Prominent pedestrian trip attractors, such as college campuses and major urban parks, are often surrounded by roadways with high volumes of motor vehicle traffic. Although many pedestrians cross busy boundary roadways, relatively little is known about the pedestrian crash risk along these types of facilities. This study quantifies pedestrian crash risk at roadway intersections on the boundary of the University of California, Berkeley, campus during typical spring and fall semester weekdays. Manual pedestrian counts were extrapolated with data from three automated counter locations to represent pedestrian exposure. Pedestrian crash risk was highest at intersections along the boundary roadways with the lowest pedestrian volumes. In addition, pedestrian risk in the evening (6:00 p.m. to midnight) was estimated to be more than three times higher than in the daytime (10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.). The crash risk estimation approach presented can be used to study pedestrian safety on the boundary of campuses and other major attractors so that agencies can identify and prioritize engineering, education, and enforcement treatments to reduce pedestrian injuries.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
SchuurmanN., CinnamonJ., CrooksV. A., and HameedS. M.Pedestrian Injury and the Built Environment: An Environmental Scan of Hotspots. BMC Public Health, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2009, p. 233.
2.
DaiD., TaquechelE., StewardJ., and StrasserS.The Impact of Built Environment on Pedestrian Crashes and the Identification of Crash Clusters on an Urban University Campus. Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, Vol. 11, No. 3, 2010, pp. 294–301.
3.
BoyceT. E., and GellerE. S.A Community-Wide Intervention to Improve Pedestrian Safety Guidelines for Institutionalizing Large-Scale Behavior Change. Environment and Behavior, Vol. 32, No. 4, 2000, pp. 502–520.
4.
SchneiderR. J., KhattakA. J., and ZegeerC. V.Method of Improving Pedestrian Safety Proactively with Geographic Information Systems: Example from a College Campus. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1773, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 97–107.
5.
SisiopikuV. P., and AkinD.Pedestrian Behaviors at and Perceptions Towards Various Pedestrian Facilities: An Examination Based on Observation and Survey Data. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 6, No. 4, 2003, pp. 249–274.
6.
SchwebelD. C., StavrinosD., and KongableE. M.Attentional Control, High Intensity Pleasure, and Risky Pedestrian Behavior in College Students. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 41, No. 3, 2009, pp. 658–661.
7.
CliftonK. J., and Kreamer-FultsK.An Examination of the Environmental Attributes Associated with Pedestrian–Vehicular Crashes Near Public Schools. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 39, No. 4, 2007, pp. 708–715.
8.
DobbsG. L.Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety on a College Campus: Crash and Conflict Analyses with Recommended Design Alternatives for Clemson University.Clemson University, Clemson, S.C., 2009.
9.
Alta Planning + Design. Boise State University Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety Master Plan.Boise State University, Boise, Idaho, 2010.
10.
Alta Planning + Design and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. University of Arizona Area Bicycle and Pedestrian Study: Draft Study.University of Arizona, Tucson, 2012.
11.
SchneiderR. J., GrembekO., BraughtonM., OrrickP., and RaglandD.Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Strategies for UC Berkeley Campus and Periphery: Recommendations for Implementation.Office of Risk Management, University of California, Berkeley, 2012.
12.
HanningC., JerrettM., SuJ. G., and WolchJ.Safe Routes to Play? Pedestrian and Bicyclist Crashes Near Parks in the Los Angeles Region.University of California Transportation Center, Berkeley, 2012.
13.
WangS., and SmithP. J.In Quest of “Forgiving” Environment: Residential Planning and Pedestrian Safety in Edmonton, Canada. Planning Perspectives, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1997, pp. 225–250.
14.
HutchinsonN.Improving Pedestrian Access Across Arterial Roads. Presented at the State of Australian Cities National Conference 2011, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 2011.
15.
GriswoldJ. B., MalinoffA., FrickK. T., and DeakinE.Old Road, New Directions: Plan for Adeline Street in Berkeley, California. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2262, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 181–189.
16.
SullivanJ. M., and FlannaganM. J.The Role of Ambient Light Level in Fatal Crashes: Inferences from Daylight Saving Time Transitions. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 34, No. 4, 2002, pp. 487–498.
17.
OwensD. A., and SivakM.Differentiation of Visibility and Alcohol as Contributors to Twilight Road Fatalities. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Vol. 38, No. 4, 1996, pp. 680–689.
18.
LeibowitzH. W., OwensD. A., and TyrrellR. A.The Assured Clear Distance Ahead Rule: Implications for Nighttime Traffic Safety and the Law. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 30, No. 1, 1998, pp. 93–99.
19.
StevensC., and LordD.Evaluating Safety Effects of Daylight Saving Time on Fatal and Nonfatal Injury Crashes in Texas. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1953, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006, pp. 147–155.
20.
JohanssonÖ., WanvikP. O., and ElvikR.A New Method for Assessing the Risk of Accident Associated with Darkness. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 41, No. 4, July 2009, pp. 809–815.
21.
GriswoldJ., FishbainB., WashingtonS., and RaglandD. R.Visual Assessment of Pedestrian Crashes. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 43, No. 1, 2011, pp. 301–306.
22.
DumbaughE., and LiW.Designing for the Safety of Pedestrians, Cyclists, and Motorists in Urban Environments. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 77, No. 1, 2010, pp. 69–88.
23.
SchneiderR. J., ArnoldL. S., and RaglandD. R.Methodology for Counting Pedestrians at Intersections: Use of Automated Counters to Extrapolate Weekly Volumes from Short Manual Counts. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2140, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2009, pp. 1–12.
24.
SchneiderR. J., HenryT., MitmanM. F., StonehillL., and KoehlerJ.Development and Application of a Pedestrian Volume Model in San Francisco, California. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2299, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2012, pp. 65–78.
25.
HarwoodD. W., TorbicD. J., GilmoreD. K., BokenkrogerC. D., DunnJ. M., ZegeerC. V., SrinivasanR., CarterD., RabornC., LyonC., and PersaudB.NCHRP Web Document 129: Phase III: Pedestrian Safety Prediction Methodology.Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008.
26.
SchneiderR. J., DiogenesM. C., ArnoldL. S., AttasetV., GriswoldJ., and RaglandD. R.Association Between Roadway Intersection Characteristics and Pedestrian Crash Risk in Alameda County, California. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2198, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010, pp. 41–51.
27.
Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments. Bay Area Census.http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov. Accessed July 20, 2012.
28.
SugermanK. A.UC Berkeley 2011 Campus Sustainability Report.Office of Sustainability, University of California, Berkeley, 2011.
29.
Abdel-AtyM., LeeC., WangX., NawatheP., KellerJ., KowdlaS., and PrasadH.Identification of Intersections’ Crash Profiles/Patterns.Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, 2006.
30.
JacobsenP. L.Safety in Numbers: More Walkers and Bicyclists, Safer Walking and Bicycling. Injury Prevention, Vol. 9, No. 3, 2003, pp. 205–209.
31.
GeyerJ. A., RafordN., PhamT., and RaglandD. R.Safety in Numbers: Data from Oakland, California. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1982, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006, pp. 150–154.
32.
HarkeyD. L., and ZegeerC. V.PEDSAFE: Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System.FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2004.
33.
BhatiaR., and WierM.“Safety in Numbers” Re-Examined: Can We Make Valid or Practical Inferences from Available Evidence?Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 43, No. 1, Jan. 2011, pp. 235–240.
34.
MilliganC., PoapstR., and MontufarJ.Performance Measures and Input Uncertainty for Pedestrian Crossing Exposure Estimates. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 50, 2013, pp. 490–498.
