Walking Away
The New Jersey Department of Transportation's
Fatal Neglect of Pedestrian Safety
Research and writing: Jon Orcutt, Janine Bauer, Suzanne Murray - Tri-State
Transportation Campaign
Benita Jain, Kristen Brengel - NJPIRG Citizen Lobby
Cover: photo - Irvine Turner Boulevard, Newark. The spot depicted was the site of 8 year old Terrell James' death in traffic in March, 1997. Star-Ledger, used with permission. background - articles from New Jersey daily newspapers during the past two years. Although pedestrian and bicyclist deaths are usually reported in isolation, the heavy toll in life and limb is a persistent, systematic feature of transportation in New Jersey.
NJPIRG Citizen Lobby
is dedicated to serving as a watchdog for the state's citizens and
environment. The organization works on behalf of New Jersey residents to
preserve the environment, protect consumers, promote energy and water conservation
and further citizen involvement in the political process.
the Tri-State Transportation Campaign
was founded by metropolitan area public interest organizations alarmed
by transportation trends that threaten to erode the region's communities,
environment and economy. The Campaign seeks to restructure transportation
policy, infrastructure and choices to promote environmental health and
sustainability, economic efficiency and social equity in the 32- county
region in and surrounding New York City, from Trenton to Hartford. Along
with its work to limit highway expansion and promote greater public transit
capacity, the Campaign promotes pedestrian safety and planning for walkable
communities.
Campaign member organizations are:
| CT Fund for the Environment | New Jersey Environmental Lobby | Scenic Hudson |
| Environmental Advocates | NJ Public Interest Research Group | Straphangers Campaign |
| Environmental Defense Fund | NYC Environmental Justice Alliance | Transportation Alternatives |
| Komanoff Energy Associates | Regional Plan Association | |
| Natural Resources Defense Council | Rutgers Environmental Law Clinic |
Acknowledgements: The authors would like to thank the following public officials and others for their assistance in the compilation of data and other information for this report: Bill Beetle, Bill Feldman, Linda Cardell, Jack Lattiere, Mark Stout, Steve Warren, Robert Goslin, William Anderson, Bernard James, Doug Bartlett, NJ Dept. of Transportation. Gary Poedubicky, NJ Dept. of Law and Public Safety. Tom Toronto, Borough of Leonia. John Taikina, Monmouth County. Bettina Zimny, the RBA Group.
| Special thanks are due to U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg and U.S. Representative Bill Pascrell, and their transportation policy staffs, for their recent efforts to improve ISTEA-2's treatment of pedestrian safety. |
Activities of the Tri-State Transportation Campaign in New Jersey, including publication of this report, are made possible by generous support from the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation.
Introduction
Danger to pedestrians is a serious public safety problem in
New Jersey. Pedestrians account for around 22% of traffic fatalities -
about 180 children, women and men killed while walking each year.
Since the passage of the federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, the State of New Jersey has invested over $60 million in federal funds specifically earmarked for building and installing transportation safety features and facilities. Almost none of this investment has been directed to pedestrian safety.
Our analysis finds that the New Jersey Dept. of Transportation invested about $850 in pedestrian safety per pedestrian death in the state from 1992-1996. In contrast, the state spent over $16,000 per car driver and passenger fatality during the same period, and over $2 million for each death at a rail/highway crossing. Although pedestrians make up over one-fifth of traffic fatalities, pedestrian safety received less than 2% of transportation safety capital spending since 1992.
These findings suggest that NJ DOT's safety policy is considerably skewed
relative to the actual risks the citizens of New Jersey face in traffic.
The Tri-State Transportation Campaign has maintained for several years
that, in the post- Interstate era of transportation policy making, NJ DOT
needs to re-invent itself to become more locally and environmentally responsive.
The recommendations detailed in this report indicate several ways in which
the Department can do this in the area of foot transportation and pedestrian
safety.
Summary of Main Findings
Recommendations
Implementation of the following would represent major steps
toward a pedestrian-friendly transportation policy in New Jersey:
New Jersey Pedestrians in Danger
Nationally, one automobile-related fatality in seven - 14% of
all car-related deaths - is a pedestrian. From 1986 to 1995, about 6,000
pedestrians were killed in traffic annually in the United States. More
than 110,000 injuries to pedestrians were reported each year in that period.
This fatality rate is the equivalent of a commercial airline crash with no survivors every two weeks. Pedestrian death is the second-largest cause of travel related deaths in our country - more than plane, train and ship crashes combined. Still, because deaths and severe injuries suffered by pedestrians tend to be reported as isolated events, few see pedestrian safety as a systematic problem.
| New Jersey has one of the most serious pedestrian
safety situations in the U.S. From the record of the first half of the
1990's, we can predict with grim confidence that about 200 New Jersey pedestrians
will die in traffic this year. Walkers killed in traffic have made up
22% or more - nearly one-quarter - of all traffic fatalities in New Jersey
during each year of the 1990s. This rate is second highest of all 50
states, behind only New York.
Nationally, and in NJ, the highest risk is borne by senior citizens. Seniors comprise 13% of the U.S. population, but account for 23% of pedestrians killed in traffic - a rate almost twice as high as that for the general public. Seniors are particularly dependent on safe streets because many of them no longer drive cars. In 1996, New Jerseyans 60 years of age and older were 39% of the pedestrian fatalities in the state. New Jersey's traditional urban centers are not the only areas impacted. Urban counties like Essex, Union, Hudson and Camden are unfortunately heavily impacted by the problem. But so are suburban Bergen and Middlesex Counties. Moreover, on a pedestrian fatalities per capita basis, Atlantic and Salem Counties in the southern part of the state rank worst. |
|
New Jersey Counties Ranked by Pedestrian Fatalities per Capita
ISTEA and NJ Pedestrian Safety in the 1990's
Passage of the federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act of 1991 was hailed as a watershed by government officials, planners,
environmentalists and transportation watchdogs. The law reorganized federal
transportation funding categories and planning requirements to provide
significant new opportunities for improving public transit and alternatives
to driving for short trips - namely, bicycling and walking. New Jersey
responded to the new federal priorities with a state-wide plan that calls
for increasing walking and bicycling trips in New Jersey by significant
amounts.1
Since 1991, New Jersey has used these new opportunities to direct over $26 million to pedestrian and bicycling projects. These projects were generally funded from ISTEA's "transportation enhancements" program, though a few were paid for using ISTEA's air quality improvement or other flexible funds. This represented a substantial increase in investment in non-motorized transportation from the pre-ISTEA period.
Despite this investment, however, pedestrian fatalities and injuries in the state have not exhibited any marked downward trend (a dip in fatalities in 1994 and 1995 was followed by a rebound in 1996 - reported injuries have hovered consistently around 6,000 per year).
In part, this is because the investments in New Jersey's walking environment made during ISTEA's first five years represented just the tip of the iceberg when measured against the significant effort needed to create an infrastructure that promotes and protects walking and bicycling.
But in part, it is also because many projects funded through ISTEA's "Transportation Enhancements" program are designed to create new, mostly recreational space for cyclists and pedestrians, rather than making safer the areas where people walk for everyday practical reasons. Only about 10% of the "Enhancements" projects that have gotten underway in New Jersey since 1992 are geared toward the improvement of the pedestrian environment in town centers, in busy walking corridors or around train stations, and even some of these projects may not have a significant safety improvement aspect.2 Other pedestrian projects that may be funded via other ISTEA programs, like the flexible Surface Transportation Program, may have a significant safety component, but they are few in number.
We do not advocate reducing the number of bike/pedestrian trails or recreational projects. Instead, we recommend that New Jersey use the ISTEA safety funds it receives to build sidewalks, implement traffic calming projects in residential and commercial areas and eliminate pedestrian danger spots.
ISTEA's Safety Funds Don't Reach New Jersey Pedestrians
It is instructive to look at an ISTEA funding program equal
in size to the Transportation Enhancement program to understand that safety
has not been an integral piece of the new attention to cycling and pedestrian
projects. During the life of ISTEA (not including 1997), the New Jersey
Dept. of Transportation spent less than two percent of the transportation
safety capital funds it received from the federal government on pedestrian
safety. Under ISTEA, New Jersey DOT programmed $61,651,000 from ISTEA's
Surface Transportation Program safety set-aside for transportation safety
capital projects. The main NJ DOT categories of this funding break down
as follows:
The Tri-State Transportation Campaign examined NJ DOT project records for 1992-1996 for all four of these categories (available below as Appendix B). None of the expenditures for Safety Management, Hazard Elimination or Rail-Highway Grade Crossing appeared to promote pedestrian safety. Under the Restriping program, some projects contained a crosswalk component. The Campaign later interviewed NJ DOT capital program safety section staff and discussed the safety program components at length. As a result of those conversations, we classified 10% of certain Restriping projects and a proportion of specific "Safety Management System" budget lines as investment in pedestrian safety, for a total of $1,102,567.3 This is 1.8% of the total 1992-1996 NJ ISTEA safety fund expenditure.
Note that none of this 1.8% is contained in projects that were specifically designed to promote pedestrian safety. Moreover, the restriping projects do not represent significant safety improvements for any mode of travel - they are maintenance projects for road markings that have become worn. A recent national survey of pedestrian safety spending from ISTEA's capital safety program that used a more strict definition of "pedestrian safety project" found that New Jersey had not spent any of its ISTEA safety funds on pedestrians.4 Moreover, a pending report on NJ DOT's safety program to the Federal Highway Administration makes absolutely no mention of pedestrian safety.5 DOT's view was that pedestrian safety was being addressed by a separate Safety Management agency task force directed by the Division of Highway Traffic Safety. But that agency does not fund capital projects, but enforcement and education efforts.
Pedestrians Need Infrastructure Too
The fact is, avoiding pedestrian deaths and injuries is likely
the most cost-effective life- saving traffic safety construction priority
state, county and local governments in New Jersey can adopt. The consequences
of car-pedestrian crashes are severe for pedestrians, as evidenced in the
gap between pedestrians' share of traffic injuries and fatalities in New
Jersey. While pedestrians account for fewer than 5% of traffic injuries
in the state, they are nearly one-quarter of NJ traffic fatalities. While
the risks to motorists of driving in fast highway traffic are difficult
to minimize, simple facilities can separate pedestrians from vehicle traffic
in most cases, and slow cars to safer speeds where car-pedestrian interactions
are most likely. We are used to thinking about transportation infrastructure
in terms of big interstates, giant runways and costly transit lines. But
unless space for pedestrians and cyclists is specifically provided for,
these other types of infrastructure can crowd out basic human activities
like walking. Pedestrian and cycling infrastructure costs money, though
less than other transportation facilities. Most importantly, it can save
lives, as well as make our communities more friendly and liveable, and
preserve the environment and our health in the bargain. What sort of capital
projects protect pedestrians and promote walking? Much of New Jersey's
road network, including the streets that are the primary thoroughfares
and residential streets in our towns, do not feature the most basic form
of pedestrian infrastructure - the sidewalk. Some county and town governments
are attempting to change this (see below).
Additionally, pedestrians suffer because a great many streets have been engineered with only with fast traffic flow in mind. For example, all around the state, curb lines have been cut back to reduce turning radii and allow cars to corner faster. The result is that walkers have wider intersections to cross and they face faster traffic when doing so.
A new school of thought in traffic engineering has emerged that seeks to address this imbalance by re-designing street space with all potential street users in mind. "Traffic calming" strategies use both physical design features and traffic regulation to reduce vehicular speeds. Traffic calming engineering methods have been developed in the context of the belief that a street is valuable public space that should be shared by different types of road users. Traffic calming plans have proven successful in both urban and suburban areas.
Typical traffic calming devices are narrowed road segments, speed humps or tables, special, textured paving material, curving roadways and landscaping. Used in combination in district-wide plans, traffic calming elements reduce through-traffic where it is unwanted and places other road users on a more equal footing with the traffic that remains.
The NJ DOT acknowledges these potential benefits by including an extensive description and examples of successful traffic calming measures in its published pedestrian safety guidelines.6 However, unlike its treatment of sidewalks, the DOT's pedestrian guidelines are not yet prescriptive - they do not show how and when to apply traffic calming devices. It is time for NJ DOT to investigate the theory and practice of traffic calming more enthusiastically, implement projects for evaluation and establish technical traffic calming design guidelines. ISTEA's safety construction funds are tailor-made for funding traffic calming projects.
Pedestrian Safety in Demand
New Jerseyans are trying to respond to our lack of adequate
and safe space to walk. In some cases, officials and citizens are applying
traffic calming principles without knowing them by that name. In other
cases, unfortunately, they feel forced to reduce walking in order to minimize
exposure to danger.
| The yield sign saga New Jersey towns - whether seeking to revive aging downtowns or preserve thriving ones - have realized that providing a pedestrian-friendly, human-scale environment is a way to increase quality of life.* High on the livability scale is the quality of the walking experience: Do drivers whiz past when you are in the crosswalk? Are you nearly mown down while trying to cross Main Street? To combat aggressive driver behavior, speeding and intimidation of pedestrians, towns in recent years have begun putting "yield to pedestrian" signs on orange cones, barrels and posts in mid-crosswalk. The towns found that placing visible objects bearing "yield" and "go slow" messages in streets - rudimentary traffic calming installations - was successful in slowing traffic and reminding drivers to obey the law. But the signs also showed the resistance of the road engineering profession to measures that constrain, rather than promote traffic flow. Traffic engineers claimed the signs, if not securely bolted to the streets, could become projectiles and hurt people or property. Especially noteworthy is the recent legal battle between Monmouth County, which wanted the barrels with signs removed, and the shore resort of Belmar, which insisted that the signs helped protect people walking to the beach across Ocean Avenue, a wide beachfront county road extending through several towns with heavy traffic. Belmar won the first round in August, 1995 when a Superior Court judge refused to enjoin Belmar's placement of the signs. The court said heavy seasonal pedestrian volumes were a "special need" under New Jersey's vehicular code (N.J.S.A. 39:197- 3). The county asked for a trial, however, and won the case in 1997. Traffic engineers also prevailed in 1996 when the Governor's Highway Traffic Safety Commission determined - without any evidence of problems caused - that the mid-street signs created a "liability problem" for towns because they were viewed as a departure from signage standards. A letter was forwarded to all NJ towns, after which most removed the signs. NJ DOT has recently promulgated guidelines
to govern how the signs may be placed in the road, and these guidelines
will soon be sent to all towns. Unfortunately, the guidelines are overly
restrictive, limiting signs to central business districts, and requiring
the signs to be placed away from the crosswalk where the car/human conflict
occurs. The four years that the state, counties and towns have spent fighting
over placement of the signs would surely have been more fruitfully spent
investigating permanent engineering and traffic-calming solutions. * "For Safety's Sake and Their Own, Towns Learn to Pamper Pedestrians." New York Times, July 23, 1995 |
| "Courtesy busing" underlines
dangerous walking New Jersey's status as a dangerous place to walk is nowhere brought home as sharply as in the continuing debate over "courtesy busing" for school children. The core of the problem is that fierce traffic and non-existent sidewalks have led many New Jersey parents and school administrators to the understandable conclusion that it is unsafe for kids to walk to school. Today's adults may ponder to what extent the degradation of "walkability" also represents an overall decline of community - after all, what kind of place do we live in where kids can't walk to school? Towns unsafe for young pedestrians also generate many extra short car trips and more diesel buses plying neighborhood streets. "Hazardous walking conditions," according to a recent NJ Dept. of Education study, are a factor in New Jersey taxpayers bearing the highest pupil transportation costs in the country. This is because many school districts provide "courtesy" service busing for students considered non-remote - under two miles to school for primary and under 2.5 miles for secondary students.* At present, school districts and parent groups are focused more on additional busing than creating safe walking routes to school. As a result, the cost of busing has become a major cost to school boards and a target of controversial budget cuts. A state law passed in 1995, as "courtesy busing"
was generating debate in towns throughout the state, has the potential
to re-focus energy on a safe walking environment. N.J.S.A. 27:1B-25 requires
the NJ Transportation Commissioner to consider, when examining municipalities'
applications for Transportation Trust Fund "local aid" funds "whether or
not a project is intended to remedy hazardous [walking] conditions," and
to give such projects priority.** However, municipalities seem largely
unaware of the provision, and state Depts of Transportation, Education
and Community Affairs have provided little guidance to remedy this ignorance.
In the two years of the Local Aid program since the hazardous route priority
was established, only 3-4 requests were submitted each year for sidewalks
out of about 1100 applications submitted. This should change forthwith
(see "Recommendations," page 12 above). About $175 million worth of applications
are submitted by municipalities annually, competing for about $52 million.
Most applications are for road resurfacing and road reconstruction projects,
although sidewalks are included in some of these. *Analysis of New Jersey's Pupil Transportation
Policy, Nov. 1995, Deloitte & Touche Consulting Group, for the
NJ Dept. of Education. |
The Right Foot Forward - state,
county and municipal officials point the way to a walkable New Jersey
Sidewalks Figure in Residential Site Improvement
Standards
Last year, the NJ Department of Community Affairs adopted uniform standards
for how new housing developments would be built, including standards for
streets, parking and sidewalks. The standards included a progressive set
of criteria for provision of sidewalks, requiring them in virtually all
new urban and suburban housing developments, and within 2,500 feet of transit
stations, school or public bus routes, where a school is less than 2 miles
away and where the development connects to streets with existing sidewalks.
The standards represent an important victory for proponents of transit-friendly
and pedestrian- friendly land use policies, and are noteworthy for saying
that municipalities' efforts to calm traffic shall not be impeded by the
standards. County launches comprehensive sidewalk initiative In May of
1995, Monmouth County began to map existing sidewalks on 197 miles of state
roads and over 200 miles of county roads. Using a global positioning system
(GPS) unit, Monmouth County Planning Board interns recorded the location
of 118 linear sidewalk miles. The information was fed into the county's
geographical information system, which already contained highway and street
data. The project thus identified the existing gaps in Monmouth County's
sidewalk network.
County launches comprehensive
sidewalk initiative
In May of 1995, Monmouth County began to map existing sidewalks on 197
miles of state roads and over 200 miles of county roads. Using a global
positioning system (GPS) unit, Monmouth County Planning Board interns recorded
the location of 118 linear sidewalk miles. The information was fed into
the county's geographical information system, which already contained highway
and street data. The project thus identified the existing gaps in Monmouth
County's sidewalk network.
In 1996, the project's scope was widened to include identification of specific candidates for construction to fill sidewalk network missing links and connect walking trip origins and destinations. Pedestrian "trip generators," such as residential areas, schools, retail and job sites were mapped with the GPS unit. Gaps in pedestrian routes were identified, and potential projects were then discussed with municipal officials.
The county forwarded project proposals on state roads to NJDOT, and identified pedestrian needs within existing DOT capital projects pursuant to NJDOT policy 1409. The county itself began to "scope" projects on county roads -- five projects constructing about five new sidewalk miles are now underway with county funding. Additional projects will be identified this fall.
Town pioneers traffic calming NJ style
A few years ago, Tom Toronto was concerned about the way traffic was
eroding the "sense of place" in Leonia, and about a Bergen County plan
to widen and "improve" Fort Lee Road, Leonia's main thoroughfare. So he
ran for town council, and won. In office, he suggested the need for a fresh
perspective, noting that all plans under consideration would increase the
flow of traffic through the town, with no cognizance of the need to move
about on foot.
During an update of the town master plan, Toronto began to talk to planners about revising the plan's "circulation element" - the treatment of transportation. Most were traffic engineers, but they included traffic calming experts at the Project for Public Spaces. Ultimately, the town hired the RBA Group of Morristown. RBA was tasked with creating a people-friendly vision for the town: continuous sidewalks, pedestrian and bicycle access to key destinations, and less cut-through traffic in neighborhoods. The town also needed a parking management program.
RBA Group was already under contract to NJDOT to write NJ's Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, Leonia found itself in position to become a case study site for the Master Plan contract. NJDOT's single pedestrian planner pointed out many historic elements of traffic control built into the town early in the century, such as traffic circles, neck-downs and angle parking, that slowed traffic as it approached residential neighborhoods. RBA's work was "eye opening," according to Tom. "People realized we didn't have to put in guardrails to protect pedestrians, that there was a better way of doing things."
Town meetings brought citizens, police, the school board and the town council into the picture. Once people saw the contrasts between pedestrian- and car-oriented planning, what had been an "alternative" vision became the mainstream. Another election ensued, and pedestrian safety became part of the common parlance. The Borough of Leonia Pedestrian Safety, Circulation and Access Plan is supposed to serve as a case study for the development of a model Pedestrian Safety Plan, though by whom remains unclear.
Capital improvements underway and planned in Leonia include safe areas around schools; better downtown pedestrian conditions, and pedestrian access to recreation areas like parks. Planning documents now call for sidewalk continuity, lower parking requirements, and other measures to ensure a balanced approach to development. New features include special pavement markings for crosswalks, signal timing changes, streetscape improvements and sidewalk extensions, and traffic-calming measures. Funds from a variety of sources have been utilized for the improvements.
Pedestrian safety became an organizing influence for the town, and has now created a different paradigm used by residents and borough officials, from examination of site plans to investigations by the traffic safety officer. "Pedestrian safety is set firmly in the public's imagination," according to Tom Toronto.
Leonia's success can now be replicated in other towns. NJDOT has recently committed $1 million to fund consultants to work with towns to develop and design pedestrian safety and access projects for inclusion in future capital programs. This is a commendable first step for NJDOT.
Appendix A: A Standard Pedestrian
Fatality Myth, and the Facts
It is an unfortunate myth that a great proportion of pedestrians
hit or killed are under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The motivation
to shift the blame to the victim runs deep in some circles, perhaps to
refocus attention away from spending, education, enforcement and infrastructure
needs that have gone unmet by responsible agencies. In any case, pedestrians
in New Jersey do not appear to be at fault very often, nor are they imbibing
at any significant rate that would cause the State, municipalities or developers
to rethink the need to invest in sidewalks as a safety measure. According
to the NJ Division of Highway Traffic Safety, 12% or less of pedestrian
fatalities in 1993 involved pedestrians who were under the influence of
alcohol. Moreover, this figure does not logically implicate those 12% for
causing the crashes they fell victim to, although some use it that way.
Similarly, 1993 records show that fully 43% of pedestrians were hit while in crosswalks at proper intersections, according to the Division of Highway Traffic Safety in the Dept. of Law and Public Safety.
This myth and others about pedestrian injuries and fatalities can now be corrected due to better record-keeping and an innovative database management project between NJDOT, police departments and the Division of Highway Traffic Safety in the NJ Department of Law and Public Safety. Easy access to records of both fatalities and injuries can be obtained, by municipality, soon after the data is processed, and the location of the accidents graphically represented on standard street maps. Moreover, police departments are beginning to use a new motor vehicle accident form that identifies a larger number of contributing factors than had been the case in the past. These reports may prove helpful in determining whether certain factors caused or influenced incidents in which pedestrians are injured or killed. Unfortunately, the form was developed without the input of pedestrian safety advocates, and still does not list several contributing circumstance factors which would make remedying our pedestrian safety problem easier, such as a lack of sidewalks.
The AAA distributes a form to gather information about pedestrian injuries and fatalities to police departments, and those municipalities and counties that cooperate provide useful data about the circumstances of the crashes. Use of, and improvement of, these forms in the new accident reporting form would be helpful.
Appendix B: NJDOT Traffic
Safety Projects, 1992-1996 (link to come)
Notes
(if you jumped here from a footnote link, use your "back" button
to return to your place in the text)
1 Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan: Strategic Planning Model New Jersey Dept. of Transportation, Trenton. 1995.
2 "Programmed Transportation Enhancement Projects (1992-1997)." Attachment to Feb. 11, 1997 letter from Bill Feldman, NJ DOT to the Tri-State Transportation Campaign.
3 Benita Jain telecom w/ Linda Cardell, NJDOT Feb., 1997, and Janine Bauer telecom w/ Bernard James and meeting with Steve Warren NJDOT, Sept., 1997.
4 Mean Streets: Pedestrian Safety and Reform of the Nation's Transportation Law. Surface Transportation Policy Project and Environmental Working Group. Washington, D.C., 1997.
5 "Progress of DOT Safety Program," draft
as of September, 1997. NJ DOT.
It is important to note that pedestrian safety construction projects are
fully eligible for funding under ISTEA. The ISTEA statute establishes a
Surface Transportation Program. Section 133(d)(1) of the U.S. Code (Chapter
1, title 23) says "For Safety Programs: 10 percent of funds apportioned
to a State under section 104(b)(3) for the surface transportation program
for a fiscal year shall only be available for carrying out sections 130
and 152 of this title." Section 130 deals with railway-highway crossings.
Section 152, "Hazard elimination program," says "Each State shall conduct
and systematically maintain an engineering survey of all public roads to
identify hazardous locations, sections, and elements, including roadside
obstacles and unmarked or poorly marked roads, which may constitute a danger
to motorists or pedestrians..." (emphasis added).
States may transfer funds between the rail/highway grade crossing and hazard
elimination program (see Report on the Review of the STP Safety Setaside
Program, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Program Review,
1994.)
6 Pedestrian Compatible Planning and Design Guidelines. NJ Dept. of Transportation, April, 1996.
(if you jumped here from a footnote link, use your "back" button to return to your place in the text)
281 Park Avenue South, New York, NY 10010 |
|
