law That Can Be Applied 

Broadly and with Consistent Language across the United States 

• Project 3. (A) Focus on “High Value” Targets, i.e., Trespassers with Malicious 

Intent, Homeless, Drug/Alcohol, Other; (B) Strategies for Different Types of 

Trespassers—Casual, Impaired, Malicious 

• Project 4. Strive to Have “Crucial Conversations” with Local Courts/Prosecutors to 

Prioritize Trespass 

• Project 5. Seek Opportunities to Apply for and Develop Law Enforcement Grants 

That Can Target Trespass 

This breakout group’s deliberations were a great success. Twenty-two topic areas were 

identified and the top five were selected through the voting process.

Project 1: Railroad Police Authority

• Description—Seek full police authority, across all 50 States, for railroad police officers.

• Rationale—Railroad police have diminished effectiveness in carrying out their mission 

when their authority to arrest, apprehend, and prosecute changes from State to State.

• Benefits—Ability to more effectively contact trespassers, build stronger relationships 

with other agencies, and create sovereignty.

• Key Implementation Issues—NSA, IACP, and police unions are often hesitant to support 

“new” agencies—private/public difficult to understand.

This recommendation suggests that full police authority across all 50 States be conferred for 

railroad police officers. As it is, railroad police cannot be effective in dealing with ROW 

trespass incidents without the partnership of local police departments. There are many 
41

intricacies to how railroad officers derive their police powers. A national model would enhance 

the enforcement efforts of all parties because the authority of railroad police would be consistent 

across all States. This would lead to more effective enforcement by facilitating arrest, 

apprehension, and prosecution across jurisdictional lines. Buy-in is needed by sheriffs’ 

associations and unions to work out how the private/public interface would be handled.

Project 2: Broad-Based Trespass Law

• Description—Railroad-specific trespass law that can be applied broadly across the United 

States (consistent language).

• Rationale—Railroad/transit ROW trespass is currently viewed as “low priority” because 

it falls under the same status as all other forms of trespass; enforcement requirements 

change from State to State.

• Benefits—A single law, written specifically for our issues, will help to build uniformity 

and make it easier to educate the public.

• Key Implementation Issues—Model legislation is easy to develop (i.e., FRA), but 

“encouraging” the States to implement it is another issue. Perhaps a good option is to tie 

trespass laws to grant funding? 

Currently, laws regarding trespassing vary from State to State. This recommendation is for one 

national, uniform law that would allow for consistency and a better-educated public. FRA has 

developed model language; the States should be encouraged to adopt a similar approach. To 

help accomplish the adoption by States, FRA could perhaps condition funding on the adoption of 

a standard set of laws.

Project 3: Strategic Approach to Different Types of Trespassers

• Description—Focus on “high value” targets, i.e., approach to trespassers with malicious 

intent, homeless, and drug/alcohol (impaired) should be different from approach to the 

casual trespasser.

• Rationale—You have to develop specific approaches to affect the behavior of different 

types of trespassers.

• Benefits—Be able to reach out to the target audience more effectively, especially where 

the data has been shown to be ineffective.

• Key Implementation Issues—Will require creative thinking and multiple “trial and error” 

phases. Will also require a cross-functional effort by all involved parties.

Strategies are needed for different types of trespassers: 1) casual, 2) malicious, and 3) impaired. 

Criminal, homeless, drug and alcohol populations need to be identified; the approach to these 

populations differs from the approach to the student crossing the tracks or the rail fan taking a 

picture, which is a lower-level threat. Effectively reaching out to these groups will rely on data 

that shows where such efforts will have the greatest impact. This is a strategic approach. 

Targeting high-risk groups will require creative thinking and a trial-and-error approach.
42

Project 4: Crucial Conversations

• Description—A need exists to have “crucial conversations” with local courts/prosecutors 

to encourage making trespass on railroad ROW a priority.

• Rationale—With respect to trespass, we have the data to defend this position. The 

dangers associated with this type of criminal behavior warrant the courts taking it

seriously.

• Benefits—When a suspect makes a conscious decision to trespass, the benefits will no 

longer outweigh the consequences—there is more bite than bark!

• Key Implementation Issues—You have to have the buy-in and personal relationships 

with your judicial stakeholders. If this is the first time they have heard from you, you 

will most likely have a harder sell. Squeaky wheel gets the grease?

Communicate with and encourage courts and prosecutors to make railroad ROW trespassing a 

priority. We have the data to defend our position that this is a huge concern due to the grave 

danger. With railroad trespass crimes becoming a higher priority, the consequences of 

trespassing outweigh any benefits. We need to reach out to prosecutors and court systems at the 

local level. With established contacts, the selling of this concept would not be difficult; however, 

more outreach would be required for new contacts.

Project 5: Seek Law Enforcement Grants

• Description—Seek opportunities to apply for and develop law enforcement grants that 

can target trespass.

• Rationale—Everyone needs money and resources. Many law enforcement agencies want 

to help, but they just don’t have the manpower, technology, etc., to allocate to trespass 

enforcement.

• Benefits—You are simply sponsoring the “community” approach. Reduction of trespass 

incidents and fatalities being the #1 goal.

• Key Implementation Issues—Where does this money come from? What is the allocation 

mechanism? Can we mirror the Section 130 program? 

Many law enforcement organizations would like to help, but have limited resources. An effort to 

obtain grants would be of great help. We should explore the applicability of Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) Section 130 grade crossing funding. We hope that this 

effort would further foster community partnerships.

Enforcement Discussion

Everyone agreed that there are a lot of extant tools to help law enforcement initiatives. There is 

no need to reinvent the wheel. The Trespass Enforcement and Incident Resolution programs 

have trained engineers to report observations. Operation Lifesaver videos are very effective. A 

LIRR task force now reports ROW debris because multiple debris incidents can indicate a 

potential hot spot. Also, an officer dedicated to ROW issues has allowed LIRR to create great 

partnerships with the communities by educating local police jurisdictions about what to look for. 

This helps when an interdiction is needed. Special Weapons and Tactics teams, for instance, 

would be more familiar with how law enforcement provides rapid response to a rail incident. A 
43

database for officers that are struck on ROWs called Officer Down Memorial Web Site, 

www.ODMP.org, really gets the attention of law enforcement officers and is helpful to raise

awareness. 

2.3.6 Intentional Deaths/Acts

This session looked at current practices and research studies intended to mitigate or 

eliminate intentional death acts on the Nation’s railroad ROWs. This session provided

attendees the opportunity to discuss current industry and public practices aimed at the 

prevention of intentional deaths. Session objectives included shared risk identification, 

statistical analysis, mapping high-risk areas, and developing future prevention strategies 

and methods to gauge their success.

Table 14 lists the delegates responsible for identifying the research needs in the Enforcement

topic area.

Table 14. Intentional Deaths/Acts Breakout Group

Name Agency/Organization

Leonard Allen Volpe Center

Ingrid Bartinique Volpe Center/MacroSys, Facilitator

Bob Boston UTC

Louis Brown WMATA

Willis Brown UP

Linda Langford Suicide Prevention Resource Center, EDS, Inc. 

Jason Davis Metro

Scott Gabree Volpe Center 

Charles Hagood FRA, Moderator

Diane Hagood Yosemite School District

Matthew Harvard UP

Dario Hayes St. Louis County Police

Cliff Kierstead Kirkwood Police Department

Joseph Kreins SMART

Julie LaCombe KS Operation Lifesaver 

Linda Langford Suicide Prevention Resource Center 

Rober Ledoux Florida East Coast Railway

Michael Martino AAR

George McManus UP

Corey Reynolds MO DOT

Jeff Schmid BNSF

Norbert Shacklette UP

Stacy Smith St. Louis Metro Police Department (PD)

Bradley Thorne UP

John Winkler St. Louis Metro PD

Richard Zott St. Louis Metro PD

Gary Hod NS
44

Top Three Recommended Actions for Topic Area 6: Intentional Deaths/Acts

• Project 1. Education 

• Project 2. Eliminating Trigger Terminology from Public Communication 

• Project 3. Exploration of Trespass Prevention Messaging

This is a very touchy subject; it is very broad and requires working together. Communicating 

with each other is the key. The recommendations below align with the work done by the other 

working groups. 

Project 1: Education 

• Description—How can message change behavior? How do we create deterrents to 

change a mindset?

• Rationale—Lack of message consistency.

• Benefits—Increased effectiveness of messages.

• Key Implementation Issues—None identified.

There is no single way to look at this; there are many ways. In all cases, the question is, how 

can we manage to change potential trespassers’ behavior and mindset? We have a long way to 

go with research on this. This issue is commingled with other trespasser mitigation approaches 

in general, so the messaging contained in an educational program needs to be consistent as well 

as targeted. The objective is to mitigate trespassing through deterrence. The messaging must 

not be sensationalistic, such as using the words “intentional death act” rather than “suicide.” 

We need a toolkit so that all stakeholders involved can have access to the optimal tools for their 

situation.

Project 2: Eliminating Trigger Terminology from Public Communication

• Description—What terminology can or should be used in media, presentations, Web

sites, and technical reports? Develop guidelines for terms to share information without 

providing unintended triggers.

• Rationale—Eliminate trigger terminology from communications.

• Benefits—Consistency in communication will prevent unintended triggers and deter 

individuals from using rail for intentional death acts.

• Key Implementation Issues—None.

We need guidance for using terms that do not draw undue attention to intentional death acts on 

the railroad. The Golden Gate Bridge, for instance, continues to be used for intentional death 

acts, but the press does not report on them so as not to draw undue attention to these 

occurrences. The railroads could give generic information that something happened, but 

without details as to exact location. The messaging should be left for the experts to formulate—

appropriate messaging will convey the circumstances without getting too specific regarding 

location and the like. In essence, we are talking about perception. As with other 
45

recommendations throughout this workshop, data is a key component that tells us where we are 

and where we are going.

Project 3: Exploration of Trespass Prevention Messaging

• Description—Develop campaign and marketing emphasizing that not all strikes results in 

fatalities. Also, stop campaigns that say trespassing will kill you.

• Rationale—People won’t attempt suicide by rail for fear of not succeeding. 

• Benefits—Should work to reduce both trespass and suicide.

• Key Implementation Issues—None identified.

This applies to the message that if a person steps in front of the train, he/she might live through 

the hit. The objective is deterrence; if folks understand that they might survive, they might 

reconsider, especially in light of the quality of life that would be experienced afterwards. From 

what we heard in presentations before the breakout sessions, NJ Transit and Caltrain created

materials that seem to have worked. We should look at these and other initiatives. Developing 

and disseminating this information will be hard work due to the diversity of issues and 

circumstances. 

Intentional Deaths/Acts Discussion

There was discussion regarding data and how to determine whether a trespasser death is 

accidental as opposed to intentional. In the transit world, 49 CFR 225–Railroad 

Accidents/Incidents: Reports Classification, and Investigations now requires this, but there 

remains a lack of guidance as to what investigatory measures must be taken once the cause is 

known. More research is needed on determining whether the death is intentional or not; the 

Volpe Center, for instance, is working with coroners to help develop data points to help identify 

the cause of death. Overseas, the United Kingdom simply categorizes all ROW deaths as suicide 

so no payouts are made by insurance companies. In Japan, families of trespass deaths are fined a 

large sum of money. The idea is to influence cultural awareness of the dangers of trespassing as 

well as to stigmatize these actions. Another measure is the avoidance of trigger terminology that 

might encourage others to consider suicide on the ROW. This involves the proper wording of 

materials for media reporting.
46

3. Top Research Needs, Thursday Wrap-Up Discussion

After the topic area recommendations were presented, the microphones were opened to the 

group for general discussion and closing thoughts. 

It was noted that there was a good deal of synergy between the groups, which underscores the 

need for a robust safety culture. The Hazard Management topic team corroborated this need as 

did the Community Awareness team when they spoke of a comprehensive public awareness 

campaign to help promote a safety culture. 

Our efforts should extend beyond the boundaries of the ROW to encompass all pedestrian 

trespass behaviors communitywide (e.g., jaywalkers or those that cross against a traffic light). 

This broader perspective sends the message that these behaviors are not confined to trespassers 

on the ROW but apply to the community as a whole; this in turn entails wider coordination and 

outreach in our efforts to mitigate trespass behaviors. 

The question, “Who is going to pay for these?” came up. The recommendations, many of 

which are cross-cutting (versus stovepiped), could be creatively addressed through pilot studies 

involving shared track or ROW. The parties could create, collaborate on, and consolidate ideas

and perhaps even reach an agreement concerning the use of shared funding to address these 

cross-cutting and shared issues. 

A robust safety culture starts at the top—government bodies and the board levels of an 

organization. Those attending this workshop are the troops who “get their feet dirty.” We need 

to take our knowledge, expertise, and experience back to our organizational leaders. Our 

objectives can be accomplished through outreach and enforcement, the promulgation of many 

of the ideas exchanged here, and cross-pollination across the full spectrum of stakeholders and 

professional areas of specialty. 

An example of this approach is exhibited on the Web site, www.envisionfreight.com, which 

focuses on multimodal approaches to urban planners and architects. This site was developed in 

response to a survey of college curricula which indicated that there were no programs for 

planners and architects to learn about freight railway operations. A course is being developed 

to fill this gap at the University of Texas School of Architecture and the LBJ School of Public 

Affairs. At St. Louis University, a curriculum model is being developed to include freight 

operations as a part of urban planning courses. Accordingly, freight railroad safety 

considerations will be factored into community and urban planning courses. A critical point is 

that infrastructure concerns be addressed as multimodal issues, as in the case of shared corridors 

and the like. Also, transit-oriented development considerations should be taken into account. 

At University of California–Berkeley, there are a number of courses under development that 

address railroad issues.

As mentioned in the Intentional Deaths/Acts working group, data is needed to differentiate 

between intentional acts and unintentional injuries or deaths. We need to parse the message to 

reach each kind of trespasser, but the goal is to do so without glamorizing railroad intentional 
47

deaths in a way that draws people to the idea. All of this underscores many of the findings of 

the other groups; that is, data and collaboration are going to be needed across the board.

There are a number of universities interested in transportation or civil engineering, or who 

already have transportation or civil engineering programs in place. A workshop participant, a

professor, mentioned that there are a number of universities that have transportation centers and

civil engineering departments interested in railroads and transit. 
48

4. Final Thoughts and Workshop Closeout

Levern McElveen of FTA and Ron Ries of FRA delivered the closing remarks. 

FTA: On behalf of FTA and my director, Ron Keele, I wish to say how very impressed I am 

with the enthusiasm of the group, your valuable involvement, concerns, and ideas exchanged. I 

am going to recommend to FRA that we continue the work of this group via teleconference or 

webinar formats so that we can continue to improve data, communications, and the other factors 

discussed. From FTA’s perspective, we are engaged in MAP-21, a massive undertaking with 

which FTA must comply within 3 years. We need all the help possible. I am going to let my 

higher-ups know that this is how we do it; we gather industry in the form of focus groups to tell 

us how to build the MAP-21 provision out.

FRA: FRA seconds what was just said. It says a lot about your dedication that on the last day 

of a workshop such as this, most of you are still here. FRA wishes to challenge attendees 

regarding the long road ahead; lots of effort will be needed to keep folks safe, save lives, and 

avert pain to families and the many affected. The challenge is to go beyond taking notes to putting 

some of the ideas into practice. FRA suggests that we continue the relationships that were 

established at this workshop. It is not that often that folks from FTA and FRA get to work 

together. We have learned a great deal about the commonality of issues and problems that are 

faced by general rail and transit operations. We need to keep in contact and keep going. FRA

likes FTA’s suggestion of conference calls and the like. In addition, we will be looking for 

ways to improve and better coordinate efforts. We will post presentations and ancillary 

materials to the FRA Web site. To help make these more beneficial and effective, we ask that 

you respond to a survey that will be sent out. FRA plans to set up a Facebook page covering 

this conference which will provide another way for us to communicate. 
49

Appendix A. Workshop Materials

A word about the dissemination of workshop materials via Internet:

This year, FRA has done away with what would have been a Volume 2, as in 2008. That 

volume contained handouts, presentations, biographical sketches, ancillary documents, 

attendees and the like. 

In its stead, FRA has established the following Web site:

http://www.fra.dot.gov/conference/trespass2012/index.shtml for summary materials,

presentations, history, and contact information. A snapshot is shown in Figure 4.

FRA intends to keep this site up to date as other resources become available. 

This workshop does not need to stop on August 16, 2012. It can continue through the use of the 

Internet. In the near future, the agency is considering a shared site like SharePointTM and social 

media—Facebook, Twitter, or a blog—where further discussion and sharing of information can 

continue.

Figure 4. 2012 ROW Fatality and Trespass Prevention Workshop Home Page
50

Appendix B. Post-Workshop Electronic Survey Results

1. Which of the following best describes the industry you belong to?

Response Response

Percent Count

Federal 20.3% 12

State 13.6% 8

Local 5.1% 3

Transit Agency 18.6% 11

Railroad 27.1% 16

Consultant 6.8% 4

Union Representative 0.0% 0

Association or organizations 

representing the railroad community

1.7% 1

Academic or University Research 0.0% 0

Education and Public Awareness 1.7% 1

Other 5.1% 3

If Other please specify 3

answered question 59

skipped question 0
51

2. Please rate your satisfaction level for the registration process.

Response Response

Percent Count

Extremely Satisfied 61.0% 36

Very Satisfied 33.9% 20

Somewhat Satisfied 5.1% 3

Dissatisfied 0.0% 0

Comments

7

answered question 59

skipped question 0

3. Please rate your satisfaction level for the workshop presentations.

Response Response

Percent Count

Extremely Satisfied 47.5% 28

Very Satisfied 47.5% 28

Somewhat Satisfied 5.1% 3

Dissatisfied 0.0% 0

Comments

15

answered question 59

skipped question 0
52

4. Please rate your satisfaction level for the workshop session structure.

Response Response

Percent Count

Extremely Satisfied 39.0% 23

Very Satisfied 54.2% 32

Somewhat Satisfied 5.1% 3

Dissatisfied 1.7% 1

Comments

16

answered question 59

skipped question 0

5. Please rate your satisfaction level for the breakout session/discussion results.

Response Response

Percent Count

Extremely Satisfied 22.0% 13

Very Satisfied 35.6% 21

Somewhat Satisfied 37.3% 22

Dissatisfied 5.1% 3

Comments

21

answered question 59

skipped question 0
53

6. Please rate your satisfaction level for the courtesy and helpfulness of the workshop 

staff.

Response Response

Percent Count

Extremely Satisfied 69.5% 41

Very Satisfied 30.5% 18

Somewhat Satisfied 0.0% 0

Dissatisfied 0.0% 0

Comments

9

answered question 59

skipped question 0

7. Please rate your satisfaction level for the conference location and facilities.

Response Response

Percent Count

Extremely Satisfied 49.2% 29

Very Satisfied 40.7% 24

Somewhat Satisfied 10.2% 6

Dissatisfied 0.0% 0

Comments

13

answered question 59

skipped question 0
54

8. Please rate your satisfaction level for the overall quality of the workshop.

Response Response

Percent Count

Extremely Satisfied 50.8% 30

Very Satisfied 44.1% 26

Somewhat Satisfied 5.1% 3

Dissatisfied 0.0% 0

Comments

7

answered question 59

skipped question 0

9. How did you first hear about the workshop?

Response Response

Percent Count

Email 47.5% 28

Website 3.4% 2

From a Colleague 44.1% 26

Other 5.1% 3

If Other please specify 4

answered question 59

skipped question 0
55

10. Did the Workshop meet your expectations?

Response Response

Percent Count

Yes 94.9% 56

No 5.1% 3

Comments

16

answered question 59

skipped question 0

11. What did you like most about the Workshop?

Response

Count

46

answered question 46

skipped question 13

12. What did you like least about the Workshop?

Response

Count

39

answered question 39

skipped question 20
56

13. What kind of topics would you like to see included at future Workshops?

Response

Count

35

answered question 35

skipped question 24

14. How often should this type of workshop be held?

Response Response

Percent Count

Every Year 30.5% 18

Every 2 Years 52.5% 31

Every 3 Years 11.9% 7

Every 5 Years 0.0% 0

No Preference 5.1% 3

answered question 59

skipped question 0

15. Please provide any additional comments.

Response

Count

13

answered question 13
57

Appendix C. Workshop Agenda

Tuesday, August 14

7:30 – 8:30 am Registration

8:30 – 10:00 am Opening Session

Welcome Addresses:

• John M. Nations, CEO, Metro St. Louis

• Mokhtee Ahmad, FTA Region VII Administrator

Keynote Address:

• Joseph C. Szabo, FRA Administrator

General Addresses:

• Ronald Ries, FRA

• Levern McElveen, FTA

Trespassing Issues that Face the Nation

10:00 – 10:15 am Break

10:15 – 11:45 am Session 1: Pedestrian Safety Issues

Moderator: William P. Grizard, APTA

• Ron Nickle, MBTA — A System Safety Approach to

G.C. Mgt. Planning for Pedestrians

• Sheree Davis, NJDOT

New Jersey SafetyAlong Railroads Actions

• Carolyn Cook, FRA

Pedestrian Safety at Passenger Stations

12:00 – 1:00 pm Lunch (On Your Own)

1:00 – 2:30 pm Session 2: Hazard Management Moderator: Levern McElveen, FTA Moderator: Frank Frey, FRA

• Daren Gilbert, CPUC

Regulator Approach: 49 CFR 659

• Marco daSilva, Volpe — FRA Funded Research: Florida DOT and Tri-Rail Study

• James Fox, SEPTA

Hazard Management Experiences: SEPTA

• Richard A. Ferlauto, LIRR — LIRR Experiences: High Fences Risk Analysis and Methodology

2:30 – 3:00 pm Break

3:00 – 4:30 pm Session 3: Design, Technology, and Infrastructure

Moderator: Debra Chappell, FRA

Moderator: Frank Frey, FRA

• Brent Ogden, AECOM

Engineering Trespassers Out of Rail Corridors

• Don Sepulveda, L.A. City Metropolitan Transportation

Authority — Designing for Safety

• Kurt Wilkinson, TriMet

Design Features to Mitigate Trespassing

• Peggy Lyda, Union Pacific Railroad

Fresno Trespass Campaign
58

4:30 – 4:45 pm Adjournment

• Ronald Ries, FRA

• Levern McElveen, FTA

Wednesday, August 15

7:30 – 8:15 am Registration

8:15 – 8:30 am Welcome

• Ronald Ries, FRA

• Levern McElveen, FTA

8:30 – 10:00 am Session 4: Community Outreach

Moderator: Kevin Dawson, UPRR

• Jay Holman & John Simpson, UPRR

Community Coalition Focus Plans

• Lou Frangella, FRA

Successful Community Outreach Programs

• Bill Barringer, NS RR

Train Your Brain—NA Safety Campaign

• Richard Washington, FRA

National Trespass Programs

10:00 – 10:15 am Break

10:15 am – 12:00 pm Session 5: Enforcement

Moderator: Ryan Gustin, CSX

• Shel Senek, Ohio State Patrol (Retired) 

 Trespass Enforcement and Incident Program

• Gary Jones, Amtrak Police

Passenger Rail Trespassing Concerns: Insights from Amtrak Police

• Bryan Madden, BNSF & Rick Deichmann, NS Police

Citizens for Rail Security/Protect the Line

12:00 – 1:00 pm Lunch (On Your Own)

1:00 – 2:30 pm Session 6: Intentional Deaths/Acts

Moderator: Charlie Hagood, FRA

• Dr. Linda Langford, Suicide Prevention Resource Center

• Scott Gabree, Volpe — Nationwide Database to Track Trespass & Suicides

• Mike Martino, AAR — Countermeasures to Reduce Suicides on Railroad Rights of Way

• Louis Brown, WMATA —Suicide Prevention Program

2:30 – 2:45 pm Organization of Working Groups/ Introduction of Teams

2:45 – 3:00 pm Break

3:00 – 5:00 pm Working Group Breakouts

• Pedestrian Safety Issues (Green Team) Location: Salon A

• Hazard Management (Red Team) Location: Salon B

• Design, Technology and Infrastructure (Yellow Team) Location: Salon D

• Community Outreach (Orange Team) Location: Salon E

• Enforcement (Blue Team) Location: Salon F

• Intentional Deaths/Acts (Purple Team) Location: Salon C

5:00 pm Adjournment/Team Leads Report Out
59

Thursday, August 16

8:00 – 8:15 am Welcome Addresses:

• Ronald Ries, FRA

• Levern McElveen, FTA

8:15 – 10:15 am Working Group Summaries of Top Research Needs

10:15 – 11:00 am Final Thoughts and Workshop Closeout
60

Abbreviations and Acronyms

AAR Association of American Railroads

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

APTA American Public Transportation Association

AREMA American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association

DARE Drug Abuse Resistance Education Program

EPA Education and Public Awareness

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

FRA Federal Railroad Administration 

FTA Federal Transit Administration 

GPS Global Positioning System 

HSR High-Speed Rail

LACMTA Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century 

MBTA Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

NRC National Response Center

NTSB National Transportation Safety Board

OLI Operation Lifesaver, Inc.

PTC Positive Train Control

R&D Research and Development

RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration

RSAC FRA Railroad Safety Advisory Committee

RSIA Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008

Section 130 23 U.S.C. 130, Rail-Highway Crossings

SSPP System Safety Program Plan

Three Es Education, Engineering, and Enforcement

TRACS FTA Transit Rail Advisory Committee for Safety

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

Volpe Center John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

WMATA Washington (DC) Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority