Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 32


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 31
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 31
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 31
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 31
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 31
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 31
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 31
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 31
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 31
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%