railway designs. Much of the CPR is co-aligned with a productive montane habitat,
hence altering the abundance of deer or other species near the CPR may not be
feasible. A two- step approach may be needed that both reduces forage quality and
availability along the CPR and increases habitat quality away from it.
Two studies have documented a decrease in strike rates for moose (Jaren et al.
1991; Andreassen et al. 2005). One developed ungulate habitat away from a railroad (Jaren et al. 1991), and the other both modified habitat and provided supplemental forage away from the railroad (Andreassen et al. 2005). The feasibility of
such an approach will be site-specific, but is likely to be beneficial to large mammal
populations.
Train speed was also clearly important. Reduced train speeds may be an effective
measure to reduce strike risk, particularly in problem areas. Train speed is a spatially and
temporally explicit management solution, and likely interacts with the other mechanisms described above; thus, it could be implemented where or when strikes are most
likely to occur. However, reduced speeds may be ineffective if other mechanisms are the
primary driver in strike occurrences. For example, a study in Alaska observed a possible
mechanism (constrained flight paths) resulting in strikes with moose (Becker and
Grauvogel 1991). The study then evaluated reduced train speeds (reaction time
mechanism) on reducing moose strike rates. The authors found reduced train speeds to
be ineffective in this case but suggested that at some levels of speed reduction, the
approach may have been effective; since these speeds are surely economically
cost-prohibitive (Becker and Grauvogel 1991), and so variables (such as snow removal)
enabling moose to move off the railroad, vegetative or other terrain modifications
should be evaluated. Although moose were not analyzed in this study, speed was
positively associated with increasing strike risks for elk and deer along the CPR. Speed
reduction in hotspots and high-risk areas should be empirically evaluated in the future.
For bears, it may be most important to evaluate design modifications or mitigation solutions targeted at barriers including: highway vehicle overpasses, tunnels,
snow sheds, rock cuts and bridges. However, multiple approaches are likely warranted in high-risk segments, including those that decrease the probability the bears
will be exposed to strikes, increase the detectability of trains, increase the opportunities for safe flight paths off-track, and increase the time bears have to successfully avoid trains.
Acknowledgements B. Dorsey received support from the Western Transportation Institute
(WTI) at Montana State University and Parks Canada to complete this project, as part of his
Master’s degree.
References
Andersen, R., Wiseth, B., Pedersen, P. H., & Jaren, V. (1991). Moose-train collisions: Effects of
environmental conditions. Alces, 27, 79–84.
Andreassen, H. P., Gundersen, H., & Storaas, T. (2005). The effect of scent-marking, forest
clearing, and supplemental feeding on moose-train collisions. Journal of Wildlife Management,
69, 1125–1132.
152
B.P. Dorsey et al.
hence altering the abundance of deer or other species near the CPR may not be
feasible. A two- step approach may be needed that both reduces forage quality and
availability along the CPR and increases habitat quality away from it.
Two studies have documented a decrease in strike rates for moose (Jaren et al.
1991; Andreassen et al. 2005). One developed ungulate habitat away from a railroad (Jaren et al. 1991), and the other both modified habitat and provided supplemental forage away from the railroad (Andreassen et al. 2005). The feasibility of
such an approach will be site-specific, but is likely to be beneficial to large mammal
populations.
Train speed was also clearly important. Reduced train speeds may be an effective
measure to reduce strike risk, particularly in problem areas. Train speed is a spatially and
temporally explicit management solution, and likely interacts with the other mechanisms described above; thus, it could be implemented where or when strikes are most
likely to occur. However, reduced speeds may be ineffective if other mechanisms are the
primary driver in strike occurrences. For example, a study in Alaska observed a possible
mechanism (constrained flight paths) resulting in strikes with moose (Becker and
Grauvogel 1991). The study then evaluated reduced train speeds (reaction time
mechanism) on reducing moose strike rates. The authors found reduced train speeds to
be ineffective in this case but suggested that at some levels of speed reduction, the
approach may have been effective; since these speeds are surely economically
cost-prohibitive (Becker and Grauvogel 1991), and so variables (such as snow removal)
enabling moose to move off the railroad, vegetative or other terrain modifications
should be evaluated. Although moose were not analyzed in this study, speed was
positively associated with increasing strike risks for elk and deer along the CPR. Speed
reduction in hotspots and high-risk areas should be empirically evaluated in the future.
For bears, it may be most important to evaluate design modifications or mitigation solutions targeted at barriers including: highway vehicle overpasses, tunnels,
snow sheds, rock cuts and bridges. However, multiple approaches are likely warranted in high-risk segments, including those that decrease the probability the bears
will be exposed to strikes, increase the detectability of trains, increase the opportunities for safe flight paths off-track, and increase the time bears have to successfully avoid trains.
Acknowledgements B. Dorsey received support from the Western Transportation Institute
(WTI) at Montana State University and Parks Canada to complete this project, as part of his
Master’s degree.
References
Andersen, R., Wiseth, B., Pedersen, P. H., & Jaren, V. (1991). Moose-train collisions: Effects of
environmental conditions. Alces, 27, 79–84.
Andreassen, H. P., Gundersen, H., & Storaas, T. (2005). The effect of scent-marking, forest
clearing, and supplemental feeding on moose-train collisions. Journal of Wildlife Management,
69, 1125–1132.
152
B.P. Dorsey et al.