The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 21-51

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 21... ... The Data Collection and Transfer between FTA/NTD, SSO, and Local Transit Agencies section outlines the relationship between the three hierarchical levels of transit administration, and identifies the datasets requested and received by the project team from various transit agencies. The National Transit Database, SSO Agencies, and Local Transit Agencies sections examine the collision data available at the federal, state, and local transit agency levels, respectively. Read the entire page →
From page 22... ... Collision Data Available, Requested, and Received In an effort to conduct a comprehensive review and accurate analysis of LRT safety data, the project team requested collision databases from a variety of transit agencies at each of the three levels of transit administration. The NTD provided two complete databases in Microsoft Excel format, which contained all reported safety and security incidents that occurred between the years 2002 and 2007. Read the entire page →
From page 23... ... . The data provided in the Annual Report, Monthly Report, and Rural Report are not primarily intended for safety analysis, but contain some information (e.g., measures of exposure to risk, vehicle revenue miles, etc.) Read the entire page →
From page 24... ... Despite these disadvantages, the NTD has introduced changes to NTD reporting criteria as part of its effort to balance the need to maximize the quality and relevance of safety data in the NTD while minimizing unnecessary data collection and reporting at the local level. The NTD Database The NTD contained 66 data fields for each major incident. Read the entire page →
From page 25... ... In general, most significant contradictions/omissions in the data records generally occurred in the following fields: event category, collision manner, lighting conditions, dates, injury counts, right-ofway type, and grade crossing control type. Event Category. Read the entire page →
From page 26... ... Unfortunately, the description fields provided insufficient information to update the alignment type for 176 of the data records. Grade Crossing Control Type. Read the entire page →
From page 27... ... Table 6 shows the number of records removed from the NTD dataset due to errors or omissions in data entry. 27 Transit Agency Total Records Deleted Records % of Total Records Remaining Records ABC Agency Bi-State Development Agency Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority Dallas Area Rapid Transit Denver Regional Transportation District Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority King County Department of Transportation – Metro Transit Division Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Maryland Transit Administration Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Memphis Area Transit Authority Metro Transit Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas New Jersey Transit Corporation New Orleans Regional Transit Authority Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority Port Authority of Allegheny County Sacramento Regional Transit District San Diego Trolley, Inc. Read the entire page →
From page 28... ... It is this remaining dataset that is analyzed in the following sections. Disparity in Local Transit Agency Reporting to the NTD Examination of the NTD database revealed a large disparity both in the number of collisions reported by transit agencies, and the total number of collisions reported by year. Read the entire page →
From page 29... ... Table 8 shows the number of collisions reported by SEPTA to the NTD based on their classification in the above two categories. Since transit agencies are only required to report incidents meeting the criteria of a major incident to the NTD, it is expected that an incident SEPTA classified as "major" under the NTD classification would also have an entry of "yes" in 29 Agency 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Total Bi-State Development Agency Dallas Area Rapid Transit Denver Regional Transportation District Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority King County Department of Transportation – Metro Transit Division Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Maryland Transit Administration Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Memphis Area Transit Authority Metro Transit Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas New Jersey Transit Corporation New Orleans Regional Transit Authority Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority Port Authority of Allegheny County Sacramento Regional Transit District San Diego Trolley, Inc. Read the entire page →
From page 30... ... For example, The New Jersey Transit Corporation and Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority reported only one and two incidents, respectively, to the NTD over a period of six years. The limited number of collisions can be partially explained by the fact that both of these transit agencies operate most of their light-rail network along exclusive rights-ofway. Read the entire page →
From page 31... ... The majority of collisions occurred where the type of grade crossing control was reported to be traffic signals. The presence of traffic signals is often indicative of a semi- or nonexclusive ROW, as operations along exclusive ROW are often accompanied by flashing lights and/or crossing gates. Read the entire page →
From page 32... ... : Tem poral Separation Not Categorized Total Bi-S tate Deve lopm ent Ag en cy 3 2 Dallas Area Rapid Transit 10 1 21 14 25 Denver Regional Transportation District 1 2 11 Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority 2 4 King County Department of Transportation – Metr o Tr an sit Division 1 31 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority 1 105 16 Mary land Tr an sit Ad mi nistr ation 7 6 1 Massa ch usetts Bay Transportation Authority 4 2 3 1 13 Mem phis Area Transit Authorit y 2 1 Metr o Tr an sit 7 3 2 Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas 1 87 2 New Jersey Transit Corporation 1 New Orleans Regional Transit Authority 3 1 Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority 1 1 Port Authority of Allegheny County 2 5 4 Sacram ento Regi onal Transit District 2 26 1 1 24 2 San Di eg o Trolle y, Inc. 14 8 3 5 San Fra nc isco Mu ni ci pa l Ra ilway 3 3 1 51 1 16 1 40 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Au thority 1 8 1 2 Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority 766 4 1 12 3 3 3 155 The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority 16 25 1 5 Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon 6 2 59 Utah Transit Authority 3 21 1 9 1 Grand To ta l (C ount ) Read the entire page →
From page 33... ... The number of collisions per million vehicle revenue mile is more consistent across the time period examined with the removal of these three agencies, although it is clear that significant variation between transit agencies still remains. Figure 4 graphically illustrates the ratio of collisions to vehicle revenue miles for all agencies excluding King County Department of Transportation, Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority, and SEPTA. Read the entire page →
From page 34... ... Active Devices: Quad Gates Active Devices: Traffic Signal Active Devices: Train Approaching Sign No Control Device Other Passive Devices: Cross bucks Passive Devices: Stop sign Unclassified Total Bi-State Development Agency 4 Dallas Area Rapid Transit 3 12 3 1 1 1 Denver Regional Transportation District 2 3 2 Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority 1 1 King County Department of Transportation – Metro Transit Division 1 2 12 6 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority 6 8 17 1 7 1 Maryland Transit Administration 1 1 1 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority 3 4 Memphis Area Transit Authority 2 1 Metro Transit 7 1 Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas 3 10 1 11 New Jersey Transit Corporation New Orleans Regional Transit Authority 4 Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority 1 Port Authority of Allegheny County 6 1 Sacramento Regional Transit District 4 10 3 3 1 San Diego Trolley, Inc. 4 2 3 9 1 San Francisco Municipal Railway 4 1 8 9 4 18 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 7 Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority 2 13 7 11 The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority 8 3 2 Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon 2 1 1 1 Utah Transit Authority 7 2 4 1 Grand Total (Count) Read the entire page →
From page 35... ... Collisions per number of road/rail crossings. Read the entire page →
From page 36... ... VRM (106) Ratio 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 4.85 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 5.01 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 3.74 Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority 2 3 0.08 37.4 0.08 0.0 1 0.08 11.9 0.09 0.0 0.08 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 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 7.29 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 2.20 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 5.44 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 0.38 Metro Transit 1 0.51 2.0 5 1.55 3.2 3 1.79 1.7 1.28 Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas 28 0.47 59.2 31 0.81 38.5 14 0.86 16.3 0.71 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 1.90 New Orleans Regional Transit Authority 0.65 0.0 0.73 0.0 2 0.97 2.1 1 0.16 0.0 0.63 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 0.78 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 1.67 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 2.90 San Diego Trolley, Inc. Read the entire page →
From page 37... ... The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) and San Diego Trolley systems experienced a higher proportion of fatalities that the remaining systems. Read the entire page →
From page 38... ... Figure 5 shows the percentage of collisions by time of day, excluding the data from SEPTA. 38 Agency Angle Back Fixed Object Front- En d Side swipe NOC Other Total Bi-State Development Agency 1 2 2 Dallas Area Rapid Transit 25 1 38 6 1 Denver Regional Transportation District 11 2 1 Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority 4 1 1 King County Depart me nt of Transportation – Metro Transit Division 23 5 2 2 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority 9 97 7 9 Maryland Transit Administration 6 5 3 Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority 2 1 7 3 1 9 Memphis Area Transit Authority 2 1 Metro Transit 1 10 1 Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas 8 76 4 2 New Jersey Transit Corporation 1 New Orleans Regional Transit Authority 2 2 Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority 2 Port Authority of Allegheny County 3 1 7 Sacram ento Regional Transit District 34 1 13 8 San Diego Trolley, Inc. Read the entire page →
From page 39... ... W ith Cy clist W ith Rail Vehicle W ith objec t: Other Tot al W ith Vehicle: Motor Vehicle W ith Per son (Pedestrian) W ith Cy clist W ith Rail Vehicle W ith Object: Other Tot al Total Bi-S tate Deve lopm ent Ag en cy 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 Mary land Tr an sit Ad mi nistr ation 3 3 9 1 1 11 14 Massa ch usetts Bay Transportation Authority 1 1 5 12 1 3 21 1 1 23 Mem phis Area Transit Authorit y 2 2 1 1 3 Metr o Tr an sit 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 Sacram ento Regional Transit District 2 2 12 5 4 21 31 1 1 33 56 San Di eg o Trolle y, Inc. Read the entire page →
From page 40... ... 12 207 120 1005 7 369 Grand Total (Percentage of Total Crashes) 0.7% 12.0% 7.0% 58.4% 0.4% 21.5% Total without SEPTA (Count) Read the entire page →
From page 41... ... Purpose of SSO Agency Safety Data Collection The role of the SSO is to establish standards for rail safety and security practices and procedures to be utilized by the transit agencies under its jurisdiction, and to oversee the implementation of these practices and procedures to ensure compliance with the regulations specified in the SSO rule. The SSO Rule specifies the criteria required to fulfill this mandate in detail. Read the entire page →
From page 42... ... The database also provides information regarding the crossing or intersection controls present. The "warning device" field indicated whether the crossing or intersection was controlled by lights, gates, traffic signals, passive control devices, etc. Read the entire page →
From page 43... ... The collision records provided by New Jersey Transit were written text summaries of individual incidents which were not compiled into a database/spreadsheet format. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority and Metro Transit provided collision data in PDF document format that were organized in the form of a table, but these data sets contained very few data fields. Read the entire page →
From page 44... ... 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 18. Read the entire page →
From page 45... ... Location of Collisions Only the SEPTA database provided any detail regarding ROW classification. The data provided by the other local transit agencies consistently excluded information on the ROW classification of the LRT alignment, and indicated only whether each collision occurred on an exclusive ROW or in mixed-traffic conditions. Read the entire page →
From page 46... ... Only 17.6% of collisions recorded in the three local transit agency databases were also recorded in the CPUC database. The percentage varied from 4.8% of San Francisco Municipal Railway incidents to 28.8% of Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority incidents. Read the entire page →
From page 47... ... California local transit agency collision data transferred to the SSO. Agency Name Number of Incidents Reported in SSO Database Number of Incidents also Reported in Local Agency Database % of AgencyLevel Incidents Also Reported in SSO Database Years Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority 86 80 93.0% Jan. Read the entire page →
From page 48... ... Some agencies may have experienced a high number of total collisions with relatively few meeting the NTD criteria. However, it is more likely that this difference reflects variation in collision reporting practice, either in what incidents local Agency Name Number of Incidents Reported in Local Agency Database Number of Incidents Reported in NTD Database Size of NTD Relative to the Size of Local Agency Database Years Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority 175 111 63.4% 2002–2006 Minneapolis Metro Transit 22 19 86.4% 2004–2007 New Jersey Transit Corporation 50 1 2.0% 2002–2007 San Francisco Municipal Railway 387 62 16.0% 2006–2007 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 153 15 9.8% 2002–2007 Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority 1335 954 71.5% 2002–2005 Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon 253 72 28.5% 2002–2007 Grand Total 2375 1234 52.0% Total (without SEPTA) Read the entire page →
From page 49... ... As expected, this statistic revealed the reliance of the NTD on the incident records contained in the local agency databases, but it is difficult to identify the origin of the remaining records. The NTD does not conduct independent investigations of transit incidents, and relies entirely on the reports Agency Name Number of Incidents Reported in Local Agency Database Number of Local Agency Incidents Also Reported in NTD Database % of AgencyLevel Incidents Also Reported in NTD Database Years Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority 175 95 54.3% 2002–2006 Minneapolis Metro Transit 22 9 40.9% 2004–2007 New Jersey Transit Corporation 50 0 0.0% 2002–2007 San Francisco Municipal Railway 387 36 9.3% 2006–2007 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 153 9 5.9% 2002–2007 Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority 1335 726 54.4% 2002–2005 Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon 253 65 25.7% 2002–2007 Grand Total 2375 940 39.6% Total (without SEPTA) Read the entire page →
From page 50... ... Agency Name Number of Incidents Reported in SSO Database Number of Incidents Reported in NTD Database Years California Public Utilities Commission (SSO) Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority 74 128 2002–2007 Sacramento Regional Transit District 33 64 2002–2007 San Diego Trolley, Inc. Read the entire page →
From page 51... ... Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority 128 38 29.7% 2002–2007 Sacramento Regional Transit District 64 14 21.9% 2002–2007 San Diego Trolley, Inc. 34 26 76.5% 2002–2007 San Francisco Municipal Railway 168 25 14.9% 2002–2007 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 15 11 73.3% 2002–2007 Utah TRAX 16 16 100.0% 2004–2006 Total (SSO Data in NTD) Read the entire page →

From page 21...

... The Data Collection and Transfer between FTA/NTD, SSO, and Local Transit Agencies section outlines the relationship between the three hierarchical levels of transit administration, and identifies the datasets requested and received by the project team from various transit agencies. The National Transit Database, SSO Agencies, and Local Transit Agencies sections examine the collision data available at the federal, state, and local transit agency levels, respectively.