NYMTC Regional Pedestrian Safety Study - New York Metropolitan ...
NYMTC Regional Pedestrian Safety Study - New York Metropolitan ... NYMTC Regional Pedestrian Safety Study - New York Metropolitan ...
6.3 Highway Safety Improvement Program – Funding Criteria The federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is based on funding projects through a systematic process that includes the analysis of crash data. Section 1401 of SAFETEA-LU, the current federal legislation, amended Section 148 of Title 23 USC to designate the HSIP as a “core” FHWA program with dedicated funding rather than a set-aside of STP funds. Under the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), states are required to develop and implement a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). As part of its SHSP, a State must have a crash data system with the ability to perform safety problem identification and countermeasure analysis. The analysis must identify hazardous locations, sections and elements, and “using such criteria as the State determines to be appropriate, establish the relative severity of those locations in terms of accidents, injuries, deaths, traffic volume levels, and other relevant data.” Guidance on development of SHSPs has been issued and is available at http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu. Highway Safety Investigation Program (HSIP) funds are intended to be spent on projects that are developed through a data driven, problem identification method to address safety needs at identified high crash locations. Projects proposing effective countermeasures to address safety needs at high crash locations as a result of crash data analysis are eligible for STP-Safety and HSIP funds. Occasionally, specific locations needing safety improvement are not part of previously identified locations in need of a safety investigation. Projects developed for these locations that will address a safety deficiency must demonstrate a performance based result (i.e. fatal, injury, accident reduction, benefit/cost ratio) in order to be eligible for STP-Safety/HSIP funds. HSIP funds may not be assigned to projects solely based on project scope. This includes preventive projects where safety type work and items are to be funded, but the scope does not address specifically identified safety needs. For example, requirement type contracts for items such as traffic signals, signs and pavement markings may only use safety funds if the requirement contracts are used as a result of a safety investigation where the items under a requirements contract are considered the appropriate countermeasure for a safety treatment. The applicability of STP-Safety/HSIP funding for a project is to be based on the project’s ability to address safety needs identified through a Highway Safety Investigation Process or other appropriate level of accident-data analysis and effective countermeasure identification process. NYMTC Pedestrian Safety Study 100
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS As noted in Chapter 2, pedestrian crashes and fatalities have been declining in the NYMTC Region over the past decade. However, there are still a significant number of crashes; in 2004, there were 13,328 pedestrian crashes in the region resulting in 249 pedestrian fatalities and 13,492 pedestrian injuries (see Table 2.1). Also, pedestrian crashes have been increasing in some of the counties, particularly those with growing populations. Thus, there is still room for additional efforts to improve pedestrian safety. This section makes some specific recommendations to that end. Note that specific countermeasures are not included here. Many countermeasures are described in Chapter 5; while some specific countermeasures (see Table 5.5) have been shown to be particularly effective in reducing pedestrian crashes, the countermeasures to be used at a specific site should be determined by an analysis of that site. 7.1 Make Pedestrian Safety a Priority Each jurisdiction should establish a policy on how pedestrian safety will be integrated into the planning and design of transportation facilities. Because of the wide differences in the characteristics of the region, the approach to pedestrian safety should be individualized. Some general features should be considered, however. ♦ Establish a policy that pedestrian safety is part of every project. ♦ Develop a sidewalk plan. The plan would indicate where sidewalks are needed or will be needed given future growth in the area. Having such a plan as an integral component of the CEQR and SEQR process would make it easier to include pedestrian infrastructure in projects when roads are being built or rehabilitated. It would also facilitate better control the scope and scale of pedestrian facilities desired in new developments. Sidewalks/paths should be included on local government’s official map. ♦ Recognize the link between land use and pedestrian safety. ♦ Creation of special pedestrian zones for children or seniors. In areas with high concentrations of more vulnerable pedestrians, for example, near schools or senior centers, the design standards should be adapted to the users. For example, slower walking times for traffic signals could be used in senior pedestrian zones if analysis indicates that they would be beneficial to a majority of the intersection users. Schools should accept responsibility for student access on their grounds and in adjoining area. ♦ Recognize the natural connection between pedestrians and transit. The sidewalk plan should include the location of transit stops and how pedestrians access them. ♦ Establish a Road Safety Audit program to address known high crash locations. 7.2 Promote Coordination and Collaboration Pedestrian safety information and efforts should be coordinated. There are several aspects to coordination: NYMTC Pedestrian Safety Study 101
- Page 57 and 58: Some sidewalks are poorly designed
- Page 59 and 60: pedestrian design. At least one per
- Page 61 and 62: Crosswalks need to be more visible.
- Page 63 and 64: V COUNTERMEASURES AND STRATEGIES Th
- Page 65 and 66: timing and street lighting. New Jer
- Page 67 and 68: Providing Sidewalks: Walking-along-
- Page 69 and 70: the pedestrian crash rate was signi
- Page 71 and 72: Speed management through engineerin
- Page 73 and 74: nearby streets. Whereas Bus-pedestr
- Page 75 and 76: and have geometric curvature that e
- Page 77 and 78: Roadway narrowings are used to prov
- Page 79 and 80: have experienced a maintenance prob
- Page 81 and 82: measures with specific geographic a
- Page 83 and 84: and 3.0 feet per second more approp
- Page 85 and 86: Figure 5.17 Split Phase Cycle Sourc
- Page 87 and 88: Combined Automatic and Actuated Sig
- Page 89 and 90: 5.2.5 Visibility To insure safety,
- Page 91 and 92: Pedestrian Crosswalk Signs: There a
- Page 93 and 94: also be placed next to the stop lin
- Page 95 and 96: Table 5.5 Crash Reduction Factors f
- Page 97 and 98: ask them to act as role models for
- Page 99 and 100: 5.3.3 Educating Local Officials and
- Page 101 and 102: • Good planning and organization.
- Page 103 and 104: VI. FUNDING Funding for pedestrian
- Page 105 and 106: York, Projects are chosen by the NY
- Page 107: NHTSA distributes the Section 402 f
- Page 111 and 112: o Safe Routes to School • NYMTC s
- Page 113 and 114: easy to use is residential populati
- Page 115 and 116: REFERENCES American Council of the
- Page 117 and 118: ITE (1998) Design and Safety of Ped
- Page 119 and 120: Parsons Brincherhoff Quade & Dougla
- Page 121 and 122: Intentionally left blank. NYMTC Ped
- Page 123 and 124: Intentionally left blank. NYMTC Ped
- Page 125 and 126: NYMTC Pedestrian Safety Interview f
- Page 127 and 128: 12. Do you have any strategies or t
- Page 129 and 130: Appendix B: PEDESTRIAN SAFETY CONTA
- Page 131 and 132: New York City Department of Transpo
- Page 133 and 134: Suffolk County Department of Public
- Page 135 and 136: Appendix C: TRAFFIC SAFETY BOARD CO
- Page 137 and 138: Appendix D: ON LINE PEDESTRIAN SAFE
- Page 139 and 140: FARS Query System is an interactive
- Page 141 and 142: Education and Enforcement Counterme
- Page 143 and 144: Appendix E: NEW YORK CITY FATATLIES
- Page 145 and 146: Appendix F: Prompt Lists for Pedest
- Page 147 and 148: Pedestrian Safety Prompt List Gener
- Page 149 and 150: pathway provide direct access to wa
- Page 151 and 152: If so, is there a sign that explain
6.3 Highway <strong>Safety</strong> Improvement Program – Funding Criteria<br />
The federal Highway <strong>Safety</strong> Improvement Program (HSIP) is based on funding projects through<br />
a systematic process that includes the analysis of crash data. Section 1401 of SAFETEA-LU, the<br />
current federal legislation, amended Section 148 of Title 23 USC to designate the HSIP as a<br />
“core” FHWA program with dedicated funding rather than a set-aside of STP funds. Under the<br />
Highway <strong>Safety</strong> Improvement Program (HSIP), states are required to develop and implement a<br />
Strategic Highway <strong>Safety</strong> Plan (SHSP). As part of its SHSP, a State must have a crash data<br />
system with the ability to perform safety problem identification and countermeasure analysis.<br />
The analysis must identify hazardous locations, sections and elements, and “using such criteria<br />
as the State determines to be appropriate, establish the relative severity of those locations in<br />
terms of accidents, injuries, deaths, traffic volume levels, and other relevant data.” Guidance on<br />
development of SHSPs has been issued and is available at http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu.<br />
Highway <strong>Safety</strong> Investigation Program (HSIP) funds are intended to be spent on projects that are<br />
developed through a data driven, problem identification method to address safety needs at<br />
identified high crash locations. Projects proposing effective countermeasures to address safety<br />
needs at high crash locations as a result of crash data analysis are eligible for STP-<strong>Safety</strong> and<br />
HSIP funds.<br />
Occasionally, specific locations needing safety improvement are not part of previously identified<br />
locations in need of a safety investigation. Projects developed for these locations that will<br />
address a safety deficiency must demonstrate a performance based result (i.e. fatal, injury,<br />
accident reduction, benefit/cost ratio) in order to be eligible for STP-<strong>Safety</strong>/HSIP funds.<br />
HSIP funds may not be assigned to projects solely based on project scope. This includes<br />
preventive projects where safety type work and items are to be funded, but the scope does not<br />
address specifically identified safety needs. For example, requirement type contracts for items<br />
such as traffic signals, signs and pavement markings may only use safety funds if the<br />
requirement contracts are used as a result of a safety investigation where the items under a<br />
requirements contract are considered the appropriate countermeasure for a safety treatment. The<br />
applicability of STP-<strong>Safety</strong>/HSIP funding for a project is to be based on the project’s ability to<br />
address safety needs identified through a Highway <strong>Safety</strong> Investigation Process or other<br />
appropriate level of accident-data analysis and effective countermeasure identification process.<br />
<strong>NYMTC</strong> <strong>Pedestrian</strong> <strong>Safety</strong> <strong>Study</strong> 100
Change language