Buford Highway: a case Study

2. What resources are currently available? What other resources are needed to ensure success? Are there untapped resources that you could garner, if needed?

• 
  air pollution
  
• 
  automobile level of service
  
• 
  economic growth, gentrification and crime
  
• 
  social capital and crime
  

• 
  pedestrian injury and fatality
  

1. 
   Perform qualitative assessment for the variables listed above (go to page 12)
   

OR

2. 
   Perform the quantitative assessment for pedestrian injury and fatality (go to page 21)
   

Several factors affect the amount of pollution that is given off by motor vehicles such as vehicle type, age, speed, driving conditions, atmospheric conditions, and time spent idling. Larger vehicles and vehicles with lower fuel mileage generally produce more pollution; however these factors are less influential than particulates from the wear of brake pads and tires and evaporating fuel from unsealed gas tanks. Diesel powered vehicles also emit more harmful byproducts than vehicles of similar size powered by gasoline; diesel exhaust contains several hundred different organic and inorganic compounds, many of which have been designated as toxic. Light-duty diesel engines can emit 50 to 80 times more particulate mass than gasoline engines and heavy-duty trucks emit 100 to 200 times more particulate mass. Slower traffic is often associated with higher vehicle emissions per mile traveled because vehicles stalled in traffic spend more time running and emit more exhaust. In addition, the air pollution emissions of short trips are disproportionately high in relation to total vehicle trips and miles traveled since these trips tend to be short and involve cold starts (starting a cold engine) that emit high levels of pollution.

Please fill in the table below identifying:

• 
  All relevant populations that will be affected
  
• 
  Positive and negative health outcomes that would result
  
• 
  Your degree of certainty with respect to each health outcome
  

The redevelopment plan is likely to reduce the number of automobile crashes due to traffic calming, however reducing the flow of traffic could lead to other negative health outcomes. For instance, reducing the number of lanes may slow down ambulance response times which could decrease an individuals’ chance of survival from a cardiopulmonary event. Using national data, it was estimated that 10,811 individuals living in the county would be hospitalized for cardiovascular diseases in any given year (1.6 visits per 100 people). One study found that increasing response time from 5 minutes to 8 minutes (for 90% of the calls) would decrease survival by 2-3% and there was an additional 2% decrease in survival when response times increased from 8 minutes to 14 minutes. However, decreased response times were not found to affect survival rates for individuals who suffered from traumatic injury or those involved in road traffic accidents. In addition to distance and traveling conditions, numerous other factors have been found to affect ambulance response times such as the geographical distribution of ambulance stations, availability of vehicles to respond, and the use of ambulances for routine patient transfers.

Please fill in the table below identifying:

• 
  All relevant populations that will be affected
  
• 
  Positive and negative health outcomes that would result
  
• 
  Your degree of certainty with respect to each health outcome
  

Gentrification has been defined as “the unit-by-unit acquisition of housing, displacing low-income residents by high-income residents” and it is independent of the structural condition, architecture, tenure, or original cost of the housing. Gentrification typically occurs slowly over many years as the original population is replaced by a new population with a different social class, culture, income level, and lifestyle.

The redevelopment plan is expected to lead to increased economic growth and vitality in the area. The plan also calls for an increase in housing units from 1,000 units to 2,000 units with 5% of the new units being subsidized housing saved for the current residents.

Please fill in the table below identifying:

• 
  All relevant populations that will be affected
  
• 
  Positive and negative health outcomes that would result
  
• 
  Your degree of certainty with respect to each health outcome
  

“Social capital" is a term often used to describe the amount of formal and informal social networks, group membership, trust, reciprocity, and civic engagement in a neighborhood. Putnam described how these “networks of civic engagement foster sturdy norms of generalized reciprocity and encourage the emergence of social trust” (Putnam, 1995). A decline in American civic engagement over time has been witnessed through reduced participation in various civic associations and more notably a decrease in the proportion of Americans who socialize with their neighbors. In adults, higher levels of social capital and social connectedness have been linked to decreased risk of mortality (all cause, ischemic heart disease, and cardiovascular disease), higher levels of self-rated health, physical activity, and a lower prevalence of mental health problems.

Please fill in the table below identifying:

• 
  All relevant populations that will be affected
  
• 
  Positive and negative health outcomes that would result
  
• 
  Your degree of certainty with respect to each health outcome
  

________________________________________________________________________

In this case there was good enough baseline and effect estimate data for a quantitative analysis. However, if you were unable to find this type of data in your own community you would want to conduct a qualitative assessment instead. There are several places to get data on injuries and fatalities depending on the level of detail you need for your study.

• 
  Published literature
  
• 
  On-line at the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Website
  

• 
  The Department of Transportation
  
• 
  The Police Department
  

Available data usually includes date, time, number of injuries, number of fatalities, type of collision, harmful event, lighting condition, road surface, and directions that the vehicles were traveling at time of impact.

1. 
   Pedestrian injuries are often underreported so it is best to search in both databases and determine which collisions are duplicated or missed.
   
2. 
   Data is often missing, in the Buford case 38% of the data was missing from year 1998 and 67% of the data was missing from 1999 in the DOT file.
   
3. 
   If they do not collect location information you cannot determine where the crash occurred.
   

For this case study, the Police Department dataset was used since it was more complete. Also, because it included collision location it was possible to determine where each collision occurred. As mentioned previously, along an 8 mile section of Buford Highway there were on average 19 pedestrian injuries and 4 pedestrian fatalities per year. There were also 250 automobile injuries and 0 automobile fatalities per year.

The next step would be to find an effect estimate for injury reduction. The changes that the DOT was planning on making are called “traffic calming” measures since they serve to slow down traffic and make it safer for pedestrians. When these traffic calming measures are placed into an area the number of injuries and fatalities that will be prevented can be calculated using Collision Reduction Factors (CRFs). The best place to find collision reduction factors is in the published literature or on the FHWA website. For example, putting in sidewalks has a CRF of .65 for pedestrians; in other words putting in sidewalks would be expected to reduce the number of pedestrian injuries and fatalities by 65%.

However, there were several problems with calculating CRFs for Buford Highway. One of the biggest problems was that the DOT planned on putting in several different CRFs at one time. This was a problem when attempting to calculate a total CRF since most of the published literature only looks at one CRF at a time. By using a formula which was provided by senior transportation engineers it was possible to add several CRFs together. For this assessment we are going to use the formula below:
CRF_t = CRF₁ + (CRF₂ ) (1-CRF₁) + (CRF₃) (1-CRF₁) (1 – CRF₂)

Where CRF_t = CRF of combined countermeasures

CRF₁ = CRF for the first countermeasure

CRF₂ = CRF found the second countermeasure

CRF₃ = CRF for the third countermeasure
For example to calculate the reduction in pedestrian injuries from adding sidewalks and medians you would find their respective CRFs (Figure 10) and put them into the formula below.
CRF_t = CRF₁ + (CRF₂ ) (1-CRF₁)

CRF₁ = 0.55

CRF₂ = 0.65
CRF_t = 0.55 + (0.65)(1 - 0.55)

CRF_t = 0.55 + (0.65)(0.45)

CRF_t = 0.55 + 0.29

CRF_t = 0.84

CRF₁ =

CRF₂ =

CRF₃ =

WALKTHROUGH

EAR = BCR – (BCR x CRF_t)

EAR = expected accident reduction

BCR = baseline collision rate

CRF_t = CRF of combined measures
Once again using the sidewalk and median example we found a total collision reduction factor of 84%. As mentioned earlier, there were 19 pedestrian injuries and 4 pedestrian deaths on average every year.
Pedestrian injuries:

EAR = BCR – (BCR x CRF_t)

BCR = 19

CRF_t = .84

EAR = 19 – (19 x .84)

EAR = 19 – 16

EAR = 3
Thus, after the medians and sidewalks were installed, you would have an expected accident reduction of 3 pedestrian injuries a year (16 less).
Pedestrian deaths:

EAR = BCR – (BCR x CRF_t)

BCR = 4

CRT_t = .84

EAR = 4 - 3

EAR = 1
After the medians and sidewalks were installed you would expect 1 pedestrian fatality per year (3 less).
Now it’s your turn to calculate the expected accident reduction for

1) Pedestrian injuries

2) Pedestrian deaths
The CRF_t you will use in this assessment is the one you calculated earlier which included adding sidewalks, crosswalks, and center medians.
Pedestrian injuries:

EAR = BCR – (BCR x CRF_t)

BCR =

CRF_t =

Pedestrian deaths:

EAR = BCR – (BCR x CRF_t)

BCR =

EAR=
Step 3: Sensitivity Assessment

1. 
   Parsons P, Waters MI, Fincher J. Georgia study confirms the continuing safety advantage of raised medians over two-way left-turn lanes. 2000. Presented at the fourth national conference on access management, Portland, Oregon.
   Ref Type: Generic
   

2. 
   National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Roadway safety tools for local agencies: A synthesis of highway practice. http://trb.org/publications/nchrp/nchrp_syn_321.pdf 2003;
   

3. 
   Centre for Transportation Research and Education ISU. Iowa's statewide urban design standards promote improved access management. http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/pubs/midcon2003/PlazakStandards.pdf 2005;
   

4. 
   Bretherton. Gwinett County DOT. 6-15-2004. 6-15-2004.
   Ref Type: Personal Communication
   

5. 
   Shen J. Development and application of crash reduction factors: A state-of-the-practice survey of state departments of transportation. 2004. Transportation Research Board annual meeting.
   Ref Type: Generic
   

6. 
   National Cooperative Highway Research Program. A guide for reducing collisions involving pedestrians. http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_500v10.pdf 2003; Volume 10 of NCHRP report 500 2003
   

7. 
   Federal Highways Administration and Institute of Transportation Engineers. Toolbox of countermeasures: Toolbox of countermeasures and their potential effectiveness to make intersections safer. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersections/docs/rlrbook.pdf 2005;
   

Finally, it is important that you list all of your data sources and assumptions so that others can judge the value of your work.

1. 
   Traffic calming measures used to calculate individual CRFs that have been used in different parts of the country will have the same effect along Buford Highway.
   
2. 
   The residents will use the new sidewalks and crosswalks.
   
3. 
   If the traffic is diverted onto other streets, there will not be an increase or decrease in pedestrian injuries on those streets.
   
4. 
   The CRFs were directly applied to the number of expected accidents per year without taking into account how the accident occurred, since this data was not available for pedestrian accidents. Data was not available on the number of pedestrian accidents that occurred due to improper crossing, which could have an effect on expected injury reductions if pedestrians continue to cross improperly after the built environment is modified.
   
5. 
   It was assumed that the best available estimates for CRFs were used, which included personal communication with local transportation agencies, realizing that the level of predictive certainty for most of the CRFs is unknown. The NCHRP (2005) found a medium-high level of certainty for reducing the number of lanes and adding raised medians, a medium-low level of certainty for marked crosswalks, reducing the speed limit, and adding a pedestrian refuge island, with all other pedestrian improvements getting an unknown rating.
   

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

b)
Impact: a)

b)
Outcome: a)

b)
2. What types of evaluation would you use for this case study?

The ones that will most likely be affected are pedestrian and automobile injuries and fatalities, physical activity, air pollution, noise pollution, gentrification, social capital, crime, and automobile level of service.

For the geographical ground rules you need to determine what section of the highway you’re going to examine since it runs for hundreds of miles. The most logical selection for this HIA would be the section of the highway that is being redeveloped since they are not redeveloping the entire highway. For this project you also need to select the population that is likely to be most affected by the changes. The people living along the highway and those that walk along the highway are probably the groups that will be most affected by the changes. For this case study a ½ mile radius from the highway was chosen since that is the distance that people would be expected to walk to access transit and shopping. Additional information was also gathered about the number of people who drive along the highway each day. Time limits for the assessment were set at 1 year since significant reductions in injuries and fatalities would be expected over that time period.

You currently have 2 staff that have half their time for a year as well as other professionals who have agreed to provide unpaid help. To ensure success you will need dedicated staff time which remains throughout the process, buy in from HIA staff supervisors, the ability to communicate with non-traditional partners, and the ability to organize the community and to work with community groups. Untapped resources could include policy makers, community groups, and community members who care about this issue.

Partners would include local organizations and community groups that represent the minority groups that live in this area, the community, the Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration, policy makers such as County Commissioners and local mayors, and police departments. Ideally you will form a small tight working group and have a larger group of individuals serving as an advisory panel.

You would expect the community groups and the community to be positive about the changes since they are the ones who will most likely benefit from the changes. However, there are likely to be community members who oppose these changes for various reasons. The DOT and FHWA’s main concerns usually involve automobile level of service and they do not usually invest a lot of money into non-motorized travel. There may be some resistance to having public health officials and planners involved in their projects. Local policymakers and police could either be supportive since they see the need for changes or they could be unsupportive since they do not want attention brought onto a problematic situation.

The cons involve time and money and having to find a way to incorporate their input with the scientific analyses. The pros include getting buy in for the changes, determining if anything was missed in the scientific assessment, and providing solutions to problems. For instance, the community groups may be able to help educate the community how to use the new pedestrian activated signals and encourage them to use crosswalks instead of crossing in undesignated locations.

The proposed plan would increase density and land-use, both of which have been linked to lower crime rates. In addition, the plan would increase walkability which has been linked to increased social capital and areas with high social capital have been found to have lower crime rates. While 5% of the new units will be saved for current residents the majority will be displaced. While the changes to the built environment suggest there would be a decrease in crime rates it is unclear how gentrification would affect crime rates.

Many of the changes to the built environment would be expected to lead to increases in social capital for the new residents (increased density, increased greenspace, and increased walkability). However, any potential increases in social capital for the new residents will likely take some time to occur as they get to know their neighbors. The largest decreases in social capital for the current residents will occur when they are forced to relocate to another location. Their disruption will likely vary by the distance of their new housing from their existing housing and the number of people they know who move with them to a similar location as well as the quality and amenities of their new neighborhood.

CRF_t = CRF₁ + (CRF₂ ) (1-CRF₁) + (CRF₃) (1-CRF₁) (1 – CRF₂)

CRF₁ = .55

CRF₂ = .65

CRF₃ = .19
CRF_t = CRF₁ + (CRF₂ ) (1-CRF₁) + (CRF₃) (1-CRF₁) (1 – CRF₂)

CRF_t = .55 + (.65)(1 - .55) + (.19)(1 - .55)(1 - .65)

CRF_t = .55 + (.65)(.45) + (.19)(.45)(.35)

CRF_t = .55 + .2925 + .029925

CRF_t = .87

2. Pedestrian injuries: Estimated Accident Reduction

EAR = BCR – (BCR x CRF_t)

EAR = 19 – (19 x .87)

EAR = 19 – 16.53

EAR = 2.47≈3

3. 
   Pedestrian deaths: Estimated Accident Reduction
   

EAR = 4 – (4 x .87)

EAR = 4 – 3.48

EAR = .5≈1

Make as many pedestrian improvements as possible, educate pedestrians about using signals and crosswalks, encourage developers to reserve a certain number of new units for low income residents, encourage developers to save greenspace, encourage green development (LEED certified buildings) and make buildings physical activity friendly (nice well lit stairs), and encourage policy makers to approve mixed use development.

Local organizations/community groups, the community, local businesses, the Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration, policy makers, and police departments. The DOT and FHWA may want to read the full HIA report but you should also have a presentation and a 1 pager (executive summary) available for those that do not have the time to read the entire report. Have an interactive presentation for the community and community groups since they will likely have a lot of questions and feedback on the HIA. Policy and decision makers usually do not have a lot of time to read full reports so have a quick presentation and a 1 page summary available to give to them.

Opposition from the community, community groups, local businesses, and possibly policymakers (NIMBYs, NIMFYs – Not In My BackYard, Not In My FrontYard). Transportation officials may not like other groups looking at the health effects of highways – territory problems & highlighting the negative aspects of roads. For this case study, some of the largest oppositions to the center medians were from local business owners since they thought that they would decrease business. Always be ready to find opposition where you may not expect it.

b) Meeting notes or personal log of experiences

Impact: a) Final copy of policy or plans

b) Interview decision makers

Outcome: a) Injury data

b) Gentrification/income data

You should always try to at least collect process and impact evaluation data. Since this information is very important and should not take a lot of time and resources to collect. Your ability to collect outcome evaluation data is usually limited by the data that is collected by other sources available to you. Additionally, staff time and the length of the project may affect your ability to conduct an outcome evaluation.