Traffic Safety in Public TransportMadhav PaiSeptember 7th, 2012DirectorEMBARQ India

1.3 million traffic deaths per year

Source: OMS

Road traffic injuries are projected to be the 5th leading cause of death globally by 2030

2004(actual)

2030(projected)

Road traffic crashes currently cause more than 1.2 million deaths a year – but by 2030 will kill an estimated 2.4 million people per year

The importance of considering road safety in public transport

Road safety on BRT and Busway corridors – EMBARQ research

Overview

The importance of considering road safety in public transportPT routes located on main arterials – streets with highest crash volume

Location of crashes in New York CitySource: New York City Pedestrian Safety Study

Technical Supplement. Viola et al. 2010

Location of crashes in Benito Juarez, Mexico CitySource: Diagnostico espacial de los accidentes de transito

En el Distrito Federal.. Chias Becerril et al. 2008

New York City:

Streets with bus routes have consistently higher crash rates than all other streets. Viola et al. 2010

Porto Alegre, Brazil:

Locations with Busway stations have consistently higher crash rates than all other locations. Diogenes and Lindau 2009.

The importance of considering road safety in public transportPT routes located on main arterials – streets with highest crash volume

Mexico CityGuadalajara

BogotaCuritiba

Porto Alegre

DelhiAhmedabad

Vancouver

Brisbane

Belo HorizontePereiraCali

EMBARQ Research:BRT, Busways, and Road Safety

A diverse mix of various bus systems

counter-flow busway

curbside busway

center lane BRT Center lane counter-flow BRT

Center lane buswaymixed traffic bus route

• How does each of these options rank in terms of road safety?

• What are the most frequent types of crashes on each type of bus system?

• How can we make them safer ?

Using the model results:Understanding the safety impact of different bus systems

Preliminary safety comparison, based on Mexico City data:

1. Center lane BRT – safest2. Conventional bus service3. Curbside bus / microbus lane4. Counter-flow bus / microbus lane – most dangerous

Overall safety impact of a BRTCase study: Macrobús, Guadalajara (before)

Overall safety impact of a BRTCase study: Macrobús, Guadalajara (after)

Monthly crashes before and after the implementation of the BRT

Question: What were the impacts beyond the corridor?

Comparison between the bus lanes and the mixed traffic lanes

Main findings: Overall safety impact of a BRT

Av. Caracas, TransMilenio

Main findings: Overall safety impact of a BRT / BuswayNot all systems have had a positive impact on safety

Cristiano Machado Busway, Belo

Horizonte Central Busway Corridor with the highest crash frequency citywide

Av. Alcalde Bus Priority Lane, GuadalajaraCurbside bus priority lane Street with highest crash frequency citywide

Delhi Bus Corridor (2008-2012)

Bad design may result in increase in traffic fatalities – Bus corridor in New Delhi

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Fata

lities

in t

he C

orri

dor

?

Before During Construction During Operations

Data analysis Citywide crash frequency models Analysis of police crash reports

Road safety inspections

Understanding the factors that influence crash frequencies

The global picture of safety on BRT and Busways

Fatalities by road user type

The safest place to be on a bus corridor is inside the bus The most dangerous: walking to the bus station

Very high risk Very high riskVery low risk

Safety issues on center-lane systems

Pedestrians crossing in mid-block

Av. Caracas, TransMilenio Metrobus Line 2, Mexico City

Safety issues on center-lane systems

Pedestrians running to and from stations

Av. Caracas, TransMilenio

Main findingsFactors influencing crash frequencies on bus corridors

Speed

Factors influencing crash frequencies

Street width and intersection size and complexity

Metrobus Line 1, Mexico City

Road width and complexity of intersections were the most important predictors of crash frequencies.

Factors influencing crash frequencies

Center-lane systems tend to be safer that curbside ones

Central median Shorter pedestrian crossings Fewer mixed traffic lanes Some 4-way intersections turned into T junctions

Factors influencing crash frequencies

Counterflow

Counterflow lanes were strongly correlated with higher crash frequencies across all our models (p<0.001)

Main findingsKey recommendations for improving safety on bus systems

Street design Traffic calming Narrow streets, simple intersections Short pedestrian crossings

Configuration of the bus system Closed stations Physical segregation between bus lanes and mixed traffic lanes No counterflow

http://www.embarq.org/en/node/4923

Versions in EnglishSpanish

Portuguese

Get involved!

Abundant property development along the road edgeCars are not the dominant motor-vehicleBicycles are not the only NMT mode Very high pedestrian volume Traffic discipline cannot be taken as a givenStreet vendors and immovable obstacles, like utility boxes, trees, temples, etcAuto-rickshaws as the feeder system to BRT

Safety Guidelines for Indian Cities

Starting point …

www.embarqindia.org 31

India BRT road safety design

guidelines

U-Turns

Minor Street Intersection

Roundabouts

High Street Activity

ACCESSIBILITY & SAFETY INSPECTIONS ON MASS TRANSIT CORRIDORS

36

Indore BRT – Reducing Conflict Points

12

3

4

1

2

METRO CORRIDOR ALONG JP ROAD

– Changing land use pattern. Increasing number of high-rises and retail areas

– Un-engineered roads with poor pedestrian infrastructure

Elevated Metro – Line One Mumbai

– Wasted fringe area– Utilities haphazardly placed on footpath or carriageway

Elevated Metro – Line One Mumbai

Consistent width and continuous length for footpath and carriageway

Buffer area to be utilised for provision of bus-stops, parking, waiting area, rickshaws

40

2.1 m : Footpath2.5 m : Buffer area

6.0 m : Carriageway

6.0 m : Carriageway

5.7 m : Metro column area

2.5 m : Buffer area

2.7 m : Footpath

10.6 m

11.2 m

Bus Stop Parking / Waiting areaEB TB

Bus Stop Autorick standProperty Access

Vendors

Recommended Design

Elevated Metro – Line One Mumbai

41

Elevated Metro – Line One Mumbai

42

Elevated Metro – Line One Mumbai

Thank you

Madhav Paimpai@embarqindia.org