Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 133
CHAPTER 6. SAFETY
OVERVIEW
Safety is a critically important aspect of quality of life. As such, it must be one of the principal
considerations when planning transportation projects. In the most basic terms, two types of
safety are most relevant to environmental justice--the safety of those who will travel on the
transportation facility and the safety of those whose activities place them in proximity to the
facility. The greater environmental justice issue may lie with the second group, although it can
also be relevant to facility users. For example, a recent report by the National Center for Health
Statistics (2003) indicates that automobile crashes are the leading cause of death among
youngsters 1 through 14 years old (2,312 fatalities in 2001). The report further indicates that
black children are three times more likely to be killed in traffic crashes than are white children.
Hispanic children are twice as likely as white children to die in traffic crashes. Among the
reasons cited for this disparity in death rates are lack of education, cultural factors, and poverty
that keeps parents from purchasing car seats for their children.
Regarding injuries and fatalities for persons other than those using the transportation facility, the
primary concern pertains to conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians and users of non-
motorized transportation, such as bicycles. A study by Appleyard et al. (1981) reported that low-
income children were more likely to be struck by motor vehicles because the lack of playgrounds
encourages them to play in the street.
Similarly, Roberts et al. (1995) concluded that children living near high traffic volume and high-
speed (greater than 40 mph) roadways are far more likely to be injured or killed by motor
vehicles. Agran et al. (1996) had similar findings and estimated that children living in multi-
family housing have a threefold greater likelihood of being injured by a motor vehicle. The latter
two research teams noted that areas where much of the curb was occupied by parked vehicles
were especially likely to be associated with higher child pedestrian injuries.
The evidence suggests that high-capacity streets and highways with rapidly moving traffic and
curb parking produce significant safety hazards for children. Particularly in inner cities, many
low-income families live in relatively high-density housing areas without much open space.
Roadways running through these areas are often of the type associated with high injury rates for
pedestrians, especially children. Increasing traffic volumes, flow speeds, or curb parking on such
facilities thus can create important environmental justice concerns.
STATE OF THE PRACTICE
For transportation users, the safety benefits of facility improvements take the form of reductions
in the rate of fatal, personal-injury, and property-damage-only (PDO) crashes per unit of travel,
typically per 100 million vehicle miles of travel (VMT). It is unlikely that an environmental
justice issue will exist among users of a given facility because it is equally safe or unsafe for all
those who travel on it. The previously mentioned higher rate of child fatalities in traffic crashes
due to deficient seatbelt use is more of an education and resource issue (funds to purchase child
137
