Ultimate and Proximate Causes of WTCs
Based on these previous studies, we can identify various factors that influence
collision risk.
Clearly, WTCs are more frequent in areas with higher wildlife abundances (see
also Gundersen and Andreassen 1998; Hedlund et al. 2004; Seiler 2005), or where
animals are more likely to cross railways. This relates to landscape composition,
food availability, landscape structure, and other regional and local factors typically
beyond the responsibility of the train operator or the railway manager (Seiler et al.
2011; Rolandsen 2015). Other factors relate to the attractiveness and accessibility of
the railway, including vegetation management alongside railways (Jaren et al. 1991;
Rolandsen 2015), the presence of gullies and fences, or by train density (Righetti
and Malli 2004; Kusta et al. 2011).
The proximate cause of WTCs, however, must be attributed to the behaviour of
the animal itself. In contrast to roads, where motorists carry the main responsibility
for avoiding collisions with wildlife (Seiler and Helldin 2006; Litvaitis and Tash
2008), trains are unable to stop or change paths. Therefore, it is only the animal that
can avert a collision, but this depends on its chance of detecting an oncoming train
in time, its cognitive abilities, and its anti-predator or flight behaviour. As we have
seen on video recordings, flight initiation distances were short, leaving little time for
the animals to respond appropriately, especially to rapidly moving and silent
modern passenger trains (Gundersen and Andreassen 1998; Rea et al. 2010).
Therefore, a possible mitigation is to increase the available response time by
alerting animals earlier, before the train is too close to be avoided.
Mitigation Project
Objectives
In 2015, the Swedish Transport Administration, in cooperation with Swedish
Railways, Enviroplanning AB, and the Swedish University of Agricultural
Sciences, initiated a project to develop novel approaches and test available systems
for alerting and deterring wildlife from railways shortly before trains arrive (Olsson
and Seiler 2015). The goal is to prevent WTCs while still allowing animals to cross
the railway when no trains are approaching.
Earlier studies from Poland (Werka and Wasilewski 2009; Babińska-Werka et al.
2015) have been promising, but further technical and methodological development
is needed to develop a cost-effective and robust alternative to fences and crossing
structures.
17 Wildlife Deterrent Methods for Railways—An Experimental Study
285
Based on these previous studies, we can identify various factors that influence
collision risk.
Clearly, WTCs are more frequent in areas with higher wildlife abundances (see
also Gundersen and Andreassen 1998; Hedlund et al. 2004; Seiler 2005), or where
animals are more likely to cross railways. This relates to landscape composition,
food availability, landscape structure, and other regional and local factors typically
beyond the responsibility of the train operator or the railway manager (Seiler et al.
2011; Rolandsen 2015). Other factors relate to the attractiveness and accessibility of
the railway, including vegetation management alongside railways (Jaren et al. 1991;
Rolandsen 2015), the presence of gullies and fences, or by train density (Righetti
and Malli 2004; Kusta et al. 2011).
The proximate cause of WTCs, however, must be attributed to the behaviour of
the animal itself. In contrast to roads, where motorists carry the main responsibility
for avoiding collisions with wildlife (Seiler and Helldin 2006; Litvaitis and Tash
2008), trains are unable to stop or change paths. Therefore, it is only the animal that
can avert a collision, but this depends on its chance of detecting an oncoming train
in time, its cognitive abilities, and its anti-predator or flight behaviour. As we have
seen on video recordings, flight initiation distances were short, leaving little time for
the animals to respond appropriately, especially to rapidly moving and silent
modern passenger trains (Gundersen and Andreassen 1998; Rea et al. 2010).
Therefore, a possible mitigation is to increase the available response time by
alerting animals earlier, before the train is too close to be avoided.
Mitigation Project
Objectives
In 2015, the Swedish Transport Administration, in cooperation with Swedish
Railways, Enviroplanning AB, and the Swedish University of Agricultural
Sciences, initiated a project to develop novel approaches and test available systems
for alerting and deterring wildlife from railways shortly before trains arrive (Olsson
and Seiler 2015). The goal is to prevent WTCs while still allowing animals to cross
the railway when no trains are approaching.
Earlier studies from Poland (Werka and Wasilewski 2009; Babińska-Werka et al.
2015) have been promising, but further technical and methodological development
is needed to develop a cost-effective and robust alternative to fences and crossing
structures.
17 Wildlife Deterrent Methods for Railways—An Experimental Study
285