Phyllis Orrick

Crashes on and near college campuses: : a comparative analysis of pedestrian and bicyclist safety

Problem, research strategy, and findings: College campuses are multimodal settings with very high levels of walking and biking in conjunction with high levels of vehicular traffic, which increases risks for bicyclists and pedestrians. In this study, we examine crash data (both police reported and self-reported) and urban form data from three U.S. campuses to understand the spatial and temporal distribution of crashes on the campuses and their immediate periphery. To account for underreporting of pedestrian and bicycle crashes, we developed and circulated an online survey, which helped identify collision hotspots across the three campuses. We then studied these locations to determine their characteristics, generate a typology of campus danger zones, and recommend design and policy changes that could improve pedestrian and cycling safety. We find a significant underreporting of crashes, and unequal spatial and temporal distributions of campus crashes. We identify three particular types of danger zones for pedestrians and cyclists: campus activity hubs, campus access hubs, and through traffic hubs. Injuries tended to be more serious for those crashes taking place on campus peripheries. Takeaway for practice: The intermingling of motorized and non-motorized modes creates significant opportunities for crashes. Planners should be aware of the existing underreporting and give special attention to the three types of danger zones. In addition to the recommendations of the literature for the creation of campus master plans for walking and biking, campuses should conduct safety audits and surveys to identify hotspots and consider specific design improvements for each of the three danger zones to lessen modal conflict.

Airports and Bicycles: What Are Obstacles to and Incentives for Improving Bicycle Access?

Case studies examined how airport operators addressed bicycle access to their properties and the motivations and obstacles that they faced in light of new policies to integrate bicycles, along with transit and walking, into transportation planning, design, and construction and to increase the bicycles role in the transportation system. Eight influential elements that emerged from the review of policy documents and research literature were used to guide interviews: governance structure, location, access roads, self-perceived environmental stewardship, spending restrictions on nonaviation transportation improvements, proximity to transit, policies and mandates to reduce environmental impacts, and land use constraints. Seven cases were selected on the basis of their inclusion in studies on key aspects of airport ground access: Oakland International Airport, San Francisco International Airport, and Los Angeles International Airport, California; Seattle–Tacoma International Airport, Washington; Boston Logan International Airport, Massachusetts; Minneapolis–Saint Paul International Airport, Minnesota; and Portland International Airport, Oregon, an exemplar recommended by several informants. The discussion was limited to employee bicycle access, the focus of airport operators that invested in programs to reduce single-occupancy-vehicle travel at airports. During aggregation of the interviews, replicable approaches for improving bicycle access were identified, as were examples of innovative funding for multimodal access that used revenues generated through passenger facilities charges. The following areas are suggested for additional research: commute needs of airport employees, mode choice for ground access, and airport operator costs and benefits of bicycle access investments.