TRAVELING BY BUS INSTEAD OF CAR IN MONTREAL: SAFETY BENEFITS FOR VEHICLE OCCUPANTS AND PEDESTRIANS AND ITS ASSOCIATION WITH GEOMETRY Jillian Strauss Postdoctoral fellow École Polytechnique de Montréal Patrick Morency Medical advisor Direction de Santé Publique de Montréal Catherine Morency Associate professor École Polytechnique de Montréal Collaborators: Francois Tessier, Sophie Goudreau, Jean-Simon Bourdeau, Pierre-Léo Bourbonnais Research financed by: The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
OUTLINE Context Objectives and methodology Results Car versus bus occupant injuries Pedestrian injuries Scenarios Discussion
Probability of death and injury Fatality rate in a car versus in a bus Per kilometre travelled: 10 times greater in a car (Europe; 2001-2002) 1 Per trip: 23 times greater (USA; 1999-2003) 2 Injury rate Per kilometre travelled: 4.3 times greater in a car (Norvège; 1998-2005) 3 Per trip: 5 time greater (USA; 1999-2003) 2 1. ETSC (2003) Transport safety performance in the European Union: A Statistical Overview, European Transport Safety Council, Brussels 2. Beck, L.; Dellinger, A. & O'Neil, M. Motor vehicle crash injury rates by mode of travel, United States: using exposure-based methods to quantify differences. American Journal of Epidemiology, Oxford Univ Press, 2007, 166, 212-218 3. Elvik, R 2009, 'The non-linearity of risk and the promotion of environmentally sustainable transport' Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol 41, no. 4, pp. 849-855.
Décès / 100 millions de déplacements *Beck & al., Am J Epidemiology, 2007; 166: 212-218. Probability of death in a car versus in a bus (USA, 1999-2003*) Fatality (/ 100 million trips) 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 9,2 0,4 Automobile Car Autobus Bus
Limitations of «aggregated» studies at the country level Risk of injury can vary by context (ex. urbain/rural) Include different types of buses (ex. public, interurbain, écoliers) Do not explore the effects of road and intersection geometry Do not consider pedestrians and cyclists injured by cars and buses
OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY
Objectives 1. Estimate and compare the injury risk for car and bus occupants 2. Investigate the impact of road geometry and vehicle exposure on injuries and injury risk 3. Compare pedestrian injuries and injury risk associated with car and bus travel
Study environment : Island of Montreal bus network (2008)
Data Estimated volumes (2008 O-D survey) Number of buses and cars Number of vehicle occupants (bus & car) Pedestrian volumes (walk only and to and from transit) Infrastructures Road segments - number of lanes 1 Intersections - number of approaches 2 Injuries Geo-coded accidents from police reports 4,5 (2004-2013) Sources of data: 1 Chaire mobilité, École Polytechnique; 2 OpenStreetMap; 3 STM, 2008; 4 SAAQ, 2004-2013. 5 Direction de santé publique de Montréal.
Corridor definition: Same name and same number of lanes Number of lanes Water Number of lanes length (km) 3 (green) 0.73 4 (purple) 0.20 5+ (orange) 1.42
Corridor selection 994 km (Bus network) Missing number of lanes (-200 km) Corridors < 1 km (-200km) 594 km (242 studied corridors)
Infrastructure Volumes Injuries Analysis: negative binomial regression Car and bus occupants Pedestrians Number of injuries / km Number of injuries / intersection Car and bus occupants Cars and buses Pedestrians Number of lanes (2, 3-4, 5+) Reserved bus lane (Y/N) Density of intersections Number of approaches (3 ou 4+) Corridors* Intersections X X X X X X X X X * Corridors include road segments and intersections
RESULTS
Injury rate ( / million pass-km per year) Injuries per passenger-kilometre (entire region) 3 2.5 2 1.5 Bus Occupant Car Occupant Pedestrian 1 0.5 0
Severe and fatal injury rate ( / million pass-km per year) 0.35 Severe and fatal injuries per passengerkilometre (entire region) 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 Bus Occupant Car Occupant Pedestrian
Injury rate (/ million passenger-kilometre per year) Probability of injury in a car versus in a bus (corridors) 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 Usagers Occupants d autobus Bus occupants d'autobus Occupants Automobilistes Car occupants d'automobile 1.0 0.0 Ratio of injury rate car/bus = 7.1
Traffic volume and geometry Effect on the number of injured car occupants / km Volume of car occupants (+ 10%) : injuries (+ 1.7%) Density of intersections / km (+ 1%) : injuries (+ 11%) Number of lanes 3 or 4 lanes (vs 1 or 2) : injuries (+ 52%) 5 voies ou + (vs 1 or 2) : injuries (+ 75%) * Similar models were generated for injured bus occupants
Number of injuries / km Volumes Effect on the number of injuries / km 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Automobilistes Car occupants Usagers Bus occupants d'autobus 0 5000 10000 Number of vehicle occupants / day 15000
Number of injuries / km Geometry Effect on the number of injuries / km 250 200 150 100 11 ou or 2 voies lanes 33 ou or 4 voies lanes 55 voies lanesou or plus more 50 0 Auto Car (15 000 car occupants) Bus (15 000 bus occupants)
Pedestrians injured at intersections
Pedestrians injured (/ 100 intersections per year) Pedestrians injured at intersections, Car vs. bus travel 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Par By autobus Par By car automobile Ratio of injuries by car/by bus = 22
Traffic volumes and geometry Effect on the number of pedestrians injured at intersections Volume of cars (+ 10%) : injuries (+ 1.7%) Volume of pedestrians (+ 10%) : injuries (+ 7.7%) Number of approaches 4 or + (vs. 3) : injuries (+39%) * Similar models were generated for injured buses
Number of injuries Scenario Overall reduction of 28% Reduce number of cars by 25% Reduce number of lanes + If 5 lanes or more 3 or 4 lanes 3500 3000 2500 2000 Automobiliste Car occupant Usagers Bus occupant d'autobus Piéton Pedestrian If 3 or 4 lanes 1 or 2 lanes 1500 1000 + Increase pedestrian volumes by 25% 500 0 Current Volumes existants volumes New volumes Scénario B
DISCUSSION
Principal results Car and bus occupants injured along corridors On the bus network, the probability of injury is (7x) higher for car occupants than for bus occupants For the same level of car and bus occupants, the probability of injury increases with the number of lanes The probability of injury increases with the density of intersections Pedestrians injured at intersections Number of pedestrians injured increases with: Volume of vehicles Number of pedestrians Intersections with 4 approaches or more
Principal results Scenario Reducing number of cars and number of lanes Reduces number of injuries Benefits persist even if the number of pedestrians increases
Strengths and limitations Strengths Disaggregate analysis (per corridor) Regression models include road geometry Consider pedestrian injuries associated with car and bus travel Limitations Incomplete bus network
Conclusion Public transit can greatly contribute to the improvement of road safety, If reduce car volumes If reduce the number of lanes dedicated to cars
THANK YOU