Ongoing Challenges with Pedestrian Safety Data May 15: 10:15AM-11:45AM. PedsCount! 2014 May 14-16, 2014 Sacramento, CA

Ongoing Challenges with Pedestrian Safety Data May 15: 10:15AM-11:45AM PedsCount! 2014 May 14-16, 2014 Sacramento, CA David Ragland, Director, Safe Transportation Research & Education Center (SafeTREC), UC Berkeley www.safetrec.berkeley.edu

Session Topic While California is ahead of many states in our data collection efforts around pedestrian travel and safety, there are many ongoing challenges with data collection efforts across the state. Our panelists will describe what those challenges are and help us come up with solutions to address them! 2

Topics Pedestrian Fatal and Severe Injury in California Pedestrian Data Task Force #1 Priority: Analyze 2009 National Household Travel Survey, California Add-On Data #2 Priority: Train police on appropriate procedures for coding pedestrian crashes as part of the POST program and Collision Investigation Manual #3 Priority: Support Current Research Efforts to Develop Counting and Modeling Methods for Pedestrian Exposure on the State Highway System #4 Priority: Conduct a study to identify the rate of pedestrian crash underreporting in the SWITRS database Underlying Goal Institutionalize Pedestrian-Related Data 3

Percent of Traffic Fatalities in California that are Pedestrians 2009-2011 Fatal N % Pedestrian 1,875 21.7 Non-Pedestrian 6,775 78.3 Total 8,650 100.0 Almost 22% of traffic fatalities in California are pedestrians [Up from 17% in 2008]

Pedestrian Fatalities California State Highway System and Non-State Highway System 2009-2011 Fatal N % State Highway 526 28.1 Non-State Highway 1,349 71.9 Total 1,875 100.0 About 28% of pedestrian fatalities during 2009-2011 took place on the State Highway System This has been more or less constant for at least the past 10 years

Pedestrian Fatalities in California 2001-2011 CA8 Fatalities 721 702 712 694 748 736 666 642 596 623 656 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 6

Pedestrian Severe Injuries in California 2001-2011 CA8 Severe Injuries 1,999 1,914 1,857 1,825 1,836 1,744 1,875 1,720 1,705 1,629 1,614 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 7

Pedestrian Fatality and Serious Injury Percent of Total 8

Priority SHSP 8.5 Pedestrian Safety Data Task Force q An outgrowth of the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), Challenge Area 8 Make walking and street crossing safer q Effort began in the summer of 2008 q q Collaboration between CDPH and multiple agencies Holly Sisneros, MPH, PedSafe Program, California Department of Public Health 10

The Task Force Directive Priority 5: Establish a Caltrans-led Pedestrian Safety Data Think Tank to develop and implement a comprehensive Pedestrian Safety Data Plan which: improves and institutionalizes pedestrian safety data collection and analysis ensures that existing data collection efforts include data on pedestrian fatalities, injuries and exposure implements a readily available format for local research and investigation. 11

Task Force Participants Consists of scientists and other experts from several key agencies, including: ª ª ª ª ª ª ª ª ª Caltrans California Department of Public Health (Lead) California Office of Traffic Safety California Department of Motor Vehicles California Highway Patrol California State Automobile Association Federal Highway Administration National Highway Transportation Safety Administration UC Berkeley SafeTREC 12

Underlying Goals Evaluation and improvement of data Improved access to data Improved analysis of data Institutionalization of data collection and management

Data Categories Pedestrian Crash Data Pedestrian Injury Surveillance Data Pedestrian-Related Infrastructure Data Pedestrian Exposure Data Driver Data

Purposes of Crash Data Determine the burden of traffic collisions Identify trends and patterns Determine causal factors Plan, implement, and evaluate countermeasures

Purposes of Injury Surveillance Data Determine magnitude and patterns of injuries Determine under-reporting Planning for medical response Determine effectiveness of medical response Evaluate methods to control energy transfer

Purposes of Infrastructure Data Track infrastructure status Conduct maintenance Evaluate capacity Identify high risk locations Basis for resource allocation Comply with ADA

Purposes of Exposure Data Determine the amount of walking (or mode share) Determine risk (collisions, injuries or fatalities per unit of exposure) Compare risk across groups, geographic areas and types of roadway Evaluate trends over time Assess the impact of countermeasures.

Purposes of Driver Data Identify characteristics of drivers involved in pedestrian crashes Identify drivers who may be at high risk for being involved in a pedestrian-related crash Support new/revised laws

Purposes of Linking Data Crash data + Infrastructure data + Exposure data Risk analysis Spatial analysis Countermeasure analysis

Recommendations were mostly about: Improving data (amount and quality) Analysis and modeling Linking Improving access

Top Four Recommendations Recommendation Rank Analyze 2009 Na-onal Household Travel Survey, California Add- On Data Train police on appropriate procedures for coding pedestrian crashes as part of the POST program and Collision Inves-ga-on Manual Support Current Research Efforts to Develop Coun-ng and Modeling Methods for Pedestrian Exposure on the State Highway System Conduct a study to iden-fy the rate of pedestrian crash underrepor-ng in the SWITRS database 1 2 3 4

#1 Analyze 2009 Na-onal Household Travel Survey, California Add- On Data Currently being analyzed California add-on provides enhanced data on pedestrian travel Estimate of total number and type of pedestrian trips at state, county, census tract level No information on specific locations Questions not exactly the same compared to earlier surveys 24

Safety analysis Using NHTS Severe injury per distance walked Annual Severe Pedestrian Accidents Per 1000 Weekday Miles Walked ATLC Advisory Group Meeting February 20, 2014 Presentation by Susan Handy ITS, UCD 25

Trends in Walking / Nancy McGuickin Walking is Not Dead: Recent Findings from the NHTS 26

#2 Train police on appropriate procedures for coding pedestrian crashes as part of the POST program and Collision Inves-ga-on Manual Information on the circumstances of the collisions may be inadequate to evaluate causes and identify appropriate countermeasures. Depends on revision of CHP 555 Form (i.e., Collision Reporting Form) Depends on strong advocates within enforcement 28

Improving Police Collision Report (e.g., CHP 555 Form) CALPED Task Force (after lengthy process) proposed changes to the CHP 555 collision report The issue was taken up by CA 08 (Pedestrian)

Example of Recommended Improvement to the CHP 555 Form A B C D E F G H I NO PEDESTRIANS INVOLVED XING IN CROSSWALK - AT INTERSECTION XING IN CROSSWALK - NOT AT INTERSECTION CROSSING - NOT IN CROSSWALK IN ROAD - INCLUDES SHOULDER NOT IN ROAD - INCLUDES SIDEWALK APPRCHNG/LVING SCHL BUS/TRANSIT STOP CROSSING - WHERE PROHIBITED* AT DRIVEWAY J CROSSWALK MARKED M NUMBER OF LANES CROSSED (ENTER #) 30

#3 Current Research Efforts to Develop Coun5ng and Modeling Methods for Pedestrian Exposure on the State Highway System Numerous pedestrian counting projects Pilot project to add pedestrian volume (and infrastructure) data to TASAS (SafeTREC) 32

Previous Session Capturing Trips on Foot: An Introduction to the Benefits & Challenges of Pedestrian Counts This breakout session is geared to those new in the field of pedestrian safety. Come learn what a pedestrian count is, what it s used for, and what some of the potential shortcomings are with current methods. 33

#4 Conduct a study to iden5fy the rate of pedestrian crash underrepor5ng in the SWITRS database A topic mentioned at almost every meeting of CA 08 and other pedestrian/cyclist safety meetings Proposal to add SHSP goal to CA 08. Pilot data 35

Approach to under-reporting Under-reporting may be partially addressed by using EMS and hospital discharge information related to pedestrian injuries and fatalities.

Under-reporting of pedestrian fatalities SWITRS vs EPIC (1995-2011) YEAR SWITRS EPIC DIFF 1995 834 972 16.55% 1996 795 931 17.11% 1997 782 784 0.26% 1998 698 727 4.15% 1999 688 773 12.35% 2000 689 760 10.30% 2001 721 852 18.17% 2002 702 816 16.24% 2003 712 873 22.61% 2004 694 866 24.78% 2005 748 882 17.91% 2006 736 904 22.83% 2007 666 838 25.83% 2008 642 740 15.26% 2009 596 711 19.30% 2010 623 742 19.10% 2011 656 727 10.82% TOTAL 11,982 13,898 15.99% *** EPIC cause: unintentional MVT, Pedestrian + unintentional Pedestrian, other *** SWITRS Table 7G

Under-reporting of pedestrian fatalities SWITRS vs EPIC (Three Time Periods) Year SWITRS EPIC DIFF 1997-2001 3,578 3,896 8.16% 2002-2006 3,592 4,341 17.25% 2007-2011 3,183 3,758 15.30% 38

Crash Medical Outcomes Data (CMOD) Project* Link crash data to medical outcome data Directly determine fatalities and injuries not in police reports *Mary (Kit) Lackey, Lynn Walton-Haynes CA Department of Public Health, Safe and Active Communities Branch 39

Underlying Goal Institutionalize Pedestrian-Related Data To make something an established custom or an accepted part of the structure of a large organization or society (Encarta)

Modes of Institutionalizing Pedestrian Data Laws (e.g., MAP-21) Funding Streams (e.g., Safe Routes to School, Rural Highway Safety) Design manuals (e.g., AASHTO Green Book, MUTCD) and traffic engineering manuals Professional Training (e.g., Planning, Traffic Engineering) Data Bases (e.g., collisions, volume)

Highway Safety Improvement Program NPRM The FHWA proposes to revise the definition for the term highway to match the definition of 23 U.S.C. 101(a) and clarify the provision that HSIP funds can be used for highway safety improvement projects on any facility that serves pedestrians and bicyclists pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 148(e)(1)(A). 43

National Performance Measures NPRM Comment Received The FHWA should define performance measures that specifically evaluate the number of fatalities and serious injuries for pedestrian and bicycles crashes. The FHWA should require that bicycle and pedestrian crashes and fatalities be reported nationally and by State and MPO. 44

National Performance Measures NPRM Comment Received The FHWA should account for the safety of all road users by including separate measures for motorized and non-motorized (e.g., pedestrian, bicycle) transportation. Having separate measures will allow State DOTs to utilize some HSIP funds on non- motorized transportation without any detriment to safety efforts for other road users. 45

Sum Several categories of data, many sources Purposes/needs for data are clear Large number of activities around the state (evidenced by this Conference) A great deal of work to do!