Abstract

Some studies have estimated fatality and injury rates for bus occupants, but data was aggregated at the country level and made no distinction between bus types. Also, injured pedestrians and cyclists, as a result of bus travel, were overlooked. We compared injury rates for car and city bus occupants on specific urban major roads, as well as the cyclist and pedestrian injuries associated with car and bus travel. We selected ten bus routes along major urban arterials (in Montreal, Canada). Passenger-kilometers traveled were estimated from vehicle counts at intersections (2002–2010) and from bus passenger counts (2008). Police accident reports (2001–2010) provided injury data for all modes. Injury rates associated with car and bus travel were calculated for vehicle occupants, pedestrians, and cyclists. Injury rate ratios were also computed. The safety benefits of bus travel, defined as the number of vehicle occupant, cyclist, and pedestrian injuries saved, were estimated for each route. Overall, for all ten routes, the ratio between car and bus occupant injury rates is 3.7 (95% CI [3.4, 4.0]). The rates of pedestrian and cyclist injuries per hundred million passenger-kilometers are also significantly greater for car travel than that for bus travel: 4.1 (95% CI [3.5, 4.9]) times greater for pedestrian injuries; 5.3 (95% CI [3.8, 7.6]) times greater for cyclist injuries. Similar results were observed for fatally and severely injured vehicle occupants, cyclists, and pedestrians. At the route level, the safety benefits of bus travel increase with the difference in injury rate associated with car and bus travel but also with the amount of passenger-kilometers by bus. Results show that city bus is a safer mode than car, for vehicle occupants but also for cyclists and pedestrians traveling along these bus routes. The safety benefits of bus travel greatly vary across urban routes; this spatial variation is most likely linked to environmental factors. Understanding the safety benefits of public transit for specific transport routes is likely to provide valuable information for mobilizing city and transportation planners.

Highlights

  • Road traffic is associated with several public health problems including urban air pollution, noise, Traveling by Bus Instead of Car on Urban Major Roads: Safety Benefits for Vehicle Occupants, Pedestrians,...physical inactivity, and injury

  • The non-fatal injury rate is higher for car occupants compared to that for bus occupants: 4.3 times higher per kilometer traveled in Norway [7] and 5.0 times higher per person-trips in the USA [3]

  • For major injuries, the injury rates are estimated overall for all ten routes since the number of major injuries associated with city busses is insufficient at the route level

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Road traffic is associated with several public health problems including urban air pollution, noise, Traveling by Bus Instead of Car on Urban Major Roads: Safety Benefits for Vehicle Occupants, Pedestrians,...physical inactivity, and injury. Another study found fatality rate to be as high as 66 times greater for car occupants than those for bus occupants per passenger-mile traveled [4]. The non-fatal injury rate is higher for car occupants compared to that for bus occupants: 4.3 times higher per kilometer traveled in Norway [7] and 5.0 times higher per person-trips in the USA [3]. These studies aggregated data for entire countries or groups of countries and cannot describe the potential spatial variation across regions and contexts (e.g., urban versus rural). At the country level, no distinction is usually made between different types of busses (e.g., school bus, intercity, urban transit) [3, 6, 8], except for one study which only looked at fatality rates [9]

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call