Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 44


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 43
43 Table 17. CPUC data fields by data category. Number of Data Fields Data Category in the NTD Additional Details Date/Time 2 Collision Date/Time Location 4 Carrier, County, City, Street Incident Classification 2 Collision Type Consequences of Incident 4 Employee Injury/Fatality, Other Injury/Fatality Alignment/Crossing Controls 4 Crossing (Y/N), Crossing No., Crossing Type, Warning Device General Descriptions (i.e., 2 Summary of Incident, Gate Drive Around (Y/N) actions) Data Record ID 4 Report Date/Time/No./Type Total 22 SSO Data Quality Issues level is the source of the data stored in the NTD and most SSO databases. For this reason, data collected at the local transit The data provided in the CPUC database lacks significant agency level must be the most detailed of the three levels of information required for detailed safety analysis. For exam- transit administration. ple, no information regarding environmental conditions is included in the database. It is not possible to assess the rela- tionship between lighting conditions, weather, or ROW con- Data Collected by Local Transit Agencies dition and the collisions observed. In addition, there is no The project team conducted a survey of local transit agen- information provided regarding the classification of the ROW, cies to determine the availability and quality of collision data geometry of the alignment, or measures of exposure to risk at the local transit agency level. Of the 24 local transit agen- (i.e., traffic volumes). These data are critical for performing cies that responded to the survey, 21 had collision data stored analysis of incidents. in either hardcopy or electronic format. Table 18 provides a As discussed previously, part of the mandate of the SSO is to summary of the data available at each local transit agency ensure that all incidents meeting certain criteria are investi- based on the results of the survey and subsequent discussions gated to ascertain any causal/contributing factors. Subsequent with transit agencies. to this, the SSO is mandated to develop or approve a corrective The project team followed up on the survey by requesting action plan that addresses the factors contributing to the spe- collision data from most of the transit agencies identified in cific incidents. The information provided in the CPUC data- Table 18. Only eight local transit agencies provided collision base is insufficient for the type of analysis required to clearly data. In some cases no reason for the refusal was provided, identify all factors that may have contributed to each incident. but several agencies had legal or privacy concerns, and several It seems likely therefore that corrective action plans are devel- others responded that they did not have the staff time avail- oped using details from specific incident investigation reports, able to respond to the request. Table 19 shows the format and which include information that is not entered into the data- time period for the collision data obtained from the eight base. In order for the database alone to be used for detailed local transit agencies. causal analysis, it would be necessary for environmental con- None of the collision datasets presented in Table 19 were ditions, ROW classification, geometric design, and measures of provided in database format. The majority of these datasets exposure to risk be added. were records extracted from agency databases and reports. For example, the collision records provided by the LACMTA were extracted from the appendix of a report provided in Local Transit Agencies PDF file format. The collision records provided by New Jer- Purpose of Local Transit Agency sey Transit were written text summaries of individual inci- Data Collection dents which were not compiled into a database/spreadsheet format. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority and Local transit agencies collect incident data for a wide variety Metro Transit provided collision data in PDF document for- of purposes, such as loss prevention, crime reporting, safety mat that were organized in the form of a table, but these data analysis, and submitting incident reports to the NTD and SSO sets contained very few data fields. The databases provided in agencies. The incident data collected at the local transit agency electronic format were all in MS Excel format.

OCR for page 43
44 Table 18. Summary of data available at local transit agencies. Agency Data Availability Format Time Period Bi-State Development Agency (St. Louis) Hardcopy 1984 to present Electronic 2000 to present Edmonton Transit Hardcopy 1980 to present Electronic 1980 to present Kenosha Transit Hardcopy 2000 to present Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Hardcopy 1990 to present Electronic 1990 to present Memphis Area Transit Authority Hardcopy 1999 to present Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas Hardcopy 2004 to present Electronic 2004 to present Metro Transit (Minneapolis) Hardcopy 2004 to present Maryland Transit Administration Electronic 1985 to present New Jersey Transit River Line Hardcopy 2004 to present Electronic 2004 to present New Jersey Transit Hudson-Bergen Light Rail Hardcopy 2000 to present New Jersey Transit Newark City Subway Hardcopy 1991 to present Electronic 1991 to present Port Authority of Allegheny County Hardcopy 1998 to present Regional Transit District, Denver Hardcopy 1994 to present Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Hardcopy 1987 to present Electronic 1987 to present San Diego Trolley Inc. Hardcopy 1981 to present Electronic 1981 to present Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority Hardcopy 2000 to present Electronic 2002 to present San Francisco MUNI Electronic 1987 to present Sound Transit Link, Tacoma Hardcopy 2003 to present Tri-Met Portland Hardcopy 1986 to 1999 Electronic 2000 to present Toronto Transit Commission Hardcopy 2004 to present Electronic 1991 to present Utah Transit Authority Electronic 1999 to present Table 19. Local agency collision data obtained. Agency Collision Data Provided Format Time Period Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Hardcopy 1990 to 2006 Metro Transit (Minneapolis) Hardcopy 2004 to 2008 New Jersey Transit Hardcopy 2000 to 2008 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Hardcopy 1987 to 2007 Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority Electronic 2000 to 2007 San Francisco MUNI Electronic 2006 to 2007 Tri-Met Portland Electronic 1994 to 2008