MEAN STREETS WPEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND REFORM OF · Hank Dittmar, Executive Director STPP 1100 17th...

MEAN STREETS

PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND REFORM OF

THE NATION’S TRANSPORTATION LAW

SURFACETRANSPORTATIONPOLICYPROJECT

W O R K I N G G R O U P T M

E N V I R O N M E N T A L

Acknowledgments

Principal authors of Mean Streets were Brian A. Cohen, Richard Wiles, and Christopher Campbell of EnvironmentalWorking Group, and Don Chen, Jill Kruse, and James Corless of the Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP).Molly Evans designed and produced the report. Allison Daly and Laura Olsen coordinated the release of MeanStreets.

We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of Mean Streets in draft form: Ellen Vanderslice, AnneWeaver, Ann Herschfang, Katherine Shriver, Mary Pat Lawlor, Randy Wade, John Kaehny, Jon Orcutt, John Will-iams, Bill Wilkinson, Charlie Komanoff, Clarence Ditlow, and Allen Greenberg. Thanks to Minnie Baskerville andJeff Wilkins of the U.S. Department of Transportation for their assistance with the FMIS database.

Thanks to the following individuals at STPP for their reviews and editorial assistance during preparation of thisreport: Hank Dittmar, Roy Kienitz, Laura Olsen, and Bianca DeLille. Jackie Savitz, Sara Savitt and Bill Walker ofEWG also provided editorial assistance.

Mean Streets was made possible by grants to Environmental Working Group from the Surdna Foundation, the En-ergy Foundation, the Bullitt Foundation, and the Joyce Foundation; and grants to STPP from the Nathan CummingsFoundation, the Energy Foundation, the George Gund Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, the Martin Foundation,the James C. Penney Foundation, Prince Charitable Trusts, the Surdna Foundation, and the Rockefeller BrothersFund. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views ofthe supporters listed above. Needless to say, any errors of fact or interpretation are the responsibility of the au-thors.

Cover Photo Credit: Larry Sillen. Photo depicts one of a series of street scenes created by concerned New Yorkersin 1997.

Mean Streets Copyright © April 1997 by the Environmental Working Group/The Tides Center.All rights reserved.Manufactured in the United States of America. Printed on chlorine-free, recycled paper.

Environmental Working Group

The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit environmental research organization based in Washington, D.C.The Environmental Working Group is a project of the Tides Center, a California Public Benefit Corporation basedin San Francisco that provides administrative and program support services to nonprofit programs and projects.This and many other reports are available on the World Wide Web at <www.ewg.org>.

Kenneth A. Cook, President Environmental Working GroupMark B. Childress, Vice President for Policy 1718 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 600Richard Wiles, Vice President for Research Washington, DC 20009

202-667-6982 (phone) • [email protected] (e-mail)

Surface Transportation Policy Project

STPP is a nonprofit coalition of roughly 175 groups devoted to ensuring that transportation policy and investmentshelp conserve energy, protect environmental and aesthetic quality, strengthen the economy, promote social equity,and make communities more livable.

Hank Dittmar, Executive Director STPP1100 17th Street, N.W. 10th FloorWashington, DC 20036202-466-2636 (phone) • [email protected] (e-mail)

Participating Organizations

Alaska Center for the EnvironmentAlabama Citizen ActionMontgomery Transportation CoalitionArizona Citizen ActionSTPP - Northern CaliforniaSTPP - Los AngelesEnvironmental Working Group - DCEnvironmental Working Group - CAColorado PIRGFlorida Consumer Action NetworkAlliance for Modern Transit & Livable CommunitiesGeorgia Transportation AlliancePedestrians Education Driver SafetyHoosier Environmental CouncilPedestrian AdvocateTransport Planner of Greater PortlandCenter for Neighborhood TechnologySustainMarian County Alliance of Neighborhood AssociationsCitizen ActionCoalition for the Advancement of Regional Transporta-tionConservation Law FoundationSierra Club, MarylandNJ PIRGPEDS - Pedestrians Educating Drivers on Safety

Bike Federation of WisconsinTracy-Williams ConsultingPhilly WalksNatural Resources Council of MaineEcology NowCitizen Action NebraskaWestern Michigan Environmental Action CoalitionNew Jersey Citizen ActionProgram Development ConsultantsTransportation AlternativesTri-State Transportation CampaignWalk AustinSierra Club, OhioPedestrian Transportation ProgramVermont GrassRoutesPortland Office of TransportationWillamette Pedestrian CoalitionCitizen Action PennsylvaniaAlt-TransClean Air CouncilNOW BikeSierra Club, Rhode IslandNew Transportation AllianceSouth Carolina Coastal Conservation LeagueFriends of PathwaysGreater Portland (ME) Council of Governments

The following organizations participated in the release of Mean Streets:

To order a copy

Copies of this report are available at a cost of $20.00, plus $3.00 shipping and handling and 6% sales tax for salesin the District of Columbia. Please send check or money order to:

Environmental Working Group1718 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 600Washington, DC 20009202-667-6982 (phone) • [email protected] (e-mail)

World Wide Web

This and many other EWG publications are available on the World Wide Web at www.ewg.org

FOREWORD ......................................................................................... i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................ 1

CHAPTER 1. WALK AT YOUR OWN RISK .................................................. 9

CHAPTER 2. THE PATH TO PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ........................................ 23

CHAPTER 3. ISTEA REAUTHORIZATION:AN OPPORTUNITY FOR SAFER STREETS ................................................ 27

CHAPTER 4. METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES ................................... 33

CHAPTER 5. A DAY IN THE LIFE:24 HOURS OF PEDESTRIAN FATALITIES IN THE UNITED STATES ................. 35

APPENDIX. ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED IN PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ISSUES ............. 39

REFERENCES ...................................................................................... 43

Contents

Mean Streets

iENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP/SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PROJECT

Foreword

Mean Streets

“Look both ways before youcross.”

It’s survival lesson numberone for children of the internalcombustion era. We drum it intotheir little heads starting more orless from the time they take theirfirst steps. It’s about the best aparent can do to prepare kids forlife afoot in the built environ-ment, which for many decadesnow has been built mainly toserve the imperatives of tens ofmillions of cars and trucks: aswift and constant flow of traffic,through ever more numerous,ever-widening roads, connectingevery conceivable dot on themap.

It is a world engineered tospecifications that classify thepedestrian as a traffic “flow inter-ruption,” ideally kept off thestreets altogether. Set foot inthis world and it can kill you,even if you do look both ways.After all, some 6,100 pedestriansdie in traffic accidents each yearin the United States––one auto-mobile-related fatality out of 7––and more than 110,000 are in-jured.

The authors of Mean Streetsargue that we can do much bet-

ter by our pedestrian selves bymaking our streets and communi-ties safer for walking.

All that is required is areengineering and reinvestmentstrategy that makes the well be-ing of H. sapiens central to theroads we build, expand andmaintain with our own tax dol-lars. Communities that havemade pedestrian safety central toroad design and spending deci-sions have saved lives and re-duced injuries to a dramatic de-gree. More and more communi-ties would like to go down thesame road, and in 1991 Congressgave them a decent vehicle: theIntermodal Surface TransportationEfficiency Act (ISTEA).

For many years prior to 1991the law was known colloquially(and accurately) as “the highwaybill,” the federal law throughwhich the government, amongother things, disbursed tens ofbillions of dollars each year, de-rived from Uncle Sam’s excise taxon gasoline. Congress gave thelaw a more progressive mandatein 1991, and under it a small frac-tion of spending on roads wentto making them safer for pedestri-ans. Another chunk went tomass transit. And still another

ii MEAN STREETS: PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND REFORM OF THE NATION’S TRANSPORTATION LAW

portion was allocated to bikepaths and a range of other envi-ronmental and safety measuresthat are called “enhancements.”

ISTEA is up for reauthorizationin 1997, with more than $150 bil-lion in spending on the tableover the next 6 years. If the roadconstruction, automobile andtrucking interests (a.k.a., “theRoad Gang”) have their way, thenext version of the law will be athrowback to the days when ev-ery penny was poured into high-way construction. Even they willcall their proposal the “HighwaysOnly Transportation EfficiencyAct.” As in “HOTEA.” Get it?

This report, a collaborativeproduct of the Surface Transpor-tation Policy Project (STPP) andthe Environmental WorkingGroup (EWG), offers competingnotions of nostalgia and ofprogress. Its authors argue thatAmerica’s streets once againought to invite and protect the

pedestrian. They make the casefor investments in a range ofmeasures that have made manycommunities safer places inwhich to travel, by foot, toschool or shop or work. It is byno means an anti-auto outlookor prescription. Plenty of moneycan and will still be spent main-taining and building roads.Mean Streets simply makes areasoned plea to begin correct-ing decades of imbalancedspending policies, in order tosave lives, prevent injury, andgive local people greater say inmaking their neighborhoodsmore livable.

We happen to think that apro-pedestrian policy will haveconsiderably more appeal to theaverage American than the casethe Road Gang is making for aretrograde, “highways only”spending spree. With Congresson the threshold of decidinghow to proceed, we can onlyadvise––look both ways.

HANK DITTMAR KEN COOK

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PRESIDENT

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENTAL

POLICY PROJECT WORKING GROUP

1ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP/SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PROJECT

Executive Summary

Mean Streets

Hundreds of millions of dol-lars are spent every year tomake America’s roads safer, yetthis investment is failing to en-sure the safety of all of us whoengage in the most basic form oftransportation — walking. Mil-lions of Americans walk — toschool, to work, to the store, orjust around the block for a littlebit of exercise. Our findingsindicate that from 1986 to 1995,approximately 6,000 pedestrianswere killed by automobiles eachyear, and more than 110,000were injured. This carnage isattributable only in part to indi-vidual misjudgment — a failureto “look both ways” as childrenare taught. These deaths andinjuries are also the conse-quences of a transportation sys-tem gone badly wrong — a sys-tem focused on making thestreets safe for cars instead ofmaking communities safe forpeople. Indeed, people are 1.6times more likely to get killed bya car while walking than theyare to be shot and killed by astranger with a gun.

In Mean Streets, we analyzedthe failures of this system, takinga close look at pedestrian fatali-ties, and spending on ourstreets, roads and highways —

the billions of dollars spent eachyear that frequently makes theroads less safe for pedestrians.Our analysis of Federal HighwayAdministration (FHWA) and Na-tional Highway Traffic Safety Ad-ministration (NHTSA) data foundthat:

Thousands of Pedestrians AreKilled Each Year by Automobiles

• Between 1986 and 1995, ap-proximately 6,000 pedestri-ans died every year in theUnited States after being hitby cars. This is a significantpublic health and safetyproblem — the equivalent ofa commercial airline crashwith no survivors every twoweeks. And for every pe-destrian who is killed by anautomobile, almost 20 moreare injured — more than110,000 pedestrians are in-jured by automobiles eachyear.

Highway Safety Money Is NotBeing Used To Protect Pedestrians

• Pedestrians account for 14percent of all motor vehicle-related deaths, yet only 1percent of federal highwaysafety funds are spent on

People are 1.6 timesmore likely to getkilled by a car whilewalking than they areto be shot and killedby a stranger with agun.

Between 1986 and1995, approximately6,000 pedestrians diedevery year in theUnited States afterbeing hit by cars.

2 MEAN STREETS: PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND REFORM OF THE NATION’S TRANSPORTATION LAW

pedestrian safety1 (Figure1). The remaining 99 per-cent is spent on automotivesafety measures (such asroad widening ) that typi-cally remove the obstaclesto more rapid traffic flow.The Highway CapacityManual — one of the indus-try bibles — provides thetypical highway engineer’sdefinition of a pedestrian: atraffic “flow interruption.”Traffic safety features aredesigned primarily to allowdrivers to move at higherspeeds. This basic tenet of

% of All Auto-Related Deaths ThatAre Pedestrians

% of Federal Safety Spending onPedestrians

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Figure 1. Pedestrians do not receive their fair share offederal safety funds.

Source: Environmental Working Group. Compiled from FHWA and NHTSA data.

highway engineering oftenmakes roads more danger-ous for pedestrians.

Senior Citizens Are At TheHighest Risk

• Senior citizens (persons age65 and over) comprise 13percent of the population,but account for 23 percentof all pedestrian fatalities —meaning that seniors arealmost twice as likely to bekilled by an automobile asmembers of the generalpublic. As a group, senior

The Highway CapacityManual — one of theindustry bibles —defines a pedestrian asa traffic “flowinterruption.”


citizens are particularly de-pendent on safe streets forwalking because many ofthem no longer drive.

Most Fatalities Occur OnNeighborhood Streets

• More than half — 55 per-cent — of all pedestriandeaths by automobiles oc-cur on neighborhoodstreets. The problem is notthat pedestrians are walkingin the wrong places, butthat our local streets arebecoming speedways —designed to accommodatemore cars passing through,not the people who live,walk, and play in their com-munities.

The Most Dangerous Cities ForWalking

The high rate of pedestrianfatalities is a national problem.In some communities however,the problem is worse than most.In this report, for the first time,we present a list of the most dan-gerous communities in which towalk.

The cities with the largestnumbers of walkers — NewYork, for example, will have themost pedestrian fatalities. Thisdoes not always mean, however,that cities like New York are themost dangerous places to walkrelative to the number of peoplewalking.

The most dangerous metro-politan areas for walkers tend to

be newer, sprawling, southernand western communities, wheretransportation systems are mostbiased toward the car at the ex-pense of other transportation op-tions. Among large metropolitanareas (those with populations ofone million or more) the fivemost dangerous communities inwhich to walk are Ft. Lauderdale,FL., Miami, FL, Atlanta, GA,Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater,Fl., and Dallas, TX. The safestwalking communities are Pitts-burgh, Milwaukee, Boston, NewYork City, and Rochester, NY(Table 1). In these metropolitanareas, walking activity is high,but there are relatively few fatali-ties. Our findings indicate that iseleven times more dangerous towalk in Ft. Lauderdale than it isto walk in Pittsburgh.

The Solution: Making OurStreets Safe For People

Solutions to make our streetssafer for pedestrians are well un-derstood, but too seldom imple-mented. Indeed, some communi-ties have demonstrated how toreduce pedestrian death and inju-ries. The key to improving pe-destrian safety is to attack theproblem at its source, and reducehazards by improving poorly de-signed roadways and transporta-tion systems. For years, trafficengineers have placed the blameon the walker rather than on themotorist or road condition. In-stead of blaming pedestrians forbeing hit by cars, planners andengineers must design communi-ties and roads that are safe forwalking. Communities can take

The most dangerousmetropolitan areas forwalkers tend to benewer, sprawling,southern and westerncommunities, wheretransportation systemsare most biasedtoward the car at theexpense of othertransportation options.

Instead of blamingpedestrians for beinghit by cars, plannersand engineers mustdesign communitiesand roads that are safefor walking.


a variety of actions designed tomake roads safer, including:

• Traffic calming — The in-stallation of speed bumps,traffic circles or other de-vices in residential neigh-borhoods that slow carsdown, and ensure that pe-destrians are safe.

Table 1. Fort Lauderdale is the most dangerous large metropolitan area forwalking; Pittsburgh is the safest.

Source: Environmental Working Group. Compiled from NHTSA and U.S. Census data.

• Providing separate walk-ways and other spaces forpedestrians.

• Designing public spaces tobe more pedestrianfriendly — including theinstallation of sidewalks,handrails for the infirm,bricked crosswalks, and

Average Annual % of All Auto- Annual Pedestrian Percentage of Pedestrian Metropolitan Area Pedestrian Related Fatalities Fatality Rate Commuters Fatality Index(Populations of 1 million or more) Fatalities that are Pedestrians (per 100,000) Walking to Work (0-100)

Fort Lauderdale--Hollywood--Pompano Beach, FL PMSA 58 28% 4.6 1.8% 90 Miami--Hialeah, FL PMSA 100 30% 5.2 2.5% 73 Atlanta, GA MSA 84 16% 3.0 1.5% 70 Tampa--St. Petersburg--Clearwater, FL MSA 85 22% 4.1 2.3% 64 Dallas, TX PMSA 76 19% 3.0 1.9% 51 Houston, TX PMSA 101 20% 3.1 2.2% 48 Detroit, MI PMSA 107 21% 2.5 1.9% 47 Riverside--San Bernardino, CA PMSA 92 13% 3.6 2.7% 47 Phoenix, AZ MSA 79 19% 3.7 2.6% 44 Charlotte--Gastonia--Rock Hill, NC--SC MSA 29 14% 2.5 2.1% 43 Orlando, FL MSA 48 20% 4.5 3.5% 41 New Orleans, LA MSA 47 23% 3.8 3.1% 40 Salt Lake City--Ogden, UT MSA 28 24% 2.6 2.3% 40 Nassau--Suffolk, NY PMSA 80 24% 3.0 2.7% 39 Sacramento, CA MSA 37 16% 2.5 2.7% 37 San Jose, CA PMSA 33 25% 2.2 2.1% 37 Los Angeles--Long Beach, CA PMSA 299 27% 3.4 3.3% 36 St. Louis, MO--IL MSA 51 14% 2.1 2.1% 33 Kansas City, MO--KS MSA 27 12% 1.7 1.9% 31 San Diego, CA MSA 96 27% 3.8 4.5% 29 Indianapolis, IN MSA 24 13% 1.9 2.2% 27 San Antonio, TX MSA 37 20% 2.8 3.6% 27 Newark, NJ PMSA 51 26% 2.8 3.7% 25 Baltimore, MD MSA 66 22% 2.8 4.0% 23 Portland, OR PMSA 34 17% 2.7 3.5% 23 Chicago, IL PMSA 180 23% 3.0 4.2% 21 Washington, DC--MD--VA MSA 98 19% 2.5 3.9% 21 Cleveland, OH PMSA 36 16% 1.9 2.9% 20 Denver, CO PMSA 28 15% 1.7 3.0% 20 Cincinnati, OH--KY--IN PMSA 23 13% 1.6 2.8% 19 Seattle, WA PMSA 37 18% 1.9 3.3% 19 Columbus, OH MSA 20 12% 1.4 3.3% 15 Norfolk--Virginia Beach--Newport News, VA MSA 25 16% 1.8 3.7% 15 Philadelphia, PA--NJ PMSA 120 21% 2.5 5.4% 15 San Francisco, CA PMSA 43 31% 2.7 5.9% 15 Minneapolis--St. Paul, MN--WI MSA 35 15% 1.4 3.2% 14 New York, NY PMSA 310 46% 3.6 9.7% 12 Rochester, NY MSA 17 12% 1.7 4.3% 11 Boston, MA PMSA 22 48% 0.8 6.5% 10 Milwaukee, WI PMSA 19 15% 1.3 4.0% 10 Pittsburgh, PA PMSA 33 12% 1.6 5.1% 8


even actions as simple aschanging the patterns ofthe lines on the road.

• Enhanced public educationon pedestrian safety, andadequate enforcement oflaws designed to protectpedestrians.

These tools are already mak-ing the roads safer for pedestri-ans in some communities. InSeattle, the city’s traffic calmingprogram reduced pedestrian ac-cidents by more than 75 percent.In Portland, OR, traffic circlesreduced the number of reportedaccidents by 50 percent. Theseexamples clearly indicate thatAmerica has the means to makeour nation’s streets safer for pe-destrians. We lack only thepublic demand and political re-solve to reduce pedestrian injuryand death.

Reauthorizing ISTEA - TheNation’s Transportation Law

This year, Congress is poisedto reauthorize the 1991Intermodal Surface Transporta-tion Efficiency Act (ISTEA). Thislegislation will provide over$150 billion for states and com-munities to spend on their trans-portation systems — roads,bridges, public transportation,and trails and paths for thosewho walk and bike. The high-way lobby, known as the “roadgang” — including road contrac-tors, automobile manufacturers,truckers and even several stateDepartments of Transportation—␣ is pushing to weaken the leg-

islation, so that money is spentexclusively to build highways,while less is spent to make com-munities safe for walking andotherwise make America’s trans-portation system more sustain-able.

The Road Lobby’s Efforts ToWeaken Transportation Law,Making Streets Less Safe ForPedestrians

The “road gang” is pushinghard for legislation, such as theHighways Only TransportationEfficiency Act (HOTEA) and STEP21, which would make the exist-ing pedestrian safety problemeven worse. These proposalswould abolish existing environ-mental and safety programs, aswell as the Enhancements pro-gram (which currently providesfunding for bicycle and pedes-trian activities). In their placewould be a program focused onroadbuilding and maintenancethat would strongly bias transpor-tation spending towards retro-grade emphasis on highway con-struction.

The Clinton AdministrationProposal

The Clinton Administrationrecently released its ISTEA reau-thorization package, which wasintroduced by Senators Chafeeand Moynihan as S. 468. Thislegislation would maintain thebasic structure of current law,while increasing overall fundingfor bicycle and pedestrianprojects (via an increase in fund-ing for the Enhancements pro-

In Seattle, the city’straffic calmingprogram reducedpedestrian accidentsby more than 75percent.

Pedestrian safetyshould be recognizedas a nationaltransportation safetypriority on par withautomobile andrailroad safetyprograms.


gram), and measures to promoteclean air.

Opportunities To ImprovePedestrian Safety

Pedestrian safety should berecognized as a national transpor-tation safety priority on par withautomobile and railroad safetyprograms. To make our roadssafer for walking we recommendthat Congress:

(1) Preserve and StrengthenISTEA’s Current Safety Programsto Better Protect Pedestrians

Congress must adequatelyfund pedestrian safety activities.Specifically, ISTEA’s safety pro-grams must be improved to

(a) Fund projects that promotepedestrian safety (from the fed-eral safety set-aside program) at alevel equivalent to the rate ofpedestrian fatalities nationwide(i.e. roughly 14 percent).

(b) Expand the federal safetyfunding program (ISTEA’s “safetyset-aside”) to enhance opportuni-ties for funding safety programsfor pedestrians, bicyclists andpeople with disabilities.

(c) Allow more local controlover where and how federalsafety funds are spent to ensurethat local pedestrian safety andother community transportationpriorities are given full consider-ation.

(d) Continue other federalhighway safety programs (S. 402

and 410 of ISTEA) and promoteincreased public involvement.

(2) Establish A National Goalof Increasing Pedestrian Safety

Congress should establish thegoals of DOT’s National Bicyclingand Walking Study — a doublingof the percentage of total tripsmade by biking and walking,while reducing fatalities by 10percent — as national policy.ISTEA should contain an incentiveprogram for transportation safetybased on measurable changes ina state’s per capita fatality rate. Agoal and incentive system of thistype will create financial incen-tives for pedestrian safety througha dedicated fund linked to mea-surable improvements in reduc-tions in accidents and fatalities.

(3) Ensure that Road-BuildingProjects Don’t Increase Hazardsfor Pedestrians, including Chil-dren, the Elderly and the Disabled

All ISTEA-funded projectsshould be required to plan for thesafe accommodation of pedestri-ans as well as other vulnerableusers of the roadway (bicyclists,children, elderly and the dis-abled). All too often, past high-way safety “improvements” haveexactly the opposite effect on pe-destrians. In order to remedy thisproblem, Congress must ensurethat all existing and new roads onwhich pedestrians are permittedare designed and constructed toprovide appropriate walkingspaces and safety features for pe-destrians.

Congress must fundprojects that promotepedestrian safety at alevel equivalent to therate of pedestrianfatalities nationwide.

Congress shouldestablish the goals ofdoubling thepercentage of totaltrips made by bikingand walking, whilereducing fatalities by10 percent.


(4) Collect More Accurate andDetailed Data on Pedestriansand Walking

Pedestrian safety efforts arehindered by the widespread lackof reliable and comprehensivedata on walking. There is nocomprehensive information onmiles walked, as there is for ve-hicle miles traveled. Little isknown about how much peoplewalk, why they walk, what other

Note

1This includes funding for dedicated pedestrian projects only, such as installing speedbumps, constructing roundabouts (a form of traffic circle), diverting non-local driversaway from local streets, changing pavement surfaces, and narrowing the roadway. Itdoes not include funds for auto safety projects, like traffic signals, that have an incidentaleffect on pedestrians.

options they have, and howthese factors vary with the age ofthe pedestrian. The reauthoriza-tion of ISTEA presents an idealopportunity to fill this informa-tion vacuum by requiring that theU.S. Department of Transporta-tion collect better, more detailedand more accurate data on levelsof walking, injury and fatalityrates and the relative risks facedby pedestrians.


Walk at Your Own Risk

Chapter One

“First and foremost, the safety and security of all of our nation’stransportation systems will be my highest priority — a moralcommitment as well as a policy imperative. Nothing is moreimportant to me [and] to the American people...”

US Secretary of Transportation Rodney E. Slater. 1997

Pedestrian Safety Is A MajorPublic Health and SafetyProblem

Thousands of Pedestrians AreKilled and Tens of ThousandsAre Injured Every Year

The public expects an effec-tive response to transportationsafety issues such as airport se-curity measures, drunk driverprevention programs, motorcyclehelmets or air bags. Accord-ingly, Secretary of TransportationRodney E. Slater recently em-braced this challenge by identi-fying transportation safety as his“highest priority.” (Slater 1997)

But amid this rhetoric, safetyfor those engaged in the mostbasic form of transportation —walking — is forgotten. Trafficengineers regard walkers as animpediment to the smooth flowof traffic — in fact their standardtext, the Highway CapacityManual, still refers to walkers as

traffic “flow interruptions.”(Highway Capacity Manual1994). Numerous polls haveindicated that the public sup-ports walkable streets (FHWA1994). Yet many traffic engi-neers still do not regard pedes-trian safety as a serious problemdeserving of major public invest-ment. Many, in fact, regard it assolely a matter of individual re-sponsibility. If we are to ensurethat our streets are safe to walkon, this perception must change.

National Highway and Trans-portation Safety Administration(NHTSA) data indicate that, be-tween 1986 and 1995, pedestrianfatalities accounted for roughly14 percent of all automobile-related fatalities in the UnitedStates, or about 6,150 deaths peryear. This means that one inseven people killed in carcrashes are pedestrians — theequivalent of one large commer-cial plane crash with no survi-vors every two weeks.

One in seven peoplekilled in car crashesare pedestrians — theequivalent of onelarge commercialplane crash with nosurvivors every twoweeks.


Pedestrians also pay a heavytoll in injuries. NHTSA data indi-cate that for every pedestriankilled by a car, approximatelyeight more suffer severe injuriesand eleven suffer less seriousinjuries. Between 1991 and 1995,over 100,000 pedestrians wereinjured each year — roughly47,500 pedestrians suffering se-vere injuries, and 66,000 moresuffering mild to moderate inju-ries annually. And since manyinjuries go unreported, thesenumbers underestimate the actualnumber of pedestrian injuries.2

The consequences of theseinjuries are also disproportion-ately serious. Though motor ve-hicle-pedestrian crashes consti-tute just 2 percent of totalcrashes, they result in 14 percentof all traffic-related fatalities.3

Between 1986 and 1991, pe-destrian fatalities droppedsteadily, from 6,779 in 1986 to5,797 in 1991. This reductionmay have been due to a decreasein walkers, not safer roads forthem. U.S. Census data showthat between 1980 and 1990, thepercentage of the populationcommuting to work by walkingdecreased by 15 percent (FHWA1994). It is unclear if this reduc-tion in fatalities was due to saferroads or fewer walkers. How-ever, since 1991, this progresshas stopped, and the number ofpedestrian fatalities has hoveredat or slightly above 5,500 (Figure2). Between 1994 and 1995 (thelast year for which data is avail-able), pedestrian fatalities in-creased by 2 percent, from 5,489

to 5,585. Over this five yearperiod, our analysis found thatvery little federal highway safetymoney has been spent to protectpedestrians. ISTEA contains thetools to make pedestrians safe.However federal, state, and localofficials have not given thesetools the chance to work

Putting Things In Perspective -The Risks of Walking On OurNation’s Streets

Pedestrian death and injuryconstitutes a critical publichealth and safety problem —one that does not receive theattention it deserves. Publicsafety officials and the media forexample, often focus on lesscommon types of fatalities, suchas child fatalities caused by airbags4, while all but ignoring thefact that more than 1,000 chil-dren every year are killed bymotor vehicles while walking.

Violent crime provides aneven more compelling compari-son. We fear criminals, and withgood reason. Our analysisshows that, as Americans walkon our nation’s streets, theyhave just as much to fear fromreckless drivers. Crime and traf-fic safety were compared in acompelling 1996 study by North-west Environment Watch(Durning 1996). This analysisrevealed that a person is morelikely to die in a car crash in thesuburbs than they are to bekilled by a criminal in the city.

Our analysis takes the com-parison one step further, com-

Since 1991, thenumber of pedestrianfatalities has hoveredat or slightly above5,500.

Over this five yearperiod, very littlefederal highway safetymoney has been spentto protect pedestrians.


paring the risk of being killedby strangers while walking onour nation’s streets. We com-pared two groups of strangers— strangers with guns, andstrangers driving automobiles— and found that in 1995 apedestrian was 1.6 times morelikely to be killed after being hitby an automobile than to bekilled by a stranger with a gun.FBI and NHTSA data reveal thatin 1995, strangers committedapproximately 3,500 homicideswith guns, while vehiclecrashes killed 5,585 pedestri-

ans.5 At the state level, a personis more likely to be killed by astranger with a car than by astranger with a gun in all but twoof the fifty states (Table 2).

Walking is ParticularlyHazardous for ElderlyPedestrians

Pedestrian fatality rates revealthat walking may be especiallyhazardous for senior citizens. Se-nior citizens make up only 13percent of the population, yetaccount for 23 percent of all pe-

Figure 2. Since 1991, little progress has been made in reducing pedestrianfatalities in the United States.

Source: Environmental Working Group. Compiled from NHTSA data.

1991 1992 1993 1994 19950

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

Num

ber

of P

edes

tria

n Fa

talit

ies

Year

A person is more likelyto be killed by astranger with a carthan by a strangerwith a gun in all buttwo of the fifty states.


Table 2. A person is more likely to be killed by anautomobile than by a stranger with a gun.

Approximate # of Relative RiskAverage Annual Homicides Committed Pedestrian Death:

Pedestrian Fatalities By Strangers With Homicide By StrangerState (1986-1995) Guns (1995) With Gun

Alabama 91 95 1.0 Alaska 14 0 ∞ Arizona 145 116 1.3 Arkansas 54 33 1.6 California 902 912 1.0 Colorado 55 23 2.4 Connecticut 60 24 2.5 Delaware 20 0 ∞ Florida 564 173 3.3 Georgia 191 76 2.5 Hawaii 28 0 N/A Idaho 14 5 2.9 Illinois 246 218 1.1 Indiana 86 41 2.1 Iowa 33 2 16.4 Kansas 29 0 N/A Kentucky 71 19 3.7 Louisiana 133 132 1.0 Maine 20 1 19.7 Maryland 131 71 1.8 Massachusetts 116 17 6.8 Michigan 203 120 1.7 Minnesota 59 23 2.6 Mississippi 65 18 3.6 Missouri 93 70 1.3 Montana 13 0 ∞ Nebraska 21 0 ∞ Nevada 44 33 1.3 New Hampshire 14 0 ∞ New Jersey 202 68 3.0 New Mexico 86 15 5.7 New York 510 148 3.4 North Carolina 198 65 3.0 North Dakota 7 2 3.7 Ohio 167 71 2.4 Oklahoma 59 14 4.2 Oregon 64 15 4.3 Pennsylvania 229 179 1.3 Rhode Island 17 2 8.5 South Carolina 118 42 2.8 South Dakota 13 1 13.1 Tennessee 104 33 3.1 Texas 487 259 1.9 Utah 41 8 5.2 Vermont 7 0 ∞ Virginia 116 65 1.8 Washington 86 24 3.6 West Virginia 36 5 7.3 Wisconsin 61 17 3.6 Wyoming 6 1 5.7

U.S. Average 6,129 3,256 1.9

Source: Environmental Working Group. Compiled from NHTSA and FBI data.


Table 3. Senior citizens are at particular risk of becoming pedestrian fatalities.


destrian fatalities — meaningthat, relative to the rest of thepopulation, senior citizens are1.8 times more likely to be killedby a car while walking (Table3).

A significant number of chil-dren are also killed in pedestrianaccidents. Thirty-two percent ofall the 5-9-year-olds who died incar crashes in 1995 were pedes-trians. Since 1986, seventeenpercent of all pedestrian fatalities— an average of approximately1,033 per year — involve chil-dren under age 18.

Pedestrian Fatalities: ComingSoon to a Neighborhood NearYou

Most pedestrians are killed bycars on neighborhood streets —the streets where we walk, andwhere our children play.NHTSA data indicate that overhalf — 55 percent — of all pe-destrian fatalities occurred on

streets — defined in engineeringparlance as “Local Roads”, “Col-lectors”, and “Minor Arterials” —that run through residential neigh-borhoods (Figure 3).6 This prob-lem is evident in many communi-ties, where small streets becomespeedways due to so-called “im-provements,” or as they are in-vaded by commuters rushing towork, pizza delivery people, orunsafe drivers just looking for ashortcut.

Confusing Transportation Safetywith Motorist Safety

Streets are dangerous for pe-destrians because for decades,transportation planners, engineersand builders have equated trafficsafety almost exclusively withdriver and passenger safety. Driv-ing is safer, thanks to mandatorycrash testing, seat belt laws, drunkdriving programs, and other roadconstruction and redesign efforts.7

Pedestrian safety, on the otherhand, has focused largely on tell-

Driving is safer, thanksto mandatory crashtesting, seat belt laws,drunk drivingprograms, and otherroad construction andredesign efforts.Pedestrian safety, onthe other hand, hasfocused largely ontelling pedestrians toget out of the way.

Average Numberof Ped. Fatalities Population-

Age Group (1986-1995) % of Fatalities % of Population Adjusted Risk

< 5 Years 252 4% 8% 0.55-17 Years 781 13% 18% 0.718-24 Years 618 10% 10% 1.025-44 Years 1,884 31% 32% 1.045-64 Years 1155 19% 19% 1.0> 65 Years 1,382 23% 13% 1.8


ing pedestrians to get out of theway.

Part of the problem is that pe-destrian safety has always been asecondary traffic engineering is-sue. The overriding goal of traf-fic engineering has been to im-prove roadway “levels of service”(LOS), which often means design-ing roads with wide lanes andshoulders, large turn radii at in-tersections, passing and turninglanes, and other features so thatmore vehicles may travel athigher speeds (Ewing 1995). Fewefforts have focused on ensuringthat streets are safe for both pe-destrians and vehicles: fewer stillhave sought to modify driving

Figure 3. More than half of all pedestrian fatalities occur on neighborhood streets.

Source: Environmental Working Group. Compiled from NHTSA data.

Risk of Pedestrian

Vehicle Speed Fatality In Collision

20 mph 5% 30 mph 45% 40 mph 85%

Table 4. Increasing autospeeds dramaticallyincrease risks forpedestrians.

Source: U.K. Department ofTransportation.

Interstate (11%)

Freeway/Expressway (6%)

Primary Artery (28%)

Minor Arteries (22%)

Collector Roads (15%)

Local Roads (18%)

Neighborhood Streets

Other Roads and Highways


behavior to better protect andaccommodate pedestrians.

Speed Kills

The relentless pursuit of im-proved traffic flow has increasedspeeds on many residentialroads, which in turn puts pedes-trians at higher risk. A ten-mileper hour increase in speed, from20 mph to 30 mph, increases therisk of death for a pedestrian ina collision ninefold (Table 4). Ifa car going 20 miles per hourhits a person, there is a 95 per-cent chance that the person willsurvive. If that same car is going30 miles per hour, the personhas slightly better than a 50/50chance of survival.

This simple safety fact is ig-nored or obscured by the high-way lobby. The American Auto-mobile Association (AAA), forexample, has for decades arguedthat wider and straighter roadsare needed to improve motoristsafety. AAA’s ongoing lobbyingcampaign includes a nationalpush for “higher-grade roads”that have wider travel lanes (atleast twelve feet), shoulders atleast eight feet wide, medians 30feet wide, and no “roadside haz-ards” at the sides of roads up to30 feet in each direction — rulesthat would all but prohibit pe-destrians from walking any-where near these roads. “Highergrade roads are more forgivingof driver error, such as failure tostay in the proper lane or run-ning off the road,” states AAA intheir recent Crisis Ahead report(AAA 1996). Despite their pro-

fessed concern for transportationsafety, the road lobby consistentlyoverlooks the adverse impacts ofsuch “upgrades” on pedestriansafety — longer street crossingtimes, higher vehicle speeds, andless motorist vigilance for pedes-trian activity.

The road lobby’s misguidedpriorities are characteristic of atransportation system that fails toprotect people who walk, andblames the walker rather than thepoorly designed roads that createhazards for them. Over a decadeago, DOT officials acknowledgedthat pedestrian fatality rates werealarming, and called for more ac-tion to improve public safety (U.S.DOT 1985). Still, state and localtransportation agencies have failedto implement the measures neces-sary to meet this challenge.

Traffic Safety Funds Are BeingMisspent

Federal resources available forpedestrian and bike facilities in-creased significantly in 1991,when Congress passed theIntermodal Surface TransportationEfficiency Act (ISTEA).8 ISTEAexplicitly allocated funds to pro-mote transportation safety, a pro-gram known as the Surface Trans-portation Program safety set-aside,or “STP safety funds.” About $300million is available each year forthis program, and pedestriansafety is an eligible activity. Thou-sands of pedestrians continue todie every year while state and fed-eral agencies do not invest federalsafety funds in measures to pro-tect pedestrians.

Over a decade ago,DOT officialsacknowledged thatpedestrian fatalityrates were alarming,and called for moreaction to improvepublic safety.


State Departments of Trans-portation (DOTs) have devotednearly all of their STP safetyfunds to motor vehicle safetymeasures like railroad gradecrossings, roadway widening,and guardrails. Analysis of fed-eral and state highway spendingrecords shows that just 1 percentof all federal transportation safetyfunds spent between 1992 and1996, a mere $13.1 million, wasdevoted to making roads safer forpedestrians.9 Meanwhile, pedes-trian death rates remained con-stant at about 14 percent of allvehicle-related fatalities (Figure4). In contrast, ten times as

much money is spent annuallyon railroad crossing safety pro-grams (approximately $150 mil-lion per year) even though one-tenth the number of people(500) are killed at these cross-ings each year (FHWA 1994).

One percent of the safetyfunds clearly is not solving 14percent of the nation’s transpor-tation safety problem. Spendingon pedestrian safety must beincreased at least tenfold duringthe next ISTEA reauthorizationto reduce the current unaccept-able levels of death and injury tothe nation’s pedestrians.

% of All Auto-Related Deaths ThatAre Pedestrians

% of Federal Safety Spending onPedestrians

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Figure 4. Pedestrians do not receive their fair share offederal safety funds.


Spending onpedestrian safety mustbe increased at leasttenfold during thenext ISTEAreauthorization toreduce the currentunacceptable levels ofdeath and injury to thenation’s walkers.


Average Annual # % of Federal Average Annual # of Auto-Related Percentage of Safety Spending of Auto-Related Fatalities Auto-Related Fatalities Devoted to

Metropolitan Area Fatalities that are Pedestrians that are Pedestrians Pedestrian Safety*

New York, NY 677 310 46% 0% Jersey City, NJ 36 15 42% 0% El Paso, TX 99 32 32% 0% San Francisco, CA 136 43 31% 0% Bergen--Passaic, NJ 101 31 31% 0% Miami--Hialeah, FL 331 100 30% 0% Honolulu, HI 74 22 30% 3.3% Fort Lauderdale--Hollywood--Pompano Beach, FL 205 58 28% 0.3% Newark, NJ 179 49 27% 0% Albuquerque, NM 83 23 27% 0% Los Angeles--Long Beach, CA 1099 299 27% 1.2% San Diego, CA 352 96 27% 0% Wilmington, NC 15 4 27% 7.9% Chicago, IL 585 158 27% 0% San Jose, CA 130 33 25% 0% Boston, MA 235 58 25% 0% Anaheim--Santa Ana, CA 241 59 25% 4.0%

Table 5. Even in metropolitan areas where pedestrians account for the highestpercentage of auto-related deaths, almost no federal money is spent on pedestriansafety.

Pedestrian Safety Spending inMetropolitan Areas

Local use of federal fundsfor pedestrian safety followsnational and state trends (Table5). A study conducted by theTri-State Transportation Cam-paign showed that pedestriansconstitute 53 percent of trafficfatalities in New York City’s fiveboroughs, yet only 5 percent ofthe city’s state safety set-asidefunds were dedicated to pedes-trian safety (Orcutt 1995). In111 metropolitan areas, pedes-trians accounted for more than15 percent of automobile re-lated fatalities; no more thanthree percent of all federalsafety funds were spent to pro-tect walkers in any of thesecommunities.

At the state level things are nobetter. New York is one of onlyfourteen states to have spent anyof its federal safety money onpedestrian safety from 1992 to1996.10 Thirty-six states and theDistrict of Columbia spent noneof their federal STP safety fundson pedestrian safety (Table 6).

States have spent other money— over $1 billion — on pedestri-ans and bicycles, through anISTEA program known as the“Enhancements” program. Thisfund has supported developmentof bike paths and separate pedes-trian spaces. While this fundingdoes help provide access andalternate routes for bikes and pe-destrians, it is not rightly consid-ered a safety program.


Thirty-six states andthe District ofColumbia spent noneof their federal STPsafety funds onpedestrian safety.


Percentage ofAverage Annual Percentage of all Traffic Federal Safety Funding

Number of Pedestrian Fatalities Accounted for Spent on Dedicated State Pedestrian Deaths by Pedestrians Pedestrian Projects

Alabama 90 8% 0%Alaska 13 15% 0%Arizona 145 16% 0%Arkansas 53 9% 0%California 901 19% 0.7%Colorado 54 10% 0%Connecticut 59 16% 0%Delaware 20 16% 0%Florida 564 20% 1.3%Georgia 190 13% 0%Hawaii 28 20% 0.8%Idaho 14 6% 0%Illinois 245 16% 0%

Indiana 85 9% 0% Iowa 32 7% 0%Kansas 29 7% 0%Kentucky 70 9% 0%Louisiana 133 15% 0.1%Maine 19 9% 0%Maryland 130 18% 0%Massachusetts 116 20% 0%Michigan 203 13% 0%Minnesota 58 10% 0%Mississippi 65 9% 0%Missouri 93 9% 0%Montana 13 6% 0%Nebraska 20 8% 0%Nevada 44 16% 0%New Hampshire 14 9% 0%New Jersey 201 23% 0%New Mexico 85 18% 0%New York 510 25% 3.4%North Carolina 197 14% 0.3%North Dakota 7 8% 6.0%Ohio 167 11% 0%Oklahoma 58 9% 0.3%Oregon 64 11% 0%Pennsylvania 229 13% 21.2%Rhode Island 16 18% 0%South Carolina 117 13% 0%South Dakota 13 9% 1.2%Tennessee 103 9% 0%Texas 486 15% 0%Utah 41 14% 0%Vermont 7 7% 0%Virginia 115 12% 0%Washington 85 12% 1.5%West Virginia 36 8% 0%Wisconsin 61 8% 0.2%Wyoming 5 4% 4.3%

U.S. Average 6,150 14% 1.1%

Table 6. Most states spend no federal safety money to protectpedestrians.



The Most DangerousMetropolitan Areas For Walking

As a general rule, the citieswith the largest numbers ofwalkers — New York, for ex-ample, will have the most pe-destrian fatalities. This does notalways mean, however, that theyare the most dangerous places towalk relative to the number ofpeople walking. To createsafety rankings that account forthe number of walkers in eachmetropolitan area, we created a‘pedestrian fatality index’ bycomparing pedestrian fatalityrates in metropolitan areas withthe level of pedestrian activity inthose communities. Because theFHWA does not track the mileswalked in each community, weused U.S. census data on thepercentage of people in eachcommunity who walk to work.We used this data as a surrogatefor walking activity, assumingthat the more people who walkto work in each community, thehigher the level of pedestrianactivity.

The pedestrian fatality indexwas calculated by dividing theoverall fatality rate (per 100,000people) by the percentage ofpeople walking to work. Wethen normalized these data on ascale of 1 to 100, with 1 beingthe safest and 100 the most dan-gerous. Communities with highfatality rates in spite of havinglittle walking activity will have ahigher pedestrian fatality index.

Communities with high fatalityrates and lots of walkers willhave a lower index. The higherthe pedestrian fatality index, themore dangerous it is to walk in aparticular community.

Metropolitan areas with lowerpedestrian activity are generallyless safe than communities withhigher pedestrian activity (per-haps indicating that low levels ofpedestrian activity reflects thehigh degree of danger that walk-ers face in these communities).The most dangerous metropolitanareas to walk in tend to benewer, sprawling, southern andwestern communities, where vastdistances make walking impracti-cal, and where transportation sys-tems are designed for motor ve-hicle travel at the expense ofother transportation options.

Among large metropolitan ar-eas (those with populations ofone million or more) the fivemost dangerous communities inwhich to walk are Ft. Lauderdale,FL; Miami; Atlanta, GA; Tampa-St.Petersburg-Clearwater; FL, andDallas (Table 7). The safestwalking communities are Pitts-burgh, Milwaukee, Boston, NewYork City, and Rochester, NY. Inthese metropolitan areas, walkingactivity is high, but there are stillfew fatalities. Our findings indi-cate that is eleven times moredangerous to walk in Ft. Lauder-dale than it is to walk in Pitts-burgh.

The most dangerousmetropolitan areas towalk in tend to benewer, sprawling,southern and westerncommunities, wherevast distances makewalking impractical,and wheretransportation systemsare designed for motorvehicle travel at theexpense of othertransportation options.


Table 7. Fort Lauderdale is the most dangerous large metropolitan area forwalking; Pittsburgh is the safest.


Average Annual % of All Auto- Annual Pedestrian Percentage of Pedestrian Metropolitan Area Pedestrian Related Fatalities Fatality Rate Commuters Fatality Index(Populations of 1 million or more) Fatalities that are Pedestrians (per 100,000) Walking to Work (0-100)

Fort Lauderdale--Hollywood--Pompano Beach, FL PMSA 58 28% 4.6 1.8% 90 Miami--Hialeah, FL PMSA 100 30% 5.2 2.5% 73 Atlanta, GA MSA 84 16% 3.0 1.5% 70 Tampa--St. Petersburg--Clearwater, FL MSA 85 22% 4.1 2.3% 64 Dallas, TX PMSA 76 19% 3.0 1.9% 51 Houston, TX PMSA 101 20% 3.1 2.2% 48 Detroit, MI PMSA 107 21% 2.5 1.9% 47 Riverside--San Bernardino, CA PMSA 92 13% 3.6 2.7% 47 Phoenix, AZ MSA 79 19% 3.7 2.6% 44 Charlotte--Gastonia--Rock Hill, NC--SC MSA 29 14% 2.5 2.1% 43 Orlando, FL MSA 48 20% 4.5 3.5% 41 New Orleans, LA MSA 47 23% 3.8 3.1% 40 Salt Lake City--Ogden, UT MSA 28 24% 2.6 2.3% 40 Nassau--Suffolk, NY PMSA 80 24% 3.0 2.7% 39 Sacramento, CA MSA 37 16% 2.5 2.7% 37 San Jose, CA PMSA 33 25% 2.2 2.1% 37 Los Angeles--Long Beach, CA PMSA 299 27% 3.4 3.3% 36 St. Louis, MO--IL MSA 51 14% 2.1 2.1% 33 Kansas City, MO--KS MSA 27 12% 1.7 1.9% 31 San Diego, CA MSA 96 27% 3.8 4.5% 29 Indianapolis, IN MSA 24 13% 1.9 2.2% 27 San Antonio, TX MSA 37 20% 2.8 3.6% 27 Newark, NJ PMSA 51 26% 2.8 3.7% 25 Baltimore, MD MSA 66 22% 2.8 4.0% 23 Portland, OR PMSA 34 17% 2.7 3.5% 23 Chicago, IL PMSA 180 23% 3.0 4.2% 21 Washington, DC--MD--VA MSA 98 19% 2.5 3.9% 21 Cleveland, OH PMSA 36 16% 1.9 2.9% 20 Denver, CO PMSA 28 15% 1.7 3.0% 20 Cincinnati, OH--KY--IN PMSA 23 13% 1.6 2.8% 19 Seattle, WA PMSA 37 18% 1.9 3.3% 19 Columbus, OH MSA 20 12% 1.4 3.3% 15 Norfolk--Virginia Beach--Newport News, VA MSA 25 16% 1.8 3.7% 15 Philadelphia, PA--NJ PMSA 120 21% 2.5 5.4% 15 San Francisco, CA PMSA 43 31% 2.7 5.9% 15 Minneapolis--St. Paul, MN--WI MSA 35 15% 1.4 3.2% 14 New York, NY PMSA 310 46% 3.6 9.7% 12 Rochester, NY MSA 17 12% 1.7 4.3% 11 Boston, MA PMSA 22 48% 0.8 6.5% 10 Milwaukee, WI PMSA 19 15% 1.3 4.0% 10 Pittsburgh, PA PMSA 33 12% 1.6 5.1% 8


Notes

2 The methodology for reporting vehicle-pedestrian crashes is also out of date,falling short of adequately describing crash types with respect to roadwayconditions and features where they occur.3 Source: NHTSA.4 Approximately 35 children have been killed by airbags in the last three years.5 This does not mean that there were only 3,500 people killed by handguns in1995. In fact, FBI data indicate that there were almost 18,000 homicidescommitted with handguns. However, the vast majority (more than 75%)of thesehomicides are committed by friends, relatives, or other persons known to thevictim.6 Non-neighborhood roads include Primary Arterials, Freeway/Expressway,and Interstates. We grouped minor arterials in the “residential streets” categorybecause while they facilitate traffic mobility, they typically run throughresidential areas to provide access to major arterials. (See Highway CapacityManual, op. cit., pp. 11-6 - 11-7.)7 For example, the number of fatalities between 1966 and 1995 has decreasedfrom 50,894 to 41,798, though totals have risen in the past few three years. SeeTraffic Safety Facts 1995, US Department of Transportation, National HighwayTraffic Safety Administration, September 1996.8 Spending on bicycling and walking facilities has risen from $8 million in 1990to over $220 million in 1995. Source: Rails-to-Trails Conservancy (Tel:202.797.5400).9 This includes funding for dedicated pedestrian projects only, such as installingspeed bumps, constructing roundabouts (a form of traffic circle), diverting non-local drivers away from local streets, changing pavement surfaces, andnarrowing the roadway. It does not include funds for auto safety projects, liketraffic signals, that have an incidental effect on pedestrians.10 Furthermore, all of the pedestrian safety projects funded in New York werefunded by NYC Department of Transportation.

TRUE STORY

“On December 18, 1994, my friends and Iwere walking to the corner store. We have tocross a six-lane street to get there. That day atruck ran a red light and hit me as I was crossingthe street. My leg and collar bone werebroken. The inside of my mouth was bustedand my chin was cut. I had massive abrasionsall over my body. I was in the hospital for a

week. I was bedridden, then went through theprocess of using a wheel chair and thencrutches. I returned to my fifth grade class onApril 26, 1995. My family and I endured somuch pain and suffering. My mother saysangels were guarding me and thanks all thespirits for letting me live.”

— Librado Almanza, Age 11Austin, Texas


The Path to Pedestrian Safety

Chapter Two

How To Make Our Streets SafeFor Pedestrians

We know that we can makeour streets safer for pedestriansbecause some communities aremaking it happen. The 1991ISTEA legislation provides com-munities with important plan-ning tools that help to empha-size safety considerations, re-quire public involvement in de-cision-making, support alterna-tive modes of transportationsuch as bicycling, walking, andtransit, and provide dedicatedfunding for transportation safety.While this legislation must bestrengthened and improved,some communities are takingadvantage of these programsand funds to implement a vari-ety of pedestrian safety mea-sures, including:

• slowing down traffic(known as traffic calming)through the use of speedbumps, roundabouts,changing pavement sur-faces, and other features;

• providing separate, pro-tected spaces for walkers;

• designing public spaces tobe more pedestrian-friendly (improved cross-walks, sidewalks, handrails

for the infirm, special pave-ments, etc.); and

• increasing public awarenessof pedestrian safety issues.

These programs work becausethey solve the problem at itssource: fixing roads that arepoorly designed for pedestrians.Instead of blaming the pedestrianfor getting in the way, these com-munities have created streets andneighborhoods that are inherentlysafer for pedestrians.

Traffic Calming

Growing numbers of communi-ties are trying to make their resi-dential streets safer by forcing mo-torists to slow down. “Trafficcalming” refers to the practice ofdesigning streets to reduce vehiclespeeds, ensure that drivers aremore careful, or take safer routes.It includes narrowing the road-way, diverting non-local driversaway from local streets, changingpavement surfaces, installingspeed humps, constructingroundabouts (a form of trafficcircle) and putting up stop signs.These measures improve pedes-trian safety, and make publicspaces more conducive to pedes-trian activity and street life.

Instead of blaming thepedestrian for gettingin the way, thesecommunities havecreated streets andneighborhoods thatare inherently saferfor pedestrians.


Traffic calming is beingadopted in growing numbers ofcommunities across America.11

Seattle’s traffic calming programinvolved the installation of trafficcircles. It produced a 77 to 91percent reduction in traffic colli-sions. Portland, Oregon alsoconstructed traffic circles and ex-perienced a 58 percent reductionin the number of reportedcrashes (Zein 1997). Other trafficcalming projects in communitiesfrom Long Beach, California toFairfax County, Virginia, havereduced the risk to pedestrians inresidential neighborhoods.12

Even more modest effortshave had noticeable impacts onpedestrian safety. In New YorkCity, for example, streets werepainted with chevron stripes tomake drivers think they arespeeding in an attempt to makethem slow down (Perez-Pesa1996). And one New York Cityneighborhood group, “Trees NotTrucks,” decided to combatneighborhood truck traffic bygetting police to ticket offendingdrivers. The initiative reducedtruck traffic on local streets by 90percent (Pierre-Pierre 1996).

Separate Spaces for Pedestrians

Another method of improvingpedestrian safety is to providewalkers with spaces that are pro-tected from vehicular traffic. Thismay involve building sidewalksor developing walking paths thatare completely independent ofstreet patterns. Some communi-ties have built special pedestrianspaces since the creation of

ISTEA using Enhancements fund-ing, which includes walking andbicycling among its eligible ac-tivities.

Designing Pedestrian-FriendlyNeighborhoods

Many communities have alsofound that a key to safe walkingis to create public spaces thatattract pedestrians, thereby es-tablishing their presence andcausing traffic to slow down.The Los Angeles NeighborhoodInitiative (LANI), for example,focused on pedestrian-friendlydesign to revitalize several com-mercial and transit corridors.LANI’s success was partly due tothe availability of ISTEA funds tosupport downtown revitalizationand mixed-use development.13

Neighborhood groups also de-veloped community work plansthat included tree planting, in-stallation of lighting, parks, pla-zas, community gardens, andbenches (DiStefano and Raimi1996).

Another downtown improve-ment project in Indianapolis,Indiana used ISTEA funds tohelp finance its Downtown Cor-ridor Improvements Project. Theproject’s goal is to reduce ve-hicular traffic and improve side-walk infrastructure, to produce a“pedestrian friendly” streetscapethat enhances the historic integ-rity of the downtown corridor(DiStefano and Raimi 1996).

Other projects focus moreexplicitly on pedestrian safetythrough roadway design. A new

Many communitieshave also found that akey to safe walking isto create public spacesthat attractpedestrians, therebyestablishing theirpresence and causingtraffic to slow down.


project in Phoenix, Arizona isaimed at creating “safe pedes-trian zones” in the low-incomeSunnyslope neighborhood. Andin one of Phoenix’s central cityneighborhoods which is home toa high concentration of olderpersons, city workers have con-structed broad center medians toease street crossings and largercrosswalk signs to aid individu-als who have poor eyesight(DiStefano and Raimi 1996).

Public Awareness of Pedes-trian Safety Issues

The driving community doesnot receive enough informationabout the pedestrians withwhom they share the road.Many safety officials and citizens

fail to understand that measuresdesigned to increase vehiclespeeds often degrade the pedes-trian environment. Vice Presi-dent Gore’s National PerformanceReview found that 58 percent ofsurvey respondents favored pub-lic education campaigns to im-prove pedestrian safety, and agrowing number of measureshave been established to pro-mote awareness of pedestriansafety issues. For example, theCampaign to Make AmericaWalkable recently launched theirdirty dozen campaign (SeeSidebar).14 Unfortunately, thesmall amount of money devotedto pedestrian safety education isstill dwarfed by the billions ofdollars spent widening roadwaysin the name of motorist safety.

Notes

11 Outside the U.S., traffic calming is also successful. The Insurance Corporation ofBritish Colombia (ICBC) reported that traffic calming efforts in the Greater Vancouverarea resulted in a 30 to 83 percent reduction in collisions. In York, England, the cityimplemented a traffic calming plan that yielded a 40 percent decrease in all motorvehicle-related casualties during the periods 1981-1985 and 1990-1994. Pedestriancasualties fell by 36 percent (Cycletter, Bicycle Transportation Alliance, January 1997).Other traffic calming efforts in the United Kingdom resulted in a 65-100 percent dropin collisions, while efforts in Denmark, France and Germany were associated with a 60percent drop. (Zein 1997).12 In Long Beach, a traffic circle reduced traffic by 28 percent. Fairfax County used speedhumps, narrowed streets, and other measures to reduce traffic.13 Transportation Enhancement and Federal Transit Administration Livable Communi-ties funds were used to support LANI.14 Vice President Gore knows these issues firsthand. Shortly before he joined then-governor Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign, his son Albert was struck by a car whilewalking outside Baltimore’s Camden Yards (home to the Baltimore Orioles). Theyounger Albert suffered from serious injuries and lay in a coma for several days beforemaking a full recovery.

Many safety officialsand citizens fail tounderstand thatmeasures designed toincrease vehiclespeeds often degradethe pedestrianenvironment.


The Campaign to Make America Walkable recently launched a public education campaign inwhich they compiled pedestrian’s top complaints about roadway safety and sidewalk design.

THE WALKER’S “DIRTY DOZEN”

1. Missing sections of sidewalk, especially onkey walking routes

2. Bad sidewalk surfaces (uneven or brokenconcrete, uplifted slabs over tree roots)

3. Misuse of sidewalks (e.g. vehicles parkedon sidewalk)

4. Bad sidewalk maintenance (overhangingbushes or trees, unshoveled snow onsidewalks)

5. Narrow sidewalks (no room for wheelchairs,or for two people to walk side by side,utility poles in the middle of a sidewalk)

6. Missing curb ramps7. Poorly designed crossings of major streets,

especially near schools or shops8. Motorists not stopping for people in

crosswalks9. Barriers on potential walking routes10. High traffic levels and/or high speeds,

especially near schools or parks11. Motorists cutting through neighborhoods

to avoid busy arterial streets12. Locations with a documented history of

crashes or near misses.

Source: The Campaign to Make America Walkable


ISTEA Reauthorization:An Opportunity for Safer Streets

Chapter Three

Few transportation agenciesrecognize the importance of pe-destrian safety, and fewer stillhave taken advantage of existingtools to improve conditions. Atthe federal level, many tools canbe found within ISTEA, whichwas designed to foster a morebalanced transportation systemthat includes mass transit, inter-city rail, and bicycle and pedes-trian trails and paths, as well ashighways. ISTEA also targetsfunds towards specific nationalgoals, including environmentalprotection and public safety.But while ISTEA created thesafety set-aside program withample funds for capital improve-ments, pedestrian safety has notbeen treated as a federal priorityand state and local agencieshave invested little effort andfew resources to improve pedes-trian safety.

Reauthorizing ISTEA - TheNation’s Transportation Law

This year, Congress is poisedto reauthorize the 1991Intermodal Surface Transporta-tion Efficiency Act (ISTEA). Thislegislation will provide over$150 billion dollars for states andcommunities to spend on theirtransportation systems over the

next five years — roads, bridges,public transportation, and trails,pathways, and spaces for thosewho walk and bike. The highwaylobby, known as the “road gang,”which includes road contractors,automobile manufacturers, truck-ers and even some state Depart-ments of Transportation, is lobby-ing to weaken the legislation, en-suring that they get more moneyto build highways, while less isspent to make communities safefor walking, and otherwise makeAmerica’s transportation systemsmore sustainable.

The Road Lobby’s Efforts ToWeaken Transportation Law,Making Streets Less Safe ForPedestrians

The “road gang” is pushinghard for legislation they support,such as the Highways Only Trans-portation Efficiency Act (HOTEA)and STEP 21 — that would makethe existing pedestrian safetyproblem even worse. These pro-posals would abolish existing en-vironmental and safety programs,as well as the enhancement pro-gram (which currently providesfunding for bicycle and pedestrianactivities), replacing them with aprogram focused on roadbuildingand maintenance that would

Pedestrian safetyshould be recognizedas a nationaltransportation safetypriority on par withautomobile andrailroad safetyprograms.


strongly bias transportationspending towards retrograde em-phasis on highway construction.

The Clinton AdministrationLegislation

The Clinton Administrationrecently released its ISTEA reau-thorization package, which wasintroduced by Senators Chafeeand Moynihan as S. 468. Thislegislation would maintain thebasic structure of current law,while increasing overall fundingfor bicycle and pedestrianprojects (via an increase in fund-ing for the Enhancements pro-gram), and clean air programs.

Opportunities To ImprovePedestrian Safety

Congress should support andimprove ISTEA and make ourroads safer for walking. Specifi-cally, Congress should:

(1) Preserve and StrengthenISTEA’s Current Safety Programsto Better Protect Pedestrians

Congress must adequatelyfund pedestrian safety activities.Specifically, ISTEA’s safety pro-grams should be improved withthese modifications:

(a) Fund projects that promotepedestrian safety from the federalsafety set-aside program at a rateequivalent to their share of fatali-ties nationwide (i.e. roughly 14percent).

Pedestrian safety should berecognized as a national transpor-

tation safety priority on par withautomobile and railroad safetyprograms. The road lobby con-sistently argues that moneyspent on pedestrians and bi-cycles diverts money from saferroads. Our findings indicate thatthe opposite is true — that moremoney spent to protect pedestri-ans will dramatically decreasethe carnage on our roads.

(b) Expand the federal capi-tal safety funding program(ISTEA’s “safety set-aside”) toenhance opportunities for fund-ing of safety programs for pe-destrians, bicyclists, and peoplewith disabilities.

The federal funding programfor safety capital projects should:

• add pedestrians to the listof users for whom hazardsare identified;

• not fund projects that in-crease hazards to or inhibitaccess for pedestrians;

• require public participationin establishing priorities;

• include safety improve-ments to paved trails asspecifically eligible for pro-gram funding; and

• use “spot-check” programsfor the rapid-responseelimination of low-costhazards.

(c) Allow more local controlover where and how federalsafety funds are spent.

ISTEA created significantlymore local control over transpor-tation programs by requiring the

The road lobbyconsistently arguesthat money spent onpedestrians andbicycles diverts moneyfrom safer roads. Ourfindings indicate thatthe opposite is true —that more moneyspent to protectpedestrians willdramatically decreasethe carnage on ourroads.


input of local decision-makingagencies, known as metropolitanplanning organizations (MPOs).MPOs should be granted projectselection authority for federalsafety funds programs.

(d) Continue other federalsafety programs (sections 402and 410 of ISTEA) and promoteincreased public involvement.

Federal ISTEA-funded safetyprograms that focus on unsafebehavior, such as the Alcohol-Impaired Driving Counter Mea-sures (Section 410) and HighwaySafety Grants Programs (Section402), should be continued. Forplanning and project selection,each state should establish apublic involvement process thatincludes representatives of se-nior citizens, pedestrians, bicy-clists, motorists, people with dis-abilities, neighborhood groups,and other stakeholders.

(2) Establish National GoalsFor Pedestrian Safety

Congress should establish thegoals of DOT’s National Bicy-cling and Walking Study — adoubling of the percentage oftotal trips made by biking andwalking, while reducing fatalitiesby 10% — as national policy.ISTEA should contain an incen-tive program for transportationsafety based on measurablechanges in a state’s per capitafatality rate. Though these ratesvary greatly from state to state,state DOTs control significantresources (funding, technicalassistance, design guides, etc.)

that can make roads safer for pe-destrians, drivers, and passengersalike.15 Their policy choicesmake a difference, and these dif-ferences can be measured. Statesshould receive funds based onchanges in their per capita ve-hicle-related pedestrian fatalityrate compared to a base year. Agoal and incentive system of thistype will create financial incen-tives for pedestrian safetythrough a dedicated fund linkedto measurable improvements inreductions in accidents and fatali-ties.

(3) Ensure that Road-BuildingProjects Don’t Increase Hazardsfor Pedestrians, including Chil-dren, the Elderly and the Dis-abled.

All ISTEA-funded projectsshould be required to plan forthe safe accommodation of pe-destrians as well as other vulner-able users of the roadway (bicy-clists, children, elderly and thedisabled). All too often, highwaysafety “improvements” have ex-actly the opposite effect on pe-destrians.

The road lobby consistentlyargues that bigger, wider, andstraighter roads are needed toimprove motorist safety, andFHWA data reveal that roughlyone-third of all federal roadwayfunds have been used for roadwidening since 1991.16 But roadwidening provides a classic ex-ample of how turning streets intohighways makes life more dan-gerous for pedestrians. Walkingacross a four-lane highway with a

States should receivefunds based onchanges in their percapita vehicle-relatedpedestrian fatality ratecompared to a baseyear.


30-foot median and two 8-footshoulders takes more time thancrossing a two-lane road. Thisincreased exposure to traffic dra-matically increases risks for pe-destrians and discourages thepublic from walking. At thesame time, wider and straighterroads encourage motorists todrive faster, increasing the sever-ity of injury and the likelihood offatality in pedestrian-motor ve-hicle collisions. Finally, wideningroads often does very little torelieve traffic congestion (anotherpopular justification), as it facili-tates low-density sprawling de-velopment that makes it nearlyimpossible to walk anywhere.

(4) Collect More Accurate andDetailed Data on Pedestrians andWalking

Pedestrian safety efforts arehindered by the widespread lackof reliable and comprehensivedata on walking. There is nocomprehensive information onmiles walked, as there is for Ve-

hicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Thismakes it extraordinarily difficultto place pedestrian safety in ameaningful context. And, little isknown about how much peoplewalk, why they walk, what otheroptions they have, and howthese factors vary with the age ofthe pedestrian. In contrast, fed-eral and state agencies spendmillions of dollars studying driv-ing habits.

The reauthorization of ISTEApresents an ideal opportunity tofill this information vacuum byrequiring that US DOT collectbetter, more detailed and moreaccurate data on levels of walk-ing, injury and fatality rates andthe relative risks that pedestriansface. Furthermore, an Inter-agency Working Group shouldbe established between BTS, theU.S. Census Bureau, the U.S. De-partment of Transportation andother appropriate agencies tocoordinate the collection anddissemination of all pedestrian-related data.

Notes

15 In 1994, levels ranged from below ten fatalities per 100,000 residents (New Jersey,Connecticut, New York, Massachusetts and Rhode Island) to more than 25 fatalities per100,000 residents (Alabama, New Mexico, Mississippi and Wyoming). These differ-ences have as much to do with the character of communities within a state—rural,urban, etc.—as with the spending decisions made by state DOTs and MPOs.16 Ironically, AAA, one of the loudest voices for wider roads, also has a pedestrian safetyawards program.

Pedestrian safetyefforts are hinderedby the widespreadlack of reliable andcomprehensive dataon walking.


NUMBERS WE SHOULD KNOW

One of the biggest barriers to people walkingmore is the fear of traffic. We know that onaverage 6,000 pedestrians are killed nationallyeach year in collisions with cars. We have norecord of the people who do not walk or do notgo out because they are afraid of being hit.

Unfortunately, we also have little idea of thetrue amount of walking in the United States.No reliable national statistics are kept on howmany people walk, how far they walk, and thereasons why they do and do not walk.Consequently, walking is often overlookedand not treated as a real means of transportation.In fact, what little data we do have can bewildly unreliable. In 1991, planners in Boulder,Colorado found three travel surveys for thesame area that showed bicycling and walkingaccounting for as little as one percent and asmuch as 28 percent of all trips.

The most deadly type of motor vehicle crashinvolves people on foot. Pedestrians die at agreater rate per crash and suffer more seriousinjuries than bicyclists or motorists, and theaverage cost to society of a pedestrian-motorvehicle crash is $312,000 or a total of morethan $32 billion each year.

Walking is almost invisible, except whenpeople are killed and injured. By failing togather walking data, especially for short trips,we focus all our transportation investments onmotorized, and generally longer trips. Withoutaccurate data, transportation decisionsdiscriminate against those who haveconcentrated their destinations to create ahealthy, environmentally and economicallysound lifestyle.

Source: Campaign to Make America Walkable


Methodology andData Sources

Chapter Four

The Environmental WorkingGroup obtained the data used inthis report from several comput-erized databases. These in-cluded:

The Financial ManagementInformation System (FMIS),maintained by the Federal High-way Administration, containsover 550,000 records of everyfederal highway project since1992. The database containsbasic descriptions of eachproject, as well as the amount offederal and state money spenton the project. This databasewas analyzed in a number ofdifferent ways, including analyz-ing total spending, safety spend-ing under the STP safety set-aside programs, and projects thatwere designed for pedestriansafety.

STP safety projects were iden-tified using codes obtained fromFHWA. Pedestrian safetyprojects were identified in twodifferent ways. All projects thatwere identified by work-typecodes as being pedestrianprojects were included. How-ever, a 1996 GAO report foundthat bicycle and pedestrianprojects were frequentlymiscoded in the database (GAO

1996). Thus, in addition to usingcodes in the database to identifypedestrian projects, we includedany project whose descriptionidentified it as being pedestrian-related.

The Fatal Accident Report-ing System (FARS), maintainedby the National Highway TrafficSafety Administration (NHTSA),contains approximately 2.5 mil-lion records of every fatal traffic-related accident in the UnitedStates since 1986. These recordsinclude detailed descriptions ofall persons involved, as well asthe location, conditions, andcause of the accident. ThisFARS information was supple-mented with additional data fromthe General Estimate System, asecond NHTSA database thatcontains statistical information onall (not just fatal) motor vehicle-related accidents in the UnitedStates.

Data on the relative number ofpeople walking in each metro-politan area were obtained fromcommuting data in the 1990 Cen-sus. The census provides countyby county data on the number ofpeople using a given means oftransport (car, bike, subway,train, walking, etc.) to get to


work. Using these data, we de-termined the percentage of thecommuting population in eachMSA who walk to work. Thiswas used as a general estimate ofthe number of people walking ineach community. For example,in the metropolitan New YorkMSA, 9.7 percent of the commut-ing population walks to work,while in Atlanta, 1.5 percent ofthe commuting population walksto work. From this data, we esti-mated that, per capita, New Yorkhad 6.5 times as much walkingactivity as Atlanta. These datawere used to estimate the pedes-

trian fatality index, as describedin the text.

Homicide data were obtainedfrom the FBI SupplementaryHomicide Report data file.These files contain detailedrecords of every homicide com-mitted in the United States in1995. For each state we wereable to determine the number ofhomicides committed by strang-ers with guns, and the percentof homicides for which the as-sailant was known and was astranger to the victim.


A Day in the Life24 Hours of Pedestrian Fatalities

in the United StatesOctober 21, 1992

Chapter Five

1:00 a.m. San Diego County, CaliforniaThe first pedestrian fatality of the day occurred when a 45-year-old malewas struck and killed while walking or standing on a hilly, curved sec-tion of roadway. The driver, a 27-year-old male, was rounding thecurve at a speed well below the posted limit. He braked and steered inan effort to avoid hitting the pedestrian, but could not. No violationswere charged.

2:00 a.m. Los Angeles, CaliforniaThe second fatal accident of the day resulted in one death and one seri-ous injury. A hit-and-run driver on a main thoroughfare hit and killed a35-year-old male and severely injured a 36-year-old female.

3:30 a.m. New York City, New YorkA male, age 38, walking along a Manhattan street became the day’sthird pedestrian fatality. A male driver, improperly backing a Macktruck, hit and killed the pedestrian. Police concluded that alcohol wasnot involved.

6:00 a.m. Panola County, TexasFoggy conditions may have contributed to the fourth fatal pedestriancrash of the day. A male, age 60, was hit while walking or standingalong a high-speed, arterial roadway. The victim and the driver weresober.

7:00 a.m. Stark County, OhioAn 87 year-old male was killed when he walked into a passenger caroperated by a female driver, 24 years old. Officials filed no charges inthis fifth pedestrian crash of the day.

7:05 a.m. Horry County, South CarolinaThe sixth and youngest pedestrian victim of the day was an 8 year-oldboy. The boy was crossing the street to board his school bus when acar illegally passing another struck and killed the youngster. The driverwas a 19-year-old male.


9:20 a.m. Dale City, CaliforniaA van traveling at a high rate of speed ran off the road, hit a a utilitypole and then struck and killed a female, 68-years old. In this seventhfatal crash involving a pedestrian, the driver (male 47) also sustainedserious injuries. Alcohol was not involved.

2:25 p.m. Braham, MinnesotaA driver described as inattentive hit and killed a female, age 77, as shecrossed at an intersection. The 38-year-old male was driving a pickuptruck. Alcohol was not involved in this eighth fatal collision of the day.

5:15 p.m. Milwaukee, WisconsinThe ninth pedestrian fatal accident occurred when an 80-year-old fe-male was killed. She walked into a travel lane, near an intersection,and was struck by a vehicle driven by a male, age 54.

5:40 p.m. Salt Gum, KentuckyA 76-year-old male became the tenth pedestrian fatality when he wasstruck and killed along a 55 mph section of roadway. The driver, an18-year-old female, was rounding a curve and attempted to steer andbrake to avoid the man. Officials filed no charges..

6:55 p.m. Boulder, ColoradoReckless driving led to the eleventh pedestrian death of the day. A 17-year-old male was charged with reckless driving after he hit and killedan 81-year-old woman along a 30 mph roadway.

7:15 p.m. Portland, OregonA 45-year-old woman died when she improperly attempted to cross a35 mph principal roadway, becoming the day’s twelfth pedestrian vic-tim. The 38-year-old female driver involved was not charged in thecollision.

7:20 p.m. South Farmingdale, New YorkAlcohol played a role in the day’s thirteenth pedestrian fatality. A 38-year-old male with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.24 percent wasstruck and killed along a roadway with a 40 mph speed limit. Policydetermined that the driver, a 34-year-old male, was acting properly, andbrought no charges.

7:40 p.m. Cupertino, CaliforniaA vehicle being driven below the posted speed limit hit and killed an89-year-old male pedestrian, the fourteenth death of the day. A 50-year-old female drove the vehicle involved. Alcohol was not a factor.

7:45 p.m. North Bellport, New YorkThe fifteenth pedestrian to die was the victim of a hit-and-run collision.


The 61-year-old female pedestrian died when a vehicle driven by amale, age 39, struck her. The driver was apprehended later, andcharged with driving while impaired and leaving the scene of an acci-dent.

8:17 p.m. Independence, MissouriA 23-year-old male with a BAC of 0.11 percent became the day’s six-teenth pedestrian fatality when he tried to cross a roadway at an inter-section with no traffic lights. The 32-year-old driver involved was de-scribed as swerving to avoid the pedestrian, but may have contributedto the crash by leaving the proper travel lane.

8:25 p.m. St. Louis, MissouriAn early-evening crash produced the seventeenth pedestrian fatalitywhen a 59-year-old male was struck and killed at a signalized inter-section. Officials determined that the pedestrian had a BAC of 0.20percent. The driver, a male, age 44, had his vision obscured by alarge vehicle and its load.

9:13 p.m. Phoenix, ArizonaAlcohol influenced the eighteenth and last crash of the day to claim apedestrian’s life. A 59-year-old male was hit and killed by a vehicledriven by a 36-year-old female. The pedestrian’s BAC was 0.32 per-cent. Police indicated the driver also was impaired, but her BAC isunknown. The driver had a previous DWI conviction and license sus-pension.

—NHTSA/FHWA, 1995, “Development of a National PedestrianAwareness” (unpublished).


Organizations Involved inPedestrian Safety Issues

Appendix

National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse (NTEC)1506 21st Street, NW Suite 210, Washington DC, 20036888/388-6832 (toll-free), fax: 202/463-0875, e-mail: [email protected]

NTEC provides technical assistance on enhancement programparticipants, as well as a referral service to other experts andorganizations and relevant materials. The NTEC is a source ofdocuments on enhancement activities.

National Bicycle and Pedestrian Clearinghouse (NBPC)1506 21st Street, NW Suite 210, Washington DC, 20036800/760-NBPC (toll free), fax: 202/463-6625,e-mail: [email protected]

NBPC provides technical assistance on bicycle and pedestrianprograms and is a source of USDOT bicycle and pedestrian re-ports.

America Walksc/o Ellen Vanderslice, co-chair: 503/228-5441, e-mail:[email protected] and Katherine Shriver, Walk Austin, 512/472-3470, e-mail: [email protected]

America Walks is a national pedestrian advocacy coalition oflocal pedestrian groups dedicated to fostering transportationchoices for the public.

Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP)1100 17th Street NW, 10th floor, Washington, DC 20036202/466-2636, fax: 202/466-2247, e-mail: [email protected],web page: www.transact.org

National coalition of grassroots and national organizations whichadvocates for balanced transportation policy. STPP is workingfor the reauthorization of ISTEA, which maintains funding foralternate modes of transportation, including transit, bikes andwalking.


Rails-to-Trails Conservancy (RTC)1100 17th Street NW, 10th floor, Washington, DC 20036202/331-9696, fax: 202/331-9680

RTC is committed to the creation of trails and rail trails for recre-ation and non-motorized transportation. They advocate for trailsand enhancements and assist in trail development.

Bicycle Federation of America (BFA)1506 21st Street, NW Suite 210, Washington DC, 20036202/463-6622, fax: 202/463-6625, e-mail: [email protected]

A national bicycle and pedestrian advocacy group. BFA providestechnical assistance on bicycle programs and local bicycle advo-cacy and offers relevant publications, including those on bicycleand pedestrian safety education.

Campaign to Make America Walkable1506 21st Street, NW Suite 210, Washington DC, 20036202/463-6622, fax: 202/463-6625, E-mail: [email protected]

The Campaign, a project of the Bicycle Federation of America(BFA), advocates designing streets and public spaces to fosterwalking. The Campaign offers technical assistance for those in-terested in improving the safety and walkability of their commu-nities.

League of American Bicyclists (LAB)Noel Weyrich749 North 26th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19130215/232-7543, fax: 215/232-2658, e-mail: [email protected]

A national bicycle advocacy organization.

Congress for the New Urbanism706 Sacramento Street, Box 148, San Francisco, CA 94108415/291-9804 or fax: 415/291-8116

The Congress for the New Urbanism works to promote the prin-ciples and practices of the new urbanism; i.e. more walkableand compact development as an alternative to automobile domi-nated sprawl.

Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE)525 School Street., SW., Suite 410 Washington, DC 20024-2797202/554-8050, fax: 202/863-5486 web page: www.ite.org


Source of professional and technical documents and informa-tion on transporation standards and recommended practices.Offer publications on street design and traffic calming.

Transportation Alternatives (TA)115 West 30th Street, room 1205, New York, NY 10001212/629-8080, fax: 212/629-8334 e-mail: [email protected]

Local bicycle and sustainable transportation advocacy group.T.A has extensive experience with traffic calming as well as lo-cal bicycle and pedestrian advocacy.

Tracy-Williams ConsultingP.O Box 8315, Missoula, MT 59807406/543-8113, fax: 406/543-8146, e-mail: [email protected]

Jon Williams and Linda Tracy are professional consultants onlocal bicycle and pedestrian planning and advocacy.


References

Mean Streets

American Automobile Association. 1996. Crisis Ahead: America’sAging Highways and Airways, American Automobile Association,June.

DiStefano and Raimi. 1996. Five Years of Progress: 110 Communi-ties Where ISTEA is Making a Difference, Surface TransportationPolicy Project, Washington, DC. pp. 26-27.

Durning, Alan. 1996. The Car and the City: Twenty-Four Steps toSafe Streets and Healthy Communities, Northwest Environment WatchReport No. 3, Seattle, WA, April, p. 24.

Ewing, Reid. 1995. “Measuring Transportation Performance,”Transportation Quarterly, Eno Transportation Foundation, Inc.Lansdowne, VA, Vol. 49, No. 1, Winter, pp. 91-104.

FHWA. 1994. The National Bicycling and Walking Study: FinalReport. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.

General Accounting Office, 1996. Transportation Enhancements:Status of the $2.4 billion authorized for nonmotorized transportation.GAO/RCED-96-156. July. Washington, DC.

National Safety Council. 1996. Accident Facts. Washington, D.C.

NHTSA. Pedestrian Safety For The Older Adult. U.S. Departmentof Transportation. Washington, D.C.

Orcutt, Jon. 1995. The Wrong Foot Forward: Projected TrafficSafety Investments in New York City, 1994-1999. Tri-State Transporta-tion Campaign/Transportation Alternatives, New York, New York.

Perez-Pesa, Richard. 1996. “Rushing Roulette on Mean Streets:Where New York Pedestrians Risk Life and Limb Every Day,” TheNew York Times, Friday, December 13.


Pierre-Pierre, Garry. 1996. “New York City Slow in Aiding Thoseon Foot,” The New York Times, Saturday, December 14.

Slater, 1997. “Opening Statement of the Honorable Rodney E.Slater, Federal Highway Administration Administrator and Secretary ofTransportation Designate,” to the Committee on Commerce, Science,and Transportation, United States Senate, 29 January.

Transportation Research Board. 1994. Highway Capacity Manual,Special Report 209, Third Edition. Washington, DC. See also,Greenberg, F. and J. Hecimovich. 1984. Traffic Impact Analysis, PASReport No. 387. Chapters 1 and 2.

U.S. Department of Transportation. 1985. “The Pedestrian SafetyProblem,” Program Development Division, Office of Highway Safety,Federal Highway Administration. August.

Zein, S., et al. 1997. “Safety Benefits of Traffic Calming,” submittedfor presentation and publication at the Transportation ResearchBoard’s Annual Meeting, January 1997.

SURFACETRANSPORTATIONPOLICYPROJECT

W O R K I N G G R O U P T M

E N V I R O N M E N T A L

1100 17TH ST., NW, 10TH FLOOR

WASHINGTON, DC 20036TEL 202-466-2636FAX [email protected]

1718 CONNECTICUT AVE., NW, SUITE 600WASHINGTON, DC 20009

TEL 202-667-6982FAX 202-232-2592

[email protected]

MEAN STREETS WPEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND REFORM OF · Hank Dittmar, Executive Director STPP 1100 17th...

Documents

Transcript of MEAN STREETS WPEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND REFORM OF · Hank Dittmar, Executive Director STPP 1100 17th...