Pedestrian
Safety in
Five
Years of Progress & Pitfalls
August 2002
Surface
Transportation Policy Project
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
Summary.................................................................................................................. ..1
Cheers &
Jeers.......................................................................................................... ..2
TABLE 1: Most
Dangerous California Counties for Pedestrians........................... 12
TABLE 2: Most
Dangerous California Cities for Pedestrians................................. 13
Analysis of
2001 Data............................................................................................. 15
TABLE 3:
Pedestrian Incidents in
TABLE 4: Most
Dangerous California Counties for Pedestrians:
Historical Rankings
1997-2001.............................................................................. 18
TABLE 5:
Pedestrians as a Percentage of Overall Traffic Fatalities.................... 19
TABLE 6: Change
in Commuters Walking to Work 1990-2000........................... 20
Methodology............................................................................................................. 21
In 1997, a group of civic activists in .A.. Walks” – an
apparent oxymoron for those more familiar with southern -profile battle, --
contesting a controversial plan to remove crosswalks throughout the city and
Although L.A. Walks’ opposition to the
crosswalk removal policy was initially ignored by city and county
transportation officials, the group’s efforts helped spark pedestrian safety
movements around the state. Soon after, Santa Monica, –
a city filled with senior citizens and dependent on the wanderings of tourists, –
decided to suspend their its crosswalk
removal plans and to focus instead on slowing traffic and enhancing pedestrian
safety. In the San Francisco Bay Area, a pedestrian advocacy group called BayPeds released a report in 1999 that listed every
intersection in the region in which pedestrians where had been killed
by motor vehicles. Artists in wake. And business owners around
Pedestrian safety and advocacy groups now
exist in most sizeable
–In 2000, an
arcane state law that prevents local governments from lowering speed limits on
residential streets was made more flexible, and a measure (AB2522) that
enhances the rights of pedestrians in
Just five years ago, no one would have
predicted such a flurry of both public and political activity over the issue of
walking and the safety of pedestrians. California has once again found itself
at the forefront of a national movement, one that moves beyond simply
advocating for more crosswalks and falls squarely in the middle of the fight
for better neighborhoods, enhanced public safety, social justice, healthier and
more active kids, and ultimately a stronger democracy where citizens care about
the places they live and are given a chance to make them better.
This report represents the latest
analysis of pedestrian injuries and fatalities for many changes
in the efforts that have helped build safer streets and more walkable communities. While there is still much work to be
done in
Here,
then, is the news that deserves both “cheers” as well as “jeers” – the good
news and the challenges that remain – in making :
The
The
most recent addition to the pedestrian advocacy movement in of 2002,
this statewide organization designed to coordinate and strengthen local walk
groups and give them a louder voice in the state capitol. For more information,
contact Zac Wald (510-682-5605) at
California Walks.
The
,, sets aside $25
million a year in federal transportation funds to make it safer for CHECK
THIS) added flexibility to an arcane state law (the so-called “85th
percentile rule”) that prevents local governments from lowering speed limits on
residential streets (see the “Jeers” section below for why thise
law still encourages speeding). A bill (SB1555) that is currently pending in
the legislature would establish a $3.25 million annual pedestrian and bicycle
safety and education fund at the state level. For more information, contact the STPP’s s
of the Surface Transportation Policy Project.
The Incredible Shrinking Street: Three lanes are Better
than Four. All over
the , and in towns throughout – and city councils
have endorsed, – the widening of streets to
accommodate increased traffic. The two two-lane street is
close to becoming an endangered species in many fast fast-growing
communities. But street widenings – and the move
toward four- and six six-lane
streets
– are more often than not a death knell for pedestrians.
Now, armed with new
traffic engineering techniques and research that two two-lane
streets can work just as efficiently as four four-lane
streets,
– as
long as a dedicated turn lane is provided, – communities
across the country are shrinking their streets, widening sidewalks and adding
bicycle lanes. Examples of this change exist or are proposed in more than 20
California cities, including. Those include Sacramento (Auburn
Boulevard); San Francisco (Valencia Street); Mountain View (Dana Street and
Cuesta streets); Sunnyvale
(Mary Avenue); Palo Alto (University Avenue &and
East Meadow Drive); Santa Barbara; San Jose (proposed on 10th &
11th streets south of Santa Clara); Santa Cruz (Soquel Avenue – proposed);
Willow Creek (Main Street); Oakland (Grand Avenue); and Santa Monica
(Main Street).For more information, contact Dan Burden at Walkable
Communities (Dburden@aol.com) or Surface Transportation Policy ProjectSTPP
(415-956-7795).
The California Department of Transportation: A Change in
Thinking. Prior to
the late 1990s, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) was heavily criticized for not paying enough
attention to the needs of local communities. But things have started to change
within the ranks of the massive agency. The devotion of resources specifically
targeted towards walkable communities and pedestrian
safety,
– while
still small in comparison to the scope of the problem, –
has started to make a difference. In addition to the $25 million per year
devoted to the Safe Routes to School program for local construction projects, Caltrans is pursuing a pedestrian travel and behavior
survey, a bicycle and pedestrian education campaign and several lines of
research towards the goal of safer and more pedestrian-friendly streets. Caltrans has also started a new Office of Community
Planning and distributed planning grants for local cities and towns to help
them promote livable neighborhoods and traffic safety measures. Caltrans has also unveiled a new “Context Sensitive
Solutions” policy, – an effort to
replace their rigid “one-size-fits-all” engineering
standards with more flexible roadway design guidelines that many hope will
allow greater flexibility to incorporate the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists,
local businesses and other important local stakeholders. For more information,
contact Ken Baxter at the Caltrans Office of
Community Planning (916-654-2719).
Project staff regularly
conduct outreach to schoolchildren, parents, seniors and neighborhood
groups. Using tools such as the
Also noteworthy is the recent
introduction of a pedestrian master plan for the City. Project staff developed
this plan to serve as a blueprint for safety pedestrian
practices and an index of priorities. If approved, it will be one of the
state’s first comprehensive programs specifically created for pedestrians. For
more information, contact Tom Van DeMark at the City
of
City of one one-way
streets to increase traffic capacity and speeds. Yet at the turn of the twenty-first 21st century,
communities across the country are increasingly turning one one-way
streets back into two two-way streets,
realizing that pedestrians, nearby homeowners and adjacent business owners all
benefit from the traditional two-way street design.
Convinced
that neighborhood livability and downtown business development should take
precedence over traffic speeds (a majority of which was found to be cutting
through the city without stopping downtown or anywhere else), the San Jose City
Council voted in June 2001 to convert 10 major one one-way
thoroughfares back into two two-way streets.
Many other streets are slated for additional enhancements to protect
pedestrians and promote walking and bicycling, and the city’s “traffic calming”
fund was increased from $300,000 to $5 million in the last couple of years. For
more information, contact Russell Westbrook at Walk San Jose
(russ@walksanjose.org, or 408-295-4715)
or Harry Freitas with the City of
City
of provides holds as one of
its seven guiding principles that "Pasadena Shall be a Place Where People
Can Circulate Without Cars." Since then the city
has undergone a quiet renaissance, and has recently increased its
pedestrian-friendly efforts. Bucking national and statewide trends, – iIn
one case,
installing
an experimental crosswalk with embedded flashing lights in the
pavement
was installed, as were, and installing
all-way pedestrian scrambles in the revitalized Old Pasadena neighborhood. Two
years ago an enclosed auto-oriented shopping mall fell to wrecking balls and
was resurrected last fall as a pedestrian-oriented mixed-use development not
far from a future light-rail train station.
oriented
development within transit zones and elsewhere, an increase in the local free
shuttle bus from two lines to nine, ordinances to increase sidewalk widths and
development design guidelines to encourage pedestrian and bicycle mobility. In
addition, the Metro Gold Line light rail train service (with six stations in as
many miles in in less than a year by late 2002
or early 2003 and heralds a new era of pedestrian -oriented
opportunities. For more information, contact Roger Gray at Pasadena Walks! (626.-399.-4729).
City,
County & Region of for decades to come. The City has
dubbed its plan the “City of
The the this information
as baseline data to measures impacts of municipal pedestrian
safety and traffic-calming programs. The report is also seen as an enabling
tool for community groups to identify problems in their areas and take action.
Neighborhood organizations have used the data to persuade elected officials to
include or increase pedestrian safety elements in proposed developments. Others
have included it in grant applications to teach schoolchildren about injury
prevention.
Finally, the regional
transportation agency in the area, the San Diego Association of Governments
(SANDAG),,
recently took a significant steptowards by adopting “Planning and
Designing for Pedestrians: Model Guidelines for the San Diego Region.” The
guidelines are the first document in the San Diego County’s injury
mapping report can be viewed at
http://www.sdsafecommunities.com/Images/SafeCity2000Plus.pdf.
in the fall of 2000. Initially,
surveys showed that 21 percent of kids at its nine pilot schools walked or
biked to school. The county’s strategies included After two
years of an intensive “Safe Routes to School” program combining the addition
of new bicycle and pedestrian facilities, with student
incentives (such as a Frequent Rider Miles contest),
a public media campaign and a massive outreach and education effort., surveys
indicated that 38 percent of kids in participating schools now walk or bike to
school. The
Town of Mill Valley adjusted a traffic signal where a bike path and sidewalk
feed into an elementary school to give children more time to cross. The Town of
Before the campaign, surveys
showed that 21 percent of kids at its nine pilot schools walked or biked to
school. Two years after the county program started, surveys
indicate that 38 percent of kids who attend participating schools now walk
or bike to school. A
s a result of the campaign, the number of
children who get to school by car dropped significantly, falling from well over
half of all home to school trips in 2000 to 38 percent in 2002. The broad-based
effort has won financial support from a wide variety of sources, including the
California Department of Health Services and the U.S. Department of
Transportation. For more information, contact the Marin County Bicycle
Coalition (MCBC): Debbie Hubsmith (415-456-3469 or
debbie@marinbike.org) or Wendi Kallins
(415-488-4101
or wendi@marinbike.org).
City
of (NTMP).
In June of
2002, s
users like bicyclists and pedestrians. The initiative also calls for marked
crosswalks at all intersections, a new policy on mini -traffic
roundabouts, and countdown pedestrian signals and at high- volume
intersections. For more information, contact Anne Geraghty
at Sacramento Walks (916-444-5864) or Mike Kashigawa, Director of Public Works with the City of
City
of its this city’s residents,
of which two-thirds are Latino and nearly one-tenth are Asian. The initiative
was developed in partnership with city agencies, schools and community
organizations, and it also convened a 25-member task force
that included ethnic-based groups, the medical community, automobile clubs and
elected officials.
The
program focused on developing culturally and linguistically appropriate tools
and materials that could eventually be used throughout the state. Project
staff, community organizations and city agencies worked together to develop a
“Pedestrian Safety Toolkit” that included an assessment tool, solution guidebook,
educational video with guide and public information materials written in both
Spanish and English. Program activities continue today as the City of
City of ,
and require traffic calming in all new developments. Since most of the city is
built out, and many residential streets are wide and dangerous, the program
also included a new Residential Traffic Management Program (RTMP). Through the
RTMP, residents may request traffic calming treatments on problem streets. In
creating the program, the
In July 2002, the city council approved a
new development called Bressi Ranch..
The 623-home development is the first to be approved following adoption of the
Livable Streets Standards. Consistent with the new standards, Bressi Ranch features narrower streets, traffic calming
devices, a modified grid street pattern and sidewalks separated from the curb
by a planting
strips.
Speeding traffic will be all but impossible thanks to the inclusion of four
traffic circles and corner “bulb-outs” at most intersections. The
development includes 2two million square
feet of light industry/offices, a commercial center, 200 assisted living units,
apartments, homes and estate homes. Parks are scattered throughout the
development, which is surrounded by permanently protected habitat areas and
walking paths. For more information, contact Walk San Diego (858-650-4671 or mail@walksandiego.org).
Ppedestrian
needs, and it conducted technical analysis to support and document the ways in
which and
very important walking as element of contributes to the
quality of urban life. The MTA also conducted three pedestrian symposia to
gather input from local cities and community stakeholders to better determine
pedestrian needs in transportation and to discuss the incorporation of
pedestrian needs into local cities planning efforts. The MTA has also increased
funding for pedestrian projects from $2 million per year in 1993 to $10
million per year in 2001. For more information, contact James Rojas at the MTA
(213-629-9122, or 213-922-2451).
City of
These
campaign
messages by ad agency Goody
Silverstein & Partners was were probably the
most visible and talked about component of a citywide education and outreach
campaign on aggressive driving and pedestrian safety. These activities were
initiated by a city supervisor’s concern about the high numbers of pedestrian
injuries in National HighwaNational Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
City
of
City of they .
The result was a redesign of the problem intersection, converting making it
into a
four-way stop and adding pedestrian refuge islands. Momentum grew, and after a Ttown
Hhall
Mmeeting
was held to explore the possibilities to improve the conditions for pedestrians
citywide, citizens formed Pedestrian-Friendly Alameda (PFA). In the past year
and a half, PFA has succeeded in blocking the planned removal of a crosswalk,
convinced public works officials to repaint and add crosswalks at dangerous
intersections, helped develop encouraged the implementation
of the local Police Department's Selective Traffic Enforcement and
Education Program (STEEP), won support for new pedestrian countdown clocks and
assisted the city in preparing a Safe Routes to School grant.
PFA brought "Walk a
Child to School Day" to In
2002, partnering with Parent-teacher associations (PTAs),
we joined soon after, and 12
elementary schools are now involved. PFA, in partnership with the PTA Council,
introduced the "Keep Kids Alive - Drive 25" awareness program to Tthe
Police Department's STEEP Program resulted in a 39% percent decrease in
automobile-pedestrian accidents and a 152% percent increase in issued
citations for pedestrian right -of- way
violations. The local newspaper ran two full full-page
ads supported by local businesses, that read, "The speed
limit in . PFA is a member
of the Alameda Transportation Coalition, - three
transportation-related advocacy groups that have come
together to bring an even stronger voice to pedestrian and bicycle safety and to transportation
issues. For more information, contact PFA at 510-522-4651
or www.pedfriendly.org.
City of Yet lLocal residents
became upset and a petition to restripe the
crosswalks was circulated that attracted over 700 signatures. Signors
represented a broad cross-section of the community, including business owners,
PTAs,
associations
and local safety and civic groups. The overwhelming response from
local residents helped form a new pedestrian advocacy group for the area, “a safer streets to heart,
and starting repainting them in 2001. Several tragic fatalities have recently
occurred on the street, but thankfully Caltrans
responded
by is now pursuing a policy to make the
pedestrian crossings even more visible by adding overhead flashing lights and putting in more
prominent ladder markings as part of the crosswalks. For more information,
contact Debbie Bulger at
Removing
Crosswalks: Less Isn’t More.
Segways on Sidewalks:
Watch Your Back.
As if dodging fast moving speeding vehicles
while crossing the street isn’t bad enough, now the Segway
– the fast- moving electric
“vehicle” that may indeed revolutionize short-distance transportation as its
founder claims – is poised to invade sidewalks in legislation either pending or
approved in 20 states across the country. The The bill would prohibit Segways from traveling in
bike lanes or in the street on slower residential roads.
The
truth is that Segways aren’t pedestrians;,
they’re a new form of vehicle. They should be welcomed into the traffic flow
and protected from faster moving traffic where necessary. Riding
them on sidewalks in a few sparsely populated areas maybe OK. But
restricting them only to sidewalks and defining them as “pedestrians” isn’t.
For more information on safety issues related to the Segway
scooter, visit http://www.injurycenter.org/segway/ segway.cfm.
Pedestrian
Barricades: Inconvenient, Inconsiderate and Downright Dangerous.
Another familiar sign that you’re in a –
reasoning that pedestrians in a crosswalk will hold up the flow of traffic. But
the result is that many pedestrians are thus forced to cross three legs of an
intersection rather than one, tripling both the number of potential conflicts
with a vehicle as well as and the actual
distance that a pedestrian has to walk.
New
all-red pedestrian “scrambles” at some intersections in and
similar ideas, and complementary technologies ought
to be enough to ban the “No Pedestrian Crossing” signs in
The
Invisible Majority: Undercounting cCensus
Bureau, and those only count the number of people over 16 years old who
walk to work. Several other studies that have counted
walking as a mode of transportation have found that pedestrian journeys account
for between 8 eight and 10
percent of all trips in
Disappearing
Dollars: Failing to Put Our Money Where our Mouth is.
Transportation agencies in general have failed to spend any money on pedestrian
safety, often citing the issue as a local problem or city concern and not a
legitimate transportation issue. Unfortunately,
Several
notable exceptions to this trend in Rregional
Ttransportation
Aagencies,
and even local transportation sales tax measures should all contain earmark at
least 10 percent of their funding for measures that contribute to more bicycle
and pedestrian-friendly streets.
The
85th Percentile Rule: A License to Speed.
Speed is one of the most critical factors in both the
severity of pedestrian-vehicle collisions as well as the overall comfort and
appeal of the walking environment. Anyone can tell you that walking along a six -lane
arterial where the average speed is 50 mph isn’t a pleasant experience. And
pedestrians hit by a car traveling 40 mph have only a 5five
percent chance of survival, while being hit at 20 mph gives you an 85 percent
chance of living.
Unfortunately,
the speed of the 85th
fastest car out of every 100. If a speed study of a street shows that people
are routinely driving faster than the speed limit, local officials actually
have to raise the speed limit. While
the law was amended to allow some consideration for pedestrians, bicyclists and
residential density, these amendments don’t go far enough. The 85th
percentile rule for speeding has turned local streets into speedways throughout
For
Whom the Bridge Tolls: Charging Pedestrians on the bridgelandmark. If
Turning Our Back
on the Problem: The both tend to both walk more and
to be exposed to faster, more dangerous streets). Another significant factor in
this equation is immigration. Understanding both ethnic and cultural
backgrounds are critical in terms of providing outreach and education to target
populations, particularly in native languages other than English.
California primary
would ban local and state agencies within Rrace. While some
exceptions are granted in the initiative, vehicle and pedestrian collisions are
not one of them.
|
TABLE 1: MOST DANGEROUS CALIFORNIA COUNTIES FOR PEDESTRIANS 2001 Counties with populations above 100,000 |
|||||||
|
2001 RANK |
County |
Pedestrian Fatalities 2001 (1) |
Pedestrian Injuries 2001 (1) |
Population 2001 (2) |
Pedestrian Incident Rate 2001 |
Pedestrian Exposure Index (3) |
Pedestrian Danger Index 2001 |
|
1 |
SOLANO |
6 |
139 |
405,800 |
35.7 |
1.6 |
100 |
|
2 |
|
30 |
551 |
1,279,900 |
45.4 |
2.1 |
96.8 |
|
3 |
LOS ANGELES |
233 |
5,685 |
9,824,800 |
60.2 |
2.9 |
93.0 |
|
4 |
CONTRA COSTA |
14 |
289 |
981,600 |
30.9 |
1.5 |
92.2 |
|
5 |
|
17 |
248 |
596,000 |
44.5 |
2.3 |
86.6 |
|
6 |
|
6 |
280 |
717,000 |
39.9 |
2.1 |
85.1 |
|
7 |
|
22 |
563 |
1,719,600 |
34.0 |
1.8 |
84.6 |
|
8 |
STANISLAUS |
14 |
184 |
469,500 |
42.2 |
2.4 |
78.7 |
|
9 |
KERN |
16 |
210 |
687,600 |
32.9 |
1.9 |
77.5 |
|
10 |
|
24 |
775 |
1,486,600 |
53.7 |
3.2 |
75.2 |
|
11 |
|
54 |
892 |
2,939,500 |
32.2 |
2.0 |
72.1 |
|
12 |
|
13 |
240 |
780,100 |
32.4 |
2.1 |
69.2 |
|
13 |
|
11 |
72 |
218,900 |
37.9 |
3.0 |
56.6 |
|
14 |
|
20 |
922 |
793,600 |
118.7 |
9.4 |
56.5 |
|
15 |
|
35 |
358 |
1,644,300 |
23.9 |
1.9 |
56.3 |
|
16 |
|
52 |
480 |
1,783,700 |
29.8 |
2.4 |
55.6 |
|
17 |
MARIN |
4 |
86 |
249,900 |
36.0 |
3.0 |
53.8 |
|
18 |
|
5 |
32 |
129,700 |
28.5 |
2.4 |
53.2 |
|
19 |
|
66 |
1,106 |
2,918,300 |
40.2 |
3.4 |
52.9 |
|
20 |
SHASTA |
2 |
40 |
169,200 |
24.8 |
2.2 |
50.5 |
|
21 |
|
18 |
204 |
826,600 |
26.9 |
2.4 |
50.1 |
|
22 |
|
8 |
98 |
379,200 |
28.0 |
2.5 |
50.1 |
|
23 |
PLACER |
5 |
42 |
264,900 |
17.7 |
1.7 |
46.7 |
|
24 |
|
6 |
142 |
471,000 |
31.4 |
3.1 |
45.4 |
|
25 |
|
6 |
153 |
407,900 |
39.0 |
4.0 |
43.6 |
|
26 |
|
2 |
61 |
207,000 |
30.4 |
3.4 |
40.1 |
|
27 |
|
3 |
97 |
260,200 |
38.4 |
4.4 |
39.1 |
|
28 |
YOLO |
1 |
56 |
176,300 |
32.3 |
3.8 |
38.1 |
|
29 |
|
2 |
28 |
163,600 |
18.3 |
2.2 |
37.3 |
|
30 |
IMPERIAL |
1 |
45 |
150,800 |
30.5 |
3.7 |
36.9 |
|
31 |
|
2 |
38 |
128,000 |
31.3 |
4.1 |
34.1 |
|
32 |
KINGS |
3 |
30 |
133,100 |
24.8 |
3.3 |
33.6 |
|
33 |
HUMBOLDT |
3 |
56 |
127,700 |
46.2 |
6.5 |
31.8 |
|
34 |
|
3 |
105 |
409,600 |
26.4 |
3.8 |
31.1 |
|
35 |
|
2 |
34 |
253,600 |
14.2 |
3.7 |
17.2 |
|
|
|
721 |
14,545 |
35,037,000 |
43.6 |
2.9 |
67.3 |
|
(1) 2001
Provisional numbers from the (2) State of
(www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/E-1table.xls) (3) 2000 Census; Journey to Work Statistics See Methodology for more information on how
Pedestrian Danger Index is calculated |
|||||||
|
TABLE 2: MOST DANGEROUS CALIFORNIA CITIES FOR PEDESTRIANS --
2001 All California Cities Above 100,000 population as of |
|||||||
|
2001 Rank ** |
City (County) |
Pedestrian Fatalities 2001 (1) |
Pedestrian Injuries 2001 (1) |
Population 2001 (2) |
Pedestrian Incident Rate 2001 |
Pedestrian Exposure Index (3) |
Pedestrian Danger Index 2001* |
|
1 |
Vallejo (Solano) |
3 |
60 |
118,600 |
53.1 |
1.2 |
100 |
|
2 |
|
1 |
85 |
115,100 |
74.7 |
2.0 |
84.4 |
|
3 |
|
2 |
101 |
182,000 |
56.6 |
1.6 |
79.9 |
|
4 |
|
3 |
66 |
167,200 |
41.3 |
1.3 |
71.7 |
|
5 |
|
4 |
98 |
198,600 |
51.4 |
1.7 |
68.2 |
|
6 |
|
14 |
370 |
918,000 |
41.8 |
1.4 |
67.5 |
|
7 |
|
3 |
54 |
101,100 |
56.4 |
1.9 |
67.0 |
|
8 |
|
5 |
25 |
146,400 |
20.5 |
0.7 |
66.1 |
|
9 |
|
5 |
158 |
253,800 |
64.2 |
2.2 |
65.9 |
|
10 |
|
11 |
322 |
473,100 |
70.4 |
2.5 |
63.6 |
|
11 |
|
3 |
60 |
208,600 |
30.2 |
1.1 |
62.0 |
|
12 |
|
4 |
35 |
110,400 |
35.3 |
1.3 |
61.4 |
|
13 |
|
5 |
40 |
139,100 |
32.4 |
1.2 |
60.9 |
|
14 |
|
2 |
51 |
123,100 |
43.1 |
1.6 |
60.8 |
|
15 |
|
5 |
80 |
257,900 |
33.0 |
1.3 |
57.3 |
|
16 |
|
7 |
71 |
153,900 |
50.7 |
2.0 |
57.2 |
|
17 |
|
0 |
62 |
106,700 |
58.1 |
2.3 |
57.1 |
|
18 |
|
0 |
34 |
104,400 |
32.6 |
1.3 |
56.6 |
|
19 |
|
2 |
183 |
343,700 |
53.8 |
2.2 |
55.3 |
|
20 |
|
3 |
67 |
190,900 |
36.7 |
1.5 |
55.2 |
|
21 |
|
0 |
45 |
142,100 |
31.7 |
1.3 |
55.0 |
|
22 |
|
5 |
55 |
168,600 |
35.6 |
1.5 |
53.6 |
|
23 |
|
12 |
269 |
426,000 |
66.0 |
2.8 |
53.2 |
|
24 |
|
1 |
27 |
109,100 |
25.7 |
1.1 |
52.7 |
|
25 |
|
1 |
69 |
144,300 |
48.5 |
2.1 |
52.2 |
|
26 |
|
0 |
39 |
100,200 |
38.9 |
1.7 |
51.7 |
|
27 |
|
5 |
50 |
162,300 |
33.9 |
1.5 |
51.0 |
|
28 |
|
116 |
2,935 |
3,807,400 |
80.1 |
3.6 |
50.3 |
|
29 |
|
13 |
321 |
408,800 |
81.7 |
3.7 |
49.9 |
|
30 |
|
8 |
55 |
194,600 |
32.4 |
1.5 |
48.8 |
|
31 |
|
4 |
25 |
137,100 |
21.2 |
1.0 |
47.8 |
|
32 |
Palmdale ( |
2 |
24 |
123,700 |
21.0 |
1.0 |
47.5 |
|
33 |
|
3 |
129 |
200,200 |
65.9 |
3.2 |
46.5 |
|
34 |
Santa
Clarita ( |
2 |
38 |
158,300 |
25.3 |
1.3 |
43.9 |
|
35 |
|
4 |
49 |
137,000 |
38.7 |
2.0 |
43.7 |
|
36 |
|
2 |
50 |
102,800 |
50.6 |
2.7 |
42.3 |
|
37 |
|
4 |
45 |
110,700 |
44.3 |
2.4 |
41.7 |
|
38 |
|
1 |
56 |
148,400 |
38.4 |
2.1 |
41.3 |
|
39 |
|
2 |
19 |
115,500 |
18.2 |
1.0 |
41.1 |
|
40 |
|
10 |
158 |
441,900 |
38.0 |
2.1 |
40.9 |
|
41 |
|
5 |
129 |
334,700 |
40.0 |
2.3 |
39.3 |
|
42 |
|
3 |
54 |
152,900 |
37.3 |
2.2 |
38.3 |
|
43 |
|
2 |
42 |
102,300 |
43.0 |
2.6 |
37.4 |
|
44 |
|
3 |
31 |
123,900 |
27.4 |
1.7 |
36.5 |
|
TABLE 2: MOST DANGEROUS CALIFORNIA CITIES FOR PEDESTRIANS
-- 2001 All California Cities Above 100,000 population as of |
|||||||
|
2001 Rank ** |
City (County) |
Pedestrian Fatalities 2001 (1) |
Pedestrian Injuries 2001 (1) |
Population 2001 (2) |
Pedestrian Incident Rate 2001 |
Pedestrian Exposure Index (3) |
Pedestrian Danger Index 2001* |
|
45 |
|
2 |
30 |
132,800 |
24.1 |
1.5 |
36.3 |
|
46 |
|
9 |
70 |
189,800 |
41.6 |
2.6 |
36.2 |
|
47 |
|
1 |
80 |
119,500 |
67.8 |
4.3 |
35.6 |
|
48 |
|
23 |
627 |
1,255,700 |
51.8 |
3.6 |
32.5 |
|
49 |
|
2 |
27 |
134,000 |
21.6 |
1.6 |
30.6 |
|
50 |
|
4 |
50 |
129,300 |
41.8 |
3.2 |
29.5 |
|
51 |
|
20 |
922 |
793,600 |
118.7 |
9.4 |
28.5 |
|
52 |
|
3 |
95 |
269,400 |
36.4 |
3.0 |
27.4 |
|
53 |
|
2 |
83 |
138,800 |
61.2 |
5.3 |
26.1 |
|
54 |
|
4 |
37 |
132,900 |
30.9 |
2.9 |
24.0 |
|
55 |
|
2 |
23 |
121,000 |
20.7 |
2.1 |
22.2 |
|
56 |
|
1 |
25 |
104,300 |
24.9 |
3.2 |
17.6 |
|
57 |
|
1 |
106 |
104,600 |
102.3 |
14.9 |
15.5 |
|
58 |
|
1 |
23 |
157,500 |
15.2 |
4.8 |
7.2 |
|
* The ** Rankings based on 2000 Census Journey to Work (1) 2001 Provisional numbers from the (2) State of
(www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/E-1table.xls) (3) 2000 Census; Journey to Work Statistics |
|||||||
2001 Data
Analysis: Statewide Trends
A
sizeable number of traffic-related deaths and injuries every year are not
drivers and passengers but pedestrians, the most prevalent and yet the most
vulnerable users of our transportation network.
In 2001, for example, pedestrians accounted for more than 18 percent of
all traffic-related fatalities, and nearly five percent of all traffic-related
injuries, in
From
2000 to 2001, pedestrian deaths in
The
most recent statewide hospitalization records show that Latinos and
African-Americans are most at risk from pedestrian-vehicle collisions. In 1999-2000, Latinos comprised 30 percent of
the
Newly
available data also shows that fewer Californians are walking to work. According to the latest U.S. Census data, the
percentage of people who walk to work dropped between 1990 and 2000 in all but
two counties in
Most Dangerous
Counties for Pedestrians
Rapidly
growing regions of the
Topping
the list of hazardous counties in 2001 was
As
in many newly developed parts of
Rounding
out the top 10 most dangerous counties for 2001 are
There
appears to be a relationship between population increases and a rise in
per-capita traffic-related pedestrian injuries and deaths.
Most Dangerous
Cities for Pedestrians
The
rankings of the state’s most dangerous cities for pedestrians are consistent
with the county rankings. Many of the
most dangerous cities are suburban or edge cities, some fast growing, in the
Central Valley, Los Angeles and the fringes of the Silicon Valley (See Table 2;
this analysis includes only cities with populations of 100,000 or greater).
The
city of
After
Similar
to counties, the most dangerous cities for pedestrians are often the fastest
growing cities. The city of Oceanside
grew 25.4 percent between 1990 and 2000.
The
city rankings also suggest a relationship between pedestrian danger and race
and ethnicity. The ten most dangerous
cities all have high non-white populations -- at least 64 percent non-white or
greater. In comparison, the least
dangerous cities (ranked 50-58) have lower non-white populations – ranging from
22 percent to 60 percent.
What trends are
behind the increase in pedestrian danger?
A
number of factors are likely contributing to pedestrian danger. Sprawling development and the auto-oriented
design of many new communities and developments has made streets in more
recently developed areas more dangerous for pedestrians. Aggressive drivers fed up with traffic and
delays also play a role. While only 5
percent of pedestrians die when struck by a vehicle traveling at 20 mph or
less, 80 percent die at speeds of 40 mph.
Demographic
changes may also be a factor.
While
the latest round of both California-specific traffic fatality and injury data
along with the 2000 U.S. Census data suggest many interesting trends, any
thorough analysis of pedestrian safety data will continue to be hampered by the
lack of available data on how much people walk. It is imperative that
transportation agencies – local, state and federal – begin to collect more
accurate annual data on pedestrian activity in order to more accurately assess
trends and find solutions to pedestrian safety problems. Meanwhile,
transportation officials must continue to aggressively implement many of the
pedestrian safety and walkability programs
highlighted in the previous “cheers” section in order to create a safer
environment for all users of the transportation and street networks.
|
TABLE 3: Pedestrian Fatalities & Injuries By Race
and Ethnicity |
|||||
Race/
|
Pedestrian Fatal
Injuries 2000 (1) |
Hospitalized Pedestrian
Injuries 2000 (1) |
Total
Hospitalized Incidents 2000 |
Percent Share of
Total Incidents |
Percent Share of
Total Population 1999 (2) |
|
Asian/Pacific Islander
|
70 |
370 |
440 |
7.7 |
11 |
|
African American |
65 |
607 |
672 |
11.8 |
7 |
|
Hispanic |
293 |
1853 |
2146 |
37.8 |
30 |
|
Native American |
7 |
10 |
17 |
0.3 |
1 |
|
White |
325 |
1877 |
2202 |
38.7 |
51 |
|
Unknown/ |
0 |
206 |
206 |
3.6 |
--- |
|
Total |
760 |
4923 |
5683 |
100 |
100 |
|
Note:
Totals
may not add due to rounding. (1) California Department of Health
Services, EPIC, (2) California Department of Finance, “Race/Ethnic Population Estimates:
Components of Change |
|||||
|
TABLE 4: Historical
Pedestrian Safety Rankings by County 1997 - 2001 |
|||||
|
COUNTY |
1997 * |
1998 * |
1999 * |
2000** |
2001** |
|
|
9 |
10 |
11 |
10 |
10 |
|
|
24 |
27 |
26 |
27 |
26 |
|
CONTRA COSTA |
3 |
5 |
2 |
1 |
4 |
|
|
26 |
30 |
29 |
22 |
29 |
|
|
17 |
19 |
22 |
18 |
21 |
|
HUMBOLDT |
29 |
29 |
28 |
35 |
33 |
|
IMPERIAL |
32 |
25 |
27 |
33 |
30 |
|
KERN |
7 |
6 |
8 |
8 |
9 |
|
KINGS |
31 |
34 |
31 |
32 |
32 |
|
LOS ANGELES |
4 |
1 |
3 |
6 |
3 |
|
|
20 |
16 |
18 |
25 |
18 |
|
MARIN |
16 |
13 |
13 |
20 |
17 |
|
|
28 |
28 |
33 |
24 |
13 |
|
|
33 |
32 |
34 |
26 |
34 |
|
|
35 |
31 |
30 |
34 |
31 |
|
|
6 |
8 |
6 |
12 |
11 |
|
PLACER |
22 |
9 |
20 |
19 |
23 |
|
|
21 |
21 |
23 |
13 |
15 |
|
|
2 |
4 |
1 |
5 |
2 |
|
|
19 |
20 |
15 |
17 |
16 |
|
|
23 |
23 |
21 |
21 |
19 |
|
|
13 |
15 |
12 |
15 |
14 |
|
|
8 |
14 |
7 |
3 |
5 |
|
|
30 |
35 |
35 |
30 |
35 |
|
|
5 |
3 |
5 |
7 |
6 |
|
|
27 |
26 |
24 |
29 |
25 |
|
|
1 |
2 |
4 |
4 |
7 |
|
|
12 |
11 |
16 |
28 |
27 |
|
SHASTA |
15 |
18 |
25 |
16 |
20 |
|
SOLANO |
10 |
12 |
14 |
2 |
1 |
|
|
18 |
22 |
19 |
23 |
24 |
|
STANISLAUS |
11 |
7 |
9 |
11 |
8 |
|
|
25 |
24 |
17 |
14 |
22 |
|
|
14 |
17 |
10 |
9 |
12 |
|
YOLO |
34 |
33 |
32 |
31 |
28 |
** Rankings based on 2000 Census Journey to Work
statistics
*
Rankings based on 1990 Census Journey to Work statistics
|
TABLE 5: PEDESTRIANS AS A PERCENTAGE OF OVERALL
TRAFFIC FATALITIES -- 2001 |
||||
|
RANK |
COUNTY |
2001 Total traffic fatalities |
2001 pedestrian fatalities |
% of total traffic fatalities |
|
1 |
|
40 |
20 |
50.0% |
|
2 |
Marin |
12 |
4 |
33.3% |
|
3 |
|
768 |
233 |
30.3% |
|
4 |
|
207 |
54 |
26.1% |
|
5 |
Contra Costa |
57 |
14 |
24.6% |
|
6 |
|
290 |
66 |
22.8% |
|
7 |
|
111 |
24 |
21.6% |
|
8 |
|
147 |
30 |
20.4% |
|
9 |
|
113 |
22 |
19.5% |
|
10 |
|
33 |
6 |
18.2% |
|
11 |
|
73 |
13 |
17.8% |
|
12 |
Stanislaus |
85 |
14 |
16.5% |
|
13 |
|
38 |
6 |
15.8% |
|
14 |
Placer |
32 |
5 |
15.6% |
|
15 |
|
334 |
52 |
15.6% |
|
16 |
|
72 |
11 |
15.3% |
|
17 |
Humboldt |
20 |
3 |
15.0% |
|
18 |
Solano |
41 |
6 |
14.6% |
|
19 |
|
120 |
17 |
14.2% |
|
20 |
|
262 |
35 |
13.4% |
|
21 |
|
16 |
2 |
12.5% |
|
22 |
|
149 |
18 |
12.1% |
|
23 |
|
25 |
3 |
12.0% |
|
24 |
Kern |
143 |
16 |
11.2% |
|
25 |
|
46 |
5 |
10.9% |
|
26 |
|
59 |
6 |
10.2% |
|
27 |
|
81 |
8 |
9.9% |
|
28 |
|
22 |
2 |
9.1% |
|
29 |
Kings |
35 |
3 |
8.6% |
|
30 |
|
38 |
2 |
5.3% |
|
31 |
|
61 |
3 |
4.9% |
|
32 |
Shasta |
44 |
2 |
4.5% |
|
33 |
|
44 |
2 |
4.5% |
|
34 |
Yolo |
24 |
1 |
4.2% |
|
35 |
Imperial |
45 |
1 |
2.2% |
|
Source: 2001 Provisional traffic injury &
fatality numbers from the |
||||
|
TABLE 6: CHANGE IN COMMUTERS WALKING TO WORK IN |
|||
|
County |
Percent of Commuters Walking to Work 2000 (1) |
Percent of Commuters Walking to Work 1990 (2) |
% change 1990 – 2000 |
|
|
4.4 |
3.8 |
+15.8% |
|
HUMBOLDT |
6.5 |
6.0 |
+8.3% |
|
MARIN |
3.0 |
3.0 |
0.0% |
|
|
9.4 |
9.8 |
-4.1% |
|
|
3.1 |
3.3 |
-6.1% |
|
|
3.7 |
4.0 |
-7.5% |
|
|
2.0 |
2.2 |
-9.1% |
|
YOLO |
3.8 |
4.2 |
-9.5% |
|
|
3.4 |
3.8 |
-10.5% |
|
|
4.0 |
4.5 |
-11.1% |
|
LOS ANGELES |
2.9 |
3.3 |
-12.1% |
|
|
2.1 |
2.4 |
-12.5% |
|
STANISLAUS |
2.4 |
2.8 |
-14.3% |
|
|
1.8 |
2.1 |
-14.3% |
|
|
2.1 |
2.5 |
-16.0% |
|
CONTRA COSTA |
1.5 |
1.8 |
-16.7% |
|
|
2.4 |
2.9 |
-17.2% |
|
KINGS |
3.3 |
4.0 |
-17.5% |
|
SHASTA |
2.2 |
2.7 |
-18.5% |
|
|
2.1 |
2.6 |
-19.2% |
|
|
4.1 |
5.1 |
-19.6% |
|
|
3.2 |
4.0 |
-20.0% |
|
|
2.3 |
2.9 |
-20.7% |
|
KERN |
1.9 |
2.4 |
-20.8% |
|
IMPERIAL |
3.7 |
4.7 |
-21.3% |
|
|
1.9 |
2.5 |
-24.0% |
|
|
3.4 |
4.5 |
-24.4% |
|
|
2.4 |
3.2 |
-25.0% |
|
|
2.4 |
3.2 |
-25.0% |
|
|
2.5 |
3.4 |
-26.5% |
|
PLACER |
1.7 |
2.4 |
-29.2% |
|
|
2.2 |
3.4 |
-35.3% |
|
SOLANO |
1.6 |
2.5 |
-36.0% |
|
|
3.0 |
5.0 |
-40.0% |
|
|
3.8 |
7.1 |
-46.5% |
|
|
2.9 |
3.4 |
-14.7% |
|
Source: 1990 & 2000
Journey to Work data from the |
|||
Pedestrian fatalities and pedestrian injuries 2001:
All pedestrian injury and fatality data are from
the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) managed by the
California Department of Highway Patrol. Numbers for 2001 are provisional.
Population 2001:
Population estimates are from the California
Department of Finance and have been updated to reflect the most recent
revisions to county population totals.
Pedestrian Incident Rate:
Pedestrian incident rates are calculated by
dividing all pedestrian injuries and fatalities by population and then
multiplying by 100,000.
Pedestrian Exposure Index:
The Pedestrian Exposure Index is taken from the
2000 U.S. Census Journey To Work statistics and
reflects the approximate percentage of people over 16 years old walking to work
multiplied by 100. This is widely seen as the best available surrogate for
overall levels of pedestrian activity. The Journey to Work data provide an indication of basic exposure for pedestrians. It
is most important in establishing a measure of relative exposure of pedestrians between
counties, and for this purpose it is likely a conservative estimate.
The California Pedestrian Danger Index is
calculated by dividing the pedestrian incident rate by the pedestrian exposure
rate and then adjusting the number to a 0-100 scale where the highest ranking
county scores 100 and all other counties are adjusted accordingly to the same
scale.
Historical Rankings,
Rankings prior to 2000 used Journey to Work data
from the 1990 Census.