Safety aspects of centrally situated bus Literature findings public - PDF document

SPIs: the concept (III) 28 th ICTCT Workshop in Ashdod, Israel Layout of presentation on 29 th – 30 th October 2015 � Introduction Safety aspects of centrally situated bus � Literature findings public transport routes � Analysis of central Public Transport Routes (PTR) and pedestrian crossing configurations (study 1) � Comparison of safety levels of various bus systems configurations: central PTR versus other types of bus-lanes Shalom Hakkert (study 2) Victoria Gitelman Transportation Research Institute Technion – Israel Institute of Technology SPIs: the concept (III) SPIs: the concept (III) Literature findings Literature findings Mostly based on Duduta N., Adriazola C., Hidalgo D., Lindau L.A., Jaffe R., 2015 Traffic Safety on Bus priority systems , EMBARQ, the Bloomberg Philantropies SPIs: the concept (III) SPIs: the concept (III) Literature findings Literature findings

SPIs: the concept (III) SPIs: the concept (III) Literature findings: safety impact of bus priority Literature findings SPIs: the concept (III) SPIs: the concept (III) Literature findings: safety impact of common infrastructure changes Literature findings: Results of safety impact assessment on bus priority associated with implementing bus priority systems systems SPIs: the concept (III) SPIs: the concept (III) Literature findings Literature findings

SPIs: the concept (III) SPIs: the concept (III) Literature findings Literature findings SPIs: the concept (III) SPIs: the concept (III) Literature findings Literature findings SPIs: the concept (III) SPIs: the concept (III) Study 1: Analysis of central Public Transport Routes Study 1: Analysis of central PTR and pedestrian crossing (PTR) and pedestrian crossing configurations configurations The problem: Characteristics of PTR studied: � Many crashes with pedestrians at intersections on PTR � Central PTR, including left-side bus lane with stops on median Source of problem: � Main arterials with heavy traffic and pedestrian activity � Unfamiliar situation for crossing pedestrians: � At least two traffic lanes per direction � Having to cross three traffic streams in opposing directions � A PTR lane in each direction � Long waiting times for crossing pedestrians � Signalised 3- and 4-legged intersections � The PTR is bi-directional with relatively little traffic

SPIs: the concept (III) SPIs: the concept (III) Study 1: Pedestrian crossing configurations at signalized Study 1: Examples of pedestrian crossings at signalized intersections with central PTR intersections with central PTR, in Israel Type 1: Rothshild boulevard, in Haifa Type 2 – a gradated Type 1 – a direct Type 3 – a right-right crossing three-routes gradated left-left crossing crossing Type 2: Haatzmaut road, in Haifa Type 4 – a gradated-crossing with Type 5 – a direct two-routes crossing mixed-shifting: right-left or left-right SPIs: the concept (III) SPIs: the concept (III) Study 1: Examples of pedestrian crossings at signalized intersections with central PTR, in Israel Characteristic Distribution acc. to categories Junction configuration 18 three-legged (53%), 16 four-legged (47%) Type 3: Jabotinsky Pedestrian crossing 11 of type 1 (32%), 6 of type 3 (18%), 15 of type 4 road, in Petah Tiqwa configuration (44%), 2 of type 5 (6%) Speed limits 6 with 70 km/h (18%), 28 with 50 km/h (82%) Accident indices, per junction, in 2010 - 2012 Accidents Accidents Pedestrian involving buses involving a bus Type 5: Haatzmaut road, in Type 4: Balfour street, in Bat - All injury accidents accidents and a pedestrian Haifa Yam Value Total Serious Fatal Total Ser Fatal Total Ser Fatal Total Ser Fatal Average 6.9 0.8 0.3 1.7 0.4 0.2 1.5 0.3 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.2 s.d. 5 1 0.8 2.3 0.8 0.7 2 0.7 0.7 1.4 0.5 0.7 SPIs: the concept (III) SPIs: the concept (III) Study 1: Analysis of central PTR and pedestrian crossing Study 1 findings: Characteristics affecting the number of configurations accidents at the study sited Type 3 � Crossing type 3 gradated left-left had a Type of analyses: consistent negative correlation with accidents 1.Safety indices for various intersection configurations � Crossing type 4 gradated right-left had a 2.Comparison of crash indices for intersections by: consistent positive correlation with accidents a.Type of crossing configuration Regression models: Type 4 b.Number of intersection legs � For all types of crashes – Crossing type 4 is 3. Comparison of indices with comparison sites associated with an increase in accidents Non- parametric comparison of average no. of accidents: � Differences between type 4 and type 3 crossings is significant and, in some cases, between type 3 and type 1 (straight across – is better than type 4 but worse than type 3)

SPIs: the concept (III) SPIs: the concept (III) Study 1: Comparing accident indices # at the PTR sites, by Study 1: Comparing accident indices # at the PTR sites and junction configuration comparison-group (CG) sites, by junction configuration a – Three-legged junctions All accidents Pedestrian accidents Accidents involving buses All accidents Pedestrian accidents Accidents involving buses Sites Sites Total Serious Fatal Total Serious Fatal Total Serious Fatal groups Total Serious Fatal Total Serious Fatal Total Serious Fatal PTR Average accident junctions 5.7* 0.6 0.2 1.5 0.4 0.1 1.3 0.2 0.1 indices: CG 3-legged 5.7 0.6 0.2 1.5 0.4 0.1 1.3 0.2 0.1 junctions 2.3 0.3 0 0 0 0 0.9 0.2 0 4-legged 8.2 0.9 0.4 1.9 0.5 0.3 1.8 0.4 0.4 b – Four-legged junctions Differences between the site groups, estimated by means of T-statistics (p-values): 3-legged All accidents Pedestrian accidents Accidents involving buses vs 4- Sites Total Serious Fatal Total Serious Fatal Total Serious Fatal PTR legged 0.007* 0.281 0.162 0.400 0.627 0.216 0.264 0.251 0.054* junctions 8.2* 0.9* 0.4* 1.9* 0.5 0.3 1.8 0.4 0.4* # in 2010-2012 * Significant difference CG junctions 5.0 0.3 0.1 0.4 0 0 1.2 0.1 0.1 # in 2010-2012 * Significant difference SPIs: the concept (III) SPIs: the concept (III) Study 2: Comparison of safety level of central PTR with Study 1: Main conclusions other types of bus lanes Crossing type 4 gradated right-left, was consistently found to perform � worst, type 3 gradated left-left - to perform best. In addition, the accident Typical bus-lane layouts : analysis results provide an indication that a direct crossing (type 1 and • Central PTR type 5) is safer than a mixed-shifting (type 4) Pedestrian crossing configurations of types 1, 3 and 5 are recommended • Right (curb-side) bus lane � • Left side bus-lane Behaviour observations at PTR junctions: a significant proportion of � pedestrians cross on red: 7-27%. It is important to create consecutive Problem : a central PTR on Jabotinsky green phases for the pedestrians to minimize waiting times. road, in Petah Tiqwa, experienced a lot of pedestrian accidents at intersections Study aims: (1)To compare the safety level of Jabotinsky road with that of similar streets (2)To compare the safety level of central PTR with those of other bus-lane configurations Type 1 Type 3 Type 5 Study 2: safety level of Jabotinsky road with central PTR Study 2: Detailed analysis of various bus-lane layouts vs. similar streets with public transport Left bus-lane with PTR at stops Right bus-lane Central PTR Main findings: � Arterials with intensive public transport have intensive land-use, vehicle and pedestrian activities. They generally have accident concentrations � Jabotinsky road appears in the list of such streets but is not among the worst Data: � 26 arterials with bus-lanes, in 9 towns � Data on traffic volumes were collected � Crash data for years 2010 – 2013 Allenby str, Tel Aviv Hebron road, 137 intersections and 92 road segments Jerusalem Keren Hayesod str, Jerusalem