Urban Trees and Traffic Safety: Considering U.S. Roadside Policy and Crash Data

LITERATURE CITED

1. ↵
   1. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)

   . 1961. A Policy on Landscape Development for the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. AASHTO, Washington, DC.
2. 1. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)

   . 1967. Highway Design and Operational Practices Related to Highway Design. AASHTO, Washington, DC.
3. ↵
   1. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)

   . 1991. A Guide for Transportation Landscape and Environmental Design. AASHTO, Washington, DC.
4. ↵
   1. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)

   . 2002. Roadside Design Guide, 3rd Edition. AASHTO, Washington, DC.
5. ↵
   1. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)

   . 2004a. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 5th Edition. AASHTO, Washington, DC.
6. ↵
   1. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)

   . 2004b. A Guide for Achieving Flexibility in Highway Design. AASHTO, Washington, DC.
7. ↵
   1. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)

   . 2006. AASHTO Center for Environmental Excellence: Best Practices in Context-Sensitive Solutions—2005 Competition. AASHTO, Washington, DC.
8. ↵
   1. Bratton, N.J., and
   2. K.L. Wolf

   . 2005. Trees and Roadside Safety in U.S. Urban Settings, Paper 05-0946. Proceedings of the 84th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies of Science, Washington, DC.
9. ↵
   1. Brehmer, B., and
   2. N.-E. Sahlin

   . 1994. Future Risks and Risk Management. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
10. ↵
    1. Council, F.M., and
    2. J.R. Stewart

    . 1996. Severity indexes for roadside objects. Transportation Research Record 1528.
11. ↵
    1. Evans, L.

    2002. Traffic crashes: Measures to make traffic safer are most effective when they weigh the relative importance of factors such as automotive engineering and driver behavior. American Scientist 90: 244–253.

    OpenUrl
12. ↵
    1. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

    . 1997. Flexibility in Highway Design—FHWA-PD-97-062. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC.
13. ↵
    1. Godley, S.,
    2. B. Fildes,
    3. T. Triggs, and
    4. L. Brown

    . 1999. Road Safety Research Report. Australian Transport Safety Bureau, New South Wales.
14. ↵
    1. Karr, A.

    2001. Stayin’ alive: avoiding off-the-road crashes. Traffic Safety 1: 17-22.

    OpenUrl
15. ↵
    1. Lamm, R.,
    2. B. Psarianos, and
    3. T. Mailaender

    . 1999. Highway Design and Traffic Safety Engineering Handbook. McGraw Hill, New York.
16. ↵
    1. Lockwood, I.

    2001. Community impact assessment: transportation and livable communities, pp. 1–13. Proceedings of the Northeastern Community Impact Assessment Workshop. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
17. ↵
    1. Mak, K.K.

    1995. Safety effects of roadway design decisions-roadside. Transportation Research Record 1512: 16–21.

    OpenUrl
18. ↵
    1. McGinnis, R.

    2001. Strategic Plan for Improving Roadside Safety. NCHRP Web Document 33 (NCHRP Project G17-13). Washington, DC. Accessed February 2006 at http://trb.org/trb/publications/nchrp/nchrp_w33.pdf
19. ↵
    1. Michie, J.D.

    1996. Roadside safety: areas of future focus. Transportation Research Board Circular 453: 30–37.

    OpenUrl
20. ↵
    1. Milton, J.C., and
    2. A.J. St. Martin

    (Eds.). 2005. Understanding Flexibility in Transportation Design—Washington. Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, WA.
21. ↵
    1. Moler, S.

    2002. A hallmark of context sensitive design. Public Roads 65: 6–13.

    OpenUrl
22. ↵
    1. National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP)

    . 2002. A Guide to Best Practices for Achieving Context Sensitive Solutions. NCHRP Report 480. Washington, DC.
23. ↵
    1. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

    . 2004. Traffic Safety Facts 2002: A Compilation of Motor Vehicle Crash Data From the Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the General Estimates System. DOT Report HS 809 620. Washington, DC.
24. ↵
    1. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Fatality Analysis Reporting System (NHTSA-FARS)

    . 2003. Accessed February 2006 at www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/main.cfm
25. ↵
    1. Neale, H.J.

    1949. Highway landscaping influences traffic operation and safety. Traffic Quarterly 3: 14–22.

    OpenUrl
26. ↵
    1. Neuman, T.R.,
    2. R. Pfefer,
    3. K.L. Slack,
    4. K.K. Hardy,
    5. K. Lacy, and
    6. C. Zegeer

    . 2003. Guidance for Implementation of the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan, Vol. 3: A Guide for Addressing Collisions With Trees in Hazardous Locations. NCHRP Report 500. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
27. ↵
    1. Kuser, J.

    1. Nowak, D.J., and
    2. J.F. Dwyer

    . 2000. Understanding the benefits and costs of urban forest ecosystems. In Kuser, J. (Ed.). Urban and Community Forestry in the Northeast, pp. 11–25. Plenum Publishing, New York.
28. ↵
    1. Otto, S.

    2000. Environmentally sensitive design of transportation facilities. Journal of Transportation Engineering 126: 363–366.

    OpenUrl
29. ↵
    1. Parsons, R.,
    2. L.G. Tassinary,
    3. R.S. Ulrich,
    4. M.R. Hebl, and
    5. M. Grossman-Alexander

    . 1998. The view from the road: implications for stress recovery and immunization. Journal of Environmental Psychology 18: 113–140.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
30. ↵
    1. Passonneau, J.

    1996. Aesthetics and other community values in the design of roads. Transportation Research Record 1549: 69–74.

    OpenUrl
31. ↵
    1. Rigby, K.

    1988. The Tree Crash Problem—Countermeasure Programs. Proceedings of the 14th Australian Road Research Board Conference Proceedings, pp. 133–138.
32. ↵
    1. Rosenblatt Naderi, J.

    2003. Landscape design in the clear zone: effect of landscape variables on pedestrian health and driver safety. Transportation Research Record 1851: 119–130.

    OpenUrl
33. ↵
    1. Rosenblatt Naderi, J.,
    2. B.S. Kweon, and
    3. P. Maghelal

    . 2006. Simulating Impacts of Curb-side Trees on Driver Performance and Perceptions, Paper 06-1435. Proceedings of the 85th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies of Science, Washington, DC.
34. ↵
    1. Sullivan, E.C., and
    2. E. Jud

    . 2001. Safety of Median Trees With Narrow Clearances on Urban Conventional Highways: Phase I Report. California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA. Accessed February 2006 at http://ceenve.calpoly.edu/sullivan/trees/
35. ↵
    1. Transportation Research Board (TRB)

    . 2004. Research Problem Statements. Report of Committee AFB40—Landscape and Environmental Design. Washington, DC. Accessed February 2006 at http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/dva/rps2005/AFB40-RPS05.pdf
36. ↵
    1. Turner, D.,
    2. J. Walters,
    3. J. Hutt, and
    4. J. Patrick

    . 1989. Survey of state utility manual clear zone provisions. Transportation Research Record 1233: 164–177.

    OpenUrl
37. ↵
    1. Turner, D.S.

    1990. Urban trees and roadside safety. Journal of Transportation Engineering 116: 90–104.

    OpenUrl
38. ↵
    1. U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT)

    . 1992. Vegetation Control for Safety: A Guide for Street And Highway Maintenance Personnel. USDOT, Washington, DC.
39. ↵
    1. West, J.E.

    2000. Arterial Traffic Calming: Is It an Oxymoron? In ITE Annual Meeting Compendium. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, DC.
40. ↵
    1. Wolf, K.L.

    2003. Freeway roadside management: the urban forest beyond the white line. Journal of Arboriculture 29: 127–136.

    OpenUrl
41. ↵
    1. Wolf, K.L.

    2004. Economics and public value of urban forests. Urban Agriculture Magazine, Issue on Urban and Periurban Forestry 13: 31–33.

    OpenUrl
42. ↵
    1. Wolf, K.L.

    2006. Assessing Public Response to the Freeway Roadside: Urban Forestry and Context Sensitive Solutions, Paper 06-1586. Proceedings of the 85th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies of Science, Washington, DC.
43. ↵
    1. Zeigler, A.J.

    1986. Guide to Management of Roadside Trees, Report FHWA-IP-86-17. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Washington, DC. Accessed February 2006 at http://safety.transportation.org/htmlguides/trees/assets/GuideMgmtRoadSideTrees.pdf
44. ↵
    1. Zuckier, G.,
    2. G.Z.L. Jacobs, and
    3. L. Thibeault

    . 1999. Using Linked Data to Evaluate Severity and Outcome of Injury by Type of Object Struck for Motor Vehicle Crashes in Connecticut. Healthcare Research and Education Foundation, Inc., Wallingford, CT.