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 31
31
Analysis of the NTD Database exclusive ROW, as operations along exclusive ROW are often
accompanied by flashing lights and/or crossing gates. It is
This section summarizes the main findings resulting from interesting to note that approximately 81% of the SEPTA col-
the analysis of the NTD database, which was conducted after lisions were reported as occurring at intersections with traf-
the completion of the data cleaning procedure. Due to the fic signals, despite the fact that 81% of collisions from the
potential impact of the large proportion of collisions reported same dataset were reported as occurring along exclusive ROW
by SEPTA, all findings are also presented with the SEPTA data in Table 9. This would seem to corroborate the theory that the
excluded from the analysis. majority of SEPTA collisions actually occurred along semi- or
non-exclusive ROW.
Location of Collisions
Collisions by type of alignment (right-of-way classification) Collisions by Measures of Exposure to Risk
are summarized in Table 9. When the SEPTA collisions are Table 12 shows the number of collisions for each transit
eliminated from the analysis, it is clear that most of the colli- agency as a function of the number of road/rail crossings in the
sions observed occurred on non-exclusive ROW, followed by system. The numbers of crossings per system were obtained
semi-exclusive ROW. This table includes columns referring to from APTA 2004 system summary reports.
the FRA, which does not normally have jurisdiction over LRT In general, the number of at-grade road/rail intersections
facilities, except in cases where the LRT system is connected to present in a system is likely to be an indicator of the total num-
or shares track with the general railway network. (In these ber of collisions that system will experience. A high number of
cases those local LRT agencies must also report to the FRA.) crossings will expose rail vehicles to an increased risk of colli-
In contrast, the vast majority (approximately 81%) of the sion, particularly when the majority of the track is run on
collisions occurring within the SEPTA system were reported exclusive or semi-exclusive ROW.
as occurring on exclusive ROW. One possible explanation for The results of Table 12, however, do not show a generally
this phenomenon was the inclusion of collisions involving consistent relationship between the number of collisions
commuter rail vehicles run by the SEPTA Regional Rail divi- and the number of crossings. The ratio of annual collisions
sion. However, the large proportion of SEPTA collisions per crossing ranges from 0.008 to 0.636. It is likely that this
reported under this ROW classification appears to preclude wide range of values is due in large part to the differences in
this explanation. The majority of the light rail lines run by collision reporting across transit agencies, as discussed in
SEPTA operate on a combination of exclusive ROW and the Disparity in Local Transit Agency Reporting to the NTD
non-exclusive ROW. It seems likely that the SEPTA collisions section, and to the amount of service provided. Another
were reported not based on the ROW classification of the spe- major difference between agencies is likely to be the expo-
cific incident location, but instead on the ROW classification sure of the crossings, as both the road traffic volume and the
that characterized most or at least some of the rail route on frequency of LRT operations will have an effect on the num-
which they occurred. This explanation is supported by ber of collisions.
inspection of the partial database provided to the project Table 13 shows the number of collisions per million vehicle
team by SEPTA. revenue miles (VRM) for each agency.
Table 10 shows the number of SEPTA collisions included in If all other characteristics of transit systems were equal, it
the NTD for the years 20022005 based on route classification. would be expected that the number of collisions for a system
In Table 10, only the third-rail interurban RT route 100 runs would increase proportionately to the number of vehicle rev-
totally on exclusive ROW. The other suburban trolley routes enue miles, as revenue miles is a measure of exposure. The
are run mostly on exclusive ROW, but include segments of results of Table 13 suggest significant variation between tran-
rail that are not exclusive ROW. The subway-surface trolley sit agencies in the number of reported collisions per million
routes each include a section run on exclusive ROW in the vehicle revenue miles. Values ranged from 0.2 for Bi-State
city center, but operate mainly on exclusive ROW in mixed Development Agency (largely a type b.1 alignment with sep-
traffic conditions. The data in Table 10 show that the vast arate right-of-way and at-grade intersections) to 194.7 for
majority of collisions reported on the SEPTA routes occurred the King County Department of Transportation (a street car
on non-exclusive ROW operating LRT vehicles in mixed traffic operation).
conditions. Some variation among the rates of collisions is expected
Collisions by type of crossing control are shown in Table 11. based on the different characteristics of the transit systems.
The majority of collisions occurred where the type of grade Another known source of error for this dataset was the dis-
crossing control was reported to be traffic signals. The pres- parity in the number of collisions reported across transit
ence of traffic signals is often indicative of a semi- or non- agencies discussed in the Disparity in Local Transit Agency
OCR for page 32
Table 9. Collisions by alignment type (ROW classification) (20022007).
Non-
Exclusive Shared Track Shared Track
Exclusive Exclusive exclusive Non-exclusive Non-exclusive Other Non- Semi-
ROW: (LRT/FRA): (LRT/FRA): Not
Agency ROW: At ROW: ROW: LRT/ ROW: Mixed ROW: exclusive exclusive Total
Elevated Non-temporal Temporal Categorized
Grade Tunnel Pedestrian Traffic/ LRT Transit Mall ROW ROW
Structure Separation Separation
Mall
Bi-State Development Agency 3 2 5
Dallas Area Rapid Transit 10 1 21 14 25 71
Denver Regional Transportation District 1 2 11 14
Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority 2 4 6
King County Department of Transportation
Metro Transit Division 1 31 32
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority 1 105 16 122
Maryland Transit Administration 7 6 1 14
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority 4 2 3 1 13 23
Memphis Area Transit Authority 2 1 3
Metro Transit 7 3 2 12
Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County,
Texas 1 87 2 90
New Jersey Transit Corporation 1 1
New Orleans Regional Transit Authority 3 1 4
Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority 1 1 2
Port Authority of Allegheny County 2 5 4 11
Sacramento Regional Transit District 2 26 1 1 24 2 56
San Diego Trolley, Inc. 14 8 3 5 30
San Francisco Municipal Railway 3 3 1 51 1 16 1 40 116
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 1 8 1 2 12
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation
Authority 766 4 1 12 3 3 3 155 947
The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority 16 25 1 5 47
Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District
of Oregon 6 2 59 67
Utah Transit Authority 3 21 1 9 1 35
Grand Total (Count) 851 4 7 6 324 19 10 158 1 9 331 1720
Grand Total (Percent of Total Crashes) 49.5% 0.2% 0.4% 0.3% 18.8% 1.1% 0.6% 9.2% 0.1% 0.5% 19.2% 100%
Total without SEPTA (Count) 85 0 6 6 312 16 7 155 1 9 176 773
Total without SEPTA (Percent of Total Crashes) 11.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.8% 40.4% 2.1% 0.9% 20.1% 0.1% 1.2% 22.8% 100%
OCR for page 33
33
Table 10. Collisions in SEPTA database reported to NTD by route
classification (20022005).
Number of Collisions Reported by SEPTA to the NTD
by ROW Classification (20022005)
SEPTA
Route Classification Route Exclusive ROW Mixed Traffic Unknown
Interurban RT Route 100 - - -
Suburban Trolley Route 101 37 21 -
Route 102 30 16 -
Subway-Surface Trolley Route 10 1 198 -
Route 11 - 97 1
Route 13 2 113 2
Route 34 1 54 -
Route 36 18 97 1
Surface Trolley Route 15 - 67 -
Total 89 663 4
Reporting to the NTD section. An example of the impact of cantly inflating the ratio. Due to the disproportionately high
this error can be seen in the decrease in average number of ratio of collisions to vehicle revenue miles observed for King
collisions per million vehicle miles observed between the County Department of Transportation, Hillsborough Area
years 2005 and 2006. The drop from 7.49 to 1.98 collisions Regional Transit Authority, and SEPTA, the bottom row of
per million vehicle revenue miles clearly corresponds to the Table 13 shows the results of the analysis with these agencies
steep decline in the number of collisions reported by SEPTA excluded. The number of collisions per million vehicle rev-
during this period. enue mile is more consistent across the time period examined
Both the King County Department of Transportation and with the removal of these three agencies, although it is clear
the Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority also that significant variation between transit agencies still
reported a comparably high number of collisions per million remains. Figure 4 graphically illustrates the ratio of collisions
vehicle miles. This can be explained by the comparatively low to vehicle revenue miles for all agencies excluding King
number of vehicle revenue miles travelled on both of these County Department of Transportation, Hillsborough Area
systems, which resulted in relatively few collisions signifi- Regional Transit Authority, and SEPTA.
OCR for page 34
Table 11. Collisions at road/rail crossing by type of grade crossing control (20022007).
Active Active
Active Active Active Active Devices: Passive
Devices: Devices: No Passive
Devices: Devices: Devices: Train Devices:
Gates Gates (No Control Other Devices: Unclassified Total
Flashing Quad Traffic Approaching Cross
(Median Median Device Stop sign
Lights Gates Signal Sign bucks
Agency Barrier) Barrier)
Bi-State Development Agency 4 1 5
Dallas Area Rapid Transit 3 12 32 3 1 1 1 18 71
Denver Regional Transportation District 2 7 3 2 14
Hillsborough Area Regional Transit
Authority 1 1 1 3 6
King County Department of Transportation
Metro Transit Division 1 2 11 12 6 32
Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority 6 8 17 1 37 7 1 45 122
Maryland Transit Administration 1 9 1 1 2 14
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority 2 3 4 14 23
Memphis Area Transit Authority 2 1 3
Metro Transit 7 4 1 12
Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris
County, Texas 3 65 10 1 11 90
New Jersey Transit Corporation 1 1
New Orleans Regional Transit Authority 4 4
Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority 1 1 2
Port Authority of Allegheny County 6 4 1 11
Sacramento Regional Transit District 4 10 20 3 3 1 15 56
San Diego Trolley, Inc. 4 2 3 8 9 1 3 30
San Francisco Municipal Railway 4 1 29 8 9 4 18 43 116
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 4 7 1 12
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation
Authority 2 766 13 7 11 148 947
The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit
Authority 8 28 3 2 6 47
Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation
District of Oregon 2 1 20 1 1 42 67
Utah Transit Authority 7 2 18 4 1 3 35
Grand Total (Count) 36 35 50 2 1067 40 75 20 8 43 344 1720
Grand Total (Percent of Total Crashes) 2.1% 2.0% 2.9% 0.1% 62.0% 2.3% 4.4% 1.2% 0.5% 02.5% 20.0% 100%
Total without SEPTA (Count) 34 35 50 2 301 40 62 20 1 32 196 773
Total Without SEPTA (Percent of Total
Crashes) 4.4% 4.5% 6.5% 0.3% 38.9% 5.2% 8.0% 2.6% 0.1% 4.1% 25.4% 100%
OCR for page 35
35
Table 12. Collisions per number of road/rail crossings.
2004 Average 20022007
Agency Crossings
Collisions Ratio Collisions Ratio
Bi-State Development Agency 24 1 0.042 1 0.042
Dallas Area Rapid Transit 98 17 0.173 12 0.121
Denver Regional Transportation District 39 1 0.026 4 0.090
Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority 21 2 0.095
King County Department of Transportation
Metro Transit Division 14 8 0.571 8 0.571
Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority 104 30 0.288 20 0.196
Maryland Transit Administration 52 5 0.090
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority 65 6 0.092 4 0.059
Memphis Area Transit Authority 62 2 0.024
Metro Transit 45 1 0.022 3 0.067
Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris
County, Texas 68 28 0.412 23 0.331
New Jersey Transit Corporation 88 1 0.011
New Orleans Regional Transit Authority 238 2 0.008 1 0.006
Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority 8 2 0.250
Port Authority of Allegheny County 44 4 0.083
Sacramento Regional Transit District 104 22 0.212 9 0.090
San Diego Trolley, Inc. 96 5 0.052 5 0.052
San Francisco Municipal Railway 351 11 0.031 19 0.055
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 119 1 0.008 2 0.017
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation
Authority 1,702 147 0.086 158 0.093
The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit
Authority 22 14 0.636 8 0.356
Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation
District of Oregon 128 9 0.070 11 0.087
Utah Transit Authority 72 1 0.014 6 0.081
Grand Total 3,564 304 0.081 310 0.082
Total without SEPTA 1,862 157 0.077 152 0.073
Source: APTA 2004 data
OCR for page 36
Table 13. Collisions per million vehicle revenue miles (VRM) (20022006).
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Average
VRM VRM VRM VRM VRM VRM
No. Ratio No. Ratio No. Ratio No. Ratio No. Ratio No. Ratio
Agency (106) (106) (106) (106) (106) (106)
Bi-State Development Agency 1 5.16 0.2 1 5.23 0.2 1 5.02 0.2 1 4.44 0.2 4.38 0.0 1 4.85 0.2
Dallas Area Rapid Transit 5 3.97 1.3 17 5.63 3.0 17 5.15 3.3 17 5.17 3.3 13 5.10 2.6 14 5.01 2.8
Denver Regional Transportation District 2.98 0.0 3.76 0.0 1 3.87 0.3 4 3.73 1.1 4 4.37 0.9 3 3.74 0.8
Hillsborough Area Regional Transit
Authority 2 3 0.08 37.4 0.08 0.0 1 0.08 11.9 0.09 0.0 2 0.08 24.0
King County Department of Transportation
Metro Transit Division 7 0.04 175.8 9 0.04 210.0 8 0.04 186.6 8 0.04 206.4 8 0.04 194.7
Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority 42 5.78 7.3 16 6.78 2.4 30 7.70 3.9 8 8.11 1.0 10 8.05 1.2 21 7.29 2.9
Maryland Transit Administration 8 2.63 3.0 2.78 0.0 2.06 0.0 1 1.49 0.7 2.05 0.0 5 2.20 2.0
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority 1 5.69 0.2 2 5.73 0.3 6 5.68 1.1 6 4.54 1.3 4 5.58 0.7 4 5.44 0.7
Memphis Area Transit Authority 0.31 0.0 0.50 0.0 0.32 0.0 1 0.37 2.7 2 0.39 5.1 2 0.38 4.0
Metro Transit 1 0.51 2.0 5 1.55 3.2 3 1.79 1.7 3 1.28 2.3
Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris
County, Texas 28 0.47 59.2 31 0.81 38.5 14 0.86 16.3 24 0.71 34.1
New Jersey Transit Corporation 1 0.52 1.9 1.30 0.0 1.63 0.0 2.66 0.0 3.39 0.0 1 1.90 0.5
New Orleans Regional Transit Authority 0.65 0.0 0.73 0.0 2 0.97 2.1 1 0.16 0.0 2 0.63 2.4
Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority 0.84 0.0 2 0.76 2.6 0.76 0.0 0.74 0.0 0.77 0.0 2 0.78 2.6
Port Authority of Allegheny County 6 1.61 3.7 3 1.47 2.0 1.46 0.0 1.86 0.0 2 1.98 1.0 4 1.67 2.2
Sacramento Regional Transit District 12 2.13 5.6 4 2.17 1.8 22 2.88 7.6 7 3.43 2.0 7 3.89 1.8 10 2.90 3.6
San Diego Trolley, Inc. 7 7.05 1.0 3 6.92 0.4 5 6.98 0.7 5 7.06 0.7 2 8.18 0.2 4 7.24 0.6
San Francisco Municipal Railway 41 5.46 7.5 18 5. 53 3.3 11 5.66 1.9 10 5.52 1.8 17 5.36 3.2 19 5.51 3.5
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 2 2.47 0.8 2 1.84 1.1 1 1.90 0.5 3 2.46 1.2 1 2.81 0.4 2 2.30 0.8
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation
Authority 206 3.03 68.0 177 3.13 56.6 151 3.32 45.5 367 3.32 110.5 47 3.55 13.2 190 3.27 58.0
The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit
Authority 10 0.94 10.6 5 0.95 5.2 14 1.01 13.8 10 1.01 9.9 5 0.87 5.7 9 0.96 9.2
Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation
District of Oregon 16 5.66 2.8 13 5.82 2.2 9 6.02 1.5 17 6.67 2.5 7 6.38 1.1 12 6.11 2.0
Utah Transit Authority 9 2.32 3.9 9 2.28 3.9 1 2.97 0.3 5 2.74 1.8 6 2.83 2.1 6 2.63 2.3
Grand Total 376 59.22 6.349 284 63.46 4.475 308 66.49 4.632 508 67.82 7.490 144 72.81 1.978 347.1 66.91 5.188
Total Without Hillsborough, King, and
SEPTA 161 56.16 2.87 95 60.21 1.58 149 63.04 2.36 132 64.38 2.05 97 69.17 1.40 147.5 63.51 2.32
OCR for page 37
37
14.00
12.00
Collisions per Million Vehicle Revenue Miles
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Year
Metro (St. Louis) DART RTD (Denver)
LACMTA MTA (Maryland) MBTA
MATA Metro Transit (Minnesota) NORTA
NFTA Port Authority SRTD
SDMTS MUNI SCVTA
RTA (Cleveland) TriMet UTA
AVERAGE AVERAGE_LESS
Figure 4. Safety performance: collisions per million vehicle revenue
miles (20022006).
Collisions by Type of Impact table also gives details of the manner in which the collisions
occurred.
Table 14 shows the number of collisions classified by type
Of the 63 collisions resulting in a fatality (including
of impact for each transit agency.
SEPTA), 56 (89%) were the result of an LRT collision with a
The type of impact refers to the orientation of the transit
pedestrian or cyclist. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan
vehicle at time of impact. For example, "back" means that the Transportation Authority (LACMTA) and San Diego Trolley
transit vehicle was struck in the rear by another vehicle, while systems experienced a higher proportion of fatalities that the
"angle" means that the other vehicle approached from an remaining systems. The LACMTA and San Diego collisions
angle and struck the side of the LRT vehicle. were almost exclusively the result of collisions with pedestrians/
Table 14 shows that most of the collisions (56.4%) resulted cyclists, and have the highest average vehicle revenue miles of
in an impact to the front of the LRT vehicle. Review of the all the transit agencies observed (Table 13). Detailed exposure
detailed description of the incidents indicated that most of information for the pedestrians and cyclists at each crossing
these collisions were the result of a motor vehicle making a on each system is required to make any more detailed mean-
left-turn or U-turn in front of an oncoming LRT vehicle. The ingful comments on these collisions.
same pattern was reported in TCRP Report 17: Integration of Of the 535 total collisions resulting in an injury, 362 (67.7%)
Light Rail Transit into City Streets. were the result of an LRT collision with a motor vehicle, while
136 (25.4%) were the result of a collision with a pedestrian.
Collisions by Severity These data suggest that in collisions between LRT vehicles and
motor vehicles, the risk of fatality is relatively low when com-
Table 15 shows the number of collisions resulting in fatali- pared to the risk of injury. Conversely, the risk of fatality
ties, injuries, and property damage only (PDO) by agency. The compared to injury is much higher for collisions between
OCR for page 38
38
Table 14. Collisions by type of impact (20022007).
Fixed Front- Side
Angle Back NOC Other Total
Agency Object End swipe
Bi-State Development Agency 1 2 2 5
Dallas Area Rapid Transit 25 1 38 6 1 71
Denver Regional Transportation
District 11 2 1 14
Hillsborough Area Regional Transit
Authority 4 1 1 6
King County Department of
Transportation Metro Transit
Division 23 5 2 2 32
Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority 9 97 7 9 122
Maryland Transit Administration 6 5 3 14
Massachusetts Bay Transportation
Authority 2 1 7 3 1 9 23
Memphis Area Transit Authority 2 1 3
Metro Transit 1 10 1 12
Metropolitan Transit Authority of
Harris County, Texas 8 76 4 2 90
New Jersey Transit Corporation 1 1
New Orleans Regional Transit
Authority 2 2 4
Niagara Frontier Transportation
Authority 2 2
Port Authority of Allegheny County 3 1 7 11
Sacramento Regional Transit District 34 1 13 8 56
San Diego Trolley, Inc. 1 20 4 5 30
San Francisco Municipal Railway 36 5 53 16 6 116
Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority 1 8 2 1 12
Southeastern Pennsylvania
Transportation Authority 258 94 2 357 188 13 35 947
The Greater Cleveland Regional
Transit Authority 8 27 11 1 47
Tri-County Metropolitan
Transportation District of Oregon 27 31 4 2 3 67
Utah Transit Authority 2 1 23 4 5 35
Grand Total (Count) 448 103 4 793 271 17 84 1720
Grand Total (Percentage of Total
26.0% 6.0% 0.2% 46.1% 15.8% 1.0% 4.9% 100%
Crashes)
Total without SEPTA (Count) 190 9 2 436 83 4 49 773
Total without SEPTA (Percentage
24.6% 1.2% 0.3% 56.4% 10.7% 0.5% 6.3% 100%
of Total Crashes)
LRT vehicles and pedestrians (79.4% of the 63 fatal collisions 1,720, or 21.5%). The effect of this omission in terms of pos-
involved a pedestrian, and 24.8% of all LRT collisions involving sible distortion of the results is unknown.
a pedestrian were fatal). Most collisions (1,005 of 1,344, or 74.7%) occurred in day-
light conditions. The proportion of collisions occurring dur-
ing period of dawn or dusk (8.9%) may be significant because
of the short duration of those time periods, but once again this
Environmental Factors Contributing to Collisions
could only be substantiated through the availability of expo-
Table 16 shows the number of collisions for each transit sure data for LRVs, road vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists by
agency and the lighting conditions at time of collision. Infor- hour and lighting conditions.
mation on lighting conditions was available for 1,344 of the Figure 5 shows the percentage of collisions by time of day,
1,720 collisions. Many collisions were unclassified (369 of excluding the data from SEPTA.
OCR for page 39
Table 15. Crashes by severity and type of collision by agency (20022007).
Fatalities
Fatalities & Injuries Injuries Property Damage Only
With With With With Total
With Person With With With With
Vehicle: With Vehicle: Vehicle: With Person With Vehicle: With Person With
(Pedestrian) Total Rail object: Total Rail Object: Total
Motor Cyclist Motor Motor (Pedestrian) Cyclist Motor (Pedestrian) Cyclist
Agency Vehicle Other Vehicle Other
Vehicle Vehicle Vehicle Vehicle
Bi-State Development Agency 1 3 1 5 5
Dallas Area Rapid Transit 5 5 4 20 8 28 32 1 1 34 71
Denver Regional Transportation
District 1 1 9 4 13 14
Hillsborough Area Regional
Transit Authority 1 1 1 1 2 2 4 6
King County Department of
Transportation Metro Transit
Division 1 1 2 30 30 32
Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority 1 13 4 18 2 41 18 4 63 31 1 7 39 122
Maryland Transit Administration 3 3 9 1 1 11 14
Massachusetts Bay Transportation
Authority 1 1 5 12 1 3 21 1 1 23
Memphis Area Transit Authority 2 2 1 1 3
Metro Transit 2 2 4 5 2 7 1 1 12
Metropolitan Transit Authority of
Harris County, Texas 1 54 11 65 24 24 90
New Jersey Transit Corporation 1 1 1
New Orleans Regional Transit
Authority 1 2 1 3 4
Niagara Frontier Transportation
Authority 1 1 1 1 2
Port Authority of Allegheny
County 4 4 7 7 11
Sacramento Regional Transit
District 2 2 12 5 4 21 31 1 1 33 56
San Diego Trolley, Inc. 10 10 11 7 1 19 1 1 30
San Francisco Municipal Railway 1 4 5 1 33 27 2 4 66 41 3 44 116
Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority 2 1 1 4 1 3 2 5 2 2 12
Southeastern Pennsylvania
Transportation Authority 1 3 4 101 19 2 7 2 131 769 12 3 13 15 812 947
The Greater Cleveland Regional
Transit Authority 1 1 10 10 35 1 36 47
Tri-County Metropolitan
Transportation District of Oregon 1 1 2 26 12 1 39 26 26 67
Utah Transit Authority 2 2 1 11 3 3 17 14 1 15 35
Grand Total (Count) 7 50 6 63 11 362 136 18 15 4 535 1047 16 5 19 24 1111 1720
Grand Total (Percent of Total
Crashes) 0.4% 2.9% 0.3% 3.7% 0.6% 21.0% 7.9% 1.0% 0.9% 0.2% 31.1% 60.9% 0.9% 0.3% 1.1% 1.4% 64.6% 100%
Total without SEPTA (Count) 6 47 6 59 11 261 117 16 8 2 404 278 4 2 6 9 299 773
Total Without SEPTA (Percent of
Total Crashes) 0.8% 6.1% 0.8% 7.6% 1.4% 33.8% 15.1% 2.1% 1.0% 0.3% 52.3% 36.0% 0.5% 0.3% 0.8% 1.2% 38.7% 100%
OCR for page 40
40
Table 16. Collisions by transit agency and lighting conditions (20022007).
Dark:
Dark: Dawn
No Not
Street- or Daylight Unclassified Total
Street- Applicable
lights Dusk
Agency lights
Bi-State Development
Agency 4 1 5
Dallas Area Rapid Transit 4 10 2 40 15 71
Denver Regional
Transportation District 3 1 1 9 14
Hillsborough Area Regional
Transit Authority 1 2 3 6
King County Department of
Transportation Metro
Transit Division 1 31 32
Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation
Authority 8 10 46 58 122
Maryland Transit
Administration 2 3 4 5 14
Massachusetts Bay
Transportation Authority 7 3 13 23
Memphis Area Transit
Authority 1 2 3
Metro Transit 1 5 6 12
Metropolitan Transit
Authority of Harris County,
Texas 7 1 51 31 90
New Jersey Transit
Corporation 1 1
New Orleans Regional
Transit Authority 1 2 1 4
Niagara Frontier
Transportation Authority 1 1 2
Port Authority of Allegheny
County 9 2 11
Sacramento Regional
Transit District 1 11 5 26 13 56
San Diego Trolley, Inc.
4 4 3 9 10 30
San Francisco Municipal
Railway 8 6 27 75 116
Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority 8 4 12
Southeastern Pennsylvania
Transportation Authority 131 80 654 3 79 947
The Greater Cleveland
Regional Transit Authority 9 6 22 10 47
Tri-County Metropolitan
Transportation District of
Oregon 7 2 34 1 23 67
Utah Transit Authority 3 2 19 11 35
Grand Total (Count) 12 207 120 1005 7 369 1720
Grand Total (Percentage
of Total Crashes) 0.7% 12.0% 7.0% 58.4% 0.4% 21.5% 100%
Total without SEPTA
(Count) 12 76 40 351 4 290 773
Total without SEPTA
(Percentage of Total
Crashes) 1.6% 9.8% 5.2% 45.4% 0.5% 37.5% 100%
